![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hnpccDrug violence spins Mexico toward 'civil war'.
I particularly found these quotes interesting:
Pastor and Hakim note that the United States helps fuel the violence, not only by providing a ready market for illegal drugs, but also by supplying the vast majority of weapons used by drug gangs.
Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.
And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas.
"The drug gangs are better equipped than the army," Hakim said.
I'd always been under the impression that the illegal arms trade went the other way. Not sure why, although I can make a guess. So if the US is worried about a civil war on it's border, one thing it could do to stop it is regulate guns. Interesting.
Naturally that won't do a lot to solve the corruption problem, but it might lower the body count a bit.
Pastor calls the problem in Mexico "even worse than Chicago during the Prohibition era" and said a solution similar to what ended that violence is needed now.
"What worked in the U.S. was not Eliot Ness," he said, referring to the federal agent famous for fighting gangsters in 1920s and '30s. "It was the repeal of Prohibition."
That viewpoint has picked up some high-level support in Latin America.
Last week, the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in strategy on the war on drugs at a meeting in Brazil of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.
...
"It's as if the burden of being the main arena of the anti-drug war has overwhelmed Mexican institutions," Birns said. "The occasional anti-drug battle is being won, but the war is being lost. And there's no prospect the war is going to be won."
Without a fairly major change in the way the US funds drug and alcohol treatment I'm not sure that I'd support lifting drug laws. It's hard enough now to get treatment, I don't imagine it would be easier with a larger pool of people trying to access it.
Zimbabwe continues to be a nightmare.
Again, corruption doesn't help. One of the more amusing moments at Christmas Party #4 last year came when we were being asked our Christmas wishes. One woman, who is known for being quiet, kind and generous said:
"I wish Robert Mugabe would get cholera."
We all lost it laughing. Peace and goodwill to all - except you. More seriously though, I wish he'd just step down and give the nation a chance. Unfortunately I think at this stage the next likely thing to happen - either after he steps down, dies or is possibly forced out - is an army coup. Either way I don't like the chances of this unity government.
Obama's released a housing bailout plan.
I have to admit I don't know a huge amount about this. It's interesting looking at the debate though - it's pretty much "deserving" versus "non-deserving" poor.
""What do you do about the couple that has been paying their mortgage ... and next door there's another couple that's been delinquent, that's been out spending money, going to Las Vegas, having a lot of fun time," Gergen said. "Is it fair to the first couple when the second couple gets bailed out?"
You could ask what do you do about the couple that's been paying their mortgage but bought a second car when they both work in the CBD? Or a HD-TV? Or a snowboard? Or had a $4 latte every day at Starbucks? How about a 4 bedroom house when there's only two of them? What about the people who paid "interest-only" on their loan, quite often thinking they were paying off the principle? What about people whose mortgages are now worth significantly more than their house, and who are on the border of losing/have lost their job?
How do you judge whether the banks were delinquent in giving the mortgage in the first place? How about the people who were nudged into high-commission for the agent but very bad for the house-buyer loans?
Again I don't know how this is going to work exactly (even with the helpful explanatory slideshow) but it will be interesting to see how it pans out long term.
I particularly found these quotes interesting:
Pastor and Hakim note that the United States helps fuel the violence, not only by providing a ready market for illegal drugs, but also by supplying the vast majority of weapons used by drug gangs.
Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.
And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas.
"The drug gangs are better equipped than the army," Hakim said.
I'd always been under the impression that the illegal arms trade went the other way. Not sure why, although I can make a guess. So if the US is worried about a civil war on it's border, one thing it could do to stop it is regulate guns. Interesting.
Naturally that won't do a lot to solve the corruption problem, but it might lower the body count a bit.
Pastor calls the problem in Mexico "even worse than Chicago during the Prohibition era" and said a solution similar to what ended that violence is needed now.
"What worked in the U.S. was not Eliot Ness," he said, referring to the federal agent famous for fighting gangsters in 1920s and '30s. "It was the repeal of Prohibition."
That viewpoint has picked up some high-level support in Latin America.
Last week, the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in strategy on the war on drugs at a meeting in Brazil of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.
...
"It's as if the burden of being the main arena of the anti-drug war has overwhelmed Mexican institutions," Birns said. "The occasional anti-drug battle is being won, but the war is being lost. And there's no prospect the war is going to be won."
Without a fairly major change in the way the US funds drug and alcohol treatment I'm not sure that I'd support lifting drug laws. It's hard enough now to get treatment, I don't imagine it would be easier with a larger pool of people trying to access it.
Zimbabwe continues to be a nightmare.
Again, corruption doesn't help. One of the more amusing moments at Christmas Party #4 last year came when we were being asked our Christmas wishes. One woman, who is known for being quiet, kind and generous said:
"I wish Robert Mugabe would get cholera."
We all lost it laughing. Peace and goodwill to all - except you. More seriously though, I wish he'd just step down and give the nation a chance. Unfortunately I think at this stage the next likely thing to happen - either after he steps down, dies or is possibly forced out - is an army coup. Either way I don't like the chances of this unity government.
Obama's released a housing bailout plan.
I have to admit I don't know a huge amount about this. It's interesting looking at the debate though - it's pretty much "deserving" versus "non-deserving" poor.
""What do you do about the couple that has been paying their mortgage ... and next door there's another couple that's been delinquent, that's been out spending money, going to Las Vegas, having a lot of fun time," Gergen said. "Is it fair to the first couple when the second couple gets bailed out?"
You could ask what do you do about the couple that's been paying their mortgage but bought a second car when they both work in the CBD? Or a HD-TV? Or a snowboard? Or had a $4 latte every day at Starbucks? How about a 4 bedroom house when there's only two of them? What about the people who paid "interest-only" on their loan, quite often thinking they were paying off the principle? What about people whose mortgages are now worth significantly more than their house, and who are on the border of losing/have lost their job?
How do you judge whether the banks were delinquent in giving the mortgage in the first place? How about the people who were nudged into high-commission for the agent but very bad for the house-buyer loans?
Again I don't know how this is going to work exactly (even with the helpful explanatory slideshow) but it will be interesting to see how it pans out long term.
