Journal articles on the topic 'Savary, bougie'

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Bougies dilation is considered an effective technique for the treatment of simple benign esophageal strictures. The “rule of three” has been advocated to prevent reported adverse events such as bleeding and perforation. However, adherence to this rule has increased the cost and duration of treatment. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety and long-term benefits of progressive bougie dilations until reaching 15 mm (45Fr) in one single session endoscopy with non-adherence to the rule of three. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected data of patients with simple benign esophageal strictures treated with multiple progressive bougie dilators until reaching 15 mm (45Fr) in one single session. RESULTS: The median age was 58 years (range 28-89), and 83.3% of patients were female. The main presenting symptom was dysphagia for solids in 11/12 cases (91.6%). The cause of their simple benign esophageal stricture was distributed as follows: 7/12 esophageal webs, 2/12 peptic stenosis, 2/12 Schatzki rings and one caustic injury. 75% required only one session for clinical success. No serious adverse events were described. No recurrence of symptoms was noted in a median follow-up of 20 months. CONCLUSION: The rule of three in patients with simple benign esophageal strictures secondary to esophageal webs, Schatzki rings and peptic strictures treated with Savary-Gilliard dilators is not necessary, showing good clinical results. Prospective studies with more patients are necessary.

The authors aimed to better define the clinical, biological, radiological, endoscopic, and evolutionary characteristics of patients presenting with Plummer-Vinson syndrome after endoscopic dilation and medical treatment in this study. There were 41 cases of Plummer-Vinson syndrome listed. All these patients presented dysphagia associated to anemia, and all have benefited endoscopic dilation and iron supplementation with a good clinical and biological course in 100% of cases. The Plummer-Vinson syndrome is a rare entity. The treatment, based essentially on endoscopic dilations, is effective and safe.

Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea L.) leaves are frequently confused with borage (Borago officinalis L.), which is traditionally used as a food ingredient. Due to the presence of the cardiac glycosides, mostly digitoxin, foxglove leaves are poisonous to human and may be fatal if ingested. A 55-year-old Caucasian woman complaining weakness, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting was admitted to the Emergency Department. Her symptoms started following consumption of a home-made savory pie with 5 leaves from a plant bought in a garden nursery as borage. Digoxinemia was high (10.4 μg/L). The patient was admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit for electrocardiographic monitoring. Two days after admission, a single episode of advanced atrioventricular (AV) block was recorded by telemetry, followed by a second-degree AV block episode. Plasma samples at day 11 were analysed by LC-MS spectrometry, and gitoxin was identified suggesting that this compound may be responsible for the clinical toxicity rather than digoxin. In the case of Digitalis spp. poisoning, laboratory data should be interpreted according to the clinical picture and method of analysis used since a variety of glycosides, which are chemically similar to the cardioactive glycosides but without or with fewer cardiac effects, may be incorrectly recognized as digoxin by the test, giving misleading results.

L'aire de répartition des glossines au Mali couvre environ 200 000 km2 au sud du parallèle 14 30' N et à l'ouest du méridien 4 30' O. Quatre espèces ont été signalées : deux riveraines (Glossina palpalis gambiensis et G. tachinoides) et deux de savane (G. morsitans submorsitans et G. longipalpis). G. morsitans submorsitans était répartie de manière plus ou moins continue le long des frontières avec la Côte d'Ivoire, la Guinée et le Sénégal jusqu'à la limite nord du parc national de la Boucle du Baoulé. A l'est de Bamako, la densité des populations était faible, apparemment discontinue dans les zones forestières. G. palpalis gambiensis était localisée le long de la rivière Bani, du fleuve Niger et de ses affluents, et des affluents du fleuve Sénégal (Baoulé, Bafing et Bagoé). G. tachinoides était répandue le long de la plupart des rivières et des grands cours d'eau de la partie sud-est du pays. Les prospections récentes n'ont pas revélé la présence de G. longipalpis au Mali. Après plusieurs années de sécheresse et/ou un défrichement intensif, une diminution relativement importante de l'aire de répartition des glossines dans le pays a été constatée.

Abstract Aim of the Study The aim of this study was to provide an overview of endoscopic treatment in children after reconstruction of esophageal atresia. Methods This study, conducted at a single tertiary center, reviewed patients requiring endoscopic treatment during a 15-year period, from 2004 to 2018. Collected data include number, frequency, complications, and effectiveness of esophageal anastomotic dilations. Results A total of 55 children with esophageal atresia (EA) underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Of those, 37 required therapeutic endoscopy with dilation procedures for anastomotic strictures. Thirty-five patients underwent dilations using only through-the-scope (TTS) balloon (BD),1 patient using only a Savary bougie (SB), and 1 using both. A total of 126 dilations were performed using BD in 36 patients and 6 dilations using SB in 2 patients. Specifically, in children treated only with BD were performed 1 dilation in 6 children (17.1%), 2 in 6 children (17.1%), 3 in 7 children (20%), 4 in 6 children (17.1%), 5 in 6 children (17.1%), 7 in 2 children (5.7%), and 8 in 2 children (5.7%). Balloon catheter sizes ranged from 6 mm to 15 mm. In 2 patients (5.4%) stents were placed, 1 and 6 stents, respectively. Intralesional triamcinolone was injected in 8 patients (21.6%) as additional therapy. Major complications included perforation in 4 patients (10,8%), resolved with conservative treatment. All patients had clinical improvement in the follow-up. Conclusion Currently, endoscopic treatment for esophageal anastomotic stricture is the first procedure adopted in clinical practice after the surgical approach, since it is regarded safe and effective. Balloon dilations are preferred in our overview as a treatment option for esophageal anastomotic strictures. Symptom relief is reported in all cases, while the rate of complications is very low. Sometimes, refractory strictures influence the patient's quality of life and therapeutic alternatives such as stent placement should be considered.

Bought by British activists of the abolitionist cause in the late 18th century to shelter Black survivors of the slave trade, Sierra Leone as a territory was marked by the political movement of abolitionism, and by the import of colonial settlers, including Melville. When Sierra Leone became a British colony, it was populated by freed slaves and poor Blacks from Britain. In the nineteenth century, settlers such as Melville and her husband had to discover the history of the place they were colonizing. The feeling of superiority subsided, they acclimated and eventually adopted a hybrid identity. Melville’s travel letters and diary reveal that she first appreciated the fauna and flora, then the local food, and confronted with slavery, she became aware of the European brand of savagery, far mor noxious than errant drumming and funny gaits or laziness. Melville also experienced prejudice upon returning home, when she felt and was made to feel like an African, rather than a British or Scottish subject.

Abstract Objective and Study Esophageal stenosis is the most common morbidity associated with congenital esophageal atresia (EA). There is no consensus regarding the endoscopic management of strictures in terms of timing and techniques of dilations. The aim of this study is to describe the endoscopic management of esophageal stenosis in children with EA admitted to our tertiary care center. Methods A retrospective descriptive single-center study was conducted. Data were collected of all patients diagnosed with EA admitted to the ‘Women's and Children's Hospital’ of Verona, Italy, between 2004 and 2017. Results Thirty-seven patients with EA were admitted to our center between 2004 and 2017. Twenty of them were excluded for insufficient data. All patients underwent surgical correction within 2 months of life. An endoscopic control with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed in all of them. Eleven (65%) subjects had tracheoesophageal fistula. All of them had type C EA. Three (18%) had long-gap EA. Eleven patients (65%), 8 with Type C EA and 3 with Type A EA, underwent endoscopic dilation. Semirigid Savary-Giliard bougies were used in most of them. Pneumatic dilation with balloon was performed only in one case. Nine (81%) needed more than one dilation due to anastomotic stricture recurrence. In 3 of the 11 subjects (27%) more than 3 dilations were necessary. Two of them had long-gap EA. The median age of first endoscopic dilation was 3 months (range: 1–12 months). The median age of the last dilation was 6 months (range: 1–18 months). One of the 11 patients who underwent dilations (Type C EA with long gap) underwent surgical retreatment due to fistula recurrence. Six of the 17 subjects (35%) enrolled developed long-term complications. Conclusion Our data confirmed that anastomotic stricture is frequent in patients with EA who underwent surgical correction. Endoscopic management of stenosis is a safe and effective procedure that leads to a limited number of complications. Side effects are more likely to occur in patients with long-gap EA. Timing of dilations and endoscopic technique should be defined by international guidelines in order to improve patient's outcome.

Abstract Background Esophageal atresia (EA) is the most common congenital anomaly of the esophagus. Anastomotic strictures (AS) frequently occur in patients surgically treated for esophageal atresia (EA). The primary aim of this study is to determine the role of esophageal dilations in the management of AS in childhood after reconstruction of EA. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients treated with esophageal dilation for EA was conducted at our tertiary referral center from 2013 to 2017. We included patients treated at our Institution since diagnosis and patients referred from other Institutions. All dilations were performed with Savary-Gilliard polyvinyl bougies. Dilation was performed on an ‘as needed’ basis. Results Eighty-nine patients (68.5% males, 31.5% female) underwent 433 dilations overall in the study period (median: 3, range: 1–36). Type I of EA was 26.1%, Type II was 9.1%, Type III was 64.8%. Associated malformations in 52.8% cases. Six patients received 33 local applications of mitomycin C (MMC) and two of triamcinolone acetate for recurrent stenosis. Four patients developed a preanastomotic diverticulum-treated endoscopically. Nine patients (10.1%) underwent dynamic esophageal stent placement after a median of six dilations. Antireflux surgery was performed in 28 patients (31.5%), Nissen fundoplication in 20 patients, Toupet in 6, and both in 2. Patients treated with antireflux surgery received a mean of 7.1 dilations before surgery, versus 3.9 in patients without antireflux surgery (P = 0.0285, unpaired t test). Seven patients (7.9%), 5 referral, needed major esophageal surgery (4 esophageal reanastomosis and 3 esophagocolonplasty). Patients underwent major surgery received a mean of 19.3 dilations versus 3.6 dilations in no-surgery patients (P = 0.0002, Mann-Whitney U test). Six of 9 stented patients did not require surgery. Perforation was present in 0.4% of 433 dilatations. Conclusions Esophageal dilatation remains the mainstay of treatment for AS after EA repair. Stricture resection with end-to-end anastomosis is the reconstructive option of choice; esophageal substitution is reserved only in cases of intractable stricture. The use of esophageal dynamic stent, MMC, or steroids could help in avoiding or delaying the need of operative stricture resection. Antireflux surgery is mandatory in case of severe pathological gastroesophageal reflux to prevent intractable strictures from developing.

Dégueulasse is French slang for “disgusting,” derived in 1867 from the French verb dégueuler, to vomit. Despite its vulgar status, it is frequently used by almost every French speaker, including foreigners and students. It is also a term that has often been employed to describe the 1973 cult film, La Grande bouffe [Blow Out], by Marco Ferreri, which recounts in grotesque detail the gastronomic suicide of four male protagonists. This R-rated French-Italian production was booed, and the director spat on, at the 26th Cannes Film Festival—the Jury President, Ingrid Bergman, said it was the most “sordid” film she’d ever seen, and is even reported to have vomited after watching it (Télérama). Ferreri nevertheless walked away with the Prix FIPRESCI, awarded by the Federation of International Critics, and it is apparently the largest grossing release in the history of Paris with more than 700,000 entries in Paris and almost 3 million in France overall. Scandal sells, and this was especially seemingly so 1970s, when this film was avidly consumed as part of an unholy trinity alongside Bernardo Bertolucci’s Le Dernier Tango à Paris [Last Tango in Paris] (1972) and Jean Eustache’s La Maman et la putain [The Mother and the Whore] (1973). Fast forward forty years, though, and at the very moment when La Grande bouffe was being commemorated with a special screening on the 2013 Cannes Film Festival programme, a handful of University of Melbourne French students in a subject called “Matters of Taste” were boycotting the film as an unacceptable assault to their sensibilities. Over the decade that I have been showing the film to undergraduate students, this has never happened before. In this article, I want to examine critically the questions of taste that underpin this particular predicament. Analysing firstly the intradiegetic portrayal of taste in the film, through both gustatory and aesthetic signifiers, then the choice of the film as a key element in a University subject corpus, I will finally question the (dis)taste displayed by certain students, contextualising it as part of an ongoing socio-cultural commentary on food, sex, life, and death. Framed by a brief foray into Bourdieusian theories of taste, I will attempt to draw some conclusions on the continual renegotiation of gustatory and aesthetic tastes in relation to La Grande bouffe, and thereby deepen understanding of why it has become the incarnation of dégueulasse today. Theories of Taste In the 1970s, the parameters of “good” and “bad” taste imploded in the West, following political challenges to the power of the bourgeoisie that also undermined their status as the contemporary arbiters of taste. This revolution of manners was particularly shattering in France, fuelled by the initial success of the May 68 student, worker, and women’s rights movements (Ross). The democratization of taste served to legitimize desires different from those previously dictated by bourgeois norms, enabling greater diversity in representing taste across a broad spectrum. It was reflected in the cultural products of the 1970s, including cinema, which had already broken with tradition during the New Wave in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and became a vector for political ideologies as well as radical aesthetic choices (Smith). Commonly regarded as “the decade that taste forgot,” the 1970s were also a time for re-assessing the sociology of taste, with the magisterial publication of Pierre Bourdieu’s Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1979, English trans. 1984). As Bourdieu refuted Kant’s differentiation between the legitimate aesthetic, so defined by its “disinterestedness,” and the common aesthetic, derived from sensory pleasures and ordinary meanings, he also attempted to abolish the opposition between the “taste of reflection” (pure pleasure) and the “taste of sense” (facile pleasure) (Bourdieu 7). In so doing, he laid the foundations of a new paradigm for understanding the apparently incommensurable choices that are not the innate expression of our unique personalities, but rather the product of our class, education, family experiences—our habitus. Where Bourdieu’s theories align most closely with the relationship between taste and revulsion is in the realm of aesthetic disposition and its desire to differentiate: “good” taste is almost always predicated on the distaste of the tastes of others. Tastes (i.e. manifested preferences) are the practical affirmation of an inevitable difference. It is no accident that, when they have to be justified, they are asserted purely negatively, by the refusal of other tastes. In matters of taste, more than anywhere else, all determination is negation; and tastes are perhaps first and foremost distastes, disgust provoked by horror or visceral intolerance (“sick-making”) of the tastes of others. “De gustibus non est disputandum”: not because “tous les goûts sont dans la nature,” but because each taste feels itself to be natural—and so it almost is, being a habitus—which amounts to rejecting others as unnatural and therefore vicious. Aesthetic intolerance can be terribly violent. Aversion to different life-styles is perhaps one of the strongest barriers between the classes (Bourdieu). Although today’s “Gen Y” Melbourne University students are a long way from 1970s French working class/bourgeois culture clashes, these observations on taste as the corollary of distaste are still salient tools of interpretation of their attitudes towards La Grande bouffe. And, just as Bourdieu effectively deconstructed Kant’s Critique of Aesthetic Judgement and the 18th “century of taste” notions of universality and morality in aesthetics (Dickie, Gadamer, Allison) in his groundbreaking study of distinction, his own theories have in turn been subject to revision in an age of omnivorous consumption and eclectic globalisation, with various cultural practices further destabilising the hierarchies that formerly monopolized legitimate taste (Sciences Humaines, etc). Bourdieu’s theories are still, however, useful for analysing La Grande bouffe given the contemporaneous production of these texts, as they provide a frame for understanding (dis)taste both within the filmic narrative and in the wider context of its reception. Taste and Distaste in La Grande bouffe To go to the cinema is like to eat or shit, it’s a physiological act, it’s urban guerrilla […] Enough with feelings, I want to make a physiological film (Celluloid Liberation Front). Marco Ferreri’s statements about his motivations for La Grande bouffe coincide here with Bourdieu’s explanation of taste: clearly the director wished to depart from psychological cinema favoured by contemporary critics and audiences and demonstrated his distaste for their preference. There were, however, psychological impulses underpinning his subject matter, as according to film academic Maurizio Viano, Ferrari had a self-destructive, compulsive relation to food, having been forced to spend a few weeks in a Swiss clinic specialising in eating disorders in 1972–1973 (Viano). Food issues abound in his biography. In an interview with Tullio Masoni, the director declared: “I was fat as a child”; his composer Phillipe Sarde recalls the grand Italian-style dinners that he would organise in Paris during the film; and, two of the film’s stars, Marcello Mastroianni and Ugo Tognazzi, actually credit the conception of La Grande bouffe to a Rabelaisian feast prepared by Tognazzi, during which Ferreri exclaimed “hey guys, we are killing ourselves!” (Viano 197–8). Evidently, there were psychological factors behind this film, but it was nevertheless the physiological aspects that Ferreri chose to foreground in his creation. The resulting film does indeed privilege the physiological, as the protagonists fornicate, fart, vomit, defecate, and—of course—eat, to wild excess. The opening scenes do not betray such sordid sequences; the four bourgeois men are introduced one by one so as to establish their class credentials as well as display their different tastes. We first encounter Ugo (Tognazzi), an Italian chef of humble peasant origins, as he leaves his elegant restaurant “Le Biscuit à soupe” and his bourgeois French wife, to take his knives and recipes away with him for the weekend. Then Michel (Piccoli), a TV host who has pre-taped his shows, gives his apartment keys to his 1970s-styled baba-cool daughter as he bids her farewell, and packs up his cleaning products and rubber gloves to take with him. Marcello (Mastroianni) emerges from a cockpit in his aviator sunglasses and smart pilot’s uniform, ordering his sexy airhostesses to carry his cheese and wine for him as he takes a last longing look around his plane. Finally, the judge and owner of the property where the action will unfold, Philippe (Noiret), is awoken by an elderly woman, Nicole, who feeds him tea and brioche, pestering him for details of his whereabouts for the weekend, until he demonstrates his free will and authority, joking about his serious life, and lying to her about attending a legal conference in London. Having given over power of attorney to Nicole, he hints at the finality of his departure, but is trying to wrest back his independence as his nanny exhorts him not to go off with whores. She would rather continue to “sacrifice herself for him” and “keep it in the family,” as she discreetly pleasures him in this scene. Scholars have identified each protagonist as an ideological signifier. For some, they represent power—Philippe is justice—and three products of that ideology: Michel is spectacle, Ugo is food, and Marcello is adventure (Celluloid Liberation Front). For others, these characters are the perfect incarnations of the first four Freudian stages of sexual development: Philippe is Oedipal, Michel is indifferent, Ugo is oral, and Marcello is impotent (Tury & Peter); or even the four temperaments of Hippocratic humouralism: Philippe the phlegmatic, Michel the melancholic, Ugo the sanguine, and Marcello the choleric (Calvesi, Viano). I would like to offer another dimension to these categories, positing that it is each protagonist’s taste that prescribes his participation in this gastronomic suicide as well as the means by which he eventually dies. Before I develop this hypothesis, I will first describe the main thrust of the narrative. The four men arrive at the villa at 68 rue Boileau where they intend to end their days (although this is not yet revealed). All is prepared for the most sophisticated and decadent feasting imaginable, with a delivery of the best meats and poultry unfurling like a surrealist painting. Surrounded by elegant artworks and demonstrating their cultural capital by reciting Shakespeare, Brillat-Savarin, and other classics, the men embark on a race to their death, beginning with a competition to eat the most oysters while watching a vintage pornographic slideshow. There is a strong thread of masculine athletic engagement in this film, as has been studied in detail by James R. Keller in “Four Little Caligulas: La Grande bouffe, Consumption and Male Masochism,” and this is exacerbated by the arrival of a young but matronly schoolmistress Andréa (Ferréol) with her students who want to see the garden. She accepts the men’s invitation to stay on in the house to become another object of competitive desire, and fully embraces all the sexual and gustatory indulgence around her. Marcello goes further by inviting three prostitutes to join them and Ugo prepares a banquet fit for a funeral. The excessive eating makes Michel flatulent and Marcello impotent; when Marcello kicks the toilet in frustration, it explodes in the famous fecal fountain scene that apparently so disgusted his then partner Catherine Deneuve, that she did not speak to him for a week (Ebert). The prostitutes flee the revolting madness, but Andréa stays like an Angel of Death, helping the men meet their end and, in surviving, perhaps symbolically marking an end to the masculinist bourgeoisie they represent.To return to the role of taste in defining the rise and demise of the protagonists, let me begin with Marcello, as he is the first to die. Despite his bourgeois attitudes, he is a modern man, associated with machines and mobility, such as the planes and the beautiful Bugatti, which he strokes with greater sensuality than the women he hoists onto it. His taste is for the functioning mechanical body, fast and competitive, much like himself when he is gorging on oysters. But his own body betrays him when his “masculine mechanics” stop functioning, and it is the fact that the Bugatti has broken down that actually causes his death—he is found frozen in driver’s seat after trying to escape in the Bugatti during the night. Marcello’s taste for the mechanical leads therefore to his eventual demise. Michel is the next victim of his own taste, which privileges aesthetic beauty, elegance, the arts, and fashion, and euphemises the less attractive or impolite, the scatological, boorish side of life. His feminized attire—pink polo-neck and flowing caftan—cannot distract from what is happening in his body. The bourgeois manners that bind him to beauty mean that breaking wind traumatises him. His elegant gestures at the dance barre encourage rather than disguise his flatulence; his loud piano playing cannot cover the sound of his loud farts, much to the mirth of Philippe and Andréa. In a final effort to conceal his painful bowel obstruction, he slips outside to die in obscene and noisy agony, balanced in an improbably balletic pose on the balcony balustrade. His desire for elegance and euphemism heralds his death. Neither Marcello nor Michel go willingly to their ends. Their tastes are thwarted, and their deaths are disgusting to them. Their cadavers are placed in the freezer room as silent witnesses to the orgy that accelerates towards its fatal goal. Ugo’s taste is more earthy and inherently linked to the aims of the adventure. He is the one who states explicitly: “If you don’t eat, you won’t die.” He wants to cook for others and be appreciated for his talents, as well as eat and have sex, preferably at the same time. It is a combination of these desires that kills him as he force-feeds himself the monumental creation of pâté in the shape of the Cathedral of Saint-Peter that has been rejected as too dry by Philippe, and too rich by Andréa. The pride that makes him attempt to finish eating his masterpiece while Andréa masturbates him on the dining table leads to a heart-stopping finale for Ugo. As for Philippe, his taste is transgressive. In spite of his upstanding career as a judge, he lies and flouts convention in his unorthodox relationship with nanny Nicole. Andréa represents another maternal figure to whom he is attracted and, while he wishes to marry her, thereby conforming to bourgeois norms, he also has sex with her, and her promiscuous nature is clearly signalled. Given his status as a judge, he reasons that he can not bring Marcello’s frozen body inside because concealing a cadaver is a crime, yet he promotes collective suicide on his premises. Philippe’s final transgression of the rules combines diabetic disobedience with Oedipal complex—Andréa serves him a sugary pink jelly dessert in the form of a woman’s breasts, complete with cherries, which he consumes knowingly and mournfully, causing his death. Unlike Marcello and Michel, Ugo and Philippe choose their demise by indulging their tastes for ingestion and transgression. Following Ferreri’s motivations and this analysis of the four male protagonists, taste is clearly a cornerstone of La Grande bouffe’s conception and narrative structure. It is equally evident that these tastes are contrary to bourgeois norms, provoking distaste and even revulsion in spectators. The film’s reception at the time of its release and ever since have confirmed this tendency in both critical reviews and popular feedback as André Habib’s article on Salo and La Grande bouffe (2001) meticulously demonstrates. With such a violent reaction, one might wonder why La Grande bouffe is found on so many cinema studies curricula and is considered to be a must-see film (The Guardian). Corpus and Corporeality in Food Film Studies I chose La Grande bouffe as the first film in the “Matters of Taste” subject, alongside Luis Bunuel’s Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie, Gabriel Axel’s Babette’s Feast, and Laurent Bénégui’s Au Petit Marguery, as all are considered classic films depicting French eating cultures. Certainly any French cinema student would know La Grande bouffe and most cinephiles around the world have seen it. It is essential background knowledge for students studying French eating cultures and features as a key reference in much scholarly research and popular culture on the subject. After explaining the canonical status of La Grande bouffe and thus validating its inclusion in the course, I warned students about the explicit nature of the film. We studied it for one week out of the 12 weeks of semester, focusing on questions of taste in the film and the socio-cultural representations of food. Although the almost ubiquitous response was: “C’est dégueulasse!,” there was no serious resistance until the final exam when a few students declared that they would boycott any questions on La Grande bouffe. I had not actually included any such questions in the exam. The student evaluations at the end of semester indicated that several students questioned the inclusion of this “disgusting pornography” in the corpus. There is undoubtedly less nudity, violence, gore, or sex in this film than in the Game of Thrones TV series. What, then, repulses these Gen Y students? Is it as Pasolini suggests, the neorealistic dialogue and décor that disturbs, given the ontologically challenging subject of suicide? (Viano). Or is it the fact that there is no reason given for the desire to end their lives, which privileges the physiological over the psychological? Is the scatological more confronting than the pornographic? Interestingly, “food porn” is now a widely accepted term to describe a glamourized and sometimes sexualized presentation of food, with Nigella Lawson as its star, and hundreds of blog sites reinforcing its popularity. Yet as Andrew Chan points out in his article “La Grande bouffe: Cooking Shows as Pornography,” this film is where it all began: “the genealogy reaches further back, as brilliantly visualized in Marco Ferreri’s 1973 film La Grande bouffe, in which four men eat, screw and fart themselves to death” (47). Is it the overt corporeality depicted in the film that shocks cerebral students into revulsion and rebellion? Conclusion In the guise of a conclusion, I suggest that my Gen Y students’ taste may reveal a Bourdieusian distaste for the taste of others, in a third degree reaction to the 1970s distaste for bourgeois taste. First degree: Ferreri and his entourage reject the psychological for the physiological in order to condemn bourgeois values, provoking scandal in the 1970s, but providing compelling cinema on a socio-political scale. Second degree: in spite of the outcry, high audience numbers demonstrate their taste for scandal, and La Grande bouffe becomes a must-see canonical film, encouraging my choice to include it in the “Matters of Taste” corpus. Third degree: my Gen Y students’ taste expresses a distaste for the academic norms that I have embraced in showing them the film, a distaste that may be more aesthetic than political. Oui, c’est dégueulasse, mais … Bibliography Allison, Henry E. Kant’s Theory of Taste: A Reading of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2001. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1984. Calvesi, M. “Dipingere all moviola” (Painting at the Moviola). Corriere della Sera, 10 Oct. 1976. Reprint. “Arti figurative e il cinema” (Cinema and the Visual Arts). Avanguardia di massa. Ed. M. Calvesi. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1978. 243–46. Celluloid Liberation Front. “Consumerist Ultimate Indigestion: La Grande Bouffe's Deadly Physiological Pleasures.” Bright Lights Film Journal 60 (2008). 13 Jan. 2014 ‹http://brightlightsfilm.com/60/60lagrandebouffe.php#.Utd6gs1-es5›. Chan, Andrew. “La Grande bouffe: Cooking Shows as Pornography.” Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture 3.4 (2003): 47–53. Dickie, George. The Century of Taste: The Philosophical Odyssey of Taste in the Eighteenth Century. New York and Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Ebert, Roger, “La Grande bouffe.” 13 Jan. 2014 ‹http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/la-grande-bouffe-1973›. Ferreri, Marco. La Grande bouffe. Italy-France, 1973. Freedman, Paul H. Food: The History of Taste. U of California P, 2007. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Trans. Joel Winsheimer and Donald C. Marshall. New York: Continuum, 1999. Habib, André. “Remarques sur une ‘réception impossible’: Salo and La Grande bouffe.” Hors champ (cinéma), 4 Jan. 2001. 11 Jan. 2014 ‹http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/cinema/030101/salo-bouffe.html›. Keller, James R. “Four Little Caligulas: La Grande bouffe, Consumption and Male Masochism.” Food, Film and Culture: A Genre Study. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co, 2006: 49–59. Masoni, Tullio. Marco Ferreri. Gremese, 1998. Pasolini, P.P. “Le ambigue forme della ritualita narrativa.” Cinema Nuovo 231 (1974): 342–46. Ross, Kristin. May 68 and its Afterlives. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2008. Smith, Alison. French Cinema in the 1970s: The Echoes of May. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2005. Télérama: “La Grande bouffe: l’un des derniers grands scandales du Festival de Cannes. 19 May 2013. 13 Jan. 2014 ‹http://www.telerama.fr/festival-de-cannes/2013/la-grande-bouffe-l-un-des-derniers-grands-scandales-du-festival-de-cannes,97615.php›. The Guardian: 1000 films to see before you die. 2007. 17 Jan. 2014 ‹http://www.theguardian.com/film/series/1000-films-to-see-before-you-die› Tury, F., and O. Peter. “Food, Life, and Death: The Film La Grande bouffe of Marco Ferreri in an Art Psychological Point of View.” European Psychiatry 22.1 (2007): S214. Viano, Maurizio. “La Grande Abbuffata/La Grande bouffe.” The Cinema of Italy. Ed. Giorgio Bertellini. London: Wallflower Press, 2004: 193–202.

Packaging is a method or treatment for safeguarding food or foodstuffs (food or foodstuffs that have not been processed or processed) can reach consumers in good conditions both in quantity and quality. Along with the development of science, the materials and forms of packaging are increasingly varied and attracting consumers. However, the packaging on Sobo kue Semprong is still simple. The purpose of this study is to determine how consumer behavior toward Sobo kue Semprong packaging in Sambas Subdistrict. The number of respondents were 100 respondents of potential buyers who bought Sobo kue Semprong in Sambas subdistrict, namely in Samjaya , Cressa, and Barcelona stores. Data analysis used was a Likert Scale with three (3) alternative answer choices. The results of data analysis showed that: 1) Statement about Sobo kue Semprong products, obtained the highest number of scores and percentage scores with a total score of 250 and a percentage score of 83.33%. This percentage states that the respondent already knows Sobo kue Semprong; 2) Statement relating to Portability, obtained the highest number of scores and percentage scores with a total score of 294 and a score percentage of 98.00%. This percentage shows that Sobo kue Semprong is light to carry; 3) Statements that relate to Memorable, obtained the highest number of scores and percentage scores with a score of 238 and a score percentage of 79.33%. This percentage indicates that Sobo kue Semprong packaging design is easy to remember; 4) Statements relating to Easy to Read, obtained the highest number of scores and percentage scores with a total score of 254 and a score of 84.67%. This percentage shows that the letters in the words on the Sobo kue Semprong packaging can be read clearly. However, information on this package is still incomplete, so it needs to be added to increase attractiveness to consumers; 5) Statements relating to Visual Protection, obtained the highest number of scores and percentage scores with a total score of 248 and a percentage score of 82.67%. This percentage shows that Sobo kue Semprong packaging keeps its contents to remain savory and crispy; and 6) Statements relating to Purchase Decision Variables, obtained the highest number of scores and percentage scores with a score of 238 and a score percentage of 79.33%. This percentage shows that the current price of Sobo kue Semprong is in accordance with both quality of the kue Semprong and the packaging. Packaging is a promotional media and attracts consumers. Therefore, a unique, attractive, hygienic, easy to carry, easy to open and close packaging is needed.Keywords : Packaging, Sobo Kue Semprong, Consumer Behavior

AbstractThe Catholic Baron Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst (I6I3-I674) from Utrecht was an enthusiastic collector of paintings. In his translation of Guarini's Il Pastor Fido, Hendrick Bloemaert even lauded Willem Vincent's 'Lofweerdigh cabinet' (commendable cabinet) of paintings. The inventory Wyttenhorst made of his collection between I65I and I659 affords insight into various aspects of the seventeenth-century art trade. Not only did he record the subject and maker of around I95 paintings, but also the price and often how he had acquired them. Part of the collection - in particular the finely painted works by Cornelis van Poelenburgh and Herman Saftleven - were auctioned in I722. Of Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst's collection approximately 75 paintings can be traced to Herdringen Castle of the Von Fürstenberg family and several museums, making it possible to establish the relationship between the dimensions and the quality of execution, and the price they commanded in the seventeenth century. Willem Vincent acquired the greatest number of his paintings between I630 and I659, the majority of which were by contemporary masters, some of whom he knew personally. His collection also included several important sixteenth-century pictures by artists such as Cornelis Engebrechtszn, Jan van Scorel and Maerten van Heemskerck, which had come into his possession via his family or via that of his wife Wilhelmina van Bronckhorst. On the one hand, the Wyttenhorst collection is comparable to those of other aristocratic collectors and, on the other hand, to those of well-to-do connoisseurs such as Franciscus de la Boe Sylvius and Hendrick Bugge van Ring of Leiden. Its aristocratic character is evidenced by the prominent place occupied by family portraits: he owned a total of 4I likenesses, 29 of which were made for him and his wife. In I650 Bartholomeus van der Helst needed six weeks to portray Willem Vincent and his wife Wilhelmina van Bronckhorst for the amount of 330 guilders. Wyttenhorst appears to have preferred highly refined small paintings. Not a single genre was overlooked in the collection. Taking pride of place were approximately 90 pastoral scenes and Arcadian landscapes, which added to the collection's aristocratic aura. Furthermore, in keeping with his Catholic background, Willem Vincent had relatively many (25) paintings with religious subjects and devotional works. Striking is also the group of about 20 genre scenes with primarily peasant themes. The II flower and fruit still lifes listed in the inventory were purchased by Wilhelmina van Bronckhorst between I640 and I642 during her first marriage. Regrettably, the inventory only rarely indicates where the pictures hung. On the basis of the scant information, however, it emerges that Wilhelmina van Bronckhorst's cabinet was richly adorned with a variety of paintings. This cabinet also served as the 'Ahnengalerie' (gallery of forefathers) for the I9 family portraits by Cornelis van Poelenburgh. The exceptional status of the Wyttenhorst collection is reflected by the proportionally very modest number of eight anonymous paintings. Moreover, Willem Vincent describes ten copies, most of which he commissioned. The majority of painters mentioned by Wyttenhorst were active in Utrecht, while the overwhelming majority of non-Utrecht masters were active in Haarlem. Wyttenhorst owned about 90 paintings by Utrecht Italianates and related painters such as Poelenburgh, De Heus, Both, Berchem and Saftleven. He maintained intensive contact with Cornelis van Poelenburgh and Herman Saftleven, by whom he owned 57 and I8 paintings respectively. Among the Haarlem artists represented by a few works in his collection were Pieter de Molijn, Adriaen van Ostade and Wouwerman. Interestingly, the vast majority of the painters Wyttenhorst mentioned in his inventory are still known or even famous. The collection also comprised several collaborative efforts, such as Il Contento by Nicolaes Knüpfer, Jan Baptist Weenix and Jan Both. It is notable that Wyttenhorst regularly acquired work by young painters who had just barely begun; a good example is the painting he purchased in I638 from the then at most I8-year-old Nicolaes Berchem. A number of paintings were given to Willem Vincent by relatives and acquaintances. Some works entered his collection through exchange, for example via the Hague collector d'Arminvillers. He also bought the occasional painting from a private individual. In the case of 85 paintings, Wyttenhorst noted that he had bought them directly from a master. He also purchased from art dealers, in particular works by non-Northern Netherlandish painters via Dirck Matham. These were usually small, modestly priced paintings. In a few instances he acquired a painting at an auction, from an estate, at a market, kermis or from a pedlar. Incidentally, he acknowledged that the latter works were not highpoints in his collection. Thus, in amassing his collection, Willem Vincent used all of the channels available around the mid-seventeenth century. The prices of the paintings acquired by Wyttenhorst differed significantly. The cheapest was a panel of Three deer heads by Jacques Savery at 3 guilders, and the most expensive a Peasant kermis by Herman Saftleven at 500 guilders. A large number of works costing more than I00 guilders are explicitly described as history paintings. The finely executed Arcadian landscapes - often on copper - range in price from 30 to I50 guilders. The prices for works by Italianate painters do not differ much and appear to have depended mostly on their dimensions; the larger ones cost exactly twice as much as the smaller ones. The greatest variation in prices is found among the genre scenes. In the case of several paintings, Wyttenhorst noted that their value had exceeded the purchase price. Unfortunately, there is insufficient information to confirm the accuracy of all of his assertions. There are a few indications that the value of the Peasant sheds by the Saftleven brothers did, indeed, rise around the mid-seventeenth century. Willem Vincent's comment that Jacob Matham's flower and fruit still lifes had sharply increased in value between I642 and about I655 is also confirmed by contemporary sources. In addition to the I9 family portraits by Cornelis van Poelenburgh mentioned above, Wyttenhorst owned I7 landscapes by the artist ranging in price between 30 and 90 guilders. For the eight history paintings listed in the inventory, Willem Vincent paid amounts above I00 guilders, the most expensive being a Passion scene for 464 guilders. Alongside these originals, Wyttenhorst also owned several copies after Poelenburgh by Toussaint Gelton and by the master himself. Their prices serve as a good indication of the value attached to the originality of an invention. For these copies after originals - which also were (or had been) in the collection - approximately 1/4 of the price of the original was paid. Wyttenhorst owned several genre scenes and many landscapes by Herman Saftleven. Several of them are described in the inventory as Rhine landscapes. Willem Vincent's Saftlevens included a surprising number of pendants of two (and in one instance a series of four) paintings. On the whole, he appears to have paid more for works by Saftleven than by Poelenburgh. There is insufficient information to allow for a comparison of the prices Wyttenhorst paid for work by Poelenburgh and Saftleven and the value of their work in estate inventories or with the amounts they fetched at auction. However, this is possible with the landscapes by Pieter de Molijn and Dirck Verhaert. In the case of De Molijn, Wyttenhorst paid the master four times more than the price of I0 guilders most frequently given in estate inventories. An explanation for this enormous discrepancy could be that like Herman Saftleven, De Molijn produced work of diverging quality. He crafted both original, finely executed inventions for art collectors such as Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst as well as small paintings for the open market, which were variations on a basic theme. For a painting by Dirck Verhaert, a Haarlem artist who simply followed popular trends, Wyttenhorst paid the modest amount of 6 guilders, a price that differs very little from the estimated values in estate inventories. On the basis of the above a tentative conclusion can be drawn regarding the services rendered by artists around the mid-seventeenth century who, incidentally, did not depend exclusively on the sale of their own paintings, but also relied on the sale of their pupils' work, the art trade, making assessments, restoration activities and apprenticeship fees. Should a painter like Poelenburgh, Berchem or De Molijn sell a few paintings per month for roughly 40 guilders, their earnings would soon exceed that of the 36 guilders in wages of a trained craftsman. However, this in no way applies to a minor artist such as Dirck Verhaert, who had to settle for 6 guilders per painting. Financial success was thus primarily the reserve of painters with talent and ingenuity. To win the patronage of discerning connoisseurs such as Willem Vincent van Wyttenhorst, an artist had to provide high-quality work and be innovative within a given genre.

We Break Up, I Publish: Theorising and Emotional Processing like Taylor Swift In 2007 after the rather painful end of my first long-term same-sex relationship I asked myself two questions (and like a good graduate student wrote a paper about it that was subsequently published): (1) what is love; (2) and if love exists, are queer and straight love somehow different. I asked myself the second question because, unlike my previous “straight” breakups (back when I honestly thought I was straight), this one was different, was far more messy, and seemed to have a lot to do with the fact that my then fresh ex-boyfriend and I had dramatically different ideas about how the relationship should look, work, be codified, or if it should or could be codified. It was an eye-opening experience since the truth that these different ideas existed—basically his point of view—really only “came out” in my mind through the act and learning involved in that breakup. Until then, from a Queer Theory perspective, you could have described me as a “man who had sex with men,” called himself homosexual, but was so homonormative that if you’d approached me with even a light version of Michel Foucault’s thoughts on “Friendship as a Way of Life” I’d have looked at you as queerly, and cluelessly, as possible. Mainstream Queer Theory would have put the end of the relationship down to the difference and conflict between what is pejoratively called the “marriage-chasing-Gay-normaliser,” represented by me, and the “radical-Queer(ness)-of-difference” represented by my ex-boyfriend, although like a lot of theory, that misses the personal (which I recall being political...), and a whole host of non-theoretical problems that plagued that relationship. Basically I thought Queer/Homosexual/Lesbian/Transgendered and the rest of the alphabet soup was exactly the same as Straight folks both with respect to a subjective understanding of the self, social relations and formations, and how you acted or enacted yourself in public and private except in the bedroom.. I thought, since Canada had legalised same-sex marriage, all was well and equal (other than the occasional hate-crime which would then be justly punished). Of course I understood that at that point Canada was the exception and not the rule with respect to same-sex rights and same-sex marriage, so it followed in my mind that most of our time collectively should be spent supporting those south of the border or overseas who still faced restrictions on these basic rights, or out-and-out violence, persecution and even state-sanctioned death for just being who they are and/or trying to express it. And now, five years on, stating that Canada is the exception as opposed to the rule with respect to the legalisation of same-sex marriage and the codification of same-sex rights in law has the potential to be outdated as the recent successes of social movements, court rulings and the tenor of political debate and voting has shifted internationally with rapid speed. But it was only because of that breakup that these theoretical and practical issues had come out of my queer closet and for the first time I started to question some necessary link between love and codification (marriage), and how the queer in Queer relationships does or potentially can disrupt this link. And not just for Queers, but for Straight folk too, which is the primary point that should be underlined now and is addressed at the end of this paper. Because, embittered as I was at the time, I still basically agree with the theoretical position that I came to in that paper on love—based on a queering of the terms of Alain Badiou—where I affirmed that love resisted codification, especially in its queer form, because it is fidelity to an act and truth between two or more partners which resists the rigid walls of State-based codification (Potts, Love Hurts; Badiou, Ethics and Saint Paul). But as one of the peer reviewers for this paper rightly pointed out, the above distinctions between my ex and myself implicitly rely upon a State-centric model of rights and freedoms, which I attacked in the first paper, but which I freely admit I am guilty of utilising and arguing in favour of here. But that is because I am interested, here, not in talking about love as an abstract concept towards which we should work in our personal relationships, but as the state of things, and specifically the state of same-sex marriage and the discourse and images which surrounds it, which means that the State does matter. This is specifically so given the lack of meaningful challenges to the State System in Canada and the US. I maintain, following Butler, that it is through power, and our response to the representatives of power “hailing us,” that we become bodies that matter and subjects (Bodies That Matter; The Psychic Life of Power; and Giving An Account of Oneself). While her re-reading of Althusser in these texts argues that we should come to a philosophical and political position which challenges this State-based form of subject creation and power, she also notes that politically and philosophically we have yet to articulate such a position clearly, and I’d say that this is especially the case for what is covered and argued in the mainstream (media) debate on same-sex marriage. So apropos what is arguably Foucault’s most mature analysis of “power,” and while agreeing that my State-based argument for inclusion and rights does indeed strengthen the “biopolitical” (The History of Sexuality 140 and 145) control over, in this case, Queer populations, I argue that this is nonetheless the political reality with which we are working in and analyzing, and that is my concern here. Despite a personal desire that this not be the case, the State or state sanctioned institutions do continue to hold a monopoly of power in conferring subjecthood and rights. To take a page from Jeremy Bentham, I would say that arguing from a position which does not start from or seriously consider the State as the current basis for rights and subjecthood, though potentially less ethically problematic and more in line with my personal politics, is tantamount to talking and arguing about “nonsense on stilts.” “Caught in a Bad Romance?” Comparing Homonationalist Trajectories and the Appeal of Militarist Discourse to LGBT Grassroots Organisations In comparing the discourses and enframings of the debate over same-sex marriage between Canada in the mid 1990s and early 2000s and in the US today, one might presume that how it came to say “I do” in Canada and how it might or might not get “left at the altar” in the US, is the result of very different national cultures. But this would just subscribe to one of a number of “cultural explanations” for perceived differences between Canada and the US that are usually built upon straw-man comparisons which then pillorise the US for something or other. And in doing so it would continue an obscuration that Canada, unlike the US, is unproblematically open and accepting when it comes to multicultural, multiracial and multisexual diversity and inclusion. Which Canada isn’t nor has it ever been. When you look at the current discourse in both countries—by their key political representatives on the international stage—you find the opposite. In the US, you have President Barack Obama, the first sitting President to come out in favour of same-sex marriage, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, setting same-sex rights at home and abroad as key policy planks (Gay Rights are Human Rights). Meanwhile, in Canada, you have Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in office since 2006, openly support his Conservative Party’s “traditional marriage” policy which is thankfully made difficult to implement because of the courts, and John Baird, the badly closeted Minister of Foreign Affairs, who doesn’t mention same-sex rights at home or with respect to foreign relations—unless it is used as supplementary evidence to further other foreign policy goals (c.f. Seguin)—only showing off his sexuality outside of the press-gallery to drum up gay-conservative votes or gay-conservative fundraising at LGBTQ community events which his government is then apt to pull funding for (c.f. Bradshaw). Of course my point is not to just reverse the stereotypes, painting an idyllic picture of the US and a grim one of Canada. What I want to problematise is the supposed national cultural distinctions which are naturalised when arguments are made through them as to why same-sex marriage was legalised in Canada, while the Defense of Marriage Act still stands in the US. To follow and extend Jasbir Puar’s argument from Terrorist Assemblages, what we see in both same-sex marriage debates and discourses is really the same phenomenon, but, so far, with different outcomes and having different manifestations. Puar contends that same-sex rights, like most equalising rights for minority groups, are only granted when all three of the following conditions prevail: (1) in a state or narrative of exception, where the nation grants a minority group equal rights because “the nation” feels threatened from without; (2) only on the condition that normalisation (or homonormalisation in the case of the Queer community) occurs, with those who don’t conform pushed further from a place in the national-subject; (3) and that the price of admission into being the “allowed Queer” is an ultra-patriotic identification with the Nation. In Canada, the state or narrative of exception was an “attack” from within which resulted in the third criterion being downplayed (although it is still present). Court challenges in a number of provinces led in each case to a successful ruling in favour of legalising same-sex marriage. Appeals to these rulings made their way to the Supreme Court, who likewise ruled in favour of the legalisation of same-sex marriage. This ruling came with an order to the Canadian Parliament that it had to change the existing marriage laws and definition of marriage to make it inclusive of same-sex marriage. This “attack” was performed by the judiciary who have traditionally (c.f. Makin) been much less partisan in appointment or ruling than their counterparts in the US. When new marriage laws were proposed to take account of the direction made by the courts, the governing Liberal Party and then Prime Minister Paul Martin made it a “free vote” so members of his own party could vote against it if they chose. Although granted with only lacklustre support by the governing party, the Canadian LGBTQ community rejoiced and became less politically active, because we’d won, right? International Queers flocked to Canada—one in four same-sex weddings since legalisation in Canada have been to out of country residents (Postmedia News)—as long as they had the proper socioeconomic profile (which is also a racialised profile) to afford the trip and wedding. This caused a budding same-sex marriage tourism and queer love normalisation industry to be built around the Canada Queer experience because especially at the time of legalisation Canada was still one of the few countries to allow for same-sex marriages. What this all means is that homonationalism in Canada is much less charged. It manifests itself as fitting in and not just keeping up with the Joneses when it comes to things like community engagement and Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings, but trying to do them one better (although only by a bit so as not to offend). In essence, the comparatively bland process in the 1990s by which Canada slowly underwent a state of exception by a non-politically charged and non-radical professional judiciary simply interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the provincial and then the federal level is mirrored in the rather bland and non-radical homonationalism which resulted. So unlike the US, the rhetoric of the LGBT community stays subdued unless there’s a hint that the right to same-sex divorce might get hit by Conservative Party guns, in which case all hell breaks loose (c.f. Ha). While the US is subject to the same set of logics for the currently in-progress enactment of legalising same-sex marriage, the state of exception is dramatically different. Puar argues it is the never-ending War on Terror. This also means that the enframings and debate in the US are exceptionally charged and political, leading to a very different type of homonationalism and homonationalist subject than is found in Canada. American homonationalism has not radically changed from Puar’s description, but due to leadership from the top (Obama, Clinton and Lady Gaga) the intensity and thereby structured confinement of what is an acceptable Queer-American subject has become increasingly rigid. What is included and given rights is the hyper-patriotic queer-soldier, the defender of the nation. And what reinforces the rigidity of what amounts to a new “glass closet” for queers is that grassroots organisations have bought into the same rhetoric, logic, and direction as to how to achieve equality as the Homecoming advertisement from the Equal Love Campaign in Britain shows. For the other long-leading nation engaged in the War on Terror narrative, Homecoming provides the imagery of a gay member of the armed services draped in the flag proposing to his partner at the end of duty overseas that ends with the following text: “All men can be heroes. All men can be husbands. End discrimination.” Can’t get more patriotic—and heteronormative with the use of the term “husbands”—than that. Well, unless you’re Lady Gaga. Now Lady Gaga stands out as a public figure whom has taken an explicitly pro-queer and pro-LGBT stance from the outset of her career. And I do not want to diminish the fact that she has been admirably effective in her campaigning and consistent pro-queer and pro-LGBT stance. While above I characterised her input above as leadership from the top, she also, in effect, by standing outside of State Power unlike Obama and Clinton, and being able to be critical of it, is able to push the State in a more progressive direction. This was most obviously evidenced in her very public criticism of the Democratic Party and President Obama for not moving quickly enough to adopt a more pro-queer and pro-LGBT stance after the 2008 election where such promises were made. So Lady Gaga plays a doubled role whereby she also acts as a spokesperson for the grassroots—some would call this co-opting, but that is not the charge made here as she has more accurately given her pre-existing spotlight and Twitter and Facebook presence over to progressive campaigns—and, given her large mainstream media appeal and willingness to use this space to argue for queer and LGBT rights, performs the function of a grassroots organisation by herself as far as the general public is concerned. And in her recent queer activism we see the same sort of discourse and images utilised as in Homecoming. Her work over the first term of Obama’s Presidency—what I’m going to call “The Lady Gaga Offensive”—is indicative: she literally and metaphorically wrapped herself in the American flag, screaming “Obama, ARE YOU LISTENING!!! Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and [have the homophobic soldiers] go home, go home, go home!” (Lady Gaga Rallies for Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell). And presumably to the same home of otherness that is occupied by the terrorist or anything that falls under the blanket of “anti-American” in Puar’s critique of this approach to political activism. This speech was modelled on her highly successful one at the National Equality March in 2009, which she ended with “Bless God and Bless the Gays.” When the highly watched speeches are taken together you literally can’t top them for Americanness, unless it is by a piece of old-fashioned American apple-pie bought at a National Rifle Association (NRA) bake-sale. And is likely why, after Obama’s same-sex “evolution,” the pre-election ads put out by the Democratic Party this year focused so heavily on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the queer patriotic soldier or veteran’s obligation to or previous service in bearing arms for the country. Now if the goal is to get formal and legal equality quickly, then as a political strategy, to get people onside with same-sex marriage, and from that place to same-sex rights and equal social recognition and respect, this might be a good idea. Before, that is, moving on to a strategy that actually gets to the roots of social inequality and doesn’t rely on “hate of ‘the other’” which Puar’s analysis points out is both a byproduct of and rooted in the base of any nationalist based appeal for minoritarian rights. And I want to underline that I am here talking about what strategy seems to be appealing to people, as opposed to arguing an ethically unproblematic and PC position on equality that is completely inclusive of all forms of love. Because Lady Gaga’s flag-covered and pro-military scream was answered by Obama with the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the extension of some benefits to same-sex couples, and has Obama referring to Gaga as “your leader” in the pre-election ads and elsewhere. So it isn’t really surprising to find mainstream LGBT organisations adopting the same discourse and images to get same-sex rights including marriage. One can also take recent poll numbers from Canada as indicative as well. While only 10 percent of Canadians have trust in political parties, and 17 and 16 percent have trust in Parliament and Prime Minister Harper respectively, a whopping 53 percent have trust in the Canadian Forces (Leblanc). One aspect that undergirds Puar’s argument is that especially at a "time of war," more than average levels of affection or trust is shown for those institutions that defend “us,” so that if the face of that institution is reinscribed to the look of the hyper-patriotic queer-soldier (by advertising of the Homecoming sort which is produced not by the State but by grassroots LGBT organisations), then it looks like these groups seem to be banking that support for Gays and Lesbians in general, and same-sex marriage in specific, will further rise if LGBT and Queer become substantively linked in the imagination of the general public with the armed forces. But as 1980s Rockers Heart Asked: “But There’s Something That You Forgot. What about Love?” What these two homonationalist trajectories and rhetorics on same-sex marriage entirely skip over is how exactly you can codify “love.” Because isn’t that the purpose of marriage? Saying you can codify it is like grasping at a perfectly measured and exact cubic foot of air and telling it to stay put in the middle of a hurricane. So to return to how I ended my earlier exploration of love and if it could or should be codified: it means that as I affirm love, and as I remain in fidelity to it, I subject myself in my fundamental weakness constantly to the "not-known;" to constant heartbreak; to affirmations which I cannot betray as it would be a betrayal of the truth process itself. It's as if at the very moment the Beatles say the words 'All you need is love' they were subjected to wrenching heartbreak and still went on: 'All you need is love...' (Love Hurts) Which is really depressing when I look back at it now. But it was a bad breakup, and I can tend to the morose in word choice and cultural references when depressed. But it also remains essentially my position. If you impose “till death or divorce do us part” on to love you’re really only just participating in the chimera of static love and giving second wind to a patriarchal institution which has had a crappy record when it comes to equality. It also has the potential to preserve asymmetrical roles “traditional marriage” contains from when the institution was only extended to straight couples. And isn’t equality the underlying philosophical principle and political position that we’re supposedly fighting for if we’re arguing for an equal right to get married? Again, it’s important to try and codify the same rights for everyone through the State at the present time because I honestly don’t see major changes confronting the nation state system in Canada or the US in the near future. We remain the play-children of a digitally entrenched form of Foucaultian biopower that is State and Capital directed. Because while the Occupy Wall Street movements got a lot of hay in the press, I’ve yet to see any substantive or mainstreamed political change come out of them—if someone can direct me to their substantive contribution to the recent US election I’d be happy to revise my position—which is likely to our long term detriment. So this is a pragmatic analysis, one of locating one node in the matrices of power relations, of seeing how mainstream LGBT political organisations and Lady Gaga are applying the “theoretical tool kits” given to us by Foucault and Puar, and seeing how these organisations and Gaga are applying them, but in this case in a way that is likely counter to authorial intention(s) and personal politics (Power/Knowledge 145, 193; Terrorist Assemblages). So what this means is that we’re likely to continue to see, in mainstream images of same-sex couples put out by grassroots LGBT organisations, a homonationalism and ideological construction that grows more and more out of touch with Queer realities—the “upper-class house-holding PTA Gay”; although on a positive note I should point out that the Democratic Party in the US seems to be at least including both white and non-white faces in their pre-election same-sex marriage ads—and one that most Queers don’t or can’t fit themselves into especially when it comes down to the economic aspect of that picture, which is contradictory and problematic (c.f. Christopher). It also means that in the US the homonationalism on the horizon looks the same as in Canada except with a healthy dose of paranoia of outsiders and “the other” and a flag draped membership in the NRA, that is, for when the queer super-soldier is not in uniform. It’s a straightjacket for a closet that is becoming smaller because it seeks, through the images projected, inclusion for only a smaller and smaller social sub-set of the Lesbian and Gay community and leaves out more and more of the Queer community than it was five years ago when Puar described it. So instead of trying to dunk the queer into the institution of patriarchy, why not, by showing how so many Queers, their relationships, and their loving styles don’t fit into these archetypes help give everyone, including my “marriage-chasing-Gay-normaliser” former self a little “queer eye, for all eyes.” To look at and see modern straight marriage through the lenses and reasons LGBT and Queer communities (by-and-large) fought for years for access to it: as the codification and breakdown of some rights and responsibilities (i.e. taking care of children); as an act which gives you straightforward access to health benefits and hospital visitation rights; as an easy social signifier for others of a commitment to another person that doesn’t use diluted language like “special friend;” and because when it comes down to it that “in sickness and in health” part of the vow—in the language of a queered Badiou, a vow can be read as the affirmation of a universal and disinterested truth (love) and a moment which can’t be erased retrospectively, say, by divorce—seems like a sincere way to value at least one of those you really care for in the world. And hopefully it, as a side-benefit, it acts as a reminder but is not the actuality of that first fuzzy feeling which (hopefully) doesn’t go away. But I learned my lesson the first time and know that the fuzzy feeling might disappear as it often does. It doesn’t matter how far we try and cram it into any variety of homonationalist closets, since it’ll always find a way to not be there, no matter how tight you thought you’d locked the door to keep it in for good if it wants out. Because you can’t keep emotions by contract: so at the end of the day the logical, ethical and theoretically sound position is to argue for the abolition of marriage as an institution. However, Plato and others have been making that argument for thousands of years, and it still doesn’t seem to have gained popular traction. And we also need to realise, contrary to the opinion of my former self and The Beatles, that you really do need more than love as fidelity to an event of you and your partner’s making when you are being denied your partners health benefits just because you are a same-sex couple, especially when those health benefits could be saving your life. And if same-sex marriage codification is a quick fix for that and similar issues for those who can fit into the State sanctioned same-sex marriage walls, which admittedly leaves some members of the Queer community who don’t overlap out, as part of an overall and more inclusive strategy that does include them then I’m in favour of it. That is, till the time comes that Straight and Queer can, over time and with a lot of mutual social learning, explore how to recognise and give equal rights with or without State based codification to the multiple queer and sometimes polyamorous relationship models that already populate the Gay and Straight worlds right now. So in the meantime continue to count me down as a “marriage-chasing-Gay.” But just pragmatically, not to normalise, as one of a diversity of political strategies for equality and just for now. References Badiou, Alain. Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. New York: Verso, 2001. ———. Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism, Stanford: Stanford UP, 2003. Bradshaw, James. “Pride Toronto Denied Federal Funding.” The Globe and Mail. 7 May. 2012 ‹http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/pride-toronto-denied-federal-funding/article1211065/›. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge,1990. ———. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. New York: Routledge, 1993. ———. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge, 1997. ———. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories of Subjection. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1997. ———. Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham UP, 2005. Christopher, Nathaniel. “Openly Gay Men Make Less money, Survey Shows.” Xtra! .5 Nov. 2012 ‹http://www.xtra.ca/public/Vancouver/Openly_gay_men_make_less_money_survey_shows-12756.aspx›. Clinton, Hillary. “Gay Rights Are Human Rights, And Human Rights Are Gay Rights.” United Nations General Assembly. 26 Dec. 2011 ‹http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/12/06/383003/sec-clinton-to-un-gay-rights-are-human-rights-and-human-rights-are-gay-rights/?mobile=nc›. Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Ed. Colin Gordon. Trans. Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, Kate Soper. New York: Random House,1980. —. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. Toronto: Random House, 1977. —. The History of Sexuality Volume One: An Introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Random House, 1978. Heart. “What About Love.” Heart. Capitol Records, 1985. CD. Ha, Tu Thanh. “Dan Savage: ‘I Had Been Divorced Overnight’.” The Globe and Mail. 12 Jan. 2012 ‹http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dan-savage-i-had-been-divorced-overnight/article1358211/›. “Homecoming.” Equal Love Campaign. ‹http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a54UBWFXsF4›. Leblanc, Daniel. “Harper Among Least Trusted Leaders, Poll Shows.” The Globe and Mail. 12 Nov. 2012 ‹http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-among-least-trusted-leaders-poll-shows/article5187774/#›. Makin, Kirk. “The Coming Conservative Court: Harper to Reshape Judiciary.” The Globe and Mail. 24 Aug. 2012 ‹http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-coming-conservative-court-harper-to-reshape-judiciary/article595398/›. “Lady Gaga Rallies for Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in Portland, Maine.” 9 Sep. 2010 ‹http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4rGla6OzGc›. “Lady Gaga Speaks at Gay Rights Rally in Washington DC as Part of the National Equality March.” 11 Oct. 2009 ‹http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jepWXu-Z38›. “Obama’s Stirring New Gay Rights Ad.” Newzar.com. 24 May. 2012 ‹http://newzar.com/obamas-stirring-new-gay-rights-ad/›. Postmedia News. “Same-sex Marriage in Canada will not be Revisited, Harper Says.” 12 Jan. 2012 ‹http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/12/same-sex-marriage-in-canada-will-not-be-revisited-harper-says/›. Potts, Graham. “‘Love Hurts’: Hunter S. Thompson, the Marquis de Sade and St. Paul Queer Alain Badiou’s Truth and Fidelity.” CTheory. rt002: 2009 ‹http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=606›. Puar, Jasbir. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. London: Duke UP, 2007. Seguin, Rheal. “Baird Calls Out Iran on Human Rights Violations.” The Globe and Mail. 22 Oct. 2012 ‹http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/baird-calls-out-iran-on-human-rights-violations/article4628968/›.