Standing on the banks of the River Thames, Britain’s capital dates back almost two millennia when Roman Legions once marched through Londinium in AD 45. Since then London has continuously rebuilt, revitalised and reasserted itself on the world stage as an international city of the highest order. And we are lucky enough to be witnessing this city’s twenty-first century renaissance.

History will look back on 2012 and will note that this year surely belonged to London. In June, it once again displayed to the world with spectacular pomp and royal pageantry – a feat that only the British can muster – a national celebration of Queen Elizabeth’s sixty years on the throne. And at the end of the summer, for the third time, more than any other city, London will play host to the world during the Thirtieth Olympiad of the Modern Games.

Yet, London is so much more than Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London and unlike New York or Washington it is impossible to fit even a fraction of the magnificence of this dynamic metropolis into one weekend, so instead, our Managing Editor has chosen to take you on a hopefully insightful journey through his hometown.

Next

Photo: The Royal Household

I was only three years old when my family moved from England, however, to this day the British Isles remain close to my heart. As a child, I remember visiting my grandmother in London, running down the long hall that led to the kitchen, never really taking note of the many pictures and portraits that lined the walls. In her sitting room were more pictures and framed pieces of art but in one corner of the room was a large and ornately framed picture containing a young woman in yellow with a dazzling tiara on her head. And for the first time, being about seven or eight, I asked who the woman in the picture was, “…that my dear, is our Queen” she said proudly, and saying something to the effect of how pretty the woman was, I went about my games. But it wasn’t until much later that I fully began to understand who that woman in the frame was and what the monarchy truly means for this island nation.

As the sun rises over the British Isles this weekend, hundreds of thousands of people will gather in London for a series of celebrations, picnics and fireworks to mark the sixtieth anniversary of Queen Elizabeth’s accession to the throne. Those who are not British often question why the Queen still matters and why one of the oldest democracies in the world still clings to ancient institutions like monarchy and hereditary rule.

There is some debate amongst parliamentarians about how much power the Queen still holds. On the record, she is a constitutional monarch, and yields no political power. However, it is still her government and the courts still administer justice in her name. She continues to open Parliament each year and after elections, the Prime Minister-elect travels to Buckingham Palace to ask permission if he or she may start a government. In her sixty years there have been twelve Prime Ministers yet she has remained above the political fray, never disclosing her personal political views. As the person in whose name government and justice is conducted the monarch must remain above politics. This allows the public and politicians the ability to criticise the government and Prime Minister without appearing to be unpatriotic. The Queen is an emblem of the United Kingdom, an enduring figure around which the entire nation can rally. But she is much more than just a symbol.

At the age of 21, six years before she was to be crowned queen, the then Princess Elizabeth spoke in South Africa dedicating her life to the service of her people. And while the sun eventually set on the British Empire, she still remains the head of state of sixteen countries including Canada and Australia, head of the Commonwealth (a grouping of former nations previously under its imperial crown), and Supreme Head of the Church of England. But most important of all, she has shepherded her realm through the waining twilight of empire to the dawn of the 21st century into what will surely be known as the modern Elizabethan Era.

She may not have led us into battle, she may not have written legislation, and she does not administer justice but she has given us her heart and a life of public service. The governments of the day come and go, yet the Queen remains, steadfast, in the promise she made to her people more than sixty years ago. Through her we are reminded of our past, of the continuity of our national story and the virtues of resilience and tolerance on which the nation was founded. The institution of monarchy which has remained fundamentally unchanged for almost a millennia is an integral part of British life. Yes, it is a different Britain than that of sixty years ago, and we often ask ourselves if monarchy and hereditary power can survive the 21st century. But as time has so carefully taught us, monarchy if practiced correctly can last another thousand years. And at the venerable age of 86, Her Majesty and the institution she represents remains firmly in the hearts of her people.

I spoke to my grandmother this week, who is now a spry 82 and as we talked about the upcoming festivities she, a proud Englishwoman, reminded me to take a moment, have some tea with friends and celebrate our Queen and her years of unparalleled duty and service.  So as I, and millions others take the time to celebrate this Diamond Jubilee weekend, let all Britons reflect on the words of our national anthem, “God save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen,” and may the people across across all Her Majesty’s realms and territories remember and give thanks to a woman who has so selflessly dedicated her life in the service of her people.

And as they say, God Save the Queen. -JK

For more on the Diamond Jubilee celebrations and where you can watch or take part in the festivities please visit the Official Website.

A view of Tokyo from the street.

;

One year ago, Japan experienced the largest and most powerful earthquake and tsunami in its history. Now called the Tohoku or Great East earthquake, this natural disaster devastated the Sendai region of Japan. It was heartbreaking to hear and see such a horrible thing happen to a country I had just visited, spent time in and thoroughly enjoyed.

But today, we can report that Japan is back on track and will recover from the chaos that once ensued. There are things that still need to be fixed, but it will all be reconciled in due time. And for the record, much of what you hear in the media is greatly exaggerated. Progress is being made and certain things just need time to be fixed (we have confirmed this with my local contacts). Come on, its Japan – one of the strongest and most well-established economic powers in the world. They have done a fantastic job redirecting money to support the rebuilding of their infrastructure and we have no doubt they will be successful.

To that end and to celebrate the bright future of Japan, Reply Magazine has put together a handy, 24-hour guide to visiting Tokyo. Why 24 hours? Well, 1) to prove that it in fact can be done in a metropolis that boasts over 13 million people in an 844.66 sq. mile area, 2) because some of you might be worried about all the radiation reports (though there’s nothing to be worried about), and 3) because it sounds cool and it’s a challenge. Our guide will take you to all the major must-see areas of Tokyo with time left over to partake in some of the more local frivolities.

(Note: Honestly, Japan is expensive when you add up flights, lodging and food. Trust us, you’ll want to move fast and make the most of your time. But we assure you, the trip is worth making at least once.)

Next

;

This protester represents the "1%" of people that are redheaded. Image courtesy of Mike Fleshman.

To the OWS protester I’m part of the 99%. I am a 24-year-old law student living on a modest budget with little outside financial support. I am a big-D Democrat. I even wrote my college honors thesis on political participation among China’s youth in the wake of the Tiananmen Square Incident. And yet, despite having all the credentials of an avid OWS supporter, I originally harbored serious doubts that the movement could successfully promote real societal change.

Most of my doubts initially stemmed from the fact that I did not understand the movement. Despite the conceptually all-inclusive rhetoric about the 99%, OWS seems to have had limited success in drawing the support of 99% of Americans. One illustration of this is the 53% movement, in which a group of 99-percenters sought to publicly distance themselves from OWS. I thought that this fragmentation among the 99% likely stemmed from the lack of a clear message or list of demands from the protesters.

To learn what the movement is truly about, and in order to make an informed decision about my own position, I decided to ask other 99-percenters – both inside and outside of the movement – what they thought about OWS. Here are some of the answers I received.

It’s About Building a Community

The more radical of my left-leaning friends focused not only on the future impact of OWS, but also on the present community that it has created in Zuccotti Park and other public spaces across the nation. One friend wrote, “OWS is not only about changing society, it is also about providing a forum where radicals can meet, discuss, and work on their society-changing ideas. People used to be black-listed for their participation in such gatherings, and it is a huge step for American democracy that OWS is not being suppressed whole-scale.”

This friend emphasized the physical community that OWS created. In Zuccotti Park, the protestors set up an anti-consumerist society with communal food, power, and supplies. He explained, “Occupy Wall Street not only provided the means of physical sustenance, it also created a social environment, where young radical liberals could focus on helping each other and getting to know each other, instead of facing the isolating menace of wage-slavery powerlessly and alone. Thousands of people met lifelong friends, had the opportunity to try their ideas in the court of public discourse, and, most importantly, discovered first hand that socialized services are not an impossible dream. This is an end in itself.”

This friend also emphasized that the term “protest” may not be accurate to describe the OWS movement. “I agree with the implication… that the term ‘protest’ should be reserved for responses to institutional action rather than appied baselessly to any public gathering. Otherwise the Thanksgiving Day Parade might qualify as a protest. Indeed, just like Thanksgiving, Occupy has thought provoking values that should not be dismissed simply because it can not always be properly classified as a protest.”

It’s About Changing Politics

Other 99-percenters claim that the physical community of OWS is simply a means to achieving political change. In response to the common complaint that OWS has no message, Naomi Wolf of The Guardian polled hundreds of protestors about what they hoped to achieve. She organized her responses and found that the top three agenda items were all political in nature:

“The No. 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited [in the protesters’ responses] was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process.

No. 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create fake derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No. 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.”

These three agenda items, if presented as a list of demands, would destroy the perception that OWS is a disorganized group of vaguely anti-establishment idealists. Currently, it is unclear who the protesters are speaking to – the public? the banks? the politicians? This list would clearly link OWS to the political sphere, and would put the onus on our politicians to answer to the protestor’s demands. If the protestors’ goal is achieving real change, a list of demands like these may be the most effective way to ensure that the protestors’ voices are heard.

 It’s About Lack of Opportunity

Another branch of OWS is composed of frustrated college graduates, many with liberal arts degrees, who are unable to obtain high-paying jobs in their fields. As one friend explained, “Many of the OWS participants … played by the rules, went to college, and now are not able to enjoy adulthood as promised.” Although college graduates face unemployment at much lower levels than the average American, these graduates regularly contend with underemployment. An underemployed college graduate may work part time, or without healthcare, or in a job that does not require a college degree. The lower wages associated with underemployment make it difficult or impossible for these graduates to pay their exhorbitant student loan debt.

A proposed list of demands that made waves on the OWS website includes several points related to this lack of opportunity for college grads. Demand one, entitled “Restoration of the living wage,” proposes raising the federal minimum wage to 20 dollars an hour. Demand three simply states, “Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.” Demand four (free college education for all) and Demand eleven (immediate debt forgiveness) voice the frustrations of many underemployed college graduates who are finding that their college degrees did not guarantee them jobs that could pay off their student loans.

However, not all college graduates share the frustrations of their protesting peers. Emily Heist Moss, a 2010 college graduate and blogger at RosieSays, explained that she sympathizes with the protestors, but does not empathize. Her day job allows her to live simply until her student debt is paid off, which is a sacrifice she anticipated as a recent graduate. On her blog, Emily wrote, “I am well aware that most, if not all, of the comfort I have found is the result of the very lucky hand I was dealt. Most people don’t start out this way, that much I recognize. But I see a lot of faces that do look like mine, and a lot of dealt hands that were equally lucky. Of those people, I am skeptical. I don’t know what you expected your life after college to look like, but mine is pretty much as I anticipated….Live simply until you can afford to do otherwise. I don’t feel misled, and I don’t feel manipulated.”

In trying to understand OWS, I have asked other friends if they feel misled or manipulated because liberal arts degrees no longer lead to guaranteed employment in this poor economy. Many directed their frustration not at Wall Street, but at the educational system itself while others direct their anger about the educational system at certain political groups. On a blog post about OWS and income inequality, one commentor wrote:

“I honestly believe that income inequality isn’t a symptom of inequitable tax burden between rich and poor, it’s a symptom of how … governments have, by and large, completely abandoned America’s children because the lobbies like the AARP … (who just keep demanding more social security) divert attention and funding away fom these kids who JUST want an incrementally better future.”

The problem of underemployment among liberal arts grads is so complex that it’s difficult to blame any one institution. The current generation will struggle, but hopefully OWS can help younger students plan ahead more effectively for an unexpected economic downturn.

Emily Chase-Sosnoff holds a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of Chicago and is a second-year student at Chicago-Kent School of Law.

When Kony started fighting, creating grainy photos like this didn't require a smartphone app. Image courtesy of Collin Harvey.

Rash accusations without evidence may not be productive, but rational and thoughtful criticism is always justified.

Tell us about yourself, who you are and what you do. What led you to write about the KONY 2012 concept? What qualifies you to write about it?

I’m a political science and sociology student at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. I wrote about the KONY 2012 campaign because at the time, little attention was being given to the critical responses that Invisible Children has generated, and I felt that these voices needed to be heard. Nothing qualifies me to write about central African conflict other than a keen interest, which is why my blog is primarily a cited discussion of qualified people’s opinions.

Why is the video such a hit? Is there a place in conflict resolution for this sort of public relations campaign?

The video was designed to be a hit. It’s accessible, snappy, appeals to emotion and well-produced. As for the role public awareness plays in conflict resolution, that’s an interesting and very complicated question and one that I don’t feel qualified to answer. To be honest, I don’t think there is a straightforward answer.

The backlash has been fairly swift. Accusations of the White Man’s Burden, neocolonialism, and hipster narcissism are coming fairly hard and fast. Is this reaction justified?

Rash accusations without evidence may not be productive, but rational and thoughtful criticism is always justified. Invisible Children has made it clear that they welcome such critiques.

Train frontman Pat Monahan clings to his early 21st century fashion choices. Image courtesy of flickr user asterix611.

Dear “Drops of Jupiter”,

Hey. Hi. It was great seeing you again. Sorry we didn’t get a chance to catch up while you were around. How are you?

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting to run into you, a Train song from 2001, at Trader Joe’s last week.

Actually, I know we hung around a lot back in high school, and I know it’s good to catch up, but I think it’s probably best that I get something off my chest, so that there’s not any more confusion.

I think we should no longer be in contact. The thing is, you’re just not right for our current moment in pop culture. You’re just sort of a nonsensical, quasi-hip, overly-cutesy relic of our pre-9/11 world.

Sorry. I went there.

I mean, think about it. “Party in the USA”? Duh, of course that makes sense. Some pop music engineers in their shiny neon-blue laboratory, where they mathematically generate insanity-inducing hooks probably broke their wrists from high-fiving after that one. George W. probably has it on a continuous loop while clearing brush out in Crawford. Lady Gaga? Obviously. I mean, we’re living in Lady Gaga’s America. You know Sasha and Malia are jamming to that. But “Drops of Jupiter”? Sorry. Your sappy, rambling, delightful rom-com of a song about soy lattés and tae-bo just doesn’t sit well in the age of Tea Parties and Wall Street occupations and dead Steve Jobs and Chicken McBites, whatever the hell those are. It was good while it lasted, kind of like entertaining the idea that Al Gore could have been president.

I shouldn’t have to remind you that you were the number one song in Canada.

But you’re doing well, right? You still get radio airplay on those easy listening stations they pipe into dentists’ offices? The ones with Michael Bublé? So that’s good. Honestly man, really glad to hear it.

Well, not hear it. You know what I mean.

Anyway, I guess the point is good luck. Best wishes, you know, I just think we shouldn’t be around each other. Ever. I figured I’d sign off with some pithy re-appropriation of one of your lyrics, but when I googled them I kind of had a mild brain aneurism, so I guess I’ll just say what someone wrote in my yearbook that dreadful year you debuted.

“See you in Hell*,”

—  Andrew

*(because Heaven is overrated)

Mr. Mueller on assignment in Montenegro. Image courtesy of Andrew Mueller.

Tell us a little bit about your background, and how you became a globetrotting rock critic-slash-foreign correspondent.

I started out writing about music stuff for the street press in Sydney in the late 80s. From there, I graduated to British rock weekly Melody Maker, which was the beginnings of accomplishing the “globetrotting” part of the description. I got into travel writing and foreign correspondentry as a kind of by-product of that, as I realised that there were more places I wanted to go than those which appeared on the usual rock’n'roll tour itinerary, and more things I wanted to know about the places which did.

Your book, I Wouldn’t Start From Here, is about some of the less savory parts of the world. Considering all the turmoil we’ve seen in the past year, where’s the most dangerous place on Earth right now?

Hard for me to say, as it’s been a while since I’ve been anywhere that really qualifies as dangerous. This is partly due to the ebbing opportunities for feature writers in such contexts – which I think, not entirely for selfish reasons, is a great shame – and partly due to the fact that my personal appetite for the real frontline stuff rather dwindled following my first introductions to proximate incoming fire. Some people can rationalise that stuff sufficiently to tune it out; I can’t, quite. Some people kind of enjoy it; I don’t. But the actual answer is probably: not where you’d think, due to the somewhat capricious nature of the mass media’s coverage of conflict.

Nobody really has a clue what they’re doing, and everybody is making it up as they go along. Perhaps mistakenly, I always find that quite heartening.

 

You once interviewed Col. Gaddafi’s son, Saif Gaddafi. What was your biggest takeaway from that? What surprised you, or didn’t? 

The interview with Saif Gaddafi, in his suite at the Ritz in London back in 2002, surprised me in that he seemed very much not his father’s son – he was smart, sensible and ironic. And that, of course, seemed retrospectively surprising when he turned up all over the coverage of the Libyan revolution threatening to drown the old man’s enemies in the blood of their mothers, and so forth, demonstrating that the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree after all. I took away from that what I’ve taken away from every interview with any person in a position of meaningful power – a reassurance that nobody really has a clue what they’re doing, and everybody is making it up as they go along. Perhaps mistakenly, I always find that quite heartening.

How did a boy from Wagga Wagga become a country music aficionado? 

The boy-from-Wagga-Wagga shtick is, to be honest, sort of a three-quarter truth. I was born there, and have the amusing entry on my passport to prove it, but I’m a city kid, who grew up mostly in Canberra and Sydney, and has lived mostly in London. The fondness for country music was initially a tributary of a teenage fondness for the works of Elvis Costello. I got to his 1981 country covers album, “Almost Blue”, was struck by how great the songs were, and worked my way through the writers and artists listed in the sleevenotes, and then through the writers and artists listed in their sleevenotes, and so on – a process which has not yet, to my enduring delight, concluded.

I wish more publishers would take note of the success Monocle has earned from spending money on producing a quality product.

How did you get involved with Monocle, and what can you tell us about the experience? 

I’ve been involved with Monocle from the outset, fifty issues ago – I used to work fairly regularly for Monocle‘s editor, Andrew Tuck, when he edited the colour supplement of The Independent on Sunday newspaper – a lot of the material in I Wouldn’t Start From Here began as articles he conceived or commissioned. The experience has been an unalloyed joy – an opportunity to do all the stuff that I always wanted to do when I wanted to be a journalist, i.e. getting to travel around and find stuff out, and talk to interesting people, and work alongside talented writers, photographers and editors. I also wish more publishers would take note of the success Monocle has earned from spending money on producing a quality product – as opposed to the rather more common current tactic of slashing all spending on journalism and then wondering why nobody wants to read you anymore.

Considering the stamps on your passport and the names in your rolodex, are you surprised you’re not on any watch lists? (just kidding, no one uses a rolodex)

I’d be appalled to discover that I was on any watch-lists – not because of the inconvenience, but because of what it would say about the priorities of intelligence services. On the rare occasions I’ve been noticeably followed about by the emissaries of some or other spook shop, I’ve always been careful to apologise for wasting their time.

Photo: Lisa Mathiasen

by Anonymous

Soon I will join the ghosts of Lenin and Marx.

Armed struggles against the bourgeois oppressor are all but gone; AK-47s have been replaced by phones with Twitter. Peaceful demonstrations of half-interested children pack the streets of cities. Revolution is no longer a profession, but a hobby to them. It would appear that there is no place left in this world for a true political warrior. The moment one takes up arms in revolution, it is an act of terrorism, no matter if the target is military or not. Never would a soldier of the people harm the innocent, but now we are considered the same brood as common criminals. Gone are the days of hiding in the jungle and hanging posters in the town square under the cover of darkness. The 21^st century, with all of its technology and media lies, has finally put an end to the struggle.

I long for the past days in Cuba. Tattered camouflage fatigues, beards grown in hiding, the smiling faces of the village’s liberated comrades. Now Fidel lays in his bed, a man who put down the cigar and donned a western suit. His image mirrors what has happened to the communist ideal in recent times. Old, broken, and willing to appease the world that once tried to murder you. No longer do the speeches of Ernesto ring in the people’s ears, strong and spirited as it used to be. The people have all given up, accepted that there can only be greed and consumerism. The welfare of my neighbor is his responsibility. Social contract has been forgotten to the crumbling ruins of the 1960’s.

Now I sit in a dark bar in Costa Rica. Imperialist news plays in a foreign language on television. The machine is as old as the shoes I wear. My beard is as long as it once was, but now grayed with age. Once tanned skin has turned leathery and wrinkled from the sadness this new age brings to me. Not even the Union exists anymore to keep my hope alive for change. We are all viewed as former bandits who could not stand the test of time, subjects of pity and shades of the past. Once I die, there will be nothing of our cause left. Confusion and mislabeling will deter future struggles against those who wish to corrupt our humanity. Revolution is not these children who march until the first sign of a baton. Bullets could not have stopped us; they only strengthened us.

Photo: Reply Magazine

by Fernando Elizondo

Who wants to be Mexico’s next top elected official?

Over the previous weeks I have been roughly following the primaries in the U.S. While I reserve my thoughts on the candidates for another time, I must say that watching the circus that ensued reminded me a lot of the little sideshow we are observing on our side of the border.

In 2012, Mexico will be holding general elections to find new Federal Legislators, some local positions and, most importantly, the next President of the country. As a brief background for those who are not familiar with the Mexican electoral system, ours differs greatly from that of the U.S. For starters, we have a multi-party democracy, meaning there are not only red and blue, but a wide array of colors that electors can mark in their ballots. There exist three main parties that will be actually competing in the elections with which the smaller ones have made alliances. Of course, even when, in theory, each party represents one part of the spectrum, the lines are blurred more often in practice.

The Partido Revolucionario Institucional or PRI, is the center party that ruled Mexico for seven decades after the end of the Mexican Revolution and created one of the most famous democratic dictatorships in the world. On the right, we find the Partido Acción Nacional or PAN. This was the party to whom PRI lost power back in the 2000 elections and managed to hold on to it in 2006 until today. On the left is the Partido de la Revolución Democrática or PRD. Back in 2006, PRD almost won the presidency, losing only by 0.5% with strong allegations of fraud and months of protests and tantrums from the PRD candidate.

Primaries in Mexico are rarely important and are hardly ever followed as strongly as in the U.S. Usually only one candidate runs for each party and all the negotiations and lobbying that takes place to decide who that person will be are conducted secretly in the form of political agreements. It is important to note that presidential elections in Mexico are made by direct vote rather than the indirect system followed in the U.S.

The contenders

With the background out of the way, it is time to get into the actual candidates. Two out of the three parties have already decided who their candidate will be, while PAN will be holding its primaries over the next month to make a decision among the three pre-candidates. Let us begin with PRD and all the left wing parties that have aligned with them. For a second time, Mr. Andrés Manuel López Obrador (a.k.a AMLO) will be running for president. AMLO is better known for being the candidate that lost by 0.58% in the last presidential election against current president Felipe Calderon. At the time, AMLO had a lot of supporters. However, he was seen as a threat by the upper class and upper middle class, particularly by businessmen because of his then-radical ideas to help the poor at the expense of the rich.

Immediately after the election, when the results were counted and it was shown that he had lost, he went on a rampage. He made public claims of fraud, he stated that he was not going to recognize Mr. Calderón as president, and he called himself the “legitimate president of Mexico”. He made speeches, even appointed members of his cabinet and tried by every possible mean to recover what he saw was stolen from him. Eventually his fury passed and he fell out of the spotlight.

This time around, Mr. López Obrador has been far more cautious. He has been garnering support from various groups and has shown a completely different side: he is a very peaceful and diplomatic AMLO. Nothing like the person who went on a rampage six years ago. Some people still believe in him, others who voted for him in the last election were shocked by his post-electoral tantrum and have withdrawn their support. However, it is no secret that he will still be a strong contender come July.

PRI has also secured its candidate: Mr. Enrique Peña Nieto. The former Governor of the State of Mexico, he is perhaps the most well known candidate out of the lot. Peña Nieto has been carefully raised in politics by some of the most influential politicians in Mexico. He has close ties to former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari as well as other important figures. He is married to a very famous telenovela actress and is always very well groomed.

Peña Nieto is very popular. Most of the recent polls place him well ahead of any of the candidates from either party. However, in recent months he has been involved in several media scandals. Perhaps the most well known had to do with his failure to provide the title of three books that had influenced his life while presenting his own book at the International Book Fair in Guadalajara [an “oops” moment of his own? — ed.]. Following that, his daughter took to Twitter to defend her father but ended up offending a large part of the country by calling everyone who was mocking Mr. Peña Nieto a “prole”.

It is unclear whether these events will actually affect his popularity or if he will continue to be “Mexico´s Next Top Candidate” but one thing is certain about this man: he can both appeal to and be despised by many.

Finally, the PAN primaries. This has been a very interesting show to watch and that will come to an end next month. There are three individuals competing to be PAN’s presidential candidate: Josefina Vásquez Mota, Santiago Creel and Ernesto Cordero. First, Vásquez Mota. She has served as Secretary of Social Development during President Vicente Fox’s term and Secretary of Education in the early years of Calderón’s term. She was also the leader of her party’s caucus in the House of Representatives. She is generally well liked, with some people going as far as betting she will become Mexico’s first female president. She is also well ahead of the other two PAN candidates in the polls.

Mr. Creel is also a well-known public figure. He served as Secretary of Interior for President Vicente Fox and also attempted to get PAN’s presidential candidacy during the 2006 primary but lost to Felipe Calderón, who then went on to become our current President. He is currently second in the polls that measure which of the three PAN pre-candidates should become the official candidate.

Finally, Ernesto Cordero is perhaps the least well known of the three. He served as Secretary of Social Development in the first years of Calderón’s presidency and was later named Secretary of Finance. He is publicly acknowledged to be the individual that Calderón is supporting to become PAN’s official candidate and this has created friction within the party. He has also been involved in several media scandals such as his remarks a few months ago about a family being able to sustain itself with 6,000 pesos a month (approximately 500 USD) which evidenced his lack of knowledge about the real economic situation of Mexican families.

So there you have it, a bit of information on all the people competing to become the next face of Mexico. One thing is certain. This will be a historic election. Mexico could elect its first left wing president, its first woman president, or return to the party that ruled the country for over 70 years. This will certainly be a reality show worth watching.

Fernando Elizondo holds an LL.M. from Harvard Law School.

On screen: Mr. Velickovic. © All rights reserved, Vuksa Velickovic

Vuksa Velickovic is, quite possibly, a true renaissance man — a writer, artist, symbol of his generation and messenger of his time and place. As the editor of BTurn Magazine, an online destination for modern Balkan culture, Velickovic weaves togethers strands of art, music, politics and society into a fascinating portrait of the former nations of Yugoslavia. A place rich with history looks to the future.

Tell us a bit about yourself, where you’re from, and what inspired you to start Bturn.

I come from Belgrade, Serbia and have been working in European media and culture for about a decade and a half now. The idea of an all-Balkan online mag had been on my mind for several years, and after a few unsuccessful attempts, I sat down with Sasha Mircov, my business partner from the US, and decided to start the whole thing from scratch.

We wanted to create a magazine that gives an insight into contemporary Balkan culture and society, combined with a database of artists, venues and events in the region. The idea is simple: the Balkans are still a vast, ‘uncharted’ territory and it needs to be mapped. We believe there are some great things going on down here, and yes, some pretty mad things as well, and we want to gather all of that in one place, from Ljubljana to Istanbul, and try to present something we perceive as a specifically “Balkan experience”.

At the same time, we maintain a sharp, critical voice in dealing with various social, cultural and political issues in the region. We want to keep it real.

To the average twenty year-old from the Balkans, born in 1991, what do the Yugoslav wars of the ’90s mean? How does that experience affect their everyday life? 

I would say the average twenty year-old from ex Yugoslavia is more concerned whether he’ll have enough money to move out of his parents’ flat or get a new pair of Air Jordans than he is with the issues that confronted generations born in the 1970s and early 1980s.

However, even today in 2011, the Yugoslav wars remain the most recognizable Balkan ‘brand’, at least from a Western perspective. From the insider’s point of view there is still a lot of political mythology circulating, sometimes covered in a blanket of “national interests”, which of course, makes it even more dangerous. Especially for a number of twenty year-olds, bored and out of work, with no future perspective, who are often keen on exploring these mythological threads. One of Bturn’s missions is to give way to new threads.

How do you define the “New Balkans”? What elements of history have been retained? What trends are emerging, and what should the world know about the former Yugoslav?

The ‘New Balkans’ are all those who don’t fall for myths and wish to make a bigger investment in their future than in their past. The ‘Old Balkans’ have been obsessed with their past and their histories. And it is something our mag doesn’t shy from – many articles on Bturn deal with various historical topics – but we try to give history a different, non-essentialist perspective. I would say, interpretations are more important than ‘facts’, as much as the present context is more important that the historical one. That’s why we focus on contemporary Balkan and Eastern Europe, the artists and their audiences, because those are people doing extraordinary things in extraordinary conditions.

What are your goals for Bturn? What would you say you’ve learned from starting and operating it?

Running a 12 people team (and counting) across two continents is a bloody difficult task. Our director is in San Francisco, our software developer in Portland, I am in London, and our regional editorial teams come from Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia so far. All together, that’s four time zones.

We got big plans, but prefer to go one step at a time. And we are still learning as we go ahead. Learning is fun, right? At the moment, we are expanding our regional editorial team and building a network of partners in the region. By ‘region’ I don’t mean just the Western Balkans, i.e the former Yugoslavia, but also the integral core of the Balkans: Romania, Bulgaria and Greece, with a pinch of Turkey.

What are three most exciting things coming from the Balkans today?

I couldn’t say there is anything uniform, like a current or something, because there are so many different countries and they include scattered underground ‘scenes’ where you cannot really pin point a trend. But new tendencies are definitely taking shape, especially if you look through generations. I could mention something from my immediate background. The new school of Serbian film, if we may call it so (well, I just did): a group of young directors born between 1979 and 1983 who offer an original take on the present Balkan reality. Directors like Mladen Djordjevic, Ivan Ikic, Nikola Lezaic and Maja Milos approach both the war legacy and the present condition in a completely different way than their predecessors. Their approach is post-ideological and their film discourse is a fusion of art house and cinema verite. Maja’s teenage drama “Clip” is my personal favorite at the moment, and I’m looking forward to its premiere at the Rotterdam Film Festival in January 2012.

The second thing would be – passion. There’s plenty of it in the Balkans. Though I wouldn’t say that’s necessary a good thing. It’s that kind of energy that if not channeled properly, can be quite useless, or even dangerous. But that’s what makes it so exciting. I sometimes feel that passion is globally underrated for some reason. In the Balkans it’s probably the opposite.

The third most exciting Balkan thing today would be Bturn, of course