Category Archives: culture

Since Mexico Won’t

Posted on by
Reply

Supporters of Republican President-elect Donald Trump are making noises about military strikes against the drug cartels in Mexico. Newly elected Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is downplaying the matter while she makes noises about her government taking the cartels seriously.

Sheinbaum has rushed to show her administration isn’t soft on drugs and migrants. Her government has gone after fentanyl smugglers in Mexico’s powerful Sinaloa cartel, seizing 1.3 tons of the drug in a record bust. She has sent her security minister to Sinaloa to oversee the efforts to take back control of a state where organized crime dominates the political establishment and two factions are in a turf war.
Mexico is in talks to set up a unit of elite security officers who would be vetted and trained by US law-enforcement officials for operations against criminals in Mexico, according to Mexican officials.

The fentanyl bust seems like a large number, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the total fentanyl output of Mexico’s drug cartels, an output that includes both their own production and their transshipment of fentanyl through Mexico to the US. The talks regarding the elite unit appear to be just chit-chat for show, given how progress in setting up the unit is close to nil.

There’s no reason to believe that Sheinbaum is any more serious about the fentanyl flows than was her predecessor and mentor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who functionally aided the cartels with his hugs instead of jails policy.

The facts remain that the cartels are poisoning us, and so far the Mexican government is allowing that. The Mexican government has even allowed various of the cartels to take over and operate many of Mexico’s cities, and the cartels own and operate the state of Sinaloa. That’s the central government functionally abetting the cartels.

As noted above, Sheinbaum is making noises about returning Sinaloa to government control, but nothing is happening so far. Meanwhile, the fentanyl continues to flow. If all Sheinbaum has is noise, or if she really does try and does not succeed, it may be necessary for the US to take down the cartels ourselves. American lives depend on it.

No More Thinking Outside the Box

Posted on by
Reply

It’s bad enough that targeted advertising, including—but not at all limited to—algorithm-driven targeting, limits our choices when we go looking for products or services. That targeted advertising limits us to our “preferences” that advertisers create from our early choices and hinders our ability to see things beyond those early decisions, hinders our natural tendency to evolve our actual preferences as time, circumstance, and age progress. Those actually are weak hinderances, though.

Far more serious is this bit about the coming AI “advances,” as expressed in a Wall Street Journal article:

Agents will understand context, learn your preferences, and interact with you and other software to get stuff done: booking travel, ordering food, shopping for those new sneakers, etc.

No, I don’t need AI, nor any other software package, especially one of high sophistication and capability, acting for me on the preferences it thinks I have. I don’t need AI straitjacketing me in my thinking, keeping me within the bounds it thinks it’s identified based on those preferences.

Years ago, a bookseller centralized its inventory management system and limited all of its branches to carrying the inventory that the central office decided those branch customers customarily bought. Which limited what the branches had available to buy regardless of what the customers wanted. As a result, the customers didn’t buy, so the books weren’t available, so customers couldn’t buy—even as their tastes and interests changed, even as an individual store’s customer base itself changed. Sales fell, franchises folded, and bookseller itself folded.

I don’t need AI similarly limiting me to what I customarily (it thinks) think or want; I don’t even want its “suggestions” regarding what that software says might interest me. I prefer being able to think outside the box occasionally. Nor am I interested in wasting time and resources acting randomly just to break the AI’s hold.

“Agents” can help me solve difficult problems, but I’ll be the one identifying the problems to be solved, and I’ll be the one choosing among the solutions, most especially including the solutions I work out independently of that…help.

Spare me the convenience. It’s too limiting, and that’s no benefit. It’s not even convenient.

That’s Nice

Posted on by
Reply

The organization Do No Harm had been writing about how the Association of American Medical Colleges has been pushing DEI in medicine; its report delineating all of that can be read here. Now the AAMC has taken information regarding how it uses that DEI claptrap from its Web site.

Shortly after Do No Harm released its report, [AAMC] removed information about DEI-related grants from its website. They also restricted access to information about a database that tracked the race and sex of medical personnel[.]

That raises the obvious question: what is the AAMC hiding? Laura Morgan, who wrote the Do No Harm report, also wondered.

Considering their laser focus on all things DEI, it’s curious that the AAMC would take down a web page that described the federal and private grants it receives, especially when it contains information on programs that are DEI-focused

Whether AAMC has removed its DEI claptrap from its actions, overt and sub rosa, remains to be seen. After all, the same management personnel who ran the organization while that claptrap was put in place are still there.

I’m not holding my breath on this.

Pick One

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section wrote that FBI Director Christopher Wray is a good man, but that he was wrong for the job he had as Director.

Stipulated, arguendo, the first part.

Then, though, he closed with this:

Mr Wray should have been the insider who reformed the FBI and restored it to its former place of respect. Having missed that chance, the bureau may now be treated as another institution in need of disruption and a significant reset. This may or may not work out well for our nation’s premier law-enforcement agency.

An agency that is an institution in need of disruption and a significant reset due to its senior leadership’s involvement in interfering with the election of a politician of whom they personally disdained, as the letter-writer noted, cannot possibly be a premier law-enforcement agency.

On the contrary, the FBI is an agency badly wanting a thorough and widespread purge of upper and senior management or an outright disbandment and replacement with an entirely new agency completely devoid of the FBI’s existing upper and senior management personnel.

I Have a Question

Posted on by
Reply

A Swiss Parliamentary report that is a post mortem on the demise as an independent enterprise of Switzerland-headquartered Credit Suisse blames lax controls by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority for the bank’s failure, a laxity that occurred despite that same agency’s repeated investigations into the growing weaknesses and failures to perform in the bank. The report also identifies weak bank management and managers as a major contributor to the failure.

Part of the correction to Credit Suisse’s failure was forcing Switzerland-headquarted UBS to “acquire” Credit Suisse. Only now, too, is the regulator proposing increasing capital holding requirements at UBS.

The report is largely correct on the agency reasons for the failure. Whether the forced acquisition works remains an open question: not enough time has passed to make that determination.

My question is this: why did Credit Suisse need saving at all, even if as a subordinate entity owned by another bank?

Leave aside my disdain for Government dictating to private enterprises what they must buy (or not buy), and leave aside the fact that our own government’s hands are unclean in that regard, vis., the Obama administration diktats during the Panic of 2008.

Why not let Credit Suisse simply fail and reorganize itself through bankruptcy or disappear altogether? Given the report’s identification of the weakness of the management team that was running Credit Suisse into the ground, the bank’s unfettered failure would have been an object lesson pour l’encouragement des autres that no bank, no business entity, was zu groß zum Scheitern.

Certainly the turmoil from the bank’s outright failure would have been large, but even at that, the outcome would have done far more to strengthen the Swiss banking system and its larger economy, and done it for a much longer duration.