Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Dangerous Places

"Do you feel lucky, punk?" ~ Dirty Harry

Feeling safe is a blessing. Yet sometimes that feeling of safety is an illusion, as is the feeling of insecurity one has in some situations that are unfamiliar. In general, however, we can not assume every place is safe. And even some places that seem safe may be unsafe.

For example, you would think that having an office in the World Trade Center would be safe. You go to work, fire up your workstation, do your thing, have lunch on the 110th floor. Go home. One day, this seemingly safe job routine costs you your life.

Likewise, in Mumbai this past November, you would not have expected a night on the town in this busy upscale commerce center to end in a bloodbath.

Last year the Coen brothers won an academy award for their film interpretation of Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men. When I read the book and later saw the film, it seemed to me that the violence was overblown. Like many Hollywood films, blood and violence goes beyond what anyone imagines would be “real” and serves to create a measure of emotional distance between us and the events happening onscreen.

Yesterday I came across an article about the escalating violence in the Mexico drug trade. Upon further investigation I learned that gangs are killing government agents, that kidnappings are now routine and that there are daily beheadings. The violence has reached epidemic proportions.

President Obama has already met with Mexican president Felipe Calderón to discuss these issues in an effort to restrain the lawlessness. It’s a multi-sided conflict that pits rival drug traffickers (cartels) against each. The result is pitched battles with massive amounts of killing. Many of these gang killings are excessively brutal with the aim of sending a message to their enemies. It’s the kind of mass slaughter we saw in No Country For Old Men, which upon first reading and viewing seemed like a well written, satisfying and compelling work of fiction. It's disturbing to learn that this fiction is really not a work of fiction to some extent. More that 8000 have been killed this past two years in the drug wars.

The multi-sided conflict pits rival trafficking groups -- the so-called cartels -- against each and the Mexican state, but has also seen pitched battles between rival law enforcement units where one group or the other is in the pay of the traffickers.

To my surprise I've now learned that some people suspect the Mumbai massacre was not an act of political terrorists, but rather the work of an Asian mafia involved in international drug trade. Tons of opium is still being grown in Afghanistan for export, even after decades of war. Do government leaders really want to eliminate this black market activity? I don't understand why they're unable to do so. I thought we had the most powerful military in the world? Modern technology and surveillance is such that they claim to be able to read the letters on a golf ball from a satellite in outer space. Why can't they eliminate these Afghan poppy fields?

As is often the case, I really don't know the truth. I only know that there are some dangerous people out there, and some dangerous places. And No Country For Old Men wasn't dreamed up out of thin air. There's some scary stuff goin' down.

And it's at this point where I identify with Larry Norman as he laments, "This world is not my home."


Footnote:
Speculations on Afghan drug trade / Mumbai connections here

4 comments:

  1. Laos has got one of the lowest crime rates in the world, so I feel pretty safe, here.
    General Vang Pao WAS caught planning a 9/11 style attack on Vientiane, the capital of this country, from the US, in 2007 -- but fortunately, he was put under house arrest, after putting his multi-million dollar California mansion up as bail. (If he'd been planning such an attack on any other country, of course he'd be in Gitmo, but that's another matter, not related to this post.)
    Today I read some statistics from the Prosecutor's Office of the Lao Ministry of Justice. Unfortunately, the Vientiane Times isn't available online, unless you subscribe (with money), so I can't post the link.
    But, here are the statistics: Laos is holding 2851 people in jail. During the past year, 85 people were sentenced to death, 275 to life imprisonment, and 929 were given early releases from their sentences on Lao National Day.
    No one has been shot here by police for maybe having a gun, but who didn't.
    No one here has been tasered by police here for talking back.
    Laos has a population of about 6 million people.
    Compare those statistics with "the homeland", where people are locked up in jail because Windchill the horse died in the cold, or because Joe Blow aged 19 bought some beer, and Joe Schmoe, aged 18, drank some of it, and died in an accident, etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
    People here ask me if I plan on returning, now that the US has a new president.
    Nah. I don't feel safe, there. The gang in blue (it's black, actually, now, isn't it?) are too dangerous for my taste.
    Will Obama do anything to change that? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for checking in. I think that in America people trade of freedom for that feeling of safety. I have also written about bread and circuses. I can't tell if it is conspiratorial with government and media working hand in hand (Chomsky has asserted this) or whether it is more a matter of media and govt giving masses (middle class and wealthy class) what they want... i.e. a feeling of security from "the rabble."

    Interesting stats you have on Laos.

    from L.A. today
    e.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course "the rabble" (which group I assume consists of the the poor, the maimed, the halt, the blind, the minorities, and the dissidents) is getting to be a larger and larger percentage of the country all the time.
    I've never felt threatened by those groups, only by those in power who pass and enforce draconian laws to keep "those people" in "their place".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, by "rabble" am using a term that disparages rather than honors members of our human family, an elitest attitude that can be pervasive amongst certain corners of the privileged classes.
    Also known as "the vulnerable."

    ReplyDelete