``What is wrong with Dick Cheney?'' asks Michelle Cottle in the inaugural issue of the newly relaunched New Republic. She then spends the next 2,000 words marshaling evidence suggesting that his cardiac disease has left him demented and mentally disordered.
The charming part of this not-to-be-missed article (titled "Heart of Darkness," no less) is that it is framed as an exercise in compassion. Since she knows that the only way for her New Republic readers to understand Cheney is that he is evil ``next time you see Cheney behaving oddly, don't automatically assume that he's a bad man,'' she advises surely the generous thing for a liberal to do is write him off as simply nuts. In the wonderland of liberalism, Cottle is trying to make the case for Cheney by offering him the insanity defense.
She doesn't seem to understand that showing how circulatory problems can affect the brain proves nothing unless you first show the existence of a psychiatric disorder. Yet Cottle offers nothing in Cheney's presenting symptoms or behavior to justify a psychiatric diagnosis of any kind, let alone dementia.
What behavior does she cite as evidence of Cheney's looniness?
(a) Using a four-letter word in an exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy. Good God, by that standard, I should have been committed long ago and the entire borough of Brooklyn quarantined.
(b) Shoot a man in the face and not bother to call your boss 'til the next day?'' Another way of putting that is this: After a hunting accident, Cheney tried to get things in order before going public. Not the best decision, as I wrote at the time, but perfectly understandable. And if that is deranged, what do you say about a young Teddy Kennedy being far less forthcoming about something far more serious how he came to leave a dead woman at the bottom of a pond? I am passing no judgment. I am simply pointing out how surpassingly stupid it is to attribute such behavior to mental illness.
(c) Longtime associate Brent Scowcroft quoted as saying, Dick Cheney I don't know anymore.'' Well. After 9/11, Cheney adopted a view about fighting jihadism, America's new existential enemy, that differed radically from the realist'' foreign policy approach that he had shared a decade earlier with Scowcroft. That's a psychiatric symptom? By that standard, Saul of Tarsus, Arthur Vandenberg, Irving Kristol, Ronald Reagan to pick at random from a thousand such cases of men undergoing profound change of worldview are psychiatric cases. Indeed, by that standard, Andrew Sullivan is stark raving mad. (OK, perhaps not the best of counterexamples.)
I too know Dick Cheney. And I know something about the effects of physical illness on mental functioning. In my younger days, writing in the Archives of General Psychiatry, I identified a psychiatric syndrome (Secondary Mania, the title of the paper) that was associated entirely with organic (i.e. underlying physical) disorders. The British medical journal Lancet found this discovery notable enough to devote an editorial to it shortly afterward and to alert clinicians to look for its presenting symptoms.
And as a former chief resident of the psychiatric consultation service of the Massachusetts General Hospital my house staff was called in to diagnose and treat medical in-patients (many of them post-op, many with cardiac disease) who had developed psychiatric symptoms I know something about organically caused dementias. And I know pseudoscientific rubbish when I see it.
I was at first inclined to pass off Cottle's piece as a weird put-on when people become particularly deranged about this administration, it's hard to tell but her earnest and lengthy piling on of medical research about dementia and cardiovascular disease suggests that she is quite serious.
And supremely silly. Such silliness has a pedigree, mind you. It is in the great tradition of the 1964 poll of psychiatrists that found Barry Goldwater clinically paranoid. Goldwater having become over the years the liberals' favorite conservative (because of his libertarianism), nary a word is heard today about him being mentally ill or about that shameful election-year misuse of medical authority by the psychiatrists who answered the poll. The disease they saw in Goldwater was, in fact, deviation from liberalism, which remains today so incomprehensible to some that it must be explained by resort to arterial plaques and cardiac ejection fractions.
If there's a diagnosis to be made here, it is this: yet another case of the one other syndrome I have been credited with identifying, a condition that addles the brain of otherwise normal journalists and can strike without warning Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Variant.
#1
f there's a diagnosis to be made here, it is this: yet another case of the one other syndrome I have been credited with identifying, a condition that addles the brain of otherwise normal journalists and can strike without warning Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Variant.
Ouch! That Hammer hits hard!
Posted by: Mike ||
03/16/2007 6:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's true, I can never remember journalists and liberals behaving so badly in my lifetime. I'm in my mid 30's and these last 5 years have been the weirdest in my life.
2. This isnt the old TNR. Peretz sold it, though he still writes a column. Its no longer the voice of hawkish liberalism. Im not sure what, aside from a somewhat more contrarian style, differentiates it from say the Atlantic Monthly. At some point the Iraq war will be history, and the nadir of the liberal hawks will pass, and there will be a need for a liberal hawkish voice again. But it wont be found in TNR again, I suspect.
#4
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds made a very apt off-the-cuff remark last week. He said we need to have the Muslims seriously attack Russia (Beslan wasn't enough). If they did that, all the Communists in the U.S. would get on board supporting the WoT just like they did the last time Russia was seriously attacked--in 1941. If the Commies all got on board, this would be "the next good war," just like WWII was "the last good war."
I know it was TIC but a lot of truth is said in jest.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/16/2007 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
of course since cottle isnt a communists, and AFAIK is not a Putin fan, its hardly relevant to this.
#6
Cottle is following a long tradition of hard-left medicine and psychiatry, best expressed in the old Soviet Union but certainly employed elsewhere. If your opponent stands firmly against you and rejects everything you say, there are only two potential reasons why: 1) he's evil 2) he's ill (that you could be wrong is not a potential reason, of course).
And since Ms. Cottle wants to be 'compassionate', she thinks Cheney is ill, not evil. What other explanation could there be? That's why she wrote what to you and me appears to be total tripe.
She's serious. She believes this. This isn't just rattling the conservative cage, or red meat to both her readers. She believes this.
That's one good reason why the hard Left is dangerous. If you think your opponents are evil, you kill them. If you think they're mentally ill, you lock them up. That's where Ms. Cottle is going with this.
Enjoy your cell, comrades citizens.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/16/2007 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Cottle is following a long tradition of hard-left medicine and psychiatry, best expressed in the old Soviet Union but certainly employed elsewhere. If your opponent stands firmly against you and rejects everything you say, there are only two potential reasons why: 1) he's evil 2) he's ill (that you could be wrong is not a potential reason, of course)."
And its only the left that does this? Only the "moonbats", the "loonies" etc? Heck, its not only done to lefties, its done to someone as conservative as John McCain whos regularly called "crazy". Not to mention all the crazy and evil furriners. If we had to eliminate every reference to someone as crazy or evil, this here website would have a lot less content.
And no, I dont know of anything as "serious" as the Cottle piece in the other direction, but then i havent looked.
#8
BTW, steve, you will note that in #3 i did not defend Cottle.
I took issue with #4, which seemed to imply that Cottle would stop saying stuff like this if only the muslims attacked Russia.
Note - X used rhetorical strategy A, and Y used rhetorical strategy A, does not mean Y is a friend of X.
Even if Cottle was equivalent to the Commies in what shes saying about Cheney (and note, shes only speculating, not calling for him to be confined to a mental hospital - we are still free to speculate about our leaders mental states in this country) it would NOT imply that she has any special concern for Russia (if Russia were actually Communist, which it is not)
If that WERE a logical form of argument, you could argue that since the Nazis attacked their opponents as Communists, everyone here attacking Ms Cottele is a Nazi. That would be just as absurd, IMO.
But it does raise the question of why its so despicable of Ms Cottle to say a public official is mentally ill on thin grounds, when its OK to call Ms Cottle a Communist on equally thin grounds. Does Ms Cottle beleive in the abolition of private property? In the lead role of a proletarian party? In dialectical materialism? Does anyone here know, or even care?
Or is that anyone who thinks Cheney is "bad", or perhaps not "bad" but mentally ill, is a commie? Thats a pretty expansive definition of commie. More so, perhaps, than Ms Cottels definition of "mentally ill"
#9
LH, I wouldn 't (and didn't) call Ms. Cottle a communist. She's a leftist. That seems rather obvious.
As to old Joe McCarthy and the HUAC, there's a difference between calling someone 'crazy' (an epithet) and 'mentally ill' (a diagnosis with sinister implications). Heck, I call lots of folks 'crazy' even if I can't find a description of them in the DSM-IV ;-)
Ms. Cottle is calling Mr. Cheney mentally ill without calling for him to be locked up, because right now she can't do the latter. There's still too much blowback. Let things go as she might wish, however, and in time the psychiatric facilities will be just as full as they were in Brezhnev's Soviet Union.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/16/2007 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Ms. Cottle is calling Mr. Cheney mentally ill without calling for him to be locked up, because right now she can't do the latter. There's still too much blowback. Let things go as she might wish, however, and in time the psychiatric facilities will be just as full as they were in Brezhnev's Soviet Union."
Might wish. Excellent. She might wish it. She also might wish to have Jews lined up and shot. Or she might wish for a manned mission to Saturn.
If someone speculates whether someone in politics has a low IQ, does that mean they want them sterilized, a la eugenics? If you speculate if someone is gay, does that imply you support them being hanged, like in some muslim countries?
I know people who im quite sure are diagnosible according to the DSM IV (and of course seeing at the estimable book includes depression, and even, IIUC, dysthimia, as categories of mental illness, I fail to see that its such a huge deal being mentally ill) That doesnt mean I want them locked up. As for Ms Cottle being a leftist, she clearly thinks Cheneys policies are miserable. Does that put her on a spectrum to Stalinism? No more so than liking Cheney puts one on a spectrum to Nazism. Hell, someone with views like my own is probably on a spectrum in BOTH directions.
So I cant see how her being a "leftist" is relevant, if shes not a communist. Garden variety liberals and even socialists are not historically more in favor of psychiatry as a tool of repression ttan are conservatives (they may use it more as a tool of propaganda, as Kraut points out - but thats hardly the same thing, and is probably just taking advantage of many Pdocs being liberals - just as say, taking a poll of Marines, or economists, could be used against liberals)
Obviously some libertarians are even more opposed to "coercive psychiatry" than are either liberals or most conservatives, but IMHO they go to far.
#11
BTW, my strong impression is that Winston Churchill WAS bipolar. Didnt mean he should have been locked up. Far from it, his manic phases may well have saved western civilization.
#12
#2 It's true, I can never remember journalists and liberals behaving so badly in my lifetime. I'm in my mid 30's and these last 5 years have been the weirdest in my life.
They hated Reagan as much or even more. Thought he was too dumb to breath, a cowboy, etc.
BTW, my strong impression is that Winston Churchill WAS bipolar
Sir Winston referred to his depressive phases as his "black dog", didn't he?
#13
Cottle is following a long tradition of hard-left medicine and psychiatry, best expressed in the old Soviet Union but certainly employed elsewhere. If your opponent stands firmly against you and rejects everything you say, there are only two potential reasons why: 1) he's evil 2) he's ill (that you could be wrong is not a potential reason, of course).
And since Ms. Cottle wants to be 'compassionate', she thinks Cheney is ill, not evil. What other explanation could there be? That's why she wrote what to you and me appears to be total tripe.
I doubt that compassion has anything to do with it. It is difficult to define anything as evil if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, and the entire liberal project seems to have degenerated to eliminating all standards.
#14
It was before your time, bigjim, but look at the hysteria that ran rampant in 1964. All the crap that is done to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, was done to Goldwater.
Picking a fight with old, loyal ally Pakistan is both morally wrong and fraught with untold dangers. The US has forgotten how it forced another compliant military ruler, Egypts Anwar Sadat, into policies his people hated, writes noted Canadian journalist and commentator Eric Margolis. A blackbelt moonbat? This is the best Interservices Public Relations can come up with?
In a commentary on a liberal blog, Lew Rockwell, Margolis writes that the fast-deteriorating situation in the region is provoking furious finger-pointing. Margolis on Lew Rockwell. Now that's moonbat quality!
Washington and NATO are angrily blaming Pakistan for sheltering and abetting Taliban and its allies. According to Margolis, Cheney went on to Pakistan to threaten President Pervez Musharraf with a cut-off of US aid - and perhaps much worse - if he did not crack down further on Pashtun tribesmen who were aiding Taliban and other Pashtun and nationalist resistance groups. The western powers are following Indias lead over Kashmir by accusing Pakistan of cross-border terrorism.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Margolis recalls exploring the tribal agencies of Waziristan, Khyber, Mohmand, Orakzai, and Malakand. Their warlike, fiercely independent tribes joined Pakistan in 1947 under constitutional guarantee of total autonomy that excluded government soldiers from the tribal agencies. Intense US pressure forced Musharraf to violate Pakistans constitution by sending troops into the tribal territories, he adds.
According to Margolis, many Pakistanis oppose the US occupation of Afghanistan, support the Taliban and think better of Osama Bin Laden than George Bush. Musharraf is thus caught between Washingtons growing demands and his own people, who increasingly accuse him of being an American tool. Washington simply does not understand it has pushed the isolated, unpopular Musharraf too far already. If he is blown up or overthrown, Pakistan and its 40-60 nuclear weapons, could turn into an even bigger and more dangerous hotbed of anti-western activity. . . Meanwhile, Washington is increasingly blaming its Afghanistan fiasco on whipping boy Pakistan, just as the Vietnam defeat was blamed on infiltration from Cambodia and Laos.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/16/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Doesn't Margolis have something better to do with his time then create more trouble?
#2
I have to agree with this to some degree. Pakistan is a critical nexus of Islamofascist activity and it possesses nuclear weapons. Although Musharraf can at best be deemed an ally of convenience, we can not afford the risk of having him replaced by a ruler who more accurately represents Pakistan's pro-jihadist sympathies. Until we either leave Iraq or pacify it, we will have to be content with hoping the status quo holds in such places.
#4
Margolis owned Jamieson Laboratories, the largest Vitamin and health food supplement manufacturer in Canada.
He writes breathless stuff about the "handsome" and "dark eyed" pashtun and punjabi soldiers he meets on his visits to Pakistani military facilities.
He defends his friends...
THE BIG LIE ABOUT `ISLAMIC FASCISM'
Eric S. Margolis 28 August 2006
The latest big lie unveiled by Washington's neoconservatives are the poisonous terms, `Islamo-Fascists' and `Islamic Fascists ' . They are the new, hot buzzwords among America's far right and Christian fundamentalists.
President George W. Bush made a point last week of using `Islamofacists' when recently speaking of Hezbullah and Hamas both, by the way, democratically elected parties. A Canadian government minister from the Conservative Party compared Lebanon's Hezbullah to Nazi Germany.
The term `Islamofascist' is utterly without meaning, but packed with emotional explosives. It is a propaganda creation worthy Dr . Goebbles, and the latest expression of the big lie technique being used by neocons in Washington's propaganda war against its enemies in the Muslim World.
Posted by: John Frum ||
03/16/2007 6:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Or we could just nuke Pakistan into a piece of glass. The reflective albedo thus created would also have a cooling effect on the global environment thereby creating a policy "twofer".
#2
interesting indeed, hopefully the "kidnapees" have info that will clarify...heh heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/16/2007 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It might only be the beginning of a false dawn, like the Oslo Accords. But it is still possible that a two-state solution, no matter how ambiguous, will start an irreversible momentum toward sanity in the mad Middle East.
The Muslim Middle East's current "momentum toward sanity" has all the velocity of a sub-zero snail. Only a fool would bet otherwise. Since when has Islam ever thrived on peace?
Certainly the argument from Israel's peaceniks will be that once Palestinians taste normality, they will not want to go back to madness.
Another one of those shoot-for-the-moon longshots. Underestimating Palestinian hatred for the Jews is just as idiotic as underestimating the Muslim propensity for violence.
But it's only a gamble. Human beings are not that predictable, and the Islamic hate industry is one of the Middle East's biggest money crops. A lot of people are invested in it.
Gandhi's Way Isn't the American Way:
Collective suicide is no foreign policy.
By Fred Thompson
I feel bad for Nancy Pelosi, AND her neighbors. Anti-war activists from the group Code Pink have been giving her the same treatment the president gets at his Crawford, Texas, ranch. Camping on her San Francisco lawn, theyre demanding she cut off funds to the troops in Iraq.
Besides coolers and mattresses, protesters have brought along a giant paper mache statue of Mahatma Gandhi, who is pretty much the symbol of the anti-war movement. Code Pink was founded on his birthday, and when Saddam Hussein was being given a last chance to open Iraq to U.N. weapons inspectors, posters appeared around America asking What would Gandhi do?
And thats a pretty good question. At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?
It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is NEVER. During World War II, Gandhi penned an open letter to the British people, urging them to surrender to the Nazis. Later, when the extent of the holocaust was known, he criticized Jews who had tried to escape or fight for their lives as they did in Warsaw and Treblinka. The Jews should have offered themselves to the butchers knife, he said. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. Collective suicide, he told his biographer, would have been heroism.
The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhis way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just wont cut it in this country. When Americans think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein.
Gandhi probably wouldn't approve, but I can live with that.
Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee. And the next President of the US if I have anything to say about it - we are launching a Draft Fred Thompson effort in my area. Already peeling off Guliani, Romney and McCain money and volunteers -- but only if Fred enters the race.
He sat in for Paul Harvey today and was fantastic. You really need to HEAR this guy.
#1
On the Sunday News shows:
Host Chris Wallace went down the litany of questions and Thompson hit all the right notes from a conservative voter's perspective: Pro-life; Scalia-like judges; against gay marriage; opposes gun control; supports the President's surge in Iraq. [comment: also believes border enforcement comes first -- before we worry about the ones here we have to stop more from coming in]
Thompson's record in the Senate from 1995 through 2002 sustained his answers: His lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 86 (out of 100) and his lifetime Americans for Democratic Action (the liberal quotient) rating is a measly 5. Add in his presence in front of the camera as well as his folksy way of speaking, and it's no wonder conservatives are pressing him to get into the race.
#3
POTUS Fred may have his work cut out for him > SPACEWAR > Japan -low frequency earth quakes around world may portend a future, more serious or catarophic event(s), i.e. SSSSSHHHHHHH Year 2012 and "QUAKE HEARD AROUND THE WORLD"; + LUCIANNE > OSLO Confab > Scientists warn that as Global Warming intensifies, EARTH's FLORA, etc. MAY GET GREENER AFORE WILTIN' AND DYIN'. See also EARTH CLINIC.com > Alleged rise in worldwide MRSA boils + BEES: [NATURE's] NATURAL GEIGER COUNTERS.
* FARK > 30 thirsty camels rampage thru local Muslim community. Muslims demand immediate marital divorce???
#4
Joe, can I ask for a favor, pretty please? I just can't read your stuff, the caps create this blank state of mind (firewall for input) and I just can't pass your messages through that filter.
Say, can you use bold instead? It' simple, you just enclose whatever you want to highlight with <b> Something </b> tags.
Don't expect Thompson to enter the race anytime soon. He's smart enough to wait while the others destroy eachother.
Do expect Paul Harvey to take lots of vacation. Thompson reminded me of nothing so much as Ronald Reagan making speeches at GE plants. I expect him to milk that venue. None better.
#7
Asking for a solid guy with a real set of marbles is probably too much at this time. We may have to let the Dems in the white house for four years so they can screw things up royally before the sheeple are ready to vote for a man.
#11
I have a quote from Ghandi but no links, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of it's arms as the blackest".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/16/2007 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Hmm, I wonder if Rudy would accept second fiddle: Thompson-Giuliani '08. Thompson gets the Republicans back in the fold, Giuliani picks up Italian-Americans and New Yorkers. If they are elected Thompson can sit back and look presidential and Rudy can rip the president's critics a new asshole from time to time. Now THAT'S a campaign I'd give money to!
Posted by: Jonathan ||
03/16/2007 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Thompson/Giuliani would be a solid ticket to vote for...but still too early to count out the Code Pinko Kucinich/Sharpton tsunami.
#14
I remember during the late Nineties catching a hearing on TV where Fred Thompson was speaking. I said at the time "That is your next President!"
Well, I'd still take him as the "next, next President." He doesn't have the traditional hair, but he seems to say what he means and mean what he says, which means more to me anyway.
#16
Thompson is liked in Tennessee. Republicans in Tennessee are trying to get him to run. He is the only possible candidate that sounds like a conservative.
#17
Thompson is liked in Tennessee. Republicans in Tennessee are trying to get him to run. He is the only possible candidate that sounds like a conservative.
#18
Thompson is liked in Tennessee. Republicans in Tennessee are trying to get him to run. He is the only possible candidate that sounds like a conservative.
#21
In 1977, Thompson took on a Tennessee Parole Board case that ultimately toppled Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton from power on charges of selling pardons.
Sputter, choke, Bill Clinton is lucky Fred wasn't on his ass.
#22
He also took down Nixon - Thompson cpind the phrase "What did the President know and when did he know it", as well as bringing to light the tape recording system in the whitehouse.
#24
Bad news, several states have voted to have their primaries on February 5th, 2008.
I would rather 6 or 8 debates than a race to be the state that decides the winner. But then, this is America 2007, what do I really expect ? Empty heads, empty gestures, empty words.
#25
Fred will jump in the race in fall, after everyone else has torn each other to shreds... I like him, and could easily vote for him and his principles as I've heard them. He does look, sound and act Presidential (without Breck hair)...his wife (#2, I believe) is also a comfort for anyone worrying about him straying. She's a much-younger knockout
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/16/2007 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Baker is doing the behind the scenes work for Thompson. That's the one blemish so far.
#28
Thompson and Baker have had a very tight protege-mentor relationship going way back. Baker wasn't my cup of tea then and still isn't. Too much of that Brent Scowcroft/Jim Baker feel for me. But Thompson doesn't seem like a Baker clone. And Baker was good enough for Dirksen, so who am I to kvetch?
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER Really, we don't make this stuff up. There's nobody with that much senza yuma.
Goldman Sachs has been one of the most aggressive firms on Wall Street about taking action on climate change; the company sends its bankers home at night in hybrid limousines.
--The New York Times, Feb. 25
Written without a hint of irony--if only your neighborhood dry cleaner sent his employees home by hybrid limousine--this front-page dispatch captured perfectly the eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they are received.
Remember the Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore global-warming pitch at the Academy Awards? Before they spoke, the screen at the back of the stage flashed not-so-subliminal messages about how to save the planet. My personal favorite was "Ride mass transit." This to a conclave of Hollywood plutocrats who have not seen the inside of a subway since the moon landing and for whom mass transit means a stretch limo seating no fewer than 10.
Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening's "carbon footprint" by buying carbon credits. That means it sent money to a "carbon broker," who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce carbon emissions somewhere on the planet equivalent to what the stars spewed into the atmosphere while flying in on their private planes.
In other words, the rich reduce their carbon output by not one ounce. But drawing on the hundreds of millions of net worth in the Kodak Theatre, they pull out lunch money to buy ecological indulgences. The last time the selling of pardons was prevalent--in a predecessor religion to environmentalism called Christianity--Martin Luther lost his temper and launched the Reformation... Still more excursion into the ridiculous at the link...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/16/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Speaking of GLOBAL WARMING, DRUDGEREPORT > NASA Study > Terra Firma's protective global "SUNSCREEN" is thinning out. Irony - STudy claims over 20 %-plus less AEROSOL in atmosphere than between 1985-2005. IOW, D *** ng it, boyz, We're doomed Doomed DOOMED D-O-O-M-E-D, THEY TELLS YA, DDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMEEEEEDDDD BECUZ WE'RE NOT POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE WID AEROSOLS AS MUCH AS WE SHOULD BE???
Posted by: ed ||
03/16/2007 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm now offering carbon credits for $1,000 USD each.
Feel better about yourself as you rape the environment, buy Bigjim's Carbon Credits® and live large!
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.
Written without a hint of irony--if only your neighborhood dry cleaner sent his employees home by hybrid limousine--this front-page dispatch captured perfectly the eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they are received.
