New Orleans. Mid-descent to Los Angeles, sinking through the layer of smog to reveal houses swimming in asphalt below us, it seemed as though we had been gone for a year instead of four days at Jazz Fest.

New Orleans is a city I loved entire before I ever walked its pot-holed streets, but for the first 27 years of my life, I was ignorant of its existence. The friends I knew who had ventured to the Crescent City returned with tales of oppressive humidity which far outweighed any of its considerable charms.

Just before April 2003, Taylor Hackford was ready to shoot his magnum opus based on the life of Ray Charles in New Orleans, and my boyfriend Anthony was hired for the job. He had found an apartment in the Garden District when I finished the job I had been working on. Ever the traveler, I made plans to escape the insanity of the film industry by hiding out for a month in his apartment at the intersection of Coliseum and Louisiana, dreaming awake in a place I’d never been before.  

Love descended suddenly. The muggy air was an anchor; the heat beat down. There’s a saying in Italy that to truly love, you must fall in love with a person’s faults. The heat was as enchanting as it was oppressive.

One moment I wouldn’t have noticed if New Orleans had been swallowed by a hurricane, while the next found me shaping my life around its tendrils and vines. As New Orleans resident Andrei Codrescu writes in a piece entitled “Secrets” in Zombification, one of his collections of essays written for NPR, “[T]he fact is that we all know that there exists in the world an order different from that in which we pass our days.”

Perhaps some of the transfixing beauty of New Orleans lies in its distance from the stress of life in Los Angeles. In its awareness of its own identity; in its seductive determination to watch the rat race from afar, without designs to follow the trend of velocity.

According to The Independent, Italy’s former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has put together a new administration after resigning his post on Wednesday night. Reporter Peter Popham writes, “his new administration…may look remarkably like the old one. The policies of the new government may also not differ much.” Popham reports that the new cabinet is scheduled to be sworn into office tomorrow morning, the 23rd of April.

The results of Italy’s regional elections at the beginning of April led to Berlusconi’s resignation two days ago. Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi faced two options: he could request Berlusconi to form a new cabinet, or he would be forced to call a general election ahead of schedule.

Detractors of Berlusconi’s agenda are concerned that “current policies are skewed in favor of [Italy’s] more prosperous north,” although Berlusconi claims that the focus of the new government “will center on supporting businesses, defending families’ purchasing power and a concrete plan for the south to encourage the creation of new jobs.”

White smoke today signaled the election of a new pope at 5:50 p.m. (shortly before noon EDT), Vatican time. German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 78, will now be known as Pope Benedict XVI. Ratzinger won with a two-thirds majority vote, backed by 77 of 115 voting cardinals. The International Herald Tribune reports Ratzinger is the “first Germanic pope in roughly 1,000 years.”

Lucetta Scaraffia, a professor of history at Rome’s University of La Sapienza, remarked on Ratzinger’s consistency in his espousal to pro-Orthodoxy values. “His speech was rather unusually straightforward. Usually, just before a conclave, cardinals try to present themselves as a mediator. That’s not Ratzinger. You might say it was courageous.”

An article today in the International Herald Tribune notes that some of the issues faced by Pope Benedict XVI will be “the need for dialogue with Islam, the divisions between the wealthy north and the poor south [of Italy], as well as problems with his own church,” which, in addition to recent sex scandals, include “a chronic shortage of priests and nuns in the West” and the fact that the church is losing a significant number of people who feel its teachings are no longer “relevant.”

In his article for the International Herald Tribune from April 12, Ian Fisher reported that Ratzinger views the relationship between Catholicism and Islam from a competitive standpoint, rather than from a view of tolerance and dialogue. While many cardinals share Pope John Paul’s “embrace of dialogue” between disparate religious faiths, Ratzinger, regarded as “one of the most conservative voices in the church,” does not.

Ratzinger’s public statement opposing the inclusion of Turkey in the European Union in Le Figaro was opposed by Venice Archibishop and Cardinal Angelo Scola:

Voter turnout for Italy’s regional elections has surpassed all expectations. And as a result, Italy’s current prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has more to mourn than the passing of Pope John Paul II in the Vatican. While millions of people waited in line to view the Pope, enough Italians went to the polls this past Sunday and Monday to liberate six of the eight governorships previously controlled by Berlusconi’s coalition, the House of Freedoms.

The Economist reported on April 6 that Berlusconi’s recent efforts to attract voter support with tax cuts and promises to bring Italian troops home from Iraq have failed to gather even the support which has granted him the honor of being “the longest-serving Italian leader since the 1922-43 dictatorship of Benito Mussolini.”

Berlusconi’s unpopularity suggests that former President of the European Commission Romano Prodi may have a shot at taking over Italy’s reins. Prodi’s coalition, known as the Union, finds fault with Berlusconi’s unapologetic efforts to increase his personal control over the Italian media and does not support a current reform which aims to strengthen the power of the prime minister and weaken those of the president and the constitutional court.

Joni Mitchell’s words illuminate the passing of Pope John Paul II in a way which we have failed to note on this side of the Atlantic: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” Regardless of how people view Catholicism and religion, the role Karol Wojtyla played in the world over the last decades held such influence that finally, his absence will be felt in ways his presence may not have been.  

Pieces published in the News.Scotsman.com, Allafrica.com, and the Timesonline.co.uk draw attention to the impact this man has had upon the world beyond the religious sphere.

“He was not only for Catholics, but all religions and the world at large,” said Monsignor Sladan Cosic of the Vatican Embassy in Zambia.

Stefan Chwin wrote, in an article translated by Philip Boehm, that while Wojtyla was loved by the Poles for many reasons, they loved him most for “his visible respect for people from all corners of the earth.”

Note to Americans: make sure you find out whether your local pharmacy agrees to fill the prescription you think you’ll need before you need it. Articles in The Washington Post, on Alternet.org,  CBSnews.com, and the websites of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization of Women report that the number of cases in which pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions is increasing in America.

In a debate today on The Early Show, presidents of Planned Parenthood and Pharmacists for Life International argued about the right of pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Various state laws and refusal clauses allow pharmacists the right of refusal when filling prescriptions goes against their personal moral and religious beliefs.  In response to Pharmacists for Life President Karen Brauer’s statement that pharmacists are as liable as doctors for the prescriptions they fill, Planned Parenthood President Karen Pearl said,

“It’s really a matter of whose conscience matters, and I would say the conscience of the women is the conscience that prevails…[Pharmacists for Life] is a small group of extremists who really want to put their belief system, their ideology onto everybody else, and women in America simply won’t stand for that.”

In her Alternet.org article, “States of Denial,” Abby Christopher draws attention to the fact that currently there is no incentive for hospitals to abide by laws requiring them to make emergency contraception accessible to patients in cases of rape. One implication here is that such a law ties a woman’s decision to be proactive (in seeking medical assistance in lowering her risk of pregnancy) to her identification of herself as a victim (of rape).

NARAL Pro-Choice America has launched a campaign to protect women’s access to birth control in response to pro-life stands being taken by pharmacists, offering two proactive action plans for activists. In the meantime, the National Organization for Women has put together a quick-reference fact sheet which details why women should pay attention to the repercussions of the recently approved federal “Abortion Non-Discrimination Act,” which both overrides Title X guidelines requiring women to be referred for abortions upon their request, and “allows health care institutions to refuse to comply with federal and state regulations regarding a range of abortion-related services, including pharmacist referrals,” according to a heavily referenced article on the Planned Parenthood website.

George Lakoff, professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, has figured out how “what was considered extreme just a decade ago [has become] national policy.” And he’s written about it in his book, Don’t Think of an Elephant!

Lakoff’s research in cognitive linguistics has shown how human goals, behavior, and actions are shaped by “frames,” which he defines as “mental structures that shape the way we see the world.” Consequently, “in politics, our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies.” Lakoff explains,

“You can’t see or hear frames. They are part of what cognitive scientists call the ‘cognitive unconscious’ – structures in our brains that we cannot consciously access, but know by their consequences: the way we reason and what counts as common sense. We also know frame through language. When you hear a word, its frame (or collection of frames) is activated in your brain.”

Lakoff believes in the tie between language and politics: whoever controls language controls politics. He contends that the specific words people use to communicate, and the framing they use, are crucial to the future of the nation: the language used in American politics is a precision tool which shapes our political future.

The idea that language and politics shape each other is not new: George Orwell explored this theme in his novel, 1984, and in essays such as “Politics and the English Language,” as does William Safire in his weekly column, “On Language,” for The New York Times.

Dean E. Murphy reports today in the International Herald Tribune that Judge Richard Kramer has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in response to a lawsuit filed by the city of San Francisco against the state of California. The current restrictions against same-sex marriage are based upon Proposition 22, which was approved in 2000 by California voters, and a law enacted by the Legislature in 1977. Kramer wrote,

“The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal.

The state’s protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional.”   

Many of the arguments opposing same-sex marriage could be compared with those “once made against mixed-race marriages or racially integrated schools,” Kramer noted.

“The denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary,” he stated yesterday.

As Kramer must still meet with several parties to the litigation, the ruling will not become final until March 30.

For those of us who went to hear A.S. Byatt speak at UCLA, tonight will remain an evening to remember. She was interviewed by Santa Monica’s own Michael Silverblatt, the admirable host of KCRW’s literary talk-show “Bookworm.”

As the evening progressed, Silverblatt commented he feels at times that he is “living in a culture where people are angry at the literary.”

Byatt agreed. She remarked that she comes from a working-class family, whose members took turns reciting Keats at the dinner table. Literature meant everything to them; it was an activity of choice and engagement. Such anger surprises her, she said, because literature is one of the few things in life which belongs to everyone, regardless of social or economic class.

Byatt also finds it strange that some readers argue her use of references to classic works of literature is threatening, not inspiring. Others charge her with “showing off” her remarkable knowledge of literature, an idea which, it turns out, is unsurprisingly foreign to Byatt, who taught at University College in London before turning to writing full-time. “I always get excited about learning something new,” she said. Such inclusions of fragments of other works shed light on the stories she tells, creating revelations, and possibly inspiring readers unfamiliar with her references to seek out their sources.

Alessandra Stanley’s piece today in the International Herald Tribune is a reassuring reminder that no matter how domesticated the Academy Awards may have appeared Sunday night, plenty of inquisitive minds are still alive and well. An inexhaustible fuel sustains such dissenters, their sharpest tool a keen sense of humor.

Stanley makes a reference to the five-second delay, which serves as a cushion for network self-censorship should any unacceptable spontaneity occur during the live awards ceremony. However, other forms of “editing” take place behind the scenes at the Oscars, as was the case with presenter and comedian Robin Williams.

Williams made his entrance with a piece of tape covering his mouth, which he ripped off in order to present the award. Stanley reports that a song Williams had prepared to sing at the Oscars had been censored by ABC executives as well as producer Gil Cates:

Williams called upon composer Marc Shaiman and writer Scott Wittman for material. The first draft included the lines:

When Cates advised Shaiman to make the song “less political,” Shaiman directed the lyrics away from politics and toward gossip:

Shaiman’s efforts weren’t enough. Last Thursday ABC’s broadcast standards and practices officials objected to the “sexual tone,” potential offensive remarks toward minorities, and suggestions of the “glorification of drug use” in the revised lyrics, as in the line “the Road Runner’s hooked on speed.”

Rather than cutting 11 of the song’s 36 lines, Williams, Shaiman and Wittman decided not to present the song at all. Williams remarked at an interview on Saturday,

It turns out that the perfect accessory to an Academy Awards tuxedo is white tape.

“While Europeans are willing to merge their currencies in the euro and concede other sovereign powers to Brussels, they are not willing to give up their language,” Graham Bowley reports today in an article for the International Herald Tribune. Recent attempts made by the European Union to downsize the number of “working” languages at official conferences to three (English, French, and German) have resulted in threats of revolt by Italian and Spanish governments. Apparently, language is more fundamental to the identity of a nation and its people than the big boys had anticipated.

Italian and Spanish are two of the languages which the European Commission recently dropped from use at multilingual news conferences for reasons of “efficiency” as well as a “lack of translation resources.”  Bowley notes that “speeches often have to be repeated two or three times, press releases are issued in triplicate and earphones are a necessary accessory in meetings and conferences.”

The absence of their national language at multinational conferences reflects a concern on the part of smaller countries that they may be “losing out” to the dominant nations of the European Union: Britain, Germany and France. The recent inclusion of German as an official “working” language at these conferences may have been the catalyst for action. As Enrico Brivio, correspondent for Il Sole 24 Ore, explained:

Fraoise Le Bail, spokesman for current president of the European Commission Jo Manuel Barroso, stated, in an attempt to pacify the angered parties:

While diversity may complicate conferences, life is rarely simple or efficient. Barroso’s intent to resolve the issue is an admirable one. It suggests aims of a new Europe which attempts to match ideals of unity and diversity with both an acknowledgment of social and political realities, and a wisdom which prioritizes communication over offense and misunderstanding. The results of communication and understanding may be complex, but they’re worth it.

In Sunday’s review of Peter Lamont’s book, The Rise of the Indian Rope Trick, Teller, of the magician duo Penn and Teller, reveals in few words how a hoax can capture the imagination of a public even after having been exposed. The key to longevity, apparently, lies not in the sophistication of the trick, but rather in the stubborn determination of believers.

In 1890, during a particularly competitive period in journalism, The Chicago Tribune published a story by John Elbert Wilkie. Years before Wilkie would become  director of the Secret Service, he wrote a fiction piece for the The Chicago Tribune which was published as fact. This piece described a trick performed by an Indian fakir, in which a child climbed a ball of twine up into the sky. Wilkie’s piece was accompanied by a photograph of the event: however, it showed no boy, no ball of twine. Only the fakir, seated on the ground, appeared in the photo, which Wilkie explained was evidence that “Mr. Fakir had simply hypnotized the entire crowd, but he couldn’t hypnotize the camera.”

The story made international headlines. However, four months after the story was printed, it was retracted by The Chicago Tribune, which admitted the piece had been “written for the purpose of presenting a theory in an entertaining form.” As Lamont and Teller point out, the retraction didn’t receive nearly as much attention by the public as had the original hoax.

What is interesting is that sightings of this “Indian Rope Trick” were reported for years afterwards, in spite of the published retraction. “Wilkie’s story had remarkable staying power,” pens Teller:

“The story’s genius is that it allows a reader to wallow in Oriental mystery while maintaining the pose of modernity … By describing a thrilling, romantic, gravity-defying miracle, then discrediting it as the result of hypnotism – something equally cryptic, but with a Western, scientific ring – The Tribune allowed its readers to have their mystery and debunk it, too.”