November 11, 2007
Scary
Donald Kerr, Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, says that Americans need to change their definition of privacy to one based on the safeguarding of their personal data by government and business entities.
His statement was made in testimony before Congress, which is reviewing The Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. They are trying to decide whether telecommunications companies should have immunity for their helping the US government conduct illegal wiretapping, starting back in 2001.
I remember back when the Clintons were pushing for national healthcare, and Americans were freaked out about the government having, and being responsible for protecting, everyone's personal medical information. The American public doesn't seem all that worked up about the having their calls and emails monitored without warrants; why not let the government keep track of all your details? I guess Bush's exemplary job while in office has changed people's minds and convinced them that the government should be trusted with such personal information after all!
Posted by crispy at 04:37 PM | Comments (0)
November 10, 2007
What's All This To-Do About Torture?
With the confirmation of Michael B. Mukasey as the Attorney General, the United States once again renewed my satisfaction with our decision to leave the country, as well as my disappointment in our (ex)compatriots' apathy and willful ignorance about what their government is doing at home and abroad. It does not, however, surprise me.
I was astounded when it became clear that Americans would settle for nothing less than an invasion of Iraq, despite the flimsy evidence that the administration used to justify such an attack. I was shocked when the majority of Americans fell for Bush's little trick of associating Saddam Hussein and September 11th, despite the fact that no connection between the two existed. I was even startled when the Abu Ghraib photos seemed to elicit little more than a shrug and collective "what are ya gonna do?" from the collective American consciousness.
That was the last straw for me, the final point from which there was no turning back. I did not want to be a part of an America that was indifferent about using torture on prisoners, even if they were called "detainees" or "enemy combatants." I expected a tidal wave of outrage from my fellow citizens when it was discovered that the White House, under request from the CIA, asked the Justice Department to give an opinion on the legality of torturing suspected terrorists. That outrage never came.
Oddly enough, some of the leftists that I thought would be most infuriated about their government's lust for torture there were more outraged over the fact that Shawn and I found Mexico to be far and away more tolerant and socially progressive than the United States. Their reactions ranged from skeptical rolling of the eyes to aggressive verbal arguments.
Usually this manifests itself when we relate that in our experience, Mexico is far more enlightened about the gay issue. For some reason, people in the United States tend to underestimate the bigotry that exists there. This could be an artifact of our tendency to associate with more liberal and tolerant people, combined with a touch of false consensus effect (Ross, Greene & House, 1977), but maybe it is because many Americans do not consider the systematic prejudice that exists there to be an urgent problem. So often the victims of such bigotry are told that they are rushing tolerance by well-meaning folks that do not have to deal with such prejudice and think that justice will just work things out eventually.
Yet the Mexican public is also much more progressive and proactive in its approach to the idea of torture. The public line is that it is not to be tolerated, period. Were there public debate about whether nor not an interrogation technique constituted torture, there would be no public indifference about it nor would politicians be allowed to dodge the issue. It would be declared inappropriate. It might be argued that such certainty exists because torture, carried out on its citizens by the government, is a historical reality here. Nobody here would deny that either. International groups such as Amnesty International and Physicians for Human Rights have reported cases of torture in Mexican detention facilities in recent times, and I have no cause to be skeptical about this. I am sure that the majority of mexicanos would not doubt it either. Mexico has historically been, and in many ways, continues to be a corrupt country.
However, the political situation is changing rapidly here, and like most countries crawling out from under repressive regimes, Mexico's new government and her people are unequivocal in denouncing human rights abuses that were permitted in the past. The studies that are refered to by the above groups in which more torture was found to be going on than previously thought, were conducted with the full support of the Procuradúria General de la República (the Mexican Attorney General's office), although no government officials were permitted to be involved with the analysis or the publication of the results of the studies. Mexico has also instituted legal and social programs aimed at the elimination of torture in the country, such as a program where forensic physicians are trained to recognize signs of torture in detainees.
This stands in sharp contrast to a country where the Attorney General cannot decide whether or not waterboarding is torture and believes that the president should be allowed to ignore what he considers to be an unconstitutional law if he believes it infringes on his executive rights. It does not surprise me that Mukasey will not claim that waterboarding is torture, nor that Americans are not going to make much of a fuss over it. On the other hand, I think it would really surprise Mexicans if anyone in their government hesitated to make a very clear and public statement that such an interrogation method was illegal and unacceptable. Here, the failure to be upfront and clear about that would be political suicide.
Mexico certainly has its fair share of problems, but it seems to emerging from the darkness of an authorian past while the United States seems, at least to us, to be sliding headlong into a future where individual rights are sacrificed whenever necessary to allow the ruling junta to continue its clandestine operations.
Posted by crispy at 05:14 PM | Comments (3)
July 11, 2007
Think Again
Time and travel give us new perspectives on our lives. Sometimes it is subtle, like realizing that at a certain point, all the signs have gone from saying "SPEED LIMIT" to "MAXIMUM SPEED." At other times, it will change your outlook on the world completely, like looking down one day and realizing they are your father's hands reaching forth from your arms to tie your father's shoes on your feet.
In our daily lives, the mind tries to assimilate everything it gathers into some world view that makes sense, and in doing so, fabricates illusory connections and divisions that are not really there. It is too complicated and requires too much effort to constantly discriminate the shades of difference that actually exist in nature. A line is drawn in the sand to divide 'same' from 'different,' and we start to sort things to one side or the other to make thinking about them easier. Once we have decided what the relationships are between things, we consider that job done. We move on to other taxing mental chores, acting like all those things will remain in stasis because we have clustered them into neat little packages.
We stay in the same place for a long time and we used to things being a certain way. Time passes slowly enough that we fail to notice all the slight changes that occur constantly. An ironic consequence of assuming such permanence develops where we tend to not see the things that are right in front of us every day. As David Byrne says in one of the best films of all time about man's (illusory?) relationship to place, True Stories:
When I first come to a place, I notice all the little details. I notice the way the sky looks. The color of white paper. The way people walk. Doorknobs. Everything. Then I get used to the place and I don't notice those things anymore. So only by forgetting can I see the place again as it really is.
Traveling is like a good dose of amnesia. It shakes you up and makes you forget, so that not only do you see a new place for the first time, but you see all the places you have been with new eyes.
This blog is supposed to be about Mexico, the place I have lived for the past year and a half. I admit, at times I have strayed into diatribes about the things that motivated me to leave the United States and how I have found things upon my occasional return trips there. I have also written about other Latin American countries, comparing and contrasting them to Mexico. If I were more goal-oriented, I might be very good at sticking to just talking about Mexico, but the fact is, I have a lot of strong opinions about other things too. I just cannot shut up about those things, and I do not like to deny myself.
I indulge in a lot of things I should not, and writing about other places when we travel, even if it has nothing to do with Mexico, is one of those things. For the next few weeks, I'm going to be in Buenos Aires, Argentina. and I'm going to write about it. Up to its old tricks, my mind is constantly comparing this place to both the United States and Mexico, in ways both favorable and not-so-nice. I cannot help it. That is just the way the mind works, and it is just the way I work to shoot my mouth off about what I think.
For those of you that might be considering moving to Mexico or some other Latin American country - maybe Argentina - you might find the 'Crispito Goes to Buenos Aires' articles informative about this slice of South America. For those of you who come here to read about Mexico, dammit...do not despair. This trip has already wiped my slate and made me notice things anew about Mexico, even though we are thousands of miles away from it.
Many people, especially in Latin America, think the Argentines are snooty wanna-be Europeans. One of my friends and former Spanish teachers tells the following joke:
Q: What is the most lucrative job in the world?
A: Buying Argentines for what they are worth and then selling them for what they think they're worth.
If you find that more true than humorous, you might want to tune back in around August 6, when we return to one of my favorite places: Mexico City.
Posted by crispy at 06:17 AM | Comments (0)
May 27, 2007
La muerte cruzó el río Bravo
I was watching La muerte cruzó el río Bravo on de Película, one of our better movie channels here. It was the undisputed best before they started cutting the films and showing commercials.
It shows a lot of Mexican films that are more recent. A lot of these are, well, disappointing. Yet a gem comes along once in a while that knocks your cultural socks off. I looked up from reading the news online to see if La muerte cruzó el río Bravo had gotten any more interesting.
Unfortunately, I was so stunned it took me a while to boot up our camera, discover there was no charge at all in the batteries, change the batteries, then snap a few shots of this scene. I shall call it, 'the playing pool on horseback scene' from La muerte cruzó el río Bravo:
Playing Pool on Horseback from La muerte cruzó el río Bravo
It's hard to tell, but that's a pool cue in his hand, and another one in the hand of his opponent.
Playing Pool on Horseback from La muerte cruzó el río Bravo
It is even harder to tell that they are both riding horses, but they are.
Playing Pool on Horseback from La muerte cruzó el río Bravo
Here the pool table is a little easier to see. As you can see, playing pool on horseback is very popular with the locals in this part of Mexico. I'm hardly one to criticize. I was fascinated by the whole thing.
Playing Pool on Horseback from La muerte cruzó el río Bravo
With the game over, a tie is declared between the two sportsmen.
Playing Pool on Horseback from La muerte cruzó el río Bravo
The scene ends with this:
Playing Pool on Horseback from La muerte cruzó el río Bravo
Posted by crispy at 02:13 AM | Comments (4)
April 08, 2007
Deep In the Heart of Texas, Part Two
Sign on Club, Deep Ellum
I have something to say about the difference between American and European cities... but I forgot what it is... I have it written down at home somewhere.
- True Stories
Just because you attribute a characteristic to a thing or a place, it doesn't make it so. The sign above Oki Dog saying that it is "World Famous" doesn't elevate it from the relatively obscure infamy it knows in Los Angeles. Calling a sheep's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. Merely proclaiming the "Mission Accomplished" doesn't mean it has been.
Proclaiming that the United States is the land of the free doesn't keep Americans' personal liberties from slowly fading away, snatched by the government, willingly surrendered out of fear, or atrophying from neglect. On the contrary, life in the land of liberty is regulated and restricted much more than it is in Mexico, where people are permitted much more flexibility in what they do and how they do it. That doesn't necessarily make life in Mexico worry-free; in fact, it often makes life more frustrating. In the United States, people have a much greater sense of personal responsibility, instilled by history and civics classes and continually reinforced by the ever-present threat of lawsuits. In Mexico, you try to get away with whatever you can, and there's no need to feel bad about it unless you get caught. It's not really very noble.
Yet at times, the concept of personal responsibility gets pushed too far in the United States. Whenever I return here after being in Mexico, I am always surprised by how unnecessarily nasty people can be toward others. Shawn always cites the example of a business that he went to in Los Angeles once when we lived there that had a sign on the wall over their cash register that said:
WE DON'T PLAY THE CHECKING GAME! CASH ONLY!
"Checking game?" Why not just say, "sorry, no checks?" Why the need to make out like anyone wanting to pay by check is playing some shady con game? In the above sign, isn't it enough just to say "NO PUBLIC RESTROOMS?" Does it really need to admonish people with the whole, "You pee, you pay!" bit? And why is it such a big deal to let people use the bathroom?
I have heard the rationale that homeless people come in and use the facilities for more than just emptying their bladders (shaving, washing up, etc.). Obviously, that gives a bathroom a rather sketchy feel, but maybe if business owners were a little more upset about the fact that such people are homeless in the first place, it might be a little more productive. Yet in the United States, it seems the modus operandi is to criminalize the poor.
Sign on Club, Deep Ellum
In the above sign, they tell customers not to allow people to wash their windows for change. Why not? Is it really such a problem to have someone ask you if they can wash your windows for change? If you don't want you windows washed or you think it's not worth the spare change, tell them no. The sign also indicates that in Deep Ellum (and perhaps all of Dallas? All of Texas?), it's illegal to ask people for money. This offends Shawn greatly, as he thinks this is an unconstitutional denial of free speech. I tend to agree, but furthermore, I don't understand why it's illegal to ask anyone for anything. The government insists on it's share of my cash in the form of taxes and they don't even ask. They threaten me with legal action like seizing my assets or sending me to prison if I don't pay up. Those same people are going to turn around and make it illegal for other people to ask me politely if I will give them some money?
Help us help you to be safe and sound in Deep Ellum.
Why is more sound for people to urinate on the street or behind a tree in a park instead of doing it in a receptacle actually designed for the elimination of urine? How do people asking me for spare change threaten my safety?
I grant you, I've run into some aggressive panhandlers that won't take no for an answer and some have said that cash I've donated to them isn't enough. That sucks. People that believe that is wrong are correct to feel that way; anyone asking you for money should be appreciative of any help you give them. However, I don't understand why this rudeness gets American citizens so upset while the rudeness of "you pee, you pay!" doesn't seem to bother them.
In Mexico, you don't tend to see signs like that. Instead of restricting freedoms and criminalizing the poor, they take the free market approach. Instead they will often make it so that you can only get into the bathroom by paying something like MXN $3 (a little less than USD $0.30). This pays for the overhead: toilet paper, paper towels and regular maintenance. People that don't have the cash don't get in, but at least they're not being treated like scofflaws just because they have the unfortunate luck of being simultaneously poor and in need of a bathroom.
Posted by crispy at 09:12 AM | Comments (1)
April 07, 2007
Deep In the Heart of Texas, Part One
Shawn and I are on the road, visiting my sister Carol who has moved to Austin, Texas.
Brett With Hidalgo Mural, Dallas
Before coming here, we spent a few days in Dallas/Fort Worth, being shown around by our good friend Brett (a frequent commenter on this blog) because he grew up there. I have not been to Texas for 20 some years, but seen through the eyes of a gringo who has lived in Mexico for a little over a year, it's very interesting.
First, a word about Tex-Mex food, or rather, Mexican food in Texas.
El Fénix Restaurante, Dallas
One night, we ate at the original El Fénix restaurant in Dallas, and I must say I was surprised. Okay, while it's not exactly what I've come to think of as traditional Mexican food (they offer many north-of-the-border items like fajita-style nachos and sopapillas), their menu also had some telltale signs that honest-to-goodness Mexicans were involved with the food at some point. For example, they offer their queso fundido with chorizo or with mushrooms, like you would find it at many a location farther south. They also have chilaquiles, a dish that is ubiquitous in Mexico, but hard to find up here in the United States. I have had better Mexican food in Mexico. There is no doubt about that. Yet I was surprised at the degree to which the Mexican food in Texas resembled the food I've come to think of as traditional Mexican food.
One often hears the comment that Mexican food in the United States is more Tex-Mex than traditional Mexican food. Yet a lot of the Tex-Mex I've had in this state has not been like the Mexican food I've had in other parts of the country. For example, I would not say that Mexican food in California is like Tex-Mex, because the Tex-Mex I've had resembles traditional Mexican food more than it does Mexican food in California. Of course, I've not had the food throughout the entire state of Texas, but I have to say that my first impression is that the Mexican food here in Texas has gotten kind of a bum rap, since the crappiness of the bland food passed off as Mexican in other parts of the country is so often explained as being more Texan than Mexican. In general, the Mexican food I've had here has been much better than it is in other parts of the country.
It is a lot hotter on average, though.
Hernández Finer Foods, Dallas
Posted by crispy at 11:34 PM | Comments (5)
March 07, 2007
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Continuing to use torture under the guise of trying to extract information from prisoners (or 'detainees,' although I fail to understand that distinction) in spite of overwhelming evidence that the accuracy of any information gathered through torture is suspect, seems to indicate an underlying penchant on the part of the torturer for simply imposing suffering on others. It is undignified for any country to practice it, and citizens around the world should not tolerate its being conducted by their governments.
The Mexican government has been accused by groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch of systematic torture and corruption for many years. It appears that there is at least some lip-service being paid to the idea that torture is no longer practiced here, but rumors persist that it does indeed continue. Indeed, one of the central claims of protesters in Oaxaca is that the government there is holding and torturing political prisoners, and that is a big reason they are actively fighting to oust the governor, Ulises Ruiz.
It is not out of line for other governments around the world to call on Mexico to stop human rights abuses. But does anyone else find it hypocritical that the State Department of the United States condemned Mexico this week for using torture when the CIA kidnaps people, takes them to secret prisons and regularly uses interrogation techniques like water boarding and 'the cold cell?'
And where are the Americans protesting their government's use of torture? Are they really all that apathetic, or is the media just burying them under more sensational stories like the death of Anna Nicole Smith?
Posted by crispy at 04:46 PM | Comments (3)
February 06, 2007
Farm Week: Ethanol not to blame
A reader of this blog submits the following recent article from "Farm Week," which addresses the issue of rising tortilla costs in Mexico. The links are my doing and not in any way an endorsement of anything by Farm Week.
FarmWeek
Page 12
Monday, February 5, 2007Ethanol not to blame
Mexico dealing with spike in tortilla pricesBY DANIEL GRANT
FarmWeekThose who will travel to Mexico Feb. 12-20 as part of an Illinois Farm Bureau Market Study Tour will discuss a variety of agricultural and trade issues with their neighbors south of the border.
One issue that likely will corne up is the rising cost of corn flour and its effect on the price of tortillas - a staple of the Mexican diet.
While estimates of the price increase have varied, Mike Doherty, IFB senior economist and policy analyst, said Mexicans probably are paying close to 30 to 40 percent more this year for tortillas.
"There has been some concern about high corn prices and increases in corn flour prices and their relationship to the overall Mexican tortilla price," said one industry analyst who works with U.S. companies that produce tortillas.
Doherty agreed higher corn prices are at the root of the spike in tortilla prices. But he said it's a "stretch" to lay the blame on the U.S. ethanol industry.
The hike is due in large part to a shortfall of white corn used for tortilla production Doherty said. U. S. ethanol is produced from yellow corn, so the two industries don't directly compete.
"Last year (Mexico) had a deficit of 6.8 million metric tons (about 267 million bushels) of all corn, so you've got to import (to make up for) that," Doherty said.
"Then, when (the Mexicans) place a high tariff on white corn, they're setting themselves up that if they have a shortfall of crop, they're going to see some pretty dramatic price increases."
Mexico, which currently has a 54 percent tariff on white corn imported from the U.S., slashed its imports in recent years. Meanwhile, Doherty believes Mexican farmers may have shifted acres from white corn to yellow corn to feed a livestock industry that is "growing rapidly."
Pork production in Mexico increased a reported 23 percent from 1995 to 2005.
Meanwhile, labor and processing costs for tortilla production also have increased in both Mexico and the U.s., according to both analysts.
"It's likely that half the cost of tortillas is not even the cost of white corn," Doherty added.
Therefore, until Mexico increases its white corn production and/ or removes or lowers tariffs to reduce the cost of imported white corn, tortilla prices in that country likely will remain high.
[NAFTA Notes: While this article mentions high Mexican tariffs on white corn, (1) yellow and white corn are treated as the same commodity, and (2) that although NAFTA provided for a 15-year phase-out of Mexican tariffs on imported corn, the Mexican government removed nearly all tariffs on corn imports within three years of the ratification of the treaty. http://www.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=19304]
Posted by crispy at 09:17 AM | Comments (1)
January 08, 2007
The Influence of NAFTA on Mexican Emigration
Our friend Cristina, a naturalized citizen who is an expert in Mexican culture, sent us a link to a very interesting article in the Washington Post that talks about how The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is fomenting Mexican migration to the United States.
Posted by crispy at 08:43 AM | Comments (0)
December 19, 2006
Checkpoint Charlie
The Boston Globe reports that "security checkpoints" established after 9/11 in New England , far from the border (say, 100 miles from it), haven't stopped a single terrorist, but they've confiscated more than 3000 lbs. of that evil marijuana. These interior checkpoints stop all drivers on the road, not just those coming from or going to the border, making travel within the United States "feel like being in Eastern Europe under communism."
Posted by crispy at 11:35 AM | Comments (0)