Never did like the bi+ch. She should just shut up and keep mopping in her high heels. And nothing else. >:-}
British supermodel Naomi Campbell has interviewed Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, describing him as a "rebel angel" who is unafraid to speak his mind but poses no threat to democracy.
Campbell was granted an audience with the outspoken left-wing leader as part of her new brief as contributing editor for British men's lifestyle magazine GQ, interviewing leading figures from politics, sport and entertainment.
She wrote in the article, out Thursday but extracts of which were released in advance, that she was aware her choice of subject would be controversial, but insisted she did not go to Venezuela for political reasons.
"I'd always heard Hugo Chavez was a people's president and I wanted to see if that was true... I didn't want to judge Chavez, or probe him for his political views, even though he gave them freely," she wrote.
"I simply went to interview Hugo Chavez the man," she added. The catwalk star also said she wanted to get him to donate to the Nelson Mandela Foundation, which she represents, and see some of his social programmes.
Campbell said the Venezuelan leader -- who in November was told to "shut up" by Spain's King Juan Carlos I -- was forthright and "fearless, but not threatening or unreasonable".
Venezuelans also seemed happier than her last visit 10 years ago for a Sports Illustrated magazine photoshoot, she added.
"I hope Venezuela's relations with America will improve in the immediate future. Whatever the future holds, for me his role will always be that of a rebel angel," she said.
During her time in Venezuela, she was treated to Chavez's familiar rhetoric against the United States and in particular President George W. Bush.
Chavez -- who once described Bush as "the devil" during a United Nations General Assembly address -- said the US president was "completely crazy" and Condoleezza Rice was "secretary of state of a genocidal government".
Asked if he thought Bush wanted to kill him, he replied: "I think he does. Him and his companions."
Elsewhere, Chavez found time to defend Venezuela's human rights record and vaunt his country's oil reserves, but also gave his views on less weighty matters like fashion, pop music and the British royal family.
Cuba's Fidel Castro was the world's most stylish leader, he said ("His uniform is impeccable. His boots are polished. His beard is elegant"), he was aware of the newly-reformed Spice Girls and admired Britain's Prince Charles.
He also refused to rule out following Russian President Vladimir Putin's example and posing for topless photographs. "Why not? Touch my muscles," he reportedly told the supermodel.
#4
gag. I can't help but thinking that Castro (and now Chavez) have been laundering money through Hollywood and the Cult of Celebrity for as long as I've been alive. And in order to stay on the pedestal, the Sean Penns and Namoi C's have get on their knees and ...
Is this what it would have been like had Elvis been reduced to playing Reno? Ouch!
Former President Bill Clinton has been drawing sleepy and sometimes smallish crowds at big venues in the state that revived his presidential campaign in 1992. He entered to polite applause and rows of empty seats at the University of New Hampshire on Friday. Several people filed out midspeech, and the room was largely quiet as he spoke, with few interruptions for laughter or applause. He talked about his administration, his foundation work and some about his wife. . . . Maybe the sluggish day was a blip. It was, in fairness, the day after Mrs. Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses, behind Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards of North Carolina. Mr. Clinton was working on 30 minutes sleep. He traveled to New Hampshire from Iowa in the wee hours, and the university was on winter break.
But there was a similarly listless aura at the previous stop, in Rochester. And again, on Saturday in Bow, at just the sort of high school gym that the master campaigner used to blow out. Only about 225 showed up in Bow about one-third the capacity of the room to hear Mr. Clinton hit his bullet points on the subprime lending crisis, $100 barrels of oil and how 10 of Hillarys fellow senators have endorsed her.
The crowd seemed very passive, Arthur Cunningham of Bow said after the speech. Maybe they were tired. . . . Tired of him, perhaps?
Posted by: Mike ||
01/07/2008 08:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I have the theory that Bill is actually trying to sabotage Hillary because he doesn't want her to overshadow him, which she would (due to her gender) if she became Pres.
#2
The problem for Hillary is that while having the son of a president be president can be seen as an accident, Bush junior being succeded by the wife of an ex-president smells or more exactly stinks dinasty at a hundred miles. Also unlike in the father/son case, there are examples (eg Argantina) of the husband, the ineligible ex-president running the job in the background
If she wanted to be president she should have divorced as soon as she left Whitehouse or perhaps even in the last months of Clinton presidency. Now it is too late.
#3
I suspect that if the Founding Fathers got to see all that has gone on, not just with the Clintons and Bushes, but with crap like the Kennedys, Mel Carnahan's widow and the Landrieus in Lousiana, they'd have put an anti-family dynasty clause very near the top of the Constitution...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
01/07/2008 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think the son of a President example stinks just as badly. At least Jeb is not on the short-list this time.
#5
Jeb is more qualified than Hillary and most of the other candidates, but I wouldn't vote for him either. We need to get past this Bush Clinton thing.
#7
Families. John and son John Quincy Adams. William Henry Harrison and grandson Benjamin Harrison. Theodore Roosevelt and fifth cousin Franklin Roosevelt [of course the latter was a dynasty in and of himself]. And the current iteration of Bush, father and son. It's not like we don't have quality people around to do the job, they just don't want to put up with all the inherit bullcrap that goes with the process while other more financial and personal lucrative opportunities are available within the culture. That is why you usually end up with 'political' families, be they local, state, or national. Hell, old Igor himself was filling daddy's Senate seat.
Maybe if you paid very very well to serve and hammered the media with the same standards in their product [truth in labeling, et al] that we hold every other business too, you might actually attract a better field of applicants.
#11
I heard someone on one of the Talks shows suggest that Hillary should run to the nearest courthouse and file divorce papers. This may be Hillary's only way to rescue her campaign.
#12
Mike Murphy got in a couple of good shots on Meet the Press yesterday:
When presented with a picture of Bill, Hillary, Albright, and Wes Clark:
"Yeah, it looks like a wax museum."
Followed by:
MR. RUSSERT: Last week we had Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee on MEET THE PRESS. This week we had John McCain. We invited Senator Clinton, she declined our invitation. Doing very few media interviews. I am told she might be doing Access Hollywood on Monday.
MR. MURPHY: Yeah, I dont understand it, because if she doesnt grab this thing fastand its not her fault, shes just not what theyre looking for, but shes making it worse with this kind of campaigningshes going to turn into Ed Muskie in a pantsuit and theres no chance.
#13
I do wish that they had made a rule excluding nepotism in subsequent presidencies to prevent the power of the president from influencing the outcome of a race. But IMHO it flies in the face of history to have the children or siblings of a leaders be excluded from being eligible if they can can wint the vote. Should Peyton Manning's brother be excluded from playing football? Should Peyton have been excluded? For thousands of years we have recognized the role of DNA in worthy kings, animal husbandry, etc. Hillary just married the guy and long before her health care debacle, proved she doesn't have even an iota of what it takes.
That said, I'm personally very tired of the Bush clan would simply not vote for Jeb as a matter of principle. But I do think that GW was the best available choice for his time and should not have been prevented from running. Adams' son was also a very good president.
#17
I'm strong, I'm weak, I'm psycho. Nothing says strength like a hormonal moment. So I guess now she's going for the pity vote?
I'd respect her more if she would just come out juggling, hoping on one leg on top of a ball and say, I'll do anything you want me to do in order to get your vote.
Interview with Pervez Hoodbhoy by Stefania Maurizi of Venerdi of La Repubblica Pervez Hoodbhoy, professor of nuclear and high-energy physics, and chairman of the department of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, has been interviewed by Stefania Maurizi for Il Venerdi (Friday supplement) of La Repubblica (http://www.repubblica.it), where the interview will be published
in Italian. The interview is reproduced here in the original English, as supplied by Professor Hoodbhoy.
Q: Let's start with the tragedy of Bhutto assassination. Today, international media remind us she was the first woman to become the PM of an Islamic country, she was a democratic leader, etc. Nonetheless, she was the scion of a feudal family, which was primarily responsible for making Pakistan an atomic power and she was known for the authoritarian control of her party. Looking back, how do you judge Benazir Bhutto?
A: Having first known Benazir Bhutto from high school in Karachi, and then later in Cambridge (Massachussetts), I am deeply saddened by her assassination. But, although the international media paint her as someone who could have led Pakistan into the modern age, the truth is very different. Her two tenures as prime minister were a nightmare of autocratic government and mis-governance. Billions disappeared from foreign aid. A Swiss court found her guilty of money laundering in 2003.
Ms. Bhutto owned mansions and palaces across the world. She even tried to steal land from my (public) university to feed the rapacious appetite of her party members.
Even during school days, Benazir thought she had been born to rule. More importantly, she made not the slightest effort to change the feudal character of Pakistani politics and society. The Bhuttos own vast tracts of agricultural land in Sindh that is worked upon by serfs. Although she promised to bring democracy to Pakistan, after returning to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto made clear that for a few table scraps she would be happy to team up with General Musharraf under the hopelessly absurd US plan to give our military government a civilian face. Her party, the Pakistan Peoples Party was her fiefdom. She appointed herself as "chairperson for life".
Reflecting the mindset of a feudal princess, she even named her successors to be male members from her family: her 19-year son, who is a student at Oxford and knows nothing about Pakistani culture, as well as her phenomenally corrupt husband, initially known as Mr Ten Percent and later as Mr. Thirty Percent.
Q: Was Ms. Bhutto a model for Pakistani women?
A: She was courageous and single-minded. And she showed that a woman could be the head of a conservative Islamic state. Nevertheless, it is hard to see what she wanted beyond personal power. Although she said that she was fighting for grand causes, I'm still trying to figure out what they were.
She certainly did nothing for Pakistani women during her two stints in power and left untouched the horrific Hudood laws, according to which a rape victim needs to produce 4 witnesses to the act of penetration (else she could be punished for fornication). Nor did she try to overturn the
Pakistani blasphemy law that prescribes death as the minimum penalty for those convicted of insulting the prophet of Islam or his companions. As for democracy: she had been desperate to do a deal with Musharraf who dangled over her head the many corruption cases that she was charged with.
But he proved too clever for her and she was forced into the opposition.
In foreign policy, she played footsie with the army. It could do whatever it liked, including making nuclear weapons, sending Islamic militants into Kashmir, and organizing the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. In
2002 she regretted having signed the document authorizing funds for the Taliban forces poised to capture Kandahar. But Ms. Bhutto makes an excellent martyr. In her death she will doubtlessly play a more positive role than when alive.
Q: Al Qaeda was immediately blamed for Bhutto assassination. However, many people hated her: Musharraf, the Army, and the infamous ISI, which in 1990 removed Bhutto from power after she had replaced General Hameed Gul, the man who invented the Taliban. Do you believe that Al Qaeda was really responsible for killing Benazir Bhutto? Who is going to gain from Bhutto's death?
A: There are different possibilities and much confusion. But some facts are certain. There definitely were gunshots, and this was followed by a suicide blast. Now, I do not think that suicide bombers can be bought with any number of rupees. Only a religious fanatic lured by heavenly rewards
would blow himself up. Therefore Al-Qaida, the Taliban, or other Islamic jihadist groups are strong possibilities. They always hated Bhutto, but even more after she announced in Washington that, if elected prime minister, she would fight them even more vigorously than Musharraf. Of course, rogue elements of Pakistan's intelligence agencies, who are also
strong Islamists, and who lie deeply hidden within the establishment, could also have done it. They have a stock of suicide bombers available to them, as evidenced by the success they have had in organizing suicide attacks upon army commandos as well as their own colleagues.
So did Islamists of one or the other flavour do it? Maybe, but the waters have been muddied by the government. First, publicly available photographs and videos show a modern-looking gunman accompanying the suicide bomber.
He fired three shots, heard by all present, at least one of which hit Bhutto. Some say that there was a second sharpshooter in a building too.
On the other hand, the government initially insisted she died from concussion and not a bullet wound - an obvious lie immediately refuted by those in the same car as Bhutto. Second, in just an hour after the assassination, the police washed away all the bloody evidence with water hoses. So, it is quite possible that non-Islamists in the government have
somehow used brainwashed suicide bombers, trained in mosques and madrassas, to do their dirty job. But, as in the JFK murder, the truth will never be known.
As for the gainers and losers: Islamist groups saw Bhutto as a tool of America that would be used against them, and a leader who could secularize Pakistan. Plus, she was a woman and popular. But Musharraf and his political party, the PML(Q), have also gained because a political rival
has been eliminated. The losers are those Pakistanis who wish for a secular, modern Pakistan and not one that is run by mullahs. Although she never delivered on her promises, her followers never lost faith.
Q: There is a lot of concern about the future of Pakistan. How real is the threat of an Islamic takeover, in your opinion?
A: It has already been taken over! Twenty five years ago the Pakistani state began pushing Islam on to its people as a matter of policy.
Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for academic posts required that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and jihad was propagated through schoolbooks. Today government
intervention is no longer needed because of a spontaneous groundswell of Islamic zeal. But now the state is realizing that it shot itself in the foot. The fanatical jihadists it created have turned against it. It is supreme irony that the Pakistan Army - whose men were recruited under the banner of jihad and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam - is now frequently targeted by suicide bombers who are fighting a jihad to bring even stricter Islam. It has lost a thousand or more men fighting Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The pace of radicalization has quickened. There are almost daily suicide attacks. This phenomenon was almost unknown in Pakistan before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now it is common in major cities as well as tribal areas. The targets have been the Pakistan army, police, incumbent and retired government leaders, and rival Islamic sects. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; we'll see much more in years ahead.
Q: Ideally, what do you want to see happen in the next few weeks?
A: I want Musharraf to go - resign or somehow be removed, preferably without bloodshed. I want the independent judiciary restored, a new neutral caretaker government installed for overseeing free and fair elections, and then elections that would decide upon the new parliament and prime minister. This will not immediately solve Pakistan's fundamental problems - army dominance, maldistribution of wealth, religious fanaticism, provincial imbalances - but it would get Pakistan on the track to democracy instead of the self-destruction it is now racing towards.
Q: People in Washington are increasingly frustrated with Musharraf's counterterrorism efforts, however they think there are no alternatives to Musharraf. What do you think about this?
A: The Americans have tunnel vision. They want lackeys like Musharraf who do their bidding, although here too there is deception at work. They know, but choose to forget, that Pakistani military leaders, Musharraf included, are the makers of the jihadist monster. In 1999, after Musharraf launched the secret Kargil operation in Kashmir, the United Jihad Council celebrated him as a true fighter for Islam. After 911 such praises disappeared, but under his leadership the army still covertly supported jihadist groups and the Taliban in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
Musharraf is extremely unpopular now and the Americans will have to dump him at some point. It is hard to find a pro-Musharraf person anywhere in the country except in the top business circles and the top army leadership. Until recently he ran both the army and the government himself, with the connivance of a rubber-stamp Parliament put in place through rigged elections. When the courts were about to rule that he could not legally be president, Musharraf chose to suspend the constitution and impose emergency rule. He dismissed the Supreme Court and arrested the judges, replacing them with judges who obey his every command. He blocked all independent television channels, and punished the news media for disparaging him or the army. His police arrested thousands of lawyers and pro-democracy activists. He ordered that civilians be tried in closed military courts. This was necessary, he said, to save Pakistan from a
rapidly growing Islamist insurgency. But he released 25 Islamic extremists on the day that the judges were arrested. In spite of all this, George W. Bush called Musharraf "a democrat at heart". It makes you sick.
The Americans have shot themselves in the foot by supporting the army consistently for decades. They have lost credibility and respect among Pakistanis. Everybody laughs when they hear that America wants democracy for Pakistan. In this situation, even if Musharraf goes and Gen. Kayani (the new army chief) takes over, the best that American can hope for is for the status quo. This is sad, because America is a great country with many virtues. If only they could get over their hangup of wanting to run the world! It's an impossible task anyway.
Q: In Pakistan what is the man on the street thinking?
A: Almost everyone holds the government responsible for the assassination. Tragically, suicide bombings are not condemned with any particular vigor. There is no strong reaction against the mullahs, madrassas, and jihadis. Perhaps people are afraid to criticize them because this might be seen as a criticism of Islam. Interestingly, in all the street demonstrations I have gone to after the Bhutto assassinations, there was no call for cracking down on extremists. Yesterday I met the lone taxidriver who
thought the Islamists did it.
Q: What could be an effective way to fight Al Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan?
A: To fight and win this war, Pakistan will need to mobilize both its people and the state. The notion of a power-sharing agreement between the state and Taliban is a non-starter; the spectacular failures of earlier agreements should be a lesson. Instead the government should help create public consensus through open forum discussions, proceed faster on
infrastructure development in the tribal areas, and make judicious use of military force - troops only, no air power. This should become every Pakistani's war, not just the army's, and it will have to be fought even if America packs up and goes away. But, as long as Musharraf is president,
it will be impossible to get popular support for the war. If presented with a choice between Musharraf and the Taliban, the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis would want the latter - although I am sure they would regret it later.
Q: Let's talk about Pakistan's nukes. There a lot of concern about the possibility that nuclear weapons could end up into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. Early in December the Washington Post revealed that a small group of U.S. military experts and intelligence analysts convened in Washington for exploring strategies to secure Pakistani nukes if the
Pakistani regime falls apart. Their conclusions were very scaring, as, - there are no palatable ways to forcibly ensure the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. What do you think about this?
A: The government says there is absolutely no danger of loose nukes.
Pakistan has been sending serving officers of the Strategic Plans Division, which is the agency responsible for handling nuclear weapons, to the United States for training in safety measures (PAL's locking devices, storing procedures, etc). But there's no way of telling if this will be effective. Extremists have already penetrated deep into the army and the intelligence agencies. We now see repeated evidence: for example, last month an unmarked bus carrying employees of the Inter Services Intelligence [Pakistan's secret intelligence], was collecting employees early in the morning. It was boarded by a suicide bomber who blew himself
up killing 25. It was an inside job.
And now there are many other such examples, such as that of an army man killing 16 Special Services Group commandos in a suicide attack at Ghazi Barotha. A part of the establishment is clearly at war with another part.
There are also scientists, as well as military people, who are radical Islamists. Many questions come to mind: can there be collusion between different field-level commanders, resulting in the hijacking of a nuclear weapon? Could outsider groups develop links with insiders? Given the
absence of accurate records of fissile material production, can one be certain that small quantities of highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium have already not been diverted? I do not know the answers.
Nobody does.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/07/2008 05:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
The stark headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.
In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.
Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.
University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.
Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.
Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?
"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."
Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.
"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.
Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."
But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."
Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.
#4
No, the AGW true believers will continue to believe, just like true believer commies still believe, no matter how much evidence of their wrongness is shown to them.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
01/07/2008 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
All your warmth are belong to us!!!
Posted by: The Sun ||
01/07/2008 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Might hit 70F today here in Cincinnati, and, as a bonus, the office building doesn't smell like crap!
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/07/2008 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#9
59F and sunny here in the Philadelphia suburbs at noon. Just took down my outdoor Christmas lights. Can't remember it ever being such a pleasant task. A little over a decade ago we had approximately 25F and 30 inches of snow around this date, so my Gore Extrapolation Formula (TM) projects that we will have steam outside on this date in 2040.
#10
60 deg here in NE OH. A few days ago it was 11 on my front porch. I confidently predict temperatures will continue to fluctuate regardless of expert opinions.
#14
64F in Chicago as I post. Gorgeous, gorgeous day. If this is global warming I want more of it, and I'll eat Rhode Island oranges.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/07/2008 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#15
We had our annual New Year's snowfall. This year it melted on the third. Today it was close to 70F in Cincinnati -- and I just bought a new winter coat that it looks like I won't wear until December. :-(
Honey, if 'Murkins are discussing temperature, you bet your sweet bippy it's in Fahrenheit. We don't need no stinkin' Celsius. ;-p
Richmond, VA - 72º F today, 74 forecast for tomorrow. Not a record, though - that was set (according to the local weatherman, several degrees higher than today, I think he said 76 or 78) back in the early 1900's.
But how can that BE? The Prophet AlBore and his minions followers assure us it's NEVER BEEN THIS HOT BEFORE AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE DON'T START LIVING IN CAVES while they continue to live in their mansions and fly around the world on private jets.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/07/2008 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#18
It's currently 25 and snowing in Colorado Springs, with more expected. It was 61(?) on Wednesday, I believe, then snowed 3" on Friday morning... What Darth said.
The mountains are getting pounded with snow, with up to five feet of new stuff in the last week. If you like powder skiing, this is your kind of weather. The only problem is getting to the slopes.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
01/07/2008 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
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.
Former President Bill Clinton has been drawing sleepy and sometimes smallish crowds at big venues in the state that revived his presidential campaign in 1992. He entered to polite applause and rows of empty seats at the University of New Hampshire on Friday. Several people filed out midspeech, and the room was largely quiet as he spoke, with few interruptions for laughter or applause. He talked about his administration, his foundation work and some about his wife. . . . Maybe the sluggish day was a blip. It was, in fairness, the day after Mrs. Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses, behind Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards of North Carolina. Mr. Clinton was working on 30 minutes sleep. He traveled to New Hampshire from Iowa in the wee hours, and the university was on winter break.
