Michael: I was alluding to the growth of the GDP in my post of two days ago. It seems that a growth in GDP is a good sign for the economy. I have been too many years away from an economics classrom but the measure of GDP is C+I+G+E-m (consumption, investment, Gov't spending, exports, minus imports).something like that anyway. When you say 'borrowing from China' doesn't that mean that China is investing in gov't securities? Wasn't the fear after the Sept crash that asian investments in US gov't instruments would dry up causing a deeper crisis in the US economy? Homeowners should be thrilled that housing has increased. As I also mentioned the US economy may rebound without a significant rebound in jobs in part because work has been outsourced abroad and partially because technology has taken over large areas of traditional employment. Employment will rebound slower but the overall unemployment rate will level off at a higher percentage in recovery. Your assessment that the government is wrong puzzles me. Wall St and the big banks have been indemnified for the mistakes they themselves created. Other well regulated economies were harmed because that the creditworthiness of bundeled securites were misrepresented and the aggreived parties have to access to redress. While the bailout looks obscene it did stave off economic collapse. So yes, the USA took on huge debts to maintain the world economic system as recompense for not having the regulatory forsight to avert the crisis. But it also appears that the worsening effects may have abated. The planet has a stake in seeing the US economic policy stabilize tha market which sould transcend the politics of the party in charge. I'll hold off on a discussion of taxation until later. Francophone to boot. I am impressed. You seem to buck the stereotype.

Michael: Thank you for your comments and commentary. I wasn't aware of how much you publish on conservatism and the economy. So it is an honor to be able to have this chat with you. After reading your remarks (and article) I heard this commentary last night on Première Chaîne Radio which claims that the lack of regulation combined with a lack of regulatory enforcement of the financial markets has been an ongoing issue in the USA. The problem this time however is that international resentment builds when this negligence causes harm to other economies around the world. Michel Désautels is a leading commentator on economic issues for decades. I've copied the broadcast here (in french): http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/desautels/2009-2010/chronique.asp?idChronique=94617 (trans: The Hidden Face of Banking They have caused the worst economic crisis since 1929, and today they are the only beneficiaries. This demonstrates that a book which reveals the incestuous ties linking Wall Street and Washington. Its author, a reporter has previously signed The Bush War and The dark side of oil..") Is there anything you would contradict in this CBC story?

It appears that Yosemite Sam hasn't lost a drop of that piss-and vinegar towards rationality. Michael, the american economy seems to be on the mend, at least for those who play by the new rules. Jobs are being created by the american stimulus although not in the USA. I had a friend in NY tell me that the appointment clerk for the healthcare corporation which now employs her GP schedules appointments from an office in St Lucia. As manufacturing has deserted North America over the past three decades so too much of the service economy is being eliminated or outsourced. High unemployment may indeed become a fixture of any recovery. I had been meaning to ask you to what extent did the deregulation of banking allowing for the consumer banks to engage in speculative investment banking played a role in the financial meltdown? In Canada there was no such deregulation and the banks didn't suffer as did some of their american counterparts. Mr Bush was speaking here last week on his forthcoming memoir and championed deregulation to stimulate growth. He did not however mention the gringotheory that liberals in america in order to destroy heterosexuality must promote homosexuality. Mr Bush received a rousing welcome from the citizens of Quebec who rushed to the streets to welcome his motorcade. Perhaps Mr Cheney will speak to this on his upcoming visit to Montreal. Seems to pass as fact on Monicamemo.

"As was pointed out (or rather implied) in A.A. Brill's introduction to Sigmund Freud's, 'A Study in Psychosexuality,' the homosexual mind cannot understand male bonding except in terms of sexuality. The concept of non-sexual brotherly love, known to mankind throughout the ages, is foreign to it. This mindset might just as well try to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics. Its eye glazes over. For self-esteem, it feels driven to sexualize all examples of male bonding. In its power struggle, it must propogandize society in this direction, another reason for the militant drive to have its unions called "marriage." In a clever and ironic juxtaposition, the more "natural" it can make itself appear, the more "un-natural" it can cast the majority who oppose it, including all opposition to the growing introduction of homosexual "sensitivity" in the national media, education, legal system etc. The prospect seems clear: They cannot end the dominance of heterosexual America without homosexualizing America. Some will say the choice isn't that stark. Most will just avoid looking at it with clarity. "-GRINGOMAN MANLY.

I think I'll come with Gringo to help him carry his free TV, no doubt it's big you braggard.. UMMAH GUMMAH playing Yosemite Sam Mais oui, c'est tres grand.. very big, yes.. and wide picture.. and just like you and the telefibber desire, FLATSCREEN. So the TV is just like you two: NO DEPTH! UG, when you see the Hannity at night you will feel that you can reach in and stroke his hair and admire the Speedo. Careful readers of MM will note that Gringoman had watched the storming of WACO at home on TV, and the McCain debates too (Gringoman said that McCain won all three) The shops always seem to feature early Beatles re-issues; but downloads and CD's don't afford the listener to move the recording backwards in order to learn the fate of Paul. I'd be happy just to see the Playbill from the Martha Graham TV production of Carmina Burana.

And maybe we'll have a very nice face-to-face talk about a few things while i am there... . Posted by: Ummah Gummah | October 24, 2009 at 02:56 PM After the Stankies, Mets, and the latest paranoia about muslims, whatever would you find to talk about?

Gringoman hasn't had a television since the early Beatles. So just how did Gringoman watch Carmina Burana on TV at Gringo's with black friend John of Doo-Wop heritage?. Answer: Let It Be is early Beatles. -or- Gringoman is mistaken as to when he tossed the tube? -or- Gringoman did not see Carmina Burana on TV.

Too bad we don't do things the Darwin way anymore.. . Posted by: Ummah Gummah | October 24, 2009 at 02:30 PM What, catalog biological specimens and refute Genesis in the bible? You're right. The party would take away your white stripes.

GET LOST, you freaggin COMMIE BASTARD!! don't you have boards in Canookooklandia that you can SPAM UP with your gibberish and bile? You are beyond useless.. Too bad we don't do things the Darwin way anymore.. . Posted by: Ummah Gummah | October 24, 2009 at 02:30 PM . TIME TO SWEEP OUT THE TROLLS. . Posted by: Ummah Gummah | October 24, 2009 at 02:39 PM Hey Yosemite Sam, you bark just like a cocker-spaniel nipping at the ankles. Isn't there a game on TV that you can IM a play-by-play to the screen-deficient Gringoman?

haven't owned a TV since the early Beatles. So you have my thanks, watching what I don't have to. And my condolences. Posted by: gringoman | October 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM Pay it off and it's yours! or- I've got a spare. Come on up on the train and it's yours. or- There was an early Beatles documentary on just last night... when you were sleeping like a log.

I haven't owned a TV since the early Beatles. So you have my thanks, watching what I don't have to. And my condolences. Posted by: gringoman | October 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM Pay it off and it's yours! or- I've got a spare. Come on up on the train and it's yours. or- There was an early Beatles documentary on just last night... when you were sleeping like a log.

Despite his success, he still betrays some insecurity by throwing his Ph.D around etc, as when he refers to the "high-school drop-out" competition and calls Sean Hannity "the wall-banger." In other words, I know where Michael Savage is coming from. Posted by: gringoman | October 24, 2009 at 12:27 PM "..both widely read,.." quips the Gringoman...our coffee table scholar must be including the back of the Post Toasties box and mens room maxims on the towel dispenser, "Pull Down and Tear Up" in the vast list of lit. The home historian seems willing to distill and diapense the wisdom of the ages gleaned from all of this... scholarship. No insecurity coming from our living room librarian though as there doesn't seem to be a PhD to throw around. In other words, all the pontification doesn't come accompanied with the obligatory puff of white smoke. The college of cardinals find him yet wanting; for he IS wanting. Wanting, very bad.

DJ: I love the qualifier "might" in the list of traits that shows feality to the contract between the state and its people. Scrolling through that list of 36 tell-tale signs which "might" just apply to anybody. Agree with 34 of them and one still "might" make the grade. When you are down to around 14 you "might" start having a difficult time qualifying as a constitutionalist. By 8 one's own chances are somewhat attenuated. However is you score a perfect 36 you are surely NOT a constitutionalist; in fact you're a boob. You have no concept what that founding document is about and probably skipped over its Preamble. The beauty of the American Constitution is that exsits to limit the power of government and not constrain the liberty of people. So for persons or parties who take the opposite view of any/all 36 of the gee-whiz precepts are free under the Constitution to expess their conscience freely and organise parties to petition their government for redress: doing so makes them-, not the nazi or his henchmen who eat this trash- faithful Constitutionalists!

Phil, Thank you for that explanation. Are you comparing Mao's atrocities with the Dust Bowl? ----------------- No. I was talking about proximate causation eg.. You're driving and adjusting the radio. You strike the car in front of you and an occupant dies. (negligent homocide) eg.. You are driving and intend to strike the car in fron of you an an occupant dies. (criminal homicide) eg.. You are driving and hit the car in front of you because the accelerator is stuck and an occubent dies. (negligent homicide) You are the actual cause of the death but the proximate cause is the auto mfgr. The mfgr ge3ts tagged with liability.

2. I know of no instance when in history the proximate case of homicide was a conscious decision by an American leader for total control of his people, or the peoples of another nation. MICHAEL AVARI I'll address this in stages later. But for now: Homocide is the killing of one by another. Homicide can be accidental, negligent, or criminal. In the case of negligent homicide the focus is not on the killers intention but is a question of forseeability. Negligence is not about intention. It assumes that the actor assumes a standard of care for her actions, breaches that duty, which results in harm. In an analysis of negligent homicide american history is replete with examples of leaders who began a policy which when set in motion was the proximate cause of death to innocent people. If, as you say, are looking for examples of conscious decisions which resulted in the death of innocents then we are in the realm of criminal homicide. These are also legion albeit not on the scale of Mao's China. I think of a drone rocket targeted on a house where innocents cohabitate with the criminal as a quick example. Within the context of Mao and his 70 millions... the number includes those who perished from negligent homicide and those deaths who perished from criminal homicide. The negligent homicide numbers far outweigh the criminal. When proximate causation is discussed there is always a public policy where the causal chain of forseeability is cut. Take the denotative meaning of the two words 'proximate' and 'causation'. eg. There is a new agrarian policy put in place by operation of law. The policy fails because the crops wither. As the dust gathers famine ensues and people starve. Shoulod the political leader be held for the negligent homicide resulting from state policy? Cheers. . . . (ps. it's 1935 and it's Kansas in the dust bowl)

Hmm... maybe I need to go to Confession. Posted by: xbjllb | October 22, 2009 at 05:15 PM Do I detect an air of superiority here? You have scientific interests so I'll point you to Joseph Campbell on Myth. 'Hero With A Thousand Faces' is his seminal work in the area of culture and religon. I trust from recent comments here that you are not familiar with Campell's work. I urge you look at this work on the nature of belief and ritual; if only to fortify your own faith. Collaterally, at the core of christian teaching is humility: that is an appreciation of the sincerity of others as a gift to oneself.

Michael: I have stipulated that Mao was a despotic leader with the blood of many innocents on his hands. My post came in response your noting that someone who had admired the political philosophy of Mao did not take into account he is "responsible for the death of 70 million". It becomes a marker of one's own place on the left-right spectrum when the number of deaths attributable to an individual leader are bandied about. I also think that the number of attributable deaths are inflated by the one making the assertion in proportion to the ideological distance between the speaker and the despot. Thus 70 million deaths attributable to Mao says more about you than it does about Mao. In the study of Hemoclysm one begins to dissect how these numbers are derived. Direct homicide and homocides resulting from state policy. In the latter case the question of proximate causation arises. How far does one attribute negligence resulting in death to a leader for policies that leader helped set in place? The disasterous famine from the Great Leap Forward which caused the starvation of some 30 million people is in the calculus of the 70 million deaths. The deaths are proximately caused by the state agrarian policy which failed to produce an arable crop. The question is wether this failed state policy resulting in so many deaths is a case of negilgent homicide (attributable to Mao) in that the consequenses of the policy were forseeable prior to the implimentation of that policy; or premeditated murder? Putting aside the issue of forseeability in implimenting the agrarian policy those who attribute 70 million dead to Mao have bypassed the analysis of negligence and have convicted him of murder for the deaths resulting from the Great Leap Forward. Reading your eloquent defense of catholicism from a rude attack impelled me to make the above comments on Mao and hemoclysm. In terms of apostolic truth the teachings of Christ regarding the moral responsibility for homocide is not mitagated by nationality...or numerocity. In christian terms the consequences for homocide are equal wether the killing is singular or plural. Here I will set aside the question of proximate causation for homocide as the forseeable result of policy set in place by american leaders. Suffice to say that the standard applied to american leaders isn't the same for despots such as Mao. The issue is further obstructed by attributing more & more deaths to one's foes. But as we have discussed employing numbers is often a canard to hide one's own immorality. Cheers.

The medic wears Montagnard bracelets. "The 'Yards say if you remove your bracelets you may remove your luck." Daniel Cameron via GRINGOMAN They also say that removing your knickers may improve your luck. Presumably not with the tail gunners of Company C. At least not quite like Colonel Sam, or, as Captain Coleman confessed, "he wouldn't do a crazy thing like that again." One could fall over dead from the exhaustion. That may just explain the lull in the Red offensive. Just watch them diddle while Rome burns. Too bad. There should have been one, two, many Vietnams.. as the great one has repeated after victory in the Sierra. --- I've just got to return to the exposee on the propagandist Saigon Post. Strange, the the two Vietnamese fronts "owners" were the only two journalists not sent for re-education after the liberation. The paper hosted an all expenses paid junket for Asian journalists to visit Saigon for a 'conference' right smack dab when the young Cameron was writing baubles on pulchritude . The conference exhorted the asian journalists from Korea, Malaysia, Philippines to start writing favorably about the war. Where did the Saigon Post get the money to fly and billet some eighty journalists..and why no word in the paper about the conference itself, not even from young Dan? Turns out that the JUSPAO masters were duped by double agents who watched the Saigon expats baccanalia with bemusement while just biding their time. The young Cameron pecked at his Olivetti while visions of a young Hemingway danced in his head. Never had a clue.. and they still don't.

Do you detect the progressive pining for the "socialist sunshine" down in Castrolandia GRINGOMAN With the weather turning colder and the first snow flurries arrived-- the sunshine, socialist or otherwise, is a welcoming thought. I was toying with going to the Dominican and Cuba..

SAUL ALINKSY'S BOOK 'RULES FOR RADICALS'. It identifies thirteen rules for progressive activists including, “The thirteenth rule: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Explaining just how far progressives must be willing to go to marginalize their “enemies” Alinsky explains a few pages later---GRINGOMAN Gringoman has oft cited the Alinsky work here on Monicamemo which leaves me wondering if he found room on his coffee table (or on the floor with Doestoevsky) for the Alinsky book. Not having read "Rules For Radicals" I can only assume that Mr Alinsky is not an anarchist. If he were the book would simply be entitled, "For Radicals" There is something Harry Potter-ish with the Gringocitation: A book with such powerful incantations.. A rule, a paragraph, and the whole nation is moved! Gringoman might find Alinsky's strictures helpful in losing weight or learning spanish. The book has been descibed in magical terms and in biblical proportions.

Michael: The ideological right bandies twentieth century Hemoclysm in a rather offhand way. The further one is ideologically from the despot the greater the mortality attributable to depotic policies and actions. It becomes little more than a idelogical spatial barometer. I actually prefer the standard of care the rightwing uses to derive a census of culpability. Put a policy in place and be subject to strict liability for resulting harm. Therein lies the raison d'etre for not limiting the scope of proximate causation. The standard of care of death directly or indirectly attributable to political leaders is not uniform and this fact is camoflaged by use of statistics. Simply put Mao killed many outright but his agrarian policies resulted in famines which killed many more. Likewise in an unjust invasion there are those killed outright and many, many more who would otherwise be alive but for the policy which created the conflict. Because the standard of care isn't equally applied implies a justification for negligent death resulting from political policy. Thus Johnson and Nixon escape recrimination only because the same standard used to excoriate Mao is not being applied to them. The unthinking become confused because their policies resulted in the deaths of some three millions while Mao is blamed, in this case, for 70 million dead. The trick being employed is the use of proximate causation. Where is the chain of harm resulting from negligence cut off? The answer is always one of public policy. FedEx did not deliver the part on time to fix the machine. The machine could not produce the goods in time to ship the order because the part arrived late. The item did not get to the store in time for the sale... so who is liable? Depending where one cuts proximate causation accounts for the various numbers of death attributable to Mao.. between 40 and 70 million. When it comes to US policy however proximate causation pretends not to exist. Cheers.

Some of the recently released have arrived on Bermuda and it seems the like it there. Where's my free ticket? UMMAH GUMMAH . Posted by: Ummah Gummah | October 21, 2009 at 03:00 PM Tonite is uighurs nite at the Hog Penny, Front Street, Hamilton. No cover if you arrive in a burqa and free suds before four... and UG can't swing a ticket out of JFK! The Elbow Beach Club is doubling as a training facility. There is YouTube footage of armed uighurs crawling under a row of bar stools The local middle school has a stage production of Romeo & Mineret. It's a triangle. You go down there, meet a uighur and just disappear. I mean, UG, aren't you just scared?!

The commies are coming. Posted by: gringoman | October 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM If you ride around on horseback shouting this..you could become famous; meaning some will have heard of you but few among these will know why. But those who do remember you- and remember why they do remember you- will revere you! But some with the inside skinny will just hear Gringoman subliminally channelling South Park because he fell asleep with the television switched on.

The I-Man still manages to pull it off, alternately sucking up to prestige guests, then instantly demeaning them as if they're somebody on the street corner--GRINGOMAN Gringoman, if you see somebody on the street corner do your demean thang. I say, pull it off, man!

The commies are coming. Posted by: gringoman | October 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM You rang?