Harry Potter and Hollywood Gone AWOL in Indonesia

This being on my purported beat of Southeast Asia, here's some interesting news. One of the more practical applications for those studying political science / international relations is the area of "political risk analysis." In particular, there is concern by foreign investors of how shifting political winds affect the climate for their businesses, the ultimate Bad Thing being uncompensated expropriation. But there are many other irritants that may yet cause foreign firms to throw their hands up in frustration. Frustrating enough to keep the final instalment of Harry Potter from the world's fourth most populous country.

For your consideration, today we have Harry Potter and Hollywood Gone AWOL in Indonesia. No, JK Rowling has not quite reneged on having written the last novel about Harry Potter. Besides, I doubt whether she would have penned something with such a mouthful title for Year 8. Rather, this story is Based on Real Life and is occurring right now in Indonesia.

There are two opposing versions here. Both concern the largest motion picture chain in Indonesia, the Cineplex 21 Group, and regulations supposedly introduced at the start of the year on taxes and royalties due to the government from those showing Hollywood blockbusters. The Motion Picture Association (MPA) representing the largest US firms have worked with Cineplex 21 for the longest time, and it is the latter which has come under fire the most from Indonesian government officials. While Cineplex 21 claims it was not aware of the new regulations coming into effect (which obviously require larger payments being made to the government), the authorities point out that Cineplex 21 has been recalcitrant in paying up.

So, with the largest Indonesian movie chain not being able to show first-run Hollywood movies over alleged arrears--the very same one which has an exclusive deal to show such movies in the country--they've been screening nearly everything else to the annoyance of local filim buffs. As with other American commercial interests facing fettered access, this has become a full-blown trade issue:

Debates over the absence of Hollywood movies at local cinemas have gone bilateral, with Indonesia asking the US to find other importers to end the five-month Hollywood movie drought amid the summer blockbuster season. Local importers, which have the exclusive rights to import Hollywood blockbusters, have suspended import activities since January as they settle tax cases in court involving Rp 300 billion (US$35.09 million) in royalty fees and penalties in arrears. The importers said they were never aware of such obligations.

Ever since, Indonesians enjoying the luxury of movie theaters in 65 cities across the country have been screening lower-quality flicks such as Beastly and What Women Want, while much-awaited blockbuster films such as Black Swan and Kung Fu Panda 2 are nowhere to be seen. “In the [bilateral] meeting, which was also attended by the US ambassador, we said there were many importers willing to work with them,” Finance Minister Agus Martowardojo said over the weekend.

Indonesia’s cinema industry has long been dominated by the Cineplex 21 Group, which acts as both importer and distributor and also owns the largest theater chain. Of 600 total theaters in the country, about 500 are owned by the 21 Cineplex Group, 50 by Blitz Megaplex and the remaining by various other businesses. Ananda Siregar, CEO of the second-largest theater chain, Blitz Megaplex, has tried to contact the Motion Picture Association (MPA) to take over import activities, but failed as Hollywood distributors have agreements with the Cineplex 21 Group. MPA represents major Hollywood studios such as Twentieth Centry Fox, Paramount, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Walt Disney Studios and Warner Bros.

Finance Ministry Director General of Taxation Agung Kuswandono said last week that there have been importation requests from new firms to ship foreign movies. “But I don’t know if they are [affiliated] with the existing players or not.” If they are affiliated with existing players, Agung added, they might not be allowed to import. “We are not only banning the company, but also the directors. So, we need to look at it first, to see if these [new importers] are only an effort to shift position from being banned to being allowed [to import].”

In the meeting conducted on Tuesday, both the Indonesian and the United States governments have also called the “Hollywood boycott” bogus, Agus said. “The American representatives clearly understood that Indonesia has no problem with American film exporters, producers or government. but there is a problem that needs to be solved by [local] importers that have been acting as American film importers for the MPA.”

From the fiscal front, the government has pushed efforts to ease importation of foreign movies by simplifying import procedures for foreign movie importers. The Finance Ministry stopped the royalty fee requirement, but instead imposed a new duties system that requires importers to pay import duties of Rp 21,000 to Rp 22,000 per minute for each copy of a film they brought into the country.

There was an earlier hope that instead of being taxed a fixed proportion of gate receipts which MPA rejected as being too prohibitive, a tax on film length in minutes would solve the impasse. However, as the article above suggests, the Indonesian government appears keener on ending the "Hollywood boycott" not by making terms more favourable to 21 Cineplex but by giving the franchise of distributing Hollywood films to other importers. Like many things in Southeast Asia, I suspect these rule changes have more to do with certain interests wanting something done with 21 Cineplex as opposed to regulatory opaqueness.

To Understand Europe, Watch Eurovision (Dammit)

[OK, so it may be more difficult for those in Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas to watch this programme on broadcast TV, but you can certainly watch the videos online. Relive when Finnish Klingons won with their rendition of "Hard Rock Hallelujah."]

Even for Europe's boosters, creating a European identity has proven to be a difficult task. Just what is it that defines being part of Europe? Judeo-Christian heritage probably would have counted sometime ago, but Europe is becoming famously secular. Nor is it, sadly for Europhiles, the European Union. Aside from not incorporating all the countries in the region, there remain ardent Eurosceptics in several member countries who threaten to undermine the entire project. For the sporting-minded, you can't say that it's football given that certain powers dominate the competition year in and year out in Champions League and the Euro football tournament.

From a democratic standpoint, there are certain things we'd like to see in a gathering that truly represents Europe. Aside from allowing all comers in, a majority of them actually having chances at winning the grand prize would help. Maybe to contrast the seemingly distant and stereotypical "bureaucrats from Brussels," we'd also like a genuine sense of participation from the citizens of the continent. And to top things off, how about having a large audience (turnout) when this gathering comes around?

If you put together all the desirables in the last paragraph, the closest we come to European popular appeal that brings the continent together is the Eurovision Song Contest. In the past, it's been a hit-and-miss affair if you're interested in slick entertainment. While daft outfits and dodgy performances have been staples of previous competitions, this year's event seemed solidly produced. Believe it or not, nations put much time and effort in grooming contestants for the top prize. Football bragging rights are hard to come by; Eurovision champions less so. Moreover, its pulling power shames elections for members of European parliament as fans watch the show and phone in their votes in droves.

Academics have taken notice of the significance of Eurovision, too. It has been the subject of serious academic research with its own network of researchers. For instance, given that fans and judges cannot vote for performers from their own countries, it's always been interesting how cultural similarity and geographical proximity account for results. There are even pretty extensive Wikipedia entries on Eurovision voting patterns. Among observable voting blocs are those for former Soviet satellites. Consider, for instance, Russia:

Anyway, Americans are usually not keen observers of Eurovision for the obvious reasons that (a) they don't participate and (b) the event receives scant media coverage stateside. However, the New York Times has just come out with a pretty good article on the event. As many commentators including myself have now done, what lessons are there from Eurovision that can be transferred to the project of European integration?

Eurovision, a Continental battle of the bands that has been building to a climax this week with live televised semifinals, is often dismissed as tacky, politicized and rarely capable of producing durable stars. Yet this wildly popular song contest may also be just the thing that Europe needs right now.

Since 1956, Eurovision has been one of the few cultural institutions that bind citizens of Europe together, proponents say, an urgently needed common denominator at a time when European solidarity is under strain. If the past is any guide, the finale on Saturday will draw well over 100 million viewers.

“Critics claim that the European Union lacks legitimacy because people don’t identify with it,” said Milija Gluhovic, an assistant professor of theater at Warwick University in Britain, and a scholar of Eurovision. (Yes, there is such a thing as a scholar of Eurovision.) “There is something to be said for the ways in which the contest may be engendering a way of identifying with this larger supra-nation, Europe.” Professor Gluhovic is among a growing number of scholars treating Eurovision as a subject for research. “There are not too many events doing this kind of cultural work,” he said.

What's nice is its inclusiveness. Especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Eastern Europeans have taken to the event like fish to water. What's more, as someone keen on Turkey joining the EU, the inclusion of any number of nearby countries (especially Turkey) is welcome:

Europe, as defined by Eurovision, extends as far west as Iceland, as far south as Israel and as far east as Azerbaijan. Yet, in what could be a reflection of the mood of austerity and fiscal gloom hanging over Europe, some connoisseurs of the event have detected an unsettling trend in this year’s entries.

The campiness that has won the event a global cult following — especially among some gay people, researchers say — seems muted this year. The Eastern European countries, which normally set the standard for bizarre combinations of folk culture and Vegas glitter, are going easy on the sequins...

And there is of course, the notion of good neighbourliness that pervades despite occasional real-life skirmishes:

To be sure, the contest has some elements that seem typical of politics in the European Union, widely criticized for its byzantine decision-making process that produces mediocre results. The winner of Eurovision is chosen by a combination of professional jurors and telephone voting by viewers. Jurors and viewers cannot vote for their own countries, so they tend instead to choose their neighbors.

That has led to charges of collusion, as when Serbia won in 2007 with help from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. But Mr. Gluhovic, who is from Sarajevo, said voting patterns reflected cultural similarities rather than deliberate manipulation. “You had the Balkan wars in the ’90s, former Yugoslavia in flames, but then after fighting each other, these nations gave each other big scores,” he said. “When I saw that, I was really moved.”

Tonight millions of European households will have watched this year's finals--and many would have bought the CD too. Look past all the vocal contortions and glittering sequins. Intelligent observers will spend time seeking clues as to how Eurovision holds lessons for the more specific project of European integration.
---------------------------------

From the clip above, you can probably infer that my favourite is the gospel-tinged entry from Austria, Nadine Beiler. She has powerful "pop diva" pipes from the Whitney Houston / Mariah Carey template. Plus, the song she composed is really very well constructed, going from an acapella performance to power ballad territory. This is, after all, a talent competition.

We all are dreamers on our way
In a world where we´re not meant to stay...

BTW: Others that floated my boat were Estonia's Bjork-esque Getter Jaani and Georgia's pop-rock Eldrine. But in the end, oil-rich Azerbaijan won the competition this year via Ell & Nikki. With all those oil revenues, they can certainly afford to host next year's event even in austerity-hit Europe as is the privilege of the winning contestant's home country. Alike Lena from Germany who won last year, it certainly wasn't to my taste in being too so-so, but de gustibus non est disputandum. See you next year in Baku.

Star Trek Shows Demise of the American Idea

Having shattered foolish notions that the "American Dream" is encapsulated by plausible metrics of US political-economic performance--it is, quite simply, a fraud--let us now turn our attention to how this reality is being reflected in pop culture. With the exception of the most delusional, anti-factual USA#1-style cheerleaders, Americans have become increasingly pessimistic about future generations being better off than they are. In a recent novelty article in Millennium, English school of international relations stalwart and LSE immortal Barry Buzan argues that the TV series Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica increasingly reflect this kind of (warranted) pessimism as a reflection of how America increasingly views its diminished situation.

Star Trek once portrayed a quaint, kumbaya interstellar organization in operation in the United Federation of Planets. For instance, even the warlike Klingons were eventually integrated into interstellar society by the time Star Trek: The Next Generation came around. Witness Worf. Note TNG's time frame, however: it made its debut at the tail end of the feel-good Reagan years and was very much in full flow as the events 1989 saw the demise of the Warsaw Pact. Fukuyama-esque triumphalism pervaded in TV as in real life. Later series, particularly those which came after 9/11, have a much darker tone. In English School terms, it's a regression from international society to a more primordial and conflictual interational system. From Professor Buzan:

For IR types, the obvious appeal of Star Trek was that it pictured a Westphalian international system set in a galaxy and universe filled with life and civilisations. This set it apart from the common Manichean streak in [science fiction] in which, as in H.G. Wells’ landmark War of the Worlds, the plot revolves around a zero-sum war of extermination between species in which there is no place for diplomacy. Star Trek was on board with the view of those such as Robert Zubrin, that there is a high probability of intelligent life in the universe being widespread.

Since this was America in space, the interplanetary relations in Star Trek are not just realist or apocalyptic, but contain a strong streak of liberalism. America has, with a bit of help from the Vulcans, a species with a rather Zen-like culture, fulfilled its liberal dream of remaking the whole world in its own image. Federal America has become Federal Earth, which then becomes the United Federation of Planets. The Federation has many of the qualities of a moderately solidaristic international society in terms of human rights and some (not always honoured) obligations for collective defence. There are to be sure also pluralist elements such as the right to cultural distinctiveness, and in the wider galaxy the Federation lives in a power political international system. This ‘America’ has left behind its isolationism and taken its liberal proselytism into space.

Well that was then. How did this American final frontier look like in a matter of a few years? While certain politically correct elements date these latter episodes, the mood is decidedly darker as prospects for the end of history fade:

Interestingly for an American television show, religion remains somewhat in the
background, associated mainly with more primitive and/or non-human cultures. The Star Trek universe, or at least the parts of it dominated by humans, is a pretty secular place in which religion is kept in the private sphere [cosmic Protestant work ethic?]. All of this could be seen as an expression of America in the 1960s, confident in its right to own the future, blithely imperialist in a cultural way, willing but not eager to use force, having no interest in conquest and occupation, and with a deep commitment to progress, humanism, anti-racism and liberal values. At its best, Star Trek represented an expansive and optimistic view of the human condition and its prospects without being naively utopian.

All of this was clearer in the original series of the late 1960s, though it remained
strong in The Next Generation during the late 1980s and early 1990s. During the 1990s, the Deep Space 9 and Voyager series, and the Next Generation films, turned darker and more apocalyptic with wars of survival against the Dominion and the Borg. During the 21st century, with the Enterprise TV series, and the 2009 Star Trek movie, Paramount ran out of visionary steam with the franchise, failing to take the story of the Federation further, and instead focusing on prequels to the original series. These are also darker and more apocalyptic in mood than the original series.

Think of it: in the real world, modern-day "Klingons" (cling ons? Think North Korea, Myanmar, etc.) refuse to take part in the international system. What's more, they have a strong backer that allows them to continue their existence outside of international norms--China (today's collective "Borg"?) Certainly, you don't expect a rehashing of the wilfully obtuse Star Trek: The Motion Picture in which a Voyager satellite obviously launched by Americans is used as shorthand for a shared human consciousness while encountering alien others. Metaphors of American exceptionalism in cinema have been, well, Guantanamo Ghraibed. But I digress. Here he is once again:

On a deeper level, there is an old theme in science fiction literature, and up to a point in world history, that differentiates between societies that look outward and venture outward, and societies that look inward and close themselves off. The turn inward lobby is always strong, saying ‘why should we spend billions going into space when we have more immediately pressing welfare and security priorities at home (the parochial version) or on the planet (the cosmopolitan version)?’ In today’s America such sentiments can play to the country’s isolationist tradition, seeing itself as the exemplary ‘city on the hill’, but eschewing external political engagements lest they corrupt the purity of its revolution.

Simply put, it's no longer an ambition "to boldly go where no man has gone before" when conditions sustaining such adventurism becoming increasingly unfavourable on the homeworld--I mean homeland. And in so doing, Star Trek mirrors the end of the American idea.

The Putin - Formula One Connection

Just a few posts ago, I discussed how Lider Maximo Hugo Chavez was backing the F1 career of Williams backmarker (read: habitual low-place finisher) Pastor Maldonaldo. Watching the F1 race in Istanbul on a lazy Sunday afternoon, I caught sight of another state-sponsored ride. So here's some crass commercialism care of the man who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.

As it turns out, the Soviet-era marque of Lada has been a proud sponsor of Renault F1 (or more latterly Lotus Renault GP) since 2010. Its sponsor's description is rather sinister and reminds me of, yes, Soviet-era propaganda with its odd fixation on the "military-industrial complex" (their Ike-worship, not mine):

In accordance with Federal Law No. 270-FZ “On the State Corporation “Russian Technologies” dated November 23, 2007, the main tasks of the Corporation are:
- assistance to organizations of different industrial sectors, including the military-industrial complex, in development and manufacture of high-tech industrial products;
- assistance in promotion and sales in domestic and foreign markets of high-tech industrial products and related intellectual activity results;
- participation in implementation of state policy in the areas of military-technical - cooperation of Russian Federation with foreign states and of the state program of armaments production and supply;
- attraction of investments into different sectors of industry including the military-industrial complex, for the purpose of development of competitive high-tech industrial products, including military products;

Creepy...what the heck does all that have to do with selling passenger cars? Just as Arsenal striker Andrei Arshavin is a noted proponent of PM Vladimir Putin's United Front in the English Premier League, so it appears that the erstwhile Russian leader is busy using F1 literally as a vehicle for increasingly the visibility of Russian-owned businesses. You see, Lada is now 25% state-owned, hence the sponsorship deal. From ESPN:

Probably the manufacturer least likely to be associated with Formula One, Russian car maker Lada has announced it will be sponsoring the Renault F1 team for 2010. The announcement, made by Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, is linked to the signing of Vitaly Petrov as the country's first F1 driver. Putin said Renault's signing of Petrov is a "great symbol of cooperation" between the French marque and Russia.

"We will sponsor this activity [the F1 team] as a first step, and do not rule out later increasing our financial participation in the project," the prime minister told news agency EFE.

In 2008, Renault bought a 25% stake in Lada's parent company Avtovaz for US$1 billion, and it is reported that Renault's chief executive Carlos Ghosn may now look to increase its involvement. Although the car will carry Lada branding for 2010, there are no plans to change the team name.

Thank heavens the outfit became "Lotus Renault GP" instead of "Lada Renault F1" [!] What does a marque associated with producing crappy cars during the Soviet era have to do with a sport renowned for exhibiting engineering excellence? Beats me, pal. You learn something weird and new every time you watch the wacky world of F1, where geopolitics and sport mix to usually weird effect.

The somewhat creepy thing is that this team unlike present-day Williams gets a lot more camera time and hence exposure, with Petrov and teammate Nick Heidfeld having already finished on the podium this season.

A Class Analysis of Super Mario's Mushroom World

I was visiting the Yahoo! website when I came across an interesting-sounding feature on "Video Game Myths Revealed." Apparently, some folks with too much free time on their hands have made the preposterous (mock?) argument that Super Mario is a Stalinist communist based on the original Super Mario Brothers title. From the above video clip, they cite the following:

• he wears a lot of red;
• he gets more powerful with mushrooms (hippie/drug culture reference);
• he wants to overthrow King Koopa AKA Bowser (instead of Tsar Nicolas II);
  
• he pulls down the flag and raises one with a red star at the end of each stage;
• he has a strong semblance to "Uncle Joe" Stalin with his luxuriant moustache;
• he is super, while Stalin fronted a superpower

While this urban legend may sound plausible to some, a more careful analysis leads us to an entirely different conclusion. Not one to be outdone in silliness, let me try and shed more light in two ways. First, the Nintendo franchise is much broader than Super Mario Brothers I--a single entry in a vast if conflicting catalogue which Nintendo does not provide an official narrative to. Second, I will use a Marxist class analysis to determine the hierarchy in this familiar if understudied world. To be sure, class warfare is rife even there.

Who knows, I may even submit an article to The International Journal of Computer Game Research [!] if enough people take this silliness seriously. I must reiterate though that this is a preliminary sketch given limitations in the source material. Here are the main talking points:

Mario is a royalist fer crying out loud, not a communist - Let's talk about virtual geography and using the appropriate level of analysis. The Mushroom Kingdom where Princess Peach lives is but one of the many monarchies situated in the wider Mushroom World. Among others, there's also Sarasaland where Princess Daisy hails from and the Dark Land which the aforementioned Bowser reigns over. Applying Marx's theory of historical materialism, this situation is a product of material conditions in the Mushroom World. To wit, this world is in the feudal stage featuring rival aristocracies. The unique thing, however, is that this all transpires in a post-industrial mindscape. Alike in classic balance of power politics, Princesses Peach and Daisy naturally align against the rising power of Bowser and his "evil" machinations. (Although the Mushroom Kingdom is said to be one of the largest, its military expenditures pale in comparison to those of the Dark Land.)

In a crude Marxist sense, the predominance of Mushroom Kingdom dwellers Peach, Mario, Luigi, etc. in Nintendo games and its corresponding implications for revenues drives Bowser to seek its conquest time and again by kidnapping Princess Peach. Which, of course, has the paradoxical effect of increasing royalties to the Mushroom Kingdom since Nintendo must publish yet another "Bowser kidnaps Peach; Mario must rescue" title as a result. Alike dollar hegemony in our world, this is the central political-economic tension in Mario's.

Mushroom World has a speciesist bias that leads to obvious inequalities - There is, unfortunately, not an uncommon anthropomorphic form of discrimination in make-believe worlds. Why must humanoid characters have predominance over other sentient beings who seem as capable as they are? Toad is a case in point. In Super Mario Brothers II, Toad actually has the greatest abilities alongside Mario, Luigi and Peach. Yet he continues to be marginalized and has not received a (semi-)starring role since 1988. Rather, the commodified depiction of Toad as a category of lookalike serfs in the Mushroom Kingdom continues his exploitation despite possessing extraordinary talents we occasionally become aware of.

Thus, Bowser's continuing obsession with kidnapping and marrying Princess Peach is his attempt to reduce speciesist bias by hopefully siring more human-like offspring instead of, well, Bowser Jr. (who doesn't get far like his dad in genteel society or aristocratic circles). Bowser = Middleton? Just a thought. Instead of trying to marry up in this messed-up virtual arena, Donkey Kong has chosen to live in a non-imperialist realm elsewhere in Mushroom World. Still, the oppression becomes intolerable that Donkey Kong too has had to resort to kidnapping Mario's girlfriend in the eponymous video game--but only for that instance and not with Bowser-like determination. Nevertheless, if you are in search of a real revolutionary in Mushroom World, it would be Donkey Kong and his nephew Diddy Kong. Offhand, I would say that the Mushroom Kingdom has a Gini coefficient somewhere between 0.70 and 0.80, while that in the less hierarchical Kong environs it's somewhere in the range of 0.20 to 0.30.

Mario's fake populist affectations remind me of New Labour architect Peter Mandelson, not Stalin - Let's get this one straight: Mario is a plumber the same way that Sir Tom Jones was a bricklayer. (Both are master showmen feigning humbler occupations.) Having long ago discovered his cash cow potential, this most recognizable and bankable of video game stars is no lumpenproletariat. Again, that would be Toad(s) in the Mushroom Kingdom or Goomba(s) in the Dark Land (who do invade Mushroom Kingdom when Bowser kidnaps Peach; hence the confusion in the clip above). Actually, Mario and his moustache do not so much remind me of "Uncle Joe" Stalin but of Lord Mandelson during his left-ish era. And yes, Mandelson had a nice 'stache during the time he worked as an economist at the Trades Union Congress.

Here's a question for you: in how many games does Mario actually do *plumbing* instead of beating up Koopas and Goombas and all that glamorous stuff? Few and far between. Just as Lord Peter Mandelson would much rather hang out with the likes of oligarch Oleg Deripaska in Corfu than with slovenly "Peace Camp" protesters in Parliament Square, so does Mario have a hankering for the good life. We all know there's a Mario's Castle that literally gives the charade away. And boy is he ever well-compensated; a true petit bourgeoisie even in stature as Princess Peach is taller than he is.

Controversially, Nintendo is the commercial rights holder to Mushroom World - In Formula One racing, Berine Ecclestone invites envy for being the ringmaster to the entire show. Still, you cannot begrudge his skill in marketing the whole enterprise. And so it is in the Mushroom Kingdom as Nintendo has parlayed a thin "Bowser-kidnaps-Peach" storyline into a monster franchise. Just to show you the drawing power of filthy lucre, this collection of antagonists and imperialists collaborate in sporting pastimes if the commercial allure is strong enough: Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, Mario Baseball, Mario Hoops, Mario and Sonic Olympics, etc. all feature ostensibly hostile characters engaging in sporting competition. Indeed, Nintendo has even introduced purpose-built doppelganger villains for pure commercial gain despite the narrative discontinuities of Wario and Waluigi. I won't even get into Nintendo co-opting Sega's characters and wiping out the latter's console-selling aspirations.

Likely, there has been much Disneyfication of Mushroom World. I am sure things such as pixel abortion and pixel euthanasia exist, but they are all sanitized to sell to a pre-teen audience the world over in a formula perfected by that elder stripe of master animator.
------------------------------------

So there you have it. Super Mario is not about communist revolution but of rival imperialists--Mushroom Kingdom and Dark Land, especially--contesting dominion over the wider Mushroom World. Do not be fooled by inter-character sports games, either. They're as jingoistic at heart as the 1936 Munich Olympics if you scratch beneath the surface. We all know what came afterwards. Mario--who has a castle of his own, don't forget (not bad for a "plumber")--is at heart a true royalist whose allegiances are strongly conditioned on...material interests.

Next time up (if there ever is one): I will use my namesake Immanuel Wallerstein's work to develop Modern World Video Game Systems Theory where the concepts above will be fleshed out further. Looking back, I've also neglected to explain the enigmatic Yoshi. While you can pretty much figure out which lands will occupy the core, periphery, and semi-periphery, I have yet to sort out Nintendo's overarching spatial configuration in the grander scheme of things. Circuits of capital linking Mushroom World with ours and all that transboundary stuff.

NOTE 1: Forbes values Princess Peach's net worth at $1.3 billion and at #15 on the Forbes Fictional 15. I honestly doubt whether such a paltry sum could maintain the splendour of the Mushroom Kingdom. Moreover, I am shocked--shocked!--by the insinuation that she is divorced from Super Mario. Again, there is no Nintendo game storyline that supports this unwholesome allegation. What kind of girl do you think she is...married to a Windsor?

NOTE 2: Given that I have devoted much space on this blog to sports since we spend considerable time and money following them, I believe we should now devote some attention to video games--the signature form of entertainment in the digital age. There are interesting and surprisingly nuanced boundary-spanning politics in the virtual environments which many of us have voluntarily chosen to enter.