In the modern day, being able to reassert control over Mexico must be a pretty desirable act for the Mexican government, and, oddly enough, the Mexican people too. Gripped by drug violence, poverty, and corruption the nation of Mexico looks everyday like it’s an occupied state. The military and police scour the streets and countryside fighting a war that isn’t accomplishing anything. Where they fear to tread (read: everywhere) cartels and gangs act with impunity, and escape the law. But the law itself is driven by such a corrupt group that there is no truly righteous law.

It looks, to all observers, like the sovereign nation of Mexico in 2013 is, and has been, the puppet state that it once was. Replacing Maximilian I, the autocrat within, is the autocrat without: money. Overwhelmingly it is United States money at that. The massive demand for illegal drugs from the streets of New York is what the cartels in Mexico evolved around. After the Colombian cocaine heyday in the 1980′s and 1990′s came the marijuana market, and the South American and Central American cartels stepped up to the plate, but moving grass was not like moving blow. Boats going into Miami were not as successful as they once were, and the pipeline through Mexico became cheaper and easier. The handlers in Mexico between the powerhouse cartels in Central America were no slouches though, and like any middle-men they realized there was more in it for them if they flexed a bit. Fast-forward to now, and the drugs trade in the Americas is dominated by the Mexican syndicates. They control production, they control the movement, and ultimately they control the government.

Some may say the Mexican people invited the cartels in, others the Mexican government, and others the United States (they’re all very valid), but the root is money. Yet, who can blame anyone for wanting to be wealthy? Life ain’t necessarily happier because you’re rich, but it’s definitely better to cry in a Mercedes Benz S600 than a Toyota Tercel. Even further, who can blame Mexico and Mexicans for wanting money? This is a country that at its best is a third-world country, and only ten minutes away from from San Diego (that’s the 8th largest city in the world’s richest nation, in that nation’s richest state). It’s an hour from the rest of the south-west United States. It’s not Afghanistan, but drive an hour away on their side of the border and you’d see the people there live the same existence they did a century ago; they just do it new clothes.

And that’s the big inherent problem. Almost 150 years since the Mexicans kicked the French out, their nation’s independence has been subjected to the troublesome US dollar. When poor people did what poor people do and scramble for money, those who rose up with the most in hand were those who became politicians, and racketeers (not sure if there’s a difference, but I’ll check on that). Then they self-perpetuated. Money and power in your hands means you’ll do almost anything to keep it, and those same racketeers and politicians hopped in bed with each-other to keep it that way. So the dollar planted in Mexico sprouted into a tree of corruption and crime.

But that changed some years ago. Richard Nixon in the United States, really as an extension of Cold War era containment policies, recorded the words “the War on Drugs.” Since then America has been pursuing everyone from subsistence poppy growers in Afghanistan, communist rebels in Columbia, and even its own CIA-plants in Panama to keep white kids sober. In Mexico, politicians came under more and more pressure to join the campaign and ultimately, under Felipe Calderon, the Mexican government took some serious Ben Franklins to fight a running war in their nation against drugs. The politicians that once kept the money-making drug runners safe jumped ship. There was more money in pro-American cooperation, basically.

Maybe somebody thought that the cartels could be dropped so quickly there wouldn’t be a problem. Wrong. Maybe somebody thought that the immense U.S. wealth and power would save the innocents and punish the criminals. Wrong. Maybe somebody thought anything Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama said about caring for Mexico was anything more than empty political gesturing. Wrong. In 2013 their protracted “War on Drugs” has not worked, does not work, and will not work. What is worse, the nation of Mexico is slaved to the U.S. Dollar by their criminals (am I talking about politicians or the cartels? You see what I did there?) on both sides of the argument. You pander to it to fight drugs, and you pander to it to sell it.

So why is this article called “The Enemy Within?” It’s a good question, seeing as the entire thing up to this point is how money from outside Mexico has eroded its base and disfigured it. I’ll explain:

Today a young lady named Andrea Benitez walked into a restaurant called Maximo Bistrot and demanded to be seated. When she was told there were no tables available, she threw a tantrum. Mam, you’re going to have to calm down. She spouted the “do you know who I am?!” and all that jazz. Yeah okay, I feel really horrible for you. She also threatened to call her father. Yeah, okay bitch, you’re soooo important, now go away. And then her father’s workers showed up and closed down the restaurant…

Not what you were expecting? It turns out her father is Humberto Benitez Trevino, the federal district attorney for consumer protection. His men happened to show up and close the restaurant down for “administrative reasons” right as his daughter was throwing a bitch-fit (quick work and decisive results, amigo!). Right. Senior Humberto apparently is less of a responsible parent than he is a responsible public servant. Luckily, for our side justice does get done. The bitch’s mouth couldn’t keep shut and she said, not in so many words, that she had gotten it closed down. The rest of the Twitter-verse, which consists of strangely normal people, responded like Geppetto from Pinocchio and ultimately the restaurant got re-opened. But that’s not it. Almost two years ago Paulina Nieto, daughter of President Enrique Pena Nieto, flew to the internet (bad choice lady) to call his critics “plebs” and “idiots” before his campaign shut her down. Even more, amongst all these are the collection of Youtube videos (the internet is really great for this stuff) of the privileged in Mexico being grade-A assholes. In one of these a guy knocks the teeth of a parking attendant across a parking lot because of his poor customer service skills. Oh wait, nope, the attendant just wasn’t allowed to leave his post. My mistake. I must have figured some people need reasons to act inappropriately.

It isn’t odd for a social divide to exist in a nation, but it’s definitely telling in a nation that is lacking any structure whatsoever. The elite dance all over the lives of the poor with some trumped-up ego. By the way, these elite are the politicians, and these poor are their constituents (that’s representative democracy in action!). Now, when someone doesn’t represent you, whether you have practical choice in the matter or not (you don’t), you at least think of finding somebody else. As a plus, sometimes there is reciprocity. Bad presidents like Nixon get booted, bitch-daughters of politicians get backhanded on Twitter, and people stop caring about Kim Kardashian. But when abuse starts raining down from the top on the assumption that someone is better than you you what do you do?

That one should be obvious. The average lifespan of an anti-cartel official in Mexico is measured in days, and with the way the upper-crust acts there is no doubt as to who the people are supporting. When was the last time the Mexican police went out of their way to protect the innocent over their corrupt paymasters? Mexican cops extort more than their cartel rivals. Furthermore, this is a country where the violent, greedy and ruthless criminal cartels have a better humanitarian track record than the government. Hospitals, schools, stadiums, churches and wells are on the construction docket of the syndicates, while the government shuts down restaurants because they can’t get tables. Cartels definitely don’t (by definition they can’t) impose the Mexican government’s conception of law and order, but they at least, and definitely do, propagate their own.

The real government of Mexico belongs to those it has outlawed, because the day-to-day running of a proud nation has been won by those that can actually govern. The interests of the people, like anywhere else, are peace and happiness, and the only ones to deliver time and again are the anti-heroes. It’s incredibly sad that that’s what they’ve become, but it is the truth. The government’s war on both sides of the border has done nothing to make safe anyone or anything, and is contrary to the idea of peace, period. Like the French over a century ago, the government no longer represents the nation, the servants have become rulers, and their sense of Imperial righteousness pervades ad nauseum.

So when does Mexican Independence show up again? I’m not sure, but the more I watch the more it looks like I’m looking at a civil war.

Last month the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of North Korea (I can’t stop laughing when I think they actually believe that label is realistic) decided they were going to test a nuclear device, in defiance of nuclear treaty banning tests and heavy sanctions against nations that lean towards manufacturing “sketchy” weapons (read: Iran). Then they decided to demand the evacuation of disputed Island off the Korean peninsula near the 38th Parallel, or face violence. When South Korea and the United States, Japan, Europe, etc. reacted with disdain North Korea decided, as always, to then play the nuclear and “Imperialist aggressors” cards. Sound familiar? It seems to happen once a month, or whenever whatever spawn of Kim notices they’re not being covered by the BBC anymore. So they stir up trouble and get back on television (sort of a capitalist consumer thing to do, comrade). As always it goes nowhere, and we go back to “they’re crazy and starving over there.”

This time it’s been different.  See, Obama must be tired of North Korea. Seriously, so am I. Seriously, so should you. Like passive-aggressive fuck shithead (I hate these people) kids in school who keep track of their “victories” when there isn’t any competition going on, North Korea sees every time we fail to respond to their aggression as a victory. Indeed, when we do respond, they see it as “Imperialism” (That’s called self-defined hypocritical self-righteousness kids, you can’t argue with them if they think they’re right, even when they’re wrong). But somebody, and this guy needs a medal, says let’s fly a B-2 out of middle America and over those fucks so they can all collectively shit themselves before remembering what a plane looks like and actually does. The President approved that somewhere down the line and we get the best thing I’ve read since Westboro Baptist Church new neighbors turned out to be a pro-homosexual group. Our planes flew over these fucks (I’m mad, can you tell?) reminding them that all those sanctions don’t mean a goddamn thing to us. ‘Merica will still kill you. It’s the equivalent of Robin Williams in Hook drawing a line in the sand for the lost boys to cross but if he had done it with a nuke held to his crotch screaming “King Kong Ain’t Got Shit on This.”

Even better now, according the United Nation’s Ban-Ki Moon “the situation is out of hand.” “Aggressive rhetoric and military posturing only result in counter-actions, and fuel fear and instability,” he says. Good job United Nations, you told them. Finally the UN takes a proactive but aggressive stance against the endless threats North Korea vomits up to stay in the news. Oh wait… No. He said that about the United States’ B-2 flyover. Awesome.

Apparently it’s too much for Senior (his proper title I’m told) Moon to notice, so I’ll say it. North Korea has been threatening the world with nuclear violence since they had nukes. They have been actively pursuing combat with South Korea and the West (read: ‘Merica) for so many years, it’s almost laughable that nothing has happened. But they continue to enrich uranium and plutonium, restart old reactors, like they did today, and pass a resolution for “vicious and unrestricted nuclear combat” on the United States and South Korea. All without reprisal. And that’s to say nothing of the humanitarian crisis there. Their own people fucking starved while Kim Jong-Il became the #1 Hennessy importer In The World. They keep starving while his goddamn son sits in Pyongyang and watches rip-off Disney characters dance around. Seriously.

Comic Sans in bold and italic lettering cannot emphasize enough what I’m trying to say. North Korea acts without impunity and nobody does anything about it. The United Nations calls out the United States for acting in defense of its ally against an old-hand and constant aggressor, and gets slandered. Why? Is Sr. Moon so convoluted as to think there is no danger? He worked in the South Korean Government. He lived in Seoul, South Korea A.K.A. that place that will have literally ten minutes left of existence when North Korea actually goes ahead with their shit. In the meantime, the entire nation of Japan is under threat, as well as places like Hong Kong and Singapore, old western bases much hated by the DPRK. Though the sanctions on North Korea after their illegal test did pass, they were blocked by Iran, Russia, and China. Iran makes sense; they’re the North Korean wanna-be state. They’re trying to get noticed. But Russia and China make no sense. I won’t go out of the way to talk about the danger China or Russia poses to us, but the era of those nations’ blank-check support for anti-United States operations is long past. They do not want a war with us. They do not want to back a tiny nation who wants to launch a nuclear offensive. The crimes of the United States are many, but Russia and China have nothing to gain in this situation. Our military would only be emboldened and expanded by an apparent Russia-China Batshit Crazy Alliance with the DPRK. All they are is being contrary for the hell of it.

Going out and goading North Korea into action is dumb, to say the least. A lot of damage can be done, but there is no basis for blaming the United States. North Korea has gone against international law, and is openly threatening war. From here, they will only get bolder. They’ve already shown their complete disdain for human lives (their own fucking peoples’ lives) and without a single action against them, North Korea will keep turning out delusional dictators again and again, letting their people die, while threatening the people around them. I’m tired, and you should be tired, that this keeps on going. Your politicians, while not doing anything else, refuse to do the obvious thing and check North Korean aggression actively. That this comedy keeps rerunning itself and no one thinks to change the channel is ludicrous and basically criminal. Though, to be in the UN’s position of siding with the enemies of everything they stand for is far worse.

Vindictively, I want North Korea to do what they said. To show the world, and especially this idiot Ban-Ki Moon what “peace at all costs” looks like. But I’m a human being, and I know that this game only goes so far.  Aggression can only be checked with strength and firmness. Hitler overran Poland, annexed Austria and the Sudetenland, and rearmed the Rhine while the world did nothing. Stalin drew the “Iron Curtain” across Europe, with tacit protests from the West. Every dictator and every madman at every level of prominence across the globe started with this same basic aggressive posturing. We cannot let the mistakes of history repeat themselves. I do not want to be in the position of saying “I told you so.”

Even now, North Korea is still on the warpath. The United States is mobilizing missile defenses in Guam. An hour ago the state media agency said, “The moment of explosion is approaching fast. No one can say a war will break out in Korea or not and whether it will break out today or tomorrow. The responsibility for this grave situation entirely rests with the U.S. administration and military warmongers keen to encroach upon the DPRK’s sovereignty and bring down its dignified social system with brigandish logic.” Right.

HBO has announced that the actor replacing Mr. Dinklage will be none other than David Faustino who is known for his roles as Bud Bundy from the 1990′s classic Married with Children and the voice of Mako from the animated children’s television show, The Legend of Korra.

HBO has elaborated on how they will explain this transformation in-universe: “Of course, we’ve done this before with Gregor Clegane, the Mountain that Rides. We’ve just replaced the actor with another when the first is unable to act. Mr. Faustino will simply kneel as he acts and we will use advanced CGI techniques to make sure he can be the same stature as Mr. Dinklage. We have no shortage of talent here in Westeros, mind the pun.”

Furthermore, HBO has stated that they plan other changes in their adaptation of George R.R. Martin’s work: “Things are shaking up in Westeros with Jon Snow as he navigates his stay with the Wildlings beyond the wall. We actually expect Jon to simply marry Ygritte and start a family. He won’t be his usual brooding self in season four! We’re also deciding that we’re changing an important fact from the books: we’re not killing King Joffery in season three. He will be returning for a fourth season.”

They continue about this surprising change: “We think the interaction between Mr. David Faustino and Mr. Jack Gleeson, who plays King Joffery Bartheron, will be remarkable and we think our fans will like it. Joffery will be a bigger cunt alive on season four than he will be this season.”

George R.R. Martin has made comments about the changes, “I give them two thumbs up! Who knew adding more sex and violence to my work would be so profitable!? When they told me they wanted Joff back, I immediately told my agent to have George Lucas begin adapting the script of my new book, Joffery the Great and Powerful, to screen. Winter is coming!”

What do you think about this surprising turn of events!

Almost faster than people in Europe started throwing up their hands and jumping on the “I always hated that Hitler guy” bandwagon (nice job Austria, making everyone forget you were totally cool with the Anschluss) the world delineated from the Nazis what dictators and genocide were to look like for, at least, the next 60 years. Genocides that followed the Holocaust were spread across the globe. Cambodia and Rwanda highlighted that the modern world suffered the same insanity that killed 6 million in Europe. But the sensitivity to genocide after the Holocaust made these modern era genocides more, shall I say, attractive than ones that had existed beforehand. Armenia suffered greatly at the hands of the Turkish for backing a Tsarist Russian scheme to liberate Armenians after World War One, the Native Americans at least as badly during the age of expansion. So what was the difference? Why were the crimes of the past simply ignored?

The answer is locked up in a quote I heard a long time ago: “History is written by the victors.” At the end of conflicts those that triumph have to set their future policies on the justifications that carried them through conflict. For example, we fought Hitler because he was exterminating peoples, thus we will reject all forms of genocide. In very important ways, this concept of drawing on the past to set future principles has shaped history. Americans learned long ago to value liberty and freedom above all else, so Manifest Destiny resulted. From that came the hallmark American Imperialism, occupying and “liberating” across the Pacific until it put the nation in a competing position against the Empire of Japan. Imperialist Europe worked on the principles of military and political alliances to maintain a balance. When the upstart Soviets withdrew Russia from World War One, they were unpopular, to say the least. Even more unpopular were the Armenians whose Independence was sponsored by the Soviets. They died as a result of the era’s victor’s hate. Furthermore, actions taken after wars give credence to the righteousness of the victors. Vichy French collaborators during World War Two were brought to trial and many were executed because Charles De Gaulle’s France was the authentic government, according to the victors.

Basically, what came out of World War Two, an undeniably great victory, was a new history written by the victors. The Belgian and Dutch began celebrating their valiant resistance movements, while sweeping under the carpet the collaborators. Britain’s incredible holdout during the Battle of Britain was remembered over Chamberlain’s appeasement, while the Free French movement distanced itself from the French generals who did nothing, literally, while Poland burned (I have a special place in Hell for those French officers, who let Poland die while they sat right on the German-French border. It was so bad, the German word Sitzkrieg meaning “Sitting War” was coined. Did I mention the Germans were all in Poland at that point?). Admittedly, the resistances in Europe as well as the tenacious defense of Britain were great, and deserved glory. Yet, there was a real movement away from the horrible truths after, and that left a lot of skeletons collecting in closets out of sight. The biggest collector of bones was Besarionis dze Jughashvili, also known as Uncle Joseph Stalin.

Remember when I said Hitler was crazy? You can scroll back up. Well let me put it out there that Stalin was crazy too. By the end of his “reign,” as it were, it is known that Stalin had killed more people than Hitler. Stalin was worse than the guy that industrialized mass murder. Political and social purges started after World War One was wrapping up, and continued until he died in 1953. Siberian labor and penal camps were always full, but that doesn’t count the many millions of deaths and rapes ordered by Stalin’s political officers during the advance to Berlin and retreat to Moscow. Seriously, thousands of soldiers died because they had contact with Germans, being captured instead of dying, while civilians faced purges for being “suspected” of collaboration (insanely, even before they could have actually collaborated).

Now Jews were never liked in Europe. It’s not a joke, and it’s only funny in its absurdity. Throughout time they were blamed for many things including the Mongols and the Black Death before anyone could even reckon where the Mongols or the Black Death had come from. Tsarist Russia had pogroms, sacking and random murders, throughout the nation and Soviet Russia purged many as “kulaks” or landowning capitalists. Essentially, anti-Semitism was never a secret; it was the rule over the exception. So when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, entering the Baltic States, the Ukraine and Russia proper even people in isolationist America knew the Germans were anti-Semitic. But when the Nazis ordered Jews to assemble for “relocation” in the newly occupied areas thousands (seriously) turned out. They congregated and queued up to be put on trucks, driven out to the forests and shot after being robbed of everything they had. And this wasn’t some great trick played by the Nazis, this was happening along the entire German salient going into Russia. So why would so many turn out to die when it was so obvious? Well, Stalin and the Soviets censored their news. Few normal villagers even knew Germany and Russia were at war. The Germans showing up and occupying their settlements were the tip off for the Russian rural that war was up. And it was so bad, the Jews in the settlements, amongst many others persecuted by the Nazis, had no idea the German special Einsatzgruppen, the SS, the Army (Wehrmacht), and even the Air Force (Luftwaffe) were systematically eliminating them.

Stalin’s total lock-out of knowledge got people killed, when it was so easily avoidable. Many people in Russia were overrun so quickly by the Nazis they had no opportunity to run, but citizens, who had nothing to do with the Red Army and couldn’t care less about the Soviet, chose to stay rather than fight. Think about that next time you read a story about Chinese internet censorship. What information is the Chinese Government blocking that could do so much good? The possibilities are limitless with an infinite internet.

This phenomenon of not knowing something vitally important is called the “Unknown Unknowns.” It is simply not knowing what you don’t know. This is a complicated subject, and paradoxical, but it is critically important. The Unknown Unknowns are is why the United States Government can be so easily harassed by a Chinese teenager with a laptop, and it is why HIV carriers in Africa keep having unprotected sex. Having your scope of information narrowed willfully or involuntarily means you cannot know anything beyond it. The United States focused militarily so long on nukes, submarines, and aircraft carries no one paid attention to what a $400 (Thanks Costco) laptop can do. Development in Africa has been so destabilized and stalled time and time again information from the outside world has been halted, limiting the access to basic health information from within. If you didn’t know that a Starbucks had opened next door because you never went outside, you’d never go there for coffee. Saying you have to go outside, a focused and direct action, is even beyond necessary. Just look out the window and look. You might not be as intimately engaged as you would be, but you know it’s there at least. Now think about that militarily. If you were at war with Russia and it never got to you, do you think you would be able to protect yourself? Jesus, most of us can’t anticipate when cars in front of us change lanes; we are not intuitive to be able to foresee everything. We, at the very least, can expand out horizons (open the window) and look outside.

But why would we do that to ourselves? Well sometimes it’s just ignorance. We didn’t know the neighbor kid was a champion kick boxer so we got in his face at his birthday party. We had no idea you can get into a United States information database with a $400 (Thanks again Costco) laptop. We couldn’t prepare because we didn’t know. On the other hand, information is filtered more and more. As I’ve said on Nationsmith before, thinking you’re the only correct one in the world is dangerous, but how are you supposed to avoid it with Facebook, Google, etc. filtering your results for you? You do a search for Hitler once, and before you know it History Channel has already sent out a promotional mailer. Search Stalin and someone is convincing you to buy a Che Guevara T-Shirt in no time. They know you’ll buy into things you like, so they track what you like. Truly, the scope of the United States is so huge that it’d be tough to wrap in a blanket of complete ignorance from Google alone, but this filtering thing goes beyond into our own selves. The real danger of Google-style filtering means sources of lots of information get rejected. That newspaper page you never read might seem alright to toss automatically, but if you even glanced at it you would know something at least. Also, we don’t search because we think we know, so Google doesn’t even have to make us ignorant. All we need to do is think we know all we need, and you’re set. There has, especially with the rise of technology since the 1980′s, so much change but everyone at the top was sure we’d face down any threat we did nothing.

And that complacency should have stopped when 19 men got onto planes in the United States, hijacked the planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. The Pentagon was so sure the only threat to us was from the Soviet Union and missiles that they put no effort into understanding Al-Qaeda. But that changed, right? Try to get a bomb on a plane nowadays; you can barely take nail clippers. That’s progress right? There was a time, until December 7th 1941, that a foreign assault attack on United States’ territory was considered impossible. And then Pearl Harbor happened. It completely defied the conceptions of attacks. But that wasn’t the first time the United States had to defend itself from foreign aggression. The time before that was 1812 against the British, or 1861 if you think the Confederacy was a foreign entity. Before that it was Native Americans working with the French in the mid-18th century attacking British settlers.

How is it that with so much evidence for unlimited and unrestricted warfare that we are caught out over and over again? Regression and complacency. It’s not what you haven’t thought about ever, it’s what you didn’t think about it. Stop anticipating something and pretty soon you’ll find that same thing is now going to affect you. Never look across the street and you’ll get hit by a car. Never look at your bar tab and you’ll get hit by a nasty bill. Then you’ll wander outside and get hit by a car because you never look across the street. Double whammy.

There is a way forward. Never stop discussing, never stop thinking and remembering. It’s dumb to say, but: for America, for your neighbors, for your family and for yourself think about the things you’ve never thought about. Read a book on something you know nothing about. All it takes is an idea and you have, at best, ushered in a new age of philosophy and line of thinking that will advance all aspects of civilization. At worse, you have The Clapper.

Before I’m judged as a hipster-douche on a rampage old-man style about anything new-fangled, I want to say that I do enjoy the mainstream. That garage band your neighbor has sucks, and that’s the reason he always hounds you to into going to that one “dive bar” down the street to listen to him. The industry serves to uplift the exceptional, and distribute them. Killswitch Engage is one of my favorite bands and they signed to Roadrunner Records, a major label, a long time ago.  Good directors and actors tend to do flicks that you want to see, so putting them in a high place in the industry is not entirely unjustified. Big studios and big productions that we all love have to have some big-time accommodations to facilitate production. That’s all fine. This is not meant to tear down what any pop culture industry calls “good,” or criticize it’s functional planning and decision making.

Because of my slow uptake, I didn’t take a look at Seth MacFarlane at this year’s Oscars until today. I had heard about his “boobs” song, but it seemed like no big deal. I found it today on a list from Buzzfeed titled “9 Sexist Things that Happened at the Oscars,” and decided to watch it. It was hilarious. It was perfect clowning around for a stuffy awards show, and dished on Hollywood in a very gratifying way. It was something that took the celebrities down a notch, at the least. It reminded them they’re human (though sometimes I’m not so sure). It’s an entire song about the topless scenes in movies. The reaction of the crowd, the shots of MacFarlane singing was interspersed with them, were uproarious to me at first. Naomi Watts goes completely dead-faced and whiter after carrying an obvious smile. Jennifer Lawrence even gave a thumbs up to her lack of topless-ness on film. Generally, it seemed like people there were laughing. But, for me, that was basically ruined by a shot to Charlize Theron who was as amused (she was not amused) as Billy Crystal behind her shaking his head in disapproval. Really Billy? I saw City Slickers; you can’t say anything about this. Even worse, the song enraged so many actresses they flew to twitter after the show to discuss the incredible sexism. The Oscars producers even had to defend the piece as “satire,” aka the code-word for  “don’t blame us.”

Now, other things Seth MacFarlane said during the ceremony were sexist to me, and some others were in what I’d call bad taste. I wouldn’t write or say things like that, but this is America: you can say what you want. And seriously Hollywood, you just got over Ricky Gervais, Three-Six Mafia, and Jon Stewart. Those Dolce and Gabbana G-strings really get twisted. Truly, it’s not enough to just dismiss statements as “just a joke.” Even with comedy you’re going to affect people, and you have to deal with it. Nevertheless, there is this amazing cognitive dissonance on display from the actresses. They did actually get naked on camera. It’s not a forced thing, like rape. It’s something that these actresses went along with, and did. So when it’s placed in front of their faces at the Oscars, and they are so incensed they fly to the twitter-verse to fight, what is it that they’re saying? Are they remorseful? A million dollars cures a lot of ill-feelings. Do they feel they are being insulted or embarrassed unduly? This is Hollywood, there was never any decorum or dignity. Barring the possibility that they were forced, which is bullshit, what can they possibly say that would make MacFarlane’s song be actually sexist? Are we not supposed to look at boobs? Tell all the people (read: dudes) on the internet that you’re not supposed to look at boobs. I bet many of them, from memory, could recall every topless scene Seth sang about in real time. Feminists would tell you the actresses getting on camera probably promote sexism more than MacFarlane’s song ever did, and that’s not to mention all the people who paid to see the movies they were topless in, in a theater. Wait, actresses actually put themselves on film knowing it was going to be widely circulated? Willingly? Then they get mad because someone else was talking about it seeing it?

That is what is so completely nonsensical about all this. When the films were made Every Single Person on the film wanted it to sell well and do well in the theaters, meaning more viewers. That is the point the studios see in making them. Every person that pays to see it makes them all, at least, richer and more famous. Maybe that’s why they want tits on film, there’s more money in it. And MacFarlane never even insinuated that there was money in boobs, though that’s quite realistic too (ask Vivid entertainment). He literally only lists the times actresses have shown their boobs on film. Am I insane to think that if you didn’t want the publicity of being naked on film you shouldn’t have done it? Again, what is so sexist about this song?

The answer is nothing. The answer is that apparently Hollywood is so hypocritical that they do one thing, on film for everyone to see, and then say another, on film for everyone to see. Richard Nixon did something like that and it cost him his job. Apparently reality doesn’t exist in Hollywoodland or Washington D.C. in a very similar way. But why is this a big issue? Are you drunk and ranting again Pete? (No and yes are my answers, but I can’t remember the order).

Over the last few days  two boys, Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond, in Steubenville, Ohio have been convicted of raping a passed-out drunk girl, and it has turned into a real news story. Particularly because CNN’s coverage has actually been partial to the perpetrators. Seriously. These two boys, in front of other people, sexually assaulted a girl who was by all means incapacitated and then sent pictures out of it. But apparently that’s not enough to draw the ire of the news media. That is saying nothing of other armchair assholes who strongly believe the victim did it to herself. But how can the victim be blamed? Here it is again: These two boys, in front of other people sexually assaulted a girl who was incapacitated and then sent pictures out about it. It doesn’t matter if anyone was drinking underage. If illegally consuming alcohol and rape shared a 100% cause and effect relationship we’d be going to sexually segregated schools. But if anyone was so worried about aspiring high school football stars ruining their careers with rape why wasn’t it the boys? Why are they not expected to be responsible? How could this is all somehow be her fault? Why is it that all mention of the victim’s suffering is grafted over by the now on-TV drama of two football players?

Precisely because it is on-TV drama. No actress in Hollywood was embarrassed about her topless scenes walking into the Oscars (most of ‘em would’ve been topless if they sneezed in their dresses) but they’ll call Seth MacFarlane a sexist now that he’s said it. No news outlet would’ve called a rape victim, in any circumstance, the cause of it before the perpetrators made good television. Is that not an obviously completely corrupt mentality? Blame is laid by self-interested, very likely morally bankrupted parties backed up by a mislead mob who talk so loud they never listen. If Mays and Richmond wanted to have a life, maybe (I’m going out on a limb here) they shouldn’t have raped anyone. Simple. If Hollywood actresses don’t want to be confronted with their nudity, maybe they should have kept their shirts on. Simple. Where in the world would anyone go about blaming someone else for something they did? Does responsibility for your actions pass to someone else after you do them?

It is not dramatic to say that such is the state of popular culture today. After the music industry cranks out Disney Clone, Gaga shithead, wannabe Gaga shithead, and “banality of edgy” artists all making music that sounds completely the same, they then surround a person with them, finding every way to screw them out of money for over-priced “music,” only to sue them when the consumer finds a way around it to what they actually want: quality media at a realistic price. The RIAA and MPAA don’t go after kids for six and seven-figure settlements because they’re protecting their artists, or the “music.” That’s obvious. But blaming a kid because you’re so convoluted you think a 9-Track CD is worth $20 minimum is ridiculous. Bob Dylan’s new live album on iTunes for $10 is not a deal or attractive, but some “genius” must have put it up there. I saw the new Blu-Ray version of Commando with Arnold Schwarzenegger, my absolutely favorite comedy, at a Best Buy for $15 the other day (that was even a reduced price). I’m a fan and I wouldn’t have paid $10 for it. But I’m apparently to blame when I want to watch some classic Arnold slap-stick, and have to download it rather than pay the $5 for it that I would. Complicity to steal is one thing, and is right there with profiting off stolen work, but there being no realistic choice to consume for a consumer is another. But let’s blame everyone but ourselves, even though we designed and implemented everything.

The danger of thinking you are the only correct person on the planet, blaming everyone else and radiating responsibility away from yourself, cannot be overstated. Ask a Holocaust survivor what Adolf Hitler’s self-righteous obsession did to them. In a world where every single thing you consume can be tailored to you and your new bath obsession because you visibly liked “bathing” on Facebook makes this even more dangerous. Surrounded by the same crap with no criticism or review allowed in and your self-righteousness will abound. That’s called confirmation bias. It’s as easy as sealing yourself off from critics. Marginalizing people who hate your music as “haters” and you’ll think someone actually wants to hear your animal sex sounds remix. Kill all your critics and you’ll be a short, fat Korean dictator surrounded by people that hate you and want to kill you. Nonsensical logic will abound just as quickly. Pretty soon you’ll be blaming your plates for holding enough chicken McNuggets to give you diabetes in one sitting-

Shit, we’re already there aren’t we?

I’m a fan of Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic (and its MMO sequel The Old Republic), Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and whole slew of other games by Bioware.

In extension, I loved playing the Battlefield, Command and Conquer, and Medal of Honor games and I have plenty of friends who enjoy Madden on a yearly basis.

Let’s not forget about Rock Band. The Assassins were a real band.

I’m also a user of Origin, an online software distributor of games.

All of these games, developer brands, and services are made by Electronic Arts and I owe it to John Riccitiello for these successes. But I won’t forgive him for EA’s failures.

During his tenure, EA stock has dropped from a strong $60 a share in 2007 to its current $20 a share worth. For sure, he was in charge of EA during the recession and current financial crunch, but he made choices that were not correct for the company.

Along with taking risky development choices like Brutal Legend, Mirror’s Edge, and Spore, Riccitiello made headlines in 2008 when he attempted an unsuccessful takeover of EA’s rival, Take-Two, the publisher of the successful videogame franchise, Grand Theft Auto.

Star Wars: The Old Republic was probably EA greatest strategic and financial mistake of the last three years. Despite being developed by a world class developer, Bioware, being led by one of its founding doctors, and having the setting of one of the world’s most beloved science fiction settings, the $200 million dollar project failed to reach its projected earnings, dethrone Activision’s World of Warcraft, and had promptly gone “free to play” earlier this year.

Additionally, the founding doctors of Bioware resigned because of this massive failure.

But the final nail in the coffin, which has led to Riccitiello’s resignation, was the failure of Simcity. Given starling reviews before its launch, Simcity’s launch night was fraught with disaster. Unlike prior installments in the much beloved series, Simcity (2013) relied that its users remained online during game play in order to interact with other Simcity players. However, on launch night, many users were unable to connect to the service, if they connected at all were met with long queues, and some players reported crashing after making it over the other hurdles.

This setback caused many of the reviewers to reevaluate their reviews negatively and the player backlash against EA was so high that EA promised every end-user that it would bundle another of its titles with Simcity to sleighten the pain.

All of this was not a surprise to many videogames industry insider as he was listed by the Wall Street Journal as one of 2013’s CEOs to fire. You can find the story here.

Thus, upon the certification of Riccitiello’s resignation, Electronic Arts sent out a press release to lighten the blow:

REDWOOD CITY, Calif.—(BUSINESS WIRE)— Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ: EA) today announced that John Riccitiello will step down as Chief Executive Officer and as a member of the Board of Directors, effective March 30. The Board has appointed Larry Probst as Executive Chairman to ensure a smooth transition and to lead EA’s executive team while the Board conducts a search for a permanent CEO. The Board will consider internal and external candidates with the assistance of a leading executive search firm.

Mr. Probst has played a leadership role at EA since 1991. In addition to serving as Chairman of the Board since 1994, he previously served as the Company’s CEO from 1991 to 2007. As CEO, Probst successfully grew the Company’s annual revenues from $175 million to approximately $3 billion, led EA into new platforms such as mobile, online and other emerging markets and expanded its international presence to more than 75 countries.

“We thank John for his contributions to EA since he was appointed CEO in 2007, especially the passion, dedication and energy he brought to the Company every single day,” said Mr. Probst. “John has worked hard to lead the Company through challenging transitions in our industry, and was instrumental in driving our very significant growth in digital revenues. We appreciate John’s leadership and the many important strategic initiatives he has driven for the Company. We have mutually agreed that this is the right time for a leadership transition.”

On behalf of the Board, Lead Director Richard A. Simonson stated, “As we begin the CEO search, we are fortunate that Larry, who has a proven track record with our employees, partners and customers, has agreed to assume a day-to-day leadership role as Executive Chairman. He has 16 years of experience as CEO of EA and a deep understanding of the Company’s strategy, management team, business potential and industry trends.”

Mr. Riccitiello stated, “EA is an outstanding company with creative and talented employees, and it has been an honor to serve as the Company’s CEO. I am proud of what we have accomplished together, and after six years I feel it is the right time for me pass the baton and let new leadership take the Company into its next phase of innovation and growth. I remain very optimistic about EA’s future – there is a world class team driving the Company’s transition to the next generation of game consoles.”

So, thus ends the six year reign of John Riccitiello, a cautionary tale that every videogame CEO should learn from.

Fast forward to today. Steps towards a United Europe with a common currency and the common government have real positives for the smaller nations in the Euro bloc.  Considerably more so after the destruction of World War Two and the Cold War, these nations benefit from a stronger economy and a first-world style government setup by more advanced sponsors. But, the European Union is more and more often a tool against peace and progress. Large nations like Britain have few benefits inside the European Union, with legislation from the EU being largely redundant and unnecessary. Germany, the real European economic powerhouse, is often (read: always) left at the table alone with the costs of any EU actions. And for all that the results are often negative. The attempts to stabilize Greece failed spectacularly. Mass riots brought in martial law, while strikes closed almost every public service. The economy belly-flopped so badly that barter money and goods trading were preferable to using severely depressed legal tender. All while the bill for the bailout, again, was put on Germany and the world economic situation was dismissively blamed on the United States. That’s only the most newsworthy EU criticism as of late, and a fraction of their crimes. The EU forced through the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. The President of Europe, Hermann Van Rompuy, was close friends with Silvio Berlusconi and Muammar Gaddafi. Secret, non-transparent elections decide the membership of the European Commission, the sole policy-makers in the EU, who are also often tied to hard-line communist apparatchiks and dictators and even are suspected of serious crimes. EU policy forces open borders of nations to multitudes of unemployed and downtrodden workers without restrictions. Their legislation takes priority over national-level policies, which are often challenged. European Parliamentary speakers are not guaranteed to be neutral parties. In Cyprus, the European Union is instituting an unprecedented and controversial policy of a one-time tax on all savings accounts across the island nation, as a way of forceful fundraising for bailout cash. The list goes on and on.

The point has been made by British Members of the European Parliament, specifically the United Kingdom Independence Party, that there is no need for a European Union. Logically, they are correct. Trade, communal policy, and diplomacy can all be done without an intermediary, and no special intermediary is necessary in those functions, especially one as all-encompassing and powerful as the European Union. There might even be some good in it. Considerable assets once financing EU mandated action and paying EU membership fees would be freed up. EU policies would not be adopted from there on, and any costs therein, both long and short term, would not exist.

Despite criticism that a withdrawal from the EU for Britain would mean economic crisis, it is a loaded statement that stinks like a political sound-byte, but reveals the possibility of economic repercussions. It is a point that is contended back and forth, but the only direct casualties of a break with the EU would be the Members of the European Parliament for Britain, who would suddenly be out of a job.

But there is even an historical precedent away from common government. The heavy toll exacted from Europe during the First World War is undeniable and traumatic, but the harsh terms dictated to Germany gave rise to Hitler and the Nazis. Appeasement as a policy in Europe allowed Hitler to completely contravene the articles of peace, and only edged him closer to his goal of continental conflict. The unilateral action to declare war on Nazi Germany after the invasion of Poland did very little to save Poland from either Germany or the Soviet Union, and all cooperation disintegrated when French generals and troops failed to act during the Sitzkrieg on the western front in 1939-40. After Paris was overrun the Vichy government collaborated unreservedly with Germany and cut off cooperation with the combatants of the continuing conflict. The ultimate victory in World War Two is claimed by the independent, though united in military alliance. Such brought together parties as different as Stalin’s USSR with Roosevelt’s USA and Churchill’s UK, advancing toward a common goal separately. Whereas the corruption and elitism of the League of Nations resulted in only conflict and war, cooperation between states brought peace, even benefiting the arch-rival Germany post-War.

There is no reason to discount possibility, and history often favors the bold ideologues over the cynics. That one day the European Union as presently constituted could be of real value can only be speculated. Yet, in the case of the European Union, as with the Catholic Church, the noble objectives and possibilities are not enough to redeem it of its failings. Its perseverance is powerful, but to the ends of its own self-interest, it is dangerous. The corruption and political nepotism that brought the entire world into conflict in the 1930′s and 40′s is returning, and the United States has even offered its official support. Hope must be restored to Europe. The pledge that change will be made for the betterment of all people is paramount. If it cannot be found inside the EU, it is better the world is without it.

And this is nowhere close to what the numbers used to be. At the turn of the twentieth century, Italians were over half of the College of Cardinals. And that majority carried on until the beginning of World War Two. Since then, the Catholic Church has run into the development of the world on a grand scale, bringing its often remote and destitute constituents onto the world stage. It makes sense that their representation would increase in the church, and this is not to mention the growing trend of people turning away from the church. Building a more representative body of Cardinals is, at the very least, a way to address the growing once-faithful and promote the growth of the church at a local level.

But representation is still skewed. With the European and American Cardinals being the most numerous bodies, close to two-thirds of the College of Cardinals, they only represent about a third of all Catholics. A fair representation would indicate that far more Cardinals in South America are needed, which hosts over a quarter of the Catholic faithful, but only 10% of Cardinals. Asia, Africa and the Middle East are actually more fairly represented, though they are still lacking in the official church body. Furthermore, Cardinals, when broken down by country rather than continent, are skewed towards more developed countries like the United States, but that contain fewer Catholics. Mexico is a nation that has more Catholics than the United States but 15 fewer Cardinals.

But there is real hope that this may change. With John Paul II’s election in 1978, there has been a break with the Italian near-monopoly on the Papacy. He was Polish, and Benedict XVI, who followed John Paul II, was German. However great, even the previous popes were representative of Europe. Truly, a large part of the church, but grossly outweighed.

But now, Francis I is the first South American pope, one of few born outside of Europe. Even better, he is one of the few representatives of the growing Catholic Church outside the first world. Is his election finally recognition of the incredible support the church receives from South America? Is it a nod to the growing faithful around the world that have been glanced over by the church previously? That remains to be seen. But the church does seem to shifting, with Benedict’s elevation to Cardinal of John Onaiyekan in Nigeria, Ruben Salazar Gomez in Colombia, and Luis Antonio Tagle in the Philippines. These were previously underrepresented diocese, instilling the hope that many may find some recognition by the church.

What is definite is the job that Francis I has before him. The church finds itself in an era where it must modernize. Its position on abortion and same-sex marriage are not going to change, but the decline of its numbers in the global congregation must be acknowledged in respect to its conservative stance. The Catholic Church’s stance on contraception is also relatively unpopular, and is unhealthy and inappropriate to the fight against AIDS, especially when it could further the efforts to stymie the disease in the third-world. Furthermore, the church must learn to reconcile itself with the broader non-Catholic world, as Benedict XVI seemed to have difficulty doing. And this is not to mention the sexual abuse scandal that has rocked the church so dramatically.

The church will survive through scandal and controversy as it always has done, but must have a powerful and enlightened driver to weather the storm. If it is to be Francis I that advances the church, only time will tell, but there is real hope of change for the better, as Francis I could easily become the champion of the unrepresented and disenfranchised.

The first Pontiff from the Americas!

There has been a lot of speculation of the identity of the successor of Saint Peter: will the next Pope be the traditional Italian, will he be someone from the Americas, or, will he be someone from the developing world in which as has seen the highest gains for the Church within this past century? The last two pontiffs were from North and Central Europe (John Paul being from Poland and Benedict from Germany).

For many Catholics, the ascension of a new Pope marks a powerful opportunity to see change in the two thousand year old religious movement which has been marred by its handling and cover up of priest sexual abuse scandals. With his new ascension, the next Pope will able to appoint new leaders that will administer the working policies and doctrines of the Church.

Nationsmith is standing by to deliver the latest news as this story develops.