Mexico

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/gwolf/drupal6/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

In Jalpan

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
In Jalpan

On the road to Xilitla, we passed through Jalpan, one of the five XVI century missions/churches in Querétaro's Sierra Gorda

( categories: )

In Jalpan

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
In Jalpan

On the road to Xilitla, we passed through Jalpan, one of the five XVI century missions/churches in Querétaro's Sierra Gorda

( categories: )

In Jalpan

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
In Jalpan

On the road to Xilitla, we passed through Jalpan, one of the five XVI century missions/churches in Querétaro's Sierra Gorda

( categories: )

Towards Querétaro's Sierra Gorda

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
Towards Querétaro's Sierra Gorda
( categories: )

Sierra Gorda de Querétaro

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
Sierra Gorda de Querétaro

Stopped for a few minutes somewhere between the sharp, rocky hills

( categories: )

Sierra Gorda de Querétaro

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
Sierra Gorda de Querétaro

Stopped for a few minutes somewhere between the sharp, rocky hills

( categories: )

Sierra Gorda de Querétaro

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
Sierra Gorda de Querétaro

Stopped for a few minutes somewhere between the sharp, rocky hills

( categories: )

Sierra Gorda de Querétaro

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
Sierra Gorda de Querétaro

Stopped for a few minutes somewhere between the sharp, rocky hills

( categories: )

Towards Querétaro's Sierra Gorda

Submitted by gwolf on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 19:41
Towards Querétaro's Sierra Gorda
( categories: )

Mexico City Metro project

Submitted by gwolf on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 00:13

Some days ago, reading my local Couchsurfing groups, I stumbled across an announcement by Australian Peter Davies to go to each of the 148 stations in the Mexico City Metro system, take some photos of the environment, and document on his impressions.

I have followed and enjoyed the Mexico City Metro blog since I learnt of it, and have grown used to looking forward to the daily post-or-two. Peter writes each of his entries both in English and Spanish (you can tell it's not a native Spanish, but it's a good effort). He has been doing the stations in a very well distributed order (I cannot say it's completely random, but it's surely not lineal or methodical).

I connected wiht his project as I love discovering the city more or less the same way, but with a different system: I try to have at least one long bike ride every two weeks (being "long" something over 40Km). I usually go either to the North or to downtown and to the East by the good old route I always take, and on my way back, at some point I decide just to turn right or left and discover yet another village slurped by the city. I don't usually take pictures, as I'm too much into the cycling thrill, left-right-left-right... But cycling has led me to appropriate my city (I don't know if that's proper English), to make my city really mine, to get to know parts of it I'd never otherwise go to.

Anyway, Peter's is a great way to document urban life. I'm in love with my city, and with expressions of urban appropriation. I loved his project, and if you are interested by what I say, go take a look at his wanderings in the city. I have suggested him two bits to check, but the work is very much an artist's — He accepts my input, but quite probably he will do whatever he pleases ;-) In case any of you is interested in contacting him, I can tell you for a fact he replies :-)

[*] And what is CouchSurfing? Oh, a great community where you can offer a space to crash at your house for unknown people from all around the world. I have never requested a couch, as the Free Software community is much more tightly knit, but I have offered it to several interesting people.

( categories: )

Safety restrictions in Chapultepec

Submitted by admin on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 08:26
Safety restrictions in Chapultepec

Umh… More than one strange thing here.

  • Adults are forbidden if not accompanied by children‽ First time I ever see such a sign...
  • It is common for people to bring several things to a park which might constitute a sign. But, please explain all of the icons…
    • Explain the relative severity of biking (0,0) or eating (1,0) at a park to… Bringing weapons? (2,0)
    • Oh, and of course, they have to be inclusive and list things — So not only it is forbidden to bring food and drinks, but also to serve drinks (3,0), or to cook food (which would have to take place in the non-existing grills) (0,1)
    • Not only they forbid biking (0,0), but also performing athletic competitions including biking (3,1)

    There also several flaws in the iconography used:

    • Is it forbidden to listen to music and to enable cell phones? (2,1)
    • Is it forbidden to use matches to light a lighter? (1,2)

…Seen at a Chapultepec park playground, Mexico City.

( categories: )

Safe crossing‽

Submitted by admin on Wed, 06/01/2011 - 08:15
Safe crossing‽

If this qualifies as a safe crossing («cruce seguro»)… I should have stayed at home

( categories: )

Responsible biking: We are not exempt from the traffic rules!

Submitted by gwolf on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 21:03

As you know, I very often advocate using the bycicle as the main means of transportation in Mexico City. The city is very apt for biking through it, and contrary to the fears of mostly everybody, the city is neither aggressive nor as dangerous as people say.

However, I have seen cyclists which seem to be looking for the best ways to be hit by a car, or to hit a pedestrian.

Yesterday, I read this note in La Jornada: The local Environment Secretary calls cyclists to respect vial regulations.

Many cyclists assume they are a special case of pedestrians, and zig-zag as they please between the road and the walkway, or just stay in the walkway. That is dangerous, both to pedestrians and to themselves. You might find children, elderly or motion-challenged people on your way. Also, not only will pedestrians only expect other people in the walkway, moving at their pace or slightly more, but cars will also not expect somebody moving at 10-20Km/h. A car driver pulling out of his garage, or crossing a street, will not have enough warning when he sees you, and you are very likely to end up in an accident.

Since ~5 years ago, Mexico City is growing a grid of Metrobús and confined trolebús cero emisiones (trolleybus) lanes. Many cyclists use those lanes — That is VERY dangerous. Public transport vehicles are large, have a lot of inertia, and will take longer to react to finding you ahead of them. Besides, they can go way faster than a regular bike (~60Km/h for metrobús, ~40Km/h for trolebús), and have to stop every couple of blocks. So, you will be uncomfortable if trailing them, and you will be a liability to ~100 people if you go ahead of them. Besides, it is illegal to drive in the confined lanes if you are not a public, semimassive transport vehicle!

Surprisingly many people have argued they prefer riding their bicycles against the traffic — I think they prefer staring at Death into its blue, glowing eyes (or into its long, thin whiskers)... By far, most cars that hit a bicycle do so from the side, when crossing a road. And if you arrive at a crossing from the wrong way, the way a driver does not expect you, don't expect the driver to be aware of you. Also, in the much less likely event of a car running into you, would it be better to be hit at 80Km/h (60Km/h of the car plus 20Km/h of your own speed on a full frontal crash), or at 40Km/h (substracting instead of adding)? Yes, some people say that looking at the car will allow you to maneuver – How far in advance would you know a car coming from the front will hit you? One second? That's 22 meters at 80Km/h (again, if you realize the 60Km/h car is heading straight to you, at 20Km/h). Too short notice for you to do anything — Any maneuver will most likely end in an accident. And the driver would not be so much to blame, as he would not be anticipating you riding against the traffic.

Make sure you get seen. By night, always use proper lights (red on the back, white on the front, and reflective material to the sides). Day or night, wear bright, reflective clothes (or over-clothes material). Act in a predictable fashion. Remember you are riding a vehicle and are subject to the same rules any driver is — A cyclist is not exempt from driving correctly! Do not jump red lights. Never ride on the walkway. Do your best to enjoy the ride.

And ride. Yes, ride, take the streets, enjoy the streets. But don't attempt to drive the traffic out of it — The streets belong to us all, and we can all share them.

PS — I also saw this note in the same paper: Sunday Rides in "Campo Militar Número Uno". The main military field was open as a park this weekend! I have to make sure it is regularly open — I am definitively going there!

( categories: )

Subsidizing private education?

Submitted by gwolf on Mon, 02/14/2011 - 17:35

Hrmh... I am listening to a local news radio station. Of course, what I am about to write lacks information and insight — but it follows a conversation I have had with several groups of friends.

Our de-facto president has decreed that the tuition for private schools will be deducted from the Impuesto sobre la renta (revenue/profit tax) up to a given tuition level (IIRC up to MX$2000 a month per child per school). The interviewed subsecretary said they expect this deduction will reach MX$13,000 million, around US$1,000 million. This is, about a third of what is assigned to the National University (UNAM).

At a first sight, this sounds good. However, I just thought about a discussion I have had with many friends. This money the government will hand back to the taxpayers has to be cut from somewhere (after all, we are not in a country with huge superavit or anything like that).

Why does this sound unfair ot me? Because it benefits the few in perjudice of the many. I did a quick search, and found this work based on numbers published by INEGI ten years ago: According to the last table, the money spent on private education was between 5% and 10% of that spent on public education — Of course, it is almost impossible to infer the number of students from this alone. I know I could find authoritative data on this regard by searching a bit more, but after all I don't want to spend all (work!) evening on a blog post unless it creates some discussion. Lets say, just for the sake of the exercise, that this means that ~3% of the country's students learn in a private school.

In Mexico, the quality of the basic public education (primary/secondary, ages 6 to 18) has fallen hugely in the last decades. Even when I was to school (but not when my parents), the first subjective sign that a family had broken the low-income barrier is that they were finally able to send their children to private schools. Because, no matter how bad they are, public schools are perceived to be worse. Of course, I was among the "lucky" ones to be in a private school. Higher education (universitary level) is still way better ranged.

Anyway... I want to get this post over with. Why do I oppose this subsidies/tax devolution? Because it will lead to widen the difference between private and public education. And because it will be benefical only for medium-high and high classes — People who are formaly employed (as I am) do not present a tax declaration, so we won't get any deductions. Between ⅓ and ½ of the country's economically active population work informally (from selling in the street to covering up huge transactions in large locals). Most of the population don't (directly) pay "impuesto sobre la renta", and will not get the benefit of this subsidy.

This money has to be taken from other sources in order to be given to private education. If the government wants to improve the education for everybody, why not assign it to the public sector? To specific areas in the public sector, if they don't want to hand it over to the (yes, very, incredibly) corrupt SNTE (National Union of Education Workers)?

( categories: )

Mandate for what?

Submitted by gwolf on Wed, 01/19/2011 - 12:15

I lived in Israel between 1994 and 1996 — This was just after the signature of the Oslo agreements, the Rabin-Arafat signature. 1994-95 was a beautiful time to be in Israel; there was the excitement of a prospect of real peace with the Palestinians, something that had been just seen as unattainable for the past 50 years.

But we also saw the buildup of a huge tension, of real hatred. And the dream of the end of the conflict, of two people living in peace side by side was heavily shattered on November 4 1995, when prime minister Rabin was assassinated. But for the sake of where I'm trying to get to (this post is meant to be about current Mexico, not of Israel 15 years ago), lets go a couple of months back.

The Israeli society is a deeply democratic one (although I understand many people feel it is losing that trait). Lots of political propaganda of all sorts, many of it very creative, are posted on the streets — And not by the government or by political parties, but by citizen movements. I tried to follow it... I remember a particular sticker that I started seeing very often: «Rabin has no mandate over the Golan». At first, I understod that the Golan residents rejected Rabin's authority (but, why was it posted all over the country? And what specifically was it about?), until a friend explained to me that it meant that it rather meant that the right wing all over the country felt that Rabin had no right to push for negotiations involving in any way the Golan heights return to Syria because that was not his electoral platform.

So, fast-forward in time, and 12500Km to the west.

If you have followed my ramblings for the past ~five years, you are aware of what I think about Mexico's government — It is an illegitimate government, which got the power thanks to a dirty and illegal (as per Mexico's legal system) campaign and to voting fraud. And, according to what I have read, around 30% of the population still believe firmly the elections were stolen.

But even if they were legal, valid and legitimate — What has happened since 2006 should not be seen as valid.

In Mexico, we don't have such a democratic culture. The society is not used to demanding anything from the politicians. We often see, as an example, that when talking about political organs, there is a divide everybody understands although makes no sense: We talk about citizens as people unaffiliated to political parties (v.gr. the 1996 Federal Electoral Institute was very well regarded as it was "el IFE ciudadano", and has since then been overtaken by the parties). Why are the parties' members not seen as citizens? Well, maybe because of the same distortion field that makes us believe our de-facto president when he stated that, from the (then) over 28000 people killed in the war campaign against crime (he oficially declared he never used the term war... Of course, he was proved wrong), only ~10% were civilians. In my book, that would mean that ~25000 soldiers have been killed — But no, he means mostly drug trafficants. So, as they are not innocent bystanders, they somehow stopped being civilians?

But again, I'm straying off the topic. Let us assume for a minute that the 2006 elections were clean legal, and that the campaigns were not diffamatory, and all that. And tha we had a modern government, with the stated separation between the three powers and all that. By today, the Legislative power would have surely called for the government's disolution. Why? Again, we Mexicans are not used to what a democratic system means. We can see over and over examples of people who have been voted to power and forgot/betrayed everything they campaigned for. And we are used to that being... Normal. But, who did we vote for? Given the suposition of this last paragraphs (clean elections led to our current government), did the majority of the population vote for Felipe Calderón, the person? Or did it vote for Partido Acción Nacional, the abstract entity organized as a party? No. The vote was (should have been) for the political campaign, for the things he promised he would work for, the priorities in the direction he would give the nation.

Not too long ago, we took pride of living in a peaceful country. Yes, everybody feared the crime rate in the streets, everybody knew big cities such as the one I live in (and love living in) have deep problems. But the country had good relations and good respect from the international players, and it was mostly safe. And, I don't think any of the few readers that have read this far (regardless of where they live or how much they know me) has that opinion of Mexico anymore. What is now heard inside and outside is that we have a huge organized crime (mostly due to drug traffic), and that it's taking over the country. Why did this happen?

The fact is, Calderón lacked legitimacy when he reached the presidency in December 2006. And although his campaign was centered on pushing work generation (his slogan was El presidente del empleo, The president of the jobs), lifting restrictions to entreprises, opening borders, getting more money in our economy... He knew he had to please the people that would protect him from any (then, probable) insurrection: Military and police. Our army has always been more a joke than an army... But they still have their guns.

So, contrary to everything he promised, the first things he signed was a salary increase to all order-keeping forces in the country, and an all-out attack against drug traffic cartels. He had to make the order-keeping forces protagonist, useful — and loyal.

Now, fast-forward again to 2011. The country is living the worst violence since the end of the 1910-1920 revolution. Over 30,000 people have been killed. Economy has fallen as it had not for many years (this was the worst-performing country in America in 2009). Work generation was said to be high, but then corrected to indicate it was mediocre (just about the baseline of population growth).

So, the balance so far of four years of... Government? Economic disaster. Social disaster. Promises unachieved. Starting actions he had no mandate to do.

Felipe Calderón has no mandate to get us in this war.

Even if he had been democratically elected, he would have to step down.

( categories: )
Syndicate content