Que estados controla cada cartel en Mexico (en Español)

Hoy me puse a leer la nueva revista de Rolling Stone (subscribete en www.RollingStone.com) y encontre una historia sobre la guerra contra los carteles y los nuevos jefes que surgen cuando otros jefes son encarcelados o ejecutados. Parece que la historia contenida en la revista todavia no esta disponible en la edicion digital de "Rolling Stone" (yo voy a actualizar este mensaje cuando suban el articulo). Mientras tanto, tome una foto con mi Telefono de algo que se me hizo interesante: es un mapa de las areas que los carteles controlan en los diferentes estados de Mexico.

Yo pienso que esta es informacion relevante para la gente en Mexico (simplemente para saber a que atenerce uno).

**Update: "Rolling Stone" publico la historia (de donde obtuve el mapa arriba) en su edicion digital:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-brutal-rise-of-el-mencho-w491405

The Trump/Putin meeting in Hamburg

I don't have anything against the Russian people; in fact (being on the left side of the ideological specter) I admire the fact they did their part (& then some) in defeating fascism. And for that, they suffered in a corrupt system which failed, & they had a Cold War with us which they lost. I gotta be honest though, I'm grateful to be living in the country which actually won the Cold War & then prospered (no matter what; everybody wants to be on the winning side: am I right?).

Anyway, I remember as a kid learning about the Soviet Union from the adults in my family (the republican side of the family) about how Reagan supposedly defeated "those damn Russians" with the "arms race" or whatever.
But it seems to me the Soviet Union collapsed due to poor planning as well as not diversifying their economy, & not taking advantage of their endless supply of resources all thoroughout Eastern Europe.

But all of it is in the past. And don't get me wrong, I don't mind having a friendly relationship with Russia at this moment: I believe in dialogue as opposed to conflict.

Given all that, I don't know what to make of #TrumpRussia: I do enjoy watching Maddow and all those MSNBC shows which have stories about the potential collusion. But at the end of the day, now it's all in Mueller's capable hands.
Which brings me to Trump & his meeting with Putin. I heard a CNN analyst call it "presidential". Given Trump's supposedly "alpha" style of handshakes with other world leaders, I actually saw it as weak.

Trump even seemed to rub Putin's back at one point.

Now imagine a "bizarro" world (Seinfeld reference) where Hillary Clinton had developed a good relationship with Putin during her tenure as secretary of state. Let's say for example she had been a radical socialist in her young age (instead of the Goldwater young republican she actually was) who had admired the Soviet Union thus been seduced by Putin's view of the world.

Now imagine, if in this "bizarro" world (but very similar to this world), Putin had used his hackers and his weaponized digital warfare to inject "fake news" into the social-media political battlefield of 2016 to attack the republicans thus making sure Hillary won.

I suppose the same events which have taken place so far in this world (up to the appointment of a special counsel) would have also taken place in the "bizarro" world. Only instead of MSNBC, Fox news would be the one having big ratings by investigating the "Hillary/Putin Russian connection".
Now imagine if in this bizarro world, Hillary had met Putin in Germany during the G20 and had smiled sweetly at Putin while rubbing his back, would CNN analysts be calling her behavior "presidential"?

I don't think so.

Hamburg, Germany G20 Protests

While watching the news this morning (about the large-scale protests in Hamburg: which of course, the presence of unpopular Trump is probably making more Europeans attend), it makes me think about how docile we-the-people are here in the United States.

The government wants to take what little health-care protections we have away from us, doesn't provide quality education (unless you pay dearly for it), most income goes to the 1%, etc. etc. & we-the-people just take it. The U.S. population has grown fat and detached; more interested in reality TV stars and sports than engaged in politics. I include myself in that department to be honest: more interested in watching sports events with friends (Canelo is gonna fight!) or binge-watching series on Netflix when I'm not out hiking (getting away from it all supposedly).

That's the thing with the U.S., you get sucked into the materialistic idea of a what a good life means.
Instagram and facebook the pictures of where you went this weekend and who you were with.
Meanwhile, the system keeps working against you. I don't condone violence against police officers but the population does have a right to protest (as was peacefully proven by the Women's march early this year). But events like that particular march are few and far between. In Europe, protests appear to be a regular occurrence; which is a good thing if you want to keep the government in check.

Incremento de violencia en Mexico y la "guerra contra las drogas" (Español)

Segun el siguiente articulo de la publicacion Britanica "Guardian" (titulado "Tiroteo entre carteles deja a 26 muertos en mas reciente choque"), analistas atribuyen el incremento de violencia en Mexico a varios factores; incluyendo el hecho de que los carteles Mexicanos estan cambiando el enfoque de sus operaciones contrabandistas a los Estados Unidos, de la marihuana a la heroina, trayendo como consequencia una ola de violencia en el estado de Guerrero (que es un productor de la amapola de opio).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/05/drug-cartel-mexico-shootout-el-chapo

El articulo indica que otro factor ha sido la estrategia federal de capturar o matar a los jefes (de jefes) de los carteles, ya que despues de esas capturas, los de los puestos mas bajos del cartel y sus rivales, comienzan a pelearse por el negocio. Tambien, cambios en gobiernos estatales (como en Chihuahua y Sinaloa) han contribuido a la matanza, ya que arreglos (formales e informales) entre politicos y jefes de la mafia son volcados o se tienen que volver a negociar.    

Es muy triste lo que esta pasando en Mexico, pero parte del problema (pienso yo) es la gran demanda por drogas que hay aqui en Estados Unidos (lo que trae como consecuencia la violencia interminable en nuestro vecino de sur). Un punto importante en el reporte del "Guardian" es el hecho de que los carteles estan cambiando el enfoque de su contrabando, de la marihuana a la heroina: debe ser por la legalizacion de la marihuana en varios estados de Estados Unidos (incluyendo en el gigantesco estado de California). 

Esto es muy interesante para mi, ya que yo soy de los que pienso que legalizar la droga en Estados Unidos resolveria muchos de los problemas que acarrean los carteles. 

Todo parece indicar que la legalizacion de la marihuana en Estados Unidos esta forzando a que los carteles Mexicanos reevaluen sus operaciones. La pregunta es; que droga seria demasiado peligrosa como para legalizarse? Definitivamente la metanfetamina, pero, y la heroina?  

Esas son algunas de las preguntas que tendriamos que contestar antes de legalizar las drogas (aparte de la marihuana).  

What's next for the U.S. economy?

Despite the flat market today, from my point of view (which is that of relatively young guy), I believe the fundamentals of the economy appear to be strong.
Here in Phoenix, you can actually see the economy chugging along: simply by looking at the construction of new freeways and the sale of new homes. Also, the remodeling and resale of old homes as well as the great number of people who are moving here from other states. On a national level, you can see it by the fact we are at or near full-employment.

It wasn't always like this. When Obama took office in 2009, the economy was in free-fall. Thankfully, among other actions, Obama injected the stimulus into the economy, bailed out the American auto industry, and passed regulations so Banks wouldn't make the same mistakes that led to the '08 crash.

All of which brings us to Trump, and what exactly is he going to do to keep the economy going. If we look at his track record of legislation up to this point, I don't think Trump's gonna do much, but we'll see.

What I am afraid of, is what the negative effect of Trump not doing much is going to have on the psychic of the consumer and thus the economy.

My previous point (above) is the main premise of an article in the NYTimes business section today (link below):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/upshot/confidence-boomed-after-the-election-the-economy-hasnt.html?mcubz=2

The article states that despite strong consumer optimism, the economy hasn't had concrete economic gains. Most importantly, at the end of the article the author finds a clue in the partisan breakdown of sentiment surveys; much of the boom in consumer confidence after Trump was elected was due to "conservatives feeling more giddy about their side winning".

Conservative sentiment aside, as I said at the beginning of my post, I do believe the fundamentals of the economy are strong. But what'll happen next is what worries me: the republicans control all branches of government (President, House of Representatives, as well as the Senate) and they have a strong economic foundation on which to build on: will it mean better wages? Better education? Better healthcare? Since I'm not a conservative I'm not too optimistic thus my "consumer confidence" is low.

But I do hope I'm wrong.

Hiking vs staying home and playing video games

"Why Some Men Don’t Work: Video Games Have Gotten Really Good"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/upshot/why-some-men-dont-work-video-games-have-gotten-really-good.html?ref=business

 I went hiking today because I think it's healthy to stop consuming news, and just get away once in a while. Plus I had the day off because of the long holiday weekend: Happy 4th of July! 

I just wish I had more free time to explore Arizona beyond the mountains near the valley (see my Camelback mtn. picture above). That's why I found the article in the NYTimes (link and picture above) surprising.

According to the article, between 2004 and 2015, young men's leisure time grew by 2.3 hours a week. And a majority of that increase was spent playing video games. 

I couldn't imagine staying at home playing video games instead of going outside and doing something interesting or productive. In all fairness through, who am I to judge you if your hobby is playing video games?

Nevertheless, I'll write about it, because (being a relatively young man myself) I've known coworkers, friends, and family in the age group described in the NYTimes article above. From what I've witnessed, some young men are able to play video games without it affecting their social life; one young man I knew even had his social life enhanced, and his new gaming girlfriend would defend the fact that he'd always be playing video games. Others played a lot of video games but eventually grew out of it and started families and careers. But in some cases, it does become a day and night obsession. This is anecdotal, but in the most extreme case, I knew a man over thirty who moved back to this parent's house, and despite being fired from his job for always being late, he'd still play video games all day.

I do love the graphics and the realistic design of modern video games, because I remember the primitive aspect of the old video games I used to play as a kid. This is probably why early on I decided not to play modern video games because I knew I'd probably get hooked. It seems to me that most young men did not arrive at the same conclusion, and instead chose to play video games consequences be damned. 

#Trumpcare & the potential decimation of Medicaid (& much less importantly:Trump vs CNN)

The NYTimes has a good article about what the decimation of Medicaid would mean for you, and your money. And if you think you'll never need the program; the times puts it best:

"One in three people who turn 65 end up in a nursing home at some point." 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/your-money/plan-on-growing-old-then-the-medicaid-debate-affects-you.html?ref=business

The author of the article will take questions. Hence, it seems to me the link will be useful in the future if #Trumpcare passes, because, as the article articulates:

 "Medicaid... stands to have hundreds of billions of dollars less to spend".

The article says you probably know a retired person who ended up needing Medicaid. & they're right; I knew a distinguished retired person who ended up in a nursing home (paid for by Medicaid): I won't go into specifics to protect the person's privacy but that's when I realized the importance of the program.

The consequences of #Trumpcare is something the media should be focusing on. Instead, the media today is talking about Trump uploading a GIF on Twitter of him beating up CNN: smh. I gotta say though; can you imagine if Obama uploaded a GIF on Twitter of him beating up FoxNews? The right-wing would lose its collective mind. But with the Donald, most people will just shrug, they'll just say: "hey! It's just our toddler-in-chief playing with Twitter again". And CNN's bosses probably love the publicity. I tuned in to CNN today just to see what they were saying. This in turn means more viewers for CNN which mean more money for CNN's corporate owners. The CNN reporters in the field probably don't love it: more hate from the right-wingers!

But that's just the way it is with most corporate jobs; isn't it? The workers in the front-line are exposed while the owners get the benefits. But, if #Trumpcare passes, even when you retire you might lose again just so that rich people (which include CNN's corporate owners) get a big tax cut.