Shades

I don't usually post in politics, but this article I read today courtesy of Fark drives me insane:

Sen. Clinton at fund raiser

Here's the relevant quote:
I'm not a hard-core conservative. Despite thinking like one, I've never actually voted for one in the 7 years I've been able to vote. But this quote drives me INSANE. The top tax bracket pays 49% of their income to the government. They pay HALF of what they make. I know a lot of people in that bracket. They're not bad people, they don't oppress anyone. And yet they are required to give a full HALF of their paycheck to the government.

The government! The same institution that, year after year, proves that what it does best is squander money. On behalf of the common good? Fuck the common good! The government wouldn't know what that was if it hit them in the ass, and this Democrat wants to take more money to get this done?

And when the hell did we vote and change this to a socialist nation anyhow?

cthulu23

The out-of-context quote is referring to rolling back the Bush tax cut, which all economists know is inevitable. We currently have the largest deficit in American history and all reasonable persons know that this cannot last.

nanofever

...Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Damn that socialist !

I'm going to suggest that the rich be happy that they give so much to the government. The rich do get pretty good representation/protection for their money. The poor are the army grunts, workers in the factories and the consumers of the rich's products. The poor in essence protect and grow the assets of the rich. In turn, the rich provide for the poor, at least enough that the poor don't kill the rich and take their assets. The rich should be happy to pay 49% of their income; they get to keep the other 51% of the millions and no violent worker's rebellion occurs.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

cthulu23

Here's an interesting quote from a well-known socialist about the aforementioned tax cuts:

Shades

Look, that's plain ridiculous. You're basically saying that the rich owe that money to the poor, and if they don't pay up, they should be turned on/assaulted/killed and have all of their assets taken. How can you possibly justify that? I just as well turn this on its head:

The rich are the entrepreneurs, investors, and creators of all of the poor's products. The rich in essence make possible and provide the assets of the poor. In turn, the poor work for the rich, at least enough that the rich don't throw the poor into work camps and withhold their assets. The poor should be happy to only pay less than 15% of their income; they get to keep the other 85+% to use as they choose, unlike the rich, and no institutionalized slavery occurs.

Wow, that sounded really intelligent. Thanks for playing.

I don't think the quote is out of context, I read the whole article. I suppose what I object to most is the assumption that the government knows best, and that even if it did, could effectively do anything about it. This has been proven wrong over and over again, both in domestic efforts and abroad, for at least the last 50 years. When will people give up this pipe dream?

wonderwench

Before advocating taking more money away from any taxpayer, perhaps the government should do a better job managing what it does seize.

I find it quite appalling that the government would fail the requirements of Sarbanes Oxley if it were subject to the same standards of accounting controls.

Uncle Sam's Audit Gap

If Uncle Sam were a public company, the feds would be all over it about accounting. Six years after Congress completed the most sweeping reform of federal financial management in 40 years, 83% of the federal agencies subject to it aren't in full compliance with the law.

The accounting is so bad that no one knows how much it's costing taxpayers in erroneous payments and inefficiency. Reports from the U.S. General Accounting Office indicate that $100 billion annually wouldn't be unreasonable. That's equal to an Enron (otc: ENRNQ - news - people )--or a tax cut--every year.

Before we look at those big money problems, something less problematic but less known and very awkward deserves attention.

The chief arbiter of auditing isn't audited. Action last week by the U.S. Senate and the Securities and Exchange Commission seems certain to bring federal oversight of the accounting profession with the assistance of the SEC. Yet the SEC, which administers securities-related fees that last year totaled $2 billion, doesn't produce audited financial statements of its own operations, as do 36 of the most significant federal agencies.

The SEC and 25 other independent agencies aren't subject to federal law requiring audited financials similar to those of public companies. Still, a dozen of those agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission, have provided them.

The issue isn't possible accounting shenanigans, just good business practice. Maintaining audited financials is essential to efficient management.

The SEC also is the only agency that doesn't have a top-level management position equivalent to chief financial officer. As required of all agencies, it has an inspector general who can conduct audits. But responsibility for financial management and accounting is with the office of comptroller, which lies at the bottom of the SEC organization chart.

The SEC blames lack of budget authorization for its audit absence. Of course, keeping public-company accounting in line should be the priority. But it's just plain embarrassing that the SEC doesn't practice what it regulates.

Pending legislation would require audited financials from the SEC and all other agencies having budget authority greater than $25 million. The SEC recently told lawmakers that's a good idea. But it noted that in addition to funding problems, its regulatory power over accounting makes it difficult to contract with outside accountants to prepare for audits, as do other smaller agencies.

That's a ludicrous excuse. The SEC lives and breathes auditing. It might have to hike headcount. But it certainly has the institutional know-how. And funding presumably could be found in the huge 66% increase in the SEC's budget--to $766 million--proposed by accounting oversight legislation that the Senate passed last week.

Now, about that $100 billion of problems among the 24 major agencies currently audited by law.

Since 1997, the U.S. Treasury has reported federal accounts on a combined basis, with an overall accounting opinion issued by the General Accounting Office. 2001 was the fifth consecutive year that the GAO was unable to judge "whether the consolidated statements are fairly stated in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles." The GAO says that "the government did not maintain adequate systems or have sufficient, reliable information."

One result is erroneous payments, either via plain mistakes or vulnerability to fraudulent claims. Estimates just for Medicare, food stamps and earned income tax credit refunds alone totaled $21 billion in 2001. Estimates, much less exact amounts, for the entire government are unknown. $100 billion would be 19% of Uncle Sam's $515 billion net operating cost last year.

The fine print of the tidy-looking Financial Report of the United States Government reveals painfully basic accounting deficiencies. For example, to make the statements balance, there's a $17.3 billion decrease to net operating cost labeled "unreconciled transactions." That's up from $4.8 billion in 2000.

According to the GAO, a major reason is failure of agencies to accurately reconcile their records of disbursements to the Treasury's records of actual payments. That's as basic as reconciling a checkbook with bank statements.

The balance sheet is equally crude. The negative $6.5 trillion total net position isn't derived via balanced accounting entries. Instead, the $7.4 trillion of liabilities is simply subtracted from $926 billion of assets. And the GAO reported that substantial amounts of government-owned plant, equipment and inventories, on the books at $491 billion, couldn't be verified to exist or have their value substantiated.

Though 16 of the 24 major agencies required to provide audited financials received a "clean" opinion, the GAO found it often was achieved only by "extensive ad hoc procedures" and "billions of dollars in adjustments"--much like a taxpayer organizing a shoebox of financial documents on April 14.

Just preparing a tax return or audited financials isn't financial management. That requires accurately maintaining records on a current basis. The auditors of 20 of the 24 federal agencies deemed the financial management systems significantly deficient in meeting federal requirements enacted in 1996.

The Department of Defense, whose $764 billion cost for 2001 (including retiree health benefits) is by far the largest of any agency, is the major offender.* Intramural rivalry has created a rat's nest of 1,100 financial systems. A $200 million two-year plan announced in April aims to design an integrated architecture of just 100 systems. Implementation will take at least four more years.

Elsewhere, some meaningful progress has been made. The number of agencies able to attain clean audit opinions has tripled since 1996. And the GAO reports significant improvement in tracking loan programs at key agencies such as the Department of Agriculture.

A priority of President Bush's management agenda is more aggressive implementation of federal financial management laws enacted between 1990 and 1996. But the goal of having the government operate as if it's Uncle Sam Inc. is up against the politics of spending money, not saving it, and the ability to literally paper over the consequences of sloppy accounting.

It's much easier to raise the debt limit, dip into the Social Security trust fund and otherwise jigger appropriations. In fact, apart from the critical aspects of disclosure and nefarious intent, the techniques of politicos have much in common with the public-company accounting shenanigans they now seek to end.

cthulu23

Now that's a progressive attitude. All you're saying is that the poor owe something to the rich for being wealthy...that makes sense.

Again, we must be so thankful that the rich don't just enslave us all. Aren't they benevolent? We could be working in the salt mines!
But you provided no context, hence out of context.

Bush is not for small government. He is spending money like a drunken sailor, has formed a new branch of the government and wants to create new exceptions to our personal liberties. Desn't that stink of "the government knows best?"

nanofever

I would agree that you are right, except the rich are in the overwhelming minority and would lose an all-out class war, badly. I didn't say that the situation I described was morally correct; however, the situation is realistic. If the rich don't provide for some social welfare, bloody revolutions will occur. I have history as a MAJOR factor in favor of my position, what do you have ?

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

cthulu23

Wonderwench,

I agree with your assessment of the problem of government waste. Of course, creating a new branch of government is not the right way to go about saving money.

cosmoknight

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Biggest problem is the fallacy of the government giving you back your own money they confiscated from you in the first place.

wonderwench

We have an enormous budget problem right now. I wouldn't pin it all on the Executive Branch - Congress spends an unforgiveable amount on pork. Both parties are complicit in this abuse.

tecoyah

I for one, am just relieved that at least SOMEONE in my government is willing to accept that we are in trouble, and attempt to fix it. Yes, I am in N.Y.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Shades

Wow cthulu23, way to miss the sarcasm. On a serious note, are you then suggesting that the rich automatically owe something to the poor?

roachboy

i'll tell you what i think on that, shades, though you did not ask me:
i would think that anyone who extracts profit from the social system should be willing to contribute something to the maintenance of the system. since historically private philanthropies and churches were totally unable to provide anything like this, system maintenance occurs through taxation. the idea that capitalist markets, left to themselves, would provide for the greater social good is also a fantasy, not supported by even the slightest historical analysis.
the way in which the thread was framed is entirely within the purview of the planet limbaugh, a funny little world in which capitalism is not a social formation, taxes are simply taking your stuff, the sky is green and people walk upside down.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

The idea that the state is better able support people better than themselves has been proven to be far more of a fallacy than that Capitalism Is Utopia.

The disproof of your claims, roachboy, lie in the vastly higher standards of living in countries with some semblence of a free market vs. those that are centrally planned - and in the higher rates of employment and standards of living in those countries with a lower tax burden.

cthulu23

I never said that but, since you brought it up, I have to agree with Roachboy. Those that benefit most from this society should be obligated to help support it. This is not a historically controversial statement.

nanofever

Shades, I think history lesson might be in order.

Once a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, America was going through a period called the Guilded Age. The Guilded Age had the rich who exploited workers and co-opted the political process for their own financial gain. The Guilded Age is a great example that business are simply in business to make money and will pay workers the lowest wages possible. Workers lived in horrid housing conditions and had little chance for advancement. Eventually, workers saw that their labor was making the factory owner rich and the laborer was recieving almost nothing. The workers decided that this was quite unfair and something had to be done...

This situation has happened in almost every industrializing country and one of two outcomes are possible. Either, social justice/welfare programs are put in place to placate the poor's anger and improve their situation, or worker's rebellions WILL OCCUR, not "might", WILL.

The rich get to keep their wealth and the perks it brings in a capitalistic society (good legal council, political influence, material posessions, good education for their offspring), in exchange for paying for social welfare programs.

The rich WILL pay for social welfare because they have the most to lose in a worker's rebellion, and the loss to social welfare is significantly less than in a revolution (money, status, life, ect). Practicality not ideology.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

wonderwench

So what is a fair ratio? According to the Tax Foundation, in 2001, the following income groups paid the corresponding share of total federal income taxes:

- The top 1% - 33.9%
- The top 5% - 53.3%
- The top 10% - 64.9%
- The top 25% - 82.9%
- The top 50% - 96.1%
- The bottom 50% - 3.9%

Link

The top 50% of taxpayers pay nearly all of the federal income tax. How much more concentrated does it need to be to make you think it is "fair"?

Don't you think it is plausible that as fewer and fewer taxpayers pay for the government we are making the problems of elite control even worse? If The Rich are paying the entire bill, don't you see how they might think they should determine all of the rules by which they operate? All such concentration does is exacerbate class warfare and divisiveness.

nanofever

Wow, I never realized that the rich pay so much in taxes. I guess the rich really are getting raked over the coals on April 15th.





http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html

The graphs are from the Levy Institute at Bard college.

http://www.levy.org/2/index.asp?

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

wonderwench

So what is your point, other than that The Rich are Rich?

cthulu23

The tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, as well as corporations, has declined sharply since the 1950's. If anything, more and more taxpayers (ie - the poor) or shouldering more of the tax burden, although they are the least able to afford it. See Ctizens for Tax Justice for details.

wonderwench

Just out of curiosity then, what should the tax burden be on The Rich? Should we go back to upper brackets of 90%?

How many of the lower income jobs would go away, btw, if we sucked capital out of the private sector and handed it over to the government (which cannot account for billions and billions and billions of the money it already confiscates)?

cthulu23

I think that corporations should pay more of their share...there are many Fortune 500 companies that pay no taxes at all, although they reap great benefits from out society.

I don't necessarily feel that individual tax rates need to go up any higher, but it doesn't make sense to me that the lowest brackets, who have been losing income. should pay more of the taxes than those that have been accruing more wealth. Where's the fairness in that?

roachboy

i just reread my post, and sure enough i didnt say anything about central planning---i could if you like, should it be germain at some point---but i just isnt now.
what i did say about the inability of capitalism on its own, without the intervention of the state, to provide even a semblance of social equity is not disputable. read anything about the actual history of capitalism, and you see it is true. of course, it might jar loose some of the limbaugh-specific sophistries you like to trot out, wonderwench, so i suspect you will safely protect yourself from any untoward facts and go on your way. i salute your passing.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

cthulhu, what does "Fair Share" mean? Please define it.

roachboy, salute away. I hope your arm doesn't get tired waiting for me to pass away. I don't intend that little maneuvre for many years hence.

Read anything about the history of peoples who have lived in systems other than free markets, and you will see a rather dismal way of living short, brutish lives. The wrongs you attribute to Capitalism were actually performed by people who violated the concept of voluntary, informed exchange. Fraud, coercion and the like are abuses which should be addressed by the law. These are a far cry, however, from micro-managing lawful conduct, which is the trend.

I never watch, read or listen to Rush Limbaugh, btw. Just thought I should clear up that little misperception on your part.

cthulu23

Hmmm...nowhere did I mention "Fair Share." I said "more of their share," which I guess you could define as greater than zero. Or is that socialistic?

wonderwench

Given that these corporations pay employees who pay income taxes, a vast amount of their revenue ends up in the tax coffers.

There are many Fortune 500 companies which go through periods of net losses. How would you go about assessing taxes on them? How many lay-offs would you be willing to tolerate so that the government could collect taxes from money-losing entities?

roachboy

naturally, you misread what i wrote again. wonderwench.

this is getting tiresome.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

No, I read it quite clearly: the little jabs in which you accuse me of being a ditto-head and of ducking out of the conversation if I don't agree with your "facts". I was wordplaying with the "I salute your passing" comment, but I see you did not grok it.

Shades

In a way, nanofever, I'm gratified that the best response you can come up with is thinly veiled sarcasm and blatantly false claims.

Your view of history is entirely wrong, laughably so. Nowhere on Earth have the poor risen up and taken over a nation, or even launched a rebellion that lasted for more than a few months. I suppose you were thinking of Russia or China, but only the most credulous person could think that those people were enjoying a "people's revolution" and not living under an ungloved iron fist. You may have been thinking of England's Protestant revolution, but that was quickly hijacked by the corrupt who always wield power, then ceded back to the monarchy, so that hardly counts either.

As for roachboy, like I said, I've never voted for a Republican, but you can still pretend I listen to Limbaugh if it makes you feel better. I like how anyone who isn't agreeing with you is a Limbaugh fan, nice polar world you live in.

I'm not against the government providing some social services, but it does an abysmal job with what it has. Millions upon millions of dollars are just plain lost. Have you ever lost a million dollars? I hardly think the solution is to hand the government more money, and I hardly think taking more money from someone who already gives half of their money to the government is right. Think about it- until next week, you'd have been working for Uncle Sam since the New Year. Tax businesses better, close corporate loopholes by all means. Preferably, make the government actually spend its money somewhat wisely. But it just isn't right to take more than half of a man's salary, I don't care how many millions he makes.

cthulu23

Money that was provided by the workers, not the company.

Quote:

There are many Fortune 500 companies which go through periods of net losses. How would you go about assessing taxes on them? How many lay-offs would you be willing to tolerate so that the government could collect taxes from money-losing entities?

You tax them based on their profits, maybe? Just like they used to be taxed?

Taxing business is not a radical idea....should corporate entities be exempt from the social contract? They have the same rights as you are I, they should have the same obligations.

nanofever

The logic that says "eventually my money will interact with the government, so I don't have to pay taxes" is total bullshit. Given that a good number of corporations outsource jobs, the logic descends to a new, lower level of bullshit. If a corporation doesn't generate any revenue, it doesn't have to pay taxes - kinda of like the unemployed. However, the CEOs will still get taxes on personal income to avoid any loophole tactics.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

roachboy

shades--come on---first, the "taking your stuff for the common good" as a way of understanding taxation in general and the problems with the bush tax cut in particular is straight limbaughland--doesnt matter if you listen to him or just mime the discourse, the source is the same. as a way of thinking about what taxation is, it gets you precisely nowhere. it give you no way of thinking about why taxation was developed in its modern form, what the problems/conflicts that drove it might have been. take some responsability for your terminology.
if you do not agree with it, dont use it.

fact is that profit would not be extractable without a minimal degree of socail stability. the redistribution of wealth is fundamental to that stability. anyone who has read **any** history of capitalism in the empirical world would understand this.

that you do not like taxes is fine--but it is not a coherent view of what taxation does.

and i could not care less how you vote.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

nanofever,

Do you understand the difference between revenue and profits? Income taxes are based upon net income after the deduction of allowable expense deductions. If you want to drive even more outsourcing of jobs, then by all means, assess taxes on revenue.

As to the benefits of corporations being located in a geography, just ask any small town about how it fares when a large plant goes out of business. There is a multiplier effect of having thriving businesses in an economy. We should be doing more to encourage them to stay than adopting policies which exacerbate relocation.

There is plenty of empirical data, btw, which disproves the negative impact of outsourcing. A small fraction of job loss is due to it. I'd still prefer, however, to encourage the creation of jobs in the domestic economy by not worsening the situation for employers.

Shades

She actually said that she intended to take their things (~stuff) for the common good, not me. I never said I didn't like taxes period, I said taking more than half of your income is a fucking crime. Before you respond this time, try to read what I wrote instead of just ascribing a generally far, far, right point of view to me then tearing it down.

And why the fixation with Limbaugh? Did he run over your dog or something?

roachboy

gee, silly me--i thought that you selective quotation aimed distorting what clinton said, combined with the title you gave to the thread you created, combined with the rant about taxes and the horrible plight endured by the wealthy and the implication of the irrationality of the state pointed in a particular political direction.

again, it makes no difference to me whether you occupy that a far right position or if you simply reproduce all the discourse, even as you disavow the position. because the discourse is itself intellecutally and politically bankrupt, i feel no compunction about holding you to account for its use. and dont pretend that there was no political motive behind your opening gambit on the thread.
it would just be pathetic.

as for limbaugh--well he is just a fountain of emptiness and for me not much more than a placeholder really. this idiotic view of taxation--which comes down to a rather snippy claim (taxes suck, man...like they really suck) with no analytic value whatsoever is something that i associate with him. maybe because he has been trafficking in it for years. but there i go again---who knows--- maybe beneath every point-for-point reproduction of his position there always lurks a powerful and independent thinker like yourself. i should obviously be more careful.

btw my dog is fine. i am sure that if he cared, he would be happy about your inquiry concerning his health. he doesnt seem to care about alot of the things i say to or about him either. on this at least, we are in the same general position. huskies are the great leveller, dog-wise

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

nanofever

I'm fine with assessing corporate tax by revenue and not profit, even if it does cause outsourcing. Since "plenty of empirical data, btw, which disproves the negative impact of outsourcing", I don't see a problem here.

/please people, re-read your posts before shooting yourself in the foot with contradictory advocacy - in the same freaking post.

Shader- Roachboy covered what I was going to say about Capitalistic theory and the role of government in *stable* capitalism.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Shades

Again roachboy, I'm glad it's all black and white for you. How silly of me to misinterpret a statement about a Senator's intention to take more money from people directly and employ it for the common good, which the government is uniquely unqualified to do. I never said that all taxes were bad, I said excessively high individual taxes are. I'm tired of seeing politicians take shots at easy targets like "the rich" and "evil companies" just to pander to the lowest common denominator around election time.

In your spirit, I'm going to ascribe an argument to you that you didn't make. roachboy, why do you think that people should give all of their money to the government? It's pathetic and disingenuous to claim that the government is the source of all opportunity, and therefore deserves all of the rewards that any opportunity produces. When your next post is elevated past sophomoric debate tricks, I'll respond.

I'm glad your dog is fine.

Tman144

French rebellion, remember when they cut off all the rich people's heads?

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

roachboy

but i didnt say that. shades--i didnt say anything like that at any point---but whatever--this is tedious----look, the main point i wanted to make was the point i started with--read the part up to the limbaugh thing and forget about the rest, if it makes you feel less attacked. you want to talk about that, then fine, lets talk about it.

as things went on this thread, i got diverted by wonderwench into side issues, and then ended up in this goofball exchange with you---the commentary about limbaugh was a side thing from the outset----a shorthand way of referring to an entire school of idiot views of taxation----i maintain my position about how you framed your arguments throughout, but find my committment to much beyond that slipping away----maybe its just late, maybe its that i started watching "the fog of war" and find myself alternating between being stuck in a kind of strange fascination with macnamara and a visceral dislike of philip glass, maybe its that this is not getting anywhere and seems unlikely to---i am not sure---but there we are.

btw--just to say it--none of this is personal, so far as i am concerned. hope you understand that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite