BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
NEITHER CHINA NOR RUSSIA ARE MERE CONSPIRACIES
"...Paranoia dominates the thinking of both the left and the right today; both see their world at risk from vast conspiracies...." DK
hursday, July 27, 2017
RATHER AN INTERESTING SUMMARY though I don't go along with Rothbard etc I'm on the other side
FEE
The New Deal of World Trade
A Caicedo
Much has been said about the ideological origins of the postwar world trade order, but few words have been written on the ideological background of its framers, a group of Progressive lawyers and economists working secretly on the postwar planning committees of the State Department during World War II. Their panacea had little in common with Richard Cobden’s or Frédéric Bastiat’s free-trade teachings. They wanted trade relations regulated through global bureaucratic agencies—in Murray Rothbard’s words, through “the mercantilist-managerial apparatus of global economic control.” Their ideological footprint is still deeply embedded in the system.
Undoubtedly, their intention to curb commercial protectionism was sincere. Most of them grew up watching the direct relation between the “high Republican tariffs” and the power of trusts. (“The tariff is the mother of trusts,” it was said.) Moreover, they witnessed the devastating consequences of the Smoot-Hawley Act (1930) and saw with great hope the openness brought by the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. Nonetheless, they also idealized the federal leviathan as the main source of restraint of the power of trusts. Protectionism was for them just one part of a failing status quo. They envisaged an active government that would guarantee “freedom from want” to the “great mass.” The war, to use Robert Higgs’s term, was the kind of crisis they were waiting for to take leviathan up to a supranational level.
This paradox is incarnated in the “father of the world trade system,” Roosevelt’s secretary of state, Cordell Hull. He was a southern Democrat whose whole life was devoted to curbing the power of the protectionist factions in the North. He is also known as the “father of the income tax,” which many hoped would replace the tariff as a source of revenue. In 1917 Hull, then in the House of Representatives, had a decisive role in supporting the legal reform that brought the first permanent American income tax, which enabled President Woodrow Wilson to finance participation in World War I.
Under Hull’s leadership the State Department formed secret committees at the beginning of World War II to start planning the institutional order of the Pax Americana. These groups counted on financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation and logistic assistance from the Council on Foreign Relations. Their work was carefully documented by Harley A. Notter in Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939–1945 (1949). As Notter wrote, the task was to consider the following questions: “What does the United States want? What do other states want? How do we obtain what we want?”
One thing was certain for them: “the anticipated fact that this country—emerging from the victory with tremendous power—would have profound new responsibilities in connection with practically all vital problems of world affairs and would have to state a policy or at least express an attitude on such problems.”
Back then “to state a policy” normally meant massive government intervention through regulatory bodies. At the international level this would mean, as Professor George A. Finch suggested in 1937, that “a ‘new deal’ in international relations . . . would seem to be worth trying.”
The committee planners saw the history of the international realm in terms analogous to the history of the United States. The question “How do we obtain what we want?” had a clear answer: Let’s give to the world a federal pact that would restrict protectionism among nations, as the Commerce Clause did among the states of the Union; moreover let’s also create a centralized international bureaucracy that would assure a harmonious economic order inspired by the New Deal.
A Global Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution served as the perfect analogy. The “dormant commerce clause” doctrine permitted the commercial unity of the country. Traditionally the Supreme Court has interpreted article I, Section 8, Clause 3 as a mandate against discriminatory measures taken by the state governments that would imperil the free traffic of goods and services across their frontiers. In other words, that clause has worked as a free-trade charter. (It should be pointed out that the 13 states essentially had a free-trade zone under the Articles of Confederation.)
Why not try a global commerce clause then? The planners only had to take the same rationale one step further, to the international level. This position was clearly stated in 1943 by Charles Bunn, an adviser to the State Department and protégé of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. In an address delivered to the American Political Science Association, Bunn quoted the words of the intellectual icon of Progressive jurists, Oliver Wendell Holmes:
I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States. For one in my place sees how often local policy prevails with those who are not trained for national view and how often action is taken that embodies what the Commerce Clause was meant to end.
Bunn then added, arguing in favor of the postwar plans: “The world has grown smaller since Holmes spoke. ‘What the Commerce Clause was meant to end’ has become a burning question between nations. The men who try to solve that question and the people who give them power and support must indeed be trained for more than local views.”
During those years the Commerce Clause was decisive in defining the spheres of exclusive jurisdiction between the states and the federal government. According to Progressive lawyers, the growing power of the corporations had to be controlled at the national level since local officials were not able to control the almighty trusts. They demanded from the Supreme Court a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause to permit nationwide intervention in those realms that had been traditionally under the power of state governments. A “living constitution” must evolve with the “economic reality” of industrial capitalism, they maintained. In that spirit the New Deal lawyer Robert L. Stern had written an influential piece in the Harvard Law Review defining the Commerce Clause as “the great unifying clause of the Constitution.”
We can find the same analogy Bunn drew in many works of the scholars who influenced the framing of the postwar project. Among the best known is Clarence K. Streit’s Union Now (1939), which had a huge impact on the foreign-policy establishment. Streit defended the idea of an Atlantic federation that would form a “union customs-free economy,” resembling the historical example of the American Constitution. In Streit’s own words: “It is the kind of interstate government that Lincoln, to distinguish it from the opposing type of government of, by and for states, called ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people.’ It is the way that I call Union.”
Economic Union
Directly influential on the designing of the world trade regime was Otto Todd Mallery’s book Economic Union and Durable Peace (1943). Mallery was among the leading advocates of interventionist federal policies. (See Murray N. Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, chapter 7). Inspired by Streit, Mallery saw a clear analogy with the opus of the constitutional framers. His book advocated an economic union among nations, governed by an international board structured on the model of the International Labor Organization:
Let Economic Union become the American way of life. “Union” is a glorious word in American history. “The Union, it must be formed,” said the Founding Fathers. “The Union, it must be preserved,” said Andrew Jackson in glowing words. “The Union for-ever,” echoed the boys of 1861 with lusty fervor. To “Union” prefix “Economic.” Not yet is “Economic Union” charged with the same emotion, for it has not been died for, or even lived for.
The Progressive intelligentsia made crystal clear that they wanted a technocratic world government, modeled after the New Deal agencies. Max Lerner (many times adviser to the State Department and in later years a vocal opponent of what he called “the Mises-Hayek school”) could not have been clearer in a widely read 1941 essay:
The American Constitution, with its emphasis upon separate powers . . . is a poor model for a world state. . . . The essence of government today is to be found in a fusion between the consultative, the technical, and the administrative. . . . [T]he measure of our capacity to survive has been our capacity to move away from our earlier Congressional government and our later government by judiciary, toward a newer executive and administrative process. What is true of the American national state must be even truer of the world centralism we are envisaging.
In 1934 Leland Rex Robinson, a member of the Tariff Commission, while writing in favor of Hull’s reforms of trade policy also summarized its underlying ideological consensus: “The so-called ‘liberal’ of a hundred years ago was busy repealing restrictions which limited the gainful activities and discouraged the enterprise of individuals. The ‘liberal’ of today is more likely to be busy thinking out new schemes of political control.”
This ideological environment surrounded the work of the postwar committees of the State Department. Major academic publications, such as the American Journal of International Law and the American Political Science Review, were in those days full of projects for international bureaucratic organizations. Many intellectuals involved in the debate were in close contact with the committees or became members themselves.
The conceptual reference for the work of the postwar planners was the Atlantic Charter of 1941. That treaty—signed by the U.S. and British governments as a prewar arrangement—was aimed, according to its own text, at securing “the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security.” As Elizabeth Borgwardt wrote in her book A New Deal for the World (2005), the “framing of the Atlantic Charter echoed [the] New Deal-inspired synthesis of political and economic provisions.”
The project for a new trade order saw the light of day in 1945 with the “Proposals for Consideration by an International Conference on International Trade and Employment,” known also as the “American Proposal.” Not surprisingly, the proposal called for the creation of an international organization aimed not only at controlling commercial disputes between nations but also at “curbing the restrictive trade practices resulting from private international business arrangements.” The result was the Havana Charter of 1947, which mandated the creation of the International Trade Organization (ITO), something like a worldwide Federal Trade Commission. The American economist Clair Wilcox, chairman of the Havana conference, put it boldly when he wrote that the principles of the Charter were fully compatible with those of “the Sherman Act of 1890 as interpreted by the Supreme Court under the rule of reason.”
Fortunately, the Havana Charter was never ratified by the U.S. Congress and the ITO never was created. That saved us from a worldwide “fatal conceit,” as Hayek would have put it. However, the members of GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) used this provisional protocol as a plan B for many decades, until the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. The WTO was the final fulfillment of a suspended project. This international agency has served to foster corporate interests from the United States and the European Union, favoring free trade on occasion. More often it has been useful for imposing “intellectual property” protectionism on poor countries, while legitimizing agricultural protectionism in rich ones.
Instead of Cobden-Bastiat-Mises-Hayek free trade, we’ve had Hull-Mallery-Lerner managed trade, the fulfillment of the New Deal on an international level.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
RE THE MARKET CALITALIST WORLD OF EDUCATION AND EXPERTISE SHARING
"....Today's universities have an insatiable appetite for cash, and thereby have to cater, in dozens of ways, to those who can provide it. Quite a few, including my own alma mater Harvard, have turned their endowments into hedge funds and thus experienced both the pre-2007 boom and the disastrous 2008 crash. (To be fair, Harvard's endowment just reported a flat year, indicating that its new manager, Janet Mendillo, has in fact adopted much more conservative strategies.) Dr. Hubbard's career is another example of how they function as one side of a triangle that also includes the financial services sector and government...." David Kaiser
I would add that, re our higher educational system, we have systematically given away what Randall Collins calls cultural capital to underdeveloped countries whose goal is to pull abreast and then overtake us.
Our laissez faire higher educational system, though an enormous market capitalist bubble for us, has frankly been of less benefit to Americans than to foreigners in recent decades.
In this sense it has paralleled our market capitalist corporate commercial and industrial sectors closely,
and, once again, according to analogous principles as Collins has pointed out.
The internet has facilitated this trend, a technology which, once again, we also pioneered, then offered to them as well.
Never, in the history of human conflict,
has so much been given away,
by so few,
to so many,
for so little,
so rapidly. Paraphrasing Churchill.
I should point out, parenthetically, that my inferences from some of Collins' views would not be shared by him, based on some of his views, eg that 'we are all one, under the skin', things like that.....
although this seems to me inconsistent with his theory of change as based on conflict, it is what it is apparently, for him.
I would add that, re our higher educational system, we have systematically given away what Randall Collins calls cultural capital to underdeveloped countries whose goal is to pull abreast and then overtake us.
Our laissez faire higher educational system, though an enormous market capitalist bubble for us, has frankly been of less benefit to Americans than to foreigners in recent decades.
In this sense it has paralleled our market capitalist corporate commercial and industrial sectors closely,
and, once again, according to analogous principles as Collins has pointed out.
The internet has facilitated this trend, a technology which, once again, we also pioneered, then offered to them as well.
Never, in the history of human conflict,
has so much been given away,
by so few,
to so many,
for so little,
so rapidly. Paraphrasing Churchill.
I should point out, parenthetically, that my inferences from some of Collins' views would not be shared by him, based on some of his views, eg that 'we are all one, under the skin', things like that.....
although this seems to me inconsistent with his theory of change as based on conflict, it is what it is apparently, for him.
CLASSIC POST AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
A 'HOBSON'S CHOICE': PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC ENTERPRISE
Actually a 'Morton's Fork', but who understands the fine distinctions? (See the famous Tarzan, Edgar Rice Burroughs litigation, for a judicial example.)
Americans have often been told, usually by politicians, who need to pay back private corporate political supporters, that a good way to handle such and such a problem is to return it to the private sector, or to give a tax break, incentive, or credit, etc., to the private sector, which is more efficient and virtuous than government.
On the other hand, Americans have been told by other politicians, who are catering to a different but equally deluded patronage, that a certain initiative needs to be undertaken by government, that a new government agency, department, or blue ribbon committee, is necessary or merely very beneficial in this case.
Americans need to be advised that American, federal, state, and local, publicly administered programs are generally matched in ineffeciency, ineptitude, and corruption, by American private sector business enterprises, small, medium, and MNC sized, regardless of the private industry or sector. There are well founded reasons for this, based on the history of the structures and relations between the public and private sectors. Aug 17, 2010."
fn May 1, 2019 "A Hobson's Choice versus a Morton's Fork".......
Rumpole, an Old Bailey trial lawyer barrister hack, would disparage such a distinction, and the erudite judges who make them, as a "fine point of law".
Friday, August 20, 2010
RE APPEASING THE BOND GODS EDITORIAL: KRUGMAN TURNS OUT TO HAVE CARTOON WRITING POTENTIAL: LETS TALK ENDGAME
I had no idea there was this kind of latent talent lurking beneath the surface.
EVEN THOUGH MY LAST POST DISCUSSED INFLATION/DEFLATION TALK AS RED HERRINGS, AND PREVIOUS POSTS WENT INTO MISES EN SCENE FOR A ILIADIAN MYTHOLOGICAL MORTON'S FORK ODYSSEUAN SITUATION, FOR BERNANKE,
This turn of Krugman's, toward cruder, tribal, paradigms,
reminiscent of discussions one might have had back in London at King's, with Professor Winch, who wrote so insightfully regarding foibles of the then social sciences, and especially sociology and anthropology,
is a welcome breath of fresh air.
Never mind the truth of what he says, of which there no doubt is some, here in America; just let the images take over.
One can refer to old Tarzan films to capture a glimpse of some of those 'rites'.
If you read some accounts of, say, Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande you get a flavor for how witches were handled by the Azande.
Winch wrote an important article, as philosophers' articles go, called "Understanding a Primitive Society", in which he discussed the concept of rationality 'comparatively', so to speak.
Perhaps Krugman will get to an explanation of the tribal 'rationality' of economic human sacrifice, in post industrial societies, and other less fortunate ones.
This was not that far beyond the pale for 'political-economists' of the 19th Century, at the time when these 'disciplines' were considered, quite properly, institutionally closer together.
RE END GAME: One of the lurking problems, for the old, Collingwoodian absolute presupposition 'greatest good for the greatest numbers' is that, with increasing labor saving techniques, ever increasing productivity technology, resource scarcity, smart weapons replacing soldiers, national and civilizational rivalries, etc., the 'greatest numbers' seems likely to be a rapidly shrinking number, globally.
The question then is, where will the sacrificial ax of 'economic tribal rationality' fall hardest, on excess superfluous populations, 'harmful much more than helpful' for future regimes, ('excess labor capacity') seemingly everywhere?
One difficulty, which always seems to lurk in the background, for anyone trying to articulate some more general 'insight' within a nevertheless particular specialized field,
while also, implicitly, inferentially, analogically, anecdotally even, being called upon, somehow, to grapple with some larger framework, perhaps merely illustrative, for understanding the course of 'politics', 'current events', or 'current history', but technically only why things are happening in the way they are in this field, while coming from usually only that one field, often strictly academic,
is the woeful inadequacy of that background to comprehend other entire dimensions lost on members of only one specialized field.
Leaving the endgame discussion:
Mise en scene, a propos Krugman's editorial, why not the Bond Gods as Cyclops?
One could depict the one harrassing Odysseus, who exacts a crewman every time he comes back to the cave, as a great cartoon.
Cyclops were not very smart, eg "'No man' is hurting me," Odysseus' 'name', told to other cyclops re why he was in pain.
Cyclops were also, like the current Bond Gods, as a group, real meanies!
EVEN THOUGH MY LAST POST DISCUSSED INFLATION/DEFLATION TALK AS RED HERRINGS, AND PREVIOUS POSTS WENT INTO MISES EN SCENE FOR A ILIADIAN MYTHOLOGICAL MORTON'S FORK ODYSSEUAN SITUATION, FOR BERNANKE,
This turn of Krugman's, toward cruder, tribal, paradigms,
reminiscent of discussions one might have had back in London at King's, with Professor Winch, who wrote so insightfully regarding foibles of the then social sciences, and especially sociology and anthropology,
is a welcome breath of fresh air.
Never mind the truth of what he says, of which there no doubt is some, here in America; just let the images take over.
One can refer to old Tarzan films to capture a glimpse of some of those 'rites'.
If you read some accounts of, say, Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande you get a flavor for how witches were handled by the Azande.
Winch wrote an important article, as philosophers' articles go, called "Understanding a Primitive Society", in which he discussed the concept of rationality 'comparatively', so to speak.
Perhaps Krugman will get to an explanation of the tribal 'rationality' of economic human sacrifice, in post industrial societies, and other less fortunate ones.
This was not that far beyond the pale for 'political-economists' of the 19th Century, at the time when these 'disciplines' were considered, quite properly, institutionally closer together.
RE END GAME: One of the lurking problems, for the old, Collingwoodian absolute presupposition 'greatest good for the greatest numbers' is that, with increasing labor saving techniques, ever increasing productivity technology, resource scarcity, smart weapons replacing soldiers, national and civilizational rivalries, etc., the 'greatest numbers' seems likely to be a rapidly shrinking number, globally.
The question then is, where will the sacrificial ax of 'economic tribal rationality' fall hardest, on excess superfluous populations, 'harmful much more than helpful' for future regimes, ('excess labor capacity') seemingly everywhere?
One difficulty, which always seems to lurk in the background, for anyone trying to articulate some more general 'insight' within a nevertheless particular specialized field,
while also, implicitly, inferentially, analogically, anecdotally even, being called upon, somehow, to grapple with some larger framework, perhaps merely illustrative, for understanding the course of 'politics', 'current events', or 'current history', but technically only why things are happening in the way they are in this field, while coming from usually only that one field, often strictly academic,
is the woeful inadequacy of that background to comprehend other entire dimensions lost on members of only one specialized field.
Leaving the endgame discussion:
Mise en scene, a propos Krugman's editorial, why not the Bond Gods as Cyclops?
One could depict the one harrassing Odysseus, who exacts a crewman every time he comes back to the cave, as a great cartoon.
Cyclops were not very smart, eg "'No man' is hurting me," Odysseus' 'name', told to other cyclops re why he was in pain.
Cyclops were also, like the current Bond Gods, as a group, real meanies!
FORTUNATELY BERNARD MOST OF OUR JOURNALISTS ARE SO INCOMPETENT THEY'D HAVE THE GRAVEST DIFFICULTY FINDING OUT THAT THIS IS WEDNESDAY
Yes, Minister. The Compassionate Society
SENIOR BENEFITS TERRORIST FUNDING CALL CENTERS WILL GIVE YOU A FAUX ADDRESS TO COME OVER
They need to be terminated with extreme prejudice.
FOR MY RUSSIAN GUESTS
If the Rooskies are in our elections in a hostile belligerent espionage way, as Liberace Leonhardt assures the American public that they are, why not simply and quietly take them out.
Not bomb them out.
Certainly not poison them out with nuclear material: disaster!
Don't even bother to shoot them out. Too obvious, even.
Do what the Rooskies used to do, what they arranged for Patton: hit them with a truck!
The last thing you do is bring them to justice, so Putin can grandstand on how wronged they have been.
It is really already too late to do much......
Moscow will dictate the terms of shared (temporarily) domination of the West to China, rather than the other way round.
Not bomb them out.
Certainly not poison them out with nuclear material: disaster!
Don't even bother to shoot them out. Too obvious, even.
Do what the Rooskies used to do, what they arranged for Patton: hit them with a truck!
The last thing you do is bring them to justice, so Putin can grandstand on how wronged they have been.
It is really already too late to do much......
Moscow will dictate the terms of shared (temporarily) domination of the West to China, rather than the other way round.
ROBOCALL FRAUDSTER CENTERS CRIME IS AN EMANATION OF TERRORISM FUNDING NOW
Why waffle back and forth about chicken shit Facebook so called hate postings.
Why?
Go after real IS terrorist funding call center sites that now totally infest and overwhelm the average American on a phone line.
To the government internet security community, not NYT's Josephine..., if you can't identify and target terrorist funding sites, why pay your salary?
Reminds me of 9/11, we actually housed and trained them to fly, at places like PIE, an airport I actually represented.
They used our planes, as they are now using our money from robocall center sites, to fund terrorism.
Why?
Go after real IS terrorist funding call center sites that now totally infest and overwhelm the average American on a phone line.
To the government internet security community, not NYT's Josephine..., if you can't identify and target terrorist funding sites, why pay your salary?
Reminds me of 9/11, we actually housed and trained them to fly, at places like PIE, an airport I actually represented.
They used our planes, as they are now using our money from robocall center sites, to fund terrorism.
FAN WEI NEEDS A CHEAP QUICK EXECUTION
Foreign nationals caught trafficking, especially Russian or American nationals, need abrupt extermination.
Why shouldn't China arbitrarily apply the death penalty?
Why?
Death sentences, wherever meted out, are inherently arbitrary in one way or another, otherwise they wouldn't be death sentences!
They need to be O' HARA D
Huawei executives, their IT perfidy found out, deserve the chance for an honorable death, Hara Kiri, whatever the Chinese do.
Why shouldn't China arbitrarily apply the death penalty?
Why?
Death sentences, wherever meted out, are inherently arbitrary in one way or another, otherwise they wouldn't be death sentences!
They need to be O' HARA D
Huawei executives, their IT perfidy found out, deserve the chance for an honorable death, Hara Kiri, whatever the Chinese do.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
THE LYNCH MOB IDENTIFICATION IMPROV
This was another theme I was able to use, with devastating effect, on what had seemed, to the prosecution, a quite good case....
I don't recall whether it came out of the holster in the arson case, but there was ample evidence in that case to have unsheathed it.
I represented a lot of black folk who knew the score. They knew they were fucked. They had prior records. They had been offered so called good deals, rather than go to trial.
They had taken them, once or twice, or more; thinking that was better than going out against the likes of Hanging Harry Coe, something like that.
Maybe they had a point, a half ass chicken shit defense, or more likely a plea so called bargain, at the last minute, shit like that.
With me, they somehow learned, call it through the grape vine, that they had a maybe better than 50 50 chance to win. Some of them took it.
I represented a lot of black folk who knew the score. They knew they were fucked. They had prior records. They had been offered so called good deals, rather than go to trial.
They had taken them, once or twice, or more; thinking that was better than going out against the likes of Hanging Harry Coe, something like that.
Maybe they had a point, a half ass chicken shit defense, or more likely a plea so called bargain, at the last minute, shit like that.
With me, they somehow learned, call it through the grape vine, that they had a maybe better than 50 50 chance to win. Some of them took it.
LIBERACE GLOBALIST BIGOT RE FACEBOOK
He calls out Trump ads that are not only not illegal, but not even immoral, or any different from American politics business as usual.
If the NYT uses a woman or a negro to tell you the NYT tells the truth, what is the difference?
If the NYT uses a woman or a negro to tell you the NYT tells the truth, what is the difference?
ANCESTRYDNA TEST COMING UP I THOUGHT I WAS PART INDIAN WHO KNOWS MAYBE IM PART NEGRO!
Regardless, and although I don't really look it, I am also a fricking "person of color". Some color. A little dab 'll do ya.
Not as much as Oprah (who needs more, to be credible as pure African stock), maybe as much as Elvis; to both of whom I may be distantly related, through both Persons and Presleys, but a smidgen of color. Trust me.
Until Oprah, no one had ever heard of the Persons. She is a descendant of a white Person master. Trust me.
Everyone had heard of the Presleys, but their lineage has ostensibly been short, somehow. They are known to have indian blood. No one has heard of my Presleys.
Not as much as Oprah (who needs more, to be credible as pure African stock), maybe as much as Elvis; to both of whom I may be distantly related, through both Persons and Presleys, but a smidgen of color. Trust me.
Until Oprah, no one had ever heard of the Persons. She is a descendant of a white Person master. Trust me.
Everyone had heard of the Presleys, but their lineage has ostensibly been short, somehow. They are known to have indian blood. No one has heard of my Presleys.
Monday, April 29, 2019
SUFFRAGE IS THE OPIATE OF THE LIBERAL MASSES
What else, frankly, now, is any longer left, for them, for ever and ever?
Nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.
The Grand Inquisitor
LIBERACE LIONHARD TALKS DEMOCRAT DOUGLAS TAR BABY TAXES
Forget it.
You are stuck to a fricking tar baby forever!
Try to figure out why you're stuck.
Let me tell you something: you will never get out.
Rather like Lincoln jamming the nationalization of negroes up Douglas' ass.
Lincoln made negroes Douglas' tar baby, just like modern Republicans have made taxes modern Democrats' tar baby.
Lincoln jammed negroes so far up Douglas' ass his eyes were the color purple!
You are stuck to a fricking tar baby forever!
Try to figure out why you're stuck.
Let me tell you something: you will never get out.
Rather like Lincoln jamming the nationalization of negroes up Douglas' ass.
Lincoln made negroes Douglas' tar baby, just like modern Republicans have made taxes modern Democrats' tar baby.
Lincoln jammed negroes so far up Douglas' ass his eyes were the color purple!
THE TRIALS OF OSCAR WILDE PETER FINCH JAMES MASON
I watched a little. Queer movies are not my kind of thing.
Yet, British films of this quality are wonderful.
Marvelous film, but it really was gilding the lily.
Produced by Broccoli, among others.
Yet, British films of this quality are wonderful.
Marvelous film, but it really was gilding the lily.
Produced by Broccoli, among others.
NYT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT DIALOGUE
Can you keep a secret?
Of course.
Will you keep it from your readership?
You know the answer.
Can you do so?
Always.
How about the government?
Of course.
How?
Most of the time, it is their secret. We control them, not the other way round.
Sounds like Yes, Minister.
Of course.
Will you keep it from your readership?
You know the answer.
Can you do so?
Always.
How about the government?
Of course.
How?
Most of the time, it is their secret. We control them, not the other way round.
Sounds like Yes, Minister.
Oh, it's actually much worse than that. We have the hyper democratic spoils system here, so it is career journalists' open season on all new fledgling administrations and legislatures here! There are hundreds of them! Like shooting young ignorant baby ducks in small barrels! Great decadent sport! Freshmen congressmen congresswomen, lemmings! Deer in the journalistic headlights! They foul out in great numbers daily! So, we really run the government indirectly. We don't do much at all substantively. We substitute for what, in the British system, see Yes, Minister, is a permanent civil service. The electorate does not know that. The politicians, of course, cannot admit it. They can stack the departments temporarily, but they are the victims of spoils countermands, often even by members of their own fricking party, every few electoral years. Most Americans might just as well be voting in Africa for all the good it does them; the poll counters are often the grateful dead!
NYT JOSEPHINE SECRECY HERE'S THE DARK LITTLE SECRET NYT WON'T TELL YOUR DRAG ASS
Don't expect secrecy, you won't get it.
Expect secrecy, you won't get it.
Don't even know what secrecy means, you won't even know you won't get it.
Expect secrecy, (assuming for a moment you think you know what that is, which you don't), think you are getting it, you still won't get it.
Expect secrecy, you won't get it.
Don't even know what secrecy means, you won't even know you won't get it.
Expect secrecy, (assuming for a moment you think you know what that is, which you don't), think you are getting it, you still won't get it.
OLD PUBLIC DEFENDER SELFIE SOUTHERN GENTLEMAN SEERSUCKER
They used to mistake me for Gregory Peck.
This post is for Rupert Chapman, who will understand.
Jeff Daniels, great actor.
I was the real thing, but had no cases like this, as I recall, although I did sex crimes. White on white, child abuse, stuff like that.
I represented a mafia soldier, sex crime, related to an enemy mob minor. Same soldier family, but on the enemy side! Great stuff.
Most of my cases were negro on negro, busted by white and or latino cops. Whole lotta drugs cases. Industry, factory.
ROBOCALL CENTERS IN SOUTH EURASIA NOW BEING TARGETED AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS FOR DRONE STRIKES
I am all for it, baby.
Blow their IS asses up.
Stop Islamic criminal terrorist fraudster parasite funding at its source.
Say they're in Bombay?
Great spot for a drone strike: Bomb Bay!
Afghanistan: Wonderful spot for a robocall strike.
Pakistan: Classic target of traitors and criminals.
Trump is just about ballsy enough to carry out my orders.
Robocalls from terrorist criminal so called Senior Benefits sites, great place to start:
Blow their IS asses up.
Stop Islamic criminal terrorist fraudster parasite funding at its source.
Say they're in Bombay?
Great spot for a drone strike: Bomb Bay!
Afghanistan: Wonderful spot for a robocall strike.
Pakistan: Classic target of traitors and criminals.
Trump is just about ballsy enough to carry out my orders.
Robocalls from terrorist criminal so called Senior Benefits sites, great place to start:
Jump to We Are Not Calling You - Our advisors only contact those individuals by phone who have ... Senior Benefit Services, Inc is aware that this group is ...
Jul 26, 2018 - I see a lot of cold calling videos and scripts start off with "this is _____ from senior benefits", but their insurance agency is a totally different ...
Say a call center turns out not to be a terrorist funding cell?
They are mere Islamic or Hindu criminal mafia RICO GANGSTER fraudsters!
And you blow them up by quote mistake.
Too bad. Collateral damage.
As economists like Krugman would opine, externalities!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)