What Happened to The Mafia?
May 13th
Whatever happened to the Cosa Nostra? Where are the Gambinos, the Bonnanos, the Luccheses? It seems like eons have passed since the American Italian Mafia has made major headlines. It appears that the only Mafiosi left are ex-Mafiosi, eager to tell every detail of their sordid criminal careers in books and documentaries, seemingly fearless for their lives, despite completely trampling “Omerta”, the Mafia’s sacred oath of silence. Then there’s “Growing up Gotti”, a reality show with the Teflon Don’s daughter as star, and his grandson is now using the family name to promote his singing career. Has the Mob become a mere caricature of itself, after taking so much heat from the law and having its way of life and mystique relentlessly exposed for the sake of entertainment?
The long arm of the law has come down hard on the poor mobsters for decades, locking-up not just the Dons, but even minor capos (bosses). This has left the families with a void of leadership. The flamboyant John Gotti is gone (he died in jail in 2002), and the headline grabbing murders of foes are infrequent now, so the Mafia isn’t so exciting these days. There’s a lot of talk of “Mafia Wars“, but it’s just a computer game! The most recent news involving the Mafia is the indictment of fourteen Gambino family members for running a child prostitution, among other charges, something unheard of in Mafia history. Apparently, they even advertised their wares via Craigslist! They truly have sunk to new lows. Carlo Gambino would turn over in his grave!
Another Gambino family member, Anthony “Todo” Anastasio put a gun to his head and ended his life two few weeks ago in New York to avoid serving his two and a half year sentence. Doing one’s time obediently has always been a rule in the Mafia, but not for cowardly Tony. Okay, he was 81 years old, but still! It used to be the public knew better than to snitch on the mob. Well, not anymore! Thanks to lots of finger pointing, the FBI nabbed a fugitive Gambino member Steven Maiurro last month. Maiurro was wanted in connection with the aforementioned child prostitution ring. Also last month, another mobster, this one from Boston, Derek Capozzi, who had previously made a dramatic escape from a prison van was unceremoniously recaptured near Lexington, Kentucky. Capozzi had been jailed for murdering and dismembering a young trial witness. Capozzi was sent to Kentucky to give testimony at a trial, ironically. The rat killer turned rat! John “Sonny” Franzese, the 93 year old Colombo family boss, is scheduled to stand on trial on charges of racketeering, demanding money from big name strip clubs in New York.
It’s not just the American Mafia that’s beleaguered: although Italy has a significantly greater number of crime groups to deal with, including the Sicilan Mafia, the Neapolitan Camorra as well as the Calabrese ‘Ndrangheta, the government has succeeded in marginalizing these organizations through years of dogged pursuit. Giovanni Tegano, a top ‘Ndrangheta captain was captured in late April, after 17 years on the run. In Italy, the mob is still popular, as one could tell from the large supportive crowds that turned-out for Tegano’s arraignment. Just this week, the “Carabinieri” rounded-up 67 mob members in southern Italy. Among them was Paolo Schiavone, a top Camorra boss who was caught aboard his private luxury yatch while returning from his honeymoon. Mobsters in Italy seem inspired by soap operas: a Camorra boss ordered a hit on businesses owned by the man his wife left him for. The only problem is that the bumbling gangsters were caught by a video camera, terrorizing patrons at gunpoint and destroying everything in sight.
Meanwhile, the Montreal, Canada, Mafia has been active, but also having a hard time staying ahead of the law. Last December, a suspected Mafia war was unleashed when Nick Rizutto Jr, son of the alleged top mob boss in Montreal, was murdered. Eighteen Italian-owned restaurants were firebombed after the killing, presumably as a retaliation. Last week, Montreal police rounded-up the perpetrators of the arsons, whom were (oops!) also caught on video during two of the attacks.
The Mafia isn’t dead yet, but they’re no longer Men of Respect, as they once fancied themselves. Their rapid descent into irrelevance may have been accelerated by the loss of the old honor code, members too easily turning into police informers to avoid sentences that have become exceedingly long thanks to governments’ zero tolerance. Perhaps megalomaniacs like John Gotti did their part to destroy the mystique of their organization, which is what differentiated them from the ordinary hoodlums. With so many of its capos out of circulation, the Mafia’s days may be numbered.
Share this article on your favorite social network:
Related Articles:
German Film Industry Produces a Bounty of Screen Gems
May 9th
Heard of Werner Herzog? August Diehl? Bruno Ganz? Jürgen Prochnow? Klaus Kinski? If you haven’t, you most likely have seen some of their work without realizing it. Herzog is one of the most celebrated German New Cinema directors, and the rest are just some of the top German film actors. Many of Germany’s best talent have been sought out by Hollywood producers and directors for their own projects.
In the movie industry, Germany’s studios, such as Bavaria Film, are universally lauded for their high quality productions. With budgets that are only a fraction of your typical Hollywood B movie, they turn-out strongly scripted, filmed and acted movies that receive international acclaim. The film scripts are often based on events during World War II or the Cold War in East Germany, eras rich in drama. Here’s a few gems from years past, which won’t disappoint should you decide to pop one into your DVD.
The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen) – 2006: One of the best films I’ve ever had the pleasure of seeing, and I’ve seen hundreds! Featuring Sebastian Koch and Martina Gedeck as an artist couple in Cold War era East Germany. Unbeknownst to them, their every movement is observed and recorded by a Stasi spy (brilliantly acted by Ulrich Muhe) , who slowly develops an affection for the pair despite having never met.
Das Boot (1982): Wolfgang Petersen’s masterpiece, starring Jürgen Prochnow as the captain of a German submarine during the Second World War. The movie was a critical and financial success, grossing 80 million dollars worldwide. The movie was nominated for six Academy awards in 1982.
Fitzcarraldo (1982): Werner Herzog‘s incredible epic film starring Klaus Kinski. The movie follows an opera loving maniacal entrepreneur (Kinski) dragging a steam boat and crew through the Amazon jungle! No special effects in this one, the stunning scenery and scores of natives are the real deal! They really did pull the boat over a mountain top! The documentary on the making of the movie is equally riveting.
Downfall (Der Untergang): Oliver Hirschbiegel‘s 2005 stirring recount of the final days of the Third Reich, with virtually all the action taking place in or around Hitler’s bunker. Bruno Ganz plays the Führer to maniacal perfection in this Academy award nominated film. Be forewarned that there are several scenes which will linger in your mind for years, particularly the one where Frau Goebbels calmly poisons her five children, refusing to let them suffer the indignities of a Nazi-less world.
Good Bye, Lenin! (2004): This Wolfgang Becker comedy stars Daniel Brühl (the love struck young sharpshooter you saw in Inglourious Basterds) as a resourceful young man who goes to great pains to make his dying Communist party mother believe that the Soviet East Germany is still alive and well in 1989 and the Berlin Wall still stands firm.
The Counterfeiters (Die Fälscher): The winner of the Best Foreign Language Film award at the 2008 Academy awards. Karl Markovics plays a Jewish master currency counterfeiter, recruited by the Nazis while interned in a concentration camp. August Diehl (the vicious Gestapo officer from the tavern scene in Inglourious Basterds), plays a fellow prisoner bent on sabotaging his operation.
There are many more unforgettable German films out there, but after you get a taste of those I’ve just recommended, you might just go hunt down the rest yourself! Note that when one speaks of German cinema, one might also be talking about Austrian film. Austria is a German speaking nation and the two countries frequently cooperate on film productions and their actors are interchangeable.
Share this article on your favorite social network:
Related Articles:
Why is the US in Iraq? Here’s a New Theory
May 2nd
For what motive did the United States invade Iraq in 2003? The question is seldom asked anymore, and the answer is just as elusive as it was seven years ago. Let me first say that I’m a firm believer that democracy would have been extinguished 65 years ago were it not for the might and strong egalitarian principles of the United States. True democracy grants us the right to question the actions of the very same people who guarantee and protect such freedoms…and question we must!
Photo by Nick Winchester
The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan had the UN’s seal of approval and included the direct participation of many countries, including several Muslim nations. The crude Islamic Taliban regime harbored and aided the Osama Bin Laden and his band of Al Qaeda terrorists who had masterminded the September 11 attacks and taunted the Americans. Nobody doubted that they had brought the war on themselves and that the United States was righteously defending itself from further terrorist attempts. For once, the world was fully behind the United States, but two years later, president George W Bush overestimated how far that support could stretch and began hinting at a new front, this time in Iraq, or should I say, once again in Iraq.
A true coalition force with United Nations backing led by the US had repelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, the oil rich emirate that Saddam Hussein had savagely snatched in 1990. Hussein had grossly miscalculated the West’s will to defend the tiny territory, and the entire world watched via CNN as his army was completely demolished, the victim of operation Desert Storm. Allied armored columns arrived at the gates of Baghdad and the brutal Hussein dictatorship appeared to be on the verge of ending. However, the troops never entered the capital. Why? To understand Iraq War 2003, you have to grasp the tenets of the end game of Iraq War 1991. As recognized by president George Bush Sr himself, removing the Iraqi government from office was beyond the UN’s mandate and would have resulted in the need for a prolonged occupation, as it was widely believed that a bloodbath among the many Iraqi factions would have erupted shortly after the Hussein regime was toppled. Further tying their hands was the fact that their Middle Eastern allies strongly objected to any scenario involving US/allied occupation of Iraq. In other words, everybody knew that it would have been a political and military quagmire to depose Hussein at the time. The calculation proved to be correct and the badly wounded Iraqis were no longer a threat for the next decade.
What made Washington change its mind in 2003, knowing full well that an occupation would bear the same consequences as it would have in 1991? All the arguments used to justify the war, including the presence of weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil, collaboration between Hussein and Al Qaeda, as well as insinuations of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks, were all widely discredited even before the first shot was fired. Yet forge ahead they did, embarking on a costly crusade without the United Nations on board, with strong condemnation from several European allies, and with only a symbolic participation by foreign troops save for the UK, its staunchest supporter. It’s worth noting that while the international community did not approve of the war, the American public was overwhelmingly supportive. One has to remember that never before had Americans felt so vulnerable on their own soil. The invisible enemy was everywhere, and thus when their government told them they knew where to find them, they opted to believe. A 2007 Newsweek opinion poll showed that 40% of Americans still believed that Iraqis participated in 9-11 despite all evidence to the contrary, including a 2006 interview with Bush where he admitted Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks. The profound change in the American psyche since 2001 is fully understandable and should never be derided.
All this, however, doesn’t answer the real question: why did the US push this agenda, knowing the fallout could be severe? I refuse to believe that the United States, which has the largest and most sophisticated intelligence gathering network and more thinkers and advisors than any other country on earth, can make rash decisions based on weak intel. Yes, mistakes can be made, but it doesn’t seem rational that an average of two billion dollars a week* would be spent on a mistake for seven years with no end in sight. No, the bumbling fools theory is too far fetched. There had to be concrete reasons and goals for this endeavor, which can’t be revealed.
It’s now known that George W Bush had an Iraqi invasion on his mind the minute he took office in 2001. Was the aftermath of 9-11 just an opportune moment to execute his plan, disguising it with the mantle of the War on Terror? Again, this is part of the explanation of how Iraq 2003 saw the light of day, but it doesn’t answer the big Why! How do you convince the military and political establishment to go along with a whimsical war? Doesn’t seem plausible. The most popular theory holds that the US needed to secure a vast source of petroleum and interfere with OPEC. Iraq has the world’s fourth largest proven oil reserves**. Hussein was already a pariah in the Muslim world, his armed forces in shambles, thus a cheap target politically. I’m immediately suspicious of any conspiracy theory that involves both big US oil companies and the US government, even if it was espoused by Alan Greenspan, the former head of the US central bank, and Ralph Nader’s Green Party. The US has only invaded other countries for political, never economic , motives. Why would that have suddenly changed?
The Green party issued a press release, February 24, 2003, one month before the offensive in Iraq began, that offered evidence that this war was all about oil. It cited, among other things, the fact that Senator Richard Lugar, then on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had warned France and Russia that they wouldn’t have a share in Iraq’s oil resources if they didn’t sign-on as members of the coalition (they didn’t). It also denounced that Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy Board wrote a paper in 2002 recommending the invasion of Iraq as a first step in gaining control over middle eastern oil. Presidential candidate John McCain seemed to admit the war was about oil during one of his town hall meetings in 2008, but then again he said a lot of things off the cuff, even claiming he knew how to find Osama Bin Laden. Many pundits in early 2003 also made the case that Iraq has some of the largest unexploited known oil and gas reserves in the world, making it an attractive acquisition. Sobering facts, no doubt, but the oddest piece of news was that in January 2003, while the Pentagon was perfecting its invasion plans, the US faced a 1.5 million barrel a day shortfall. Who did they turn to, to avoid a crisis? That’s right: Iraq! The US thereby demonstrated that it already held considerable influence over Iraqi oil via American and allied petroleum conglomerates.
Post-2003 Iraqi crude oil production has been in the two million to 2.4 million barrels a day range, comparable to the pre-2003 output**. One has to remember that the country still suffers from widespread infrastructure damage from the wars with Iran and the 2003 coalition, as well as recurring terrorist attacks against oil facilities, particularly pipelines. Additionally, Iraq must still pay 5 percent of oil revenues as compensation to Kuwait (it was 25 percent prior to 2003), as per UN sanctions, a cost that must be passed on to production companies. However, projections for 2014 call for a daily production level of 4.5 million barrels. Overall, some estimates place Iraq’s potential at 12 million barrels per day, which, if realized, would place it first in the world. Iraq currently exports roughly 540 thousand barrels per day** to the USA, or roughly a fifth of its production, placing it sixth among US suppliers. The bulk of Iraq’s oil exports go to China and India, countries which did not form part of the 2003 coalition. Furthermore, in recent oil field auctions held by the Iraqi oil ministry, it was Russian and Chinese firms that walked away with the juiciest deals. The biggest irony is that Iraq is still an active member of the hated OPEC cartel. Suddenly, the war for oil argument looks rather weak!
The other theory that circulated was that the US sought to stem the tide of radical Islamism by installing a democracy in a significant Middle Eastern country, namely Iraq. This theory was spurred by comments made by George W Bush before the war, arguing that removing Hussein and putting in place a democratic system would have a domino effect in the region. The domino theory has been around since the 1950′s and was used first in reference to the spread of communism. Bush’s team simply adapted the idea, turning it into democratic contagion. Again, Iraq offered the least politically costly target and shares borders with five non-democratic Middle Eastern countries. Due to the very nature of Islam, a western style democracy in a predominantly Muslim country seems far fetched. To wit, in nearly 5 years since the first democratic elections in Iraq, there has been no signs of such a phenomenon spreading in the area, although it’s quite possible should Baghdad bring years of stability to its own people, something that appears unlikely at this point. In summary, the domino theory does have merit, but it stresses credibility as the main ulterior motive for such an immense and risky undertaking as an armed invasion followed by years of occupation.
Another theory: they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein. A British classified document from 2002 was leaked to the press in 2005. Its wording made it clear that George W Bush had wanted to remove Hussein from power and needed to put a legal spin to a military action aimed at achieving this. The spin was the weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist connection. Why was it so urgent to remove Hussein, who as a threat was already neutralized since 1991? In this case, the only possible answer is that twelve years had passed since Desert Storm, the US had the wind in its favor and there would never come a better time to install a pro-Washington government. Hussein’s time had simply run out. Why didn’t the US choose to foment a revolt from within, a far cheaper and discreet method for forcing a regime change? One can speculate that perhaps the dark horses available did not meet expectations, or that the formula had been tried and failed. Lest we forget, the US had forcibly removed heads of state before, in Panama and in Grenada, and to this day both countries prosper under democratic systems without the need for a prolonged occupation. Perhaps that experience influenced the decision to use brute force? For Iraq, I will suggest that using the military was not an option, but the real goal. That’s another theory that hasn’t been given any air time that I know of.
One only has to look at a map of the Middle East to realize the strategic importance of Iraq. Iran, America’s long time nemesis and the founding nation of the Islamic revolution and the biggest advocate of international terrorism, shares a long western border with Iraq , not to mention an eastern border with Afghanistan, where coalition troops are also entrenched. To the west of Iraq lies Syria, another terrorist supporting pariah state. Having American troops so close by presents a sobering scenario to both these states and any that could fall under the influence of the rising tide of Islamic extremism. The invasion sent an unequivocal message to its enemies: that America wasn’t a giant with feet of clay, that it wasn’t afraid to wield its power preemptively and unilaterally.
Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003? Answer: for strategic reasons. The time was right politically, Iraq’s army wasn’t a serious obstacle and nobody in the Arab world cared about Hussein anymore, who had been humiliated for more than a decade. Seen from this angle, the war in Iraq can be perceived as a victory for the US, as it achieved its goals: installing a friendly regime in Baghdad, putting US forces in a controlling position in the Middle East, as well as sending a strong message to the enemy. Not meaning to be cynical, but Sunnis and Shiites massacring one another was expected and may have been deemed acceptable collateral damage. For those who preferred the war for oil theory, the irony is that the West’s oil supplies are now more secure than they’ve ever been. Oil security may well have been one of the goals of the invasion. The strategic scenario also answers the other lingering question: when will US troops leave Iraq, and why did Obama backpedal on his troop withdrawal plan? Because of the long term threat posed by radical Islamism, US troops will likely remain in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan for a long time to come.
For obvious reasons, Washington couldn’t tell the truth, and still can’t tell the truth. What’s amazing is that even the President of the United States lied to the American public, stumbled badly when the lies were uncovered, yet got away with never telling the truth! I don’t think there’s any precedent in American history, but again I must repeat that these are special times, and it’s almost certain that those who know the truth will cite national security as the reason for their secrecy.
This is just another theory and only time will tell if it’s correct, when some Pentagon or White House insider finally blows the whistle. What you must never forget is that it’s your right to know the truth, even if it’s a question of national security.
* According to the Congressional Research Service
* * Statistical source: EIA
Share this article on your favorite social network:
Related Articles:
Nine Years of Living Abroad…Am I Nuts?
Apr 25th
By the time the month of June rolls around, I will have lived as an expatriate for nine years. I have no regrets and will likely end my life living quite far away from the land where I was born: Canada. Why would any sane person want to abandon what is said by many to be the best country in the world? One word immediately comes to mind: cold. Canada is also the coldest country on earth, even colder than Russia. It’s not the only reason for my exile, but as one Canadian who spent every rainy cold autumn dreading winter, every never ending frigid winter waiting desperately for spring, every cool spring wishing for summer, and every brief, bug infested summer hoping against hope it would stick around just a bit longer, leaving was my salvation!
My escape started in Cozumel, Mexico, then Argentina, followed by the Canary Islands, then Argentina again, then a stint in Mauritius, and finally ending-up, to my greatest surprise, in Colombia, where I’ve now been for two and a half years. I should admit I had a brief relapse after the Canaries, briefly returning to settle in my native Montreal, only to flee as autumn chilled my spirits. A lot has happened during these nine years, including a lot of invaluable experiences in living on this beautiful spinning orb. I’m not a millionaire, nor retired, yet I’ve lived an idyllic life, including years by the sea. More importantly, I’ve only been reacquainted with snow and cold ever so briefly on my mandatory trips back to the north country.
The first rule of an expat is to leave your culture behind and adopt that of your host country, or at least try to. I would never attempt to live in a land where I didn’t speak the language, as it would be extremely difficult to achieve a true connection and understanding of the local customs. Thus my fluency in French and Spanish has served me well. I would be lying if I told you I have never been called “gringo de m…”, but this was more the result of the domestic residents’ prejudice against foreigners, than any abrasive behavior on my part. However, by not responding in kind, I won their respect, if not their lasting friendship. You have to understand that in a lot places in the world they haven’t had a lot of exposure to people not their own, or have had rather negative experiences with tourists who may not have respected the local mores. For instance, a frighteningly high percentage of visitors to Colombia come as sex tourists, or come for the cheap drugs, or both. It’s not easy for them to shake off the perceptions that all gringos are twisted!
What stops many more people from doing what I did is the misconception that their life will be in danger in a foreign land. In over two years living in Medellin, the city made famous by Pablo Escobar, I cannot cite a single incident where I’ve felt remotely threatened. Again, I wouldn’t be telling the truth if I said absolutely nothing bad had happened while living abroad, but none of the events resulted in any harm being done to myself or my loved ones. Let’s start with Colombia: although nothing happened to me, as I mentioned, a young entrepreneur I befriended was murdered about 6 months ago in what appeared to be a premeditated execution at one of his businesses. About a year ago, assassins also ended the life of my better half’s uncle, a lawyer in a smaller city that I never got to meet. These are the only people that I’ve ever had any kind of relationship with and that were murder victims.
In Mauritius, thieves broke into our townhouse at night while we were home, taking flight with my wife’s laptop computer which had been imprudently left on the kitchen table. After this incident, I discovered that virtually all the expats in our neighborhood had their homes broken into, some as many as five times. On a visit to Rio de Janeiro, my girlfriend from that epoch and I had barely left the restaurant where we had dinner when we were immediately swarmed by favela (slum) kids. We managed to hop into a taxi, with the street urchins in hot pursuit. The only other incident happened recently, when thieves attempted, but failed, to rob me when I walked alone in Buenos Aires, in broad daylight.
Most of these incidents resulted from errors which could have been avoided by following a few simple rules: don’t walk at night; avoid walking alone anytime; don’t leave valuables where they can be seen. The biggest robbery I ever suffered actually happened while I was on a brief visit to Canada this past summer: someone cloned my credit card and tagged me for about 2300 USD in gasoline (what did they have, a tanker?). In other words, the possibility of being a victim of crime is directly proportional to the level of caution you exercise, not so much the country where you find yourself. Plus, there’s always cities and towns where the local traditions are strong and crime virtually unknown. I found myself living in one such place, Esperanza, a town of 45,000 in Santa Fe province, Argentina, where you could walk safely at any hour and street beggars are nowhere to be seen.
Another worry many potential expats will have is for their health. While there’s no denying it’s hard to get better medical attention than in first world countries, it’s a myth that quality health care is hard to find in the rest of the world. True, the public hospital system in the developing world is often poorly run, but pick any city and you’ll find top notch private medical facilities. I’ve been well attended to the few times I required it, and for a fraction of what it would have cost in the US. Living in warm climates, however, does carry the risk of infection from a host of diseases you wouldn’t likely encounter back home. In Cozumel, Mexico, I suffered a year from giardia, which left me gaunt and weak and finally forced me to seek a new home elsewhere. In Argentina, I could never get rid of “forunculos”, ugly welts on one’s backside caused by bacteria, and in Colombia I only recently managed to control the constant nuisance of an amoeba infection. There’s much worse diseases than these, of course, and if your health is frail, perhaps expat living isn’t for you.
Fine weather that lasts all year has its price, as it sometimes can take an extreme turn, albeit briefly. In 2002, I’d run from an incoming hurricane in Cozumel, kids in tow, catching the last ferry, only to find out the storm had spun around at the last moment and landed further south. Not tempting fate is another expat motto, as a few years later a category 5 hurricane leveled Cozumel. Later on, in 2003, I unknowingly dodged one of the worst floods in Argentina’s history. A gutsy tax driver had found the last road out of Santa Fe that wasn’t yet blocked-off by slum dwellers burning tires and attacking vehicles (a daily occurrence). I’ll never forget the indigenous mother, baby in arms, rushing in an attempt to cut our path! One hour later, the city was almost completely flooded and cut-off from the outside world. Four years later, I wasn’t so lucky, and spent two weeks unable to leave Esperanza, completely inundated by days of non-stop torrential rains and hail. My future bride and I actually had our world limited to a single city block during an entire week. Medellin, my current home, is prone to earth movements, but I’m happy to report that apart from frequent “mini shakes”, I haven’t added quakes to my experiences!
Living outside of North America made me realize how spoiled and vain we are. A dishwasher isn’t only a luxury, it’s seen as unnecessary. A clothes dryer is the sun, and hot water, percolated by a small gas or electrical heater, is usually only hooked-up to the shower. The stove is a basic gas one. Using air conditioning is unthinkable, despite the stifling heat, thanks to the expensive utilities. Owning a tiny car makes you privileged. The grocery cart contains no canned goods, save perhaps a tin or two of tuna, and definitely no frozen foods unless it’s sea food. Cooking the local specialties at home is merely normal, while going to the restaurant is a rare treat. Living without the frills soon becomes normal. There’s more important things in life.
One’s family seems to be placed above everything else in many of my adopted lands. Families are big and extended and not dysfunctional! Everybody in the family is cherished, including cousins, uncles and aunts, as well as the newly added members such as I. Friends and lovers are also valued, but can never stand in the way of the family! I admit making new exotic friends wasn’t always easy. My tendency in Cozumel, the Canaries and Mauritius, I’m ashamed to say, was to bond with others in the large expat communities. A lot of these expats are fabulous characters, far from boring, not surprisingly. There were a lot of casual relationships with friendly locals, of course, but I don’t think I’d call them all friends. It was different in Argentina and here, in Colombia, because the expats are few or non-existent in the areas where I’ve lived, thus befriending the local gentry is often the only social option.
A “serial” expat like myself, is one who changes countries more often than most people change their hairstyles! It’s perhaps not the choice of most expatriates, since changing countries isn’t like moving within the same borders, as you invariably leave everything behind and start from zero when you arrive at your new host country. Some tourist destinations with lots of European expats, such as Tenerife or Mauritius, have no shortage of reasonable furnished rentals, but generally speaking the apartment or house you rent will be as bare as a nudist! I’ve sold or given away mounds of furniture, appliances, and housewares several times already. I could have bought a couple of houses with the money I threw away, but then again, if I’m never going to be in one place too long, what am I going to do with property in a far away land? If this isn’t your bag, then pick your future country well before packing-up!
Maybe I’m nuts, but at least I’m a happy nut!
Share this article on your favorite social network:
Related Articles:
Hollywood Stars and their Less Famous Acting Siblings
Apr 18th
Not surprisingly, there are a lot of brothers and sisters in Hollywood as the acting bug tends to spread among families. Which movie stars of today have a brother or sister, or even several in the same business? Have they ever shared the big screen together? Here are a few answers that perhaps you didn’t expect…
Photo by Fellipe Silva
Patricia Arquette has 3 siblings in the acting biz: Rosanna, Richmond, David and Alexis, a transsexual born Robert. David and Rosanna have solid film careers. I could not find any films where any of them shared the stage, but if it’s any consolation, David directed an episode of Medium, the TV show where Patricia is the star. Rosanna guest starred on the show in 2008, as did Richmond in 2006.
John Cusack has two older sisters in the business: Joan, an acclaimed actor you’ve seen in supporting roles in countless movies, two of which saw her nominated for Oscars, and Ann, who’s virtually unknown. All three siblings were part of the cast of the hit comedy, Grosse Pointe Blank (1997) . Joan and John have worked together on several other movies as well.
Owen Wilson, the popular comedy star has two brothers who also act, Luke and Andrew. Andrew has only been featured in four movies, while Luke is almost as famous as Owen. Luke and Owen appeared in the 2001 comedy The Royal Tennenbaums.
Alec Baldwin: This top Hollywood actor has three little brothers, Billy, Stephen and Daniel, all actors. While Alec is one of the top Hollywood actors, none of his brothers have achieved star status. None of them has ever worked together on a movie although Alec had hatched a film script for all four to act together, which to date hasn’t materialized.
Matt Dillon, the 46 year old star of such critically acclaimed movies as Crash (2005), has a younger brother, actor Kevin, who’s been cast in about 29 films, mostly in secondary roles. Kevin and Matt have never appeared together in a movie.
Ralph Fiennes, the highly respected British actor, Oscar nominated for his roles in Schindler’s List (1993) as well as The English Patient (1996), has an also famous younger brother, Joseph. Joseph was also nominated for the Oscar for two of his roles, including the lead in Shakespeare in Love (1998). The brothers have never shared a film set.
Julia Roberts, the Academy Award-winning American actor has an older brother Eric., who’s been on the cast of over 110 films, most of them forgettable. Julia had a small role in Blood Red (1987), in which Eric had a lead role.
Ben Affleck, the “A” list star, has a younger brother, Casey, a well regarded actor you’ve seen in the Ocean’s Eleven (2001) movie and its two sequels. Both brothers acted in the Oscar-winning Good Will Hunting (1997).
Sean Penn had a younger brother, Chris, who died in 2006 at age 40. Chris was cast in 46 movies, including the critically acclaimed The Funeral (1996), and acted alongside Sean for At Close Range in 1986.
Charlie Sheen: The star of Platoon (1986) and Wall Street (1987) has an older brother, Emilio Estevez, the actor/director who most know for his role in the teen angst mega-hit, The Breakfast Club (1984). Emilio and Charlie co-starred in Young Guns (1988) and Men at Work (1990). Charlie’s real name is Carlos Estevez, in case you’re wondering! Their father is actor Martin Sheen (Ramon Estevez), and two of their other siblings, Renee and Ramon Jr are also actors, but are not well known.
Jake Gyllenhaal, the top rated star, has an older sister, Maggie,. Maggie is a rising star in her own right, although mostly cast in supporting roles. Both were on-screen siblings for the indie film Donny Danko in 2001.
Jeff Bridges, the 2010 Oscar winner has an older brother Beau, who acted in over 90 films. The brothers co-starred in the critical success The Fabulous Baker Boys in 1989. Their father is the late Lloyd Bridges.
Jane Fonda, the veteran star is older sister to Peter, the actor who made his name with the 60’s cult hit Easy Rider. They didn’t appear together in any film despite both having very long careers. Their father is the late Henry Fonda.
Image by Bart Groenhuizen
Elisabeth Shue, the blond actress who shot to fame as the star of Adventures in Babysitting, has a kid brother, Andrew, better known for his role on Melrose Place, the original TV show that aired during the 90’s. They both appeared in Gracie (2007), which Andrew also produced.
Michael Madsen, the character actor who has almost 100 film credits, has a younger sister, actor Virginia. They both appeared in Being Michael Madsen, a little known 2008 mockumentary.
Dennis Quaid is the younger brother of Randy, who garnered an Oscar nomination for The Last Detail (1973). Mostly cast in supporting roles, Randy shared cast credits with Dennis for The Long Riders (1980).
Mark Wahlberg has an older brother, Donnie, with whom he’s continuously confused. Both first rose to fame as part of the boy band New Kids on the Block in the 80’s and 90’s before turning to acting. Donnie has never co-starred with his brother in any movie.
Jennifer Tilly, the squeaky voiced femme fatale from Woody Allen’s comedy Bullets Over Broadway (1994), has a younger sister, Meg, who was actually the bigger star but stopped acting after 1995. Note that their real surname is Chan, as their father was of Chinese descent. They never co-starred in any film.
Jason Bateman, the character actor you’ve seen in so many films in recent years, including the hit comedy Juno (2007) , is the younger brother of Justine Bateman, who’s best remembered for her role in the hugely successful 80’s TV show, Family Ties. Justine co-starred with Jason in Arrested Development, a TV series.
Let’s not forget two superstar siblings: Veteran actors Shirley MacLaine and younger half-brother Warren Beatty. Both were born Beaty (one t) and never shared film credits.
Share this article on your favorite social network:
