The Cartel Civilization

This gem from Matt Taibbi (and the announcement that the Dept. of Justice chose not to criminally prosecute a British bank that admitted to laundering billions for drug cartels) slipped by me in December. 

Wherever our opinions fall regarding the issue of the "War on Drugs," we ought to pay attention to the implication of the DOJ's decision to treat as a civil offense these bankers' cartel-coddling, while possessing even a seed of marijuana could mean years in prison for you or me. The upshot?

"They're now saying that if you're not an important cog in the global financial system, you can't get away with anything, not even simple possession. You will be jailed and whatever cash they find on you they'll seize on the spot, and convert into new cruisers or toys for your local SWAT team, which will be deployed to kick in the doors of houses where more such inessential economic cogs as you live. If you don't have a systemically important job, in other words, the government's position is that your assets may be used to finance your own political disenfranchisement." -Matt Taibbi

 Read on, cogs...

Whittle Your Middle

With England today beginning to address its uncertain economic future, it may be worth exploring the takeaway lessons we can apply in revamping our own US economy.

As the European Union faces ghastly unemployment and bankruptcy in some of its member countries, it will likely look to Britain to help make good on its promises of widespread prosperity by asking it to chip in for the burden of bailouts. In seeking to maintain its sovereignty, however, Britain seems poised to strengthen its alliance with the only other world power who could give it leverage against the EU - its rebellious offspring, the United States.

I found this article by George Friedman very insightful in informing a discussion we will need to have if we are to avoid a crisis such as that in Europe. Friedman points out that the US economy of the past 50 years has resulted in a split personality that, if left to its own devices, will end in political and social upheaval. We may in fact not recognize what is left as America (perhaps leaving us in an uncomfortably symbiotic relationship with our ancestor across the Atlantic). 

 In an enlightening view on how restructuring corporate America and the transformation of the "traditional" family led to the decline of our Middle Class - and a crumbling foundation under the American identity:

"The greatest danger is one that will not be faced for decades but that is lurking out there. The United States was built on the assumption that a rising tide lifts all ships. That has not been the case for the past generation, and there is no indication that this socioeconomic reality will change any time soon. That means that a core assumption is at risk. The problem is that social stability has been built around this assumption -- not on the assumption that everyone is owed a living, but the assumption that on the whole, all benefit from growing productivity and efficiency.

...The left cannot be indifferent to the historical consequences of extreme redistribution of wealth. The right cannot be indifferent to the political consequences of a middle-class life undermined, nor can it be indifferent to half the population's inability to buy the products and services that businesses sell."

For a guy who consistently assures his readers that the United States faces no real political threat, Friedman seems to have changed his tune. If he's become convinced it's time to address that possibility, I'm inclined to give credence to the necessity for creative problem-solving to happen NOW.

So... who's with me?  (Coffee's on. I can do this all night)

"The United Kingdom Moves Away from the European Project is republished with permission of Stratfor."

"The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Counter? I hardly knew 'er. (Questioning a current theme)

Anyone else interested in the Big Picture, where addressing violence is concerned?

The momentum to curb violence in our nation built after recent mass shootings, with the Media busy, as usual, taking its opportunity to spin the discussion in directions that preempt rational consideration in order to polarize (and divide) the People. Whether they frame a position as absurd to make it less popular, attack the individual rather than the argument, or claim a topic is sacred to avoid its exploration - the Media are equipped with tactics the Public fails to recognize. 

I thought it important to fact-check what our elected representatives and (failed) Fourth Estate, have asserted lately and to counter a few points so prevalent in our current gun control debate. Here are a few fallacies used in the discussion on gun violence.  

...and a little Background...

This article analyzes mass shootings in American as far back as the 1930s and presents interesting bases for relevant discussion:

"The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.
Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.
So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?"

As well, it is extremely important to understand that observable studies show that greater gun ownership is inversely related with higher levels of violent crime. The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy presented an analysis concluding that:

."...The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world." - Kates & Mauser

 With that said, let's explore the possible actions the executive is looking to take.

Season of the Which

Lately, with the ground too hard to work outside and an injury landing me indoors with neighbors for a bit, I've been engaged in discussions and interactions with people I would normally shy away from. Most of the folks in my immediate world are a good twenty-to-thirty years older than I am, and they're financially stable. They've had varying degrees of success, but they've all had a wealth of experiences, and now they've got options. Work's drying up a bit. It's got me thinking about my own options... and even a bit excited about creating a little stability for myself.

Foreshadowing

There was a tropical feel to July's full moon as it rose over these har hills. A tiny bit of humidity still hung from the tease of cloud that had hovered over our high desert that week, as “monsoon season” played at breaking the drought. Nights now couldn't be more inviting for late summer night lounging (where's a hammock when you need one?). The moths and skeeters are incessant, the squash fatten to calf-size overnight, and the Chaco lines (or is it a dirt tan?) are beginning to look permanent.

“Revel in it now,” I remind myself... we've turned the corner toward Winter. That's right, Texas, Winter's on the march.

Photo, courtesy of my future-Texas-ex-pat friend Ryan.

State Sovereignty Shuffle (or... "Came and Took It")

Article: Texas vs. TSA - Round 1 goes to the Feds.

 ...Now, I imagine many of (the five or six of) you who read this won't see the conflict in the federal government putting its foot down on Texas outlawing the TSA's invasive pat-down procedures. By now, we are conditioned to accept that the Federal Way is the golden standard. A state that chooses to operate differently is painted as a collection of yokels or militia men who should be considered either incompetent to govern themselves or dangerous to our grand Nation's democracy.

But when Texas' House voted 138-0 to pass a bill banning TSA searches "without probable cause," the federal government's reaction was to exercise its authoritarian authority. U.S. Attorney John Murphy told Texas

...the feds would have to respond by shutting down Texas airports as it “could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

...a blockade? Really?

History, help me out. Something in this whole threat of a transportation kibosh sounds familiar....

This is Not a Test

Among the unbelievable heap of events and developments piling up all at once, there are a few that I'd like to highlight. These are structures or programs whose impending intent is to gain control over large groups of people by using either fetishes, fear, or guilt to pry open the grip we still hold on our natural freedom.

* The first:
Google I/O 2011: Google wants to control your home - May. 11, 2011

 

"Connected devices like home media equipment, dishwashers, cars, and lights could soon be able to be controlled using the new platform....The chief obstacle to making that happen across all connected devices is finding a single, open standard to control everything you own," said Joe Britt, head of the Android@Home team.

Eric Holland, a vice president of LED manufacturer Lighting Science, added: "The advantage of Android@Home is that any developer can write an application to control the lights. They don't need to learn any proprietary protocol... one app could control fixtures from all participating lighting companies... Robots powered by Android smartphones and tablets were wandering around the conference... 

"Soon, you may be using your phone to interact with all the devices in your home -- whether they beg you to or not."