Nob Central

On the public option

2009-09-09T07:52:00.002-05:00

I haven't really gotten Kevin's idea that it would be ok to drop the public option as long as other things are done. I think that argument just misses the larger issue. Any health reform fails without a public option because the public option is the first step to fundamentally changing our health care system from the free market, monopolized morass of the status quo to a single payer, Canada style system. Absent the public option, we basically have tinkering on our way to unaffordability. Or, to put more clearly, offering the subsidy and no public option is acceptance of the status quo - an admission that things aren't that bad and that we just need to massage the monopolized system to fix its ills.

A mandate and subsidies don't freak out the GOP because they know that these are minor repairs that they can fight against and whittle away. What the GOP fears is that Obama will actually get angry and use his rhetorical power to actually do some monopoly busting. That's why they say death panels and all that other nonsense. They fear the long term, psychological changes that will be brought on by a well functioning, easy to use public option.

Perhaps people who have not lived in a universal health care system can't truly grasp this concept but it is the ease of use that wins the day for single payer. You walk into the hospital, you get service, you pay nothing. No special cards, no long forms, no hassle, no foul looks when you say you don't have insurance. If you think about the nightmare of private insurance, where most people don't even understand what is covered, what to do in case of an emergency, or how much they'll be paying in situation X, Y, and Z and you compare that fear to how the same person feels in a public health insurance system, the status quo loses every time. No one, given the choice between a monopolistic or hybrid system and a public option, single payer system would chose the former. That's why the GOP is freaked. And that's why we need to hold out for the public option. It's not even about getting those 45 million insurance (although that will happen and it's a great necessity). It's about fundamentally altering health care in America and putting us on the road to a Canada style system. That won't happen with the subsidies mess.

(Aside: It's never been about cost. The USFG can spend whatever it wants. That's why we just pissed a trillion or two down the drain fighting wars that didn't need to be fought. It's about values. Do we value American lives more than we do filling corporate coffers and defense contractors pockets? Other countries have made clear that they value their citizen's lives first. Somehow, anytime someone suggests that we might value our citizen's lives, the Right screams bloody murder about budget deficits. Notice they don't blink twice when asked to spend a trillion dollars developing a weapon system that doesn't work or to invade a foreign country.)

Man can not live on barbeque and burritos alone

2009-09-01T21:22:00.003-05:00

I've been back in the US for just over a month and this would be a good time to restart blogging. The time I spent in DC was well spent and a net negative for my desire to continue to slim down, but who's getting out the scale anyway.

Returning to Atlanta was like returning to a foreign city. The town itself has changed so dramatically in the intervening nine years that I have been away as to be almost unrecognizable. Change, as one would expect, occurs on dual, linear paths arcing in opposite directions, which is to say, that the "new" downtown is much better than the old downtown, but the "new" Buckhead is a giant nightmare that I continue to avoid as much as possible.

Changes or not, Atlanta is a city that perfectly illustrates my sense of cultural dislocation: the city is engineered, designed to get people in during the day and out during the night. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, we tend to value living outside of the city in gated communities that resemble defensible fortresses of private security. It's odd really, the rest of the world tends to value living in cities. Johannesburg real estate, for example, is much pricier in the city than out (although there are specific racial issues that explain that case). My point being, that our culture, and specifically that which dominates in Atlanta, is not a culture that values public space and that makes me rather uncomfortable.

Good news, barbeque and burritos haven't gotten worse over the last five years. Atlanta has seen a proliferation of burrito joints, most of them rather plain, but Chipotle continues to shine. In terms of barbeque, the South has to be famous for something and being famous for generational knowledge for slow cooking delicious pork isn't bad. Fat Mat's continues to reign although I have yet to find a place that has great beef brisket.

The graduate program is a mixed bag. On the one hand, I feel quite comfortable to be back in the walls of academia, but on the other, I'm not entirely comfortable with the department. That should come in time but there are certain things that I'll just never get over. Smart people sound stupid when they have thick southern accents, for one. (Imagine, "Remember Cicero, y'all!")

And the discipline I have selected has a tendency, like most disciplines, to appeal to notions of sophistication in unpleasant and unnecessary ways. There is a particular jargon, for example, that is almost used as an entry barrier, or, to put more succinctly, one needs to become familiar with an advanced and rarely understood typology that is divorced from one's ontological disposition to be able to re-remember the things that we have forgotten from our ahistorical discursive space. (Note: Previous sentence was not intended to make sense or be intelligible.)

I'll put it this way, earlier today I watched another graduate student from the Moving Images program (essentially Film Studies) and I quite literally understood nothing. The presenter used a series of vocabulary that was progressively less understandable. Now, I'm not needing to actually understand what she was talking about. It's not part of my field, but it is illustrative of the phenomenon that I'm dealing with on a daily basis. This discipline has a tendency to use language that essentially doesn't exist. The most mind blasting word that the presenter used that I can remember was "indexology". No, you will not find that in any dictionary.

That being said, I do feel that I shall be able to do what I want to do and carve out my little niche. The university has been extremely supportive and encouraging and the professors for the most part appear to be willing to help in whatever way that they can. I also can't really complain about my deal, the work part is good and it gives me the flexibility I need.

What does concern me is that I am not entirely convinced that I have put myself in place to be successful, or, as successful as I would like to be. I have entered a world that is almost entirely unfamiliar and while I am doing the work, there is much more that I don't understand than I do. It's rather disconcerting, for example, to read the assigned articles and not be able to clearly identify the main arguments afterwards. To some extent that is because I'm used to reading extremely straight forward arguments. I also think that the authors we have been reading have a rather opaque writing style that is not particularly conducive to being understood. I'm trying not to worry about it too much at the moment (and have been told to, essentially, chill the f*ck out) but it is concerning that the major ongoing debate about a central tenet of the discipline seems to be not only entirely irrelevant but also utterly incomprehensible. Maybe it's just me.

In my master's program, every participant had a distinct character. In this space, I well documented the trials and tribulations. That will not be repeated this time around for two reasons. One, there is a certain politics of academia that must be respected. That is to say, I'm not really interested in insulting people that are likely to be colleagues in the long run. I'd rather learn how to interact with them in positive ways and then use those relationships when the time comes. The other reason I won't be repeating London's storytelling is that I'm mixed in with a crowd of a mostly higher caliber. Pretty much anyone can get into a master's program and manage to do reasonably well. The admission filters just aren't that strong. At the doctorate level, the quality of the applicant goes up and those who make it through generally can contribute and hold their own.

That being said, I'm taking a political science class on Latin America that at least promises to provide a bit of humor. This class is a graduate level course with a mixed population - half the class are political science PhD students, the other half are either masters or PhD students from various fields. So, there are some people who are rather lacking in context, shall we say. The best example, and someone I'm fairly sure will be making a repeat appearance on this blog, is a rather young lad who claims he has travelled extensively in Latin America. I can only imagine when he travels, he goes 5-stars for in the first class session he argued that Latin America doesn't have much income inequality. Best not to open up the stupid at your first class.

In his second class, he argued that uneducated people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Best not to continue the stupid in your second class. Both times the professor dealt with the issue rather diplomatically but I can't express to you just how awful something sounds when it's not only utterly stupid (and an argument derived from the racist, sexist past) and it's spoken with a pronounced southern accent. I'll try to record exact quotes from now on.

I'll end this little missive in a moment but I wanted to make a comment about what I have seen to be university-wide technophobia. I am, unapologetically, a child of the high tech revolution. I like having my tech and, all things being even, I much prefer to take notes on a laptop, email in assignments, and at least attempt to be all digital. Unfortunately, the professors are a bit behind in the times. Not only will they generally not receive assignments by email, they also tend to look at you funny if you crack open a laptop and use that instead of an actual notebook. I'm wondering if they just suspect we are doing other things or if they don't understand the vast benefits of being able to search and find through every note you take during your doctorate program. Either way, they just need to get over it. I'm not putting the laptop away. In fact, the extended MacBook Pro battery has proved terribly awesome.

Finally, I have to say, District 9 was so utterly awesome that if you haven't seen it, you should immediately go see it. As in right now. Unless you have an aversion to violence, because it gets rather sizzling in the second half. I haven't seen any other movies of late, but District 9 will hold me over for another couple weeks.

Initial observations

2009-07-31T08:28:00.002-05:00

1. People are still rather fat. It's not just a stereotype, it's a problem. In my extended stay at the Orlando airport (a total of 7.5 hours) I watched a family of four consume their weight in high fat, high sugar, high calorie foods. The father was the only one who didn't really eat and he was also, not coincidentally, the only one who wasn't pushing the portly-to-obese barrier. We need to think about what we are putting into our mouths.

2. Cars have gotten boxier and uglier. It's no wonder why American car companies are in the crapper. No only do they produce inferior, poorly engineered products, they also products butt ugly machines. The new "box on wheels" design has got to go.

3. On my flight to DC, there was a youngish man with his presumed girlfriend who had a problem with the flight crew and eventually go kicked off the flight. The police were called. He was utterly ridiculous and a jerk. Now, I can't verify this, but I have a very sneaky suspicion that he plays for one of DC's sports teams. I won't name any names, but I can say that this individual had the physique, body art, attitude, and wispy beard to match a particular individual in the DC sports scene.

4. It's weird responding to people in public in english. I guess after 3.5 years, my natural inclination is to say something in spanish. I'm sure I'll get used to it soon enough as I revert back to my original culture but it is a little odd to hear english all around me.

5. The US is perfect, much as they say in Colombia. The roads are perfectly paved with all the correct markings, the stop lights are well defined (and seem long), the distance is vast. These are the things that Colombians say about the US and they're right. Compared to where I've been, we present an appearance of perfection. I'm not complaining about it, just saying that I have a heightened appreciation for that which we do right. And we do roads right.

6. Chipotle, thankfully, has done nothing to degrade the quality of their pork. Still as succulent and delicious as ever. I shall soon become reacquainted with their other meat options.

7. The MacBook Pro is easily the coolest computer I have ever owned. More than that, however, it suits my needs. I don't want to have to worry about maintenance and hassle and viruses and all the other crap that goes with Windows. With Mac, my PC concerns are essentially over. Now, if Google would only release Chrome for Mac.

8. After living in Colombia, I find that I don't like my air conditioning so cold anymore. Maybe it's because I prefer fans and the air circulation that they provide or maybe it's just after living for so long without, I am not so addicted to artificially cooled air. (Note: There is no A/C in Bogota because the average temp in the city is between the 50s and 60s. This comment only refers to A/C in the hot lands or times when I was traveling with my wife who doesn't like a lot of A/C.)

9. If there's anything about DC it's the consistent nature of things. The politicians still think they're hot shit, the people are always in a hurry, and hope springs eternal for Redskins Nation in July and August. My mother's house is about 5 minutes from Redskins park and while tempted, I'm not going to make it to a training camp session. But that won't stop the thousands of other who will as we saw yesterday when we passed them on the road, all lined up to park.

10. All things considered, it's good to be back. I have to confess I was quite nervous about coming back and not knowing what to expect. I shouldn't have been. The US is still here, as always, with good, decent people who are largely ignorant of what their political leaders are doing. I don't say that to denigrate Americans - most people around the world are mostly ignorant of what their governments do in their names. No, I say that because often, living abroad, one only gets the most narcissistic view of America - the political view - and that's a bit depressing. It's reassuring to see with my own eyes that people are people - whether Colombian or American, we all want the same things. No matter how nihilistic and depraved our leaders become.

Making eggshells from eggs

2009-07-27T08:22:00.002-05:00

The other night I went out to a pub with some friends to celebrate my imminent departure. We had a jovial time until, at the end of the night, unpleasantness struck. Without getting too specific, one friend started a fight in the street and the other friend came to his defense. Both ended up with bloodly lips (multiple taxi drivers came to the defense of the other guy) and the three of us were forced to explain the situation to the police (well, I didn't have to explain anything other than that I wasn't part of the fisticuffs).

This event put a damper on the evening and really pissed me off. There is almost no situation where violence is called for and the contretemps certainly could have been avoided with a dash of prudence. Unfortunately, there's no reasoning with drunken stupor.

When I talked to the implicated the following day, they both had varying explanations for the unfortunate event. The friend who started it claims he remembers everything except who threw the first punch. His lack of memory a convenient form of ego protection since, without any physical provocation at all, he started the blowup with a full on, open hand slap to the other guy's face and then chased after the dude swinging wildly, hitting mostly air, and falling flat on his drunk ass at least three times. A small part of me, a very small part, was in hysterics with his clown show of brawling.

The conclusion of this event was anti-climactic. The police didn't do anything aside from annoy us. The other guy took off. And the one taxi driver who claimed that my friend had damaged his cab during the fight refused to produce the taxi or any witnesses and was eventually ignored by the police.

The emotional after effect is more long lasting. I'm still pissed off at my friend. But I'm reserving my anger for an appropriate moment mostly because he's in a downward, depressive cycle that has no clear end in sight. His alcoholism is on the verge of being converted into a chronic disease, a symptom of obvious psychological trauma which I'll not theorize about in this space. Unfortunately, this friend suffers from an advanced case of pride and that makes broaching the subject extremely difficult to impossible. Another friend did talk to this individual about a year ago and that created so much huffing and puffing that the two didn't speak for a solid year.

A part of me would like to judge my friend, speak harsh words, explode with righteous outrage. But I won't do that and not just for pragmatic reasons. No, I won't judge him because I tend to think that when we look at others and see things we do not like, things that we judge, things that are revolting to us, that our revulsion, judgements, and dislikes are a form of ego protection. The things that provoke strong dislikes in others are things that are usually reflected in some part of our own being. Or, to put is more squarely, we tend to judge others for things that are or could be present in ourselves.

For the last several days, I have thought about the event, my friend, and the subsequent going away party we had on Saturday night (in which I drank nothing stronger than orange juice and my friend got tanked again). And while a small part of me continues to be angry with him, most of me just feels sad for him. I think I have a pretty good handle on his emotional situation, I think if he was willing to open up to me I could help him by listening and offering some small advice. Yet, I know that he'll never let me in because to do so would be to admit weakness and he is too proud to do so.

Instead, I'm leaving the country with only a tiny bit of hope that he will right his ship and begin to address that which ails him. I have no great confidence in that hope and I know that I will continue to think of creative ways in which I can deliver the messages I need to deliver. But for now, I feel more useless than useful. I feel as if a friend is drowning in the ocean and ignoring every lifejacket thrown his way. As I learned much earlier in life, I can't jump down the rabbit hole with him even though the alternative is to do nothing.

Here's another bad "study" from Foreign Policy

2009-07-22T10:09:00.003-05:00

I don't generally have a very good opinion of Foreign Policy magazine. They're kind of like Foreign Policy-lite and I have a feeling they try to say provocative things in the hopes of ratcheting up page clicks or subscriptions. Unfortunately, these types of things often make them rather clownish.

Enter today's offer: Foreign Policy's 5th annual failed states index. These sorts of indices are rather useless since they paint broad strokes and therefore wouldn't actually be useful to foreign policy practioners but for some reason, they keep pumping them out like they're foreign policy's answer to US News's annual College Rankings. Back in grad school, I remember reading the index then and thinking that it had been rather foolishly produced (with a rather poor methodology). Apparently, things haven't gotten any better.

One thing I know for certain - only someone who has never visited and knows very little about Colombia could suggest the country is in danger of being a failed state. Security wise the government controls the vast majority of the country although the guerilla still manages to attack population centers from time to time (but not in any of the big cities). The suggestion that the guerilla represents, today, a viable threat to the functioning or longevity of the government is laughable. Economically, Colombia has largely been unaffected by the global economic crisis. Growth is still over 5% and foreign investment continues to rise. Politically, the country faces no crises of government or legitimacy, the president continues to be the most popular president in South America, and democratic processes are well respected (although politically motivated violence continues).

Looking at the list, Foreign Policy has decided that Bolivia is more stable or less at risk than Colombia. Curious since they continue to face a serious political crisis that threatens to tear the country in two. I'm sure there are others, like Venezuela or Honduras, that are much lower than Colombia that could be debated out.

I think that, behind all the fancy sounding explanations of why their methodology is oh-so sophisticated, Foreign Policy suffers in this compilation by giving equal merit to the 12 social, political, economic, and military variables that they use to evaluate state stability. Some factors matter more than others. In the case of Colombia, a booming economy, military control of the vast majority of the country, and political legitimacy matter much, much more in determining if the country is at risk of being a failed state than, say, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs). Yet, Foreign Policy makes no attempt to evaluate which factors are the most important. Thus, Colombia's high rankings in IDPs, for example, bumps it way up above Honduras or Venezuela, countries that don't really have IDP problems but do have a host of other problems that more directly challenge the legitimacy or ability of the state to funtion.

Well, I won't quibble any further on a "study" that, aside from mass consumption, is utterly useless. Instead, I'll just conclude that again, Foreign Policy has generated page views by producing faux scholarship and I'll wonder if they did it on purpose.

A totally shocking report

2009-07-21T19:02:00.003-05:00

Could it be that Bush's abstinence only education not only failed to reduce teen sex but also increased teen pregnancies and STDs? CDC says yes with the worst impact in the South where the religious message is generally more impactful. I know, this comes as a real shocker.

The End of an Adventure

2009-07-15T15:38:00.004-05:00

Two weeks from today, I fly back to the US and the Great Colombian Adventure officially comes to a close. I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm very excited to be going back to the US, to see my family, to begin the next step in my professional development, and to become reaquainted with my culture. On the other, I'm a bit sad to leave Colombia's good parts, I'm a little concerned about what I'm going to find, and I certainly don't want to leave my wife behind for the 4 month period that we are planning to be apart.

Of course, Colombia will never really be in the rear view mirror. I married a Colombian and my kids will be half Colombian. We will visit as often as we can and we shall raise our kids to be aware of their dual, equally valuable heritage. But the days of living in Colombia, those are over. I seriously doubt I'll ever come back to live and if I did, it would be as a very old man in search of easy retirement. That is a really weighty statement and it's one that I'm not entirely sure if my wife has thought through. In fact, I'm fairly convinced that she is actively avoiding thinking of all the implications of our decision, as would most of us, I imagine.

As I mentioned above, I'm a bit concerned about what I'm going to find in the US. I married a Latina and in my country, race matters (unfortunately). On top of that, we're going to Atlanta, a modern city in the hub of the South, America's traditional racist core. It's very likely that I have little to be concerned with. Atlanta is, after all, a modern city with modern ideas, not to mention a huge Latino population (over 15,000 Colombians alone). But I still worry. I don't want my wife or my kids to be subjected to America's racial politics.

More than my petty worries, however, is the irrepresable conclusion that one chapter of my life is closing as another opens. This chapter was of falling in love, getting married, meeting and immersing myself in a new language and culture, and strengthening the bonds of the most important relationship in my life. In a sense, this was a chapter of growing up, of preparation of what is to come. The next chapter is one of adulthood. It involves me finally having taken a decision about my career and future. It will involve the arrival of children and everything that goes with that. It is, in a certain sense, a huge step, but a step that I am overeager to take. And ultimately, I believe it is a step we could not have taken in Colombia.

I'll sum up with a final thought. I'm big on symmetry. When everything balances out I'm happy. So how's this for balance:

When we left London, my wife went to Colombia while I stayed in the US for 4 months.

Now I'm going to the US while my wife will stay in Colombia for 4 months.

Our roles have officially juxtaposed.

Making sense of stupid

2009-07-08T13:53:00.003-05:00

I have a feeling that sometimes politicians make utterly stupid remarks intentionally. I think they know that stupid remarks don't really come back to hurt them and that by saying such things, they distract attention from other, more important, and more complex issues because it's just so easy to attack stupid. A great example of this is the ongoing bruhaha about House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) claim that no stimulus funds have gone to help Ohio. You can read about the embruglio here.

The short version is that Boehner claimed over the weekend that no stimulus infrastructure dollars have been spent/contracted in Ohio and thus the stimulus is no good. This claim was kind of like dropping a pocketfull of change at a political fundraiser - it got everyone scrambling. In fact, the DNC has gone nuts over trying to capitilize on stupid. Never mind that one stupid claim from Boehner masks the fact that he's an utter buffoon, it's just a lot easier to show that he doesn't know what he's talking about on a relatively substanceless gaffe than it is to show that he doesn't know what he's talking about on health care, foreign policy, et al.

I think strategically, the Dems kind of fall into this trap of pointing out stupid when they should be rolling the GOP on the issues. At the end of the day, 90% of the people paying attention aren't going to remember or care that Boehner said something factually inaccurate and stupid. And the 10% that do care are hardened partisans who can't be wooed either way. I suspect the DNC capitalizes on these types of gaffes for short term funding more than anything but I think they're making a colossal error.

We face two significant domestic issues which need urgent attention and to which the GOP is playing an obstructionist role: the economy and health care. I wonder how much mileage the DNC could make by attacking the GOP on their foolish, obstructionist, and utterly awful arguments that we don't need stimulus, that the economy is fine, and that we have the best health care system in the world.

Now, you may say, but the DNC is attacking Boehner because he tried to argue that the stimulus failed. True, but only reactively. We obviously need more stimulus to avert a jobless recovery that leaves the US with over 10% unemployment for a half decade. In politics, as in life, it's not so much about what you did, it's about what you're going to do. The DNC should be proactively attacking the GOP and their ideas and proposing their own solutions. There is an entire war to be fought over Health Care and yet the DNC doesn't seem to realize that and are doing as little as possible, all the while the Dems in Congress talk about bipartisanship.

Here it is: F*ck bipartisanship. We won, remember. We got to 60 (sort of). We got the Presidency. The GOP lost both chambers of Congress and the White House because their ideas failed. Is it really time, when we have huge majorities and the public is behind us, to turn around and give creedence to failed ideas? I think not.

As a final note, it's so galling to see politicians not realize the simple reasons why Obama won and Kerry didn't. There's the microanalysis which suggests that Kerry got killed by attack ads, etc. And then there's the macroanalysis which should come as a slap in the face to all those overpriced political consultants: Obama won because he proposed change (whatever the hell that means) and Kerry lost because he spent most of his time criticizing Bush. I still don't know what Kerry stood for and I was a supporter.

This same dynamic, a dynamic we've seen repeated over and over again (Reagan, Clinton, Bush II, Obama) is, for some reason, only replicated at the presidential election. It shouldn't be so limited. Obama's big argument, his explanations for change, of the liberal philosophy, those are the types of things that need to be used to push the US into a much more effective and economical health care system. Yet instead, we're left with, "Haha, John Boehner said something stupid! He has no ideas! Nanananabooboo!" These ads, of course, raise the question: What are your ideas then, DNC?

Honduras update

2009-07-03T18:45:00.002-05:00

Where journalism fails: The Honduran Supreme Court has issued an arrest warrant for ex-President Zelaya yet the AP reporters didn't seek to clarify what he is to be charged with? They didn't attempt to obtain a copy of the warrant?

Funny, the Spanish language press has no trouble sorting that out. According to this article he is being charged with "betraying the motherland" and "abuse of power". Still no copy of the actual warrant. Maybe tomorrow.

To summarize the latest: The President of the Organization of American States (OAS), Jose Miguel Insulza, has concluded his mission unsuccessfuly. Honduras is not going to allow Zelaya back as President and the arrest warrant remains in place. Insulza placed a Saturday morning deadline on ceding power back to Zelaya which current Honduran president Micheletti has stated will be ignored. The OAS, knowing that their polite request was to be ignored, has called an emergency session Saturday afternoon to discuss and perhaps vote on suspending Honduras from the organization. Zelaya has pledged to return to Honduras Sunday. Micheletti has pledged to have him arrested.

Things are getting toxic for the current Honduran regime. Honduras is a poor country and greatly depends on the economic support of foreign nations and international organizations like the World Bank. While most of that support has been placed "on hold" a vote at the OAS to suspend the Central American nation from the group would likely mean longer "suspensions" of foreign aid and greater economic dislocation. As we have seen in the past, economic upheaval in Latin America tends to accompany violence. It would be of no surprise if the coming weeks see violent clashes between government forces and the "peasant class".

On the other hand, there is now no scenario in which Zelaya returns to the office of the Presidency. Were the current leaders to allow that, Zelaya would surely have the military leaders fired and/or tried for the charge of treason which clearly would never be accepted.

Equally, it appears that Micheletti is unlikely to last as president. If for no other reason, he doesn't appear legitimate to the world and the only way to maintain support for the "coup" is to improve conditions in Honduras, something he won't be able to do if economic aid remains frozen. I fully expect that Micheletti is going to seek early elections as a remedy. Elections would be palatable for the international community and under Honduran law neither Micheletti nor Zelaya would be eligble to run. This step could go hand in hand with a promise from the next president (or the current one) to pardon Zelaya.

As a final note, I think it's important that the world's leaders understand that the worst possible step is to isolate Honduras. This is a poor nation with poor politics and few options. Isolating Honduras means greater misery for those who had nothing to do with these events. It would also likely frustrate our efforts to control the drug trade among other interests. The end game for this must be a diplomatic solution that allows the country to continue to survive. An extended embargo of foreign assistance only risks fragmentation and disaster.

Palin quits

2009-07-03T17:45:00.003-05:00

Rambles incoherently, uses sports analogies no one understands.

Morning Revolution/Coup Update

2009-07-03T10:17:00.004-05:00

Things in Iran continue to spiral out of control. Now the Iranian government seeks to prosecute British Embassy officials. Read more about that here.

Also, here's an unbelievably good story in the Nation about Iran's Green Wave and why the hardline regime is under fire at home (and lost the election). H/T Washington Note.

Unfortunately, with the media blackout, there's a lot more we don't know about what's going on in Iran than what we do. Increasingly, that is becoming the case in Honduras as well.

Here's a relatively balanced take on the situation in Honduras that raises more questions than it answers. Specifically, if Zelaya was so unpopular (supposed 25%) then why would the Congress, Supreme Court, and military fear his reelection scheme? It seems the most appropriate remedy would have been to wait out the remaining months on his term, not oust him with force.

Interesting solution being proposed by de facto President Micheletti: Early elections.

One thing not mentioned in this article or any other article I've seen: The Honduran constitution prohibits presidents from running again. This means that neither Zelaya nor Micheletti would be eligible in November. A clever move for Micheletti, no?

In the realm of ridiculously, stupidly, dangerously foolish comes Sen DeMint (R-SC) who defends the coup as a good idea and castigates Obama for standing with the likes of Chavez. Jesse Helms goes away, gets replaced by DeMint. H/T Washington Monthly.

While the legal wrangling over what is allowed and not allowed based on the Honduran constitution will continue to be discussed by non-experts and pundits, at least one top Honduran military lawyer doesn't equivocate: We broke the law.

This is the first article I've seen that speaks directly to the motivations of the military as well as explaining that the Attorney General ordered Zelaya's arrest. This is important because the Honduran constitution contains no articles of impeachment and is quite ambigious as to how the country would remove a rogue president.

And I would be remiss if I failed to mention that coups and things of that nature have traditionally been seen as investment opportunities for disaster capitalists. Interested parties should watch this stock as an example.

Infidelity

2009-06-25T09:15:00.003-05:00

South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford, has reminded us that the world in which we live is as imperfect as ever and the players in that world, more imperfect than not. While I can't say I respect Sanford's politics (he thought President Clinton should resign for Lewsinky, yet he continues on as Governor), I do respect that the man came to the podium, faced the media and his voters, and didn't drag his wife and kids out there like so many often do.

This event, while fascinating (Governor's don't just disappear), highlights and issue that I would like to spend some time discussing. Like most networks, CNN had two people on last night to comment on the Sanford issue. First came the softball of all softballs, Candy Crowley, who blathered on for a few minutes about how in America people love a redemption story and Sanford might yet rise from the dead. Never mind that the affair isn't the issue - it's the abdication of his responsibilities as Governor and potential abuse of state funds that dooms him forever on the national stage. Crowley, while likeable enough, just doesn't like to stake out too much ground. She was, after all, still saying that McCain had a chance to win the thing on November 3rd.

The second guest, and infinitely more interesting, was Dr. Drew the famous sex/relationship therapist who has a show on MTV or some such trash channel. Of course CNN wanted Drew to comment on the state of the Sanford marraige and if it could be "saved". Drew, always one to please, suggested that the marraige had "likely" been under threat for quite some time but that it could be saved. He also encouraged other couples with marraiges in trouble to try to save their marraiges through counseling (rather indirectly).

There are two issues here I will comment on. First is the issue of the affair.

My wife, being Colombian and used to a macho society where the vast majority of men cheat, have girlfriends on the side, and lie about it constantly, has told me on several occassions that sometimes in relationships people "slip up" and that doesn't necessarily mean the end of the relationship. She's right in a sense. There is a possibility for "slip ups", especially in a country like Colombia where if you are foreign and married, you're almost more attractive to the legion of single, attractive, and aggressive women out there. I could see a situation where one is drunk, alone (maybe after a fight), and falls into bed with someone who is not your wife.

Of course, I don't think any of those things are excusable. Philisophically, I have always thought that alcohol just enables us to do things that we really want when sober anyway. So even in a "slip up" situation, I think it reveals terrible fissures in the relationship which may or may not be solveable.

An affair is totally different and a thousand times worse. An affair is an active emotional, mental, and sexual replacement of the person to which you are married. It is something that has a beginning, middle, and more often than not, an ending. It has a life of its own, like all relationships, and as such, an affair is often the culmination of a failed marriage. One doesn't just fall into an affair. They grow over time and they grow because one is unhappy or unsatisfied with their significant other. So when Dr. Drew said it probably indicated that their marraige had been in trouble for quite some time, he was vastly understating the significance of this revelation.

The second issue relates to "saving the marraige". This is a common response to affairs and whatnot. Indeed, Dr. Drew said that going into counseling he encourages couples to stay together by thinking of their kids and the lives they have built. Essentially, he suggests that the material things in life value more than happiness. (Obviously children aren't material, but in this context he equates them to possessions.)

I really can't express just how much I disagree with this point of view. Fundamentally, I don't believe that counselors and therapists should enter into marriage counseling with the pre-conceived goal of "saving the marriage". The goals should start at a much more basic level - reestablishing communication, understanding the other, etc. If, after a period of reconciliation and communication, both partners decide to continue in the marriage, so be it. But "successful" marraige counseling doesn't always end in marriage. Sometimes, it ends in divorce.

Marraige is the great fetish of Western civilization. In America, we tend to worship at the alter of marriage. There is a consistent social value that suggests that marriage is sacred and should be preserved at all costs. I call bullshit. Marriage is a legal process which enables us to enjoy certain benefits and privledges. In my case, my wife gets the legal authorization to live and work in my country just as I got the legal authorization to live in hers. We also got a social blessing - marriage is more acceptable in Colombian society than just living together. The church ceremony, blessedly, was in a language I didn't understand at the time, and in the tiniest church around, another blessing because any larger and I would have suffocated. I certainly didn't need a bunch of stodgy old men who have never been married to lecture me on what to expect, on how I should never use birth control and have as many babies as "God" gives me, and on and on.

Don't get me wrong. I love being married to my wife. Every day I know that I have someone who will love and support me no matter what (excluding baby killing cannabalism). And I married her because I knew that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her laughter and tears, her hopes and fears, adventuring and growing, and on. But, if, God forbid, we reached a point where I no longer wanted those things, I would not want to stay with her just to preserve a man made institution.

The truth is, some marraiges just aren't worth saving. Or, more pointedly, some marraiges can't be "saved". Oh, they can be preserved. Two people can make a rational decision to stay together for the "sake of the kids". They can go through the motions of mechanical sex, put on a show for friends and neighbors, and bury the truth. But it's a sham. And it's a terrible lie to foist upon your children.

It turns out, children are rather savvy. They learn stuff without even realizing it. And when kids see an example of their parents, they internalize it, it becomes part of them. Living a lie, each and every day, imprints a very specific message on children - it's ok to lie about really big stuff. It's ok to be unhappy as long as appearances are maintained. And we wonder why we have drug and alcohol problems.

I don't pay homage to the unholy fetish of marraige. And I wouldn't hesitate to walk away if that was the right thing to do. I won't begrudge others their choices. I can't walk in their shoes. But I do know that we need to take marriage off the pedestal and treat it as it should be treated. When we hear about the 50% divorce rate in the US, we hear a chorus of voices of concern. We should be concerned...about the other 10-15% that maintain unhealthy, sham marraiges and the types of messages that our children learn from those examples.

Conservative Circles and Race

2009-06-18T07:39:00.003-05:00

Living abroad, I've been pretty well insulated from rabid conservatism and its followers. In London, most of the Americans that I met were either politically unformed (young, study abroad students) or were well to the left. That makes a good bit of sense as those who choose to live abroad, in a country that is well left of center by our standards, generally do so with open, accepting eyes. The one exception to the rule is military personnel and dependents stationed abroad. Military personnel tend to be more conservative anyway and they don't really integrate with the population of the host nation. But I didn't mix with those types anyway.

In Colombia, I have met far fewer Americans. There are just less of us down here and the ones that are here, don't generally look to hang out with other Americans. That being said, the few Americans I have met have been disproportionately conservative, as in, hard core George Bush, kool aid drinking, intellectually bankrupt but holding onto that dogma like it's their last grip to reality types. I have certainly tried to avoid these individuals because I definitely have no interest in engaging in unproductive political debate with them and I don't want my reputation tarnished by their presence. The Colombian people that know me, know that I'm reasonable, thoughtful, considerate, and willing to listen to arguments from both sides. Unfortunately, the increasingly dogmatic and bitter right is none of those things and I don't wished to be tarnished by their presence. (I've actually had Colombian people introduce me to others with something like, "He's a gringo, but he's a good gringo, not like the others.")

The reason I recount this brief history is that recently I have made an acquaintance who perfectly fits into the category described above. And, to be honest, he gives me the heebie-jeebies. The first time I realized this was when he went off on an extended monologue about the "merit based society". Short version: We have it, Colombia doesn't and that's why we're rich and they're poor.

I found the entire discussion offensive. The "merit based society" argument is a foundation of republican philosophy which argues we are all equal when we are born and those who rise to the top are those who worked hardest and thus earned it. This quaint view, of course, completely ignores that some people attend $20,000/year exclusive private schools while others attend public high schools with textbooks written in the 60s and no sinks in the science labs meaning you can't ever do an experiment (these things I have seen first hand). Or that some children are raised with parents who know the value of education and hard work while others are raised by drug addicts and crack hos. Or that some people have parents that are well connected and wealthy and have doors magically open for them while others have parents who are teachers and military officers and have to struggle just to get their foot in the door. If there ever was a true level playing field, then perhaps the "merit based society" would be relevant. But since that's a pipe dream, it's essentially, in a word, racism.

I don't like it when people speak pejoratively about foreign countries. We all do it from time to time ('Those Norks are crazy biatches!") but I'd like to think that we say those things more for humor or out of frustration than because we really mean it. But what I have seen, circulating among self-described conservatives living abroad (a "subjugated minority group" according to them) is that they routinely employ pejorative terms to describe why the foreign culture is less valuable than our own. This is especially true in Colombia. In short, instead of looking at the myriad of diverse reasons why Colombia is a developing country with an almost overwhelming load of challenges (and the US role in creating a "developing Colombia", it's just easier to say, "they're culturally less developed than we are because they don't have a merit based system." Or, language less cloaked with sophistication, "Poor people are poor because they don't work hard."

Racism has become a subtle, insidious, and devious disease. Whereas in previous generations, it was culturally acceptable to assert that blacks and women weren't smart enough to vote, it is now necessary to express cultural, racial, and sexual bias with more sophistication and class. "Poor nations are poor because they can't manage their own affairs" tends to mean, "brown and black people around the globe aren't good managers". "Poor people are poor because they didn't work hard enough to rise to the top of society" tends to mean "Brown and black people are lazy."

South Africa is an excellent example of this. Under white rule, the country was "booming", an economic power, a model for the rest of Africa, right? Then, under black rule, South Africa virtually collapsed and everything is worse. The blacks didn't know how to run a country and that's why they're in this mess. This is, quite literally, a summary of a speech I heard a white South African give to me once upon a time. It's a lovely narrative except for the fact that it's utter horseshit and racist to the core. White South Africa wasn't a model of anything for anyone aside from the Ku Klux Klan. Their economy was based on the white population extracting all the riches from the black population. Whites lived well, blacks, not so much. Then, with the power transition, two things happened. First, a group of white economics ministers wrote a economic development blueprint which the black government was forced to accept in order to receive power. This blueprint, written hand in hand with the World Bank/IMF, established a completely independent monetary authority, akin to the US Federal Reserve, that had complete control over economic policy. Then they moved all the white economists from the previous government into that new authority. The second thing they did was the World Bank demanded a series of "structural adjustments" which meant selling of state owned enterprises. The people, of course, who had the money to buy those enterprises, were the very white rulers who were evicted from power. So, not only did the blacks lose control over central economic planning, but they also had to transfer public wealth to a white, elite, minority.

This, my friends, is the merit based system in action. South Africa. A perfect example of how rich, white bastards can screw over poor, inexperienced people of color. For more on this and other unbelievable events, see Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine.

Ahem. This isn't to say that ALL conservatives express these concepts as overtly as the two individuals I have described. Nor is it to suggest that the person I know here in Colombia would consider himself racist (although, to be fair, most racists don't consider themselves as such). He is, after all, married to a Colombian woman and that does suggest that whatever racism lives on within his psyche is certainly not strong enough to rule the day.

But it is to say that one of the core foundations of conservative thought is rooted in a concept that is racist to the core. To suggest that we live in an equal society, where everyone has equal opportunity from the time they are born, can ONLY mean that the racial minorities which continue to live in poverty are stupid, lazy, and incapable of bettering themselves. And make no mistake, this is what conservatives are saying when they say we live in a "merit based society" and it's one of the central reasons why long ago I shed my conservative roots. Sometimes, you just gotta call bullshit.

Of course, the very idea that I am proposing is so controversial that I would be ridiculed as a left wing radical for even writing it and who knows, maybe I am a left wing radical. What I do know is that you can't neutrally present a concept like the "merit based society" to explain away poverty without stepping on a racial landmine. Yet, in America's "race debates", you very rarely see anyone make this argument.

As a last note, and tangentially related, is the way that conservatives use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay". My associate did that yesterday and I think a little part of me died. Just so we all know, it's "gay" not "homosexual". We are not Victorian era scientists who see being gay as a sexual disease or disorder, ergo, we don't need to represent their language choices to our gay brothers and sisters.

Iran Thoughts

2009-06-16T09:54:00.004-05:00

As is usually the case, it's kind of difficult to really tell what is happening on the ground in Tehran and around the country. What we do know is limited due to our own ignorance about Iranian politics and structure, limited foreign news media, and the opaqueness of the Iranian ruling power.

That being said, the facts on the ground seem clear: There was an election for the presidency that was a total sham. We know it was a sham because the attempt to defraud the Iranian public wasn't particularly subtle or well thought out (exactly matching voting patterns across the country, the loser losing his own home district, etc) to the point that one has to wonder if the ruling religious dictatorship was utterly suprised by the result. They shouldn't have been. There was limited polling data indicating that the "moderate" Mousavi was a sure winner as well as an estimated 8 million new voters, most of whom were Mousavi-ites.

But this is really getting into the weeds as far as I'm concerned because I'm simply not expert enough to authoritatively comment on Iranian politics. If you're interested in that sort of thing, the Washington Note is doing banner work in reporting what's going on. Or the Huffington Post, which is going beyond the pale in its efforts to get accurate on the ground information.

What I want to talk about is the impact on US foriegn policy. First, a bit of a primer on Iran's government. Then how this event impacts our interests and approach.

Iran, like a lot of virtual dictatorships, uses the guise of "democracy" as a way to placate its population. People feel good about voting, feel like they have a role in the development of their country, and generally don't riot in the streets as long as their voice gets heard. This is an important point in Iran in particular as the last time the students took to the streets it ended with a new, anti-West, radically Muslim regime. So I would expect the Ayatollah to have a bit of indigestion at seeing a new generation of students marching in the streets.

At any rate, Iran is functionally ruled by the Ayatollah and his twelve wise men (and his 86 member Assembly of Experts, but who's counting). In a word, dictatorship. This matters because no matter the final outcome of the current "green revolution", the US will still be dealing with a radicalized, anti-Western government that would only marginally moderate its tone internationally with Mousavi as its president. So, Mousavi wins, no more speeches at the UN about the how the Holocaust never happened.

From the perspective of US interests, Iran only matters in two, perhaps three, issues. The first is nuclear policy. Since George Bush's famous "Axis of Evil" speech, Iran has been in the forefront of US national consciousness. This is mostly because of their rather clandestine nuclear program. The Bush policy on Iran was one of indirect threats and diplomatic ignorance or shunning (as in, just ignore the problem, not stupidity). Obama has taken a more direct approach, suggesting high level talks, the establishment of diplomatic relations, and perhaps even the removal from the State Department's Terrorist list. (While he may not have directly said that, eventual removal from the List would be the logical result of what Obama has proposed). All of this was predicated on Ahmadinejad winning reelection.

Now that there is greater uncertainty, US foreign policy makers are in abuzz about what this all means for the US negotiating tactic vis-a-vis the nuclear program. This article in Time makes the argument that Iran Czar Dennis Ross and others actually hope that Ahmadinejad remains president because it's easier to negotiate with a hardliner that a reformer. I know, it seems counterintuitive. And, well, it is. But their argument is that if negotiations fail, which they probably will since the Ayatollah is calling the shots at the end of the day, it's easier to levy foreign policy "sticks" against a hardliner than a reformer. Essentially, a "reformer" presents a PR problem for Western diplomats while the continued presence of a hardliner clears the path for aggressive sanctions.

While I understand this argument, I find it to be a fairly bad one. On the one hand, a "moderate" Iranian president is fairly far outside of our understanding of what the word "moderate" means. There will be no rapproachment with the west if Mousavi is the ultimate victor. Nor will there likely be an end to the nuclear program. Iranian moderation occurs in inches, not miles and to expect otherwise is to invite folly.

But there is an advantage to having a more moderate Iranian president. At the moment, the US has basically no leverage over Iran. The much talked about sanctions have no support from Russia and others. Sanctions regimes are like leaky dams; first a leak, then a flood. For all the hard work that Dennis Ross and his crew have put in, there is essentially no chance that an effective, enforceable sanctions regime gets enacted.

Further, as much as Obama would like to engage in diplomatic rapproachment, there's very little chance that that happens with Ahmadinejad for the very reason I mentioned above: he's a Holocaust denier and if anything is ananthema in US politics, it's that. For all Obama's talk during the election, Hillary Clinton is calling the shots on this one and she's not about to jeopardize Obama's political standing by allowing him to buddy up with Israeli Public Enemy Number 1.

So I fail to see how Ahmadinejad winning would be a good thing for US foreign policy unless you're a radical neocon who actually wants to invade another country.

On the other hand, a Mousavi win would enable some level of diplomatic engagement and could, perhaps, open Iran up to US oil investment, our number 2 strategic interest. Again, I don't propose that this could or would happen overnight. These sorts of things take time. But the one policy area that the Iranian president does have significant influence over is economic policy and I could see a world in which Mousavi argues for opening up to the West as a means to improving a rather dismal domestic economy. I have no real evidence to back up this claim but, on balance, it's an awful lot more likely with Mousavi than Ahmadinejad, no?

This is also the type of policy that I believe the US would jump at. Obviously, from our perspective, business is first and foremost at all times. But even beyond that, the upper echelons of Clinton's State Department are staffed with Clinton era loyalists - that is - those who believe that engagement with China had a moderating effect on the country and helped to bring it into the community of nations. While that may be in some dispute (China hasn't moderated much and it frustrates our efforts to promote freedom, human rights, and democracy across the globe), there is certainly a belief that China is no longer our enemy because of its huge vested interest in our economic well being. (Of course, the Chinese are savvy realists and know that their huge investment in our economy has given them more leverage over us than it has given us over them, but that's another story altogether.)

Now, faced with an opportunity to replicate engagement in Iran, it seems to me that the US foreign policy establishment would (or should) prefer Mousavi to Ahmadinejad simply because we know that engagement yeilds more positive results than containment (see Iraq, Hussein, etc). Or, to put it more succinctly, after the first Gulf War, the entire world backed the idea of sanctioning Saddam Hussein's Iraq and yet, he repeatedly defied the UN levied regime, oppressed his own people, and created a greater PR disaster for the West by promoting images of poor Iraqis suffering because of the sanctions. If that sanctions regime failed so spectacularly when it had global support, then why is it rational to suggest a new regime leveled against Iran with much more uneven support would work?

In the end, I believe that Obama and Clinton are as on top of these issues as one can be. As responsible leaders, they've withheld all but the most innocuous statements so as to limit the regime's ability to accuse them (or every dictator's favorite bogeyman, the CIA) of playing a role in the protests. And as responsible adults, they seem to be waiting this out much like world leaders waited out the sham election of George Bush in 2000. At the end of the day, there is very little the US can do at the moment aside from monitor the situation and plan out the various scenarios that could come to fore.

As foreign policy practitioners, Obama and Clinton undoubtedly see both sides of the coin: If Ahmadinejad wins, they can roll with their targeted sanctions strategy. If Mousavi wins, they can roll with their engagement/rapproachment strategy. In fact, the only risk of screwing this up is by doing what John McCain suggests and that's acting too quickly with less than clear measures (he always was a rash, old chap, wasn't he). At the end of the day, though, I think, given the choice, it's much, much more rational to prefer a moderate than a hardline, Holocaust denying radical.

(The third US interest in Iran, which is much less attainable, is Iranian support for terrorism. I don't include this because the US has shown, repeatedly, that this is only a marginal interest. Our longstanding friendship with Saudi Arabia is the best example. The Kingdom is the world's biggest state sponsor of terror, yet we continually and convienantly ignore that fact because they got lots of black gold. The same could be true of Iran, especially if oil becomes scarce and/or prices continue to rise.)

Psycho-Physiological?

2009-06-06T10:09:00.007-05:00

I've always suffered from headaches. From the time I was a wee lad to now, headaches have been an ever constant companion on the road of life. Over time, I have managed their appearances with aspirin, tylenol, advil, excedrin, excedrin migraine, dolex, dolex strong, and most recently, for the really horrid migraines that are so debilitating that I lose an entire day lying down in a dark place if un-medicated, Imigran (which is a totally amazing medicine).

As I have had these experiences, I have done some research over the years to get at the root of why I suffer from periodic (weekly) headaches or migraines (monthly). The short answer is, there is no answer. Oh, the doctors got some theories, few of them sufficiently comprehensive, but for the most part, we just don't have a really good explanation for why someone wakes up with a migraine or a headache.

Several factors have been compounding over the past several years. First, in my mid-to-late 20s, the headaches became more severe and the medicine less effective. This marked the appearance of occasional migraines as well as my transition to excedrin migraine. And second, in the last 2-3 years, I have developed what can only be described is a hyper-sensitivity to alcohol. This is very odd. In London, I drank like a fish, consuming my weight in beer on a bi-weekly schedule. I, of course, had hangovers, but they were all very manageable with late night kabobs and water.

Now, I am finding it very difficult to have even a few drinks without waking up to a really horrid hangover. Last night is a good case in point. As part of an ongoing self test, I drank two beers (Aguila in a can) over a course of four hours. The second beer accompanied half a pizza. That's 24 oz of beer in 4 hours with food. I never felt a buzz. This morning I woke with a mild headache and nausea. After eating a banana, a dolex, a glass of water, and a glass of orange juice, I'm feeling much better. But the question lingers: How could I possibly have a hangover from 24 oz of beer?

Hangover literature is not particularly helpful. Most of it includes "remedies" more suited for storybooks than reality. Even the scientific lit has very little to offer that one would term "solid". This is perhaps because alcohol is poison and human phisiology reacts to poisons differently and thus studies are complicated by poorly understood biological variation. It could also be that much of the science into the hangover is driven by pharmaceutical companies looking for a magic pill that prevents hangovers. I don't really know. But what is clear is that there is very little hard data on why hangovers persist in some people and not in others. I won't speak to that point as it is rather imprecise. Instead, I will speak to the one factor that stands out in the literature that might just be relevant.

When I was a lad of eight or nine, I had the misfortune of being placed into a 3rd grade class with a horrible witch of a teacher named Ms. Manners (no joke there - that was her real name). My father, as a naval officer, had been transferred to Newport, Rhode Island for a year, which meant I had to integrate into a new school, make new friends, etc. The social part wasn't problematic. I quickly made friends with another lad on my block as well as with a really obese kid in school (I've always loved fat people). But the classroom was different.

In Virginia Beach they taught cursive writing in the 3rd grade (don't get me started on how useless cursive is). In Rhode Island, they taught it in the 2nd grade. So when Ms. Manners discovered that I knew nothing of cursive (and thankfully, still no nothing), she immediately tagged me idiot and began to treat me like yesterday's garbage. This had a profound effect on me. Every day, I was walking into a hostile work environment and before long, I became ill. That entire school year, the only year I spent in Rhode Island, I was sick. It was the only year of my life that I was consistently sick and missed considerable time. And it wasn't because that fresh wintery air was germ filled either. It was simply a psychological reaction to a hostile environment. Fortunately, my mother is a teacher and she sorted me out with the cursive and then we moved on to Idaho and Japan, but that's a whole 'nuther story.

I relate this narrative because I believe that more than any other factor, my physical well being is quite closely related to my psychological well being. Anyone who reads this blog or knows me well knows that I'm not particularly happy in Colombia. In fact, I feel limited and out of options, so to speak and that has had a huge effect on me. While this stagnant period is coming to a close in less than 2 months, I do wonder if my inability to metabolize alcohol is related to my underlying dissatisfaction with my current state of being.

Over the past months, I have run basically ever self test possible. I have compared: domestic beer versus foreign beer, beer in a bottle vs in a can vs on tap, rum vs vodka vs wine, and every combination therein. The results have been universally consistent with only two exceptions. On my birthday, we had a part in the country where we played Tejo and gorged ourselves on steaks and all the goodies that go with that. I drank a sizeable amount of beer over the course of the day and don't remember any hangover the next morning. Similarly, 2 weeks ago we had the grandparents and some others over for lunch on a Sunday. I cooked a Lomo Al Trapo with mashed potato stuffed tomatoes on the side. While I didn't drink a great deal, I did drink beer and no hangover the next day. These two events support my psychological theory. Obviously, playing Tejo in the sun and eating gorgeous amounts of meat is a high point. At the same time, I love to cook and offer delicious food to guests.

In sum, my recent alcohol consumption has resulted in a typical hangover symptoms, no matter the type or amount of alcohol consumed. Further, these hangovers have had a duration and intensity greater than previous hangovers. Shortly, I shall find myself in different circumstances which will necessitate more tests. If the symptoms continue, then the problem must be considered physiological. If not, then the psychological explanation has salience.

Update: In addition to the comment below, my mother sent me this link. She is gluten intolerant although not full blown Celiac's apparently (I'm going to pretend like I know the difference). And to be fair, I can't remember the last time I drank vodka but the last time I drank rum it was a 12 hour session, which could explain the extended hangover (and there was some scotch on the tail end). At any rate, for the next 30 days, I'm on a gluten free diet which will hopefully provide some answers one way or another.

Almost 5 months in

2009-06-03T21:03:00.008-05:00

You know, I dig Obama. Pretty much everyone that knows me knows that I dig Obama. He was the right choice then and he's the right choice now and I don't expect that to change. In the coming months we're going to get our first Latina Supreme Court justice and we might, if Congress gets it's ass in gear, we might just get a national health insurance plan that would be much like Medicare but for everyone not just the crinkly and wrinkly.

These are good things. Neither of these things would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in any other circumstance. GOPers don't like non-whites that much (if their leadership is to be believed) and they sure as hell don't put much stock in government doing anything right.

Of course, only the GOP could so cleverly make the self fullfilling prophecy of "government is shit, private better" come true by coming to power and then spending the next 8 years guaranteeing that government is shit by appointing unqualified partisan hacks into positions of power and sending marching orders to all agencies that basically say "go eff yourself" if you're involved in anything related to oversight, regulation, or, well, really anything that has anything to do with the word "governance". Not to mention slashing the budget of every investigative and enforcement office in every agency and privatizing as much as possible, including large portions of the US military. But I digress...

I still like Obama. I like that he's over there, chatting up world leaders, leaders that actually appear to look him in the eye and think, "Hey, I better pay attention, this guy ain't no fool like the last one". He's done wonders for our reputation abroad (I can only judge from personal experience and the shittified AP) and at home, where people from all walks of life are actually starting to think that the American dream is true, not just something for rich, white, connected, sons-of-bitches. No offense to all those rich, white, connected, non-sons-of-bitches. I found it particularly telling that even hackolas like Ruben Navarrette, who, from what I can tell, likens himself the conservative mouthpiece of latinos everywhere, and clearly makes a definite effort to be as nobbish as possible with virtually everything he writes, actually wrote an editorial style article for CNN praising Obama's choice of Sotomayer, expressing how proud he was of that moment, and even going so far as to tell his 5-year old that it was a groundbreaking day in America.

Obama did that. He did that simply by having the guts to stand up and say, what the shit, we've got tons of qualified people in this country that didn't go to Country-club U and rub assholes with the Dick Cheney's and George Bush's of the world. Clinton didn't do it. Obviously Bush didn't do it. Instead, he offered up the least qualified person to ever be nominated for the Supreme Court which is really beyond the pale since, you know, we already have that deaf mute Clarence Thomas who seems to just click "copy all" and "paste" when Scalia sends him his decision. Again, I digress.

Anyway, we now seem to have a government that functions (as in, doing oversight, not continuing to privitize everything down to the last toilet bowl washer, actually trying to do something to fix the financial crisis, health care, etc). We have a government that more accurately reflects America as it is. Our government is not just some frat boy club of chubblys who get the shits out of ill-advised, poorly planned foreign adventures or botched natural disaster response. The gubnent sure as hell ain't perfect, but it's more perfect when you actually try to make it work. So we can all be thankful for that.

BUT...

(You knew there was a "but" right?)

But, Obama hasn't scored like LeBron in the 4th quarter of Game 5. And I'm getting pretty pissed off about it because as this blogger more or less said, we got all kinds of shitstorms circling our globe and there's one issue that is as simple as Sopa de Tortilla, an issue that Obama is sitting out of, an issue that is THE defining civil rights issue of our time.

And that's Gay Rights.

Did you know that in most of the US, not to mention the world, you can be fired for just being gay? How shit ass insane is that? I practically soiled my daintees when I saw Milk because as much as shit changes, it stays the same. By the way, the makers really missed out on a powerful opportunity at the end of that movie. I mean, wouldn't it have been pretty damn impactful to have put up something like, "Even today, 20 years later, gays and lesbians can be fired for just being who they are...blah, blah, blah." I mean, bloody hell, the reason I wrote "blah, blah, blah" is because I literally am not educated enough about this issue to write a full sentence about it!

Anyway, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA, as it is fondly known as by the few policy wonks that engage in regular gay friendly wonkery, is languishing on the floor of the Congress, where it has sat for what, 15 years? I mean, what the shit is that? A very simple law that says you can't fire someone because of their race, sex, gender, religion and some other shit that ain't controversial AT ALL. Is it just institutional laziness? Is that why they haven't gotten up off their lobbyist fed asses and gotten that shit passed? I know, I know, there's this whole issue of adding in "transgendered" as well. Well slap my ass and call me bitch, we shouldn't be discriminating against transgendered people either because we shouldn't be discriminating against ANYONE. That's, you know, FUNDAMENTALLY EVIL, and the kind of shit that we're supposed to be getting over.

If ENDA wasn't bad enough, the military continues to kick openly gays and lesbians out just for the hell of it. Now, maybe, and this is the quite literally the biggest damn "maybe" in the history of all maybes everywhere and in every language, but maybe in times of peace you could make an argument for a "go slow" approach to changing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But bloody hell, we're in 2 damn wars and we're kicking out openly gay men who speak Arabic and are experts in the Middle East! There is no logic or reason to that and makes me wonder if Robert Gates sits around saying, "we're just a bunch of sticky pricks that can't have those queers running around us because we don't know what we'd do!"

And let's not even get into Gay Marraige or we'll be here all night. But I just gotta ask all the fundamentalist, sick bastard, wacko, wanna be party of Reagan, really be party of Falwell asshats out there: Given that the world is falling apart about us, with animal flus to one side, terrorism and piracy to the other, and the giant bloody elephant in the room that is Global warming about to trample the entire shebang, do we really, I mean really, do we really need to be going to the mat over this issue? Nobody's proposing that you marry gays and lesbians in your hovels of God where you do crazy shit like pretend to speak in tongues and other creepy scary shit that I don't even want to know about. Are you really so hyper-sensitive that you think that the mere presence of married gays and lesbians is going to undercut the foundation of your ever so "sacred and sanct holy matrimony" as described in your book of the dead which we all call the Bible? Because if you are, then you gotta a whole little bit of faith and you should be ashamed of yourself.

This topic reminds me of the sheer stupidity of the radically conservative Christian movement and its spokesman and de facto leader James Dobson, Dr in what, who the hell knows. The stupid bastard has said on various occassions that "the gays" are why the Roman empire collapsed which has just about got to be the biggest misreading of history of all time. It's such a stupid proposition that it should be automatic disqualification from putrifying our public airwaves ever again. I mean, think about it. If you were to write something like that in a History 101 class, you would not only fail, you would become an instant assclown for the rest of your college career. Because only someone who is fundamentally deficient in the brains department could suggest something as idiotic.

Guess Dobson ain't got a PhD in History. But that's how bad the arguments from the Religo-Fascists have to be because they can't really come out and say, "we just hate all them faggots and their kissing and hand holding," and be considered good Christian folk, now can they?

Well, I'm well good and off course now, aren't I.

Obama. The man can do this. He can tell the military: finish this, now. With a short, simple executive order, he can stop the military from kicking out people we desperately need. And with the strength of his voice, his rhetoric, and his near universal respect across the parts of America that really matter (you know, the relatively rational, sane human beings that don't believe the utter horse shit that spews forth from the Triumverate of Unholy Evil that is Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O' I sexually harassed my assistant Reilly).

My point is, Obama is the most powerful orator in my lifetime. He has changed attitudes and ideas simply for being. He can push us forward on the most salient and important civil right and human rights issue of our time. I know he's got a rather full plate right now, but he can do this. It just takes a little courage. So please, White House overlords, please Obama, get on it. If they can discriminate against "the gays" then they can discriminate against us all. And I don't want to live in a country like that. Nor do I want my children, who will be called "Latinos", to grow up in a country that is one step away from deciding that there are certain inalienable rights that we can just take away when we good and damn feel like it.

ENDA, the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Gay Marraige now. American values demand it.

Good article in the post

2009-05-21T19:36:00.002-05:00

The definitive answer to the conservative nonsense about the Flat (Fair) Tax.

Short version: The poor pay more for basically everything, ergo, they'll pay more on a national sales tax and continue to be poor.

And the decision is...

2009-05-15T13:31:00.002-05:00

...Moving to the US. It became really simple and easy when they didn't offer me the job. But I think I would have turned it down anyway. Now I need to earn some money between now and August. A PhD salary is not liveable by itself.

(Note: If you sent me email and have not seen a reply, check your junk mail.)

Where we stand

2009-05-13T11:17:00.003-05:00

My life is on the brink of upheaval. Over the past several weeks, after an uninterrupted string of rejection, I was accepted at a PhD program and passed to the final round with an NGO for a job here in Bogota. While I have not yet received an answer from the NGO, having both opportunities before me represents a potentially serious difficulty. First the background.

After getting rejected from three PhD programs in Political Science I contacted a former mentor in search of some basic advice. At this point, every single job application I had submitted had either been ignored or responded with rejection and I was becoming fairly despondent about my short term future. This mentor immediately suggested that I look to join a PhD program in Public (Political) Communication. Surprisingly, that sounded really good to me. So I got in touch with the relevant people (most of whom I know fairly well) and began the process.

Prior to being accepted and offered a fellowship, I was contacted by a British NGO that is looking to begin operations in Colombia. They have nothing on the ground and this job is to be their Colombia Director, legal representative, etc. I had applied for this job some time back and having not heard back, had assumed that I would never hear. So I was fairly surprised but agreed to a phone interview. The interview went very well but I finished it concluding that I really don't have the experience necessary for the job and that they would realize that and move on to other candidates. I was fairly surprised when they moved me into the second round. The second round consisted of a test and an interview with the higher ups. Still not having heard from the university, I agreed to continue in the process, however, prior to the exam, I was informed by the university that I had been accepted with a tuition waiver and a generous fellowship. This was good news.

At this point, I concluded that while I preferred the university option (I have been delaying the PhD and do want to return to the US), that I would follow through with the 2nd round. On the one hand, I had made a commitment to the organization, while on the other, I know my wife isn't entirely ready to leave Colombia and this would give us some extra time were I to be offered the job.

The test was fairly challenging but I felt like I did a pretty good job on it. It also seemed even more clear that I am lacking in the necessary experience for the position. Most of my answers were more instinctual than experiential and while I do believe I have good instincts, I have to wonder if a large, important NGO would empower someone with meager experience. It's a huge responsibility and a huge investment on their part and I assumed that they would want to go with someone who they could more reliably trust.

The second interview was on Monday. It also went well. Almost too well because it left me with the feeling that they are going to offer me the job. Obviously they have other candidates to interview (or have already interviewed) and there's no telling how I stand in the order of things. But I finished that interview with the definite impression that their choice is going to come down to the following factor: Selecting someone who knows Colombia but doesn't have all the experience necessary for the job or selecting someone who is well qualified for the job but doesn't know Colombia.

Now I find myself in the situation of needing to make a decision about what is best for me and my wife. It may be the case that they offer the job to someone else, but as the decision is rather important, I can't sit on my arse and not think about how I would choose if given the option. Over the last week or so I have spent an enormous amount of time thinking about this all. The following are the various angles:

A week ago, I was fully convinced that I was going to accept the PhD option and if I am honest with myself, that is the option I want the most. I feel like going back to grad school will grant me the opportunity to conduct the research and writing I want to conduct and with the level of support offered in this university (in terms of academic support mainly), I know that I will be successful. Further, I have spent three mostly excellent years in Colombia but I want to leave. There are a variety of reasons for this but I think the strongest is that I've been living outside of my country for almost 5 years and I miss it.

The advantages of accepting the job (if offered) are that it would be huge for my resume. This organization is the leader in its field, it's well known, and director level leadership on my resume would be a huge jump that would nicely set me up for things in the future (albeit those might be things I don't particularly want). It also pays very well and given my wife's salary, most of that money would go straight into our savings. Financially speaking, accepting the job is the only viable option.

The disadvantages of accepting the job are that I don't know if I can perform to the expectations of the organization, it would mean staying in Colombia one more year (and whatever risk that carries for my wife's residence visa to the US - that's a whole crapshoot that I barely understand and don't really know how to manage), and it would delay my target professional development one more year.

There are residual factors as well. We do want to start a family at some point in the nearish future and I can't see how that's possible here in Colombia. My wife works too many hours and has too much stress to take a step back and have a baby. On the flip side, entering a PhD program means less income for me and my wife would need time to find a job in the US and integrate herself into a new country and culture before she would be comfortable starting a family. No easy answers there.

So, this is where I stand. This may all become irrelevant within the next 24-48 hours (when they make their decision) and I may look back on these 2 weeks of uncertainty and laugh. Or, on the other hand, I might quite literally have to make the most difficult choice I've ever had to make related to my professional and family life.

My wife, in the ultimate cop out of love, has stated that she wants me to make the decision because she knows that I have sacrificed over the last several years so that we could be in Colombia. She doesn't want me to sacrifice any more at her wish. While loving, this is not particularly helpful.

At the moment, I have to question if I could turn down the money. The PhD can be delayed 6 months or a year without trouble (it appears). And in the current economy, earning a nice salary and saving the majority of it looks like the most logical step. But from an emotional point of view I'm pining away at the opportunity to become reaquianted with my country and to get back into academia. Of course, I can't ignore the irony of all of this. Temptation is the way of the world and I'm now being tempted with the idea of money and responsibility over a rather less financially rewarding option. Or, to put it in more plain terms, my choice comes down to: money or happiness.

Addendum: I have come up with an appropriate analogy to describe how I feel about this job possibility. I am a fairly good cook. And I really like cooking. But if someone wanted me to be the head chef in their new restaurant, I would feel completely overwhelmed by the possibility because it's so far outside of my experience range. Taking the job would mean a steep learning curve on various things that most candidates wouldn't have to learn. Could I do it? Definitely. But there is something to be said about going through the proper steps.

Movie Reviews

2009-04-26T10:43:00.003-05:00

I had the great misfortune of watching 10,000 BC the other day. Let me just suggest that I am now dumber for having watched such a travesty. It's almost like the writer/director got drunk with Mel Gibson one day and then engaged in a little Hollywood style wagering about who could make the worst and most historically inaccurate movie about "civilizations" long lost. Mel went the Central American route, Roland Emmerich went the "location unknown but close enough to walk to an Egyptian civilization that didn't exist" route.

Ah, the travesty. I must say I was totally startled when, after clearly establishing that the story was set in 10,000 BC (the title kind of gave it away, just a little), that there was a sudden appearence of men on horseback (domestication of horses, 4,000 BC) with swords and iron (3500 BC) and things of that nature. Alas, our poor primitive english speaking natives had nothing but spears and gaunt faces with which to fight back. So the race begins. Our hero, who manages to express himself with at least two distinct accents throughout the film, races after these civilized enslaving barbarians only to find that they have giant ass boats (1100 BC) that take them to Egypt (3150 BC) where they are using slaves and wooly mammoths to build the pyramids (3000 BC). Oh, did I mention that on the way they ran into something that looked very much like a velociraptor (85-80 milllion BC)?

I'll stop there. It's apparantly blasé to point out the historical inaccuracies of this film. The producers did issue a blanket cover of "it's not supposed to be historically accurate" so that apparently gets them out of the "god this movie is crap" jail. It doesn't cover up the fact the story is laughably bad, the acting is a joke, and the plot twists are more arduous and droll than interesting. Here's a little suggestion to any future director. When casting a role, don't hire one of the guys that took Ferris Bueller's porsche for a joy ride to play a major part. Also, if your lead actor can't decide on an accent, just tell him to drop all attempts at any accent. Oh, and if you have $75 million to burn, I'm always here.

My Score: 0 out of 50 million stars

Rotten Tomatos: 9%

American Gangster

Apparently, this movie is based on a true story. I had no idea until the very end. That being said Ridley Scott just didn't do a great job with this one. I think it's because he hired two famous and great actors and felt he had to give them equal screen time. The movie should have struck a balance like Catch Me If You Can because it had aspersions of being that type of movie. Unfortunately, the cops' personal life (Russell Crowe) detracts from the plot, is rather dull, and extends the movie into unpleasant length (157 minutes).

Denzel, of course, turns in his usual tour de force, but then, Denzel almost never has a bad performance. I just wish there had been more Denzel and less Crowe. That being said, it's a violent gangster movie that relates a truish tale about heroin and New York City from the late 60s to early 70s. If you're into that sort of thing, you'll probably like it. Just make sure you have a good 2.5 hours to kill.

My grade: 7 of 10

Rotten Tomatoes: 79%

Did IQs suddenly drop while I was away?

2009-04-26T10:30:00.002-05:00

Texas can secede? Create four new states and alter the balance of power in the Senate?

Lordy, I had no idea that our execution happy redneck cousins had such power. Too bad for us it's not true. I'd almost be happy if Texas no longer was a part of the Union. Then maybe Puerto Rico could get in and we wouldn't have to be an odd number of states union.

Key graph:

"Although the provisions of the Texas Annexation document allowing for the creation of four additional states are popularly regarded as a unique curiosity today, they were largely superfluous. Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution already specifically provided for the formation of new states through the junction or division of existing states:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without consent of the legislature of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

Another Texas-related legend holds that the Texans negotiated an annexation treaty which reserved to them the right to secede from the Union without the consent of the US Congress, but the terms of Texas’ annexation contain no such provision." (Italics mine)

Anyway, while we're on the subject of Texan inspired stupidity, here's a lovely little thought one would expect from a toddler, not a Representative to the Congress (unless he's a Texan Republican and then all bets are off since stupidity is the price of admission).

Obama

2009-04-03T08:40:00.000-05:00

This is what happens when adults occupy the Oval Office. The key graphs:

"China tends to have a problem endorsing the documents of organizations like the OECD that they're not a party to," the senior administration official said.

But Mr. Obama, according to this account, stepped between the two men, urging them to try to find consensus, and giving them a "pep talk" about the importance of working together.
The senior adminstration official said that Mr. Obama pulled Mr. Sarkozy aside, took him to a corner, "and discussed possible alternatives," the senior official said.

Once they arrived at one, President Obama "sent a message to the Chinese" that a counter-offer was on the table. The Chinese spent some time considering the offer. But they took a few minutes.

So Mr. Obama, with the assistance of translators, suggested that he and Mr. Hu have a conversation as well. They, too went to the corner to talk. After a few minutes, Mr. Obama called upon Mr. Sarkozy to join them.

"Translators and sherpas in tow, they reached an agreement," the official said. "There was a multiple shaking of hands."

The coming resurgence of guerrilla warfare in Colombia's cities.

2009-03-17T12:17:00.000-05:00

Since it's inception, the Uribe administration has focused the military strategy against the FARC in one direction: pushing the guerrilla group out of major population centers and into isolated, hard to control jungle areas. This strategy has proven highly effective. Conventional wisdom suggests that the reasons Uribe's plan has worked is that military excellence, focus, and training can be highly effective at pushing insurgents outside of any particular zone. This is essentially the "clear and hold" strategy undertaken by the US military in Iraq.

The problem, obviously, with this type of strategy is that territory is largely irrelevant to insurgent forces, it's easy to hide and wait out the "clearing", and that the assumption that insurgents want to take on better trained and better equiped forces is faulty. So why has Uribe's strategy been effective? I suggest that the FARC essentially went along with Uribe's game, to its detriment.

Manuel Marulanda, the founder of the FARC, was always more comfortable in the jungle. It was where the FARC began, where it lived and grew, and ultimately why it adopted the label "people's army". Fortunately for the millions who live in Colombia's cities, Marulanda's reaction to the new offensive launched shortly after Uribe took the reins was to retreat into his comfort zone. Indeed, that had proven effective in the late 90s when the FARC used the provision of a Demilitarized Zone to reconstitute his army's strength (which is also the reason why the current administration ardently refuses to consider another DMZ as a precondition to peace talks).

This new turn proved disaster. The FARC became almost forgotton in the big cities. They were an afterthought, a failing movement relegated to the margins of visible Colombian society. Indeed, the public debate changed fundamentally over the course of five years. Security was replaced with concerns for the kidnapped. And the FARC lost the most important element of any guerrilla war: the war of public relations. The Uribe administration did its part, portraying the FARC as a human rights violating, terrorist group with no respect for human life and little agenda or philosophy on which to stand. This voice would have been stronger had Uribe cleaned up the military's human rights record, but as it, it turned vast sections of the country against the FARC. How could they stand for the people when they kidnapped both combatants and non-combatants and held them in perpetuity in jungle jails, often times chained about the neck.

Just six months ago, there was open discussion suggesting that the FARC may be nearing it's end. I was not so optimistic. Insurgencies don't just die out. They sputter and weaken and resurge and generally go through the pronounced throes of death that can last a generation.

Now, nearing the 1-year anniversary of Marulanda's death from natural causes, the FARC is resurging. The new head of the FARC, Alfonso Cano, is no Marulanda. He isn't wedded to the jungle and he seems to be slowly grasping the lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other insurgencies. Attacking cities gets you noticed. Attacking cities gets you in the paper, in the public eye, and, if you believe in these sorts of things, gets the government to respond to your demands.

Since January 1 of this year, the FARC has launched terror attacks in Cali, Neiva (twice), Bogota, and Villavicencio. This is just the beginning. Over the next several months we shall see the FARC 2.0 and whether they continue targeting infrastructure and military (police) assets or they revert to some of the more daring attacks on the country's wealthy elite, foreigners, and diplomats remains to be seen. I don't expect Bogota, in particular, to revert to a war zone. But I do suggest that violence is coming back, the security which we have enjoyed is temporary, and that the FARC are far from finished.

An unusual morning

2009-02-19T11:09:00.002-05:00

I went to bed with a splitting headache last night which eventually converted itself into a full blown migraine as I found out at 3:30 AM. I tried to fend it off with just water (I'm generally averse to taking meds if I can avoid it), but the pain became increasingly severe until I finally took the new meds that I got prescribed just a couple weeks ago. I´m supposed to take the meds at the onset of the migraine but I was stubborn. Fortunately, the new meds work wonders and I now feel nothing but a rather dull emptiness where previously there was pain. I wouldn't say I'm 100% but I definitely am not in pain and that is good enough for the moment.

Anyway, when I finally got up for good and went off to work, I discovered that there was a protest blocking the Transmilenio which meant there were no buses. I waited awhile and was on the point of giving up and "working from home" when finally an onslaught of buses invaded the station. The protest seemed to have finished.

When I got to the Candelaria I started off toward the office as normal. There was nothing particularly different about the walk until, when I was relatively close, I came up behind a young lady that was walking quite awkwardly. I took note of it and then wondered, almost immediately, if she was actually a man. I gave her a sideways glance when I passed her and really, I can't be sure if she was male or shemale. With plastic surgery and makeup and only giving her a glance, it could have gone either way. Perhaps the only way to answer the question would be to give her the Crocodile Dundee.

Finally arriving at the office I found that, yet again, my boss was not present, and the translation she had asked me to do was likewise nowhere to be found. It's now 11:15 and neither the boss nor the translation has shown up. So, I ask, why, exactly, did I bother showing up for work today?

Mini-Restaurant Guide

2009-02-18T08:29:00.003-05:00

While this is by no means comprehensive, I decided to present a mini-restaurant guide for some of Bogota's finer restaurants. Keep in mind, the following list is not the Poor Man's Guide to Eating Out in Bogota. Good food costs money and Bogota isn't cheap. If you want the under $5,000 peso guide, look elsewhere because I don't like eating crap and the bottom line is that any meal you buy in Bogota that costs under $5,000 pesos (or $2.50 US) is likely going to be suspect in quality and freshness and has a high probability of inducing gut wrenching illness. Now, the list:

Meat
Patagonia, Calle 117 #7-54 and Carrera 6 #10-01

The Patagonia is a traditional Argentinean grill. It’s a rustic, well apportioned joint with somewhat unusual décor and a very limited menu. Vegetarians need not apply.
This was the clear favorite for a good bit of time but of late the product hasn’t been as consistently good as expected. Still, the Bife de Chorizo is outstanding and when they’re on, it’s the best meat in Bogota. Don’t miss the grilled provolone starter. It’s to die for.

La Biferia, Zona G and Calle 79B #8-79

A bit more upscale but still an excellent product. Falls in the same price range as the Patagonia, which is to say, a bit expensive by Bogota standards, but not terribly so like Andres Carne de Res. The service is good, the décor rather classic, and one would feel most comfortable wearing semi-formal attire.

La Bonga del Sinu, Calle 116 #19-89, Parque 93

Meat eating should be casual and at the Bonga you don’t have to worry about putting on your blue suede shoes or any other such nonsense. Instead you get all your basic meat cuts, cooked to order, with a choice of sides that includes coconut rice. Plus, they offer an extensive list of fresh fruit juices and desserts which always look nice but which there is never any room for at the end of the meal.

El Humero, Avenida Prada #5-05, Chia

El Humero is very much like Andres Carne de Res except that it is smaller, cheaper, and not made out to resemble the set of Dusk Til Dawn. Legend has it that the owner used to be the head chef at Andres which probably explains some of the similarities. Recently relocated to a much bigger site, El Humero offers a variety of meat, chicken, pork, and everything in between. Be sure to order the Lomo al Chile (not the precise name, mind you), which is a weighty knuckle of beef stuffed with pickled jalapenos and grilled to order. While it might give you the hot diarrhea the next morning, some prices are worth paying. For a starter, try a traditional dish from Cali. The name escapes me, but it’s a deep fried plantain stuffed with cheese and bocadilla which is a type of sugar made from fruit. Probably better as a dessert.

The only unfortunate thing with El Humero is that it is in Chia.

Typical food

Sopas de la Mama y Postres de la Abuela, various locations

Sopas y Postres is the place to go for typical Colombian food in Bogota. There are those who would recommend other eateries, but with Sopas you get an expansive menu, that is reliantly consistent, of a good quality, and won’t eat a hole in your wallet. Sopas is the kind of joint that has something for everyone – soups, meat, fish, chicken, etc. Try the Fried Ice Cream for dessert and definitely order a giant fruit juice (Strawberry being my preferred selection).

Costal food

La Vitualla, 9th with 106 or so

La Vitualla is a nice little joint that offers coastal classics like Fried Red Snapper and Bluegill, Sancocho de Pescado (a lovely fish soup), and other mains along with coconut rice and white corn patties with suero (which is like sour cream). It’s relatively economical, the fish is always fresh, and the service reasonable for Colombia. Potential diners beware: Several stories have been floating around that the restaurant staff plays it fast and loose with the credit cards – like swiping it twice and delivering only one bill. It’s recommended to only use cash or, if using credit, to verify that you don’t get double charged.

El Rincon Barranquillero, 94 with 16 or so

In spite of its rather unfortunate location and being a second story restaurant, El Rincon Barranquillero provides authentic, costal food at a reasonable price with exceedingly high quality. It has a more expansive menu than La Vitualla, allowing diners to get a taste of coastal traditions not normally found in Bogota. I recommend the Cazuelo de Mariscos which comes at the right temperature (a rarity in my experience) and is overflowing with shrimp, prawns, fish, octopus, and who knows what else. I don’t normally eat one of my favorite animals, but for this dish, I make an exception.

Italian

Luna, Calle 82 #11, Zona Rosa

Bogota doesn’t have a wealth of good Italian food but Luna is the kind of place that would be memorable in most big cities. The service is to be desired, but the menu is full of traditional pasta favorites as well as more esoteric or Italian inspired cuisine. I had chicken in a mushroom sauce that was beyond good. Be sure to try the Fried Mozzarella. They make their own batter, the mozzarella is fresh, and the tomato sauce is certainly the best I have ever tasted.

Archie’s Pizza, Various locations

I mention Archie’s under the Italian category because I find their pizzas to be rather pedestrian. But their pasta dishes are extremely palatable and make a more economical alternative to a classy joint like Luna or others. The lasagna in particular is heartily apportioned and overflowing with melted mozzarella.

Chinese/Asian

China Club, Calle 82 #11-91, El Retiro Shopping Mall

Bogota is not a place to go in search of Chinese food. That being said, China Club is spot on. They offer a host of traditional appetizers accompanied with tangy sauces and the General Tso's Chicken is very good. Plus, the restaurant is very popular with Colombia's rich and famous and makes a good spot to do some people watching.

Wok, Various locations

Wok offers a pan asian variety with dishes from Japan, Korea, China, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The quality is extremely high and the price reasonable. Since Colombian people generally don't have palates for spicy food, most dishes, even the ones that warn of being a bit spicy, are really not too spicy at all. Try the spring rolls with black pepper sauce for starters.

Mexican

El Techo, Calle 82 #11-91, El Retiro Shopping Mall

Mexican food too is catching on in Bogota with El Techo the expensive flagship of the movement. While it will dent your wallet, El Techo offers authentic mexican cuisine in a classy atmosphere that transports diners to a different place and time. Fresh made tortillas, slow cooked spicy beef, and uncountable tequila based cocktails ensure a fine dining experience. Be prepared to pay.

La Taqueria, Calle 82 #12-80 and Calle 116 with the 15

La Taqueria is a more economical mexican option and it offers extremely good fare. The Sopa de Tortilla is to die for and the enchiladas are as good as you'll get anywhere. Plus the price is much more reasonable and the atmosphere relaxed. La Taqueria is perfect for any occassion, be it business or pleasure, and offers a full bar service as well.

Pizza

1969, Various locations

Pizza in Colombia, I am sure, has come a long way. Still, it could be argued that it has a long way to go. The traditional pizza houses like Jeno’s, Pizza Pizza, and the American brands (Pizza Hut, Dominos) are serviceable but they certainly don’t leave a lasting impression and are likely to make your next trip to the toilet rather unpleasant.

1969, on the other hand, comes with a thick crust, well made pasta sauce, and real American style pepperoni. It’s a good pie, mostly up to US standards of what makes good pizza. The only drawbacks are that they don’t take credit and they only have Pepsi products.

Bakery

Pan Pa Ya, Various locations

This is a Bogota standard and should not be missed. Try the Caldo de papa for breakfast. It’s divine, an especially good hangover remedy. They also make very good bread and pastries, a decent pizza, and a very serviceable and economical Calzone.

Hamburger

La Bonga Express, Carrera 19 #118-57

This used to be a too good to be true hamburger joint. For about $18,000 ($9 US) one could get a double bacon cheeseburger with fries and a drink. The quality is far beyond that of El Corral, which seems to be the most popular hamburger option in Colombia, and came at a more economical price than the $23,000 peso Todoterreno. Unfortunately, La Bonga released a new menu in December which jacked up the price of this gloriously gluttonous hamburger to a less than reasonable $27,000 pesos. Now this chain aspires to compete with El Corral Gourmet and is priced accordingly. This is disappointing as the Bonga Express does not offer the same type of atmosphere as the El Corral Gourmet and is now increasingly hard to justify.