Worst Americans Ever Revisited

I was messing around on the blog today, trying to find posts I'd written about Ulysses S. Grant in the past. I ran across a list of the top ten worst Americans I'd posted in 2006. I think all of these are still entirely defensible choices today. I'll repost them here, you can argue and disagree if you'd like. Certainly there are many good possibilities.

1. William Walker. Attempted to take over Nicaragua for the US slavery empire in the mid 1850s. Did so with the approval of southern politicians. In fact, he did briefly take control of the nation, though he soon failed and was killed in the swamps of eastern Honduras. Represents the worst of the American slavery tradition and American foreign policy. A completely irredeemable person.

2. Madison Grant. Friend of Theodore Roosevelt, Grant wrote The Passing of the Great Race in 1916. In this book, Grant feared for the decline of the Anglo-Saxon race in America due to immigration and "race suicide" practiced by Anglo-Saxon women who wanted to limit their pregnancies. Grant's book was a big influence on Hitler and the Nazis and his work was used in the Nuremberg Trials by Nazis to defend their actions. He worked closely with TR and other early conservationists on these issues as well as these men believed that the American West was a repository where Anglo-Saxon men could regain their manhood and virility. Theodore Roosevelt gets a free pass from a lot of people--the road between his beliefs and those of the Nazis is not long and it goes right through his associate Madison Grant.

3. J. Edgar Hoover. It's hard to get more despicable than Hoover. No need to go into his evil in great deal here. I presume most readers know enough. His unwillingness to inform Martin Luther King of assassination plots against him is enough to ensure his place here. But of course there are many more reasons.

4. Phyllis Schlafly. The woman who single handedly undermined the Equal Rights Amendment and galvanized the anti-woman plank of the New Right. The damage she has caused is spectacular. Rather unfortunately, she is still alive and working.

5. Robert Barnwell Rhett. Rhett was one of the leading South Carolina fireeaters who pushed the US toward the Civil War. For Rhett and others (and here is a case where Rhett represents several possibilities here), the only acceptable United States was one where slavery was the accepted practice of the nation.

6. James Buchanan. The worst president in US history, Buchanan did nothing to stop the dissolution of the United States after the election of Abraham Lincoln. He figured it was Lincoln's problem to deal with. That's what I call leadership!

7. Martin Dies. Dies could represent any one of several dozen virulently racist national legislators during the early 20th century. John Sparkman, Theodore Bilbo, Strom Thurmond, Harry Byrd, or several others could hold this spot. Dies gets it though because not only was he an ugly segregationist, but he also founded HUAC.

8. John Chivington. Again Chivington is representative of how 19th century westerners treated Native Americans. Chivington was the leader of the infamous Sand Creek Massacre in eastern Colorado in 1864. One of the great progressive myths about the American West is that the US military was to blame for killing Indians and destroying native cultures. This generally wasn't true--by far the bigger problem was local whites in the West happily killing any Indian they found, ignoring treaties and their own government, and forming militias to wipe out peaceful villages. Chivington led the most infamous of these.

9. Robert E. Lee. To me, Lee is worse than Jefferson Davis. Lee had the power to cripple the Confederacy by using his superior military mind to keep the union together. Chose to serve the interests of the slave states and helped lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Nothing that neo-Confederates and conservatives say will erase this fact.

10. George W. Bush. I don't even consider this a political statement. I think we can make a pretty good argument for his placement here. He has made the US significantly less safe through his foreign policy while compromising the nation's long-term economic stability, making the poor much poorer, and eviscerating environmental and labor regulations.

Special bonus #11 choice--John Foster Dulles. Eisenhower's Secretary of State. Supported the CIA overthrow of the Iran and Guatemala governments in the 1950s. The Iran operation led to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 while the Guatemala action led to the civil wars that country endured during the 1980s. He gets a pretty free pass for his work, but few people in American history have caused such catastrophes as Dulles.

Panic Blogging: 1893

The panic of 1893 and the resulting depression that lasted for the next five years were by far the worst economic collapse in American history before the Great Depression.

This story is pretty similar to 1873--corruption, a railroad bubble, terrible financial policies, deep and long-lasting suffering by the poor. Little had changed in American economic life between 1873 and 1893. In fact, I'd argue that the nation learned virtually nothing from that previous crisis. Corporations still owned Congress and state legislatures. The regulatory state was completely nonexistent. Even the most tame anti-business legislation like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was interpreted by the courts to apply only to labor, not to business. The reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to given corporations the rights of individuals was well underway. Robber barons controlled the American economy while presidents and leading politicians were in their pockets, ready to do the bidding of their corporate masters.

Like in the 1870s and like in the 2000s, the economic boom of the late 1880s and early 1890s was built upon speculative bubbles that literally had to burst. And like in the 1870s, it was railroad construction that fueled the bubble. Many companies had gone deep into debt to both finance their own construction and to take over other railroads. Meanwhile, severe poverty overwhelmed American farmers upon which much railroad traffic was based. Still a majority of the American population in 1893, the terribly high prices railroads charged farmers to ship their products drove many of them to collapse. When the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad declared bankruptcy in February 1893, sparking the panic, farmers suffered even more as prices for their goods fell.

Banks failed around the country, as did leading railroads. The Atchinson, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad went bankrupt, which was a huge and powerful railroad system. It's probably not quite on the level of Countrywide going under, but it had a major downward effect on the economy. Unemployment shot up to nearly 20%; given that so many poor people were working as farmers during these years, that number is much higher than it first seems.

The economic policies that helped lead to the panic and subsequent depression, particularly a lack of currency in the U.S. because of the nation's commitment to the gold standard, helped spur the Populists on. This movement of farmers and mining interests who wanted the U.S. to allow silver as the basis of its currency had already main major strides in the late 1880s and early 1890s. Ironically though, increased support for their positions, particularly on silver, doomed them in the end because their platform was co-opted by William Jennings Bryan and the Democrats in 1896.

Ultimately, what brought the nation out of the panic was nothing Washington did. Because Washington, still under the control of big business, did virtually nothing. It's that the currency supply significantly eased after the discovery of gold in Alaska and other parts of the world in the 1890s, increasing the money supply and credit availability, leading to another economic boom that would last until the late 1900s.

Coen Brothers Doing Remake of True Grit

I'm not sure what I think of this.

On one level, recent Coen Brothers movies that come from their own material haven't been particularly good. So moving into other people's stories might not be a bad thing. Certainly it worked for No Country for Old Men, their best movie in a decade. And I like the idea of the Coens doing westerns, which is a genre I believe suits their style well.

But a remake of True Grit? Jeff Bridges to play the John Wayne character? This is nothing against Bridges, but that movie is so tied in with old-style westerns and the ultimate old-timey western actor that it seems like a hell of a challenge.

Man, I'm Getting Old

I was reminded today that, in two years, Nirvana's Nevermind is 20 years old.

That's all.

Historical Image of the Day

Abraham Lincoln and General George McClellan, 1862

The First and Probably Last Time I'll Do This

He should end up in the Hall of Fame. NOT as a "great shortstop," NOT because he's a Yankee, NOT because he's "clutch," but because, when you strip away all of the fellating, all of the McCarver-isms, all of the obnoxious insistence from Yankee fans that he is baseball Jesus, when you strip all of that away, at the end of the day, he was an excellent, and maybe even great (though not one of "the" greats), hitter.

That's all I'll say about that.

2009 NFL Preview--AFC South

Here's the next installment to get in before the start of the season in ninety minutes. That sounds good to me.

Indianapolis Colts (10-6): How much longer can Manning do it? After this year, it's up in the air, but he and this team are still among the best in the league. Harrison was aging, so his exit is no big loss, and their younger receivers benefit dramatically from Manning's skill. The defense, seemingly questionable every year, has shown little change, though Bob Sanders, the single most overrated plater in the game today, is--surprise surprise--hurt again. They should put up big points, but Dungy was integral to the chemistry of this team and Manning has already called the new coaching staff into question, so this year could just as easily represent a changing of the guard.

Houston Texans (9-7): This is the year Houston finally breaks through. Gary Kubiak had better hope so at least, or he might be back with Shanahan wherever he is next year. Matt Schaub has received big press this season, but I don't really see it. Steve Slaton, however, should be fantastic and Andre Johnson is the best target in the league, so that combination should help Schaub look pretty good. For the offense to really succeed, however, their defense has to finally live up to its reputation. Mario Williams and DeMeco Ryans are both great, but the rest of this group, littered with prospects, has to play like it. This is especially true for DT Amobi Okoye, who has backslid since a spectacular first few games. If he and the secondary can live up to their hype, this team is playoff bound.

Tennessee Titans (8-8): Well-coached by the mousatchioed Jeff Fisher, the Titans will long be a team in contention. This division is so tough, however, that another trip to the post-season doesn't look likely. The loss of Albert Haynesworth is big, but the defense is still very strong and full of potential stars. They have a very good, and less drunk, running game, but the passing situation is terrible. Kerry Quitter had a banner year in '08, but without anybody to throw to, I don't see them being the ridiculous force they were last year.

Jacksonville Jaguars (6-10): I really like the Jaguars, and especially Jack Del Rio, but they're a far cry removed from the darkhorse division contender of a few years ago. I guess their big mistake, somehow, was getting rid of Byron Leftwich. This is David Garrard's last chance, or he's looking like a career backup. The defense has gotten old and has always underperformed. Though their receivers have improved with Torry Holt, their only true offensive weapon is Maurice Jones-Drew. He's a ton of fun to watch, but I'm not convinced he can handle a full workload. Like Julius Jones with Marion Barber a few years in Dallas, the loss of Fred Taylor will diminish Jones-Drew's reputation. Both look a lot better with the other than they do apart. Del Rio may be in trouble after this year but, if all goes wrong in Denver and Josh McDaniels gets fired, I wouldn't mind seeing him come in to coach the Broncos.

The Garfield Assassination

Never one to pass on a chance to talk about the Gilded Age, I wanted to link to M.J. Rosenberg's comparison of the assassination of James Garfield by angry Republicans in 1881 to the possibility of angry Republicans assassinating Barack Obama or other leading Democrats today or in the near future.

I'm skeptical. For one thing, while the corrupt wing of the Republicans were pissed that Garfield won the nomination instead of Grant or some other acceptable option, he was a Republican after all. He was a respected member of their party. It wasn't hate they spewed at him, it was contempt. If the Grant people had truly refused to support Garfield, as Rosenberg states, Garfield wouldn't have won the election. It's not as if they went and voted for Winfield Scott Hancock. The election of 1880 was very close, but that had a lot to do with enough disgust for Republican economic policies and corruption that the Republican policy of waving the bloody shirt at the Democrats in post-Civil War America didn't have its usual effect. Moreover, Rosenberg kind of underplays why Charles Guiteau assassinated Garfield. Other than he was crazy, he was a disgruntled office seeker. He expected to get an office under Grant and shot Garfield when that didn't happen, but it's an awful long way to go to blame anger from one faction of Republicans over an anti-Grant candidate defeating them for Garfield's demise.

Of course, he's trying to make a comparison between Republican hate mongering over time. I think this has some value, but I think it's also a fairly significant stretch in this particular case.

I do most especially agree with Rosenberg on this statement:

Thank God Obama has one thing Garfield didn't: the Secret Service.

Totally Pointless Question of the Day

Which is worse - being forced to sit through a Steven Seagal movie marathon, or being forced to sit through a Jean Claude Van Damme movie marathon?

Panic Blogging: 1873

The Panic of 1873, probably the worst economic depression the U.S. had faced to that time (though the Panic of 1837 and the immediate post-Revolutionary period are close) was caused by a combination of shady financial practices surrounding an unregulated market, uncontrolled railroad expansion, and monetary policy. The first two have some relevance for today's financial crisis, the last not so much.

The Gilded Age marked some of the nation's worst financial excesses and thus a series of economic boom and bust cycles. Business basically owned the government during these years, to the point of corporations simply buying state legislatures and creating false companies to pay off highly placed national political figures for their support. The rapid expansion of railroads across the country created conditions that opened the door for bad financial practices during the first decade of the Gilded Age. Widespread speculation in railroad growth created a completely unsustainable bubble that popped in 1873.

The Panic of 1873 was specifically set off by the failure of notorious speculator Jay Gould to move several hundred million dollars in railroad bonds he had purchased in order to build the Northern Pacific Railroad as the nation's second transcontinental line. There was a severe overextension of credit to Gould and other financiers. When the Grant administration refused to back American currency with silver any longer, through the Currency Act of 1873, American currency markets became very tight, helping to restrict credit and bring down Gould and others. When Gould went under, banks around the nation began calling in loans that creditors had no ability to pay. The banks themselves began to collapse and the panic was on.

Like other financial disasters, the Panic of 1873 started with bad decisions made in Washington, shady financial practices, and corruption. Of course, the poor suffered the most. The panic that began with Gould's failure quickly spread across the nation, leading to massive unemployment. Approximately 20% of American railroad companies went bankrupt in the next few years, as most of them had followed Gould's lead and severely overextended their credit lines.

The ensuing depression continued until the end of the 1870s. It helped lead to the nation's first mass workers' movement, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. Fighting against wage cuts, rail workers shut down the nation's transportation system. The federal response showed just how closely tied the Republican Party had become to large corporations--President Hayes sent in federal troops to break the strike.

The Panic of 1873 also frequently takes the blame for undermining Reconstruction. It's true that the Republican failure to fix the economy led to the Democrats taking over the House in 1874 for the first time since before the Civil War. Certainly those Democrats were not favorable toward Reconstruction measures. But the Republicans were increasingly abandoning Reconstruction at the same time. I seriously doubt that the sordid history of the end of Reconstruction and the rise of Jim Crow would have taken a different course had the Republicans managed to hold on to Congressional majorities past 1874.

Matt Yglesias and Merit Pay for Teachers

Yglesias is obviously one of the most influential progressive voices on the internet, but I find him quite susceptible to right-wing talking points about certain issues, especially education and labor. On these two issues, he shows every sign of never having to have thought about how to pay his rent or worry about material possessions at all and of having attended elite schools his entire life where the teachers were great and gave him every advantage.

When he writes about education and labor together, disaster results.

In a series of posts, (here, here, and here) he's talked about the need for merit pay for teachers. Merit pay is something that conservatives constantly talk up to fight against teacher unions. And in a rhetorical sense, it works--who oppose getting paid more if you do a good job? Hell, I would support that if it made sense in the real world. The problem is this--who decides who is doing a good job? We see over and over again in the real world workplace that those pay raises go to workers who tow the company line, rat out other workers to management, are friends with the boss, etc. Sexual favors for merit raises are hardly unknown.

Let's say I am teaching high school history in a conservative part of the country. I am not going to teach a conservative history. Some parents don't like me very much. I'm a pain in the ass for the principal because they call her. But I'm doing one hell of a job teaching history. I'm getting the kids interested, I'm trying new methods, I'm doing all sorts of audio-visual things, I'm making history alive for these kids. Do I get a merit raise? Hell no. The person getting the merit raise is the assistant football coach teaching down the hall from me who helped take the team to the playoffs last year.

If there was some objective way to give merit raises, I think lots of people would support them. But there's not. It gives tons of power to management. What bugs me about Yglesias on this issue is that he's so blind to this obvious fact, despite literally hundreds of people screaming it in his face (or at least on his blog). Everyone even remotely revolved with labor and education knows this to be true, but he won't listen or even begin to deal with these facts. On these issues, Yglesias very much reminds me of the close-minded conservative writers we all can't stand. It's really quite depressing.

All of this doesn't even get into issues of test scores as the judge of teacher competence, the value of teaching degrees, and issues of seniority. I'm happy to slam Yglesias on this too, but I'll desist for now unless someone wants to hear more.

Historical Image of the Day

Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln, 1864

On the Beatles

With the release of the (finally) remastered Beatles catalog, as well the Beatles Rock Band game, there has obviously been a lot of nostalgia about the band and its music, some of it sincere, some of it hollow. Just this week, I had somebody ask me if I were a Beatles fan, something I probably hadn't been asked since about 2000 (and only then because I was meeting new friends-to-be who were total Anglophiles). My opinion of the Beatles has always been that they were one of the greatest bands ever, no question, but that their greatness has been simplified and overstated as time has gone on, ignoring all the other kinds of great (and often non-pop/rock) music out there. As for their music, I respect what came before Revolver, but, barring a few singles (hello, "Hard Day's Night"), I only really like on an emotional level the stuff they started to do with Revolver, and consider Revolver and especially Abbey Road to be two of the greatest albums ever. However, there's so much great jazz, avant-garde, blues, hip-hop, electronic music, etc. out there, that I always felt the "cult of Beatles" was, shall we say, limited, though I certainly never held that against people of my parents' generations. I mean, think about it - they went from having groups like the Everly Brothers and cheesy third-rate doo-wop knockoffs as the representation of popular music, to the Beatles. I think I'd be nostalgic about how the Beatles "saved my life" too, if I had been in those circumstances.

That said, for all the nostalgia-mongering and reminiscing of late, I think Pitchfork's review of Abbey Road really hammers home just how impressive the Beatles' production was, by reminding us of something we've really lost sight of over the years as the Beatles myth has grown. When the Beatles broke up,

George was 26 years old, Paul was 27, John was 28, and Ringo was 29. The Beatles' first album, Please Please Me, had come out almost exactly six and a half years earlier. So if Abbey Road had been released today, Please Please Me would date to March 2003. So think about that for a sec: Twelve studio albums and a couple of dozen singles, with a sound that went from earnest interpreters of Everly Brothers and Motown hits to mind-bending sonic explorers and with so many detours along the way-- all of it happened in that brief stretch of time. That's a weight to carry.

Six and a half years. That's more than remarkable; that's a hell of an accomplishment, one I think it's safe to say popular music and/or rock music will never see again. Of course, so much more happened, and that kind of statement can help add to the mythology. Still, if anything is going to add to the myth-making of the Beatles' status, I can't think of a better accomplishment to enter music Valhalla than to go from Please Please Me to Abbey Road in six and a half years.

Is the PT Looking towards Obama's Model of Campaigning?

If the Brazilian presidential elections were held today, Serra of the right-center PSDB (Partido Social Democratico Brasileiro) would win, as he is well in front of runner-up Dilma Rousseff, of the PT, and in a run-off, would decimate her if the elections were held today.

However, the elections aren't held today, and, unlike in the U.S., the campaign won't really get going until 2010 begins. (I know, I know - campaigning only in the year of the election seems novel and strange in the United States, but there you have it), and a lot of factors could enter into the equation. Rousseff hasn't really geared up in campaigning yet, and Serra's numbers are in large part because he's a known name who's generally respected (he lost to Lula in 2002, before the PSDB swung even further right in the 2006 elections and being severely repudiated for that swing). Plus, there are always dark horse candidates, specifically former Minister for the Environment Marina Silva, who left her post last year. She is running next year for Brazil's Green Party (Partido Verde), and who is already causing a bit of a buzz with the possibility of being Brazil's first black president and woman president, which, in the wake of the wonder and marvel in Brazil at the U.S.'s election of Obama, may make voters a bit more emotional and wistful for their own "change they can believe in."

While Obama could hover over the elections vaguely as issues of politics, rhetoric, and racial identities play out in next year's elections, it turns out he's already having a more immediate impact on Brazil's 2010 elections. It seems the PT has contacted the firm responsible for Obama's internet campaign in a hopes of having them help the PT in getting the word out on the PT and on Dilma.

Leaders from the Workers Party met with Ben Self from the Blue State Digital agency, the brains and architect behind the successful digital publicity strategy displayed by president Obama during his 2008 campaign.

According to O’ Estado de Sao Paulo, Lula da Silva’s party is intent in mounting a propaganda strategy through Internet to promote the most certain presidential postulation of Dilma Rousseff, currently cabinet chief, and who Lula da Silva has virtually hand picked as his successor. [...]

Obama’s “on line” strategy has been closely followed by Lula da Silva and his advisors who last week inaugurated the president’s own blog with incredible success.

This is really interesting, and only in part because the PT is looking to Obama and the U.S. for lessons on how to employ newer technologies in elections. From a Brazilianist's standpoint, it's an interesting answer to the question that has dominated the PT since the 1980s, and especially since 2002: what will a post-Lula presidency PT look like? One of the biggest challenges facing the PT has been that Lula has been its leader since it was formed out of the metal-workers' movement against the dictatorship in Brazil in the late-1970s. Lula has been the PT's face, its leader, its ideologue, and its communicator; at the same time, he has made clear that he would be finished with politics after his presidency, and there has been real concern within the party and among its supporters about what would happen to it - could it survive without Lula at the helm?

This effort to use the internet as a means of promoting not just its candidate, but its platforms and its ideas, seems to me to be a serious attempt to ground the PT as a party unto itself, rather than as "Lula's party." Who knows how this will play out - like the presidential elections of 2010, there's just too much time still to come and too many unknown factors to make any concrete guesses. Still, it's a fascinating move on the part of the PT, both for what it could mean for next year's election, and for what it could mean for Brazilian politics more generally.

Obama's Speech, Hecklers, and Reverse Fundraising

I wrote a piece for Global Comment tonight on Obama's speech, so I'll post a link when that goes up. For now, though, the thing I wanted to share is way, way cooler.

So Congressman Joe Wilson, of South Carolina's 2nd district, was the one who shouted "Liar!" at Obama during his speech. Always classy, since the good old days of taking handouts from Jack Abramoff, that Wilson. I've been bitching about him since I lived in SC, but no one really cares about South Carolina politicians until they screw up on a national scale. People still buy into the red state/blue state divide and just assume that South Carolina republicans are untouchable.

But Joe Wilson pissed off a lot of people. And petitions started circulating on Twitter as soon as people found out who had been the heckler. But some people (me being one of them) decided that a better way to punish Wilson would be to donate to his opponent, a nice guy named Rob Miller who ran and lost in 2008 but forced a more competitive race than Wilson has faced in my memory.

Well, as of a few minutes ago, Rob Miller's campaign was $40,000 richer. Just on the ActBlue page, at press time (since it keeps changing) he's raised $29,312. His home page was down the last time I tried it from traffic.

Twitter activism might fade out quickly, but perhaps fundraising/reverse fundraising is the best use of that flickering moment when thousands of people are all good and pissed off. The people who donate to Miller tonight may not remember him in 2010 (unless they live in SC's 2nd) but their dollars will go a long way toward making the race competitive.

2009 NFL Preview--AFC North

Football season's upon us once again and, though I was shy on the football last season, it's back in full swing now. Since the games begin tomorrow night with an AFC North vs. AFC South matchup, we'll start there, then head East and West.

Pittsburgh Steelers (11-5): With no significant changes on either side of the football, Pittsburgh is poised to have a third Super Bowl handed to them by the refs if they can make it into the game. I doubt they will, but if they do, there's little doubt regarding the outcome. This fact isn't so much their fault, though, they were a great team last year and will win the division again this season. The only real question involves the running game, where Willie Parker has been slowed considerably and their backups are utterly unproven. Without a standout year from the backfield, Rothlisberger could be exposed, leaving the door open for Baltimore.

Baltimore Ravens (10-6): The vaunted defense isn't getting any younger, but considering the play from this already old unit last year, I'm not sure it'll make a difference. The older they get, the smarter they play, and I think they're still one of the top in the game. Like every other year, however, the questions pile up on offense. One of the most underwhelming groups in the league, they show no real improvement in personnel for this season. Sure, Flacco will be a little better, but he still has neither a decent receiver to throw to nor a running game to help take the load off his shoulders. If the offense doesn't dramatically overachieve, much like they did in '08, the defense may not be capable of withstanding it.

Cincinnati Bengals (7-9): It's hard to believe I'm actually writing this, but it seems like the Bengals may have a defense that begins to match its offense. That may not equal "good" per se, or even league average, but they'll be better. There are a lot of new faces on that side of the ball who have received favorable reviews, so it's their best chance in years to have a successful season. The offense takes a hit with the loss of TJ Houshmandzadeh, but Lauvernues Coles is still a good receiver. Cedric Benson is just as terrible as he's ever been, so not much change there. They aren't playoff bound by any means, but they now sit solidly at third place in the division instead of only marginally better than Cleveland.

Cleveland Browns (5-11): Ugh. I almost want to leave it at that but, for Trend's benefit at least, I'll go on. The trouble starts with the question, "Do we start Derek Anderson?" NO! If there's any debate on this subject, you need a different quarterback. Jeff Garcia suddenly needs a job, why don't they bring him home. I'd take him over Anderson and Brady Quinn in a heartbeat. Moreover, can they not find a better running back that Jamal Lewis? They may have not gotten the memo, but he's been pretty mediocre for about five years now. Teams had success moving fullbacks into the tailback slot last year, why not try that? They got rid of Kellen Winslow, but kept Braylon Edwards...I don't see the difference. On the plus side, however, I'm a big fan of D'Qwell Jackson, he's one of my favorite non-Broncos, but one man does not make a defense. Even with Jackson, yeah...ugh....

Investigating Fernando de la Rua's Role in Deaths in 2001

While the collapse in the economy last year was truly remarkable and a little frightening, it really didn't compare to what Argentina went through in 2001 - a total economic collapse, street protests and subsequent police violence that resulted in the deaths of 5 protesters in Buenos Aires and another 21 dead elsewhere in the country, and the president fleeing Argentina from a helicopter.

De la Rua, who had also attempted to censor all the media in Argentina at the time, was charged for ordering the police repression that did result in the deaths of the five in the Plaza de Mayo. In April, a lower court had dismissed the charges, but yesterday, an appeals court overturned the dismissal, ruling that the case be re-opened and charges continue until the investigation comes to a close. This of course doesn't guarantee that de la Rua will ever be punished for anything, or even connected directly to anything, but the ongoing investigation at least allows prosecutors, lawyers, and human rights officials to examine the case fully to get at what de la Rua's exact role in the events of December 19 and 20 of 2001 were, rather than letting him go free from any legal consequences of his actions, as would have been the case had the dismissal of charges been maintained. So this is overall good news, and it will be curious to see what (if anything) happens from this point on.

One More Pinochet-Era Legacy, Gone

In some minor-yet-interesting news this week, Chilean president Michele Bachelet is seeking to repeal a copper-mining law. The move is gaining major support from private multinational copper companies, and is a major shift in how Chile has regulated its copper production for over 30 years. But it has nothing to do with privatizing Chile's state-owned copper producer, Codelco; nor does it have anything to do with an opening of the markets; nor is it establishing more liberal controls on production mechanisms.

Bachelet hopes to repeal the law that gives 10% of all of Codelco's profits to the Chilean armed forces.

First established under Pinochet, the law has allowed Chile's army to remain relatively militarized and advanced technologically when compared to some of its South American neighbors. Additionally, there was much fear and criticism that the profits from Codelco in the 1970s and 1980s were either going to fund torture and repression, and/or paying the salaries of torturers and high-ranking officials in the Pinochet regime. After Pinochet's fall in 1990, the law remained on the books, as the military was reluctant to part with its cash cow and as Pinochet remained a "senator-for-life" with enough support to prevent any serious repeal.

Fortunately, Pinochet is dead now, and the military has changed its stance in his absence, and is on board with the repeal. Should the repeal go through (and it appears it will), it will be one more minor-yet-refreshing way in which Chile is shaking off the legacy of the Pinochet years.

[And I submit "copper" as another of the "we didn't already have a tag for that?" Come on, Erik - where's the environmental blogging on copper production been?]

Racism, The Forest Service, and Environmental History

Oh boy. Via Andrea:

The US Forest Service issued and then retracted a Labor Day warning advising hikers to “beware of campers in national forests drinking Tecate beer, eating tortillas and playing Spanish music” because “they could be armed marijuana growers.” A high-ranking Forest Service official in Colorado also identified people speaking Spanish and eating Spam or Tuna as “warning signs of possible drug trafficking.”

We might want to chock this up to a single Forest Service employee. I'm sure that someone (if not more than just one) lost their job over this. But while especially egregious, this incident reinforces long term racism revolving around who gets to use the environment. Who belongs in nature? The idea that seeing non-white people in the forest is somehow a threat comes straight out of a racist playbook in the environmental movement that's been around in one form or another for the last 120 years or so. Today, nature is for play. Work in nature is considered a bad thing. People who work in nature are raping the land or whatever. Never mind that Latinos form a huge percentage of reforestation and fire fighting crews. Since brown people are not supposed to have time to play, they must be growing drugs if they are in the forest. Now, it is somewhat rare to see non-white people in the forest. This is related to the fact that whites have more money and leisure time that they choose to spend in the forest.

Environmentalism and play in nature is associated with elite white people. Moreover, it has been for a long time. Since at least the 1880s, non-whites in the outdoors have been viewed with suspicion. Early environmentalists tried to separate working-class people from nature as much as possible, particularly those from non-desirable ethnic or racial groups. They cracked down on Italians because of their poaching (i.e., subsistence hunting so their families could eat) of songbirds and deer. Native American hunting was particularly looked down upon as wasteful, even though these same environmentalists romanticized Native Americans in their search for a more active and robust lifestyle. African-American hunters in the South were also seen as a menace who did not respect hunting laws and poached game that sporting whites should be allowed to kill. Early environmentalists like Theodore Roosevelt and Madison Grant (writer of the notorious eugenic book The Passing of the Great Race) saw race and nature as closely connected; game animals needed preservation in order to provide something for wealthy whites to kill. That killing was central to preserving the Anglo-Saxon masculinity that had supposedly been central to the nation's rise during the 18th and 19th centuries.

The United States Forest Service exists in no small part off land stolen from people of color. For example, the entirety of northern New Mexico forests exist of land stolen from New Mexican Hispanos who inherited that land through land grants that American courts refused to recognize despite promises they would do in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican War in 1848. In the 1960s, Hispanos fought back, leading to the 1967 raid by Reies Lopez Tijerina and his followers upon the courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico to free people imprisoned for fighting to take back the stolen lands. Much other land of course once belonged to Native Americans and they certainly weren't welcome to use it in traditional ways after the arrival of the USFS.

These connections between race and nature have changed over time of course. In the late 1960s and 1970s, whites who continued to dominate all things conservation found room in nature for Native Americans through a new chapter in the history of whites romanticizing them. In this case, the anti-pollution Crying Indian ads are the most famous artifact. Native Americans took advantage of this in all sorts of ways, but when they didn't act toward nature in the ways that white environmentalists wanted (like developing their land or using their fishing rights), they were basically accused by whites as not being real Indians. This latest chapter in environmentalism that continues today hasn't found any room for other non-whites, thus their existence in the forests must mean they are doing something illegal.

Finally, tuna eater=Mexican? I did not know this. Nothing like a new stereotype... Also, I like Tecate, tortillas, and Mexican music. Does this mean that I am growing drugs? If so, why aren't I making any money?

Texas Hypocrisy

Yesterday I pointed out that the people opposing Obama's speech to children didn't care about indoctrination; they assumed that anyone would indoctrinate their children and they only want it to be the right person.

The Arlington, Texas school district has made this statement loud and clear. They refused to show Obama's speech. But they are going to bus their students on September 21 to hear George W. Bush speak, along with several members of the Dallas Cowboys and other people far more appropriate than the current president of the United States.

Arlington has plenty to define itself as evil. The new Cowboys Stadium is only its latest symbol of its commitment to the dark side. But the blatant and open hypocrisy of the city and its people is shocking, even to someone who lives in Texas.

Via Amanda.

Environment vs. Social Justice

Via Africa Unchained, Alex Perry's piece in Time on the horrible leadership of recently deceased Gabonese president Omar Bongo brings to mind one of the most difficult contradictions within environmentalism--sustainability versus social justice.

A lot of activists don't like to frame this discussion as oppositional. It doesn't have to be. But in the developing world, it usually is. From an environmentalist perspective, Bongo is arguably the best leader in African history. He has saved a massive amount of rain forest in his country which today is among the most biologically diverse and unexplored places on the planet. It's my dream to visit there. But Bongo did this only by ensuring that just enough oil money got to the people to prevent them from entering the region. Moreover, as discontent rose in later years of his regime, he began to back off from protecting the forest and started building dams and allowing other development.

On the other hand, you have any number of left of center leaders in Latin America, Africa, and Asia who promise land reform for the poor. It's hard to oppose this. Governments and the corporations who own them have ignored and exacerbated poverty, concentrated land in the hands of the few, and given no opportunities for the masses of poor to improve their lives. But land reform in practice rarely brings anyone out of poverty and is almost always an environmental disaster.

The reality is that land conservation has usually worked best when that land is held in large segments by wealthy people. Writing that makes me kind of sick because it goes against everything I feel about social justice. But it's true. For example, Zimbabwe was a real hot spot to visit in the 1980s and early 1990s because it's wildlife populations were so high. But that came at a cost--they were high because whites who controlled most of the land were still controlling it despite the fact that the white supremacist government they supported had fallen. Robert Mugabe started seizing that land in the early 2000s to redistribute it to the poor. Of course, Mugabe's nation is a disaster in many ways related to him, but in this particular case, it did little to help the poor out, it caused massive and rapid deforestation, and a significant decline in wildlife. To take a very different example, this weekend I visited the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in north central Oklahoma. This land is the largest remnant of tallgrass prairie left in the world. It's amazing and beautiful. It also survived because it was part of a large ranch owned by one family for generations. They never had to break it up for money and they never had to plow the land. Had that land been in small farms, it's extraordinarily unlikely that it would have survived.

So what do we do about the poor of Gabon who desperately need to improve their lives? Should the forest be opened to them on some level? And what about subsistence farmers in Central America invading national parks in order to continue their traditions of slash and burn agriculture? It's a very difficult question. In the end, I find myself falling on the side of forcible environmental protection combined with environmental education and big time anti-poverty and job creation programs. I don't like finding myself on this side of the fence, but when those species are gone, they are gone forever. Were there evidence that opening up these lands made any difference in the poverty of the people, I might well feel differently, but there's not. Perhaps ecotourism is the best answer, but that's fraught with all sorts of other problems.

So I have no good answer here. But I'm trying to work something out in my head that could provide for both environmental protection and making people's lives better. If the two are entirely separate, I have a hard time believing that either will win.

Panic Blogging: 1837

It's been a year since the financial crisis first hit. Thirty years of tearing down New Deal and Great Society regulations undermined the apparatus to stop financial panics from taking place. In my mind, the recent collapse has a lot more in common with 19th century panics than the Great Depression. But to explore this a bit more, I want to spend the next week examining the different financial panics in American history.

Let's start with the first truly great one: 1837. It's not all that easy to compare the 1830s to the present. But they do have one important thing in common: a populist anti-government president who channeled fears of the common people toward elite institutions of which they had little understanding.

This president of course is Andrew Jackson. A major issue for the early decades of the republic was the size of the federal government. Twice, presidents created the Bank of the United States. Twice, future presidents let it die. Twice, economic depressions took place. The Panic of 1837 was caused in no small part by Andrew Jackson ending the BUS and sending government deposits to poorly regulated state banks. When Jackson vetoed the rechartering of the BUS, it was supposed to have died in 1836. But unwilling to see the Bank live until then, Jackson withdrew all government deposits early, in 1832. Those state banks showed little restraint or responsibility and were issuing tons of notes with almost no backing to them. In particular, these notes were used to pay the federal government for public land purchases. Shortly before leaving office, Jackson issued his Specie Circular, banning such notes for use in paying the federal government.

In the Panic of 1837, 1/2 of American banks failed. Like many of these panics, recovery was slow--in this case 1843. Like in the Panic of 2008, unrestrained credit and shady financial practices were a major problem--without the use of worthless bank notes, western states had no way to acquire public land. Of course, the Panic of 1837 affected the poor the most, leading to huge unemployment numbers (though it's not possible to measure these things with any accuracy during this period) and even food riots in New York.

Again, I think it is ahistorical to draw too many direct links between 1837 and 2008. But there are at least a few important similarities--an anti-government mentality among large groups of people, a president to channel that anger (though at least in Jackson's case, he actually was not born an elite), an overabundance on credit and shady financial maneuvers, and a willful ignorance about the coming problem. Exuberance over bubbles blind people to their existence. In 1837, the bubble popped and the whole system collapsed, much as it did in 2008.

Historical Image of the Day

Portrait of Abraham Lincoln, 1860

Trying to Create the WORST Possible Health Care "Reform"

No public option, and fines if you're uninsured? Funny...I thought "reform" usually meant "to improve." And charging the elderly 5 times as much as 20-year-olds? And to think the right was outraged about "death panels" in the public-option plan.

Seriously, this sounds like about the worst proposal yet - a giant "fuck you" from Max Baucus to everybody from his party who actually wants change.

Ichiro!

A slightly belated congratulations to the great Ichiro on becoming the 2nd fastest player in baseball history to get 2000 hits. He did it in 1402 games. Only Al Simmons did it faster.

Anyone who says that Ichiro is not a hall of famer is crazy. Even of he doesn't get to 3000, it is only because he came over from Japan so late. Had he started in the major leagues at the age of 20 or 21, it's likely he would provide a legitimate challenge to Pete Rose's hits record.

The Socialist Indoctrination Speech

Well, Obama's attempt to turn our children into socialists seems to have gone off--he sold them such commie values as trying hard, staying in school, working hard, and taking responsibility for your actions. That's some anarchism right there my friends.

The only useful thing that we can take from the wingnut response to the speech is their belief that every time a president addresses an audience, it's to indoctrinate them. And what that means is that they totally support this idea, so long as it's their president doing the indoctrinating. That's what scares me the most about all of this--they actually want presidents sending messages to schoolchildren, so long as they are messages they approve of.

Historical Image of the Day

In honor of the 200th year of his birth, this week's images will be of Abraham Lincoln and Lincoln related things.

The best I can tell, this is a card of Abraham Lincoln that appeared in a Kellogg's cereal box in 1896. I guess it's like a baseball card, but of Lincoln. Kind of a bad drawing too. Interesting though.

More on Colombia, Uribe, Re-Re-Election, and Abuses of Power

I mentioned last week that Uribe's government was looking scarier and scarier, with allegations that he's using Colombia's internal security apparatus, the DAS, to gather information about his opposition. It turns out, it may be even uglier than originally reported:

The former ICT director of Colombia's intelligence service DAS confirmed a leaked testimony wherein he alleged that the DAS was engaged in drug trafficking by paramilitary organization AUC and wiretapping government critics. President Alvaro Uribe was aware of the service’s illegal activities, the director said.

"The only thing I can say is that during [former director Jorge] Noguera’s tenure, drug trafficking was carried out by the DAS with the participation of senior DAS officials," Garcia said to Noticias Uno.

Garcia also alleged in the newscast interview that DAS gave weapons to the now demobilized paramilitary Northern Bloc, and that several local DAS directors were appointed by explicit request from the paramilitaries.

If even one of these allegations is remotely true, it's some of the most damning evidence yet of Uribe's direct ties to paramilitary groups and, perhaps more importantly, the drug trade. The fact that he has not been investigated or punished for this is disturbing enough; the fact that Colombians continue to overwhelmingly support him in spite of increasing evidence that Uribe is connected to illegal paramilitary groups and activities is more disheartening for the future of Colombia.

Of course, even some of Uribe's supporters are beginning to waver in their support in the wake of the approval for his third term last week. The typically-great Plan Colombia and Beyond has some choice quotations from Colombian newspapers last week. For example:

This is not the moment to be complacent about Colombian democracy, nor with the will of the majority. It is time to pass from yellow to red alert. The government and its congressional supporters possess absolute power, and they have demonstrated that they will not be detained by legal or regulatory barriers, nor will they respect the Constitution. It must not be forgotten that the majority of coups d’etat have been directed by charismatic leaders – prominently that of Hitler in 1933 – … and that they are carried out with the collaboration or complicity of legislators who are captive, attracted, coopted or intimidated by the executive backed by the military or by popular majorities.

Usually Hitler analogies are grossly abused, but in this case, the parallel (that dangerous, charismatic leaders often arise to power with the aid of legislators) isn't without merit.

While one might hope that this turning on Uribe from many of Colombia's traditional journalistic supporters of the president might indicate that the third term is not guaranteed. As lfm remarks in the comments over there, "we will see a lot of intoning these days from “very serious people” about checks, balances, limits on personal power, rules of the game, constitutional democracy, yadda, yadda, yadda. But it will be fun to see by May how many of those will be voting for Uribe." That unfortunately hits the nail on the head - one can hope that this will work against Uribe, but most likely, when push comes to shove, Colombians in May will look the other way on his hunger for power and his connections to gross human rights violations, and will vote him in for another term, allowing a culture of impunity, double-standards, and hypocrisy to continue with no real gains.

Loving the World Cup Qualifiers

Anytime Brazil's national team beats Argentina in soccer, it's a great day. It's an even better day when the Brazilian victory makes Brazil the first team from the Americas to lock a spot for the 2010 World Cup. It's an even better day when Argentina's loss leaves them in fourth place and in danger of not even making the World Cup. And it's about as great a day as it can be when Brazil beats Argentina 3-1, in Argentina. (And the goals were beauties, especially the first one).

Normally, I hesitate to gloat - sports is the one arena in which I'm superstitious. However, I can't help but point out the troubles Argentina is facing, while Brazil is looking very good. When Brazil first hired Dunga in 2006 after the World Cup debacle, Brazilians killed him. They thought he wasn't devoted enough to the well-known stars (Ronaldinho in particular); they thought he was incompetent-looking; they thought he was too relaxed. I thought this was exactly what they needed, given that the previous coach effectively cost Brazil the World Cup by refusing to sit a fat Ronaldo and not knowing how to use his younger stars (bringing Adriano and Robinho in against France only in the 5 minutes was absolutely inexcusable). Dunga made it clear - you had to earn your way onto the team, and those who played well on the national team would get to stay, while those who did not would sit. I thought this was exactly what was needed, and it turns out, I, and more importantly, Dunga, was right. Players like Luis Fabiano, Felipe Melo, and Daniel Alves have come into their own under Dunga, and even the very-young Pato has had some good playing time in international competition. It's enough to make me very hopeful about next year.

But what could make me giddy? Well.....the horrible position of Argentina. They are ridiculously good on paper. But it just hasn't translated, and the blame is increasingly falling on Diego Maradona's coaching. When Argentina hired him last year, I had my doubts about his appointment giving Argentina that extra bump, and it looks like I'm increasingly right. Some criticisms are silly (so what if he took his players to church?), but criticisms about his tactics are both more serious and more long-term. For whatever reason, Argentina clearly has not clicked under his leadership, and now they're only 2 points ahead of Colombia in the qualifiers, facing the very real possibility that they may have to play the 5th place team from Concacaf just to qualify for South Africa next year. I still think they'll pull it off, but it's definitely not worked out the way Argentina had hoped. And I totally agree with pc - Argentina's in big trouble. If they fire him now, they're (probably) going into the World Cup with major trauma - this isn't like baseball, where you fire one guy and plug another one in there. But at the same time, they look completely unprepared for next year, and if they can't handle the physical and inspired play of a team like Brazil, there's no way they get very far next year (and again, that's if they make it, an assumption everybody had coming into the qualifiers based on how they looked on paper).

Erwin hits it on the head: Brazil and Argentina right now are the tale of two coaches. A lot can happen over the next 9 months, but right now, I really like where Brazil is sitting; watching Argentina flounder just makes it that much more pleasurable.

Brazilian Independence

In addition to being Labor Day here in the U.S. today, September 7 also marks Brazil's Independence Day. 187 years ago today, Dom Pedro I declared independence, liberating Brazil from Portugal once and for all (although, in good old colonialist fashion, Brazil's independence wasn't recognized for another 3 years).

Throughout the colonial period Portugal had basically allowed Brazil to remain a colonial backwater. For the first 50 years of Portuguese control (1500-1550), Portugal barely gave any attention to Brazil, focusing instead on its spice- and slave-trade exploits in Africa and India, which were the major sources of income for the Portuguese empire. As the French and Dutch threatened Portugal's holdings in Brazil in the mid-16th century, Portugal finally began focusing a bit more heavily on populating and defending its lone holding in the Americas. At first, Portugal Exploited the pau-brasil (a tree with a red trunk used to make dye in the 16th century) for its income; however, as indigenous people died and the trees became scarcer, the Portuguese colony switched to producing sugar, and, later, mining diamonds and gold found in Minas Gerais and São Paulo, relying heavily on African slave labor in both cases. For centuries, the Portuguese Crown's presence in Brazil was limited, particularly compared to the complex hierarchies of power in Spanish America. The Crown mostly manifested itself via extraction of resources for profit and in heavy-handed attempts to control the colony through decrees; for example, Brazil wasn't allowed so much as a printing press under Portuguese rule (though, paradoxically, the colonial state did not have nearly the presence in Brazil that it had in Spanish America). In an effort to make sure that all the profit to be wrought from the Brazilian colony went straight to Portugal, the Crown also forbade trade with any foreign power (especially England) other than Portugal.

However, with Napoleon's invasion of the Iberian Peninsula in 1808, regent João VI (acting as regent for his mother until 1816, when he became king of Portugal), the Portuguese court picked up and relocated to Rio de Janeiro, making Brazil the seat of the Portuguese Empire. It was a remarkable shift for Brazil, during which the printing industry boomed (it would be hard for the Portuguese crown to outlaw printing presses in its own country), education began to flourish, and cultural production blossomed. The Rio de Janeiro merchants, businessmen, and politicians (and much of the Brazilian elites) were thrilled and proud, and not without reason - never before had an Eurpoean monarch visited a colony in the Americas, much less make it his or her home. (And this re-location no doubt is one of the several factors as to why Brazil would gain its independence peacefully, in comparison to the Spanish-American countries).

As we all know, eventually, Napoleon was defeated, returned, was defeated again, and it was OK for the Portuguese court to return to Portugal. Only, a funny thing happened. João VI liked it so much in Brazil, he didn't really want to go back to Portugal. Only in 1821, under threat of de-throning, did he return to Portugal, leaving his son, Dom Pedro I, to serve as regent in Brazil. However, after 13 years of serving as a political center, Brazilian elites and politicians did not want to return to being a colony. Thus, in 1822, Pedro I formally broke with Portugal, creating the Empire of Brazil (it's most likely he did so after being pressured by Brazilians interested in breaking with Portugal, though some biographers insist he did it of his own free will and his love of freedom - either way, the thought of being emperor of Brazil instead of waiting for his dad to die and Pedro's ascension to the Portuguese thrown must have seemed like a pretty nice idea).

And so it went. Brazil remained an empire until 1889, with Pedro I serving as emperor until his abdication (in the wake of political and economic crises) in 1831, and his son, Pedro II, all of five years old at the time, became emperor (with regents ruling for him until 1840). Brazil would abolish slavery in 1888 (the last country in the Western Hemisphere to do so), and would declare the end of the Empire and the beginning of the Republic on 15 November 1889 (another national holiday). But none of it would have happened (except maybe the very-late slavery abolition) without Pedro I's "Grita de Ipiranga" (Cry of Ipiranga), declaring Brazil a sovereign nation on 7 September 1822, a day that will be marked today, as usual, as a federal holiday, with military parades in Brasília, Rio, and elsewhere.

(For those interested in the Portuguese Court's time in Brazil, see Kirsten Schultz's Tropical Versailles: Empire, Monarchy, and the Portuguese Royal Court in Rio de Janeiro, 1808-1821.For some good essays on independence, see A.J.R. Russell-Wood's From Colony to Nation: Essays on the Independence of Brazil.)

(Mildly updated from this.)

Happy Labor Day!

Guards & supporters rally for a union at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. My article on it here, if you want more info.

Report Emerges on the First "Disappeared" of Brazil's Military Dictatorship

Last week, O Globo published a fairly important report on the Brazilian dictatorship. In it, they pointed to a document from 1969 in which the Brazilian Army "assumes responsibility for the death of guerrilla Virgilio Gomes da Silva, [AKA] Jonas, considered the first political "disappeared" of the dictatorship." [English summarization of the report here.]

If it's accurate, and it seems to be, this is relatively big news. Although the military government in Brazil came to power in 1964, the first four years of the dictatorship were complicated. Many believed that the first military president, Humberto Castelo Branco, expected to be in power just long enough to stabilize Brazil, at which point the country would return to democracy. In between 1964 and 1967, though, the military fractured into two segments; the "moderates," who followed Castelo Branco, and the "hard-liners," led by Artur Costa e Silva, the Secretary of the Army under Castelo Branco. By 1967, Costa e Silva and the hardliners had maneuvered behind the scenes to take over, and Costa e Silva became president that year.

On top of this, the social and political situation in Brazil was increasingly polarizing in the context of the Cold War. University students were heightening their attacks on the dictatorship and getting more and more radical in their politics. The support of the middle class was wavering as it became increasingly clear that democracy was not returning anytime soon and as their children were now increasingly targets of police violence in protests. And conservatives were increasingly insistent on the need to stamp out communism and protect "freedom" in Brazil. As a result, at the end of 1968, Costa e Silva issued Institutional Act No. 5 ("AI-5"), which, among other things, indefinitely closed Congress, increased the president's power, and ushered in the most repressive phase of the dictatorship, during which torture and "disappearances" would become more prevalent.

To combat this, and to fight for the release of 15 political prisoners (including student and labor leaders and communist intellectuals), a group of students, with the aid of two "revolutionary" leaders, kidnapped the American ambassador, Charles Elbrick, in September 1969. The events are chronicled fairly well (albeit embellished and lopsided) in the movie "Four Days in September", as well as the outstanding (but not available in the U.S.) documentary "Hercules 56." Ultimately, the 15 political prisoners were released, and the students released Elbrick, who was relatively unharmed (save for a minor head-wound).

All of this matters because, as the students who organized and executed the kidnapping of Elbrick were young and relatively disorganized, two men were sent to help them - an older man who'd fought in Spain and was code-named "Toledo," and a younger radical named "Jonas," Virgilio Gomes da Silva. Ultimately, all of the kidnappers were caught and tortured (and many of them subsequently released in the kidnapping of the Swiss Ambassador in 1970). However, "Jonas" was one of the few who was never released, and it has been presumed that he had been disappeared. But there had never really been any documentary evidence that this was the case; all that we had were piecemeal eyewitness reports. Until now.

What's particularly interesting is that we now have what appears to be an official, albeit rough, date for the first disappearance in Brazil. Compared to Chile and Argentina, the numbers of "disappeared" in Brazil are relatively low (a few hundred). And while Brazil employed torture and arbitrary and political arrests and killings in the first 5 years of the dictatorship, apparently, it did not begin disappearing people until 1969, five years after the dictatorship arrived in power, and by about 1974, the practice was discontinued (though torture and political arrests continued), again marking a major difference between Brazil's dictatorship and those of Chile and Argentina, who began "disappearing" people almost immediately.

Of course, those who committed these acts remain anonymous, and it's not unlikely that those who killed "Jonas" are themselves dead at this point. And any effort at punishment will not happen; once again, Brazil is markedly different from Chile and Argentina, in that, outside of some doctors who were present for torture sessions, Brazil has not juridically punished any of the perpetrators of torture and disappearances. Still, this new information could help the fight to open military archives that remain secret and closed. If nothing else, it has offered a little more detail into actions and timelines that many people suspected, but that lacked documentary evidence. Until now.

Twittering, free speech and sports

I apologize for defying blogging etiquette by not posting for a while, and then jumping in with a self plug, but I thought many of you might be interested in this issue because it touches on aspects of free speech, social media, and regulation as they relate to sports.

I am sure you are aware of last month's NFL incident with Chargers' cornerback Antonio Cromartie, where the team charged him a fine of $2,500 simply for castigating training-camp food on his Twitter page. In fact, coach Norv Turner specifically told Cromartie that he wasn't to say anything critical about the organization on Twitter.

Several other incidents with players saying so-called sensitive or offensive things on the microblog have happened recently. Notable ones were Vikings' Bernard Berrian's tweet, overblowing the consequences of quarterback Tarvaris Jackson's knew injury, and Houston Dynamo star Brian Ching's tweet about a cheating referee. Ching was charged $500 for this.

After several teams tried to disallow Twitter use by players altogether, the NFL finally decided to simply ban tweeting by players within 90 minutes of the start of an NFL game, and until after media interviews following the game. This seems like a more reasonable form of regulation since it involves merely restricting it on the field and during media interactions.

Other than the fact that this sort of content regulation infringes on free speech, however, there is also an opportunistic nature to these rules, considering NFL teams use Twitter to announce updates on events and policies (draft picks were revealed through Twitter, for instance, and ironically, the Chargers scooped their first-round draft pick on the microblogging service). This gives the impression that teams and the organization simply want to cover up anything that might be harmful to the reputation of the organization.

The US Open jumped on the Twitter-regulation bandwagon last week, when it sent an email to all players with a list of dos and don'ts about the kinds of messages that cannot be tweeted. Apparently, the Tennis Integrity Unit is concerned that players might reveal sensitive information that could be potentially used for match fixing and sports betting - information like player injuries, weather conditions, etc.

Again, the US Open itself uses Twitter to promote matches, polls, contests, and even US Open gear. But it has no qualms about regulating what players tweet about. Like NFL players, many tennis stars--most notably, Andy Roddick, the Williams sisters, and Britain's Andy Murray--have taken to tweeting extensively. Both Roddick and Murray were outraged and outspoken about it.

Now, here's my shameless self plug: I wrote about this topic in some detail at the Huffington Post yesterday: do check it out if you can.

The Situation In Colombia Is Growing More and More Disturbing

Colombia under Uribe is quietly getting more and more frightening. First, there were the close connections between top allies to Uribe and paramilitaries and their "extralegal" assassinations that Uribe sought to bury, even while soldiers were convicted of killing innocent civilians and labeling them "rebels" post-facto. Then, Uribe moved closer to running for a third presidential term as first the Senate and, last week, the House of Representatives approved of legislation opening the way for a third term for Uribe.

Now, the great blog "Plan Colombia and Beyond" points us to two equally disturbing stories. The first, coming from Colombian magazine Semana, reveals that Colombia's Administrative Department of Security under Uribe's watch has been wiretapping and surveilling journalists, judges, presidential candidates (not named "Uribe"), and opposition politicians, gathering information on them that could be used now or later and giving Uribe and the Colombian state a disturbing amount of insight into the private lives of its citizens, particularly those who oppose or criticize Uribe. We've seen these kinds of activities in the past, from the DINA in Chile to the SNI in Brazil, and numerous other places. Suffice to say, these tactics and acts are not the mark of a benevolent leader with no broader, more sinister political machinations.

Secondly, the Miami Herald reports that the U.S. has given "diplomatic immunity" to a U.S. soldier accused of raping a 12-year-old Colombian girl. But it's not just the U.S. that is protecting the sergeant and a Mexican contractor until there is more "evidence" against them. Last week, when the girl's mother tried to go before the Colombian Senate to plead her case, the Senate prevented her from taking the floor to make her statement. In other words, the Colombian Senate had no interest in pursuing a case of justice for a 12-year-old victim who is a citizen of Colombia. Had it been a Venezuelan soldier, I'm sure the case would have been a cause for major diplomatic crisis between Colombia and Venezuela, but since Colombia is still very close to the U.S., I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that the soldier's country-of-origin played no small part in the Senate's refusal to listen to the pleas of one of its own citizens last week.

And, disturbingly, there seems to be little concern from any foreign leaders in the international community over these issues. Former Colombian President and Secretary-General of the OAS César Gaviria did come out strongly and say that these were the acts of a "dictator who wants to turn the DAS into a criminal machine," but his opposition is the only major voice out there that has openly condemned these acts so far. In the U.S., it's been very quiet, not just from the Obama administration but from the opposition. While Republicans were willing to defend what was clearly an illegal military overthrow of a popularly-elected president in the name of "democracy" when Zelaya simply sought to ask the Honduran people if they think presidents should be re-elected, those same Republicans have been remarkably silent when it comes to Uribe; the fact that he's one of the closest friends Republicans have among Latin American leaders is surely mere coincidence.

Still, for all those who think the concerns over Uribe's actions are hyperbole, simply consider the following: Uribe is moving towards being in power longer and using state-security apparatuses to spy on judges, politicians, and his opponents, while paramilitary groups and American soldiers who rape children remain free of investigation or punishment for their actions. This is certainly cause for very, very real concern.

Historical Image of the Day

Charles Sumner, senator from Massachusetts, 1851-74

To close my Senator series, I want to talk about somebody a lot of people were suggesting was one of the greatest senators in history, Charles Sumner.

Sumner's courage and bravery cannot be questioned. But what I think keeps him down a bit is his lack of skills as a legislator. He's most famous for being beaten by South Carolina senator Preston Brooks during an anti-slavery speech on the senate floor in 1856. Because it was on the senate floor, Brooks was immune to charges. Brooks nearly killed Sumner with his cane; Sumner was out of the Senate for 3 years recovering from his injuries.

This happening to Sumner was far from unexpected. A biographer says this about him:

Distrusted by friends and allies, and reciprocating their distrust, a man of "ostentatious culture," "unvarnished egotism," and "'a specimen of prolonged and morbid juvenility,'" Sumner combined a passionate conviction in his own moral purity with a command of nineteenth-century "rhetorical flourishes" and a "remarkable talent for rationalization." Stumbling "into politics largely by accident," elevated to the United States Senate largely by chance, willing to indulge in "Jacksonian demagoguery" for the sake of political expediency, Sumner became a bitter and potent agitator of sectional conflict. Carving out a reputation as the South's most hated foe and the Negro's bravest friend, he inflamed sectional differences, advanced his personal fortunes, and helped bring about national tragedy."

I think this is fairly accurate. I imagine the Republicans have more equivalents to Sumner today--he kind of acted like Michelle Bachmann. He was a provocateur far more than a legislator. He did play a leading role in attacking Andrew Johnson during Reconstruction, but he was far from alone in that sentiment and I'm not sure that he did anything unusual in his leadership on this issue.

What did Sumner do to get beaten by Preston Brooks? I'm quoting from his Wikipedia entry, but it's accurate with what I am familiar with:

Sumner said [Stephen] Douglas (who was present in the chamber) was a "noisome, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator." He also portrayed [Andrew of SC] Butler as having taken "a mistress who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean, the harlot, Slavery." Not content to leave his assault on a political level, Sumner's three-hour oration took a cruel, personal turn as he mocked the 59-year-old Butler's manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier.

So this wasn't the classiest of guys. He was offensive for a good cause and I have no love lost for anyone he attacked, but this is not the hallmark of a great legislator. To his everlasting credit, no one did more for African-Americans during the Civil War and Reconstruction and his spirit led to the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the last major piece of legislation to help African-Americans for 80 years. That said act was not enforced and overturned by a Republican dominated Supreme Court in 1883 is no fault of his.

So Sumner deserves credit for much of what he did. But I think being a first-rate senator also means having some ability to function as a senator--to pass legislation, to craft compromise, to show legislative leadership. And Sumner didn't really have any of these qualities.

Facial Hair of the Weekend

An Amish Man, 2004.

The Road

As I expected, reviews for the film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" look terrible.

John Hillcoat was clearly not the right director for this film. That decision was based entirely upon his film "The Proposition," which came out a few years ago. That film was OK at best and continued upon the post-1970 theme of western as horror show. "The Road," at least the book version, only falls within that genre on a superficial level. It's really a story about the love a man has for his son. But of course, Hillcoat jumped all over the extreme nature of the story (while leaving out the most extreme elements, making it all far worse) and evidently not exploring the relationship side of the story in a meaningful way.

It's all too bad since it could have been a good film. And while the book is somewhat overrated as compared to other McCarthy works (The Crossing is much better), it's still quite solid and touching.

Eye-Stabbing Worthy Television

"Tonight.....Senator John McCain! Frank Caliendo! [of Frank TV] And musical guest...Third Eye Blind!!!!"

I submit to you the worst ever top-to-bottom guest lineup in late-night television. Thank god for being able to turn it off after the humorous bits in the first 10-15 minutes.

Maine Same-Sex Marriage Vote

Possibly this fall's most momentous election will take place in Maine, where homophobes are placing a ballot measure before voters to overturn the state's same-sex marriage law. This is going to be huge. If the measure fails and the law is upheld, it will be a gigantic loss for those who oppose same-sex marriage and will be another sign that the country is moving toward equality on this issue. If the measure passes and that law is overturned, it'll be a blow on the level of Prop 8 in California. Eventually, I believe these setbacks will be overcome, but it could be a decade or more.

Oregon-Boise St.

The last time the Oregon football club took the field, in December 2008, some pretty awesome things happened. There was this:



And this:



And this too:



Whoa.

Tonight, Oregon starts their 2009 season with a revenge game against Boise St. Last year, Boise came to Eugene and beat Oregon, in part because of a cheap shot on QB Jeremiah Masoli that knocked him out of the game. That wasn't the only cheap shot either. Oregon has national championship hopes. Boise hopes to go the BCS. One of these hopes will end tonight. This is also the biggest name opponent ever to come to Boise. And it's the first football game of the entire college football season.

So it's kind of big. And I am very excited.

Historical Image of the Day

Completing our list of the 6 greatest senators in U.S. history, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, 1962-2009.

I hardly need to go into Kennedy's many accomplishments for this audience. But his advocacy on the behalf of underprivileged people surpasses virtually every senator in American history. His knowledge of Senate procedure helped Democrats defeat much of Reagan's agenda. And his ability to get deals made created a lot of legislation, not all of which I agree with (No Child Left Behind for instance), but all of which he worked on with the best of intentions and an instinct for what could get done in a particular political climate.

Several Human Rights Cases in Latin America

Between leaving New York and arriving in New Mexico, I suddenly found that I would be teaching (with all of the accompanying research and lecture-writing) at UNM this semester, on top of working on my dissertation, so blogging will not be as prevalent as I would like.

However, there are a few things related to human rights worth noting this week. First, Guatemala sentenced former military commissioner Felipe Cusanero to 150 years in prison for his role in 6 disappearances between 1982 and 1984. The sentence is a major one, because it is the first conviction of anybody for human rights abuses during the 36-year civil war. This is rather remarkable and depressing, given that upwards of 250,000 people were murdered during the civil war, and the armed forces committed nearly all (80%) of those murders. It's almost inexcusable that it's taken 13 years for even one conviction, but you have to start somewhere, and hopefully, many more will follow. And at least Guatemala did not give Cusanero some weak sentence, either.

In Argentina, a new book by a mother of one of the disappeared from the Dirty War (1976-1983) reminds us just how heartbreaking and difficult those cases continue to be as they haunt their families. In fighting for human rights and against abuses, it's easy to lose sight sometimes of how this still affects people daily, but just reading the opening sentence (quoted in the article) is a devastating reminder of how real the effects for many remain.

In Chile, a judge has issued arrest warrants for another 120 intelligence officers connected to torture and other crimes against humanity during the Pinochet regime, even while many torturers remain on the public payrolls in Chile. And for any who still think Pinochet led Chile for purely selfless reasons for 17 years, the fact that he managed to earn $25 million (with $20 million of it having "no justifiable origin") would hopefully destroy any such notions. Unfortunately, Cold War zealotry dies hard, and he'll still have his defenders for years to come.

Finally, only marginally related, a major obstacle to Alvaro Uribe's quest for a third term was overcome yesterday, as the Colombian House of Representatives approved the referendum bill for a third term (probably made him feel a bit better as he tries to recover from H1N1). It's still not a lock - the Court could surprise people and rule it unconstitutional, and the Colombian people could vote it down. But neither of those outcomes is very likely, given Uribe's support both on the courts and among the general Colombian population. For all of the spastic reactions from the right against Ecuador's Correa for seeking a second term or Manuel Zelaya trying to get a referendum for a second term before being unceremoniously overthrown in a coup, Uribe is currently the one Latin American leader that really seems to be pushing the boundaries of "democracy" with his efforts towards re-election right now.

Confederate Monument in Seattle

I just found out that there is a monument to the Confederacy in Seattle. Apparently, it has a history of being vandalized. I knew I liked Seattle for a reason.

A Lesson We Won't Learn

Yglesias makes a good point about Karzai's election fraud in Afghanistan:

But I think there’s a lesson here about America’s tendency toward geopolitical self-righteousness. When Russia backs pro-Russian political leaders in countries that are important to Russia (Georgia, Ukraine, etc.) even when they commit election fraud, the tendency is for the United States to enter an orgy of moralistic denunciations. But we, too, have our moments in which we feel strategic interests compel us to keep backing our favorite horse even if he commits some election fraud. We don’t need to embrace it when other countries do it, but it’s worth having some humility.

The chances of us learning this lesson: zero.

70 Years

70 years ago today, some bad things started happening in Poland.

I'll let you figure out the rest.