(Wien, am 6. September 2008) Es war der denkbar schlechteste Zeitpunkt für eine Groß-Demo. Die SPÖ posaunte zum dreitägigen Donauinsel-Fest via "Rathauskorrespondenz" Jubelmeldungen hinaus (Freitag:
1 Million Besucher), was noch zu toppen sei. Am Samstag waren dann 1.3 Millionen (!) reif für die Insel!

Der Samstag bot mehr Interessantes. Die ÖVP mietete den gesamten (!) "Heldenplatz" und baute Käsehütten, Weinstände und Bierzelte für Bretteljausen, Bauernbund-Schuhplattler und Provinz-Volksmusikanten auf: "Erntedankfest 2008" mitten in Wien. Zigtausende Loden-Wiener und Trachten-Dirndl ließen den Cholesterin-Spiegel nach oben schnalzen. Am Samstag hatten weitere 47.000 Fans im Praterstadion etwas zum Jubeln,
die von Fußball nach der EM noch nicht genug haben. Man fragte sich, wo die restlichen Wiener waren:
Bei 32 Grad im Schwimmbad. Einige hundert waren bei einer Demonstration.

Die Veranstalter VGT (Verein gegen Tierfabriken) konnte den Termin nicht mehr verschieben. Der 6. September 2008 stand schon länger fest, obwohl am 2. September 2008 alle zehn Tieraktivisten enthaftet wurden. Ohnehin kümmern solche Details die Aktivisten nicht. Man denkt trotz der Zugeständnisse nicht ans Aufhören. Im Gegenteil: Jetzt geht der Kampf erst richtig los.

Nur Gleichgesinnte gewünscht

Demonstrationen von "linken Gruppen" zeichnen sich dadurch aus, dass sie nur Gleichgesinnte akzeptieren. Auffällig war die Homogenität der Demonstranten. Bloßfüßige, Gepiercte, Autonome, Tieraktivisten. Man wollte unter sich bleiben. Das zeigte sich schon am Treffpunkt um 14 Uhr vor dem Justizministerium, wo sich schleppend rund 300 Personen einfanden. Als um 14 Uhr 30 der Fotograf Alfred Nechvatal am Treffpunkt auftauchte und seine Kamera auspackte, um ein paar Impressionen einzufangen, erlebte er ein Oha. Der 60-Jährige wurde er von einer Art "VGT-Security" sehr körperbetont "hinausgeworfen". Man stieß ihn über den gesamten Platz, schlug ihn gegen Oberkörper und Nikon-Kameraausrüstung und "hinaus" zum Gehsteig. Dort hielten Nasenringträger "Wache", dass er den Platz nicht mehr betritt. Auf den Einwand des Herausgebers, "lassts den Alfred in Ruh, der fotografiert seit 15 Jahre jede Demo in Wien", gab es die rotznasige Antwort: "Ja, aber wir wissen auch, für wen." Für wen? Vor allem für sich selber. Denn er hat ein beeindruckendes Foto-Archiv. Alfred Nechvatal hatte schon vor zwanzig Jahren, also zum Zeitpunkt, wo die "Tierschützer" noch in die Windel geschissen haben, einen Kreis aus Leuten, die Justizopfer waren und das Geschehen präzise beleuchteten.

Wie rüde der VGT mit dem Fotografen umging, gab in diesem Moment zu denken. Das Anarcho-Macho-Gehabe so mancher Möchtegern-Punks gab einen Geschmack, wie die inkriminierten Sachbeschädigungen in den Tierfabriken zustande kamen - mit brachialer Gewalt. Mit welchen Haudraufmethoden im persönlichen Umgang mit Gruppenfremden umgegangen wird, zeigt auf, dass die "militante Szene" nicht so harmlos ist, wie die VGT-Vereinsspitzen es gerne darstellen. Der VGT beweist in der Personalauswahl kein gutes Händchen, wenn er solche Akteure zuläßt. Leider ist der Verein nicht im Stande, gewisse Hard-Core-Schläger auszusortieren. Sie gehören offenbar zum Konzept des Vereins.

Der Vorfall war nur das befremdliche Hintergrundrauschen, nicht das Demonstrationsthema. (Aber der Grund, warum sich der Herausgeber dem Zug nicht anschloß, sondern stets 60 Meter voraus war und dann nur mit dem langen Tele fotografierte. Denn auch bei ihm ist ja nicht klar "für wen" er Fotos macht. Da beim VGT offenbar das "für wen", also die Gruppenzugehörigkeit, mehr zählt, als dass "überhaupt" jemand mitgeht, muss man aus Selbstschutz Abstand zu dieser linksradikalen Gewaltszene halten.)

Das Demo-Thema war dann eindeutig. Scheinbar. "Abschaffung des (gesamten) § 278 a StGB." Die Tierschützer wünschen somit auch die Abschaffung den Tatbestands "Kriminelle Organisation" bei transnationalem Rauschgifthandel, Organ-, Waffen-, Uran- und Kinderhandel, bei internationaler Cyberkriminalität, Aktiengroßbetrug und Menschenhandel. Für all jene Dinge greift der österreichische § 278a StGB nämlich auch. Doch zum Differenzieren war keine Zeit. Viele Demonstranten standen noch unter dem Eindruck der Haftsituation.

Der Zug startete verspätet vor dem Justizministerium bei Gluthitze erst um 15 Uhr und machte zehn Minuten später schon beim LG Wien eine erste Pause. Erste Ansprache ans Fußvolk.

In der ersten Ansprache überwog das Jammern. Zuerst also das Geschäft mit dem Selbstmitleid. Anstrengend sei die dreimonatige Haft gewesen (ach, das sagt Friedrich Olejak, der schon 25 Jahre am Stück in Stein sitzt, auch). Von den Kindern sei man getrennt gewesen (ach). Das Essen war schlecht (sagt Friedrich Olejak auch). Überhaupt: Man habe gar nichts getan.

Kollektives Jammern der Aktivisten

Das Problem des VGT ist, nüchtern gesagt, dass er für gute Ziele steht, aber die Wege dorthin geschönt darstellt. In der Analyse vermischt man dann die Ziele mit den Wegen und wirft jenen, die die Wege kritisieren, vor, dass sie die Ziele kritisieren. Ab da wird es ein ideologisches Gebräu, das Duftnote bekommt. Man hat den Eindruck, dass jeder, der keinen linken Stallgeruch hat, im Generalverdacht steht, a. gegen Tierschutz und b. ein Konfident, Verräter und Spitzel zu sein.

Redner Berger (Name nur akustisch) kritisierte vor dem Landesgericht lautstark: Die Ermittlungen seien eine einzige Katastrophe. Daher nennt er die "SOKO Tierpelz" ab nun "SOKO Dumpfbacke". Nett, aber substanzlos.

Substanzlose politische Vergleiche

Zweite Kritik: "In Österreich sperren uns die Rechtskonservativen ins Gefängnis. In Ungarn demonstrieren die Rechtskonservativen gegen uns." Dieses gegen uns ist eine etwas weit hergeholte These. Konkret: Es gab in Ungarn bei einer Aktion der "Vier Pfoten" eine Gegendemonstration von Nazi-Glatzen. Das "Ungarn-Argument" zieht nicht: Die spezifische politische Situation dort hat immer wieder extreme Neonazikreise erzeugt. In Österreich gibt es kein Pendant einer exponierten, rechten Demonstranten-Szene. Der Vergleich mit Österreich ist unzulässig. Wird er gezogen, bewiest es, dass die VGT-Aktivisten konkreten Tierschutz mit Fundamental-Politik verwechseln.

Der erste Teilsatz ist ebenso leicht zu entkräften: Nicht die "Rechtskonservativen" sperrten den VGT ins Gefängnis, da weder FPÖ noch BZÖ, also Strafverschärferparteien, in der Regierung sitzen, sondern die ÖVP unter dem damals nationalpatriotischen Tiroler Günther Platter (Innenminister). Die bündische ÖVP ist konservativ, aber bestenfalls der politischen Mitte zuzurechnen. Somit zieht das Argument, dass die Falle der "Rechtskonservativen" zugeschnappt hätte, nicht wirklich.

Doch man ahnte ohnehin bald, dass es nicht um Argumente, sondern um Slogans ging. Die Parolen vom Ministerium zum LG Wien lauteten "Hoch die Internationale" und "Wir sind alle 278a". Vor dem Landesgericht lauteten die Rufe: "Terrorparagrafen, weg, weg, weg!" Als sie die Menge sich wieder beruhigt hatte (es war Samstag; im Gericht arbeitet an diesem Tag keiner), zog man trommelnd weiter. In Richtung Innenministerium. Am Weg dorthin wurden dann solche Sprüche skandiert: "Paragraf 2-7-8-a. Meinungsfreiheit in Gefahr." und "Freiheit für alle politischen Gefangenen!" (Wo und welche derzeit in Österreich sitzen, wurde nicht gesagt. Wahrscheinlich waren aber jene in Kolumbien, Israel und Guntanamo gemeint...)

Vor dem Innenministerium wurde der Platz eng. Aber es schien, dass ohnehin nicht mehr alle dabei waren. Eine VGT-Aktivistin las eine Rede vom Blatt vor, die Auskunft über den Akteninhalt und Ermittlungshintergründe gab. Der Vortrag war aufschlussreich. So wurde erläutert, dass seit Dezember 2006 immerhin acht Beamte eine "SOKO Pelztier" bildeten. V-Personen wurden
[caption id="attachment_3512" align="alignnone" width="650" caption="Martin Balluch, seit 4 Tagen aus 106-tägiger U-Haft entlassen, beweist, dass er ein flammender Redner ist. Hier beim Abschluss der Demonstration des VGT am 6. September 2008, 16 Uhr 03. (Foto: Marcus J. Oswald für diegalerie/Blaulicht und Graulicht)"][/caption]

Marcus J. Oswald (Ressort: Demos)

Konami Japan anunció hoy que Pro Evolution Soccer 2009 saldrá a la venta el 15 de octubre en Europa y el 17 en el Reino Unido, mientras que los japoneses deberán esperar hasta noviembre.

Estas fechas aplican a todas las versiones menos la de Wii, que sigue planeada para la primavera del 2009.

También se anunció que el demo de PES 2009 se podrá descargar en Xbox Live y PlayStation Network el 11 de septiembre, el mismo día que estará también el demo de FIFA 09. Uuuuuu!!!!....

Fuente: Videogaming247

Wow. This is big.
Now that the Format War (blu-ray/hd dvd) is over, we are getting the Soccer War.
On the same the Fifa 2009 will be out we are getting the Pro Evolution Soccer 2009 demo as well.

I guess that Konami feels so good with their game that they want the players to compare the two games side by side, on the same day.

I'm waiting for next week.

Source - Gamekyo

Just to remind you guys, the demo for Fifa 2009 is coming this week!

A few weeks ago EA Sports have announced the release date for the Fifa 2009 demo - September 11.

The demo will allow the player to do a full exhibition and will have 6 teams available:

• Marseille
• Schalke
• Real Madrid
• Chelsea
• AC Milan
• Toronto FC

The demo will unveil the new Team Management feature: Custom Tactics, giving the player a chance to sample tactical options in each of the key categories (Build Up, Chance Creation, and Defence).

The PS3 version features the FIWC Stadium, and the 360 features New Wembley.

This is an interesting assertion that turns the discourse back from international geopolitics to domestic issues, from the horserace competition of states to the substantive analysis of what is in itself a complex body, from the strange, unknown, suspected Other, wherever in the world s/he may be found, back to the mainland, the métropole, the seat of Empire. Bacevich’s assertion runs similar to a suggestion I’ve made as to why the U.S. went to war in Iraq, where, following Deleuzo-Guattarian philosophy, I suggested that, rather than unknowing dupes spoon fed with disinformation, the populace was in fact complicit in the war, desiring what America’s imperial planners had the audacity to carry out.

In his thesis, Bacevich makes a hypothesis as to what motivates this desire. According to him, the internal reason for aggressive military policy around the world (now giving the métropole trouble) is profligate consumerism. That is to say, the desire to have a steady supply of and easy access to the wide array of consumer goods (deemed as needs), especially oil, at cheap prices. Steady supply, following Bacevich’s thinking, implies the “pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad” (commodities such as oil what regions of the world are targeted). Wide array, if I may add, would explain its pursuit (and thus American commitment (military and otherwise)) in virtually every part of the world, easy access the consequence of credit, and cheap prices the clout (and hold) of corporate chains like Walmart.

All this consumerist desire/spending, Bacevich adds, is short-sighted (unconcerned about tomorrow, thoughtless about what lies ahead). “We don’t live within our means,” Bacevich says, referring to both individual Americans and the nation at large. Hence the assumption of “an endless line of credit” (both private and public, corporate and state). This refusal to “balance the books,” in Bacevich’s words, leads to the “the projection of American military power around the world to try to maintain this dysfunctional system, or [the] set of arrangements that have evolved over the last 30 or 40 years.”

Bacevich’s challenge is for America to look at herself in the mirror, recognize (albeit painfully) ingrained habits that cause it trouble, and make the necessary adjustments. This is a brave stance to take, especially considering the vilification that proponents of this view get, not least Jimmy Carter who, after recognizing and raising the problem in the so-called “Malaise” speech (the only American president to ever do so), was defeated in the election by Ronald Reagan, who in turn heralded “morning in America” as he ushered the ascendancy of Republicanism in America. More importantly, the stance is brave because the subject Bacevich is diagnosing and urging a cure on is an entity to which he belongs. In other words, the subject that Bacevich is challenging is the self—(a feat/entity) oftentimes the most difficult (to do/goad).

Bacevich’s argument itself, however, suffers from shortcomings on key parts. While the profligate consumerism of the populace does have some leverage and is able to put pressure on the State, attributing it (as Bacevich does) as the root cause of American imperialism abroad (and the consequent enormity of the military) assumes two things that, in my view, are not present in the system at place (the State) in the American métropole.

First, government transparency—which means not only that the government, by virtue of the openness of information networks, are held accountable to the people for its actions (especially when it comes to big issues, such as the decision to go to war in Iraq), but also that the populace has the opportunity to and articulates what it desires to their governors, who willingly and decisively comply with those wishes. The first part of this definition presupposes a functional media, which no one who has seen mainstream news in America would argue it has. The second part is refuted in the American system by the absurdity of the suggestion that putting a name on the ballot—a name that comes from two mainstream political parties to the right of the political spectrum beholden to corporate interests—every couple of years amounts to a real “say” on the affairs of the State by the populace—especially when only about 40-50% of them do exercise that right (not to mention the anomalies when they do so)—and the even more absurd assertion that, once voted to office, politicians stick to their word and execute the platform on which they were elected. Without transparency like this, how is the State able to fulfill what the populace desires?

Second, equality. By saying that the government only complies with the desire of its citizens and ensures its fulfillment (even at the cost of war and the overextension of the military), Bacevich assumes that the American populace—America—is a homogeneous mass, where everyone has one and the same definitive desire (consumer goods) (with the same quality and quantities) and all have the same and equal access to that desire. Massive disparities in wealth and the striking inequality in opportunities reminiscent of the Gilded Age flay off this presumptively “egalitarian” mask (a presumption characteristic of the Conservative ideology to which Bacevich admittedly subscribes).

In a radically—i.e. genuinely—democratic State, these assumptions of transparency and equality that Bacevich needs to secure his argument would hold true. Unfortunately, present-day America is no such place. And States as we know them now, like the one that currently exists in America, are, as Marxist discourse would have it, but the political representation—not of the people in general but—of the ruling (economic) class. The political class takes official “legitimate” power—takes over the State—to uphold, maintain, and forward the interests of this ruling (economic) class. In America, the ruling class is the corporate class—a class powerful enough to make its desires known to the governors, a class unequal to—above and beyond—the common American; hence completely able and possessing enough leverage to make the political class comply. True enough, the American empire serves the needs of this class. It is for this class that there is an American empire (as revealed so strikingly by the Pentagon Papers). In other words, big business—not common (wo)man consumerism—is the root cause of the Empire (and all that that implies, including the stupendous size of the military). (The political class is, of course, sustained by this economic class, as the political class sustains them in turn.)

What about consumerism, you say? Isn’t it a problem—as is plainly obvious even to Conservative ideologues and preachers of the Christian faith? Consumerism, believe it or not, is actually part of the Conservative discourse on big business. Conservative apologists, when defending their small-government free-market economic policy, to placate the masses (that for the most part are harmed by these policies) mention the trickle-down effect. Well, consumer goods are what trickle down to the masses. Not all Americans—the common American—cannot have what them on top of the hierarchy own, possess, enjoy, play with, risk, gamble . . . Thus the commoners get cheap consumer goods of varying colors and styles—cheap delights that everyone can afford—making life, well, a little more convenient—for one and all.

Consumerism, unlike how Bacevich portrays it, is not the root cause of the problem (of Empire and the troubles now surfacing therefrom). On the contrary, consumerism is an aftereffect of the real problem—or, to be more precise, an aftereffect of the real motivation for Empire. There is Empire to serve the interests—let them expand round the globe and track down and dig up profits there—of big business. To make them feel like they are a part of these (mis)adventures—usually colored in heroic tones (not dissimilar from the grand quests of kings and errant knights in the Middle Ages where the truly exceptional individuals emerge victorious)—big business bring home gifts to the common citizen. These gifts are what Bacevich refers to as consumer goods (cheap, of varying kinds, always available . . .). Consumer goods that the common (wo)man is made to need.

The political class sending young men and women—unrelated to them, the majority of whom come from the poorest backgrounds—to conduct dangerous but heroic missions around the world—killing non-Americans and Americans in the process—all this to fulfill our—the common citizen’s—desire? I’m still not pathetic enough to believe in that. And who ever said that consumer goods—television shows, fashionable clothes, house decorations—is what we, the “American people,” primarily and most importantly desire? And that we desire it enough to let the imperial State do all that it does?

Consumerism is a contingent. Consumerism is a façade. It is a symptom, not the root cause. Does it contribute to the people’s support for its government’s imperial (oftentimes criminal) actions? Sure. But it is a bind of the people and not the cause for which the State carves up an empire. It is not for me—a “common” “American”—that the State fights wars overseas or attempts to rule over the world. Rather, consumerism is part of the war plan—war meaning not only against other states but against its own citizens—in the interest of the true class that it represents. Consumerism is part of the State’s plan all along. It goes overseas for the sake of big business and then makes the common man complicit in this through the consumer goods that it “brings home.” Consumerism is the bait by which we regular citizens get coerced into approving of the Empire and maintain the system—the State where the economic class (mistake this not) is the top priority—as it is. Which is not to say that consumerism is not a problem—though it is not—for them. It is a problem for us because it is the drug that keeps us banging our heads on the wall so that we get numbed from the pain. It is not a problem for them because, well, with it they get to keep us banging our heads on the wall. Consumerism is not the root cause of Empire—but it is what binds the common (wo)man to it. Consumerism is the means by which the economic class holds the common (wo)man hostage. You want to revolt? Boycott Walmart! But you can’t! By virtue of how the economy is structured, you don’t make as much as them, and, unlike them, Walmart is all that you can afford. You want to avoid how cheap the prices are, reject the seduction (not in the least because you know how much it cost to them who produced them)—well, you have no recourse. You have to go back to Walmart to get your supplies, including the things that you don’t need—but need in order to keep up, fit in, manage along in the social system in which you are bound. You have no choice. You have to participate in the system—no matter what its rulers—the political and the economic class—no matter what atrocities they commit. And then you realize this, you feel an itch—You buy more things. After all, they’re cheap! They won’t cost much! Cheap prices binding the common (wo)man to the State.

I say that big business is the real motivation—not the real problem—of Empire because who is to say that it is a problem for them, the troubles that America is facing now? Stupendous costs of war in Iraq? To whom do those costs accrue? Costs (paid for by taxpayer money)—by virtue of the magic of capitalism—are transformed as the record-breaking profits of companies like Halliburton. We have an overextended military, you say? Well, further support for the case of companies like Blackwater to privatize the military and shame our own (State) troops with how much private mercenaries are paid (not to mention the many illegalities they are sanctioned to commit).

At a point in the interview, Bacevich suggests that another thing that has gone wrong in America (giving it troubles now) is that it has gone from being the “empire of production” to (somewhere in the 60s) become the “empire of consumption.” If only America (like Britain in the Industrial Revolution, or post-WWII America) were to become the powerhouse of the world again, where most of the world’s production took place (hence it plays the role of the major exporter), everything would be okay. Setting aside challenges to this theory that could be mounted by mainstream economists (who claim that there’s no clear correspondence between net export (or import) and good (or bad) net economic performance), I would like to complete Bacevich’s statement and say that the situation he delineates may indeed be good—for Americans. The implication is that so long as America is all right—so long as it is the producer and someone else the consumer—who cares what happens to the rest of the world? What Bacevich would like to happen is an overturning of the hierarchy where America is the producer again—and someone else the consumer, someone else who would inherit the troubles that America is facing now as a consequence of its consumption. Bacevich does not realize that this world economic system currently in place—in which America is facing troubles—was itself put into place (for the most part) by America. It is only that other lesser players are beginning to catch up, learning how to play America’s game—and, in certain aspects, beating her at it. Bacevich does not care that in this system there is always bound to be someone to experience what America is experiencing now. Bacevich does not care about that—so long as it is not America. Instead of challenging the (capitalist) system and its structure in which this takes place, Bacevich’s avowed patriotism (and Conservatism) blinds him from this, makes him think first and foremost—only?—of his beloved country. (Who cares about the others?)

Despite these, Bacevich does make some other good points in the interview that make it well worth watching, such as when he says that “the national security state does not work” (though he does follow this up with the suggestion that the appropriate response to terrorism is what amounts to a police state) and when he critiques the assertion that “the American way of life is not negotiable.” His main thesis, however, does suffer from the shortcoming of not going far enough—to the root cause (of what is a problem). America’s problems do indeed come from—are in the main back in Empire, but Bacevich fails to see that the actor he points to as the main culprit—the common American turned consumer—sits only at the auxiliary as the real player—big business—occupies the central seat. This inequality has to be attacked in order to address America’s concerns. Then afterwards (it must not be forgotten) there remains the question of transparency.