The following video contains significant female nudity. I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Clearly, this video is completely beneath the high standards heretofore established for this blog.
But . . . on the other hand . . . it is pretty funny.
Soooo . . . I’ve been compelled to weigh the “inappropriateness” of this video against its humor and I’ve come down in favor of funny.
I’ve suspected that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signified an entity other than me (“Alfred Adask”) for over 15 years. I still can’t prove that suspicion, but I’ve seen nothing to disprove it—and I’ve been looking persistently.
I know that “Alfred Adask” (“Adask”) is a proper name that signifies a man who is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the “Declaration of Independence”). I presume that “ALFRED N ADASK” (“ADASK”) signifies a fictional entity that can have no such God-given, unalienable Rights. Thus, whenever “ADASK” is on trial, it has no significant rights and can usually be found guilty by the gov-co with minimum effort.
I received an email today that wasn’t quite clear but seemed to inquire about the unstated presumptions on which the courts (and the cops) rely. I replied as follows:
I have no idea how this is even possible.
The physicality required to play the piano should be beyond a 4-year old’s capacity. Playing like this should hurt his fingers.
The intellectual requirements should be beyond a 4-year old’s capacity. And where the heck can a 4-year old find the passion to play like this? Hasn’t he ever been seduced by TV?
I can’t imagine how any parent can teach this much to a child of this age. Did they force him to learn? Of course not. But if they didn’t force him, how did they teach him to love the piano so intensely?
Apparently, one or both of his parents are pianists and the child simply loved and therefore wanted emulate his parents’ talent from a very early age.
But, even so, this video is very hard for me to understand. This kid is a minor miracle.
video 00:03:54 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omuYi2Vhgjo
The Daily Reckoning Australia reports that,
“SOMETHING is brewing. We don’t know what it is, but it feels ominous. . . . we know the financial system is broken and that the market should collapse. We know you can’t solve a debt problem by increasing debt.
“Jim Rickards reckons the most likely outcome of all this is chaos. . . . When a system of international finance comes to an end, it normally goes through a chaotic period before another system emerges.
“What will that new system be? Rickards puts a number of options forward. All involve something taking over from the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
“The problem with the US Dollar is that it fulfills the dual role of domestic currency and international reserve asset. This gives rise to the ‘Triffin Dilemma’, named after the economist Robert Triffin. The dilemma is that the objectives of managing a domestic currency run contrary to the objectives of an international reserve asset.”
I.e., a currency can serve only one “master”. The US dollar can serve only the people of the USA or only the people of the world. If the dollar serves one, it must slight the other.
Here’s a 2 hour and 15 minute movie entitled “Urban Danger”. The film describes what might happen in the event of an serious economic depression. I think it’s worth your time. It includes a lengthy description of a very intelligent senior citizen’s cabin in the woods. The description is fascinating, even charming to see this elderly man and his wife living in a small but very efficient home.
There are other more expensive cabins, and even a small a farm.
One of the movie’s fundamental themes is that in a worst case scenario, it’ll be extremely dangerous to be left living in a major city. The basic recommendation appears to be: get the heck out of the big city, and find a rural home where you can raise your own food, become energy independent, and hunker down.
Back about A.D. 2000, I briefly met a Chinese man who had an unusual reputation. According to some, he’d owned a business that had prospered for 10 years—but which he secretly knew to be on the verge of bankruptcy.
Therefore, while his credit rating was still high, he applied for ten credit cards from ten different banks. Each credit card had a $25,000 limit. He proceeded to spend the limit on each credit card and rang up a bill of one quarter million dollars. He didn’t repay one dime.
When the credit card companies came a-callin’ to ask when he’d pay his debt, he replied in writing by registered mail that he’d be happy to pay just as soon as the credit card company verified the alleged debts. All collection efforts stopped and the Chinese man skated away with $250,000 in goods and services.
I’m not a fan of financial or monetary charts. Given that the data on which these charts are based are typically received from the government, and given that the government routinely lies about economic data, I can’t see how anyone can reasonably place significant reliance on charts.
I prefer to try to identify fundamentals. I look for long-term trends whose power I deem to be irresistible. Insofar as I can identify such trends, they may not tell me what the price of gold, or the unemployment rate, or the inflation rate, will be next week, but they’ll give a clue as to whether those numbers will be up or down a year from now. I’m more inclined to invest in trends that should be good for the next several years than I am to speculate (bet) on technical changes that might be reported in the next week.
But here’s a chart published by Chris Martenson, CEO & co-founder of Peak Prosperity and a long-time gold bug. The chart makes sense to me and is compelling. I’ve seen other chartists talk about “flag” formations in the past. They explained that the price of gold has been making a “flag” for the past year, and that such “flags” typically precede a major price change. The price change could be a big increase or a big decrease, but in the case of gold, a big increase is expected.
“Sem” is one of the people who comment regularly on this blog.
Today, he posted a comment that read in part,
“One “poster” in particular knows from experience that when a person enters the courtroom half-cocked, that person will experience the real meaning of the double edged sword.
“First of all a plaintiff must respond to Affirmative Defenses. Secondly, the only acceptable way to do so is with Opposing Points and Authorities. Thirdly, it is the very points of Law (precedence) that is being argued:
“McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was an early substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. (Read closely…BURDEN-SHIFTING FRAMEWORK).”
I’m not sure that I clearly understood Sem’s comment. Initially, I thought he was advocating “affirmative defenses”. In retrospect, I suspect he wasn’t advocating so much as attempting to explain something about the burden-shifting nature of “affirmative defenses”.
Whatever his intended meaning, I started to pen a brief comment in response. But my comment grew so large, that I decided to post it as the following article: