38 Comments

1. truepeers:

Lots of interesting questions; here’s a first thought:

Is the “war on drugs” a war or an involved police action against criminal activity? You can believe in endless war if you define war broadly enough; there will always be criminality. And there will always be human conflict in many forms.

But if war is understood as a relationship between or among states/tribes then I don’t think technology is really the key variable in determining its frequency. It is rather our ability to create and sustain realistic terms of peace, i.e. realistic forms of reward and punishment for not turning economic competition into outright war, to maximize the kinds of reciprocity and interaction that forestall war.

These are ultimately ethical questions and our use or renunciation of technology will always reflect how we conceive, succeed or fail at the ethical. We often think of the nuclear age as dictating the end of total war as a possibility among states with nukes; but ultimately even this assumption is primarily ethical or moral (self-destruction, whatever the biological inhibition, is not seen by many as ever acceptable) and is not determined by the technology per se.

An age of information is an age that no one can dominate since all parties, including states, become more transparent to each other and this creates pressures to create new forms of reciprocal conduct as an alternative to self-destruction in an age when the rational world will turn against pariah states; this means endless (economic, diplomatic) conflict but not necessarily war. I think endless war is only possible when our ethical faculty does not allow us to see how it is worse than less precipitous forms of conflict, or worse than a sufficent quantum of concerted bloodshed up front to take out states that will not live within a realistic vision of an international order in the age of a single, global, economy. When the ethical spirit fails, however, all the weapons of nanotech will make for a world sufficiently horrible in its unheroic, impersonal “battlfield” to, hopefully, renew the spirit.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:15 pm 2. twobyfour:

PETA is upset about BHO both hurting fly’s feelings and wantonly killing it.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:25 pm 3. Wadeusaf:

Dr. Susse’s ,A Fly Went By, very educational.

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:44 am 4. Son of Max:

This is another example of a problem that I suspect to be insoluble, and which our host has previously addressed with his posts on hacker biotechnology and such. This is that weapons – and weaponizable technologies – are becoming better, cheaper and more accessible.

I love that the good guys can invent and use these toys.

I dread the day when Al Qaeda and its ilk can field housefly-sized robots that explode with the force of car bombs, for ten bucks each, using tech from Toys’R'Us.

Jun 18, 2009 - 2:32 am 5. no mo uro:

“An age of information is an age that no one can dominate since all parties, including states, become more transparent to each other and this creates pressures to create new forms of reciprocal conduct as an alternative to self-destruction in an age when the rational world will turn against pariah states; this means endless (economic, diplomatic) conflict but not necessarily war. I think endless war is only possible when our ethical faculty does not allow us to see how it is worse than less precipitous forms of conflict, or worse than a sufficent quantum of concerted bloodshed up front to take out states that will not live within a realistic vision of an international order in the age of a single, global, economy. When the ethical spirit fails, however, all the weapons of nanotech will make for a world sufficiently horrible in its unheroic, impersonal “battlefield” to, hopefully, renew the spirit.”

We have two players who already at the point of ‘ethical spirit failing’: the secular/atheist left in the West, and radical Islam.

Both are self important ‘ethical societies’ which in the real world engage in unethical priciples and actions. Neither see human life as sacrosanct.

Both would be perfectly willing to engage in endless war and/or mass murder to achieve their goal of perfection. Islam would justify it by saying they were trying to be exactly like Mohammed. The left would justify it ex post facto using jailhouse lawyer ‘logic’ about the mentally constructed ‘evils’ of the center-right as justification.

Jun 18, 2009 - 3:09 am 6. starling:

Not only can POTUS swat a fly in meatspace; he also sends avatars of his advisors into virtual worlds and Second Lives.

http://bit.ly/zs8lF
http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2009/06/obama-advisor-in-sl.html

Jun 18, 2009 - 4:00 am 7. Xixi:

I heard a fly buzz when I died;
The stillness round my form
Was like the stillness in the air
Between the heaves of storm.
The eyes beside had wrung them dry,
And breaths were gathering sure
For that last onset, when the king
Be witnessed in his power.

I willed my keepsakes, signed away
What portion of me I
Could make assignable, and then
There interposed a fly,

With blue, uncertain, stumbling buzz,
Between the light and me;
And then the windows failed, and then
I could not see to see.

Emily Dickinson – I Heard A Fly Buzz When I Died

Jun 18, 2009 - 4:55 am 8. Leo Linbeck III:

First of all, I’m a little skeptical about how soon this sort of stuff can actually be deployed. It’s one thing to create a cool and provocative video; it’s quite another to ship a product that can hover silently above a door frame in a run-down hotel, maintain stability in a 30 mph wind gust between high rise buildings, and carry some kind of meaningful ordnance while transmitting info back to some remote location and operating on environmental energy. I’m not saying it’s not theoretically feasible; but so is shooting down an ICBM – and that’s not as hard and has taken us a lot longer than one might have dreamed when first looking at an SDI video in the 1980s.

All that being said, truepeers has put it quite well. Technology enhances both offense and defense; it has always been thus. The same blacksmithing processes that created hardened swords and arrowheads also allowed the creation of reinforced armor and shields. I’m sure some enterprising engineer will use the same technology from the cybermosquito to create electronic DEET.

But the problem of the human condition – our fallen nature, the existence of evil, bounded rationality, unbounded ambition, etc. – will always bring us back to the same questions: why are we here? what is our destiny? why be good? and so on.

Who will guard the guardians? We must guard them ourselves. That means engagement in the public square, active participation in the political arena, and an unwavering commitment to constraining the size and scope of government. A state monopoly on legitimate force has been proven to be a successful model for mitigating the death and destruction that can be wreaked upon the general population by the “bad guys” in the world.

But when that monopoly is extended into the economic realm – as appears to be the zeitgeist in Washington today – things start to go wrong. First comes dependency, then despondency, then deviancy, then destruction.

I do not fear these technologies in the hands of adults who are governed by adults. But putting them in the hands of perpetual adolescents who are governed by no one – well that is really quite scary.

L3

Jun 18, 2009 - 5:11 am 9. Joshua:

Second, what happens if warfare becomes so targeted that it can essentially be fought without civilians noticing it? Will it lead to endless, chronic warfare without a definite beginning or end?

The original Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon” covered a similar scenario. It was about two planets whose leaders had been waging a computer-simulated war against each other for centuries. The only impact it had on real civilian life was when your name turned up on a simulated casualty list, in which case you were obligated to submit to summary execution immediately. Failure to do so was grounds for the other side to start launching real attacks, complete with real carnage and physical destruction of habitat – the latter not accounted for in the simulations, thus leaving both societies at large more or less unaffected by the whole thing.

The episode left the impression that by the time Capt. Kirk and company, as was their wont, arrived on the scene and changed everything, both planets had become so used to this invisible, painless “war” that it never occurred to anyone on either side to pursue a real peace.

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:04 am 10. Jack Okie:

I am currently re-reading Eric Flint’s “Assiti Shards” series. His description of the Thirty Years War contains an awful lot of low-level conflict, a lot of it not between state actors. Will nanotechnology allow local disputes to escalate beyond what is now possible? As for ethical concerns, the Japanese who militarized the nation and launched what ultimately become the Pacific theater of WWII certainly thought their ethics were above reproach.

For some reason after reading truepeers’ comment, I immediately thought of Neal Stephenson’s “The Diamond Age”.

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:12 am 11. Elijah:

from Westhawk -

The 2008 battle for Sadr City achieved the same outcome as Second Fallujah, physical control of the geography and population, but employed entirely different tactics, enabled by a much greater density of surveillance technology. Petraeus put up a slide that showed the dense layers of persistent overhead surveillance of Sadr City, from satellites to Global Hawk, ELINT aircraft, SOCOM drones, Predators, Shadows, and Apaches. Around and in the battlespace were more SIGINT, counter-battery radar, observation towers, scout-snipers, and undercover infiltrators inside some of the enemy cells.

All of this persistent surveillance allowed the U.S. commander to treat Sadr City as one large sniper shooting gallery, employing laser-guided bombs, Hellfire missiles, and real sniper teams. Rather than storming Sadr City house-to-house, the coalition commanders patiently observed, detected, tracked, and sorted out the various hostile cells and groups in Sadr City. After this overhead observation collected sufficient information, the cells were then bombed, rocketed, or sniped. Others fled after figuring out they may have only hours or minutes to live.

Most of these same technical assets were available and were used at Second Fallujah. But as Petraeus explained, by 2008 the quantity and quality available to commanders were magnitudes greater than in 2004. As important, by 2008, U.S. intelligence fusion and analysis procedures were refined in a way they were not in 2004.

During the Cold War, U.S. (and Soviet) military doctrine sought to avoid cities. Modern irregular warfare adversaries adapted to U.S. combat advantages by hiding in the cities among the population. U.S. infantry forces thus had to relearn many forms of urban operations. At the high-intensity end of this spectrum was Second Fallujah in 2004.

But the 2008 battle for Sadr City may show that the U.S. has gained dominance over urban terrain as much as it demonstrated dominance over open terrain in 1991. This dominance over urban terrain, if true, is predicated on a commander’s access to the density of overhead surveillance and technology that was available to the U.S. commander in Sadr City in 2008.

Will that be the case in the future? The exponential growth of U.S. combat drones points in this direction. Where will the enemy hide in the future?

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:24 am 12. RWE:

Several years ago now, the USAF put out an RFP for the development of miniature robots that would be dropped into an enemy installation and dismantled it from within. This sounds like the Replicators of Stargate SG-1, except that they presumably would not use the enemy’s hardware to make more of their own – but that is the next logical step.

It would appear that deployment of such microbots in countries thought possibly to be hostile to the USA would be a normal practice, just as dispatching nuclear-armed bombers to hit the USSR every day once was. Will the discovery of USAF microbots by another nation be taken as an act of war? Would the discovery in the USA of such microbots be taken that way by us? Will plausible deniability be the norm? Those are big questions, and the propensity for current UAV’s to be used in covert ways may show the way.

We already are under attack via the Internet, both at the National and military levels and the personal level. I would just as soon those assaults be considered as acts of war. Maybe microbots invading a government building in the PRC or an individual hacker’s house in Romania is the answer.

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:30 am 13. Tcobb:

What fish is it, the puffer fish(?) that produces a toxin so powerful that only 40 molecules or so of it are capable of killing a man? Its not so unbelievable to imagine very deadly micro robots at all. Just find your target and spit out the toxin with some DMSO and they’re dead.

On an earlier thread Wretchard talked about RDIF tags. Just imagine–have a UAV drop a bunch of small, sticky RDIF tags that will cling to the bottom of one’s shoes. Use long range surveillance to identify who has stepped on what tags. Then send in the robots, each programmed to seek out a specific signature and “bite” them.

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:32 am 14. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Well, I’m buying me a new butterfly net and a propeller beanie with headband radar.

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:46 am 15. RWE:

Leo:

Your skepticism is well founded but here are a few things to consider:

That USAF RFP was sent out years ago. I would suspect that the War on Terror has caused it to be refocused rather more away from sabotaging Mig-29’s to tracking Al Queda cells, but I also think that, unlike the F-22, world events would have emphasized the value of the technology.

Aviation Week has reported on a curious sight seen around one of the major aerospace firms: a machine of very curious design that was between the size of a bird and an insect flying around the parking lot. And various news sources have reported on both amateur and professional efforts at miniaturized UAV’s. Like most things covert what leaks out is a piece broken off the tip of an iceburg.

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:49 am 16. Sam W:

#7, Leo Linbeck 111: 4th Paragraph: “… A state monopoly on legitimate force has been proven to be a successful model for mitigating the death and destruction upon the general population by the “bad guys” of the world. ”
Sir, is this assertion a failure to proof read, before posting ?

Jun 18, 2009 - 8:26 am 17. Mongoose:

Well, I think the boys over at the ARL are having us off.

We are quite a few years away from this, i’d bet decades. One wonders if they are not having a little fun with the new administration.

Meanwhile we have canceled the F22 which in my book is just pure treason.

Jun 18, 2009 - 9:25 am 18. Robohobo:

L3 @ 7: “But putting them in the hands of perpetual adolescents who are governed by no one – well that is really quite scary.”

So well put. These are nice toys, for now. The thing that strikes me is that in recent history it seems the (relatively) good guys are the ones who make the tech leaps and the bad guys only get the tech leap tech (was that weird or what?) by stealing/betrayal. Does that say the bad guys are stupid? I think so.

wretchard: “What happens when the fly can swat you?”

Somebody elsewhere already riffed on the fairy tale of the little tailor who swatted flies and tied to this. Maybe symbolic of what The 0bamanation thinks of it’s opponents? Flies to be swatted.

The local fishwrapper had an article in it today about the local Chrysler dealerships and others elsewhere. The tactics before the ‘Great Betrayal’ of the dealers was, ‘play along, we have long memories’. Chicago tactics seem to have been adopted in other spheres of influence.

Jun 18, 2009 - 10:08 am 19. Kirk Parker:

“have a UAV drop a bunch of small, sticky RDIF tags that will cling to the bottom of one’s shoes. Use long range surveillance”

Stop right there! It’s pretty inherent in the design of passive/receiver-powered RFID’s that they aren’t readable at long ranges. They would still be quite useful devices, mind you–it’s just that you’d need a local repeater smuggled into the area of interest.

Jun 18, 2009 - 11:31 am 20. dumpster4:

Not just the fly on the wall, but the snake in the grass as well:

http://www.defensereview.com/idfs-new-camouflaged-robotic-snake-aka-robot-snake-slithers-into-combat-reconnaissance-robots-get-sneakyreal-sneaky/

Jun 18, 2009 - 11:38 am 21. Mad Fiddler:

Thanks for the Link, dumpster4!

The CRSS (”Camouflaged Robotic Surveillance Snake”) looks a lot like Sir Hiss, in the Disney animated classic “Robin Hood.”

Might be really good to have some venom in a few gas-pressurized ampules.

On the other hand, a cloak of invisibility is probably as desirable for a snake as for a sniper. People usually react badly to snakes, especially if they have a rifle close to hand. I haven’t heard that snakes are viewed benignly by the people of Dar-al-Islam, for instance.

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:03 pm 22. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”I dread the day when Al Qaeda and its ilk can field housefly-sized robots that explode with the force of car bombs, for ten bucks each, using tech from Toys’R’Us.”"”"”"

Unless you’re talking about a whole bunch of these “flies” coalescing into one “grenade,” they won’t give off much of an explosion. Nano-derived enhanced conventional explosives (from HEDM: High Energy Density Matter) might double or triple the explosive power of, say, C-4, but nothing more. Such an increase in explosive power would have the advantage of retiring tactical and mini-nukes, since, combined with brilliant (better than “smart”) guidance technology, a 2000 lbs. nanoexplosive-laden bunker-buster would have not much less kinetic effect than a tactical nuke without the attendant collateral issues.

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:48 pm 23. truepeers:

no mo uro

Both would be perfectly willing to engage in endless war and/or mass murder to achieve their goal of perfection. Islam would justify it by saying they were trying to be exactly like Mohammed. The left would justify it ex post facto using jailhouse lawyer ‘logic’ about the mentally constructed ‘evils’ of the center-right as justification.

-the left today is essentially nihilistic; as you note, they are founded in perennial opposition to the “evils” of our given reality/freedom and committed to a Utopian transcendence of our invidious differences. I don’t know how long this “progressive” nihilism can keep going as a popular movement, but it is essentially parasitic – a (moral) blackmailer’s stance – and I think it may well come to an end when the host is exhausted (America, e.g., is going broke, if Obama & Co. don’t learn to defer certain desires and bow to economic reality). Or it may hold power and maintain its myths in the face of reality and we will have some new form of totalitarianism. But endless high-tech war? Are totalitarian nihilists really capable of that, while maintaining an advanced economy?

Similarly, the fans of Jihad and Sharia and the fantasy of a world-wide Caliphate could conceivably destroy the present global system and return us to a much-diminished world where roving bands of thugs bound by a severe religion rule the day; but it won’t be a highly technological or economically-integrated world. It seems to me Jihad is not something readily accommodated to large states; it is primarily a feature of band-size organization. We may be learning that a relatively advanced (and post-tribal) Muslim state like Iran may well pose such a threat to its own people when it attempts to focus them on the evils of the kaffir and apostate worlds that it cannot hold together a serious Jihad movement for long.

The kind of people or societies capable of creating the weapons proposed will, if they have the ethical wisdom, be able to destroy states that support terrorism or too much leftist blackmail, it seems to me. And without state backers, terrorists have limits in maintaining a parasitic warfare, whatever future capabilities they may have in the way of destroying the modern economy and technology. But of course it’s no sure thing that we don’t avoid a collapse into some less free order and ethical system. Nor would I discount the likelihood of periodic wars between high-tech states respecting the dictates of MAD. But we may learn again to end our wars with realistic terms for peace and not UN-Utopian fantasies.

Jun 18, 2009 - 1:09 pm 24. Roderick Reilly:

I’ve been fascinated by these possibilities for years, what with the advent of microtechnology and nanotechnology.

These intrusion technologies need to go one more step, however. The “birds” and “flies” in the video are blatantly man-made in appearance. The next step is to enlist the help of movie special-effects people to create realistic “birds” and “insects” that can blend in better, especially if they are indigenous to the general region being infiltrated. Generalized birds like crows or ravens would be ideal both for their convenient size (they’re a good-sized set of birds), ubiquity, and also for psy-ops reasons. Both in floklore and occult-related narratives, these birds have been seen as messengers of foreboding, evil, and death. How will tribal militias react to the possibility that the crows in their neighborhood may not be crows, if word gets out that the Americans have this kind of technology?

Jun 18, 2009 - 1:17 pm 25. truepeers:

Jack,

As for ethical concerns, the Japanese who militarized the nation and launched what ultimately become the Pacific theater of WWII certainly thought their ethics were above reproach.

-sure, all societies are bound by their conceptions of the sacred that give them an ethics. But history tests these (through economic and full-fledged war) and over the long run the stronger tend to win out. The Japanese lost WWII because they were less free and productive and more self-destructive than their opponents. After the monumental shock to the system, life goes on.

It is the short-term decadence and collapse of the discipline necessary to freedom and constitutionalism that I fear; in the long-run, humanity has so far survived and freer societies emerge. One day it may all end, but it is pointless to live and act on that belief.

One point my previous comments ignored at their peril is that the need to renew our terms of peace only becomes more evident as our systems look more and more like they are involved in a global (and variously national) *civil* war. I think this will lead, eventually, to renewed interest in what makes for (and remakes) the constitution-bound order of viable states.

Jun 18, 2009 - 1:35 pm 26. weary_g:

Imagine a personal CAP, or combat air patrol.

You, having the means and need, acquire your own attack bugs/birds, which are programmed to follow you wherever you go. Their primary function is to monitor your surroundings for threats, and then respond to those threats, whether it be spies or attack drones.

When encountering a hostile or unknown cyber-pest, they alert you and the other units in your protection matrix, and respond. On a palm pilot or your i-phone you receive a detailed account of possible threats in the area.

In the event of an swarm attack on your person, that briefcase or hand bag you are carrying opens a slot, and further defense bugs launch, seeking out the threat or establishing a tougher perimeter around you.

The I-phone alerts you when all threats are neutralized, or when your defenses are being overwhelmed.

You now have time to react to the threat, maybe reaching a secure vehicle or room while your defense grid keeps attackers occupied.

Imagine miniature “dogfights” being played out above your head as you run for cover.

Strange, strange new world.

WG

Jun 18, 2009 - 1:52 pm 27. Fletcher Christian:

#21 Roderick – The same technology that makes self-assembling microrobot bombs available also makes available a rather good counter to the people most likely to assemble and use them.

Imagine, if you will, a variant utility fog that infiltrates the tissues of everyone in a given area – perhaps a building with a minaret on top. And when someone speaks a particular phrase – for example “La ilaha ill’Allah, Muhammad rasul Allah” [I AM NOT MAKING THAT AFFIRMATION] – then the person speaking it dissolves into a puddle of goo.

Nanotech weapons make nukes look like children’s toys. How many uncontrolled replicating nanoassemblers does one need to completely destroy the biosphere?

One.

A possible resolution of the Fermi Paradox.

Jun 18, 2009 - 2:12 pm 28. Texas Pete:

So it’s possible that BHO may have accidentally destroyed a multi-million dollar robot prototype the other day when he so deftly swatted the fly on camera. Oh well, it’s only millions, not trillions.

Jun 18, 2009 - 2:21 pm 29. CatoTheShorter:

These sorts of vehicles/devices are still a ways off, I’ve read articles about these sorts of devices before, several years back. I think we’d see the “birdcam” before the bug/sensor.

Jun 18, 2009 - 2:24 pm 30. JFSanders:

@28: Flying with falcons. VERY cool video.
Birdcam

Jun 18, 2009 - 4:27 pm 31. RWE:

Good news or bad news? Who will guard the guardians?

The Left says all the time that they worry about government intrusion into the lives of individuals, but decades of evidence shows that they are all for it, except possibly for their trophy of abortion.

From gun control to setting your thermostat for you, they are always thinking up new ways to control people’s lives. And when they get one level of control they always go for the next one.

Aside from the theatrical antics of the Left, I don’t know anyone who was the least bit concerned that the Patriot Act was going to intrude upon their life. And there are no known cases of it actually happening. But ask the victims of the Clintons’ machinations and of Prince Obamachivelli and you will hear a different story. I have no doubt they would use such devices to further their own ambitions.

And that is one reason why, in the face of all our setbacks, those who truly believe in individual freedom and limited government must keep up the fight. Because the Left does not even push buttons; they have people who do that for them. And if enough of those people see what is going on, they may salute and follow orders – but they may follow some of their own orders, too.

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:03 pm 32. Storm-Rider:

American government, as Mark Levin has described in “Liberty and Tyranny,” is becoming more authoritarian (Statist) with an un-American Marxist mechanism of vote-purchasing property theft and redistribution. American government is moving away from majority rule toward elite judicial/administrative minority rule; unjust government power without the consent of the governed majority. Such government leads to tyranny, i.e.: destruction of the individual’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness (property). What would deter such American government from selective domestic use of weapons like these if American Marxist class struggle accelerates? In the past an independent mass-media would discover, report and thereby bring an end to such evil; but the mass-media is now a mere extension of “The Party.” Rational fear or phobia?

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:32 pm 33. peterike:

I don’t know anyone who was the least bit concerned that the Patriot Act was going to intrude upon their life. And there are no known cases of it actually happening.

Brother, in the New York region you just have to swing a cat to find dozens of people who believe deeply that the Patriot Act ushered them into some sort of Fascist police state. Granted, if you ever ask the simple question “so what freedom have you lost?” the best you usually get back is the myth of our library records being monitored (as if anyone goes to libraries any more for information anyway).

And they are all quite certain that thousands of people have been directly impacted by the Patriot Act, though again nobody can ever give you a specific case. If you bring it up, they just say “oh the press is covering it up.” Because the press was just so eager to cover up for the Bush administration. Reality never intrudes into Leftist thought.

On the nano-weapons, it’s quite worrisome that the Chinese, given their affinity to high-tech, just might come up with a game-changing weapon that leapfrogs all known defense systems and basically gives them do-what-we-say-or-else leverage over every country on earth. You have to believe they have thousands working diligently on next-gen weapon systems, having already successfully stolen most of our current weapons technology.

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:43 pm 34. programmer:

Remember these?
Scroll down!

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:54 pm 35. Alan Kellogg:

A mist of dilute lemon juice. What would that do to any micro-probe flying through it? Or something just a tad bit ’sticky’. Wouldn’t even have to be a strong adhesive to begin with. A few things to think about.

Jun 18, 2009 - 9:59 pm 36. RWE:

Hey, Programmer, Re #34>

I have some of that stuff, inclduing a couple of fake rock radio transmitter equipped detectors, a PSID receiver and a PEWS receiver. And we are talking early 70’s for that stuff.

Thanks for the link!

Jun 19, 2009 - 5:54 am 37. Mad Fiddler:

Dear Programmer,

I followed your link from post No. 34.

It is to laugh.

The “New Turd with Wrapper Still On” could be used by some folks as a reference for the current Sainted Occupant of the Oval Office.

Jun 19, 2009 - 8:30 pm 38. cmblake6:

Good view. While on the one hand it would minimize collateral damage, it could be entirely too selective dependent on the administration. This would silence protest that may prevent it from becoming even worse. We’ll not speak of overseas, consider what this may mean right here at home.

Jun 20, 2009 - 6:16 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.