The president took time to address the role of women in Islam and the U.S. during Thursday's speech.
President Obama singled out women’s rights during his speech in Cairo. Read more in Broadsheet.
President Obama singled out women’s rights during his speech in Cairo. Read more in Broadsheet.
Occupy the SEC's radical message
As the Occupy the SEC march made its way past the Goldman Sachs building in New York City on Monday night I looked up from the near-constant tweeting I do at these events just in time to see a man in a top-shelf suit rush past us holding a bottle of champagne. I imagined him looking at the 100-plus crowd of activists disrupting the walk to his luxury mid-size, pouting indignantly, “You’re gonna do this to a guy in a $4,000 suit? Come on!”
Occupy the SEC held the march to celebrate the release of their 325-page comment letter to the SEC calling for them to strengthen – and then more importantly enforce – the Volcker Rule, which will go into effect on July 21, 2012. According to Aaron Bornstein, who helped organize the march, Occupy the SEC’s comment is about twice the size of the next longest letter, drafted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), a financial interest lobbying group.
The working group’s detailed policy position gives lie to the common claim that the Occupy Wall Street movement is “well intentioned but misinformed” In this case the movement is led by a bunch of policy wonks trying to strengthen the Volcker Rule, not by college dropouts changing “anti-capitalista.”
The group was aimed to bolster one of the key reforms to emere since the 2008 crach. The Volcker Rule (named after former Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker) is a subsection of the Dodd-Frank act, passed in 2010. Its purpose is to curb risky speculative trading by Wall Street investment firms.. The regulations are set to be finalized in mid-July. Until then well-paid lobbyists will do everything they can to create new loopholes that will enable the banks to engage in high-risk, high-reward speculation. Occupy the SEC seeks to block them.
“The main takeaway is the bank lobby is not the only player when it comes to influencing the regulators. There’s another side, and we’re trying to take that side,” said Akshat Tewary, an attorney, who helped draft the letter.
The SEC now bound to some combination of their initial draft and the comments they receive, explained Alexis Goldstein, who quit her Wall Street job last year. “They can’t add new stuff out of thin air; it has to come from comments. We’ve basically said the opposite of what the banks have said, from what I can tell so far.”
The action marks an unusual development for both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the SEC. Unlike the Environmental Protection Agency which gets comments from both industry and environmentalists,, the SEC usually only hears from industry. The movement is bolstering the regulators, not bad-mouthing them. . While the Occupy movement is often characterized by its disruptive street protests, it also includes a faction willing to dedicate untold hours of detailed policy analysis urging the SEC to do its job. It’s what is known as “diversity of tactics.”
It’s hard to argue with Occupy the SEC’s recommendations. The Volcker Rule currently has an exemption for “repos”, which, Akshat tells me, is “basically a way to get funding at a very high leverage and very quickly.” Alexis describes repos like a pawn shop transaction. You sell your watch to the pawn shop for cash, but you plan on buying it back.
“So it’s technically a sale, but it’s treated as a way to finance things. Banks do this all the time, to finance things. And that would be fine if they were using Treasuries [ie U.S. Treasury bonds, the definition of a safe bet], but they’re using these crappy assets. So they sell them, then they buy them back, and it’s all really short term trading that happens with them. When people start to think the assets are bad they demand more collateral, and then other people hear that they’re in trouble so they start to demand more collateral and it becomes this death spiral.”
Repos are one of the reasons Lehman Brothers fell as swiftly as it did in 2008 as it did, and Occupy the SEC thinks that exempting them from the Volcker rule is a “terrible” idea.
They also want illiquid, over-the-counter financial products – like mortgage-backed securities – to be forbidden. As Alexis Goldstein puts it, “There’s a clause that says any high-risk asset shouldn’t be allowed by the rule, and we think over the counter illiquid assets are high risk.” The millions of Americans still suffering the effects of the Great Recession that began with the 2008 Wall Street crash are likely to agree.
In addition to their attempt to directly influence the SEC, the group hopes to wage a broad educational campaign to teach the public about the financial industry. Occupy Wall Street has already successfully jammed early-stage class consciousness into the American zeitgeist. Occupy the SEC is hopping to build on that.
As one SEC occupier told me before the march, “One of the most exciting, surreal things about Occupy Wall Street so far is I have this sign that says ‘Bring Back the Glass-Steagall Act,’ and if I just hold that on the subway, or on Broadway, you see people walking up to me every day, every single day I do it, someone walks up to me and says, ‘Yeah man, the Glass-Steagall Act.’ That would have been unthinkable 4 or 5 months ago.”
Nancy Grace (Credit: AP/Chris Pizzello)
Cable news depends on colorful characters to draw eyeballs in between those reminders that there are “no new developments” in the real stories of the day. But even in a sea of distinctive jerkwads – your Erin Burnetts and Piers Morgans and Bill O’Reillys and Megyn Kellys – HLN host Nancy Grace never fails to distinguish herself. And just when you think she can’t find new depths to plumb, along comes the Whitney Houston story.
Grace, the woman who has made an entire cottage industry out of her indignation over Casey Anthony, who paints herself nightly as the avenging angel of poor dead Caylee, has never been one to trade in subtlety — or for that matter, facts. CNN had to settle a wrongful death suit after the mother of a missing child killed herself after being browbeaten on her show. (The parties agreed that Grace “engaged in no intentional wrongdoing.”) She fearlessly championed the prosecution’s side in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, blithely referring to “the victim,” and went ballistic over the very notion that the accused might be innocent. (She then conveniently remained quiet on the subject after the case was dismissed.) This, folks, is a woman who has guilt-tripped abduction victim Elizabeth Smart for not playing along with her interview tactics. And even after a jury found Casey Anthony not guilty last summer, she has held on to the story like a dog with a bone, insisting that “I told the truth,” luxuriating in descriptions of “the backdrop of 2-year-old Caylee’s decomposing body just a few houses down from where Tot Mom put her pillow every night,” and excoriating Anthony for – rich irony alert –“generating interest in herself.”
Yet apparently there just aren’t enough kidnapped babies and alleged gang rapes out there to keep Grace satisfied. She’s turning her attention now instead to the mysterious death of a diva. Grace, who famously said last summer that she knew more than the “kooky jury” on the Anthony case, now seems to know more than the L.A. coroner’s office. Despite word that foul play is “not suspected at this time” in Saturday’s death of Whitney Houston, Grace isn’t so sure. On Monday she appeared on CNN to ponder “Who, if anyone, gave [Houston] drugs following alcohol and drugs.” That itself isn’t a crazy question, though it is a bit of a reach – a suggestion that the story of a superstar dying alone and surrounded by prescription bottles just isn’t sexy enough. Not when surely there’s a villain on the loose for Nancy Grace to bring to justice. Cue dramatic theme music!
Medical accountability is to be considered whenever someone dies who may have had drugs administered to him or her. Just ask physician Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson. But where Grace, in her totally Nancy Grace-like way, went totally bananas was when she asked, “Who let her slip or pushed her underneath that water? … Who let Whitney Houston go under that water?” Uhhhhhmm… Whitney Houston?
The sad desperation of news networks, and their flailing competitiveness in a glut of information overload, is rarely pretty to watch. But Grace isn’t just some blowhard, saying provocative things to get a rise out of the viewership. She’s a full-on loose cannon, a disseminator of disinformation and an ego gone rogue. That CNN and its sister network HLN continue to permit her to spew her wild speculations, to proudly flaunt her flat-out contempt for the facts as they are known, and to engage in character assassination long a not guilty verdict has been rendered in a court of law, is blatant and arrogant recklessness. Unchecked, how long before Grace decides she knows who “pushed” Houston under the water? How long before she’s on another crusade, deciding who is a victim and who is a perpetrator? How long before a real criminal investigation or trial is tainted because of her nightly yammering?
After her jaw-dropping segment Monday, CNN anchor Don Lemon had to leap into fire-dousing mode, issuing a hasty reminder that “This is not CNN’s reporting. We don’t know that to be true.” Here’s a crazy idea – you shouldn’t be talking about things you don’t know to be true on a network with the word “news” right there in the middle of it. And CNN shouldn’t continue to provide a platform to a woman whose self-interest makes a mockery of journalistic credibility.
Katherine Boo (Credit: Unnati Tripathi)
To say Katherine Boo writes humanely about poverty is an impossibly limited description. She writes about people — oft-ignored people with whom she’s spent years, accruing thousands of documents and hours of footage. And somehow all of this research turns into an exquisite, seamless narrative, a feat made all the more difficult by the fact that the subjects of her first book, “Behind the Beautiful Forevers,” the inhabitants of a Mumbai slum, speak languages she doesn’t know.
And yet even beyond the particularity of their stories, it’s clear the teenage garbage collectors and would-be power brokers and brides all live within a hopelessly broken and corrupt system that crushes their aspirations daily, an unmistakable conclusion of the book. “I don’t really believe in the representative poor person as a construct,” Boo told me this week. “But even if every individual is anomalous in every class and every country, I hope there’s another way to read the book, looking at the way in which money that’s intended for schools and child laborers and girls gets diverted, or the realities of police brutality.”
It’s not as if the deprivation and violence of the community’s daily life is entirely invisible to either the Indian government or outsiders. It’s that webs of corruption are wrapped so thickly around anti-poverty efforts as to make them a joke to the intended beneficiaries. A nun who worked with Mother Teresa turns out children on the street and sells impoverished people the expired food donated by hotels to nourish them. Foreign journalists visit the Annawadi slum to see whether government-funded women’s self-help groups are empowering women, and one of the craftier characters, Asha, gathers “random female neighbors to smile demurely while the officials went on about how their collective had lifted them from poverty.” Asha announces that her daughter, who fears the marriage that her mother will arrange, won’t be “‘dependent on any man.’ The foreign women always got emotional when she said this.” Boo doesn’t judge her: “For the poor of a country where corruption thieved a great deal of opportunity, corruption was one of the genuine opportunities that remained.”
Boo says now, “When we talk about accountability and implementation, even when I say those words, they’re just such eye-glazers. But that’s really what it’s about. It’s not that everybody in power wants to have a world in which somebody who is slowly dying on the road gets passed by. It’s that there’s so little work done to make (sure what) happens in Delhi or in Washington actually gets to the people it’s intended to. Whether it’s when I was reported on group homes for the developmentally disabled” — the work that won her a Pulitzer — “it was the same thing. The money just ended up circulating among the already privileged.”
But Boo is a reporter and a storyteller, and she doesn’t have a policy prescription, per se. She does believe that “statistics about the poor sometimes have a tenuous relationship to lived experience,” as she writes at the end of the book, adding, “I just believe that better arguments, maybe even better policies, get formulated when we know more about ordinary lives.”
Boo’s husband is Indian, and he’s the one who first suggested she turn her curiosity about poverty in booming India into a reporting project. She resisted, she writes in the book, out of fear for her ailing health and concern that she lacked the context or skills to write about India’s poor. One night at home in Washington, D.C., “tripping over an unabridged dictionary, I found myself on the floor with a punctured lung and three broken ribs … Having proved myself ill-suited to safe cohabitation with an unabridged dictionary, I had little to lose by pursuing my interests in another quarter — a place beyond my so-called expertise, where the risk of failure would be great but the interactions somewhat more meaningful.”
So she spent three years in Annawadi, interviewing and reinterviewing children and men and women with the help of a team of interpreters and a Flipcam. Of the interpreters, she says, “I had a bunch of false starts. People weren’t used to working in the style that I work, patient watching and listening. The days would feel pointless to other people, like, ‘Why are we sitting here all day watching this kid sort garbage,’ somebody might say. The conditions are bad.” (One of the main geographical features of Annawadi is a giant sewage lake.)
She considered the first few months a write-off, except for the conversations she managed to witness. “The best material I got in the beginning was listening to people and tape recording and just collecting how people were to each other because that was their natural way, because they were still awkward with me and the whole translating thing,” Boo says. “If I’d tried to do straight interviews at that point, it would have been so strange. I would have been sitting in a hut, asking someone questions with a hundred people outside the door trying to find out who I am and what I’m doing.” Eventually, they got used to the sight of the delicate blond woman and stopped paying her much attention.
It’s hard not to wonder anyway how much her presence might have put some people on notice or led the main players to see their lives differently. “There was a night when I was in the police station and they were beating the shit out a mentally disabled man,” Boo replies. “And on the phone they were calling his brother in Hyderabad so he could hear his screams so he could help to secure his release financially. My presence didn’t put them on their best behavior.” But she knows she couldn’t help but change some things, even if it was just asking questions. Questions that, for example, could lead to realization that there’s something wrong when the police don’t investigate the murder of a child and document a demonstrably false cause of death.
“I could barely get out of bed at some points in the reporting,” Boo admits. A friend who had worked as an investigative reporter and is now a novelist told her to pull up her socks and keep at it — otherwise, almost no one would ever know about these wrongs. But Boo is also careful, almost to a fault, to not make the story about her. “I didn’t want it to be like, ‘When I met Abdul …’” I want the readers to see it through his point of view, that he’s risen in an incredibly competitive group of [garbage] scavengers. I don’t want to be on every page instructing the reader what to think.”
There’s a risk to that as well, of course, the possible presumptuousness of inhabiting another person’s head when they’re not your novelistic creation. But Boo pulls it off, maybe because she’s that good, or because she realizes that even the very poor “are neither mythic nor pathetic,” nor very different from herself in ways that count. “When I’ve had hardships in my own life, it doesn’t make me a better or nobler person,” she says. “Suffering doesn’t necessarily make people good in my experience.”
When, during the years of reporting, she would tell better-off Indians what she was working on, “Many people felt like, Oh, we know. I was like, do you really know? Because sometimes saying you know is a way of not knowing.” But now that the book is out, Boo has managed to get rapturous reviews from Indian critics who might be understandably skeptical of another Westerner explaining their country’s ills to them.
“She has captured the spirit of colloquial Hindustani and Marathi without using an idiosyncratic idiom, and deftly negotiated distinctions of caste, class and religion,” wrote one reviewer, Girish Shahane. “I am used to hearing false notes in depictions of Mumbai life; when they occur repeatedly, they undermine the authorial voice. The 250 plus pages of Behind the Beautiful Forevers contain no false notes.” One Indian interviewer, Anjali Puri, wrote, “All manner of ‘India specialists’ — journalists, sociologists, poverty-theorists, middle-class anti-corruption crusaders — may find themselves feeling inadequate by the time they have reached the end of” Boo’s book.
The most interested parties in India — the people featured in the book — saw Boo herself visit a few weeks ago to hand out advance copies (in English, for now) and show the videos that will be part of the enhanced e-book. “It was emotional,” Boo says of her return. “This is a very draining experience for many of them, particularly for people asked to relive some of the worst memories of their lives and to help me get it right.” (She fact-checked the book herself, another reliving for her characters.)
And they’ll have to live with what’s revealed in the book, particularly because Boo makes a policy of using real names and emphasizing that this is not “tall tales from the under city,” as she puts it. “One of the things that always troubled me is that you get to the end of a long piece and it would say, names and details have been changed. What details? Would you do that for rich people?”
What me worry about unions? (Credit: AP/Susan Walsh)
On Tuesday President Obama signed a bill that will make it harder for workers to form a union. This bill, the FAA Reauthorization Act, passed Congress last week despite an outcry from major unions. Dozens of House Democrats voted for it, as did most Democratic Senators.
To appreciate what that means, try to imagine a Republican president and Republican Senate Majority Leader signing off on a bill with pro-union language despite thundering objections from most big businesses. Your imagination may not be good enough to picture that – which tells you everything you need to know about the asymmetry between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to labor.
The signing of the FAA bill ends a long-running legislative fight. It began with something President Obama did right: He appointed members to the National Mediation Board who, in 2010, adopted a new rule governing elections for railroad and airline workers seeking to unionize. Such workers are covered by the 1935 Railway Labor Act (RLA), rather than the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that covers most American workers.
For decades, one downside of the RLA regime was the requirement that, in order to succeed in an election, a union had to win a majority of all potential voters in a bargaining unit, rather than just a majority of all voters. (Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker imposed a similar requirement on public workers as part of his anti-union bill last year.) If political elections were counted the same way – with all non-voters counted as “no” votes – very few of our current members of Congress would be in office.
The new rule from Obama’s appointees changed that. Now, votes are counted in RLA elections the way they are in other union elections, or in presidential elections: whichever side gets the most votes wins. Predictably, Republicans were furious. In a series of showdowns over the past year, the GOP insisted that the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization, which funds FAA functions like air traffic control, be amended to include language overriding the NMB’s new rule. Democrats resisted, and President Obama threatened to veto any FAA bill with such a provision. The short-term politics of these showdowns – one of which included a 13-day FAA shutdown last summer – were never great for the GOP, and each one ended with a short-term extension.
On January 20, with both parties saying it was time to resolve the issue once and for all, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced a compromise with the GOP: The FAA bill would stay silent on how union election votes are counted – meaning the NMB rule stays in place until future NMB appointees reverse it. But labor will face a steeper obstacle earlier in the process. Rather than being required to submit signatures from 35% of workers in a bargaining unit to trigger an election (as had been required), unions would have to submit signatures from a majority just for a vote to be held. It wasn’t immediately obvious what was so bad about this – in most cases, filing for a union election without a strong majority committed to vote yes is organizing malpractice. Many unions were slow to issue reactions, and a few voiced support.
But the devil was in the details. In a January 30 letter, eighteen international unions called on the House and Senate to reject the deal, writing that otherwise “Airline and rail workers would suffer significant losses as contracts are jettisoned, collective bargaining rights are cut and legal hurdles will be placed in the way of gaining a voice at work.” (Full disclosure: I used to work at UNITE HERE, one of the signing organizations.)
“This is our Wisconsin,” Association of Flight Attendants-CWA President Veda Shook told a Communications Workers of America crowd before Congress voted on the deal. Shook said that while “Reid and Republicans are falsely claiming” the compromise would only require unions to win majority support, its effect would be much worse than advertised: By packing an employee list with ex-workers or challenging voter eligibility, management would have new opportunities to delay or avert an election despite majority support. By legislating election rules, the bill would enable management to call workers who signed cards to be questioned as part of discovery in an anti-union lawsuit. When a larger non-union company merged with a smaller unionized company, the bill would make it possible for management to cease recognizing the union, with no election at all.
In a furious speech, CWA International President Larry Cohen charged that Democratic leaders had refused past requests to attach pro-union provisions to appropriations bills, but were allowing Republicans to use the FAA appropriation to force an anti-union change.
“The leadership in the Senate didn’t even see fit to include [the pro-labor NMB rule] in this gutting of the statute…” yelled Cohen. “Our little crumb of an advancement is left as a rule, so the day that there’s ever a Republican President elected…they’re going to strip the rule. The statute will remain. It’s worse than it’s ever been.”
The Democrats passed the bill and the President signed it.
A White House official defended the deal, via email, saying “While it is unfortunate that Republicans in Congress have injected extraneous ideological measures into this important legislation that will create jobs and improve air traffic safety, the provision referenced in our veto threat has been removed and the President will sign the compromise bill.”
The White House is unlikely to expect tremendous blowback from the bill, given that the AFL-CIO took no public stance on the FAA deal. An AFL-CIO spokesperson declined to comment, but the federation’s silence may be related to the lack of unanimity among the twenty-two unions in its Transportation Division: while most were opposed, a few came out in support of the bill.
In a statement following its Senate passage, Air Line Pilots Association President Lee Moak said the bill “could have been improved by omitting provisions unrelated to aviation safety, but that compromise was necessary…to garner the very real benefits” of a reauthorization.
Unions’ division on this question illustrates U.S. labor’s political predicament as compared with Europe. Labor’s political influence over either major party is “180 degrees opposite from Germany, where both parties have a connection to the labor movement,” author and labor attorney Tom Geoghegan says. “It’s a very sad and dangerous thing.”
Even with a presidential election looming, historian Steve Fraser says the Democratic Party understandably takes labor’s support for granted, because “the labor movement sees it has no other option, so its loyalty can be counted on.”
Indeed, the Republican primary campaign provides daily reminders of how much worse the political leadership in Washington could be: Stacking the National Labor Relations Board with professional union-busters, refusing to bargain with public workers, reviving child labor.
The decline in union density, argues Fraser, creates a vicious cycle of decreasing power and increasing dependence. “A big part of the picture is the sense that there’s no exit from this strategy…The weaker they get, the more that they feel boxed in.”
On February 2nd, four days before the FAA deal passed the Senate, CWA officially endorsed Obama’s re-election.
There are many factors that explain the willingness of prominent Democrats to back a deal that makes union organizing harder: the broken Senate; the influence of big money; questionable tactics from all sides. But the most fundamental one is the half-century decline in unionization, and with it, in labor’s role in American life. Episodes like this one offer a stark challenge to those still hoping that transformed political fortunes will be the cause – rather than the consequence – of the labor movement’s revival.
Josefina Vasquez Mota (Credit: AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini)
MEXICO CITY — At El Mirador, a cantina frequented by Mexico’s political and economic elite, you can see a fine selection of spirits and a menu that features dishes like pickled pigs’ feet and beef tongue tacos.
But what you won’t see are women.
El Mirador, a relic from the country’s machista past, politely refuses to serve them. The bathroom has only a urinal and a sink.
So it may have come as a surprise to some when Mexico’s PAN party decided to nominate Josefina Vazquez Mota, a woman, for president – the first time a woman has ever been nominated by a major Mexican party.
Accepting her nomination, Vazquez Mota, a longtime government official, said, “I will be the first woman president of Mexico in history.”
Even if they are not yet welcome in the cantina at El Mirador, women are making noticeable inroads into other areas of Mexican political life.
With the real possibility that Mexico may join Latin American countries like Argentina, Brazil and Chile in electing a female to the highest office, her nomination marks a slow but steady erosion of Mexico’s macho culture, a way of life that lives on in the upper echelon of Mexican business world.
“Back in the 1950s all the cantinas in Mexico City were only for men. It’s the embedded machismo culture,” Ramon Peña-Franco, a former media analyst who worked for Mexico’s current leader Felipe Calderon.
Men gathered in cantinas to drink and play dominoes, while women stayed at home.
While the ban on women is not explicitly stated, it is enforced through the polite entreaties of waiters who explain the “tradition.” A woman in the men-only cantina might “make the other guests uncomfortable,” the Mirador manager said.
More than in the U.S. or the UK, the main stage of Mexico’s business arena continues to be dominated by men. However, more women have begun working in finance, information technology, media and manufacturing. Mexico has also seen an increasing number of female governors and cabinet members in the public sector.
And slowly, old social mores are beginning to evolve.
In 2006 many Mexican states updated the language used in marriage ceremonies, eliminating vows that asked men to treat their wives “with the magnanimity and generous benevolence that the strong should give to the weak,” and asked women to “give to her husband obedience [and] avoid awakening the most irritable and hard part of his character.”
Monica Morales, a financial analyst who was married in Mexico City in 2011, explained that the traditional language that was historically used in nuptial proceedings is too “macho.”
“Now, not even my grandmother would support it,” she said.
“Even my friends who want the most traditional weddings wouldn’t use it,” she said.
Some arenas of public life are evolving as well.
An electoral reform enacted in 2002 requires that major parties select female candidates for at least 30 percent of the seats they campaign for in the country’s congress. In 2003, the first election under the new rules, female candidates won 23 percent of the seats.
Now, women hold 30 percent of the seats in Mexico’s congress, compared to just 17 percent in the U.S.
Still, despite recent progress in the political arena, women have not yet broken through into the highest levels of Mexico’s corporate world.
Unlike in Mexico’s congress, very few seats in the country’s board rooms are filled by women. Only one of Mexico’s top 20 largest publicly traded companies has appointed a female board chair. Not one of Mexico’s largest companies has a female CEO.
When it comes to leading businesswomen in Mexico, Ramon listed “the owner of Grupo Modelo, Maria Asuncion Aramburuzabala. She’s the wealthiest woman in Mexico.”
“Other than that… I don’t think I can remember,” he said.
In July, Mexicans will vote to replace Felipe Calderon, whose six-year term has been plagued by violence from a five-year war on the drug cartels.
Many voters are ready for a change.
“This is a historic nomination, it has the potential to change the dynamics of the presidential race,” said Shannon O’Neil, a Mexico expert from the Council of Foreign Relations, a think-tank in New York.
It is still unclear whether Vazquez Mota, who has served both as secretary of social development, and later education, can convince voters to elect her.
Vazquez Mota’s main rival in the race to Los Pinos, the president’s office, is Enrique Peña Nieto, the candidate from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI.
The party ruled Mexico as a de facto autocracy for seven decades until it was ousted from the presidency by a candidate from the PAN in 2000, is campaigning hard as well.
Peña Nieto is currently leading in the polls, and most analysts consider him to be the favorite.
Peña Nieto, though, has faced a number of missteps so far in his campaign. At a recent event in Guadalajara, he couldn’t name three books that have influenced his life. After failing to correctly state the price of a kilo of tortillas, a staple in most families’ diets, he shrugged off criticism, saying, “I’m not the woman of the house.”
Vestiges of the macho culture, after all, are still very much present in everyday Mexico.
As the rules change, other aspects of the country’s public life have evolved with time. In 2008, for instance, Mexico City banned smoking in bars and restaurants.
The cantinas begrudgingly complied.
Seated at a table at the Mirador, Ramon said, “Machismo is rooted, so it’s been harder [to change] in Mexico than anywhere else.”
By the exit, there was a table of men in their seventies finishing a game of dominos, getting ready to leave.
“The role of women in political life is changing,” Shannon, the Mexico expert, said.
“The real challenge for women in Mexico, and elsewhere, is to increase the numbers and the breadth of their participation and say in the way things are run.”
Page 1 of 15135 in All Salon
Occupy defends the Volcker Rule
Nancy Grace is more terrible than ever
How to write about poor people
Obama to unions: see you later
The threat to Mexico’s machismo culture
Rep. Issa to air bishops’ complaints
America’s apocalyptic imperial strategy
Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross belong in a fear-mongering museum
The GOP’s emerging Bob Dole problem
The Senate and Grammys condone domestic abuse