If 0bama Had A Son Would He Look Like Aaron Alexis

Why is it seldom reported that the United States has a large role to play in the violence in Central America that is driving refugees to flee?

In order for something to be reported, there has to be a clear link between an action or a policy and corresponding effect. In the case of the policies of the United States and the violence in Central America, the link is either tenuous or it doesn’t exist.If you take Mexico as an example, you could make a strong case that the United States as a country bears a large responsibility for the current level of violence: American demand for drugs fuel drug violence and easily obtained American weapons makes it more deadly. Of course there are other causes such as rampant corruption and the weakness of national institutions, but the role of the U.S. is still clear.The violence in Central America, especially in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras is not necessarily tied to drug trafficking or America weapons, but rather is a result of social and economic situations in which the U.S. plays only a tangential role.Although the gangs that are the root of most of the violence in central America engage in drug trafficking as a side business, the truth is that they have become part of the region’s social fabric, having established themselves in their communities and living off the work of those around them. This is a product of the lack of legitimate opportunities, the unraveling of social structures due to prior migration, and the general weakness of the state. The U.S. is hardly responsible for any of these.The only aspect that one can attribute to the United States in this cycle is that the origin of these gangs happened in Los Angeles, among the community of Salvadoran immigrants that arrived during the eighties due to the civil war raging in the region (which was in turn fueled by the U.S. and the Soviet Union). These gangs spread to Central America when some of their members were deported and found themselves in an environment ripe for abuse.So, you could say that the current violence in Central America had its origin in U.S. policies, but its a stretch to say that the U.S. continues to be responsible for it today.

Was Junichiro Koizumi a good prime minister?

Thanks for the A2A.I liked his style as a prime minister. I think he was acting according to his principles, and took apart a lot of what he perceived as unfairness within Japanese society, politics and economics. In doing so, he also tore apart a lot of what made Japan a stable country of the middle class, and created a competitive, dog-eat-dog kind of world. To be fair, perhaps such a world was a little too harsh for the majority of the Japanese, and the emotional trauma of the world he ushered in is still being felt today.When Japan had a successful economy and there was enough wealth to go around, the government acted as a powerful redistribution mechanism, putting in generous safety nets particularly for rural agrarian Japan and the traditional, non-urban, non “salarymen” communities.His reforms, shaped by the economist Takenaka, strongly advocated free competition and reduction of the state’s role. Post office infrastructure that provided an infrastructure for rural Japan with scant disregard for cost has been privatized. Life was drained from local economies.Protection around full time employees were greatly watered down, creating an explosion of temporary and contract workers. Zombie businesses and banks carrying large amount of bad debt has been allowed to fail - but in the process many households and small businesses were also destroyed.His reforms mostly delivered on the intended effects, but also brought negative side-effects by the bucket load. Companies were allowed to make a lot more money on the back of the looser rules, but they have never released the wealth gained back into the economy. As a result, the lost decade became two decades.On the Yasukuni shrine visit, his stance was popular with many. This has kick started what was later known as Japan’s “lurch to the right” and pioneered what became a global phenomenon - rise of popular anti globalization. But while he stubbornly refuse to bend to China, he did not particularly have a vision or a game plan on how to shape Japan’s international position beyond that.I personally like Koizumi, because he is a man of his own principles, that happens to sit close to my own. He was a fighter. He waged a lonely war against every traditional institution there was. But as a result, did he make a happier, richer country? I would say the verdict on that question is mixed.“Very well, war it is then.”