After his untimely death in 1994, I gave Bill a well-deserved rest. I caught the odd re-run or magazine article but it went pretty quiet on the Goatboy front. A couple of years ago, I felt it was time to revisit the man who described himself as “Chomsky with dick jokes.” I raided my brothers DVDs and old videos and strapped myself in to laugh at the world anew. Back in the day, being with Bill was special: you got something that everyone else was missing. This may have been smart-arsed and pretentious, maybe, but the joke was on the schmucks who didn’t get it.

And yet, it just wasn’t the same.

Sure, I appreciated his imperious delivery; the way he spread the shadow of his hand over the audience and made them bend to his every whim. I admired the routines that still carried enough lead to machine gun the world and I smiled, nodded approvingly, chuckled knowingly, but I didn’t piss myself laughing. What was wrong with me? Had I finally conformed, like those arseholes in University who thought it was rebellious to become soap dodgers and stink for three years before cutting their hair and working in a merchant bank?

The sad fact was that when I switched William Melvin Hicks off for what I thought maybe the last time, I was totally underwhelmed.

Fast forward two years later and to the London Film Festival. I feel like Odysseus stuck between Scylla and Charybdis. Do I watch “Precious” and see what all the fuss is about, or catch the new British documentary about Bill? I felt mad at myself for how I left it with him before. Would this be my last opportunity to square things with him or, God forbid, prove myself right once and for all? I hovered by Leicester Square tube chewing it around in my head, glanced at the “Precious” poster and f*cked off to see Bill.

The NFT was crammed with Bill’s disciples. I bedded down in my seat and wondered what he would have made of the cult that still flourished all those years after his death. I replayed his JFK sniper pendant skit and peered closely to see if anyone wore a tiny silver cigarette around their neck. Checking my blue school exercise book, I wrote: “Will you laugh?” I was almost daring myself not to.

To add more gravity to the occasion, Bill’s mum, brother and best friend were there with the directors. And then reality hit home. This legend, this guy, was also someone’s son, brother and best friend, and they were going to have him back for two hours. The rare footage of his early gigs, the animated photos of childhood, that voice – it would all reincarnate him in celluloid for the briefest of moments.

What power.

It reminded me of a lesson I recently had with one of my film groups, watching “North By Northwest.” None of the students had ever seen it but there they sat, enthralled by Cary Grant and James Mason in that divine Technicolor, the actors flawless in their delivery, just as they will remain forever. So enraptured were they that when it ended, I pointed out they’d just seen a film where the two stars and the director were all dead. So alive was Hitchcock’s movie that even though they knew they were no longer with us, it never once crossed their minds. If cinema could have this effect on my students, what could it do for Bill’s family and friends?

Did I like the movie? Let’s just say I got one of my heroes back. That doesn’t happen everyday.

At this point in the game, the castaways number twelve, so Foa Foa was quite right to suspect that a merge was imminent. When they walked down to the beach to meet tribe Galu, they saw a treasure chest. Inside the chest were new buffs, a tarp and a note telling them that they were now one tribe. As with other Survivor seasons, this notification was followed with a feast. Foa Foa and Galu are no more and they are now called Aiga, which is Samoan for “extended family.”

It did not take long for Russell to begin attempting to manipulate the women. He initially approached Laura and showed her the immunity idol. He promised to give it to her, if she took him to the top seven. When he told her that to finalize the deal she must get rid of a member from the former Galu tribe, Laura said,

“That won’t happen. It will be one of your guys or Shambo. You’re in a worse position than myself at this point. You come in here with ten percent and I’ve got ninety.”

Clearly, this was not the response that Russell was hoping for. As usual, he found an assertive woman to be a threat and immediately began a plot to get rid of Laura.

Alone with the camera Russell once again displayed his fears of assertive women:

“She’s digging her own grave. She told me I’m ninety percent in charge of this thing, Russell you’re about ten percent right now. In other words, sit down and listen. No it don’t work like that for me. She might be the first to go. I went to Laura and saw that it really wasn’t gonna work so I’m gonna do the same thing with somebody else, maybe Monica.”

Unlike Laura, Monica immediately agreed to partner with Russell. However, he did not believe a word she said, but felt that if he could somehow manage to get rid of Laura, “her boss,” that perhaps she would change her mind.

Russell approached John and showed him the immunity idol. He spoke about using the idol to prevent a girl alliance. Just as Russell made clear in his private camera time, he took the opportunity to target Laura.

“Do you think Laura is trustworthy?”… “Cause once she is gone the girl power is over.”

Keep in mind, that even Russell and John had this conversation regarding the supposed threat of female castaways, so far, the women have never acted cohesively and have been voted off one by one. Russell counted on John’s misogyny to make his plan happen. John did not disappoint. In his commentary to the camera he too expressed fear of the supposed female power on the tribe.

“Laura and Monica have a relationship that is potentially dangerous and even though it is going to be viewed as a big move, I think it’s a manageable risk to vote off Laura first while we have votes from the other tribe.”

With that, John and Russell decided to target Laura. Russell was thrilled at finally finding someone open to his suggestions. They shake hands on the deal “as men.”

Why is it only the women castaways seem to have a clue about the type of game that Russell is playing? The men seem to ignore the ways in which he is manipulating them, in order to support the boys club. Why is threat solely understood to be gender-based? The only one who seems to get a pass is Shambo. Perhaps, it is because of all the women, she is the most naive. She agreed with Russell that Laura should be the next to go. She does not like Laura, but the fact that she “implicitly trusts” Russell made this decision even easier.

As the saying goes, the plans of mice and men oft go astray. The immunity challenge was an individual challenge this time around, because the tribes have merged. Laura and John each won individual immunity. This meant that neither of them could be voted off at tribal council.

Back at camp, Russell and Shambo commiserated over Laura winning the immunity idol. When Shambo asked Russell who he wants gone, he answered, “Monica, and get rid of the girl thing.” Shambo let him know that this is not a possibility because she believes that Eric and Laura are going to control who gets voted off. Is an alarm bell ever going to ring in Shambo’s head? Russell clearly told her that he fears a girl alliance and she ignored this completely. Does she need a reminder that she fits into the category of “girl”?

Off to the side, Erik and Laura agreed to make Russell feel as though he is the target to flush out his immunity idol, but wrote down Jaison’s name, because they felt that Jaison is useless to the tribe. When Erik related the plan to John, he was informed that a better idea would be to vote off Monica, because she is seen as Laura’s support. If they could get every member of Foa Foa and the men of Galu to write down Monica’s name, and Erik votes for Jaison as planned, they would weaken the women while at the same time allowing Erik to look like he still has an alliance with Laura. Sounds perfect, doesn’t it? Once again, the women were left out of the loop as the men plotted their demise.

John allowed Erik to tell the male members of the former Galu tribe what the plan is. Though Dave agreed to this plan, alone with camera he speculated on why Erik is pushing it. He called Erik a crafty dude and admitted to being nervous about his plan.

Erik then approached the former members of Foa Foa without Russell, and stated:

“I think there is a way for the three of you stay in the game tonight. If the three of you guys vote for Monica, then definitely the three of you will stay and I am pretty sure Russell will stay. So the best interest would be the three of you to vote the same way and not tell Russell. We want him to think he is going home tonight, that way he plays the idol. We all know he’s got it. People have seen it. So what you need to know you know. You choose a different route their might be a different outcome and I can’t guarantee the four of you are here tomorrow”.

Jaison felt that Erik’s approach was highly arrogant. He suggested that the remaining Foa Foa members all vote Erik and see where the chips fall. Natalie took his suggestion one step further and told all of the women on the former Galu tribe that Erik is targeting Monica. She took care to inform them that he feels threatened by women and therefore plans on eliminating them one at a time. This gets the ball rolling amongst the women and for first time this season, with the exception of Shambo, they began to strategize.

Bye, Eric. Picture: CBS

At tribal council, Russell, still fearing that he was targeted, played in the immunity idol. When Probes read the names, however, Erik was voted off and became the first member of the jury. The vote came as a complete surprise to Erik, and that is why he did not play the idol he had found on the Galu beach earlier in the game.

Though the idea to vote off Erik came from Jaison, it marked the first time this season that the women have acted with any kind of agency. The fact that Russell played the immunity idol leaves him vulnerable should they decide to act upon their suspicions that he is control freak and a misogynist. Perhaps, it is not too late to hope that the women of “Survivor Samoa” will finally begin to play to win.

But I’m not, because I don’t feel very progressive about a bill that takes away rights from millions of women like me.

I am not a bargaining chip.

I am not a special interest.

I’m a cisgender woman, pro-choice, of childbearing age and as far as I know, capable of getting pregnant. This means that my health insurance should cover, if needed, my right to a safe and still legal abortion, because it is a legal medical procedure.

Representative Bart Stupak (D-Michigan—yes, D, that’s not a typo) doesn’t think so. He doesn’t think that health insurance should provide abortion coverage. He thinks women should have to buy a separate rider that would cover abortion. Because, y’know, women like me totally plan on aborting lots of babies.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health care reform bill that passed the House yesterday was approved not only by almost all Republicans, but by 64 Democrats, including two women. 26 of them then went on to vote against the health care bill, along with all but one Republican.

According to RH Reality Check, the amendment will:

* Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.

* Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.

* Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.

Scott Lemieux also notes:

Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

It would do exactly what conservative opponents of health care have been whining about for months now: come between a woman and her doctor. It would also come between a woman and her health insurance company, since it creates an additional restriction on what private companies can do—proving once again that when it comes to women’s bodies, there’s no regulation too strong for conservatives.

In addition to being a tax on being female, it’s class warfare, which most abortion battles are. Rich women can get abortions. They always could. They quietly and privately got them from their private physicians for years before Roe v. Wade. This just makes it even more explicit: Insurance will not cover this, so you have to shell out of pocket for it. The women getting subsidies from the government will be those least able to buy extra coverage—that would be why they’re getting government subsidies, obviously—nor will they want to, since most women tend to abort unplanned pregnancies, not ones they think about ahead of time.

It’s time to play hardball. We need another march for women’s lives. We need to give up on euphemisms and waffling and talk of embracing anti-choice Democrats. Let’s come out and say it: I want to have sex. Just like David Vitter, Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, Vito Fossella, and I’d imagine most men in this country considering Viagra (covered by health insurance) sales. I want to have sex without another being hijacking my body for nine months. Men don’t have to buy an extra insurance rider to get Viagra and their insurance isn’t expected to cough up for an abortion even though they’re just as involved in the process of impregnation.

You think abortion is wrong? Don’t have one. I think killing people is wrong, so I’m not in the army. My tax dollars still go to fund it, though (in fact about 21 cents of each of my tax dollars). My tax dollars also go to keep prisoners on death row even though I think the death penalty is morally wrong. My tax dollars fund Guantanamo and Bagram, extraordinary rendition, and Jim DeMint’s salary, all of which I find disgusting. So why is abortion, a legal medical procedure, so remarkably different that we have to go overboard making sure tax dollars don’t fund it?

This isn’t the final bill. The Senate has to pass a bill and then the two will be merged in committee. But with the Senate bill already looking to be much more conservative and with anti-choicers feeling the rush of victory on this measure, it’s hard to see how we’ll get a more progressive bill out of the merger.

It’s time to make this another Anita Hill moment—where after seeing male conservatives attempt to shout down pro-choice women in Congress, women push back and run for office. The election cycle after Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court sent more women to Congress than ever before. We need to do that again. And the first seats to be targeted should be those of Democrats who voted for this pernicious amendment—particularly the ones who then turned around and voted against the health care bill.

Step one will be making sure that a version of this amendment doesn’t make it into the Senate bill, and that this one doesn’t survive committee. But that can’t be the only thing that happens, even if we do manage to win that battle. This can’t end here; not when we’ve seen what our supposed allies are willing to do to us.

We need to take all this hurt and anger and make it work for us. We need to understand that Democrats willing to sell out vulnerable people to pass a bill that for the most part protects insurance company profits are not our allies and never were. We need to understand that today it’s women; yesterday it was gay marriage and next week it’ll be immigration. We need to support each other.

Moments like this hurt, but they also bring about a kind of solidarity that gets things done. It’s time to fight.

In Ireland, the record companies represented by the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) have recently taken the fight to the ISPs in an illegal attempt to block Irish internet users from accessing certain sites. The courts cannot legally censor internet content so IRMA targeted the providers. It is just a little ironic that the Irish broadband rollout is one of the more ineffective schemes in Europe.

IRMA focussed on The Pirate Bay where in addition to legal music, one can download open source ebooks, computer programs and applications, and other material. It would be naive to imply that copyrighted material was not being downloaded. However, a letter published on Digital Rights shows that IRMA have no qualms about blocking gigabytes of legal material to get at the tiny fraction of illegal downloaders.

Eircom is Ireland’s largest ISP. Before the sale of semi-state industries, it was the only telecoms provider in Ireland. Now cash strapped and asset stripped, Eircom’s market advantage lies in their ownership of the phone line network. Other ISPs need to use the network to service their clients.

The only company to bow to legal pressure by IRMA is Eircom, which has blocked The Pirate Bay. However, targeting the ISPs is not a new approach nor an entirely successful one. Record companies in Italy attempted to block The Pirate Bay website. This endeavour increased Pirate Bay’s traffic and resulted in a negative judgment from the court. The ban was judged to be illegal under European Directive, 2000/31 CE. This judgment also applies in Ireland, but has not been implemented or adhered to.

click to enlarge

The majority of internet users in Ireland do not know how to download illegal material, especially since the clamping down on sites like Napster and Kazaa, and would not know what a torrent is or what to do with it. Those who do know also have the technical skills to set up a proxy server and bypass whatever blocking technology Eircom has put in place. Thankfully, other ISPs are not currently participating in this attempt to censor internet content. However, IRMA has requested that they participate in the block or face legal action.

What is interesting is why IRMA chose to focus on The Pirate Bay. There are hundreds of peer-to-peer file sharing networks accessible from any computer with an internet connection that have not been blocked or even mentioned. It is possible that the high profile imprisonment and fining of The Pirate Bay maintainers was seen by IRMA as an opportunity to get in on the game. One thing for certain is that the record companies are determined to use any and all technologies and laws to block the illegal distribution of copyrighted material via the internet.

There are those who embrace the free distribution of material online. Bestselling author Paulo Coelho offered to be a witness in the 2009 Pirate Bay trial of Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström. He attributes increasing sales of his work to illegal distribution on the internet. In addition he stated that “a person who does not share is not only selfish, but bitter and alone”.

Naturally, this is not a legal position but there are increasing movements away from strict copyright. Leo Babuta of Zen Habits has uncopyrighted his book, and Creative Commons provide licences to reserve some rights with regard to original work. MySpace has longtime been the main tool for musicians to get their work heard by a wider audience.

Record companies are fighting a losing battle. Eventually the European Directive will be enacted and Eircom will have to unblock The Pirate Bay, because their actions are illegal and censorship is still frowned upon. The Minister for Communications, Eamon Ryan, has been silent on this issue but Irish internet users are protesting the ban. Eventually, he may hear.

In spite of what the record companies appear to think, they are killing their own industry, both through the resentment among the general public and in purely monetary terms. It has been revealed in the Irish Times that illegal downloaders spend more money on music than those who not not break the law:

People who illegally download music spend more on official releases than those who obey download laws, a British survey published this weekend has suggested.

The think-tank Demos said it found illegal downloaders spent an average of £77 a year on genuine music, £33 more than those who claim never to have wrongly accessed music for free.

…

Demos’s research found that 83 per cent of people downloading music illegally claim to buy the same or more music as a result.

The 42 per cent of people who admitted breaking the law said they did so to “try before you buy”,  suggesting that file sharing may encourage sales.

Illegal file sharers provide the music industry with an estimated £200 million in revenue, Demos added.

In the war against illegal downloaders, every party loses. However, one must never let the facts get in the way of a good campaign. I doubt that any data would induce the record companies to halt their illegal actions or the pirates theirs.

Rabin was killed 14 years ago by a religious Jew, Yigal Amir, who feared Rabin’s commitment to peace. Rabin was a former general serving his second stint as Israeli Prime Minister (the first coming in the 1970s), forged the Oslo Peace Accords with PLO president Yasser Arafat and made peace with Jordan and King Hussein in 1994.

Despite those positive contributions, Rabin’s legacy is unclear. Much recent talk has centered on the unsatisfying nature of the peace with Jordan, on both sides. Oslo is viewed, at best, as a flawed, quixotic process that was too broad and lacking in details to have a chance at success, and at worst as either a betrayal of Israel or a direct cause for the second Intifada.

A martyr for peace, as he was termed in the immediate aftermath of his death, Rabin’s memory as a leader draws less criticism than his efforts. In light of his international renown and success in leading the country in a new direction, even if a controversial one here, Rabin has earned many followers from across the political spectrum. In fact, everybody wants to be the next Rabin.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees Rabin as a model both because Rabin had a successful second go around as PM (Netanyahu’s first try came in the election after Rabin’s death) and in his aim to form a secure peace. Never mind that Netanyahu hasn’t been able to commit to even the slightest freeze in the settlements to get the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations going, nor has he shown much signs of taking Syrian President Bashar Assad up on his offer for peace talks, insisting so far on direct negotiations rather than getting a mediator

Ehud Barak, Rabin’s successor as leader of the once vaunted Labor Party, has similar problems. Barak is not exactly on a hot streak after losing 6 seats for his party in the last election and then joining and legitimizing Netanyahu’s government to a degree even though it went against the wishes of half of his party. Now he has been raked over the coals for staying in a 5-star hotel with his whole entourage for a recent conference in Paris, has been the most unwilling key member in the government to deal with the Goldstone report responsibly or begin negotiations with the Palestinians properly, and has chased off a faction of the Labor party.

Even President Barack Obama has aspirations of living up to what Rabin started. A fine thing, but his efforts have so far been muddled on the settlement issue and a lack of creative ways to get around it and restart negotiations. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s back and forth between praising Netanyahu for unprecedented understanding on the settlements in Jerusalem and reiterating that he hasn’t done enough and that the U.S. is still against the settlements in Marrakesh was a fine illustration of the confusion.

Beyond his status as a cipher, what is left of Rabin? What can be grasped from his legacy that might actually apply to the political figures mentioned above? In two words: Political Will.

Polls have shown that the majority of citizens on both sides of the conflict see the same solution as likely – the majority of the West Bank and Gaza forming the Palestinian state, with Israel compromising in some way to make East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine, and the Palestinians compromising in some way on the refugees issue. The settlements are untenable over the long haul for Israel, just as Hamas’ use of force and lack of recognition of the state of Israel will not hold. A one-state solution is viewed as a toxic option for Israel due to demographics. In essence, the ends are known, but the means are hard to come upon, especially when trust and faith are lacking.

What Rabin did well was use political will and take risks. By taking part in Oslo, he gave a framework for peace, even if it suffered from being vague. He made clear that Israel was going to makes sacrifices to fulfill their stated wish for peace. He earned friends and more importantly, respect abroad, not by acquiescing but by acting. That especially is a foreign idea around these parts.

What Rabin failed to do, or perhaps couldn’t do, was marshal political will from the public. A heavy delegitimization campaign led up to the assassination, and the country is still obviously torn over the steps he took to achieve peace. No conflict resolution can be complete without the support of the people. Rabin reached too far without having a ground to stand upon.

If President Obama wants to follow Rabin’s general lead in Israel, he can do it by making a clear stand on whatever issues the U.S. views as vital in the matter – settlements and restarting negotiations, for example. He’s shown plenty of willingness to put his neck out on issues like health care and Iran, but with Israel he still hasn’t exerted all his options, whether by tying support on the Goldstone issue to restarted peace or talking about restricting Israel’s aid.

Netanyahu, for all we know, could be following Rabin’s steps; so far he’s been most concerned about staying in power and pleasing his base as much as he can, which could be considered a marshalling of political will. Still, half a year into his term, he has yet to show signs he’s willing to use that capital to make changes. Coming from the right, Netanyahu has the ability to reach and convince more Israelis on the ground, and whether it’s on the Syria front or with the Palestinians, he has the chances to make huge strides diplomatically. If he’s willing.

W hear Rabin praised for bringing peace, and we hear vows that his life was not in vain, and that his goals will not be forgotten. Unanswered will be the question whether anyone on any side is willing to the price needed for peace. After all, Rabin paid the ultimate one, and it has not proven to be enough.

A gentle montage of swimmers gradually takes our attention to Giulia, an instructor at the pool. She’s cuts a svelte, haunting figure, terribly alone and nearly dead behind the eyes. She sits eating her lunch, staring into the void of her life as if harbouring a distant secret. The buzzing crowds circle her, unable to penetrate her brooding force field. We wonder if we will have any more success.

Watching Giulia teach his daughter to swim is Guido Montani, an author on the brink of greatness. He has a stunning wife, Benedetta, a gleaming house just outside of Rome and another in the capital. Still, despite these riches, we get the impression that Guido seems to have stumbled onto his success rather than earned it. He is constantly surrounded by books, but confesses to hardly ever reading them and being short-listed for a literary prize totally underwhelms him.

Guido is a man without direction. He sleepwalks through his life, gently amused and increasingly detached from his family. Even Filippo, his daughter’s boyfriend, has more drive and purpose than him. Guido observes him with a mixture of wonder and disbelief as Filippo translates French love songs or explains the nutritional value of every conceivable choice from a vending machine.

Everyone who reads Guido’s novel can’t finish it, just as he can’t complete his latest work. Half-heartedly, he scrambles some ideas onto his Mac. Piccioni conjures these literary minorpieces into vivid cinematic life with every keystroke. Perhaps Guido is writing with one eye on the film rights rather than being content with penning a conventional novel – the schizophrenic problem facing most modern literature today. Forever indecisive, he can’t even bring himself to delete these weak ideas even though he knows they have no worth.

To Guido, the ice maiden Giulia can offer him a chance to accomplish something more tangible. He asks her to teach him how to swim 50 lengths. Up until this point, Guido was happy to know how “to float,” which is the story of his life. As his freestyle improves so their relationship blossoms and her secrets revealed, all at the expense of his marriage. The spark reignites in Giulia’s eyes just as it starts to die in Benedetta’s – “I don’t inspire you at all,” she acquiesces.

Taken at face value, “Giulia Doesn’t Date At Night” seems a minor work. However Piccioni’s surrealist sensibilities, the subtle performances, especially Valerio Mastandrea’s bemused Guido and the effortless script, raise the film to a delicate character study that defies being pigeonholed into a specific genre. Minor? Maybe. Mesmerising? Definitely.

In the academic realm of anthropology, which demanded his implicit adherence to conformity of thought, Lévi-Strauss challenged many of his field’s previously accepted tropes. His controversial stances on the history of civilization radically changed the script for humankind’s history on Earth, one which claimed that so-called “primitive” societies were populated by uninspired tribes of humans who were collectively driven by their basic physical needs. Lévi-Strauss insisted that both reason and logic were central to the group dynamics, even if it wasn’t immediately obvious to the field researchers who had come before him.

In his work, he hoped to prove that oral and written myths, from tribes as seemingly disparate as two villages in Brazil and South France, were connected by the evidence of unified structures and patterns which govern all human activity. He argued that tribal communities were formed by their guiding laws and the community’s adherence to these laws. With the minor shift of a few details which were specific to each region, Lévi-Strauss believed the most advanced and the most remote of cultures and time periods shared universal motifs of binary opposition: hot and cold, raw and uncooked, black and white.

Lévi-Strauss’ career-making search into the history of humanity’s existence was a blend of unlikely elements. His complex writing merged literary theory with Marxist philosophy, psychoanalysis and ethnological anthropology to support what he and other Structuralist theorists of the time saw as the universe’s fundamental patterns of logic, which underlie all of our actions, thought, and behavior. But humans, as far as he saw it, were a blip in the chain of life and hardly could be considered as a final step in the universe’s evolution. Yet he frequently noted distinctive ways in which our species evolved over thousands of years from natural to cultural states of being.

His work critiqued the dynamics of social hierarchies within groups. Certain parts of his public persona resisted the lure of being at the top of institutional hierarchies: he regularly insisted, for example, that he not be called the “father” of structuralism. Yet he did not shy away entirely from the siren calls of elitist prestige. He was a professor of anthropology at universities around the world, as well as secretary general of the International Social Science Council at Unesco, and in 1973 he received the Erasmus Prize for his “notable contributions to European culture, society, and social science” and was appointed to the Académie Française, a widely regarded intellectual honor in French academia. His many honors reflect a man who was highly revered for the content of his work.

Native mythology in North and South America inspired him to write a four-volume set which examined the re-telling of a single myth across two continents. “The Raw and the Cooked” (1964), “From Honey to Ashes” (1966), “The Origin of Table Manners” (1968), and “The Naked Man” (1971) were later published as the collection “Mythologiques I-IV.” The New York Times describes “Mythologiques” as a powerful collection which “attempts nothing less than an interpretation of the world of culture and custom, shaped by analysis of several hundred myths of little known tribes and tradition” and also notes that his analysis of myth and culture might “contrast imagery of monkeys and jaguars; consider the differences in meaning of roasted and boiled food (cannibals, he suggested, tended to boil their friends and roast their enemies); and establish connections between weird mythological tales and ornate laws of marriage and kinship.”

Several Facebook groups have formed this week as readers and fans in France express grief for the loss of their beloved cultural icon. A wall photo of Lévi-Strauss on the profile of one of the newest groups, “Hommage à Claude Lévi-Strauss,” offers a glimpse of him in what many saw as his signature pose: a thoughtful and serious man, his wizened-looking head in one hand and his brow furrowed with intense concentration. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine Lévi-Strauss in lighter moments, though his biographers claim that he was occasionally a man of leisure who enjoyed classical music and good books.

His supporters remember him as one who offered immeasurable contributions to his fields of study and as a national treasure who will be greatly missed. A description of the group’s mission characterizes Lévi-Strauss as “un géant de la pensée française reconnu dans le monde entire” (English: a giant of French thought acknowledged worldwide). On the wall of this Facebook group, member Delphine Picout shares her tribute to his legacy, writing, “Adieu à un grand Monsieur, et merci pour ton savoir, et ce cadeau que tu nous a fait” (English: Goodbye to a great Man, and thank you for your knowledge, and the gift you have given us).

In French and in English, Claude Lévi-Strauss forever changed the ways in which we understand the shaping of civilization and our unifying connections across culture and time. Future generations of students will turn to his work for the page-turning myths buried in his writing, even as the life of Lévi-Strauss provides fodder for not so much legend as admiration of his extraordinary gifts to anthropology, literature, and academic scholarship.

The author would like to thank Anna Waltman for her help in translating the two French lines in this article.

There is strong opposition from church fathers. Dr Michael Neary, Archbishop of Tuam, stated that

“It is not healthy, does not give glory to God and certainly is not good witness to the faith to be looking for extraordinary phenomena. The apparition of 1879 was neither sought nor expected by the humble, honest people who were its astonished witnesses . . . Unfortunately, recent events at the Shrine obscure this essential message. They risk misleading God’s people and undermining faith. For this reason such events are to be regretted rather than encouraged.”

Of course, there are those who would see these words as evidence of corruption in a Catholic church that has lost touch with the times and the people. The old chestnut of prophets not being appreciated in their own time is being trotted out on a regular basis. While this may be true, there is a kind of desperation in the willingness of people to believe regardless of common sense or logic.

In Ireland, People who consider themselves religious profess to have a special bond with Mary. It is perhaps why apparitions in Ireland are always apparitions of Mary. In the Irish language, Gaeilge, there is a unique name preserved for the mother of God – Muire – and Mary is translated as Máire. When praying, people pray to Mary to intercede on their behalf with God the father. This is not unique to Ireland,  many countries have their version of Mary. Elsewhere though, the symbol of Mary is used to uplift, in contrast to the self-flagelation that occurs in Ireland.

The Irish famine in the latter half of the nineteenth century had a profound effect on the Irish psyche. The Roman Catholic Church gained in power and influence. Education was heavily influenced by the Church. It is not, therefore, surprising that in 1879, there was a recorded apparition of Mary, the mother of God, at Knock, in which she was accompanied by St. Joseph, St. John the Evangelist and Jesus Christ (as the Lamb of God). The numerous doubts and theories about the authenticity of the apparition were laid to rest in the eyes of the Church when, in 1979, Pope John Paul II visited the shrine and endorsed the indelible seal of Vatican approval.

The influence of the Catholic Church may have waned in these modern times, but there is nothing like a recession to increase mass attendance and the attempted spinning of supernatural phenomena. One example is that of the tree stump in Limerick earlier this year, and the moving statues in Ballinspittle in 1985. Thousands of pilgrims descended on these sites; they prayed, ate and left rubbish lying around. One might compare it to a rock festival.

As in all tough times, no fewer that 15 000 people turned up at Knock to witness the Marian apparition, say the rosary and pray. Mr Coleman informed the people than those with open hearts would see the mother of God. Subsequently, he added that women in short skirts and/or t-shirts were showing disrespect to the Virgin Mary and would not experience the apparition.

It is after the rosary that accounts get a bit confused. Some people claim that a Marian statue lit up while Mr Coleman was in the church with his devotees, which caused a stampede when those inside the church heard that piece of news. Then there are those who claimed they saw the sun dancing. A sceptic might point out that staring at the sun might indeed cause visions and electric light does tend to illuminate statues. A YouTube video shot on the day has been held up as proof of both the apparition and the lack of apparition.

Despite Mary’s usual message of peace, Mr Coleman claims that now she is angry and will close paradise to those who do not return to the church:

“She will rock the foundations of the church if the people do not listen, from Rome back down to where we are, down to Knock. And the gates of Heaven will be closed. She says she’ll do it, I don’t know how she’ll do it, but she’s angry.”

It is possible that the Virgin Mother has grown tired of waiting for lapsed Catholics to take up the cross again. Another possibility is that Catholics are not converting enough people to the faith. Yet another explanation is that Mr Coleman is a fraud who is manipulating vulnerable people. After all, being a visionary is a recession-proof business. Indeed Mr Coleman has also predicted that the lost city of Atlantis will rise in 2012. I am looking forward to that particular occurrence myself.

It is all very well to argue about materialistic modern ways but those who would have Ireland return to days of old should remember the words of William Butler Yeats,

What need you, being come to sense,

But fumble in a greasy till

And add the halfpence to the pence

And prayer to shivering prayer, until

You have dried the marrow from the bone?

For men were born to pray and save:

Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone,

It’s with O’Leary in the grave.

As a child, British director Stephen Poliakoff would drive around with his father at night, looking into rich people’s properties. “I’m curious about the life of those buildings,” he told The Guardian. “From the 1930s right through to the 1950s, the aristocracy and the politicians were running the country from those London townhouses.”

His latest film, “Glorious 39,” a political thriller set in such houses in London and Norfolk on the eve of The Second World War, is certainly voyeuristic. We observe the thousand-year-old Keyes family as they desperately cling to their immense privilege. Poliakoff shows this ancient lineage right from the off; the grown up children’s playground is their ancestral ruins. This is a Narnia-like existence under a crimson sky, or else an eerie omen from the future of the Luftwaffe’s impending Blitz.

Anne, the adopted elder daughter of “the most charming man in England,” the conservative politician Alexander Keyes, is a young starlet featuring in what could be Gainsborough studio melodramas. Alexander seems to prefer the bohemian Anne to his biological children socialite Celia and Ralph, newly promoted to the foreign office. However, it is never clear if Alexander is over-compensating for Anne’s mysterious background, or harbouring a darker family secret altogether.

The controversial question of appeasement seeps through the entire picture like a malignant cancer. Anne throws a lavish dinner party for Alexander’s birthday and the polite chit chat quickly turns to the policy that daren’t speak its name. Hector, a young conservative MP, is positively Churchillian in his condemnation of appeasement, his spirited rant watched coldly by the impenetrable Balcombe, a shadowy government official.

Poliakoff delicately unravels the aftermath of this conversation as the overly “dramatic” Anne is politely but defiantly marginalised while getting embroiled in a monstrous conspiracy that threatens to shatter her cut glass existence. Her flamboyant persona is eroded by sinister cyclists, creepy vicars and over zealous military police that “have the power now to detain anyone indefinitely” – a nod to present day extraordinary rendition.

“Glorious 39” is full of Poliakoff’s trademark lavish visuals and upper class decadence, but it never achieves the shade of black required to be a truly dark thriller. The problem is its 12a rating that renders it more akin to a “Famous Five” novel (How about Five Escape Appeasement?) rather than being a companion to “Riddle In The Sands” or “The 39 Steps.”

The Keyes themselves also hamper the film. Do we really care enough about some over privileged toffs trying to save their idyllic world? When the East End and Coventry were being hammered by the Nazis, the ruling elite were safe in their country estates, scathing about Churchill – that “half-breed American” – who now lead them. Poliakoff tries to portray them as petty and pathetic, but the contrived ending and the revelation of Anne’s highly convenient background robs “Glorious 39” of the rancid climax it richly deserves.

“When we get down to the final five, we can burn her no problem. Bros before hoess” said Dave. In the normal course of events the previous statement would be offensive already, but it’s even worse in a setting where the men are determined to dominate the women at all costs. There is constant state of entitlement when it comes to the male castaways. At this point, it seems as though they believe that the real game won’t even begin until they eliminate the women. The women, on the other hand, seem clueless as to their actual vulnerability. When are these women going to buy a vowel and get a clue?

Once they agreed to bring Shambo into their covenant of masculinity, the Galu men immediately began to formulate a plan.

Alone with camera, Erick revealed the plot:

“So I was thinking about it, thinking about it, thinking about it. The way we’re going to lock Shambo in is not only to tell her, hey we’re cool with you, but us four guys are going to nominate Shambo our new chief. She’s gonna feel so important and so flattered that she is going to be as deep in my pocket as the lint in the bottom.”

Of course, the guileless Shambo takes the bait and accepts the nomination. The fellow women in the tribe are astounded by how quickly the transaction takes place, but they don’t stop to consider whether or not a plan is in motion. Shambo takes the nomination in stride and in her acceptance speech, she promises to work hard and be fair to her fellow tribe members.

Once again, the men are in control of the tribe. Even in a game, patriarchy needs the support of women to dominate. In conversation with the camera Dave discusses his concerns,

“I think us four guys plus using Shambo as a wedge is a good plan. The only strategic drawbacks I could think of is that Shambo is just so dim that she could screw up our plans if we tell her anything.”

Whether he realizes it or not, this is an admission by Dave that an alliance with the men is not in Shambo’s best interest. The men don’t want to inform Shambo of anything going on behind the scenes, because they  fear that the women will finally realize that they need to start working on the strategy side of the game.

At the reward challenge, Probes announces that Shambo is the new leader of Galu and asks whether she is surprised, to which Shambo responds,

“Not too much. I’ve had a lifetime of leadership skills. Just the way I was raised, second generation marines. So I just gotta keep things in perspective and be calm.”

With that, it seems the men really do have themselves a patsy, as Shambo clearly has no clue that she is being played like a cheap fiddle. I guess she missed the outwit part, in the outwit, out-last and out-play slogan of “Survivor.” Though Shambo did not participate in the challenge, Galu wins. In her first real decision as leader, she decides to send Laura over to Foa Foa, to keep the guys strong for the challenge.

Shambo as the new leader. Picture: CBS.

Back at Foa Foa, Russell has come to the realization that with number of losses suffered by his tribe, they are not going to able to arrive at the merge with numbers on their side. With that being the case, he decides that now is the time to start reaching out to Laura. Suddenly, he discovers Christian values and begins to relate with her. He promises her final two should she agree to the alliance. In what is the most intelligent decision made by a female castaway thus far, Laura remains uncommitted.

Natalie, Russell’s ever-ready slave follows his lead and begins to chat up Laura. “I have to keep Natalie for my little toy,” says Russell. “She has to be there for me so that I can manipulate her mind and she can do what I want her to do.” This irritates Liz, because she is left alone to get a fire started so that water can be boiled and food prepared. She rightfully complains about this to her fellow tribe mates, but unfortunately, this just reminds Russell of his dislike of her:

“Liz is so stupid; I don’t even see how she can walk without falling down. When it comes to this game, you gotta be street smart and Liz has got a mouth on her, I don’t think she knows when to shut up”.

At the elimination challenge, Foa Foa starts with a lead. They are desperate to end the long string of losses. Unfortunately, Jaison is so tired that he is unable to adequately participate. At one point, he even stops attempting to solve the puzzle and has to be goaded by Russell to continue. In the end, Foa Foa is unable to pull off the victory, thus allowing Galu to avoid tribal council.

Liz is eliminated. Picture: CBS.

Back at Foa Foa, Russell begins to consider eliminating Jaison, which makes Liz ecstatic. She had assumed that because she and Natalie are both smaller and weaker than the men that the elimination would be between the two of them. Unfortunately for Liz, when the votes are revealed she is sent packing, despite a tremendous effort at the elimination challenge. Once again, the supposed size and superiority of the men cause Foa Foa to eliminate a woman. Russell even commented that Jaison was a liability during the challenge and yet, the desire to privilege masculinity meant that a woman was still kicked out.

If the women do not begin to seriously play this game, it is very doubtful that there will be a female winner of this season’s “Survivor.” Even after the merge, they will not have the numbers to simply vote off the men. They will have to turn the game and use the men’s supposed strength against them by stating that each male’s physical strength is a threat. If the male castaways believe that strong men have a better chance at winning both reward and immunity challenges, then it is possible to convince them to participate in their own elimination. It is time for the women to take a page from the male playbook and play like they actually want the million dollar prize.