An English friend was asking me about tipping. He didnt understand how much, why. I explained they actually are allowed to pay waitstaff less than minimum wage, and the tip is part of how they get paid. It ensures good service. Its the American way. Service, tip. No service, stiffed. He was amazed by all of this. Couldnt believe it.
So I said, Well, hows the service in England?
Bloody awful.
Hows the service in America?
Fantastic. The foods a lot better, too. Its really good.
There you go. Over here, if they want to get paid, they have to hop to.
Either that, or they just doctor your credit card bill. America is a great country. I saw a light go on in his head. Slowly but surely, my English pal is coming to recognize how vastly superior America is in all respects.
He told me with horror one day, I overheard an older man in the mall telling a younger lad, The American military is the greatest force for peace in the world. I couldnt believe it.
I know, I said. Its really amazing, isnt it, once you figure that out.
Wot?
Were still working on that one. But Ive explained to him one of these days, hes going to be back in his own dismal corner of old Blighty (How was England? I asked after his last visit. Dreary, just the way we like it.) and some gaptoothed Pom will be sounding off about America this and Yanks that and Iraq Bush blah blah blah, and hell find those words coming out of his mouth: Yeah, well, I dont expect you to understand it, but the American military is the greatest force for peace in the world. Not only that, but the restaurant service doesnt suck.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/26/2008 08:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
'The American military is the greatest force for peace in the world. I couldnt believe it."
Western and Central Europe has experienced the longest period of peace since the Roman Empire and they can't connect the dots. The only ground the American military has asked to keep for their work is a place to bury their dead. All others have been on lease and we're already packing to come home.
#2
The first colonies, the ones whose inhabitants came in the Mayflower proposed something who was completely different to everything else in Europe (and to the Spanish/Portuguse colonies) and very subversive to Europe's social order: free commoners taking charge without need for supervsion by their "betters" ie aristocrats. Since then European rulers (1) have done their utmost to denigrate America out of fear of their "peasants" getting bad ideas. In this they have
succeeded far too well aided by the raise of socialist ideas (and the natural hate of socalists for "ultracapitalist" America) but also the good old jealousy of the slave towards the freed or escaped slave. Europeans hate you and this has little or nothing to do with GW Bush.
(1) You only have to take a look at European societies or remeber about how teh European Constitution has been adopted in a disguised form called "simplified treaty" despite the crushing defeat in France and Netherlands referendums to
understand that european "democracies" are designed for keeping the people as fr away as possible of power and obedioent to their betters
Europeans (whether they realize it or not) are subjects.
'Nuff said.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/26/2008 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As an explanation, over 1500 years of war in Europe left pretty much everyone with a harshly realistic and pessimistic view of the world. The idealism and optimism were pretty much burned out of them, except in small pockets, here and there.
America, by contrast, is positively bulging with realism and optimism. At our founding, we were not burdened with government-institutional state religion, so our national goals are set by "We the People", not heaven. And our extraordinary optimism is tempered only by our small enclaves of idealistic pessimists in New England.
But being realistic optimists gives us a big advantage over the Europeans, in that we are more objective about the rest of the world.
If we see a problem develop, we act quickly, instead of letting it fester until it spirals out of control. Europeans say that we act like "cowboys", for acting soon and forcefully; but the alternative is to wait until it is too late, then respond with nuclear weapons--which is the corner the Europeans have to live in, having painted themselves into it by their inaction.
In Iraq, for example, the English were willing to let the Arabs behave in "the Arab way". But Americans had no preconceptions about Arabs. If they were honest and behaved, they were our friends. If they were dishonest and treacherous, they were our enemies. It didn't matter if they were Sheiks or peasants.
Therefore, the parts of Iraq we controlled are now doing nicely, but the parts the English controlled are still restive and unsettled. Which means the Americans have to go there and do the work the English didn't do.
But that is true to form for Americans, who are the world's policeman out of default, a job that nobody else wants, but has to be done.
Once it was Africa's shining city on a hill, a beacon of prosperity and economic growth in the gloom of a continent shrouded by poverty. Emerging in 1980 from a seven-year civil war against white settler rule, the newly independent nation of Zimbabwe embraced racial reconciliation and invited the country's whites (one in 20 of the population) to remain and contribute to the new nation.
Fast forward to today, and the country is unrecognizable.
Zimbabwe now has the fastest-shrinking peacetime economy in the world. This week, one U.S. dollar (even in its newly enfeebled state) will fetch you 55 million Zimbabwe dollars on the street. Hyperinflation there has soared well above 100,000% -- way past what it was in the Weimar Republic, when Germans loaded up wheelbarrows with money to go grocery shopping. Zimbabweans must carry huge wads of cash around in shopping bags, and by the time they reach the checkout desk at the shortage-racked supermarkets, the prices have already gone up.
Commercial agriculture -- the backbone of the economy -- lies shattered. All but a few of the country's 5,000 large-scale farmers, most of whom were white, have been run off their properties by government-backed squatters and militia. From being a food exporter, Zimbabwe would now starve without U.N. famine relief. And even with it, half the population is malnourished. Education and healthcare have collapsed. Ravaged by AIDS, life expectancy has plummeted from around 60 years old to about 35, the world's lowest. Zimbabwe has more orphans per capita than almost any other country on the planet. Water is undrinkable, power infrequent, roads potholed, fuel scarce, corruption endemic.
#3
#2: I think Bob deserves another medal: For completely running his country into the ground...
I agree, Spot. It should be equal to his success. I'd recommend a 40-ton manhole cover, dipped in something resembling chocolate, and "pinned" on from about 40 feet over his head.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/26/2008 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
After Puerto Ricos Democrats vote on June 7*, there will be extraordinary pressure on the remaining publicly undecided super-delegates to get off the fence and make their preferences known. The Democratic convention is not until the end of August, so theres a potential for three more months of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama slugging it out, running negative ads, airing opposition research, jabbing each other in speeches, and driving up each others unfavorable ratings.
There are several hundred super-delegates who have not publicly committed,. and even when you win the support of a super-delegate, you dont always get to keep it. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia announced at the end of last month that because his district overwhelmingly supported Obama, he will vote for the Illinois senator if it comes to a floor fight (which looks extremely likely). And then, sometimes one of your super-delegates is forced to resign because of involvement with a prostitution ring. Some days, Hillary just cant catch a break.
But not all super-delegates are equally influential, and the Democrats could possibly avert that protracted summer fight if, after June 7, a group of the most prominent remaining undecided superdelegates jumped on one of the bandwagons. Perhaps the lowest point of the campaign for Hillary Clinton was the rumor just before the Ohio and Texas primaries that Obama had 50 super-delegates that were ready to endorse at the end of the week. Had the boast panned out, her campaign would have been instantly rendered a Sisyphian effort to keep the final score respectable. But Hillary won Texas, won Ohio by a significant margin, and won Rhode Island and those 50 super-delegates never materialized.
Each of the ten figures listed below has remained on the sidelines for a reason But sooner or later, they will have to decide, and a collective endorsement from several of them could create the impression that the fight is effectively over. . . .
I have now read and reread your speech, understanding you take this to be a teaching moment, I have applied myself to its lessons. But some questions have arisen and I need a little more clarification.
You tell me Reverend Jeremiah Wrights horrendous remarks will take on a different meaning if I will but contextualize them and understand he has seen terrible things in his time, a burden shared by all African-Americans. A fair proposition; from Kant to Auden and beyond we learn we define by comparison and only by internalizing can we grasp true meaning. So I have done precisely that: looked inside myself to understand how hatred might need to be contextualized.
I did not have to look far. I remembered how, as a boy, I sat at the Passover Seder with my sisters Polish-born husband and the remnants of his family. The remnants of five families to be precise, for the 12 weary souls around that table were all that remained of what had once been 300. . . .
That is the teaching opportunity I hoped you would evoke: not explaining Wrights outrage to me, but explaining his outrageousness to him. Thats how well reach the postracial era: by no longer justifying ourselves with what was, instead speaking to what now exists. Not deny the past, but recognize thats what it is: past.
You say you are devoted to Reverend Wright because he brought you to Christ. I can only imagine how powerful a relationship that forges. But, my imperfect understanding of the Christian Faith tells me you can do him an equally magnificent service: You can help bring him back to Christ. Show him redemption and salvation lie not in the satisfaction of doing little dances in a pulpit while you slander good and decent people. Teach him that great leadership and Christian love abjures the very filth and I pick that word deliberately that he spews on an apparently regular basis. After all, Senator, you know our government did not invent the HIV virus to kill African-Americans. You know, Senator, this is not the United States of KKK America. You know the truth of 9/11. At least you should. Both you and Michelle have benefited mightily from the new spirit that has come to America in the last two generations. I thought you were part of that. I thought you were post-racial.
But in your silence, in your justifications, in your facile instruction to contextualize, you seem just a more presentable version of those dreary self-promoters, Sharpton, Jackson, Bakewell and the rest. Surely this is not you. Please, Senator, be brave. Lead. From a position of honesty where context is our daily reality, not drawn from bitter memories, no matter how justified they once might have been. Deny Jeremiah Wright your comfort of context. Be Presidential. To all Americans.
Yours sincerely, and in prayer for the Grace of God,
Lionel Chetwynd
Posted by: Mike ||
03/26/2008 08:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would like Senator Obama to reconcile the Reverend Wright's beliefs with those of Martin Luther King.
As a young captain in the Indian Army, I experienced first hand the dynamics of a Chinese power play. One autumn day in 1987, near Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, almost exactly where the 1962 war sparked off, a group of Chinese soldiers crossed the rugged Line of Actual Control (LAC) and sat themselves down in a grazing ground called Wangdung. For days, while India launched diplomatic protests, more Chinese soldiers trickled across; before long, a 100-man company from the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) had established itself in Wangdung.
The Chinese expected little more; but the Indian Army had long buried the ghost of 1962. With diplomacy scorned, New Delhi ordered Operation Chequerboard, a massive mobilisation that quickly concentrated 100,000 soldiers around Tawang. As the Indian stance grew harder, the Chinese positioned softened. In a similar face-off in 1967 that Beijing would have remembered, Indian jawans had killed over 200 PLA soldiers in Nathu La, in six days of pitched fighting. While China still holds Wangdung, Indias robust reaction forestalled further Chinese encroachments.
Should New Delhi also flash steel in its reactions over the ethnic uprising in Tibet? Chinese statements make it clear that Tibet is seen as no more than a potential embarrassment during Chinas coming out party at the Olympic Games. Beijing believes that New Delhis foreign policy conservatism will ensure that it continues to toe the line on Tibet. But would Indian interests be better served by reminding China that it has painful pressure points at Dharamshala that can be activated?
Contrary to public perception, India has not been entirely pliant when it comes to dealing with the Middle Kingdom. Next year it will be half a century since the Dalai Lama was given refuge in India. Tibetan volunteers, committed to freeing their homeland from the Chinese yoke, form several battalions of Indias Special Frontier Force (SFF), which frequently operates on the northern border. China believes they often cross the LAC for special missions deep inside Tibet. The Indian Army, as its chief General Deepak Kapoor said, crosses the LAC into China as often as the PLA crosses into India. The reason, as he clarified, was that neither India, nor China agrees where the LAC lies.
Neither have Indias responses to events in Tibet been free of ambiguity. Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon met the Dalai Lama recently; New Delhi has a formal consultative arrangement with His Holiness. The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, met the Dalai Lama and issued a strong statement. It was just the kind of adverse pre-Olympics publicity that Beijing does not want. The police halted the March to Lhasa, mounted by the Dalai Lamas followers, but it garnered headlines nevertheless. And could Tibetan demonstrators have stormed the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi without the tacit complicity of the Government of India?
The big question, of course, is: has New Delhi embarked on a rash course of confrontation? Or is a habitually timid India underplaying its hand?
The backdrop to Indias dilemma is the paradox in its relationship with China. On the one hand, as members of the international state system, both countries share an interest in maintaining the status quo. Chinas vulnerabilities in Tibet and Xinjiang are mirrored by Indias concerns in J&K and the northeastern states. But China has never let that shared interest with India hold it back from developing and using the levers of influence. Beijing has skilfully played the insurgency card in Nagaland and Manipur; Naga leader Thuingaleng Muivah admits to training and equipping his forces in China. In helping Pakistan obtain a nuclear arsenal, China has violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Missile Technology Control Regime. And, in the last couple of years as the US began viewing Beijing as a possible ally against a resurgent Russia China has hardened its rhetoric on the border dispute with India.
India must decide whether its long-term leverage with China lies in multilateral relationships like the US-India relationship. In the recent past, that has been the case; in 2005, when New Delhi and Washington seemed ready to sign both a defence agreement and the nuclear deal, China agreed to a set of Political Principles that would form the framework of an eventual border agreement. This agreement noticeably favoured India; China has recently distanced itself from it.
But if multilateral levers are fickle and subject to change, then are there levers that India could create? Indias policy on Tibetan independence cannot radically change. India cannot support the redrawing of borders, and the Dalai Lama himself asks for no more than real autonomy for Tibet. New Delhi, however, does have options even without going back on its recognition of Tibet as an autonomous region of the Peoples Republic of China. Without repudiating that long-held stand, India can fuel the debate on Tibets autonomy. The Tibetan government-in-exile, located in Dharamshala, will respond enthusiastically to the slightest signal from New Delhi.
For that, India would need to break a Pavlovian behaviour pattern that China has induced. Senior Indian diplomats increasingly realise that Beijings rhetoric on the warmth of its relations with New Delhi have imposed on Indian diplomats a certain decorum of behaviour that obscures the underlying adversarial relationship between the two countries. That artificial decorum also makes New Delhi reluctant to play the role of a countervailing power to China. This could be the moment when New Delhi recognises Sino-Indian relations for what they really are as opposed to what Beijing says they are.
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2008 08:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If nothing else, we (The US) should be working on our relationship with the world's largest Democracy, India.
They would prove to be a far better friend than China.
#2
When you consider where things were in 2000, Bush needs to get a lot of credit for developing the relationship. But the Indians also need to dance and they are a democracy with their equivalent of the donks throwing sand in the gears at every opportunity.
#3
If we could gin up a billion dollars (roughly equivalent to what we were providing to Afghan rebels during the Soviet occupation) a year to support a Tibetan insurgency, and India were prepared to serve in Pakistan's role vis-a-vis the Afghan revolt (supply conduit and training ground), I think Tibetans could inflict even more damage on the Chinese than the Afghans did on the Soviets, given Tibet's even more rugged terrain. But that's a big if. I suspect that it's not going to happen, given the size of US investments in China - directly and via subcontractors. Maybe if China slaughtered tens of thousands of Tibetans, and word got out.
jaw dropping main editorial in "The Hindu", a leading Indian newspaper run, not (as its name would suggest) by right wing Hindutva types, but by atheist Marxist types enamored of all things Chinese.
If you go by western media reports, the propaganda of the so-called Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamsala and the votaries of the Free Tibet cause, or by the fulminations of Nancy Pelosi and the Hollywood glitterati, Tibet is in the throes of a mass democratic uprising against Han Chinese communist rule. Some of the more fanciful news stories, images, and opinion pieces on the democratic potential of this uprising have been put out by leading western newspapers and television networks. The reality is that the riot that broke out in Lhasa on March 14 and claimed a confirmed toll of 22 lives involved violent, ransacking mobs, including 300 militant monks from the Drepung Monastery, who marched in tandem with a foiled March to Tibet by groups of monks across the border in India. In Lhasa, the rioters committed murder, arson, and other acts of savagery against innocent civilians and caused huge damage to public and private property. The atrocities included dousing one man with petrol and setting him alight, beating a patrol policeman and carving out a fist-size piece of his flesh, and torching a school with 800 terrorised pupils cowering inside. Visual images and independent eyewitness accounts attest to this ugly reality, which even compelled the Dalai Lama to threaten to resign. There was violence also in Tibetan ethnic areas in the adjacent provinces of Gansu and Sichuan, which, according to official estimates, took an injury toll of more than 700. Western analyses have linked these incidents to the March 10 anniversary of the failed 1959 Tibetan uprising, non-progress in the talks between the Dalai Lamas emissaries and Beijing, Chinas human rights record, and the Beijing Olympic Games, which will of course be held as scheduled from August 8 to 24.
Recent accounts, however, express unease and sadness over the containment of the troubles, the large-scale, if belated and politically slow, response by Beijing, and the brutal ease with which the protests have been smothered. In another context, say Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf, such a response would have been called exemplary restraint. As evidence accumulates, the realisation dawns that it is too much to expect any legitimate government of a major country to turn the other cheek to such savagery and breakdown of public order. So there is a shift in the key demand made on China: it must initiate a dialogue with the Dalai Lama to find a sustainable political solution in Tibet.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The long-suffering Tibetans have been in the news. This happens perhaps once or twice a decade. In a more moral world, however, public opinion would be far more preoccupied with Tibetans than with Palestinians, would be as harsh on China as it is on Israel, and would be as fawning on Israel as it now is on China.
But, alas, the world is, as it has always been, a largely mean-spirited and morally insensitive place, where might is far more highly regarded than right.
What follows is a large portion of red meat, steak tartar ...
Consider the facts: Tibet, at least 1,400 years old, is one of the world's oldest nations, has its own language, its own religion and even its own ethnicity. Over 1 million of its people have been killed by the Chinese, its culture has been systematically obliterated, 6,000 of its 6,200 monasteries have been looted and destroyed, and most of its monks have been tortured, murdered or exiled.
Palestinians have none of these characteristics. There has never been a Palestinian country, never been a Palestinian language, never been a Palestinian ethnicity, never been a Palestinian religion in any way distinct from Islam elsewhere. Indeed, "Palestinian" had always meant any individual living in the geographic area called Palestine. For most of the first half of the 20th century, "Palestinian" and "Palestine" almost always referred to the Jews of Palestine. The United Jewish Appeal, the worldwide Jewish charity that provided the nascent Jewish state with much of its money, was actually known as the United Palestine Appeal. Compared to Tibetans, few Palestinians have been killed, its culture has not been destroyed nor its mosques looted or plundered, and Palestinians have received billions of dollars from the international community. Unlike the dying Tibetan nation, there are far more Palestinians today than when Israel was created.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hmmmm....just guess. The Commies have never gone away and the Paleos were among their 'choosen' in the great War Against the West. Given the Han of Beijing are still giving lip service to the great Red message, is it any wonder why the 'usual suspects' continue to fawn over both decedents of the one true secular faith.
#3
The thing is the Tibetans get a lot of attention, look at all the Free Tibet bumper stickers. THey just don't get any useful help, look at all the Free Tibet bumper stickers.
#4
I'm sure Iran is doing what it can to affect our elections. So, too, the Saudis and China. The Brits will try, but condescending letters to Ohioans from Professor Dawkins and his friends just doesn't have the same impact. ;-)
Chuck, if this is indeed Iran's Tet Offensive, they've screwed themselves, because the mainstream media no longer form opinions as they did in the heyday of Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite. Rush Limbaugh gets his information elsewhere, and so do we hear.
#5
Murtha played a really dirty trick in the last election. Two Democrats switched parties, then ran against the Republican candidate in the Republican primary.
Democrats then crossed over to vote for them in the open Republican primary, and so outnumber Republicans that one of the Democrats won the Republican primary.
Then that fake Republican just didn't run against Murtha, so he ran unopposed in the general election.
#6
In Youngstown, they have the initiative to still occasionally vie for the US murder capitol title. There's no such level of industriousness in Johnstown...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/26/2008 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Why are the people in PA so f**king stupid as to continue to elect this asshat?
An article by Nibras Kazimi, Visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute
.... Today [March 25], the Iraqi Army launched its first major military operation to fully control Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, without any - ANY - Coalition assistance. One source tells me that during the preparation phase of this campaign the Americans offered to position some U.S. Special Forces and air-cover near the Basra battle theater to act as back-up if needed but their Iraqi counterparts planning this operation politely turned down the offer.
This is Operation Cavalry Charge.... Its chief objective is to flush out the organized crime cartels that control the port of Basra and the oil pipelines of the province. One major criminal force in the Basrawi scene are groups that affiliate themselves with the Sadrist movement and its Mahdi Army. Many of these criminal rings are also associated with certain factions of Irans Revolutionary Guard that operate in Basra both for intelligence/sabotage purposes as well as enriching themselves. By knocking out these egregious manifestations of lawlessness, Operation Cavalry Charge will have the accrued benefit of mashing up the more subtle patterns of Irans malignant influence in Iraqi Shiisms foremost economic prize, the oil fields and port of Basra.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
03/26/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Those counseling caution and delay stressed that smashing Sadrist-related criminal cartels would spark a large-scale Sadrist reaction across Iraq at a time when the Bush administration wants to keep Iraq quiet
The whole foundation of assumptions that goes into making this statement seems to be BS to me.
#5
If they did it with only US intelligence and air support it would be a resounding success. Not only to prove the US training methods work, but that the Iraqi army has taken them to heart and is working to secure its own future.
Im a tad skeptical of hakim having colder feet than Maliki. Why? cause Hakim is closer to the Bush admin and more concerned about the US election? Cause he thinks state power in the south will also weaken SCII? Cause he doesnt want Maliki stronger in the run up to iraqi elections? Cause hes just a nervous nellie? I mean I can come up with reasons, but still, its always been Hakim whos more an enemy of Sadr than Maliki. But then Kazimi seems to say this isnt really about Sadr. Hmmmmm.
#10
I made my comment about terrorism being a business before I read this. The IRG and organized crime link doesn't surprise me. Iran is a kleptocracy.
Exposure to levels of radon gas typically found in 90 percent of American homes appears to reduce the risk of developing lung cancer by as much as 60 percent, according to a study published in the March 2008 issue of the journal Health Physics. The finding differs significantly from the results of previous case-control studies of the effects of low-level radon exposure, which have detected a slightly elevated lung cancer risk (but without statistical significance) or no risk at all...
#1
I thought radon was supposed to be bad for you?
So I guess I wasted my time plugging up all the cracks in my foundation with formaldehyde soaked asbestos...
#3
Okay-y-y, soooooo IOW we human thingys want to go "back to the future" and revert back to our ancient FISH = RSOWELLIAN ALIEN + BIRDMAN, etc. ANCESTORS???
D *** NG IT, MORE MORGELLONS - NOT LESS, USA USA USA!
I have become increasingly interested in examining Joss Whedons work from a feminist perspective since I had a conversation with another lesbian feminist sister at the International Feminist Summit about whether Joss was a feminist. I am really quite shocked by how readily Joss is accepted as a feminist, and that his works are widely considered to be feminist. I decided to start re-watching Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and also to watch Firefly and the movie Serenity.
I have to say that now that I have subjected myself to the horror that is Firefly, I really am beyond worried about how much men hate us, given that this was written by a man who calls himself a feminist.
There is so much hatred towards women contained within the scripts and action of the series that I doubt very much that this post will even begin to cover it. Much more in this vein, it's hilarious. It took me a while to realize that she was dead serious and not making a parody. The best part is at the comments at the end, though. click here to view.
Writer: Let me just say now that I have never personally known of a healthy relationship between a white man and a woman of colour.
Poster: Like you've personally known of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman?
I just read that load of tripe. Other than the fact that it confirmed my opinion that most feminists are complete idiots, it was a complete waste of time. I appreciate the effort but IMHO, the 'Burg would be better off without this crap; it has a net negative effect on one's intelligence.
I'm damned glad I'm never likely to meet that article's author in person.
#4
My son's taking an enrichment course at MIT on Firefly - I'll have to get his take on this swill. He's a level-headed conservative/libertarian for the record.
#7
The villains in Serenity are... well, highly authoritarian Democrats. Think about it: the bad guys are constantly striving to create a centralized utopia with no sharp edges and no frontiers.
#8
Serenity was awesome - got the box set and Serenity DVD....hope I din't upset the feminist with the term "box-set", she seems to hypergynoventilate at every other reference to a woman
IOW, a DIPSHIT
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2008 22:16 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Angela Dworkin? Angela Dworkin? Has someone come up with a Artificial Stupidity-based feminist article-generator?
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
03/26/2008 23:34 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.
Once it was Africa's shining city on a hill, a beacon of prosperity and economic growth in the gloom of a continent shrouded by poverty. Emerging in 1980 from a seven-year civil war against white settler rule, the newly independent nation of Zimbabwe embraced racial reconciliation and invited the country's whites (one in 20 of the population) to remain and contribute to the new nation. 
