The "Michael Jackson Syndrome"

"Michael Jackson" could very well be a name to be given to a syndrome or, more specifically, to an occurrence in someone's life. He was nothing short of a deity in the 1980's just to become little more than a curiousity and a laughing stock in the late 1990's until the very end of his life. One thing is to be popular for a given amount of time and then disappear from the face of the earth, but another very different thing is to be the king of entertainment and being eradicated from the tops only to resurface once in a while as the main character of a freak show. He had everything ... money, power, recognition and an insurmountable horde of followers and wannabes. But then disease struck, childish behaviours were commented as being disturbances and perversions, obsession with image led to self destruction and extravagance resulted in self-inducted ostracism. His career, in spite of its powerfulness, failed to serve as a sufficiently strong shield against all of these backlashes. Soon, nobody wanted to be identified as a Michael Jackson fan on the risk of being labelled as a freak lover by their mates.
Last year, when he said he was ready to embark on his final tour, nobody believed that he would be either mentally or physically fit so to endure a 50 show marathon. Fact is, many shows had already been postponed and many more would have been as the tour would have progressed. He was undeniably in poor health and it's evident from the filming of his rehearsals that his famous moves were all but gone. Nevertheless, his gruesome financial situation made the need for successful box-office event compulsory, so he was literally shoved to the streets to "dance for money", as Tina Turner once said. The question will remain if he would have ever be able to perform all the 50 shows ... that, we will never know.
Anyway, and like all legendary artists, he proved to be rather more profitable in death than he was in his latter life. Immediately after his death was announced, people rushed to record stores and to download sites to buy his songs and records. Soon after, a movie about his last days came to the cinemas and was an instant hit. Given all this and more, most likely, and to my personal happiness, his huge debts will soon be completely paid and his children will have their future quite well assured.

All in all, I cannot begin to imagine what it would feel like having the world in my hands one day just to be pushed from my throne the next day and transformed into the court jester, forced to witness the slow decay of my life and the estrangement of those who were once my friends and fans. It must be one of the most devastating mental pains anyone can be forced to endure and this man lived it for 15 years plus, watching himself become "obsolete until nobody listened to him anymore", to rephrase Salieri in the motion-picture "Amadeus".

However, Michael Jackson's revenge was to prove that you cannot send a legend to the mists and hope that he stays there until his very own name dies ... whether in life or in death, a legend sooner or latter reapers and claims back the place that was once his.

Why is Iran's theocracy tumbling down?

The last Shah of Iran had a dream ... to permanently put his country on the list of the ten most industrialized nations in the world. Alas, his greatest mistake was to pursue this dream on the expense of his people's freedom and beliefs, so everything crumbled in 1979 with the Islamic revolution.
The main question that remains is why the people of Iran decided to overthrow an autocracy so to replace it with a theocracy, since both regimes constitute an enormous lack of freedom and both are antagonist with the values of democracy. Well, the major reason for the revolution was the ever growing despotism perpetrated by the Shah against his own people together with a huge mistake which was to continuously underestimate the power of the ayatollah's supporters until it was just too late to contain the widespread manifestations. Furthermore, Shah Reza Pahlavi was a westernized monarch that wanted to secularize Iran so to bring it closer to European standards. This only contributed to the growing discontent of the masses, which saw their king as a puppet of the west who continuously disrespected the cultural identity of his nation so to reinforce his vision of a perfect modernized society. Imagine what it would be if, for example, a british prime-minister decided to implement a vigorous and fundamentalist catholic regime in Britain ... surely it would lead to massive demonstrations of discontent. The other way around explains what ended up happening in Iran.
Now that 20 years have passed since the Iranian Revolution, the revolutionary fervour has all but evaporated and the dominant system is generating more contestation than support. In fact, it seems Iranians have grown tired of living under the rules of a clerical doctrine. Why, we ask?
The main reason is demographics. About two thirds of Iran's inhabitants are 25 years old or younger, which means that few Iranians have lived the revolution or were just to young then to keep any sort of significant memory of its ideals today. More and more Iranians have families abroad and nowadays' technology provides an unparalleled access to information, so many youngsters are growing ever more conscious of how life is abroad and how their lives are within the boundaries of their own country.
Another very important factor is that the ayatollahs' regime saw in George W. Bush the opportunity it needed to harden itself, on the basis of the menace which was supposedly growing across the pond. Now that George Bush's radicalism was replaced by a much more conciliatory Obama, the regime no longer has a scapegoat to justify their fundamentalist doctrine.
Moreover, Iran is no longer surrounded by enemies. The Soviet Union has imploded and Iraq has been overpowered, so the lack of enemies makes an aggressive regime much more difficult to gather popular support.
But what is causing a devastating blow in the regime is the fragmentation of its own core, with a growing amount of clerics and politicians turning a lot more towards the reformist and more moderate side, thus giving psychological strength to all of those who are unhappy with the way things are.
The regime is now holding a firm grasp to the nuclear program, since this is the only thing that nowadays can be used by President Ahmadinejad as propaganda against the west and to still keep the potential Israeli threat very much alive. Nevertheless, the program is failing to gather enough support so to counterbalance the momentum all reformists are enjoying now.
Anyway, being Iran a massively populated country according to Middle East standards, counting with nearly 80 million inhabitants, this means that tens of millions of Iranians are still fond of their regime, and it is from within this group that the recruits for the Revolutionary Guard are chosen. Hence, the military power is on the hand of hardliners who will make a change of things quite difficult, which means that the Islamic regime will not fall without massive bloodsheds.
Only time will tell if Iran is on the brink of social retransformation. Most likely the Shah's heir will not be called back like a returning messiah, but probably the regime will be forced to reinvent itself just enough to reduce the calling power of those who claim some change.
May the Persian pride be retrieved from the mists of obscurantism and return to its former glory in a modern and democratic way.

Monarchy ... reinvigorated institution or just plain anachronism?

Dear all,

Can anyone imagine the existence of the Republic of Britain? It seems an eerie idea, very much as it would seem the possible emergence of the American Empire, with a crowned head occupying permanently the White House in Washington.
Anyway, most americans see monarchies more like a tourist attraction rather than a form of government, while some europeans see it as an anachronistic remnant of an ancient world of privilege and autocracy which has changed only enough to be tolerated by the modern concept of democracy. Well, fact is ... monarchies are indeed highly profitable when it comes to inherent tourism revenues but are, in fact, a sort of a continuation from a time where the populace had little or no power whatsoever to designate its leaders.
Nevertheless, a european monarch these days goes to bed every night without being totally reassured that there will still be a crown on his head the next morning. They have to be continuously popular and invest a lot of time in charity work, since their place as heads of state is just a referendum or a legislative session away from being taken from them.
No one can deny, however, that a monarch is a landmark in a country's identity and is also considered as a reason for pride and a sort of link to the nation's glorious past. In a Europe that is transforming itself more and more into a sort of a federative state of independent nations, many Europeans are firmly grasping everything that clearly serves them as an anchor for their identity as a country and as a people. This is why every single monarchy in Europe has acceptance rates of over 80%, while presidents and premiers hardly reach such percentages.
In other cases, a monarchy is a guarantee of a state's own survival. Most likely, countries such as Spain, Belgium or the United Kingdom would have already collapsed if there wasn't a monarch representing and unifying the entire country and the different communities. This is why Belgium trembled when late King Baudouin threaten to resign if forced to give royal assent to the newly abortion law then approved by the Belgian parliament.
Nowadays, in Germany, there is a widespread call for the reconstruction of royal and imperial palaces destroyed during World War II, since in many important cities little or nothing was left from Germany's glorious and historical past. In France, support for the monarchy has recently risen, accompanied by a renaissance in public opinion towards the martyred Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
Monarchies remain, however, highly unpopular in Italy and Greece, mainly due to the fact that, in Italy, the royal house of Savoy was considered collaborationist with Mussolini's dictatorship, while in Greece the royal family was of Danish origin and there has never been a single drop of Hellenic blood running in royal veins.
However, monarchies are also considered as a guarantor of political stability. Americans, who were taught a huge lesson when demanding the resignation of the German emperor at the end of World War I and thus leaving space for the rise of Adolf Hitler, allowed Japan to keep its emperor so to avoid the possibility of Japan falling again in a sort of medieval shogun fight for power. Alas, this lesson was rapidly forgotten in Afghanistan and in Iraq, leaving the position of head of state in these countries wide open for a religious fundamentalist to claim it latter on.
Given all this, is monarchy an institution that is doomed to disappear as time moves on? Probably yes, but in Europe, with the ever growing empowerment of the European Union's institutions, people in each country will hold up to everything that identifies them as a sovereign state, and there is nothing that assures that more than a King or a Queen.
It will be difficult for the monarchies that are already in the mist to rise once again, but it will also take some time for the still existing ones to join those in the misty forest of oblivion.

Socialist, Communist, Redistributor ... adjectives fit for Obama or did America just go crazy?

Dear all,

It really disturbs me to see the mess that the eagerly awaited health care reform is provoking in America.

I think this fact is also disturbing for every single european who is accustomed to a vast healthcare service that provides for every single citizen regardless of their income, so that no one is denied access to medical treatment whenever ill.

Things that we take for granted in Europe such as State financed healthcare, State guaranteed retirement pensions and widespread maternity leaves are nothing more than mirages in the American political panorama and labor scenario. So, when someone tries to implement some changes that will make America a better place to live in with extended workers' rights, how does the public react? ... They start to call their President a socialist, a communist and a redistributor! Yeah ... right ... whatever!!!

If this is so, then, to my amazement and complete unawareness, countries like Britain, France, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Germany are socialist regimes. Probably the European Union should better change its name to Union of European Socialist Nations instead. Ridiculous, to say the least ...

So, my main question is ... are Americans that shortsighted, or are they simply too selfish to allow their taxes to be used for the benefit of their neighbor and fellow citizen? Can it be that they are so simpleminded to believe the doomsday alerts given by the insurance companies? If this was true, then all European insurance companies would be bankrupted and there would be no healthcare insurances in Europe whatsoever.

The system Obama is willing to implement is the very same that exists in Europe, which roughly means that if you have enough income then you can support an insured healthcare program that will open you the doors of private and more efficient medical services, but if you do not have sufficient income then you can always rely on a nearly free but less attentive and less efficient service. If this is to be socialist, then hail to Hegel, Marx and Engels, for I am a strayed socialist who has just found his way.

I beg to all fellow americans to study a bit of European social-democracy as well as the list of social services guaranteed to its citizens by the several european states. You'll see that Obama is just trying to fill an enormous welfare gap that prevails in American society, so to better approach it to Canadian, European and Australian standards. Don't follow the Republican propaganda and especially do not pay too much attention to what insurance companies are saying ... simply ask them how they survive elsewhere.

May the American welfare program be retrieved from the mists of indecency so to finally see the light of day, for the sake of tens of millions of underprivileged americans.

The Chinese Dragon ... is it ready to bite the hand that fed it?

Dear all,

China is a growing power yearning for recognition. But is China also becoming the most potential threat to our democratic system since Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union?

China is one of the oldest surviving civilizations, counting with nearly 5,000 years of uninterrupted history and many historians nowadays agree that if the Ming dynasty hadn't decide to close China to the outside world in the 14th century, the European monopolies of world trade and world colonization would have been seriously compromised. Few europeans are aware that China was by then constructing the world's largest trade ships and was strong in science and (believe or not) in research and development, while most of medieval Europe was still living the so called Dark Ages.

After all, what we are all witnessing now is just the rise of an empire that has known its ups and downs throughout a millennia old history. Given this, is our western way of life being silently subjugated by this rising eastern superpower?

Well, despite of what all politicians continuously say the answer is a devastating "YES".

By the end of Mao's disastrous reign, China was bankrupted and was only worthy of notice because it had access to the atomic bomb and was steadily building the world's largest army, meaning that it was nothing more than an isolated military powerhouse yearning to have its say on the world stage based solely on the potential aggressiveness of its armed forces.

The western societies have thenceforth cemented their political and economical strategies based on the assumption that Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and communist China would forever be closed to foreign investment and would not pose a threat to western growth and prosperity. Furthermore, and since South America was a barrel of political instability and Africa was little more than a continent filled with countries starving for foreign help, investors didn't have many other places to invest on. Everything was circumscribed to West Europe, North America, Japan and Oceania.

But then, the Soviet Union imploded, Eastern Europe opened itself to the world, Deng Xiaoping implemented the new socialist market economy and Brazil began to stabilize enough to become a new potential world power. Not only the rules of the game changed, the gaming board was also completely different and many times larger ... it was the outburst of globalization.

Two decades after, China became one of the world's wealthiest nations and it has been fast and steadily cannibalizing the west. Even more relevant is the fact that we, westerners, are willingly jumping into China's boiling cauldron and not being shoved in ... they open their borders and we rush in ... they show us the money and we sell everything ... they say "sit" and we obey. Most industrial production is permanently being moved to China, meaning Europe as well as America are consolidating year after year their role as being nothing more than China's assembly units.

Furthermore, China is using its money to literally convert poorer states to their way of doing business. I mean, why should an african nation follow the rules of an IMF or of a World Bank if China just arrives there, throws the money on the table and starts sucking the wealth out the country's womb, not giving a damn on what will that money be used for?

Chinese people have the right to become wealthier and to have their quality of life improved, but not on the expense of our own way of life and not by being responsible for throwing hundreds of thousands of western workers to the unemployment rows. A balance must be achieved so that we can all cooperate and work for our common good.

The big problem is that China, instead of being a country that wishes for a leading role on world affairs, wants to become a reemerged Middle Empire standing between its world vassals and the will of its Government. The disturbing truth is that within 20 years or so they will in fact achieve this goal, making us nothing more than lion feeders, scared to be eaten by the red lions but even more scared to be thrown out of the colosseum.

Now I will return to the mists, for this dragon is far too powerful for my modest capabilities.

Gay Marriage ... does it represent the dawn of a new era?

Dear all,

In Portugal, the country I live in, the Government has recently passed a law legalizing gay marriage, thus allowing gay couples to enjoy the recognition as well as all the privileges until recently only available to heterosexual couples. Nevertheless, the right to adoption in barred to gay couples, meaning their family will only extend towards themselves and their respective ascendant relatives.

Despite this law being supported by the leftist majority in parliament, the conservative society has managed to unite and gather the 75,000 signatures required to force the parliament to discuss the possibility of a referendum on the subject. Needless to say that the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to this new law, as well as the more radical conservative members of the parliament.

What is my opinion, then? Well ... personally I think that a referendum would be completely out of the question. How can we validate such an outcome when we ask a majority if they agree on the rights of a minority, moreover when that majority feels like this new law offends their way of being? What do you think the outcome would be if, at the time of Martin Luther King, America had held a referendum asking its entire population if they agreed on equal rights towards the black community?

Personally, and perhaps shortsightedly, I'm opposed to gay adoption but I do not see any sort of potential anthropological hazard coming from gay marriage. Furthermore, ancient societies were far more acceptive of same-sex relations than most modern societies. Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, Imperial China, Feudal Japan and even Persia were very permissive in what concerned homosexual interaction. In all cases, it was either religion or political doctrine that put such practices to an end. Over the following decades or even centuries, we came to be less and less accustomed to homosexuality to an extent where it became a matter of shame, disgrace and ostracism. So, does this mean that the time has come for us to finally burn down this veil of shame or should we stick to our newly acquired civilization values where homosexuality should not be condemned but, on the other hand, should not be promoted either?

Some say that legalizing gay marriage will lead to a demographic catastrophe especially on a quickly aging Europe, but to put the burden of demographic expansion on the shoulders of homosexuals would be similar to give the responsibility to control global warming to coal companies ... both ideas are, at the very least, absurd!

So, my final statement on this is ... let them marry! What's the problem with that? It will take a while before I'm personally ready to uphold gay adoption, but I have absolutely no reason to deny them the right to unite and to live their lives the way they want to. Why should we stick to society values, like if they haven't been continuously changed in the past?

Homosexuals deserve to be retrieved from the mists and to live their lives under the clarity of the sun and marriage, to my opinion, is the best way to impose this acceptance on the overall society.

Madonna ... The Survivor

Dear all,

Why a post on Madonna? Well ... she is not only my favorite performer, she is also considered a case study for success and longevity.

By 2013, she will eventually commemorate 30 straight years of groundbreaking success, since the release of her first hit single "Everybody". Very few artists have managed to jump the barrier of the musical craziness of the 1980's into the less crazier and more electronica inspired musical environment of the 1990's.

Paula Abdul, Cindy Lauper, Kim Wilde, Belinda Carlisle, Pat Benatar and many other 1980's divas have all but fallen into the thick mists of oblivion, latter joined by their 1990's counterparts like Alanis Morissette, the Spice Girls, Dolores O'Riordan, Lauryn Hill and Sinead O'Connor.

Straight into the 21st century, she is fighting head to head with performers nearly 30 years her junior like Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé. Furthermore, and if we talk about live performances, all of the gross revenues and attendants put together for each show Britney, Christina, Gaga or Beyoncé did throughout their entire careers would not reach the numbers of just one leg of Madonna's latest gigs. Why is that?!?

Well, first of all, and everybody agrees on that, Madonna is the queen of reinvention ... she's never the same, even if she is on a wining spree. From crucifix and bangle queen to platinized blonde diva, from religiously sexy to S&M dominatrix, from sanskrit guru to cowboy chic, from military opposer to disco diva and from hip-hop ring fighter to ... God knows what, this woman never ceases to amaze us and to leave us yearning for her newest incarnation. Not only that, every song diva wannabe says she wants to be the new Madonna, or at least has Madonna as her "finest inspiration".

Besides from being the queen of reinvention, she certainly managed to punch the 1980's in the stomach, thus opening her the doors for the 1990's with a red carpet. She did that by defying the very few boundaries the 1980's imposed on performers at the time ... you can be crazy and sexy but not sexual or oversexed and you can speak your mind but you must never go religious. Screw that, she said ... and the myth was born.

Madonna is also a survivor! They said she wouldn't survive the 1980's demise, but she gave us Vogue and Justify My Love, and made history. Latter, she was sentenced to death after releasing Erotica and the Sex book, but she came back with a vengeance with "Ray of Light", considered by many as one of her greatest works ever. More recently, she released a very disturbing and highly unappreciated album named "American Life" and everyone was saying "that was it ... she's finally going to go down in flames.", but on the contrary she released an album which sold 10 million copied worldwide and went on three major world tours each of which far surpassed its predecessor in attendance numbers as well as gross revenue, setting record after record. She does this by following a great balance between being a trend setter and a trend follower, depending on whether she is on top of things or if she needs a comeback.

Finally, and perhaps the most important factor, Madonna has that "unique" status and it just seems that everybody else is a sort of derivation from the Madonna atmosphere. This is why you can see people of 40 years plus spending over 200 USD for a ticket to one of her venues whereas other wannabes cannot push their ticket prices over the 50 USD margin without seeing their sales plummeting down, since goers are basically teens with fixed allowances.

Nevertheless, and although Madonna still reigns supreme, she is like an aging leader of a lion pride and it will become harder and harder for her to keep her crown as well as her respect amongst a horde of invading younger talents. The time for her to retreat with grace and honor draws near ... if she keeps fighting a game where youth is the most valuable asset, she will sooner or latter be ridiculed and cylindered by the show biz mob and she will be forced to leave in disgrace. But alas ... who am I to give my advice to someone who has been topping the charts for the last three decades and who is pretty much ready to continue to do so in the fourth?

All I know is that it will still take some time for her to finally take the path towards the mists of immortality, for she still has the strength to continue being an active icon.

North Korea ... what next?

Dear all,

Dictators are considered to be the natural enemies of the "clarified" western civilization, but few are as oppressive as Kim Yong Ill, undisputed leader and tyrant of the Republic of North Korea.

Every year he condemns tens of thousand of north-koreans to starvation due to his views of a perfect communist society, which we all know is just lip service since he rather prefers to live "la dolce vita" within his presidential palace's walls than to follow his own doctrine.

Not only is he aggressive within the borders of his feud, he is continuously aggressive towards the neighboring nation of Japan, undergoing permanent and ever more daring missile tests. And what to we do about it? ... absolutely nothing! We continue to play the innocent by-standers just because North Korea has nothing worthy of value and maybe because there is a permanent fear of infuriating North Korea's powerful ally and neighbor, the People's Republic of China.

What are the world leaders going to do about North Korea, now that a new decade has begun? Well ... mostly nothing, for it is better to invade unsupported fragile yet potentially wealthy autocracies than to fight a well organized army from a god forsaken land with no mineral or fossil wealth. Furthermore, an attack on North Korea would certainly trigger an escalation of the aggressive behavior of China towards Taiwan, something that the West is not prepared to deal with.

China is the ever-growing political powerhouse of the world and we, in the West, are willing to accept that even if it means the annual death of thousands of people who are unfortunate to live in China's allied oppressive states.

I'll now return to the mists and pray for the souls of those who silently die everyday just because they are considered irrelevant when compared to higher political causes.

New Year ... Let the posts run wild ...

Dear all,

First of all, let me wish you all a happy new year with loads of successes, on the personal as well as on the professional level.

2010 has started and we have come the the end of what is already considered as one of the gloomiest decades in recent human history ... we had 9/11, we had the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we had George W. Bush, we had a devastating seaquake, we had swine flu, we had a financial recession that came close to a global depression, we had several plane crashes and recently we had a failed meeting on global warming. I think we need to go back to WW2 so to find an even darker period than the first decade of the 21st century.

Anyway, I hope for the best and may the world leaders finally realize that soon there will be no world to lead if they do not change their way of thinking ... for the sake of us all.

I'll return to the woods to rest, now. Have a safe journey, whatever path you have chosen.