Mercury Rising

What Militarization of the Center of Mexico?

Oh, you mean the anti-mob stuff that was removed as soon as Fox delivered his address to the Nation...

If PAN really meant to rule as a dictatorship, they would have wiped the floor with the perredistas who have kidnapped Reforma and el Zocalo a few weeks ago.

They have been pretty tolerant, all things considered.

Now, about de-listing PRD. How is that fascist? I mean, if PRD are refusing to recognize Mexican institutions, IFE, TRIFE, they disrespect the President and threaten to create an alternate Republic, they are asking for it themselves. (did you even listen to AMLO yell "al diablo con sus institiciones?")

The political crisis is not half as bad as you pretend it is. I know that morbid sickos like you enjoy bloodshd but it will not reach this poing in Mexico.

We have more sense than you give us credit for.

Yes, the madman from Tabasco will keep yelling fraud and will continue to produce false "proof" (like the confession Cubans forced Ahumada to make against the Government or like the forged birth certificate you presented) to support his case.

And, yes, a couple of thousand militants will listen to him, but Mexicans really want to move on so he will be deserted by those around him who have a little sense and, eventually, he will just be the local madman roaming the Zocalo yelling "this is mine, I am the President!" like in that "Cinema Paradiso" flick.

He will become a grotesque version of Emperor Norton.

And you will remain an ignorant whose opinion of Mexico is based exclusively upon reading what the extremely biased Jornada and Proceso say... very professional indeed.

I pity you and that bitter, bitter woman who does nothing but yell "FASCIST!!!!!!" whenever someone disagrees with her manicheistical views.

Why don´t you come down to Mexico and see that the "political crisis" has not prevented us Mexicans from working and going on with our lives?

Oh, yes... I forgot. You are very brave behind the keyboard, but you don't have the guts to face the music in person.

In any event, there is not going to be any bloodshed in Mexico, Charles, so you can put both hands back in the keyboard.

And there is not going to be any fascist military dictatorships in Mexico, Phoenix Woman, so you can cut down on the prozac.

She claims that it's good to keep me here "occupied" because that stops me from making pipe bombs (as if I were a perredista, they're the ones who incite all the violence).

She fails to see that if I and those of my class really wanted violence, we would send our people to teach the perredistas a lesson with a simple phone call (which means I could still be typing "bizzarre" comments here and kicking perredista butt).

Luckily for them, we are not of a violent nature. We are true democrats, unlike you and them, who only support democracy when your candidate wins but who yell "fraud" whenever you lose.

Understand something, if AMLO wants to start revolt, he will be dealt with in a couple of weeks. Less than 8% of the population support him now (check IBOPE for that info) and even the parties that sided with him in the election have abandoned him.

The army vowed never again to shoot civilians and I think that is a good thing.

But if AMLO threatens to start a revolution and arms his followers, they will stop being civilians and will become combatants who threaten Mexico and its peace.

The Army will be morally justified in shooting them.

Plus, if they got armed, the only way would be via Chavez, thus proving PAN propaganda right. AMLO would lose even more face among those who once supported him.

You are the blind ones here, Charles. You and your Phoenix Madwoman.
 

Fox is a US citizen?? WTF?

I love the "no militarization" but "the Army will be morally justified in shooting them" guy.

Looks like the wingers in Mexico make just as much sense as they do here. Even if they are more vicious (who would have thought it possible).
 

Sigh. Yet another person who won't sign in to Blogger so that they're bound by the rules.

Let's go down the list.
1. Thousands of policemen, water cannon, and barricades used as "anti-mob" measures. Minor issue: there was no mob. This was widely seen as panicked overreaction by people with a guilty conscience.
2. PAN could have "wiped the floor with the perredistas who have kidnapped Reforma and El Zocalo." Minor problem: Both Reforma and the Zocalo are public places. The demonstrators are the public. And the body leagally authorized to administer law and order is the DF police, not the federal police. The DF police do not see a problem.
3. Why is de-listing the PRD fascist? Item the first: The law requires that specific people be prosecuted for specific crimes, that one can't simply declare a political part illegal. If, for example, a deputy killed his wife, that would justify his prosecution. It would not justify handing his seat to a party that hadn't won an election in his district. Item the second: it's not clear that any laws were broken by occupying the dais. So, once again, wild overreaction by people with guilty consciences.
4. "I know that morbid sickos like [me] enjoy bloodshed." Some free advice: stick with your day job. Mind reading is not a career. First, it's a historical fact that the right wing-- under PRI-- spilled almost all of the blood spilled since Benito Juarez. Nor is it the left that is spilling blood in Oaxaca or in Atenco or the southern provinces. Second, I have made my own position clear abundantly and repeatedly: it's always the poor that suffer when the right feel threatened. No one who cares about the poor is glad to see social unrest. The morbid sickos are the ones sending death squads against (reasonably) peaceful Oaxacan protestors.
5. "There is not going to be any bloodshed in Mexico. Problem: There already is bloodshed. Dozens of people in Oaxaca and other places kidnapped, beaten, and murdered by death squads.
6. " We are true democrats, unlike you and them, who only support democracy when your candidate wins..." Minor problem: Lopez Obrador is not my candidate. Before July 2nd, I had no particular preference for who won the election. It has been the outrageous behavior of the PAN since July 2nd, including posts like yours, that has convinced me that PAN is a danger not only to Mexico but-- because Mexico exports its problems to the US-- to Americans. Ask yourself this simple question, if you can: If Calderon had won, why didn't he demand a full and open recount? If he had won, such a move would have cemented his legitimacy. His failure to take it made it clear what had happened.
7. " if AMLO wants to start revolt, he will be dealt with in a couple of weeks." But as he has repeatedly made plain, he doesn't want to start a revolt. Lopez Obrador is Mexico's Martin Luther King, offering a peaceful way forward. He is not arming himself. He is not stirring his followers to destroy. He has said that the existing institutions are corrupt and incapable of governing. He is creating a "shadow government," as the British call it. They do it regularly.

The violence and disordered spirit of your writing is the fruit of a guilty conscience, Mr. "True Democrat." As the Psalm says, "The wicked flee where none pursue."
 

Oh, hi, Lambert: La Jornada, the (left-wing, but pretty well-written) newspaper of the Univesidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico has published birth certificates demonstrating that Vicente Fox's grandfather claimed American citizenship for his father and that Fox's father claimed American citizenship for his older brother. I don't know if Fox's birth certificate is out, but it's pretty obvious that the family wanted to preserve the benefits of American citizenship.

This anonymous guy, Mexicano, seems to think the document is forged, but doesn't offer anything except an anonymous opinion. I suppose it's possible, but La Jornada plays things reasonably straight. Certainly it's better than the PANist media, which have been pretending that nothing is happening in Mexico.

Time will tell. In the meantime, I think the image of Mexico being cuckolded by an American is apt to describe what has happened over the past years.
 

Here's my attempt to prepare us all for the next few days....
 

Hey Lambert, the fact that UNAM hosts La Jornada's website does not mean that it is the University's newspaper.

If all your facts are as accurate as this, then small wonder you believe the lies about the fraud.

Oh, and Galbraith's numbers have been debunked by real staticians, like CIDE's Javier Aparicio.

Oh, and Charles. The COPIFE states that if a political party refuses to aknowledge TRIFE's ruling, it risks losing its registry, so perhaps you should read more about Mexico before talking.

What else?

Oh, yes, there WAS a mob, which was quickly dispersed by the anti-riot police. The fact that they chickened out does not mean they did not try to storm San Lazaro.

Let me see, what more lies of yours can I debunk?...

Oh, my favorite:

"it's a historical fact that the right wing-- under PRI-- spilled almost all of the blood spilled since Benito Juarez."

First, PRI did not exist in the times of Benito Juarez.

Second, it was Benito Juarez who began the hostilities against the legally established conservative Government (oddly enough, Juarez only succeded after selling his behind to the USA but historians have a tendency to overlook that minor fact).

Thir, PRI is not and never was right wing for crying out loud. PRI was founded as the PRN by Calles, a notorious anti-clerical leftist who fought the cristeros (and who conducted quite a lot of bloodshed himself)

PRI was later reformed by Cardenas, anotehr notorious leftist who had no problem in murdering right-winger Almazan's followers to ensure his fraud to get his puppet candidate, Avila Camacho, in the seat.

Oh, yes a lot of killing done by the leftists and it's only 1939.

By 1968, the illustrious leftist Echeverria ordered the infamous slaughter of the students in Tlaltelolco. Diaz Ordaz took the blame, yes, because he was a man (however flawed he was) but it was Echeverria's doing.

Later, in 1971, it was Echeverria again who ordered the "Halconazo" murdering students and members of the press.

The fact that it was "moderate" leftists ordering the murder of "radical" leftists does not mean it was right-wing violence.

PAN is the only right Mexico has ever had since the Conservative Party from the XIX Century.

PAN has seldom been involved in violent acts.

Violence in Atenco was ordered by a PRD major.
Violence in Oaxaca was ordered by a PRI Governor.
Violence in Michoacan was ordered by a PRD Governor.

Since DF is the seat of the Federal Government, Fox is allowed by law to sack the chief of DF police and order the removal of the camps.

He has not done that. Hardly the actions of a fascist militaristic dictator. Isn't it?

Oh, and DF sees no problem with the demonstrations because Encinas is little more than AMLO's serf.

I have no guilty conscience. Or perhaps I do.

Perhaps I do feel guilty for paying bribes to the PRD-led delegation which performs extorsion on me and most small businessmen (even if we have all our papers in order) to keep our business open.

I clear my conscience when I remember I have a responsibility towards my family and that of my employees.

Last, but not least. ¿AMLO is Mexico's MLK?

That's a good one... Tell me something

¿Did MLK charge a 30% fee to their supporters as AMLO did in 1996 when he got several millions from the then DF major Camacho Solis for whithrawing the camps built by Villahermosa's cleaning service workers?

¿Did MLK fund his movement by taking bribes from unregulated cab drivers and street vendors?

¿Could MLK's driver afford to send his kid to a private school that costs 1 million dollars a year in tuition?

I doubt it.

Understand this: I am no PANista. PAN is a bunch of crooks but, at least, they are capable crooks.

PRD is also a bunch of crooks, but they are the worst kind (ex priistas) and they are led by a megalomaniac.

He may speak of peace, but his closest supporters speak of violence (so that he can come clean to the word press).

Mark my words: he is a madman and he will bring no good to Mexico or the world.

His demands are fair. The poor have been forgotten in Mexico for too long. But his methods will take us nowhere.

Calderon is no idiot. He knows that his only chance of survival is enforcing real and effective actions to benefit the poor.

Change will come to Mexico, and it will come in a peaceful manner.

PRD will drop AMLO and may become a good left which will force PAN and PRI to enforce the fair reforms Mexico need.

And you have every right to voice your opinion.

I would only ask you not to rock the boat too much.

I have no guilty conscience, but I must confess I am a bit scared. I have a 2 year daughter and I don't want her growing up in a country engulfed in civil war.

We honestly, really , need no revolutions... thank you very much
 

Oh, and one last thing:

I can think of at least 3 reasons Calderon did not order the recount:

1)Because he is not allowed by the law to do so. Only TRIFE can order recounts and Calderon has been pretty respectful of the law throughout his career.

2)Because doing so would have meant yielding to the whims of an embittered opponent, thus losing face with the millions Mexicans who supported him.

Plus, that would have conveyed the message that he is weak enough to be cowered by anyone who takes his followers to the streed demanding things and that would set a nasty precedent.

3)Because that putting the official count in doubt would mean he does not trust the 1 million Mexicans who counted the votes on the 2 of July. It would also mean he does not trust IFE and, in general, Mexican institutions.

As a man of the Law, he has always been very respectful of institutions and he will not stop doing so just because AMLO is throwing a tantrum.

If you think his refusal to openly order a recount is admittal of fraud then it is you who have a dirty mind and, thus, a guilty conscience.

You should researh AMLO's biography (at an unbiased source, of course, La Jornada will not do) and see that he has refused to admit defeat in any of the elections he he has been involved in (pretty much, all of them except his coup to gain control of PRD in the 90's and his victory in DF in 2000).

He always yelled "fraud" and has always been proven wrong. He has always claimed to do "pacific resistance" yet his demonstrations always end in violence (like the infamous Oil Well incident in 1995)

Why should it be different now?

The man has said more lies during his career than Barnum would have had he lived to be a 1000 years old.

Why should we believe him now?

By the by, if you care so much for Fox's right to be President on account of his father purportedly being "American" (a citizenship which, by the way, does not legally exist) then why are you not concerned about AMLO being DF Major when he did not comply with the 5 year minimum residency required by law?

Do I sense an accute case of "double-standarditis"?

Have a nice one, Charles, I do have a life and have already wasted too much of it dealing with a two-cent blogger like you.
 

Dear Mr. Anonymous Mexicano:

It was not Lambert who said that La Jornada was UNAM's newspaper. It was me. My error, mine alone.

So, speaking of getting facts right, you missed a very obvious one.

Now, maybe you could climb down off your arrogance and start talking like a human being?

It is this arrogance, this quickness to talk of murder and seizing power, the disregard for the opinion of others that has convinced me that PAN is a danger, not only to Mexico, but to my country. Every PANista with whom I have come in contact has behaved like a thug.

I am not going to argue history with you. However, you appear to be unaware that Echeverria has been identified as a CIA agent by Philip Agee. I would suggest that you consider the possibility that Echeverria pretended to be a member of the left while he was in fact being controlled by the American right.

This is the problem in understanding Mexican politics. Unless one understands the role of money, especially US money, in the violence, very little makes sense.

But the facts are clear. PAN was elected six years ago to reform Mexico. Instead, the economy has stagnated and all the promises to renew the country have come to nothing. What people see ahead is privatization of Pemex, privatization of electricity, privatization of social security-- and deepening of poverty.

It is those people-- combined with the economic facts as they emerge-- who will determine what happens. Nothing I say or do will change it. I am merely here to predict. My record of predictions is fairly good. For example, if you read our archives, you'll find that I asked questions about the Hariri assassination that seem to have been prescient.

On a personal note: if you, Mr. Anonymous Mexicano, believe what you say, then stop paying the "extortion" that you complain about. Put your body on the line. Start living with dignity. But if you can't bring yourself to sign your own statements. Jijos.

Your two year old daughter will not disrespect you because of political unrest. But she is not likely to respect you if you don't have even that much courage of conviction.
 

Considering Lambert and you have the same manicheist views and only post to blow smoke up each other's behind it was not hard to mistake one for the other.

Anyway, I don't know how you expect to have much of a credibility when you make such an obvious mistake concerning your only source for news about Mexico (that is, of course, not counting narconews, probably the most trusted name in serious journalism *winks*)

I will not sign my statement for the same reason you most probably do not write with your real name here...

Because I respect my privacy.

Thugs like senderodelpeje have been known to seek out personal information about people who disagree with them and them publish their home and work addresses and phone numbers on their blogs so that their PRD thugs can launch phone-terrorism campaigns them, threatening their families and their employees. Perhaps even stalk them and beat them up.

You seem to like senderodelpeje a lot (even if its author is on the PRD payroll, which is illegal since he is legally a US resident) so I can reasonably suspect you could always resort to such thuggish ways.

But if you really understood Mexico you would know that you cannot just say "I am not paying your extorsion anymore..." and expect not to have someone threaten with kidnapping your family (let alone keeping your business open).

I have plenty of people on my payroll who would care little for your ideas of dignity if I left them unemployed just because I decided to go on a one-man cruzade against PRD corruption.

Ideals do not put food on the table and my daughter's well-being is worth more than all of your romantic dreams.

Since you probably still live in your mother's basement and most likely will never reproduce (thank God for little mercies), it is easy to see why you can't understand the feeling.

But back on subject:

So Echeverría was a CIA agent? Wow!!!! And to prove such a far-fetched statement you direct me to the oh-so-trustworthy Wikipedia!!!

Tell me. Were Calles and Cardenas also CIA agents when they ordered the murder of hundreds of right-wingers? Were they brainwashed in Area 52?

How do I know AMLO is not in fact a CIA agent pretending to be a leftist?

How do I know YOU are not in fact a CIA agent pretending to be a blogger (which would explain why you want to know my personal info so much).

God, how I love you conspiracy theoricists.

Even if we took Echeverria out of the loop, we would still see that most of the blood spilled in Mexico during the 20th century was because of the leftists or their proxies:

Zapata, Villa, Obregon, Calles, Cardenas.

But why mention history when you seem to know it all? (this despite the fact that you have quoted from la Jornada for God-knows-how-long without realising it was not UNAM's newspaper... the sharpest tool in the shed you are not, buddy)

And, in addition to this, you are also a sooth-sayer?

You say you have a great track record of predictions because you wondered about who might have killed Hariri?

God, then I must be the greatest soothsayer in the world because 10 years ago I predicted that Pope John Paul II would eventually die... and he did!!!!

If you are such a great profet then why do you say I am a PANista when I am not?

Do you really think that everyone who is fedup with that madman's antics is a PANista?

I mean, people at PAN would love to hear that... that would mean their membership has raised to over 85 million people (if not more).

Why do you see things in black and white?

Why can't you see nuances in things?

Why do you put everyone who does not agree with you in the same bag?

In short: Why don't you grow old, kid?
 

Anonymous, you hide your face and you expect to be believed.

You say you are leaving forever, but you're back expecting to be believed.

You make fallacious claims that aren't supported by any citations, but expect to be believed.

It's this kind of deranged, delusional, and incompetent bullying that characterizes the PAN nowadays. Whether your own deranged, delusional, incompetent bullying is that of a PANist, I can't say.

Maybe they wouldn't let you join.
 

You spend months making the same fallacious claims and can only quote from 2 sources (which are widely ackowledged to be biased) and don´t even know that one of them is not UNAM's newspaper and expect to be believed?

Tell me something, Charles. Is that your real name? Is "phoenix woman" her real name (it must have been hell for her in high-school if that is the case).

I do not need to provide citations.

It is not me but you who claims to be the truthful "blogger" who rubs himself with the Bible on one hand while he slanders Mexican institutions with the other (and failing to provide any proof other than the ramblings of La Jornada and Proceso).

If you don´t believe what I said about Calles and Cardenas (which proves how little you know of Mexican history) here are some books for your education:

José Vasconcelos. Breve Historia de México. Editorial Trillas, México 2002.

Cf. Schlarman. México, Tierra de Volcanes. Editorial Porrua, México 1987.

Krauze, Enrique. Lázaro Cárdenas. Biografía del Poder No. 8, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México 1996.

Ledit, S.J., Joseph. El Frente de los Pobres, Ediciones Spes, México 1955.

Books, Charles, not links to an obscure website (who in his right mind can take "narconews" seriously?) or Wikipedia (which, for all I know, you can easily change for it to fit your opinions).

Books, Charles, those little cute things we used to read before the internet came along.

When was the last time you read one?

I know what you are doing, though. You are focusing on attacking me because you don´t have the arguments to counter what I say.

You figure, if you destroy my character, you will demolish my arguments.

You are making a simple logical mistake here, Charles, because since I am under a nom-de-plum (although sometimes I forget to type it and appear as "Anonymous") I have no good standing you can harm or character you can destroy.

For all you know, I could be the President of Mexico himself, a perredista pretending to have voted for Calderon to make him look bad or even your next-door-neighbor.

It is silly, then, trying to focus on my personna.

Why don´t you focus on my arguments? Why don´t you do some research (beyond Wikipedia, please) and see if any of them might be true?

Because dismissing everything I write just because you don´t like me as a person is a big mistake and a big no-no in logic (an ad-hominem fallacy, it is called).

I wonder what you consider bullying, though, as I seem to recall it was Phoenix Woman who began the hostilities, by calling me a Fascist as soon as I popped my head in the blog.

Is that your respect for those who dissent?

Who is the real fascist?

P.S. I make fallacious accusations?

Here is the proof that senderodelpeje publishes personal information about the people they dislike (after slandering them with false accusations):

http://senderodelpeje.blogspot.com/2006/08/nota-respecto-al-blog-contra-el.html
 

Here's a thought for you:

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

You know, the principle that, more or less, states that "the simplest explanation is usually the best"?

Well, we have two hypothesis here:

a) Every single PANista in the world (several millions) along with every single person who, while not PANista, decided to vote against AMLO (give or take, 65 million people) is a thug and a bully who is out there to get Charles.

b) Charles is , in fact, the thug who, by resorting to cheap shots, to name calling and to frequent lying, brings the worse out of every person he argues with who does not share his views.

Given that a quick glance at the archives proves that Charles has had the same kind of arguments (and resorts to the same mature practices such as name-calling and slandering) with pretty much anyone who disagrees with him on pretty much any subject (Terrorism, religion, politics, you name it...) it does not take a PhD to figure out which is the most plausible explanation.

By the way, Charles, you have failed to address the 3 good reasons I offered for not ordering the full recount.

Friday cat blogger ate your tongue? Or, perhaps, it is because you ran out of arguments? (that is, if you ever had any)

I can hardly wait to see you quote on the Bible again in a pathetic attempt to attack me.

For now, I give you a dose of your own medicine, by warning you of your warmongering amond Mexicans:

"Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves. Luke 17:1
 

Strange, this: "Mexicano" and his sock puppet (who I call "The Blank One" because "Mexicano" wouldn't type in anything for a name and wanted to pretend that he wasn't really the same as "Mexicano") promised to leave, what? Two days and five (or is it six?) posts ago?

And he's still here? And posting novel-length posts filled with things that have at best a tangential relationship to the subject at hand? Poor man, he's either paid to post or he's addicted.

Interestingly enough, all the PANistas we've encountered here at MR aren't actually from Mexico. In fact, I suspect that they are all the same man, whose "day job" takes him from place to place in Western and Eastern Europe. Wonder when he'll admit it?
 

Oh, I never claimed to be any other than myself... It is by mistake that I have posted as Anonymous a couple of times but I never lied about it.

And I never promised I would leave. I SAID I would, but thougt better of it and decided to come back. It is great fun to see how you two go to great lenghts in your attempts to attack my character yet fail to address any of my arguments.

I soy mexicano... pueden estar 100% seguros de ello.
 

Oh, and Phoenix Woman, even us Mexicans can afford to buy Plane tickets and take holidays (specially when we don't want our families to be in Mexico City during this dark days).

What? Envy?

Does it really feel so bad to learn that someone from a purportedly 3rd World Country could be so much more wealthy than you that he can afford to visit countries you can only see in postcards?

Are you trying to investigate me? Are you trying to follow my IP address? Do you want to publish my personal info on your blog so that your perredista friends can harrass me like your colleagues at senderodelpeje do?

It would appear like you are the real fascist here.

But you will not bully me into silence, I am afraid.

You will just have to get used to me and buy lots of prozac.

Alternatively, you could stop printing lies about my country. That would effectively drive me away.
 

What "arguments", Moscow Mex? Charles has addressed them all. You just keep pretending that he hasn't. (In the one case where he was in the wrong, he not only admitted it, he corrected you when you tried to pin his error on Lambert.)

There's no point in trying to reason with someone who is as dishonest as you. But there is mild amusement in spending a few minutes in typing a comment that will send dishonest and verbose typists like you into a day-long, time-wasting flurry of key-clacking, simply because you feel you MUST have the last word (or the last three comments) and you confuse "having the last word" with actually winning the argument.

By the way, what do you think of the refusal of the Mexican electoral authorities to allow anyone to see how they're doing it? What could they be hiding?
 

Has he addressed them all?

He is yet to comment on my reasons why the recount was not a good idea.

He is yet to say anything about Cardenas and Calles.

He is yet to say anything about a mob actually trying to storm San Lázaro.

He is yet to say anything about PRD and PRI being behind the violence in Atenco, Oaxaca and Michoacan.

He is yet to say anything about Fox being legally permitted to sack the head of DF police and order the camps to be wiped out, yet he has not done so.

He is yet to say anything about COFIPE actually stating why is it that PRD could lose it´s registry.

He is yet to say anything about AMLO's embezzelment through street vendors and unregulated taxi drivers.

Oh, and TRIFE are following a legal procedure. They are not hiding anything, as they are not legally bound to reveal the process until they proceed to the final ruling.

CEPR may speculate all they want (Who is this CEPR anyway? How can they claim to know better than TRIFE?) but they do not have access to the ballots and the certificates, so their guess is as good (or, most likely, as bad) as anyone's.

Their arbitrarily chosen sample represents nothing, as there have been other, more seriously conducted studies, that show a reduction in AMLO's votes as well.

Anyway, is there any law against Mexicans travelling to Moscow? Are we too "banana republic" to do so?

Or is it, as I rightly guessed earlier, just you being green of envy in addition to bitter and rude?

If you want, I'll admit to being whomever you want me to. Yes, I am that other guy who... well I don't know what he did but yes I'm him. Why not? I am also the guy who picked on you at High school for having such a funny name as "Phoenix Woman" (Was your dad's name Phoibo Woman?)

Oh, and I ordered JFK to be shot.

So now that we have established that I am the single most horrible person on Earth and I should be stoned, hung from the gallow's pole and stretched on the rack (preferably all at the same time) can you forget about me for a while and focus on trying to counter my arguments?

Oh, you can't... Small wonder.
 

Dear Mr. Anonymous "Mexican":

This is my pen name. I have published a number of articles under it. I have an e-mail address. All of this creates accountability.

By refusing to use a Blogger identity, you refuse to accept accountability.

But your identity is less secure than you imagine. Your character oozes from your writing. For example, we examine who exactly was Jose Vasconcelos?

Although an important figure in the history of Mexico's intellectualism, he is now recognized as a racist and antisemite, as well as anti-US.

It's interesting that you should use Krauze as a citation to attack Cardenas. As much as he despises AMLO, he is quite favorable to Cardenas saying Cardenas:

Lázaro Cárdenas fue un presidente popular pero no populista. De temple suave, pacífico y moderado, tan silencioso y ajeno a la retórica que lo apodaban “La esfinge”, en los años treinta repartió dieciocho millones de hectáreas entre un millón de campesinos. Cárdenas fue un constructor interesado en los detalles prácticos, quiso que los campesinos llegaran a ser autónomos y prósperos mediante la organización ejidal colectiva o a través de la pequeña propiedad, ambas apoyadas por la banca oficial... Con todo, Cárdenas no atizó el odio de clases ni era proclive a las ideologías que lo propugnaban. De hecho, tras la expropiación petrolera, Cárdenas fue el precursor de la industrialización en México y para ello fundó el Instituto Politécnico Nacional.

I guess The Party didn't tell you you had to actually read the books in the bibliography.

The point is that you were offered repeatedly a chance to talk about issues as a human being.

You have refused to do so.

I could have deleted your posts from the beginning.

But I actually believe in free speech.

However, like all people, I have my limits.

I am not your monkey.

I suggest that you find some other site on which to post.
 

Again, you quote wikipedia to form your opinions.

How very proffessional of you.

However, you should read Krauze's book, not the article he wrote about AMLO.

Are you trying to accuse me of being an anti-semite?

Jeez... pretty much the opposite. I, unlike you, believe in Israel's right to exist.

Where have I failed to discuss issues like a human?

It is you and Phoenix Woman here who have resorted to character assasination, slander and name-calling.

It was Phoenix Woman who tried to investigate me and now you threaten to violate my privacy, pretty much like your thuggish friends at senderodelpeje do.

And even as you are threatening me, you have the gall to question my (now obviously wise) decision not to disclose my private information?

Anyway: You address one or two of my points (with very weak arguments, by the way) and then chose to ignore the rest.

Why?

Could it be because you have nothing to refute them with?

In any event, here are some links for your entertainment:

http://www.laopinion.com.mx/editorial/nota.php?columna=2

http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=136271

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/372990.html

Just so you know how off-the mark you are in everything.
 

Poor thing, he's addicted! And don't you love his pitiful attempts to change the subject when caught?

Wow, Charles. If we keep this up, he'll soon start to forget to eat or to sleep, and then the problem will solve itself.
 

. Mexicano says: Where have I failed to discuss issues like a human?

Where have you tried to discuss issues without ad hominem?

Any person who begins his visit to a site by accusing its hosts of being "morbid sickos" is behaving like a thug and deserves to be treated as such.

I, unlike you, believe in Israel's right to exist.

This accusation is a flaming lie, a lie used to cover up a very ugly fact about yourself.

You have used a racialist-- anti-Indian-- writer-- to attack President Cardenas, widely known for having protected indigenous rights. You claim to have read the book, in which case it would seem you approve of racism.

And even as you are threatening me, you have the gall to question my (now obviously wise) decision not to disclose my private information?

I have all of the necessary information and am debating whether to write to your ISP to discuss your abusive posts; failiung their cooperation, we can of course delete everything you post. But I am willing to humiliate you before seeking to get you banned, if you prefer.

You are requested-- for the second time-- to post somewhere else.