Obama Vs México

From El Estatal, Chihuahua. Mexicans are not taking too kindly some of the words and actions from their NorthAmerican neighbor. Not happy.

El gobierno de Felipe Calderón endurece su postura ante los embates del recién electo presidente de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. Barak Obama. Si está en lo correcto, en las siguientes semanas lo veremos.

Aun no cumple 60 días en el cargo y ya el primer mandatario afroamericano estadounidense ha enviado sendos misiles poco diplomáticos al gobierno mexicano. Van dos ocasiones en que el responsable del estado mayor conjunto ha cuestionado la gobernabilidad de Calderón y señalado con índice de fuego, que el Presidente no gobierna todo el territorio, en franca alusión al estado de sitio que se vive en dos entidades de la frontera norte (BC y Chihuahua).

Not even 60 days in office, and the first African American U.S. president has sent two not very diplomatic missiles to the Mexican government. On two occasions [someone from] the Joint Staff has questioned the governance of Calderón and signaled with index of fire (sic), that the President does not govern the whole territory, in clear allusion to the siege that we live in two entities of the northern border.

Recién la semana pasada, la administración Barak decide impedir la entrada de trasnportistas mexicanos a territorio estadounidense, so pretexto de no cumplir con las normas para transitar las carreteras de ese país. Estos actos de intimidación no son nuevos, desde la administración Bush padre se vetó la introducción del atún mexicano y en la de Bill Clinton se amenazó igualmente a los trasportistas de México. Todo estas medidas, unilaterales, presionan el tratado de libre comercio que nuestro país suscribió con Canadá y USA a principios de la década de los noventas.

Just last week, the Barak administration [What? Barak Administration?] decided to prevent the entry of Mexican truck drivers into US territory, under the pretext of not meeting the standards for road travel in that country. These acts of intimidation are not new, since the administration of Bush father vetoed the introduction of Mexican tuna and that of Bill Clinton also threatened the transportistas from Mexico. All these measures, unilateral, threaten the free trade agreement that our country signed with Canada and USA at the beginning of the nineties.


Durante su campaña, Obama, se comprometió con los electores del estado de Ohio, a revisar el TLCAN porque dicen, los productores de esa entidad, les ha perjudicado en gran medida. Tal vez ese compromiso sea la causa de la intentona por bloquear el paso de trailers tricolores al vecino del norte; sin embargo, el tema de los señalamientos sobre la capacidad del gobierno mexicano para someter al crimen organizado, está sobrecalentando las relaciones bilaterales entre dos socios comerciales que mantienen una interdependencia común e histórica.

Quizás para el pueblo yanqui Obama represente el cambio y la esperanza, pero para México no está siendo un buen aliado. De antemano sabemos que el priincipal problema de inseguridad que se vive en dos estados fronterizos, se origina porque los hijos del Tío Sam son los mayores consumidores de enervantes y drogas ilícitas, resulta entonces desleal que Barak se quiera pasar de listo haciéndose el durito contra nuestro gobierno en vez de tener el valor de aplicar medidas preventivas contra las adicciones y usar, por lo menos a sus reservas, para atacar de lleno el tráfico de armas de su país hacia territorio azteca.

Las declaraciones desafortundas de los militares yanquis en poco abonan para combatir el terrorismo y el crimen organizado, que dicho sea de paso. por primera vez en la historia de México, un presidente tiene los tamaños para enfrentarlo; mejor, debería la administración Obamesca solicitar al Capitolio de su país el incremento del apoyo para el Plan Mérida que su antecesor, el peor presidente de USA, tuvo a bien destinar 500 millones de dólares para pertrechos y logística en apoyo a la lucha que ha emprendido el Estado Mexicano contra las mafias que se han hecho millonarias con tanto cliente del otro lado de la frontera.

Si el estado mayor conjunto de los Estados Unidos de América quiere sumarse a la lucha contra el terrorismo y el crimen organizado, debe atender primero los protocolos de derecho internacional, de respeto a nuestra soberanía, de atender los tratados internacionales, de respetar los acuerdos bilaterales y de dar lustre a la diplomacia, solo así, podremos integrar una sola fuerza conjunta para vencer la amenaza que ya tensa las relaciones entre los dos países.

Por si la situación en ambas fronteras no fuera del todo caliente, Barak Obama tiene la ocurrencia de revivir un viejo pleito contra el trasporte mexicano. En su afán por complacer a las mafias descendientes de Jimmy Hoffa y de los productores de Ohio, el primer presidente afroamericano no está midiéndole el agua a los camotes, si no ordena pronto a la capirotada de gabinete que lo acompaña de tratarnos como socios y aliados, corre el riesgo de que se le atore en el gasnate mercancía poblana.

En cuanto a las medidas adoptadas por el gobienro mexicano para gravar por lo menos 90 artículos gabachos como represalia a las acciones tomadas en USA contra el trasporte tricolor, habría que analizarlas antes de tomar un rumbo incierto; en todo caso, el Presidente Calderón debe exigir mayor proactividad y eficacia a la cancillería mexicana y a nuestro cuerpo diplomático en Washington; activar el prestigio ante organismos internacionales como la ONU y la OEA y acelerar la firma de tratados comerciales más justos con Sudamérica, Europa y Asía.

P.D. Espero que el lapsus criticus por el que atraviesa Barak Obama no esté motivado en aquella declaración inoportuna del expresidente Fox «que los mexicanos hacen el trabajo que los negros no quieren». Ya entrados en caminos de cambio no vaya a ser que el afroamericano entregue a un latino.

An OEA without US and Canada

Impulsa México `una OEA´ sin EU En la cumbre de presidentes en Brasil, Felipe Calderón propuso crear para 2010 una Organización de Estados Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (sin EU ni Canadá) que haga valer su propia identidad, su propia fuerza y sus propias potencialidades


President Calderón proposes the formation of an Organization of Latin American and Caribbean states. He sees it having its own identity, its own power, and its own promise. It would, pointedly, exclude the US and Canada.

Interestingly, he dismisses the creation of a regional army to fight narco-criminals.

Calderón dice no a ejército regional
Desde su perspectiva, en la lucha contra el crimen organizado se requiere que los países tengan una misma política en el tema, además de “una clara y abierta cooperación que permita derrotar a un enemigo multinacional”

SALVADOR DE BAHÍA, Brasil.— En una virtual respuesta al mandatario guatemalteco, el presidente Felipe Calderón rechazó la posibilidad de que México participe o avale la creación de un ejército regional para combatir al narcotráfico.

Desde su perspectiva, en la lucha contra el crimen organizado se requiere que los países tengan una misma política en el tema, además de “una clara y abierta cooperación que permita derrotar a un enemigo multinacional”.

Antes de crear una fuerza militar regional debemos agotar los mecanismos de cooperación, destacó Calderón. Actualmente, agregó, la delincuencia ha sido enfrentada con respuestas aisladas.

Dijo que su gobierno pondrá a disposición de los países con problemas de inseguridad la base de datos contenida en la llamada Plataforma México.

El martes este diario publicó que el presidente de Guatemala, Álvaro Colom, impulsa el proyecto de crear una fuerza militar multinacional en América Latina.

Free speech

This is a fascinating and critically important topic.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal. Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Indeed: political correctness has been taken to such a degree that it has become impossible to speak freely, lest someone be insulted. Of course, this arose from the situation where there was no restraint on what was said, and not much care was taken over who might get insulted. Perfect example, of course, is what is meant by saying Selma, Alabama, circa 1960.

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self respect.”

Absurd. That article in MacLean's of Canada does say provocative things, such as: For example, I wonder how many pontificators on the "Middle East peace process" ever run this number: The median age in the Gaza Strip is 15.8 years. Once you know that, all the rest is details.

Provocative? Yes. Provocative is defined as:

• S: (adj) provocative (serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate; stimulating discussion or exciting controversy) "a provocative remark"; "a provocative smile"; "provocative Irish tunes which...compel the hearers to dance"- Anthony Trollope
• S: (adj) provocative (exciting sexual desire) "her gestures and postures became more wanton and provocative"

So, not just to provoke, as in taunt, but also as in to stimulate discussion. Such matters need to be discussed, debated and illuminated by free speech. It is politically incorrect to ask what Islamic country would allow a Jew to turn that situation around, were an equivalent to MacLean's to write an article about the Jewish people; would a Jew be allowed to demand an apology on behalf of the Jewish brethren, and compensation for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self respect.” ?

The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

Despite Bush and Cheney and their brethren, the US remains a bulwark for free speech. Bush and Cheney and their brethren want to chip away at that freedom, but they have not, and, I daresay, will not.

“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”

Not just the developed world; criticizing the government or the Prophet is a jail sentence, if not a death sentence, for whomsoever is foolish enough to speak his or her mind freely. Of course, the other side of the equation in the US is Actress Scarlett Johansson claims she has regular email contact with Barack Obama. This is a 23-year0old actress with botoxed lips and silicon breasts and little modesty who happens to be a multi-million-dollar box office star who can help the Illinois Senator make inroads with young voters who would otherwise not be the slightest bit interested in elections.

“But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.” Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France. Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep. By contrast, American courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though a march would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.

The contrast is pretty clear: banning hate speech versus allowing Nazis to march in Skokie. It is curious that, other than Israel (where the reason for banning of Nazi items is obvious) France is the only other country with such a ban, the France that has not yet come to terms with its Vichy past.

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

I get a chill reading that. Yes, seeing neo-Nazi jerks protected by the First Amendment is painful, but only until right-wingers are stopped in their tracks by US courts upholding the sanctity of that very First Amendment.

Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., disagreed. “When times are tough,” he said, “there seems to be a tendency to say there is too much freedom.” Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship, he said, and all the more so in the post-Sept. 11 era.

Aye. Back to the article in Macleans: If you were a "moderate Palestinian" leader, would you want to try to persuade a nation – or pseudo-nation – of unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in a UN-supervised European-funded death cult to see sense? Any analysis of the "Palestinian problem" that doesn't take into account the most important determinant on the ground is a waste of time.

Well now. Are most Palestinian Arabs employed? Educated? The UN does supervise things there in the West Bank and Gaza, sort of (it is there, anyway), and, well, where does the funding come from?

The writer is provocative: Africa, to take another example, also has plenty of young people, but it's riddled with AIDS and, for the most part, Africans don't think of themselves as Africans: as we saw in Rwanda, their primary identity is tribal, and most tribes have no global ambitions. Islam, however, has serious global ambitions, and it forms the primal, core identity of most of its adherents -- in the Middle East, South Asia and elsewhere. Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare.

And right. Unflinching analysis. Rwanda is hardly the only African country where violence between citizens of the same nation is pervasive: Congo and Sudan are two others.

The children and grandchildren of those fascists and republicans who waged a bitter civil war for the future of Spain now shrug when a bunch of foreigners blow up their capital.

Cellphone Data Track Our Migration Patterns

Fascinating story highlighting the efficacy and ease of using available data, as well as its dangers and potential abuses. I particularly enjoy that the focal point is Flushing.

The one stat that jumps out at me is how significant the percentage of calls to Porto, Portugal is: 9% of calls from Flushing.

Cellphone users are spiders of the electromagnetic spectrum, spinning intricate, invisible threads of data about themselves as they walk and talk throughout the day.

Physicists, urban planners and social scientists are eagerly weaving millions of these electronic threads into patterns of people on the move, through studies that until now were all but impossible.

What makes things possible is that all calls are in the phone companies records: number dialing, number called, minutes spoken. The phone company also knows who owns the calling number, and might known the called number, too.

More than 3.3 billion wireless-phone subscribers world-wide have, in effect, voluntarily adopted devices that record their daily movements in the same way satellite sensors monitor migrating birds, whales, bears and other wildlife. Such precise positioning data, automatically collected by cellphone companies, makes privacy advocates queasy but has social scientists dazzled by the research possibilities.


3.3 billion people voluntarily, perhaps unknowingly or oblivious or indifferent to the consequences of their calling habits being known, allow their privacy to be available. It does, surely, also provide intriguing possibilities.

Italy Makes It Hard For Jailbirds to Stay in Jail

The Journal often has stories of this kind, part of its strength. This one is summed up by this line: In Italy, it sometimes seems that no bad deed goes unpardoned. Having run out of room in its jails, Italy released a third of its prisoners, leading to a crime wave. ... even traffic tickets can be appealed to the nation's highest court. Imagine appealing a parking ticket to the Supreme Court. Which explains that the statute of limitations on most felonies expires before a final verdict can be reached.

It gets better. The sorry state of Italy's prison infrastructure plays a role, too. Prosecutors have charged Salvatore Ferranti for being a henchman of one of Sicily's fiercest crime families. But last month he was released from the slammer and given house arrest. The reason: He was too fat. The prison system didn't have beds big enough to accommodate his 462-pound frame.

Salvatore Ferranti, whom prosecutors accuse
of being a member of a Mafia crime family
in Palermo, as he is released from jail because of his size.

This is a gem, perfectly put by a bureaucrat: "The fact of the matter is that obesity is not compatible with prison," says Lino Buscemi, secretary of the Sicily region's Department of Prisoners' Rights in Palermo. Incompatible?

More than incompatible; the legal system is stacked. Get this one.

"Someone who commits bribery, insider trading, tax evasion, false bookkeeping, what have you, is pretty much guaranteed to go free," says Bruno Tinti, a prosecutor in Turin who wrote a book about Italy's justice system called "Toghe Rotte" or "Broken Robes." One chapter purports to outline a satirical step-by-step guide to killing your wife and mostly avoiding jail time.

Here's the logic: Once the deed is done, Mr. Tinti writes, immediately confess and provide the police with the weapon and the corpse. These steps mean that, under Italian law, there is no risk of flight or evidence-tampering, and therefore no need for pretrial custody. Murder can carry a sentence of more than 20 years, but requesting a speedy trial automatically cuts that by a third. Arguing that your dead wife was cheating can be good for another third off. Eventually, the sentence can be reduced to 10 years -- at which point only four years will actually need to be served. (Recall that most people sentenced to six years or less don't serve the time due to community-service and other provisions.)

"This is the proof that court sentences are fiction," says Mr. Tinti.

And Italy is one of the planet's largest economies; it is part of the Group of Eight: US, Canada, UK, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, and Italy.