And the Oscar Goes to… (Part I)

The plotlines surrounding Central American politics are playing out like a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s so hard to know where to start. There’s military coups, there’s post mortem accusations, there’s…cell phones?

 

Whackamala

The first Central American ‘hiccup’ happened in Guatemala earlier this year when a high profile lawyer was murdered while riding his motorcycle. Exciting, huh? And you thought all these countries had were violent insects and good fruit.

 

It gets better. Said lawyer, Rodrigo Rosenberg, released a video the day after his death blaming none other than the Guatemalan president Alvaro Colom Caballeros and his personal secretary, Gustavo Alejos. Rosenberg believed that if he was assassinated it was due to his involvement in the case of Khalil Musa and Marjorie Musa.

 

Khalil Musa was a businessman that was brought on as part of the board of Guatemala’s rural development Bank. It is thought that Khalil and his daughter Marjorie were assassinated when Musa refused to take part in illicit transactions at the bank.

 

Protesters flooded the streets to call for the resignation of the president, even though there was no evidence asides from the tape (and who can believe a martyred lawyer). The FBI and UN offered to help with the investigation.

 

Guatemala has been facing civil crisis in its short, 13 years of democratic history and these claims do not help the situation at all. There has been constant violence within the country from both the left and right of the political spectrum (Colom is the first leftist president in the country’s history).

 

Teaser: The Hydra Headed Chupacabra: As the pressure on Colom began to subside more fuel was added to the fire when Jean Anleu reacting to supposed government corruption (including the Rosenberg murder) tweeted for depositors to remove their money form the Guatemalan rural development bank. He could face up to five years in prison for illegally undermining trust in the Guatemalan Banking System.

 

Aside from the insane precedents created here (not trusting your government is illegal? not trusting the institution publicly linked to a murder scheme including the president) the interesting thing with the Guatemalan case is what a big role technology has played in all of it.

 

The initial Rosenberg video gained worldwide view through YouTube, many of the initial protests were organized through Facebook, and well…tweeting of course.

Proposition 8 Upheld

This isn't about gay rights or homosexuality or the 'sanctity of marriage'. It's too late to get start wars over semantics and separation of church and state.

This is about the political system of the united states. This is about democracy and what it means. Who holds the power, the people or the court? What should the people be allowed to determine and what is a true majority?

The court was unlikely to overturn the will of the people, even if the will of the people was so muddled. It was also unlikely to 'divorce' 18,000 people. For such a liberal state its strange that judges should take such a strict constructionist action without realizing the precedent they are creating.

The court made a cowardly decision, with the motive of angering the least amount of people while clearly favoring one. The court had a chance to establish the rights of the minority. The idea of majority rule that pervades through our political system has always stood alongside minority rights. How do millions of people, with no real stakes in the issue, allow themselves to rule on it?

If so many of the ground breaking moments of our history had been put to a minority vote, the great progress on slavery and segregation is unlikely to have happened. That is not to compare the gay civil rights movement to the African American civil rights movement. That is a huge mistake. It is not the same fight, but it is a fight none the less.

The only chance California has is to put another Proposition on the ballot, since this last one barely passed. However, its time to look at the bigger picture. The picture beyond the rights just stripped away without the least guilt. It's time to look at what the court has said: Majorities, bare majorities, can take away the rights of minorities.

This should not be taken lightly. Who will be the next ostracized group that through propaganda will be oppressed by the Majority? What should such Majority be? A mere 51%?

For people so set on holding Majority rule, it sure didn't pan out that way when it came to electing Bush to the White House, where Gore had the majority there too, but even then there is things in effect to counteract the power of the majority to help the 'smaller states'. If we're willing to defend the rights of a state, why not defend the rights of a people?

1%. That's what determined the difference in California. That's what took away the rights to a whole group of people, and under what pretense?

Can the majority back up their choice without resorting to religious rhetoric? A factor, that has no right to impose itself on the political system . This is not just a travesty to the gay community but to the American political system because aside from what you will believe, and you have you're right to believe so the basic foundation of American politics has been broken, an ideal that was clear to the MINORITY that decided to create this nation in the first place, what if the majority had been allowed to rule then?

It really is shameful. It is not only shameful that the court would uphold this, it is shameful that the proposition made it on the ballot. It is shameful that this proposition passed.

It is shameful that 50% of Californians believe they have the right to take other people's rights away and it is shameful that the court has rewarded that behaviour.

I'd like to believe Judges ruling in a high court could understand the simple principle of Majority rule, minority rights.

The Gambler by Dostoyevsky

The Gambler, a short novella, by Dostoyevsky surrounds many of the psychological and 'moral' themes common to Dostoyevsky's work. There is obsession, love, and vice. There is of course the usual generalizations:focusing on his own Russians but attacking the Germans, Poles, and especially the French.

The characters are hard to empathize with, but they are given just enough humanity to not make them entirely hateful. It would serve well to have at least one character with noble motives, so as to not give the work the dark tone, at times insufferable tone, it develops.

The first two-thirds start off slow, with Dostoyevsky straying a bit from his usual style. IT ultimately serves as simply a set up for the climax and denouement of the story which are the true beauty of it.

As many of Dostoyevksy's works, the work improves steadily as it progresses both in style and in content. There does seem to be a jolt, as the time gaps between the journal entries become longer but it really is worth suffering through. The climax of the story is almost absent, as it it is told in retrospect but it does not make the emotional debris it leaves behind any less poignant.

American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House

Jon Meachan creates an informative, easy flowing account of the Jackson years. No matter what side you stand on, for with Jackson there tends to not be a middle ground--its either love or hate like so many of the great personalities of the past. The account created by Meachan in American Lion creates a comprehensive encyclopedia of the White House years, creating an intricate story with lively characters, including as in any great story line a constant foil be it in the form of Henry Clay or John Quincy Adams.

There would of course have been great interest in more information, especially regarding Jackon's early years that would have helped shed a light on the many motives behind Jackson's actions especially since his stances were so strongly based on his own personal ideologies.

Although clearly taking a Pro-Jackson stance, Meachan makes sure to not shy away from Jackson's mistakes. He does however give Jackson an easy pass on many of his mistakes and shies away from really questioning his often Messianic leanings. He gives Jackson a free pass on his slavery views and on the economic depression that followed his two terms in office.

Overall its a good read that sparks a great interest in early American history (Can't wait to start books on John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson). One of the most interesting aspects is realizing how the great figures emphasize the importance of specific branches of government. There has not been a non-executive politician to have the strength, respect, and power that Clay, Webster, Calhoun, and Adams had in Congress during Jackson's reign.

Short of Celebration

The cities of Atlanta and New York were treated to a less than celebratory Cinco de Mayo.

The sports fans of these cities may be drinking for all the wrong reasons.

Today both the Atlanta Hawks and the New York Yankees were humiliated.

The question is, which one was worse?

The answer seems easy: Atlanta Hawks.

Not only was the game of more importance. It's a PLAYOFF game.

It was a blowout. An embarrasing blowout in a game that was still relatively close at halftime. They COLLAPSED in the second half.

Working against the Yankees. It's only May, it was only a four point loss.

There needs to be rivalry points put in here, however.

There needs to be homefield advantage put into this.

There needs to be expectations invovled in this.

Everyone in their right mind knew Atlanta stood no chance against the Cleveland Cavaliers. Much less in Lebron's house.

The Yankees are different. There's no reason why they should now be 0-5 against the Boston Red Sox.

If you're team can't find it in themselves to step up against their biggest rivals there is cause for worry.

The fact is the Yankees are now 0-2 against the Red Sox in Yankee Stadium. That doesn't sound promising.

Being swept at home is heartbreaking. Being swept at home by the Red Sox?

Maybe those tequila shots can block it all out.

Haunting in Connecticut

Haunting in Connecticut has no thrills, as opposed to most Horror stories it puts you to sleep rather than scare you into sleepless nights.

Top 5
1. The movie has great acting for a horror story as bad as this one, it ads a lot to the faulty logic.
2. While the overall story is faulted, the dialogue is good perhaps attributed as much to the good acting as to the screenplay.
3. The movie had an amazing trailer/promotional trailer.
4. The movie had great potential for good story lines (cancer, hallucinations, alcoholism, etc.) but it seems it purposely turned away from them when they approached


Bottom 5:
1. Its not scary: No one in the general story is killed or injured and the peek-a-boo thrills soon get tired.
2. There's holes in the stories galore: Why are they living with their uncles? Why had no one searched the house for bodies?
3. The 'ghosts' for 90+ % of the movie never attempt to harm the main characters.
4. The acting is underused almost putting it out of place and making the movie worst by having the unreasonably good acting.
5. When the back story is more interesting than the main story there's a problem. I would have enjoyed a movie on just the back story 100 times more.

Fast and The Furious

For a fun action movie that doesn't create much expectations for viewers, this sure did dissapoint.
Usually I post the 5 things I like most, and the 5 things I like least in these reviews but there honestly cannot be 5 good things about this movie.

Top 5:

1. When the 'bad guy' is finally killed there is a great FUCK YOU moment, but it may have been much better off had it been done in a personal matter.
2. Weird Russian/Mexican model getting repeatedly shut down.
3. A lot of half naked women, if that's your thing. Apparently it was illegal to wear bras if you were in this movie.
4. Michelle Rodriguez kicking ass.
5. Vin Diesel still kicks ass.

Bottom 5:
1. If the movie is promoted on a main character coming back, you cannot kill said character in the first 15 minutes of the movie. Not only is that a ballsy move that only a really good movie can pull off but its also tricking the audience and not in a good way. I payed money to see someone, to have them killed off. I remember sitting there at the beggining of the movie and thinking, if she dies I am walking out of this theatre.
2. One of the gimmicks of the movie is that the drivers have to drive in the streets and maneuver instead of having the streets crossed down for the races. Pretty much condoning the death of civilians for their fun races. It's irresponsible and disrespectful.
3. The music is lost. It has no energy. It has no staying power. At least Tokyo Drift, had good music ( yes I watched that).
4. There is no investment in the characters and there is no new story line created, perhaps because they are relying on the 'old parts'. OLD PARTS WHICH THEY THEN IMMEDIATELY KILL OFF (i'm not over it).
5. I can't buy Michelle Rodriguez being anything but a lesbian with a drinking and temper problem. Still I went to the movie mainly to see her.