Tuesday, November 26, 2024
Home Blog Page 2

Templo Mayor archaeological site reopens in Mexico City featuring new exhibit

El Templo Mayor estaba en el corazón de la vida política y religiosa mexica (azteca). -- The Templo Mayor was at the heart of Mexica (Aztec) political and religious life. (Daniel Augusto/Cuartoscuro)

by the El Reportero‘s staff and news services

The Templo Mayor archaeological zone, a sacred site in the heart of Mexico City containing remnants from the ancient metropolis of Tenochtitlán, has fully reopened to the public following extensive repairs to its roof, damaged by a rare hailstorm in 2021.

In conjunction with last week’s reopening, there is a new exhibition in the Templo Mayor Museum that includes more than 100 artifacts recently repatriated from the United States — among the more than 14,000 returned to Mexico during the six-year term of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The items on display include stone, ceramic and organic materials that were recovered through an undercover operation by Homeland Security agents in the U.S., according to an Oct. 31 press release from Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH).

The centerpiece is the “Ce ozomatli” (one monkey) tombstone which was donated to López Obrador last year. The round stone piece, with shell and turquoise inlays, includes the date “ce ozomatli,” indicating a predisposition for crafts and manual labor for those born under this date on the Nahua calendar.

The updated roof — a restoration milestone achieved under a joint project of INAH and the Mexico City government — now shields the oldest remnants of the site, including the shrines dedicated to war and sun god Huitzilopochtli and rain and fertility god Tlaloc, dating back to approximately 1390 AD.

Part of a larger complex and city, the Templo Mayor (Great Temple) was at the center of the political and religious life of the Mexica (Aztec) society. The temple itself consisted of four pyramids and the two shrines where Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc were venerated with elaborate pageantry and sacrificial offerings.

It was destroyed by Spanish invaders during the Conquest and fall of Tenochtitlán in 1521, and a Catholic cathedral was built with many of the same stones next to where it once stood. A key archeological finding in 1978 helped shed light on the site and the Mexica civilization.

Today the museum includes more than 3,000 important artifacts of Mexica culture.

The new roof installation required careful handling due to the site’s fragile relics and limited accessibility within Mexico City’s historic center.

“The site has not only improved physically, but has regained its relevance in the cultural narrative of the country and, above all, of Mexico City,” INAH Director Diego Prieto Hernández said in a press release. “The preservation of heritage is not limited to techniques and methods. It also involves understanding the meaning that these places have [within] the richness of our history.”

The Oct. 31 reopening also included a Day of the Dead altar dedicated to the states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Puebla and Veracruz.

Officials said the museum — the third-most visited INAH museum in Mexico City with an average of more than 500,000 visits per year — anticipates a renewed wave of visitors. The exhibit of repatriated items is open daily except Mondays, and will run through February 2025.

With reports from Infobae, El País and La Jornada.

spot_img

California educational leaders reassure students amid Trump policies

by El Reportero staff and Ed Source reports

After Donald Trump’s electoral victory, education leaders in California have intensified their efforts to reassure vulnerable students, particularly those from immigrant, personal identity, Black, and Latino communities, who fear the return of restrictive policies similar to those from his first term.

Alejandra López, a political science student at Cal Poly Pomona, reflected the fear of many: “I was really upset… I never thought I’d see a second term,” she said, considering the deportation threats her parents, undocumented immigrants from Mexico, face.

Amid this uncertainty, state leaders assure that students’ rights remain protected in California. Xilonin Cruz-González, deputy director of Californians Together, emphasized that there are legal protections for immigrants, such as Assembly Bill 699 of 2017, which defends immigrant students against discrimination and limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Moreover, the historic 1982 Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe guarantees all children, regardless of their immigration status, access to public education. State Attorney General Rob Bonta pledged to defend these rights through litigation if necessary, preparing for any reduction in protections under a second Trump term.

Concerns have also been raised about students with disabilities and those whose personal identity experiences do not fit traditional norms. Megan Stanton-Trehan, a lawyer for Disability Rights California, warned that while state protections remain in place, the impact of federal changes will affect local communities. “It is more important than ever to focus on the needs of these students,” she emphasized.

In response to the growing anxiety, California’s public higher education systems issued a statement reaffirming their commitment to inclusion. “We understand there is a lot of uncertainty,” the statement said, underscoring the state’s commitment to diversity and student protection.

Educators are also mobilizing to support their students. “A teacher told me, ‘I feel like I have to protect my students,'” shared Lindsey Bird, a teacher coach. She reflected the widespread sentiment among educators: “Teachers are heartbroken but ready to defend their students’ rights.”

Despite the widespread anxiety, California remains a stronghold of support, ensuring that all students, regardless of their background, feel welcomed and protected.

spot_img

Mexico warns how it will respond if Trump imposes tariffs on its products

Marcelo Ebrard

by El Reportero‘s wire services

Marcelo Ebrard insisted that the tax policy is inconvenient, in the first instance, for the US economy

The Secretary of Economy of Mexico, Marcelo Ebrard, warned that if the president-elect of the US, Donald Trump, decides to impose a 25 percent tariff on Mexican products, his country will respond with an identical measure, which will be highly detrimental to the US economy.

“If you apply 25 percent tariffs to me, then I have to react with tariffs and I am your main importer, along with Canada. So, if you put tariffs, […] we are going to have to impose tariffs. And what does that lead to? Well, to a huge cost for the North American economy,” said the senior official, in an interview given on Monday to a local radio station.

He also assured that although the Republican magnate could “think about and put on the table” that decision, his “main promoters” would not support it, given the high economic impact of the measure. “Structurally we have conditions to go in favor of Mexico,” he added.

When detailing the concrete consequences of the imposition of taxes on Mexican goods, he mentioned that this will translate into an immediate increase in prices.

“That 25 percent translates to you the next day – I am not talking about the medium term – in an increase in prices in the US,” he explained, so it can be considered as “an important limitation” that cannot be omitted, despite the fact that the Mexican economy is “20 times smaller” than the American one.

Ebrard called to remember that it is not the first time that Trump threatens to tax Mexican products, if measures are not taken to stop migratory flows. In fact, the Republican had already tried, without success, to get Mexico to sign a “safe third country” treaty, which implied that all migrants who arrived on US soil without complying with the legal requirements would be returned to the neighboring country, which was rejected by all instances of the Administration of the then president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

“We took measures, we regulated that flow or helped regulate that flow, but we do not accept that treaty,” he said.

https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/actualidad/public_video/2024.11/6733c4b3e9ff71777f0c359d.mp4?download=1

In other unrelated news

Bukele’s recommendation to reform the Costa Rican penitentiary system

Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves said that his Salvadoran counterpart has given them “key messages”

The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, assured this Tuesday that “the penal system must be reformed” and “must be completely controlled by the Government” in Costa Rica, where he closes a two-day visit today.

“Clearly prisoners in Costa Rica have many more rights than in El Salvador,” said Bukele after visiting, together with his Costa Rican counterpart, Rodrigo Chaves, the La Reforma Penitentiary Center, one of the main prisons in the country.

He then said that “it would be immoral, unethical and lacking in all justice for a prisoner to live on more” than what a citizen with a minimum wage and an average family earns. “The maximum rate should be how a working Costa Rican earns, who pays taxes to support the prisons,” he said.

Once Chaves confirmed that the State currently pays much more than that, Bukele reacted: “In other words, they are spending almost two minimum wages per inmate. It is an injustice for good Costa Ricans.”

At the end of a press conference, a journalist asked Bukele about any recommendations for the Costa Rican model and the head of state insisted that “the penitentiary system should be made less permissive,” especially because of the “access to the outside that prisoners have.”

“It is a fairly permissive regime with regard to intimate visits,” responded the Salvadoran president. “It cannot be that [a prisoner] sees a different young lady every time,” he added.

In turn, Chaves said that Bukele has given them “key messages” to resolve the security problem. “The gentleman has enormous wisdom and credibility to speak to the people of Costa Rica,” he added.

spot_img

2024 elections in San Francisco: A change of direction and new hopes

Marvin Ramírez, editor

The 2024 elections in San Francisco have revealed clear winners and losers, marking the beginning of a new era of change. Mayor London Breed lost her position, becoming one of the biggest losers. Her administration, which attempted to tackle issues such as crime, shoplifting, and homelessness, was not enough for the citizens, who saw these problems worsen. Part of this rejection is due to controversial policies such as Proposition 37, which reduces penalties for thefts under $950, creating the perception of permissiveness toward crime. This approach weighed on the public’s perception, seeing her as too lenient. Breed hands over the position to Daniel Lurie, the newly elected mayor, who arrives promising a renewed approach and concrete solutions.

Lurie, with a strong background in social and philanthropic work, is known for founding and leading Tipping Point Community, a nonprofit organization that fights poverty in the Bay Area. Heir to the Levy fortune, Lurie has demonstrated leadership skills and experience in organizing community projects. His profile has generated expectations among San Franciscans, who hope for clear solutions to homelessness, crime, and public service efficiency.

However, like previous leaders, Lurie has avoided mentioning the issue of disappearing parking meters in the city, a topic affecting residents and business owners. While politicians focus on macro issues, small business owners and their customers face growing parking problems. It is forgotten that a prosperous city depends on commerce, and commerce depends on access to parking. In San Francisco, the reduction of parking spaces and increased fees not only complicate life for residents but also deter those wanting to support local businesses.

Nationally, the elections also brought surprises. Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency, which has generated division and unity across the country. However, in San Francisco, a progressive city, Kamala Harris emerged as the winner of the “symbolic presidency” of the city, surpassing Trump with 307,774 votes to his 58,555 in the area. Although this result has no real implications, it represents a relief for residents, who see Harris as a reflection of their values and aspirations.

Locally, another point of interest was the campaign of Roberto Hernández, an activist and cultural advocate, who was seeking a seat on the District 9 Board of Supervisors. Hernández, known for his work promoting Latino identity and pride, as well as for organizing the famous (and secular) San Francisco Carnival, aspired to represent his community. However, his style and connection with the “Cultural Neighborhood,” homeboys, and lowriders did not manage to garner enough votes outside of his traditional followers. Although he did not win the position, his popularity could strengthen his role as a defender of his community’s interests, especially in the fight against parking policies affecting residents, particularly him, as he owns several cars.

Parking has been another point of controversy in San Francisco, with thousands of parking meters disappearing and the announcement that around 14,000 additional spaces will be converted into no-parking zones. The city expects to generate additional revenue from this measure by fining drivers forced to park in these restricted areas and using the funds to hire more traffic officers. This plan has generated discontent among residents, especially those who frequent local restaurants and businesses. While the intention is to improve traffic flow and generate funds for the city, many believe it will negatively affect local businesses by discouraging visitors and creating a less consumer-friendly atmosphere.

The disconnect between these policies and residents’ needs is evident, and parking is likely

to become a point of pressure for the new local government. San Franciscans hope that Lurie and his team will find a balance between raising funds and the well-being of the community. San Francisco, known for its innovative spirit and social commitment, needs a policy that allows for economic development without disadvantaging residents.

In this context, this year’s elections have brought new faces and renewed expectations. Lurie has the opportunity to demonstrate that his philanthropic experience can translate into effective policies for a complex and diverse city. San Francisco requires a pragmatic approach that is not afraid to challenge external pressures limiting private mobility in the name of globalist policies.

The challenge for Lurie will be great, and San Franciscans will be watching. The prosperity of San Francisco depends not only on being progressive or conservative but also on creating an environment where policies address the daily needs of its people: no tax increases, return the missing parking meters and create new ones, deter thieves with appropriate punishment, and house mentally ill homeless people safely.

spot_img

How the Biden-Harris admin pushed Russia into war with Ukraine

Vice President Kamala Harris and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Kamala Harris blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, but Biden-Harris foreign policy and eastward NATO expansion have contributed significantly to the historical context of this war

by Bob Marshall

In September, Vice President Kamala Harris stated several points at the White House as to how she would handle the Ukraine-Russia war: “I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.… Putin started this war, and … Putin could set his sights on Poland, the Baltic states, and other NATO Allies.… [S]ome in my country … demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forego security relationships with other nations. These proposals are the same of those of Putin.”

But these are the same Biden-Harris tactics and policies that provoked war.

Harris blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for the war. But the proximate source of the Russia-Ukraine conflict goes back beyond Putin to the breakup of the Soviet Empire and even earlier.

End of the Cold War

In late October 1989, the famed Berlin Wall as a dividing line between Socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR) and West Germany, called a “wall of mistrust” by then former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, was crumbling.

Obviously, Gorbachev, with almost 400,000 troops in East Germany could have stopped the reunification. But Western officials gave Russian leaders assurances there was nothing to worry about. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that NATO expansion would proceed, “not one inch eastward.” The next day, West German chancellor Helmut Kohl assured Gorbachev, “NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.”

The Los Angeles Times noted, “Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.… NATO’S widening umbrella doesn’t justify Putin’s … incursions in Ukraine or Georgia. Still, the evidence suggests that Russia’s protests have merit and that U.S. policy has contributed to current tensions in Europe.”

Documents at George Washington University testify to agreements made between Western leaders and Russian officials at this time – that western nations would not expand NATO to the East.

Boris Yeltsin was the first president of the Russian Federation from 1991 to 1999, coming to office immediately after Premier Gorbachev’s resignation with the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. In 1995, President Yeltsin met with President Clinton in St. Catherine’s Hall at the Kremlin.

Yeltsin said to Clinton, “I want to get a clear understanding of your idea of NATO expansion, because now I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed. How do you think it looks to us if one bloc continues to exist while the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner, they ask. I ask it too. Why do you want to do this?”

When Clinton spoke to Yeltsin in 1995, there were 15 NATO member countries. When Clinton left office, there were 18.

Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion

In 2016, President Clinton’s former Defense Secretary Bill Perry said, “In the last few years, most of the blame can be pointed at the actions that Putin has taken. But in the early years … the United States deserves much of the blame.… Our first action … in a bad direction was when NATO started to expand, bringing in eastern European nations, some of them bordering Russia.”

Former CIA Director Robert Gates, who also served as Secretary of Defense for President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, opposed the policy of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”

In June 1997, 50 former senators, retired military officers, diplomats, and foreign policy academics wrote to President Clinton about the problems and ill consequences of NATO expansion:

[T]he current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions.… NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability …

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition … [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.

In 1998, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman asked George Kennan, who devised the successful “containment” policy to prevent the Soviet Union from achieving its goal of world domination through open warfare, what he thought of the U.S. Senate ratifying NATO expansion even up to Russia’s border. Kennan replied:

[I]t is the beginning of a new Cold War.… There was no reason for this.… No one was threatening anybody else.… We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so.

I was … bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.… Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

In 2007, Putin noted, “NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders … and what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact … NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on May 17, 1990 … said … ‘The fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”

Fiona Hill points to 2007 when Putin “put the world, and certainly Europe, on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO.… In 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine.… Four months after NATO’s Bucharest Summit, there was the [Russian] invasion of Georgia. There wasn’t an invasion of Ukraine then because the Ukrainian government pulled back from seeking NATO membership.”

William Burns, now President Biden’s Central Intelligence director and former U.S. ambassador to Russia, wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players … I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

Putin told Burns in 2008: “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia. We would do all in our power to prevent it.”

In 2015, the German Der Speigel magazine interviewed Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, regarding the status of Ukraine in response to the abrupt change in the presidential leadership and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Brzezinski suggested that “Ukraine should be free to choose its political identity.… But … Russia should be assured credibly that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.”

More recently in 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Pope Francis said that the ‘barking of NATO at the door of Russia’ might have led to the invasion of Ukraine.… The pope … deplored the brutality of the war.… Pope Francis … described Russia’s attitude to Ukraine as ‘an anger that I don’t know whether it was provoked but was perhaps facilitated’ by the presence in nearby countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.… ‘In Ukraine, it was other states that created the conflict.’”

The caution of these experienced statesmen and world leaders is lost on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

This article is reprinted at LifeSite with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

spot_img

Trump’s deportation plan brings fear and sadness at California’s border

President-elect’s border policies could hit trade, privacy, and Add New Postimmigrant families living in California

by Wendy Fry

California immigrant advocates and state officials are bracing for what they describe as the likely massive impact of a second Trump presidency on border policies — vowing to fight his plans in court even as they remain uncertain which will make it from the campaign trail to reality.

Trump has pledged to conduct the largest mass deportation campaign in U.S. history on Jan. 20 when he takes office; threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico if it doesn’t stop the northbound flow of migrants and fentanyl; and described plans to use the military as part of his crackdown, contemplating deploying the National Guard to aid in deportations if necessary.

“We’re going to have to seal up those borders, and we’re going to have to let people come into our country,” said the president-elect during his acceptance remarks Tuesday. “We want people to come back in, but we have to, we have to let them come back in, but they have to come in legally.”

Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued challenges to immigration restrictions during Trump’s first term, said “Many of the policies Trump is advocating and promising, like use of the military, are illegal and we are prepared to challenge them.” An ACLU “roadmap” on Trump’s reelection described plans to push legislators to block deportations and make cuts to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention operations. It also envisioned “a civil rights firewall” to protect immigrants and litigation against deportations.

Other organizations have promised to join the fight.

“We believe Trump when he promises to enact disastrous policies that aim to tear families apart, destabilize communities, and weaken our economy,” said Lindsay Toczylowski, CEO and president of Los Angeles-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center.

“But the U.S. Constitution didn’t disappear overnight. We will use all the tools we have to protect and defend the rights of all immigrants and asylum seekers,” she added.

Those planning to fight Trump’s border policy face the strategic challenge of not knowing if or when each of his myriad border-related proposals will be implemented or how feasible and legal they will turn out to be.

But immigrant advocates said the impact from his election will likely be massive. California is home to more immigrants than any other state in the nation,about 10.6 million people, as well as the most unauthorized immigrants, according to 2022 numbers compiled by the Pew Research Center. Immigrants make up more than a fourth of the state’s population, and nearly half of all children in California have at least one immigrant parent.

“If Donald Trump is successful with deportations, no state will be more impacted from a fiscal perspective, from an economic perspective,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a press briefing last week.

“We will use all the tools we have to protect and defend the rights of all immigrants and asylum seekers.”

State Attorney General Rob Bonta told CalMatters that his office is prepared to fight, spending the months leading up to the election developing legal strategies.

“The best way to protect California, its values, the rights of our people, is to be prepared so we won’t be flat-footed,” Bonta said days before the election. Bonta’s comments indicate that the state, which sued more than 100 times over Trump’s policies in his first term, will again be a thorn in the president’s side.

Those waiting in Tijuana to cross legally into the United States through CBP One, the federal government’s phone app, worried on Wednesday that their opportunity to seek asylum had already slipped away.

“Sadness,” is what Emir Mesa said she felt when she heard of Trump’s pending victory.  The 45-year-old mother and new grandmother from Michoacán said she fled her hometown because of extreme violence there.

“We do not want to enter as illegals,” she said. “That’s why we are here in Tijuana waiting to enter properly, not to be smuggled.” She held her 15-day-old grandchild as she described how her family has been waiting six months at the Movimiento Juventud 2000 migrant shelter, located a stone’s throw from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump has said he plans to discontinue the Biden administration’s use of CBP One, through which migrants can apply for asylum in the U.S. But it remains unclear what will happen to people who have already spent months in Mexico on the waiting list for their initial asylum screening appointment.

Impact on U.S. citizens

Trump’s border policies may also have significant impacts on all Californians by disrupting trade and expanding surveillance.

His administration would have to extend the border surveillance apparatus already in place to carry out deportations on the scale he has planned, experts said. Federal authorities have used everything from camera towers to drones to ground sensors and thermal imaging to detect migrants in recent years.

“Given the indiscriminate nature of mass surveillance, it is possible that U.S. citizens and others permanently in the country will also be caught in its web,” said Petra Molnar, a Harvard faculty associate, lawyer and author of the book “The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.”

Trump’s plans for the border also seem poised to reverberate across regional economies and in Mexico.

On Monday, Trump said he plans to impose tariffs on Mexico if the country doesn’t stop the northbound flow of migrants and fentanyl. Local business leaders scoffed as they recalled the damage to the border region’s economy during Trump’s first term. The peso slumped to a two-year low.

“It’s important to remember that we aren’t just trading with Mexico, we’re producing together,” said San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce CEO Jerry Sanders, a Republican and former mayor of the border city.  “At the end of the day, this would be a tax on U.S. customers and would likely set off a domino effect of other countries imposing retaliatory measures to protect their own interests.”

A massive deportation campaign clearly would impact California’s economy.

Over half of all California workers are immigrants or children of immigrants, and collectively, the state’s undocumented residents paid nearly $8.5 billion in taxes in 2022, playing a key role in stimulating the state’s economy, according to the California Budget & Policy Center and data estimates from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. CalMatters.

spot_img

California voters get tough on crime, pass Prop. 36

Los votantes de California aprobaron la Proposición 36, una medida electoral que aumentará las sanciones penales para ciertos delitos relacionados con drogas y robo y dirigirá a más personas a tratamientos contra la drogadicción después de ser condenadas. -- California voters approved Proposition 36, a ballot measure that will increase criminal penalties for certain drug and theft offenses and direct more people to drug treatment after convictions.

Supporters of Prop. 36 say it would help the state address homelessness, drug addiction and retail theft. Its critics call it a return to the failed policies of the war on drugs

by Nigel Duara

CalMatters

California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36 on Tuesday, capping a chaotic 10 months of bargaining and wrangling at the state Capitol where Democratic leaders unsuccessfully sought to preserve a decade of criminal justice reform.

Instead, the campaign to increase penalties for theft and repeated convictions for drug possession looks to have won out.

Prop. 36, opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, reclassiffies some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies.

The measure also creates a new category of crime — a “treatment-mandated felony.” People who don’t contest criminal charges after multiple drug possession convictions could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison, but if they don’t finish treatment, they still face up to three years in prison.

Property crime spiked in California after the pandemic while the state, counties and local governments have struggled to contain and control sidewalk encampments of homeless people.

Prop. 36 was pitched by supporters as a solution to those problems Led by the retail industry, they pledged that the measure would target drug traffickers and people who commit multiple acts of retail theft.

They raised about $17 million for the measure, which in addition to big checks from major retailers also included contributions from the California District Attorneys Association and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

Opponents raised about $7.7 million, which included contributions from the ACLU, teachers unions and the labor organization Service Employees International Union.

Prop. 36 reverses some of the changes California voters made to the criminal justice system a decade ago with Proposition 47, which lowered the penalties for some crimes while seeking to reduce the state’s then-swollen prison population.

Polls leading up the election consistently showed a large majority of likely voters supported Prop. 36. Several Democratic big city mayors and district attorneys threw their support behind it, too, despite Newsom’s opposition.

“Tonight, California voters have spoken with a clear voice on the triple epidemics of retail theft, homelessness and fatal drug overdoses plaguing our state,” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said in a written statement. “In supporting Proposition 36, they said yes to treatment.  They said yes to accountability.  And they said yes to putting common sense before partisanship, so we can stop the suffering in our communities.

What led to Prop. 36?

Since California voters passed Prop. 47 in 2014, prosecutors, police and big box retailers have blamed the law for an increase in property crimes and homelessness. Prop. 36 is their attempt to unwind some elements of the previous initiative.

During the pandemic, the rate of shoplifting and commercial burglaries skyrocketed, especially in Los Angeles, Alameda, San Mateo and Sacramento counties. Statewide, the Public Policy Institute of California found that reported shoplifting of merchandise worth up to $950 soared 28 percent over the past five years. That’s the highest observed level since 2000.

Combining shoplifting with commercial burglaries, the institute’s researchers found that total reported thefts were 18 percent higher than in 2019.

Another facet of pandemic-era shoplifting were viral videos of mobs of people rushing into stores and grabbing whatever they could before fleeing. Prop. 36 allows felony sentences for theft to be extended by three years if three or more people commit the crime together.

What will California crime measure cost?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts that the measure will cost tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Those costs are chiefly from placing a few thousand more people in prison and putting them in for longer terms. The rest of the costs to the state will be accrued in the court system, where felonies take longer to prosecute than misdemeanors, and where the county court systems will have to create new processes to handle the measure’s new category of crime, a treatment-mandated felony.

Some of those costs will also be borne by the county court systems themselves, which the Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts will amount to tens of millions each year.

Who supported Prop. 36?

Supporters pitched Prop. 36 as a way to combat homelessness, which is up by more than 50 percent since Prop. 47 passed. The reason, supporters say, is that drug dependence pushes people to the street, and increasing the penalties for drug possession is the only way to force people into treatment.

Supporters also say Prop. 36 is a good middle ground between California’s tough-on-crime days, which pushed prison capacity past its breaking point, and the last decade under Prop. 47, which they say created “loopholes in state law that criminals exploit to avoid accountability for fentanyl trafficking and repeat retail theft.”

Who opposed Prop. 36?

Opponents, including the governor and Democratic leadership, say that no studies on criminal justice or homelessness support the idea that harsher punishment — or the threat of harsher punishment — prevents crime or gets people off the street.

The measure’s opponents include the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the Alliance for Safety and Justice and the California Democratic Party.

The measure’s opponents argued Prop. 36 marks a return to the war on drugs, which they said California voters rejected a decade ago with Prop. 47.

Newsom did not put any money into opposing the measure, but he has called attention to its potential to drive up spending on the justice system.

“It’s the prevailing wind, and I understand it. I just hope people take the time to understand what they’re supporting,” Newsom said in remarks to reporters last week. “It’s just drug policy reform. It’s unfunded and unfortunately, it may impact some existing drug treatment and mental health services.”

spot_img

Republicans win house, delivering Trump a trifecta

por Citizen Frank

Se proyecta que los republicanos mantendrán el control de la Cámara de Representantes, otorgando al partido el control total de Washington con el presidente electo Trump de regreso en la Casa Blanca en enero.

Decision Desk HQ proyectó que el Partido Republicano conservaría la Cámara al ganar su puesto número 218 el lunes, el número necesario para obtener una mayoría en la cámara baja.

El resultado es una gran victoria para el presidente de la Cámara, Mike Johnson (R-La.), quien ascendió rápidamente de la oscuridad para liderar no solo la agenda legislativa de los republicanos en la Cámara, sino también un rol significativo en su infraestructura de campaña.

Los republicanos lograron salvar a algunos de sus titulares más vulnerables, como los representantes Don Bacon (R-Neb.) y David Valadao (R-Calif.), mientras derrotaban a varios titulares demócratas en riesgo. El representante estatal Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) desbancó a la representante Susan Wild (D-Pa.), mientras que el empresario Rob Bresnahan derrotó al representante Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.).

Esos resultados compensaron algunas de las pérdidas republicanas. Tres republicanos de primer mandato en Nueva York —los representantes Anthony D’Esposito, Marc Molinaro y Brandon Williams— perdieron sus campañas de reelección, al igual que la representante Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.).

La distribución final de la Cámara es incierta, ya que aún se están contando los votos en varias contiendas en California. Pero se espera que los republicanos tengan otra mayoría estrecha al comenzar el nuevo Congreso.

Esos números exactos importarán mucho para el futuro político de Johnson, para las políticas que los republicanos podrán implementar y para el funcionamiento —o la falta de funcionamiento— de la cámara baja.

Trump mencionó al presidente de la Cámara en su discurso de victoria desde Palm Beach, Fla., en las primeras horas del miércoles: “Parece que también mantendremos el control de la Cámara de Representantes. Y quiero agradecer a Mike Johnson. Creo que está haciendo un trabajo estupendo”.

El líder de la mayoría de la Cámara, Steve Scalise (R-La.), y la presidenta del Partido Republicano en la Cámara, Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), también se unieron a Trump en Mar-a-Lago para celebrar su victoria, en una muestra del fuerte compromiso de los republicanos de la Cámara con el respaldo a la administración de Trump.

Los principales republicanos de la Cámara han estado trabajando con los senadores republicanos durante meses en planes legislativos que pueden enviar rápidamente a Trump en los primeros 100 días de control republicano total. Estos planes incluyen extender los recortes de impuestos aprobados en el primer mandato de Trump, aumentar el financiamiento del muro fronterizo, derogar iniciativas climáticas y promover la elección de escuelas.

Pero probablemente habrá muchos obstáculos para la ambiciosa agenda de los republicanos. Los últimos dos años de la histórica y reducida mayoría republicana en la Cámara estuvieron marcados por disputas internas que, en ocasiones, detuvieron la actividad legislativa. Ese caos fue encabezado por la destitución histórica del ex presidente de la Cámara, Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

La incertidumbre sobre el margen republicano también plantea preguntas inmediatas sobre el futuro de Johnson.

El presidente de la Cámara ha sido explícito sobre su intención de buscar nuevamente el puesto si los republicanos ganan el control unificado del gobierno. Sin embargo, ha enfrentado oposición de algunos conservadores de línea dura y ya sobrevivió a un intento de destitución a principios de este año, liderado por las representantes Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) y Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Los demócratas de la Cámara ayudaron a detener ese intento.

Para mantener el puesto, Johnson necesitará asegurar una mayoría de votos en el piso de la Cámara cuando se reúna el 3 de enero de 2025, lo que requiere casi unánime apoyo republicano.

Johnson dijo en una entrevista con The Hill durante la campaña en octubre que tiene la intención de “tener el apoyo de mi partido para ser presidente” en el piso de la Cámara.

La victoria republicana también niega notablemente al líder de la minoría de la Cámara, Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), la oportunidad de convertirse en el primer presidente negro de la Cámara.

La batalla por la Cámara fue considerada casi tan cerrada como la contienda por la Casa Blanca, con distritos disputados de costa a costa, la mayoría de los cuales estaban en estados que no fueron competitivos en la elección presidencial. Los demócratas habrían necesitado una ganancia neta de al menos cuatro escaños para ganar el control de la Cámara y esperaban obtener un impulso de los votantes preocupados por la postura republicana sobre los derechos reproductivos.

En una entrevista el Día de las Elecciones, el presidente del Comité Nacional Republicano del Congreso (NRCC), Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) —quien busca otro mandato en el cargo— señaló varias áreas de enfoque del brazo de campaña de los republicanos de la Cámara que le dieron confianza sobre la elección.

Dividir el costo de los anuncios de televisión con los candidatos de una manera que les permitiera aprovechar las tarifas más bajas para candidatos permitió que cada dólar rindiera más, dijo Hudson. También señaló que el NRCC abrió más de 40 oficinas de campo, o “estaciones de batalla”.

“Siento que en los últimos ciclos, los partidos nacionales se han alejado del juego de campo, y nosotros hicimos una gran inversión en nuestro juego de campo esta vez”, dijo Hudson.

Es probable que el resultado electoral influya en las luchas legislativas que quedan en las últimas semanas del 118º Congreso. Los conservadores de línea dura estarán ansiosos por retrasar la consideración de propuestas imprescindibles hasta el nuevo año, cuando un Senado y una Casa Blanca republicanos podrían resultar en políticas más conservadoras y niveles de gasto más bajos.

La Cámara tendrá que actuar en varios temas en el período de sesiones salientes. El financiamiento gubernamental, por ejemplo, vence el 20 de diciembre.

“¿Podría el partido opositor plantear obstáculos a quienes tienen una trifecta?”

Sí. Incluso con una trifecta, el partido gobernante puede enfrentar obstáculos del partido opositor u otras fuentes. Estos son algunos desafíos comunes:

1 – Obstruccionismo en el Senado (Nivel Federal): A nivel federal, el Senado tiene una regla que requiere 60 votos para superar un obstruccionismo en la mayoría de las leyes. Si el partido mayoritario tiene menos de 60 bancas, el partido minoritario puede usar el obstruccionismo para bloquear o retrasar la legislación. Esto a menudo obliga a la mayoría a comprometerse o buscar apoyo del otro lado del espectro.

2 – Reglas de obstruccionismo a nivel estatal: Algunas legislaturas estatales tienen reglas similares al obstruccionismo federal, donde se requieren votos de supermayoría para aprobar ciertos tipos de leyes, especialmente sobre cuestiones presupuestarias o enmiendas constitucionales.

3 – Revisión judicial: Los tribunales, especialmente la Corte Suprema a nivel federal o los tribunales supremos estatales, pueden bloquear o anular leyes que consideren inconstitucionales. El poder judicial actúa como un control sobre los poderes legislativo y ejecutivo, lo que significa que las leyes aprobadas por un partido que posee la trifecta pueden ser impugnadas en los tribunales.

4 – Opinión pública y presión electoral: los partidos gobernantes a menudo enfrentan la presión de los votantes y los grupos de apoyo, lo que puede limitar la agresividad con la que aplican ciertas políticas. Las políticas impopulares pueden generar una reacción negativa en las próximas elecciones, lo que podría resultar en la pérdida de la trifecta.

5 – Moderados y facciones dentro del partido: incluso dentro de un mismo partido, puede haber divisiones ideológicas. Por ejemplo, los miembros moderados o conservadores de un partido pueden oponerse a las políticas favorecidas por su ala más progresista. Estos desacuerdos internos pueden dificultar la aprobación de leyes, especialmente cuando la trifecta está en manos de solo una pequeña mayoría.

6 – Aspectos específicos a nivel estatal: en algunos estados, otros funcionarios electos, como los fiscales generales o los interventores, pueden ser del partido de la oposición, lo que crea obstáculos para hacer cumplir o implementar políticas. Además, ciertas leyes estatales o requisitos constitucionales pueden exigir el apoyo bipartidista para ciertas acciones, como enmendar la constitución estatal o aprobar presupuestos.

En resumen, si bien una trifecta puede dar a un partido más control, diversos controles, reglas de procedimiento y dinámicas internas a menudo crean obstáculos importantes.

spot_img

Trump’s unstoppable impact: An unexpected victory that challenges the elites

Los líderes negros rezan una oración con el presidente Trump al final de una reunión en la Sala del Gabinete de la Casa Blanca en febrero. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP -- Black leaders say a prayer with President Trump as they end a meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in February. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Marvin Ramírez, editor

Donald Trump’s victory in the November 5 elections was a surprise to many, particularly to the left and the Democratic Party, who expected a sure victory due to the strong donations and confidence in Kamala Harris’ campaign. However, the final result made it clear that popular support, especially from various ethnic communities and the working class, was key to the outcome.

Latinos, African Americans, Asians, Arabs and other communities did not hesitate to express their support for Trump, challenging the media narrative and the stigma created by the campaigns against him. Despite legal accusations and attempts to delegitimize him, the former president managed to connect with a broad spectrum of voters, demonstrating that his support base remains intact. Disinformation strategies, such as trials and the accusation of collusion with Russia, did not succeed in weakening him. On the contrary, his image was strengthened. Trump, known for his resilience, once again proved that he is capable of overcoming any obstacle. In the face of political attacks and media campaigns, his image was further consolidated, reflecting not only his popularity in traditional sectors, but also the rejection of a political elite disconnected from the real needs of the population. This triumph makes it clear that politics does not always follow expectations, and that the popular will can prevail over the narratives imposed by the media.

The attempts of traditional media to shape public perception fell into ridicule. Polls and disinformation campaigns failed to destroy Trump, who had already been immunized against criticism. As the media insisted that Kamala Harris would win, Trump’s supporters stood firm, trusting in his consistency and courage. For many, Trump represents the last hope of reversing what they consider the decline of the United States as a world power and restoring the American dream.

However, the challenge now will be how to handle the future of the undocumented population. Despite his victory, concerns remain about the fate of undocumented workers and their families, who live in fear of being deported. Trump will have the opportunity to show whether, despite his strict immigration policies, he can be a fair leader and protector of those who honestly contribute to the country’s economy.

spot_img

Events immersed in the Latin culture in San Francisco, ENJOY!

“Ragnar Kjartansson: The Visitors”

by the El Reportero‘s staff

In November 2024, San Francisco offers a variety of Latin music events and art exhibitions that reflect the city’s rich cultural diversity. Below are some of the featured events:

Latin Music Events:

  1. Salsa Concert with Maelo Ruíz

– Date: Saturday, Nove. 16, 2024, at 9:00 PM

– Location: Roccapulco, 3140 17th St, San Francisco, CA 94110

– Description: Renowned salsa artist Maelo Ruíz will perform live, offering a night full of Caribbean rhythms and romantic melodies.

– Tickets: Available on Eventbrite

  1. Latin Sundays at The Music City Underground

– Date: Sunday, Nov.10, 2024, at 7:00 PM

– Location: The Music City Underground, 1355 Bush St, San Francisco, CA 94109

– Description: Enjoy a night of live Latin music with bands and DJ sets, creating a festive and vibrant atmosphere.

– Tickets: Details on Eventbrite

  1. Salsa and Bachata Night at The Valencia Room

– Date: Thursday, Nov. 7, 2024, at 10:00 PM

– Location: The Valencia Room, 647 Valencia St, San Francisco, CA 94110

– Description: Dance to salsa and bachata at one of the most popular clubs in the city.

– Tickets: Information on Eventbrite

Art Exhibitions:

  1. “Glow: Discover the Art of Light”

– Dates: Nov. 21, 2024 – Jan. 26, 2025

– Location: Exploratorium, Pier 15, Embarcadero at Green St, San Francisco, CA 94111

– Description: Annual exhibition that illuminates Pier 15 with stunning light sculptures, featuring new and luminous seasonal artworks that dazzle and surprise.

  1. “Mary Cassatt at Work”

– Dates: Oct. 5, 2024 – Jan.26, 2025

– Location: Legion of Honor, 100 34th Ave, San Francisco, CA 94121

– Description: Exhibition that explores the life and work of Mary Cassatt, one of the most influential artists of French Impressionism.

  1. “Ragnar Kjartansson: The Visitors”

– Dates: Nov. 5, 2022 – Jan. 26, 2025

– Location: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA), 151 3rd St, San Francisco, CA 94103

– Description: Installation featuring a series of videos and a live musical composition, offering an immersive and emotional experience.

  1. “American Beauty: The Osher Collection of American Art”

– Dates: Through Oct. 13, 2024

– Location: de Young Museum, 50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Dr, San Francisco, CA 94122

– Description: Exhibition featuring a collection of charming impressionist and realist artworks from the 19th and 20th centuries, highlighting the influence of these paintings on American culture.

These events offer an excellent opportunity to enjoy Latin music and explore diverse artistic expressions in San Francisco during the month of November 2024.

spot_img
123...609Page 2 of 609

SELECTIONS

POPULAR TICKETS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Welcome to our Marvin J. Ramirez website! We are an innovative newspaper located in the heart of San Francisco. With a relentless passion for telling powerful stories, we inform our community with truthful news, insightful analysis, and compelling reporting.

Contacto: lreportero@aol.com

FOLLOW US

© Copyright 2023. AMAYCOM.NET. All rights reserved.