69 thoughts on “Russian Troops Land in Venezuala.”

  3. It is just insurance against a possible military action by US and others to remove Maduro. The correct responce is supplying Venezuelan insurgent forces with weapons and money, targeting especially Russians, Cubans, and Maduro’s military leaders.

  4. Steve,
    .
    If so, I guess it's political / diplomatic insurance? I'm sure the russian troops are absolute bad asses, but another 100 guys of course make absolutely no difference with respect to the outcome if the U.S. military gets the order to attack.
    .
    I'm having a hard time reading it, actually. I sort of agree with you, mostly because I don't know what else to make of it.

  5. Maybe insurance as in – those are Russian soldiers. If you attack and they get killed, Russia has a better justification / pretext to retaliate.
    Maybe..
    [Edit: But how could Russia retaliate, what could they do? I'm sort of at a loss. It seems like a bluff to me.]

  8. Mark Bofill,
    It just increases the potential downside for removing Maduro by force. Sort of like a mini-version of keeping US troops in South Korea…. the North would attack the South in a heartbeat if there was no US presence. Of course, the logic of inviting Russian troops in could be applied by the government the US recognizes as legitimate to mention invite in US troops!

  9. Mark,
    I very much doubt Maduro will go except by military force, but neither the US nor the surrounding countries seem interested in military action. Only the Venezuelans can get rid of him via insurrection.

  10. Nope. Those things aren't launcher tubes. They are pretty close to the right size, but they never move around and other images seem to indicate that one is slightly wider than the other. I can't make out a vehicle under them. Oh well!

  12. Putin wants Maduro in power for a simple reason: oil. Venezuela's oil production has collapsed under Maduro, making Putin's oil that much more valuable.

  13. kmann (Comment #174654): "Putin wants Maduro in power for a simple reason: oil. Venezuela's oil production has collapsed under Maduro, making Putin's oil that much more valuable."

    That is not believable. Keeping Maduro in power without any oil production will be expensive for Russia. It is not at all clear that Venezuela has much impact on global oil prices, for several reasons. One is that there is an oil glut. Venezuela never produced more than something like 3% of the world's oil; that is a lot if oil is in short supply, not so much if there is a glut. Oil is not as fungible as people imagine. It is not so easy to get Venezuelan oil to the markets Russia serves or Russian oil to Venezuelan markets, since tankers can only handle about 15% of oil production. Also, Venezuela produces super heavy crude, just slightly better than the bitumen from the Canadian oil sands. That is much more expensive to refine and most refineries can't handle it.

    I suspect that a big part of the woes of the Venezuelan oil industry is that it can not compete in the current market. From what I can find, Canadian oil sands production has been operating at a loss for a while and is now dropping. That is not Maduro's fault.
    .
    Putin is doing the same thing he did by messing in the U.S. election: Trying to keep his enemies off balance by making mischief. He will support Maduro as long as it is not to expensive.

  15. What I can't get my head around is how Guaido is even still alive. It seems … improbable, to me, that none of Maduro's people have thought Venezuela wouldn't be a better place if Guaido were to disappear. Lovely as it would be to suppose that a deep seated respect for justice, rule of law, and the sanctity of human life has preserved him, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't think this is the case here.
    I suspect there must be some kind of threat / counter threat tactics that govern down there and I just have no clue how they operate. *shrug*

  16. Mark Bofill,
    I suspect that the US (and perhaps other countries) have made clear to Maduro that Guaido’s death or imprisonment would soon lead to special forces troops knocking on his bedroom door. He probably takes that threat seriously, since he knows his army would fold the moment it faces any real military opposition. It is easy to shoot at unarmed civilians. Shooting at eight or ten thousand marines, operating with superior equipment and lethal, overwhelming air cover? Not so easy. Maduro would fall in a few days.

  17. Thanks Steve. That could be it.
    I'm starting to think Maduro leaving today was negotiated and that Maduro has either changed his mind or never had any intention of fleeing.
    I wonder what happens next.

  18. mark,

    There are reports of significant numbers of Venezuelan troops on Guaido's side. So he is hardly defenseless. My guess is that most of the time (excepting public appearances) he is well guarded.

  19. Mike,
    Yeah. If your enemy has some troops but you have more… what are you waiting for, I guess is my thinking.
    I dont think Fidel would have suffered an opposition leader to live. I don't know, it just seems weird.

  20. Or treachery. Slip some assassins in posing as loyalist troops. Or airstrike the man…

  21. Mark Bofill,
    Maybe the Russians said “Amigo, you owe us $17 billion; if you leave you can’t ever hide from us.”

  22. Steve,
    Yup. I'm pretty sure that's got a little bit something to do with it.

    Mike,
    Maduro should have his stooges charge Guaido with something, they've already stripped him of immunity. Arrest him. If he resists, all the better, send military to kill.

  23. mark bofill (Comment #174722): "I dont think Fidel would have suffered an opposition leader to live. I don't know, it just seems weird."

    Sure. But Fidel had complete control of his military and police as well as public support, or at least no open public opposition.

    Guaido is alive not because Maduro is a nice guy or an idiot. He is alive because Maduro is not strong enough to do anything about him. Probably Maduro's control of the military is not strong enough for him to push his luck. For instance, much of the military might not be willing to fire on Venezuelan citizens. Killing Guaido might trigger a sufficiently violent reaction that it could only be put down with extreme force. If the military were to balk at that use of force, Maduro would have a life expectancy of about 15 minutes.

  25. I am amazed by the obtuseness of the media regarding the Steele Dossier. There is an assumption that the falsity of the Dossier must be due to Russian disinformation. For instance, see the WSJ article.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/collusion-or-russian-disinformation-11556663662

    Seeing how Steele admitted he was desperate to defeat Trump and he aggressively shopped his Clinton paid for work through irregular channels, one very reasonable conclusion is that the Dossier was pure fraud. I would say there is a 50% chance that the Dossier was pure fraud, a 25% chance it was caused by Russian disinformation, and a 25% chance it was "half fraud". — Steele could have known there was a very good chance what he was being fed was cr*p, but wasn't sure it was cr*p and looked the other way.

    JD

  27. Anyone here use twitter? I was "locked out" today and they want a phone number attached to my account. I must provide this in order to get a code for access. Anyone else get this message? I don't want to give out my cell phone number… 🙁

  28. sue,

    I don't use twitter, but it sounds like you might have said something that our tech lords deem naughty. Like being critical of catastrophic global warming theory or being supportive of Trump on immigration. Lots of conservative commentators (but usually not prominent ones, yet) have been getting banned.

  29. I use twitter. They may think you are a bot. Or they may think you said something hateful or naughty. It's hard to say.

    Do you mostly retweet, like and so on?

  31. We interrupt this discussion of the situation in Venezuela to bring you breaking news…
    Kamala Harris:
    "I think that Joe Biden would be a great running mate," Harris told reporters in New Hampshire. "As vice president, he’s proven that he knows how to do the job."
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/harris-biden-vice-president-2020-election-1326413
    .
    You have to hand that one to Kamala. Nicely done. 🙂
    A Harris-Biden ticket isn't something I've looked at. It might be worth it to consider; possibly Joe could get through the primaries this way as a VP. Maybe Joe brings enough centrist satisfaction as VP and Kamala enough progressive satisfaction + woman vote + minority vote that they might have a shot.
    .
    We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming…

  32. marc bofill,
    Harris is just one of the 20 clowns packed into the Dem president clown car. Biden won’t entertain anything but top of the ticket. Harris won’t likely be on that ticket at all.

  33. Steve,
    Maybe. The game has barely gotten started. I wait with interest to see if the far left gets behind Joe or try to tear him down. I think kamala is unlikely but not impossible.

  34. I'll go on to gripe about Alabama House Bill 314. I don't see an upside for the 2020 election in this timing. Polls appear to indicate more people support than oppose the status quo with respect to abortion laws. I wish they would have waited eighteen months on this.

  35. marc bofill,
    It is probably not a good time for that bill. It will be instantly blocked by a federal court, so the only reason to pass the law is to try to get a SC review of Roe. Will that happen? Maybe, but the chance the court will completely reverse Roe (which would be required for the Alabama law to go into effect) seems to me small. What the bill will do is fire up democrats across the country to vote…. early and often.

  36. Steve,
    Yep, that's the way I see it too. Sometimes my party amazes me, how tirelessly they work, toiling endlessly to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
    [Edit: Again, they could've kept it on the back burner for 18 months.. Just 18 months..]

  37. It is designed to be a challenge to Roe, but written within the confines of Roe. Specifically, in part IX, Blackmun writes that their whole decision falls apart if the definition of 'person' included a fetus. The Alabama bill includes a section defining the unborn as a person. Until now, the Roe(and companion Doe v Bolton) regime allowed states to expand protections for abortion and maybe nibble around the edges on limitations. The Alabama bill expands it in the other direction, attempting to have states expand the definition of personhood beyond the federal one.

  38. mark bofill (Comment #174823): "I'll go on to gripe about Alabama House Bill 314. I don't see an upside for the 2020 election in this timing. Polls appear to indicate more people support than oppose the status quo with respect to abortion laws."

    Yep. It would be far better strategy to focus attention on the Left's unqualified support for late term abortion on demand and refusal to support protection for those born alive. Instead, the extremists on the right are setting up a nice smoke screen for the extremists on the left.
    .
    The problem with the anti-abortion brigades is that they are acting with absolute moral certainty. That blinds them to details like strategy, effective argument, and compromise. They should be using the recent nonsense in New York and Virginia to make some progress in enacting the sort of restrictions the public supports and that will pass muster with the Supreme Court. Instead, they are overreaching and will likely succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

  39. MikeN,
    Sure, but it will still be instantly struck down by a district court, and there is a good chance the SC will refuse to review the lower court decision.
    .
    IMO, states that want to restrict abortion should just follow Roe more closely: legal restriction after the first trimester seems far more likely to be accepted by the SC than the heartbeat law. Besides, abortion will for certain remain legal in many states, and there is zero chance the SC or Congress will change that. Even if Roe were overturned, plenty of women who want an abortion will just travel to states where it is allowed. I find the Alabama law unlikely to stop any abortions (so ridiculous) and politically counterproductive to boot, because there is very broad popular support for availability of first trimester abortions. The lack of a rape/incest exception in the law is as sensible as the policies in the green new deal…. both are beyond bizarre.
    .
    When your policy position is opposed by 70% of voters, you will not win. Alabama should just give it a rest.

  40. MikeN (Comment #174826)

    The Alabama bill includes a section defining the unborn as a person.

    Other than claiming to create a definition of the term "person", what rights are conferred on the fetus. If it's a "person" can the mom go fill out a "conception certificate" to allow it to gain US citizenship? Will the state count it for the purpose of granting food stamps, or any other benefits a born baby might get? And so on?

    (Real questions. I haven't read the bill. But my guess is no…. I'd be interested in seeing if my guess is wrong.)

  41. SteveF, the often ignored case of Doe v Bolton took away much of the trimester regime of Roe. I agree that the Supreme Court is more likely to uphold smaller laws, and this is a more politically prudent move. Support for abortion rights went up considerably after Roe. Pro-life legislation over the past few decades has reduced pro-choice views substantially, to the point where the wording of a poll decides if the result is pro-life or pro-choice. I'm not convinced that 70% of the public, or even a majority, is against this law.

  42. Lucia, the law defines person within the context of the bill. I'm not sure if this really addresses Blackmun's statement.

    (7) UNBORN CHILD, CHILD or PERSON. A human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.

    There is also reference to a 2018 amendment to the state constitution that protected the unborn. I am unable to find this amendment in the mess that is the Alabama consitution.
    https://law.justia.com/constitution/alabama/

  43. I see it also defines "woman"!
    (8) WOMAN. A female human being, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.

  44. People always want to over-egg the pudding

    "(e) Abortion advocates speak to women's rights, but they ignore the unborn child, while medical science has increasingly recognized the humanity of the unborn child."

    *Science* cannot define "humanity". That's a categorical error.

  45. MikeN,
    >>I'm not convinced that 70% of the public, or even a majority, is against this law.
    .
    I went to look for statistics to refute you and essentially refuted myself. Pew does not appear to agree with gallup:
    .
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
    .
    https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
    .
    I don't know what to make of that. Unless "Legal only under certain" ==" Legal under most".. I think you may be right, it might be highly dependent on wording.

  47. MikeN (Comment #174830): "I'm not convinced that 70% of the public, or even a majority, is against this law."

    From what I have seen, something like 70% sounds about right for the proportion who support legality of first trimester abortion. And something closer to 90% oppose unrestricted third trimester abortion.

  48. Mike M,
    Yes, the support for availability of EARLY (first trimester) abortion is broad, deep, and consistent over decades. People who imagine that stoping early abortions everywhere is politically possible are simply not being rational. It may be possible to outlaw all abortions in a few (relatively low population) states, but nationally? No, that ship sailed decades ago. I understand the frustration of those sincerely opposed for moral reasons, but that frustration really doesn’t matter for the broader public. Like I said, they should just give it a rest. If the argument is a moral one, then make the moral argument as best they can, but they shiuldn’t get so far over their skis that a destructive crash is inevitable.

  49. SteveF
    >>but that frustration really doesn’t matter for the broader public.

    Of course not. Because the only way to relieve their frustration is to frustrate a different group. With many laws, one is going to frustrate someone.

    Yes: if someone's argument is moral they should make it. That's sort of why I commented on the Alabama act saying something about *science* defining humanity. The definition of *humanity* (in the sense meant by abortion activists) is outside the domain of science. Science can answer: Is a heart beating? Are there brainwaves? Is the DNA homo sapiens? And so on. None of that defines what "human" is because what "human" or "humanity" is are philosophical and moral judgments, not scientific ones.

    The difficulty for people who think abortion is wrong from the moment of conception is that *most other people disagree with them*. They are likely to continue to do so– just as they have for a long time. (I would suggest a "long time" means *millenia*, not decades.)

  50. lucia (Comment #174838): "The difficulty for people who think abortion is wrong from the moment of conception is that *most other people disagree with them*."

    I suspect that is not true, most people think abortion is wrong. But most people also think it is wrong to force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. So they see a need to balance the two that is not recognized by the extremists on either side.

  51. MikeM,
    I think you are mistaken in your claim about what most people believe. I think most people do not think abortion is wrong *from the moment of conception*. They actually think it becomes wrong at some point of development.

    Moreover, concepts about like the soul not entering until quickening and so on have existed a long, long time. So people not thinking it is wrong in early stages is long standing.

    Also: most people did not think miscarriages had the same emotional, moral or other force as death after birth. They never had funeral for miscarriages. They did not think of fetuses as having the same humanity as born babies. This is not a new idea.

  52. Lucia,
    “I think most people do not think abortion is wrong *from the moment of conception*. They actually think it becomes wrong at some point of development.”
    .
    Yes, that is why there is strong support for availability of early abortions. If that were not the case, then IVF clinics, where ‘excess’ fertilized eggs are routinely disgarded, would be subject to restrictions based on abortion laws. I do not believe they are, anywhere, and doubt they will ever be. The suggestion that a ball of 16 or 32 cells is a human being is not going to be broadly accepted.

  53. Of course, we do not generally morn other humans we have no attachment to when they die. We’d be completely overwhelmed if that was the case. We do not use that fact to argue they were lacking in humanity. Likewise, even after babies are born, emotional attachment can still take a good deal of time. A good argument could be made that babies in general “lack humanity” so I don’t think that feelings and nebulous concepts of “humanity” add much.
    .
    I’m fairly pro choice, but I really cannot deny that a bundle of cells, barring biological mishaps (which technically can also happen at any time even after birth), is still a human life. We just choose to believe it has no value until it reaches a certain point.

  54. JR,
    “Of course, we do not generally morn other humans we have no attachment to when they die.”
    .
    No, but we still punish murderers. Mouring and personal emotional attachment have nothing to do with it. Believing murder (or rape, or assalt…. etc) is wrong is a moral judgement. The disagreement about abortion is a moral disagreement. Is flushing an unwated ball of 32 cells down the drain at an IVF clinic morally the same as murdering a new-born child? I doubt many people think so.

  55. [Dave]JR,
    >>I’m fairly pro choice, but I really cannot deny that a bundle of cells, barring biological mishaps (which technically can also happen at any time even after birth), is still a human life. We just choose to believe it has no value until it reaches a certain point.
    .
    I agree with you. I actually do not have the courage of my convictions in this regard. I believe that what makes human life important is human consciousness and little else. What makes it complicated is that the fetus is, all things being equal, on the road to being born and eventually being conscious and therefore important. It's not like people don't have human rights when they are asleep for me; they happen to be unconscious for a brief interval but we expect them to wake up and come back.
    I don't believe any of this strongly enough to argue about it. I don't know what should be from a moral viewpoint. Heck, I'm not even sure what's best from a cold blooded policy standpoint / just trying to figure out societal impacts.

  56. lucia (Comment #174840): "I think you are mistaken in your claim about what most people believe."

    At the risk of getting into a pointless argument about what other people think, I'll take a stab at clarifying what I think the general opinion is. People don't see abortion as transition from not at all wrong to totally wrong at some particular point in time. I think they see it as becoming gradually more wrong.
    .
    lucia: "So people not thinking it is wrong in early stages is long standing."

    I don't think that is true. Certainly, the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion was wrong from conception. But as I understand it they used to make a distinction between before quickening and after; specifically, venal sin vs. mortal sin.
    .
    lucia: "They did not think of fetuses as having the same humanity as born babies. This is not a new idea."

    Definitely true. But they also did not think of the unborn as having no humanity.
    —–

    Addition: The old Clintonian formulation "safe, legal, and rare" implies that abortion is wrong, but not so wrong that it should be prohibited.

  57. I'll add, my first picture of my son was as a "bundle of cells", so I have a certain perspective on the issue that most others do not. I also saw the ones which didn't make it.
    .
    (Un)fortunately, there were no embryos left, so no decision is required as to their fate.

  58. Here is a poll that somewhat addresses the question of public views on the morality of abortion, as opposed to the legality:
    https://www.newsmax.com/US/poll-abortion-morally-wrong/2014/01/22/id/548443/

    "68 percent say that life begins within the first three months of conception with 53 percent of them stating that it actually starts upon conception."

    "50 percent said they were pro-choice and a similar number, 46 percent, said they were pro-life"

    So there are people who consider themselves pro-choice but who also think that life begins at conception. And at least some of those who are pro life appear to support the legality of abortion in at least some circumstances.
    .
    To me, this shows that people do not regard the issue as black-or-white, unlike the activists on either side.

    —————–
    Looking at specific questions, a couple struck me as especially interesting.

    "Which statement comes closer to your view: One, it is possible to have laws which protect both the health and well-being of a woman and the life of the unborn; or two, it is necessary for laws to choose to protect one and not the other?"
    84% said the law should protect both and only 12% said that the law must choose.

    That is a bit of a head scratcher. It suggests to me that people see the issue as a choice between wrongs.
    .
    "Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, do you believe that, in general, abortion is morally acceptable or morally wrong?"
    62% morally wrong, 36% morally acceptable, 2% not a moral issue.

    To me, "morally acceptable" does not mean "not morally wrong", although it includes that. It also includes "acceptable to avoid a greater wrong".

  60. MikeM,
    Thanks. I think this is the majority view, and has historically been the predominant view:

    *Many others, meanwhile, building on their muddled (but quite possibly accurate) moral intuitions, believe that while the fetus is a matter of relative moral indifference at the start of a pregnancy (in the first trimester), by some time in the second trimester, and certainly by the age of viability (which is constantly being pushed back by advances in medical expertise and technology), it develops into a being possessing full dignity and rights.*

    That's the view that aligned with the notion that abortion was ok before quickening, that we don't have funerals for miscarriages and so on. I'm not sure why he suggests it's a muddled view– but he does also indicate it might be accurate. Perhaps all he means by muddled is they haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it and have failed to write long scholarly articles on why their view is correct, but that's their view.

  61. MikeM
    **life begins at conception.**
    Sure. Life does. But flies and mosquitoes are alive. That doesn't mean people think it's morally wrong to snuff mosquitoes.

    You need to be careful about not assuming that answer to question "X" is the same as answer to question "Y". If the question of when "life" begins was the only one involved in defining when "humanity" is infused or when it became immoral to end life, then the circumstances where abortion is immoral would be a scientific question. It's not a scientific question.

  62. MikeM
    **ucia: "So people not thinking it is wrong in early stages is long standing."

    I don't think that is true. Certainly, the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion was wrong from conception. But as I understand it they used to make a distinction between before quickening and after; specifically, venal sin vs. mortal sin.**
    And yet, the penance was smaller if done before "ensolement" which many considered to happen after conception. (And in fact penance appears to have been sufficient. Penance is sufficient for lying too.)

    Since *many, many, many* things were considered wrong (and often tacitly allowed), the "Church" thinking something is "wrong" doesn't mean people all thought this was very wrong, that most members of the church thought it was horribly wrong and so on.

  63. lucia,

    I think we very nearly, if not completely, agree; except maybe as to semantics. I think you are saying that people generally think that abortion is less wrong early in pregnancy and more wrong later in pregnancy; I agree. Rules require lines (fetal heartbeat, quickening, birth) but most people don't seem to think that way. I am not sure if you are saying that there is a point before which most people think abortion is not at all wrong, as opposed to wrong but permissible to avoid a greater wrong. I am doubtful that is the case, except maybe for a blastocyst. I am guessing that most people probably think that it is at least a little bit wrong to abort an embryo and I am pretty sure that is the case for a fetus.

  64. MikeM,
    Well…by "less wrong" I'm not sure people would necessarily call it "wrong" if they were allowed to just pick their own words. Many things are neither right nor wrong. So for example: if pressed to say whether buying lotto tickets was "right or wrong" without being allowed the alternative of "neither" or "huh?", many people would pick "wrong" rather than "right". But what they really think is it's stupid or foolish. With abortion, I think many people think it's sub-optimal (you should have used birth control or not fooled around) or it's sad. But "wrong" isn't *really* what they think.

    * I am guessing that most people probably think that it is at least a little bit wrong to abort an embryo and I am pretty sure that is the case for a fetus.*

    I would agree with this only if by "wrong" you mean "sad, foolish or sub-optimal". Otherwise, I think most people think it's neither right nor wrong.

  65. lucia (Comment #174853): "Many things are neither right nor wrong."

    True. And some people say that abortion is one of those things. I *think* that most people disagree.
    .
    lucia: "if pressed to say whether buying lotto tickets was "right or wrong" without being allowed the alternative of "neither" or "huh?", many people would pick "wrong" rather than "right"."

    But that would be a result of forcing people into a false dichotomy. Few would answer "yes" if simply asked if it is wrong to buy lottery tickets. And even fewer if you specified "morally wrong".
    .
    lucia: "I would agree with this only if by "wrong" you mean "sad, foolish or sub-optimal". Otherwise, I think most people think it's neither right nor wrong."

    OK. We disagree on that. I think that you are right as to the opinions of highly educated, non-church-going professionals. But the rest of the population thinks very differently.

  66. MikeM
    *But that would be a result of forcing people into a false dichotomy.* Yes. That's my point. I think people are often asked questions about abortion in a context that creates a false dichotomy. Some writing surveys design them this way *intentionally* to provide misleading survey results. Others do so unintentionally. But it happens.

    *you are right as to the opinions of highly educated, non-church-going professionals*
    Uhmmm I know many not-highly educated people. I know some churchgoing who agree with me. I have not done a survey– but I've known quite a few regular church goers who do NOT think early abortion is "wrong" in a sense other than 'sad, unwise, foolish'. To the extent that it is "wrong" it is *no more* wrong than "bringing an unwanted child into the world" and so on. So, at the juncture where a pregnant women considering an abortion sits, the definition of "wrong" being used means all possible choices are "wrong".

    *But the rest of the population thinks very differently.*
    Some people think differently. I think it's the minority. In some places, they shut their mouth and edit their opinions.

  67. lucia (Comment #174855): "I think people are often asked questions about abortion in a context that creates a false dichotomy."

    I agree. Which is why we can't really resolve this by reference to surveys. Or by arguing. So I guess we leave it there.

  69. I feel like it's important to tell y'all that over roughly fifteen thousand (15,000) murders go unsolved a year in the US according to the FBI, and I can exonerate *none of you* here at the Blackboard of committing them. I can exonerate none of you of *ANY* of those thousands and thousands of murders. Not to mention all of the other various and sundry unsolved crimes in our nation.
    .
    It sort of boggles the mind when you think about it, the more you dwell on it… Thousands of murders, and AFAICT any of you could've done one or more of them. I can't prove otherwise. And the more I go on talking about it and thinking about it, the more ominous it seems.
    .
    I've tried to schedule a press conference to announce this, but somehow the local news doesn't seem to think this is interesting. Go figure; some people get all the press.

Comments are closed.