#3
2012, ya say, eh? The Mayans will not find that entertaining! ;-D
Now, a serious question for those who know: How is a "solar cycle" measured? The article points out that the length of time varies, so what determines the start and end of a cycle?
#4
I'm not an expert, but I think that things like CME's (coronal mass ejections) give clues to the cycle. They are a good indicator of the condition of the sun's magnetic field, which also affects sunspots. The exact physics are still uncertain, they are bit of a mystery.
#5
The Sun has no effect on the earth's climate, only evil SUV driving Republicans do. Remember, if it's too hot, too cold, or too just right, it's due to Global Climate Change.
#1
Kinda makes me wonder what the heck is going through their minds when they have anything to do with this subject. Heck, this gal may single-handedly settle down the whole Muslim world!
#2
"Your wives are as a tilth [land or soil to be cultivated] unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah."
That verse, she says, makes it known that sex shouldn't just happen when the husband wants but that the wives have rights too.
"I was so proud of my religion when I saw that. My religion was advanced enough to talk about women's rights in sexuality how many years before modern science did?"
Um... the way I read it, it says the exact opposite. "When or how ye will".
IIRC, here on the 'Burg some time ago I read an article from an ex-Muslim psychiatrist who said that muzzy women get to experience the joys of anal intercourse more than any other group of women on the planet. I'm sure all those muzzy women are absolutely elated about that.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/26/2007 7:18 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This ignorant old fool ought to STFU. Muslims get too much sex now. They violate young boys daily. They get goat sex on Wednesdays and Fridays. They reserve camels for special events. They have enough brood mares in bags to produce bumper crops of jihadis. They need sterilization. I think nuetron bombs could accomplish this enmass.
#12
I notice nothing about handling sex with multiple wives. I take it the men only have one in Egypt.
Hmmmm....
Posted by: Boss Shusoth4259 ||
04/26/2007 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#13
...but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah.
As I read it that has nothing to do with giving her pleasure or even anything to do with sex. It seems to say to do something like alms-giving or ritual purification beforehand. Seems utterly male-centric to me - surprise, surprise.
#14
My interpretation.
"Treat your wives like dirt. Have sex any time and any way you want with them. Just sacrifice a few infidels to allah first to make it all right."
#3
Oh God, please read this. I had not really known of this woman or her work before. She is as strong a voice as Fallachi was. Her clarity puts the lie to negotiating with Islam. Either fight or die. This gerble gibble about a political solution in Iraq is a bag of warm dung. If we still have the willpower, the only way to deal with Islam is military. Their complete destruction before we are consumed from within. Methods of accomodating police action do not suffice. Total war with the total elimination of their populations are required.
#4
2) Muslim doctrine rejects the Bible, it does not accept that it is the history of the people of Israel and the source of Christianity. Muslims believe that the biblical narrative, as it is transcribed in the Koran, is the story of the Muslim people and of Muslim prophets. For this reason, they deny the historical patrimony and ancestry of Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. For them, both Testaments have an Islamic source and describe an Islamic history since the people in the Bible and Jesus himself (Isa) were Muslims. Judaism and Christianity are seen as falsification of Islam. This is the inner core of the ideology -- even a doctrine -- of Palestinianism and of its war against Israel.
The European trend has added to it traditional Christian antisemitism which condemns the Jews to perpetual exile till they convert. The Palestinian war against Israel, strongly encouraged by many in Europe, came as a magnificent opportunity to continue and maintain the culture of hate and denigration against the Jews -- now the state of Israel -- and by lending a moral and political support to a second Holocaust. Europe has been the biggest supporter and subsidizer for the Palestinians as well as their ideological teachers.
Memo to all Christians: Start considering the need to agitate for a complete and total ban of Islam, its practice, its doctrine and especially, sharia law.
jihad is not like any war, it represents a whole theological war corpus, with its holy strategy and ritual tactics.
As Pappy duly noted the other day, Islam has ostensibly separate ideological and military goals. While I view them in a more monolithic light, both levers are not always available to those who oppose Islam.
Bat Ye'or's work has finally made clear to me the degree of co-opting that Islam indulges itself with. It is total assimilation that they seek. Whether it be demanding any scrap of land that a Muslim has ever set eyes foot upon or a revisionist appropriation of the Bible itself, nothing will placate this monstrous cult.
If any other religion besides Islam wants to survive, each of them had better begin to find common cause among all the other tolerant faiths. They will need to aggregate a moral high ground from which a global theological assault upon Islam can be launched. I once had great hopes that Pope Benedict was going to spearhead such a movement, but his lamp has dimmed of late and the momentum of Regansburg seems to have be squandered.
If we still have the willpower, the only way to deal with Islam is military. Their complete destruction before we are consumed from within. Methods of accomodating police action do not suffice. Total war with the total elimination of their populations are required.
You're catching on, Woozle Elmeter. While it must be hoped that "total elimination of their populations" will not be necessary, some dramatic demonstrations of disproportionate retaliation are going to be required. Islam has yet to pay even a remotely adequate price for its perfidy and terrorist atrocities. That must change.
With each new terrorist atrocity, whole Muslim cities need to vanish into rubble. The ummah must be taught a deep and abiding fear of any further assaults against the West. With each new terrorist attack they must learn to flee their towns not knowing if theirs is the next to be obliterated. Eventually, they will learn that the only correct response is to race down to the nearest mosque and slit the imam's throat. They must keep doing this until global jihad is no longer preached. If they cannot, Islam will gradually recede into the mists of time.
Should we be so foolish as to do anything less, our fates are already sealed.
While the war between Israel and Hezbollah raged in Lebanon and Israel last summer, it became clear that media coverage had itself started to play an important role in determining the ultimate outcome of that war. It seemed clear that news coverage would affect the course of the conflict. And it quickly transpired that Hezbollah would become the beneficiary of the media's manipulation.
A close examination of the media's role during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon comes now from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, in an analysis of the war published in a paper whose subtitle should give pause to journalists covering international conflict: "The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict." Marvin Kalb, of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, methodically traces the transformation of the media "from objective observer to fiery advocate." Kalb painstakingly details how Hezbollah exercised absolute control over how journalists portrayed its side of the conflict, while Israel became "victimized by its own openness."
The lessons from the Harvard paper go well beyond historic analysis. Kalb's thoroughly and persuasively documented case points to the challenges to journalists in future "asymmetrical" conflicts in which a radical militia provides access only to journalists agreeing to the strictest of rules.
Journalists did Hezbollah's work, offering little resistance to the Islamic militia's effort to portray itself as an idealistic and heroic army of the people, facing an aggressive and ruthless enemy. With Hezbollah's unchallenged control of journalists' access within its territory, it managed to almost completely eliminate from the narrative crucial facts, such as the fact that it deliberately fired its weapons from deep within civilian population centers, counting on Israeli forces to have no choice but defend themselves by targeting rocket launchers where they stood. Hezbollah's strong support from Syria and Iran -- including the provision of deadly weapons -- faded in the coverage, as the conflict increasingly became portrayed as pitting one powerful army against a band of heroic defenders of a civilian population.
Gradually lost in the coverage was the fact that the war began when Hezbollah infiltrated Israel, kidnapping two of its soldiers (still held to this day) and killing eight Israelis. Despite the undisputed fact that Hezbollah triggered the war, Israel was painted as the aggressor, as images of the war overtook the context.
Israelis by the hundreds of thousands became the target of rocket fire aimed at civilian centers. Women and children, Jews and Arabs, young and old, spent more than a month living in underground shelters while nearly 4000 Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel. The coverage from Israel, however, quickly moved away from the anxiety-filled civilian areas, which were not terribly telegenic, and onto the front lines where armed, uniformed soldiers could be seen by television cameramen and reporters.
By contrast, armed Hezbollah fighters were all but invisible to the media. Also invisible were Hezbollah's thousands of rockets and rocket launchers strategically positioned near schools, hospitals and apartment buildings.
Within Hezbollah territory, journalists were led through scenes of the destruction caused by Israel. Journalists rarely complained about Hezbollah's restrictions, but they frequently complained about Israel's efforts to limit coverage deemed useful to the enemy. Still, circumventing Israeli restrictions proved easy in a country like Israel, while in Hezbollah-controlled areas it proved all but impossible. Cameras enjoyed full access to civilian victims of Israel's actions, but never to the perpetrators of violence against Israel. And in Israel journalists could interview soldiers complaining about the weaknesses in Israeli tactics. On more than one occasion, Hezbollah choreographed theater for visiting journalists, with ambulances ordered to parade on command for journalists, who rarely challenged the inconsistencies in what they saw. Bloggers, for example, noticed a perfectly unharmed Lebanese man standing in a picture, not long after he had been seen being "rescued" from the crushing rubble of a building.
Before long, Hezbollah had achieved a definitive propaganda victory. The media had not only acquiesced to tell Hezbollah's version of the war, they had started contributing to the creation of the narrative, with at least one Reuters photographer altering photographs to make Israeli attacks look more damaging. And many reporters simply failed to offer much context. The study quotes the New York Times' Stephen Erlanger commenting on a satellite picture published by his paper. The picture showed a southern suburb of Beirut, which was largely destroyed. Erlanger said it "bothered me a great deal," because the image with no context failed to show that this was a small part of a Beirut, and the rest of the city was largely undamaged by the war.
According to the Harvard paper, Arab TV network Al Arabiya portrayed Arabs as the victims in 95 percent of its stories, while Al Jazeera did it in 70 percent of its reports. Arab journalists' bias against Israel is hardly surprising, but consider this: Al Jazeera's coverage portrayed Israel as the aggressor just as often as did the four main German television programs. And if you think American journalists held no bias against Israel, you may be surprised to know that "On the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, Israel was portrayed as the aggressor nearly twice as often in the headlines and exactly three times as often in the photos."
The Harvard paper shows the need for journalists to brace themselves and remain vigilant when they cover conflicts between open societies on one side, and media-controlling militias on the other. These conflicts, which we will undoubtedly continue to see, demand that journalists make a greater effort to provide context and to keep from become willing collaborators with one side. Islamic militant groups, such as al-Qaida and others, have openly described their strategy of manipulating the media and winning on the "information battlefield." Hezbollah, too, had a well crafted, and ultimately successful media plan.
The challenge to keep from being used will be greatest for journalists in the field, but editors back in the newsroom also must look closely at what their organizations produce. They must be aware that their reporters on the ground are the target of media campaigns by those they cover, and that reporters can become emotionally allied with one side, as we saw last summer in Lebanon.
#1
Jeepers! Isn't this news like, 9 months old to us Rantburgers?
Ya think any of the MSM will read about this? It is from Harvard!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/26/2007 7:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The abstract from the paper summs it up nicely:
Based on content analysis of global media and interviews with many diplomats and journalists, this paper describes the trajectory of the media from objective observer to fiery advocate, becoming in fact a weapon of modern warfare. The paper also shows how an open society, Israel, is victimized by its own openness and how a closed sect, Hezbollah, can retain almost total control of the daily message of journalism and propaganda.
Any lessons there for Nancy and Harry?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/26/2007 7:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I really don't think they give a rat's ass. All the hippie journos want to portray "freedom fighters" as the good guy and organized govts. as the evil interlopers.
#4
From page 34 in the report - it made my irony meter twitch: When the bloggers [in the U.S.] discovered that photographs had been doctored, the credibility of the bloggers skyrocketed and our credibility plummeted. Nessman added, After that everything that we did was suspect. And that makes it very difficult to cover a war, to have honest people who are trying, who are not doctoring photographs, who are not taking one side or the other, but who are trying to present the truth of what is going on there, and have everything we say be examined, which is fair, but basically be questioned as a lie, and starting with that premise that the media is lying.
Sort of like when you presume everyting a military person says is a lie?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/26/2007 7:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
How the Media Partnered With Hezbollah
No shit Dick Tracy. The surprise meter does not budge.
#7
I chanced upon a Bill Moyers propaganda piece last night on PBS. Forced myself to watch. Its focus was on the admin's WMD justification for going into Iraq and that the administration lied/inflated data and had virtually no evidence to back up their claims.
Reporters from Knight Ridder did the digging and came to the conclusion that the admin's case was groundless. That no other journos picked up on this or replicated their efforts was the theme...the media didn't do its job because it was silenced by the right wing attack machine or was swept up in the patriotic fever following 9/11.
It featured such luminaries as Dan Rather (!!!) and Phil Donahue. Lots of negative about Fox, less so the other cable outlets (surprise). It was carfully crafted to show the administration in a truly horrible light and did its job well. It was also crafted to show Republicans in a negative light. They had some old footage of Ronnie, but nothing at all negative about any Democrat, including Clinton.
But it was just rich with irony. While I applaud that it raised issues of jounalistic ineptitued / laxness, that failing was focused on just the single issue of the WMD - need for war rationale. What about all the other things that the media has refused to do/investigate?
Moyers was followed by another anti war show that featured Cindy Sheehan types. I couldn't watch it.
I'm all for journo's doing a better job, but it would be nice for once to see them focus on facts alone rather than propaganda.
If anyone else saw this I would be interested in hearing your opinion about it.
#8
Watch network TV? That's why I have a DVD player.
The auuthor of the paper was Marvin Kalb. Wasn't he an MSM guy some time back? Or was that another Marvin Kalb?
Guess I could Google him....
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/26/2007 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Marvin Kalb is a Senior Fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy and Faculty Chair for the John F. Kennedy School of Government's Washington programs. Kalb was the Shorenstein Center's Founding Director and Edward R. Murrow Professor of Press and Public Policy (1987-1999). The Shorenstein Center and the Kennedy School are part of Harvard University.
Kalb spent 30 years as an award-winning reporter for CBS and NBC News. At NBC, he served as chief Diplomatic Correspondent, Moscow Bureau Chief, and host of Meet the Press. His work landed him on the master list of Nixon political opponents. Kalb was the last newsman recruited by Murrow to join CBS News, becoming part of the later generation of Murrow's Boys. During many years of Kalb's tenures at CBS and NBC, his brother Bernard was also part of the news staff at CBS.
A media guy come over to the dark side?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/26/2007 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Usually I can't stomach Kalb. Most of the times that I watch him on TV, eventually he says some dumb shit thing dimly shrouded in intellectualism that reveals his main stream press biases and agendas.
#12
Conclusion: To win a modern war, Fuck the media, kill everyone in sight and don't stop until everyone left alive surrenders and places their lives in your hands. Even then, kill a few more for past acts.
#1
Sen. Lieberman is one of about a handful of members of Congress (both Senate and House) that I have any respect for. I don't agree with a lot of his domestic policy positions, but he's been absolutely rock solid on the single most important issue. Outside of that handful, I don't think they're worth a bucket of warm spit (I'm feeling diplomatic today).
#2
Unfortunately, based on todays Senate vote, there aren't enough Dem's like Joe in the Senate.
Posted by: Boss Shusoth4259 ||
04/26/2007 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
And even fewer in the House.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/26/2007 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight. To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win."
And I think the challenge before Joe is, how much longer are you going to remain loyal to the party that not only kicked you in the balls in last year's Connecticut primary, but is now determined to force an American loss in Iraq, no matter what the consequences are for Iraq or America?
I'll start taking Joe a lot more seriously when he starts telling Harry Reid to take his pacifist, defeatist, anti-American, pro-Islamist party and shove it up his corrupt, treasonous ass.
Better yet, he can do what I did: switch parties. PERMANENTLY.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/26/2007 17:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"OVER HERE" vz "OVER THERE". FOX NEWS > Putin's "State of Russia" speech > announced a "freezing" of Russia's role = commitment as per the CONVENTIONAL FORCES IN EUROPE Treaty. CONDI RICE > Its ludicrous to believe that 10 Interceptor missles will threaten Russia's overall strategic deterrence, and everybody knows it. *WOT > WAR FOR ANTI-US OWG-GLOBAL SOCIALISM, so don't underestimate the anti-US agendist penchant for empowering "OVER HERE" in USA in order to "justify" the former.
After lots of hard work getting the spin just right, a House-Senate conference committee has cobbled together a $124 billion war-funding bill for President Bush to veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made sure the bill, which is expected to pass the House and Senate today, included all of the pork and other essentials for Democratic Party constituencies. But when it came to the 150,000 U.S. troops now fighting in Iraq, lawmakers included enough poison-pill language to ensure a presidential veto -- which will in turn delay much-needed support for military operations in Iraq.
The Iraq portions of the bill serve to illustrate why the Framers did not give the legislative branch primary authority to conduct foreign policy. Under the legislation, American troops will begin pulling out by July 1 if the elected Iraqi government fails to meet a series of congressional demands, which include reducing sectarian violence -- meaning, in effect, that if al Qaeda wants to speed up an American troop pullout, it might want to bomb more Shi'ite mosques -- guaranteeing that sectarian violence would worsen.
Other demands include enactment of a law to share oil revenue. Desirable as this is, it is irrelevant if security does not exist in Iraq, and the U.S. military remains the only thing standing in the way of a total collapse of the government. But the bill goes on to mandate that even if the Iraqis meet all of Washington's demands, the troops will start to leave Iraq Oct. 1, with a goal of bringing most of them home by next April.
One might ask: What happens if the terrorist insurgents and militias haven't decided to go out of business by that time? In Congress's fantasy world, none of that matters. This legislation wasn't put together with the goal of defeating jihadists on the battlefield. Quite the contrary: With Republican support negligible, it was crafted to ensure the broadest possible coalition of Democrats would vote for a surrender bill. To satisfy the MoveOn.org types, particularly in the House, the bill starts the pullout as early as nine and a half weeks from now. In an effort to provide political cover for House "Blue Dogs" from more conservative districts who want to vote with Mrs. Pelosi, it contains troop-withdrawal language that sets a "goal" for pulling out rather than a deadline.
The Democrats' lack of interest in the real-world impact of their legislation is reflected in their shabby treatment of the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. Last week, House Democratic leaders initially declined Gen. Petraeus' invitation to brief members, reversing themselves only after coming under fire from Republicans. In a CNN interview that aired Monday, Mr. Reid appeared to question whether Gen. Petraeus is being truthful when saying that success is achievable in Iraq. After all, Harry knows the war is lost, so the Genral must be a liar - or maybe just stupid?
And by tying funding for the war to a surrender bill that the president will veto, the Democrats are showing studied contempt for our troops in the field.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/26/2007 07:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Democrats are telling the world's savages if they can kill enough of themselves, the US congress will give them a reprieve until they can muster another atrocity on US soil, next time most likely with nukes.
Can you imagine in the Pacific theater, Japanese soldiers throwing their women off cliffs then demanding the Marines surrender or they will throw the babies off too? It's almost like reverse psychology where Bugs dares Daffy to drink the nitroglycerin and swallow a match. But I fear the best congress money can buy does not have the street smarts of a cartoon rabbit.
Posted by: ed ||
04/26/2007 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Many Japanese civilians did more or less exactly this at Saipan (to my mind not a bug but a feature):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saipan
Though in those days the phenomenon - in so far as it was reported - was regarded with disgust and as a prime example of what we had to defend ourselves against. Now it is celebrated by the fat, creeping traitors of Hollywood and the Ivy League.
#5
Are there any Military Experts that believe a simple, arbitrary withdrawl date of coalition troops from Iraq will result in anything less then a blood-bath? My research says not very many. Matter of fact, most seem to predict a spiral of regional conflicts. Many envision a series of humanitarian crisis, large scale suffering, cats living with dogs. You know, real Biblical shit. I just wonder how many of those that sided with the Democratic leadership will be able to lay their heads on a pillow and convince themselves...It was all Bush's fault.
The mighty "Dean of Washington Correspondents" gives Searchlight Harry a thorough smack-around.
. . . consider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuckles Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."
On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . ."
Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid's tussles with the language.
Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. . . . Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.
Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.
To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend. Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.
The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/26/2007 07:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Reid is a traitor, pure and simple. He should be tried for treason, found guilty, and executed by military firing squad.
Posted by: Mac ||
04/26/2007 7:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Did Schumer's lips fall off?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/26/2007 7:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Firing squad is a soldiers right.
Reid should get the rope.
#6
Oh-oh. Mr. Small's exposing himself.
Remember, Harry. John Fn Kerry got those stars in his eyes and everybody found out what an incompetent boob he was too.
#13
Sorry, Mr. Broder - your breed has seen its best days. The Democrat Civil War started back in 1968, and guess what? Your side lost. They don't control the Party, they don't control the money. They're even losing control of the media. I'm surprised you haven't been 'asked' to retire.
So enjoy your remaining years as Washington's Dean of Correspondents. Who knows? Maybe in your dotage you'll be able to bean Walter Cronkite with a stray drive at the Dinosaurs of Media Golf Tournament.
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.
Frida Ghitis
