Thursday, July 27, 2017

Religious and polysyllabic justifications for treason

== He's at it again ==

The Worst Man in America - and among its most relentless traitors - is at it again, blaming the collapse of American conservatism on "vulgarians," rather than a 30 year campaign to hijack and lobotomize the entire movement -- financed by the very same oligarchs to whom George F. Will has given decades of devoted service. This gifted savanarola has concocted rationalizations for sapient Americans to remain loyal to a movement that long ago left them to become a cult, waging open warfare against every fact-using profession, starting with science, journalism, teaching, medicine -- but including now the entire civil service, law professionals, the FBI, the intelligence services and the United States Military Officer Corps... all of them dismissed as "deep state" conspirators against freedom.

Add them to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which barely survived an attempt on July 26 to slash its budget almost in half, abolishing the CBO's Budget Analysis Division,  in revenge for their effrontery -- actually crunching the numbers on GOP proposed legislation.


Throw in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the EPA, NOAA, The Centers for Disease Control and even the National Institutes on Health, on a growing alt-right Enemies List -- fated to join in extinction the long killed Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). All declared to be deep-state, partisan liars, because they dare - now and then - to let experts murmur "that's not really true" at fanatical-delusional manifestos of an American right that George F. Will helped to turn insane.

Oh but Mr. Will only points at the surface symptoms.
"Today, conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives whose irritable gestures lack mental ingredients. America needs a reminder of conservatism before vulgarians hijacked it, and a hint of how it became susceptible to hijacking."

hint of how it became susceptible to hijacking? A hint, sir? I'll give you a "hint,"
 you horrid little hypocrite, George F. Will!   You are the hijacker. The "vulgarians" are your creation. Monster.


Proto-feudalism fever tries periodically to destroy the American experiment. The common thread of his sickness... from 1778's southern tories to Calhoun in 1830, to Jeff Davis in 1861, to the Klan and robber barons, to the 1930s fascists, to today... is one thing. "Give power back to the feudal lords!" That's why they push the never-once-right-ever Laffer-incantations of Supply Side Voodoo which have had three effects, skyrocketing debt, slowed growth and vast enrichment of the aristocracy at our expense.

This round of the recurring cycle - this attempted oligarchic putsch - is a big 'un, guys. They are afroth and will destroy everything if we let them.

== Religious justifications for hate ==

Dominionists preach that those they define as non-Christian are "condemned," and that includes all but a few hundred thousand true-believers. These elect won't just get eternal bliss (while 99% of their neighbors and fellow citizens writhe in endless torment). The latest cult catechism is that in this world - soon - true believers will get everyone else’s stuff. Our homes and property, and cars and TVs and bank accounts. Yippee.

Let's be clear, since no one else seems willing to. Those who prefer the Book of Revelation - over the kind and generous actual words of Jesus - pray not only for their neighbors' damnation, but also for an end to all democracy, freedom, argument, ambition, science, independent human thought… and for an imminent end of the United States of America. 


Now read about the latest anti-Christ (literally) polemic from the mad right… that the poor deserve poverty, yes, including children. Dominionism is core to the GOP wing best represented by Vice President Mike Pence. That's one reason why -- please -- think twice before rushing to impeachment.


Fortunately we have allies. Such as those who can see the obvious... that the bearded, beaded, pacifist-socialist Nazarene would despise “camels” who are obsessed with taking other folks' stuff.  Camels who will never fit through a needle into heaven.


Another ally? Pope Francis, who is assertively taking a stand against Steve Bannon's ilk. This article signed by a Jesuit and a liberal Protestant together is in La Civiltà Cattolica - a very old Jesuit magazine - and it's obvious that the article expresses the views of the pope, criticizing the "Ecumenism of hate" -- the joining together fundamentalist evangelicals and integralist Catholics. There is a careful decryption of "Religion, political Manichaeism and a cult of the apocalypse", not to mention critique of the Dominionists' raving 'prosperity gospel.'


== Swerving to 
Healthcare and the "drained" swamp == 


From The Atlantic: "With Democrats accusing the administration of sabotaging the health law, two GOP committee chairmen urge the president to continue payments to insurers that could shore up the insurance market."  


Having failed to pass their own health care bills, despite having 7 years to prepare, now Trump and his allies are talking about "letting Obamacare explode." But with a problem that Obamacare is only exploding in red states.  It is only failing where the political caste has sabotaged it.


To be clear: (1) All Obamacare needs, in order to work fine, is an upping of the Individual Mandate penalty, encouraging young people to buy health insurance.  All of the insurance companies say that would work, almost overnight. It won't happen.


But the biggest hypocrisy is (2) the GOP won't admit that all major aspects of Obamacare were their OWN DAMN PLAN.  The GOP platform since 1995 and the model for Romneycare and Trump supported the heck out of it... till Dennis "friend to boys" Hastert made it Republican religion to never credit Obama or a democrat with anything, even making their own damn plan come true.


Want irony? All Trump has to do is swivel and declare victory! "We tricked the democrats into supporting our own plan!"  Then make it work and kill that as an issue for 2018. Judo.


For the record? Most dems never liked the ACA! A majority in the DP would prefer Canadian style health. The ACA was an attempt to lure the GOP into negotiating by giving them their own damn plan.  It didn't work. As soon as Obama touched it, their 
own damn plan suddenly had cooooooties.


== Miscellany ==


How the swamp is drained!  Attempting at first to keep it secret, theTrump White House granted more ethics waivers – letting lobbyists jump directly into regulating their own industries – than any three other administrations, combined.

When President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement, he acted in concert with 22 Republican senators, who collectively receive $10,694,284 in contributions from the coal and oil industries.  

== Historical Perspective ==

What Churchill and Orwell had in common: Churchill & Orwell were both savagely critical of the gloom-sayers of their own parties: right and left. "At a time not unlike today — when people were wondering whether democracy was sustainable, when a lot of people thought you needed authoritarian rule, either from the right or the left — Orwell and Churchill, from their very different perspectives, come together on a key point: We don't have to have authoritarian government."

This author shows how the conservative Churchill was deeply critical of oligarchy and the leftist Orwell despised communist fanaticism. Another key point, he says, is that they were "both willing to say, 'No, my side is wrong on this.' "

Both believed - along with Adam Smith and the American Founders and Lincoln and FDR and so on, that moderate, negotiated reform and steady progress could overcome the crises precipitated by insatiable fools at all extremes. And history shows they were right.

Hence the propaganda by  insatiable fools at all extremes, aimed at demolishing moderate, fact-using professions and mature argument. NPR Reporter Steven Inskeep stands up against this campaign, and the 200 year: "agreement that objective reality exists, that people of goodwill can perceive it, and that other people will change their views when presented with the facts of the matter."

73 comments:

David Brin said...

Continuing from last time... I offered my own decryption of the difference between an honest Skeptic of a scientific consensus... in this case climate change... and members of the denialist cult.

Here it is:
http://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/climatechange2.html

Alfred Differ said...

@Paul SB | While I am inclined to think you are one of the gold eggs, that isn't the analogy I was reaching for. You are one of the geese laying them. Maybe not often, but I'll bet you have.

It's just math. I did 12 years getting from K to the end of high school. (My last school didn't expect much, so I graduated early.) Add another year of pre-school and four years in college. Add up how many people were involved in teaching me and it is a moderate sized number. There are a few extra teachers to include due to activities after school. Flip the perspective, though, and focus on one teacher. How many kids do they influence in the same amount of time? Much bigger, huh?

Even if the odds are low that any one kid will be one of the golden eggs, if you process enough of us, it WILL happen... eventually.

In my last high school, I arranged time after school to get on their big computer to learn more. I couldn't fit this guy’s class into my schedule and stick to my plan to skip senior year, so I worked things out informally. He wasn't too surprised as computers drew nerds to them back then. I broke his only printer pretty quickly and he had no budget to fix it. He wound up having to change the way he graded his real students for the entire year because of me. When I was in college, I used to go back every so often and let him know how I was doing. It cheered him up. Visits got more infrequent when I got to grad school, but I did check in now and then. The last couple of times he had a hard time remembering me. (Grad school took a while.) He DID remember, though, when I told him one day that I had finished. The look on his face was priceless. By then, I was older than he was when I broke his printer and he didn’t see me as one of his kids. He saw me as someone he helped succeed because I made that clear to him, but he couldn’t imagine how he had managed to help.

Consider the possibility that you’ve touched someone and can’t imagine how much.

Alfred Differ said...

Just in case anyone wants to hear more on Churchill and Orwell. 8)

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/06/thomas_ricks_on.html

LarryHart said...

Dr Brin in the main post:

Dominionists preach that those they define as non-Christian are "condemned," and that includes all but a few hundred thousand true-believers. These elect won't just get eternal bliss (while 99% of their neighbors and fellow citizens writhe in endless torment). The latest cult catechism is that in this world - soon - true believers will get everyone else’s stuff. Our homes and property, and cars and TVs and bank accounts.


Since the biblical Jesus never says anything that could even be misinterpreted that way, this makes obvious the moral bankruptcy of what I call Christianists. To them, the important thing is not loving Jesus or following His teachings, but rather the recognition by "authorities" of one's membership in good standing in the club. Those with the membership card get first class citizenship. Those who hand out the membership cards and/or revoke them rule.

Alfred Differ said...

From a different David comes a few words to remind us of the social role factions play in defense of our actions… and a reminder of how much English has changed. 8)

(From the essay “On the Independency of Parliament”)

DAVID HUME: [It is] a just political maxim that every man must be supposed a knave: Though at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact... men are generally more honest in their private than in their public capacity, and will go to greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. Honour is a great check on mankind: But where a considerable body of men act together, this check is, in a great measure, removed; since a man is sure to be approved by his own party... and he soon learns to despise the clamour of adversaries.

Russ Carroll said...

I was not a fan of this post until I reached your concluding remarks, which resonated with me. Your conclusion was balanced and reasonable, which I would not at all characterize the buildup to it in that manner.

There is a serious disconnect between the preamble and body of the article with the conclusion. I will have to noodle on why that is.

J.L.Mc said...

In Australia "dominionists" luckily don't really exist. The closest we have are a few fringe cults here and there. All in all australian politics is rather centrist and moderate.

David Brin said...

Russ C. Sorry about that. But the reason is simple. I post tons of stuff. Sometimes 3x perweek. Quality control slips. You'll find it's much tighter in my books and speeches!

Tony Fisk said...

@J.L.Mc

Dominionists aren't as visibly active in Australia. Nevertheless, secretive religious societies such as "The Family" have an undue influence on the right wing of politics.

Tony Fisk said...

Meanwhile, in reality land...

Astronomers may have discovered the first 'exomoon'.

It's about the size of Neptune, orbiting a gas giant 10x the size of Jupiter.

I say we dub it 'Brobdingnag'!

locumranch said...


American Conservatism failed for one reason & one reason only: It has failed to conserve anything of note.

Virtue ethics? Justice? Traditional values? Proprietarianism? Cultural homogeneity? Industrialism? A Gold Standard? Anti-Usury Laws? Religiosity? The family unit? Agrarianism? Marriage between only 1 man & 1 woman? Gender roles? Self-reliance? The freedom to fail? Autonomy with consequence?

All these things have gone by the wayside and very little has been conserved.

Our society now rewards dishonesty; justice has been replaced by legislated compromise; values have been subsumed by relativism; taxation cancels ownership; industry has been 'out-sourced'; finances are fiat-based; interest rates can exceed 35%; religion is in terminal decline; the nuclear family has gone fission; urban wage slavery has replaced agrarianism; anyone can marry anything (which renders marriage meaningless); and the Nanny State rewards failure, poor judgment & adverse consequence.

Obamacare is a trans-generational wealth redistribution scheme which obligates those who do not require much medical care (the young) to pay for the excessive healthcare expenses of the old & enfeebled.

To call Orwell an optimist is to acknowledge how desperate & dystopian our plight & the plight of the West has become.

And, a '97% consensus' on any science topic proves that scientists do NOT "spend most of their time attacking and probing at each other" because consensus is the very antonym of 'attacking each other' as it means 'general agreement & accord'.


Best
_____

In truth, most scientific disciplines have become mutual congratulation societies wherein "a group of two or more people routinely express considerable esteem and support for one another, sometimes to the point of exaggeration or pretense".

To make matters worse, some nutjobs even insist on conflating science users with actual science -- as in "You can't criticise us science users because we ARE science" -- in order to create a false allegorical reality wherein the 'science user' becomes the symbolic embodiment of a great god called Science.

David Brin said...

While almost every single thing that locumranch just said is either untrue (most of it), or exaggerated, or whingeing-whining hand-wringing... at least he expressed it very well, on this occasion. Moreover on this occasion I recommend all of you actually read his moaning-whining jeremiad. Because it truly is important that we realize that many of our neighbors actually believe this stuff.

Notice that while he continues to strawman and concoct boogeymen who are (mostly) not actually there, this time his fretful cries are about fear of losing things that he deems precious. Indeed, more than half of those things *I* would deeply dislike losing, too!

That he and his cult are hallucinating... that their hallucinations are propelled by mental illness and a desperate need to justify hate... this can easily be proved. Moreover, to the extent that they are true, it is his own ("yes, Massa!") plantation lords who are responsible.

Still, this time I recommend actually reading the cowardly, future-hating hysteria, because there's an inner core that tugs my sympathy.

--

Oh... Scientists argue and probe each other relentlessly. But more than 97% agree that the Earth isn't flat and that gravity tends to pull "down."

Alfred Differ said...

The 97% thing is a bit like physicists agreeing that gravity exists while still leaving open the questions associated with how it comes to be. Though most of them go with curved space-time, there are other options out there that fit the data. What those other options don't do, however, is disagree about the existence of gravity.

People who quibble about the precise number, though, are usually upset about who is being counted as a climate scientist. Do the meteorologists count? Geologists? How about zealots who run blogs on the subject?

Alfred Differ said...

I think it is a very fair question to ask what American Conservatism actually conserves. For the longest time, they conserved the old liberal tradition that progressives found to be too slow and amoral.

...then they got confused and mixed social conservatism into the stew pot.

Lloyd Flack said...

Locumranch, scientists test their ideas against reality. When multiple lines of evidence point to the same conclusion there will be a consensus that is used as the basis for further investigation. Multiple l.ines of evidence do point to the climate being highly sensitive to changes in CO2 concentration. And thathighsensitivity allows us to make sense of paleoclimate.

Russ Carroll said...

Wow...based on these comments, I feel like I've stumbled into the internet equivalent of the Do Long Bridge Roach scene from Apocalypse Now.

Good day.

LarryHart said...

Lloyd Flack:

Locumranch, scientists test their ideas against reality. When multiple lines of evidence point to the same conclusion there will be a consensus that is used as the basis for further investigation.


OTOH, Republicans test reality against their ideas. When reality differs from what they believe it is (or should be), then they insist on burying the evidence, even with the force of law.

It's a nice racket as long as you are immune to reality.

Carl M. said...

And guess who on the Right is backing off of the Laffer Curve voodoo and calling for raising taxes on the richest?

I'll let you read it on Bloomberg

I'll give you two hints: 1. He's very close to the President. 2. You don't like him very much.



David Brin said...

CarlM asks if I am shocked (shocked!) that Dark Lord of the West Wing Steve Bannon floated a trial balloon proposal to *raise* taxes on the rich, to a 44% top rate on incomes above $5 million.

Shocked? Um, not. Let me remind you that Bannon’s not a member of the plutocracy that has long owned the Republican Party, controlling its policies through lickspittle politicians, pulpit pounders and mouthpiece shills like George F. Will.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-26/bannon-is-said-to-call-for-44-tax-on-incomes-above-5-million

Yes, for decades that oligarchy had its way, feeding lip service to social conservatives on issues like racism, xenophobia, abortion, religious litmus tests and so on, without ever actually delivering on any of those hot-air promises, least of all doing anything for lower middle class (LOMIC) whites, economically. By turning populism into a confederate know-nothing cult, those cynical manipulators were able to turn Lomics against other elites — the smartpants know-it-alls and fact-using professions… much as 1860s plantation lords got a million poor, white Southerners to march and die against their own best interests.

But those lords have proved to be ignoramuses, when it comes to history. Take the Junkers-caste 1930s Prussian oligarchs, who thought they could control a populist beast they helped stir into hydrophobic frenzy. They subsidized and riled up Nazi fever as a weapon against communists, only then saw gifted Robspierres leap into the saddle of their frothing horse, sending it charging in directions that brought their own ruin.

Dig this well. Despite his stint at Goldman-Sachs — a job requirement in the Trump Administration — Bannon has never been a plutocrat. He is a fascist. The genuine article, not any of the ersatz things that silly lefties call by that name. His heroes, like Julius Evola and Mussolini and Vladimir Putin, have been icons of fascism. And, while fascists go easier on plutocrats than communists do (witness Putin’s oligarch mafiosi), the rich had better toe the line, and surrender however much lucre the populist movement demands. Only those Junkers and German industrialists who toed the line got to keep their estates - and heads - under the Nazis.

Now, the key question: how much is our time like 1933? Short of a Reichstag Fire, I don’t see Bannon’s LOMIC whites and fundie-dominionists and fascists being able to overwhelm the plutocrats quite yet. Not till they’ve purged the FBI, intel agencies and Officer Corps of brave adults. Till then, the lobotomized lords — like the Kochs and Murdochs — will remain ‘in control’ of the GOP. And Bannon’s tax hike trial balloons will be made of lead.

But he’s biding his time. And the ones who could make all the difference -- 20 million sapient "libertarians" -- stay desperately chanting "civil servants are the only threat to liberty! Civil servants are the only threat to liberty! Civil servants are the only threat to liberty!" Smug in their MENSA memberships, LP underachievers suck up to the oligarchy that repressed freedom for 6000 years.

Watch, when the time comes, how every Randite will find excuses to wave fascii

Aaron Wilson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marino said...

Donzelion, from the last thread:
"As for your post on the imminent elections, thinking on the international stage, Italy's Berlusconi is to me perhaps the best precedent for Trump. The intriguing distinction to me is that you separate the LePenist reactionaries from the Berlusconites - there has been no unification between those blocs in Italy (as there has been in America)?"


It's due to our voting system. Whose best trait is that there is no voter registration, you're entitled to vote if you're adult and with a clean criminal record. The town hall manages to keep data updated. But we have almost pure proportional representation, which may be good as it makes gerrymandering irrelevant as long the district is large enough, but it favors each and every party in competing alone and against its more similar parties. So, both rightwing parties will run alone and maybe ally later, when the number of seats will be known. In fact polls show that a merged rightwing list will LOSE 8% votes compared to both running alone.

Marino said...

anyway, it seems that McCain did something right, after all.

re populist taxation etc.:
Watch, when the time comes, how every Randite will find excuses to wave fasci

I've read Carl M.'s page and his arguments seem more sensible than, say the one and lone miniarchist-libertarian I find on a blog of Italian politics I follow, who really toes to the line that "civil servants are the only threat to liberty! " (he adds: "backed by their gun-toting thugs"). And he is more or less to the right of...Ann Coulter? those groups the SPLC keeps tabs on? on immigration and Islam. So it's really possibile a merger between Randites and fascists.

And I have a question: why are libertarians so opposed to public welfare and favoring charity instead? First there is an issue of size. Think Rust Belt towns with lots of unenployment...could private charity manage it? Second and probably more relevant: isn't charity fostering personal dependence ("beggars can't be choosers") from above, the true feudal one witnessed in a lot of medieval charters and deeds? Isn't an impartial system run by Weberian bureaucrats more respecting the freedom of the recipients?
I mean: I have a duty to offer library service to my patrons, irregardless wethere I like them or not, and they have no need to beg me for said service as a favor.

LarryHart said...

Marino:

And I have a question: why are libertarians so opposed to public welfare and favoring charity instead? First there is an issue of size. Think Rust Belt towns with lots of unenployment...could private charity manage it? Second and probably more relevant: isn't charity fostering personal dependence ("beggars can't be choosers") from above, the true feudal one witnessed in a lot of medieval charters and deeds? Isn't an impartial system run by Weberian bureaucrats more respecting the freedom of the recipients?
I mean: I have a duty to offer library service to my patrons, irregardless wethere I like them or not, and they have no need to beg me for said service as a favor.


You misunderstand whose liberty "Libertarians" are fighting for. You believe they'd be in favor of the library patrons' liberty to receive public service without begging for it. In fact, they're in favor of your liberty to refuse service whenever the whim suits you.


LarryHart said...

Worthy of a reprise...

Jefferson and Madison in "Hamilton" :

You don't have the votes!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

You don't have the votes!

You’re gonna need congressional approval and you don’t have the votes!

Such a blunder sometimes it makes me wonder why I even bring the thunder.


Thomas Jefferson channeling Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell:

I’ll give him this:
His [health care] system is a work of genius.
I couldn’t undo it if I tried.
And I tried.


LarryHart said...

God Bless the Stephanie Miller show and her callers.

For example:

Ding dong. The Mitch is dead!


Also, someone mentioned something that I thought only I had noticed, that the Democrats are like the X-Men, "Feared and hated by the people they've sworn to protect."

Marino said...

In fact, they're in favor of your liberty to refuse service whenever the whim suits you.

I'll turn Libertarian ASAP, then... :-) Some patrons (the kind "You know, I need that book with the red cover Professor X used as textbook three years ago"...) would deserve it...

Jumper said...

Effect of transparency and of Panama Papers as a leader resigns in a cloud
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/world/asia/pakistan-prime-minister-nawaz-sharif-removed.html

Creigh Gordon said...

"incantations of Supply Side Voodoo which have had three effects, skyrocketing debt, slowed growth and vast enrichment of the aristocracy at our expense." Absolutely true, however be clear that private debt, not public debt, is the problem.

Carl M. said...

Glenn Beck the other morning was complaining about the unshaven fascist's call for higher tax rates. He complained that higher income taxes hit those on the way up. The true elite will be hardly affected.

On this he has a point. If you really want to hit the truly rich, up the capital gains tax. Just make the same as the current income tax and you increase the taxes for Bezos and Buffet by a factor of two or so. (Bezos is probably this country's most successful tax dodger. Makes Mitt Romney look B team.)

I'd also limit the charitable deduction to the cost basis, vs. the appreciated value. This puts donations by Joe Six Pack in the same footing as donations by Bill Gates.

As for inheritances: if you inherit, your tax basis is zero. Yes, this allows family businesses to stay in the family (as in Germany, which still makes things), but levies a hit on said families when they cash out.

Paul SB said...

Dr. Brin,

While it is true that our faux rancher regurgitates fears and biases that are quite common, his technique is still nothing but argument by assertion. He offers no proof of anything he says, he merely implies that we should believe every word he says because he thinks he is much smarter than everyone else. We have all heard these same paranoid rants often enough, nit just from him but from roughly 1/3rd of our fellow (illiterate) Americans. If people like this cannot be convinced of reality under any circumstances, then is there a point to spending time listening to their delusional rants? Would it not be netter to focus efforts on motivating those who are not in the ignorati camp but who have been unmotivated to vote?

matthew said...

I am shocked that McCain showed some moral courage last night.

I got that one wrong, this time.

Let us not forget, though, that Collins and Murkowski deserve the most credit for their moral stance. McCain came in at the last minute to preserve his legacy (and he did, in my mind). Collins and Murkowski have been doing all the heavy lifting to this point.

Fellow progressives, weigh carefully the idea of campaign contributions to C&M. They will need help to overcome the primaries that are coming their way.

Paul SB said...

Marino,

Your question about charity vs. government services is not so hard to answer if you are familiar with Thorstein Veblen and his concepts of Conspicuous Consumption and Competitive Emulation. I'll try to summarize quickly and staunch the flow of my genetic disposition toward verbosity. Conspicuous consumption is a pattern of behavior in which people spend money as extravagantly as they possibly can as a way of displaying their wealth to the rest of society. It is sometimes called "wasteful advertising" but scientists generally reject using a term as emotionally loaded as wasteful. From the perspective of the rich it is not wasteful at all, it serves the purpose of bringing them more business, as people intuit that doing business with the rich and powerful is more likely to be successful than doing business with the impoverished and bankrupt. A classic example of this behavior cited in Anth 101 textbooks is the Kwakiutl potlatch, which is a big party during which the wealthy hosts display their wealth by providing the most elaborate amenities to the guests, but on the darker side they also destroy some of their own wealth to show how much they can afford to just throw away. This includes killing slaves.

Competitive emulation is the other side of this coin. People who are engaged in competition will tend to copy each other and then try to outdo each other in the same arenas. So for the Kwakiutl, the man who first displayed his wealth by killing some of his slaves began a trend, and everyone else who was in competition for biggest man in the village tried to buy and kill more slaves than the last big man. Of course, it's easy to see how this becomes a never-ending treadmill. No big man can ever "keep up with the Joneses" because the Joneses are busy trying to outdo them. This leads to a class of people who are truly insatiable.

Where does charity come in? It's just like the Kwakiutl killing slaves. The big man who can afford to very publicly give the most money to charity shows the world that he is so rich and powerful he can afford to throw that much money away. That brings people flocking to him to do business or work for him. Think of Donald Grope's recent announcement that he is going to donate his presidential salary to education, a good $100,000. Of course he didn't mention that his budget cuts millions from the Department of Education. The thing about bureaucratic largess is that it is impersonal. No one gets credit for it except the generic class of taxpayers.

I didn't do so well reigning in my verbosity gene, did I?

LarryHart said...

Carl M:

As for inheritances: if you inherit, your tax basis is zero.


Are you saying that as a proposal, or as the way things are? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the way things are. When you inherit equities, your tax basis is whatever the value is at the time. Which means the inheritance is never taxed on the gains that the dead parent accumulated.

That's a different thing, in fact the opposite thing. :)

LarryHart said...

matthew:

Fellow progressives, weigh carefully the idea of campaign contributions to [Collins and Murkowski]. They will need help to overcome the primaries that are coming their way.


Murkowski apparently won last time entirely on her own, with the Republican Party supporting a primary opponent.

Paul SB said...

Alfred,

Once again, I thank you for your confidence, though I don't entirely feel it myself. The profession is so stressful and so very messed up as to induce anhedonia in its workers. Laying golden eggs is the one intangible reward that would make it worthwhile - the gods know the tangible, remunerative rewards aren't too impressive. But when the system is so subject to the random incompetence of its administration with few checks on their power to destroy, it's just not worth it. The fact that 50% of new teachers quit within the first two years is a clear sign that something is seriously wrong with the system. I'm, as they say, outta here! Maybe after a few years I'll reflect on my years and focus on the ones I know I touched in a positive way, but with my memory, chances are I will barely remember them. I have a little paper box hanging on the wall in my dining room with a little origami owl family that was made for me by one of my students, and I struggle to even remember her name. That's how damaging this profession can be. Last semester 3 out of 40 teachers at my school were hospitalized for stress-related illnesses, mostly a consequence of very, very bad management. If this egg is gold, well, it's mixed with a lot of baser metals.

Carl M. said...

@LarryHart: that's what I am proposing. It needs to go along with a higher capital gains rate to have teeth.

If that doesn't suffice, have wealth taxes. Taxing at death is uncool. Also, the distortions and loopholes are enormous. The family that has children while young pays more tax over time, unless you skip generations (a once common practice that is now penalized). Taxing estates is worse than taxing inheritance, as there is no discouragement for primogeniture. And why should there be any difference between gifts and inheritance?

Even a flat wealth tax is more progressive than income taxes, as the not wealthy get most of their income from their labor. It's also closer to fee-for-service government, as protecting wealth is what governments do. You can go more progressive by throwing in a citizen dividend and/or allowing a personal exemption -- the latter to encourage the lower classes to own.

Check out the GINI coefficient of New Hampshire, which relies on wealth taxes...

Jumper said...

Good reading, Carl. How would hidden wealth be identified?

Also, estate taxes now handled by simply exempting the first $4.9 million. Plus all sorts of other loopholes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

LarryHart said...

Carl M:

that's [zero tax basis at inheritance] what I am proposing. It needs to go along with a higher capital gains rate to have teeth.


I agree. Personally, I don't see any reason why realized capital gains should be treated as anything other than income. I'm not even saying that capital gains should be treated unfairly--just not unfairly the other way.


Taxing at death is uncool.


Only because most people are swayed by the emotion of it. Actually, I favor the idea of being taxed on holdings I no longer have any need for (because I'm dead) than that of being taxed while alive. And I tend to think of it as a tax on transferred money rather than a tax on the act of dying. But Republicans are good at making it sound ghoulish.


And why should there be any difference between gifts and inheritance?


Again, it's an emotional thing. People tend to think of inheritance as keeping wealth within a family unit, and so see the tax as the government reaching into their pockets. It's not the way I think of it, but there are enough people who do see things that way that it's hard to just say "their feelings don't count."

On my old "Cerebus" list, two of the most prolific posters (one right-wing and one sort of Bill Maherish contrarian) used to argue profusely against inheritance taxes of any kind, insisting that they wanted all of their money to go to their kids. What made this funny is that the same two guys were also very much in agreement with Dave Sim's notion that marriage and reproduction are really bad ideas for guys. So I liked to point out that if they want their money to go to their kids, the first step in the process would be to have some kids.

David Brin said...

Of course Carl makes an excellent point. Taxes do double duty as both revenue sources and society’s “thumb on the scale,” adjusting the market incentives and disincentives.

Libertarians hate that, in principle. But the smart ones, like Carl, know that the allocators of capital do not look beyond the short term (now one-year) ROI. Hence some force must make the markets pay heed to externalities. Like resource depletion, pollution, product health effects etc.

Adam Smith spoke on a major problem, that the uber rich lords do not invest their capital in risky, productive ventures but instead into safe “rent-seeking” properties. Smith warned us, in advance, that the Laffer Curve would be a scam and Supply Side would turn out to be pure voodoo.

There must be a thumb on the scale, to incentivize risky-productive investment… e.g. the R&D tax credit, employment tax credit etc. I especially favor a credit allowing a lower capital gains tax rate ONLY on freshly issued stock that a company then uses to build actual capital. With all later trades of those shares treated as regular income gains, since the trades do absolutely nothing for the issuing companies.

Sure, that thumb on the scale can be used for cheating! The proper job of libertarianism is to be skeptical of all such thumbs! And to demand burden of proof and sunsets and capture! While admitting at there ARE such externalities and needs to alter market incentives toward overall wisdom.

Sure, I’d tweak the inheritance tax. But it is fundamentally the fairest tax, if there’s a family business floor. It need never be paid, if you set up a beneficial foundation. Your kids can sit on the board and act like grandees forever. But meanwhile, their POWER as owner-inheritance-feudal lords is severely limited. They’ll have to take their mere $50 million personal inheritance and actually do something with it.

David Brin said...

Carl M makes a good point. A wealth tax does sound more reasonable. But I oppose it, for now. First I want Wealth Revelation! A world treaty that all wealth must have declared ownership that lands at a living human or foundation or NGO within only three layers of shell. If you own something, you must declare “I own that!”

The amount of property that would be abandoned, the first year, would erase all the world’s government debt and taxes for the law-abiding would likely go down. Courts could then assign liability - the way Rand hypocritically said they would. Capitalism would thrive in the resulting light.

Carl M. said...

@Jumper: if you have a flat wealth tax with personal exemption, you don't need identification! That's the beauty of it. Tax all wealth at the top rate and let those who identify themselves get a rebate by identifying themselves.

Unlike an income tax, with wealth taxes you can have a large degree of financial privacy and a progressive tax system. (No, this doesn't work for gold coins hidden in a vault, but it works fine for land, factories, ships, mines, etc.)

And if you tax based on the Ask price -- as Heinlein suggested in "The Number of the Beast" you even eliminate government tax assessment. It becomes possible tax wealth such as Internet domains, patents, copyrights, etc. (Since patents and copyrights don't exist without government, this is clearly fee for service government.)

Treebeard said...

For me it's not complicated: my "treason" against the current liberal civilization comes down to my revulsion for their attacks upon the foundations of society, and their tolerance for the Leftist ratchet that normalizes and makes mandatory what was unthinkable radicalism not long ago. Read up on what is being pushed by Ivy Leaguers into our educational system ("toxic masculinity", "whiteness", etc.) and understand that we can never negotiate with people who want to destroy us, nor will be friendly to those who show their necks to them (i.e. most liberals).

No amount of abstract, intellectual arguments or "facts" is likely to change this basic revulsion, and this sense that I am a target of a vast campaign of cultural destruction. So the war continues. George Will is irrelevant. Your other facts are irrelevant. We fight for our survival against a vast evil conspiracy.

Berial said...

So....In other words your ignorance is as good as our facts. Got it.

LarryHart said...

Treebeard:

We fight for our survival against a vast evil conspiracy.


So do we.

I'll take those odds.

Treebeard said...

Locum makes a great point about how mainstream "conservatism" has conserved virtually nothing. This is why Dr. Brin approves of it and wants to return to it: because they are so ineffectual, and amount to a controlled opposition that says to the progs: "just slow it down a little please". When real conservatives show up who actually want to conserve something and are willing to put up more than token resistance, they are of course the Devil incarnate.

occam's comic said...

David
" First I want Wealth Revelation! A world treaty that all wealth must have declared ownership that lands at a living human or foundation or NGO within only three layers of shell. If you own something, you must declare “I own that!”

Why does it have to be world wide?
Could the State of California do that for assets in California?

David Brin said...

CarlM the one thing on this planet that threatens us above all else is the oligarchy's ability to scurry around sheltering secrets. Moreover you know this.

matthew said...

Treebeard is so sad that he will no longer get a headstart on everything compared to brown people, female people, gay people. SO SAD!

"It's not fair that the liberals will make me compete with the rest of humanity! Wahhh! My feelings are hurt that I don't get an advantage anymore! I'm gonna call you names and make threats that I would never dare to say in person because I'm a coward! Waaahh! I'm gonna find a strongman to protect MY interests by pushing the rest of you down."

What a weak, weak psyche.

David Brin said...

Treebeard’s whine is better than average. As Locumranch did recently, he whinges and moans and says untrue things… but in a way that seems genuine and speaks from his cult’s palpable, zero-sum fears. (Hence my use of both full names.)

Never mind that women have not stopped admiring brave and strong men. Or that bravery and strength among males are doing just fine. It’s just that the brave and strong males don’t mind having brave-strong females at their side. (And yes, we like them to be all squishy and squeaky at the right times; they seem to like it that way, too. Most of them.)

Confident hetero males know they are still “on top”. They just don’t need to frantically be on-top by the same repressive and horrifically unfair MARGIN that frantic homophobes and wife-beaters demand. A demand that society waste immense amounts of talent, just so the insecure (like locum and treebeard) can feel reassured. Indeed, we are growing accustomed to the fact that women and minorities and - yes - gays can be really good at their jobs and ambitions, too.

Again, the confederate feudalist plantation lords got a million poor white southerners to march and die for them for one reason. Oppressed and crushed under feudalist boots, those poor whites could still say: "At least I can beat blacks and wimmin." This is the confederate fever, reborn.

David Brin said...

WTF do we have to fear about “loss of whiteness” when the basic Anglo-Scots- Enlightenment Revolution is taking over the world! Not through power and bluster (though power certainly helped erect Pax Americana), but through culture!

Hollywood spreads the memes of that Anglo-Scot (and yes, Lutheran/Jewish) revolution with stunning effectiveness. Nearly all immigrants raise kids here who become as American as can be (“white” in every way except the least important: skin color.) Though yes, our cultural richness does deepen and spread. We eat SO much better now!

But most telling is: “No amount of abstract, intellectual arguments or "facts" is likely to change this basic revulsion, and this sense that I am a target of a vast campaign of cultural destruction.”

Yes! Absolutely right! You DO have that sense! And you are frantic for someone to blame for it. And the most distressing possibility of all - that the demon is *within* — must be rejected! And since all facts seem to point that way, then facts are the enemy.

Like the fact that this way of thinking made life hell for nearly all of our ancestors. And when we started paying heed to fact, only then did we start getting justice, vast productivity, knowledge, stunning power and accomplishment. And fun.

Laurence said...

"Dig this well. Despite his stint at Goldman-Sachs — a job requirement in the Trump Administration — Bannon has never been a plutocrat. He is a fascist. The genuine article, not any of the ersatz things that silly lefties call by that name"

The irony is that Evola would have despised Bannon. Evola felt the power of the "merchants" - I.e capitalists - was the epitome of decadence. He supported a romanticized version of feudal Japan or India under the caste system, with a ruling class of priests and warriors keeping those pesky vulgar shopkeepers in place. The sight of a former Goldman Sachs employee propping up a property tycoon in his name would have Evola spinning in his grave.

Jumper said...

Treebeard focuses again on the loony left, whose main concrete contribution is to ensure mainstream progressives don't get elected. He's mentioned in the past the attacks on religion, which are more organic than just one faction, resulting from the rejection of fairy tales by reasonable people such as the founders of the USA. I suspect the bundling of sadism with religion is more than a little of what is actually being "attacked."

Sane Americans of all types will reject "doubletalk." I have a big suspicion for example that transgender people are often "trickster" types who comprise some 30% minimum narcissists. Others have surrendered to their own experience of being surrounded by a chauvinist family upbringing and mistakenly adopting those tenets. I don't know if fetishists should get the separate status as requested. And many feminist thinkers agree. On the other hand, it's no bigger a deal than respecting dietary, beard, sabbath or head-covering exceptions.

As far as "whiteness" Treebeard mentioned, it's an error to call the infuriating blindness of some Anglos to the tilt on the playing field "whiteness." (a causation - correlation error, or perhaps synecdoche ). That seems to be a "gotcha" aimed at non-Anglos who use that as a shorthand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

Jumper said...

Fascinating look at politics in Shia-majority Iraq right now.
https://english.aawsat.com/amir-taheri/opinion/tehrans-new-scheme-iraq

Creigh Gordon said...

On your caution regarding impeaching Trump in favor of Pence, theologian (and your fellow science fiction writer) C.S. Lewis says: "I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations."

locumranch said...



I agree with Lloyd_F's description of what scientists 'do' with the following clarifications:

"Scientists test their ideas against (their conception of CONSENSUS) reality (and), when multiple lines of evidence point to the same conclusion there will be a consensus (about the perceived CORRECTNESS of their consensual reality) that is used as the basis for further investigation (into their preconceived notion of consensual reality).

That said, allow me to describe how my various cult-like 'hallucinations' are to be tested against your cult's preconceived notions of consensus reality:

Following last night's defeat of the ACA repeal, a defeat that serves to demonstrate massive government dysfunction rather than any perceived validation of the ACA, the Trump Administration will follow through on its promise to allow 'Obamacare to implode' by the application of the Brownback Strategy.

Brownback, the former Kansas Governor who has just resigned (and, I mean 'just') in order to join the Trump Administration, developed a rather unique & apropos federal nullification strategy during his Kansas governorship.

Some would call Brownback's nullification strategy one of 'targeted bankruptcy' as it nullifies federal edict (not by overt defiance but) by the targeted bankruptcy (and/or elimination) of program-specific funding sources.

This strategy allowed the then Governor of Kansas to virtually ignore federal mandates on the basis of inadequate state-level funding, much in the same way that inadequate funding allowed the US automaker GM (circa 2012), US financial institutions like AIG (circa 2009) & major US airlines (circa 2005) to run roughshod over federal legal mandates pertaining to business practices, investments & pensions.

"Gosh Darn", exclaim various confederates, conservatives & trumpians, "We would absolutely LOVE to fully fund all of your federal (and oh-so-enlightened) Nanny State entitlements, freebies & circuses but -- who would've guessed -- we're just a little short at the moment, even though we have (literally) millions for defense but not one penny for tribute".

Most would-be social progressives are to discover that it's not much fun to have the 'turn-about-is-fair-play' principle applied to their very own brand of leftist identity politics.

For, with the demographic passing of the historical white majority, so passes the utility of minority identity politics UNLESS would-be social progressives wish to sanction the very ethnocentric identity groups that they so despise ... such as the Alt-Right.

Poor Matthew must be crying in his Bosco & pooping his nappies right about now.


Best

David Brin said...

“how my various cult-like 'hallucinations' are to be tested against your cult's preconceived notions of consensus reality”…

No. they fail the way you’d fail by screaming “I’m on the ground floor!” after stepping out a 40th story window. Objective. Reality. Exists.

“a defeat that serves to demonstrate massive government dysfunction”

No, it demonstrates the stunning hypocrisy, dishonesty and lunacy of your cult. 7 years they have screeched readiness to offer us something better. Seven. Years. Of. Howls. Maniacal arm-waving and promises. Obamacare was their own damn plan and they have nothing to replace it.

“we're just a little short at the moment”

Because you gave it all to your yes massa plantation lords.

The rest is incoherent yowling.

LarryHart said...

locumranch is wrong (pardon the redundancy) about the ACA repeal attempt. It failed because the Senators' constituents wanted it to fail. That's how democracy is supposed to work. McConnell and Trump tried to threaten those Senators with a primary challenge if they didn't deliver on their "promise" to repeal the ACA, but the constituents to whom that promise was made were the ones admonishing those Senators not to repeal. The idea that they would then punish the Senators who voted as those constituents demanded--against repeal--isn't much of a threat.

The dysfunction is actually in the action of electing Republicans in the first place. The Republican voters apparently prefigured the Senate vote on the Skinny Repeal--voting for Senators who campaigned on repealing the ACA while expecting or hoping that they wouldn't actually repeal the ACA once elected.

It has already been pointed out many times on this list that a subset of Americans asserting their right to due treatment as full citizens is not "the same thing" as a subset asserting their right to dominate others as a birthright. That's a different thing, in fact the opposite thing. This false equivalence belongs in the same dustbin of history with Supply Side economics.

The ACA repeal failed because:

You don't have the votes.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
You don't have the votes.
You're gonna need congressional approval, and
You don't have the votes.


And the reason they couldn't muster the votes was because:

I'll give him this.
His health-care plan was a work of genius.
I couldn't undo it if I tried.
And I tried!

locumranch said...



Yes, indeed.

Both David & I agree that "Objective. Reality. Exists", the distinction being that most scientists do not claim to possess unerring knowledge of "Objective Reality", but only claim to possess subjective approximations thereof.

The Scientific Method has allowed us (humanity) to construct better & more accurate approximations of Objective Reality, yet only a god or a madman would dare claim unerring knowledge of what Objective Reality is.

Now, let the yowling resume.


Best

Jumper said...

What are the odds locum strawmans "what scientists think?" How likely?

Paul SB said...

"... yet only a god or a madman would dare claim unerring knowledge of what Objective Reality is."
- Funny how this is precisely what locum does in nearly every post.

David Brin said...

Did you see that? He can parrot the right words even! But when nearly ALL evidence shows it applies to him, not us, that thought cannot even cross the mind.

CarlM I wrote this reply to you, and I don't recall whether I posted it.

You said: “if you have a flat wealth tax with personal exemption, you don't need identification! That's the beauty of it. Tax all wealth at the top rate and let those who identify themselves get a rebate by identifying themselves.”

Huh… well… that IS an alternative to my Wealth Revelation Treaty. Only how you’d actually tax wealth that has no declared owner is beyond me. You’d have to slice of … chunks? Of land? Of this shell-masked business. Of that shell-masked hotel?

My approach wagers that several trillions of property will just be abandoned rather than the owners revealing themselves. Most of those would be illicit or criminal activities or persons. The tsunami of abandoned property could one-time erase public debt. (And we would hope the next generation would learn a lesson.)

Yes, illicit drug lords would transfer vast wealth to be laundered through 10,000 poor families, who would declare it, then “sell it” back openly. Only what a boon for those 10,000 poor families who will get a cut that would be big enough to look credible!

Theresa williams said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LarryHart said...

From today's www.electoral-vote.com :

The "no" vote from McCain was certainly a big surprise. Had he voted "yes," the bill would have passed. To make it worse, he could have issued a kind of legislative "pocket veto" by simply staying in Arizona, claiming he was too ill to travel. No one would have contradicted him. Instead, he made a point of flying to D.C. to cast the final and decisive vote, possibly his last vote ever. For Republicans who don't like McCain—and there are many—he is an obvious traitor to the Party.


Ok, maybe McCain's point really was to give the finger back to Trump. I'm not sure why he voted "yes" on debate first, unless he really wanted to give the Senate a chance to act as the world's greatest deliberative body, and only after they pointedly failed to do so drop the hammer. In any case, his dramatic flight to DC while medically endangered to the cheers of McConnell and Trump and then casting the deciding "no" vote humorously echoes such Trump antics as his "eat crow" meal with Mitt Romney.

Maybe my summer daydream wasn't so far off after all.

Another thing I don't quite understand about the way the vote went down. Remember that several GOP Senators were bizarrely willing to vote for the "skinny repeal" as long as the House guaranteed not to pass it? If my understanding is accurate, what they wanted to do was send it to a conference committee with the House and have them both hammer out an alternative plan that may or may not resemble what they originally passed at all. Then, the leadership of both houses would insist that their members vote for the new thing or else be responsible for Obamacare succeeding. Well, if that was the plan, why didn't they just do that with the version that the House already passed?

LarryHart said...

a god or a madman:

yet only a god or a madman would dare claim unerring knowledge of what Objective Reality is.


And unless you credit the possibility of your being a god, the conclusion is clear.

Now, let the yowling resume.


Naw, it just finished.

LarryHart said...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/us/politics/john-mccain-health-care-senate-collapse-skinny.html


By the time the end came, Vice President Mike Pence — dispatched to the Senate to cast a tiebreaking vote — instead seemed resigned. Ms. Collins had clustered with the other two “no” Republicans, waiting to cast their votes.

“All of the sudden someone tapped on my back and it was the vice president,” Ms. Collins said. “He obviously had heard that John has decided to vote no. He was well aware of my vote and Lisa’s position and he was there to talk to John.

“He said, ‘Boy, are you tough,’ but he softened it by putting his arm around me as he said it.”


Was his wife in the room while he was doing that?

Jumper said...

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/special-reports/exclusive-winning-candidates-helped-voters-fill-out-their-ballots/V0ieae6VcZNNWF6I9ylRdM/

Here's the sort of election tampering which actually should be investigated.

locumranch said...



"I'm rubber and you're glue": Is this childish chant really the best at dialectic that some of you can do?

The theories we construct, the assertions we make & the truths we offer represent our subject take on reality rather the 'ultimate' in Objective Reality.

To remind you of this, that's why the likes of Treebeard & I hang around here and why the likes of Tacitus2 absent themselves, as those who assume perfection of purpose, form & knowledge desist in its pursuit.

This is also the why & the how of civilisation's fall because the assumption of apical perfection offers descent as the only directional option ...

Hence the assumption of catastrophe whenever purposeful, political or climate change occurs.


Best
_____

Eeek! Trump is the destroyer of worlds because all Pre-Trump things were the very pinnacle of perfection.

Paul SB said...

Oh look, more argument by assertion! Surprise! After our buddy loci retires and the Republicans have taken away his health care, too, he might consider working at a movie theater to pay for his pre-existing conditions - he's got this projection thing down!

And I am sure that those who would call him Tim are not impressed by his attempt at getting some halo effect by using his (nick)name.

David Brin said...

Blah blah blah... "nothing is real! Nothing is true! It's all subjective! You fact-users are bullies! Waaaaa-a-a-a!"

ALL of the civilizations that tried your approach were total disasters of filth, grinding poverty, ignorance, disease, capricious injustice and horror.

ALL of the civilizations that tried the Periclean approach (objective reality exists, but delusional humans can only find it through open-flat-fair-adversairial and grownup discourse) all of them have blossomed and succeeded. All right, there has been only one. But it accomplished more than ALL others, combined.

And we've done it despite tantrum throwing ankle-biters kicking and screaming "Give me back my chains!"

David Brin said...

onward

onward

Jumper said...

All straw man all the time, 24-7.
Only an idiot or a liar would claim people are running around claiming perfection. Who??
Therefore, locumranch, you're an idiot and/or a liar. My money is on "and."

koi seo said...

I think it is a very fair question to ask what American Conservatism actually conserves. For the longest time, they conserved the old liberal tradition that progressives found to be too slow and amoral.

หนังตลกฝรั่ง

rithkhmer said...

Thank you very much for sharing such a beautiful article.

หนังออนไลน์