Wait, wait, dont lie to me

Colorado Peak Politics blog, the neocon-ish answer to Colorado Pols, today featured the third and final column in a three-part series about conservative views on civil unions. And even though they teased that the final column would be a “surprise article written by a conservative leader detailing an interesting perspective,” the article turned out to be more of a head-scratcher than surprising or interesting.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, minced no words as the social conservative standard-bearer in the first column in the series, “To embrace a counterfeit [family] is to dangerously flirt with a significant deterioration of our culture.” On the other hand, former Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Evergreen, was equally as candid in his support of equality, “[T]here’s the argument that civil unions are just marriage by another name, and as such they undermine the very institution of marriage. I don’t agree with this. One’s a legal construction, the other a sacrament. There’s a big difference.” And then there’s Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, who voted against Senate Bill 172, but now reveals he is somewhere in the middle. (I think?) But one thing is for sure, Mitchell makes it sound as if the gay rights movement has all been for naught:

“It’s tough to respond briefly to words like ‘freedom,’ ‘privacy’ and ‘tolerance’ that gay rights supporters think win this argument. They don’t because freedom and privacy aren’t the issue. Americans can do pretty much whatever with whomever we want that doesn’t involve force or children. There aren’t bedroom cops or government interference, or involvement at all — which turns out to be the problem.”

I guess it’s easy to dismiss people’s civil rights if you pretend the struggle to get the government out of the bedroom hasn’t been a 40-year-plus battle. As an attorney, Mitchell ought to know better. Up until 2003, it was perfectly legal for a state to do just that, to act as a “bedroom cop.” In fact, when Mitchell came in to the legislature in 1999, it had been just three years since the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2 that denied equal rights across the board to gay Coloradans. So much for tolerance. This is the same Supreme Court that ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that it was OK for a cop to enter the bedroom and issue a citation for homosexual sex. So much for privacy.

No matter how contortionist Mitchell’s column is, he doesn’t actually come out and support civil unions, but rather simply expresses tepid indication he might one day “round a corner on civil unions.” This is really a distraction as Mitchell’s article is closer to Lundberg’s in tone and rhetoric. Mitchell specifically takes a potshot at One Colorado’s campaign to persuade legislators to support civil unions: “Society doesn’t need to congratulate or provide a notarized valentine to adult lovers.” Ouch.

Somewhat inanely, Colorado Peak Politics bills the series as “Coming Out Of The Closet,” but there isn’t really any “coming out” on a clear justification for Mitchell being against civil unions (maybe). The truth is, Witwer is absolutely correct when he points out that the problem is legislators mixing religion with lawmaking. Witwer quotes devout Christian author C.S. Lewis’s thoughts on the British Parliament restricting divorce, “There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.” I understand, as a devout Mormon and proud father of seven children, Mitchell perhaps sees marriage as a religious instrument necessary to form a family and procreate that also conveniently happens to be recognized by the government. But Mitchell and Lundberg’s argument that a heterosexual household is optimal because it’s natural at best simply ignores empirical, scientific data that says it is two-parent households regardless of gender that are optimal, and at worst perpetuates innuendo that gay couples and gay people are unnatural and unworthy of equal rights. On the bright side, I guess we should be thankful they don’t directly engage in debates about morality and Christian dogma (in public, anymore).

Finally, Mitchell takes umbrage at the “less formal” civil unions for merely being a contract. (Could this signal Mitchell leapfrogging civil unions and come out in support of full marriage equality?) But marriage is a binding, legal contract. Marriage may have a parallel, irrevocable religious covenant administered by different faiths and denominations, but this isn’t really the government’s business, nor should it be.

To be fair, writers like McDougall had every reason to be correct. In the early 90s, Trevi reached the pinnacle of pop superstardom in Mexico and Latin America but soon fell out of grace with the public after sexual abuse accusations surfaced against her producer-manager Sergio Andrade and by-proxy against Trevi herself. Trevi and Andrade went into hiding in Brazil where they evaded the authorities for nearly a year before they were arrested in Rio de Janeiro. In the end, Trevi spent more than four years behind bars before she was acquitted in a Mexican court of any wrong doing.

It’s unavoidable that fairly or unfairly, Trevi’s career is examined through the prism of that nearly five-year ordeal. Especially as songs in her previous albums began making more sense as the scandal broke and the lyrics, most of which Trevi wrote herself, were interpreted in the context of the allegations. Her two albums since being released from prison largely sidestepped overt references to the scandal, but with Gloria, Trevi makes her most direct reference yet.

“Y Ahora Te Sorprendes” (“And Now It Surprises You”) is a cathartic power ballad that leaves no doubt who the subject of the song is, with lyrics like: “And you ripped me to shreds / Tarnished my past and my future / Infected everything around me / Corrupted the air and turned it into poison,” before she imparts a self-vindicating retort, “It was you, and not me.” The song’s defiant, fiery tone certainly contrasts with previous songs that made veiled references to the scandal like the poignant “El Recuento De Los Daños” (“Recounting the Damage”) and the suicidal “Lloran Mis Muñecas” (“My Wrists Weep”).

The uptempo numbers are very hit-or-miss, for every “Sobrenatural” (“Supernatural”), a throwback to her 90s pop-rock heyday with an electro-pop twist that surprisingly sounds like Belanova, there’s a “No Al Alguacil” (“Not The Sheriff”), a flat, overworked collaboration with fellow Mexican pop-rock diva Paulina Rubio. The highlight of the album is Trevi’s fresh, feminist-y take on El Chapo De Sinaloa’s borderline sexist ditty “Recostada En La Cama” (“Lying On The Bed”).

An expanded deluxe version includes “Esa Hembra Es Mala” (“She’s An Evil Woman”), which is the theme song of the upcoming telenovela Teresa on Univision; “Cambio y Fuera” (“Over and Out”), a one-part lesser, boring rehash of her previous hit “Cinco Minutos” (“Five Minutes”), and part copycat of GaGa’s “Telephone” right down to the “phone not in service” operator tag; and “Fan,” a sprightly love letter to a fan (presumably a stand-in for all her fans) that looks back on her 20-plus year career, where she proclaims to be just a simple girl who’s still fan of the Rolling Stones and, in a wink to her own fans, riffs off her cover of “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” from her debut album.

In a strange way, Gloria most resembles in form and in tone her debut album …Que Hago Aqui? (…What Am I Doing Here?), in the sense that Gloria, her eighth studio album, is kind of a re-introduction to who Trevi is as an artist. Where her earlier albums were spent building up her brash, brassy bad-girl persona, and her later albums were spent reworking that into a kind of mythical force; Gloria is alternately carefree and scorching, revealing Trevi as someone who has endured and matured (even if she won’t admit it) into a happier, more confident woman.

Wait, wait dont lie to me

The Denver Post reported yesterday that proponents of the in-state tuition bill for undocumented immigrants believed the bill had a “good chance” of passage in both chambers even though Republicans control the House. Of note, is Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, who has not only changed her mind about the actual bill, but also about the reason she originally voted against the measure two years ago.

Two years ago, after voting against then-Sen. Chris Romer’s version of the bill, Senate Bill 170, Carroll commented on her website, “I cannot support SB 170 in a climate where the state is cutting or eliminating over $1 billion of benefits to the people and is facing a $300 million cut to higher education, which virtually ends higher education as we know it in the State of Colorado.” Presumably, that was her main reason. But it was not the only one.

Carroll also voted against the bill because “under current federal law [undocumented students] remain at risk for deportation and have no lawful path to employment. Federal immigration reform is desperately needed to bring a real solution to this and many other problems. The process for legal immigration in this country is broken and needs to be fixed.”

And finally, “SB 170 identifies a real problem but does not provide the solution. I believe the bill is currently at odds with federal law (8 USC 1623) and brings a real risk of the state being sued — and losing.”

In light of her original statement, it was surprising to hear Carroll singing a different tune about her opposition to the bill in 2009. After all, this year the legislature will fix another $1 billion hole in the budget and presumably higher education will likely face just a steep a cut as it did then, and nothing has been done at a federal level to bring a “real solution” to the problem. The bill in 2009 tied its enactment to passage of the federal DREAM Act–something that Congress, specifically the Senate, twice failed to pass last year.

To be fair to Carroll, Romer’s bill in 2009 was so clumsily crafted that it gave the appearance of conflict with federal law. Federal law says that states cannot offer benefits (e.g. in-state tuition) to undocumented students unless that benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens regardless of residency in the state. And, even if she (and one other Democrat) had voted in favor of the bill in 2009, it would mean next to nothing today for undocumented students because of the aforementioned failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act.

This year’s version of the bill makes it clear that undocumented students are not offered in-state tuition on the basis of residency or immigration status, and also makes it clear undocumented students, unlike most other Colorado undergrads, are not eligible to receive the College Opportunity Fund stipend or state-funded need-based grants.

What’s not so clear is why she just didn’t offer to amend the bill in 2009 so that it was clearer about what determined eligibility for in-state tuition. The bill had already been amended to nix the College Opportunity Fund stipend and to tie it to passage of the DREAM Act. There’s good reason to speculate about her true motives for voting against the bill in 2009, but to pretend that her original opposition was solely about the bill’s conflict with federal law (a conflict this year’s bill still arguably doesn’t entirely avoid, and hasn’t been ultimately settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, or any court at the federal level) is just bullshit.

Senate Minority Leader pronounces the word "illegally."

For the second time just this week, the Republican response to a high-profile bill introduced in the Senate has been, to be honest, a complete cop out.

On Monday, Sens. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo, and Michael Johnston, D-Denver, introduced Senate Bill 126, which would make undocumented immigrant minors eligible to pay unsubsidized in-state tuition. Certain conditions must be met, such as: Students must have attended a Colorado high school for three years before graduation, or before obtaining a GED; and students must obtain admission to a college within one year of graduation. Additionally, undocumented immigrant minors eligible for in-state tuition are specifically excluded from the College Opportunity Fund stipend, and are specifically made ineligible to receive state-funded need-based grants.

A similar bill introduced two years ago died in the Senate, despite pleas from then-Senate President Peter Groff that harked to the civil rights era. Democrats controlled both chambers then. Now that Republicans control the House, Republicans have opportunity to contribute in a substantive way to the debate. Instead, what we heard from Republicans today, at least in the Senate, was a complete non sequitur.

Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp told 9News that although he understood it was a “heartstring” issue, because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, he could not and presumably Republicans would not support this bill.

“But our obligation to the Constitution is real. We have an Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution. We cannot allow somebody who is here illegally to be preferred over somebody who is a resident of the United States. And that really is the bottom line,” said Kopp, R-Littleton.

The invocation of the Equal Protection Clause is odd to say the least, because the Equal Protection Clause pertains to how states treat any person within its jurisdiction. If indeed Kopp meant to refer to the Equal Protection Clause, this means Republicans think this bill would treat Colorado students unequally, and Kopp said as much when he said undocumented immigrants would be “preferred” over legal residents. But, much as I tried to find one, SB 126 does not contain a section or clause specifying how undocumented immigrants would gain “preference” in the college admissions process.

With all due deference to the Minority Leader, maybe he meant to refer to the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This clause has been interpreted to mean that a state cannot discriminate against residents of another state. (Unless, of course, that resident of another state obtained a marriage license and did not marry someone of the opposite sex.) Using this clause, opponents of this measure argue that since undocumented immigrants are not legal residents of a state, they are no different than someone from another state, or from another country. This is the argument that opponents of a law in California that grants in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants used when they sued the state of California. In November of last year, the California Supreme Court rebuffed the challenge unanimously since the law made no distinction based on residency or based on immigration status.

So, presented with the option of taking a firm stance against immigrants residing in the state illegally, as they have been, judging by the number of bills introduced this session dealing with immigration laws, Republicans instead created a bogus, if incredibly weak, “constitutional” reason they could not support the bill. It’s hard, then, to imagine anything compelling enough to tug at Republicans’ heartstrings that could compel them to do the right thing and give somebody a break.

Bull semen, perhaps?

Normally, when Republicans oppose something, they’re rather straightforward about their reasons. After all, it’s not with a weak stomach that you vote against funding a school children’s breakfast program and then run to the press to extol the importance of personal “responsibility to earn money to feed [one’s] own family,” as Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, did.

Which is why after Sunday’s kickoff rally to build momentum for the civil unions bill that Sen. Pat Steadman will introduce later this session, the GOP’s response was oddly vague and equivocal about the merits of the bill itself. One might be tempted to give the GOP a pass in light of the fact that the bill has yet to be introduced, but Sen. Shawn Mitchell’s response to the media last night makes it pretty clear Republicans are opposed to the bill. We just don’t know exactly why.

OK, so Mitchell, R-Broomfield, did give reasons as to why Republicans are opposed, but they are so half-hearted and, frankly, lazy it’s difficult to take them seriously. Here’s a rundown of the arguments against the bill:

• The bill will “recreate marriage in all but name.”

Amendment 43, which Colorado voters approved in 2006, amended the bill of rights section of the state constitution to specifically say that the only type of marriage valid or recognized in the Colorado would be one between one man and one woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Aside from the fact that prior to 2006, Colorado law already recognized as valid only marriages between one man and one woman, Amendment 43 does not proscribe civil unions. Mitchell’s argument here is nothing but suggestive innuendo. But since he brings it up, why is it exactly that gays and lesbians aren’t entitled to the same equal protection under the law everyone else enjoys, or at the very least, entitled to some semblance of it? Republicans should dispense with the innuendoes and the wink-wink and the nod-nod; let’s have an open and honest debate.

• “It’s arrogant for politicians now to turn around and propose to overrule the people, ‘We going to do it to you any way.’”

Yes, Colorado voters narrowly rejected Referendum I, which would have created “domestic partnerships” for same-gender couples, in 2006. But unless there’s some secret rule that says that once we vote on something we can’t ever, ever vote on that same thing again, nothing precludes us from taking up the issue again either through initiative or through our elected representatives. I mean, to follow Mitchell’s logic would mean arguing that there shouldn’t be re-elections, and that there certainly shouldn’t be any term limits because once voters decide something, it shouldn’t be revisited.  More than that, Mitchell’s argument here is a red herring meant to distract us from the fact that we elect representatives to precisely to make laws. Far from being arrogant, it is perfectly fine for lawmakers to make laws. In fact, it is required by the U.S. Constitution: Section 4 of Article VI of the Constitution says, and I quote, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican Form of Government.”

• The priorities should be jobs and balancing the budget rather than “cultural issues.”

It’s a common refrain in this day and age. In a sluggish economical environment with a high unemployment rate, it’s not unreasonable for voters to want lawmakers to prioritize jobs and the economy above all else. However, it’s not as if sponsoring a civil union bill precludes Steadman, D-Denver, or Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, from performing their duties as members of the Joint Budget Committee. It is Steadman and Ferrandino along with three other Republicans and one Democrat that must make the difficult cuts and fix the more that $1 billion budget shortfall.

Perhaps, then, what Republicans are missing is a political firebrand, someone who can perfectly articulate their reservations directly without skirting around the issues, someone like Kent Lambert. After all, Lambert had no trouble articulating his opposition to the state funding breakfast to needy school children, and has had no trouble expressing exactly how he feels about gays and lesbians. Far be it from me to question the wisdom of recruiting Mitchell as the public face of GOP opposition in light of the fact that as recently as a week before last year’s November election Mitchell acknowledged year-long personal problems that affected “all aspects of [his] life, personal, legal, political, social, and religious,” but perhaps it wasn’t a smart choice politically.

Of course, Colorado and the gay rights movement had a rendezvous with history. Nearly two decades ago, Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment to rescind equal right protections afforded to gays and lesbians by local ordinances in cities and towns across the state. That amendment, of course, was later struck down by the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is, the people we elected in November will have an opportunity to make the laws fairer and more inclusive. Coloradans shouldn’t have wait on bated breath for another court ruling to decide whether or not people should be treated equally under the law.

Natalie Portman has quite a metamorphosis.

We all know the story. Whatever the story is, we’ve likely heard or seen it in some form or another. And then Hollywood comes around, slaps some glitter on it, and sells it back to us for $10 a pop. ($15 for 3D and $20 for IMAX 3D.) Yes, Black Swan is hilarious.

But not unintentionally hilarious like Burlesque, no. Rather, Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan is a much cleverer two-fer: On the surface, it’s a sleek, psychological thriller and modern-day remake of Swan Lake; but just below the surface, it’s also a critique of showbiz, and in particular Hollywood’s oft-used storytelling tricks and motifs, some would say cliches. Although, it’s critique of Hollywood is not as dark and cynical as Billy Wilder’s was in Sunset Blvd, it’s no less scorching.

The storytelling archetypes are all there: the doppelgangers of Hitchcock’s and Bergman’s films. Hitchcock, in particular, as the “Master of Suspense” contributes quite a lot: there’s the overbearing, smothering mother; and there’s definitely something very Marnie-esque about Nina’s (Natalie Portman) frigidness. There’s the tip of the hat to All About Eve: showbiz as the endless star-making machine that chews people up and spits them back out, for no sooner has Nina taken over an “older” performer’s place than she has to watch her own back and keep an eye on her understudy (Mila Kunis).

Aronofsky is careful not to overdo things too much until the final act, when all hell breaks loose. The Kafkaesque (ha!) anti-metaphors and exaggerations converge with simplistic dialogue to make fun, I’m sure, of certain ham-fisted directors. “You are the only one standing in your way,” mutters the evil casting director to Nina a whole 30 or 40 minutes after the viewer had already gotten that point. Yeah, that also sounds like something someone would say in the clueless Burlesque.

The only critical flaw (or not) is the ending. The story is solipsistic like American Psycho and Aronofsky’s own Requiem for a Dream, so there’s quite a lot of subjectivity to be expected, but the quick back and forth shots between subjectivity and reality muddles the ending to the point of absurdity. I mean, the swan queen doesn’t “really” kill herself, does she? Does she?

But I know, it’s just a story. It’s just a performance. It might even win an Oscar or two.

When it comes to immigration, there’s literally no stooping too low for Tom Tancredo. Since shoehorning his way onto the governor’s race this summer, he’s used the platform to continue his anti-illegal immigration tirade. His tagline, after all is, “I’ll stop illegal immigration cold.” But his new ad exploiting the death of a child for political gain is a new low even for him.

The ad uses the death of 3-year-old Marten Kudlis to attack the supposed “sanctuary city” policies of his Democratic opponent Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Kudlis was killed on September 3, 2008 when Francis Hernandez crashed his SUV into a pickup truck that was making a left turn, which sent the pickup crashing into a Baskin Robbins. The car crash killed Kudlis along with the driver and passenger of the pickup truck.

Kudlis father, Marat Kudlis, appears in and narrates the ad that uses vague language to imply that somehow Hickenlooper and his policies had something to do with the case. Tancredo’s ad is particularly deceptive because neither Hickenlooper nor the Denver Police Department nor the city of Denver for that matter had anything to do in the case. Shortly after Francis Hernandez was arrested, The Denver Post reported that the Aurora Police Department had alerted the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office they suspected Hernandez to be in the country illegally when he was arrested for a traffic violation in April 2008. The Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office reportedly sent an email to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office in Vermont, which did not place a hold on Hernandez and thus he was released. The Post‘s article went to say, “It is not unusual that ICE wouldn’t respond in a misdemeanor traffic case such as Hernandez’s. The agency is deluged with e-mails like the one sent by Arapahoe County and concentrates its efforts on felons.”

But the charge Tancredo specifically makes in his ad is that Denver Mayor Hickenlooper’s alleged “bad” policies were responsible, and no matter how many facts fly in the face of Tancredo bald-faced lies, as the allegations he made during last Wednesday’s debate show, the truth is really irrelevant to Tancredo.

An article by the Post showed how difficult it was for law enforcement to keep track of Hernandez as he managed to avoid detection multiple times:

In one instance, Hernandez spent 32 days in jail after a Lakewood arrest for criminal impersonation when he gave officers an alias and lied about having a driver’s license. He spent another 25 days in the Gilpin County jail for having a forged instrument. Other offenses also drew brief stints behind bars.

In Denver County Court, Judge Claudia Jordan, armed only with Hernandez’s previous traffic offenses, didn’t know about the forged instrument, the misdemeanor assault or the shoplifting charge appearing on his record. Nor would she have known that he failed four times to appear in two cases in Jefferson County, a pattern he repeated frequently on an arrest record dating to 2003.

A study conducted by law enforcement officials in the wake of the crash found that the root of the problem of enforcing state immigration law like SB 06-90 (passed, by the way, by a Democratic-controlled legislature) is much more complex than “sanctuary city” policy:

Speaking at a special gathering of law enforcement officials, state lawmakers and other policymakers, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said that despite multiple arrests and contacts with several law enforcement agencies, authorities never detected that Hernandez was not a citizen. In part, that was because Hernandez spoke with only a slight accent and appeared to be “completely Americanized,” Oates said.

Hernandez, 23, who police say is a native of Guatemala, always claimed he was from California, Oates said. It took a senior immigration agent to figure out that Hernandez was from Guatemala, he said.

“We had no indication this person was an illegal immigrant,” Oates told the gathering of more than 30 officials, appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to look at immigration enforcement gaps among local agencies and the federal government.
…
Oates and others said police need more training on how to use the immigrant status system, but he said there is still “no magic wand” to determine whether someone is in the U.S. illegally.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Republicans, or in Tancredo’s case ex-Republicans, use this horrific death for political gain. Days after the crash, Rep. Jim Kerr, R-Jefferson County, told the Post “It is the first duty of government to protect public safety. As the chief enforcement office of Colorado, Gov. Ritter has a responsibility to address illegal immigration when it poses such a serious risk to public safety.”

In any case, it really ought to be embarrassing for Tancredo that this is the best thing he can come up with a few weeks before the election.

Sources:
Immigration hot topic at Colo. gubernatorial debate – The Denver Post
Aurora, ICE at odds on suspect-status inquiry – The Denver Post
Suspect in 3 deaths was under the radar – The Denver Post
Immigration gaps drive study – The Denver Post

More:
Suspect always had car – The Denver Post
ICE checks out suspect in ice cream fatals – The Denver Post
ICE holds driver in crash – The Denver Post
Ice cream shop victim’s family enraged – The Denver Post
Suspect in triple-fatal faces up to 80 years – The Denver Post
More charges filed against driver in triple-fatal accident – The Denver Post
Guilty verdict in ice-cream store crash doesn’t ease parents’ pain – The Denver Post
Parents of toddler killed in Aurora car crash file lawsuit – The Denver Post

It’s not that She Wolf was a bad album, it’s just that it was frivolous and overly transparent that Shakira was just doing most of it to please her label. I mean, besides trying to capitalize on their immense popularity, there was no reason to do a song and video ripping off Twilight and Lady Gaga, and then last-minute songs with Lil Wayne and Kanye West’s protege Kid Cudi. So last minute, that the Lil Wayne and Kid Cudi songs are only in the U.S. version of She Wolf. But let’s face it, Latin pop is what Shakira does best.

Sale el Sol‘s lead single “Loca” is Shakira’s remake of popular Dominican artist El Cata’s own hit “Loca Con Su Tiguere” (“Crazy With Her Tiger”). El Cata has yet to breakthrough in the U.S., but he is a collaborator with Pitbull, who’s recently become the go-to artist musicians want to Latino-ize their music, so it’s not implausible that he’ll become as popular stateside in no time. El Cata’s original song about a man getting with someone else’s woman despite him being poorer and less refined makes sense. But some meaning gets lost in Shakira’s remake.

“Loca,” a song about woman crazy in love and flat broke (I think) but not flat busted, marks Shakira’s foray into urban-style merengue, a genre popular in the caribbean and in Miami. (Sort of like a modern Miami Sound Machine.) The English version of “Loca” features popular U.K. rapper Dizzee Rascal. In fact, the collaborations with other artists are the best part of Sale El Sol. Even though her overall style is always grounded in Latin pop/rock, Shakira’s splashy singles always experiment with new sounds from different genres. Case in point: Mariachi horns and Middle Eastern strings in Donde Estan Los Ladrones?, Europop and reggaeton in Fijacion Oral Vol. 1. Sale El Sol is no different. “Gordita” (“Chubby Girl”), her duet with Residente of Calle 13 sounds almost too much like the group’s brand of hip hop, but it’s irresistible if only for the way Shakira’s sultry chorus mixes with Residente’s lyrics. The song is styled like a love note, where Residente recalls how much more beautiful the less rail-thin Shakira was with a fuller figure and black hair, and Shakira acknowledges as endearing the term “chubby girl.” Her duet with Pitbull, “Rabiosa” (“Rabid”), will probably be a bigger hit than “Loca” as it’s more succinct and radio-friendly.

Her solo tracks meanwhile are decidedly less inspired. There are moments in some songs where it’s uncanny how much she sounds like up-and-comers like Belinda. Maybe it’s a testament to the enormous influence she’s had on Latin pop this past decade, but it’s unsettling to hear her sound like an imitation of her imitators. It’s unclear if these songs were outtakes of her previous two Spanish albums or if she’s just phoning in it, but one thing is certain: she could definitely do better. There are a few exceptions of course, like the exceptional title track, which she performed earlier this year at the Rock in Rio festival in Madrid and dedicated to her friend and Argentine artist, Gustavo Cerati. Cerati, who guested on her Oral Fixation albums, suffered a stroke in mid-May and is currently in a coma. The song is about holding on to hope in spite of tough times and the things that don’t make sense.

Also on the album are pop remixes of the English and Spanish versions of “Waka Waka (This Time For Africa),” which nix Freshlyground and the hype of the original 2010 World Cup anthem. It’s also worth noting that Sale El Sol is kind of milestone because it’ll be her last album with her label of more than 10 years Sony/Epic before she officially jumps ship to the LiveNation behemoth.

So, in typical fashion, the Emmys last night had some shall we say interesting winners. Those voting panels of academy members who voted for the winners were decidedly pissed about LOST‘s finale, or probably didn’t understand it, as it was blackballed from every category the show was nominated in.

Out of the 10 major categories, I only agreed with one winner. Here are the shoulda beens, and who I would give an Emmy to if the TV academy was just me:

Outstanding Supporting Actor – Drama

Nominated:

Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad

Martin Short, Damages

Terry O’Quinn, LOST

Michael Emerson, LOST

John Slattery, Mad Men

Andre Braugher, Men Of A Certain Age

Won: Aaron Paul

Shoulda won: Terry O’Quinn

Who I’d give an Emmy to: Terry O’Quinn

Sideways Locke is happy just to be nominated...

... Fake Locke is very disappointed in ALL of you!

Outstanding Supporting Actor – Comedy

Nominated:

Chris Colfer, Glee

Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother

Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family

Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Jon Cryer, Two And A Half Men

Won: Eric Stonestreet

Shoulda won: Chris Colfer

Who I’d give an Emmy to: Tracy Morgan, 30 Rock

Tracy wasn’t really kidding about that EGOT thing.

Outstanding Supporting Actress – Drama

Nominated:

Sharon Gless, Burn Notice

Rose Byrne, Damages

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife

Christine Baranski, The Good Wife

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

Won: Archie Panjabi

Shoulda won: Christina Hendricks

Joan is always overworked and underappreciated.

Who I’d give an Emmy to: Sara Ramirez, Grey’s Anatomy

Latinas shouldn't play ugly or promise to get naked to win an Emmy or get nominated.

Outstanding Supporting Actress – Comedy

Nominated:

Jane Lynch, Glee

Julie Bowen, Modern Family

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family

Kristin Wiig, Saturday Night Live

Jane Krakowski, 30 Rock

Holland Taylor, Two And A Half Men

Won: Jane Lynch

Shouda won: Sofia Vergara

Who I’d give an Emmy to: Jane Krakowski

That bra really belongs to Jenna('s boyfriend).

Outstanding Actress – Drama

Nominated:

Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer

Glenn Close, Damages

Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights

Juliana Margulies, The Good Wife

Mariska Hargitay, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

January Jones, Mad Men

Won: Kyra Sedgwick

Shoulda won: ?

Who I’d give an Emmy to: Chloe Sevigny, Big Love

Outstanding Actress – Comedy

Nominated:

Lea Michele, Glee

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, The New Adventures Of Old Christine

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Amy Poehler, Parks And Recreation

Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Toni Collette, United States Of Tara

Won: Edie Falco

Shoulda won: Amy Poehler

Who I’d give an Emmy to: Amy Poehler

It's either an Emmy or first female president for Leslie Knope

Outstanding Actor – Drama

Nominated:

Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad

Michael C. Hall, Dexter

Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights

Hugh Laurie, House

Matthew Fox, LOST

Jon Hamm, Mad Men

Won: Bryan Cranston

Shoulda won: Matthew Fox

Who I’d give an Emmy to: Matthew Fox

Outstanding Actor – Comedy

Nominated:

Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm

Matthew Morrison, Glee

Tony Shalhoub, Monk

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Steve Carell, The Office

Won: Jim Parsons

Shoulda won: Steve Carell

Who I’d give an Emmy to: Nick Offerman, Parks And Recreation

Outstanding Comedy Series

Nominated:

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Glee

Modern Family

Nurse Jackie

The Office

30 Rock

Won: Modern Family

Shoulda won: Modern Family

Who I’d give an Emmy to: 30 Rock

Sure, "Modern Family" is hip and, well, "modern" but I'll take "30 Rock"'s dorkiness any day.

Outstanding Drama Series

Nominated:

Breaking Bad

Dexter

The Good Wife

LOST

Mad Men

True Blood

Won: Mad Men

Shoulda won: LOST

Who I’d give an Emmy to: LOST

What was that thing about the world and a wimper a bang and an ending?

Sure there were “fans” of LOST disappointed by the answers (or lack thereof) to the show’s mysteries in the series finale. But in the end the show’s over-arching themes (survival, redemption, sacrifice, faith vs. science, fate vs. free will) are more important than any mystery about the Dharma Initiative or numbers could ever be. And let’s be real: Mad Men’s third season was not as good as its first two seasons (or as it is now). I just hope Erin Levy doesn’t get fired.

OK, the gloves are off. Now that Andrew Romanoff is officially taking Michael Bennet to task for accepting all that out-of-state PAC money, the Denver Post predictably reports this as him “ratcheting up negative attacks.”

Even though Bennet’s own campaign has been less-than-positive with press releases criticizing Romanoff for not winning the state assembly by a larger margin (you know, larger than 20 percentage points), his campaign seized on the Post‘s article (whose editorial board just endorsed him) to decry this supposed turning point in the campaign as “disappointing.”

The problem is Bennet has not nearly been the saint he portrays himself to be. In fact, since Bennet launched his campaign, he has been mounting a kind of whisper campaign against Romanoff. And since we already know the media has a blind spot when it comes to these matters, this has never been reported.

Whisper campaigns are especially insidious in that they trap the target in the awkward position of having to publicly refute what’s being alleged, but at the same time reassure “not that there’s anything wrong with that.” Think Sen. Obama and the Muslim rumors or more recently and perhaps more aptly, the rumors about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Whisper campaigns prey on people’s prejudices and exploit them for the attacker’s personal gain.

Bennet’s ads can seem rather innocuous, as a way of him introducing himself to Colorado Democrats, you know, cause he’s not a “career politician.” But they also have an underhanded subtext: The point of Bennet prominently displaying his wife and daughters at every turn is to make insinuations about Romanoff’s private life. It’s a subtle yet sharp way of criticizing Romanoff for not being a “family man,” or rather the “right kind” of family man.  It’s an attack unto its own.

Was it really a surprise then when Senate President Brandon Schaffer told the delegates at the Boulder County assembly that a reason to vote for Bennet was because he’s married and has a family. Though he later retracted this by saying he didn’t mean it as people interpreted it, it’s pretty difficult to say how else people should have taken such statement.

And that’s the sad part of it all because as soon as they’re called out on it, people behind whisper campaigns assure that it’s all a misunderstanding and that people are taking things the “wrong” way.