Dear patient readers, over the next week I am going to be spending even more time on a story I have been pursuing ….which means regular posts may be fewer in number and a tad cursory (and my Memorial Day holiday probably won’t be much of a holiday….). Stay tuned!
UN warning on fisheries loss BBC
Gulf Oil Spill: Cleaning Wetlands May Be Impossible, Scientists Say Huffington Post
Food bloggers give restaurant owners indigestion SkunkPost
Court Upholds Your Right To Cheap Fast Food Consumerist
Not So Sweet Michael Panzner
a nerve struck? Joe Costello
Déficit : Sarkozy crée une règle constitutionnelle à la française Les Echos (hat tip reader Swedish Lex)
‘100% Protected’ Isn’t as Safe as It Sounds Gretchen Morgenson, New York Times
Another Clumsy Attack on the European Social Model David Dorman
Dominique Strauss-Khan in sex book claims Telegraph
After the flood: European cities on the edge of a debt crisis Guardian (hat tip reader Swedish Lex).
Antidote du jour: Dr. Kevin sent this, with the caption, “How to tell you are Mom’s favorite”:
28 comments
Comments are closed.
Re NYT’s Clumsy Attack:
I thought the same thing about this and all the rightist MSM pieces in this vein. There’s a basic contradiction here: Was the vaunted “growth” of these decades real or not? If not, that proves that everything they ever claimed for neoclassicism and globalization was always a lie, and we shouldn’t listen to anything they say by now, but instead try something in the opposite direction. Instead of dismantling the vestigial safety net, we should be expanding it.
If, on the other hand, any of it was real, then Europe’s social model did not hinder the generation of this welath in the first place but on the contrary facilitated it. And then where did all the wealth go? We know the answer – what little was real was disproportionately stolen by the plutocrats, and that’s where it resides today. With the Bailout, weapons spending, and the rest of corporate welfare, the theft continues unabated, tens, hundreds of millions a day.
So there too the answer isn’t to gut the few crumbs still falling to the people, but to stop the robbery, liquidate the criminals and restitute what they stole.
Re food bloggers:
That’s one of the more comical examples of these idiots with their gadgets who are incapable of living real lives with real experiences, who instead are capable only of meta-experiences as mediated through some gizmo. It’s a merely pathetic example of the totalitarian inertia of humans being reduced to mere hominids who are appendages of machines.
Re the Oil Hemorrhage:
In the libertarian thread last week some people scoffed at my calling the damage “infinite”, which they considered profligate rhetoric. But I was dead serious about the likelihood that for all intents and purposes it would be.
And now we read how these critical wetlands may simply have to be surrendered to complete destruction.
Like as if anyone could ever plausibly put a dollar figure on that, let alone pay for it. Just as with Wall Street, nothing short of a Nuremburg tribunal could possibly deal with this level of crime.
And just as with financialization and the way it has systematically sought to rope everyone into the debt “society” and the stock market (via “institutional investors”), so, in spite of the lies told by oil cadres and Big Oil’s hacks, paid or otherwise, the US’s oil addiction is primarily the result of top-down social engineering, massive propaganda and corporatism.
The level of desperation that drives a country to engage in such an extreme, dangerous operation as deep water drilling so near its own most critical wetlands and fishing grounds, to do it without even imposing any kind of rational restrictions on its own oil use (e.g. SUVs are still on the market), and most obscenely of all to do it on a corporatist privatize-profits-socialize-costs-and-risks basis (which proves the real goal of the operation, robbery), bespeaks a system that by now is criminally deranged to the point of insanity.
@ Attempter:
Very well put.
Attempter:
1. Just as with Wall Street, nothing short of a Nuremburg tribunal could possibly deal with this level of crime.
I assume this is hyperbole, but in any case I would be worried about taking this road. Nuremburg involved the trial of people who knowingly perpetrated horrific acts. You can argue that WS was also knowingly screwing people. BP (more specifically, the employees working at BP, or those supplying BP or subcontractors on the rig) was the result of negligence and equipment failures. They were *not* acting with the same intentiona as the Nazis in
WWII. Any large-scale, complex, integrated system involves lots of risks. Reflexively punishing people who happen to be nearby when a risk is realized is not a sane way of running a society. Those responsible at BP (or subcontractors) will get their commmeuppance if they were negligent (and it appears they were at the moment). Going beyond that is counterproductive.
And just as with financialization and the way it has systematically sought to rope everyone into the debt “society” and the stock market (via “institutional investors”)
Bullshit. Most people were in the market (stock and huosing) because they were convinced that it was an easy, risk-free, work-free way to get rich. Wall Street took advantage of this stupidity, sure, but I doubt you will find many people who “invested” over the last 20years who claimed to be doing so out of desperataion–it was sheer greed. This greed was also a primary driver for the debt accumulation (although medical bills appear to have also played a large role)
so, in spite of the lies told by oil cadres and Big Oil’s hacks, paid or otherwise, the US’s oil addiction is primarily the result of top-down social engineering, massive propaganda and corporatism.
Run some numbers and tell me how you would feed 7 billion people without the hydrocarbons produced by oil and gas. SUVs, while perhaps tasteless, are not the problem–switching from SUVs to hybrids would not significantly dent demand (incidentally, SUVs were a consumer choice–blame individuals for that one). Shrinking cities would help a lot, but everybody wants to live in suburbia with big swimming pools, large yards, and dishwashers and air conditioning, while eating foods that are grown half-way around the world. When not showing off their houses and cars, they want lots of cheap electronics an God knows what else to distract themselves (see http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html for a nice illustration). When the economy declines, they want governments to encourage any industry to produce–even if it destroys the environment– to keep a few short-term jobs.
All this requires a lot of resources. Oil is unique in that it is a high energy-density source of energy that can be used for transportation (and the creation of plastics and other materials), which is why it is in demand.
But to say that the oil companies (and other nominalizations such as “big business”) have been involved in social engineering society in its entirety when those idiots can’t even work a BOP properly is borderline absurd. To absolve the consumers of their responsibilities in creating this mess is equally assinine.
More importantly, this reflexive anti-business stance is (will be) incredibly self-destructive, because certain industries require complex logistics and expensive inputs that can only be performed by large corporations with sufficient capital and expertise to make the required expenditures and take the risks. It is not a coincidence that “big business” became increasingly wide-spread since the industrial revolution.
1. If the US insists on consuming 1/5 of the world’s oil, then it should take the risks fdor doing so. It is unfair to demand that the Brazilians or Canadians (for example) assume the risks and environmental damage by drilling to supply the US because the US can’t be bothered to offend its own delicate sensibilities.
The problem (going back to the consumer society described above) is that people have done a remarkably good job of dissociating themselves from the consequences of their actions and desires. So they demand lots of energy and mined goods, but refuse to accept the risks that others take to supply that energy or mining. Who knows–maybe this will change, and maybe people will willingly alter their lifestyles now that they have some vivid evidence as to what their desires are producing. I doubt it (strongly), but I guess it’s possible that I’m wrong. Far more likely, imo, is that people will continue to live the way they like until their credit is cut.
2. The Deepwater Horizon wasn’t all that deep compared to many wells, fwiw.
JMO.
That you can still come on here spouting such viciousness even in the face of the newest information on the real magnitude of this disaster is despicable.
Yesterday I demanded Nuremburg as the only possible way of having trials for this level of crime even before this information. I’m certainly not changing my mind now. But if you had a shred of humanity left you’d change yours.
But after all that’s happened on Wall Street anybody who had a shred of humanity and decency left has long since reclaimed it. By now we must have reached the irreducible dregs when we see those still willing to defend the kleptocracy. As for this level of environmental disaster, already comparable in magnitude only to Chernobyl, unfortunately we’ve seen enough of those as well to know who’s capable of human feeling; and who’s willing to burn the entire Earth to a toxic cinder for the sake of his wretched vicious greed.
Of course nothing you said there contradicts what I said in any way. You just spin the truth to make it look different. But other than your vile defense of murderous gangsters, who you want to exonerate as innocent bystanders, in substance you affirmed everything I said.
Why are you asking me how to feed 7 billion people without oil? You’re the one who thought oil was infinite and that it was a good idea for mankind to go on the oil binge and bloat his population vastly beyond the non-fossil fuel carrying capacity. You’re responsible for the consequences now that it’s ending. You figure it out. The cornucopians and technophiles owe the solution, not the skeptics.
As for your lie that politically engineered centralization and hyper-complexity are some law of nature, go back and read the libertarianism thread where I made it clear that not only are these unnecessary but antithetical to freedom. I don’t dispute that projects like this need hyper-complexity. I deny that humanity needs such projects at all.
So yes, I’ll call out the gratuitous crimes against humanity and the earth as crimes, and I’m flattered that you say my perspective is “destructive” of such criminality. Unfortunately I doubt such human ideas are going to have such power anytime soon.
Attempter: I’ll try to go through this better with you (if you are capable of ever absorbing new facts or changing your mind about anything) when I get the time in about a month–these issues will still likely be on the front burner, and it’s obvious that you will continue to spew the same unthinking vitriol without being able to understand the consequences of your proposed actions (isn’t that one of the definitions of insanity, incidentally)?
I’m certainly not changing my mind now.
There’s a surprise.
But if you had a shred of humanity left you’d change yours.
Ahh–people with different viewpoints have no shred of humanity. Good to know…So to summarize, those who don’t believe in forcing commercial employees to face Nuremburg trials have no humanity?
But other than your vile defense of murderous gangsters, who you want to exonerate as innocent bystanders
Who exactly did I defend and exonerate?
Why are you asking me how to feed 7 billion people without oil? You’re the one who thought oil was infinite and that it was a good idea for mankind to go on the oil binge and bloat his population vastly beyond the non-fossil fuel carrying capacity.
Oh really? Where did I say this? Where did I even imply this (actually, I implied the contrary–repeatedly)? Do you actually read and comprehend, or are you merely trying to prove that any retarded monkey at a typewriter can string words together that appear more or less grammatically correct without having the slightest idea as to actual comprehension?
You’re responsible for the consequences now that it’s ending. You figure it out. The cornucopians and technophiles owe the solution, not the skeptics.
What makes me a cornucopian or a technophile? How am I in any way more responsible than you? A skeptic who chooses to take advantage of all the benefits that complexity offers to him (like internet communications) but who nonetheless continues to spew off against the evils of others doing so and blame them for the world’s ills is little better than any other hypocrite.
As for your lie that politically engineered centralization and hyper-complexity are some law of nature
I did not say that they are a law of nature–see retarded monkey at typewriter comment above. However, if you want the advantages offered by complexity, you must assume the consequences associated with providing that complexity. You are merely trying to take advantage of the structure in place while screaming bloody murder (or Nuremburg, as the case may be) at those who are providing you the means to do so.
Unfortunately I doubt such human ideas are going to have such power anytime soon.
No, you are wrong–this irrational stupidity will likely have quite a bit of force behind it in the future; that’s precisely why you should think out the consequences instead of spewing out vitriolic hyperbole. Look at the China’s Cultural Revolution or the Soviet era purges of the convenient scapegoats of the day and decide if you *really* want to go through something like that, or put others through that.
I look forward to reading more of your brilliantly thought-provoking, well-researched replies in a month or so, if you have not been committed in the meantime.
You most definitely are defending the cadres of legalized organized crime in a way you would not for the cadres of rackets which remain technically criminal.
Since we’re on the subject of Nuremburg, I suppose that means you would’ve defended the Nazi racket itself while it was still a “respectable government” but then turned on it once the US was at war with it. Or at any rate once it lost the war. You seem very focused on technical legalities, which is why you invent the fraudulent moral category “commmercial employee” to describe CEOs and other top gangsters.
Did I just wake up in an alternate universe? Since when would philandery hinder a French politician’s prospects? I thought is was part of the job description.
Wow. Mr. Strauss-Khan should be held up as an example for every “too-shy-to-be-a-Romeo” wallflower male in France, or anywhere else for that matter.
His technique is brilliant. He enters a cafe, surveys the candidates and then sends text messages saying “I want you”.
How does he even know their numbers? This is brilliant stuff.
My hat is off to Mr. Strauss-Khan. It usually takes me about 4 or 5 beers to get to that point. And then I usually have to figures out something to say to make banal chit-chat for a few minutes before the suggestive move. ha ha ha. But I’m too cerebral to really be a good at that sort of thing.
The world could use forthrightness like his in financial affairs (no pun intended). He could walk into a room of full of campaign-donating financial looters and say “I want to screw you all, all at once! I want to rape you like you’ve raped our motherland. I want to hear you squeal like the pigs you are! Off with your pants!” Maybe this would lead to activities that “give birth” ha ha, to legitimate financial regulation on a global basis.
All right. I’m starting to crack myself up. :)
Actually, I liked Bill Clinton’s style better. Send a couple of state troopers over to the state-employed woman with the big hair and have them tell her that her boss would like a word with her.
“His technique is brilliant. He enters a cafe, surveys the candidates and then sends text messages saying “I want you”.”
Give me a break. This is just Sarkozy’s team leaking crap to make it less likely Strauss-Khan will enter the race. I doubt it will work–I can’t think of the last French President who didn’t have an extramarital affair, and over in Italy, Berlusconi practically brags about his flings. In any case, even if it does work, Sarkozy’s likely going to get booted by someone else anyway.
As for the pictures, it’d be interesting to know if Sarkozy is abusing his intelligence agencies for personal gain…
Although with all the sex those guys are getting, you think they’d be a little more relaxed and happy about life.
“”He wouldn’t last a week,” Mr Lefebvre said. ”
–>I’d be happy to last a few hours… :)
I don’t care if it’s true or not.
It’s inspiring!
I’m going to try it myself.:)
Good luck!
BTW, the most impressive part of this is being able to see someone across the room and guess what number to text. That by itself could probably score you points as a cool party trick…
Mental telepathy is an important trait if you’re gonna be head of the IMF
Antidote: You got me. I have no idea what that is.
It’s a mother bird standing on top of one of her babies to feed the other.
That one being stood on will need therapy as an adult.
Or will become an Investment Banker to work it out….
Black hearted investment banker sucking the life out of a
baby bird.
@ attempter…. I have to agree with cool. Bravo! I was digging and by chance found Yves. This a very informative forum, thank you to all that participate. You’re making an honest effort to make sense of this fucking mess.
I especially enjoyed reading the post Yves made about the “friendly media” in his …”Are the guillotines being sharpened?” 5/22/10.
Everyone I know, seems to buy the crap that MSNBC puts out. Are they stupid or blind?
“Are they stupid or blind?”
It’s not necessarily an either/or.
I have a regret, a huge regret. I never believed in God. But I see now that there is no other explanation for what I have seen. I don’t know God, but it has to exists. I was fool. God help me.
RHS: Relax, friend. There are still no gods.
Link to Déficit : Sarkozy crée une règle constitutionnelle à la française
is for wrong story.
I used Google to get correct story.
From Harvard’s Nieman Foundation for Journalism…
Has Obama created a Social Security ‘death panel’? http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00456
President Obama and the leadership in Congress have delegated enormous, unaccountable authority to 18 unrepresentative, inordinately wealthy individuals. The 18 individuals are meeting regularly, in secret, behind closed doors, until safely beyond this year’s mid-term election. If they reach agreement, their proposal will be voted on in December by a lame duck Congress, without the benefit of open hearings and deliberations in the pertinent committees and without the opportunity for open debate and amendment on the floors of the House and Senate. Despite the speed and lack of accountability, the legislation will affect, in substantial ways, every man, woman, and child in this nation.
Who are these powerful people and what are their views?
They are the members of President Obama’s newly-formed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. They lack racial and gender diversity, and more importantly, they lack diversity of opinion. Their mantra is that “everything is on the table,” but their one member who has any expertise with respect to defense spending, for instance, is the CEO of a major defense contractor that devotes millions of dollars each year to lobby Congress for more defense spending.
(go read the whole thing!)
Did you know that John Kerry fought *for* the Viet Cong? I read it online.
The mother is actually the nanny in our modern society, sorry, ‘modern society,’ thus representing the nanny state.
The one getting fed represents the bankers.
The one getting stepped on represents savers getting meager 0.1% or if lucky, 0.2% rates, not much better than putting their money under the mattress.
But this is risky for the economy. If all savers pulled their money out of their banks and put them in their yards, refrigerators and under their mattresses, it would drain the system of liquidity. But the Fed is daring savers to do that.
A little longer, but you may find it all useful, and the train is getting close enough to the wall …
The Gravity Breeder (in the B/R)
So far, we have largely been discussing the reactor in the catapult mechanism …
Family Law is the core of the gravitational field. With no due process safeguards, it serves as the breeder for prototypes of inertia, which are then incrementally armored, with due process, up through the layers, to the surface, where these processes control the distribution of income.
This is not an individual problem. This is not a group problem. It is not a problem limited to America. It is a global VOLUNTARY system of gravity. Easy to be lulled in, impossible to get out, until the voltage drops to 0. It is the black hole. Family Law creates the opening/induction to exploit the economic slave sub-economies, which results in pensions that feed the ponzi market, triggering the bonuses and executive pay. Protected labor through the layers is the conduit.
This system doesn’t spread gravity and bring it to bear when it is needed. It just creates gravity at every opportunity, with AC circuit divide and conquer tactics, to create the poles, which feed it in a negative feedback cycle. It maximizes NPV of economic loss, GDP (short-term revenue at long-term, hidden cost), by creating dependency, to justify its own existence. It creates the problem, and then proposes the solution, while evolution marches in another direction, creating exponential symptoms.
Currently, gravity in the catapult will ensure CDE. If you want BAC, you might want to voluntarily reduce the gravity as individuals, before the train hits the brick wall. The system is a giant mass in motion, several thousand years in the making. It couldn’t stop if it wanted to. Reducing individual gravity will in no way slow the momentum of the train, time to spring release. It will, however, determine thrust, and the ability to daisy-chain inductive motors across the parallel circuits, along the event horizon at re-coherence – who catches the wave across the gap, and who falls to the rocks below.
Each nation/state has its own version of family law, with different groups playing different roles, each with associated short-term profit motivators, within the empire click/gearing mechanism. The D phase will be complete when that train hits the rocks, and the E phase will be well under construction. If you choose CAB, A & B will be threaded onto phases D & E, to preserve the thread of History.
Arizona & National Security Issues
Where did the states get their artificial demographic acceleration/demand over the last several decades?
What shift effect is that having on the economy today?
Why did government allow employers to exploit “illegal” immigrants and outsource jobs?
What happened to the demographic/psychographic compilation?
What is the resulting distribution of income?
How does the distribution of income affect global security symptoms?
Who are the participants?
The global economy is imploding and we are presented with the Arizona skit/drama:
Arizona proposes to toss the “illegal” immigrants, building a physical and virtual wall to make the entire country a prison, and California, which is the primary economic prototype agent for the country and is completely dependent on these people, gets to play the hero, with beggar-thy-neighbor boycotts, complete with dependent protestors bused to the events. In either case, outsourcing proceeds. Heads the government wins, tails the citizens lose. The multi-nationals win regardless.
The Law, Rules of Tautology
Outcomes are symptoms of processes, which are symptoms of participation, which is a symptom of rules. We have a set of participants and we have results. Let’s see who is not participating, how that reflects who is participating, and what the rules are, under the US Constitution, as prescribed by the US Supreme Court, which approved federal criminal prosecution written by Congress, implemented through State civil code, and articulated across a global, banking and credit information system (you may not know that many of your bank clerks have instantaneous access to much of this information).
State of California
(skip)
Without notifying you …
Take your Federal and State Tax refunds
Take any other Federal payment owed you
Take any lottery winnings or other money owed you by the State
Attach or seize money or assets held by your financial institution
Take a portion of money owed to you as independent contractor
Take a portion of any Disability or Unemployment benefits
Take a portion of any personal injury settlement or workers compensation benefit payments
In addition to seizing these funds the following may also occur:
Any State issued licenses including drivers licenses and professional licenses may be suspended or not renewed
US Secretary of State may not issue you a passport or may revoke or restrict a current passport
(end skip)
State of Massachusetts
False Restraining Orders / The Playbook (Mass Outrage):
The restraining order law is perhaps the second most unconstitutional abomination in our legal system, after our so-called child protection (DSS) laws. The restraining order process is designed to allow an order to be issued very easily, and to be appealed, stopped, or vacated only with the utmost difficulty. It is the product of evil twisted minds, which have no respect for our traditional sense of justice or of the protections provided in our Massachusetts Constitution of due process of law. And they like it that way, thank you very much.
The motives for this law are legion. First, it makes the Commonwealth a bunch of money, by allowing it to leverage massive Federal grants. It makes feminist victim groups a lot of money by providing millions in state and federal grants to stop ‘domestic violence.’ It makes lawyers and court personnel a lot money as they administer the Godzilla-sized system they have built to deal with these orders. It makes police a lot of money, as they are able to leverage huge grants for arrests of violators. It makes mental health professionals a lot of money, dealing with the mandatory therapy always required in these situations. It makes thousands of social workers a lot of money providing social services for all the families that the law destroys. It makes dozens of mens batterers programs a lot of money, providing anger management treatment, ordered by courts in these proceedings.
In restraining order hearings, judges may ignore ALL traditional due process protections such as jury trials, the rules of evidence, the right to innocent until proven guilty, etc. They may also usurp several other dearly held rights, such as the right to be with one’s children, to occupy one’s own home and property, or travel where one pleases. No one has yet come up with so demonic a perversion of our legal system to match the breathtaking scope of the unconstitutional deprivations of this law.
So, what does a person actually have to prove to get an order legitimately?
The law states that the court can issue an order to protect a complainant from “abuse”. Abuse is defined in Massachusetts General Laws, (M.G.L.) Chapter 209A Section 1. Here is the relevant part, defining abuse:
The occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members:
1. attempting to cause or causing physical harm;
2. placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm;
3. causing another to engage involuntarily in sexual relations by force, threat or duress.
The clause which is most misused is (b) above, “placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm.” Often a mere allegation of fear, without showing a factual basis for that fear, is enough for a court to issue an order.
The worst feature of the restraining order law is that it allows a person to go to court and get an order, without the other person present. That means that any lie will do, since no one is there to rebut it. As a consequence, without any input in the matter, a person can lose their children, their home, their money, their guns, and their freedom. This is crueler tyranny than any civilized land has ever tolerated, and approximates the tactics of one Vladimir Ulyanov, aka Lenin, during the Bolshevik Revolution.
Upon issuance, the police serve the order, boot the poor sap out of his house with barely a shirt on his back, pry his weeping children from his legs, steal his guns, and take him to jail if he isn’t terribly pleased to do as he is told.
What more can be said? Any liar can get an order by merely asserting fear.
Note that each court now has a victim witness advocate, paid by your taxes, who helps women(only) to prepare these affidavits to conform with the requirements of the law. Also, any good member of the feminist cabal of lawyers will also have helped her client to fill out the paperwork properly. Commonly, DSS agents also coerce women to lie to get orders, and help them fill out the paperwork, in order to pump up their domestic violence statistics, since they now have a separate domestic violence department that must be fed its compliment of sacrificial men each day. These are the forces arrayed against you, make no mistake.
Often, the women’s victim shelter, therapy, a car, money, freedom, and a whole lot more are riding on the woman being willing to get an order, whether it is built upon a lie or not. Since more money comes from more victims, more victims must be found. No one ever tallies up the cost to the poor children who are traumatized by these false allegations, and given therapy to learn how to make proper ‘disclosures’ against the batterer.
This is a list of possible ulterior motives for which the ‘victim’ may have sought a 209A restraining order against you:
1. To gain an advantage in a divorce; (Some divorce lawyers routinely advise getting one.)
2. To quickly get custody of your children without a hearing;
3. To keep you from your children;
4. To stop you from modifying custody after your child expresses a desire to live with you.
5. To quickly put you out of the house without an eviction or a Probate Court hearing;
6. To allow the complainant to get a new boy/girlfriend into the picture, and you out;
7. To get vengeance;
8. To control or manipulate you, or get leverage in some way;
9. The ‘victim’ got sucked in by a victim-witness advocate who preyed on weakness;
10. To put you in jail;
11. To enjoy watching you suffer.
12. To get $$$$$$ and help from DSS or a victim group.
In any case, when you are dealing with a number 9 or Number 12 situation, you must be on the lookout for the motives of whoever is manipulating the Plaintiff for their own ends: money, power, justifying their job, or the like.
HAS ARIZONA ENACTED FAMILY LAW?
The train is picking up steam, that cliff is getting closer, faster, and government is still playing chicken, with itself. Meanwhile, its empire master fiddles as Rome burns, assuming, incorrectly, that it must be brought forward in History. After all, it has a noose around the neck of all voluntary participants, who are indirectly affecting everyone else … right? The knots on those nooses are psychological.
Greed works. From its perspective, contracts are made to be broken. It cannot release a bird from one hand until it has a bird in the other, and then it keeps them both, leaving it inert, on a downhill rail to the cliff, with no brakes.
Watch out for turtles.
Now I see…”they shouldn’t have touched my kids”.
walked away,
heard them say,
poison hearts will never change
walk away again
turned away in disgrace
felt the chill upon my face
cooling from within
hard to notice
gleaming from the sky
when your staring at the cracks
hard to notice
what is passing by
with eyes low, Oh
walked away
heard them say
poison hearts will never change
walk away again
all the cracks they lead right to me
and all the cracks will crawl right through me
all the cracks they lead right to me
and all the cracks will crawl right through me
and they’ll part
As I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FyNn5HEzxc&feature=related
Skippy…lets go fishing…eh.
Ms. Smith,
Apologies for contacting you in such an open forum, this seemed like the fastest way to reach you. I’m writing an article for a major magazine whose story includes several financial bloggers. I was interested in speaking with you for background information and possibly quotes. Would it be possible to speak sometime this week? If interested, please email me back at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Tim Schultz
It’s not my business, but you could probably contact her more directly through Aurora Advisors (not that I’ve ever tried)
I hope you link to the eventual story, though.