La Cage aux Folles, that's the Birdcage

I love a night of theatre and I have been meaning to see more shows. So it was a pleasant surprise when Mika took me to see "La Cage aux Folles". Which is the French play that the "Birdcage" is based on. Interesting note about the French title, is that it is actually a play on words. Folles being the word for birds, but also a slang word for gay folks, similar to queen or fairy; I love puns! The play is currently at the Théâtre de la Porte Saint-Martin near Republique.

The Théâtre de la Porte Saint-Martin is an old theater that dates from the late 18th century and is quite grand once inside. A major complaint about the theater; however, would be the seats. I understand that the theater was built in 1782, and I am fully aware that people were smaller in that time; but I find it difficult to believe that the chairs have not be replaced since the French Revolution. The seats were very poorly configured, at least in the mezzanine. I have never been so uncomfortable in a theater, and I do not consider myself to be extremely tall. There was no room for my legs, and I do not believe cutting them off at the knee would have improved the situation. In addition to the child-size seating, the theater was incredibly hot; clearly there was no air conditioning or it was not making its way to the second mezzanine. In addition, the rows were not sufficiently raised making it difficult to see the stage. I spent the entire two hours playing the role of the spying contortionist, as I had to peek between the two people in front of me to get a glimpse of the stage. Before the play began Mika had decided he was going to sit in the third row, I remained in the second, next to a pillar which meant there was no seat next to him. This also freed his seat which gave me a bit more wiggle room.

The play itself was actually rather amusing. It starred Didier Bourdon (Albin) and Christian Clavier (George), who are popular and well-known actors, I am assured. It was a good play for me personally, because the dialogue was not always so easy to follow; however, considering that I had seen the "Birdcage" when I was 13, with my dad, I was fully aware of the story line. Though many of the jokes escaped me, there were more than a few I was able to follow. Of course the ridiculous antics and costumes were to be expected and were a hit. The audience seemed to love the play and laughed uproariously the whole way through.

It was a pleasure to see the original play, which spawned a French movie and a Broadway musical and finally a Hollywood movie. For my first French theater experience its a mixed review, and I find myself with my typical reaction which is to be happier about having had the opportunity to have the experience, then the joy from the experience itself. In other words, I am glad I had a chance to see this play, even if I was not raving about it afterward. I am not sure when my next French theater experience will take place, though I did receive free tickets for two plays at the entrance of the theater. So I imagine it will be very soon.

John E. Reilly speak at AUP about Obama's Foreign Policy: A New Beginning or Bush II

Today John E. Reilly came to the American University of Paris to speak to a packed room, attendees included Ambassador Pierre Vimont who is the French ambassador to the United States and his wife. There are many ways to open up a talk and endear yourself to the audience. Reilly chose humor, opening with two Palin jokes. (The following is heavily paraphrased) My condolences go out to Mrs. Palin, her library burned down, and with it her two books, one of which she hadn't even finished coloring. Second joke, When asked what would you do if Russia were to attack Georgia she answered: We would have to at least protect Atlanta.

I love humor, and who does not love a good Palin joke. It was the last joke he told this evening. He quickly moved on to more serious matters. First, he admitted that some Obama policies were indeed continuations of Bush policies, and in my opinion most US presidents since WWII. According to Reilly, Obama does not intend to scale back on our overseas commitments or close any American bases; in fact, he intends to increase our troop levels. However, Reilly notes that when it comes to climate change, torture, extraordinary renditions, the closure of Gitmo, multilateralism and the role of the United Nations there has been a significant departure from the Bush years.

Reilly contends that in foreign policy Obama has shown a willingness to engage with countries formally part of the "axis of evil", such as Syria, North Korea and Cuba. He has shied away from expressions like the "War on Terror" and "Islamic extremists" and opposes military action against Iran by the United States or Israel. Reilly stated that Obama finds the prospect of war with Iran as the worst possible outcome, including a nuclear armed Iran. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on record proposing a nuclear umbrella" for the Middle East. Reilly notes that in her visit to China Secretary of State Clinton did not lecture China on human rights. A shift that reflects the fact that the US model does not resonate with all peoples and that political legitimacy can be achieved without democracy.

According to Reilly, Obama is not denying the threat of terrorism; however, is attempting to put the threat in context. Reilly makes an interesting observation that Russia is the only power on earth with the capability to completely annihilate the United States; yet the United States continues to encircle Russia and extend Nato deeper into Russia's backyard with its support for Ukrainian and Georgian membership. Reilly notes that the United States is weary of Russian reassertion in its former sphere and ignoring the areas of Russian and American interests; nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

Reilly does admit that Obama is continuing certain Bush policies; including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and missile attacks near or inside the Pakistani border. Reilly also believes that Obama has not learned the lessons and perils of nation-building. He points out that in US history there have been 18 attempts at nation building, mostly ending in failure. Germany and Japan being exceptions, these are not classic cases of nation buildings, but were as Reilly states re-legitimizing preexisting institutions. According to Reilly the United States finances its military but not the groups trained in nation building. Therefore after invading a country the US depends heavily on its military to rebuild and therefore fails.

Reilly continues his discussion on the nation building practices of the British in the days of empires and concludes that Americans do not have the stomach for nation building. Reilly illustrates this point by describing how the British built nations once the military had defeated the native populations. The civilian administrators would be brought in and they were the ones who ruled the country and built the road and schools. These civilians often lived in these countries for 20 or more years with their families and eventually retired there. Americans, on the other hand, do not accept that the United States is an empire, and have little desire to live in what Reilly calls "hot and smelly places". He notes that about 1.3% of Americans live outside of the United States and among them 75% live in either Europe, Canada or Mexico.

Despite the American people's lack of will to build nations, the country continues on this path. The idea of American exceptionalism and the believe that the US has a moral imperative to interfere in the world could be behind these projects. Reilly admits that it amounts to heresy in the United States to say that America is not exceptional with a moral right and obligation to interfere in other countries. Despite the fact the world does not perceive this view as legitimate and our [overwhelming] incompetence in nation building belies this assertion; Reilly believes this view is still alive and possibly influencing Obama's foreign policy in addition to a belief that the United States is immune to imperial overstretch.

It is important to note that Reilly sees a very important distinction between the Bush approach to foreign policy decision and Obama's. He notes that the Iraq war was not debated within the administration, but rather discussed between those who were already on board. This included Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and of course Cheney. However Obama has a taken a different approach, consulting with his advisers and government agencies to debate foreign policy decisions. He also avoids lecturing other nations while admitting past US mistakes as he tries to avoid [additional] interference is foreign countries internal affairs, i.e. the Iran protests after their recent elections.

I found John E. Reilly's description of the Obama administrations nascent foreign policy convincing. One attendee wondered if domestic issues would reduce US legitimacy internationally. Reilly's response was that presidents tend to aim high in their first nine months, but the timing could not have been worse for Obama; inheriting two wars, a financial crash, a recession, bailouts and huge deficits. However, he believed that the United States domestic woes were not affecting foreign policy or foreign opinion. Another attendee felt that Reilly's talk really underscored the similarities of the Bush and Obama policies and Obama's lip service to change. He wondered if what we were really witnessing was Obama doing a better job of selling Bush's foreign policy.

Though I did not get a chance to ask a question, I wondered if the Obama honeymoon around the world and especially in Europe has an expiration date, like it seems to have in the United States where his poll ratings are allegedly slipping. Considering some major shifts in policy important parts of W's foreign policy are intact; therefore, what would it take to make Europeans and the rest of the world really scrutinize Obama's foreign policy positions?

John E. Reilly's Bibliography
John E. Rielly is currently President Emeritus of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations; Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University; and Visiting Professor, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Mr. Rielly was President of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations from 1971 to 2001. From 1963 to 69 he was the Foreign Policy Assistant to Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Mr. Rielly received his Phd from Harvard. He is on the editorial Board of Foreign Policy, and served for six editions (1975-1999) as editor for American Public Opinion and US Foreign Policy. He is a consultant for the National Security Council. In addition, he is a board member of the Harvard Alumni Association, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, American Ditchley Foundation and American Council on Germany.

My Music Obsession: The Gregory Brothers

For the past four months I have been obsessed with the Gregory Brothers Band. If there are two things that I love in this world, one is music and the other is comedy. So when you put them together, I cannot imagine anything more delicious. Except in the case of the Gregory Brothers they added two more obsession of mine; politics and media. The songs poke fun at politicians and TV news personalities with nice beats and auto-tuning. They take the spoken words and put them through an auto-tuner so that it appears the politicians and news broadcasters are actually singing. I cannot get enough of their music and find myself actually singing the songs to myself when I am walking down the street. So take a look and listen.

My French Immigration Situation (read nightmare)

Let me begin by saying, if you have never been an immigrant, it is hard to understand what they, we, have to go through to stay in our host countries. I am hoping that my own situation will end positively, but there is no denying that it has been trying. I have lived in Paris for four years, during that time I have studied a year abroad at ESSEC a prestigious business school in the Paris suburb of Cergy, interned for six months at a music agency specializing in Jazz tours in Europe. Having already decided to continue my education, I enrolled concurrently at the American University of Paris and the Institut Catholique de Paris where I will obtain my Masters in International Relations this December.

Due to my education, I have been able to stay in France rather easily; a student visa being one of the easiest to obtain. However, despite being a notorious procrastinator, I have an uncanny ability to plan years in advance. So even while I had guaranteed my student status by enrolling in grad school, I also got PACSed to Mikael, as a sign of love and commitment, but also as a way to secure and eventually stabilize my status in France.

That is where the drama starts; as I come close to finishing my Masters and we have recently celebrated two years of Pacsdom (I think the suffix -dom is underutilized my titre de sejour, the French version of a green card, was close to expiring. So I headed down to my immigration office to find out how I could change my immigration status from "student" to "private and family life". It was pretty straightforward the first time I visited immigration. All I had to do was take a 30 minute metro ride to the office, take a number and sit for two hours, just to receive a piece of paper telling what to bring next time I showed up at the office. In "The Information Age" the French government post very little relevant information on its websites. However, this was a step up from the first time I had to visit this particular immigration office because now they have chairs and fans. Before you would wait for hours standing in a line in a unfinished room that looked like a warehouse just to find out you have been standing in the wrong line.

I take my paper detailing all the papers I need to bring to start the process of changing my immigration status. I spend the next month running all over paper and looking through all my documents for the required papers, at least all the absolutely required papers. When I showed up confident that I had all the documents they would need, I met with a second immigration officer who looked at my papers and essentially began cursing at me. He was visibly and audibly upset that I had showed up without a piece of mail with both of our names for every one of the past 12 months, insisting that we must have an electricity bill. Despite the fact there was no mention that an electricity bill was required and that we presented two years of income tax reports, mutual government and work insurances, housing insurance etc. The fact that the government was convinced we lived together the past year was of little importance, the immigration office wants to know that you have lived together each and every month for the past year, and only the bills from private companies can accomplish that.

I informed the officer that I did not have a piece of mail, or bill that was in both our names that we had received at the house every month. Being modern individuals, we do not receive bills and most of our business is done online. This is when it turned from a situation of simple abuse to what I considered to be xenophobic hostility. When I told him I could not provide him the documents he required, he gave me three options for renewing my status and staying in the country. First he suggested that I enroll in school and renew my titre de sejour as a student. I let him know that I was coming to the end of my studies and that I was not interested in studying an additional year. Then he suggested that I stay in France for a year, in order to put our bills in both our names and have them mailed to the house each month, then return and restart the process. When I informed him that I would like to work legally in that time and I was not willing to remain in the country that long illegally, not to mention how that would affect my attempts to gain immigration status if I allow too much time to elapse. At this point he became very upset and said "well then leave the country then.. next".

Needless to say I was floored. I had dealt with my share of rude French government employees but this was incredible. I was so upset when I left the office I had decided if the French do not want me in the country I am packing my bags today. Of course time and a strong drink will bring you back to your senses. I told Mika about my ordeal and the comments the man made. Outraged, he demanded, does he know which country you come from? Now, I know being American can come in handy in many situations, but being the culturally sensitive person that I am, I try not to be too pushy with my nationality. As it were, he looked at my passport, so I can imagine there was any doubt who he was dealing with.

Despite his attitude, Mika decided we would go back to the scene of the crime the following day with our papers and righteous anger in hand. He was not there. Too bad, but we did not get much further with the new officer. She said that 12 months of mail was required, but also said that if we could get a letter from the electric company attesting that we have had a contract dating at least a year she could accept that and give us an appointment. That was good news. A simple call to the electric company and they added my name to the contract retroactively, and issued the letter. We even convinced the company to issue a letter with both our names on the contract listing each month that the account had been debited for our electricity bill. This was demanded, but I figured it could not hurt.

When I returned, the fourth time, to the office of course she was not there, and the monsieur who suggested I go back to my country was. When I presented him the letters and told him that one of his colleagues informed me it would be sufficient for an appointment he began cursing again. Once again stating that there was nothing he could do with these papers. This time I asked him if there was someone else, higher up, I could speak with. He called in to the office to let me speak with someone. When I spoke to the woman in the head office I told her how the one officer demanded 12 months of mail and another officer asked for a simple letter. I let her know that I was not going to base my immigration status on the whims of her subordinates. She looked at the letter and the list of monthly payments from the electric company and without looking at me asked "what can I do with this?". I thought this is not going to end well. I then let her know that I had other papers and showed them to her.

She looked at the housing and health insurance papers, the tax forms for the past three years and the PACS certificate; finally looking at me said, well this is something. Then she asked me did I show these papers to the office? Of course I did. And they did not give you an appointment? I said no, which is why I am here. So she called the front office and told the man that had told me to go home, that she was granting me an appointment. She told him she was more than satisfied with the papers I had presented. That for her all that was required was to prove one year of common life and I had proven more than two years. She asked me about the mail issue and said if I received any mail with out address, whether in both or just my name that was sufficient. I showed her my bank statements, that I had with me, and she said if you find the last twelve this is sufficient.

So I returned to the office, to a more subdued immigration officer, who made my appointment with haste. The appointment is for the end of November, which is typical of the snail's pace at which French bureaucracy creeps along. I am hoping that this new immigration status, though more difficult to get, will be more stable than my student status.

Les Champagnes de Vignerons

Yesterday evening, I had the opportunity to attend an exceptional event that was invite only for Champagne makers, industry professionals and journalist plus guests. The event was held in the former apartment of French film star Alain Delon; considered to be one the most elegant apartments in the French capitol. The apartment sits on the Seine River with a jaw-dropping view of the Eiffel Tower.

The event consisted of 20 champagne makers each showcasing three of their best champagnes, all independent smaller domains, in comparison with some of the more well-known bulk producers. The event was an opportunity for smaller producers to introduce their products to wine sellers and bar owners as well as to the press. It also gave the connoisseur the chance to try an overwhelming variety of Champagnes; to discover the vastness and complexity of fragrance and taste.

No champagne tasting would be complete without a team of chefs and waiters to distribute a variety of treats to amuse the palate, including a sushi chef serving up a variety of fresh fish most of the evening. The variety of food was impressive and visually stunning; many types of fish, rabbit, no less than 25 different cheeses. After all this is France, no event would be complete without an array of amuses-bouches to keep the guest happy.

As I am not technically an industry professional, though through force of habit I have developed quite the palate, I found myself focusing more on some of the not-so-champagne-related aspects of the event. As anyone familiar with wine and champagne tastings knows, an important aspect is advising drinkers on how to pair their champagne with food, usually the job of the sommelier (Mikael's official job title). Many of the rules are quite simple, such as red meat goes with red wine, and white fish with white wine. However, perhaps due to the fact that champagne is considered the "wine of kings", the suggested meals were often extremely complex and distinguished, which is to be expected. Though I contend that some of these suggestions were taking luxury to another level. For example the Champagne Paul Clouet suggests that with their first champagne one dine on a warm pheasant pâté in a crust served alongside a grand veneur sauce. Fair enough. Second champagne deserves no less than lobster cooked in truffle oil and served on a puree of mango and avocado. However, the last champagne should be served with... gazpacho. Well I heard of losing steam at the end of the race, but perhaps our sommelier should have held out a little for that last suggestion. Though I will admit, I could smell notes of tomato and a hint of cucumber.

When attending such an event, you must be prepared for industry talk. The champagne makers tend to be very down to earth; however, those who drink and sell champagne are not. So if your tasting skills are not that finely tuned, avoid questions about the champagne itself other than an obligatory "no, that is absolutely delicious". But you can also expect questions on your profession and your connections to the industry. You can be honest and admit you have no relationship to the industry, and subsequently find yourself standing alone in the middle of the room, or you can do what a very wise woman, named Flore, told me last night. Her suggestion is to say that you work in import/export. Pick a country and stick with it. Her pick was Brazil. The beauty of this strategy is that you remain interesting to the other party guests, while at the same time having an excuse for why you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about champagne but still deserve to be at the event.

I wish I had met her sooner, as my response to any question about champagne was to dip my face in my flute and demand privacy while I pondered the question. People tend to stare at you once they have asked you a question. So that was clearly a losing moment. If I had to pick any other less than stellar performances, the award would go to the champagne Vincent Couche. Vincent Couche had the idea, which must have seemed great at the moment of conception, that instead of business cards he would distribute photos of himself shirtless with a bottle of his champagne photoshopped, seductively, into the photo. Needless to say, the photo was a bigger hit than his champagne. Best champagne of the evening, in my opinion, was Paul Clouet. All three champagnes were light and balanced, very fruity on the nose and good flavor on the tongue. Favorite champagne maker was Bereche & Fils, this winery is run by two brother in their late 20s who are the fifth generation of Bereches to run the family business. The brother present at the event was friendly, knowledgeable and enthusiastic, offering very fine champagne.

Les Champagnes de Vignerons