According to the online program, I’m presenting the same paper (“¡Autonomía Ya! Non-Indigenous Ethnic Popular Mobilization in Santa Cruz, Bolivia”) in two separate panels at the APSA 2010 conference in Washington, DC. Once on the panel Todd Eisenstadt invited me to join on multiculturalism in Latin America (part of his on-going project on that theme); another time on a hodgepodge panel on comparative democratization. Um, ok? I didn’t think I submitted a separate paper proposal. At least the multiculturalism panel is on the much-better-for-me Thursday slot (the other is on Friday).

That means that I could give the same paper twice. Although I’m pretty sure that would be bad form. Of course, I still have to write the thing. So there’s that, too.

I’m primarily in Bolivia to (attempt to) finish data collection for the NSF project I’m working on w/ Matt Shugart & several others. The project is relatively simple: To test a corollary of Duverger’s Law to see if parties change their candidate recruitment strategies in the face of electoral reforms. We’re collecting candidate data across multiple elections from about a dozen countries; I’m in charge of the Bolivia data collection (which is proving more difficult even than I had imagined). Nevertheless, I’m also trying to start a new research project.

Another video from Current TV’s Vanguard series. This one’s about the controversy over women’s headscarves in Turkey. Although the textbook I’m using next semester doesn’t include Turkey as one its 10 cases (the only Muslim country included is Iran), it does include a brief “mini-case” on headscarves in Turkey & France (in the chapter on politics of inclusion & clashing values).

Image via Wikipedia

I have to thank my little brother, Andy, who recently shared his newfound obsession with Current TV. As I started looking for things to use next semester, I was poking through Hulu.com & stumbled upon Vanguard, a series of 30-minute mini-documentaries. They’re quite good.

Over the next few weeks, as I select videos I will use in my classes (comparative politics & Latin American politics), I’ll post links & brief commentary here.

This first one is about Nigeria (one of our cases next semester), but it is appropriate for any discussion on the dilemmas of petrostates. The Vanguard crew in this video visits the Niger Delta, where much of Nigeria’s oil (which accounts for 80% of GDP) comes from. Just watch.

Got back from the APSA Teaching & Learning Conference in Philadelphia last night. In addition to my conference duties, I also got to spend some time catching up w/ my little brother (Andy/Andrés), a lovely dinner w/ Jake & Megan, as well as meeting (in person) my Twitter friend Ari (who teaches political theory at UN-Lincoln). But let me focus here on the teaching conference.

Here are the long & short essay questions for my POL 321 (Politics of Latin American) final exam. Students got all exam questions last Monday to prepare. I will select the long essay & two short essays they will have to answer this Wednesday. The final is based on what we read since the second exam.

The long exam questions are based on the Castañeda/Morales book, Leftovers: Tales of the Latin American Left. The short essay questions are based on three of the several articles they read.

Long Essay
I will select one of the following questions for you to answer. Aim for about 4-5 substantial paragraphs.

1. Originally (in his book before Leftovers), Castañeda suggested that there were two lefts in Latin America: a “responsible” (or “social-democratic”) and a “populist” left. Describe their differences, citing one example of each in your discussion. Be sure you spend equal time explaining what unites both figures (why they're both “leftists”) as well as what divides them (why one is “social democrat” and the other a “populist”).

2. Some of the authors in Leftovers disagree with Castañeda, arguing that it is too simplistic to divide Latin America into a “good” and a “bad” left. Elaborate on this critique (one Castañeda himself now shares) by citing two chapters in the book. In your answer, be sure you do two things: 1) explain how a particular case doesn't fit Castañeda's original dichotomy and 2) outline the alternate dimensions or concepts that should be included in a typology of the left in Latin America.

Short Essay
I will select two of the following questions for you to answer. Aim for about 2-3 paragraphs per essay.

1. Roberts (“Latin America's Populist Revival”) attempts to define “populism” in ways that both complement and challenge Castañeda's discussion. How does Roberts define populism? And why does he criticize Castañeda?

2. Based on what you know after reading Latell (“Confronting Fidel's Legacy”), where does Cuba fit in Castañeda's model? [This is an “opinion” short essay. I am looking for a well-supported argument, not a “correct” answer.]

3. Barr (“Bolivia: Another Uncompleted Revolution”) discusses several factors that contributed to the election of Evo Morales. In what ways was Morales's rise “typical” to other cases we've studied this semester? What is the “uncompleted revolution” Barr writes about?

In addition to these essay questions, they'll have five vocabulary terms, as well as be able to correctly match 10 heads of state (I give them the names) w/ their corresponding country.

In other news, I’ve (finally) posted my Spring 2010 syllabi:

• POL 102. Introduction to Comparative Politics
• INST 314. Heroes & Villains: Populism in Latin America
• LIBA 102. Travel as a Method of Inquiry

I’ve also updated my cv, in case anyone’s interested.