Requiem for the Judge's Wife

Well, the word is in. After an ordeal of three years, Aida de los Santos, the mucama or bedchamber maid, is free and innocent of all charges.

You may remember the case—Georgina Ortiz Ortiz, the wife of an ex-state supreme court judge, Carlos Irizarry Yunqué, was killed on 17 August 2010 in a fashionable area of San Juan.

And in what must have been the most cynical and depraved stunt of the year, the police decided to go after the maid, despite conflicting evidence of the husband, despite a witness who said that the photos of the scene didn’t match what he had seen, despite a bloodstained man’s shirt found in Irizarry’s hamper, despite the fact that the daughter of the victim had hired a private eye to follow her mother (so worried was she), despite the fact Irizarry had hired a detective as well to spy on his wife, despite the fact that DNA collected from under the nails of the victim was from more than one man….

Well, today’s banner headline in The New Day, our local paper, reads Sin justicia or No Justice, and there’s not much doubt—there was no justice done indeed. And the family of the victim came out and said it, yesterday—Irizarry was involved.

Well, if he was, wouldn’t you think there would be physical evidence? Oh, but there’s a problem—no one bothered to impound the judge’s car until two years after the murder of Ortiz.

Two factors—no, three—entered into this case.

Race—de los Santos is black;

Nationality—de los Santos is from the next island over, Dominican Republic. And yes, there’s a lot of prejudice against Dominicans here in Puerto Rico;

Do I need to tell you what the last factor is?

Minimally, it’s class; maximally, it’s the convergence of wealth, power, and politics. So for the last three years a woman had to take the rap for someone else—someone for whom she also had to clean his toilet. And for the last six weeks or so we’ve had to watch as a sham of a trial played out.

Justice has been served, said some—after all, de los Santos wasn’t convicted, right? In the end, it worked for her, didn’t it?

Don’t see that—at one point in the ordeal, de los Santos may have attempted to take her life (her version is that she woke up in the Witness Protection Center when somebody was slipping ropes around her neck). No matter how innocent you knew you were, how—especially coming from the Dominican Republic—could you trust that you’d get a fair trial?

Mind you, I don’t think the judge did it—he would have been about 88 at the time. But for the same reason, it was never very credible that de los Santos did it, either.

Just to intrude this bloody fact into your day, it takes a lot of butchery and strength to slit the throat, as somebody did that bad day in June of 2010 to Ortiz. You need strength and surprise, as well as the trust of the victim. And so de los Santos would have needed to be exceptionally strong or exceptionally enraged to have killed her boss in that way.

Throughout the day, I’ve been listening to the most amazing music—music by a composer whom I can’t believe isn’t much more well-known, Heinrich Ignaz Franz von Biber, born in Germany forty years before Johann Sebastian Bach. Here’s his Requiem `a 15, a stunning work.

To the memory of Georgina Ortiz Ortiz. May she rest in peace.  

May I Please, Please Protest Today?

For many Saturdays this year, a group of us have sat on a plaza and read names. People drift by, look puzzled, clutch their small children’s hands more tightly. Some gaze, some avert their eyes. Anyone who establishes eye contact gets a little flyer explaining what we are doing. The point is to engage in debate.

Among the people strolling through the plaza are a policeman or two, who stand by and look on. What don’t they do?

Put me in handcuffs and fine me 701 bucks.

That, unbelievably, is what happened yesterday in the capitol rotunda of Madison, Wisconsin.

Full disclosure—I got the figure of $701 from a friend; I’ve looked but been unable to verify it. However, I did come across the video of Will Williams, below. And Williams is a 70-year old veteran who got handcuffed and escorted down the stairs. Whereupon he tripped—or was he tripped?—on the first steps, and fell onto his handcuffed hands. Ouch. 

Nor was Williams the oldest person to be thrown into cuffs and led off. Check out Wednesday’s post—there’s a clip of an 80-year old woman being handcuffed. She’s singing away, the cops cuff her, and she trots off with them. At no point is she resisting—she’s just singing.

Let’s be clear. This is assault. And under what circumstances can a cop stick cuffs on a person? When I worked on inpatient psychiatry wards, the use of restraints was very clear. A patient had to have shown behavior that was a danger to himself or to others. And that behavior had to be documented. OK—so are cops operating on a different set of criteria? Here’s what one guy said:

Actually, there are several reasons a law enforcement officer can detain you without notifying you of the reason. They need not produce an arrest warrant if they have probable cause that you have committed a felony. Placing handcuffs on a person is not always the result of being arrested; an officer need not arrest you to detain you. If the officer feels you are a flight risk and that flight would compromise an ongoing investigation, or if he feels you are threat to him or another, he may take you into temporary custody. If there are other pressing matters to which he must attend to maintain public or personal safety, he need not speak to you at all.

Nor am I the only one to think so. Check this out….

Dane County Sheriff David Mahoney Thursday refused to retract remarks made Monday during a radio interview on his apparent condoning of the protest singing in great numbers, despite a federal judge's ruling only assemblies of twenty people or less could be staged without a permit.
"I'm here to join alongside the Solidarity Singers. This is an example of freedom of speech," Mahoney told Workers Independent News (WIN) Monday.


This is a monstrous attack on human dignity and on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. And despite the temporary order upholding the government’s “right” to require permits for demonstrations with over 20 people—no. If people want to get together and sing songs in the capitol, dammit, they have every right to do it.

Oh, and the legislator who had a meeting with the chief of capitol police and the secretary of administration? Here’s what she wrote after the aborted event.

"I was very shocked and disappointed today when you and Department of Administrative Assistant Gwendolyn Coomer walked out of a meeting scheduled in my office," she wrote in a sharply worded letter (PDF) that was hand-delivered to Erwin's office in the state Capitol. Taylor also took the police chief to task for being unable to identify the "specific conduct you believe to be unlawful."

Yes, it’s very clear that there are some people breaking the laws at noon in the rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol.

Very, very clear…..

For those who can help with the legal costs incurred by protesters, please donate via PayPal to the following fund: 
http://solidaritysingalong.org/

Hint—Don't Google Pressure Cookers!

She’s a writer with a 20-year old son and a husband. The son is a news junkie, and the husband is curious about things. So they’re all on the Internet a lot; she had looked up pressure cookers. Her husband had researched backpacks. And her son had followed a lot of links in the days surrounding the Boston bombing.

Wanna see what happened?

Yup, six armed guys from the Joint Terrorism Task Force had come to Michele Catalano’s house at nine in the morning. Her husband went out to greet them; they asked if they could enter the house. Here’s Catalano’s description of the event:

They asked if they could search the house, though it turned out to be just a cursory search. They walked around the living room, studied the books on the shelf (nope, no bomb making books, no Anarchist Cookbook), looked at all our pictures, glanced into our bedroom, pet our dogs. They asked if they could go in my son’s bedroom but when my husband said my son was sleeping in there, they let it be.

Meanwhile, they were peppering my husband with questions. Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked.

Guys—do any of you feel significantly safer by having the federal government running around asking people if they have any bombs?

They got to equally tough questions—had he ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb? Sure—said the husband, whom Catalano dubs, “ever the oppositional kind”—haven’t you? Two of the guys admitted they had.

The officers asked to do a cursory search—they missed two rooms (undoubtedly crammed with bombs, boys!) and never touched the computers. Oh, and they dropped the news that they do this a hundred times a week, and “99%” of the time, it turns out to be nothing. Catalano rightly wonders—what about the other 1%?

Well, the task force spent 45 minutes chatting with Catalano’s husband, and went pleasantly off to investigate the next terrorist. Here’s how Catalano concludes her piece:

This is where we are at. Where you have no expectation of privacy. Where trying to learn how to cook some lentils could possibly land you on a watch list. Where you have to watch every little thing you do because someone else is watching every little thing you do.

All I know is if I’m going to buy a pressure cooker in the near future, I’m not doing it online.

I’m scared. And not of the right things.

Well, the question is—since the government is not supposed to be reading anyone’s email, how did the Joint Terrorist Task Force know Catalano’s family had googled “suspicious” sites? Were they connected to suspected terrorists? If so, how?

The bad news is that almost all of us are connected to suspected terrorists; here’s Yahoo News on the subject….

It hinges on what's known as "hop" or "chain" analysis. When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone records, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and everyone who calls those people.

If the average person called 40 unique people, three-hop analysis would allow the government to mine the records of 2.5 million Americans when investigating one suspected terrorist.

Right—so we have the Joint Terrorist Task Force investigating people who google pressure cookers, but not following up on Tamerlan Tsarnaev when the Russians go out of their way to tip off the FBI?

In the meantime, the head of NSA held up a placard stating that they had foiled 54 terrorist plots by using telephone and Internet data. Predictably, nobody in Congress trusts them. Who could?

Look, if it hadn’t been for Edward Snowden, they’d still be lying on their stack of Bibles. They were asked direct questions; they lied.

Which, by the way, is contempt of Congress. Anybody remember Rita Lavelle, the EPA official who lied to Congress in 1983? Here’s what she got, according to Wikipedia:

Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000

Throw the book at ‘em!

On Beleaguered Wisconsin

It started two years ago, when Republican governor Scott Walker decided to go after the unions in state government in Wisconsin.

And it’s still going on.

I followed it only remotely at the time, being in active anticipatory dread about the lay off I knew awaited me. But I remember seeing the protests on television, as I walked through the lunchroom before 7AM at the home office of Wal-Mart Puerto Rico in Caguas. There were, at its height, 100,000 people jammed into the Wisconsin state capitol, all protesting a bill aimed at lessening a 3.6 billion dollar state deficit. How was Walker proposing to do that? By eliminating the right of the state unions to bargain collectively.

Facts: Wisconsin became the first state to allow for unions in the public sector in 1959. While union membership was in the past higher in the private sector than in the public, that situation has now changed. Currently, about 36% of government workers are in unions, as compared to six or seven percent in the private sector.

When Walker announced his bill—called the Budget Repair Bill by those favoring Walker or the Union Busting Bill by those not—protesters took over the capitol. There were sleeping areas, a medic station, and food distribution areas. Signs were everywhere. And the capitol police, in general, acted professionally.

In the midst of the fracas, 14 state senators—all of the Democrats in the Senate—left the state and went to Chicago in order to prevent Republicans from having a quorum. That drew everybody’s attention, as well as did the massive crowds in and around the state capitol. And who were all those people? Fans of Walker said they were union organizers from out of state.

Government workers began calling in sick, and doctors were handing out notes excusing them; later, Walker would try and go after those doctors. And so the world watched as the drama in Wisconsin continued. Eventually, the Democrat senators came back. Here’s Wikipedia’s account of how the budget bill was passed:

On February 22, 2011 Assembly Republicans began procedures to move the bill to a vote on February 22 while Democrats submitted dozens of amendments and conducted speeches.[60] At 1:00 am on February 25, following sixty hours of debate,[61] the final amendments had been defeated and the Republican leadership of the Wisconsin State Assembly cut off debate as well as the public hearing and moved quickly to pass the budget repair bill in a sudden vote. The vote was 51 in favor and 17 opposed, with 28 representatives not voting.[61] The final vote took place without warning, and the time allowed for voting was so short (lasting only 5–15 s)[62] that fewer than half of the Democratic representatives were able to vote; many reportedly pushed the voting button as hard as possible but it did not register.[63] Four Republican representatives voted against the bill.[64]

In essence, Walker carried the day—though not without a fight. The budget bill was challenged in court, and upheld. Walker faced a recall election and won. But guess what?

The protests never entirely went away. People began gathering at noon to sing—songs like, “hit the road, Scott, and don’t you come back no more.” Or how about, “we’ll keep singing ‘til justice is done; we’re not going away, oh Scotty?”

OK—so what did Scott do?

He required groups of more than four people to have a permit to protest in the capitol.

Four people??!!

C’mon, Gov, if five secretaries leave for lunch together, is that a protest?

Apparently so. Here’s what Senate Majority Leader sent around to the legislative offices: 

“If you are in the vicinity of the illegal demonstrations that have been taking place over the noon hour in the rotunda, you will be considered part of the protests and are subject to being ticketed.”

Well, there was a problem. Here’s what the state constitution says about free speech and the right of assembly:

The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.”

Not unreasonably—in fact, completely reasonably—protesters felt that requiring a permit was an abridgment of their right to peaceably assemble. And of course it is—what happens if the government says no? Are citizens just supposed to go home? It’s the old slippery slope—the next thing would be for groups to be forced to pay a bond for security, or insurance, or “interruption” to the workplace.

Wisconsin has a proud tradition of progressive, clean, transparent government. Scott Walker has severely tarnished that reputation with low-down, dirty tactics. This attack on the right to assemble is just another example of the politics of attack and polarization.

Well, the protesters went to court, and the court issued a temporary ruling stating that the state can require a permit for protesters of twenty or more people.

No deal, said the protesters. So in the last week or so, over 100 citations were issued. Yesterday, 30 were issued, as a group of 100 people sang and 50 watched.

And the police?

You be the judge—watch the videos below.

Update on an Old Villain

OK—if you want to read anything good about Barack Obama or Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, I wouldn’t suggest clicking on the YouTube video below.

Right—the name should have given it away: The Zionist Coverup. And the video is almost embarrassingly homemade; the music is awful and the text is at times unreadable. But if the facts are true, it’s chilling: we have an agriculture secretary who is in bed with the biotechnology giants who are providing us with genetically modified food.

Vilsack was a state senator and later governor of Iowa; as a lawyer, his firm represented Monsanto. As a state senator, he voted for a bill that stripped counties of the right to impose restrictions of genetically altered food. As governor, he was named “governor of the year” by the Biotechnology Industry Organization in 2001. And as you’ll see in the clip below, the biotechnology giants love him.

Confession—I had no idea who our secretary of agriculture was until this morning, when it got into my head: whatever happened to rogue wheat? You remember—an Oregon farmer found Roundup resistant wheat in his field, and went off to his local Ag representative. The wheat was found to be identical to a genetically modified wheat that Monsanto had tested in 2005, and subsequently withdrawn.

How did the wheat get there? The answer, it appears, is nobody knows, although Monsanto floated the idea that somebody had sabotaged the company by stealing the seed and planting it. But Japan and South Korea subsequently halted their purchase of wheat; the USDA is in talks with those countries. In the meantime, various farmers have taken Monsanto to court.

Now then—what genetically modified organisms have been approved under Obama’s watch? Here’s the list, according to naturalnews.com:

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto's GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

In fact, the site claims that Obama is “the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.”

If true, we have a problem: according to a recent New York Times poll, 93% of Americans support mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods. So that means that Congress will pass the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, right?

Don’t count on it—the biotechnology industry spent 46 million dollars in California, defeating a similar measure. Can you imagine the millions that they will spend on the national level?

So it’s the old story—the unholy marriage of money and politics.

You're thinking I’m cynical? Remember the number of people who favored imposing universal background checks on firearms? And Monsanto is used to getting its way—it got Congress to pass the Monsanto Protection Act, which “allows Monsanto to override U.S. federal courts on the issue of planting experimental genetically engineered crops all across the country. Even if those experimental crops are found to be extremely dangerous or to cause a runaway crop plague, the U.S. government now has no judicial power to stop them from being planted and harvested.”

Think there’s anything genetically modified in Michelle Obama’s White House garden?

Vatican Airs

Well, as a gay man who is peculiarly fascinated by the Vatican, of course I had to read it. And I give it to you straight from The New York Times….

Striking a breathtakingly conciliatory approach to a hot-button issue that has divided Catholics, Pope Francis on Monday said that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation. “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis said, according to media reports.

“Breathtakingly conciliatory?” Well, maybe. Certainly it’s a step—but presumably the pope is still toeing the line about being gay—that’s no problem. Acting on it? A sin.

Actually, it may be that the real sin is coming out and saying, “yeah, I’m gay and yeah, I have sex with men.” Because we all know—minimally 30% of the priesthood is gay. Find me a gay Catholic who thinks it’s that low, in fact, and I’ll buy you dinner.

So it’s no surprise that the rumor swirling around the Vatican is that the director, Battista Ricca, of the guest house where Francis is hanging out is gay. And apparently gay with a past—when he was with the nunciature of Montevideo, Uruguay in 1999, he was living more or less openly with a Swiss army captain, Patrick Haari. Here’s what one writer had to say:

The intimacy of the relations between Ricca and Haari was so open as to scandalize numerous bishops, priests, and laity of that little South American country, not least the sisters who attended to the nunciature.

Nor was that all. The Telegraph reports that Ricca visited an area frequented by “known homosexuals,” got into a fight, or got jumped—at any rate, he had to call priests to come get him home. His face apparently was bloody or swollen.

Then there was the time he got stuck in the elevator in the middle of the night—now was he alone, but with a younger man. All this, according to the Telegraph, was sufficient to get him shipped off to Trinidad and Tobago in 2004, where he also “butted heads” with the nunciature. So he was sent back to the Vatican, and set to the task of running the Domus Sanctae Marthae—which is where Francis presumably bumped into him.

And now, Francis has appointed Ricca to be the pope’s eyes and ears in the Vatican Bank, or the Institute for the Works of Religion, its formal name. Well, if so—he could start by zeroing in on the interesting case of Monsignor Nunzio Scarano, who is accused of using his account at the bank to launder money. Here’s Catholic News Agency on the matter:

The investigation concerns transactions Msgr. Scarano made in 2009.

At that time, he took 560,000 euro in cash out of his personal Vatican bank account and carried it into Italy, to help pay off a mortgage on his Salerno home.

According to the Salerno public prosecutor, Msgr. Scarano asked 56 close friends to accept 10,000 euros in cash in exchange for writing a check of the same amount to deposit the money into an Italian bank account.


Nor is this the monsignor’s first brush with the law. You may remember, he was arrested in late June of this year for plotting to sneak in 26 million bucks in cash into Italy. And Ricca might also put his ears to any rumors regarding the source of Scarano’s wealth. Reports are that he is called “Monsignor 500” for the 500 euro notes that he reportedly carries on him at all times. Oh, and then there’s his penthouse, allegedly filled with fine art.

Well, it seems that Francis may choose to devote himself to the poor—a noble thing, indeed—but why about the spiritual needs of the rich? Scarano seems to concern himself not only with the spiritual but the temporal needs—and in particular the needs of the Agnelli family.

Nor is he alone; here’s what The Telegraph has to say:

According to officials at the Bank of Italy, the Institute for Works of Religion – the Vatican’s own offshore bank – has for years been allowing organized criminals, even terrorists, to launder money with impunity.

Well, all this brought down the director of the bank, Paolo Cipriani, as well as the assistant director, Massimo Tulli.

Well, the pope apparently is a vigorous guy, judging from his recent trip to Brazil. Great—he’s gonna have to be. Because in addition to it all, the UN has asked him to hand over files related to the sex abuse scandals. It seems that the Committee on the Rights of Children (CRC), a UN committee, has deemed this a human rights issue. Here’s what The Guardian says:

The information sought includes cases where priests were transferred to other parishes, "where instructions were given not to report such offences, and at which level of the clergy", and "where children were silenced in order to minimize the risk of public disclosure." The CRC has also asked for "the investigations and legal proceedings conducted under penal canon law against perpetrators of sexual crimes" and "the number of child victims who have been given assistance for recovery, including psychological support and social reintegration and have received financial compensation."

Oh, and did I mention Patrizio Poggio, an ex-priest who has served time for sex crimes, and who has (according to him) evidence that Roman priests had been buying the services of Romanian male prostitutes?

“Pray for me,” the pope says to everybody and his brother.

I begin to see why….

An Everyday Hero

It’s getting a little old: another African nation is going through a spate of virulent homophobia. Oh, and is it any coincidence that the presidential election is in five days?

Robert Mugabe, 89, has ruled Zimbabwe since it gained independence in 1980; he was most recently elected in 2008. The election was widely held to be fraudulent and was unquestionably violent; allegations appearing through Facebook are that Mugabe’s top aides are corrupt and very rich. This election is expected to be very close.

Sub-Saharan politicians have learned: stirring up hatred against LGBT folk means votes. So Mugabe is running—well, as much as an 89-year old can run—around the country saying things like this: “They are worse than dogs and pigs, yes worse than dogs and pigs,” he said. “I keep pigs and the male pig knows the female one.”

That’s actually mild; today’s El Nuevo Día had this to say:

Harare- El presidente de Zimbabue, Robert Mugabe, candidato a la reelección en las elecciones del próximo 31 de julio, consideró que los homosexuales "merecen ser castrados", informó hoy el diario estatal Chronicle.

Yup—castrados means just what you think it does….

Homosexuality, you see, is a Western thing—Mugabe refers to Great Britain as United Gay Kingdom, and that, in post-Colonial Africa, is deeply suspicious. But Mugabe has left the merely verbal and moved into the world of action. Here’s Wikipedia on the subject:

In 1996, former President Canaan Banana was arrested based on accusations made during the murder trial of his former bodyguard, Jefta Dube, and found guilty of eleven charges of sodomy, attempted sodomy and indecent assault in 1998. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, defrocked, and served 6 months in an open prison.

Oh, and he also changed the constitution. No longer is it enough to criminalize sodomy, not it’s illegal to perform any act—holding hands, kissing—that would be considered “indecent.”

Well, is it surprising that Wikipedia says this about LGBT folk in Zimbabwe?

Homosexuality is highly taboo in the socially conservative country and Mugabe's anti-gay stance resonates with many Zimbabweans.[16] Gays and lesbians in Zimbabwe are threatened by violence and suicide attempts are common among the gay community.

Well, into the picture steps Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born activist for LGBT issues. He’s apparently not afraid to get into a scrap—he was one of thirty people to create the group OutRage! Remember those guys? Here’s more Wikipedia on the subject:

Some OutRage! activities were highly controversial. In 1994, it unveiled placards inviting ten Church of England bishops to "tell the truth" about what Outrage! alleged was their homosexuality and accusing them of condemning homosexuality in public while leading secret gay lives. Shortly afterwards the group wrote to twenty UK MPs, condemning their alleged support for anti-gay laws and claiming they would out them if the MPs did not stop what they described as attacks on the gay community. The MP Sir James Kilfedder, one such opponent of gay equality,[45] who had received one of the letters,[46] died two months later of a sudden heart attack on the day one of the Belfast newspapers planned to out him.[47][48] In a comment in The Independent in October 2003, Tatchell claimed the OutRage! action against the bishops was his greatest mistake because he failed to anticipate that the media and the church would treat it as an invasion of privacy.

Peter Tatchell, being interviewed by Natalie Thorne, deputy editor of Fyne Times, at a 'First Sunday' event, November 2007

On 12 April 1998, Tatchell led an OutRage! protest, which disrupted the Easter sermon by George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, with Tatchell mounting the pulpit to denounce what he claimed was Carey's opposition to legal equality for lesbian and gay people. The protest garnered media coverage and led to Tatchell's prosecution under the little-used Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860 (formerly part of the Brawling Act 1551), which prohibits any form of disruption or protest in a church.[49][50] Tatchell failed in his attempt to summon Carey as a witness and was convicted. The judge fined him the trivial sum of £18.60, which commentators theorised was a wry allusion to the year of the statute used to convict him.[51][52]

Right—clearly a guy not afraid to get into a fight. Tatchell also went off to the first Moscow Pride march, and not surprising gotknocked unconscious for the trouble.

So what did Tatchell do about Mugabe?

He attempted a citizen’s arrest, not once but twice. Back to Wikipedia:

Tatchell became convinced that Mugabe had broken international human rights law during the attack, which is estimated to have involved the massacre of around 20,000 civilians. Then in 1999, journalists Mark Chavunduka and Ray Choto were tortured by the Zimbabwe Army. The arrest in London of Augusto Pinochet seemed to him a precedent that human rights violations could be pursued against a head of state, thanks to the principle of universal jurisdiction. On 30 October 1999 Tatchell and three other OutRage! activists approached Mugabe's car in a London street and attempted to perform a citizen's arrest. Tatchell opened the car door and grabbed Mugabe. He then called the police. The four OutRage! activists were arrested, on charges including criminal damage, assault and breach of the peace; charges were dropped on the opening day of their trial. Mugabe responded by describing Tatchell and his OutRage! colleagues as "gay gangsters", a slogan frequently repeated by his supporters, and claimed they had been sent by the United Kingdom government.[64]

On 5 March 2001 Tatchell believed Mugabe was about to visit Brussels. He went there and attempted a second citizen's arrest. Mugabe's bodyguards were seen knocking him to the floor. Later that day, Tatchell was briefly knocked unconscious by Mugabe's bodyguards and was left with permanent damage to his right eye. The protest drew worldwide headlines, as Mugabe was highly unpopular in the Western world for his land redistribution policy. Tatchell's actions were praised by Zimbabwean activists and many of the newspapers that had previously denounced him.

Tatchell has other causes—he’s spoken out against China’s human rights record, fundamentalist Islam, and he’s spoken out for Gaza and the Palestinians and for better treatment of Australia’s aboriginal peoples.

Great job, Tatchell!

Prostitution Day at the Beach

Well, I could tell you that our loopy Congress (gonna have to rethink those caps) has once again voted against the will of the American people, and decided that it’s perfectly OK for government to spy on us. Or how about Syria—over 100,000k have been killed in the civil war there. Or really to rain on your day, how about the fact that in the same day that we all hung by our screens to see British kid named George Alexander Louis, 440 women died in childbirth across sub-Saharan Africa?

“It’s Prostitution Day,” I told Gustavo, the sexy guy from the café, “you’re not going to the bank…”

Nor were we going to the bank, but rather to the beach, and a very good day it was for it. We snailed along at Mr. Fernández’s glacier-in-reverse pace, caught some rays, and sampled some local color, of which there was a very full palette.

We do some things very well, down here, but going to the beach we do either very badly (seen through gringo eyes) or superbly (don’t have to tell you….).

On this particular beach, there are signs posting the rules of the beach. To a gringo mind, one would get to a place, look for a sign, read it, absorb the rules, and follow them. To us?

What sign?

It’s almost a competition—which group of people can violate the most rules. There were the people picnicking outside of the picnic area (1), grabbing beers (2) out of the cooler (3), as their dog (4) chased after a tossed cigarette butt (5). But they were pikers. Most people were scoring at least eight.

There are no barbecues allowed except in the picnic area—of course everybody has a grill. There is no drinking allowed—hey, wanna beer? There is no music, but of course a guy had a boom box in a little red cart—remember them from childhood?—and was blasting reggaetón to half the beach.

“Free music,” I told Mr. Fernández. You gotta go with the flow….

Mind you, nobody is actually swimming. Most people are bobbing in the water, chugging back the beer or the gasolina—a rum drink that comes in a pouch. Men will have 15 extra pounds per decade over 20; women will have 20. Everybody will be shouting, children will be running between your legs, and the smell of charcoal and grilled food will be intoxicating. And yes, people will bring everything to the beach—chairs, the baby crib, the baby, Mamita, large umbrellas, tents, tables to hold the food.

It’s wonderful. We strolled home, bumping into homeless and now toothless Gale, who told us the horror stories of the community—Puerta de Tierra—just next to ours. We gave her some money, chatted for a bit, and moved on.

And now, do I want to read about Syria, contemplate death rates in the developing world, or allow the United States Congress to dampen my psyche?

Forget it—here’s a little known but wonderful cello sonata, by the curious French composer Charles Valentin Alkan….      

Our Man in Moscow

So who is the guy?

Edward Snowden has spent 32 days inside a Moscow airport; a Russian news agency reports that Snowden's request for asylum is in process, and that he may spend up to a year in temporary asylum in the country.

The question has been all along: what’s motivating this guy? What makes him tick? Why did he choose to do what he did, and how well planned was it?

One website has part of the answer—maybe. According to addictinginfo.org, Snowden is a gun-loving, pro-NRA, libertarian dickhead. Think I’m wrong? Catch this alleged exchange from a techie chat room, Ars Technica.

SNOWDEN: save money? cut this social security bullshit

User11: hahahayes

User18: Yeah! Fuck old people!

User11: social security is bullshit

User11: let’s just toss old people out in the street

User18: Old people could move in with [User11].

User11: NOOO

User11: they smell funny

SNOWDEN: Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine

SNOWDEN: you fucking retards

SNOWDEN: Magically the world changed after the new deal, and old people became made of glass

SNOWDEN: yeah, that makes sense

User11: wow

User11: you are just so fucking stupid

SNOWDEN: yeah, [User11]. and you’re quite a gem

User19: and magically, life expectancy has doubled in the last 100 years.funny how that works.

SNOWDEN: [User19], you don’t think modern medicine has something to do with that? no? it’s social security? wow. I guess I missed that.

User11: hurr wait a second, life expectancy has shot up in recent times along with the dissolution of the communal family unit in exchange for the nuclear family

User11: gee i guess we might need to create a safety net for the sudden glut of helpless elderly????

SNOWDEN: they wouldn’t be fucking helpless if you weren’t sending them fucking checks to sit on their ass and lay in hospitals all day

User11: you are so goddamned stupd*pid

User11: PUT OLD PEOPLE TO WORK IN THE FIELDS

SNOWDEN: my grandmother is eighty fucking three this year, and you know what? she still supports herself working as a goddamned hairdresser

Right—and here he is on guns:

User: the restrictions were made to appease the conservatives to get another bill passed. fucking cons.

SNOWDEN: See, that’s why I’m goddamned glad for the second amendment. Me and all my lunatic, gun-toting NRA compatriots would be on the steps of Congress before the C-Span feed finished.

From the website, it appears that Snowden had no problem spying on people during the Bush administration: he lambastes The New York Times for revealing the existence of the phone metadata collection in 2006, and thinks the whistleblower should be shot in the balls. But he changes his tune when Obama is elected.

Throughout it all, Snowden has seemed just this side of paranoid and delusional. There is the persistent story that the United States will find a way to off him; to avert that, he has given top secret, highly damaging documents to various people, who will reveal causing enormous damage after Snowden’s murder.

As well, Snowden seems to be winging it completely. He takes hard drives with all his information into China; one expert said that the best practice is to take nothing into China except a clean, empty hard drive. Why? Because anything can be copied—and likely will be—while you’re out for a Coke and a burger.

And speaking of China—OK, Hong Kong—Snowden arrived, stayed in a fancy hotel, and then was running out of money. Hunh? Couldn’t he have stayed somewhere else? And why Hong Kong, since China does have an extradition policy with the US?

Look, if I were Snowden, I might have done this: look for a country that has no extradition to the US, but does have a decent way of life, and a good record on civil liberties. Load up as much cash as I could, buy a ticket, fly to the country, immediately request amnesty, and sit tight while I did so. Once I’m in, I’d start talking.

Oh, and speaking of civil liberties—I went onto Amnesty International’s website, just to check out the Russian Federation’s track record on human rights; the site reminded me that the Federation had just passed, by something like 441 to 0, a draconian bill against gay people. In Russia, you can’t even talk gay issues without getting thrown in the jug.

So this guy—who apparently thinks he is John Galt—ends up in Russia, and is considering places like Cuba, Venezuela, or Bolivia? I read the Times today, reporting from Havana, and guess what? None of their sources would give their last name. These countries make the United States look like a bastion of liberty.

So now Snowden is in Russia, looking for a job. Guess what? He’s got one. He’ll be “working” for the Russian intelligence agency, who will expect him to deliver. And no—no programming but all the information he has about the NSA. And if he doesn’t?

Don’t think it’ll be a pink slip.

Somehow, this guy has ended up in deep shit. I applaud him for speaking out, but how could a bright guy botch it so badly?