Thursday, February 28, 2008
Mexico Pictures
I was able to salvage some pictures from Mexico and put them up, along with an essay that I wrote for The Globalist that never saw the light of day.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
War on Drugs - Is that still going on?
A bout of drug related violence in Baja California was reported on in late December 2007, so this is not a breaking story really. I am only writing on it now because I was going to write a feature on it for my former employer, The Globalist, but it died on the vine because my boss is an ass and opted for some interviews conducted by his 16 year old son. Also because I am considering going down there again during my spring break.
To sum it up, there have been a few cases of surfing going down there and getting violently assaulted and robbed. On top of that, some gangsters wielding assault rifles shot up the Rosarito Beach police station and killed a police officer when they were trying to kill a town's top security official. Read Strategic Forecasting's Mexico security analysis for a rather exhaustive, and chilling, recap of some recent violence in Mexico in general (You have to register, but I recommend giving up your email address for their free content). But in my experience. Baja's coast is a relatively peaceful place, believe it or not. I have gone down there countless times and never encountered so much as a pick pocket. This includes Tijuana.
To say the least I am reconsidering Baja for my vacation. Aside from holiday considerations, the increase in both incidences and the fire power wielded by the drug gangs is concerning because it falls on the heels of the so called "Plan Mexico," a drug enforcement plan akin to the abysmal failure "Plan Columbia." The lengths that drug cartels are willing to go to protect their supply chain and markets is much more than any government agency is capable of preventing.
Drug policy seems to be off the radar for the upcoming presidential elections. It is possible that this will provide the next president to have more room to maneuver and will result in a less draconian approach to narcotics. Most likely, not a lot will change however. We will continue to incarcerate countless non-violent offenders and waste countless dollars because even if the next president has the balls to bring it up on the national agenda, he (or she) will be fighting against 35 years of an entrenched institution. Since Nixon's launched his war on drugs in 1971, no president has attempted to change course and bring reason to the issue, and I don't expect that the next one will.
To sum it up, there have been a few cases of surfing going down there and getting violently assaulted and robbed. On top of that, some gangsters wielding assault rifles shot up the Rosarito Beach police station and killed a police officer when they were trying to kill a town's top security official. Read Strategic Forecasting's Mexico security analysis for a rather exhaustive, and chilling, recap of some recent violence in Mexico in general (You have to register, but I recommend giving up your email address for their free content). But in my experience. Baja's coast is a relatively peaceful place, believe it or not. I have gone down there countless times and never encountered so much as a pick pocket. This includes Tijuana.
To say the least I am reconsidering Baja for my vacation. Aside from holiday considerations, the increase in both incidences and the fire power wielded by the drug gangs is concerning because it falls on the heels of the so called "Plan Mexico," a drug enforcement plan akin to the abysmal failure "Plan Columbia." The lengths that drug cartels are willing to go to protect their supply chain and markets is much more than any government agency is capable of preventing.
Drug policy seems to be off the radar for the upcoming presidential elections. It is possible that this will provide the next president to have more room to maneuver and will result in a less draconian approach to narcotics. Most likely, not a lot will change however. We will continue to incarcerate countless non-violent offenders and waste countless dollars because even if the next president has the balls to bring it up on the national agenda, he (or she) will be fighting against 35 years of an entrenched institution. Since Nixon's launched his war on drugs in 1971, no president has attempted to change course and bring reason to the issue, and I don't expect that the next one will.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Population and Climate Change
I attended a conference yesterday on the relationship between population growth and climate change. Sounds interesting, I know.
The conclusions were entirely anti-climactic. More people, more carbon emissions, faster climate change. Less population growth, less emissions...you get the point. The correllation is actually pretty close to 1:1 (A 1% increase in population will lead to a 1% increase in green house gas emissions). There are variations between socioeconomic groups, age groups, and urban vs. rural dwellers, but the results held nonetheless overall. Policy makers argue that population control policies like family planning (condoms and abortions) and the likes of China's one child policy are thus environmentally friendly policies. I guess I don't see why not.
One member of the audience made the interesting comment that levels of carbon emissions are correlated to the standard of living. That is, industrial countries emit more pollution and have a higher quality of life. I don't remember what the comment was made in relation to. The guy was going on forever, clearly enamoured by the sound of his own voice. But that little nugget stuck with me. He didn't just say higher CO2 emissions means more wealth or affluence, but "quality of life." So does it then follow that one cannot have a high quality of life without creating green house gases? And the more I pollute, the better off I am?
The conclusions were entirely anti-climactic. More people, more carbon emissions, faster climate change. Less population growth, less emissions...you get the point. The correllation is actually pretty close to 1:1 (A 1% increase in population will lead to a 1% increase in green house gas emissions). There are variations between socioeconomic groups, age groups, and urban vs. rural dwellers, but the results held nonetheless overall. Policy makers argue that population control policies like family planning (condoms and abortions) and the likes of China's one child policy are thus environmentally friendly policies. I guess I don't see why not.
One member of the audience made the interesting comment that levels of carbon emissions are correlated to the standard of living. That is, industrial countries emit more pollution and have a higher quality of life. I don't remember what the comment was made in relation to. The guy was going on forever, clearly enamoured by the sound of his own voice. But that little nugget stuck with me. He didn't just say higher CO2 emissions means more wealth or affluence, but "quality of life." So does it then follow that one cannot have a high quality of life without creating green house gases? And the more I pollute, the better off I am?
Harder Better Faster Stronger
Washington DC is none of these things compared to most cities in the world. And it is not harder, better, faster, or stronger than my home city, Los Angeles. Nonetheless, I find myself in our nation's capital. So this blog is dedicated all things that interest me about Washington, DC. It is not necessarily about politics, but it is most likely daft. I really just like the name Daft Politic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)