Archive for June, 2009

Satrapi on depression, creativity and adopting a foreign culture

Monday, June 29th, 2009

From diverse  interviews….

“Well depressive, I don’t know. If you have a little sensibility or a heart you have all the reason to be depressed once in a while. But the depression is like a motor for creation. I need a little bit of depression, a bit of acid in my stomach, to be able to create. When I’m happy I just want to dance.”

“That is the capacity of the human being, that everything suddenly becomes absolutely normal.”

“If you want to have another culture come into you, it’s like you have to take out the first one, and then choose what you want from the two and swallow them again.”

“I can live fifty years in France and my affection will always be with Iran. I always say that if I were a man I might say that Iran is my mother and France is my wife. My mother, whether she’s crazy or not, I would die for her, no matter what she is my mother. She is me and I am her. My wife I can cheat on with another woman, I can leave her, I can also love her and make her children, I can do all of that but it’s not like with my mother. But nowhere is my home any more. I will never have any home any more.”

Michael, we love you!

Friday, June 26th, 2009

Michael Jackson is dead. This is officially an end of an era. End of what we have known as true superstars. One of the last of the truly great is gone. Welcome the era of products of market research departments.

He was special. He was unbeatable. He was incredibly talented. In so many ways. He was a fantastic singer. He was a dancer like only Fred Astair was. (There are great dancers, but there are God-chosen dancers. Like Shiva – when they move, the world moves with them). He wrote songs that moved us will always move us. He created ground breaking videos which started a new art form. And he had the “it” – the substance, the presence, the aura, the charisma of the chosen person.

But it was the very same talent, and the sensibility that comes with it, that crashed him. When you do things with your heart, because you simply must do them, because you have been chosen to do them, you are a victim of your own destiny. A superstar like Madonna, who has built her fame and her career on hard work and strong will, has that very same rationality to protect her from the burdens of stardom. A star like Michael Jackson, to whom the glory happened because of his talents, because he was “chosen”, has no tools to fight the negative aspects of stardom.

And there are many. People tend to glorify the idea of being a superstar. You have it all: the money, the fame, the power. The stars will tell us it is not that simple, but the envy will not let us understand. Imagine the amount of energy and essence that just one concert in which you give your whole existence to tens of thousands of people will rob. (And then do it for 44 years.) Imagine trying to keep your inner self intact and trying to build a protective shield between you and the people who believe they have the right to own you and know every cell in you. Imagine always staying alert against people who want to steal a piece of your fortune. Imagine the pressure of always being under public eye, of always having to stay on the top, of never making a mistake, never disappointing all those millions of fans. Money and power is good, but you can keep the fame.

And that is exactly the only thing Michael Jackson had left at the end. The worst of the best. Bankrupted, humiliated, and mentally and physically frail, he only had this fame that wouldn’t have abandoned him, no matter what people accused him for and no matter what a freak he had turned into.

Yes, the freakiness. Jacko the Wacko. But the freakiness is just a part of what he was. He wouldn’t have been Michael Jackson, the unbeatable King of Pop, without the freakiness. If you stand on the stage since the age of four, glorified my masses but also mistreated by people who are closest to you; if you never had a childhood, and never had a person that was truly supporting you through all those incredible things happening with your life; and if you could afford it – well, you had to become a freak. Freakiness was his way of helping himself. An illusion of Neverland, his paradise in which he was safe and happy; an illusion of Batman and Superman, who were his best friends; an illusion that he was – and looked like – an ethereal being like Peter Pan. They were his crooks. And we loved him for them.

Yes, we loved the freak in Michael Jackson. Millions of girls of my generation fell in love with him for this childish, Peter Pan-esque flair that turned him into an androgynous and ageless being. When you dreamt of Michael Jackson at the age of 14, it felt safe, because there was nothing sexual about him. He was not a man. He was a boy. An angel, a cartoon hero, a deity. The love for him was not worldly. There was something pure and ethereal in Michael.

Speaking of which… yes, the unavoidable issue of child-molesting allegations. This absolutely does not matter. We know he was different and we know that in this freaky childishness, he must have approached those kids differently than you would expect a normal man of his age. But we also know that people are greedy and we know that those parents let their kids play with a freak. We will never know the truth about what was going on. Maybe it is better that way. Maybe not.

We will miss Michael Jackson. We will miss his energy, his talent, his moves and his movies. We will miss the freak that he was. Because he was the last of the true, God-made freaks. Welcome to the age of plastic stars with mediocre talents and nothing to give. Welcome to the substance-free era.

We better just BEAT IT!

Aren’t we just great?

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Yesterday, UNODC (United Nations on Drugs and Crime) released the World Drug Report 2009. The Report shows that global markets for cocaine, opiates and cannabis are steady or in decline, while the production and use of synthetic drugs is feared to be increasing in the developing world.

Should this be strange? Every other person in our fantastic western society is on legal drugs: antidepressants. We don’t need cocaine, opiates or cannabis anymore – we have soma. And we even get it for free – they are covered by the health/social security. “Mine are very weak” said a friend few days ago, “they are for kids and teenagers.” Great, so now we even started legally drugging our kids and teenagers.

We should urgently start exporting antidepressants to the developing world. We get to earn money and they don’t have to “produce and use” synthetic drugs. A win-win situation par excellence.

Satrapi vs. Nafisi. 1:0.

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

The Mind and the Heart of Iranian Women

Two stories about lives of women in Iran have been loudly heard in past years: Reading Lolita in Tehran and Persepolis. They are interesting for their similarities and contrasts.

Two female Iranian voices have been loudly heard in the world of literature during past few years: first came Azar Nafisi in 2003 with her bestselling book Reading Lolita in Tehran. And then, in 2007, came Marjane Satrapi with the award-winning movie Persepolis based on her book of memoirs from 2000. There are a lot of similarities between the stories of these two women: Both grew up in Iran, both have studied in a western country, both have returned to Iran, just to flee the country for one last time. And finally, both of them have put a pen to paper to write about their lives in Iran, about the country and its people, about the revolution, the war with Iraq and the oppressive regime. But this is where the similarities end and the differences start. The first and most obvious difference being: one wrote her story and the other one drew it.

Further differences show up right upon starting to read the books. It is this game of comparing and contrasting that makes parallel reading the work of those two women interesting. Whereas they are both criticising the Islamic regime in their home country and showing a painful picture of what it means to be a woman under such a regime, there is one major difference: Nafisi does this with her mind and Satrapi with her heart.  Maybe this is the reason why Nafisi faced strong criticism – much can be forgiven to the heart.

Reading Lolita in Thehran has been on the New York Times bestseller list for over one hundred weeks and has been translated into thirty-two languages. The fact that Nafisi is an academic and that she had studied literature explains the complex construction of her book. Her book works on three levels: descriptions of every day life in Tehran, stories about meetings of her book club in which she discussed with her students the western literature forbidden in Iran, and finally, the analysis of those books. The book is divided into four sections, each with its theme. In Lolita, the main theme is oppression –and it describes how revolutionary guards assert their authority. Gatsby chapter is about the dream, in this case the Iranian dream of revolution and the way it was shattered for Nafisi. The James chapter is about uncertainty which totalitarian mindsets have a strong aversion towards. Austen is about the women’s choice.

The book covers Nafisi’s return from the studies in the USA to Iran in 1981, the years of teaching at the university in Tehran, the years of her book club and finally how she fled the country in 1997 to start a life in USA. And as much as Satrapi is bound by her medium, a black-and-white cartoon, to keep herself short and simple, Nafisi’s 343 pages of a book allow her descriptions to be detailed, analytical and colourful. She will take you, tuck you directly into a scene by describing it precisely and then still analyse the same scene for you. You will read about how it is to be arrested and spend time in an Iranian jail, how a house-raiding looks like, how it is to dare and reject wearing a headscarf. These in-depth descriptions of life in Iran will give you a feeling you are learning all about the life as a woman under a regime.

Still, despite its success in attracting many readers in the west, Reading Lolita in Tehran has not been successful with Iranians who believe Nafisi unjustly caricatures the country. The book has earned some strong criticism by Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi, who saw it as propaganda for the Bush administration. Literature professor Fatemeh Keshavarz, who wrote a book entitled Jasmines and Stars: Reading more than Lolita in Tehran, blames Nafisi’s book for allowing for “many damaging misrepresentations” of Iran and its people. Nafisi’s second book, Things I’ve Been Silent About, which talks about her growing up in Iran, has not followed the success of the first.

Satrapi has not been silent about anything. Persepolis is a graphic memoir recounting her rebellious childhood in Iran, her high-school education at the Lycée Français in Vienna and her short return back to Iran after which she based herself in France in 1993. The memoir is divided into two books: The first is told from the viewpoint of a young girl making sense of a difficult world around her, and in the second book, she is a young woman trying to make sense of herself. After the unexpected success of the book, which sold in millions of copies, in 2007, Satrapi turned Persepolis into a film with the help of the French director Vincent Paronnaud. The film won numerous awards and was nominated for the Oscar in the category of foreign film, and won a jury prize in Cannes.

Satrapi’s charm lies in her simple, childlike-style mixed with honesty and self-criticism. And although she draws in black-and-white, she does not, in contrary to Nasifi, show the world in black and white. While she is scathing about the hypocrisies and cruelties of Iran’s theocracy, she is equally critical of George Bush’s Christian fundamentalism. In Persepolis, she will tell about the history of Iran, the problems with the regime, the meaning of war, the search for own identity. All of this is served directly, from the guts, without much construction or analysis. This is why her book has the power to touch emotionally and provoke both laughter and tears. Instead of feeding the reader a reality, she will open a space for the reader to create his own experience of a situation. Her talent for distilling complex stories into strongly moving, beautiful vignettes tend to inspire self-examination in her readers.

Following the success of Persepolis, Strapi went on to write two more books: Embroideries and Chicken with Plums. Embroideries is a Persian version of Sex & the City – it describes a group of nine women drinking tea after lunch. One story leading to the other, these no-nonsense, witty, honest Iranian ladies start discussing sex and relationships. The book is a hilarious read. In Chicken with Plums she talks about what makes life worth living through the story of her great-uncle Nasser Ali Khan, who takes to bed after realizing that he’ll never be able to find an instrument to replace his beloved, broken tar.

Two different voices, two different lives, two different approaches, one main topic: women’s lives under an Islamic regime and finding a way to freedom. Let more of them be heard!

That’s what friends are for

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

A friend’s text message of moral support. You cannot but write books when you have friends like this. I love them.

“…in any case you deserve areal man to come into your life! A reformed asshole! He’s out there somewhere! Busy fucking someone else at the moment, but that’s only cause he hasn’t met you yet!!!”

Iran and the Art of Posing Questions

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

… written on 18 June 2009…

I have just received a friend’s message on Facebook asking me to change my picture to green to show my support for the Iranian people. “Great,” I thought. “That’s the least I can do.” But then I asked myself, “Why?” Green is not the colour of the people of Iran, green is the colour of Mousawi. Why should I promote Mousawi on my profile?

In that moment, I understood that how the world is reacting to what is going on in Iran is yet another showcase of our society’s biggest failure: ignorance. We are continuously forgetting to ask questions and through this, crippling our awareness and our ability to have our own critical opinion.

A few weeks ago, there was a scandal in Austria because students in a high-school asked why Jews boarded the trains to Auschwitz. The kids were punished and labelled as anti-Semitic. They will never again dare to ask questions. I have witnessed a similar aversion towards questions at Vienna University. I attended a course taught by a professor who tried to motivate students to be more involved and more critical. This only resulted in students, who are used to passively memorise what has been served to them, starting a “riot” against the professor.

The broadcast media is playing a huge role in this, and the media is setting its own agenda. Following CNN, for example, you quickly get a very simplified, black and white picture of what is going on in Iran – of a whole country rising up in opposition against the “bad” anti-Semitic Ahmadinejad, of a whole country for the “good” reformer Mousawi. These are high-intensity, emotional reports. Suddenly you will find yourself hating a regime in a far away country and supporting the people on the streets. Without having a real clue WHY?

Watching CNN, you see again how easy it is for the media to construct a reality of their choice (it is again on us to ask “why” this very choice). The viewers are fed this reality in such a way that they are not given space to develop their own critical awareness. And it proved again with Iran: Not only are we not posing the right questions. We are not posing any questions at all.

And it is so easy to start with WHY’s: Why is Ahmadinejad “bad”? Why should Mousawi be good? Why do I believe that the elections were fraudulent? Why should I become involved? You can then continue with WHAT’s: What are those protests really about? What do Iranian people actually want? What is actually going on behind the curtains? And what role does the rest of the world play?

And once you get more informed, new important questions will rise:

What about the country’s history?

Iranians have a history of protesting and starting revolutions.  Those past protests and revolutions were often manipulated by the “west”,  ending in numerous changes in their regimes. Unfortunately, most of the time, the changes were for the worse, not bringing the wanted freedom and well-being to the population. The current regime has also come to power through the revolution of 1979.

Who are the stakeholders?

When you try to understand modern Iranian history, the political changes, regimes and power-struggles, you will get dizzy for the complexity and sad for the tragedy of this country’s history. The most tragic part in Iranian modern history is the fact that most of the upheavals were instrumented by the western world, lead by Great Britain and USA. It shocks to see how the destiny of a country of that size and that cultural history can be manipulated through a series of tragic events. So you cannot but wonder if anyone has their fingers in current protests again – and why.

Do you always believe the media?

We are witnessing yet another media-phenomenon. The Iranian government has restricted reporting, so the media had started a hunt for “gossip” and amateur reports.

The emergence of new technology, including mobile phone cameras and internet sites such as Youtube, Twitter and Facebook, has made our society addicted to any “forbidden” or “intimate” material. CNN made a special topic out of this, turning reporting from Iran into a mixture of a quest for Holy Grail and Big Brother. This ended in viewers happy to witness a hunt for forbidden and unreachable content and forgetting to question what they are seeing and hearing.

And ironically, just between the forbidden pictures from Iran, there was a report about an opening of a Banksy exhibition in the Bristol Museum. This graffiti artist owes a huge part of his fame to the fact that what he did was forbidden and he managed to stay anonymous.

What is democracy?

One of the issues discussed on CNN was if Arab people are jealous of Iranian people’s will to stand up for their rights. If we remember that only recently, USA was governed by a man whom 78% of US citizens did not approve of, then the question should have been if the US people are jealous and why haven’t they protested to push their will through? Millions of people around the world have protested against the USA’s planned attack on Iraq. In a truly democratic world, wouldn’t that have changed USA’s plans?

We are also forgetting the problems with Florida votes which lead to last Bush’s last victory. Why didn’t we get this involved back then?

Furthermore, it seems that we are only hearing the louder side, Mousawi’s followers in Teheran. But only because they are louder and more visible, are they really a majority?

And finally, let us not forget that the choice Iranian people have had in this election was far from democratic. Both candidates come from the same regime. Which leads us to the next question:

Is any change good change?

Since 1979 revolution, Iran is governed by the religious leaders. The current man in power is not Ahmadinejad, it is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Both Ahmadinejad and Mousawi are “his people”. And although Mousawi is called a “reformer”, his reforms are minimal and will not change the repressive regime in this country (as he himself stated on his website). Women will stay discriminated against, marriage age will stay 13, and people will get stoned.  Meaning that the actual protests in support of Mousawi are not about the real change of the sysrem, they are about fair counting of the votes.  Which, it has to be admitted, is a start.

It will be interesting to watch how this episode about the Iranian elections will end. I don’t like the fact that this is happening so shortly after (for the first time in the history) Israel has been not so fully supported by the USA.  Hopefully it will, just like all other stories hyped up by the media, simply get exchanged for a newer hype. But what will be left is a huge task for us not to stay ignorant, and for the Iranian people to bring true change to their country.

And once they have this vision, I will immediately change all my pictures into whatever colour they ask me to.

….and today, three days later, I must add: every dead person is one dead person too much…..

Wiens Andere Ausländer – the original

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

Wer sind Wiens Ausländer? Türken, Serben, Kroaten, Bosnier ….  Aber Wien hat ein Geheimnis: eine große Ausländer-Gruppe, die man nicht sieht, nicht spürt und über die man nie redet oder diskutiert. Niemand fragt sich, wer diese Ausländer eigentlich sind, ob sie integriert sind, und was sie für diese Stadt bedeuten. Obwohl diese Community von ca. 20,000 Menschen einen sehr starken wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Einfluss auf diese Stadt hat, ist sie unsichtbar. Wer sind Wiens „Andere Ausländer“?

Bereits wenige Jahre nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg begann Wiens Aufstieg als Sitz internationaler Organisationen: 1957 kommt Atomenergie-Organisation IAEO nach Wien. 1965 übersiedelt OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries). 1967 übersiedelte der gesamte UNIDO-Stab von New York in die österreichische Bundeshauptstadt. United Nations Office at Vienna (UNOV) gründet 1980 in Wien ihren dritten Sitz – nach New York und Genf und vor Nairobi. 1978 begann der Bau der Zentrale im Kagran. Die Baukosten waren mit acht Milliarden Schilling (580 Mio. Euro) enorm. Diese teilten sich der Bund (65%) und die Stadt Wien (35%). Die UNO bezahlt lediglich eine symbolische Jahresmiete von heute 0,07 Euro. Vermietet wurde das Gebäude der UNO für 99 Jahre.

Was wenige Bewohner Wiens wissen, ist dass Heute in ihrer Stadt insgesamt 25 internationalen Organisationen, wie z.B. die Europäische Raumfahrtorganisation ESA (European Space Agency) und Europäisches Institut für Weltraumpolitik (European Space Policy Institute, ESPI), Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa (OSZE), ihren Sitz haben. Hier arbeiten ca. 5000 Menschen. Viele Länder haben spezielle diplomatische Vertretungen bei diesen Organisationen, bei den größeren Ländern arbeiten bis zu 20 Diplomaten in diesen Vertretungen. Stadt Wien schätzt, dass internationalen Organisationen insgesamt ca. 11,000 Arbeitsplätze generieren. Man muss noch die Familie und Angehörige sowie die internationalen Schulen und Universitäten dazurechnen, um eine ungefähre Größe dieser Community zu schätzen.

Diese Menschen sind gebildet, sprechen mehrere Sprachen, sind Experten in ihrem Bereich, und wurden durch ein sehr striktes Verfahren für ihre Positionen ausgesucht. DieDiplomaten sind  nur „auf Besuch“ in Wien, da sie meist jede vier Jahre das Land wechseln. Die anderen, die Mitarbeiter bei den internationalen Organisationen, von denen ca. ein viertel Österreicher ist, bleiben meist bis zu der Pensionierung in Wien. Diese Jobs sind hervorragend bezahlt und bieten neben Sicherheit noch Extras – unter anderem sie Befreiung von Steuern.

Die erste Generation dieser „anderen Ausländer“ ist in den Siebzigern nach Wien gekommen ist, mittlerweile ist schon die dritte Generation dieser „anderen Ausländer“ auf der Welt – und das ist oft die erste, die fließend Deutsch spricht.

Offizielle Sprache in den internationalen Organisationen ist English. Gearbeitet wird auf Englisch, im Freundes- und Bekanntenkreis ist meistens Englisch die dominierende Sprache. Kinder besuchen englischsprachige  Kindergärten und Schulen: 1959 wurde Vienna International School gegründet. Die Schule hat 1400 Schüler, von Kindergarten bis Gymnasium, von denen 80% Kinder der UN-Mitarbeiter sind. American International School, im gleichen Jahr gegründet, ist mit 730 Studenten die zweitgrößte internationale Schule in Wien. Weiters gibt es noch Danube International School, Vienna Christian School, und Lycée Français.

Und wer bis zum Studium noch kein Deutsch gelernt hat, auch kein Problem: Auf die Uni geht man meistens in ein anderem Land.  Die Einstellung, in einem neuen Lebenseinschnitt in ein anderes Land zu ziehen, haben diese Jugendlichen von Beginn an mitbekommen. Zum Beispiel Ravin. Seine Mutter ist Kroatin und sein Vater Inder, beide arbeiten bei der UNO. Geboren ist Ravin in damaligem Jugoslawien, aufgewachsen in Wien, studiert hat er in den USA und arbeitet jetzt in England. Zu Hause, in Wien, wird Kroatisch, Englisch und Hindu gesprochen.

Wenn die nur Englisch sprechende Jugendliche in Wien zum Studium bleiben wollen, haben sie mehrere Möglichkeiten – die amerikanische Webster University öffnete vor 28 Jahren ihren Wiener Campus. Hier studieren 500 Studenten und arbeiten um100 Professoren und Angestellte. Man kann aber auch zwischen Christian University, MODUL und Krems wählen.

Das Englisch, das diese internationale Community spricht ist ein eigenes Vienna-International-Englisch. Es beinhaltet viele Deutsche Wörter und hat eine Mischung aus dem britischen, amerikanischen und österreichischen Akzent. Dazu hat noch jede Organisation, sogar jede internationale Schule in Wien, ihren eigenen Akzent – wenn man mit den Menschen aus dieser Community spricht, weißt man gleich, ob sie oder sie bei OSZE oder UNO arbeiten oder auf welcher internationalen Schule in Wien sie waren.

Deutsch spricht man genug um das Essen in einem Restaurant zu bestellen und einzukaufen. Mehr braucht man auch nicht. Was wenige Wiener wissen, ist dass ihre Stadt alles auf Englisch bietet: drei Kinos zeigen Filme in Originalfassung (ohne Untertitel); English Theater und International Theater spielen ihre Vorführungen ausschließlich auf Englisch; Es gibt Buchhandlungen wie Shakespeare & Co. und British Bookshop, die auf englischsprachige Bücher spezialisiert sind. Und seit 23 Jahren gibt es Pickwicks, eine Videothek in der alle Filme auf Englisch sind – was in den Zeiten vor DVD auch wichtig war.

Grosse Banken in Wien bieten spezielle Betreuungen für Diplomaten und Mitarbeiter der internationalen Organisationen.  Das „Vienna Service Office“ bietet als Außenstelle der Stadt Wien kostenloses Service für Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter der UN-Organisationen und deren Familienmitglieder. Neuankömmlinge finden hier eine große Anzahl an wienrelevanten Broschüren und Prospekten. Das Magazin „Cercle Diplomatique“, in 1971 gegründet, hält das diplomatische Corps im laufenden.

Diese Community hält fast hermetisch zusammen. Man arbeitet zusammen, die Kinder gehen zusammen in die Schule, und am Abend trifft man sich in Pubs wie Charlie P’s. Sie vernetzen sich auch durch Institutionen wie „American Women’s Association“. Und jedes Jahr vor den Weihnachten organisieren die UNO-Frauen einen Internationalen Wolltätigkeits-Bazar, auf dem Folklore und Produkte aus allen Ländern präsentiert werden.

Wien gibt diesen Menschen viel – die beste Lebensqualität auf der Welt, seine Geschichte, seine Kultur, und unzählige Privilegien. Schaffen es diese „andere Ausländer“, Wien genug von dem „anderen“ zu geben und Wien dadurch zu einer wirklich internationalen Stadt zu machen?

Oder sind sie dafür zu unsichtbar?

Journalism?

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

I am wondering if I am just learning what it is to be a journalist or if am I writing for a wrong newspaper?

I wrote an article about Vienna’s “other foreigners”. Vienna is the city of foreigners. Under “foreigners”, people here understand Turks, Serbs, Croats… What is completely ignored, is that Vienna is one of hubs centres of international organisations. 25 such organisations are based in Vienna. This means between 20,000 and 30,000 foreigners in Vienna who belong to this international community. These people are great for their international touch, for being educated and being experts in their field. This is being recognised through their salaries, their status, their privileges – they don’t pay taxes for instance. They are given a lot. Unfortunately, this community is hermetically closed. Invisible. So I finished my article about them (which I started by saying they are invisible) by saying that this is a pity because they could also give a lot back to Vienna – in just giving it more of the “other” or being more visible. Meaning, making Vienna into a truly international city.

And what did the paper do? Simply cut the ending. So basically, I have an article out there just describing this community. Every high-school kid could have written an article like this.

I complained that not only they took the attitude and the main point out of my article, they cut its ending – it ends too abruptly. The explanation was that my ending was too much of a comment.

My question is:  what is the use of journalism if it doesn’t raise questions?

And here a quote of the day:

“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” Eleanor Roosevelt.

“Von der Barbie zum Vibrator” is out!

Thursday, June 11th, 2009

“Von der Barbie zum Vibrator” was presented in Jenseits on 9 June. I had the most fantastic audience ever – a huge thank you to everyone who was there! We had lots of fun.

The crowning of the evening was Roman Rafreider, Austria’s most handsome TV presenter, who announced a report about my book presentation on ZIB 24 (the evening news) – there was something very sexy in hearing this guy pronounce my name…. Made me want to write many, many new books.

The link to the report (which I will not comment on) is below – it starts at 19’08.

ZIB 24

presentation_vie-017

Working….

presentation_vie-032

Partying….

presentation_vie-056

And eating!

Please, don’t pimp MY ride. I like it the way it is.

Monday, June 8th, 2009

“I never had a boyfriend in my life and I think it has to do with my car.”

“If I had a nice ride, I think it would completely change my life.”

…as just head on MTV’s Pimp my Ride.

Fuck all those Germany’s Models and Pimp My Rides! How about someone finally makes Pimp my Brain, a show in which the audience will learn that it is not a new ride (OK, maybe, if the ride was 186cm tall, full of muscles, extremely cool and VERY blessed by nature) that will completely change your life – but only your fucking new attitude!?

I am becoming seriously allergic to all this brainwashing.