You Think You're Slamming ISIS, but Really You're Just Delegitimizing State's in General...

I woke up this morning to an article in the NY Times entitled "Predatory Islamic State Wrings Money From Those it Rules," with the introductory blurb claiming "The earnings from the militants' violent collection practices total tens of millions of dollars a month, approaching $1 billion a year, according to some estimates." The article proceeds... claiming that an ice cream truck driver "hands $300 to fighters from the Islamic State for the privilege of driving his refrigerated truck full of ice cream and other perishables from Jordan to a part of Iraq where militants are firmly in charge." But let's think about this language, the italics I've denoted. If this happened at another country's boarder, wouldn't this be an import duty, not a bribe? (Yet the author's language sues a specific - and negatively connotated word that I am not sure must be clarified or stated in these terms).  The driver gets a receipt that he then shows at other checkpoints (we do check points in the U.S. as well near borders - even 100 miles from them in some Texas, and we give customs and tax receipts as well). If the driver doesn't pay “they either arrest [him] or burn [his] truck.” (we arrest people if they don't pay their taxes, and we compound/repossess cars for non-payment as well).  The article continues to claim the Islamic State does this with "the goal of building a credible government," but that it "has set up a predatory and violent bureaucracy that wrings every last American dollar, Iraqi dinar and Syrian pound it can from those who live under its control or pass through its territory."  (how is this "predatory and violent bureaucracy" different from other states or the U.S.? What are taxes, duties, and the police acting violently at the behest of American bureaucracy?) And according to the Times' interviewees the Islamic State is "exacting tolls and traffic tickets; rent for government buildings; utility bills for water and electricity; taxes on income, crops and cattle; and fines for smoking or wearing the wrong clothes." (all things we do in America, yes we tax cigarettes and give fines and jail for marijuana, and while we may not give fines for wearing the wrong clothes, you can be arrested for not wearing any, and we do enact plenty of social penalties for alternative attire - control of what kids wear to school, ridicule of "punks" and "dirty unkempt homeless" or "hippy" looking people, that come with plenty of prejudice against them and having the police target them more than other groups.  Appearance is a HUGE precursor to judicial attention in the U.S. - nevermind profiling more broadly...).

This article in fact carries much propagandized and nationalistic rhetoric it is painful.  The Times' goes on to state that:

NY Times: "The better known of the Islamic State’s revenue sources — smuggling oil, plundering bank vaults, looting antiquities, ransoming kidnapped foreigners and drumming up donations from wealthy supporters in the Persian Gulf — have all helped make the group arguably the world’s richest militant organization. But as Western and Middle Eastern officials have gained a better understanding of the Islamic State’s finances over the past year, a broad consensus has emerged that its biggest source of cash appears to be the people it rules, and the businesses it controls."

or......  so smuggling is simply trade that someone else - in a position of power - deems illegal. In regard to "plundering bank vaults"... what is the Federal Reserve and monetary policy, nevermind taxation, eminent domain, and civil fortefure by police when compared to "plundering" banks (i.e. taking people's money/assets) against their will? The "looting" of antiquities, could easily be described as claiming possession (i.e. stealing in a capitalist property driven account - or nationalization of assets in other worlds) and then buying and selling in the art market. Ransoming kidnapped foreigners, could easily be said to be trading in spys and illegal migrants and using them for leverage in geopolitics.  And of course, donations from the wealthy... what is the military industrial complex?  Or any other 'XXXX-industrial complex for that matter, nevermind privatized campaign finance!!

NY Times: "the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has taken over the legitimate revenue collection operations of the governments it has usurped. And it has used the ever­present threat of violence to extract as much as it can from the people, businesses and property it now controls."

So how far back does legitimate go?  The U.S. took its land violently, from "the governments it has usurped" power from, just as ISIS has. Does that make the U.S.'s revenue collection illegitimate?  And do we not use the "ever present threat of violence" to extract as much as we can from our people, businesses, and property?  The police and the threat of jail time or even death) is a constant threat to us all should we not pay or act accordingly.  And make no mistake, the police in this country kill over 1000 people EVERY YEAR. Nevermind the death penalty and incarceration more generally.  I'm pretty willing to say that we have a larger proportion of our population in prison than the Islamic State does, no?  And all of these prisoners are under the threat of violence...  And  before you claim the U.S. is a democracy, please, we know better. We are an oligarchy (at best) that uses voting by half the population to lay claim to the illusion of democratic voice.

NY Times: "the militants turned a police station that dated to the 19th ­century Ottoman era into a market, with 60 shops selling fruits and vegetables. The annual rent for a market stall is 2.8 million Iraqi dinars, or roughly $2,500."

How nice it would be to turn an office of oppression in black and brown communities into a fruit and vegetable shop. To many, it would seem to remove an occupying army while simultaneously alleviating the 'food desert' problems found in many of these communities. And, oh my, they charge rent... um... the U.S. government charges rent for everything we can, or they privatize things so others can charge rent for it use.  Is your problem (the NY Times) that they haven't privatized it? Are you saying that perhaps the problem with ISIS is actually that they are socialists?

And within these shops, ISIS apparently "collect a cleaning tax — 2,500 to 5,000 Syrian pounds, or about $7 to $14, per month depending on the size of the shop. Residents go to collection points to pay their monthly electricity and water bills, 800 Syrian pounds, or roughly $2.50 for electricity and 400 pounds, about $1.20, for water.

Yup, they have tax collectors... they send people to collect taxes as opposed to taking it off monthly bills and using direct deposit. But of more importance...... imagine... only paying $3.70 for electricity and water!!!!  That sounds a whole lot better than what I'm paying right now in this privatized heaven we call America!!

NY Times: "Another Islamic State department, the Diwan al­Rikaz, or the Office of Resources, oversees oil production and smuggling, the looting of antiquities and a long list of other businesses now controlled by the militants. It operates water­bottling and soft­drink plants, textile and furniture workshops, and mobile phone companies, as well as tile, cement and chemical factories, skimming revenues from all of them."

Again, smuggling and looting are just other words for trade and civil asset forfeture. And the militants are simply the equivalent of a national guard, military law, or the police - all things we do in the country and certainly would in a time of war, and the British did during the U.S. revolution.  Hell, we rounded up all the Japanese during WWII to put them in internment camps, and have multiple presidential candidates not only vilifying all Muslims, but threatening internment, marking, and databases "for their kind." And as for the Islamic State operating (or acting in ownership roles of) businesses and "skimming" off the top; they've simply nationalized companies and are taking dividends on the profits of those companies.  It's called state ownership of the means of production (i.e. socialism), or state capitalism (i.e. China!).  And it was used to bail out the banks in the US, and in much of the rest of the world, and is used exceptionally well in China and Northern Europe.  Skimming.... as you say, is simply a shareholder dividend to G.E. or to a Chinese company that the state gets because it has an ownership stake.

NY Times: "Officials of the so ­called caliphate dislike the term “tax,” preferring the Islamic term “zakat,” which refers to the alms Muslims are required to pay. Although the norm would be 2.5 percent of a person’s wealth under typical interpretations of Islamic law, the militants are taking 10 percent, justifying the high rate by saying they are a “nation in a time of war,”"

Ok, so its not a tax, its a tithe - the same thing Ben Carson talks about in his presidential campaign here in the States, and the same ten percent Mormans pay to their church.  And to justify something "extra" in times of war?  One needent look beyond U.S. airport security and NSA surveilance or France's draconian justifications for shutting down everythign right now from climate justice marches to roads to squats.  During WWII, we asked more of our people just as ISIS seems to be right now (whether those people feel conquered is a different story, but the point is the same - state's do these types of things).

NY Times: "The group has taken over the collection of car­ registration fees, and made students pay for textbooks. It has even fined people for driving with broken taillights, a practice that is nearly unheard­of on the unruly roads of the Middle East."

Again, all things most every state does... except, there are some that offer free textbooks of course along with free university education! And broken taillights sounds an awful lot like broken windows policing.  Perhaps the Islamic State is trying to instill a level of law and order akin to what Giuliani and Bratton did here in NYC?  Oh, and who are you to say what is "unheard of throughout the whole of the middle east?  As if all the roads there are unruly and beneath the standards of normal taillights (or civilized people for that matter). Smh.

NY Times: "Fines are also included in the punishments meted out for breaking the strict living rules imposed by the Islamic State. Smoking is strictly forbidden, for example, and Mohammad Hamid, 29, said that when he was caught smoking a cigar in his shop in Mosul in late August, “ISIS not only whipped me 15 times in public but forced me to pay a fine of 50,000 dinar,” or about $40 at the time. He soon after fled to a Kurdish area of Iraq."

A. I wish smoking was strictly forbidden here.  B. Singapore canes people in public for chewing gum and spitting it on the floor, and the U.S. doesn't exactly treat people smoking marijuana to well... Honestly, whipping someone is horrible, and nothing I agree with.  But Adrian Pederson - one of this generation's best american football players - routinely beat his children with a "switch", even had a dedicated room for it, Yet he is back playing in the NFL, no worries...  I mean, it's not like we don't have a "spare the rod, spoil the child" culture here in the US as well.  And it's not like our prison system isn't atrociously violent both formally and informally.  I've been assaulted by a police officer (and seen others beaten) for speaking in public.  Free speech and protest is not exactly condoned in the U.S... people get pepper sprayed, beaten, and arrested for it, just as you get in the Islamic State for smoking.

NY Times: "The group also earns tens of millions of dollars more from other revenue sources, such as kidnapping. And it looted roughly $1 billion from banks in the towns and cities it took over — including $675 million in Mosul alone — though that was a one­time source of revenue."

So they kidnap, we also "kidnap" "high value targets" with information we want.  We then torture or "extract" that information by whatever means necessary (or send them to some "black" facility in another country without laws where they do it for us).  So ISIS kidnaps for money, we do it for information and power - same thing.  And yes, we have done plenty of kidnapping (or detaining) of spies and bartering or ransoming them with other countries - um... the cold war... And what of this bank looting?  NY Times, can you please tell us more about this? What banks, who's accounts?  Did they just take the money - smash and grab?  Who's was it?  Perhaps it was their enemies, perhaps they put "sanctions" on Assad or Iraqi governmental accounts, confiscating the assets for their own use - that is U.S. policy all over the world - especially in sanctioning other countries it doesn't like, nevermind the entire "drug war" in a nutshell.  

NY Times: "it could not be “judged by the standards of other terrorist groups.” Only the “pseudo­state” of Colombia’s FARC, which once controlled territory the size of Switzerland, came close."

Right on cue.... The FARC, the drug war. They are an autonomous group that fought to claim and control territory for their own autonomous use.  This is how nation-states began and begin. Claiming land, delineating borders, legitimizing the use of force and a uniform ideology, and centralizing control over that territory.  Its simply the construction of a sovereign state, and in this case one that many people within it may disagree with ideologically and in terms of enforcement - ummm... news flash, a great deal of Americans disagree with our entire governance and economic system, actively protest against it, yet are still forced to adhere to its laws and norms.  And yes, we can theoretically say what we want, but I can assure that writing this will not go unnoticed, and move me further up any list of possible agitators Im on, just as being a part of Occupy and expressing my views in public got me assaulted by the state (i.e. police) and on those lists to start with. The face of oppression may be different, but it is all still oppressive.

In short, I could go on and on...  There are two problems here, A) the U.S.' notion of itself as somehow better than everyone else and above the shitty deads performed in places like the Islamic State, and B) the propogandization of what is supposed to be a reputable media outlet in the NY Times.  This article, as every critique I've mentioned above points out, is wholly biased towards American propogandized perspectives on what is happening in the Middle East and the Islamic State. Every word used is designed to inform and legitimatize the Islamic State and its practices.  And yes, I would not want to live there.  I am not Muslim, nor religious, and as such would not appreciate living under their laws. And to put this in perspective, there are plenty of people in the US that want this to be a Christian nation, living under Christian rules and even laws (my father and multiple presidential candidates included).  So before we get all high and mighty, lets realize that the U.S. is just as bad as the Islamic state in so many ways.  We kill so many of our people. Whether it is through actual state practices such as the death penalty or police killing civilians, or indirectly through capitalist motivated medical (non)care, profit driven industries that want more gun sales that have people kill others, or the daily struggle to live and survive in our hyper individualized and ostracizing capitalist wage-labor based American society.  We incarcerate millions. Many for simply smoking marijuana. We have political prisoners or exiles in this country (we just find something else to pin on them - assata chakur, mumia). We collect taxes, generate revenue from people living here, use practices such as eminent domain and civil asset forfeture to take people's property. We impose the laws of the many on the few, or better said have created a tyranny of the minority on the majority. The 1% and wealthy, powerful, technocratic elite controls our lives and the very choices we get to vote for.

The bottom line, is that ISIS occupied and now controls the people in that territory, just as the colonists occupied, controlled, and created a sovereign state that dictates legally and culturally upon the people living there.  This is what states do, the claim the legitimate use of violence and use it to make people do and be what they want.  And whether you think the Islamic State is a terrorist group that took over a country and is illegitimate, or you view it is a now sovereign state-like actor, it is remarkably similar to most other States - including the United States - violent and oppressive, opportunistic and ideological.

So to the NY Times: I think it is time for you to figure out what your real critique is.  Is it that ISIS is a horribly bad entity killing and maiming people in the erroneous name of Islam, or is it simply a state, doing what states do? And in the case of this article, you are actually delegitimazing many of the practices used by the U.S. and those of more socialist leanings.  So is this your problem?  They've nationalized businesses?  And you can't abide that?  Or that they've claimed their own sovereignty and trade networks that your ideology and nationalist American backing claims to be illegitimate?  Is it simply that they have different laws and understandings of property rights than you do, than America does?  Or maybe that you don't think another state should come about in the same manner that many of the original or older states (including the U.S.) came to pass - through direct violent force.  Do you want ISIS gone or to demonize the state? Because if you look past your irresponsible rhetoric, all there is left, is a half-hearted attempt at demonizing of another person's ideology, and a full throated rejection of the state itself.  If this is the case, then you need to express that, and you need to own that America is no angel, no state is, and that America does so many of the horrible things that the Islamic state also does. Get off your high horse NY Times and America, we're not different from ISIS.  We kill and control in the name of our ideology just as well, if not wholly better.

Black (and Brown) Lives Matter

Historically, I don't watch a lot of television.  We did not have one as I grew up, and as such I never really got into it beyond sports and news. Over the last 15-20 years I have not really owned or watched a great deal of TV more broadly either, so I may not be the best one to provide the analysis I'm about to, but still believe I see something important to note.

Over the last couple years as I work through this PhD program and have needed short breaks from reading, I have started watch some TV beyond sports.  Firstly, I have been sucked in to the influx of superhero related movies and programs. Since learning to read using comic books (I'm dyslexic), I have always been passionate about superheros and the altruistic messages they promote. Of late, I have been drawn into watching shows like Arrow, the Flash, and other Marvel and the Star Wars based television efforts. Of late, I have also expanded to some outdoors, survival styled shows, like Live Free or Die.  So in short I am watching things that create their demograhic (and who they market to) based on superheros, nature and survival shows, and both American and regular football (soccer).

As I have watched this over the last couple years and historically watched all sorts of sports, I have been noticing a decided upsurge in the amount of commercials featuring African Americans.  Well dressed in colored shirts, living in suburban homes, with nuclear families, driving new and luxury cars.  And perhaps this is the sports or superhero demographic, or that I'm watching in the New York market, but over the last few months there seems to be a shift, and this presentation has been far more pronounced.

The Revolution Betrayed

Mocking Jay spoiler alert (and elongated rant alert...)

So I study social movements, democracy, change, things like that.  I look at them specifically within the context of revolution and socio-economic and governmental change - as in how do we as a society categorically change the oppressive regimes that "govern" us, and replace them with more equitable and just social structures.  I specifically work with notions of democracy that engage its etymological roots as a "rule by the people." Meaning that a true governance structure should include all of the people not just some of the powerful people.  Within this I view democratic action in very broad terms: free speech, elections, protest, even insurgency and revolution are democratic acts. Non-violent, violent - whatever people are doing to gain or express their political voice and attempt to have some control over their lives.  My point is that I study revolution and change as democratic action.

So what?  So I just saw the Hunger Games Mocking Jay part 2, and have to say that I am thoroughly and unequivocally unimpressed. Actually, it was a horrible movie.  And this comes upon the other three installments of the franchise that I truly loved.  The Mocking Jay 1, is one of my favorite movies... "if we burn, you burn with us!"  Oh my... I get emotionally choked up every time I see it.  Makes it feel like a radical revolution is actually possible!  But apparently, or so I learned tonight, it is not.

The first three movies were built upon a horrible distopia reminiscent of many of the underpinnings of modern society, and included a sound critique of situations many people face today. The first movie, The Hunger Games, shows us the terrible situation and the toll a society based on authoritarian and exploitative principles takes. In the second Hunger Games movie, we sees the seeds of revolt building, and hope arising among the oppressed.  In the third movie, the Mocking Jay, the revolution begins.  The oppressed finally take up arms and come together under the banner of one person, revered for her compassionate rebelliousness in "the games".  The rebels have their spark, capacity, and structure, and use them to make their move.  All of this done in a steady way that builds and develops story upon story, plot lines upon plot lines, characters upon characters, and really makes you feel both the revolution and its need.  And then tonight happened, the Mocking Jay part II.  And now the entire revolution has been betrayed...

2 hours of mindless war, blind action, no plot, little substance, all so that we can get to the last twenty minutes and they can throw the entire story, plot twist, and message in a tiny undeveloped space at the end, that completely betrayed the entire message of the other three movies. This film picked up where the last one left off, revolution has caught fire, most of the 12 districts have come together to fight the opulent capital, and rebels are about to march on (or attack) district 2 - the main military command center of the affluent capital.  But there is no flow to this, no logical military pathway to district 2.  The movie and rebels jump from segment to segment, completely ignoring any context that might tie things together, create any kind of a coherent battle narrative.  In all the other movies, the capital is a dominant war machine, the rebels hopelessly outgunned and personed.  Yet, at a blink of the eye, the rebels are fortified within the capital's most heavily armed district with only the command center to take.  How in the world did they get than far and the capital that week - literally - over night?  And then, the capital's most heavily fortified command center is easily taken out by avalanches... and sorry for my snippynesss, but does anyone that wrote this know anything about military strategy?  Hey, lets put our great command center and armory - the cornerstone to our national defenses -  all under ground in a crater-like valley surrounded on all sides by tall snow-capped mountains... So when was the last time you saw a castle not on the top of the hill, but at the bottom?  I'm sorry, but i demand a little more common sense from a society that has methodically and successfully controlled, pacified, and overloarded over it population for 75 years.

And then, it is but a short walk and the next thing you know, they rebels are in the capital, behind the walls and outer defenses. The movie provides no narrative pathway for this, the rebels just flew in and said ok, we'll be here now, and we'll be here now. According to the second Mocking Jay movie, they spent years trying to get access and one plane through.  They couldn't even go to different districts. But now, no fight, just show up and rebel!

After "breaching" the cities walls with bad narrative, the viewer is then offered an hour plus of a small group of people wandering around the capital fighting odd booby traps on some absurd propaganda mission. There is of course no word, notion of, connections, or context of anything else happening in this broader revolution or the battle for the capital city itself.  And then we're underground fighting the "demons of mordor," and incredibly abandon all sense of the discipline and compassion they had throughout the hole of the three and a half movies. They of course lose key people... but then amazingly! out of no where, the key personas jump in with a refugee horde being ushered to the presidential palace for safety (which doesn't make the most military sense either), but then, in a second, bombs go off, people rush to help and more bombs go off, everyone practically dies, shit is all fucked up... etc. But more importantly, pretty much every principle shown throughout the previous three and half movies is forgotten, no notions of democracy are left, compassion abandoned, there is only rebellion and war.  The screen fades to black, and we are presented with one nonsensical conclusive sentence from Woody Harrelson feigning at saying something, and bang the whole revolution ends.  Just like that, "everyone knew it was time to stop fighting." Dropping bombs on medical staff all of a sudden became worse than shooting them on site for being out after crufew or deliberately bombing a hospital. Umm... one word, illogical.

Then the bad guy becomes the good guy, the good guy becomes the bad guy, people get murdered, no real rationale offered, democracy lives, no it dies, oh wait it lives, but no one knows who or how, only that every character has betrayed who they were throughout all the other movies.  This of course, includes the amazing and fiery female heroin that single-handedly brought down two governments in 3.9 movies, who is now the perfectly happy little hausfrau sitting in a field with her angelic children and doting husband.  What?!!  Oh, and she drops her childhood, teenage, young adult, and adult love in an incoherent second over his  new war by any means ideology, never to speak to him again despite spending 3.75 movies giving everyone a chance, showing compassion like its her only emotion, yet is now all of a sudden gone?  I mean, the movies - all presenting this character is a hyper compassionate, loving character categorically against the barbaric games and death they bring, yet is completely cool with a small group of people deciding the hunger games will come back (this time using their enemies from the capital), cause she gets to kill someone. Umm... you drop him for indiscriminate killing, so you can? Oh, and both are categorically agaisnt the characters you became throughout 3.75 movies.

So basically, in 3.75 movies they build a certain character, with certain ideals and principles.  they also create a certain revolutionary moment and rationale, and lots of characters to fill this moment, and then in .25 of a movie they undermine EVERYTHING they built prior.  What a horrible incoherent movie and tie to a quadrilogy.  So disappointing.  What a chance to show what real radical change could look like, the struggles and problems, positives and negatives of social change and upheaval, revolution, etc.  But no, instead we'll just blow a bunch of stuff up and then make it look like all revolutionaries are hypocritical and shit, and the dictators they rebelled against were actually consistent and honorable savages - unlike the power greedy rebels.

This is evident within each characters evolution:

• Gale: throughout the previous three movies, Gale is a kind, caring, revolutionary character with a building sense of justice and anger against the capital.  But at no point prior to this movie do you see a murderous, child and nurse killing, cold and callous radical with complete disregard for life and liberty in fighting the highly a securitized state.  Perhaps if time elapsed between Mocking Jay part I and II they could have feigned a transition, but all of a sudden, after his whole point being fighting for people's lives, he suddenly doesn't care about them anymore? He is apparently the one that introduces the two tiered bomb used later in the movie that kills the medical attendants helping the wounded (from the previous bomb). He of course expresses shame and is remorseful it was actually used (which he didn't seem to know was going to happen), yet is unceremoniously cast out of Katnis' life, and then runs lock step into a life of military discipline, the exact opposite of what his character showed throughout the films.  And this is of course happening while Katnis kills people. So for three movies you build a character, then in half of one you destroy it all.  smh.
• Prim: Great, she is working her way up, about to become a doctor and helping people.  But um... lets think about what actually happens and how she dies.  She is a civilian doctor for the rebels... where would she be stationed and who would she be helping?  Nevermind how the rebels she would have been travelling behind would would have gotten to the presidential palace that was still behind enemy lines, but what in the world would rebel civilian doctors be doing BEYOND the front lines, ahead of the troops?  So even when Coin drops this horrible children and medic killing bomb (when she apparently already is well positioned to win the war, as seen in her change in Katnis' value), what are rebel medics doing beyond the front treating the enemy's dead in the middle of the battle itself?  This makes no common, medical, or military sense that she would be there...  And lets not even get into the absurdity of President Snow, the most compassionless person alive, opening his home to refugees?  Right, so someone attacks the US and we're all going to be welcomed into the White House... NO! That is the military command center, so absurd.
• Peeta, actually, I feel like he is ok in a lot of ways, he slowly recovers from his "tracker jack incident,"and gets better, while having his difficult moments.  But honestly, his inclusion on the PR mission feels contrived.  I feel like they said, hey, this is one of the main characters, lets just through him in there and make up some bull shit reason why: oh, coin changed her mind on Katnis, now killing her with the capital's weapon to kill here is a good idea.... Feels so contrived.  And then in the end, happy loving family, I mean, this is all humanity is about right?  These heroes of the revolution just go back to their demolished district and start homesteading, raise a family and act like nothing happened?  (living happily ever after I'm sure...) Sigh...
• Finik... He plays this huge roll throughout all 2.75 movies and then unceremoniously dies in the pits of "mordor" with dark creatures eating him.  But the problem here is that the team loses all the discipline and compassion they had throughout.  In the Hunger Games part 2, when it is Peeta, Mags, Finik, and Katnis, they fight for each other, don't leave one another, fight with their backs together until they all can flee poisonous fog or ravenous baboons.  But here, they just run and lose all discipline as such, and he being last, just dies.  And then Katnis throws this bad guy finder into the pit to blow them all up.  Really?  You need that... you're smarter than destroying that, or having him left to die. Put an arrow in him, out of his misery.  Don't be stupid all of a sudden (like the movie).
• Katnis, where to begin.  This radical revolutionary, built up over film after film.  Sensitive, caring, won't kill people or things unless hunting or absolutely defending herself. She embodies humanity and goodness throughout.  Then all of a sudden at the end she has no problem killing Coin?  Cold blooded?  In front of everyone?  The revolutions operational leader?  Then just disappears off to have babies like a good like girl... So shameful.  Again, a character is built, and then abandoned.  Completely.
• Coin: I certainly can say her turn was not a surprise, she always used words like I rather than we, and played the singular "leader" role way to well.  Her turn to the dark side (or showing it as they did) was interesting, and raised a very good point about change and revolution.  But honestly, was very disappointingly portrayed.  If you want to show this corruption of power, and this is very common in revolutions and democratic overthrows, the former leaders become corrupted and do what she did in terms of power.  So yeah, she dies and we have immediate elections...?  No one cares, no one has an issue with her death?  It'd be like the Union army - not the confederates - killing Lincoln after the Civil War was over and no one blinking...  

But more importantly, in terms of revolution and change, this movie built hopes of a radical statement - political statement -  about change and tyrannical societies. Yet in the end, sadly there is no alternative to the systems of hierarchical leadership and liberal democratic ideals that created the problems. No horizontalism? No decentralization? No self autonomy for the districts? No community councils?  No radically different society... There has to be one president, who is killed the first day. Then after elections - by who and how? - the rebels automatically follow all of this after standing against it?  In short, plot twists are great, but from the movie's standpoint, it was grossly under developed and in conclusion countered everything done in 3.75 movies prior.  Everyone's ideologies completely flip, there is not real change, and even the atrociously violent previous leader, Snow, is somehow portrayed as a decent guy, dare I say a good guy?  WTF.

In short, Susan Collins (writer of books) should be a bit ashamed that the incredible story she wrote, developed, and played out over four movies, ended showing her to have a completely disconnected understanding of revolution, politics, common sense, or even the very characters she developed throughout.  I am so thoroughly disappointed.  I can honestly say, I don't think I've ever been so disappointed in a movie.  Three films that seemingly showed an astute understanding of humanity and society, that built incredible and complex characters, weaved together an incredibly powerful distopian narrative and tail of rebellion and adversity, but then contradicted it all in the final one film.  Changed the characters; showed little to no understanding of military strategy, realities of strategic war, understanding of rebellion/resistance/and social movements; betrayed her characters; and ultimately debased the entire franchise with just a really poor final story.  The revolution deserved better...
      

Violence Personified

I have been working on a special issue of a new journal entitled Social Movements and Change, about social movements and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. Nothing too profound with this, but I received an email this morning from one of the contributors (who is based in Bulgaria) regarding some updates to her submission. Again, nothing profound here. But she did say at one point that given what has happened with the Paris attacks, that she expects in regards to the original call for papers and thematic of the journal, that I will already have rearranged my priorities. She also expressed her sympathies as she assumed I was based out of Belgium where the journal hales from (I am in the New York area).

Obviously I appreciate her sympathies, and agonize over the loss of life in Paris. But if there is one thing that I can say is that these terrorist attacks in Paris don't change my life or my world view at all. I live in Newark, NJ; one of the most violent cities in America. This past year my neighbor alone (who grew up here) had four of his friends killed, including a pillar of our community who was murdered early in the morning walking to work this summer. As many people as died in the Paris attacks will be killed this year in Newark alone (city of 277,000 people). Violence is a part of every day life here, just as anywhere through the country (and world) really. There will be over 30,000 deaths by firearm in the US alone this year, and have already been over 1000 people killed by police officers country wide since last January. And this is to say nothing of the post 9/11 world... revolutions, drones, protests, fear... etc.

Ethical Journalism, or Entitled Journalism?

Over the last few days there has been a lot of discussion about journalism, free speech, and the ability to access public space and document and report on what is happening there. At the University of Missouri, a young student photo-journalist wanted to report and document a group of protesters he believed to be "reveling" in victory. Under mounting pressure from activists (them), football players, and national media attention, the president of the University of Missouri system had just stepped down.  Surely those activists wanted to be able to disseminate this message; have everyone see their joy, right?  No.  They did not.  They wanted a safe space to be able to enjoy the moment among themselves, among the people that fought for that victory.  They didn't want outsiders there.  And whatever their reasons - be it that there were people that didn't want or couldn't be documented there, or that they just wanted privacy - this photo journalist felt that he had the right not only personally, but within the first amendment of the United States constitution, to be in that space and document it.  He did not feel he needed the permission of the people he would be documenting to document them.  Is this journalist entitled to access to other people's lives?  Does he have the legal right to simply document whatever he sees in a public space without the consent of those present there?

I'm an anthropologist.  I study protest, radical politics, and in some cases illegal acts of political resistance and upheaval.  I could have been in that space. I could have been trying to engage in participant observation and interview those protesters.  Yet, ethically, and as per the American Anthropological Association's guidelines for research, I would need to gain the consent of the people I was studying and interviewing.  At minimum my research project would have gone through an extensive 30 odd page Institutional Review Broad (IRB) application.  This process would have assessed the ethics, approaches, and merits of my work when measured against the laws and norms for the ethical treatment of research subjects.  In short, I have to gain permission from the people I'm studying, and approval from an ethics board that my work will not harm any of my subjects before I can do any research.

Building a Crisis upon Missouri's Status Quo

The University of Missouri is in crisis, or is it?  If I was wishfully thinking, I'd say the horrendous news coming from their campus involving racism and hate implied a crisis, but a crisis - by definition - has a temporal component to it that denotes non-permanence. A crisis can not be a status quo.  So is there a crisis at the University of Missouri, or is the racial unrest happening there just the status quo at that university (and the country in general)?

What we do know, is that the University of Missouri allowed students of color, specifically black students, to attend beginning in 1950. Yet today, in 2015, a student of color can still not walk through campus without fear of being called the N-word, or seeing a swastika smeared in feces on a wall. Students that have been on campus for years speak of systemic and institutional racism that has gone unchallenged and unchecked by the university administration. Again, is this a crisis if this is simply a consistent microcosm of general  Missourian or American society?  But I digress.

The fact is that what is happening more broadly withing the protests at the University of Missouri mirrors larger movements happening throughout the country.  Over the last two years - specifically since the shooting death of Michael Brown - ironically - in Missouri, and on the heals of the Occupy movement that swept the country, people (especially younger generations and millennials) have been standing up and fighting for a voice in the political arena beyond a vote (which many don't believe carries any power).  This has cascaded to the college campus in Columbia, in which students stood up and fought for their rights in the face of racial prejudice.

Arbitration and the Privatization of the Legal System

The New York Times recently ran a series of articles on arbitration (links below), claiming that arbitration was basically a privatization of the US legal system.  I found this concept very interesting as my work looks at capitalist based and privately funded electoral processes as a "privatization of democracy."  Obviously, within any society governing by neoliberal principles, the goal is to privatize as much of humanity nd society as possible - deregulate economics, bring everything into the market, create strong private property regimes, etc.  But within this logic, neoliberalism is generally thought to be about economics, that is, using political and legal caveats to create the best position for capitalist economic gains and businesses.  However, these articles show that this extends to the legal and political spheres of our society in a manner truly detrimental to the essence of those aspects of society.  In this case, do we really believe that private market influenced interests are the best adjudicators of conflict?  Or more broadly of politics?  I would contend that law and politics, when designed by select people and groups with specific interests, create a conflict of interest, and that when those processes are implemented for all of the people there are detrimental affects for much of society.

My point is, that these articles in the New York Times have shown a trend in american business practices that point to an effort to actively circumvent the United States judicial system.  Having decisions heard by individual lawyers - usually with professional and monetary ties that could affect their decision making ability - does not beget impartiality.  In fact the New York Times articles specifically speak to conflicts of interest, and tendencies of arbitrators to side with corporate and wealthy benefactors who are often are deeply involved in the process financially.  In short, the people making the decisions are usually paid (or afforded more work) by people with something to gain by the decision.