AMLO is taken the time and liberty to declare the names of desired members of his future cabinet:
Marcelo Ebrard, Interior secretary
Juan Ramón de la Fuente, Education secretary
Rogelio Ramírez de la O, Finance secretary.
Very, very solid names. Quite bold to declare them in this manner and not without risks, but might very well pull in some votes.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Cherán votes to ditch elections in favor of "usos y costumbre"
The village of Cherán in Michoacán, where its mainly Purépecha indigenous inhabitants have since March taken up arms against illegal loggers and organized crime, and in the process kicked out its PRI mayor, voted two days ago to ditch elections, in favor of the system of "usos y costumbres" used chiefly in indigenous areas in Oaxaca, and in a few areas in Sonora.
Usos y costumbres are a traditional and pre-hispanic - and mightily complicated - means of selecting leadership and solving conflicts. Yet they are not without their critics. There is often no semblance of a secret vote, and often women are left out of the equation, as office holders as well as voters.
Cherán is the only municipality to introduce them in Michoacán, after a roughly 4841-500 vote that was recognized by the state electoral institute. Yet as much as Cherán's anger with political parties unable to solve their problems is understandable, I don't really see the usos y costumbres as a panacea for anything.
I will be off to Paracho the coming days, the "world capital of guitars," to by me a nice Vihuela, and hope to stop by Cherán, unless the situation is too tense.
Usos y costumbres are a traditional and pre-hispanic - and mightily complicated - means of selecting leadership and solving conflicts. Yet they are not without their critics. There is often no semblance of a secret vote, and often women are left out of the equation, as office holders as well as voters.
Cherán is the only municipality to introduce them in Michoacán, after a roughly 4841-500 vote that was recognized by the state electoral institute. Yet as much as Cherán's anger with political parties unable to solve their problems is understandable, I don't really see the usos y costumbres as a panacea for anything.
I will be off to Paracho the coming days, the "world capital of guitars," to by me a nice Vihuela, and hope to stop by Cherán, unless the situation is too tense.
In this Cristiada-mass time... Grabman's Gorostieta and the Cristiada
Many of us are awaiting with dread the new movie "Cristiada," about the 1926-9 conflict, an armed uprising of catholics against a strongly anti-clerical Mexican state.
Dread, because it appears the this will be a very distorted and pro-cristero portrayal of reality - in other words, a very political movie, yet of the reactionary kind. The trailer for the movie strongly suggests so: To dramatic images of churchgoers being massacred, we are told that "When the government outlawed faith... the faithful became outlaws." Oh, dear. "Based on a true story," the trailer boldly claims. One might add, "Only the facts have been changed to protect the innocent."
For a quick, entertaining, enlightening, and, most importantly, even-handed read on the Cristiada and particularly Enrique Gorostieta Velarde, a general hired to be the leader of the rebellion, I recommend Richard Grabman's Gorostieta and the Cristiada: Mexico's Catholic Insurgency 1926-1929. It proves a quick and accessible overview and background to the event, and seeks to hone in on Gorostieta himself - a highly ambitions army officer that, irony of ironies, had long been considered an anti-clerical and possibly atheist. Keep that thought in mind as you watch the trailer. Yet what motivated him to join the rebellion, then? For one good and highly readable attempt at answering this question, which appears to have been the author's motivation, you can check out Grabman's book.
It is a very useful antidote to what appears to be a very, very flawed film, whenever it will be released.
(available now as an e-book here, or here, it costs less than a beer)
Dread, because it appears the this will be a very distorted and pro-cristero portrayal of reality - in other words, a very political movie, yet of the reactionary kind. The trailer for the movie strongly suggests so: To dramatic images of churchgoers being massacred, we are told that "When the government outlawed faith... the faithful became outlaws." Oh, dear. "Based on a true story," the trailer boldly claims. One might add, "Only the facts have been changed to protect the innocent."
For a quick, entertaining, enlightening, and, most importantly, even-handed read on the Cristiada and particularly Enrique Gorostieta Velarde, a general hired to be the leader of the rebellion, I recommend Richard Grabman's Gorostieta and the Cristiada: Mexico's Catholic Insurgency 1926-1929. It proves a quick and accessible overview and background to the event, and seeks to hone in on Gorostieta himself - a highly ambitions army officer that, irony of ironies, had long been considered an anti-clerical and possibly atheist. Keep that thought in mind as you watch the trailer. Yet what motivated him to join the rebellion, then? For one good and highly readable attempt at answering this question, which appears to have been the author's motivation, you can check out Grabman's book.
It is a very useful antidote to what appears to be a very, very flawed film, whenever it will be released.
(available now as an e-book here, or here, it costs less than a beer)
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Art. 24 reform: Everyone's going overboard, especially La Jornada journalists
Where to begin: Two days ago, the Chamber of Deputies approved the reform to Article 24 of the constitution that will now allow religious organizations to carry out acts of worship in public, rather than being restricted only to religious houses of worship, according to existing legislation.
The change has elicited many strong reactions, and understandably so. Given the historic role of the church in Mexico, as well as its often pernicious influence on current politics (many of them noted in this blog), one should be wary of anything resembling an attack on the secular state in Mexico.
Already, strongly secular PRI senators such as Francisco Labastida and María de los Ángeles Moreno said they will vote against the legislation when it comes to the senate.
Yet as far as I can see, the main reasons why the PRI, PAN, and most of PRD voted in favor for the legislation was simply for Mexico to abide by its international obligations stemming from having signed the San José Agreement on Human Rights. Pro-secular NGOs, however, are worried that the legislation means far more than this.
Let that debate continue.
Yet here the nuttiness starts. La Jornada on its front page declares that the Chuchos, or the social democratic wing of the PRD (long known for its pro-secular attitude, pro grays, pro women, pro abortion, etc), agreed to vote for the legislation in return for Guadalupe Acosta Naranjo, a federal deputy and member of the chuchos or (more formally Nueva Izquirda) presiding the Chamber of Deputies for the coming legislative session. The claim is repeated ad nauseam in a rash of articles in the newspaper by the same two journalists, Roberto Garduño and Enrique Méndez, such as here and here. .
But where is the evidence that this is the case, other than the claims of a few of their PRD and PT fellow legislators who merely say that is so?
I've said it before: La Jornada, once a highly venerable, respected, extremely important newspaper, is becoming a caricature of itself due to its ridiculous biases and distortions of reality: You can't repeat as "fact" a highly incendiary claim just because you are opposed politically to the group stating it.
Seriously. At no point do they even mention the San José agreements, but merely throw in the PRD group in what they call "attack on the secular state." There's more than a bit of irony here: Where was La Jornada, when gay groups, human rights group, pro choice groups, women rights group, etc, were pleading with AMLO in 2006 to take up their cause, as he had promised, in his presidential campaign? When AMLO personally blocked the vote on gay unions as Mexico City mayor? Not a word from La Jornada, which from the early 2000s on appeared more an AMLO mouthpiece (or EZLN, depending on the conjuncture), than the serious newspaper it once was.
Speaking of nutty journalists: Some "catholic reporters" - unclear from what newspaper - brought with them a priest to "bless" the press room. Yes, to bless the Chamber of Deputies press room.
And of course, the criminal thugs of the Mexico Archdiocese - criminal in their numerous cover-ups of child-raping priests and pedophiles on all levels - could not resist the temptation to use their favorite word, the F-word.
F for Fascist. Hugo Valdemar Romero, the spokesperson of sorts for the church, said in response to critics of the legislation that "it is incomprehensible that some parties of a fascist style continue to view this as a violation of the Constitution, as a violation of the secular state."
Leave it to Valdemar, who have always gleefully enjoyed pouring gasoline on fire, to tack the label "fascist" to democratic political parties. Self-projection, much?
The change has elicited many strong reactions, and understandably so. Given the historic role of the church in Mexico, as well as its often pernicious influence on current politics (many of them noted in this blog), one should be wary of anything resembling an attack on the secular state in Mexico.
Already, strongly secular PRI senators such as Francisco Labastida and María de los Ángeles Moreno said they will vote against the legislation when it comes to the senate.
Yet as far as I can see, the main reasons why the PRI, PAN, and most of PRD voted in favor for the legislation was simply for Mexico to abide by its international obligations stemming from having signed the San José Agreement on Human Rights. Pro-secular NGOs, however, are worried that the legislation means far more than this.
Let that debate continue.
Yet here the nuttiness starts. La Jornada on its front page declares that the Chuchos, or the social democratic wing of the PRD (long known for its pro-secular attitude, pro grays, pro women, pro abortion, etc), agreed to vote for the legislation in return for Guadalupe Acosta Naranjo, a federal deputy and member of the chuchos or (more formally Nueva Izquirda) presiding the Chamber of Deputies for the coming legislative session. The claim is repeated ad nauseam in a rash of articles in the newspaper by the same two journalists, Roberto Garduño and Enrique Méndez, such as here and here. .
But where is the evidence that this is the case, other than the claims of a few of their PRD and PT fellow legislators who merely say that is so?
I've said it before: La Jornada, once a highly venerable, respected, extremely important newspaper, is becoming a caricature of itself due to its ridiculous biases and distortions of reality: You can't repeat as "fact" a highly incendiary claim just because you are opposed politically to the group stating it.
Seriously. At no point do they even mention the San José agreements, but merely throw in the PRD group in what they call "attack on the secular state." There's more than a bit of irony here: Where was La Jornada, when gay groups, human rights group, pro choice groups, women rights group, etc, were pleading with AMLO in 2006 to take up their cause, as he had promised, in his presidential campaign? When AMLO personally blocked the vote on gay unions as Mexico City mayor? Not a word from La Jornada, which from the early 2000s on appeared more an AMLO mouthpiece (or EZLN, depending on the conjuncture), than the serious newspaper it once was.
Speaking of nutty journalists: Some "catholic reporters" - unclear from what newspaper - brought with them a priest to "bless" the press room. Yes, to bless the Chamber of Deputies press room.
And of course, the criminal thugs of the Mexico Archdiocese - criminal in their numerous cover-ups of child-raping priests and pedophiles on all levels - could not resist the temptation to use their favorite word, the F-word.
F for Fascist. Hugo Valdemar Romero, the spokesperson of sorts for the church, said in response to critics of the legislation that "it is incomprehensible that some parties of a fascist style continue to view this as a violation of the Constitution, as a violation of the secular state."
Leave it to Valdemar, who have always gleefully enjoyed pouring gasoline on fire, to tack the label "fascist" to democratic political parties. Self-projection, much?
Friday, December 16, 2011
14 months late, Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) complete
It's about damn time. At last, the Chamber of deputies came to an agreement to appoint, with the required 2/3 majority, the last three IFE councilors ahead of 2012. None voted against; a handful of PT legislators abstained.
They are:
* Sergio García Ramírez, former attorney general, and judge at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
* María Marván Laborde, Ph.D from New School, now with the federal IFAI (institute for access to information and data protection)
* Lorenzo Córdova Vianello, Ph.D, law expert and researcher at UNAM.
This is excellent new, met with near unison approval from the various legislative leaders, as well as IFE president Leonardo Valdés. It's embarrassing, though, that it took the Chamber so long to get to this, and only under intense pressure from the federal electoral tribunal (TEPJF).
They are:
* Sergio García Ramírez, former attorney general, and judge at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
* María Marván Laborde, Ph.D from New School, now with the federal IFAI (institute for access to information and data protection)
* Lorenzo Córdova Vianello, Ph.D, law expert and researcher at UNAM.
This is excellent new, met with near unison approval from the various legislative leaders, as well as IFE president Leonardo Valdés. It's embarrassing, though, that it took the Chamber so long to get to this, and only under intense pressure from the federal electoral tribunal (TEPJF).
IFE squashes a horrid proposal from two of its councilors
Marco Antonio Baños and Alfredo Figueroa Mantuvo, IFE councilors both, proposed to IFE's general council that IFE should extend its authority to monitor opinion programs in the media to make sure the treatment of political candidates of the shows are "equitable."
Thankfully, IFE squashed the initiative, which strikes me as truly insane, and far beyond the mere practical details of deciding what is "equitable" treatment of candidtes: What on earth makes them think that IFE is entitled to decide what is "fair" treatment in the media? It is hard to think of a similar extreme and truly frightening attempt at overreach with authoritarian overtones.
While Marco Antonio Baños is known for his erratic behavior, I expected differently from Alfredo Figueroa, who I found to be a very reasonable man when I interviewed him for an hour a little while back.
Both are considered very close to the PRI, despite the nonsense of IFE councilors supposedly having no party sympathies. Yet for them to try to turn IFE into an organ exercising editorial control of political programs on television - I actually did hold that to be beneath them.
Thankfully, IFE squashed the initiative, which strikes me as truly insane, and far beyond the mere practical details of deciding what is "equitable" treatment of candidtes: What on earth makes them think that IFE is entitled to decide what is "fair" treatment in the media? It is hard to think of a similar extreme and truly frightening attempt at overreach with authoritarian overtones.
While Marco Antonio Baños is known for his erratic behavior, I expected differently from Alfredo Figueroa, who I found to be a very reasonable man when I interviewed him for an hour a little while back.
Both are considered very close to the PRI, despite the nonsense of IFE councilors supposedly having no party sympathies. Yet for them to try to turn IFE into an organ exercising editorial control of political programs on television - I actually did hold that to be beneath them.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Peña Nieto is not the lady of the house, we now know.
There is something truly pathetic about playing the victim when you screw up like Enrique Peña Nieto has done very publicly the past days. It is also a sign things aren't going your way. Why not at least try to laugh it off, and show that he is not just the scripted puppet incapable of independent thinking and improvisation that his opponents accuse him of being?
Yet Peña Nieto instead plays the victim, and even suggesting there might be more "inaccuracies" in the future.
Word.
He then preceded to not know the minimum wage in Mexico nor the price of a kilo of tortillas nor the price of a kilo of meat, responding that "I am not the lady of the house."
Yes, because only women buy tortillas and meat.
Yet Peña Nieto instead plays the victim, and even suggesting there might be more "inaccuracies" in the future.
Word.
He then preceded to not know the minimum wage in Mexico nor the price of a kilo of tortillas nor the price of a kilo of meat, responding that "I am not the lady of the house."
Yes, because only women buy tortillas and meat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)