Is America Responsible For Mexico's Drug Violence?

I have long heard about Mexico's serious drug war where the drug gangs often dump beheaded bodies on the streets. As much as I avoided vacationing in Mexico due to fear for my safety, I had put little thought on the cause of the issue until tonight when I read this article.

Now I begin to understand why America has such bad reputation in the world. According to the article, the American people spend as much as US$10 Billions a year in Mexico for illegal drug. At the same time, I have no idea how much of America's gross domestic products (GDP) is derived from the sale of violent guns and weapons to the gangs and drug lords in Mexico that fuel the violence there.

All these make it even more important to secure the border so that we can curb the smuggling of Billions of USD and lethal weapons south to Mexico and also stop the smuggling of illegal drug into the USA.

My question is why the government has never done much to secure the border? Just how the American politicians' brains function ? For those who advocate open border for the migrants, did they ever think about how the drug smuggled into the U.S.A. has been fueling gang violence here in South Central Los Angeles (and ghettos all over the country), where the lower income class and disadvantaged Americans inhabit (the people they claim they care for so much) ? When they're advocating the rights for all these poor people in the third world countries, did they ever think about an insecured border would give the drug gangs in Mexico the lethal weapons to terrorize the cities and towns there, depriving the citizens there a safe and peaceful life?

As for those politicians who fought so hard to object every bill proposed to regulate the sale of guns and lethal weapons, did they ever think that the unregulated, free-running gun sales (any citizens and residents can purchase as many machine guns as they want) by gun manufacturers and retailers will give the American gangs a good source of revenue by smuggling them to terrorists and gangs all over the world, through Mexico?? If they didn't, they better think about it now cause all these American made machine guns are killing lots of people in Mexico and others in the world, through the hands of the gangs and militants. The weapons has made the drug lords in South Mexico very powerful and very resourceful in terms of smuggling drugs into America. The drug black market and the smuggling of American-made weapons down to Mexico is such a luractive business that it's fueling gang violence and crimes here at home.

As for the American public and the Hollywood people who are always protesting and yelling out loud for world peace, did they ever consider that as long as there're billions of American drug money going into Mexico and other third world countries, there will never be world peace? Did they ever consider it's hypocritic for Hollywood to condemn America's unfair military action when Hollywood is one big party for drug and their drug spending has helped endangering their fellow Americans here at home and the poor people abroad due to gang violence? I think these people should spend more time to protest against the gangs and to condemn drug use by our fellow Americans. Instead of marching, yelling and whining about how they are ashamed of their country, they should spend more time educating the children here and promoting the bad consequence of drug use.

I hope people in this counrty aren't chanting "world peace and better lives for the poor" just so they can promote their career, and feel good about themselves. If people really care, they will act to ensure that no more drug money and weapons are going to be in the hands of drug lords and gangs directly, or indirectly.

"Drug is not cool, it will destroy you and others..", I was chanting that even before I started pre-school in Hong Kong. I got that on TV commericals that played in every single commerical break. Needless to say our teachers and our parents preached that day in and day out. Only losers took drugs, people who used drugs should be spitted on, such an anti-drug sentiment was the popular culture. So I was pretty shocked when I heard that even Mr. Obama had taken drug when he was young... Why is drug so much more popular and in demand here than other countries? Can anyone tell me?

Guantanamo Is Such A Time Wasting Politcal Football

So here the ball is kicked again and the Republicans and the Demorcats are back playing yet another round of Quantanamo political tournament. I still don't get it, why does the U.S. government have to spend all this time and energy discussing and fighting over the "closing" or the "keeping" of this prison resort in Cuba?

According to the article here: our Attorney General Eric Holder found that the facility was very well run and that the miltary staff had made every conscious attempt to treat the dentainees well. So now, should we be finally proud of America and be happy? May be we should nominate our miltary staff to enter the Hospitality Award hosted by the Hotel and Resort Industry.

Do the majority of Americans really want to bring the Quantanamo detainees back here to the United States to trial? Why can't they be trialed at Quantanamo? Excuse my ignorance cause I really am not familiar with the U.S. Judicial procedures regarding war criminals or foreign terrorits who alledgedly launched terror attacks against the U.S. miltary in a battlefield overseas.

As far as trying the detainees here in the Mainland, my concern is how long will they be stucked in such a process here at our home turf when our courts are already lined up with our own criminals who have been sitting around waiting for trials, or bailing in and out to get some coffees, donuts, or even a Phd degree before a court date can be set for them... Meanwhile, our detention facilities here are guaranteed not as well run as Quantanamo. Don't we already have an overcrowding situation with our prisons here at home? Don't we have enough criminals here that we don't have a place to house? Why on earth we want more criminals (worse, terrorists) to be brought here? I don't. May be many others do and that is really beyond my reasoning.

I personally wish we could actually ship our inmates from here to Quantanamo instead of releasing them onto our streets. (4000 inmates to be released in Los Angeles due to prison overcorwding...) I wish the government could spend as much time, energy, and financial resources on our own prisons, and trying our criminals instead of focusing so much on grooming up Quantanamo as a poster child for U.S. hospitality and turning our mighty miltary into all these friendly and professional hotel staffs. For what? Really for a Hospitality Award from the crazy terrorists in the Middle East? If that's the case, closing Quantanamo won't be enough, America will have to give up her ideology of democracy, her beliefs, her values, and actually her entire existenance if she really wants to contend for Ms. Congeniality.

I think instead of aiming at the impossible Hosptiality Award, the government should focus on how the "closing" or "keeping" of Quantanamo is going to benefit the majority of Americans. So what do you all think? Should they keep it open so we could ship our inmates there, or should it be shut down so we could turn it into an open resort and let our milary continue to be the bus boys there to earn the U.S. government some tourists bucks? After all, don't we need to make some money to pay for our economic stimulus? Or should we do "Half & Half"?

Fact Checking Obama's Promise of Hope

Listening to President Obama's speech tonight, it sounds all good if only we take whatever we are told at face value. Fortunately, there are always the curious bunch in this country who will always question and investigate. This time, it's a bunch of reporters from the Associated Press. Read their fact-checking article and you will have a better grip on the government's solutions to our current economic mess.

My question is still the same: How are we going to pay for all these stimulus? The answer is too obvious, that is, the future generation of America's taxpayers.

Lots of homeowners want the government to bail them out because they made bad decisions to buy houses that are too expensive for them. They want the government to lower their mortgage, reduce their princpal because the house they bought had decreased in value. Meanwhile, I have yet to hear the government offer people like me who have lots of savings in the battered mutual funds that the government is going to absorb the decrease in investment value ..... (will it be true that if our mutual funds or retirement plans are replenished by the government to their original purchase value, we will all have the downpayment we need to buy the houses that are for sale now, which in turn, will stop the housing price from further falling, which is the government's concern? Such idea sounds absurd but the current mortage bailout plan sounds exactly the same. Why is it the government's responsibity to take everybody's investment risk anyway?) I will never know how the government operates and the logic behind its every stimulus.

After checking out the facts of Mr. President's hopeful speech, I regret that I had not bought a house at the time when I easily could with 10% down (when I was offered 0% down at the time), I was thinking at the time that the house was too overpriced (which I turned out to be right) and I thought I didn't want to pay all that interest... I decided to put my savings in a mutual fund to let it grow while keep on saving until I accumulate $150,000 which is about a 25% downpayment for a decent house in the neighbourhood where I am renting now.

In restrospect, it turned out to be a bad move... , my mutual fund has so much less now than the original 10% downpayment I was holding on to when I was house hunting in 2005. My only hope in buying a house now will be foreclosures of those who shouldn't have jumped into the housing market to jerk up the supply and price in 2005 to begin with. But now that Mr. President is bailing these people out and attempting to stem out foreclosures, I guess I will have to keep renting for a bit longer, until I recope my loss in my mutual fund for my future downpayment.

I wonder if I would be bailed out by President Obama today if I had bought that $800,000 house here in California I loved so much... (in Texas, similar house would be around $300 Ks...). I think it's very likely cause my high mortgage payment to income would have that "ratio" Mr. Obama's stimulus plan calls for to qualify me in his bailout.

Looking at the bright side though, I don't have children who will be the ones to inherit all these debts that the governments of my time have been drawing money on... I know that I won't be blamed by my children to be ripping them off because of my selfish indulgence and irresponsibility. I know that I won't be seeing my children work harder but keep much less money than I do. I am just very glad I don't have children. I can't bear the struggle they will have if I do.

All and all, Obama's speech did make me feel hopeful, even for a short little while. I have to say he is a truly great speaker. He can be a great motivational coach if he is not the President of the U.S.A.

Los Angeles Is To Free 4,000 Inmates Early? Scary!!

Living in Los Angeles, I am very concerned when I read this piece of news from The State. I just can't imagine how the release of so many inmates onto the street of Los Angeles will impact the already crime infested city. As an immigrant from Hong Kong, I have never seen any government action like this one. The early release of inmates due to government's budget deficit was unheard of back home. But since America is the land of opportunites and the place for better life, I guess it also means better opportunities and better lives for the criminals too. Don't know what to think other than finding this action a rather scary one. Is it just me who is over paranoid?