Drowsy Emperor

There have been cases of that happening. Of course its possible.

The first SW films were pretty firmly Space Princess, Black Knight and lighthearted adventure first and everything else a distant second. None of the characters take themselves too seriously and the whole thing has a decidedly campy feel. Rogue One and Ep7 have the same in your face, slavish devotion to series tropes, treating the universe as though its this grand, sacred fully fledged world. Everything that the more obnoxious series fans obsess over needlessly like the horde of cretins they are takes front and center instead of making a carefree adventure that both children and adults can enjoy. That's why I said its fan fiction.

I have to agree with Drowsy Emperor on one thing - it didn't quite capture the allure of the original trilogy. For want of a better term, it doesn't feel like Star Wars in the same way the originals did. None of the new films did, but Lucas' prequel trilogy did it better than the two Disney ones so far. Lucas SW are very self-conscious of being fairy tales. Their style is deliberate, characters purposefully archetypal in the overall "In a galaxy far, far away" fairy tale logic. Just look at the mentor character. Ben Kenobi is as archetypal as you get. Wizened, kind, patient, soft-spoken - the kind of guide you'd expect to walk straight out of a children's book, perfectly suited for a boy like Luke. Instead of him, in Rogue One you get Saw Gerrera. A cheesy abstraction of political extremism - a rerun of Whitaker's Idi Amin. Scenes of bug eyed brutality, incoherent mumbling and a few affectionate stares suggesting a relationship between him and the female lead never actually witnessed in the film. Same with Luke. Luke is naive and young, imperfect but essentially kind hearted - like every boy hero. Jyn on the other hand is the typical feminist poster child. With a permanently tragic expression and me-so-tough attitude, a face that's neither pretty nor ugly but somewhere in between all she suggests is patriarchal discrimination (and at some point probably sexual abuse). No room for growth or change - when she flips to become "the leader/hero" in the latter part of the film the whole thing is completely artificial. Lucas's characters and stories are pulled from universal tropes. The Force Awakens and Rogue One aren't universal. They're just a grab bag of whatever was popular and worked at the box office in the past decade with a bit of Lucas imagery and contemporary politics thrown in. They're trying too hard to "grow up" with the audience and aren't fundamentally aimed at children first like the old films.

The irony of the "progressive left" being more pro-war than the "reactionary right" never fails to amuse me Re: Obama's pre-cardboard box conference - he told Putin to "cut it out, or there will be serious consequences"

Nah, that would be Trump. Winners always end up doing the most about faces as they have the biggest potential by far to do so, and Trump isn't draining the swamp as he promised. Hillary would have flipped on stuff as well, of course, had she had the opportunity. All Bernie did was pick the least offensive corporate candidate over the more- and in the US system that's about all you realistically can do. Anything else is like, well, puling about winning the popular vote when everyone knows that it's not how you measure victory. In theory it's a valid complaint, in practice, that's just how things work. On the supposed Russian hacking, I am somewhat amused that the reason given by Michael Hayden for why Putin would be involved was that when the US did it the President had to give approval. Not exactly a claim to moral superiority there, either. I dunno. I felt that Sanders built up genuine hope in some circles from the start with the moral high ground he took. With Trump, you never expect him to stick to a word of what he's saying from the get-go.

Are we talking about the candidates or supporters here

Sanders turned out to be the worst overall because he did the greatest about-face of all the candidates in the election. He was playing at pseudo-European welfare politics only to prop up the paragon of corporate America. And when you manage to support the greatest shill of corporate America, that is more extreme and vicious than even the prototypical member of corporate America (trump), you've really done ****ed up.

You know that **** has really hit the fan when I have to agree with you

Wait a sec, all you did was complain about The Force Awakens. Why would you bother with Rogue One? I'm probably more upset because I have a cold and haven't been able to go see it myself. It was my friend's birthday and he pitched the idea of going to the midnight screening. I felt like sci-fi action entertainment. Which is why I say the movie was ok, because it delivered on that. It terms of creative and original movie-making, however, its not there. Too many formulaic moments, from the (not very funny) comic relief droid to the Last King of Scotland - just going through the motions of SW. People think Lucas is a hack - but Lucas has standards. He would have never made this film, not because he couldn't do it but because it brings essentially nothing of value and therefore has no reason to exist. I understand and respect him for that - better to have tried and kinda failed (with ep 1,2,3) than just repeat the same thing over and over. I can't respect directors who engage in pointless masturbatory exercises, which is what Rogue One is. The fact that it can be considered ok is just a testament to the merits of the original saga - that it can carry an otherwise very average film even forty years after its creation

Rogue One Passable fan-fiction Its basically the same as Force Awakens, except FA was bad fan fiction Both are just products really, more or less on the same creative level as a stormtrooper mug. The fairy tale naivete of the old films just replaced with a generic action adventure script, put a few x wings in it and you're done. They're going to keep cranking out this same movie for a while.

There is nothing worth adding to that film.

Sensationalist reporting. That's all they did. So yes, they are blocking them through a technicality, but they haven't banned anything. Other than that, what is there to say? Slovaks didn't sleep through history class? Or maybe they've just been watched one documentary on France and concluded "me no likey".

Surprisingly convenient how ISIS goes all out on Palmyra on the road to Homs just when the government is about to mop up Aleppo. Militarily its sound, but it benefits the "rebels" much more than IS at the moment.

What do you mean maybe? Who do you think is going to win in France, with every poll predicting a face off between two candidates of the right? Is the fact that the country has devolved into all but a ("state of emergency") police state since the attacks not conclusive proof that the French have a problem with immigration/integration that's so bad they don't even know how to handle it? Is Merkel admitting defeat and backtracking on her immigrant policies not a sign of policy failure? The fact that she's practically impossible to remove from power doesn't mean that "things are okay". http://www.dw.com/en/nationwide-german-poll-merkels-popularity-dips-to-five-year-low/a-19521704 Its quite clear which issue tanked her popularity and that's her handling of the migrant crisis and resulting security. Whether its actually relevant to most Germans is unimportant - the perception that it is, is there. There were daily reports of racist attacks on immigrants in Britain post Brexit. It was quite plain that the anti-immigrant (both mild and not so mild) sentiment was rallied behind that cause. Maybe you should read more newspapers? Its victory is a clear sign that the majority of the populace is further to the right than even the alleged party of the right. Some of it is the economy, pervasive euroscepticism the British always had, but its pretty damn clear a lot of it is also about getting all these "brown people" out of the country. I never said anything about the Italian referendum. I don't even know what the fuss is all about, Italy changes governments like people change socks. As for the Farage articles, that is a joke. A politician being a self-serving liar? Wow Columbus. I never said any of those politicians were good people or on the "right side" of history. What i said was that the media discriminates against them and that is frankly true. The media in Europe is not nearly as powerful as Trump's opponents in the US (nor are the stakes so high for so many people), so the scale of the attacks is going to be lower. The discourse of the right regarding Islam and immigration was buried under media attacks for years with the usual Nazi qualification hammer. If it was such a non-issue it would have gone away - instead its the only thing that's making headlines for months. Get out from your marxist rock and realize that people can have other concerns apart from the state of the economy. Having bread on the table is not the only issue relevant to mankind and the political process, otherwise we wouldn't have religions, nation states, tribes, cultures or any other sort of affiliation.

Mosul and Raqqa aren't anywhere near falling yet. The problem is not ISIS, its the competing interests of anti-ISIS forces. For any of them ISIS is a better alternative than their competitors grabbing victory. That's what has been keeping ISIS as a territory holding organization alive for a while now. Kurds can't fight and hold Sunni inhabited areas, nor do they want to. Turkey doesn't want them winning or consolidating. The Iraqi army is garbage, with the special forces having to pull double duty for everyone, which they cannot do for an indefinite length of time because they weren't designed for it. Shia popular militias also can't take Sunni towns for political reasons. In short, the force that has to win is incapable of it, and those that can win either don't want to apply themselves fully or can't for various reasons.

First off, the economy is, and has been, a primary topic for both the left and the right. I don't know about the political discourse in Serbia particularly, but here, in Italy, France, and especially the UK and the US, the issue of immigration has been presented as subaltern to economy (H-2B issues in the US, strain on the NHS and public schooling in the UK) first, security concern as a distant second, and not at all as a matter of cultural emergency or ethnic survival. Yes, there are good reasons to think that the votes have had a strong protest component. Against both left and right. Against the "establishment" by disaffected types, who are both increasing in number and increasingly aware that they are getting the raw end of the deal in this "social contract" which professional politicians aren't about to change anytime soon. It's not surprising that when people think their future is threatened they first seek to secure their own and that of their offspring before anyone else's. That is human nature. And no, the right wasn't under MSM attack, except in the US -- only in the US it wasn't the right per se, it was Trump. It pays to remember that he guy had been disavowed by his own party. The same extreme, one-sided media polarization hasn't happened in Europe, so not only are you making an unfalsifiable (and therefore useless) claim, you are basing it on a false premise. Oh, and by the way. They just elected a pro-refugee leftard in Austria this sunday. But that doesn't count because... reasons? With that all said, let's go back to your original statement: I have to say that you have an interesting concept about what "half" means, and the rest is basically magical thinking along the lines of Lisa's tiger-warding rock, which the very poll you brought up disproves. Immigration is a non-issue in Serbian politics because we're a transit route, not a destination. I call bull on the claim that the media isn't overwhelmingly one sided. The anti-Brexit propaganda was visceral, the media discrimination of Le Pen, Wilders, Farage, Orban, Swedish Democrats has been pervasive for years. They're allowed to participate in the political process but the media has been demonizing them for as long as they've been around. I can't see anyone claiming with a straight face that those parties/individuals have been getting fair treatment in their respective societies. Now that their opponents are trying to backtrack and incorporate their stances on immigration in their policies (shown by Merkel's new speech at her candidacy announcement) it has become more socially acceptable to hold those positions, but up until recently, claiming affiliation with any of those parties was practically tantamount to social and (sometimes) professional suicide. They were the dirty racists, islamophobes, homophobes, nationalists, nazis, fascists etc. etc. Yes they elected a leftist in Austria. The other guy got substantial support as well, so its not like they're a fringe thing there. What does half mean? Well the victory of Brexit and Trump is basically a victory for the right. The conservatives are still around in GB because the political system doesn't allow for any other party to truly compete with the two main ones, but the vote showed that the majority of Brits are basically even more to the right than the alleged party of the right. Then we have the French elections. Hollande is a corpse, the right (in some shape or form) will take power in France. Fillon, or Le Pen - the left is done in France. Netherlands. Polls give Wilders a significant chunk of the parliament. Whether he'll be able to form a government with everyone against him is another matter. Polls also show the Labour party losing a tremendous amount of seats. Germany. Its practically impossible to unseat an incumbent chancellor. That's how their system works. But Merkel admitted her policies on immigration were a failure and her public support is at a low level. I don't follow Spanish or Italian politics. So even though some governments may survive the fact is that current policies have blown up in the face of all of the aforementioned European governments and the immigration was a significant part of that.

Its impossible to say what Cuba's fate might have been, but in terms of the times, Castro's foreign policies were textbook examples of the resourceful action under poor circumstances. Also these accusations of dictatorial behavior fail to mention that Castro enjoyed, more than most politicians, a long period of genuine political support. When the US invaded, it wasn't just the army fighting for him - most of his forces were armed militias, the kind that would easily scatter when mustered by someone they don't actually care to support. But they didn't and after that debacle, there is really no question about whether he was the legitimate ruler of the country or not. After the Bay of pigs, it is also impossible to argue in a credible manner that the US had Cuba's good will at heart or that there was a better alternative to Castro. As for the period post-USSR - sure, times were hard. But not even professional strategists in Washington, whose only business was studying the USSR, saw the collapse of the Soviet Union coming. Castro could hardly be judged guilty of that same mistake. Besides, the US would not accept any sort of rapprochement with Cuba while he was alive because it would be seen as weakness. So basically, everything that happened in the past 30 or so years had to happen, for as long as Castro was alive.

I don't see right winning votes on the weight of their economic programme. In fact, none of those parties have offered an economic alternative for the voter to latch onto, other than some extremely vague promises. Statements of the sort: "Bring back manufacturing jobs to the US", "We'll save xyz million euro if we leave the EU" were the least vague things I saw coming from the right. They did however, present a hard stance on immigration. You could always argue it was a punitive vote against, rather than a vote for - but if they're rejecting the economic status quo they sure as hell are rejecting the pro-immigration left positions as well. And bear in mind they managed all this while on the beating end of a severe media frenzy - if the game was played on anything resembling a level playing field, there wouldn't be a single non-right government left in Europe.

What exactly was it about immigration that some people were very dedicated to proving you wrong about? That it's going to "destroy our culture"? That in a generation there would be less ethnic French in France than second-gen Muslim immigrants? I ask because a lot of nonsense has been said regarding this "issue" and it wasn't so much proving anyone wrong as asking you and others to, um, substantiate your claims, so an actual discussion could be had. I'd also like to know when you say "it" has tanked governments, what exactly is "it"? Immigration? If so, being generous I'd say you're jumping to conclusions, and disregarding other important factors, such as, the huge-ass long-term unemployment in Italy and constant strikes and protests that have been going on in France for a while now, and that have nothing to do with immigration, being instead directed against PM Valls' labor reform pet project. Mind, if you want to play the card that immigration is the chief factor for what has been happening, you are actually pushing the "2016 the year of racism" narrative. Can't have your cake and eat it too. And well, the limp-**** right has been re-elected for another term over here after some embarrassing kowtowing by the limp-**** left, so I personally don't have much to say. Er... the more things change, the more they stay the same? ...I got nothing. While there is no doubt that the state of the economy was a factor, the EU barometer poll makes it quite clear what was on the public's mind in spring 2016, just before the dominoes started falling. And, frankly, the top two might as well just be combined and called Islam. Because there isn't any other kind of terrorism or immigration topping the news for the past two years. And even if you lump the next three together, which might as well be called "the economy" they still aren't close.

That any convinient lie becomes a truth if enough people are willing to believe it. Of course that said, the problem has always been that we never had a real and constructive talk on how to approach any religious and cultural difference that clashes with established values, opting to either bury our heads in the sand or believe whatever lie we we're told, as long as it targeted those we didn't like. There are huge problems with many religious paradigmes in the modern era, especially for Islam - but to single them out only proves that your are blind to your own. The only lie was that the problem ends with Islamic immigration itself, instead of it being just the most prominent byproduct of a (a)national policy that was destructive to begin with. I don't fundamentally have a problem with Islam. In my part of the world, we've had relations with it longer than almost any other European state - and from more angles than anyone else - the victor, the defeated, coexistence, both within Islam and outside of it. You name it, we've had it. Ergo we know exactly how the relationship works - everybody keeps to their side of the fence and doesn't pretend to be anything other than what they are. Trade, cooperation, free practicing of faith - sure, 'melting pot' and uncontrolled immigration - hell no. So I will concede that it was a partial untruth that Islam itself is "the problem". Islam is what its always been. The problem is that you want it to be something else (a non-issue) so that you can fill up your aging workforce with people to make your pizza and sweep your streets, going so far as to deceive yourself about how open and tolerant you really are of substantial cultural differences. And now its a slow motion train wreck, blowing up in your face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

By the way, some people on this forum were very dedicated to proving me wrong on the issue of Islam and immigration. Now that its successfully tanked half of your governments, what have you to say now?

Loving the butthurt over the return of "nationalism" to politics. As if the likes of Trump and Farage would have had a leg to stand on if the current system wasn't perceived to be rotten to the core. And still the European quasi left (all centrist neo-lib really) blames the other side for their ****up, despite being in power for decades. The demon is always Trump, or Farage, or nationalism or populism or demagoguery... but never "us". Unfortunately, this new breed of nationalism is not the old paternalistic kind - that can actually create value for a state. Its more the old Franco/Mussolini "big businesses know what's best" type wearing the skin of nation based politics. But unlike even Franco or Mussolini, the people pitching the thing are just as powerless against the moneyed elite as their predecessors. So, as yet another representative of the status quo they'll be unable to rescue Europe from its economic quagmire.Therefore, I give them an even shorter shelf life.

What? As an Argentinian and generally an anti-Peronist, I'll go ahead and say that much of what is said here could very well be applied to Perón. That said, I don't think Zizek's point was so much that his rise to power did not bring anything new but that his government proceeded to stagnate and maintain a decadent system for much longer than it should have been allowed. Hence his comparison to the cartoon scene of the cat walking on air, not realizing he is bound to fall. I don't think there is a disagreement on his behalf that it was an improvement over Batista. Back to the comparison with Perón, he too presented a number of good policies early on in his rule, giving the rural workers basic human rights and minimum wage, giving women the right to vote, and essentially ending what was up to that point an ostensibly oligarchic system. But he did in turn establish a fascist government that was forcibly controlling the market and media, using education as a tool of ostensible propaganda with means such as making Eva Perón's The Reason for my Life a mandatory read in ethic and civil formation classes all over the nation, incarcerating and expropriating the property of anti-peronists, all of which eventually proved carcinogenic for the country. Nowadays the peronist party lives pretty much in the state Zizek describes, and exists as little more than a romantic fantasy of those early years of peronism that every Argentinian demagogue loves to vociferously stand by and abscribe to even as their politics stand frequently elsewhere entirely (see: Menem, Kirchner, Macri, all self-proclaimed peronist presidents). The way I see it, I think the hatred towards Castro on the Americans' behalf is largely misguided and built on years of mediatic propaganda and bias; but the way Castro is being revindicated is also pretty sketchy, as in our desire to stand against American imperialism we are all too eagerly washing over the many flaws and failures of Castro's regime, not to mention crimes, and making of Castro a very questionable icon and role model. To me this article is pretty much Zizek's warning of this very same issue. States change only very slowly and even that is only when things become unbearable. The results are usually catastrophic. So let's say Castro maintained a stagnant system for too long. Let's look at a man who didn't - Gorbachov. Destroyed the USSR in the worst way imaginable, bringing untold misery to Russia for a decade - during which it was at one of its lowest points in history. So beloved that he can't show his face there anymore and would probably be lynched on the spot. With the end of the Soviet Union, Castro started on limited market reforms. He knew communism could no longer be sustained. Cuba looks set to follow the same trajectory as China, a slow slide to a market state. So far it is the best way for that sort of system to transition into something else without major upheavals. Alternatively it could transition more smoothly in a way that Croatia or Slovenia did but they had significant external assistance (and Cuba does not have a positive atmosphere in this regard). Even so, a lot of what they had when they were part of former Yugoslavia, ended up in the hands of foreign capital. So their independence and ability to decide their fate is questionable. China's isn't. Of course the discrepancy between their size and power is massive, but the fact remains that China changed slowly without becoming anyone's client state. So the accusation is still not true. Castro initiated the changes, knowing they're necessary. Yes they're very slow - but that's a good thing. We've seen what "shock therapy" looks like. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

I found Zizek's position on Castro absurd. He states that Castro should be forgotten as soon as possible because he didn't bring anything new (as in a new form of organizing society). But that completely ignores the context - for Latin America, a pure national, independent government that also tries to correct pervasive injustices that plague those societies - at least in the domain of access to education and quality healthcare is new. What Castro brought is the proof that Latin America can, if its clever and dedicated enough - do things on its own, as opposed to being a passive importer of US foreign policy, and that countries don't have to be the type of bandit states headed by the likes of Peron, Pinochet, Papa Doc or Batista. Even though much of LA has switched to a quasi democracy in the post-dictator era, for the most part nothing has really changed thereby making Cuba's example all the more relevant. So if Zizek doesn't value attempts at equality and independence much then, sure, Castro didn't bring anything new. But that really says more about Zizek than it does about Castro.