|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- SAN DIEGO -
Ocean Beach is, well, an ocean beach suburb of San Diego, which is a
city of around three million people in the bottom left hand corner of
the USA. San Diego has a huge natural harbour, which made it a
natural choice until recently for the major base for the US Pacific
fleet.
The 100 odd Km drive from LA down to San Diego has about 20km of
bush, mostly sparse
undergrowth,
the only trees appear to be those cultivated around buildings. A
sprinkling of Australian Eucalypts is evident in the twin cities of LA
& SD. I understand that this latitude (LA & SD) is the
same as the NW coast of Australia. The
prevailing winds are the Easterly trade winds. Consequently
the rainfall (like that of most of WA)
is very low (230 mm). Both cities obtain most of their
water
from the Colorado Dam.
The internet is expensive in LA and SD. Many places (coffee shops, hostels) have a machine that requires $1 for 10 minutes internet access. As a consequence I obtained a monthly wireless access account with telephone provider T-Mobile for around US$40/month. Wireless hotspots are in most Starbucks coffee shops, most Borders bookshops, and Kinkos. The service is quite fast. I was able to download 130MB in about 15 minutes.
There is a Starbucks across the road from the hostel. It is so close that wireless access can be obtained from the front verandah of the hostel. Unfortunately, the management does not permit electrical extensions to be made to the front verandah.
Most buildings in Los Angeles and San Diego are no more than 2
stories high, and stucco construction is popular. This is no
doubt due to the extreme hazard of earthquakes. The stucco
(sprayed concrete) is applied to a timber frame which has been covered
with 9mm ply, paper and chicken wire. Timber is a superior
material in earthquake zones, due to the fact that timber structures
are lighter and will suffer considerable deformation before
collapsing. The ply greatly improves the stability of the
buildings.
From Ocean Beach I took a bus and trolley down to the Mexican
border, and
walked across to Tijuana. Most US transport services offer a
fixed price ticket which is for the duration of the journey. In
SD a ticket is issued that terminates at a specified time. The
trip took about an hour. After leaving the trolley,
passengers pass through two one-way turnstile gates into Mexico.
The first thing I noticed in Mexico were the beggars. Some
mutilated. A sprinkling of children as young as 8 or 9,
begging under the watchful eye of their mothers? some meters
away. The next thing noticed are the persistent
hawkers. They quote prices in US$, (There are 10.5 Pesos to the
US$). Apparently their prices are much higher than they expect to
obtain, frequently they can be persuaded to offer the goods for less
than half of their initial asking price. Not wanting to carry
goods for the rest of the day, I asked their best prices, (for later
comparison) and continued on across the (dry) river bridge & into
the town.
There were stalls set up at the outer edge of Tijuana, in a
"shantytown" of shops, built arranged in narrow alleys leading off the
main drag. Goods were less expensive, and the hawkers a little
less persistent. Next there are a few trafficed streets with
crossings, and the downtown district begins.
In downtown Tijuana (the CBD) prices are marked, frequently in
Pesos. Alcohol was much less expensive than in the USA (which is
already much cheaper than Australia). For
instance in Tijuana it cost $US8.00 for a bottle of Kahlua that sold
for $US20
back in Ocean Beach. Some Tequila was sold with a grub in the
(sealed)
bottle. I was assured that Tequila was the "genuine" article, and
not available back in the USA. I was also told that US customs
would
permit me to return with only one bottle of alcohol. I noticed a
lot of chemist shops advertising to the tourist trade. Viagra
& various antibiotics were advertised. I bought three
tortillas for a dollar (even though it had meat and I am a vegetarian,
but what the hell, this was Mexico).
- CRIME IN LOS ANGELES -
A lot of Californians believe that guns cause crime, and that the crime rate in LA is very high. Where possible I have disabused them of that idea. My conviction is supported by the facts. According to the 2002 census there were 13 million people living in Los Angeles-Orange county. In the LA Times of 1st April, it was reported that there were 120 homicides in LA in the first quarter of 2003. From this it can be calculated that the homicide rate is around 120*4/130= 3.7 per 100,000 of population. In Australia, the comparable figure is 2.8 per 100,000. I suspect that Sydney, with a gun homicide every week in a population of 4 million would be a considerably more dangerous a city to inhabit than LA.When we consider rape and armed robbery the comparison is even
starker. In LA the data is 260 rapes, 3856 robberies in first
quarter 2003. In Australia 2002 the counts are sexual assault
17,850, robbery =20,961. Granted that sexual
assault might not be rape.
Rates per 100,000 are,
Rates |
USA |
Australia |
Sex_Crime |
Rape=8 |
Sex_Assault=80 |
Robbery | 120 |
100 |
It can be seen that, in LA the hazard of being robbed in LA is
comparable to the likelihood of being robbed in Australia. The
data for Sydney is not readily available. We are here comparing
what is generally acknowledged as the worst city in California with the
average for Australia.
I can only urge our prime minister to end this madness of treating
adult Australians like children and preventing our law abiding citizens
from purchasing weapons for protection in the event that they have
fears that armed criminals might endanger their lives and
property. We mostly all know that when the criminals are on the
doorstep it is too late to call the police, and we also mostly all know
that the police are unable to solve or reduce the number of
crimes. (I say "mostly" because I am sure that those people who
can afford to purchase armed protection are unconcerned, as would be
those who have the political influence or wealth to live in an area
that is well policed.)
Still, I suppose that John Howard only has to worry about
disaffected voters. It is unlikely that armed criminals would
attempt to rob or murder the prime minister. From his personal
point of view, taking weapons out of the hands of law abiding
Australians makes life safer for himself and his loved ones. The
fact that it makes life more dangerous for the rest of us is not his
immediate concern.