Inconvenient Truths

A few weeks ago Mia Farrow wrote an open letter to Steven Spielberg asking him to speak out against the Chinese government for its support of Sudan. Turns out that Spielberg is a creative consultant for the Beijing Olympic Committee, made up in part by Chinese government officials, who officially have asked the U.N. to butt out of Darfur.

As a result of this, Mr. Spielberg did speak out, and weeks later, reports the Asia Times, "China is taking credit for its role in persuading the Sudanese government to accept an international peacekeeping force to stop the killings in Darfur and is determined to prevent further sanctions on a country in which it has massive investments."

Well la-dee-da.

China, as we all know, is nobody's friend. You know, once a snake always a snake? What strikes me about this news story is that someone as seemingly informed and sensitive as Steven Spielberg had to be shouted out publicly before he put one and one together regarding the dubious relationship between China and Sudan. Take Sudan out of the equation and you're still doing business with a dictatorship that still trades in intimidation and human rights violations.

But of course, the IOC (International Olympic Committee) isn't known for taking a stand against totalitarianism. Still, for leading "progressives" in our country to crawl into bed with China, even under the auspices of "art," is just disappointing. How weird that this story didn't get more play here in the States...if Elizabeth Hasselback from The View was working with the host committee of the Beijing games there'd be a mob outside ABC studios here in New York. Not that I'm a fan of Hasselback, I'm just calling out a blatant double standard.

Everybody Stay Put

By now the whole world is aware of the tragedy that has befallen the community at Virginia Tech. For all of us here in the States, it's a reminder that "safety" is really the space between one person's bad day and another person's good luck. But the bigger lesson here is one that's replayed in history for years, most recently in the post-9-11 era.

The concept of staying put is at the backbone of the current American psyche. An airplane crashes into one of the tallest buildings in the world yet people in the facing tower are told to resume work and ignore the flames and smoke just a few feet away from them. A war drags on for four years with no evidence of any stump to the global threat of terrorism and still a country "stays the course" for, um, freedom. For years people have been able to purchase semiautomatic weapons, even after Columbine and a slew of other school shootings, and still no one sees a reason to make it a little harder to obtain weapons.

The resolution of the American people - to live and breathe for work, to fight wars out of fear and greed, to bemoan senseless violence while sanctioning the vehicles that make mass murder possible - is a death pact.

What is it about Americans that makes us feel immortal? When did we lose our sense of vulnerability and instead stare down the prospect of imminent death with a smugness befitting thugs and animals? At Virginia Tech classes went on in spite of reports that a shooting had taken place at a dorm. Five years into the "war on terror" and our surveillance-happy society can't stop a rogue wacko from becoming the hot topic of the 24-hour infotainment networks.

Over the next few weeks the networks will pummel us with exclusive interviews, glimpses into the lives that were and then.... Legislators will bemoan the tragedy, some will call for gun control, others will evoke the 2nd Ammendment, everyone will tell us that we must go on.

Or, more simply, stay put.

Favor...

... if you've immigrated to the U.S. from a Latin American country, care to take James' survey? It's for a project he's working on for his MSW (Master's in Social Work -- I know, how liberal).

If you're interested and want more details on the project, click here. You have until Friday. Thanks!

Take THAT, Imus

From CNN: MSNBC has canceled its "Imus in the Morning" simulcast, the network announced Wednesday.
The decision comes after remarks deemed racist and sexist that radio talk-show host Don Imus made last week about the Rutgers University women's basketball team prompted a number of advertisers to drop the program. MSNBC will stop airing the program immediately.
***
Now, a lot of white people are going to cry foul here and say that Imus, who's gotten into loads of trouble in the past for his ignorant, lowest common denominator rantings, is a victim of our hypersensitive PC society.
Clearly, people just need to laugh a little more when the words "nappy-headed hos" are used to describe black women.

Or not.

And before someone out there throws the "pimps and hos are rampant in urban music" argument in my face, let me remind you that these are words used to describe pimps and hos, not educated women of color who happen to be athletes.

Imus' words are so laden with the vehement hostility toward the advancement of people of color that it's no wonder so many white people have come to his defense -- that's because many, many white people would like nothing more than to see minorities in their proper, invisible, place. Not running for President, not serving as Secretary of State, not crying "foul" when the government tries to criminalize groups who come to this country in search of a better life.

It's been said that Imus is an equal-opportunity offender, as if that's some sort of excuse for his nonsense brand of commentary. I realize that I'm a nobody blogger, but I'm called to task for every last comment I make on this site and I'm obligated to present facts, or my best interpretation of the facts, if I so dare to make a disparaging comment about anyone. A public figure like Imus deserves the scrutiny and the very public humiliation he's going through for his reckless, hateful behavior.

A Cold Front Breezes Through Hell

Call it spring fever or another minute down toward the impending end of the world, but two events out of the Middle East have me waxing optimistic today.

First, Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria, predictably poo-pooed by W and the Right, has opened the door for dialogue with this country which is tetering dangerously close toward becoming another Iran for us. And let's face it, with our military tapped out on Operation Iraqi Freedom, we need more friends than enemies anywhere in the world.

And to be clear, Ms. Pelosi didn't go to Syria to wrap an Hermes scarf around her head and flash her gorgeous legs at the world. Items on her agenda included:

-- Asking Syria to distance itself from Iran
-- Condemning Syria's support of Hamas and Hezbollah
-- Opening the door for dialogue between Syria and Israel

Of course, President shoot-em-all-and-let-God-sort-em-out couldn't care less about any sort of diplomatic progress in the Middle East. His answer, much to the relief of his friends in the defense sector, is to throw more money at the disaster that is Operation Iraqi Freedom.

But I digress...

The second double-take comes from Iran, whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country would release 15 British sailors and marines captured at sea in March. The unabashedly anti-U.S. and anti-Israel head of state called the marines' release a "gift" to the British people.

And what a gift...how many of us were expecting to see the video of those poor marines being decapitated? I know that's not necessarily an Iranian practice, but things weren't looking so promising for a while.

So on an April day when parts of this country were being battered by snow and hail in the middle of "spring," we see that it's quite possible that, just like Mother Nature, man is capable of some doozies -- pleasant and not -- all surprising just the same.

Bilingual Education Worked for Me

From CNN: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich equated bilingual education Saturday with "the language of living in a ghetto" and mocked requirements that ballots be printed in multiple languages.

Not that anyone is waiting around for Newt Gringich (who?) to say anything smart or relevant, but the former Speaker of the House has touched on a very important issue. Of course, in true red-neck bigot form, he took a very logical argument and twisted it so that bloggers like me who have a huge chip on their shoulder about issues like immigration and the word "ghetto" can have a field day.

I grew up in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, and I am the product of bilingual education. From kindergarten through the fifth grade, my days alternated between English and Spanish. Having been born in Brooklyn, I was placed in the English-first track, which basically meant that all of my classmates were Latino, as were my teachers, and we alternated freely between English and Spanish. Our school plays focused on Puerto Rican folk dancing and on singing songs about the coqui and dancing around a mariachi's sombrero for any which celebration of our heritage. My first boyband crush was Menudo and by the time I was ten I was too worn out to care about the New Kids on the Block.

I'm all the better for those experiences. Not only do I speak Spanish fluently, but my Spanish lessons came in handy when I took up French in junior high school (and wound up in Paris during my junior year of college). And yes, while I grew up in what most of my snooty friends would call the ghetto, bilingual education was my ticket out of the 'hood.

But that's just me.

The flip side of the bilingual education debate is that it makes learning English seem unimportant or unnecessary. If you want to broaden this debate, throw Telemundo and Univision into the mix -- are these channels vital links to one's mother tongue and to the Latin American countries, or are they a crutch that halt the assimilation process?

I can tune in and out of the Spanish-language channels and go from my cheese Mexican "novelas" to Ugly Betty. But there are also people in my family who only switch between Univision and Telemundo and after 30+ years in this country they still don't speak English.

While Newt Gingrich might want immigrants to hurry up and learn English, everyone from Pepsi to Walmart has no problem advertising in Spanish and investing millions into studying the buying habits of Latinos. And that's because in any language, it's clear that Latinos are a financial force to be reckoned with.

The problem isn't language. Latinos will be the first to tell you that view English as the language of success. But it's also the language that's being used to villify them. Not learning English is an act of defiance. If English is only good for standing up to idiots like Newt Gingrich, then why bother to learn it when there are jobs to be had that pay enough for a car, a small living space and TV to watch Univision?

The answer to that question is that you then instill an adversarial mentality into a new generation of young people who could be contributing more to this country but are too passive aggressive to do more for themselves. You then wind up with twenty-somethings who were born and raised in this country and speak neither Spanish nor English but a really bad mixture of both.

For me, English was always a vehicle for preserving my Spanish language and heritage. I thought both languages were important and so did my parents. While I have relatives who didn't learn English, I also have cousins who never learned Spanish -- I think both generations are missing out on a world of experiences and opportunities.

Bilingual education is not the problem -- it's the disdain that both groups have for one another that's halting progress.

What Kind of Bride Would I Be?

I work in public relations. What's worse, I work in public relations in New York. I should not be fazed by self-promotion, bad grammar and evil girls.

But yet I am.

And as more and more friends and family take the plunge into wedded bliss, I'm even more astounded by the metamorphosis that so many women go through once a ring is slipped on their finger. They go from skulking caterpillars braving low paying jobs and the ridiculous cost of denim and cocktails to flamboyant she-monkeys with wings who offer their friendship up to you in a menu of overpriced entrees. You know you're BFF with one of these ladies when she asks you to open a new line of credit so you can participate in the most special day of her life. Lesser friends and relatives are invited to pick from an assortment of options that cement your connection to the bride and her beloved. Whether it's the $300 copper pot for the lady who until yesterday lived on Ramen noodles or the just-cause-they're-Tiffany tchochkes for the couple who can't even spring $5 at a friendly game of beer pong, everyone with a checking account is invited to share in the love and sanctity of holy matrimony.

Blame it on my Jehovah's Witness upbringing or the fact that as a gay child every day was a celebration (in my head), but I've never understood formal ceremony and celebration. No Christmas, no birthdays -- for me it was a way of life and in fact, I still feel kinda funny whenever I get a present. I had a birthday party for my 25th birthday and swore off future festivities because I felt plain weird accepting gifts from people.

But to watch the brazen "gimme gimme gimme" attitude of the modern bride has gotten me to thinking that I am doing myself and my relationship a grave disservice.

I have been doing a terrible job at publicizing my relationship. For instance, I barely told anyone that James and I exchanged rings on New Year's Eve! And when James brought up the idea of having a formal ceremony in the fall I cringed.

What would I do in a tux and under an altar? Or a chopa?

But now I'm changing my tune. Everyone is cashing in on people's sappiness and I'm missing out. I'm not going to wait for George Bush and his thug cabinet to let me and my man collect the bounty of glorified panhandling.

I'm going to plan a wedding and I am going to be the biggest, baddest most nightmarish Bridezilla ever to appear on Oxygen. And no one can stop me. Stilettos for my bridesmaids, speedos for groomsmen, I want to be dipped in gold body paint and lowered into the church a-la-Moulin Rouge.

I will now start accepting applications for bridesmaids....

Chirac's Olive Branch to the U.S.

What: French President Jacques Chirac put aside personal hostility towards Nicolas Sarkozy yesterday and announced his support for the interior minister's bid to become the next president.

What it means for us: Icy post-Iraq Franco-American relations could thaw should Sarkozy, an unabashed capitalist and admirer of the U.S. be elected to the presidency.

***
In 2006, Sarkozy, a Conservative and descendant of Hungarian Jews (his mother is French Catholic) wrote a book called Temoignage (Testimony) which chastised modern-day France for its lackluster presence on the world stage. From the 35-hour workweek to the country's lackluster presence on the world stage, Sarkozy pulls no punches in an attack on his own party for its culpability in shaping France's current whimp status.

Summarizing Sarkozy's book last July, The Guardian wrote: [Sarkozy] demands a radical overhaul of France's social welfare model, which has been staunchly defended by President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, and sharply criticizes the other two politicians, saying they waited too long to scrap an unpopular change in labor law last spring. Directly contradicting the line from Chirac's Élysée Palace, he also renews calls for affirmative action, a taboo in the Republican conception of equality.

***

Innnnteresting. Watching this Presidential race unfold from afar, it's interesting to see a candidate challenge the pillars of modern French society. The idea that there is no need for affirmative action in France is born either of a dangerous naivete or from a cold politeness that turns away from injustice in the hopes that it will disappear (Vichy government anyone?).

As our country sets the course for change and the introduction of progressive, compassionate government, it would be lovely to see a new ally emerge in Europe -- a country, that like us, was once looked at as the epitome of free thought and democracy. Wouldn't it be something if both France and the U.S. rose at the same time to reclaim that status?

How do you say Gay in Spanish?

I haven't posted in over a week because I've been traveling. Actually, I'm still supposed to be on vacation but unfortunately, 12 hours into our visit to Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic, James fell ill and we had to come back home .

It's been an insane week but nonetheless we're both still standing, and I'm blogging. For now, all is right with the world.

While we only spent 48 hours overseas, it was all the time I needed to add a new dimension to my opinions on some of the issues that loom large in my life and that of many other Americans. It's funny what six waking hours at an all-inclusive resort will do to the most cynical liberal or cantankerous conservative. The impact of the words "Breaking News" is lost when it's competing against your fifth margarita and the chanting of topless European chicks diving into the pool beside you.

I'm lucky to have soaked up that libertine spirit so quickly because it would come in handy as I explained to doctors and ER staff the symptoms that brought my partner, and not my father, to the hospital in the first place.

I'm disappointed to report that at times I actually felt nauseous whenever I had to explain that James (who's 15 years my senior) and I are a couple. To do so in Spanish and weather the pregnant pause between that revelation and the writing of Husband next to "Relation to Patient" made me feel like I was coming out to my parents all over again.

There were also times when I'd just smile and nod whenever other nurses would say that my dad or friend would be fine. The cab driver who took me to my hotel so I could check out went so far as to ask how my girlfriend was doing. It was fun to play straight for the 20 minute cab ride and rule out pregnancy as the reason for the sudden trip to the hospital.

Can you ever expect people to understand that two men can be in relationship and just shrug it off? Can I? I wonder if the eyes I felt on me was just my repressed homophobia coming through.

On the plane ride home, holding James' hand, I thought about what the word marriage means to me. Forget that, I thought, what the hell does this relationship mean to me? How "out" should I be and is that any reflection about how I view my life with my partner?

Do the pointy shoes, tight jeans and penchant for color and my man purse not speak enough for me?

I haven't felt that insecure and ashamed since I was 21 and in the closet.

And then I left the hospital with James on Friday only to be called a "maricon" (Spanish word for faggot) by two guys in a car as we crossed Seventh Avenue. I turned back and exchanged some words with the guys - something I would never do - feeling ready to go to blows in the middle of the street and in the snow.

The guys sped off.

I don't know whom to be more mad at - those jerks in the car - or myself.

Bush Visit to Latin America: Let's Hear it for the Rainbow Tour

Blogging live from Charlotte International Airport...

...and wishing that I were part of the President's press corps. I would love to be on W's trip to Latin America, especially because he's making a stop in Bogota.

I'm usually very critical of George Bush, but I do commend his stab at diplomacy. And I'm also impressed with the agenda he's set forth for his visit to the region:

-- In Brazil, talks with President Luis Inazio "Lula" da Silva will focus on alternative energy, chiefly ethanol.

-- In Colombia, Bush will meet with President Alvaro Uribe on Sunday (his visit to Bogota will only last 6 hours) to discuss human rights and narcoterrorism. And to play it safe, 21,000 police officers have been deployed to escort the President during his visit. (Link is to a Colombian newspaper, btw)

-- In Mexico, President Vicente Fox and Bush will talk about illegal immigration and free trade.

-- In Uruguay there will be discussion of free trade as well;

-- and in Guatemala, Bush will discuss human rights and humanitarian aid for the country.

Though most reports point to Latin America's widespread dislike for W, the institution of the Presidency is a hard spectacle to ignore. In a region that's just cluttered with noise from despot leaders and the yawn of apathy from their citizens, what better way to shut up Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales than with the roar of Air Force One?

OMG - has the South made me a fan of W's macho-theatrics?

Eh, not so much. This is a PR boondoggle -- it's fun times for everyone involved -- it's a diplomatic hook-up. Everyone knows this is just a five day fling, no one in Latin America is expecting a call back from the White House with a plan to save the region...from itself.

Greetings from Memphis

In Memphis on business...will sleuth for a southern-themed post topic. BTW, US Airways SUCKS. And my hotel room doesn't have a minibar.

Where To Tie a Yellow Ribbon

Billions of dollars have been funneled into Operation Iraqi Freedom. And while no one is really free yet -- neither the Iraqis from the endless violence in their land nor Americans from the threat of future terrorist attacks -- the money keeps pouring out of Washington to keep the good fight going.

Halliburton has scored billions over the last four years, and with W showing no sign of admitting that this war is wrong, the big H only stands to get richer. And I'm not saying that to be disparaging, believe it or not. As a capitalist I can only applaud the success of an American corporation. I will, however, condemn the sleazy politicians who are BFFs with the company and who are making money with the company while the rest of the world falls apart.

While one group of Americans basks in the spoils of war, another group of Americans has been rotting on the outskirts of Washington. The Walter Reed mess uncovered by the Washington Post is the latest PR nightmare for W's war and it's the latest scandal to bring to light the stupidity of this war and its impact on our own people.

Now, someone on this blog had commented that the liberal media loves loves loves to see wounded soldiers and coffins for the sake of humilliating the President. Would that we liberals could all be so maudlin and easily placated that we'd gladly trade in the well being of hundreds of thousands of civilians just so Al Gore could be Commander in Chief. In the face of death and destruction, why can't we admit that it's just that and not just a glitch in an otherwise flawless program? Why is a medical facility that is below standards for an industrial nation a political bargaining chip -- can right wingers ever admit culpability?

And I'm not talking about the new Secretary of Defense, Richard Gates, who has been cleaning up house following his appointment to the post. I'm talking about everyday people who never see anything wrong with the way this country is being run. It's OK to not be a Democrat, but to try to make any excuse for the way this war is being handled, to not flip out when you read about the profits being siffoned by the private sector at the expense of dead or crippled young Americans is unhuman.

Could it be that the noose around the Right's neck is a yellow ribbon?

Michelle Malkin Would Make a Great Fag Hag

I don't always agree with Michelle Malkin. I think she tries a little too hard to be Miss All-America, but honestly, I think her misguided heart is in the right place. Like most Americans, she's worried about her country and thinks that a hardline approach is the only solution to our problems, both at home and abroad.

And while she is staunchly anti-gay-marriage, she's not into hate speech. Unlike Ann Coulter, who had this to say about John Edwards yesterday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC):

"It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot' [...] so I can't really talk about John Edwards."

Instead of applauding her fellow conservative, Michelle Malkin blasted Coulters unabashed bigotry:

"[Referring to the audience's reaction to Coulter's comment] A smattering of laughter. Not from this corner."

Now this got me to thinking about two scenarios:

The first involves me, Michelle and some martinis here in Chelsea and a dance-off at Bank. Michelle and I will call each other Gook, Spic, Faggot and Cunt and probably make out in a cab ride back to her hotel room where we'll order champagne, watch the Golden Girls and wake out a crumpled mess and ready for brunch.

And that's because I think Michelle Malkin could be a gay guy's best friend if she left her suburban bubble in Virginia and spent some time with fun gays who are as concerned about this country as she is, but don't have a stick up their butt about it. (Insert cheap gay joke here)

The second scenario involves Ann Coulter coming to Chelsea and calling me a faggot. Make no mistake, I would grab that bitch's hair and make her eat every last strand of her hideous peroxide blond locks. Now some faggots might like Ann Coulter's brand of hate mongering but not me. Those "conservative" faggots who applaud her and George Bush and Dick Cheney deserve their moniker and every last insult spewed at them by their party of choice.

So kudos to Michelle Malkin for earning a gold star for the conservatives this weekend. And hell, here's a gold star for Ann Coulter, she may have spared us from a Mormon President with her endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Rudy Giuliani To Conservatives: You Must Love Me

I'm going to tell you a secret: All New Yorkers love Rudy Giulani. That they know it or not is another story, but look at the throngs of cash-wielding tourists in Times Square, our clean streets and the relative safety of our city and you have to put politics aside and give props to our former mayor.

That said, he'd never get my vote for President.

Rudy's game of footsie with Conservatives who would like nothing more than for my city to become an asceptic strip mall of churches and Walmarts is offensive.

While a city like New York needs a tough hand to make it work, America's problem isn't mass transportation and homeless people armed with squeegies. Our problem is that our government has been taken from us by people who look fondly to Reagan and Nixon and the McCarthy era. The Conservative movement is firing Jesus and national security at us in the hopes that everyone will quietly rescind to the 1950s.

That a former mayor of New York, the REAL city on a hill, would have the gall to compare himself to Reagan is appalling. Says the New York Times' Caucus Blog: Mr. Giuliani used the former president’s “peace through strength’’ theme to talk about combating terrorism; he used the former president’s personal responsibility theme to talk about workfare vs. welfare; he vowed his support for lower taxes; and he embraced Mr. Reagan’s style of “optimistic leadership.’’

Bla bla bla. After Reagan the nation plummeted into a recession and that was only after he let AIDS run amok. Guess he was too busy invading Grenada to worry about a killer virus that was claiming Americans left and right.

But this isn't about Reagan, it's about Rudy Giuliani's ill-advised move to embrace a dead-end ideology for the sake of the Presidency. If Rudy were smart, he'd have become the kind of Republican that some of us can stomach, like John McCain, and he'd have made a case for workfare and lowering taxes without making us think of that punk Reagan. America is sick of Liberals and Conservatives. What our country wants is vision and a leader with the resolve to get us out of Iraq, put Iran in check and become a humanitarian nation as opposed to the harbinger of death.

On that note, do stay tuned for my thoughts on Hillary Clinton...

Laura Bush Has An Opinion

In an interview with Larry King this week, First Lady Laura Bush said that while she understands that the American public doesn't think the war in Iraq is going as it should, she agrees with the President (AKA her demonic husband) that we have to stay the course in Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people. To do otherwise would be a serious mistake.

Well, Laura, if the President's war is so important, why aren't your louche daughters Barbara and Jenna out in Iraq? Even for a photo opp in fatigues next to sodomized Iraqis?

I love how WMDs have now been replaced with an out-of-the-goodness-of-our-oil-guzzling-hearts desire to usher the Iraqi people to the promised land of democracy.

But I really love our Democratic congress that is calling W and his band of thugs he's to task on this dirty war.

While the Right celebrates the teenagers that have been senselessly killed in Iraq, the Democratic party is in the process of showing W what democracy is all about. It's about transparency, accountability, it's about forging alliances, not dictating policy from the recesses of your Born-Again heart.

The Dems are telling W: You want $90 billion for your defense contractors to create more bombs and kill more civilians whose relatives will then fly a 767 into the Sears Tower? Sure thing, Mr. President, but first, tell us what you did with the other $100 billion we gave you and tell us how much better off Iraq is for it. Because we seem to have gone from waging a pre-emptive strike against a brooding enemy to happily sacrifing our young for its future well being.

Isn't it funny that while we never found WMDs in Iraq, Iran is wagging their nuclear program in our face and we're looking the other way....to North Korea, where we gladly gave Kim Jong-Il oil, food and money so he won't blow us up.

Kudos to the Dems for standing up to W and demanding answers. I just pray that I see the day when a higher power demands answers from him.

Are We Financing Terror?

Shakedown in Colombia, my mom's homeland and the destination for 700 million of our tax dollars every year to combat left-wing guerrillas.

Says the Washington Post: The political scandal that forced Colombia's foreign minister to quit and put other close allies of President Alvaro Uribe in jail is being driven in large part by a rebel-turned-senator who has defied death threats to become the opposition's most fearless provocateur.
***
The following post might be a little long, so here are bullets:

-- On Monday, Colombia's foreign minister, Maria Consuelo Araujo, resigned following allegations that her brother and father were involved in dealings with murderous right wing militias.

-- The civil war in Colombia has pit leftist rebels against right wing paramilitary groups. Both groups have killed civilians indiscriminately in this 50+ year war.

-- Colombia is a staunch U.S. ally and receives $700 million in U.S.-aid every year to combat the guerrillas and there are concerns that some of the money may be funding paramilitary groups that are just as violent.

-- Charges that the Colombian government, up to the presidency, is in bed with the paramilitaries could be a huge blow for U.S./Colombian relations. W does not need another human rights crisis.


***
Here's how things work in Colombia: since the 1950s, a period now referred to as "La Violencia," or The Violence, the country has been embroiled in a civil war that was sorta placated during the advent of the drug cartels in the late 70s through the 90s. Since then, after the druglords were killed or shipped off to jail here in the States, the armed forces of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC, Spanish acronym), have taken over the country's drug trade and have waged war on the country's established government. Kidnappings and bombings are the stock and trade of this group, who have kidnapped countless civilians and politicians and foreigners.

The Colombian government has relied on the support of the U.S. to combat the guerrillas and the country's current President, Alvaro Uribe, is BFF with W. In fact, in spite of his conservative views, people I spoke to in Colombia cited their president's amicable relationship with Washington as a huge win for the country.

However, as is the case with all U.S.-funded counter-insurgency movements, the situation in Colombia is fraught with human rights violations. In the fervor to weed out rebels, many innocent people have been killed by right wing paramilitary groups who gun down anyone suspected of having ties to the FARC. Some human rights groups claim the U.S. supports the paramilitaries, who by now have become a terrorist group of their own.

So what does this mean for U.S./Colombian relations now?

Our new democratic congress will rightfully demand more accountability from the Colombian government. Still, the problem remains that a war that has raged on for half a century can't be quelled with hundreds of millions of dollars. While this kinda sounds like the situation in Iraq, the situation in Colombia has shown remarkable signs of an upswing. The economy is growing, the country is even embracing gay rights, and Bogota is by far one of the most cosmopolitan and exciting cities in Latin America. With all of this potential harnessed into one place you have to wonder what the missing piece of the puzzle is for a nation so ravaged by war?

I guess money can't fix everything.

This is NOT 1776....

... or is it? Back then, our country was under the rule of a tyrant who wanted one religion for all and the unwavering obedience of his people.

My how times don't change.

In the same way that Hugo Chavez likes to tout the spirit of Simon Bolivar about like a marinette in the dumbshow that is his brand of totalitarianism, so too does W try to distract us from his foibles by drawing our attention to even worse times in American history.

As our country honors past Presidents, (I did an extra set of squats on my day off in honor of our POTUS-es at the gym today) George Bush couldn't pass up making another pitch for the war in Iraq:

''Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life,'' [...] and as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone.''

Or Black people. Cuz you know, they were slaves back then, Dubya. Funny how the founding fathers' generosity excluded a large chunk of the people around them but was rather meant for Muslims on the other side of the planet, nearly 300 years later.

I would bet you my apple tree that George Washington would have cared as much about the Iraqi civil war that we helped create as much as I care for our current President's myopic view of history.

Funny how our President interprets the actions of a people inspired by the Age of Enlightenment by wanting to limit people's freedoms every which way he can. If the Revolutionary War was the precursor to the liberation of the Iraqi people, then what the hell does it mean for Americans today?

For W it would mean taking away basic human rights from gay people, the introduction of a fanatical brand of Christianity into our public schools, the end of programs that help minorities forge ahead, and total disregard for the environment.

To compare the war in Iraq to the battle for our nation's freedom is offensive. The founding fathers didn't battle England so they could become the world's police state. To compare the Revolutionary War to 9-11 is ignorant, even by W's standards.

Still, we are in a revolutionary moment in history -- let's pull a 1776 on Bush and declare our independence from his tyranny once and for all.

Bank of America: Intrepid or Bold?

From the Los Angeles Times: "Continuing to court the burgeoning market of Latino immigrants, Bank of America said today it is test-marketing credit cards for Spanish-speaking customers who may not have Social Security numbers."
***
Remember, just because you don't like something that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And that doesn't mean you can't make money off it, either (see posts on Nasty Pig). Folks, illegal immigration isn't going to stop. So if people are going to risk life and limb to get here we should find a way to get these people up and functioning sooner rather than later. If an illegal immigrant wants to embrace the lofty American principle of senseless consumerism then it's high time our financial institutions started making a profit off of it.

Liberal Politics in Portugal

I know this blog is primarily focused on U.S. issues, but the abortion debate that has been rekindled in Portugal has gotten my attention.

Says the Washington Post: Portugal's prime minister said he will enact more liberal abortion laws in the conservative Roman Catholic country even though his proposal to relax restrictions failed to win complete endorsement in a referendum. [...] However, under Portuguese law more than 50 percent of the country's 8.9 million registered voters must participate in a referendum to make the ballot valid. The turnout Sunday was 44 percent.


Believe it or not, yours truly is (sorta secretly) anti-abortion. However, this is such a tricky debate because the minute a society starts selectively enforcing religious dogma as law, all hell can and will break loose. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned here in the States, what would happen to other progressive laws?

An even harder question, when and how did the debate over the pursuit of happiness get tied up in the abortion debate? Speaking as a man this may be terribly shortsighted of me to say, but still, we are talking about the ending of a life. And the ending of that life is for the benefit, and perhaps, longterm happiness of another.

I wish I could look at this issue in black and white...

Rooting for the Dixie Chicks...

...at the Grammy's tonight. Not just because I totally agree with the ladies' opinions on our "President," but because I really, really like their album and the lead song, "Not Ready to Make Nice."

And before I get tossed on the liberal bandwagon as a Chelsea queen who'd never heard of country music before the Chicks, I want to say that I love country music. From Conway Twitty to Loretta Lynn to Dolly Parton and Hank Williams, I have loved country music since my uncle, who moved to Birmingham, Alabma in 1960 from Puerto Rico, introduced me to it as a kid during my summer vacations on the island.

So good luck to them tonight, and to my girl Mary J. Blige, who definitely made '06 her year.