In Mexico, 43 students appear to have been killed by police agents, affiliated with the state government and cartels (as if there was any difference between the two).
Reports in Mexico from human rights activists, like Father Alejandro Solalinde, indicate that police burned the 43 students, some while they were still alive.
And what does the New York Times have to say about the situation in Mexico and in Latin America more generally?
The editors write an piece today against the free election of Evo Morales in Bolivia and what they call a "new generation of caudillos who have staked out anti-American policies."
How could the NYT not be an agent of the US state when they defend governmental interests so doggedly? And when they ignore the fruits of the US drug war on the ground?