France's decision to negotiate the sale of four Mistral-class Amphibious Transport Docks to Russia has been met with harsh criticism in the United States and among some NATO allies. Georgian Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili was particularly brutal, declaring of the sale, "It's not even appeasement of Russia. It's a reward for Russia."
There is no question that the acquisition of the four amphibious warships will substantially enhance Russia's power-projection capabilities. However, Russia is not the only state to have committed to the construction of large-deck amphibious warships. In fact, Moscow's purchase of the Mistrals comes in the context of a global "amphib" splurge. Big "amphibs" are trendy, and the Russians have simply decided to join the club.
Known as "gators" in the naval community, amphibious warships go by several different designations, depending on their specific characteristics and purpose. For example, the United States Navy operates LPDs (Landing Platform Dock), LHAs (Landing Helicopter Assault), LSDs (Dock Landing Ship) and LHDs (Landing Helicopter Dock). All, however, share a few important similarities. Amphibious warships usually carry a group of helicopters and have the capacity to quarter a significant number of troops. Almost all "amphibs" house the technical resources necessary to coordinate the deployment of troops onto land. The ultimate littoral command ship, "amphibs" have the dual capability to support operations on land and to maintain control of the sea.
Over the past 15 years, the number of amphibious warships in navies worldwide has expanded dramatically. Examples of new construction include the French Mistrals, the South Korean Dokdos, the Australian Canberras, the Dutch Rotterdams, the New Zealander Canterbury, the Japanese Osumis, and the Spanish Galicias. The Turkish navy has contracted for the construction of a new amphibious ship, intended for use in NATO peacekeeping efforts. Canada, India, Malaysia, and South Africa have all explored the possibility of acquiring "amphibs." The British navy and the United States Navy have also expanded their amphibious fleets through construction of HMS Ocean and the Bay class by the former and San Antonio class by the latter.
"Amphibs" play a couple of important roles for a navy. First, the air capability provides a cheap alternative to an aircraft carrier. The VSTOL-capable F-35B will serve to enhance this capability for those states involved in the project. More importantly, however, "amphibs" buy "a piece of the action," giving navies that deploy them an indigenous intervention capacity as well as the capability to participate without support in internationally sanctioned expeditionary operations.
Participation in multilateral expeditionary operations has become an important metric of international prestige and influence in the early 21st century. The ability of the United States Navy to support disaster relief efforts in Southeast Asia in 2005 and off Haiti in 2010 helped preserve and enhance American influence in both regions. Similarly, the presence of a large amphibious warship off Somalia has helped give the U.S. Navy a pre-eminent role in anti-piracy operations.
Through the presence of an amphibious warship, nations earn diplomatic credit for participation and have a chance to influence the course of relief operations. Given the challenges presented by piracy, refugees, and general maritime lawlessness in disaster relief operations, the ability to project order and power with an amphibious warship can significantly enhance a state's international image. And because such deployments provide valuable opportunities for operational training, they enhance a state's security as well.
Understood against this backdrop, Moscow's desire for the Mistrals becomes clearer: Like many other states today, Russia wants the capability to project power and influence far from its borders, as well as the prestige that goes along with being able to participate in multilateral expeditionary operations on its own terms. The large, modern Mistrals will give it the ability to do so.
Significantly, the decision to buy the ship from France, rather than build it domestically, represents Moscow's acknowledgment of the pathetic state of Russia's domestic shipbuilding industry. Under the agreement, some of the Mistrals will be built in France, and some will be licensed for construction in Russia. But the choice of a foreign design -- which spurred protest within Russia -- indicates Moscow's dissatisfaction with both post-Soviet naval architecture and with Russia's industrial capacity.
Although the Mistrals are often portrayed as posing an immediate threat to Russia's near abroad, the truth is that Moscow already has all the military and economic tools it needs to threaten its neighbors. Indeed, due to the political difficulty of transiting large warships through the Dardanelles, Russia is less likely to base the Mistrals in the Black Sea than in the Pacific and the Atlantic, where they could eventually form the centerpiece of a Russian naval task force in the Caribbean or off Somalia.
Rather, the Mistral purchase indicates that Russia remains committed to playing a significant, independent role in world maritime affairs. Like South Korea, New Zealand, Turkey and others, Russia sees value in the prestige and freedom of action that amphibious warships can provide. In an era where large-scale, high-intensity naval combat is no longer considered a serious possibility, "amphibs" have become the new "gold standard" of a modern, capable navy.
Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/11/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There is no question that the acquisition of the four amphibious warships will substantially enhance Russia's power-projection capabilities. However, Russia is not the only state to have committed to the construction of large-deck amphibious warships. In fact, Moscow's purchase of the Mistrals comes in the context of a global "amphib" splurge. Big "amphibs" are trendy, and the Russians have simply decided to join the club.
The Russian navy only five years ago began phasing out the last of its Pomornik ACV and have been in need of a method of transporting naval infantry short range with some limited fire support and EW support.
Currently, the Pomornik with only nine on their entire inventory is completely inadequate for supporting ground troops for fleet operations, and have been so for a long time.
When Russians deploy marines it is to support the fleet deploying, not "power project."
The only element in this story projecting is the author.
#3
Also, unless the amphibs are surrounded by a large fleet of protective aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers and others, they are just big relatively slow targets.
Also, you need a lot of practice to get the amphibious operations right. The US has that practice. Very few other countries do.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
04/11/2010 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
When the question arises as to where? My guess is that Russia wants to do what China is doing and assert control over isolated islands and their surrounding sea resources. And this could be just about anywhere, from SE Asia to the Arctic.
#5
Do not underestimate the impact the success of the USN's efforts in the tsunami had on other nations. "I gotta have one of dem so we can look good too." And the Mistral is a nice ship. But there's a lot more to the gator navy than buying ships. Training costs $$$$.
Lest we fergit, 1990's NET > 1990's CLINTONISM > among other, [post-Cold War]THE WORLD DEMANDS TO BE ATTACKED AND INVADED BY AMERICA = AMERIKA.
D *** NG IT, WOULDN'T YOUSE KNOW IT, SO MANY AMPHIB OPERATIONS TO BE DONE, NOT ENOUGH LANDING CRAFT!
DR FEELGOOD, OR HOW I LEARNED TO WORRY BY NOT USING THE BOMB!
----------------------
ION NOT-THE-MISTARL, WMF/ CHIN MIL BLOGGERS > as a cost-economy measure, desire the PLAN TO "JUMP-START" CHIN'S CARRIER AMBITIONS BY COPYING OR ACQUIRING THE FORMER SOVIET "KIEV" CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, + CONVERTING SAME TO UV-, SPACE WAR, + BMD-CAPABLE "BATTLESPACE MOTHERSHIPS", to complement other proposed PLAN Carriers.
With every passing day, it is becoming clearer that next year the issue of paying for the government will be back at the center of political debate. There will be a head start on the discussion this summer or fall, because some of the expiring Bush tax cuts which I mock farther down must be extended. But the hangover from the Great Recession and the lagging unemployment numbers will make it impossible to focus on improving the Internal Revenue Code. Except as he suggests at the end of his editorial.
Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, confirmed that his economists have begun studying how to write a value-added tax, a form of national sales tax, because of growing congressional interest in drafting such a measure.
Elmendorf reminded the journalists of the grim news contained in his agency's analysis of President Obama's budget proposals. Agreeing with Bernanke that the current course is "unsustainable," he said that unless something changes, the government will emerge from the Obama years spending an amount equivalent to 25 percent of the gross domestic product while taking in revenue equal to only 19 percent of the GDP.
Some Senate Republicans greeted last week's hints of coming tax hikes with predictable grumbling, as if they had nothing to do with creating the deficits in the years when they were authorizing wars and cutting tax rates.
But the good news is that retiring Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican member of the Budget Committee, is setting a good example for his party by teaming up with Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, always the most bipartisan of Democrats, on a bill that could become a model for next year.
Rather than raising taxes, it reforms them in the interest of simplification and fairness, lowering the overall rates in most cases while eliminating loopholes. That kind of approach has not been taken since the tax bill of 1986, a collaboration of Republicans Ronald Reagan, James Baker, Dick Darman and Bob Packwood with Democrats led by Bill Bradley. Well, that doesn't fit 0's agenda. Besides, bipartisan is so 80's.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/11/2010 15:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Paying taxes is a patriotic act ... according to those liberal patriots Tim Geitner and Charlie Rangel...etc. etc.
This may be a plant as I know nothing about the source, but, rtwt. It sounds like it came from any of several commentors including me.
A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France's Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently "obtained" by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy as stating that President Barack Obama is "a dangerous[ly] aliéné", which translates into his, Obama, being a "mad lunatic", or in the American vernacular, "insane".
According to this report, Sarkozy was "appalled" at Obama's "vision" of what the World should be under his "guidance" and "amazed" at the American Presidents unwillingness to listen to either "reason" or "logic". Sarkozy's meeting where these impressions of Obama were formed took place nearly a fortnight ago at the White House in Washington D.C., and upon his leaving he "scolded" Obama and the US for not listening closely enough to what the rest of the World has to say. What a cowboy. On the other hand, we can never make the French happy, so we should stop trying.
Apparently, as this report details, the animosity between Sarkozy and Obama arose out of how best the West can deal with the growing threat posed by rising Islamic fundamentalism. Both Sarkozy and his European neighbors had previously been supported in their efforts by the United States in forming an alliance to strengthen the integration of Muslim peoples into their societies, and has including France and Belgium moving to ban the wearing of burqa's.
#1
It does fit with the evident Narcissistic Personality Disorder of Obama. The question is, what happens when the world continues to thwart him - will he go schizo?
#4
ALERT - FYI
When I tried to open the link to the EU Times online that was the source of the article, my Norton Anti-Virus shut the site and temporarily closed down my access to the internet and advised that a virus/worm insertion was attempted.
Reminds me of the recent hacking attempts using apparent FBI, NSA, DNI and CIA addresses and a NORK weapon story to get folks to open the emails, only to discover the hypertext links went to a non-gov went source and poof, a massive ZeuS trojan.
Link changed to the Canada Free Press site, which has the EU Times article.
#5
Time are strange. I find myself in agreement with a Frenchman.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
04/11/2010 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sarko's actually held executive management positions where he had to DEAL with the sh*t created by poorly integrated unemployed lumpen youth. As opposed to "community organizing," or BS'ing about constitutional law from time to time, or counseling BS organizations like ACORN....
The other notable fact here is that the Elysee like the Kremlin is a bastion of realpolitik. In their view, Barry's Chomsky Lite theory of interstate relations is worse than a joke. It's dangerous. We should take heed.
#8
Roger L. Simon had a column up about this a few days ago. Very interesting. I've been saying there's something wrong with him for months...starting with his giggling episode on 60 Minutes.
#10
SAM, you there? Care to comment further on Barry's weird behavior?
Barry's been a bubble off plumb for a long time, narcissism, abandonment issues, subscribing to Leftist ideology...etc. The blow only aggravates his underlying psychosis. I don't anticipate a good ending. Nope, this isn't going to end well at all.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
04/11/2010 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
The thing is, the sourcing on this story seems awfully thin. I call 48 Hour Rule -- let's see what pops up in the news over the next few days.
Gomez Threter7450, would you be so kind as to post a link to that Roger Simon story? I couldn't find it, which no doubt means I need both a nap and caffeine.
#12
I don't disagree about the source, TW, but it's still a good rant. President Weirdo may be the column you're looking for. It had a follow up as well.
#13
The guy was never challenged during the election. You can blame the MSM all you want but there were also his opponents in the Democrat primary. Then there was John McCain who pretty much gave O'Bumble a pass too. This is what elections are for and all these people blew it.
You can talk about Nixon's dirty tricks all you want but when Muskie broke down and cried in front of reporters it was some of Nixon's tricks that helped to provoke that breakdown. Curse Nixon all you want but wasn't it better to have Muskie break down on the campaign trail than in the Oval Office? It's a rough game and you need rough competition to weed out the unfit. Those who were in a position to help weed out Obama failed.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/11/2010 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I trust nobody more than the Clinton's at dirty tricks. But the Hildabeast came up empty. After that McCain's problems were mostly self inflicted. Like suspending his campaign to supply SNL with material instead of opposing the bailout called TARP like a real trunk would. The perfect mirage.
#16
"...when Muskie broke down and cried in front of reporters..."
RCP shows Bambi is underwater in an average of all polls (I think first time this has happened). If this keeps up it could be what drives him over the edge. God help us then.
#17
I don't disagree about the source, TW, but it's still a good rant.
It's a fabulous rant, Nimble Spemble, and rings true to what President Sarkozy said after the Ahmadenijad visit to the UN, when President Obama didn't call him on the secret uranium refinement sites that both presidents had just been informed about. Nonetheless. Hewever, I went to that Roger Simon link and found nothing directly connected to this story, just an assessment of President Obama's probable mental issues. What am I missing?
#18
I doubt you're missing anything. You rarely do. But Gomez merely said Roger L. Simon had a column up about this a few days ago. and that is the column to which I suspect he was referring, the this being how Barry has gone off the deep end. No direct link to this story, which itself may be wishful thinking or from a source no one else can confirm. Tomorrow is another day.
WMF > THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES: CHINA CAN BOMB THE US NAVY IN HAWAII | CHINA CAN STRIKE AND LAND TROOPS IN ALASKA, GUAM, HAWAII AND WEST COAST; + FORMER US ADMIRAL BLAIR: CHINA IS INCREASING ITS STRATEGY TO DETER OR DENY ANTI-US/USN ACCESS, DEV OF REGIONAL CAPACITY IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC.
* SAME > BLAIR: CHINA IS DEV ITS ABILITY TO STRIKE WITH LONG-RANGE BOMBER, BALLISTIC MISSLE CAPABILITY BEYOND THE SECOND-ISLAND CHAIN.
* SAME > "US DEFENSE NEWS" MEDIA: US MILITARY BUILDUP ON GUAM AT RISK FROM VOLCANIC ACTIVITY [ + Typhoon]. USGS TO TAKE THE LEAD IN MONITORING VOLCANOES AROUND GUAM AND MARIANAS REGION.
* SAME > REPUTATION OF THE GUAM BASE TO THE USA [strategic-tactical usefulness] AT RISK FROM DUAL THREATS OF VOLCANIC ACTIVITIES/ERUPTIONS AND LONG-RANGE CHINESE MISSLES.
Demonstrators at the Capitol were loud and angry on March 20 as they jeered House Democrats preparing to approve landmark health-care legislation. Before the day ended, The Post and other news organizations had reported a series of incidents so ugly they were denounced by congressional leaders of both parties.
YouTube videos show the spitting incident took place as Cleaver and other black lawmakers passed through a gantlet of rowdy protesters on the steps outside the Cannon House Office Building. Cleaver is seen reacting as he passes screaming protesters. He turns, points an accusing finger and appears to chastise one, who is shouting nonstop. As he continues up the steps, Cleaver uses his hand to wipe a protester's saliva from his face.
Cleaver was hit with spit, but whether it was deliberate is very much in question. The video suggests he was unintentionally sprayed by the screaming protester. Aha! So it was a lefty moonbat!
The distinction is significant because it fundamentally changes widespread media characterizations of what occurred. The Post and other news organizations left the impression of a despicable, premeditated assault. With videos of the incident so prevalent on liberal and conservative Web sites, and with the question being so widely raised in the blogosphere and on cable channels, The Post was remiss in not providing clarity by quickly dissecting what happened. (Cleaver's office did not return repeated calls seeking comment for this column.)
The episode involving Barney Frank is more clear-cut. Many readers have told me there is no evidence to support The Post's report that Frank was subjected to anti-gay slurs. They're wrong. An ABC News video recorded the incident inside a House office building. The same day and time, one presumes.
When ABC aired its video, the epithets were bleeped. A review of the unaltered footage, made by ABC at my request, clearly captures a protester shouting, "Barney, you faggot." Case closed. Good thing no one called me "Beerbelly".
Breitbart's $100,000 challenge may be publicity-seeking theater. But it's part of widespread conservative claims that mainstream media, including The Post, harvested, cleaned, cooked, served and swallowed a huge fabrication. The incidents are weeks old, but it's worth assigning Post reporters to find the truth. After all, a civil rights legend is being called a liar. That aside, there's serious money at stake.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/11/2010 15:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These Socialist Politicians marched front of the very Taxpayers who will bear the heavy burden of the cost of this Law.
The 19th-century cartoonist Thomas Nast, who made the Republican Party an elephant and the Democratic Party a donkey, would, if he were alive today, have reason to draw the Tea Party as a paper tiger.
Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul
Ron Paul?
and others in the Tea Party's starting lineup have warned Americans about the evils of the census, and many activists have called for a boycott. This prompted fears among Republicans that they would lose seats in Congress if conservatives refused to be counted, and Karl Rove took to the airwaves this week to urge compliance.
He could have saved his breath. There's evidence that this Tea Party rebellion is a bust. Or maybe the census isn't too high on a lot of folks' list, Dana.
There are other indications, too, that the conservative Tea Party movement is louder than it is big. Remember the Tea Party rally on the Capitol grounds the day of the House health-care vote? There was a pro-immigration rally on the Mall that day that attracted far more people. But the Tea Party got much greater attention, in part because Republican lawmakers joined the protest from the House balcony. In addition, most Tea Party-backed candidates have had little electoral success. As the Wall Street Journal reported, 18 Republican House members faced primary challenges last month in Texas, but all incumbents won easily. Time will tell, Dana. I'll look forward to your column on Sunday, November 7th.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/11/2010 13:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dana may not be employed November 7th. Not if his recent "work" keeps its' trajectory
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/11/2010 14:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
if the Great Census Panic of 2010 is any indication
WTF? What's the "Census Panic" all about? Why would anyone NOT want to be counted for the census, which determines congressional representation, fer chrissake?
Either Millbank is really reaching (now that the bogus Tea Partiers = racists meme has run out of gas), or else the people calling for a census boycott are complete morons.
Or both. But that doesn't indicate that the Tea Party movement is not strong, or enduring, or composed of rational people who simply want to avoid making their children and grandchildren into paupers.
In the wake of the diplomatic fight that the Obama administration went out of its way to pick with Israel last month, two high-ranking members of the US House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Minority Whip Eric Cantor invited their colleagues to sign a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The letter reaffirmed the signers' commitment to the unbreakable bond'' and extraordinary closeness'' that exists between the United States and Israel, and declared that our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement.'' It expressed dismay at the highly publicized tensions'' between the White House and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and pointedly counseled the administration to resolve its differences with Israel quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies.''
The letter was polite, but there was no mistaking the implicit rebuke of the president for treating Israel so shabbily. Nor, one might think, was there any mistaking its bipartisan appeal: It was signed by 333 members of the US House, more than three-fourths of the entire membership.
The Hoyer-Cantor letter wasn't the only apparent evidence in recent weeks that American friendliness for Israel crosses party lines. At the national conference of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, for example, two of the featured speakers were US Senators Charles Schumer, a staunch Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, an equally staunch Republican. In a Gallup poll released in February, Israel was one of the five countries most positively viewed by a majority of US citizens: 67 percent expressed a favorable opinion of the Jewish state. And the president's tilt against Israel has been denounced as bluntly by GOP loyalist Liz Cheney (President Obama is playing a reckless game of . . . diminishing America's ties to Israel'') as by lifelong Democrat Ed Koch (It is unimaginable that the president would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion.'')
Peer a little more closely, however, and the wall of pro-Israel solidarity turns out not to be quite so well, solid.
Take that Gallup survey, which found that 67 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Israel. The same survey also found that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 63 percent of the public stands with Israel more than quadruple the 15 percent that support the Palestinians. There's not much doubt that the American mainstream is pro-Israel.
But look at the disparity that emerges when those results are sorted by party affiliation. While support for Israel vs. the Palestinians has climbed to a stratospheric 85 percent among Republicans, the comparable figure for Democrats is an anemic 48 percent. (It was 60 percent for independents.) And behind Israel's Top 5'' favorability rating lies a gaping partisan rift: 80 percent of Republicans but just 53 percent of Democrats have positive feelings about the world's only Jewish country.
Similarly, it is true that 333 US House members, a hefty bipartisan majority, endorsed the robustly pro-Israel Hoyer-Cantor letter to Clinton. But there were only seven Republicans who declined to sign the letter, compared with 91 Democrats more than a third of the entire Democratic caucus. (Six Massachusetts Democrats were among the non-signers: John Olver, Richard Neal, John Tierney, Ed Markey, Michael Capuano, and Bill Delahunt.)
From Zogby International, meanwhile, comes still more proof of the widening gulf between the major parties on the subject of Israel. In a poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute last month, respondents were asked whether Obama should steer a middle course'' in the Middle East code for not clearly supporting Israel. There is a strong divide on this question,'' Zogby reported, with 73 percent of Democrats agreeing that the President should steer a middle course while only 24 percent of Republicans hold the same opinion.''
Taken as a whole, America's identification with Israel is as stout as ever the special relationship'' between the two nations still runs deep. But the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East's only flourishing democracy is breaking down. Republican friendship for Israel has never been more rock-solid. Democratic friendship especially in the age of Obama is growing steadily less so.
#1
Now poll the percentage of American Jews who vote and/or support the demokratic party vs. the Republican party. Cognitive dissonance personified. I've read a number of articles by Podhoretz and Goldberg about this but still find it stunningly illogical....
It will be interesting to see of Oblahblah has finally done enough to break the mindlessness of American Jews on this...if he has, money and influence disproportionate to raw numbers may flow to the right.
#2
Never mind Israel---Israel will survive and prosper with or without USA. Don't these people get whom Obama is going to scapegoat when he can't deliver on his promises?
#4
NoMoreBS - The problem is even more nuanced, and worse, than may appear.
I'll discount the whole "dual loyalty" canard - since using it can cut both ways. Still, if you throw that out, a simple random sample of American jews would give the same result - crazy democratic bias. It's hilariously the opposite of the nonsensical "What's wrong with Kansas" book by that Franks guy.
I still await the non-ethnic polling - i.e. not so much of "jewish-americans", but of religiously observant americans. I suspect that to the extent they are jewish, they are also republicans. I suspect the leftism is more secular than religious. Almost the opposite of blacks, which may be the most religious component (if not the only) still dominant amongst democrats.
#6
which may be the most religious component (if not the only) still dominant amongst democrats.
The donk party is very religious. But it is the Church of Government at which they worship.
Think I'm kidding? Who used to provide education? Churches. Now? Government. Who used to care for orphans? Church orphanages. Now? Government. Who used to care for the indigent elderly? Church homes. Now? Social Security. Who used to provide eternal life? Churches. Now? Obamacare.
They won't be happy till we all worship at the same church sorry, mosque.
#7
The Lubavicher Jewish town near us has formed quite a convenient political alliance with the Dems which allows them to flaunt building codes etc. A fair number of Conservative Jews I know are very liberal politically as well.
NS touches on why - they dislike, hate and/or fear Evangelicals and to some degree Catholics and want their influence on society to be removed.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
04/11/2010 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Who used to provide education? Churches. Now? Government.
Nimble Spemble, I've recently been reading a history of Cincinnati. I can't speak to your other points, but education in this country started out as small, private enterprises at all levels from primary to tertiary, some of the primary and secondary schools subsequently moving to community sponsorship as the middle of the 19th century approached. The churches (specifically the Catholic church) did not get involved in the education biz. until later, when there were enough Catholic children of school age to be troubled by the anti-Catholic slant of public education.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The 19th-century cartoonist Thomas Nast, who made the Republican Party an elephant and the Democratic Party a donkey, would, if he were alive today, have reason to draw the Tea Party as a paper tiger. 
By Jeff Jacoby
