(I note this because a quote from George Grayson on how Obama could "only dream" of having Calderón's approval ratings stuck in mind. That was perhaps then, but this is now).
 |
| Milenio |
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Calderón's approval ratings now below Obama's
I see so many contradicting polls on Calderón's approval ratings that I take anything with a pail of salt, but this one is nonetheless interesting, as it begins with his inauguration: At 49 percent, from what I've read recently, he has now been surpassed by Obama.
(I note this because a quote from George Grayson on how Obama could "only dream" of having Calderón's approval ratings stuck in mind. That was perhaps then, but this is now).
(I note this because a quote from George Grayson on how Obama could "only dream" of having Calderón's approval ratings stuck in mind. That was perhaps then, but this is now).
Free speech or slander? Case of Anabel Hernández
An interesting case to be tried on free speech vs. unsubstantiated claims that may or may not be slander:
Journalist/writer Anabel Hernández, author of Señores del Narco, is facing a claim from former Attorney general and former head of the federal electoral institute of slanderous, false accusations.
Her book, among many other (and far more explosive claims), suggests Carpizo nabbed a big sum of money set aside for the hunt against El Chapo Guzmán. Yet the problem is only this: There seems to be very little concrete evidence for this rather incendiary claim, at least as offered in this book.
It is an interesting case as it raises some complicated yet crucial issues: To what an extent can a journalist really rely on what appears to be the lack of clear and concrete evidence, in order to make very strong accusations against public figures? I haven't read her book, so I have no idea of the merits of these claims, but reading an excerpt in Proceso this truly struck me as very sensationalist work, which, if it had the evidence to back up its many other claims, should really have made an impact on the political scene. And I don't think it has.
On principle I think the bar should be set very, very high for what a public official will have to endure. Yet should there be no limits at all on what s/he can be accused of, especially if, it appears, the evidence is very thin?
I am trying to put myself in the shoes of Carpizo, who I think is generally pretty well regarded. If he never took any of this money, he would naturally be interested in clearing his name - and, for good and for bad, it seems the burden is on him to prove his innocence - and how would he do this except by suing Hernández?
Perhaps he was dirty, but it seems to me when you make a very concrete claim, you should have some matching concrete evidence. I would be very interested in opinions from others familiar with her work and the case, in particular as I may well be wrong here.
Journalist/writer Anabel Hernández, author of Señores del Narco, is facing a claim from former Attorney general and former head of the federal electoral institute of slanderous, false accusations.
Her book, among many other (and far more explosive claims), suggests Carpizo nabbed a big sum of money set aside for the hunt against El Chapo Guzmán. Yet the problem is only this: There seems to be very little concrete evidence for this rather incendiary claim, at least as offered in this book.
It is an interesting case as it raises some complicated yet crucial issues: To what an extent can a journalist really rely on what appears to be the lack of clear and concrete evidence, in order to make very strong accusations against public figures? I haven't read her book, so I have no idea of the merits of these claims, but reading an excerpt in Proceso this truly struck me as very sensationalist work, which, if it had the evidence to back up its many other claims, should really have made an impact on the political scene. And I don't think it has.
On principle I think the bar should be set very, very high for what a public official will have to endure. Yet should there be no limits at all on what s/he can be accused of, especially if, it appears, the evidence is very thin?
I am trying to put myself in the shoes of Carpizo, who I think is generally pretty well regarded. If he never took any of this money, he would naturally be interested in clearing his name - and, for good and for bad, it seems the burden is on him to prove his innocence - and how would he do this except by suing Hernández?
Perhaps he was dirty, but it seems to me when you make a very concrete claim, you should have some matching concrete evidence. I would be very interested in opinions from others familiar with her work and the case, in particular as I may well be wrong here.
AMLO, now with movie stars!
A great picture from La Jornada today: AMLO with Demián Bichir, the Oscar-nominated actor from A Better Life. Bichir has stated his support for a left candidacy in 2012, which, from my point of view, makes absolutely sense.
 |
| La Jornada |
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Just what Jesus would have ordered
Ahead of Pope Benedict's visit to Guanajuato, Mexico:
Raúl Villegas, spokesperson for the Arcdiocese of León, said the municipality would be responsible for the rearrangement of beggars, prostitutes and street vendors.Yes, by all means - remove the beggars and prostitutes from the dear Pope's sight so as not to inconvenience him - just what Jesus would have done.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
IFE's Lorenzo Córdova calls for calm on opinion polls
Lorenzo Córdova Vianello, one of the nine councilors of Mexico's federal electoral institute, called for political actors - candidates, public servants - to be "responsible" in their use of public opinion polls ahead of Mexico's 2012 election, and not "contaminate" the electoral enviroment.
I think that can safely be taken as a finger pointing at Felipe Calderón, who happened to display, proud as a rooster, a poll that showed PAN's candidate trailing by only a few percentage points. No other poll - none - has showed anything remotely close to these figures.
Córdova also drew attention to the "irresponsibility" of politicians pointing to dubious and made-to-fit polls, an increasing problem in Mexico. All parties should feel this criticism sting a bit.
(On another note: Lorenzo Córdova is a man to keep in mind for future higher offices. I have been reading much of his work recently, and most of it is very brilliant stuff. I don't think being an IFE councilor - as important and prestigious as that job is - will be the zenith of his career.)
I think that can safely be taken as a finger pointing at Felipe Calderón, who happened to display, proud as a rooster, a poll that showed PAN's candidate trailing by only a few percentage points. No other poll - none - has showed anything remotely close to these figures.
Córdova also drew attention to the "irresponsibility" of politicians pointing to dubious and made-to-fit polls, an increasing problem in Mexico. All parties should feel this criticism sting a bit.
(On another note: Lorenzo Córdova is a man to keep in mind for future higher offices. I have been reading much of his work recently, and most of it is very brilliant stuff. I don't think being an IFE councilor - as important and prestigious as that job is - will be the zenith of his career.)
Monday, February 27, 2012
Mexico "drug war" affecting 52 % of municipalities
While the violence, as is often pointed out, is concentrated in a far fewer number, Mexico's attorney general office PGR stated that the 1269 municipalities, or 52 percent, have nonetheless been directly affected by the government's fight against organized crime (and their own infighting), according to today's El Universal.
For instance, in 97 percent (!) of the municipalities in Morelos, there have been deaths directly attributed to the drug "war" debacle. Michoacán, "my" state for a range of reasons, have as well as stunning 95 percent of its municipalities as having experienced drug war murders.
For instance, in 97 percent (!) of the municipalities in Morelos, there have been deaths directly attributed to the drug "war" debacle. Michoacán, "my" state for a range of reasons, have as well as stunning 95 percent of its municipalities as having experienced drug war murders.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Calderón truly has no shame
In Mexico these days there is a veda electoral, or a ban on campaigning, ahead of the official campaign start.
Calderón and his party PAN should know better than to completely disrespect this, as well as other constitutional prohibitions of the president campaigning. Six years ago, Vicente Fox broke essentially every law in teh book and was strongly reprimanded by the courts for his interventions in the campaign. Calderón was then carried onward by an extremely dirty and dishonest campaign against AMLO.
Yet what does Calderón do? At a "private meeting" with 700 bankers, he presents the results of his own poll demonstrating that Josefina Vázquez Mota, the PAN's 2012 candidate, is allegedly only a few percentage points behind PRI's Enrique Peña Nieto and, with relish he relates, ahead of AMLO, his 2006 nemesis.
This politicking, aggravated by an extremely poor choice of timing, is really tasteless, and presents Calderón, already long criticized for his utter lack of any ability to listen to advice from others and his incessant stubborrness, as truly a little man, of no shame, and disrespectful of the presidential office as well as Mexico's democracy. It is nto worthy of a head of state.
Calderón and his party PAN should know better than to completely disrespect this, as well as other constitutional prohibitions of the president campaigning. Six years ago, Vicente Fox broke essentially every law in teh book and was strongly reprimanded by the courts for his interventions in the campaign. Calderón was then carried onward by an extremely dirty and dishonest campaign against AMLO.
Yet what does Calderón do? At a "private meeting" with 700 bankers, he presents the results of his own poll demonstrating that Josefina Vázquez Mota, the PAN's 2012 candidate, is allegedly only a few percentage points behind PRI's Enrique Peña Nieto and, with relish he relates, ahead of AMLO, his 2006 nemesis.
This politicking, aggravated by an extremely poor choice of timing, is really tasteless, and presents Calderón, already long criticized for his utter lack of any ability to listen to advice from others and his incessant stubborrness, as truly a little man, of no shame, and disrespectful of the presidential office as well as Mexico's democracy. It is nto worthy of a head of state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)