[NEWS.INVESTORS] After thwarting a $9.5 billion judgment from an Ecuadorean court, Chevron is going after the entire edifice of environmentalist enablers who make such junk lawsuits possible. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
To the surprise of many, the oil giant is suing the tony, white-shoe law firm of Patton Boggs for alleged unethical involvement in an all-out legal attack by environmentalists over rainforest pollution in Ecuador.
Chevron accuses the oh-so-respected firm of lying, concealing inconvenient facts, running a public smear campaign and miscellaneous other flim-flammery, all for the sake of the dollar signs spinning in their eyes.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
04/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Chevron called it extortion and refused.
Wow. Senior management with real spines? Hope they follow through...
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
~ William Ernest Henley
While incarcerated on Robben Island prison, Nelson Mandela recited the poem "Invictus" to other prisoners and was empowered by its message of self-mastery. In the 2009 movie Invictus, produced and directed by Clint Eastwood, the poem is referenced several times. It becomes the central inspirational gift from Mandela, played by Morgan Freeman, to Springbok rugby team captain François Pienaar, played by Matt Damon, in advance of the post-apartheid Rugby World Cup hosted in 1995 by South Africa and won by the underdog Springboks. President Obama quoted from "Invictus" in his speech 10 December 2013 after Nelson Mandela's death.
[AmericanThinker] Afghanistan is a country with violence at Palaeolithic levels, a misogynist religion, and endemic corruption. It is surrounded by countries that are hostile to it and the West. In fact, it seems to be made up of territory that is unwanted by the countries that surround it, as if the value from incorporating bits of Afghanistan would not be worth the pain of having the Afghani people who would come with it. It does not produce anything that the world wants in a positive way. Its major export is heroin, bringing misery and death to a large arc from Russia to Western Europe.
It sounds like a hopeless case of a country in which to do nation-building, but that is not the worst of it. The modern history of Afghanistan is written in its wheat statistics. Back in 1960, there were nine million Afghans and they grew 2.3 million tonnes of wheat in that year. By the time the Russians invaded in 1979, wheat production had risen to 2.7 million tonnes with a further 200,000 tonnes being imported. There were then 13.7 million Afghans. Things did not go well in the latter half of the Russian period of occupation with wheat production falling to 1.8 million tonnes in 1989, the year they withdrew. Nevertheless, population growth rate did not fall below 2% per annum while the Russians were in charge, with the population growing to 16.9 million in the year they left.
Then a growth rate of 2.6% under the Taliban, increasing the population to 22.8 million, and a further increase to 32 million today.
What is the most likely scenario? Soon after the U.S. withdrawal, the corrupt Afghani officials in Kabul will increase their rate of theft with the consequence that wheat imports fall below what is required to keep the population quiescent. Rioting and social breakdown follow. The starving urban populations spread out into the countryside, devouring what they can, including the seed grain for the next crop. Population falls to a fraction of the country's carrying capacity after the death of some 30 million Afghanis. There is no force on Earth that can stop something like this from happening. There is no limitless supply of money and no limitless supply of grain that can overcome a population doubling period of 29 years. Over the last thirteen years, the noblest country on the planet tried to help one of the most wretched. That quixotic undertaking was inherently doomed. It is pointless to attempt nation-building if a country is going to starve to death anyway.
It seems to me that a good portion of the Afghan population will return to Pakistan and Iran, where they had sheltered during the Soviet and Taliban years, rather than roaming the Afghan countryside like over-dressed locusts. What say you, O Rantburg savants?
#2
It's even worse than that - a simple analysis of the statistics mentioned in the article indicates nearly all 32 million Afghans now living will be dead in a century. The horror!
[Tablet] Three years after Mubarak's fall, the country is toying with global irrelevance--except as a possible terror exporter
One argument here in Washington is that it's precisely for this reason that the Obama Administration should be working closely with Sisi. Among other things, the White House should give him the Apache helicopters it's withholding from the annual military assistance package in order to fight the insurgency in Sinai. And it's true that Sisi is the only horse Washington has left to ride. The way the Egyptian masses responded to the coup against Morsi shows that democracy is a long way off, and huge infusions of Saudi cash rather than an economic liberalization program are the only rational option at present.
For now, Sisi is as good as it's going to get for Egypt. This White House, and the next, should be planning for how to manage the decline of a civilization, a nation of more than 80 million people likely to implode. Even if the Israeli land rail makes it possible for shipping to avoid a Suez under threat of terrorist attack, the reality is that sooner or later Egypt's problems are going to reach everyone's shores.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
04/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Arab Spring
#1
I must be dense: read it all the way through and haven't seen anything---even halfway---convincing.
#2
Nor did I. Last time I checked, Egypt has been around for quite a spell. I suspect if we leave them alone and stay out of their business, they'll work their way through it.
#3
For at least 5,000 years Egypt has been ruled by a big boss (Rais). Nasser wore the title proudly. So did Sadat, and so did Mubarak. Democracy is as foreign to an Egyptian (and I lived there a number of years), as economic freedom is to Detroit's politicians. Egyptians, who are not particularly Islamist, want stability, low food and fuel prices, and a boot only rarely placed on their neck. For the present Sisi is the only leader who has some promise.
Posted by: Barbara ||
04/05/2014 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Except he can't consistently deliver on low food and fuel prices -- the realities of the outside world won't permit it. As it is, the country is living on Saudi charity, having run through their own reserves in recent years. The Suez Canal is still generating income, but the tourist trade has pretty much dried up, so where will their income come from, going forward?
#6
millions of Egyptians hail Sisi as a hero who saved democracy by toppling their first and only freely elected presidentMuslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi
And they are right. The idea that Morsi and his MusBro thugs were going to usher in a new Egyptian era of freedom and prosperity is laughable. Sisi saved Egypt's bacon, if you'll pardon the expression.
[DAWN] We are so used to them now, the bearded commanders of our television screens.
We know that someone important among them is called Hidayatullah, that their front man is Shahidullah, and that they are led by Mullah Fazlullah ...son-in-law of holy man Sufi Mohammad. Known as Mullah FM, Fazlullah had the habit of grabbing his FM mike when the mood struck him and bellowing forth sermons. Sufi suckered the Pak govt into imposing Shariah on the Swat Valley and then stepped aside whilst Fazlullah and his Talibs imposed a reign of terror on the populace like they hadn't seen before, at least not for a thousand years or so. For some reason the Pak intel services were never able to locate his transmitter, much less bomb it. After ruling the place like a conquered province for a year or so, Fazlullah's Talibs began gobbling up more territory as they pushed toward Islamabad, at which point as a matter of self-preservation the Mighty Pak Army threw them out and chased them into Afghanistan... . We know when the weather is bad or the mood is wrong and their representatives cannot meet the other representatives of the latest negotiation of the newest committee.
Sometimes, when they do not agree, we know about that too, and in detail. When, as happened earlier this week, one faction from among the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistain believes that the month-long ceasefire they had declared should be continued, we all wait with baited breath.
If the images on television screens are evidence, then the truth is clear. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistain are the current rulers of Pakistain's television screens.
From a country that knew little about them as recently as four or five years ago, the Pak viewing public has become intimately acquainted with the agenda, views, threats, likes, dislikes, punishments, and statements of the group.
The pliant faces sitting before their television screens at home, poring over homework or housework, have had little choice in the matter.
The powers that be, owners of television networks and the marketing departments that sell advertising on them, seem to have decided that near constant coverage of the Tailban is a moneymaker, and morals cannot compete with money.
There are facts behind these observations.
Two weeks ago, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Afghanistan struck at the Serena Hotel in Kabul, opening gunfire on diners in a hotel restaurant. Among those killed was Ahmed Sardar, a journalist for Agence La Belle France Presse. In the aftermath of that bombing, Afghan journalists, fed up of the endless bloodletting of the group, declared a 15-day boycott of news reporting on the Taliban. It was a momentous decision; in the endless condemnations and pleas to halt the killing, the journalists on the other side of the border had realized a change in strategy was necessary.
A few days into the boycott, I wrote an editorial asking for Pak journalists to do the same. Hard news of attacks, etc., should be provided to insure the provision of information related to security, but the endless analysis, speculation, regurgitation of inane details of a terrorist group's agenda, must be omitted.
The response was interesting.
Such a boycott would never happen in Pakistain, many fellow journalists told me, for the simple reason that many within the journalist community were sympathetic to the agenda of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistain.
Others argued that a limited boycott would have financial consequences for those television channels that chose to participate, so strong was their belief in the viewing public's desire for such endless dissection and popularization of the Talib's intent and purposes.
A few were simply honest. As journalists we do not make a lot of money, they said. If we make a move like this we will lose our jobs to others waiting hungrily in the wings.
In the meantime, another journalist and author, this time a Pak, Raza Rumi, was attacked by gunnies in Lahore. But again, as before, few journalists had the guts to consider such action. Even if they realize that the cover of "news" is enabling a whole cabal of journalists to disguise their sympathies as news coverage, they are hesitant and disbelieving in the value of such collective action.
This lack of unity on the side of those that oppose the Taliban's agenda, particularly the killing of journalists and innocent men, women, and children, is of course a victory for the Taliban.
The result is visible on your television screens: a group that receives free publicity, whose demands, by the very fact of their repetition, are becoming familiar and, in this sense, normalised.
Instead of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistain changing or being co-opted, it is the public that is slowly being made passive and hence accepting of their barbarity.
There was, once, not too long ago, a time when floggings and beheadings, bombings and shootings would stun the public, when the massacre of minorities and the extinguishment of women from the public sphere was considered unquestionably wrong, not a point at debate.
The Paks sitting in front of their television sets, watching, listening, swallowing, are also learning. It is a lesson of silence, of injustice witnessed for so long that it ceases to look like evil, and of the transformation of a group of rebels into rulers--at least of Pak television screens.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
[DAWN] FOR a politician, there are few downsides to lambasting Pervez Perv Musharraf ... former dictator of Pakistain, who was less dictatorial and corrupt than any Pak civilian government to date ... , the former dictator who is disliked by virtually every segment of the political spectrum for very different, and often contradictory, reasons. So, now that Mr Musharraf has been indicted for overthrowing the Constitution in November 2007, politicians have been queuing up, clamouring and falling over themselves to cast a stone in the former strongman's direction. The over-the-top condemnations would be almost comical -- many a present-day detractor was once an ally or tacit supporter of the ousted dictator -- if only they did not have serious overtures and implications, especially the verbal blows being landed by members of the PML-N. Charged with the highest of crimes, Mr Musharraf deserves that his trial be conducted with the utmost of seriousness and with the highest regard for due process being followed. Unhappily, the attacks of the kind launched by Railways Minister Saad Rafique only suggest an attempt to prejudge the trial process and heap political pressure on the court -- something that surely the PML-N would do well to avoid.
There is a basic reason the political class as a whole, and the PML-N in particular, ought to resist the rush to condemn Mr Musharraf: too much piling on and gloating would make the very idea of a trial seem politically motivated and thus strengthen the essence of the Musharraf camp's defence. What Mr Musharraf stands accused of is a crime against the Constitution, of using the power of his army office to illegally overthrow the democratic order to perpetuate his own hold on power. That is not a crime against a set of judges or a given government or a particular political personality, but against the state and society itself. For that crime to be duly punished and done so in a fair, transparent and legal manner, it is best to let the court process unfold according to the letter of the law. Whether Mr Musharraf is entitled to travel abroad or not, for example, is a question of law, not personal opinion. Prejudging the entire process because there are political points to be scored and political capital to be reaped is a disservice to the very principle that is allegedly at stake: the supremacy of the Constitution and the law.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
MUCH as the focus may be on what transpires at the negotiating table in the TTP-government dialogue process, what is taking place away from the negotiating table is equally, if not more, important. With the month-long ceasefire announced by the TTP having officially expired at the start of the month, the outlawed group has cleverly tried to put the government under renewed pressure by officially remaining undecided about continuing the ceasefire while having hard-line chapters of the TTP publicly muse about their intention to end their participation in the ceasefire. What that craftiness adds up to is two things: one, it puts pressure on the government to make further concessions to the TTP or else risk renewed violence in the country; two, it signals to the public that the TTP leadership is committed to talks, but is under great pressure internally to not talk  meaning, the public should be grateful for the TTPÂs restraint and its willingness to keep in line the more agitated of its component groups.
Yet, the government too seems involved in subterfuge. The Prime MinisterÂs Office has tried to downplay reports of low-level prisoner releases and denied that the unusual move is a part of the dialogue process with the TTP, but it does appear that the government is simultaneously trying to dangle a carrot in front of the TTP while maintaining deniability. As the identities of the released figures becomes clear as does the meaning behind what is undoubtedly not simply a routine move, more will be known on whether the government is seeking to buy more time for dialogue or if a truly decisive stage in the negotiations is at hand. Either way, the hard choices for the government will eventually have to be faced. Before that, however, is the issue of resisting the TTPÂs thinly veiled blackmailing tactics. Rather than allowing the TTP to shape the issue of whether the ceasefire should be officially extended or not, the government should itself come out and demand an extension  and also a commitment that it will continue so long as the dialogue process goes on. That way the TTP would be denied the leverage of reconsidering its ceasefire every few days.
For all that the government can and should do to stand firm and ensure the dialogue process does not drift into the realm of the unconstitutional and unacceptable, there is also a need to keep a check on the governmentÂs own agenda. On the political side, other than the prime minister and the interior minister, there are few who are privy to the governmentÂs strategy and approach. The PTI may have an idea owing to its representative on the government negotiating committee, but neither has parliament been taken into confidence nor have the provincial governments. Surely, the PML-NÂs word alone is not enough in this critical process.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
[DAWN] WILL Musharraf be allowed to leave? Are there cracks developing within the PML-N on the matter? How does all of this augur for the relationship between Nawaz Sharif ... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf... and the chief of army staff that the former recently appointed? Welcome to Pakistain, a proverbial haven for rhetoric and speculation, where interest in the fate of a general trumps analysis of the deep state that the former served.
Truth be told, the Musharraf saga is no longer news -- notwithstanding the rantings and ravings of the TV media. When the story first broke, democrats rejoiced in the knowledge a coup-making general would be tried for the first time in this country's history.
Yet we also knew then that Musharraf's beloved army would tolerate only so much public humiliation and that the hue and cry would eventually die down. Alas we will have to put up with the drama for a little while longer, but soon Musharraf will be yet another military dictator fallen from grace, nestled away in the far reaches of our collective consciousness. It is a matter of when, rather than if.
I am not suggesting that the legal case against him is of no consequence to this country and its long-suffering people. Indeed, the fact that Musharraf is in the dock and that the current army leadership is reportedly having to negotiate for his departure does reflect that the once taken-for-granted fact of military domination in Pakistain has now given way to an altered political economy.
But to develop a sense of what exactly has changed, we need to focus less on Musharraf's person and think deeply about the evolving structure of power in Pakistain that has thrown up an event as momentous as Musharraf's indictment.
A healthy debate has emerged recently -- some of it taking place on these very pages -- about Pakistain's 'new' political economy, framed in part around the question of whether the military remains the most powerful institution in the country. The most popular hypothesis doing the rounds is that other institutional actors, the judiciary and media foremost, have come to exercise significant political influence which is both cause and consequence of a curtailment in the military's power.
Other participants in the debate have drawn attention to the rise of social classes and ideological forces that, while not necessarily in direct conflict with historically powerful class and institutional actors, still represent considerable change. The two that are most often flagged are a 'nativised' bourgeoisie that occupies urban spaces and operates largely outside the realm of formal legality, and religio-political groups that also thrive in the undocumented economy and now exercise considerable economic and cultural sway.
In this developing discussion, one of the most crucial sticking points is whether or not the state retains the cohesion that one typically assumes in referring to it.
So, for instance, state patronage for religio-political groups -- bully boy or otherwise -- is a widely acknowledged fact of recent Pak history. But in sociological terms it is just too simplistic to view the religious right as an extension of the 'state'. Moreover, the state is anything but a monolith, even if one could argue that the military institution still has an apparent fondness for certain brands of religious militancy.
I think that this debate has a long way to go yet, although all the notable contributions to it offer considerable insights into our political economy. There is one aspect, though, that remains greatly underspecified: is the prevailing structure of power, as diffuse as it may have become, actually threatened by a counter-hegemony rooted in a politics of the working poor?
It may be true that the military's power is no longer unquestioned in the way that it once was. It can also be argued that other classes and institutions have forced their way into the reckoning, and that a process of democratisation -- defined loosely -- is proceeding apace. Furthermore, there are visible cracks emerging in the ideological edifices of state -- particularly military -- power; liberal alarmism about the impending takeover of Pakistain by the religious right actually betrays the tremendous contestation taking place within both state and society about the ideological foundations of Pakistain.
All of this is well and good. But where are the people in all of this? Change does not wait for popular forces, of course. But can a case really be made that in today's Pakistain the toiling classes actually feel more empowered than a generation ago? Beyond the populism of the superior judiciary and the corporate media, is democratic accountability a reality for a poor villager or slum-dweller?
The hegemony of the artifact that is the post-colonial state -- including the military -- is crumbling. But real change will come about only when working people have the necessary vehicle -- and belief -- to build something new atop the wreckage.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[Ynet] Analysis: Hardliners in Tehran try to sabotage President Rouhani's inroads with West by piling on pressure from human rights One man's rights are another man's existential threat. groups.
Since President Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate in Iran, took office last August, there has been a surge in executions: at least 537 people have been executed in the past eight months, nearly 200 of them since the beginning of this year, according to figures compiled by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. That compares with a total for 2013 of 624, according to data gathered by the United Nations ...where theory meets practice and practice loses....
Iran's judiciary has regularly meted out capital punishment since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. In recent years, it has been second only to China in absolute numbers of prisoners killed, according to Amnesia Amnesty International. Most are executed for drug offences, but human rights One man's rights are another man's existential threat. activists say many others appear to be political cases intended to send a message.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
04/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
In America, we use the IRS, EPA, and Homeland Security.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/05/2014 7:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The false perspective of history is that peace is the natural state of man rather than the pause between conflict and friction among people. Granted geographical barriers or unnatural periods of grace because 'no one in their right mind' would antagonize someone or something that could smite them out of existence, some generations forget that given 4000 years of human history, the civilized world has only seen something like 300 years of peace. Either you play the game to influence events or events play you. In the unicorn world of the progressives, it's never the 19th Century (and prior). You lose what you've gained when you have a warped view of history, the record of human behavior. Like AGW, when empirical evidence doesn't match the theory, throw out the evidence.
#3
The question is who won WWI?
WW2 was just a rematch. Russians went down in WW1 but came back in time for the Cold war. Ottomans were dismembered in WW1 and came back in time for Al Queda and the current fun.
War to end all wars my ass. Couldn't have bungled that worse.
#4
The West won the Cold War, but that is history.
The West also lost the 9/11 war, a war the West couldn't afford not to win.
The dangerous events that are beginning to unfold are consequences of this loss.
The EUSSR is indeed a thuggish and dysfunctional entity (witness Martin Schulz, President of the EU Parliament, contemplating a 'strike' of some kind on non-EU sovereign Switzerland in response to a referendum vote he didn't like).
Compared to the post-soviet gangster feudalism that is afflicting parts of eastern Europe and Russia the EUSSR is still the lesser evil.
Can't lose what you didn't really try to fight, EH. More like gave up. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
04/05/2014 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The best way to prevent wars is: Do not steal. D not lie. Do not covet what others have. Honor your mother and your father. Take a day off to rest each week. Do not flirt with another mans wife. Do not make false accusations against another in order to bring harm to a good person. Understand there is one God. Do not take His name in a deceitful way.
Problem is, the above virtues are banned by mankind. Therefore mankind will always have hell to pay.
h/t Sultan Knish
A man sits holding a cup of coffee in a restaurant. He drops the cup and it cracks. Everyone around him berates him for his thoughtless stupidity.
Then a second man enters and after delivering a fine speech on the virtues of making this into the best restaurant that it can be, begins smashing all the cups and then the plates. He overturns the tables, tears down the curtains, breaks the lights, tumbles all the food to the floor and sets the whole place on fire.
The first man was named George. The second man was named Barack.
#1
When Bush left office at the end of his second term, the region was mostly stable aside from Irans nuclear program. By the time Obama had finished his first term, it was in a state of endless war. It is still in a state of war today.
Reads like Obama is the mid-east's nightmare. He is our domestic nightmare as well. The sooner we toss Obama, Jarrett, and Brenner out the better off the country will be. Unfortunately, too many of our voters are ill-informed and distracted by bright, shiny trinkets and baubles.
#2
four years of Carter led to 12 years or Republicans. Hopefully the math stays consistent and eight years of Obama leads to 24 years of Republicans because we're gonna need it.
We're also gonna need a new batch of Republicans but that's a different problem.
#3
Its been reported that the Bully Boyz in Syria have been using Obama as a recruitment tool as of late. Their line is hes actually in cahoots with Pencilneck and just playin em for saps. Can you picture the FSA mucks having to say no seriously dont leave Obama's not some clever two-timing commander ...really he's just inept?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by stupidity"
Sort of a corollary to Ockham's Razor:
"When presented with a variety of apparently correct answers, the simplest answer is usually the correct one."
Which BTW is why I am a creationist, creation is a much simpler answer to the formation of the universe than the 40.0 million pounds of mathematical formulas used to explain the big bang theory.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/05/2014 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You all hated George whilst he was in office and now you hate Barrack. Mindless propaganda.
#9
Inept or stupid is the easy way to explain why his policies are so incomprehendable. Active military aid to destroy the government of Libya with no plan for stability. Arms deals in Libya. Active political and finance support to overthrow the government of Egypt. Active finance and political support for MB political arm to take over control of Egypt. Active support for the arming and financing of MB Egypt military wing and Syria jihadists. Continued absurdity policy with Israel containing leaks or lies about military capabilities and plans.
If this administration is inept, its not because they are doop di doop, it is because they picked players who most Americans would consider monsters and cannibals and did not back them to the hilt. Morsi got left out in the breeze. Team Free Syria was promised weapons and air support but got the bay of pigs treatment (I'm glad we didn't get involved, but I have to wonder how many promises and purse string were being handed around and still so).
#10
swksvolFF, you are, I fear, making a common mistake.
Obama and his regime might not be inept. They might actually want the outcomes we're seeing.
If one was trying to destroy the place of the US in the world, ruin its economy and encourage the Islamist barbarians what would one do that is different from Obama?
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.
Pervez 
Nawaz Sharif
