The Diario de Yucatan published as it's front page story (March 23, 2009) an article detailing the church's exhortation that criticism is necessary and its' warning of the dangers of not accepting dissenting opinions.
Is the almighty church talking about itself? Of course not, silly reader! No, they are talking about politics. Apparently what's never been good for the goose is alright for the gander, to paraphrase and dissect a popular expression.
The church (catholic of course) never accepts criticism or dissenting opinions of any kind, yet in Mexican archdioceses' weekly publication "Desde La Fe" an editorial blathers on and on about how politicians should be open to dissent, criticism and so forth. It goes on to say that 'opening oneself up with intelligence to criticism won't harm anyone' but that closing oneself off to differing opinions or questions will and thus 'authentic politicians should know how engage in dialogue; they should have the ability to debate, convince, respect - not impose or gag alternative voices'.
It's all very well for the catholic powers-that-be to indulge in this sort of moralizing and preaching, considering the fact that they would never; have never, tolerated dissent, criticism, debate, or anything that might suggest a dialogue and have done exactly what they propose politicians do not do: impose and gag. Apparently their doctrine is so fragile that 'criticism won't harm anyone' does not apply in their particular case.
Will anyone call them on their hypocrisy?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
A Fresh Take on the Drug War
I had a crazy, out-of-the-box idea today while having lunch with my better half. We were discussing the perception potential tourists have of Mexico given the increase in violence along the border.
Since the drug business is based on the premise of overwhelming and incessant demand by a large percentage of the citizenry of the Somewhat United States of America, who WANT to get high and continue to delude themselves that they live in a democracy, why fight the drug business at all? Isn't the idea behind the term democracy - so often touted as motivation behind screwing with other people's freely elected governments and invading nations - being 'rule by the people, for the people'? Well wake up, leaders of the world's most hypocritical democracy - THE PEOPLE WANT THEIR DRUGS!!
Why does this country have to play the part of the US's Mexican housekeeper or nanny? This is a third world country that has to do the dirty work for it's neighbor in exchange for what?
As Tony Garza Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Mexico put it:
The admittedly crazy idea, is to sit down with the leaders of the drug cartels and offer them the de-criminalization of the whole drug business in exchange for them stopping the violence in Mexico, stopping distribution of drugs in the country and paying off any outstanding debt to the U.S.
If the U.S.A. want to wage a war on drugs, let them wage it on their turf. With their soldiers and their collateral damage. Or, and here's a novel idea, take a look at the real problem: the depressed, deluded society they have created that cannot stand to look itself in the mirror and demands the drugs in the first place.
OK. I told you it was kind of out-of-the box idea.
Since the drug business is based on the premise of overwhelming and incessant demand by a large percentage of the citizenry of the Somewhat United States of America, who WANT to get high and continue to delude themselves that they live in a democracy, why fight the drug business at all? Isn't the idea behind the term democracy - so often touted as motivation behind screwing with other people's freely elected governments and invading nations - being 'rule by the people, for the people'? Well wake up, leaders of the world's most hypocritical democracy - THE PEOPLE WANT THEIR DRUGS!!
Why does this country have to play the part of the US's Mexican housekeeper or nanny? This is a third world country that has to do the dirty work for it's neighbor in exchange for what?
As Tony Garza Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Mexico put it:
Mexico would not be the center of cartel activity or experience this level of violence were the United States not the largest consumer of illicit drugs and the main supplier of weapons to the cartels. We have a responsibility to fight this war together, or we fail together. (link)Is it really necessary for Mexicans to be shooting each other because the bloated drug addict up north can't get his act together? I mean really, what is the incentive? Keep fighting the drug cartels with all the spillover violence just so Mexico can get a condescending pat on the head from the US?
The admittedly crazy idea, is to sit down with the leaders of the drug cartels and offer them the de-criminalization of the whole drug business in exchange for them stopping the violence in Mexico, stopping distribution of drugs in the country and paying off any outstanding debt to the U.S.
If the U.S.A. want to wage a war on drugs, let them wage it on their turf. With their soldiers and their collateral damage. Or, and here's a novel idea, take a look at the real problem: the depressed, deluded society they have created that cannot stand to look itself in the mirror and demands the drugs in the first place.
OK. I told you it was kind of out-of-the box idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
