You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.
123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999
(123) 555-6789
email@address.com
You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab. Link to read me page with more information.
What should be a higher priority: reducing inequality or alleviating poverty? It is, of course, tempting to answer that they are equally important. Or that the question is moot because reducing poverty will automatically shrink income disparities; or that policies that lower inequality will inevitably reduce poverty.
People of Arab descent living in the US are better educated and wealthier than the average American of non-Arab descent. That is one surprising conclusion drawn from data collected by the US Census Bureau in 2000. The census also found that Arab Americans are better educated and wealthier than Americans in general.
About a decade ago, the world witnessed a corruption eruption. As democratic winds swept the world, the dirty deals of once unaccountable dictators and bureaucrats came out into the open. During the Cold War, kleptocratic dictatorships often traded their allegiance to one of the two superpowers for that superpower's countenance of their thievery. With the superpower contest over, such corrupt bargains dried up. And, thanks to the information revolution, if there was even a hint of corruption at the highest levels, it quickly became global news.
The cataclysmic earthquake near Sumatra, Indonesia, and the tsunamis it unleashed provided seismologists and oceanographers with important and sobering data about natures behavior. They also yielded some important lessons about how todays world works.
I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it, said President George W. Bush the day after he won a second term. But what does spending political capital mean to a reelected George W. Bush? How will he spend it? With what consequences for the United States and the world? The changes that Bush and the world experienced in the last four years provide the clues. And these clues point to the strong possibility that in his second term Bush will not try, as he did in his first four years, to radically change the world. Instead, he will try to radically change the United States.
I grew up in Venezuela and, although I now live in Washington, D.C., returned to Caracas for the referendum to recall President Hugo Chavez. Last Monday—the day after the poll—I went to Plaza Altamira, a square in Caracas, where a small crowd of people were protesting against the results of the referendum, claiming it was rigged in favor of Chavez. It was a peaceful and rather small assembly.
Pre-emptive wars, unilateralism, regime-change. Only recently, senior US officials and influential columnists claimed that these were not just good ideas but were also the only viable options for US foreign policy. Today, with more than 900 American soldiers dead, 10,000 coalition troops wounded, $90bn spent and the justification for war dismissed as a massive intelligence failure, these ideas lie buried in Iraq. They will not be missed. America's foreign policy will be better off without them. But there is a danger that, in their haste to distance themselves from these discredited notions, policymakers will also jettison some far more valuable ideas.
Nothing, it would seem, could have stopped the Bush administration from pursuing its long-standing plans against Saddam Hussein. But placing responsibility for the Iraq debacle solely on George W. Bush's shoulders is too simple and even potentially dangerous - too simple because it blurs the responsibilities of others who contributed to an environment in which bad new ideas were embraced just as easily as good, proved ones were shed. It is also dangerous because the conditions that facilitated this environment, namely terrorism, will not disappear. Therefore it is important to learn that whatever the threat, no government should be afforded the latitude enjoyed by the Bush administration. The media - both reporters and commentators - are prime culprits here. The promise that democracy would spread from a liberated Iraq, for example, was as poorly scrutinised as the notion advanced by the administration that the Geneva conventions did not apply to the war on terror.
News that Horst Köhler, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is poised to become Germany's next president marks the end of a murky process that, according to insiders, would have led to his reappointment for another five-year term at the IMF. Mr Köhler's term was to expire in May 2005 and news of his imminent departure has triggered intense speculation about his likely successor. This should be the perfect opportunity to end the entrenched and opaque way that succession is managed at the IMF - and the World Bank.
It seems neither realistic nor fashionable these days to expect summits of heads of state to yield concrete results. Thus, few expect important consequences from the current summit of western hemisphere leaders in Monterrey, Mexico. In this sense, the meeting has been a normal presidential summit. Unfortunately for Latin America, this normalcy is tragic.
At a recent gathering of Latin American heads of state, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, commented that his supporters, the workers of Brazil, had waited for decades to influence Brazilian politics. "That's nothing," said Alejandro Toledo, the first Peruvian president of indigenous descent. "My people have been waiting for 500 years!" The wait is now over, and not just in Peru. The political empowerment of indigenous populations has become a global trend.
These days, China is not just exporting toys, electronics and textiles. It is also exporting anxieties.
Business leaders, government officials and military planners fret over China's potential to wreak havoc in the world. Worried about the US trade deficit, John Snow, US Treasury secretary, recently visited Beijing to see if something could be done about the undervalued exchange rate that makes Chinese exports even cheaper than they would otherwise be. His colleagues at the Pentagon worry that China may develop the economic and military wherewithal to challenge US global supremacy. President Vicente Fox complains of China's aggressive tactics in luring light industry away from Mexico, while Germans and Japanese worry that China's cheap exports add to their own deflationary problems.
A "crass buffoon" and "a man of very questionable integrity" is how The Economist describes him. He incarnates "nepotism, corruption and dishonesty" says Denmark's Information, while Aftonbladet, a Swedish daily, dismisses him as "an arrogant clown" and the Berliner Zeitung writes that he is "a shady deal-maker". France's Libération concludes that he is a "threat to liberal democracy". Whereas the Financial Times argues that "he lives in a media-bubble where his public gaffes and gratuitous insults go largely unreported at home at least until he goes abroad".
George W. Bush should be as bold with Brasilia as he was with Baghdad. In Brazil's case, however, instead of regime change his aim should be regime support. And rather than military force, he should wield his country's enormous economic influence.
For more than a year, the deteriorating political relationship between the US and Europe has provided rich fodder for analyses, dire predictions, threats and appeals. Meanwhile, as politicians, diplomats and generals fret over the geopolitical causes and consequences of the worsening health of the transatlantic relationship, the US dollar has been sliding against the euro.
There is murderous anti-Americanism and there is anti-Americanism "light". The first is the anti-Americanism of fanatical terrorists who hate the US - its power, its values and its policies - and are willing to kill and to die in order to hurt it. The second is the anti-Americanism of those who take to the streets and the media to rant against it but do not seek its destruction.
For decades Venezuela was a backwater, uninteresting to the outside world. It could not compete for international attention with nearby countries where superpowers staged proxy wars, or where military juntas "disappeared" thousands of opponents, or where the economy regularly crashed. Venezuela was stable. Its oil fueled an economy that enjoyed the world's highest growth rate from 1950 to 1980 and it boasted a higher per-capita income than Spain from 1928 to 1984. Venezuela was one of the longest-lived democracies in Latin America.
Oil and beauty queens: for decades, those were the only stories from Venezuela to catch the attention of the international media. Now, with its oil industry paralysed, the economy in free fall and President Hugo Chávez stepping up his Bolivarian revolution, Venezuela's disintegration is a story the world can no longer ignore.
The world feels increasingly dangerous these days. Terrorism and an uncertain economy have greatly heightened our sense of insecurity. The dangers that make us feel insecure are obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps as dangerous, is the world's heightened susceptibility to bad ideas.