Around the Americas

-Ever since the War of the Pacific, Bolivia has been without direct access to the ocean, joining Paraguay as the only two landlocked countries in the Americas (out of 44 globally). However, aid may be coming soon, as Uruguay is seriously considering offering access to the sea to Bolivia.

-Are individuals in the FBI contributing directly to the drug violence plaguing Mexico?

-Augusto Montanaro, the Minister of the Interior for over 20 years during the dictatorial regime of Alfredo Stroessner, returned to Paraguay this week after 20 years in exile. This is major news because Montanaro was one of the key figures in the tortures and disappearances during Stroessner's 35-year reign: "as interior minister from 1966 to the end of the Stroessner regime, Montanaro was instrumental in the abduction, torture and mu rder of government opponents and he faces numerous criminal charges in Paraguay." Upon his return, he was medically examined and then sent off to the national prison, where hopefully he will serve his remaining days; however, his "senility" and Parkinson's disease make it seem likely he may end up with house arrest (though I'm not familiar with the particulars of Paraguayan prison law in terms of the ailing).

-For all the talk and mention one hears about UNICEF, it's rare that anybody knows exactly how the organization is effecting change in the world. Well, it would appear that, among other things, it's helping trobuled youths in Guyana get a second chance and seeking genuine reforms that rehabilitate rather than punish juveniles in that country.

-Human rights organizations are asking for the protection of a Chilean journalist after he received death threats from right-wing apologists groups. Francisco Herreros, head of the communist El Siglo, received the threats from right-wing terrorists after the newspaper published "a series of declassified CIA documents that involve Chilean right wing organizations and persons in crimes, fraud and other violations," providing just one more reminder that, while Pinochet and his regime have been largely discredited within Chile and abroad, there are still extremists who feel that those who disagree with them should be killed.

-Also in Chile, around 100 indigenous Mapuches marched on the presidential palace in Santiago, "trying to denounce police repression prevailing in their communities, as well as the implementation of the Anti-terrorist Act," and seeking a meeting with President Michelle Bachelet. Despite the importance of human rights rhetoric and justice in terms of the Pinochet regime, repression and violations of Mapuches' rights continue at a disturbing rate in Chile.

-I'm not quite sure why the South Dakota National Guard might need training in jungle warfare, but the U.S.'s 46th-most populated state has entered into a partnership with Suriname for military training, as well as a "medical readiness exercise."

-Johnny Depp as Pancho Villa? (h/t)

-Apparently, Dominica's Prime Minister has been talking trash about the other islands in the Caribbean. I look forward to responses from Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Lucia, Montserrat, and others. Could this be the first step in an inter-island war in the Caribbean? The world watches with baited breath...

-Finally, one of my favorite "discoveries" last year was a great album of Garifuna music sung by women. For those who are unfamiliar with Garifuna music (the Garinagu people are descendants of indigenous and African peoples in the Caribbean coast of Central America), it's excellent stuff, and (in addition to the samples at Amazon), you can check out some more music and info about it here.

Can We Finally Put to Rest the Notion That State Bureaucrats in Health Care Would Be Any Worse than Private Bureaucrats?

Rob has yet more (and unfortunately real-life) evidence that Republican opposition to national health care due to a "government bureaucracy" that would only make the health care slower and more tortuous is completely naive and stupid.

Best of luck next week, Rob. And may the litigation-prone wife end up not only filing, but winning. If nothing else, it will help for the college fund down the road.

Awards are weird

I'm not a huge TV/film person-- I only ponied up for cable last November for the first time in my adult life-- but I do watch an ample amount of TV, especially during the school year while I grade stacks of papers. This is something of a disclaimer, because I am about to tread into waters in which I'm not completely comfortable swimming.

The Emmy nominations came out, and I was surprised to read that Family Guy has been nominated in the Best Comedy category. This would not have been terribly surprising, except that it is the first animated series to be nominated for Best Comedy since The Flintstones in 1961.

This I don't get. The show is based on the simplest, most elementary kind of post-modern juxtapositional shock jockery. The plot lines are completely stock, a feature I'm not entirely convinced the writers intend ironically, and the endless stream of referential pop culture non-sequitors seems over-played to me. Not to mention the show goes to the "take-a-moderately-funny-moment-and-make-it-funnier-by-stretching-it-out-so-it-isn't-funny-but-then-keep-going-so-it's-funny-again" well too much for my taste. For this kind of compulsive pop-nostalgia, I'll take Robot Chicken any day, in no small part because 11 minutes of this kind of schtick is enough.

I wouldn't care so much, save the fact that The Simpsons was never nominated, even in its greatest stretch of seasons in the early 90's. Or South Park, which is often incisively topical, completely fearless, and spot-on (the South Park where Butters is sent to a Christian camp to rid boys of homosexuality is a work of art).

I suppose if the Emmy's track to public sentiment, the nomination makes sense, since Family Guy seems to be airing on some channel for at least 4 hours a night. For my money, though, I'd rather watch South Park or classic Simpsons.

It's time for this clown to go away

Is it the early 90's still? I can't believe we still have to talk about Marion Barry; that this drug-addled tax cheat still has a political office is astounding. But hey, the stalking charges were dropped...

Barry has been in the news for being the lone Washington, D.C. city council member to vote against a measure that would recognize same-sex marriages conferred in other states in D.C. Now, he's claiming a "vendetta" against him because of his vote from openly-gay councilman David Catania. The investigation centers around "allegedly awarding his then-girlfriend a monthly $5,000 city contract and allocating nearly $1 million in tax dollars to social service organizations run by members of his staff.".

A memo to Marion Barry: This investigation likely stems not from your idiotic dissent vote in the same-sex marriage law, but rather, that you are a corrupt, life-long political hack and convicted felon who has no real political accomplishments of note. In a fair and just world, you would lose the next election in a landslide.

Behold - More Evidence of America's Cultural Death

I didn't see the Super Bowl this year, so I missed this little abomination of crass commercialism until it re-aired during the All-Star game last night.

All I can say is, congratulations, Rod Stewart - now you only have the second worst ripoff of the original version ever. (And seriously - I will always be amazed that he talked his way out of a plagiarism suit on this, given the similarities between this and this. It's not like Stewart had never plagiarized before - you just have to compare the chorus of this to this to hear it.)

(And in one last parenthetical, if anybody is unfamiliar with Jorge Ben, I can't recommend his material from the 1960s and 1970s strongly enough. Some of it has been re-released in the U.S. recently, and is outstanding, as is his 1975 accoustic-jam improv session w/Gilberto Gil.)

Teaching U.S. History in Texas

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on the battle over teaching U.S history in Texas public schools. Mirroring the evolution/creationism debate, this pits right-wing ideologues over those who have sense. One of the conservatives says this:

"We're in an all-out moral and spiritual civil war for the soul of America, and the record of American history is right at the heart of it"

I absolutely agree with this and that's why these right-wingers must be stopped. What do they object to? Including positive discussions of Cesar Chavez for instance.

• Delete César Chávez from a list of figures who modeled active participation in the democratic process

Two reviewers objected to citing Mr. Chávez, who led a strike and boycott to improve working conditions for immigrant farmhands, as an example of citizenship for fifth-graders. "He's hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation," Rev. Marshall wrote.

How's that? Marshall doesn't say, but presumably it is part anti-labor, part racism. They also oppose discussion of Anne Hutchinson as an important person to discuss for colonial America and want to replace discussion of Thurgood Marshall as an important person to study with--wait for it--Sam Houston!!!! There's also a bias against discussing the country as a democracy.

I do agree with the conservatives that studying primary documents should be valued higher. Conservatives always think things like this are going to lead to capital R republican values, but there's no actual evidence of this. One can easily discuss the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and come to the conclusion that the current Republican party is completely insane.

The moderate reviewers have entirely reasonable proposals such as emphasizing more Latinos, toning down emphasis on the Cold War, and discussing America's historical relationship with Islamic nations and peoples. You know, things that actually make sense in modern society.

Kenneth Stampp, RIP

The great historian Kenneth Stampp died at the age of 96. Stampp did more than any other historian to destroy the myth of the contented slave. The historical establishment parroted the southern line about the benevolent white owner and happy slave for over 50 years before Stampp's The Peculiar Institution came out in 1956. While one can certainly criticize that work today, its historical importance both within the profession and in society at large cannot be overstated.

Ichiro!

You have to love Ichiro. What other player would go to the grave of George Sisler to pay his respects? Sisler held the hits record from 1920 until Ichiro broke it in 2004. With the All-Star Game in St. Louis, Ichiro decided to honor the man.

This is also amusing:

But this time, Ichiro got to meet President Barack Obama, who threw out the first pitch. Obama, visiting the clubhouses, stopped and signed a ball for Ichiro, who gave a slight bow upon meeting the President and appeared as giddy and excited as a kid.

"My idea, when I saw him, was to say, 'What's up?' to him," Ichiro said. "But I got nervous. You know, he has that kind of aura about him. So I got nervous and I didn't say that to him. I was a little disappointed about that.

"But I realized after seeing him today that presidents wear jeans, too. So my hope is that our skipper, [Don] Wakamatsu, was watching that and we can wear jeans on our flights, as well."

More distortions from the fringe of the immigration debate

Obviously, the solution to California's problems is another ill-conceived ballot initiative.

This proposed ballot initiative is a reincarnation of sorts of Prop 187, a 1994 initiative that sought to deny benefits to illegal immigrants. Prop 187 passed by a wide margin, but was ruled unconstitutional. The new initiative seeks to pass constitutional muster in a rather back-handed way: one of the major tenets of the initiative is to create two kinds of birth certificates in the state of California-- one for children born to citizens and legal residents, and one for children born to illegal aliens. Under this plan, the parents would have to pay a fee, be fingerprinted, and submit paperwork and photo ID (all of which would be forwarded to Homeland Security). The proponents of this nascent proposition understand that citizenship is granted by the federal government and not by states, so instead, they plan to use the threat of Homeland Security to scare illegal immigrants away from getting their children their rightful U.S. birth certificates.

This is tricky because the infants are, well, infants. They need an agent to act on their behalf to obtain their birth certificates-- their parents. Think about it-- if birth certificates were received upon reaching the age of majority, this would be clearly unconstitutional. It is ludicrous to think of making an eighteen-year-old citizen of the United States give the government information about her or his parents' citizenship status, and then be awarded a "second-class" birth certificate based on that information. Because infants can't obviously request their own, the state, under this law, would hold their birth certificate effectively hostage. And clearly, the idea that some citizens have a certain type of birth certificate and others have yet another is extremely suspect; I really don't see how that would be anything less than a substantial violation of equal protection.

This has a certain resonance with Plyler vs. Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court case that struck down a Texas law that sought to deny public education to illegal immigrant children. The majority argued that the children had little power over their legal status and that the state did not have a substantial enough interest in denying them an education. Note that this law, struck down as unconstitutional, dealt with children who were in the U.S. illegally-- the ballot initiative now proposed in California is aimed at U.S. citizens whose parents are here illegally.

The High Court has dealt with a number of cases dealing with citizen children of illegal immigrants. In John D. Guendelsberger's journal article "Access to Citizenship for Children Born within the State to Foreign Parents", published in 1992 in The American Journal for Comparative Law, the author lists a number of cases in which the Supreme Court has "explicitly recognized the citizenship of children born to undocumented aliens". The list includes Doe v. Miller, Banks v. INS, Enciso-Cardozo v. INS, Acosta v. Gaffney, Perdido v. INS, Mendez v. Major, Lee v. INS, Cervantes v. INS, and Gonzalez-Cuevas v. INS.

This is a terrible, terrible initiative, which means it probably has a decent chance of passing in California. I'd like to point out a few issues I have with the website of the supporting organization, The California Taxpayer Protection Act.

1. There is a quote from a Sacramento Bee article by David Whitney that is rather inane in context. The website cites one of the article's early lines: "Although Congress has never passed a law saying so, no president has ever ordered it, and no court has ever ruled on the issue, each of these babies automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when it takes its first breath." This is something of a red herring; the 14th Amendment is rather clear in its statement that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Of course no presidential executive order or act of Congress has mandated birthright citizenship-- it's rather explicit in the Constitution. An act of Congress isn't needed to affirm one's right to a jury of one's peers, either. This is just disingenuous.

2. Numbers, numbers. The website also states that 32% of illegal immigrants collect welfare. I'm not sure what time frame this is, or where the figures came from (since there are no footnotes explaining sources), but a quick search yielded a figure close to that-- 34%-- but that was from the 1990's, and published by the Heritage Foundation. A more recent number (from 2001, published in a Center for Immigration Studies report), has a considerably lower figure of 23%. Moreover, most of the money spent on illegal immigrants is in the form of Medicaid, not in direct cash payouts.

3. Ted Hilton, Constitutional Scholar. The website claims that Ted Hilton, one of the authors and supporters of this alarming piece of proposed legislation is "a scholar of Constitutional Law, and over the last 17 years has researched the 14th Amendment's original intent, the debates written in the Congressional Globe, along with the study of numerous United States Supreme Court citizenship and jurisdiction cases". For one to claim she or he is scholar, a requisite list of published articles in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals should be offered. The site only lists a few op-ed columns. A cursory JSTOR and Lexis-Nexis search yielded no articles by purported scholar Ted Hilton. I could say that I was a brain surgeon, but that doesn't make it true.

4. Under section marked "Facts", the site notes that "90% of illegal migrants lack non-government medical insurance. One third of the estimated 10 million uninsured children are Latino." This is a bit of trickery, of the apples-to-oranges variety. They set up the expectation of talking about illegal immigrants with the first sentence, and then switch and talk about Latino children in general-- not specifically Latino children who are here illegally. This creates the idea that there are 10 million illegal immigrant children without non-government healthcare, which isn't true. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated California's illegal immigrant population in 2005 to be just over 2.5 million-- that's the TOTAL illegal immigrant population, not just children. The conflation of Latino/immigrant/illegal immigrant is at best, disingenuous, and at worst, a racially-motivated and calculated manipulation of available data.

5. Fear-mongering, as exemplified by the following statement: "Women from nations all around the world, even terrorist sympathizers, can take advantage of the "birth tourism industry" at taxpayer expense and the refusal of Congress to correctly define the jurisdiction clause" (emphasis mine). What a strategy! All those Guatemalan Taliban having children in the U.S., so that 16 - 20 years later these children can be terrorists in the U.S.! Brilliant.

6. The worst bit of semantic trickery comes from the following statement: "Most Californians do not know this, and the Democrat controlled Legislature is not going to tell them: Illegal aliens are paid 18 years of welfare checks for the anchor child in a child-only Cal-WORKS case, while federal regulation allows a five year maximum for citizens." The implication of this statement is heinously false. First of all, illegal immigrants do not receive welfare benefits. If their children are U.S. citizens, the children receive public assistance (which is of course, entrusted to their parents, since most toddlers don't have checking accounts). These U.S. citizen children are entitled to welfare, should they need it, for 18 years. The federal regulation that stipulates a five year maximum is for adults, not children. All children in the U.S. who are citizens are entitled to 18 years of public assistance if they need it. Period. That is a fact, and this organization's website is polluting the public discourse with disingenuous innuendo and semantic gamesmanship.

That this proposition has support from sitting members of the Congress is shameful. Representatives Dana Rohrbacher [(R) - Huntington Beach] and Brian Bilbray [(R) - Solana Beach] should be completely appalled to be linked with an organization whose willful manipulation of the facts is so obvious and blatant. I expect members of Congress, even those with whom I disagree, to exercise due diligence and intellectual honesty before supporting organizations that intentionally blur the facts of an important debate. Shame on you both.

The Best Broadcasting Strategy: Don't Let Tim McCarver Talk (Or, "Quite Possibly the Stupidest Thing to Live-Blog Ever")

When he asked who the one hitter who would matter most in the All-Star game tonight would be, it was probably for the better that Joe Buck answered his own question by saying "Albert Pujols." No doubt, McCarver just would have said, "Derek Jeter."

Depending on how idiotic Buck-McCarver sound, this may or may not be a live-blog of the All-Star game (or the commentary)...

(8:51) McCarver actually heaps praise on Ichiro first, and damn if I don't agree - I can't think of anybody who's better at working an 0-2 pitch, either.

(8:52) ...aaaaannnddd there's Buck with the first fellation of Jeter, countering McCarver (!) by suggesting Jeter's better with an 0-2 count.

(8:54) Jeter hit on the hand. It would have hurt if MLB weren't weak and allowed players to wear roughly 17 inches of bionic material on their arms.

Amazing that an entire Jeter at-bat, McCarver said nothing about his favorite player ever. Has the real Tim McCarver been kidnapped, substituted by a clone?

(8:56) The only thing worse than watching Teixeira get an RBI is watching Pujols flub it. I like Mark Teixeira better in April...

Jeter scores; AL up 1-0. The most remarkable thing - still not a peep out of McCarver not just about Jeter, but about the Yankees. Seriously, who is this guy impersonating Tim McCarver? He really hasn't done his homework on a McCarver impersonation.

(8:58) and since this is already an exercise in time-wasting and stupid commentary, let me just say that the St. Louis outfield's grass-cutting is pretty cool - they've cut a giant arch in there, with the design of the courthouse below (on the fringe of the infield). Though that raises an interesting question - yes, it's a landmark, but is it really a good idea to remind people where the Dred Scott decision was originally made? "St. Louis - baseball, the arch, and helping the U.S. get closer to civil war!"

(9:02) Here comes the NL to bat now, already down 2-0. Yadier Molina is batting 8th. I love All-Star game starting catchers. Advantage: AL.

(9:05) Buck threatens to talk to Ken Rosenthal about Roy Halladay's situation "later tonight." I can hardly wait.

(9:06) Buck and McCarver both saying Pujols is the best player in the game. The McCarver-impersonator shows he's catching up a bit, saying "It was A-Rod. Now it's Pujols."

(9:07) And the NL goes quietly. I'm sure it was nearly fun reading that live-blogging as it was to write it. That said, dissertation writing is calling, and I can't even trick myself into thinking this is a useful way to spend my time. If anything especially noteworthy (or snark-worthy) happens, maybe I'll say something.

Now, back to productivity.....*sigh*....

(9:12) OK, productivity after this question - does anybody talk more slowly than Ken Rosenthal? He's almost as hard to listen to as he is to read.

(9:17) Ah, screw it. Obama's in the booth now. This is the smartest the Fox broadcasting booth has sounded in years....

...until Joe Buck asks Obama if coming to St. Louis is a nice rest from traveling to Russia and Ghana.

(9:22) Obama just referred to Jimmie Rollins, Ryan Howard, and the defending-champion and first-place Philadelphia Phillies as "scrappy." Is he finding new ways to subvert notions of race in America?

(9:38) Jeter jumps to get a throw to first for the third out of the bottom of the 3rd inning. That's not so surprising. What is surprising? He was running towards first base, and still had to jump. But he's the greatest shortstop ever!!!

(9:50) Kansas City's Zack Greinke pitching now. This, of course means that a Royal has appeared before a Cleveland Indian. It's been that kind of year for Cleveland. Fortunately, I saw this coming back in April....

(9:58) In discussing Carl Crawford's speed (and strangely comparing him to Lou Brock), Joe Buck responds to McCarver's praise of Crawford's speed by saying, "Imagine how much faster he'd be if he just pulled his pants up!" Hahahaha! Fogeyism with a faint whiff of racism ("why do all these African-Americans wear their pants so low?")! Awesome!

(9:59) And in the "most useless trivia ever [ALL categories]", Buck tells us that Derek Jeter cried when Chris Webber called timeout in the 1993 NCAA championship. Jeter a Michigan Wolverines fan - nothing could surprise me less.

(10:45) Victor Martinez substituted for Joe Mauer in the 6th inning, and the Indians are represented! And he bats now in the 8th, with Curtis Granderson on 3rd and one out, and they opt to walk Martinez in hopes of the double-play. Everybody fears the Cleveland offensive threat.

(11:30) AL wins 4-3, marking the 13th straight year that the NL has not won. Obviously, it was Victor Martinez's brilliant calls from behind the plate that allowed the AL to maintain its tie and lead, and without him, the AL would have certainly lost the game. I don't know who else could possibly have been MVP, though no doubt, the standard anti-Great Lakes bias will come out, and it will probably go to some East-Coast elite (yep - sure, the catch was great, but Martinez called that pitch!). And this year, the game was remarkably short - just two and a half hours (only an hour and fifty minutes longer than the pre-game show). So the AL will host home-field again in the World Series, which will probably continue to be as meaningless as it has been since this rule was initiated. But, as somebody who doesn't get cable and who lives in a city where nearly all the games are blacked out, it was good to see baseball, even with Buck displaying his usual idiocy and McCarver being strangely restrained.

Public Enemies - An Alternate View

Compared to Sarah, I really enjoyed the movie. That said, I think that, while I may not agree with all of her points, many of her complaints are fair. Though it didn't strike me at the time, I think her characterization of Bale's character is accurate. The love story is as "meh" as you could expect (never Michael Mann's forte), and you don't walk out with any particularly strong emotional ties to any of the characters. The movie is also definitely as much about now as the 1930s, not just in terms of heavy-handed interrogation techniques, but also in terms of the economy (people celebrating Dillinger for attacking the banks that had gotten them in the mess isn't so far from people celebrating things like Madoff's arrest or anger at AGI). I also enjoy many Michael Mann films, and admitted as we left (when some who saw it with me were underwhelmed) that you know what you're getting with him generally, and you know whether you like it or not.

However, there are a couple of things I think that make it better than Sarah felt it was. First, the one acting job that really stuck out for me was Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover. It wasn't just that he got the speech mannerisms dead on. I really felt that he did an excellent job in showing what a power-hungry and manipulative leader he was, and he did as much with his characterization through body language (particularly in the way he bristles when being accused before a Senate committee of having never arrested anybody) as he did when he spoke.

I also really liked the scenery - yes, it was period pieces, but the way Mann used the environment/lighting/framing to shift the mood of the film overall was excellentl. There's a constant sense of growing ambiguity/darkness as the film shifts from the the big, blue, sunny sky of the Indiana plains at the beginning, and then used those aforementioned elements to make the movie darker and darker as time passed. And the gun battles were amazingly choreographed and shot (no pun intended), marking Mann's best work since Heat. The battle at the lodge was particularly impressive, and was hands-down the best I've seen since the showdown at the end of L.A. Confidential.

The other thing that I think makes this a really notable movie is that it's the first live-action movie filmed digitally where I could actually see some of the potential for that method of filming. Previous digital movies (Benjamin Button, I'm looking at you) left me saying, "what's the big deal?" It's like directors haven't figured out what to do with it yet, or how to take advantage of the format. With Public Enemies, you finally start to get a sense of what digital formatting offers. The film had a clarity and beauty that other films lacked (though the prison against the open sky in the opening sequence is a fairly breath-taking shot). The night-time scenes were the best evidence of digital's potential, though, as Mann was able to make nighttime look more brilliant (without appearing falsely illuminated) than any movie I've ever seen. It wasn't so much a matter of camera angles or lighting tricks (though no doubt those entered into the equation some) - it was clear that the digital format just made for better filming for those scenes, and they have a beauty unlike any beforehand (though to be clear, that doesn't mean they are the most beautiful night-time scenes).

I suspect general opinions about the movie will come down to the differences that Sarah and I have over it. If you're looking for a great story, compelling characters, or a convincing love-story, you're going to be underwhelmed. If you enjoy Michael Mann movies for what they are (and if you don't, there's nothing wrong with you), and can appreciate the way in which somebody seems to finally be figuring out how to use the digital format for a more brilliant and beautiful film, then you will probably highly enjoy it.

Public Enemies

I had heard mixed reviews, so wasn't expecting anything great from Public Enemies. I like--don't love--Michael Mann movies, but I do love Johnny Depp, so I gave it a shot.

I can't say that I hate it, but I can say that it is the least substantial, least subtle movie I've seen in a while--and that might even include Twilight.

Starring Johnny Depp as John Dillinger, packed with excellent actors and helmed by a skilled director, Public Enemies should've been a glorious gangster romp. Or it could've been a sober, thoughtful story about crime and the Depression and right and wrong. But aside from a few scenes of overzealous police officers abusing Dillinger associates in hopes of information that were clearly, heavy-handedly meant as metaphors for our current torture debate, the movie is nothing but a series of somewhat repetitive set pieces, bank heists that are nothing but some stylized movements and entirely too much gunfire, and a love story that has exactly zero tension.

There's some chemistry between Depp and Marion Cotillard (as Billie Freshette), but from the minute they meet, Dillinger is telling Freshette that she's going to fall for him and she gets precious little choice. She walks out on him when he tells her to wait once, and gets petulant one other time, but other than that, the absolute lack of any development to their relationship makes an ending that I'm sure the screenwriter thought was fraught with emotion fall flatter than roadkill.

Indeed, there's really no tension in this movie whatsoever. You know from the start how it ends, and there's no indication ever that Dillinger might give up robbing banks, or that he has any qualms about it. Sadly, there are plenty of points that could've been made--the contrast of Dillinger with the uber-violent Baby Face Nelson, perhaps, or more interaction between him and Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis, the stone-faced cop whose entrance in Naziesque knee boots and slicked hair was certainly intentional.

Bale has two emotions in this movie: dead-faced calm and a sudden, confident smirk. The space between them is so huge, particularly because his calm doesn't play as thoughtful, but rather just as blank. He's largely wasted in the role, where at least Depp gets to vamp a bit and to let a little bit of the Jack Sparrow joy show through. Billy Crudup makes an unexpected appearance as a perfectly creepy J.Edgar Hoover, and I would've loved to see more of him, but like most of the cast he was introduced and then forgotten much too quickly.

Characters die with absolutely zero emotion either because you're given no chance to care about them (most of them) or because it's so heavily foreshadowed that you've already written them off by the time they bite the dust. (Sample "Sometimes you just know it's your time, and it's my time." Next scene he's bleeding out in the back of a car. Shocking, that.)

Unlike some critics, I like the digital video the film was shot on, enjoy the grainy feel of it. Mann and his cinematographer Dante Spinotti do some absolutely gorgeous things with the camera in this movie, and it's disappointing that the story doesn't live up to the scenery, so to speak.

Public Enemies isn't about anything, which on its own is fine--I'm all for popcorn movies and would've loved nothing more than a gangster version of Pirates of the Caribbean, with Depp throwing himself into Dillinger the way he did Jack Sparrow and his supporting cast feeding off his frenetic energy to lift a movie way above its source material. Conversely, the economic situation right now is absolutely ripe for Depression-era comparisons, and the movie completely fails to make a single connection aside from the aforementioned torture.

I didn't see Miami Vice, but the feeling I get from Public Enemies was the same slick, soulless one I pictured from the Vice ads, with pretty people posing against pretty scenery. That's not to say it's unwatchable, just that I'm disappointed because I keep comparing it to the movie it could've been.

To John Cornyn et al in re: Sonia Sotomayor

Dear Senate Republicans,

I understand that you have your own reasons as to why they wouldn't want your confirmation to go smoothly. However, given recent history, you really have no room to express concern over whether Sonia Sotomayor would "uphold the constitution" or not. Please just stick to your racist talking points instead.

Signed,
Mr. Trend

PS: Thank you, Tom Coburn, for sticking to the crazily-ignorant talking points, and making Cornyn look a little (but just a little) more sane.

Haiti, the Repressive Tactics of Brazil's Military, and the U.N.'s Dubious Cover-Up of Violence

In June, Haitian Father Gerard Jean-Juste, a Catholic priest, ally of Jean Bertrand Aristide, and participant in the Lavalas movement in Haiti, died in Florida. On June 18, his funeral service was held in Haiti, and thousands of supporters gathered to pay their last regards to one of their movement's leaders. However, the funeral ended ugly, as UN troops opened fire at the gathering, and one man was left dead. The UN insisted at the time that troops had fired into the air, and that they fired only when they were "apparently attacked by stone-throwing demonstrators from different parts of the town center." Of course, the story didn't make much news in the U.S., which couldn't care about Haiti less if it tried. It also remained generally unreported in Brazil, which has an actual stake in the events. Why? Because Brazilian troops are the main forces serving as the U.N.'s "peacekeeping" forces in Haiti, in what is one of the largest mobilizations of Brazil's military since the military dictatorship of 1964-1985. This is no small source of pride for the military, its supporters, and various "nationalists" in Brazil, who point to the important role they are playing in the international diplomatic community, and how the military that just 24 years ago ended its repressive regime is now helping maintain peace and "bring democracy" around the world.

However, the killing and violence at Jean-Juste's funeral betrays that vision, as well as the U.N.'s version of the story, as reports are now coming out that the Brazilian troops fired into the crowd and not into the air, and the U.N. is trying to cover up the incident. Despite the U.N.'s and Brazilian general Floriano Peixoto's insistence that the troops only fired into the air, there is video evidence showing troops firing towards the crowd as well. What is more, the U.N.'s and Peixoto's defenses are more than a little suspect. Peixoto was quoted immediately afterwards as saying he did "not believe... that the soldiers fired on the people with live ammunition...I'm convinced that this did not happen." That's not exactly an overwhelming case there, and the complete lack of any evidence that he himself could cite (beyond his "belief" and "conviction") doesn't mean that the troops didn't fire into the crowd. And the U.N.'s reliance upon "unspecified preliminary information" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the innocence of the Brazilian troops, either - it's "preliminary" for a reason, and when more detailed evidence (like an autopsy) shows that bullets, not rocks, killed the individual, you shouldn't try to ignore the report. Not if you're responsible for "peacekeeping."

While some (and to be clear, far from all) Brazilians point to the way in which the military has reformed in the last 25 years, this case reminds us how little the military has changed. Indeed, these tactics of firing into crowds to "keep the peace" are nothing new within the Brazilian military. They actually marked the policy and treatment of protests during the 1960s, culminating in the deaths of individuals like high school student Edson Luis de Lima Souto and leading to the Brazilian dictatorship's most repressive phase. And these tactics were and are not limited to the military dictatorship. Firing indiscriminately into crowds is common among the military police when they invade favelas, and the failure of Brazil's government, media, or society to question these tactics has only reinforced the impunity of the military in its treatment. For all of these reasons, the military's response in Haiti on June 18th is not surprising, nor is it the only case in which Brazil's military has dealt with its "peacekeeping" mission with less-than-peaceful tactics.

All of this matters for several reasons. First and foremost, there is the fact htat nobody seems to care about the situation in Haiti, and the U.N.'s dubious approach to its mission there. It's hard to explain how firing into crowds at a funeral is "peacekeeping." The fact that there had been protests for a higher minimum wage over the previous two weeks is not a defense; indeed, in one of the poorest countries in the world, you would think people might want to address that issue with constructive policy formulation, rather than "peacekeeping." Then there is the issue of the U.N. effectively trying to cover up the incident of June 18. I'm far from a believer that the U.N. can only help, but this effort is ridiculous. There seems to be no direction in the Haitian mission, no constructive path that the U.N. is offering, and that's depressing, given that the U.N.'s alleged objectives as an organization. Finally, there is the issue also matters in terms of the tactics and direction of the Brazilian military. Certain sectors of the civil and military society in Brazil have insisted that things have changed since the dictatorship. Yet to this day, the military employs the same repressive and brutal tactics that it employed during the dictatorship, be it in the favelas or in Haiti, revealing just how little has changed over the last 45 years. And the fact that no Brazilian politicians, including Lula, are questioning the military on this is grim but not surprising.

Thus, the events of June 18 were certainly tragic, but their impact is not limited to that day alone. The problems extend beyond the funeral of a man, the death of another, or the repression of a political group in Haiti, and include the continuation of repressive tactics within Brazil's military institutions and questionable actions and explanations on the part of the U.N. itself. It would be good for others in Brazilian politics, the military, and the international community to call out the U.N. and the Brazilian troops for the actions not just of June 18th, but for the entire "peacekeeping" mission and its apparent lack of direction. But that would require people to pay attention to and care about Haiti and Haitians, and unfortunately that just isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Michael Jackson Related Thought of the Day

Sarah J and I were talking the other night about how long we can keep this thread going. This may be the last thing I have to say, but we'll see.

At any rate, I've been a fierce (unironic) defender of Michael Jackson's music for years. That said, there isn't a single one of his albums that I think is amazing from start to finish. Even Thriller has songs I could do without. The man knew how to craft a single, no question, but his "start-to-finish-great-album" skills are greatly overestimated.

Monica Seles Inducted to Tennis Hall of Fame

As a kid, I was an avid tennis fan, playing regularly, taking lessons, and watching any match I could. I reveled in the Grand Slam season, when I could see highlights on Sportscenter. Men's tennis, women's tennis, it didn't matter - I loved watching and playing the sport, and often think how nice it would be to pick it up again. I had lots of players I admired. While I remember the tail end of McEnroe's and Connors' and Evret's careers, the players that most stick in my head growing up were Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Andre Agassi, and, a little later, Pete Sampras (though names like Mats Wilander, Goran Ivanisovic, Boris Becker, and Gaby Sabbatini still remain in my head, even while I struggle to remember the names of Brazilian presidents). While I admired Graf's game, I was a hard-core Seles partisan. It seemed like Seles and Graf were always meeting up, and while I never hated Graf (or blamed her for the man who stabbed Seles and effectively ended the best part of her career and took a decent portion of her potential with it), I never rooted for her either. I loved Seles's aggression on the court and the ferocity with which she played. While people like Evert and Navratilova and Sabbatini were remarkable players, Seles seemed like something new, a powerful new force in women's tennis, and I loved watching her game. Sure, a bit of a crush entered into the picture, too, but it was always first and foremost about how she played; I rejoiced in her 8 grand slams at such a young age. I was devastated when she was stabbed, jubilant when she returned, and saddened when she retired, with the effects of the stabbing becoming increasingly clear as time had passed.

For all of these reasons, it brought me great joy to learn that, yesterday, Monica Seles was inducted into the Tennis Hall of Fame. It's an obvious choice - youngest Grand Slam champion ever (17), and she won 9 Grand Slams total even with two and a half years lost to the assault of a madman. And I was glad to see ESPN not only interview her, but discuss the challenges she faced, not just in terms of playing and recovering (physically and psychologically) from the stabbing, but the way tennis was increasingly emphasizing women's appearance on the courts as she was entereing the end of her career. This trend is extremely disturbing - one just has to type in names like "Maria Sharapova" or "Ana Ivanovic" or "Jelena Jelinek" in YouTube to see how much objectification is going on here, and how many videos you have to scroll through before you could see actual tennis clips. The issue about gender, appearance, and tennis is well-taken (if you think it's ridiculous, just see Jason Whitlock's idiocy on Serena Williams, which are excessively wrong-headed, contrarian, and blowhard, even by his standards of stupidity, and Renee Martin's excellent rejoinder).

However, I'm more than a little bothered that, by the end of the video, the interview can't help but let some of that objectifiation of women creep back in, particularly when saying she had "shed the weight and kept if off." Seles may have been unhappy with her body and health, but she wasn't fat ever, and while it may be unintentional, that little passage towards the end (including the bit where it shows her for Dancing with the Stars) still emphasizes her physical appearance - it's just emphasizing her weight, rather than the more vague "beauty". To be fair, this is but a small part of the video, and one that accompanies the far more important (and useful) message that not eating all kinds of garbage and learning to reconcile your emotional, physical, and psychological problems with your eating habits is important.

Still, at the end of the day, I'm really happy that she was recognized yesterday for her achievements, and that she's apparently learned to be happy with herself. And in terms of tennis, she'll always be one of the greatest ever, not necessarily in terms of slams won or overall victories, but in terms of sheer athleticism and impact on the sport, which (I feel) is still underrated and cannot be overstated. Without Monica Seles and her fierce, strong game, the games of Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams, Jelena Jankovic, Dinara Safina, and other women would look radically different. And it's all because of Monica Seles. Congratulations.

There Are No "Cracks" in Global Opposition to the Honduran Coup; There Are Only Anti-Democracy Republicans in Congress

The New York Times has a story up about the lack of progress in the Honduran talks between Micheletti and Zelaya, which Arias is mediating. It's clear that neither side wants to give an inch, and while things may improve, time is probably on Micheletti's side. The report also suggests that there are "cracks emerging in the group of countries demanding the return of the ousted president." It's evidence of these "cracks?" Congressional Republicans are in favor of the coup, and Hugo Chavez thinks Arias is erring in treating Micheletti as an equal to Zelaya.


So basically, it takes a random quotation from Chavez on diplomacy (an area that isn't exactly Chavez's strength), and Republican support for the coup, to suggest there are "cracks" in the coalition of countries against the coup?


Hardly.


The Times is clearly trying (and failing) to make something out of nothing here. I really don't know why they reported this - the story about the progress (and lack thereof) and obstacles facing Arias's talks was fine, and stood on its own. It didn't need these ridiculous insinuations that Republicans using the Honduran incident for partisan purposes plus a quotation from Chavez (who has nothing to do with the negotiations, and whose quotation is fairly mild by his own standards) to imply that support globally is falling appart. And it's not like this "breaking news" that Republicans are coming out in favor of the coup is sudden. Even before last week's congressional caucus supporting the coup formed, Republicans had been commenting since the coup in June that they supported the coup and were anti-Zelaya due to his leftist allegiances and so-called "authoritarian" tendencies (which is a rather off from the reality of things).


As is often the case, though, the Times authors (liberal media indeed) do not seem to care about such minor points. Instead, the report takes a congressional caucus designed to play the worst kind of partisan politics and to turn back to an obviously-outdated Cold War mentality in order to gain points, and conflates it to a sign of "cracks" emerging in the global opposition to the coup, when nothing of the sort has happened.


And then the Times wonders why subscriptions are down.

What did Portland Do to the World?

The poor Trailblazers. They spent all those years in the wake of the '92 Finals famous as the "Jailblazers." They finally clean out the front office, and get rid of all those terrible players with awful off-the-court records, and for what? So they can become the Portland Ail-Blazers? I mean, first this, and now this. And all this after years of languishing thanks to trades for people like Shawn Kemp and Darius Miles and the like, and now that they're finally getting a good youth movement, and people keep getting hurt. I mean, seriously - did the Blazers ownership build the Rose Garden on an ancient Indian burial ground, or shoot a bunch of puppies or something? Sheesh...

Facial Hair of the Weekend

For facial hair aficionados, I give you the 2008 Beard and Moustach championships. There are so many excellent parts: the music; the rules; the rules explained in German. But most of all, there's the facial hair.

Michael Jackson-related thought of the day

Since Trend and Erik have done them already, I'm submitting my Michael Jackson-related thought.

Well, really I've had lots of them. But a few of them I spun into an essay on pop and populism for Global Comment, because I'm just a nerd like that. So here: my Michael Jackson related thought.

Which came first, really? Nixon’s “Silent Majority” and the retreat of a real solid progressive movement leading to the Reagan Revolution and faux-populism used to convince people to vote to give their money to the rich, or a fragmenting media culture that killed off the chance for a true mass bond?

It is no accident that the last real pop superstar, Michael Jackson, hit the apex of his popularity in the Reagan years. There was at least an idea of a mass consensus in this country, even though no one really could’ve defined what that consensus was, and yet while we had a white man in office slowly hacking away at the rights of people of color, women, gays and lesbians, and anyone who didn’t fit into a nuclear-family, gender-binary, reactionary ideal of an America that never really existed, our number one superstar was a man celebrated and loved not in spite of his fluid sexuality, racial ambiguity, and androgyny, but because of it.

Michael Jackson: pop superstar, appealing to men and women, old and young, and subversive as hell.

If you want to read the rest, in which I bring in LBJ, leftist elitism, Barack Obama as celebrity, and quote Ellen Willis, it's all here.

Did the Bush Administration Look the Other Way on War Crimes in Afghanistan?

That the U.S. may have worked with and supported a war criminal in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 does not surprise me, but that doesn't render this story any less depressing:

After a mass killing of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Taliban prisoners of war by the forces of an American-backed warlord during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, Bush administration officials repeatedly discouraged efforts to investigate the episode, according to government officials and human rights organizations.

American officials had been reluctant to pursue an investigation — sought by officials from the F.B.I., the State Department, the Red Cross and human rights groups — because the warlord, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, was on the payroll of the C.I.A. and his militia worked closely with United States Special Forces in 2001, several officials said. They said the United States also worried about undermining the American-supported government of President Hamid Karzai, in which General Dostum had served as a defense official.

Dostum is accused of having overseen the murders of hundreds and perhaps thousands of Taliban prisoner of war deaths. The report mentions FBI documents from 2003 in which detainees back up the allegations of being crammed into overstuffed containers and left to die or being shot. Dostum himself admits that there were around 200 under his watch, but that they were due to "combat wounds and disease." And satellite pictures and human rights groups have uncovered evidence of a massive grave in the area.

All of this combines to paint a grim picture of the actions of a man the U.S. openly supported during the Bush administration. Which of course brings the question around to Bush officials: if the administration was paying and openly supporting a war criminal, and if that war criminal gets convicted, could Bush officials be more likely to face charges? Of course, the landscape of this case could change, but right now, it doesn't seem like Bush or Cheney are directly tied to Dostum. Even if the administration announced its diplomatic support for a war criminal, that (unfortunately) doesn't translate into being charged as a criminal oneself, as the U.S. has proven time and again in the second half of the 20th century.

But things get a bit chippier once we get into the Department of Defense, under Rumsfeld at the time.

In 2002, Physicians for Human Rights asked Defense Department officials to open an investigation and provide security for its forensics team to conduct a more thorough examination of the gravesite. “We met with blanket denials from the Pentagon,” recalls Jennifer Leaning, a board member with the group. “They said nothing happened.”

Pentagon spokesmen have said that the United States Central Command conducted an “informal inquiry,” asking Special Forces personnel members who worked with General Dostum if they knew of a mass killing by his forces. When they said they did not, the inquiry went no further.

“I did get the sense that there was little appetite for this matter within parts of D.O.D.,” said Marshall Billingslea, former acting assistant defense secretary for special operations, referring to the Department of Defense.

I admit openly that I don't know enough of the details of international law to fully know what constitutes a "cover-up" of a known war crime, but this does seem to be pushing the envelope of the definition of a "cover-up." Blanket denials to investigate the matter independently and taking at face value the word of people who worked together with the alleged war criminal in order to close the investigation look suspect, to put it lightly. What role, if any, Donald Rumsfeld may have had in this is unclear for now, but one can't help but think he knew something, given that one of his deputy secretaries, Paul Wolfowitz, was more than aware of the problems:

Another former defense official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity, recalled that the prisoner deaths came up in a conversation with Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense at the time, in early 2003.

“Somebody mentioned Dostum and the story about the containers and the possibility that this was a war crime,” the official said. “And Wolfowitz said we are not going to be going after him for that.”

In an interview, Mr. Wolfowitz said he did not recall the conversation. However, Pentagon documents obtained by Physicians for Human Rights through a Freedom of Information Act request confirm that the issue was debated by Mr. Wolfowitz and other officials

Again, it's no surprise that Wolfowitz's stench would be attached to this particular case - he was actively involved in some of the darkest parts of the Bush administration's foreign policy. The documents confirmed by the FIA request indicate Wolfowitz knew exactly what had happened and what the allegations were, and was simply not interested in going after Dostum for the crimes. Given that position, plus the "blanket denials" the Pentagon issued, Wolfowitz comes out looking particularly bad. It seems to early to say if he looks "war criminal" bad, but if nothing else, he is attached to yet another despicable act of support for an open criminal, all in the name of furthering the Bush administration's misguided, inept, and downright destructive foreign policies.

Of course, if this case gains greater traction, the wingnut talking points are easy to predict: "It was a state of war! After 9/11! The Taliban was teh evil!" Many may agree with this, but it doesn't take away from a central tenet codified in such quaint documents like the Geneva conventions: "war criminals" of any stripe are tried and sentenced for their crimes in courts. They are not summarily executed, and they are certainly not thrown into overcrowded containers to slowly die (if they aren't shot) and then be dumped in a mass grave. What Dostum's men did, with or without his orders (and it would seem from the report that he was more than aware of those actions), constitutes a violation of the Geneva conventions and a war crime.

It's too soon to know where this will end up - probably at most with Dostum facing some level of ostracization, but not enough to be completely deprived of any power. I'd like to be proven wrong, but this doesn't seem like the kind of thing that will snowball a la the Pinochet case. And as for those in the administration who tied themselves, directly or indirectly, to this kind of war criminal, it will mark just one more file in the case that should be filed against the Bush Administration's own criminals, but never will be.

Michael Jackson-Related Thought of the Day

Many people suggest that disco died at the end of the 1970s, but this is untrue. Disco's final, dying breath happened in 1983, at the 10:15 mark in this video. After that, disco in its original form was never heard from again (mercifully).

Also, in the "is this really the first time we've used that tag?" category, I submit "disco."

Luis Arce Gomez, the "Minister of Cocaine," Sent to Bolivia to Serve Jail Time for Human Rights Violations

Bolivian Colonel Luis Arce Gomez, a military officer who helped bring about right-wing dictator Luis García Meza Tejada's 13-month repressive regime, has been deported to Bolivia, where he will face jail for human rights abuses after serving a jail-term for drug crimes in the U.S. Although barely lasting more than a year, the military killed more than 1000 Bolivians during García Meza's brief reign. Arce Gomez, now 71, can look forward to spending the rest of his life in jail as he begins a 30-year sentence for "human rights violations including genocide, armed uprising, constitutional violations, and murder." Gomez was so in favor of repressive measures and state-sponsored killings as the Secretary of the Interior during García Meza's regime that he notoriously claimed that Bolivians should "walk around with their written will under their arms." In addition to his human rights abuses, Arce Gomez was closely tied to drug cartels, ties that earned him the nickname "Minister of Cocaine," as well as the 17-year jail sentence he served in the United States. To understand just how repugnant the García Meza government was, one simply needs to know that even Ronald Reagan distanced himself from the Bolivian dictator, even while he cozied up to repressive regimes in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

Lillie has more.

Music Video of the Year

Offensive? Yep. Cheesy? Certainly. Ridiculous? No question. Still, for those of you waiting for a norteno cover of Cheap Trick's "I Want You to Want Me" sung in Spanish by Gael Garcia Bernal, well, your dreams have come true.

Blaming The Developing World

While I've breathed in my share of horrible emissions from gas-guzzling buses in the last few weeks, let's be honest, claiming that cleaner transportation systems in the developing world is going to be a major battle to stop climate change is ridiculous. This story deflects blame for climate change off the U.S. and other developed nations and onto Nicaragua, Indonesia, South Africa, and other poor nations. Certainly it's important to limit carbon emissions in developing nations, but it is far, far more important to limit those emissions in the U.S. itself. Reducing air travel, cutting back on SUVs, and finding alternative power sources to coal for U.S. domestic consumption would do so much more.

But it's a lot easier to blame other people.

Michael Jackson Related Thought of the Day

Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" is better than anything Michael Jackson ever sang.

Robert Reich's Pessimism

I share it completely. This, I fully believe, is the new, depressing economy.

Problem is, consumers won't start spending until they have money in their pockets and feel reasonably secure. But they don't have the money, and it's hard to see where it will come from. They can't borrow. Their homes are worth a fraction of what they were before, so say goodbye to home equity loans and refinancings. One out of ten home owners is under water -- owing more on their homes than their homes are worth. Unemployment continues to rise, and number of hours at work continues to drop. Those who can are saving. Those who can't are hunkering down, as they must.

Yep.

Around Latin America (Now With Suriname!)

-For all the talk about the (il)legality of Manuel Zelaya trying to get a vote on whether or not Honduras should have two-term presidencies or not, Colombia has fallen by the wayside a bit. Nonetheless, efforts to amend the Colombian constitution to allow Alvaro Uribe to run for a third term continue, and the issue continues to cause some civil-but-intense debate in Colombia. The Catholic Church in Colombia has finally come out strongly against a third consecutive term for Uribe (though it seems open to the possibility of Uribe leaving after two terms and returning for a third later). I find it interesting that people who are so outraged at Zelaya simply trying to get a vote on whether Honduras should have two terms (even if it doesn't include him) are for whatever reason very quiet on the situation in Colombia. I think Lula put it best: "One re-election is understandable but two is monarchy." (And you'd think that, with comments like that, the right in Brazil would stop freaking out about Lula trying for a third term, but they haven't.)

-It happened awhile ago, but I was unable to get to it due to travels and then hosting travelers. The Peruvian Congress overturned President Alan Garcia's decree that would have opened the Peruvian Amazon (including large portions of indigenous reserves) to logging, oil drilling, and the construction of dams. The congressional vote was an overwhelming repudiation of Garcia's move, garnering an 82-14 vote in favor of overtuning the decree. The decree led to protests from Peru's indigenous groups, protests that escalated to violence and the deaths of upwards of 30 people, and even racist charges from within Garcia's administration that the killed Indians were not "victims". Not surprisingly, these events have led to Garcia "enjoying" the lowest poll ratings of his administration and one of the lowest in the world, as only 21% of Peruvians had a "favorable opinion" of Garcia after the clashes and the congressional vote.

-Yesterday, I commented on prosecutors going after human rights abuses within the Military Police in Brazil. Gancho has a similar report for abuses within the Mexican military and the challenges in effecting reform institutionally.

-There is good news on human rights abuses in Argentina, though, as the highest criminal court ruled that Carlos Menem's disgraceful 1990 pardon of the junta leaders during Argentina's "Dirty War" (during which the military government murdered as many as 30,000 civilians) was unconstitutional, and that the life-sentences for Gen. Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Massera should stand.

-Speaking of Argentina: Buenos Aires is commonly tourists' (especially European tourists') favorite stops when they go to Latin America. Gringos love it for a number of reasons, and while I'm perhaps too harsh or general in my assessment, those reasons usually have to do with the fact that Buenos Aires is "European," and so it feels more "civilized" (and my charges against tourists aren't baseless: I've honestly heard Europeans (and, to a lesser extent, Americans) describe Buenos Aires as "just like home," "more civilized," "better-built," and "cleaner." Really). I also know some portenos who hate how much Buenos Aires has basically become a playground for European and American tourists, leading to skyrocketing prices that make many of the "finer" parts of Buenos Aires inaccessible to Argentines. Well, a recent study reveals the very ugly side of Buenos Aires, the side tourists don't see/look for: four million people in Buenos Aires live in poverty, with 1.2 million classified as "indigent." Buenos Aires is a complicated place, and there are legitimate reasons to enjoy it and to dislike it. However, I've never seen anywhere that so successfully tried to conceal its racism and poverty so strongly while catering to Europeans. It's definitely one of the most disgusting aspects both of the global tourism industry (including the tourists) and of Buenos Aires itself.

-Just north of Argentina, there is an interesting effort in Brazil to create a second state-owned oil company. The proposed company, Petrosal, would "manage sub-salt oil assets," while Petrobras remained focused more on regular petroleum deposits, supply and demand, and regulation. I don't know if it would radically alter the structure or functioning of Brazil's largest state-owned company, but it is an interesting proposal as much from an infrastructural and developmental standpoint as from an economic standpoint.

-Also in regards to Brazil: in one of the fascinating vagaries of the globalized world, Indian companies are looking to outsource some of their IT centers to Brazil. Who knows - maybe down the line, tech calls for computer help will involve a Brazilian accent.

-I've written before about lawsuits involving banana companies and workers in Latin America before. While it's practically history now (it happened back in 2007), Suriname entered the fray, as former workers who lost their jobs in 2002 when the state-owned banana company Surland closed filed a lawsuit against Suriname's government, alleging they were underpaid on their back-wages. The lawsuit also alleged that the government (which restarted banana production in 2004) was firing employees who are trying to organize a union in the industry. I have no idea how this turned out. But we need more news from Suriname. (Seriously).

-Finally, a belated R.I.P. for Hortensia Bussi, the widow of Salvador Allende, who passed away on June 18 at the age of 94. Far from being a quiet victim, Ms. Bussi had been heavily involved in social justice before Allende's 1970 election, and continued fighting for human rights and social aid after his death.

Another Faint but Encouraging Effort to Rein In Police Violence in the Favelas in Rio de Janeiro

This week, prosecutors in Rio de Janeiro have charged 30 police officers with executing young men in the favelas in "death squad"-style murders, and have asked that the officers be imprisoned.

The state prosecutors' office said it had examined the deaths of 20 people in the Brazilian city between 2007 and 2008 and found strong evidence that many were executed. Police said the victims had resisted arrest.
The majority of the victims, all between 14 and 29 years old, were killed at close range or with bullets in their backs and only two of them had criminal records, the office said.
"This is activity typical of a death squad, shown by the technical evidence which disproves the police version that there was a confrontation," prosecutor Alexandre Thermistocles said in a statement.

I don't know that these officers will actually end up in prison. "Justice" in Brazil is....fickle, to put it politely, and it strikes me as unlikely that there will be a speedy resolution to these charges. Honestly, I expect the police to be let off relatively lightly, if not completely free. After all, it's not like these kinds of killings have not been going on for years, and it's not like they don't enjoy the popular support of many civilians in Rio. Indeed, the fact that the woman who condemns the police for killing people and saying after the fact that the victims were just "bandidos" doesn't want to be named "for fear of retaliation" makes clear that the police can and do still act with relative impunity in the favelas.

That said, the fact that the prosecutors are charging police with these murders is a faint glimmer of optimism. Just a few years ago, charges would never have been brought forth, and the police's version that people with bullets in their backs (often from close range) were "bandits" who were "firing back" would have been blindly accepted by most people. And this isn't the first time that these charges have been made publicly against police. So in the sense that at least these charges are being made publicly and be legal authorities, I'm encouraged. But only slightly. Until these charges lead to real prison time for the murderers in the police force; until the police cannot act with impunity in the favelas; and until there is a major overhaul in the justice system and the treatment of favelados in Rio, things will remain unsatisfactory, and human rights abuses within the favelas will continue.

Negotiating an End to the Presidential Crisis in Honduras (with Bonus Humor, Unintentional and Intentional)

Ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya and his replacement, Roberto Micheletti, have both agreed to negotiate an end to the presidential crisis since Zelaya's ouster via a military-led coup a few weeks ago. This is really important, simply because things are as ugly as they can be now, between the OAS's decision on Honduras, the growing violence, and the generally-overlooked divisions within the basic functioning organs of the Honduran state that the coup has caused. My skepticism over the outcome (due in no small part to Micheletti's intransigence) is tempered by the fact that Costa Rican president (and Nobel Peace Prize winner) Oscar Arias will do the mediating. Arias won the Peace prize in 1987 for negotiating an end to the conflicts in Central America in the 1980s, and began working towards a negotiation between Zelaya and Micheletti last week. If there's a statesperson who has the legitimacy and the skill to deal with this situation, it's Arias.

In more Honduras-related news, Greg (who has been excellent in his coverage and analysis of this whole thing) has some comments on the Supreme Court's defense of the coup. As he points out once again (and as the Court itself fails to directly address), the vote that would have happened on June 28 would not have convened a Constitutional commission; it was to determine if a vote on whether to convene a commission should appear on the 2010 ballot. This has been one of the biggest weaknesses in the anti-Zelaya camp's defense: he wasn't creating a National Assembly. He was asking the Honduran populace to vote on whether they wanted to vote on convening an Assembly in 2010. There is nothing to guarantee that that 2010 vote would have resulted in a "yes" vote that would then convene the assembly - it could of course go down to failure. This is one of the major reasons why insistence that the Congress/Court/military had no other option than a military coup. Yes, they did: among other things, they could have let the vote go through on the 28th, and then spent the next year and a half mobilizing their resources and the population to work their hardest to bring the vote to a defeat next year. Regardless of whether they felt Zelaya's actions were legal or not, the coup was not the only solution here. (Though, in a possibly related story, the fact that 52.2% of Hondurans polled believe it's OK to break the law when fighting crime may be one cultural indicator as to why the support of the coup in Honduras has been so strong).

Greg also points out the hilarity of the Court's instruction to the military "to detain Zelaya because he was a threat to flee." Getting beyond the absurdity of the notion that Zelaya was about to abandon his post (because clearly, ever since the coup, he's shown he definitely does not want to be in Honduras), it's beyond ridiculous and risible to suggest that the only way to deter a president who wants to flee the country is to force him out of the country at gunpoint. That's some sound logic and problem-solving, there.

Finally, whatever one thinks of Zelaya, you have to admire the man's sense of humor:

“What have Latin American presidents learned from Honduras?” [Zelaya] asked Mrs. Clinton.
As the secretary shook her head, Mr. Zelaya smiled and said, “To sleep with our clothes on and our bags packed.”