Fujimori

The road to justice is long and complicated. Today, after a 15 month trial, Alberto Fujimori was found guilty of torture, kidnapping, and enforced disappearings. This trial may set a precedent for accusing and convicting former heads of state that led oppressive regimes or allowed (or even ordered) war crimes. 

Top 5 Inauguration Requests

After watching tons of live feeds and live coverage and live blogging and live almost anything you can think of about the Presidential Inauguration, I can only say a big "clap, clap, clap!" to the US for finally letting a non-cowboy inhabit the White House. It was way overdue.

Now, my atheist inner self is begging for me to ask what the hell was all that show with the reverends? The whole day felt like the anointment of a Feudal Lord with all those blessings and the Bible oath and all that jazz. Weird. (gave me the chills, really)

And last but not least, here is my list of Top 5 requests to Obama. They need to be addressed ASAP:

5. Kindly invite those Wall Street punks to Camp Guantanamo.
4. Trade in the 6 ton Cadillac limo for an electric car (I suppose you could get a magnetic bullet shield).
3. Promise not to say "God Bless America" ever again.
2. Tell Hillary to forever shut up with her "this one time, in the Oval Office" stories.
1. Give a TiVo subscription to Ted Kennedy so he can at least watch a replay of the Inauguration Parade.

Yes we did!

(or the Presidential Orange Mocha Frappuccino.)



(I got this from a feminist blog...but I lost the link!)

Last term paper

It's 3am and I'm writing my LAST term paper. Wow! If it wasn't for the caffeine pumping through my body, I can assure you that I would almost be able to feel the premature nostalgia. Anyway, given that this last undergraduate all-nighter is a very special event for me, I hereby grant you blogfans the chance to read the intro paragraph to my (still unfinished) last term paper:

When writing about international affairs, newspaper reporters express themselves through a particular geopolitical discourse. Their news reports use claims about geography to paint a vision of the world that situates their stories and their arguments in a specific ideological realm. Given that most popular newspapers are owned by large corporations, the geopolitical assumptions inherent in the stories they publish can be indicative of their political or economic agendas. Thus, by analyzing newspaper reporting and identifying the particular inclinations of the writers, it is possible to challenge a story’s air of objectivity and unmask the hidden bias towards a specific discourse.

In this context, the present essay will explore newspaper reporting of a military deal signed between the United States and Poland on August 14, 2008, where Poland agreed to allow the installation of American missile silo’s in its territory. The move was controversial and aroused strong criticism from the Russian government, who interpreted the deal as an affront to its national security. The first part of the essay will present a brief history of the issue. Then, the essay will analyze four news stories on the issue that were published on the same week by four different sources: The New York Times, Fox News, The Independent, and The Daily Telegraph. By deliberately choosing two American and two British sources, and a left leaning and right leaning source in each country, the essay pretends to explore geopolitical differences based on the newspapers’ ideological lines. Also, choosing articles from the same week helps to control for differences in information that may accrue when comparing stories published within a larger time frame. The essay will ultimately argue that by favoring a specific world view while marginalizing others through their geographic assumptions, each news source displays a distinct political agenda.

We the Patriots

I'm writing a term paper addressing the issue of representation of women's bodies by feminist artists. My research today led me to a piece by Barbara Kruger that I had never seen before: "Untitled" (Questions). The artist appropriates the image of the American flag and fills it with questions about authority and power. In this sense, the image invites the viewer to contest the idea of patriotism and forces a critical (feminist) look at American values.



By questioning the values that this flag represents, Kruger's image made me think of all the American flags that today wave freely atop military bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, etc. It made me think about the freedom and justice embedded in the stars and stripes, and how these waving stars and stripes must look ridiculous when juxtaposed to the nighttime stars and scars of occupied lands. (And who better to explain this hypocrisy of American values than Don Mitchell in his famous "You Who Are The Bureaucrats of Empire, Remember Who We Are.")

This also reminded me of the recent US election. It made me think not only about the enormous patriotic pride generated by Obama's victory, but also about the wave of false patriotism that the McCain-Palin camp unleashed when they rhetorically divided the country into "real America" and "_____ America." Two visions of patriotism, one inclusive, one divisive. (Is any of them desirable?)

p.s. in a few days, Mexico celebrates the anniversary of the Mexican Revolution, a struggle that generated much of the imagery that has been used and reused as symbols of Mexican national pride. I wonder if this celebration is not just recycled patriotism and protocol but still means anything at all. (an interesting viewpoint with Andrés)

Proposition 8

The title should be "The Death of Hope". But that would be too dramatic. Too defeatist. It would imply a belief in the unrelenting tyranny of the majority. Instead, I'd like to believe that Tuesday's disappointment was simply a temporary setback; just a minor glitch in a matrix that is constantly being rewritten...perfected.

I'm talking about California's newly approved Proposition 8, which reinstates the ban on same sex marriage in that state. This past summer, California became the second state (after Massachusetts) to approve same sex marriage in the United States, raising hopes amongst civil rights advocates that the move might spread to other states.

Unfortunately, discrimination met with opportunism this Tuesday, and bigotry had its way. With Obama's victory, the evening was supposed to end on a joyful note. Hope and Change were supposed to be the day's loudest songs. But this reverse move towards inequality in California was hardly the kind of Change that was floating in the air on election night....it is contrary to the Hope in a better and more equal future that millions of voices had in mind when their voices echoed "Yes we can!"

Visual premonition?

It's 2 pm on this historic election Tuesday and I came across an image in the NY Times that caught my attention. To me, it correctly depicts the attitudes of both candidates during the last stretch of this race:













McCain looks worried, insecure. He has an awkward, forced smile. His hands make him look uncomfortable with himself. It is the image of a man that is almost embarassed, that doesn't want his picture taken today. His eyes have an air of avoidance. He reminds me of the "He's a Muslim" incident, and of the fear rhetoric of this past week. His face here and his attitude in the last stretch of the electoral race reflect the feelings of a man that is unsure of achieving victory.

Obama is standing confident, strong. His pose indicates that he wants this picture taken because he feels comfortable today. His right arm is held high, proudly showing a card, his left is resting calmly on his side. It feels as if he's thinking, "the polls are on my side so I'll have nothing to explain tonight." He is making strong eye-contact, but is not smiling...he retains an air of urgency, expressing the seriousness of today's voting. This attitude reminds me of his last speeches, where he appeared self-assured about the merits of the campaign, but still reminded his listeners that the race was not over.

The way the diptych is constructed drives me towards Obama. Not only do we read from left to right in the languages that I speak, but McCain's eyes push me outside the picture to the left, whereas Obama's bring me into the picture, to the center third of the image, where the important subject is his confident hand.

My point? That this image speaks a thousand words, mostly unfavorable to McCain. I hope this is a premonition of tonight's results.

Change Manifesto

A spectre is haunting the United States of America...the spectre of Change.

All the powers of old America have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Big Oil and the corporate lobbies, Murdoch and McCain, Christian fundamentalists and Neo-realist paranoids.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as "too liberal" by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of "socialism", against the more advanced opposition parties?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Change is already acknowledged by all Americans to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that those who believe in Change should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of Change with a manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, liberals of various nationalities have assembled in this blog to view this speech:

Obama does it again

Yes, the Illinois Senator delivered again. He explained with surprising calm and detail every part of his economic policy. He gave convincing reasons why McCain's healthcare policy, tax cuts, and neoliberal politics would fail miserably...without using the word miserably. Yes, Obama was above McCain's anger and desperation because he was enjoying the calm that comes from knowing that your words are grounded on sound theory. He explained that McCain's policies were indeed a repetition of Bush's 8 years of flawed decisions. And yes, he defended his pro choice stance and treaded through that delicate ground by reaffirming that the term "pro abortion" is wrong. Obama showed that far from being confrontational, his mind invites dialogue and favors argument over dogma. Given that his country is haunted by a medieval religious lobby, seeing Obama today at the third presidential debate was a relief.

As for McCain... I'll leave it to the Gossip Girls and MoveOn.org:

Conservatives Again?!

Today is a sad, sad day for Canada. Stephen Harper won yesterday's election with 37.6% of the vote (Liberals 26.2%, NPD 18.2%, Green 6.8%), renewing the Tory minority. My first thoughts (apart from a loud "dammit!") are that the NPD succeeded in splitting the liberal vote, causing the Liberals' worst performance since 1984. In other words, the widespread calls to "vote strategically" didn't work. I'm not surprised...

Why would anyone vote strategically knowing that their single vote has no incidence in an election? Every person wants to have the personal satisfaction of voting for their true choice...and even if the ultimate objective of all opposition voters was to beat the Tories, the mere notion that your Green neighbor might not cooperate with the strategy because he feels his single vote is meaningless would give you an incentive to do the same. It was a predictable collective action problem, in the parlance of our times.

In my opinion, if the opposition was so worried about a Conservative win, the candidates that ranked third and fourth places in last week's polls should have defected in favor of the strongest opposition candidate in their respective constituency. But, alas, that doesn't make democratic sense given that each of the opposition parties represented a very distinct set of legitimate ideals and projects. The tragedy of the Canadian political system then, is the lack of proportional representation. (for a much better explanation, read this perspective)

Anyway, I'm sad about Harper because I disagree with his worldview. These are my major problems with him:

- Harper has aligned Canada's foreign policy with the Bush administration.
- Harper signed a deal to let US troops into Canada in case of an "emergency".
- Harper has provided millions of dollars in subsidies for companies investing in the Alberta tar sands...an impending ecological disaster.
- Harper supports tax cuts to big corporations.
- Harper has silenced intellectuals speaking against him and blocked scientific panels discussing the effects of climate change.
- And last but definitely not least, Harper is against reducing greenhouse gas emissions and described the Kyoto protocol as “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations”.

In other words, Stephen Harper ranks high in my list of top 20 enemies of the world.

As the Georgia Straight put it, "there are many reasons not to vote Conservative, beyond the cost of the Afghanistan war and the idiocy of integrating Canada more deeply into the U.S. economy. They include: the Conservative leader’s misleading use of crime statistics to make Canada appear less safe than it is; his big lie that he wouldn’t tax income trusts; his other big lie in refusing to acknowledge that a Liberal carbon tax is offset with big income-tax cuts; Harper presiding over declines in Canadian productivity; Harper’s abandonment of agreements with the provinces that would have created more daycare spaces; the Conservative government’s decision to appeal a B.C. Supreme Court ruling in favour of Vancouver’s supervised-injection site; Harper’s elimination of the Court Challenges Program and the killing of the Kelowna Accord; Harper’s stacking of a stem-cell advisory panel with opponents of embryonic stem-cell research; Harper’s $45-million cuts to the arts; and Harper’s refusal to support the United Nations goal of having developed countries donate 0.7 percent of their national incomes to international development."

Oh, and did I mention that Harper has close ties with Evangelist groups? (appointed a minister to a scientific advisory group!?)

Brrrrrr! (that's me, shivering)

I'm not your "friend"

There is no doubt in my mind that Senator Obama had a stellar performance in today's second presidential debate. The democratic candidate came off as knowledgeable, humble and sincere. He was able to refute most, if not all, of McCain's accusations and attempts at misinformation. But more importantly, when speaking about foreign policy, he was more assertive than in the last debate. He finally sounded like the commander-in-chief that is willing to take strong military actions, if necessary. Although his bit about Pakistan made me feel uneasy, it probably earned him a heap of brownie points among those undecided American voters that bought into Bush's scare tactics and feared Obama would not protect them against the terrorists.

My favorite Obama:
"We may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake. [...] So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

On the other hand, McCain looked stiff and uncomfortable... his suit was too tight. He adopted a grandfather voice that sounded patronizing and false. He desperately tried to distance himself from the Bush administration, but Obama correctly pointed out their affinities. McCain's phrases sounded like prefabricated regurgitations instead of authentic answers to the questions posed. Incredibly, he shot himself in the foot again by giving vague and uncertain answers to the foreign policy questions. It was his turf and he slipped in it! Also, calling every general "my hero" and saying that there has been a winning strategy in Iraq was simply pathetic.

I have one unanswered question:
Who had the brilliant idea of putting McCain back on those drugs that make you say "my friend" every two minutes? Adviser fail.

A little homework

For those of you who've spent the past month in a cave and still don't know who Sarah Palin is, here is a little homework from your blogger, to be seen before you watch tonight's debate.

"A lie repeated often enough becomes truth." Vladimir Lenin (and then Goebbels).

(Please cross your fingers for the first televised case of human spontaneous combustion!)

Obama fail

What can I say... I'm disappointed. I watched the first presidential debate on Friday and my impression of Obama as an inspiring politician that was ready to change Washington slowly faded away. I won't say he "lost" the debate, because I don't believe an exchange of ideas has to necessarily produce a winner (it's curious how the minute the debate ended American networks were mostly concerned on giving their opinion on who won...as if trying to condition the American public to ignore substance and judge the debate only on the basis of a winner and a loser), but what I saw was a tame and passive Obama.

Maybe my urgency of getting rid of the Republicans caused me to constantly magnify his virtues and idealize him as the true embodiment of change. Or maybe I was just too naïve to expect him to stand up to McCain in live television and boldly denounce the Republican lies and foreign policy disasters. In any case, I perceived an Obama that was not able to differentiate himself "fundamentally" from his Republican rival. He struggled when trying to explain why McCain's policies were flawed and then let the "maverick" score so many namedropping points that, as a viewer, I almost got the impression that McCain was the real expert.

To put it simply, I saw a candidate that was driven into McCain's turf and forced to play his game. And the problem of beating a Republican in his own geopolitical playing field was evident: you can't talk of the current wars without using their languague...their imagery. In other words, the only way of breaking from the eight long years of Bush, of denting the Republican stronghold, is to attack their discourse. The simplistic good/evil binary or the "freedom fighter" rhetoric need to be subverted in order to fully expose the faults in John McCain's worldview. From what I know, the War on Terror as an ideological space is what needs to be challenged...and Obama fell very short of doing just that.

Paling good, Obama bad

The political discourse in the US these past weeks has deteriorated to the point where I'm not sure if I'm listening to political commentators or gossip writers. With major news channels devoting endless hours to showing the banalities of Sarah Palin's life, it's tragic to realize that the strongest critical commentary comes from a comedian, John Stewart.

Thus, adding to the comedy of the elections, I give you a list with the main differences between Obama and his adversaries. (thank you Kim Cathers)

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'
* If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're a quintessential American story.
* If your name is Barack, you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* If you name your kids Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig and Track, you're a true Maverick.
* If you graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable.
* If you attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system, while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

Requiem to Art

I saw this deeply disturbing note on the Vancouver Sun a few weeks ago. The Device to Root out Evil, one of the most though-provoking and visually enticing sculptures in the city of Vancouver, was rooted out of its location, a park in the beautiful Coal Harbour. The sculpture by Dennis Oppenheim depicted an upside down church, an eye-catching image that invariably led to a myriad of interpretations.

I remember smiling when I first discovered the sculpture last year. It was my first week in Vancouver and I gladly sat to admire the sculpture's evoking power (I then took the second picture you see here). To me, the Device to Root out Evil represented the need for religious institutions to reform themselves, an urgency to "turn the house upside down" and reinvent their practices. I also thought that the sculpture could be a call to bury religion altogether, to root out the irrational evils of religious fundamentalism in an age where scientific thought is once again under siege.

Art exists to inspire thought, to generate discussion. The function of art is definitely not constrained to its aesthetic qualities. Art expresses the struggles and controversies of its era...it is never neutral.

Unfortunately, Vancouver Park officials didn't see the the true value of a sculpture that, at the very least, generated food for thought. To me, apart from its inherent physical beauty, the fact that this sculpture generated social controversy was its greatest value. Controversy can lead to thought and constructive criticism. It can lead to introspection and to a rethinking of one's core beliefs. To dismiss a sculpture's value on the grounds that "it blocked the view of some neighbors" is an insult to all citizens of Vancouver. Unfortunately, as Miro Cernetig points out, the rooting out of this sculpture shows that Vancouver has not yet shed its "small town" skin. It's simply striking for a city with such a cosmopolitan mix of people. (where is my dear Mexico City when I need it?)

The Vancouver Park Board's excuse was cowardly, to say the least.

It's the guns, stupid.

Last week's DC ruling reaffirming the infamous (and frankly ridiculous) Second Amendment, is a sad reminder that, although greatly deflated, the House of Bush can still deliver subtle, yet great blows to American society.

I cringe at the thought of Charlton Heston rejoicing in his grave.

Heil state-sanctioned corruption!

Critical Mass Vancouver

This is an update to A Call to Bikes.
I just found an amazing post by The Nowtopian with great pictures of the ride:


(I'm the corker wearing a red velvet hat and the pink bike)





After such a wonderful Friday, I just want to add that Critical Mass completely changed my idea of public protest, of mass activism, and of cooperation within chaos. To see such a mass of committed people pedaling during four hours for the same ideals was truly inspiring. The cause of sustainable living seemed more plausible with every bike that cruised through the streets of Vancouver that evening. But, as The Nowtopian writes, it was even more impressive to see that, although we the cyclists made a total mess of the traffic in Vancouver last Friday (my favorite slogan was "we're not making traffic, we ARE traffic!"), drivers were not only gentle, but even supportive. (Here is a pic by my friend Peter Holmes:)












In Mexico City, the local government organizes weekend bike rides that are publicized as efforts to promote the use of bicycles. I went to one of those bike rides last year and I remember it was a great recreational event for citizens who generally don't enjoy biking in a city that is overwhelmed by cars. However, I find a large difference between Critical Mass and the Sunday rides in DF: not only are Mexico rides state-sanctioned and organized by the local police, they are also used as propaganda tools for the government of the "city of hope", which is trying to brand itself as an administration that embraces sustainability. The paradox is that it's the same government that decided to build a vast network of monstrous second floors that run over major avenues and freeways, sending the message that reliance on cars is inevitable and creating further incentives to buy motor vehicles.














But even worse, the Sunday bike rides in Mexico City are often planned to coincide with the local government's public protests against the federal government, and riders are escorted by a vast police force. This makes the bike rides a planned electoral manipulation.

On the opposite end, what I loved about last Friday is that, although Critical Mass is a well established activity in Vancouver, it still felt like a spontaneous flooding of the streets by individuals that treat the substitution of cars by bikes as a value. It seemed to me that the tens of thousands of cyclists that overwhelmed the Lions Gate Bridge on Friday had a clear intention to parade their beliefs around the city. Not only were there constant chants and slogans along the ride, but people had a tremendous willingness to stop and explain to motorists what the bike ride was all about. Discussions and dialogue were the norm, rather than the exception. Thus, Critical Mass shifted from being simply a recreational ride to an act of mass political action.

A Call to Bikes

Come and join us as we take the streets of Vancouver today!

Forget Obama

Look, I've got certain information, certain things have come to light, and uh, has it ever occurred to you, man, that given the nature of all this new shit, that, uh, instead of running around blaming me, that this whole thing might just be, not, you know, not just such a simple, but uh--you know.

(You might be wondering what on earth I'm blathering about.)

And I'll tell you what I'm blathering about! I got information--new shit has come to light and--shit, man! The Dude and Walter are running for office!














Well sure, look at it! The Nam veteran and the bum, in the parlance of our times....what a pair! I mean, hasn't it ever occurred to you, dear readers?

(Much obliged, Diana)

Dude's script.

Turkey and Germany

In a couple of days, the national soccer teams of Turkey and Germany will be playing against each other in the first semi-final of the Euro 2008. I'm far too ignorant on soccer to talk about it, let alone post about it. However, just knowing about these two national teams facing each other in a massive media event sets my mind on various tangents.

About 70% of Turkey's immigrants live in Germany. Today, there are nearly 3.5 million ethnic Turks living in Germany (4% of the German population), of which, roughly 2 million have become German citizens, and about 60% work as unskilled labor. Turkish is the second most commonly spoken language in Germany, even more common than English. Turkish workers' remittances from Germany are a major source for external finance: about 2.5% of Turkey's GDP.

In other words, Germany needs Turkish workers and Turkey needs the money that Turkish immigrants earn in Germany.

Yet, Turkish immigration to Germany has not exactly been a smooth ride. Concerns about the "Islamization" of Germany have caused an ongoing debate on Germany's immigration policies and religious tolerance. Anti-immigration voices received great attention in the past election, and although Germany's Nazi past virtually eliminates any public discourse that could be considered racist, ethnic tensions are beginning to surface.

That is why I think Wednesday's match will be the most interesting match of the Euro 2008. Soccer levels the playing field between the two countries. Metaphorically, it allows equal conditions for Turks and Germans, at least during 90 minutes. Thus, an event of such magnitude has the power to either unite the country under the brotherhood of sportsmanship...or ignite the worst passions know to man. Needless to say, I would love to witness the streets of Berlin this week and enjoy Wednesday's game with a shawarma in one hand and a beer mug in the other.