[Washington Post] Random House has put out a statement exonerating this Identifiable Conservative Barry, and saying that the alleged rapist wasn't really named Barry at all:
As indicated on the copyright page of Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham, some names and identifying details in the book have been changed. The name 'Barry' referenced in the book is a pseudonym. Random House, on our own behalf and on behalf of our author, regrets the confusion that has led attorney Aaron Minc to post on GoFundMe on behalf of his client, whose first name is Barry.
We are offering to pay the fees Mr. Minc has billed his client to date. Our offer will allow Mr. Minc and his client to donate all of the crowd-funding raised to not-for-profit organizations assisting survivors of rape and sexual assault.
Appalling. The book wasn't a novel; it was a memoir, offered to readers as such. The copyright page, which I suspect few people read, does say that "Some names and identifying details have been changed," but it certainly doesn't tell people which ones.
Indeed, early in the book, when she mentions a boyfriend of hers and labels him Jonah, she adds a footnote: "Name changed to protect the truly innocent." Reasonable readers, it seems to me, reading the rest of the memoir, would assume that "Barry" -- whose name wasn't accompanied with any such footnote -- was actually named Barry. Even if not all readers would so conclude, many would, and quite understandably so.
How could Dunham and Random House do this? How could an author and a publisher -- again, of a self-described memoir, not a work of fiction -- describe a supposed rape by a person, give a (relatively rare) first name and enough identifying details that readers could easily track the person down, and not even mention that "Barry" wasn't this person's real name?
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lena Dunham might have been raped at Oberlin College, but the "Barry" she describes in her memoir is a ghost. <---The Whole Story Dissected - Barack (Barry (for short) the Ghost), Where are you when we need you ? --- Washington... What are you doing there ?
#5
Next revision will be that he was a Democrat instead of the only Republican on campus. In the revision after that, it will turn out to be a girl instead of a man! She just makes this up as she goes along.
I don’t remember a much sadder sight in domestic politics in my lifetime than that of Mary Landrieu schlumpfing around these last few weeks trying to save a Senate seat that was obviously lost. It was like witnessing the last two weeks of the life of a blind and toothless dog you knew the vet was just itching to destroy. I know that sounds mean about her, but I don’t intend it that way. She did what she could and had, as far as I know, an honorable career. I do, however, intend it to sound mean about the reactionary, prejudice-infested place she comes from. A toothless dog is a figure of sympathy. A vet who takes pleasure in gassing it is not.
And that is what Louisiana, and almost the entire South, has become. The victims of the particular form of euthanasia it enforces with such glee are tolerance, compassion, civic decency, trans-racial community, the crucial secular values on which this country was founded… I could keep this list going. But I think you get the idea. Practically the whole region has rejected nearly everything that’s good about this country and has become just one big nuclear waste site of choleric, and extremely racialized, resentment. A fact made even sadder because on the whole they’re such nice people! (I truly mean that.)
With Landrieu’s departure, the Democrats will have no more senators from the Deep South, and I say good. Forget about it. Forget about the whole fetid place. Write it off. Let the GOP have it and run it and turn it into Free-Market Jesus Paradise. The Democrats don’t need it anyway. Good idea. If the voters reject you it's them that're wrong, not you. Don't bother taking a look at your policies to see why they don't like them.
Actually, that’s not quite true. They need Florida, arguably, at least in Electoral College terms. Although they don’t even really quite need it—what happened in 2012 was representative: Barack Obama didn’t need Florida, but its 29 electoral votes provided a nice layer of icing on the cake, bumping him up to a gaudy 332 EVs, and besides, it’s nice to be able to say you won such a big state. But Florida is kind of an outlier, because culturally, only the northern half of Florida is Dixie. Ditto Virginia, but in reverse; culturally, northern Virginia is Yankee land (but with gun shops).
So Democrats still need to care about those two states, at least in presidential terms. And maybe you can throw in North Carolina under the right circumstances. And at some point in the near future, you’ll be able to talk about Georgia as a state a Democrat can capture. And eventually, Texas, too. Don't count on it too soon. The Dems ran a guy named Sam Houston last month and he lost. Texans are pretty smart folk, outside of the ciy of Houston. North Carolina's blue around Chapel Hill, pretty sensible most other places.
But that’s presidential politics. At the congressional level, and from there on down, the Democrats should just forget about the place. They should make no effort, except under extraordinary circumstances, to field competitive candidates. The national committees shouldn’t spend a red cent down there. This means every Senate seat will be Republican, and 80 percent of the House seats will be, too. The Democrats will retain their hold on the majority-black districts, and they’ll occasionally be competitive in a small number of other districts in cities and college towns. But they’re not going win Southern seats (I include here with some sadness my native West Virginia, which was not a Southern state when I was growing up but culturally is one now). And they shouldn’t try. I quite agree. As I mentioned yesterday, the Dems are the party of blacks and really rich donors. Everybody else is prey. Let them withdraw from the south and the conservatives and libertarians can argue with each other and both get stronger from the exchange of ideas.
#1
Think of it as both a legal and cultural divide layed out by a couple of fellows from the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, UK. I'll use this old marker stone to explain.
#2
Fine. Then we'll go back being to the Republic of Texas. And keep our oil. We really don't need you.
I thought you liked us down here.
We are friendly, just don't piss us off.
#4
the state of Maryland just elected a republican governor and one of the reasons was the voters recognizing the need to stop high taxes in Maryland pushing the successful people and businesses to the free capitalist South. The left should be worried about giving up the South.
#5
The thing is, presidential candidates are developed through the political farm system. Without learning how to handle the rough and tumble of q political campaign, and the rougher and tumbler of of being in government at the state level, if not the local level, one doesn't develop the skills and the resume to win and then govern at the federal one. Some of the issues the voters have with President Obama stem from the fact that he was pushed through too fast, and lacked both the skills and rolodex to do the job he was given.
So by given up that farm system in most of the country, the Democrats are accepting being the opposition into the foreseeable future.
#6
Here's the problem, TW. The way things are right now, the Dems have an absolute lock on 240 electoral votes. These are states that will not vote for a Republican for president even if the Democrat admits to being a Nazi who kills puppies for fun. So that means that they only need to win enough states to get 18 more electoral votes to win the presidency. Conversely, it means hat the Republicans must win essentially every swing state or they have no chance at all of winning the presidency.
As much as I like your idea about the Dems being a permanent opposition party, the reality of this seems to indicate not. As long as there are populous states where 50% +1 people who depend on public funding to have food and shelter and status, it will always be an uphill battle for Republicans.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/09/2014 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Should read "28" votes not 18.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/09/2014 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#8
What The Left Really Thinks About The South
Or anyone else who lives outside the artificial word of the urban bubble.
#10
I believe the southern states had the same idea quite so.e time ago. Anyone remember the civil war.
Posted by: chris ||
12/09/2014 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Well, I saw Mike Tomasky write about her
Well, I saw ol' Michael put her down
Well, I hope Mike Tomasky will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow
Posted by: Matt ||
12/09/2014 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The thing I remember about ex-Sen. Landrieu was right after the Louisiana Purchase and her constituents called her offices to complain. They couldn't get through and Mary claimed her phones were down.
James O'Keefe snuck into the offices and discovered the phones were working. They just weren't answering incoming calls. Mary's response was to try to prosecute O'Keefe.
Mary Landrieu had a conservative rating of 20%. Her predecessor had a rating of 40%. She was a left wing senator in a red state. She did not represent her people. She should have been gone long ago.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
12/09/2014 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#13
If the south is "Dixie" how come only those stores in the north are "Macy's"?
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2014 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Before the Civil War 80% of Government money came from Southern states. I've lived in Boston and the overt racism was worse there than in Birmingham, Alabama. There were very many really good people in Boston and the surrounding areas but the very small racist population was very vocal. Reminded me of Alabama in the 50's and 60's.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/09/2014 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Juxtapose this with California, solidly Democrat, saying "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead".
I would threaten to move my little family out of the state again, mom and dad being professionals, but what would be the point. They don't care, they'll replace my family of three with a family of 15 illegals that cant speak english, write in any language or support themselves in the rat race.
#16
"trans-racial community" was one of the "secular values on which this country was founded"? in what alternate reality was "trans-racial community" one of the "secular values on which this country was founded"? Seems to me the only trans anything community was a 'trans-religious community", Maryland was Catholic, Pennsylvania was Quaker, New England was Puritan, etc, etc. That's why the Constitution makes such a big deal about freedom of religion; no state wanted other states to be able to gang up on it and impose their religion on them. But "trans-racial"? Everyone in the country was pretty much ENGLISH or AFRICAN, and we all know how that "trans-racial community" was organized. That is presumably not the model "trans-racial community" the nut-brain writing this article endorses as a foundational "secular value".
People are crazy if they believe any government statistics, which, of course, are largely fabricated. In China, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of physics holds sway, whereby the mere observation of economic numbers changes their behavior. For a time we started to look at numbers like electric-power production and freight traffic to get a line on actual economic growth because no one believed the gross- domestic-product figures. It didn’t take long for Beijing to figure this out and start doctoring those numbers, too.
I put much stock in estimates by various economists, including some at the Conference Board, that actual Chinese GDP is probably a third lower than is officially reported. And as for the recent International Monetary Fund report calling China the world’s biggest economy on a purchasing-power-parity basis, how silly was that? China is a cheap place to live if one is willing to eat rice, cabbage, and pork, but it’s expensive as all get out once you factor in the cost of decent housing, a car, and health care.
I’d be shocked if China is currently growing at a rate above, say, 4%, and any growth at all is coming from financial services, which ultimately depend on sustained growth in the rest of the economy.
#1
All you have to see is the number of Chinese who want to go somewhere else to seek their fortune. That tells you about what they think about economic conditions at home.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
12/09/2014 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
China has a long tradition of "getting the h**l out of Dodge" (or whatever the Chinese equivalent may be) before the next revolution / rebellion / barbarian invasion / plaque outbreak / etc. With all the centuries of these experiences, this premonition may now be programmed into the Han genome.
#3
Another view?
The view that China is sputtering out seems to be the consensus outside the Wall St. cheerleading squad. Even the big smart money knows China is going to have to rebalance. The question is, will it be orderly?
#4
...before the next revolution / rebellion / barbarian invasion / plaque outbreak / etc.
I used to worry about plaque outbreaks, but then I got dentures and all my plaque problems went away. 8-)
Posted by: Woozle Scourge of the Wee Folk4194 ||
12/09/2014 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Based on recent MSM-Net Artics + Pert Commentaries, IMO Beijing is getting really worried that Chinese-style Communism-Socialism = Maoism will not be able to prevent [USSR-style?]econ collapse in the Near-Term.
That various + differentiated, internal + external pressures are becom so great that China must seriously consider unilaterally halting its National Modernization + Geopol agenda, etc. in order to maintain traditional One-Party, Marxist-Maoist-Communist Rule.
> National, Geopol Modernization.
> OWG Globalist, China-desired control of East Asia + 1/2 of Pacific vee US by China [China = WESTPAC, US = EASTPAC + US West Coast].
Maha-Rushian Histoire' would argue that China's only other recourse would be to wage war.
* TOPIX > [Daily Caller] THE GATHERING DANGER OF OBAMA'S LAME DUCK FOREIGN POLICY.
* DRUDGEREPORT > [Independent.UK] RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR RISING BECAUSE OF GLOBAL TENSIONS AND INSECURITY.
* TOPIX, DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > CHINA'S S-400 ADS [Russia-supplied] CAN COVER TAIWAN, from China's mainland.
* SAME > STRONGER MAINLAND [China = Beijing] WILL ASSERT MORE PULL OVER HONG KONG, TAIWAN.
* REALTED JAPAN TIMES > IS BEIJING BROACHING THE [Sino-UK] "JOINT DECLARATION"?, on Hong Kong.
* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > [WantChinaTimes = DefenceNews Daily] US F-35 POSES THREAT TO CHINA'S LIAONING [Aircraft Carrier = CVT, BG], BUT CAN'T DEFEAT IT ALONE:EXPERT.
Wang Mingzhi, Strategist for PLAAF Command College.
* WORLD NEWS > CHINA READY TO ARM [newest] STEALTH SUBS WID [LR SLBMS, Anti-US] NUCLEAR MISSLES.
In case Globalist POTUS Obama has second thoughts + won't get out = surrender East Asia + Guam-WESTPAC [1/2 Pacific] to Beijing.
[THEATLANTIC] In theory, advocates of an infusion of spending to fix the nation's crumbling roads and bridges have found the perfect political moment.
Drivers would barely notice the extra nickel they'd be forced initially to pay as a result of the tax hike
Fuel prices are plunging to their lowest level in years. The Highway Trust Fund is broke, and Congress faces a spring deadline to replenish it. The obvious answer—the only answer, according to many in Washington—is to raise the 18.4 cent-per-gallon gas tax, which hasn't gone up in more than 20 years. Since prices at the pump have dropped more than a dollar per gallon in some areas, drivers would barely notice the extra nickel they'd be forced initially to pay as a result of the tax hike.
Initially the income tax only applied to the 1%....
That wasn't true until recently: For years, the pocketbook punch of the Great Recession combined with gas prices that peaked above $4 made an increase both politically and economically untenable.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Highway Trust Fund is broke
Cause all the two bit pols on both sides of the aisles have raided it for everything but sustaining the infrastructure.
#2
This is a tax that makes more sense than most. Revenues are nominally directed to an area of need, and one that is related to the tax. Prices are down, so tax increase would not accelerate an instability. And if taxing something means you will get less of it (energy consumption), then that isn't all bad either. Plus, alternate energy projects would suffer less if conventional prices were stable and high.
#3
As P2k noted, the Highway Trust Fund is empty precisely because, just like Social Security, the politicians have replaced real money with worthless IOU's. Raising the gas tax would have exactly zero effect on improving highway infrastructure, since they'd just add the increased revenue to their insatiable "entitlement" pile.
#4
In addition to pilferage at both the federal and state levels, the tax take is down due to federal vehicle mileage mandates. You didn't know irony was a fuel additive, did you?
#5
The fact that the tax hasn't gone up in 20 years implies it's okay if it goes up regularly. The guy's arguments would have a lot more force if the tax had gone down when prices went up. Instead it's the same old call for more taxes from the same old set of social engineers. Notice that since we have a new oil boom the argument's not for conservation but for maintenance that should have been done but wasn't.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2014 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The Highway Trust Fund is broke
That's why people don't want to repair the highways.
[DAWN] THE handover of Latif Mehsud, a key leader of the banned TTP, and unnamed other prisoners held by the US military in Afghanistan and wanted by Pakistain is a significant confidence-building measure. It suggests the US, Pakistain and Afghanistan are genuinely working towards trying to address the respective security concerns that the three countries have in the region.
At the very least, it marks a conclusive break from the strained era of Hamid Maybe I'll join the Taliban Karzai ... A former Baltimore restaurateur, now 12th and current President of Afghanistan, displacing the legitimate president Rabbani in December 2004. He was installed as the dominant political figure after the removal of the Taliban regime in late 2001 in a vain attempt to put a Pashtun face on the successor state to the Taliban. After the 2004 presidential election, he was declared president regardless of what the actual vote count was. He won a second, even more dubious, five-year-term after the 2009 presidential election. His grip on reality has been slipping steadily since around 2007, probably from heavy drug use... , who was often accused by the Pak security establishment of effectively offering sanctuary to anti-Pakistain holy warriors in order to put pressure on Pakistain on the Afghan Taliban.
Going forward from here though is not necessarily straightforward or easy, given that the Afghan government is almost sure to insist on a quid pro quo that will involve Pakistain facilitating access to the Afghan Taliban leadership in order to push ahead with the dialogue process. Perhaps, though, with the US acting as a broker and a kind of guarantor behind the scenes, the Pak-Afghan equation can be unlocked.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
Oil, once a commercial ace, strategic prince and political joker, is on the skids Hardly half a year since piercing the $100/barrel ceiling and peaking at $103, crude prices this week cracked the $65 floor, as some analysts predicted a $30 barrel sometime next year.
Such dives happen routinely in financial markets, but this one is different -- because oil prices vector economic, industrial and geopolitical pushes and pulls more tellingly than any commodity, currency, bond or share.
And what these vectors now indicate is that along with its declining financial value, oil is also losing its economic status and political clout.
Yes, recent data indicates that the global economy's recovery in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown has ended. With China's growth slowing and Germany's nearly halting, the markets sense a worldwide decline in demand, which in turn means lower oil sales -- whether to factories, airlines or households.
Yet the market mayhem is fed not only by reduced demand but also by expanded supply, in the wake of recent years' production of shale in the US.
The technique that enables extraction of oil hidden within rocks has intensified oil production dramatically in the US, so much so that Uncle Sam has recently become a net exporter of crude. Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the Cold War, Russian and Azerbaijani oil has been reaching the developed world, thus further expanding supply.
In other words, while the global economy's cyclical dynamics reduced demand for oil in recent months, industrial developments increased its supply. Moreover, the success of shale production is now making other countries follow America's example -- most notably China, whose rapidly growing energy consumption fueled oil's meteoric appreciation last decade, from nearly $10 at the turn of the century to $147 in 2008.
Beijing's stated aim, to develop its own shale industry, is a strategic threat to its oil suppliers in the Middle East. This is what OPEC's foreign ministers had on their minds during their emergency meeting last month in Vienna, amid expectations they would cut production, and thus stem crude's depreciation.
Such were the expectations.
Instead, OPEC announced it would not cut production, and thus sent prices even further down -- as if to give Americans a special gift just as they gathered around their Thanksgiving tables.
OPEC, to be sure, had other aims in mind, both political and industrial -- but they were all doomed to fail.
Cutting production has been OPEC's lethal weapon ever since 1973, when its Arab members, led by Saudi Arabia, threatened in the middle of the Yom Kippur War to pump less crude unless the US stopped emergency arms shipments to Israel. The markets panicked and oil soared within less than a year from $3 to $12/barrel.
The energy market had therefore transformed from a regular meeting place of buyers and sellers into a hypersensitive seismograph of political turmoil in the Middle East. And so, when revolution gripped Iran, oil prices more than doubled from less than $16 to nearly $40/barrel; when Iraq invaded Kuwait, prices journeyed from $17 to $36.
That was then. Now, despite the Middle East being ablaze from Libya to Iraq, and despite Iranian oil's near-complete absence from the markets due to sanctions, prices are plunging. In other words, the markets have lost fear of the Middle East, and now ignore its caprice.
Faced with OPEC's failure to cut production, analysts have been offering theories for its behavior, like Talmudic scholars in the face of an exegetic enigma.
#1
Key for Israel is that she needn't depend on hot enemies or cold friends for her supply. It's a nice extra that, even at a lower price point she can supply neighbours Egypt and Jordan, when their brotherly Arab countries do not, supporting their viability. Making profits on sales elsewhere is a bonus to the economy, sure, but overall Israel is doing just fine, and China, Russia, and other points east are very interesting in expanding trade.
That the Palestinians choose to be a captive market against the imaginary day when they inherit the supply is immaterial, as they generally don't pay their bills anyway.
#2
Why didn't OPEC cut supply, particularly at the request of so many members? Because Saudi Arabia is willing to do whatever it has to do to keep the west, and the US, in a dependent position. They will cut prices like their lives depend on it, because they do.
Ask yourself: would Gulf War 1 & 2 have happened if we didn't need their oil then?
Once we break the dependency chain, they're toast, and they know it.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
12/09/2014 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.
#1
One thing is certain: If Khamanei and Rouhani are given a larger role in the Middle East, they will not serve U.S. interests, nor those of the majority of Muslims. They will serve their own interests, which are inimical to ours.
"Inimical".... as in the Champ's goals and attitudes toward America? Ok, I fully understand.
#2
Both dabble in superstition as well. Hence the fixation on dates and times of attacks. The Nazi found a willing accomplice in the Arab world. The Nazi recognized the value of the "a practical and attractive religion for soldiers".
[BLOGS.DETROITNEWS] The recent grand jury decision to not indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing unarmed teen Michael Brown resulted in protests across the country for those disappointed with the outcome. But for those who believe Wilson’s actions were justified the response was slightly different. There are those, like Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who chose to react with all the class of an Anthony Weiner Twitter photo. Some, like Sean Hannity, took the opportunity to blame President Barack Obama for inciting violence and heightening racial tensions. Others have decided to use their victory lap as a way to “educate” the African American community.
It is this last category of people that are the most frustrating. They avoided the outlandish talking points offered up by conservative race-baiters, but still managed to prove they were completely out of touch with reality. Longtime Fox News contributor Cal Thomas opinioned that the “real problem” for the African American community is that they have “an attitude of victimhood”.
This has been a popular narrative for conservatives — who tend toward victimhood themselves — for a long time. Rather than admit that there are systemic inequalities that make being black in this country inherently unlawful, they bury their heads in the sands of the echo chamber and trivialize this struggle with patronizing rhetoric.
While protesters try and get people to recognize the racial bias of the U.S. legal system that has resulted in the deaths of numerous black men at the hands of law enforcement, conservative media portrays these men as violent thugs and claim it is the officers who are in fact the victim. There is perhaps no bigger disconnect in the mind of these conservative pundits than suggesting the biggest problem in these cases is a “victim mentality” while simultaneously asserting the murderers are the victims.
If you want to see a true victim mentality on the topic of race, look no further than conservatives. These are the people who whine that they can’t say anything about race without being called racist. They also think it is a huge injustice that black people can use the ‘N’ word but they can’t.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You can't commit violent acts, period. No matter what race you are.
#2
Wow Dale: you punched me right in the straw man.
Seriously, though: blah blah blah. Racists! Random musings about clean energy. Blah Blah Blah. Make up things and pretend Limbaugh said them. Blah Blah Blah All conservatives fault! Blah Blah Blah.
If you don't give a rat's a$$ about it, why should we? /rhet question
The public isn't upset because they're just numb to the community's own disinterest in solving their own self inflicted plague.
#10
Black ignorance is at the core of black poverty and of elevated black arrests and incarcerations. Blacks who 'act white' and get educations (useful educations, not 'Grievance Studies degrees) and work hard virtually all prosper. Black poverty and misbehavior, and political exploitation of those conditions, are at the core of racial tension. And by pointing that out I have proven myself a racist.
Posted by: Pearl Spuling5775 ||
12/09/2014 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
#12
It's not race as the hustlers claim to the rubes. It's a cannibalistic culture.
There's a rift in the black community between "authentic" blacks and immigrants. The Africans, Haitians, Jamaicans, etc. tend to do about as well as other immigrants. Second generation tends to disappear into the general population of knuckleheads.
I used to know a lady named Mabel, who had immigrated from Ghana. She was an RN in Ghana, had worked as a nurse's aide until she was certified here. She was very sweet, a little ditzy, and she'd have made a draft horse look lazy. She had a little townhouse in a neighborhood that was drifting downward and she sold it and moved to a much niftier neighborhood, populated by similar professionals.
Sonny, born in Ghana but raised to his teenage years in the drifty neighborhood, was a thug, just like his friends. I'm pretty sure he slapped Mom around a time or two while we knew her.
It's not "ignorance" when you know too much.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/09/2014 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Think of it as both a legal and cultural divide layed out by a couple of fellows from the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, UK. I'll use this old 
Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed.
They also think it is a huge injustice that black people can use the ‘N’ word but they can’t.
Breaking news! 
