Mexico is and has been in trouble for a long time.  The drug laws, combined with government corruption, poverty, and a seemingly unlimited demand for illegal narcotics from their neighbor, Mexico is fast becoming a place you don’t want to visit.  The following is but a minor example in Mexico’s ongoing dramas…

Via Stratfor (membership required – full post here):

Around 9:50 a.m. on June 14, during the daily guard shift change, 18 inmates at the Center for the Execution of Crime’s Legal Consequences in Mazatlan, Sinaloa state, allegedly tried to break out of the facility. The 18 men, whom some reports linked to Los Zetas, were housed in special security block 21 and were reportedly armed with three large-caliber handguns, an AK-47-type automatic assault rifle and a sledgehammer to force their way through the facility’s exits…..

Fortunately, this prison break was prevented, but with the combination of massive state corruption and very powerful organized criminal organizations (some whose intelligence & military capabilities rival nations), this isn’t always the case:

In May 2009, members of Los Zetas arrived outside the Center of Social Rehabilitation of Cienguillas in Zacatecas state in several buses with an armed SUV escort. A total of 53 inmates filed out of the prison and onto the buses in an orderly manner without a shot being fired. Surveillance video footage showed guards simply standing by watching the inmates walk out of the prison and onto the buses. Several prison officials have since been arrested on corruption charges….

& this:

More recently, 41 inmates at the Matamoros municipal prison, known as CEDES Matamoros, were freed after an assault by armed men between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. on March 26….

& least you think this is just a prison problem in Mexico:

Jesus Manuel Lara Rodriguez, the mayor of Guadalupe Distrito Bravos, Chihuahua state, was assassinated by a group of gunmen in Ciudad Juarez at about 1 p.m. on June 19, inside his home….

DA asked about a month ago whether  Mexico’s President should be scolding Arizona for a state law (here) considering their current predicament; this is just an update on that predicament.

Via WaPo (here):

UNITED NATIONS — After several months of grueling diplomacy, the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran’s military establishment — a move that the United States and other major powers said should prompt the Islamic Republic to restart stalled political talks over the future of its nuclear program….

This is seemingly good news, but the details prove otherwise.  For instance, it’s a known axiom that sanctions against Iran are unlikely to motivate Iran much if China and Russia weren’t on-board completely, yet….:

…The administration did succeed in preserving support from China and Russia, although only after assuring them that the measures would not impair their ability to continue trading with Tehran…

Not only will Russia and China continue to trade at will with Iran, but Russia will continue to help Iran with nuclear plants and military technology (via BBC here):

…Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the missiles were not subject to the limits set by the UN on cooperation with Iran.

He said Moscow was in talks on building further nuclear reactors in Iran….

Theoretically the sanctions will hurt large business interests in Iran to put pressure on the Iranian government to come back to the table for negotiations.   But this only allows Iran more time.  They have been quite successful for several years now in extending a hand as if they are willing to negotiate, only to use that outreach to delay the international community from acting.

In reality, these sanctions seem to be both completely ineffectual and designed (intentionally or not) to allow Iran back into playing the delay game with the international community while they continue their nuclear plans.

On each Memorial Day, I try to research at least one individual act of courage to remind myself  about the nature of those we’ve lost.

This year, I read about a 19 year old, who sacrificed himself to save his fellow soldiers.  While on patrol in Iraq, their Humvee came under attack.   His job, manning the 50 cal machine gun on top of the vehicle is critical to their success.  This day however (whole thing here):

…While Private McGinnis was manning the M2 .50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner’s hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled “grenade,” allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade’s blast.  Then, rather than leaping from the gunner’s hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion. Private McGinnis’ gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death….

Born on June 14th, 1987, Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis lost his life to save others on December 4th 2006, in a place very far from home, because we asked him to go.

There are those that would say this doesn’t matter all that much since we shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place.  There are others who would argue strongly that even if you disagree, soldiers like this one are protecting our lives and our freedoms.

For me, not all wars are about saving our freedoms.  Not every use of the military…. well, even most uses of the military, does not qualify as “protecting” Americans.  Like all countries throughout history, our military is a foreign policy tool that we don’t like to use.

For me…. it’s not about protecting me or protecting our freedoms, it’s a simple as this:  our country, through our elected representatives, asked this child to go to war.  He went.

Yeah, that’s enough for me.

As you might have noticed, I’ve stayed away from writing about the Arizona immigration bill.  I’ve done so because I have little understanding on what it means to live close to a border where millions of immigrants cross illegally each year.  I don’t know the pain experienced by this massive influx, nor do I really know what has and hasn’t been tried to resolve those pains.

Lastly, I’m honestly not in the habit of arguing against a specific state law, unless it’s clearly anti-freedom.  For instance, when an idiotic Senator proposes a complete ban on a specific crib because of 32 infant deaths since 2000 – I rightfully call her out (here).   Meaning that generally speaking, I don’t see the Arizona law as anything immoral or anti-freedom and my lack of real world understanding has kept me out of this debate.

That was until I learned, thanks to the unprecedented outpouring from world leaders, that this Arizona thing…. well, apparently it has far reaching consequences.

To start with – I think this is the very first time an American president has come out so strongly against a state law based solely on premonition (here via Raw Story).  According to our new pre-crime way of thinking, this law has got to be stopped by any means necessary, because as President Obama states:

I think the Arizona law has the potential of being applied in a discriminatory fashion. Now, after it was initially passed, the Arizona legislature amended it and said that this should not be carried out in a discriminatory way. But I think a fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested. And the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome….

To translate, this roughly means – “it (the law) might be used for discriminatory purposes, therefore it’s wrong”.    Which would be a very valid argument for a law which say…. kept blacks out of school, but for a law only meant and written to enforce the current immigration laws, he’s basically trying to block a state law because it might be abused.

Additionally, the legal system itself is and has been open for discriminatory abuse by those in appropriate positions who are willing to use their authority towards discriminatory ends.  You see, where there are so many laws on the books that necessitate selective enforcement, then you automatically end up leaving the selection process to those on the ground.

To clarify:  I don’t believe law enforcement professionals are racists or tend to abuse their power en mass & I don’t believe this AZ law will necessarily be used in such a way.  My only point is when every single car on the highway is driving at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit, those with the power to enforce the law can do so selectively.  This by its very nature allows for discriminatory practices.

It would be interesting to hear  President Obama make such a case, but that’s not the main thrust of his argument.  His argument is guilty until proven innocent.

Lastly, Mr. Obama, don’t we have other things to worry about?  Like two active conflicts?  Continuing terror threats at home?  Economic & health care “crises”?

But what really has me perplexed is the president from our southern neighbor, Mexico.  Apparently, the Arizona law is so horribly wrong, he had to take lots of time, to address international press both here @ a home and to address Congress as part of an active & aggressive PR campaign against the AZ law (here via The Arizona Republic):

WASHINGTON – Mexican President Felipe Calderón harshly criticized a new Arizona immigration law in an address to Congress on Thursday, saying it “ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree.”…

Now to be fair I agree with that quoted portion; which is our current immigration policy stance by default, ignores the reality on the ground.  With all due disrespect to Mr. Calderón however, I don’t think he gets the reality either.

He is, not only a world leader (very tenuous use), but specifically the leader of Mexico.  A country with a higher murder rate than some active war zones have deaths.  A country whose police force and justice system is either completely corrupt or completely unable to deal with organized crime.  A country whose citizenry, run as fast as possible, by any means possible to the closest possible safe haven, even knowing they will actively face many additional hardships through their actions.   A quick skim through reports (here via Stratfor or here via the Economist) will give you ample reason why this is so.

Yet, Mr.  Calderón’s worries are about an AZ law and our freedom to arm ourselves:

…his request that Congress do something about the availability of high-powered weapons along the border….

Maybe he’s completely unaware that it is illegal in the US to buy the weapons many organized criminals use in Mexico such as hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, and automatic weapons.

Irregardless of Mr.  Calderón’s understanding of US gun laws, the citizens of Mexico would be better served if their leader spent time repairing his country, instead of  throwing boulders from a glass house.

Given the current urgent competing priorities for both countries, combined with both presidents having a laser like focus on this issue, I think there really remains one question:

What is their (Obama, Calderon, etc) fear?

As has been widely reported today, two female suicide bombers attacked train stops in Moscow (via the Economist here):

TWO terrorist bombers on the Moscow metro killed at least 37 people and injured 102 in the morning rush hour on Monday March 29th. The first explosion, which killed 22 people and injured 12, struck just before 8am at the Lubyanka metro station, a few hundred feet from the Kremlin and next to the headquarters of the Federal Security Services, the successor to the KGB. The second bomb went off at Park Kultury, by the main circular road in central Moscow, killing at least 15.

The Russian security services said two female suicide bombers from the north Caucasus were responsible….

This seems to be a continuation of hostilities between Russia & Caucasus as Russia continues it’s movements to secure the sphere of Russian influence within eastern Europe.  Many former bloc countries have tried to maintain independence from Russia and Russia has responded.  In some cases, political and economic pressure could be enough, in other cases the military is being used as a foreign policy tool.  Right or wrong, all military objectives are just foreign policy goals through a military vehicle.

What does this have to do with equal rights?  To be honest I’m not sure, but reading Slate made me think I was wrong.  Under the category of “I don’t know what to think about this” Slate had two articles today: The Glass Ceiling for Female Terrorists & a reprint of an article asking if female suicide bombers get 72 virgins here.

While I do agree with the basic premise that Islamic fundamentalists treatment of women is horrendous & I believe firmly the world should be able to judge those countries which force women to be fully subjugated to men, I also believe the timing for these more lighthearted attempts at satire was not chosen wisely.

Please don’t misunderstand – I’m against almost all censorship (depends upon how you define censorship for me to say against “all”) & would never think I should be able to impose my beliefs on their editing decisions.

But as a value statement maybe we should ask: Was this a good idea considering innocents were just slaughtered for doing nothing more than trying to get to work?

In what has to be good news in the world & especially Russian citizens, Russia appears to be moving forward towards free market reforms with help from former President Putin.

For Russia, the last 30 years has been marked by instability.  Russia in the 80′s was in a descent from crumbling Communism which limited real individual freedoms.  They moved from that, to a poorly implemented and corrupt form of cronyism, which also limited real individual freedoms.

Then to stabilize and reassert themselves to the international community, former President Putin worked towards a stronger central government.  In doing so, he too worked towards the removal of individual freedoms.  For example, having the government buy the the main press outlets, using the judicial system to attack  corporate heads who were against Mr. Putin’s reforms, changing election laws to reduce citizen say, and many other things.  All of which seemed a sure march back to Communism and the stage for a new global dynamic with Russia trying to be the main international opposition to the US.

However, in recent months Stratfor and other publications have been noticing changes inside the Russian government.  Many reformers have been pushing the new President and Mr. Putin to begin to make real free market reforms through privatization and it looks like they’ve won some ground (Stratfor Video below):

Since I have a strong belief in the morality and pragmatism of individual freedom, this is a good sign.  Let’s hope it continues.

Odd thing is – those without freedoms or with lesser freedoms around the world have been pushing for market reforms, including Germany, France, China, Russia… while the US is pushing centralized control over banking and health care (to name two things).

Proving once again, that the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance.

For months since the reelection of Iranian President Dictator, protests against the Islamic regime have ebbed and flowed.  DA (Detailed Abstractions) covered the reelection farse  here & here.  While the news was dismal, massive protests started in June and continue to this day.  The most recent protests staged on December 7th (via CNN):

Now I’m not a big fan of protests in most of the free world, but these students deserve the world’s attention.  Unlike protests in America, their heroic protests are done in the face of threats of violence against not only the protestors, but their families as well  (@Stratfor):

…Iranian Prosecutor General Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejei announced Dec. 8 that “intelligence and security … forces have been ordered not to give any leeway to those who break the law, act against national security and disturb public order.”  He added that “families are responsible too if their children are arrested. They will have no right to complain.”…

Lest we forget though, every totalitarian terrorist regime in the world, is only beating  people for their own good:

“Our people can no longer take this… it is our duty to defend the rights of the people.”

That’s right – the regime is taking that stance that by actively preventing free speech through threats of violence tothe  protestors and their families they are in some way preserving the rights of others.

As Plato said:

This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.