There is 6.8 billion people in the world. Therefore, it is very precious for us to meet each other and become friends. There must be a purpose for this.
So, let's not forget those who you know but you haven't seen for a long time. In this thankful Christmas time, let's celebrate our precious meeting and friendship!
Here, I wish you all a Merry Christmas 2010 and a Happy Year 2011 !
Please see the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8sU4qM9_oI
Friday, December 24, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Constitution of the Town (in Die2nite)
Leadership and organized works are necessary for lasting survival in the Die2nite game. They not only maximize efficiency but also add more fun to the game. Today I drafted a constitution for my town in the game. It is as follows:
The town officials and their roles
1)The Mayor-- is responsible for making important decisions, such as what to build in the construction site, what to upgrade for a particular day, when to close the town gate and whether to issue a mass complaint against a particular member. He/She must listen to the opinions of town members but has the power to decide when there are conflicts among those opinions.
2)The Scavenger-- is responsible for coordinating scavenging and organizing expeditions. Individual groups of expedition must give notice to the Scavenger.
3)The Guardian-- is responsible for rescuing and coordinating rescues. He/she should cooperate with scavenger to come up with the best rescue plan and scavenging plan.
4)The Monitors (x2)-- are responsible for finding out who has violated the town rules and publishing their findings in due time.
5)The Judge—is responsible for deciding the validity of all official decisions (if put into challenge, excluding the decision made by the Legislature) in accordance with the existing Constitution of the Town before the decisions are executed.
6)The gatekeeper --is responsible for closing the town gate every night before the mid-night attack.
The institution
The Legislature—is composed of all the above officials, is responsible for enacting, amending and repealing the rules of the town (except the Central Principle). The Legislature decision shall be made by 2/3 majority of the Legislature members.
Selection of officials
1) The selection of officials is done through election, except the Gatekeeper, who is appointed by the Mayor.
2) Every citizen has the right to vote (one vote only). Every citizen can be nominated (by others or by self) to be the candidate of officials; one nomination is sufficient. The candidate who has gained the largest number of vote at the end of the voting period wins.
3)The Mayor must gain 1/3 majority support in addition to getting the largest number of support votes.
Voting period: 2 continuous days since the voting begins
Dismissal of officials
1)All of the officials (except the Judge) can ONLY be fired by the Mayor.
2)The Mayor can ONLY be fired by the Legislature through 2/3 majority.
3)ONLY non-officials can vote to fire the Judge through simple majority.
P.S.--All of the officials must be active in participating in the town affairs.
The Central Principle
This central principle can ONLY be amended when appropriate time comes and its amendment can ONLY be initiated by the then Mayor and its amendment can ONLY be effected by 2/3 majority through voting by ALL of the town members!
The rules:
1)No selfish taking from the Bank—acts which are not selfish: taking for temporary use, taking for saving members of the town without putting the whole town in immediate danger, taking for self-help with permission from the Mayor.
2)No selfish taking from the Well—acts which are not selfish: taking the basic one raton per day, taking to transfer it to the Bank, taking for saving members of the town without putting the town in immediate danger
3)No selfish upgrading of one’s own house—acts which are not selfish: upgrading decided by the Mayor
The basic duties of citizens:
1)Must go to the Watchtower to estimate coming zombies EACH DAY;
2)Must use up their APs by mid-night EACH DAY
3)Must participate in the Forum frequently
4)Must obey the officials’ decisions unless those decisions are ruled invalid by the Judge
5)Must read the up-to-date Constitution of the Town
The town officials and their roles
1)The Mayor-- is responsible for making important decisions, such as what to build in the construction site, what to upgrade for a particular day, when to close the town gate and whether to issue a mass complaint against a particular member. He/She must listen to the opinions of town members but has the power to decide when there are conflicts among those opinions.
2)The Scavenger-- is responsible for coordinating scavenging and organizing expeditions. Individual groups of expedition must give notice to the Scavenger.
3)The Guardian-- is responsible for rescuing and coordinating rescues. He/she should cooperate with scavenger to come up with the best rescue plan and scavenging plan.
4)The Monitors (x2)-- are responsible for finding out who has violated the town rules and publishing their findings in due time.
5)The Judge—is responsible for deciding the validity of all official decisions (if put into challenge, excluding the decision made by the Legislature) in accordance with the existing Constitution of the Town before the decisions are executed.
6)The gatekeeper --is responsible for closing the town gate every night before the mid-night attack.
The institution
The Legislature—is composed of all the above officials, is responsible for enacting, amending and repealing the rules of the town (except the Central Principle). The Legislature decision shall be made by 2/3 majority of the Legislature members.
Selection of officials
1) The selection of officials is done through election, except the Gatekeeper, who is appointed by the Mayor.
2) Every citizen has the right to vote (one vote only). Every citizen can be nominated (by others or by self) to be the candidate of officials; one nomination is sufficient. The candidate who has gained the largest number of vote at the end of the voting period wins.
3)The Mayor must gain 1/3 majority support in addition to getting the largest number of support votes.
Voting period: 2 continuous days since the voting begins
Dismissal of officials
1)All of the officials (except the Judge) can ONLY be fired by the Mayor.
2)The Mayor can ONLY be fired by the Legislature through 2/3 majority.
3)ONLY non-officials can vote to fire the Judge through simple majority.
P.S.--All of the officials must be active in participating in the town affairs.
The Central Principle
In this town, we all practice democratic socialism, where no selfish/private goals are allowed and all properties are shared.
This central principle can ONLY be amended when appropriate time comes and its amendment can ONLY be initiated by the then Mayor and its amendment can ONLY be effected by 2/3 majority through voting by ALL of the town members!
The rules:
1)No selfish taking from the Bank—acts which are not selfish: taking for temporary use, taking for saving members of the town without putting the whole town in immediate danger, taking for self-help with permission from the Mayor.
2)No selfish taking from the Well—acts which are not selfish: taking the basic one raton per day, taking to transfer it to the Bank, taking for saving members of the town without putting the town in immediate danger
3)No selfish upgrading of one’s own house—acts which are not selfish: upgrading decided by the Mayor
The basic duties of citizens:
1)Must go to the Watchtower to estimate coming zombies EACH DAY;
2)Must use up their APs by mid-night EACH DAY
3)Must participate in the Forum frequently
4)Must obey the officials’ decisions unless those decisions are ruled invalid by the Judge
5)Must read the up-to-date Constitution of the Town
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
My response to an interesting debate in the game Die2nite
Today there was an interesting debate int the game Die2nite. Die2nite is a zombie survival game, in which players in a town (at max. 40) contribute to upgrading the town's defense to survive the zombie attack every mid-night. The players need to go scavenging to find useful materials which are needed to construct various buildings for the town, construct the buildings or make something for their own house by finding something themselves or taking something from the Bank of the town.
The debate was about whether any player can have their own private goals for upgrading their own house. One player was severely condemned by several other players when that player took what he found in scavenging to upgrade his own house. He claims that it will make the game more fun and he denounces socialism/communism.
In response of the debate and supporting communism for this game, I wrote the following reply:
There is no ideal political system. It all depends on time and the particular circumstances. Socialism/communism at some time is perfect, like this.
It is crucial to understand one major difference between the real world and this game. In the real world (let’s say the US), the life purposes of an individual are split into private goals and common goals. The private goals are achieved through private ownership. The common goals are achieved through non-100% taxation. This split is possible because in reality people enjoy a high degree of peace from outside group attack—i.e. free from war. But in this game, we are facing forever war. And the enemy is forever-growing. So, we cannot have private goals, which will be at the cost of the common goals of defense, victory and survival. It will also be at the cost of other town members' efforts and sacrifice. Therefore, I agree with Diotisalvi and KillerByten that communism is the only way and the best way to play this game. Selfishness will definitely lead to destruction--common and individual destruction.
However, this game still allows us to practice democracy. If the majority of the town agree with some degree of private goals, even heroes like Diotisalvi and KillerByten cannot stop that from happening. The complaint system to kick members out town is built upon the ideal and mechanism of democracy.
But now we shall exercise democracy to vote for communism in this village. We can exercise democracy to make some changes from communism at proper time—when the circumstances change (if this will ever happen).
The debate was about whether any player can have their own private goals for upgrading their own house. One player was severely condemned by several other players when that player took what he found in scavenging to upgrade his own house. He claims that it will make the game more fun and he denounces socialism/communism.
In response of the debate and supporting communism for this game, I wrote the following reply:
There is no ideal political system. It all depends on time and the particular circumstances. Socialism/communism at some time is perfect, like this.
It is crucial to understand one major difference between the real world and this game. In the real world (let’s say the US), the life purposes of an individual are split into private goals and common goals. The private goals are achieved through private ownership. The common goals are achieved through non-100% taxation. This split is possible because in reality people enjoy a high degree of peace from outside group attack—i.e. free from war. But in this game, we are facing forever war. And the enemy is forever-growing. So, we cannot have private goals, which will be at the cost of the common goals of defense, victory and survival. It will also be at the cost of other town members' efforts and sacrifice. Therefore, I agree with Diotisalvi and KillerByten that communism is the only way and the best way to play this game. Selfishness will definitely lead to destruction--common and individual destruction.
However, this game still allows us to practice democracy. If the majority of the town agree with some degree of private goals, even heroes like Diotisalvi and KillerByten cannot stop that from happening. The complaint system to kick members out town is built upon the ideal and mechanism of democracy.
But now we shall exercise democracy to vote for communism in this village. We can exercise democracy to make some changes from communism at proper time—when the circumstances change (if this will ever happen).
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Crazy Arguments--my first piece creative writing
A: ‘John Smith is a smart man if he writes on the interior wall of all the men’s toilet in the world that “John Smith loves Jenny Potter!”
B: ‘What? Yes, it is true if Jenny Potter is a man!’
C: ‘Those who agree with B are too shallow and narrow-minded. The writing on the toilet wall is not for Jenny Potter! It’s for someone else!’
D: ‘Well, then John Smith must be clear who exactly that writing is for. It must be either for those who rival with John Smith or those who ally with him. But neither of them will work for its aim!’
E: ‘How can D be so sure that John Smith must have a rival or must have some male allies to help him?’
F: ‘John Smith is a thoughtful guy as he prepares for the worst and for the best. The writing is aimed for both rivals and allies because it can scare away some rivals by declaring war against them and attract some allies by virtue of empathy and sympathy. ‘
G: ‘Why doesn’t he write “Jenny Potter loves John Smith” instead? Why those other than John Smith’s close friends will help him, without knowing who John Smith is and even Jenny Potter is?’
H: ‘Is John Smith’s great plan feasible?’
I: ‘Perhaps John Smith is a billionaire and does not have to do it by himself. ‘
J: ‘I would not do that to just please a woman if I were a billionaire!’
K: ‘Perhaps John Smith has tried all other means.’
L: ‘Perhaps Jenny Potter does not like a billionaire!’
M: ‘Perhaps John Smith is crazy.’
N: ‘Perhaps Jenny Potter is crazy too!’
O: ‘Perhaps you are all crazy too!’
P: ‘Hey, let’s focus on arguments! Don’t waste time!’
Q: ‘P has made a “good” argument!’
R: ‘Excuse me, is that question good to argue?’
S: ‘Of course, its answer will have real important implications over the world!’
T: ‘But we have too little information and too many assumptions.’
U: ‘The world is never perfect and we must accept some assumptions in order for the world to move!’
V: ‘No, it is because we have freedom of expression and we must enjoy its full measure to talk about it!’
W: ‘To talk about what? I am just back from the toilet......’
X: ‘Whether John Smith should paint on all of the interior toilet walls in the world that he loves Jenny Potter!’
Y: ‘No! Whether it is a good question to argue X’s question!’
Z: ‘No! Whether we are all crazy or we are exercising our freedom of speech!’
…… ……
ALL(A, B,C…….X,Y,Z): ‘Oh! Time’s up!’
C@pyright by Andy Tse Hing Min, 26 September 2010
B: ‘What? Yes, it is true if Jenny Potter is a man!’
C: ‘Those who agree with B are too shallow and narrow-minded. The writing on the toilet wall is not for Jenny Potter! It’s for someone else!’
D: ‘Well, then John Smith must be clear who exactly that writing is for. It must be either for those who rival with John Smith or those who ally with him. But neither of them will work for its aim!’
E: ‘How can D be so sure that John Smith must have a rival or must have some male allies to help him?’
F: ‘John Smith is a thoughtful guy as he prepares for the worst and for the best. The writing is aimed for both rivals and allies because it can scare away some rivals by declaring war against them and attract some allies by virtue of empathy and sympathy. ‘
G: ‘Why doesn’t he write “Jenny Potter loves John Smith” instead? Why those other than John Smith’s close friends will help him, without knowing who John Smith is and even Jenny Potter is?’
H: ‘Is John Smith’s great plan feasible?’
I: ‘Perhaps John Smith is a billionaire and does not have to do it by himself. ‘
J: ‘I would not do that to just please a woman if I were a billionaire!’
K: ‘Perhaps John Smith has tried all other means.’
L: ‘Perhaps Jenny Potter does not like a billionaire!’
M: ‘Perhaps John Smith is crazy.’
N: ‘Perhaps Jenny Potter is crazy too!’
O: ‘Perhaps you are all crazy too!’
P: ‘Hey, let’s focus on arguments! Don’t waste time!’
Q: ‘P has made a “good” argument!’
R: ‘Excuse me, is that question good to argue?’
S: ‘Of course, its answer will have real important implications over the world!’
T: ‘But we have too little information and too many assumptions.’
U: ‘The world is never perfect and we must accept some assumptions in order for the world to move!’
V: ‘No, it is because we have freedom of expression and we must enjoy its full measure to talk about it!’
W: ‘To talk about what? I am just back from the toilet......’
X: ‘Whether John Smith should paint on all of the interior toilet walls in the world that he loves Jenny Potter!’
Y: ‘No! Whether it is a good question to argue X’s question!’
Z: ‘No! Whether we are all crazy or we are exercising our freedom of speech!’
…… ……
ALL(A, B,C…….X,Y,Z): ‘Oh! Time’s up!’
C@pyright by Andy Tse Hing Min, 26 September 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
4 December 2010—A snowing day in Greensboro
Today it snowed in Greensboro from about noon to evening. Everyone seemed very excited about the snow. I met a few other friends from South Korea (Alex, Sumin), Mexico (Gozi) and Chile (Paz) in front of the I-house when I was going to the café for lunch. We spent almost half an hour taking photos in turn there. Although I have seen snow before (during my trip to Dongbei Province of China), I have never seen such large-scale falling snows. Like cottons from the sky, the snows did not hurt but just chill people. Of course, they are water after all.
I carried my umbrella with me when I was walking to the café, in order to prevent me from getting cold from the wetness, especially when I did not wear any clothes with a cap to protect my hair. It was such a difficult walk that I would have collapsed if the café was in a doubled distance away from the I-house. The snows were blown by the wind to hit every part of my body, rendering my umbrella almost useless. I ate more than one bow of white rice and a piece of big steak in the café. Eating something warm and good in a snowing day is so wonderful!
After having lunch, I went to the library to study. I chose the library rather than the dormitory room mainly because the former is nearer to the café than the latter. I did not want to have any unnecessary walk in the falling snows, though doing so was quite romantic. I became very lazy when I was not prepared for the coldness brought by the snows. I spent about four hours in the library, reading the short story ‘What I saw from where I stood’ as preparation for Monday’s fiction exam, doing Spanish final exam exercises, taking a half-an-hour nap and watching a an-hour-and-a-half Naruto Shippuden movie. I left the library at 6:30pm for dinner in the café. At the exit of the library, I met Fernando (from Spain) and Anne (from France), who were taking photos of the white bushes in front of the library.
The food for dinner was normal but one interesting thing happened during the dinner. I sat in the same table with Fernando, Anne and a local female student. While we were eating, we heard three female students in the neighouring table talking passionately about religion and science. It seemed that two of them were trying to persuade the third one something because they talked apparently confidently and eloquently. I heard them saying something about science theories. This was the first time that I heard students talking something serious in the café. ‘Yes, this is a university. And is an American university.’ I said to myself. But since I have thought much about religion and science before, I was not interested in engaging in any discussion in the same topic, particularly when almost everyone takes it for granted that meal time is a time of socializing and relaxing oneself. I therefore did not intend to mention to others in my table about what was happening in that neighbouring table.
But suddenly Anne mentioned it. ‘Those girls are discussing the relationship between religion and science, but I think they are not something good to talk about’ she said. ‘I don’t think religion and science are comparable’, responded the American student immediately. Then the rest of us echoed her comment. I also said, ‘They are fundamentally different. Religion is based on belief. But science is based on proof, evidence.’ Then we continued talking about belief. The girls shared their personal experience about what they thought religion typically was (teaching people to be good people) and should be (should not give pressure to atheists and believers of other religions). The discussion in our table continued for quite a while—I guess at least 15 minutes. I did not participate fully in the discussion, but I was deeply amazed by the power of academic talks outside classrooms—in a place like the café. I am sure that all of us (including Anne) did not originally want to talk about the topic of religion and science. But once someone started it, it could not be helped. A first-viewed boring and belittled topic had as an influential power as an infectious disease.
On my way back to the I-house after dinner, I was attacked by a group of my male friends who seemed ready to start a wild snowballs war. Running away fast, I luckily dodged all of the attacks!
I carried my umbrella with me when I was walking to the café, in order to prevent me from getting cold from the wetness, especially when I did not wear any clothes with a cap to protect my hair. It was such a difficult walk that I would have collapsed if the café was in a doubled distance away from the I-house. The snows were blown by the wind to hit every part of my body, rendering my umbrella almost useless. I ate more than one bow of white rice and a piece of big steak in the café. Eating something warm and good in a snowing day is so wonderful!
After having lunch, I went to the library to study. I chose the library rather than the dormitory room mainly because the former is nearer to the café than the latter. I did not want to have any unnecessary walk in the falling snows, though doing so was quite romantic. I became very lazy when I was not prepared for the coldness brought by the snows. I spent about four hours in the library, reading the short story ‘What I saw from where I stood’ as preparation for Monday’s fiction exam, doing Spanish final exam exercises, taking a half-an-hour nap and watching a an-hour-and-a-half Naruto Shippuden movie. I left the library at 6:30pm for dinner in the café. At the exit of the library, I met Fernando (from Spain) and Anne (from France), who were taking photos of the white bushes in front of the library.
The food for dinner was normal but one interesting thing happened during the dinner. I sat in the same table with Fernando, Anne and a local female student. While we were eating, we heard three female students in the neighouring table talking passionately about religion and science. It seemed that two of them were trying to persuade the third one something because they talked apparently confidently and eloquently. I heard them saying something about science theories. This was the first time that I heard students talking something serious in the café. ‘Yes, this is a university. And is an American university.’ I said to myself. But since I have thought much about religion and science before, I was not interested in engaging in any discussion in the same topic, particularly when almost everyone takes it for granted that meal time is a time of socializing and relaxing oneself. I therefore did not intend to mention to others in my table about what was happening in that neighbouring table.
But suddenly Anne mentioned it. ‘Those girls are discussing the relationship between religion and science, but I think they are not something good to talk about’ she said. ‘I don’t think religion and science are comparable’, responded the American student immediately. Then the rest of us echoed her comment. I also said, ‘They are fundamentally different. Religion is based on belief. But science is based on proof, evidence.’ Then we continued talking about belief. The girls shared their personal experience about what they thought religion typically was (teaching people to be good people) and should be (should not give pressure to atheists and believers of other religions). The discussion in our table continued for quite a while—I guess at least 15 minutes. I did not participate fully in the discussion, but I was deeply amazed by the power of academic talks outside classrooms—in a place like the café. I am sure that all of us (including Anne) did not originally want to talk about the topic of religion and science. But once someone started it, it could not be helped. A first-viewed boring and belittled topic had as an influential power as an infectious disease.
On my way back to the I-house after dinner, I was attacked by a group of my male friends who seemed ready to start a wild snowballs war. Running away fast, I luckily dodged all of the attacks!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Former Mexico state governor killed
The former governor of Mexican state of Colima was gunned down in his home on the past Sunday morning. Jesus Silverios Cavazos, who left office in November 2009, died of his wounds in a hospital after he was shot by gunmen. While the evidence is still unavailable pending on investigation, it is widely believed that the attack was related to drug cartels. His wife was injured in the attack. President Felipe Calderon condemned the killing as ‘cowardly assassination’. Mexican politicians have been targeted by assassins in states which are home to drug cartels and major smuggling routes because rival gangs battle control over the lucrative business. Cavazos’ assassination has been the latest attack on Mexican politicians wrecked by drug violence.
The murder of Cavazos was predicted in my last blog written in response to the Mexican marines killing the head of a drug cartel Tony Tormenta. But it was out of my expectation that it would come so quickly. I argued that killing the leader of a drug cartel would not be able to effectively resolve the issue of violence related to the Mexican drug cartels because it would do no big harm to the organization and unity of the cartel and revenge would follow targeting on the leaders of the groups responsible for combating drug cartel violence.
It may be interesting to notice that Cavazos was no longer the leader of the force against drug violence when he was assassinated. He left his office about one year ago. The people behind the murderers were very clever to target on a former governor instead of a current governor because it was much easier to do it, given the different security levels on each of the governors. Moreover, they could impose an equal, if not greater, deterrence on those who wish to commit in crushing the drug cartels. If their purpose was achieved, no people would want to take up the responsibility in fighting against drug cartels due to fear of post-office assassination and harm to their family members. Having said so, this tactic of post-office murder is not overwhelmingly discouraging to the potential governors because hopes still remain that the drug violence will be effectively tackled within their natural period of office. Just contrary to deterrence effect aimed by the drug cartels, this tactic might encourage potential governors to elevate their commitment and efforts in cracking down the drug violence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AK1V320101121?
The murder of Cavazos was predicted in my last blog written in response to the Mexican marines killing the head of a drug cartel Tony Tormenta. But it was out of my expectation that it would come so quickly. I argued that killing the leader of a drug cartel would not be able to effectively resolve the issue of violence related to the Mexican drug cartels because it would do no big harm to the organization and unity of the cartel and revenge would follow targeting on the leaders of the groups responsible for combating drug cartel violence.
It may be interesting to notice that Cavazos was no longer the leader of the force against drug violence when he was assassinated. He left his office about one year ago. The people behind the murderers were very clever to target on a former governor instead of a current governor because it was much easier to do it, given the different security levels on each of the governors. Moreover, they could impose an equal, if not greater, deterrence on those who wish to commit in crushing the drug cartels. If their purpose was achieved, no people would want to take up the responsibility in fighting against drug cartels due to fear of post-office assassination and harm to their family members. Having said so, this tactic of post-office murder is not overwhelmingly discouraging to the potential governors because hopes still remain that the drug violence will be effectively tackled within their natural period of office. Just contrary to deterrence effect aimed by the drug cartels, this tactic might encourage potential governors to elevate their commitment and efforts in cracking down the drug violence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AK1V320101121?
Mexican drug lord killed
Rival gunmen blocked roads near the US border on 6 November after the marines killed one of Mexico’s top kingpins. Ezequiel Cardenas, also called ‘Tony Tormenta’, was shot dead by marines on 5 November. He was one the fourth top drug gang leaders (kingpins) killed or captured since December last year when President Calderon launched his army-led drug war. Quickly after Tony Tormenta’s death, gunmen used buses and trucks to block roads in Reynosa, a Mexico city near the US border where Tormenta was shot dead. Fightings also broke out between gunmen and soldiers in Reynosa, resulting in the death of two assailants and massive transportation chaos. More than 31,000 people have been killed across Mexico since the country launched his cartel crackdown in December 2006. At least 18 mayors have been killed since 2008.
Drug cartel violence is such a serious issue in Mexico that it is almost out of control by the law enforcement agencies. The violent response by gangsters to Tony Tormmenta’s death once again showed that military crackdown may not be an effective solution to the issue. Although killing the head of a drug cartel may bring a short-term impact on the cartel’s morale and leadership, it is not able to reduce the cartel’s power greatly or deter the cartel from continuing their violent acts. The fall of an evil leader of an evil group will not give rise to a good leader in the same group. Revenge will ensue, giving rise to a new evil leader and more attempt killings of the leaders of the good (police chiefs and mayors). That is why so many mayors have been killed or threatened away since 2008. Measures must be taken by the Mexican government to address the root causes of the drug cartel violence: high demand of drugs, high supply of firearms, economic and social problems. No wonder Mexico lawmakers have recently vetoed a bill of drug war reform to increase government expenses on combating drug cartel violence by force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A51JJ20101106
Drug cartel violence is such a serious issue in Mexico that it is almost out of control by the law enforcement agencies. The violent response by gangsters to Tony Tormmenta’s death once again showed that military crackdown may not be an effective solution to the issue. Although killing the head of a drug cartel may bring a short-term impact on the cartel’s morale and leadership, it is not able to reduce the cartel’s power greatly or deter the cartel from continuing their violent acts. The fall of an evil leader of an evil group will not give rise to a good leader in the same group. Revenge will ensue, giving rise to a new evil leader and more attempt killings of the leaders of the good (police chiefs and mayors). That is why so many mayors have been killed or threatened away since 2008. Measures must be taken by the Mexican government to address the root causes of the drug cartel violence: high demand of drugs, high supply of firearms, economic and social problems. No wonder Mexico lawmakers have recently vetoed a bill of drug war reform to increase government expenses on combating drug cartel violence by force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A51JJ20101106
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)