December 3, 2006


Do Immigrants Make Us Safer? (EYAL PRESS, 12/03/06, NY Times Magazine)

In an age of Latino gangs and Chinese criminal networks, the notion that communities with growing immigrant populations tend to be unsafe is fairly well established, at least in the popular imagination. [...]

But is it true? In fact, according to evidence cropping up in various places, the opposite may be the case. Ramiro Martinez Jr., a professor of criminal justice at Florida International University, has sifted through homicide records in border cities like San Diego and El Paso, both heavily populated by Mexican immigrants, both places where violent crime has fallen significantly in recent years. “Almost without exception,” he told me, “I’ve discovered that the homicide rate for Hispanics was lower than for other groups, even though their poverty rate was very high, if not the highest, in these metropolitan areas.” He found the same thing in the Haitian neighborhoods of Miami. In his book “New York Murder Mystery,” the criminologist Andrew Karmen examined the trend in New York City and likewise found that the “disproportionately youthful, male and poor immigrants” who arrived during the 1980s and 1990s “were surprisingly law-abiding” and that their settlement into once-decaying neighborhoods helped “put a brake on spiraling crime rates.”

The most prominent advocate of the “more immigrants, less crime” theory is Robert J. Sampson, chairman of the sociology department at Harvard. A year ago, Sampson was an author of an article in The American Journal of Public Health that reported the findings of a detailed study of crime in Chicago. Based on information gathered on the perpetrators of more than 3,000 violent acts committed between 1995 and 2002, supplemented by police records and community surveys, it found that the rate of violence among Mexican-Americans was significantly lower than among both non-Hispanic whites and blacks.

We import the superior culture through our open borders.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 3, 2006 1:52 PM

Try telling that to the family of Houston police officer Rodney Johnson.

Posted by: Gary at December 3, 2006 2:07 PM

If Central and South America have a "superior culture" to ours, how is it that all those countries are poorer, more corrupt, less free, and less innovative than ours, and large percentages of their populations would rather live here, legally or illegally?

As for decreases in crime, I'll bet that's only in comparison with the crime rates in the previously largely black areas they often move into.

Posted by: PapayaSF at December 3, 2006 2:19 PM

Poverty is in the eyes of the beholders. These new immigrants saw real poverty and depravations in their home countries. They believe they are luck to be here. Even in France, the first generation Muslims were law abiding hard working immigrants. It's the second or the third generations who internalize leftist ideas of entitlement, and believe that they are exploited by the rich. They become insolent, and violent to try to get what they "deserve".

Posted by: ic at December 3, 2006 3:12 PM

ic: one could also say superiority is in the eyes of the beholders, and that the direction of this migration indicates which culture is superior.

Posted by: PapayaSF at December 3, 2006 3:31 PM


They don't, which is why the immigrants who have the superior culture come here.

Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 5:02 PM


They don't, which is why the immigrants who have the superior culture come here.

Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 5:03 PM


What would you do if I showed up at your house, and brought with me diseased presents of monotheistic notions of imperial power structures that worked to justify a whole range of systems economic exploitation and expropriation. What if I hung around for a couple centuries, until you finally kicked me out. But even after I left, I still maintained a stranglehold over the affairs of your shell of a household through legal means like trade agreements and the World Bank, through illegal means like fostering the illicit drug trade until becomes the most dominant industry, or just plain evil means like sponsoring right-wing death squads that murder thousands and/or assassinates democratically elected leaders.
If I did that to you, I wouldn't hold it against you if you wanted to sneak inside my house. I might kick you out once I found you, but I would understand why you came.

Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 5:33 PM

You'd worship together.

Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 5:47 PM

And I too would like to see the specifics on how the "culture" of an illiterate and supertitious Oaxacan or Honduran peasant is "superior". (But then again, I'm not using New England as my standard...)

t's the second or the third generations who internalize leftist ideas of entitlement

You mean like the leadership of La Raza and MEChA?

What would you do if I showed up at your house...

Ah, yes. That old Leftist trope about how all the sins of the Spanish Empire and its successors of the past half millenium are our fault, and we must share the blame while those poor benighted brown-skinned savages are justified in whatever revenge they seek.

If anything , those people should blame us for not annexing the whole of Mexico and Central America and the Caribean when we had the chance in the mid-19th Century, instead of just creating wealth in the parts with all the good roads, honest police, less polluted cities and Disneyland.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 3, 2006 6:48 PM

That's not who moves here.

Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 7:10 PM

Its just a loose metaphor. You might be familiar with it, because it makes a lot of sense.
And yes, the US has played a large role in determining the miserable state that most of Latin American is still trying to climb out of. Billions of foreign dollars are spent trying to influence the elections in about a dozen countries, but those darn hispanics keep electing progessive left-wingers who hate the US; and you would think they should be thanking us.
Which is the point that you apparently aren't grasping; we don't want to annex the the rest of the Americas; where else would all the poor people live? The reasons for our interventions have been well documented for over a century; You call them benevolent; hundreds of millions of Latin Americans call them imperialism.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Mexicans are genetically inferior; lazy, unintelligent, etc. Maybe its their own damn fault their country sucks.

Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 8:20 PM

Of course it's their fault. Their beloved Revolution was an unmitigated disaster. Had they simply aped the U.S. all along they'd not be forced to play catch-up now. Better yet, like Chile they could have leap-frogged us by adopting the Third Way while we were still mired in the Second.

Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 8:31 PM

I had an interesting conversation with a woman who emigrated here from Brazil. I said from what we read, things are pretty good in Brazil now. She said no and it's the people's fault because Brazil could be better than the United States but the people don't obey the law, the streets aren't safe, nobody wants to work, they only want something for nothing.

She started her own business, works very hard and makes sure her employees do to. She's exactly the kind of American who was born in the wrong country we need a lot more of.

Posted by: erp at December 3, 2006 8:59 PM


I'm sure foreign intervention had nothing to do with it.
In Chile, was this before or after we destabilized the country so we could assassinate Allende, take back the industries he nationalized, and install Pinochet to make the place safe for foreign investment?
In addition, its very easy for you to applaud the politics in another country that seem to mirror your own, because, like I said in my last comment, billions are now being spent to keep Latin America in line with foreign interests. Thank god for the CIA.

Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 9:05 PM

After. It was Pinochet and the New Zealanders who began the Third Way revolution.

Posted by: oj at December 3, 2006 9:12 PM

What would you do if I showed up at your house, and brought with me diseased presents of monotheistic notions of imperial power structures that worked to justify a whole range of systems economic exploitation and expropriation.

Oh please. Islam isn't that bad...

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at December 3, 2006 9:18 PM

We did not assassinate Allende, who knew they were such good shots?

See val-e-diction 7/20/2003, IIRC, very lengthy post. He read the books so we won't have to. And he dide w/a gold rifle in his hands given by el barbudo.

As to north and south of our borders, it is not my fault they were colonized by the frogs and spanish. What is with that imperial sash el presidente puts on in Mexico?

New Orleans, Canada, Mexico, all have problems because of the froggie influence, failures in some aspects all of them.

They'd be psycho-social-economically better off if they had been colonized by the Brits, they would be taking their rightful place in the Anglosphere.


As to superior culture, you're enamoured, oj, do you already own property there?

Posted by: Sandy P at December 3, 2006 10:04 PM


I have been impressed with the work ethic of probably 99% of the immigrants I've had the fortune of getting to know/observed.
But it doesn't make sense to me that the hard-working ones are leaving their countries because everyone else who lives there is a lazy criminal.
So let me ask you, since I haven't heard an answer I like yet: what is so wrong with their countries that keeps them from developing like the United States has?

Posted by: Macduff at December 3, 2006 10:06 PM

Nobody here believes Mexicans are genetically inferior... we all know that it's the people who think that socialism leads to prosperity that are the true defectives.

Posted by: lebeaux at December 3, 2006 11:58 PM

what is so wrong with their countries that keeps them from developing like the United States has?

It's a complex issue, but check out the works of Hernando de Soto such as The Mystery of Capital and The Other Path. Apparently bureaucracy, over-regulation, corruption, and lack of clear property rights makes it incredibly difficult to start a business in most of Central and South America.

Posted by: PapayaSF at December 4, 2006 12:29 AM

re: "We import the superior culture through our open borders."

We most certainly do NOT have open borders. I researched the topic a bit for this article:

There's a widespread belief that the federal government is willfully refusing to enforce our immigration laws. I doubt it. Consider the following back-of-the-envelope calculation: "The INS inspects approximately 300 to 350 million foreign nationals each year for admission to the United States," according to the testimony of one Mark A. Mancini before the Judiciary Committee in 1999. Subtracting 24 million who actually do come, let's round that off to 300 million would-be visitors or migrants. Pew Research Center estimates that 500,000 cross the southern border each year. Another 100,000 may overstay their visas. This implies that -- if applicants for US visas are a reasonable proxy for the number who wish to come -- our border regime deters or prevents 99.8% of unauthorized would-be entrants to the United States. That's not an "open system of non-borders," as Victor Davis Hanson has described it. The US border regime must be one of the most effective systems of mass coercion in human history. Yet it still falls short.
Posted by: Nathan Smith at December 4, 2006 9:08 AM

mac, are you an American? Because if you are, you would know the answer to your question. We were lucky that our forbearers were, in the main, ordinary hard working freemen who came from England to make a life here, not adventurers sent to the new world by the crowned heads of Europe to bring back treasure to replenish the royal coffers.

Our early settlers carved their future in the wilderness because they were free to do so. South of the border there were no settlers. There were only vast tracts of land deeded to nobles and adventurers and they managed their rancheros the same way they managed their vast estates in Europe, so citizens of Brazil and the rest of the countries south of the Rio Grande have no history of individualism, hard work, freedom or the rule of law that benefits us all. They were kept in poverty first by colonials and then by communists.

That's why our people are our treasure, not our natural resources, as marvelous as they are, nor our climate, nor our mountains, nor our vast plains, nor our thousands of miles of sea coast, although being nestled between the earth's two most formidable oceans ain't chopped liver. Americans born in the wrong country are driven to risk everything to come back home and try their hands at achieving the American dream and the reason so many of our newest arrivals jump the shark so quickly, many before the second generation is even out of high school.

Come one, come all. There's plenty of room in our pool.

Posted by: erp at December 4, 2006 9:18 AM

Mr. Smith:

If you really think we're turning back 300 million people at the border you should seek psychiatric help.

Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 12:08 PM


Its easy to find comforting answers in abstract opinions, repeated in middle school history textbooks, concerning the essential characters of Latin American people and their political systems that are the cause their multitudes of problems.
I find these kind of explanations to be ethnocentric for the most part, and exclusive of a great deal of forgotten/ignored history.
I find it more useful to examine the factual details of their histories.
Yes, a great deal of the differences that still exist today have had to do with the nature of the early settlers.
There weren't free vast tracks of land; settlers were at semi-permanent war with Indians. In the US most of them died. In Latin America they mostly survived.
This doesn't mean that the current political/economic problems of the region are the result of people being unfamiliar with democratic systems and free market capitalism.
I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but almost all Latin American countries declared and/or fought for their independence in the 19th century, and established governments like our own.
If you research, you will find the the US has a long history of supporting right-wing movements in the face of democratically elected leaders all throughout the region.
The reason I'm making such a big deal about this, is because I and many others view the whole region as a case study of the failure of the US sponsored style capitalism to live up to its promises.
Now before a dozen of you call me a left-wing loony toon, I would like you to name three Latin American countries that have not
had the misfortune of at one point or another being the victim of US interference with national sovereignty.

Posted by: Macduff at December 4, 2006 12:24 PM

--what is so wrong with their countries that keeps them from developing like the United States has?--

Oh, brother.

Like Allende's capitalism????

Or Hugo's socialism for the 21st century?

1. Our form of government and market-based capitalism scares the world - look at what Chiraq says against anglo-saxon capitalism. To their eyes we are unstable because we hold elections every 2 years, but that very unstableness makes us the most stable.

2. We had slaves, we never had peasants - the rest of the world still has that mentality.

3. I call it mutated monarchy, unelected 1 (or 9 USSC - Kelo), unelected many - brusselsprouts, still unelected. We are bottom-up, not top-down, which is what the world is used to.

4. Stalin was elected, so was Saddam, elections do not a democracy make.

5. They don't pay attention to history.

6. Racism - you answered part of it in your response.

7. Can't have communism on our borders - if Mexico keeps heating up, we're going to get refugees. Something we've never had to deal with before.


Did you read The Allende Myth? Pass it on to your friends, the discussion should be interesting.


And before you insult Erp again, sonny, I'll wager she's a lot older, has more experience than you or your buds.

--I find these kind of explanations to be ethnocentric for the most part, and exclusive of a great deal of forgotten/ignored history.--

After living next to us and watching us for 230 years, one would think they'd get it, but they still don't.

Ethnocentric? You bet, why can't they make it work? What are they doing wrong?

Why is it America's fault? Turn your thinking around. Of course, I will say the same thing about the frogs, but they're the ones who gave us the wonderful idea of communism, didn't they? And they're trying to create the EUSSR now.

And it will be a humongous failure just like its predecessor. Now, they've been living with England far longer than Mexico with us, so why don't the Europeans get it? Or is that too ethnocentric for you?

Posted by: Sandy P at December 4, 2006 12:56 PM


The computer ate my long post.

In short, Macduff, you need to look at the bigger picture and get over your white guilt.

The froggies don't get market-based capitalism either, is that being ethnocentric?

Did you read The Allende Myth yet? The discussion with your friends should be quite entertaining.

Hmmm, for some reason my computer won't let me link it for you.

Posted by: Sandy P at December 4, 2006 1:04 PM


Now the computer ate 2 of my posts.

In short, Macduff, have you read The Allende Myth yet? For some odd reason, I can't link it for you. Should be quite an entertaining discussion amongst you and your friends.


It's not ethnocentric, the froggies don't get it either - they gave us communism, didn't they? And now they're trying to create the EUSSR, which will, of course, be better than its predecessor. Just like Hugo trying to create socialism for the 21st century.

Get over your white guilt.

BTW, you take on Erp at your peril, somehow I think she's older than you.

Posted by: Sandy P at December 4, 2006 1:09 PM

I didn't intend to insult anyone. I'm sorry if I did.

Sandy P:

You answers are still ignoring the effects of US on determining the path of modern development all over Latin America.
I don't have "white guilt." I just have a better memory than you.
I'll bet you can't name 3 countries in the whole region that have not, at one point or another, been negatively affected by the forces of unrestrained market capitalism.
The only reason you seem to have given me, written in a number of ways, it "American democratic capitalism is better just because American democracy is better."
I am not making arguments for socialism, or against capitalism.
Here's what wikipedia has to offer about the 1973 coup:

In a 2003 interview on the U.S. Black Entertainment Television network, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked about why the United States saw itself as the "moral superior" in the Iraq conflict, citing the Chilean coup as an example of U.S. intervention that went against the wishes of the local population. Powell responded: "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of." Chilean newspapers hailed the news as the first time the U.S. government had conceded a role in the affair.

Posted by: Macduff at December 4, 2006 2:10 PM

Macduff, if you honestly think Chile would have been better off with Allende leading them into yet another socialist/communist tarpit, you're sadly mistaken. Pinochet was no sweetheart, but he killed fewer people than Castro, greatly helped the economy, and voluntarily gave up power, leaving a real democracy in place. That never seems to happen with leftist dictators, does it?

Posted by: PapayaSF at December 4, 2006 2:26 PM

Thanks Sandy, older and wiser, I hope.

mac, The short answer to your question is: North of the Rio Grande was settled by Anglo-Saxon freemen -- south of the Rio Grande, wasn't.

If you want a more detailed analysis, check with Paul Johnson. A History of the American People or any of his other histories for a start. The rest of the bros will have any number of other suggestions.

I won't call you names nor will I denigrate your education, but if you hang around here, be prepared to have a lot of your favorite delusions dashed, especially those about how we Ugly American Running Dogs of Capitalism and Imperialism seeking world domination oppressed the campesinos en el sud and other of the downtrodden round the globe and that's how we got so darned rich that we don't care how many others come over and help us spend our filthy lucre stained as it is with the blood of the poor and the needy.

BTW - We didn't have middle schools in my day. Maybe that's why I know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: erp at December 4, 2006 2:26 PM

We have unrestrained market capitalism???

Who knew??? Mebbe it's more unrestrained to what you'd like it to be?

Compared to what Jacques offers Europe, but mebbe that's their problem?????

Yeah, we funded them to about $8 million, read The Allende Myth, then maybe the "wishes of the local population" might not seem so clear.

As I said, he read the books, some of who were there, so we won't have to.

Posted by: Sandy P at December 4, 2006 2:27 PM

"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." — A communique to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970

Posted by: Gilda at December 4, 2006 2:39 PM

I also remember the 70s when the southern hemisphere was turning red.

We cannot have communism on our border. Mexico's got a huge problem, and we might actually have political refugees.

Something we've never had.

Now, some might say they're basket cases because we intereferred, some might argue that in spite of our interference, they'd be basket cases anyway. Unlike Chile, which compared to the rest, is doing ok - hmmm, I wonder why, might make the argument about Spain at 1 point after Franco, too.


We've been telling you, you refuse to understand. You do have white guilt, cos you can't understand why, it has to be because of our interference.

If they were settled by the Brits, as I wrote before, they would have been psycho-social-economically better off.

India is taking its rightful place in the Anglosphere now that they threw off some of their socialism.

Have you ever considered the southern hemisphere's a mess because of tribalism?????? Every ethnicity has an internal pecking order.


So, what do you think about Che?

Posted by: Sandy P at December 4, 2006 2:48 PM


Let me rephase a question to you that got us down this track in the first place:
Are you denying that the United States has had a role in stifling the democratic movements of Latin America? If you are, I could refer you to a number of declassified documents that might shock you.
If you aren't, then I would suggest to you that perhaps the widespread ugliness of Latin America is in large part due to the poor decisions of American policymakers.
What is so threatening about admitting to making mistakes in Latin America?
Also, do you think that my delusions have coincidentally become very popular amongst democratic movements all over Latin America? Maybe all of us sort invented this whole imperialism thing; like ritualized satanic abuse, or something.

Sandy P:
the same thing i said to erp.

Posted by: Macduff at December 4, 2006 2:56 PM

America's mistake in Latin America has been not intervening sufficiently.

Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 3:16 PM

As Gilda points out, one of our best moments was whacking Allende.

Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 3:18 PM


I am not a socialist; I'm a libertarian. But I respect the rights of others. If Che had limited his revolutionary activities to Argentina, I might have more respect for him.
Socialism is a relatively meaningless term. Labor unions are socialist, but we have plenty of them in the US, while we don't like them in other countries. Relative to 1776 America, 2006 America is practically a Communist state.
Latin Americans don't want Soviet-style communism; for the most part they want independence from all the ways we have interfered with economic and political progress.
I don't have any guilt about the history of foreign policy; I just wish we could at least agree on the facts of history for the sake of understanding what we should do now.

Posted by: Macduff at December 4, 2006 3:19 PM

OJ: Why all the needs for lies and secrecy? Maybe the guy who told you it was a good moment was lying to you?
If you don't think NAFTA has negatively affected Mexico, you're probably in the rich minority.

Posted by: Gilda at December 4, 2006 3:35 PM

Mac, before meaningful discourse can ensue, you make yourself familiar with the facts. For instance unions, we don't like them whether they're here or abroad and in fact, they're only thriving the public sector and therein lies a very big problem, to wit, the execrable teachers unions which have destroyed our public schools with their leftwing propaganda and are turning out illiterates and innumerate's with little or no information about anything other than the evils of corporate America and the importance of saving the whales.

oj is correct that we didn't intervene enough, but then that's because the leaders in the U.S. were commie sympathizers and were rooting for your guys to win. It must gall that Daniel Ortega has converted to Catholicism and now condemns abortion.

It's so amusing that you consider yourself a libertarian. Check with the VC for a lively discussion of what that means to various folks

Posted by: erp at December 4, 2006 3:50 PM


Because the Left rejects everything America, but particularly Nixon/Kissinger, is involved in. Why burden the fabulously successful Chile of Pinochet with such a truth. Better the lie that lets them continue to act Anglo-American without acknowledging it.

Mexico has done extremely well since NAFTA was adopted, so well that soon its majority will be wealthy, as ours is.

Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 3:52 PM

Fortunately it's pretty easy to find numbers with which to analyze the Macduff theory, and it's embarrassingly wrong. It turns out that the more extensively we intervene to push the states of Latin America in an Anglo-=American direction the better off they are:

At one end of the scale we have Cuba, which JFK sold out to the USSR: GDP per capita $3.5k

At the other end, Puerto Rico, one of the last colonies: GDP per capita $18.7k

Chile, upon which we imposed Pinochet: $11.9k

Mexico, which we only recently horn-swoggled into NAFTA: already up to $11k

Of course, we won't dwell on Bermuda, an unhesitatingly Commonwealth nation with a GDP per capita of $69.9k....

Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 4:01 PM

Oh, please, "democratic movements????" Or a continuation and possibly more extreme practice of colonial frogistan's and Spain's way of doing biz?

Why does communism have to be USSR-style?

You expose yourself with your comments, mac.

Where's the pic of Kerry w/Danny-Boy? Wasn't Chris Dodd there, too? Didn't Dodd have a pro-Sandinista running his staff?

And Cuba was better off under Batista. ( I had an article about that saved, but it's on the old computer.) And Iran under the Shah.

And when Ronnie invaded, where was it in 1984???? Once we tossed the Cubans out.

It's like they're all "Dancing w/Wolves" until America got involved.


Now, oj, about Mexico's per capita - does that include the $20 billion sent back?--


--the execrable teachers unions which have destroyed our public schools with their leftwing propaganda and are turning out illiterates and innumerate's with little or no information about anything other than the evils of corporate America and the importance of saving the whales.--

Uhhh, middle-school education, erp?

Posted by: Sandy P at December 4, 2006 5:16 PM

OJ: The numbers are meaningless by themselves. And like Gilda said, if you really think Mexico is better off with NAFTA, you really don't know what you're talking about.
Cuba and Puerto Rico have both at one point or another, been the victim of foreign domination. Cuba isn't doing that bad for having been sanctioned for so many years. Puerto Rico isn't a country.
The increases in Chile don't take into account the years of wrecking the economy that occurred before Allende was deposed. If the GDP of Iraq increases 200% in a couple years, would that impress you?

Erp: I'm free to define what it means.
Yer right, unions have wrecked a bunch of stuff. But my point was to show the double-standard in how our trade agreements do not allow Latin American for the same kind of protections of rights. Do you care to address that or would you rather linger on trying to assassinate my character?

Sandy P: Many Latin American countries have voter turnout %s much higher than in the US.
There has never been a communist country, outside of Cuba, in Latin America, but in yours and others comments, it would sound as if the whole region was invaded by the USSR. You do realize that the Reagan administration lied about a few things, right?

Posted by: Macduff at December 4, 2006 7:09 PM

mac -- assassinate your character?

Is that how you define a request that you have the requisite facts in your quiver before you ... er ... shoot off your ... er ... arrows?

You know we've had a dearth of trolls lately and I'm really enjoying this string. An early gift for the holidays perhaps, or is mac really one of the bros funning with us.

Posted by: erp at December 4, 2006 8:00 PM

Bingo! Cuba too would be better off were it a US colony rather than a country. You've stumbled into an insight and refuted the Macduff Theory yourself. Congrats.

Posted by: oj at December 4, 2006 8:28 PM


Lost another comment!

1. I wasn't aware Ronnie was president in the 70s.

2. Define "invade."

3. So, as long as Che only blew up Argentinian buses full of women and children, he would have been OK?

4. PR isn't a country because it chooses not to be.

5. I really don't care if they have higher turnout.

Posted by: Sandy P at December 4, 2006 8:44 PM

They are failures because they are socialist, they only vary in degrees.

Posted by: Sandy P at December 4, 2006 8:51 PM