Should a US elected official travel to a foreign country for a self-described “warm” & “friendly” meeting w/ the leader of a state (a military dictator, mind you) who had only a few years earlier orchestrated a September morning terrorist attack on US soil (Washington, DC) that killed American citizens? In the age of the “war on terror,” that’s an interesting question. Especially if the elected official was there to express his support for that leader, not to condemn him.

If you’re interested in how the world sees the US presidential contest, The Economist has a “Global Electoral College projection based on online voters in foreign countries. Not surprisingly, it has Obama up (8,957 to 31). Surprising, however, is that one of the three countries where McCain leads is Cuba (the others are Georgia & Macedonia).

Today’s Washington Post has an interesting photo essay on a Peace Corps volunteer who chose to stay behind in Bolivia after the US evacuated the program’s personnel from the country. There’s also a feature article, detailing how other Peace Corps volunteers also chose to stay behind.

More from Maria Bruno, at Gringo Tambo.

Bolivia’s president Evo Morales offered an interesting explanation for the recent congressional negotiations, which modified the new draft constitution: He announced that he & various social movement leaders had coordinated to draft a “strong” constitution deliberately to provoke the opposition, which would then be used to bargain the opposition into accepting a more modest proposal (see “Morales revela que propuso una CPE fuerte para transar”).

If you’re interested in techpolitics: The recent issue of Wired has a great article on Egypt’s Facebook-based democratization movement. It’s worth a look.

One of the most interesting things about this last round of negotiations shouldn’t go unnoticed: The march for a new constitution was explicitly also one for autonomies (plural). See photo below.

I stayed away from this because it was a lot of “watching the pot boil” kind of stuff in Bolivia. They (government & opposition) were close to a compromise before, but had it all blow up in everyone’s faces. And there’s plenty of blame to go around, of course. But well after midnight, the Bolivian legislature approved a final compromise solution: a heavily amended constitution will go up for referendum January 2009 & new general elections will take place in December 2009.

If you’re in the DC area next Tuesday (October 21), you may want to check out a screening of a documentary film about Bolivia: Humillados y Ofendidos, Sucre 24 de Mayo. It will be followed by a panel discussion. The event is hosted by the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University, 7-9 pm, 957 E Street NW, Room 213.

A little thought popped into my head during last night’s presidential debates. And I’ve been unable to let it go. It has to do w/ the question of what is the most pressing issue facing the US as it moves deeper into the 21st century.

The last presidential debate introduced us to an interesting character: “Joe the Plumber.” He was undoubtedly the highlight of the show, and an interesting effort by McCain to be “folksy.” It’s nice to see Obama had a good sense of humor, and rolled w/ it.

OK. So it’s not the huge price slash that was rumored. But I still want the new 13-inch Mac Book. Especially since I’m digging that Apple is back to using an aluminum casing (like in my trusty workhorse, Kaneda).

As Javi becomes (much!) more mobile, he gets into various corners of the apartment. Recently, he’s discovered bookshelves.

The Bolivian political crisis is back to a respectable simmer. Even though the dialogue between government & opposition broke down several days ago, both sides agreed to throw the issue back into the legislature (where it should’ve been dealt w/ anyhow). MAS agreed to call back its protesters, allowing the legislature to deliberate in relative peace.

It’s the day of the second presidential debate, and already the momentum has shifted back to Obama.

This Friday my research methods class hands in a brief (1½-2 page) assignment based on Thomas Friedman’s 1996 column, “Foreign Affairs Big Mac I.” Based on Friedman’s whimsical observation, they’re expected to develop a testable hypothesis & sketch out (in very broad strokes) a research design to investigate the cause of his observation that “no two countries that both have a McDonald’s have ever fought a war against each other.” Of course, the controversial assertion was been put to rest by the Russia-Georgia war of 2008. Still, I’m curious to see what my students come up w/.