A Two Class World? Get Used To It.
Economists state that "Higher unemployment might become the norm as result of (the) recession." The problem is that this is not simply a "recession," but the collapse of the heavily skewed global economic system. The follies of monopoly capitalism, combined with the funny money financial schemes, have hit the world hard. However, they have hit the United States particularly hard, and may have permanently damaged the economic dominance of the United States.
Even before this collapse/implosion, the United States was in a shaky position. We have an economy recrafted on consumerism and a service economy. Productive capacity has been hamstrung since the 1980s as increasingly manufacturing - even infrastructure and security critical activities - were relocated to "cheaper" places in the world. The question raised early in this movement was "Can a nation that produces nothing survive?" Unfortunately, the United States may soon be able to answer that question in the negative.
The globalization/corporatization movement pushed by Republican neo-conservatives, and Democratic neo-liberals have auctioned the economic and political sovereignty of the United States by chasing the grail of making money out of nothing. Now we are in a situation where the dollar may be replaced as the standard currency and for oil. We may be waving goodbye to the petrodollar, and that is bad news for the country that prints those dollars - the United States.
Hocked to the ears and beyond to Dubai banks, China and Japan, the United States has it's butt blowing in the wind and survives at the pleasure of those creditors. If any of them choose to call the loans, or sell off the their dollar reserves, then what is a now dire situation in the United States may take on the hue of the "good old days."
Therefore, we (and the economists) can well say "the world has changed," and that change means ongoing higher levels of unemployment and underemployment, and falling wages - for most of the population.
Speaking from a different perspective, the Goldman Sachs International Vice President stated at a panel in Britain: People should "tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all"... "we should not ... be ashamed of offering compensation in an internationally competitive market which ensures the bank businesses here and employs British people."
One has to wonder if this is the world that those at Goldman Sachs and other profiteering finance firms have always had in mind - extracting the the wealth of the global population and returning to their perceived "natural" order of the royalty and the serfs. Perhaps, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach sees no real issue with stagnant wages and high unemployment for the masses. After all, it leaves more for the "deserving" at the top. However, it seems unlikely that he can truly believe that extreme inequality somehow creates "prosperity." The pronouncement itself makes absolutely no sense. However, being one of the big winners in the monopoly economy, perhaps he is only concerned about the prosperity of those with extreme wealth.
This two class society where the few get bonuses, compensation, and investment windfalls in the millions of dollars, while the majority of the population (here and globally) scrabble for leftovers, is possible only if we accept the constraints of the current system. It is only inevitable if we accept Lord Griffiths world view that extreme inequality somehow increases prosperity. However, I do not think that the population of the planet will share the inevitability of this skewed world view.
10/19/09. Raum. Associated Press. Higher unemployment might become the norm as result of recession
10/21/09 Quinn & Hall, Times/UK, Goldman Sachs vice-chairman says: 'Learn to tolerate inequality'
















I really hate these people. But they own everything. We do not get a choice in our silly political system.
TWO PARTIES.
There is not choice for me.
October 26, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
We definitely need a political shakeup and getting the politicians out of these yahoo's pockets is one of the things that definitely needs changing - two parties or ninety.
October 26, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a choice. If there isn't, we can create it.
Check Bob Herbert's column, it was good for some inspriation for me today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/opinion/27herbert.html?hp
October 27, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Must create the choice is more like it. Thanks for the link.
October 27, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rowan, well done. If we step back from our places in the situation, and just look at history, is this not when revolution traditionally happens? I'm not a student of history OR government, but I thought that was the progression usually.
You point out so well that this time is unlike the other depression in our history, as this is more global. Back then Americans were needed to consume things, plus make things. Now all those bets seem off, since money, resources, and products can circle the globe pretty easily.
I've been doing some looking for a blog on US military bases around the world, and so many sites with info mention that we are so present in so many countries partly for resource grabs, but also to control the monetary system. Any thoughts?
October 26, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points and questions Wendy. Yes we have globalization which is corporatization actually. The rewriting of GATT was an attempt to create a "borderless" environment for business and investment. As we can see both those areas have been "successful."
In terms of the military, the United States sends the military to protect US "interests" which are frequently corporate interests. Of big importance since at least the 1970s has been resource access and control - particularly oil - but more recently other extinguishing resources. It was the 1970's when the US passed peak oil and was critically dependent on other nations to meet those demands - particularly the Middle East.
October 26, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a global class that understands their wealth is measured in money, not patriotism. So these MINCs{MultI National Corporations}, as I like to call them, abhor the UN because it is the only body that has a chance of regulating their behavior. Without an effective UN, these companies simply move from one haven to the next making incredible profits on the broken backs of their laborers who are neglected, which is a form of abuse.
[PS - MINCs is a particularly well-suited name because they have such beautiful fur, yet are such fierce predators. They are small and fast, which also described these companies because, compared to nations and cultures, they are not very large.
October 27, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The international capitalist class perhaps?
October 27, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that - MINCs - and appropriate on many levels.
October 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What has to change is ditching the fantasy world that we and the world has had about the United States for some time. Only when problems are admitted can they be fixed.
I know admitting, finding, and fixing these problems are difficult, but it has to happen if we want to be strong. Using skyrocketing debt and creative financial packaging to keep the illusion of prosperity hasn't been a winning strategy in my opinion.
October 26, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember reading blurbs about Fareed Zakaria's 'The Post-american World'? His contention was that this country won't fail as much as the others rise, and tries to give advice on how we should survive it and interact with the nations on the rise.
I wonder, though, if an era of post-American exceptionalism might be a smack in the head for us; maybe we can leverage some good changes and better values from the bottom up. I am tires of allowing government and corporations to hold all the keys.
And I'm too goddam old and tired for a revolution.
We do have some oddly anachronistic self-delusions, don't we?
October 26, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zakaria could be wrong, however, if we just keep our heads in the sand. We can get worse too.
I'm not a revolutionist either, but I don't see the harm in writing/hoping that we wake up.
October 26, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do have to deal with facts and reality or we solve the wrong problems, or make problems with the solutions.
October 26, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Between you and me, it sounds like we could pen a Talking Heads song:
October 27, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a tune to go with that prose? It could take off - youtube anyone?
October 27, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two fundamental mistakes in your analysis. Your characterization of the U.S. as a "nation that produces nothing" is often repeated, but never justified. That's because it's simply not true. As you can see, Germany and China have pulled slightly ahead in global exports, but the U.S. is close behind. The next nearest competitors in the top ten are lucky to be exporting half of what the top three are pushing. When we examine the data, we can see that it's fair to say that the U.S. has two very strong competitors, but no one else is even in the same weight class, so to speak.
The other mistake you make, which is also frequently repeated, is exemplified here:
China will not and cannot "choose to call the loans" as you say. China buys U.S. debt in the form of bonds. The bonds are standard contracts. China can sell these contracts, but there has to be a buyer in order to do this. They cannot simply call their money back.
A big Chinese sell-off of U.S. t-bills is highly unlikely. Why? Because China has a unique motivation in buying U.S. bonds. China is trying to grow its economy rapidly, but lacks the middle class that would support a healthy domestic market for Chinese products. As a result, they need someone to buy their products. That someone is us. China buys U.S. t-bills because it wants to keep the yuan low against the dollar, thus resulting in cheaper Chinese goods for U.S. consumers.
This is a classic mercantile approach, but it has consequences, chief among them being that China simply can't stop buying U.S. bonds without fundamentally altering this dynamic. If they did, the result would not be the collapse of the dollar. The dollar would drop relative to the yuan, but this in turn would cause a correction in our trade imbalance with China. That's a good thing for American workers.
I highly recommend checking out what economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Baker have to say on the matter.
October 26, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Wait! You're both right. It's a floor wax *and* a dessert topping!"
While DF makes good points about our absolute status, relatively speaking our country has declined, and I don't see a return to the heady days of the previous century.
October 26, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's only a problem if you view economics as a zero-sum game. We're at the top of the Solow curve. Countries like China are much further behind. 20% YoY growth for us is neither feasible, nor desirable.
October 26, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, right now its a zero job game for more than a few of us.
October 26, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Domestic policies can alleviate that. The U.S. is not in some dire position globally. The ability of the U.S. to take care of its domestic population is a separate affair. I'm not denying that it stinks or that it should be changed, but peddling misconceptions about the imminent collapse of the U.S. position in global markets turns well-meaning voices on the left into useful idiots for the right who are heavily invested in hand-wringing over the end of dollar hegemony when, in fact, a decline the U.S. dollar would be good for U.S. workers.
That is assuming that our ostensibly Democratic leadership has any sincere intention of doing something for working people instead of shoveling cash into Wall Street coffers.
October 26, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Local governments are already turning to furloughs to lower operating expenses, so I have a hard time seeing them alleviate unemployment. And while the US may not be hurt as bad as third world countries, at first, I see any growth in the global economy bumping up against oil supply.
But I agree that a decline in the dollar and an increase in transport costs would be good for local workers.
October 26, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's possible, but poorer countries will still have the roughest go in this case. The U.S. can easily get by on low, single-digit growth rates. The developing world needs much higher rates of growth that might not be sustainable in the face of reduction in the oil supply.
Also, though this is probably obvious, the richer, more technologically advanced nations will have a much easier time re-allocating investments toward the advent and implementation of alternative sources of energy. That isn't to say that there won't be discomfort, but that word will have radically different meaning in the U.S. than it will in places like India and China or, probably worst of all, Africa.
October 26, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you both think a decline in the dollar helps anyone?
You assume prices will come down?
They wont.
They will skyrocket.
We are in this position because a corrupt government couldn't give the wealth away to a few fast enough.
You both admit the politicians are owned yet you see a light.
Total folly.
Everything economic will continue to decline while the jobs will never come back.
In fact all corporations are now redesigned to work without the lost jobs.
We are going through the decline and end of the middle class.
And one of the main reasons it is happening is because of all the fools ,the palin and beck supporters for example, who hold the rest of us hostage because the media presents their self defeating concerns as integral to welfare of the working class.
Quite a trifecta that has been pulled over the eyes of this country.
October 27, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said JadeZ. Where ARE the people's interests in all of this? I would say unconsidered - just grist for the mill.
October 27, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just to keep statistics honest, we might look at U.S. Trade in Goods and Services - Balance of Payments (BOP) Basis which from 1974 to the present is steadily in the negative column for product exports, and steadily on the increase in terms of imports. Also in your chart - that second rate China is now ahead of the United States in terms of exports. Further, the largest recipient of those goods from China is the United States.
China has also deliberately set itself as a collision course competitor with US for natural resources.
October 26, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole point is that the trade balance with China is directly related to forex rates and Chinese accumulation of U.S. debt. These are not disparate facts, but various aspects of the same game.
October 26, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be "the whole point" for you, but it was not the point of my article.
October 27, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all"...
That fellow from Golden Sux sure has his head up the corporate castle. Tolerate hungry children and fantasize about how it's for our own good. Yeah, great advice.
Coming from his "greater prosperity" standpoint I'm sure he and his pals can well tolerate seeing people suffer. Gawds, where are their hearts?
I wonder how long the people are going to take his kind of soulless analysis. Is our Democracy too big to fail? Are the corporate hegemons too rich to jail?
October 26, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it is the economic equivalent of "collateral damage." The people starving and struggling are just numbers and "acceptable losses" or "costs" for the "greater good." And if we follow the typical blind headed US stereotypical approach, it will be our own damn fault for not working hard enough.
October 26, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Jobless recovery" is the phrase I keep hearing, Rowan. Doesn't sound very pleasant. I reckon the GS VP's don't particularly give a rip about this condition since it doesn't affect them, which is why they can be so cavalier.
Pisses me off, though.
But, who am I to blow against the wind?
October 26, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We had a "jobless recovery" from the last recession and lots of folks never recovered from that. Now a broader swath of the population is getting creamed and once again we hear "jobless recovery." A jobless recovery is when the those recovering are the monied interests.
October 26, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’ve seen it called a job-loss recovery somewhere recently. A recovery where not only do jobs not get created, they keep getting lost. The new and improved recovery, folks!
BTW, flowerchild, I saw this a few weeks ago and thought of your posts on Gitmo detainees in Michigan. Of all jobs lost in the US since 2000, 24% were in Michigan. Ouch! No wonder we’re hurting.
[ I've never done a link before, in case it doesn't work here's the URL: http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2009/09/michigan-job-loss-tsunami.html ]
October 27, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds a lot like Brazil.
I have access to a time travel device!!! It's called an airplane!
Every time I arrive in Brazil I think to myself:
"Welcome to the future".
Having said that... I should point out that the Brazilian people appear to really love life! They have a great attitude despite the inequities and difficulty of scratching out a living.
There are the Haves and the Have Nots. Not much in between. Don't even apply for a job unless you have a degree. And if you get a job, expect to work extremely long hours under high stress for not enough pay. (But Brazil also has a lot of laws to protect workers, too... and they have a lot of Federally Mandated Holidays!... but I digress...)
I think to myself "Welcome to the Future". It's crowded and difficult and unequal... The gov't is completely corrupt and in bed with big business... It seems the US is basically set up the same way... ... and I can just see us heading that way.
October 27, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet Brazil has implemented a tarriff on all international financial trades to keep the Real strong.
October 27, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brazil does some stuff "right"... despite their best efforts to the contrary.
October 27, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering what percentage of our exports are weapons; I keep hearing that it's one of our major exports. An inept google search showed me percentages all over the map, possibly politically skewed. I then got to wondering how much of the weaponry we export is in-kind, i.e., bribery that taxpayers underwrite. Along the way, I discovered many complaints that our armament industries do business with those nations we by and large count as "bad guys." Rather like the corporations who keep doing big business with Iran, somehow ducking under the radar as far US sanctions prohibit. What a complicated game it is for those few at the top!
They are pigs at our troughs; and 'we're dying of their gravy spills.' --Buffy Sainte Marie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AjaVyyveig&feature=PlayList&p=D8BF766A97234221&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=37
October 27, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take the time to click it. You'll love it.)
October 27, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question Wendy. All I know is that we have taken the number 1 spot in the arms trade.
October 27, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a clue as to the relevance or accuracy of this link, Wendy.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_us_mil_exp-military-us-exports
October 27, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked your use of the term "monopoly capitalism" and wondered if there weren't a more accurate word for the "monopoly" part, since it isn't quite that.
Found one... "oligopoly"
It also has the nice little connotation from "oligarchy" too.
October 27, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
mcjam, interesting choice. I have been using Monopoly capitalism as an analogy for years because of the multiple appropriate connections - monopololistic, game, monopolpy money etc.
October 27, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"monopoly capitalism"
Some oxymorons just stand right out...
What you really mean is "monopolists abusing the capitalist system", but your point is well taken.
One of the hallmarks of monopolists in capitalist clothing is their tendency to pay-off "government" to protect their monopolism, as "exceptions" to common competition protective laws.
And where's the proof?
Here's the easiest one...
WHY IS INDUSTRIAL HEMP STILL ILLEGAL TO GROW?
Now that so many states are legitimizing pot for smoking, will industrial hemp be freed from it's anti-competition unfair treatment?
The only reason industrial hemp can't be cultivated openly is because it's THC-bearing relative, POT, is labeled a dangerous drug.
Now that myth is being systematically debunked, state by state, WHO is stopping those same states (and all the rest) from putting this very versatile ag product back into domestic U.S. the market?
MONOPOLISTS, that's who.
Cotton, oil, fiber and paper industries live in fear of industrial hemp, because it is not only an alternative, it is a RENEWABLE alternative.
So they promote the "pot-is-hemp-is-evil" myth, costing us billions in lost ag revenues and law enforcement tax expense.
October 27, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, jep, you forgot about the billions of little Polyesters who willing sacrifice their lives for our fabrics.
(well, rereading, you mentioned oil, but gave no shout-out to Polys.)
October 27, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
JEP, excellent points. However, capitalism is ultimately about winner take all - monopolistic in other words. So, in some ways saying monopoly capitalism is like saying the same thing twice - dirty filthy. But most folks do not realize that capitalism IS ultimately monopolism.
October 27, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
COLORADO; Tens of thousands of new entrepreneurs have jumped off the welfare roles and transitioned into yearly incomes they have never experienced previously in their lives, due to Colorado's progressive regulations on the use and cultivation and sales of medical marijuana.
Not only are they able to wean themselves off the welfare teat, they become top-end consumers, spending a much higher percentage of that new income than any millionaire ever could.
So, not only do Colorado counties and the state benefit from shrinking welfare rolls, they get the benefit of sales and income taxes previously non-existent.
Sane pot laws create jobs, both in the ag industry with hemp, and in the general culture, with pot. If the corporations could control it (which, by it's very homegrown nature, they can't) it would have been legal long ago.
October 27, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I have problems with the expression of "weaning" themselves off the "Welfare teat." Welfare reform left folks with a 5 year limetime limit - no matter how bad off things are. Further, welfare (including the "old" welfare) is not structured to bring people out of poverty, and in fact in most renditions punish people who are trying to get out of welfare. Further, the welfare you are likely referring to is Temporary Assistance to needy families - not SSI or social security or other "welfare" programs. And why the he double toothpicks aren't we "weaning" big corporations and the financial sector, and crooked contractors off the "welfare teat?"
October 27, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. They are the Welfare queens.
October 27, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bwak. Where are those singing millionaires? We could send them this to riff on.
October 28, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone tell me why none of the major media or Blogs like TPM are ignoring the incredible reporting of Matt Taibbi on the behavior of Wall Street with the help of our govt..???
aireball
October 27, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have been living in a two class world for a long, long time. The difference is that the New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, and Great Society won for the unrich a greater measure of economic and social security than ever before in our history. With the dismantling of the New Deal, etc... we are simply returning to our pre-1932 social/economic structure. The greatest disappointment of all is that with the new depression we elected a new leader and Congress whose primary mission is the restoration of our democracy and the protections that constituted the social contract between the powerful and the unrich for the past 80 years but both the new President and the Congress have failed to restore either one. Now they tell us essentially "get used to it." Fuck that!
October 27, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed on a certain level give the inequality in income and wealth, however, the concept (and existence) of a middle class is significant and important. That you have a significant portion of the population that are not consumed with day to day survival. In fact, the hope would be that there would not be a poverty group but that the middle class would be the the class and extreme inequality would not exist.
October 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all"... is simply polit-speak for "Let them eat cake." Inequality has always been a fact of life, except that when pushed to extremes, its an idea that tends, over time, to grow teeth and bite back.
October 27, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, it amazes me that the greedy buggers would be so willing to turn nations into shit heaps and sit atop them like flaming golden idols. So much for great minds.
October 27, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such are the "spoils" of short term thinking. One of the major problems with the capitalist ideology is that it does not recognize that we are operating in a closed system. There are not endless resources and there is not the capacity for unlimited growth.
October 27, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
October 28, 2009 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a story running on MSNBC stating that consumer confidence has unexpectedly fallen.
I think they keep running the same story every few weeks because I have seen the same one before. They just put todays date and run it again. I swear I have seen it three times now.
The only thing I find unexpected in all of this is that people in Washington D.C. and on Wall Street have remained just as stupid and just as clueless as before they made this mess. They have the only gig in the world where you can totally fuck it up and come back to work the following week like nothing happened and keep doing the same dumb shit they did the week before. And call it change.
October 27, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I've seen that one a few times as well. I have to ask "unexpected" by whom? Certainly not by the bulk of us out here in the real world.
October 27, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The story came through the AP without a byline. I know this is the third time I've seen this goofy story. Given how things are how can anybody with half a brain call a decline in consumer confidence unexpected? Christmas is coming and people are looking at the prospect of disappointment on their kids faces on Christmas morning. This ran on MSNBC and on the Newsvine blog it was a zoo to read all the comments. There are a lot of righties there and they were all blaming Obama like he wrote the friggin' story.
Here is the link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33490296/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
I have Chris Matthews on and Debbie Stabenow is complaining about republicans slow walking things so bad that something that should take them 2 hours took two weeks. She sounded pissed. Things are starting to rock and roll in the senate. I'll bet Harry is getting tired of listening to members of his caucus venting about the crap republicans are pulling.
October 27, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goddess knows, the crap his Democrats are pulling are setting MY teeth on edge.
October 27, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah!!! That too.
Republicans and democrats are very different in this way.
Republicans can get their caucus to do whatever in lockstep. Sometimes I think they'd jump off a cliff en masse if that is what the leadership commanded.
Not so the democrats.
I'd like to think democrats are more respectful of the democratic process. And I'm sure it is at least in part that very thing. But it is also the pollution of the freedoms which support that process and which seem, by contrast, to have been totally stripped from republicans.
The appearance is that republicans have completely capitulated to the evolved constitutional distortions of political finance while democrats have done the same but by only a half measure. This supports the illogical decisions of congress over the years which cannot be reconciled by any assessment of the underlying factors leading to those decisions.
It's interesting we have developed labels for this which have been generically applied and which belie the true definition. A reality based translation of each is descriptive of the degree of corruption of our political process.
October 28, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Economy in crisis = job loss = plummeting consumer confidence due to lack of consumer confidence in sustainable paycheck +/- newly-minted condition of homelessness = more job loss. It's a vicious cycle, isn't it? Hmmm...
October 28, 2009 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is a viscious cycle.
However, the cycle is one created by congress, Wall Street and corporations through having had their thumb on the scale for three decades or more. Again, I refer to the numbers as an objective and undeniable confirmation. I have to laugh when I see the fucking liars making anecdotal references to what has occurred. This is out of a necessity to very carefully tiptoe around the web of lies lest they find themselves hopelessy snared.
October 28, 2009 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink