Why some people is attacking others in Twitter

It's strange to be writing this, but I have no other way, first, to let the people know that someone is copying various accounts on Twitter, impersonating them, copying their avatars, bio, site link and backgrounds to mislead their followers to think they are the person they're impersonating. I’m the latest person their impersonating and trying to harass.

And second, I want to express my theory of why is this happening? Well, I've been thinking about this since the impersonation of various people I follow and respect started.

In some cases seems to be something personal, by the way the fake accounts tweets: something this person said or the fact that they have a lot of followers makes angry the author of the tweets and he's attacking them and trying to do as much damage to his image he can (and by impersonating them they also make people trust him and follow, so they can spread their "ideas" to more and more twitterers).

In other cases, it's a political issue. And I think in my case and at least one of my friends this is what happened. Why I say so? Well, for starters, we are in getting closer to an important election. I write in this blog and in the Spanish one stuff about Mexican politics. I express my views in Twitter (particularly, I have participated in some conversations about politics).

And the thing that I believe caused most of the anger of this person: I helped, with various others twitterers, to discover some accounts of a national newspaper were fake and were spreading mostly opinions, without saying 'this is an editorial', instead of news.

I'm talking of my case, but I believe in the case of other harassed people this is what's happening also: something they said about politics or something they do about those fake accounts or other fake accounts trying to influence people in certain way bothered this person.

And that's why I believe there's intolerance in Mexico. It seems to me that some intolerant people can't stand a person express their views (without trying to make others to think like him/her). Their response is to attack.

Well, I'm not going to enable this person by answering their attacks or even reading their tweets. I have a work (even if it's at home and freelance, I have a compromise to do it as good as I can), a family and problems to solve that are way too important to answer someone blinded by their bigotry and intolerance.

I'm just doing this post as a warning to those who could be approached by this account, asking them to follow him or in other ways. Also, to tell you that I'm ignoring their tweets, but I'm reporting them to Twitter. Hopefully, Twitter can do something about this.

And also, as a reflection about how things work in Mexico lately. It seems that if a person expresses views that contradict somebody else, then someone is going to attack him/her. It's really sad.

I think that everyone has the right to express their views, particularly if they aren't trying to force you to think their way. I have moderate views; I believe we should vote for the candidates that offer better solutions, no matter what their party is. Also, I don't believe in racism or homophobia, because everyone has the right to be treated equal by the people and the law. I think in every problem we have we can reach a solution discussing this problems, not disqualifying the other.

I hope people can see the difference among those positions: intolerance and tolerance, and chooses to follow or read those who are not trying to force their way by attacking others.

Different women leadership

I am surprised how women with very different styles and background have been the protagonists of this year's international politics.

The most visible, were, of course, the ones who participated in the US election. First, it was Hillary Clinton. She was, as Tina Brown in The Daily Beast puts it, an Iron Lady, ready to be commander in chief at 3 a.m. Things didn't turn out like that, she was maybe too much for many people, so the candidacy of the Democratic Party and then the Presidency of the USA ended in the hands of Barack Obama (an historic Presidency because it's a 'first time' event, as it would have been if a woman have ended as President).

Then, let's say that the second protagonist of this year was not as good as it could have been. Sarah Palin, one woman that could have represented a intelligent, valuable asset as a candidate for VP, ended up being the 'political choice': the beautiful face and apparently no brain someone selected to give some 'glitter' to a dying Republican Party. Bad movement for this party and bad for women in general, because it seems to be a 'confirmation' that women are only meaningful if they are beautiful or charismatic. Sad thing.

Finally, Michelle Obama. I believe, as Geraldine Brooks writes also in an article in the Daily Beast, she is smarter than she has let us see. She is not only the gracious and discreet First Lady that knows how to take care of their kids and remains a shadow while her husband shines as President. I don't think she will try to outshine him, not at all, but she is not going to be a decorative figure. It's very probable she will be there with her husband in anything she can influence and help. It's going to be an interesting term.

While I see this kind of women in other countries, in Latin America and in Mexico I do not believe things are going as good. In Latin America there are two women Presidents: Michelle Bachelet in Chile and Cristina Fernández (also known as Cristina Kirchner) in Argentina. They hold their positions with some level of competency and have given a step further for other women who wants to be in that same post, but two is still a low number for 21 countries.

In Mexico, and this is really not pleasing, women have achieved great success in all kinds of fields, but at least in politics there have been only 6 women governors in Mexico, two of them are still in office: Amalia García, in Zacatecas and Ivonne Ortega Pacheco, in Yucatán. One woman, Patricia Mercado, participated as candidate in the last election (in 2006) and she won a good number of votes, being the first time this happened, but she still have only 2.70 percent of the votes.

I don't know if a woman in Presidency is something that will happen soon in Mexico. In other countries in America this is a reality, in US is something I think we will see soon, but in Mexico politics seems to be for 'machos' or for women who don't mind to be called bitches only because they want to lead their country.

I hope the women that are being leaders right now in other countries will know how to be smart and valuable to pave the way for others who want to break that archaic glass ceiling.

¿"Barbie" Sarah Palin?

It turns out Sarah Palin is being taken less seriously than she wants. Some blogs and news articles says she is only part of a PR strategy for Sen. John McCain, meaning that she is only there because she is an "everyday mom".

I do not think being a mom is something bad or less important than having some kind of external job (because being a mom it IS a really hard job). But what I hate is that she is being used to attract certain kind of voters and not because of her merits and besides, because political analysts make 'being a mom' something irrelevant. It is relevant, but if you only see a woman as a mom and not as the whole dimentions she has, then you are diminishing her with this attitude.

And now, as the title of this post says, I found a news article that says that someone is making a 'Barbie' Sarah Palin.

I think they are making her an object, and a sexual object in certain way. The people who had this idea is almost saying "She is someone just because she was a beauty queen". I find it disgusting. But of course, there is people who find that amusing. I do not think ANY woman should be treated or thought about like a plastic doll. But well, that is me. The world is going crazy.

A woman as possible Vicepresident of USA... and I'm not happy

I consider myself a moderate feminist. I am not asking for radical measures against men or something like that, but I am usually happy when I see a woman accomplish great things in her career, life, sports, any kind of activity.

But with Sarah Palin, the new candidate to the Vicepresident, chosen by the Republican candidate to the Presidency, John McCain, I don't have this feeling.

After reading about her beliefs and an analysis of her speech in the Republican National Convention, she really make me feel annoyed in a lot of levels.
First, why did she feel the need to stretch the truth in her speech, or be defiant to the media, I don't know.

She equals Barack Obama in years in the public administration, but even so she tries to make her job more important than the one made for Obama, with phrases like: "It's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate." But Obama has worked in team of Senators to make different laws and reforms, she just didn't bother to mention it.

She shows off her "credentials" as hockey mom and multitasking mom, the perfect woman, but it is really difficult, as mom, to be all at the same time. On one point one of the multiple aspects of her life is going to crack: her career, her marriage, her sons and daugthers.

She believes she is strong enough to send 'a message' to the media about her 'mission' to work for the Americans and not for the media. A little naive of her to think the media is going to let go any mistake just because she said 'I'm not working for you'.

And finally, this is a person who doesn't acknowledge that she is no Superwoman, that she has flaws and that she is human, that in order to do it all, she could need help from a nanny, for example, that she is not a "pitbull with lipstick" (her words). I really don't see how this image can be appealing to women in USA who are only trying to be their best, not the best in the whole universe.

Democratic Convention from the view of an outsider

United States politics, from abroad, look a lot more interesting to me than the politics in my country.

First of all, Americans seem to know how to make a convention of politicians almost a Hollywood show. It's not easy, once you follow the way they do their campaigns or their summits, to take your sight from it.

The Democrat National Convention has been, for me, a very interesting thing to watch. From the point of view of my B.A. in Communication it shows how political propaganda should be made, from the politics point of view it gives examples on how the union of a party is more important than the egos of important contenders like Hillary Clinton, it demonstrates that it's good not to be all the time in the spotlight (like Barack Obama did) and let the person who will be the formula partner take the lead (like John Biden did this Tuesday).

Just watching the video in YouTube I found that the words used by Biden are encouraging, they pledge to the best of the people, not the worst like Mexican politicians do.



Here, in Mexico, everyone steps in the other toes. It's not possible to have union inside the parties, they fight for things like who will lead and they fight more when they have to choose who will be the candidate to the Mexican Presidency, electing her/him in an secret process and fighting the other contenders like they were enemies, not partners from the same party.

I find this disgusting and I understand how most of people in Mexico is not interested in politics. I believe that a politic strategy that tries to do people react because they have fear or they feel hate is not a good thing. I think that it is better to instill hope in a person than fear. But of course, that is my point of view and unfortunately here the strategy of giving hope to people is less and less used.

Update: After seeing (at this page) and reading (at this page) the speech given by Barack Obama I believe if Mexican politicians would have this passion to establish their ideas, people won't be so detached from politics as it is now. To me it was a great, great speach...

New role of women, ¿cause for violence against them?

A recent article in the Washington Post tells how women in India, having achieved new opportunities in this traditional society, now face increased violence because of the resentment of men. The Indian men some times see this new role as a threat to the status quo of the Indian society.

Reading the article by Emily Wax I can only find coincidences (very disturbing coincidences) about the way men treats women in Mexico.

Lets start just with one recent declaration made by the Catholic Church. A high rank priest said that women should not use mini-skirts and other 'provocative' clothes to avoid the harassment of men.

Is this really the cause of violence, harassment and rapes? Are women guilty of this? Of course not. And his affirmation would have no logic if he had analyzed the way women in India (and other traditional countries) are the victims of violence. Their outfit cannot be seen as 'provocative' in any way, yet in Mexico the priests keep giving advices like these instead of trying to make men more respectful and to convince them of giving better treatment to females.

The real cause for violence against women, as the Indian society case seems to probe, it's men feeling that women want to be 'the boss', and the sensation that they no longer control the situation as it has happen traditionally.


Independence in women in some societies (like the Mexican) it is still harshly criticized. Women who tries to earn and control money, to choose their way of life or to begin living outside their parents home are seen like pariahs who will not have all the 'rewards' a more traditional female can 'earn'.

In some towns in Mexico women are even not allowed to do what in many countries is natural: to participate in the political process and earn important posts in the government.

In Mexico, less than 25 percent of the ministries are guided by women and, in America Latina, our country is 11 in 18 nations in political opportunities for women, as states a news article in the newspaper La Jornada.

Recently, a woman in Oaxaca, Eufrosina Cruz, tried to participate as candidate for Mayor of her town, only to be expelled by men. It is sad to see that this situation happens. Native people in Mexico call this exclusion 'usos y costumbres' (traditions), but the fact is that ignorance some times is the reason to treat women like this, and not only between  native people, but in men of all kinds.

A intelligent technological strategy

As reported by US newspapers like The Washington Post, Barack Obama is applying a interesting strategy to announce who will be his running mate.

He will be sending a message to his supporters via cell phone to have them informed in the moment he announces who will be the possible Vicepresident of the United States.

The New York Times explains in a opinion article this is not a 'show off' from Obama, it's a political strategy to obtain the cell phones of thousands of people, young people who doesn't even have a landline, or minorities, that for their status doesn't have any other form of personal communication than their cell phones.

This is not the first time that Obama has used text messages to 'reclute' voters.

On the day of the Iowa caucuses, the campaign sent repeated messages and caucus tips to the cellphones of its Iowa supporters. In New Hampshire, Mr. Obama sent his supporters three text messages over the course of primary day to remind them to vote and to get their friends to vote.

The same NYT article reports changes in the way the cell phones are used in political changes.

In Spain, in 2004, youngsters sent a text message after the train bombings in Madrid with just one phrase: "Who did it?" refering to the strategy used by José María Aznar president to blame ETA instead of Al Qaeda for this terrorist act.

In the Philippines in 2001 when protesters organized themselves via cellphone to overthrow President Joseph Estrada. They passed along a simple text message with the direction to rally at a specific Manila street: “Go 2 EDSA. Wear blck.”In Myanmmar the governmnt even saw cell phones as such a threat during the protest carried by monks that it was ordered to block the service.

And, returning to the USA campaign, the fact is that Obama will have a large database with people that his political team will try to convince to vote or donate for his campaign. Talking about smart strategies.

Hillary loses her momentum

Hillary Clinton, a woman who seems to have a very good chance to be the firs woman in the Presidency of the United States, lost her first test yesterday. Barack Obama won the caucus in Iowa, giving Clinton a message.

Which message is this? That's something her team will like to study carefully. Maybe she has been too ambiguous in her position of the themes that interest the americans. Maybe she has been too rough in others. The issue is to find a better strategy to convince the democrats to give her their trust.

I, as a woman, will like to see how a woman performs in the leadership of one of the most important nations in the world. Will she be better than man? Will she make the same kind of mistakes than men in this job? Will she feel the same or more pressure?

But at the end I think that a president who has a better internal and foreign way to lead the USA will be better for that country and the ones affected by it.