Mexico, the Drug War, and “Victimless” Crime

A former Albuquerque sportscaster, Charlie Minn knows New Mexico, the southwest, and what happens around here.  He has made a new documentary film, “Murder Capital of the World,” about Ciudad Juarez.  In promoting his film, he is popping up on news shows in New Mexico and nationally.  Last night he was on Greta Susteren’s Fox News program (see video here, see transcript here).  I have not seen Minn’s film but this post is about the drug problem and the resulting carnage and the film is relevant.

Minn made some good points and some questionable ones during the interview.   His best points are facts;  the murder rate in Juarez is 4 to 8 persons per day!  The loss of life since President Calderon’s inaugural war on drugs has reached 50,000 in Mexico.  There is some spillover into the US but, by comparison, direct drug violence here is minimal but statistically significant, more about this later.  Minn’s questionable points were implications that President Calderon might actually be involved with one or more cartels, “… is President Calderon collaborating with the drug cartels or has he been putting on the greatest acting job for six years.”  In a questionable reference to Vincenté Fox, former President of Mexico, as having implicated US Government interaction with the Sinaloa cartel to stay out of certain areas in the US.  The truth is that Fox suggested that the DEA might be covertly offering cartel leaders reduced sentences for turning themselves into US authorities (see link).  He also singles out President Obama for criticism on the issue for inactivity but inactivity, except for advocating higher taxes, is that man’s specialty.  The criticism for lack of action on Mexico’s narco-violence is interesting but Minn does not suggest any solutions and Obama's administration is no more culpable than any other.  That does not mean that we should not be doing something but it is a tough problem.

Both claims were unsubstantiated and either puffery for his movie or an unguarded glimpse into someone truly paranoid.  The truth is, as he admitted, there is no evidence supporting either charge and the Vincenté Fox comments were taken out of context and blown out of proportion.  Sr. Fox’s other comments are germane, however, and relate to the problem.

The actual data for drug-related crime in the US is largely absent.  That does not mean that it does not exist but that no good statistics exist.  There are some good data on the prevalence of drug use in people arrested for any crime but the data on drug-related crime is pretty limited.  The best data appears to be ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program).  The latest ADAM data that is available online appears to be from 2009 (see link).  That data says that between 40% and 50% of all arrestees in the Midwest and West test positive for Marijuana use and between 10% and 35% test positive for cocaine.  While that is not sufficient for true causative analysis, for example 65% have high school or GED education but no one is saying that high school graduation causes a life if crime, it does speak to drug use among offenders.  It is also the only data we have.

Now we get into the conjecture portion of this post.  There would be no drug cartel problem in Mexico if there was no drug use in the United States.  We in this country, encouraged by the entertainment industry’s depiction of drug use as a non-violent crime, are complicit in the 50,000 deaths in Mexico.  We need to understand that smoking a joint or doing cocaine directly affects the crime here, the violent crime here, and the murder rate in Mexico!  We need to stop looking at illegal drug use in the US as a victimless crime.  There are many victims here and in Mexico.  The drug culture in the US has spawned an organized crime industry that is quick to use violence, that poisons our society, and that may end up sinking the government of our neighbor if it has not done so already.

There are proposals to legalize marijuana, cocaine, and even heroin.  Since we already have an out-of-control alcohol problem (DUI), that argument can only be supported if we can show an improvement to our current situation.  The DEA advances the counter argument (see link) that so doing would not solve the problem of organized crime and drug violence.  While their argument is interesting, it can be argued that they have a vested interest in not legalizing drugs as the DEA’s budget could shrink in the process.

All I am certain about is that we need to stop treating drug use as victimless crime.

Paseo Del Norte Interchange and Albuquerque City Council

As if to prove that all politics is local, councilors Debbie O'Malley, Rey Garduño, and Isaac Benton, blocked Mayor Richard Berry's attempt to finally do something about the Paséo Del Norté traffic mess.  Ms. O'Malley is from the second district, comfortably east and south of the traffic mess.  Mr.  Garduño is from the 6th district, the far south east.  Isaac Benton is from the second district in the south valley.  All of these councilors feel that they can safely thumb their noses at the west side voters and continue to get patronage for their own portions of the city.

Councilors O'Malley, Benton, and Garduño are hiding behind this in an attempt to delay the interchange, because of very narrow local interests, or because of partisan politics, or both.   The three councilors who now want to take the proposal to the voters opposed doing the same last year when the issue was brought up (Albuquerque Journal article, 2 August, 2011).  At that time Ken Sanchez also voted against the ballot proposal on what the Journal describes as a party line vote but but apparently has looked at the map and determined that the project would be good for residents of his district; good job, Ken.  Taking this to the voters is just a smokescreen for Ms. O’Malley and Mssrs. Benton, and Garduño to block the proposal.  Ms. O’Malley, in a letter to the editor, claims that she is for the project but would rather pay for additional librarians or zoo animals than support it.  In fairness, she also pointed out that another party line vote blocked councilor Sanchez’s proposal to put all $50 million into the Paseo project ballot proposal last year.  Still, that being the case, why oppose the project now?

On the other hand, if the council had it within their power prior to authorize the bond issue now, why was it taken to the voters last year?  While Ms. O’Malley is blaming the mayor for coupling the ballot proposal to the sports complex, her vote against taking the project to the voters in August of last year argues that she is primarily motivated with blocking traffic improvements to the west side or blocking this on a party line basis.

The curious way taxes are assessed results in older properties being limited to a maximum increase of 3% per year while new properties pay a higher rate.  That means that west side voters, with newer homes, are paying a higher tax rate to finance the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 6^th projects and services.  This argues for redistricting and/or voting for councilors on an at-large basis. 

If the west side is part of Albuquerque, all of Albuquerque should support improved traffic flow.  From additional bridges over the Rio Grande, improving the Paseo interchange, to improved public transit, better transportation would improve the city.  The city is not just Central Avenue and Nob Hill any more.

Obamacare

In case you missed it, Robert Samuelson had an excellent column in today's Albuquerque Journal but the same column is also available in the Washington Post (see link).

Besides the difficulties justifying the individual mandate to buy health insurance, there is the issue of whether the entire ACA (Affordable Care Act) actually results in something truly affordable.  Rather that develop a catastrophic safety net, congress fashioned a bloated, comprehensive health plan.  While the idea of covering every citizen with comprehensive care seems noble, the truth is that many cannot afford such care and the left's plan is that the government will subsidize this.

If the mandate is not struck down, all of the rest of us will be saddled with paying for this for years to come.

Iran and Enriched Uranium

All of the talk about Iran obtaining nuclear arms capability is getting everyone’s attention, including mine.  A nuclear Iran in itself would not be a serious threat to the US although it might forestall some of our options in dealing with that country.  There are two significant fears with respect to a nuclear Iran, the implied threat to Israel and the worry that a nuclear weapon might end up in the hands of terrorists.  The fear of a nuclear attack on the US by an Iranian-armed terrorist cell has all of us concerned.  Before we rush into another middle-eastern war, however, let’s examine the details more fully.

Based on news reports of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statements, the average American or Israeli citizen believes that the threat to Israel is not insignificant.  It turns out that news reports, even by highly respected news organizations such as the New York Times, might be using a poor translation and political hyperbole by Mr. Ahmadinejad to Advance a questionable conclusion.  The most commonly repeated quote is that Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel.  Based on data in Wikipedia (see link), this appears to be based upon a speech that he gave in 2005 at a “World Without Zionism” conference.  While Mr. Ahmadinejad’s attendance at such a gathering as well as statements he has made with respect to the Holocaust  suggest that he is a deeply biased man with a bigotry against Jewish persons, his statement may have been poorly translated and misinterpreted.  Reading the section of the Wikipedia piece entitled “Translation Controversy” and “Clarifying Comments” suggest that the man was not calling for the destruction of Israel by war but by democracy.  True, he wanted to include the 5 million or so former residents of Israel and their descendants in the vote but that is apparently what he advocated.  His speech and attitudes represent uncivil discourse and bigotry without a doubt but fall short of a call for war.  Does this mean that Iran is no threat to Israel?  No, but the immediacy of the threat is perhaps less than has been advanced by pundits and news publishers.

How about the threat that Iran might arm a terrorist group with a nuclear warhead?  The answer to this question is a little ambiguous.  The actions of Iran to date show a government that views terrorist organizations as but another delivery mechanism for their ends.  Based on this evidence, I think we could conclude that arming terrorist with nuclear weapons is not outside the realm of possibility for the theocracy that is Iran.  There are, however, some limits to such actions that should be considered before we march headlong into war.  First are the costs of a nuclear weapon.  It is one thing to assume that Iran would be willing to arm a terrorist organization but considering the massive cost to the regime in terms of manpower, invested costs, and sanction costs, would they be willing to part with such a scarce commodity on ideological grounds?  Current estimates are that Iran, if unchecked, could produce at most 1 to 3 bombs within the next 5 years.  I seriously doubt that they would part with a warhead that cost a significant portion of their GDP without provocation.  Now, a provoked Iran might well decide to use a terrorist cell to deliver a bomb to our shores where they lack another means to do so.  What would stop them would be the anticipated response from our country.  The same is true for Israel.  It has been alleged that Israel already has nuclear weapons although they have never confirmed this.  You can imagine the Israeli response if attacked by a terrorist with a nuclear weapon.  As to the fear of a "dirty bomb", the Iranian enrichment facilities have already made 2% enriched Uranium and that or even unenriched Uranium is sufficient for a dirty bomb.  The US and/or Israeli response would be similar.  

Based on this, I believe that there is not a great risk of Iran attacking either the US or Israel unless a state of war existed.  Certainly we have some control over that.  While Iran has shown itself not to be our friend and has aided in the death of our soldiers, our government under Presidents Bush and Obama has made no overt effort to engage them militarily.  I suspect that there may be a covert “cold” war between our nations but we have deniability as well as the Iranians.

Iran is a large country with a population that largely bears us no ill will.  The hatred of Israel, inflamed by both the theocracy and hardliners, is probably more palpable but that alone is not a reason for their destruction.  Prior to the fall of the Shah, the US was involved heavily in Iran and we have many friends there.  There are also many Iranian-Americans that have chosen to come here and have relatives in Iran.  While we may wish for either better relations or an end to the current theocracy in Iran, we need to remember that most Iranians are not our enemy. 

We also need to heed the lessons of Iraq.  While we may one day determine that the Iraq war was good for our country (and I won’t debate that in this post), there was a terrible cost to our soldiers and their families to obtain what we did.  The cost of a similar war in Iran would be higher.  For those that believe that simply taking out the Iranian enrichment sites would suffice, I suggest that such an attack would embolden the hardliners and engender them more support.  Attacking Iran without UN sanctions is likely a violation of international law.  While Israel, who is already isolated, might contemplate such an action, the US cannot do so without serious consequences.  To use force against another sovereign regime would isolate us and would have dire economic consequences.

We need to find a better way to deal with Iran.

Zimmerman etal - continued

Here is a follow-up to the earlier post on George Zimmerman and Treyvon Martin.

Reference the two previous posts on the same issue.

There has been a lot of lip service given to the Florida "stand your ground" law.  In fact, the so-called stand your ground" law is language within Florida statute 776.013, Justifiable Use of Force (see link).  That statute is 578 words long and only paragraph (3) is applicable.  Technically it is a "no duty to retreat" law and clearly requires that the person using deadly force believes that deadly force is required to, "...prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony".  The term "forcible felony" is not defined in the statute but might be interpreted as the shooting victim using force to achieve a felonious action (i.e. mugging).

Given the fact that Mr. Martin, the shooting victim, was not engaged in a forcible felony against another person, the statute would seem to require that, to be legal, Mr. Zimmerman, the shooter had to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.  While Mr. Zimmerman claims, I presume, this to be the case, the state has to examine the circumstances and determine whether that claim is justified.  If they determine otherwise, however, it is up to the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Zimmerman was not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to a jury of 12 persons.  

I don't know how this will end but I believe that political pressure will result in Mr. Zimmerman being charged with some sort of wrongful death.  I would think manslaughter but the prosecution may go for 2nd degree murder.  Whether Mr. Zimmerman gets convicted is anyone's guess.  I would foresee a hung jury.  Then there is a possibility of a second trial and/or a wrongful death lawsuit.  In the case of wrongful death, some news organizations are reporting that wrongful death cases have been thrown out upon acquittal of criminal charges.  A hung jury is not an acquittal and the standards of proof in a civil case are that a preponderance of evidence must show guilt, not that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also, there is no 5th amendment protection in a civil case.


President Obama commented today and his remarks are to-the-point and appropriate.  He is quoted as saying, "  All of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen and that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident."  While I do not always agree with him, Mr. Obama's statements call for calm and analysis rather than a rush to judgement.

Follow-up on Zimmerman

Here is a follow-up to the earlier post on George Zimmerman and Treyvon Martin.


As additional reports come to light, it appears more likely that George Zimmerman will be charged in the death of Treyvon Martin, the teenager that he shot.  First, the national uproar will likely cause either the local district attorney or the State attorney to act.  Whether they get a green light from a grand jury remains to be seen.  The other reason is that the anecdotal evidence is beginning to mount to the point that a more thorough investigation seems to be mandated.  Whether all of the questions can be answered remains to be seen.  Among the questions:

• Did Mr. Zimmerman utter a racial epithet before the shooting?
• Mr. Zimmerman weighed in at 250 pounds vs. Mr. Marin's 140 pounds.  Was there a disparity that favored Mr. Martin?
• Is Mr. Martin's girlfriend a credible witness and would her testimony be allowed?
• Did Mr. Zimmerman confront Mr. Martin and physically attack him as has been alleged by his girlfriend?
• What are the facts of Mr. Zimmerman's criminal history?  Several news organizations have alleged domestic violence (which would have precluded his legal purchase of and  issue of a corresponding concealed carry license)?
• Can the state establish a racist motive for Mr. Zimmerman?  Obviously some media organizations can do so but can the state or federal government prove that allegation?
• Was Mr. Zimmerman attacked from behind?
• Is there a logical reason to traverse a gated community from the convenience store that Mr. Martin visited? (i.e. the shortest route or easily lost)
• Why was Mr. Martin suspended from School? (Only an issue if he is shown to be a hothead, etc)

All-in-all this is a pretty ugly case.  In New Mexico, my estimate is that Mr. Zimmerman would have been charged.  Whether the attorney general could get a grand jury to agree on the evidence remains to be seen.  The Florida "no retreat" law, as written, complicates the issue.  Arizona has a similar law but an over-riding requirement is that the shooter must not have instigated or provoked a physical encounter.  The circumstances with Mr. Zimmerman fail that test unless he clearly was attacked from behind.


The wounds reported for Mr. Zimmerman could be interpreted as an attack from behind but some news organizations are reporting that this evidence was gathered after the initial encounter.  Mr. Martin's girlfriend is alleging that Mr. Zimmerman shoved or pushed Mr. Martin.  It is likely that all of these allegations will have to be vetted in a court of law.

Neighborhood Watch and the Police

Today’s topic is the George Zimmerman case in Florida.  The assailant, George Zimmerman alleges that the dead man, Trayvon Martin, attacked him and that he had to use deadly force to protect himself.  The family of Mr. Martin, and a goodly portion of the US public, believe that Mr. Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin in cold blood and without justification.  When the police arrived, Mr. Zimmerman reportedly had a bloody nose and a wound on the back of his head.  This and the 2005 Florida law had the local sheriff’s department concluding that the self-defense claim of Mr. Zimmerman was righteous.

Where is the truth?  We will likely never truly know.  Opponents of handguns, opponents of the Florida law, and liberals of most stripes, have already convicted Mr. Zimmerman in the press.  Various independent people who are tired of being backed up into their houses at night are advocating for Mr. Zimmerman.

 

Here is all we really know.  Mr. Zimmerman called ‘911’ when he noticed Mr. Martin.  Alleging that Mr. Martin’s actions were suspect probably does speak to the mindset of Mr. Zimmerman.  Certainly he felt threatened by Mr. Martin.  Mr. Martin, who does not seem to be a criminal, was also likely frightened and/or alarmed by Mr. Zimmerman’s attentions.  Mr. Zimmerman decided, for whatever reasons, to exit his vehicle.  He told the police that he merely wanted to check the street name which seems unlikely given his familiarity with the neighborhood; this does not mean that he is lying.  Somehow Mr. Zimmerman came to be injured in whatever scuffle ensued.  Mr. Martin ended up dead.

I can see several possibilities.  

• Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to stalk and follow Mr. Martin.  Mr. Martin decided to confront Mr. Zimmerman and an altercation followed.  
• Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to check the road sign and was attacked when he attempted to return.
• Mr. Zimmerman accosted Mr. Martin and provoked him.

I believe that only the second of the above instances would justify deadly force and then only if he felt himself in imminent danger of serious injury.  In any event, Mr. Zimmerman exercised bad judgment in leaving his vehicle.  This does not mean that he is guilty of manslaughter.  Mr. Trayvon Martin is dead and his family is understandably upset.  The State of Florida would like to set some limits on their self-defense law that does not require a person to retreat when threatened.  Either the case will be dismissed for lack of evidence against Mr. Zimmerman or the State of Florida will prosecute him to make him an example.  Given the paucity of evidence so far brought forward, it is unlikely that they will obtain a conviction although a hung jury is possible. 

In either event, should the state pursue a criminal case against Mr. Zimmerman, a wrongful death suit will likely be brought.  Without a full acquittal, such a case could proceed.  Mr. Zimmerman will soon discover that he has no coverage under his homeowners’ insurance for such a wrongful death and while there is other insurance available, it generally only covers legal expenses.  If Mr. Zimmerman has any coverage beyond homeowners’ coverage, I would be surprised.  This and given the fact that the standard of proof in a civil case is “preponderance of evidence”, not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, will likely make the coming 24 months very bad for Mr. Zimmerman.

The conclusion?  A neighborhood watch is not a neighborhood patrol.  No one participating in such has the training, the legal standing, or the financial resources behind them to cover going in harm’s way.  If you want additional patrols in your neighborhood, call the police.  If you cannot get them, fire the local government!  While getting a gun for protection is a right, having one and using one are two different things.  Leave the patrolling to the professionals.

Plate Tectonics and GPS

I don't know how much you may have thought about plate tectonics.  Plate tectonics is the current theory of how our world's land masses interact, form mountains, create earthquakes, etc.  The idea is that the outer crust of out planet is not whole but made up of many large plates that float on the mantle.  I have seen references in news articles and never gave it a lot of thought.  Today I saw an article (see link) in the U of M news service that talked about the subject.  In that article, the author, quoted University of Michigan geophysicist Marin Clark,  Ms. Clark noted that the plates are moving at roughly the rate fingernails grow.  While I cannot quote you a rate for that in any sort of units per unit time, that is pretty fast and measurable.  I wondered if anyone was looking at this using GPS.


Well, Google "Plate Tectonics and GPS" and you will see that there is a huge body of data supporting motion of the places we live.  The good old earth and our properties are moving, a lot.  NASA has compiled a lot of data on this and has the data and a nifty slide show (see link) available.  Look around the map where individual sites are marked.  Each site on the world map there represents a reporting station with a high-quality GPS receiver.  The lines attached to each of the points represent the direction and velocity.  I would drop a copy of the map in here but the use is covered by a Google use policy that is not entirely clear.  The data, however, is from NASA's JPL and can be used here.  I noticed that the vectors for Australia were quite a bid longer than most and looked at the data for "ADE1" (see link), a station on the southeast coat of Australia near Adelaide.  The latitude is noted as changing an average of 58.5 mm/year.  For those not familiar with the metric system, that is over 2 inches per year!  Most of the continental US is moving at a much slower rate but the data shows that our positions are moving around at 3/8 to 2 inches per year depending upon where you live.  


I suspect the average 6th grader has already been introduced to this but for most of us, this is a surprise.  While I knew that the various plates were moving, I had no idea how much.

Followup on Albuquerque Journal "News" item last week

Last week (11 march), I commented on a story by a Journal reporter named Winthrop Quigley about the supposedly dire consequences of a reduction in Federal spending due to sequestration.  Sequestration here refers to the across-the-board cuts required because a bi-partisan panel could not resolve differences in obtaining a tiny reduction in the growth of the Federal budget over 10 years.  Today the Journal published a much more balanced editorial advising New Mexicans that we need to broaden our economy away from Federal spending and also noted that we should get used to these cuts as the path we were on, the path we might still be on, is not sustainable.

Good job Albuquerque Journal!  While I doubt that we will lose the number of jobs noted in the editorial that were attributed to a study by the University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research, I am certain that there will be some losses.  Regardless, the Journal editorial draws the correct conclusion.

The Left’s War on Women

Charles Schumer has declared that the Republicans are waging a “War on Women” because many of them are vocally opposing the regulatory ruling of the President’s administration with regard to birth control.  While much of the rhetoric is just political theater on both sides of the issue, Mr. Schumer’s real intent is to direct attention away from the failures of Mr. Obama’s term, a term that included record deficits, a stagnated economy, a doubling in the roles of the Food Stamp program, and an utter failure in Afghanistan.

The “War on Women” that I am talking about is the one against Afghani women.  The current administration has fumbled the efforts in Afghanistan to the point that we will probably have to withdraw and leave the nation’s women there at the mercy of the Taliban.  While it is easy to say that it is up to the Afghans to solve their problems, let’s examine the culpability of Mr. Obama.

Let’s start with President Obama campaigning in 2008 and saying that Afghanistan was the “important war”.  While the efforts in the last years of the Bush administration were at best suboptimal due to the concentration on Iraq, Mr. Obama has not given clear direction either.  After taking over in 2009, he challenged the military to come up with a clear path to an independent Afghanistan.  The military asked for 40,000 troops for a “surge”.  Mr. Obama, after dallying and analyzing for months, gave them 30,000!  Then, last autumn, Mr. Obama announced the premature return of 10,000 troops.

I believe that understaffing the American military actually increased the danger for coalition troops and made the planned efforts impossible.  Also, the hard exit announced by Mr. Obama and the early reduction in troop levels sent a clear message to Mr. Karzai to make other arrangements.  Follow that with an announced reduction in spending for Afghan security and you have a clear message to Afghanistan that you cannot count on us; they should make their peace with the Taliban.  Getting Karzai to ask for early withdrawal is the result of Obama’s policies.  A cynic might even suggest that this was planned from the start but I find that hard to believe since the failure in Afghanistan will be Mr. Obama's legacy.

That is how we got here.  At this point, another surge would make us look like the old Soviet Union.  We should not do it unless the Afghans somehow reverse course on their request that we withdraw.  If the Karzai government forms a coalition with the Taliban, it could well result in 7^th century Sharia law – again.  The result of that would be that Afghan women end up with the same kind of miserable existence that they had under the Taliban before the US went into that country.

While we give Mr. Obama high marks for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Afghan effort has been a failure under his watch.  Whether Afghan women end up with civil freedoms under the final Afghan government may end up resting with the Taliban.  Hope and Change has not worked out so well for them.  They are left to Wish and Wait. 

Darth Vader and Goldman Sachs

By now, most of you are aware of Greg Smith's highly public departure from Goldman-Sachs.  Goldman-Sachs is one of the oldest and most successful investment bankers of all times.  Mr. Smith was a Goldman-Sachs executive director, equivalent to a vice president according to some reports, who put his quite contrary account of Goldman-Sachs into the New York Times this morning.  That prompted Goldman-Sachs to launch a campaign to discredit him that one reporter equated to "... his opinion does not matter because he made less than $750,000 per year."   That was not said but Goldman did discredit him somewhat as a lower-level employee.

On another note, an outfit called "The Daily Mash" parodied Mr. Smith's dire commentary in the New York Times with a piece that restates Greg Smith's New York Times resignation as a resignation by Darth Vader.  It was just too funny.  You can read it here:  http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/why-i-am-leaving-the-empire%2c-by-darth-vader-201203145007/

No disrespect to Mr. Smith is intended.  I am sure that Goldman-Sachs views its customers as "Muppets" as he noted in his article but the Darth Vader article kind of gets it in the right light.  The empire, i.e. Goldman-Sachs, is still the empire but Mr. Vader (Greg Smith) is resigning over minor issues like losing the interest in remote strangulation, etc.  I just checked and The Daily Mash Website is down so read some of the excellent articles about it until they recover their site.  The point here is that Mr. Smith, in spite of his , perhaps, good intentions, was a well-paid member of the empire, er Goldman-Sachs, for 12 years and finally has seen the light.

Goldman-Sachs may have lost their customer focus.  That is not, unfortunately, uncommon in the USA.  Are they the evil empire?  Name any twelve major US corporations and tell me.  In any event, money is there to be made from Goldman, Johnson and Johnson, Chrysler-Fiat, etc, if you time the market right and don't get blinded by the Koolaid.

Followup on Daylight Savings Time

"At least 2 die in school bus crash on Indianapolis' Southeast side" (Indianapolis Star)

So, there was a school bus crash in Indianapolis this morning.  A bus ran into a bridge abutment at 7:45 AM.  A student was killed along with the driver so we will never know exactly what happened but I was struck by the photos in the article.  Even though the photos were taken after the accident at the time many rescue vehicles had gotten there, I wonder if visibility had a role.

Here we have the first day after DST and a school bus, driving the same route as always I assume, hits a bridge abutment.  Curiously, one of the injured students was initially reported to be lodged against the bus's front wheel.

It is too early to tell but I suspect visibility.  If it turns out to be a heart attack or substance abuse with respect to the driver, that would likely rule out visibility.

Even if you support DST, recall that in the last few years, some lawmakers in Washington decided it was a good idea to move up the date for DST by some 2-3 weeks.  This is the kind of thing that makes the House and Senate two of our most dangerous organizations.

Albuquerque Journal and their so-called news about the budget

The Albuquerque Journal published a front page article by Wintrop Quigley predicting dire consequences for New Mexico due to the automatic budget cuts.  Rather than address the real problem, a failure of a bi-partisan committee to deal with runaway spending, the Journal chose to outline the consequences of unmanaged spending reductions.


Here are the facts.  Federal spending has increased outrageously under the President's administration, the Democratically-controlled Senate, and the former Democratically-controlled House of Representatives (House).  Attempts by the GOP-controlled House to roll back spending were rejected by the Senate.  As a consequence  of a requirement to raise the deficit ceiling, a small reduction in the overall budget was agreed upon that would result in automatic cuts if a bi-partisan panel could not agree on specific cuts.  Yes, the result is a decrease in spending but only a decrease in "discretionary spending.  Considering that the spending decrease is $110 billion out of $3.8 TRILLION, a reduction of just 2.8%  in 2012, I think we will survive.


While much has been said about the Obama excesses, and there have been many, we were on an unhealthy growth in the deficit before he took office.  To the credit of the Obama critics, he did make it worse.  Below are the forecasts from Mr. Bush for the years 2007-2012 compared with Mr. Obama's for the years 2007 through 2017.  These are taken from two documents on the Whitehouse.gov site, Mr. Bush's from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf and the latest from Mr. Obama at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf.  You will see that spending under Mr. Bush was expanding at a rate of $122.3 billion per year while Mr. Obama is increasing the spend rate at $155.1 billion per year.  Under any circumstances, the amount of the budget decrease enacted last year is less than the projected increase under either president.

In conclusion, we are increasing spending at a rate that is not sustainable in growth.  Mr. Obama wishes to increase taxes while the Republicans want to cut spending.  The truth is between the two extremes.  A judicious cut along with a revenue increase that hits all of us, not just the rich, not just the middle class, all of us, would likely be accepted.  The Republicans are suggesting tax reform.  The Democrats are on board with that but will have to compromise on spending to get the tax reform.  Also, the Democrats are going to have to be willing to increase taxes across all income levels.  Continuing to get a larger share out of the wealthy will stagnate the economy.

Daylight Savings Time, is this really necessary?

I grew up in Michigan before Daylight Savings Time (DST) was a universal truth, that is prior to 1966.  In 1966, while I was out of the country, some "well-meaning" folks in Washington decided that they knew better and mandated DST for the entire country (why am I not surprised) unless an entire state was exempted.  At that time, Michigan did exempt itself but in subsequent elections DST was approved statewide for Michigan also.  I left Michigan in the early years of this century, not because of DST, and ended up in Arizona.  There I relearned the simplicity of not having Daylight Savings Time.  Life was good.  Now that I am in New Mexico and have to put up with the bi-annual time change again.

So, is there a point to this history lesson?  Well, I never voted for DST!  I reasoned that there is only a finite amount of daylight in a day and changing my clock did not change the outcome.  Apparently there are a lot of folks who like to go to work earlier and get home earlier so they vote for DST.  Why they can't just change their hours or set summer hours, or something, is beyond me.

Now there are a number of people like me who are trying to get DST eliminated.  They have arguments that are at least more logical than the argument for DST.  You can read about them and their arguments at http://www.standardtime.com/index.html.  They have a petition too so think about it and sign up if you agree.

My vote, stop the madness, eliminate Daylight Savings Time.

Obama and the Keystone Pipeline

So now, according to the media, Obama (President Obama if you want a title) has lobbied the senate to oppose a Republican bill to (essentially) approve the Keystone pipeline.  Even Bill Clinton and his prior close confidants are urging Obama to get behind the pipeline.  Obama is citing environmental concerns but the right is alleging that he is opposed to it because it would offset his (pre-Presidential call) for higher gasoline prices.

I don't know what is in this guy's (Obama's) mind but opposing this pipeline is insane!  There is no reason that this pipeline should be opposed at the Presidential level.  Maybe President Obama really does want higher gasoline prices.

On another front, Mr. Obama has proposed an adequate compromise to the contraceptive requirement for Obama-care.  That being said, it will not lessen the outrage on the conservative front.  Those opponents, however, are not in step with the majority, especially women, and should stand down.  This is not an issue that will win out in the general election, given the compromise, even though it aids Mr. Santorum.

Limbaugh (again) and Maher and "Media Matters"

Now we have Bill Maher, who I respect about as much as Rush Limbaugh, coming out in defense of Limbaugh's apology and noting that it is wrong for the left to target the sponsors.  Perhaps Mr. Maher suffered some of the same when he hurled misogynistic comments at prominent right wing women like Sarah Palin.  Maybe he is just being a nice guy but I doubt it.

No matter what Maher or Limbaugh says or the true substance of the matter, there are left wing groups like Media Matters and "The Daily Kos" that are sponsoring campaigns to target the sponsors of Mr. Limbaugh.  While I believe that they are within their rights to do so, it is a poorly-disguised attempt to silence one of the most vociferous critics of left wing politicians and media.  Is that what we really want in a free country with free speech?

I would love to see Bill Maher go away, out of business, etc, because I disagree with him 9 times out of 10.  That is about the same as my disagreement with Limbaugh when I hear whatever outrageous thing he said lately.  The fact that I would love to see them both disappear does not mean that they should nor does it mean that they should be censored.  The actions of Media Matters and other left wing groups is an outright attempt to silence free speech.

Now let's look at the claims of Ms. Fluke, who has been reported to claim that birth control prescriptions would add $3,000 to her law school educarion.  First, the average time in law school is about 30 months in residence.  That would work out to be $100 per month.  A quick visit to the Planned Parenthood site tells us that they will provide access to birth control pills for $15 to $50 per month.  A visit to the Walmart Pharmacy site shows that you can buy, given a prescription, Tri-Sprintec (a birth control pill) for $4 per month.  Finally, I doubt that paying even the inflated estimate of Ms. Fluke is beyond her means since Georgetown Law tuition is $23,432.50 per semester, just under $94,000 for her JD if she does it in 4 semesters.  Ms. Fluke's estimate of $3,000 is a 3.2% surcharge for not going to Walmart or Planned Parenthood.  The first amendment is worth that much.  This does not justify Mr. Limbaugh's comments but let's put everything into perspective.

My point here is that demanding that a Jesuit university violate its religious views to provide birth control is a violation of the 1st amendment if you take the more liberal view that the 1st amendment to the Constitution provides for separation of church and state.  The 1st amendment says nothing of the kind and it is pretty interesting that the so-called conservatives now want to consider that interpretation as they assail the President.  I take the more liberal view and believe that the separation of church and state is covered by the first amendment.  With that view in mind, I believe the faith-based institutions should be exempt from any law requiring coverage for contraceptives.  I don't think that the 1st amendment exempts private persons from providing such coverage, hence my opposition to the Blunt amendment.  This is the same reason we don't allow individuals to withhold taxes on religious or moral grounds.

Iran, Obama, and the election

So, what now?  If the news reports are to be believed, the US now has the capacity, with its 30,000 pound MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities at Qom and Natanz.  For that reason, the President believes that we have time to allow the sanctions to work.  Israel, per Mr. Netanyayu, only has the capacity to strike within the next few months.

A serious issue indeed.  It is perhaps more serious for Israel as the Iranian regime has consistently vowed the destruction of the Jewish state.  Allied against the Israelis are those that are unhappy with the treatment of the Palestinians since the 1967 war.  While Netanyahu, at last night's AIPAC meeting, insisted that there are equal Arab, non-Jewish citizens in Israel, the consistent growth of settlements in the West Bank and confiscation of Arab-owned properties continues.

I find it difficult to find a good guy in this.  That being said, I also find it hard to countenance an Iran with nuclear weapons given their stance that Israel must be destroyed.  Also, given their consistent support of terrorist organizations and the wholesale slaughter of our soldiers, I find it difficult to consider a nuclear-armed Iran as acceptable.  I no longer believe that MAD (mutually assured destruction) will work there.

We rushed into Iraq believing that they were hiding WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and discovered otherwise.  While I believe that that operation will eventually end up in the "win" column for the US, the results are at best inconclusive for now.  Saddam is gone and that is a good thing.  Many folks have died from the US and from Iraq.  It is difficult to measure the results right now.  History will tell us the truth.

Iran will likely be the same thing.  If we ignore the threat and Iran arms Hamas or Hezbollah with nuclear warheads, we will likely end up with an Hiroshima-sized hole in the US!  Along with the death and destruction, we will also end up with an economy even more severely damaged than after the 2008-2009 recession.  Certainly, early action would have economic and human consequences but they pale beside a nuclear terrorist attack.

It is difficult to know what to do here and I don't know the answer.

Here is what we know.  Iran is an enormous country full of people that are friendly to the US.  Not all are hardliners like Khamenei or Ahmadinejad.  A full-out war would be hurtful to our allies and adversaries within Iran.  So, could a simple preemptive strike on Iranian Nuclear facilities be contained short of a full-out war?  Could we avoid the wholesale invasion of Iran that we did with Iraq?  Do we Americans have the will to initiate and continue a battle with the Iranian hardliners?

These are the questions that the President and the GOP  candidates must answer over the next few months.  They are tough questions and all of our lives are invested in the outcome.  I doubt that Obama has the mettle to conclusively act.  I foresee more of his analysis right up to the November election.  During that time, the GOP candidates will push the rhetoric for war as it is good politics to do so.  If that is to happen, I foresee that we will end up acting in Iran, regardless of the election outcome.  If Obama wins, the GOP rhetoric and positive political response will drive him to (finally) act and stop analyzing.  If the GOP contender wins, we will either act or Iran will come to the bargaining table with hat in hand.  While this latter outcome is favorable, it is also possible that the discussion will cede the election to Obama (remember the Democratic ads against Goldwater in 1964 and the expansion of the Vietnam war after the election).  Then we will be into it.

I don't want a war with Iran.  Enough already.  I also don't want the bad guys attacking our cities.  The truth is someplace in between but I believe that the Iranian facilities will be attacked by us or Israel within the next 11 months.  What ensues after that remains to be seen.

Only the Iranian hardliners can stop this.

Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke

I have been ignoring this, thinking it would either die down or that Limbaugh would react more.  To remind everyone, Limbaugh called Miss Fluke a slut and a prostitute because she wanted to go before congress and testify about her hardship in paying for contraceptives at Georgetown University Law.

Well, the news cycle continues, Limbaugh is losing sponsors - appropriate considering - and the left is calling on all Republicans to denounce his conduct.  It is the latter point that I want to address.

First, my views on Limbaugh are that he is a self-promoter and an entertainer, not a serious political figure.  Also, I don't like him and have rarely heard anything repeated that he said with which I agree.  Repeated is the only way I would hear his commentary because I don't listen to the guy or read anything he writes.  I did read a book of his in 1992 loaned to me by a friend at work.  I had never heard of him and his book did not convince me that he was worth the effort to listen.  Nothing I have heard in the intervening 20 years convinces me otherwise.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of "dittoheads" out there who do listen to this guy.  He has the ability to reach out and plant an outrageous soundbite in the minds of many right-leaning Americans.  He is not a king maker but he can swing the polls by a few percentage points.  In a tight election, that is significant and the left knows this.

Expecting any substantive criticism of Limbaugh from the current crop of Presidential candidates is pointless.  Also, they did not make the statements that he did.  None of them have supported his statements.  The fact that they are running to the right before gaining the nomination is just the way the two party system works.  Once one of them gets the nomination, they will run towards the middle.  This is a mirror of what the Democrats do.

The current furor over the statements of the candidates by Debbie Wasserman and the left-leaning media are disingenuous.  They are calling for outrage not because of Limbaugh's comments but as an attempt to weaken the GOP slate.  The good news is that the candidate's responses will be long forgotten in a month.  Limbaugh's troubles may drag on as he has so far lost seven (7) sponsors.  Whether you like him, hate him, or are ambivalent, it will take more sponsors leaving or another case of oral diarrhea to bring him down from his position.  

Increasing the number of Police officers per capita in Albuquerque

This post was updated to correct some data errors that I created doing some intermediate calculations on the FBI Uniform Crime Data from 2010.  The conclusions remain largely the same.

As noted in the earlier and now deleted post, I got into a discussion last Sunday on the subject of the number of police officers per resident in the Albuquerque metro area. The Albuquerque Metro area includes the counties of Bernalillo, Sandoval, Valencia, and Torrance as well as the cities of Rio Rancho and Albuquerque and several smaller cities. The result, for the Albuquerque metro area is about 1.9 officers per thousand residents. Since this compares to 4.20 for New York City, I asked myself the question whether or not we had enough police in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.

To answer this question, we need to look at the crime rates here and in similar cities including New York. Interestingly, looking only at the city data, there are cities with higher crime rates and more officers per capita than ours. It is only when one steps back and looks at the cities' metropolitan areas that the data has any correlation. Looking at the metro areas tends to filter the data, like the high city of Dallas murder rate, somewhat by looking at the relatively calmer suburbs. Let me say that there are some really scary cities out there, like Dallas, Newark, and Compton!

When we filter the data through the metro areas, there seems to be a strong relationship between number of police officers per capita and the murder and property crime rates as evidenced by the low scatter but week relationship between the  number of police officers per capita and the violent and murder crime rates. See the graph below:

This is not to say that adding police will make a city as safe as New York. Some cities are particularly hard hit with crime. The city of Dallas, for example, with 2.81 police officers per thousand has a murder rate that is many times that of New York. Newark, New Jersey, part of the New York City metropolitan area, has a murder rate several times higher than New York City and has more police per thousand than New York. There appear to be environmental factors and possibly leadership issues that affect the outcome. One thing is certain, accepting the status quo is not the solution to the problem.

Here are the data for the cities in question and for their metro areas.

Now, if you accept that we could use more officers, what would be reasonable? Going to the number per thousand in the New Your metro area might be nice but I am certain most of us would get sticker shock. Also, this is the old west, many people have more means to protect themselves here than in New York and that is a good thing. Still, looking at the numbers, the means available to Albuquerque citizens do not appear to be a significant force multiplier since the number of police per thousand is a little less than half of that in NYC and we have about double the crime rate.

I suggest that we take a near-term target of 3 officers per thousand. That would take us to 1,638 sworn officers in Albuquerque and 350 in the Bernalillo Sheriff's Department. Using the current Albuquerque budget with $163,105,000 in payroll for around 1,600 personnel, we would have to increase the spending to about $217,949,056 - say $220 million. This increase of $56.9 million would increase the City of Albuquerque budget 6.4%. So, the increase is not earth-shattering but it would be a shock. The Bernalillo County Sheriff's budget is $31.733 million currently for 350 personnel. To add 113 deputies, we would expect an increase of $10.25 million or 12.1% of the county budget.

Neither of these numbers account for any increase in capital expenditures associated with increasing the number of sworn officers so they are likely somewhat low. It appears that we would need to increase the city and county budgets by around 10% to increase the number of officers by 50%.

A worthy goal and a reasonable cost.

Putin and Chicago Politics

I just read an article by Peter Leonard (Russia train journey shows discontent with Putin) for the AP. This was an article about a train trip across Russia where he discussed the politics of Putin with several Russian passengers.

Very interesting.

Perhaps most interesting was the reporting at the end of the article where he described the various actions under Putin. Controlled media, jailed political enemies, rigged elections, and a clampdown on free media. Except for the controlled media, it sounds like politics in Chicago. Rahm Emanuel and Richard Daley would be much at ease there. This is not to say that they support legislation to limit the free press, only that they know how to favorably advance their views through favorable reporters.

The good news is that Chicago politics has very little sway outside of Illinois as Mr. Obama is discovering.

The GOP and the church

Okay, Obama started it, first with the national health care bill and more recently with the demand that birth control, including the morning after pill, be provided by all health care insurance. That being said, the Blunt Amendment to allow employers to opt out of birth control requirements as a matter of conscience was as much "Right Wing Social Engineering" (Thanks, Newt) as the Obama rule was "Left Wing Social Engineering."

These things can and should be regulated by the states. It is good that the Blunt Amendment failed, in my view, but it is unfortunate that the current Administration ruling on birth control will likely have to go to court to get resolved.

I am not opposed to some sort of Federal guidelines for a catastrophic health care provision, without the mandate requiring folks to sign on, but the current liberal love health care plan is not affordable and plays too much into personal rights. Had the Administration proposed a tax to cover the healthcare plan without the mandate, they would have been on solid constitutional grounds. There was no way that such a tax would have passed even the most liberal congress of all time, however, so we got the mandate. The only way that the mandate to be insured can be considered constitutional is to consider it a tax. personally, I would like to see that pinned on this Administration and the forces of Reid and Pelosi.