The bear is back. That's what all too many Russia-watchers have been saying since Russian troops steamrolled Georgia in August, warning that the country's strongman, Vladimir Putin, was clawing his way back toward superpower status. The new Russia's resurgence has been fueled -- quite literally -- by windfall profits from gas and oil, a big jump in defense spending and the cocky attitude on such display during the mauling of Georgia, its U.S.-backed neighbor to the south. Many now believe that the powerful Russian bear of the Cold War years is coming out of hibernation.
Not so fast. Predictions that Russia will again become powerful, rich and influential ignore some simply devastating problems at home that block any march to power. Sure, Russia's army could take tiny Georgia. But Putin's military is still in tatters, armed with rusting weaponry and staffed with indifferent recruits. Meanwhile, a declining population is robbing the military of a new generation of soldiers. Russia's economy is almost totally dependent on the price of oil. And, worst of all, it's facing a public health crisis that verges on the catastrophic.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/05/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It seems to be a race between the US Congress and Russia as to who will get to the bottom first.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/05/2008 2:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If my experience is anything to go by, there are still LOTS of Russian women willing to do just about ANYTHING to get out of Russia. That seems to include an extremely high percentage of the young and attractive ones.
#3
And yet, the french wingnuts in their vast majority, starting with the now officially red-brown front national, bask in their loving adoration of putin, and their awe of slavs, russians and serbs... with a lot of wishful thinking and fantasies ("russia the upcoming wolrd power, whereas the USA are in a downward spiral", "russian birthrates soaring thanks to the natalist policiy of their blue-eyed, blond manly leader who wrestled power away from the jooooooooish oligarchs",...) about the Resistance to the Empire...
#5
Russia really is dying off - the lack of longevity, the shortage of live births, and the numbers of those emigrating make Russia a rapidly depopulating zone. Plus, China has been making noise about "historically inhabited/ruled areas" regarding the Russian Far East - just like they did just before they invaded and took Tibet, the border area along India, and the mountains along northern Vietnam.
Also, lots of the women who could be giving birth no longer can in Russia due to the sloppy abortions and/or lack of sanitation during same : very large numbers of women in Russia use abortion as their contraceptive of choice, and the Russian medical standards are disturbingly low regarding the prevention of infections and other reproductive damage.
#6
Interesting they never mention rheumatic fever. Yet I would bet that is a major cause of their cardiovascular problems, just as its elimination is the primary factor in the reduction of ours. This is a hangover from their wonderful socialized medical system that we are about to adopt under The One.
We're going to change things and rearrange things.
We're going to change the world.
Agreed. However, neither do I attribute superhuman capabilities to my opponent either. The fundamentals are still in America favor far more than elsewhere because unlike most of the rest of the world which relies upon centralization, the Americans still have an individual spirit. When the center collapses, the Americans are among the few still have the initiative to organize and move forward instead of waiting around for some authority figure to tell them what to do. The falsehood of socialism is that you can control the future when in fact you can only introduce entropy and its subsequent phase decay. Dynamic human activity is froth with chaos. Too much control and you kill it. Too little influence creates anarchy. The key is to be able to ride it and give it direction. The Russians have chosen routine, even of the Putin kind, because it gives them a false sense of control over the chaos and their lives. It is a dead end. The question for everyone else is how many will the bear take with it in its decent.
#8
The Russians have chosen routine because it gives them a false sense of control over the chaos and their lives.
No, the Russians choose it because they have always chosen it for they know nothing different. People don't really understand how exceptional Americans and America really are, even many Americans. As Alan Macfarlane has shown, the individualism we inherited from Britain is not a recent development. It can be traced back to time before memory and to causes long forgotten. It is unique in the world.
It has been very difficult for other cultures to adopt it. Many have the veneer of democratic institutions, largely adopted or imposed as a result of defeat at the hands of the Americans. But none have really understood and adopted individualism and the pioneer spirit. Perhaps the Indians may make it, but there is much reason to doubt they can overcome the inertia of centuries of conflict, prejudice and caste.
For Britain to have been so close to a newly discovered continent that was ripe for the picking was truly miraculous. We should never doubt our good fortune and the bounty of Providence. Or the strength we gain from the immigration of like minded souls.
#10
People don't really understand how exceptional Americans and America really are, even many Americans.
I look around and just do not see only those of Anglo or Euro decent who are American. I see people whose ancestry comes from all parts the world. I also see the blooming of that 'unique' American perspective among the communities regardless of heritage. It varies in degree but its still there none the less. Its less in those communities that are encouraged to keep to their old ways [re: multiculturalism] and consequently their success in the culture is proportional. So exceptional nature of American is adaptable regardless of origin. I observe the relationship between those who were thrown out or who left upon their own energies and those who remained behind show a differentiation in the degree of risk taking and acceptance of the requirements associated with adaptation to uncertainty/change/chaos.
#11
Perhaps the Indians may make it, but there is much reason to doubt they can overcome the inertia of centuries of conflict, prejudice and caste.
As an American married to an Indian, I can tell you they won't make it. Three of the most common laments you will hear in India are: "What can I do?", "Doesn't matter!" and "What to do?".
Indians trend towards a very fatalistic, what will be, will be...mind set. 2nd and 3rd generation NRI's born in this country seem to be overcoming this, but Native born Indians have this mindset ingrained into them from birth.
I have found Indian society to be very dysfunctional, men are babied from birth and are almost incapable of looking after themselves on the domestic front. Also, middle/upper class Indians have an unlimited supply of cheap uneducated labor that is used for all their domestic tasks.
The middle/upper class's despise these uneducated people (and don't hide it) while in turn the laboring classes hate their betters. Of course these people also refuse to go to school and learn anything.
India is a powder keg waiting for the fuse to be lit.
#12
Sounds to me that most of the Russian people have little to live for, much to die for. That would make their behavior in the old empire and the new pandemonium rational. Party as best you can until the inevitible end. More vodka, please.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/05/2008 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#13
They are coming here in flocks. Much pressure washing will eventually be needed.
#14
Besoeker, you'd best be careful just who you wish to screen out quickly.
My father was one of 9 sons and 1 son-in-law of Russian/Ukrainian immigrants. All but the youngest of them served in WWII by choice (my father was 16 when he lied about his age to enlist), 8 of them in active combat. 5 were wounded, 4 decorated including my godfather uncle who, as a very young Sgt. earned a Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars and several Purple Hearts in approx. 4 weeks fending off the elite German Nordwind attack in the freezing winter at Bastogne. In two cases he crawled up hill while wounded to destroy German machine gun emplacements. The third time he crawled a quarter of a mile while wounded to warn his unit of an ambush ahead.
Until this year he served as commander of the Order of the Purple Heart in his region. And despite his advanced age and the recurring pain that never quite went away over the decades, he gathered a group of vets and drove a couple hours each way to meet flights with wounded troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And spent hours visiting them bedside.
My father was a Navy tailgunner, came home in a body cast after the 3rd plane and 2nd ship was shot out from underneath him.
The son-in-law (a Pole) was in one of the first waves of paratroopers at Normandy and again at the Bulge, where he was shot up badly. To his dying day he set off security scanners due to all the metal holding him together.
And that was only that generation. We've contributed uniformed military to many of the combat operations the US has been involved in since. One cousin lost his marriage over the long stints as missile launch officer in the tubes during the cold war. Another flew prop planes at treetop level over Cambodia knowing that if he crashed the US would disavow him.
My family has damned well earned the right to be respected as Americans. Has yours? And more to the point, will some of these new potential Americans?
#17
We are all Americans. Even Obama supporters. Never forget. When we do then we are not a country we are nothing. Now that does not mean I have high hopes for the continuance of this great country as we know it if he wins.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/05/2008 19:49 Comments ||
Top||
#18
you're talking to the wrong people, Jack. Our side has tolerated the worst slander and lies against us and George Bush. When their side has a chance at power, will you be willing to kneel because "we're all Americans"? I expect bad things to come here at home. I'm not nearly close to the point of "stocking up on ammo, survival gear", but the signs are worrisome. Stolen elections, efforts to shut down contrary opinions, vandalized homes/offices/vehicles? these things have meaning, and they have consequences. I worry for our nation, and this is apart from the "The One" phenomenon, which has only provided a banner for these new-age brownshirts to cluster under. Perhaps I should stock up.....
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/05/2008 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Many Americans are born in the wrong place. Some wrong people are born in America.
I was just telling/reminding some Guam restaurant patrons again last nite that INDIA's HINDUS ala ORISSA, etc. likely well-recognize that the US = US-Allies are now engaged agz Radical Islamism in a WAR FOR CONTROL OF ASIA, and that INDIA's ANTI-CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE IS SYMPTIOMATIC OF HINDU'S = INDIANS' FEAR THAT INDIA WILL ONCE AGAIN COME UNDER NEW EUROPEAN OR WESTERN ANTI-SOVEREIGN CONTROL-DOMIN IFF RADICAL ISLAMISM LOSES THE GWOT. At the same time that India is fearing new Euro/Western influence in Indian affairs, India's HINDUS, etc. do not wish to convert to ISLAM = BECOM MUSLIMS.
In sum, as per its ASIAN STRATEGIC FRONT [Priority] Radical Islam is trying to detabilize and knock out MOST OF THE COLD WAR "NUCLEAR CLUB", i.e. RUSSIA, CHINA, INDIA, etc. Once achieved, the next Front should be GREAT BRITAIN + FRANCE [read, EU = FUTURE EURABIA, LONDONISTAN, etc.].
#21
Joe - you've omitted central Africa - a few astute experts think Islam's greatest threat will be Christian armies from central Africa. This throws interesting light on the Darfur conflict as a possible prelude to such efforts, as well as Ethiopia's role in the region.
For that matter, the world's deadliest conflict since WWII has been the Congolese civil wars of the past 20 years, and if they settle or move, the likely direction is to the northeast. Add to all this the question of how Nigeria holds itself together.
Makes the new Africa Command a long overdue move by our high command.
Who said that about Sarah Palin? Would you believe the president of LA's National Organization for Women, Shelly Mandel? Amazing! This is quite a moment for her to push back against the pressure from the feminist groups who see Sarah Palin as a traitor because she's a Republican and pro-life who actually lived her principles. Let's hope more mainstream, liberal feminists come out of their closets and support Sarah because, as Shelly said, Sarah supports women's rights, equal pay, Title 9, and the middle class. She has integrity and demands it from others. Take a look
Shelly gave a wonderful endorsement. I'm thrilled to have her as a fellow Sarah Palin supporter. If other feminists and NOW presidents come out and trash Shelly, we need to stand behind her and give her a lot of support.
I was talking to my husband about this and told him that this is probably the reason why she went to California. The endorsement of the president of one of the largest chapters of NOW is huge, which explains why the MSM isn't reporting it.
#1
Good for her. I wonder if it was due to strength of convictions or an uproar from their supporters that threatened their existence. Either way, it is a good thing for all women.
Pelosi Declares Hearings On Housing Crisis: Barney Frank To Co-Chair
Immediately after the Wall Street Bailout bill passed the House and went to the Oval Office for Presidential signature, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that there would be hearings on the subject.
Yet, she mentions nothing about the accountability of people like Sen. Chris Dodd, or Franklin Raines or Jamie Gorelick, the latter two having made millions off of Fannie while the organization itself was sliding into government conservatorship.
And what about Barney Frank Co-Chairing these hearings? Will anyone get him to answer questions about the way he blocked reform of Freddie and Fannie over the past several years? Will Pelosi demand accountability and transparency from him? No. She is nothing more than a partisan hack who just managed to cram through the biggest socialist package in American history.
Something else that should be looked into: Barney Frank's relationship with a former Fannie executive named Herb Moses.
Of course they didn't immediately respond. They need time to think up a way of spinning out of it.
#1
You mean the Pelosi who's district includes the HQ of Starkist which if you dig into the Pork Bill you find out "That includes, as the New York Post pointed out, millions in tax breaks and related pork for kids' wooden arrows, Puerto Rican rum producers, auto race tracks, and corporations operating in American Samoa. (The likely explanation for the latter: StarKist has a large tuna-canning operation in American Samoa. And StarKist's parent company happens to be located in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.)" - source
Pelosi et al haven't passed the appropriations bills for most of the departments of government in this past year, but can get this turkey out in two weeks.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is planning to hold a total of five hearings this month on different aspects of the financial crisis, including looks at hedge funds, credit rating agencies and federal regulation.
The invited witnesses for the hedge fund hearing, which will be on Oct. 16, are John Alfred Paulson, President, Paulson & Co., Inc.; George Soros, Chairman, Soros Fund Management LLC; Philip A. Falcone; Senior Managing Director, Harbinger Capital Partners; James Simons, Director, Renaissance Technologies LLC; and Kenneth C. Griffin, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Citadel Investment Group. They were invited, according to the Committee's Web site, because they each earned over $1 billion last year.
A spokesman for Harbinger Capital Partners said that Falcone is reviewing the request, but declined to comment further.Falcone came to Harbinger from Barclays Capital, where he had been head of high-yield trading.
The witnesses invited for the hearing on ratings agencies, which will take place Oct. 22, are Deven Sharma, President, Standard & Poors; Raymond W. McDaniel, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Moodys Corporation; and Stephen Joynt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fitch Ratings.
Those invited for the federal-regulator hearing on Oct. 23 are former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary John Snow and current Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox.
Those three hearings are in addition to previously announced hearings on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy on Oct. 6 and the $85 billion bailout of American International Group (AIG: 3.86, -0.14, -3.50%) on Oct. 7.
#6
Any regular man on the street John Q Citizens invited? George Soros was invited? The guy who broke the Bank of England? The guy that is trying to undermine America?
Are journalists playing favorites with some of the key political figures involved with regulatory oversight of U.S. financial markets?
MSNBC's Chris Matthews launched several vitriolic attacks on the Republican Party on his Sept. 17, 2008, show, suggesting blame for Wall Street problems should be focused in a partisan way. However, he and other media have failed to thoroughly examine the Democratic side of the blame game.
Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae's main defenders in the House -- Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 -- was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.
Continued on Page 49
#1
The media will not attack Barney and his buddies until it is convinced that it's very survival is dependent on rooting out Washington corruption. Not likely in my lifetime.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/05/2008 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
MSNBC's Chris Matthews launched several vitriolic attacks...
#2
Sorry guys. The kid is reading from the quran. The translation goes on about America while the kid is saying 'bismillah ar rahman ar rahim'. Sorry but the "translation" is made up and this is a hoax.
#3
Anyway, the reference to the "hope & change" slogan was a pretty straightforward giveaway this is an hoax (though not necessarily a slander, the vid could have originated as a spoof, and then been circulated without proper context).
Not since the Nazi book burnings of the 1930s has free speech been as endangered as it is today. Firebombing publishers, murdering filmmakers, issuing death threats against writers and cartoonists, suing researchers, restricting freedom of expression through the United Nations - these are some of the ways militant Islamists, their enablers and apologists, are seeking to silence their critics. Intimidation is another. It operates on campuses and within the foreign policy establishment. A recent experience may be instructive.
I participate in a "list-serve," a kind of online chat among foreign policy specialists: former intelligence, Foreign Service and military officers, academics and think tank denizens. One posted an article about an attempt to "temper" the religious beliefs of detainees in Iraq before releasing them. A former ambassador (I'm not including names here in the interest of privacy) wrote that "we're finally learning something from Saudi success."
I asked if the sermons preached in Saudi Arabia's government-supported mosques were generally temperate these days. I had been given to understand that Saudi clerics frequently refer to Jews and Christians in hostile terms. He replied that in his experience, "most sermons in Saudi mosques do advocate peace as well as respect for Judaism and Christianity." I consulted MEMRI, an organization that translates materials from Arabic, and found the titles of a few sermons that didn't sound so respectful and peaceful, for example: "The Christians and the Jews are Infidels, Enemies of Allah;" "Jews - The Descendants of Pigs and Apes;" "Muslims Must Educate Their Children to Jihad and to Hatred of Jews and Christians."
The ambassador and I might have gone back and forth in this spirit - sharply disagreeing but remaining civil in tone - for some time. But another member of the list-serve, an Arab-American academic chimed in. He said he was becoming "increasingly uncomfortable with the assumptions considered legitimate, particularly those of Cliff. "It does not particularly scare me to have 'NASCAR dads' or 'hockey moms' fear and loathe something they have little or no direct contact with, namely Islam, Muslims, and the Islamic World," he wrote. "Since I've come to assume such dangerous naivete in recent years, I usually wander around these United States gently jesting with their fears over beers while kvetching about my precious New Orleans Saints. However, such ill-informed opinions rattling around within a high level, peer-reviewed, vetted, well-connected, D.C.-based, and 'elite' group of security experts ... is truly frightening."
He proceeded not to address my points but to insist that to "have a respectable opinion" on this topic requires "advanced knowledge of Arabic, and attendance over an extended period of time at several different mosques throughout different sections of Saudi Arabia." In other words, since I don't speak Arabic and have not spent time in Saudi mosques (and notwithstanding the fact that "infidels" are generally forbidden to do so), I should shut up.
He added that while he had "no doubt that objectionable things are on occasion said within certain mosques in Saudi Arabia" he was certain "objectionable things are said in certain churches, synagogues and mosques in the United States. As an American who would be lazily placed in the box of 'Muslim' should this country ever erupt in ethno-sectarian violence of the sort that we've visited upon Iraq" - by "we" he means Americans, of course - "I fear this extremism far more than that sometimes in evidence in Saudi Arabia."
I haven't space here for my entire reply, but I did tell him that while he was free to play the victim and fear American Christians, Jews and NASCAR fans, "until these folks are issuing death threats and hijacking jets and slamming them into skyscrapers such moral equivalence is ludicrous, outrageous and insulting to the intelligence."
If any members of the list-serve agreed with me, they kept it to themselves. Indeed, the ambassador scolded me for having "gone too far." Is there a threat to free speech in their acquiescence to the charge that it is not "legitimate" to criticize the hate speech emanating from Saudi Arabia - home of 15 of the 19 terrorists of Sept. 11, 2001 - a country whose oil-rich citizens continue to fund terrorism around that world? You're entitled to make up your own mind - for now at least.
#1
So, I'm too dumb to understand the peaceful nature of Islam. I'll buy that. Sure, sure, I will. But, in exchange, you Islamists need to accept that we are trying to save your bloody asses from a death cult within your religion. Fair enough?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/05/2008 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The direct approach is never effective in such discussions. More to the point is to address the issue tangentially. This puts the apologist or the fanatic on the spot, with arguments he is not used to addressing.
In this case, I would highlight the mass "defections" of Muslims, repelled with Muslim extremist behavior, who convert to Christianity not out of love of that religion, but out of distaste of the primitivism and violence extolled by so many Muslim leaders.
This removes it from "my opinion against his", and points out that many of his fellow Muslims are "voting with their feet", even though raised and familiar with the Muslim culture. Surely not all of them are unfamiliar with preachers and other advocates of violence, murder, and barbarism found in the mosques of the world?
It is not Americans who are at issue here, for though they are unfamiliar with Islam, advancing their knowledge of it would not lead to acceptance of that philosophy, but utter revulsion to its excesses and depravity.
#3
I'm familiar with Islam; two graduate courses in a major university, years of experience living/working in the M.E.
Most M.E. Muslims would, IMO, not be Muslim if they had the chance. Once they get away from the strict scrutiny in the Gulf, many go hog wild with the whores and the booze. They would be doing that back home too if it wouldn't get them in serious trouble.
For the Muslim true believers, they make no bones about the fact that their religion calls for violently subjugating the infidel and admits the use of any weapon against him. Even a cursory reading of the Koran, with an understanding of the Islamic principle of negation (later suras negating the precepts of earlier ones), makes this crystal clear.
Islam is not a religion, per se, it is a sociopathic assault on all others who are not Muslim. Consequently, it should be prohibited in Western countries as a clear and present danger to democratic forms of government. Until this happens we will continue to be bullied by Muslim fanatics pushing for further rights for their "religion" and threatening violence, terror and death if those demands are denied.
The world of Wretchard's Three Conjectures draws closer every day.
In response to a casual question, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates dropped a historical bombshell, an offhand remark telling more about how the Middle East works than 100 books. And a former US Marine commander added an equally big revelation about long-ago events quite relevant for today.
Almost 30 years ago, president Jimmy Carter tried to show what a nice guy he was by pressing the shah of Iran not to crush the revolutionaries. After the monarch fell, national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski met top officials of the new Islamist regime to pledge US friendship to the government controlled by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. At the time, I wrote that by approaching some of the milder radicals, the administration frightened the more militant ones. US-Iran relations must be smashed, they concluded, lest Washington back their rivals. In fact, as we'll see in a moment, the Carter administration offered to back Khomeini himself.
Three days after the Brzezinski meeting, in November 1979, the Islamist regime's cadre seized the US embassy and its staff as hostages, holding them until January 1981. This was our introduction to the new Middle East of radical Islamism. Carter continued his weak stance, persuading the Teheran regime that it could get away with anything.
So we've long known that undermining US allies, passivity toward anti-American radicals and inaction after a massive terrorist act against Americans doesn't work. The hostages were only released because Iran was suffering desperately from an Iraqi invasion and feared Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, as someone likely to be tougher.
THE LESSON of being strong in defending interests and combating enemies has not quite been learned. Today, the mainstream prescription for success is just the opposite, and the US may be about to elect a president whose world view parallels the way Carter worked.
Here's where Gates comes in. On September 29, while giving a lecture at the National Defense University in Washington, someone asked him how the next president might improve relations with Iran. Gates responded: "I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years." Then Gates revealed what was actually said at Brzezinski's meeting, in which he has been a participatant, summarizing Brzezinski's position as follows: "We will accept your revolution... We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the shah... We can work together in the future."
#1
"and feared Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, as someone likely to be tougher."
Boy, is that an understatement. The Iranians were scared spitless of Reagan, who everyone let them know would mop the floor with the Mullahs if given half a chance.
#1
I've been to the site of a football field sized battlefield, where, at the Battle of the Bulge, a time later, a fight happened almost beyond imagination.
In that small area where the advance column of the German attack met with an anti-tank company of Americans, a battle was fought, illuminated only by burning tanks, in pitch black smoke and the heaviest fog Europe had seen in over a hundred years.
For days, the only effective weapons were pistols and knives. Two men would run up to each other and try to determine what uniform the other wore, with just one foot of space between them. Then it was kill or be killed if they were a foe. Both sides kept sending reinforcements to that one place.
The memorial that rests on that flat field lists, I believe, 14 Medals of Honor that were received for actions in that small area.
#1
nice slideshow. Real warriors, and not a John Kerry among em
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/05/2008 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No hat like the one Kerry was given either.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/05/2008 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
One of the photo 13 into the slideshow is MOH recipient Franklin D. Miller. His remarkable story is chronicled in "Reflections of a Warrior." He is the tall blond American on the far right of the photo.
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.
Pelosi Declares Hearings On Housing Crisis: Barney Frank To Co-Chair
Are journalists playing favorites with some of the key political figures involved with regulatory oversight of U.S. financial markets?
By Clifford May
