cyrus.mortazavi

Jump to a Random Strip in the Archives! | Buy This Original Art | Archives | E-mail Dave

Jump to a Random Strip in the Archives! | Buy This Original Art | Archives | E-mail Dave

Not everyone in San Diego can get tickets to San Diego Comic Con. It’s as much a lottery for them as anyone else.

But thankfully there is so much else to do.

Visit the Xbox Lounge in the Hyatt with 85 consoles featuring more than 25 Xbox One games. Or the NBC Experience at Gaslamp Square. The Assassin’s Creed Experience next to the Hilton Gaslamp Hotel. Homer’s Dome at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront front lawn. The Godzilla Display behind the Convention Center next to the 5th Ave. The Nintendo Video Game Lounge at the Marriott. Sony’s Pixels Arcade at the Hard Rock Hotel. The Adventure Time Conquest Fulfillment Center across from the Children’s Museum. The Game of Thrones: Survive the Realm Experience at the Omni Hotel Gallery. And then there are all the parties.

But what if you want… heaven forfend… comics? Especially since there is no Trickster event this year? Well, what about an actual comic shop?

Take Yesteryear Comics of San Diego, a favourite of Bleeding Cool, contributor to the Bleeding Cool Bestseller List with a strong focus on creator owned titles.

Before Preview Night and Image Expo kick off on the Wednesday, they will be hosting a morning signing with Sheltered‘s Johnnie Christmas from 9am to 1pm.

Then on Friday, they will have a signing with Zenescope’s Jamie Tyndall from 4pm to 7pm.

And they’ll have a retailer exclusive of GI Joe/ Transformers to add to the pile. I think I’m going to have to pop by… I mean I’ve got to get my Wednesday comics from somewhere, right?

Things To Do In San Diego This Week If You’re Not Going To Comic Con

Warren Ellis wrote in 2002:

It occurs to me that an awful lot of trouble in Gotham City could have been averted a long time ago if Batman had just ripped the Joker’s nipples off.

I mean, treatment doesn’t work, does it? They stick the Joker in the nuthatch, he comes out again and does the same things.

A man with the nipples ripped off him does not make the same mistakes twice.

Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot, and need the nipples ripped off them.

I mean, who’s going to argue?

“Batman, I’ve heard disturbing reports that you ripped the Joker’s nipples off.”

“Choke on my fuck, Commissioner Gordon.”

“…okay.”

I mean, crime in Gotham City doesn’t exactly seem to be affected by a man dressed as a bat flapping around the place. But no-one disobeys a man wearing a necklace of human nipples.

“I’m Batman” isn’t cutting it in the striking-fear-into-their-hearts stakes. But “I’m Batman — and I’m here for your nipples” is an entirely different proposition.

Criminals would see the error of their ways after a man in a black leather pervert suit had their nipples off with the edge of a Batarang, you mark my words. Or a Bat-Denipplizer.

I’m off to ring DC Comics.

DC said no. But Marvel said yes. From last week’s Moon Knight,

Warren Ellis says, always recycle.

Why Warren Ellis’ Moon Knight Is More Badass Than Batman, And It’s All Down To Nipples

We’ve got two things going on today around the DC based NBC series Constantine. First, the series starring Matt Ryan (Criminal Minds) was already looking for a replacement for Lucy Griffiths and had announced they would introduce a character from the Hellblazer comics named Zed. Word came out yesterday that the producers were looking for a Latina actress for the part and Deadline.com is reporting that they’ve gotten one. Angelica Celaya (Burn Notice, Dallas) will join the cast as Zed, a woman with psychic abilities and a history with Constantine.

According to the producers, there is no intention to reshoot the pilot as having Griffiths character of Liv Aberdine leave is consistent with the character of Constantine as folks drop around him like flies.

The second bit of news come from IGN.com where they interview executive producers David S. Goyer and Daniel Cerone. In the interview Goyer talks about the helm of Dr. Fate that appears in the pilot (and in the trailer) as a way to show that the whole DC Occult universe is open to them and that they plan to bring another DC character into the mix within the first 9 episodes.

Cerone in his interview let the cat out of the bag by explaining that in episode five they needed a police officer who sees that supernatural evil exists, so they decided to make the character be Jim Corrigan. Comic fans will recognize that name as the cop who tries to take the law into his own hands, dies and then comes back as the Spectre. Now that’s not saying we get to see the Spectre in episode five, but we get the start of something bigger that the writers can then make payoff further down the line.

Constantine premieres October 24th on NBC.

Constantine Producers Get Their Girl And Tease More DC Characters

Extends to the US:

A new study published this week by the National Iranian American Council argues that the various trade sanctions the United States has maintained on Iran for more than a decade actually hurts the American economy. The NIAC, a U.S.-based organization that pushes for a peaceful resolution of differences between Washington and Tehran, calculated that between 1995 and 2012, the United States has forfeited between $135 billion and $175 billion in export revenue as a consequence of not doing business with the Islamic Republic. …

In the United States alone, write researcher Jonathan Leslie, NIAC director of research Reza Marashi, and NIAC president Trita Parsi, “this lost export revenue translates into between 51,043 and 66,436 job opportunities lost per year on average. In 2008 alone, as many as 214,657 to 279,389 job opportunities were relinquished.”

Natasha Schmidt talks with Trita Parsi about the study. Schmidt asserts that lifting sanctions will leave the international community “with very little leverage when dealing with Iran on a range of issues, from the nuclear program to human rights.” Parsi disputes this:

On the contrary, the West has very little leverage precisely because there is so little interaction. If the U.S. had not eliminated its trade with Iran in 1995 and if in 2009 there actually was a significant American presence in Iran, do you think the Iranian government would have had a harder or easier time to cheat in the elections? Would the US have had more or less leverage? Part of the reason the US had so little leverage in 2009 is because it had nothing in Iran. No embassy, no diplomats, no companies—no Americans. That’s no guarantee that it would have used its leverage constructively, but it is very difficult to argue that America’s complete absence from Iran has given it more leverage.

Not very, according to the CDC:

The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual. The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6 percent, labeled themselves as straight in the 2013 survey. An additional 1.1 percent declined to answer, responded “I don’t know the answer,” or said they were “something else.”

The figures offered a slightly smaller assessment of the size of the gay, lesbian and bisexual population than other surveys, which have pegged the overall proportion at closer to 3.5 or 4 percent. In particular, the estimate for bisexuals was lower than in some other surveys.

Eugene Volokh notes that, according to the CDC, lesbian and bisexual women slightly outnumber their male counterparts:

1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual. The results are generally in the same ballpark as past estimates — and far below the long-debunked 10 percent estimate. But past data that I’ve seen had suggested that there were about twice as many gay or bisexual men as lesbian or bisexual women; this data suggests that there is no such gender gap.

Meanwhile, Arit John considers the importance of framing:

The survey comes up with a number that’s lower than the 3.5 to 4 percent figure found in other surveys. And as we’ve seen from past surveys, what’s asked matters. Specifically, the broadness of the answers available to respondents makes a difference.

In 2007, researchers at Cornell University interviewed 20,000 individuals in 80 communities. “Mostly heterosexual” was an option for respondents, and the results showed a higher percentage of nonheterosexuality, especially among women:

85.1 percent of the young women identified as heterosexual; 0.5 percent reported no sexual identity; and the remaining 14.4 percent were sexual but not strictly heterosexual, i.e. either lesbian or bisexual. Among young men, 94.0 percent identified themselves as heterosexual; 0.4 percent of the men reported no sexual identity; and the remaining 5.6 percent identified as gay or bisexual.

Meanwhile, the study showed that gay and lesbian Americans were healthier than US heterosexuals in some respects and less so in others – more likely to drink, for example, but also more likely to exercise.

But some cardiologists worry that too much is bad for the heart. Lisa Rosenbaum examines their claims:

After reviewing the data and interviewing experts in the field, my own impression is that among people without known cardiovascular disease there is no compelling data to suggest that mortality significantly differs between moderate and extreme exercisers. There is thus no way to precisely define an upper limit of exercise for an average healthy individual. I suspect, though, that part of what sustains the “too much exercise can kill you” myth is the widespread recognition of the so-called exercise paradox. That is, while consistent exercise decreases the likelihood that you will have a heart attack, if you are destined to have one it is more likely to happen while you are exercising. That’s why no one can issue a blanket statement that extreme exercise is safe. It’s also why so many researchers have attempted to figure out how to make extreme exercise as safe as possible.

Just because the World Cup is over doesn’t mean soccer stops. Soccer never stops; that’s one of its biggest appeals. There are so many different teams, leagues, club competitions, and international tournaments that, if you want to, you can always find someone to cheer for or some team to root against. It can also be a bit daunting to wade into without any experience. Luckily, you have me, your Russian Premier League–watching, tactics board–chalking, Opta Stats–devouring Gandalf,²⁹ to help you tailor your soccer-watching habits. And now I will answer some completely made-up questions to guide you along your soccer path.

I fell in love with the USMNT and wish to continue observing them as they begin their journey to inevitably winning the 2018 World Cup. How might I accomplish such a task?

Four years is too long to wait for a second date with the USMNT. Fortunately, you won’t have to wait that long to fall in love again. The U.S. will compete in the Gold Cup in 2015 and in a pretty cool Copa America Centenario tournament in 2016.

Those tournaments are great events on their own. The Gold Cup decides who has CONCACAF region bragging rights, while the Copa America will bring together teams from across the Americas to compete. You can get invested in what winning those tournaments means, or doesn’t mean, but you don’t have to.

That’s because you can also approach them the same way Jürgen Klinsmann likely will: as the first steps in developing the USMNT roster for 2018.

If you thought there was upheaval in the last couple months, wait until you see the next four years. Young talent will be brought in, old stalwarts will be shuffled out, and Klinsmann will begin the process of sifting through the U.S. talent pool with an eye toward putting together an even better squad. If you want to track the growth of DeAndre Yedlin, Julian Green, and Aron Jóhannsson, and get a sense of how Klinsmann is preparing for Russia, you’re going to want to watch the Gold Cup and the Copa America.

The World Cup was great, but I’m ready to integrate soccer into my normal sports-consuming routine. I probably can’t do that, right?

Of course you can. The easiest way to go from watching only international competitions to watching regular league play is to tune in to Major League Soccer.

The league, which was founded in 1993 as a condition for the U.S. hosting the World Cup in 1994, has all sorts of things that make it appealing. Most of the U.S. players with whom you fell in love in Brazil are there. Some are young stars who may have a trip to Europe in their future, such as Yedlin (for now); some are career MLS pros, such as Kyle Beckerman and Chris Wondolowski; and some are conquering heroes returning home from stints abroad, including Clint Dempsey and Michael Bradley.

MLS has all sorts of things you’re used to as a sports fan, like evening start times and bizarre salary-cap rules. And playoffs. The league isn’t on the same level as the big European competitions (we’ll get to them in a second), but it’s trending in the right direction. MLS is demonstrably more talented and competitive than it was even two or three years ago. Also, aging stars (Thierry Henry, David Villa starting in 2015) and a host of other accomplished foreign players (Tim Cahill, Jermain Defoe, Robbie Keane) now call MLS home. Lastly, supporting MLS has the added benefit of supporting the development of U.S. soccer, in general — a key component to the world takeover we’re all secretly planning.

The U.S. guys are fine and all, but what about those awesome international superstars with names like Neymar and James who isn’t James? I want to watch them more.

Well, then you want European soccer. That’s a little more complicated. There are four completely separate major European leagues: the Premier League in England, La Liga in Spain, Bundesliga in Germany, and Serie A in Italy — to say nothing of Ligue 1 in France, where the world’s most interesting man, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, plays for PSG. For the most part, the games for these domestic leagues take place on the weekends. Meanwhile, the Champions League, which consists of the best teams from the European domestic leagues, plays on Tuesdays and Wednesdays from fall to spring. Like I said, there’s always soccer.

Well, I like bandwagons, so should I get into the Bundesliga? I mean, the Germans are awesome, right?

If you start watching the Bundesliga (which is a little difficult to do on American television since their rights are owned by the little-carried GolTV for the next year), be prepared for one thing: It isn’t very competitive.

Bayern Munich might be the best team in the world, and they are definitely the best team in Germany, by some distance. They’ll have all those German faces you’ve come to know and love — Götze, Müller, Schweinsteiger, Lahm, Boateng, and Neuer (as well as some non-German ones like Arjen Robben). And they’re coached by Pep Guardiola, who is largely responsible for instituting Barcelona’s and Spain’s tiki-taka style of play. He has a bit of the Phil Jackson aura about him (both in his fanatical devotion to a system and his fanatical devotion to coaching only the most talented teams). Bayern is a fascinating mix of prestigious names and expectations of perfection, which makes them an interesting watch, even as they’re blowing out teams 4-1 every week.

Borussia Dortmund are an excellent club in their own right, and have an amazing fan base and an awesome coach in Jürgen Klopp, but they simply don’t have the resources to compete with Bayern. Dortmund have also become a fixture in the knockout stages of the Champions League, and one year ago they progressed all the way to the finals, where they lost to … you guessed it, Bayern Munich.

Outside those two teams a lot of talent is floating around, but none of it is cohesive enough to crash the top of the table. Though if you do dive into German football, you’re going to want to make sure you check out Schalke 04’s Julian Draxler, the 20-year-old wunderkind who made Germany’s World Cup roster despite his tender age.

So, Germany: Come for Bayern Munich’s pursuit of perfection, stay for the rich assortment of German talent spread throughout the league. Just don’t expect a title race.

Is there something slightly more balanced?

La Liga is, in theory, a two-team fight. In one corner is Barcelona. The Catalan club has the best player in the world (Lionel Messi), and was, until about six weeks ago, playing what was considered to be the best tactical system in the world, tiki-taka.

The whole Barcelona mystique is built around their fabled youth academy, La Masia. Barça likes to think of itself as a club that grows players and molds them into their beautiful system. Of course, during the past two seasons, they’ve bought two megastars — Neymar and Luis Suárez (who gets to start playing after his four-month timeout for biting). Still, despite their splurges, they are for the most part made up of homegrown talent. This puts them across the ideological divide from Real Madrid, who at any given time are in talks to buy the best and brightest in world soccer. They’ve wrapped up a deal for Toni Kroos already, and have been openly ogling James Rodríguez since about halfway through the World Cup. And what Real Madrid ogle, Real Madrid generally get.

Last season, though, a third team crashed the Spanish party. Real’s cross-city rival, Atlético Madrid, came from out of nowhere to stun the two superclubs and win La Liga. In 2012-13, they had finished third, 24 points behind league winners Barcelona. They nearly pulled off what would have been a truly unbelievable double, coming within minutes of beating Real Madrid in the Champions League final. Atletico’s roster has been weakened³⁰ for the upcoming season, but they’ll be competitive. The three-team dynamic makes La Liga a compelling watch, and when two of these three are facing each other, it’s must-see TV.

So, is La Liga what most U.S. soccer fans watch?

Probably not. England’s Premier League, along with the Champions League, is by far the most visible European competition in the U.S. There are two reasons for this: presentation of product and depth of talent.

The Premier League is the best-presented soccer league in the world. The games are fast-paced, the play is generally action-packed, and there’s no language barrier to the coverage. Tons of English-language media outlets cover the sport, and here in the States, NBC has been pulling out all the stops in its television presentation of the league. But really, the reason the EPL is the most attractive league is the level and depth of talent. It is simply the best in the world. That’s why it’s so popular.

Over the last five years, while other leagues have become one- or two-team races, more and more teams in the Premier League have been getting better. The quality and the televised product are linked. The league’s eye-watering TV deals fund its influx of talent.

All of the EPL’s top seven clubs are littered with players who were featured prominently in the World Cup. There are probably five teams — Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester City, Manchester United, and Chelsea — that have a reasonable shot at the title each season. No other league has as much depth at the top of the table, and with the possible exception of the Bundesliga, no other league has as much depth overall.

When does all this Euro-y goodness kick off?

The Premier League starts on August 16 and is broadcast on NBC. The Bundesliga begins August 22 and can be seen on GolTV. La Liga kicks off August 26 and can be seen on beIN Sports. It’s all about a month away.

That’s still too long for me to wait. What am I supposed to do in the meantime?

Well, you could try reading a book. There are tons of incredible soccer books out there that approach the game from a wide variety of perspectives. If you want a crash course in tactics, there’s nothing better than Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson. For the more analytics-oriented fan, there’s The Numbers Game by Chris Anderson and David Sally, which, among other things, takes a look at how some very basic assumptions people have long made about soccer hold up to mathematical scrutiny (here’s a hint: not well).

If you’re excited about diving into the Barcelona and Real Madrid rivalry, Fear and Loathing in La Liga by Sid Lowe is definitely your go-to source before the season starts. And then, of course, there’s I Am Zlatan by Zlatan Ibrahimovic. It’s about being Zlatan. Because he is Zlatan, and you are not.

This is all way too complicated. Why can’t I just have another World Cup?

Good news! You can have another World Cup. Next summer is the Women’s World Cup, and it will be awesome. Since it’s hosted in Canada, you’ll have all the same fan-friendly kickoff times for hosting viewing parties, breaking out your red, white, and blue outfits and sliding seamlessly back into your kick-ass, go-go-USA mentality.

There’s only one crucial difference. The USWNT rocks. All those stats you heard all summer long about how this guy was the fifth-leading U.S. goal scorer of all time or that guy entered the top-10 all-time whatever? Turns out those were mostly lies, because the U.S. women are comparatively way, way better than the men. They also have their own awesome Ian Darke moment.

Four years ago, the U.S. lost on penalties in the World Cup final, a situation it found itself in only because it conceded a late extra-time goal to Japan. In fact, despite being the best in the world, the U.S. hasn’t actually won the World Cup since Brandi Chastain’s iconic 1999 moment. If you want a new set of story lines to follow, talent to discover, and personalities to fall in love with, you absolutely couldn’t ask for a better group than the USWNT. And for those of you who got annoyed at the lionization of an American men’s team that won only one game, you won’t have the problem next summer. It’s first place or disappointment for the women.

One of the best things about soccer is that there is a wide variety of equally awesome ways to consume it. Honestly, the above is just a small sampling. It doesn’t include Mexico, or South America, or any of the smaller but no less compelling European leagues (Portugal, the Netherlands), or the National Women’s Soccer League, or collegiate soccer, or probably a host of other competitions, both at home and abroad. So, if you find yourself pining for the World Cup, just remember, there’s always more soccer out there. The key isn’t deciding whether you like soccer, it’s just figuring out which soccer you like. Without the World Cup every day now, you have tons of time to find out.

A reader revives the thread with a new perspective:

For three days straight, a crew of two men has performed significant physical labor around our residence – drilling through brick and mortar, removing debris, and so much more. The toll on these guys’ bodies is beyond comprehension to a sedentary writer-type, who obsessively exercises to keep limber and burn calories and maintain a semblance of muscle tone.

For three days, one of the men complained regularly about his back pain. (Which certainly wouldn’t have been helped by carrying away our cast iron wood stove, lifting it onto the truck, off-loading it at the shop.) With a groan, he sat down to write up the final invoice. By now fully aware of his problem, I murmured sympathetically. He replied, “I had an MRI done a couple of years ago. It’s a disk. I need surgery.” I cranked up the sympathy. “I can’t afford it,” he continued matter-of-factly, “on my income. Not until I get my health insurance.”

I very nearly said something like, “Isn’t it great that it’s actually possible through the Affordable Care Act?” and was tempted to explain that next enrollment period comes up later this year.

I’m fairly well informed on the process; my husband’s workplace arranged for him to become a certified ACA advisor. All winter long he came home from the office with heart-warming news of how real, uninsured people were at least accessing what was previously unobtainable.

But, stifled solely by the crewman’s demographic characteristics, I said not a word. I could just tell this was not a fellow who would look favorably on Obamacare. And I didn’t want to introduce controversy or politics into what had been a pleasant temporary relationship.

Shortly before leaving, he spotted the framed photograph of me standing with President Obama, taken when he was a little-known candidate roaming through my First-in-the-Nation primary state. And his recognition prompted a rude comment that made me wish he’d had been as reticent about the president as I had been about the ACA.

When he and his cohort departed, I started to cry. Our entire exchange represented everything most depressing about perceptions of Obama and the intent of the law he – and the Congress, even if only a portion of it – brought into being. For the good of people like the man who needs back surgery to continue in his job, but can’t afford it. And who, until recently, wouldn’t have had a hope of getting insured.

Most of the time I do Know Hope. I’m hard-wired that way. But today there’s a terrible disconnect in my optimism.

Update from a reader:

Allow me to bring your reader’s experience with a temporary worker in her home a bit closer to home. As a small business owner with a long-standing (since age 17) preexisting condition who has had to buy my own insurance, the ACA has been a godsend. We went from our premium costing nearly $2,000 a month for our family of four to $1,100/month with much better coverage. And now I’m about to enter a job transition where I might not have an income for a few months. The ACA has made that much easier. A major health crisis would be horrible obviously, but one happening if I didn’t have insurance, it’d be financially devastating. I now can know we are covered and can afford to be even in job transitions.

But my sister doesn’t see this. She complains constantly about Obama and the ACA – complaints that more often than not have no basis in fact. She works several part-time jobs and her income, just above minimum wage, is volatile. She refuses to even look for an insurance plan on our state’s very good exchange. I am fairly certain she would find one, with subsidies, that would cost her under $100/month for silver plan coverage, barely $30 for bronze, coverage that could make her life healthier and more financially secure. She has several pre-existing conditions herself and current health issues she really should take care of now.

And it breaks my heart she refuses to do so out of some misplaced anger based on “Fox News” lies. The Fox News Republicans have done a great disservice to this nation in so many ways.

(Photo by Yoon S. Byun/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Picking up on the ongoing foreign policy feud between Rand Paul and Rick Perry, which the Dish alluded to yesterday, Larison excoriates Perry:

Perry’s argument is the usual hawkish combination of threat inflation, fear-mongering, lazy references to “isolationism,” and stale Reagan nostalgia. He talks about a “profound” threat to the U.S. and the entire world from a jihadist group when it is no such thing, and hopes that his readers will be so alarmed by this that they won’t pay attention to how shoddy his argument is. Perry is engaging in the same behavior that the former head of MI6 recently criticized: he is helping to give groups like the Islamic State the attention they crave, and he is grossly exaggerating the danger they pose to the U.S. and its allies. The governor’s analysis relies on blurring the differences between competing jihadist groups and their goals to frighten the public into assuming that any similar group that emerges represents a major security threat to the U.S.

Paul, on the other hand, could radically change the GOP’s foreign policy thinking, or so Cillizza believes:

What Paul is proposing is that he is the Republican candidate willing (and able) to handle the party’s long-delayed reckoning with the war in Iraq.

That conflict, premised on the false idea that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, has never been fully litigated within the GOP. … The back-and-forth op-eds between Paul and Perry make clear that the debate about Iraq, the mistakes made there and what it means for Republican foreign policy going forward will be a prominent feature of the 2016 Republican primary race. And, there is reason to believe that Paul’s position on Iraq is one shared by a relatively large number of Republicans. In a June New York Times/CBS News poll, 63 percent of self-identified Republicans said that the war in Iraq was not worth it.

But Kilgore expects the “isolationist” label to sink Paul in the end:

Paul’s gotten pretty good at turning what would seem to be “isolationist” positions into emblems of truculence, viz. his makeover of a long-time proposal to cut off assistance to the Palestinian Authority into a “Stand With Israel” posture. But for eons Republicans have ultimately measured their presidential candidates’ acceptability on foreign policy and national security in terms of their willingness either to kill foreigners or spend more money, if not both. No matter how much he dresses up his old man’s non-interventionism in camo patterns and how loudly he plays martial music, so long as Rand Paul opposes every opportunity to kill foreigners while calling for lower defense spending, the “isolationist” label will be a problem for him, as the ghosts of both the Cold War and the War On Terror haunt him. I suspect opponents more skillful than Rick Perry will at some point make that plain.

Noting that both of the dueling op-eds referenced Reagan extensively, Beinart asks, “So what would a Reaganite strategy against ‘radical Islam’ look like?”:

Based on Reagan’s record, particularly in his first term, it would be expensive, indiscriminate, rhetorically aggressive, hostile to congressional oversight, and cautious about deploying U.S. troops. It would, in other words, be a mess. Reagan was lucky enough to take office after Richard Nixon had exploited the Sino-Soviet rift and stopped treating communism as a unified menace. Even so, Reagan turned nearly every third-world civil war into a showdown between East and West, dramatically escalating the brutality of these conflicts even though struggles in places like Angola and Nicaragua were ultimately irrelevant to the course of the Cold War.

In today’s Middle East, by contrast, the U.S. has not yet found its Nixon. Neither the Bush nor Obama administration has developed a strategy for exploiting the widening Sunni-Shiite divide, and hawks like Perry talk about “Islamic extremism” like pre-Nixon hawks talked about communism: as a unified threat. In this context, Reagan’s strategy of indiscriminate pressure against communism across the globe offers no guide at all. What would it mean in Iraq—the topic of Paul and Perry’s columns—where an Islamist, pro-Iranian Shiite regime is battling Sunni salafists?

Rebecca Traister is thrilled by Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s rise to meme-hood:

Throughout history, we have acknowledged male strength, especially in its seniority, as serious and authoritative. Older women, on the other hand, have existed mostly as nanas, bubbes! Those sturdy, ambitious souls who also staked claims to public eminence were cast as problematic; tough ladies who no longer slide easily into Lycra are ball-busters, nut-crackers, and bitches.

Overriding these entrenched assumptions has been nearly impossible, even in the hundred years since women have had the vote, and in the 60 years [sic] since the feminist revolution of the ’70s. Recall that just six years ago, there was simply no popular script available to positively convey then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s identity as a strong and ambitious politician. … It was in those same years that Justice Ginsburg was barbecuing the court’s decision to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, furiously pointing out that the protection of reproductive rights is not about “some vague or generalized notion of privacy” but rather about “a woman’s autonomy to decide for herself her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.”

Back then, when Twitter was just taking off and Tumblr was being launched, and we still were relying on a largely centralized media to bring us our news, there was no one who set those words to music (though there should have been). Now, mercifully – finally – young people who are creating a new vocabulary, a library of visual and aural iconography that warmly appreciates female power in not just its nubile, but also its senior, its brainy, its furious, and its professionally brawny forms.

(Image via Shana Knizhnik’s Notorious R.B.G. tumblr)

have you heard about this thing? i heard about it from a friend, but i do not use the special oils the guy who invented it sells. i have put a tablespoon of coconut oil in my coffee the past two days. it felt like i did have more energy, but i expended all of said energy on BMs after all that coffee and oil.

i’m also wondering if after a year, my doctor will look at my blood and ask if i’ve been eating mcdonald’s eight times a day

Wearing a suit jacket with shorts is not an easy look to pull off, but if done correctly, it can be a uniquely chic look. Although this look may not be for everyone, there’s no harm in trying! With just a few simple ways to get it right, you could be rocking the short suit look as well as trend-setter Pharrell Williams. Why not?

{Pharrell Williams, Matt Lauer, designer Thom Browne}

How to Wear It:

• Nail the proportions. The jacket shouldn’t be too cropped but it should have a modern look to it, so the shorts should be a few inches above the knee.
• Keep it simple. Neutral colors and simple accessories work best with this look.
• No socks! Unless they’re no-show.
• Suiting summer feel. Make sure the short suit is a light weight material – a linen cotton blend, khaki, or seersucker.

Jacket: J.Crew: $298 | Shorts: J.Crew: $98 | Shoes: Alfani Bison: $60 | Watch: Michael Kors: $225

Shirt: Brooks Brothers: $92 | Tie: Banana Republic: $60 | Belt: Magnanni: $150

Tell me:

Would you wear a short suit? Why or why not?

Want to really get into it? Head over to Facebook and continue the convo there!

The post Would You Wear It? Short Suits appeared first on Style Girlfriend.

Nate Silver calls Brazil’s utter humiliation in yesterday’s 7-1 loss to Germany the “most shocking result in World Cup history.” Michael Goodman wonders if it will lead to unrest:

The immediate question is whether Brazil’s exit will serve as a flashpoint for an immediate revival of the previous protests, or in an even uglier scenario, like riots. The overwhelming police presence makes this unlikely, at least for now. It may not be pretty, it may not be humanitarian, it may not even be legal — but it has been brutally efficient. When the teams and the tourists and the cameras leave again, that’s a different story. There’s every reason to believe the lead-up to Rio 2016 will be similar to what Brazil experienced before the World Cup unless, of course, the government has a super-secret plan to boost the economy, increase employment, and more aggressively address persistent inequality.

Both Brazil the country and Brazil the team are likely in for a turbulent few years. Had the team won the World Cup, they might have avoided that fate with a confirmed soccer philosophy and break from social unrest. But the honeymoon wouldn’t have lasted very long. For Brazil, the problems run a good deal deeper than just losing a soccer match.

Keating eyes the country’s upcoming elections:

If Brazil had won the tournament, it could have changed the political significance of the entire event. If the country had made a dignified exit in the late rounds, it probably wouldn’t have had that much of an impact either way. But a defeat this humiliating is going to remind a lot of voters of why they were upset about the World Cup in the first place. Anti-Dilma chants were reportedly already being heard at the stadium today.

As Francisco Fonseca, a political scientist at Sao Paulo’s Getulio Vargas Foundation, told the L.A. Times on June 28, “if there were some kind of catastrophe, or chaos, that embarrassed Brazil in front of the world, that would clearly have negative consequences for the government in the election.”

Jesse Singal provides a psychoanalysis of the crushed Brazilian fan:

The problem is that soccer dominance is an important part of Brazil’s sports identity, and this loss cut to the core of it. As Eric Simons, author of The Secret Lives of Sports Fans, explained in an email, “If you’re Brazilian, your identity is based on self-concept that you’re always the best soccer team in the world, and you know that everyone else knows it, so you’re proud.” So the pain of losing isn’t, in this case, that of an underdog happy to be there, and for the Brazilians to lose in this manner is to collide violently against all sorts of national expectations and self-conceptions.

“What happens when your pride, self-concept, and identity are suddenly obliterated in front of the entire world?” said Simons. “I don’t know. I don’t know if anyone does; this is, in sports, something of an unprecedented self-esteem catastrophe. Has anyone that good, with that much expectation, [ever] lost that badly before, with so many people watching?” The answer to that question may be no, which would mean we’re in somewhat uncharted sports-trauma territory.

Update from a reader:

While there were some rumblings of riots yesterday, I think Brazilians deserve a little more credit. The idea of conflating a historically bad result in a crucial World Cup game with the protests about the country’s economic and management issues undermines the voters’ intelligence. Given the looming inflation, underwhelming GDP, exorbitant taxation, and horrible mismanagement of taxpayer money, Ms. Rousseff will have a hard reelection campaign regardless of how well Brazil performed in the World Cup. What we witnessed yesterday was the triumph of planning, discipline, and hard work over the notion that the home team was predestined to win. Germany gave Brazil a master class yesterday; it is up to Brazil now to learn from this lesson, both on and off the field.

Now if Argentina beats Brazil soundly on the consolation match on Saturday, all bets are off …

(Photo by Steffen Stubager/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

Rebecca Ruiz observes that “inattentive, hyperactive, and impulsive behavior may in fact mirror the effects of adversity, and many pediatricians, psychiatrists, and psychologists don’t know how – or don’t have the time – to tell the difference”:

[Dr. Nicole] Brown was completing her residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, when she realized that many of her low-income patients had been diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These children lived in households and neighborhoods where violence and relentless stress prevailed. Their parents found them hard to manage and teachers described them as disruptive or inattentive. Brown knew these behaviors as classic symptoms of ADHD, a brain disorder characterized by impulsivity, hyperactivity, and an inability to focus.

When Brown looked closely, though, she saw something else: trauma. Hyper-vigilance and dissociation, for example, could be mistaken for inattention. Impulsivity might be brought on by a stress response in overdrive. “Despite our best efforts in referring them to behavioral therapy and starting them on stimulants, it was hard to get the symptoms under control,” she said of treating her patients according to guidelines for ADHD. “I began hypothesizing that perhaps a lot of what we were seeing was more externalizing behavior as a result of family dysfunction or other traumatic experience.”

Previous Dish on ADHD here and here.

Doomsday Planned To Appear In Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice

DC Comics has told the LA Times about an upcoming creative change to the Green Arrow continuing series.

Writer Jeff Lemire will be dropped from the comic with #35 in October, replaced by the executive producer of the TV series Arrow and one of its writers Ben Sokolowski.

And artist Andrea Sorrentino will also be gone too, replaced by Daniel Sampere.

With a back-to-basics approach, the LA Times reports it will find “Oliver Queen back in Seattle on an adventure involving a mystery woman” and that the comic won’t be an adaptation of the TV show but “stocking the quiver with things that have worked on “Arrow” and in comics past” including characters.

And most specifically (and inspiring this article’s headline) “We really want to bring the old-school Oliver Queen voice back to the character… In other words, the opinionated, liberal Robin Hood-esque hero that has fallen through the cracks a bit, both in the comics and TV models.”

Or in other words, the Pre-52 Green Lantern, before the New 52 relaunch that saw the character rebooted, juvinated and losing the beard (and some of the politics.) Despite the TV series, the Green Arrow comic has suffered in sales, and recent positive reviews of Lemire and Sorrentino’s run may not have been enough to save it…

Will The Makers Of The Arrow TV Show Take The Green Arrow Comic Back To The Pre-52?

There are very many cool things in today’s Superman Unchained. The new Superman costume. The fleet of Batmobiles. But there’s one bit for me that stands out, and may last the years as far as the comic books are concerned.

Movie goers will remember the assertion from the recent Man Of Steel movie that the Superman symbol, in the Kryptonian language, means “hope”.

Just like that. Okay it was also in Superman Birthright, but Man Of Steel made a certain… impact.

Well, in Superman Unchained, we continue the story of the original Superman, Wraith, who’s getting down and dirty with Batman. Until a certain someone makes his presence known. And Batman explains…

Can we get T-shirts of that for San Diego? It seems Batman believes in the Gospel of Austin, 3:16.

Comics courtesy of Orbital Comics, London. With a Your Days Are Numbered magazine event taking over the store on Saturday with a David Quantick and Shaky Kane from 6pm.

Scott Snyder Refutes The Man Of Steel Explanation That The ‘S’ Means Hope, In Today’s Superman Unchained

Andrew Romano suggests the small screen is to blame:

[N]ow that Hollywood has concluded that its only remaining competitive advantage is spectacle, it’s all but ceded the fairer sex to cable TV. The only demographic adrenalized enough to reliably show up for this weekend’s latest extravaganza is men aged 18-24, or so the thinking goes, and so the industry keeps churning out dude bait. Even romantic comedies themselves have become more male-centric over the last dozen years, with the Nora Ephrons and Nancy Meyerses of the world giving way to “bromance” auteurs such as Judd Apatow (The 40-Year Old Virgin) and Jason Segel (I Love You, Man).

Girls have something to do with this shift as well – again, on both sides of the camera. Take Mindy Kaling, who has made no secret of her love for romcoms. “What I’d really like to write is a romantic comedy,” Kaling revealed in The New Yorker in 2011. “This is my favorite kind of movie.” And yet Kaling hasn’t created a big-screen romantic comedy yet; she’s been too busy making a television show (The Mindy Project). Same goes for Tina Fey (30 Rock) and Lena Dunham (Girls), two other female writers who could potentially reinvigorate the genre (but who likely see more creative freedom in TV).

Matt O’Brien ties the rise of the Chinese film market to the decline of film comedy:

[T]he death of the comedy movie has come because the world is flat — and senses of humor aren’t. What’s funny to an American audience doesn’t always translate for a Chinese one. And now that China’s box office is the world’s largest outside of North America, that’s a major consideration.

Remember, Hollywood studios aren’t in the business of making movies. Like all financiers, they’re in the business of minimizing risk. That’s why, as Derek Thompson points out, they churn out so many sequels, prequels and reboots (and unnecessary splits of the last movie of a series intotwo). They do this because it works, and Hollywood knows it does. And now Hollywood knows that American comedies don’t work overseas, but American action movies do — especially if, like “Transformers 4,” they suck up to the Chinese government.

Indeed, Transformers 4 is now China’s top-grossing movie of all time:

Given that critical reaction to Transformers: Age of Extinctionhas been almost conspiratorially negative across the board — Richard Roeper called it “relentless,” and not as a compliment; Peter Travers at Rolling Stone refused to give it even one star — much of the coverage of its success in China has been, well, pretty darn condescending: “Chinese people are dazzled by anything Hollywood, etc.”

The reality is more complex. If the bar of cinematic quality is indeed set lower in China, the tastes of its 1.3 billion people aren’t necessarily to blame. The Chinese Communist Party is exceedingly picky about the films screened in the country, especially in the case of foreign cinema; so if a movie does well, one can ultimately thank the government.

The long and the short of it: Bay made a movie set and filmed in China, starring Chinese actors, using Chinese resources and pushing Chinese products, and in exchange, the movie gets a timely premiere across the country’s 18,000-plus movie screens.

This blog has long been generally supportive of the attempt by a handful of sane and intelligent conservative thinkers to brainstorm some kind of future for the American right. And who wouldn’t be? If the alternative is the brain dead 1979 redux position of someone like Kimberley Strassel, you gotta love Ross Douthat. But it strikes me there are deep challenges for this fledgling group of now Tanenhaus-blessed scholars, and they may be hard to overcome.

The first is the lack of any clear unifying theme or rallying cry that can meld policy to politics. “Reform” seems too vague and goo-goo a theme to catch on. On the core axis of more or less government, the reformicons rightly answer smaller, better government – but the “better” part always ends up a little duller than “smaller”. A child tax credit may or may not be a decent idea – but it’s very hard to fit it into the broader tradition of less government dependency. Ditto attempts to alleviate student debt, or to encourage the hiring of the long-term unemployed, or the block granting of anti-poverty funds to the states. All of them are hard to do when you demonize government itself as regularly as the Republican rank and file.

Perhaps the best scenario for a raft of such small, but potent policy proposals would be a Republican version of the Clinton administration – which bored the pants off ideologues but still connected with the tangible needs and concerns of most people. Alas, it’s hard to imagine a Clintonism of the right without a Clinton. It was Bill’s astonishing charm, loquaciousness, relentlessness and seduction that made these tedious laundry lists so popular. I do not see any such charismatic figure with such a direct and personal grasp of so many policy issues on the right. Maybe he or she will show up as a charismatic and brilliant governor. Or maybe not. If Ted Cruz is the new archetype of a Republican, never.

Within British conservatism, there are, in contrast, two competing traditions – Whig and Tory – that mitigate this problem. The Whiggish faction had its high watermark under Thatcher, a conservative who embraced market liberalism as the best foil to socialism. But the Tory faction never disappeared completely. Its rallying cry – and historical legacy – is “One Nation” Toryism, rooted in Disraeli’s conservative embrace of the working classes, and abhorrence at the vast social and economic inequalities of his time. It has no problem at all with government and its benefits. This would be a natural and identifiable tradition to embrace in Britain for a set of reformers like the Levin brigade. In America? No Disraeli ever existed – and no Bismarck either. Eisenhower may be the best analogue. And re-introducing Eisenhower to the next generation is a pretty heavy lift. The trouble with American conservatism is that it is, in essence, so new, and so wedded to a particular era, that it doesn’t have the depth and reach of a European conservatism that can provide a leader like Angela Merkel.

And then the reformicons are operating at a disadvantage in a culturally polarized America. It would be great if this were not the case – but since a huge amount of both parties’ base mobilization requires intensifying the cultural conflict, and since the divide is rooted in real responses to changing mores, it will likely endure. And that kind of climate makes pragmatic conservatism again less likely to get a hearing.

So, for example, I’m perfectly open to new ideas on, say, helping working class families with kids. But some pretty basic concerns about the current GOP on cultural issues – its open hostility to my own civil marriage, its absolutism on abortion, its panic at immigration, its tone-deafness on racial injustice – push me, and many others, into leaning Democrat for a while. And it’s important to note that even the reformicons are die-hard cultural and religious conservatives in most respects. On those questions, there is no airing of the idea of reform. David Cameron’s post-Thatcher re-tooling of British conservatism took at least two major issues associated with the left-of-center – marriage equality and climate change – and embraced them fully. If the reformicons could do something like that, they would begin to gain traction outside of a few circles in DC and in the country at large. But they won’t; and, given the rigidity of the GOP base on those issues, can’t.

Then there’s the absence of any foreign policy vision. The fixation on domestic policy is welcome – but the greatest disaster in Republican government in the last decade was the Iraq War, and, more broadly, the massive over-reach of big government in trying to re-make the world into a democratic wonderland. To some extent, Rand Paul and Mike Lee have shown an ability to tackle this question – and favor a serious continuation of Obama’s de-leveraging of the US abroad, along with a further dismantling of the Cheney infrastructure for the war on terror. But the reformicons have never issued a clear rejection of Cheneyism, and indeed seem, f0r the most part, like unreconstructed neocons abroad. I can’t see any of them demanding some concessions from Israel for a two-state solution, for example, or any policy toward Iran but war. But they’re mainly silent on these questions – which also marginalizes them. The most important Republican debate, it seems to me, is about the role of the US in the world in the 21st Century. Hegemon? Democratizer? Or simply great power? On this, the reformicons are silent. Their predecessors in the debates of the 1970s weren’t.

But maybe I’m being too glum. There are always unforeseen events to alter the future. Reagan’s 1980 victory was not seen until a few weeks before the November election. It’s certainly possible, although unlikely, that a Republican could win the presidency in 2016. But what I’d look for in the meantime in the reformicon future is what contribution they could make in the last two years of the Obama presidency. If the GOP controls both Houses, the country might look to them for some legislative action that the president could sign onto. If the country sees signs of actual policy progress, affecting their actual lives, thanks to reform conservative ideas and a pragmatic liberal president, then the atmosphere could change. Alas, I see the likelihood of that, in our current context, and in the run-up to 2016, to be close to impossible. It may take another epic national defeat for the GOP to take the reformers seriously. It took three consecutive lost national elections for the Tories to find Cameron. And part of me thinks that the best hope for the reformicons in the long run will be a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016.

I wonder how many of them, as they go to sleep at night, have quietly agreed with that.

Deadline.com is reporting that Devon Aoki (Sin City, 2 Fast 2 Furious) has been cast as Tatsu Yamashiro, a recurring guest role on the hit CW series Arrow. Fans of the comics know Tatsu as her code name and weapon of choice, Katana. The character, created by Mike W. Barr and Jim Aparo, appeared for the first time in Brave And The Bold #200 (July 1983) and became part of the Batman And The Outsiders title. She has appeared in animation on both the Brave And The Bold and Beware The Batman series as well as in the Batman/Superman: Public Enemies animated movie.

In the more recent Green Arrow comics, Oliver and Tatsu are both connected to a group of martial artist known as the Outsiders where the group is divide into clans based on their weapons of choice… i.e. Arrow Clan, Sword Clan, etc.

In Arrow, Tatsu will be part of the third seasons Hong Kong flashbacks and be seen as one of Oliver’s mentors and trainers on his path to becoming The Arrow. The third season will debut October 8^th, 2014.

Devon Aoki Joins Arrow As Katana

Spoilers. There, I said it. Spoilers. Now you can’t complain

Recently, Mark Ruffalo has been dodging questions about a Planet Hulk movie left, right and centre. Most recently of all, he’s been feeling empowered to say it won’t happen. Why? Because he’s found out what Marvel’s actual plans are for the character, and they seem Planet Hulk-ish but not right on the nose.

According to Drew at HitFix, Avengers: Age of Ultron ends with The Hulk being packed off for space.

Banner continues to play a key role in things in this movie, and when the final war with Ultron spills onto the battlefield and out of the virtual realm, he has a major part to play. Unfortunately, that ends with him onboard a Quin jet on his way off the planet, with no way to immediately turn things around. He’s going to have to ride out the trip. It’s pre-programmed and he can’t stop it.

Is he headed for Planet Hulk? No, not necessarily at all. Something Planet Hulk-ish? Of course. It’s already Planet Hulk-ish.

The obvious guess is that this is how the Guardians are pulled into an Avengers mash-up. That seems all but certain to happen before the end of Phase 3 and the pay-off of all of the Infinity Gauntlet business.

Plans may change if Guardians of the Galaxy is a horrendous money loser. Which it won’t be. But if it is. Though that’s not going to happen. At all. Except maybe it will.

Oh, it won’t. And word of mouth is going to be very strong. Promise.

Where The Avengers: Age Of Ultron Leaves The Hulk For Future Movies

“To understand what I am about to tell you, you need to do something first. You need to believe in the impossible.

“Can you do that? Good.

“You see that red blur? That’s me. That too. There I am again.

“My name is Barry Allen and I am the Fastest Man alive.”

The Flash TV pilot for The CW has leaked, and is now available on torrent sites worldwide. It joins a proud history including Doctor Who, Heroes, Global Frequency, Wolverine, Hostel 2, Wonder Woman and Ellen DeGeneres’ personal screener of Walter Mitty.

Apparently it is for promotional use only, not for review, resale or rental. So I’m not going to do any of those, simply… promote it.

The CW’s The Flash TV Pilot Leaks On Torrent Sites

#ThingsTimHowardCouldSave lololol pic.twitter.com/q0Ga7WSQoo

— Ben ‘Benson’ Bowe (@Benson_EU) July 2, 2014

The American goalie who made a record 16 saves in Tuesday’s World Cup match against Belgium also happens to live with Tourette’s syndrome. As Melissa Dahl notes, the neurological disorder may actually help Howard’s goalkeeping abilities:

Kids with Tourette’s have better timing than kids without it. In one study, researchers asked two groups of children — one with Tourette’s and one without — to judge whether two circles were on a computer screen for the same length of time. The kids with Tourette’s were better at the task overall, which could be because their brains have to work harder to suppress their tics, and tic suppression is thought to involve an area of the brain that’s also associated with timing.

People with Tourette’s have more self-control.

In an earlier study, researchers tested cognitive control on people with Tourette’s versus people without, via an eye-movement-tracking experiment. Participants were sometimes told to make speedy eye movements toward a target; other times, the directive would suddenly switch, and they were told to quickly send their gaze away. People with Tourette’s were better at switching back and forth than the people without Tourette’s, and, as with the other experiment, researchers think it may come down to tic suppression.

That doesn’t detract from the accomplishments of a phenom so beloved by America that fans are petitioning to name an airport after him. Indeed, it makes them all the more incredible. But Howard isn’t the first Tourette’s sufferer with incredible sports skills; years ago, Oliver Sacks wrote about a patient who was practically unbeatable at ping-pong:

Sacks cited a study where a control group of “neuro-typicals” and a person with Tourette’s were asked to react as quickly as possible to a situation. The control group proved able to respond two to two and a half times faster than usual and with poor aim. The person with Tourette’s responded five to six times faster than usual and without compromising accuracy. “This is very real, this mixture of speed and accuracy,” Sacks said. “I think it often is part of Tourette’s.”

But another expert is more cautious about making that link:

“The research is not in yet if they can perform at a higher level than can be normally expected,” said Dr. Michael Okun, professor of neurology at the University of Florida at Gainesville and chairman of the Tourette Syndrome Association Medical Advisory Board. Okun has found that other aspects of Tourette’s can prove highly beneficial in a wide range of endeavors. He noted that people with the condition often have obsessive-compulsive tendencies. They repeat tasks over and over with a ritualistic and often perfectionist bent. “Obsessive-compulsive tendencies really help to enhance abilities,” Okun said. “In chess, piano, or when they’re playing goalie for the World Cup team.”

OK, let’s get back to the meme of the week:

We might also need a Tim2Houston campaign RT @rafipaez #ThingsTimHowardcouldsave #stillhurts pic.twitter.com/Z4iAh0GUEp

— Daryl Morey (@dmorey) July 3, 2014

#ThingsTimHowardCouldSave pic.twitter.com/IBoCpsu90a — Tim Howard Saves (@TlmHowardSaves) July 3, 2014

#ThingsTimHowardCouldSave pic.twitter.com/coqseTzIR9

— Tim Howard Saves (@TimHoward_Saves) July 3, 2014

#ThingsTimHowardCouldSave pic.twitter.com/HJO0yAWfgI — Tim Howard Saves (@TimHoward_Saves) July 3, 2014

Lily Kuo surveys China’s booming amusement-park industry:

In all there are already more than 2,000 theme parks in China already, according to estimates by Chinese tourism experts, compared to just over 400 in the United States, with another 64 due to launch in the next six years. It’s no wonder global entertainment firms from Six Flags to Disney, which is building a Disneyland in Shanghai, are clamoring to enter the Chinese market: More than 108 million people visited theme parks in China last year, up 6 percent from 2012, and Chinese theme park groups like Oct Parks China, Fantawild Group, and Haichang Group, have entered global rankings [pdf] in terms of attendance.

(Photo of Guangzhou’s Chimelong Paradise by Flickr user davecobb)

At least when it comes to Tesla:

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has just opened up his company’s patents, saying that the company will not “initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.” In a conference call with reporters also on Thursday, Musk added that the company plans on aggressively filing electric car-related patents and opening them to the public as a pre-emptive measure to thwart other companies or potential patent trolls. This also applies retroactively to all currently held Tesla patents.

Will Oremus thinks the move makes perfect sense:

Musk isn’t naive, and Tesla isn’t a charity. Rather, he knows that Tesla’s real battle isn’t with other automakers for leadership of today’s niche market for electric cars. It’s the much greater struggle between electric cars and their gas-powered counterparts.

Viewed in that context, the obstacles to Tesla’s success aren’t the Nissan Leaf and the BMW i3—they’re the constraints of technology, cost, infrastructure, and customer expectations. The more money is put into electric batteries, the cheaper and more powerful they’ll become. The more electric cars there are on the road, the greater will be the demand for regional and national networks of electric charging stations. And guess what company will stand to benefit the most.

Jordan Golson nods:

Tesla needs widespread adoption of electric cars and the easiest way to do that is to get other automakers to sell them too. More electric cars in the world means Tesla’s cars aren’t so weird, and they become an easier sell to a skeptical public. … At the end of the day, the biggest risk for Musk isn’t that BMW or Toyota will steal his technology. It’s that the big automakers might not be interested in electric cars enough to bother building them at all.

Meanwhile, Timothy Lee suggests that electric cars aren’t such a unique case after all:

The standard economic argument for patents assumes that without them, new inventions will be quickly imitated by competitors, destroying the ability of the original inventor to turn a profit. But if you look at the history of actual inventions, this is often not how things work out.

In practice, the biggest challenge many inventors face isn’t fending off copycats, it’s developing a market for the product in the first place. For major inventions, the potential market is usually much larger than the first few firms can hope to serve. The challenge is converting all those potential customers into actual customers. In a new industry, competitors can actually help with this by helping spread news about the invention, pioneering better sales techniques, and developing improvements that make the product more attractive.

Suhrith Parthasarathy looks at how association football influenced the modern history of Iran:

Drawing links between sport and the larger cultural and political ethos of a nation can often be tenuous and far-fetched. But, in Iran, when soccer returned to the hub of social life in the late 1990s, it served, as David Goldblatt wrote in his book, The Ball Is Round: A Global History of Soccer, as a “rallying point for opponents of the conservative elements in the theocracy.” Tehran’s national soccer stadium, built in 1971 and which can hold more than 100,000 people, is called “Azadi,” meaning “freedom” in Farsi. But ever since the 1979 revolution, which saw the Islamisization of the nation, women were altogether prohibited from watching soccer at Azadi. The boisterous celebrations following the team’s victory in Melbourne, therefore, served as much as a means to help break such shackles as it has to entrench a new form of expressing not only joy but also political protest in the country. Next month, when Iran plays in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, its matches will reverberate in significance well beyond the soccer pitch.

John Duerden fast forwards to today, when the sport remains just as politically significant:

Popular passion for the game is such that no leader can afford to ignore it. One of the first international figures that President Hassan Rouhani met after taking office last August was Sepp Blatter, the controversial chief of the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), football’s international governing body, who backed Iran’s bid to host the 2019 Asian Cup.

If Rouhani hadn’t immediately grasped the power of the game, it was made abundantly clear soon enough. Just one week after his historic election inspired thousands to take to the streets, crowds of roughly equal size turned out to celebrate Iran’s qualification for the 2014 World Cup. By scoring political points in his meeting with Blatter, however, the new Iranian president was just following the example set by his predecessor. According to a diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “has staked a great deal of political capital in Iranian soccer … in an effort to capitalize on soccer’s popularity with constituents.”

Yet Iranians (NYT) don’t seem all that excited about the World Cup this year. That’s no coincidence:

It is more than the daunting competition and the controversies surrounding Team Melli that keep the Iranians from warming to the World Cup. The authorities have been working hard to nix any soccer related excitement.

Tehran’s cinemas have been told by the police that they are not allowed to show World Cup matches to a mixed audience of men and women, “out of respect for Islamic morals.” A plan to show Iran’s games on some of the large electronic billboards across the city was canceled, and on Wednesday, restaurant and coffee shop owners said they had been told by the Ministry of Islamic Guidance and Culture to refrain from decorating their establishments with the national flag or the colors of other countries.

“We want to decorate our restaurant with German flags,” said one restaurant owner who asked to be identified only by his first name, Farhad. “But even that is not allowed. Fun, people gathering in large groups, such things make the authorities nervous.”