Who knows whether the sky is falling? Problem is, Paulson, bless his 
coprophagous soul, says that it will fall unless $700B is raised 

News flash: in an investment system that is held together by duct tape 
and happy thoughts, that has already become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 
Now that this tasty $700B morsel has been dangled in front of the 
world's investors, their disappointment at receiving anything less will 
produce the same panic that may or may not have happened anyway.

Like Iraq after the invasion, we're already committed.


Leigh Daboll wrote:
> Mike:
> While I don't agree with much of what you've conjectured here, you've 
> put together one of the better pieces of retort-ical writing I've read 
> in some time on skivt.  I suspect it deserves a response that requires 
> as much effort on my part in counterpoint.  And I have a lot of 
> counterpoints.  Nor do I retract my original thoughts. However, as the 
> only laziness I'll admit to is keyboarding laziness, it may take some 
> time to get it out there.
> If you want to confuse my original shorthand thoughts with a lack of 
> intellectual rigor, fine - but I've invested a lot of time in thinking 
> through to those conclusions.  Whether or not you think I might be 
> basing those views  on a personal hankerin' for a return to a quasi- 
> agrarian future, that vision is based on a 
> more-careful-than-you-might-think analysis of certain very visible 
> demographic tends and shifts.  As a cipher for my original post, it 
> might be useful to recall that three very smart guys recognized that 
> twelve jurors needed only to buy into 'if the shoe don't fit' mantra 
> to overturn weeks of painstaking statistical and forensic evidence to 
> the contrary.  Crazy?  Yes, but blunt, effective shorthand can be 
> mighty useful at times.
> Are you telling us that your world view, firmly centred as it is 
> between Madison and Wall, any more representative of the planet writ 
> large than my supposedly dystopian future vision from out here where I 
> sit straddling two very different worlds?  I suspect it's less so. 
> Like Roger says, I just don't see the sky falling yet.  I'm jaundiced 
> from a recent past watching small-town Canada's death spirals and 
> serious societal issues falling on deaf ears, while every time Toronto 
> sneezes we're subjected to a media barrage of crocodile tears.  I see 
> Wall Street and its media sycophants crying a lot of those same 
> crocodile tears right about now.
> So,back away if you wish.  When the most common baby surname in 
> Britain for five years' running is not John or Mary, but Mohammed, we 
> have a generational transfer of mores underway that will shake that 
> society to the core, not, as you suggest, a genital fixation. The 
> passage of the Sharia law bill in Britain this past month was merely 
> the tip o' the iceberg. How much non-perishable stuff in your home 
> purchased in the last, say, two years - look around - originates from 
> Europe and the USA rather than China and Korea? Why?
> The past hundred years or so - your example - would tend to show that 
> mores-based socially conservative periods (the thirties, forties and 
> fifties) tracked periods of military and financial insecurity, and the 
> periods of social liberalism (the twenties, sixties and, yes, the 
> recent past) tracked periods of relative wealth and abundance.
> So..., To be continued.
> Leigh
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
> To unsubscribe, visit

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit