#1
Maybe if all these third world countries concentrated more on developing their agriculture etc. and less on "fighting Imperialism/Zionism" via UN...
#2
Ya know, I have to wonder if this whole "Food Crisis due to Ethanol" isnt a shrewd underground propaganda campaign by the Saudis (etc) to prevent any other "Fuel" competition?
From what few facts I can glean, there's NO "Crisis" at all, just a small increase in prices CAUSED BY RISING OIL PRICES.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/15/2008 20:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
VARIOUS NET Posters > broadly, are still expectin' WORLD OIL SUPPLIES to run out by 2050???
#3
SCIENCE DAILY > ABSENCE OF CLOUDS = EFFEC COVER may had led to SUPERGREENHOUSE GAS WARMING PERIODS in Earth's ancient past. Ancient higher global Temsp also meant less BIOTIC LIFE PRODUCTION/ACYIVITY - can't blame MAN becuz Man wasn't around, or in the altern was still nuthin' more than a 4-LEGGED NON-OPPOSABLE THUMB LEMUR's GLEAM ON A BANANA/FRUIT TREE???
IOW, HUMAN-CAUSED/INDUCED POLLUTION MEANS MORE CLOUDS MEANS LIFE, ESPEC OUR OWN + ENTIRE HUMAN SPECIES???
For a mass outpouring of rage spurred by hunger to translate into a credible challenge to an established order requires an organized political leadership ready to harness that anger against the state. It may not be all that surprising, then, that Haiti has been one of the major flashpoints of the new wave of hunger-generated political crises; the outpouring of rage there has been channeled into preexisting furrows of political discontent. And that's why there may be greater reason for concern in Egypt, where the bread crisis comes on top of a mounting challenge to the regime's legitimacy by a range of opposition groups.
I'm trying pretty hard, but I can't think of a regime that's been overthrown by famine. Lack of bread was a factor in the French revolution, but not the driving factor.
How 'bout B'rack Obamer's Amerikkka?
The social theories of Karl Marx were long ago discarded as of little value, even to revolutionaries. But he did warn that capitalism had a tendency to generate its own crises.
There were no crises under Third International Socialism. Ask any kulak. National Socialism was pretty placid, with no crises with the exception of Dresden and Hamburg and a few other incidents like that.
Indeed, the spread of capitalism, and its accelerated industrialization and wealth-creation, may have fomented the food-inflation crisis - by dramatically accelerating competition for scarce resources.
Famine is pretty rare in capitalist countries, though fairly common in the anti-capitalist world.
The rapid industrialization of China and India over the past two decades - and the resultant growth of a new middle class fast approaching the size of America's - has driven demand for oil toward the limits of global supply capacity. That has pushed oil prices to levels five times what they were in the mid 1990s, which has also raised pressure on food prices by driving up agricultural costs and by prompting the substitution of biofuel crops for edible ones on scarce farmland. Moreover, those new middle class people are eating a lot better than their parents did - particularly more meat. Producing a single calorie of beef can, by some estimates, require eight or more calories of grain feed, and expanded meat consumption therefore has a multiplier effect on demand for grains. Throw in climate disasters such as the Australian drought and recent rice crop failures, and you have food inflation spiraling so fast that even the U.N. agency created to feed people in emergencies is warning that it lacks the funds to fulfill its mandate.
The reason officials such as Zoellick are sounding the alarm may be that the food crisis, and its attendant political risks, are not likely to be resolved or contained by the laissez-faire operation of capitalism's market forces. Government intervention on behalf of the poor - so out of fashion during globalization's roaring '90s and the current decade - may be about to make a comeback.
#1
It was capitalist farmers, agri-businesses, and ag-schools working together that created the farming boom that this country and the rest of the West experienced in the 20th century. Some of the crops like rice where developed through statist programs in India and the like, but the great booms in agriculture have happened because people found a way to grow and sell a lot more of certain products. And every country that has loosened state controls on agriculture {like Red China} has experience a huge increase in their agricultural production in just a few years.
#4
But he did warn that capitalism had a tendency to generate its own crises.
Ah, yes. The "discarded social theories" of Marx, but they still had to include this bit of opinion, eh? How does capitalism explain the full-on collapse of Africa's *former* "bread basket" (ZimBOBwe)? I'd say socialist/communist regimes have done WAY less than Capitalists to "feed their populace," and then you throw in some good old-fashioned luck (e.g. weather and soils), and silly government "programs" (e.g. turning corn into ethanol), and it's a recipe for disaster.
It comes down to this....if you can't *afford* to feed your own populace now, where do you think you'll be in 20-30 years when the Chinese and Indians' economies *really* start clicking. IOW, if you're already dependent on foreign nations to feed you, and those nations aren't exactly on the *up and up*, then you'll be cut off at the knees. That's one reason we HAVE to keep farming/food supply here in the U.S. for our own populace.
Posted by: BA ||
04/15/2008 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
PJ O'Rourke puts forth a solid case for the fact that every major famine in the 20th century was caused intentionally by government to starve out an ethnic group so it seems hard to imagine famine causing regimes to topple.
President George W. Bush is fond of comparing himself to Ronald Reagan. But as he meets with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in Washington this week, his policy regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons program looks more like something out of Bill Clinton's or Jimmy Carter's playbook.
In dealing with the Soviet Union on arms control, Reagan was famous for repeating the Russian phrase, "Doveryai, no proveryai" (trust, but verify). Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev reportedly once complained to Reagan, "You use that phrase every time we meet." To which Reagan smilingly replied, "That's because I like it so much."
[Bush's North Korean Capitulation]
This administration appears to have forgotten that concept altogether. Although the Six-Party Talks have been sliding into dangerous territory for some time, the Bush administration has repeatedly said that North Korea's complete, verifiable disclosure of its nuclear program was a sine qua non of any deal. No longer.
Last week in Singapore, U.S. chief negotiator Christopher Hill and his North Korean counterpart Kim Kye Gwan reached a deal that rests on trust and not verification. According to numerous press reports and Mr. Hill's April 10 congressional briefing, the U.S. will be expected to accept on faith, literally, North Korean assertions that it has not engaged in significant uranium enrichment, and that it has not proliferated nuclear technology or materials to countries like Syria and Iran.
Indeed, the North will not even make the declaration it earlier agreed to, but merely "acknowledge" that we are concerned about reports of such activities which the United States itself will actually list. By some accounts, the North Korean statement will not even be public. In exchange for this utter nonperformance, the North will be rewarded with political "compensation" (its word): Concurrent with its "declaration," it will be removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and freed from the Trading With the Enemy Act. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
04/15/2008 07:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bush can be very flexible in dealing with Nork for a whole slew of reasons. First of all, what can Nork do? We can shoot down any missile it throws at us, and Skor is more than willing to kick its butt.
Plus China doesn't want Nork starting trouble right now.
Huge, perhaps historic, victory for Berlusconi's "Popolo della liberta' " (which translates a bit awkwardly as "the people of liberty;" maybe it's better to call it "the freedom folks"). It's considerably worse than AP lets on. Berlusconi defeated Walter Veltroni's "Democratic Party" by a full 9 points in both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. And since the Italian electoral system gives a bonus to the winning side, the margins are very big and stable: 340 to 241 in the Chamber (with another 36 for a couple of small parties), and 167 to 137 in the Senate (with 5 to three little parties), which was expected to be a photo finish. Eighty percent voted, down about three percent from last time.
The big news is that the Communists are gone, for the first time since the end of the Second World War. Really gone. They didn't win a single seat in either chamber. A lot of famous faces will vanish from Parliament, and it is even possible, although unlikely, that some of the comrades will be forced to join the working class. The Greens are also gone. In fact, there are only six parties in the new Parliament, suggesting that Italy's well on the road to a two-party political system instead of the dreadful proportional electoral model that has destroyed virtually every country where it's been applied. If that happens, a lot of the credit goes to Veltroni, who created a real center-left party and refused to admit the old Left.
Tomorrow's papers will pretend that this didn't happen, and warn that Berlusconi's allies in the Northern League are mercurial and dangerous, and that his majority isn't as stable as it looks. But it is. And there's an even more annoying feature to these elections, as seen by the chattering classes: Berlusconi is an outspoken, even passionate admirer of George W. Bush and the United States of America. Reminds one of the elections that brought Sarkozy to the Elysee, doesn't it? Best to keep that quiet, or somebody might notice that hatred of America doesn't seem to affect the voters in Italy, France or Germany.
It's too soon to start talking about the ministers-to-be, but it will all get sorted out very quickly. At least Italy won't have to suffer with the likes of Massimo D'Alema any more. He's the former prime minister and recent foreign minister who proudly announced that major part of his time was devoted to protecting Iran from American pressure. He'll now spend more time on his proletarian yacht, usually based in Croatia...
#5
Berlusconi is an outspoken, even passionate admirer of George W. Bush and the United States of America. Reminds one of the elections that brought Sarkozy to the Elysee, doesn't it? Best to keep that quiet, or somebody might notice that hatred of America doesn't seem to affect the voters in Italy, France or Germany
Oh, those stupid commoners, clinging to their love of family, God, and guns, and their obvious hatred of foreigners with their foreign ways.
#12
"...hatred of America doesn't seem to affect the voters in Italy, France or Germany"
True. The average Johnny Euro may spout off about perceived and usually nonsensical failings of America, and even seem to hate the US but, like most such nationalistic scorn, it's based on envy. Many English, for instance, will obsess over the inferiority of the Yanks in exactly the same way that many Scots obssess over the English. It's a compliment,, although not one the individual would ever want to recognise as such. Therefore it's fairly easy for a self-proclaimed anti-American (as well as the generally more adult pro-Americans) to vote for a pro-American politician - the politician is acknowledging a reality they'd prefer not to.
. . . "In a democracy, I realize you don't need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels," he said over the weekend, responding to a question from an Israeli journalist who noted that Mr. Carter had been snubbed by most of Israel's top leadership and reprimanded by its president, Shimon Peres. "When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that's the dictator, because he speaks for all the people."
Come again?
. . . ponder what he could possibly have meant by this statement. On a charitable view, what Mr. Carter had in mind is that in a democracy it is the people who ultimately make the policy, whereas in a dictatorship it is only the dictator's opinion that counts. Or as W.H. Auden put it, "Only the man behind the rifle [has] free will."
That's not quite what Mr. Carter said, however. He said the dictator "speaks" for "all" the people, just as the people in a democracy speak for themselves. Taken at face value, this is a reflection of every dictator's conceit: that his will is also the general will, whether the people agree with him or not. This is what Fidel Castro meant when he praised Cuba's elections, in which only the Communist Party is on the ballot, as "the most democratic in the world." Perhaps Mr. Carter has harbored similar views about the relative merits of his opinion versus the people's since he was turned out of high office by 44 states.
Yet a dictator does not speak for the people. Properly speaking, a dictator speaks for none of the people. A dictator speaks only for himself, while "the people" are transformed, through force and fear, into an abstraction, an instrument, a rhetorical trope. On the contrary, it is only in a democracy where the government can morally and lawfully be said to speak for the people, since it was morally and lawfully chosen by the people to speak for them. Which means that Mr. Carter has matters precisely backwards: It is in democracies such as Israel where the views of the leadership matter most, and in dictatorships such as Syria where they matter least. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
04/15/2008 14:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Barack Obama may be exactly what his supporters suppose him to be. Not, however, for reasons most Americans will celebrate.
Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working-class voters are "bitter," he said they "cling" to guns, religion and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" because of "frustrations." His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice.
By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.
When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, "Yes, but I need to win a majority." When another supporter told Stevenson, "You educated the people through your campaign," Stevenson replied, "But a lot of people flunked the course." Michael Barone, in "Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan," wrote: "It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind." Barone added: "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture -- the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."
Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, "what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude." They sought from Stevenson "not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance." They especially rejected "American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent," rather than -- in Michelle Obama's words -- "just downright mean."
The emblematic book of the new liberalism was "The Affluent Society" by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a "false consciousness" (another category, like religion as the "opiate" of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:
First, the consent of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false consciousnesses, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats.
The iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still permeated that school when Obama matriculated there in 1981. Hofstadter pioneered the rhetorical tactic that Obama has revived with his diagnosis of working-class Democrats as victims -- the indispensable category in liberal theory. The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you disagree.
Obama's dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.
Hofstadter dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders -- a "paranoid style" of politics rooted in "status anxiety," etc. Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension.
Obama voiced such liberalism with his "bitterness" remarks to an audience of affluent San Franciscans. Perfect.
When Democrats convened in San Francisco in 1984, en route to losing 49 states, Jeane Kirkpatrick -- a former FDR Democrat then serving in the Cabinet of another such, Ronald Reagan -- said "San Francisco Democrats" are people who "blame America first." Today they blame Americans for America being "downright mean."
Obama's apology for his embittering sociology of "bitterness" -- "I didn't say it as well as I should have" -- occurred in Muncie, Ind. Perfect.
In 1929 and 1937, Robert and Helen Lynd published two seminal books of American sociology. They were sympathetic studies of a medium-size manufacturing city they called "Middletown," coping -- reasonably successfully, optimistically and harmoniously -- with life's vicissitudes. "Middletown" was in fact Muncie, Ind.
Posted by: ed ||
04/15/2008 06:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That's right. The transformation to effitism and snobbery started with the ultra-liberal f**kup Adlai. Truman was a down-to-earth man from and of the people. The transformation to the party of left wing elitists and commies began with Adlai and his cohorts.
Former OC Central Command and ex-defense ministry Dir.-Gen Ret. Gen. Shraga Biran said Friday, April 11, that Israels security problems will not be solved through defensive operations. In an unusually outspoken diatribe against current government policy by an apolitical military strategist, Biran warned that this defensive posture would lead inexorably to war, while strengthening Israels antagonists, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas.
He faulted the West as a whole for closing its eyes to Irans rising strength and nuclear aspirations.
I don't think he's seen his goat in quite awhile... Following are excerpts of a video-clip featuring Saudi cleric Omar Al-Sweilem, which was posted on the Internet. The video quality is low in the original.
Omar Al-Sweilem: Harith Ibn Al-Muhasibi told us what would happen when we meet the black-eyed virgin with her black hair and white face praised be He who created night and day. What hair! What a chest! What a mouth! What cheeks! What a figure! What breasts! What thighs! What legs! What whiteness! What softness! Without any creams no Nivea, no vaseline. No nothing! He said that faces would be soft that day. Even your own face will be soft without any powder or makeup. You yourself will be soflt, so how soft will a black-eyed virgin be, when she comes to you so tall and with her beautiful face, her black hair and white face - praised be He who created night and day. Just feel her palm, Sheik! He said: How soft will a fingertip be, after being softened in paradise for thousands of years! There is no god but Allah. He told us that if you entered one of the palaces, you would find ten black-eyed virgins sprawled on musk cushions. Where is Abu Khaled? Here, he has arrived! When they see you, they will get up and run to you. Lucky is the one who gets to put her thumb in your hand. When they get hold of you, they will push you onto your back, on the musk cushions. They will push you onto your back, Jamal! Allah Akbar! I wish this on all people present here. He said that one of them would place her mouth on yours. Do whatever you want. Another one would press her cheek against yours, yet another would press her chest against yours, and the others would await their turn. There is no god but Allah. He told us that one black-eyed virgin would give you a glass of wine. Wine in Paradise is a reward for your good deeds. The wine of this world is destructive, but not the wine of the world to come. Yikes! No wonder the woman have to wear those bags...
Nice, a MMM... but the trouble and real question is : what weight do those liberal thinkers have, against the whole islamic establishment (starting with the reactionary al azhar "university", and the ikwhan, milli gorus,...) and the majority opinion of arab regimes (and people, most probably)??? Not much, I fear.
#1
Also, note those MMM often live in the West, NOT in muslimland, and increasingly, they're not even safe there, like the convert to Christianity Allam not being able to visit Spain for safety reasons...
#2
It has been amusing how 7 million Israelis can keep the entire Arab world in a tizzy, but after 50 years, the joke has grown tiresome. I say rename the place Jewestine and be done with it. Today, Jewestine; tomorrow, the Gulf of Rumsfeld.
#4
The current Muslim world view is that if there was ever a Muslim footprint in the soil of a land that land is fair claim.
If they ever controlled the government there (Palestine and Andalusia) then the claim is unquestionable and the land must be returned.
They have been fairly clear and unless the Europeans are willing to give back the Balkins (tempting I admit), Sicily, Spain and Portugal they better start paying attention.
#5
Fatwa issued and beheading of this author in the streets of London in 3, 2, 1...
Posted by: BA ||
04/15/2008 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The Arab Supremacists had better watch out for the Croats, Bosnians, and Albanians when they start talking that Ummah crap - the Balkans tend to get mean when you talk about taking them over. Ask the Serbs just how unpleasant the Croats and Bosnians can get.
Posted by: ed ||
04/15/2008 08:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I attended the local Catholic church when we lived in Egypt, but there was also a Protestant church in our town. Given that an increasing number of ex-pats worshipped there, the Protestant congregation submitted permits to add a wing and fix the place up. Those permits were successively denied. Finally, in frustration, they submitted a permit to add a chickent coop on the premises. That was approved, as were a number of modifications to it to add a door, a few windows, to solidify the walls, and improve the quality of the roof. Near the end of the project, an inspector came out to see that the work had been performed according to the permits and nearly had a conniption when he saw the beautiful addition that had been made to the church. He threatened that the new construction would be torn down and the responsible parties jailed. Finally, the German ambassador intervened, pointed out how silly the building permits directorate had behaved, and all was left as constructed. The situation would have gotten very ugly without the benefaction of that ambassador, who was, of course, a congregant.
I also knew a number of Egyptian Copts who had Arabic names, though not necessarily Muslim ones. I asked one why that was so and he said that it was to blend in and avoid the most overt discrimination.
Finally, there is the story of a young fellow I met in the library of the town's Protestant church. He was about to enter med school at Ain Shams University in Cairo after completing his undergraduate studies in the US. He had an abiding interest in his religion. So, when a course was offered on the history of Christianity at his college, he took it as one of his electives, knowing he would never find such a course in Egypt. Because he was in the US, his father attended the interview with the Dean of Medicine on his behalf. As the dean looked over his son's transcript he came upon the history course and said sharply, "What's this?!" His father, used to a life of subterfuge said without hesitation, "It was required!" The dean frowned, but seemed to accept it and his son was enrolled to start his medical studies in the fall.
#2
In re: Jews. It is my understanding that shortly after 1948 it was made illegal to be a Jewish male age 18 years or older. The Jewish community that dated back to the time of Alexander the Great or even earlier (I seem to recall that King Solomon had an Egyptian wife) disappeared within a few years.
#3
My understanding is that anti Jewish persecutions began in the 1930s and there were substantial immigration waves subsequent to the 1948, 1956 and 1967 conflicts.
Essentially all property was confiscated from Jews who left Egypt.
Well, I do go a-churchin every Sunday with a bunch of bitter folks who complain about how the government is evil and screws them over, and we yell an whoop it up when the preacher rails against them Italians and Jews, an then we
Oops, wait a minute, thats not me, thats Barack Obama.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/15/2008 06:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is a great country---except for the politicians who try unceasingly to screw it up.
What annoyed me about the Obama comments was the crude reduction of everything into economic terms, the most dismal prism through which to regard humanity. So the factories close, and the sullen mass of the lowly workers ball their fists, feel a strange sour bolus of resentment bolting up their throat, and think: must channel confusing - emotions- into unreasoning opposition to redefining marriage. If the factories magically reappear, does everyone sigh with relief, quit church and drop off their guns? I have money! No need for the Magic Carpenter and that poorly-worded amendment. Call off the border patrol, too therell be jobs and upward wage pressure for everyone. Its not exactly an unusual thesis; Ive encountered it for years. People cannot possibly believe these crazy things for their own sake; they must be driven to them by external forces.
Its possible there are bitter people who regard their station in life as a direct result of the current rate of capital gains taxes, but it seems an insufficiently reasoned basis for a national economic policy. Oh, its possible; at this very minute one of the countrys innumerable domestic terror cells could be planning a bombing of a Planned Parenthood center, driven to extremism by the very possibility of a Colombian trade pact. But I doubt it.
Not to say economics dont affect people; Im not that stupid. But like any adversity, you meet it with a certain amount of psychological capital. The more grounded you are in things that transcend the dollar, the better you can deal with the downturns. Some seem to suspect that the grounding is nothing more than a stake in the ground to channel the bolts tossed off by madmen in the pulpits, but those are the people most likely to believe that church services either consist of yelling and snake-handling, or gaseous bromides pumped out over a complacent stack of prim-faced morons and hypocrites who spend the service lusting after young women in the choir. There is no goodness, only the momentary self-delusion accorded by participation in a consensual charade.
Ive been trying to find the right words for a certain theory, and I cant quite do it yet. It has to do with how a candidate feels about America they have to be fundamentally, dispositionally comfortable with it. Not in a way that glosses over or excuses its flaws, but comfortable in the way a long-term married couple is comfortable. That includes not delighting in its flaws, or crowing them at every opportunity as proof of your love. I mean a simple quiet sense of awe and pride, its challenges and flaws and uniqueness and tragedies considered. You dont win the office by being angry were not something else; you win by being enthused we can be something better. You can fake the latter. But people sense the former.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/15/2008 06:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You dont win the office by being angry were not something else; you win by being enthused we can be something better. You can fake the latter. But people sense the former.
Many do. I hope it's enough.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/15/2008 6:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Snag everyone in America a $350,000/year job as an "outreach coordinator". Bitterness solved.
Posted by: ed ||
04/15/2008 6:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Snag everyone in America a $350,000/year job as an "outreach coordinator". Bitterness solved.
They will be proud of America for the first time in their lives?
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.
