?

Log in

larvatus prodeo Below are the 30 most recent journal entries recorded in the "Michael Zeleny" journal:

[<< Previous 30 entries]

December 31st, 2025
12:10 pm

[Link]

HIC LOCUS EST UBI MORS GAUDET SUCCURRERE VITAE
Welcome to the online journal of larvatus. Stable texts are open to the general public. Squibs and sallies, schemes and stratagems, jaunts and taunts, are restricted to friends. Please note that locked texts subject to third party copyright are provided to my friends under the doctrine of fair use, subject to implied consent by all their readers to abstain from redistribution. Reciprocal friendship shall be extended to all sane, sound, and disinterested personae. Comments and critique are always welcome. Marriage proposals and death threats shall be entertained in the order received.
    The House Rules are few and lax. All anonymous comments are initially screened. They shall be revealed or answered at your host’s discretion. All signed comments are initially presumed welcome, until and unless they cause an affront to your host. Thereupon their author shall become banned from further contributions to this journal. Otherwise, anything goes.
                        SAY WHAT?

                                                                                         ÇA ?
                                                                      Tristan Corbière


A treatise? You don’t say! I haven’t treated squat!
A study? Slothful wretch, my culture fetid rot.
A volume? Random heap, sheets stacked in disarray.
Good copy? Not with me enmired in the fray.

A poem? Not today, my lyre is being cleaned.
A book? Of fusty tomes far better to be weaned.
A song? Would that it were, my ear is made of tin.
Fun pastime? Sordid den, dire boredom dwells within.

A cadence? Rhythmic flow is broken by dull grind.
A product? I divide what others multiplied.
A story? Handicapped, my lame and laggard Muse.
Clear proof? My mind is fraught by grief and lit by booze.

High fashion? Wealth and style inform nowhere my dress.
Grandstanding or grand mal? My spasms fail to impress.
Evicted from the hall, I lurk behind the stage,
In transit, poised to choose: a joy house or a cage.

Too old? But to retire, my tenure won’t suffice.
Too young? My hectic life will rid me of this vice.
A sage, a slob, an ace, a master, and a clown,
A stud without a flock, a king without a crown.

THIS is without pretense, and yet a blatant pose.
It’s life and nothing but, confessed in deathless prose.
A masterpiece? Could be, I never made one yet!
A farce? A waste? A bomb? Decide and place your bet!

I bet… and I shall sign herewith my humble name;
My child shall overcome each tainted libel claim.
Through chance it will prevail, its fate a stroke of luck
Art knows me not at all — and I don’t give a fuck.

                      — traduced by MZ, 6 September 2005


free counters

Tags: , , , , , ,

(60 comments | Leave a comment)

10:00 am

[Link]

for the anonymous troll
Over sixteen twenty years online, I have received a broad spectrum of threats and pitches, and entertained a commensurate range of slurs and plaudits. This experience has crystallized two iron laws of online communications.

The first law is a corollary of Occam’s razor. No matter what you are promised or threatened on the Internet, the most you will get out of it is oral ministrations. In other words, there is no downside in moving virtual bluster to realspace. Yonder puffed-out sock puppet is as unlikely to escalate its verbiage to physical damage, as the heiress of an African potentate, to bestow her commission upon Americans paying their facilitation fees. By contrast, that virtual fellatrix yearning to reward your eloquence with expert suction may well come through as promised, especially if you overlook minor discrepancies ranging from mien to gender.

The second law of Internet intercourse is a corollary of the first. Only a clueless newbie responds personally to an anonymous troll. To illustrate its application, whenever one of the latter kind feels the urge to share its thoughts about anything but one of the former, it should take them instead to someone who can relate to its bogus persona. It makes no difference whether a figment of this sort touts itself as a public intellectual in mufti, or poses as a skank that services barnyard livestock for spare change. In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson, sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here.

A final notice to the insistent incognito. When you surpass words in punishing my excesses, make sure that your hostile deeds leave me unfit to retaliate. My reckoning will define the remainder of your life. It’s happened to your betters before. Don’t let it happen to you.

Tags: , ,

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

May 2nd, 2016
12:01 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

May 1st, 2016
12:01 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 30th, 2016
12:01 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 29th, 2016
12:01 pm

[Link]

My tweets
  • Thu, 12:45: “[Ted Cruz is] Lucifer in the flesh,” the former speaker said. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I... https://t.co/ix6Au96Bkq
  • Thu, 14:16: I got two inches and 35 pounds on Conor McGregor. I pack a good punch, too. It would take very little work for me... https://t.co/jz8eZYcDAa
  • Fri, 03:12: &laquo;Нет более правильного мнения. Но есть мнение более полезное&raquo;, однако говорили не древнегреческие https://t.co/h0FxCbSatu
  • Fri, 05:25: The late enfant terrible of Russian criticism, Victor Toporov, spent the last decade of his life preaching that... https://t.co/0jSZ2DEU6n
  • Fri, 05:51: Unpacking a German shipment of 124 guns. Feel my pain.

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 27th, 2016
12:01 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 26th, 2016
06:21 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 25th, 2016
12:02 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 24th, 2016
12:01 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 22nd, 2016
01:12 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 19th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 18th, 2016
12:04 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 17th, 2016
12:05 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 15th, 2016
11:11 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

03:29 pm

[Link]

once more unto the breach
"William L. McClure" , "Cindy S. Elmquist"
Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP
1100 Alma Street, Suite 210
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650-324-9300 Phone
650-324-0227 Fax

"David C. Bertini" , "Matt L. Milde"
The City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel St. Menlo Park, CA 94025
650-330-6600

Dear Mr McClure,


I am lodging herewith an appeal of your denial of my application for a special event permit, by outlining its purpose and scope and responding to all of your objections in order.

I have been protesting NEA’s ongoing support of its venture partner Min Zhu and its coverup of his incestuous child rape since 2004. In the course of the ensuing litigation and subject to demands by Menlo Park city authorities, I have been forced to relocate my protests from the immediate vicinity of NEA’s headquarters, to the narrow strip of public grounds surrounding the 16 private acres of the Rosewood Sand Hill compound located at 2825 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park, CA 94025. The median strip identified in his current application affords the only possible location for staging my protest in clear view of the NEA headquarters. My open display of firearms is germane to the message that responds to the death threats made against me and my family in the names and on the behalves of individuals and business entities sponsored and supported by NEA. The continual and open-ended nature of my protest responds to NEA’s long-standing refusal to account for its responsibility in supporting and covering up the lawless conduct of its associates.

As to your claim that my application is incomplete, attached please find a map of the area in question, which clearly designates the specific and modest boundaries of my special event. That is all that the City of Menlo Park (“the City”) can reasonably expect and require to analyze whether traffic control will be necessary or what other conditions might be necessary as part of its approval of my application. As suggested before, and witnessed by my past appearances in your jurisdiction, my use of sound and lighting equipment is subject to our ongoing mutual agreement on their time, place, and manner parameters. If you have any specific requests in this regard, please make them with no further ado, bearing in mind that all restrictions on my expressive conduct must be (1) content-neutral, (2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels for communication. (See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983).) As resolved as I am to see my task through, I remain open to all reasonable accommodations.

While the First Amendment “does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired” (Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (1981), it protects the right of every citizen to “reach the minds of willing listeners [and] to do so, there must be opportunity to win their attention.” (Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000).) My presence on NEA’s grounds has been ruled out as a part of settling its trespass claims against me five years ago. The currently proposed location of my performance therefore represents my only remaining opportunity to address directly the public associated or connected with it. Please bear in mind the foregoing authorities in your attempts to deny me my right to speak in this way and venue.

With respect to the application not meeting the criteria for a special event, the City lacks the authority to define a special event subject to its permitting requirements, beyond ensuring that it does not disrupt the ordinary use of its public spaces. It is true that I am proposing a media production of a one-man protest. My primary aim, however, is to exhibit my media to the thousands of daily passerby on Sand Hill Road, even as I stream their reactions online.
My communication needs to be both physically proximate for them, and available over the Internet for more distant audiences. This project falls squarely within the ambit of Constitutional protection of political speech. My production is no less deserving of such protection for being modestly scaled. Thus Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 704 (1972): “Liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.”

While the First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of “speech”, the Supreme Court has long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word, even as it acknowledged that not all conduct intended by the person engaging therein to express an idea is so protected. (See United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).) For such conduct may be “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments”. (See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974).) ”In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether [a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” (See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).) In sum, according to the Supreme Court’s test for expressive conduct, known as the Spence-Johnson test, an action is protected by the First Amendment if: (1) the speaker-actor intends for the conduct to express a particularized message; and (2) that message would be understood by others. In the course of reaffirming the Spence-Johnson test in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that “a narrow, succinctly articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection, which if confined to expressions conveying a ‘particularized message,’ […] would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schönberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll.” In the course of my protest, the expressive content of openly carried firearms presented as a means of defense both warranted and necessitated by my circumstances, will be bolstered by the concurrent multimedia presentation of the evidence of threats I received in the names and on the behalves of NEA’s associates, the damage that they claim to have inflicted on my family, and their history of unlawful violence. Your study of my past displays should suffice to reassure you that my painstakingly particularized message will be infinitely easier to parse than The She-Wolf, Pierrot Lunaire, or “Jabberwocky”.



This brings me to the matter of my venue. Streets and sidewalks are “prototypal” examples of public fora, and have immemorially been considered a rightful place for public discourse. (See Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939.) Public fora “have achieved a special status in our law”, for they “represent areas within which tolerance for inhibitions on speech, petition, and assembly is at a minimum.” The government therefore “bear[s] an extraordinarily heavy burden to regulate speech in such locales.” (See N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1984).) “And just as streets and sidewalks are prototypical examples of public fora, political speech related to current events is the prototypical example of protected speech.” (See American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. City of Dearborn (“AAADC”), 418 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2005).) In the matter at hand, the current event at issue is NEA’s ongoing financial support of its child-raping protégé Min Zhu. As long as I do not “realistically present serious traffic, safety, and competing-use concerns beyond those presented on a daily basis by ordinary use of the streets and sidewalks,” you cannot require me to obtain a permit for exercising my Constitutional rights, let alone deny its issuance. (See Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica (“SMFNB”), 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2006).) Moreover, I generally do not need a permit to hold a rally or a march on public grounds while obeying traffic laws. (See SMFNB, 450 F.3d at 1039, 1040-43; AAADC, 418 F.3d at 608.) Thus I am asking for nothing more nor less than your approval of my rightful, conspicuous presence on public grounds in full compliance with all applicable laws.

As to my compliance with traffic laws, to repeat myself, I do not intend use any City street or right of way. The California Vehicle Code Section 525 defines the right of way as “the privilege of the immediate use of the highway”. In this regard, the right of way in the median island, where I intend to conduct my performance, is ordinarily reserved for pedestrians alone. The small part of the median island that I intend to occupy will leave plenty of room for the passage of vehicles in any emergency, e.g. as regards tow trucks allowed to do so pursuant to CVC Section 21719. I do not intend to present any visual impairment to oncoming traffic and vehicles traveling on Sand Hill Road. As to presenting a visual distraction, I am well within my First Amendment rights to do so in a rightful place for public discourse, within which tolerance for your inhibitions on speech, petition, and assembly is at a minimum.

To clarify the nature of the proposed multimedia production in the context of my one-man protest, I am not intending it for the filming of a movie, and therefore you may not require me to obtain a film production permit. Kindly recall that I have borne the brunt of abusive and oppressive conduct by the City of Menlo Park Police Department (“the police”) since the inception of my protests a decade ago. This abuse and oppression included, without limitation, illegal surveillance and harassment of myself and my associates, arbitrary imposition of constraints on our performance, and participation in my malicious prosecution in San Mateo Superior Court, wherein the prosecutor expressly and unequivocally acknowledged on court record that she was seeking my criminal conviction on behalf of NEA. Accordingly, I would not dare to appear in your jurisdiction without recording each of my interactions with your minions, for my security and theirs alike. And I have every right to make this recording without asking or paying for your permission.


As explained by Evan Bernick and Paul Larkin in “Filming the Watchmen: Why the First Amendment Protects Your Right to Film the Police in Public Places”, lower federal courts have generally said that the First Amendment protects a right to record and photograph law enforcement in public view. Some restrictions may be constitutional, but simply prohibiting the recording because the person is recording the police cannot be constitutional. While the Supreme Court is yet to consider this question, such is the general view in the federal appellate decisions that have done so. An apparent exception is a recent federal trial court decision in Fields v. City of Philadelphia and Geraci v. City of Philadelphia, which takes a different, narrower approach: There is no constitutional right to videorecord police, the court says, when the act of recording is unaccompanied by “challenge or criticism” of the police conduct. But even under this restrictive standard, I remain well within my rights to videorecord at will, without warning, and regardless of permission, all my public performances in your jurisdiction, for the sake of safety and transparency. In light of the history of my peaceful protests being subjected to oppressive scrutiny and censure by the City authorities, I am planning to exercise my rights under the First Amendment to film my appearances there, for the express purpose of mounting a potential challenge and criticism of the police conduct in the event of further obstructions mounted by Menlo Park. According to Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) the discretion of public officials charged with permitting First Amendment activity must be limited by “narrow, objective, and definite standards.” It therefore falls upon the City to identify such standards that deny my rights or subject them to permitting requirements.


Lastly, your concern is that it is illegal to open carry a firearm in the State of California is likewise misdirected. It is none of your business to seek or scrutinize any logical nexus or legitimate purpose of carrying a firearm the proposed event. I am well within my rights in carrying a firearm, either openly or concealed, in the course of an entertainment event, as its authorized participant, as protected by the Constitution of the United States, and clearly warranted by law in the state of California.

Thus California Penal Code Section 25400 (a) (2): “A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when the person does any of the following: [...] Carries concealed upon the person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.” Whereas P.C. Section 25510 qualifies this ban: “Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following: (a) The possession of a firearm by an authorized participant in a motion picture, television, or video production, or an entertainment event, when the participant lawfully uses the firearm as part of that production or event, or while going directly to, or coming directly from, that production or event. (b) The transportation of a firearm by an authorized employee or agent of a supplier of firearms when going directly to, or coming directly from, a motion picture, television, or video production, or an entertainment event, for the purpose of providing that firearm to an authorized participant to lawfully use as a part of that production or event.” Please be assured that I intend to authorize myself as a participant in my own entertainment event.

A similar exemption applies to the ban on the open carrying of an unloaded handgun. Thus P.C. Section 26350 (a) (1): “A person is guilty of openly carrying an unloaded handgun when that person carries upon his or her person an exposed and unloaded handgun outside a vehicle while in or on any of the following: (A) A public place or public street in an incorporated city or city and county.” Whereas P.C. Section 26375 qualifies this ban: “Section 26350 does not apply to, or affect, the open carrying of an unloaded handgun by an authorized participant in, or an authorized employee or agent of a supplier of firearms for, a motion picture, television or video production, or entertainment event, when the participant lawfully uses the handgun as part of that production or event, as part of rehearsing or practicing for participation in that production or event, or while the participant or authorized employee or agent is at that production or event, or rehearsal or practice for that production or event.”

Similar exemptions apply to long guns. Thus P.C. Section 26400 (a): “A person is guilty of carrying an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun in an incorporated city or city and county when that person carries upon his or her person an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun outside a vehicle while in the incorporated city or city and county.” Whereas P.C. Section 26405 qualifies this ban: “Section 26400 does not apply to, or affect, the carrying of an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun in any of the following circumstances: [...] (r) By an authorized participant in, or an authorized employee or agent of a supplier of firearms for, a motion picture, television or video production, or entertainment event, when the participant lawfully uses that firearm as part of that production or event, as part of rehearsing or practicing for participation in that production or event, or while the participant or authorized employee or agent is at that production or event, or rehearsal or practice for that production or event.” In short, conspicuous display of otherwise legally possessed unloaded firearms in the course of my entertainment event is my Constitutional right under the First Amendment, expressly protected by California statutes. In the event, these firearms will include, without limitation, a pair of H&K P7M13 handguns, an LRB M25 designated marksman rifle, a Winchester M97 trench shotgun with an M1917 Remington bayonet, and a semiautomatic, belt-fed, tripod mounted Browning M1919a4, all conspicuously adjoined by ample supplies of ammunition.

I trust that I have met your concerns over the completeness of my application. Please acknowledge the receipt of this email and approve my application at your earliest convenience. To repeat myself, we are equally willing to negotiate or litigate. Please refer to Lefemine v. Wideman, 568 U.S. ____ (2012), which held that a plaintiff who secured a permanent injunction but no monetary damages was a “prevailing party” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and could receive attorney fees, where the injunction ordered the defendant officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff, who could thereafter engage in demonstrations without fear of sanctions with which police had previously threatened him. As public officials, NEA’s minions among your City colleagues enjoy qualified immunity from damages suits if they violate my rights, but only as long as they do not violate “clearly established” law. “If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.” (See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).) In short, your personal liability will be richly borne out by the foregoing statutes and case law. The last issue that remains to be litigated conclusively is the expressive content of openly carried firearms. In this connection, please refer to Nordyke v. King, 563 F. 3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), wherein the state of California tacitly conceded the issue even before the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Long story short, if you continue siding with NEA’s minions, I will win at the City’s certain and considerable expense.



7576 Willow Glen Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90046, U.S.A. | voice:323.363.1860 | fax:323.410.2373
Wronged by the high and mighty? Cut them down to size with legally safe and ethically sound degradation of unworthy moguls and scrofulous celebrities.

Tags: , ,

(Leave a comment)

April 9th, 2016
02:01 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

April 5th, 2016
03:07 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 29th, 2016
01:54 am

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 28th, 2016
01:34 am

[Link]

bernie sanders on free trade agreements
Why I Oppose NAFTA

A recent trip to Mexico with five other members of Congress has only confirmed my worst fears about the effect the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will have on the standard of living, and quality of life, for both Americans and Mexicans.
    In our country, the working people are currently facing their worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Real wages have declined by 20 percent since 1973; the distribution of wealth is more uneven than at any time since the 1920’s, with the richest 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and extremely frightening for the future, most of the new employment being created consists of low wage, part-time and temporary jobs with minimal benefits. In my view, NAFTA will accelerate all of these negative economic trends, and will only benefit the ruling elites of the United States, Mexico and Canada.
    In Mexico, I observed workers employed at a high-tech radio assembly General Motors plant earning $1.80 an hour, and living in shacks without electricity or running water. I met with an employee of Zenith who broke down in tears when she tried to describe how difficult it was to support her family on the $1 an hour she was paid. I heard another woman express the view that her miscarriage, and the illnesses of other workers in her plant was related to the dangerous chemicals to which they was exposed. In Brownsville, Texas, I met with a physician who is deeply concerned about birth defects that may be linked to toxic wastes discharged by factories in the border maquiladora area.
    The essence of NAFTA is that American workers will be forced to compete against Mexican workers who earn a minimum wage of 58 cents an hour, and an average manufacturing wage of $2.35 cents an hour. Already, some 2000 American companies (AT&T, Ford, General Motors, Zenith, Digital, etc.) have thrown more than half a million American workers out on the streets as they have headed south for low wage labor. Under NAFTA, when all trade barriers are removed and American corporations will have even more security in Mexico, the exodus of American jobs will only accelerate. According to the September, 1992 Wall Street Journal poll, 40% of the companies contacted indicated that they were likely to shift some production to Mexico.
    The good news, therefore, is that American corporations are building some of the most technologically sophisticated factories in the world, and are hiring hundreds of thousands of people. The bad news is that they are not building these plants in Brattleboro, Bennington, Windsor or White River Junction. They are building them in Mexico, with low wage labor — and are throwing American workers out on the streets in the process.
    The new factories that are being built in Mexico by American companies are high tech, state of the art plants, which are producing some of highest quality products in the world with skilled Mexican workers. Mexico, which exported 1.3 million automotive engines last year, now leads the world in that category. Studies have indicated that Mexican manufacturing workers have now reached 80% of the productivity level of American workers — WHILE EARNING 15% OF THE INCOME. An extremely attractive equation for thousands of American companies who want to increase their profits.
    Wages have declined in Mexico, despite the growth of high tech jobs, because of the low wage policy established and enforced by the undemocratic government of President Carlos Salinas — the leader of the authoritarian PRI Party. The PRI has been in complete control of the government since 1929, never having “lost” a national election. Workers in Mexico today are not allowed to organize free trade unions, state and federal elections are rigged, the media is heavily controlled by the government, and dissidents have been jailed. How do you have a “free” trade agreement with a country that is not free?
    Why is it that virtually all multinational corporations in America support NAFTA, and they are putting millions of dollars into a campaign to see it passed? Why is it that the Mexican government, dominated by 30 super-rich families, are putting an unprecedented $40 million into a pro-NAFTA lobbying effort? The answer is obvious. If NAFTA passes, corporate profits will soar because it will be even easier than now for American companies to flee to Mexico and hire workers there for starvation wages.
    NAFTA must be defeated. The goal of American economic policy must be to raise wages in our country, not lower them. American corporations must reinvest in America, not exploit desperate third world workers.

Bernie Sanders (Independent) is Vermont’s lone Congressman.


Now after I came to congress, elected in 1990, corporate America, Wall Street, the administration, and virtually all of the corporate media, they said, “You gotta vote for this NAFTA Trade Agreement, it’s wonderful, it’s great.” I didn’t believe their arguments. I voted against NAFTA. I voted against CAFTA. I voted against PNTR with China. And history has proven, those of us who opposed those agreements were right because in the last 14 years this country has lost 60,000 factories and millions of decent paying jobs. And let me be clear about the current trade deal we are debating in Congress, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That agreement is not now, nor has it ever been “the Gold Standard of Trade Agreements”. I did not support it yesterday, I don’t support it now, and I will not support it tomorrow.

Tags: , , ,

(Leave a comment)

March 26th, 2016
04:31 am

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 21st, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

March 20th, 2016
01:11 am

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 16th, 2016
12:06 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 15th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 14th, 2016
12:04 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 13th, 2016
01:36 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 9th, 2016
03:04 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 5th, 2016
12:04 pm

[Link]

My tweets
  • Sat, 11:20: I want to contribute my fair share to the civil society, said no conservative ever.

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

March 4th, 2016
12:03 pm

[Link]

My tweets

Tags:

(Leave a comment)

[<< Previous 30 entries]

Subrah Iyar Appreciation Society Powered by LiveJournal.com