Las Vegas police arrested Brooks, 36, and four associates last week after a two-week investigation into the local prostitution ring. The investigation started when a tipster told detectives about a cheerleading coach at Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy who might be running a prostitution service.
When an undercover detective called Brooks, she said her girls were clean and only serviced upscale clients, a police report said. She later boasted that she had more than 40 women working for her and that her clients ranged from basketball star Shaquille ONeal to a former president, according to the report.
These are not your average girls. Some of them have worked with Bill Clinton, Brooks told an undercover officer, according to the report.
According to our latest count, there appears to be roughly 1338 earmarks included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. One of these earmarks, requested by Rep. Shelley Berkely (D-NV), would provide $200,000 to the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy, (whose website is inactive), located in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Agassi established the tuition-free charter school for local "at-risk" kids in 2001, and last year the House approved a $175,000 earmark for the institution--although it did not become law because Congress did not complete the appropriation's process.
In 2004, Forbes Magazine ranked Agassi 27th (right after Will Smith and Julia Roberts) on its list of richest individuals under age 40--at the time, the tennis star was 34 years old and worth $162 million. Although Agassi was known during his playing days for his soft touch and accuracy, this action seems to be a fault especially for the far less wealthy taxpayers who are being asked to fund it.
#3
Of course, all we have is her word that Bill Clinton used her girls. Unless she can prove it, Clinton could sue her for slander.
(I can't believe I am actually defending Bill Clinton)
probably means they had a job in the White House; it is ubtful anyone in the White House other than Monica L. (maybe not even Hillary) sexually serviced Bill Clinton while he was Prez. If there was, and she had proof, she would have a $M book deal by now.
At Risk? Here at Agassi, We have career opportunities for you in prostitution. With our classes such as, Blow Jobs 101 - our young boys and girls can "overnight" find themselves highly competitive against Ivy League grads for jobs in the highest levels of government.
Posted by: AT ||
07/18/2007 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#13
"As office boy I made such a mark,
that they gave me the post of a junior Clark,
I wore clean collars, and a brand new suit,
and I polished all the "Handles" at the institute.
(Chorus)
He polished all the "Handles" at the institute
I polished all the "Handles" so carefuly, that now I am the ruler of the Kings Navy,"
(Chorus)
He polished all the "Handles" so Carefuly,
that now he is the ruler of the King's Navy
Yup, Gilbert and Sullivan knew the way to advance.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/18/2007 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#14
These are not your average girls. Some of them have worked with Bill Clinton.
That certainly means they're not average. It means they're below average on sense and taste and above average on the "WON'T TOUCH" scale.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
07/18/2007 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
#15
"... Some of them have worked with Bill Clinton.
#1
Yet another rationale for OWG - Mankind must control the earth's core in order to prevent the expanding earth from collapsing like a French souffle' becuz of SOLAR WARMING. Just in case the Core, like the Sun, refuses to surrender to Hated Despicable Fascist = well-meaning klutzy Limited Communist Dubya, we'll threaten it wid a Core-destroying deep-penetrating missle to force it to comply.
In June, Costa Rica ended nearly sixty years of diplomatic relations with Taiwan in order to establish diplomatic relations with China. Not only a victory in Beijing's efforts to smother Taiwan's independence, the Costa Rican switch is further evidence of China's growing influence in Latin Americaa growing threat to democracy and to U.S. interests.
Announcing the diplomatic switch, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias cited a desire to strengthen commercial ties and "attract investment" from China. Arias then thanked Taiwan for its "solidarity and co-operation" over the last sixty years, noting that Taiwan has been "very generous."
But the next day, Arias denounced Taiwan for being "stingy." Sounding as though he had taken emergency talking points from Beijing, Arias grumbled, "Considering the few friends they have, they don't treat them very well." Arias continued, "Without a doubt, we will get more help from China."
In truth, Taiwan is quite generous for a small nation, but a nation with a population of 21 million can't offer the same economic incentives as a nation with a population of 1.3 billion and the world's second-largest economy. Not sure at all about this second-largest economy bit.
China insists that the price of trade relations is the severance of diplomatic relations with independent Taiwan. A 2005 Heritage Foundation report warned that "China has launched a major diplomatic offensive in Central America and the Caribbean to stamp out Taiwan's diplomatic legitimacy in the region and supplant Taiwan's influence among these young democracies with its own." The report observed that China has been "translating its economic success -and its search for resources to fuel its economic growthinto greater influence in Latin America and the Caribbean."
Historically, China's claim to rule Taiwan is very weak. In the five thousand years of Chinese history, there are only 17 years, in the late 19th century, when a government with actual sovereignty over the mainland even claimed to possess sovereignty over the entire island of Taiwan. If historical sovereignty is the test, Japan has a much better claim to Taiwan than does China, since Japan ruled Taiwan from 1895 to 1945, a sixty year period in which the people of Taiwan made far more economic and educational process than in the earlier periods when part of Taiwan was ruled by China.
Whatever the historical realities, Chinese and Latin tyrants find common ground in political realities. Chinese President Hu Jintao and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have inked numerous agreements expanding the relationship between the Beijing and Caracas, including a deal to jointly develop oil fields in Venezuela.
China is a ready friend for anti-American thugs, and not just Chavez. China has cozy relationships for energy development and arms sales with the genocidal Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe and the genocidal National Islamic Front regime in Sudan. China has used it power at the United Nations to ensure that no meaningful barriers are imposed on Iran's nuclear weapons program.
As reported in the Washington Times, China is supplying arms to the Taliban and to terrorists in Iraqnotwithstanding China's claim that it does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.
A 2006 Heritage Foundation report observed that "The People's Republic of China (PRC) aids and abets oppressive and destitute African dictatorships by legitimizing their misguided policies and praising their development models as suited to individual national conditions."
The Chavez government's creeping dictatorship fits well with Beijing's development model. "Is Washington Losing Latin America?" asked a 2006 article in Foreign Affairs, pointing out that Chavez "has made clear his intent to forge a wide anti-U.S. coalition in order to replace Washington's agenda for the hemisphere with his ownone that rejects representative democracy and market economics." The article noted: "Although the nature of Chavez's involvement remains murky, [Bush] administration officials are convinced that he is provoking instability in some of the most volatile states in the hemisphere, including Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua."
Recently, Bolivia has elected a Chavez ally, Evo Morales, as president, and Nicaragua has elected Daniel Ortega, a Marxist revolutionary, as president. Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba have formed an anti-American trade bloc, the "People's Trade Agreement," which the government-controlled newspaper China Daily describes as a starting point for Chavez's grander plan for a hemisphere-wide "Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas."
As the Heritage Foundation points out: "For decades, the United States encouraged and supported forces of freedom and democracy in Central Americawith considerable success. Meanwhile, China has reassured the world's despots and tyrants that 'each country has the right to choose its own path to development...'"
As China helps Chavez expand his military, economic, and political power, the dangers for other democracies in the region will growmost immediately in Colombia and over the long term in Central America.
Thus, the decision of Costa Rica's Arias to play his own part in abetting the expansion of a Chinese sphere of influence in Latin America may be profoundly dangerous of Costa Rica's own democracy, whatever the short-term economic benefits.
And it is not necessarily clear that a growing Chinese economy is good for Latin America. Ever since China joined the World Trade Organization, Mexico has been hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs, as companies more production to China (where labor rights are nil, and wages are far lower than in Mexico)and thus significantly exacerbating the Mexican economic problems which cause illegal immigration into the United States.
At a June meeting in Atlanta of western hemisphere government and business leaders, El Salvador's vice-president remarked that "The participation of China in the WTO hit us particularly bad" including the loss of numerous agribusiness and textile companies and over 7,000 jobs.
"The small, poor Central American nation fought back by embracing U.S.-style capitalism and signing a free-trade pact with its neighbors and Washington. Escobar said those 7,000 jobs have been replaced with a more diverse, service-oriented economy including call-center jobs," reported the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
There is much more that the U.S. could do to mitigate the spread of China's malignant influence in the Americas. As James Fallows observed in this month's issue of The Atlantic, "The United States is the only nation with the scale and power to try to set the terms of its interaction with China rather than just succumb. So starting now, Americans need to consider the economic, environmental, political and social goals they care about defending as Chinese influence grows."
A good starting point would be to re-energize efforts at expanding trade with South America, especially with Brazil and Argentina, which are South America's largest agricultural exporters and important potential buffers to the spread of Chavez's Marxism. Given the national security benefits of reducing U.S. oil imports from the dictatorships in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. should abolish its enormous tariff barriers against sugar cane ethanol from Latin America.
The U.S. free trade agreements with Chile in 2003 and with Central America countries and the Dominican Republic in 2005 (CAFTA) were a good start. But the broader Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) fell apart in 2005, much to the delight of Hugo Chavez.
This spring, the U.S. and South Korea concluded a free trade agreement. Almost all the same economic arguments for the free trade agreement with South Korea are applicable to Taiwan. Taiwan is an eminently suitable partner for a FTA; the Heritage Foundation's 2007 Index of Economic Freedom ranks Taiwan as the 26th freest economy in the world, and describes Taiwan as one of Asia's "most dynamic democracies." (China, meanwhile, ranks a dismal 119th, with "egregious" corruption and very severe restrictions on investment freedom, financial freedom, and property rights.)
Unfortunately, the State Department bureaucracy has ignored Taiwan's repeated requests to negotiate a U.S.-Taiwan FTA.
Of course a U.S. free trade agreement with Taiwan would annoy China. But who put the Chinese dictatorship in charge of America's trade relations? The democratically-elected government of Taiwan has strict environmental, safety, and property rights laws, and Taiwan's free press serves as a watchdog for the enforcement of these protections. Sounlike with imports from ChinaAmerican consumers can feel safe that Taiwanese imports will not be poisoned, and will not produced by the theft of intellectual property from Americans.
A U.S.-Taiwan FTA would also be an important diplomatic signal that the U.S. is not going to acquiesce in China's policy of expanding its sphere of influence at the expense of democracy. If China succeeds in imposing an Anschluss on Taiwan, the inevitable effect will be for Japan and the Philippines to move towards a more neutral, rather than a pro-American position. The Chinese military knows this, and that is one reason why Taiwan is the linchpin of their multi-decade plan to displace the United States as the major power in the Western Pacific.
President Kennedy's inaugural address promised: "To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge--to convert our good words into good deeds--in a new alliance for progress--to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty." As the people of the people of El Salvador know, free trade with the United States is among the best ways to promote progress in fledgling democraciesin Latin America as well as in East Asia.
President Kennedy continued: "But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house."
In resisting Soviet-Cuban attempts to impose communist dictatorships in El Salvador and Nicaragua, President Reagan carried out President Kennedy's vision. But today, as China assists the military build-up of a Venezuelan tyrant who aims to export dictatorship, the Americas are once again challenged by an Asian giant with plans for subversion in the Americas.
Whatever the strategic merits of President Carter's 1979 decision to cut formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, the U.S. no longer needs to appease China in order to contain the Soviet Union. To the contrary, China has taken over the former Soviet role as the main external supporter of dictatorship and anti-Americanism in the Americas. It is time for Americans to begin a serious debate about whether American security interests are really served by the appeasement of China.
Dave Kopel is Research Director and Mike Krause is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute, a human rights think tank in Golden, Colorado, i2i.org.
#1
Our $230 billion Chinese trade deficit at work. The Central Committee and the Waltons, thank both William Jefferson Clinton and James Earl Carter.
Posted by: ed ||
07/18/2007 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Kopel is hyperventilating a little. Diplomatic recognition is worth less than a bucket of warm spit. The UN isn't going to defend Taiwan. Neither are any of the banana republics with which Taiwan has diplomatic relations. Note that neither Japan nor the US have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but are the two nations committed to its defense from a Chinese invasion. This is much ado over nothing. I can't believe the Taiwanese are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars a year trying to retain embassies in foreign countries - money that would be better spent buying weaponry for the coming confrontation with China.
This is a long read -- but a good history lesson, and gives more depth to the Peterus Plan -- and of course, as we all know, the military wins, and the Loud Left leads countries down the path of defeat.
To the student of counterinsurgency warfare, the war in Iraq has reached a critical but dismally familiar stage.
Most wars are lost, not won. To most Americans, the nearest example of a failed war is Vietnam. As in Iraq today, we came up against a guerrilla-type insurrectionary force led by ideological extremists; in the end, we were forced to withdraw and surrender the country of South Vietnam to the aggressors. But an even more striking parallel to our present situation exists in the French experience in Algeria almost exactly 50 years ago. There, French troops and a beleaguered local government faced an insurgency mounted by Muslim extremists who had managed to gain the upper hand. In response, the leadership of the French army had to figure out, almost from scratch, how to fight unconventional wars of this kindwith results that have influenced the thinking of counterinsurgency experts ever since.
The armed insurrection against French rule in Algeria began in November 1954. The insurgent force, the National Liberation Front (FLN), was a direct prototype of todays al Qaeda and the insurgent forces in Iraq. Its leaders were motivated less by nationalism than by virulent anti-Western (and, not incidentally, anti-Jewish) ideologies. Their goal was not military victory, which they knew was impossible in the face of French conventional force. Instead, they set out to provoke reprisals against Muslims by Algerias whites in order to trigger an all-out civil war. To this end they employed terror bombings, torture, and the savage murder of Muslim moderates and Algerias professional class. One corpse in a suit, an FLN leader was quoted as saying, is worth twenty in uniform. All the while, the main audience they were trying to reach and influence was not in Algeria; it was in France itself. As the American counterinsurgency expert Bruce Hoffman has written, the Algerian rebels were counting on the fatigue and disenchantment of the French to help turn the tide if the war lasted long enough.
It was a brilliant plan. Like American troops in Iraq today, French troops in Algeria found themselves reacting to one crisis after another, while a succession of commanders, strategies, and resources was rotated into the effort in piecemeal fashion. Even with 140,000 soldiers on the ground, in a country with less than half the population of Iraq in 2007, the French government found itself helpless to reverse the course of events. The rapidly deteriorating situation prompted Algerias white population to turn against its government. By late 1956, when terror bombings in the capital city of Algiers killed 49 people and maimed many more, the overstressed, overstretched French police and army were ready to throw in the towel.
But on August 1, 1956, a French lieutenant colonel of Tunisian descent named David Galula had taken command of the mountainous and rebel-infested Aissa Mimoun area of Kabylia. To the FLNs unconventional mode of warfare, Galula responded with unconventional methods of his own. These proved so successful so quickly that they were soon adopted by French commanders in other parts of Algeria.
As early as January 1957, French General Jacques Massu and intelligence chief Roger Trinquier were ready to apply some of Galulas techniques to the urban environment of the capital, Algiers. After weeks of hard fighting, Massu and his paratroopers broke the back of the insurgency in the city, installing a block-by-block intelligence network that kept the FLN on the run and encouraged moderate Muslims to step forward.
Indeed, the 1957 battle for Algiers marked a crucial turning point in the fight against the FLN. By 1959, Galulas principles had been extended across Algeria. Some 600 specialized administrative sections were set up, each headed by army officers to oversee civil as well as military affairs. The new structure finally allowed the French army to use effectively its superior numbers (including 150,000 loyal native troops, more than a third of the total) and conventional military hardware. Helping to put the guerrillas on the defensive were such tactics as the division of troops into static and mobile units to deal with terrorist outbreaks; the use of helicopters for counterinsurgency operations; and construction of a 200-mile, eight-foot-high electric fence (the so-called Morice Line), which shut down the FLNs sources of support from neighboring Tunisia. By January 1960, the war that many had considered lost three years earlier was virtually won.
Click to read the entire article -- it's nothing you don't already know, and maybe, it depresses me even more, after the night of the Defeatathron.
#3
David Galula's book Pacification of Algeria can be downloaded by going to Wikipedia and plugging his name into the search function and then clicking on Pacification of Algeria which will take you to the Rand Corporation website. It is downloadable as a pdf document.
The war is won or lost at home.
There is no distinctly Native American criminal class...save Congress. Mark Twain
#4
Here is my latest letter that I am mailing to fence sitters in Congress, Blue Dog Dems and Rhinos. I know you can do better, SO PLEASE send the message...
The USA is in a jam and we need to pull together.
The current crop of Congressional democrats wouldn't have had the stamina to make it across the Atlantic Ocean in the 1600-1700s.
The republicans haven't been much better...
*Today* Global al-Qaeda and it's Baathist and ME siblings, Hezbollah, Hamass, the Saddam Fedayeen etc. are attacking us and our interests in Iraq and around the World.
These Muslim extremist groups are religious fanatics and it would be National Suicide for America to run away from them ANYWHERE.
Our sworn enemies who attacked us on 9/11 AND BEFORE, are in a MEAT GRINDER of OUR CHOOSING in Iraq, which is killing them in record numbers, AND providing our Intel folks with golden information on their networks.
Al Qaeda and all Muslim Terrorists would LOVE nothing better than for America to retreat and ditch the mission in Iraq.
Retreat will GIVE the most vicious types of Global Terrorists, a perfect recruiting tool!
Historians in the future will undoubtedly find many and varied lessons from the war in Iraq. But we in the present do not have the luxury of waiting for all the evidence to be in before we start to understand what has gone wrong and what has gone right in Iraq.
What has gone right is that the Iraq war is already over. Our troops won it. But our politicians may once more lose the peace -- and with disastrous consequences for us and for the world. Peace has not been achieved in Iraq, though pacification continues -- always at a cost in American lives -- and shows signs of progress, much to the dismay of those who have bet their political future on an American defeat.
Defeatists have not yet had the courage to directly ensure defeat by cutting off the money to continue military operations in Iraq. That would be taking responsibility for the defeat. What would serve their political purpose better would be to legislate preconditions for the spending of military appropriations that would make defeat inevitable, but let it be seen as Bush's defeat, not theirs. That is the direction in which the defeatists are moving, as politicians who have never deployed troops, or even worn a military uniform, speak loftily of "redeployment," as if they actually know what they are talking about.
Having politicians micro-managing a war has been a formula for disaster, whether in Vietnam or Iraq. Our troops have already been under too many restrictions as to what they could or couldn't do under the "rules of engagement" in Iraq. The great tragic failure in Iraq has been political failure, not military failure. At the heart of that failure have been two lofty notions -- "nation-building" and democracy.
Nations cannot be built. You can transplant institutions from one country to another, but you cannot transplant the history and culture from which the attitudes and traditions evolved that enable those institutions to work. It took centuries for democracy to evolve in the Western world. Yet we tried to create democracy in Iraq before we created the security -- the law and order -- that is a prerequisite for any form of viable government.
Having made democracy the centerpiece of the reconstruction of postwar Iraq, Americans have been hamstrung by the inadequacies of that government and the fact that our military could not simply ignore the Iraqi government when its politicians got in the way of restoring law and order. People will support tyranny before they will support anarchy. Both can be avoided by creating an interim government based on competence, rather than on its being an embodiment of democratic ideals.
Neither in Europe nor in Asia did today's democracies begin as democracies. As late as 1950, no one could have called Taiwan or South Korea democracies. Even today, Singapore does not have the kind of freedom that Westerners regard as democratic. But it is a decent and prosperous society, vastly superior in every way to what it was at the end of World War II. Trying to create democracy in places where it has never existed -- and where the prerequisites for democracy may not exist -- has been a needless gamble.
Among those prerequisites are a toleration of different views, an accommodation of different interests, and a willingness to put the national interest above one's own. The Middle East is the last place to look for such qualities. Such things evolved in the West only after centuries of different religions and peoples trying unsuccessfully to destroy each other.
Many have argued that democracies tend not to start wars, so that having more democracies in the world is in the interest of peace-loving people. But that is vastly different from saying that we know how to create democracies -- or that so much blood and treasure should be gambled on that long shot.
Who is better to report another attack on UNIFIL than the news anchor who thinks more March 14 deputies should be killed?
Sawsan-What-Took-Them-So-Long-Darwich was "unfired" yesterday along with the sound technician who starred in NBN's world-famous on-air accident. March 14 MP and deputy house speaker Farid Makari said the decision did not surprise him, given that NBN "owner" Nabih Berri hadn't even bothered to pay his condolences to the family of slain Walid Eido, the deputy who was killed by Berri's master, prompting vile Sawsan to laugh and wish more deaths upon the parliament's majority to get it over with. "This is an opportunity for those who elected Berri to realize they were delusional," said Makari, adding that he didn't expect Berri to re-open the doors of parliament any time soon.
Meanwhile, this blogger did not have the stomach to even read about that St. Cloud gathering. The politicians are hush-hush anyway, and it's good to know the French are not giving up and will send emissaries to continue what was started with the Iranians. So what if Bashar is unstoppable and is sending messages on Hizbullah's turf? Speaking of which, don't you find it intriguing how quickly Hizbullah was able to intercept a BBC crew interviewing Shia villagers, yet they missed a road side bomb that required daily monitoring of UNIFIL movements?
In the aftermath of all the destruction, the strength of the "resistance", as Hezbollah is known, seems to have changed little. The group's weapons are not on view in the south, but then they never really were before the war.
In Aita Shaab, within sight of where on 12 July 2006 a Hezbollah raid captured the two Israeli soldiers and killed another six, Ahmed Srour is rebuilding his home, with the help of four Syrian labourers. "We need Hezbollah to protect us," he says. "Without Hezbollah and Qatar [which has pledged to fund reconstruction] there would be no-one left in this village."
A yellow Mercedes pulls up during the interview, and a fit-looking 40-year-old in a black T-shirt gets out and asks to check my papers. "That's them now," says Ahmed when they drive off. That's them alright.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/18/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Today in Washington I was in the room as the greatest living American received a medal. George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi and others were present. But will you ever hear this event occurred? To judge from tonight's major network evening newscasts, perhaps not. Cameras were allowed at the ceremony but I saw none from the major networks, though the international press was significantly represented. And will you recognize this great man's name when I say it?
The greatest living American is Norman Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, (back when Nobel Peace Prizes meant something)
and joins Jimmy Carter (who shouldn't count)
as the two living American-born laureates around whose necks this distinction as been placed. Do you know Borlaug's achievement? Would you recognize him if he sat on your lap? Norman Borlaug WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE, yet is anonymous in the land of his birth.
Born 1914 in Cresco, Iowa, Borlaug has saved more lives than anyone else who has ever lived. A plant breeder, in the 1940s he moved to Mexico to study how to adopt high-yield crops to feed impoverished nations. Through the 1940s and 1950s, Borlaug developed high-yield wheat strains, then patiently taught the new science of Green Revolution agriculture to poor farmers of Mexico and nations to its south. When famine struck India and Pakistan in the mid-1960s, Borlaug and a team of Mexican assistants raced to the Subcontinent and, often working within sight of artillery flashes from the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, sowed the first high-yield cereal crop in that region; in a decade, India's food production increased sevenfold, saving the Subcontinent from predicted Malthusian catastrophes. Borlaug moved on to working in South America. . . . Last fall, Borlaug crowned his magnificent career by persuading the Ford, Rockefeller and Bill & Melinda Gates foundations to begin a major push for high-yield farming in Africa, the one place the Green Revolution has not reached.
Yet Borlaug is unknown in the United States, and if my unscientific survey of tonight's major newscasts is reliable, television tonight ignored his receipt of the Congressional Gold Medal, America's highest civilian award. I clicked around to ABC, CBS and NBC and heard no mention of Borlaug; no piece about him is posted on these networks' evening news websites; CBS Evening News did have time for video of a bicycle hitting a dog. (I am not making that up.) Will the major papers say anything about Borlaug tomorrow?
Borlaug's story is ignored because his is a story of righteousness -- shunning wealth and comfort, this magnificent man lived nearly all his life in impoverished nations. If he'd blown something up, lied under oath or been caught offering money for fun, ABC, CBS and NBC would have crowded the Capitol Rotunda today with cameras, hoping to record an embarrassing gaffe. Because instead Borlaug devoted his life to serving the poor, he is considered Not News. All I can say after watching him today is that I hope Borlaug isn't serious about retiring, as there is much work to be done -- and I hope when I'm 93 years old I can speak without notes, as he did.
Mr. Borlaug may not be the greatest living American, but he is unquestionably one of the greatest living Americans. Thank you, sir, for all you have done.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/18/2007 10:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So typical of the MSM. Save a billion people, get ignored. Say Bush = Hitler, get on the front page.
#2
It wasn't just what he did, it was the principle of what he did that changed everything. That is, once the Green Revolution began, it was like inventing a new branch of science.
It was the beginning of concepts like the global food supply; sustainability; international agribusiness; seed banks; and genetic manipulation that continues today with GM foods.
Much disaster was averted just by being aware of the situation. The USDA, especially, began looking at agriculture like a military strategy.
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.
