Yes, they could… and did!
Jornada photo: Supporters should "Yes, we could!" after the bill passed
By a margin of 39 to 20, the Federal District Assembly approved a bill redefining “marriage” as the “free uniting of of two PERSONS” earlier today. Jefe de goberierno, Marcello Ebrard still needs to physically sign the bill, and the text has to be published in the Gaceta before the new law takes effect… which takes about 45 days. Wedding planners might want to start work now for the mid-February rush.
Naturally, Felipe Calderón is already looking for some way to challenge the bill in the courts and Armando Martinez, the president of something called the College of Catholic Attorneys is whining about El Grinches stealing Christmas. He is quoted in the New York Times as saying the Federal District Assembly “have given Mexicans the most bitter Christmas.”
A special media shout-out has to go to Eduardo Castillo of the Associated Press (or his bone-headed editors) for writing “Many people in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America remain opposed to gay marriage…” as if that weren’t true in the big country where Associated Press is located, and even the President supported a “defense of marriage act”.
The new law, in a surprise to me, does include the right to adopt children (which initially had been stripped out to get the bill through committee and on to the floor, but was reintroduced when PRD supporters realized they had enough votes to pass the bill without the “no adoption” clause) and — while likely to cause a backlash in state legislatures controlled by the conservatives, is likely to stand up in court. Calderón’s administration attempted last year to undo the changes in the Federal District’s new, less restrictive abortion law, only to have the Supreme Court rule that states (and the Federal District) have the right to regulate health and safety as they see fit. This would seem to apply to family law (and the definition of family) as well.
In reaction to the abortion ruling, several states changed their constitution to specify that “life begins at conception” supported mostly by PAN, sometimes with Green and some PRI support. In theory, this would mean every miscarriage would require a ministerial investigation (as suspicious deaths are now), but in practice just leaves the uncertain status of abortion (overlooked in some jurisdictions where doctors advertise treatments for “late menstrations”) and furthers the sense that constitutions are “suggestions” not commandments.
One can expect “one man – one woman” laws to be floated in several of the states, but Alfredo (Citius64) once suggested that states with a large tourism industry (like the very clerically controlled Jalisco, which includes the popular gay destination of Puerto Vallarta) consider changing their marriage laws to cater to the tourism trade. Here in Mazatlan, our tourism industry caters to gangsters and geezers, so maybe the Sinaloa State Legislature might want to consider helping out the Mazatlán tourism biz with a third “G”.
Randal C. Archibold in the 11 December New York Times:
LOS ANGELES — A new, comprehensive survey of young Latinos paints a mixed picture of their footing in the United States. They express overall satisfaction with their lives, despite high levels of poverty and teenage pregnancy, while carving an identity based more on their parents’ home country rather than labels like “American” or even “Hispanic” or “Latino.”
… the findings suggest, as the report states, “The melting pot is dead. Long live the salad bowl,” when it comes to how young Latinos and others perceive their place in America.
When asked how they first described themselves, 52 percent said their preference was for their family’s country of origin — Dominican, Mexican, Cuban, etc. — over American, which 24 percent favored. Even fewer, 20 percent, responded Hispanic or Latino.
The kids are alright… at least “Hispanic” or “Latino” has always seemed an inadequate term to me, too. How much a tenth-generation Tejano, or a twentieth generation New Mexico “Spaniard” has in common with someone like Sonya Sotomayor (a New Yorker of Puerto Rican parentage) or Nuyorkino Dominicans, or Cholos from Califas, or recent Zacatecan immigrant in Saint Louis or the middle-class Cuban-Americans in Miami has never been completely clear to me.
Not that there aren’t commonalities — and not that most “hispanics” (a term more likely to be met with a shrug of incomprehension anywhere in the Spanish-speaking world outside in the United States, where “hispanic” has to do with large parts of the Iberian Peninsula, and a few adjacent islands… and nowhere else)… don’t to some degree have common concerns, much all Catholics in the United States — whether descendants of the first families of Maryland, Louisiana Creoles, or Irish, Czech and Italian immigrants (and their second generation children) faced the same common challenges in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The immigrant history of the United States isn’t all that different for any community — assimilation into the mainstream. No one today would think of Tom Tancredo or Caroline Kennedy as swimming in the same demographic pool — except maybe as white folks. Ms. Kennedy might claim to be “Irish” and Tancredo (to the shame of good Sicilians and Neapolitans and Milanese and…) think of himself as “Italian” (if he thinks at all), but beyond that, their differences are based on things outside their ancestor’s commonalities. I’m not sure Tancredo is even Catholic, which isn’t at all surprising, given that ethnic markers (like religion) tend to disappear over a few generations. A lot of Tejanos are Methodists or Episcopalians, for example.
May the best man win
“Latin America” itself is a nebulous concept. The term was invented by Napoleon III to justify French intervention in Mexico. Where his uncle tried to claim he was spreading liberté, égalité, fraternité when invading his neighbors, Napoleon III was just looking for some higher cause when he invaded Veracruz. The French are Catholics and heirs to the Romans. Mexico was mostly Catholic, and were heirs to the Spanish (more or less) and, thus, more or less heirs to the Romans. Ergo… France had the right to “save” Mexico from itself… and incidentally control the markets of Catholic, Roman-heritage American nations. Or so, Napoleon’s spin-meisters claimed.
It didn’t fly, but the concept of “Latin America” has remained … and is somewhat useful, when speaking of the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking and culturally influenced nations of the Americas (as opposed to Roman Catholic and Romance Language speaking Haiti, or Quebec, which some “politically correct” folks also say are “Latin American). This may be a Mexican website, but I have no problem with discussing events in Peru, or Brazil or Honduras — nations with more in common with Mexico normally than France or the United States.
Actually, the proper term may be “Bolivarian” … as in Simon, but given an extreme rightist spin in the 20th century by Josè Vasconcelos (who divided “Latin Americans” into Monroe-arians — those who were willing to take the United States, with its mercantilist, capitalist and — according to Vasconcelos — soulless values as a positive model or at least acquiesce to U.S. hegemony; and Bolivarians, defined by Vasconcelos as a larger version of New Spain — Eine Reich, Eine Volk, Eine Culto.
Of course, in the 21st century, Bolivarianism has a new meaning — associated with Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela — which defines itself as both anti-imperialist (especially against the United States, thereby accepting Vasconcelos’ definition of Bolivarian as “anti.Monroe-ist”) and pan-national, but quite different from Vasconcelos in rejecting domination by a single culture throughout the region. A common language — and (for the modern Bolivarians) — more or less a common ideology (loosely defined as participatory democratic socialism), but in no way denying the national identity of different groups.
“Hispanic” does lump together very different peoples, and the kids are quite right to reject it. As are the barbers of West Harlem, as Laura Martinez noticed (Mí blog es tu blog):
Among other readings right now, I’m delving into a book on the political theories of José Vasconcelos. The guy was a loon, in a lot of ways (he lumped Benito Juarez, Jews, Rotarians and the PRI with the “Monroe-ists” and included Emperor Maximiliano with the Bolivarians… mostly on Mad Max’s attempts to restore the secular power of the Catholic Church) and — to no one’s real surprise — became a full-fledged fascist towards the end of his life.
Old and "new and improved" Bolivarianism
I’ve written before on Vasconcelos‘ contributions as an educational reformer. While I found it odd that a guy who spoke of “la raza cosmica” (incorporating what was then seen as the three “races” of the Americas… the Europeans, the Africans and the Native Americans) became an apologist for, and supporter of, the Master Race, it was probably inevitable, given Vasconcelos’ elitist belief that HIS particular mestijage (those conforming to the older Spanish ruling class sensibilities) were the natural masters of “la raza.” And, ironically, the source of all Monroe-ists — the United States government — has largely endorsed Vasconcelos’ concept, in creating an artificial category like “Hispanic” to cover a plethora of peoples with the assumption that there is a “master culture” uniting them.
Nezua, “The Unapologetic Mexican” (and note, that even though he’s a “native born” United-statesian, he is not an “unbowed Hispanic” or “unrepentent Latino”) talks of the “White Lens” … the tendency of the “white” majority in the United States to make assumptions about race and class and culture based on their own warped perspective. Anyone who lives in Mexico or other “Latin American” nations is used to the “brown gringo” (there’s a nasty word for them in Mexico… “pocho” … bleached out) who visits this part of the planet, and looks at us though the “Monroe-ist lens”. They may speak the same language, and go to the same churches, but their history and their sense of history is that of the imperial power to the north. What is right to them is what is right to the country they come from. Assimilated? Perhaps… what is hopeful — both in the rejection of “hispanic” (and, I suppose in support for two barbers in one shop in West Harlem) — is that younger visitors, and younger emigrants from the North have retained a sense of nationalist identity, seeing this part of the world though a Bolivarian lens. Looking out at the world from under the different — Bolivarian — haircuts.
Wool-gathering
Everywhere in Mexico this time of the year, you find people on the streets selling toy sheep. Foreigners and tourists are sometimes a bit mystified by the sudden outbreak of ovinomania, when country folk pour into the cities to sell these little toy sheep for a couple of pesos a pop (three for ten pesos for my little guy… the other two having gone to Editorial Mazatlan). Usually visitors — and even some long term foreign residents — assume they’re the flock over which the shepards watch by night in the family naciamento. Wrong holiday… these are New Years sheep.
The Mexican slang word for money is “lana” … wool. And where does wool come from? We all hope for a Prospero año nuevo, and aren’t above a little sympathetic magic to increase the odds.
Speaking of which… Mexfiles just renewed it’s “domain mapping” for 2011, and there are a few on-going expenses (electricity, telephone, etc.) that add up over the year.
Gods, Gachupines and Gringos (or other Editorial Mazatlán books) are a thoughtful gift for that Mexiphile on your Christmas shopping list… or for Matt Yglesias, who needs to learn something about Latin America.
I’m working on a book in collaboration with Richard Finks, who chairs the translation program at the Autonomous University of Gualdalajara for graduate students and other “younger” Mexico transplants as well as starting a new book on “bad gringos” — those writers who saw Mexico with a jaundiced eye: Thomas Gage, a Puritan propagandist who had defected from the Spanish Franciscans; Henry George Ward, the first British ambassador, put out by the lack of decently inedible English food in this country; Fanny Calderon de la Barca, whose 1846 “Life in Mexico” has never been matched for pure, unadulterated snark; Edith Coutts O’Shaughnessy, the diplomatic spouse who found the revolting masses of 1910 frankly revolting; and William S. Burroughs, whose Mexican experiences gave him some inside dope on … dope and life inside (inside Lecumberri Prison that is).
Most of the research is from out of print books… not terribly expense, but I get sheared on the shipping charges, and a little extra wool helps in getting through the winter.
Invincible ignorance
It’s not a sin to be stupid, but it is to wallow in ignorance:
So far as fixing responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. … the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and person would use under the circumstances.
(Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ignorance”)
The anonymous blogger, Yamascuma*, comes to the defense of U.S. writer and, in Yamascuna’s words, a “Euro-style social democrat”, Matthew Yglesias apparently on the basis that Yglesias’ is “progressive” and people like Otto at Inca Kola News and myself should be forgiving of both an appalling misstatement of fact and what both Otto and I see as a dangerous and potentially disastrous interpretation of that fact. Neither was a harmless error and both are prime examples of the reason so many of us do not assume the present United States administration is any less bellicose and interventionist than any other since the Monroe Administration. And, maybe even more a danger than some others.
Yglesias wrote in a “wrap up” of the first year of the Obama Administration, “The handling of the coup in Ecuador was, I think, quite deft but this was hardly a major event in the scheme of things.”
Yglesias may be “well-known for poor spell-checking and editing.” He is also a professional writer. My spell-checking and editing skills are not what they should be (ask my editor, who claims I have “dyslexic fingers”), and often make mistakes. When I make an error — generally writing “it’s” for “its” (or vice versa) or reversing letters (“Hondruas” for “Honduras”), I’m not aware of any internet convention that forbids my silently correcting the error. If the error is one that has been brought to my attention, or an error in fact, I correct if if possible, and note that the original post has been changed. I don’t have the readership that Yglesias does, nor would I expect to, but I am a professional, and hold myself to professional ethics and standards.
But writing “Ecuador” for “Honduras” was not a spelling or editing error. Having on and off been a reporter and writer, it’s axiomatic that errors in a published document negatively reflect on the credibility of the publication. Mistaking Honduras for Ecuador may not be a big deal to Yamascuna, but it was — as Otto noted — indicative of a much more serious problem:
We, down here, are pig sick of you up there telling us how to live our lives, what we should or shouldn’t be doing and proferring wise saws and modern instances when, at the same time, you think the capital of Brazil is Montevideo, if water goes down the plughole clockwise of anticlockwise really makes a freakin’ difference to life, Hugo Chávez is the President of South America, Colombia is spelled with a ‘U’, Ecuador comes equipped with a ‘Q’, how said country suffered a coup in 2009 and not Honduras, there’s no colour TV or broadband internet South of the Rio Grande, Macchu Pichu was built by the Aztecs, Colombia has no real political risk problems and them there Mexicans don’t know how to make a burrito right, do they?
Note that Otto used the non-U.S. spelling. I’ve corresponded with Otto for several years, know his real name (like Yamascuna, he publishes under a pseudonym for professional reasons) and where he lives. He is a resident of Peru, and — whatever his nationality — his children are Peruvians. He has no reason to defend a writer seeking to influence the policy of a country whose policy he sees a danger to his family.
I don’t have any reason to publish anonymously,and am a United States citizen. I reside in Mexico, and — while not having the readership nor the influence of Matt Ygelsias (nor seeking it), I have every right — and possibly an obligation — to object when prominent persons seek to damage the reputation of the United States, or when they perpetuate injustices in my adopted country, and its neighbors.
If the United States had a truly “progressive” policy in Latin America, one could ignore the blathering from reactionaries, like Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal. But when the same general world-view is coming from influential “social democrats” or “progressives”, it is a much more serious matter. O’Grady at least keeps her geography straight, and — if one seeks to influence opinion — things like the names of the countries matter. Any professional writer, even a lowly one such as myself, knows that factual errors in print call into question the credibility of the publisher. Is “Think Progress” as careless in their other articles, and how “progressive” is a publication that by taking a jejune attitude towards the name of a country is implying that “those people” don’t count — they’re all interchangeable and their countries are unimportant.
O’Grady, partisan that she is, has a hard time characterizing the Obama Adminstration’s “handling” of the Honduran situation as “deft”, but — like Yglesias — she approves of the outcome. This is where I see Yglesias as dangerous. It was progressives, “Euro-style social democrats” who helped bring the Obama Administration to power, and who support that administration. We were promised “hope” and “change”. Interventionism — and the assumption that interventionism is justified is not change. Every president since Woodrow Wilson (another so-called progressive) said of Mexico, “We will teach them to elect good men,” has taken upon itself to change the course of human events in Latin America… and to ride roughshod over democracy and freedom. That Matt Yglesias — well-respected in “progressive” circles — sees that as a truth to be self-evident, is ignorant.
Am I too rough on Matt Yglesias? Not at all. He’s an important voice in United States political thought. One who sought to bring hope and change to the country of my birth. One hopes he can change, and with diligence he will overcome his (and our mutual country’s) serious delusions about Latin America. He is ignorant, but one trusts, not invincibly ignorant.
* “Oops, I did it again” (Brittany Spears)
The few, the proud, the heavily armed…
Two issues — that shouldn’t be issues — are raised by international reportage and commentary on the demise of gangster Arturo Beltran Leyva:
Who done it?
I don’t know why this jumped out at people, but there were several commentators (and a couple of e-mails to me) incredulous of the factoid that the late Arturo Beltran Leyva met his maker at the hands of naval personnel.
A commentator in the Huffington Post seemed incredulous of the idea that Mexican has — or ever has had — a navy (hint… check a map) or needed one (having been invaded by sea twice by the United States, twice by France, Spain and Britain… and German U-boats), yes, indeed Mexico needs a navy.
Burro Hall thought it hilarious that the navy was sent into Cuernavaca.. far from any seaport. But, then, it’s the burro’s job to be snarky (and he snarks well).
AP and the New York Times called the troops involved in the operation “naval personnel” (which they were), but not — as Time Magazine called them — “sailors”. Not really, anyway.
The Mexican Navy, just like every other navy in the world, has an contingent that fights mostly on land. They’re called Marines (or in Spanish, “infantería de marina”). They’ve been around since 1823 — 16 October 1823, if you want to impress your friends with Mexican trivia).
Although there are only about 8,000 Mexican Marines — mostly stationed on-board ships (they are the ones who board ships stopped at sea suspected of carrying contraband) or around seaports and oil platforms — and many of their functions have been transferred to the Army in recent years, there are several Marine bases throughout the country. I don’t think Beltran was taken down by the Presidential Guard (which are Marines), but there are a couple of rapid-response marine units stationed in the Mexico City area. The Marines, according to the Secretaria de Marina website, are specialists in “executing operations in areas difficult to access” (which would include getting into an apartment in suburban Cuernavaca without killing half the neighbors).
Given that the late Mr. Beltran was in the Colombian import-export trade, and the Colombian agricultural products in which Mr. Beltran invested for re-export to the United States mostly entered Mexico by sea, naturally the Navy was involved in their interdiction, and in disrupting his business activities.
Do as we say, not as we do:
No one has yet to comment on the fact that Arturo Beltran Levya will never receive his day in court (nor, that despite having abolished the death penalty years ago, even gangland mob bosses should be eligible for the admittedly inadequate services offered by “centers for social readaption”). And I don’t fault the Marines, who carried out their mission as intended (as far as we know).
Not that I’m going to fret much about it, but it was interesting that United States Ambassador Carlos Pascual was quoted just before the Cuernavaca raid as praising military deployment in what is basically a criminal justice/police matter. Gancho mightily argues that this is not really interventionism, but I’ll believe it when the United States Marines march down Wall Street and start blowing away the money launderers and banksters who control the U.S. end of the cocaine trade.
Two out of ten, if he’s lucky
The problem with the 10-point political reform proposed on Tuesday by President Felipe Calderon is that it is headed towards “The Shredder,” namely the two houses of Congress.
Some of the points made by Calderón certainly aim at breaking up a political system in effect since 1933, when reelection of officials was banned under the still-in-effect official rule of “Effective Suffrage, No Reelection.”
Other suggested reforms aim at reducing the number of senators and deputies from 128 to 96 and from 500 to 400, respectively. It is highly unlikely that this may happen as the smaller parties such as the Democratic Revolution, Green and Labor parties consider the “plurinominal” seats in congress as fruits of their battles against the National Action and Institutional Revolutionary parties. The reform is seen as an attempt to create a two-party system.
What may fly is the idea of reelecting federal deputies and municipal presidents, who serve three-year terms. The president asked for up to 12 years in reelected power, but that period may be pared down to six years.
Another proposition which will probably be accepted is a runoff presidential election in case of a draw, as was the case in 2006, when both Calderón and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador won 36 percent of the vote and Calderon won by a very narrow margin.
The political reform now goes to Congress, where, like all Calderon proposals, it will not survive unscathed.
Christmas weddings
With only token opposition, three separate committees (Human Rights, Justice Administration and Gender Equality) have passed a bill in the Federal District Legislative Assembly to change the wording of the present marriage act from “male and female” to “persons”… in other words, legalizing same-gender marriage.
The Federal District Legislative Assembly is overwhelmingly PRD, and the bill is supported by the PRD, their junior PT and Convergencia partners and most of the PRI. The Greens (which tend to be social conservatives here) and PAN would oppose this elsewhere, but in the Federal District have resigned themselves to holding the line at excluding same-gender couples from adoption rights.
PAN assembly representatives have argued that the existing partnership registration is sufficient. Two PAN representatives have mounted a last ditch effort to delay the bill, arguing that 48 hours had not elapsed between introducing the bill and a scheduled vote. This may delay the vote a day, but it is expected to pass by a wide margin by the end of the week, or early next week… just in time for Christmas.
“Partnership Registration” — which were passed in 2007 after the failure to pass a new gender-neutral marriage bill in 2006 — had little practical effect. Napoleonic Code, which is the source of Mexican law, recognizes the family as the basic economic and social unit. “Partnership Registration” might give some protection to joint assets, and allow a couple to make the argument that their joint income should be considered when applying for loans or mortgages, for example, but would not make them — like a married couple — automatically entitled to certain benefits. Common in Mexico are “social credits” for state-backed and private loans and grants (and, within Mexico City, where there has been a chronic housing shortage for years, mortgages) I know more than a few couples who tied the knot, after several years in a “union libre” just to get a decent apartment.
The Church, of course, continues to argue that marriage is “one man-one woman” — which is their right, but then again, clerical weddings have no legal recognition anyway.
The State of Coahuila has allowed same-gender marriages “civil solidarity pacts” now for several years without controversy. At leaswt within the state, they are the same as a marriage, as far as rights and obligations. However, it’s a small state (when it comes to population) and, being relatively isolated from the rest of Mexico, what happens in Coahuila stays in Coahuila. What happens in the Federal District immediately impacts not just the nine million or so actual residents, and the one in five Mexicans who live within an hour or two of the Capital, but — as the economic, political and cultural center of the Republic (and most of Latin America) the impact is going to be major.
Because this is a PRD-sponsored bill, one can expect a backlash from PAN and the PRI in the rest of the country. In response to liberalized abortion laws in the Federal District (upheld by the Supreme Court), several state legislatures have changed their state constitutions to define “life” as beginning at conception. However, most of these anti-abortion bills were passed by outgoing legislatures and — with more pressing issues focusing public attention right now — there is likely to be enough delay in conservative response to allow the time for same-gender marriages to be seen for what they are… a rather conservative reform of property law.
And another one bites the dust…
Arturo Beltran Leyva, head of one of Mexico’s top drug cartels, was killed along with four other cartel members in a battle with Mexican soldiers, the naval ministry said.
The so-called “godfather” of the “Beltran Leyva brothers” cartel was killed “during an intense battle between presumed members of his organization and military personnel from the Marine infantry in Cuernavaca, close to Mexico City, the ministry said in a statement.
The Beltran Leyva gang is presumed to be a dissident faction of the Sinaloa Cartel… while another dead mob boss isn’t a bad thing, this could also mean that Chapo Guzman is regaining control of the badly splintered narcotics export trade in western Mexico which would lead — at least — to less intergang violence. On the other hand, it may mean a power struggle for control of the Beltran Leyva gang, which would up the body count. In theory, splintered gangster bands are a good thing, meaning they’ll be busy bumping each other off, but it could get messy again.
* σας ευχαριστώ!
La crisis
When it comes to NAFTA and the economy — and whether it has been good or bad for Mexico, whether Mexico “wins” or “loses” is a matter of dueling statistics… and as we all know, “There are lies, damned lies and statistics”.
All of which is fine, but sometimes, it is more instructive to stop looking at charts and start looking at our neighbors. Esther (From Xico) :
I wake up around 7 every morning, in time, on clear days, to watch blue strengthen and wash away the gray of dawn. Fhe sun land in sparkles on trees outside our windows. As I’ve said, from our windows we see a lush place, brilliant colors against a rich, deep-green carpet.
To the side and back of our house, beyond our wall, the mostly small houses of wood or concrete, line the streets around a raggedy park. Most of the people here are not poor in the sense of a bureaucrat’s definition of poor, most I would say are no more unhappy than the same number of people in a working class neighborhood in the US would be, though they clearly have less: less healthcare, less education (though that is open to discussion), less stuff, including stuff like dishwashers and refrigerators and electric stoves. Like people in the US, they are probably more anxious than they used to be, but they are more worried than Americans (who are indeed also more worried than they used to be) because of La Crisis. As Mexicans, they live in the country in the hemisphere most affected by the recession in the US, one that appears to be slipping faster in health care, education and poverty. In addition to decline, inflation continues, so prices are going up at the same time people have less money. … And everywhere, there are people trying to sell bits of things on busy highways and street corners. Kids who used to juggle for pesos are now blowing fire from mouthfuls of gasoline. We saw an indigenous woman, her baby tied on her back, trying to get some cash by trying hard (and not succeeding) to juggle two balls.
The entire post, which includes the wonkish details of why that woman is juggling, is found here. Must reading.
Honduras: a few deft murders
As I mentioned earlier today, Matt Yglesias not only made a fool of himself mistaking Ecuador for Honduras (as Bina noted in her comment, other than both being banana exporters, they don’t have a lot in common beyond a national language) the guy has forced me to consider exactly what is meant by his Wikipedia entry when it refers to him as a “prominent voice in the liberal blogosphere”.
I was under the assumption that Yglesias was a “liberal” in the U.S. sense of the word — which presumably includes things like support for human rights and democracy, but perhaps I’m mistaken. Either about U.S. liberalism, or about Yglisias’ liberalism. Perhaps Yglesias is thinking of “liberal” less in the sense of Benito Juarez or Valentín Gómez Farías (or even Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana) — for whom a “liberal” was free trader in favor of lowered tariffs, and — by extension — one who would tolerate foreign investors and their foreign customs and mores, and is more a “liberal” in the sense of Porfirio Díaz and the Cientificos of late 19th century Mexico.
The worthy gentlemen — all of whom considered themselves “liberals” — added Positivism and Social Darwinism to their theories of “liberalism”, allowing them, without blinking an eyelash, to engage in the persecution and murder of dissenters against the strong-man rulers that upheld that economic system.
Ygesias’ “deft” — or, “daft” support of the Obama Administration — via his claim that the Honduran (or, as he wrote, Ecuadorian) coup was “hardly a major event in the scheme of things.” Perhaps not for a late 19th century Cientifico, or Don Porfirio, but tell that to Walter Trochez — a twenty-five year old leader of the National Front of Resistance against the Coup, and gay rights activist, kidnapped December 4, beaten, released, and gunned down last Sunday in front of his home. Tell that to Santos Corrales Garcia, another leader of the National Front who was arrested December 5 in the Nueva Capital area, in the south of Tegucigalpa, by five people wearing uniforms of the National Criminal Investigation Department. His headless corpse was found Sunday, showing signs of torture.
Perhaps Yglesias, being from the United States (where “liberal” has a special meaning) is also one of those who thinks we are all equal, but USAnians are more equal than others. OK… Matt… tell Laura Carlsen — a name you should know, if you want to write on Latin America — who was physically threatened by “international observers” during the so-called “election” that the United States government so “deftly” handled. Or, Matt, in your “liberal blogosphere, is official harassment of journalists and analysts somehow a value to be supported?
I’m kind of wondering how pissing off the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador (which didn’t have a coup), Peru, Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico (to name a few), or the huge erosion in good will towards Barack Obama throughout Latin America, or creating a sudden interest in cooperation among the Latin American nations to counter U.S. miliary and diplomatic initiatives in the region could be considered “deft” handling of foreign policy. But then, Yglesias is either intellectually lazy, completely clueless about foreign policy, or speaking his own private language… or all of the above.
Equal opportunity morons
Gancho still reads the U.S. news blogs (something I’ve pretty much given up on), and picked up this from supposed “progressive” Matt Yglisias (who even has a “hispanic” surname), surveying the Obama Administration’s foreign policy:
But for all that, this has really been a year without a major international crisis. Russia hasn’t invaded any foreign countries. No terrorist attacks have struck the United States. The handling of the coup in Ecuador was, I think, quite deft but this was hardly a major event in the scheme of things.
Uh, what coup in Ecuador? There was one in Honduras — a Central American, not South American country (where Spanish is also the majority language, and is also south of Mexico, but otherwise doesn’t have much in common with the Andean Community member state) and– not exactly handled with what anyone in Latin America (or half a brain) would call “deft-itude”.
I don’t often bother to read it, but the Wall Street Journal — which is knee-jerk reactionary when it comes to Latin America, and especially the left in this part of the world — takes stupid to a whole new dimension when they write of the Venezuelan establishment:
What do Fadi Kabboul, Aref Richany Jimenez, Radwan Sabbagh and Tarek Zaidan El Aissami Maddah have in common? The answer is that they are, respectively, executive director for planning of Venezuelan oil company PdVSA; the president of Venezuela’s military-industrial complex; the president of a major state-owned mining concern; and, finally, the minister of interior. Latin Americans of Middle Eastern descent have long played prominent roles in national politics and business. But these are all fingertip positions in what gives the Iranian-Venezuelan relationship its worrying grip.
Like Mexicans Carlos Slim and Salma Hyack these prominent Venezuelan gents are descended from the CATHOLIC Lebanese and Palestinians who prospered thoughout Latin America, and probably, as an ethnic minority are somewhat over-represented in public positions. Like the Jews in the United States… which gives the WSJ bonus stupidity, for putting out racist clap-trap not much different than e-mails from Nazis “exposing” secret Jewish control of the U.S.
BoRev gives extra credit for missing the factoid that the Lebanese and Palestinians are Arabs, the Iranians are Persians. And the Wall Street Journal editorial writers are idiots.
Those devilish details: Calderón’s 10 reforms
Perhaps seeking to make the last half of his term relevant, Felipe Calderón has made ten proposals for radically restructuring the Mexican political system. While so far, the proposals are getting a good reception from foreign observers (and seem to be widely supported in Mexico) there are, of course, some objections to the specifics.
Points one and two, allowing for re-election of lower office holders (up to federal deputies, who would be term limited to 12 consecutive years) doesn’t seem unreasonable — in theory making local officials more beholden to the voters for their activities in office. In theory, this will mean local office-holders spend less on rewarding their party, and ensuring their party’s survival in office, but there is a counter-argument that this will just mean the office-holder will be building his or her personal power-base. At the federal deputy level, this could mean building a family dynasty in office, not that there aren’t political dynasties here now.
Re-election has the advantage of building “institutional memory”, one complaint about our legislative system being that deputies are always “freshman legislators”. On the other hand, expecting to leave at the end of three years, they aren’t, as in the United States, working on their re-election from day one.
Point three would reduce the size of the Chamber of Deputies (from 500 to 400) and the Senate (from 128 to 96). The argument here is for “efficiency” although I’m not sure efficiency is the standard by which democratic representation is measured (a unitary single executive — i.e., absolute dictatorship — is extremely efficient). In practice — together with point four which would raise the threshhold for proportional representation in the legislature and for party registration from 2.5 percent of the voters to 4 percent — this will stifle minority representation, and marginalize dissenters.
Although the complaint that point three is stilling minority voices would seem to be answered in point six — opening up the process to independent candidates — independents would have to be self-financing, or with strong outside backers. As it works now, candidates are vetted in some fashion by the parties — even mini-parties like the PT — and have equal media access to voters (something the “mainstream” media, like Televisa, would dearly love to jettison). And serious non-establishment candidates — like Cuautémoc Cardenas in 1988, or Andres Manuel López Obrador in 2006 — only had viability by garnering support from the mini-parties, and probably would not have had the impact they did running as independents, or on a single major party ticket.
Secondly, look at the potential “independent” candidates that have cropped up: “Dr. Simi” and Jorge Casteñeda. Both were ostensensively on the “left” but their campaigns were designed to siphon off votes from more electable leftist candidates. In the situation where the party’s “official” candidate is rejected by a sizable portion of the electorate, the standard operating procedure now is for the dissidents to back another party’s candidate. There have been a few disasters (see Juanito, the joke of Iztapalapa), but generally, this is the usual practice in democratic electoral processes. In New York States (one of the few in the United States with a multi-party system), dissatisfaction with Republican Senator James Goodall led to the election of Consefvtive James Buckley to the United States Senate (and Buckley wasn’t a bad Senator by any means) and the defeat of the Conservative’s candidate in a recent by-election, but with a candidate more matching the dissident’s choices. I’m not sure independent candidates in Mexico would give dissenters a reasonable shot at success with a defacto limited party system.
Point five would allow for legislation by citizen referendum. Based on those places where this is done — Venezuela and California, for example — one can presume that referendum drives will be well-financed operations (either by the State, or by private interests). As it is, point nine specifically allows the Presidency to propose referendums, by-passing the legislature.
And, the most likely referendum drives would be reactionary: to redefine “personhood” as starting at conception (as several states have done in response to liberalized abortion laws in the Federal District) or to limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex (in response to Coahuila’s 2005 passage of a same-sex marriage bill, and the Federal Districts expected passage of a bill by the District Assembly this year).
Point seven — having presidential run-offs if no candidate receives 50 percent plus one of the vote — makes sense, but the left is quick to point out that the practical result is that a dubious electoral victory like Felipe Calderón’s in 2006, would be less investigated than it was, and a run-off (which he would have won with PRI support) would have worked to his personal advantage.
Point eight gives the Supreme Court the power to initiate legislation. I’m surprised none of my foreign colleagues have used the phrase “legislating from the bench” in reference to this. It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but I haven’t seen the whole proposal. Even if such legislative proposals would require a majority of justices, there is suspicion that the intention is to strengthen the Presidency. It’s easier to persuade six judges than a majority of one’s party in the legislature (especially if you are an unpopular president with a legislative minority, like Felipe Calderón).
Point nine I discussed above.
Point ten has been reported as just increasing Presidential veto power. Patrick Corcoran (ganchoblog.blogspot.com) suspects it’s a “line item veto” and it does seem to give the President authority to revise the federal budget without legislative approval.
Mexico is undergoing a transition from Presidentialism to a more balance of powers system, which was hailed in the United States when the often anti-U.S. PRI had all the marbles. Now that PAN holds the presidency, even with a weakened resident at Los Pinos — and the likely PRI candidate is “malleable” to U.S. interests — there is support for re-invigorating the presidency from North of the Border.
These proposal are, so far, popular within Mexico (and the benefit the two large parties), and are likely — with modifications — to actually give Calderón a good part of what he’s proposing for once.
mexfiles.net 