Potential work for a sysadmin

Those who oppose completing the COIN cycle in Iraq make it harder to develop a force that can help with this:

Mexican Cartels and the Fallout From Phoenix | Stratfor
Late on the night of June 22, a residence in Phoenix was approached by a heavily armed tactical team preparing to serve a warrant. The members of the team were wearing the typical gear for members of their profession: black boots, black BDU pants, Kevlar helmets and Phoenix Police Department (PPD) raid shirts pulled over their body armor. The team members carried AR-15 rifles equipped with Aimpoint sights to help them during the low-light operation and, like most cops on a tactical team, in addition to their long guns, the members of this team carried secondary weapons — pistols strapped to their thighs.

But the raid took a strange turn when one element of the team began directing suppressive fire on the residence windows while the second element entered — a tactic not normally employed by the PPD. This breach of departmental protocol did not stem from a mistake on the part of the team’s commander. It occurred because the eight men on the assault team were not from the PPD at all. These men were not cops serving a legal search or arrest warrant signed by a judge; they were cartel hit men serving a death warrant signed by a Mexican drug lord.

Sysadmin work in Mexico obviously wouldn’t mean an invasion, but would make sense as part of an effort to dissolve our strange frontier and unify North America.

14 thoughts on “Potential work for a sysadmin”

  1. “The team members carried AR-15 rifles equipped with Aimpoint sights to help them during the low-light operation” (Dan)

    Just so you know, an Aimpoint scope is not used for low-light operations. In fact, they’re mainly used in the daytime. At night, operators wear night vision devices and use something called a “PAQ 4” which gives out a beam of light that can only be seen by people using night vision. Sometimes a tactical flashlight is used instead. I’ve used all these pieces of equipment so I’m not sure why the author of the report made this mistake? But it might be that we both have differing ideas of what an “Aimpoint” is? Anyway, its not import but it did stick out at me.

    This is a very very serious matter indeed. First, it teaches us that being armed is an imperative in today’s changing America. Second, it gives us an idea of what type of forces we’ll be up against when the Mexican/Latin American insurgency gets in full swing. I’ve predicted in the past, that the so called “Reconquista” movement for the recovery of “Aztlan” is not a joke or a “fringe element.” Its real, and just like many other insurgencies, it will feature a coalition of drug cartels and National-Socialist political leaders.

    What really complicates matters is the US can’t just “shut the border down” like many Americans wish. Too much of both nations economies are reliant on the border being open, so a different strategy will need to be used in the coming insurgency.

    The best course of action for this kind of war will be the Robbian model of “Resilient Communities (RC).” RC’s will need provide their own security, and this will need to be more than just rent-a-cops. These local security militia’s will need to be just as well trained and just as well equipped as the enemy. The ideal candidates for this will be ex-soldiers and police who live in the communities that they’ll be defending. These units will have to coordinate with local police and even national guard troops.

    What people need to understand more than anything, is the biggest threat to the safety of Americans is not the insurgency itself, but the American elite (or wanna-be elite) who see the demographic change as their signal to turn their back on middle America. It will be the elite, and their media friends who make Americans out to be “intolerant” or “extremists” for wanting to live in relative safety. My prediction is by the 2020’s, the SW USA will be a battleground, and North America will start a Balkanization process.

    Its very sad that America has to come to an end. 🙁

  2. Another way of looking at the situation, Seerov. We’ve historically not given a shit what happened south of the border so long as it didn’t come north of the border. Now, we’re starting to see the consequences of that. We can deal with that defensively, with the results you’ve described, or we can get our hands in the game south of the border

    If we’re smart, we get together with the Canadians to bolster the Mexicans. Not just with money and weapons, but with experienced police personnel of the type described in the article. At first to make up shortages in the Mexican ranks, but in the long run to teach them how to get up to our standards and to provide the nucleus of a Continent-wide law-enforcement paradigm. Similarly, a customs union could be formed by combining the best of Mexican, American and Canadian money, technology, manpower, training and standards to better secure all three of our countries from outside smuggling. In the process of doing these things, a consensus on what is actually a threat would need to be reached; the War on Drugs might finally start to subside.

  3. SWJ has an article from earlier this week that is tangently related to this topic, Expendtionary Law Enforcment [1]. Essentially a law enforcment agency that is set up to go abroad both to police lawless areas and help build local capacity. The E.U. has already stood up such an organization and hopefully the U.S. will be soon to follow.
    Overall I am in agreement with both Micheal and Dan, this sort of cross border attack will provide a much needed push to both our Sys Admin capibility and the expansion of our rules-set into Mexico. American history is the story of threats being countered (eventually) with expansion rather than contraction, from integrating the western frontier to building large military installations in Central Europe, North East Asia and the Pacific. Plus, I think a large percentage of Mexicans would prefer to live under the protection of the U.S. Constitution if they were given a choice (according to this PEW Poll) [2]

    [1] http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/07/expeditionary-law-enforcement/

    [2] http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/52.pdf

  4. Seerov,

    What people need to understand more than anything, is the biggest threat to the safety of Americans is not the insurgency itself, but the American elite (or wanna-be elite) who see the demographic change as their signal to turn their back on middle America. It will be the elite, and their media friends who make Americans out to be “intolerant” or “extremists” for wanting to live in relative safety. My prediction is by the 2020’s, the SW USA will be a battleground, and North America will start a Balkanization process.

    America has a long history of integrating immigration populations, and even the current wave of Mexican immigration shares a lot with the last wave of Italian immigration.

    You import a lot of young ambitious risk-taking males, you get economic growth. You also get increased crime. This is a real political trade off, but the feminization and aging of the immigrant population continues regardless.

    A more serious threat, I think, is the sort of attack our criminal justice system received under Chief Justices Warren and Berger. Use the law for social engineering instead of keeping the peace in any circumstances, and you’re likely to get trouble.

    Michael,

    If we’re smart, we get together with the Canadians to bolster the Mexicans. Not just with money and weapons, but with experienced police personnel of the type described in the article. At first to make up shortages in the Mexican ranks, but in the long run to teach them how to get up to our standards and to provide the nucleus of a Continent-wide law-enforcement paradigm. Similarly, a customs union could be formed by combining the best of Mexican, American and Canadian money, technology, manpower, training and standards to better secure all three of our countries from outside smuggling. In the process of doing these things, a consensus on what is actually a threat would need to be reached; the War on Drugs might finally start to subside.

    Excellent points.

    We’ve intervened in Mexico before [1]. However, our old approach of invade, kill the bad guys, hold elections, and leave is a recipe for repition. Stabilizing Mexico comes from integrating it into the Core… and into the United States.

    Brent,

    SWJ has an article from earlier this week that is tangently related to this topic, Expendtionary Law Enforcment [1]. Essentially a law enforcment agency that is set up to go abroad both to police lawless areas and help build local capacity. The E.U. has already stood up such an organization and hopefully the U.S. will be soon to follow.

    Fascinating!

    I wish it the best! This is a functioning part of a Sysadmin, and the jobs, political connections, and pull it creates is part of a Sysadmin Industrial Complex. Very cool!

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition

  5. “America has a long history of integrating immigration populations, and even the current wave of Mexican immigration shares a lot with the last wave of Italian immigration.” (Dan)

    Besides Catholicism, what do the Mexicans share with the Italians?

  6. Besides Catholicism, what do the Mexicans share with the Italians?

    The legacy of an economy based on large-scale plantations overseen by a rural genrty class.

    Nowadays we talk about “Italians,” but the large-scale late-19th century immigration was from Italians of the South — those from the Mezzogiorno [1], or the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilities. A lot of information on KTS is available online — I briefly mentioned this study of comparative civic traditions [2] in my thesis [3], and will let you explore from there.

    Mexico has the same Iberian tradition of big-landowerns. Have you ever wondered why California became so agriculturally rich under the United States, but was considered poor and backward for Mexico while part of that union? Because the Mexican elite favored a big plantation system of agriculture, which in California meant that much of the Central Valley was wasted as ranchland. The effects of plantations go deeper than that, though. Neither Mexico nor the Mezzogiorno industrialized on its own, and both rely on physically close, capital-rich neighbors (the United States, and the area around the Po Valley) to develop.

    Given the bad record of southern Italians in southern Italy, and Mexicans in Mexico, it was and is valid to question whether they are worthwhile labor to import. The historical answer is yes. As Marx foresaw, free markets dissolve the feudal relationships that hold men back. The grinding poverty of the Mezzogiorno and the troubles of Mexico matter… until market discipline is imposed.

    As Marx wrote: [4]

    The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

    The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

    The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.

    The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former exoduses of nations and crusades.

    The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.

    On the freedom of the markets, at least, consider me a Marxist.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Italy
    [2] http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/4/1.html
    [3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/05/31/25-computerized-simulations-with-agents.html
    [4] http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

  7. Dan tdaxp,

    thank you for that interesting reply. What I found particularly telling was this:

    “Mexicans in Mexico, it was and is valid to question whether they are worthwhile labor to import. The historical answer is yes.” (Commissar Dan)

    Since your ideological base is rooted in Marxism, then we would have to conclude that any labor is “worthwhile” since Marxism boils all mankind down to being economic entities.

    The problem with your analysis in how it relates to the Italians is many-fold. First of all, the Italians brought with them a larger skill set than the Mexicans do now. The Italians of that period were particularly noted for their masonry skills, and these skills increased the skills of the Nation as a whole. In this way, Italians were closer to today’s East Asians.

    Second, yesterdays immigration political environment was much different than toady’s. And this is why the current immigration debate is so problematic. When immigrants came before–even in the 50’s when my father came–there was no political agitation in the form of wealth transfers, “civil rights”, or other special privileges that we see today.

    In fact, after my father came, his mother was forced to go back due to lack of health care. Also, because they lacked health care, my father’s step-father had to hang himself becuase of injuries sustained during WWII. Today’s immigrants are not forced to struggle in the same way, and becuase of this, they’re becoming a permanent underclass. Because of this underclass status, we see “activists” taking advantage of this and making the situation worse. Add to this the fact that Mexicans believe that the SW belongs to them–despite loosing a war that they started, not to mention the fact that the US paid for the land–and we can see how the potential for conflict is even greater.

    More than anything, I believe that the large scale mestizo influx will change America, and not for the better. To best understand this, I’ll leave you this link on a report done by New Century foundation titled “Hispanics: A Statistical Portrait.” [1] I highly suggest you read it.

    Please understand, I’m not necessarily against immigration nor am I against mestizo’s. I am aware that immigrants are needed to keep the wages of the working class down in order to keep goods and services cheaper for people like you and I who have college degree’s and upper middle class lifestyles. I also realize that bodies are needed for the military actions intended to “spread globalization.”

    I just don’t want to see the country erupt into ethnic conflict. I realize that people with a Marxist ideological core see all people as economic entities and that all will be fine as long as they have economic opportunity. This idea is the basis for modern day Marxists like those who claim that “closing the gap” will bring neoliberal utopia. Unforchunatly we see in history time after time that people are more than just labor in an economic model. And what frustrates me–and fascinates me too–is how people can ignore all sorts of historical examples which proves this.

    So I hope you’re right. One major change I’d like to see if we are to have this “North American Union” is freedom of association. That way, friendly folks like you can live in the barrio’s while I can choose to live elsewhere.

    [1] http://www.amren.com/reports/Hispanics/Hispanics.htm

  8. Seerov,

    Since your ideological base is rooted in Marxism, then we would have to conclude that any labor is “worthwhile” since Marxism boils all mankind down to being economic entities.

    Or, more accurately, my view is that capital, labor, and land interact to create national wealth. I’m suspicious of those who want to limit our access to capital (by throwing up trade barriers), so I’m likewise skeptical of those who want to limit our access to land (by throwing up immigration barriers).

    The problem with your analysis in how it relates to the Italians is many-fold. First of all, the Italians brought with them a larger skill set than the Mexicans do now. The Italians of that period were particularly noted for their masonry skills, and these skills increased the skills of the Nation as a whole.

    Aruing that Italians then were skilled immigrants because many participated on construction is like arguing that Mexicans now are skilled immigrants because many participated in construction.

    Second, yesterdays immigration political environment was much different than toady’s. And this is why the current immigration debate is so problematic. When immigrants came before–even in the 50’s when my father came–there was no political agitation in the form of wealth transfers, “civil rights”, or other special privileges that we see today.

    More than anything, I believe that the large scale mestizo influx will change America, and not for the better. To best understand this, I’ll leave you this link on a report done by New Century foundation titled “Hispanics: A Statistical Portrait.” [1] I highly suggest you read it.

    You’ve already sent a link to the snapshot. I’ve already addressed it. [1] It adds nothing new to the discussion then. It confuses direction with location. One might as well say globalization has done nothing for China, because most Chinese are farmers.

    Your second to last paragraph attacks a strawman (in general, when you accuse someone else of supporting a utopia, it means you’ve abandoned reason). So it isn’t worth addressing.

    So I hope you’re right. One major change I’d like to see if we are to have this “North American Union” is freedom of association.

    Freedom of Association is written into our constitution, but ignored by the Supreme Court (as the 2nd Amendment was until recently).

    I’d suggest you try to minimize the power of the leftists by no longer ceeding immigrants to them.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/01/30/legalize-dope-annex-mexico.html#comment-19642

  9. “I’d suggest you try to minimize the power of the leftists by no longer ceeding immigrants to them.” (Tdaxp)

    Yes this might make sense? It will be very interesting to see who Hispanics vote for in this election? If they vote for Obama by more than 75%, then I will have to conclude that the GOP is done for. If this happens, then people who value the “American ideal”–i.e.- low taxes, freedom of association, gun rights, private property–will be better off pursuing a regional strategy for power.

    “You’ve already sent a link to the snapshot. I’ve already addressed it. [1] It adds nothing new to the discussion then. It confuses direction with location. One might as well say globalization has done nothing for China, because most Chinese are farmers.” (Tdaxp)

    I’m not sure that you read it, becuase clearly it shows that no such direction or “motion” is taking place. If fact, according to the report, 3rd generation Hispanics have higher drop out rates than 1st or 2nd. This is not “motion.”

    “Your second to last paragraph attacks a strawman (in general, when you accuse someone else of supporting a utopia, it means you’ve abandoned reason). So it isn’t worth addressing.” (tdaxp)

    Yes, you’re are right regarding the utopia thing. I apologize for that. But can you address it anyway? IOW, why am wrong for predicting ethnic conflict? Obviously something must hold this country together? Is economic prosperity enough to do so? If so, what happens when the economy goes bad? How can two people with two totally different concepts of the Southwest USA expect to stand side by side when and if things go bad? What will the NAU identity be based on? I’m thinking this will require more hardcore anti-Western socialization for children. I guess this means George Washington will be replaced by Chavez? Again, sorry about the utopia comment.

  10. Seerov,

    Yes this might make sense? It will be very interesting to see who Hispanics vote for in this election? If they vote for Obama by more than 75%, then I will have to conclude that the GOP is done for. If this happens, then people who value the “American ideal”–i.e.- low taxes, freedom of association, gun rights, private property–will be better off pursuing a regional strategy for power.

    Arguments like these amuse me, because they are so self-defeating. The Republican launches a political attack on a large and growing voting group, suffers great loses from the attack, and then concludes the solution is to escalate the attack?

    If the Republican base wants to isolate itself as much as possible from potential allies and the benefits of power, attacking hispanics is a great strategy.

    if they want to use their policy ideas to help America, it is awful.

    I’m not sure that you read it, becuase clearly it shows that no such direction or “motion” is taking place. If fact, according to the report, 3rd generation Hispanics have higher drop out rates than 1st or 2nd. This is not “motion.”

    Another source for this Fuligni (1997). [1] Still, my basic criticism stays the same. In the case of many hispanics, “Americanization” has meant a breakdown of the traditional family. The major cause of this is public schools, which teach a Marxist ideology hostile to traditional families and abhored by recent immigrants. Your solution: drive recent immigrants into the hands of the Marxists.

    I just don’t want to see the country erupt into ethnic conflict. I realize that people with a Marxist ideological core see all people as economic entities and that all will be fine as long as they have economic opportunity. This idea is the basis for modern day [economics-focused thinkers] like those who claim that “closing the gap” will bring [about a better world. Unfortunately, ]. we see in history time after time that people are more than just labor in an economic model. And what frustrates me–and fascinates me too–is how people can ignore all sorts of historical examples which proves this.

    &

    IOW, why am wrong for predicting ethnic conflict? Obviously something must hold this country together? Is economic prosperity enough to do so? If so, what happens when the economy goes bad? How can two people with two totally different concepts of the Southwest USA expect to stand side by side when and if things go bad? What will the NAU identity be based on? I’m thinking this will require more hardcore anti-Western socialization for children. I guess this means George Washington will be replaced by Chavez? Again, sorry about the utopia comment.

    I think your central insight, which is very valuable, is also a Marxist one: the economic transformation brought about my capitalism is only sustainable so long as regular economic growth is possible. Clearly, capitalist economic systems are able to weather recessions and harm times. But Marx believed this would end if the middle class would be torn between the upper and lower classes; Lenin believed this would happen when capitalist states sought to avoid that Marxian fate by exploiting colonies; I think you leave the cause open and unknown. But the central point — in a capitalist economy, a falling side beaches all boats — is true.

    Tom Friedman described globalization as imposing an “economic straitjacket” on countries that adopt it. This is saying almost the same thing. When a nation begins to dissolve tradition in favor of economic growth, it better make sure that economic growth continues.

    The question then becomes: how do we keep our economy structurally sound?

    Part of the solution is purely economic, such as attracting more factors of production (capital and labor).
    Part of the solution is purely political, such as politically isolating those who want to attack our strength (the Marxists, etc.).

    My concern is that your plan, in general, advocates the reverse of these.

    [1] Fuligni, A. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development, 68, 351-363.

  11. “Yes this might make sense? It will be very interesting to see who Hispanics vote for in this election? If they vote for Obama by more than 75%, then I will have to conclude that the GOP is done for. If this happens, then people who value the “American ideal”–i.e.- low taxes, freedom of association, gun rights, private property–will be better off pursuing a regional strategy for power.”

    Seerov: From your description earlier, it sounds like you were raised in a blue-collar environment. Assuming that guess is correct (my apologies if it isn’t), I would ask you to replace ‘Hispanic’ in the above statement with the people you grew up with for a minute. Imagine they were transported to this day and age, where ethnic Party loyalties are seldom considered automatic (African-Americans being the lone holdout, just about). What is the likelihood that either Party could dream of getting 75% of their vote?

    “How can two people with two totally different concepts of the Southwest USA expect to stand side by side when and if things go bad? What will the NAU identity be based on? I’m thinking this will require more hardcore anti-Western socialization for children. I guess this means George Washington will be replaced by Chavez?”

    Who says it will be based on anything? Remember, the Founding Fathers weren’t united by much of anything other than mutual enemies and concerns; even today, 232 years and 4 days from the signing of the Declaration, the 1st 13 states encompass huge amounts of diversity and difference of opinion.

  12. In general, I struggle between two visions of the future.

    One the one hand, I try to keep a positive attitude about globalization and the future demographic transition of our fine country. I realize that in order to for the US to remain a global super power, it will be necessary to grow the population. It is here that I embrace the Barnettian vision of “spreading globalization” and “shrinking the gap.”

    On the other hand, I can’t help being somewhat alarmed about some of the trends I see regarding the demographic and social changes in America. First, there are millions of people entering the country that have vastly differing views of what this country should be. The new migrants–and their political leadership–currently favor many policies that I find not to be in my interests. Some of these polices include wealth redistributing, restrictions on free speech, high taxes, political correctness, affirmative action, and a perspective on history that portrays “dead white men” in a negative light.

    So when thinking about these two visions of the future, I have to decide which future to prepare for? I can either hope for the best, and trust that the new population will “integrate” into American life and share the same view of America that I have. Or, I can prepare for the alternative, which means embracing identity politics, as well as building “resilient communities” with like-minded people. The logic here is if other ethnic groups are aggressively pursuing their ethnic interests, it would put my demographic group in a dangerous position if we didn’t do the same.

    Some people have suggested that I embrace both visions. This of course would be a major contradiction, as I don’t think it would make sense to support a North American Union, while at the same time, supporting a political movement that wishes to end immigration to the US.

    So, after considering the opportunity costs and trade-offs, along with pondering the possible contingencies, and then finally, after attempting to contemplate the known unknowns, I’ve decided to plan my future on the assumption that globalization/shrinking the gap/spreading the Gospel of capitalism will allow me to maximize the most utility. IOW, it makes more sense to invest my efforts into the possibility of globalization bringing positive returns, as opposed to planning my life around the possibility of system collapse.

    This also means that life will be organized around the idea the individual, or the family, as being the main unit of organization. So instead of seeing my ethnic group as being the main “unit” to organize around, the focus will be on me or my family. If I think further about this “unit” as a corporation, the globalization route will in effect become my “industry.” My corporation (me) will attempt to maximize “profits” (ie. success, sustenance, survival) within the assumption that globalization will not collapse. Assuming that my corporation’s factors of production are mobile, I also believe that transferring factors from pro-globalization to system collapse is much easier than visa-verse. In fact, it would be very inefficient maintaining capital intended for the system collapse “industry, while trying to succeed in the pro-globalization “industry.” This would be like maintaining a factory for the production of steel, but instead of producing steel, I would try to produce textiles.

    This doesn’t mean that I’ll totally forget about the chance of a system collapse. I will, of course always be prepared to “switch industries” if needed. It just means that my “main effort” will operate under the assumption that globalization will “work” this time.

    I think its important to point out that this blog has assisted me in determining which “industry” to pursue.

    With that said, I will not be posting here–or anywhere else–until I finish the book review. Its sort of like when someone owes someone money. Bob owes Jim money so Jim calls Bob and asks where his money is at. Bob says he doesn’t have the money. Later that night, Jim sees Bob at the bar blowing money on alcohol. Bob shouldn’t be at the bar spending money on drinks when he owes Jim money. I shouldn’t be wasting my time writing blogs when I should be writing a book review.

    If I remember, I think you requested that we write the review at Amazon books using our real names. I don’t like using my real name on the internet for security reasons. Therefore, I will be sending you the review via email and you can do what you wish with it.

  13. Found this on Stratfor:

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/big_business_organized_crime_mexico

    Three things to note:
    1. The part about lack of coordination between US and Mexican law enforcement. This kinda strengthens the argument for the US and Mexico drawing closer together.
    2. The part noticing how, in the past, the Mexican government and military has been a prize for different armed faction to compete for. If things get that bad again, we could wind up being another competitor (for better and, maybe, for worse).
    3. The difference between North and South Mexico. I’ve seen this difference noted on several occasions. North is exposed to US radio and TV signals, South is not. South has several endangered Indian languages, North does not. Immigration patterns, economic patterns, voting patterns and now political/economic violence patterns. If the Mexican government fails, we may find ourselves with a few new states–and a more intractable problem (or at least a less cooperative neighbor) on our new southern border.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *