Congress is less divided by partisanship than it is united by devotion to the practice of protecting incumbents. Doing this with, for example, the bipartisan embrace of spending "earmarks" is routinely unseemly. But occasionally, incumbent protection is also unconstitutional.
It was in 2002, when Congress was putting the final blemishes on the McCain-Feingold law that regulates and rations political speech by controlling the financing of it. The law's ostensible purpose is to combat corruption or the appearance thereof. But by restricting the quantity and regulating the content and timing of political speech, the law serves incumbents, who are better known than most challengers, more able to raise money and uniquely able to use aspects of their offices -- franked mail, legislative initiatives, C-SPAN, news conferences -- for self-promotion.
Not satisfied with such advantages, legislators added to McCain-Feingold the Millionaires' Amendment to punish wealthy, self-financing opponents. The amendment revealed the cynicism behind campaign regulation's faux idealism about combating corruption.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/22/2007 06:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
another reason (besides support for amnesty) that I would only cast a vote for McCain if a Democrat was his opponent or "none of the above" wasn't available. What a tool
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/22/2007 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
Having spent much of my adult life in politics, it would be silly at this late date to be shocked by the discovery of insincerity and misleading statements coming from leading candidates for president. But if I have seen too much of the world to be shocked, at least I can still be appalled. And, the gentle lady, the junior senator from the Empire State, continues to appall.
Consider the following Associated Press story from earlier this week: "The economy needs help and fast, Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Monday, claiming the experience for the job and saying the nation can't afford to break in a newcomer... There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history," Mrs. Clinton said. "Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families. And they cannot afford to keep waiting."
For months, Mrs. Clinton has hinted that Sen. Barack Obama, less than three years into his first Senate term, lacks the preparation to deal with U.S. foreign policy challenges. In Monday's address, she suggested the nation's budget deficit, income inequality and lack of comprehensive health coverage also required a more experienced steward.
"We need a president who understands the magnitude and complexity of the challenges we face and has the strength and experience to address them from day one," she said.
Good grief. What plausible claim does Miss Hillary have to experience in managing a national economy, balancing a budget or fixing income inequality? Even on health care, according to her husband, the aspiring "First Louse" (he wants to be called First Laddie, but I think the derivation from First Spouse works better) claims that she didn't have much to do with HillaryCare it was his fault.
Is the national media actually going to accept without even a murmur of skepticism Mrs. Clinton's claim to possess all the experience gained by her husband as president? If Mr. Obama (or for that matter any other candidate in either party) were to claim such experience, a reporter might well ask him on what basis he claims such experience. And, by the way, the same charge can be laid at Rudy Giuliani (a candidate I am more favorably disposed toward) when he claims experience in foreign policy. While I like his general attitude toward foreign policy, he doesn't in fact have experience or expertise in the matter.
This is an important point. There is a difference between a candidate having a particular policy and having experience in managing such a policy. If Mrs. Clinton claims she has the best ideas about our national economy, she is entitled to claim that. Socialists will agree; capitalists will disagree. But she should not be allowed to claim, without media correction, that she has experience at managing the national economy. Page 2 at link.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/22/2007 06:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So what Hillary is saying is that Laura is best qualified to follow George in the office? Well, what polls I've been aware of show Laura's negatives are a lot smaller than Hillary's, her positives far more expansive, and, since this whole rationale is about acquiring skills and abilities through osmoses, it would follow that Mrs. Bush is just as qualified.
#2
Presumably Hillary is relying on the 'pillow talk' theory of presidential experience. How far this once-proud feminist has fallen (sigh)! To actually claim a mantle of experience from living in her husbands shadow.
But curiously, this would only apply to those things which she can claim as a success. Don't ask her about failed health care, North Korea's nuclear program, aborting CIA orders to kill Bin Laden, the lack of aggressive pursuit of Al Qaeda Cole and embassy bomb plotters, etc.
#3
"I am singularly experienced and trained to gullibly accept the word of lying world leaders, defend them with lame conspiracy theories, and lie about my enabling of their screwing-over of the American people. My treatment of Bill's bimbos, various troopers and secret service personnel, as well as the common working Americans shows that I can be ...er...tough. No follow-up questions, or I'll accuse you of ganging up on me because I am a woman."
/Her Thighness Ineveitableness
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/22/2007 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
LOL! Good one Frank G - that just about sums it up.
#5
She did a wonderful job enabling her husband's sociopathic behavior. Just think what she can do for the really evil actors on the world stage.
Posted by: ed ||
11/22/2007 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
yep, remember her kiss with Suha after listening to Mrs Arafat haranguing them damn Jooooos?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/22/2007 11:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The worst foreign policy would be not accepting oil from countries that would "harm us". Withdrawing from Iraq, turning Iraq over to Al Qaeda, would eliminate Iraq, Iran wants to nuke America and Israel so they would be out in regards to selling oil to the US. Venezuala would no longer be able to sell us oil. Saudi Arabia would no longer be viable since they use Haliburton services.
At home no drilling in Alaska. She probably hates taking oil from Texas, home of George Bush.
She then would demands oil profits by domestic oil companies go into non-oil/non-coal energy development. That cuts oil exploration. By 2025 she wants the US to cut oil consumption by 40%, not 5%. With all the above, we will have only 5% oil available anyway.
And then Hillary wants to judge whether moms and dads are good parents. Also, in your home, guns and ammo must be in seperate places at all times.
#9
What is the Security Clearance of a First Lady? Is it assumed to be the same as the President? Would laws have been broken if she did really know as much as she's indicating?
The Supreme Court will rule on a major second amendment case just as the summer presidential campaign season kicks off next year. Depending on the ruling, the outcome of the Washington DC gun ban case could significantly effect the Presidential race.
The Court will likely rule one of three ways:
It could affirm that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Ironically, complete success for the NRA could put Americas foremost gun rights advocate out of business as a major political player for the foreseeable future. Every Democrat in America whose highest priority is recapturing the White House and keeping the Congress should pray for this outcome.
It would just mean that the 2008 election would be about what it's about today, which favors neither party.
The second possibility is that the Court announces a muddled ruling that alludes to an individual right to a gun, but affirms that local jurisdictions are afforded some level of regulatory oversight. I suspect that the Court, usually being cautious and incremental, will rule this way. This status quo decision would keep the gun rights issue alive but wouldnt give it any extra breath than it currently has. Republicans will continue to advocate a gun rights position and prudent Democrats will either embrace that same position, or continue to avoid the issue.
Though it will rile those (like me) who think the 2nd amendment really does confer individual rights, and it would force Dhimmicrats to say explicitly where they stand. It would also put more heat on the state races, much like the Kelo decision forced new state laws regarding eminent domain.
If, however, the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment is a group right afforded to governmentally organized militias, then watch out. Such a decision would immediately put a constitutional amendment to reverse its effect on the fast track. The ruling would upset millions of voters, many of whom arent currently happy with Iraq, the economy, immigration, and Bush, and who might otherwise be persuaded to turn to a Clinton, Edwards, or Obama. But they wont with gun rights at stake. If the Supreme Court takes away the individual right to bear arms next spring, automatically every Southern and Western state is unwinnable for any of the leading Democrats next November.
UNLESS . . . Democrats can successfully portray the Republican nominee as also being weak on gun rights. Rudy and Romney, both having led severely gun-limiting governments, are very vulnerable here. Either would have no more credibility on this issue than would any of their Democratic rivals, and could find themselves watching from the sidelines as the NRA organizes its soldiers, not for the Presidential race, but for Congressional races aimed at passing a constitutional amendment.
Romney might be able to finess the issue but Rudy wouldn't have a prayer. And it won't be decided until June - August, when the primaries are done, so it's no help to Fred Thompson and John McCain.
By agreeing to take ParkerHeller, its no stretch to say that for the second time in eight years a presidential election might hinge on a United States Supreme Court decision.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Every Democrat in America whose highest priority is recapturing the White House and keeping the Congress should pray for this outcome."
But most of the Democrats who have that as their highest priority don't believe in prayer!
by Bill Roggio
AS CONCERN BUILDS within Washington's political, military, and intelligence circles over the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda in northwestern Pakistan, the search for a proper policy to deal with the threat has come to the forefront. Earlier this week the New York Times leaked details of a classified recommendation for a new strategy to assist the Pakistani government in dislodging the Taliban and al Qaeda from their entrenched positions there, where the groups have effectively established a terror sanctuary. In short, the recommendation consists of funding and arming Pashtun tribes, reinforcing the paramilitary Frontier Corps, providing additional Special Forces trainers, and assigning additional teams from the Special Operations command to target high value targets whenever such opportunities arrive.
The plan is being sold as somewhat analogous to the highly successful counterinsurgency campaign in Anbar province, where tribal leaders and former insurgent groups banded together to fight al Qaeda in Iraq and its allies with the aid of Coalition forces. But the situation in Anbar is not comparable to the situation in the Pakistani northwest, and there is little reason to believe that a strategy like that reported in the Times will succeed in this more hostile environment.
Human rights are a concern of the organization Human Rights Watch....just not the their main concern.
Like nearly every organization and activist on the left, their main concern is the left itself. More power. More influence. More money. And especially...more victories against any who would oppose them. In many cases, this is reflexive, an automated behavior pattern that accompanies adherence to the ideology of the left.
Read the following excerpt from an article that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post: (HT: Captain Ed)
If you're thinking you haven't heard much about this transformation in a major oil-producing country two hours by air from Miami, you're right. U.S. media and human rights groups have basically ignored Chávez's latest power grab. Human Rights Watch, which has been conducting a campaign about what it says is the "human rights crisis" in neighboring, democratic Colombia in close cooperation with congressional Democrats, has issued no statement on the Venezuelan violence -- including the shooting of the students by government-backed paramilitaries on Nov. 7 -- and objected to only one of the 69 new constitutional articles.
Why is it that Human Rights Watch and other human rights NGOs, the media, and the Democrats are strikingly uninterested in the complete collapse of freedom and severe erosion of human rights in Venezuela, but they seem fascinated byand oh so very concerned aboutthe human rights situation in Colombia? Simple.
Colombia's government is center-right. This makes it an enemy of the left.1
Venezuela's government is hard left. This makes it an ally of the left. It doesn't matter how authoritarian the government is. It doesn't matter if it's slightly left or far left. An ally is an ally.2
For a more detailed exegesis of this pattern, along with some striking examples, see Selective Outrage: How the left's agenda trumps genuine concern for human suffering.
You will find that HRW (and its ilk) do have some concerns that don't fit into this pattern. Similarly, you will find that the ACLU occasionally takes a case that doesn't fit into its normal left-wing agenda. Nonetheless, nearly all organizations of this type that are left-aligned follow general trends wherein their concerns and approaches are selectivethere will be a human rights component (or whatever their issue is), but it will first be run through a filter to determine what is in the best interests of the left.3
The case of Venezuela vs. Colombia is a salient and demonstrative one. For reinforcement of the idea, read the headlines on HRW's home page. You will see some concerns that do not fit this pattern, but you will undoubtedly also perceive the pattern. Here's what they're showing today:
Colombia: New Killings of Labor Leaders
Canada: Protect Citizens Facing Death Penalty in US
Mexico: US Aid Should Include Human Rights Conditions
Georgia: Police Beat Peaceful Protesters
Russia: Drug Addiction Treatment Requires Reform
Roma Children Denied Equal Education
Is There a Humane Way to Put Someone to Death?
Guantanamo Judge Allows Military Commissions to Proceed
US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good
What's evident on that partial list?
Center-right governments
The United States
U.S. allies in the GWOT
Israel (read: the Jews)
Defense of sex offenders
Opposition to the death penalty
These are all boilerplate left-aligned positions, causes, tendencies, and targeted enemies.
Granted, there are more articles on the page, but very few of them deal with criticism of governments on the left. In fact, there are only two, and both are directed at China:
China: Stop HIV, Not People Living With HIV
China: Tibetan Faces Baseless Subversion Charges
The left's criticism of China has been muted or non-existent since it became a Communist country. The left was silent in spite of the fact that Communist China was the site of the greatest mass murder in human history (over 60 million people). Lately, the left has gotten a little more vocal about China, but this just happens to coincide with two things:
--China's rapid abandonment of leftist economic principles, and
--Protectionism becoming the flavor of the month on the American left.
So now, for the left, a little bit of criticism for China is okay. Of course, you still see a lot of Mao-chic on the left, but that is wistfulness for the old Communist Chinathe mass-murdering one that inspires a whiff of nostalgia for lefties who used to hand out Mao's little Red Book.
In HRW's defense, there are a couple of articles dealing with Islamic nations:
Tunisia: Allow Rights Activists to Attend US Conference
Egypt: Allow Citizens to List Actual Religion on ID Cards
Iran: Suspend Heavy Sentence for Womens Rights Activist
Given the appalling record on human rights in most Islamic countries, this is the very least they could do. And notice that there are five articles dealing with "human rights abuses" in the United States, and three tepid complaints about microcosmic issues in three countries out of the entire Islamic world.
From a human rights standpoint, that it a serious imbalance unsupported by the facts surrounding real human rights abuses in the world. Looking at it that way, it makes no sense.
If, however, you look at it the way HRW doesthrough a filter of the left's best intereststhen it makes perfect sense.
Il n'y a aucun ennemi du côté gauche.
1 It is important to note that there are human rights abuses taking place in Colombia, but the center-right government is only one of the players. It does have proxy paramilitary militias...but as has been the case in so many places throughout the world, the other players in this drama are both leftist insurgent groups, in this case, the narco-terrorist/Marxist FARC and ELN.
HRW and others are mostly just concerned with the pro-government militias; they have little to say about FARC and ELN. If you have read this article, and the links within it (especially this one), then you already know why this is.
2 One of the reasons this is true is because the whole left is a part of one ideological phenomenon. Once you get to the left of Morton Kondrake, politics becomes a simple continuum. The only question is the distance the individual adherent is from the core ideology of leftism.
This is not true on the right. The right is a multifarious amalgam of different interests. Social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives. National security conservatives. People who reflexively know that the left is dangerous, and thus join the side best configured to oppose it. The left has a single core ideology from which it has sprung, and upon which most of its agenda continues to be based: Marxism-Leninism. There is no single ideological wellspring for the right. Sure, there are core ideas, but the right really exists in the location where the various circles of its ideological Venn diagram meet.
3 This is no different than the fact that most "feminists" lost their minds in defense of Anita Hill against that dastardly Clarence Thomas, but were virtually silent about Bill Clinton's serial abuse of women. Thomas was an enemy, Clinton was an ally. Political alignment trumped feminist concerns. For the left, it always will.
#1
Colombia: New Killings of Labor Leaders
Canada: Protect Citizens Facing Death Penalty in US
Mexico: US Aid Should Include Human Rights Conditions
Georgia: Police Beat Peaceful Protesters
Russia: Drug Addiction Treatment Requires Reform
Roma Children Denied Equal Education
Is There a Humane Way to Put Someone to Death?
Guantanamo Judge Allows Military Commissions to Proceed
US: Sex Offender Laws May Do More Harm Than Good
Golly gee. Not a single mention of that continuous abuse of human rights known as shari'a law. Oops, wait a minute while I fetch my magnifying glass ...
Tunisia: Allow Rights Activists to Attend US Conference
Egypt: Allow Citizens to List Actual Religion on ID Cards
Iran: Suspend Heavy Sentence for Womens Rights Activist
Whew, they had me worried there for a moment. Notice how Iranone of the very worst offenders of them alltrails the list? There is a startling consistency with which Leftists overlook the immense wrongdoings of those whom more conservative elements oppose. No better example exists than the deafening silence of feminists over FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), so delicately phrasedand misleadingly couchedas "Female Circumcision". Were Christians in favor of such a massive human rights violation, you can bet your bottom dollar that there'd be rioting in the streets and churches being torched over this issue.
Instead, since a pet minoritywhich Muslims, at some 20% of this world's population, are notis engaged in this hideous practice, the Left's eyes remain averted to such loathsome behavior. This sort of politically selective definition of what constitutes human rights abuse represents the very lowest form of agenda-mongering. It panders to the most mindless and robotic partisan mentality and is worthy only of scorn from any individual with the least shred of philosophical integrity.
If conservatives had any wits about them, they would seize upon this gaping void in the Left's ethos and focus an actinic glare upon such willing disregard of immense human suffering. Muslim majority nations represent one massive and ongoing violation of human rights such that any alliance with them is worthless in the face of being required to ignore this fact. There can be no better way of outing the Left's selective agenda whilst simultaneously identifying the civilized world's very worst enemy. That neither side of the aisle can bring themselves to do so is a discouragingly strong indicator of just how far America has sunken towards a one party system.
By Scott MacLeod
The invitations have gone out. There will be an Amercan-sponsored Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, next Tuesday, the first such gathering in seven bloody years and four months.
The International Crisis Groups excellent policy briefing issued yesterday on Annapolis makes a convincing case for why Condi Rices efforts are serious and significant, and how the conference can be turned into a meaningful step toward peace. The ICG is not blind to the difficulties; to the contrary, in agonizing detail it describes the political weakness of Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and their utter failure to come up with a pre-conference understanding on the contours of a peace agreementincluding the final-status issues like borders, Jerusalem and refugees. Yet, with the help of the ICGs analysis, its worth taking stock of what has been accomplished and how this progress provides an opportunity that should not be minimized or missed.
I havent been alone in expressing skepticism about Rices peace push or about her past excuses for the Bush administrations appalling neglect of its international responsibility to uphold the peace process between 2001-2006. But its thanks almost entirely to Rices diplomacy that the administration has in fact dramatically and properly changed its basic approach to the conflict and now appears, in the ICGs words, committed to an intensive effort.
Once, an administration driven by neo-conservative ideologues believed that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was fighting the authoritarian rot in the Arab world that they believe produces hatred for the U.S. and Israel in the form of the 9/11 attacks and suicide bombings against Israelis. Rice has shifted the challenge back to where it should have remained: addressing the injustice experienced by Palestinians in their expulsion from what became Israel in 1948 and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Palestinian territories since 1967.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Palestinian Authority
#1
Is the Pope Budhist? Does a bear use indoor plumbing?
#2
460k Arabs left what became Israel on the eve of Arab war against the new state. 780k Jews were consequently expelled from Arab countries and 88% landed in Israel.
#3
And Mr. Scott MacLeod also wrote:"...galvanized into her own re-think of the Middle East crisis by her disastrous handling of Israels attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006; as images of dead children filled the worlds TV screens, she called the war the birth pangs of a new Middle East and stubbornly refused to demand an Israeli cease-fire."
I suspect Mr. MacLeod is a stringer for the BBC, or a front man for UNFIL. Surprised to read this on a conservative nationalist Lebanese news site.
Posted by: Large Ebbaving6251 ||
11/22/2007 2:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Desperately needed"? Huh? Nah, don't think so, Scott.
Seems to me the (long, long, inexcusably delayed) security barrier has left Israelis not very much in need of peace of any sort with their uncivilized and undeserving neighbors (Sderot residents excepted). This, plus of course the bizarre self-interest of Israeli politicians in stasis, may explain why a farcically ineffective PM stays on in Israel, and is allowed to engage in silly stunts like this Annapolis barfathon.
Behold, just in this small excerpt, the bizarre alternative make-believe world idiots like McLeod inhabit - they fixate on process, including that which has been tried umpteen times to no avail given the hostility and depravity of one of the parties, as if that matters. They are caricatures - nearly implausible ones - of process-fixated diplomats.
It's nauseating to contemplate the number of idiots, both here and abroad, who actually make well-paying careers out of this nonsense. In the process they pollute the minds of non-specialists as the equally clueless media feeds their crap into the news flow, non-stop.
#8
(not really on topic, but piggybacking on #6...)
Just out of curiosity, if the 2007 Dolphins go winless, will Steve Spurrier, Lee Roy Selmon and maybe one or two other members of the '76 Buccaneers pop champagne corks?
#10
"Occupied West Bank", huh? How about "Arab-occupied Judea"? Or consider this Obadiah Shoher
Posted by: Ann ||
11/22/2007 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#11
What Verlaine said. I'd say the status quo is quite satisfactory. Hamas and Fatah running around killing each other. Israel progressively isolating itself from Gaza and the WB. Where's the problem?
#1
The longer it goes, the more likley this is to happen. One other thing shoudl be done as well - destruction of as many Iranianh leadership targets as we can reach, especially destroying the Quds and Guards C&C.
#4
Be it anti-Nuclear strategic air campaign, or de facto ground forces invasion and occupation of Iran, etc. will still result in Iran retaliating agz USA-Israel-Allies vv Terror proxies or other means, including but not limited to PREEMPTIVE STRIKES = FIRST STRIKES AGZ SAME. IOW, USA MIGHT AS WELL "GO FOR BROKE" AND INVADE IRAN ANYWAYS BECUZ IRAN HAS ALREADY MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR IT WILL RETALIATE FOR ANY MIL ACTION AGZ IT. Radical Iran is only giving the USA two choices -let it dev potent nuke technologies including nuke weapons, which is PC-speak synonymous wid NO US ATTACK(S) ON IRAN PERIOD; versus REGIONAL-GLOBAL CONFLAGRATION INCLUDING IRAN-INDUCED
"GREAT POWERS" MILPOL CONFRONTATION + NATIONAL/GLOBAL MUTUAL DESTRUCTION [not only Iran-USA]. Either Iran gets nukes, or the World will be destroyed, by any means necessary.
#2
I now await Milbank to politicize the Christmas tree lighting by the president with some dopey comment about how global warming is killing the trees that Bush is lighting or something stupid like that.
Next up, the Easter Egg Roll will be determined as being cruel to unborn baby chickens.
Because they are fed so well. Let us now tackle the grave problem of turkey obesity.
I'm certain a huge number of Americans spent this day addressing that exact problem.
From the comments:
Turkeys, the most innocent and beautiful birds
I guess this loon (please note appropriate use of ornithological terminology), has never seen a ruby-throated hummingbird or a wood duck.
PETA posts are FUn to read!
Why am I so sure the above isn't a haphazard typo?
I am an American Muslim from India. My adolescence was a series of rejections, one after another, of the various dimensions of my heritage, in the belief that America, India, and Islam could not coexist within the same being. If I wanted to be one, I could not be the others.
Food was one of the battlefields.
My mother used to pack samosas, pakoras, mangoes and other Indian culinary delights in my school lunch, for which I would get mercilessly teased by my classmates for the associated smells and messes. I started requesting cold cuts on white bread with brownies on the side.
Brownies? White bread? said my mother, aghast. Theres no taste, no nutrition. Why dont you want the food I give you, the food of your heritage?
You mean the food of my torment, I wanted to say.
My mother caved on my school lunches (excepting the white bread). At home, though, we still ate Indian food.
And on Thanksgiving, my mother made biryani one of the jewels of Indian Muslim cuisine. Like turkey, it takes all day to prepare. And like turkey, it is a feast food a food of gathering and gratitude.
For a while, I thought I was cheating on America. After all, there were no commercials for Thanksgiving biryanis on television. The President never pardoned a goat, the meat traditionally put in biryanis.
Ive been conducting an informal survey of the Thanksgiving meals of some of my friends. A remarkably high number are preparing the feast foods of their ethnic and religious culture lamb for my Arab American friend Tarek, an array of curries for my Indian American friend Sunil, kissra and pumpkin stew for my Sudanese American friend Hind on Thanksgiving. But all of them use the food to serve a large gathering, and all of them take a moment to offer gratitude.
I now view the different parts of my heritage as mutually enriching, and I see America's diversity as a source of strength. As the great American poet Walt Whitman said of himself and his country, "I am large, I contain multitudes."
This range of Thanksgivings is a metaphor for America: Different expressions on shared values.
The food is different, the spirit of gathering is the same.
The prayer varies, the offering of gratitude is common.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/22/2007 06:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
by Bob Krumm
By Christopher Cook 
