From an American point of view, here's the most astounding thing about George Galloway's libel action against the Daily Telegraph for printing captured Iraqi documents that purported to show that the left-wing Member of the British Parliament had requested and received large sums of money from the Saddam Hussein regime: Galloway never challenged the authenticity of these documents.
Galloway has won 150,000 pounds plus costs because under British law, it was not enough for the documents to be genuine. Under British law, the Telegraph was obliged additionally to prove that the claims in the document were true: ie, that Saddam not only said he'd paid the money to Galloway, but that he actually had paid the money to Galloway.
Such an investigation would of course have taken many additional weeks or months after the discovery of the documents: weeks or months in which the public would have been denied knowledge of the documents' contents or even existence.
According to the judge in the case, Justice Eady, the Telegraph had a qualified privilege to print the documents without first proving them true — but only if it reported them "responsibly." Responsibility of course is a quality found very much in the eye of the beholder, and judges may well have a different definition of "responsible" journalism than do journalists or their readers and viewers.
Absorb all this for a minute. It's true of course that the British press can be awfully hysterical. You can understand why a judge might want to express his displeasure at the media's excesses. But can it really be the case that the courts of a free country expect that captured enemy official documents of vital public moment be left to languish in prolonged secrecy — or else be handled as if with asbestos tongs by reporters who decline to take a stand one way or another on the documents' contents?
Posted by: tipper ||
12/04/2004 9:20:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Turning Rathergate on its head - real but discredited.
#2
Responsibility of course is a quality found very much in the eye of the beholder
And it's fuzzy laws like this which allow judges to award victory entirely according to their own political agenda. No one reading the Telegraph's reports was obliged to accept the Telegraph's interpretation of the documents as the only valid one. Did the Telegraph actually extrapolate so much that it is known to have lied? No! Not at all.
I'll bet the Telegraph and others are burrowing into Galloway's dirty dealings as we speak. The next crop of exposes will be devastating and watertight. Galloway's bought himself a bit of breathing space, that's all.
#3
What Bulldog said. The real investigation's only just beginning, and this time it's not just a few journalists but a Senate Committee with a huge staff and full subpoena power. Plus we can expect NY State Atty Elliott "Pitbull" Spitzer getting his chops into this at some point as well. This man brought Sandy Weill and Citigroup low; Galloway will be child's play for him.
Islamic fundamentalism is causing a 'clash of civilisations' between liberal democracies and Muslims
DAYS before she was due to be married, Ghofrane Haddaoui, 23, refused the advances of a teenage boy and paid with her life. Lured to waste ground near her home in Marseilles, the Tunisian-born Frenchwoman was stoned to death, her skull smashed by rocks hurled by at least two young men, according to police.
Although the circumstances of the murder are not clear, the horrific "lapidation" of the young Muslim stoked a French belief that the country can no longer tolerate the excesses of an alien culture in its midst.
A few days ago, pop celebrities joined 2,000 people in a march through Marseilles denouncing violence against women, particularly in the immigrant-dominated housing estates. The protest against Islamic "obscurantism" and the "fundamentalism that imprisons women" was led by a group of Muslim women who call themselves Ni Putes ni Soumises (Neither Whores nor Submissive).
The movement, which emerged three years ago to defend Muslim women, is spawning similar groups across Europe, supported by a mainstream opinion that has recently abandoned political correctness and wants to halt the inroads of Islam.
From Norway to Sicily, governments, politicians and the media are laying aside their doctrines of diversity and insisting that "Islamism", as the French call the fundamentalist form that pervades the housing estates, is incompatible with Europe's liberal values.
The shift is not just a reaction to exceptional violence such as the Madrid train bombings, or the murder of Theo van Gogh, the anti-Islamic Dutch film-maker, by a Dutch-Moroccan. It stems from a belief that more muscular methods are needed to integrate Europe's 13-million strong Muslim community and to combat creeds that breed extremists and ultimately, terrorism. With mixed results, governments are trying to quell the scourge by co- opting Muslim leaders to promote a moderate European Islam.
In Germany, with its three million — mainly Turkish — Muslims, and France, with its five million of mainly North African descent, television viewers were shocked when local young Muslims approved of Van Gogh's murder. "If you insult Islam, you have to pay," was a typical response.
"The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart," said Angela Merkel, leader of Germany's Christian Democrat opposition. "Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots." Italy's traditional tolerance towards immigrants has been eroded by fear of Islamism. An Ipsos poll in September showed that 48 per cent of Italians believed that a "clash of civilisations" between Islam and the West was under way and that Islam was "a religion more fanatical than any other".
Similar views can be heard across traditionally tolerant Scandinavia — and no longer just from the populist rightwing party's such as Pia Kjaersgaard's People's Party in Denmark. The centre-right Government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has equipped Denmark with Europe's toughest curbs on immigration, largely aimed at people from Muslim countries. In Sweden, where anti-Muslim feeling is running high and mosques have been burnt, schools have been authorised to ban pupils who wear full Islamic head-cover, although the measure comes nowhere near France's new ban on the hijab in all state schools.
In Spain, with a rapidly rising population of nearly a million Muslims, the backlash has been less visible despite the bombings, but thousands demonstrated in Seville this week against plans to build a mosque in the city centre. The Government has also won approval by sending 500 extra police to monitor preachers and Muslim associations.
Police across the EU are closely watching prayer meetings in makeshift mosques in cities and housing estates, and media accounts of the jihadist, anti-Western and anti-semitic doctrines of the imams are fuelling public anger. In Germany, pressure is growing for sermons to be preached in German rather than Turkish or Arabic. Hidden TV cameras recently broadcast an imam in a Berlin mosque telling worshippers that "Germans can only expect to rot in the fires of hell because they are nonbelievers".
The debate over the limits to free speech is loudest in France, which now acknowledges the failure of its "republican" approach to integration whereby immigrants were supposed to blend harmoniously into society and not exist in separate communities.
Dominique de Villepin, the Interior Minister, is deporting foreign imams who support wife-beating and other uncivilised practices. This week the Government moved to ban a Lebanon-based television channel for anti-semitic broadcasting. The left wing, which long shunned criticism of Islam as the stock-in-trade of Jean-Marie le Pen, the far-Right leader, now denounces the "totalitarian", anti-feminist, antisemitic doctrines of the fundamentalists. Jacques Julliard, a leading left-wing commentator, said the Left's longstanding tolerance had been used as "an agent for the penetration of Islamic intolerance".
Some on the Left have also taken strong exception to the concept of "Islamophobia", a supposed sin defined by EU anti-racism watchdogs as akin to anti-Semitism.
The French consensus was symbolised by the 80 per cent public support for the head-scarf ban, which started with little trouble in September. While many Muslims felt stigmatised, the Government took comfort from the approval of the ban by a substantial minority of the 10 per cent of the population that is of immigrant origin.
Among them is Fadela Amara, a Muslim town councillor from Clermond Ferrand, who heads the Ni Putes, Ni Soumises movement. "The veil is an instrument of oppression that is imposed by the green fascists," she says. Mme Amara, who led the Marseilles march, advocates an "open Islam, an Islam of French culture a bit Gallic around the edges". This is also the aim of the state, which two years ago created a national Muslim Council to promote moderate mainstream Islam. The council was set up by Nicolas Sarkozy, the then Interior Minister, who now heads the UMP, President Chirac's centre-right party.
M Sarkozy has just caused a stir by going a stage further, proposing that France's rigorously secular state fund the building of mosques. "Whether I like it or not, Islam is the second biggest religion in France. So you have to integrate it by making it more French," he said. To general dismay, however, the national council is coming increasingly under the effective control of radicals.
#2
Islam is the second biggest religion in France. So you have to integrate it by making it more French
or by making France more Islamic. Which will it be?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/04/2004 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mrs. Davis, if the author of this article is to be credited, his take is that Islam will have to be more French. Otherwise, the worm will turn, with the result that the Muslims are going to discover, by hard, first-hand experience, how the Jooos feel when they get persecuted.
Not, of course, that they would actually LEARN anything from it...
#4
It will be interesting to see what happens in the recession thats coming in Euroland. People will tolerate things in good times that they are forced to do something about in bad times.
#5
..the horrific âlapidationâ of the young Muslim stoked a French belief that the country can no longer tolerate the excesses of an alien culture in its midst.
Problem is, that paricular "belief" isn't held as strongly as the belief that the filthy, uncivilized Americans must be opposed by the Phrench as much as possible, wherever possible.
sigh... No gloating here -- these people are so clueless they deserve our pity more than our scorn. Again, it's really very very simple: our religious minorities succeed brilliantly here because the state does not get in their way.
What the Europeans simply can't grasp is that the ultimate solution here is not bogus, corporatist attempts at co-optation (like Sarko's ridiculous notion of state-dominated mosques) but a liberalized economy and flexible labor markets.
Give entrepreneurs and small business owners and small banks and lower-income workers real opportunities to get ahead. End the unions' stranglehold on entry-level employment that causes absurd unemployment rates for young immigrants. Get the state out of the way, and give huge incentives for hardworking, entrepreneurial strivers. Deport resenters. Shower opportunities upon the strivers.
#1
I just started reading Horowitz's "Unholy Alliance".
It looks as if this is one of those books you read through clenched teeth.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
12/04/2004 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
As Lynne Stewart told the New York Times (in an interview cited by Horowitz), there is nothing wrong with using âdirected violenceâ against âthe institutions which perpetuate capitalism.â
But this whore has no compunctions about taking money generated by capitalism in order to then go and undermine it. Highly reminiscent of terrorist methodology. Here are some links to other articles of interest:
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's former interpreter acknowledged Monday that he repeatedly gave incomplete or inaccurate answers to FBI agents when they sought his help investigating the Muslim cleric after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
During a fourth and final day of cross-examination in Manhattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robin Baker confronted Mohamed Yousry, 49, with transcripts of secretly recorded prison visits that contrasted sharply with his contention that he had been completely truthful with investigators.
Yousry is on trial with attorney Lynne Stewart and Ahmed Sattar. All three are charged with being a secret communications pipeline that allowed the sheik to get his message out to his terrorist followers in Egypt-based Islamic Group.
-------------------
Lynne Stewart is on record saying she believes the terrorists are liberationists and freedom fighters. For Stewart, Abu Musab, al-Zarqawi and the Abdel Rahman are freedom fighters. And she collaborated with the blind sheik in conducting his terror.
#3
Islamo-whore is too nice for this bag of shit. She's Stalinism under whatever bright convenient banner's available. Not a useful idiot but oneof the "masterminds" that needs a whiff of Black Flag or Raid or mister Federal Ammo
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
While the results of this year's American election may have liberal Democrats and much of the extended international community shaking their heads in disbelief, a surprising number of Arabs seem to have not only expected President George W. Bush's return to power but also supported it.
...And thus I came to realize something that the Democrats could never admit: that there exists a support base for both the Republicans' domestic and foreign agenda among the very people we thought most opposed current U.S. policy. The cultural background and value systems which inform many of these young Arabs' outlook on the world mean they will always favor men like Bush over men like Kerry. The tenets of faith, family and, yes, "moral issues" determine the overall political leanings of a considerable number of the Middle East's future leaders, in rejection of Democratic stump issues like increased liberalism, internationalism and scientific progress.
Though Democrats are often quick to criticize their opponents for seeing the issues in stark black and white, "us and them" terms, perhaps they ought to step back from their own obsession with "red" and "blue" dichotomies and recognize this nuance of Middle Eastern reality. Having a truly even-handed and practical approach to peace in the Arab world means realizing that not everyone, and certainly not all of the elites in Arab society, sympathize with the anti-American movements taking place within their own ranks, and that these heartland Arabs could prove a valuable ally in future U.S.-Arab relations.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/04/2004 10:49:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bush administration showed the world the true face of the west. For years, people believed the US stood for freedom and democracy for all, but only when Bush became the president, did they realize that they are not counted. Thanks again GWB !
Posted by: Mark ||
12/04/2004 4:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
And supersize it! I'm bringing my big ol' American butt through the drive-through in my SUV to pick it up......you better put in that damn shake I ordered this time, Mark.
#6
Actually Mark, it is just the opposite, so I think you've forgotten your sarcasm tag.
For years, poeple believed that US policies were concerned with 'stability' of dictators (It is a bastard, but it is our bastard). There was lot of truth in it. Bush changed that, turned it on its head, as his doctrine presupposes that without standing for freedom and democracy it is not possible to make the world better and safer--the previous US policies made things tidy in a short term, but resulted in all sorts of unwieldy spinoffs/blowbacks.
That is why left hates Bush. How dared he to adopt a part of their purported agenda, exporting freedom and democracy? I say purported, because in reality, the left never ends up with freedom and democracy, whenever they are put in position of power without oposition.
The people around the world (not the goverments, not NGOs, not parties--PEOPLE) know this.
#8
Hopefully the change will be permanent.
The change can only be permanent if enough people are willing to force the issue, and reign in those that wish to take their freedom from them. The philosophy of the Left is to take freedom in exchange for offering false security. The American people finally decided that the only true security was that based on power to defend the people, and rebelled against the left's willing embrace of government by "multinational organizations", I.E. the United Nations. That's why the screams are so loud this time - the Left has lost a major battle to those who espouse individual freedom over "group hugs". Freedom isn't free - it has to be fought for. The fight may be at the ballot box, in the streets, in business, or with arms, but it has to be there, and it has to continue as long as people breathe. There will always be those who think they have a "right" to rule, rather than to govern according to the will of the majority.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/04/2004 16:26 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Folks, what this tells me is in this supposed" battle of ideas" we are winning.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/04/2004 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
#8 Old Patriot - Too true. You have nailed it. Looking at my statement again it seems like wishful thinking. I don't live in the US of A but I do whatever I can through the Internet and other resources to spread exactly the philosophy you've articulated.
IF Democrats want to run around like fools trying to persuade voters in red America that they are kissing cousins to Billy Graham, Minnie Pearl and Li'l Abner, that's their problem. Pandering, after all, is what politicians do, especially politicians as desperate as the Democrats. But when TV news organizations start repositioning themselves to pander to Nascar dads and "moral values" voters, it's a problem for everyone.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
12/04/2004 9:14:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This dude needs to travel to Florida for some P.E.S.T. treatment.
Mwaahahaha!
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
12/04/2004 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Oh, just in case some of you have yet to hear of P.E.S.T. it stands for "post election selection trauma". :D
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
12/04/2004 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
as a pundit on world news, politics, and foreign policy, Mr. Rich is an excellent former theater critic. Peter Principle writ large
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/04/2004 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'ma here a waiting until you see that I am you're rightful Leige Lord and return the Mighty Hemi into it's rightful place.
Meanwhile have Goodies.
Posted by: Richard I ||
12/04/2004 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Don't listen to Richard, he's been running on the high side way too long! Crazy! Nutz! Damn it, give me back my crayon. Damn! The place is full of screeching NASCAR newbies, make 'em stop! Where's Bobby I? Bud Moore? Help!
#6
In the past, they ignored the average American and set their sights on the Christian right. We all see how effectively they villified them. They will now proceed to do the same to the "Average American". Expect to become ashamed that your family fights over a remote and shops at KMart or WalMart. Do you take weenie dishes to pot-lucks? Expect that dish to be viewed as white-trash, instead of tasty. And soon, at local pot lucks, it will disappear as no one wants to be scoffed at.
Don't think they can do it? Think again. Look how the jet-set, living in 6,000 square foot mansions made the average joe feel ashamed and guilty about driving an SUV.
It's a shame. They can and will do it. They will begin to spew their most vicious venom before they exit, poisoning anything and everything they touch. The ordinary American is now their target, and they will poison the very waters we drink. Count on it.
One of the secondary benefits of Wâs victory is watching weasels like Rich corkscrew themselves into the ground with righteous (lefteous?) indignation not merely that they could have backed the wrong horse, but that there are people (peasants!) in fly-over land that (quelle horreur!) might not recognize their obvious mental and moral superiority.
â¦most Americans continue to tell pollsters that the nation is on the wrong trackâ¦
Really, Frank? Which polls are those? What were the relevant questions? And who exactly performed these polls â maybe the geniuses that did so well at the poll exits on election day?
â¦the networks were often cautious about challenging government propaganda even before the electionâ¦
They were too busy concocting their own, Frank, and doing a damn poor job of it too.
Kevin Sites, the freelance TV cameraman who caught a marine shooting an apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner in a mosque ⦠avoided any snap judgment pending the Marinesâ own investigation of the shooting, cautioning that a war zone is "rife with uncertainty and confusion."
By calling the Iraqi âan apparently unarmedâ¦prisoner in a mosqueâ you do manage to sneak in your own snap judgement rather nicely. From what Iâve seen of that film, there was nothing apparent about whether the Iraqi was unarmed, whether he had surrendered already, or whether he intended to surrender.
Thatâs it Frank. Keep it up. Iâm sure youâll have no problem maintaining this insufferably arrogant screed until at least the next election. Dismissively describe the supporters of the President as âNASCAR fans,â not just now, in the aftermath of the election, but at every opportunity that feces-flected rag of a newspaper gives you. Being treated with utter contempt and preening condescension by the likes of you is so very persuasive.
As of right now, I figure the 2006 mid-term election is Wâs to lose.
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
12/04/2004 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#8
listening to the Left I am reminded of General Burgoyne after the Battle of Saratoga. He couldn't believe that his beautiful army (which was going to cleave the Colonies and end the Rebellion) had been beaten by "a rabble in arms".
#10
Here's a contrarian view: Frank Rich is pretty idiotic on most subjects but he does know media, and he's dead-on in his larger point, which is that the MSM's born-again posture is complete horsesh*t. No more convincing or serious than Kerry boasting about how he shot a goose (or did he?).
I think Rich would respect these blow-dried idiots more-- I know I certainly would-- if they would simply do as NPR does and tacitly say, "Hey, we're going to give you a liberal slant because that's who we are and what we're about, and if you don't like it, flip the dial over to Fox or Rush."
The corollary of this kind of brutal honesty is a certain humility: instead of saying, "We're the Almighty MSM that tells you how to think, that brings down presidents and turns military victory into ignominious defeat", the little man behind the curtain recognizes that he competes with Tom Wretchard and VDH and LGF and Kos and the rest of us. If he does a bang-up job, then he'll win the respect of red-state AMerica, and probably blue-state America as well. If he continues to serve us superficial slop with heavy dollops of NYTimes left-lib groupthink, then he'll join the ranks of the Air America nobodies.
Sounds like how a marketplace for ideas should work, doesn't it? Good for Frank Rich. Bring it on, and may the man with the best ideas and the best reporting and the sharpest commentary win.
#11
Peggy Noonan nailed it in her latest WSJ piece on Rather-- he used to be her boss, in 1981-1984, and she's actually somewhat sympathetic to him.
In her view what Brian Whatshisname and Peter Al-Jennings are doing is repeating the mistake that young Dan Rather, a Jacksonian son of the South if ever there was one, made forty years ago. Instead of trusting his Jacksonian instincts and superb nose for news, young Danbo was so eager to cast off the redneck taint and gain acceptance in Manhattan media circles that he adopted their cloistered point of view, whole cloth. Had he been content to be a rather sensationalist muckraking man of the people, Rather could well have become a truly independent, interesting, unpredictable reporter-- ie what every reporter is supposed to be. As opposed to being a shill for Proper Manhattan-Beltway Opinion.
"I am a sick man. ... I am a wicked man." This is how Dostoevsky's nameless anti-hero begins his Notes from Underground, the prelude to a series of five extraordinary novels on the fate of modern man.
Through the last decade, excellent new translations of the major works of Dostoevsky and Gogol have been coming from the (married) team of Richard Pevear and Larissa Volkhonsky. They have been making clear what other translators, from whatever motive, had been making opaque.
Previous translators of, for example, the quote above, avoided the word "wicked", and usually put the word "spiteful" in its place. A moral assertion was thus replaced with a psychological one. But Dostoevsky is a moral, not a psychological writer, and the word he used in the original Russian, "zloy", does not mean "spiteful". It is the root of that word, and it means "bad, evil, wicked". The word for "spiteful" is instead "zlobnyi" -- and Dostoevsky, who had some idea what he was doing in the Russian language, did not use it.
There you have our post-modernity in a nutshell: an unthinking elision of the moral into the psychological, creating a "nuance" where no nuance exists. And by so doing, the previous translators externalized the evil that Dostoevsky's character had discovered in himself. The old Christian thing was to do good, in the knowledge that we are capable of terrible evil. But the "new man" believes that he is good in theory, and thus does not recognize the evil in his deeds. We make a desolation and call it peace.
Though to be fair, the anti-Bush demonstrators in Ottawa yesterday did not even make an impressive desolation. They did not have the numbers or the energy to do to Ottawa what their organizers promised. Of course, security was extraordinarily tight. Yet by their threats alone, they were able to summon that security, and turn the long-delayed state visit of the President of what was once Canada's closest ally into a furtive eat-and-run.
Said the upbeat CBC reporter: "There are people here representing a wide range of opinions, from anti-globalization, 'no to Star Wars', support for Palestine, Marxism, not to mention exclamations like 'Queers hate Bush'." . These are not, in fact, a wide range of opinions, but rather, alternative ways of articulating the same void.
It is hard to imagine what President Bush or anyone could say that would please the many people in this county (or any other, for that matter) who truly abhor him -- but can't explain why without using parrot-like slogans, and referring knowingly to non-existent "facts". Who, moreover, would not even dream of formulating a coherent alternative to what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, or Dubuque.
Not that no coherent alternative could exist. There were intelligent, if finally rejected arguments made against each of Mr. Bush's decisions in turn; there is room for informed disagreement over every question of public policy, from persons of goodwill. But the world is constructed in a curious way: so that goodwill and coherence tend to leave simultaneously. The people on the streets in Ottawa yesterday, looking desperately for a way to harm the object of their hatred, were beyond mere argument, their conclusions having long preceded their premises.
Nor would I suggest it is impossible to oppose Mr. Bush for good reasons. But these do not require hatred of the man. In the Congress of the United States, for instance, there are a couple of hundred reasonably intelligent Democrats, prepared to make the case against Mr. Bush temperately, most of the time. They only just lost the election.
What we see on the streets of Ottawa, instead, is an almost pure fanaticism -- that radical spirit of alienation that ultimately motivates the Jihadis, too. This nihilism is the splinter in the heart of our modernity; it rejects everything; it proposes, finally, nothing in its place. It is the devil himself speaking out of his void, leading finally to the silence of Iago.
To understand it, we must look into the very faces contorted with rage, and the mouths uttering the vilest obscenities. The evil is not coming from outside them: it is instead welling from the void within.
And yet the tragedy of these people -- whose fanaticism puts them beyond the pale of give-and-take in party politics, and whose views, should they spread, would take the whole democratic order down with them -- is that they know even less about themselves than they know about the world they condemn. They are angry, but finally they don't know why.
They don't believe in evil, as a category; yet it haunts them externally on every side: "Bush" being only the straw man of the moment. And unlike the actual Mr. Bush, they do not believe in grace, either. They see evil everywhere. They rail, and they rail.
You could call them spiteful, but that would be psychologizing.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/04/2004 4:30:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wow. Righteous rant from Mr. Warren. He lives in Ottawa. This probably hit home for him.
#3
The Russian word zloy covers quite a wide range, from "angry" to "wicked". I think that the translation "spiteful" would be reasonable in some contexts.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/04/2004 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
ITLP -- Idiots That Love Parades. These folks are anti-war but well defended, anti-energy but use electricity and oil 24/7, and anti-globalization but offer no viable alternative. Most of them got there in gasoline-powered cars traveling on federal interstate highways and wearing third-world-sewn clothes. Its all about signs and costumes and puppets. Everybody loves a parade, especially these idiots. What have they done for us lately?
Posted by: Tom ||
12/04/2004 14:34 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.
