tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937732.post116365752766920438..comments2007-03-13T10:05:02.973-06:00Ana Maria Salazarhttps://profiles.google.com/107486487401339792932noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937732.post-1163811978293592022006-11-17T19:06:00.000-06:002006-11-17T19:06:00.000-06:00This is foolish. I'm always up for a trip to Mexico City and recommend it to all my friends as a can't miss destination in Mexico.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937732.post-1163727747029779882006-11-16T19:42:00.000-06:002006-11-16T19:42:00.000-06:00I have no trust whatever in the objectivity of the U. S. officials in this matter. However, we should beware of the fallacy, denounced many years ago by logician Max Black, of classifying authors instead of understanding texts. <BR/><BR/> Far too many people are paying attention only to their party line. They cheer when an author follows that line, or seems to do it, and tries to bannish those who don´t. Recently I have read several statmentes to the effect that competent analysts like Jorge Fernández Menéndez are slavishly working for the government, or that Denise Marker has sold out to those interests. <BR/><BR/> I see in Jorge a thinking man that always gives good reasons for what he says. And I see no reason for which Denise would have to be consumed in the Viking, Tabascan and Oaxacan Funeral of Andrés Manuel because she once liked his politics.<BR/><BR/> We should respect people, and try to understand what they say in their own terms. If there are reliable data that point out to a lack of honesty in an author or politican, we might venture an hypothesis in that direction, never forgetting that it is an hypothesis, and that we can´t read minds.<BR/><BR/> If we analyze what people actually SAY, we can dialogue with them and with third parties, and walk together toward a mutual understanding. If we dismiss them because we don´t like their politics, we´ll foster collisions, and social disintegration. <BR/><BR/> We might even dishonestly attribute to them the opposite of hwat they are saying or doing. This happened when fanatical anticommunists atacked the Mexican Communist Party for defending the soviet invasion of Aghanistan. In fact, it had denounced that invasion. This manichaeism should always be criticized and exposed. <BR/><BR/> A lot of trash has been said for political reasons about the present state of our national security. FOX can´t control drug gangs! Sure; I wonder if anybody can. But he can´t control them, in a good measure, because it had already grown too powerful before he reached power. <BR/><BR/> It started too grow with De La Madrid, and it seems that his Secretary of Defense was implicated in that. In those years López Obrador, who entered Pri after the Dirty War, thereby endorsing it, was still a distinguished Pri leader. And Zedillo appointed as drug zar a general that later had to be sent to jail. <BR/><BR/> This is only scratching the surface, of course. But the amount of violence is there, and would shatter the nerves of any sane society. Add to this mess the lots of de facto governments (cacicazgos) that already exist (some of the most flourishing ones grow and prosper in the Coalition-Frente), and the wannabes like Flavio Sosa, and you have monstrous trouble. <BR/><BR/> We don´t need the CIA, the FBI, the CISEN or the PGR to know this, and we should´t believe them if they denied it. What we have to realize is that this gigantic mess is the work of us all, and that it won´t be cleaned up without the work of all México. <BR/><BR/> Manichaeism is a very pleasant state to be in, like those induced by LSD, Marijuana and the like. It is also one of the main causes of this disaster. We should stop paying attention only to those that follow our own party line and sentencing the others without hearing and ttrying to understand them. That´s anopther root cause.Rodrigo Saldaña Guerrerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03931168077758019124noreply@blogger.com