Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in cities across Argentina last week to demonstrate rising concern over the country’s future. People protested plans to overhaul the judicial system by reducing the independence of courts. They also complained about corruption, crime, inflation, “being lied to” about inflation, and speculation that the president plans to change the constitution so she can remain in power perpetually.

This was the third massive anti-government protest of its kind since September, and it was a healthy reminder that some aspects of Argentina’s civic life are alive and well, even flourishing.

Protesters were peaceful, cheerful, friendly, upbeat, energetic and, by all appearances, happy. What follows are some thoughts about the protests and their possible impact.

In his 1993 inaugural address, U.S. President Bill Clinton said this about the United States: “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” The peaceful, ebullient nature of last week’s protest reminded me of Clinton’s phrase. While the protesters focused largely on what is wrong with Argentina, their civil behavior was a healthy display of what is right with Argentina.

Those who took to the streets were, by and large, thoughtful, articulate, well-informed, polite and passionate. In many ways, they represent what is right with Argentina. Regardless of how you view certain government policies, the protesters I encountered were exemplars of ethical conduct. They offered thoughtful commentary on cultural, economic, judicial and political matters. If there were angry, aggressive protesters, I did not see them. By any measure, the protests seemed to be a constructive manifestation of democratic discontent. In this sense, they were a reminder of what is right about Argentina’s democracy – a reminder, in President Clinton’s parlance, that “there is nothing wrong with Argentina that cannot be cured by what is right with Argentina.”

As happened in the two previous protests, Argentina’s government largely ignored them. Initially, at least, President Cristina Kirchner said nothing of the protests while her cabinet members downplayed their significance. Planning Minister Julio De Vido later ridiculed the protesters, saying that the only people who took to the streets were people “who wanted to visit Miami.” To a large decree, De Vido’s comment was really a non sequitur. Simply put, it made no sense, literally.

I saw no protesters who expressed any concern for Miami. Nor did I see anyone carrying any banners or posters that mentioned Miami. De Vido’s comments may have been aimed at distracting attention from the protesters’ real complaints – corruption, crime, inflation, etc. Polls shows these are the issues that people are most worried about. De Vido was likely trying to make the protesters look like spoiled wealthy people who were complaining about the government’s crackdown on the sale of U.S. dollars. Many people have found it hard to buy dollars to travel abroad to places like, say, Miami. Whatever his point, it was mostly irrelevant to the protest.

The government’s effort to ignore the protests made me think the protesters are somewhat akin to people who are stuck in a bad marriage – a marriage in which their partner ignores them, not just part of the time, but most of the time.

Imagine being married to someone who never acknowledges the value of what you are saying. Imagine being married to someone who does not apologize or listen to you carefully. How would you feel if you were married to someone who wanted to dominate the conversation at all times and in all places?

At some point, sooner or later, you might want a divorce. The protesters wanted to be heard, to be acknowledged, to be respected. This, at least, is what many of them said in interviews. Many of them would like to hear the president say, “I’ve heard your voice. I understand your concerns. Thank you for sharing them in such a peaceful, civic matter. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to meet your needs. But now that I better understand your needs, I will work to meet them.”

Of course, the president didn’t say this. It isn’t her style. The president seems to consider questions and critiques to be unmitigated attacks on her presidency. In the past, she and her cabinet members have equated political dissent with treason. They have indicated that people who question the government’s policies are in reality seeking ways to overthrow the government. In everything, according to this worldview, there is a conspiracy.

When the protesters wanted the president to listen, she may have believed they were seeking a divorce. The marriage between Argentina’s president and many of her people is not a happy one. It is riddled with the kind of flaws that plague and can eventually ruin real life marriages – contempt, distrust, stubbornness, a failure to listen, difficulty in apologizing and a tendency to belittle instead of to forgive. To be sure, this is sometimes true of both parties.

If past behavior is any indication of future behavior, this is a marriage that is bound to fail. It will worsen with time, leading both sides to despise the other with growing contempt, distrust and either covert or overt hostility.

In last week’s demonstrations, protesters seemed to be saying to the president, “Listen, we’re headed in the wrong direction. We need to do some things differently so we can get back on the right track. Can you please acknowledge what we’re saying so we can work on it together? If so, we have a chance, but we need you to listen.”

The president did not listen, or at least she didn’t indicate that she had. What’s worse, in the protesters view, is that she ignored them entirely, pretending not only that didn’t take to the streets but that even if they had it would not make any difference to her. This kind of reaction seems likely to make matters worse. It seems destined to lead the protesters to seek a divorce, which is almost most certainly what they will do at the ballot box when they vote in next October’s mid-term elections.

With opinion polls indicating that only 29% of the population supports the president, her strategy toward the protests seems risky. Time will tell, as it does it does with most marriages.

Click here to read the article we wrote about the protest for The Wall Street Journal.

Yet it is noteworthy that on this anniversary the president dressed in black not to mourn the country’s loss but rather to mourn her own.

The president’s husband and predecessor in power, Nestor Kirchner, died in October, 2010, and Mrs. Kirchner has donned dark attire ever since.

The train wreck, which occurred at the Once de Septiembre station in Buenos Aires, became for many a symbol of everything that is wrong with Argentina – corruption, greed, abuse of power, incompetence, injustice. Many people, especially critics of the government, accused the Kirchner administration of spending billions on a public transportation system that is, by all accounts, worse off now than it has been in years.

One of the things that bothered people about the tragedy was the fact that the president avoided all mention of it for five days. As each day passed, her silence seemed even more inexplicable. She completely ignored the event, behaving as if it hadn’t happened. Her silence on the subject was, to use a literary cliché, deafening.

Then, when the president finally did discuss the issue, she did so in comments that were largely self-referencial and political in nature. In a nationally televised speech, she spoke in a way that put the emphasis on herself as a victim.

“I know what death is and I know what pain is, and I won’t put up with those who take advantage of such tragedy and such pain,” the president said. “Don’t expect demagogic or easy speeches from me. I’ve never done that and I’m not going to do it now, much less amid death. Look, I’ve got thick skin. Look at all the trash talk and insults I’ve had to put up with – more than any other leader, more than any other president has had to put up with. But it is a pity that people speculate about these things.”

Critics accused the president of using her first speech since the tragedy to be political instead simply being human. Many people wanted her to deliver an empathetic speech that solemnly focused on the victims and sought to unite Argentines in a non-political way, even if for just a moment. Instead, it seemed like just another political speech. But, of course, it was not.

It is remarkable today, a year later, that the president, in her comments and outward attire, continues to focus on her own loss at a time when the country is focused on its collective loss. The tragedy of Once was a national tragedy, a national loss.

In a speech Thursday, the president again referred to her own personal loss, placing it in the context of the train wreck anniversary. She offered a hug to the victims and their families.

“I know that the loss of a loved one is unrecoverable and irreparable; nobody can compensate for it, nobody can repair it. But, well, the justice system is there to surely determine the responsibilities. But even so, with justice, with some kind of economic reparation or whatever, life does not come back. The life of a loved one, of a human being is something that’s very valuable and very painful to lose. So, here’s a hug for all of them.”

The reference to the tragedy was a very minor part of a much longer speech in which the president launched a new state-run, high definition sports TV station and in which she criticized the mayor of Buenos Aires for cutting down trees. By minimizing the tragedy in her speech, the president seemed to be minimizing its significance for Argentines.

The reaction from victims was swift and poignant. In comments made Friday night, on the anniversary of the tragedy, Paolo Menghini y Luján Rey, whose son Lucas was killed in the tragedy, read a statement about it.

“Last night, as happened five days after the disaster, the president remembered us with a message that was more hurtful than silence itself,” Luján said. “She remembered us with a solidary hug that came too late. Our pain isn’t the result of just a bad moment in life, as she expressed in her speech, but rather it was the product of the inaction of her own government. The massacre of innocents isn’t just a sad moment, it’s the product of corruption…”

These comments implicitly question the president’s constant references to her own loss. Mrs. Kirchner refers to her personal loss and personal pain in many, perhaps most, of her public speeches. Former President Nestor Kirchner’s death was tragic in the sense that all deaths are tragic, but it wasn’t tragic in the sense that the train tragedy was. It wasn’t tragic in the sense that parents are supposed to die before their children do. Mr. Kirchner lost his life too soon, dealing a severe blow to his family and to everyone in the country that loved him. But it was a natural death. It wasn’t caused by the negligence of others, much less that of the state. His death was unfair and unjust in the same way that life is unfair and unjust. The universe can be cruel. But it was not the result of an injustice or an unfair society. No person or entity was culpable for his death and therefore society does not cry out for justice as a result.

The train tragedy is very different in this sense. People believe the loss of life at the Once train station was not the product of an unfair universe but rather the direct result of irresponsible behavior. In this view, the loss of life could have been avoided, should have been avoided. People demand justice and they want guarantees that this kind of tragedy will not happen again, at least not because of corruption or greed or abuse of power or incompetence.

The president’s supporters may find a great deal of empathy in her speeches and her references to her own personal loss. They may see in the president someone who knows pain, who understands death and loss and who is all too aware of how hard life and be. In this view, Mrs. Kirchner is better able than many to offer compassion and support to the victims of the train accident and their families.

The president’s detractors, in contrast, may find the president’s comments hollow. One woman described her frustration this way (I am paraphrasing).

We have all suffered loss. If you live long enough, you have friends die. Your parents die. Your brothers and sisters die. Your loved ones pass away. It’s the natural order of things. That’s life. We all die. Nobody has a monopoly on pain or suffering or on the right to feel bad and depressed and sad about death. The president has every right to feel pain and suffer from the loss of her husband. I would too. Nobody has the right to take that away from her. But she needs to think about how compatible her ongoing public demonstration of personal loss is with the needs of those who suffered the loss of life at Once.

Which leads to the question: What do the president’s continual references to her own loss and continued use of black clothing say to others who have also suffered?

By constantly focusing on her own loss, the president seems to be missing an opportunity to focus on the country’s bigger loss, not just the loss of life at Once but the loss of trust in government, in society and in the justice system.

By continuing to wear black, the president seems to be saying that attention still needs to be focused on her husband’s death. If Mrs. Kirchner were a private figure, her comments and choice of clothing would go unnoticed and would not affect the national culture or its mood or direction. But as president, she represents Argentines at all times. Sets the national conversation and, to some degree, the national mood.

If the president is unable to overcome her personal loss and to express joy, how can she expect the victims of the train tragedy to do so? How can the president inspire and uplift these victims, and the nation that mourns with them, if she continues to express through her words and clothing that she continues to be overwhelmed by her own personal loss. If, years after her husband’s death, the president’s daily attire continues to be pitch black, how can she lead the victims of the train tragedy to a more colorful future? How can she help to brighten the nation’s life if she continues to literally wallow in darkness?

For a broader look at Argentina’s controversial agreement with Iran to investigate the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, check out my colleague Shane’s article for The Wall Street Journal here. The terrorist attack killed 85 people and injured hundreds.

Argentina’s government last week told leading supermarkets and electronics retailers to stop advertising in the country’s biggest newspapers. You can read all about it in my article for The Wall Street Journal here.

The article looks at Cablevisión’s investment plans and sheds light on how Argentina’s political context is affecting the company. For example, government import barriers forced the company to temporarily stop offering WiFi modems and other equipment last year.

But one thing that didn’t make it into the published article was the company’s plans for its high-speed Internet service, Fibertel.

Moltini said Cablevisión plans to raise its popular 6-megabit broadband service to 10-megabits, possibly as early as March though no date has been set. That’s good news for most surfers those who feel the need for speed.

Fans of the company’s high-end broadband product, Evolution, which offers 30-megabit download speeds, may not be so pleased, however, since the company has no plans to increase the speed.

Moltini said that while Cablevisión has the technical capacity to raise speeds to 100MB, Argentina’s market simply doesn’t demand higher velocities. Argentine companies and consumers don’t yet use enough video and other multimedia products to warrant flying at a faster pace.

So while Evolution has been a big breakthrough for Argentines wanting to surf the Internet at a quicker clip, the country’s speedsters will have to keep waiting before they can browse, download and stream as fast as people can in Asia, the U.S. and Europe.

The organization said the decline stems from “growing tension between the government and certain privately-owned media about a new law regulating the broadcast media.”

That tension, of course, relates mainly to the ongoing war between President Cristina Kirchner and the multimedia conglomerate Grupo Clarin, which would be dismantled if Kirchner is able to fully implement the three-year-old media law.

Clarin has challenged the constitutionality of the law and its implementation is now held up in courts. The outcome will likely be decided this year by Argentina’s Supreme Court.

Kirchner accuses Clarin of being a monopoly that uses its influence to undermine her government and its policies. Clarin, in turn, says Kirchner is simply trying to crush independent media voices and silence criticism of her government.

Whatever the case, the government clearly has a very antagonistic relationship with the media. Top government official rarely, if ever, offer press conferences and almost never grant open, on the record interviews.

The president herself is famous for avoiding the press, making her one of the least accessible democratic leaders in Latin America and in the Western Hemisphere.

The topic de jour in the United States these days is gun control. With the recent massacre of 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, people are debating the issue as they haven’t done in decades.

The U.S. is a gun-loving nation is there ever was one. With an estimated 270 million civilian guns in the country, the U.S. has the world’s highest gun ownership rate. There are about nine guns for every 10 people in the U.S.

Even so, the U.S. does not have the highest gun death rate in the world. It is roughly the same as Argentina’s, with about 3 gun deaths for every 100,000 people.

The above chart, published here in The Atlantic, offers an interesting look at how gun death rates in different countries, including Argentina, compare with those of various U.S. cities.

Why compare cities with countries? For one thing, some of these countries have populations similar to those of U.S. cities. For another, it’s just interesting.

So, check out The Atlantic post for a better look at the issue. For a related post, click here to see how the murder rate in Buenos Aires compares with that of other major world cities.

*Hat tip to E for this post

Axel Kicillof, Argentina’s deputy economy minister, is said to wield considerable sway over President Cristina Kirchner, influencing her thoughts on everything from gasoline prices to trade and housing policy.

But the 41-year-old Keynesian economist is deeply unpopular in Argentina’s oil industry, which he oversees.

Kicillof requires oil and gas companies to submit excruciatingly detailed Microsoft Excel spreadsheets divulging information about sales, costs, investment plans and pricing strategies. Oil executives refer to him privately as “Excel” instead of Axel.

Given the industry assumption that he’s a Marxist – something his colleagues deny – executives also mock his initials and call him as “AK47″ – “because this kid is a lethal weapon; he destroys everything that gets near him,” says one executive.

Industry insiders say Kicillof has lost sway in the government and that Kirchner’s recent, market-friendly decision to more than triple natural gas prices confirms this. Whatever the case, oil executives applauded the move to raise prices, saying it was necessary to spur investment.

Kicillof says any talk of political infighting within the cabinet is nonsense and that he and other government officials work well together and are on the same page. He also says he wants energy companies to make a reasonable profit. So do the energy companies, of course.

The question is: What is a reasonable profit? Making money isn’t easily compatible with the government’s goal of keeping energy cheap. The government wants to keep oil, gas and electricity prices low to help bolster economic growth. Kirchner has decided not to depreciate the peso, which is appreciating in real terms, to make Argentine exports competitive abroad.

As inflation and rising labor costs make doing business here ever more expensive, the government sees low energy prices as one way to help keep some costs down.

Since the government raised the price of newly discovered natural gas late last year, more foreign investors have begun looking at investing in the energy industry. But at this point, most foreign companies are asking for more than Argentina can deliver.

Foreign investors want to be able to charge free-market prices, export oil abroad, send dividends overseas, sign contracts based on foreign legislation and get guarantees of greater government control over labor unions. Some companies would even like congressional legislation protecting them from potential government intervention and expropriation.

Such things are unpopular in the Kirchner administration and it seems unlikely the government will budge a great deal on these requests, making it less likely that investment will pour in soon.

Still, officials realize the country needs to cut its reliance on costly imported fuel and gas and that doing so requires foreign investment. To that degree, it seems likely the government will do more to attract investment.

For that to happen, Excel, as he is known, will have to do more to woo executives.

President Cristina Kirchner toured the famous Cu Chi tunnels while on a state visit to Vietnam over the weekend. The tunnels, used by Viet Cong forces during the Vietnam War, proved to be a nightmare for U.S. soldiers throughout the conflict.

You can read more about the tunnels here. As noted in a Widipedia entry:

"The 75-mile (121 km)-long complex of tunnels at Củ Chi has been preserved by the government of Vietnam,[2] and turned into a war memorial park. The tunnels are a popular tourist attraction, and visitors are invited to crawl around in the safer parts of the tunnel system. Some tunnels have been made larger to accommodate the larger size of Western tourists, while low-power lights have been installed in several of them to make traveling through them easier and booby traps have been clearly marked. Underground conference rooms where campaigns such as the Tết Offensive were planned in 1968 have been restored, and visitors may enjoy a simple meal of food that Viet Cong fighters would have eaten.[3]"