Brown Hair Blond Highlights

Is Mexico a model? Who?

It turns out that all of Mexico is politically interesting past, but morally this is unacceptable

Who can interest our example?

The size of the political failure of Mexico today lies in the fact that no one considers the current Mexican process as a case to follow. However, it is that someone somewhere will find it interesting review of the future, the previous model, that we thought was discredited and passed: the authoritarian PRI! It follows a small but revealing reference appeared in the foreign press.

In his time, the Mexico of the Revolution and his regime were considered inspiring by some nationalist and progressive trends in Latin America. The post-revolution attracted the interest of the other end, on the right, as a result of the emergence of the Cuban Revolution. Then they saw some American circles in Mexico in the 1960 an alternative to Cuba, as their system was presented as a revolutionary but democratic, with an appropriate mix of market economy and state with an independent foreign policy. Today there is no such thing. Neither right nor left, or what is between them seems to be something original and positive impact on a country came late to the democratic transition and that what was done thereafter lacks quality and even viability.

Currently, Mexicans who are interested what happens beyond the borders are fully aware that our country can not be seen as a paradigm for anyone and instead, watch with interest and some envy the Brazilian process. Actually, that envy afflicts from Mexican businessmen to ordinary citizens against the Brazilian success and it shows a lot. For example, The Economist (17-23 October) noted with some irony that today, "In Mexico the envy with Brazil is more intense than ever." And is that while the South American giant has many of the problems we have, it dominates the optimism and a future project, while pessimism abounds here and a sense of drift.

The root of the difference in attitudes in Brazil and Mexico is explained not only because the economy going forward first of our backs, but also because Brazil has a high-quality political leadership and Mexico do not. In the resumption of democratic life Brazilians came across a huge failure called Fernando Collor de Melo and corrupt right-of-but could be overcome by his dismissal in 1992. Then the two presidents since 1994 has lived in the Palacio do Planalto, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has been exceptional. The first, a world-renowned academic who became a man of action, the second, a labor leader without formal education but with a formidable personality and sensitivity enabled him to get to a position previously denied to their class. Both figures were up to their historical challenges. In contrast, the last two Mexican chief executives simply amazed at the mediocrity of his personality, his idea of \u200b\u200bpolitics and his collaborators for their lack of social awareness and tolerance of corruption and injustice.

Under current conditions, our country can not be of interest to anyone. And yet, the Financial Times (19 October), when addressing the case of another country that was a model for many but that no longer is, "Russia says it in this enormous country that currently buoyed its oil wealth and the hard fist of Vladimir Putin who is interested in studying the successful Chinese model, a communist party that has total control of politics and a successful economic system, a mixture of unbridled capitalism and statism. But besides the Chinese model, the circle of Putin is interested in two other cases: Japan, where one party-the Liberal Democratic-dominated the political scene from 1955 until just weeks ago, and Mexico's PRI, which also one-party dominated political life since its creation in 1929 until 2000. It is, as noted by the British newspaper, a pair of countries where, under a democratic appearance, ran a one-party system: the ideal of Putin! The

copy of Mexico's authoritarian
start
The question: Who can take the Mexican model?, Has the answer: those interested in the system that prevailed in Mexico to before 2000, the old model still attracts interest between authoritarian. And is that the PRI system was one of the longest running and most undemocratic, in that sense, the more successful of the twentieth century.

The group that would create the PRI in 1929 came to power 13 years earlier, for armed and mounted on the victory of Carranza. Under the previous we can say that monopolized power for 84 uninterrupted years, a feat unmatched in the last century by any other political group in the world. The Russian Bolsheviks, for example, took power in late 1917, ie shortly after the Carranza and lost in 1991, nine years before the heirs of Carranza.

From the above perspective, the longevity of authoritarian PRI is greater than that of Soviet totalitarianism, hence the understandable interest of some in Putin's circle to know the nature of the political system of the last century. And that interest should increase if the Russians take into account that while the Soviet CP ceased to exist when it lost power, the PRI, since more than half the states have survived intact. Finally, unplug-tran interested in the secrets of long stroke authoritarianism were more impressed by the Mexican case if they take into account the recovery of the PRI in the elections of 2009 and, especially, if the old party created by Plutarco Elias Calles recovers power in 2012. And this is where the issue is of great importance and not for the Russians but to the Mexicans.

Does PRI or the past as future?

is understood that in today's Russia can be considered a forward pass from totalitarian stability of Stalin or Brezhnev to a possible authoritarian stability, but in Mexico it would mean a setback. However, the electoral triumph of the PRI in the midterm elections this year, combined with the weakness of a divided left open the possibility that a majority of citizens, so far only relative, PAN decides to react to failure by accepting as true an old adage Conservative: "devil you know is better than good to know."

is possible that in the 13 or 14 elec-tions next year's state PRI progress in his recovery. However, the really dramatic, and traumatic, that circumstance would be the announcement that the majority will vote on who wins the ongoing internal strife PRI. And at this point all of PRI candidates for the 2012-Enrique Peña Nieto, Manlio Fabio Beltrones, Beatriz Paredes, etc.-were forged in the old forge undemocratic. The 2000 defeat of the PRI failed to change its essence. The former State party continues to behave according to their original nature. One proof of this we have to consider how to process the current political crisis PRI governments of Puebla and Oaxaca. Marín and Ulises Ruiz acted in their critical junctures in the same way they did once every PRI governments. In the state of Veracruz or Mexico, another couple of notable strongholds PRI-daily politics does not differ more about what was the national standard by 2000.

is true that if within three years, the PRI were to regain power at the national level, his conduct as a responsible government could no longer be an exact replica of the past because it would act in a different political environment existing at the time PRI's classic. However, we must not become complacent. The great institutions of democracy as the IFE or IFAI are not what they were: they have lost quality. And the Mexican society, with a political culture shaped by history and influenced by undemocratic means electronic information of a similar nature, would not necessarily be in the possibility and the will prevent the return of the PRI's traditional practices, especially if they are presented as a precondition to recover the lost security, employment, stability and long-term project.

Bottemless Wemon Galleries

The spots that changed a vote

The legacy of 2006 is not only a deepening of the major political divisions, but the incentive to win the 2012 via the creation of a "moral panic"



Wounds and scars in themselves and under normal conditions, two TV commercials can not divide a society. However, in terms of confrontation, media distortion and institutional weakness, its effects can be devastating and Mexico is a perfect example.

policy in memory of individuals and communities, past grievances always leave scars, it is inevitable and is part of the learning process. These scars, for example, that caused the Mexican collective memory of war with the United States are part of their history, their personality and, sometimes, even his pride or shame but do not prevent normal development. However, when the grievance is still open wound, then it is an obstacle to normal and constructive coexistence. That is still the case of the 2006 electoral process in Mexico. For the Mexican left, or simply for those who really are considered committed to the principles and objectives political democracy, it will require years more to make this wound, the way they conducted the election campaign and the way they processed the election, a mere scar. In any event, the event and its consequences will be registered in the historical memory of our political process similar to what happened in 1988 in the case of Cuauhtemoc Cardenas in Miguel Henriquez in 1952, John Andrew Almazan in 1940 or events of 1961 and 1991 potosinos about democracy movement led by Dr. Salvador Nava.

history as a judge

Sometimes the passage of time becomes traumatic times stories that are reinforced in their view. In other cases, trials are contradictory, making the fight was continuing. I posted about the events of 1968 is an example of the former, and produced as a result of the Zapatista uprising of 1994 it is the latter.

smoke and dust that caused the electoral shock of 2006 still does not sit at all but what happened then and is reflected in the written page. For example, the book by Luis Carlos Ugalde, so I lived, is an attempt to justify what happened in 2006. In contrast, 2006: speak the record: the weaknesses of the Mexican electoral authority is the investigation of Jose Antonio Crespo on the results settled in the electoral records of the day of that year, only documents accessible to the public but that indirectly bring us closer to what could be the actual outcome of the election. In this work, Crespo contradicts Ugalde without support or position of the winner, Felipe Calderón, nor the main loser, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) - only shows that the available data, the record-it is impossible know who won and who lost at the polls. This year

appear just another job, Javier Treviño Rangel, which elaborates on the analysis of 2006 by other means: the consequences of the test and the type of campaign that was conducted time and whose central feature was the creation, through the use of television, an atmosphere of fear at the possibility that, as indicated by the bulk of public opinion polls, left the option triumph led by AMLO. The work is entitled "Moral panic in the election campaigns of 2006: the development of the" danger to Mexico, '"International Forum (No. 197, Vol XLIX, 2009 [3], pp. 638-689).

The starting point is clear: Vicente Fox as a candidate could take the Guanajuato airport, threatening not to concede it was less than 10 percent, require Ernesto Zedillo to intervene in the election campaign, calling his opponent "Squat" or "mandilón" and the whole PRI "tepocatas" or "snakes prietas" and threatening a PAN mobilization if the electoral bodies ascribed to his opponent a victory by a margin less than 3 percent. This position was not a scandal. In contrast, when AMLO called "chachalaca" Fox and demanded not to be active in the electoral struggle, he came and the sky above him as a "danger to Mexico." Why such different standards of the electorate to similar political attitudes?

'moral panic'

The concept of moral panic (PM) is the instrument that Treviño Rangel used to explain the successful construction AMLO as a "danger to Mexico." The concept was proposed by Stanley Cohen and employed to understand why certain types of rock musicians unfounded fear generated in the most conservative sectors of British society in 1960.

The PM, says Treviño, "emerge in societies where one episode, person or group is defined as a threat to certain values \u200b\u200bor interests. Assume an irrational fear out of control [and] its nature is presented through media stereotyped way. Politicians, journalists or other stakeholders (bishops or entrepreneurs) start a moral crusade, a display of social control mechanisms to stop the threat. Experts socially accredited (editors and academics) emit different diagnoses and solutions. Subsequently, the panic disappears, giving way to other issues ... "(pp. 644-645). As you see, today it's PM is associated with the activities of mass media, especially television, source of knowledge political more than 60 percent of the population.

As the indicators show-opinion polls, cited by Treviño, from 2000 until March 2006, AMLO was ahead in the fight to happen to Fox in the presidency. But , between 12 and 18 of that month, and nothing had changed but manipulating goal very well be called "chachalaca" AMLO had used against Fox to demand to cease the illegal use of the presidency for partisan purposes, the calderonistas created a very effective MP who eventually reduce or negate the advantage of AMLO.

The MP 2006 is mounted on preconceived ideas very conservative, especially among the middle class, and reactivated with a couple of TV spots (the bricks falling and that linked AMLO with Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president previously demonized) regardless of whether the allegations contained in those messages were not backed up with some kind of empirical support. About

manufactured and presented against AMLO spots three things they knew well studies the matter had already shown: a) the negative information is more salient than the positive, b) the withholding of negative events is greater than the positive c) the effect of negative campaigning is kept longer in the public. These same studies have also shown that "he who hits first hits twice, ie, the available evidence shows that in any election, the first negative commercials are the most influential and, indeed, who first attacked by this approach makes the following agenda. The response of the attack may be similar but no longer has the same effect on the collective imagination. This irreversible effect of the initial negative means that if electoral authority, the IFE in our case, decides to force the attacker to withdraw their spots, that decision has no significance, since the initial effect, which has since operated.

The effects of the campaign of fear around AMLO were magnified by a premeditated use of television news, where the framework for electoral information presented had been established by the premises and effects of negative campaigning. It was problem-de AMLO accused to prove he was innocent, that was not the monster that he had become, and that it was impossible. Effects


future
The PAN campaign made good use of the conservative nature Mexican society and the large sediment left by the Cold War. PAN remained in power "haiga been like haiga been." However, this peculiar way to reverse what seemed a victory for the left hit the fragile Mexican democracy, not strengthened the weak.

is certain that the campaign of 2012 will build on the lessons that we all left six years earlier. No attempt afford to expect to win "for the good." Since there are the incentive to create other "moral panics." Everything suggests that within three years, thanks to inheritance PAN can win again not the best to dry but the best "Apan" of Mexicans.

Blueprints On Making A Swing

The left

Someone suggested that socialism is dying. Exaggerated, but there is no doubt that we need one very different from the past

Data

On Sunday, the left won the elections in Greece and recently also in Portugal, but not so loose. In contrast, the Socialists in Spain are on the defensive, the British Labour lost direction and lost emotion and the geographic heart of Western Europe-Germany, France and Italy, is dominated by the right, and it confirmed the recent German elections. The leadership of Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi even seem to have no competitors viable. In Eastern Europe, and in reaction to the Soviet era, the left is particularly weak.

In Latin America, Brazil is the country that stands out for its dynamic and ambitious national project, there remains a pretty good left-wing government led by Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. On the outskirts of Brazil dominate various shades of left but all face serious problems, from Venezuela to Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Paraguay, and distance, Chile. It is difficult to classify the Kirchner of Argentina, because as is typical of Peronism, their governments have items across the political spectrum. Anyway, in contrast, the focus clearly on the right region ranges from Colombia to Mexico to Honduras in the midst of the coup.

And the U.S.?

For a while no one was being asked where to put the United States politically. Since the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the beginning of the Cold War, the U.S. government and American political world were, by definition, the homeland of anti-communism and the right. With the U.S. victory over the USSR after a struggle that lasted nearly half a century, and the disappearance of the latter, the situation changed. But with the triumph in 2000 of George W. Bush and his team of neoconservative Republicans, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, among others, all eager to realize the project called "New American Century, it reaffirmed the United States as the political and intellectual thought and world politics right. However, with the surprising electoral victory of Barack Obama in 2008, and its platform for social issues highlighted by any other (see his autobiography Dreams from my father and that specifically includes its political project, The Audacity hope), and appointments of the Puerto Rican people like Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the United States today can no longer be simply classified as the geographical heart or ideological right. If the above is added to the ferocity with which Republicans and conservative Americans are attacking Obama proposed to reform the health system to the extent of calling it socialist, then we can conclude that, in terms of the history of American policy, Obama is leading a management center. Where we



Seen in the distance, the political landscape on both sides of the Atlantic seem to indicate that there is a kind of a tie: the right dominates in Western Europe and the center-left in America. Then, depending on preferences, the glass may be half full or half empty. However, there are some Observers from the European scene have no hesitation in pointing to the Conservatives as the rising force otherwise, how come today, despite the anti-is no longer the political force that moved half a world-ago 20 years that brought down the Berlin Wall and that capitalism is again going through one of its worst crisis as a result of their abuses and excesses, the right wing parties are firm and even countries as they advance in power as Germany, France or Italy? In an analysis by Steven Erlanger in the International Herald Tribune (29 September), the author hypothesized even the death of socialism.

Erlanger's question is sustained by an argument in European countries of advanced capitalism, large claims were socialist flags after the Second World War and became assimilated to the political mainstream, ie, are now issues already ceased to be disputed that the right policy because the fought, and accepted and assimilated. Such is the case of public health systems, unemployment insurance, pensions, environmental protection and even greater supervision of major financial players.

other hand, the European left today just do not have leaders of weight, and other charismatic figures, however, is full of something very typical of this current from the very beginning of socialism: the internal divisions and personal squabbles that lead to those closest groups or programs, ie, the "fellow travelers," the enemy to be fought with more courage instead of investing time , resources and energy to face an opponent who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

What to do?

This subtitle was in 1902 the title of one of the most famous of Vladimir Ilich Lenin (inspired, in turn, in a Russian novel.) At the beginning of last century, when capitalism was not yet fully developed, Lenin, impatient, suggested to his fellow left- do not let the change process to run its natural pace slow and erratic and act on it: form a party of professional revolutionaries who would force the situation, they were the catalyst for a story that Marxism meant default. If it was inevitable that socialism replacing capitalism, then the sooner the better. His proposal was successful and she came out, for better and for worse, the Soviet Union and all that it was derived.

Today, for the left what to do? requires a different response and largely opposed. Lenin must be taken not only the idea of \u200b\u200bletting the inertia dominate and individuals must be willing to act, but nothing more. In contrast to Lenin, is now obliged under the assumption that the course of history is not written in advance or that someone has the key to knowing what will this future and therefore has the right to impose its project to others even by force. On the other hand, the history exists and is full of errors and horrors of both the "real socialism" as the others, and recognize them not to repeat is a moral and a practical necessity. In the past he should understand but do not justify their dark sides.

The struggle for power is always brutal, but there must be limits. History, the Left must accept that the quest for social democracy without democracy policy is to risk a return to incubate the egg of the snake. A left without a real commitment to ethics in political practice-the same within its own organization in competition with opponents at the ballot box, "just not worth the effort and pain anyone.

In Greece, George Papandreou's Socialists won largely by the corruption of the government open its adversaries, Kostas Karamanlis, but the history of these socialists is not free of that sin. And here is a central point: the corruption of the left in many countries, certainly in Mexico, is unacceptable morally and practically, it is an egregious and inexcusable error give in the privileged realm of fair and honest about opponents who have no historical title to claim it as their own.

In conclusion, there is the theoretical challenge. Marxism and its variants provided to the left with a holistic understanding of the world that eventually led to not look directly at reality, to the point that if it did not fit the theory, a theory was really demanding, so much the worse for reality. In contrast, non-Marxist social science, from economics to sociology, he was never quite sure of his premises or conclusions and therefore better able to deal with reality. So capitalism also understood better their faults, and acted for diminish-not to eliminate them, "something that did not Marxist intellectual fathers of the left.

In short, inequality and social injustice are present in all societies, even in the most prosperous, and that fact alone makes it indispensable to the left, but not any left, but with a capacity to learn from the past and above all, to have a real commitment to their own values.

Where Can I Watch Digital Playground Online

Our current war and the possible

It would be nice to start discussing the usefulness of continuing or changing the direction of the current drug war. Priorities



Since December 2006 the Mexican government has insisted the military in a war against drug trafficking but it is time to ask: does it make sense to continue it with the same intensity and direction? Only six years so far, and until the middle of last month, casualties related to organized crime accounted for about 14 thousand (El Universal, Sept. 11).

Arguably, it should raise or redefine the "war on drugs" because the dead and many, limited resources and there are more urgent and legitimate alternative to reverse the collective effort that is now used against the drug cartels. First, it is better engage the country in a war against poverty fund or the poor quality of its education system, or back sheet, could do with a battle against unemployment, against environmental destruction and even to transform the growing informal economy into the official. It would be really popular a genuine national crusade against public corruption and insecurity, that is, crime that affects the ordinary citizen, and that there is drug trafficking. In addition, possible war fronts are not lacking, which are scarce resources and the will to carry them out. Therefore we must take care of priorities, because maybe in the battle against drug cartels we're in a conflict that is entirely or even genuinely ours and, worse, one where it is not possible a real victory effective. The essence



successfully fought a real war means that society must be willing to bear to bring in maximum stress all its social and institutional relationships. That kind of war would mean that the country's leadership had developed a plan with a clear idea of \u200b\u200bmeans and goals, determine exactly who is the adversary and why and what are the chances of defeat. For its part, society should accept a high degree of responsibility, personal and collective sacrifice, and commitment to one of the largest companies can impose on a community. In short, put one in a war is a decision that must be capitalized and made with full awareness and responsibility.

The drug group as the great enemy

In principle there is no doubt that Mexico as a country would be better against oneself and the world if the Family, the Gulf Cartel, the Juarez Cartel and the rest of the drug trafficking organizations were already history. However, specialists in the field and own common sense tells us that as long as external sources of demand and, therefore, financing, especially if that source is the most powerful country in the world, the struggle against the Mexican drug trade have the same weakness that occurs, for example, when an army combat armed groups that have their main source of supply and support in another country. United States, with the help of NATO can not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan just because it can find shelter and resources in Pakistan. For Mexico, the external factor in their efforts to eliminate organized drug trafficking is a major obstacle, as their ability to press and force Washington to act is infinitely more limited than Washington to pressure Islamabad.

The Mérida Initiative is that the Mexican government made a major historical commitment of the U.S. government to really act against demand and against the supply of arms and transfer money to Mexican criminal groups. However, for historical or political reasons the U.S. authorities can not prevent its citizens from acquiring weapons and some of them, transferred to Mexican drug cartels. Reviewing budget items, according to a paper by Eric Olson and Robert Donnelly, that, so far, the two-thirds of the amount the U.S. government invests in the fight against drugs are designed to combat the supply and only third to face the very source of evil: the demand ("Confronting the Challenges of Organized Crime in Mexico and Latin America", 2009, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC). Logic



Felipe Calderon launched the army to war against drug traffickers as part of a move to several bands. As in many other stratagems, one of its core objectives-perhaps-seems to have been to create a situation which caused the public to stand on the side of the "strong leader" and determined. And in that sense the move seems to have borne fruit, since 83 percent of Mexicans support the use of military against the drug cartels (Pew Center poll, published on September 27.) However, to Olson and Donnelly, as for many other specialists, the fact that "rarely has a victory been possible in this type of war, especially when the demand for illegal products is high. "

The alternative could be, experts say, simply use the army to selectively limit the influence of organized crime, increase the cost of business which operates as in other fields less violent and spectacular but more effective: to prevent money laundering, reform or recreate new institutional framework, police, prosecutors, courts-educate or re-educate potential consumers and, above all, make activity of the Mexican authorities is conditional on U.S. progress in effective control of arms, movements of money and a real low demand for drugs in their society. Possibility



A German researcher, a specialist in economic factors in the negotiation of conflicts within states, Achim Wennmann has suggested exploring the possibility that the government of Mexico enter into negotiations with the cartels using formal intermediaries and targeted clear: limit the areas of activity of the cartels, not to operate in schools, not to extend its activities to other classes such as kidnapping, trafficking, etc., and limit violence. What is needed is to give economic incentives for the cartels to limit their activities and spaces and enable a life of Mexican society closer to civility.

In principle, negotiate with organized crime is a morally repugnant idea. However, it has an ethical side defensible: a war without victory possible is an indefinite extension of the slaughter and brutality. Mexican society, in particular young people with no chance of social mobility just getting used to see violence as normal and extremely effective. The callus of the collective consciousness means a huge cultural cost, a mortgage the future. Mexico does not have to pay a bill that should be entirely in the hands of consumers, who ultimately is what makes possible the mountains of Sinaloa has become not only a producer of marijuana and poppy but totally dehumanized characters being imposed lifestyles, values \u200b\u200band extreme forms of relationships between organized crime and the rest of society. Italy is an example of how difficult it is to uproot the culture of the mafia. Barriers



Negotiate with criminal organizations is not an ideal solution but the alternative is worse. However, the obstacles to achieving a less bad among potential are many. On the one hand, the "war on drugs" has paid dividends to Calderon and he does not have many alternative sources of political capital. On the other hand, Washington would have no objection, and while this government has not been able to reduce the demand for his company has ample resources to pressure Mexico. There is ironic that Washington itself might consider negotiating with bad-for example, negotiating with one of its enemies to isolate Taliban to more intransigent.

However, as a society have the right and obligation to propose alternatives to a state of things simply deteriorate over time. Mexico is better and more urgent things to do with their economic resources, with the lives of young people, their soldiers and policemen, have to fight a war without hope and, finally, is only partly and in any case our product of our proximity to the United States.