Thursday, March 27, 2008

Meatless in Buenos Aires

The two-week strike keeps going. Farmers, protesting massive taxes (41% for soybeans), have barricaded roads and stopped shipments of beef, dairy products, and other grains. The beef aisles in the supermarkets have been shut down and covered with tarps. Butcher shops are empty. Chicken prices have skyrocketed. We're all eating pizza and we may soon have no cheese for our pizza.

Yesterday a protest in Plaza de Mayo turned ugly. I asked a taxi driver and a friend of mine their opinion of the protest. Both said the government sent in their bankrolled protesters to beat up the others. The called it a mafia and voiced concerns that Argentine President Cristina Fernandez won't be able to handle the crisis. Neither wanted to think of what that would mean to the country.

According to the taxi driver and my friend, the problem isn't only that the taxes are too high. Argentina is one of the few places where the dollar is still strong. They claim that farmers and the government are enjoying the weak peso as exports grow. But the farmers aren't seeing much return. What's worse, the taxes, which the government claims are meant to disperse the money to sectors more in need, are not going back to those sectors. Corruption.

I used to think that the word corruption was overused here as if it were thrown around to explain all of the country's problems. Now I realize I have no idea what I'm talking about. Would the government actually send in paid protesters to beat up the legitimate protesters? Do they think people will believe that the farmers aren't in agreement and some farmers would beat up the others?

Regular citizens showed they too sided with the farmers by honking their horns ALL NIGHT LONG. More horns honked than when River or Boca when a match. The strike can't go on much longer, but I have no idea which side will retreat. One thing is certain, yesterday I had the worst empanada I've had since I got here. Don't eat meat until this is over.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Symbolic and More: Obama '08

Back in December Andrew Sullivan wrote an article in the Atlantic Monthly, "Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters." I don't always agree with Sullivan, after all, he did endorse G.W. in 2000. But his December article made the point that an Obama presidency would symbolize a turn in American politics that would help us restore our damaged image. I couldn't agree more.

But symbolism is not reason enough to vote for Obama. There's much more substance to the man and his campaign than mere hope and symbolism. Change is a big part of it and something I think Clinton does not promise. Lawrence Lessig's 20-minute video (embedded here below) on why he supports Barack Obama puts it better than I ever could. Enjoy!



Saturday, March 8, 2008

Two Weeks in LaLaLand



I'm back from two weeks in California, a blue state. I was there during the Oscars when LA became a ghost town. No traffic, no need to make reservations, no lines anywhere, save, I suppose, in front of the Kodak theater. Back in 2003 there was talk of whether or not they should hold the Oscars. After all, we were a country at war.

Once again the Oscars almost didn't happen. But not because of our ongoing war: the writer's strike nearly brought down the annual celebration of overpaid stars, mediocre scripts, and ego hasta la luna.

This year's Oscars were considered a flop. Fewer people attended, fewer viewers tuned in, and, oh no, for the first time ever all four major Oscars for acting went to foreigners. A true tragedy.

No activist actors boycotted to send a message to the presidential candidates that it's high time the war become the subject of debate in this campaign. Well, that's not totally fair. McCan't is all about war, and fear, and no tax increases, and riding the wave to oblivion. Our troops will stay there but we won't call it war.

So why not? Why was there no talk of whether or not it would be in bad taste to hold a party celebrating our cinematic triumphs when our soldiers and Iraqis continue to die (more than 1.3 million so far have died according to the Oxford Research Bureau)? Why isn't the war the main issue in this campaign?

It's the economy. LA's economy was hurt by the writer's strikes. People were out of work. Studios couldn't produce. The films that were already being produced were nearing completion. Ending the strike before the Oscars said "We're back in business." The US economy is also hurting. And since there really is no cheap or clear solution for ending our occupation of Iraq and rebuilding the nation we wrecked, the candidates are ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans do not support the war. We can't afford to fix it so we'll stay indefinitely, or at least for the moment.

I've often thought that California would be the one place I could live in the States if I were to return. It's the nexus of change. I did meet people who get it. And certainly more than I would find in other parts of the country. But I was astounded at how many Democrats with Republican talking points I met. The blue state, save New York, maybe. The people who gave Gore an Oscar last year, the people who push for cleaner fuels, who eat organic, who teach the difference between religiosity and spirituality, who probably started the worldwide anti-smoking movement, were largely missing in action.