Last night's Democratic debate was, if the ratings are accurate, the most watched debate in cable news history. It doesn't surprise me, and we must not assume that there's a sudden surge of interest in the wit and wisdom of Hillary Clinton. The Democratic contest has descended into a personal, bitter, racially tinged brawl, and that gets you an audience. Also, there's a good chance this brawl will go on, become even more bitter, and divide the Democratic Party as it hasn't been divided in decades.
We don't only elect a president, we elect a culture. Consider a new poll of California Democrats. Where does Obama's strength lie? It lies among blacks, the educated, the affluent. Clinton's strength? Among women, Latinos, and lower-income voters. Roughly stated, it's a split between the historic, traditional Democratic coalition (Clinton) and the sixties coalition (Obama). I'd point out that the traditional coalition won elections. The sixties coalition won Brownie points in the Nation magazine.
Clinton has become the Democrats' Nixon, depending on "the great silent majority." There is a cultural divide in the Democratic Party, and cultural divides, which often have racial aspects, are the hardest to heal.
Who will win? The odds favor Clinton, but if the vote is close after the major primaries, we could see a surprise, and it harks back to something Charles DeGaulle once said. He remarked that the graveyards of the world are filled with indispensable men. He was saying, of course, that there are no indispensable men, or women. The raw fact is that the Democrats don't need the Clintons to survive. The party survived after losing Roosevelt, and later Kennedy. But they do need the black vote to survive. Without it, there's no Democratic Party capable of fighting a national election Black stay-at-homes can doom the party.
There are party leaders, and superdelegates to the Democratic convention, who know the numbers. There are also Obama supporters, some powerful, who will not hesitate to engage in some blunt intimidation. The ugliness of that intimidation has already begun to show, with suggestions that one must not criticize Obama, that he walks on political water. If the contest is close, intimidation may win out. There is also an element within the Democratic Party that wants to nominate Obama to feel good about themselves, to cleanse themselves of the nation's past. They lose elections, but they love martyrdom.
I still think Clinton will pull it out. But there are scars, and they may be permanent.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/23/2008 12:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Also from US INFOWIRE [repost?]> MILLIONAIRE PATRIOT WANTS AMERICANS ARMED AND TRAINED. Dr. Ignatius Piazza - spending his own $$$ to properly train, massively/well-arm ordinary America citizens per his beliefs for America.
If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.
Actually written a long time ago in another context, which doesn't make it any less true.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/23/2008 05:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
AoS, sorry about the mis-categorization (@#$%^&* drop-menus!). Please don't hit me.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/23/2008 5:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There was a little crap game going on in the alley next the local tavern. Everyone knew the game was rigged. However, when asked why they continued to play the general response was 'it was the only game in town'.
The shame of it all is that the pols think that votes mean 'consent', ignoring that dictators often get 99 and 100% votes. That's why you'll never see on our ballots the choice - None of the Above.
#4
The shame of it all is that the pols think that votes mean 'consent', ignoring that dictators often get 99 and 100% votes. That's why you'll never see on our ballots the choice - None of the Above.
#6
Here's the rest of Robert Heinlein's advice.
If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/23/2008 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The left wants consensus. It's very important to them that everyone agree.
#8
"None of the Above" should be an amendment to the Constitution. If "None of the Above" gets the most votes the incumbent stays in office until a new election can be held. All of the candidates who lost to "None of the Above" are disqualified from running again. Repeat this process until somebody beats "None of the Above". That way if the fat cats want to buy a pol at least they have to buy somebody that the people can swallow. Or maybe they'd get tired of blowing their money.
I'm convinced that McCain and Hildebeast are two sides of the same bad penny that has kept coming back to us for the past 20 years...probably even longer but I still want to believe that Reagan was a good guy. The fat cats finance both of their campaigns so they don't give a rat's ass which one wins because they're both gonna do exactly what the fat cats want.
#9
Myself, one of the first Fredheads (and definitely th first Fredhead on Rantburg): I can hold my nose if its Romney.
But McCain, and Huckabee (and Giuliani to a only a slightly lesser degree) are all so badly flawed that they are undeserving of a vote.
If it comes to that, Im voting Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com) as long as they can field an acceptable (Pat-Buchanan/Pat-Robertson/Ron-Paul types are disqualifiers).
Then immediately turning around and continuing to help found the Colorado Conservative Party, affiliated with the American Conservative Party that is now being stiched together at Bill Quick's website, with lots of core FredHeads Goldwaterites, Reaganists headed that way from the GOP.
The template is the NY Conservative Party, which advocates for conservative candidates inside the GOP, and funds and gets the Conservative message out and denies the GOP Country Club self-appointed elites the ability to silence or muffle out message.
There is some discussion as to naming. "Conservative" is somewhat a loaded word, and there was a "Federalist" party that was the complete opposite of Federalism (I.e. it belived in gathering everything to the Feds and stripping states and individuals). SO stat parties may be called "Statname Liberty Party" in blue and purple state, "Statname Conservative Party" in deep Red States, and the national party being the New Federalist Party or some similar moniker.
For more info and to join the discussions, go here
First, we believe that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.
Second, we adhere to custom, convention, and continuity. Order and justice and freedom, we believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice, which are promoted and maintained by custom, convention and continuity.
Third, we believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. That is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runs not to the contrary; our morals are prescriptive, as are our concepts like property rights.
Fourth, we are guided by our principle of prudence. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity
Fifth, we pay attention to the principle of variety. We feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.
Sixth, we are chastened by our principle of imperfectability. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society.
Seventh, we are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all.
Eighth, we uphold voluntary community, quite as we oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, we perceive the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. We endeavor to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise.
Tenth, we understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.
Pretty good basis. Mix in Federalism as a national policy (a'la Barry Goldwater and Fred Thompson), and thats where I am.
Pity the U.S. presidential candidates. They had their positions on Iraq all worked out by last summer and have repeated them consistently ever since. But events on the ground have changed dramatically, and their rhetoric feels increasingly stale. They're fighting the Iraq War all right, but it's the wrong one.
The Democrats are having the hardest time with the new reality. Every candidate is committed to "ending the war" and bringing our troops back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.
From 2003 to 2005 the war in Iraq was defined by an insurgency. After the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006, it became largely a sectarian conflict. Now the dominant feature of the war is the proliferation of local ceasefires across the country. The real questions that candidates need to answer are these: How do they interpret this new reality? What would they do to maintain the new stability? What does all this mean for U.S. foreign and military policy in the next few years?
American forces in Iraq have done superbly but the violence has not ended because they won great military victories. Instead, the adversary the Sunnisswitched sides. Instead of shooting Americans they are now allied with them. This has happened for many reasonschanges in U.S. policy, Al Qaeda's brutality, Sunni defeats and war weariness. But it's a fragile peace. Stephen Biddle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has made several trips to Iraq to advise Gen. David Petraeus, says, "If you go south of Baghdad you will see Sunni units that are the most impressive Iraqi fighting forces in the country, never defeated, with their command structure, tight discipline, equipment and gear all intact. They have simply made a decision to stop fighting."
This realignment, however, has been directed at the United States and not the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. Petraeus has been trying to integrate these "Concerned Local Citizens"the military's wonderful euphemism for Sunni militiaswithin the Iraqi police and security forces, so they can be paid by the central government and develop a new relationship with Shiites. But both sides remain extremely wary. The Shiites suspect the former insurgents' motives; the Sunnis say that jobs and weapons are being withheld by the government. As of now, the United States Army is the organizer, financier, guarantor and enforcer of the peace.
Iraq remains deeply divided. The national reconciliation that Iraqi politicians promised has not occurred. Some movement has taken place on sharing oil revenue but on almost nothing else. The complicated new law on de-Baathification has been, in the words of a senior Iraqi official, "a big mess, perhaps worse than if we had done nothing." The non-Kurdish parts of the country remain utterly dysfunctional, and chaos and warlordism are growing in the south. Of the 2.5 million Iraqis who have fled the country, a tricklea few thousandhave returned home.
This is why Republican rhetoric about Iraq is also somewhat unhinged. John McCain deserves credit for supporting the surge. But the notion, articulated by many Republicans, that if we just stay the course a bit longer we will achieve "victory" is loopy. Iraq is seenand will be for yearsby the rest of the Middle East as a cautionary tale and not a model.
"Our initial goals in IraqWMD, democratic transformationare impossible," says Biddle. "What remains is a negative objective, stopping the war from spilling over, within Iraq but also outside it." It's similar to the challenge the Clinton administration confronted in the Balkans in the 1990swhere the mission was to end a civil war and keep the peace.
The problem with such a mission is that it requires lots of troops. By most estimates, peacekeeping in Iraq would take more foreign troops than are there right now. While it is all well and good to say that the United States should not be policing a civil war, the fact is that we are, and were we to leave, it would likely start up again. This is not the war that we signed up for and it is not really about fighting Al Qaeda, but it is the reality.
The most intelligent strategy for the United States now is a combined political and military one. If we are to engage in peacekeeping, the operation needs to be internationally recognized, sanctioned and supportedas it was in Bosnia. We should call an international conference on Iraq and get the support of other countriescrucially Iraq's neighborsfor this new mission. There should then be a joint international push to get the Iraqis to make the kinds of political deals that will turn the ceasefires into lasting peace. Over the next year if the violence continues to decline, countries like India, Poland and South Africa could be persuaded to relieve American troops. With sustained and focused efforts, over time, American forces could draw down substantially. The mission could then become what it was always billed as, a genuinely international effort to assist the Iraqi people in founding a new nation.
This is a pretty negative piece but not -- unlike so much slop from the MSM -- poorly reasoned or anti-American. Mr. Zakaria presents the alternative view of what could happen in Iraq, one we should be aware of so that we can counter it. In particular, he seems to think Bosnia was a success: that's true only if you accept the need for a long-term Western presence, in which case it's remarkably similar (by his logic) to the model we've proposed for Iraq. But he's correct in pointing out the mistrust and dysfunctional nature of Iraqi politics. I'd like to think we can work from the bottom up to help fix that, but that requires a long-term view, one that the Dhimmicrats don't have.
Mr. Zakaria's view is one shared by many Dhimmicrats. If Hilde or 'Bama are elected, watch out.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All rubbish. You'll see troop deployments from Peru and Uroguay before you see anyone arrive from South Africa and India.
#3
StrategyPage has had a number of good posts on "Reconilliation" in Iraq. It is unrealistic to believe that the Shia are just going to forgive the insurgents for the atrocities they committed.
Right now the Shia consider letting the Sunni live as a major concession.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
01/23/2008 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
Weve long known that Israel is not supposed to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks. All Israeli antiterror measures, from targeted killings of terror masters to rooting out the Jenin terror-haven to mere curfews and checkpoints, have been roundly and almost universally condemned. Even the most passive measure of allbuilding a fence to keep terrorists outhas been censured at The Hague and become a cause celebre as the apartheid wall among a plethora of Israel-foes.
But now, to the principle that Israel must not defend itself against terror, has been added a new principlethat Israel has to fuel (quite literally) the terror against it.
Last week, after seven years of bombardment of Sderot and smaller Gaza-belt communities reached a new peak to the tune of about fifty rockets and dozens of mortars a day, the floundering Israeli government hit upon an idea that was sure to fail: sealing the border crossings and cutting the fuel supplies to Gaza. Some thought this might lead Gaza residents to pressure Hamas to stop the rocket fireas if Gaza was a parliamentary democracy with responsive legislators who scurry to please their constituencies.
Instead, what has happened since has been drearily predictable.
Even after Israel cut off all fuel supplies, Gaza was still left with the two-thirds of its electricity that Israel provides to it directly. Yet, on Sunday evening, Hamas staged a humanitarian crisis by shutting down Gazas only electrical plant. Gaza City, as the reports put it, was plunged into total darkness complete with a candlelight protest of marching children, quickly becoming much more of a humanitarian concern than being plunged into seven years of rockets falling on houses and schools.
We have the choice to either cut electricity on babies in the maternity ward or heart surgery patients or stop operating rooms, warbled a Gaza Health Ministry official. It wasnt really true, since Hamas still had plenty of electricity to direct to hospitals and other urgent needs, and could even, in theory, have solved the whole problem by ending its attempts to murder Israelis. But it worked wonderfully.
The same chorus that always rises to defend Palestinian terror didnt miss its cue. On Monday European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner said, I condemn the rocket fire into Israel and we fully understand Israels need to defend its citizens . However, the recent decision to close all border crossings into Gaza as well as to stop the provision of fuel will exacerbate an already dire humanitarian situation . I have made clear that I am against this collective punishment of the people of Gaza.
Also on Monday UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert to protest, after urging Israel over the weekend to end the closure. The Arab League met urgently in Cairo and, along with the Arab ambassadors to the UN, requested an emergency session of the UN Security Council that was quickly scheduled for Tuesday.
True to form, the Europeans, UN, and Arabs led, but the U.S. wasnt far behind. On Tuesday Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters that Nobody wants innocent Gazans to suffer and so we have spoken to the Israelis about the importance of not allowing a humanitarian crisis to unfold there. She didnt explain why, in her numerous visits to Israel in recent years, she has never perceived a humanitarian crisis in Sderot or any need to relieve its residents suffering.
U.S. ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad chimed in with, We do believe that attacks against Israel are unacceptable and that it has the right to defend itself, but we have also said that when Israel defends itself it has to take the impact on civilians into account. Translation: Israel does not have the right to defend itself, since in acting against Gaza terrorists it is impossible to avoid sometimes harming Gaza civilians, and we could much more easily live with another seventy years of bombardment of Sderot than have that happen.
Israel, of course, folded quickly . On Tuesday it resumed fuel deliveries to Gaza, pumping 700,000 liters of diesel through the Nahal Oz crossing while also providing cooking gas and medicine. Hamas quickly showed its appreciation by firing five Qassams that same morning. An Israeli woman was taken to hospital in Ashkelon, north of Gaza, for severe anxiety and shock.
Also on Tuesday morning Gaza terrorists resumed shooting at field workers near Kibbutz Ein Hashlosha, where last week a twenty-year-old Ecuadorian volunteer was killed by sniper fire. Needless to say, the Arab League did not hold another urgent session and the voices of Ferrero-Waldner, Ban, Rice, Khalilzad, et al. were not heard addressing these events.
Comments:
1. Israel has to partially blame itself for trying a policy aimed at depriving and pressuring Palestinian civilians, which in todays world has about as much chance of succeeding as campaigning in favor of smoking or against condoms. Israel did so as another way of avoiding the truth that nothing can any longer protect its Gaza-belt citizens, save their communities, or restore Israels deterrence and functionality except a large-scale military action in Gaza. This too will collaterally harm Palestinian civilians and not be popular at allbut at least it will achieve something.
2. The Gazan population gets off scot-free for, along with its West Bank counterpart, electing Hamas as the Palestinian government in 2006. If, for instance, a large majority of the Iranian population was known to back the mullahcracy and its goals, it would lose sympathy as a result. The Palestinians, however, are the apple of the worlds eye, an icon of innocence no matter what they doincluding choosing and backing a virulently anti-Western, jihadist regime.
3. While Hamas was bleating about babies, heart patients, and operating rooms and world leaders were sternly reproving Israel, nobody asked whether Egypt, for instance, or other Arab brethren of the Palestinians, could have eked out the supplies they claimed they desperately needed. The alleged importance of the Palestinian issue to the moderate Arabs has become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and has recently led President Bush to convene a conference in Annapolis and publicly push Israel toward ending the occupation. But in the present episode this has not translated into suggestions, let alone pressure, on the Arabs to do anything to help the Palestinians. The Arabs want Israel, not themselves, to be in the hot seat; and they get what they want.
4. Israel got the worst of all worlds with its 2005 disengagement from Gaza. That is, it disengaged militarily, prompting a vast increase in the rocket attacks, but continued to be viewed by the world as fully politically engaged and responsible for Gazas welfare. Expectations that the world would become more understanding of Israels need to respond militarily, or otherwise, once it had ended its occupation did not materialize at all. Currently a cowardly Israeli government, whose leader was a prime disengagement advocate, keeps delaying the day of reckoning as the military challenge from Gaza grows ever more formidable and the inevitable price of confronting it ever higher.
5. Regarding the present situation, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni noted that Israel is the only place in the world that supplies electricity to terrorist organizations that launch rockets at it in return. The connectionin effect, the self-destructive, suicidal behavioris direct and physical, since the fuel supplied by Israel powers the very Gazan production lines that make the rockets. And not only that: the Gazans have repeatedly fired the rockets at the Israeli power station in Ashkelon that supplies Gaza.
Ideally, Israeli leaders like Livni and Olmert who in their personal careers have drifted from a robust nationalism to a weak-kneed eagerness-to-please would ask themselves if thisnot only not protecting Jews, but fueling those who attack them and even attack the fuel itselfis not an apt symbol of Zionism in crisis and the need to regain the old acuity and pride.
P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.
All of the so-called "moderate" Muslim nations like Malaysia and Indonesia continue down the slippery slope of Sharia. In the end, the citizens of these countries will suffer immensely while living under the hell of Islamic rule, the dumb shits will have no one to blame but themselves.
Malaysian authorities confiscated Christian children's books, claiming the illustrations of prophets such as Moses and Abraham violate Islamic Shariah law.
The independent news agency Malaysakini reported the Internal Security Ministry confiscated the literature from bookstores in two cities and one small town in mid-December.
The Rev. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Malaysian Council of Churches, confirmed the report and accused the government of persecuting Christians.
Christians, Hindus and other religious groups in Malaysia say they are increasingly being targeted as the nation gradually cedes jurisdiction to Shariah courts.
Posted by: Icerigger ||
01/23/2008 09:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
One of the most troubling threats in America's backyard is the emerging axis of Cuba's Communist regime and the Iranian government, assisted by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Cuban President Fidel Castro has been cultivating the Islamist regime in Tehran since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Currently, the relationship focuses on jamming radio and television broadcasts. Relations concerning "dual-use" biotechnology (material with both military and civilian uses) have also flourished since September 11. Both regimes are closely allied with Mr. Chavez, who has reciprocated with extensive military and intelligence ties.
In a May 2001 address to cheering Iranian youths at Tehran University, Mr. Castro said that "Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. The U.S. regime is very weak, and we are witnessing this weakness from close up." He said American "imperialism" would be overthrown just as Iranians had toppled the shah. In July 2003, the Cuban dictator began jamming Voice of America transmission as well as radio stations operated by Iranian democracy advocates. According to Chris Simmons, a former counterintelligence officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency, Cuba has established four regional intelligence centers located in Iran, India, Pakistan and Turkey, which are aimed at obtaining information about U.S. military operations abroad.
The possibility of Tehran-Havana biological-warfare activities also bears watching. In August 2006, the State Department imposed a two-year sanction against Cuba's Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology for carrying out unspecified transfers of technology and equipment to Iran. In February 2007, Roberto Ortega, a former chief of Cuban military medical services who defected to the United States, said Cuba is producing weaponized biological agents such as plague, botulism and yellow fever at an underground plant near Havana. The purpose of this activity, he told the Miami Herald, was to "blackmail the United States in case of an international incident." Mr. Ortega said he went public with the news because U.S. authorities did not appear to be following up on the information he provided.
Indeed, the US. government's permanent bureaucracy is actively obstructionist when it is not indifferent. Former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton's efforts to expose Cuban biowarfare activities became a "problem" when President Bush nominated him as ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton had clashed with Christian Westermann, a career State Department intelligence analyst who questioned reports about Cuban biological warfare efforts. "After failing to recognize the signs of biological weapons development in Cuba and Cuba's cooperation with Iran, Westermann was promoted to become national intelligence officer for Cuba," veteran journalist Ken Timmerman writes in his book "Shadow Warriors."
And, for his part, Mr. Chavez makes one state visit after another to Iran to demonstrate his solidarity with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while providing Mr. Castro an economic lifeline through the sale of cheap subsidized oil.
#1
I hadn't thought of a possible Cuban anthrax connection before, but since the killing started in a Florida news office, it makes sense! Several recent cases of dengue fever in the region, too.
#2
Don't worry, Castro will die shortly, when that happens I foresee massive returns of Cubans, bringing with them the "Freedom Bug" the regime will NOT last much longer.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/23/2008 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
No clue what the stats are but would not be surprised if this is true. If you can employ someone for less money, no benefits and with no legal repercussions in the event of a contract dispute, accident or injury why hire the American who might be prepared to work for low wages but who - thanks to minimum wage and employment legislation - cannot possibly compete? The answer is not to do away with protections for low paid workers; it is to end the devil's bargain between people like Mitt Romney looking for cheap yard work and people like Nancy Pelosi looking to take a moral high ground that costs her nothing.
Enforce the law. Enforce the border. End the problem.
#2
People who will never let us forget that their ancestors were brought here in chains as slaves, pissing and moaning about people who risk their lives to come here. Quite ironic I must say.
#3
people like Mitt Romney looking for cheap yard work
Let me get this straight. Ole Mitt, the multi-millionaire Republican candidate for president in 2008, who has consistently campaigned on more vigorous enforcement in the workplace, thought he would save a couple of coins by hiring illegal aliens to do his yard work. What the hell right Im sure he thought he could save mmmmaybe a couple of Gs a year. Hey it all ads up.
Yeahhhhhhh Riiiiiight. Dude, a contractor subs out to another contractor that often subs to another. And the original contractor doesn't bother to check their status down the line. The contractor can even legally tell the homeowner his employees are of legal status. It happens all the time. Thats the problem.
#4
Somewhat related... In my experience, if you get the average Asian-American (especially Korean-Americans) in a discussion about African-Americans, stand back. You'll end up covered in enraged spittle. There seems to be no love lost there.
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.
By P. David Hornik
