Wednesday, November 6, 2024

The day after, the deluge

 

I remember the day after former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke lost the Louisiana governor’s race in 1991, Romania-born poet and NPR commentator Andrei Codrescu, a professor of English at LSU, observed that despite Duke’s defeat he still felt anger and disillusionment. Codrescu admitted that when he looked around him, he could only wonder in frustration at which of those 3 out of every 5 white people he walked by actually voted for this despicable excuse for a human being, as the exit polls reported.

PBS released a documentary not long afterward called Backlash: Race and the American Dream, which investigated why someone like Duke would “appeal” to a majority of white voters. It can be found here 1 , dissecting Duke's “platform,” which  inflamed the “passion” of white voters’ “anger” at black crime, welfare, and affirmative action—all under the invisible umbrella of white supremacy and privilege.

I’m sure that some people, like myself, somehow believed that after Trump’s Nazi Party rally in Madison Square Garden, at least some Trump voters would have second thoughts that would not be reflected in the final polls. But it was too little, too late for “celebrities” and Geraldo Rivera to change their minds at the last minute and urge their social media followers to vote for Kamala Harris, especially those who already cast a vote for Trump in early voting. The final tally shows Harris losing all seven swing states (looks like that Brazil-based pollster was “right” after all), and it also appears that Harris will be only the second Democrat to lose the popular vote since 1988.

It was simply astonishing to me that many people simply believed Trump’s lies about how “bad” the economy is compared to when he was previously in office. Even when it was double-digits, inflation only kept pace with rising income after the pandemic, and was a function of low quantities of consumer goods with workers at home and little foot traffic in stores before people suddenly decided they wanted to buy things. 

Otherwise, the economy was in far better shape than economists had predicted. So that was a fake issue played-up by Trump, and louder the lie, the more gullible people actually “saw” it. “Little” lies are ignored or forgotten; it is the “big” lies that “stick,” because people then think there must be something “there.”

We are told that 8 percent of all voters, those called “double-haters” because they “hate” both candidates, voted for Trump, compared to 3 percent in 2020. The question is why did they “hate” Harris? She was not a convicted felon in the hush money case, a convicted financial fraudster, convicted of lying in a civil rape case, she wasn’t giving secrets to the Russians or betraying the identity of an informant in the Kremlin, she didn’t leave Kim Jong Un waiting at the alter and make him even more insane than he already was, she wasn’t keeping a stash of classified documents in the bathroom for barter to our enemies, she didn’t disrespect our international allies and give them concern if the U.S. still wanted to be the leader of the free world or just a friend of dictators, she didn’t pass a tax cut for the rich that was paid for by working people, and she didn’t cause that insurrection on January 6.

In fact, you don’t hear any talk from “radical leftists” erupting in violence, which was just another lie devoid of evidence from Trump, when it was reported that it was his supporters who were preparing for violence if he lost. There were a dozen bomb threats in Pennsylvania polling places on Tuesday. Did those attempts at voter intimidation and suppression matter, in the end? Probably not, but why have such threats in Democrat-leaning districts if not to “convince” many it was “unsafe” for them to vote?

Let’s look at a couple of NBC exit polls and see if they mean anything:

 



The first is from the 2020 presidential election, the second one from this year. What do they tell us? They tell us that white voters, male or female, didn’t vote much differently in either 2020 or 2024. Although a slightly higher percentage of white women voted for Harris, a majority still voted for Trump; the fact that 15 percent more white women voted than in 2020 (37 from 32 percent of total votes) meant that the total number votes they cast for Trump was likely the same. 

Overall, non-white voters accounted for a lower-percentage of the total vote, from 33 percent in 2020 to 29 percent in 2024. The black vote was slightly depressed, and the percentage of black male and female votes for Trump was actually little differentiated; in 2020, 19 percent of black males voted for Trump, statistically insignificant from the 20 percent in 2024.

But it was the Latino and “other races" that apparently made the difference. For “other races," support for the Democratic candidate fell from a positive 20 percent gap to just 5 percent, while  for both Latino males and females, support for the Democratic candidate fell significantly, with Latino female voters apparently less motivated to vote by one-quarter over 2020’s numbers.

I think that the problem with Latino voters was two-fold. Harris did not really differentiate herself from Trump in regard to border policy, immigration or asylum policy, so there was no real “choice” there other than whether or not you liked Trump’s dehumanizing and demonizing rhetoric. The failure to humanize migrants and tell their stories as I tried to do in my last three posts in regard to the election showed that neither party really “knew” this segment of the electorate.

But I also blame Latino voters themselves, especially those of Mexican heritage who should know better the dangers and difficulties people face today in a violent society controlled by cartels, where whole communities were wiped-out for daring to oppose cartel gangs. Surely they knew friends or family effected by this violence, and knew how nearly impossible each successive immigration “reform” law made it to immigrate legally into this country, and  for plainly racist and xenophobic reasons. 

Voting “Republican” doesn’t make them immune from racism, no matter how “white” you think you are, because white nationalists only see someone who is “probably” illegal. In Texas, Ken Paxton’s actions to deter Latino votes shows that white Texas fears the time that Latinos actually realize that they have the power to say enough is enough, and that they will speak for themselves, and not allow racist whites who want them to “disappear” to do it “for” them—if, of course, Democrats are willing to allow them to.

So what do these numbers “really” tell us? Or better yet, what does it say about “us”? As in 2016, as much as people disliked Hillary Clinton and the media acting like she was “entitled” to the presidency, few people—even most Republicans—believed that a clown show with as much “baggage” as Trump could possibly be acceptable as the “leader” of the free world. And yet against all probability he won, and he proved that he himself didn’t expect to win because all he brought to the “table” were the scraps of his racist beliefs and disgust with “rules” and “laws” that he spent a lifetime having his stooges commit crimes to evade.

Everyone with any credibility who worked with Trump were as one that he was incompetent and dangerous, at least in foreign affairs and the military. Like Hitler, Trump had little patience for policy or paperwork (let alone reading it), but he allowed his henchpersons free reign to pursue their own destructive, racist agendas if it “pleased” him. He allowed the Federalist Society to handpick the most extreme-right judges to the federal benches without regard to their qualifications or respect for the law, only abiding by their own “cultural” prejudices without regard to the rights of others to hold and practice contrary beliefs.

Trump is now telling us that “God” chose to “save” him in order to “save” the country. Can there be no better reason to disprove that there is a “god” in this universe? I still don’t understand what it is that Trump is trying to save us from. Again and again, he can’t think of anything himself, but himself and his own vindictive, petty grievances which apparently many millions of people share. The truth doesn't matter, and he has told us before that ignorant, ill-informed people will believe any of his lies and made-up “facts,” the bigger the “better”:

 


Why the media or the Harris campaign didn't find this clip and repeated it over and over again in campaign ads I don’t know, but in retrospect it would have certainly been more effective than just calling him a fascist over and over again, and actually showed voters how fascists use propaganda. Forcing voters to come face-to-face what he actually thought of “common people” and used them for his own benefit may have worked wonders.

In the end, people need to self-examine. I mean why was it that in two elections, voters seem to prefer a boorish, disrespectful liar over a female candidate more qualified for office and experienced in public service than he was (well, in Clinton’s case, not by that much, admittedly).  As much as we might criticize the Latino vote, at least both male and females voters showed a significant preference to Harris over their white counterparts. Is it white people who are not “ready” for a female president? 

And while we are at it, what are people thinking voting for a Republican-controlled Senate, giving Trump the power to stack the federal judiciary with more far-right judges, and a House with another Republican majority after it spent the past two years wasting tax payer money on pointless "investigations." It is just so, well, stupid.

As much as people think Latin culture is “macho,” Mexico at least beat the U.S. to the punch and elected their first female president, and given how much Trump feels contempt for any female world leader who dares to speak to him as if they are “equals,” we can surmise that a majority of voters in this country feel the same way. I mean, why not if the fact of Trump's incomprehensible election bears it out?

Perhaps some voters do not believe that Harris “earned” the presumptive nomination, and there should have been some mini-primary, followed by a vote at the Democratic convention after a debate had taken place for delegates to decide who they preferred. It is interesting to note that polls had shown that voters preferred “any” Democratic candidate over Trump other than Biden—and apparently Harris as well. 

Harris probably should not have made abortion “the issue” early on, because as it turned out, it didn’t help her win. She probably should have pivoted from that earlier and made an effort to “speak” to male voters—but more especially to the issues of non-white voters, male or female, because as seen in the exit polls, that is where she lost the election; aping the far-right line on the “border crisis” and immigration did not help her with white voters, and merely underlined the fact that she didn’t understand what would motivate minorities, especially Latinos, to vote for her.

In the end, what we might see as a result of all of this is that it won’t be just the people that Trump voters inhumanly want to hurt that will be so, but in the inevitable economic downward spiral that economists had predicted but didn’t happen during the Biden administration, and will engulf Trump voters as well. It will because they didn’t listen to the experts who told them that Trump’s “promises” on immigration, tariffs and taxes will have a disastrous effect on the economy if implemented. 

What is really unfortunate about all of this is that Trump voters, who haven't see any substantive difference in their lives from one administration to the next, will when Trump actually carries out the radical "plans" he and people with fascist inclinations like Stephen Miller and Elon Musk have for the country.  And when that happens, it will be just too bad for the rest of us that it won't just be deserving Trump voters who gets suck into the maelstrom of his vindictiveness and lies, but those who tried to stop the destruction of democracy itself.

Sunday, November 3, 2024

It's down to the wire to decide what kind of country you want this to be

 

There are some things that are more important than a football game to talk about, and that is Tuesday’s presidential election. While Donald Trump is making ever more insane claims like the “Great Depression” will start in three days if Kamala Harris is elected, this is just “typical” of the hysterical lies and misinformation that we are being informed by the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Times is being spread on X in the past few day about “election fraud” in Pennsylvania. I wouldn’t doubt that Trump supporters themselves are busy planting fake “evidence.”

Right-wing media is playing-up the Brazil-based Atlas Intel polls that claim that Trump is leading every swing state; critics have noted problems with their “methodology,” which shows that 40 percent of the black vote in Michigan is for Trump. If that is true, then we can only surmise that those voters have fallen headfirst for his lies and are themselves searching for scapegoats other than recognizing the destructive consequences if Trump actually does follow through on his deportation, tariff (de facto sales taxes) and tax plans whose negative impacts we've discussed before. And his continuing to load federal courts with far-right "culture war" judges will see a steady erosion in what they like to think of as a basic "right."

Or maybe they like his bullying antics or feel a “commonality” with his complaints about his criminal history (he still hasn’t been sentenced in the New York hush money case). But the reality is that many Trump supporters seem to believe only the “other guy” will suffer the consequences of his simple-minded “plans”; no, it will be themselves as well: an exploding bomb doesn’t care if you are Democrat or Republican, let alone your color, race or creed.

Here 1 Vox tells us that Trump supporters are already gearing up for a violent reaction if Trump loses, and there are reports that ballot drop boxes are being set afire in districts with close races in Democratic-leaning areas.  Let’s get real here: the Trump campaign is desperate enough to do any corrupt and unethical thing to get him elected. Trump has no interest in what the people want or need—only the egomaniacal fantasies of an increasingly demented mind.

Trump has no dignity, no human decency, and has no idea what he is doing. He throws ideas of a “plan” which are not well-thought out, but simple-minded declarations that sound “cool” to him and his supporters. Economists say his deportation, tariff and tax plans pose greater threats to the economy, inflation, Social Security, Medicare and the federal deficit than what anything Kamala Harris has proposed. Vox here 1 also warns us about the danger posed by a Trump administration with a vaccine-denier like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in “charge” of health care policy.

Why trust Trump with foreign policy just because he claims to be “friendly” with murderous dictators? Putin in Russia and the Taliban in Afghanistan saw Trump as an incompetent who could be played like a fool, and he set the table for what would happen next. Putin thought that Joe Biden would “blink” like he expected his “friend” Trump would have, as he did when in ignoring Russian troop incursions into eastern Ukraine. And then Trump’s exchange of “love letters” with Kim Jong Un led to nothing positive, with Kim now behaving like a spurned “lover.”

While the Trump campaign focuses on fueling fear and paranoia, the Harris campaign says she will cut taxes for the middle class, make housing more affordable, help small businesses, bring down healthcare costs, etc., etc. But you can only try, especially if there is a Congress that is not cooperative, and with the limitations of executive action. But at least it is in keeping with Democratic principles of taking the interests of working people first.

Trump and his allies in Congress don’t even pretend to do any of those things, because they only answer to the corporate and billionaire class, who pay billions into the propaganda coffers. Was the country made “great” during Trump’s during his first (and hopefully, only) term in office? Certainly not in the eyes of our allies, but maybe in the eyes of his own economic and social “class.” Yes everything was “great” for him and his friends, and he somehow managed to convince people that what was “great” for him was “great” for them too. 

But was it? Really? I saw my tax refunds drop by half after his tax cut plan. The rich got the rest of it. What’s so “great” about that? I dare you to name one single thing Trump did for "you" that had nothing to do with fueling hate against other people.

This weekend I watched the new Icarus Films restored Blu-ray edition of Patricio Guzman’s 1975 film The Battle For Chile, considered one the greatest documentaries ever made, which has a “you are there” feel without “talking heads” interpreting what they remembered. The documentary told the story of the “surprise” election of Salvador Allende in 1970 despite the millions of dollars spent by the CIA to spread misinformation and propaganda to prevent it 3 and subsequently aiding the opposition in fueling chaos 4 . Even months before the 1973 coup, the New York Times seemed to believe that Allende would remain the democratically-elected president until his one term would be over in 1976. But apparently, the Nixon administration was not going to wait that long.

Allende’s programs were called “socialist,” but only to hypocritical Americans. In Chile, impoverished indigenous children were excluded from the public educational system because their families couldn’t afford to send them to school; Allende instituted scholarships to allow them to attend schools. He also instituted a free milk program in schools and impoverished communities. Working people needed places to live to raise their children, so he started a program to build 120,000 affordable residential buildings. When they reached working age, he instituted minimum wage laws and tax breaks, continued the previous administration’s land redistribution program, and ordered that the construction of the Santiago subway system prioritize working class neighborhoods. For when they grew old, he increased social security payments.

All parties in the country—contrary to popular belief in the U.S. at the time—backed the continuing process of nationalizing U.S.-controlled copper mines. But the majority opposition legislature opposed any action that gave more power to the working class. It declared a “boycott” of any executive initiative to that effect. The law to punish economic crimes was rejected. The law to create a ministry for the family was rejected. The law on readjustments and salaries for workers was “deferred,” and then “forgotten.” The law on workers’ participation in factories was rejected. The law to set-up self-managing firms was rejected. 

Those and dozens of other progressive measures meant to aid working people lost their financing by opposition legislative action. The opposition also cynically promoted food shortages and strikes in an attempt to try to turn working people against Allende, although most saw through these gambits.

Allende’s victory convinced political opponents at home and in the Nixon administration that if democratic means “failed” to prevent this, then a coup d’état was “necessary,” which occurred in September 1973, with the aid of CIA-funded propaganda in the right-wing press, and unapologetically fascist groups like Homeland and Freedom who made it their “mission" to promote violence and social chaos:

 


The opposition parties in Chile claimed they wanted to “save” democracy from a democratically-elected president who had the support of most of the working class. What happened instead was the 17-year of dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, during which thousands of people deemed political “liabilities” were murdered—including by “death flights” in which victims were thrown out of airplanes or helicopters—and many more “disappeared.” Assassinations were conducted outside the country by the Chilean secret police agency DINA, which included the car bomb assassination of Orlando Letelier in Washington DC.

Although democracy was reinstituted in 1990, and the  economy in Chile has improved insofar as GDP is concerned, the outcomes are little different than what they were pre-1970: income inequality has gotten worse, with the top one percent controlling half the country’s wealth, while bottom 50 percent have negative wealth, meaning their debts are more than their assets. Disposable income for working people has also decreased since “neoliberal”—meaning unfettered “free” market—economic policies were first instituted by Pinochet.

We can take as an example what happened in Chile (and Germans acceptance of Hitler's’ nationalist and racist dictatorship in 1933) when people who claim they are “for” democracy when in fact their actions (and votes) only lead to its destruction—“temporary” or not. We like to think we can “control” the worst in us, but Trump has shown that the opposite is true. We will know if at least some of those favoring Trump understand the consequences of making the wrong choice for the country in two days.

Thursday, October 31, 2024

John Sayles' Men With Guns tells the story of people who are not allowed to have a "story" in this country

 

This might as well be where a Republican vote in a presidential election in the “blue” state of Washington belongs, although the same thing could be said for a Democratic vote in Alabama:

 


Today I want to look at another movie, and not the Demi Moore film The Substance, which I watched this past weekend, and have to say that despite its high rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I think that is a visceral reaction to the audacity of the filmmakers to make a film that is based on a ridiculous premise but is full of “social commentary” on “fame” and “passing beauty”—and gives new “meaning” to terms like “over the top,” “lack of subtly,” and “gross,” particularly the absurd ending which makes the blood “bath” finale in Carrie look like a shower from a rusty pipe. The film is certainly full of “it,” whatever that is, and mostly to do with the director’s self-obsessed politics. Nevertheless, if you want to “experience” a film, it is difficult to keep your eyes off this nonsense.

This year’s election, however, has to do with reality, and given the fact that if his Madison Square Garden rally is any indication, Donald Trump believes that his “best shot” at winning the election is to repeat the theme of racist lies about immigrants who—like Jews were in Nazi Germany—are the scapegoats for every problem faced by “ordinary” people, obfuscating the reality that his deportation, tax and tariff “plans” he offers will not only help those of his own “class” get richer, but insure that “ordinary” people get poorer and can only look to a future less economically and financially stable. 

Mark Cuban suggested that Democrats should have countered this narrative with this image from the Elian Gonzalez saga, putting an inhuman face on Trump’s deportation schemes:

 


Films today have been accused of either ignoring Hispanic characters, or portraying them in stereotypical ways. Take for example films by the Coen Brothers. They have been accused of anti-Semitism, but what is not seemingly understood is that their  stereotyping of Hispanics is far worse. In The Big Lebowski, the one Hispanic character is a sexual pervert; in No Country For Old Men, they are either killers or criminals; and in the remake of True Grit, they can’t even let the children alone, portraying them as animal abusers, as if they were just “born” that way.

What are people supposed to believe, if people are “strangers” to them and they have only these media tropes and images of “vermin” on the border to go on? There have been a few attempts to “educate” people about these people’s stories at the “source,” like Gregory Navas’ El Norte, which I looked at here 1 and Alex Cox’s Highway Patrolman, which I looked at here 2 . A few films, like Under Fire and Salvador, have tried to dramatize the political and social upheavals in which the U.S. government generally took the side against the impoverished masses and for the oppressive elites, who promised “stability” for American business interests.

Here I am going to look at John Sayles 1997 film Men With Guns. Sayles has stated that the film was not meant to indict any specific country, and that it could apply to any number of countries in Latin America, although mainly those which were most subject to U.S. “interest.” The plot was inspired by the story of a real-life doctor in Guatemala whose students were sent out into the countryside as part of an international health program to provide medical care for indigenous people, and most ended-up being killed by government troops.

The connection with Guatemala seems obvious, however. That country suffered through a 35-year civil war instigated by the U.S. in 1954 when the Eisenhower administration backed a military coup against the democratically-elected government  merely because it recognized the legitimacy of the national communist party, and the subsequent U.S.-armed and supported regimes were accused of the genocide of hundreds of thousands of indigenous Mayans. Although “peace” was achieved in 1996, it hasn’t changed the social, political or economic status inside the country. Poverty stands at 55 percent of the total population, and 79 percent of indigenous Maya.

But unlike in El Salvador, it is not U.S.-bred street gangs and “presidents” with authoritarian impulses that have devastated lives, but the corporate gangs that do not want to enter the modern world, and operates unscathed with payoffs to government and judicial officials. According to Insight Crime,

Corporations now represent Guatemala’s oligarchy, and this is where old surnames from the end of the 19th century are mixed with the modern families that emerged with the industrialization policies of the 1950s. These entities, which also control some 90 percent of the banking sector, represent around 10 percent of Guatemala's gross domestic product, but their power has been translated into control over mass media, the hiring of lobbying firms in the United States and Europe, the organization of private security and intelligence, or espionage, offices, as well as extensive influence in the court system and the federal government.

The current president, Bernardo Arévalo, was elected on the promise of battling corruption in the country, but he first had to thwart efforts to invalidate his election from charges of election fraud led by Guatemala’s version of Texas AG Ken Paxton and Florida judge Aileen Cannon—Consuela Porras, the country’s “independent” attorney general, herself in the pay of the corporate oligarchs. She has been busy “investigating” political reformers, according to an AP story:

Guatemala’s Attorney General Consuelo Porras has been criticized and sanctioned by countries around the world for allegedly obstructing corruption investigations and using her power to persecute political opponents, but the country is effectively stuck with her, according to a legal analysis published Tuesday.

Since President Bernardo Arévalo’s election last year, Porras has pursued his Seed Movement party, alleging wrongdoing in how it gathered the necessary signatures to establish itself. Her investigators raided the party offices, seized and opened ballot boxes and sought multiple times to have his immunity lifted.

Arévalo has said Porras is protecting powerful and corrupt interests in Guatemala who fear his promise to root out corruption. He has called for her resignation. But Guatemalan lawmakers have created an untouchable attorney general without any feasible legal mechanism to remove her, according to the study by Stanford Law School and Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice.

All this has happened since a peace accord was signed between the government and rebels in 1996. Earlier this year, The Progressive observed that the promises of “reform” and justice for the common people has been mostly on paper:

On December 29, 1996, there was widespread hope that the signing of “The Accord for a Firm and Lasting Peace” (known simply asthe peace accords”) which ended Guatemala’s thirty-six-year internal armed conflict would remedy the systemic structural issues that had caused the war. But twenty-seven years later, that hope seems far away. Guatemalans found themselves marking the anniversary of the end of the war amid significant unrest: the return of systemic corruption, rollbacks of the measures of the peace accords, the closure of institutions formed to respond to victims, the release of military officials accused of war crimes, the ever-present threat of a blanket amnesty for those accused of committing war crimes, and far-right attempts to derail the results of the 2023 presidential elections.

Sayles’ film provides at least what appears to be an “insider’s” view on the ground prior to “peace.” Men With Guns follows the journey of a doctor at retirement age who is about to go on a vacation, Dr. Fuentes (Federico Luppi), who believes the government propaganda that everything is “normal” in the country, and that stories of human rights abuses and violence in the countryside are just “rumors” and lies, and he believes that the medical students he trained are doing “good” for the rural people they were sent out to help.

The film begins with a scene in which an indigenous woman is talking about the “city people” and the man who claimed he could put his hand on you and know what your sickness is—not by “magic,” but by “science.” But the city people don’t get sick like “we do” because they are “different”:

 


Cut to a scene in a modern doctor’s office, where Dr. Fuentes, a recent widower, is talking to who appears to be a military officer, who tells him that the “common people” who watch soap operas love “drama,” which is why you can’t believe all of the “rumors” about bad things happening outside the city, made-up stories by the “reds”:

 


Dr. Fuentes is surprised to learn that the officer still has soldiers looking for guerilla fighters in the mountains, and he is told that he is “like a child,” and the world is a “savage place.” Later he is in a restaurant with his daughter and her husband, where he suggests that he might spend his vacation finding out how his former students are doing. His son-in-law tells him the medical program his students were trained under was only instituted to satisfy the “gringos” making trouble from outside the country, but Dr. Fuentes insists that the program was a good idea. But he is confronted with the reality that he has not heard from or seen them in years. 

 


But the doctor still insists that the program had merit. Next we a couple of affluent women talking about how the more expensive wine is, the sharper the pain in the kidneys. They note that the doctor doesn’t “look so good”:

 


Dr. Fuentes is seen walking down a street, deep in thought, past graffiti on a wall that should tell him that all is not well in the world he has largely been insulated from:

 


 At home, he remembers his teaching days, when he told his students that medical “technology” can “win” the battle against not just bacteria, but ignorance, and their job would be not just to cure illnesses, but to fight this “ignorance.”

 


 

We will eventually learn what happened to people who applied that particular advice. He looks at a photograph of the students he trained to go out to serve the people whose only previous encounter with “modern” medicine was the effect of bullets fired by the “men with guns”:

 


While in a market where we see one of the “men with guns”…

 

 

…Dr. Fuentes catches sight of a face familiar to him…

 

 

…one of his former students, Bravo (Roberto Sosa, who we saw as Pedro, the idealistic Highway Patrolman in a corrupted world). He doesn’t want to speak to his teacher, and he boards a bus to escape. Dr. Fuentes follows the bus in his car, to a more shady-looking neighborhood, where Bravo seems to be operating a black market operation. He tells the doctor that he is “finished” with the “program,” that he was “luckier” than one of the other students because he had been “warned”:

 


Dr. Feuntes is confused. A warning about what? Bravo won’t say exactly, but observes the doctor's ignorance about what is happening in the country. But he runs a “pharmacy” now at “popular prices,” so his training didn’t all go to waste. A couple of tough-looking characters arrive at the “pharmacy,” and Bravo tells the doctor he should leave because this town isn’t a safe place to be at night:

 


Dr. Fuentes decides that instead of going to the beach, he’s going to find his student doctors. He can’t believe that it was all a “waste,” and that his “legacy” was not to help people, but to send idealistic young doctors to their destruction:

 

 

Out in the middle of nowhere, the doctor seems to be lost. He asks a man where he is, it must have a name. He is told that “we” are “salt people” and we just live here, it has no “name.” But there is nothing here, the confused doctor says, and he is told that of course he can’t see anything from his car:

 


Stopping at a roadside diner, Dr. Fuentes encounters two American tourists. Andrew and Harriet (Mandy Patinkin and Kathryn Grody):

 


They have heard stories about fighting going on of these parts, and bad things happening to people, like having their hands cut off. The doctor assures them that those stories are not true here, and that it happens in “other countries.” However, what he is less certain about is what “fajitas” are:

 


Dr. Fuentes first stop is a “town” where one of his students was supposed to be. He is confused because there are no roads leading to the place, and is pointed in the right direction by a farmer:

 


He has to navigate through a sugar cane field…

 


…and arrives at a small village where when the people see him, they go back into their homes to hide:

 


He calls out for help, and an old woman finally responds to him, asking him why he is here. Dr. Fuentes identifies his trade, and she says “good” because the doctor they had is dead:

 


Unhappy to hear this news, Dr. Fuentes wants to know how…

 


…and is told that “they” killed him. Who killed him? The “men with guns” he is told, burned alive with gasoline along with three other men by soldiers. The young doctor who had not been warned in time was killed just because “they” didn’t “like him.” They had guns and we didn’t. Dr. Fuentes asks why she is talking to him and the other will not; they don’t know him, and anyways, she doesn’t care if she dies, since she is blind and all of her children were killed by the “men with guns”: 

 


It doesn’t matter if they are white or Indian, she says; when an Indian puts on a uniform, he becomes, or acts, “white.” She tells the doctor that it is unsafe for him to be seen there by the men with guns, and should leave now. He insists on knowing what happened to his student, who he says was a “good doctor.” He is told that he wasn’t, because so many of his “patients” are dead.

Dr. Fuentes returns to his car, only to find that it has been broken into, and his expensive camera stolen:

 


He encounters the Americans again, who tell them about what they have been reading in a book, about the Mayans who killed thousands of people and threw their hearts into a well as a sacrifice to the gods. Dr. Fuentes insists that this was not true, that this is what the Aztecs in Mexico did, not the indigenous people here:

 


There is a brief flashback to the student doctor he has just learned was killed…

 

 

…and on the terrace he listens to a woman reading from a tourist brochure: “There is a place where the air is like caress, where gentle waters flow, a place where your burdens are lifted from your shoulders, on wings of peace.”

 


Dr. Fuentes wonders where this “heaven, this safe harbor is.” Once he learns that what he thinks he knows, or what has been told in the safety of the city, is all an illusion, this will be the only worthwhile purpose of this journey of disillusionment.

His next stop is a police station, where he is told that it is only a “rumor” that his student and the others were killed by soldiers, it must have been the guerillas. The officer insists on seeing the doctor’s identification; he might be a newspaper reporter who will tell lies about what is going on here.

 


Dr. Fuentes is advised not to travel to the next stop on his itinerary, filled with guerillas, bandits, and deserters, and the Indians trust no one who is “white.” The doctor is certain another of his students is still there, he won’t be dissuaded. Naturally, the “bandits” think nothing of stealing the hubcaps from his car right outside the police station:

 


The doctor discovers that the next “town” isn’t right next to the road…

 

 

…just a few shacks up on top of a hill, belonging to coffee growers:

 


When he identifies himself, a young woman seeks medical attention for her baby, and he tries to explain to her that the baby is not “sick” but suffering from malnutrition, and needs solid food:

 

 

He doesn’t understand why they don’t eat “real food,” and is told by a boy named Conejo that they have to sell coffee to buy food, and coffee prices are low. They have no food to eat:

 


Conejo, who is a bit of a hustler, bargains with the doctor for a few coins and some food to show him where the student is now:

 


Traveling through the fields…

 

 

…he is shown what appears to be a boneyard of human remains. One of them, he is told, was the student he is looking for:

 

 

Could this be him?

 


The boy admits the student was a “good” doctor because he fixed his broken wrist, but the other villagers did not like him because he wasn’t “one of them.” He was killed by the army, because they also didn’t like him, and they had all been taken here to watch him and others be killed as a “warning.” Conejo tells the doctor he will show him his next destination, because he will just get lost, and that he will be killed by men hiding away who have now discovered he is alone. There are no hotels around here, but he knows a place where he can stay for the night:

 

 

Dr. Fuentes is taken to what used to be the local school, now abandoned. After the teacher “disappeared,” the army used it for their own version of “education,” in which Conejo admits he was forced to be an “assistant,” cleaning-up after “class”:

 

 

The people taken there were interrogated by torture, using the medical instruments of Dr. Fuentes’s own student:

 



Those who didn’t “learn” were killed, and those who at least were not killed "graduated." 

They start early to the next village. There is no “path” there because the residents don’t want to be found. There is a cutaway to the Indian woman seen at the beginning of the film, and she may be speaking about Conejo. The boy has a mother, but she will not look at him because he was the product of a rape by soldiers and he was just something she pushed out of herself. He is like a dog, who picks up the scraps left by “real” people. He is not “bad,” because dogs are neither good nor bad, they are just “dogs”:

 


They arrive at the next village, which appears to be abandoned. Conejo says he only told the doctor he would help him find where the village was, not that there would be any people there. They have either been killed by the soldiers, or they are hiding in the banana trees around them:

 


It is obvious that the next student the doctor is looking for is likely dead too. They return to his car, where they find that its tires have been stolen:

 


Through the clearing they encounter another man, named Domingo, whose ragged shirt indicates he must be a deserter from the army:

 


He doesn’t know anything about the stolen tires, but threatening them with a gun, he does take all of the doctor’s and Conejo's money, and becomes an unwelcome “guest” on their journey. Dr. Fuentes and Conejo discuss the situation; the boy notes that when a soldier loses his rifle, his captain assumes he is a “spy” and has him executed. Domingo has no rifle, so he must be fleeing for his life:

 


Dr. Fuentes says that is “stupid,” but Conejo says that is how “discipline” is enforced. Domingo, who has disappeared, returns with a vehicle that he has obviously stolen, and has been shot and badly wounded in the process. He tells Conejo to remove its tires and put them on the doctor’s vehicle:

 


Dr. Fuentes performs a perfunctory “operation” on Domingo to remove the bullet…

 


…and in the morning, still not trusting the doctor, gives Conejo a “test shot” of the drug he is take for the pain:

 


He obviously knows what he is doing, and admits that he was a medic in the army. They have to stop on a bridge to give Conejo an opportunity to relieve himself of the side effects of the drug he did not need to take…

 


…and later while the Domingo is asleep, the doctor finds that he has been holding them at gunpoint with no bullets:

 


They arrive in a town that looks more “modern” than the other locations the doctor has found himself in, taking the opportunity to buy food with the money Domingo took from him. He also hopes to find another of his students:

 


Something is immediately amiss, because in a market stall Dr. Fuentes finds medical tools that were obviously stolen, or “found.” Unless the vendor tells him where the student doctor is, he will inform the police; he is told where he “used” to have an office, but he is no longer there.

 


While Domingo hides from a soldier…

 


…Dr. Fuentes discovers what is left of the clinic that his former students ran:

 


It is now a barbershop:

 


The barber tells him that his student was killed by the guerillas because he treated soldiers. What if he had not treated soldiers? The man in the barber chair laughs and says nobody refuses the “men with guns.” Then they would have killed him too.

 


Unknown to Dr. Fuentes, Domingo has used some of his money to send Conejo on an errand to buy three bullets for his gun. Back on the road, Domingo reveals himself to have a political conscience, observing that “the rich use the army to push the Indians off the good land so they will starve to death. So they pick their coffee and they come back with their pitiful wages, and those leeches suck them dry”:

 


 They encounter a hitchhiker…

 

 

…and Domingo tells the doctor to continue past him, but Dr. Fuentes ignores the gun pointed at him because he thinks it isn’t loaded, and we find that Domingo isn’t really the “tough guy” he pretends to be; he’s not a natural-born “killer.” The man they pick up identifies himself as a priest, or an “ex” priest who has “lost his way”:

 


They stop for awhile, and Dr. Fuentes admits to the priest, Padre Portillo, that he feels his life has been revealed to be a failure, he should have warned his students of the danger. The priest tries to comfort him; he couldn’t have known what was happening outside the city:

 


While the doctor is relieving himself next to tree whose bark has been cut, we encounter a face we’ve seen before, David Villapando, identified here as only the “Gum Man,” and who was Enrique in El Norte. His is the only smiling face we see in this film:

 

 

He makes his living removing sap from the gum trees. He and his partner live wherever the work is. They ask the doctor to tell them stories, because they have no television out here:

 


The doctor has no story to tell, but the priest has one, a “ghost story.” It’s a story about priest whose courage in his faith had been tested and he failed, realizing he was a coward who hid when the soldiers came looking for him, likely because he was suspected of preaching "liberation theology"…

 


…who told the Indians that since they had allowed the priest to escape they would be punished unless they picked out six villagers to “volunteered’ to be killed in his place. 

 


The priest was too cowardly to give himself up to save the innocent, and later emerged from his hideout and abandoned the villagers…

 


…while those selected as a “reminder” lay in their graves:

 


Later, the doctor looks at the photograph of his former students; aside from Bravo, only two could still be alive:

 


Domingo has asked the priest to “absolve” him of his sins, but the priest insists he no longer has the power or credibility to do so. Back on the road, they pass an army truck with soldiers; seeing them, it brings back a memory of Domingo’s “initiation” into the army:

 


They have gotten past the soldiers, but there is an army checkpoint ahead:

 

 

One of them has to give themselves up, or else they will not be allowed to pass. The priest, who cannot live with what he has done, decides to give a “wrong answer” and allows himself to be taken into custody, telling Domingo as he leaves that he now “absolves” him:

 


They arrive in another village, this one occupied by the army, in which a man lying dead co-mingles with children playing:

 


A soldier tells Dr. Fuentes that the soldiers are there because they don’t trust the Indians; they’ll help the guerillas because they as afraid of them as they are of the soldiers. They are afraid of “everything.” He also provides the reason why his students were probably killed: an “educated” person would have no reason to be out here, except to “help” the guerillas.

 


A doctor only shows up at the village every three months, and since Dr. Fuentes has a doctor’s bag, the  people assume he is the next one, and form a line waiting to be examined and “cured.” He employs Domingo as his “assistant,” since he is already under “suspicion” for being a “driver” who isn’t driving; Dr. Fuentes tells the soldier that he was relieving himself in the forest when he was bit by a snake, a reason that the soldier accepts as true, since Domingo has been holding his arm, wounded by the gunshot.

Domingo does have some medical knowledge, revealing that he recognizes a child has ulcers in her mouth. He admits that while in the army he treated soldiers for skin rashes, dysentery—and when there was no doctor around performed rudimentary “surgery” to remove bullets. Sometimes they died, sometimes they didn’t—especially since they had little medicine to treat them with, since the officers stole medicine and sold it:

 


Conejo arrives to tell them that the people here were from the next village on Dr. Fuentes’ itinerary, that they are now refugees after their village was burned by the soldiers. The student doctor that Dr. Fuentes hoped would be there is also dead. 

 


A young woman is in line, Graciela, who does not speak. Her mother says she hasn’t spoken for two years since she was raped by soldiers:

 



Dr. Fuentes tells Domingo that she is not sick, her condition is psychological. But Domingo knows these people, and that any “medicine,” even if it doesn’t actually do anything physically, may at least have a “psychological” effect if the patient believes it will “cure” them. He digs through the doctor’s bag and finds some pills, which he gives to the girl:

 


The doctor is told by the soldier he should go back to the capital, since there were guerillas operating in the area; one of them stole a tourist’s car (actually it was the army deserter, Domingo). What happened to the priest? You shouldn’t pick up “strangers.”

 


On the road, the encounter Graciela, who wants to join them in their quest for the “promised land”—or at least out of the refugee camp:

 

 

We should be charging bus fare, says Domingo. He notes that while she appears scared of them, she is more scared of the soldiers after what they did to her. They arrive in what is left of another village; it is just another village where everyone is “dead” or gone. There is talk about some magical place hidden away where everything is peaceful, called Cerca del Cielo ("Close to Heaven"). Domingo says it doesn’t exist, because when he was still in the army they looked for it, but never found it:

 

 

While everyone is asleep, Graciela, having surmised that there was no “hope” now for her, takes Domingo’s gun…

 


…and intends to end her life with it:

 


Dr. Fuentes takes the gun from her, still believing the gun to be unloaded. He jokingly points the gun at Domingo and then tosses it back to him, which Domingo feels lucky it didn’t go off in his belly:

 

 

They continue on  their journey…

 


…and before them is a hill. Could this be where that “magical” place is hidden?

 


They climb up the hill, and by this time we realize that Dr. Fuentes heart is starting to give out on him from all this exertion:

\


Domingo, who is walking behind Graciela, has another flashback to something he cannot live with that was part of what was “expected” of him as a soldier (probably to keep him quiet about what soldiers did to the Indians), and evidently convinced him to become a deserter:

 


The troupe encounters the Americans, who are exploring ancient ruins. They have read the history books and seem to know more about this than anyone else.  These Americans seem “obsessed” with the stories about blood sacrifices at these sites. They also mention that their vehicle was stolen at gunpoint by a man, just like in the movies, and was found by police without its tires. Harriet is concerned about the doctor’s loss of breath, but he says it is nothing:

 


Andrew seems to think that there is some kind of “meaning” to the conflicts going on this part of the world, and that it seems more “peaceful”:

 


What he doesn’t realize is that the “men with guns” leave American tourists alone, and stay hidden from sight. Conejo mentions that he once worked at ancient site, and was paid more tips from the tourists if his stories about the place were more lurid:

 


Meanwhile, a couple of guerillas have detained Domingo, but is released on the word of the doctor:

 

 

That night they encounter two more guerillas, who seem to be just “normal” people with normal interests. They ask the doctor, who has at least lived in a city, about what different flavors of ice cream are being sold, and imagine what flavors they would choose:

 


In the morning they are back climbing the hill…

 


…where they encounter another gathering of people. Is this the rumored place of “peace”:

 

 

No, an old man says, this is the place where “rumors” go to die, and that the last student the doctor is looking for is not there. They don’t grow food here, because it can be seen from the sky that people are here, and the army will find them:

 


Dr. Fuentes appears to be having a medical crisis…

 


…and they realize that he has died. Conejo now wants the money Domingo took from him, but he is ignored:

 


A young girl appears, dressed in the same outfit as the woman seen earlier in the film. She needs a doctor, because her mother stepped on a land mine and needs the metal removed from her leg. She points at the medical bag on the ground:

 

 

Graciela tries to hand the bag to Domingo, who at first refuses it since he isn’t a real doctor…

 


…but then relents, realizing that he is now Dr. Fuentes’ last live “student," and this will mean his own "redemption":

 


Graciela still believes, however, in that peaceful place…

 



…and wonders if it is on top of that next hill:

 


Many people believed that place was actually to be found in “El Norte.” Trump, of course, wants to make this their "hell."