by Jackson Dave
The fleeing killers, identified by authorities as members of the Mexican gang known as the Zetas, left behind a cargo truck packed with 700 pounds of cocaine. More stunning was the cache found in a brick warehouse: 11 M-60 machine guns, eight Claymore mines, a Chinese-made antitank rocket, more than 500 grenades, commando uniforms, bulletproof vests and thousands of rounds of ammunition."They were preparing for war," said the adjunct director of the National Civilian Police, Rember Larios.
Mexico’s drug wars are pushing gangs into Guatemala, where law enforcement is weak and corruption is even more hospitable. More than 6000 people were killed in Guatemala alone in 2008, most of whom were linked to the drug trade. Guatemalan police forces openly admit their 20,000 man force cannot stand up to the gangs, armed with 40 mm. grenades and .50 caliber, armor-piercing rifles. Ultimately, the success of Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s war on the drug cartels only moves them on to weaker neighbors. Many analysts say drug gangs, unchecked, could turn Guatemala into a full-fledged narco-state.
Despite efforts to clean up police forces, the criminal-justice system in Guatemala is rife with corruption and deeply mistrusted. Banking oversight is lax; and persistent poverty means a ready supply of potential helpers for the cash-rich drug gangs. While they wait for assistance, Guatemalan officials brace for more violence from Mexican traffickers.
Tension is obvious at the Guatemala City prison where Perez and the other suspected Zeta gunmen are held. Helmeted soldiers and Special Forces police in black berets guard the crumbling road leading to the main gate. Troops hide in the bushes on the steep hillside above it. Armored military vehicles, with .50-caliber machine guns front and back, make constant passes. A mobile anti-aircraft gun is stationed outside the entrance in the event of Mexican gangsters arriving by air.
And just what is this all about? These people are supplying our demand for drugs! We drive this madness, mayhem, killing. We are responsible for this!
And in Mexico itself? 10,000 people have been killed in the effort to rein in the drug cartels. In May twenty-seven elected officials were arrested in the state of Michoacan, under investigation for ties to trafficking. A drug cartel known as La Familia, controls virtually all politics. La Familia has undermined the electoral system and day-to-day governance, pushing an agenda that goes beyond the usual money-only interests of drug cartels.
Cartels, whether by intimidation, purchase or order, can dictate who the candidates are, as well as political agenda. Dozens of local and state-wide politicians have been abducted or tortured and killed in the last couple of years. No political party has been spared the determination and wrath of this organization.
In the meantime, this cartel is extending its roots beyond Michoacan to neighboring Mexican states. Beyond its reach in Mexico, La Familia has set up drug-running operations in U.S. cities, including Los Angeles. Many fear that Mexico could be sliding into widespread civil strife with incalculable consequences for the U.S., particularly the Southwest. It's an old story in other parts of Latin America, and for that reason, three of the region's former heads of state -- including onetime Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo -- recently issued a report urging the U.S. to consider legalizing at least marijuana.
In response to political pressure from gun activists, the U. S. cannot even muster the political courage to stem the annual flow of 60,000 guns to Mexico, including assault rifles, semiautomatic pistols and .50-caliber rifles, illegal in Mexico, which go to drug traffickers from an estimated 6,000 American gun dealers in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. We legalize AK47s, but outlaw pot! Is this madness? We cry over Mexican people crossing into our country---people whom eager employers are ready to hire, while in return for the drugs that we demand, we send back weapons and $23 Billion per year, fueling corruption, mayhem, civil war.
The principle agencies that should be dealing with this flow of weapons are the ATF and “Homeland Security’s” Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. But auditors have said those agencies had not effectively coordinated their efforts, in part because they "lack clear roles and responsibilities and had been operating under an outdated inter-agency agreement". Politics! Rubbish. This shows the level of concern by our government and by us toward this tragedy. It also reflects the level of influence that the National Rifle Association has over our government.
For a country as proud of its cultural autonomy as Mexico has been, one of the bitter ironies is the way in which the pseudo-romantic culture of drug trafficking has captured so much of the nation's popular imagination. In the cities of Mexico's northern and western states, traffickers and wannabe narcos mimic the dress and tattoos of Los Angeles' street gangs. One of Mexico's most ubiquitous popular music genres is the narco-corrido, ballads built on traditional norteño dance music but with lyrics that romanticize the drug trade.
This story---this scenario could well have been presented from the perspective of a number of countries in South America. It may have been presented from the opium-dominated economy of Afghanistan, or any country in the “Golden Triangle” of Southeast Asia. All over the world we see violence, strife and civil war, destroyed economies and mayhem in the countries that fill our demand for drugs. We demand their drugs; then our government tells them (and us) that they are responsible for our drug problems. We pressure them to wage war on their own people to stop supplying our demand. At the same time we send in arms and billions of $ to fuel the armies that we're supposedly trying to stop. You and I are completely deluded if we think this problem can be solved at the source. It can only be solved here! Our government is not going to change its policy (in the absence of bold and enlightened leadership) because politically it's too risky.
And as always, our government’s hypocrisy is epic. The substance causing the most wide-spread health problems in the world, by far, is tobacco. But this is our largest agricultural export. In the 1980s China began a government-sponsored program (similar to our government-mandated program) to discourage smoking. They began by restricting the tobacco companies’ advertising. The Reagan state department brought enough diplomatic pressure to coerce them to drop the campaign. Welcome, again, to “American Exceptionalism”. It’s perfectly OK for us to export dangerous narcotics, but we give our government permission to destroy other countries to stop them from exporting drugs in return. You and I stand back, or we claim apathetic ignorance.
But what goes around comes around. According to a Justice Department report, Mexican drug-trafficking organizations have established a presence in 230 U. S. cities, from Anchorage to Phoenix to Sheboyga, Wis. Killings are beginning to escalate. In the last 14 months we’ve seen more than 500 drug-related kidnappings in Phoenix alone. Roving Mexican gangsters called bajadores (take-down crews) are responsible for most of these crimes. They are notorious for cruelty, often smashing fingers and pistol-whipping victims, sometimes to death, to send the message to others. It’s common now that the victims are as deeply involved in the trade as the bajadores; but it’s only a small step before bank presidents begin to need body guards.
This mess can be cleaned up in one swoop: legalize drugs. Drugs are plentiful and cheap. If we import drugs as we import televisions or peaches, the supply routes go above ground, prices and profits tumble, drug gangs and cartels crumble. Or do we continue to wallow in “American Exceptionalism”, believing that our domestic policies trump the welfare of the rest of the world?
You might say that "your son's grip on sanity is so fragile that the small act of legalizing drugs might increase the chances by 21% of him going over the top". This may be true. But whose fault is that? Is it the fault of Mexico or Guatemala? Or is it the fault of our own culture's sickness? How many lives, other mothers' sons in far-away lands, do we have the moral authority to destroy with our raging demand for drugs and insane policies?
End the madness. Please write to your representatives.
Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
GOD: abridged
In April we began a discussion on religion. Going on,
God has been with man since he was able to conceive the concept. Early man used God to explain a bewildering world. The development of science opened the door for man to accept the notion that there may be no god. This has led to the controversy over whether God invented man or man invented God.
Opinions over the nature of God are extremely varied, but people tend to congregate around certain bodies of belief, forming “religion”. There’s great contagion in “group-think” and many have used it through history to control large groups of people.
Ironically, though we focus on inter-faith conflict, the prominence and violence associated with intra-faith conflict is greater. Generally, a religion must have cohesion within itself before it can gain the momentum necessary to wage war on other faiths. In the case of Christianity, the 325 (CE) conference at Nicaea is credited with resolving the abstract notion that Jesus was a god, while the bible of the time dictated worship of only one god. This conference was also successful at abating much of the bloodshed between Christian sects over such matters.
Early religions were polytheistic in nature. Judaism became the first (of the major religions) to accept the concept of one universal God. Christianity, then Islam followed in the mono-theistic tradition. We consider, perhaps naively, that the polytheistic religions are “primitive”.
Many are repulsed by the notion that humans evolved from apes. The noble creature, man, could only have been created in a stroke by the hand of God. The Christian contention that “man is created in God’s own image” is a display of considerable arrogance. The idea that God wishes to be "worshiped", or even acknowledged (we call this "faith"), ascribes human frailty to the nature of God. The notion that man might “know” God, or understand his (its) “thoughts” is fantastic.
One salient reason for this is language. The study of primitive cultures or any culture that is very different from our own is hindered by a language gap. People’s thinking is a function of their language, and broad cultural distinctions lead to words and concepts that cannot be translated. This leads to communication impasse. A primary axiom of anthropology is that language precedes intelligence. We're unable to think thoughts that we cannot verbalize. (To pursue this subject see a discussion by Raphael Gamaroff. Russian developmental psychologist, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, describes language as “thought’s crowning glory.” “Intelligence” would necessarily follow.) Animals without language operate on instinct. “Notions” that may come to us are sensed as feelings or emotions; only wild speculation turns feelings into a body of "knowledge".
In that vein, when considering that communication gaps exist even between members of our own species, it’s difficult to fathom that we might be able to “understand” God---whatever that is. Our language doesn’t contain the words to describe God, much less what [he] thinks. I suggest that the gap in cognitive function between man and God is probably greater than that between man and insect.
As for “Intelligent Design”, discussed in Robbinsense April, it’s noteworthy that [perhaps all] proponents of this belief seem to be Christians. We don’t hear of Buddhists or atheists subscribing to this “science”. The contention that we must accept either evolution or religious belief is naïve. Aside from the possibility that God chose evolution to create [his] beings, there are many other possibilities that we haven’t, or cannot consider.
Those who say that the Bible is the source of their belief, and certainty, are hiding behind a smoke screen. Beyond being self-contradictory, the Bible is largely written in abstraction and parables, leaving virtually anything to be interpreted from its contents. It was not until modern times that some began interpreting the Bible literally. Evangelistic Christians claim that the obvious metaphors, such as a man surviving ingestion by a whale, are allegorical, then contend that the rest is factual history. (Even if Jonah weren’t crushed by jaws or gullet, he would quickly asphyxiate in stomach gasses.) An observer without predilection toward Christianity, would conclude that the book is advertising material for the religion---a sort of “infomercial”. We might see the Bible as similar to the advocacy of a Bush administration program, presented fully-spun to lead the reader to accept the author’s premise.
As a side-note, maybe some helpful reader could inform us all how the family tree of man extended beyond Adam and Eve. They didn’t seem to have any daughters.
Some believe that God talks to them---personally. Others believe it’s an impersonal force. Some believe that it’s an absurdity. Some believe it’s what makes us strive toward our best selves.
As for my assessment: God may be a patronly, bearded dude, on a celestial throne, with a fair-skined, blue-eyed Palestinian sitting next to him, over-looking minions and judging all (I’ll give it 0.1%) The heavenly bodies (stars and planets) throughout the universe may be gods (0.5%). God may be a vast, ethereal soup, the “cosmic deity” (25%). This “spiritual force” might even be somewhat within the grasp of a person with highly sophisticated spiritual gifts (such as Jesus). Other prominent religions may contain the reality of God (1%). Or it’s possible that we all “create” our own destiny (as we create our own living reality), and that our personal belief establishes our reality in death through eternity (This is my own theory, 2%). (In the movie After Life, by Hirokazu Kore-eda, the dead arrive at a way-station where counselors instruct them to choose their favorite memory from life, which they will then re-live in an eternal loop.) It's possible that the universe as we know it (including us) is God---that the "big bang" was the emergence of God into physical form (3%). It’s possible that there’s no god (30%). This leaves 38.4% for “other”.
I hope you will share your “probability profiles” in comments.
Considering that the nature of God is beyond our comprehension, does it really matter what exactly that nature is? We're left with our own beliefs. Beyond a drive to manipulate others, who would be so naïve, or arrogant, as to dictate what others should believe? It's indefensible that in free society government might dictate religious sanctions.
Obviously for some the existence and nature of God is relevant, while for others, it is not. We will look into that next month:
Why do people of similar education and intellect come to significantly different conclusions about issues like religion and politics?
--and--
Why do intelligent people resist the obvious gifts and the joy that Jesus Christ can bring to their lives? --or-- Why do some intelligent people gorge themselves on fantasy and superstition?
God has been with man since he was able to conceive the concept. Early man used God to explain a bewildering world. The development of science opened the door for man to accept the notion that there may be no god. This has led to the controversy over whether God invented man or man invented God.
Opinions over the nature of God are extremely varied, but people tend to congregate around certain bodies of belief, forming “religion”. There’s great contagion in “group-think” and many have used it through history to control large groups of people.
Ironically, though we focus on inter-faith conflict, the prominence and violence associated with intra-faith conflict is greater. Generally, a religion must have cohesion within itself before it can gain the momentum necessary to wage war on other faiths. In the case of Christianity, the 325 (CE) conference at Nicaea is credited with resolving the abstract notion that Jesus was a god, while the bible of the time dictated worship of only one god. This conference was also successful at abating much of the bloodshed between Christian sects over such matters.
Early religions were polytheistic in nature. Judaism became the first (of the major religions) to accept the concept of one universal God. Christianity, then Islam followed in the mono-theistic tradition. We consider, perhaps naively, that the polytheistic religions are “primitive”.
Many are repulsed by the notion that humans evolved from apes. The noble creature, man, could only have been created in a stroke by the hand of God. The Christian contention that “man is created in God’s own image” is a display of considerable arrogance. The idea that God wishes to be "worshiped", or even acknowledged (we call this "faith"), ascribes human frailty to the nature of God. The notion that man might “know” God, or understand his (its) “thoughts” is fantastic.
One salient reason for this is language. The study of primitive cultures or any culture that is very different from our own is hindered by a language gap. People’s thinking is a function of their language, and broad cultural distinctions lead to words and concepts that cannot be translated. This leads to communication impasse. A primary axiom of anthropology is that language precedes intelligence. We're unable to think thoughts that we cannot verbalize. (To pursue this subject see a discussion by Raphael Gamaroff. Russian developmental psychologist, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, describes language as “thought’s crowning glory.” “Intelligence” would necessarily follow.) Animals without language operate on instinct. “Notions” that may come to us are sensed as feelings or emotions; only wild speculation turns feelings into a body of "knowledge".
In that vein, when considering that communication gaps exist even between members of our own species, it’s difficult to fathom that we might be able to “understand” God---whatever that is. Our language doesn’t contain the words to describe God, much less what [he] thinks. I suggest that the gap in cognitive function between man and God is probably greater than that between man and insect.
As for “Intelligent Design”, discussed in Robbinsense April, it’s noteworthy that [perhaps all] proponents of this belief seem to be Christians. We don’t hear of Buddhists or atheists subscribing to this “science”. The contention that we must accept either evolution or religious belief is naïve. Aside from the possibility that God chose evolution to create [his] beings, there are many other possibilities that we haven’t, or cannot consider.
Those who say that the Bible is the source of their belief, and certainty, are hiding behind a smoke screen. Beyond being self-contradictory, the Bible is largely written in abstraction and parables, leaving virtually anything to be interpreted from its contents. It was not until modern times that some began interpreting the Bible literally. Evangelistic Christians claim that the obvious metaphors, such as a man surviving ingestion by a whale, are allegorical, then contend that the rest is factual history. (Even if Jonah weren’t crushed by jaws or gullet, he would quickly asphyxiate in stomach gasses.) An observer without predilection toward Christianity, would conclude that the book is advertising material for the religion---a sort of “infomercial”. We might see the Bible as similar to the advocacy of a Bush administration program, presented fully-spun to lead the reader to accept the author’s premise.
As a side-note, maybe some helpful reader could inform us all how the family tree of man extended beyond Adam and Eve. They didn’t seem to have any daughters.
Some believe that God talks to them---personally. Others believe it’s an impersonal force. Some believe that it’s an absurdity. Some believe it’s what makes us strive toward our best selves.
As for my assessment: God may be a patronly, bearded dude, on a celestial throne, with a fair-skined, blue-eyed Palestinian sitting next to him, over-looking minions and judging all (I’ll give it 0.1%) The heavenly bodies (stars and planets) throughout the universe may be gods (0.5%). God may be a vast, ethereal soup, the “cosmic deity” (25%). This “spiritual force” might even be somewhat within the grasp of a person with highly sophisticated spiritual gifts (such as Jesus). Other prominent religions may contain the reality of God (1%). Or it’s possible that we all “create” our own destiny (as we create our own living reality), and that our personal belief establishes our reality in death through eternity (This is my own theory, 2%). (In the movie After Life, by Hirokazu Kore-eda, the dead arrive at a way-station where counselors instruct them to choose their favorite memory from life, which they will then re-live in an eternal loop.) It's possible that the universe as we know it (including us) is God---that the "big bang" was the emergence of God into physical form (3%). It’s possible that there’s no god (30%). This leaves 38.4% for “other”.
I hope you will share your “probability profiles” in comments.
Considering that the nature of God is beyond our comprehension, does it really matter what exactly that nature is? We're left with our own beliefs. Beyond a drive to manipulate others, who would be so naïve, or arrogant, as to dictate what others should believe? It's indefensible that in free society government might dictate religious sanctions.
Obviously for some the existence and nature of God is relevant, while for others, it is not. We will look into that next month:
Why do people of similar education and intellect come to significantly different conclusions about issues like religion and politics?
--and--
Why do intelligent people resist the obvious gifts and the joy that Jesus Christ can bring to their lives? --or-- Why do some intelligent people gorge themselves on fantasy and superstition?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
