I barely survived yesterday & it's already today

Children of the revolution

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:57:00 -0500

In the strictest tradition, latinamerican countries have found it hard to believe that hard core, longstanding conflict has ever occured in the region. We have issues upgrading our revolutions to independence wars, we have issues recognising rebels as belligerents and we are certainly not ok with suggesting that urban insurgencies are little more than disturbances. In fact, as children of the revolution, our belief system demands that we see everything as a noble grassroots movement when it defends the people’s ideals or an external oppression when it is detrimental to them.

All categorical considerations aside (yes, I am well aware not all of these movements have been wars or its participants belligerents), I’d like to dig into that which hinders and limits us from dealing with our own skeletons.

I am curious to ask: when is it going to dawn on us that we might be dealing with a fully fledged demon and we might need help? There are no set 12 steps to recover from internal political turmoil… But is that really the issue?

I have the suspicion that the issue is not accepting the issue itself. We mask our “problem” with the glittering and always controversial issues of corruption, power play and dirty politics. No doubt, they are contributing causes; but honestly, in this circle of trust, why is it so hard to take it from an alcoholic that we might have an issue?

What is it with the lack of seriousness? How can we possible flow through time writing a history of ” disturbances” and minor scale uprisings?

A very wise old bearded man said fear of a name will only increase fear of the thing itself ( yes that man was Albus Dumbledore- and you have to give it to him, had he been real, he would have made for a great strategist and philosopher).

This I refer to the Mexican SSP (in spanish) declaration that one of the mexican cartels (la familia michoacana) has the character and proceedings of a terrorist organisation. I am sure dissent will arise to this claim, alongside mockery and protest.

Truth is we can’t take it. We continue to uphold the well known tradition of sweeping issues under a rug, we think we will be sure to forget about the bulging floor mat eventually.

How can we possibly subject ourselves to the belief that it takes one disgruntled farmer to make a country independent and yet not believe that a well organised, powerfully funded and prolifically strategic group is swarming the country?

How can we not acknowledge that sometimes these movements might have gotten out of hand?

We all know how that turned out for Cornelius Fudge, Stalin during WWII, McArthur and the Vietcong… I mean… really!

-kimbo-

El IFE, entre HAL 9000 y Terminator

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:00:34 -0500

El IFE, entre HAL 9000 y Terminator:

Lo que ocurre con el IFE me recuerda a la película 2001 Odisea del espacio y la inolvidable voz de la computadora HAL 9000

‘Star Wars’ Terrorists Storm Pakistani Naval Base

Mon, 23 May 2011 11:11:58 -0500

‘Star Wars’ Terrorists Storm Pakistani Naval Base:

The Pakistan Taliban launched a brazen attack on a Pakistani naval base, killing at least 11 people and destroying two spy planes provided by the United States. Not only did the melee last through the night, the terrorists appeared to call on the power of the Dark Side of the Force to press their assault.

Thor’s Day NEWS May 19th

Thu, 19 May 2011 20:03:31 -0500

Thor‘s day NEWS is back with all these week’s most relevant events in Midgard and the other eight realms.

DSK IMF’d

To start off, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Khaaaaaaaaaaaan, as refered to by Capt. Kirk), now former head of the IMF, was charged with alleged assault of maid in a New York City hotel (that apparently charged $3,000 dls a night). Ok, first of all, are u guys at all surprised? Second, he took FOREEEEEEVER to resign, it was as if a side of him expected that he would be able to run the IMF from behind bars, I mean no offense but if he handles world economic policies the same way he handles his women… Third, who wants to be the next IMF chief? New Reality Show coming this Fall to your TV, ok no seriously but who? With possible contenders like Gordon Brown and Christine Lagarde, will the coveted position go to the developed European nations once again? Or will the new head of the IMF be represented by the waking developing nations? More on this to come.

Middle East is a mess.

Yep. Yes, it is.

Al Qaeda’s new leader

Reports claim that Egyptian militant Saif al-Adel has been appointed the interim leader of al Qaeda while the organization works to appoint a permanent head after the untimely death of Bin Laden. Yes, Al Qaeda has pointed out to the US who he should hunt now that his favorite hide and seek partner is no longer willing to play. But is there really a “Central Al Qaeda”? Can we actually claim there’s a unified command to these terrorist forces? If so, who appoints the new leader? Is there a minimum length to his beard in order to qualify? Is someone in charge of trimming his beard? These are questions we should ask ourselves before embarking on a 10 year long ~~hide and seek game~~ man hunt.

Defusal of Queen Elizabeth’s Irish present.

The queen is on a historic four-day visit to the Republic of Ireland, the first by a British monarch since Irish independence from London 90 years ago, when she was approximately -5 years old. To top it off, Irish people gave her a warm welcome with a traditional bomb-in-a-bus-defusal, an ancient ritual that marks the beginning of the celebrations to welcome British monarchs to Ireland. Giggles. The queen, who started her speech in native Irish language, expressed how deeply sorry she was about the history of violence that existed between the two countries (her cousin Lord Mountbatten being murdered by the IRA and all). Gerry Adams, a pivotal figure in Northern Irish history as long-time leader of Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political arm, said her “acknowledgement that the relationship between Britain and Ireland has not been entirely benign is a gross understatement,”. This coming from the guy who said the murder of the queen’s cousin was “fully justified”. Welcome to Ireland, we bring u a bomb.

And finally…

Our Favorite Governator comes clean about having a child out of wedlock.

GASP! Oh no he didn’t, oh ok he did. So Schwarzenegger apparently has a 10 year old son he had with a member of her staff, because apparently Maria Shriver is just not enough. Ironically, this anti-immigration polish immigrant governor, had a son with a Guatemalan lady… funny how life goes around.

That is all for this week’s Thor’s Day NEWS.

What realm is this?

-Atom

TOPS -The Outrageous President Syndrome

Thu, 19 May 2011 18:35:24 -0500

It is a thing we cyclically tend to forget, yet end up slapping ourselves in the forehead when we face it again. Every six years we establish by comparison a standard of Political Correctness, a degree of bearable political decency upon which a part of our next presidential choice is based. And what is it that we are comparing against?

To be perfectly scientific about it, it is a behavioural condition inflicted upon every Mexican president on the year (or 18 months) prior to his end of term. It might be acquired through viral means, but a more logical explanation would suggest it is triggered environmentally by preset conditions such as a high density of critique and an elevated concentration of dissidence -present normally in the political environment during this specific period of time-. The generated symptoms include at initial stages profuse sweating, mood swings, tendency towards aggressive responses, agitation, anxiety and irritation; secondary and more consequential symptoms reveal a development of manic conduct that encompasses lightness of being, inconsequentiality, ludicrous behaviour, slurred speech and more importantly the voicing of delusional beliefs or statements.

In terms worthy of Hitchcock, it is a state of deeply induced Panic.

This Panic Fever leads to the desecration of just about every worthy action within the presidential term and to the shaming of all involved or associated with the affected. Moreover, it scars and strains all sociability capacities of the affected, rendering him irrelevant, undesirable and even scathed.

To the effect of illustrating the effect and implications of this condition, we compiled a set of declarations that just about exemplify every aspect of the previously described:

‪”Bueno, mi amor, compañero, es amplio y total por las dos o por los dos acuerdos de libre comercio, por el MERCOSUR y por el ALCA, y si no existe ese amor o no existe ese sí a mi propuesta de matrimonio seguiré insistiendo y seguiré haciéndole más el amor al MERCOSUR y más el amor al ALCA.”‬

Vicente Fox. Respuesta en conferencia de prensa, en la IV Cumbre de las Américas, sábado, 5 de noviembre de 2005.

“Ya hoy hablo libre, ya puedo decir cualquier tontería, ya no importa… Total, yo ya me voy”‬

(Vicente Fox en una conversación ‘fuera de micrófono’ el 31 de octubre de 2006)‬

Yo soy mejor candidato a la Presidencia porque sólo tengo una mano (para robar)(En referencia a su segunda candidatura presidencial y a que él era manco) .

Plutarco Elías Calles

And the most recent and explanatory of this shameless, tasteless lack shedding of tact and PC:

“La razón es que pueden morir en la violencia. Pero yo vi a miles, a miles de spring breakers, divirtiéndose en México. De lo que yo tengo entendido, los únicos shots que recibieron eran de tequila”

Felipe Calderon. Las Vegas, Nevada. Mayo 2011.

For further study of this odd condition, or just for general bemusement, a list of phrases can be found at:

Solipsismo

http://hookale-solipsismo.blogspot.com/2008/05/frases-ridiculas-de-presidentes.html

-Kimbo, Atom-

thedailywhat: Obligatory of the Friday the 13th: RUN RUN RUN...

Fri, 13 May 2011 16:39:46 -0500

thedailywhat:

Obligatory of the Friday the 13th: RUN RUN RUN RUN.

[leveeevee / rofl.]

nevver: Happy Friday the 13th

Fri, 13 May 2011 09:18:42 -0500

nevver:

Happy Friday the 13th

In brightest day, in blackest night

Wed, 04 May 2011 10:16:00 -0500

The following is a press release from the Empire’s so called Death Star PR: “Earth’s most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, may be dead but rest assured citizens, the Galactic Empire’s war against terror continues unabated. Emperor Palpatine has personally guaranteed that the “Mission Accomplished” banner will not fly until Luke Skywalker is brought to justice for his crimes against humanity”.

We all have our heroes, our villains, our rebels, the good, the bad and the ugly. After 10 years of the greatest hide and seek game, evil mastermind number one was killed just miles from the Pakistani capital, yes, it is awfully convenient, yes it does wonders for reelection campaigns, but in the end, all conspiracies aside… he is deea. As they all gathered in the presidential ~~Call of Duty LAN Party~~ war room, Obama saw before his eyes the crumbling of the last known US’ enemy, the closing of an era, the destruction of Sauron and the reminder of why the US Navy SEALs are so freaking cool (seriously can we get “Mission Geronimo” in the next Call of Duty: Black Ops expansion pack?)

In an era of a wavering US military stance, of stale diplomatic decisions, of budget cuts, of drones, of drug wars, the United States was reminded of why they fight, they were reminded of the thousands dead in that day, reminded of the promises made by its government, and watched as they were fulfilled, 10 years later but fulfilled. As Hillary Clinton so graciously puts it: ”This is America. We rise to the challenge, we persevere and we get the job done” and who can say anything to disprove that? For Uncle Bobby Gates, it comes as a great retirement present, for the up and coming SoD Panetta, it’s a tap on the back for the hard work that involves turning a bureaucratic mess into a respectable intelligence center once again, for Clinton, it’s a breath of fresh air, for Biden, well it’s a big f***ing deal, for Obama… it’s better than Christmas.

Nonetheless, as we stand on the sidelines and watch people parade over the death of man, the terrorist threat is more present than ever, because it doesn’t matter if you’re a democrat or a republican, pro gay rights, pro tax cuts, pro anything, you’re still a target. If anything, the death of Osama is the reminder that we must remain ever vigilant. As a green masked crusader puts it “In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight” be that by drone surveillance, black ops infiltration missions, brave data analyst working from the comfort of their desks on a building in Langley or a middle eastern informant, it’s a 24/7 job. It is not about THE man, it’s about the fact that he is just A man, one of many, one of thousand, one of millions, because the threat is not linear, it is not predictable, it is not foreseeable, it is everywhere, all the time, anyone, anywhere.

In brightest day, in blackest night,

No evil shall escape my sight

Let those who worship evil’s might,

Beware my power… Green Lantern’s light!

-Atom

Found!

Tue, 03 May 2011 17:12:00 -0500

What a weekend!! We had a Royal Wedding, a Pope’s canonization and in words of Peru’s President, the death of the, I quote: “demonic embodiment of the crime, evil and hate”, aka Inquisition. I just needed my dinner in Medieval Times to completely feel in the XV Century!!

But let’s get serious; if our previous generation was witness of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Rocky’s victory over Drago and the End of History, we can proudly say that we’re witnesses of another history’s watershed. The fall of the Twin Towers, the war on terror and the revitalization of the Clash of Civilizations’ arguments, are moments that marked the beginning of the XXI Century. We will always remember what we were doing while the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as we would not forget the instant when Obama was announcing the death of one of the most recognizable but elusive men ever.

So following Osama bin Laden’s demise, there are four possible interpretations about its meaning. Without deepen too much we can find 1) the ones that argue that bin Laden’s death does not change anything, 2) people that see Osama’s death as the Tipping Point for ending terrorism, 3) the dudes with the conspiracy theories and 4) the mixture of’em all. So if my lack of imagination makes me incapable of developing nice convincing ~~aliens/evil jews/vampires/nazi zombies~~theories, and I’m not the kind of person who sees everything in black and white, I am picking option number four.

I believe that the death of bin Laden won’t represent a real shift in the way al-Qaeda and other terrorists networks were operating. Of course the guy was the leader of the organization and an inspiration for radical Muslims; but let’s face it: in recent times, we hear a less about al-Qaeda and more about its franchises. I think that when Barber stated that the Jihad and the McWorld had just one thing in common, the threat it represented for democracy, he never thought an organization like al-Qaeda was capable of merge the “best of two worlds” and develop the McJihadization, the globalization of tribalism, the exportation of radical ideals with one goal in familiar, reshaping the very foundations of world as we know it.

During the second half of the 2000s decade this started to happen. Faster than Subway restaurants, regional factions of al-Qaeda were sprouting in everyplace where there was a radical Muslim available. al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb, are some of the branches that emerged in those years, while other organizations such as al-Shabab in ~~what used to be a country called~~ Somalia were pledging allegiance to Bin Laden’s organization. But like good franchises, most of them work by themselves, have their own means of financing and recruiting and only resort to the core for training or increasing its commercial value.

Additionally, the way the world address terrorism, except from the US, will not change substantially. America’s quest for seek and destroy bin Laden is far from being the strategy taken internationally. For example last EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (Europol) reported that Islamist based terrorism had the lowest rate in the region, and the focus is put on homegrown terrorism and aQIM. Also, the UN Strategy includes a broader spectrum that goes far far away from al-Qaeda. It is true that they may have to change the name of the 1267 Committee, but acquiring universal compliance of international instruments, capacity building and address the underlying causes of terrorism will continue to occupy its core work.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not intend to go so far as Mr. Zakaria, who argues that bin Laden’s death represents “the end of al Qaeda in any meaningful sense of the word”. But being realistic, the US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Middle East continue to be a region of potential threat, with or without Osama. More worried should be Pakistan, not because bin Laden was found there, but because they way it was founded, living in a tourist city near to the Pakistan Military Academy. The AfPak has been a headache for the US since 2001 and thanks to Wikileaks Pakistan’sdouble game is well known, but hiding US’ number one public enemy it’s maybe going too far. Greater tensions between the two countries are expected, and we haven’t heard anything of the data collected by the US SEAL team.

But what actually changed after OBL’s death? In first place, it is a closure. No matter how much money was spent, how many lives lost or how discredited was the US’ image in the world, they achieved their objective. It took ten years and two different Administrations, but the explosion of joy witnessed in New York and Washington was the reflection of the conclusion of ten years of frustration and impotence; finally the enemy has been taken down. As clear as crystal, Obama, as if he was Jigsaw, was watching the operation in live stream, probably congratulating himself for the success of its revenge plan.

Thinking in the celebrations that took place all over the US Sunday night, Jean Baudrillard comes to my mind. Just after September 11 he wrote that the terrorist attacks represented the “mother of all events”, the essence of all the events that never happened. Linked with his work in Simulacra and Simulation, bin Laden was the replacement of reality and meaning with symbols and signs. Symbols of fear, anger and terror that left US citizens living in a simulation of reality that did not really agreed with the level of the actual threat. So Osama’s death represented a rupture, of course alert systems were increased, and some retaliation is expected, but for the common individual, the perception of threat has diminished, the evil entity has gone.

For realists, bin Laden’s demise was pure gold. Arguing that actors in the international system are always looking for power and prestige, killing Osama bin Laden puts the US in the top of the ladder. With the attention of the world, that not even Megan Fox’s first topless had, the United States was not only able to dispose its “nemesis”, but also proved that it continues to be the paramount in military and intelligence. Probably it took more than expected, but they had the job done. So the US is not only increasing its already excellent position in the global arena, but also it has done it within its territory, because the success of this operation represents a morale boost for the entire country.

But don’t get cocky so easy. This morale boost could also be backfired. Osama is dead, but not his ideas, and this is a point that not only the US, but the entire international community has to take in consideration. We can be sure that, for some people, bin Laden has now become a martyr, and it is not necessary to say that there are some individuals that are more dangerous dead than alive. So it could be possible that as Orpheus’ lyre, Osama’s ideas could be heard from the Hades and the global response must be based on smart power using hard and soft power in a single winning strategy.

A little thought before leaving. I just love American exceptionalism, not only because of the French fries and freedom fries’ debate, but also because the ease with which they fall in double discourses and double standards. Maybe justice is a relative term, but sovereignty is not. Getting into a foreign country to kill a man, and then consider that justice has been done, seems quite radical for me. Perhaps that is why the US values have always been linked more with Superman than with Batman. I don´t see the Dark Knight applying the kill first apprehend later policy, but the Man’o Steel fits perfectly in the pattern. But more interesting is that, for the US population, justice has been achieved. It seems like the “terrorist word” is the secret ingredient in Dr. Jekyll’s potion, capable of transforming a “democracy and liberty loving country” to a “cheer the murder of a man state”.

The big beard bad guy has fallen; now let’s see how US’ foreign policy shifts.

Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead

Tue, 03 May 2011 09:06:00 -0500

News travels fast, and from the emerald city the ripples of victory chants reached every corner of the world “Ding Dong’ the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead!”.

And yet, an ominous pronouncement shadowed these melodious rhymes; in the mind of every conscious political barrister one verse dug in deeper than the rest:
“But we’ve got to verify it legally, to see if she is morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably Dead”

I’m sorry to say it Munchkins, but at least here in Oz, we can’t pronounce the absolute death of the Witch. The reason why? because the Witch is less a tangible thing than a bearded goblin in striped knickers or long taliban robes; no wicker figure burnt to the ground will keep us from her, really, since she occupies all aforementioned dimensions and manifestations of liveliness.

Everyone who acknowledges anyone in history will grasp the concept that any witch hunt is never about the witch herself, but about what she embodies. As Dan Drezner says, the psychological fundamental attribution error behind every policy move or campaign is strictly related to what we perceive as a threat to a standardised rule of law and scope of living. Enemies will be assigned and allocated witchlike characteristics that hinder us from developing any relatable sentiments towards them. And the particular thing about this human mechanical response is that it remains essential to the development and betterment of our own human security — in bio-security terms—.

So in this heightened sense of roman fashion, I’d like to see all the non-believers taking a step back and reconsidering the implications of this event. In terms of what lies ahead, I’d like them to describe the future embodiment of this witch, because, as all fiction savvy policymakers suspect, its when you kill the witch when fear becomes faceless.

It is really now time for the clean-up to shine it all up. Will we enforce new walls since we can’t really tear down any of the ones we built (unlike Berlin) or will we hone tall towers over the ones already standing? Will we ride on the wave of timeliness and commend the watchfulness of an ever vigilant eye over the middle-man meddling of the middle east and its arab spring?

-kimbo-

Osama bitches

Tue, 03 May 2011 09:05:40 -0500

There are dates that change everything. It doesn’t matter if we refer to 1648, June 1815, 6/1944, 11/9 or 9/11, all those moments shaped the world we live in, and the one we’re heading to. So it couldn’t have been said in any other way; it was a warm Tuesday morning in September when suddenly the world as we knew it changed right before our eyes. It wasn’t relevant if you liked or disliked the United States of America; if you watched the news on a regular basis; or if you were interested in the coming and goings of the American intelligence community, everyone remembers where they were on that day in September. And everyone will remember what he or she was doing that evening in May when President Barack Obama pronounced the death of Osama Bin Laden.

What does the death of Osama Bin Laden really means?? There are as multiple conclusions as interpretations and it is not our role to make Delphi’s oracle work. Even that, there is one thing we all agree. Osama’s death represents a closure, the end of one of the darkest periods of US’ history, and everyone at @itsalreadytoday has its own particular vision. Saying that, we present you 5 different interpretations of Bin Laden’s finale, proving that not even us can coincide in everything

The Black Swan of Cairo

Mon, 02 May 2011 14:20:34 -0500

How Suppressing Volatility Makes the World Less Predictable and More Dangerous by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mark Blyth

via @ForeignAffairs

Why is surprise the permanent condition of the U.S. political and economic elite? In 2007-8, when the global ﬁnancial system imploded, the cry that no one could have seen this coming was heard everywhere, despite the existence of numerous analyses showing that a crisis was unavoidable. It is no surprise that one hears precisely the same response today regarding the current turmoil in the Middle East. The critical issue in both cases is the artiﬁcial suppression of volatility — the ups and downs of life — in the name of stability. It is both misguided and dangerous to push unobserved risks further into the statistical tails of the probability distribution of outcomes and allow these high-impact, low-probability “tail risks” to disappear from policymakers’ ﬁelds of observation. What the world is witnessing in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya is simply what happens when highly constrained systems explode.

Complex systems that have artificially suppressed volatility tend to become extremely fragile, while at the same time exhibiting no visible risks. In fact, they tend to be too calm and exhibit minimal variability as silent risks accumulate beneath the surface. Although the stated intention of political leaders and economic policymakers is to stabilize the system by inhibiting fluctuations, the result tends to be the opposite. These artiﬁcially constrained systems become prone to “Black Swans” — that is, they become extremely vulnerable to large-scale events that lie far from the statistical norm and were largely unpredictable to a given set of observers.

Such environments eventually experience massive blowups, catching everyone off-guard and undoing years of stability or, in some cases, ending up far worse than they were in their initial volatile state. Indeed, the longer it takes for the blowup to occur, the worse the resulting harm in both economic and political systems.

Seeking to restrict variability seems to be good policy (who does not prefer stability to chaos?), so it is with very good intentions that policymakers unwittingly increase the risk of major blowups. And it is the same misperception of the properties of natural systems that led to both the economic crisis of 2007-8 and the current turmoil in the Arab world. The policy implications are identical: to make systems robust, all risks must be visible and out in the open — fluctuat nec mergitur (it fluctuates but does not sink) goes the Latin saying.

Just as a robust economic system is one that encourages early failures (the concepts of “fail small” and “fail fast”), the U.S. government should stop supporting dictatorial regimes for the sake of pseudostability and instead allow political noise to rise to the surface. Making an economy robust in the face of business swings requires allowing risk to be visible; the same is true in politics.

SEDUCED BY STABILITY

Both the recent ﬁnancial crisis and the current political crisis in the Middle East are grounded in the rise of complexity, interdependence, and unpredictability. Policymakers in the United Kingdom and the United States have long promoted policies aimed at eliminating fluctuation — no more booms and busts in the economy, no more “Iranian surprises” in foreign policy. These policies have almost always produced undesirable outcomes. For example, the U.S. banking system became very fragile following a succession of progressively larger bailouts and government interventions, particularly after the 1983 rescue of major banks (ironically, by the same Reagan administration that trumpeted free markets). In the United States, promoting these bad policies has been a bipartisan effort throughout. Republicans have been good at fragilizing large corporations through bailouts, and Democrats have been good at fragilizing the government. At the same time, the ﬁnancial system as a whole exhibited little volatility; it kept getting weaker while providing policymakers with the illusion of stability, illustrated most notably when Ben Bernanke, who was then a member of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve, declared the era of “the great moderation” in 2004.

Putatively independent central bankers fell into the same trap. During the 1990s, U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan wanted to iron out the economic cycle’s booms and busts, and he sought to control economic swings with interest-rate reductions at the slightest sign of a downward tick in the economic data. Furthermore, he adapted his economic policy to guarantee bank rescues, with implicit promises of a backstop — the now infamous “Greenspan put.” These policies proved to have grave delayed side effects. Washington stabilized the market with bailouts and by allowing certain companies to grow “too big to fail.” Because policymakers believed it was better to do something than to do nothing, they felt obligated to heal the economy rather than wait and see if it healed on its own.

The foreign policy equivalent is to support the incumbent no matter what. And just as banks took wild risks thanks to Greenspan’s implicit insurance policy, client governments such as Hosni Mubarak’s in Egypt for years engaged in overt plunder thanks to similarly reliable U.S. support.

Those who seek to prevent volatility on the grounds that any and all bumps in the road must be avoided paradoxically increase the probability that a tail risk will cause a major explosion. Consider as a thought experiment a man placed in an artiﬁcially sterilized environment for a decade and then invited to take a ride on a crowded subway; he would be expected to die quickly. Likewise, preventing small forest ﬁres can cause larger forest ﬁres to become devastating. This property is shared by all complex systems.

In the realm of economics, price controls are designed to constrain volatility on the grounds that stable prices are a good thing. But although these controls might work in some rare situations, the long-term effect of any such system is an eventual and extremely costly blowup whose cleanup costs can far exceed the beneﬁts accrued. The risks of a dictatorship, no matter how seemingly stable, are no different, in the long run, from those of an artiﬁcially controlled price.

Such attempts to institutionally engineer the world come in two types: those that conform to the world as it is and those that attempt to reform the world. The nature of humans, quite reasonably, is to intervene in an effort to alter their world and the outcomes it produces. But government interventions are laden with unintended — and unforeseen — consequences, particularly in complex systems, so humans must work with nature by tolerating systems that absorb human imperfections rather than seek to change them.

Take, for example, the recent celebrated documentary on the ﬁnancial crisis, Inside Job, which blames the crisis on the malfeasance and dishonesty of bankers and the incompetence of regulators. Although it is morally satisfying, the ﬁlm naively overlooks the fact that humans have always been dishonest and regulators have always been behind the curve. The only difference this time around was the unprecedented magnitude of the hidden risks and a misunderstanding of the statistical properties of the system.

What is needed is a system that can prevent the harm done to citizens by the dishonesty of business elites; the limited competence of forecasters, economists, and statisticians; and the imperfections of regulation, not one that aims to eliminate these flaws. Humans must try to resist the illusion of control: just as foreign policy should be intelligence-proof (it should minimize its reliance on the competence of information-gathering organizations and the predictions of “experts” in what are inherently unpredictable domains), the economy should be regulator-proof, given that some regulations simply make the system itself more fragile. Due to the complexity of markets, intricate regulations simply serve to generate fees for lawyers and proﬁts for sophisticated derivatives traders who can build complicated ﬁnancial products that skirt those regulations.

DON’T BE A TURKEY

The life of a turkey before Thanksgiving is illustrative: the turkey is fed for 1,000 days and every day seems to conﬁrm that the farmer cares for it — until the last day, when conﬁdence is maximal. The “turkey problem” occurs when a naive analysis of stability is derived from the absence of past variations. Likewise, conﬁdence in stability was maximal at the onset of the ﬁnancial crisis in 2007.

The turkey problem for humans is the result of mistaking one environment for another. Humans simultaneously inhabit two systems: the linear and the complex. The linear domain is characterized by its predictability and the low degree of interaction among its components, which allows the use of mathematical methods that make forecasts reliable. In complex systems, there is an absence of visible causal links between the elements, masking a high degree of interdependence and extremely low predictability. Nonlinear elements are also present, such as those commonly known, and generally misunderstood, as “tipping points.” Imagine someone who keeps adding sand to a sand pile without any visible consequence, until suddenly the entire pile crumbles. It would be foolish to blame the collapse on the last grain of sand rather than the structure of the pile, but that is what people do consistently, and that is the policy error.

U.S. President Barack Obama may blame an intelligence failure for the government’s not foreseeing the revolution in Egypt (just as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter blamed an intelligence failure for his administration’s not foreseeing the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran), but it is the suppressed risk in the statistical tails that matters — not the failure to see the last grain of sand. As a result of complicated interdependence and contagion effects, in all man-made complex systems, a small number of possible events dominate, namely, Black Swans.

Engineering, architecture, astronomy, most of physics, and much of common science are linear domains. The complex domain is the realm of the social world, epidemics, and economics. Crucially, the linear domain delivers mild variations without large shocks, whereas the complex domain delivers massive jumps and gaps. Complex systems are misunderstood, mostly because humans’ sophistication, obtained over the history of human knowledge in the linear domain, does not transfer properly to the complex domain. Humans can predict a solar eclipse and the trajectory of a space vessel, but not the stock market or Egyptian political events. All man-made complex systems have commonalities and even universalities. Sadly, deceptive calm (followed by Black Swan surprises) seems to be one of those properties.

THE ERROR OF PREDICTION

As with a crumbling sand pile, it would be foolish to attribute the collapse of a fragile bridge to the last truck that crossed it, and even more foolish to try to predict in advance which truck might bring it down. The system is responsible, not the components. But after the ﬁnancial crisis of 2007-8, many people thought that predicting the subprime meltdown would have helped. It would not have, since it was a symptom of the crisis, not its underlying cause. Likewise, Obama’s blaming “bad intelligence” for his administration’s failure to predict the crisis in Egypt is symptomatic of both the misunderstanding of complex systems and the bad policies involved.

Obama’s mistake illustrates the illusion of local causal chains — that is, confusing catalysts for causes and assuming that one can know which catalyst will produce which effect. The ﬁnal episode of the upheaval in Egypt was unpredictable for all observers, especially those involved. As such, blaming the CIA is as foolish as funding it to forecast such events. Governments are wasting billions of dollars on attempting to predict events that are produced by interdependent systems and are therefore not statistically understandable at the individual level.

As Mark Abdollahian of Sentia Group, one of the contractors who sell predictive analytics to the U.S. government, noted regarding Egypt, policymakers should “think of this like Las Vegas. In blackjack, if you can do four percent better than the average, you’re making real money.” But the analogy is spurious. There is no “four percent better” on Egypt. This is not just money wasted but the construction of a false conﬁdence based on an erroneous focus. It is telling that the intelligence analysts made the same mistake as the risk-management systems that failed to predict the economic crisis — and offered the exact same excuses when they failed. Political and economic “tail events” are unpredictable, and their probabilities are not scientiﬁcally measurable. No matter how many dollars are spent on research, predicting revolutions is not the same as counting cards; humans will never be able to turn politics into the tractable randomness of blackjack.

Most explanations being offered for the current turmoil in the Middle East follow the “catalysts as causes” confusion. The riots in Tunisia and Egypt were initially attributed to rising commodity prices, not to stifling and unpopular dictatorships. But Bahrain and Libya are countries with high gdps that can afford to import grain and other commodities. Again, the focus is wrong even if the logic is comforting. It is the system and its fragility, not events, that must be studied — what physicists call “percolation theory,” in which the properties of the terrain are studied rather than those of a single element of the terrain.

When dealing with a system that is inherently unpredictable, what should be done? Differentiating between two types of countries is useful. In the ﬁrst, changes in government do not lead to meaningful differences in political outcomes (since political tensions are out in the open). In the second type, changes in government lead to both drastic and deeply unpredictable changes.

Consider that Italy, with its much-maligned “cabinet instability,” is economically and politically stable despite having had more than 60 governments since World War II (indeed, one may say Italy’s stability is because of these switches of government). Similarly, in spite of consistently bad press, Lebanon is a relatively safe bet in terms of how far governments can jump from equilibrium; in spite of all the noise, shifting alliances, and street protests, changes in government there tend to be comparatively mild. For example, a shift in the ruling coalition from Christian parties to Hezbollah is not such a consequential jump in terms of the country’s economic and political stability. Switching equilibrium, with control of the government changing from one party to another, in such systems acts as a shock absorber. Since a single party cannot have total and more than temporary control, the possibility of a large jump in the regime type is constrained.

In contrast, consider Iran and Iraq. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and Saddam Hussein both constrained volatility by any means necessary. In Iran, when the shah was toppled, the shift of power to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was a huge, unforeseeable jump. After the fact, analysts could construct convincing accounts about how killing Iranian Communists, driving the left into exile, demobilizing the democratic opposition, and driving all dissent into the mosque had made Khomeini’s rise inevitable. In Iraq, the United States removed the lid and was actually surprised to ﬁnd that the regime did not jump from hyperconstraint to something like France. But this was impossible to predict ahead of time due to the nature of the system itself. What can be said, however, is that the more constrained the volatility, the bigger the regime jump is likely to be. From the French Revolution to the triumph of the Bolsheviks, history is replete with such examples, and yet somehow humans remain unable to process what they mean.

THE FEAR OF RANDOMNESS

Humans fear randomness — a healthy ancestral trait inherited from a different environment. Whereas in the past, which was a more linear world, this trait enhanced ﬁtness and increased chances of survival, it can have the reverse effect in today’s complex world, making volatility take the shape of nasty Black Swans hiding behind deceptive periods of “great moderation.” This is not to say that any and all volatility should be embraced. Insurance should not be banned, for example.

But alongside the “catalysts as causes” confusion sit two mental biases: the illusion of control and the action bias (the illusion that doing something is always better than doing nothing). This leads to the desire to impose man-made solutions. Greenspan’s actions were harmful, but it would have been hard to justify inaction in a democracy where the incentive is to always promise a better outcome than the other guy, regardless of the actual, delayed cost.

Variation is information. When there is no variation, there is no information. This explains the CIA’s failure to predict the Egyptian revolution and, a generation before, the Iranian Revolution — in both cases, the revolutionaries themselves did not have a clear idea of their relative strength with respect to the regime they were hoping to topple. So rather than subsidize and praise as a “force for stability” every tin-pot potentate on the planet, the U.S. government should encourage countries to let information flow upward through the transparency that comes with political agitation. It should not fear fluctuations per se, since allowing them to be in the open, as Italy and Lebanon both show in different ways, creates the stability of small jumps.

As Seneca wrote in De clementia, “Repeated punishment, while it crushes the hatred of a few, stirs the hatred of all … just as trees that have been trimmed throw out again countless branches.” The imposition of peace through repeated punishment lies at the heart of many seemingly intractable conflicts, including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate. Furthermore, dealing with seemingly reliable high-level officials rather than the people themselves prevents any peace treaty signed from being robust. The Romans were wise enough to know that only a free man under Roman law could be trusted to engage in a contract; by extension, only a free people can be trusted to abide by a treaty. Treaties that are negotiated with the consent of a broad swath of the populations on both sides of a conflict tend to survive. Just as no central bank is powerful enough to dictate stability, no superpower can be powerful enough to guarantee solid peace alone.

U.S. policy toward the Middle East has historically, and especially since 9/11, been unduly focused on the repression of any and all political fluctuations in the name of preventing “Islamic fundamentalism” — a trope that Mubarak repeated until his last moments in power and that Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddaﬁ continues to emphasize today, blaming Osama bin Laden for what has befallen him. This is wrong. The West and its autocratic Arab allies have strengthened Islamic fundamentalists by forcing them underground, and even more so by killing them.

As Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it, “A little bit of agitation gives motivation to the soul, and what really makes the species prosper is not peace so much as freedom.” With freedom comes some unpredictable fluctuation. This is one of life’s packages: there is no freedom without noise — and no stability without volatility

The Politics of Superheroes

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 21:08:40 -0500

It’s kind of old, but still valid

Jesse Walker, reason.com

On April 28, 2005, Spider-Man, Captain America, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld flexed their muscles onstage at the Pentagon. The trio was promoting The New Avengers, a comic book being sent to soldiers around the world. The effort was part of America Supports You, a program that in time would be exposed for misspending its money on self-promotion rather than boosting morale, with at least $9.2 million “inappropriately transferred.”

The stench of the scandal stuck to several former Pentagon employees, but the superheroes emerged unscathed. In the January issue of The Amazing Spider-Man, Spidey and Barack Obama teamed up to defeat a supervillain’s Inauguration Day plot. At the end, the incoming president called the webslinger “partner” and gave him a friendly fist bump, with nary a reference to Peter Parker’s previous work with the Bush administration.

Future historians can offer a more complete account of how costumed crusaders came to dominate Hollywood in the early 21st century. But one factor that has to be acknowledged is the superhero film’s philosophical flexibility. As comic-book crimefighters found a mass audience at the multiplex, they displayed an almost unerring ability to invoke important issues without clearly coming down on one side or the other. There are many reasons why Peter Parker’s alter ego can both strike poses with Rumsfeld and bump fists with Obama. But surely one of them is that Republicans and Democrats alike see their worldviews reflected onscreen when Spider-Man—and Batman, and Iron Man, and others—battle bad guys.

A decade ago, most of those Republicans and Democrats wouldn’t have cared. In the 1990s, superhero films weren’t just fewer. They were aimed, with only a handful of exceptions, at a cult audience. A movie like Mark Dippé’s Spawn (1997) might do fairly well commercially, making nearly $55 million at home and over $87 million around the world, but it was easy for the average American not to notice it. Today, by contrast, it’s hard to avoid contact with Batman or Spider-Man, or even with more obscure vigilantes, such as the hero of James McTeigue’s V for Vendetta (2006).

In three of the last seven years, the most popular picture in America has centered around a superhero. In the other four years, at least one specimen of the genre made the box office top 10. Several of those movies, notably Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 (2004) and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008), have been critical as well as commercial successes, and even widely derided efforts such as Ang Lee’sHulk (2003) and Tim Story’s Fantastic Four (2005) attracted some highbrow defenders. The trend is mature enough to have unleashed a new wave of hybrids and parodies, from the relationship comedyMy Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006) to the Airplane!-style farce Superhero Movie (2008). A popular 40-minute Internet video, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog (2008), manages to combine the conventions of the superhero film, the romantic comedy, the classical tragedy, the musical, and the vlog.

Not all of these movies are ambivalent about their worldviews. V for Vendetta, for example, turned a politically charged comic with a deliberately enigmatic outlook into a straightforwardly sympathetic tale of a rebellion against a right-wing regime. More often, though, the opposite occurs: A film genre that critics frequently deride for seeing the world in black and white is actually ambiguous about war, privacy, empire, and state power. It took this form as Americans, often derided for the exact same reason, grew increasingly ambivalent about the very same subjects.

The boom arguably began with Bryan Singer’s X-Men, a surprise hit in the summer of 2000. But it reached its present resonance with the first major superhero film to appear after 9/11, Sam Raimi’sSpider-Man (2002). This was not, at first glance, a particularly political picture. The movie’s most obvious metaphor involves masturbation, not the Middle East. (The adolescent Peter Parker finds his body changing in mysterious ways, including the ability to eject a gooey substance with his hands.) Still, Spider-Man’s message, borrowed directly from the original comic and enunciated by Parker’s doomed Uncle Ben, had ideological overtones: “With great power comes great responsibility.” That was enough for several hawks to declare the webslinger a spiritual cousin. The conservative cultural critic Mark Steyn would eventually argue that Spidey’s first film “makes a very good case for the Bush pre-emption doctrine” because “the men who killed his Uncle Ben were small-time crooks Peter could have stopped earlier but chose not to.”

Spider-Man was mostly made before 9/11, with the producers withdrawing a trailer right after the attacks because it featured the World Trade Center. If the narrative echoed our wartime debates, that was probably an accident. But when Spider-Man 2 appeared in 2004, its political elements were more deliberate and more conspicuous. They were also more complicated—or, if you prefer, more confused.

This time around, Parker attempts to retire from vigilantism. Crime jumps, the press that had been denouncing Spider-Man as a criminal starts wailing that he’s nowhere to be found, and every hawk in the audience nods his head with recognition: Why, Spider-Man is just like America! Writing in The Spectator, Steyn called the movie an “antidote to the stunted paranoia of Fahrenheit 9/11,” noting that “Peter recognizes that the bad stuff doesn’t go away just because you refuse to acknowledge it.” InNational Review, David Frum pronounced the picture “the great pro-Bush movie of the summer.”

And they were right, sort of, except that the story also included the tale of Doctor Octopus, a scientist whose well-intentioned mucking about nearly destroys New York. He can’t face the fact that he has miscalculated, so he plunges back into the same destructive project. If you come to the cinema searching for symbols, it’s hard to escape the idea that Doc Ock’s dangerous fusion generator represents empire and the mechanical arms that come to control him are a stand-in for the military-industrial complex. Hard to escape it, that is, unless the movie’s other allegories have transfixed you. (Steyn, for example, merely notes that Spidey’s antagonist is “a peace-loving man of science.” Viewers not obsessed with politics were probably still fixated on the semen symbolism: This time around, when Parker starts to feel impotent, he loses the ability to shoot webs.)

Spider-Man 3 (2007), also directed by Raimi, introduces two more villains to the series. One is Venom, an alien that initially appears as a crude black liquid. The other is a figure called the Sandman. Of all the characters the writers could recycle from the comics, they picked the embodiments of oil and sand.

For a while, the oil infects Parker, who consequently becomes arrogant, homicidal, and driven by revenge—a motive, his Aunt May sagely informs us, that can “turn us into something that we’re not.” To save himself, he has to shake the addiction and forgive his enemies. A more leftist fable can hardly be imagined, except that Spidey then goes to war against an oil-and-sand alliance, pausing briefly before an enormous American flag before swinging in to save the day. And then, just when you’re hoping the politics would resolve themselves one way or the other, everything collapses in a heap of Christ imagery. Our metaphors have gotten muddled again.

Of all the superhero movies released since 9/11, Jon Favreau’s Iron Man (2008) engages American foreign policy most directly. In its very first scene, soldiers ferry Tony Stark, an engineering genius and wealthy munitions manufacturer, through Afghanistan. Terrorists attack the convoy and kidnap Stark. The last thing he sees before he passes out is one of the weapons used in the assault. It has a Stark Industries logo on it.

After escaping, Stark announces that he cannot abide the thought that his output is being used against U.S. soldiers, and he pledges to shut down weapons production. As the company’s stock plunges, Stark starts work on a secret new project built around a compact and powerful reactor. You might initially suspect he’s working on a way to, say, bring cheap energy to the world. Nope: He’s building an Iron Man costume, which he promptly uses on a secret rescue mission in Afghanistan. Eventually we learn that his father’s old business partner, Obadiah Stane, has been selling Stark’s weapons to the enemy, allowing Iron Man to take out the traitor and return to his previous partnership with the American government.

In Human Events, the conservative writer Martin Sieff certified the story as “a celebration of what’s great about American capitalism” and suggested that the flick has “done more in two weeks for America’s image around the world than seven and a half years of plodding, hapless bureaucratic bungling by the Bush administration.” New York, on the other hand, presented the movie as “an action magnet for liberals,” with critic David Edelstein describing a plot in which “the military-industrial complex ravages the Third World.” The most perceptive comment on the picture’s politics came from Sonny Bunch in The Weekly Standard, who called Favreau’s feature “the film equivalent of a Rorschach test. If you go into Iron Man seeking right-wing imagery, you’ll find it: Tony Stark is a patriot, pro-military, and likes unilateral intervention. If you go into Iron Man looking for left-wing imagery, you’ll find that, too: The true villain here is Stane, representing an out-of-control military-industrial complex.”

If anything, Bunch understates what an inkblot this picture is. When Tony Stark is captured by terrorists using his own weapons, it’s a concise artistic depiction of blowback, the idea that American power exercised abroad boomerangs back against Americans. Even the Iron Man outfit, a smart weapon that allows Stark to target the enemy while leaving innocent bystanders standing, grows dangerous when it inspires Obadiah Stane to build a similar suit of his own. (Both Iron Man and Spider-Man 3 climax with the heroes battling villains who are, in effect, evil versions of themselves.) On the other hand, fixing the system seems to be a simple matter of eliminating one well-placed crook. Without Stane in the picture, the film gives us no reason to suspect that our power will ever backfire or that our weapons will end up in the wrong people’s hands. It’s an outlook that lends itself to either a liberal Obama fantasy, in which reform is a simple matter of changing the people in charge, or an equally dubious conservative narrative in which it is only treason on the home front that thwarts our victory abroad.

And if that’s hard to parse, look at what Bruce Wayne’s been up to.

Batman Begins (2005), directed and co-written by the ex-arthouse auteur Christopher Nolan, is an epic of ambiguity. The Spider-Man and Iron Man films sometimes feel like their creators were reaching for resonant images and ideas without pondering just how they fit together. Nolan’s pictures, by contrast, never seem to escape their creator’s control. They give every impression of making a coherent argument, just not one easily reducible to one side in a rerun of Crossfire.

If you’re making a vigilante movie, it’s a fair bet that some critic is going to describe it as “fascist.” That’s harder to do where Batman Begins is concerned, since the villains here are fascists themselves—or, more exactly, they espouse the fascist doctrine that societies must be violently cleansed of decadence. (The actual operation of a totalitarian state is beyond their interests.) Their secret society, the League of Shadows, trains Wayne in the Japanese art of Ninja warfare in a hidden camp located, confusingly, in China.

Like many of the major superheroes, Wayne is an orphan. The film paints his father as a liberal urban leader whose vision for Gotham City bears little resemblance to the crime and disorder that have settled in instead. The senior Wayne’s signature accomplishment was an elevated train system—in his words, “a new, cheap public transportation system to unite the city. And at the center, Wayne Tower.” As Bruce Wayne becomes Batman, the movie puts him at an exact midpoint between the semi-fascist misanthropy of the League and the liberal optimism of his father. Batman is a product of both and a duplicate of neither; his very existence suggests that two seemingly opposed worldviews might actually have something in common. The idea is symbolically reinforced at the end of the film: To kill the villain, the hero must also destroy the physical embodiment of his father’s idealism, the elevated train.

The sequel, last year’s The Dark Knight, sets up an even more complex system of opposites that sometimes seem to be doubles and doubles that sometimes seem to be opposites. Along with Wayne’s costumed hero, we have copycat Batmen who share neither his skills nor his scruples. Wayne himself wants to retire from vigilantism, and he puts his hopes in Harvey Dent, a crusading straight-arrow district attorney; Dent later loses his mind and becomes Two-Face, a villain with a visage that’s half handsome, half deformed. The film’s chief antagonist, the Joker, sets out to prove that everyone can be corrupted, driving Dent to madness and provoking Batman to create an elaborate surveillance system covering the entire city—a temporary, necessary evil, the hero insists.

In a film filled with hard moral decisions, the harshest one arrives when the Joker wires two ferries with explosives. One is filled with convicts, the other with ordinary travelers; each is given the power to destroy the other ship; each is told that if they don’t detonate the other boat before midnight, the Joker will destroy both vessels. In a film where neither public official nor superhero can completely resist the abuse of power, the people on those ferries, criminals included, find themselves unable to kill even to save their own lives. It’s the closest The Dark Knight comes to optimism, and it’s the real rebuttal to the Joker’s claim that everyone is always corruptible.

That barely begins to scratch the surface of the movie’s moral nuances. Nearly every decision in the story is a tragic choice, with unfortunate effects either way. Nonetheless, several critics praised or damned The Dark Knight as a simple brief for Bushism. In a notorious Wall Street Journal essay, the crime novelist Andrew Klavan declared: “Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.” In one bizarre passage, Klavan complains that in other films, “the good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us”—as though The Dark Knight doesn’t beat us over the head with the idea that men attempting to do good are capable of unleashing evil. Klavan’s take has caught on among some critics, but you could as easily come away from the movie agreeing with the liberal blogger DymaxionWorldJohn, who argued that “Batman has, in many ways, been a disaster for Gotham, and what Gotham needs isn’t a hero in tights but better law enforcement.” Or if not better law enforcement, then more chances for people like the civilians on the ferries to let their inner decency overcome their inner decay.

As the Bush years give way to the Obama era, there will be no shortage of superheroes at the cineplex. Both Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 4 are in the works, and another Batman picture will surely appear as well. There will be more sequels starring the X-Men and the Hulk, and there will be new franchises featuring Captain Marvel and the Sub-Mariner. With Watchmen, Zack Snyder’s adaptation of Alan Moore’s acclaimed graphic novel, we’ve already seen one major superhero movie on Obama’s watch. The film is overstylized and undersatisfying, but it preserves its source’s central theme of the limits and dangers of power. It is also, like the comic that inspired it, open to more than one political reading.

No one knows how the genre will adapt to the changes in Washington. But despite the comic-book Spidey’s easy partnership with the president, you shouldn’t expect Hollywood’s superheroes simply to fall in behind the new guy. It didn’t take long for public doubts about Bush to be reflected on screen, and there was a time when the 43rd president was more popular than Obama is now. Superhero stories may have begun as power fantasies, but it is our ambivalence about power that keeps the modern genre thriving.

There are some jokes that predict real life events. In...

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:55:37 -0500

There are some jokes that predict real life events. In 1969, Laugh-In predicted the Fall of the Berlin Wall and Reagan’s Presidency 20 years before it happened. Wanna see?? check the video

via @cracked

When Justin Bieber has more gravitas than you

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:20:56 -0500

Via @TheEconomist

NORMALLY when a pop star dips into politics and tries to engage a national leader on important issues, it’s the pop star who comes off looking shallow, crass, and manipulative, rather than the leader. I think Bibi Netanyahu may have set some kind of record for petty, grasping cheesiness here (hat tip Jonathan Chait):

JERUSALEM — The teenage pop idol Justin Bieber became embroiled in a diplomatic imbroglio on Tuesday when it emerged that plans for a meeting between the singer and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel had been called off, with the sides differing over why…

A spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu said that his office had been approached with the idea of a meeting, and that the prime minister had been “open to that.” The prime minister’s office then suggested including children from communities in southern Israel that have been under intense rocket fire from Gaza in recent days.

“Sadly,” the spokesman said, “that proved impossible,” suggesting that Mr. Bieber’s representatives had turned down the idea of including the children.

But a person involved in arranging the meeting on behalf of Mr. Bieber said that the discussions had been called off for logistical, not political, reasons and that it was more a case of miscommunication than anything else…

A spokesman for Mr. Bieber said, “Justin welcomes the chance to meet with kids facing difficult circumstances, regardless of their background, and in fact, he had already invited children from the Sderot area,” referring to the Israeli town near the Gaza border, to attend his concert in Tel Aviv on Thursday.

Trying to turn a photo op with a teen idol into a propaganda stunt for the war on Gaza. Nice. Mr Bieber, meanwhile, apparently tweeted that paparazzi, while they have every right to photograph him while eating, ought to refrain from attempting to photograph him at places of worship. Mr Netanyahu, take note: this is what we refer to as “classy”.

‘What If Donald Trump Was Our President?’

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:15:43 -0500

‘What If Donald Trump Was Our President?’

MINDGAMES FOLLOW-UP

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:29:00 -0500

Just today I read an article in The Australian, where University College London researchers claim to have found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased grey matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala”. This, translated into plain language, would imply that:

“People with a large amygdala are “more sensitive to disgust” and tend to “respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions”, the study said.

Liberals are linked to larger anterior cingulate cortexes, a region that “monitor(s) uncertainty and conflicts”, it said.

“Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views.”

Now, University College London might be cracking open the champagne in celebration of the most narrow-minded scientific finding of the year and we here at PopPolitics central want to join it.

Yes! the oversimplistic depiction of “born this way” right or left wingers comes nothing short of gaga-esque political(ly incorrect) logic, for who on this earth would dare challenge the biological and physical study of culturally attained traits and views? NOT

We might have argued for a political cookie cutter in our previous argument, but please don’t stretch our original observation: jungian personality traits. We highly doubt that any medical scientist would challenge the argument that personality traits might be biologically and physically manifested as we emphasize the use of certain sections of the brain; however, we also doubt that any of these grounded hypothetical medical scientists would go as far as to suggest that we are predisposed to develop these parts of the brain and then consequentially manifest political views. Wouldn’t this in some way represent a sort of handicap? a physical disability? Should we have all our politicians check their heads to make sure their cortex/amygdala is appropriately developed?

Here’s a question University College London, what about feral children? Do they manifest right/left wing political views? they deal with risk management and uncertainty everyday…

Here’s another question University College London, what about gender? what about upbringing? are we really that limited (well, according to their study, we are) to believe that our brains are programmed to respond to limited capabilities?

Stop tree-hugging kids! your amygdala says so!

-kimbo-

To read the article, see this link http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/scientific-research-shows-political-leanings-a-brain-sized-matter/story-e6frg6so-1226036101210?from=public_rss

The BoBo demonstration

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:30:00 -0500

Haters are gonna hate this, but such is life and reality bites. Yesterday, we were witnesses of coordinated, nation-wide public manifestations in Mexico that had the aim of demanding the Government to take more effective actions to stop the state of violence in which the country is submerged.

’Ni un muerto más’ or ‘Si no pueden, renuncien’ (translated to “not one more death” or “if you can’t cope with it, resign”) were some the slogans that were heard while people gathered and demanded better results from their Government. The call for the demonstration was launched by Javier Sicilia, a writer and poet, in response to the killing of his son, with the objective of rendering the authority accountable to solving his son’s murder.

Cool, we say, but what happens next?? We don’t know, and here is where the challenge arises.

Really, it’s very laudable for civil society to go out and take the streets and try to push the government to comply with its basic obligations, but at the same time, they are ironically and simultaneously demanding more of an authority they have been crippling all along. Let’s put it this way.

We can find an infinity of ideas about human nature and goals, but let’s stay with a classic in nature and state’s theories, Hobbes. The Englishman is very clear when he states that man’s main goals are survival and security, so is necessary to resign to some liberties in order to achieve them.

However, for a few years, people has been asking for a more democratic, transparent, and inclusive country. This is not bad, but the Leviathan has been weakening, and this frailty hasn’t been seized by civil society, but by organized crime.

Do not take me wrong, I really admire Javier Sicilia, I cannot imagine how it is to overcome a Daedalus’ pain and call for action; but as any action motivated by anger and frustration, his is overreacted. For him we live in hell and public officers must resign, well, I’ll tell him something, we’re far from living in the seventh circle of hell, and new faces don’t change structural problems, just ask soccer team Necaxa.

So people are demanding for more public actions, waiting for ‘Papi’ State to act. The Government can do something and less the situation, but real progress can be only achieved by shared responsibility. Do you want more actions??, well, encourage people to pay taxes, to stop buying drugs, to not bribe officials, forget about fake LV’s and $10 movies and so on. Even the smallest act of illegality is a reflection of how we want to live.

A manifestation like the one we had yesterday is only the first step of many that have to be taken. This could be the awakening of civil society, yes, and a tipping point also, but there are some flaws to bear in mind. First of all, it seems that these movements require the emergence of a leader. The types of demonstrations happening in Mexico are reactionaries more than spontaneous; the idea is not conceived within the society but as a reaction of something that happened to one person, echoed by an easy crowd. This time it was Sicilia, but some years ago this figure fell in Martí. The movements have to be more proactive, propelling a change from below and not waiting for a change from above.

In second place, we have to consider the scope and the dimensions of the efforts. I do not call it BoBo demonstration for no reason. As a movement gestated through internet and social networks, it is important to ponder that there are approximately 30 million internet users (84% in urban regions), 13 million for Facebook and 4 million Twitter users (2 million active) in Mexico, so in general terms, even if all Facebook and Twitter users were engaged in the movement, just 10% and 3% of the population respectively were capable of demanding a change. So an outreach is vital to expand the capabilities of success, both people from urban and rural areas are potential recruits for organized crime, so the two fronts have to be taken seriously.

And also, let’s face it; yesterday’s rally is a bourgeois-bohemian movement because it represents the wedlock between the liberal idealism and the self-interest. This thought is based in the expectation of the utopian society, Locke’s Island or Richard’s beach, but without real compromise, moving with the flow, the masses….Action is required, action meaning more than demonstrations and slogans, but compromise and commitment. I am not capable of state that the acts that took place yesterday are social and not self guided. I really really want to be wrong, let’s see the outcome.

As @killiantide said last night, Sicilia, you have our attention, what now?

Mindgames

Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:42:00 -0500

Eleanor Shaw: Sergeant Shaw.

Raymond Shaw: [Abruptly] What…?

Eleanor Shaw: Sergeant Raymond Shaw.

Raymond Shaw: Mother, I…

Eleanor Shaw: Raymond Prentiss Shaw.

Raymond Shaw: Yes.

Eleanor Shaw: Listen.

With observable striking similarities in the parallel elections between Australia and Mexico, there’s nothing left to ponder save the underlying, deep and intangible weave of politics. In this case, I reflect upon what makes a political leader? What drives him? What leads his defence mechanisms? Ultimately….what is in his head?

Not entirely unlike the programmed mind of Raymond Shaw, political leaders (in the west at least) have a core of pin points they must adhere to in order to appeal to their target audience while remaining bound to their political creed/interests/ambitions.

In a Jungian typology, this relates to personality types ESTJs and ENTJs predominantly, with characteristics such as socially adept, logical, assertive, ambitious, and needing power. To make this easy enough pop-politics-thinkers, we refer to ESTJs such as Princess Leia Organa and Tony Soprano; compared to real life ESTJ George W. Bush. In terms of ENTJs, the list is comprised by personalities such as Magneto, Lex Luthor and Senator Palpatine ; in reality, they are no different in character to real life ESTJs Margaret Thatcher, Vladimir Putin and Napoleon Bonaparte (in respective comparative order).

In this fascinating finding, the three predominant traits in all these cult-worthy political figures are revealed to remain bound to three elemental paths towards political action: Extraversion, Thinking, and Judging. Let’s not be surprised then by the drive of a Metal manipulator to impose the rule of the mutant race when it seems all too similar to the ambition of an iron lady seeking to reinstate the positioning of a once glorious empire; or when our personal vendettas against the all time American superhero who constantly overshadows our own greatness mirror the personal efforts of a post cold war politician to legitimize and differentiate an all time snow empire from the land of opportunity.

Maybe there is a politician cookie-cutter. Maybe they’re shaped up on their way to the top. Maybe that’s why we grow parallel even in politics. It might be our dark human nature.

-kimbo-

7 Reasons Vladimir Putin Is the World's Craziest Badass

Sun, 03 Apr 2011 18:45:27 -0500

7 Reasons Vladimir Putin Is the World's Craziest Badass :

Did Obama really beat this guy???? It’s umpossible. Via @cracked