10.24.2005
More Gumping
Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R). Very nice guy, down to earth, not plastic (opposite would be Sen. Brownback from Kansas who, judging from the face time he's gotten during the Miers fiasco, has few human characteristics).
Ehrlich was captain of Princeton's football team in 1978, and has spent his entire career in public service. He addressed the sprint team at the Old Country Buffet (horrendous choice for a pregame meal) before we got shellacked by Navy in Annapolis. It's refreshing to meet a politician who actually can speak to you like a normal person.
I asked him what advice he would give to a Princeton grad who wanted to pursue a career in politics, and he responded, "Go to law school." Yuck. Judging from two of my close friends who are 1Ls, I will steer clear.
148-2
Happy United Nations Day. Not sure exactly what this holiday is all about, but my calendar tells me that it is a US holiday. To ring in the cheer, consider the following: the US and lackey Israel were the only countries to vote against a Unesco convention "on cultural diversity designed to combat the homogenizing effect of cultural globalization."
The plan was put forward by Canada and France, countries that are concerned about losing their national culture. France, for example, wants to create its own internet and block Google, and Canada has restrictions on what percentage of its television programming must feature Canadian actors and musicians. The US argued that the convention represented an effort to block Hollywood movies abroad, which represent 85 percent of ticket sales worldwide.
It's a bit of a conundrum: how do you promote local artists without blocking Hollywood blockbusters which the locals, in most cases, want to see. First of all, I think that Americans should have more foreign films available to them. If you don't live in a major metropolitan area, good luck in finding any foreign or independent films.
For example, I almost pissed myself laughing a few weeks ago at a NY film festival watching "Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story," a British flick. You'll have to see it for yourself, but I am certain that this sort of film would have broad appeal among Americans, but they won't see it simply because it isn't showing in the local multiplex.
However, I don't offer any apologies for Hollywood. The demand is there all over the world, and as horrible as many blockbusters are, I don't think that restricting access to these popcorn movies will accomplish much. I remember being in a remote part of Chile a few years ago where the youngsters, who were all very poor, were eagerly awaiting the release of the second Star Wars movie, which they planned on watching on a bootleg tape at one of the only TVs in the town.
The movie had already been out for months in Chile, and it would eventually make its way to Puerto Saavedra. When you're a kid, whether you're in a peasant village in Thailand or a member of the Latin American elite, you're going to want to see the latest Harry Potter, and multilateral conventions should not prevent this. Let's also continue to use Unesco to increase funding for local artists.
The plan was put forward by Canada and France, countries that are concerned about losing their national culture. France, for example, wants to create its own internet and block Google, and Canada has restrictions on what percentage of its television programming must feature Canadian actors and musicians. The US argued that the convention represented an effort to block Hollywood movies abroad, which represent 85 percent of ticket sales worldwide.
It's a bit of a conundrum: how do you promote local artists without blocking Hollywood blockbusters which the locals, in most cases, want to see. First of all, I think that Americans should have more foreign films available to them. If you don't live in a major metropolitan area, good luck in finding any foreign or independent films.
For example, I almost pissed myself laughing a few weeks ago at a NY film festival watching "Tristam Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story," a British flick. You'll have to see it for yourself, but I am certain that this sort of film would have broad appeal among Americans, but they won't see it simply because it isn't showing in the local multiplex.
However, I don't offer any apologies for Hollywood. The demand is there all over the world, and as horrible as many blockbusters are, I don't think that restricting access to these popcorn movies will accomplish much. I remember being in a remote part of Chile a few years ago where the youngsters, who were all very poor, were eagerly awaiting the release of the second Star Wars movie, which they planned on watching on a bootleg tape at one of the only TVs in the town.
The movie had already been out for months in Chile, and it would eventually make its way to Puerto Saavedra. When you're a kid, whether you're in a peasant village in Thailand or a member of the Latin American elite, you're going to want to see the latest Harry Potter, and multilateral conventions should not prevent this. Let's also continue to use Unesco to increase funding for local artists.
10.23.2005
Gun Ban Rejected
It appears that Brazil has rejected the referendum on banning the sale of guns. I liken the idea to prohibition in the 1920s - counterproductive to the aims of the policy. The roots of the pandemic of gun violence in Brazil are much deeper than the availability of guns in stores. Viva Rio is a wonderful NGO that actually supported the referendum, but I agree with those who argued that driving the gun trade underground would make things more dangerous.
10.20.2005
Uribe in South America
Andres Oppenheimer writes a pretty fascinating column touching on the perception of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe throughout South America. When considering presidents in Latin America, there exist several pertinent issues: one's relationship to the United States, one's approval at home, and to a smaller extent, one's perception in other regional countries.
Uribe scores very high in the first two categories. He has the highest approval rating of any regional president: over 80 percent. It is considered heresay to speak poorly of him in Colombia, in large part because of what a hard worker he is perceived to be. Colombians truly believe that he lives to resolve the decades-long armed conflict, and Uribe has given the impression (which I believe to be true) that he is a tireless worker - 16 hour days, 7 days a week.
Second, he is the closest ally of Bush in the region. Some Colombians view this as a negative, but with almost $1 billion of foreign aid pouring into the country this year for Plan Colombia, this partnership is crucial. While I believe that Plan Colombia is flawed policy, especially the fumigation, I am not anti-military aid. So despite most Colombians' hatred of Bush (common throughout Latin America), they understand that it is a necessary ally in the resolution of the internal conflict. And it becomes all the more strategic when considering the loose cannon next door.
The interesting part of the article, however, is section on poll numbers reflecting the perception of Uribe in other Latin American countries:
Uribe scores very high in the first two categories. He has the highest approval rating of any regional president: over 80 percent. It is considered heresay to speak poorly of him in Colombia, in large part because of what a hard worker he is perceived to be. Colombians truly believe that he lives to resolve the decades-long armed conflict, and Uribe has given the impression (which I believe to be true) that he is a tireless worker - 16 hour days, 7 days a week.
Second, he is the closest ally of Bush in the region. Some Colombians view this as a negative, but with almost $1 billion of foreign aid pouring into the country this year for Plan Colombia, this partnership is crucial. While I believe that Plan Colombia is flawed policy, especially the fumigation, I am not anti-military aid. So despite most Colombians' hatred of Bush (common throughout Latin America), they understand that it is a necessary ally in the resolution of the internal conflict. And it becomes all the more strategic when considering the loose cannon next door.
The interesting part of the article, however, is section on poll numbers reflecting the perception of Uribe in other Latin American countries:
The poll of government officials, business people, journalists and academics in six countries found that Uribe is seen as a model leader by only 2.4 percent of those questioned in Chile, 1.3 percent in Argentina and 1 percent in both Mexico and Brazil. The winner in most of those countries was Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, followed by Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.I certainly can understand why Lagos would be popular, Lula less so in light of recent shenanigans, but these numbers are remarkably miniscule. Uribe's dramatically low standing in these six countries undoubtedly reflects the movement of similar pragmatic left-wing governments - such as Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay - to move towards a regional bloc to counter US hegemony. Throwing in Chavez's oil wealth, this creates an interesting dichotomy between Colombia's symbiotic relationship with the US and the Southern Cone's similar relationship with Venezuela.
10.19.2005
Bush's Inconsistency on Immigration
President Bush needs illegal immigrants, but to win elections, he needs to claim that he is going to strengthen border security. The irony is that increased militarization of the border is counter-productive, much in the same way that fumigation does nothing to stem the production of illegal drugs in the Andean region.
There was an article in the NYTimes today about Bush's seemingly contradictory signing of a $32 million bill to be spent on Border Patrol and his desire to implement a Temporary Worker Program. Under the program, workers can apply for a three year visa and reapply for another three years. Here's the red flag: the applicant must be sponsored by an employer who must prove that it was a "job that no American could be found to take."
How could you prove this? Are employers really going to invest any time or money to search for Americans if they already have illegal immigrants knocking on the door? Then comes the issue of after the six year period is over - I presume that most of the workers won't simply pack up their bags and purchase a one-way Taca to San Salvador.
But the most disturbing/amusing part of this article was Bush's verbatim quote (I assume he was not scripted):
There was an article in the NYTimes today about Bush's seemingly contradictory signing of a $32 million bill to be spent on Border Patrol and his desire to implement a Temporary Worker Program. Under the program, workers can apply for a three year visa and reapply for another three years. Here's the red flag: the applicant must be sponsored by an employer who must prove that it was a "job that no American could be found to take."
How could you prove this? Are employers really going to invest any time or money to search for Americans if they already have illegal immigrants knocking on the door? Then comes the issue of after the six year period is over - I presume that most of the workers won't simply pack up their bags and purchase a one-way Taca to San Salvador.
But the most disturbing/amusing part of this article was Bush's verbatim quote (I assume he was not scripted):
"You see, we got people sneaking into our country to work," he said. "They want to provide for their families. Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River. People are coming to put food on the table. But because there is no legal way for them to do so, through a temporary-worker program, they're putting pressure on our border."He's a parody of himself. I thought he was the first president to understand Spanish...
