[Winston Marshall Clips] Lionel Shriver joins the Winston Marshall Show to explore why young women are shifting left politically, rising childlessness, and the cultural forces reshaping family, identity, and belonging in the West. Shriver examines maternal instinct, feminism, prestige culture, and the breakdown of family structures, connecting immigration politics with hyper-individualism and modern progressive ideology. The discussion covers motherhood, purpose, depression, anxiety, and the long-term social impact of declining birth rates in Britain and the United States. A sharp analysis of contemporary politics, culture wars, and the future of the family from one of today’s most provocative cultural commentators.
Status competition among females to display the purest, most sensitive level of “caring”.
Ms Shriver is decidedly female, but took the masculine name as a teen to better fit her tomboy status, a silly bit of signalling, but not nearly as silly as the whole trans thing.
#8
You spend 30 years telling girls they are special princesses and can get anything they want... you get loony, narcissistic, vapid and shallow women. Basically the template of the hard left.
The women that reject it, will be conservative. That is it in a nutshell
They might find "self" to be pretty damn boring when they're old and all alone, without any family to come and visit them.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/23/2026 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#10
from Wikipedia
n a 2022 letter endorsing Republican Ron DeSantis for the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Shriver described herself as a "lifelong Democrat and reported voting for Joe Biden in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.[45] In the letter, she documents her shift away from Biden—whose presidency she says was a "White-House-cum-care-home"—and Donald Trump as poor leaders, and praised DeSantis for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, banning critical race theory in schools, opposing transgender involvement in women's sports, and passing the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, while noting that she disagrees with him on abortion.[45]
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
02/23/2026 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#12
My take is up in the article itself, Woodrow dear:
Status competition among females to display the purest, most sensitive level of “caring”.
Though actually it is only a certain kind of shallow and/or pseudointellectual female. The rest of us are too busy living life fully to bother with their nonsense, even those of us who mistakenly thought ourselves liberal, as I once did. It’s pretty clear that particularly Millennial and Gen Z girls are divided between neurotic, self-indulgent nonsense and happily sensible. The tradwife thing that started shortly before Covid speaks to the second half of those generations, both male and female, that have long wanted to center their lives on family instead of the career Superwoman idea their mothers were taught to strive for. Yes, some of the girls made it a stupidly competitive thing, because girls can be as seriously competitive as boys, but the idea that for themselves the best answer is to make lifestyle decisions that allow for choosing family over career and the necessity for extra income, unlike their unhappy, driven women so many of their mothers became.
My mother went back to work when I was seven, and simultaneously went back to school, eventually earning a PhD. Her income was actually a wash after the extra expenses for professional clothing, car, housekeeper, and classes, but she needed to spend her days among adults rather than her four, quite beloved children. I tried the professional thing, but it became clear that I was much happier taking charge of the home front while Mr. Wife did the career thing all over the world, and so were he and the trailing daughters. The fanatics on both sides need to let go of the idea that there is only One Right Way that the other side needs to be bullied into.
About the birthrate thing: Conservative women on this side of the pond continue not only to marry and have children, but have them at an above-replacement rate. So there will be a dip because of the hysterical lefties, but it won’t be as bad as it at first appears, and the next generation will be the child-loving children of those who had bunches of them. In my opinion, in the long term we’ll be fine.
But despite Epstein, our kids aren’t being deliberately traumatized en masse by Muslim grooming gangs abetted by abusive government authorities at all levels. I pray the people of Europe and Britain can free themselves and recover, or those lands will be as empty as Russia, Ukraine, and China a century from now, and awaiting recolonization from America.
طالبان زمینهساز حملات پاکستان در نقاط مختلف افغانستان، از پنجشیر و کابل گرفته تا ننگرهار، پکتیکا، کنر و خوست بودهاند. این گروه با سیاستها و عملکرد خود، شرایطی را فراهم کرده که زمینه مداخله و حملات پاکستان مهیا شود؛ از اینرو آنان مسئول این وضعیت و پیامدهای ناشی از این تجاوز اس pic.twitter.com/ZVnGzpfOQU
The Taliban have paved the way for Pakistan's attacks in various parts of Afghanistan, from Panjshir and Kabul to Nangarhar, Paktika, Kunar, and Khost.
This group, through its policies and actions, has created conditions that facilitate Pakistan's intervention and attacks; therefore, they are responsible for this situation and the consequences arising from this aggression.
Does the writer mean the Afghan Taliban or their clients, the TTP? At any rate, he is complaining about yesterday’s airstrikes said to have killed 20 TTP and/or ISIS-K or civilians, depending who you ask, that Pakistan claimed was in response to a series of car bombs, one in mid-February at a Shiite mosque in Islamabad, two more in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province since the start of Ramadan.
[Commonplace] It’s turning into a familiar ritual. President Trump imposes fresh tariffs, often announced on social media late at night, and within seconds the decision is condemned by officials and politicians from Brussels to Paris, Beijing, Berlin, and London.
There are dramatic warnings about how trade wars benefit no one, accompanied by solemn declarations that Europe will not be bullied, and elegies for the "rules-based order." The financial press dutifully chronicles the "chaos" and "unpredictability" of American trade policy, while CNN books another expert to explain why it cannot possibly work and the Financial Times runs yet another column about how the United States is only damaging itself.
Then, a few weeks later, buried somewhere on page 17, a different story starts to emerge: Germany has agreed to new defense procurement commitments; France is reconsidering agricultural protections; the European Union is suddenly open to renegotiating its digital services tax. Another trade relationship is quietly restructured, and on terms remarkably favorable to Washington. The opposition, it turns out, is mainly just for show. Behind the scenes a new consensus is starting to emerge. The Trump administration is quietly building a new global trading system—it’s just that nobody wants to talk about it.
European leaders routinely denounce Trump’s tariffs and "America First" rhetoric with an over-the-top passion that would get them thrown out of drama school. Yet their finance ministers are simultaneously reworking trade agreements in ways that previous American administrations spent decades failing to achieve. The disconnect between the public theater and private reality has become so vast that one might reasonably conclude the confected outrage itself serves a purpose—providing political cover for concessions that would otherwise be impossible to explain to domestic audiences.
A few examples help illustrate what is actually happening. The U.S. has spent years trying to persuade Germany to increase its military spending, to little effect. But over the last 12 months, Germany has ramped up its spending by €80 billion a year. Sure, there is lots of rhetoric about how it will "Buy European" and about how the money will reboot its industrial base. But in reality about 8% of the money will be spent on American kit, including F-35 fighter jets, P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, and Tomahawk cruise missiles. It doesn’t really matter who makes the boots. It is the high-tech equipment that really counts, and much of that will be American.
It represents a fundamental shift in German industrial policy, and one that the Obama administration campaigned for in vain, that the Bush administration couldn’t extract, and that decades of NATO summits failed to deliver. Trump got it with a few threatening tweets and warnings about auto tariffs.
Or take a look at France. It has long positioned itself as the defender of European agricultural interests against the marauding Americans with their genetically modified crops and chlorinated chicken. Yet the Common Agricultural Policy, that monument to protectionism and subsidy that has distorted global food markets for generations, is suddenly open for discussion. The reason? It isn’t because France’s politicians have realized that laissez-faire economics originated in their own country. It’s because the alternative—restricted access to the American market—is simply too painful to contemplate.
President Trump should invite the Team USA hockey team to not only attend the State of the Union but he should let them sit in the seats vacated by the Democrats who are boycotting the address.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/23/2026 00:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1759 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How about Homeland Security and ICE folks?
Posted by: Oregon Dave ||
02/23/2026 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I nominate Black History Month speaker and grandmother Forlesia Cook and five or ten of her friends and family to fill some of the boycotted, vacant seats.
VDH
[NY Post] Why would any president destroy the US southern border?
The left typically "pounces" on anyone daring to suggest the Biden administration green-lighted illegal immigration to gain new constituents for agendas that otherwise were without public support.
The left smears critics of open borders as racist conspiracists spreading the "Great Replacement Theory."
Yet for years Democrats and leftists themselves had written triumphalist books with titles like "The Emerging Democratic Majority."
And often they crowed that "demography is destiny."
A few left-wing globalists even boasted of a new borderless world in which anyone could live anywhere they wished.
Not too long ago Texas state Rep. Gene Wum, chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, jumped the shark to say out loud what is usually left unsaid about the Democratic agenda: "The day the Latino, African American, Asian and other communities realize that they share the same oppressor is the day we start winning, because we are the majority in this country now. We have the ability to take over this country and to do what is needed for everyone."
The same unapologetic left-wing weaponization of illegal immigration is occurring in Europe. Sheer numbers there have already radically changed the demography — and political constituencies — of the continent.
Recently the former Spanish "minister of equality," an energized Irene Montero, offered an unambiguous rant: "I hope for ’replacement theory,’ I hope we can sweep this country of fascists and racists with immigrants. Whatever their skin color, whether ’Chinese, black or brown.'"
The climax of the new hubris in the United States was the Biden administration’s destruction of the southern border and even rudimentary enforcement of federal immigration law.
On some days the Biden influx exceeded anyone’s wildest imagination, at a rate of 10,000 illegal entrants per day.
The Homeland "Security" Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, in Baghdad Bob-style, occasionally pontificated that the border was "secure" — as thousands illegally swarmed the border, without health or even rudimentary background checks.
The left’s political agenda for illegal immigration was to be realized either immediately through compromised ballot integrity, or soon enough by warping the Census-based reapportionment of House districts.
No wonder there is now near-hysterical Democratic opposition to even basic national requirements of a photo ID to vote.
Yet traditionally liberal polls like Gallup and Pew show that 83% to 84% of Americans support mandatory presentation of a voter photo-ID.
Usually the left fawns over European protocols. But it now grows quiet when reminded that 46 of 47 European nations, even those governed by the left, require IDs to vote.
Apparently, Democrats assumed that once 10 million more of the world’s poorest had illegally crashed the southern border, without audit or English proficiency, they would filter throughout American society and become impossible to repatriate.
Soon open borders would flip more states blue, as well as increase their congressional seats. Illegals were to be redefined as mere "residents," and often recipients of mail-in ballots.
The reality that millions of new poor would grow the welfare state, expand government at all levels, require far more taxes and fuel the DEI binary of oppressed/oppressors were added benefits.
The nexus between the $9 billion Somali welfare fraud and Minnesota Democratic officials offers a sharp reminder of how the immigration/welfare/DEI exemption industry was created and protected by authorities.
President Joe Biden’s new 10 million unlawful entrants may have increased the existing pool of illegal aliens (20 million?) to 30 million.
That total in turn radically grew the existing group of 20 million legal foreign-born citizens and legal residents of various categories.
So when Trump took office in January 2025, the US had admitted a record high of foreign-born residents. They now make up some 16% of the population and perhaps 53 million in actual numbers.
The influxes came at time when too often the melting-pot tradition of integration, assimilation and acculturation were reviled, and to be superseded by salad-bowl ethnic chauvinism and separatism.
Yet the triumphant Left never imagined a Trump reelection.
Nor could it grasp fully President Donald Trump’s counterrevolutionary effort to secure the border and undo the Biden nihilism.
Even more surreal to Democrats were Trump’s efforts to reinstate the integrity and supremacy of federal immigration law.
No one really believed Trump would seek to find and deport millions who had filtered through 50 states.
Most were enjoying de facto immunity via hundreds of left-wing district court judges and blue-state officials of the Tim Walz/Gavin Newsom sort.
But if any of its immigrant constituencies in the future — such as the 55% of Hispanic males who voted for Trump in 2024 — dared to vote on criteria other than federal entitlements, ethnic solidarity and Democratic coercion, the left would close the border quickly.
The numbers are needed to maintain congressional district representation, Federal money, phoney baloney jobs, and education indoctrination centers (schools). Voting machines and counting procedures can, and will continue to be cheated. Massive population shifts are a bit more difficult to hide.
#5
Apportionment. The more bodies you have in a state (not voters) the bigger representation you have as determined by the Census. Blue states are hemorrhaging people and losing the new voter registration wars. The only way to counteract this is by importing illegals to bolster the representation by bodies via apportionment --- any bodies.
#6
I'm afraid the Dem strategy is working. If Biden let in 20 million and Trump deports 10 million (which I doubt is possible), they've still got 10 million potential new voters, not including the recently deceased.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/23/2026 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
^ supported by old school GOPe. They 'conserve' what the Left has gained.
#8
^ If I can dream for a moment, this would all be so much easier if Congress got off its ass and passed (and enforced) the SAVE bill. Trump is constantly fighting with the courts because he tries to do things Congress is afraid to do. In practice we only have two branches of government: the executive and the judiciary.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/23/2026 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
If you looked for an overarching reason, it would have to be that they hate us.
For example: According to CDC statistics, upwards of 100,000 people were dying every year that Biden was in office of opiod overdose. That's almost twice as many people in one year than we lost during the entire Vietnam War! Why would Biden not make the slightest effort to stop the flow of deadly narcotics into our country?
Of course Democrats want illegal aliens to vote because they believe the illegal aliens will vote Democrat. But the added value is that killing millions of young white people will hasten the replacement of America's white population by people from the Third World. You must hate white people to want that.
You must hate America's middle class to allow the outsourcing of manufacturing to countries like China, Mexico and Vietnam. All those good jobs went overseas and all those deadly narcotics came here. It's as if somebody wants us to die.
And now they hate, hate, hate Donald Trump for attempting to reverse the trend.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
02/23/2026 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The House is doing its bit. They had a second version ready to go when the first one didn’t pass, and sent it quickly out the door — and they supposedly have a third version in case it becomes necessary. But I’ve read that Senator Mitch McConnell is not sending the thing out of committee out of pure spite.
#12
The honourable senior senator from Kentucky is out in January anyway. It won’t matter if Republicans continue to hold both House and Senate in the new session, but it will matter dreadfully if they don’t.
[IsraelNationalNews] This concise summary cuts through the comforting, self-serving and ultimately suicidal fictions of "moderate Muslims", "Islamism", "Jihadism", "political Islam", "Islamic reform", and the like. It could be titled "why Islamophobia is not a bad idea..."
It helps to think of Islam not as a religion, but as a political economy and totalitarian social order with religion as a front organisation, which, in fact, it is. Islam emerged out of Arab nomadic barbarism as the perfect social order for a nomadic barbarian society to secure advantage over, and ultimately dominate, other societies. It was eagerly taken up by other nomadic barbarian peoples, such as the Turkic tribes and the Mongols, because, as a highly-organised plunder economy (jihad, plunder and jizya) Islam offered a more efficient way for a barbarian society to acquire and secure wealth.
The nomadic barbarian Arabs had practised raiding and plunder for at least 500 years before they rebranded themselves as Muslims. As early as the 3rd century CE, they were the scourge of the Romans, the Persians, the Jews, the Christians and all settled peoples in the Fertile Crescent. The erroneously named "Muslim conquests" was a barbarian Arab expansion, part of the great historic migrations of nomadic barbarian peoples, effectively chain-plundering their way from settlement to settlement. Such were the Goths, the Vandals, the Huns, the Turkic tribes, the Mongols and, of course, the Arabs.
The Romans erected extensive frontier defences against the Arabs in Syria, as did the Persians in the Gulf. The Arabs’ early conquests had taken place before they consolidated their conquered territories and peoples into a unified empire. The consolidation process, around 800CE-1300CE, was orchestrated from Baghdad, then part of Persia.
Islam, invented on the fly as the conquests proceeded apace, reflects this instability. Each stage in Islam’s development found the empire’s frontiers much further out and enclosing many more and vastly different peoples. The rigidity, absolute obedience and brutal enforcement needed to hold such an empire together and focussed on a single purpose, was a scale-up of the barbarism the Arabs brought with them out of Arabia.
Islam is what it is because Muslims have to conquer the world. If this process is interrupted, i.e., Islam without jihad, then their society immediately sinks into poverty and degradation. Apart from the impossibility of Islamic reform, it is not clear why anyone would hanker after it, as opposed to simply wanting rid of it all. No one ever wished for Nazi reform.
When the Arabs burst forth from the deserts of Arabia, their leaders were either pagans or syncretic pagan-Christians (the Dome of the Rock is a syncretic pagan-Christian temple/church). By the time the Arabs needed a consolidating religion, they first tried to piggy-back on Judaism. The Jews, sensibly, would have none of it. So the Arabs cobbled a religion together out of those around them, mostly Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Arab paganism, assumed the name Muslims, and sanctified their plunder and brutality as Islam.
The purpose of the Arabs’ new religion was not conversion per se, but to advance their political economy, which was plunder. Jihad was both a raid for loot, and a recruitment drive for their jihad armies. Join us in raiding and get a share of the spoils, or die. Islam, the front, was developed as an actual religion integral to plundering, thus sanctifying lying, stealing, raping and killing as acts of worship. Shari’a is the totalitarian glue holding it all together. Leaving Islam is, therefore, not only treason, but desertion.
The mastermind behind all this was Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, whom evidence points to as the earliest architect of Islam. He assembled a team of mainly conquered Persians around him, compiled the Qur’an, invented Muhammad and wrote the hadith all at the same time. Their successors spent a few centuries trying to make it all coherent and consistent. The only benchmark they had to hit was barbarism. Consequently, each advance of civilization rendered Islam more untenable. Being anti-civilization is thus an existential necessity for Islam.
From around 1000CE, Hajjaj’s successors started codifying Shari’a. Through jihad of the tongue, da’wah, Shari'a turns every single Muslim, without exception, whether they are aware of it or not, into a propagandist. This is just one of the many ingenious innovations in Hajjaj's legacy. Another, one of the most ingeniously evil, is the communal obligation.
Islam’s architects quickly realised that there is no point in making someone die for Allah, if they are completely useless at killing. Henceforth, if they wanted to please Allah and earn his favour, they could do so by easing the burden on the killers, e.g., provide them with concealment, a bed, food, fresh steeds, information, etc. But since they hate killing, the likelihood was they would simply neglect these duties, even sabotage the missions.
The communal obligation, designed to prevent this, is obligatory on a Muslim community as a whole. As long as some performed this obligation, everyone has performed the obligation. But if no one performs the obligation, then everyone has sinned. Thus it is in the interest of every Muslim to ensure that the obligation is fulfilled. Jihad, killing and being killed in the cause of Allah, is a communal obligation.
The Qur’an describes Muslims who kill and die for Allah as, "those who give their wealth and their blood" (our "extremists", "radicals", "jihadists", "Islamists", etc.). The timid Muslims whose role it is to assist the killers, are "those who sit still" (our "moderate Muslims", "peaceful Muslims" or simply "Muslims," in contradistinction to "Islamists"). The most peaceful Muslim has a role in jihad and will fulfil it, so the killing can be done.
It is nonsensical to say that Muslims can practise their religion in your country, but without Shari’a. If a Muslim is able to practice just one thing of Islam in your country, you have Shari’a. And Shari’a stipulates that if a Muslim is able to practise anything of Islam in an "enemy" country, then he must behave as if he is in a Muslim country.
Conversely, if a Muslim is prevented from practising anything of Islam in an "enemy" country, then he must leave that country. Denying Islam to Muslims is the only way to rid your country of Shari’a.
Posted by: Grom the Affective ||
02/23/2026 02:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1782 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
In the USA, muslims have what leftist would call "Islamophobic Views" believing the Muslims are more prone to violence and intolerance than other people.
based on a poll (the article's narrative plays this down) https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/internalised-islamophobia-rise-us-especially-among-young-muslims-new-polling-finds
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
02/23/2026 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Muslims as a group are more prone to violence and intolerance. And while the peaceful, tolerant ones silently get on with their peaceful, tolerant lives, doing nothing to control the others, the violent, intolerant ones run for public office and gather in Times Square to bully the normies.
Text taken from the Telegram channel of darpaandcia
Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin is in italics.
[ColonelCassad] Shyam Sankar, Palantir's CTO and a lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve, explains how their multi-model neural network system for military decision-making works.
Palantir doesn't trust any AI. Their system runs multiple neural networks simultaneously, forces them to argue with each other, and then produces a consensus. We took several of their patents and analyzed what's really going on under the hood.
It all doesn't start in the cloud—in a war zone, there's no stable internet connection, but there is electronic warfare. Therefore, the first layer of the system resides directly on a drone or satellite. Computer vision micromodels operate there: they don't think, they just "look" and translate images into raw numbers—coordinates, probabilities, and labels. A satellite spots an armored column, compresses the video into a text file, and transmits it. Traffic immediately drops by 90%. Palantir's Edge AI has been operating in Ukraine since 2022.
The data then enters what's called an Ontology. This isn't just a database—every tank, document, and person is transformed into an "object" with connections and a history. But before any neural network receives a single byte, the system checks cryptographic permissions. The general sees one thing, the operator another, their NATO ally a third. The AI is physically blind beyond what it's given for a single second.
There's no ChatGPT-style "ask whatever you want" here. The request goes to the Orchestrator, which breaks the task down into chunks and distributes them to micro-agents. Each agent is locked into the rigid logic of a finite-state machine: step 1, step 2, call the tool. Not a single step aside—only on the rails of the combat manual.
The most interesting thing happens at the decision point. When it needs to answer—"Is this an enemy column?"—the system doesn't trust a single model. The request goes in parallel to GPT, Claude, Llama, Groq, and perhaps a classified proprietary solution. They think independently, blind to each other's responses. Then the "Synthesizer" compares the results, seeks consensus, and filters out hallucinations.
Ooooooohhh — filtering out hallucinations is definitely the sexy bit.
At the same time, each agent is monitored in real time by Evaluator Agents—they read the logs, and if the model starts to act up or deviate from the protocol, the process is killed instantly. An engineer can intervene in the chain of reasoning, correct the error manually, and restart the pipeline.
A person sits in front of a dashboard. The screen reads: "Target detected. Probability 98%. Consensus of 4 neural networks. Suggested action: strike. Click Approve."
That's roughly how it all works.
Like drones, neural networks (and then full-fledged AI) will be an inevitable part of military affairs in the not-so-distant future.
[News With Views] For decades, a specific brand of political theater has played out in Washington ballrooms: high-ranking American officials standing before rows of cheering, flag-waving supporters to declare that the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) is the "democratic alternative" to the Islamic Republic. Figures like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Rudy Giuliani have spent years cashing massive speaking fees to shill for a group that nearly every credible analyst — and 80 million Iranians — recognize as a treasonous, totalitarian cult.
The push to install the MEK as a puppet government isn’t just bad diplomacy; it is a direct assault on the aspirations of the Iranian people. If history repeats itself, the U.S. risks making a blunder even more catastrophic than the perceived "installation" of Khomeini in 1979 — this time by forcing a group upon Iran that the population views with visceral, historical hatred.
The primary reason the MEK is despised across the Iranian political spectrum is not their ideology, but their record during the Iran-Iraq War. While Iranian soldiers and civilians were dying by the hundreds of thousands to defend their soil against Saddam Hussein’s invasion, the MEK relocated to Iraq and fought alongside Saddam.
In the eyes of Iranians — whether they support the current regime, loathe it, or fall somewhere in between — the MEK are not "freedom fighters." They are "Monafeqin" (Hypocrites) who committed the ultimate sin: siding with the enemy during a war for national survival. Their participation in Operation Mersad, a failed 1988 invasion of Iran backed by Iraqi air power, cemented their status as traitors in the national consciousness.
Behind the slick PR and the "National Council of Resistance of Iran" (NCRI) branding lies a structure that human rights organizations and former members describe as a personality cult. Led by Maryam Rajavi (and and early on by her late husband Masoud), the group enforces:
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.
