Apertura

I’m now watching the repeat of this morning’s Opening Ceremonies from Beijing. I’ve yet to glimpse at how the cauldron was lit but I’m sure it was done beautifully if the artistry of the first part of the ceremony was indication.

So far the coverage on NBC is in the final third of the march of nations; I really wish Matt Lauer and Bob Costas would not be so chatty and let the images speak for themselves. (I felt this way especially when the Venezuelan delegation came out and all they could do was launch these smartass quips about Hugo Chavez. Trust me, I’m not a Chavista and I tend to disagree with his initiatives. But please give me a break with the whole “tee hee, he moved the clocks forward by thirty minutes” remarks).

Regarding the Olympics, I feel pretty neutral and blasé over the Games this year; part of it is due to the difficulty in watching the events live and part of it is due to the whole human rights controversy. The only sport I’m truly passionate about is the U.S. participation in soccer which explains why I woke up at 4:30 in the morning yesterday to watch the U.S.-Japan match. Otherwise I feel pretty “meh” about the whole affair.

This brings me to the inimitable wisdom of Eddie Izzard. “Stoned Olympics?” Yes please!

Patriotism or poor taste in Peru?

Lady Godiva eat your heart out:

Leysi Suarez, a Peruvian showgirl and dancer for Alma Bella band made international headlines when a naked picture of her on top of the Peruvian flag was published on the cover of a magazine…

While she initially affirmed there was nothing wrong with what she had done and stated she would do it again saying she loved Peru and would show it with her "body and soul", she has changed her mind and retracted her statements.
After Peru's Minister of Defense, Antero Flores-Araoz assigned the case to a public prosecutor and announced that charges would be pressed against Leysi, the Peruvian dancer has stated she is truly sorry.

BBC News covered the scandal surrounding Suarez’ snapshots in this video including interviewing the magazine’s editor who defended his decision.

The more intriguing video is the following were Peruvians on the street are asked which is more “offensive” – Suarez or a pair of “corrupt” legislators. (My favorite reply is about 1:30 in where a gentleman explains that “the lady isn’t offensive but her intentions are”).

Perhaps in 2011 Peruvians can enjoy the best of both worlds if former soccer cheerleader and TV presenter Shirley Cherres becomes congresswoman!

My p.o.v. - it is more than obvious that Suarez sought (and found) her 15 minutes of fame via the controversial photoshoot. (The term "attention whore" comes to mind, with all due respect to Suarez).

At the same time, Peru's government needs to focus on the bigger issues that need to be tackled such as an angry opposition, neighbor pains, and plummeting presidential popularity. Minister Flores-Araoz should zip it and stick to doing his job competently.

Hyperbole

I was watching a bit of the Colombian news tonight on Caracol Internacional when one of the reports focused on the brouhaha over ratifying the U.S.-Colombia free trade pact. During the news piece (which I unfortunately cannot find online) the reporter claimed that the talks over the agreement where (and I'm slightly paraphrasing here):

The most contentious free trade agreement in the history of the United States.

Really?

Have we not forgotten the firestorm over NAFTA roughly 15 years ago? In the days before up-to-the-nanosecond news and a plethora of blogs the discussion over NAFTA seemed to be out of control. I even remember that it was a huge deal when Al Gore and Ross Perot debated the pros and cons of NAFTA on CNN. The tension was thick ebough to cut with a machete, and more so when Gore gave Perot a framed photo of Senators Smoot and Hawley as a "gift." (Yes, those were the architects behind the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930).

Then again, Caracol's reports are pretty solid...if you agree wholeheartedly with the free trade deal. With such a complex issue, the network's report can boil down to free trade/Republicans = good, while tariffs/Democrats = bad. Therefore, to emphasize hyperbole makes sense for Caracol. Unfortunately, it is ultimately to the detriment of the viewer.

By the way, before some of you get this idea that I'm some pinko/Commie/red, allow me to clarify a few things:

1. Between the two options I believe that free trade is a better option than protectionism.
   
2. Yet not all free trade agreements work alike; the pacts between the U.S. and Chile or Peru allow for better guarantees to labor and worker's rights than the one with Colombia.
3. Both Democrats and the GOP have done an awful job of treating the agreement as a political hot potato. President Bush miscalculated horribly by thinking he could get away with trying to ram it down Congress' throat and the White House argument that no free trade = a victory for Chavez/populists is woefully misguided. At the same time, the Democrats are doing a terrible job arguing against free trade as a concept and are perpetuating the notion that they are not "friends" of Colombia.
4. What should be done? Hopefully cooler heads can prevail after the presidential elections in November and both parties can rationally analyze the pact. I feel that the agreement needs to be renegotiated (see item #2) yet the benefits of a free trade pact outweigh the negatives.

Maybe I'm correct or maybe I'm wrong. One thing is for certain: hyperboles are oversimplified distortions.

Prologue (May 26, 2008): It occurred to me this morning that there's a kink to my argument over hyperbole and the past controversy over NAFTA.

Wasn't the gesture of Al Gore giving Ross Perot the "gift" of the framed Smoot/Hawley picture on CNN the epitome of hyperbole? Could that be the reason why I seemed to recall that moment more than other discussions or arguments over NAFTA in the early 90s?

I wonder...