In your piece [on the Mexican drug wars] you show the other side and some nuance to the new approach of Obama’s administration. Even though I am a big fan of nuance the conclusion of your story seems excessive. Even though drug-use is somewhat declining, not all weapons are originally American and you see the drug-wars as a sign of declining profits all these points so not undermine the fact that these drugs are still mainly for the American drug market which in that way funds the Mexican drug cartels which are fighting over territory. In your article you decline any American responsibility in the recent drug wars and you tell the Mexican government to take responsibility. This will be quite hard because of huge corruption and the fact that the Mexican people trust the cartels to watch over their protection better by now than their government. Drugs are the main cause of all this and denying this is just plain stupid.

Legalisation of some drugs can actually to some extend be a solution in this, as well as further restrictions on weapon ownership. But these are not what Obama is calling for.

The Czar salutes all those who take the time to write in, even if he is backed up to March when you originally sent your message. Given our propensity to behead messengers, the use of electronic mail instead encourages us to respond!

And so, we respond. Thank you for reading the essay. Yes, the Czar declines American responsibility for actions committed by Mexican citizens against other Mexicans and Americans on both sides of the borders. The Czar would also decline American responsibility for a Lithuanian who kills a citizen of Brunei. The Czar acknowledges that Americans appear to be purchasing the vast majority of drug merchandise trafficked through Mexico, but this action is neither American policy nor an action of common acceptance by American culture—it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Mexican violence is out of control within her own borders. If Spanish strikers violently attacked French trucks carrying strawberries, the Czar would not blame the folks who buy strawberries. He would blame the Spanish strikers; anything else is a specious argument.

Unfortunately, the only ones who must accept responsibility for controlling this violence is the Mexican government. If they are unable or unwilling (or as you state, a likely combination of both), then this underscores our two observations: (1) do not whine to America, as the fault is solely their own, and (2) the President had no reason to accept responsibility for acts committed by Mexican citizens on Mexican and American soil. Not his job, not America’s job, to accept blame for all things people hate.

Drugs are indeed the macguffin here, although the real problem is the violence, not the product. We stated our reasons for this in the article; however, we disagree with the idea that legalization of drugs will eliminate this problem: we stated that the notion of legalization has exacerbated the problem, and no convincing argument for legalization of drugs has yet to be made anywhere. Second, there are few countries with a greater degree of gun control than Mexico herself; we see the consequence of this bad decision played out for the world to see.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.