The departure of whites from the public service had left a skills vacuum in certain areas, ANC treasurer-general Mathews Phosa said on Wednesday. Something like to the vacuum in Zim?
"As an elected leader of the African National Congress, I want to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past," he wrote in a column in The Star newspaper.
One mistake was to allow a process that led to too many casualties of well-meaning, skilful and patriotic experts in the public sector. Another would be Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and yet another the diluge of phony education credentials.
"In addition, the exit of white persons -- who had a contribution to make -- from the civil service followed an unfortunate course that resulted in a skills vacuum in some areas of the public service," Phosa said.
"It is something that we aim to correct over time to ensure that those experts who can add substantial value to public service delivery will be given a chance to return and make the contribution they were trained to do." "Correct of time," say six to ten thousand years possibly.
Phosa said it was no secret that the government needed such skills in financial management, information technology and in safety, crime and judicial management. Blinding flash of the obvious, even for a communist.
He urged "well-meaning" South Africans, white and black, not to leave the country but to contribute to economic growth through partnerships. "It is not only in the public service where white and black South Africans have worked side by side to make South Africa a better place to live," Phosa wrote. Public service or government is th key eh? Sounds very Obamesque, very Democrat.
"We should emulate the example of... Nelson Mandela and reach deeply across divides to ensure that we search for the very best in one another." Blame the people, white people of course and their failure to reach across divides and obvious racism.
#2
SA is a toilet and the ANC has been in the drivers seat during the entire tailspin.
Why would any white want to live there? It sounds like being white in West Oakland.
#3
"We should emulate the example of... Nelson Mandela and reach deeply across divides to ensure that we search for the very best in one another."
Huh? Mandela looked out for number one - he decided he wanted the whole enchilada, and became the leader of a violent revolt that saw schools targeted with bombs.
#7
If I was white in South Africa and I saw what happened in Zimbabwae and the somewhat accepting response to those actions in South Africa it wouldn't be long before I was a white in Australia instead.
#8
21.5% of the population has HIV/AIDS.
43 year life expectancy.
24% unemployment rate.
50% of the population in poverty.
10% white (2001).
Languages: Afrikaans 13.3%, English 8.2%.
Government friendly with Zim Bob.
I can't understand it: why would whites depart?
It would have been hard not to be charmed by Mikheil Saakashvili. Young, dynamic, Western-educated and -oriented, he was among the most intriguing characters to move onto the global stage after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Last year he invited the press to join him in the Black Sea resort town of Batumi. The program: a quick ride on Jet Skis to the Turkish border to see the latest developments along the shore--new statues, fountains, a skating rink on the beach, cafés and restaurants. Afterward, the press joined the president and his administration--among the youngest in the world--to the opening of a new amusement park, where Saakashvili took a ride on every new roller coaster (ostensibly as a safety check before children arrived) and encouraged his colleagues to join him. Watching the Georgian political elite spinning upside down, laughing, one would think they were a group of young students. Saakashvili, still shy of 40, told the journalists to call him "Misha."
The Western press adored him, and so did Georgia. When he took office in 2004, Georgia was a corrupt, broken country, with a budget of $400 million and thousands of refugees from the breakaway regions of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Adzharia living in Soviet-style hotels. But Misha had two goals: to integrate the separatist regions back into Georgia, and align his country with the West rather than Russia. Over the years, I met with him on five occasions, on the Black Sea coast and in Tbilisi, and his message was always the same: Georgia wants to be with the West. "The more Russia pushes us out of the market ... the better performance we will show the world. No matter what Russia does, we perform."
So with the threat to the north, Misha looked West. He sent 2,000 troops to Iraq--the third largest contingent after the United States and Great Britain--and reformed the Georgian military (aided by U.S. training and equipment) in preparation, he believed, for one day joining NATO. He cut taxes and reined in corruption. And when Russia pushed back-- by 2006 it had expelled thousands of Georgians, stopped giving Georgians visas and banned most Georgian imports--he heaped praise on George W. Bush and argued that once Georgia was in NATO, the Russian threat would subside. I met him for the first time that year, at 1 a.m. in his Tbilisi office, in the midst of a crisis with Russia, and he looked unbreakable, insisting that joining NATO would "guarantee a stable climate."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/27/2008 11:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's see - Russia appears to have decided to annex large chunks of Georgia, but Georgia's leader is to blame because he was too naive to understand that Russia would decide to expand its territorial boundaries.
#2
Disgusting article. The whole point of it seems to be to take another thinly veiled swipe at GWB. another one of the experts. Read Michael Totten's latest for background on this conflct.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
08/27/2008 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
So newsweek continues to spread the Russian propaganda. How nice of them.
#5
Praised for bringing relative peace and economic stability ..., he revealed a darker side in November 2007 when he claimed antigovernment protesters sanctioned by Moscow were trying to overthrow his government.
The article then goes on to detail various Russion provocations. Given the ensuing events, maybe that 'darker side' remark is unjustified. It's not paranoia if they are really out ot get you.
#6
Compare wid REGNUM > MODERATE KOLEROV:THE NEW BIG CAUCASUS. MUTUAL CONTAINMENT WITHOUT ALIENS/OUTSIDERS. WHAT EXISTS NO MORE AND WHAT CAN YET STILL HAPPEN. Russo-Georgian Conflict, Russ-US/NATO, + the DEATH OF OLD RUSS-CENTASIA AGENDAS AND COOPERS versus BIRTH OF NEW AGENDAS AND COOPERS. IIUC/IICC, the forecasted- predicted or desired NEW [mostly ANTI-US/NATO-EU] AGENDAS + REGIONAL COOPERATIVE SECURITY ALLIANCES INFERS VENTURES BTWN RUSSIA + STRONG MUSLIM NATIONS. It is NOT clear in this artic just how potent Russ will be vv newfound Muslim allies - WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT RUSS AMBITIONS REGUIRE PRESENTLY WEAK, MOSTLY MUSLIM FORMER SSRS TO BECOME NATIONALLY/LOCALLY STRONG VV BOTH RUSS + US-NATO/EU.
* RIAN > HOW RUSSIA CLOBBERED GEORGIA BUT LOST THE WAR [agz US-NATO/EU]. Georgian War, etc. is covertly strategically about the US-led containment and weakening of its only other major Nuclear Competitor capable of militarily challenging and defeating its power.
Also from REGUM > MEDVEDEV: IFF NATO [Russia?] BREAKS UP [ceases relations wid Russ?], RUSSIA [US-NATO, World?]WILL LIVE WITH IT; + US DOVES [USN-NATO Ships]BRING TO GEORGIA TOMAHAWK LAND ATTACK CRUISE MISSLES, + NAVAL SHOW OF FORCE: 150-KM SEPARATE BWTN RUSSIAN BLACK SEA FLEET AND NATO NAVY + MOSKVA AND IVANOVETS MISSLE BOATS [5 ea. Russ Warships]total]ANCHOR IN ABKKAZIAN TERRITORAL WATERS, + BLACK SEA FLEET STARTS TRACKING NATO GUESTS. RUSS > 1936 International Convention on Black Sea limited Ship Types, Numbers, and Order of Presence. Warships can not be greater than 45000 tonnes nor stay longer than 21 days widout rotation.
* KOMMERSANT > RUSSIA DISTURBED/UPSET US CAUCASUS PLANS [Surround Russ wid NATO-Allies in CAUCASUS, Turn Black Sea into "AMERICAN LAKE"].
Forty years ago this week, radical activists descended on Chicago to protest the Democratic National Convention. In the ensuing chaos, hospitals treated 192 policemen, more than 650 people were arrested, and one demonstrator was killed. This week, a group calling itself "Recreate 68" has converged on Denver to protest the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Its name to the contrary, Recreate 68's organizers insist that they aren't paying homage to the '68 protestors. Not that they believe that the protestors did anything wrong: echoing the words of the federal government's Walker Report, Recreate 68 contends that "what happened in Chicago in 1968 was not a violent protest, but rather a 'police riot.'"
Numerous histories from participant-memoirists unsurprisingly second the "police riot" verdict. Cathy Wilkerson, whose cadre unleashed stink bombs and phoned bomb threats to local hotels, notes in her recent memoir that the "rampant brutality" of Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley "was exposed for all the world to see." For Tom Hayden, the coordinator of the Chicago protests who was arrested for deflating a police car's tire, "rioting police" exhibited "brutal behavior" and "mindless sadism." Bill Ayers, who brags of pelting Chicago cops with marbles fired from a slingshot, decries the "violent police assaults" and police "rioting." But far from political innocents clubbed into reality by sadistic policemen, the activists who squared off with cops were generally movement veterans who went to Chicago looking for a fight. As Jeff Jones and Mike Spiegel of New Left Notes wrote six months before the convention, "to envision non-violent demonstrations at the Convention is to indulge in pleasant fantasying." By 1968, the movement had moved from mere protest to open confrontation. Leaving for Chicago, Terry Robbins--who, 18 months later, would blow himself up while constructing a bomb intended for a soldiers' dance--told comrades: "Let's go kick some ass."
Continued on Page 49
#1
With Joe's ties to Iran and Obama's ties to Ayers, his Islamic early years and sneaky contributors like al-Mansoor - it will not surprise me that his sheep's disguise will shed right in front of us come early November.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/27/2008 9:24 Comments ||
Top||
'I love this country": Those are the magic words that Michelle Obama said at the Democratic National Convention last night.
They're the words we've wanted to hear from her ever since we saw her say that she was proud of her country "for the first time in my adult life" now that her husband was winning primaries en route to the White House.
Did she buy into the American dream? Was she part of our national aspiration - or part of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's twisted view of us? Those were the questions we wanted answered. Last night, she answered - loud and clear.
We've watched the scripted familial intimacies Hillary Clinton always shares from the podium and wondered if they had been focus grouped. We've watched Theresa Heinz Kerry's vaulting ambition at the 2004 Democratic convention and wondered if she was really human.
But this year we saw an eloquent, sincere woman speaking of her dreams and aspirations. She gave a speech that sounded real with anecdotes that seemed genuine.
Michelle Obama last night became a political plus, not a problem.
We worried that Barack was an elitist. But her speech made it clear that she wasn't born as part of the elite and that he wasn't either. Her genuine working-class stories transcended race and rang true with Americans.
By bringing her husband down to earth, Michelle reassured us. But when she began reeling off the stories, we couldn't help wondering if it wasn't too much. OK, we found ourselves saying, You didn't grow up as elitists. You can reach back for the stories and the memories. But what about now? What about the future? You started off poor, but have you gone Ivy League on us?
Listening to her, we couldn't help feeling that we've heard it all before from Barack Obama himself. Couldn't help wondering if there was more than just the rhetoric and the emotion, no matter how sincerely and obviously felt.
Michelle, essentially, gave Barack's standard speech for him. Now it's up to Barack to put meat on the skeleton and flesh out his agenda - to go beyond her words and emotions and give us programs, concrete ideas and commitments. The generalities have worked before but, to quote Sen. Obama, "not this time."
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/27/2008 6:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
'I love this country'
Talk is cheap. Did you take time to go outside the convention and confront the Ayers Brigade wannabees with that message? aka Sister Souljah momement time. Or are you avoiding such out of 'professional' courtesy.
#6
Look, she had a job to do and she did it well. Obama is running on personality because he has no record and has no agenda that he can articulate clearly. She had to establish that he is a regular guy so blue collars can imagine that they can relate to him. Hard to pull off because in so many ways it's simply not true. James Carville, one of my favorite people to detest, was disgusted that she didn't talk politics. But if she had, she would have lost him votes. Noone should vote for Democrats to govern us until they learn to govern themselves. This whole process of picking a Democratic presidental candidate has been an incredible frenzied insanity. And the beat goes on.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
08/27/2008 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Biden has about 35 years of experience on the Hill. With The One's experience, they'll have a combined experience level of 36 years. Pretty good I'd say.
#10
Obama is running on personality because he has no record and has no agenda posseses an agenda that he can cannot articulate clearly AND STLL BE ELECTABLE.
There, fixed it for ya.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/27/2008 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
How can you say Dick MOrris is usually wrong? I mean Condi Rice is the only one that can beet the Hillary Juggernaut in this election and you all know it!
#14
Maybe she can explain how she got 200-300% pay increase when her husband became a Senator -- without using the letters B, R, I, B, or E. I never could understand how that didn't raise a lot of red flags.
As my mom used to say. Actions speak louder than words. Last night was words. Her, and her husband's close ties with the likes a Ayers and Rev. Wright and Renko are actions.
#15
Love and pride are two very different emotions. Mrs. Obama, esq. isn't running for office, any more than Hillary Rodham Clinton was back in the '90s when she wasn't baking chocolate chip cookies. I really don't understand why the wives must make speeches at the convention, when nobody really cares what they think -- outside their personal circle, anyway.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/27/2008 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Since I haven't really watched political conventions since 1980 (when I threw up a little because Fritz Mondale claimed that Jimmy Carter had enhanced the defense of the US), I am not sure when this trend of having the candidates' wives speak at the convention started. Or is is just a Democrat thing? "Look, even his wife loves him! Surely you must vote for him."
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
08/27/2008 20:42 Comments ||
Top||
Now that Obama has made his momentous choice, it is useful to recall that during a Democratic presidential candidates debate in April 2007, Biden was among those who did not raise his hand to affirm his belief in the existence of a global war on terror.
In this, Biden and the head of the ticket appear to be completely simpatico. This has been clear from the beginning of the presumptive Democratic nominees campaign: analyzing an Obama speech at the same time that Biden was denying the existence of the war on terror, a Washington Post editorial noted that the candidate does not use the phrase war on terrorism. More remarkably, he doesnt mention Islam, much less Islamic extremism -- which Mr. Bush has described as a critical ideological threat to freedom inside and outside the Muslim world.
Actually, given the Democratic Partys position on the global jihad, it would have been more remarkable if Obama had mentioned Islam. And his new running mate offers more of the same. Biden recently offered some hope of insight when he declared that terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. If we cant even identify the enemy or describe the war were fighting, its difficult to see how we will win.
He then offered an insight into how he would identify the enemy when he identified the jihad terrorists in Chechnya -- the ones who massacred over 300 children at Beslan -- as freedom fighters: The war in Chechnya is a war of liberation -- it engaged in terrorist activities, but it is fundamentally different.
Obama and Biden, once ensconced in the White House, would thus revert to the Clinton-era policy of seeing each front in the global jihad as a discrete liberation struggle to be bought off by the right aid package. Several weeks ago, CNN aired an interview with Obama in which the candidate expressed the opinion that Islamic jihad is a result of U.S. foreign policy failure. He blamed global jihadist activity on poverty -- a popular correlation that has been disproved by numerous studies (quick: how many Haitian terrorists can you name?). But of course it is also the Wests fault: Obama asserted that there has been a shift in Islam that I believe is connected to the failures of governments and the failures of the West to work with many of these countries, in order to make sure that opportunities are there, that theres bottom-up economic growth.
So according to Obama, the shift in Islam doesnt have anything to do -- or anything significant to do -- with imperatives within Islam itself, or with changes in conditions in the Islamic world that have allowed for a resurgence of the jihad ideology. That resurgence is all because of the failures of the West to work with many of these countries -- although we are pouring billions into Egypt and Pakistan and they are still hotbeds of jihadist sentiment.
Obama made a recommendation: But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.
Wouldnt it also be useful to understand that there is an expansionist and supremacist imperative shared by all orthodox sects and schools of Islam, and that some Muslims will most likely continue to act upon that imperative no matter how much we demonstrate our understanding of Islamic diversity?
Although he continues to campaign under a mantra of change, so far Obama is offering more of the same in a field where genuine, informed and careful change is needed more than ever. Neither Obama nor Biden show any sign of being aware of the global jihad agenda, and has to my knowledge never said anything about the jihad or Islamic supremacism.
When Biden says that we have to identify the enemy, he apparently means that we have to define them as various insurgent and nationalist movements, and find the right mix of concessions and aid to offer them in order to pacify them. Given the Islamic jihad agenda, of course, this is short-sighted, and time and events will demonstrate just how short-sighted the Obama-Biden tickets policy really is.
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2008 08:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the war in Chechnya IS about the worst example to pick if youre trying to make the case that different parts of the WOT are NOT discrete.
Its a textbook example of a war over autonomy and nationalism, with a real and brutal occupation, that DID marginalize the moderates and empowered the Jihadis.
#2
WAFF.com Thread > YOUTUBE/VIDEO News > NOTED RUSSIAN POLITICIAN [Prophet - pechant for LT Accuracy?] WARNS ISRAEL MAY ATTACK IRAN IN TWO MONTHS.
* Said Israeli-Iranian War will induce wider ME + TransRegional Conflict - Conventional, Sectarian, and likely even NUCLEAR [tactical]!?
* RUSSIA, etc. may see MASSIVE REFUGEE INFLOWS stemming from same.
* World safe under a POTUS MCCAIN ADMIN for EIGHT YEARS!?
* NEXT CONFLICT IN AUGUST 2016????
Before we decide that a bigger, better [Big Government] energy policy is going to fix our troubles, we should recall that the United States has had various energy plans since the Nixon administration. Unfortunately, such policies have often made things worse.
Look at natural gas. In 1982, Congress banned offshore drilling in virtually all U.S. waters. In addition to limiting our ability to produce more oil, that put at least 76 trillion cu. ft. of potentially recoverable natural gas off-limits.
And that's a shame, because natural gas is our most attractive major energy source right now. Solar and wind power are promising, but so far they've barely made a dent in our use of oil and coal. Natural gas is a practical alternative, and relative to other fossil fuels it's clean to produce and burnand it releases much less carbon into the air. It can drive factories, heat homes and even, as Pickens advocates, power vehicles. But we're producing far less than we need.
Sadly, our government's track record isn't any better in picking energy sources that it does support. Coal has been a national priority ever since Jimmy Carter put on that cardigan. Yes, coal is plentiful, but it is an environmental headache all the way from strip mine to smokestack. Then there's ethanol. It was less than a year ago that leaders of both parties decided that ethanol made from corn would be a brilliant alternative to foreign oil. Speeches were made; sweeping mandates passed. The result? Food prices went through the roofand energy prices did, too.
Where would a more sensible energy policy start? Pickens is on the right track with his plan to increase use of natural gas. And McCain's call to allow more offshore drilling would significantly increase production. Alternatives such as wind or solar look better by the day, and, indeed, every major energy plan stresses them. But, it will take decades for the alternative-energy infrastructure to match our needs. We must have those offshore oil and gas reserves to bridge the gap.
The government can play a role in advancing alternative energy. Tax incentives and regulatory relief can help. So can research money channeled through the National Science Foundation or DARPA. But let's tread lightly when it comes to giving handouts to corporations in the name of research. Obama's promise of billions in development funds sounds enticing. But who gets those dollars? It wasn't too long ago that investors and politicians alike regarded Enron as a brilliant innovator in the energy field. If copious research funds had been available in Enron's heyday, its executives would no doubt have found a way to pocket a share.
With oil trading at far over $100 a barrel, companies already have incentives to develop alternativesthe market will reward breakthroughs handsomely. In fields ranging from batteries to biofuels, there are hundreds of promising research projects under way. Some will succeed, some won't. But we need scientists, entrepreneurs and consumers to pick the winners, not politicians. Finding solutions to our energy problems isn't rocket science. It's a lot tougher.
#1
There has been much disinformation on the entire subject of oil and gas drilling in this country. We as a nation are headed for an energy transformation that will take decades to complete. Rushing headlong into into alternative energy as the only solution would be a disaster for our economy. What is needed are a repeal of antiquated laws that are blocking oil and gas exploration. The oil and gas industry has come a long way toward safe and environmentally friendly was to extract their products. This article makes more sense than anything I've read to date as far as an energy policy for the country. Our politicians would be wise to heed the advice.
So, do we really need an Apollo project for energy? It is tempting to believe that a huge government initiative, backed by ample tax dollars, could solve this problem. But be careful what you wish for.
Yes, the moon landing was a towering achievement. But, as aerospace analyst Rand Simberg notes, it was also a "well-defined engineering challenge, and a problem susceptible to having huge bales of money thrown at it." Retooling America's energy infrastructure is far more complex. It isn't one challenge, it's thousandsa total overhaul of the American lifestyle involving deep changes in every home, vehicle and business in the country.
Anyone who believes we should put all those myriad decisions in the hands of government officials should take a close look at NASA. No, not the agile NASA of the Apollo years, but the ponderous space agency of recent decades.
After Apollo, NASA set out to build an affordable, reliable vehicle that would make space travel routine. Instead, we got the shuttle, a delicate, dangerous craft that flies infrequently and costs nearly half a billion dollars a launch. So, while NASA still accomplishes some great things, it's hardly a model of efficient, long-term problem solving.
#3
Part of the 'solution' is a TVA power and authority to cut through local and state NIMBYism with severe limitations on judicial interference which could be done indirectly by tagging the loser with paying for the costs of lost appeals to include 'bonding' a percentage of that growing cost prior to settlement.
The average poverty rate for all Americans for the first seven years of the Reagan terms was 14.2%. For the first seven years of Bill Clintons terms, it was 13.6%. Under George Bush, the average poverty rate for 2001-2007 is 12.4%.
American women reached record wage parity with men in 2007. Women earned 77.8 cents for every dollar earned by men.
The average income for all blacks in 2007 was $46,631. This is the third highest average in history, exceeded only by the years 1999 and 2000.
The average income for Hispanics in 2007 was $50,828. While it is lower than last years all-time record, it is higher than all years preceding 2000.
The poverty rate for people over 65 was at a record low in 2006, 9.4%, and is at its second lowest for 2007, 9.7%.
#2
That's not OS. BTW, is this troll the former McZoid blowing a mental gasket? I haven't seen him post anymore.
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2008 6:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
These are statistical poverty rates which include people who'd qualify as middle class in most other countries in the world. Chronic or the traditional image of poverty is a smaller number unlikely to alter because of human free will. Those who
- choose to abuse drugs and alcohol
- choose to create families before having the skills to provide food, clothing, and shelter by their own means
- choose to blow off their educational opportunities
- choose to keep to the 'old ways' which are correlated to poverty
will insure that poverty will remain among us no matter how many trillions are spent on programs and bureaucracies.
#4
McZoid had become hysterical and abusive, so he was banned, ed. The moderators don't seem to have as much patience for such behaviour as they used to. A pity -- when he was sensible he had an elephantine memory for the kind of information I am unable to remember.
#5
The Dems will use the old saw of Mark Twain: "There are lies, lies and then there are statistics." Watch as they find the dark lining in the silver cloud.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/27/2008 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Correction Jack, the phrase is "Lies, Damn Lies, and statistics"
I like my fther's version.
"Be very careful of Statistics and Averages, you take a man with one foot on a hot stove, and one foot on a block of ice, On the average, he's comfortable."
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/27/2008 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#7
All discussions of Poverty in the US tend to fall off the mark:
They measure income instead of financial resources. There are several reasons people can spend one or more years without income. Going back to school, starting a business, etc.
If you look at people's standard of living (as opposed to income), very few people live in poverty. The real number is under 5%.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
08/27/2008 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The other thing about poverty is that if you correlate it with age it becomes clear that most of the poor are young and the rich are old. The old, on the other hand may not earn much at all since they have accumulated over time for retirement creating a deceptive bell-curve of bull$hit.
#10
Not only do they look at just income, they look at personal income BEFORE any government benefits (at every level)money stolen from the rest of us by the gummint and forked over to them is added in.
There - fixed that for ya', slats.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/27/2008 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#11
No problem. However it's word-smithed, the official number overstates things by quite a bit.
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.
Before we decide that a bigger, better [Big Government] energy policy is going to fix our troubles, we should recall that the United States has had various energy plans since the Nixon administration. Unfortunately, such policies have often made things worse. 
