Voter Registration Deadline - By State- 2008 General Election

Every state determines their own voter registration procedures including the voter registration deadline, after which you will not be eligible to vote. So make sure you are registered. Make sure you vote.

Alabama Fri, Oct. 24
Alaska Sun, Oct. 5 (postmark by Sat, Oct. 4)
Arizona Mon, Oct. 6
Arkansas Mon, Oct. 6
California Mon, Oct. 20
Colorado Mon, Oct. 6
Connecticut Tues, Oct. 21
Delaware Sat, Oct. 11
District of Columbia Mon, Oct. 6
Florida Mon, Oct. 6
Georgia Mon, Oct. 6
Hawaii Mon, Oct. 6
Idaho Register at Polls
Illinois Tues, Oct. 7
Indiana Mon, Oct. 6
Iowa Fri, Oct. 24 (or on Election Day at polling place)
Kansas Mon, Oct. 20
Kentucky Mon, Oct. 6
Louisiana Mon, Oct. 6
Maine Tue, Oct. 21 (or on Election Day at polling place)
Maryland Tue, Oct. 14
Massachusetts Wed, Oct. 15
Michigan Mon, Oct. 6
Minnesota Same Day Registration at polling place
Mississippi Mon, Oct. 6
Missouri Wed, Oct. 8
Montana Mon, Oct. 6 (or same day at elections office)
Nebraska Fri, Oct. 24 (mail by Fri, Oct. 17)
Nevada Tue, Oct. 14
New Hampshire Same Day
New Jersey Tues, Oct. 14
New Mexico Tues, Oct. 7
New York Fri, Oct. 10
North Carolina Fri, Oct. 10 (or in person until Nov. 1st)
North Dakota N/A
Ohio Mon, Oct. 6
Oklahoma Fri, Oct. 10
Oregon Tue, Oct. 14
Pennsylvania Mon, Oct. 6
Rhode Island Sat, Oct. 4
South Carolina Sat, Oct. 4
South Dakota Mon, Oct. 20
Tennessee Mon, Oct. 6
Texas Mon, Oct. 6
Utah Mon, Oct. 6 or in person Tue, Oct. 28
Vermont Wed, Oct. 29
Virginia Mon, Oct. 6
Washington Mon, Oct. 4 (or Mon, Oct. 20 in person)
West Virginia Wed, Oct. 15
Wisconsin Wed, Oct. 15 (or on Election Day at polling place)
Wyoming Can register at polls

[Source: Rock The Vote]

Angela Davis in the House

When the Latino Insurgent wrote to me asking for the “black female militant perspective” on world events, I couldn’t refuse after hearing that Angela Davis would be in the Cornhusker State. Davis didn’t expect that packed in a Nebraska community center she would find supporters of Mondo we Langa and Ed Poindexter, two former Black Panther Party for Self-Defense members, who are awaiting a post-conviction appeal on October 1^st at the Nebraska Supreme Court. The two are serving life sentences for the death of Larry Minard, an Omaha police officer, 38 years ago. Amnesty International has determined that they are “prisoners of conscience,” arrested under what Davis calls the “bin of terrorism” that swept the sixties, fueled by Hoover’s COINTELPRO. Mondo and Ed maintain that they had nothing to do with Minard’s death. New evidence will hopefully shed light on this during their post-conviction.

Like Mondo and Ed, Angela Davis fell victim to the “bin of terrorism.” She served 18 months in prison and was placed on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted List,” for her political views. The parallels between the terror watch of the sixties and post-9/11 shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. After all, we are fighting a war of rhetoric—Iraqi Freedom, Terrorism, etc—blanket abstractions that are expansive and flexible enough to sweep anyone within the great terror bin. I mean seriously, do we really know who our enemies are?

I’ve been reading Scott McCloud’s book on comics with my students. He talks about the differences between received and perceived information, how the more abstracted the image is the greater the levels of perception. We have to do a lot more with the information—we have to decode it and process the decoded message. We have to be versed in specialized language to some degree in order to do this. BUT if abstractions are molded into recognizable shapes then we’ve shifted back to received information. I think that something similar has happened with our war of rhetoric. That is, we have blanket, abstract ideas to which the admin attaches faces. And these faces are shaped out of what we are culturally indoctrinated to recognize as dangerous—black faces, Latino faces, Middle Eastern faces, etc. The faces that are attached to these ideas are so temporary that they serve their purpose—to divert our attention—for a singular political moment. And then they (these faces) don’t matter anymore and they disappear from the national consciousness. Case in point: when was the last time that anyone mentioned bin Laden?

To go back to that political moment, open up the terror bin, and release the prisoners of conscience who were imprisoned due to the corrupt practices of COINTELPRO is another deal, but Angela Davis has spent her life doing this work.

Davis would go further and add that prison inmates are labeled as another form of “terrorists.” She’s written extensively on the “prison industrial complex” and she would go as far as to say that we should consider abolishing the prison system as we know it—it serves one main purpose: “to provide the material for the world.” The racialized material property is so whetted to our capitalist dollar that we can’t see where it ends and begins, hence Davis’s parallels between the prison industrial complex and slavery.

It’s hard for me not to agree with the parallels Davis makes. My own brother, a former college student, a father of three, and an Americorps volunteer with no priors is serving a term reduced to life with the possibility of parole for an accidental shooting after being falsely accused of theft and assaulted by drunk, white, college students. You don’t have to ask whether or not I think justice was served, but I will say that if he were ever to be paroled, I can’t imagine the great possibilities that lay ahead of him without access to an education as prisons begin to strip away any possible rehabilitative systems that came about with prison reform.

Since we’re only a couple months away from the election, I’ll end on some words that Angela Davis offered in this regard. She said that we should “take seriously, the contributions of those that were active during that year.” She was talking about the year 1968—the election year that MLK and RFK were both assassinated. Although she holds both leaders in high regard, she reminded us that “we often individualize history” forgetting that it’s a “community of struggle.” She said, “We always ask who is going to lead us to freedom and we give up our individual power.” Davis wasn’t just talking about 1968 anymore. She was talking about our tendency to invest all of our hope behind one face. We expect this messiah to come in and save us all so then we don’t have to act anymore. Does it really matter who we vote for if all we do is cast our ballot, go home, and watch the Home Shopping Network? The great “change” that the Democrats (and now the Republicans, apparently) are waiting for won’t happen without individual acts of change.

NCLR: It is now time to VOTE!

NCLR, The National Council of La Raza, has sent out a press release announcing the launch of their online voter mobilization campaign. Also known as a GOTV ( Get Out The Vote) campaign, this one is particularly unique as for the first time it looks like the full weight of the NCLR is going to be mobilized to this effort including the work of its affiliates and community partners. Check out the video below.

Hispanic voter registration campaigns have always been successful, but it is the GOTV, voter mobilization phase that usually gets left behind, and it is also the one that always requires the most funding to accomplish. NCLR is taking a step in the right direction with this campaign. Check out the video below the excerpt of the press release.

From the Press Release:

NCLR LAUNCHES ONLINE MULTIMEDIA CAMPAIGN FOR LATINO VOTER MOBILIZATION

Washington, DC—Building on the tremendous success of the citizenship campaign, ya es hora ¡Ciudadanía! (It’s Time: Citizenship!), the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, today launched Yo Votaré, an online multimedia campaign to complement the ya es hora efforts and those of multiple other partners. The new website, www.YoVotare.org, will serve as a one-stop portal to connect Latinos with various unprecedented efforts to register new voters, provide voter information and education tools, and increase voter turnout in November. There are 17 million eligible Hispanic voters in the United States who can make a difference in this election.

Outlandish: Redefining World Music

Outlandish now has just over a decade of recordings to their name, but it is now that their sound and lyrics are beginning to resonate. If you don't know them, here is a little background. Outlandish is a hip-hop/r&b band made up of one Honduran (Lenny Martinez), one Pakistani (Waqas Ali Qadri), and one Moroccan (Isam Bachiri), who since 1997 and from Denmark have been blurring the musical lines, and linguistic lines, of what hip hop is internationally.

Here are some of their music, to help expand your horizons a bit.

Update:I just checked Amazon.com and they have heir latest album on sale as an MP3 download without DRM (every album should be DRM-free). Here is the link:Closer Than Veins - Deluxe Edition

Callin U by Outlandish...

Walou '04 by Outlandish...

I Only Ask of God by Outlandish...

Update:I just checked Amazon.com and they have heir latest album on sale as an MP3 download without DRM (every album should be DRM-free). Here is the link:Closer Than Veins - Deluxe Edition

Bailouts and the Future of the American Economy

Economic Analysis by Michael Deliz

The role of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac in the present economic crisis is undeniably central to much of the problems faced by the financial markets. This is true. Remember however that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were only the tip of the iceberg. If all the blame could be placed on the failure of these two agencies then the bailout of the two would have sufficed to fix the crisis. Bear Stearns, Citybank, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, Indymac, Lehman Brothers, and over a dozen regional banks have all failed, are failing, or are about to fail withing the coming weeks. The problem as easy and convinient as it may be to try to place upon a single factor, simply cannot be dismissed so easily. Other factors such as the credit-swap industry and the overall deregulation of the banking industry are equally blameworthy.

In short, what we are facing is a systematic failure. An economy-wide collapse which could very easily and quickly (if history is a guide) trickle down to the lowest denominators of the economy, ie. your job and your ability to pay your bills.

At the moment these banking/credit failures have all been contained within the framework of the FDIC (the insurance that protects your money if you bank happens to go bankrupt). Without the FDIC, all of these bank failures would have translated to the immediate wipeout of every individual and business whose money was kept in those banks. This would have prompted an unstoppable downward spiral of bankruns and loan recalls, followed by business failures, massive layoffs and unemployment. .. essentially 1929 all over again.

The saving grace of the FDIC framework however is limited and is not designed to accomodate large scale system wide failures. So as long as the collapse was gradual and fairly distributed in time, the FDIC would have been able to take care of much of the problem. But as so many economists, including Alan Greenspan, have argued, we are in uncharted waters. Simply put, the system as a whole is such a tangled web of financial institutions, one that now reaches far beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States, that predicting how this behemoth of the economy will react is impossible to decipher from our present vantage point.

All of this however is not happening in a vaccum, but instead during a record low for the value of the dollar, under record government debt, and the largest budgetary deficit since WWII. In other words, in the meantime, there will be no respite.

The bailout, all $700+ billion of it, may really be the only solution. But lets be clear about who and what is involved in this bailout. This is being presented by the Bush administration and championed by the Treasury Secretary, but this bailout propossal is NOT a creation of the Bush Administration. This bailout propossal was written BY and FOR the banks, not for you. By adding close to another trillion dollars into the national debt, which currently stands at a historic 9.7 trillion, and was expected to reach $11 trillion by the end of 2009, the national debt could easily at this rate hit $13 trillion by 2010-2011, as we are currently already amassing about $480 billion of new debt per year and increasing, without even factoring the bailout into the numbers.

This is not something that can be simply shrugged off.

In 2007, the public debt of the United States was 60% (over $8 trillion) of our GDP of $13.8 trillion. So given the current anemic rate of growth in the economy, and the unlikelyhood of any betterment of it in the near future, our national public debt will reach and overtake the 100% mark of our GDP by 2010 with this bailout added.

That 100% mark in debt to GDP is the point where international lending organization consider your country to be BANKRUPT. Were that to happen, the worth of the American dollar will be devalued to junk status and everything that is currently traded in dollar denomination will skyrocket in price. The price of oil already now fluctuates the most based on the day to day worth of the dollar, rather than on threats of war in the middle east.

This doom and gloom scenario, is actually the optimistic scenario.

The worst case scenario has a devalued dollar forcing OPEC to adopt the euro as its trade currency, forcing the selloff of American dollars from national reserve banks across the world, including the subsequent move by China (our largest creditor) to then freeze all lending and investment into the US. This of course still doesn't include the geopolitical pitfalls that could include an Israeli-Iranian conflict, an oil trade war with Venezuela, a growing possibility of involvement in a civil war in Pakistan, as well as increased tensions with trade sanctions and increased militarization against Russia. Then, take into account the seeming continuation of the neverending war on terror which is costing this country 10-16 billion dollars a month and the outlook is even more grim.

There is no easy solution, nor easy blame as the precursory events leading to this have been building for decades and will most likely be felt for many years to come.

We will eventually all feel this one, specially when we start paying for it.

Filiberto Lives!

Three years ago on this day the F.B.I. assassinated Filiberto Ojeda Rios. Thousands of people in Puerto Rico and throughout the Diaspora protested. Murals were painted. T-Shirts were printed. Even a reggaeton song was made. All condemning the brutal and cowardly acts of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations.

Three years ago on this day the F.B.I assassinated Filiberto Ojeda Rios. In Puerto Rico people rallied to the streets yelling "asesinos", while the Governor put on his best "I don’t know shit" face and claimed he was not aware of the assassination orders being executed in the small town of Hormigueros on Puerto Rico’s west coast. The chief of Police, an ex-F.B.I. agent himself, did the same.

In Chicago, Orlando, New York, Philadelphia and other cities throughout the Diaspora, Puerto Rican community leaders and their allies and friends held events and organized to spread the word about yet another vicious attack against those struggling for freedom and independence for Puerto Rico.

Three years ago on this day the F.B.I. assassinated Filiberto Ojeda Rios. The month’s that followed were filled with allegations, denials, and a large-scale witch hunt rounding up professors, shoe repairmen, authors, community organizers, and students whom the F.B.I. tried to tie to the clandestine Pro-Independence group Los Macheteros. After one such round up, at a well respected and much loved professor’s house, the media, who was covering the event, was trampled on and maced by the F.B.I.

Three years ago on this day the F.B.I. assassinated Filiberto Ojeda Rios. The various multitudes of pro-independence organizations that for decades had been at difference with each other were speaking about unity and collective action. This was to be the defining moment when ideologies and egos were going to be put to the back in the spirit of unity, as Filiberto himself had called for at his last speech. Socialista, pipiolo, nacionalista, Chicago, New York were all identifiers that were no longer going to mean shit. All that was supposed to matter now was that everyone wanted the same thing, the independence of Puerto Rico.

Three years ago on this day the F.B.I. assassinated Filiberto Ojeda Rios. In the time since then Filiberto has grown to become another symbolic figure that stands to inspire and challenge us.

In reflecting on what occurred that day I kept returning to the fact that the assassination highlighted something for me that I have always believed and spoken about and that is that the "movement’s" failure lays in its reactionary nature.

"Look they assassinated Filiberto! Let’s go out and…. do something!"

Colonialism sucks! No shit!

People know that colonialism is evil and destructive. But what is the alternative? The responsibility of the various organizations and individuals that claim to be pro-independence should be to educate and show the people that alternative.

Alternative schools. Co-ops. Health clinics. Independentista businesses. Community based and centered so that you can decentralize the government and people no longer feel they need it to survive. As they do now, and therefore support and vote for its survival. So come November when people go to vote in the first gubernatorial race since the assassination no surprises will occur. If people didn’t vote for PIP after they spearheaded the removal of the Navy from Vieques, I have no faith that they will now. Nor will this even be an issue of significance to voters on the island.

Three years ago on this day the F.B.I. assassinated Filiberto Ojeda Rios.
But Filiberto lives!

Obama's New Spanish Language Campaign Ads

The latest ads coming out of the Obama/Biden camapign are targeting the Hispanic communities of states considered battleground contests for the November 4th election. The New Mexico ad is particularly important as New Mexico inches closes into the solid Blue category, but in Florida the contest will be tougher and the ads may be too little too late to generate a groundswell of support. The Nevada and Colorado Ads however may just be good enough to edge out a victory in these hard-fought states where the electoral difference is to to be in the fractions of a percent.

These ads are the first in Spanish using the now famous McCain gaffe "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Also interesting is how these ads are all essentially the same with the exception of the statistics in the first few seconds of the ads. It would be nice to see some polling numbers of the Hispanic community before and after the ads, as well as in comparison with each other state. Here are the ads:

NEW MEXICO AD:

FLORIDA AD:

NEVADA AD:

COLORADO AD:

Christina Kirchner of Argentina Addresses Latin American Issues

Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, President of Argentina, spoke before a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations on September 22, 2008. After her speech a Q&A session followed, here is that portion of the meeting:


MODERATOR: Well, thank you for that thorough, you know, and far-ranging and thoughtful address. Many of the prerogatives of my job -- and ask one or two questions, then we will quickly open it up.

You've come to the United States approximately 45 days, give or take, before an election in this country. If you could advise the next president of the United States, what is it you would want to see in the way of changes or continuity when it comes to U.S. policy towards your part of the world?

KIRCHNER: Well, in terms of -- and please allow me to say I do not intend to meddle with the internal political life of the U.S., particularly only a few days away from your election on November the 4th. But I must confess that I was never this excited to follow both the primaries of the Democrats and Republicans, as well as both conventions. And this is not just because I'm now president of Argentina, but because as a citizen of the world I recognize the importance the new president of the U.S. will have in a world as ours.

What do we actually expect at the universal level from the next U.S. administration? I will say a reconstruction of multilateralism, which is not to do only with our own convictions -- which of course, have a lot to do with it, too. You know, the fact that we believe that you can give more legitimacy to the fight against terrorism or against drug trafficking, a fight which must be waged by all democratic societies, but also we think that the decision to pursue unilateral policies, as was the case with this current administration, that has had an impact on the world and has actually had a negative impact on the interests of the U.S. as a country.

I would dare say, based on the polls one sees, the image of the U.S. around the world has been negatively affected, and this is something we talked about during our luncheon. And politics is about results. You know, there might have been (good ?) intentions, but politics is about results.

MODERATOR: Wouldn't Argentina -- wouldn't Argentina act unilaterally if it felt that its national interests required it?

KIRCHNER: In terms of aggression? You mean a war?

Well, I would dare say respect for international law, observance of international law in order to accept the rules -- (inaudible) -- would prevent us from doing that. In fact, we have made a strong contribution for no country in the region to take such (status ?). Look, if that were may view, I could have justified Ecuador's responding with an aggression to Colombia due to Colombia's invasion of its territory, but my own attitude, the attitude of Argentina, has been at all times to go all the way back to undo that and to prevent the adoption of unilateral measures by Colombia against -- by Ecuador against Colombia, because there were higher interests in the region which had to do precisely with preserving peace.

Preventive action or preventive war is not something we endorse as a measure, and even less so outside the framework of international law. I believe that unilateralism has been bad for the United States. And let me point out the difference between the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan with the consensus of all nations and with the support of all nations, as opposed to the U.S. when dealing with the situation in Iraq, when even some of the allies of the U.S. withdrew their support.

I'm not talking about intentions, only about results. Again, in politics you may have the best intentions, but if the results are not good and you are left in isolation, it means that your policies have perhaps not been the best ones. I try to remain as objective as possible.

So, what do we expect from the U.S. with regard to our own region? Well, first, I would say, a different look and a different presence in a region. In a way, the United States has distanced itself from our region, and we think that there should be a different position and look at South America.

You know, this is something we raised at a meeting of the Americas, I believe in Monterrey. Back then, it was a time when the situation of emerging countries was not yet the one we now get to see in economic or growth terms, and we even talked about the help of the United States. I actually talked to a representative, who is now a senator, a Democrat. He also -- can I mention him or can I say who he was or -- (inaudible). I remember I met with him while he was still a representative; he is now a senator. And I remember he was in favor of setting up a Latin America fund to give assistance to the region with a different, more intensive U.S. presence.

The governments of the region now reflect the nature of their own peoples. Again, as I was saying earlier, presidents have never been so close to their peoples and have never resembled their people as much. So we would like more presence from the U.S. in our region. That's what we would expect from your new president.

MODERATOR: I have a lot more questions, but I will show uncharacteristic restraint and not -- people have raised their hands. Try to keep your questions short.

We'll go to Baldas (sp).

QUESTIONER: Thank you. Baldas (sp) from -- (affiliation inaudible). Madame President, you made a very strong cause for multilateralism. I think many of us here -- (inaudible). I'd be interested in your views about the working U.S.-United Nations -- (inaudible) -- multilateral framework. It seems to be quite broken, oftentimes. (Inaudible.)

MODERATOR: When you get around to Security Council reform, does Argentina believe it deserves a seat on the Security Council?

KIRCHNER: Well, you know, the reform of multilateral organizations, whether multilateral lending agencies or the U.N. itself has been a recurrent topic for Argentina and is something we mention at all U.N. addresses ever since 2003.

I think we need to recreate the core, the heart of the Security Council, primarily because the U.N. -- the Security Council was created in light of the charter of San Francisco in a post-war world in which there was bipolarity. This tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which was the hallmark of the whole second half of the 20th century, right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall, made the Security Council necessary, due to the constant tension in face of the nuclear threats in the world. If someone did something outside this framework, there might be some kind of universal nuclear holocaust.

And that tension, which was always played out within the Security Council with the veto right, enabled more or less acceptable functioning of the body during the second half of the 20th century.

Now, what is the problem? When the Berlin Wall fell and the bipolarity ended, with the U.S. clearly rising above the rest of the world as the leading economic, scientific power, also in terms of its weapons and technology, becoming the absolute number-one world power, that created an imbalance which can no longer be processed within the Security Council, and this is why unilateral policies arise.

You can exercise force unilaterally when there's no other force to counteract and resist you now. This is a principle of physics, but which must also apply to politics. In other words, American unilateralism is a result of its own repositioning as the one and only world power.

But therein lies as well the problem of a possible weakening of someone who is too strong, although this may sound like a contradiction. This is why, in my own view, it is necessary to reengineer the U.N. and essentially the Security Council.

If I were to have a formula as to what the right Security Council would be to guarantee the ballot box, I might be the president of the U.S. and not the other candidates, because that would be finding the way to achieve balance in the 21st century, as was the case with the Security Council to create balance in a highly conflicted world after the Second World War.

But the fact that we need to tackle Security Council reform, that we need to give participation opportunities to the new regional players, is out of the question. We must do that. But we should also bear in mind that this breakage of bipolarity and the emergence of this undisputed power that made the current Security Council no longer as adequate.

Now, knowing that that is a problem doesn't mean that we have a solution. But it is certainly a big step towards finding a solution as part of an open debate and discussion among all countries.

MODERATOR: Yes, ma'am. All the way in the back.

QUESTIONER: Thank you, President Kirchner. Kathy Hicks (sp) with Citizen Rights Watch.

Argentina was recently elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council, a body that's been extremely ineffective at holding human rights abusers to account, in part because of the ability of abusers to say that initiatives are directed from the north. Will Argentina be a voice (of ?) leadership within the council on ongoing crises like those in Georgia, Somalia and Zimbabwe currently?

KIRCHNER: Well, you know that the policy on absolute respect for human rights is one of the basic pillars of our policy and is actually a state policy. Argentina, as you will all know, had one of the most terrible dictatorships in memory, which ended up with 30,000 people disappeared and 500 children who have not yet been found. We have already found 94 children of disappeared persons thanks to the wonderful work of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, and tomorrow there will be a ceremony headed by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Argentina and another 73 countries have signed the Treaty Against Enforced Disappearances, which, by the way, we have given a strong boost to. We are actually, as you pointed out, on the U.N. Human Rights Council. But only four countries have so far ratified the treaty -- Albania, Argentina, Honduras and Mexico. I think over the next few days, the Republic of France will be ratifying it as well.

But the fact is that Argentina's commitment to respect for human rights is -- it's unlimited and unfaltering. And I think we have made quite a lot of progress.

Last year I had a meeting with Ann Arbour in Geneva -- with Louise Arbour in Geneva. And, you know, when talking about the Initiative of the Right to the Truth, which was adopted in the U.N., something that had been encouraged by our country, other countries that hadn't been able to advance, you know, we actually had laws that -- (new ?) obedience and -- (inaudible) -- laws, which prevented prosecution of those responsible for the genocide.

Actually Mrs. Arbour, the human rights commissioner of the U.N., has acknowledged the key role played by Argentina is the field of human rights by leading to the adoption and creation of instruments such as the Right to the Truth or the Treaty on the Enforced Disappearance of Persons, which at least are instruments to fight for human rights in a world in which human rights are violated on a daily basis.

Our commitment -- and I think here again, we may be an example -- we should always be accountable for our actions, and it is true that until the administration of President Nestor Kirchner, impunity had prevailed in Argentina.

We had some pre-democratic issues, as I like to say, because people who commit crimes may evade justice and punishment, but in Argentina, those who had committed genocide evaded punishment and the law, not because they escaped, but because one of the powers -- the legislative -- had enacted laws that afforded impunity, which, as I always say, took us back to a pre-democratic stage in our society. When the state itself institutes, punishes and legislates for impunity, it's a pre-democratic state, you know. So I think that the progress in the field of human rights made in Argentina, which has been recognized around the world, and these instruments I have referred to and any other actions we may undertake will help us along.

Let me give you some more interesting news. We're working on a worldwide genetic database to work on issues of enforced disappearances, something that we are also going to support at the international level. This is something we think all countries should adopt. And we should take concrete steps every day in this unfaltering fight for the observance of human rights.

Thank you for that question, because it gives a chance to tackle an issue which, to my country and due to its own historical experience and to myself personally and due to my political beliefs, represents a policy of state.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: (Inaudible) -- for one more question. Is there a question on Latin America? I specifically want to make sure that we focus on this part of the world. John? Brief question and hopefully a brief answer, and I apologize for taking a few minutes late, but we started a few minutes late.

QUESTIONER: Thank you. I'm John Brademas, a member of the U.S. Congress -- (inaudible). In 1961, I made a trip to Buenos Aires as a member of Congress to look at the state of universities in Argentina, and I've left with your assistant a copy of the report. Can you comment on the -- I was not a senator, I was a congressman). Can you comment on the state of universities in Argentina today and say anything about the possibility of developing relationships with universities in the United States?

KIRCHNER: In 1961 when you visited, I was still very little, so I can't remember your visit. But Argentine universities have substantially improved, just as all of the educational system has improved through greater financing. That was also one of the achievements of the administration of President Nestor Kirchner.

And actually I had to vote as a senator on the bill on education financing, and for the first time we're going to allocate 6 percent of GDP to education. Of course, our GDP's substantially higher than it was at the time the law was first adopted, and now we can approach the issue of education in Argentina in quite a different way.

Universities now have larger projects. The universities and faculty get more money and better pay. We are developing a scholarship system which is aimed at favoring study choices that we consider essential for Argentina's current production model.

Argentina used to be a country with a very strong bias towards social sciences, while leaving aside hard science, which is essential for technological development. This is why we are developing a very intensive scholarship program for our high school students to be able to pursue studies in fields that Argentina needs for its production model, and this also targets low-income families with support from the government. And we are making a very strong point of this policy.

Besides, one of the economic policies that has most grown in Argentina over the last five years has been in the field of technological software and IT and telecommunications companies. Those are the companies with the largest number of birth rates, and they have grown exponentially.

Why is this so? Because our country stands out in Latin America due to its highly qualified human resources. We are the only Latin American country to have three Nobel Prize winners in scientific fields. You can check other Latin American countries and you may find Nobel Prizes for literature, but not for medicine or biology or what we call the strictly scientific world.

You know, the public, free universal education system since the end of the 19th century and the upward social mobility typical of this very substantial middle class places us in a very interesting position in Latin America in terms of the education of our human resources.

MODERATOR: Well, I want to thank President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for getting us off to such an interesting start this week, one of the first women presidents we've ever been able to welcome a the Council on Foreign Relations. So thank you very much. (Applause.)

Puerto Rico's Arecibo Telescope: The Centerpiece for Space Exploration

By now you have probably heard of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which some still believe will kill us all. But there is another project underway called the E-VLBI which stands for "electronic Very Long Baseline Interferometery" or the "we are turning the earth into a radio dish" project.

Essentially the E-VLBI project has every radio observatory on this side of the Earth look at the exact spot in the night sky at the same time. The data then is collected in a series of supercomputers for analysis. The effect is to turn the face of the earth into one single large radio telescope. The result of which will be images 100 times better than ever received either through a radio or optical telescopes.

The project, already underway since May 22, makes the Arecibo Observatory in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, the centerpiece of a united/multinational mission to explore the universe.

If you were the boss, who would you hire?

Carlos Guzman, a Central Florida businessman and community organizer, sent out this email comparing the qualifications of the Obama/Biden ticket versus the McCain/Palin ticket.

You are The Boss... which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually critical election year. The idea of "leadership" must be broadened from mere "experience" to include knowledge, learnedness and insight.

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire ?

The fact that Mr. Guzman is the owner and operator of various businesses around Central Florida, with vast experience in community organizing, helps to make the point that: All things being equal, if the decision faced by the American people in this election were taken from the proper perspective, the outcome would be obvious.

***UPDATE: Mr. Guzman wants all to know he is not the original author of the email.