Seth Kugel's Notebook:

Lula tests his leverage

Barack Obama undoubtedly knows that everything he says has a greater impact per syllable than just about anyone else in the world. So let's suppose that when at the G-20 summit in London, he referred to Lula as "My man...I love this guy, He's the most popular politician on earth," he knew that everyone in Brazil would be talking about it ad nauseum.  Jo Soares, the Jay Leno of Brazilian late night TV, couldn't even get away with misquoting him as calling Lula "the man." Instantly corrected by a guest, he noted that "the man" or "my man" were virtually synonymous. Then Obama told CNN that Brazil was an important actor in the world scene.

So it was not such a surprise that Obama's man, the most popular politician on earth and the leader of an important actor on the world scene, called Obama to talk shop before the summit. He got a return call yesterday from Air Force One. According to an article in Valor Economico, Lula used his air time to urge for the United States to press for changes well beyond the easing of travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans that Obama has put forth thus far, suggesting a George Mitchell-like envoy to negotiate, and putting the possibility of ending the embargo on the table. That, according to the advisor, would force Raul Castro to "relax his regime."

Lula had recently met with Bruno Rodriguez, the Castro government's new chancellor, in Brasilia, who indicated Cuba was ready to negotiate directly with the United States.

Of course, Cuba is not at the summit, and Obama supposedly expressed concern to Lula that Cuba would come to dominate the talks.  He seems to have done away with that concern, however, by shaking Hugo Chavez's hand.

By the way, it should be noted that despite what Obama says, Lula is not the most popular politician in the world; he's not even the most popular politician in Latin America. According to a survey released Thursday, that title belongs to one President Barack Obama, with a 70% approval rating. Lula came in second, with 59%. (Chavez had just 28%, but maybe he'll get a bump with that handshake.)

Inequality, buried in bureaucratese

Sometimes, you just know you're living in a different country. (Actually, you know this all the time, just from how differently things smell and the way you have to decide between foreign and domestic Corn Flakes and the fact that it rains at the same time every day. But sometimes, you REALLY know.)

Today, in the blast of news that comes from the press folks at the Planalto, which is to say, the Brazilian White House, the second item struck me:

"Employers of Domestic Workers Have Until Wednesday To Pay Social Security For March"

In the United States, we usually hear only about social security contributions for housekeepers and nannies and gardeners when some politician failed to pay it and their nomination is thus in jeopardy.

But in Brazil, where the Right to Domestic Help is practically written into the Middle Class Constitution (somewhere after the Right to Run Red Lights in the Middle of the Night So You Don't Get Carjacked), it's urgent news for a good chunk of society. Actually, two chunks: the employers and the employees.  Here are a few paragraphs from the full press release, with Brazilian currency translated into U.S. dollars, that provide a nice insight into inequality here.

The deadline for payment to the National Institute of Social Security...is this coming Wednesday the 15th...

Those who opted for the Simplified Plan also have until next Wednesday to pay their contributions. The rate is 11% on the minimum wage of $214 a month, which comes to $23.50. For everyone else, the contribution is $42.73 (20%). That is 12% from the employer and 8% from the employee...

For domestic workers who receive more than the minimum wage, the rate tables for this year were readjusted in February. The percentages are 8% for those who make between $214 and $444 a month, 9% for those who make $444 to $739 a month, and 11% for those who make $739 and $1479 a month. (The rate for employers is always 12%.)"

Earlier today, I was talking with David Leiner and Claudia Barbosa, founder and president of the non-profit organization that runs the Starfish School, an alternative school for poor children in the northeastern city of Maceió. Frustrated with what they consider the criminally poor public education available there, they are trying to provide a different career path for the children of domestic servants and similarly paid workers. To be sure, the problems facing Brazilian education are myriad, but among them is the subconscious incentive the rest of society has to keep the underclass uneducated. Or, to put it another way, willing to clean their houses full-time for $2,564 a year.

O Globo on the Sean Goldman case

Rio de Janeiro's O Globo newspaper has two odd scoops on the Sean Goldman case today. They're not available in the online edition.

The first reveals that in a psychological examination conducted at the request of the Brazilian federal justice system, Sean said several times that he preferred to stay in Brazil, and would indeed "go crazy" if forced to move to the United States. I'm not sure what the news here is: could anyone be surprised that Sean says he wants to stay in Brazil — this is an almost nine-year-old kid who last lived in New Jersey when he was four, in an evaluation being taped by his stepfather.

The second has Sergio Tostes, the attorney for the stepfather's and maternal grandparents' families, accusing Sean's father, David Goldman, of attempting to "kidnap" Sean back when a visit was arranged last October. That explains, he said, why Sean and his stepfather skipped out on the visit. A Brazilian judge had approved the "kidnapping" and the Brazilian police were on hand to assist, said Tostes. Alas, O Globo does not provide any independent evidence or documentation that this is true, and does not seek comment from the father or his attorneys.

Am I a journalist?

That's (more or less) one of the issues the Brazilian supreme court may decide on today as the justices reconsider Brazil's dictatorship-era laws governing the press. 

In the United States, where "journalist" is a flexible term along the lines of "writer," "expert," or "fresh pasta," I am. But here, a 1969 law requires journalists must be trained and certified like American lawyers, doctors and barbers. By that definition, I'm not.

As a result, pretty much every reporter I know here studied journalism in college, and many are surprised when I tell them that most of my American colleagues have undergraduate degrees in things like English, history, poli sci (that's me) or biology and learned about journalism writing for the school paper. They are intrigued to learn that Thomas Friedman, whose book "O Mundo E Plano" was big here, was a Mediterranean Studies major.

Many journalists — most, I think — would like to see a system more like ours, and indeed, the law has been temporarily suspended, reinstated, and temporarily suspended again over the last few years. A final court decision would be the next real step in that direction. Those who disagree, I can only assume, fear the day that the next generation of Brazilian journalists will have wasted their college days studying something completely irrelevant to our job. Like, say, economics.

P.S. — There's a corollary to the certification-required rule: Brazilians who studied journalism and now work as publicists or government spokespeople or even bar-owners still identify themselves as "jornalistas." 

I'll often hear: "I'm a journalist, too, but I'm not practicing." I wish I could respond "Really? I'm practicing, but I'm not a journalist." But usually I just bite my tongue and remind myself that the word means two different things in two different countries.

Lula Speaks on Goldman Case

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN that was broadcast yesterday, the Brazilian president Lula spoke for what I believe is the first time about the Sean Goldman case (read my description of the case here). He gave the party line — that the executive branch had done all it could, and that this was a case for the courts to decide — but added a few unexpected notes. Most surprisingly, he called the situation "more or less the same story" as the Elian Gonzalez case, adding: "In the same way that the courts made the decision in the United States, I hope the decision is made in Brazil and that it is the fairest possible."

Parse that as you will, but it's not a stretch to say that Lula may have been implying the boy should be returned. In 2000, American courts determined that Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban boy whose mother had died escaping with him to Florida, should be returned to his father in Cuba from his maternal relatives in Miami. It's pretty clear that the parallel decision in Brazil would return Sean Goldman to his father in New Jersey.

He also said that "I believe the decision of the Federal court will be sovereign, and more fair," implying the decisions of the Rio de Janeiro courts (not the Sao Paulo courts, as he said) have been less than fair.

Seth's Links:

Global Blogs:

• Latest

More Dispatches:

• Latest

Sponsored Links

Prom Dresses
Brokers Online Health Insurance
Casino News
drug addiction treatment
P90X
Credit Card