Last week I went down to LA to visit family and to see the special exhibit on the Mexican Revolution running at the Autry National Center of the American West.
The exhibit was a fascinating, colorful depiction of the social and cultural impact — on both sides of the border — of the 1910-1920 revolution that convulsed Mexico, killing more than a million people and displacing millions of others (the first wave of massive Mexican immigration into the U.S.).
As my family walked among the George Yepes paintings and film clips of Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata, it was impossible to avoid linking the tumult of the Revolution to the drug civil war ravaging the country today.
I have fond memories of camping with my brother in the hills of Baja California, heading down at dawn into a little fishing village, heading out in pangas to fish the reefs. My wife and I would love to do the Copper Canyon tour.
But right now, I just can’t justify the risk of going to Mexico. I know that the violence is mainly confined to certain zones and that other areas remain relatively safe. But the violence is getting worse and Americans make good kidnapping targets. I won’t put my family at that risk.
I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to go there again. Sad.
If you’re interested in reading about the drug trade in Mexico and on the border, Charles Bowden is brilliant, both on the reporting end and as a vivid, almost poetic writer. Sometimes a novel provides as much education about a subject as history or journalism. Don Winslow’s “The Power of the Dog” is a harrowing but absolutely engrossing thriller set during the ’70s and ’80s when the Mexican cartels were setting up their pipeline for Columbian cocaine.
When the Caribbean route into Florida started getting dicey (all that Miami Vice attention), the route into the U.S. shifted to Mexico and a bunch of smalltimers got big really fast.
Now they’re in a death struggle with the Mexican army and among themselves. Mexico is bleeding and on fire and the flames are licking at the U.S.
Just like the bad old days.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Monday, March 30, 2009
Robbed with a fountain pen
Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered
I’ve seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
— Woody Guthrie
True in 1939; true today.
We’ve been pencil-whipped half to death by a bunch of cons. Armed robbery is honest work compared to the financial machinations that have left us shoveling our good money after bad.
Over the past two weeks I’ve heard over and over that we just need to get over the AIG bonus flap. Sure it stinks, the argument goes, but the principle of contract is more important than sticking it to greedy bums.
I don’t buy it. Yes, in the great scheme of things, it’s a small amount of money. But we should be angry — angry at what this represents.
An awful lot of people are sick of playing by one set of rules while fat cats and politicians seem to play by a whole other set of “rules” that make sense only on the other side of the looking glass.
People are outraged because the idea of people getting bonuses when they’ve run their company into the ground is outrageous. Who agreed to these contracts? Why did Treasury release bailout funds knowing that they were in place?
There’s also a major-league double-standard at play here. The same folks who say we have to get over the AIG (and other) bonuses will tell you that the auto industry simply has to get rid of its (contractual) labor burden.
That may well be true, but it kinda makes the “a contract is a contract” argument stink like week-old fish.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
I’ve seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
— Woody Guthrie
True in 1939; true today.
We’ve been pencil-whipped half to death by a bunch of cons. Armed robbery is honest work compared to the financial machinations that have left us shoveling our good money after bad.
Over the past two weeks I’ve heard over and over that we just need to get over the AIG bonus flap. Sure it stinks, the argument goes, but the principle of contract is more important than sticking it to greedy bums.
I don’t buy it. Yes, in the great scheme of things, it’s a small amount of money. But we should be angry — angry at what this represents.
An awful lot of people are sick of playing by one set of rules while fat cats and politicians seem to play by a whole other set of “rules” that make sense only on the other side of the looking glass.
People are outraged because the idea of people getting bonuses when they’ve run their company into the ground is outrageous. Who agreed to these contracts? Why did Treasury release bailout funds knowing that they were in place?
There’s also a major-league double-standard at play here. The same folks who say we have to get over the AIG (and other) bonuses will tell you that the auto industry simply has to get rid of its (contractual) labor burden.
That may well be true, but it kinda makes the “a contract is a contract” argument stink like week-old fish.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Enterprise
Sisters is shooting to attach itself to Redmond’s enterprise zone.
This is probably a better deal for Redmond than it is for Sisters; they get to add a severely economically distressed area to their application, making it more likely that they’ll be renewed by the state.
Not that I think a Sisters enterprise zone is a bad idea; I just don’t think it will have much impact, at least not by itself.
As we’ve discussed before, there aren’t a lot of sound business reasons for a light industrial enterprise to locate in Sisters instead of Redmond. Reasons have to be “irrational”; a business owner would have to override bottom line considerations for lifestyle considerations.
To that end, I put more faith in the current downtown renewal effort being pursued by the new Sisters Village Association (see The Nugget, March 18, page 1).
Here’s how I think this roles: Sisters maintains and enhances its quality as a tourist destination, with a vibrant community full of worthy cultural events — a thriving arts and music scene, rich outdoor recreation opportunities. Sisters maintains good schools (no guarantee, even with the passage of local option).
People come here to vacation, fall in love, decide they simply must live here and locate their business here. The incentives of an enterprise zone make it a little easier to justify and send a signal that, yes, Sisters welcomes you.
Perhaps Sisters actively goes out and courts the sort of people and businesses we want here, utilizes the Baker City “enterprise facilitation” model Chuck Humphreys touted to the council (story in The Nugget, March 18, page 1).
An enterprise zone is the least of our tools. Fighting off downtown decay, enhancing the vitality of our core and of our fundamental industry — tourism — is the critical mission. Next (actually, in tandem) comes a coherent, focused marketing campaign that shows off the best of Sisters and seeks to bring the best quality cultural tourism (geotourism is the current buzz word) to our doors.
Only when we create an overwhelming desire to be here, one that trumps pure business considerations, will enterprise incentives and facilitation kick in.
What’s needed now is synchronization of efforts, a clear understanding of where the horse and the cart go in the equation and a clear line of responsibility for making things happen.
The Sisters Village Association is a good sign. So, in its limited way is the possibility of an enterprise zone. But we can encourage enterprise with or without one if we first focus on polishing Sisters like the gem it is.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
This is probably a better deal for Redmond than it is for Sisters; they get to add a severely economically distressed area to their application, making it more likely that they’ll be renewed by the state.
Not that I think a Sisters enterprise zone is a bad idea; I just don’t think it will have much impact, at least not by itself.
As we’ve discussed before, there aren’t a lot of sound business reasons for a light industrial enterprise to locate in Sisters instead of Redmond. Reasons have to be “irrational”; a business owner would have to override bottom line considerations for lifestyle considerations.
To that end, I put more faith in the current downtown renewal effort being pursued by the new Sisters Village Association (see The Nugget, March 18, page 1).
Here’s how I think this roles: Sisters maintains and enhances its quality as a tourist destination, with a vibrant community full of worthy cultural events — a thriving arts and music scene, rich outdoor recreation opportunities. Sisters maintains good schools (no guarantee, even with the passage of local option).
People come here to vacation, fall in love, decide they simply must live here and locate their business here. The incentives of an enterprise zone make it a little easier to justify and send a signal that, yes, Sisters welcomes you.
Perhaps Sisters actively goes out and courts the sort of people and businesses we want here, utilizes the Baker City “enterprise facilitation” model Chuck Humphreys touted to the council (story in The Nugget, March 18, page 1).
An enterprise zone is the least of our tools. Fighting off downtown decay, enhancing the vitality of our core and of our fundamental industry — tourism — is the critical mission. Next (actually, in tandem) comes a coherent, focused marketing campaign that shows off the best of Sisters and seeks to bring the best quality cultural tourism (geotourism is the current buzz word) to our doors.
Only when we create an overwhelming desire to be here, one that trumps pure business considerations, will enterprise incentives and facilitation kick in.
What’s needed now is synchronization of efforts, a clear understanding of where the horse and the cart go in the equation and a clear line of responsibility for making things happen.
The Sisters Village Association is a good sign. So, in its limited way is the possibility of an enterprise zone. But we can encourage enterprise with or without one if we first focus on polishing Sisters like the gem it is.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Monday, March 9, 2009
Legalize it?
The Economist has an excellent leader this week arguing for international legislative action to legalize narcotics.
The argument is nothing new, of course, but it is given fresh impetus by a meeting next week of a variety of government ministers in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. The last such meeting in 1998 sought a drug-free world and committed to “eliminating or significantly reducing the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.”
Didn’t work.
The Economist argues that legalization is the “least bad” option, acknowledging that it is not good. Some drug users will suffer. It’s probably a better deal for producer nations than for consumer nations. Harm reduction sounds like weak concession.
But in the face of manifest failure, The Economist argues, it’s worth a try.
It’s a tough sell, not least because law enforcement agencies have become addicted to the budgets they get for fighting the “War on Drugs.” And even those who are disposed to accept the legalization of pot might blanch at legalizing methamphetamine. I know I do.
But Afghanistan and Mexico are failed or failing states because of the narco trade and it’s going to keep costing us billions we can’t afford to swim against the tide of corruption and mayhem generated by drug prohibition.
The most commonly abused drug — alcohol — is perfectly legal, because prohibition didn’t work. Not only did it fail, it basically created major league organized crime. Just as the War on Drugs has “fostered gangsterism on a scale the world has never seen before.”
The argument of drug warriors that the drug market has stabilized — in other words, it’s about the same as it was a decade ago — isn’t sufficient justification for continuing the war. In the current recession, we no longer have the resources to keep up a full-court press and the financially stressed have both more reason to take drugs and to peddle them.
People will always want to alter their senses and they’ll always be willing to pay a pretty penny to do it. And somebody is always going to be willing to supply that demand — and they’ll corrupt governments and kill anybody they need to to keep those profits rolling.
It’d be better if everyone would take Johnny Cash’s advice: “Come all you rounders and listen up to me/ Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.”
But they won’t. We need to come down to reality and accept that. Legalize it? I’ll hold my nose and say yes.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
The argument is nothing new, of course, but it is given fresh impetus by a meeting next week of a variety of government ministers in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. The last such meeting in 1998 sought a drug-free world and committed to “eliminating or significantly reducing the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.”
Didn’t work.
The Economist argues that legalization is the “least bad” option, acknowledging that it is not good. Some drug users will suffer. It’s probably a better deal for producer nations than for consumer nations. Harm reduction sounds like weak concession.
But in the face of manifest failure, The Economist argues, it’s worth a try.
It’s a tough sell, not least because law enforcement agencies have become addicted to the budgets they get for fighting the “War on Drugs.” And even those who are disposed to accept the legalization of pot might blanch at legalizing methamphetamine. I know I do.
But Afghanistan and Mexico are failed or failing states because of the narco trade and it’s going to keep costing us billions we can’t afford to swim against the tide of corruption and mayhem generated by drug prohibition.
The most commonly abused drug — alcohol — is perfectly legal, because prohibition didn’t work. Not only did it fail, it basically created major league organized crime. Just as the War on Drugs has “fostered gangsterism on a scale the world has never seen before.”
The argument of drug warriors that the drug market has stabilized — in other words, it’s about the same as it was a decade ago — isn’t sufficient justification for continuing the war. In the current recession, we no longer have the resources to keep up a full-court press and the financially stressed have both more reason to take drugs and to peddle them.
People will always want to alter their senses and they’ll always be willing to pay a pretty penny to do it. And somebody is always going to be willing to supply that demand — and they’ll corrupt governments and kill anybody they need to to keep those profits rolling.
It’d be better if everyone would take Johnny Cash’s advice: “Come all you rounders and listen up to me/ Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.”
But they won’t. We need to come down to reality and accept that. Legalize it? I’ll hold my nose and say yes.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, March 5, 2009
It’s all the media’s fault
Yep. The recession, a tanking stock market — it’s the media’s fault.
Heard that twice in the past couple of days — and many times before. You see, the relentlessly negative coverage of the current economic crisis panics people, drives the stock market down... you get the picture.
More than a year ago, when we started reporting that the Sisters real estate market was softening and looked like it was headed for a major slowdown, we were chastised for being “so negative” and told that our reporting could hurt the market. Like we were ahead of the trend...
Some people didn’t like the fact that we reported Sisters’ designation as an economically distressed community.
Now a stockbroker I know wants Obama to put a gag order on the press to stop the negative coverage that is driving the market down. This was a serious proposal. I dunno, but I think maybe the word would get out anyway when the market sheds another 300 points.
Sorry folks... Sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting lalalalalala isn’t going to make this big ol’ bear go away.
The banks are a mess because the banks are a mess, not because anybody is reporting that fact. Subprime mortgage lending imploded because it was unsustainable, not because somebody pointed that fact out (well after the house of cards started collapsing, I might add).
Of course any economic crisis has a psychological component. People get nervous, rein in their spending and the economy contracts. But people are nervous and scared for a damned good reason. There’s plenty to be nervous and scared about.
Don’t get mad at the oil light for coming on on your dashboard. Fix the oil leak.
But I wish they’d quit running those gloomy weather reports. If they’d just shut up, maybe it would warm up and stop snowing...
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Heard that twice in the past couple of days — and many times before. You see, the relentlessly negative coverage of the current economic crisis panics people, drives the stock market down... you get the picture.
More than a year ago, when we started reporting that the Sisters real estate market was softening and looked like it was headed for a major slowdown, we were chastised for being “so negative” and told that our reporting could hurt the market. Like we were ahead of the trend...
Some people didn’t like the fact that we reported Sisters’ designation as an economically distressed community.
Now a stockbroker I know wants Obama to put a gag order on the press to stop the negative coverage that is driving the market down. This was a serious proposal. I dunno, but I think maybe the word would get out anyway when the market sheds another 300 points.
Sorry folks... Sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting lalalalalala isn’t going to make this big ol’ bear go away.
The banks are a mess because the banks are a mess, not because anybody is reporting that fact. Subprime mortgage lending imploded because it was unsustainable, not because somebody pointed that fact out (well after the house of cards started collapsing, I might add).
Of course any economic crisis has a psychological component. People get nervous, rein in their spending and the economy contracts. But people are nervous and scared for a damned good reason. There’s plenty to be nervous and scared about.
Don’t get mad at the oil light for coming on on your dashboard. Fix the oil leak.
But I wish they’d quit running those gloomy weather reports. If they’d just shut up, maybe it would warm up and stop snowing...
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Tear it on up
Some ATV riders chewed up a section of the Peterson Ridge Trail last weekend. Bet that was fun.
Conditions were perfect for cutting some nice ruts into the forest floor. The ground was soft from snow and rain and the big tires must have churned up a truly sensuous sludge of mud.
And to add to the satisfaction, they obliterated expensive and painstaking work of a bunch of Sisters folks who spent the spring, summer and fall working on creating bike and equestrian trails out south of town.
The fun didn’t last, too long. It never does. But what the heck, the marks’ll be there a long time.
Cool, ain’t it?
No. It’s not. I’m all for sharing the forest and I don’t mind ATVs and dirt bikes in areas where riding is appropriate. I know dirt bikers and ATV riders who are conscientious and careful and I have no beef with them.
But those who wantonly tear up the forest and obliterate trails used by others become the image of their sport — and it’s not a good one. It’ll be their fault when the day comes when ATVs are banned from the forest.
So if you’re a rider and wonder why people treat you like you’re a vandal, don’t blame the mountain bikers and the hikers and the horseback riders. Blame the clowns who get their kicks wrecking the woods and trails that they never put a drop of sweat into creating and maintaining.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Conditions were perfect for cutting some nice ruts into the forest floor. The ground was soft from snow and rain and the big tires must have churned up a truly sensuous sludge of mud.
And to add to the satisfaction, they obliterated expensive and painstaking work of a bunch of Sisters folks who spent the spring, summer and fall working on creating bike and equestrian trails out south of town.
The fun didn’t last, too long. It never does. But what the heck, the marks’ll be there a long time.
Cool, ain’t it?
No. It’s not. I’m all for sharing the forest and I don’t mind ATVs and dirt bikes in areas where riding is appropriate. I know dirt bikers and ATV riders who are conscientious and careful and I have no beef with them.
But those who wantonly tear up the forest and obliterate trails used by others become the image of their sport — and it’s not a good one. It’ll be their fault when the day comes when ATVs are banned from the forest.
So if you’re a rider and wonder why people treat you like you’re a vandal, don’t blame the mountain bikers and the hikers and the horseback riders. Blame the clowns who get their kicks wrecking the woods and trails that they never put a drop of sweat into creating and maintaining.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
