Pacquiao!

About Oscar De La Hoya's next opponent, this from Dan Rafael:

Manny Pacquiao: Some will laugh and say this isn't a realistic match because of the size difference. But you know what? They would be wrong. The fight is entirely possible and I am told that it's a fight that De La Hoya is interested in. Obviously, Pacquiao would have to beat David Diaz June 28 for a lightweight belt and look good doing it. I'm not sure De La Hoya wants to wait that long to set his fight, particularly because it's no lock that Pacquiao beats Diaz. But the Pacquiao side would take the fight in a heartbeat. Back in October, when I first wrote a blog detailing my conversation with HBO's Larry Merchant, who conceived the fight, I called Pacquiao promoter Bob Arum of Top Rank for his thoughts on Merchant's fantasy. Here's what he said back then: "We'll take it. I don't even have to call Manny. I am sure he would accept the challenge without question."

That's why we love the guy. That, and for his goofy grin when he fights. And his cheesy No Fear sponsorship. And for his reputation as a bit of a boozer and a pool player and a fun guy. At some point after his career, Manny Pacquiao's last name needs to be converted into a noun, perhaps meaning someone fearless, or, if he fights Oscar, an unreachable but still entertaining quest. Or maybe some sort of food, like a chili dog covered in bamboo shoots, which would attack your stomach with all the intensity of the Pac Man.

More Mergers

Excelsior is reporting that the Zetas have now allied themselves with the Juárez Cartel. Hopefully, alliances like this will eventually lead to some sort of oligarchic control of the drug trade, so that the dead bodies strewn about the streets of Mexico are fewer. Given all the recent violence in Chihuahua, such a development still seems a ways off.

Calderón Down, Ebrard Up

At least in Mexico City, that is. This poll shows that Marcelo Ebrard's approval rating has gone from 28 to 36 percent, while Calderón's has declined from 28 to 24 percent. The poll also shows that 67 percent of Mexicans think that the upcoming year will be economically worse or much worse than the past year, up from 35 percent in March of 2007.

Inconceivable!

Calderón calls the lack of a United States national database of drug trafficking networks inconceivable. Considering that the creation of a national criminal database in Mexico is a condition of the Mérida Initiative, he has a point. There are other similar examples of a disconnect between the US view of Mexico's drug problem and its handling of its own. For instance, government officials and media frequently lament the 4,000 deaths in Mexico attributable to drug violence since the beginning of Calderón's term, but in the same time period 25,000 Americans have been murdered, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that more than 4,000 of those had something to do with the drug trade (unfortunately, I've been unable to find any information that measures drug crime as a whole across the nation). The violence in Mexico is obviously more threatening for a number of reasons, but it exists on both sides of the border.

The United States is rightly encouraging Mexico to approach things a little differently, but what changes in drug policy is the US considering? The oft repeated bit about the need for Americans to recognize their role in fueling the Mexican drug trade is rarely more than a rhetorical sop. Perhaps one way for Mexico and the United States to get over the flap about conditions in the Mérida Initiative would be for the US to impose the same conditions included in the pact on itself. That way, the Mérida conditions could be presented as a list of governmental past practices for all nations involved (Central America too). It would still ruffle nationalist feathers in Mexico, but it's better than a unilateral requirement.

They've Gone Too Far

Mexicans have put up with the drug runners taking over the cities and corrupting their governments for decades now, but this could be the last straw: now they've gone and done messed with the celebrities! Evidently, Salma Hayek and Penélope Cruz stayed at a capo's house when they made Bandidas.

Though entertaining, I'm not sure why this is news. It's surely not the first time something like this has happened, it embarrasses two women who probably had no idea, and it tells us nothing.

Creel is Out!

Santiago Creel, whose performance in advocating the PAN's agenda during the energy reform debate calls to mind John Starks' in game 7 of the 1994 NBA Finals, has been removed from his leadership position in the Senate. The man behind the switch was PAN President Germán Martínez, presumably acting with President Calderón's support.

Creel was born in the on-deck circle and still somehow thinks he hit a triple. He was given all the advantages in the world in the contest for the PAN's 2006 presidential nomination, and still lost. He has a long political track record of falling short of expectations. Every new post offers evidence of him being a political lightweight. He recently polled as the panista in the best position to launch a presidential candidacy in 2012. One would hope that the survey was a more a reflection of name recognition than an estimation of political talent, because if it's Creel in 2012, panistas should be readying themselves for six years in the wilderness.

Kidding Kinsley

This sentence fits nicely in Michael Kinsley's column criticizing a new plan by the Tribune Company:

This article, by Jennifer Saba, a writer whose work I am not familiar with, although that is not intended in any way as an insult, reported that one Randy Michaels, who is described as chief operating officer of the Tribune Co., a media corporation based in Chicago that owns the Chicago Tribune (the company's flagship newspaper, and indeed the one the company is named after) as well as the Los Angeles Times, some TV stations, and the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball team, among other properties, had told the business community in its so-called "conference call" (a Wall Street ritual in which financial analysts and others are given an oral report on how a company is doing, so they can repeat this information to their customers) that the Tribune Co. intends to address the ongoing distress of the newspaper industry brought on by the Internet—distress that already has led to massive layoffs and buyouts and a major crisis of confidence if not identity at even the most prestigious and established and, one would have thought, profitable newspapers—by starting to measure the productivity of the journalists who are employed at the various tentacles of that institution.

Total word count: 197. Sadly, it's not too different from how my 15-year-old students write.

Meeting Delegations

Congressional delegations from Mexico and the United States are in the midst of a meeting in Monterrey, with the Mérida Initiative dominating the talks. Strangely, the Mexican media refers to the talks as the 47^th Intra-parliamentary Reunion, a showy title which gives the whole thing the flavor of a major golf tournament or awards ceremony. Maybe next year they can see if Jim Nantz is available to host the thing. Thankfully, the Associated Press’ Mark Walsh avoids any formal label in his write-up.

Anyway, one of the proposals regarding the Mérida Initiative and its bumpy road to approval is to incorporate the package into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. That may or may not be a good idea on its own, but it’s hard to see how it gets at the root of the problem: the US wants to have a bigger say over how Mexico spends its aid money than Mexico is prepared to give. The only real solution is for one side to concede. If the suggestion, proposed by American embassy official Leslie Bassett, is a half-assed scheme to get Mexico to agree to American conditions without the outcry south of the border, then it’s bound to fail.

Times Mag Interview

This week's The New York Times Magazine has an interesting interview with an unexpected subject: former Bogotá mayor Enrique Peñalosa, who has earned "wide praise for making the city a model of enlightened planning."

Oddly enough, just as I began wondering why we don't see more such interviews in the Times Magazine, my old friend Guillermo Sulzberger passed along this lost transcript of a canceled in interview with none other than Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Enjoy! And thanks, Memo!

Q: Are you running for president in 2012?
A: If the people want me. And they will.

How do you react to people calling you messianic?
That’s nonsense.

Is there another candidate who deserves the presidency?
No. Only I can save Mexico.

From what?
The mafia.

The drug cartels?
No, the mafia that stole the election from me. From us.

And what does the mafia want to do to Mexico?
To steal from the mouths of all Mexicans.

Steal what?
Our patrimony. And elections, too. But mostly our patrimony, starting with the oil.

But why is the oil in the mou…let’s change directions. You helped make Mexico City one of the most unlivable cities in the world. How?
That’s merely your opinion. Mexicans love it.

Transparency International ranked it the most corrupt city in the country.
But we now have a double-decker highway. A MetroBus, too. The city is far more beautiful than it ever was before. Honestly, I’m just the voice of the pueblo. Their servant. The Mexican people told me what they wanted.

And what they wanted was a lack of financial transparency, rising crime rates, chaotic traffic, et cetera?
This is a conspiracy against me! Why do you only focus on those three things?

OK, mayoral aids betting millions in Las Vegas?
To hell with this institution! I call on all loyal Mexicans to join me in physically preventing this interview from continuing! [Rattling sounds as a tent goes in the office. Stop tape.]

Feuding Directors

I see from the Plank that Clint Eastwood and Spike Lee are trading blows. I think in a battle between Mars Blackmon and Will Munny, I gotta lay my money on Munny.

Soccer, Fútbol, Football

Unfortunately, I was able to watch zero of the US national teams big recent games (thanks ESPN Deportes!), a 2-0 loss to England, a 1-0 loss to Spain, and a 0-0 tie against Argentina, the world's top team. The consensus seems to be we looked we were drowning, then barely treading water, and finally doggy-paddling and even blowing bubbles under water. In general, I think snagging one point in this brutal stretch is par for the course, especially considering that the point came against a pretty well loaded Argentine side. It'd have been nice to see a goal, but it'd have been nice for Lionel Messi to have been born in Skokie, too. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way.

Mexico bounced back from its own embarrassment against Argentina to destroy Peru 4-0, with all four coming in the game's first half hour. Actually, this game resembled the Argentina-Mexico game the week before, only against Peru the Mexicans looked more like Argentines than Mexicans. Peru's defense made some horrid mistakes, and the Arce, Guardado, and the rest of the gang made them pay.

About the Euro Cup, all I can think of to say is that even without doing anything spectacular, Cristiano Ronaldo looked spectacular. Kind of like Barry Sanders.

Chávez Backs Off

For Hugo Chávez, staying in power is as much an instinct as crawling is for a caterpillar. Every time he goes overboard, like getting caught financing terrorists or trying to force a Soviet-style intelligence law on his nation, he scrambles to get back in everyone's good graces with an accommodating gesture or two. Today, weeks after being caught funding the FARC to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and days after the new intelligence reform bill was presented, and hours after Venezuelan national guard officers were caught in Colombian with 40,000 rifle cartridges, Chávez is playing the chastened schoolboy. He is now encouraging the FARC to lay down their weapons and has removed the intelligence bill from consideration.

This is certainly a positive development, but I don't think it represents a long-term shift of priorities from Chávez. There's no reason to think he wants anything other than to stay in power indefinitely, and is inching toward that goal, two steps forward, one backwards. The objective for the international community has to be to keep him in his box, though unfortunately there's no international consensus on what his box should properly be. The nations that are most able to influence his actions (Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, and, until 2002, the United States) don't act in concert. The absence of any consensus on how to deal with Chávez allows him to play one nation off the other, and manipulate every situation to his maximum advantage.

My ideal scenario: Chávez would lighten up on the meddling in other nations as South American leaders (especially Lula and Bachelet) made it clear that they wouldn't accept it. At the same time, Venezuelan voters (and the military) would refuse to accept any constitutional modification to allow him to stay in office permanently. The United States would quietly (very, very quietly) support both developments. Then, hopefully, Chávez's time in office would wind down in relative tranquility, and in 2012 he would exit the world stage. [Fingers: crossed]

Americans Are Racist

Another Mexican commentator, César Cansino, tells us that Americans are too racist and conservative to elect a black man: 

But just as I anticipated Obama's triumph [in the Democratic primaries] a year and a half ago, I now put forth that the candidate will have a difficult time getting to the presidency of the US, whether its because the Americans elect next November his Republican opponent, or because the hidden forces and the interests behind the power in the United States block it. Certainly, envisioning catastrophic scenarios leads nowhere, but there exist an abundance of reasons to doubt that the whole of the American people, Anglo-Saxon and protestant, is prepared or predisposed to elect a black president, although his mother's white, or if the powerful influential ultraconservative sectors are willing to tolerate it.

Is this the silliest thing I've ever read? Hmmm. Pretty close. Good Christ, what is he talking about? Most glaringly, if the conservatives are "willing to tolerate it"? What? Put aside the fact that leading and cosmopolitan conservatives are as excited as anyone about the idea of a black prez (I'm talking about David Brooks, Jonah Goldberg, Ross Douthat, etc.), what are the racist conservatives going to do? Is Cansino suggesting a coup? An assassination? And what does he mean by catastrophic scenarios? I shudder to think, and Cansino never, ever should have written it. 

Cansino, who fancies himself a soothsayer for recognizing Obama's potential 18 months ago, also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of conservative power, which leads to that ridiculous comment comment about Obama's rise relying on their willingness to tolerate it. The conservative movement isn't a monolith pulling political strings, an idea that more cynical Mexicans often leap to embrace. Bush did not win in 2000 or 2004 because it was the will of Pete Coors or Richard Mellon Scaife. He won because he assembled a coalition of many different conservative groups (evangelicals, tax hawks, neocons, security moms), but that coalition is in disarray, and it wasn't going to be there for John McCain anyway. The conservative success of the past generation isn't some conspiracy, it's a broad-based, above-board, pseudo-populist phenomenon. And it's also a phenomenon whose time has passed. To the extent that there is a group of super-rich, super-powerful figures pulling levers in the US, it's Wall Street, which is inclining toward Obama, and Silicon Valley, which always leans left.  

I imagine that Cansino thinks that because Bush won the presidency in 2000 thanks to chicanery, the conservatives would be willing and able to do it again to prevent President Obama from taking the oath. That fantasy ignores the extraordinary singularity of Florida in 2000: an extremely close vote, the chad thing, the controversy over absentee ballots, a very dirty Bush campaign combined with abnormally accommodating Gore campaign, and the willingness of everyone to basically accept one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in our nation's history. 

Mexican Internet

The OECD tells us that Mexico's prices for high-speed internet are more expensive than any other country's in the 30-nation organization. I believe it. I pay TelMex some $35 a month (one more ivory backscratcher for Carlos Slim?). Further, my router is garbage, and maybe 75 percent of the time I have to walk to a cafe with wireless service. 

As a result, internet literacy is awful. Barely 20 percent of the nation uses the internet, despite the fact that 70 percent of Mexicans live in urban areas. That's lower than the percentage in Costa Rica, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay, not to mention the nations of western Europe and the East Asia. Not so hot, Mexico. 

Sunday Name-Gaming

I read about Rick Rubin discovering this guy last year in The New York Times Magazine, but it didn't dawn on me until I saw his CD this weekend: his name Paul Potts. Hmmmm. Not too different from one of the twentieth century's worst mass murderers. If your last name is, say, Stallings, do you think it helps or hurts your daughter's chances to be a superstar if you stick her with the name Josie?

Also, my brother accidentally wrote "O'bama" instead of "Obama" in an IM conversation this weekend. O'bama. Like O'Brian, or O'Bannon. Problems with working-class whites solved! Voila, now he's an up-by-the-bootstraps South Side Irishman! That O'bama really is an incredible politician, truly all things to all voters.

Floyd is Out!

So Floyd Mayweather has retired. Again. Most of the boxing press seems to think he’s serious this time. Assuming he is, where does Floyd stack up against the giants of his era? In terms of raw talent, I’d say second only to Roy Jones, Jr. He was a brilliant technician with lighting hands. Of course, boxing greats are not made on talent alone, but on their willingness to test themselves, and to shine in their biggest fights. Here, Floyd falls short of the all-time greats, and many of his contemporaries. He never looked for the biggest challenge the way Marco Antonio Barrera, Manny Pacquiao, and Erik Morales did, not too mention Sugar Ray Leonard or Tommy Hearns. Floyd has some huge wins on his ledger, but most come with a “but.” He dominated Diego Corrales, but Chico was starched going in and had a lengthy prison sentence awaiting him afterward. He owns a pair of wins over José Luis Castillo, but the first was a gift and the second was a track meet. Floyd beat De la Hoya, but Goldie had fought just once in three years before that, and the fight had all the passion of a game of gin rummy. In one of the best welterweight eras ever, Mayweather shied away from the toughest fights later in his career. I will always remember him as the man who turned down a guaranteed $8 million to fight Antonio Margarito, as the man that opted for Ricky Hatton instead of Miguel Cotto. The list of hall-of-famers he could have fought but didn’t is likely to be as long as the list of those he did.

Smartening Up the Chilenos

Marcela Sánchez and Andrés Oppenheimer both used this week's column to praise an innovative new Chilean education initiative. The South American nation announced the creation of a $6 billion fund --a sound reinvestment of high commodity revenues-- that will provide scholarships to students to attend universities around the globe. By 2012, the goal is to have 6,500 students enrolled in the program. 

Latin America has been slow to take advantage of the higher education opportunities available in the United States, a lapse which is all-the-more striking given the sorry state of the region's universities. This is a pretty simple program that, while not cheap, could bring enormous benefits in the long run. Hopefully, other nations will follow their lead. 

Chickens Roosting

Alejandro Meneses wrote about some disturbing signs for John McCain (and reasons for optimism in the Obama camp) in yesterday's El Universal. A few salient stats: 78 percent of Hispanic primary votes were tabulated in Democratic contests. The total Hispanic voting base now represents 15 percent of the electorate, compared with 9 percent in 2004. There will be 12 million Hispanic voters in the November race, an increase of 4 million from 2004. In 2006, a majority of Hispanic voters said immigration was motivating their vote. Bush carried 35 percent of Hispanics in 2000, and 40 percent in 2004, and they were vital to his victory in both years. After the Republicans' shameful immigration scaremongering in the past four years, it seems unlikely that McCain will be able to best W's numbers. 

The traditional demographic groups are bound to be a little mixed up this November, so maybe McCain doesn't need as many Hispanic votes as Bush did. But then, a lot of that reshuffling is going to leave McCain without voters that have typically been pro-Republican (traditional conservatives, evangelicals), so maybe he needs to not only match Bush, but outperform him. McCain is somewhat stronger than the rest of the Republican candidates would have been, given his sponsorship of a sensible immigration bill and his resistance of his party's immigration loons. Then again, he backed away from his support for migrants during the Republican primary season, and he has tried to distance himself from his own bill. His past stance has been replaced by a much more cautious, loon-friendly approach, which will probably leave Hispanics cold, despite McCain's past positions. 

In any event, the futility of the Republicans' alienating the fastest growing segment of the population was all-too-obvious a few years ago. Handing the rhetorical leadership on the issue to Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo was a monumentally stupid error. The political realities of the Republican Party in the 21st century forced McCain to the right during the primaries, and he and the party will likely suffer as a result. It may not be fair to McCain, but the chickens are coming home. Y'know, to roost. (I had to do something to mix up such a cliché.) 

Jorge Chabat, Thanks for Writing

The pleasure of reading Jorge Chabat's columns every two weeks is reason enough to learn Spanish. I can't think of a more consistently readable and sensible commentator in the entire country. He is typically reasonable this week, discussing how the Mérida Initiative ran aground.

The United States Senate, wary of transferring hundreds of millions of dollars to security forces that have been linked to human rights abuses, tacked a few conditions onto its approval of the Mérida Initiative: soldiers suspected of human rights abuses must be tried in civilian courts; Mexico must reinforce the independence of the National Human Rights Commission; and a database of Mexican solider and policemen must be created. Mexicans across the political spectrum rejected the conditions, and said that if strings are to be attached, then the money should stay in Washington.

As Chabat sees it, both countries' leaders are stuck in the past. Despite the fact that the Senate's conditions are basically reasonable (except, in my opinion, the one about soldiers being tried in civilian courts; that does seem over the line), Mexicans bristle at instructions from a neighbor that effectively robbed it of half its territory. But that was more than 150 years ago, and human rights concerns should be a goal both nations share in the 21st century. On the other hand, the Mexicans have made great strides in attacking corruption over the past two decades, but the Americans still act like it's 1985, and show little faith in the Mexicans' capacity to monitor the security forces themselves.

Knowing When To Say When: Colombia Edition

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is rightfully heralded for bringing the FARC to heel and helping to turn his nation's economy into one of continent's most dynamic, but he's got this unsettling habit of refusing to deny rumors that he wants a third term. Uribe is in the midst of his second term now, which he was able to serve only after modifying the constitution. He'd have to make another change to allow him to stand for a third term. If this makes you think of his neighbor Hugo Chávez, you're not alone. Uribe isn't the buffoon or the regional menace that Chávez is, but dictatorial tendencies are worrying regardless of who is exhibiting them, or at what volume. Uribe seems to think that Colombia's problems are so grave that only he can be trusted to confront them. If that's the case, the country hasn't advanced as much during Uribe's two terms as he claims. Colombia doesn't have a long history of effective democracy, but let's hope the nation firmly rejects this idea.

Brooks on Boomers

David Brooks has kind of a weird column suggesting that the prevailing narcissism of the Boomers is giving way to a service ethic in today's young people.

Really? We aren't narcissistic? As a 27-year-old, I'm a bit offended. Now, let me upload some videos of myself onto youtube, scan the old photos on my facebook page, and stare into a mirror for 45 minutes so that I may recover.

Brooks talks about the Boomers' unwillingness to face their demons, and puts forth W and Clinton being undone by their vices as evidence. He contrasts that to Lincoln's having wrestled with his own ambition and uniqueness at a younger age, so that when he reached the presidency, he was master of what plagued his character. I'm not sure that being laid low by one's flaws has a lot to do with the era. Just ask the Greeks. Or Shakespeare. The United States has certainly been unlucky in having two consecutive presidents singularly unable to overcome their shortcomings, just as it was extremely lucky in 1861 to inaugurate a man who could. Something tells me the next president will be closer to Lincoln than W in that sense, but it won't be because he's not a Boomer.

El Chapo on the Ropes?

Mexico's government is claiming to have all but shut down the operations of one of the country's most notorious kingpins, el Chapo Guzmán. Government forces have seized some huge shipments of cocaine in the year and a half since Felipe Calderón arrived in the presidency, and, evidently, most of it was his. All told, in thirteen months, the cartel lost more than $5 billion thanks to the government's anti-narcotics operations. Ironically, when Calderón first came to power, I remember hearing and reading quite a bit about how el Chapo was the "capo consentido," the kingpin most favored by the government. Guess not.

The Best and the Worst Mexican Governors

A new report, titled Encuesta Nacional 2008: Gobierno, Sociedad y Política, measures the level of trust Mexican governors receive from their constituents. The polling was built along an ingeniously simple premise: if voters had to leave town and the governor lived nearby, would they feel comfortable leaving the keys to their home to the state's highest elected official? Not surprisingly, Mario Marín of Puebla and Ulises Ruiz of Oaxaca wound up at the bottom of the list, with only three in ten voters saying that they'd feel OK about handing over the keys. And what did they do to merit such a ranking? The former keeps company with child molesters and kidnaps journalists, while the latter allegedly cheated his way to his post in 2005, and has since allowed his state to descend into something not quite as bad as anarchy. Rounding out the bottom three was Zeferino Torreblanca of Guerrero, whose more garden-variety poor governance has earned him widespread distrust, though not quite the notoriety of his counterparts.

On the plus side, Coahuila's own Humberto Moreira was among the three most highly rated, so good work Beto! Or maybe we're just suckers here.