Mexico: two tortured, murdered as warning to those using social media and blogs to report narco-crime

In Nuevo Laredo, Mexico yesterday, bloggers and Twitter users who share information on crimes of drug cartels and related gangs received a gruesome warning. The tortured bodies of two people in their mid-twenties "hanging like cuts of meat from a pedestrian bridge" were found with posters warning various sites that publish news of narco-terror incidents to stop, or suffer a similar fate.

One of the blogs named, Blog Del Narco, was the subject of a recent Boing Boing feature: guest contributor Raul Gutierrez interviewed its anonymous author.

This is the first incident I am aware of in Mexico in which social media users and bloggers, as opposed to journalists working for more conventional news organizations, have been targeted in this manner.

One of the messages near the corpses read:

This happened for snitching on Frontera Al Rojo Vivo (A Grupo Refroma internet forum created to both inform of and denounce cartel activity)

The other message read:

This will happen to all the internet snitches (Frontera al Rojo Vivo, Blog Del Narco, or Denuncia Ciudadano) Be warned, we've got our eye on you. Signed, Z

The Z stands for "Zetas," and implies that the Zetas cartel was responsible for the killings—though this has not been verified. Rumors and theories are swirling online today about who did it, and who the victims are. Any number of scenarios are possible. But in all, the message and the identities of its intended targets are clear.

From CNN:

A woman was hogtied and disemboweled, her intestines protruding from three deep cuts on her abdomen. Attackers left her topless, dangling by her feet and hands from a bridge in the border city of Nuevo Laredo. A bloodied man next to her was hanging by his hands, his right shoulder severed so deeply the bone was visible. Signs left near the bodies declared the pair, both apparently in their early 20s, were killed for posting denouncements of drug cartel activities on a social network.

Commenting on the news today, Nick Valencia of CNN tweeted,

This new development in the drugwar of threats to social media users speaks volumes to the subhuman nature of the cartels and narcos. Seemingly anyone is fair game for the narcos in their brutal campaign for money and power in Mexico. [But] social media users in Mexico have vowed to stand strongly united in the face of the narcos cowardly expressions of violence.

The identities of the victims have not been reported, and it is not yet clear why they were targeted. I asked Valencia via Twitter, and he replied: "We don't know much about the two victims. There is speculation they may have been lookouts for the cartels."

Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas director Rosental C. Alves wrote today: "After shutting up part of the Mexican press, the Zetas criminals have now started killing people to shut up social media, too."

More: (where the report apparently first appeared online on September 13, 2011), Mundo Narco, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas.


  1. Remind me again, we’re going across the world to “stabilize” violent regions that might pose a threat to us – but we need to build a fence against Mexico so their troubles don’t cross over? Does this make any sense? 

    1. It’s hard to smuggle drugs or duck across the border when wearing pointy boots. The CIA’s countercultural fashion agenda seems to be working.

    2. The US government can’t stop the drug trade since most of it’s operations are funded through CIA and drug cartel $$. Why do you think there is such a push back for decriminalization. If it was not illegal anymore a lot of people both in the cartels and government would loose a lot of money. Not to mention the new competition it would bring to global pharmaceutical companies. 

    3. With the money we are spending solving other countries BS, costing trillions of dollars, why don’t we place a frinkin tank and a half dozen soldier (that can go home every 2 weeks to see their family) along the border and shot to kill, plus save millions of dollars.

  2. Where is the A-Team when we need them?  Or more appropriately, the Magnificent Seven?

    Seriously, how else are you going to fight this kind of violence, especially when their money has corrupted the government?

      1. Re: SEAL Team 6. The Zetas allegedly began from a nucleus of US-trained Mexican special forces who decided that working for the bad guys paid better than working for the government. Sometimes the cure is not only worse than the disease, it becomes the disease.

  3. Am I wrong to basically consider Mexico a “total loss” at this point?  It blows me away that the citizenry isn’t up in arms against the government, for having allowed things to get to this point.  It’s genuinely frightening that we share a border, and a vast, porous one at that.  Yeah, difficult to see Mexico as anything other than a “failed state.”

    1. “Failed state” yes.  It’s very hard to see a path to stability and functionality from what the border areas have become.

      “Total loss”… there’s no such thing.  It’s not like it’s going anywhere if we try to ignore it.  

    2. “It blows me away that the citizenry isn’t up in arms against the government, for having allowed things to get to this point.”
      The US has functioned as a pressure release valve for Mexico in many ways.  Given that, depending on whose statistics you accept, something between 7-18% (probably closer to 7%) of the population of Mexico is in the US at any given time, undocumented, it’s clear that when things get too bad, people come to the States.  Is the violence too bad?  Is the local economy completely non-functional?  Go work for a pittance in the States and send back what you can to support your family.  It alleviates social and economic conditions that otherwise would have long ago resulted in some sort of uprising.

    3. Yeah you are wrong. Detroit – 45 Murders per 100K populationNew Orleans – 37Baltimore – 43Monterrey (2010) 23 per 100K populationMexico as a whole:”According to government figures from January 2011, there were 18.4 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with 25 in Brazil, 37 in Colombia and 61 in El Salvador.”

  4. Hm.  So much for the war on drugs.  Either we legalize it and undermine their cartels, or we nut up and take ’em out militarily like we seem to do with every other regime that “threatens our way of life”.  These people are sick and twisted, just as much as any self-righteous political leader with too much power seems to be.  We’ve wiped people off the face of the earth in other countries with less justification than they’re providing for us…  I know that many in the arab nations look at us like we look at these drug cartels–self indulgent, morally corrupt and wealthy at the cost of others.  It’s easy to see why we let this go on, because if we look at them too hard we see our own reflection.  Time to end it.

    1. “Either we legalize it and undermine their cartels”

      Sadly, while legalization is certainly not a bad idea, it won’t solve this problem.  These aren’t wayward boy scouts who will, on losing this source of revenue, immediately take up responsible places in society.  They’ll simply turn their resources to finding another easy way to make a lot of money, be it extortion, kidnapping, gun-running etc.  Until the powers that be exercise that power in a positive fashion and support the people in ridding themselves of these monsters, nothing will change.

      1. re: ” They’ll simply turn their resources to finding another easy way to make
        a lot of money, be it extortion, kidnapping, gun-running etc”

        If you made a shit ton of money selling coke and other drugs, why would you STOP doing so if it were legal? It makes no goddamn sense.  Also, the cartels are already doing those other things.

        1. I’d think, though I could very well be mistaken, that even if drugs were legal there, they’d find another way to weasle into the chain. Really, with th eway things seem to be in Mexico, right now drugs pretty much are legal in places where the cartels have heavy influence, since they are in those places pretty much the law.

      2. “They’ll simply turn their resources to finding another easy way to make a lot of money”

        Bunk, plain and simple. I believe this was once a Republican Talking Point on the matter, or at least I’ve seen it pop up on talk shows a lot. Are you seriously suggesting that these cartels are aware of numerous easy ways to make lots of money and aren’t exploiting them? That these opportunities are just sitting there, ripe and juicy, until such time as the drug cartel leaders get around to bothering with them?

        Nonsense. Legalization would cut off a huge source of income to the cartels, reducing their power enormously. While they may take refuge in less profitable endeavors, with less money they simply can’t operate the way they are now.

        What you’re saying is “Sure, if Microsoft can’t sell Windows, they’d lose one source of income. But they do have Office for the Mac and some other product lines, and they could always just turn their resources to something else easy. They’d keep making a fortune.” Would they go out of business? Probably not. Would there be massive layoffs, a stock nosedive, and huge revenue losses? Yeah. Would they spend the same amount on lobbying and marketing? I doubt it. So it will go with the cartels.

        1. There is a problem here, what are you talking about legalising? 

          Legalising pot would have a impact, not through denying revenue to the cartels but rather by giving a legal source of revenue to farmers thus weakening cartel control of rural areas.
          Coke – I don’t see this being legalised. 80% of US coke imports come through Mexico.
          Meth – I don’t see this being legalised either. Production shifted south of the boarder as regulation in the US make it more difficult to acquire the ingredients there.

          So legalisation is, at best, only a partial solution.

          Additionally, people need to accept that local consumption in Mexico is also driving much of the violence. Yes Mexico boarders the world largest drug market, and states which have liberal gun laws. However why does El Paso have a tiny murder rate and Juarez the worst in the world? There are a number of possible answers:
          The fight in Juarez is over control of retail distribution
          Splintering cartels by capturing leaders causes new turf wars
          It’s a deliberate strategy (terror in the south in order to act with impunity and low profile in the north) 

          Possibly all of the above, but these are questions that need to be teased out and understood before a solution is obvious.

          (and as an aside can we take down the photo, it serves no purpose and there is enough of that crap on Blog Del Narco for people who have a taste for such things and also can we keep the “failed state” and “I don’t understand just shoot em al” rhetoric to a minimum please).

      3. while legalization is certainly not a bad idea, it won’t solve this problem.  These aren’t wayward boy scouts who will, on losing this source of revenue, immediately take up responsible places in society.  They’ll simply turn their resources to finding another easy way to make a lot of money, be it extortion, kidnapping, gun-running etc.

        cinerik… let’s look at facts and history instead of your wayward conjecture.  Look at what happened to the mafia after alcohol prohibition ended in the USA.  Factions of the mafia disappeared altogether.  Ending drug prohibition can and will solve the problem overall.

  5. “Seriously, how else are you going to fight this kind of violence, especially when their money has corrupted the government?”

    I think you meant to say “How are you going to fight this kind of violence, especially when their money as corrupted OUR government?”

  6. Just the other day the headline said that you could get 30 years in prison for tweeting in Mexico. Now it’s clear that you can be executed for blogging. I totally agree that ignoring what is taking place in Mexico while running around “saving” the rest of the world proves our foreign policy is the worst joke ever. A very, very profitable joke for the people who are telling it, though.

  7. It’s time for a two pronged effort to deal with this.  One, decriminalize the drugs to remove the profits.  Two, work with the highest levels of the Mexican government to just plain take these guys out.
    They know who they are and where they are.  No fooling around, just go in and level their compounds to dust.

  8. In the 1920s, whiskey-smuggling gangs were machine-gunning anyone in their path.

    Wonder why we never hear about whiskey-smuggling-related violence anymore?

  9. Let’s start a rumor: al-Qaeda is setting up shop in Mexico! Pass it on!

    Yet another issue we’ve been ignoring in favor of our imperial misadventures overseas. This is going to have to be dealt with.

  10. Well it’s a good thing that there are no drug syndicates in the US itself.  Once the trade crosses the border the border fairy turns it into a bunch of Mom And Pop operations that don’t corrupt the government or law enforcement at all.  (Except of course when the CIA is selling cocaine.)

  11. Hmm… I’m going to rant a bit here, feel free to denounce my notions in this instance as insane, because they sort of are:
    Ok, first of, f to the ck the drug war total failure. Ok, now that that is out of the way… If I suddenly became overlord of Mexico, I would absolutely become 2X as ruthless as the drug gangs, I would kill them,their parents,  their wives, their children, their nieces and nephews, their dry cleaners,,,anyone who has ever helped them. You held the door open for Cartel Leader X’s mother during church ten years ago? Dead. I would offer insane rewards for snitches, and death for false snitches. I would bomb cartel ranches… Suspected cartel hang out? BOOOOMMMMBBBB!  I would make the feared the fearful, and after I was assassinated I’d be half loved and half reviled Etc etc etc… I realize I’d need good intel and sociopathic killing machine soldiers etc etc etc etc

    Sometimes ruthless madness has it’s place. I’m reminded of something my father told me, don’t know how accurate the details are, and I am probably not recalling everything, so feel free to get snarky: Ok, so in Lebanon back in the 70’s or 80s, foreign nationals were getting kidnapped regularly ( embassy workers, business men etc…). So in response to some soviets being kidnapped, the Russians sent some psycho-killer KGB agents out, who proceeded to assassinate the family and friends of SUSPECTED kidnappers. Boosh. Problem solved. Kidnap victims released, no more kidnapping of soviets.  

    1. Whoa. OR should I saw Woe? Just read the detail about the woman being hung there with her guts flapping in the wind. these people really are monsters. And I bet that the two dead were just random strangers, who had nothing to do with the websites, hauled off the side of the road. I stand by my comment above. These people need to be utterly destroyed, and painfully and publicly. 

      1. These people need to be utterly destroyed, and painfully and publicly.

        The trouble with humans is that, unlike sensible animals, predator and prey live together and are indistinguishable.

        1. Yes, but in my crazed rant world, you’d have to make it so that innocent people would fear the government more than the cartels, you’d have to make sure that they would run run run run sooo far away for fear of even being accidentally associated with the cartels etc… and sure you’d miss some of the cartel members initially, and a number of the would probably successfully blend into the populace (after dog earing books with titles like “How to appear to not be a sociopath” etc) etc etc… You’d basically have to become a demon to fight them… become even more horrible than them for a while. But of course with violent justice aimed at the cartels as accurately as possible, Yes, many innocent huevos would be broken in this non-cartel social omelette, but no more,and hopefully far less than are now (at the hands of the cartels)… and hopefully just for a time, after which society could rebuild itself in time for the battle against the scratch-ticket cartels

          1. As great as it would be to see the cartels get smashed to bloody bits by the hobnailed boot of a fearless governor/government, the problem then becomes that you must stay violent to stay in power.  At which point you have become a dictator who will have to continue the very thing you set out to stop–the violence against innocents.  In addition, you will likely have created a large group of people who now swear to take you and your government down.  Another eye-for-an-eye situation that doesn’t go anywhere but down.
            The murder of these two people makes me as angry as I’m guessing you are, so maybe I should have chalked your post up to venting against such injustice?  It certainly is awful, and I hope that some rational person in the higher echelons of the U.S. govt wakes up to this problem and puts forth some meaningful proposals.  And having written that last sentence, I am now choking down my pessimism…

    2. Realistically, you know what would happen in your scenario?  As in the “war on terror,” for various reasons many innocent people would be denounced by their neighbors to the government; once those innocent people (and everyone connected with them) had been punished, the population would start to see you as the real enemy (and rightly so).  The drug gangs would start to look good in comparison, at which point your hope of fighting them would be extinguished.

      1. I think enough innocent people are being killed now, that people in areas somewhat removed form the actione might be willing to overlook a few innocent deaths at the hands of the government, especially if they were to keep in mind that the end result being worked towards was the absolute decimation of the cartels (who of course started the madness). As for the innocent people in the cartel area, I imagine that they already fear random and unjust death so much that they might be willing to hold on a little longer if it would mean the end of the cartels.

      2. Not to mention that the population wouldn’t get any more of a say than they do now. At least until the end. When, as I wrote, I’d probably be assassinated… or living a life of opulence in Saudi Arabia.

      1. Well, in that instance, you’d have to agree to not care for the moment. I imagine there’d be a crazy atrocity race of sorts, and the one with the strongest will and the most resources would win

  12. America land of the free…biggest lie ever perpetrated.

    Human life = the cheapest commodity on the planet.

    The ones now in power, the Energy Thieves>>Fear Machine (yes there is such an animal) are gonna have hell to pay when the time comes unless they repent now in sack cloth and ashes…but they won’t repent and their leader, Satan, is allready condemed.

  13. Or someone who doesn’t like you posts shit under your name ..  and you have no clue …   until the Cartel comes knocking.

    Thank you USA for being between me and them.

  14. My gawd, how absolutely dreadful. I have no solution but feel utterly terrified and saddened that there are so many human beings lacking a conscience. I think I’ll go cry now. 

  15. Midnight in Mexico City. Somehow most of us here feel untouched by THAT
    kind of violence. Yet. I can only see one way to stop the main issues (weapons
    crossing the border from USA to Mexico and drugs getting to USA, where
    the main consumers are) and that is legalization. At least marihuana.
    How hard are we pushing for it each side of the border?

  16. I had the pleasure of talking to a gent from Monterrey recently. I told him something to the effect of, living north of the border, I feel extremely frustrated about what’s going on in Mexico right now.  What can we Americans do to help? Should we be sending money? Troops? His response was no, they didn’t need or want those things. It would, however, be really helpful if we just stopped sending guns to the cartels. 

    Just as a reminder, the latest study shows that at least 70% of confiscated firearms in Mexico originate in the US–where, coincidentally, anyone can purchase firearms at a gun show with absolutely no background check whatsoever. Regardless of your interpretation of the second amendment, is that really necessary?

    1. re: “anyone can purchase firearms at a gun show with absolutely no background check whatsoever.”

      Actually – that isn’t true. If you by from a dealer you fill out the same forms and go through the same process as if you were in a store. The only time this isn’t required is a face-to-face sale between two private individuals, which is a minority of the transactions.

      Criminals often do what is known as a “straw purchase”. They get someone with a clean record to buy gun for them. This is illegal, but hard to combat. Guns stores often report things they find funny. But who knows, maybe that Mexican maid really does need 5 rifles for her Bridge/Shooting club.

      At any rate – the cartels have more money than god, and if they want weapons they will find them.

      Perhaps what Monterrey meant – or what he should be more concerned about – is the fucking ATF (Christ, what assholes) letting cartels buy and bring guns into Mexico.

      Great police work there, Lou.

      1. Wow, I don’t know what to say. Ok, maybe I do: WTF? Huh? Really? Almost sounds to me like part of a greater conspiracy, cause no one is that stupid. Right? Were they at least chiped with something so their locations  could be tracked? Or were they just looking for serial numbers on seized guns and ballistics stuff on bullets. Lou? Costello? At least there would have been a humorous component to it.

  17. Some of you need to read up on what’s going on over there. “They need to do this or that. If I were the cartel I would be doing this or that.” Many of your great ideas have been tried/are being done.

    My favorite is “They need to just gear up and take them out with the Military.” What the fuck do you think Mexico has been doing? Their regular police are geared up for Fallujah. We spend millions of dollars sending money and equipment to Columbia and their ongoing war with FARQ.

    Someone mentioned that if they were drug lords they would kill everyone – family etc. Yeah – that is happening now.

    It is a huge clusterfuck with huge numbers of police, military, and officials being bought out.

  18. Middle-aged square here. Anyone desiring legalization would do well to consider the non-threatening approach- quote statistics regarding costs of enforcement, give examples of what has happened in countries that have legalized, admit up front that there will still be abuse but offer facts to bolster the position that abuse is better handled as a public health problem than as crime. That could actually get a square like to me to consider the possibility that legalization, given the right structuring,  could provide a net benefit to our society.  

    But associate legalization arguments with each new example of drug-cartel barbarism -as in, we’d better legalize or who knows where this will end- and my reaction is “I don’t buy illegal drugs. I’m not funding the cartels. Change the laws for the convenience of those who do, under threat of violence? Screw THAT.” I’ll vote Republican first.

    1. In my mind, it’s implied that we’d be better off with legalization of drugs through dropping prices and little need for US agencies to be armed to the teeth in order to “fight a war on drugs”.  For you to be arguing against changing the laws for the “convenience” of illegal drug users is a strawman–obviously there’s a large enough demand for illegal drugs in the US that stronger laws (i.e. the Republican stance you’ll be voting for) will only continue to overfill prisons and crush the lives of people partaking in drugs that can otherwise be had with a seed and three months’ time.
      As for the first part of your post, I would venture a guess to say that many of the “non-threatening” approaches you mention have been covered extensively on BB (and elsewhere).  Here’s a few links for your perusal:
      An argument for a rational regulation of marijuana in the US.’s list of reasons why legalization should move forward.

  19. re: “cause no one is that stupid. Right?”

    You must be young and have had limited exposure to government ;o)

    One of my favorite “you’re fucking kidding, right?” moments was at the DMV. They would not take my Social Seciurty card because it was laminated. “Its harder to tell if it is counterfeit or not.” I believe was their explanation. Do you know what they did accept? A pay stub  with my SS on it.

    When it was over I held up the pay stub and my SS card, “One of these would take time and skill to counterfeit. The other one any idiot can go to Office Max, buy blank checks, and make 100  copies saying anything they want!”

    ETA – Lou was a Simpsons reference.

    1. One of my favorite “you’re fucking kidding, right?” moments was at the DMV. They would not take my Social Seciurty card because it was laminated. “Its harder to tell if it is counterfeit or not.” I believe was their explanation. Do you know what they did accept? A pay stub  with my SS on it. When it was over I held up the pay stub and my SS card, “One of these would take time and skill to counterfeit. The other one any idiot can go to Office Max, buy blank checks, and make 100  copies saying anything they want!”

      I’m pretty sure it says right on my SS card: “do not laminate.”  Mine is fairly recent, so it might not say so on yours.  Still, I’m not sure it’s exactly a “you’re fucking kidding” situation when someone points out to you that part of the anti-counterfeiting measures incorporated into SS cards is the kind of paper used and potentially watermarky stuff that’s hard to read with lamination.Also, have you considered the notion that they considered the combination of laminated SS card and pay stub with SS number to be sufficient as opposed to the pay stub itself?  I run into lots of situations using a NH license in MA where people want to see another form of ID and they’re almost always content with a non-photo ID with my name on it.  I’ve always assumed that the combination was what satisfied them rather than the non-photo ID itself.  I’m sure the woman was charmed, though.

      1. re: “I’m pretty sure it says right on my SS card: “do not laminate.”  “Yeah – but I am a fuckin rebel, not some complacent sheep.And the reason I have my original card is that I decided to laminate it. It’s so old it doesn’t have things like watermarks or even microprinting.And a paystub was one of the allowed forms of ID. It wouldn’t work by itself, but if you had one bogus form, making a paystub say the same thing is stupid easy.

  20. This is why even though I want to, I will not buy or consume any contraband that I don’t know where it came from. Being in rural PA, that means I just don’t use. As much as I like elements of popular stoner culture, I think this should be talked about more. Buying strictly legally grown American product is many times more imperative than buying fair trade coffee or whatever.

  21. I apologize if something to this order has already been posted in the comments, but I feel like what I need to say is really important (i.e. random white dude on internet thinks he has something worthwhile to say):

    Yes, the War on Drugs is “bad.” It’s bad because otherwise upstanding individuals get caught in the crossfire when they get shipped to jail for smoking some pot. But to believe that to end the War on Drugs will somehow completely get rid of gangs like the Zetas is to take a somewhat myopic view on human nature, culture, and history.

    Organized crime is around because it pays — it doesn’t give two hoots about whatever it’s selling, except inasmuch as it’s worth money. And so long as there is something illegal, there is someone out there willing to pay good money for it.

    If you end the War on Drugs, do you think Mexico will suddenly find itself in the absence of gangs? Do you think the untold hundreds of individuals who comprise these gangs will suddenly disappear, their violent behavior and lavish/barbaric/terrorist lifestyle simply fading away as they think to themselves, “Oh, drugs are legal now. Guess I’m going to go plant a garden and be an upright citizen”?

    I’d be willing to bet that ending the War on Drugs would have quite a few positive effects on society, and some of that might even include minimizing the extent of gang-related violence, but it will not get RID of said violence.

    cf. Facundo: Civilización y Barbarie, by D. Sarmiento

    edit: minor spelling error

    1. Look up the 18th amendment to the constitution and the organized crime surrounding it.  Then look up the 21st amendment and what that did to the previously mentioned organized crime.

      As someone said already in this thread, there is a conspicuous shortage of whiskey-related violence these days.

  22. Mexico has forgotten the lessons and sacrifice of Zapata.It is up to the people of Mexico to bring pride back to their own country or fall as a nation.

  23. If this were the doing of NIKE or Haliburton or [insert evil corporation of the week] committing these atrocities, there would be calls for boycotts in these posts.  But hey, this is about drugs so, whatever, right?  It must be the stupid government’s fault for not legalizing drugs.  Bullshit.

    Zebbart hits the nail on the head: if you buy drugs and don’t know the origin, then you really don’t give a fuck about these atrocities and would rather subsidize this kind of violence than do something about it.  Please give that a long hard thought before your next buy.  

  24. Legalizing drugs won’t END all violence – but it will GREATLY reduce it. Drugs are easy money. The more traditional organized crime crimes take a lot more time and energy. For sure, it will still be around, but how many beheaded people are hanging from bridges for their involvement in extortion or racketeering.

    It should GREATLY reduce crime at the street level. Current gang members have the money and power from drug. People give their lives for the gang in the hopes they are the on in 1000 who actually make real money at it. Take that away and you will have some traditional crime still, but shaking down people for protection money isn’t as easy or lucrative.

    One only has to look at prohibition to see how quickly violence dropped off once alcohol was legal again. Part of the cartel would go legit – making and selling drugs. Why wouldn’t they? “Oh noes – its legal! Oh wells – burn all the cocoa plants and the last person out needs to turn off the lights.”

    1. Legalizing drugs won’t end all violence, but it’ll greatly reduce how aware we are of said violence, and whether or not we think it’s kind of funny until we’re distracted by really wanting to go to Taco Bell.

    2. Have any of you ever read “Freakanomics”? Or just ask the question: “If selling drugs is so profitable, then why do so many drug dealers live with their moms?”

      1. Yes I have – it is a great book and why I said one out of a 1000 who actually make real money at it. (not a figure form the book, just an example)

  25. I am shocked that no one else is bothered by seeing this image. I am the only one who would have rather not had this in my face? Is everyone else that desensitized? 

  26. We will never start any military action in Mexico, because there is no legal natural resource in Mexico that we do not already own. Hypothetically, if Mexico decided to nationalize its oil and natural gas resources you could almost guarantee that we would be “destabilizing” the hell out of them, and we would probably recruit the Zeta Cartel to give us a hand.

    But no, under the current guidelines for deploying our already overstretched military might, I foresee no invasion into Mexico.

  27. The only plus side is these guys are obviously stupid.  Performing these kind of deadly theatrics is only attracting more and more international ire against them.  Hanging a couple of people along a bridge may shut up some locals, but the rest of the world is gearing up to liquidate these monsters with fire.

    This will not end well for them.

  28. Just think. This is only the beginning of the fun. As Climate refugees stream north, even more pressure will be put on the border areas until it just collapses from lack of adequate funding. Then what? Mason-Dixon Line? Ohio River? I fear for the Canadians.

  29. Being the kind of person who opens dozens of tabs and then reads them over the course of a day or so, I ended up reading this piece just after the one about the Voyager and the future of interstellar travel, and all I could think was, “We can’t even be decent and civil to one another as it is — we do things like torture and slaughter people for their opinions — and we want to export that kind of hellishness to other planets?”

    Fuck that. Fuck us. I hope this is a prison planet.

Comments are closed.