Well, That Helps Explain the Lee and Martinez Trades...

Ouch. This is especially unfortunate given the vicious cycle of losing seasons and team incomes - a team starts losing money and has to let some players go, the team does worse, the fans don't come as much, team loses more money, more players go, fewer fans, etc. And unfortunately, it's not going to change until the Indians turn around - casual fans won't suddenly start coming so the team has more money; it's incumbent upon the team to do well (see: 1995's contention and the subsequent 455 sell-out streak).

As for Wedge, I'm usually not one of "those" guys, but hopefully, ownership and Shapiro determine that it's time to change horses. I like Wedge a lot, but the constant slow starts in April (9-14 in 2009; 14-15 in 2008; 15-8 in 2007, the lone good year; 13-13 in 2006; 9-15 in 2005; 10-13 in 2004; and 7-20 in 2003) are tough to deal with. What's more, Wedge is just really tightly wound, and very controlling, which can be great; however, after awhile (and it's been awhile), it leads to players pushing too hard, always trying to get that hit, always trying to get the perfect pitch, which just leads to swinging at bad pitches and making bad throws. In short, the team is too wound, pressing too hard, and Wedge's personality and style has a lot to do with that. And it's never a good sign when teammates are not-too-subtly throwing each other (and the manager) under the bus when things go wrong (see the July 12 post). It signals that the antagonisms between players and managers have irreversibly manifested themselves, and at that point, your manager is no longer effective.

So, I am rarely one of those people who quickly and rashly declares the manager has to go (Eric Mangini being the exception - let it be known here and now that, when it comes to the "fire Mangini" bandwagon, I'm not hopping on; I'm driving the thing). However, it's clear that Wedge's style has worn thin and lost its effectiveness. If Shapiro wants to bring a bunch of young guys up from the minors together and have a cohesiveness (and it certainly seems that that is now his plan), then he's going to need a manager who can work better with that. So hopefully, ownership and Shapiro will be on the same page, and Cleveland will have a new face as manager next year, even as I wish Eric Wedge the best of luck and future success with another (non-Yankee) team.

Banned Songs in Argentina, or "Love Is as Bad As Progressive Politics"

Lillie points us to this article revealing songs that Argentine governments (including the dictatorship of 1976-1983) banned between 1969 and 1982. Some of the selections are far from surprising - protest songs and social-justice songs in Spanish. Interestingly, both the first and last banned songs were "love" songs: "Yo te amo, pero no mucho" ("I love you, but not a lot"), in 1969, and "El amor" ("The love"), in 1982. The usual suspects are also on the list - John Lennon (though not for "Imagine," but for "Kiss Kiss Kiss",) Joan Baez, chilean folk singer (and victim of the Pinochet regime) Victor Jara, and several Argentine folk singers. Also on the list are Queen, Brazilian singer (and far from politically radical) Roberto Carlos, Rod Stewart for "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy," (which should have been banned worldwide on the principal of being so awful), Eric Clapton (I initially presumed for "Cocaine," which was indeed the case), and Donna Summer [?].

The one really interesting thing from this list (besides the inclusion of Donna Summer) is how much songs that touch on love and sex appear, even if they were relatively benign (even by 1970s standards). It's not too surprising that a state organ that kills upwards of 30,000 of its own citizens probably isn't too concerned about love. However, it is interesting (if not so surprising, as Diana Taylor has demonstrated) that, in these 13 years of periodic military rule and right-wing governments, the focus seems to be as much on the effect songs could have on societal "moral decay" as on political "subversion."

Overfishing May Be Declining, But It Hasn't Gone Away

In some rare, moderately-decent environmental news, overfishing may be falling off some.

Two years after a study warned that overfishing could cause a collapse in the world's seafood stocks by 2048, an update says the tide is turning, at least in some areas.

[...]Of 10 areas of the world that were studied, significant overfishing continues in three, but steps have been taken to curb excesses in five others, Hilborn and Worm report. The other two were not a problem in either study.

This is indeed some fairly good news in an area (fishing and the oceans) that has seen some of the worst news regarding environmental change in recent years.

However, I think it's a bit premature to be saying that "Crabcakes and fish sticks won't be disappearing after all." As the article itself points out (and contradicts its opening statement), many fish populations are still at high levels of risk, and fishing in Europe (particularly around Scandinavia) continues to be particularly excessive. And even if people try to boycott fish from those parts of the world, sometimes the alternative is not much better. Certainly reducing the overfishing rates in several areas of the world is good news, but until we reduce overfishing entirely and populations can rebound (which is still a major question), saying the threat of overfishing is going away seems a bit premature.

Random Music Observations, the Tenth

-Of all the crazy things that are mandatory reading in schools, the craziest thing ever is Dee Snider being mandatory reading. In Russia.

-I think I'd enjoy Drive-By Truckers more if there were fewer ballads.

-The Black Angels should get more attention, not for being relatively new, but for being objectively really good.

-There aren't a lot of reggae songs I enjoy, much less reggae albums. However, I could listen to the Congos' Heart of the Congos and Mikey Dread's World War III every day for a year and still not get tired of them.

-In terms of rocking, dirty, absolutely-terrifying-yet-strangely-compelling, nobody beats Junior Kimbrough.

Teachers at Charter Schools Beginning to Form Unions

The New York Times had an interesting article last week about charter school teachers beginning to unionize.

I find the arguments against unions here extremely weak. You don't want teachers of terrible quality? Then hire competent teachers, and set up (with the teachers' union) a system of evaluating teaching performances so that truly awful teachers lose their jobs. And I just don't see (nor do opponents of the unions explain) how unionization restricts freedom to innovate (one of the supposed benefits of charter schools) or "raise achievement."

Meanwhile, the benefits seem overwhelmingly important. Not being able to fire teachers at will, regardless of performance (and let's not pretend that some firings are driven by personal conflict or politics)? Fine. Giving charter school teachers better pay, instead of treating them like the adjuncts of primary and secondary education? Great. Reducing turnover rates in schools' faculty? Sounds good. Letting teachers have a little more input in the curriculum? I fail to see how letting the actual pedagogues have a say in the pedagogical experience could be a bad thing.

I hope this is something that can spread across charter schools throughout the country, either through local unions or a national organization. Giving teachers in these schools basic labor rights (like the ability to keep your job and make a decent wage) is a basic right, regardless of the structure of the school. Now, if only adjunct professors could start getting better rights and protection...

"This is HARD! I am in a pickle!"

So, after a year and a half in New York City, I am heading back to Albuquerque in a couple of weeks in an effort to get my dissertation finished on time. There will be things about New York I'll miss, and things I absolutely won't; likewise, there are things I look forward to again in New Mexico, and some things I dread.

However, my move has stuck me with quite a devilish problem. My current haunt is having a mayoral election this year, in which I have the chance to try to bring down a would-be king. Since I will only be gone temporarily (roughly a year), and as a New York taxpayer for 2009, I could vote absentee.

However, Albuquerque is having a mayoral election this October, where I have the chance to vote against the contemptible Martin Chavez as he seeks a fourth (guh!) term. The number of times I cursed Chavez and his policies, his rhetoric, his lies, and his self-serving actions (including posting firetrucks in front of his house during a wildfire, "just in case," while others on his street were fighting off the fire with garden hoses) in my first round in New Mexico are numerous; to be involved in Chavez's final downfall would be so sweet. I'll be there early enough that I could vote at the beginning of October in an effort to eliminate Marty from the chance of even a run-off, and even if he made it to the second round, it would be one more chance to get rid of Mayor Marty.

You, dear reader, can see my problem here: two elections, two absolutely contemptible men who absolutely need to be removed from office, and I can only vote in one of the two elections. Decisions, decisions.....

Brazil and Spain Express Concern over Increase of U.S. Troops in Colombia

Brazil and Spain Express Concern Over Increase of U.S. Troops in Colombia
The recent agreement to put more U.S. troops in Colombia is raising concerns beyond just Venezuela:

Spain’s Miguel Angel Moratinos and Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim expressed their reservations about the effects the military program could have at a press conference within the framework of the Spanish official’s visit to Brazil.

The two ministers also called for dialogue between Venezuela and Colombia and agreed to work “to avoid a spiral of misunderstandings” between those two countries.

This is a good diplomatic move that gives greater weight to regional concerns than Chavez's opposition alone could ever achieve. However, I don't know how much it will actually accomplish.

To be clear, I think the U.S.'s decision is a bad one, for a number of reasons. The "war on drugs" is pretty ineffective in its focus on the supply side rather than the demand side, and basing more troops in Colombia isn't going to solve this problem. What is more, it is clear that this will add to regional suspicion and tension in South America. While Obama's diplomatic efforts in the hemisphere thus far have been admirable in comparison to past administrations (dating to about, oh, 1848), the presence of more U.S. troops on any country's soil is a legitimate cause for concern, regardless of who is president of the United States. For these reasons, I think it's important that Brazil and Spain, who are far from antagonistic towards the U.S., raise these concerns. Again, I'm not sure it will result in any real change in the decision to move troops to Colombia when the Ecuadoran bases close (rather than, you know, having the troops actually come back to the U.S. when the bases close). But Brazil's and Spain's questions and objections should at least make the U.S. stop and take notice, and give the opposition to such a move much greater legitimacy than Chavez's opposition alone could accomplish.

And, on a side note, can we please stop referring to Daniel Ortega as part of some "leftist" "alliance?" Firstly, as I've noted before, these notions in the American media of "leftist alliances" in Latin America are false and lazy. Just because countries are friendly with each other, or from relatively similar political ideologies, does not mean they are some new axis, and American journalists' inability to look at Latin America with a view that is more complex than "leftist" is just shameful. Secondly, and more directly related to Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega has hardly been "leftist." If you want to refer to the Sandinistas as leftist, fine - it's still probably a lazy categorization on the part of the media, but at least it's fairly accurate. But when the actual major "leftist" political group in a country disowns the president as not representing leftist goals, ideals, and missions, could we at least respect that country's political spectrum, and agree that just because a leader isn't as "conservative" as America would like does not mean he/she's some radical "leftist" political force?

The Ways In Which Climate Change Is Already Affecting Cultures As Well As the Environment

This article on the Kamayurá people in the Amazon offers just one more reminder of the tragic effects climate change is having not just on flora and fauna, but on people and cultures, too:

Deforestation and, some scientists contend, global climate change are making the Amazon region drier and hotter, decimating fish stocks in this area and imperiling the Kamayurá’s very existence. Like other small indigenous cultures around the world with little money or capacity to move, they are struggling to adapt to the changes.

[...] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that up to 30 percent of animals and plants face an increased risk of extinction if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in coming decades. But anthropologists also fear a wave of cultural extinction for dozens of small indigenous groups — the loss of their traditions, their arts, their languages.

“In some places, people will have to move to preserve their culture,” said Gonzalo Oviedo, a senior adviser on social policy at the International Union for Conservation of Nature in Gland, Switzerland. “But some of those that are small and marginal will assimilate and disappear.”

This is absolutely right. In our concern over climate change, there seems (at least to me) to be a disconnect between the damage the environment is and will sustain (often illustrated in images of rising waters, receding glaciers, or increasingly arid locations) and the real effects these changes are already having on people. In part, at least in the U.S. and Europe, this is a matter of luxury - the populations are relatively well-off enough that issues like declining food availability and the threat of cultural extinction seem far-off or even non-existant (does anybody stop to consider the death of American cultures, or even sub-cultures?). Yet there are other parts of the world that are already dealing with these possibilities, not just in terms of declining food availability or changing landscapes, but of real threats to the survival of their cultures and beliefs. Nor, as the article points out, is it limited to Brazil - cultures in the U.S. are already facing danger:

"Eskimo settlements like Kivalina and Shishmaref in Alaska are “literally being washed away,” said Thomas Thornton, an anthropologist who studies the region, because the sea ice that long protected their shores is melting and the seas around are rising. Without that hard ice, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to hunt for seals, a mainstay of the traditional diet.

All this serves as just a stark reminder that climate change isn't just a threat that could radically transform the world for the worst if we don't do something about it now. It's already begun to take its toll on many peoples, and to ignore that fact is to ignore the fact that climate change isn't a future threat: it's a clear and present danger.

[Also, as an aside, I'm more than a little bothered that the second word (and first non-article descriptor) in the article is "naked." Could we appeal to exoticizing stereotypes, please? Were they naked? Probably. But factuality isn't the issue. What exactly does their state of clothing have to do with the rest of the article? Nothing. It's just appealing to basic, stereotypical images that portray indigenous people as exotic beings who don't wear clothes, without providing anything of substance to the main point of environmental change in the report.]

Turbulence Injures Dozens on Flight from Brazil to Houston

This doesn't surprise me at all. I've flown that Brazil-Houston leg on Continental, and it's terrifying. On my first trip ever to Brazil in 2005, I flew that flight. On the way down, I remained in my seat, blissfully ignorant, until about 3AM, when I finally got up to go to the bathroom. I wasn't out of my seat two minutes; yet the second I was in the aisle heading back to the seat, I suddenly went weightless as the jet just dropped. Two seconds later, I hit the floor, unable to stand up, as the plane suddenly and dramatically went up very fast. Of course, with my stupid historians' brain, I immediately remembered this incident from 8 years before, and clung to the arms of the seats on either side of the aisle for dear life. At that moment, the seat belt sign came back on, and the captain informed us, "ladies and gentlemen, we will be experiencing some turbulence here," to which I, still unable to stand up and hoping I wasn't about to die one of the dumber deaths, thought "fuck you; we ARE experiencing turbulence."

It passed pretty quickly, but when I flew back to the states (again through Houston), it was even worse. Although I didn't have to enjoy the otherwise-pleasant sensation of being weightless, we went through what remains to this day the worst turbulence I have ever experienced in my life. And while the turbulence on the trip to Brazil only lasted about 3 minutes (though it felt longer), the severe turbulence on the way back lasted 25 minutes, long enough to leave me white-knuckled and wondering if things like planes breaking apart mid-air were likely. We made it safely, but the Houston-Brazil flight is, in a word, terrifying. Newark, Atlanta, DC...all are way better.

The only thing that does surprise me in this is that it happened just north of the Dominican Republic, and not over the South American continent. On my flight, the severe turbulence we encountered in both directions happened as we went over the geographical shift from the Amazonian basin in Brazil to the Andes in Colombia. While I'm not a scientist by any means, it seems to make sense that a sudden shift from high mountains to flat basins (or vice versa) can cause some rather dramatic shifts in the jetstream, and a colleague of mine at the University of Texas in Austin who has had to make that flight numerous times always has the same experience - terror-inducing turbulence between Colombia and Brazil. So while the injury-inducing turbulence does not surprise me here, the location does.

This isn't to talk anybody out of flying to Brazil. As Erik can attest, the trip is more than worth it. Still, if anybody does plan on traveling, now or down the road, I would suggest perhaps finding an arrival/departure location other than Houston. Plus, by avoiding Houston, you don't ever have to set foot in George H.W. Bush Intercontinental Airport, an airport so pleasant, it could only be named "Bush."

Around Latin America

-In absolutely excellent news, 15 Colombian soldiers were sentenced to 4 to 30 years in prison for killing two civilians whom they later claimed were "rebels." The 10 soldiers (including an officer) who were involved with planning and murdering the two victims received 30-year sentences, while another five men involved with covering up the killings received 4-year sentences. This is major news, as it's one of the first times soldiers have been charged and convicted in "false positive" killings, or killing civilians and later covering it up by saying the dead were "rebels" allied with teh FARC. Hopefully, this marks the beginning of the end of impunity in Colombia.

-Brazilian police this week broke up a gang that specialized in trafficking prostitutes internationally. The gang used the internet and brothels to recruit women whom it then sent to Las Vegas, the Dominican Republic, and France to work as prostitutes. Ten individuals (including one American) were arrested in Brazil, and two more Americans are being held in the U.S.

-Roberto Micheletti's government has declared an end to the curfew it imposed. The curfew, declared in mid-July, was the second time Micheletti's "democratic" government made such a move since the coup at the end of June. And in a related story, Greg points out the hypocrisy of Honduras condemning Venezuela's government for imposing censorship, while Honduras's government imposes censorship.

-Former Costa Rican president Rafael Angel Calderon is facing the possibility of 24 years in prison after prosecutors charged him for corruption. Calderon, who was president of Costa Rica from 1990 to 1994, is charged with pocketing over half a million dollars in commission money intended to help Costa Rica's healthcare system. Calderon, who is hoping to seek another turn as president (Costa Rica disallows consecutive terms, but presidents can serve twice non-consecutively), says the charges are "politically motivated," though I don't really know if that's just window dressing or a legitimate charge. Calderon is the first former president to stand trial in Costa Rica.

-Is Lula trying to regain state ownership of the world's largest iron ore producer? Veja isn't the most reliable source (by which I mean, Veja is frequently part of the effort to smear Lula and discredit him), but the fact that Vale was owned by the Brazilian state until Fernando Henrique Cardoso privatized it in 1997, and that Vale's second-quarter profits apparently dropped 84% compared to last year, lends a certain degree of legitimacy to at least the possibility of the Brazilian state trying to regain control of Vale.

-And in more cheerful environmental news, there's an interesting (if depressing) story on the arrival of the nutria, a large (up to 30 lb.) rodent from Argentina, in the United States, and the havoc it is wreaking on the Chesapeake Bay. The nutria feeds on plants in the wetlands, leading to no plant life and wetland, but open water.

Chile, Panama Lead Latin America in Incarceration Rates; Brazil Still Has Highest Total Number

While not as high as the U.S., a recent study has shown that Chile and Panama have the highest rates of imprisoned among their populations, with rates of 310 and 275 per 100,000, respectively. And I admit, I was somewhat surprised - I had expected Brazil to be higher (though it is fifth, with 226 per 100,000, behind El Salvador and Uruguay). On the other end of the spectrum, Bolivia has the lowest rates (85 per 100,000), followed by Guatemala (88), Paraguay (100), Ecuador (118), and Nicaragua (120).

Of course, extrapolating that data to actual population stats, Brazil's prison population is quantitatively higher than any other country in Latin America. What's more, statistics don't reveal the appalling conditions of Brazilian prisons (or elsewhere - I can't help but think that, with overcrowding going well above 120%, Panamanian prisons are also in bad shape). The report also makes several other observations that should be common sense, but still need to be said: that the crime rates are due to socio-economic factors like wide gaps between wealthy and poor, and not to a breakdown in societal morals; or that the death penalty (used in Guatemala and the U.S.) does not deter violent crime. I don't know if this report will accomplish any real change, but it does highlight the problems facing many countries in how to deal with crime, the appalling conditions many prisoners are facing, and the need to push hard for basic human rights for prisoners, too, no matter how heinous the crime.

Jury Rules in Favor of Hospital in Deportation of Brain-Damaged Guatemalan

A couple of weeks ago, I commented on the pending decision of a jury in the case of a brain-damaged Guatemalan whom a Florida hospital shipped back to his country instead of continuing to care for him. Well, last week, the jury rendered its decision:

A hospital that sent a seriously brain injured illegal immigrant back to Guatemala - over the objections of his family and legal guardian - did not act unreasonably, a jury found Monday.

Deputy Court Clerk Carol Harper said the unanimous six-member jury found in favor of the hospital and against the guardian of 37-year-old Luis Jimenez, a Mayan Indian from Guatemala.

[...] The hospital had cared for Jimenez, who was uninsured, for three years. But it was unable to find any nursing home to take him permanently because his immigration status meant the government would not reimburse his care. [...]

The lawsuit filed by Jimenez's cousin and legal guardian sought nearly $1 million to cover the estimated lifetime costs of Jimenez's care in Guatemala, as well as damages.

The hospital said it was merely following a court order - which was being appealed at the time - and that Jimenez wanted to go home.

This is a pretty disappointing decision. Obviously, the hospital was not in the easiest spot. What really disturbs me about this case, though, is that the hospital dumped Jimenez while the legal decision on what was to be done with him was still in the appeal process. And both sides on the case agreed that the laws need to better address the issue that affected Jimenez:

"There is no doubt that the state government and the federal government has to address the situation," [Jimenez's cousin and American caretaker's lawyer] said. "They can't let something like this happen again." [...]

But [hospital CEO and president Mark E. Robitaille] agreed lawmakers must step in to ensure hospitals are not put in the same position in the future.

"This is not simply an issue facing Martin Memorial. It is a critical dilemma facing health care providers across Florida and across the United States," he added.

There have been some victories for the broader issue of the rights of illegal immigrants in the years since the hospital deported Jimenez in 2003. Gaspar did win the appeal that was pending when the hospital shipped Jimenez back to Guatemala, establishing the precedent "that state judges cannot authorize what is tantamount to private deportation of undocumented immigrants, and that hospitals have to follow the federal requirements that are in place for the discharge of all people, including undocumented immigrants." Still, the fact that Jimenez was deported despite this later ruling, and that the hospital, in spite of clearly violating the court decision and legal process, will not have to pay for the care (and let's not forget, Jimenez was hit by an American drunk driver - he was not injured through his own actions or decisions) that now falls on Jimenez's family in Guatemala, is a disappointing ruling. Hopefully, the appeal works out in favor of Jimenez and his family, and they can benefit from some of the broader legal rights born out of the Jimenez case.

Facial Hair of the Weekend

Greg Norton of Hüsker Dü, with what I would argue is the greatest rock'n'roll facial hair of all time.

Among the Greatest Contradictions Ever

There is a Schlitz cycling shirt.

That's all.

Cleveland Indians Trade Victor Martinez (or, "Just Because It Makes Sense Doesn't Mean It Doesn't Hurt")

I'm not going to lie - this one hurt. Victor has not only been a vital part of the Indians' offensive lineup for years - he's been the emotional center, one of the most popular players the Tribe has had over the years. This is probably the toughest trade to deal with on an emotional level since the Indians surprised their fanbase and traded Kenny Lofton in the offseason of 1996-1997.

It also hurts because it confirms what I already suspected - the Indians are in full-blown rebuilding mode for the first time since the end of the 2001 season. This isn't just "wait 'til next year" - this is "wait 'til 2011," with next year basically being a season-long spring training. Sure, the AL Central is still kind of weak, even with Jake Peavy, Jarrod Washburn, and Orlando Cabrera, so they could not-surprise me and win the AL Central, but, barring any miracles (and there haven't been any miracles since 1948), they're not winning the World Series next year.

This isn't to say the move doesn't make sense. Just like Lee, it was hard to keep Victor - his club option for next year was $7 million, and this is a team that (sadly) has to cut its (already bare-bones) payroll. With Matt LaPorta coming up soon to play first base, and with Travis Hafner already locked in as our DH through 2011, and with Lou Marson and Carlos Santana (not that one) sitting in the farm system at catcher, as well as Kelly Shoppach, who's very good and who we may now try to sign to a long-term deal, well....there just wasn't a lot of room for Martinez and his expiring contract.

Certainly, part of this feels necessary. As Paul puts it, "it kind of feels like we’re tearing off a band-aid and we might as well get in all the pain all that we can at once to let that next stage begin as soon as possible." And he's right - the efforts of 2002-2008 failed, and so it's time to look ahead, start over, and move on to the next stage. Plus, we already have great players like Sizemore locked in for a few more years, along with good players like Hafner. Combined with the fact that, by trading Lee, Martinez, Mark DeRosa, and Rafael Betancourt, the Indians save $25 million for next year and can maybe re-sign Choo and Cabrera, this all seems like a necessary evil. The Indians simply do not have the payroll to be able to continue to "rebuild" while remaining in contention by hiring experienced, good players to come in and fill the holes while the young guys develop. At the end of the day, this trade makes sense - it frees up payroll, it (together with the Lee trade) gets us a lot of pitching prospects, of which we have very few. And while I don't like to root for the Red Sox, I'll root for Victor always (barring him facing the Tribe in the World Series), and if he helps the Sox take down the Yankees, I'll be more than OK with that.

Still, Victor was a guy who loved Cleveland, who gave his heart and soul to the Cleveland Indians, and who in many ways was the face of the team in the post-Ramirez/Belle/Lofton/Thome years - the fact that he cried when he learned of the trade says all you need to know about his feelings for the Cleveland Indians. And there aren't a lot of guys who love Cleveland like that, in baseball or any other sports. Not only that - he's still very good. So this is necessary. But right now, it sucks, and all we can do is hope that the new efforts work out and keep a special fond place in our hearts for El Capitan.

An Update on the Common Grave in Paraguay

At the beginning of this week, I mentioned that Paraguayan officials discovered a common grave that contained at least two bodies of suspected victims of the Stroessner regime's dictatorship at a police barracks. The bodies have been exhumed, and while they are only two (perhaps three) bodies, they are of major importance for a few reasons.

Firstly, as the head of a local NGO put it, "Until yesterday, the 'Stronistas' (as Stroessner's followers are referred to here) said there were no victims of forced disappearance, that it was all just our lies," and this is true. Allegations of disappearances are hard to prove without concrete physical evidence of the murders of individuals; this common grave provides physical proof of extrajudicial killings during the Stroessner regime.

It also adds physical evidence in the case against Augusto Montanaro, the minister charged with human rights violations for his role in ordering the repression of dissidents during the Stroessner regime. Finally, the discovery will allow at least two Paraguayan families to learn what happened to their loved ones who disappeared and were never seen again, offering closure to those families and the hope for others that perhaps they, too, will one day gain closure.

Top 5 Stage Names for Drummers

In totally random, pointless list-making, here are my five favorite stage names for drummers.

1. D.J. Bonebrake (X)
2. Tory Crimes (The Clash)
3. Ted (The Dead Kennedys)
4. Sreech Louder (The Long Blondes)
5. Brain (Tom Waits, Primus)

Is Any Report of Steroid Use between 1985 and 2004 Still "News"?

Shocking. Cue up very vocal sectors of Yankee fandom whining about how this latest "revelation" proves that the Sox had an unfair advantage in 2004 and beyond. And then remind them of this guy. And this guy. And how that 2003 post-season turned out. And remember - as unfortunate as it is, no power-hitter (or pitcher, or many other types of players) is exempt from suspicion anymore, that no era of baseball has ever been "pure" or untainted, and that, while this knowledge perhaps fills a public need to know, it's also in the past, and there's not much that can be done now except keep testing in place and watch baseball move on (as it inevitably will).

....*sigh* And the ridiculous declarations that the Sox should be stripped of their titles and the not-so-clever naming ("Boston Roid Sox") have begun. Yes - because Boston was the only champion during the Steroids Era, and the only team that had players that used steroids. If there's one problem with the internet, it's that it provides access to idiots from all over, regardless of whether they should be opining publicly or not.

Will Colombia's Congress Prevent Uribe from Seeking a Third Term?

Apparently, Alvaro Uribe's attempts to run for re-re-election may be hitting a snag. In order to run for re-re-election, Uribe would need Congress to pass a constitutional amendment making a third consecutive term legal. As this post puts it,

"the inter-cameral conference committee has failed to resolve differences in a bill that would have to pass before a referendum could be called on lifting the term limit. If the referendum is held, there is little doubt it will pass, and if Uribe then runs, there is little doubt he would win. The sticking point is thus congress, where Uribe has been backed by a large multiparty coalition since winning his first term in 2002."

However, that multiparty coalition may be falling apart. The Cambio Radical caucus has announced it will not support Uribe for a third term; in this, they join the Conservatives, who are also running their own (non-Uribe) candidate for president. As Steven points out, the Conservatives and the Cambio Radical coalition together hold 49 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 33 seats in the Senate (out of 102), and at least the Cambio Radical have been a part of Uribe's coalition up until this point. Steven also points out that, those 30 Senate seats plus the 28 that the anti-Uribe Liberals have adds up to 61, "more than enough to put an end to any chances" that Uribe could even be re-re-elected.

All of this is not to say that Uribe is dead in the water. In light of this development, I wouldn't be surprised if Uribe delayed his "decision" until September so that he can lobby some of these Senators behind the scenes and not end up with pie in his face if he decides to seek a third term and then have Congress not give it to him. And Congress may work out the kinks in such a bill, though it continues to be at a stalemate right now. Still, it looks like there may actually be some legitimate hope that this effort to seek a third term is thwarted, and that would be a good thing for Colombia and for democratic institutions there (and elsewhere).

Progress in Honduras?

After a month in which the Micheletti government showed that it was pretty inept, the titular president of Honduras appears to finally be backing down significantly:

The head of Honduras’s de facto government, Roberto Micheletti, has expressed support for a compromise that would allow the ousted president of his country to return to power, according to officials in the de facto government and diplomats from the region.

That doesn't mean this is a done deal. As both the article and Greg note, there could be other problems in getting other institutions (namely, the Supreme Court and the military) on board with this, and the Supreme Court's need to issue a ruling next week is a bit....odd. Still, the fact that the previously-intractible Micheletti is suddenly backing down indicates his realization (albeit delayed) that he has no standing in the international community and little chance of accomplishing anything in Honduras, that his previous position was fairly indefensible, and that a resolution needs to happen soon.