Drug War Mexico

Mexico has long been used as a staging and transshipment point for narcotics, illegal immigrants and contraband destined for U.S. markets from Mexico, South America and elsewhere. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Columbia's Pablo Escobar was the main exporter of cocaine and dealt with organized criminal networks all over the world. When enforcement efforts intensified in South Florida and the Caribbean, the Colombian organizations formed partnerships with the Mexico-based traffickers to transport cocaine through Mexico into the United States.

 This was easily accomplished because Mexico had long been a major source of heroin and cannabis, and drug traffickers from Mexico had already established an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers. By the mid-1980s, the organizations from Mexico were well established and reliable transporters of Colombian cocaine. At first, the Mexican gangs were paid in cash for their transportation services, but in the late 1980s, the Mexican transport organizations and the Colombian drug traffickers settled on a payment-in-product arrangement. Transporters from Mexico usually were given 35% to 50% of each cocaine shipment. This arrangement meant that organizations from Mexico became involved in the distribution, as well as the transportation of cocaine, and became formidable traffickers in their own right. Currently, the Sinaloa Cartel and the Gulf Cartel have taken over trafficking cocaine from Colombia to the worldwide markets.

The Mexican Drug War is an ongoing armed conflict taking place among rival drug cartels who fight each other for regional control, and Mexican government forces who seek to combat drug trafficking. However, the government's principal goal has been to put down the drug-related violence that was raging between different rival drug cartels in Mexico before any military intervention was made. The Mexican government has claimed that their primary focus is on dismantling the powerful drug cartels, rather than on drug trafficking prevention, which is left to U.S. functionaries.

Although Mexican drug cartels, or drug trafficking organizations, have existed for several decades, they have become more powerful since the demise of Colombia's Cali and Medellin cartels in the 1990s. Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the United States. Arrests of key cartel leaders, particularly in the Tijuana and Gulf cartels, have led to increasing drug violence as cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the United States.

Mexico's President Felipe Calderón, elected in 2006, sent 6,500 federal troops to the state of Michoacan to end drug violence there (Operation Michoacan). This action is regarded as the first major operation against organized crime, and is generally viewed as the starting point of the war between the government and the drug cartels. As time progressed, Calderón continued to escalate his anti-drug campaign, in which there are now about 45,000 troops involved in addition to state and federal police forces. In 2010 Calderón said that the cartels seek "to replace the government" and "are trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms, and are even trying to impose their own laws." These operations have sparked a serious of uncomfortable scandals.

First, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement were found to have been paying informants who were actively committing murders in northern Mexico as far back as 2004.

Then, it was discovered that agents from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had let guns “walk” from American shops into the hands of Mexican gangsters in the infamous Operation Fast and Furious in 2009 and 2010. Officials had hoped to trace the guns to crime kingpins, but many were traced to murder scenes in Mexico, leading to calls for the heads of top officials in Washington.

And most recently a New York Times story this Sunday highlighted how DEA agents launder drug money in order to entrap gangsters.

The scandals have strained the Mexico-US drug-war alliance, opposition politicians south of the border are saying that the US agents are complicit with drug cartels in the violence that has ripped through the country.

In total, there have been more than 50,000 drug related killings in Mexico since 2006.

 “Under the leadership of President Felipe Calderon, cooperation between the US and Mexico is at an all-time high,” DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart said this year in Congressional testimony.

 The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that wholesale earnings from illicit drug sales range from $13.6 billion to $48.4 billion annually. Mexican drug traffickers increasingly smuggle money back into Mexico inside cars and trucks returning to Mexico, likely due to the effectiveness of U.S. efforts at monitoring electronic money transfers.

 In the decades since the Drug Enforcement Administration was set up under President Richard Nixon in 1973, agents have discovered that nickel and dime street busts don’t hurt the smugglers. To bring down the kingpins, they have to infiltrate their organizations. This means agents are posing as traffickers and hiring confidential informants among the villains. “To make cases against the major players, we have to get into their world,” said a DEA agent who has posed as a trafficker to infiltrate Mexican cartels. “Otherwise you are just busting the small loads that you are lucky to stumble upon.”

Critics say the core problem is that agents are fighting a war that simply can’t be won.

The biggest step in hurting the business operations of Mexican cartels would be simply to legalize their main product: marijuana. Long the world's most popular illegal drug, marijuana accounts for more than half the revenues of Mexican cartels.

Because governments make drugs illegal, the risk associated with transporting them translates to high rewards for those willing to take that risk. The wholesale price of a single kilo of cocaine, for instance, costs $1,200 in Colombia, $2,300 in Panama, $8,300 in Mexico, and between $15,000 and $25,000 in the U.S., depending on how close you are to the Mexican border. At a retail level on the streets of New York, it can run close to $80,000. With markups like that, the business is bound to keep attracting new entrants, no matter what governments do to stop it.

 "We must raise the transaction cost, make it too expensive for them to use Mexico as an export platform relative to other countries," he said. "But the demand itself  well, that's not going to go away."

Facts
1. In total, there have been more than 50,000 drug related killings in Mexico since 2006.
 http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/111205/how-dirty-the-war-drugs
2. Felipe Calderón, elected in 2006, sent 6,500 federal troops to the state of Michoacan to end drug violence there (Operation Michoacan).
 http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/fighting-drug-war-creates-drug-war-30617/
3.   "We must raise the transaction cost, make it too expensive for them to use Mexico as an export platform relative to other countries," he said. "But the demand itself  well, that's not going to go away."
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614230731506644.html

Is the War in Afghanistan Winnable?

 "The war began in response to the 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001, and nine years later, is now America's longest war"

Though the origins of the war involve the ongoing Afghan Civil War and the Soviet Invasion and Occupation of the 1970s and 1980s, the current war began in October, 2001 in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Here is some past history about Afghanistan and the fighting within the country.

Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the fall of the Afghan Communist government in 1992, a protracted civil war raged on between the various factions of anti-Communist Afghan fighters, who called themselves the Mujahadeen (people doing jihad). In this realm of chaos, some former Mujahadeen found a leader in Mullah Mohammed Omar. A Mullah is an Islamic religious leader. A former Mujahadeen fighter who returned to his home after fall of the Communist regime, this member of the Pashtun ethnic group led a new armed group called the Taliban (student), and many of the original recruits to Omar's movement were Islamic religious students. Other former Mujahadeen leaders of Pashtun background joined with the Taliban as this new group sought to impose law and order on the country. The particular law they sought to impose was an extreme version of Islamic law.  Under Taliban-imposed law, women are not allowed to work outside the home or attend school. Men are expected to grow beards and attend religious services regularly. Also, in 2001, the Taliban ordered the destruction of all non-Islamic idols and statues in areas under their control. They also attracted the support of Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization.

In 1994, the Taliban attacked and defeated local warlords and began to gather a reputation for order and military success. Pakistan soon began supporting them, partially as a means of establishing a stable, friendly government in Kabul. The continual fighting between the former Mujahadeen armies caused waves of refugees to flood Pakistan's border regions and interfered with Pakistani trade in the region. The Taliban took control of Kandahar, acquiring a large supply of modern weapons, including fighter aircraft, tanks and helicopters. In January of 1995, the Taliban approached Kabul and was seized in September of 1996.

 Taliban fought against several militias and warlords, eventually defeating them all. Several anti-Taliban leaders and their forces fled to the northern part of the country to continue fighting against the Taliban. One of these leaders, or warlords, was Ahmed Shah Massoud. By 1997, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. 

 In 1998, following the terrorist bombings of American embassies in Africa, the United States launched a cruise missile attack on training camps belonging to bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization in Afghanistan. Autumn of 2001, the Taliban continued to pressure the Northern Alliance, often with the aid of Osama bin Laden and his Arab forces. On September 9, 2001, the Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was mortally wounded in an assassination attempt carried out by two Arab men posing as journalists. This attack was the work of bin Laden's organization as a possible prelude to the airline hijackings and terrorism in the United States on September 11. The Northern Alliance responded to Massoud's killing with an aerial attack on Kabul the night of September 11. The killing of Massoud was coordinated with the terror attacks on the United States which took place on September 11. As the United States assigned blame for the attacks on bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, plans began to take the fight to Al-Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors as the first phase of what became known as the Global War on Terror.

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, armed forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Afghan United Front launched Operation Enduring Freedom.  The primary driver of the invasion was the September 11 attacks on the United States. Main goal was to dismantle the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization and ending its use of Afghanistan as a base. The aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime.

As more Allied troops entered the war and the Northern Alliance forces fought their way southwards, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda retreated toward the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. From 2002 onward, the Taliban focused on survival and on rebuilding its forces. From 2005 to the present, the Taliban has increased its attacks and is using suicide bombers and other tactics from Iraq War.

  

2007, while on a diplomatic trip to Afghanistan, an apparent assassination attempt was made by Taliban insurgents, who claimed that Cheney was a target in the attack. A suicide bomber blew up a checkpoint at Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul, killing 20, including an American soldier.

 The Afghan nation was able to build democratic structures and to create some progress in key areas such as health, economy, education, transport, agriculture and construction. NATO is rebuilding and training the military and police force.

 Unfortunately, in the years that followed, the U.S. did not devote enough resources to the war in Afghanistan, and the Taliban were able to regain strength. It is only now, with President Obama's decision last year to send 30,000 additional troops, that we have enough soldiers in place to implement an effective counterinsurgency strategy. To succeed in Afghanistan, we must convince the Afghan population that we, not the Taliban, are their best hope for the future. And we need to make them feel secure enough that they'll cooperate with us to defeat the insurgents. 

 Despite the recent increase in U.S. casualties as our forces have pushed into areas previously ceded to the Taliban, there are early signs of success: For example, after stepped-up training, recent reports indicate that the Afghan National Army may be now ready to take over security.  But counterinsurgency takes time to succeed. Consider the example of Iraq: Just a few years ago, the situation there looked miserable. Then a troop surge and a shift in strategy began to turn things around, and now violence in Iraq has substantially subsided and the U.S. has withdrawn its combat forces. Terrorists across the border in Pakistan continue to plot attacks. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan is essential to ensuring that these terrorists cannot again use it as a safe haven from which to attack us, as they did during the 1990s and on 9/11. 

"Less than 50% of U.S. troops believe Afghanistan War is winnable".

There are two principal reasons the war in Afghanistan cannot be won with the level of resources that the American people are willing to devote to it. 

First, the Afghan government is barely functioning in many places and is highly corrupt despite more than eight years of aid from the United States and the international community. Winning the war in Afghanistan is impossible as long as the government is corrupt and ineffective. Poor leadership creates opportunities for Taliban militants, enabling them to recruit soldiers and get help from Afghans who are angry with the government. Yet the government shows no sign of becoming any more effective or less corrupt. 

U.S. troops are losing confidence in the military's long-term chances of success in Afghanistan, a new poll has revealed.
The Military Times survey found less than half of serving soldiers believe the U.S. is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed in Afghanistan.
The number is down from 2007, when more than 75 percent of those polled said the U.S. was 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed.

 The second reason is that Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan continues to support the Taliban. Pakistan helped create the Taliban in the early 1990s as a way to gain influence inside Afghanistan. Despite promises to the U.S. to help fight the insurgents, it has continued to provide aid to the Taliban since the war began in 2001. Pakistan's border with Afghanistan is a reserve for the Taliban, as are certain cities inside Pakistan. Despite Pakistan's domestic problems with its own militants, it shows no sign of cutting off support to the Taliban. These safe havens and government support make it all but impossible to completely destroy the Taliban as an organization. 

 If the U.S. were willing to commit hundreds of thousands of troops for another decade or more, it might succeed in defeating the Taliban and building a stable Afghanistan. But the American people—and the politicians they elect—will not support a commitment on this scale. And that makes victory in Afghanistan virtually impossible.

U.S. troops are losing confidence in the military's long-term chances of success in Afghanistan, a new poll has revealed.
The Military Times survey found less than half of serving soldiers believe the U.S. is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed in Afghanistan.
The number is down from 2007, when more than 75 percent of those polled said the U.S. was 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Link to 

Defense Sec. Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus on the 10-year-long war.

http://abcn.ws/iywJPG

Facts 

"Less than 50% of U.S. troops believe Afghanistan War is winnable"

U.S. troops are losing confidence in the military's long-term chances of success in Afghanistan, a new poll has revealed.

The Military Times survey found less than half of serving soldiers believe the U.S. is 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed in Afghanistan.

The number is down from 2007, when more than 75 percent of those polled said the U.S. was 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to succeed.

http://lpmndc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=231%3Aless-than-50-of-us-troops-believe-afghanistan-war-is-winnable&catid=40%3Awar&Itemid=1

2007, while on a diplomatic trip to Afghanistan, an apparent assassination attempt was made by Taliban insurgents, who claimed that Cheney was a target in the attack. A suicide bomber blew up a checkpoint at Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul, killing 20, including an American soldier.
http://www.historyguy.com/war_in_afghanistan.html

The Other Wes Moore.........One Name, Two Fates

1. The Wes Moore's were a like because they were born blocks apart from each other in similar Baltimore neighborhoods. They grew up fatherless, hung out on street corners with bad groups of kids and ran into trouble with the police at an early age. They also bad grades and struggled with school.

2. A turning point in Wes 1 was his mother shipping him off to military school. She had told him that if he didn't do well in school and stay out of trouble that's where he would be going. He called her bluff and continued to slack off and then he found himself at Valley Forge military school. At first he didn't take it seriously and slacked off there. His fellow troops didn't want him there either because of the distraction he was causing. He realized that his mother had put a lot of money and sacrifice for him to go there. He also realized that going to that school will help him with discipline and take some responsibility for his actions and being treated differently then back on the street corner in the old neighborhood. After awhile he improved dramatically and was enjoying the school very much. 

Wes 2  didn't get a break until later in life where he needed to find a job to raise his kid and take care of his family. He was able to get a job at jobs corps doing carpentry and acquired skills so he could get a decent job when he was done.  After finishing the corps he had crap jobs and couldn't find a job to provide for his family. So he went into drug business because he knew he needed money fast and he knew they would be the only way his family would survive. He was weak to give in so easy and to take the low road. By him going back to "thug-life" he didn't learn anything.    

3. The boys parents had a big affect on their personal development. Wes 1 father died when he was three and he didn't understand really what was going on at the time. He was a good father and husband. The  mother, after her husband had died, struggled with with his death and raising Wes and the other children. She realized she needed to find help and went and took the family to live their grandparents. She also wanted the best for her children. The neighborhood was falling apart and becoming dangerous, so the change was good. Wes's mom did her best to keep her son out trouble and to do well in school.

Wes 2 had a different life. His father was ghost from when he was born. He met his father later at his grandmothers and he was a creepy drunk. The mother struggled to raise her kids as best as she could. Wes 2 did have a father figure around and the closest thing to one was his older half brother Tony who was a drug dealer from the age of ten. So Wes already in the bad surroundings at an early age and seeing the way his brother dressed and acted, to Wes, Tony was a "gangsta". Tony did try and tell him to stay in school and that he wishes he could have a due-over. Because the life he lives is terrible and dangerous. 

4. The book showed two different types of human behavior. Wes 1 started off on the right track and then introduced to street life and getting into trouble. He slacked off in school and had a run in with the police. His mother always being on his case and doing all she could to keep an eye on her son is what kept him from going down the toilet. The military school was a big help in his self help becoming a man. 

Wes 2 from the start of the book was in bad surroundings had no one really that looked out for him. He had a older half brother that was a drug dealer that was the closes thing he had to a father/ role model. He was taught by his brother not to take peoples crap and to leave a impression that they won't ever bother you again. He took that to heart and he listened to him. He was in and out of trouble with the police from when he was young and now a convicted murdered. I feel that if he had some guidance other than his druggie brother he might have had a chance.

5. I like the booked very much. It reminded me of when I was a kid and the people I hung out with and how I had some in common with the Wes boys. I wasn't big with school and I am still not. No clue of what I wanted after high school. My dad did the best he could to raise my sister and I. Keeping a good eye on us to make sure  we weren't doing the wrong thing. Staying involved in our lives was probably the best thing he could have done. Now a days kids parents drop them off at the day care or are always away so they have to be watched by a sitter or nanny. Spending time with your kids will definitely change who they are when they are older. Having guidance in their lives is important. Going into the military made me mature a lot faster than my friends because of the discipline and strict rules and attention to detail. 

I know I'm blabbing along here but book shows how different you life could be with the decisions you make throughout the course of your life. The choices Wes 1 makes are great and the choices Wes 2 makes you shake your head especially when for a small chance you think he may have found a way out of the awful life he was leading. But he gets pulled back in.

Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism

1st Amendment (right to free speech) be granted to "terrorists"?

Anti-terrorism laws are constitutional even when they have an adverse impact on free speech, which makes it a federal crime to knowingly provide material support or resources to a terrorist organization. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under the grounds of necessity.
The terrorist strikes of Sept. 11 led to many casualties, including thousands at the World Trade Center in New York City. Those concerned with civil liberties worry that constitutional freedoms may be the latest victim of the attacks and the resulting war on terrorism. Perhaps the most obvious threat to civil liberties in the wake of Sept. 11 was Congress' quick passage of the so-called USA Patriot Act a law that provides great powers to law enforcement officials.To some, this new law epitomizes the assault on our nation's civil liberties. The law allows the government to search a person's home without immediately listing the object of the search. The law also allows the attorney general to deport individuals who engage in any nonviolent activity on behalf of any group deemed a terrorist organization. Other provisions expand wiretapping capabilities for federal law enforcement officials. Still other parts of the law allow the police to obtain information about private Internet communications under a relaxed standard of review.

There needs to be strong protection for a core area of protected speech and advocacy. Americans should be able to make arguments to a court on the behalf of terrorist groups. That is crucial for the legal system to work and for the constitutionality of laws of this kind to be tested. They should be able to print the views of these groups for journalistic purposes, either to report the news or to convey a range of opinions. People also need to be free to speak independently about these groups. These rights need to be made clear in advance. It is not enough for the government simply to say it will not prosecute in these cases. As long as people fear being sentenced to 15 years in prison, they are likely to avoid engaging even in protected speech. Many crimes from blackmail to leaking insider stock information — are committed through words. There is no right to act as a spokesman for a terrorist group or serve as its adviser. Giving advice to a terrorist group, even if it is not about violent activities, is not the same as getting on a soapbox and speaking about politics. It is not necessarily innocent.

 Former House speaker, Newt Gingrich said that by proposing that free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. "This is a serious, long-term war, either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people." He also said, "we should propose a Geneva Convention for fighting terrorism, which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are, in fact, subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous."

I feel that terrorism is a serious issue in the United States. With all the laws and acts being put into place, are civil liberties are at threat. I rather have federal organizations and special departments keeping a close eye on people and keeping the Unites States safe even if that threatens my civil liberties. The case of that Sudbury man, Mehanna being arrested was good in a way because he was spreading propaganda for Al-Qaeda and promoting violent jihad. Luckily this was all that Mehanna had done that we have been told and has been proven. Hopefully bringing him in stopped another act of terrorism. I rather the FBI act before hand rather than a possibility of people getting hurt.


Facts

1."This is a serious, long-term war, either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people."

2. Many crimes from blackmail to leaking insider stock information — are committed through words. There is no right to act as a spokesman for a terrorist group or serve as its adviser. Giving advice to a terrorist group, even if it is not about violent activities, is not the same as getting on a soapbox and speaking about politics. It is not necessarily innocent.

3. Al Qaeda by translating such materials and distributing them on the Internet, allegedly in support of Al Qaeda’s propaganda

Death Penalty

Should the United States abolish capital punishment (death penalty)? 

Capital punishment has often been a argumentative social issue in the United States, while historically, a large majority of the American public has favored it in cases of murder, the extent of this support has varied over time, and there has long been strong opposition from some sectors of the population.

Capital punishment is a practice in which prisoners are executed in accordance with judicial practice when they are convicted of committing what is known as a capital crime. Capital crimes are crimes deemed so heinous that they should be punishable by death. At various points in history, a wide range of crimes have been punishable by death, including rape, murder, treason, mutiny and theft.

Supporters who oppose say the death penalty is an unusually severe punishment. There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. Retribution is just another word for revenge, and the desire for revenge is one of the lowest human emotions  perhaps sometimes understandable, but not really a rational response to a critical situation. To kill the person who has killed someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence which ultimately destroys the avenger as well as the offender.

 87 people have been freed from death row because they were later proven innocent. That is a demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons executed. 

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million).

A shocking two out of three death penalty convictions have been overturned on appeal because of police and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as serious errors by incompetent court-appointed defense attorneys with little experience in trying capital cases.

Some supporters also argue that capital punishment provides closure to family members of victims. Furthermore, supporters argue, it is possible to administer the death penalty justly and humanely.

The United States stands increasingly alone among democratic countries in its continued use of the death penalty. By retaining capital punishment in a world that has largely turned its back on this barbaric practice, the US damages its reputation, causes friction with its closest neighbors and allies, and undermines its efforts to promote human rights at home and abroad.

I feel that capital punishment is necessary when certain crimes are committed. Example rapists, murderers, pedophiles, acts of terrorism and genocide, those types of people that commit such acts should be wiped off the face of the earth. Statistics tells us that the death penalty will deter murder. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death. Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence.

Here is a video put together by the government.



FACTS
1. 87 people have been freed from death row because they were later proven innocent. That is a demonstrated error rate of 1 innocent person for every 7 persons executed. 

2. Two out of three death penalty convictions have been overturned on appeal because of police and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as serious errors by incompetent court-appointed defense attorneys with little experience in trying capital cases. 

3. Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million).

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

Is Solar Power Worth It?

Sunlight is free, but harnessing that radiant heat energy and converting it into usable solar power costs a pretty penny.
Jeffrey Grossman, an engineer with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has developed a 3-D solar cell model that could capture up to two and a half times more sunlight than flat panel photovoltaics arrays. A photovoltaic system (or PV system) is a system which uses one or more solar panels to convert sunlight into electricity. It consists of multiple components, including the photovoltaic modules, mechanical and electrical connections and mountings and means of regulating and/or modifying the electrical output.The 3-D shapes eliminate the need for the panels to tilt to follow the sun’s path, resulting in a relatively constant power input throughout the day. The California Energy Commission recently calculated the average cost of installing a commercial solar power system at $4.85 per watt, which represents a roughly 50 percent reduction from only five years ago.

Materials handling and manufacturing, production efficiency and installation all drive up the price of photovoltaic solar array systems, those sun-catching panels installed on roofs. Once in place, the amount of sunlight and array performance will determine how much of a return on investment solar power systems generate.

There is no perfect energy solution when all the variables are taken into consideration.  Issues related to materials cost and composition, reliability, efficiency, and even pollution all come into play. By reviewing the disadvantages of solar energy, we’ll see that there are actually more advantages to it than other traditional sources of power.
Despite the fact that there are generous tax incentives and rebates available, the upfront cost of purchasing and installing solar panels may be prohibitive for some people. Some people may think, why change from cheap fossil-fuels that are already at the front door.
Whether your house is shaded by trees or other buildings, or if its just plain not very sunny in your hometown, your solar panels will need some sunlight filtered or direct each day. Add to this requirement the need for decent space for a solar panel installation. This clean renewable energy source has a dirty little secret?  Most PV solar panels are made from silicon and include potentially toxic metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium.
Currently, most solar panels have a 40% efficiency rate.  That means that 60% of the potential energy from the sun is not harnessed.  Some higher-tech, advanced solar panels have increased efficiency of up to 80%.  Each year, more technological advancements are announced, however, that increase efficiency and decrease cost.



Although other types of cutting-edge solar power systems, including concentrated photovoltaics and solar thermal power, hold particular advantages, technology innovations for photovoltaic array systems are also contributing to a bright future for solar energy in the United States. “Where you have good sunlight and access to financing and a combination of federal and state incentives, you have a number of markets around the country that are very vibrant, and it’s very cost-effective with financial paybacks in the order of five and 10 years,” said Robert Margolis, a senior energy analyst at National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

“The sun provides to the Earth that entire 3 trillion barrels worth of oil energy in just two days,” Grossman said. “And yet, tapping into this enormous power to generate electricity is the least utilized renewable energy resource today.

Paying that extra money today, however, could serve as a crucial investment to protect our environmental future.

FACTS

1. The California Energy Commission recently calculated the average cost of installing a commercial solar power system at $4.85 per watt, which represents a roughly 50 percent reduction from only five years ago.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/is-solar-power-worth-it.html

2. “Where you have good sunlight and access to financing and a combination of federal and state incentives, you have a number of markets around the country that are very vibrant, and it’s very cost-effective with financial paybacks in the order of five and 10 years,”

http://news.discovery.com/tech/is-solar-power-worth-it.html
3. The California Energy Commission recently calculated the average cost of installing a commercial solar power system at $4.85 per watt, which represents a roughly 50 percent reduction from only five years ago.http://news.discovery.com/tech/is-solar-power-worth-it.html

WikiLeaks.....Good, Bad, or Ugly

 Julian Assange is an Australian publisher journalist, computer programmer and Internet activist. He is the editor an chief of WikiLeaks. Assange was a hacker in his youth, before becoming a computer programmer. Assange received a number of awards and nominations, including the 2009 Amesty International Media Award (human rights journalism award) for publishing material about extrajudicial killings in Kenya and Readers' Choice for TIME magazine's 2010 Person of the Year.

“Our particular view on the mechanism of transparency is to selectively go after material that is concealed. Because organizations that have material and want to conceal it are giving off a signal that they believe there will be reform if that material is released.”

WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. They provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. They publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.
WikiLeaks has published material about extrajudicial killings in Kenya, toxic waste dumping in Cote d'lvoire, Church of Scientology manuals, Guantanamo Bay procedures, and banks such as Kaupthing and Julius Baer. In 2010, WikiLeaks published Iraq War documents and Afghan War documents about American involvement in the wars, some of which was classified material. 

Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US."

 Michael Moore is huge supporter of assange's and had this to say, "WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets." Moore gave a good example of when Bush was in office about bin Laden planning the attacks. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.
But if that document had been leaked, how would you or he have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes? He finished with this statement. "For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please never, ever believe the "official story."

The First Amendment. Thanks to nearly a century of cases dealing with the clash between national security and the freedom of the press, the Constitution provides enormous protection for publishers of state secrets. Those who leak the secrets in the first place, government officials, even soldiers, for instance — can and are prosecuted, such as Army private, Bradley Manning, now sitting in a military prison after having been charged with illegally downloading secret files amid suspicions that he gave them to WikiLeaks. Putting someone like Assange in jail for publishing documents he did not himself steal, on the other hand, is exactly the kind of thing that First Amendment makes difficult.

*Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

*Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."
For most of my life, I realized there are things that should and should not be made public. There would be panic and chaos about some issues. Department of Defense and Homeland Security would have to increase protection for the people of the United States because of secrets being made to the public/world. Terrorists perhaps taking advantage of what is being said maybe plan more attacks and people taking matters into their own hands because they don't feel safe. Who knows what Assange has had come across his desk. What if nuclear weapon locations or military operations to take out bin Laden for example were made public and the Taliban/ al Qaeda caught wind of it. There would be noway the US would have been able to capture him. For what ever reason and I wouldn't lose sleep over some scum bag that whose only intention is to make the country look bad so he can make a profit. I won't doubt that someone will take him out because he crossed the wrong person/country.

FACTS

1.“Our particular view on the mechanism of transparency is to selectively go after material that is concealed. Because organizations that have material and want to conceal it are giving off a signal that they believe there will be reform if that material is released.”
http://anitasnotebook.com/misc/julian-assange-from-wikileaks-quotes

2. "For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story."http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/why-im-posting-bail-money

3. Openness, transparency these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt.