Blackstone's Commentaries on Wife Beating...

link

Read 'f' as 's'.    For the Latin, you are on your own.
Nothing about "rule of thumb" in any way, shape, or form.
"Chastisement" allowed in the same manner as over one's servants or children since "he is to answer for her misbehavior" but "the husband was prohibited to use any violence to his wife."

The RIGHTS of PERSONS.
Book I.
Ch. 15.
IN the civil law the hufband and wife are confidered as two diftinct perfons ; and may have feparate eftates, contracts, debts, and injuries ^c : and therefore, in our ecclefiaftical courts, a woman may fue and be fued without her hufband ^d.
BUT, though our law in general confiders man and wife as one perfon, yet there are fone inftances in which the is feparately confidered ; as inferior to him, and acting by his compulfion. And therefore all deeds executed, and acts done, by her, during her converture, are void, or at leaft voidable ; except it be a fine, or the like matter of record, in which cafe fhe muft be folely and fecretly examined, to learn if her act be voluntary ^c. She cannot by will devife lands to her hufband, unlefs under fpecial circumftances ; for at the time of making it fhe is fuppofed to be under his coercion ^f. And in fome felonies, and other inferior crimes, committed by her, through conftraint of her hufband, the law excufes her ^g : but this extends not to treafon or murder.
THE hufband alfo (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction ^h. For, as he is to anfwer for her mifbehaviour, the law thought it reafonable to intruft him with this power of reftraining her, by domeftic chaftifement, in the fame moderation that a man is allowed to correct his fervants or children ; for whom the mafter or parent is alfo liable in fome cafes to anfwer. But this power of correction was confined within reafonable boundsⁱ ; and the hufband was prohibited to ufe any violence to his wife, aliter quam ad virum, ex caufa regiminis et caftigationis uxoris fuae, licite et rationabiliter pertinet ^k. The civil law gave the hufband the fame, or a larger, authority over his wife ; allowing him, for fome mifdemefnors, flagellis et fuftibus acriter vering him, for fome mifdemefnors, flagellis et fuftibus acriter verberare uxorem ; for others, only modicam caftigationem adbibere ^l.
{FS}

Christina Hoff Sommers is correct.

Clickbait!

link

Fourth Estate

link

Conspiracy at the Washington Post

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has been accused of "conspiracy theorism" over the death of the White House aide, Vincent Foster. Keeping silent, he says, is even worse.

FROM: The Electronic Telegraph [TM] Mon. 10 July 1995

MY STRAITJACKET is buckled tight. The foam is wiped off my mouth. A bottle of sedatives sits at hand. I am cool, calm and ready to answer on behalf of all "conspiracy theorists". And I say to the powers of the Washington Post: "J'accuse."
Last week the Washington Post attacked the Sunday Telegraph in a front-page article on the "Foster conspiracy theorists". It was an unflattering piece on the tiny band of critics who have raised questions about what is increasingly looking like the cover-up of the 1993 death of Vincent Foster.
In normal circumstances it would be inappropriate to dispute this, but weighty matters are in the balance here and the Washington Post has quasi-monopoly power - a duopoly, perhaps, shared with the New York Times - in setting the political agenda for the entire American media. Foster, the deputy White House counsel, was the highest-ranking official to die in violent circumstances since President Kennedy. He was also the intimate friend of both Bill and Hillary Clinton and looked after their personal finances at the White House. The decision by theWashington Post to run such a piece at this late stage - in the face of overwhelming suspicions of foul play - comes perilously close to complicity in a cover-up.
The argument has nothing to do with ideology. The Washington Post ceased to be a newspaper of liberal activism a long time ago, if it ever really was. "Its anti-establishment image is one of the most absurd myths in journalism today," said Jeff Cohen, from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting in New York, a liberal group that monitors the Post closely and accuses it of an incestuous relationship with the governing elite. "It has been an instrument of state power for many years."

The question is whether the Washington Post is sitting on the stories that really matter.

The team that led the fight against the Nixon Administration and turned the Post into the most fashionable newspaper in the world is mostly gone. Kay Graham, the Queen Bee, retired in 1991 after 28 years in charge of the family heirloom. Ben Bradlee, immortalised in All The President's Men as the swashbuckling and incorruptible captain of Watergate, is now a semi-detached editor at large. Both, incidentally, have regrets about their role in the great regicide. Neither want to see the same thing happen again in their lifetime. There is talent, still. The coverage of the US occupation of Haiti, by Douglas Farah, has been outstanding. The editorial pages have the finest mix in the business. The Style section is beautifully written. But the question is whether the Washington Post is sitting on the stories that really matter, just as the Mexican daily, El Excelsior, a vibrant and authentic newspaper to the untutored eye, serves - wittingly or unwittingly - as a mouthpiece and a subtle tool of disinformation for the ruling regime.
Allegations of drug use, sexual shenanigans and misuse of state resources were there for the plucking during Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992. Yet the Post's inquiries only skimmed the surface of the charges. Admittedly, it is hard to get people to talk about these things in Arkansas. But not that hard. The Post has subsequently refused to make amends. Instead, it has insisted on ever-higher standards of "proof" or, alternatively, down-played the importance of the accusations.
Take the case of Paula Jones, who accused Clinton of sexual harassment when he was Governor of Arkansas. In early 1994 the Washington Post was given exclusive access to Jones and to other witnesses who could corroborate parts of her story. The newspaper went through her background with a toothcomb. Weeks went by. The lead reporter, Mike Isikoff, found her claims to be credible and wanted to run the story. The editors refused. In the end there was a shouting match in the newsroom between Isikoff and the national editor, Fred Barbash. Isikoff was suspended for two weeks and later left the newspaper. The Post never ran the original story. I emphasise this point because the paper is now trying to claim that it was just waiting for the appropriate moment. The Post was overtaken by events. Paula and Steve Jones were so disgusted by the failure of the paper to publish that they decided to file a sexual harassment suit against the President, forcing the issue into the news pages.

Failure to report the news is one thing. Active disinformation is another.

It is worth noting too that the Washington Post ignored the series of well-researched pieces by the American Spectator alleging that Bill Clinton used Arkansas state troopers to solicit women on a routine basis, and then played rough to silence leaks. One might choose to treat that as unimportant. A private matter. Beneath the Post. But what about the story of gun-running and drug-smuggling through the Mena airport in Arkansas in the 1980s? As reported by The Sunday Telegraph in January, the managing editor, Robert Kaiser, intervened at the last moment to spike a story by Sally Denton and Roger Morris that was backed by an archive of 2,000 documents. The story had been cleared by the lawyers. It was typeset and ready to go to the printers. Since then there have been fresh developments in this story. Sworn testimony taken from a court case in Arkansas has linked Bill Clinton directly to this cloak-and-dagger operation, which has possible ties to US intelligence. Not a word about these depositions has been written in the Washington Post.
But failure to report the news is one thing. Active disinformation is another. Last week's article in the Post insinuated that The Telegraph had fabricated a story about clandestine trips to Switzerland by Vince Foster. The author, Susan Schmidt, who is the Post's full-time reporter on Whitewater, said that sources "with access to Foster's American Express receipts say they show no purchase of airline tickets to Switzerland". But when confronted, she admitted that her sources did not in fact have access to information - that The Telegraph did have - about the two flights Foster made to Geneva in 1991 and 1992. Furthermore, she had no credit card numbers and she did not know which of Foster's American Express cards may have been involved. Nor did she have any records from the airlines. "These records are closely guarded," she said, by way of explanation. You bet they are, and Ms Schmidt failed to get them. The only information she had, it turns out, referred to a single purchase in July 1993 conducted through the White House travel office. We would surmise that her "sources" (plural) are in the Clinton White House. We rest our case.

Is the newspaper that broke Watergate now, intentionally or not, aiding and abetting a cover-up a generation later?

Ms Schmidt called me before she wrote her piece and asked what I thought about some of the wild allegations being made that Vince Foster had ties to Israeli intelligence and was under investigation by the CIA for espionage.
I told her that it sounded pretty far-fetched and was not consistent with what I knew about Foster. She ignored this. In her article she implied that The Telegraph was advancing such claims. But this, broadly, is the method that has been deployed by the Washington Post to muddy the waters and discredit anybody who has been asking legitimate questions about the death of Foster. Is the newspaper that broke Watergate now, intentionally or not, aiding and abetting a cover-up a generation later? As for key developments in the Foster case over the past few months, the Post has been silent. It failed to report that Miquel Rodriguez, the lead prosecutor looking into the death, had resigned in March because the highly politicised investigation was being obstructed. It does not seem to be aware of enhanced photographs showing that the gun found in Foster's hand was moved around after his death, and that Foster had a wound on his neck that the authorities had tried to cover up. Ms Schmidt, however, says that the Post is doing a terrific job. "The Washington Post has broken every story about Whitewater," she said. "At least every story that's been true."

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc

Psychological Operations

link

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES

"Propaganda Techniques" is based upon "Appendix I: PSYOP Techniques" from "Psychological Operations Field Manual No.33-1" published by Headquarters; Department of the Army, in Washington DC, on 31 August 1979. Appendix by Jon Roland, July, 1998.

Excerpt:
Lying and distortion. Lying is stating as truth that which is contrary to fact. For example, assertions may be lies. This technique will not be used by US personnel. It is presented for use of the analyst of enemy propaganda.
Simplification. This is a technique in which the many facts of a situation are reduced so the right or wrong, good or evil, of an act or decision is obvious to all. This technique (simplification) provides simple solutions for complex problems. By suggesting apparently simple solutions for complex problems, this technique offers simplified interpretations of events, ideas, concepts, or personalities. Statements are positive and firm; qualifying words are never used.
Simplification may be used to sway uneducated and educated audiences. This is true because many persons are well educated or highly skilled, trained specialists in a specific field, but the limitations of time and energy often force them to turn to and accept simplifications to understand, relate, and react to other areas of interest.
Simplification has the following characteristics:

• It thinks for others: Some people accept information which they cannot verify personally as long as the source is acceptable to them or the authority is considered expert. Others absorb whatever they read, see, or hear with little or no discrimination. Some people are too lazy or unconcerned to think problems through. Others are uneducated and willingly accept convenient simplifications.
• It is concise: Simplification gives the impression of going to the heart of the matter in a few words. The average member of the target audience will not even consider that there may be another answer to the problem.
• It builds ego: Some people are reluctant to believe that any field of endeavor, except their own, is difficult to understand. For example, a layman is pleased to hear that '"law is just common sense dressed up in fancy language," or "modern art is really a hodgepodge of aimless experiment or nonsense." Such statements reinforce the ego of the lay audience. It is what they would like to believe, because they are afraid that law and modern art may actually be beyond their understanding. Simple explanations are given for complex subjects and problems.

Stereotyping is a form of simplification used to fit persons, groups, nations, or events into readymade categories that tend to produce a desired image of good or bad. Stereotyping puts the subject (people, nations, etc.) or event into a simplistic pattern without any distinguishing individual characteristics.

Eponyms that lost their Capitals...

Sandwich

The first written usage of the English word appeared in Edward Gibbon's journal, in longhand, referring to "bits of cold meat" as a "Sandwich".^[12] It was named after John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, an 18th-century English aristocrat, although he was neither the inventor nor sustainer of the food. It is said that he ordered his valet to bring him meat tucked between two pieces of bread, and because Montagu also happened to be the Fourth Earl of Sandwich, others began to order "the same as Sandwich!"^[6][7] It is said that Lord Sandwich was fond of this form of food because it allowed him to continue playing cards, particularly cribbage, while eating without getting his cards greasy from eating meat with his bare hands.^[6]

The rumour in its familiar form appeared in Pierre-Jean Grosley's Londres (Neichatel, 1770), translated as A Tour to London 1772;^[13] Grosley's impressions had been formed during a year in London in 1765. The sober alternative is provided by Sandwich's biographer, N. A. M. Rodger, who suggests Sandwich's commitments to the navy, to politics and the arts mean the first sandwich was more likely to have been consumed at his desk.

Before being known as sandwiches, the food seems to simply have been known as "bread and meat" or "bread and cheese".^[6]

Etymology of Sandwich

extraoral labial cutaneous junction

ver·mil·ion bor·der (vĕr-mil'yŏn bōr'dĕr)

The red margin of the upper and lower lips, which commences at the exterior edge of the intraoral labial mucosa ("moist line") and extends outward, terminating at the extraoral labial cutaneous junction; a thinly keratinized type of stratified squamous epithelium deeply penetrated by well-vascularized dermal papillae that show through the translucent epidermis to impart the typical red appearance of the lips.

Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012

Take THAT, Wiley! You big bully.

AALL's Washington Blawg

---

A Win for Libraries in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley Posted: 19 Mar 2013 12:45 PM PDT In a victory for libraries and consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a 6-3 opinion in favor of petitioner Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai student who resold textbooks lawfully purchased by his family at bookstores in Thailand. AALL’s Copyright Committee chair Tracy Thompson-Przylucki wrote on the Copyright Committee blog: In its opinion in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., a decision released today, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the first sale doctrine is not subject to any geographical limitations (Justice Ginsburg dissents). The Court’s decision means that purchasers of works produced outside of the U.S., if the works are lawfully subject to U.S. Copyright protections, are entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine to justify their subsequent sale, lease or loan of those works. This is an important victory not just for consumers like Kirtsaeng, but for libraries and library users. AALL is a member of the Owners’ Rights Initiative, which released the following statement from Executive Director Andrew Shore: ORI is gratified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Supap Kirtsaeng in this important copyright case. This decision is a landmark win for consumers, small businesses, online marketplaces, retailers and libraries nationwide and an affirmation of the ORI motto, ‘you bought it, you own it.’ This decision definitively affirms the first sale doctrine, cementing the right of consumers and organizations to sell, lend and give away goods that they bought and own, regardless of where those goods were made. While we are energized by this decision, we expect that some will continue attempts to eliminate owners’ rights, reduce competition in the marketplace and restrict the global trade of authentic goods. ORI will continue to be vigilant and diligent in protecting owners’ rights now and in the future and we expect policymakers to do the same. For more information about the case, please see AALL’s issue brief by Amy Ash, member of the Copyright Committee and George H. Pike, 2011-2012 chair of the Committee. AALL submitted an amicus brief in support of Kirtsaeng with Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Special Libraries Association, and U.S. PIRG.

Jar-gone!

OCTOBER 16, 2008, 11:36 AM

Tech Terms to Avoid

In two weeks, I’ll celebrate my eighth anniversary writing this column. And if I do any ruminating during my 15-second celebration, I’ll recognize that one thing still hasn’t changed: there’s still no single technical level of writing that makes everybody happy.

I still get complaints from total newbies, who are bewildered by terms like “smartphone” and “plasma TV.” And I still get bashed by the gearheads, who find the column not nearly technical enough.

I think a lot about the technical level of the column. Over the years, I’ve adopted a number of tricks that are designed to communicate technical points without losing the novices–and one of them is avoiding jargon.

Why tech writers use so much jargon, I don’t know. Maybe it’s self-aggrandizement; they want to lord their knowledge over everybody else. Maybe it’s laziness; they can’t be bothered to fish for a plain-English word. Maybe it’s just habit; they spend all day talking shop with other nerds, so they slip into technospeak when they write for larger audiences.

In any case, I’m making available to all, for the first time, my list of pretentious pet-peeve words to avoid. I used to consider plain-English writing a competitive advantage, so I’ve never leaked this list to potential rivals. But at this point, forget it; any tips that might contribute to clearer writing deserve to be free.

* Content. As in, “Web content.” Ugh. If you mean “Web pages,” say “Web pages.” If you mean “music,” say “music.” Nobody outside the tech industry says “content” when they mean “what’s on your player” or “what’s on your Web site.”

* Device. You know what’s weird? Cellphone companies never actually use the term “cellphone.” They always use the word “device,” as in the wince-inducing sentence, “The user can transfer D.R.M.-protected content to their device.”

Look, I get it: these days, cellphones do more than make phone calls. But you don’t need to abandon the term “cellphone” for that reason; the meaning of “cellphone” has already expanded to accommodate its new functions. If you say “cellphone,” your audience already understands that it means “a gadget that makes calls, gets on the Internet and takes crummy pictures.”

* Dialog. The term “dialog box” is already a problem, since it doesn’t really identify what it is (a message box on the screen, forcing you to answer a question–like how many copies of a printout you want). But unfortunately, there’s absolutely no alternative. And shortening this to “dialog” is definitely a step in the wrong direction.

* Display. “Display” can be a noun (“a display of fireworks”). It can also be a verb that takes a direct object (“He displayed emotion”). It is not, however, a verb without a direct object, except in magazines like PC World: “Shows filmed in high-definition end up displaying in letterbox format.”

Displaying what in letterbox format? Fireworks? Emotions?

The word this writer was looking for is “appearing.”

* D.R.M. What’s so nauseating about this term is that it started out as a euphemism. It means copy protection, which most people don’t like on their software, music files or videos. So with doublespeak like “digital rights management,” the companies who favor copy protection think they’re putting a positive spin on the concept. And by using “D.R.M.” instead of “copy protection,” we’re playing into their sad little manipulation.

Sorry, Charlie. It’s still copy protection, and we should call a spade a spade.

* Enable. Who on earth says, “Enable the GPS function”? Only user-manual writers and computer-book authors. Say “Turn on GPS” instead.

* E-mail client. Originally, someone coined “client” to distinguish your computer’s e-mail program from the computer that dishes it out (the server). But when you’re not explicitly trying to make that differentiation, just say “e-mail program.” The only people with e-mail clients are the lawyers who represent Outlook and Gmail.

* Functionality. WOW, do I despise this pretentious word. Five syllables–ooh, what a knowledgeable person you must be!

It means “feature.” Say “feature.”

* LCD. What I hate about this word is that it doesn’t say what it is (“the screen”). And even if you spell out what it means in parentheses, you still haven’t told readers what the heck you’re talking about. (“Liquid crystal display? Ohhh, so THAT’S what it means.”)

* P.D.A. Here’s another ridiculous term–ridiculous because it’s not self-explanatory. “Personal digital assistant?” Give me a break. It’s a palmtop.

* Price point. What are you, paid by the word? “Price” alone does the job.

* URL. This one’s common, but I still can’t stand it. “Uniform Resource Locator”? Oh, thank you–that helps. NOT!

I use “Web address.” Same number of syllables, and crystal-clear.

* RAM. Here again, there’s a plain-English word that does the same job without the intimidation: memory. That’s a word that says what it means.

* S.M.S. The ultimate pointless term. “Text message” is the same number of syllables, and also says what it is. “SMS” doesn’t do anyone any good–but it does baffle the non-technical.

* Support. I don’t mean “support” as in “tech support,” although even that term is a corporate creepy cop-out (it means “help line”). No, I mean the verb, as in, “The laptop supports Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.”

In no other corner of modern discourse is “support” used that way. I use “has,” “offers” or “works with.”

* USB. I use this term in my writing, but only reluctantly; there simply isn’t any other term that does the job. But it’s a hateful term–even knowing that it stands for “Universal Serial Bus” doesn’t begin to help you understand what it is. Let’s have more clever, self-descriptive names for jacks, like FireWire or (for Apple’s wireless) AirPort.

* User. There are two industries that refer to their customers as “users” –technology and illegal drugs.

When you’re writing about computers, there’s almost never a sentence where you couldn’t substitute “you” or, worst case, “the customer” as the noun and thereby improve the sentence. Instead of saying, “The user can, at his or her option, elect to remove this functionality,” say, “You can turn this feature off.” It’s not only clearer, but it gets you out of the awkward “his or her” bit.

* Wi-Fi. I use this one occasionally, but only with gritted teeth.

It’s just not a good term. It doesn’t say what it means. People think it stands for “wireless fidelity,” but the Wi-Fi Alliance, which hired a branding firm to create it, says it doesn’t stand for anything.

I use the term “wireless hot spot” when I can, but only because there’s no more comprehensible alternative. (“Bluetooth” doesn’t immediately convey that technology’s function. But at least it’s better than “Wi-Fi.” Once you hear that it’s named for a Danish king who brought together warring factions, you never forget its meaning.)

And there you have it: Pogue’s Anti-Jargon Dictionary. You’re free to use it to launch your own writing careers, with my compliments!

P.S.–Set your TiVo! This Sunday, October 19, I’ll report on the Encyclopedia of Life on “CBS News Sunday Morning.” (The Encyclopedia of Life, eol.org, is an ambitious international “moon shot” of a project. It will attempt to catalog and describe every single one of the Earth’s 1.8 million known species in one place, drawing on both experts and ordinary citizens to fill in the blanks.)

• Copyright 2013 The New York Times Company
• Privacy Policy
• NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

Mammy

Scholarship Schmalarship?

The writer here says... "Mammy was born on the plantation in the imagination of slavery defenders..." But the earliest reference his essay makes to the character is:

"The standard for mammy depictions was offered by Harriet Beecher Stowe's 1852 book, Uncle Tom's Cabin. The book's mammy, Aunt Chloe, is described in this way:

A round, black, shiny face is hers, so glossy as to suggest the idea that she might have been washed over with the whites of eggs, like one of her own tea rusks. Her whole plump countenance beams with satisfaction and contentment from under a well-starched checkered turban, bearing on it; however, if we must confess it, a little of that tinge of self-consciousness which becomes the first cook of the neighborhood, as Aunt Chloe was universally held and acknowledged to be.(Stowe, 1966, p. 31)

Aunt Chloe was nurturing and protective of "her" white family, but less caring toward her own children. She is the prototypical fictional mammy: self-sacrificing, white-identified, fat, asexual, good-humored, a loyal cook, housekeeper and quasi-family member."

I think he is a bit confused.  Is Harriet Beecher Stowe a "slavery defender?"   I don't think so.

He claims: "During slavery, the mammy caricature was posited as proof that blacks -- in this case, black women -- were contented, even happy, as slaves. Her wide grin, hearty laughter, and loyal servitude were offered as evidence of the supposed humanity of the institution of slavery."

Is this what H.B. Stowe was doing--asserting that black women slaves were happy?  Again, I don't think so.  She was an Aboltionist!  In tose days, that meant Republican.

Economics History Article

link

Say's Law is the principle that supply constitutes demand. Or, in the words of economist Jean Baptiste Say, "...a product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value." (A TREATISE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY, Chapter 15).

J.B.Say (1767-1832) is the French economist who coined the word entrepreneur to describe an economic agent independent from the landlord, worker or even capitalist (since the entrepreneur may secure financing from others). Say wrote his TREATISE to counter the Mercantilist doctrine that money is the source of wealth. According to Say, goods buy goods, and money mediates the transaction: "It is not the abundance of money but the abundance of other products in general that facilitates sales." James Mill expanded on Say's argument in his book COMMERCE DEFENDED to counter the belief that underconsumption is the cause of economic recession — and to counter the belief that increased consumption is the remedy for recession. Say incorporated Mill's ideas in subsequent editions of his TREATISE. Say was emphatic that consumption destroys wealth and that only production creates wealth.

Thomas Malthus was the foremost classical economist who promoted the idea that underconsumption causes recession. Malthus blamed the wealthy for saving rather than spending. David Ricardo, in answering Malthus, invoked J.B.Say to write: "The shoemaker when he exchanges his shoes for bread has an effective demand for bread." Ricardo attributed post-war depression & unemployment to a mismatch of supply & demand, rather than to underconsumption.

Classical economics incorporated the ideas of Say, Mill and Ricardo rather than Malthus in its body of wisdom. These ideas were augmented by John Stewart Mill who emphasized the role of savings rather than consumption in wealth-creation when he said: "...to consume less than is produced, is saving; and that is the process by which capital is increased."

The beliefs of Malthus were revived during the Great Depression of the 1930s by John Maynard Keynes in his book THE GENERAL THEORY OF EMPLOYMENT, INTEREST AND MONEY (1936). It may not be much of an exaggeration to state that the GENERAL THEORY is little more than a protracted attack on Say's Law — a reversion to Malthus in claiming that underconsumption (low "aggregate demand") causes recession & unemployment — and the claim that government spending (financed by deficits, taxes or inflation) and subsidized consumer spending can compensate for "demand deficiencies". In his preface to the French edition of THE GENERAL THEORY Keynes refers to Say's Law as a "fallacy" and describes his own book as "a final break-away from the doctrines of J.-B. Say".

In the first section of Ch...

Tiny Tim says:

Puns for Educated Minds

1. The fattest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much pi.

2. I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island, but it turned out to be an optical Aleutian.

3. She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

4. A rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class, because it was a weapon of math disruption.

5. Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie.

6. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

7. Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

8. Two hats were hanging on a hat rack in the hallway. One hat said to the other: 'You stay here; I'll go on a head.'

9. I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger, then it hit me.

10. In a democracy it's your vote that counts. In feudalism it's your Count that votes.

There was the person who sent ten puns to friends, with the hope that at least one of the puns would make them laugh. No pun in ten did.