Clear and Present Anger

The television is your enemy!

That's the lesson I learned from watching the character Howard Beale in the 1976 film "Network," who ranted nightly against the evils posed by the televisification (TM) of a new class of humanoids. Beale was referring to people who've gotten everything they know from "that box," the television.

Nowadays the box blares on about this war, or that war, or the other war... about this tragedy, or that tragedy, or the other tragedy, and most Americans simply change the channel, or switch the "tube" off. It seems that either we have faith that someone will step in to correct the woes of the world, or we're sure there's nothing any one of us can do to help out.

The box carrying on about bad news someplace else is easy to excuse away, or ignore. That's what's so troubling about the ramping up of Mexican Drug violence over the last few years. It is someplace else, but not. Murder rates in Mexico, and all crimes in general have escalated year after year, showing no signs of slowing down. And, with the proximity to the US as close as any someplace else can be, I've started to pay attention.

As it turns out, a huge part of the power Mexican drug gangs wield is purchased with the profits of the sale of one particularly useful and popular "drug" called Marijuana. Estimated profits of the sale of Marijuana account for up to 50 to 60% of these organizations' total profits, which are in turn responsible for as many as 40,000 deaths in the last 5 years.

In this age of economic uncertainty over deficits and debts on a nation level, the US would be hard pressed to provide the kinds of resources to assist the situation, not to mention the lack of political will to put Americans in harms way on yet another front.

One suggestion, rather than fighting another war, was made during California's prop19 debate, in support of the measure to legalize the recreational use of Marijuana. It was made clear at that time (2010) that the revenues from the Marijuana sales were on par with those of other, more illicit substances.

This, in my opinion, is where one person can focus their efforts to make a change, and support the stabilization of our nearest neighbor to the south. As it stands, not only do 16 states already allow a monitored form of legalization, but cartels are actually using our own lands to grow the "drug" as well.

Upon hearing that Marijuana is one of, if not the leading monetary contributor to the violence that just recently claimed 52 lives, indiscriminately torched in a Monterrey casino... that the drug is not only legal in parts of the US, but grown here by these perpetrators, makes me as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore.

If you feel as mad as hell about these atrocities that are currently threatening the security of both Mexico and the US... if you agree with former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda, find out how you can help the effort to stem the flow of US dollars to people who kill with impunity. The brave can call their state or federal representatives. Others, check out NORML.org, or just write a blog or term/research paper like this one (or better). The more the word is spread, the more it will be heeded.

Who's OK with Default?

Today, I heard someone on The Diane Rehm Show refer to an interesting statistic regarding the debt ceiling debates. The guest said that 22 Republicans voted against raising the debt ceiling, including 2 Representatives from the State of Florida. Wondering just why someone would be so adamant about not acting to protect the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States of America," led me to consider the debate differently.

Why not default? What's it going to hurt?

In a short article by The Motley Fool, republished online by MSNBC.COM, fallout from a US default would likely include higher interest rates all around, higher commodity prices and the extension of 0 credit to the nation's 308,000,000 people. With these ramifications looming heavy on the American people, the thought of what they actually mean sheds a bit of light on the decision of the aformentioned 22 Representatives.

Since we're reminded daily about the fact that most individual Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs, raising interest rates would mean that those fiscally responsible people who've worked out their family's budget would see a stark change in the expense side of those equations. And, while this seems obvious, the prospect is actually difficult to come to grips with due largely to the huge task of reworking the house books.

With the vastness and darkness of the future this change represents, people tend to adopt a wait and see approach to the shifting sands, rather than beginning to plan for the horror the downside represents... All except for the 22 GOPer's and (presumably) those they represent.

So, why is it that these people would not be concerned about a rise in loan and credit card payments due to increased interest rate? One can only assume they have no, or little debt. I don't know this to be the case, but I wonder if the people represented by these 22 individuals share in the good fortune of owing so little that increases in interest rates don't concern them.

Next on the big scary default prediction list, higher commodity prices, also raises interesting and important questions about the represented. Of the general list of commodities there are too many products and industries to choose from in order to make a valid point, so I'll focus on just 2: Gas and Food.

Rather than search all over the world (wide web) for statistics on prices and production, the previous question begs a reintroduction of this one as well. The availability of gas and food determines the prices (along with a few other variables), so it seems the people least concerned about an increase in commodity prices would be those who already own the commodities, or the means to produce them. Off the top of my head I'd say land-owners, farming corporations and the oil and gas industry, but again, these are just hypotheticals (mostly).

Of the 196,000,000 drivers in the US, and 308,000,000 eaters, what percentage own the commodities they consume, or the means to produce them. Frankly, I don't know yet, but it seems a worthy question.

What I do know (or feel safe in assuming) is that they (the people who own the commodities and/or means of production) aren't housed neatly in 22 Congressional Districts. Just who are the people who lived and work in, say, Florida's 14th Congressional District, or Ohio's 4th Congressional District? And do they own a bunch of food and gas?

I'm guessing probably not, but the comfort to not fear these increases must mean something.

I'd continue on about the unavailability of credit, but even fairly well-off people haven't been able to get personal credit for a while. I wonder, though, if these hypothetical people who have no debt, and own all the food and gas in America, really worry about credit availability anyways.

So, to sum it all up, rather than be concerned about how these 22 Congressional Republicans could possibly be ok with our country going in to default for the first time ever, I'm more curious about the people living within their districts. It seems to me, unless they actually do hold 0 debt and own all the commodities, they'd be screwed just like all the rest of us living from paycheck to paycheck... even with an 8 month buffer.

The curiosity of the thing is what gets me motivated. Fortunately, the bill passed and the debtocalipse was averted. But, maybe we should be looking into these sort of anomalies just to make sure everything's on the up and up, or that we don't have entire Congressional Districts asleep at the wheel. After all, it's all available to be known today.