Be Not Afraid

After offering readers a brief rundown of the global causes of the present crisis, Macario Schettino sounds an optimistic note in confronting it:

The crisis means that American consumers have to pay for their excesses, and they must do so now consuming less than before. The problem for the world is that these excesses represent 5 percent of world production. Overall, then, the world will have to contract by that proportion in the coming months. That's all, but that's a lot.

If you don't lose your job, the crisis doesn't exist for you. Don't doubt the reality, and don't worry in vain.

On a somewhat related topic, this crisis has made much clearer than ever before what FDR was talking about in his first inaugural address.

From the Annals of Soccer Craziness

With a nod to the brothers for the compilation, it's been quite a week:

1) With Van Der Saar giving chase in his Bentley, Ronaldo crashes his Ferrari.

2) Messi sticks his finger in Ronaldo's eye days before the latter is to be crowned footballer of the year for 2008.

3) Very early in the freezing morning the day of the showdown with Man U, Chelsea's hotel is evacuated for a fire alarm.

4) The preceding is the fault of Diego Maradona and his Cubans.

5) Frank Ribery takes the Bayern Munich team bus for a joy ride in Dubai, and crashes it.

6) Rafa Benítez and Alex Ferguson trade jabs, while the Special One characteristically stands to one side tooting his own horn.

DoD Worries

According to a new report from the US Department of Defense cited by El Universal, Mexico and Pakistan head the list of countries at risk of a sudden collapse that would require military intervention.

I've not read the report, and I suspect that the article's author is leaping on the most sensational aspects of what is probably a much more anodyne analysis; otherwise, it'd be a much bigger story here. In any event, putting Mexico alongside Pakistan in terms of failed-state risk is, as I've written before, ridiculous. The drug dealers here are, Michoacán notwithstanding, not terrorists. They have no political designs. They don't want to replace the state; they merely want the state to accomodate their business interests. If you accept the murder-rate statistic provided by Pan-American Health Organization (I think it might be a little low, but not so far off), Mexico's murder rate is about 11 per 100,000 inhabitants, far less than Brazil's, Colombia's, or Venezuela's. Mexico exhibits very few of the characteristics of a failed state, such as sharp economic decline brought on by instability, or the mass dislocation of people by force.

Another Look at Nafta?

El Universal reports that Obama and Calderón professed an interest in reexamining Nafta, which seemed to contradict both Calderón's recent statements as well as, less directly, Obama's post-campaign silence on the matter. In fact, the proposed re-visitation is nothing more than an effort to firm up the labor and environmental provisions, and not a far more consequential implementation of trade barriers.

New Blood

Last week, the DEA released a report detailing the new generation of leadership in Tijuana's Arellano Félix cartel, naming Luis Fernando Sánchez Arellano as the group's new leader. Sánchez Arellano is the oldest son of Enedina Arellano Félix, the sister of the group's founders and herself a major figure in the organization. After the capture/killing (virtually all in the last few years) of Ramón, Benjamín, Francisco Javier, Eduardo, Francisco Rafael, and Carlos Arellano Félix, Luis Fernando Sanchéz Arellano is said to represent the rise of the next generation. Wikipedia says he's 42, while this article says he's 34; but whatever the case, he's young, as are the rest of the new generation.

Maybe I'm imagining it, but I wonder why the DEA seems to show a disproportionate amount of attention to the Arellano Félix group. It's an important organization in a vital city, but it's less responsible for the chaos in Mexico than the Zetas, the Sinaloa capos, and the Juárez gangs. And there's plenty of unanswered questions about all of the preceding. Part of it may be that the DEA can actually point to some successes with the Arellanos. Who knows?

Whatever the case, this report is an implicit contradiction of the victorious tone from the DEA when Francisco Javier was arrested in 2006: "We've taken the head off the snake," was the formulation of the Chief of Operations Michael Braun. Even if you accept that explanation (and many experts did not), if murders in Tijuana jumped by 500 from 2007 to 2008, what good did the decapitation do? 

On His Own

That's what Leo Zuckermann is, at least among Mexican pundits, in pointing the the things W. did well. Not surprisingly, he focused on immigration and resisting protectionism. He also mentioned that Bush doesn't govern via public opinion polls, but for Zuckermann (not to mention the people of the United States) that wasn't a clear-cut positive.

A certain degree of disappointment about Barack Obama is inevitable everywhere, especially in Mexico. The honeymoon will wear off and people remember that he has called for tinkering with Nafta (and not in the way that Mexicans like), has shown little interest in Mexico and Latin America, and will not likely make immigration reform a priority (nor could he at this point, but he never gave the impression that it was going to be one the first-term agenda regardless of the financial crisis). All of these are very specific points against the president-elect from Mexico's perspective, in areas where, as Zuckermann points out, George Bush was actually pretty good. But as long he doesn't start a handful of wars, the attacks on Obama here will almost certainly be more muted than those on Bush. The reasons for Bush-hatred here are not Mexico-centric. Indeed, they are pretty much like they are everywhere: the War on Terror, the financial crisis, and, most of all, Iraq. That would lead one to conclude that, in assessing the popularity of an American president in Mexico, far more important than the specific minutiae of the bilateral relationship is his fulfilling his role as the a major international leader. (And doing so with style certainly helps.) If Obama can do that, I don't think it will matter all that much to Mexicans that his policies are not ideal.

Adios Tony

Tony Dungy is retiring. I always liked Dungy, who's a bit like a younger Joe Gibbs. I know nothing about his replacement Jim Caldwell, but I hope he's up for it. Barring abysmal coaching, if the team stays healthy and has a productive draft, the Colts should be among next year's Super Bowl favorites.

Sick of It

Secretary of Tourism Rodolfo Elizondo, the rare PAN heavyweight close to both Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón, was scathing in his assessment of Manuel Espino in a front-page interview on Excelsior today.

[If] he’s not content with the party, if he’s not content with the direction, if he’s not content with the performance of even the president of the republic himself, then the door is wide open. If no one has him here by force, then just how he came in, he can leave…

[Break]

You can’t continue in such a delicate moment, in terms of the country, in terms of the politics, economics, speaking out openly every time the señor has the urge.

Later, on Espino’s publicly voiced desire for a candidacy for federal deputy.

How can he, in a moment of crisis like the one the country is living, with such an enormous effort that the president of the republic is making, through it all this man has announced to obtain jobs and sustain the economy, and the Señor Espino runs around looking for a position, a position for which he doesn’t even want to risk popular election and he wants the president of the party to give it to him!

And, for good measure:

I have 26 years in the party; when I joined, Manuel was less than 20 years old. So he can tell me absolutely nothing, much less in the modern era.

I didn’t clarify this earlier in a post about Espino’s ambition to be a deputy: he doesn’t want to run for office in his home state, but rather wants one of the coveted party slate seats, allocated to each party based on its overall representation.

Tough Year

Why 2009 is likely to be a rough year for Felipe Calderón.

Calderón in Washington

Today, the Mexican president meets with the American president-elect. El Universal sees it as a chance to expand Obama's concept of the relationship:

[W]ithout counting the morning reunion with Feliep Calderón, Obama's interest in Mexico --judging by his words-- appears to be limited to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The relevance of the meeting lies in that probable disinterest or lack of awareness: the Mexican government must insist that Obama links the internal security of the United States with the security in Mexico. The violence here can't be understood without the traffic in arms from the United States, just as the passage of drugs through Mexico is incomprehensible without considering the demand for narcotics there.

Jorge Montaño, whose political writings are usually at odds with the El Universal editorial page, largely agrees, though with a more nationalistic and combative slant:

Anticipating a biased vision from the president-elect and his advisors toward the fight against organized crime in Mexico is essential. The escapist arguments that Obama must be hearing aren't new, but they have to know that the dimension of the problem is overwhelming both governments. The evasive answers regarding the commitments of the United States to confront the consumption of drugs, money laundering, chemical precursor exports, and arms traffic can't be treated with the present inefficiency of their authorities.

Calderón on the Attack

In Felipe Calderón's speech to Mexico ambassadors last week, the president made a thinly veiled attack on Vicente Fox's foreign policy: 

At the outset of our government we found that we were on bad terms with Cuba and we were on bad terms with the United States and we were on bad terms with Latin American and various other countries," said Calderón during a luncheon that he gave at the National Palace to the participants of the XX National Reunion of Ambassadors and Consuls.

In this administration "we have proposed to modify the terms of insertion of Mexico in the international community to ensure a presence that concords with the potential of the country..."

The comments have provoked a debate about the former president that splashed on the front page of today's Excelsior, with the PAN predictably divided on the question of Fox's foreign policy. Most of the panistas seem to agree that the foreign policy under Calderón has been less thorny, but they are divided on how much of the blame should be laid at Fox's feet. 

Whatever the answer to that question, with just a few weeks to go before the campaigns for July's elections, it seems like an odd time to provoke a intra-party spat. I can't conceive of any possible reason why Calderón would intentionally stir up such a bee's nest, which leads me to conclude that he probably was just a little more forceful and less prudential in his self-congratulation than he should have been. Which is a pretty big slip-up. 

What We Already Knew

CIDE's Raúl Feliz released a report showing that Pemex doesn't have the capacity to explore the deep-water fields beneath the Gulf of Mexico. That's not exactly news, but it is pressing for Mexico, given that the US will begin exploration on its side of the region in question Gulf in 2010. Mexico won't be able to do so until 2015, at which point the companies on the US side may have depleted Mexican stocks, thanks to the straw effect. 

Rematch

Ahead of the rematch of lat year's Champion's League final, I just want to toss out my two favorite pieces of Cristiano Ronaldo news this week: Messi left him off of his all-world team (but found room for Wayne Rooney), and then Ronaldo crashed his Ferrari.

Now, on to the game. Go Blues!

Skinny

I see on ESPN that Carolina is favored by 5.5 and Baltimore by 1 in Tennessee. I like the home teams in both.* This has to be the first time that a team led by a rookie quarterback playing on the road in the playoffs against the top-ranked team in the conference is favored. I know Baltimore's defense is great, but it's not going to win two games in a row by itself. Flacco eventually has to do something, and I don't see it happening in Nashville. 

Shifting directions, why isn't Joe Flacco's nickname "Skinny"? "Skinny Flacco with three touchdowns today..." It just rolls right off the tongue. That's the biggest nickname misstep since UT fans started calling Casey Clausen "Iceman" instead of  "Pickle." 

*Unfortunately my local casino has Tennessee -3 and Carolina -10, which, needless to say, are hugely different lines. 

Yuriorkis Falls

Rising Cuban boxing star (and Gancho's pick for best name in 2008) Yuriorkis Gamboa defeated Roger Gonzalez on the 2009 debut of Friday Night Fights, but serious questions about his future remain. He was knocked down in the second round, which is the fourth time he has hit the canvas in his 13 fights, an extremely high number. The knockdown was not, as the AP ridiculously put it, "more from being off balance than from any punch landed by Gonzalez," but was the product of a big right hand from Gonzalez cruising right by where Gamboa's left should have been, and landing square on his jaw. Gamboa's hands were, as they are far too often, down at his sides. (And unlike Roy Jones, who also tended to drop his hands, Gamboa stays in range of his opponent when doing so.) The Cuban shook it off well, and went on to flash the incredible punching skills that led me to compare him to Jones and Meldrick Taylor, but Gonzalez isn't exactly Jorge Linares or Edwin Valero. 

What happens when Gamboa gets in with a guy who knows how to not only time one big punch, but follow it up? Unless his defense improves (which seems unlikely; he's 27 and already has some 300 amateur fights under his belt, so he is much closer to being a finished product than the average prospect), he's going to get knocked out. Gamboa should be able to win a belt this year in a weak 126-pound division, but despite his offensive arsenal, which is as good as any prospect's in the sport, I don't see him cracking the pound-for-pound top ten at any point in his career. I hope I'm wrong, because he's a lot of fun to watch, but I suspect not. 

Doing More Coke

Charles Blow tells us that cocaine* use among white American teens is rising. As is common in such stories, he finds ample reason to mock official drug policy.

[I}n a phone interview, David Murray, chief scientist in the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, insisted that there was good news: a sharp rise in the price of cocaine and a drop in its purity since 2006, among other things, have cut into overall usage.

So, I thought, until policy makers put more of a focus on this issue and figure out how to reach these students, should we just hope that teens are too broke for this weak coke? I don’t think so. We need a real strategy, right now.

I don't know, I think "Too broke for weak coke" has legs. It could be the "Just say no" of the Obama administration. It certainly can't be any less effective.

*I thought I was mature enough to ignore the irony of an author named Blow writing about cocaine. Turns out I'm not.

We're Alright

In a 40-minute speech, Felipe Calderón instructed employees of Mexico's embassies and consulates to counter the image of Mexico as a failed state. This is a bit like a Labrador trying to correct the impression that it is a cat. 

Creativity

In November, I wrote about the small cohort of drug judges who would be granted greater freedom and flexibility and responsibility and protection in administering drug cases. Here's an example: When Miguel Ángel Soto, one of the founders of the Zetas, was arrested this week, he was arraigned via internet. 

Brooks on Obama and the Stimulus Package

From today's column:

The Romers’ essay exemplifies the economic doctrine that reigned up until a few months ago: fiscal stimulus plans that try to time a recession are dangerous, unproven and unnecessary.

That doctrine has suddenly vanished. But not because we suddenly know how to create effective stimulus plans. Last year, the Congress passed a $165 billion plan that seems to have done almost nothing for the economy. The doctrine has vanished because this recession is deeper than the others and we’ve run out of other stuff to do.

Today there is wide support for fiscal stimulus. It’s just that there is no historical experience to tell us how to do it, and there is no agreement on how to make it work. The economists’ prescriptions are all over the map.

Obama is compelled to jump into unchartered territory, with no compass or guide.

That all seems both logical and unsettling, although it leads Brooks to a conclusion that's not 100 percent pessimistic.

This is daring and impressive stuff. Obama’s team has clearly thought through every piece of this plan. There’s no plank that’s obviously wasteful or that reeks of special-interest pleading. The tax cut is big and bipartisan. Obama is properly worried about runaway deficits, but he’s spending money on things one would want to do anyway.

[Break]

Maybe Obama can pull this off, but I have my worries. By this time next year, he’ll either be a great president or a broken one.

I think his final analysis, however, is overstated. In one year, I'd be willing to bet a large chunk of change that the conventional wisdom doesn't view Obama as great or broken. Presidential greatness has never been achieved in one year (or even one term, for that matter), and even if Obama blows the bailout, there will still be a large enough period of time and a deep enough reserve of support for him to bounce back.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes. Or Not.

Thomas Shannon, the State Department's top man in Latin America, says that there won't be a huge change in American policy in the region with the incoming Obama administration, and that both Obama and Bush "share a strategic vision of the region." I'd say the second part of that statement is a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that US policy in Latin America isn't in for any radical overhauls. It's a point Shannon, a career diplomat, has been making for some time.

I've not heard anything about a replacement for Shannon, but his remarks kind of seem like those of someone already looking back after the fact. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. Whatever the case, Obama could do a lot worse than to keep him in his post for a while. He's kind of been a mini Bob Gates for Latin America, with Otto Reich and Roger Noriega as Donald Rumseld.

Lack of Confidence

According to Mexico's federal statistical body, the nation's index of consumer confidence fell by 20 percent in the year leading up to December 2008. It went from 105.6 to 84.1, the worst drop since the agency started recording the info eight years ago. A bit like quarterback ratings (especially in college), I know this is a bad thing, but I can't make much sense of the numbers themselves.

When Felipe Meets Barack

El Universal's Bajo Reserva column reports that the upcoming meeting between Calderón and Obama, which is the latter's first with a foreign head of state since being elected president, is the work of the Mexican ambassador to the US, Arturo Sarakhan. As recently as a week ago, the reunion seemed like an impossibility.

The agenda at the meeting will cover drugs and the dire economic straits.

Unaligned Numbers

Me last month, writing about statistics from the Pan-American Health Organization, and quoted by a UN expert on the region:

Mexico's murder rate is 10.9 per 100,000 inhabitants. That's pretty high, double the figure that the UN says is that of a safe society. At the same time, it's well below Brazil (31), Venezuela (34.1), Colombia (38), and El Salvador (43.4).

Pedro Ángel Palou, writing in the most recent edition of Poder about the culture of death in Mexico:

In the second State of the Union Address, President Calderón himself acknowledged that in 2007, there 28,677 homicides in Mexico. This is 26 for every 100,000 residents. In Colombia, which already touched bottom, the figures have lowered substantially from 60 to 18 homicides per 100,000 residents.

They're both talking about 2007, so that's quite a discrepancy. As far as Mexico goes, the first stat comes from an established organization endorsed by the reference from a UN expert, while the second appears to be a product of Palou's own calculations. At the same time, the calculation is pretty simple, and 28,677 murders in a country of just over 100 million people would seem to be right about 26 per 100,000 annually. Can anyone shed some light on this? More investigation is clearly and urgently needed.