List of things I will miss about Grenoble

1. Having a desk in an office that is not in an underground floor.
2. The window and the whiteboard in my office.
3. The possibility of going to work by bike.
4. Reading in the mornings in the bus, when the bike wasn't an option.
5. Bus drivers saying hello.
6. The extremely organized "prefecture", in which it getting a stay permit was almost a pleasure.
7. Italian verbs conjugated in passato remoto, courtesy of my Italian office mate.
8. My Italian office mate, and his curiosities about southern Italy.
9. Having amazing mountains all around.
10. Seeing snow in the mountains.
11. Spotify.
12. The desserts (and the substantial discounts) in the canteen.
13. The three towers of l'Île Verte.
14. The more than bearable summer.
15. The studio in which I lived, in a sixth floor, in front of a wonderful park.

Two Sentences (A Quick Capsule of Absurdity)

These are difficult days for Silvio Berlusconi because of judicial decisions. Earlier this week a court declared that he has to pay over 750 million euros to the media group that owns Repubblica, the main opposition newspaper. And during these days, a court is deciding whether the law he made to protect himself from being prosecuted (the Lodo Alfano) is constitutional or not. I don't know how things will end up. However, I want to remark two absurd sentences I have heard these days:

1. Umberto Bossi (who is Berlusconi buddy in the government coalition) , when asked about Berlusconi's problems with law said something like: "Well, we made very strong laws against mafia; justice going after Berlusconi was really a matter of time."
2. Berlusconi's attorneys in the constitutional court claim something like: "Law does not apply to everyone equally; since Berlusconi was elected by the people he's above all the others."

In case you were wondering: the main opposition party in Italy seems to be too busy to say something; they are currently fighting to each other so as to determine who will be the head of the party. It could happen that Berlusconi resigns and they are still fighting. Sigh.

Once again, poor Italy. But also once again: this is all Italians' fault, who complain a lot and do nothing.

The Battle of the Regions

For some reason reality shows haven't had a huge impact in Colombian TV. This is remarkable, given the situation in USA and some European countries (notably, UK and Italy) were this kind of crappy TV is the rule. For instance, in Colombia only one season of Big Brother was produced, and although it had decent ratings, these weren't enough to produce a second season. Colombian TV channels have tried adaptations of many realities, but none of them has had a real impact in audiences. While some people could say that this means that Colombian TV audiences are somehow "smart", a quick look to most successful TV shows nowadays (soap operas based on the drug dealing culture) would quickly prove them wrong.

There is, however, a kind of reality show that has had more impact in Colombia than the others. It's the kind of reality show that involves people living in a beach (or an island), in harsh conditions, away from the world. They compete for better conditions in the beach and, at the end, for a lot of money. The first versions were the local adaptation of things like Survivor in the US (which in turn is derived from a Swedish show called Expedition Robinson). They did two or three seasons following the original format (that is, the way participants are divided into teams, the way of eliminating contestants, the games and proofs, etc.) But, at some point, Colombian producers refused to continue paying the original franchise and decided to create their own format.

And that was a brilliant decision. With complete liberty, Colombian producers experimented with the way of selecting participants and dividing them into teams. An initial experiment consisted in creating three teams: celebrities, participants from former seasons of the show, and regular people. Then, they went further and divided participants according to their social status: rich, middle class, and poor. I liked that one very much. In a subsequent season, the criterion for teams was age: young, not-so-young, and old people competed in the show. Unfortunately I couldn't follow that one, as I was in Italy already.

The most recent format they are using these days is one that would impact anyone in Colombia: a reality in which teams represent the three or four most representative regions of the country. (Here "region" is to be understood in a cultural sense; a region might comprise people from several "states" in which the country is divided.) I don't know if this is really an original idea, but in Colombia it was perfect to create controversy and increase ratings. As in many other countries, in Colombia regions have an heterogeneous structure and culture, an several rivalries among regions are very well-known. So the show ---called "The Battle of the Regions"--- targeted precisely that. As expected the selected participants represent the most stereotypical behaviors of each region, so confrontations (which is the thing we all love to see) are guaranteed. Now that I am abroad I can't follow this reality, which is a real pity.

This year the novelty in the reality was the addition of a team representing "Colombians abroad". I wonder how they behave; more precisely, in wonder the thing(s) that Colombian producers might regard as "stereotypical" in Colombians abroad. I also wonder what such a reality would look like in a country such as Italy, in which regions are so different from each other. Perhaps only two teams ("North" and "South") would be enough, or perhaps people would demand a team for each of the 20 regions (or 21, so as to include the "Italians abroad"). It is possible that such a TV experiment would reveal the rather weak identity of Italy as a whole.

The magic revolution

I can't sleep in long flights. I simply can't: the position I use to sleep is a bit particular, so I can't simply sit and close my eyes. I wish it was like that. Really. In long flights I spend the time watching the tv/movies and walking around the plane, sometimes engaging into conversation with some other wanderer.

This was the case in the flight Kuala Lumpur - Amsterdam I recently took (a post on my trip to Malaysia is in preparation). I was clever enough to choose an aisle seat, in the last row of the Boeing 777-200ER. The seat in the aisle is good for me because I wasn't trapped by the sleeping passengers, and I could easily access the two bathrooms and the little bar in which one can grab free biscuits and ice cream.

During the flight I met this young Italian guy who was returning from Adelaide, Australia, where he completed the thesis work for his first laurea degree in Anthropology. I found it funny that in the middle of the night he was trying to look down through the windows of one of the side back doors of the plane. He said he was trying to look at Ukraine which, according to him (and to the GPS), we were flying over at that moment.

There is an invariant property that you observe when talking to Italians, especially Italians abroad: the 98% of the times, after some minutes of chatting, you end up discussing about Berlusconi. It is something you could bet on. It is interesting to see how the opinion of people about their own country changes (or evolves) once they're abroad. In the case of Italians, this often includes some form of embarrassment.

Indeed, it was with embarrassment that this guy was telling me (and to the other Italians who joined the conversation once they heard us speaking in Italian) that the Berlusconi government has/had plans to close the Italian consulate in Adelaide. Many have protested against this decision, including the own Australian government. Indeed, many Italians (and Australians with Italian roots) are served by that consular office; closing it would have a dramatic impact in them, as they would have to travel very long distances for any kind of bureaucratic issue.

After a quick catharsis in which all the other Italians in the conversation mentioned/complained about some of Berlusconi's recent scandals, the young guy I first met concluded saying something like

"I know a revolution that removes Berlusconi from power will come soon. And I look forward to witnessing that."

That got me thinking. I was quite surprised to hear that an educated young man, very well aware of the problems of his country, could have such a childish perception of the Italian crisis. He was indeed waiting for some magical revolution that, out of the nothing, would come and fix everything. A revolution that could benefit him, but hopefully one not requiring any commitment from him. A comfortable revolution, you can say.

Then I realized that this kind of childish ideals must permeate the minds of most people in the world. They simply do not understand what democracy means, and reduce the act of voting to the act of delegating some responsibility. As such, people expect the others they chose to fix things; external, easy solutions to their problems.

This is in the case in which people do vote; my impression is that only few people actually vote. This seems to be the case in Italy; one usually hears that voting does not change anything. And that's why Italy is quite fucked up these days, I think: corrupt and cynical politicians are in power and only a few benefit from that. The problem is of course what the rest of the people do (or don't do). Often they do not vote, and their political implication limits to following newspapers, loudly complaining about (bad) news during lunch, following the blogs of journalists who denounce corruption, or joining one of those facebook groups that make sense only temporarily.

Even if they won't admit it, they are also waiting for the magical revolution to come.

The failed diplomacy

I would like to comment on the most important news Colombia has produced lately: the agreement between Colombia and the US whereby American troops and planes can use seven military bases in Colombian soil.

This has caused an enormous controversy in south america, for a number of reasons. It is convenient to begin with the motivations that the Colombian government had to sign the agreement. It is claimed that the American support is essential to fight FARC, the guerilla that has become the biggest terrorist organization with incomes based on kidnapping, as well on drug production and trafficking. Military cooperation agreements between Colombia and the US are not new (they date back to 1952, in fact), and they include assistance against drug cartels and, after 9/11, they include direct participation and support of US troops (in Colombian soil) in war operations against FARC. The new agreement follows this "tradition" but to a much larger scale: seven of the most strategic military bases in Colombia are to involve American cooperation. The government says that this new agreement is simply an "update" of the old ones, so there is no need for such a big controversy. For the same reasons, very little is know about the actual agreement, its specific terms and conditions. The "update" theory has also been useful to avoid the control of the Colombian congress, which is supposed to approve any such agreements.

South american countries are very suspicious of this secret agreement. Last friday, an extraordinary meeting of the union of south american countries (Unasur) was held to discuss the Colombian agreement. There was a huge pressure against Colombia, organized by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who considers the agreement as an "act of war" against him and his country; he has officially cut diplomatic ties with Colombia so many times in the last year that one doesn't remember whether the two countries have official ties or not. Because of oil money, Venezuela has a notable influence in the subcontinent, so countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina pretty much follow what Chavez says. Other more reasonable countries (Brasil, Chile, Peru) have a more objective perspective on the matter, and while they respect the Colombian decision to ask to the US for support to fight FARC, they are very concerned about the military influence in the region. They surely haven't forgotten that in the early 90s, the de facto president of Panama was removed from power by means of an attack initiated in one of the US military bases in the subcontinent.

In all of this, the Colombian diplomacy has been slow and clumsy. It failed to predict the effect the agreement would have on the south american countries in Unasur. Nowadays, any US presence in the continent is not well received. The stubborn attitude of keeping the agreement hidden for debate (both in Colombia and abroad) is perceived negatively, as if Colombia had something to hide regarding US military presence. (Well, perhaps we have.) Hiding the exact terms of the agreement leads to more (unnecessary) controversy. For instance, Brasil has suggested that some of the planes involved in the agreement are clearly inconvenient for the war against drugs ---to fight against FARC, planes can't flight too fast or too high in order to be effective, and apparently the agreement stipulates planes with very different characteristics.

Also, in this controversy Colombia has been mistreated in several diplomatic forums. A good diplomatic staff would have not allowed that to happen. In my view, Colombian diplomacy has failed to strike back Chavez, telling the world about his open support to FARC. In fact, it is a proven fact that highly ranked officials in the Venezuelan government are providing FARC with missiles to attack Colombian aviation. This is a proven fact. A number of weapons that Venezuela bought from Sweden in the late 80s, have been confiscated to FARC early this year. With the serial numbers in the weapons it was easy to trace their origin. While both Colombia and Sweden have officially asked Venezuela for about this, the clumsy way in which Colombian diplomacy works has allowed Chavez to turn things around, and to change the main subject of the debate. While he's constantly demanding for explanations (and posing as a victim), he owes both Venezuelan and Colombian citizens a great deal of convincing explanations about his financial and military support to FARC.