Friday, July 9, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
altar,sonora
Very few residents dare to drive on one of the roads out of this watering-hole for migrants, fearing they will be stopped at gunpoint. They worry they will be told to turn around after their gas tanks are drained or, worse, be kidnapped or killed.
A shootout that left 21 people dead and six wounded on the road last week is the most gruesome sign that a relatively tranquil pocket of northern Mexico is quickly turning into a hotbed of drug-fueled violence on Arizona's doorstep. The violence in recent months is grist for supporters of the state's tough new law against illegal immigration, who are eager to portray the border as a lawless battlefield of smugglers both of drugs and humans.
Nogales, the main city in the region, which shares a border with the Arizona city of the same name, has had 131 murders so far this year, nearly surpassing 135 for all of 2009, according to a tally by the newspaper Diario de Sonora. That includes two heads found Thursday stuffed side by side between the bars of a cemetery fence.
The carnage still pales compared to other Mexican border cities, most notably Ciudad Juarez, which lies across from El Paso, Texas, which had 2,600 murders last year. But the increase shows that some small cattle-grazing towns near Nogales are now in the grip of drug traffickers who terrorize residents.
The violence is concentrated in a few villages in the mountainous desert area of Rio Altar, which, until recently, drew tourists for its handsome churches, its river, a tilapia-filled lake and cooler temperatures. The roads wind through mountains of mesquite trees and saguaro cactus.
That's where Thursday's pre-dawn shootout occurred, just 12 miles (19 kilometers) south of the border, on a deserted stretch between the villages of Tubutama and Saric. Eight vehicles and numerous weapons were found in what authorities described as a confrontation between rival gangs competing for drug and immigration routes into the U.S.
The windows and panels of some vehicles were painted with X's in white shoe polish, said Fernando Pompa, a police officer in Altar who visited the scene. Bullet casings littered the pavement.
The territory is disputed between Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, who heads the Sinaloa cartel, and the Beltran Leyva cartel, whose leader, Arturo Beltran Leyva, was killed in a shootout last December with Mexican marines in Cuernavaca, south of Mexico City.
Locals trace the wave of violence to the arrest in February of Jose Vazquez Villagrana, nicknamed "El Jaibil," or "The Wild Boar." Vazquez, reported to be an ally of Guzman, was captured by federal police in the nearby town of Santa Ana.
Many people have fled in the last few months, said one resident whose family has longtime roots in a village near the shootings. He asked that his only his first name, Luis, be published because he fears for his safety. His relatives abandoned their homes this spring to join him in a larger city where he lives.
"This began like a cancer in the finger and now it is spreading to other parts of the body," he said, noting that it seems as if the government has no control to stop it.
Luis said schools closed early this year without explanation. Soft-drink vendors and electricity meter readers refuse to come.
Tubutama, a village of about 1,500 people with no hotel, restaurant or gas station, canceled its annual town fair last month for the first time in memory. The move came after the town's comptroller and director of public works were murdered.
Journalists who cover the small villages stopped visiting several months ago, saying it is too dangerous.
"If no one puts a stop to this, these will become ghost towns," said Jose Martin Mayoral, editor of Diario del Desierto, the newspaper in Caborca.
Despite its small size, many motorists used to pass through Tubutama because it is a hub for local roads. Now they drive longer distances on a toll road.
"It's very dangerous," said Alvaro Celaya, 57, a taxi driver in Altar, which sits just outside the danger zone. "No one will take you there anymore."
Altar, a town of about 10,000 people with a yellow-domed Roman Catholic church in its central square, has been spared the violence but is only about 15 miles (24 kilometers) from Tubutama. The town's economy was booming a few years ago with taxi drivers, restaurants and lodging houses that catered to migrants preparing to cross the U.S. border illegally in the Arizona desert.
Now, a scarcity of jobs because of the U.S. economic downturn is keeping illegal immigrants away, causing Altar to fall on hard times as well.
Ana Maria Velasquez, who volunteers at the church, said there used to be 50 candles on an altar to the Virgin of Guadalupe, each left by a migrant as a good-luck ritual before crossing the border. On Sunday, there was only one.
"The migrants sustained this town," said Velasquez, 29. "Now that the flow is down, we're very bad off economically."
On many afternoons, Altar police set up checkpoints to warn residents on the road to Tubutama that it is a risky trip, said Pompa, the police officer.
More than 23,000 people have been killed in Mexico's drug violence since President Felipe Calderon launched an all-out offensive on cartels in 2006.
Despite its proximity to Arizona, the increase in drug-fueled violence in this region has not spilled across the border — nor has it in El Paso or San Diego, across from Tijuana, Mexico.
Tony Estrada, the sheriff of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, said last week's shootout unnerved some people in his jurisdiction, which includes Nogales, Arizona.
"They don't want this happening in their backyard," he said. Everyone is just kind of on alert and watchful of what happened over there and hoping the violence will stop."
Estrada, echoing the view of many in Mexico's Rio Altar area, believes the violence will continue until one cartel assumes control or the warring factions broker a truce.
"These groups are battling for this area and you know it's going to continue," he said. "There's going to be retaliation for this."
A shootout that left 21 people dead and six wounded on the road last week is the most gruesome sign that a relatively tranquil pocket of northern Mexico is quickly turning into a hotbed of drug-fueled violence on Arizona's doorstep. The violence in recent months is grist for supporters of the state's tough new law against illegal immigration, who are eager to portray the border as a lawless battlefield of smugglers both of drugs and humans.
Nogales, the main city in the region, which shares a border with the Arizona city of the same name, has had 131 murders so far this year, nearly surpassing 135 for all of 2009, according to a tally by the newspaper Diario de Sonora. That includes two heads found Thursday stuffed side by side between the bars of a cemetery fence.
The carnage still pales compared to other Mexican border cities, most notably Ciudad Juarez, which lies across from El Paso, Texas, which had 2,600 murders last year. But the increase shows that some small cattle-grazing towns near Nogales are now in the grip of drug traffickers who terrorize residents.
The violence is concentrated in a few villages in the mountainous desert area of Rio Altar, which, until recently, drew tourists for its handsome churches, its river, a tilapia-filled lake and cooler temperatures. The roads wind through mountains of mesquite trees and saguaro cactus.
That's where Thursday's pre-dawn shootout occurred, just 12 miles (19 kilometers) south of the border, on a deserted stretch between the villages of Tubutama and Saric. Eight vehicles and numerous weapons were found in what authorities described as a confrontation between rival gangs competing for drug and immigration routes into the U.S.
The windows and panels of some vehicles were painted with X's in white shoe polish, said Fernando Pompa, a police officer in Altar who visited the scene. Bullet casings littered the pavement.
The territory is disputed between Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, who heads the Sinaloa cartel, and the Beltran Leyva cartel, whose leader, Arturo Beltran Leyva, was killed in a shootout last December with Mexican marines in Cuernavaca, south of Mexico City.
Locals trace the wave of violence to the arrest in February of Jose Vazquez Villagrana, nicknamed "El Jaibil," or "The Wild Boar." Vazquez, reported to be an ally of Guzman, was captured by federal police in the nearby town of Santa Ana.
Many people have fled in the last few months, said one resident whose family has longtime roots in a village near the shootings. He asked that his only his first name, Luis, be published because he fears for his safety. His relatives abandoned their homes this spring to join him in a larger city where he lives.
"This began like a cancer in the finger and now it is spreading to other parts of the body," he said, noting that it seems as if the government has no control to stop it.
Luis said schools closed early this year without explanation. Soft-drink vendors and electricity meter readers refuse to come.
Tubutama, a village of about 1,500 people with no hotel, restaurant or gas station, canceled its annual town fair last month for the first time in memory. The move came after the town's comptroller and director of public works were murdered.
Journalists who cover the small villages stopped visiting several months ago, saying it is too dangerous.
"If no one puts a stop to this, these will become ghost towns," said Jose Martin Mayoral, editor of Diario del Desierto, the newspaper in Caborca.
Despite its small size, many motorists used to pass through Tubutama because it is a hub for local roads. Now they drive longer distances on a toll road.
"It's very dangerous," said Alvaro Celaya, 57, a taxi driver in Altar, which sits just outside the danger zone. "No one will take you there anymore."
Altar, a town of about 10,000 people with a yellow-domed Roman Catholic church in its central square, has been spared the violence but is only about 15 miles (24 kilometers) from Tubutama. The town's economy was booming a few years ago with taxi drivers, restaurants and lodging houses that catered to migrants preparing to cross the U.S. border illegally in the Arizona desert.
Now, a scarcity of jobs because of the U.S. economic downturn is keeping illegal immigrants away, causing Altar to fall on hard times as well.
Ana Maria Velasquez, who volunteers at the church, said there used to be 50 candles on an altar to the Virgin of Guadalupe, each left by a migrant as a good-luck ritual before crossing the border. On Sunday, there was only one.
"The migrants sustained this town," said Velasquez, 29. "Now that the flow is down, we're very bad off economically."
On many afternoons, Altar police set up checkpoints to warn residents on the road to Tubutama that it is a risky trip, said Pompa, the police officer.
More than 23,000 people have been killed in Mexico's drug violence since President Felipe Calderon launched an all-out offensive on cartels in 2006.
Despite its proximity to Arizona, the increase in drug-fueled violence in this region has not spilled across the border — nor has it in El Paso or San Diego, across from Tijuana, Mexico.
Tony Estrada, the sheriff of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, said last week's shootout unnerved some people in his jurisdiction, which includes Nogales, Arizona.
"They don't want this happening in their backyard," he said. Everyone is just kind of on alert and watchful of what happened over there and hoping the violence will stop."
Estrada, echoing the view of many in Mexico's Rio Altar area, believes the violence will continue until one cartel assumes control or the warring factions broker a truce.
"These groups are battling for this area and you know it's going to continue," he said. "There's going to be retaliation for this."
headless
Police have found the decapitated bodies of three men inside a burned-out car in the drug gang-plagued Mexican state of Sinaloa. The heads had been put on the vehicle's hood.
The Sinaloa state attorney general's office says one of the burned bodies was in the driver's seat, another in the back seat and the third was in the trunk.
Investigators found the car Monday in the city of Angostura, near the Pacific coast.
The office's statement provided no information on possible suspects or the motive for the killings.
Sinaloa has long been considered the home state of many of Mexico's most powerful drug lords.
The Sinaloa state attorney general's office says one of the burned bodies was in the driver's seat, another in the back seat and the third was in the trunk.
Investigators found the car Monday in the city of Angostura, near the Pacific coast.
The office's statement provided no information on possible suspects or the motive for the killings.
Sinaloa has long been considered the home state of many of Mexico's most powerful drug lords.
to the polls
After a Super Sunday of elections across Mexico that was widely seen as a test for the 2012 presidential race and the nation's future, the winner turns out to be _ well, not really anyone.
President Felipe Calderon's party is weak, the left is in collapse and the Institutional Revolutionary Party that is on a tentative path to recapture the presidency it held for 71 years was shown to be vulnerable. Drug cartel intimidation dissuaded many from voting at all.
The mixed outcome in elections across 15 states showed no party has won the faith of Mexicans desperate to bring their country out of a quagmire of economic stagnation and relentless gang wars that have killed more than 23,000 people since Calderon took office three years ago.
Calderon's conservative National Action Party won not a single state on its own, and lost two it had held, according to results Monday, and needed desperate alliances with leftists to wrest strongholds from the old ruling party.
That party, known as the PRI, demonstrated it remains Mexico's most important political force, won nine of 12 governorships Sunday.
Still, that was no change from the number it had before the ballot. And its defeat in three longtime bastion states indicated many Mexicans are still repulsed by the party that ruled through patronage and corruption from 1929 to 2000 _ a system that Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa once called the "perfect dictatorship."
Sunday's elections also displayed the intimidating power of drug cartels in the most embattled states. Only a third of voters showed up in the country's most violent state, Chihuahua, where drug gangs hung four bodies from bridges on election day. Less than 40 percent voted in Tamaulipas, where gubernatorial candidate Rodolfo Torre was assassinated last week.
It's not where Mexicans thought they would be when National Action's Vicente Fox ousted the PRI in 2000 and promised a new era.
"I still remember the celebration when Vicente Fox won the presidential elections 10 years ago. It was as if Mexico had won the World Cup," Mexican political scientist Leo Zuckerman wrote Monday in Excelsior newspaper. "Where are we 10 years after the historic triumph of Fox?"
"I see multiple threats to democracy, which has not yet consolidated itself in Mexico. I think organized crime is the biggest challenge," he said. "The stamp is very clear: crime has exercised its veto power over the power of the vote."
The PRI, a party that was created by the nation's rulers to tame the complex forces of the Mexican Revolution, was widely seen as doomed after its loss to Fox, and it was a battered afterthought in the 2006 presidential election, when Calderon narrowly defeated a resurgent leftist Democratic Revolution Party.
Four years later, Calderon's approval ratings are slumping amid mass shootings, corruption scandals and kidnappings that remind Mexicans daily of the resilient power of drug cartels he has vowed to defeat.
"He has reverse coattails," said George Grayson, a Mexico expert at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. "The economy is quite weak ... and the narco-traffickers have been on a binge."
Democratic Revolution _ the PRI's biggest competitor for the working class vote _ has largely imploded amid internal wrangling, four years after nearly winning the presidency. It lost the only state it controlled on its own among the 12 up for grabs Sunday.
In a sense, the left and right are back to where they were in the days of PRI rule: forced into uncomfortable alliances to tackle a powerful opponent. In 1988, National Action joined leftist parties in protesting the allegedly fraudulent presidential victory of Carlos Salinas.
On Sunday, neither the left nor the right were able to beat the PRI alone.
Democratic Revolution joined Calderon's party to win Sinaloa and Puebla behind coalition candidates who only recently bolted from the PRI. A similar coalition won in Oaxaca behind a minor-party candidate who quit the PRI a decade ago.
Though the results were largely due to local issues and local scandals, they were a blow to the PRI's hope that Sunday would help propel it back to the presidency. The party had ruled those states for 80 years.
Many saw the result as evidence that voters are skeptical about PRI promises that it has learned from its past mistakes and abandoned the strongman politics that kept in power for so long.
In Sinaloa, the cradle of Mexican drug trafficking, PRI candidate Jesus Vizcarra long faced allegations of ties to the cartel led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted drug lord. The newspaper Reforma recently published a photograph of Vizcarra attending a party years ago with El Chapo's No. 2, Ismael Zambada. Vizcarra, the mayor of state capital Culiacan and a distant relative of slain drug trafficker Ines Calderon, dodged questions about whether Zambada is the godfather of one of his children, saying only that he had never committed a crime.
In the heavily indigenous state of Oaxaca, outgoing Gov. Ulises Ruiz alienated many voters with his heavy handed approach to a five-month deadly uprising in 2006 over allegations that he stole his election victory.
In Puebla, the outgoing PRI official was widely ridiculed as "Precious Governor" because of a sycophantic comment made during a leaked conversation he had with a local businessman who complained about a reporter who was crusading against child molesters. Puebla police later seized the reporter in another state and hauled her halfway across Mexico. She was eventually freed.
"To a large extent this gives some breathing room to President Calderon, who expected to be faced with a resurgent PRI," said Andrew Selee, director of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson's Mexico Institute.
Voter turnout was robust in Sinaloa and Oaxaca and very low in two states where the PRI easily won: Chihuahua and Tamaulipas. National Action leaders touted this as a promising sign, insisting the PRI can only win where turnout is low.
"We won in places where people came out and voted," said Jose Sacramento, the defeated National Action candidate for governor in Tamaulipas, where the PRI fielded the brother of its assassinated candidate.
But then, what's the party plan for states where Calderon has failed to root out the cartels since launching his drug war at the end of 2006? In Tamaulipas, party leaders said they couldn't even find candidates who dared to run for mayor in some gang-plagued towns.
"It was an election that began with blood and ended with blood and that was a factor because citizens were afraid to participate," Sacramento said.
___
President Felipe Calderon's party is weak, the left is in collapse and the Institutional Revolutionary Party that is on a tentative path to recapture the presidency it held for 71 years was shown to be vulnerable. Drug cartel intimidation dissuaded many from voting at all.
The mixed outcome in elections across 15 states showed no party has won the faith of Mexicans desperate to bring their country out of a quagmire of economic stagnation and relentless gang wars that have killed more than 23,000 people since Calderon took office three years ago.
Calderon's conservative National Action Party won not a single state on its own, and lost two it had held, according to results Monday, and needed desperate alliances with leftists to wrest strongholds from the old ruling party.
That party, known as the PRI, demonstrated it remains Mexico's most important political force, won nine of 12 governorships Sunday.
Still, that was no change from the number it had before the ballot. And its defeat in three longtime bastion states indicated many Mexicans are still repulsed by the party that ruled through patronage and corruption from 1929 to 2000 _ a system that Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa once called the "perfect dictatorship."
Sunday's elections also displayed the intimidating power of drug cartels in the most embattled states. Only a third of voters showed up in the country's most violent state, Chihuahua, where drug gangs hung four bodies from bridges on election day. Less than 40 percent voted in Tamaulipas, where gubernatorial candidate Rodolfo Torre was assassinated last week.
It's not where Mexicans thought they would be when National Action's Vicente Fox ousted the PRI in 2000 and promised a new era.
"I still remember the celebration when Vicente Fox won the presidential elections 10 years ago. It was as if Mexico had won the World Cup," Mexican political scientist Leo Zuckerman wrote Monday in Excelsior newspaper. "Where are we 10 years after the historic triumph of Fox?"
"I see multiple threats to democracy, which has not yet consolidated itself in Mexico. I think organized crime is the biggest challenge," he said. "The stamp is very clear: crime has exercised its veto power over the power of the vote."
The PRI, a party that was created by the nation's rulers to tame the complex forces of the Mexican Revolution, was widely seen as doomed after its loss to Fox, and it was a battered afterthought in the 2006 presidential election, when Calderon narrowly defeated a resurgent leftist Democratic Revolution Party.
Four years later, Calderon's approval ratings are slumping amid mass shootings, corruption scandals and kidnappings that remind Mexicans daily of the resilient power of drug cartels he has vowed to defeat.
"He has reverse coattails," said George Grayson, a Mexico expert at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. "The economy is quite weak ... and the narco-traffickers have been on a binge."
Democratic Revolution _ the PRI's biggest competitor for the working class vote _ has largely imploded amid internal wrangling, four years after nearly winning the presidency. It lost the only state it controlled on its own among the 12 up for grabs Sunday.
In a sense, the left and right are back to where they were in the days of PRI rule: forced into uncomfortable alliances to tackle a powerful opponent. In 1988, National Action joined leftist parties in protesting the allegedly fraudulent presidential victory of Carlos Salinas.
On Sunday, neither the left nor the right were able to beat the PRI alone.
Democratic Revolution joined Calderon's party to win Sinaloa and Puebla behind coalition candidates who only recently bolted from the PRI. A similar coalition won in Oaxaca behind a minor-party candidate who quit the PRI a decade ago.
Though the results were largely due to local issues and local scandals, they were a blow to the PRI's hope that Sunday would help propel it back to the presidency. The party had ruled those states for 80 years.
Many saw the result as evidence that voters are skeptical about PRI promises that it has learned from its past mistakes and abandoned the strongman politics that kept in power for so long.
In Sinaloa, the cradle of Mexican drug trafficking, PRI candidate Jesus Vizcarra long faced allegations of ties to the cartel led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted drug lord. The newspaper Reforma recently published a photograph of Vizcarra attending a party years ago with El Chapo's No. 2, Ismael Zambada. Vizcarra, the mayor of state capital Culiacan and a distant relative of slain drug trafficker Ines Calderon, dodged questions about whether Zambada is the godfather of one of his children, saying only that he had never committed a crime.
In the heavily indigenous state of Oaxaca, outgoing Gov. Ulises Ruiz alienated many voters with his heavy handed approach to a five-month deadly uprising in 2006 over allegations that he stole his election victory.
In Puebla, the outgoing PRI official was widely ridiculed as "Precious Governor" because of a sycophantic comment made during a leaked conversation he had with a local businessman who complained about a reporter who was crusading against child molesters. Puebla police later seized the reporter in another state and hauled her halfway across Mexico. She was eventually freed.
"To a large extent this gives some breathing room to President Calderon, who expected to be faced with a resurgent PRI," said Andrew Selee, director of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson's Mexico Institute.
Voter turnout was robust in Sinaloa and Oaxaca and very low in two states where the PRI easily won: Chihuahua and Tamaulipas. National Action leaders touted this as a promising sign, insisting the PRI can only win where turnout is low.
"We won in places where people came out and voted," said Jose Sacramento, the defeated National Action candidate for governor in Tamaulipas, where the PRI fielded the brother of its assassinated candidate.
But then, what's the party plan for states where Calderon has failed to root out the cartels since launching his drug war at the end of 2006? In Tamaulipas, party leaders said they couldn't even find candidates who dared to run for mayor in some gang-plagued towns.
"It was an election that began with blood and ended with blood and that was a factor because citizens were afraid to participate," Sacramento said.
___
furry little things
executives of a Los Angeles toy company - including two from the San Gabriel Valley - were arrested Friday for their alleged part in a scheme to launder almost $9 million for drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia using teddy bears and Topo Gigio mouse dolls.
Meichun Cheng Huang, 57, of Irvine, a co-owner of Angel Toy Corp.; Ling Yu, 52, of Arcadia, CEO and co-owner of the company; and company accountant Xiaoxin "Judy" Ju, 48, of San Gabriel, were arrested on federal charges at the downtown business on Alameda Street, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"It's no small irony that a multi-million-dollar company which promoted itself as retailer of cuddly stuffed animals was allegedly acting as a financial linchpin for drug trafficking operatives in Colombia and Mexico," said ICE Director John Morton.
"It may be a toy company, but we believe these defendants' pursuits were anything but child's play," he said. "Businesses that launder profits for drug trafficking organizations should be on notice there will be a high price to pay for helping further these dangerous criminal enterprises."
According to an indictment, Huang and Yu directed their Colombian and Mexican clients to drop cash off at the company's Los Angeles headquarters or deposit it directly into the company's bank accounts.
After receiving the money, Angel Toy executives allegedly wired it to China to purchase stuffed animals and dolls, according to ICE.
toys were subsequently exported to Colombia, where an associate apparently arranged for their sale, ICE said.
The Colombian pesos generated by those sales were then used to reimburse Colombian drug traffickers, a money-laundering process known as a "black market peso exchange," said state Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office investigated the case along with ICE.
"This sort of scheme does go on in other contexts, but linking teddy bears to the drug business -- that's one for the record books," the Democratic gubernatorial candidate said.
"The money goes to China, the toys go to Colombia, and the profits go to drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia."
The drug proceeds, which were allegedly laundered through numerous cash deposits in the United States, were returned to clients when the stuffed animals and dolls were exported to the foreign countries and sold to generate local "clean" money, according to ICE.
Today's arrests stemmed from a five-count indictment that charged five defendants, including the co-owners of Angel Toy Corp., and Jose
Leonardo Cuevas Otalora, 50, a Colombia-based businessman who allegedly oversaw the importation of the toys into his country, prosecutors said. The fifth defendant in the case is Angel Toy Corp. itself.
Immigration officials were working with the Colombian National Police and the U.S. Department of Justice to arrest Otalora, according to ICE.
The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of more than $8.6 million dollars, which is the amount of money allegedly laundered over a four-year period, from 2005 to 2009.
Topo Gigio was a character on a children's puppet show on Italian and Spanish television in the early 1960s and began famous worldwide when the cute rodent appeared on "The Ed Sullivan Show." Topo Gigio remains a Latino cultural icon.
Meichun Cheng Huang, 57, of Irvine, a co-owner of Angel Toy Corp.; Ling Yu, 52, of Arcadia, CEO and co-owner of the company; and company accountant Xiaoxin "Judy" Ju, 48, of San Gabriel, were arrested on federal charges at the downtown business on Alameda Street, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"It's no small irony that a multi-million-dollar company which promoted itself as retailer of cuddly stuffed animals was allegedly acting as a financial linchpin for drug trafficking operatives in Colombia and Mexico," said ICE Director John Morton.
"It may be a toy company, but we believe these defendants' pursuits were anything but child's play," he said. "Businesses that launder profits for drug trafficking organizations should be on notice there will be a high price to pay for helping further these dangerous criminal enterprises."
According to an indictment, Huang and Yu directed their Colombian and Mexican clients to drop cash off at the company's Los Angeles headquarters or deposit it directly into the company's bank accounts.
After receiving the money, Angel Toy executives allegedly wired it to China to purchase stuffed animals and dolls, according to ICE.
toys were subsequently exported to Colombia, where an associate apparently arranged for their sale, ICE said.
The Colombian pesos generated by those sales were then used to reimburse Colombian drug traffickers, a money-laundering process known as a "black market peso exchange," said state Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office investigated the case along with ICE.
"This sort of scheme does go on in other contexts, but linking teddy bears to the drug business -- that's one for the record books," the Democratic gubernatorial candidate said.
"The money goes to China, the toys go to Colombia, and the profits go to drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia."
The drug proceeds, which were allegedly laundered through numerous cash deposits in the United States, were returned to clients when the stuffed animals and dolls were exported to the foreign countries and sold to generate local "clean" money, according to ICE.
Today's arrests stemmed from a five-count indictment that charged five defendants, including the co-owners of Angel Toy Corp., and Jose
Leonardo Cuevas Otalora, 50, a Colombia-based businessman who allegedly oversaw the importation of the toys into his country, prosecutors said. The fifth defendant in the case is Angel Toy Corp. itself.
Immigration officials were working with the Colombian National Police and the U.S. Department of Justice to arrest Otalora, according to ICE.
The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of more than $8.6 million dollars, which is the amount of money allegedly laundered over a four-year period, from 2005 to 2009.
Topo Gigio was a character on a children's puppet show on Italian and Spanish television in the early 1960s and began famous worldwide when the cute rodent appeared on "The Ed Sullivan Show." Topo Gigio remains a Latino cultural icon.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
goin to the polls
Suspected drug hitmen in Mexico killed a top prosecutor, murdered 21 people in a shootout and dumped a severed head outside the house of a mayoral candidate days before elections, authorities said.
The violence unfolded in two states just south of the U.S. border and was the latest sign that Mexico's drug war is growing more intense.
Gunmen killed Sandra Salas, a deputy prosecutor for the northern state of Chihuahua in Ciudad Juarez across from El Paso, Texas, Wednesday night as she was being driven by bodyguards, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office said.
Then Thursday, unidentified men also left a head outside the house of the favorite for Ciudad Juarez mayor, Hector Murgia, who is running for Mexico's main opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, before the vote in 12 states Sunday.
President Felipe Calderon is under mounting pressure to control escalating drug violence that worries Washington and that is scaring off tourists and forcing some U.S.-owned factories to freeze investment plans.
Two drug gangs rumbled on a desert highway early on Thursday in a shootout that left 21 people dead in the northern state of Sonora, said Jose Larrinaga, a spokesman for the state prosecutor's office.
"It happened 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the U.S. border," Larrinaga said.
Larrinaga said investigators don't know what triggered the shootout, but the country's cartels routinely battle for the smuggling routes used to get cocaine into the United States.
Mexican authorities are on high alert after hitmen dressed as marines ambushed and killed the front-runner candidate for governor in the northeastern state of Tamaulipas Monday, in the worst sign so far of political intimidation by smuggling gangs.
Murguia, a former Ciudad Juarez mayor, faces accusations from rival politicians and rights groups of being in the pay of the city's powerful Juarez cartel, which is fighting the Sinaloa alliance for control of trafficking routes in a battle that has killed some 5,700 people in the city since 2008.
More than 26,000 people have died in drug violence across Mexico over the past 3 1/2 years.
Calderon has repeatedly vowed to stick to his military-backed anti-drug strategy, relying on thousands of troops across the country to curb the power of drug cartels.
Adding to a climate of violence ahead of the elections, a mayor in the southern state of Oaxaca was killed along with another local official Wednesday. The state prosecutor's office said the attack on Nicolas Garcia, mayor of the coastal town of Santo Domingo de Morelos, was likely a robbery.
The violence unfolded in two states just south of the U.S. border and was the latest sign that Mexico's drug war is growing more intense.
Gunmen killed Sandra Salas, a deputy prosecutor for the northern state of Chihuahua in Ciudad Juarez across from El Paso, Texas, Wednesday night as she was being driven by bodyguards, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office said.
Then Thursday, unidentified men also left a head outside the house of the favorite for Ciudad Juarez mayor, Hector Murgia, who is running for Mexico's main opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, before the vote in 12 states Sunday.
President Felipe Calderon is under mounting pressure to control escalating drug violence that worries Washington and that is scaring off tourists and forcing some U.S.-owned factories to freeze investment plans.
Two drug gangs rumbled on a desert highway early on Thursday in a shootout that left 21 people dead in the northern state of Sonora, said Jose Larrinaga, a spokesman for the state prosecutor's office.
"It happened 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the U.S. border," Larrinaga said.
Larrinaga said investigators don't know what triggered the shootout, but the country's cartels routinely battle for the smuggling routes used to get cocaine into the United States.
Mexican authorities are on high alert after hitmen dressed as marines ambushed and killed the front-runner candidate for governor in the northeastern state of Tamaulipas Monday, in the worst sign so far of political intimidation by smuggling gangs.
Murguia, a former Ciudad Juarez mayor, faces accusations from rival politicians and rights groups of being in the pay of the city's powerful Juarez cartel, which is fighting the Sinaloa alliance for control of trafficking routes in a battle that has killed some 5,700 people in the city since 2008.
More than 26,000 people have died in drug violence across Mexico over the past 3 1/2 years.
Calderon has repeatedly vowed to stick to his military-backed anti-drug strategy, relying on thousands of troops across the country to curb the power of drug cartels.
Adding to a climate of violence ahead of the elections, a mayor in the southern state of Oaxaca was killed along with another local official Wednesday. The state prosecutor's office said the attack on Nicolas Garcia, mayor of the coastal town of Santo Domingo de Morelos, was likely a robbery.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
tax dollars at work
Americans on the American side of the U.S. Mexican border are in much danger today from newly trained Mexican drug traffickers, who according to the highest level of the Mexican military reveals that Mexican Drug Cartels (MDC's) are currently training Mexican smugglers in the art of military tactic's. These trainees often referred to by many as coyotes are very important to the drug trade. These coyotes are believed to be responsible for the tons of illegal drugs being clandestinely smuggled into the United States from Mexico on a daily bases. As a result of this new level of training it is putting many average Americans in crave danger and right here at home.
A high ranking Mexican Army commander who insists on remaining anonymous has told the U.S. Border Fire Report that Mexican coyotes are now being trained by the Mexican Drug Cartel known as the Los Zetas and are operating in the deserts of Arizona. These highly trained former Mexican Army solders who themselves went through some of the best and latest U.S. Army training at the American tax payers expense now are passing this training onto the front line drug smugglers that guide these drug loads and human beings into the states mainly through our southern border with Mexico. They're known as "Los Zetas
See video's at: http://www.secureborderintel.org/TusconSector-armedescorts.html
This new breed of coyote now operate as a fine tuned military unit. I was able to make contact and talk with one of these new Zetas coyote smugglers. The deal was, if I would agree to not take any photo's or know his real name he would talk with me.
So I'll call him Juan. Juan told me that he had been guiding people into the USA for years and said he made a good living for him and his family of 7 kids and a wife. He said he was approached a couple of years ago by a Los Zetas officer who offered him military training and lots more money. Juan said that he picked 5 of his best workers who over the years had help him with his guiding business and they all went to a Zetas's camp for 9 weeks of training. He says " that he now makes much more money" he went on to say with this new training and man power he's able to bring many more people and loads of drugs into the US via the U.S. Mexican border. He said that where he once was paid 100 U.S. dollars per person (Illegal Alien) and 500 per pack mule (drug carrier) He now makes much more than that.
He confided that he and many others now as Los Zetas's operatives run five (5) man armed squads who lead both people who want to come to America and drug smuggling mules across the Arizona desert. " One of the members of his team runs point, two or more on each side of the group when possible or otherwise imbedded within the middle range of the group. Another brings up the rear as a tail gunner each carrying an AK 47 and the tail gunner packing a M-60 machine gun and or a 12 gouge riot shot gun. The groups range in size from 4 or five to a hundred or more per trip.
He, told me "that the weapons are used to guarantee the success of the operation". He said "there are many dangers I and my men can face in route, me and my men have used our weapons to protect the group against Rattle Snakes and even Bear attacks" 06/08/09 - 10 second video - bear on trail. But later he admitted that the main reason for having the weapons is to protect the drugs, mainly from competing drug gangs who from time to time they encounter. According to him many of the roaming gangs are looking for a fast and easy load of drugs, But also there are competing drug cartel gangs who are also trained and will try to take our loads and who want to operate on our turf. "But now we are much better prepared to deal with this and other threats that we may have to face on every trip." I asked, if and when he encounters American law enforcement would he and his men fire their weapons at them? He told me that that was not likely to happen because the routes he uses are not paroled by American authorities. He claims that this is possible because some high U.S. Government people is paid by the Zetas to not be in the area at certain times during his operations. He said " we take additional precautions to prevent that from happening". "We post our own people all along the route to I 8 and near the transfer points on the highway mile markers. We place our spotters on high ground and fly ultralight aircraft, both have communication equipment, radio's and through away cell phones. They are paid to watch for authorities and intruders, such as gangs, dangerous animals, American tourist, hikers, campers and all others who may be in the area."
Arizona estimates that there are up to million tourist known as snow birds who migrate to Arizona to winter each year, spending upwards of $1 billion dollars. Many of those snow birds camp, play and recreate on and near the dangerous U.S. Mexican Border in southern Arizona. Just like birds flying south for the winter, human residents of cold climates desire to escape the cold climates for a life of leisure. Most are unaware of the many dangers that the Mexican smugglers pose to there safety. There are signs posted on much of the Government lands warning visitors to the dangers that they my face if encountered by these dangerous smugglers. Juan, told me he is retiring, that he has made a lot of money in the last couple of years and he is going to leave his business to one of his younger associate operative from which he expects to receive payments from him for years to come. Juan is moving his family to Colorado to live the American dream.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) considers Los Zetas to be the most dangerous drug-trafficking organization in Mexico. Its members earned a reputation as super-gangsters adept at paramilitary-style ambushes and bold jailbreaks.
On the Texas-Mexico border, the Zetas are mythic, their crimes chronicled in the media and memorialized in narco-ballads.
They are the most feared, most emulated criminals in Mexico.
"They are a formidable criminal organization," says Anthony Placido, the DEA's chief of intelligence. "They're heavily armed with .50-caliber sniper rifles and heavy and light military-grade ordnance."
"They are every bit as ferocious and as capable as a military force as some of the rumors believe them to be," Placido says.
Originally, there were 31 Zetas — elite army counter-narcotics commandos who defected to work as enforcers for the Gulf Cartel. The name came from their radio code, the letter Z.
But after the 2003 arrest of Gulf crime boss Osiel Cardenas, "the lion wised up and now controls the handler," as one observer put it.
The Zetas have morphed into their own cartel. Their zone of influence ranges from the lower Texas border, south along the Atlantic and Caribbean coastal states of Mexico, through Chiapas and all the way into Guatemala, where they trans-ship South American cocaine to Mexico.
But their base remains the charmless industrial border cities in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas.
Nuevo Laredo, in Tamaulipas, is the most important trade border crossing in Latin America — and it is Zeta territory.
From 2004 to 2007, the Zetas fought a savage turf war — which included bazooka and grenade attacks — against interlopers from the Sinaloa Cartel and others.
Zetas are now operating along the U.S. Mexican border from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
These newly trained Zata solders are currently enjoying a free rain to enter this country unmolested by American authorities throughout the American Southwest where American Indian reservations, U.S. Military lands, National Parks, Monuments and U.S. forest lands are being penetrated and used by these smugglers, particularly in south central and south eastern Arizona and along the southern New Mexico border with old Mexico.
There are many gaps in the border that are not being effectively protected by American law enforcement and that at least in part is the reason concerned Americans have in the past formed minute man groups, armed themselves and patrolled the U.S. Mexican border and attempted to divert human and drug trafficking. In the past U.S. Army troops and National Guard units where also placed on the border. The U.S. has increased the numbers of the U.S. Border Patrol and Homeland security have beefed up border checks of travelers entering and exiting our country at known check points along the more than 2000 mile border with Mexico. Even with the billions of dollars having been spend on drug interdiction over the years as part of the war on drugs, the war on drugs is a failure.
People being smuggled into the U.S. in the truck loads: Most are from Mexico. Central America, South America and even from China and the Middle east. Photo by SBI. Go to: http://www.secureborderintel.org/Camera1-016.html
judge James Gray of Orange County California who has studied and worked with drug issues for years says "tens of billions of tax payer dollars have been spent on the War On Drugs and that so called war on drugs has failed."
According to long time border observer Glen Spencer "A massive number of people illegally enter the USA every day by simply walking unchallenged across our southern border. In the 1952 miles of border from California to Texas they use literally thousands of trails and paths, ever changing their routes to avoid detection. Cartel involvement has brought increased organizational skills to smuggling operations and, contrary to government claims, only a very small percentage are apprehended. Accurate statistics are impossible to gather, but the true numbers are staggering, and the general public remains largely uninformed. "
Now there are new groups forming and establishing their own organizations to monitor the situation on our southern border, one of these groups call themselves "Concerned Citizens" I recently had the opportunity to visit this low profile group as they organized monitoring and listening posts east of Gila Bend Arizona on and near I 8 a major U.S. highway that they claim is a transfer point of illegal aliens and loads of drugs on that highways many marker posts where they contend loads of human and drugs enter the U.S. through drug trafficking corridors originating in Mexico.
According to the Concerned Citizens of Arizona they want to alert the public to a new citizen activist opportunity to help them observe and report the daily invasion across our southern border with Mexico.
Daniel Webster said "This is not a Minuteman or extremist group sponsored event - just a call to action by a group of "Concerned Citizens".
If you and or your group is interested you can contact them through e-mail: dtfsdf@oco.net
Concerned Citizens report that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and the other race baiting, ethnocentric anarchists want the people of America to believe the border is under "operational control". Nothing could be further from the truth says an organizer with the new group of "Concerned Citizens" and they have already have to deployed. They hope to video tape and educate Americans about the real threat to National Security and our public safety.
Concerned Citizens has a full blown showing of people who have come out and are enjoying our federal lands. This is people coming together to help AZ Governor Jan Brewer and the people of Arizona to bring attention to the need for National Guard on our southern border.
The group is in support of Jan Brewer signing SB1070 and say they want to help educate the public. they say "It´s time to bring back the" Minuteman Type Lines"
The group points out that there are 30 miles of area in a straight line that they cover. They say that there propose is doing what they do best..... "DETERRENCE BY PRESENCE"
The operation was kicked off and started operations 15 May the operation is expected to least at least 2-3 weeks.
The locations of deployment is: Interstate 8, 45 miles south of downtown Phoenix
where they have placed multiple camps at major choke points.
This I-8 corridor is very active and "VERY DANGEROUS", there is a very good chance you will see "ARMED DRUG LOADS"!! moving through the area. This opp "IS NOT" for 1st timers, we are ready and at the top of our game with all the necessary gear for this type of opp and for being self sufficient for desert camping! Interstate 8, MM 141 - Freeman Exit
With that said, the biggest thing we can do on this opp is to be seen by the public on I-8 so we will be posting on every mile
marker (that's were all the action is anyway) for a 30 mi. stretch. We provide maps/intel/phone numbers and radios on site as, there should be 2 vehicles & 4 people min. per mi. marker for safety.
To the Concerned Citizens that are working I-8 and to those in the future thank you for supporting Arizona.
Concerned Citizens continue to do the job the Federal Government won't do by securing the border south of Phoenix along Interstate 8. What we are having to do now is what should be done by Congress by putting Troops on the border.
The area south of Interstate 8 between Gila Bend (Junction 85 & I-8) and Casa Grande (Junction I-8 & I-10) is a major smuggling corridor.....drugs, IAs, weapons..... We´ve seen it all. This is approximately a 60 mile stretch, but not all that distance is active with smuggling. The traffic comes up through the Tohono D' O'dham Reservation day and night.
The fact that load vehicles use I-8 to enter this area, pick up their loads and leave the area makes them vulnerable to detection. Load areas on I-8 are typically one of the following: dirt roads, major washes and/or mile markers. Mile markers are used a "waypoints" by the load vehicles, so this also makes them vulnerable to detection.
Bottom line, if we had enough dedicated individuals "camped out" on the entire known active load up points on I-8, we could effectively shut this area down. A lot of recon has been completed in this area so we know this is doable.... just a matter of enough dedicated individuals.
This IS a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and is potentially very dangerous so participating individuals who need to be prepared to defend tthemselves.
t Abandon items found on the smuggling routes lift there by the smugglers and cleaned up by the Concerned Citizens. Photo By Concerned Citizens.
A long list of items, including abandoned vehicles, can be attributed to illegal aliens/ drug smugglers that traverse the desert. Items such as used needles, drug paraphernalia, plastic grocery bags, paper products, empty water containers, blankets, bakpaks, clothing, used disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, etc are among things you might run across. The heaps of litter long forgotten by those forging ahead come at a great cost to those who must bear the responsibility of cleaning it up. Each illegal alien leaves an average of 8 pounds of trash at layover and pickup areas. Statistics from the Border Patrol Tucson Sector report approximately 500,000 illegal aliens apprehensions in that sector for 2009. Conservatively, the Border Patrol apprehends 1 in 5 illegal aliens so that means 2, 500,000 illegal aliens leaving 20 million pounds of trash every year in the Arizona Desert !
Many argue the government is not doing its job when it comes to securing the border especially with surveillance pictures snapped in March of heavily armed drug runners in a remote desert area near Casa Grande.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says "it's a known corridor for drug and human smuggling and it's same area where Deputy Louis Puroll was shot during a gun battle with six smugglers, "he unloaded upon the suspects that were firing on him that were trying to kill him."
Puroll was shot in the side and he believes he shot one of the suspects. Sheriff Babue says this latest round of border violence underscores the dangers his deputies face every day, "literally what it appears to be squad size elements using para military tactics that are either escorting largely drug loads or illegal's."
A high ranking Mexican Army commander who insists on remaining anonymous has told the U.S. Border Fire Report that Mexican coyotes are now being trained by the Mexican Drug Cartel known as the Los Zetas and are operating in the deserts of Arizona. These highly trained former Mexican Army solders who themselves went through some of the best and latest U.S. Army training at the American tax payers expense now are passing this training onto the front line drug smugglers that guide these drug loads and human beings into the states mainly through our southern border with Mexico. They're known as "Los Zetas
See video's at: http://www.secureborderintel.org/TusconSector-armedescorts.html
This new breed of coyote now operate as a fine tuned military unit. I was able to make contact and talk with one of these new Zetas coyote smugglers. The deal was, if I would agree to not take any photo's or know his real name he would talk with me.
So I'll call him Juan. Juan told me that he had been guiding people into the USA for years and said he made a good living for him and his family of 7 kids and a wife. He said he was approached a couple of years ago by a Los Zetas officer who offered him military training and lots more money. Juan said that he picked 5 of his best workers who over the years had help him with his guiding business and they all went to a Zetas's camp for 9 weeks of training. He says " that he now makes much more money" he went on to say with this new training and man power he's able to bring many more people and loads of drugs into the US via the U.S. Mexican border. He said that where he once was paid 100 U.S. dollars per person (Illegal Alien) and 500 per pack mule (drug carrier) He now makes much more than that.
He confided that he and many others now as Los Zetas's operatives run five (5) man armed squads who lead both people who want to come to America and drug smuggling mules across the Arizona desert. " One of the members of his team runs point, two or more on each side of the group when possible or otherwise imbedded within the middle range of the group. Another brings up the rear as a tail gunner each carrying an AK 47 and the tail gunner packing a M-60 machine gun and or a 12 gouge riot shot gun. The groups range in size from 4 or five to a hundred or more per trip.
He, told me "that the weapons are used to guarantee the success of the operation". He said "there are many dangers I and my men can face in route, me and my men have used our weapons to protect the group against Rattle Snakes and even Bear attacks" 06/08/09 - 10 second video - bear on trail. But later he admitted that the main reason for having the weapons is to protect the drugs, mainly from competing drug gangs who from time to time they encounter. According to him many of the roaming gangs are looking for a fast and easy load of drugs, But also there are competing drug cartel gangs who are also trained and will try to take our loads and who want to operate on our turf. "But now we are much better prepared to deal with this and other threats that we may have to face on every trip." I asked, if and when he encounters American law enforcement would he and his men fire their weapons at them? He told me that that was not likely to happen because the routes he uses are not paroled by American authorities. He claims that this is possible because some high U.S. Government people is paid by the Zetas to not be in the area at certain times during his operations. He said " we take additional precautions to prevent that from happening". "We post our own people all along the route to I 8 and near the transfer points on the highway mile markers. We place our spotters on high ground and fly ultralight aircraft, both have communication equipment, radio's and through away cell phones. They are paid to watch for authorities and intruders, such as gangs, dangerous animals, American tourist, hikers, campers and all others who may be in the area."
Arizona estimates that there are up to million tourist known as snow birds who migrate to Arizona to winter each year, spending upwards of $1 billion dollars. Many of those snow birds camp, play and recreate on and near the dangerous U.S. Mexican Border in southern Arizona. Just like birds flying south for the winter, human residents of cold climates desire to escape the cold climates for a life of leisure. Most are unaware of the many dangers that the Mexican smugglers pose to there safety. There are signs posted on much of the Government lands warning visitors to the dangers that they my face if encountered by these dangerous smugglers. Juan, told me he is retiring, that he has made a lot of money in the last couple of years and he is going to leave his business to one of his younger associate operative from which he expects to receive payments from him for years to come. Juan is moving his family to Colorado to live the American dream.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) considers Los Zetas to be the most dangerous drug-trafficking organization in Mexico. Its members earned a reputation as super-gangsters adept at paramilitary-style ambushes and bold jailbreaks.
On the Texas-Mexico border, the Zetas are mythic, their crimes chronicled in the media and memorialized in narco-ballads.
They are the most feared, most emulated criminals in Mexico.
"They are a formidable criminal organization," says Anthony Placido, the DEA's chief of intelligence. "They're heavily armed with .50-caliber sniper rifles and heavy and light military-grade ordnance."
"They are every bit as ferocious and as capable as a military force as some of the rumors believe them to be," Placido says.
Originally, there were 31 Zetas — elite army counter-narcotics commandos who defected to work as enforcers for the Gulf Cartel. The name came from their radio code, the letter Z.
But after the 2003 arrest of Gulf crime boss Osiel Cardenas, "the lion wised up and now controls the handler," as one observer put it.
The Zetas have morphed into their own cartel. Their zone of influence ranges from the lower Texas border, south along the Atlantic and Caribbean coastal states of Mexico, through Chiapas and all the way into Guatemala, where they trans-ship South American cocaine to Mexico.
But their base remains the charmless industrial border cities in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas.
Nuevo Laredo, in Tamaulipas, is the most important trade border crossing in Latin America — and it is Zeta territory.
From 2004 to 2007, the Zetas fought a savage turf war — which included bazooka and grenade attacks — against interlopers from the Sinaloa Cartel and others.
Zetas are now operating along the U.S. Mexican border from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
These newly trained Zata solders are currently enjoying a free rain to enter this country unmolested by American authorities throughout the American Southwest where American Indian reservations, U.S. Military lands, National Parks, Monuments and U.S. forest lands are being penetrated and used by these smugglers, particularly in south central and south eastern Arizona and along the southern New Mexico border with old Mexico.
There are many gaps in the border that are not being effectively protected by American law enforcement and that at least in part is the reason concerned Americans have in the past formed minute man groups, armed themselves and patrolled the U.S. Mexican border and attempted to divert human and drug trafficking. In the past U.S. Army troops and National Guard units where also placed on the border. The U.S. has increased the numbers of the U.S. Border Patrol and Homeland security have beefed up border checks of travelers entering and exiting our country at known check points along the more than 2000 mile border with Mexico. Even with the billions of dollars having been spend on drug interdiction over the years as part of the war on drugs, the war on drugs is a failure.
People being smuggled into the U.S. in the truck loads: Most are from Mexico. Central America, South America and even from China and the Middle east. Photo by SBI. Go to: http://www.secureborderintel.org/Camera1-016.html
judge James Gray of Orange County California who has studied and worked with drug issues for years says "tens of billions of tax payer dollars have been spent on the War On Drugs and that so called war on drugs has failed."
According to long time border observer Glen Spencer "A massive number of people illegally enter the USA every day by simply walking unchallenged across our southern border. In the 1952 miles of border from California to Texas they use literally thousands of trails and paths, ever changing their routes to avoid detection. Cartel involvement has brought increased organizational skills to smuggling operations and, contrary to government claims, only a very small percentage are apprehended. Accurate statistics are impossible to gather, but the true numbers are staggering, and the general public remains largely uninformed. "
Now there are new groups forming and establishing their own organizations to monitor the situation on our southern border, one of these groups call themselves "Concerned Citizens" I recently had the opportunity to visit this low profile group as they organized monitoring and listening posts east of Gila Bend Arizona on and near I 8 a major U.S. highway that they claim is a transfer point of illegal aliens and loads of drugs on that highways many marker posts where they contend loads of human and drugs enter the U.S. through drug trafficking corridors originating in Mexico.
According to the Concerned Citizens of Arizona they want to alert the public to a new citizen activist opportunity to help them observe and report the daily invasion across our southern border with Mexico.
Daniel Webster said "This is not a Minuteman or extremist group sponsored event - just a call to action by a group of "Concerned Citizens".
If you and or your group is interested you can contact them through e-mail: dtfsdf@oco.net
Concerned Citizens report that DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and the other race baiting, ethnocentric anarchists want the people of America to believe the border is under "operational control". Nothing could be further from the truth says an organizer with the new group of "Concerned Citizens" and they have already have to deployed. They hope to video tape and educate Americans about the real threat to National Security and our public safety.
Concerned Citizens has a full blown showing of people who have come out and are enjoying our federal lands. This is people coming together to help AZ Governor Jan Brewer and the people of Arizona to bring attention to the need for National Guard on our southern border.
The group is in support of Jan Brewer signing SB1070 and say they want to help educate the public. they say "It´s time to bring back the" Minuteman Type Lines"
The group points out that there are 30 miles of area in a straight line that they cover. They say that there propose is doing what they do best..... "DETERRENCE BY PRESENCE"
The operation was kicked off and started operations 15 May the operation is expected to least at least 2-3 weeks.
The locations of deployment is: Interstate 8, 45 miles south of downtown Phoenix
where they have placed multiple camps at major choke points.
This I-8 corridor is very active and "VERY DANGEROUS", there is a very good chance you will see "ARMED DRUG LOADS"!! moving through the area. This opp "IS NOT" for 1st timers, we are ready and at the top of our game with all the necessary gear for this type of opp and for being self sufficient for desert camping! Interstate 8, MM 141 - Freeman Exit
With that said, the biggest thing we can do on this opp is to be seen by the public on I-8 so we will be posting on every mile
marker (that's were all the action is anyway) for a 30 mi. stretch. We provide maps/intel/phone numbers and radios on site as, there should be 2 vehicles & 4 people min. per mi. marker for safety.
To the Concerned Citizens that are working I-8 and to those in the future thank you for supporting Arizona.
Concerned Citizens continue to do the job the Federal Government won't do by securing the border south of Phoenix along Interstate 8. What we are having to do now is what should be done by Congress by putting Troops on the border.
The area south of Interstate 8 between Gila Bend (Junction 85 & I-8) and Casa Grande (Junction I-8 & I-10) is a major smuggling corridor.....drugs, IAs, weapons..... We´ve seen it all. This is approximately a 60 mile stretch, but not all that distance is active with smuggling. The traffic comes up through the Tohono D' O'dham Reservation day and night.
The fact that load vehicles use I-8 to enter this area, pick up their loads and leave the area makes them vulnerable to detection. Load areas on I-8 are typically one of the following: dirt roads, major washes and/or mile markers. Mile markers are used a "waypoints" by the load vehicles, so this also makes them vulnerable to detection.
Bottom line, if we had enough dedicated individuals "camped out" on the entire known active load up points on I-8, we could effectively shut this area down. A lot of recon has been completed in this area so we know this is doable.... just a matter of enough dedicated individuals.
This IS a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and is potentially very dangerous so participating individuals who need to be prepared to defend tthemselves.
t Abandon items found on the smuggling routes lift there by the smugglers and cleaned up by the Concerned Citizens. Photo By Concerned Citizens.
A long list of items, including abandoned vehicles, can be attributed to illegal aliens/ drug smugglers that traverse the desert. Items such as used needles, drug paraphernalia, plastic grocery bags, paper products, empty water containers, blankets, bakpaks, clothing, used disposable diapers, sanitary napkins, etc are among things you might run across. The heaps of litter long forgotten by those forging ahead come at a great cost to those who must bear the responsibility of cleaning it up. Each illegal alien leaves an average of 8 pounds of trash at layover and pickup areas. Statistics from the Border Patrol Tucson Sector report approximately 500,000 illegal aliens apprehensions in that sector for 2009. Conservatively, the Border Patrol apprehends 1 in 5 illegal aliens so that means 2, 500,000 illegal aliens leaving 20 million pounds of trash every year in the Arizona Desert !
Many argue the government is not doing its job when it comes to securing the border especially with surveillance pictures snapped in March of heavily armed drug runners in a remote desert area near Casa Grande.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says "it's a known corridor for drug and human smuggling and it's same area where Deputy Louis Puroll was shot during a gun battle with six smugglers, "he unloaded upon the suspects that were firing on him that were trying to kill him."
Puroll was shot in the side and he believes he shot one of the suspects. Sheriff Babue says this latest round of border violence underscores the dangers his deputies face every day, "literally what it appears to be squad size elements using para military tactics that are either escorting largely drug loads or illegal's."
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
sb 1070
1. It requires police officers to determine the immigration status of everybody they arrest before that person is released.
• The law says: "Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c)."
• What that means: This could mean lots of extra work for local police officers, who have to make the initial determination and then contact federal agents for verification, said Raymond Michalowski, an Arizona regents professor of criminology at Northern Arizona University. The law does not spell out how the determination and verification must be done.
Police officers almost always get identification from people they arrest, but most police departments don't use that information to check everybody's immigration status, he said.
"This becomes a very large, unfunded mandate for police departments," Michalowski said.
2. During any stop, detention or arrest, a police officer must try to determine a person's immigration status if the officer has reason to suspect the person is here illegally. An exception exists if making that determination might obstruct an investigation.
• The law says: "For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."
• What it means: The language - which was changed Thursday night to clarify lawful contact - effectively makes checking immigration status a "secondary enforcement" akin to the state's seat-belt laws, said Paul Senseman, the governor's spokesman.
The law doesn't force officers to go out looking for illegal immigrants, only to call immigration officials to determine the status when the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri at Kansas City law professor who helped draft the bill, said in an interview with National Public Radio.
Kobach was Attorney General John Ashcroft's chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003. He did not return phone calls from the Arizona Daily Star for this story.
He wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times that the law will most likely come into play after a traffic stop.
"A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally," he wrote.
It's unclear if the law requires this determination to be made by a federal agent in person or over the phone.
The change in wording from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" would appear to exempt victims and witnesses from the law, but the statute still dictates a significant change in traditional priorities of law enforcement agencies, said Gabriel "Jack" Chin, of the University of Arizona's James E. Rogers College of Law. Chin has been reading statutes for 25 years and an article he co-wrote was mentioned five times in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Padilla v. Kentucky, regarding the rights of illegal immigrants.
It will force officers to inquire about the immigration status of everyone they stop, detain or arrest, if there is a reasonable suspicion they are illegal immigrants, rather than focusing on determining the immigration status of people who have committed serious crimes or investigating more serious crimes, as they do now, Chin said.
"Police have to have priorities," Chin said. "They can't enforce every law against everybody. They have to decide what is most important and focus on that. Traditionally, they have focused on the most serious crimes."
The language also leaves much to the discretion of individual officers, which means it could be implemented quite differently by agencies and within agencies, regents professor Michalowski said.
And he's not sure the clarification in wording will help with the damage that might have already been done in terms of losing trust in immigrant communities that now fear any contact with police could lead to deportation.
"Once widespread fear has been created as it has in Latino communities in Arizona, a few minor word changes will not get the genie back into the bottle," Michalowski said.
Many law enforcement leaders have expressed concern that the law will discourage illegal immigrants from reporting crime to police for fear of deportation. That could diminish public safety for all residents if, for instance, a murderer or rapist is on the loose.
A Tucson police officer filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the bill on this basis, claiming the legislation would hinder investigations in Latino neighborhoods.
3. People who officers suspect are here illegally must show one of four approved identification cards to prove they are in the county legally.
• The law says: "A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
• A valid Arizona driver license.
• A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
• A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
• If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification."
What that means: If you are worried you might raise the suspicion of an officer because of your ethnicity or accent, it's best to carry your Arizona driver license or other documents that show you are here lawfully, immigrant advocates say.
Although a citizen or legal resident cannot be convicted under the new law, carrying proper ID will help to avoid having to go to jail while your immigration status is confirmed, Chin said.
But Kobach downplayed the need for anybody to carry identification in The New York Times op-ed.
"Arizona's law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver's license," he wrote. "Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country."
4. In a change made Thursday night by the bill's sponsors, the law prohibits police from using race to establish reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. The original bill prohibited using "solely" race.
• The law says: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."
• What that means: The bill's sponsor, Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said the original provision was relevant because 90 percent of people in the country illegally are from Mexico and Latin America. But after the change, he said the provision is probably unnecessary, as the U.S. Constitution already precludes racial profiling. What the change does, Pearce said, is remove a target for foes, both those in court and those criticizing the measure in speeches and demonstrations.
In The New York Times op-ed, Kobach wrote, "The Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment."
But Chin and Michalowski said the word alteration doesn't change the fact that this is a racial-profiling law. Michalowski said the removal of "solely" was a "public-relations" maneuver that likely won't change anything.
"With or without that one word the law increases the number of instances in which officers inclined to racially profile can do so," Michalowski said.
5. The law makes it a state crime to transport, conceal, harbor or shield illegal immigrants. There is an exception for child-protective-services workers, first responders, ambulance attendants and emergency medical technicians.
• The law says: "It is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to:
"1. Transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in this state, in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United States, in a means of transportation if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.
"2. Conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.
"3. Encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law."
• What that means: The passage is borrowed from federal law and only applies to people who know or recklessly disregard the fact that the person is an illegal immigrant, Kobach told The Arizona Republic.
But Michalowski said the law puts friends and family members of illegal immigrants in danger of violating the law when they are together. The law "makes citizens and legal residents criminals for providing aid to these family members and friends," he said.
"There is nothing in SB 1070 that says the law cannot be turned on them if they initiate contact with or are questioned by police in relationship to some other criminal matter," he said.
Those scenarios probably wouldn't put somebody at risk, Chin said, but he's not sure because of the inclusion of the exceptions.
6. The law makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants to work in Arizona.
• The law says: "It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state."
• What that means: This is the most clearly written part of the statute and what should be the headline of any story about the new law, Chin said.
This makes any illegal immigrant who is working or trying to get work - for example, by showing up at popular gathering spots for day laborers - at risk of being arrested by an Arizona law enforcement officer. This is a big change, because previously, a non-citizen did not commit a state crime by working or seeking work, Chin said.
7. The law also makes it a state crime for somebody to stop on the street and pick up somebody for work, although it may be hard to prove - and because of the way the law is written this may still be OK as long as the driver pulls off the road first.
• Passage: "It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic. … It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic."
• What it means: This is an attempt to make it a state crime to hire day laborers, but the way it's written it may be hard to prove without getting a confession, Chin said. As written, it seems to only make it illegal to block traffic in the street, Chin said.
• The law says: "Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c)."
• What that means: This could mean lots of extra work for local police officers, who have to make the initial determination and then contact federal agents for verification, said Raymond Michalowski, an Arizona regents professor of criminology at Northern Arizona University. The law does not spell out how the determination and verification must be done.
Police officers almost always get identification from people they arrest, but most police departments don't use that information to check everybody's immigration status, he said.
"This becomes a very large, unfunded mandate for police departments," Michalowski said.
2. During any stop, detention or arrest, a police officer must try to determine a person's immigration status if the officer has reason to suspect the person is here illegally. An exception exists if making that determination might obstruct an investigation.
• The law says: "For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation."
• What it means: The language - which was changed Thursday night to clarify lawful contact - effectively makes checking immigration status a "secondary enforcement" akin to the state's seat-belt laws, said Paul Senseman, the governor's spokesman.
The law doesn't force officers to go out looking for illegal immigrants, only to call immigration officials to determine the status when the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri at Kansas City law professor who helped draft the bill, said in an interview with National Public Radio.
Kobach was Attorney General John Ashcroft's chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003. He did not return phone calls from the Arizona Daily Star for this story.
He wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times that the law will most likely come into play after a traffic stop.
"A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally," he wrote.
It's unclear if the law requires this determination to be made by a federal agent in person or over the phone.
The change in wording from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention or arrest" would appear to exempt victims and witnesses from the law, but the statute still dictates a significant change in traditional priorities of law enforcement agencies, said Gabriel "Jack" Chin, of the University of Arizona's James E. Rogers College of Law. Chin has been reading statutes for 25 years and an article he co-wrote was mentioned five times in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Padilla v. Kentucky, regarding the rights of illegal immigrants.
It will force officers to inquire about the immigration status of everyone they stop, detain or arrest, if there is a reasonable suspicion they are illegal immigrants, rather than focusing on determining the immigration status of people who have committed serious crimes or investigating more serious crimes, as they do now, Chin said.
"Police have to have priorities," Chin said. "They can't enforce every law against everybody. They have to decide what is most important and focus on that. Traditionally, they have focused on the most serious crimes."
The language also leaves much to the discretion of individual officers, which means it could be implemented quite differently by agencies and within agencies, regents professor Michalowski said.
And he's not sure the clarification in wording will help with the damage that might have already been done in terms of losing trust in immigrant communities that now fear any contact with police could lead to deportation.
"Once widespread fear has been created as it has in Latino communities in Arizona, a few minor word changes will not get the genie back into the bottle," Michalowski said.
Many law enforcement leaders have expressed concern that the law will discourage illegal immigrants from reporting crime to police for fear of deportation. That could diminish public safety for all residents if, for instance, a murderer or rapist is on the loose.
A Tucson police officer filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the bill on this basis, claiming the legislation would hinder investigations in Latino neighborhoods.
3. People who officers suspect are here illegally must show one of four approved identification cards to prove they are in the county legally.
• The law says: "A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
• A valid Arizona driver license.
• A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
• A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
• If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification."
What that means: If you are worried you might raise the suspicion of an officer because of your ethnicity or accent, it's best to carry your Arizona driver license or other documents that show you are here lawfully, immigrant advocates say.
Although a citizen or legal resident cannot be convicted under the new law, carrying proper ID will help to avoid having to go to jail while your immigration status is confirmed, Chin said.
But Kobach downplayed the need for anybody to carry identification in The New York Times op-ed.
"Arizona's law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver's license," he wrote. "Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country."
4. In a change made Thursday night by the bill's sponsors, the law prohibits police from using race to establish reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally. The original bill prohibited using "solely" race.
• The law says: "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."
• What that means: The bill's sponsor, Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said the original provision was relevant because 90 percent of people in the country illegally are from Mexico and Latin America. But after the change, he said the provision is probably unnecessary, as the U.S. Constitution already precludes racial profiling. What the change does, Pearce said, is remove a target for foes, both those in court and those criticizing the measure in speeches and demonstrations.
In The New York Times op-ed, Kobach wrote, "The Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment."
But Chin and Michalowski said the word alteration doesn't change the fact that this is a racial-profiling law. Michalowski said the removal of "solely" was a "public-relations" maneuver that likely won't change anything.
"With or without that one word the law increases the number of instances in which officers inclined to racially profile can do so," Michalowski said.
5. The law makes it a state crime to transport, conceal, harbor or shield illegal immigrants. There is an exception for child-protective-services workers, first responders, ambulance attendants and emergency medical technicians.
• The law says: "It is unlawful for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to:
"1. Transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in this state, in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United States, in a means of transportation if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.
"2. Conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in this state, including any building or any means of transportation, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.
"3. Encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law."
• What that means: The passage is borrowed from federal law and only applies to people who know or recklessly disregard the fact that the person is an illegal immigrant, Kobach told The Arizona Republic.
But Michalowski said the law puts friends and family members of illegal immigrants in danger of violating the law when they are together. The law "makes citizens and legal residents criminals for providing aid to these family members and friends," he said.
"There is nothing in SB 1070 that says the law cannot be turned on them if they initiate contact with or are questioned by police in relationship to some other criminal matter," he said.
Those scenarios probably wouldn't put somebody at risk, Chin said, but he's not sure because of the inclusion of the exceptions.
6. The law makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants to work in Arizona.
• The law says: "It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state."
• What that means: This is the most clearly written part of the statute and what should be the headline of any story about the new law, Chin said.
This makes any illegal immigrant who is working or trying to get work - for example, by showing up at popular gathering spots for day laborers - at risk of being arrested by an Arizona law enforcement officer. This is a big change, because previously, a non-citizen did not commit a state crime by working or seeking work, Chin said.
7. The law also makes it a state crime for somebody to stop on the street and pick up somebody for work, although it may be hard to prove - and because of the way the law is written this may still be OK as long as the driver pulls off the road first.
• Passage: "It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic. … It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic."
• What it means: This is an attempt to make it a state crime to hire day laborers, but the way it's written it may be hard to prove without getting a confession, Chin said. As written, it seems to only make it illegal to block traffic in the street, Chin said.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
felipe
Calderon will be only the second foreign leader, after India's prime minister last November, to be received at the Obama White House with a state dinner, building on ties forged during Obama's two official visits to Mexico.
Trade between the two countries surpasses $1 billion dollars a day, with Mexico sending more than 80 percent of its exports to the United States. The U.S. government is funneling hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to help Mexico equip its security forces to fight powerful drug cartels.
Yet Arizona's new law to tackle illegal immigration, called "discriminatory" and "backward" by Calderon, has strained a bilateral relationship marked by regular ups and downs.
"We are bringing our protest to the United States government, during my state visit and in front of the U.S. Congress," Calderon told Reuters in an interview last week, ahead of his meeting with Obama on Wednesday.
The new Arizona law, which comes into force in July, will require police to check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.
Calderon's government has issued a travel warning for the state, signaling Mexicans citizens could be harassed by law enforcement officials there.
Obama has vowed to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. A major overhaul looks unlikely this year as Washington has been bogged down with health care and financial regulation, but the Arizona crackdown has turned attention back to the issue.
"Immigration has exploded back onto the agenda. I don't think, in the context of planning the state visit, that was anticipated," said Eric Farnsworth, vice president at the Council of the Americas in Washington.
"Both governments at the national level agree that (the Arizona law) is not the right approach. You're going to have both presidents stand shoulder to shoulder talking about the need to address immigration," he said.
FOCUS ON DRUG WAR
Obama and Calderon will also discuss cooperation to crush drug gangs whose escalating turf wars and battles with federal forces in Mexico have killed some 23,000 people since Calderon took office in December 2006 and launched an army offensive.
The apparent abduction on Friday of a prominent ruling party politician and former presidential candidate has alarmed Mexico, with many reading it as an ominous sign drug cartels or other organized crime groups may be targeting the government.
The spiraling violence worries foreign investors and makes some tourists nervous about visiting Mexico, and drug-related abductions have spilled over to the U.S. side of the border.
Most of a $1.4 billion aid package for drug-fighting gear pledged by the U.S. government in 2007 has been slow to arrive, but the State Department told Reuters recently that three Black Hawk helicopters will be delivered in October.
The United States is also trying to stop the southbound flow of cash and guns that end up in the hands of drug hitmen, said Daniel Restrepo, Obama's top advisor on Latin America.
Calderon recently praised Obama's efforts to curb drug consumption in the United States, the No. 1 market for illegal drugs like Colombian cocaine smuggled north via Mexico.
Restrepo said climate change and trade issues will also be on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.
Mexico is waiting for the United States to unveil a plan to let Mexican trucks circulate again on U.S. roads, which could end a dispute that prompted Mexico last year to slap duties on $2.4 billion worth of U.S. goods.
Trade between the two countries surpasses $1 billion dollars a day, with Mexico sending more than 80 percent of its exports to the United States. The U.S. government is funneling hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to help Mexico equip its security forces to fight powerful drug cartels.
Yet Arizona's new law to tackle illegal immigration, called "discriminatory" and "backward" by Calderon, has strained a bilateral relationship marked by regular ups and downs.
"We are bringing our protest to the United States government, during my state visit and in front of the U.S. Congress," Calderon told Reuters in an interview last week, ahead of his meeting with Obama on Wednesday.
The new Arizona law, which comes into force in July, will require police to check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.
Calderon's government has issued a travel warning for the state, signaling Mexicans citizens could be harassed by law enforcement officials there.
Obama has vowed to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. A major overhaul looks unlikely this year as Washington has been bogged down with health care and financial regulation, but the Arizona crackdown has turned attention back to the issue.
"Immigration has exploded back onto the agenda. I don't think, in the context of planning the state visit, that was anticipated," said Eric Farnsworth, vice president at the Council of the Americas in Washington.
"Both governments at the national level agree that (the Arizona law) is not the right approach. You're going to have both presidents stand shoulder to shoulder talking about the need to address immigration," he said.
FOCUS ON DRUG WAR
Obama and Calderon will also discuss cooperation to crush drug gangs whose escalating turf wars and battles with federal forces in Mexico have killed some 23,000 people since Calderon took office in December 2006 and launched an army offensive.
The apparent abduction on Friday of a prominent ruling party politician and former presidential candidate has alarmed Mexico, with many reading it as an ominous sign drug cartels or other organized crime groups may be targeting the government.
The spiraling violence worries foreign investors and makes some tourists nervous about visiting Mexico, and drug-related abductions have spilled over to the U.S. side of the border.
Most of a $1.4 billion aid package for drug-fighting gear pledged by the U.S. government in 2007 has been slow to arrive, but the State Department told Reuters recently that three Black Hawk helicopters will be delivered in October.
The United States is also trying to stop the southbound flow of cash and guns that end up in the hands of drug hitmen, said Daniel Restrepo, Obama's top advisor on Latin America.
Calderon recently praised Obama's efforts to curb drug consumption in the United States, the No. 1 market for illegal drugs like Colombian cocaine smuggled north via Mexico.
Restrepo said climate change and trade issues will also be on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.
Mexico is waiting for the United States to unveil a plan to let Mexican trucks circulate again on U.S. roads, which could end a dispute that prompted Mexico last year to slap duties on $2.4 billion worth of U.S. goods.
methadone pt 2
Methadone is a rigorously well-tested medication that is safe and efficacious for the treatment of narcotic withdrawal and dependence. For more than 30 years this synthetic narcotic has been used to treat opioid addiction. Heroin releases an excess of dopamine in the body and causes users to need an opiate continuously occupying the opioid receptor in the brain. Methadone occupies this receptor and is the stabilizing factor that permits addicts on methadone to change their behavior and to discontinue heroin use.
Taken orally once a day, methadone suppresses narcotic withdrawal for between 24 and 36 hours. Because methadone is effective in eliminating withdrawal symptoms, it is used in detoxifying opiate addicts. It is, however, only effective in cases of addiction to heroin, morphine, and other opioid drugs, and it is not an effective treatment for other drugs of abuse. Methadone reduces the cravings associated with heroin use and blocks the high from heroin, but it does not provide the euphoric rush. Consequently, methadone patients do not experience the extreme highs and lows that result from the waxing and waning of heroin in blood levels. Ultimately, the patient remains physically dependent on the opioid, but is freed from the uncontrolled, compulsive, and disruptive behavior seen in heroin addicts.
Withdrawal from methadone is much slower than that from heroin. As a result, it is possible to maintain an addict on methadone without harsh side effects. Many MMT patients require continuous treatment, sometimes over a period of years.
Methadone maintenance treatment provides the heroin addict with individualized health care and medically prescribed methadone to relieve withdrawal symptoms, reduces the opiate craving, and brings about a biochemical balance in the body. Important elements in heroin treatment include comprehensive social and rehabilitation services.
Availability of Treatment
About 20% of the estimated 810,000 heroin addicts in the United States receive MMT (American Methadone Treatment Association, 1999). At present, the operating practices of clinics and hospitals are bound by Federal regulations that restrict the use and availability of methadone. These regulations are explicitly stated in detailed protocols established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Additionally, most States have laws that control and closely monitor the distribution of this medication.
In July 1999 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the use of methadone. For the first time in more than 30 years, the NPRM proposes that this medication take its rightful place as a clinical tool in the treatment of the heroin addict. Instead of its use being mandated by regulations, programs will establish quality assurance guidelines and have to be accredited. The proposed new system will allow greater flexibility by the treating physician and ensure appropriate clinical management of the patient's needs. This proposed change in policy would eliminate most of the current regulations and allow greater clinical discretion for treatment by the physician. Accreditation establishes a clinical standard of care for the treatment of medical conditions. In the foreseeable future, clinic and hospital programs would be accredited by a national and/or State accrediting body. Responsibility for preventing the diversion of methadone to illicit use will remain with the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Is It Safe?
Like any controlled substance, there is a risk of abuse. When used as prescribed and under a physician's care, research and clinical studies suggest that long-term MMT is medically safe (COMPA, 1997). When methadone is taken under medical supervision, long-term maintenance causes no adverse effects to the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, bones, blood, brain, or other vital body organs. Methadone produces no serious side effects, although some patients experience minor symptoms such as constipation, water retention, drowsiness, skin rash, excessive sweating, and changes in libido. Once methadone dosage is adjusted and stabilized or tolerance increases, these symptoms usually subside.
Methadone is a legal medication produced by licensed and approved pharmaceutical companies using quality control standards. Under a physician's supervision, it is administered orally on a daily basis with strict program conditions and guidelines. Methadone does not impair cognitive functions. It has no adverse effects on mental capability, intelligence, or employability. It is not sedating or intoxicating, nor does it interfere with ordinary activities such as driving a car or operating machinery. Patients are able to feel pain and experience emotional reactions. Most importantly, methadone relieves the craving associated with opiate addiction. For methadone patients, typical street doses of heroin are ineffective at producing euphoria, making the use of heroin less desirable.
Figure 1. Bar graph showing outpatients methadone pre- and posttreatment statistics
Benefits
Evidence shows that continuous MMT is associated with several other benefits.
*
MMT costs about $13 per day and is considered a cost-effective alternative to incarceration (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1998a).
* MMT has a benefit-cost ratio of 4:1, meaning $4 in economic benefit accrues for every $1 spent on MMT (COMPA, 1997).
* MMT has a significant effect on the spread of HIV/AIDS infection, hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted diseases (COMPA, 1997). Heroin users are known to share needles and participate in at-risk sexual activity and prostitution, which are significant factors in the spread of many diseases. Research suggests that MMT significantly decreases the rate of HIV infection for those patients participating in MMT programs (Firshein, 1998).
MMT allows patients to be free of heroin addiction. The National Institute on Drug Abuse found that, among outpatients receiving MMT, weekly heroin use decreased by 69%. This decrease in use allows for the individual's health and productivity to improve (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1998a). Patients were no longer required to live a life of crime to support their habit, and criminal activity decreased by 52% among these patients. Full-time employment increased by 24%. In a 1994 study of drug treatment in California, researchers found that rates of illegal drug use, criminal activity, and hospitalization were lower for MMT patients than for addicts in any other type of drug treatment program.
The Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) conducted an outpatient methadone treatment (OMT) evaluation examining the long-term effects of MMT (Hubbard et al., 1997). The pretreatment problems consisted of weekly heroin use, no full-time employment, and illegal activity. Results of the 1-year follow-up showed a decrease in the number of weekly heroin users and a reduction in illegal activity after OMT. There was no significant change in unemployment rates.
A Review
MMT is one of the most monitored and regulated medical treatments in the United States. Despite the longstanding efficacy of MMT, only 20% of heroin addicts in the United States are currently in treatment. The National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Effective Medical Treatment of Heroin Addiction concluded that heroin addiction is a medical disorder that can be effectively treated in MMT programs. The Consensus panel recommended expanding access to MMT by increasing funding and minimizing Federal and State regulations. Further research must be conducted on factors leading to heroin use and the differences among various users and their ability to end opiate addiction before the demand for heroin addiction treatment can be effectively met by increased MMT availability.
Taken orally once a day, methadone suppresses narcotic withdrawal for between 24 and 36 hours. Because methadone is effective in eliminating withdrawal symptoms, it is used in detoxifying opiate addicts. It is, however, only effective in cases of addiction to heroin, morphine, and other opioid drugs, and it is not an effective treatment for other drugs of abuse. Methadone reduces the cravings associated with heroin use and blocks the high from heroin, but it does not provide the euphoric rush. Consequently, methadone patients do not experience the extreme highs and lows that result from the waxing and waning of heroin in blood levels. Ultimately, the patient remains physically dependent on the opioid, but is freed from the uncontrolled, compulsive, and disruptive behavior seen in heroin addicts.
Withdrawal from methadone is much slower than that from heroin. As a result, it is possible to maintain an addict on methadone without harsh side effects. Many MMT patients require continuous treatment, sometimes over a period of years.
Methadone maintenance treatment provides the heroin addict with individualized health care and medically prescribed methadone to relieve withdrawal symptoms, reduces the opiate craving, and brings about a biochemical balance in the body. Important elements in heroin treatment include comprehensive social and rehabilitation services.
Availability of Treatment
About 20% of the estimated 810,000 heroin addicts in the United States receive MMT (American Methadone Treatment Association, 1999). At present, the operating practices of clinics and hospitals are bound by Federal regulations that restrict the use and availability of methadone. These regulations are explicitly stated in detailed protocols established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Additionally, most States have laws that control and closely monitor the distribution of this medication.
In July 1999 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the use of methadone. For the first time in more than 30 years, the NPRM proposes that this medication take its rightful place as a clinical tool in the treatment of the heroin addict. Instead of its use being mandated by regulations, programs will establish quality assurance guidelines and have to be accredited. The proposed new system will allow greater flexibility by the treating physician and ensure appropriate clinical management of the patient's needs. This proposed change in policy would eliminate most of the current regulations and allow greater clinical discretion for treatment by the physician. Accreditation establishes a clinical standard of care for the treatment of medical conditions. In the foreseeable future, clinic and hospital programs would be accredited by a national and/or State accrediting body. Responsibility for preventing the diversion of methadone to illicit use will remain with the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Is It Safe?
Like any controlled substance, there is a risk of abuse. When used as prescribed and under a physician's care, research and clinical studies suggest that long-term MMT is medically safe (COMPA, 1997). When methadone is taken under medical supervision, long-term maintenance causes no adverse effects to the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, bones, blood, brain, or other vital body organs. Methadone produces no serious side effects, although some patients experience minor symptoms such as constipation, water retention, drowsiness, skin rash, excessive sweating, and changes in libido. Once methadone dosage is adjusted and stabilized or tolerance increases, these symptoms usually subside.
Methadone is a legal medication produced by licensed and approved pharmaceutical companies using quality control standards. Under a physician's supervision, it is administered orally on a daily basis with strict program conditions and guidelines. Methadone does not impair cognitive functions. It has no adverse effects on mental capability, intelligence, or employability. It is not sedating or intoxicating, nor does it interfere with ordinary activities such as driving a car or operating machinery. Patients are able to feel pain and experience emotional reactions. Most importantly, methadone relieves the craving associated with opiate addiction. For methadone patients, typical street doses of heroin are ineffective at producing euphoria, making the use of heroin less desirable.
Figure 1. Bar graph showing outpatients methadone pre- and posttreatment statistics
Benefits
Evidence shows that continuous MMT is associated with several other benefits.
*
MMT costs about $13 per day and is considered a cost-effective alternative to incarceration (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1998a).
* MMT has a benefit-cost ratio of 4:1, meaning $4 in economic benefit accrues for every $1 spent on MMT (COMPA, 1997).
* MMT has a significant effect on the spread of HIV/AIDS infection, hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted diseases (COMPA, 1997). Heroin users are known to share needles and participate in at-risk sexual activity and prostitution, which are significant factors in the spread of many diseases. Research suggests that MMT significantly decreases the rate of HIV infection for those patients participating in MMT programs (Firshein, 1998).
MMT allows patients to be free of heroin addiction. The National Institute on Drug Abuse found that, among outpatients receiving MMT, weekly heroin use decreased by 69%. This decrease in use allows for the individual's health and productivity to improve (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1998a). Patients were no longer required to live a life of crime to support their habit, and criminal activity decreased by 52% among these patients. Full-time employment increased by 24%. In a 1994 study of drug treatment in California, researchers found that rates of illegal drug use, criminal activity, and hospitalization were lower for MMT patients than for addicts in any other type of drug treatment program.
The Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) conducted an outpatient methadone treatment (OMT) evaluation examining the long-term effects of MMT (Hubbard et al., 1997). The pretreatment problems consisted of weekly heroin use, no full-time employment, and illegal activity. Results of the 1-year follow-up showed a decrease in the number of weekly heroin users and a reduction in illegal activity after OMT. There was no significant change in unemployment rates.
A Review
MMT is one of the most monitored and regulated medical treatments in the United States. Despite the longstanding efficacy of MMT, only 20% of heroin addicts in the United States are currently in treatment. The National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Effective Medical Treatment of Heroin Addiction concluded that heroin addiction is a medical disorder that can be effectively treated in MMT programs. The Consensus panel recommended expanding access to MMT by increasing funding and minimizing Federal and State regulations. Further research must be conducted on factors leading to heroin use and the differences among various users and their ability to end opiate addiction before the demand for heroin addiction treatment can be effectively met by increased MMT availability.
Monday, May 17, 2010
zetas
The border town of Reynosa, in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, is under siege.
There's a three-way street war between the Mexican authorities and two drug cartels competing for the lucrative routes north into McAllen, Texas. With eight journalists having been abducted, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, citizens have taken matters into their own hands.
Meet the mayor risking his life to stop the violence spilling over the border.
Cellphones and social media such as Twitter are now their tools and their source of information.
"Shooting on the road MTY – Victoria," read one tweet.
"Situation of risk in the area of Col. Achilles Serda, Plaza. Unexploded ordinance. TAKE PRECAUTIONS," read another.
Aldo Mendez, 29, a construction manager living with his family in Reynosa, is an active Tweeter. "There are many combat confrontations between the army and the drug cartels," Mendez told ABCNews.com. "So what can we do?" he asked. "There is no info on the primetime news, local or national."
The U.S. Consular office in Reynosa was shut down in late February after reports of gun battles breaking out in the streets. The office was reopened 10 days later. In April, the U.S. Consulates in Nuevo Laredo and Piedras Negras, border towns west of Reynosa, were shut down for two days after a grenade was thrown over the U.S. Consulate fence in Nuevo Laredo. There were no injuries, but some damage was reported.
A Warden's message, information released on the U.S. Consulates website in Monterrey, said: "Some recent confrontations between Mexican authorities and drug cartel members have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades."
That message reflects the changing nature of this violence.
Bruce Bagley, Latin American affairs expert and chair of the international department at the University of Miami, has studied Mexican drug cartels and says they're fighting to take control of a $15-16 billion trade.
"We have seen Tijuana percolate up, Mexicali percolate up, and certainly El Paso Juarez percolate up -- Reynosa is one more," Bagley told ABCNews.com.
Referring to the Reynosa situation, he said, "The Zetas have been the architects of all this."
The Zetas are a cartel, many of whose members were once special forces working for the government.
There's a three-way street war between the Mexican authorities and two drug cartels competing for the lucrative routes north into McAllen, Texas. With eight journalists having been abducted, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, citizens have taken matters into their own hands.
Meet the mayor risking his life to stop the violence spilling over the border.
Cellphones and social media such as Twitter are now their tools and their source of information.
"Shooting on the road MTY – Victoria," read one tweet.
"Situation of risk in the area of Col. Achilles Serda, Plaza. Unexploded ordinance. TAKE PRECAUTIONS," read another.
Aldo Mendez, 29, a construction manager living with his family in Reynosa, is an active Tweeter. "There are many combat confrontations between the army and the drug cartels," Mendez told ABCNews.com. "So what can we do?" he asked. "There is no info on the primetime news, local or national."
The U.S. Consular office in Reynosa was shut down in late February after reports of gun battles breaking out in the streets. The office was reopened 10 days later. In April, the U.S. Consulates in Nuevo Laredo and Piedras Negras, border towns west of Reynosa, were shut down for two days after a grenade was thrown over the U.S. Consulate fence in Nuevo Laredo. There were no injuries, but some damage was reported.
A Warden's message, information released on the U.S. Consulates website in Monterrey, said: "Some recent confrontations between Mexican authorities and drug cartel members have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades."
That message reflects the changing nature of this violence.
Bruce Bagley, Latin American affairs expert and chair of the international department at the University of Miami, has studied Mexican drug cartels and says they're fighting to take control of a $15-16 billion trade.
"We have seen Tijuana percolate up, Mexicali percolate up, and certainly El Paso Juarez percolate up -- Reynosa is one more," Bagley told ABCNews.com.
Referring to the Reynosa situation, he said, "The Zetas have been the architects of all this."
The Zetas are a cartel, many of whose members were once special forces working for the government.
sinaloa
Internal documents from one of Mexico’s largest and most profitable drug trafficking cartels help explain why the group’s leader remains at large, nearly a decade after he boldly escaped from a maximum-security prison by hiding in a laundry cart.
Some of the people who are supposed to be pursuing him are apparently on his payroll.
The paperwork, recovered by the Mexican authorities from a suspected associate of the drug don, Joaquín Guzmán, show that he has a sophisticated counterintelligence operation and that he is a master at buying off top police officers and soldiers with his ample drug profits.
The documents, leaked to Mexico’s Reforma newspaper, were recovered from a Hummer last year that the authorities said belonged to Roberto Beltrán Burgos, who is suspected of being a lieutenant of Mr. Guzmán’s.
The papers, including some internal government documents and ledgers written in code, strongly indicate that Mr. Guzmán — who goes by the name El Chapo, or Shorty — knows about the deployment of law enforcement officials beforehand, has the cellphone numbers and e-mail addresses of many of those pursuing him and regularly pays off people on the inside.
Mr. Guzmán makes heavy use of land routes to get cocaine, marijuana and other drugs to the United States, but court records also revealed by Reforma indicate that he is exploiting Mexico’s Atlantic and Pacific coastlines as well, with confederates working at numerous strategic ports.
“As these documents show, it’s clear that he has informants at various levels of law enforcement,” said Malcolm Beith, a journalist who has a book coming out on the hunt for Mr. Guzmán called “The Last Narco.”
“Obviously, he has information leaked to him before any raid,” Mr. Beith said. “He has so many levels of protection.”
Despite President Felipe Calderón’s aggressive antidrug offensive, Mr. Guzmán’s Sinaloa Cartel continues to dominate the market, and much of its top leadership remains intact. That has led to suggestions by some critics that the government has gone easy on Mr. Guzmán’s operation, an accusation Mr. Calderón forcefully denies.
“It’s absolutely false,” the president told reporters in February. “I can state clearly that the government has attacked without favor all criminal groups in Mexico without taking into consideration whether it is the cartel of so-and-so or what’s-his-name. We’ve fought them all.”
As evidence, Mr. Calderón points to members of Mr. Guzmán’s operation who have been killed or captured, including Vicente Zambada, the son of one of the cartel’s top leaders, who was recently extradited to the United States. But critics point out that with tens of thousands of arrests over the last three years, other cartels have suffered far more detentions than the traffickers in Sinaloa.
Some of those involved in the hunt for Mr. Guzmán say it is not a lack of effort that has stymied their efforts. Rather, they say, his infiltration of communities is so extensive that even when surprised he can find a way to escape. And the documents indicate that he is not surprised all that often.
Mr. Guzmán does not give interviews, although one of his fellow leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, Ismael Zambada, known as El Mayo, recently spoke to Proceso, a Mexican newsmagazine. Julio Scherer García, its editor, described a series of cloak-and-dagger interactions with middlemen that eventually led him to a mountain hideaway, where Mr. Zambada awaited him.
“The problem with the drug business is that it involves millions,” Mr. Zambada was quoted as saying. “How do you beat that? As for the bosses, jailed, dead or extradited, their replacements are standing by.”
Some of the people who are supposed to be pursuing him are apparently on his payroll.
The paperwork, recovered by the Mexican authorities from a suspected associate of the drug don, Joaquín Guzmán, show that he has a sophisticated counterintelligence operation and that he is a master at buying off top police officers and soldiers with his ample drug profits.
The documents, leaked to Mexico’s Reforma newspaper, were recovered from a Hummer last year that the authorities said belonged to Roberto Beltrán Burgos, who is suspected of being a lieutenant of Mr. Guzmán’s.
The papers, including some internal government documents and ledgers written in code, strongly indicate that Mr. Guzmán — who goes by the name El Chapo, or Shorty — knows about the deployment of law enforcement officials beforehand, has the cellphone numbers and e-mail addresses of many of those pursuing him and regularly pays off people on the inside.
Mr. Guzmán makes heavy use of land routes to get cocaine, marijuana and other drugs to the United States, but court records also revealed by Reforma indicate that he is exploiting Mexico’s Atlantic and Pacific coastlines as well, with confederates working at numerous strategic ports.
“As these documents show, it’s clear that he has informants at various levels of law enforcement,” said Malcolm Beith, a journalist who has a book coming out on the hunt for Mr. Guzmán called “The Last Narco.”
“Obviously, he has information leaked to him before any raid,” Mr. Beith said. “He has so many levels of protection.”
Despite President Felipe Calderón’s aggressive antidrug offensive, Mr. Guzmán’s Sinaloa Cartel continues to dominate the market, and much of its top leadership remains intact. That has led to suggestions by some critics that the government has gone easy on Mr. Guzmán’s operation, an accusation Mr. Calderón forcefully denies.
“It’s absolutely false,” the president told reporters in February. “I can state clearly that the government has attacked without favor all criminal groups in Mexico without taking into consideration whether it is the cartel of so-and-so or what’s-his-name. We’ve fought them all.”
As evidence, Mr. Calderón points to members of Mr. Guzmán’s operation who have been killed or captured, including Vicente Zambada, the son of one of the cartel’s top leaders, who was recently extradited to the United States. But critics point out that with tens of thousands of arrests over the last three years, other cartels have suffered far more detentions than the traffickers in Sinaloa.
Some of those involved in the hunt for Mr. Guzmán say it is not a lack of effort that has stymied their efforts. Rather, they say, his infiltration of communities is so extensive that even when surprised he can find a way to escape. And the documents indicate that he is not surprised all that often.
Mr. Guzmán does not give interviews, although one of his fellow leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, Ismael Zambada, known as El Mayo, recently spoke to Proceso, a Mexican newsmagazine. Julio Scherer García, its editor, described a series of cloak-and-dagger interactions with middlemen that eventually led him to a mountain hideaway, where Mr. Zambada awaited him.
“The problem with the drug business is that it involves millions,” Mr. Zambada was quoted as saying. “How do you beat that? As for the bosses, jailed, dead or extradited, their replacements are standing by.”
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
the gospel
Religion
In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.
Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, and how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody.
Religion is exquisitely profitable, with most adherents tithing a portion of their income. The churches, synagogues, and mosques, which do little to serve their community outside of "outreach programs" (marketing and recruiting), pay almost no taxes.
Religion spreads like disease through societies, rarely coexisting with pre-existing mythologies, rather preferring to conquer or be conquered. Religion is anything but tolerant.
religion is ridiculous. Mythology and religion are synonymous, and none is better than another. Religion is malicious, malevolent, and unworthy of respect.
In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to recuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.
Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes "God did it" seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, and how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody.
Religion is exquisitely profitable, with most adherents tithing a portion of their income. The churches, synagogues, and mosques, which do little to serve their community outside of "outreach programs" (marketing and recruiting), pay almost no taxes.
Religion spreads like disease through societies, rarely coexisting with pre-existing mythologies, rather preferring to conquer or be conquered. Religion is anything but tolerant.
religion is ridiculous. Mythology and religion are synonymous, and none is better than another. Religion is malicious, malevolent, and unworthy of respect.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
christian nation
Americans don’t need the government to tell them when or how to pray.
Americans have the right to pray for whomever they want and in what manner they like. But we don’t need an officially designated government proclamation to do that. Our people are free to engage in worship whenever they want. Allowing government to set aside certain days for prayer and worship implies that the state has some say over our religious lives when it does not. It is simply not the business of government to advise when, if and how people pray.
The U.S. Constitution mandates separation of church and state. This means it is the job of religious leaders, not government officials, to call people to pray. Americans are free to heed or ignore such prayer requests as they see fit. The NDP is problematic because it presumes that Americans should take direction on their religious lives from the government. It suggests that they will engage in certain religious activities because the government recommends they do. People do not need government directives to pray or take part in any other form of worship.
The National Day of Prayer has been hijacked by the Religious Right, which uses it to promote religious bigotry.
In recent years, most NDP activities have been coordinated by the “National Day of Prayer Task Force,” an organization based in Colorado Springs and run by Shirley Dobson, wife of Religious Right radio broadcaster James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.
Despite its official-sounding name, the NDP Task Force is a private group with no connection to government. Nevertheless, the organization has taken the lead in sponsoring Prayer Day events in many cities and states. The Task Force is exclusionary and does not permit participation by non-fundamentalist Christians. The materials it distributes promote a rigid fundamentalist outlook not shared by most Americans.
On the NDP’s Web site, volunteers are required to sign a statement of faith reflecting fundamentalist tenets, list church affiliation and provide clergy references. Volunteers are ordered to make sure no non-Christians speak at NDP events. (Non-Christians may only attend as long as they agree to remain silent.)
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values,” reads the Web site. “People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
But even this is not accurate. The use of the term “Judeo-Christian” is deceptive. In fact, the Task Force promotes Christian fundamentalism at every turn. There is nothing “Judeo” about the Task Force’s outlook. Volunteers are told, “In both public and private life, we ask that you demonstrate the commitment you have made to Jesus Christ in the following areas: spiritual maturity, emotional stability, healthy personal relationships, financial responsibility, and a stable living situation.”
Volunteers, says the Task Force, must show “a passionate devotion to advancing Christ’s Kingdom and the cause of prayer in our nation.” They are required to affirm that they will “ensure a strong, consistent Christian message throughout the nation” and must endorse a statement reading, “I commit that NDP activities I serve with will be conducted solely by Christians while those with differing beliefs are welcome to attend.”
The Task Force’s Mission Statement reads that it seeks to “communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the seven centers of power: Government, Military, Media, Business, Education, Church and Family.”
The group’s “Vision and Values” include: “foster unity within the Christian church” and “publicize and preserve America’s Christian heritage.”
The National Day of Prayer has become a vehicle for spreading misinformation about American history and society.
In years past, the Task Force has used the NDP to promote bogus “Christian nation” history and advocate for erroneous claims that fundamentalist Christians are being persecuted in the United States or denied their right to spread their faith.
The NDP Web site sells a school curriculum called “Drive Thru History” that promotes a bogus version of American history promoted by David Barton, a Texas Religious Right activist who argues, against all evidence, that the United States was founded as a “Christian nation.”
NDP materials also recycle fallacious Religious Right attacks on public schools. The NDP Web site criticized public schools for advocating such things as “pluralism, ‘tolerance,’ and the rejection of absolute truth.”
It goes on to assert, “While the textbooks used in colonial days promoted a faith-based worldview, today’s curricula are replete with materials that accept and, in some cases, even condone, immoral activities and lifestyles. Meanwhile, revisionist teachings about our country’s founding remove any reference to the Christian underpinnings that have long set our nation apart and helped it thrive.”
The National Day of Prayer is not historical.
The NDP is of recent vintage. It was created by Congress in 1952. The scheduling of the event used to change, but it was codified by Congress in 1988 (after pressure from the Religious Right) as the first Thursday in May.
Prior to 1952, some presidents issued proclamations calling for days of prayer – but not all did. Thomas Jefferson refused to issue such proclamations, observing, “Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”
Acting at the behest of Congress, James Madison issued a few prayer proclamations during the War of 1812 but later wrote that he regretted the move. Governmental religious proclamations, Madison observed, “seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.” He warned that there would always be a tendency “to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect.”
President Andrew Jackson opposed these proclamations as well. Asked to issue one in 1832, Jackson refused, writing, “I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”
The National Day of Prayer Is Unnecessary.
America does not need an official, government-mandated “National Day of Prayer.” Religious individuals who feel strongly about the country are free to pray for it at any time. They do not need to be directed or encouraged by government.
Government should refrain from sponsoring religious worship. It would be best if the National Day of Prayer were ended entirely. If that is not possible, the event, at the very least, should be pried free from the suffocating grasp of the Religious Right.
Americans have the right to pray for whomever they want and in what manner they like. But we don’t need an officially designated government proclamation to do that. Our people are free to engage in worship whenever they want. Allowing government to set aside certain days for prayer and worship implies that the state has some say over our religious lives when it does not. It is simply not the business of government to advise when, if and how people pray.
The U.S. Constitution mandates separation of church and state. This means it is the job of religious leaders, not government officials, to call people to pray. Americans are free to heed or ignore such prayer requests as they see fit. The NDP is problematic because it presumes that Americans should take direction on their religious lives from the government. It suggests that they will engage in certain religious activities because the government recommends they do. People do not need government directives to pray or take part in any other form of worship.
The National Day of Prayer has been hijacked by the Religious Right, which uses it to promote religious bigotry.
In recent years, most NDP activities have been coordinated by the “National Day of Prayer Task Force,” an organization based in Colorado Springs and run by Shirley Dobson, wife of Religious Right radio broadcaster James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.
Despite its official-sounding name, the NDP Task Force is a private group with no connection to government. Nevertheless, the organization has taken the lead in sponsoring Prayer Day events in many cities and states. The Task Force is exclusionary and does not permit participation by non-fundamentalist Christians. The materials it distributes promote a rigid fundamentalist outlook not shared by most Americans.
On the NDP’s Web site, volunteers are required to sign a statement of faith reflecting fundamentalist tenets, list church affiliation and provide clergy references. Volunteers are ordered to make sure no non-Christians speak at NDP events. (Non-Christians may only attend as long as they agree to remain silent.)
“The National Day of Prayer Task Force was a creation of the National Prayer Committee for the expressed purpose of organizing and promoting prayer observances conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values,” reads the Web site. “People with other theological and philosophical views are, of course, free to organize and participate in activities that are consistent with their own beliefs.”
But even this is not accurate. The use of the term “Judeo-Christian” is deceptive. In fact, the Task Force promotes Christian fundamentalism at every turn. There is nothing “Judeo” about the Task Force’s outlook. Volunteers are told, “In both public and private life, we ask that you demonstrate the commitment you have made to Jesus Christ in the following areas: spiritual maturity, emotional stability, healthy personal relationships, financial responsibility, and a stable living situation.”
Volunteers, says the Task Force, must show “a passionate devotion to advancing Christ’s Kingdom and the cause of prayer in our nation.” They are required to affirm that they will “ensure a strong, consistent Christian message throughout the nation” and must endorse a statement reading, “I commit that NDP activities I serve with will be conducted solely by Christians while those with differing beliefs are welcome to attend.”
The Task Force’s Mission Statement reads that it seeks to “communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership in the seven centers of power: Government, Military, Media, Business, Education, Church and Family.”
The group’s “Vision and Values” include: “foster unity within the Christian church” and “publicize and preserve America’s Christian heritage.”
The National Day of Prayer has become a vehicle for spreading misinformation about American history and society.
In years past, the Task Force has used the NDP to promote bogus “Christian nation” history and advocate for erroneous claims that fundamentalist Christians are being persecuted in the United States or denied their right to spread their faith.
The NDP Web site sells a school curriculum called “Drive Thru History” that promotes a bogus version of American history promoted by David Barton, a Texas Religious Right activist who argues, against all evidence, that the United States was founded as a “Christian nation.”
NDP materials also recycle fallacious Religious Right attacks on public schools. The NDP Web site criticized public schools for advocating such things as “pluralism, ‘tolerance,’ and the rejection of absolute truth.”
It goes on to assert, “While the textbooks used in colonial days promoted a faith-based worldview, today’s curricula are replete with materials that accept and, in some cases, even condone, immoral activities and lifestyles. Meanwhile, revisionist teachings about our country’s founding remove any reference to the Christian underpinnings that have long set our nation apart and helped it thrive.”
The National Day of Prayer is not historical.
The NDP is of recent vintage. It was created by Congress in 1952. The scheduling of the event used to change, but it was codified by Congress in 1988 (after pressure from the Religious Right) as the first Thursday in May.
Prior to 1952, some presidents issued proclamations calling for days of prayer – but not all did. Thomas Jefferson refused to issue such proclamations, observing, “Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”
Acting at the behest of Congress, James Madison issued a few prayer proclamations during the War of 1812 but later wrote that he regretted the move. Governmental religious proclamations, Madison observed, “seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.” He warned that there would always be a tendency “to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect.”
President Andrew Jackson opposed these proclamations as well. Asked to issue one in 1832, Jackson refused, writing, “I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”
The National Day of Prayer Is Unnecessary.
America does not need an official, government-mandated “National Day of Prayer.” Religious individuals who feel strongly about the country are free to pray for it at any time. They do not need to be directed or encouraged by government.
Government should refrain from sponsoring religious worship. It would be best if the National Day of Prayer were ended entirely. If that is not possible, the event, at the very least, should be pried free from the suffocating grasp of the Religious Right.
amen
Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
* 1. Atheism
* 2. An Adequate Concept of God
* 3. Agnosticism
* 4. The Ethics of Belief
* 5. The Grey Area: Example of the So-called Fine Tuning of the Fundamental Constants of Nature
* 6. Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’
* Bibliography
* Other Internet Resources
* Related Entries
1. Atheism
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.
The word ‘theism’ exhibits family resemblance in another direction. For example should a pantheist call herself an atheist? Or again should belief in Plato's Form of the Good or in John Leslie's idea of God as an abstract principle that brings value into existence count as theism (Leslie 1979)? Let us consider pantheism.
At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism. Probably the theologian Paul Tillich was a pantheist in little more than this minimal sense and his characterising God as the ground of being has no clear meaning. The unanswerable question ‘Why is there anything at all?’ may give us mystical or at any rate dizzy feelings but such feelings do not differentiate the pantheist from the atheist. However there are stronger forms of pantheism which do differentiate the pantheist from the atheist (Levine, 1994). For example the pantheist may think that the universe as a whole has strongly emergent and also mind-like qualities. Not emergent merely in the weak sense that a radio receiver's ability to receive signals from distant stations might be said to be emergent because it is not a mere jumble of components (Smart 1981). The components have to be wired together in a certain way, and indeed the workings of the individual components can be explained by the laws of physics. Contrast this with a concept of emergence that I shall call ‘strong emergence’. C. D. Broad in his Scientific Thought (Broad 1923) held that the chemical properties of common salt could not even in principle be deduced from those of sodium and chlorine separately, at the very time at which the quantum theory of the chemical bond was beginning to be developed. Though the mind has seemed to some to be strongly emergent from its physical basis, it can be argued that developments in the philosophy of mind, cognitive science and neuroscience favour weak emergence only.
One strong form of pantheism ascribes mental properties to the cosmos. If the weak sense of emergence was adopted we would be faced with the question of whether the universe looks like a giant brain. Patently it does not. Samuel Alexander asserted, rather than argued, that mentality strongly emerged from space-time, and then that at some future time there will emerge a new and at present hardly imaginable level which he called ‘deity’ (Alexander 1927). It is hard to tell whether such an implausible metaphysics should be classified as as pantheism or as theism. Certainly such a deity would not be the infinite creator God of orthodox theism. A. N. Whitehead, too, had a theory of an emergent deity, though with affinities to Platonism, which he saw as the realm of potentiality and therefore he connected the atemporal with the contingent temporal deity (Whitehead 1929). Such views will not deliver, however implausibly, more than a finite deity, not the God of core theism. God would be just one more thing in the universe, however awesome and admirable.
The weak form of pantheism accepts that the physical universe is all and eschews strong emergence. Sometimes the weak form of pantheism is rhetorically disguised as theism, with God characterised as ‘absolute depth’ or some equally baffling expression, as by Paul Tillich. At any rate, whether or not we accept pantheism as a sort of theism, what we mean by ‘atheism’ will vary according to what in the dialectical situation we count as theism.
2. An Adequate Concept of God
This brings us naturally to the question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.
It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.
One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.
3. Agnosticism
Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society, which flourished for over a decade and to which belonged notable thinkers and leaders of opinion. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed “to an unknown God”. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of ‘agnostic’ in a theological context.
Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief.
4. The Ethics of Belief
It is therefore useful, at this point of the discussion, to consider some contentions brought forward by the mathematician W. K. Clifford in his well known paper ‘The Ethics of Belief’ first published in 1877 (Clifford 1999). It might be said that beliefs are not actions and so are not subject to our will, but Clifford gave good examples of how we can induce expedient or comforting beliefs in ourselves. Of course we might also think of the argument of Pascal's wager where he advises the doubter in the Christian religion to frequent the company of priests and other committed Catholics, to avoid reading sceptical books, and to use holy water and other psychological expedients, so as to induce in himself belief in the Catholic faith. Clifford gives some telling examples of how we can induce in ourselves beliefs which run counter to the evidence before us. One is of a ship owner who makes a fortune by transporting emigrants in old and unseaworthy ships. He toys with the idea that he should not allow one such ship to sail, and instead to have it overhauled and refitted. He talks himself into allowing the ship to sail. He reflects that up to the present the ship has survived bad storms. If religious he may turn to Providence. Spurred on by greed and self-interest he induces in himself the comfortable conviction that all will be well, but in fact the ship and all aboard are lost. We can agree that the ship owner's action in inducing the optimistic belief was morally highly reprehensible. Clifford makes the further remark that even if by good luck the ship did reach port we should still regard his optimistic belief as morally reprehensible. In fact, Clifford urges, it is always reprehensible to believe on insufficient grounds.
Clifford was not a philosophical sceptic about induction . He was an empiricist who assumed the uniformity of nature, belief in which was justified by the success of science and so, as he thought, not contrary to his own prohibition. Philosophers may think this too quick. However he rightly was not inclined to say, as a naïve follower of K. R. Popper might, that scientific theories can only be refuted, never established. It would surely be absurd to say that we now know no more than Galileo did. Alan Musgrave has astutely remarked that even if we agree that the fact that a theory has so far survived severe tests does not provide a reason for the hypothesis, nevertheless it does provide a reason for believing the hypothesis (Musgrave 1974). Philosophers of science now put more stress on the hypothetico-deductive method, in the partially holistic nature of theories, and the way in which justification of theories depends on the coherence of our beliefs. Science can even improve its own methodology, so that the nature of science is well captured by Neurath's simile of scientists as like sailors on a boat which they build and repair while still at sea. Clifford's contention about the reprehensibility of believing without or against the evidence still stands. Thus there are people who believe the Old Testament literally and with whom it is impossible to talk about biological evolution or modern cosmology. They often say explicitly that they will read and believe only what they find it comforting to read and believe.
To give a correct and fully general account of the nature of justified belief is difficult and inevitably controversial. Furthermore, though the notion of knowledge as justified true belief runs up against ingenious counterexamples proposed by Edmund Gettier (Gettier 1963) , nevertheless for the present purpose of distinguishing atheism from agnosticism it is good enough to treat knowledge as at least justified true belief. Clifford was of course concerned with the ethics of belief, not of knowledge, and indeed the latter does not make much sense, since ‘know’ is a success word. Later we shall look at the question of whether we should say that an atheist is someone who claims to know that there is no God or someone who at any rate believes this.
Clifford goes on to say that even if the ship in his example had by good fortune not foundered in the storms and high seas, or perhaps by good fortune encountered only calm seas and pleasant winds, the ship owner's cultivation of his unreasonable and dishonest belief would still have been dishonourable and reprehensible. Here he speaks like a virtue ethicist but the view can be consequentialist, since Clifford stresses that although some may derive comfort from their credulity, this credulity would tend to spread or be reinforced and so would in general have unfortunate consequences. Of course that there is no evidence for God's existence is not necessarily evidence for God's nonexistence, though it might be if we had reason for thinking that if God existed there would be evidence for this. However this may be, Clifford was adamant in describing the consequential evils of believing without evidence. Indeed he cast his net widely when he said that it is not only the leaders of men who have the duty of proportioning belief to evidence. ‘Every rustic’, he says, ‘who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race’.
It is undeniable that many, perhaps most, theists do not even attempt to reconcile their belief in God or in the tenets of a particular religion with philosophical arguments or with plausibility in the light of total science. On the other hand many scientists, especially some physicists and cosmologists, and some philosophers, do claim to believe in God because of evidence, namely, because of the fact that there are simple laws of nature and even more so on the apparent so-called ‘fine tuning’ of the fundamental physical constants which will be discussed shortly. Perhaps, however, most theists believe in God simply because their parents and teachers have told them that he exists. And perhaps the parents and teachers believe in God because of what their parents and teachers told them. Must we always refuse to believe because of authority? Obviously not. Science is an interactive social phenomenon and depends heavily on testimony, as indeed does our commonsense and historical knowledge. We can think of the scientific community as a vast interconnected brain. Bits of scientific testimony can be checked and experiments repeated. Clifford gives the example of a chemical fact for which, being no chemist himself, he relies on the testimony of a chemist. He knows nothing against the chemist's character and he knows the professional training of the chemist. Though he has never himself verified the chemical proposition or even seen an experiment which verified it, nevertheless , Clifford says, the proposition is never beyond the reach of experimental checking. Also the experiment may have been actually performed by his informant, though the informant may just have relied on other well credentialled chemists.
It could be contended that Clifford was too verificationist here. Beliefs can be very conjectural but arguably plausible in the light of our more directly tested scientific hypotheses. There is perhaps a grey area between well tested or testable science and purely transcendent theology and metaphysics. Let us turn to consider an already mentioned example of this.
5. The Grey Area: Example of the So-called Fine Tuning of the Fundamental Constants of Nature
The fundamental physical and cosmological constants seem to be finely tuned (in a sense that does not immediately imply the existence of a fine tuner) so that if they were even quite slightly different in relation to one another a universe such as ours with galaxies, stars, planets, life and minds could not have existed. Not only is the range of suitable variation very small in the case of individual pairs of constants, but this is so for many such pairs, and so the a priori probability of a universe like ours is (to speak loosely) almost infinitesimal. Some philosophers, theologians, and (in their less professional moments) physicists and cosmologists have seen this fact of the very small prior probability of a universe like ours as indicating a use of scientific method as a route to theism. (See some of the articles, pro and con in Manson 2003.) The probability of the fine tuning is raised by the hypothesis of a creator God arranging the constants so as to permit the evolution of life and consciousness in which it is assumed that God has an interest.
Suppose that we judge hypothesis h to provide the best explanation (supposing it true) of empirical or already accepted facts e . If so we think it rational to believe h or at least to take it very seriously. In mainstream science if an hypothesis is accepted as the best explanation (where ‘best’ can include various virtues such as simplicity and comprehensiveness as well as a certain empirical adequacy) there is a good hope that in the future fresh independent tests of the hypothesis may be possible so that the hypothesis may become part of mainstream science. The fine tuning argument for theism seems to be one that must be left as without prospect of becoming part of mainstream science. Nevertheless it is not clear that a philosopher or theologian who supported her belief in theism by such an argument to the best explanation would be ipso facto reprehensible or dishonourable in the way that Clifford thought. She does think that she is arguing from evidence, namely the fine tuning. A follower of Clifford might object if there was no philosophical discussion of rival explanations or of the application here of Bayes' theorem in the theory of probability. But as with most philosophical disputes the issues are complex and there may be trading off of rival plausibilities and implausibilities.
This is no place to try adequately to discuss the fine tuning argument but let us consider two questions. One is about the type of argument that is put forward. The other is the issue of partial belief. The fine tuning argument has the merit of having the form of a perfectly normal pattern of scientific argument. Thus to some extent it may appeal to those who think of plausibility in the light of total science as a main pointer to metaphysical truth. After all, it will be contended, scientific method is the only reliable and indubitably successful and self-correcting method of attaining knowledge (pure mathematics perhaps excepted). In the fine tuning argument God is postulated to explain the fine tuning. It is asked how else a universe like ours (suitable for life and consciousness) could have arisen. Various objections could be made. The Bayesian argument is from the very easily proved equation which says that if h is a hypothesis, e the evidence, and k the relevant background information, then the probability of h given e & k is equal to the probability of e given h & k divided by the probability of e given k. The ‘e given k’ in the denominator reflects the fact that antecedently surprising evidence is best, as is the case with the fine tuning argument, and the ‘given h & k’ in the numerator reflects the fact that the antecedent probability of e given the hypothesis and the background assumptions should be high or near one, as is usually the case in argument to the best explanation. Should such an argument make us espouse theism? Not necessarily, because h, the theistic hypothesis might be so initially implausible that though e, the fine tuning, increases the probability of h, it increases it to only a small value.
In assessing the plausibilities it is worth recalling that the fine tuning appeals to God's purposes, should he exist, and to his supposed interest in minds and particularly in consciousness. This might strike some of us as anthropocentric, or in view of the probability of life and consciousness elsewhere in the universe, perhaps psychocentric. Of course science has got less and less anthropocentric and perhaps psychocentricity might have lost its attractions also. In prescientific ages we appealed to the purposes of ancestors or gods, and small children seem naturally to be satisfied with explanations in terms of purpose. Similarly a saddle between hills has been said to be a tribal ancestor's fish weir, though perhaps this is not believed too literally. Yet a neuroscientific account of a particular purpose must be extraordinarily complex involving of millions or tens of millions of neurons and their multiple interconnections. Appeal to God's purposes might well conceal even more complexity. Thus the contemporary form of the teleological argument, from the fine tuning, though unaffected by the Darwinian theory as Paley's was, makes a departure from scientific methodology. Perhaps Plato's Socrates in the Phaedo may have to some extent set science off on the wrong track when he extolled purposive explanations at the expense of physical ones. Still the fine tuning argument with its argument to the best explanation and with its holism is in some ways closer to scientific method than the very restrictive though salutary empiricism of Mill and Huxley and probably Clifford.
In the light of these considerations let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him ‘Philo’) describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully. This of course assumes that, unlike Huxley, he does not wish to use ‘ism’ words at all. Gilbert Ryle once wrote an article against, though not absolutely against, ‘ism’ words (Ryle 1935), but here he was mainly objecting to schools of philosophy as were common in Germany, so that people would attach themselves too blindly to some great figure in the past, or to some influential contemporary professor. Sometimes , at least in social contexts, it can be misleading not to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ if some believer asks “Are you an atheist?’ Forthrightness can override a too precious concern for complete accuracy.
Here it has been assumed that Philo regards ‘God exists’ (vagueness apart) as an intelligible sentence to which truth or falsity can be ascribed. If he thinks that the conception of deity is so obscure or so permissive that no truth value can be ascribed to ‘God exists’, perhaps he should extend the notion of ‘atheist’ to cover his position also. “Agnostic’ might suggest that there is something to be agnostic about.
In the above discussion I have used the argument from the fine tuning as an example of something in the grey area between science and metaphysics. There may be other plausible arguments for theism that Philo could consider, and together with further applications of the Bayesian formula the plausibility might be increased in every case. Nevertheless it still might be quite small even in toto. I am assuming that all the arguments are from plausibility considerations and so can reinforce one another. Of course if the arguments fail because of faults in pure logic, then they do not reinforce one another. The conjunction of several logically bad arguments is indeed no better than one logically bad argument.
Even if various philosophers or theologians use the word ‘God’ in different ways are such that their words are quite unintelligible then they can hardly be said to defend theism. As I have suggested, a logical positivist such as the young A. J. Ayer (Ayer 1936) would have at least been less misleading if he called himself an atheist rather than an agnostic. He neither believes nor disbelieves in God, like the agnostic, but he does not think, as I take it that someone who called himself an agnostic would, that God either exists or does not exist but he does not know which.
6. Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’
As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of the fine tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallised out into various universe sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable.
Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper's dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn't know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy.
Another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic. In discussion with a committed theist this might occur out of mere politeness or in some circumstances from fear of giving even more offence Samuel Butler, though a complete unbeliever in the doctrines of Christianity, in the preface to one of his books Erewhon Revisited(Butler 1932) described himself as the broadest of broad churchmen. That is, I take it that broad churchmen often were unbelievers, but treated the doctrine as mere myth suitable for literal consumption by the local yokels in the interests of social stability. It is unclear to me whether or not Butler was sympathetic to a very abstract sort of theism. Some may call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ merely because they are equally repelled by the fanaticism associated with some forms of theism and by the boring obsessiveness of what Hilary Putnam has called ‘the village atheist’. (Contrast, however, Clifford's view of the matter and also the example of the radical and intellectual tinker, Mr. Shaw, in Butler's powerful novel The Way of All Flesh.) Still, these considerations are perhaps more a matter for sociologists than for philosophers.
First published Tue Mar 9, 2004
The main purpose of this article is to explore the differences between atheism and agnosticism, and the relations between them. The task is made more difficult because each of these words are what Wittgenstein called ‘family resemblance’ words. That is, we cannot expect to find a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for their use. Their use is appropriate if a fair number of the conditions are satisfied. Moreover even particular members of the families are often imprecise, and sometimes almost completely obscure. Sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical scepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic.
* 1. Atheism
* 2. An Adequate Concept of God
* 3. Agnosticism
* 4. The Ethics of Belief
* 5. The Grey Area: Example of the So-called Fine Tuning of the Fundamental Constants of Nature
* 6. Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’
* Bibliography
* Other Internet Resources
* Related Entries
1. Atheism
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.
The word ‘theism’ exhibits family resemblance in another direction. For example should a pantheist call herself an atheist? Or again should belief in Plato's Form of the Good or in John Leslie's idea of God as an abstract principle that brings value into existence count as theism (Leslie 1979)? Let us consider pantheism.
At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism. Probably the theologian Paul Tillich was a pantheist in little more than this minimal sense and his characterising God as the ground of being has no clear meaning. The unanswerable question ‘Why is there anything at all?’ may give us mystical or at any rate dizzy feelings but such feelings do not differentiate the pantheist from the atheist. However there are stronger forms of pantheism which do differentiate the pantheist from the atheist (Levine, 1994). For example the pantheist may think that the universe as a whole has strongly emergent and also mind-like qualities. Not emergent merely in the weak sense that a radio receiver's ability to receive signals from distant stations might be said to be emergent because it is not a mere jumble of components (Smart 1981). The components have to be wired together in a certain way, and indeed the workings of the individual components can be explained by the laws of physics. Contrast this with a concept of emergence that I shall call ‘strong emergence’. C. D. Broad in his Scientific Thought (Broad 1923) held that the chemical properties of common salt could not even in principle be deduced from those of sodium and chlorine separately, at the very time at which the quantum theory of the chemical bond was beginning to be developed. Though the mind has seemed to some to be strongly emergent from its physical basis, it can be argued that developments in the philosophy of mind, cognitive science and neuroscience favour weak emergence only.
One strong form of pantheism ascribes mental properties to the cosmos. If the weak sense of emergence was adopted we would be faced with the question of whether the universe looks like a giant brain. Patently it does not. Samuel Alexander asserted, rather than argued, that mentality strongly emerged from space-time, and then that at some future time there will emerge a new and at present hardly imaginable level which he called ‘deity’ (Alexander 1927). It is hard to tell whether such an implausible metaphysics should be classified as as pantheism or as theism. Certainly such a deity would not be the infinite creator God of orthodox theism. A. N. Whitehead, too, had a theory of an emergent deity, though with affinities to Platonism, which he saw as the realm of potentiality and therefore he connected the atemporal with the contingent temporal deity (Whitehead 1929). Such views will not deliver, however implausibly, more than a finite deity, not the God of core theism. God would be just one more thing in the universe, however awesome and admirable.
The weak form of pantheism accepts that the physical universe is all and eschews strong emergence. Sometimes the weak form of pantheism is rhetorically disguised as theism, with God characterised as ‘absolute depth’ or some equally baffling expression, as by Paul Tillich. At any rate, whether or not we accept pantheism as a sort of theism, what we mean by ‘atheism’ will vary according to what in the dialectical situation we count as theism.
2. An Adequate Concept of God
This brings us naturally to the question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held, is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The trouble is how to see what this could be.
It might be replied that there are non-trivial necessary existential propositions in mathematics, such as ‘There are infinitely many primes’ which implies of course ‘the number 7 exists’. (We can ignore the unhelpful ‘Something exists’ which is allowed by standard first order logic purely for convenience as few would need to apply logic to discourse about an empty universe for which in any case there are separate rules for determining validity or otherwise.) It is well known that Frege in his Foundations of Arithmetic claimed to reduce arithmetic to logic. However in effect he was using a free logic without ontological commitment. Claims to reduce set theory (and so analysis) to logic are of course even more problematic. Would it help towards an adequate conception of God if we said that God has the sort of existence or non-existence that prime numbers have? One might say ‘not much’. In any case it is dangerous to talk of types of existence because it treats existence as though it was a property. At the time that he wrote his article Findlay was following the logical positivist line that logic and mathematics are alike tautologous. In the case of mathematics this can be seriously questioned. Also most theists would say that prime numbers are too abstract to be compared to God, though perhaps not John Leslie who has argued that God is a principle that brings value into existence (Leslie 1979 and 1989). We are still left with Findlay's challenge as to what a conception of God as a necessary being could be.
One thing that will not differentiate the theist from the atheist is to say that God, if he exists, is necessary in the sense of not being dependent on anything else for his existence. The atheist will say that the universe fits this bill because the universe contains everything that there is and so is not caused by anything else. It is indeed hard to see what an adequate conception of God and his necessary existence could be. For the purposes of this article, let us explore what the relations and lack of relations between atheism and agnosticism could be. Here we shall neglect the requirement of necessary existence and in a later section we shall consider the case of a posteriori arguments for the existence of a mind-like creator of the universe. Of course without the requirement of necessity it raises the intelligent child's question ‘Who made God?’ Still, this might be regarded as inevitable but excusable in an a posteriori argument in which the hypothesis of a purposive creator is put forward and claimed to be justified much in the manner of any scientific hypothesis.
3. Agnosticism
Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society, which flourished for over a decade and to which belonged notable thinkers and leaders of opinion. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed “to an unknown God”. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of ‘agnostic’ in a theological context.
Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief.
4. The Ethics of Belief
It is therefore useful, at this point of the discussion, to consider some contentions brought forward by the mathematician W. K. Clifford in his well known paper ‘The Ethics of Belief’ first published in 1877 (Clifford 1999). It might be said that beliefs are not actions and so are not subject to our will, but Clifford gave good examples of how we can induce expedient or comforting beliefs in ourselves. Of course we might also think of the argument of Pascal's wager where he advises the doubter in the Christian religion to frequent the company of priests and other committed Catholics, to avoid reading sceptical books, and to use holy water and other psychological expedients, so as to induce in himself belief in the Catholic faith. Clifford gives some telling examples of how we can induce in ourselves beliefs which run counter to the evidence before us. One is of a ship owner who makes a fortune by transporting emigrants in old and unseaworthy ships. He toys with the idea that he should not allow one such ship to sail, and instead to have it overhauled and refitted. He talks himself into allowing the ship to sail. He reflects that up to the present the ship has survived bad storms. If religious he may turn to Providence. Spurred on by greed and self-interest he induces in himself the comfortable conviction that all will be well, but in fact the ship and all aboard are lost. We can agree that the ship owner's action in inducing the optimistic belief was morally highly reprehensible. Clifford makes the further remark that even if by good luck the ship did reach port we should still regard his optimistic belief as morally reprehensible. In fact, Clifford urges, it is always reprehensible to believe on insufficient grounds.
Clifford was not a philosophical sceptic about induction . He was an empiricist who assumed the uniformity of nature, belief in which was justified by the success of science and so, as he thought, not contrary to his own prohibition. Philosophers may think this too quick. However he rightly was not inclined to say, as a naïve follower of K. R. Popper might, that scientific theories can only be refuted, never established. It would surely be absurd to say that we now know no more than Galileo did. Alan Musgrave has astutely remarked that even if we agree that the fact that a theory has so far survived severe tests does not provide a reason for the hypothesis, nevertheless it does provide a reason for believing the hypothesis (Musgrave 1974). Philosophers of science now put more stress on the hypothetico-deductive method, in the partially holistic nature of theories, and the way in which justification of theories depends on the coherence of our beliefs. Science can even improve its own methodology, so that the nature of science is well captured by Neurath's simile of scientists as like sailors on a boat which they build and repair while still at sea. Clifford's contention about the reprehensibility of believing without or against the evidence still stands. Thus there are people who believe the Old Testament literally and with whom it is impossible to talk about biological evolution or modern cosmology. They often say explicitly that they will read and believe only what they find it comforting to read and believe.
To give a correct and fully general account of the nature of justified belief is difficult and inevitably controversial. Furthermore, though the notion of knowledge as justified true belief runs up against ingenious counterexamples proposed by Edmund Gettier (Gettier 1963) , nevertheless for the present purpose of distinguishing atheism from agnosticism it is good enough to treat knowledge as at least justified true belief. Clifford was of course concerned with the ethics of belief, not of knowledge, and indeed the latter does not make much sense, since ‘know’ is a success word. Later we shall look at the question of whether we should say that an atheist is someone who claims to know that there is no God or someone who at any rate believes this.
Clifford goes on to say that even if the ship in his example had by good fortune not foundered in the storms and high seas, or perhaps by good fortune encountered only calm seas and pleasant winds, the ship owner's cultivation of his unreasonable and dishonest belief would still have been dishonourable and reprehensible. Here he speaks like a virtue ethicist but the view can be consequentialist, since Clifford stresses that although some may derive comfort from their credulity, this credulity would tend to spread or be reinforced and so would in general have unfortunate consequences. Of course that there is no evidence for God's existence is not necessarily evidence for God's nonexistence, though it might be if we had reason for thinking that if God existed there would be evidence for this. However this may be, Clifford was adamant in describing the consequential evils of believing without evidence. Indeed he cast his net widely when he said that it is not only the leaders of men who have the duty of proportioning belief to evidence. ‘Every rustic’, he says, ‘who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race’.
It is undeniable that many, perhaps most, theists do not even attempt to reconcile their belief in God or in the tenets of a particular religion with philosophical arguments or with plausibility in the light of total science. On the other hand many scientists, especially some physicists and cosmologists, and some philosophers, do claim to believe in God because of evidence, namely, because of the fact that there are simple laws of nature and even more so on the apparent so-called ‘fine tuning’ of the fundamental physical constants which will be discussed shortly. Perhaps, however, most theists believe in God simply because their parents and teachers have told them that he exists. And perhaps the parents and teachers believe in God because of what their parents and teachers told them. Must we always refuse to believe because of authority? Obviously not. Science is an interactive social phenomenon and depends heavily on testimony, as indeed does our commonsense and historical knowledge. We can think of the scientific community as a vast interconnected brain. Bits of scientific testimony can be checked and experiments repeated. Clifford gives the example of a chemical fact for which, being no chemist himself, he relies on the testimony of a chemist. He knows nothing against the chemist's character and he knows the professional training of the chemist. Though he has never himself verified the chemical proposition or even seen an experiment which verified it, nevertheless , Clifford says, the proposition is never beyond the reach of experimental checking. Also the experiment may have been actually performed by his informant, though the informant may just have relied on other well credentialled chemists.
It could be contended that Clifford was too verificationist here. Beliefs can be very conjectural but arguably plausible in the light of our more directly tested scientific hypotheses. There is perhaps a grey area between well tested or testable science and purely transcendent theology and metaphysics. Let us turn to consider an already mentioned example of this.
5. The Grey Area: Example of the So-called Fine Tuning of the Fundamental Constants of Nature
The fundamental physical and cosmological constants seem to be finely tuned (in a sense that does not immediately imply the existence of a fine tuner) so that if they were even quite slightly different in relation to one another a universe such as ours with galaxies, stars, planets, life and minds could not have existed. Not only is the range of suitable variation very small in the case of individual pairs of constants, but this is so for many such pairs, and so the a priori probability of a universe like ours is (to speak loosely) almost infinitesimal. Some philosophers, theologians, and (in their less professional moments) physicists and cosmologists have seen this fact of the very small prior probability of a universe like ours as indicating a use of scientific method as a route to theism. (See some of the articles, pro and con in Manson 2003.) The probability of the fine tuning is raised by the hypothesis of a creator God arranging the constants so as to permit the evolution of life and consciousness in which it is assumed that God has an interest.
Suppose that we judge hypothesis h to provide the best explanation (supposing it true) of empirical or already accepted facts e . If so we think it rational to believe h or at least to take it very seriously. In mainstream science if an hypothesis is accepted as the best explanation (where ‘best’ can include various virtues such as simplicity and comprehensiveness as well as a certain empirical adequacy) there is a good hope that in the future fresh independent tests of the hypothesis may be possible so that the hypothesis may become part of mainstream science. The fine tuning argument for theism seems to be one that must be left as without prospect of becoming part of mainstream science. Nevertheless it is not clear that a philosopher or theologian who supported her belief in theism by such an argument to the best explanation would be ipso facto reprehensible or dishonourable in the way that Clifford thought. She does think that she is arguing from evidence, namely the fine tuning. A follower of Clifford might object if there was no philosophical discussion of rival explanations or of the application here of Bayes' theorem in the theory of probability. But as with most philosophical disputes the issues are complex and there may be trading off of rival plausibilities and implausibilities.
This is no place to try adequately to discuss the fine tuning argument but let us consider two questions. One is about the type of argument that is put forward. The other is the issue of partial belief. The fine tuning argument has the merit of having the form of a perfectly normal pattern of scientific argument. Thus to some extent it may appeal to those who think of plausibility in the light of total science as a main pointer to metaphysical truth. After all, it will be contended, scientific method is the only reliable and indubitably successful and self-correcting method of attaining knowledge (pure mathematics perhaps excepted). In the fine tuning argument God is postulated to explain the fine tuning. It is asked how else a universe like ours (suitable for life and consciousness) could have arisen. Various objections could be made. The Bayesian argument is from the very easily proved equation which says that if h is a hypothesis, e the evidence, and k the relevant background information, then the probability of h given e & k is equal to the probability of e given h & k divided by the probability of e given k. The ‘e given k’ in the denominator reflects the fact that antecedently surprising evidence is best, as is the case with the fine tuning argument, and the ‘given h & k’ in the numerator reflects the fact that the antecedent probability of e given the hypothesis and the background assumptions should be high or near one, as is usually the case in argument to the best explanation. Should such an argument make us espouse theism? Not necessarily, because h, the theistic hypothesis might be so initially implausible that though e, the fine tuning, increases the probability of h, it increases it to only a small value.
In assessing the plausibilities it is worth recalling that the fine tuning appeals to God's purposes, should he exist, and to his supposed interest in minds and particularly in consciousness. This might strike some of us as anthropocentric, or in view of the probability of life and consciousness elsewhere in the universe, perhaps psychocentric. Of course science has got less and less anthropocentric and perhaps psychocentricity might have lost its attractions also. In prescientific ages we appealed to the purposes of ancestors or gods, and small children seem naturally to be satisfied with explanations in terms of purpose. Similarly a saddle between hills has been said to be a tribal ancestor's fish weir, though perhaps this is not believed too literally. Yet a neuroscientific account of a particular purpose must be extraordinarily complex involving of millions or tens of millions of neurons and their multiple interconnections. Appeal to God's purposes might well conceal even more complexity. Thus the contemporary form of the teleological argument, from the fine tuning, though unaffected by the Darwinian theory as Paley's was, makes a departure from scientific methodology. Perhaps Plato's Socrates in the Phaedo may have to some extent set science off on the wrong track when he extolled purposive explanations at the expense of physical ones. Still the fine tuning argument with its argument to the best explanation and with its holism is in some ways closer to scientific method than the very restrictive though salutary empiricism of Mill and Huxley and probably Clifford.
In the light of these considerations let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him ‘Philo’) describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully. This of course assumes that, unlike Huxley, he does not wish to use ‘ism’ words at all. Gilbert Ryle once wrote an article against, though not absolutely against, ‘ism’ words (Ryle 1935), but here he was mainly objecting to schools of philosophy as were common in Germany, so that people would attach themselves too blindly to some great figure in the past, or to some influential contemporary professor. Sometimes , at least in social contexts, it can be misleading not to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ if some believer asks “Are you an atheist?’ Forthrightness can override a too precious concern for complete accuracy.
Here it has been assumed that Philo regards ‘God exists’ (vagueness apart) as an intelligible sentence to which truth or falsity can be ascribed. If he thinks that the conception of deity is so obscure or so permissive that no truth value can be ascribed to ‘God exists’, perhaps he should extend the notion of ‘atheist’ to cover his position also. “Agnostic’ might suggest that there is something to be agnostic about.
In the above discussion I have used the argument from the fine tuning as an example of something in the grey area between science and metaphysics. There may be other plausible arguments for theism that Philo could consider, and together with further applications of the Bayesian formula the plausibility might be increased in every case. Nevertheless it still might be quite small even in toto. I am assuming that all the arguments are from plausibility considerations and so can reinforce one another. Of course if the arguments fail because of faults in pure logic, then they do not reinforce one another. The conjunction of several logically bad arguments is indeed no better than one logically bad argument.
Even if various philosophers or theologians use the word ‘God’ in different ways are such that their words are quite unintelligible then they can hardly be said to defend theism. As I have suggested, a logical positivist such as the young A. J. Ayer (Ayer 1936) would have at least been less misleading if he called himself an atheist rather than an agnostic. He neither believes nor disbelieves in God, like the agnostic, but he does not think, as I take it that someone who called himself an agnostic would, that God either exists or does not exist but he does not know which.
6. Philosophical vs. Pragmatic Reasons for Preferring the Term ‘Agnostic’
As was hinted earlier, a person may call herself an agnostic, as Huxley did, because of questionable philosophical motives. Huxley thought that propositions about the transcendent, though possibly meaningful, were empirically untestable. We have seen that it is unclear that the conclusion of the fine tuning argument is untestable. One can at least compare it with other and non-theistic hypotheses. Thus there are conjectures that there are many universes, so many of them that is not surprising that there should be some among them in which the constants of physics allow for the possibility of life, and if so our universe must be one of them. Some cosmologists give independent grounds for thinking that new universes are spawned out of the back of black holes. Others think that there are independent grounds for thinking of a single huge Universe that has crystallised out into various universe sized regions each with randomly different values for the fundamental constants. Some such speculations get some support (it has been suggested) from string theory. Though such speculations are at present untestable and should be taken with a grain of salt, one or another may well one day be absorbed into a testable theory. It must be left to cosmologists and mathematical physicists to go into the pros and cons here, but they are mentioned here to indicate a grey area between the testable and the untestable.
Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper's dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn't know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy.
Another motive whereby an atheist might describe herself as an agnostic is purely pragmatic. In discussion with a committed theist this might occur out of mere politeness or in some circumstances from fear of giving even more offence Samuel Butler, though a complete unbeliever in the doctrines of Christianity, in the preface to one of his books Erewhon Revisited(Butler 1932) described himself as the broadest of broad churchmen. That is, I take it that broad churchmen often were unbelievers, but treated the doctrine as mere myth suitable for literal consumption by the local yokels in the interests of social stability. It is unclear to me whether or not Butler was sympathetic to a very abstract sort of theism. Some may call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ merely because they are equally repelled by the fanaticism associated with some forms of theism and by the boring obsessiveness of what Hilary Putnam has called ‘the village atheist’. (Contrast, however, Clifford's view of the matter and also the example of the radical and intellectual tinker, Mr. Shaw, in Butler's powerful novel The Way of All Flesh.) Still, these considerations are perhaps more a matter for sociologists than for philosophers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
