Los de aquí y los de allá

I have a rule that I live by when it comes to giving my opinion about PR's status: I don't live there, so I don't discuss my opinion on the subject. Only people who make their lives there should be weighing in on this. This is why when it is suggested that Puerto Ricans in the US should be allowed to vote in any plebiscites about status, I'm always opposed. If you have made your permanent residence outside of the island, I feel that you've given up your right to decide anything for the island.


So what I think about whether we should be independent, or a state, or remain a commonwealth, is irrelevant and I won't be going into it. But that doesn't mean that I can't read the news and form opinions about things that happen.


The view from the outside can be valuable. Not just in this situation, but in virtually any situation in life. Somebody looking at an issue from a different vantage point is looking through a fresh set of eyes. There's less personal involvement that can color your point of view. But a lot of times, even knowing this, I still feel trepidation about voicing my opinions. Having lived in PR and having lived in the US, I think I've had a chance to see things from both inside and outside. The thing is, I'm not always sure that the view from the outside is welcome.

I care about what goes on in PR because it's my home. Having moved away doesn't change that fact, and it doesn't mean that I should stop caring. In leaving PR, I could have chosen to distance myself completely from everything, good and bad. I could stop following the local press, stop caring about the issues that affect people's lives there. But I don't, not only because it's my home, but because much of my family is there. Of course it matters to me that, say, the governor got arrested. It matters to me what people think, and what the guy is saying, and how this is all going down. How a country handles these issues speaks volumes.

I see the governor, in defending himself, remind us of the fact that we are still, in the end, governed by someone else. He says this in criticism of federal involvement in the island. That he is a member of the party that endorses the commonwealth, and that in 2005 he vetoed a bill calling for a referendum to decide PR's status, is an irony that is hopefully not lost on people. The commonwealth has served him well -- until the moment our link to the US made it possible for him to get arrested. It's not just this hypocrisy on his part that pains me, it's also that he is using it to shield himself from the fact that, like it or not, he is accused of violating federal, not local, laws. He is trying to make Puerto Ricans feel that not only is he being persecuted by the US, but that the entire island is being persecuted as well.

Even if I'm not there, this matters to me. It pains me to see PR being used as someone's meat shield. If he is innocent, then let him speak to his innocence plainly and directly. But this is the conundrum that I personally face as a Puerto Rican living outside of the island, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who faces this dilemma. I know I care, and I don't think caring is wrong -- but how far do I go in expressing views that people on the island may not care to hear about? And it's not necessarily about writing about it here, as it's not like this blog gets a huge readership. But mostly it's wondering what to do and what to say when I talk to people back home. What's my role now? Is the opinion of the "expat" of any value?

What's crazy is that I've been away for 13 years now (counting my college years, which really should be cut in half since I spent half the year in PR anyway) and I still don't know the answer to this question.

Corrupt, but patriotic

It's been a while since I last wrote anything in here. The urge to write hasn't gone away, but my mind has frozen up as to what to write about. I've been working, I've been coming home, and I've been going to work again. More often than not, I work late, because things are hectic and they're only getting hectic...er?

I decided to take a couple of days off this week, because things are only going to ramp up in the next few weeks. I even have to work on a Sunday next month! I know! For someone whose never worked in any kind of job that required her presence on the weekends, that's a real bummer. So I took my two days off and stayed home. That's unusual for me too -- usually if I take time off, I go somewhere.

I'm, at heart, someone who likes to be alone. Not all the time, certainly. But every now and then I find it centering, and even comforting, to be alone in my house. Even if I'm just folding laundry in front of the TV, like I did today. The silence, the lack of anybody wanting anything from me, the chance to do whatever I want, whenever I want...it's nice. I rented the first half of the last season of the Sopranos, and may I say that as much as I love that show, it can be stressful to watch one episode after another. Who's gonna get whacked next? Whose gonna do something stupid and piss Tony off? I can't keep worrying about these people, I need to take a break.

So I come to the computer and read up on Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, PR's governor, and his current legal troubles. He's been under investigation by the Feds since 2006 for corruption stemming from illegal campaign contributions. Dental companies based out of Philadelphia apparently donated money to pay for his past campaign for Resident Commissioner, and in return tried to finagle their way into multi-million dollar contracts with the Puerto Rican government. He is also accused of personally pocketing some of that money. Because he, of course, did not report that money to the IRS, he's also accused of tax evasion. Today he turned himself in, pleading not guilty, and was released on his own recognizance.

Well, screwed up, right? It gets better. Now you have ex-governor and prominent member of Acevedo Vilá's rival party, Carlos Romero Barceló, bragging that he was the one who turned him in. Romero Barceló is a statehood proponent; on the other end of Acevedo Vilá is the independentista Rubén Berríos, stating that more important than charges of corruption leveled at the island's governor is the fact that, because the Feds are leveling these charges, PR is a colony. Some people, apparently, are looking to hitch their decrepit wagons to this guy's falling star.

And Acevedo Vilá is not too far behind Berríos on this. Acevedo Vilá is a member of the Popular Democratic Party, which backs the status quo (remaining a commonwealth of the US) in our never-ending Status Wars. However, he is adamant that the reason he is being investigated is because he openly criticized a 2005 FBI raid in which a long-time fugitive and leader of the militant independentista group Los Macheteros, Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, was killed. He was a fugitive because he was wanted for stealing $7 million during a heist on a Wells Fargo depot in Connecticut.

How the raid happened, and whether Ojeda Ríos should have been killed in the process, is one thing. Whether or not the FBI gives a rat's ass about what the governor of Puerto Rico thinks to such a degree that they would go to an elaborate scheme to frame him, is quite another. Puerto Ricans are well aware that their government is corrupt down to the marrow of its bones. Corruption is a cancer that is eating away at the island's ability to prosper. Acevedo Vilá has been an unpopular governor who many see as ineffective. But by invoking a vague sense of nationalism, will he earn a pass from people? Already I'm seeing quotes in the papers from people who feel for him, because if the Federal government is involved then this must clearly be a case of Americans persecuting Puerto Ricans. To be fair, there are others that call this an embarassment for the island and want him to resign. But to what degree do these differing opinions fall under party lines? Is the statehooder blindly rooting against him? Is the commonwealther blindly supporting him? Is the independentista blinding himself to the actual case and only focusing on the fact that PR also falls under federal jurisdiction? I'd be interested to hear from people on the island on what they think about this.

Our status colors everything. It motivates everything, it hinders everything. It's inescapable. I've given a lot of thought to how it has affected, and continues to affect, people's lives. It's the kind of topic that makes my brain shut down into a state of writer's block again, because how can you put it all into words? It's daunting. And by thinking about all of this and getting depressed about it, it occurs to me that some may wonder why, with me not living there, I would care so much (or at all). That's definitely a topic I would like to go into later.

But, hey. At least Acevedo Vilá got me writing again. Thanks, buddy, for taking one for the team!

Tag, I'm it!

I've been tagged by my friend Candace. The rules are:

1) Link to the person who tagged you.2) Post the rules.3) Share six non-important things / habits / quirks about yourself.4) Tag at least three people.5) Make sure the people you tagged KNOW you tagged them by commenting what you did.

So here are my 6 random quirks/habits/things:

1- I geek out over the Dark and Middle Ages. It's a pretty nerdy interest, but it's actually helped me. Not too long ago I was going through a week-long training at work. The instructor, in order to break up the monotony, had us play Jeopardy and came up with questions pertaining to the training material. As a wild card, he threw in a question about the Magna Carta. I answered it, and by doing so won 1200 points and the incredulous stares of my fellow trainees. Magna Carta for the win!

2 - When asked what I would pick as a superpower, I pick being able to travel back in time. If I can have a second superpower along with it, it's to be invisible. That way I can go back to my favorite periods in history, but not get myself in trouble and end up, say, burned at the stake as a witch.

3 - I'm sick of YouTube.

4 - I have a cowlick on the side of my head that is almost impossible to tame, and ruins pretty much every single haircut I get.

5 - I secretly judge people who order their steaks well-done.

6 - When I was a kid, I wanted to be named Kimberly, after Kimberly Drummond in Diff'rent Strokes. I can't believe I'm admitting to that.

Alright! Now I will tag 3 others and have them embarass themselves too!

Julio Iglesias: looking great

Last night, Dave and I were looking at some music videos on Youtube. A few years ago we had a tier of channels on our cable tv that included MTV en Español, and we used to watch that station often. The videos we were looking up last night were ones we used to see a lot on MTV.

Back then, Julio Iglesias released a cover of an old Carlos Vives song, La gota fría. Dave developed an instant dislike of the Carlos Vives original, and an equally instant love for Julio's version. Insisting that he is not, technically, a Julio Iglesias fan, he said that he simply thought his cover was superior.



There's also the issue of personal style. While in his video Carlos has ratty long hair and wears denim shorts and shirtless vests, Julio has neatly coiffed hair and dresses simply but neatly. He also sports his eternal tan, which is clearly legit and not a product of Bain de Soleil.

It's been a few years since we saw the video, and while watching it again last night I commented on how nice Julio looks in it. I said, "I wonder what he's looking like nowadays."

In all seriousness, Dave turns to me and pointedly replied, "Probably great."

After I laughed for about five minutes at the absolute certainty with which he said that, he explained why he's so sure of this. In his mind, Julio is out on the beach somewhere, looking tan and getting all the ladies. But he would still like to point out that he is not a Julio Iglesias fan. He just likes that one song, and thinks he looks great.

Richardson's out -- I guess I have no one to vote for now

The Hispanic demographic in the US has been taken into consideration more and more by the media. In part because of our growing numbers, in part because of the ongoing chatter about immigration.

Now that the media is paying attention to the "Hispanic vote", I again find myself wondering, "What is the Hispanic anything?" In other words, are Hispanics a heterogeneous bunch, who all think the same way?

Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico, was until recently a candidate for President under the Democratic party. He was born in the US to a Mexican mother, and he was raised in Mexico City. In the tv show Today, Matt Lauer asked Tim Russert, a journalist who hosts Meet the Press, the following:

LAUER: All right, let's talk about the other stories from Thursday. The debate
was one. The other was, on the Democratic side, Bill Richardson pulls out of the
race, the New Mexico governor, presidential candidate. He says, `Look, I'm out
of money but I don't want to be out of the game.' So what does his leaving the
race do in terms of the other candidates?

RUSSERT: It opens up the Hispanic
vote, Matt, because Richardson himself from Mexico, his family, his mom. And
where is that going to go? We know about South Carolina. Half the voters are
African-American, at this time heavily tilting to Obama. But what happens when
the race goes to other states like California, like Arizona, like New York?

Why does Russert think that Richardson's withdrawal from the race opens up the Hispanic vote? Richardson's numbers, both in polls and in primaries, were quite low. If there is any room for trends within the Hispanic community, it has been noted that we tend to vote in similar ways depending on the country we're from: for example, Cubans have been noted to lean towards Republicans, Puerto Ricans towards Democrats. The fact that both countries produce Hispanic voters does not mean they share the same general tendencies. With the booming Hispanic demographic in the US, Richardson's numbers should have been much stronger if Hispanics were to, as a unit, back him solely because of his heritage. When Richardson first announced his bid, the New York Times reported that he was not making much of a connection with his fellow Latinos.

At least when discussing the projections for African American voters in South Carolina, Russert specifies that the numbers show them to be leaning towards Barack Obama, also in the race as a Democrat. But as for Richardson, the only reason he gives is because Ricardson and his family are from Mexico.

As a journalist, I generally like Tim Russert. I don't think he actually subscribes to the "they're all the same" mentality that those who are less racially-savvy subscribe to. But it just goes to show that we have people who are otherwise very well-informed making assumptions about people just because they speak Spanish. Personally, I find it almost insulting to think that I would be expected to vote for someone just because of their ethnicity. I am happy to see a Hispanic presidential candiate, truly. But to go so far as to assume that our heritage is so similar that I would by default vote for him? Are we so blinded by the awesomeness of a Hispanic candidate that we throw our reasoning skills out the window?


I've often thought that every decade has a scapegoat. Periodically, people go from fearing one group of people to another. This time, I feel Hispanics are on the receiving end, mostly because of the immigration issue, but also because our numbers are growing every day. When you are a small minority, easily marginalized, it's easy to be overlooked. But Hispanics are not in that position anymore. Past scapegoats have organized and brought about a message to the community at large, to the point where it's no longer acceptable to openly say "they're all the same". The way I see it, when we have the media assuming that Hispanics are, indeed, all the same, it's time for us to step up and remind them that we're not. As much as I feel that Hispanics don't have a single mind, I do feel that all of us who hail from Latin America have formed our own community -- whether it be around the term Hispanic, or Latino, the things we do share bind us together, to a certain degree. But if we were all of a single mind, the community we are in the process of forming would be far less interesting, and far less capable of growth.

Cultural comparison fieldwork: The gym

For a few months now I've been going to the gym for all of my exercise needs. I was going after work, which was, truly, a bummer. Some people convinced me that I should try going in the mornings. I reluctantly agreed to try it. This meant that I would need to shower and get ready for work at the gym.

Before I continue, I need to draw some initial comparisons between Portland women and PR women. In Portland, women generally dress in a somewhat reserved manner. Not dowdy, really, but even on a night on the town you won't be seeing much cleavage. In contrast, women in San Juan wear clothes that are tighter, sexier, more revealing. Some go too far, but that's just to be expected -- some people are given an inch and they take many, many miles. But in general, in Puerto Rico women's fashions are a bit more saucy.

Using random pictures found online, this is my rendering of the difference between these two camps:

One picture came from the Dockers site, the other from bebe. So, that kind of explains it. Now, I'm not saying every single woman dresses like these two. But in terms of capturing the zeitgeist of the two cities, I think it's a fair comparison.

With that out of the way, back to the gym. Showering there means using the locker rooms, and using locker rooms means I'll be seeing women in various stages of undress. I expected this.

What I did not expect was how different these women, who in their outdoor lives are usually conservatively dressed, would act in the confines of a female-only locker room. Many didn't bother to wrap themselves with a towel when heading to or coming out of the showers. They bent themselves into positions that are at best passable when clothed, but outright indecent when not. The first few mornings, I had to struggle to not laugh.

Because I had, in the past, compared women in Portland to women in PR, I couldn't help but wonder if women back home would act the same way. You would assume that, since the sense of style down there allows for more revealing clothes, that women would be just as unconcerned with covering up when in a locker room. But the way I see it, I think PR women would attempt to conceal way more than their Portland counterparts. I'm thinking that when they are ready to hit the shower, they'd wrap themselves in a towel. When they come back to the locker, they'd also be wrapped up, and they would discreetly get dressed without deciding that this is now the time to, in public, take care of several grooming needs which a towel could perhaps inhibit. Such as, applying lotion, and raising various appendages in order to make sure not an inch of you remains un-moisturized. When they stood in front of the mirror to dry their hair and apply makeup, they might choose to perform these activities while fully clothed (especially if the hair-drying part requires bending over). If I ever ran into any of these women on the street, I'd have to look away, because I have seen more of them than anyone should ever see of a stranger.

I've never been to a gym locker room in PR. Has anyone been? Can they attest to what locker room culture is like there? Because I need to know -- indeed, must know -- if my hypothesis is correct.

Bread!

Or rather, sumsum! The author of the cookbook I used says that these were popular with Syrian Jews in Paris -- they'd have some with their coffee during the Sabbath. Let's explore Sabbath snacks through the eyes of Syrian Jews in Paris!

Ingredients:

2 packages of dry yeast (make sure they are not expired)

1/2 teaspoon of granulated sugar

1 cup warm water (anything that feels hot will kill the yeast)

1 teaspoon salt

3 cups all-purpose, unbleached flour

8 ounces (2 sticks) of melted butter

1 beaten egg, to brush

1/4 sesame seeds, to sprinkle

You will note in the background that my santos were present, like when I made pernil, to ensure a successful baking session. Fantastic! So, in a mixing bowl, stir together yeast, warm water, and sugar. Allow the yeast to dissolve and become frothy, about 8 minutes.

Then I added 1 cup of the flour and the salt. Blended again, then added the melted butter (it should not be hot, let it cool off a bit). If by hand, beat 40-50 strokes. If with mixer, roughly the same amount of strokes. Basically, you want them well-blended. I added the rest of the flour, 1/2 cup at a time so as to bring the dough around easily and gently. Dump it in all at once and you may end up with a cannonball.

Once a dough starts to form, you're no longer mixing the ingredients, but kneading them. I kneaded it on a low speed for about 5 minutes. Over-kneading, various bread-makers warn, can make the dough tough and not very tasty. I desperately do not want tough and untasty dough, no sir!

I apologize for this picture, as I admit it is not very appetizing-looking. But I wanted to show what the author means when he says the dough should be soft and elastic, not sticky at all:

It's no longer sticking to the sides of the bowl. The folds show you that it's soft, and as I pull a portion of it up, it's pliable. So, we've got dough.

Now we put it in a bowl to rise.

It needs to rise to double the amount of the original size of the dough. I marked it with a marker, because I was using one of those disposable containers and don't care if it gets marked up. If I'd had a rubber band, I would have just wrapped it around the bowl to mark the starting point, that way I would know when it doubled in size.

Some observations: a tall-sided bowl, I think, gives you a good idea of the rise. I also liked using a clear vessel, for ease of observation. You are supposed to let it sit and rise in a room that's about 75 degrees, which is normally considered room temperature. It's winter here, and I'm a miser who doesn't turn up her thermostat past 69. In case you are in a cold environment, boil 2 cups of water in the microwave. Once it boils, stick the container in there and leave the water in there too. That should help create a warmer temperature. Too warm a temperature, and it will rise very quickly, so those of you in PR, take note of that.

This actually happened to me. The recipe said it would take about 2 hours to rise, but in after the microwave trick it only took 1. Moral of the story - rising times are approximate, the conditions in your kitchen will ultimately affect how long it takes. So, keep an eye on it.

With the dough risen (sorry, forgot to take a picture of that!), it's time to start shaping the dough.

The recipe says it should yield 24 sumsums, so I shaped the pieces of dough according to that figure. I placed them on a cookie sheet covered in parchment paper to prevent the bottoms from burning. Then I rolled them out into into balls. Really go to town on this, as my 9th grade English teacher Mrs. Riefkohl used to say when she urged us to "go to town on your essays": cup them in your hands and vigorously ball them up (stop snickering) -- this helped keep them in shape. Flour your hands with each one so they don't get damp and slippery. If they are dry they will hold their shape better.

Now we roll them up so they are approximately six inches long. Again, flour up your hands and the work surface when you do this. I started them out between both my hands to form the basic shape, then finished the job by rolling it between my palm and the work surface to get the length:

Woot! Now, to roll them up. You curl them around your index finger, and you let the ends overlap each other. Kind of looks like a tortellini, doesn't it?

Now is when you start to preheat your oven to 375 degrees, as they will need some time to rest. Once it reaches temperature, brush them with the beaten egg and sprinkle on the sesame seeds, as much or as little as you'd like. Arrange them about an inch and a half apart on the sheet. In the oven they go.

The recipe, curiously, doesn't say how long to bake them for -- only to bake them till they are golden yellow. I made two batches, and discovered that by the time they turn very golden yellow, they are too crispy. Pale golden yellow is the way to go, as it yields a slightly crunchy crust with a soft, buttery interior. Did I say buttery? I meant BUTTERY. You can see the layer of butter inside the bun. If you like butter - and to me, butter is only rivaled by bacon when it comes to its taste sensation - you will love this. I can see why it is served simply with tea or coffee, as it doesn't really need much adornment. I would recommend setting your timer to 20 minutes, checking it, and increasing the cook time by 5 minutes incrementally. My magic number was 25 minutes.

If there are any Syrian Jews in Portland looking for a Sabbath snack, I can totally hook you up.

Recipe from The Breads of France: And How to Bake Them in Your Own Kitchen, by Bernard Clayton, Jr.