# Who cares about the recent Mexican elections?



## dongringo (Dec 13, 2010)

The recent Mexican elections were a field day for national and international reporters falling all over themselves to report violations of electoral laws.

Of course there were! But Mexico is so used to them that they barely raised local eyebrows.

What is new is the participation of social networks, principally Facebook, and apparently primarily staffed with university youngsters disgusted with the outcome and process.

Today they are marching, just one more march among hundreds encumbering Mexico City and other towns.

The entertainment never stops in Mexico.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

dongringo said:


> The recent Mexican elections were a field day for national and international reporters falling all over themselves to report violations of electoral laws.
> 
> Of course there were! But Mexico is so used to them that they barely raised local eyebrows.
> 
> ...


I find it disrespectful that you find young Mexicans working to improve the political system in their country mere entertainment.


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

Isla Verde said:


> I find it disrespectful that you find young Mexicans working to improve the political system in their country mere entertainment.


The youth should have been doing this instead of joining gangs and cartels for the last 50 years. They could have taken a lesson from the US history. But no. Just lay down and take it like good little corrupt people.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

conorkilleen said:


> The youth should have been doing this instead of joining gangs and cartels for the last 50 years. They could have taken a lesson from the US history. But no. Just lay down and take it like good little corrupt people.


Conor, I find your comment rather unhelpful, but that's just me. Perhaps other members of this forum agree with you.


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

Isla Verde said:


> Conor, I find your comment rather unhelpful, but that's just me. Perhaps other members of this forum agree with you.


This week has scorned me. Mexico is corrupt down to its roots..even the common people. Trust no one. Maybe the Mexicans that you know are "ok" and trust worthy, but I am looking out for number one and questioning everything from now on until Mexico teaches me different.

I too know many trustworthy common Mexicans, but the random stranger on the street?...forget about it.

The news about the Mexico City Airport shootings put me over the edge today. Nobody in Mexico is going to help you unless they are helping themselves. Be a bubble-pat...I refuse to be.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

conorkilleen said:


> This week has scorned me. Mexico is corrupt down to its roots..even the common people. Trust no one. Maybe the Mexicans that you know are "ok" and trust worthy, but I am looking out for number one and questioning everything from now on until Mexico teaches me different.
> 
> I too know many trustworthy common Mexicans, but the random stranger on the street?...forget about it.
> 
> The news about the Mexico City Airport shootings put me over the edge today. Nobody in Mexico is going to help you unless they are helping themselves. Be a bubble-pat...I refuse to be.


I don't know you nor the reasons you relocated to Mexico, but after reading your comments (above) I have to ask the question, "Why?" "Why are you living in Mexico if you dislike Mexicans and Mexico so much? Why would you seem to be more upset about criminals shooting it out amongst themselves than the firebombing of a casino in Monterrey where so many innocent people were impacted and a city terrorized? It doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

Longford said:


> I don't know you nor the reasons you relocated to Mexico, but after reading your comments (above) I have to ask the question, "Why?" "Why are you living in Mexico if you dislike Mexicans and Mexico so much? Why would you seem to be more upset about criminals shooting it out amongst themselves than the firebombing of a casino in Monterrey where so many innocent people were impacted and a city terrorized? It doesn't make sense to me.


My moving to Mexico doesn't need to make sense to you. My wife if Mexican and she shares the same beliefs.

Tell me...you live in the USA...who looks out for you?

...and who said I dislike Mexico so much? I just dislike the corruption. I choose to look out for myself and not let others do it for me. What do you say from Chicago?


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

conorkilleen said:


> This week has scorned me. Mexico is corrupt down to its roots..even the common people. Trust no one. Maybe the Mexicans that you know are "ok" and trust worthy, but I am looking out for number one and questioning everything from now on until Mexico teaches me different.
> 
> I too know many trustworthy common Mexicans, but the random stranger on the street?...forget about it.
> 
> The news about the Mexico City Airport shootings put me over the edge today. Nobody in Mexico is going to help you unless they are helping themselves. Be a bubble-pat...I refuse to be.


I'm not a "bubble-pat" (clever neologism, by the way), thank you very much. Obviously, some unpleasant things have happened to you in Mexico for you to post such a bitter comment. If you really feel that you can trust no one in this country, then perhaps it's time for you to leave.


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

Longford said:


> I don't know you nor the reasons you relocated to Mexico, but after reading your comments (above) I have to ask the question, "Why?" "Why are you living in Mexico if you dislike Mexicans and Mexico so much? Why would you seem to be more upset about criminals shooting it out amongst themselves than the firebombing of a casino in Monterrey where so many innocent people were impacted and a city terrorized? It doesn't make sense to me.


Furthermore..the bombing of the casino does not have anything to do with hundreds of thousands of people like the DF airport shootings did. 52 gamblers died in MTY and did not effect the grand populous. The terminal 2 shooting was freak and a stray bullet could have killed anyone from my children to your mother if they were there....and it involved the very people that are there to protect you. so...end of conversation


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

Isla Verde said:


> I'm not a "bubble-pat" (clever neologism, by the way), thank you very much. Obviously, some unpleasant things have happened to you in Mexico for you to post such a bitter comment. If you really feel that you can trust no one in this country, then perhaps it's time for you to leave.


I'm not leaving. Just being smarter about how I conduct myself professionally and personally. Adapt and overcome.


----------



## dongringo (Dec 13, 2010)

Connorkilleen: "Be a bubble-pat...I refuse to be."
Now that is cute and succinct. Where did you dig up that expression?


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

conorkilleen said:


> I'm not leaving. Just being smarter about how I conduct myself professionally and personally. Adapt and overcome.


I hope that things work out for you here. It's never easy learning to adapt to life in a culture different from your own, even if you have a spouse who's a native of your adopted country, as you do. It's something I've been working on here for many years, and I still don't have it down pat, but I don't feel the negativity about Mexico that you have expressed in your last few posts.


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

dongringo said:


> Connorkilleen: "Be a bubble-pat...I refuse to be."
> Now that is cute and succinct. Where did you dig up that expression?


I made it up. 

Bubble-pat: An Expat that is blinded by the current issues in said country, either emotionally or physically, and refuses to believe that there are greater issues outside of the "bubble" that he/she ives in that effects their or anyone elses life.

ex. The shootings in the Mexico City airport do not effect me because I don't go there.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

conorkilleen said:


> Furthermore..the bombing of the casino does not have anything to do with hundreds of thousands of people like the DF airport shootings did.


To each his own opinions, but I'll wager that your viewpoints on this are not shared by the overwhelming majority of people who live in Monterrey or the rest of the country and reflect an insensitivity to the Monterrey tragedy and its impact on that community.


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

Isla Verde said:


> I hope that things work out for you here. It's never easy learning to adapt to life in a culture different from your own, even if you have a spouse who's a native of your adopted country, as you do. It's something I've been working on here for many years, and I still don't have it down pat, but I don't feel the negativity about Mexico that you have expressed in your last few posts.


Thanks. Seems to be working out just fine...however I just need to change and adapt my strategy for success.


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

Longford said:


> To each his own opinions, but I'll wager that your viewpoints on this are not shared by the overwhelming majority of people who live in Monterrey or the rest of the country and reflect an insensitivity to the Monterrey tragedy and its impact on that community.


This coming from someone that has never lived in Monterrey? I am sensitive to what happened. 

Tell me...why did everyone stop talking about it 48 hours after it happened? Do you know? Oh wait..you live here in Monterrey. Of course you know.


----------



## dongringo (Dec 13, 2010)

conorkilleen said:


> I made it up.
> 
> Bubble-pat: An Expat that is blinded by the current issues in said country, either emotionally or physically, and refuses to believe that there are greater issues outside of the "bubble" that he/she ives in that effects their or anyone elses life.
> .


Yeah - I´m a bubblepat, sort of. Locally, in Mexico, I don´t feel drug murders affect me, neither do the elections. But I´m happy about the continuing devaluation of the Mexican peso but not about the disappearance of sport fish along the Mexican coast.

How is that about a potential hijack - except no one gives a hoot about sport fishing.


----------



## conorkilleen (Apr 28, 2010)

dongringo said:


> Yeah - I´m a bubblepat, sort of. Locally, in Mexico, I don´t feel drug murders affect me, neither do the elections. But I´m happy about the continuing devaluation of the Mexican peso but not about the disappearance of sport fish along the Mexican coast.
> 
> How is that about a potential hijack - except no one gives a hoot about sport fishing.


I just picked up a new spear gun for my vacation down to the Oaxacan coast. There is a laguna that is great for shallow water spear fishing. I love fishing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2012)

I trust no cops or military, either here in MX or in any other country. A lot of cops from any country would give the same advice. Lucky me, I don't drive here, which avoids the majority of potential contact with cops in MX. 

I trust my friends and a few neighbors here to some extent, but I wouldn't give them the keys to my home. I don't trust anyone else, and don't open my door to strangers. My MX neighbors do the same thing.

Mexicans don't trust each other either. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Has a cashier in any big supermarket or store ever had change available immediately if you handed them a 500 peso note for a 200 peso bill, without calling a supervisor for change? With labor as cheap as it is in MX, why do parking lots use automated machines to take your money instead of a live person? Management doesn't trust their own employees or potential thieves over a few thousand pesos in a drawer, why should I? My neighbors did as I did, and didn't answer much of the Census or IFE polls either.

As far as youth, they don't seem to be in gangs or working for the bad guys locally. Several hundred youth have been out in the streets for the past several weeks here as PAN vs. PRI unfolds, both before and after the elections. Haven't seen anyone who looked over 30 doing the same, but they might be working behind the scenes.

-


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

GringoCArlos said:


> I trust my friends and a few neighbors here to some extent, but I wouldn't give them the keys to my home. I don't trust anyone else, and don't open my door to strangers. My MX neighbors do the same thing.-


I trust my Mexican friends, the woman who occasionally cleans my apartment, the students who come to my apartment for class, and some of the neighbors in my small building. In fact, I have actually exchanged keys with two of them in case one of us forgets or loses our keys. Sorry that you wouldn't feel comfortable doing the same.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2012)

Isla Verde said:


> I trust my Mexican friends, the woman who occasionally cleans my apartment, the students who come to my apartment for class, and some of the neighbors in my small building. In fact, I have actually exchanged keys with two of them in case one of us forgets or loses our keys. Sorry that you wouldn't feel comfortable doing the same.


Learned my lesson the hard way. My 100% trusted housekeeper of several years had keys and took a chance one day for which I suffered. No more - I paid the tuition and got the degree for this lesson.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

GringoCArlos said:


> Learned my lesson the hard way. My 100% trusted housekeeper of several years had keys and took a chance one day for which I suffered. No more - I paid the tuition and got the degree for this lesson.


Sorry to hear that, GC.


----------



## dpebbles (Oct 28, 2011)

I trust my friends and a few neighbors here to some extent, but I wouldn't give them the keys to my home. I don't trust anyone else, and don't open my door to strangers. My MX neighbors do the same thing.

Mexicans don't trust each other either. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Has a cashier in any big supermarket or store ever had change available immediately if you handed them a 500 peso note for a 200 peso bill, without calling a supervisor for change? With labor as cheap as it is in MX, why do parking lots use automated machines to take your money instead of a live person? Management doesn't trust their own employees or potential thieves over a few thousand pesos in a drawer, why should I? My neighbors did as I did, and didn't answer much of the Census or IFE polls either.


Considering most of my neighbors have huge walls around their houses, security cameras, electric fencing and large dogs.... plus pay people to stand watch in front of their house...I am thinking they are not very trusting either. I've heard so many stories about the houses being robbed around me...most of the time security being in on the robbery.


----------



## Ken Wood (Oct 22, 2011)

Disclaimer--I am not taking issue with any post by anyone. The thread drifted from politics to trust, and I am simply posting my thoughts. 

I will trust individuals until they prove to be unworthy of that trust. I cannot agree that the citizens of any country are any more or less trustworthy than the citizens of any other country. Our neighbor, Mexican, has our key and we have hers. The lady who cleans, once a week, does not have a key, but, more often than not, on her arrival, we depart and ask her to lock up when she leaves. I'm not so naive as to loan my car to a perfect stranger, but I'm also not so naive as to think that a Mexican is any less honorable than a citizen of where I came from. Maybe (probably) it's a deep seated emotional need of mine, but I get a good feeling from trusting people, and vice versa. To each his/her own, and I'm not condemning anyone for their mistrust, we each have our criteria that is instilled in us by virtue of our life's experiences. I might meet my Waterloo tomorrow, but today, until you convince me otherwise, I trust you.


----------



## dongringo (Dec 13, 2010)

Right on, Ken


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

I tend to favor trusting everyone until they give me a reason to behave otherwise. I don't do things, though, which might tempt people whom I don't know very well to take advantage of me.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

So anyway, who cares about the recent election? 

I do.


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

Ken Wood said:


> Disclaimer--I am not taking issue with any post by anyone. The thread drifted from politics to trust, and I am simply posting my thoughts.
> 
> I will trust individuals until they prove to be unworthy of that trust. I cannot agree that the citizens of any country are any more or less trustworthy than the citizens of any other country. . . I might meet my Waterloo tomorrow, but today, until you convince me otherwise, I trust you.


KW, you are so right, what would life be like if you could trust no one?
but it does come at a price, always to be determined later and small only if you're lucky.
i'm the same way, but sometimes i feel very foolish as a result.
thank goodness there are so many who are worthy of our trust.

this is what i call the "Good Guy Burden". 
people on the other end of that extreme are likely to be 'good' people too,
tho betrayed trust has taught them to trust no one. but not all of them.
some are also greedy selfish violent criminal types, and the GGB makes it easy for those nasty creatures to abuse trust.

it's attitude and perspective rolled together with beliefs and concerns.
my personal guess is that it takes somewhere between 10 and 100 people,
with the GGB to counter balance just one evil presence, depending on how much evil they are dealing with.

i have no idea what to do about it, other than what i already do - constant vigilance.
(but at least now people think i got it from Mad Eye Mooney instead of PTSD.)

sometimes the only way to find the ones you shouldn't trust is to trust everyone.

that's a dangerous gamble in the game of politics.
and of course politics is built on the foundation of trust,

in the end, you could do worse than to listen to the words of Pete Townsend.

"I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss"


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

stilltraveling said:


> So anyway, who cares about the recent election?
> 
> I do.


There's been a lively discussion of the election in the "Red State/Blue State" discussion elsewhere on the forum.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

Longford said:


> There's been a lively discussion of the election in the "Red State/Blue State" discussion elsewhere on the forum.


I only check in on that thread occasionally. It drifts around a lot. I made a few contributions there today, but I can see that a discussion of that sort is destined to deteriorate. 

I do care about the recent election. The thought of a return to the PRI really bothers me. I remember the administrations of Salinas and Zedillo when the peso was in constant free fall and billions of dollars were spirited out of the country into the private accounts of the political elite. I was in the General Hospital in TJ when Colosio was assassinated. I remember watching as the entire staff deflated into a long depression with the stark realization that anyone who tries to change the system here, and has a possibility of winning an election, would get a bullet to the head. I remember watching in horror as they were too afraid to even talk about it lest the walls have ears. Nobody knew who to trust so nobody trusted anyone. 

The PRI is the epitome of Mexican corruption. _El que no tranza, no avanza_. They instilled that culture into this country shortly after the revolution and anyone who tried to shine a light on the situation was lucky to get out with their life. Corruption exists in any government. It attracts bad people the way honey attracts ants. The very nature of government means that bad people will try to use it to their own personal advantage. There comes a point, however, when concern should turn to outrage. 

As a physician, my mind naturally gravitates towards physiological metaphors. Corruption is no different than the parasite load that exists in every human body. Productive people create goods and services and corrupt people feed off them, just like a tapeworm, offering nothing of value in return. Even the bacteria in our guts are necessary for the production of necessary nutrients. However, parasites that don't contribute anything to the body are at best a nuisance and at worst a fatal pathogen. 

There is corruption in Sweden and there is corruption in Nigeria. The Swedish government can live with the level of corruption it has without it putting the whole organism in danger. The mechanisms put in place (the immune system, aka, rule of law) can keep the parasites at bay and allow the body to thrive. Nigeria, on the other hand, is carrying around such a heavy load of parasites that all other bodily functions are focused just on keeping the organism alive. Despite its tremendous income from oil wealth, the overwhelming majority of the population lives in abject poverty with no hope of ever rising above it. Almost everything is stolen. The resources left over are used up just for maintaining its borders, avoiding civil unrest and keeping the oil flowing. There's nothing left to build schools or root out corrupt officials, judges, police or soldiers. Nothing left for even a basic health system. Nothing left to govern. The massive emigration rate from Nigeria reflects that of Mexico. Body parts are being amputated rather than treating the infection. Better to chop off another leg in the form of emigration rather than spend additional resources to save it. One in every five people born in Mexico die in the United States. Another one in ten die in other countries. 

Somewhere between Sweden and Nigeria, there is a tipping point, the point between tolerable corruption and a failed state. Mexico came back from that tipping point just over a decade ago. I remember a time when you couldn't get anything done here without a _mordida_. Every _tramite_, every transaction, especially those you were legally entitled to, required paying someone a little something lest your paperwork just sat there unprocessed for eternity. Every sello had an additional price attached to it. 

When the PRI was pushed from power, it rattled the system. The old bosses were out of a job and the new bosses had a hard time trying to replicate the practices of their predecessors because the newly emboldened populace started calling them out on it. Reporters started reporting on corruption, private citizens started mobilizing. While the PAN was able to dig in and start the free-money tap flowing to some degree, they never achieved the tapeworm potential of a fully entrenched PRI. It was like the difference between having an anaconda in your intestine and carrying around a few pinworms. Sure your butt itched knowing they were there, but at least you could function, get things done. 

So now the 45-year-old pretty boy comes in to Los Pinos and we're supposed to believe that everything has changed. I promise I won't beat you anymore, baby. The hundreds of millions of dollars spent to put him there, far beyond the limits established by law, weren't spent just because they liked his politics. These weren't people looking to open up the free market. Powerful people are looking to reestablish the feudal system that existed under 70 years of PRI governance. I only shudder to think what they are planning. 

In addition, every individual in every government post will be from the old guard. Every _jefe de jurisdiccion de salud_, every regional federal police chief, the cabinet ministers and the huge departments they command, will all be functionaries from the old PRI (they're the only ones with any experience), functionaries that have been out of a job for 12 years. They haven't forgotten the methods, they haven't become more ethical during their time out of office. Even if Enrique has the best intentions (though I doubt he has any intentions other than becoming president, classic narcissist), it doesn't change the fact that the eyes, ears, hands and feet of his administration, the tens of thousands of _personas de confianza_, will be those left over from an institutional culture that not only looked the other way as civil servants abused their positions for personal gain, it rewarded them. Anyone who got close enough to power to threaten to change that system ended up in the emergency room at Hospital General de Tijuana with a fatal gunshot wound to the head ... delivered at pointblank range while the surrounded by PRI-paid bodyguards. 

Be that as it may, there is a silver lining to the clouds gathering on the horizon. Mexico has a very young population. There is a huge bulge in the populational pyramid in the 20-30 range and an even bigger one coming up behind it. Most of these young voters don't remember the PRI as they were little children the last time the PRI was in charge. Salinas de Gortari is ancient history to these young adults. Diaz Ordaz might as well be from colonial times. I'm comforted by the belief that 6 more years of wandering in the desert under the guidance of this mafia will finally make them ready to vote for real change. It will take a lot more than a 100 peso gift card to Soriana to convince the people to vote against their best interests next time. 

Democracy doesn't ensure that you get the best government. It only ensures that you get the government you deserve.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

I found an interesting "local" perspective on the election and what needs to happen. The disclaimer is that this is from a quasi bank/investment house so they have a business perspective view.
Their basis is that Mexico has done pretty well the last 10 years with NAFTA, remittances, the relatively high price of oil and more recently an increase in investment in Mexican peso bonds which in some years exceeded $30 billion USD. All this has allowed Mexico to pre-pay it's external debt and in fact build up international reserves of over $156 billion USD(15% of GDP).
In their view what has been lacking is direct foreign investment that was only $19billion USD in 2011 versus a similar economy(Brazil) where direct foreign investment was $65billion USD.
This is where the election comes in. Their view is that PAN, Fox & especially Calderon, knew what was required but that there was no way that PRD & PRI would support PAN initiatives and help them get reelected. 
Their hope in the article is that with the election over, maybe the critical issues can be addressed.
Their list of issues is:
1. The Rule of Law
2. Insecurity
3. Put in place a stable and attractive fiscal framework for investment.
4. Develop an efficient financial system that promotes investment as opposed to consumption.
5. Maintain the stability and public finances of all state entities in good health.
6. Reduce monopolistic and oligopolistic practices in Mexico that result in increasing the price of production.
7. Increase the level and quality of education in the population.
8. Formalize the underground economy and have zero tolerance for the illegal economy.
9. Transform the country's planning system.
10. Push for change in the structure of syndicates and flexibility in worker-employer relationships with the goal of making the formal hiring of labor more attractive.

It goes on to say that based on the proposals during the campaign that Mexico needs to revolutionize its energy and oil sector as well as its fiscal and employment structures and health system, the President-elect must invest all his political capital over the next few months to modify PRI statutes. A new national assembly that allows statuary modifications to the PRI is needed. This is viewed as key as there can't be any obstacles in the party's statutes that hinder the most important reforms. The statutes of the party should not be above the Constitution as they are now.
Finally it is viewed as critical that this start now to drive additional foreign investment for faster growth and to "loose its passive dependency on the US economy". 
The latter is viewed as very vulnerable due to the high level of US debt and the coming "tax cliff".

Sorry for the long note but I found it interesting to see how a Mexican investment house can see necessary changes coming out of the last election.


----------



## DNP (May 3, 2011)

conklinwh said:


> I found an interesting "local" perspective on the election and what needs to happen. The disclaimer is that this is from a quasi bank/investment house so they have a business perspective view.
> Their basis is that Mexico has done pretty well the last 10 years with NAFTA, remittances, the relatively high price of oil and more recently an increase in investment in Mexican peso bonds which in some years exceeded $30 billion USD. All this has allowed Mexico to pre-pay it's external debt and in fact build up international reserves of over $156 billion USD(15% of GDP).
> In their view what has been lacking is direct foreign investment that was only $19billion USD in 2011 versus a similar economy(Brazil) where direct foreign investment was $65billion USD.
> This is where the election comes in. Their view is that PAN, Fox & especially Calderon, knew what was required but that there was no way that PRD & PRI would support PAN initiatives and help them get reelected.
> ...


Very interesting perspective. I appreciate the opportunity to read about it and to ponder it. Thanks.

Sent from my iPod touch using ExpatForum


----------



## vancouvercanuck (Jun 11, 2012)

conorkilleen said:


> Furthermore..the bombing of the casino does not have anything to do with hundreds of thousands of people like the DF airport shootings did. 52 gamblers died in MTY and did not effect the grand populous. The terminal 2 shooting was freak and a stray bullet could have killed anyone from my children to your mother if they were there....and it involved the very people that are there to protect you. so...end of conversation


Wow. A friend of mine had her grandmother die in that casino fire. She wasn't a 'gambler.' Shame on you for making idiotic generalizations based on where the fire bomb happened.


----------



## johnmex (Nov 30, 2010)

If she wasn't there to gamble, why was she there? The free buffet?


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

johnmex said:


> If she wasn't there to gamble, why was she there? The free buffet?


Maybe she was there with family members, maybe she was having a cup of coffee. Is that so strange? I have been in gambling halls several times. I have never gambled.


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

johnmex said:


> If she wasn't there to gamble, why was she there? The free buffet?


You are kidding me, right?

It's not just gamblers who go to casinos. They also have employees. And, if the ones in MX are like the ones in the US, they're very popular with retirees who like the abundance and the variety of the buffets. Which aren't free, but relatively inexpensive.

Not to mention others who go in out of curiosity, out of a desire to see the opulence that some display, whatever.


----------



## CHerr (Jul 15, 2012)

A good friend of mine and I were just discussing this, and our understanding was that the new administration took a much softer stance towards the cartels, which was very popular with Mexicans since many of them see the cartels as America's problem, not their own. This sparked a warmed discussion between my wife and I over whether responsibility lies with the consumer or the producer in such situations. Regardless, is my friend's and my understanding more or less correct?


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

CHerr said:


> A good friend of mine and I were just discussing this, and our understanding was that the new administration took a much softer stance towards the cartels,...


Calderon took a softer stance towards the cartels?


----------



## CHerr (Jul 15, 2012)

No, that Peña Nieto would take a softer stance than Calderon did.


----------



## johnmex (Nov 30, 2010)

mickisue1 said:


> You are kidding me, right?
> 
> It's not just gamblers who go to casinos. They also have employees. And, if the ones in MX are like the ones in the US, they're very popular with retirees who like the abundance and the variety of the buffets. Which aren't free, but relatively inexpensive.
> 
> Not to mention others who go in out of curiosity, out of a desire to see the opulence that some display, whatever.


Have you seen any of the average Mexican casinos? Opulent they are not.

And, I don't think the friend's grandma was an employee of the casino, I could be wrong...


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

CHerr said:


> No, that Peña Nieto would take a softer stance than Calderon did.


Ah, that remains to be seen. Although, after six years of taking out all the old guys that used to keep that business civil, I'm not sure what turning the other cheek can accomplish. The guys in charge now are all psychopaths. 

I don't think we get to turn the clock back on this one. It's time to start talking about ending prohibition.


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

stilltraveling said:


> Ah, that remains to be seen. Although, after six years of taking out all the old guys that used to keep that business civil, I'm not sure what turning the other cheek can accomplish. The guys in charge now are all psychopaths.
> 
> I don't think we get to turn the clock back on this one. It's time to start talking about ending prohibition.


ST, i presume you mean ending the ridiculous 'war on drugs' being waged by the USA.
if so, i agree.
morality can not be legislated, especially when our congress is mostly hypocrites and incompetents.
where do they find these guys? 

as for the Mexican elections, even from my far-off perch, i can see that the new will still be a variation of what went before. it always is.
and it's impossible to truly judge whether the right choices were made, because 'what-if' is a game that never ends.
i just hope the new honchos have a little more heart than the last bunch.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

edgeee said:


> i just hope the new honchos have a little more heart than the last bunch.


I'd prefer brains.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

edgeee said:


> i just hope the new honchos have a little more heart than the last bunch.


In comparison to his predecessors from the 4 decades prior which I observed, I believe President Calderon did an excellent job as President, given the obstacles he has been confronted with ... and that he demonstrated beyond question his _heart_ was certainly big, and in the right place.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

Longford said:


> In comparison to his predecessors from the 4 decades prior which I observed, I believe President Calderon did an excellent job as President, given the obstacles he has been confronted with ... and that he demonstrated beyond question his _heart_ was certainly big, and in the right place.


But his brain wasn't. Fox was presented with the same strategy when he came into office. After thorough analysis, he concluded that the strategy wouldn't work because the military has neither the training nor the culture to engage in law enforcement. His conclusion was that it would only result in an increase in violence. He was right. 

The problem with Calderon is that he couldn't admit that it wasn't working and change strategy. When Calderon came to office, the homicide rate in Mexico was the lowest it had been since such records were kept (about 70 years). 

It was very clear by 2009, after the homicide rate had increased by a factor of 6, that the strategy was creating more death and destruction than it was preventing. His response was to begin the now-famous perp-walks where newly-arrested suspects were paraded in front of the TV cameras before they had a trial (or had even seen a lawyer). A very high percentage of those suspects were ultimately freed because they grabbed the wrong guy. To make a public show of force, he sent the military into cities which resulted in a record number of human rights violations and no decrease in violence. 

The homicide rate is now more than 10 times what it was when he came to office and shows no sign of easing. 

Instead of listening to his expert panels (I sat on one), he chose to try and sell the myth that it was working. He still insists that all we have to do is push harder and victory is right around the corner. That isn't showing heart, that is showing how heartless a politician can be when he puts his historical legacy above the lives of the people he was sworn to protect.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

I suspect that a lot of what you say is true but you also need factor in the rise of the Zetas.
They are hit men with no natural power base or chain of supply so really only plan was the violent overflow of existing cartels and a lot more non drug violence.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

stilltraveling said:


> But his brain wasn't. Fox was presented with the same strategy when he came into office. After thorough analysis, he concluded that the strategy wouldn't work because the military has neither the training nor the culture to engage in law enforcement. His conclusion was that it would only result in an increase in violence. He was right.
> 
> The problem with Calderon is that he couldn't admit that it wasn't working and change strategy. When Calderon came to office, the homicide rate in Mexico was the lowest it had been since such records were kept (about 70 years).
> 
> ...


Comparing the homicide rates in Mexico is like comparing apples to oranges. For so very long the nation hasn't had a data base considered worthy of quoting, and crimes are not classified uniformly. 

I can't find the link to it now, but I read the transcript of presentations of the leaders of PAN and PRI at an annual bankers convention in Acapulco a couple of years ago. Both agreed that more people had been killed as a result of the "drug war" during the administration of Fox and the last two years of Zedillo. There was a lot of cover-up, I'm suspecting. But, certainly, things became more violent when Calderon didn't deal with the cartel's and allow them sovergnty over large portions of the country.

I don't know of what other strategy Calderon could have followed. And I haven't seen anything coming out of Mexico that was better than he tried. Let's remember that he had to maneuver a hostile Congress which thwarted much of what he'd intended to do. And considering the high incidence of corruption in Mexican society, in particular the judiciary, police and military .... he was fighting an up-hill battle.

Overall, Calderon continues to enjoy wide public support for his casrtel-fighting strategies. And then there is the maybe 1/3 of the nation (or those polled) who support armed forces of the USA on the ground in Mexico to help fight the cartels. I find that level of support astounding.

Yes, Calderon has heart. Far more than the addicts in the USA and Mexico who are buying/using/profiting from the dead bodies in Mexico. I'd take him for another 6 years over the likes of AMLO and Pena Nieto. :clap2:


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

conklinwh said:


> I suspect that a lot of what you say is true but you also need factor in the rise of the Zetas.
> They are hit men with no natural power base or chain of supply so really only plan was the violent overflow of existing cartels and a lot more non drug violence.


Calderon decapitated the long-established cartels and made the ground ripe for the Zetas to move in. In fact, his operations were so consistently benefiting the Zetas that people started to question whether or not he was working for them. I don't think he was, they just used his foolish plan to their advantage.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

That I don't buy! The Zetas split from the Gulf cartel before any noticeable success with bigwigs and there main other target is the Sinaola cartel that has suffered little. I think it is an instance of a new group moving in and having to fight to find a position.
BTW, not a whole lot different than the Aztecs.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

Longford said:


> Comparing the homicide rates in Mexico is like comparing apples to oranges. For so very long the nation hasn't had a data base considered worthy of quoting, and crimes are not classified uniformly.


The nation has had a very reliable database for 70 years. I spend years working with that data. It's as good as it is anywhere else. There's no hiding the fact that the homicide rate increased exponentially in the last 5 1/2 years. 



> I can't find the link to it now, but I read the transcript of presentations of the leaders of PAN and PRI at an annual bankers convention in Acapulco a couple of years ago. Both agreed that more people had been killed as a result of the "drug war" during the administration of Fox and the last two years of Zedillo. There was a lot of cover-up, I'm suspecting.


A lot of conjecture from people who don't actually work in the field. Bankers don't make public health policy, nor do they have the training or the experience to know what they're talking about. Politicians are only slightly more educated on the subject, but they have experts to rely on when making their decisions. The experts were ignored throughout this administration. 



> I don't know of what other strategy Calderon could have followed. And I haven't seen anything coming out of Mexico that was better than he tried. Let's remember that he had to maneuver a hostile Congress which thwarted much of what he'd intended to do. And considering the high incidence of corruption in Mexican society, in particular the judiciary, police and military .... he was fighting an up-hill battle.


The corruption is higher now than it has ever been. Calderon smacked a puddle of mercury and it went in all directions, but it didn't hurt the mercury. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone over 35 running a cartel anymore. The old guys that kept the business in check for decades are all gone. It was exactly what Fox predicted, which is why he didn't take this approach. Notice the difference in homicide rates from one administration to the other. THAT was the better approach.



> Overall, Calderon continues to enjoy wide public support for his casrtel-fighting strategies.


Not sure what you're basing that on. All the data I've seen (and the election) show just the opposite. The only broad support he still enjoys are from those who identify themselves as deeply religious, not even a plurality of modern Mexico. In fact, the rate is almost the same as those who voted for Josefina. 



> And then there is the maybe 1/3 of the nation (or those polled) who support armed forces of the USA on the ground in Mexico to help fight the cartels. I find that level of support astounding.


If the recent election has taught you anything, it's that you can't trust polls or the media in this country. 



> Yes, Calderon has heart. Far more than the addicts in the USA and Mexico who are buying/using/profiting from the dead bodies in Mexico. I'd take him for another 6 years over the likes of AMLO and Pena Nieto. :clap2:


Again, you don't work in the field. I've seen far more dead in this last 6 years than I care to see again. The homicide rate was higher than it was in Baghdad at the height of the US occupation. It was a foolish strategy that was poorly executed and has resulted in more harm than good. You might call that heart, but you have the luxury of not being responsible for public health policy in this country. Those of use who are are deeply ashamed of what just happened. 

The drugs aren't the problem. Cocaine kills less than 800 Mexicans annually. Marijuana hasn't killed anyone in the history of medical science. Prohibition killed 50,000 Mexicans in the past 5 years, 20,000 last year alone (not counting the mass graves that are yet to be discovered, if they ever are). This year will have a similar toll. It doesn't take heart to sit comfortably behind an army of bodyguards while your people are being massacred. That's just pigheadedness. Even worse, it's bad government policy. 

Drug addiction is a public health problem. It will never be solved with military tactics. The data is irrefutable.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

conklinwh said:


> That I don't buy! The Zetas split from the Gulf cartel before any noticeable success with bigwigs and there main other target is the Sinaola cartel that has suffered little. I think it is an instance of a new group moving in and having to fight to find a position.
> BTW, not a whole lot different than the Aztecs.


I'm afraid you'll have to wait until sometime in the middle of next year to get the real story. My colleagues are all too afraid to publish right now, lest it prematurely end their careers. This administration made it clear they didn't want anything published that would undermine the strategy. That's why the Secretaria de Salud hasn't published a National Report on Violence and Health since 2006, something we used to do every 3 years.

I carried out what I thought was a very scientific, unbiased study last year that showed how the violence increased dramatically everywhere anti-Cartel operations were carried out. The pattern was unmistakeable. The sad part was that the violence didn't go down after the operation moved on to the next town, but instead continued to rise steadily. The methodology was concise, the findings were irrefutable. 

It's still sitting in a filing cabinet. I wasn't even allowed to submit it for publication. My boss told me that even though I didn't care about a long-term job here, she did. Politics over science. That's never a good omen for a nation. A lot of people are sitting on a lot of studies with the hope that all the work we did over the past 6 years will see the light of day under the next administration. Expect all of these studies to flood the public health literature if the government suddenly decides it wants to end prohibition. Until then, they will gather dust.


----------



## RPBHaas (Dec 21, 2011)

stilltraveling said:


> But. His conclusion was that it would only result in an increase in violence. He was right.
> 
> The problem with Calderon is that he couldn't admit that it wasn't working and change strategy.
> Instead of listening to his expert panels (I sat on one), he chose to try and sell the myth that it was working. He still insists that all we have to do is push harder and victory is right around the corner. That isn't showing heart, that is showing how heartless a politician can be when he puts his historical legacy above the lives of the people he was sworn to protect.


If Calderon had started this "war" against corruption at all levels of government and the police instead of against the cartels, he would have won the hearts and souls of the general populace in Mexico. It has to be virtually impossible to win a war against the cartels when so much of the enforcement arm was and predominately still is corrupt.


----------



## RPBHaas (Dec 21, 2011)

stilltraveling said:


> The homicide rate is now more than 10 times what it was when he came to office and shows no sign of easing.
> 
> .


It was reported today in many of the US news sources that the homicide rate for the first 6 months of this year has decreased by 15%-20% in Mexico.

That being said, the supporting evidence was not released by the current Mexican administration.

To comment on the reference to the homicide rate in Baghdad, it is important to remember that the vast majority of the homicides towards the begining of Calderon's term occurred in Juarez. The conflict in Juarez was/is between the Sinaloa and the remanents of the old Juarez cartel. This started before most of the Federales and the military were present. Calderon had sent the military and the Federales to Morelia and surrounding areas as a reaction to the 6 heads at the nightclub incident. 
The extremely high homicide rates in the most dangerous city in the world for 3 years was NOT caused by Calderon's "war" on drugs.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

RPBHaas said:


> The extremely high homicide rates in the most dangerous city in the world for 3 years was NOT caused by Calderon's "war" on drugs.


Yes, but he wasn't the mayor of Juarez, he was the president of Mexico. He's responsible for all 100 million, not just his home state. I'm sure the people in Juarez would have loved his attention, but it took him a full year before he even tried to do anything about that tragedy. Now the problem has moved on to Monterrey, so he claims victory in Juarez. Politics. 

He failed miserably in his responsibility to protect the health of the people, but like the true politician he is, he'll never admit it. He'll keep this strategy going for the next several months, then focus his efforts on defending his historical legacy.


----------



## 146028 (Nov 16, 2011)

Longford said:


> And then there is the maybe 1/3 of the nation (or those polled) who support armed forces of the USA on the ground in Mexico to help fight the cartels.


Where exactly do you get this from? I don't know a single mexican who would support this. Who did they poll, police officers?


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

polynomial said:


> Where exactly do you get this from? I don't know a single mexican who would support this. Who did they poll, police officers?


Neither do I.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

polynomial said:


> Where exactly do you get this from? I don't know a single mexican who would support this. Who did they poll, police officers?


From this:

Mexicans Back Military Campaign Against Cartels | Pew Global Attitudes Project

and other reports.

The information's out there. The search engines are your friend, if someone has difficulty locating things they don't otherwise notice.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

Longford said:


> From this:
> 
> Mexicans Back Military Campaign Against Cartels | Pew Global Attitudes Project


You have to be careful about extrapolating data from a poll that used 1200 subjects to a country of 100 million. It's one thing to ask "do you have diabetes". The response is simple and binary. It's nearly impossible to get any meaningful statistical power in a poll with this many items, no matter how careful your sampling methods may be. The methodology they published is very limited. I'd be interested to see how they stratified their sample. 

The minute a US convoy came across the border, the same poll of the same subjects would likely drop to 1%. The fact that their poll showed such a high percentage of people who believe the government is making progress leads one to suspect all of their published findings. 

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting. What they hide is essential.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

stilltraveling said:


> The fact that their poll showed such a high percentage of people who believe the government is making progress leads one to suspect all of their published findings.


I've spoken to, listened to and witnessed the expressions of Mexicans on the topic sufficiently to form my own opinion regarding national sentiments, and to understand that this survey (the Pew survey) and other surveys reporting similarly and from varying sources are far more accurate than proclamations offered anonymously on web forums.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

Longford said:


> I've spoken to, listened to and witnessed the expressions of Mexicans on the topic sufficiently to form my own opinion regarding national sentiments, and to understand that this survey (the Pew survey) and other surveys reporting similarly and from varying sources are far more accurate than proclamations offered anonymously on web forums.


And I'm sure you've done so throughout the republic, in rural areas, city slums and posh urban centers.


----------



## 146028 (Nov 16, 2011)

Longford said:


> From this:
> 
> Mexicans Back Military Campaign Against Cartels | Pew Global Attitudes Project
> 
> ...


Yeah I know, I usually try to look for things myself. It's just that, the thought of anyone supporting this baffles me.

It's hard to tell apart between regular citizens and cartel members, so there is a lot of room for civilian casualties. And I would hate it if cartel members dressed up as Mexican soldiers with the sole purpose of attacking American troops. It would make things much more complicated for everyone. Not to mention that the UN has actually told the Mexican government to withdraw the army from the streets:

UN wants Mexico to withdraw army from war against drug cartels

UN questions Mexican Army's role in drug war

That's not the direction the government is taking though.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

I don't have you' alls personal experience but I do read and research a lot.
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:
-The "drug war" has less chance of success then getting the tribal groups in Afganistan to put down their arms, embrace each other and grow corn.
-The only way to make progress is to legalize marijuana and treat other drugs as prescriptions. Up till about the 30's, drugs much like alcohol and other prescriptions.
-Any incursion by US agents/military would be unmitigated disaster!
-I don't think that the cartel violence genie can be put back into the bottle for the two reasons discussed in this thread-the "leader lopping" that has fragmented many cartels and the Zetas.
-Again, I'm no expert but my view is that the Zetas were a very well trained group of thugs that started as enforcers for the Gulf Cartel. Eventually they asked, "Why do we need these clowns?". They went to war with the Gulf cartel and now basically control the states of Tamaulipas & Vera Cruz. They then moved into Monterrey and points west. They set up alliance with La Familia in Michoacan to get foot hold south of El Chapo but La Familia fragmented and they have set up alliances with mini-goon fragments in Jalisco.
The Zetas, unlike the older cartels, never really had the channels to obtain the drugs to keep their channels flowing. In addition to lashing out at other cartels to seize their drugs and routes, this led them to aggressively expand their crime wave inside Mexico with a major focus on extortion and kidnapping.
I really don't think that the other cartels have any idea how to stop the Zetas and privately hope the military can.
-I really think things will get worse before they get better and I haven't heard any solutions that make sense as relates to the Zetas.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

I hate to double up postings but found this article on the somewhat shifting view of the "drug war".
NYT: US rethinks drug war as pill abuse rises - World news - The New York Times - NBCNews.com


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

stilltraveling said:


> Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting. What they hide is essential.


:clap2:
exquisite, wish i had thought of it!


----------

