Malcolm in the muddle
Bloggers, understand this: journalists are just people. Foreign correspondents, who most of you like to hate, are people who have covered many parts of the world; they are not experts in the local like some of you. Their talent lies in their ability to decipher events from their perspective and in a way that their readership, a wide readership often consisting of people who don’t even know where mexico is on the world map, will understand. They are not the final authority, they are just interpreters.
Beith, the former editor of The [Mexico City] News, was taking exception to various “posts criticizing David Luhnow’s Mexico coverage in the Wall Street Journal”. Being one of those who was extremely critical of Luhnow recently, a few remarks.
- I can’t speak for others, but I certainly don’t “hate” foreign correspondents. That doesn’t mean we have to accept plainly wrong, or wrong headed, reportage (or editing) — nor that we shouldn’t comment on how Mexico is presented to a foreign audience.
- Our talent as mere bloggers also rests on our “ability to decipher events from [our] perspective”. Beith writes that correspondents are often addressing themselves to “people who don’t even know where mexico is on the world map,” which makes it all the more important … for — oh — for example, writers on the culture and history of the country … to correct the errors being perpetuated by correspondents.
- I can’t think of any of the English-language Mexican bloggers (unless Beith is referring to the real estate sales blogs) that consider themselves the “final authority” on anything: like the other bloggers mentioned in this post, I follow the standard internet conventions of linking to my sources and trusting those that wish to critique my product to go back to those sources. In my books, I use footnotes or the bibliography for the same reason.
A more general complaint — and a common one among “mainstream press” alumni — is that people like me are dependent on the “foreign correspondents” for much of our material.
… blogs suffer from their inherent form, which is to bounce off news, rather than report it. And because of their lack of understanding of the media, bloggers often end up being overly critical of material that is out there, rather like a nagging spouse or child who really doesn’t know what they’re talking about but desperately wants to be heard.
Actually, I depend a lot on Mexican local writers too, but it’s true that a lot of what we write is “bounced off” the news. However, not everything in the media… or in THIS media… is meant to be “news”. Taking a critical attitude (not necessarily negative) towards the existing documentation of others is the staple of much reportage … and has always been the basis of literary criticism and scholarship. The assumption that all media is news, or that all blogs are presented as “news reports” is false.
That said, it’s a broad (and incorrect) generalization to say bloggers know nothing of media. Several of the best English-language bloggers ARE from the media… Patrick Corcoran at “Ganchoblog” (for whom Beith sometimes posts), Alexis Okeowo at “Exodus“, Frank Keogan at Burro Hall, Michael Reynolds at “NarcoGuerro Times“, not to mention David Agren at “Tales From San Lazaro” (and like Beith, formerly of The News). My “mainstream media” experience is a bit limited to having worked on and off as a reporter for small town newspapers (including once as a correspondent for The News when Beith was editor) and being the ex-spousal equivalent of an investigative reporter — the latter of which might have made me slightly biased, but still with a basic understanding of the media.
The Mex Files has a rather open-ended purpose: to explore “Mexican art, history, culture, politics, economics, news, some travel and the general weirdness that usually comes blowing in from the north“. In other words, it is cultural (including political culture) commentary and analysis, not news writing. Like most other English-language bloggers on Mexican affairs, it tends to present the “Mexican side” of things to people who presumably can find Mexico on a map (or at least through a search engine). Then again, whether focused on daily language and life (like Mexico Bob), the United States from an expat perspective and expat life within a Mexican community (From Xico), the problems in one corner of the country (Maggie’s Madness), or a scholarly specialty like the intersection of religion and culture (Secret History), most of us are not writing news. Nor pretending to. We riff off the media to discuss what is important to us — less nagging than finding inspiration. I’m sure Malcolm’s blog — meant to provide “News and analysis on the global war on organized crime” — is also going to depend on media reports — both mainstream and alternative — as a resource and, at times, as a rationale for presenting his own perspective on a given event.
Malcolm is a welcome addition to the scrum, and I’ve already added him to my “Bloglines” RSS feeder … I hope he continues at least manages to find something to say about Mexico as he writes “News and analysis on the global war on organized crime” . His “foreign correspondent” view isn’t my view, and is all the more valuable for that. I know what I think. I want to know what HE thinks… and what is being presented to the world about Mexico.
Of course, if I think he’s presenting a misguided or misinformed view, I’ll say so, and give my reasons for doing so. And hope he does the same for me. As long — of course — as he doesn’t get too snarky about my inability to self-edit (I do fine on other people’s stuff, just not my own, where I can’t see overly complicated sentences — like this one — to save my life).
Those uppity Latin Americans
The Foreign Policy Association — founded during Woodrow Wilson’s presidency (1918) seems not to have progressed much since the Professor Wilson’s infamous “We will teach them to elect good men.” As if the Latin Americans (or, rather, the Mexicans, where were the “them” to which Wilson was referring) were asking for lessons, or if the teacher (replaced by the highly corrupt Warren G. Harding) was qualified to give them. Wilson’s quote came to mind when I read Sean Goforth’s “Gay Marriage in Mexico City” on the Foreign Policy Association’s Mexico Blog.
It’s a quixotic battle, I know to get people to use the phrase “same-gender marriage” in place of “gay marriage.” “Gay marriage” implies the whole thing is about sex, when there has been sex without marriage, and marriage without sex forever. Although marriage laws usually mention “conjugal rights” — making access to sex a part of the deal — but marriage has traditionally been just a way of creating a legal bond between two unrelated persons — often for financial or other reasons having nothing to do with boinking. As a matter of history, “same-gender marriage” first became a reality in Denmark, where an aging war hero, who’d become quite rich in his dotage had no interest in leaving his fortune to his blood relations, but rather to his business (and life) partner. It was conservatives — always looking for a way to beat the tax man — who took up the cause.
But, a lot of people, even well-educated, informed ones, write “Gay Marriage”. It might indicate some hangups discussing sexuality, but I don’t think it shows any particular attitude towards Latin American culture and sensitivities. However, after mentioning that the passage of a same-gender marriage bill in the Federal District of Mexico was leading to calls for changes elsewhere, Sean writes of Latin Americans:
They should temper their enthusiasm.
If the “they” isn’t offensive — echoing Wilson’s “them“, the rest of the sentence… and the post… stinks to high heaven of Wilsonian paternalism.
Goforth bases his argument on an analogy to abortion. Or rather, the reaction to abortion in other other Mexican jurisdictions. He claims that that liberalized abortion law in the Federal District have led to calls for restrictions in other parts of the country (and a theoretical call for a constitutional ban on abortions), In some ways that’s true, in that what was a sub-rosa issue has finally been dragged into the open. Mexico has had abortions for years (before the United States liberalized its own laws, women who needed an abortion and could afford to do so, came here as medical tourists). Abortion laws were going to change eventually, anyway, and it just happened that one jurisdiction, where there is a minority party in control of the local legislature, was the first.
As expected, and no different than in the United States (where most people say they are opposed to abortion) another political party is going to try to make it an issue. Ironically, in the “neo-conservative” Foreign Policy Magazine, one of the best foreign journalists in Mexico, Alexis Okeowo dealt with this the week before Christmas:
As in the United States, the conflict is as much about politics as it is about abortion. Mexican political parties here have found that the touchy social topic is a useful polarizer — one that fires up voters on both sides. With the presidential election coming up in 2012, parties are already trying to line up fervent supporters. So recently, the moderate Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) has joined the ruling conservative National Action Party (PAN) in backing anti-abortion reforms. The PRI’s decision is a major political gamble. A party from the center that was in power for decades before being unseated by PAN presidents Vicente Fox in 2000 and Felipe Calderón in 2006, the PRI is betting that abortion might just be the issue that could attract just enough conservative voters to bulk up its usual moderate core, snag PAN’s base — and repay Calderón the electoral favor.
In other words, politics here is a lot like politics anywhere. What’s offensive is that Goforth is practicing the “do as I say, not as I do” foreign policy that drives Latin Americans to distraction. Would he take it kindly if Mexicans were to suggest that Massachusetts should not have legalized same-gender marriage because of possible reaction in Alabama or North Dakota. Is he suggesting that because politicians might use it to energize the base, U.S. jurisdictions should not not be the first to change their laws to reflect changing times? Of course not. And I’m not sure what the changes in the abortion laws had to do with the Federal District marriage law, other than both are reforms that often make some people squeamish.
I don’t care that the issue makes Sean Goforth squeamish. I don’t care that it makes Mexican voters squeamish. Or that, in all probability, politios will try to capitalize on change. They always have… PAN after all got its start by capitalizing on reaction to Mexican secular educational policies. So, I guess that means — to use Sean’s logic — that a social or political change that MIGHT cause a backlash is a bad thing — for Latin Americans.
What’s the kicker is that Goforth — after referring to gays as “them” then goes and tells “them” to give up on marriage for their own good:
Mexico City taking a step forward could result in Mexico taking two steps back. The fight for gay marriage may well impede the recognition of civil unions, a meaningful half-step.
What he’s saying is “Listen, you little people down there… I know what’s best for you.” What’s scary is the guy has a Masters degree from the School of Foreign Policy at Georgetown, and he teaches courses on world politics, without any apparent understanding of his own country, let alone this one. And, I don’t recall any movement in favor — or against — “civil unions” in Mexico, so have my doubts how “meaningful” something is that doesn’t exist, and there’s no particular support for.
If people weren’t willing to listen to Princeton University and United States President DR. Woodrow Wilson, why would they listen to some teacher from Carolina Coastal College?
And all they will call you will be deportee
I had a customer in the book shop yesterday, who started off speaking California Spanish, but switched to English. He reads English much better than Spanish, having been raised in gringolandia, a little bit lost in Mexico. He’s been sort of stuck working in resort areas, not having the professional education to have anything to offer employers other than English proficiency, but bright enough to have a life, even if it isn’t the one he chose. I’ve met a lot of people like “George” (and he didn’t introduce himself as “Jorge”, nor am I sure he doesn’t have an Anglo name) — born in Mexico but culturally more or less gringo. He has enough of the Mexican to get by, but there are others less able to adjust.
Elizabeth Zavala a brave reporter for writing on another “reluctant returnee” whose personal story would tax the literary abilities of Franz Kafka. Zavala’s short article in yesterday’s Fort Worth Star-Telegram is an interview with the sister of Robin Whitley, “a man without a country” thanks to a narrowly legalistic reading of U.S. immigration law. I sent an e-mail to Ms. Zavala this morning, questioning her description of Robin Whitley’s present life in Reyonsa as that of an “undocumented immigrant.” Undocumented, yes… an immigrant… probably not in Mexico. Though it’s hard to tell.
Lorrie Whiteley McMillan is spending another holiday season without her brother Robin Whiteley. She is praying that the family’s immigration nightmare will end soon and that Whiteley can come home to Texas — the only home he knows. McMillan, 43, was 8 when her parents brought home the baby they named Robin. Now, because of missteps the parents made in the complicated international adoption process — and bad decisions on his part — Whiteley, 35, has been deported to Mexico. “He is not an undocumented immigrant,” McMillan said. “He did not falsify any documents. He didn’t sneak over here. He is an American.” Her brother is a man without a country.
Robin was — although there is no proof one way or the other — delivered by a midwife in Mexico and adopted in Texas. A “typical American” — even in south Texas — he never learned any language other than English, and has no knowledge of, nor experience with, the cultures of other countries. And — typically Texan — Robin Whitley managed to commit one of the 2,383 separate felonies on the books in the State of Texas — which means… with no proof that he IS a citizen, his deportation was automatic… to a country where he may or may not be a citizen. But there’s no proof of that either.
As Zavala reported, a large part of the problem is with a nearly unknown glitch in adoption law. She quotes an attorney specializing in adoption law, who says “Texas adoption will establish that you are the parent, but not that the child is a citizen… The adoption decree does not establish citizenship [but only] the legal parent-child relationship.”
Even if Whitley was a legal resident, but not a U.S. citizen, he might have been “deported” anyway, given two other weird glitches in U.S. immigration law. His conviction was a narcotics offense of some kind. If it was an “aggravated felony” — one that would be a felony under federal, as well as state, law he would also have been deported: or so the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2006 (Lopez v Gonzales).
I may get some comments from the usual “legalize it” crowd, but this is an immigration, not a narcotics user issue. (As it is, a large portion of the statistical rise in narcotics use in Mexico, which is used to justify continuing the “drug war”, is among those who acquired addictions in the United States.) That hasn’t stopped deportations for persons convicted of less serious criminal offenses — brown, Spanish speaking ones anyway.
Adding to the confusion of Texas adoption law is the problem with birth certification. In south Texas, this has been a problem. Home deliveries or midwife deliveries are fairly common, especially in rural areas, and weren’t always properly recorded, and there were a number of false certificates issued at one time — leading to the assumption that those without birth certificate were probably born in Mexico.
Mexico also has a problem with unrecorded births. Lack of a birth certificate can prevent kids from getting enrolled in school, or — at 18, registering to vote. Voter registration cards are used like drivers’ licenses in the U.S., as one’s basic identity card, and — without identification of some kind, based on your birth certificate, it’s not just a matter of not being able to rent a video, but of not being able to apply for a job, or open a bank account.
Lacking a birth certificate, not speaking the language, not even being sure one is in the right country… ahi, es un problema.
Going to the ends of the earth…
There has always been something of a rivalry between Mexico and Argentina to be the “most progressive” of the Latin American nations, and — in the matter of same-gender marriages — it looked like Mexico City, the Distrito Federal, was going to come out the winner. Buenos Aires province, in Argentina, had passed a bill legalizing same gender marriage, scheduled to take effect on the First of December. However, legal challenges to the reform have held up the change, putting the wedding plans of Alex Freyre and Jose Maria di Bello in jeopardy.
With almost no notice, the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego (“a dagger pointed straight at the heart of Antarctica”) reformed their own Provincial marriage law, and Freyre and di Bello were married last Monday. A bit late, and they had to go to the ends of the earth, quite literally, to do what most “normal” couples do in the course of things, but what a 58 year-old Mexican gent of some note — who has living in same gender households since 1955 , who has so far avoided the California court that wants to question him about pedophilia , and happened to be wearing silk skirts and a lot of heavy-duty bling at the time — called “an aggression against the family” and “aberrant“.
Congratulations to the new couple, and perhaps Argentina will be willing to trade them for Cardinal Rivera. At least for a couple of months.
Nice, normal couple (left) and creepy, probably aberant couple (right)
What are we, barbarians? Late Sunday readings
Un-desmadred… er… re-madred…. er — the word went out from Cesar unto the world, or at least the tekkies around these parts, and found me a motherboard to replace the flaked out one. A few random late night Sunday posts…
Who was represented at the Copenhagen Climate Summit?
On one side, the victors of a mercantile and utilitarian civilization, in other words, the “civilized” who for so long have forgotten “being” and have blindly chosen an increasingly insatiable “having”.
On the other side, we “barbarians” who remain committed to believing in, and therefore fighting for, a radical change in logic through which the well-being of humanity can be maximized while environmental and ecological impacts are minimized; barbarians who maintain, … that it is not possible to defend human rights if we do not first defend the rights of Mother Earth; barbarians who act with a firm commitment to leaving the planet and the future to our descendents.
(Famous barbarian, Hugo Chavez, translated by David Brookbank. Posted at Machetera).
Santa’s got your number:
Marisa Treviño (Latina Lista) on one Nashville, Tennesee’s response to a demand by the Salvation Army that children attending a party show social security numbers (presumably to weed out, not naughty from nice children, but undocumented, from documented, aliens):
A few weeks ago, it was discovered that some Christmas charities were excluding needy children from their gift lists because their parents didn’t have the proper identification papers — in other words, they might be undocumented.
The biggest organization guilty of this practice was the Salvation Army with its Angel Tree program.
…
The chamber invited dozens of children to a special Christmas party were food, Santa and a gift was given to each child — no questions asked.
“I think that we understand there may be some rules that will keep some people out of the equation, but I think that’s what we are here for,” said chamber president Yuri Cunza. “That’s why other neighbors, other members of our community are here, and they are stepping up to the challenge. We are very proud of that.”
Santa, who was not reached for comment, is said by reliable sources to be preparing lumps of coal for some “charity” organizers.
Everything’s coming up roses…
Porter Corn, Mexican Trucker:
In honor of the 200th anniversary of Mexican independence and 100 years since the country’s revolution, the Mexican government is sponsoring its first Rose Parade float in over 40 years. “With this float we’re going to tell 40 million people watching on TV that it’s Mexico’s birthday,” said Juan Marcos Gutierrez-Gonzalez, the Mexican consul general in Los Angeles. “There’s no better way to do it.”
“Saving Mexico”
The more than slightly paternatistic headline on David Luhnow’s Wall Street Journal article on the U.S. narcotics import market and it’s effects on this country (20 December 2009) begins with the assumption that the United States has to “save” Mexico from a problem that originated in the United States… which frankly is like demanding “protection” from the gangsters that have already beaten you up… and then being expected to be grateful for it.
That said, an unnamed Mexican official, quoted by Luhnow makes a valid point that is not often seen in the U.S. press:
“Economically, there is no argument or solution other than legalization, at least of marijuana,” said the top Mexican official matter-of-factly. The official said such a move would likely shift marijuana production entirely to places like California, where the drug can be grown more efficiently and closer to consumers. “Mexico’s objective should be to make the U.S. self-sufficient in marijuana,” he added with a grin.
The Wall Street Journal is, of course, a business publication, and quite rightly looks at the narcotics export industry as a business issue.
If the war on drugs has failed, analysts say it is partly because it has been waged almost entirely as a law-and-order issue, without understanding of how cartels work as a business.
For instance, U.S. anti-drug policy inadvertently helped Mexican gangs gain power. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. government cracked down on the transport of cocaine from Colombia to U.S. shores through the Caribbean, the lowest-cost supply route. But that simply diverted the flow to the next lowest-cost route: through Mexico. In 1991, 50% of the U.S.-bound cocaine came through Mexico. By 2004, 90% did. Mexico became the FedEx of the cocaine business.
…
Today, the world’s most successful drug trafficking organizations are found in Mexico. Unlike Colombian drug gangs in the 1980s, who relied almost entirely on cocaine, Mexican drug gangs are a one-stop shop for four big-time illicit drugs: marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin. Mexico is the world’s second biggest producer of marijuana (the U.S. is No. 1), the major supplier of methamphetamines to the U.S., the key transit point for U.S.-bound cocaine from South America and the hemisphere’s biggest producer of heroin.
This diversification helps them absorb shocks from the business. Sales of cocaine in the U.S., for instance, slipped slightly from 2006 to 2008. But that decline was more than made up for by growing sales of methamphetamines.
In many ways, illegal drugs are the most successful Mexican multinational enterprise, employing some 450,000 Mexicans and generating about $20 billion in sales, second only behind the country’s oil industry and automotive industry exports.
All true (though I’m not convinced the transfer of the narcotics trade from unstable Colombia to stable NAFTA partner Mexico was “inadvertent”… see “Iran-Contra Affair”), but what’s in it for Mexico … and how U.S. legalization (or even Mexican legalization) will “save” us from dependency on U.S. market forces. Would Mexican farmers be better off if the United States Congress was lobbied by the Marijuana Growers Association of California for protection from cheaper Mexican produce? Would Mexican labor be better off with foreign corporations taking control of the “legitimate” market, or would they still be screwed over? Is it healthy for the Mexican environment to become more dependent on single-crop agriculture? And, is it in Mexico’s interest to continue depending on exporting luxury (or, rather, inessential to national industry) commodities to the United States, rather than developing agricultural markets within Latin America for essentials — corn, wheat, chiles, etc.?
The narcotics trade is affecting other parts of the Mexican economy (and, as the New York Times points out, not a lot of the profits are actually returning to Mexico, but instead are being sucked out of the country after a quick rinse here) which simplistic solutions like “legalize marijuana” don’t begin to address.
I sense that Mexico would be much better off, in terms of national security, economics and personal safety, NOT so much if it waits for the United States to change its drug laws, but if it the present administration were to stop trying to be “saved” by the people who have created the market, and at the same time are trying to “save” us from the marketeers and just did what is in the national interest.
Desmadre
In a culture where mothers — whether biological or divine — assume a central role in one’s thinking, “desmadre” (“mommy-less”) is the perfect word for describing situations out of control and beyond one’s ability… and a lot politer than “totally fucked”.
Anyway, while I wasn’t going to post much over the holiday anyway, now I have an excuse. My computer — which is still under warranty — is “desmadre”… literally. The mother board was bad and is being replaced.
Silent nights
Life goes on, of course, but I’m taking a few days (and nights) off…
All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall…
It’s not walls that make immigration… or even visiting… the United States such a hassle. They’re easy to deal with. The bureaucracy… that’s another matter.
Mexicans just say “No”
One of the bigger rationales for the continued “war on (some non-prescription, non-U.S. or European controlled corporately produced) drugs” in Mexico is that the number of “addicts” is rising. Yeah, well so are the number of Buddhists… when you start from next to zero, any increase is likely to look impressive. Buddhism has grown exponentially in Mexico over the last twenty or thirty years… but that’s an increase from something like 0.001 percent of the population to something along the order of 0.004 percent. Outside of a few enclaves of recent immigrants from Korea or China, you’ll still have a hard time finding the Buddha on the road. While the number of “addicts” overall is higher than the number of Buddhists, the alarming doubling of the number of “addicts” you read about regularly in the U.S. and Mexican press still adds up to a very tiny number of actual users.
Same with drug addiction. While alcohol and solvents remain the drug of choice, yes there is an increase in the number of heroin users, regular marijuana smokers, coke-heads, etc. From not a lot, to not a lot. And, outside of enclaves of persons who picked up the habit north of the border, it’s not a major social problem here. And the laws here were recently changed, in part because “addiction” is seen as a public health issue, not a criminal matter.
We normally think of “addicts” as poor people (and given the cost of drugs, and the likelihood that chronic use of any debilitating substance will negatively impact employment, poverty is often the result of overuse of narcotics), but only a fraction of drug “users” — of any drug — are “addicts” (Alcoholics Anonymous since the 1930s has estimated 10 percent of booze drinkers had a problem, and the same percentage of “problem users” seem to hold up for all “mood altering substances”). There aren’t a lot of addicts here, for the simple reason that there aren’t a lot of drug users.
That’s something of a surprise to many, who reflexively think “drugs” when you say “Mexico.” But being a producer — or transhipper of a product is very different from having any interest in its use. To indulge in “recreational drugs” requires not just the opportunity for recreation, but the money to do so… and a culture in which self-indulgence is rewarded. None of which applies to Mexico. There isn’t a lot of disposable income around, most people are very busy, and — with our indigenous and Roman Catholic cultural roots — Mexicans think more in terms of community and communal/familial satisfaction than in terms of personalism.
It’s the “first world” (specifically, the English-speaking part of it) that has the high levels of drug use. Something one of those “first worlders” was suprised to notice, and posted about on the Lonely Planet Thorn Tree Mexico Message Board:
I am an Australian, 24, living in Mexico since September. In my short time here I have noticed a very different attitude to drugs amongst people my own age, but in an opposite way to what I had expected. I will preface this by saying that my friendship group is that of young professionals and university students, however this is the same demographic as my friendship group in Australia.
I had expected to find a much more accepting culture of drugs here, given the amount that are produced/trafficed through mexico, however what I have experiences is a much more condemning culture than in Australia. Drugs, particularly party drugs, cocaine etc are much more prevalent in clubs in australia and much less of a taboo subject. I have been going to the same type of clubs here as I do in Australia and by 2am in Australia a lot of people are obviously on pills or (depending on the club) coke. I have not been aware of this here. Also amongst my friends in Australia, most have experimented at least with E and other party drugs and many of them use them reguarly. Amongst my friends here only 1 or 2 have every tried party drugs and only a few more have smoked dope and those friends are very concerned about their other friends or family finding out. In Australia, in my experience, people are much more open about their activities and you are less likely to be viewed as “a risk” amongst non drug taking peers than you are here.
A tale of wagging the dog…
The Secretariat of National Defense has a “world class” dog training insitute, and has for the last twenty years. Of course, those are Mexican dogs, trained by Mexicans, and economically benefitting Mexico. So, naturally, the Merida funds for increased dog training are being used to import U.S. dogs, U.S. dog handlers and “consultants”.
This reminds me of the time Colombia, looking to spend “Plan Colombia” funds on actually doing counter-narcotics work, sought to buy Brazilian-built Tucana jets (specifically designed for Latin American jungle reconnaisance) but was forced to buy U.S. built F-15s instead — not particularly useful for their intended purpose (though nice if you want to invade Ecuador, which is what they were used for), but then, Plan Colombia, like the Merida Initiative, was only incidentally about narcotics control and if you still believe otherwise, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
The immensely improved The (Mexico City) News website has more on Mexican complaints about Merida funding.
Photo: Luis Cortés, El Universal
Sombrero tip: Ganchoblog.
mexfiles.net 