Most Recent Posts

Leonel Kaplan, an Argentine jazz musician, often has to travel abroad.

Before a recent trip to Europe, he went to a bank in Buenos Aires to change money and then went to get a haircut. Kaplan felt happy and relaxed and took the bus home after what had been an uneventful trip.

That, however, was about to change.

"As I get down from the bus, a motorcycle with two people wearing helmets cuts me off," he recalls. "One gets off and takes out a gun and says to me directly, 'Give me the 500 euros you got in the bank.'"

They knew exactly how much money he had changed. It was, he says, a pretty professional job.

Distrust Of Banks

In the region, Brazil, Venezuela and Honduras have the lock on murders – they are some of the most violent countries in the world. Argentina is still comparatively safe.

But according to an annual United Nations report on crime in Latin America, Argentina's robbery rate is 41 percent higher than even Mexico's, which comes in second.

To understand this unexpected and very specific surge in crime, you have to look at the country's recent economic history.

“ I would never put my money in a bank. Because I know it could disappear. A bank is no more secure than underneath my mattress.

- Leonel Kaplan, Argentine jazz musician

Robberies in Argentina started soaring after the 2001 default — when the country, in effect, declared bankruptcy. And that would seem to be logical: financial crisis equals more poverty and more thefts.

But that's not the whole picture. A number of analysts provide another explanation and it has to do with what Leonel Kaplan told me at the end of our interview.

He says he doesn't have a bank account.

"I would never put my money in a bank. Because I know it could disappear," he says. "A bank is no more secure than underneath my mattress."

People in Argentina don't trust the banks. That means they carry around cash — a lot of it — to pay for what they need, says Alan Ciblis, the chair of the political economy department of the National University of General Sarmiento.

"You can keep it in a safety box that they have in the vaults – that's probably the safest place," he says. "People have it under the mattress."

Ciblis says most people keep their savings these days in cash in a variety of places because of recent experience.

After the 2001 default, banks were locked down and accounts raided, which wiped out the savings of ordinary Argentines. Many people lost a lifetime of accumulated funds.

Related NPR Stories

The Two-Way

Argentina's Default: 5 Headlines That Tell The Story

Parallels

The Man Argentines Love To Hate Is An American Judge

The Inflation Factor

There's another reason Argentines don't want to put their money in banks – inflation.

"When inflation begins to creep up and you have some extra pesos and you put it in a certificate of deposit in a bank, but the interest rate is below the inflation rate, then you have negative rates and you're losing money," Ciblis explains.

Let's say inflation is at 40 percent a year in Argentina. The government doesn't provide reliable figures, but that's what most economists estimate is the current annual rate.

The bank, meanwhile, may only be giving you 20 percent interest. That means your money is losing its value.

As a result, most people would rather risk the possibility that a thief get into the house and steal the money hidden in the drawer, than face the near certainty that they will lose money in the banking system these days.

"In my opinion, the lack of trust in the banking system which is part of the Argentine culture now is an influence," says Alberto Binder, who studies crime. "But there are other issues – drug crime is growing."

"Argentina is basically a tranquil country, but that conceit is being used as a kind of opium," he says. "I think if you are a calm country surrounded by troubled ones, that should put you on maximum alert."

Crime in Latin America

Latin America

Argentina

Drones, drones, drones.

Everybody wants one. Amazon, to deliver packages, Hollywood to shoot movie scenes, agriculture interests to monitor crops.

And everyone is waiting for the FAA to issue regulations as to how commercial drones might be allowed to operate in the U.S. Those regulations are supposed to come out by the end of the month.

The FAA has been struggling to write the rules for unmanned aircraft for several years. In 2012, Congress told the agency to get on with it and set a deadline for final regulations by September 2015.

According to sources, the FAA is considering requiring operators of commercial drones to get a license; the drones could be flown only as far as the operator could see them, and only in daytime.

That's a lot more restrictive than commercial groups want. But John Villasenor, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution who teaches at UCLA, says the FAA is in a tough spot. "If they come out with rules that are not protective enough and then there's some sort of an accident then they will be criticized for not having been more careful with this technology," he says.

"On the other hand, if they come out with rules that are viewed as overly restrictive in the name of safety then they are going to be criticized as impeding the growth of the industry, so it's a very difficult balancing act that they have to navigate.

In fact, the industry does think that, based on the initial reports, the FAA rules are unrealistic. Take for instance the line of sight requirement. Michael Drobac is executive director of the Small UAV Coalition, which includes companies like Google and Amazon. Drobac says technology will allow drones to be operated far from where their operator is based, making use of tablets or mobile phones to control them. "The reality is that the technology is there but the FAA doesn't necessarily know it or spend enough time with it."

Right now, commercial drones are being tested at six FAA-designated locations across the U.S. Drobac says companies don't much like that restriction either, because companies are in the process of designing their drones, "and they certainly do not want to share their proprietary data with others." He says the testing at the remote locations is also expensive for companies. "It's illegal for companies to test outdoors near their headquarters", Drobac says "and so they can't bring their entire teams."

Meanwhile the FAA is dealing with another drone issue. The agency says it's receiving about 25 reports per month from pilots who have seen unmanned or model aircraft operating near their planes. The consequences of even a small drone colliding with an airplane or getting sucked into its engine could be catastrophic. Everyone from an Alitalia flight landing at New York's JFK airport to NYPD police helicopter pilots have reported seeing small drones near their aircraft.

The New York incident led to the arrest of two men on reckless endangerment charges.

When they do come out, the FAAs proposed regulations will start a lengthy comment and debate period, with industry, privacy and other interests likely to weigh in. It may eventually fall to Congress and the White House to sort it all out and decide how restrictive drone policy should be.

African-American clergy, academics and activists will hold a march on Washington this week, protesting the grand jury decisions in Ferguson, Mo. and New York City and call on the federal government to intervene in the prosecutions of police officers accused of unjustified use of force.

I talked with Reverend Raphael Warnock and Eddie Glaude, Jr., two prominent African-American religious thinkers, about the role of black churches in the wake of major protests and demonstrations inspired by events in Ferguson and New York City. Warnock is the senior pastor at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Ga. — a pulpit once held by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — and was in Washington to attend a conference hosted by the Black Church Center for Justice and Equality. Glaude is a professor of religion and chair of the Center for African American Studies at Princeton University. In 2010, he wrote an attention-grabbing essay called "The Black Church is Dead."

Interview Highlights

How did the black church form? Why is it significant that black churches stay involved right now?

Rev. Raphael Warnock: The black church, born fighting for freedom, is that church among the American churches that has seen justice-making as central to its Christian identity. Now, the black church, like most institutions has always been a mixed bag. And so even though I'm a leader and pastor in the black church and the church of Martin Luther King, Jr., there's a kind of radical trajectory that comes out of the black church that I do think is distinctive, and for obvious and good historic reasons. It literally is a church organized by slaves as they responded to that primary contradiction in their lives.

What is your response to the news that the NYPD officer who killed Eric Garner won't be indicted?

Prof. Eddie Glaude, Jr.: I'm stunned. You know, I keep thinking about my son. He's a freshman at Brown. A few weeks ago, I got a text from my son saying that he was stopped by the police in Providence. He was doing an assignment and they stopped him and told him that he needed to get out of that park and they had their hands on their guns. So here we are with video footage of Eric Garner saying "I can't breathe," and I just go back to how vulnerable my child was and I'm just rageful. I can't put it in any other way. I feel like its open season and I'm trying to find resources to think carefully and deliberately about this moment, but I'm just worried about my baby and I'm worried about our babies. And it's hard to put it in words.

i i

Rev. Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, pictured at a gathering last week of African-American clergy, academics and activists outside Washington D.C. Charles Pulliam-Moore/NPR hide caption

itoggle caption Charles Pulliam-Moore/NPR

Rev. Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, pictured at a gathering last week of African-American clergy, academics and activists outside Washington D.C.

Charles Pulliam-Moore/NPR

Rev. Warnock: It's a painful moment and somehow we've got to recognize where we are and how we respond in this minute. I don't have any easy answers to this. I heard the president say the other day that he's going to dedicate millions of dollars for more video cameras, for more body cameras, and this is on video tape. It doesn't matter if you're in Ferguson or New York; doesn't matter whether its on video tape or not; doesn't matter if you're running away from the police — Michael Brown — or literally standing there trying to reason with the police — Eric Garner. The message from both is that the life of a black man is less valuable than a handful of cigarillos. This is a slap in the face, a kick in the stomach because we're not talking about a conviction, we're talking about an indictment. I'm not a lawyer, but I paid attention in civics class; they told me in ninth grade that a good lawyer could indict a ham sandwich. And so apparently a black man's life is worth less than a ham sandwich.

What role do black clergy play given this news?

Prof. Glaude: I think to role of black churches in this moment is varied. One has to do with tending to the souls of people. These are trying times. I'm thinking about that wonderful line in Toni Morrison's Beloved, and I'm going to paraphrase here: "How much are we supposed to take?" So it's in these moments that churches and ministers ought to find a way to comfort the spirit, not to get us adjusted to the injustice, but to understand that we are justified in our rage and anger. Black churches have always been and continue to be wonderful resource institutions where we can build capacity in order to speak back and respond to crises. They should open their doors in order to provide folks a safe space in order to engage in the deliberative process. How are we going to mobilize in response to what seems to be open season on our babies?

Rev. Warnock: My role is not unlike it is at any other time; it's just that it's extremely difficult right now. We pastors have a two-fold role: priestly and prophetic. On the priestly side, our jobs is comfort the afflicted. On the prophetic side, our job is to afflict the comfortable. And the question becomes how can one remain true to both in this moment.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says one of his top priorities will be to make the Senate work the way it used to — which would include the use of filibusters to block presidential appointments. But would that improve the way the Senate works? Republicans will be debating that question behind closed doors Tuesday. Many were furious when Democrats eliminated the filibuster for nearly all confirmation votes last year — a change some called the "nuclear option." But now that the GOP will be in the majority, they're not all that eager to go back.

The drama over which party has the dirtier hands when it comes to blocking nominations has gone on for years as the majority party has changed. When Democratic Sen. Harry Reid decided to get rid of the filibuster on confirmation votes last year, it wasn't all that surprising, given how bad things had become.

So, why should anyone care about this moment now? Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says it matters because it's about restoring integrity to the Senate.

"The Senate has always been known for its protection of minority rights, and I think it was wrong for the Democrats to break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the Senate," Collins said.

So she wants to return to the old rules — when it took 60 votes to confirm rather than a simple majority. Because the Senate is supposed to be different from the more populist House — it's meant to be more deliberative.

But many Republicans ask, why bother changing things again? There's less drama with majority rule. Even those who would rather restore the filibuster — like Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona — understand that some people are tired of fighting.

"Because I think a lot of our colleagues realize we shouldn't politicize these nominees," Flake said.

Actually, there are very political reasons for Republicans not to resurrect the filibuster. Especially if a Republican gets elected president in 2016.

"If you get a Republican president, then he's not going to have nearly the troubles that we've always had with Democrats in getting judges through," said Senate Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah.

And Hatch says even if his party brought back the filibuster for tradition's sake, it could be short-lived.

"I used to be in this camp, who think we need to get back to the old rule. But the Democrats will break that rule anytime they want to, if they get back in the majority," Hatch said.

Besides, even without the filibuster, there are many ways Republicans can easily block nominations.

"The whole filibuster debate is a bit of a red herring. It's not unimportant, but it certainly doesn't explain anywhere close to all of the reasons that a president's confirmation rate is not going to be 100 percent," said Russ Wheeler of the Brookings Institution.

As the party in control, Republicans can refuse to schedule committee hearings for nominees. Or the new majority leader can simply refuse to hold floor votes.

But law professor Carl Tobias at the University of Richmond says Republicans may well restrain themselves.

"They are coming into power and want to show that they can actually do something. Sen. McConnell is talking about making the Senate functional again. I think they want to start off on a positive note," Tobias said.

If you look at the past three two-term presidents, each was able to get at least some of his nominations through in his last two years — all with a Senate controlled by the opposing party. So maybe McConnell will be satisfied with returning to those examples of Senate tradition.

nuclear option

judicial nominees

Obama nominations

Senate Democrats

Senate Republicans