I got a comment on this morning's entry about places that expats favor in Sub-Saharan Africa (not incuding the RSA).  A writer in the Congo suggests, among others, Douala (Cameroon) and Dakar (Senegal).  I'm surprised.  (Ignorance will do that for you.)  But also always happy to learn.  I invite other reviews.  Are these two cities peaceful, clean, safe, places where folks should consider spending time because of their attraciveness and quality of life?

I've lived "out there", both as a diplomat and on the economy.  I can forgive bad traffic (to an extent) and some uncleanliness (as long as public services are available and of good quality) to enjoy peace, quiet, and local color inexpensively.

In my lifetime, developed nations have pumped countless billions of dollars of aid into Sub-Saharan Africa to improve sanitation, hygiene, agricultural production, self-sufficiency, micro-production, communications, and to defuse tensions.  Where is the payoff?  Is there an irresistible African Eden?  I have seen several recent articles that suggest that great things are expected of Sub-Saharan Africa.  I confess that I don't see it.  After you remove Arab North Africa and (for historical reasons) the Republic of South Africa, where is the seed of hope?  Where in Africa do expats go just for the quality of life?  I can think of places in Europe, North and Central and South America, Australia, and the Far East where expats flock, but is there a similar home-away-from-home in Africa?

Let me make myself clear.  I don't mean the diplomats and company execs who live in a false economy, enjoying a lifestyle they couldn't maintain at home.  And I don't mean the Albert Schweitzer-like humanitarians who revel, to a degree, in the lack of modernity.  (And God bless them for it.)  I'm talking about normal folks who have gathered their savings and said, "The heart of Africa is where I want to be."  Does it happen?

I'm taking nominations for that sweet African spot that offers internal and personal security, quality healthcare, and the other amenities that people want.

The cover of the March 20, 2006 edition of US News & World Report trumpets "The Best Job for You!" and includes the subtitle "Getting Ahead by Going Abroad".  On page 52, an article by Justin Ewers tells that "the world is getting smaller now" and that "companies are scrambling to expand overseas.  As many as 400,000 employees relocate internationally each year."  Congrats, Expat!  You were there before the rush!

The article doesn't dodge the issue of strain on families.  It also discusses the phenomenon of the employee who goes abroad for the company only to be forgotten in the promotion food chain but concludes "as a career move . . . there doesn't seem to be a better choice you can make."  But we already knew that, didn't we?

When I first heard about the World Baseball Classic tournament, I thought it sounded like a great idea.  I still think so, but not because I'm an American.  On the contrary, American fans have little reason to cheer.  As soon as I gained a global perspective I began to suspect that the famed "World" Series of baseball was, in fact, just a Local Series that could make great claims for lack of competition.  Now the World Baseball Classic is likely to show that the best of the United States is nothing without the best of the rest of the world.  (I'll gladly eat my words if the U.S. team does well in the end.)  The only thing "World"-ly about the World Series was that it relied on the best players of many countries to make American (and Canadian) teams great.

Is there any buzz abroad about the local teams?  I know from experiences in Mexico that Latin Americans love a chance to humble--if not humiliate--the U.S.  There was a growing interest in the Classic here in the U.S., but I don't think it survived to Canada in the opening round.

On the face of it, the inauguration of Michelle Bachelet as Chile's new president continues a leftward shift in Latin American politics.  But does it?  I've looked around and found mixed interpretations.  Bachelet has pledged to continue economic policies that have made Chile strong in recent years.  That's conservative.  But she's an agnostic Socialist with who has pledged to bring more women into positions of power.  That's progressive.  While the country, and the rest of the world, must wait to see how her presidency plays out, expats in Chile surely have opinions about the new president.  I invite them to chime in here, in Spanish or in English.  (I'll translate any comments made in Spanish.)

I don't think this election can be seen as a backlash of any kind against conservative policies.  Bachelet was a political prisoner nearly 30 years ago because of her support of Socialist President Salvador Allende, deposed by General Augusto Pinochet.  Now Pinochet has been out of power since 1990.  Some analysts say Bachelet was elected largely on the strength of young voters.  My question is, how could young voters be seen as voting against the policies of a government they never really knew? A 30-year old Chilean voter was 14 when Pinochet lost power, so succeeding presidencies--including more socially-progressive governments--are all he/she knows.  The election of Bachelet was more a continuation than a change of direction.

What are the local expressions of St. Patrick's Day, if any, where you are?  I just read that the first public celebration was in Boston, not in Ireland, so I'm thinking that it's roots are based as much in beer sales as in Irish nationalism.  Further evidence of this is the fact that the Guiness brewery is the source of choice for news publishers looking for info about the holiday.  Or, seen from the other side, Guiness is the most vocal source about celebrations for the holiday.  Either way, beer figures big.

When I was a kid, wearing green was a big deal in school, whether one was of Irish descent or not.  In recent years, I've seen my own children show indifference to the custom.  Is this still part of the holiday experience overseas?  And what's the attraction for non-Irish anyway, of they don't drink?