Reading Capital with David Harvey

I’m sure that many political and financial problems of today are just a result of ignoring Marx. So many people who knows everything about financial markets and other BS… but they don’t know basics.
Proof? Just look at these people who say that Bill Gates is the most expensive guy on the Earth….

Looks like people just scared to read anything that “kommunizm” related. Like they are scared of cockroaches but like beetles

PS. Yes I like the word “like”

Has anybody read that “return to Marx” book Gaidar wrote a few years ago? (I haven’t.)

“I’m sure that many political and financial problems of today are just a result of ignoring Marx”

Sure, all the world’s best business schools start by discussing Marx and Communist theory … ::eyeroll::

Lest we forget, communism CREATED many political and financial problems, essentially bankrupting the former Soviet Union and creating an intractable political situation that resulted in greater than 50% of the CCCP’s GDP being spent on military concerns in its last decades.

I suppose it is all the rage now in Russia to romanticize the communist past, but particularly considering the vast resources that Russia has, communism was a tragic human failure.

I’ll very likely view all of these David Harvey lectures, but it is ludicrous to suggest the world’s political and economic problems would be solved by embracing communism.

“Has anybody read that “return to Marx” book Gaidar wrote a few years ago? (I haven’t.)”

I’m not sure if that is the title of the book that you intend or not. Maybe you mean “Long Time. Russia in the World. Essays in Economic History” (Dolgoie vremia. Rossia v mire. Ocherki ekonomichsekoi istorii, Moscow: Delo, 2005).

I think that is it Wally. It was described as Gaidar’s return to Marxism. Here’s a review: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9182-23.cfm

(Not to beat a dead horse, but Marxism is not the crimes real and imagined of “communism.”)

Wally wrote:

“it is ludicrous to suggest the world’s political and economic problems would be solved by embracing communism.”

Ivanov wrote:

“I’m sure that many political and financial problems of today are just a result of ignoring Marx.”

Where did Wally get what he wrote from what Ivanov wrote?

Ivanov stated that the world’s political and financial problems are a result of ignoring Marx (communist theory). I said that is a ludicrous suggestion.

Marxist theory is a dead relic. Consider that this course, “Reading Marx’s Capital”, is being taught by a 72 year old man.

In another generation, it will have gone the way of phlogiston theory.

To make more clear, if you are suggesting that ignoring Marx results in problems, that would infer that embracing Marx would solve said problems.

Wally, I really don’t know what to say. This is not how intellectual history works — Marx was a hugely influential person who laid tracks in every sphere of 20th-century intellectual activity, from literature to evolutionary biology (e.g. Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium is Marxist in origin).

It’s as if one were to assert that Aristotelian physics is a dead theory, a frequent assertion of half-educated undergraduates who think they’re smart. Well, this is true in that physics does not talk about four causes and natural places, but it does contain little, unimportant words like, oh I don’t know, ENERGY.

“To make more clear, if you are suggesting that ignoring Marx results in problems, that would infer that embracing Marx would solve said problems.”

The opposite of “ignoring” is not “embracing.” It is “not ignoring.”

I am not a Marxist, but being an academic philospher by training and open-minded by inclination I get really annoyed when people dismiss whole schools of thought. It’s usually a sign that people do not know what they are talking about. (No offense meant.)

That’s because nobody can get through Das Kapital, but most people can read through the Kommunist Manifesto.

Unbelievable, eight years of Bushitler and we still have Communist profs. spreading sedition.

… Aristotelian physics…

Right analogy, wrong conclusion.

Marx’s economic theory and Aristotelian physics are good examples of once plausible and influential scientific theories that have eventually proved to be totally wrong.

I think you’re being nit-picky with the language, CM. In fact, in this context I would say the opposite of ignoring would be incorporating or using … and the way I used it, that would be “embracing”.

In other words, nations KNOW about Marx and his theories, but they aren’t USING them (hence ivanov’s citing they are ignored). “Not ignoring” does nothing, that is the static position that would result in a status quo. To fulfill ivanov’s prophecy of remedy would require incoporating Marx’s theories a.k.a. embracing them, in the sense of “to adopt; to include or contain”.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embrace

Marx’s theories on Capital and Capitalism all lead to or pointed to his Communist Manifesto, didn’t they? I don’t see them as very separable. His analysis and criticisms of cycles of profit and crises in capitalism would seem deeply flawed; it would seem that he underestimates the role of skilled labor with increased technology. It would seem the past 100+ years has shown that for every field where labor costs are diminished due to technology, new fields are opened where technology demands even more skilled (and highly paid) labor.

“Marx’s economic theory”

Who the said anything about Marx’s economic theory? Economics was a small portion of what Marx discussed.

“Marx’s theories on Capital and Capitalism all lead to or pointed to his Communist Manifesto, didn’t they?”

No, actually the CM (Communistus Manifestimus?) is an early, popular work, and Marx’s developed thoughts on capitalism (a word he only used once) occur after it. He practically, notoriously, had almost no theories regarding communism at all, except that it follows capitalism and has no classes. There are obviously however continuities as well as breaks in the development of Marx’s thought (I am not a Marx scholar, but I do know this. )

Marx’s greatest and most influential ideas, though revolutionary at the time, have been so influential and diffused so widely through society that they are believed in by virtually everyone and so nobody thinks of them as Marxist. A good example of this is economic determinism, which is believed in hard or soft forms by many people — for instance, the idea that a growing middle class in China or Russia or wherever will inevitably lead to parliamentary democracy is a totally Marxist notion. In fact it is in the Communist Manifesto, and the part where he is praising capitalism (a word he didn’t use) and what is today called globalisation, which Marx thought was the greatest thing ever.

Marx would be a very obscure name if he didn’t write Kommunistische Manifest.

““It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life.”

It’s great, isn’t it?

It’s so depressing by contrast looking at the formulaic crap churned out by his various pop epigones 150 years later. Maybe that is a sign that Marxism is dead — it’s turned from brilliance into silly scholastic arguments between cult members about whether Cuba is state capitalist or not. Oh God I want to cry just thinking about it.

Here’s a cute quote that summarizes some of the discussion: “Capital as such is not evil; it is its wrong use that is evil. Capital in some form or other will always be needed.” Mahatma Gandhi

“No, actually the CM (Communistus Manifestimus?) is an early, popular work, and Marx’s developed thoughts on capitalism (a word he only used once) occur after it. ”

I don’t think that the fact that CM was earlier than Das Kapital negates my point. Later works reinforced his initial work, and his thoughts on capital and capitalism point towards his CM. In some cases these later works modify his ideas, but in all cases they point back to the CM. This is not an uncommon situation, consider Darwin or Einstein (as widely known examples) whose writing in later works explained or expanded upon their earlier theories.

I think your point regarding Aristotle and Energy is not very good – current physics concepts of energy did not build upon Aristotle at all and it is a construct of language (with only the slightest nod towards Aristotle) that we use the same word today. To explain further, there was no scientific or quantitative basis to his idea, it was just a new word to express a metaphor as to why people feel fatigue after exertion.

Your association is as if Newton had instead called gravity … “apple” and then someone said that gravity originated with ancient orchards in Kazakhstan. Your tracing a word and vague concept instead of the scientific basis of energy.

These discussions get unnecessarily expansive at times with endless nitpicking of things that people are writing off-the-cuff.

So, I’ll just say “cool, I want to watch these lectures” and let it slide at that.

“Marx’s theories on Capital and Capitalism all lead to or pointed to his Communist Manifesto, didn’t they?”

No, Shedd, they don’t.
But thanks a lot for the example of educated person who thinks that Kapital was about kommunizm…

Maybe that is a sign that Marxism is dead — it’s turned from brilliance into silly scholastic arguments between cult members about whether Cuba is state capitalist or not. Oh God I want to cry just thinking about it.

Me too wants cry. Only me wants thinking about it not at all.

Here’s a clue, CM. Marxist movement degenerated the more Marxist ideas were put into practical use around the world. Cause and effect, you know.

Well, the Aristotle physics example was admittedly an extreme one, which is why I chose it — a less extreme example would be Aristotle’s logic, which through a very lengthy and round-about process winds up at the binary switches in our computers. However, pretensions to the contrary, no scientific/philosophical development ever makes a complete break with its predecessor, since it uses its concepts. A good example of this I think is modern philosophy/science (“modern” here meaning the Enlightenment) — for all the ostentatious poo-pooing of Scholasticism engaged in by Bacon and Descartes, they were in fact using a whole series of Scholastic notions in their actual work (like substance). Similarly, while the words “energy, “actuality,” “essence,” “potentiality” and so forth have different meanings today, the reason we have these words and use them for the things we do is that way back in the day Roman intellectuals were trying to come up with Latinized versions of terms coined by Aristotle, and the meanings are still genetically based in those core meanings.

As for Marx, well, I am not a giant Marx fan, though I do think he was a seminal 19th-century thinker. Although I would never deny a very strong link between the late Marx and his early bit of juvenalia (he was, what, 28?), the CM really is less a philosophical tract than it is political rhetoric (very good political rhetoric) written specifically for that conference the name of which I can’t remember.

“Here’s a clue, CM. Marxist movement degenerated the more Marxist ideas were put into practical use around the world. Cause and effect, you know.”

Wow, I wish I were as smart as you and capable of such brilliant historical analysis. I could probably count to, like, five.

“As for Marx, well, I am not a giant Marx fan, though I do think he was a seminal 19th-century thinker.”

Wasn’t part of his love/hate relationship with capital tied up with his anti-semitism (despite his Jewish roots)? On multiple occasions he equated greed and self-interest with Jews and reportedly believed that Jews infected the Christian world with these qualities that he saw in capitalism. “On the Jewish Question” is cited as influential with ‘National Socialist, as well as Soviet and Arab anti-Semites’.

This idea will probably send people spinning into a frenzy, but when considered with communism, that is a pretty significant death toll attributed to one man’s philosophy or work.

Celtics win #17 tonight.

Marx also thought of Russians as Asiatic barbarians who must be ’swept’ beyond the Ural.

The fact that the Red Army was marching in parades under his bearded image for 70 years is one of the greatest examples of ideological insanities in history.

Totally off-topic, but tommorow:
RUSSIA v SWEDEN EURO 2008
19:45 GMT
22:45 MSK
14:45 EST

Dire Russia somehow beat an atrocious Greece the other nite and, despite being shite and all as they are, somehow have a crack at a quarter final place if they can beat the Swedes, who are almost as bad. A draw would leave both teams with 4 points but WILL NOT do Russia, who have an inferior goal difference after their hiding by Spain. A draw will do Sweden. If Russia have any heart they’ll throw the kitchen sink at them and it could be good entertainment, so dont forget to tune in!
Vperyod, Rossiya!

More to the point, many of the prescriptions in the CM (yes, an early, immature work in the corpus of a theorist who devoted most of his time to the study of capital, not a future socialist society, as has been already pointed out) were a key influence on the development of the welfare state (gives us such outdated socialist institutions as say, the weekend).

In general, I would be careful in wantonly throwing ideologies and schools of thought into the “trashcan of history” (Trotsky did it, and look what happened to him). Remember that at around 20% of the world’s population is still ruled by political parties that identify with Marxism. It may also be useful to point to the fact that many (now a majority) in the US are losing faith in the ideology of “free markets” (now that it is costing Americans jobs…

“Wasn’t part of his love/hate relationship with capital tied up with his anti-semitism (despite his Jewish roots)? On multiple occasions he equated greed and self-interest with Jews and reportedly believed that Jews infected the Christian world with these qualities that he saw in capitalism. “On the Jewish Question” is cited as influential with ‘National Socialist, as well as Soviet and Arab anti-Semites’.”

You can psychoanalyze the guy all you want, seeing as he’s dead and can’t defend himself, but… Like I said I am not a Marx scholar, but in mu understanding Marx’s dislike of Jewish national identity and the Jewish religion were part and parcel of the worldview of the European Enlightenment, which saw religions as backwards superstitions and national identities as silly tribal affectations that would be discarded as science, technology, and capitalism conquered the world. Being a 19th-century German liberal, he also followed the standard Hegelian narrative of a heirarchy or religions, with shamanism and polytheism at the bottom, then “primitive” monotheism (Judaism and Islam), then “superstitious Popery,” and then Protestantism as the highest form. (He writes Engels somewhere that Protestantism is the only religion worth criticizing.) It is in other words basically the view of Richard Dawkins.

As Candide says, Marx did not think highly of Russians (or anybody who wasn’t German, British, or French), but once again this is the standard 19th-century European view of Russia as a Dark Autocracy and Enemy of Freedom, coupled with the Enlightenment idea that “rational” societies — industrial societies like Britain that believe in SCIENCE!!!! — stand for progress and are moving humanity forward, unlike a feudal despotism like the Russian Empire.

I am reading a book about this very subject, ironically written by a Communist theoretician who wants to cleanse Marxism of its “Russophobic” elements which in his view were what brought down the USSR. A very novel view.

Marx’s dislike of Jewish national identity and the Jewish religion were part and parcel of the worldview of the European Enlightenment…

It was more petty and selfish than that, as evidenced by the abuses Marx heaped on Lassalle, who was a very progressive political activist indeed.

If you say so. Your simple assertion does not provide evidence of a causal relation, though it is certainly true that Marx, being kind of a dick, heaped abuse on a lot of people. I get the feeling he was pretty unpleasant to be around — though his drinking parties with Bakunin are legendary.

Bakunin was kind of a dick as well…

I’ve already been viewing these lectures (before finding this post) and can strongly recommend them.

Capital is a tough slog and Harvey makes it… well, not as tough of a slog.

Harvey asks students to put aside pre-conceptions about Marx–like, some of the ones indicated in comments here–and focus on the text. Which he does, in depth.

One problem: The lecture doesn’t mention the volume of Capital that he keeps referencing. I’ve found that it must be the Vintage Books edition (I have August 1977, introduction by Ernest Mandel, translated by Ben Fowkes). Page numbers match right up.

“It may also be useful to point to the fact that many (now a majority) in the US are losing faith in the ideology of “free markets” (now that it is costing Americans jobs..”

You’re cracked.

America has been “losing jobs” to free markets since at least the 1970’s, and a strong national belief in free markets has only gained in strength during that time (unless you are talking about certain labor unions). Given the weak dollar in recent years, American products are becoming more cost competitive and exports are finally increasing. You’re unlikely to find anyone serious in U.S. politics who doesn’t support free markets.

PS ~ I wasn’t trying to psycho-analyze Marx. I was merely trying to stir the pot of the conversation a bit.

Regarding his anti-semitism being part of a general negative attitude towards religions – niggah, please. He took it considerably beyond that.

“Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Marx, On the Jewish Question

That sounds to me as if he is specifically setting aside the religious aspect of Judaism, and criticizes it’s secular aspects (as he perceives them).

The conventional wisdom today is that Marxism is discredited and the revolutionary socialist movement is dead forever. As anyone who follows financial markets will know, the conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. I think that will also prove to be the case in political economy as well.

How else to explain the massive financial and economic crisis that is unfolding before our very eyes as you read these words? Neoclassical economics gives only the nonexplanation of the “bad apples” – usually government – that have upset and “distorted” an otherwise sound and rational system, which is no theoretical explanation at all. Keynesian theory, which at least admits to the irrationality of the system, imagines that the capitalist state stands outside this irrationality. The subsequent history of government managed fiat currency, especially as we experience it now, has refuted this idea, as state monetary policy – as for example that of the “Maestro”, Alan Greenspan – is at the very center of the generation of the present crisis. Keynesian monetary policy is the key driver of the crisis.

But Marx not only developed the concept of fictitious capital to describe this phenomenon, but more importantly he showed how this is the inevitable result of the alpha and omega of capitalism, the pursuit of maximum profits within the framework of private property relations. For the profits of capital are the private property form of surplus value, surplus capital in embryo. Over time, large accumulations of surplus capital with no outlet for productive investment lead to the outbreak of violent financial storms which at some point grow beyond the capacity of the system – including the international states system – to contain it. A massive destruction of capitals ensues, ultimately devolving into generalized warfare between nation states as well. This is what happened from 1910 to 1950 and – in a bold Marxist prediction – we have entered into the early stages of another such outbreak that will exceed the previous one in violence. From that calderon of necessity will be reborn a new revolutionary socialist movement.

The comparison with Aristotle is quite apt, but not of course with Aristotle’s’ physics! Marx was no physicist nor ever claimed to be, but Aristotle was a political economist, indeed the founder of ancient political economy, and here the comparison finds its aptness. Simply because Aristotle’s economics is not applicable today does not mean it was invalid in his own time. It was then a very accurate description of the static, slowly changing economies of ancient times.

Marx was the first to describe the essence of capitalist political economy as one of ceaseless change and transformation in itself (without of course there necessarily being any particular purpose to any of this), and in this specific sense is the foundational thinker of our own political-economic time, while the content of Marx’s thought on this point was completely opposed to that of Aristotle’s static eternals.

Fort Marx is the only thinker on capitalism who not only conceives of it as a mortal, historical system with a beginning and an end – and this is the great weakness of pro-capitalist critics of Marx who have taken on the impossible task to theorizing the immortality of their precious, cherished system – but, opposed to other progressive thinkers who simply dislike capitalism out of moral choice, Marx is the only thinker who sees the end of capitalism and the post-capitalist future as a matter of necessity.

It only remains for the human race to choose, not whether capitalism ends, but HOW it ends.

“That sounds to me as if he is specifically setting aside the religious aspect of Judaism, and criticizes it’s secular aspects (as he perceives them).”

Well yeah, but for Marx, being an economic determinist, religion is built on a secular base, the secular basis of Judaism being really, really old and (in his view) obsolete. In a way, Europe’s Jews are refusing to “get with the program” of Enlightenment. Like Catholics, but even worse — and if you read the European Enlightenment thinkers, you’re going to find a hell of a lot of raving anti-Catholicism.

Now that I think of it you may be right that there is a certain amount of resentment in Marx toward his own roots (this is what I meant by “psychoanalyze” — trying to infer motives). The amount of resentment assimilated Jews could have toward
Judaism was extraordinary, since they viewed Judaism and Jewish culture as having deprived them from becoming part of the modern world. (This view is not exactly uncommon amoung Jews from Orthodox backgrounds today, either. I used to date a woman who talked about it constantly.)

I wrote: “The amount of resentment assimilated Jews could have toward
Judaism was extraordinary, since they viewed Judaism and Jewish culture as having deprived them from becoming part of the modern world. ”

You can see this attitude in Hannah Arendt and Leo Straus too, by the way, in their looking down on Ostjuden (Jews from Eastern Europe). They were both children when waves of refugees from the pogroms in Russia were coming to Germany, and apparently being confronted with all these people who were poor, wore funny clothes and had giant beards, with women in wigs, who spoke what was to an assimilated Jew like Arendt a gutter language (Yiddish), was very embarrassing and shocking to them.

“You’re unlikely to find anyone serious in U.S. politics who doesn’t support free markets.”

I’m a bit out of the loop on US politics to say the least, but I think although you can’t find anybody who is going to say “free markets are bad,” you can certainly find lots of people in favor of limiting the freedom of the markets.

Amy is still mad at you BTW.

“Fort Marx is the only thinker on capitalism who not only conceives of it as a mortal, historical system with a beginning and an end – and this is the great weakness of pro-capitalist critics of Marx who have taken on the impossible task to theorizing the immortality of their precious, cherished system – but, opposed to other progressive thinkers who simply dislike capitalism out of moral choice, Marx is the only thinker who sees the end of capitalism and the post-capitalist future as a matter of necessity.”

Marx was correct in describing capitalism as dynamic. However, his prophecies of the necessity of its end have been somewhat less successful. (Now eventually of course everything ends, and so will capitalism, but Marxism’s predictive ability has been quite low historically.

(In general I think Marxism has a lot of explanatory power but very little predictive power.)

In general I think Marxism has a lot of explanatory power but very little predictive power.

Right. Marx wasn’t a scientist, he was merely a “great thinker”. In other words, a glorified publicist.

Like Charles Darwin?

More specifically, Natural Selection has close to zero predictive power. Nobody is going to be able to predict using Darwin’s theories what species are going to be running around in 50 million years and what they are going to look like. However, it has very good explanatory power as to why species do change in the ways they do and why current species look as they are.

There are a whole host of sciences like this, as everybody knows, which is why

“Marx wasn’t a scientist, he was merely a “great thinker”. In other words, a glorified publicist.”

is utterly vapid. Since db is obviously not at all stupid, I am forced to the conclusion that his apparent obtuseness is willful.

Speaking of Darwin, I think I am going to take a break from posting so much. If I continue to do so, my posts may take on a life of their own, becoming fitter and fitter as they compete against other posts, eventually acquiring the ability to reproduce and, possibly, self-awareness and opposable thumbs. This new species of Maximus-posting-derived tool-using superpredators may be a danger to life as we know it, outperforming us into extinction, like fully vivaporous mammals did to the marsupial population of South America. To save us all, I must stop.

Natural Selection has close to zero predictive power.

On the contrary, it makes a very ambitious prediction that that’s it, we are not going to ever catch a funny fish that will send Darwin the way of Aristotle.

This is the first time I have ever heard the interesting claim that a theory can guarantee its own truth. The most charitable interpretation of the statement I can come up with is that any hypothetical funny fish found can be incorporated into a conceptual Darwinian framework, which is not a statement of the predictive power of Darwinism (which has close to none), but rather of the nature of theories as such. Darwinism will become outmoded, if it ever is, if another theory comes up that is perceived as better explaining the data, not because of this or that funny fish.

This is the first time I have ever heard the interesting claim that a theory can guarantee its own truth.

“Учение Маркса всесильно, потому что оно верно.” (ц) Гоголь

I’m afraid this is going to degenerate into semantic quibbling.

I will take the non sequitor introduction of a dumb quote by Lenin as an admission of defeat.

And thus are thread superpredators born.

I will take the non sequitor introduction of a dumb quote by Lenin as an admission of defeat.

No, you simply didn’t get it. In the USSR, marxism was considered merely a lesser half of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, Lenin’s quote is an example of a theory explicitly guaranteeing its own truth.

I don’t know much about Marx’s thought, but I think that one of the differences between Darwin and Marx is that Darwin explained much he did not make any specific predictions (except to say that species will keep on changing), while Marx besides explaining also came up with fairly specific predictions. Predictions that turned out to be wrong.

I remember reading somewhere that one point in his life Marx was frantically trying to finish some of his writings because he was afraid that capitalism will collapse before he was done writing about it. That events will overtake his writing. It sort of reminds me of the early Christians who believed that the end of the world was going to happen within their lifetimes. The end of the world did not come, but Christianity found ways to reinterpret their beliefs. The same with Marxism.

“I don’t know much about Marx’s thought, but I think that one of the differences between Darwin and Marx is that Darwin explained much he did not make any specific predictions (except to say that species will keep on changing), while Marx besides explaining also came up with fairly specific predictions. Predictions that turned out to be wrong. ”

Sure; like I said, Marxism’s predictive power is quite poor. Most obviously, the only self-described Marxist revolutions (except the short-lived Hungarian one) took place in the exact locations they weren’t supposed to, and they were peasant revolutions, not working-class ones. Also obviously capitalist development did not result in the destruction of a middle class as Marx predicted it would. I am also still waiting for the rate of profit to fall. On the other hand, capitalist economies do suffer periods of crisis, exactly as Marx did predict (though probably not for the reasons he thought).

“More specifically, Natural Selection has close to zero predictive power.”

Um, this would be wrong. While it can not predict all cases or all species that will succeed, there are specific examples where natural selection has made accurate predictions. The most famous being Darwin’s prediction that the plant Angraecum has long throat in its flowers, a animal with a 30 cm proboscis must also exist to feed on and pollinate it. The hawk moth with the long proboscis was discovered twenty years after his death, which did just that.

However, it is also capable of making more general predictions, such as the use of antibiotics causing strains of “super-bugs”, etc.

It seems I am unable to taunt Sean into some commentary on the Boston Celtics vs. L.A. Lakers NBA championship series, which ended (inevitably) with the Celtics pummeling of the Lakers last night, 131-92.

“The most famous being Darwin’s prediction that the plant Angraecum has long throat in its flowers, a animal with a 30 cm proboscis must also exist to feed on and pollinate it. The hawk moth with the long proboscis was discovered twenty years after his death, which did just that.”

This is not a prediction of the future, but an inference that something else much exist now.

I also don’t think you need Darwinian theory to tell you that if a plant needs to be pollinated to reproduce, and that the plant does in fact reproduce, then something must exist that can pollinate it.

I am also still waiting for the rate of profit to fall.

“Наконец я слышу речь не мальчика, но мужа” Пушкин

Mataiotes mataioteton, eipen ho Ekklasiastes,
mataiotes mataioteton, ta panta mataiotes.

It seems I am unable to taunt Sean into some commentary on the Boston Celtics vs. L.A. Lakers NBA championship series, which ended (inevitably) with the Celtics pummeling of the Lakers last night, 131-92.

Dr. Mr. Shedd,

Since Sean wasn’t on the court to participate in that embarrassing debacle, I suggest you submit all your taunts and cackles to Mr. Bryant and myself.

Dutifully making turnovers,

Ms. Pau Gasol.

P.S. If you happen to talk to KG and Paul Pierce, can you ask them to please return my balls. I believe they stole them from my hotel room before game 2. It’s just no longer funny.

“can you ask them to please return my balls. I believe they stole them from my hotel room before game 2.”

Aren’t they normally attached to your body?

Euro 2008 Group D Russia 2 – Sweden 0!!

For the first time in living memory I can say Russia played brilliantly, especially in the first half. Two brilliant goals as well, the 2nd by Arshavin a beauty. Arshavin’s performance in midfield one of the best of any player this tournament – though Zyrianov on the left had a stormer as well. They attacked and broke very well. Sweden were shockingly bad but thats not Russia’s problem. The Sbornaya now go on to face mighty Holland on saturday nite. Tonite’s result is notable in that it is the first time a Russian team has ever qualified for the second phase of a finals of a major tournament. Russia will probably go home on saturday but at last their fans have something to cheer about!:-)

When will Sweden ever learn? As it once was, so shall it always be.

Ah, too bad I could not see it! Thanks for the news, Ger. Now that it’s obvious that Russia can play well, I hope it develops consistency. Did the absence of Arshavin contribute much to Russia’s lackluster performance against Spain?

Aren’t they normally attached to your body?

Dear Mr. Maximus,

I know that this will be hard for valiant Romans like yourself to understand, but they’re detachable. You see when I played in Europe, I didn’t need them. You don’t need balls to have an inside game there. But in the NBA you need big brass ones the size of PJ Brown’s block head. When I was traded to LA I had them refurbished, buffed, and refitted for the Staples glitz. (Perhaps I shouldn’t have gone to Dirk Nowitzki’s jeweler.) Kobe gave them a good inspection and we were ready to go. Even Jack gave a courtside thumbs up.

Then they were stolen. If anyone knows of their whereabouts, please email imaspanishwimp(at)lakers.com Attn: Ms. Pao Gasol.

No self-respecting Roman athlete would ever be separated from his testicles (barring some whim on the part of His Imperial Mightiness Caligula or an unfortunate turn of events in the Arena, of course)! Alas, the modern world as fallen so far and so ignominiously. Have you know shame?

(Thank God Anne Abblebaum only left her wallet in her hotel room, and not her uterus. Who knows what Putin might have done?)

”Ah, too bad I could not see it! Thanks for the news, Ger. Now that it’s obvious that Russia can play well, I hope it develops consistency. Did the absence of Arshavin contribute much to Russia’s lackluster performance against Spain?”

Ne za shto Kolya:-) The problem is as you say consistency -they can play at a high level and they’ve got to do it every match. It’ll be hard for them against Holland but you never know, its football. I think Arshavin was a big loss in the match v Spain, but only in an attacking context. The goals Russia conceded were basic mistakes and they played like people with no interest. Tonite though they were great and I’m glad for long-suffering Russian fans like yourself. I’d be worried about Holland though – 9 goals scored already -Akinfeev, Kolodin, Ignashevich and Anyukov will be working overtime on saturday evening!:-) But no matter what happens, Russia are back on the European football map again.

”When will Sweden ever learn? As it once was, so shall it always be.”

Actually Sweden knocked Russia out of USA 1994:-) So tonite was sweet revenge. Any rowdiness/parties in Moscow tonite?

It’s 2 AM Ger and I’m going to sleep. If there is rowdiness, I cannot perceive it.

Yessshhh, its about time you that the playersh of Russhhia responded to my coaching methuds. You know, I take them to Red Light Dishtrict of Amershterdaam to get their blood moving, you know, make them try harder on fuutball feld. It didnt work. I took them to Rashputin Club in Moscoo, shtill didnt get their heartsh pumping, or anything else, spoilt bashtards too used to hot Russhhian women. So after Shpain match, what can I do? All is shhite even though I offer them half my 3 million dollar paycheck. So, I get email from Long Island, in United Shtates, telling me to make Double-Headed Eagle bigger on players shhiirts, ant what do you know? They inshpired, beat arhes off Sveeden. Yesshh Mike Averko is a genius.

”It’s 2 AM Ger and I’m going to sleep. If there is rowdiness, I cannot perceive it.”

I guess its late and midweek in mad Moscow. If they win sat nite then there really will be a party.

My wife and mother-outlaw were near apoplexy last night. Great win by Russia – blogged it this morning.

“So, I get email from Long Island, in United Shtates, telling me to make Double-Headed Eagle bigger on players shhiirts, ant what do you know? They inshpired, beat arhes off Sveeden. Yesshh Mike Averko is a genius.”

You know what he really wanted is to emblazon the players’ jerseys with giant pictures of Mike Averko.