Argentina really only has its internal politics to blame. Unlike the rest of Latin America, they weren't just a hacienda for United Fruit agricultural exports, they had a large, Eurocentric population (and in the first half of the 20th century, probably a European *educated* population) and a reasonable basis for creating a self-sustaining internal economy neither overdependent nor incapable of exports or imports.

Extractive economies, especially oil states, never seem to use the financial windfall to develop non-oil economies. It's almost always used for dubious modernization efforts (ie, building underutilized skyscraper cities), buying poltiical loyalty, building up an unsustainable and outsized military or subsidizing prices for staple foods, fuel and substandard housing.

All of these probably have convincing arguments -- you can't attract business without modern office space (and bonus, we get to develop a construction sector that can build more than cinderblock and tin shacks), you need political stability to develop an economy, you need military security from your neighbor (plus developing military bases furthers your construction industry goals, making weapons improves your manufacturing base), and making food, fuel and housing available *now* is both popular and a humanist policy.

But they almost never develop sustainable *economies* that do anything else. I can't think of one thing Saudi Arabia does besides sell oil and they have probably taken in a trillion dollars in profit. Given quite literally "more money than God" why haven't they been able to buy their way into pharma, water purification, semiconductors, information technology, polymers, agriculture, shipbuilding, or any other industry that has grown up in the last 75 years? They have been politically stable, have good trade relations with the West and are at the geographic crossroads between the East and West.

Yet all they have to show for it is a bloated aristocracy, ridiculous overbuilt cities, a high tech military they can barely operate let alone fix or make parts for.

I think the fear aspect is hard to over state, especially if a threat of violence is made and especially if the threat of violence is actually demonstrated with even the slightest show of *actual* violence coupled with an obvious power imbalence, like a larger, stronger man grabbing a woman by the neck.

I don't remember where I read it or even if it is actually true, but I have read that women's vaginas respond physically to accomodate intercourse even when they don't want it, some kind of leftover (well, leftover in a modern sense) mechanism to protect them from serious injury from forced intercourse.

If that's true, then the enitre response pattern I hypothesized about the woman I originally posted about makes sense and is believable.

25-30 is considered overweight, not obese. It used to be that <27.5 was considered normal but the standards were redefined in the late 90s.

If TFA is to be believed, his craft wouldn't meet the requirements of an ultralight aircraft:

From TFA: According to court documents, Hughes rented a car and towed his gyrocopter from Florida to an airfield in Gettysburg, Pa. He chose the location for its proximity to the Capitol -- about an hour away and reachable on the aircraft's 10-gallon fuel tank -- and the fact that it was an uncontrolled airport, according to a criminal complaint.

You do realize the link you offered lists about twenty things that he did wrong? Here's the big one:

The banishment is part of his conditions of release and will expire whenever the criminal case is concluded. Nothing to see there. As far as "YEARS," well, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines don't have a specific section for this offense, so it falls under the other felony offenses section, which says that 18 U.S. Code 3553 is controlling.

Assuming he has no criminal record, my educated guess would be he stands a decent chance of doing no time. If he gets a prison sentence it will be 366 days, which is SOP is the Federal system because it gives the defendant a chance to earn early release. He'll also be required to forfeit the gyro-copter and any other property used in the commission of the offense, pay court costs, and possibly a fine.

You've got a lot of faith in Uncle Sam if you think the left hand (whomever reads info@barackobama.com) talks to the right hand (FAA, NORAD, USSS, and a few other agencies in the alphabet soup)

Heck, it's not even a Government address, it's BHO's campaign organization's address.

It's not a "ban" per say, it's a condition of his release pending trial. No different than the Judge telling you that you can't leave your house except for work, must submit to drug testing, or the myriad other requirements that are imposed on people who don't get pre-trial confinement. The alternative to accepting the conditions of release is to go to jail and sit there for a few months while the wheels of justice grind forward.

They obviously slipped a healthy dose of stupidity into whatever refreshing beverage was being consumed by the Seahawk's Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator.

Let me guess, problems with their electrical systems? :D

I got the joke. It was a lame attempt to one-up you.

I would also lament the what could have been part of Wikileaks, though I don't understand why it still can't be? What stops the people who were sidelined by Assange from simply "forking" the project and launching their own endeavor?

What do you think feminists (or anyone, for that matter) can realistically do about women living in oppressive conditions outside of the West? Are you willing to enlist for the army of occupation we'd need to send to the Middle East and Africa? I'm not. I doubt many feminists are either.

Because that doesn't require any social engineering.

If they cared about that they'd find a better BDFL than Assange. Love him or hate him, he seems to be adept at making himself the story, which is the last thing you want if you're an organization like Wikileaks.