Connecticut Valley Arms, 12 Gauge Shotgun, Italy

The story and its brutal indifference

The country is now the poorest in the demand for transforming a natural disaster of justice will
Nothing is written

advance
What just happened in Haiti, the earthquake and its consequences, is the latest episode in a tragedy that shows, if need be, that historical processes are indifferent to the idea of \u200b\u200bjustice. If any company in our hemisphere should have run with better economic and political fortunes which had, it is the poorest country in the continent, which now occupies the western part of the island that was once called "the English."

A key feature of the processes of nature is its complete indifference to the pain and into what we mean by morality, by the ideal and compassion. In the state of nature rule is that the big fish eats the small and the strong survive and the weak perish. In animal societies highly developed is the cooperation but not solidarity or altruism: when the common good is not given, the company is dissolved.

For some time, the process of evolution of species is explained by an ultimate goal of all life: constant accompaniment to refinement. Today, biologists have abandoned that idea and see evolution as an adaptive mechanism that has a lot of chance and that no final purpose. From this perspective, nothing is set in advance.

The idea of \u200b\u200bprogress

From time immemorial, since I became aware the precariousness of its existence, the man sought for a reason and found in the diversity of gods in recorded history. However, Western civilization was developing other parallel or alternative response: the idea of \u200b\u200bprogress. In this view, the march of history is not cyclical and is dominated by chance, but has a meaning and ultimate purpose. This optimistic view of human events as progress was made during the Enlightenment, was further strengthened by Hegel and is independent of any religious element in Marx. The latter meant that through the ancient clash between the classes, the world would come to the stage of real history, that where property no longer exist capitalist exploitation or domination of a class or group over others, so the state and politics disappear, "and nature would finally conquered by man and put through science and technology to the point that then and only then would the true human essence a voice.

radical vision of progress and therefore on the future security and weakened, is on the defensive. Companies can not rely on metaphysical grounds that they ensure a better future than the past and present. It is the conscious human effort alone can lead to a better collective basis, but the bad fortune or the dominance of special interests over general can lead to decline and the failure of the joint venture no matter how unfair the fact. Thus, a nuclear conflict or a continuation of abuse of the environment may end up with human history itself.

An example of historical injustice

Haiti has not seen since his brutal encounter took place between Europeans and the native population in 1492. The original settlers were razed by the English through three channels: direct destruction, extreme work and disease. Then came the French, who in the eighteenth century that became part of the island in the most productive colony in the world to combine climate with sugar and coffee plantations designed to meet the demand for commodities in a global market expansion with African slave labor intensive.

Keep in mind that the worldwide trade of slaves reached its peak in the decade 1783-1793, ie just at the outbreak of the great rebellion of enslaved workers in Haiti. Napoleon's troops tried but failed to impose themselves on their former captives and 1803 definitively lost control of the west of the island, the economic jewel of the French Empire overseas. In 1804 half a million former African slaves declared independence from its territory under the name they had given the original inhabitants, the eliminated three centuries ago: Haiti. It was the only slave revolt that ended his triumph with the formation of a country: a stunning success!, When compared with Mexico, where the effort ended in defeat insurgents military and where independence was only possible years later, in 1821, thanks to the insurgency Creoles turned against his king.

A bitter victory

former slaves in 1804 France gave him a deep sense that the revolution in Paris had proclaimed before but, of course, not including their African slaves in the Caribbean: liberty, equality and fraternity. However, France and the rest of world empires made him pay dearly for its achievement. United States, for example, did not recognize the new nation until 1862 because how would receive the White House a black ambassador in Washington if blacks were still slaves? France, meanwhile, demanded in 1825 to their former establishments that pay 150 million francs as a condition for recognition: who stole the freedom of the Africans were charged to return!

And this is where the story gets really unfair. The independent Haiti was formed by individuals outside of their status as former slaves had little in common. The French had not built that forced workers to take hold, was more economical to work tirelessly to death and immediately replaced by other newly captured, which allow them to form families and have children, that was too expensive. Thus, assuming independence, unlike colonial experiences as the Mexican independent Haitians in Haiti had no history, no equivalent to the Indian peoples of Mexico. Without cultural identity, and the old economy in ruins, Haitians hated ended up leaving the plantation economy, today, the important sugar and civil war, in part a struggle between mulattoes and blacks, became almost inevitable conclusion of the grand victory of slaves on their masters. The poor relationship between Haiti and its neighbor, the Dominican Republic, did not help the smooth running of the country of the descendants of those who had liberated themselves. Between 1843 and 1915, the year the United States occupied Haiti, there was a score of governments where the sequences were marked by repression, rebellion and murder. Economic development in this situation was simply impossible and the culture of poverty put in deep roots.

The American occupation lasted until 1934, but as it took place in a time of intense racism in the country occupying those two decades have served to give him a second chance to Haitian independence. Later, the Cold War led to the dictatorships of Francois Duvalier, "Papa Doc", and his son (1957-1986) were accepted as functional for U.S. interests in the Caribbean. The latest political debacle of Haitian society was the failure of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the Salesian priest who came with enormous popular support for President in 1990 as a result of the first truly free elections in the country, but ultimately was unable to be at the height of their great responsibility and historic opportunity.

The earthquake of 2010 found the nation Haiti Western Hemisphere's poorest and deprived of the presence of a stabilizing force for the United Nations to give a minimum of force to a State which was itself incapable of maintaining order and the minimum services in a country of 10 million basically rural and devastated by poverty and the effects of hurricanes on a geography previously destroyed by deforestation. Future



The history of Haiti-the only modern country born of a successful slave revolt and demand their former colonial countries in our hemisphere and the rest of the international community an extraordinary effort to transform a disaster in a point turning, and to begin to pay the enormous debt which meant the inhumanity of slavery. Would be desirable that arises now that the world will compel the story to stop being indifferent and justice in Haiti.

My Foot Hurts After Pedicure

conclusions Cajasol Black Book Pelli Tower


The report called Black Book of Pelli Tower Urban analysis is primarily the initiative process, management, planning processing, the granting of permission and construction of an extremely singular our city of Seville. And not only for its height, which may seem the most striking (178 m) but above all, by all the irregularities of all kinds have been noticed in administrative sectional charge.

The document, presented its conclusions, was written by José García-Tapial, who was Chief of Urban Planning of the Urban Planning Department of Sevilla and Dean of the College of Architects, FernandoMendoza, National Award for Conservation and Restoration 2008, Francisco Morilla, architects and sociologists, as well as the Geographer Fenández Victor Salinas, Vice President of ICOMOS Spain.

The Black Book full Pelli Tower can DOWNLOAD HERE


Black Book conclusions Pelli Tower (pp. 88-91)

the final conclusions of this report must include, first in an overview of all irregularities and other circumstances sufficient detail along the same, and secondly the approach of a series of questions and unknowns into the past, present and future of this urban intervention.

Regarding the former, it has been argued and sufficiently demonstrated that the Cajasol Skyscrapers:

• goes against the "spirit" of the General Plan of Seville, especially with regard to respect for the consolidated city, its types and its landscape

• also violates the provisions by the General Plan in his Report on Sustainability and Mobility.

• violates the letter of the General Plan, especially the articles concerning the maximum height allowed, to harmonize with the environment, the definition of the types specified by him, the distribution of uses and the maximum buildable area.

planning permission granted will be based on a Special Plan, the RIA-DT-10.Port Triana, "maliciously misleading and deceptive" because

• His figure urban (PERI) is clearly inadequate for what is pretending
• contradicts the Plan with respect Geenral to the following:
  

- applications under the General Plan
- the types of building
-
Areas Ordinances - the distribution of uses for the information document
- respect for the environment with the indiscriminate felling of trees
- the wording of the Special Plan
-
heights - the limits of the Special Plan
itself - the maximum floor area specified in the General Plan

• document is very incomplete technically by its:

-
documentary deficiencies - lack of Planning a Proposal
- The uncertainty of location
-

regulatory gaps
• Its passage was incorrect and "misleading" by:

- Lack of Transparency
- The silence of the competent authorities
surprising
All these circumstances leads us to consider a series questions:

Why, if the Special Plan is primarily concerned with ordering a piece of property, with recognized technical and economic capacity, he has not read it but the Planning Department?

Why give the impression that the Skyline has more supporters in the City that in itself Cajasol?

Why the Special Plan is pending while the General Plan if they so different? What if they were not, why not include that in it?

Why will increase the buildable graciously Cajasol if you build a tower over 100 meters?

Who came the idea of \u200b\u200ba skyscraper?

Why is the City Council drafted a special plan which repeatedly concealed the construction of the Tower? Why

or the municipal proposal to the plenary, or in the Press advertisement in the Official Gazettes and referred to the Tower if this is the most significant Special Plan?

Why is the City Council drafted a special plan as incomplete before having a "quality proposal?

Why the Special Plan does not include the impact study required by the Act and the General Plan?

Why City Hall is quick to offer to occupy much of the Tower with the Urban Planning?

Why Management is willing to change the development in "horizontal" in their offices, one in "vertical" much more inefficient, expensive and less sustainable? Why

City Council rushed through final YOUR without waiting Special Plan mandatory reports of the Directorate General of Coasts, neither the Ministry of Public Works of the Junta of Andalusia? "Afraid some of these reports?

Why the Cultural Office of the Government of Andalusia in its favorable report of the Special Plan , makes no reference to an element so unusual and unique as the Tower, "with shoe stuck between 3 BICs?

Why not be asked to report on possible AENA air traffic conditions? Why

the same day reported adversely License Manager is quick to grant it? Why

which authorizes the City shops and offices on first and second basement prohibited in the General Plan?

Why not requested permission to fell 461 trees?

Why have hidden more than 600 trees removed?

Why the City violated international commitments, and referred the project to UNESCO?

Why is the City Council and the Board refused to comply with the requirements of the UNESCO at its meeting in Seville, and do not paralyze them provisionally as required? Why

City Council appoints as his representative in the State Commission that studied the issue, a technician linked to the promotion "Puerto Triana" from the start?

Why, in a recent article published in the press by the Director of the General Plan Drafting Team, Manuel Ángel González Fustegueras on board, he talks about:

An approach that tries to save at all costs the interests of a few , wasting the heritage of all. What almost always try the powerful and their cronies. " Do you speak only of tables?

Is there a relationship between the construction of the Tower and the unexpected offer of negotiations with the current owners of Tablada, formerly owned by Cajasol? Too many questions

to clear.

Final consideration

Throughout this report we have highlighted the irregularities and breaches of both Community law as more serious provisions Cajasol skyscrapers. We entered the thorny issue of land ownership and why the Planning Department prepared a Special Plan on some private land. Nor have we wanted to make an assessment "aesthetic" or "architectural" the building, because all the aspects we have discussed are PREVIOUS these issues "taste."
The skyscraper is illegal Cajasol "ugly" or "nice." is not a matter of taste. Nor is it a problem of some "romantic nostalgic trying to preserve the landscape of Seville. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A cluster of irregular and illegal IMPROPER INTEGRATED RULE OF LAW IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

If the competent authorities and the courts are " looking elsewhere " and the skyscraper is built, will invalidate all legal regulations PLANNING, ASSET PROTECTION AND LANDSCAPES OF THE SPANISH. The skyscraper Cajasol or Pelli Tower will become a symbol of barbarity, arrogance and contempt of the laws of ANDALUCIA SPAIN AND AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY THE SPANISH.

"The dependence of real estate investment is the main cause of political corruption" Manuel Castells, Professor of Sociology and Urban Planning at the University of Berkeley.

Platform against the construction of skyscrapers Cajasol.
Sevilla.

January 2010

Stroke Victim Communication

Tumbala! Asks Parliament to halt the

On illegal cluster and the bad precedent it would set for Andalusia
Citizen Platform Against Cajasol Torre, "Tumbala!" registered today (Friday January 22, 2010) a letter requesting the Andalusian Parliament since this institution is acting for prevent the construction of this skyscraper, already running.

The request is motivated, on one hand, by the accumulation of irregularities in the conduct of the project, affecting some to rules of the autonomous communities (Law on Urban Planning of Andalusia and the Law of Historical Heritage of Andalusia). Has revealed some irregularities in the documentation analysis project officer, who has been possible after claimed through the courts, and which have been collected in the so-called Black Book of the Pelli tower, designed by specialists in urban planning, architecture and law.

And on the other hand, by the attitude shown by the responsible authorities, City of Seville and Andalusia, which, notwithstanding, far from the action seems to have reconsidered its defense numantina castled.

The request has been sent to the Bureau of Parliament, headed by its president, Fuensanta Coves, presidents and spokesmen of the Parliamentary Groups (PSOE, PP and IU) and the committees of Culture and Housing and Planning. In total, 45 deputies.

The letter noted the serious danger that remove the UNESCO World Heritage status to the monuments of Seville featured in its catalog, which would cause serious damage to the city and the international image of Andalusia. At the same annexed negative report prepared by ICOMOS, the advisory body of UNESCO's heritage, for non-compliance with capital which includes the construction of this building, as well as the already mentioned and recently released Black Book Tower Pelli, detailing the numerous violations to the rules applicable in this case.

Finally, your Lordships are asked to interview in order to expose There are many reasons against the construction of this tower, which are of a heritage and landscape, urban, traffic and mobility, sustainability, social ethics, ... and, also, to begin with, plain and simple respect for the law .

Tumbala Platform! considers that the construction of the Tower Cajasol goes far beyond the local sphere, creating a dangerous precedent in Spain. Because the Board could no longer deny the claims of those other cities who want to "emulate the capital" building skyscrapers with their historic areas and damaging property which belongs to all: the landscape of the Andalusian cities. And because it would have seriously undermined its role as guarantor of compliance with building regulations and property from other similar actions in the future. Why go to Parliament, the highest body representing the interests of Andalusia, in the hope that they, not others, whatever they ultimately prevail.

Sevilla, January 22, 2010

Tumbala
Civic Platform! Contra la Torre Cajasol: Architecture and Social Commitment, Ecologists in Action, Association for the Defence of Historical and Artistic Heritage of Andalusia, Teachers Association for the Dissemination and Protection of Historical Heritage "Ben Baso", Asociación Demetrio de los Ríos para la Defensa del Patrimonio, Foro Social de Sevilla, Universidad y Compromiso Social, Asociación Histórica Retiro Obrero, Asociación Andaluza de Antropología, Plataforma Ciudadana por los Parques y Jardines de Sevilla, Coordinadora de Asociaciones Independientes de Sevilla, Amigos de los Jardines de la Oliva , Casa de la Paz , Asociación Casa Pumarejo, Plataforma por la Casa de Pumarejo, Comité Pro Parque Educativo Miraflores, Baetica Nostra.

Recommendation Letter Sample For Culinary School

Inertia, great adversary

Societies can be manifested by the change, but the inertia are looking to have the last word.

The starting point

Inertia can be defined as the resistance of an object or situation to change position or, if moving direction. In social processes, inertia are neither good nor bad in themselves, depending on the context. However, when the target of a political actor individual or group is to change the course of a society, inertia, they tend to favor special interests, can be a formidable obstacle. So far, in Mexico and in the political and social inertia winners have come from attempts to change. However, resistance to the transformation occurs in all societies. A textbook example of what we see now with a neighboring country: USA. It examines the case of neighbor and then look back on our own experience.

Obama: its scope and limits

There is no doubt that the decision to support Sen. Barack Obama, an American born in Hawaii to an African father, as a candidate Democratic Party's presidency over other characters available in early 2008-the others were former Senator John Edwards Governor Bill Richardson going for Senator Hillary Clinton was an undeniable proof of the will and a thirst for change part of American society. With the candidacy of Obama, the most enlightened Americans to overcome centuries of discrimination against African Americans while ruled by a different policy to the parent, one who would lead the country of the great recession that had fallen, to support at the least and had to leave the military quagmire in which the neocons had gone after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama's opponent can also be seen as expressing a desire for change within the Republican Party, as Senator McCain was not the most conservative candidate and, above all, it was most identified with the policies of the outgoing president.

the foregoing and after Obama's victory, there was reason to believe that the change in the U.S. would be the hallmark of the new administration, and that progressive change could spread to other countries. However, a year away it is clear that this was not the case. Obama himself has meant a positive change, but not to the extent that he promised. The severity of the economic crisis forced the new president to give priority to the rescue of the powerful financial groups responsible for this crisis and the automobile industry and the fight against unemployment remained in second place. The major project to reform the health system has found a total resistance from Republicans and conservative Democrats. If this reform is finally approved, it is not safe because the Democrats have just lost a seat in the Senate, will benefit 30 million Americans, but still left unprotected for several million was not achieved universal coverage desired. Immigration reform demanded by the Hispanic community for illegal immigrants has been in the drawer of postponed. In

foreign policy, the situation is similar. Obama has improved relations with Russia and China and has pledged to leave Iraq and allow that country to fend almost destroyed as possible. However, in Afghanistan and endorsed Obama an impossible war, it is a struggle not only against al Qaeda but against a force greater and deep-rooted native: the Taliban. The offer of an America that claims to seek a rapprochement with the Arab world was left without support because Obama can not prevent Israel from continuing to build settlements on Palestinian land. In Iran and North Korea their respective governments reacted to the settlement offer made by the new American leader.

In Copenhagen, the promised fund Obama fight for a policy that addresses the causes of global warming ended in a compromise so limited that it was a triumph of the status quo. In Latin America, Venezuela and Cuba is not considered sufficient or adequate U.S. offers to change the harsh tone of their relationship. In Washington, Republicans will gain Obama forced to compromise with the coup in Honduras. Really only in the case of the unexpected and unbelievable tragedy of Haiti, a situation where there is no resistance from vested interests, Obama has been able to move quickly and decisively to avoid repeating mistakes like those in New Orleans in 2005. Mexico



In our country's will for political change was felt in a vigorous but limited in 1968, then expanded with episodes of electoral insurgency of 1980, the Indian rebellion of 1994 and finally to the vote in 2000, where opposition to the authoritarian regime did as a whole, supporting 60 percent of voters. However, did not change and, in relative terms, the power of inertia was so strong as in the U.S. although most negative effects.

In the Mexican case the inertia is imposed as a result of a combination of factors: the conservative nature of the opposition that came to "Los Pinos" combined with their inexperience, ineptitude and low moral quality, the absence of a genuine project of transformation of institutions and practices, the absence of a majority in Congress and, finally, the persistence of PRI control in more than half the states . The above combination resulted in a process where conservative inertia soon be positioned as the dominant forces of the political process. Thus, a policy change that was initially called the new regime, very quickly began to resemble more and more to the old. The conditions under which took place the following presidential election, 2006, made it clear that the "spirit of 88 "had not died: the triumph of the right" by any means "was presented as necessary to prevent the triumph of a" danger to Mexico ", which is very similar to the so-called" patriotic fraud "of 1980. If among 1988 and 2000 worked as an explanation of the political process "concertacesión" between the PRI and the PAN from 2001 to present the same role he has played the "concertacesión" between the PAN and the PRI. Today there are no "state party" nationally, but remains at the state level when they had a number of entities which are conspicuous examples Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz and the state of Mexico.

Since 1977 the President of the Republic left to be the source of initiatives and major decisions of Mexican politics. A big change, no doubt, but that did not entail altering the oligarchic character of Mexican society. Instead, this character is emphasized. Today is even greater capacity for action of large economic concentrations of so-called "powers", so the unjust concentration of wealth in the old authoritarianism remains intact in the "new regime." Influence peddling and corruption have been killed but remain key factors in explaining why Mexico is where it is today.

The Supreme Court is now a power than before was not, but the nature of the delivery of justice - or injustice must be said? - no better than before. The growing insecurity, coming back, just accelerated. The crowd of police has changed its name, but their inefficiency is similar to the past. The citizen lives as or more vulnerable than before, and organized crime so brutal brand of everyday life in Ciudad Juárez and many other parts of the country.

Mexico's sovereignty was always relative, but from the implementation of the neoliberal model independence from the United States weakened further. This feature is not changed with the 2000, but worsened because they lost what remained of the "national project." In short



In Mexico, the desire for political, economic, social and cultural remains, but the country has run hopefully to do with the breadth and depth required. The accumulated energy for change and led to 2000 and today wasted no change plays in favor of the forces of status quo. In short, the old adversary, inertia, aided by the lack of quality leaders, continues to control our collective life.

Where To Buy Bobby Jack Stuff

Maybe not, but maybe

Can our weak institutions lead by peaceful and constructive a growing social grievance?

Chances are ... we do not know

The question has been asked ad nauseam: Will there be a new social upheaval in Mexico in 2010 to coincide with the bicentennial and the centennial of the start of two major rebellions? Of course there is no way of knowing. The prediction capabilities of social sciences are minimal. However, it is worth asking the question and attempt to delve into themes of our reality.

In the special issue of British magazine The Economist entitled "The World in 2010," Laza Kekic, the Economist Intelligence Unit that weekly (EIU), try to shape a global view centered on the potential or risk levels of bursts social impacts resulting from the global economic crisis and its impact on employment levels. With relief, Kekic notes that today is not the fears have materialized in early 2009 by the director of U.S. National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, in the sense that the global economic downturn could lead to an unstable world general policy and that it could become a major security problem for Washington in the short term.

However, the futurist of The Economist notes that the relative political stability that has kept all members of the global system may well be the calm before the storm, as large parts of the world increasing unemployment, food prices, poverty, social inequality and the weakening of the middle classes. And just at that difficult juncture, we can no longer continue with the relaxation of fiscal policy that occurred in many countries to bolster their economies, something which, incidentally, was not in Mexico, and therefore, future austerity public expenditure will be a factor of social discontent.

Historical experience, Kekic says, shows the frequent gap between economic crisis and its social and political effects. These effects take time to manifest, particularly since the beginning of the recovery in GDP does not automatically follow that of employment. Moreover, even if other economic indicators improve, unemployment may increase. In politics often come up with something similar: the discontent generated by the deterioration of the material conditions of life may not immediately result in street protests, coups or triumph of the opposition, but over time society tends to spend dissatisfaction policy bill.

The EIU forecasts of four categories of countries according to indicators of "risk of social discontent": very high, high, medium and low. In our continent, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Cuba, Uruguay and Costa Rica are the only ones where the odds of that scenario are social problems as a result of the global economic crisis are slim. Chile, Colombia and Paraguay are classified as medium risk countries, in contrast, Bolivia and Ecuador are designated high-risk countries "social fuel." Mexico and the rest of the region fall into the category of countries with high risk of social unrest, that is, they can still maintain stability than losing. Go around to commemorate centenary and bicentenary!


Another point that
In a classic analysis of revolutions, appeared more than 70 years (The Anatomy of Revolution, [New York: Norton, 1938]), developed a hypothesis Clarence Brinton which remains very suggestive: in the toughest times of depression, the most affected, the majority, have no more energy to fight for survival, not to protest. To occur, outbreaks of rebellion against the established order comes later, when the worst is over. That kind of generalization fits well with the explanation of revolutions like the French or Cuban or even with the two rebellions that are commemorated today in Mexico: 1810 and 1910, although not so much with the Bolshevik revolution. Anyway, Brinton analysis shows that, for now, the bulk of Mexican citizens will be more concerned about weather the storm that set accounts with their leaders. In all cases, at the juncture of a future recovery when it is easier to materialize the accumulated discontent. Therefore, if the 2012 elections and some local that come before are conducted in a manner and in an environment like that of 2006, it would be playing with fire.

moral element

far we have emphasized material elements, relatively objective, but also social protest enters the moral component, or more specifically, that which EP Thompson called "moral economy" in his classic study, "The Inglés Moral Economy of the Crowd in the Eighteenth Century "(Customs in Common, New York: The New York Press, 1991). It is this "idea based on a popular community consensus on what practices are legitimate and which illegitimate" in the relationship among the poorer classes and their precarious livelihoods. From this perspective, the sense of injustice caused by sharp variations in the prices of popular consumer goods, by the famine or the worsening of working conditions is central to the explanation of riots or other forms of social discontent, which Barrington Moore and explored in the case of German workers in Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (White Plains, NY: ME Sharpe, 1978).

An American historian specializing in Mexican themes, John Tutino, has studied the peasant uprisings that have taken place in Mexico since the beginning of the independence movement until the years of Cardenas. His conclusion is that between 1810 and 1930 agrarian insurrections became so common in our country that its existence and development had a decisive influence in the shaping of modern Mexico (In the insurrection to revolution in Mexico. The social bases of agrarian violence , 1750-1940 [Mexico: Era, 1990], p. 9). However, a central component of these bursts peasants was the existence of a sense of injustice that resulted in Moore called a "moral outrage politically effectively. "

Before 1810 it was rare for the subordinate classes interpret their condition as a result of human actions and assign blame to institutions or individuals with names and rebelled against them. Until then, the majority part of society explained their miserable situation as part of an order predetermined by forces beyond the human, by the will of God. However, in 1810 the call to the masses of a Creole-cure a man of God and "the powers that "- backed by the military to deal with the natives" bad governance "was crucial for a good number of Indians and mestizos of El Bajio-thriving agricultural and mining region and its changing-stop passivity and be filled with a "politically effective moral outrage."

1910, Mexico already had a century of protest movements, rebellions and civil wars. In this circumstance was more understandable that some of the middle classes and accept the proposal to the Antire responsible for the precarious condition of those who had been a number of years monopolized the positions of authority and privilege, political leaders, governors, Secretaries of State and, finally, the President himself, Porfirio Diaz. The most miserable grievance against the splendid life of the oligarchy Diaz was relatively easy to formulate, but transformed into political action and insurrection required the gaps between the elites and that Madero, a wealthy member of the group, acted as the catalyst that inspired popular leaders-Pascual Orozco and Francisco Villa, and his followers to take risks to stand up the dictatorship. Today



In Mexico today, one can detect the existence of a pervasive sense of grievance against the political and economic leaders. Those responsible for the economic catastrophe, social and ultimately moral of the country have a face, name and surname. The question to be resolved is whether an institutional framework so weak and corrupt as ours, is have the ability to drive through peaceful and constructive that injury, that sense of injustice, especially when the worst of the economic downturn has actually happened. That's our big question.

Router Cursive Script Templates

to all zeros are no classes

If anyone should obsess over in search of lost time-and-find, there is Mexico

of zeros to zeros

In a recent paper, Nobel prize in economics 2008, the American Paul Krugman resented because, from the economic point of view, the last decade American and he could give up. For Krugman, the last 10 years should enter American history as "The big zero "(The New York Times, December 28, 2009). Well, we are already at least two, because for lost time, in Mexico we paint alone. Our zero is now much, much larger than the U.S. It not only has lost time and opportunities economically but also socially and politically.

For Krugman, the indicators for your country are as clear as depressing. With regard to job creation : zero (in fact, employment in the private sector is now less than in 2000). The typical family income in constant prices not only increased but decreased, so did the stock market and the price of homes, as homeowners with mortgages now owe more than their homes are worth. Our lost time



If the same line of Krugman, in Mexico we come to consider what has happened in the past two centuries, and this year's bicentennial and centennial almost obliged to do so-we realize that the losses historical time have been many and that explains, at least partially, our underdevelopment. To begin with, are the two decades of civil strife which led to the Independence and the Revolution in the second decade of each of the last two centuries. Also include the period from the first the second empire in the nineteenth century, as it is of a chaotic time and largely wasted. But there are more recent losses and that, compared with the past are increasingly less justifiable.

Conservative critics of Luis Echeverría and José López Portillo called on the two presidential terms both presided over "The dozen lost", although from the standpoint of economic indicators, especially GDP, most were not so bad years. The right business was particularly hard on those two presidents who closed what we call "post-revolutionary cycle" of Mexico. From that angle, they criticized his order six years and in general his "populism", the harder it was not with the opposition left-Monterrey entrepreneurship Echeverría publicly blamed for the attempted kidnapping that took the lives of Eugenio Garza Sada 1973, and was attributed to the Communist League on September 23. From that perspective, they were both presidents criticized the ineffectiveness of the "State obese" both fed at the expense of an increase in external debt, its contribution to inflation and were criticized for being critical of the U.S. indirectly and maintain a good relationship with Castro's Cuba. From left, the look was too severe, but less to see these two presidential administrations and economically lost and more persistent authoritarianism, repression and corruption.

What followed the 1982 economic debacle itself can be regarded as time lost by a larger sector of Mexican society that had to live with lost wages (purchasing power since then the share of GDP to wages began systematically reduce the benefit of capital).

From the standpoint of business, the situation was contradictory, because although small and medium businesses with neoliberal reforms were initiated from 1984-1985 and radicalized during the administration of Carlos Salinas and Ernesto Zedillo, other survivors and large, benefited. Privatization and trade liberalization were and are well regarded by those groups, domestic and foreign, who benefited from them and now constitute the backbone of capitalism in Mexico (not necessarily Mexican). These large concentrations of capital are still struggling to get the state to expand the space for private capital in the last redoubts of the big state companies: oil and electric power generation. For them is wasted time it takes for Pemex and CFE privatized.

The "structural reform" promised by neoliberalism authoritarian technocrats Carlos Salinas and ran into the disaster of 1995 and its main product: Fobaproa, Mexico paid all the pieces of the mismanagement of the economy. As a result of this was re-materialize the electoral insurgency and this time did manage to oust the PRI from Los Pinos. With great optimism, many accepted the premise of winning the election in July 2000 with political democracy led by the PAN would curb economic irresponsibility, the demagoguery and public corruption. With a public sector led by businessmen accustomed to the logic of the market and very knowledgeable about our great trading partner, the United States, the return of economic growth was almost assured.

did not, did not grow and the time be lost again. Corruption continued to show no abatement. The alleged business logic was not simply the root of that is called capitalism with friends (crony capitalism). One consequence of such arrangements between the domes and economic policy was the persistence of monopolistic practices and a significant decline in the competitiveness of the country (in this regard, Mexico dropped to 60 among 132 countries). The Curse of the oiling deepened. The PAN system instead of trying to tax reform simply postponed since the 1960 oil resources used to finance current spending - 40 percent! - And not bothering anyone with a restructuring of the tax scheme. After all, doing nothing, letting the inertia that would lead the country, led the main economic indicator, GDP, grew on average annually over the past 10 years a meager 1.6 percent. And if that amount is deducted population growth, then it follows that real growth averaged less than 1 percent per year, the worst in Latin America.

Economic growth alone does not make much sense, the important thing in Mexico is associated with the production of goods and services with the welfare and equity. And this is where the loss of opportunities acquires its greatest significance: employment formal decreased (an indicator: in 16 careers, on average, only two out of 10 graduates have found employment in their area of \u200b\u200bspecialty, El Universal, 1st. January), the legal and illegal immigration to the U.S. grew to the point become, along with the informal economy, the safety valve that slowed the social explosion, but a country must depend on these factors to maintain a precarious stability is not on track.

poverty indicators tell us that time has run and the solution of our great social-historical problem remains elusive. According to figures from the Ministry of Finance, the resources to fight poverty have nearly quintupled between 2000 and 2009, but the result has not matched at all to this increase. According to figures from ECLAC, the proportion of Mexicans living in some kind of poverty has risen from 53 percent in 1992 to 47.4 percent in 2008. For the beginning of 2010, and the harsh effects of the economic crisis, ECLAC estimated that the proportion of poor exceed 50 percent, or nearly still where we were.

the foregoing and other factors, should surprise few in Mexico that support the democratic system has not increased but decreased. According to Latinobarómetro, between 1996 and 2009, support for democracy in our country decreased by 9 points. The disillusionment and frustration with public life is the strongest in Mexico.

One recommendation that we can not accept

Americans, with its huge economy battered but perhaps you can afford to do what he proposes Krugman: forget the past decade and hope that the next will be better. We Mexicans can do even that, in relative terms because we have lost more and more time. Forget and trust would not be quite the opposite solution: identify the errors, the failed strategies and responsible to then act accordingly. This we owe to 1810 and 1910 and must be paid.

Are Expungements In California Updated On Ncic

Mexico and its growing subordination Chronicle

Milk Coming From Women

what should not be

In his book of interviews, Carmen Aristegui leads the reader with agility and intelligence through the mazes of a transition that does not gel



A book reading of 26 interviews conducted by Carmen Aristegui (beautifully illustrated by 52 pictures Ricardo Trabulsi) about the recent political history of Mexico, and published under the title Transition. Conversations and pictures of what was done and left to do for democracy in Mexico (Grijalbo, 2009), is a basic map of the road, and obstacles, above all obstacles-tour of our country from 1988 to date in his dramatic quest to find the political formula to replace the one that was in force since the victory of Carranza until 1982. Reading is rich in ideas and interpretations abound, assumptions (some presented as certainties), the accusations and justifications, the proposals but also the uncertainties, doubts, opposition, antagonism, frustration and, especially, fears.

barely History yesterday and not yet concluded

The story more or less distant past is written on the basis of documents and works of those who preceded us in this task. In contrast, recent past history, and where the reader and even actor witnessed what is reported to have to deal with the lack of perspective and that many files are not yet open.

return of the drawbacks has an advantage: You can use their own memories and to interview those who were or are actors or witnesses of what is to find stories. And this is where the good offices of journalists as Carmen Aristegui, who to ask relevant questions, based on a knowledge of the subject, and insist on them to deepen and expose what is important, gives life to an information in itself is already a rich history but also a source for those looking to recreate and perform in the future that is the Mexico of today.

The starting point

Aristegui decided to take the troubled 1988 election as the beginning of the Mexican transition from authoritarianism to a new regime, the democratic principle. And start giving its meaning. Manuel Bartlett, then-Secretary of the Interior, there was no fraud or electoral system "fell", but who won, Carlos Salinas, failed to make credible their triumph in this statement will obviously accompanied by former President Miguel de la Madrid. Jorge Carpizo, however, contends that Salinas won but there was fraud and that fraud was to raise the percentage for the PRI candidate by 0.71 percent exceeded the symbolic 50 percent of the votes cast. In contrast, the majority of respondents assumed that the Mexican transition was a fraud. Of course, that's the point of view of Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, Rosario Ibarra and Carlos Monsivais, but even Manuel Camacho admits that 88 "There were multiple irregularities" and, pressed, he finally accepted: "Yes [there was fraud], there were things very serious election. "

In the beginning: the agreement Salinas-PAN

If the transition began with the crisis of 88, his nature was defined from then until now by an agreement between Salinas and the PAN that was knitting in the 100 or 200 interviews that Diego Fernandez de Cevallos had with Salinas (on average, an interview every 22 or every 11 days, whichever is applicable). The then leader of the PAN, Luis H. Alvarez, now says that "convinced me" that, despite its illegitimacy, it was better to negotiate with Salinas as President to oppose it. But in light of what happened, "I frankly do not know if we were right." Roger Bartra, Salinas, "an extraordinarily intelligent, clever, [and] without scruples" PAN consolidated with the "modernization partnership" of rights. For Bartlett, there is nothing in modernizing the alliance where the technocrats and the PAN simply "[took] the decision to slaughter the people of Mexico to move forward." Camacho, at the time, Salinas proposed to try to negotiate with the left, but the Agualeguas refused and chose to build "the covenant conservative" constitutional "changes around the ejido, the Church, etc., demanded by the PAN - that continues today and has resulted in what Porfirio Muñoz Ledo defined as "oligarchic coagulation.

Miguel de la Madrid, the head of Salinas came to the presidency, finally regretted his decision. "I was wrong," he says, leaving power in the hands size of an immoral and his family. For the former President, "may" even have pocketed Salinas is half the secret account in its possession as president (in the end, Aristegui explains how Salinas led his former boss to back). The 2000



Miguel Angel Granados Chapa does not give any credence to Ernesto Zedillo as an architect of change in 2000, because he just fell on him transition. And Fox, the winner, defines it as "a nonpolitical, an ignorant man in public life" simply frivolous benefited citizens are fed with the PRI and became President. Fox was only "assistant chief for Coca Cola de León," Monsivais said. Anyway, the "conservative pact" was maintained and the change is reduced to Los Pinos stay with the PAN and the rightist opposition by the PRI.

According to Jorge Castañeda, Fox suggested he use his enormous legitimacy to move against the PRI via a reform of the state to dismantle corporatism, but Fox chose to support the PRI as an ally and that the large capital-design the cabinet got Roberto Hernandez Gil Diaz in Finance. A Fox was her big change, having made the "transition" was sufficient. San Cristobal man himself confirms this dramatically view: no chances to interview him, Carmen Aristegui Salinas and Zedillo also agreed to be interviewed, but sent a letter. In that document, Fox basks in the run, but on reaching the moment of truth, when he had the power, all you have to say it sums up in a couple of lines!: "And so six years passed. And now Martha and I are both riding together again. " And boy does it ride, but as the most frivolous and irresponsible couple who has held power in Mexico.



In 2006 the Fox administration's failure resulted in the 2006 elections. For Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the oligarchy stole that election and has hijacked the state. Carlos Ugalde, was not only fraud, but those were "fairer elections that Mexico has had" an opinion shared, essentially by Alonso Lujambio and José Woldenberg. Miguel de la Madrid, however, leaves open the door to fraud with a "can be."

Where are we?

For Denise Dresser, the Mexican political system has not changed its essence as now "there are more players but the game remains the same", which accepts Francisco Labastida to note that alternating "... nothing happened. The problems became much more serious. " Fernandez de Cevallos says the old "...¡ system has never gone away! "and that and only that, consistent with López Obrador, that just because the old has not gone away, says that Mexico is a" disguised dictatorship. " Carlos Fuentes does not go so far and simply concludes that the Mexican "[e] s a transition out of luck ... It's an unfortunate transition." Granados Chapa interrupted calls that transition that ultimately failed the only thing that can justify: a redistribution of power in favor of the majority.

What to do? Manuel Camacho

fears that there may not be headed by a left hand to stop bias and learn to negotiate, "the conservative bloc" ends with consolidated and rule for many years. Hence Monsivais concludes: "What [that] you see very bad today, tomorrow will be worse." For Granados Chapa, in the absence of a change in social structure, the country itself "can break." López Obrador

here turns out to be an optimist, he has no doubt: it is possible to shape a large peaceful social movement, like the Cardenas era, to regain political power to the majority. Bartlett agrees with this position but Muñoz Ledo goes further to point out the possibility that the size of the failure of the transition, this administration does not end normally and has a reversal of position, which does not mandate, Felipe Calderón and then open the possibility of change postponed.

worth the citizen read this work of Carmen Aristegui and reach its own conclusion. Anyway, Manuel Espino is right, yet left the transition and the government of Felipe Calderon in Mexico is polarized.

Hampton Bay Berlini Ceiling Fan

Could have been different?

The bad political situation in Mexico was not written 'by the finger of God', things might have been different factual Against



Was it inevitable that, as a national society, the Mexicans we met where we are today: politically polarized and unable to reach agreement on key issues and where time lost means a great cost? This lack of agreement on the fundamental need to restructure Mexico's public life.

Some professionals in the field say that historical events should be analyzed as they occurred and now. Well, that's a position, but there is another: one that considers the historical processes that nothing is really predetermined by what he wrote "The Finger of God." Examples



is clear that all social reality is framed by situations that were generated some time ago and that are impossible or difficult to modify. Here is an example. When the end of the colonial period it became clear that the New Spain was threatened American expansionist impulses, it was concluded that the best defense was to populate the vast Septentrion quickly and people loyal to the central government and Catholic cultural roots, that is, antagonistic to whites. However, from 1821 a Mexico was not yet a nation, with just 6 million souls concentrated in the center of a territory of about 4 million km2 could hardly succeed in efforts to settle on time and with the appropriate density, the uninhabited north. Therefore, even if that fateful April 21, 1836 one thousand five hundred men under the command of Santa Anna had not been tended to sleep without sentinels on the banks of the San Jacinto River and had successfully resisted the assault of the 800 men of Sam Houston, U.S. determination to expand at the expense of Mexico's territory could hardly have been missed. Sooner or later the two countries have clashed increasingly unequal and what happened in 1836 or 1846 to 1848, there occurred another way but with a very similar result. The outcome was overdetermined.

A different case

aided the interpretation of the fall of the government of Francisco I. Madero in 1913 emphasizes the errors of the President to disarm irregular troops and hoped to defend the new regime to a federal army that was making the past. The military coup against the nascent democracy in 1913, he says, was inevitable and Madero effort was doomed to failure, as was shown by the facts of the "Ten Tragic Days" in February of that year. However, it is worth considering, for example, the hypothesis of a biographer of Madero, Stanley R. Ross, developed in Francisco I. Madero: Apostle of Mexican Democracy (Mexico: Grijalbo, 1959). Here it is argued that by 1913 Madero had passed the worst obstacles to his government: the army had suppressed the rebellion of Félix Díaz and had not heeded the calls of Bernardo Reyes to second in his rebellion. Again, the Army had defeated federal northern former Pascual Orozco and Madero had cornered the Zapatistas in Morelos. The possibilities of strengthening the government of Madero to a good relationship with Washington increased with the victory of Woodrow Wilson in the United States, a victory that sealed the end of the mission of a terrible enemy of Madero, the ambassador to Mexico Henry Lane Wilson. The rebellion that broke out on February 9, 1913 in Mexico City ruled in the beginning: the rebel General Bernardo Reyes and Felix Diaz was killed, besieged in the citadel, had fallen to a well-planned assault. However, the assault never took place because of a casualty: the general who thwarted the attempt of the rebels, Lauro Villar, was wounded and Madero appointed new commander of the place to someone who had no command of troops, but that was in the right place at the wrong time to destinations in Mexico: General Victoriano Huerta, the very embodiment of villainy. If the general had not been injured Villar-fact-and most likely would have gone to the front of the loyal troops and reinforcements such as those provided shortly after Gen. Felipe Angeles, could end up with Felix Diaz and under these conditions, the attempted coup failed had strengthened Madero. Thus, the bullet that struck the general reactionary Villar and fury that were behind of the man who shot caused a huge effect on the political history of Mexico in the twentieth century, it finally made from the ashes of moderate maderismo something unforeseen arises: a real revolution.

And what we have today was really inevitable?

Obviously it was very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid that at the beginning of last century, the United States ripped Mexico half its territory. However, the fall of Madero was not subject to a similar predetermination, it was inevitable that the country had to have gone the way of a great civil war.

An analysis similar to what happened in 1913 can be done today on what that has happened in politics in Mexico since 2000. The authoritarian regime established since the triumph of the Mexican Revolution was already anachronistic when the wave of democratization swept through Latin America in 1980. I had to stop. However, what has happened from 2000 to date does not necessarily must have happened, ie the establishment of political democracy in Mexico could have run better channels and maybe we would not have to waste time and energy to find how to correct Current reality: unable to lead a transition to democratic consolidation and, in turn, has resulted in an unfavorable environment to generate and drive the momentum of the society towards economic growth, rule of law and the design of a genuine national project.

have acted as a statesman, Vicente Fox could very well have channeled their enormous legitimacy and citizens' optimism and desire for change toward dismantling the old regime, corrupt unions confront, dismantle monopolies, to capture the "big fish" the past and prosecute, punish violations of human rights, invest oil surpluses productively, etc.-to the point of leaving the PRI as the past and not to the possibility of returning. A good political leadership of the PAN could have done that citizens feel really identified with democracy and not, like today, where only 42 percent of Mexicans consider it the preferred form of government (data Latinobarómetro 2009). Only in Guatemala have a more negative situation in this field. The

the 2006 election could have faced without the constant interference of the President in favor of a candidate. Could also face without having to qualify a "danger to Mexico" to the leftist opposition, with IFE had not been openly set up "mode" of the PRI and the PAN and a genuinely impartial TEPJF. Finally, the choice could have been done without open and illegal action by business leaders in the race. If in 2006 the rules for an election dominated by the democratic spirit had been observed, the government of Felipe Calderon would not have legitimized the urgent need, as you have suggested Rubén Aguilar and Jorge G. Castañeda, through military mobilization against drug cartels and that war would not have had to run today runs the risk of failure.

A well-run election in 2006 would have allowed immediately after a grand bargain among all political actors. A negotiation indispensable for realizing the reform of state recently proposed Felipe Calderón and to carry out the true tax reform, an immediate program of job creation, to agree the core elements of a viable business model long term, dismantle monopolies, return the public safety, take effective measures to protect the environment or and paper and decide to play and defend principles abroad. Conclusion



The list of what could be and was not is long, but the important thing is to recognize that the current national conditions were not inevitable: were the result of actions for which those responsible have names and surnames. We have to conclude that Mexico is not a victim of bad luck and that things can be done differently.

Do People Like Ball Gags

What to do with our great civil war?

justice of a great social rebellion is no guarantee of its ultimate success, and the Mexican Revolution is an example

war over a war

In any war, particularly on civilians, when it stops the fire starts another fight, bloodless but no end: its interpretation. That happened with the French Revolution, the American Civil War or the Mexican Revolution, especially when we are about to celebrate its centenary. Relative



Every so often reconstructs and interprets the past to the concerns of the present. And within each time judgments are found because in reality everyday interests are conflicting objectives. In the preparation of any story should try the "fairness" and "certainty." But it is impossible goals. No one can recreate "what really happened" and less judgmental "without anger and to study" an event as controversial as a civil war. The simple addition or rejection of the story leans data and interpretation in one direction or another.

A sharp response

Around what to do with the Mexican Revolution, Roger Bartra advised that it is best to bury it and put the energy in the future in building a modern democracy and a vibrant economy (La Jornada, 21 November). Hector Aguilar Camin and Jorge Castañeda, in an essay on the future of Mexico, asserting that: "The history accumulated in the head and the feelings of the nation ... blocked his path to the future" (Nexus, November 2009) .

But there are other proposals. U.S. surrounds each of its future projects in the struggles of the past: Barack Obama, for example, was inspired by Lincoln's north-south war to join his cabinet and the second of the Roosevelt-in 1930 - for address the great economic crisis that erupted last year. Another interesting response is occurring in Russia. That Andrei Zubov and 45 historians have published Russia in the twentieth century. For information International press know that this book in two volumes has already caused a stir because it attempts to give a view from the here and now of the last stage of the Tsars, the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet rule that followed. How significant is to rethink the Russian revolutionary history? According to Aleksandr Arkhangelsky, a television host and columnist, "society is not satisfied and looking at the future answer to the question who we were? And past response to who are going to be?". To the commentator, "serious times ahead of us, as Russia's collective historical consciousness is sharpened on the eve of substantive changes" (The New York Times, November 24, 2009).

try to send is valid to neglect our great civil war 100 years ago, but that does not mean ignore the past and leave. The alternative is to re-examine the Mexican Revolution, which is not nothing but examine ourselves in the here and now. Individuals, as communities, can only fully understand their situation and future options if they are aware of what we already went and did that experience positively and treated to make it part of your road map for the future.


reviews
The attempt to reflect on our civil wars has been continuous. Unlike what happened in the USSR, in Mexico judgments about the past is an example of pluralism. In the field of history of the Mexican Revolution have always been multiple versions and contrasting. José Vasconcelos, for example, produced one from his frustration and from the right. Jesus Silva Herzog made another, critical but positive. The list is long, Daniel Cosio Villegas in 1947 published "The crisis in Mexico" where substantiate why the Mexican Revolution had failed in his latest effort: to make Mexico a country fair, but would succeed if he could reverse the trend and return to the spirit original. And that discussion continues to this day.

Yesterday and today

In The Civic Culture (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University, 1963), teachers Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba examined the attitudes and political values \u200b\u200bin five countries, one of Mexico. Among its many findings is one that matters here: the majority of Mexicans were proud of the great moments in political history, including the movement of 1910. In contrast, almost half a century later, a survey by Consulta Mitofsky released Nov. 15 found that only 11% of Mexicans believe it important to celebrate the Mexican Revolution. In a statistical sense, Bartra, Castaneda and Aguilar Camin launched to give great Moorish dead attitude today as the dominant over the movement of 1910 is one of indifference. If Mexico is going wrong, and it is-not because he is a "prisoner of history" but for other reasons. From here



Since 2009, civil war began a century ago should be seen first as a result of an egregious failure of the power elite of that time, his inability to change, their abuse of power and corruption, all paid dearly. The movement of 1910 was left, but triggered by the failure of the right.

the extent that the struggle begun by Madero ended a soft dictatorship dictatorship to today's standards "and an oligarchical system, the movement expanded degrees of freedom of Mexican society, but ultimately did not reach its 1940 target and from the right, they are several, were the beneficiaries and not the majority.

If the Mexican Revolution should be remembered today is to draw lessons from the mistakes of the elite that motivated it. If it must be held, should be only for the spirit that animated at its best: the spirit of justice. In a society designed almost five centuries as a colony of exploitation, as inherently unequal society, the civil war of 1910-1920 led to an expansion of consciousness of the right to equality. Land reform was the major instrument of change, but had a very limited effect, because just as was done during the Cardenas, Mexico began to stop being the rural society of centuries to become urban. On the other hand, the entrenched nationalism that then constituted the only defense for a poor country and neighbor of a superpower, the United States, which was and still is, aggressively nationalistic.

dark side

The "effective suffrage," the initial motive of the rebellion, never had a chance to be effective and the process culminated in the construction of one of the most successful authoritarian systems of the twentieth century. In the end the civil war failed Porfiriato destruction but simply its modernization. The new system of power no longer depended on a dictator but a party that was no longer supported only by a social base oligarchy always precarious, but rose, subordinates, workers, peasants, middle class and the new bourgeoisie and controlled the Army. The co-option was the most important weapon of control, but when triggered the repression, it had no limit to the presidential will.

The new regime strengthened civic culture based on simulation, of contempt for the rule of law and respect for the unwritten rule. Impunity and accountability should not be on the negative side of the Revolution Mexicana. Finally, the corruption that characterizes Mexico today did not originate in what happened after 1910, but then fell deeper roots. The oligarchy Porfirista

disappeared, but there was another, equally or more voracious than the last. The subordination of the new oligarchy to authoritarian presidency was one of its limits, but at the end of the last century that presidential disappeared, Mexican society at the mercy of the current "powers" which are equally or more damaging than the past.


A balance always provisional
The rebellion of 1910 came from the demand for justice in a society long humiliated time. The blast was born a utopia that for a time revived the present. However, the promise exhausted, the country led to an institutional arrangement as unfair as corrupt. The pursuit of individual salvation was again the only motivation for both the majority and for the elites. Today, the legacy of this great civil war is ambivalent and can be summarized as follows: tolerance of society to the irresponsibility and corruption of their leaders is limited, but the justice of a rebellion is not sufficient guarantee of its ultimate success.

Kertin Shampoo For Greesy Hair

'First Priority' or the black wire

Fighting poverty, a priority of the national effort, it was proposed For nearly two centuries. What matters now is how Discovery



Felipe Calderon last week said that in the "long three years" that still remain in front of the executive branch under the circumstances that three years is a huge time-the "first priority, "it said his government will" correct the course social "and" eradicate poverty ", a task that is not only feasible but also an ethical obligation. And it might be added that is also essential to prevent social breakdown is accelerated.

The idea of \u200b\u200bcompromising the bulk of energy on tackling the causes and mitigate the effects of poverty is laudable. However, when considering the context in which it is released, the proposal is not as positive and clear. First, because the offer comes from who now heads the Mexican right politically and for centuries have been exactly the right behavior of the causes behind the persistence of widespread and severe poverty in Mexico.

Second, because in the three years that Calderon leads the executive head of its agenda has had other priorities and is only now, when the original agenda has failed, that "Los Pinos" discover something that has been there forever as one of the obstacles, perhaps the most important and obvious-to Mexico to turn, finally, society created as a colony of exploitation in the early sixteenth century, where its essence was an exercise of power that would allow the systematic exploitation of the many by the few-a true modern nation where social solidarity is expressed objectively policies to eliminate marginalization and its harsh effects.

'For the good of all, the poor first'

The fight against poverty as a "first priority" and he had proposed in his election campaign Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO). However, that proposal, the center of the political platform on the left, AMLO was described by the right as "tropical messiah" as "a danger to Mexico "and treated accordingly: prevent becoming president" at any cost. "That proposal, as sensible as possible and useful even to the interests of the bourgeoisie, one of the reasons for the success of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his country, Brazil, is the priority has been given to effectively combat poverty, "all right Mexican AMLO launched to crush, even if that meant destroying the credibility of what was just being born: the reliance on electoral institutions.

By preventing the passage of a moderate left-closer to that which now rules the same in Brazil than in El Salvador and Uruguay and far removed from the one in Venezuela-who supported Calderón in 2006 refused to travel down that road already well proven beneficial. In Spain, for example, strong political democracy took root right through to Franco and the military agreed to hand over power in 1977, because voters decided it a democratic right, led by Adolfo Suarez, and this right, after weathering successful military coup of 1981, it refused to hand him over to the socialist Felipe Gonzalez to these, in turn, after years it will return to the right of José María Aznar, from the choice 2004, was forced to return to the Socialist José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. During all these changes nothing happened to the big bourgeoisie.

No doubt, at the end of the twentieth century, the English right overcame his instincts and acted wisely and today is a country with problems but viable. Mexican right, however, acted opposite hand and now has what we all have: a failure.

The first 'first priority'

After assuming power via the "haiga been like haiga been," Calderon proposed to acquire an image that fit with the conservative political vision: the Executive of a hard, no nonsense type. Hence his decision to (mis) be the uniform of five-star general and proceed to mobilize the military in a war against drug traffickers. However, as the drug market is outside of our borders and their nature remains unchanged for half a century, maintains that illegal activity resources. The numbers of those executed in the struggle against drug and continue unabated, this year has already exceeded 5 000 207 deaths last year (Reform, "ejecutómetro" 2009) - and the possibility of success in this administration in this area is so low that has been declared impossible (see the analysis of Ruben Aguilar and Jorge G. Castaneda on the drug: the failed war [Punto de Lectura, 2009]).

The failure in the fight against cartels drug should add that between 2006 and 2008 the number of Mexicans who suffer from food poverty rose from 14.4 to 19.5 million, and of those in poverty, equity rose from 44.7 to 50.6 million. Under such conditions it is not surprising that today the government wants to change the nature of their agenda even if it means adopting his opponent. Now the big question is how will you do to create jobs and rapidly improve the quality of education that the poor need to escape permanently from poverty? The Oportunidades program requires more resources, but in any case only serves to mitigate the effects of poverty, not to eliminate it.

Story
aged
is possible, though doubtful, that time reading the book of Julieta Campos What about the poor? The repeated complaint of the nation (Aguilar, 1995) would have helped Calderón and his men to put the fight against poverty as "first priority" from the beginning. In addition to knowledge needed sensitivity and willingness to attack a major problem.

A problem as old as the country

If someone follows the sad story for three decades and 688 pages Julieta Campos told, you will notice that in 1813 Morelos proposed that Congress enact laws "to moderate affluence and poverty "in practice meant something already said, that "the justices handed peoples land for cultivation." The defeat of Morelos frustrated that first national project of redistributing wealth.

Some prominent liberals wondered, as did Ignacio Ramirez in October 1875, "What about the poor". One answer came from Ponciano Arriaga in his separate opinion on Article 27 of the Constitution: to implement the suggestion of Morelos, for "While few individuals are in possession of vast and uncultivated land ... a great people ... groan in the direst poverty, with no property, no home, no industry, no job ...".

After the outbreak of the Revolution Mexicana, the farm bill drafted by the Zapatistas Manuel Palafox in October 1915, said: "The nation recognizes the absolute right to attend all Mexicans to possess and cultivate a tract of land", hence the right to expropriate all land in the country. " The following steps were the Article 27 of the Constitution of 1917 and the massive land reforms that began in his term Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-1940). Back to start



century and a quarter after making his proposal agricultural Morelos, Cardenas would implement, but it was too late. Just then Mexico began to industrialize, to urbanize and land-farming and livestock-ceased to be the engine of the economy. The Revolution had favored the unions, but neither then nor now these corporations harbored the majority of workers. The new concentration of wealth had little to do as much with landowners and with industrialists, bankers, traders, speculators, urban, and so on. The "labor aristocracy" more or less maintained their gains but the bulk of the Mexican left unprotected, especially when it disappeared on "stabilizing development", came the wave of globalization, which minimized the ability-and willingness-of the state to redistribute income and protect the majority. The result we see it now: the lucky 20% of Mexicans have the income 59.1% while the 20% most unfortunate have to cope with 3.1% (The Economist Intelligence Unit).


In conclusion
The greater the number of marginal lower the essence of Mexico as a national community and the greater the danger of living in a society failed. First the poor should and must be the reason for our political efforts.