Video Trailer: Latinos Beyond Reel - Challenging a Media Stereotype

El Norte (14)

El Norte (13)

El Norte (12)

El Norte (11)

El Norte (10)

El Norte (9)

El Norte (8)

El Norte (7)

El Norte (6)

El Norte (5)

El Norte (4)

El Norte (3)

El Norte (2)

El Norte (1)

Latin America rebels against Obama over Cuba

http://news.yahoo.com/latin-america-rebels-against-u-over-cuba-193839285.html


CARTAGENA, Colombia (Reuters) - Unprecedented Latin American opposition to U.S. sanctions on Cuba left President Barack Obama isolated at a summit on Sunday and illustrated Washington's declining influence in a region being aggressively courted by China.

Unlike the rock-star status he enjoyed at the 2009 Summit of the Americas after taking office, Obama has had a bruising time at the two-day meeting in Colombia of some 30 heads of state.
Sixteen U.S. security personnel were caught in an embarrassing prostitution scandal before Obama arrived, Brazil and others have bashed Obama over U.S. monetary policy and he has been on the defensive over Cuba and calls to legalize drugs.

Due to the hostile U.S. and Canadian line on communist-run Cuba, the heads of state failed to produce a final declaration as the summit fizzled out on Sunday afternoon.
"There was no declaration because there was no consensus," said Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. He bristled at suggestions the summit had been a failure, however, saying the exchange of different views was a sign of democratic health. For the first time, conservative-led U.S. allies like Mexico and Colombia are throwing their weight behind the traditional demand of leftist governments that Cuba be invited to the next Summit of the Americas.

Cuba was kicked out of the Organization of American States (OAS) a few years after Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution and has been kept out of its summits due mainly to U.S. opposition.
But Latin American leaders are increasingly militant in opposing both Cuba's exclusion and the 50-year-old U.S. trade embargo on the Caribbean island. "The isolation, the embargo, the indifference, looking the other way, have been ineffective," Santos said. "I hope Cuba is at the next summit in three years." Santos, a major U.S. ally in the region who has relied on Washington for financial and military help to fight guerrillas and drug traffickers, has become vocal about Cuba's inclusion even though he also advocates for democratic reform by Havana.

CLINTON PARTIES IN "CAFE HAVANA"

In an ironic twist to the debate, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went dancing in the early hours of Sunday at a Cartagena bar called Cafe Havana, where Cuban music is played.
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, who has insisted without success that Washington recognize its claim to the Falkland Islands controlled by Britain, was one of several presidents who left the summit well before its official closure.

She missed a verbal gaffe by Obama, who referred to the "Maldives" instead of the "Malvinas" when using the name Latin Americans give to the disputed islands. The leftist ALBA bloc of nations - including Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and some Caribbean nations - said they will not attend future summits without Cuba's presence. "It's not a favour anyone would be doing to Cuba. It's a right they've had taken away from them," Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said from Managua.

Although there were widespread hopes for a rapprochement with Cuba under Obama when he took office, Washington has done little beyond ease some travel restrictions. It insists Cuba must first make changes, including the release of political prisoners. Obama told a news conference after the summit he was "puzzled" that nations that had themselves emerged from authoritarian rule would overlook that in Cuba. "I and the American people will welcome a time when the Cuban people have the freedom to live their lives, choose their leaders and fully participate in this global economy and international institutions. We haven't gotten there yet," he said.
Obama urged Cuba to look at political and economic transformations in Colombia, Brazil and Chile for inspiration.

PROSTITUTION SCANDAL

The prostitution saga was a big embarrassment for Obama and a blow to the prestige of his Secret Service, the agency that provides security for U.S. presidents. It was the talk of the town in the historic Caribbean coastal city of Cartagena. Eleven Secret Service agents were sent home and five military servicemen grounded after trying to take prostitutes back to their hotel the day before Obama arrived. Obama said in general his security personnel did an extraordinary job under stressful circumstances but he would be annoyed if the allegations were proven by an investigation.

"We represent the people of the United States and when we travel to another country I expect them to observe the highest standards," Obama said of the reports. "If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I will be angry."
A local policeman told Reuters the affair came to a head when hotel staff tried to register a prostitute at the front desk but agents refused and waved their ID cards. Locals were unimpressed and upset at the negative headlines."Someone who's charged with looking after the security of the most important president in the world cannot commit the mistake of getting mixed up with a prostitute," said Cartagena tourist guide Rodolfo Galvis, 60. "This has damaged the image of the Secret Service, not Colombia."

The divisive end to the summit added to strain on the U.S.-dominated system of hemispheric diplomacy that was built around the OAS but is struggling to adapt to changes in the region.
"I'm not sure the next summit will even be possible," said Carlos Gaviria, a Colombian politician and former presidential candidate. Perceived U.S. neglect of Latin America has allowed China to move strongly into the region and become the leading trade partner of Brazil and various other nations. Regional economic powerhouse Brazil has led criticism at the summit of U.S. and other rich nations' expansionist monetary policy that is sending a flood of funds into developing nations, forcing up local currencies and hurting competitiveness.
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called it a "monetary tsunami" that Latin American nations had the right to defend themselves from. Cheering the mood a bit, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced that a U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement will come into force in the middle of May. With a presidential election looming, Obama had portrayed his visit to the summit as a way to generate jobs at home by boosting trade with Latin America.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

The United States is taking its Latin American partners for granted which is opening the door for other countries to step in

By Laura Ebert
April 2, 2012

In March 2011, President Obama pledged a new era of partnership with Latin America during a 5-day trip to the region. The focus did not remain on Latin America for long, as the trip was overshadowed by the U.S. decision to intervene in Libya. More recently, the Obama administration announced a shift in foreign policy focus from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific region, while largely ignoring Latin America. Moreover, as the presidential election approaches, none of the candidates has yet put forth a comprehensive policy towards Latin America, and the region is rarely discussed on the campaign trail.

Latin America is a vital region to U.S. interests and merits more attention from the Obama administration and the presidential candidates. In additional to its geographic proximity, Latin America is strategically important for many reasons. Most Latin American countries support U.S. policies and have embraced democracy and open economic systems, making the region a natural partner for the United States. The U.S. economy is deeply intertwined with that of Latin America, and the region is exceptionally open to U.S. business. Latin America is also the fastest growing U.S. export market. Between 1998 and 2009, trade to Latin America grew by 82%. Furthermore, over half of the U.S. foreign-born population comes from Latin America, which allows the United States to take advantage of close cultural, personal, and professional connections between the regions.

The United States has always played a dominant role in Latin America, but while our attention is focused elsewhere, other countries are making inroads and gaining influence. China, in particular, has been lending to and trading with the region to an unprecedented degree. In 2010, China lent more to the region than the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and United States Export-Import Bank combined . China also recently supplanted the United States as the top trading partner in several Latin American nations including Brazil, Peru, and Chile. Failure to engage the region economically means the United States is losing market share in this fast growing export market.

Similarly, by failing to make progress on regional problems like the illegal drug trade, corruption, poverty, and violence, the U.S. is losing the region's trust in its policies. Drug trade-related deaths in Mexico rose 11% in 2010 on top of a 70% rise in deaths in 2009. Even while progress appears to have been made in places like Colombia, the problems have only been pushed elsewhere, as surrounding countries such as Peru, Venezuela, and Ecuador experience rising violence attributed to drug cartels. Similarly, while poverty rates have fallen, Latin America remains the world’s most unequal region with significant barriers to social and economic mobility.

The result of these failures is regional polarization and instability, which threaten U.S. national security and contribute to illegal immigration. Increasing violence and corruption threaten rule of law and democratic institutions in already weak and struggling states like Honduras. The drug trade displaces legitimate economic activity and increases transportation and security costs. This discourages investment, which has a negative effect on economic growth. The lack of jobs and security has caused many to flee, often illegally, to the United States. Others have embraced policies touted by U.S. rivals. Countries like Iran have already taken advantage of the diminished support for U.S. policies in places like Venezuela and Nicaragua, garnering support for pursuing Iranian policies instead. Recent reports of covert Iranian activities in Latin America demonstrate the potential security concern.

In response, the President and the presidential hopefuls should develop comprehensive strategies aimed at engaging Latin America and participating in multilateral partnerships to deal with the issues at stake. Particular focus should be placed on further integrating the region's economies and encouraging open, pro-democratic, and sustainable economic development. Sustainable development will go a long way to alleviate the poverty and address the lack of alternatives that currently drive illegal immigration and participation in the drug trade. Multilateral initiatives and trade agreements will strengthen inter-country cooperation and economic integration, bringing the region closer together and counteracting polarizing forces like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Other initiatives that can revitalize and refocus the U.S.-Latin American relationship include regional cooperation on security, immigration reform, simplification of the visa process faced by Latin American businessmen in the U.S., and support of non-governmental organizations that promote human rights, education, and democracy.

The U.S. is taking its Latin American partners for granted. If the U.S. continues to place little emphasis on the region, it may soon see its influence erode and its partnerships weaken. Other countries with significantly different values and political goals will take its place. As the President and the presidential candidates formulate and debate their economic strategies, they would be wise not to forget Latin America.

Why Bilinguals Are Smarter

SPEAKING two languages rather than just one has obvious practical benefits in an increasingly globalized world. But in recent years, scientists have begun to show that the advantages of bilingualism are even more fundamental than being able to converse with a wider range of people. Being bilingual, it turns out, makes you smarter. It can have a profound effect on your brain, improving cognitive skills not related to language and even shielding against dementia in old age.

This view of bilingualism is remarkably different from the understanding of bilingualism through much of the 20th century. Researchers, educators and policy makers long considered a second language to be an interference, cognitively speaking, that hindered a child’s academic and intellectual development.

They were not wrong about the interference: there is ample evidence that in a bilingual’s brain both language systems are active even when he is using only one language, thus creating situations in which one system obstructs the other. But this interference, researchers are finding out, isn’t so much a handicap as a blessing in disguise. It forces the brain to resolve internal conflict, giving the mind a workout that strengthens its cognitive muscles.

Bilinguals, for instance, seem to be more adept than monolinguals at solving certain kinds of mental puzzles. In a 2004 study by the psychologists Ellen Bialystok and Michelle Martin-Rhee, bilingual and monolingual preschoolers were asked to sort blue circles and red squares presented on a computer screen into two digital bins — one marked with a blue square and the other marked with a red circle.

In the first task, the children had to sort the shapes by color, placing blue circles in the bin marked with the blue square and red squares in the bin marked with the red circle. Both groups did this with comparable ease. Next, the children were asked to sort by shape, which was more challenging because it required placing the images in a bin marked with a conflicting color. The bilinguals were quicker at performing this task.

The collective evidence from a number of such studies suggests that the bilingual experience improves the brain’s so-called executive function — a command system that directs the attention processes that we use for planning, solving problems and performing various other mentally demanding tasks. These processes include ignoring distractions to stay focused, switching attention willfully from one thing to another and holding information in mind — like remembering a sequence of directions while driving.

Why does the tussle between two simultaneously active language systems improve these aspects of cognition? Until recently, researchers thought the bilingual advantage stemmed primarily from an ability for inhibition that was honed by the exercise of suppressing one language system: this suppression, it was thought, would help train the bilingual mind to ignore distractions in other contexts. But that explanation increasingly appears to be inadequate, since studies have shown that bilinguals perform better than monolinguals even at tasks that do not require inhibition, like threading a line through an ascending series of numbers scattered randomly on a page.

The key difference between bilinguals and monolinguals may be more basic: a heightened ability to monitor the environment. “Bilinguals have to switch languages quite often — you may talk to your father in one language and to your mother in another language,” says Albert Costa, a researcher at the University of Pompeu Fabra in Spain. “It requires keeping track of changes around you in the same way that we monitor our surroundings when driving.” In a study comparing German-Italian bilinguals with Italian monolinguals on monitoring tasks, Mr. Costa and his colleagues found that the bilingual subjects not only performed better, but they also did so with less activity in parts of the brain involved in monitoring, indicating that they were more efficient at it.

The bilingual experience appears to influence the brain from infancy to old age (and there is reason to believe that it may also apply to those who learn a second language later in life).

In a 2009 study led by Agnes Kovacs of the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, 7-month-old babies exposed to two languages from birth were compared with peers raised with one language. In an initial set of trials, the infants were presented with an audio cue and then shown a puppet on one side of a screen. Both infant groups learned to look at that side of the screen in anticipation of the puppet. But in a later set of trials, when the puppet began appearing on the opposite side of the screen, the babies exposed to a bilingual environment quickly learned to switch their anticipatory gaze in the new direction while the other babies did not.

Bilingualism’s effects also extend into the twilight years. In a recent study of 44 elderly Spanish-English bilinguals, scientists led by the neuropsychologist Tamar Gollan of the University of California, San Diego, found that individuals with a higher degree of bilingualism — measured through a comparative evaluation of proficiency in each language — were more resistant than others to the onset of dementia and other symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: the higher the degree of bilingualism, the later the age of onset.

Nobody ever doubted the power of language. But who would have imagined that the words we hear and the sentences we speak might be leaving such a deep imprint?

Colombia’s oil industry-- Gushers and guns

IT HAS attracted much less attention than the big deep-sea oil finds in Brazil, but Colombia is also enjoying an oil boom. Its output of crude has nearly doubled in the past six years, from 525,000 b/d in 2005 to a daily average of 914,000 last year. But as exploration pushes deep into the country’s eastern lowlands, oil companies face a familiar problem in rural Colombia: security.

Emerald Energy, a British subsidiary of China’s Sinochem, has endured repeated attacks by the FARC guerrillas on its small Ombú field in Caquetá. Security officials in the area say the FARC is demanding $10 for each barrel of oil. Because the company refused to pay, three of Emerald’s Chinese staff, together with their translator, were kidnapped last June. After a bomb attack on a well, Emerald announced on March 6th that it would suspend operations “until security conditions improve”. After receiving assurances from military commanders, production resumed the next day, but six days later oil tankers carrying crude from Ombú came under guerrilla fire, leaving two civilians dead.

Although Colombia is generally a much safer country than it was a decade or more ago, attacks on oil infrastructure more than doubled between 2008 and 2011, according to the Centre for Security and Democracy at Bogotá’s Sergio Arboleda University. In January and February there were 13 separate attacks on the country’s main pipeline, from Caño Limón to Coveñas, which was able to pump oil for only 20 days in that period. The trans-Andean pipeline in the south was attacked 51 times last year. In February the ELN, a smaller guerrilla group, kidnapped 11 men in Casanare who were building the Bicentenario, a big new pipeline. Officials say that guerrillas are behind some disruptive protests by local people in oil areas, demanding more money and jobs.

The spike in violence “has us worried”, says Alejandro Martínez, president of the Colombian Petroleum Association, which groups together private oil companies operating in the country. But he adds that the industry’s security problems are in part a consequence of its own success. It offers a much bigger target nowadays.

Several things lie behind the oil boom. To attract investment, the governments of Álvaro Uribe, Colombia’s president from 2002 to 2010, licensed large areas of the country for exploration and offered tax breaks. Private firms were no longer required to form partnerships with Ecopetrol, the state oil company. And the government sold shares in Ecopetrol, allowing it to increase its capital spending fourfold since 2007. At the same time, Colombia benefited from the improvement in security, and the hostility of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina to foreign investors.

In all, foreign direct investment in the oil industry jumped from $278m in 2003 to $4.3 billion in 2011, according to the central bank. Many of the new investors are start-ups, listed in Canada but run by technicians sacked from PDVSA, Venezuela’s state oil company, by Hugo Chávez after a strike in 2003. Though some new fields are in Caquetá and Putumayo, where few foreign firms dared venture before, most of the extra output comes from using new technology to increase recovery at old wells. Production at the Rubiales field, discovered in 1981, has risen from 8,000 b/d in 2007 to 165,000 last year.

The spate of attacks on oil installations, however, meant that output fell short of the government’s forecast of 1m b/d by the end of last year. Reaching the target of 1.5m b/d by 2015 will require continuing pressure on the guerrillas.

The violence is in part a reaction to a reform of royalties by Juan Manuel Santos, Mr Uribe’s successor. Most used to go to mayors in oil areas, and were often stolen by guerrillas or paramilitaries. Royalties now go to the central government, which hands them out according to stricter criteria. So the gunmen have switched to extorting from oil companies rather than mayors. That, too, looks like a problem of success—but one that needs to be fixed.

Draft dodgers no more - Can the Dominican Republic avoid Puerto Rico’s fate?

http://www.economist.com/node/21546064

Baseball in Latin America

Draft dodgers no more

Can the Dominican Republic avoid Puerto Rico’s fate?

Feb 4th 2012 | SANTO DOMINGO | from the print edition

 

Try a cricket bat instead SEEN from the air, much of Puerto Rico’s northern coast is a mosaic of rooftops and treetops dotted with countless baseball diamonds. The island of 4m has sent a total of 234 players to America’s Major League Baseball (MLB)—twice as many as Mexico. Its Baseball Hall of Fame, just outside San Juan, features a salon full of life-size statues of Puerto Rico’s athletic pantheon. It even includes a famous broadcaster seated at his microphone.

Today, however, the fields are mostly used for football. Just 2.6% of MLB players are Puerto Rican, down from 4.3% in 2001. The island’s renowned winter baseball league cancelled its season in 2007. A typical game now draws fewer spectators than nearby women’s volleyball matches. Its four teams are on the block for around $750,000 each. No one is buying. Several factors account for this decline. They include better job opportunities outside sports and competition from basketball, reggaetón music, multiplexes and malls. But the biggest was MLB’s inclusion of the island in its amateur draft in 1990.

Every year, MLB teams select 1,500 players from schools and universities. The clubs get to pick in reverse order of their finish in the league the previous season. Draftees can negotiate only with the team that chooses them. Officially, the draft is meant to help the worst teams by giving them the best young talent. But all clubs love it because it reduces signing bonuses.

When the draft began in 1965, only Americans were eligible. But 25 years later MLB extended it to Canada and Puerto Rico. In theory, this should not have affected the number of Puerto Ricans signed, since undrafted players become free agents, who can sign with any team they wish. But in practice, MLB clubs rarely sign them; they tell them to go to university and try their luck in the draft later on. The draft thus forced Puerto Ricans to compete with Americans for a fixed number of places.

Moreover, whereas Puerto Ricans could previously be signed at age 16, a high-school degree (usually given at 18) is required for the draft. Since the island’s schools do not have baseball teams, its 16- and 17-year-olds had nowhere to train. As a result, the number of Puerto Rican MLB signings fell by 13% in 1991-92. Meanwhile, players from the Dominican Republic (DR) and Venezuela remained free agents. Their numbers soared (see chart).

Now those countries may be facing Puerto Rico’s fate. As more clubs started to recruit in Latin America, signing bonuses took off: the average payout in the DR rose from $29,000 in 2004 to $108,000 in 2008. In response, teams tried to cut costs. In November MLB’s teams and its players’ union reached a deal that levies a tax on clubs whose spending on foreign free agents exceeds a cap. It also sets up a committee to institute an international draft by 2014.

In the DR, MLB’s biggest source of foreign players, the reaction has been apoplectic. Baseball is big business there: MLB’s direct value to the economy is $125m-150m a year (0.3% of GDP). Its 30 clubs all have training academies for their players, mainly in poor rural areas. They employ 1,200 people, many in new professions like groundskeeper and sports nutritionist. And in response to criticism that they exploit youngsters, they are offering better education. The Pittsburgh Pirates require four hours of class a day, and last year granted 13 high-school degrees.

The indirect benefits are bigger still. An estimated 2,000-3,000 scouts and trainers, called buscones, scour the country for players and house, feed and instruct them until they sign an MLB contract. They charge 30% of the bonus. Some buscones employ dozens of workers. The winter league plays nearly 200 games a year, each drawing thousands of fans. Casa de Campo, a golf resort, now has a Latino Baseball Hall of Fame. Many players also have charities: Pedro Martínez, a star pitcher, has built a youth centre offering art, cooking and computer classes to 300 students. A draft could put all this in peril, by reducing bonuses and possibly the number of contracts.

Rafael Pérez, MLB’s director of Dominican operations, insists that MLB wants at least to maintain the current number of foreign signings. But many buscones accuse MLB of selling out Latinos to protect American players’ jobs. They note there is just one Latino on MLB’s international-talent committee—who, as the son of an MLB player, mostly grew up in America. “I feel like we’re being invaded, like it’s 1965 all over again,” says Astin Jacobo, a buscón, referring to America’s occupation of the DR. “We’re only number one in one thing, and that’s baseball. We can’t give that away.”

A group of Dominican buscones has already held anti-draft protests. They might convince MLB to set up a separate draft for foreigners with an eligibility age of 16, which would be less disruptive than extending America’s draft abroad. But stopping the draft entirely will be hard.Many buscones talk of a strike. But they have not formed a union. Even if they do, they could not stop their players from opting to sign with MLB teams.That leaves the government. Felipe Payano, the sports minister, has already written a letter to Bud Selig, MLB’s commissioner, expressing his opposition to a draft. He says his office is investigating whether it might violate the DR’s free-trade agreement with America. Another option would be to sue MLB for collusion under Dominican antitrust law. But it would take a lot of pluck for a small, poor, baseball-dependent country to pick a fight like that.