April 30, 2008
Common Method or Common Philosophy
James Petras compares military empire building, as practiced after the second world war by the United States and Israel, versus economic empire building by Europe and Japan and now China and India.
He finds that the national economic rent of the first model is negative, while the second model's results are positive.
Petras includes this thought on the relation between Israel and the U.S.:
Israel is one of the few – if not only – military-driven ‘emerging imperial powers’ and that is part of the reason for the ‘resonance’ between Jewish leaders in Israel and Washington policy-makers. This is the real basis of the often stated and affirmed ‘common interests and values’ between the two ‘countries’. Military-driven imperial powers, like the US and Israel, do not share ‘democratic values’ – as even the most superficial observer of their savage repression of their conquered peoples and nations (Iraq and Palestine) can attest – they share the military route to empire-building.
The thesis of common interest is also reflected in a right wing op-ed in today's Haaretz. It contrasts the U.S. and Israel with a "pacifistic" Europe.
And indeed there is a common denominator to the European criticism of Israel and the U.S., and this common denominator apparently also stems from the lessons of that war. It is the phenomenon of European pacifism, the desire to avoid the use of any kind of force, to avoid any forceful confrontation even with evil regimes.
That is to say, the European sin is not anti-Semitism but rather pacifism, especially when dealing with the Europeans' attitude toward force on the part of a Western country.
The author explains what he sees as reason for such unrighteous European behavior. The Europeans, in contrast to the U.S. and Israel, lack the will for "national and sovereign existence."
In this sense, there is apparently a deep connection
between the Europeans' pacifism and the low birth rates on the
continent; both of them indicate a policy of "eat and make merry
because tomorrow we may die;" a deep lack of trust in life in the long
run because the wish to live - which is not merely that of an
individual but rather of the civilization in which he lives - does
indeed demand victims.
It requires the effort that is involved in raising children as well
as the effort and the risk involved with waging a war on behalf of the
values of freedom or on behalf of a national and sovereign existence so
that these may be ensured for generations to come.
"These cheese eating surrender monkeys no longer strive for a 1000 year Reich - damned they be."
Lunatic. But it again throws up questions I am mulling over for quite some time.
Is it, as Petras claims, simply the communality of the method of expansion that unites the U.S. and Israel, or is there, as Yair Sheleg asserts, some deeper connection?
And if there is some deeper connection, what is it?
Posted by b on April 30, 2008 at 09:02 AM | Permalink
So Europe's problem is that it has abandoned war for war's sake. Intriguing. 'Cause war, don't you know, just makes you feel so... gosh, I don't know... alive, somehow. Until the cluster bombs get you, but then again the wish to live does indeed demand victims.
Unbelievable. Chilling. And because of that, entirely au courant. As an erstwhile European, reading dross like this does, in fact, make me lose the will to live, just a tiny bit.
Posted by: Tantalus | Apr 30, 2008 9:43:35 AM | 1
a little ot but i was regarding a documentary here on the sereies of bombings by the algerian gia in the 90's & i was struck by the similiarities between the thugs of the gia & the neconservateur ideologues, even more the neo liberals. they possess the sam sanctimoniousnees, the same sureness of their absolutes in absence of the facts, the conscient desire to be themselves far from the results of their words - it was like many pages out of w reich's magisterial 'character analysis' & his 'mass psycology of fascism'
it is one thing to know of the profound interdependence between the state & its opponenents in the form of the gia - that they are reading from the same hymn sheet, so to speak - it is another to recognise thatt they in fact share the same cosmologies
what they share most of all however - is their hatred, & the violence of their hatred & the hatred of their violence
& another commonality - communist have always historically taken responsibility for their actions - even their worst ones - but these criminal crew whether they are kagan or a bensaid - never, ever take responsbility
they are the ice cream licking students of edward teller - who delight in the idea of our extinction
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Apr 30, 2008 10:03:29 AM | 2
Sometimes it looks like a freak show, I mean, the ever-increasing numbers of israeli "opinators" whose writings look like editorials of Völkischer Beobachter, musing about the will of power, and "if force don't work try more force". So, the wish to live "demands victims"? So the daily killing of Palestinians is some sort of human sacrifice? The wish to live demands also Lebensraum? By the way, the birth rates among Jewish secular israelis is not that far of the European countries, and this is the main cause of what Israel calls the "demographic threat" from the Palestinians. Looks like many in Tel Aviv had lost some wish to live. Wonder why...
Posted by: Colombianonymous | Apr 30, 2008 10:07:26 AM | 3
The deeper connection?
Both the US and Israel - as well as Apartheid-era South Africa, which was closely allied with Israel - are "settler-states".
There is little connection between European pacifism and low birth rates. European pacifism, such as it is, is the result of centuries of devastating wars fought on home soil - nobody has any enthusiasm for doing this again.
Low birth rates in the EU are fundamentally tied to the collapse of Catholic moral authority, declines in poverty rates, greater gender equality, access to legal and safe contraceptive options, ever-higher levels of female educational attainment and ever-higher levels of female employment.
Posted by: dan | Apr 30, 2008 10:18:55 AM | 4
I'm sure there is some deeper connection - defining it fully may be impossible at this point. One commonality pointed out in your snips is the desire, or even the necessity for war. There need not be a true necessity; only a conjured ability to wage for the fulfillment of a deep (so far unexplained) need in that class which is in a position to conjure effectively. To me that set of circumstances is glaringly evident in the current period.
The USA with its size, power, resources, plus its accessibility, was and is a perfect target for a small tight culture with an aim for power and expansion. A quick glance at our history shows that the USA, perhaps along with England, has had similar aims, at least within its power class. It makes sense to me that a certain sub-class up there at the top possesses an insatiable hunger for war, violence of any kind as if it nurtures the body. I see every day this mindset being transferred out to the population through teevee.
Now back to that impossible to define deeper connection. It will be left in large part undefined for now - until perhaps a full-face picture can be drawn and accepted "universally" - not likely to happen soon IMO.
Posted by: rapt | Apr 30, 2008 10:22:00 AM | 5
Re b's Haaretz quote:
It requires the effort that is involved in raising children as well as the effort and the risk involved with waging a war on behalf of the values of freedom or on behalf of a national and sovereign existence so that these may be ensured for generations to come.
... Thus Hitler, in his declaration of war on September 1, 1939 demanded -- of himself, and of all Germans -- not simply obedience, but absolute commitment. He required acts of sacrifice as a of demonstration loyalty. "In giving one's life for the existence of the community," Hitler declared, "lies the crown of all sacrifice." Everyone would have to be willing to sacrifice. No one would be exempt. Anyone who attempted to evade responsibility would be destroyed. Be ready to die for your country, or your country will kill you.
Hitler understood Jews as a people who were unwilling to sacrifice, whose ultimate loyalty would not inhere in the nation. Thus did his perception of the Jews lead to genocide.
The passionate obedience that became Hitler's demand was and is the pathology that leads to war and genocide -- both. Hitler erased his private self and dedicated himself to the public sphere, what we
symbolically form as the "nation." Both civilization and pathology grow from one source.
Dr. Koenigsberg told the tale of Hitler being asked by a Dutch woman to explain the horrors he was perpetrating. Hitler explained that many soldiers were dying in the war to redeem Germany. Why was it, asked Hitler that the best always die? The Jews would have to become victims too. No one would escape. After all, if the Jews were spared and thrived while so many Germans die, what would the nation look like in 100 years' time?
Deep universal connections?
Posted by: Hamburger | Apr 30, 2008 10:58:09 AM | 6
dan @ 4
you say European pacifism, such as it is, is the result of centuries of devastating wars fought on home soil - nobody has any enthusiasm for doing this again
I truly believe that is far from the truth. Living here and hearing people talk about grudges and the need to show others who is boss leads me to believe the reason the Europeans have not fought amongst themselves for the last 60 years is because the US Army has completely overwhelmed them for that period. Where the US military was not, you have seen fighting, i.e., the Balkins, Cypress, and even Northern Ireland.
Sad as it is to hear and realize, the europeans are just as crazy about killing and destroying as their cousins across the Atlantic and the Med too for that matter.
Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 30, 2008 11:01:44 AM | 7
"the wish to live...does indeed demand victims"
You either eat lunch or you are lunch.
The wish - and therefore life itself - requires victims. The author presents this as an unquestioned axiom on which he bases his logic. When carried to its logical extreme, you come to the point when the last man standing really is...the last man standing. Then what? Without any more victims, the wish to live is extinguished? Life must devour itself until it is...gone? Perfect logic, springing from a flawed presumption, always leads to a flawed conclusion. Has to, it's only logical.
The author, and those who think like him, needs to re-examine this belief. It is based on fear, not on love of life, and is ultimately destructive of the life he would preserve. It is the core belief from which Israel's mad dog theory of existence comes. What eventually happens to all mad dogs? They are either put down or die of their disease. A counter productive survival strategy if ever there was one.
Posted by: lg | Apr 30, 2008 11:09:37 AM | 8
regarding a documentary here on the sereies of bombings by the algerian gia in the 90's & i was struck by the similiarities between the thugs of the gia & the neconservateur ideologues, even more the neo liberals.
r'giap, i posted this on the kagan thread but in case you missed it here it is again, from gorrilla guides
One of the great ironies in all of this is the willful failure of both Israel and the United States to learn the fundamental historical lesson of the French in Algeria: that they could have negotiated a withdrawal far earlier and spared all this bloodshed and violence. Militarily, the French army did not lose — they certainly won the Battle of Algiers and had pacified the country by late 1958. But the military victory was hollow. The French achieved pacification only, which simply meant that the number of violent incidents per month was at a tolerable level. But this came at the price of herding over a million Algerians into fortified villages, extensive torture, and millions killed. This was a situation that could not be sustained and it unraveled as open warfare broke out between settlers and Algerians with the French army caught in the middle, battling both. All of this looks very much like Iraq today with Americans caught between Shia and Sunni militias, battling both in an effort to achieve pacification on behalf of an ineffective puppet government associated with its occupation. There are also obvious parallels to Israel’s predicament in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The primary reason why the French military victory was hollow was because the French offered no political solution that met the core aspirations of Algerian nationalism, which should be clear to anyone who reads the second half of A Savage War of Peace. They only offered a flimsy notion of “self-determination” and “democracy” that De Gaulle called “association,” which we recognize today as a neo-colonial relationship. France sought to maintain exterritorial control through military bases and dominion over Algerian oil resources, including a permanent French settler presence. The Algerians rejected this and fought until the French were forced to leave entirely. The parallels with U.S. plans for Iraq hardly need to be elaborated.
once again i recommend the post, especially the sections 'The Israeli Laboratory","The “Israelization” of U.S. Military Doctrine and Tactics", "The “Surge”: Shifting Tactics in Iraq, Israeli-Style" , what the author refer's to as israel's 'DNA'
counterinsurgency on the ground in Iraq has a distinctly Israeli DNA, born of very recent lessons from Israel’s own urban warfare laboratory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This should not be surprising. The Israeli DNA in the new “surge” strategy is only the latest manifestation of a widely overlooked but unmistakable American predilection to increasingly draw from Israel’s urban warfare laboratory and its flawed efforts to devise fresh tactics in the service of rebooting its own military occupation of Palestinian lands.
Sharon is known to have kept by his bedside a well-thumbed Hebrew edition of Alistair’s Horne’s A Savage War of Peace, an account of the failed French effort to defeat the Algerian insurgency against French colonial occupation. While many viewed the French defeat as proof of the futility of military solutions to anti-colonial insurgencies, Sharon’s belief was that Israel could learn from Algeria to get right what the French did not. In 2001, the journalist Robert Fisk reported, Sharon told French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac in a phone conversation that the Israelis were “like you in Algeria,” the only difference being that “we [the Israelis] will stay.”
Posted by: annie | Apr 30, 2008 11:11:55 AM | 9
More on Richard Koenigsberg mentioned in my # 6:
Over two-hundred million people were killed in the Twentieth Century as a result of political violence generated by nations. It seems as though the world lived through an epidemic, or malignant disease. Former Secretary-of-State Zbigniew Brzezinski states that the Twentieth Century was dominated by the "politics of organized insanity." Yet nowhere does one find a systematic concept of psychopathology to characterize these monumentally destructive political events.
An article analyzing Jim Jones and mass-suicide that occurred in Guyana in 1978 is entitled "The Cult Leader as Agent of a Psychotic Fantasy of Masochistic Group Death." Why do people find it easy to speak the language of psychopathology in relationship to individuals and "cults," yet so difficult to apply this language to large scale political and social movements--however bizarre and destructive they may be?
I don't know how much mileage there is in the DISEASE metaphor, but the talk on Warfare as Collective Pathology last week in NYC sponsored by Ignatius University and the Syrian Orthodox Church in America (!) was probably interesting.
Posted by: Hamburger | Apr 30, 2008 11:23:42 AM | 10
This may be some of the answer b: Uncle $ pointed to this on another thread. Puke
The whole idea behind Christian Zionism is to align America with the nation of Israel so as to "hurry God up" in his efforts to bring about Armageddon. As Hagee tells it, only after Israel is involved in a final showdown involving a satanic army (in most interpretations, a force of Arabs led by Russians) will Christ reappear. On that happy day, Hagee and his True Believers will be whisked up to Heaven by God, while the rest of us nonbelievers are left behind on Earth to suck eggs and generally suffer various tortures.
Posted by: Juannie | Apr 30, 2008 12:56:35 PM | 11
dan of steele #7
Living here and hearing people talk about grudges and the need to show others who is boss leads me to believe the reason the Europeans have not fought amongst themselves for the last 60 years is because the US Army has completely overwhelmed them for that period. Where the US military was not, you have seen fighting, i.e., the Balkins, Cypress, and even Northern Ireland.
You are crazy. I don't think many of us are conscious of the presence of the US army, and I certainly don't think we would pay much attention to it. b and the Germans were more in the past, but nowadays? No, the truth is as b puts it: there's no future in resolving economic problems by war, and few political ones. That is well recognised in Europe. The last one before the US and Israel who relied upon war to solve his diplomatic problems was Hitler. The similiarity between Nazi and US/Israel diplomacy is very striking - the bullying, the constant plans for new wars, the real desire to go to war, and the lack of interest in peaceful solutions.
Posted by: Alex | Apr 30, 2008 1:12:18 PM | 12
I may be crazy, but I think the evidence is overwhelming. You may not have noticed but US troops have been or are still stationed in England, France (until 1966), Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey as well as Germany. Significant numbers of them with many air bases and naval bases. They were and still are a show of force that prevents the hosts from building up their own military because they really have no easily explainable reason to do so. after all, the americans are there to protect....right?
so like I said, with the exception of Greece and Turkey, there have been no conflicts between any of the nations that are hosting US military on their soil. it simply would not be allowed. Even now, with greatly reduced military presence, the US through its military can make local politicians dance to their tune. Witness the expansion of Caserma Ederle at Vicenza Italy. The townspeople were dead set against it and the center left coalition with Prodi was completely unable to reverse a decision by the previous government. Prodi lost a lot of credibility during that fiasco and that may very well have been the point of the whole episode. The Army post will be expanded.
The US exerts a great deal of control over european affairs, the most visible is the military. if the europeans were truly a bunch of peace loving dirty fvcking hippies, why are they in Afghanistan? and why did they insist on breaking up Yugoslavia? Are the Balkans not considered part of Europe?
The US is guilty of many things but we are not the first ones, the only ones, nor the last ones to wage war on other peoples. The French have a long history of doing the very same thing and are still doing it in Africa. same with the English and who doesn't know about the Roman empire or the Spanish conquest of the Americas.
Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 30, 2008 3:11:10 PM | 13
@DoS - there is some truth to what you say and some exaggeration.
The problems of inner European competition, especially the French-German one that was the reason for some four devastating wars between these, have been largely solved by the still evolving EU. Economic integration has really helped and there is more to this than just exchanging goods.
There is still a lot of U.S. influence on the political level. 70% of the German population is against any engagement in Afghanistan - still the politicians push for it. One wonders how much CIA pressure is behind that.
But the factual U.S. military influence is low. The brigades the U.S. still has in Europe can be seen as a danger to European self-accertion against U.S. wishes. They can also be seen as hostages with, in case of a conflict, very very weak supply lines. How do you reinforce Ramstein?
I recommend you read through that Petreas piece I linked above. The U.S. model of a military driven empire model pauperizes its own population. The European model after WWII of Economic empire building has a national positive rent.
If the Europeans build and expand on that model under a military cover that devalues the U.S. is that a bad strategy?
Posted by: b | Apr 30, 2008 3:32:50 PM | 14
"He finds that the national economic rent of the first model is negative, while the second model's results are positive."
Well, Paul Bairoch showed this years ago, but history is wasted on the imperialists. The only loosely-sane reason for military empire building is if you plan to conquer the whole world eventually, otherwise it's pointless and a waste - and that's assuming world conquest is loosely-sane to begin with.
Dan: you're right about US influence and the fact that no sane politician will push for massive "defense" budget, if only because it will be seen as useless.
Still, I definitely think the core reason why Europeans look "pacifists" is because after centuries of infighting, and most notably after the blatant failures of Napoleon and Hitler to unify the continent, people have understood no one can do it by force of arms. Eventually people saw inter-European warfare was suicidal and was only weakening them - the mere US military might, and its mere and visible presence over half Europe was proof enough WWI and II were European failures and defeats for every country involved. I might even think many English can see it, though I have some doubts still.
What this means is just that Europeans have renounced wars between them, and more or less renounced wars of choice.
As I often says since years, anyone who really believes the bullshit of neo-cons and AQ jihadists, that Europe is ripe for the taking because its a pacifist weakling, has no clue what Europe really is deep down; they have renounced wars of choice and no one was silly enough to try to attack them directly, because that's something I definitely wouldn't do - if you think attacking Iran is a bad idea, try to attack Germany or France and see the reaction.
Posted by: CluelessJoe | Apr 30, 2008 3:48:55 PM | 15
War Making and State Making as Organized Crime
Charles Tilly died April 29, 2008. Rest in Peace
Though the title may sound a bit inflammatory, this piece is actually making a very careful case that states came into existence not based on any plan, but rather on the sheer economic and territorial logic of extracting tribute from state inhabitants and merchants in exchange for protection. States are shown to evolve out of the changing monopoly of violence and the ways citizens have bargained with the managers of the state. A logic that is still evolving and changing the demands made by states, and the demands we are capable of counterposing.
What do states do?
To a larger degree, states that have come into being recently through decolonization or through reallocations of territory by dominant states have acquired their military organization from outside, without the same internal forging of mutual constraints between rulers and ruled. To the extent that outside states continue to supply military goods and expertise in return for commodities, military alliance or both, the new states harbor powerful, unconstrained organizations that easily overshadow all other organizations within their territories. To the extent that outside states guarantee their boundaries, the managers of those military organizations exercise extraordinary power within them. The advantages of military power become enormous, the incentives to seize power over the state as a whole by means of that advantage very strong. Despite the great place that war making occupied in the making of European states, the old national states of Europe almost never experienced the great disproportion between military organization and all other forms of organization that seems the fate of client states throughout the contemporary world. A century ago, Europeans might have congratulated themselves on the spread of civil government throughout the world. In our own time, the analogy between war making and state making, on the one hand, and organized crime, on the other, is becoming tragically apt.
Here Tilly seems to argue not only that newer nations will receive more gangsterish behavior from their leaders, but that even peoples of nations with more 'checked and balanced' histories of state making are also living in an era when military rule becomes less and less checked by civil power capable of resisting demands for more 'tribute'.
Posted by: citizen | Apr 30, 2008 4:06:46 PM | 16
if you think attacking Iran is a bad idea, try to attack Germany or France and see the reaction.
Thanks clueless for that one - I agree. Not that I think any of this would be in anyway fruitful for either side. So please lets keep this theoretical.
But it makes some point that the U.S. is overestimating the military point of might while neglating the industrial/economic one. Could it catch up? Sure, it could, but the political current, dem and repub, is so mil-driven that it doesn't even try.
Durcing WWII the U.S. was resource wise independent. Today it imports 25% of the worlds carbon energy sources. That change is strategically important.
Posted by: b | Apr 30, 2008 4:07:00 PM | 17
b, my point was merely that europeans do not have to think they are any better than or less warlike than US Americans. In my country there is at least now a fairly high percentage of people who do not want to kill Iraqis or occupy foreign lands yet our government continues to do just that, same as with Germans and Afghanistan. (for some weird reason, most of my countrymen believe Afghanis should continue to be slaughtered though)
yes, the European Union will create dependence between the nations of Europe and because of that more people will be under the control of fewer elites. personally I think that is a bad development because I have observed that in nearly every case big is bad and big countries and big organizations simply can not be responsive to individual needs as well as small ones can. but I am also a realist and can see that these things are necessary for survival in this world.
the problem as I see it with the US is that corporate results are announced quarterly and any manager or CEO who oversees two consecutive losing quarters is soon looking for other employment. no one will invest in R&D or make long term investments if those cut into immediate profit. this shortsighted approach has destroyed many old well managed and responsible companies because they simply can not compete with the US model of highly profitable (in the short term) business with sudden and no cost reductions in the work force when desired.
you can see how that mindset would favor the big stick approach we have in foreign relations. Other countries not having big sticks have concentrated on the carrot. which style will ultimately prevail?
Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 30, 2008 4:17:06 PM | 18
Ahhh, the connection.
Could it be, perhaps, that their is some degree of consanguinity, and believe it or not, I am not talking about jewishness.
The same people were intimately involved with the founding of the jewish state after the second world war, the founding of the CIA after that war, and the funding of the Nazi war machine at the beginning of that war.
I'm talking about the Walker, Bush, and Dulles families.
The same corporate bloodlines were connected with every bit of imperialism in the latter half of the twentieth century. Their descendants, both neocon corporate adoptees and literal bloodline, are deeply involved with the drive for global hegemony today.
The Israeli government smells so much like Cheneyburton because both of their systems work to profit the same extended Company family.
Religion and ethnicity have nothing to do with it.
Religion and ethnicity have everything to do with the facade the hegemons use to keep the rubes at the carnival.
Posted by: kelley b. | Apr 30, 2008 9:57:36 PM | 19
kelley b.: whether or not your assertions have validity is beside the point. you speak the language of "conspiracy," and that language has been intentionally bloated with suspicion. It's incredible to be talking to someone and then cross the conspiracy line and literally see the walls go up as the denial loop kicks in. it's almost enough to make those who know the official narrative is impossible view the willful ignorance of the "general public" as insurmountable. it's not.
Posted by: Lizard | May 1, 2008 1:24:55 AM | 20
official narrative (of 9-11)
Posted by: Lizard | May 1, 2008 1:27:31 AM | 21
Is it, as Petras claims, simply the communality of the method of expansion that unites the U.S. and Israel, or is there, as Yair Sheleg asserts, some deeper connection?
Here's a good take on our relationship...
The more likely explanation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq is the neoconservative Bush regime's commitment to the defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel. Israel hopes to steal all of the West Bank and southern Lebanon for its territorial expansion. An American colonial regime in Iraq not only buttresses Israel from attack, but also can pressure Syria and Iran not to support the Palestinians and Lebanese. The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial expansion. Americans are dying and bleeding to death financially for Israel. Bush's "war on terror" is a hoax that serves to cover U.S. intervention in the Middle East on behalf of "greater Israel." Paul Craig Roberts
Posted by: CTuttle | May 1, 2008 1:27:35 AM | 22
Another fascistoid comment in Haaretz: We are also to blame
Terror wears us down, disrupts our lives, deepens our internal rifts, and continues to lower - as in the Beit Hanun tragedy - Israel's shining image in the world. Hence it is a strategic danger. For this reason the end goal of the battle against that terror must not be a cease-fire.
Only total victory - Hamas' request for a cease-fire proves we are not far off - can remove the strategic danger it poses.
The guy copied from the Sportpalast speech
Posted by: b | May 1, 2008 6:00:54 AM | 23
Believe it or not, conspiracies do exist in the real world. Every thing you encounter in our society is the result of people working together to produce it, distribute, or consume it. Why should politics or policy be any different? What is a Party other than a large number of people working together for a common goal?
But if you think the Bush- Dulles connection to the CIA and the founding of Israel as a base for American policy in the Middle East is all conspiracy theory, look at the facts.
Similarly, if the Harriman- Bush- Axis banking connection seems like conspiracy theory to you, again, look at the facts.
Just as fear and irrational speculation has fogged the real criminals behind 9/11, so it has for the real political connection between America and Israel. It is buried underneath the understandable and honest desire of many Americans to perpetuate their culture in the land of its historic origins. If you don't think the old money isn't above exploiting that for its own political and financial gains, then you aren't paying attention.
Posted by: kelley b. | May 1, 2008 8:44:45 AM | 24
Old Testament style!
Posted by: Cloud | May 1, 2008 9:33:24 PM | 25