Another view: On Oreos and 8-liners

Today I got a call from a woman who shared her feelings on the subject of 8-liners with me.
She asked to remain anonymous, citing her position in the community. If I wrote down the opinions of every anonymous call I received, I’d fill the bandwidth on our blog in a couple of days, but I thought her argument was strong enough that others might be interested in hearing it. (Parenthetical references are mine, for clarity’s sake). In reaction to the argument that the elderly are being forced or delluded into spending money at the establishments:

I have, on occasion, visited two (amusement redemption facilities) with my sisters, and we have never felt that we were forced to spend money that we didn’t have. We were never told that we had to enter any types of raffles, if we didn’t want to.
This is a geriatric society (because of Baby Boomers retiring). My sisters and I would go because we would have a good time visiting with each other. If we took $20 to spend, we got supper, we got to visit with people we hadn’t seen, there was air conditioning, there was music. It was something that we enjoyed, and as an adult I do not appreciate people telling me how I can spend my money. I know people who go to a store and buy $300 worth of makeup.
I know people who are on anti-depressents that tell me that when they go (to amusement redemption establishments), they feel a need for less medication.
I enjoy going there because I relax.
(Patients of area physicians have told her that they) don’t feel the loneliness that (they) felt because (they) saw a neighbor or so and so.
I think Laredo, or the state, is being very silly to not take this revenue, attach it to nonprofit organizations, (and) have these companies that have these maquinita establishments give so much percentage per month to a different non-profit every month. This is a win-win situation.

Taking a gamble or taking a chance is an innate human characteristic. The minute that you stand up to walk you’re taking a chance that you’re going to fall.
When we play Monopoly we’re taking the chance that we might be able to buy that hotel, every time you throw the dice. This is inbred into us since we were little.
I have not heard of any violent incidences (at the establishments). I haven’t heard of this crime that we’re supposed to be talking about. Our money is supposed to be used for law enforcement looking at the gun runners.
(She believes current laws that allow some prizes, as long as the value is less than $5, are hypocritical.)
This is crazy, this is like giving a kid an Oreo and saying here’s a glass of milk but you can’t dip it.
I don’t necessarily like bingo. They’re telling me I can go to bingo. I end up having to buy hundreds of dollars of tickets (for her grandchildren that go to Catholic school). What is the difference there? There, I’m forced to buy them.
When we go to the carnival that comes every year, and the money goes to the WBCA, what’s the difference when I throw a ball and they give me a $15 teddy bear. What is the difference?
Drinking would probably be worse for me. I could get into a car and kill somebody, but I don’t see anybody telling me, don’t go buy a beer.
If the police have that much free time, then every time somebody buys a six pack, why don’t they just follow them? That’s how stupid this is, to me.
I think this makes no sense, and for the mayor to spend his time policing how I spend my dollar, I am offended. I think it’s none of his business, I don’t care how he spends his dollar. He may spend it on dressing his dog, dressing himself, on doing whatever he wants. I don’t care, because it’s his dollar, so why should he tell me what I can do?
This is a common sense issue, I no longer think that this is a bad versus good. Now it’s just comon sense. Tie these places to our nonprofits, which, because of the economy, are not bringing in money. Feed the people at the Bethany House, support the Advocacy Center, help the animal shelter. All those places could be getting that money.
Any time any elected official wants to know how to spend their money, have them contact me. As an educated person, I really object to being told how I can spend my money.

Another View on Elections: Juan Ramirez

Another View: Juan Ramirez.
I recently wrote a story for the Times describing new legislation to allow governing entities to move their elections to November. The legislation specifically suggests November, but former Councilman Juan Ramirez said that a November move has its own share of problems.
Propoents of the move say that it would cut expenses. The City of Laredo and Laredo Community College are currently the only two entities that hold elections in May. They split the cost. If one of the two moves to November, the other will be stuck with the full cost of the election.
But, at least for the City of Laredo, a November election will carry the burden of runoffs.
The proposed benefits of a move to November (a lower cost for the City and increased voter turnout) would actually produce the opposite effect, according to Ramirez.
"When I was a councilman, I opposed having an election in November," Ramirez said. "The only way the city could save money is, they would have to move their elections in March and have the runoffs in April, then they would really save money. Otherwise they’re going to have to pay in December (for the runoffs by themselves)."
That’s because the county holds its primaries in March, meaning their runoffs are in April. Most other entities, such as LCC, do not have runoffs. The pro-November argument of reducing cost has the flaw that the city would still be burdened with the cost of runoffs.
As for increased voter turnout, that may be affected by primaries in December as well.
"In Laredo in December, you might have freezing rain, you don’t know," Ramirez said. "People won’t go out to vote in December. People are worried about holidays. I brought that up when I was a councilman. I told them, and they said, well we like to have more participation from people voting at the mall. That’s not an excuse now, because people don’t vote at the mall. Who’s going to worry about elections in December, because you have posadas and celebration of the Virgen de Guadalupe."

In Chambers: Courtroom masquerade

Every day federal court is in session, a magistrate judge hears dozens of illegal entry cases. For the most part, defendants are brought before the bench en masse to plead guilty and are sentenced right away.

Apparently H1N1 fears still abound here on the border. Today, one defendant in a group about to be sentenced was wearing a surgical mask.

In Chambers: We're not exclusive

With rumors flying around town about the Attorney General's investigation into the Webb County Tax Assessor-Collector's Office, and without anything substantive to report, Pro 8 News ran this "exclusive" story.

I don't usually like to toot my own horn this transparently, but it was suggested to me this morning that LMT got scooped. Not the case. Here's a story from September of last year that's pretty much exactly what Pro 8 reported last night.

It's so old that you have to have access to our e-edition to view the story, so I'll quote you a few paragraphs:

"An employee at the Tax Assessor-Collector's Office was indicted Wednesday as part of a state investigation into gambling at the office.
A grand jury in the 406th District Court charged Mary Ethel Novoa, chief deputy to Webb County Tax Assessor-Collector Patricia Barrera, with one count of engaging in organized criminal activity, a state jail felony, and one count of gambling promotion, a class-A misdemeanor."

And: "Former employees told investigators that Tax Assessor-Collector employees were required to sell raffle tickets and turn the proceeds over to their supervisors, including Novoa, according to (a 2007 affidavit for a warrant to search the office).
Employees were required to sell tickets to the office's customers, and if they were unable to sell all the tickets, the employees would be required to purchase the tickets themselves, the affidavit states."

We're waiting for any updates on the investigation.

On Boxing

Laredo is a boxing town.
Rodolfo "Cobrita" Gomez stands arched over the microphone before the Laredo City Council. His arms are thin and spindly. His hands are thick like knots on the end of ropes.
Cobrita just added another knockout to his record. His performance at Veteran's Field was phenomenal for such a young fighter, and he's becoming a little bit of a city-wide hero, so Mayor Salinas and Councilman Belmares made sure he got some recognition at the meeting.
Cobrita's a humble guy. He turned the recognition around. He tells the council that it was the support of the citizens of Laredo that got him where he is. If that support continues, it might take him the rest of the way.
"I'm very happy with this city, with all of you that supports us," he says. "Every(one) of the fighters, we are the future of Laredo, and the world, hopefully. With you on our side, we can go far, very far. The support is what makes us good fighters. Without the support of the people, we are nobody."

On legalization

A few days ago, I wrote an article regarding a presentation by a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. I did not have the time or the space in the paper to put into words some of the more detailed facts of his argument, so I thought I would use this blog to do so. Of course, any entry into the conversation about drug policy could easily go on for dozens of pages. These are simply the facts that struck me the most.

The past.
When opiates and cocaine were first regulated under the Harrison Act of 1914, 1.3 percent of the population was addicted to dangerous drugs.
When President Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" in 1969, 1.3 percent of the population was addicted to dangerous drugs.
Today, after 40 years of a war on drugs and nearly 100 years of drug regulation, the same percent of our population—1.3 percent—is addicted to drugs.
That statistic comes from Terry Nelson, a 30-year federal anti-drug agent who does not support the use of drugs. At the same time, he can’t help but question the efficiency of a war on drugs that has lied to the American public, led to the deaths of innocent people and not effectively dealt with society’s drug problem.
The history of drug legislation in the United States is a history of racism, according to LEAP representatives and people like Toni Ruiz of the Republican Women’s Club.
Even the term ‘marijuana’ is derived from racial slang. The term comes from Sonora in the early 1800s. It was picked up by William Randolph Hearst and Harry Anslinger as propaganda to refer to a plant known scientifically as "cannabis." To this day, police officers use the term ‘marijuana’ in criminal complaints.
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers," Anslinger said while promoting his Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 to Congress. "This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and others."
While the American Medical Association was opposing the use of the word ‘marijuana,’ Anslinger made statements about how marijuana encourages flagrant acts of violence and sexual deviance.
(Nelson’s favorite joke about these statements was that the only time a pot-smoker is dangerous is when you get between him and his chocolate bar.)
Just as the first opium laws were aimed at attacking Chinese immigrants in the 1800s, the first anti-marijuana laws attacked Mexican immigrants in the 1930s, according to Nelson.
Hearst, for example, had timber interests in Mexico. Although this is not a fact that has been proven, there are many among organizations such as LEAP that say that Hearst began an intentional propaganda campaign against marijuana to take revenge on threats to his corporate interests in the country.
But the first marijuana smugglers didn’t bring their products in through the border. They went through Boston.
Racism still crept into the drug war in the ‘70s. Nixon said privately in his White House tapes to aid Bob Haldeman that "every one of those (expletive) who want to legalize marijuana is Jewish." He was referencing a dominance of the Jewish minority in the psychology and psychiatry professions.
Nelson’s own history as a warrior in the drug war climaxed in 2005, when he captured more than 31,000 pounds of cocaine. Six months later, the street value of cocaine had not dropped in the slightest.
The road to his current stance on the drug war didn’t happen overnight, but that one particular fact seemed to be one of the biggest slaps in the face to his perception of the 40-year war.

The present.
In Mexico in 2008, 6,000 people died in violent crimes related to drugs. That is a number that is very familiar to those of us who live on the border.
"These are humans that are dying in the drug war," Nelson said. "They’re involved, but that doesn’t mean they’re not somebody’s son or daughter."
Did those deaths deter potential drug dealers from selling drugs? Did they deter drug producers? Not in Colombia, where cocaine production increased 26 percent in that year. Bolivia’s production is also up by five percent, according to Nelson.
Besides inter-gang violence, we have examples of innocents who died in the crossfire of the drug war. The stories of the victims are famous, such as the Christian missionary and her seven-month-old daughter who were killed after the DEA opened fire on the Cessna aboard a Cessna that the DEA mistakenly shot down.
Aerial fumigation processes currently used have been decried by the New York Times as harmful to indigenous populations of places like Colombia. The chemicals often drift into fields growing legal crops, according to the argument against fumigation.
Politics still dominates the drug war. At a recent meeting of the El Paso City Council, the council voted unanimously to ask the federal government to open discussion on drug prohibition. They did not vote to legalize marijuana or any similar motion. They simply voted to discuss the issue.
El Paso’s mayor vetoed the decision. When it went back to council, the resolution suddenly did not have enough votes. It turns out that even creating an essentially symbolic ordinance could jeopardize federal funding.
Call it what you will. Nelson calls it "coercion."
Nelson and LEAP have one goal. They are cops or former cops. They don’t want to see cops die because of drugs.
"We want to fix the crime and violence problem," Nelson said. He admits that the repeal of drug prohibition wouldn’t cut down on the number of drug addicts. But then again, statistically, neither has the drug war itself.
But it would cut down on drug-related violence, and it would cut down on the number of cops and innocent people who die as a result of the drug war, according to Nelson.
When a small-time drug user or seller gets put into the system, he or she emerges with limited prospects for legitimate jobs, and the education that someone gains in prison. He or she emerges with a taint on his or her record and a deepened knowledge of criminal activity. It’s no surprise that so many drug users become repeat offenders.
Drug addiction is a social problem, and it should be dealt with on a social level, according to Nelson.

The future.
Despite a recommendation from 90 non-governmental agencies, the United Nations voted to continue its current strategy of drug prohibition for at least another 10 years.
Nelson is very clear that he opposes drug usage. But he favors legitimate international discussion on the way the drug war is fought.
It seems that the discussion he’s hoping for is at least 10 years away.

On Being Irish in Laredo

"There’s so few Irish people here that everyone assumes I’m a priest or a defrocked priest. I’ve never been frocked."
-Assistant City Attorney Anthony McGettrick