Bill let me ask you direct: What is your fascination with bank-cash-pyramiding?
The modern “Austrian” support, for the whole scam, appears to rest on some set of circumstances, that are totally unachievable.
Suppose you come to ask my opinion. And you ask me if allowing fractional reserve can “work” supposing that everything else about the financial market, and the rest of the economy, is entirely free enterprise?
If my answer is “YES” its merely a subset of the reality that the market can work around any ONE DEBAUCH that is visited upon it.
But supposing I agree, that so long as not a single local government, a single state government, nor even a federal government, anywhere in the world, should ever accept fractional reserve money as payment…..
… Supposing if under those conditions, I would agree that the market would sort itself out even allowing bank-cash-pyramiding…
WELL SO WHAT?
Suppose me and you agree that in this make-believe world, that fractional reserve wouldn’t do massive damage, as it is doing now. I DON’T agree by the way, but supposing I did?
So for your next trick you go along and get a similar admission from George Reisman (lets suppose). You interpolate another admission from Mises and another from Rothbard.
What would be the point of these undertakings?
We have to turn it all around and ask what you and other (un)FREE BANKERS see in this racket. What is it that you people SEE! in these various ponzi-schemes?
Any young undergraduate economist experiences the magic of macromancy. The idea that he is now a sophisticate, and he can create more loanable funds, straight out of his economically-sophisticated mind!….
…. and that this sophistication is all something for nothing.
You’ve come out in favour of what you call “free banking”. Therefore you’ve come out in favour of bank-cash-pyramiding.
Let us hear it from you? Because you see I think I know the answer.
Its macromancy that motivates you. You have not weaned yourself off undergraduate macromancy.
Well I think everyone would know it to be my term.
Supposing your local coiner were able to practice fractional reserve? Supposing this was thought to be necessary to pay for the cost of the coinage of the most surpassing beauty and robustness?
By using the phrase “bank-cash-pyramiding, you allow for this this practice on the local level. Since you can have a total, all-out, and forever ban on bank-cash-pyramiding, and yet still allow your local ARTIST-AND-I-MEAN-ARTIST to have a job producing the coins of the greatest beauty yet seen.
Still I advocate a blanket ban on all fractional reserve if you ask my opinion. I’m just showing that on a local government level you could solve a problem with a tiny lashing of the fractional reserve, in a way that would not hurt any of us, and that would actually help us.
Let us make fractional reserve a local government deal.
And lets outlaw all bank-cash-pyramiding.
Yes of course if the last obstruction, to the anarcho-captialist society is ready to be struck down, then perhaps that local government regulation can be struck down with it.
But can we at least fucking say NOT BEFORE THEN?
I would want a total ban on fractional reserve, but if we all want the easy privatisation of the coining function, a pretty swish sort of income for a couple of blokes in any one government area, and a good way to get hold of the ultimate top quality coins…… well yes we could have that exception.
I can see no other justification for an exception anywhere.
And he might think he’s doing the right thing and so what is the pressure with taking money from the Chinese or the North Koreans.
If he’s already done this and he squares it with me than thats one thing. If he’s going to betray us, by accepting money, he’s got to realise I could suffocate him in his nieces baptism water before I would hear him reel off the excuses.
Let him make the mistake now and own up on a promise never to do it again.
We have a very serious problem with the runaway thieving of the bankers.
THE LAST INITIATION OF FORCE EVER.
If this is an argument about the last regulation to go, before the Wednesday, before the day where we declare that the territory wherein where we are living is an anarcho-capitalist territory WELL FAIR ENOUGH.
This is just one regulation. Its the reserve-asset-ratio. And if all other regulations were about to go, if and only if, the reserve asset ratio would go too ….. well we could make an argument out of that.
But thats not what you guys are on about. You are macromancers. Wake up to yourselves.
Partly its playing hooky from learning about Boehm-Bawerk and the lengthening of the structure of production.
Partly its you guys playing hooky from skilling up on George-Reismans work on national accounting.
But mostly its because you refuse to own up to who you are. You are macromancers. Wake up to yourselves.
Steve if you want to go putting me down as a “truther”, you might reflect that before you came on board “Austrians” were as benighted as this other crowd that wants vigilance in public enquiries.
If you want to judge economics on the basis of credentialism I have a Mankiw blog for you. Step right up. This blog is so magnificent that you can bathe in the reflected glory of the brandname of Harvard. A place from which no good economics emerges, not now or ever.
Posted by: Graeme Bird | May 18, 2010 at 09:38 PM
Oh god I give up.
Posted by: Current | May 18, 2010 at 09:43 PM
Of course you do. Now tell me CURRENT. What does “Back and to the left” repeated 5 times to you mean?
To me it means that Horwitz is trying to put me down on the grounds of the Kennedy assassination, even though he’s wrong about the Kennedy assassination as well as being wrong about the relative merits of bank-cash-pyramiding.
Own up to your Macromancy.
Or if you don’t want to get down on one knee and beg forgiveness, you might ask a serious question. You could try that. Instead of all you macromancers trying to be Smart Alecs.
You’ve given up twice current. Hardly the man made out of the sort of fibre we need to take on our new banking overlords.
Now look here Current? Amongst a lot of other defeatist rubbish you said the following:
“Now, consider what happens when commodity money comes into use. Society recieves the benefit of easier indirect exchange, that is a huge benefit and certainly worth the cost.
However, there is a cost. The commodity money remains in perpetual circulation. It cannot be used for other purposes unless it is taken out of circulation”
Current, by his economic misunderstanding highlights two points.
1. The Austrians are underselling their case. And what we need is serious presentations on the specifics of the extraction industries.
Because I can assure you that if you are looking for a four-leaf clover in field of grass, you will find a lot of other green stuff in your searching.
And if you are looking for a needle in a haystack you are likely to find yourself a great deal of hay.
So long as we keep the four monetary metals in the air …… the mining for them is basically costless………
THE MINING FOR MONETARY COMMODITIES IS BASICALLY COSTLESS.
……..And merely an amortization of the costs of the base metals.
I haven’t seen one presentation to that effect at the Mises institute. A bit of research and one of you fine fellows could make that case.
As a matter of fact I would prefer four private monies, and one government money based on liquid hydrocarbons. That to me would give us the best cross-section of the the extraction industries, and would render hard money, fundamentally costless.
2. Monetization is the ultimate in husbandry of a scarce resource. The angels of production can deal with the slowly growing expense of a factor of production….. in this case a scarce metal.
What business cannot deal is with the sudden cutting-off of supply.
Monetization puts the supply right before them.
Even going so far as to put that supply in the shorts of the casual labour person they have just hired off the streets because he said he was hungry.
So there is no lack of supply from monetization. Rather monetization is the ultimate social insurance. It get the gear up out of the ground, and refined …… and then forces us to conserve that hard-won gear.
Graeme, like it or not people like to exercise control, over themselves and their appetites and desires, and over others. There are down sides to the latter, often, but it is a fact of life. It’s human nature and related to our biology. We all begin life in a state of prolonged physical and material dependence on others and many parents find it difficult to ever cede control or accept the desire for independence of their adult children.
Now your repeated call for massive cuts to the public service simply is not going to happen in this country in the forseeable future or receive majority support. Why? Because people overwhelmingly believe we need government and government believes we need it. You can view this mutual desire as a symbiotic form of social control in action.
Secondly without the public service there is very little if anything for government to do. All governments need the public service. It’s government’s raison d’être. And the private sector cannot do what government can do, either as efficiently or honestly and ethically.
And thirdly, following on from this, politicians and MPs definitely need the public service because they need fiefdoms to rule and spoils to differ up and lowerarchies to boss around.
Mark gets about in a state of near insanity and no-one seems to notice or lock him up. For this reason I’ve collected some total gibber he’s written over at the Horwitz gay-street wing of Austrian economics and will store it here before it gets wiped. If you don’t understand what he’s saying remember that Mark has no clue either:
“Now for a civil and productive contribution:
I challenge the 100% backing supporters to show me why the following is wrong:
*Assume a generous definition of money – broadly as possible.
MV = PY
Let’s look at MV first.
In each round of money creation, M can only be relatively greater than V if the reserve ratio falls below zero.
This can only happen if there is persistent disequilibrium in the market for currency.
Now, let’s look at PY.
P can only rise faster than Y if the continuing rounds of deposits are not put into viable projects, or the price signal gets distorted by continuing money market disequilibria, or fiscal disruption.
Under the broadest defintion of money, V always rises proportionally higher than M, and so fractional banking is not inflationary.
MV = PY
V>M if r>0 (r is the credit multiplier)
r –>0 in the extreme case.
That is, P can only rise faster than Y if Say’s law breaks down or Sm > Dm.
V>M as long as Say’s law holds. What this means is that the credit creation process is constrained by Say’s law so that if the monetary equilibra is maintained and fiscal largesse doesn’t significantly alter prices and the loanable funds market, that each round of credit creation can only ever continue if it is the result of previous productive economic activity. As r>0, then V must be > M.
There are two killer arguments against 100% backing:
1. Free banking constrains issue and tends to zero inflation due to the loan book constraint (on top of the competitive issue restraints).
2. Fractional banking is not inflationary without prolonged disequilibria and overssuply of the currency base through manipulation of interest rates by a central authority (or breaking down Say’s law for the same reason or continuing fiscal disruption, both distorting prices and resource allocation (from above).*
Ludwig von Mises’ take is below.
Ch XVII. INDIRECT EXCHANGE
Sec 12. The Limitation on the Issuance of Fiduciary Media
” In carrying the idea implied in the Currency Theory to its full logical conclusion, one could suggest that all banks be forced by law to keep against the total amount of money-substitutes (banknotes plus demand deposits) a 100 per cent money reserve. This is the core of Professor Irving Fisher’s 100 per cent plan. But Professor Fisher combined his plan with his proposals concerning the adoption of an [p. 443] index-number standard. It has been pointed out already why such a scheme is illusory and tantamount to open approval of the government’s power to manipulate purchasing power according to the appetites of powerful pressure groups. ”
” Free banking is the only method available for the prevention of the dangers inherent in credit expansion. It would, it is true, not hinder a slow credit expansion, kept within very narrow limits, on the part of cautious banks which provide the public with all information required about their financial status. But under free banking it would have been impossible for credit expansion with all its inevitable consequences to have developed into a regular–one is tempted to say normal–feature of the economic system. Only free banking would have rendered the market economy secure against crises and depressions.”
” It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary. However, one must remember that this government interference was based on the erroneous assumption that credit expansion is a proper means of lowering the rate of interest permanently and without harm to anybody but the callous capitalists. The governments interfered precisely because they knew that free banking keeps credit expansion within narrow limits.”
Graeme Bird :
19 May 2010 2:08:55pm
Don’t be stupid Malcolm. Marvin Bush CANNNOT be a coincidence. For my part, I’d wager that he was brought in as blackmail and “low-hanging fruit” rather than as an active and culpable conspirator. But only a moron would make the claim that his link is only a co-incidence.
We know the modus operandi from E Howard Hunt. This is precisely how he described matters. The way that spooktown work-shopped up the chain of command, to push the guilt off at people at the top. This was the precise point the E Howard Hunt emphasized as the take-home-story.
Only a moron would suggest that Marvin Bushes’ presence was a mere coincidence.
Right. He really is insane. His first sentence is moronic but you get as far as this and you see that he’s taken utter leave of his senses:
“In each round of money creation, M can only be relatively greater than V if the reserve ratio falls below zero.”
This bears no relation to reality at all. There is nothing in this sentence that makes sense at all. Its the sentence of a madman. I could point out that its impossible for reserves to fall below zero. But thats only scratching the surface of the pure raving lunacy of the sentence entire. Its like he’s just escaped from the mental hospital.
This is what happens when anyone starts talking about money. Mark charges in with this constant loony-tunes talk and Jason Soon and the others are so exquisitely ignorant they just let the bad craziness flow.
It always brings me back to Mark Twains King Arthur talking about how the best potatoes grow on the higher branches or some such thing.
Its hard to stay angry at Mark because he is quite literally insane. But I wish I knew the trick of how to get him to shut up when you want to talk about real world monetary policy. Like thats a real world where reserves cannot fall below zero. He was useful in this thread since Horvitz had blocked me. So Mark comes along with his loony toons talk and basically closes down the thread. The fractional reservists retired speechless after that.
Graeme, I do feel for you trying to mine what empty, try-hard non-entities like whatisname Mark Hill can be possibly saying or meaning that isn’t totally arsehat, reactionary and plain useless.
There comes a time, I promise you, when relief and clarity comes and you finally find you don’t give a rat’s for what such poor unfortunate group thinkers think, feel or say, and from that point you can move on and in your new found freedom simply soar intellectually.
Mark is mentally handicapped. But he’s with the economics brotherhood. You cannot give a rats ass what Mark thinks of you, any more than you might consult the neighbours poodle for some sort of self-affirmation.
I merely here point out the unreason of Catallaxy. Sinclair and the rest of them will not pull Mark up on the barking crazy stuff. For one thing they are famously ignorant themselves. But for another they are fundamentally a tribe. A club for know-nothings. So Sinclair sided with Humphreys against Gerry Jackson. Sinclair was comprehensively wrong, foolish, irrational, and for the first time revealed how hardcore ignorant he is. But he had to side with Humphreys or stay quiet, since Gerry is not in the club and Humphreys, powerfully ignorant though he is, is no the club.
But Mark is mentally challenged.
“In each round of money creation, M can only be relatively greater than V if the reserve ratio falls below zero.”
This is such a masterpiece of loony-tunes talk. For one thing you cannot have reserves of a negative percentage.
Thank you Mr Bird. But I think I may just have to get both and then there are darling red and chocolate coloured ones too. I’ll just have to move the country to fit them all in, along with the cats, ducks, geese, cows, Shetland ponies and palaminos.
Do you think the Jews will try to take down Rand Paul? He is in my prayers, and yours as well too I am sure.
How about Chancellor Merkel cracking down on naked shorts? It’s good to know that some things never change, and you can always rely on the Hun (God Bless Him) to take a firm stand against Degenerate Cosmopolitanism.
And how about that Bull Dyke the Usurper nominated to the Supreme Court? Imagine that the executive, the legislative and judicial branches of the US are now represented by B. Hussein Obama-Soetoro, Barney Fag and the Bull Dyke.
And we wonder why Wall Street engages in the occasional Act of Back Door Banditry.
Fractional reservists will try and take him down for sure. But its hard for them to risk killing either Rand or Ron. Whereas they murdered this fellow who was working with Ron just the other day. Dude was 52 and allegedly dropped dead of a heart attack after winning a court case against the Federal Reserve.
Another fellows Liberty Dollar business was taking off. So they stole all his stock, machinery and so forth and now keep him tied up with legal costs. They are about winning. And now it appears that spooktown and the money interest are reunited, if it was ever the case that they were ever separated.
I think that in our part of the world when I was very young the government did have the banks under the thumb. So its hard for us to believe that in other times and places the bankers are the senior partners.
I have to insist that your continued focus on the Hebs is counterproductive when the swarthier races and the Mahometans are a far bigger concern. The Hebs can at least serve as a temporary ally against the incursion of the Mahometans. You would not want to end up with your missus wearing a tea towel I presume?
By: Winchester Quartermain on May 20, 2010 at 2:46 am
What a hurtful thing to say about the black man. As if these people haven’t put up with enough. But to condemn them to the Cambria taint is really a very callous and insensitive thing to do. Made worse still by the ring of truth to your comments.
“How about Chancellor Merkel cracking down on naked shorts? It’s good to know that some things never change, and you can always rely on the Hun (God Bless Him) to take a firm stand against Degenerate Cosmopolitanism.”
I hadn’t heard that one. That is good news. One would hope there was a general crackdown everywhere. With Cambria thrown into the hoosegow over it. Naked short-selling is just this incredible menace.
This story about global cooling is pretty much what I’ve been telling people for a few years now. It follows directly from concentrating on the evidence. Notic this fellows timing is just the same as I’ve been telling you guys as well.
“Current” who I was arguing with at this other thread, is about to be acquainted with the Mark Hill bad craziness. Now that I’m not around the fractional reservists are free to break solidarity and argue amongst themselves:
I don’t disagree with the Quantity equation of money. It’s a tautology, I can’t disagree with it ;).
However, you have to be quite careful about using it.
Firstly, you write:
MV = PY
Now in this equation V isn’t really a velocity in the microeconomic sense. Really it’s a variable that relates the two sides of the equation. Only in MV=PT does V actually mean velocity.
Next you write: “In each round of money creation, M can only be relatively greater than V if the reserve ratio falls below zero. This can only happen if there is persistent disequilibrium in the market for currency.”
What do you mean by M being “relatively greater” than V?
The idea that increasing or decreasing M allows for a particular real Y to occur is based on Monetarist assumptions. It’s based on the “homogeneous fund” theory of capital and no Cantillon/Injection effects.
In Austrian theory Say’s law isn’t a theory that applies to macro aggregates. It’s seen as a microeconomic theory. It cannot preclude the existance of misallocation of capital and recessions caused by it. All it demonstrates is that with price flexibility those recessions can’t last forever.
Posted by: Current | May 19, 2010 at 08:19 PM”
What are the bad things or alleged bad things said about this fellow? Usually if people are nationalists, and want to section off their government from the various governmental cartels, like the EU, or the IMF and so forth, they are talked about like the Dear Leader or like Hitler. But the fact is if we want to return to a humane civilisation we ought to have our governments having very little formal agreements. Some standards to do with human rights and laws of warfare might be an exception.
The motto ought to be activities, not organisations. We want agreements, but very little in the way of treaties. Treaties make us act like rational bastards. It is these treaties that force us, to act like pricks to boat people if we want to maintain our sovereignty and exercise control over our own immigration policy.
If we are going to stick with these treaties, I would want to keep the bastardy up. But we have to aspire to much better behaviour. We ought to be more generous with people wanting to escape the government menace in their own pathetic little countries.
Evidence suggesting a past humanoid civilization has been found at several sites on Mars. In particular, what appear to be large carved faces, with similar details, have been found at two separate sites. Together with geochemical and geological evidence that suggests Mars was once more Earth-like in climate, the images of the objects support the Cydonian Hypothesis:
That Mars once lived as the Earth now lives, and that it was once the home of an indigenous humanoid intelligence.
Mars is a planet whose past is a mystery, but like all great mysteries, the keys to solving the puzzle may hide in plain sight. Mars, with its somber red
surface, its vast and winding canyon systems displaying deep deposits of sedimentary rock, its great scablands telling of past awesome floods of water, and its windswept plains cratered like the Moon, is a planet that appears to tell two conflicting stories. One, of a small planet that was struggling for a long, indefinite period to have a climate like Earth; and another, of a planet battered by asteroids that lost all but a thin atmosphere early in its history and has been barren and Moon-like ever since. It has been found that in the middle of this planetscape of past desolation and destruction, there appears to be a carved humanoid face. What do all of these clues mean? In particular, is the face a spurious occurrence, irrelevant to solving the puzzle of Mars’ past, or is it perhaps the key piece?
After many years of studying the whole array of data concerning Mars, we have decided to advance the hypothesis that the Face on Mars is in fact the “Rosetta stone,” the key piece of evidence for understanding Mars’ past climate. This hypothesis is termed the Cydonian Hypothesis since it hypothesizes that the face is in fact an image of a Cydonian, an extinct humanoid
race indigenous to Mars who, before they perished, carved the face and created other objects found in Viking images.
The Cydonian Hypothesis
The hypothesis, that Mars, the home of a long-lived biosphere similar in scope and diversity to that of Earth, and that out of this biosphere evolved an indigenous humanoid race, termed Cydonians, that constructed large monuments similar to those constructed by Old Kingdom Egypt, is based on three main points:
1. The Assumption of Mediocrity (Sagan & Shklovskii, 1960). The Assumption
that neither the Earth nor its biosphere nor its humanoid denizens nor the civilization and artifacts they have produced are unique or
even remarkable in the Cosmos. By this assumption, the discovery of a dead civilization on an Earth-like planet such as Mars would not be
2. Images of the surface of Mars showing, at several sites what appear to be
three carved humanoid Faces (Brandenburg & DiPietro, 1986), of kilometer scale, and having similar anatomical and ornamental details between all three. Appearing with these objects are numerous other objects and surface features that resemble Earth-like archaeological ruins, of a Bronze Age culture, with no evidence of advanced technology or civilization.
3. Geological and geochemical data that are consistent with past conditions on Mars that were favorable to Earth-like life forms: Abundant
liquid water (Masursky, Boyce, Dial, Selaber, & Strobell, 1977), and an atmosphere that was dense and warm, and possibly rich in oxygen (Toulmin I11 et al., 1977).
Modern Searches For Civilizations On Mars
Because of its close proximity and similarity to Earth, Mars has always been the subject of speculation about its capacity to support life and intelligence. Sagan and Fox (1 975; Sagan & Wallace, 197 1) examined the first high-resolution photographs of the Martian surface acquired by Mariner 9 for signs of a civilization of our technological level and extent. They were guided in this search by images of Earth at similar resolution (Sagan & Wallace, 197 l). These pictures of Earth showed human civilization clearly. However, in the images of Mars, no signs of a civilization of our technological level and extent were found. Furthermore, in the Mariner 9 images, no objects that were strongly suggesting civilization of any known type were found. Other investigators reported objects resembling ancient pyramids of large size (Figure 1) in Elysium Planitia. When the Viking probes obtained
high-resolution pictures of Mars in 1976, however, an object was found by Dr. Tobias Owen which resembles a mammoth carved head; this object was dubbed the “Face of Mars” (Soffen, 1980), (Figure 2).
Two of the authors (DiPietro and Molenaar) studied the original image from the Viking frame 35A72 and discovered a second image on frame
70A 13. They enhanced the images using digital methods and copies of the raw data tapes, which were supplied by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, California. The results of their investigations were published at a Mars science conference (Oberg, 1983) and in a series of pamphlets (DiPietro & Molenaar, 1 9 80; DiPietro, Molenaar, & Brandenburg, 1 9 88)
There is more but I am not posting the entire thing.
Right thanks for that. Pretty much what I told you guys, but you refused point blank to work from the evidence, and must have had all sorts of other hidden agendas on the fly, rather then the firm conviction, that one must work from the evidence.
Now the thing is this. I don’t believe the evidence points to an indigenous lot of hominids. Either they are us, prior to the catastrophe, when we were more high-tech, or they are inter-stella interlopers and perhaps people who interfered with our own gene pool.
What we see on Mars bears witness to the moon-colony. No way to the indigenous evolved intelligence. But then again there is a question-mark as to what and what isn’t indigenous.
So for example, we humans may be half-bred with interlopers. The point being that evolution more generally is probably a multi-planet affair.
Remember how I explained the peculiar economics to you Edney. You have abundant cheap energy. Else you would not be there. But you are chronically short of both labour and capital. Hence the sort of structures you build can regress a thousand years. So we go to the Antarctic, and we might get snowed-in. Along with our tents we build an Igloo. Which may represent a sort of three thousand year retrogression in technology to something akin to an adobe clay-hut.
See these guys know nothing. They are children. They don’t have the broad education. But if they are actually looking at the evidence well god bless the ignorant changelings.
The situation is this. Either that is a human base before the Quarternary extinction event ….. or alternatively these are the fellows who cross-bred with hominids about 200 000 years ago, to produce homo sapiens.
I would bet on the former for fucking sure. I think we had an interplanetary economy, tied together with an almost exclusively coastal economy….
… I think we had it all and I think we fucked it up.
Macroeconomics should be derivable from micro, otherwise it is Keynesian handwaving bunk.”
You see that? You see that Edney? I am proven to be the worlds most holistic prophet after two or three years of abuse and betrayal. But the minute my genius is re-confirmed, every fucking Chinaman between here and Katmandu wants to curry favor with me.
I watch my shadow on the wall and it grows though I keep dead still.
Things are looking up. I may even succeed in making my girls laugh, both at the same time, for the first time in months, now that I carry this much gravitas and power.
Curry favour? I just thought you might be interested in the research on that link. The guy who started the journal is a well respected solar plasma physicist, who also has interest in non-standard science. A friend of mine worked with him which is why I knew about him.
Bear in mind Edney, that NASA has had this evidence ….. nay PROOF ….. all this time and has done everything it can to deny it all. But now some members of the priesthood are allowed to scoop this story. And why? Why Now!!! What is it all about?
Competition between governments Edney. Government institutions are like women. All of them are crazy. Supposing you find one that isn’t crazy? You know what? That government institution is crazy also.
So thats why the Kennedy hit was so counterproductive and still went ahead. The 9/11 False flag as well. Don’t you understand, or how much longer do you need to live to know that government departments are deranged? And that the crazy girls make life interesting?
Oh I see. Yes all government institutions exhibit the tendency to bad craziness. Even the FBI, an organisation that appeared to stay sane for a very long time, began to go mad in the early sixties, and then slowly expanded on that madness, to the point wherein now its probably something of a menace.
There is no insulting Philomena on this blog Steve. She has a vast over-insult credit level built up. I’ll modify your post, but may I be the first to congratulate you on your good self regaining your science bona-fides.
Yes it was a presumptuous statement Philomena. It was highly nosy and insulting, and you were right to run him down on that basis.
As it turned out there was an element of truth to it, and I was pretty chuffed that Edney did not hide the new information he had found, but rather took it straight to me, and for that reason I let the impertinence pass, in the general mood of delight.’
You see the Christians claim that all folks are worthy of a chance at redemption Philomena. So clearly I was pleased that Edney did not hold out on me on this occasion.
Now there is a woman. Insulting. Provocative. Legs, talent and attitude. Sexy as all getup. Keeping her head above water in the midst of the potential for male bully-boy behavior.
You know its a successful male protagonist in a work of fiction, when you feel like aping his behavior. I haven’t gained quite enough weight yet to see myself getting around with a Cravatt. But waving around a red hankie seems suddenly appealing to me on the strength of that youtube alone.
Although where I’m going, red shirts, and waving red hankies about, may be less than advisable.
Ooh isn’t youtube just the bee’s knees? I’ve never heard that song before or seen Meatloaf in the flesh – so to speak. He rocks in this and as for Cher, what a sassy drop-dead gorgeous high-energy performer. They make a damn beautiful couple, even if it’s only for one night.
A gutsy woman too. Like that other goddess I always associate Cher with, Tina Turner. Both endured a lot of crap from men and yet had big determined generous hearts who earned the adulation they get back in spades.
She was another girl, and even much moreso, who managed to find people to write just the most amazing lyrics for her. I suppose now that we can access them so easily, that the mystique may not be there. But she always seemed to have the coolest lyrics to her songs.
I could post the lyrics, but it probably is more effective to just try and suss out what she is saying yourself. You won’t succeed. But it sounds fascinating. Particularly the part about “childs-play”