tuco lives in an alternate universe. You can't engage in rational discourse with him because he lives in his own little word with it's own facts and logic. I'm sure hillary is the president and perhaps some illegal is the VP and if he really gets his way, he can sit around in a diaper all day, or perhaps a furry outfit.

done

Ad hominem, Kaos. Try logic. We can handle it.

Nice medium puzzle.

One controversial topic I'd actually like to see discussed in this international forum is the concept of the "New World Order" which HGWells in his 1940s book described as a socialist, unified, one-world government. Many have since used the phrase to indicate global governance, some with a positive connotation and some with a negative connotation. How would you define "the new world order" and is that concept something world leaders should strive for ? Why or why not? Debate please, and let's try to keep name-calling and ad-hominem attacks out of the discussion.

My opinion is that each of the competing international interests (humanitarian, corporate, nationalist, and probably some others) apply the label "New World Order" to disparage counter-interests.

I'm generally opposed to all of the extremists on this. The interests are real and are not going away. I would like to see some balance, where trade is real and taxed in a fair fashion, humans from all origins are respected and treated fairly, the environment is protected to benefit current and future humans and corporations, and national borders are respected but not militarized. Probably an impossible, utopian combination.

I'm obviously not able to offer a concise definition.

Thank you MrOo, I do not believe KT is even familiar with Bloodlands. I know I've said this before, but I continue to be impressed by the scope of your knowledge, as well as the depth of your research.

I'm wondering why I'm having so much trouble with this puzzle, why it isn't a click-fest - then I see it's a 'medium' (translates into expert), I thought it was an easy - sigh.

It started out smoothly, now I'm loading it up wityh greens ;)

TK - Me too!

Me three

lol

Haven't actually done the greens yet, but it looks inevitable.

I'm done. Might have been doable without the greens, but I couldn't find 'it.'

Good luck

LOL, I get lazy... ;)

Thanks HK. I'm sure I'll need them soon.

Nice to see you here Dorens, you don't chat much these days :)

HA! :)

DING. Two pretty hard to spot virtuals and a unique rectangle (which might not have been needed.) 22.

ஜ۩۞۩ஜ C.O.M.P.L.E.T.E.D ஜ۩۞۩ஜ

done

Sorry Kate, I was gone. And if you mean I don't chat much anymore on babble, yes you're absolutely right. Sudoku has never really been a big chat site. (But I did get involved when I felt necessary).

done - I tried to do without greens but, like helenkeller, just couldn't find "it"

SJ - I said it was a court settlement, not a law. The law is that people entering this country without passports are detained and sent back. Or, if they ask for asylum, they are detained until the legitimacy of the request is determined, then either allowed to stay or sent back. Since the court (in the Flores Settlement Agreement) decreed that children could not be detained in the immigration detention facilities when parents seeking asylum bring their children they must be separated.

Trump asked Congress to pass a law to fix this (e.g. essentially overturn the courts or find some other way that children may be detained with their parents). Congress did nothing. It seems to me both the Republicans and the Democrats can share the blame for that.