More nonsense in DC

Only in DC would congressional softball teams make a federal case about not playing each other because of their political convictions. Unbelievable.

The top spot in a Congressional softball league belongs to drug reform advocates who are "busting the stoners-as-slackers stereotype," Roll Call reports.

The "One Hitters," took over the No. 1 spot in the Congressional Softball League last week, and the team fielded by Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and NORML holds a 13-3 record in the league comprised of lobbyists, Capitol Hill aides and interest group employees.

"Kris Krane, executive director of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and the softball team’s captain, chalks up its success to the five years the team has been playing together — and a little extra motivation that comes from trying to dispel the myth that folks who want marijuana legalized are all munchie-craving, lava-lamp-gazing losers," reports Roll Call's Heard on the Hill gossip column.

This is the One Hitters' fifth year in the intramural softball league, and the team previously made headlines when the Office of National Drug Control Policy refused to face them on the field two years ago.

“Everyone knows that ONDCP backed out because they were scared of losing to us on the field, much the same way they are afraid to debate us because their policies fail in the court of public opinion,” said center fielder David Guard, who is associate director of the Drug Reform Coordination Network. “We have an open challenge to the Drug Czar to play or debate anytime, anywhere.”

The team's next game is Tuesday against the "No Talent AZ Clowns," whose players come from the offices of Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl.

I went out to lunch with two of my friends, and we were discussing this, and the sheer ridiculousness of it all. To be honest, I want to know who the punk was who narc'd to the powers that be in the ONDCP. I bet he or she feels like kind of an idiot now. Like our country's drug policy or not, one of the beautiful things about the US is the right to disagree, and subsequently lobby for reform. If two parties don't agree on something, that's ok; but do us all a favor and figure it out anywhere but on the softball field of a beer league.

Editorial sobre Bolivia

Me lo mandó este artículo esta mañana un amigo mío boliviano. Salió en el diario español El País. Leerse todos los comentarios.

Pucha, se me olvidó...ayer fue el día de independencia de Bolivia. Felicidades a todos mis amigos bolivianos!

Castro's health

This morning on my way to the metro, I was rocking out to my ipod, making myself look like a complete moron, per usual, and one of my favorite clips came on. Not a song, but a radio clip from late 2002, where Miami DJs Enrique Santos and Joe Ferrero called Miraflores and tricked Chávez into thinking that they were calling from La Habana. Ironically enough, a few songs later, the clip where the same DJs did the same thing to Fidel came on. (If you're terribly curious, here are the transcripts in Spanish.) Suffice it to say, I was really fun on the metro all the way from Alexandria this morning...

Comments from the island...

Source: Pablo Bachelet, The Miami Herald

Vague comments made about Fidel Castro's health

Two Cuban officials have made intriguing statements in recent days that raise questions about Fidel Castro's health.

Castro handed power to his brother Raúl last summer following emergency surgery. He has written several newspaper columns in recent weeks and is reported to be recuperating, but has not been seen in public in more than a year.

Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage raised eyebrows Sunday when he telephoned Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's live talk program, Aló Presidente, apparently to fill in for Castro.

“The comandante saw the dawn today working, working intensely like all these days, calling various compañeros on different issues.

“And when Aló Presidente started he interrupted the work to dedicate himself to watching.

“I can tell you that he's watching it, that he has been watching all your reflections, informations and analysis. . . . Fidel is focusing on the program. He doesn't miss a minute, he doesn't miss one detail. And he called me in a hurry to tell me to call you.”

“I am grateful for your call,” Chávez replied. “We had been expecting to talk to Fidel. It can't be done today, it will be possible on another occasion.”

Lage did not explain why Fidel Castro could not call Chávez, despite his reported interest in the program.

A story Friday by the Spanish EFE news agency attributed another comment to Raúl Castro's daughter Mariela, who heads Cuba's National Sexual Education Center and has sometimes acted as a Castro family spokeswoman on her uncle's health status.

The EFE story said: “One year after Fidel Castro, who on the 13th will be 81 years old, delegated power to his brother Raúl, 76, because of a grave intestinal ailment, Mariela Castro acknowledges: ‘The concern that we all had about losing our leader is now closer to us.’”

It was not clear if “now closer” referred broadly to the year since Fidel Castro took ill or a more recent period.

Mariela Castro also was quoted as making an interesting comment on Cuba's power succession:

“For the first time, the people are taking stock of his [Fidel's] process of aging, the process that the revolution has to continue without him, be it with my father or with other leaders who will come, who will emerge, because at times leaders appear when you least imagine it,” she said.

Too little too late?

Yeah, definitely for Bush. But Latin America should not stay on the back burner after he leaves office in 2009. Give the guy a bit of credit for engaging NGOs from the region.

Opina Villalobos

Hace dos meses que me lo mandó este artículo una amiga peruana. Si puede, eche un vistazo. Salió el 1 de junio, en El País de Madrid, inmediatamente tras el cierre de RCTV.

TRIBUNA: JOAQUÍN VILLALOBOS
Chávez quiere comprarse una revolución
JOAQUÍN VILLALOBOS 01/06/2007

Normalmente los padres suelen reprender a sus hijos prohibiéndoles ver la televisión, sin embargo los cubanos, cuando sus hijos se portan mal, los amenazan con obligarlos a ver la televisión estatal. Chávez ha cometido un grave error al cerrar un canal opositor que llevaba medio siglo al aire.

Guste o no, esto no fue un ataque al poder mediático capitalista sino un golpe a la identidad cultural venezolana que tendrá severas implicaciones sobre su Gobierno. Pretender sustituir las telenovelas y el entretenimiento de los pobres por una patética programación "revolucionaria" es tan grave como dejarlos sin comida.

El punto de partida de éste y otros desaciertos de Chávez es creer que él ha hecho una revolución, cuando simplemente ganó unas elecciones, y esto no ocurrió por aciertos propios sino por los errores y soberbia de una oposición que tiene muchas joyas y poco pueblo. Ésta le ayudó a hacerse de una mayoría electoral que le permitió controlar instituciones y cambiar algunas reglas, pero no le da la correlación suficiente para imponer un viraje ideológico drástico como el que está pretendiendo.

En Venezuela no ha habido ruptura revolucionaria como sí la hubo en Cuba y Nicaragua, donde la democracia no tenía antecedentes. En Cuba el cambio fue violento y total, todas las instituciones se refundaron y hasta la fecha no hay ni oposición, ni elecciones, ni libertad de prensa, ni propiedad privada. En Nicaragua el cambio fue igualmente violento, pero aunque maltratadas sobrevivieron la libertad de prensa, la propiedad privada, las elecciones y la oposición. Venezuela podrá tener una crisis de polarización extrema o un periodo prolongado de agitación social, pero no una revolución. Cuando eso ocurre la violencia política toma preeminencia primero como rebelión y luego como contrarrevolución. En Venezuela, hasta la fecha, la violencia política sigue siendo más verbal que real.

Cuarenta años de alternancias pacíficas construyeron una cultura democrática en los venezolanos que hasta ahora ha mantenido admirablemente bloqueada la violencia política. En Venezuela hay una legalidad muy debilitada, pero hay una legalidad. El error del golpe de la oposición en el año 2002 fue precisamente no dar importancia a esto. Derrumbar gobiernos no es fácil y tampoco lo es modificar radicalmente y en frío los pilares de un sistema preexistente. Una ruptura revolucionaria crea una situación de gran exaltación social que, para bien o para mal, abre espacios para cambiar muchas cosas, incluso temas ideológicos o culturales muy sensibles en una sociedad; sin embargo, éstos son los más difíciles de modificar.

Las revoluciones anticapitalistas emergieron más de las dictaduras que de la pobreza. En Venezuela no había dictadura y la pobreza no fue importante en el ascenso de Chávez, aunque ahora lo sea en su defensa. Toda revolución es austera y esto no lo conocen los venezolanos ni de derecha ni de izquierda. Venezuela no es un país capitalista industrial e industrioso, sino rentista y consumista. Chávez está fortaleciendo el rol económico del Estado, redistribuyendo la renta petrolera y formando nuevas élites económicas vía populismo, oportunidades de negocios y corrupción. Todo esto ni es nuevo, ni es revolución, ni es socialismo.

Chávez no tiene un partido revolucionario sino una estructura política fragmentada, compuesta por una mezcla ideológica diversa. A su derecha están los militares, a su izquierda unos intelectuales y hacia abajo una base multicolor. Convertir todo esto en un partido implica enfrentarse con muchos dirigentes acostumbrados a disentir. El chavismo ha hecho algo positivo al dar poder e identidad a miles de venezolanos que estaban excluidos, pero su estructura política no está cohesionada ni por la ideología ni por la historia, sino por la renta petrolera. Chávez tampoco tiene un ejército revolucionario, al contrario, el Ejército le ha derrotado dos veces (1992 y 2002). La complicidad actual del Ejército depende de compras de armamento que no son preparación combativa sino corrupción lucrativa, y son precisamente esos privilegios los que cierran el camino a las ideas revolucionarias. El Ejército de Venezuela ni matará ni morirá por Chávez.

Fidel Castro sobrevivió a incontables atentados, Ortega dirigió una insurrección triunfante y Evo Morales saltó de las barricadas a la presidencia. Chávez, por el contrario, vende petróleo a los americanos, en dos ocasiones se ha rendido sin combatir y duerme con un ejército enemigo.

Esto lo empuja a realizar provocaciones que le permitan obtener una credencial revolucionaria, por lo menos con un insulto de Bush. Los ataques lo fortalecen y la tolerancia lo debilita. Urge de enemigos externos que le ayuden a ocultar la corrupción de sus funcionarios, la incompetencia de su Gobierno, la división en sus filas y la inseguridad en las calles de su país. Con el cierre de Radio Caracas Televisión, Chávez revierte en su contra el proceso de acumulación de fuerzas y revitaliza a una oposición que estaba desmoralizada. Quizá Chávez pueda hacer más cambios en Venezuela, pero nunca podrá eliminar las elecciones, y en éstas no existen ni mayorías inamovibles, ni alianzas eternas, ni fraudes insuperables. El dinero del petróleo puede servirle a Chávez para hacer muchas cosas, pero jamás para comprarse una revolución.


© Diario EL PAÍS S.L. - Miguel Yuste 40 - 28037 Madrid [España] - Tel. 91
337 8200

© Prisacom S.A. - Ribera del Sena, S/N - Edificio APOT - Madrid
Tel. 91 353 7900 [España] -

Villalobos es ex-guerrillero del FMLN (El Salvador). Ahora es analista; era profesor en la Universidad Cambridge en el Reino Unido.

The UK and Latin America

All too often, I hear about what the US is doing in Latin America, whether it be positive or negative. Perhaps that's because I live in the US and work in Latin American development. However, it's always good to know what other nations --particularly our allies-- think about the topic as well as what is being done on their end.

From our friends on the other side of the pond: Latin America to 2020, a UK Public Strategy Paper. It is a short paper, only 21 pages, so you have no excuse to not read it.

While I don't agree with everything 100%, particularly its qualification of all Latin American nations as democracies save Cuba, I think it outlines a precise, yet flexible strategy to engaging Latin America.

Attacks on Press Freedom

Ok, so this is an old article from the Committee to Protect Journalists documenting this topic throughout 2006, but I feel that it is one worth reposting. I have been cleaning out my work inbox because I'm apparently way over the size limit, and I found this. While this page covers only the Americas, if you're interested, click the links on the top right of this screen for other world regions.

ANALYSIS:
Leftists lean on the Latin American media
By Carlos Lauría
Latin America’s new leftist leaders may try to portray themselves as good news for the press, using the rhetoric of liberal democracy. But political and media analysts say these recently installed left-wing administrations are deeply rooted in the region’s longstanding culture of authoritarianism.

Independent journalists had hoped that the new breed of populist political leaders that emerged over the past six years would herald greater press freedom. Many ordinary people in Latin America had become disenchanted with traditional politics after the failure in the 1990s of free-market policies, promoted by the United States and the International Monetary Fund, to deliver improved living standards. In Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, citizens elected reformist presidents who are redefining domestic and foreign policy.

The new leaders, some of whom are stridently anti-American, are a mixed bag of leftists, populists, social democrats, and liberal progressives. Yet they share one thing: intolerance of a critical press. Independent journalists have found themselves labeled enemies of the people in Venezuela, and they have been denied access to official news and events in Argentina. This has not prevented the media from unearthing facts that governments would prefer to keep buried, but it has made for a bruising relationship between presidents and the press.

“A number of leaders in Latin America consider the media to be powers that are dangerous for democracy, but they forget that the press is a form of popular representation for citizens,” said Fernando Ruiz, a professor of journalism and democracy at Austral University in Argentina.

For their part, leftist leaders point to the concentration of media ownership in the region and contend that transnational conglomerates skew coverage in favor of business or other special interest groups. In the past 15 years, in fact, some large corporations have consolidated control, particularly in broadcasting. These include Grupo Cisneros in Venezuela, Televisa in Mexico, Globo in Brazil, and Grupo Clarín in Argentina.

In other Latin American countries, media outlets are often controlled by a small number of family-owned companies, some of them tied to political parties or corporations. An example is the Bolivian television station Unitel, based in Santa Cruz, the center of Bolivia’s conservative opposition. Unitel’s owners also have interests in banking and agriculture, and they enjoy close ties with opposition political parties.

Bolivia and Venezuela provide the starkest examples of confrontation between leftists and the press. Presidents Hugo Chávez Frías in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia have railed against the private media, accusing them of aligning with antigovernment forces. Some media proprietors in Bolivia and Venezuela have indeed dropped the pretense of objectivity to assume the mantle of the opposition. The day after Morales took office, news shows on Unitel described inauguration celebrations in terms that Morales supporters found discriminatory. Remarks such as, “in Congress, Aymara is the only language,” and “booze during the celebrations at Evo’s house” were used on the air. By adopting opposition rhetoric, media outlets became easier targets for intolerant leaders.

“In some Latin American countries there is a highly negative situation,” said Eduardo Ulibarri, a former Costa Rican newspaper editor who is the president of the press freedom group Instituto de Prensa y Libertad de Expresión. “Alleged independent media are putting narrow interests above basic professional and ethical standards, while supposed democratic governments are manipulating freedom of expression through all sorts of pressures, both open and subtle.”

Chávez and Morales have taken the frontal approach. Having survived a coup attempt, crippling strikes, and a recall effort since taking office in 1998, Chávez consolidated power with his re-election on December 3. He has introduced legislation to counter his opponents and silence his critics in the press. Changes in the penal code, introduced in 2005, and provisions of the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television contain vaguely worded restrictions that severely limit freedom of expression. One provision of the social responsibility law, for example, forbids “graphic descriptions or images of real violence” on the air from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m., except when the broadcast is live and the content is either “indispensable” or emerges unexpectedly.

Morales, an Aymara Indian and former coca farmer, has borrowed from Chávez’s script. “The number one enemies of Evo Morales are the majority of the media,” he said in September, a day after his government published a list of Bolivia’s most hostile media outlets. The list provided names and affiliations of hard-line opponents in television, radio, and newspapers. Morales claimed the media were biased against his administration and participated in an “anti-Evo campaign.”

Instead of demonizing the media Chávez-style as “coup plotters” and “fascists,” Argentine President Néstor Kirchner and Uruguayan President Tabaré Ramón Vázquez Rosas refer to the press as the “unelected political opposition.” Journalists in Argentina and Uruguay, in turn, accuse their governments of deliberately blurring the lines between opposition and critical press.

One Argentine analyst finds a basis in both views. “There is nothing wrong with a media outlet having a position of empathy or opposition toward a government, but it is wrong to adjust the reality of the information to a certain ideological profile. And that is what’s happening today in Argentina,” Nelson Castro, a renowned broadcast journalist and ombudsman for the weekly Perfil, said in an interview.

Government tolerance of criticism has worn thin. Kirchner’s administration has orchestrated state advertising, a vital source of revenue for all of the country’s media, in ways that punish critical news outlets and reward supportive ones. Argentine leaders who feel targeted by critical journalists block access to official sources and events; politicians angered by news stories make hostile calls to reporters and editors.

“Sometimes Chávez, Kirchner, and Morales want to eradicate critics,” said Ruiz, the Argentine professor. “In order to build consensus, these leaders use strong state media at the service of their governments, and they control private media that support their policies by funneling official advertising. It is an attempt to strangle the critics. This represents a step backward in terms of democratic quality in the region.”

In Brazil, scandals at all levels of government haunted President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known popularly as Lula, and strained his relationship with the press. The print media in particular harshly criticized Lula’s failure to respond to allegations of corruption. Lula declined to give any interviews, alleging that press reports were excessive and unproven. After Lula won re-election on October 29, some officials in his Workers’ Party affirmed their commitment to press freedom in an attempt to ease tensions with the print media. But during victory celebrations in São Paulo, signs along the major artery Paulista Avenue read, “The people defeated the media.” In Brasília, Workers’ Party militants shoved and insulted journalists covering a victory party.

The landscape is not yet clear in Nicaragua and Ecuador—both of which elected left-leaning leaders in November—but some conflict emerged during the campaigns.

The press divided along party lines in Nicaragua’s presidential race, won by Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. Ortega enjoyed the support of a few media outlets, but the influential Managua-based daily La Prensa and other news outlets favored conservative challenger Eduardo Montealegre. The newspaper ran columns and commentaries by U.S. officials, including the U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua, Paul A. Trivelli, that criticized Ortega and the Sandinista party. Ecuadorian Rafael Correa, the self-described Christian leftist who won a presidential runoff, had a contentious relationship with the press during his campaign, asserting that reporters were uninformed and needed to be enlightened.

In polarized situations, some leftist leaders have used state-owned media to further their political agendas, journalists across the region said. This is often in violation of the law, many contend, since state media were created to serve the public, not the interests of a particular administration.

In Bolivia, Morales was blunt in saying that state radio and television were the weapons of his government in thwarting what he saw as private media distortions. In Argentina, officials cancelled two independent shows on public broadcast stations, then failed to respond to allegations of government censorship and editorial interference.

Critical journalists said that Chávez frequently relied on state media during the 2006 campaign; his simultaneous, nationwide radio and television broadcasts sought to overshadow private news coverage. The Venezuelan government owns three television stations: Telesur, Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), and ViVe. Launched in July 2005, Telesur is a 24-hour Spanish-language satellite station controlled by Venezuela (the state owns 51 percent) and financed by the governments of Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, and Cuba. Chávez promoted Telesur as an alternative to U.S. networks such as CNN and Fox News; the station’s president, Andrés Izarra, said that the Latin American network was “looking for greater diversity and deeper views on subjects.” Telesur General Director Aram Aharonian went further, proclaiming in an interview, “It is the first time in Latin America that the state has returned to projects that serve the citizenry.” But critics say Telesur should really be called “TeleChávez,” as the government funnels public funds to finance a network that is bound to give leftist leaders supportive coverage.

Using resources from his nation’s oil profits, Chávez is exerting regional influence as well. Venezuela will finance a network of dozens of community radio stations across Bolivia, Morales said in September. The Bolivian leader also revealed plans to launch in 2007 his own version of Chávez’s weekly radio show, “Aló Presidente,” during which the president answers listeners’ questions.

Leftist leaders’ intolerance of criticism in the media stems from a culture of authoritarianism that, whether masked or submerged, is still alive in many Latin American democracies that were ruled by military regimes not so long ago, analysts said. This helps explain why one of the only conservative leaders still popular in the region, Colombian President Àlvaro Uribe Vélez, reacts in a similar way. Uribe, who won re-election by a landslide in March, has frequently attacked the independent media and, at times, treated critics as traitors. “Dishonest” and “harmful” to national interests Uribe labeled one recent report about his country’s intelligence service. It’s not so different, as it turns out, from the “enemies” that leftist leaders find in Bolivia and elsewhere.

Penn continues to travel through Venezuela

So, this is a pretty interesting article. Fausta makes a very interesting commentary on it, so I won't steal her thunder; I'll leave the analyses to the seasoned vets of the blogosphere. Me? I am a 22-year-old kid who somehow managed to get a job in DC. That said, I would be remiss not to mention my favorite section from the article:

"At a speech in Pueblo Encima, before hundreds of followers clad, like Mr. Chávez and much of his entourage, in the red of his political party, a cold mountain rain caused the entourage from tropical Caracas to shiver as Mr. Chávez broke into song in praise of dairy cows."

What? I mean, what?! Listen, I think anyone who follows Latin American politics at all is aware that Chávez is slightly "off his rocker," as it were. I mean, a man who goes in front of the UN GA and calls the leader of the free world the Devil...there's something not quite right about that. So here I am, sitting in my lovely (read: cluttered) cubicle yesterday reading this article, somewhat surprised that I wasn't reading yet another article by someone in the MSM talking about how wonderful Chávez is, noting the spectacular things he's doing for the Venezuelan people, and then I came to that sentence. Pardon the immaturity, but I literally burst out laughing at the thought of Chávez singing about dairy cows. For those of you who know me (hi, orphans!), you know that my imagination can run a bit wild from time to time, particularly when I am really bored or antsy. Since trying to decipher Bolivian English just doesn't get my heart pumping, this time Monday was one of those times in which I went on auto-pilot and my brain went in a completely different direction. If I remember correctly, my train of thought --if it even deserves to be qualified as such-- lead me to imagine Chávez not in his typical shirt and boina, but rather in the garb of a ballerina, prancing around, paying homage to said dairy cows. Seriously, don't ask; I don't know where that came from, either.

In all seriousness, this article highlights some interesting points. 1) Chávez is still his paranoid self, evidenced by the opening paragraphs. 2) Sean Penn, to my knowledge, has yet to comment on this. Breitbart opines here. 3) Several other non-Venezuelans who have traveled to Venezuela are of the extreme Left; let's be frank, those aren't the people who need convincing of what Chávez is doing. a) Chávez, as the personal tour guide, is only going to take them to the successful (relatively speaking) parts of the country; b) no matter how bad it looks, my guess is that the rhetoric will be colored with something to the effect of: "but we have taken back from the imperialist oligarchs and given things to real Venezuelans which they could never have had in the cuarta (referring to the fourth Republic). If Chávez really wants to show the world how functional his dizque Bolivarian Revolution is, I would suggest that he do one of two things: either let these guests go and talk with people (without them having been prepped) from all socio-economic strati, not just those of the poor/recipients of the works of the misiones, or bring people who are opponents of his Revolution go and see what is going on without PNG-ing them prior to them ever having set foot on Venezuelan soil -- don't tell me that's not true, it happened to a personal friend of mine. Do I think either of these things will happen? No, not at all; Chávez, much to my dismay, is not stupid. Thus, he won't let people who would take away credibility from his revolutionary spending spree report what they feel is really going on. And seriously, if this were to ever happen, I'm sure we would all hear that they were CIA spies from the Empire who were merely snooping around trying to steal Venezuelan state secrets and look for the best area for US troops to invade... Give me a break. 4) Chaperoned by the president of Telesur? Well well, seems like both Chávez and Penn will be getting some pretty good PR for this trip. 5) Penn urinated in public in Venezuela. I don't care if you love him or hate him, that not only is gross, it is completely disrespectful. Qué niche...

Not going to lie, can't wait for the Institute of War and Peace Reporting to publish this article. I'm sure at the very least it'll provide me with at least an hour of amusement.

Source: Simon Romero, The NY Times

Chávez Takes 'Crazy Battalion' of Supporters on the Road

LA FRIA, Venezuela, Aug. 3 — "Surely they will take photos of us by satellite," said President Hugo Chávez, referring to intelligence agencies from the United States, as his Airbus touched down Friday in this Andean city with the actor Sean Penn, a clutch of cabinet ministers and visiting dignitaries from half a dozen countries in tow.

"They'll say, 'There goes Chávez with a crazy battalion containing Africans, Canadians, Cubans,' " the president continued as he broke into a meandering riff on political relations between the United States and Venezuela. "Even gringos!"

Mr. Penn's visit to write about Mr. Chávez follows others by Hollywood luminaries like Danny Glover, public intellectuals like Tariq Ali and film directors like Argentina's Fernando Solanas, all of whom have recently traveled to this country to take in the transformation of Venezuelan society that Mr. Chávez calls a "Bolivarian revolution."

But rarely has the reception of foreign actors and writers been as warm as it was this week for Mr. Penn, whom Mr. Chávez, perhaps smarting from international condemnation over his government's treatment of critics in the local news media, hailed as "valiant" for his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq and other policies of the Bush administration.

After sending Mr. Penn on guided tours of Villa del Cine, the state movie studio near Caracas created to weaken Hollywood's grip on the film industry, and the Afro-Venezuelan city of Barlovento, the president dined privately with the actor on Thursday before whisking him away Friday for a jaunt into western Venezuela.

What followed, for a handful of journalists given the rare opportunity of accompanying Mr. Chávez on such a trip, was a glimpse into his government's use of imagery and pomp to court public opinion both at home and abroad.

During the flight, Mr. Chávez regaled Mr. Penn with lectures on Venezuelan history and tales of his own past as a soldier, between talking politics with other travelers on the spacious Airbus with leather seats.

The border region in Táchira State where the plane landed, Mr. Chávez warned, "was very close to where the C.I.A. is," a not-so-subtle dig at the close political relationship between Colombia's government and the Bush administration.

As for the United States, Mr. Chávez predicted that widening budget and trade deficits portend a financial crisis that could cause it to "explode from within."

"There could be a revolution in the United States ," Mr. Chávez said. "We'll help them."

Mr. Penn took in most of Mr. Chávez's comments with a warm smile, some nods and few intelligible utterances. "He's a quiet man," Mr. Chávez reassured other passengers, gesturing to Mr. Penn. "But he has fire within him."

Mr. Chávez, it can be guaranteed, likes to be in the driver's seat in such forays — literally. On the tarmac of the airport in La Fria, he climbed behind the wheel of a Tiuna, a Humvee-esque military vehicle assembled in Venezuela, put Mr. Penn in the back seat and proceeded to drive through picturesque Andean villages.

A trip that normally takes 90 minutes to Pueblo Encima, a small farming community where Mr. Chávez was scheduled to celebrate the opening of a fertilizer facility and the arrival of dairy cows from Argentina and Uruguay, took more than four hours as the president stopped the Tiuna dozens of times to greet supporters on the side of the road.

A truck carrying journalists traveled in front, lurching ahead as desperate news cameramen and photographers yelled at the driver to start or stop. At times they cheered, as when they got shots of Mr. Penn urinating on the side of the road.

Chaperoned by Andrés Izarra, the president of Telesur, the regional news network backed by Venezuela's government, Mr. Penn looked somewhat pained when asked about his impressions of the country.

In a brief interview at one of the motorcade's many stops, Mr. Penn declined to discuss any similarities that might exist between the president in the driver's seat of the Tiuna and the Southern populist, loosely based on Louisiana governor Huey Long, that Mr. Penn played in the recent film adaptation of Robert Penn Warren's "All the King's Men."

Instead, Mr. Penn produced a business card from the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, which he said he was representing during his Venezuela trip.

"I'm going to write about this experience, so I'm a little hesitant to talk about it," Mr. Penn said, dressed in a T-shirt and wearing dark aviator sunglasses. (Mr. Penn has written similar dispatches following trips to countries like Iran and Iraq.) "It's been extraordinary so far."

Then, with the same quiet intensity Mr. Chávez had referred to earlier, the actor proceeded to try to find someone with a match for a Marlboro Light.

Undaunted by criticism from some Venezuelan actors and directors who deride the warm ties between some of their foreign counterparts and Mr. Chávez, the president hailed Mr. Penn's presence at each stop of the trip.

At a speech in Pueblo Encima, before hundreds of followers clad, like Mr. Chávez and much of his entourage, in the red of his political party, a cold mountain rain caused the entourage from tropical Caracas to shiver as Mr. Chávez broke into song in praise of dairy cows.

He celebrated Venezuela's alliance with Cuba in the presence of Ricardo Alarcón, the president of Cuba's National Assembly. He welcomed dignitaries from Burkina Faso, Canada and Belgium who spoke in favor of his policies.

And with the acumen of a politician who knows how to celebrate friends where he can find them, Mr. Chávez switched into English with a few words for Mr. Penn: "Thank you, thank you, thank you."

Nicaragua and Iran - A budding friendship made in the land of megalomaniacs

First of all, apologies for not writing last night. I had to take the boys grocery shopping --again-- since apparently all the food we bought on Sunday clearly wasn't enough to last for the 24-hour period. I love these two more than life, but as my dad's mom is rumored to have said to my mother at my parents' wedding many moons ago, "He's your grocery bill now."

Allright, so some articles on this new relationship which --shock!-- isn't getting a ton of press here in the US.

From the BBC, Iran and Nicaragua in barter deal
Iran is to help Nicaragua develop its infrastructure in return for farm products, according to a trade deal between the two countries.

Under the agreement, Iran will help develop a port and build houses and industrial sites.

In return, Nicaragua will export coffee, meat and bananas to Iran.

The two countries, which have strained relations with the US, have improved ties since Daniel Ortega became Nicaraguan President in January 2007.

Under the accords, Iran will fund a farm equipment assembly plant, four hydroelectric plants, five milk-processing plants, a health clinic, the building of 10,000 houses, and two piers in the western port of Corinto, government spokeswoman Rosario Murillo said.

Relations between the two countries have become close, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Managua in January and President Ortega returning the visit to Tehran in June.

But the US has warned Nicaragua that closer ties with Iran could harm its relation with Washington.

The US is worried about Iran's nuclear programme, and is also suspicious of President Ortega, who it bitterly opposed while he was in power from 1979 to 1990.

Stateside, this is the only article I've seen:

Source: Reuters, The NY Times

Iran Offers Aid to Nicaragua, in a Sign of Deepening Ties

MANAGUA, Nicaragua, Aug. 5 — Iran has promised to help finance a new $350 million ocean port and build 10,000 houses for the leftist Nicaraguan government, in a deepening of ties between the governments that has raised concern in the Bush administration.

Iran has also pledged to choose in November a site for a $120 million hydroelectric project, to help Nicaragua overcome a power crisis, which has confronted Nicaraguans with blackouts nearly every day.

The Iranian aid projects were announced Saturday by the Nicaraguan president, Daniel Ortega.

Despite American warnings, Mr. Ortega has been building alliances with countries like Venezuela and Iran, which the Bush administration considers unfriendly and which are flush with cash from high oil prices. Both are eager to build close alliances in Latin America.

The deep-water port on the Caribbean coast would be a first for Nicaragua. Venezuela would also provide money for it, Mr. Ortega told reporters.

"We will work to combine Iranian investment with other friendly countries," Mr. Ortega said. "Venezuela would be ready and willing to take part in an effort like this."

The United States Embassy in Managua had no immediate comment on the Nicaragua-Iran agreements. American officials have said Iran could be a "problematic" partner for Nicaragua.

Mr. Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla who won power for a second time in January, is eager for help to end blackouts that have been hurting his popularity.

He met here on Wednesday with Iran's deputy energy minister, Hamid Chitchian, to try to convince Iran to help build several hydroelectric plants in Nicaragua to help end the power crisis. Iran has committed to just one plant for now.

In return, Nicaragua hopes to increase its farm exports to Iran, mainly coffee, meat and bananas.

The Iranian visit followed Mr. Ortega's trip to Tehran in June and a visit to Managua in January by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Mr. Ortega also said that he had also sought Brazil's aid to end the energy crisis. Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva, will visit Nicaragua in the near future.

This should not be news to anyone, as during Ahmadinejad's tour in January 2007, immediately following Ortega's inauguration, he promised to grow closer to Nica.

Much as I am a huge fan of the MSM, being the paragon of objectivity that they are, I got word from a friend of mine down in Nica, who offered a great deal of insight to this pending situation.
-Nicaragua does not have the space to build four hydroelectric plants. The best place to build would be the Rio San Juan, which is now in litigation in the Hague, ownership being disputed by Costa Rica. The Costa Ricans have been buying up the land on both sides of the river---smart move, which will facilitate take over---so no hydroelectric plant there.

The only other place is Copalar, a huge piece of land that was given to the Contras by Bolaños (former Nicaraguan president). Those Contras have said they will not move. I do not know who would force them, because any request to take that land would mean going throught the Asamblea. There is an area near Matagalpa, but it would take more than 6-8 years to build there, because the area is lacking infrastructure.

-Also any deals or pactos with Iran has to be approved by the Asamblea before it can be done.

-News brief of that meeting between Ortega and Rosario with the Iranian delegation: No one from Ortega's government was there, only Rosario and Ortega. She has effectively isolated him.

Where were the cabinet ministers of Ortega who needed to hear this discussion with the Iranians? Where were the right arms of Ortega, like Cerna, Marenco, Arce or the Vice President? We do not see them anymore. Rosario has effectively eliminated them from the inner circle. I think that Rosario is eliminating anyone from the FSLN who shows ability to do things.

-As for that oil refinery that is under construction near León, no one has done an environmental impact study, and to build without a plan in earthquake prone areas is crazy. What will the impact be when--not if--the oil leaks into the water table?

Who is the one paying for these projects? Who else...Hugo Chávez.

Latin America News Round-up

Allright, so there are a few articles from today which I'll comment on later -- despite my busy schedule entertaining my houseguests, Pepe and Greg, these ones are too good to not write on. (Just to whet your appetites, Chávez broke into song praising dairy cows -- yes, this one will be good. If I have a crappy afternoon at work, I'll be especially punchy, in which case, my musings will be snarkier than usual.) For the time being, here are some articles worth a read.

Source: Mary Anastaia O’Grady, The WSJ

The Real Uribe Record

Congressional Democrats out to quash the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement argue that the terror-torn South American country doesn't adequately protect human rights and thus doesn't deserve FTA status. In the Democrats' book, the way to make Colombia more just is to deny it the chance to deepen its commercial relations with the U.S.

This is curious thinking, and all the more so coming from a party that also argues that the U.S. ought to lift its trade embargo on the Cuban dictatorship as a way to help the Cuban people. Given Cuba's dismal track record on human rights and the hard work Colombia has done over the past six years to defend human life, it is hard to square that circle.

Classical liberals might argue that open trade with all countries is an individual right. Human-rights advocates might counter that doing business with a dictatorship props up the tyrant. Isolationists may want to cut everyone off. But it is hard to understand just what rational belief system could support expanding commercial exchanges with a dictator while denying deeper trade relations to a democracy, especially one that has shed so much blood for America's war on drugs.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy is one of many in the Democratic Party who seem conflicted on this subject. Mr. Leahy says he hasn't decided how he will vote on the U.S.-Colombia FTA. But just last month, in a letter published in this newspaper, he accused me of viewing "the assassinations of hundreds of trade unionists" in Colombia as "irrelevant" because I am in favor of boosting trade as a way to consolidate democratic capitalism and increase economic opportunities for all Colombians. I'm still trying to figure out the connection.

Funny enough, Mr. Leahy, like many of his colleagues -- including New York Rep. Charles Rangel in the House -- has no such qualms about trade with the despotic regime in Havana. The senator has said that the U.S. should seek engagement with Cuba by "lifting the embargo" and increasing "contact between Americans and Cubans -- in other words, we should be tearing down the barriers between our countries not building them ever higher."

The Cuba Mr. Leahy wants to get closer to isn't simply accused of failing to prosecute human-rights violators, as is the case of Colombia. It is a human-rights violator. It is regrettable that the senator apparently believes that the murder of thousands of Cubans, the torture and imprisonment of tens of thousands of others, the exile of millions and the denial of all human rights, including the right to organize unions, is irrelevant.

Quite apart from this glaring contradiction, there is also the matter of whether Colombia is even guilty, as Democrats have suggested, of ignoring or being complicit in the murders of Colombian trade unionists. A serious look at the record suggests that left-wing propaganda is trumping the facts in the Democrats' war room. If the party's leadership sustains this view, the outcome will not only harm Colombia but will badly damage U.S. interests in the region.

You wouldn't know it from all the grandstanding by Democrats, but the Colombian government has been very open about the persistence of violence in the country. President Álvaro Uribe talks often and candidly about the issue, as he did in a speech in New York on July 22, and he doesn't sugarcoat the tragedy.

"They still assassinate 17,000 Colombians a year. We would like to show a greater reduction but they used to kill 35,000. Not one town has been destroyed in Colombia this year. In the year before my administration, terrorist groups destroyed 84 towns in Colombia. Our freedom was threatened by terrorism. There were years when they killed 15 journalists. This year they have not assassinated one. We had years when they kidnapped more than 3,000 Colombians. This year they have kidnapped 107. We'd like not to have a single kidnapping. We're gaining on kidnapping but still we have not been able to defeat it."

Unionists have certainly benefited from the improved security. There were years when more than 250 of them were killed, the president said in New York, but recently far fewer have died. In 2006, he said, the violence intensified and the number went up to 60 from 25 in 2005. This year only four trade unionists have been killed and the Justice Ministry says that preliminary investigations indicate that their deaths were not linked to union activism. The government is also investigating the murders of 12 teachers-union members.

In Colombia, unionists are killed much for the same reasons peasants are murdered. They are caught in the crossfire between paramilitaries and guerrillas. As Mr. Uribe explained in his New York speech, "paramilitaries kill unionists, accusing them of collaboration with the guerrillas and guerrillas kill unionists, accusing them of collaboration with the paramilitaries." Now even the two main guerrilla groups, in certain regions of the country, are battling one another. "The [rebel group] ELN kills a unionist because they say he's a friend of the [rebel group] FARC and the FARC kills another because they say he's a friend of the ELN."

Still, homicides of unionists are down by two-thirds since Mr. Uribe took office and the government is bending over backward to protect union members. A special protection program for vulnerable individuals, which allows anyone who feels threatened to appeal for special help, now covers more than 5,000 individuals. According to the government, 1,500 of them are unionists. Last year it spent $24 million protecting union leaders and their families, it says. The attorney general's office has established a special program to investigate human-rights violations against union members. As to unsolved murders, the AG sat down with union leaders and agreed on a list of 200 cases that now have high priority for investigation and prosecution.

Mr. Uribe's government has demobilized 43,000 illegal armed combatants. Some 33,000 were paramilitary members and 10,000 were guerrillas. But the president notes that the country started with some 60,000 "terrorists," so there is still work to be done.

Even if none of this progress had occurred, it would make little sense to reject the FTA. Colombia needs the free trade agreement, Mr. Uribe said in New York, because it's how "we can generate more employment of a higher quality, send more of our products to the U.S. market and in this way we will have less illicit drugs, less terrorism, more peace, more security, more well-being for the Colombian people." If only the government in Havana cared as much about the Cuban population.

Source: Tales Azzoni, The Miami Herald

Brazil's Lula da Silva opens energy-plan tour

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva began a six-day, five-nation tour Sunday to develop energy and biofuel agreements in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Lula da Silva and Mexican President Felipe Calderón today are expected to sign a memorandum of understanding on biofuel as part of a wide-ranging energy agreement. They will also discuss an accord on deep-water oil exploration, said the Brazilian leader's spokesman, Marcelo Baumbach.

About 50 Brazilian executives will accompany Lula da Silva to Mexico in an effort to expand bilateral trade, which reached $5.75 billion in 2006, the Brazilian foreign ministry said.

However, Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said that a trade accord between Brazil and Mexico is not on Lula da Silva's agenda.

The countries are the two largest economies in Latin America, accounting for about two-thirds of Latin America's gross national product, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Lula da Silva will travel Tuesday to Honduras, where he is also expected to sign a biofuel agreement, the foreign ministry said.

He will then visit Nicaragua and Jamaica, where he will attend inauguration of an ethanol dehydration plant owned by Jamaican and Brazilian investors.

In Panama, Lula da Silva is expected to sign a memorandum of understanding for joint biofuel development and to promote the participation of Brazilian companies in Panama's planned expansion of the Panama Canal.

Brazil, the world's leading ethanol exporter, has been touting its sugarcane-based biofuel around the world as a cheap, eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels amid soaring oil prices and global warming concerns. Brazil signed a biofuel accord this year with Chile and the Dominican Republic.

The Latin American trip will give Lula da Silva somewhat of a respite from the crisis dogging his administration since the July 17 crash of a TAM Linhas Aereas SA jetliner in Sao Paulo -- Brazil's deadliest -- and the ensuing aviation-industry chaos.

Since the crash that killed all 187 aboard the plane and 12 on the ground, Lula da Silva has replaced the country's top aviation official and the head of the national airport authority, while vowing the ensure the safety of the country's airways.

A poll released Sunday, however, showed the aviation crisis has not affected Lula da Silva's popularity. Forty-eight percent of Brazilians said Lula da Silva's government is good or great, the same percentage as before last month's crash, according to a Datafolha polling institute survey published in Brazil's largest newspaper, the Folha de S. Paulo.

Datafolha said Lula da Silva maintained his approval rating after the TAM crash because most Brazilians are poor and do not travel by plane. A robust economy also helped, it said.

Datafolha interviewed 2,095 people across Brazil on Aug. 1-2. The survey's margin of error was 2 percentage points.

Source: James C. McKinley Jr., The NY Times

Fate of 5 in U.S. Prisons Weighs on Cubans’ Minds

HAVANA, July 29 — In Cuba, they call them “the five.” Their faces are plastered on walls and billboards everywhere. Merely being a relative of the five grants celebrity status. Even children know them by their first names — Gerardo, René, Ramón, Fernando and Antonio.

They are not a boy band.

They are middle-aged men who have been sentenced to long prison terms for spying, Cuban officials maintain, not on the United States government, but on right-wing Cuban exiles in Miami who are considered terrorists by the government here.

“The whole country knows their story by heart,” said Elena Portala, a 50-year-old bookbinder, as she walked by a blocklong wall with the men’s names and inspirational quotations from each of them. “The radio and the press talk constantly about them. They should be let out of prison. They haven’t done anything wrong.”

These days, many Cubans are pinning their hopes on a hearing set for Aug. 20, before the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, where federal judges will decide on whether the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.

The five men were among 10 Cuban immigrants arrested in September 1998 and accused of being part of a spy ring called the Wasp Network. Four others were indicted but never apprehended. Prosecutors presented evidence that the network had infiltrated Brothers to the Rescue and other militant exile groups in Miami. Some were also accused of seeking United States military intelligence.

Half of the arrested men pleaded guilty, but the famed remainder stood trial in Miami after a Federal District judge, Joan A. Lenard, denied a motion to move the proceedings to another venue. In June 2001, a federal jury in Miami convicted them. No Cuban-Americans were on the jury.

All five — Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, René González and Fernando González — were convicted of acting as unregistered foreign agents and conspiracy to commit crimes against the United States. Three were also convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, on the strength of evidence that they had gathered information on military activity at a naval air station in Key West. In addition, Mr. Hernández was convicted of conspiracy to murder in connection with the deaths of four Cuban exiles whose two light aircraft were shot down by the Cuban Air Force over the Straits of Florida in 1996.

Judge Lenard threw the book at them. Mr. Guerrero and Mr. Labañino were sentenced to life in prison. Fernando González was sentenced to 19 years, and René González to 15 years. (They are not related.) Mr. Hernández was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.

Since their convictions, the five have been on a legal roller coaster. In August 2005, a three-judge federal appellate panel in Atlanta threw out the verdicts, saying the defendants could not receive a fair jury trial in Miami because of anti-Castro bias among the exiles. Two months later, a majority of the 11th Circuit reinstated the convictions but agreed to hear an appeal on the sufficiency of the evidence, among other issues.

Meanwhile, the “five heroes” have become the biggest propaganda tool that the one-party, Communist government of Cuba has come up with since Che Guevara. Their names and faces appear on walls and signs all over Cuba, with the word “volverán,” meaning “they will return.” Cuban officials never fail to mention them as heroes in official speeches and ceremonies.

One reason for their popularity is the government’s simplified version of their ordeal: brave men who tried to ferret out right-wing terrorists determined to hurt Cuba while sheltered in the United States.

That approach carries the message that Washington is hypocritical in its “war on terror,” jailing the five for the equivalent of trying to find Osama bin Laden in his presumed haven of Pakistan.

That argument has become even more persuasive to Cubans since May, when Luis Posada Carriles was released from jail in the United States. The Cuban government has long accused Mr. Posada Carriles, now 79, of plotting to assassinate Mr. Castro and says he masterminded the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner, which killed 73 people, and a string of bombings of Havana hotels and nightclubs in 1997. Efforts to extradite him to Venezuela, where he is also wanted in the jetliner bombing, have failed.

“I am convinced they are real heroes,” said an accountant who, like many Cubans, preferred to remain anonymous to avoid possible harassment from the police. “Any person who is against terrorism has to be for them. And the government of the United States is very unjust to have them locked up while Posada Carriles is free.”

Even 13-year-olds here follow the government’s argument. “They are like brothers to us,” said Lizbet Martin, a schoolgirl. “They shouldn’t be jailed.”

In a recent interview with the BBC, Mr. Hernández acknowledged he was gathering information about what he described as paramilitary groups determined to topple the Cuban government. He maintained that the Cuban government informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the groups.

“They are people who’ve got training camps there in paramilitary organizations and they go to Cuba and commit sabotage, bombs and all kinds of aggressions,” he told the BBC. “And they had impunity, so at a certain point Cuba decided to send some people to gather information on those groups and send it back to Cuba to prevent those actions.”

But Mr. Hernández denies vehemently that he helped the Cuban Air Force shoot down the two exile planes. “They needed to blame somebody, and they chose me,” he said.

Alicia Valle, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office in Miami, declined to comment on the case. According to court documents, the United States government agreed that the five had spied on anti-Castro groups like Brothers to the Rescue and Movimiento Democratico.

But the United States government maintained that they were well-trained spies, not amateurs, involved in a range of espionage, and that none of them informed the government of their presence, as federal law requires, court documents show.

The case of the Cuban five has spawned some strange commentary. High-ranking officials in the Cuban government, which regularly jails people without public trial for speaking out against Communism, talk at length and in detail about the lack of evidence in the case, and they rail about the lack of “due process” in American courts.

In a recent interview, Ricardo Alarcón, the president of Cuba’s National Assembly, said the men’s sentences were excessive in comparison with other spy convictions and insisted they were not seeking information about the United States government. He noted that in July a former F.B.I. analyst, Leandro Aragoncillo, had received only 10 years for passing top secret documents to the Philippine government.

The families, too, have become celebrities, if to a lesser degree. They are asked to appear at all sorts of state affairs. In one week in July, family members attended a graduation of Cuban doctors and the annual National Rebellion Day celebration. Speakers at each event tipped their hats to the families, calling the jailed men heroes.

But after the hoopla, back at home, some said, they must face the task of raising children without fathers and living without husbands.

“It has turned my life upside down,” said Olga Salanueva, the wife of René González, who was a pilot at an airport where one of the exile groups kept airplanes. “No one is prepared to live so separated from her husband. And to see a person so humane, so noble, suffer again and again.”

She added: “We don’t have much confidence in the justice system of North America. We know it is very difficult, because it has become a political matter.”

Ms. Salanueva said that the United States had repeatedly denied her a visa to visit her husband on the grounds that she was deported in 2000 and under current rules can never apply for a visa again.

Adriana Pérez, the wife of Gerardo González, has also been turned down every year for a visa to visit him. State Department officials declined to comment on the women’s visa applications. Elizabeth Palmeiro, the wife of Mr. Labañino, said she feels pained every time she looks at their two daughters, now 15 and 10, and realizes how much of their lives he has missed. One girl was an infant and the other was 5 when he was imprisoned.

“I feel a mixture of pain, of sadness, of fury, and pride,” she said.

Source: David Luhnow, The WSJ

Secrets of the World’s Richest Man

Carlos Slim is Mexico's Mr. Monopoly.

It's hard to spend a day in Mexico and not put money in his pocket. The 67-year-old tycoon controls more than 200 companies -- he says he's "lost count" -- in telecommunications, cigarettes, construction, mining, bicycles, soft-drinks, airlines, hotels, railways, banking and printing. In all, his companies account for more than a third of the total value of Mexico's leading stock market index, while his fortune represents 7% of the country's annual economic output. (At his height, John D. Rockefeller's wealth was equal to 2.5% of U.S. gross domestic product.)

As one Mexico City eatery jokes on its menu: "This restaurant is the only place in Mexico not owned by Carlos Slim."

Mr. Slim's fortune has grown faster than any in the world during the past two years, rising by more than $20 billion to about $60 billion currently. While the market value of his stake in publicly traded companies could decline at any time, at the moment he is probably wealthier than Bill Gates, whom Forbes magazine estimated at $56 billion last March. This would mark the first time that a person from the developing world held the top spot since Forbes started tracking the wealthy outside the U.S. in the 1990s.

"It's not a competition," Mr. Slim said in a recent interview, fiddling with an unlit Cuban cigar in a second-story office decorated with 19th century Mexican landscape paintings. A relatively modest man who wears ties from his own stores, the mogul says he doesn't feel any richer just because he is wealthier on paper.

How did a Mexican son of Lebanese immigrants rise to such heights? By putting together monopolies, much like John D. Rockefeller did when he developed a stranglehold on refining oil in the industrial era. In the post-industrial world, Mr. Slim has a stranglehold on Mexico's telephones. His Teléfonos de México SAB and its cellphone affiliate Telcel have 92% of all fixed-lines and 73% of all cellphones. As Mr. Rockefeller did before him, Mr. Slim has accumulated so much power that he is considered untouchable in his native land, a force as great as the state itself.

The portly Mr. Slim is a study in contradiction. He says he likes competition in business, but blocks it at every turn. He loves talking about technology, but doesn't use a computer and prefers pen and paper. He hosts everyone from Bill Clinton to author Gabriel García Márquez at his Mexico City mansion, but is provincial in many ways, doesn't travel widely, and proudly says he owns no homes outside of Mexico. In a country of soccer fans, he likes baseball. He roots for the sport's richest team, the New York Yankees.

Admirers say the hard-charging Mr. Slim, an insomniac who stays up late reading history and has a fondness for reading about Ghengis Khan and his deceptive military strategies, embodies Mexico's potential to become a Latin tiger. His thrift in both his businesses and personal life is a model of restraint in a region where flamboyant Latin American business tycoons build lavish corporate headquarters and fly to Africa on hunting jaunts.

To critics, however, Mr. Slim's rise says a lot about Mexico's deepest problems, including the gap between rich and poor. The latest U.N. rankings place Mexico at 103 out of 126 nations measured in terms of equality. During the past two years, Mr. Slim has made about $27 million a day, while a fifth of the country gets by on less than $2 a day.

"It's like the U.S. and the robber barons in the 1890s. Only Slim is Rockefeller, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan all rolled up into one person," says David Martínez, a Mexican investor who lives in Manhattan.

Monopolies have long been a feature of Mexico's economy. But in the past, politicians acted as a brake on big business to ensure that the business class didn't threaten their power. But political control faded in the 1990s with the privatization of much of the economy and the slow death of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which held power for 71 years until 2000.

"It is surprising how big companies have captured the Mexican state. This is a risk to our democracy, and is suffocating our economy," says Eduardo Perez Motta, the country's antitrust chief.

As the face of the new elite, Mr. Slim presents an acute challenge for the country's young president, Felipe Calderón. He must decide whether to try and rein in Mr. Slim despite the mogul's standing as the country's largest private employer and taxpayer. Congress routinely kills legislation that threatens his interests, and his firms account for a chunk of the nation's advertising revenue, making the media reluctant to criticize him. During the past few months, Mr. Calderón has looked to cut a backdoor deal with Mr. Slim. In a series of face-to face meetings -- the details of which have surfaced for the first time -- the president has tried to convince Mr. Slim to accept greater competition, according to people familiar with the talks. The government holds an important card: Mr. Slim can't offer video on his network -- a big potential market -- without government approval.

But even some within Mr. Calderón's camp privately say the closed-door talks play into Mr. Slim's hands by letting him circumvent the country's regulators, underscoring the weakness of Mexico's democratic institutions. Unless Mr. Calderón extracts big concessions from the mogul, they say, he may become too powerful to control. For his part, Mr. Slim says that his companies are "in constant contact" with regulators, but played down the notion of a secret negotiation.

A talkative man who is generally avuncular but who can easily lose his temper, Mr. Slim rejects the monopolist label. "I like competition. We need more competition," he says, sipping a Diet Coke. He stressed that many of his companies operate in competitive markets, and pointed out that Mexico accounts for only a third of sales at his cellphone company América Móvil SAB, which has clients from San Francisco to Sao Paolo.

Mr. Slim's strategy has been consistent over his long career: Buy companies on the cheap, whip them into shape, and ruthlessly drive competitors out of business. After Mr. Slim got control of Telmex in 1990, he quickly cornered the market for copper cables used by Telmex for telephone wires. He bought one of the two main suppliers and made sure Telmex didn't buy any cable from the other big supplier, eventually prompting the owners to sell the company to him.

His control of Mexico's telephone system has slowed the nation's development. While telephones have long been standard in any American home, only about 20% of Mexican homes have them. Only 4% of Mexicans have broadband access. Mexican consumers and businesses also pay above-average prices for telephone calls, according to the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development.

Mr. Slim agrees that many industries in Mexico are dominated by big companies. But he sees no harm as long as they offer good service and prices. "If a beer in Mexico costs 1 peso and in the U.S. it costs 2 pesos, then I don't see the problem," he says.

Despite countless measures over the years that show his companies charge high prices, Mr. Slim steadfastly rejects that notion. During an interview, he orders an aide to fetch his own telephone bills. "See? We charge $14 per month for basic phone rental, cheaper than the U.S.," he says, pulling up a seat next to the reporter. That may be so, but additional fees in Mexico make most phone bills more expensive than in the U.S. Mr. Slim's total phone bill at his own house was a whopping $470 last month. "I have a lot of maids and my sons make calls," he says.

Mr. Slim says his success comes from spotting opportunity early, something he learned in part from reading futurist writer Alvin Toffler, who wrote the best-seller "Future Shock" in the 1970s, and who sends the mogul manuscripts to review. Pulling a dog-eared copy of Mr. Toffler's last book, "Revolutionary Wealth," Mr. Slim leafs through it and shows off his comments in the margins. "Some of his numbers were out of date," he mutters.

Mr. Toffler says he first met Mr. Slim on a trip to Mexico in 1993. Mr. Slim approached him after a speech, surrounded by his family and carrying one of Mr. Toffler's books, heavily underlined. The two have been friends ever since. "If you didn't know he was the richest guy in the world, you'd just think he was a likeable and intelligent guy," says Mr. Toffler.

The fifth of six children, Mr. Slim was born wealthy. His father, Julian Slim, made his fortune on a general store in downtown Mexico City called "The Orient Star." His father died when Mr. Slim was only 13.

Early on, Mr. Slim showed an aptitude for numbers that would help his career. He taught algebra at Mexico's largest public university while finishing his thesis, titled "Applications of Linear Theory in Civil Engineering." His love of numbers also drew him to baseball, a lifelong hobby. "In baseball...numbers talk," he once wrote. Even today, he enjoys discussing baseball, telling a reporter that slugger Barry Bonds should be remembered more for his walk ratio than his home runs.

After college, Mr. Slim and some friends became stockbrokers in the country's fledgling market. Trading by day and playing dominoes by night, the clique became known as "Los Casabolseros," or "The Stock Market Boys." Despite the success, friends say Mr. Slim, less of a party boy and more private than the rest, wanted to run companies rather than trade. "He never liked money as much as the rest of us. He just wanted to be a good businessman," says Enrique Trigueros, one of the casabolseros.

Mr. Slim soon got his chance. After turning around a soft-drink company and a printing firm in the late 1960s and mid 1970s, he made his first big move in 1981, buying a big stake in Mexico's second-biggest tobacco company, Cigatam, maker of Marlboro cigarettes in Mexico. The company generated the cash Mr. Slim needed to go on a buying spree.

A good time to buy came in 1982, a year that would shape Mr. Slim's destiny. That year, the collapsing price of oil threw Mexico into a tailspin. When departing president José López Portillo nationalized Mexico's banks, the traditional business elite feared the country was becoming socialist, and ran for the exits. Companies were selling for as little as 5% of their book value. Mr. Slim picked up dozens of leading firms for bargain-basement prices, a move that paid off when the economy recovered in the following years. He bought Mexico's largest insurer, Seguros de México, for $44 million. Today, the company is worth at least $2.5 billion.

"Countries don't go broke," an unflappable Mr. Slim told friends at the time. Indeed, Mr. Slim always says his inspiration to invest during the downturn came from his father, who bought out his partner in their general store during the worst days of the 1910-1917 Mexican revolution -- a bet that made his father a fortune when the fighting ended.

Mr. Slim still spots good values. From 2002 to 2004, he amassed a 13% stake in bankrupt carrier MCI, later selling it to Verizon Communications Corp. for $1.3 billion. "He has never overpaid for anything," says Hector Aguilar Camín, a historian and friend. While the pair were on holiday in Venice, Mr. Slim once haggled with a store owner for several hours to get a $10 discount on a tie.

Despite his abilities, many here believe his biggest break was the rise to power in 1988 of Carlos Salinas, a Harvard-educated technocrat bent on modernizing the country. The two men had struck up a friendship in the mid-1980s, and Mr. Salinas spoke of Mr. Slim as the country's brightest young businessman. Local wags dubbed the pair "Carlos and Charlies," after a popular local restaurant chain.

Under Mr. Salinas, hundreds of state companies were sold, including Telmex in 1990. Mr. Slim, together with Southwestern Bell and France Telecom, won the bid over one of his closest friends, Roberto Hernandez, who got together with GTE Corp. Mr. Hernandez later suggested the auction was rigged, something both Mr. Slim and Mr. Salinas have long denied. Regardless of whether there was favoritism in the sale of Telmex, the privatization process created a new class of super-rich in Mexico. In 1991, the country had two billionaires on the Forbes list. By 1994, at the end of Mr. Salinas's six-year term, there were 24. The richest of them all was Mr. Slim.

In retrospect, it is easy to see why Messrs. Slim and Hernandez considered Telmex a prize worth losing their friendship. Although countries like Brazil and the U.S. broke up state monopolies into a number of competing firms, Mexico sold its monopoly intact, barring competition during the first six years. And while countries like the U.S. initially barred local "baby bell" carriers from offering long-distance and cellular service in their same area, Telmex got to do all three at once, and across the entire country. Indeed, it won the only nationwide cellular-telephone concession, while rivals had to settle for concessions that were limited to certain regions. When competition was allowed in long distance, foreign carriers were limited to a minority stake in the fixed-line business. Mexico didn't even bother to set up a telephone regulator until three years after the sale.

Dan Crawford was one of those who took on Mr. Slim and lost. In 1995, the California native became chief operating officer of Avantel, a long-distance company partly owned by MCI and the bank of Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Slim's erstwhile friend. Avantel spent around $1 billion building a new network, but it soon ran into trouble trying to connect to Telmex's network -- something it needed to complete calls to and from Telmex clients. Telmex executives simply ignored phone calls or failed to turn up for meetings, Mr. Crawford recalls.

When Telmex did connect the calls nearly a year later, the price was so high that Avantel paid 70 cents of every dollar it made to Mr. Slim's company, according to Mr. Crawford. When Avantel took Telmex to court for monopolistic practices, Telmex responded by asking a judge to issue an arrest warrant for Avantel's top lawyer in Mexico, Luis Mancera, on trumped up charges, Mr. Crawford says. Mr. Slim confirms the story, but says a Telmex lawyer acted rashly, and that the judicial proceeding was dropped. Mr. Mancera declined to comment.

"Slim is very aggressive," says Mr. Crawford, who recently retired from MCI. Avantel eventually defaulted on its debts in 2001, much of which were scooped up by Mr. Slim and later sold for a profit. Avantel was sold recently to another Mexican firm for $485 million -- a fraction of what it invested in Mexico.

For his part, Mr. Slim says Avantel and others mistakenly focused on the long-distance market, which was in decline, rather than wireless, which was growing.

It hasn't been much easier taking on Mr. Slim in the wireless market either. In 2004, Spain's Telefónica SA began selling handsets at a loss here to build market share. But it soon realized that tens of thousands of phones were purchased but never used. According to a case currently at Mexico's antitrust agency, Telefónica says that Telcel distributors bought the phones to keep them off the market, in some cases swapping the phone's existing chip with their own and reselling the handset.

When asked about this practice, Mr. Slim says "It could be. That happens to all of us. If you sell something for $50 or $20 that costs $100, someone's going to buy it." His spokesman and son-in-law, Arturo Elías, says the distributors acted without Telcel's knowledge.

Attempts to regulate Mr. Slim's companies have largely failed over the years. Mexico's telephone regulator, Cofetel, was so weak in the 1990s that Telmex's rivals dubbed it "Cofetelmex." When the regulator did try to act, Mr. Slim's lawyers blocked it in the country's Byzantine courts.

The Telmex chief also had friends in high places. Vicente Fox, Mexico's first opposition president when he won in 2000, tapped a former Telmex employee, Pedro Cerisola, to be his minister of communications and transport. During his tenure, Mr. Cerisola rarely moved against Telmex, say executives from rival telephone companies. Mr. Cerisola declined to comment.

Using money from his telephone empire, Mr. Slim has expanded into Latin American markets as well as new industries in Mexico. His cellphone company América Móvil has 124 million customers and operates in more than a dozen Latin American nations. In Mexico, he has focused on industries that depend on government contracts. His new construction company, Ideal SAB, is currently bidding to run some of Mexico's biggest highways. His new oil-services company recently built the country's biggest oil platform.

Some of Mexico's business leaders say in private that they feel Mr. Slim has grown too greedy. The death of his wife, Soumaya, from kidney disease in 1999 left him without an anchor, says Mr. Trigueros, Mr. Slim's friend from his stockbroker days. "She was a special woman, the kind who keeps a guy in line. Nowadays, he only has business to think about," he says.

Mr. Slim's empire is so vast here now that doing business without him can be difficult. Two years ago, Hutchison Port Holdings and U.S. railroad Union Pacific teamed up to bid on a $6 billion port and railway in Baja California to compete with Long Beach port. But Mr. Slim felt the project had been arranged behind closed doors and was against the idea of the country's biggest project going to foreigners. He made his feelings known to the Baja California governor and the project was stalled. Mr. Slim has since worked to put together a rival consortium, which includes Mexican rail company Grupo Mexico and U.S. railroad Burlington-Northern. He says his potential bid is a better option for the country because the railroad will run along Mexico's north and help spur development. Union Pacific and Hutchison both declined to comment.

Mr. Slim has recently given more money to philanthropy, but he has often said his most important legacy is his family. In 2000, a few years after heart surgery, he put his sons and sons-in-law in charge of his businesses. He also started a group called "Fathers and Sons" that invites Latin American billionaires and their heirs for annual meetings, where they sip fine wines and attend seminars like "How to Run a Family Business."

There is no obvious successor to the patriarch's empire. That gives some Mexican officials hope that one day the state can regulate his companies. Says one high-ranking official: "When Slim dies, we can finally regulate his kids."

Big news!

My brother Pepe and my cousin Greg are flying down on Sunday to spend all of next week with me! :D

There is only one word that can even come close to articulating how happy I am right now: splash.

Buahahahahahaha

Another success story of Misión Robinson...


h/t Citizen Feathers


The other success story to which I am referring is of none other than Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. Bravo, Sr. Presidente!

Apologize to whom?

Chávez wants the Church to apologize for its role on 11A. I wonder if the Church could ask Chávez to apologize for his integral role in the coup attempts in 1992...?

First Danny, now Sean

Venezuela, you can keep both of them!

Sean Penn arrived in Caracas this week; another PSF from the US headed down to CCS to see how the Robolución is going.

What I found most interesting about this short article is, well, actually two things:
1) No comment whatsoever from Penn on his experience down there.
2) Chávez recognizes that although Penn is wealthy, it is as if he receives a papal dispensation, because he is "socially conscious." I am 100% positive that there are wealthy people in Venezuela who are, by and large, socially conscious; would they get the same treatment as Penn? Absolutely not. Why? Because they have to live on a daily basis in country which is rapidly curtailing democratic freedoms --not to mention the dilapidated infrastructure and false sense of economic security in the short term due to oil windfall-- and they realize what Chávez is doing to their country.

UPDATE: Look at that, Fausta is all over it!
UPDATE 2: So is Citizen Feathers! Man, I am so behind in the news/blogs today. Nicaragua and Ortega are ruining my life and ability to stay up to speed on Venezuela. O_o

This is priceless

Chávez is whining again --shock!-- this time blaming the US for [Venezuela] not being able to get into the Mercosur.

Let's see...

He certainly hasn't helped his case by saying that he wanted in, then he definitely didn't want to join, then he did again. Capricious counterparts generally aren't the best partners, particularly when huge economic deals are at stake.

Brasil and Paraguay have made their reservations in dealing with Venezuela abundantly clearly, particularly following the closing of RCTV on 27 May. What did Chávez do after their asseverations? Essentially scolded them and categorically disregarded them. If that's not diplomacy, I don't know what is...

So, Chávez's indecisiveness and poor treatment of potential economic partners... and the man wonders why he isn't readily accepted into the Mercosur.

Well, per usual, when all else fails, blame the Imperio and Mr Danger. It has worked very well in the past, and hey, if attention can be diverted from the failures of the Bolibananian Revolution, well that is just a bonus.

Kirchner, the matchmaker

The Argentine president has “taken it upon himself” to improve the relationship between Venezuela and Mexico on his upcoming visit to the DF, under the auspices of trying to fully integrate Latin America. Sounds pretty good, right? Maybe. Actually, no, it sounds pretty God-awful to me, given the person who is speaking.

Let it be known that I have nothing at all against Argentines in general. I have several Argentine friends, I’ve been there twice on vacation while living in Chile, and really, let’s face it: the accent is pretty sexy.

Several things: why does Kirchner feel the need to do this? Is he that altruistic? More importantly, is he totally impartial in this? I don’t think so.

My dad has always said, “The borrower is servant to the lender,” –this is from Prov. 22:7— and he is absolutely right. While I normally have heard him talk about this with regard to my credit card bill –for which I proudly paywithout my parents’ help— it is true for this sort of spending as well.

Now, Kirchner has wasted no time at all criticizing Bush in the Mexican Senate. I’ll wait a second for you all to recover from the shock.

Rosales sticks out his neck

…let’s see how long it takes for him to be beheaded.

According to an El Universal article from the 31 July 2007 edition, the governor of Zulia and former presidential candidate Manuel Rosales was uncharacteristically outspoken against the government in the Chávez administration’s defense of PDVSA head Rafael Ramirez. Let's see how well this plays out for him. My guess would be, "Not too great."

Castro is still in charge of Cuba

Interesting, since two posts ago he said that he isn't. Senility in his old age, or no?

Source: Isabel Sanchez, AFP, El Nuevo Herald

Castro afirma que sigue al mando

Fidel Castro aseguró ayer que se le consulta “cada decisión importante” y que Cuba marcha “adelante” un año después de ceder el poder, confirmando su condición de patriarca de la revolución y el mando de su hermano Raúl.

“El propio Raúl se ha encargado de responder que cada decisión importante a medida que me iba recuperando era consultada conmigo. ¿Qué haré? Luchar sin descanso como lo hice toda la vida”, afirmó Fidel Castro en un mensaje publicado en la prensa en el primer aniversario del traspaso provisional del poder.

El gobernante --que cumplirá 81 años el 13 de agosto-- dijo sentirse acosado “con preguntas sobre el momento” en que volverá al poder; pero no las respondió.

En cambio, señaló que observa con satisfacción “la unidad” con que “marchan adelante” su hermano Raúl, el partido comunista, el gobierno y las organizaciones de masas y sociales.

“La lucha debe ser implacable, contra nuestras propias deficiencias y contra el enemigo insolente que intenta apoderarse de Cuba”, agregó Castro en la “reflexión política” publicada en los diarios Granma y JuventudRebelde y leída varias veces por radio y televisión.

En ese sentido, advirtió a los cubanos que nadie puede hacerse “la menor ilusión” de que Washington “negociará con Cuba” la solución del conflicto, pese a que Raúl Castro ofreció diálogo, y en cambio llamó a “reforzar sin tregua” la capacidad y preparación defensiva del país.

“Por mucho que le digamos al pueblo de Estados Unidos que nuestra lucha no es contra él --algo muy correcto--, éste no está en condiciones de frenar el espíritu apocalíptico de su gobierno ni la turbia y maniática idea de lo que llaman ‘una Cuba democrática’ ”, aseveró.

Raúl Castro, ministro de las Fuerzas Armadas, de 76 años, reiteró el 26 de julio una oferta de diálogo a Washington que ya había hecho el 18 de agosto y el 2 de diciembre.

Pero esta vez la dirigió al próximo Presidente de EEUU. La Casa Blanca, que tilda a Raúl Castro de “Fidel Light”, la rechazó de inmediato.

En su mensaje La llama eterna, Fidel Castro no hizo referencia a lo afirmado por su hermano en el discurso del 26 de julio sobre la urgencia de “cambios estructurales y conceptuales” en la economía.

Tampoco da detalles de su convalecencia, pero aseguró que la experiencia “vale por 10” pues ha podido adquirir conocimientos de “cuestiones vitales para la humanidad”, que expresa en sus Reflexiones del Comandante en Jefe, artículos que publica desde el 29 de marzo pasado y ya suman 34.

Opositores y muchos ciudadanos recibieron el mensaje como un aviso de que no volverá a las funciones de jefe de Estado. Para la disidente Martha Beatriz Roque “es una proclama de adiós”.

“Si la primera proclama fue una despedida provisional del poder, esta es ya una despedida definitiva del poder y una confirmación de Raúl como su sucesor, su continuador”, declaró el opositor moderado e historiador Manuel Cuesta.

Fernando Garzón, economista de 53 años, cree que el gobernante cubano recuperará su salud, pero no lo suficiente para volver plenamente a sus funciones: “Una cosa es que se le consulten determinadas situaciones a Fidel, cuestiones importantes, como él dice, y otra es que él gobierne. Soy de los que piensan que en Cuba gobierna Raúl Castro”.

Venezuela-Cuba oil axis continues to expand

So says The Miami Herald. *feigns surprised look* And yet, this $3-4 Bn worth of oil --practically a national patrimony for Venezuelans-- is going to the Cuban people, and not to those in Venezuela. Something is definitely wrong with this picture... As I have stated way too many times to count now, this money should be helping the Venezuelan people, particularly the poor, before it goes to any other nation. -Game, set, match.-

Source: Frances Robles, The Miami Herald

Chávez-Castro friendship pumps billions into Cuba

The value of Venezuelan oil subsidies to Cuba climbed past $3 billion in 2006 and could swell to $4 billion this year -- almost double current estimates, according to a University of Miami report to be released today.

Venezuela is propping up Cuba's troubled economy with shipments of 94,103 barrels of oil a day, experts at UM's Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies (ICCAS) calculated, based on official Havana figures issued last week. That means Cuba last year got some $3.3 billion in oil products from Venezuela, up from $2.7 billion in 2005. Caracas has declined to explain the payment system, but experts believe Havana gets the energy assistance free of charge.

As Cuban leader Fidel Castro begins his second year out of office and in the hospital, Cuba's reliance on Venezuela to keep the lights on and vehicles rolling has not waned.

LIKE SOVIET ERA

Experts say the high subsidies are reminiscent of Cuba's dependency on the Soviet Union, which provided an estimated $4-$6 billion a year in subsidies until it collapsed in 1992. Cuba's economy fell apart, and widespread shortages plagued the nation for years.

''Cuba is repeating chapter and verse what it did in the 70s and 80s with Russia,'' said ICCAS energy expert Jorge Piñón, who prepared the study. 'If Chávez gets hit by a truck crossing the street tomorrow, the [Venezuelan oil officials] . . . are going to say to Cuba: 'Pay for it, and pay market price.' ''

Cuba's close relationship with Venezuela grew along with President Hugo Chávez's hold on power. As Chávez defeated efforts to topple him, he increased oil shipments to Cuba and solidified his bond with Castro.

The two remain close friends, and Chávez is one of the few people who visited Castro during the height of his illness last year.

Initially, Cuba was reported to be paying for the oil by sending Cuban medical personnel to work in poor Venezuelan neighborhoods. But experts say Venezuela now pays Cuba for the medical services.

The arrangement has been widely criticized by Chávez opponents, who say the contract with Cuba has never been made public. Piñón argues that the losses to Venezuela are significant, particularly if the state-owned PDVSA oil company wanted to sell that oil on the international market instead.

'SMALL POTATOES'

But for Chávez, the deal helps enhance his international image as socialist heir apparent to Castro because of continuing high oil prices, Piñón said.

''Is it hurting Chávez in the pocket?'' Piñón said. "As long as the price remains as it is today, he can afford it.''

Julia Sweig, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, agreed: Chávez would rather have the worldwide caché.

''It's small potatoes for Chávez to spend a few billion dollars for that,'' she said. "I don't think it hurts him. It enhances his panache.''

If the $4 billion estimate for 2007 proves true, she said it is a momentous figure.

''Four billion is a psychologically important number -- it's the value of the Soviet subsidies right before they were cut,'' Sweig said. "It's got real resonance. It shows Venezuela is the new partner, the new insurance policy, the new mac daddy.''

Cuba is marching ahead...but to where?

Source: The Associated Press, The New York Times

Fidel Castro Says Cuba 'Marching Ahead'

HAVANA (AP) -- Fidel Castro said Wednesday that Cuba is ''marching ahead'' without him in power, insisting that he is consulted on all important decisions but giving no hint about when -- or if -- he might retake office after stepping down one year ago.

But he was decidedly less optimistic about the island's chances of improving relations with the United States, writing in his latest newspaper essay that ''no one should entertain the slightest illusion'' Washington will negotiate with Cuba.

Castro, who turns 81 this month, has not been seen in public since July 31, 2006, when he stunned Cuba and the world by issuing a proclamation stating that he had undergone emergency intestinal surgery and was stepping down in favor of his younger brother, Raul.

''Today, I am bombarded with questions as to when I will take up again what some call power,'' he said in the essay, titled ''Eternal Flame,'' published Wednesday in the Communist Party newspaper Granma.

''Raul has already responded that, as I recover, every important decision is consulted with me,'' he wrote. ''What will I do? I will fight tirelessly as I have done my entire life.''

Castro said he was satisfied to see Raul Castro, the Communist Party and other groups ''march on, guided by the unshakable principle of unity.''

He said Cubans must be ever ready to beat back any foreign invasion: ''It is our duty to work untiringly to strengthen our defensive capability and preparedness.''

In a speech marking Cuba's ''Revolution Day'' last week, 76-year-old Raul Castro extended an olive branch to the United States, hinting that his government might be willing to negotiate with Washington once President George W. Bush leaves office.

But the elder Castro flatly dismissed that idea Wednesday.

''No one should entertain the slightest illusion that the empire, which carries the genes of its own destruction, will negotiate with Cuba,'' he wrote, calling the U.S. government ''the empire'' and blasting its efforts to promote a ''transition to democracy'' in Cuba as ''apocalyptic,'' and ''foul and insane.''

Recovering in an undisclosed location, Castro's condition and exact ailment are state secrets. He has looked stronger and more alert in government videos and photographs meant to show his steady recovery.

While he has not appeared in public, he has written more than 30 published essays in recent months.

Venezuelan Supreme Court rules "in favor" of RCTV

I love how the TSJ makes itself out to look like the benevolent institution in this situation, so graciously allowing RCTV to stay on cable --a paid service-- extending their deadline to register as a national producer. Interesting, RCTV International is an international corporation, founded in the US. Why should it be subjected to Chávez's diatribe-filled cadenas?

Source: The Associated Press, The New York Times

Venezuelan Court Rules for TV Station

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuela's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an opposition-aligned TV channel will remain on cable for now, acting just hours before a government-set deadline that could have yanked it from the cable lineup.

The Supreme Court of Justice said in a statement that it suspended the telecommunications commission's order for Radio Caracas Television and other cable channels to register as national producers, a category that would require them to interrupt programming to carry some of President Hugo Chavez's speeches.

With its ruling, the court -- which was selected by the Chavez-dominated National Assembly -- defused a political standoff and opened the way for it to consider which cable and satellite channels should be bound by rules requiring domestic stations to transmit government-mandated programming and commercials.

The court's constitutional branch said it decided to take up the case, brought by cable and satellite TV channels, in part due to a lack of regulations clearly defining ''national audiovisual production services'' and which channels fall under that classification.

The channel RCTV International, which has begun transmitting by cable after being forced off the broadcast airwaves, says it disagrees with the requirement to register and intends to be an ''international channel.'' The telecommunications commission had given the channel until midnight Wednesday to register.

Venezuela's Chamber of Subscription Television asked the court to intervene and clarify which stations are considered national producers and what requirements they face, chamber president Mario Seijas said.

He said other channels could be affected and they should not have ''to guess if they are obliged to register'' or not.

Hours before the court decision, top RCTV executive Marcel Granier accused the government of abusing its power.

''We're talking about crimes against human rights here,'' Granier said. ''They are crimes for which they're going to have to pay. ... We'll see how far it goes.''

Telecommunications Minister Jesse Chacon told Union Radio that RCTV, even as a cable channel, is still clearly a ''national audiovisual production service'' and is required to be properly registered.

Chacon said if RCTV refuses, ''it is more for political than economic reasons.''

''It's false that the government is taking it off cable,'' Chacon told Union Radio. ''The only thing it has to do is register itself to be able to be on cable.''

The country's oldest private channel, RCTV began transmitting on cable and satellite on July 16, about six weeks after Chavez forced the station off the air by refusing to renew its broadcast license. The president accused the station of supporting a 2002 coup that briefly removed him from power and of repeatedly violating broadcast laws, replacing RCTV with a public-service channel.

Many of Venezuela's media outlets are still privately owned and critical of Chavez. But the RCTV case has drawn criticism because only one other major TV broadcaster, Globovision, remains firmly sided with the opposition.

Chavez, who insists freedom of expression is being fully respected, regularly takes over the airwaves for marathon speeches, requiring channels to carry portions of them in what is known under Venezuelan law as a ''national network.''

RCTV said being forced to carry such mandatory programming would make its operations ''economically nonviable.''

While other nations have similar provisions, few presidents use it as often as Chavez.

UPDATE: Looks like Marcel Granier agrees with me.

Generation Y: are we really that lazy?

Yesterday morning on my way to the Nicaraguan consulate, I called my mom to apologize for the way I spoke to her the previous night after our games. (Have I mentioned lately how much I love my mom?) She was telling me about a family member who will not be named who has been overly PMS-y with regard to pretty much everything, and has been a bit cold to my mom about some stuff. My mom, ever the rational person, made an interesting comment: "I guess that's the way your grandmother raised us: to be hard, to not let things get too emotional, to not let things affect us. Ordinarily, it's great because we're able to remain composed in almost any situation, but sometimes, it really stinks. And you know something? That's how we raised you, to not let everything affect you. You turned out normal...well, sort of." (Yes, she said that.) My mom's wit aside, she raises a good point. Yeah, my dad coached my softball teams until high school, and my mom was always there in the stands cheering, but outside of that, I never received praise. Good grades were expected, I was scolded when I got a B+ (or an A-, by my grandmother -- if you know her, please at least feign being shocked by this.) When I was little, if I behaved in church or at someone else's house, I didn't get a treat or a silver star -- if you get that reference, I'll be extremely impressed. My parents have always expected the best from both me and Pepe, and I think what has driven both of us is that when we are praised, we want it to be well deserved, not just something that is dished out to "inflate our self-esteem bubble" (thank you, public education...uf, hueva O_o).

In the afternoon, one of my co-workers sent around some articles to our group of friends (read: LAC and honorary LAC people) regarding the work habits of "Generation Yers" in the office.

From CNN
From Entrepreneur:

Gen Y Myths Debunked

According to Tulgan, employers are less likely to award status, prestige, authority, flexibility and rewards on the basis of seniority. Instead, things that were once earned through years of "paying your dues" are more likely to be rewarded on the basis of short-term measurable goals.

"For today's young workers, if you tell them to 'climb the ladder, keep your mouth shut and wait for us to notice you,' it sounds to them like you're trying to sell them a bridge." They'll do the grunt work, says Tulgan, as long as they understand the relationship between their work and the overall mission. "They're not about to do anything in exchange for vague, long-term promises about rewards that vest in the deep, distant future."

Threats from within the company are compounded even more by outside threats, such as globalization and outsourcing. "The millennials are very aware of what the Gen Xers learned too late," says Howe. "You don't want to be in a job market where your kind of labor is considered a commodity. You won't get anything out of it."

Michael Mirando, 30, who is on the cusp between Generation X and Y, couldn't agree more. After nearly seven years with a leading microprocessor company, he's become disillusioned with corporate America. Each year he faces company-wide layoffs and internal reorganization. "I used to be really excited about my job; I'd do anything they wanted, go anywhere they asked me to," he says. "But every year it's the same thing: just sitting there, waiting for the axe to fall, wondering if it's going to be you. It takes a toll on you."

Mirando says he's glad that he's realized that now. "I'm not going to be the guy, like my co-workers, who are 45 years old, have two kids and are practically having heart attacks every year because they might not be able to support their family."

Myth #3: They need constant praise.
Generation Y has, without a doubt, grown up in a culture of praise, where just about every effort--no matter how small--is rewarded. The media, however, would have you believe these workers need a gold star simply for finding the right parking space. A recent Wall Street Journal article, for example, says employers have to dish out kudos to workers for "little more than showing up."

"That's absurd," argues Tulgan. "It's true they may have grown up needing a pat on the back every five minutes, but that doesn't mean the way you deal with that is by then pretending like that expectation is realistic."

If employers are finding themselves falling prey to such behavior, the only people they should blame are themselves. If you let an employee get away with not meeting expectations, they'll continue to do it--no matter how old they are. "If you think your young employees want a weak leader, you're missing the point," Tulgan adds.

Megan Gaines, 25, admits she's received a lot of praise throughout her career as a banquet chef, but she knows it's well deserved. "I've been praised not because I need it, but because I did a good job. I know I'm a hard worker."

Of course, it doesn't hurt to hear a little praise from the boss when that's your only barometer for measuring your worth. A lot has been said about companies going to great lengths to show their appreciation through such things as e-mail, prizes and public celebration. But is that really a bad thing? Gen Yers are now, more than any generation before, entering a massive, corporate workforce. When you're one of 4,000 employees spread across the country--and sometimes even the world--receiving a cookie-cutter "thank you" e-mail every now and then is hardly pushing the praise envelope.

The bottom line is: No matter where your employees fall on the spectrum--from needing a lot of recognition to not needing any at all--the rules of the game are changing to reflect the changing economy and workforce. You can keep playing by the old rules, or you can get the most from your employees by learning to master the new game.

"This is going to be the most high-maintenance workforce in history--but I think they're also going to be the most high-performing workforce in history," says Tulgan.

And Howe reminds managers that this generation isn't going anywhere. "Each year they're going to fill in this age bracket more and more," he says. "And before these managers and employers start gloating about how much these kids are going to have to change, I think these employers should start asking the question: How much are we going to have to change?"

From WSJ:

April 20, 2007

The Most-Praised Generation Goes to Work Uber-stroked kids are reaching adulthood -- and now their bosses (and spouses) have to deal with them. Jeffrey Zaslow on 'applause notes,' celebrations assistants and ego-lifting dinnerware. By JEFFREY ZASLOW April 20, 2007 You, You, You -- you really are special, you are! You've got everything going for you. You're attractive, witty, brilliant. "Gifted" is the word that comes to mind. Childhood in recent decades has been defined by such stroking -- by parents who see their job as building self-esteem, by soccer coaches who give every player a trophy, by schools that used to name one "student of the month" and these days name 40. VOTE 1 How much praise is given out at your office? Vote in Question of the Day2 and discuss your answer with other readers. Now, as this greatest generation grows up, the culture of praise is reaching deeply into the adult world. Bosses, professors and mates are feeling the need to lavish praise on young adults, particularly twentysomethings, or else see them wither under an unfamiliar compliment deficit. Employers are dishing out kudos to workers for little more than showing up. Corporations including Lands' End and Bank of America are hiring consultants to teach managers how to compliment employees using email, prize packages and public displays of appreciation. The 1,000-employee Scooter Store Inc., a power-wheelchair and scooter firm in New Braunfels, Texas, has a staff "celebrations assistant" whose job it is to throw confetti -- 25 pounds a week -- at employees. She also passes out 100 to 500 celebratory helium balloons a week. The Container Store Inc. estimates that one of its 4,000 employees receives praise every 20 seconds, through such efforts as its "Celebration Voice Mailboxes." Certainly, there are benefits to building confidence and showing attention. But some researchers suggest that inappropriate kudos are turning too many adults into narcissistic praise-junkies. The upshot: A lot of today's young adults feel insecure if they're not regularly complimented. America's praise fixation has economic, labor and social ramifications. Adults who were overpraised as children are apt to be narcissistic at work and in personal relationships, says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University. Narcissists aren't good at basking in other people's glory, which makes for problematic marriages and work relationships, she says. Her research suggests that young adults today are more self-centered than previous generations. For a multiuniversity study released this year, 16,475 college students took the standardized narcissistic personality inventory, responding to such statements as "I think I am a special person." Students' scores have risen steadily since the test was first offered in 1982. The average college student in 2006 was 30% more narcissistic than the average student in 1982. Praise Inflation Employers say the praise culture can help them with job retention, and marriage counselors say couples often benefit by keeping praise a constant part of their interactions. But in the process, people's positive traits can be exaggerated until the words feel meaningless. "There's a runaway inflation of everyday speech," warns Linda Sapadin, a psychologist in Valley Stream, N.Y. These days, she says, it's an insult unless you describe a pretty girl as "drop-dead gorgeous" or a smart person as "a genius." "And no one wants to be told they live in a nice house," says Dr. Sapadin. "'Nice' was once sufficient. That was a good word. Now it's a put-down." THE ART OF CONSTRUCTIVE COMPLIMENTS Below are some guidelines from researchers, educators and corporate consultants on how to praise properly without overdoing it. Limit the adjectives: Telling a student, employee or mate that they're "wonderful" might help them feel good temporarily, but such evaluative praise can give them an inflated sense of themselves while offering no direction, says Chick Moorman, a former teacher who travels the country teaching verbal skills to educators. Instead, use descriptive praise. Rather than telling an underling he's a genius, a boss might say: "Everyone was listening so attentively when you gave your report. And the statistics you found really drove home your point." Don't overdo email: Email makes it easy to send quick praise -- and one grateful sentence, artfully composed, can leave an employee flying for a week. But sending "mass praise" to a hundred underlings is the corporate equivalent of Soccer Trophy Syndrome: If everyone gets a pat on the back, no one feels special. Eye-to-eye praise is often the most effective and appreciated. Monitor your motivations: When you praise your offspring -- whether a young child or an adult child -- a part of you is really horning in on his accomplishments, said the late education-reform proponent John Holt. "Is not most adult praise of children a kind of self-praise?" he asked. Also, be careful about praising an adult child to satisfy your own ulterior motives. Po Bronson interviewed 1,000 people about their occupations for his book "What Should I Do With My Life?" Many told him that their parents had used praise to steer them into occupations: "You're so smart, you'd be a great doctor." "You have such charisma, you should be a politician." Advises Mr. Bronson: "Don't use praise as a tool of manipulation." Don't believe the hype: The Internet allows you to post, and receive comments on, your writings, photos, artwork and opinions. You can't always trust the criticism, of course, but you also shouldn't fall for the praise. On professional and amateur photography sites, people laud each other's work all day long, says Dennis Dunleavy, a professor of communications at Southern Oregon University. Years ago, "photographers rarely got any feedback. Now there's all this praise that pumps us up. And if there are negative comments, people ignore them." Prof. Dunleavy runs "The Big Picture," an influential photo blog, and says photographers have complained to him that the culture of praise makes it harder for them to get a nonhyped sense of their work. Sometimes, you have no choice: If underlings seem to require a lot of praise, "we can ignore that and have them be disgruntled, or we can praise them," says corporate consultant Bob Nelson, the author of "1001 Ways to Reward Employees." "What's the big deal? By encouraging and praising them, you'll get more out of them." He advises: Give praise as soon, as sincerely, as specifically, as personally, as positively, and as proactively as possible. The Gottman Institute, a relationship-research and training firm in Seattle, tells clients that a key to marital happiness is if couples make at least five times as many positive statements to and about each other as negative ones. Meanwhile, products are being marketed to help families make praise a part of their daily routines. For $32.95, families can buy the "You Are Special Today Red Plate," and then select one worthy person each meal to eat off the dish. But many young married people today, who grew up being told regularly that they were special, can end up distrusting compliments from their spouses. Judy Neary, a relationship therapist in Alexandria, Va., says it's common for her clients to say things like: "I tell her she's beautiful all the time, and she doesn't believe it." Ms. Neary suspects: "There's a lot of insecurity, with people wondering, 'Is it really true?'" "Young married people who've been very praised in their childhoods, particularly, need praise to both their child side and their adult side," adds Dolores Walker, a psychotherapist and attorney specializing in divorce mediation in New York. Employers are finding ways to adjust. Sure, there are still plenty of surly managers who offer little or no positive feedback, but many withholders are now joining America's praise parade to hold on to young workers. They're being taught by employee-retention consultants such as Mark Holmes, who encourages employers to give away baseball bats with engravings ("Thanks for a home-run job") or to write notes to employees' kids ("Thanks for letting dad work here. He's terrific!") Bob Nelson, billed as "the Guru of Thank You," counsels 80 to 100 companies a year on praise issues. He has done presentations for managers of companies such as Walt Disney Co. and Hallmark Cards Inc., explaining how different generations have different expectations. As he sees it, those over age 60 tend to like formal awards, presented publicly. But they're more laid back about needing praise, and more apt to say: "Yes, I get recognition every week. It's called a paycheck." Baby boomers, Mr. Nelson finds, often prefer being praised with more self-indulgent treats such as free massages for women and high-tech gadgets for men. Workers under 40, he says, require far more stroking. They often like "trendy, name-brand merchandise" as rewards, but they also want near-constant feedback. "It's not enough to give praise only when they're exceptional, because for years they've been getting praise just for showing up," he says. Mr. Nelson advises bosses: If a young worker has been chronically late for work and then starts arriving on time, commend him. "You need to recognize improvement. That might seem silly to older generations, but today, you have to do these things to get the performances you want," he says. Casey Priest, marketing vice president for Container Store, agrees. "When you set an expectation and an employee starts to meet it, absolutely praise them for it," she says. Sixty-year-old David Foster, a partner at Washington, D.C., law firm Miller & Chevalier, is making greater efforts to compliment young associates -- to tell them they're talented, hard-working and valued. It's not a natural impulse for him. When he was a young lawyer, he says, "If you weren't getting yelled at, you felt like that was praise." But at a retreat a couple of years ago, the firm's 120 lawyers reached an understanding. Younger associates complained that they were frustrated; after working hard on a brief and handing it in, they'd receive no praise. The partners promised to improve "intergenerational communication." Mr. Foster says he feels for younger associates, given their upbringings. "When they're not getting feedback, it makes them very nervous." Modern Pressures Some younger lawyers are able to articulate the dynamics behind this. "When we were young, we were motivated by being told we could do anything if we believed in ourselves. So we respond well to positive feedback," explains 34-year-old Karin Crump, president of the 25,000-member Texas Young Lawyers Association. Scott Atwood, president-elect of the Young Lawyers Division of the Florida Bar, argues that the yearning for positive input from superiors is more likely due to heightened pressure to perform in today's demanding firms. "It has created a culture where you have to have instant feedback or you'll fail," he says. In fact, throughout history, younger generations have wanted praise from their elders. As Napoleon said: "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." But when it comes to praise today, "Gen Xers and Gen Yers don't just say they want it. They are also saying they require it," says Chip Toth, an executive coach based in Denver. How do young workers say they're not getting enough? "They leave," says Mr. Toth. Many companies are proud of their creative praise programs. Since 2004, the 4,100-employee Bronson Healthcare Group in Kalamazoo, Mich., has required all of its managers to write at least 48 thank-you or praise notes to underlings every year. Universal Studios Orlando, with 13,000 employees, has a program in which managers give out "Applause Notes," praising employees for work well done. Universal workers can also give each other peer-to-peer "S.A.Y. It!" cards, which stand for "Someone Appreciates You!" The notes are redeemed for free movie tickets or other gifts. Bank of America has several formal rewards programs for its 200,000 employees, allowing those who receive praise to select from 2,000 gifts. "We also encourage managers to start every meeting with informal recognition," says Kevin Cronin, senior vice president of recognition and rewards. The company strives to be sensitive. When new employees are hired, managers are instructed to get a sense of how they like to be praised. "Some prefer it in public, some like it one-on-one in an office," says Mr. Cronin. No More Red Pens Some young adults are consciously calibrating their dependence on praise. In New York, Web-developer Mia Eaton, 32, admits that she loves being complimented. But she feels like she's living on the border between a twentysomething generation that requires overpraise and a thirtysomething generation that is less addicted to it. She recalls the pre-Paris Hilton, pre-reality-TV era, when people were famous -- and applauded -- for their achievements, she says. When she tries to explain this to younger colleagues, "they don't get it. I feel like I'm hurting their feelings because they don't understand the difference." Young adults aren't always eager for clear-eyed feedback after getting mostly "atta-boys" and "atta-girls" all their lives, says John Sloop, a professor of rhetorical and cultural studies at Vanderbilt University. Another issue: To win tenure, professors often need to receive positive evaluations from students. So if professors want students to like them, "to a large extent, critical comments [of students] have to be couched in praise," Prof. Sloop says. He has attended seminars designed to help professors learn techniques of supportive criticism. "We were told to throw away our red pens so we don't intimidate students." At the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, marketing consultant Steve Smolinsky teaches students in their late 20s who've left the corporate world to get M.B.A. degrees. He and his colleagues feel handcuffed by the language of self-esteem, he says. "You have to tell students, 'It's not as good as you can do. You're really smart, and can do better.'" Mr. Smolinsky enjoys giving praise when it's warranted, he says, "but there needs to be a flip side. When people are lousy, they need to be told that." He notices that his students often disregard his harsher comments. "They'll say, 'Yeah, well...' I don't believe they really hear it." In the end, ego-stroking may feel good, but it doesn't lead to happiness, says Prof. Twenge, the narcissism researcher, who has written a book titled "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled -- and More Miserable than Ever Before." She would like to declare a moratorium on "meaningless, baseless praise," which often starts in nursery school. She is unimpressed with self-esteem preschool ditties, such as the one set to the tune of "Frère Jacques": "I am special/ I am special/ Look at me..." For now, companies like the Scooter Store continue handing out the helium balloons. Katie Lynch, 22, is the firm's "celebrations assistant," charged with throwing confetti, filling balloons and showing up at employees' desks to offer high-fives. "They all love it," she says, especially younger workers who "seem to need that pat on the back. They don't want to go unnoticed." Ms. Lynch also has an urge to be praised. At the end of a long, hard day of celebrating others, she says she appreciates when her manager, Burton De La Garza, gives her a high-five or compliments her with a cellphone text message. "I'll just text her a quick note -- 'you were phenomenal today,'" says Mr. De La Garza, "She thrives on that. We wanted to find what works for her, because she's completely averse to confetti." Write to Jeffrey Zaslow at jeffrey.zaslow@wsj.com3 URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117702894815776259.html Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=433 (2) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=433 (3) mailto:jeffrey.zaslow@wsj.com

Ok, so my favorite line --by far-- has to be the following (from the WSJ article): "The 1,000-employee Scooter Store Inc., a power-wheelchair and scooter firm in New Braunfels, Texas, has a staff "celebrations assistant" whose job it is to throw confetti -- 25 pounds a week -- at employees. She also passes out 100 to 500 celebratory helium balloons a week."

Someone's job is to throw confetti?! Rrrrrrrrrreally? Wow, if I did that after going to Tufts --or any four-year institution, for that matter--, I am 100% sure that my parents would disown me. Just to throw this out there, but what if nothing happens for a whole week where 25lbs. of confetti being thrown isn't merited? What if only 3lbs. is? Will she feel bad because she can't do her job? Will someone need to throw confetti at her to make her feel special? Is she the only confetti-thrower in the organization? What if she's sick or on vacation? Will employee morale plumet?

Obviously these rhetorical questions are just me being punchy. I didn't sleep a lot last night, and I have a full day of saving Nica. But seriously, is this sort of behavior necessary? Do we need someone holding our hand every step of the way telling us we did a good job? I don't; in fact, don't put your grubby hands anywhere near me. No, but seriously, I don't need constant praise for doing my job; that's why I get paid, to do my job. Yes, of course, every so often, it is nice to be recognized for putting in 15-hour days, or for writing a great proposal, but no, I don't need someone patting me on the back all the way to the bank as I cash my check.

Given the period in which Generation Yers have grown up, yes, we were told we can do anything, and that I think has been a very good thing. However, I think the authors are right in saying that we have been coddled too much by our instructors.

The main points of the articles with which I take issue is when the comment is made that we don't like to work longer than eight-hour days. Let's think about this: how many people, of any generation, like to work longer than eight-hour days (myself excluded, since I'm kind of a masochist)? There is a vast difference between being overjoyed with working longer than eight-hour days and being willing to do so. Honestly, I can't think of one friend of mine who would not be willing to work more than eight-hour days if he knew it would benefit him in the long run. My friends, at least those from Tufts, have a long-term vision for their careers --maybe not knowing exactly what it will be permanently, but that they will get there in due time-- and are conscious of the fact that we'll have to pay our dues with jobs that don't let us do exactly what we want to do right now. Why? Because we're not stupid. We're all in our early- to mid-twenties, don't have sufficient training or experience to run the world right now -- well, except for Sarasa and I, but we're kind of special like that. Lots of days when I'm not playing softball after work, I am up by 6, in the office by at, and get home at 9 or 10 in the evening. Why? Because I have work which needs to get done, and it's not going to do itself. So yes, I am willing to work hard, because I see where I am right now as a means to an end. Yeah, I'll pay my dues too, just like most young professionals, and work long hours for crap pay with little time to sleep, but I see it as a process of me putting myself in a position in which I want to be.

World Bank Governance Analysis Released

That's right, the good people at the World Bank have released another analysis on governance. Looks like Chavezuela is the second most corrupt country in the hemisphere, only losing out to perennial power Haiti. Caracas Chronicles gets into the nitty gritty of what this means for Venezuela.

As with any analysis, one must look very carefully at the indicators utilized, the group/organization performing said study, the methodology, etc. Polls, focus groups, studies, analyses, etc. are hardly absolute, but they are useful as a tool for better understanding a given political/social/economic climate --and in this various, a wide variety, allowing for the analyses to be used in a comparative perspective-- and creating better informed policy.

Quote of the night

"We're the type of people who would jump on a plane or on a shuttle to outer space to see the people we care about. It's a bit more than co-dependency..." ~Bill

Latin America news round-up for the day

Since I am studying more seriously for the GRE, I probably won't have the chance to blog nearly as much. I will, however, try to do a daily news round-up, and when I get bored of studying, I'm sure I'll manage to write about Venezuela or whatever happens to be rubbing me the wrong way on any given day.

Source: The Associated Press, El Nuevo Herald

Ley agraria tensa relación gobierno-agropecuarios en Bolivia

Los empresarios agropecuarios anunciaron el martes medidas contra el gobierno tras fracasar en su intento por frenar la aplicación, a partir del 2 de agosto, de una ley agraria que incluye medidas para la expropiación de tierras sin cultivar.

"No sabemos las medidas (por el momento), pero habrá respuestas", dijo el presidente de la Confederación Agropecuaria Nacional (Confeagro), Mauricio Roca. "El sector presentó propuestas, planes de acción y recibió agresiones, ataques y prejuicios", acotó.

Los empresarios abandonaron la reunión con el presidente Evo Morales el lunes en la noche ante la falta de acuerdos. Del encuentro también participaron organizaciones campesinas afines al partido de gobierno.

La principal discordia es el carácter confiscatorio de la ley de aquellos latifundios que no demuestren una "función económica social" en un determinado tiempo. La Confeagro pidió al gobierno postergar la aplicación del reglamento hasta que el Tribunal Constitucional emita un fallo a un recurso legal en curso.

La ministra de Agricultura, Susana Rivero, dijo a los periodistas que la ley ya no está en discusión y que un acuerdo sobre la aplicación del reglamento no prosperó por posturas intransigentes de campesinos y agropecuarios.

"La tierra, que es el principal factor de producción lo han convertido en un factor político. Hemos hecho todos los esfuerzos más allá de los afectos y desafectos y vemos con incertidumbre el futuro", dijo Roca.

El empresario acusó al gobierno de poner en peligro la seguridad alimentaria de los bolivianos. Pero Morales dijo el lunes que los empresarios agropecuarios "tienen tierra pero quieren más; tienen plata pero piden (al gobierno) 170 millones de dólares para reprogramar sus créditos mientras los productores pequeños, que producen para el mercado interno, no tienen apoyo".

Source: Anastasia, Moloney, The Financial Times

Murky claims mar Colombia peace

It would take 300 years, working at the current rate of 250 bodies per year, to unearth all of Colombia’s known mass graves, according to human right groups.

That grim work began this year, part of an effort at bringing reconciliation to the shattered country after 43 years of drug-fuelled civil war between leftist guerrillas and rightwing paramilitaries. There are many influential Colombians, however, who are wary of digging too deeply – both literally and metaphorically – in pursuit of the truth about that conflict.

Source: Anastasia Moloney, The Financial Times

Colombia’s military hit by ‘top-level infiltration’

Guerrillas and drug traffickers have infiltrated Colombia’s armed forces “at the highest level”, Juan Manual Santos, Colombian defence minister, has admitted.

“We are aware that mafia groups are involved in this type of penetration,” Mr Santos said at a press conference on Monday. “Unfortunately, infiltration has reached a very senior level and there are a number of suspects.”

More than 20 members of the armed forces are accused of collaborating with drug baron Diego Montoya, head of the Norte del Valle drug cartel based in western Colombia, who is alleged to have recruited retired military personnel to work in his cocaine-smuggling organisation. Seven have been arrested over the claims.

Recent press reports in Colombia have claimed that Mr Montoya paid retired military officers hefty salaries to become part of his security team and offered collaborators about $5m (€3.6m, £2.4m) to mount a rescue operation to free his brother from a maximum security prison in central Colombia. No such operation was ever launched.

Mr Santos said there had been “serious failings in intelligence” that had al-lowed drug barons to access sensitive information and avoid capture. Mr Montoya is a fugitive and remains on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list.

Seven soldiers had been arrested, including a high-ranking military officer, Mr Santos told reporters. “There will be more arrests,” he added.

New evidence discovered separately by the Colombian authorities suggests that leftist guerrillas have also managed to infiltrate the army and obtain sensitive information.

Last month, computer files belonging to a rebel from the leftwing Farc group who had died in combat with government forces were shown to contain classified information and maps detailing military counter-insurgency operations against the Farc that officials say could have only come from a highly placed military source.

For more than four decades, the Colombian army and Farc have been engaged in almost daily skirmishes.

Source: The Associated Press, The New York Times

Colombian on Trek to Free Kidnapped Son

SUBIA, Colombia (AP) -- A 55-year-old teacher whose soldier son was kidnapped in a rebel attack a decade ago neared the capital Tuesday after walking across half of Colombia to rally support for a prisoner swap.

Gustavo Moncayo has become a fixture on the national news since setting out on his cross-country crusade six weeks ago with chains draped symbolically over his shoulder, enduring persistent foot problems and the blistering sun.

''I decided to walk because I'm tired of the government's lies ... The government and the politicians have done nothing for the kidnapped,'' said Moncayo as he walked through the town of Subia, just west of the capital, greeted by several hundred well-wishers.

Moncayo mortgaged his house and took out thousands of dollars in loans to underwrite the trek that began in his hometown of Sandona in Colombia's southwestern hills.

He will have walked more than 620 miles by the time he reaches Bogota's main plaza Wednesday. He has vowed to camp in the plaza, in plain view of the Congress, until he gets the government to agree to exchange imprisoned rebels for his son and 45 high-value hostages held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

Moncayo's son, Pablo Emilio, was 19 when he was captured in a 1997 FARC attack on a mountaintop army communications post. Seventeen other soldiers were taken by the rebels, and 10 were killed in the attack.

Colombia has one of the world's highest kidnapping rates. The Pais Libre Foundation, which helps families afflicted by abductions, estimates there are more than 3,000 people in captivity in this Andean nation.

Moncayo has been mobbed by well-wishers in every hamlet he's pass through. Along the way, he's collected more than 2 million signatures in support of talks to free the hostages.

But prospects are dim, especially after the FARC announced that 11 state lawmakers it kidnapped five years ago were killed last month during an attack by ''an unidentified military force.'' The government says that force was another rebel contingent, and that the guerrillas holding the hostages mistakenly believed a rescue operation was in progress.

Moncayo said he wants to personally explain his campaign to President Alvaro Uribe, but so far there are no plans for a meeting.

When I was in Nicaragua, I refused to watch CNN en Español, because all they did was show the same clip over and over again. Luckily for me, the hotel where I stayed had Colombia's Caracol, so I was able to watch news straight from Bogotá while I was in my room. Not going to lie, I woke up at 7am every morning so I could watch it, if only to catch glimpses of the city. I guess that's what not being in your home country for over 12 years will do to you. But anyway, the point in my saying this is that the news anchors would follow Moncayo --I caught him as he was going through Tolima and entering into the city of Fusagasugá, which is one of the cities I visited last time I was there-- and was able to see live interviews. Prior to watching Caracol, I was not familiar with his march. It will be interesting to see how Uribe handles this: if he meets with Moncayo, I don't see anything bad coming out of the meeting. As long as he doesn't make any empty promises, he'll probably be ok, but it might not be the most prudent thing to go ahead and fully reinforce the government policy of rescue missions, since as of late those which have been botched have gotten a lot of bad press.

Source: The Associated Press, The New York Times

Castro Marks First Year on Sidelines

HAVANA (AP) -- Cuba passed the one-year anniversary of Fidel Castro's withdrawal from power without official mention of the fact on Tuesday -- but Castro published an essay proclaiming Cuba's victories at the Pan American games were a triumph for the revolution.

''On 59 occasions we heard the spirited notes of the Cuban National Anthem playing -- in spite of everything!'' Castro wrote in the latest of a series of columns, referring to the 59 gold medals the country won during the hemispheric competition in Rio de Janeiro -- second only to the United States.

Castro, who turns 81 on Aug. 13, has not been seen in public since he underwent emergency intestinal surgery and withdrew from day-to-day government on July 31, 2006.

But Cuba's communist leadership has defied predictions it would weaken without the man who had led it since 1959, functioning smoothly under his brother Raul, the defense minister.

''The most important success of the revolution is the capacity to resist nearly half a century of blockade and privations of all sorts,'' Castro wrote Tuesday, referring to the U.S. embargo of his country.

In recent months he has made his opinions known through newspaper columns entitled ''Reflections of the Commander in Chief,'' weighing in on Cuba's economy, the U.S. government and proposals to use food crops to produce ethanol.

The last five columns focused on the Pan American games. Earlier in the month he had said he was so engrossed watching Cuba's performance on television that he sometimes forgot to eat and take his medicine.

The bearded leader is a lifelong sports fan and played basketball and baseball in his youth.

Officials have not said if Castro will resume his duties as president. Raul Castro, 76, appears to have consolidated his rule.

Official news media made no mention of the anniversary, but published fragments of a speech by the younger Castro commemorating the 50th anniversary of the death of revolutionary activist Frank Pais.

On July 26, Raul Castro gave a Revolution Day speech recognizing that government salaries did not cover basic needs and saying the country needed ''structural changes'' he did not detail.

Source: Jose de Cordoba, The Wall Street Journal

Venezuelan Cable Station Faces Chávez Showdown

CARACAS, Venezuela -- A samba band snaked through the studios of Radio Caracas Television on July 16 to celebrate the broadcaster's return as a cable station just seven weeks after President Hugo Chávez refused to renew the station's broadcast license, knocking it off the air.

The new cable version of RCTV, called RCTV International, was just as feisty as the broadcast version had been. Popular anchorman Miguel Ángel Rodríguez started his show with a Chávez critic who blasted the arrest of four university students for handing out political leaflets during a soccer game. Next, a Catholic bishop warned that Venezuela was sliding toward totalitarianism. "I'm so happy to be back," beamed RCTV co-anchor Luisiana Ríos.

But the celebration turned out to be premature. The Chávez government last week announced legal requirements that may force RCTV International off cable outlets tomorrow, possibly silencing the opposition broadcaster for good. Essentially, the Chávez government is requiring RCTV International -- a Miami-based company which gets much of its programming from Caracas-based RCTV and transmits to Latin America -- to register as a Venezuelan content producer. The registration requirements, which include airing Mr. Chávez's marathon speeches, would make the cable venture economically "unfeasible," says Marcel Granier, RCTV's chief executive officer.

RCTV International's managers are considering their options. So are Venezuela's cable and satellite-TV operators, who worry that if they continue to carry RCTV International programs, the Chávez government will hit them with heavy fines, says Mario Seijas, the president of the Pay TV Association of Venezuela, whose members include both satellite and cable operators.

RCTV's travails show how difficult it has become to remain politically independent during the tenure of Mr. Chávez, who has said he needs to exert a "new hegemony" over most aspects of Venezuelan life to create "21st-century socialism." In recent years, Mr. Chávez has moved to squelch political opposition and to extend his brand of left-wing politics to neighboring countries. His efforts to control the domestic media threaten to silence a key mass outlet for opposing views.

Since winning a landslide re-election in December, he has nationalized the country's leading telecommunications and energy companies and taken majority control of major oil projects from foreign oil companies. He's tightened his grip as well on the country's armed forces, who now salute superiors with a slogan popularized decades ago by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro -- "Socialism, Fatherland or Death." In the weeks ahead, Mr. Chávez plans to unveil a draft of a new constitution that is expected to include an end to presidential term limits.

'Four Horsemen'

Mr. Chávez has had a turbulent relationship with Venezuela's media since he was first elected in 1998. As disenchantment grew over Mr. Chávez's radicalization and over his close relationship with Mr. Castro, the four major private broadcasters, together with the nation's unions and business association, moved to fill the power vacuum caused by the collapse of Venezuela's established political parties. Mr. Chávez dubbed the broadcasters the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse."

During three turbulent days in April 2002, when Mr. Chávez lost power in a coup attempt and then regained it, private broadcasters lined up with the opposition and didn't broadcast pro-Chávez protests. That, together with the broadcasters' support later that year for a two-month general strike against the Chávez government, earned the broadcasters Mr. Chávez's enmity. The broadcasters deny having anything to do with the coup and say they couldn't report events because it was too dangerous for their reporters to do so.

Mr. Chávez has denounced broadcasters as tools of the rich, and has used their need to renew government broadcast licenses as a pressure point. Billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, who with his brother Ricardo owns RCTV's main rival, Corporación Venezolana de Televisión CA, known as Venevisión, met with Mr. Chávez at a Caracas army base in 2004. Afterward, Venevisión softened its news coverage and canceled a show by Napoléon Bravo, an acerbic political commentator. "We stopped putting salt and pepper on the news," says Mr. Cisneros. "It was a matter of survival."

RCTV, however, kept hammering at the Chávez government. Its newscasts focused on a growing crime wave in Caracas and provided a voice both to Chávez foes and to supporters who complained about the government's inability to provide housing and other services. "Facing a totalitarian regime, you can either adapt to it, thinking you will survive, or you can confront it," says Mr. Granier, RCTV's chief executive, who owns a large stake in the station.

RCTV's management figured that the station's popularity would protect it from attack by the Chávez government, which already was being criticized internationally. But in December 2006, shortly after Mr. Chávez was re-elected, he announced that the government wouldn't renew RCTV's broadcasting license this May. He cited the station's alleged links to the failed 2002 coup.

When the government closed the station, it seized RCTV's transmitters and equipment worth $130 million to use for a new government station that is now using RCTV's broadcast frequencies, Mr. Granier says. The shuttering of RCTV sparked international criticism and a nationwide student movement to defend civil liberties, but Mr. Chávez refused to budge.

Now Globovisión, an all-news channel that reaches about 20% of Venezuelan households, is the only remaining broadcaster that sharply criticizes Mr. Chávez. It too has been threatened with closure by the government. Another broadcaster, Televen, has made compromises, taking a program that regularly disparaged the government off the air, although it still broadcasts some news that is critical.

Meanwhile, over the past five years, the number of government channels has gone from one to six. Venezuela's congress and other Chávez-controlled government entities such as the municipality of Caracas have started TV stations that take the government line and criticize Mr. Chávez's enemies.

The loss of RCTV's broadcast license crippled the station, which had revenue of about $250 million a year, says Mr. Granier. RCTV and Venevisión have been perennial rivals for the top spot in Venezuela's ratings race. RCTV's broadcasts had reached 95% of Venezuela's more than 5 million households. Venezuela's cable and satellite-TV channels, by comparison, reach just half of the nation's households. If it remade itself as a cable station, RCTV figured, it might lose 80% of its advertising revenue. It was unsure how many of its 3,000 employees it could retain.

Even so, RCTV thought it could survive. It could count on the goodwill of many Venezuelans. In some public opinion polls, eight out of 10 Venezuelans, many of them supporters of Mr. Chávez, opposed the president's move to close RCTV. During the seven weeks RCTV was off the air, Globovisión provided an hour of broadcast time for RCTV to air its news show, which quickly won top ratings. RCTV executives also figured that the company's international visibility would enable it to line up new cable customers elsewhere in Latin America and among U.S. Hispanics.

New technology also held promise. Even though the Chávez government had banned RCTV reporters from many government offices, including those of the president and vice president, the station kept reporting news events. The reports were carried on the station's Web site and on cable by Caracol TV, a Colombian broadcasting ally. When RCTV's Web site crashed due to heavy traffic, the station posted segments on YouTube.

The station's on-air personalities tried to keep the station alive in the minds of viewers. Stars taped future episodes of soaps. RCTV presented top-rated shows such as "Radio Rochela," a long-running satire, and quiz show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" live in two town squares in Caracas's suburbs, drawing large crowds. "None of us knew how important we were to our public," says Juliet Lima, the young star of Camaleona, one of RCTV's top soaps.

RCTV began laying plans to transform itself into a cable channel that would use Miami-based RCTV International, a related company that shares some stockholders with RCTV, to transmit its programming to cable subscribers in Venezuela and other countries. It already had experience in that field. It long had sold programming to RCTV International, which was already marketing RCTV shows and programming from other nations around the world.

By sending programming through RCTV International, RCTV figured it wouldn't be required to follow Venezuelan domestic broadcast regulations, including having to air Mr. Chávez's hours-long speeches and news conferences. Last week, for instance, Venezuela's domestic stations had to broadcast 13 hours of Mr. Chávez's ruminations about the health of his friend Mr. Castro and the high quality of Cuban cows, among other things.

On July 16, RCTV relaunched as a cable station. In its new incarnation, it increased the amount of time devoted to news and opinion to six hours a day, from 4½ hours. The first two weeks looked promising, with the station drawing high ratings.

Caracas newspapers ran front-page stories describing how poor Venezuelans in shantytowns ringing the capital, in order to get RCTV International, were pooling resources to buy satellite dishes and subscriptions to cable television. A photograph in El Universal, a leading newspaper, showed a barrio family of eight watching the predawn inaugural broadcast on its newly purchased satellite service.

RCTV's executives cautioned that the cable company would face immense financial challenges. "We won't make money for many years," said Julian Isaac, RCTV's vice president in charge of marketing. "We are not even talking about breaking even." Some major advertisers remained supportive, such as Empresas Polar, a beer and food maker that is the largest private company left in Venezuela. Others canceled their ads, says Pablo Mendoza, RCTV's vice president of market studies.

Heavy Fines

Last week, the Chávez government further increased the pressure. Writing to cable-TV carriers, Telecommunications Minister Jesse Chacón told them that Miami-based RCTV International must register as a domestic content producer, subject to Venezuelan domestic regulation. If RCTV International doesn't comply, cable and satellite-TV operators will be required to drop the channel by tomorrow or pay heavy fines.

Mr. Chacón told reporters he saw no difference between RCTV and RCTV International because "they generate all their information in Venezuela and their production is aimed at Venezuelan society." RCTV International, he said, was just a "mechanism" to try to avoid Venezuelan regulations.

"We don't have a choice" about dropping the channel, says Mr. Seijas, the president of the Pay TV Association. One association member that carries the RCTV signal is DirectTV, 39% owned by News Corp., which is negotiating to buy Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Seijas says that DirectTV's position is the same as the association's.

RCTV's Mr. Granier contends that "the government is trying to intimidate the cable operators," and that the requirement is illegal. As an international cable operator, he says, RCTV International is comparable to the Disney Channel and CNN, and shouldn't have to register as a domestic firm. Although most of RCTV's programming is still produced in Venezuela, the company says, its channel includes content from other international providers, such as Televisa and TV Azteca of Mexico and Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Brothers Entertainment unit in the U.S. RCTV International's signal also is carried by cable operators in Aruba, Curacao, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr. Granier says he plans to appeal the government's decision, and hopes to persuade satellite-TV stations to continue to carry RCTV International. He also is planning to beef up what he calls "strategic alliances" with other broadcasters and cable operators in the region to carry RCTV programming. Some of those stations, like Colombia's Caracol TV, are seen on Venezuelan cable TV.

A fallback position is for RCTV to continue producing soaps and other programming. Mr. Granier is not sure he'll be able to continue the aggressive news coverage and political satire that has so irked Mr. Chávez. "We will have to re-evaluate things," he says.

Ms. Lima, the soap-opera star, is disheartened. Two weeks ago, she felt her station's own drama would turn out to be a defeat for Mr. Chávez. "Like all soap operas, there is a villain who makes life impossible for everybody, but then in the last chapter, the villain gets his just deserts," she says smiling. Now, she says, she's not so sure. "I feel we are starting out from zero again," she says.

Obviously, this is at the top of my radar. My suspicion is that if RCTV International is shut down, while the protests might not necessarily be worse, the implications for freedom of expression --or what is left of it in Venezuela-- will be quite bleak.

Just for laughs

I was just up on Embassy Row near Dupont in DC getting some stuff taken care of at the Nicaraguan Consulate, and I noticed that the Belarusian Embassy is right next door. Oh, the irony of it all ;)

Generation Gap in the Workplace

My housemate Meg had this NYT article on her gchat status, and it is definitely worth being posted. If you work in an organization/company in which there are summer interns or a large number of recent college grads, you'll understand the sentiment of it. For my part, the bit about the lazy summer interns sounds exactly like the vast majority of those who work at my job. Ugh.

Life’s Work

When Whippersnappers and Geezers Collide

By LISA BELKIN

Published: July 26, 2007

SHORTLY after they reported for work this summer, groups of interns at Ernst & Young were invited to an orientation program that included a PowerPoint presentation titled “Hello. W U?!”

Daniel Horowitz

For those out there who need translation, that’s how Generation Y, to which these 20-somethings all belong, might ask “What’s up?” in a text message.

And this meeting was all about translation. “Strategies to Connect With Baby Boomers” was the title of one of the slides. Its advice? When the boss comes in to complain that the young team is “spending too much time text-messaging each other and listening to iPods,” it is just not the best time to explain that you have to “leave early to meet your volunteer commitments.”

Summer is the season of culture shock in the working world, when the old guard comes face to face with a next wave of newcomers, and the result is something like lost tribes encountering explorers for the first time.

Add to this the favorite fact of human resource managers everywhere: this is the first time in history that four generations — those who lived through World War II, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y — are together in the workplace.

Managers tell stories of summer associates who come to meetings with midriffs exposed, baring a belly ring; of interns who walk through the halls engaged with iPods; of new hires who explain they need Fridays off because their boyfriends get Fridays off and they have a share in a beach house. Then there is the tale of the summer hire who sent a text message to a senior partner asking “Are bras required as part of the dress code?”

“They have an attitude toward work that looks like laziness and looks like impatience,” said Janice Smith, who leads the Ernst & Young seminar, carefully putting the best light on Gen Y qualities that are flummoxing managers, “but they don’t understand that’s how it looks.”

There have always been overconfident 20-year-olds, just as there have always been elders to say, “When I was your age. ...” Perhaps poetically, the last group to upend the working world with its ambition and drive are now looking down from the C-suites at their children, Gen Y, who are as single-minded in their search for balance as their parents were in their quest for success.

Surveys over the last few years have found that this group is looking for work that includes a “flexible work schedule” (92 percent, according to a Harris Interactive poll), “requires creativity” (96 percent) and “allows me to have an impact on the world” (97 percent). And when the polling firm Roper Starch Worldwide did a survey comparing workplace attitudes among generations, 90 percent of Gen Yers said they wanted co-workers “who make work fun.” No other generation polled put that requirement in their top five.

So the de rigueur summer event at many companies now, as much a part of signing on as the human resources forms and the ID card, is a seminar designed to close this generation gap. At Arrow Electronics it is “Generations in the Workplace,” while Michelle Marks, an expert on organizational behavior at George Mason University, calls hers “Managing the Challenges of the Gen X and Gen Y Work Force.” Aflac has “Generational Differences.” All are less than two years old.

Much of the purpose is to teach Gen Y the basics, which have often been neglected along the way. “They all have amazing résumés,” said Mary Crane, the founder of a Denver-based consulting firm and part of a new crop of experts teaching companies to navigate generational conflicts. She has been traveling the country “taming” Gen Y at workplaces from the law firms of Dewey Ballantine and Simpson Thacher, to the Orange County Employee Benefit Council.

These young employees, she said, had to overachieve to get through the most competitive college admissions process in history, so they don’t feel particularly inclined to pay their dues. “They have climbed Everest and excavated Machu Picchu,” she said, “but they have never had the experience of showing up for work at 9 a.m.”

When speaking to this group, Ms. Crane lays out scenarios. When you e-mail a client, do you use his or her first name in the salutation? Only if he or she has indicated that would be all right. At a business lunch, who sits in the chair pulled out by the waiter? “The client always goes first,” she said, “unless that seems to make the client uncomfortable, in which case, just sit down.”

Some of the blame for this knowledge gap lies with the very elders who are scratching their heads.

“This is the largest, healthiest, most pampered generation in history,” she said. “They were expected to spend their spare time making the varsity team,” not working part-time, Ms. Crane said. Their parents, she said, showed their love by staying late at the office to bring home more money. The children expect to be home for dinner. Career dominance, their thinking goes, can be achieved by 5 p.m., can’t it?

Billy Warden, an account director at the marketing company Capstrat in North Carolina, learned all this anew recently when he was being interviewed by an intern who was working on a booklet about Gen Y and work. The topic was job interviews, and, as Mr. Warden remembers it, the 20-year-old was explaining “that job interviews are a two-way conversation, where the company puts out what they want and expect from me, and I put out there what I want and expect from the company.”

Mr. Warden didn’t think that’s what interviews were. “Maybe in 10 years you’ll get to state your expectations,” he said he told the intern. “Right now, you’re a box of cereal and you’re going to have to sell yourself and hope that someone decides to put you in their grocery cart and give you a try.”

It is a concept that has all but disappeared from internship programs, where employees make it clear they have no patience for busywork.

“I walked away from one internship because it was a waste of my time,” says Ryan Healy, who last spring founded Employee Evolution, a Web site that gives advice to Gen Yers entering the work force. “We have limits.” He is 23.

For all the talk of teaching Generation Y, with a worker shortage looming, workplaces everywhere are bending to their needs.

So while Ernst & Young is teaching its Gen Y employees how to talk politely to partners, it has also started teaching those partners how to send text messages. Similarly, Liggett Stashower, an advertising and public relations firm in Cleveland, encourages summer interns to blog about their experiences. Deloitte & Touche runs a summer film competition (the winner will be posted on YouTube), on the theory that this is an area where interns in particular can show off. And the technology company Avnet changed its internship program so that interns spend the entire summer in one department, a response to suggestions from previous groups who felt they weren’t doing enough substantive work.

Which leads to the question — who exactly is grooming whom?

A quick tally would seem to show Gen Y in the lead, setting the life-work agenda. But it would be rash to underestimate the Me Generation. As boomers learn to text more quickly and interns learn to wear suits, the only sure bet is that the tug of war between these generations will shape the workplace for decades to come.

e-mail: Belkin@nytimes.com

One year without Fidel...so where are we now?

Source: Wilfredo Cancio Isla and Frances Robles, The Miami Herald

Fidel Castro's towering shadow endures

Raúl Castro has lived much of his life just a few steps behind older brother Fidel.

He followed Fidel in the mountain battles against the Batista dictatorship in the 1950s, and for nearly five decades since has been No. 2 in the Cuban Communist Party and in the Cuban government.

But as Raúl Castro marks his first year today out in front of his ailing brother, his reputation as a supremely efficient and organized taskmaster who shuns Fidel's bombastic style of rule appears to be serving him well as he faces a communist nation mired in myriad difficulties.

While cutting back on the long speeches and political rallies, Castro, 76, has launched a rash of new projects and ideas to improve the troubled economy. Above all, he has been credited with keeping Cuba politically stable since Fidel took ill.

Yet even now, he appears to have been unable to entirely shake his image as Cuba's “second banana.” His talks on the need for economic reforms seemed to lose some steam around March, after Fidel rebounded and began writing articles interpreted as putting limits on reforms.

“The list of what didn't happen in Cuba in the last year is much longer than what happened,” said Cuba's former U.N. ambassador, Alcibiades Hidalgo, who also served as a senior personal aide to Castro and defected in 2002. “To describe this year . . . I'd use this phrase: ‘Fidel Castro, better; Cuba, the same.’

“Or this one: ‘Fidel Castro let go of the helm, but he remains the ship's anchor.’”

Fidel “temporarily” surrendered his official duties to his brother on July 31, saying intestinal surgery made him unable to work. While his health appears to have improved, there is no sign he will ever again exercise the extraordinary power he once wielded. For the first time in 48 years, last week -- two weeks before his 81st birthday -- he missed Cuba's annual July 26 revolutionary celebration.

“The past 12 months have been a remarkable example of our people's maturity, firmness in principles, unity, trust in Fidel and the party and particularly in themselves,” Raúl Castro said at the celebration. “Adjustments and postponements have been necessary, and we do not rule out that more will be made in the future.”

Indeed, Raúl Castro has spent the last 12 months reportedly working quietly on the changes that could salvage the country's communist system upon the death of its ultra-charismatic founder.

He has paid off the government's large and long-standing debts to small farmers and hiked prices that producers get for milk and meat -- both incentives to production. Some public debate and even criticism of government failures has taken place, without crushing repercussion.

In his first six months in power, he named four new cabinet ministers, promoted an ally to head Cuba's only labor union and twice offered to talk to Washington. He urged debate on sensitive issues and encouraged journalists to expose state corruption and social indiscipline. These days a nation where many survive on corruption is being urged to show up to work on time and not steal from state stocks.

He has spoken of trying to reinvigorate foreign investments, which have sagged over the past four years, and relaxed customs regulations to allow more imports of home appliances, DVD players, VCRs and automotive parts.

“A lot of people's lives will be easier because of that,” said Cuba expert Philip Peters, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think thank. “He'll do stuff like that, that produces modest results but does not change the rules of the game.”

LITTLE EXPECTED

Few analysts, in fact, expect earth-shattering transformations under Castro -- at least not while his older brother is still alive.

“He's afraid of his brother's shadow and always has been, so he's sitting at his desk trying to solve problems quietly, like a clerk crossing t's and dotting i's,” said Teo Babún, a business consultant who studies Cuba's economy. “Perhaps that's what Cuba needs: less talk and more action. But people are going to be looking to him for leadership, and I'm not sure he's going to be able to fulfill that role.”

Castro's rejection of his brother's charismatic brand of leadership is so strong that he has not appeared on Cuba's most important TV news talk show, Round Table, even once in the past year. He gave just nine speeches and one newspaper interview, and attended none of the rallies against accused terrorist Luis Posada Carriles staged by the government in front of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana.

“Raúl is one of the least known men of the revolution,” said Lissette Bustamante, a former Cuban television journalist who enjoyed close access to top power circles before she defected in 1992. “He has always been second banana, in the shadows, the gray man.”

And even though many recall his hand in harsh political repression over his nearly five decades as Cuba's minister of defense, he also is known as a highly effective organizer and administrator -- the pragmatist who gets things done.

“When I knew him as a [Havana university] student, he was always discreet rather than an exhibitionist,” said controversial Miami radio commentator Max Lesnik, an anti-embargo activist who favors a full normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.

“Everyone predicted that the moment Fidel left the scene, Raúl wouldn't . . . keep the country going. The opposite happened -- the total opposite.”

The past year also has been significant for Castro personally. Last month his wife of 48 years, Vilma Espín, a hero of the revolution and prominent advocate for women's rights, died after a long illness. Daughter Mariela has emerged as a family spokesman on her uncle's health.

Fidel Castro told French writer Ignacio Ramonet that he has long considered his brother the person with the “most authority and experience” to lead Cuba in his absence.

“He has been an educator, a builder of men, with much equanimity and much seriousness,” he said in Ramonet's book, Biografía a Dos Voces, published last year. “He is the person who, even today, has the greatest authority, and the people have placed great confidence in him.”

Most experts agree that the succession of power from Fidel to his younger brother -- Cuban officials prefer to call it a “continuation” -- has been smooth. But it has not trickled down to the Cuban people, who say they have yet to feel any real changes.

‘MAYBE THE WORST’

“There have been no structural or political changes within the regime. All that has happened is a modification in style and a reshuffling of the power elite. . . . This is a terrible year -- maybe the worst in a long time,” said Cuban historian Rafael Rojas, who left the island in 1991 and is now a visiting professor at Columbia University.

Larissa, a seamstress in the central Cuba city of Sancti Spiritus, says her house is in just as poor condition, and her pension is still not enough to live on.

Whether Fidel or Raúl Castro rules the island, to make ends meet the 72-year-old widow must keep sewing.

“Don't talk to me about who is or is not in charge,” she said in a telephone interview. “Life is the same routine: invent; survive; stretch money. Nothing has moved here, not even the leaves.”

Nica news, and a bit of a rant

This post is dedicated to my co-worker Juan. He says he reads my blog, but I think he's lying -- the only way he can prove himself is if he comments. Matt, no se lo soples!

I was really psyched to write a lot tonight, but since I played like absolute crap tonight --one would think I had never seen a softball in my life!-- I am going to just post some articles about Nica which I think are worth reading.

But before that, a little side comment. Since I am kind of a fan of sweeping generalizations, particularly when it comes to countries, I think I should clarify my feelings about one in particular: Spain. Perhaps better said, the Spanish people. I was always pretty indifferent about Spain growing up; I knew about the conquistadores and how they came to the Americas, and despite the fact that liberal education tried to shove down my throat that they had killed off my people --which I never quite understood, because I exist, as do many indigenous communities in Central and South America-- I knew I never had any ill will toward them. Granted, I will make fun of the accent from time to time, as evidenced by an accent contest in which myself and a co-worker went head-to-head on Spanish accents -- he kicked my butt on the Spanish one, but I dominated him in South America. But in all seriousness, I like Spaniards. Lady Vorzheva is, by far, the coolest Spaniard I know; one of ladies in the travel department is a distant second. But anyway, my travel agent buddy was telling me what "Mola el pegote" means, as a friend of mine had asked me, and I had no clue. We then got to chatting about how Latin Americans and Spaniards don't even speak the language, the jargon divides us to the point where it can sometimes be virtually unintelligible. For example, the word "taco." In many countries, it's a food. In Colombia, it is a golf tee. In Chile, it is a traffic jam. In lots of countries, it is the heel of a shoe. Bottom line, we are a crazy people who can't keep their words straight -- and I love it.

Ok, so Nica news:
The US is bugged by Nica's budding friendship with Iran -- as it should be.
Nica, under the direction of the Cardinal Obando y Bravo, makes a power play in looks for ALBA funds.
Jarquín and Aguirre Sacasa discuss the private sector's role -- and apathy -- thus far under Ortega, and suggest what they should do.
Looks like the ALN and the PLC --well, most of it-- will get what they want and the CPCs won't go into effect.
...And yet there are some diputados who try, very unsuccessfully, to justify the CPCs' existence.
Nica's government handing out contracts without bids? Sure, why not? O_o
Ortega needs to get his act together with international relations and send ambassadors -- just because he is Chávez's lackey doesn't mean he can neglect Nica's foreign and domestic policies.
Trouble within the PLC? Big shock that it's about Alemán's role...
This one is particularly interesting: Marenco, the FSLN mayor of Managua, is being greatly marginalized, and even ostracized, by Ortega due to his closer role with Chávez. Definitely something to keep watch, as the FSLN as we know it might be undergoing major changes.
More on the Chávez-Ortega relationship -- an editorial
A benign dictatorship (?) -- an editorial ...not sure those exist
Napoleon complex