| Pages:
1
..
6
7
8
9
10
..
14 |
SiReNiTa
Special Correspondent
Posts: 881
Registered: 5-5-2006
Location: Ensenada, B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Savoring life while saving the world!
|
|
i like how you all want to help and it shows that you really love mexico!!
it makes me really happy!!
and i'm sure that everything will work ut in the long run!!!
if we hold on tight to one anothers hand not even the strongest wind can break those ties!!!!
Live life as well as you can,
don\'t regret the things that once made you smile,
learn from your mistakes,
and thank God for every second he gives you upon this earth.
Visit me at
Http://BajaScents.Scentsy.com.mx
|
|
|
BajaBad
Nomad
Posts: 115
Registered: 1-30-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Why is it that the problem of drugs exists on both sides of the border but the violence does not. With the exception of , perhaps our inner cities,
like downtown Oakland.
How would the American public and government respond if a severed head of a police official appeared on a lampost?
How is it that the US is responsible for Mexico's violence? If we can deal with it on our side then so should Mexico. The idea that our demand for
drugs is causing their violence is outdated: they have their own clientele now. |
Excellent points! And please tell me you do not support our "Plan Mexico".
| Quote: | | This is a democracy and if the public wanted to legalize the hard drugs it would have done so by now. Our system pursues hard drugs and turns a blind
eye to the others. This has been a policy for quite some time now. |
That is not accurate -- and I have already stated the facts in other posts -- the U.S. changed Mexico's decision to legalizing small amounts of drugs
for personal use. That is a fact. The Mexican Congress - executing the will of the people if this is actually a democracy - voted to legalize. The
ONLY reason drugs were not legalized in Mexico, is because the U.S. persuaded Vincente to go against the will of the people, and play puppet to the
U.S. who did not want Mexico to initiate that policy.
|
|
|
BajaBad
Nomad
Posts: 115
Registered: 1-30-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
I hope I got that right... when you said "This is a democracy..." I assumed you were talking about Mexico. If you were talking about the U.S.,
please clarify.
Either way, a democracy (U.S., Mexico or other country) should simply mean the 'will of the people' - not some unchanging ethic or morality that then
equates to democracy. If there was no possibility of change, then this whole discussion would be a waste of time. Just because something hasn't been
'done so by now' doesn't mean it cannot be done... or that it is not desired policy by the majority in a democracy... unfortunately.
Anyway, sorry if I misread your post SJ.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the legalization of drugs in the US. I can understand why the US would not have encouraged Mexico to
legalize drugs as it's difficult enough as it is to keep the traffic out of our country. However, my thinking is that even if they had gone through
with it the violence would not have diminished because, as K-Rico pointed out, most of the profits come from up north.
|
|
|
BajaBad
Nomad
Posts: 115
Registered: 1-30-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the legalization of drugs in the US. I can understand why the US would not have encouraged Mexico to
legalize drugs as it's difficult enough as it is to keep the traffic out of our country. However, my thinking is that even if they had gone through
with it the violence would not have diminished because, as K-Rico pointed out, most of the profits come from up north. |
The reason was to keep U.S. citizens from entering Mexico to take drugs... "drug tourism" - like that doesn't happen already 
But the violence may definitely have diminished... as power would have shifted out of the hands of corrupt police & gov. officials who collaborate
with cartels - as they experience profit-loss from having drugs legally available, in whatever form...
The 'most of the profits come from up north' - hadn't thought of that (missed K-ricos post)! Makes sense that it would not be much affected - except
by the general break-down of the crime organization in Mexico if the legalization had passed -- cartels plus cops plus gov. officials. That would
have to have some effect... but I may be wrong...
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
why the sudden increase in violence, though? the appetite has been rampant for decades and prices are falling. so why now? the economy, deportations,
cartel shuffling??????
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
Law enforcement needs to learn to back off or face the consequences. That's their message. They're teaching them a lesson. The current administration
has been putting more heat on the drug people.
They survive like parasites the world over. If law enforcement wins - they lose. If drugs are legal - they lose again. They seek that balance all
parasites need that keeps the host bleeding.
|
|
|
Mango
Senior Nomad
Posts: 685
Registered: 4-11-2006
Location: Alta California &/or Mexicali
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bajatastic
|
|
Mañana
|
|
|
HCR
Junior Nomad
Posts: 47
Registered: 3-23-2008
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Law enforcement needs to learn to back off or face the consequences. That's their message. They're teaching them a lesson. The current administration
has been putting more heat on the drug people.
They survive like parasites the world over. If law enforcement wins - they lose. If drugs are legal - they lose again. They seek that balance all
parasites need that keeps the host bleeding. |
You are spot on with this observation. The drug smuggling has been going on for decades, but the heat from the administration in Mex. is a recent
development.
|
|
|
mulege marv
Senior Nomad
Posts: 652
Registered: 10-8-2004
Location: san carlos / grass valley, calif.
Member Is Offline
Mood: relaxed
|
|
When will the people of Mexico take back their country?
i was wondering the same thing , but it wasnt mexico i was wondering about !!! 
Want what you have
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
I think he was referring to most of the American West
| Quote: | Originally posted by soulpatch
Iraq?
| Quote: | Originally posted by mulege marv
i was wondering the same thing , but it wasnt mexico i was wondering about !!! |
|
|
|
|
Sharksbaja
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5814
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Newport, Mulege B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
|
|
You're right, Mexicans are smart enough to not live in Kansas
DON\'T SQUINT! Give yer eyes a break!
Try holding down [control] key and toggle the [+ and -] keys
Viva Mulege!
Nomads\' Sunsets
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
I have been following this thread with great satisfaction. I appreciate the thinking and civility of the dialogue. We are privileged to have a forum
for such an important and many faceted dialogues.
I have posted at length ad infinitum on this issue in the past and have pretty much said what I have to say on the subject.
I do have a couple of musings to share on the current dialogue. First I note that this thread has had thousands of hits. It is clear that this is a
very important topic to most of us. Secondly it seems to me that the issue of "Mexico taking back its country" in the view of most on this forum is
intimately tied to the issue of the "War on Drugs". Thirdly it is clear to me that violence has escalated since the US exported its "War on Drugs".
I have appreciated both the individual and meta focus of this discussion. Serinita focuses appropriatly on our own individual responsibility for our
decisions and behavior and is clear on how our individual decisions affect the body politic. It is however important to note that in the words of C.
Wright Mills http://www.infed.org/thinkers/wright_mills.htm that social change occurs when personal problems become public issues. Good examples of this are
the re-definition of Alcoholism as a disease, the Suffragette movement etc.
toneart on the other hand in focusing on meta solutions that change the context of the issue has not had a response to the content of his proposal,
which I read to be essentially co-opting the cartels by legitimizing one and putting them in charge of the "problem". This is of course a traditional
way of Mexico handling dissidents’, put them in charge of a bureau that studies the problem, pay them well and the problem goes away. I have not heard
this proposal before and it certainly merits some serious consideration. The Cartels have plenty of expertise on manufacture and distribution, they
however are shooting it out with each other and the public is caught in the crossfire. After Prohibition in the US many bootleggers became legitimate
businessmen, i.e. Joseph Kennedy who was named Ambassador to England at one point, who before repeal of Prohibition was a rum runner.
If I get what toneart is suggesting he would have us put one Cartel in charge and support them to the hilt in their battle with the others. This is a
game changing solution as would be the legalization of all drugs and the treatment of abuse and addiction as a Medical Problem. If the former is
adopted then the existing players, legitimate i.e. elected officials involved in the trade, and illegitimate players could all be brought on board and
the entire enterprise could be more easily integrated into the society than strategies of legalization, taxation, distribution etc. It's an
interesting idea.
As to the issue of the masses somehow taking charge and "overthrowing the Cartels" I sincerely doubt that this will occur at the level it would need
in order to overpower them, they are too well organized and well armed. Mexico also has a long history of subjugation by its leaders and the oligarchy
that runs it and a well ingrained feeling of "ne modo" which has served its people well in not confronting power that they cannot overcome. The USofA
has a very different history that involved a West to explore, conquer and inhabit, two oceans to protect it and a “can do” ethos and sense of
entitlement going back to the Magna Carta and reinforced by the overthrow of English rule. The Declaration of Independence reflect a view of the power
of the individual and the rule of law, evidence etc. The Reformation negated the need for intercession between god and man which also had a profound
effect on the individual person’s sense of power and entitlement. Essentially the power of the Roman Catholic Church was challenged by Luther who said
in essence “it’s between you and god” what you believe and do. This is a very different view than the historical Roman Catholic perspective which
posits the need for intercession between god and man i.e. priests, saints, Mary etc.
Mexico is a conquered nation under a long standing oligarchy and Napoleonic Code. The power is embodied in the state; you are guilty until proven
innocent. I realize that there is change afoot regarding these issues and younger, better educated classes of Mexicans are emerging, however Mexico
will need to evolve its unique approach to issues like this that grow out of its historical context.
Though one can argue with the use of Wikopedia as a resource for research, I think that the citation is a good one for factually examining the history
and I appreciate the references. It is important to understand the context of the issue. The Wikopedia citation does this well. K-rico, I also have
reservations about "War on Drugs" research as I do with Drug Company sponsored research. I have no doubt that use, abuse and addiction would increase
with legalization. I do appreciate the general clarity of your arguments and the civility of your dialogue. No social policy is without negative
consequences and some are often unanticipated i.e. the effect of Fox and then Calderon getting into the "War on Drugs". Barbara Tuchman writes a
fascinating book called March To Folley in which she elaborates on historical national blunders of epic proportion and how they are based upon hubris.
A "War on Drugs" can never be successful. It is true however that social sanction and shaming can have an impact on personal behavior as witnessed by
the decrease in cigarette smoking in the USofA. Combinations of rules on use, public education and social stigma have had a profound effect on
cigarette use. On this level Serinita's comments are most appropriate.
I appreciate that civilized dialogue can happen in regard to this important issue; historically this has not been the case.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Well said, however...
| Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
As to the issue of the masses somehow taking charge and "overthrowing the Cartels" I sincerely doubt that this will occur at the level it would need
in order to overpower them, they are too well organized and well armed. Mexico also has a long history of subjugation by its leaders and the oligarchy
that runs it and a well ingrained feeling of "ne modo" which has served its people well in not confronting power that they cannot overcome. The USofA
has a very different history that involved a West to explore, conquer and inhabit, two oceans to protect it and a “can do” ethos and sense of
entitlement going back to the Magna Carta and reinforced by the overthrow of English rule. The Declaration of Independence reflect a view of the power
of the individual and the rule of law, evidence etc. The Reformation negated the need for intercession between god and man which also had a profound
effect on the individual person’s sense of power and entitlement. Essentially the power of the Roman Catholic Church was challenged by Luther who said
in essence “it’s between you and god” what you believe and do. This is a very different view than the historical Roman Catholic perspective which
posits the need for intercession between god and man i.e. priests, saints, Mary etc.
|
I take exception to:
and a well ingrained feeling of "ne modo" which has served its people well in not confronting power that they cannot
overcome.
Defeatism never wins revolutions.
[Edited on 11-29-2008 by Dave]
|
|
|
toneart
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4901
Registered: 7-23-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skeptical
|
|
Iflyfish,
Thank you! You have ventured where few men or women have tread. You have articulated my absurd idea very well. It is apparent that my thought process
is very different that most, but I have always known that.
My process is to think beyond the norm; get as radical as I can conceive. While out there, I can examine where I have gone and retroactively make a
case for it. Hopefully, that will draw in some interest in its outrageousness. However, that, as an objective, is not my main purpose. My purpose is
to instigate discussions of solutions for problems that seemingly have no support. My premise is, my proposed solutions need to be considered because
what has been tried has not worked.
If my suggested absurd proposals are at least discussed, they can serve to stretch the minds of others. If they are rejected, fine. The ideas, being
radical and absurd, and while you the reader have come along with me and then hit a wall, you have gone further than you normally would have. It is
from this departure point that you can then trace your steps backwards and possibly see other solutions that may lie along the path of the
absurd.
Beware, you can never go back to where you were. That has gotten society nowhere. (Don't take it personally, Reader). Get crazy and let's figure this
thing out.
|
|
|
Sharksbaja
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5814
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Newport, Mulege B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
|
|
How absurd and outrageous, whatever you're talking about??
Not really Tony, I think legalizing drugs would yield a new set of problems but would end the killing. It's the same old debate but we already know
the current approach isn't working.
There seems to an innate fear among Mexicans to dis the perps. Maybe they fear the kidnapping, the death or threat of being marked as a snitch.
There seems to be a heavy price to pay for such. Inasmuch, how can a law biding citizen protect themselves on the front lines? That's why guns should
be legal. They are a deterent, no?
So philosophizing may be a healthy internet sport but the real problem seems to be the inability to whack a mole, especially when you can't carry a
club.
Do you think there would be more or less gun crime if they were legal?
[Edited on 11-29-2008 by Sharksbaja]
DON\'T SQUINT! Give yer eyes a break!
Try holding down [control] key and toggle the [+ and -] keys
Viva Mulege!
Nomads\' Sunsets
|
|
|
Dave
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6005
Registered: 11-5-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
Or maybe they're scared of their authority
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sharksbaja
There seems to an innate fear among Mexicans to dis the perps. Maybe they fear the kidnapping, the death or threat of being marked as a snitch.
|
Maybe they should read 'Pogo'.
|
|
|
Sharksbaja
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5814
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Newport, Mulege B.C.S.
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hmmm perhaps... but then again, when the "perps" are the "authority" then er uh um ... oops. They are supposed to be the good guys. No wonder somany
here just can't/don't get it.
Hey, it's the wild west ain't it? Now where's my six-shooter dear.
DON\'T SQUINT! Give yer eyes a break!
Try holding down [control] key and toggle the [+ and -] keys
Viva Mulege!
Nomads\' Sunsets
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Dave,
You wrote: “I take exception to: “and a well ingrained feeling of "ne modo" which has served its people well in not confronting power that they cannot
overcome.” Defeatism never wins revolutions.
I am not proposing revolution, I am attempting to explain my belief that it will be very difficult if not impossible for average Mexican citizens to
“reclaim their country” due to historical factors that are very different from those typically found in the USofA and are one of the bones in our
noses in the north that most do not have in Mexico.
Throughout Mexican history if you survive and your family is not enslaved, there may be great power in "ne modo", a fatalism, a form of learned
helplessness and that can mean survival to many who embrace this adaptive strategy. Don't trust anyone but your family and do whatever you can to
support them as it is your interest to do so. Passive aggression is a very powerful adaptation. Have you ever traveled to the mainland and seen the
serpent Quetzquatle built into the architecture surrounding a cathedral? I never encouraged abused women to "confront" their abusers, which could
prove suicidal.
Sharks
Arming the populace might somewhat level the playing field. I recently followed a link posted on this site on music lionizing drug cartel members that
led to many videos of young Mexican men with automatic weapons. It appears that at least some of the population is armed, locked and loaded. If the
population is to rise up against the drug cartels, they had better be highly armed and trained; these guys have very modern and powerful weapons,
including grenades. Arming the population could result in even more shootings. Two guys in LA just shot it out in Toys are Us. The citizens of the US
are highly armed and they use them on each other, their spouses and their kids. Ya, ya, I know, guns don’t kill etc. However like legalization of drug
use negative outcomes may be mitigated by the benefits.
Iflyfish
p.s. Pogo may have been right in this case.
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
soulpatch,
You wrote: "When I worked for the city of Oxnard many of my co-workers were Mexican nationals and they could just not comprehend my desire for more
responsibility or career challenge. They thought I was nuts."
Your experience in Oxnard demonstrates clearly what I am saying about these cultural differences, these are bones in our noses that are hard to see
and that also have their exceptions. The Mexicans are right, your are nuts. You also are right, by implication anyway they are nuts too!
Both worldviews are syntonic with the culture we are raised in and become part of what we experience as the self. It is difficult to see these as
simple differences when we attach a lot of value to our own particular, ethnocentric perspective.
Cultures do change over time however but usually over very long periods of time. Throw a frog in boiling water and it will jump out, throw it in cold
water and slowly warm it and you can boil the frog.
Iflyfish
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
6
7
8
9
10
..
14 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
