This article, unfortunately, misleads much more than it informs.
Misleading in so many ways....
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Monday, August 31, 2015
Sunday, August 30, 2015
REAL LEADERSHIP IS PREDICATED ON SOMETHING I WILL CALL
real followership.
What kinds of things might real followership be based on?
Let's start with what it might not be based on:
It is not based on voting for a politician.
It is not based on making contributions to a political party or cause.
It is not based on working for a political leader's campaign, or for a political party.
It is not based on making contributions to a politician.
It is not based on participation in polls.
It is not based on being a citizen.
It is not based on an ideology.
It is inconsistent with communism.
It is inconsistent with Fascism.
It is inconsistent with civil libertarian ism and anarchism.
It is inconsistent with globalist liberalism.
It is not based on adherence to a single interest group, or on interest group politics in general.
It is not based on love.
it is not based on hate.
What kinds of things might real followership be based on?
Let's start with what it might not be based on:
It is not based on voting for a politician.
It is not based on making contributions to a political party or cause.
It is not based on working for a political leader's campaign, or for a political party.
It is not based on making contributions to a politician.
It is not based on participation in polls.
It is not based on being a citizen.
It is not based on an ideology.
It is inconsistent with communism.
It is inconsistent with Fascism.
It is inconsistent with civil libertarian ism and anarchism.
It is inconsistent with globalist liberalism.
It is not based on adherence to a single interest group, or on interest group politics in general.
It is not based on love.
it is not based on hate.
REAL LEADERSHIP
Why not begin with some things on which real leadership, it seems to me, is not based?
It is not based on a smooth running separation of powers.
It is not based on calling the estates General. We here call the legislatures, both state and federal, quite regularly, to little avail regarding real leadership.
It is not based on a military machine, although security concerns can never be far from its thots.
It is not based on liberals and conservatives haggling over enormous numbers of special interests.
It is not based on charisma.
It is not based on the qualities of only one individual, no matter how talented or brilliant that individual may be.
Real leadership is not based on a general consensus.
Real leadership is not based solely on a majority rule.
Real leadership is not based on decisions taken based on universal suffrage.
Real leadership is not based mainly on police power.
Real leadership is not based on fear.
Real leadership is not based on the dictates of wealth as such, even, especially, very great wealth.
Real leadership is not based on holding steadfastly to an ideology.
Real leadership is not consistent with a liberal international economic order.
Real leadership is not consistent with free trade.
Real leadership cannot be based mainly on protectionism.
Real leadership cannot promote or rely on sectionalist issues.
(The Lincoln Fallacy)
Real leadership is not consistent with sharing, globally, all natural resources.
Real leadership is not consistent with universal human rights.
Real leadership is not consistent with the equality of all men.
This is just a start of things real leadership is not, or cannot be based on.
It is not based on a smooth running separation of powers.
It is not based on calling the estates General. We here call the legislatures, both state and federal, quite regularly, to little avail regarding real leadership.
It is not based on a military machine, although security concerns can never be far from its thots.
It is not based on liberals and conservatives haggling over enormous numbers of special interests.
It is not based on charisma.
It is not based on the qualities of only one individual, no matter how talented or brilliant that individual may be.
Real leadership is not based on a general consensus.
Real leadership is not based solely on a majority rule.
Real leadership is not based on decisions taken based on universal suffrage.
Real leadership is not based mainly on police power.
Real leadership is not based on fear.
Real leadership is not based on the dictates of wealth as such, even, especially, very great wealth.
Real leadership is not based on holding steadfastly to an ideology.
Real leadership is not consistent with a liberal international economic order.
Real leadership is not consistent with free trade.
Real leadership cannot be based mainly on protectionism.
Real leadership cannot promote or rely on sectionalist issues.
(The Lincoln Fallacy)
Real leadership is not consistent with sharing, globally, all natural resources.
Real leadership is not consistent with universal human rights.
Real leadership is not consistent with the equality of all men.
This is just a start of things real leadership is not, or cannot be based on.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
RE LEADERSHIP
"Thanks to Republican strategy over the last few decades, the United States, which needs real leadership as much as it ever has in its history, is focused upon a fraud and a buffoon who wants to ride the hatreds of his fellow citizens into the White House." DK
The American system was built based on suspicion of real leadership.
As everyone points out, eg The Proud Tower, etc., Americans' faux aristocracy, the closest thing we had to a leadership class, abandoned active participation in American politics by 1830. They never came back.
The American system was built based on suspicion of real leadership.
As everyone points out, eg The Proud Tower, etc., Americans' faux aristocracy, the closest thing we had to a leadership class, abandoned active participation in American politics by 1830. They never came back.
the menu Trump
How does he look so youthful? Why is he so mean to women journalists?
Think: the Kavandavanda menu
Think: the Kavandavanda menu
RE END OF EMPIRE
There is a lot I can disagree with in the preceding video, but some useful summations from them.
Just one example to take issue with, Smith says Europeans were more or less as poor as other poor people, globally, under the European Empires.
Authors of Power and Plenty , page 362, note, however, that living standards, apart from long distance trade, of poor Western Europeans had already risen well above 18th Century global (Eastern Europe, Asian) living standards, well before the Industrial Revolution, even before the Enlightenment.
Let's put it this way, successful European empires under mercantilism, and under absolutism, benefited their poorer denizens disproportionately more than non European empires, states, or non empires elsewhere.
Just one example to take issue with, Smith says Europeans were more or less as poor as other poor people, globally, under the European Empires.
Authors of Power and Plenty , page 362, note, however, that living standards, apart from long distance trade, of poor Western Europeans had already risen well above 18th Century global (Eastern Europe, Asian) living standards, well before the Industrial Revolution, even before the Enlightenment.
Let's put it this way, successful European empires under mercantilism, and under absolutism, benefited their poorer denizens disproportionately more than non European empires, states, or non empires elsewhere.
Friday, August 28, 2015
DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS OR PRESIDENTS
Both, now, for a long time, under the skin: globocrats.
Terms search trading American interests
Terms search trading American interests
Thursday, August 27, 2015
RE DK CURRRENT POST AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
He has a great post re Republicans having long tried to call into question any national government with sufficient power to govern a national state.
It remains worthwhile to point out, however, that the universalism of the Democratic Party for almost all of the 20th Century turned itself steadfastly against a strong well run nation state concept. It believed in a relatively weak welfare state, partly subsumed within a larger, globalist, more benevolent, and ostensibly more peaceful, universal state concept. League of Nations, UN, EU, things like that, were to truly govern, over the heads of all wayward nation states, in the immediate future. These were the lessons democratic liberal and left Americans took from the world wars and the inherent evils of nation states.
Isolationist Republicans held back, but the tempting tit of liberal international economy free globalist trade wooed them into a liberal universalist bipartisan line.
That is really what is known, delusionally, as the so called vital center.
These tendencies in both parties really go back to 17th century civil libertarian ideas, real Whigs, to later working class tendencies, and to religious sectarian fragmentation, and their united objections to strong government of any kind other than their sect's brand. If their sect could not rule, then no strong government should.
It remains worthwhile to point out, however, that the universalism of the Democratic Party for almost all of the 20th Century turned itself steadfastly against a strong well run nation state concept. It believed in a relatively weak welfare state, partly subsumed within a larger, globalist, more benevolent, and ostensibly more peaceful, universal state concept. League of Nations, UN, EU, things like that, were to truly govern, over the heads of all wayward nation states, in the immediate future. These were the lessons democratic liberal and left Americans took from the world wars and the inherent evils of nation states.
Isolationist Republicans held back, but the tempting tit of liberal international economy free globalist trade wooed them into a liberal universalist bipartisan line.
That is really what is known, delusionally, as the so called vital center.
These tendencies in both parties really go back to 17th century civil libertarian ideas, real Whigs, to later working class tendencies, and to religious sectarian fragmentation, and their united objections to strong government of any kind other than their sect's brand. If their sect could not rule, then no strong government should.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
a classic post
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2010/11/re-spanish-prisoner-eu-and-us-real-road.html
Sunday, August 23, 2015
RE THE CURRENCY MENU
http://www.realecontv.com/videos/china/the-ugliest-economic-data-ive-ever-seen.html
Thursday, August 20, 2015
RE ADAM SMITH 1776 THE WEALTH OF NATIONS
If one analyzes the transformations in the nature of world trade, before and around 1840, from luxuries to bulk commodities including staples, say, discussions in works like Power and Plenty showing this long term trend still unseen at that time, Smith's concepts, comparative advantage, the unseen hand, free markets, etc., were actually already almost obsolete, even in 1776, based on what had already started to happen, including the industrial revolution, on the ground.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Sunday, August 16, 2015
FOUND THIS USEFUL NOTE
Head over to The Washington Spectator on Facebook and like their page - you'll get more of the hard driving reporting from Rick Perlstein and his ilk found below:
"Never have so many done so much to reveal so little than in the collected journalism about presidential nomination contests. The personality-driven trivia. The hokey generalizations. The bogs of conventional wisdom. The day-by-day scorekeeping that ends up worse than uninformative; it is anti-informative. ...... And, last but not least, the shameful lack of any useful contribution to a richer public understanding of what any of this means for the future of the republic at large."
Terms search: Lorch
GREAT STUFF
"It’s hard to pick from among the vacuous comments of Republican hopefuls, but I can’t let this one from Rand Paul slip by. On Sunday’s Fox News, Paul blamed income inequality on “some people working harder and selling more things. If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you'll have more money."
So I suppose the hedge-fund manager Steven A. Cohen raked in $2.3 billion in 2013 just because people voluntarily bought more of his stuff? Baloney. The Justice Department found insider trading at Cohen’s firm “substantial, pervasive, and on a scale without known precedent in the hedge fund industry.”
And I suppose Donald Trump made his billions because people voluntarily bought his stuff? No chance. He made wild bets and then used bankruptcy laws (crafted by corporations and financiers) to shield himself from the consequences when bets went bad.
And I suppose Rand Paul himself made it completely on his own without his father’s connections?
One of the most pernicious myths in America is you earn what you’re “worth.” Baloney. The Walmart heirs don’t do anything but speed-dial their investment advisors and they’re wealthier than the bottom 40 percent of Americans put together, while many working-class and poor Americans put in sixty hours a week and don’t get squat.
It’s about power. Fifty years ago America’s largest employer was GM and the typical GM worker earned $35 an hour (in today’s dollars) because GM workers were backed by strong unions. Today the largest employer is Walmart, whose typical worker earns $9.40 an hour because they don’t have a union behind them.
Your view?"
the menu
I just want to do a little contrast here, for a moment.
Many people, here, no doubt, think Paul Prudhomme is some kind of culinary god.
Paul Prudhomme's Louisiana Kitchen, etc. Fair enough.
My own view is that this Cajun or creole Louisiana cuisine, not his work personally, but the genre, is, generally, a sad bastardization of something that was, at one time, in a place long ago, and far away, much better, chronicled in Paula Wolfert's The Cooking Of South-West France.
Many people, here, no doubt, think Paul Prudhomme is some kind of culinary god.
Paul Prudhomme's Louisiana Kitchen, etc. Fair enough.
My own view is that this Cajun or creole Louisiana cuisine, not his work personally, but the genre, is, generally, a sad bastardization of something that was, at one time, in a place long ago, and far away, much better, chronicled in Paula Wolfert's The Cooking Of South-West France.
RE CAUSES OF WWI THE INVISIBLE HAND
If one looks at Power And Plenty, chapter "World Trade 1780-1914", it seems to me that a powerful argument might be made that it was the transformation in the nature of trade itself, from luxury goods to everything, including basic staples, coupled with the catastrophic liberal economic ideology of Smith ism which had just emerged in 1776, which eventually created, and then exacerbated, the tensions which eventually lead to WWI, etc.
One could also advert to more traditional explanations, social change, political vagaries, etc.; but these themselves were being worked on, 'from below', so to speak.
One could also advert to more traditional explanations, social change, political vagaries, etc.; but these themselves were being worked on, 'from below', so to speak.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
IT IS HARD
To compare the Iran Deal with the Treaty of Versailles.
I do not know the behind the scenes discussions that have been under way, but certainly there has not been a major world war as an antecedent to the deal.
Further, the US role, diplomatically, at either time, was not as great as Americans have been long trained, including by those such as Professor Kaiser, to believe.
Militarily, the nuclear umbrella is a faux, I call it a Mary Poppins, umbrella.
Conventional forces are a faux threat, absent dire need.
Drones only "work" in places, frankly, where you do not really care about collateral damage.
If you use drones there,
you do not care, at all, about the population there, really, frankly.
Period. You can kid yourself.
I do not know the behind the scenes discussions that have been under way, but certainly there has not been a major world war as an antecedent to the deal.
Further, the US role, diplomatically, at either time, was not as great as Americans have been long trained, including by those such as Professor Kaiser, to believe.
Militarily, the nuclear umbrella is a faux, I call it a Mary Poppins, umbrella.
Conventional forces are a faux threat, absent dire need.
Drones only "work" in places, frankly, where you do not really care about collateral damage.
If you use drones there,
you do not care, at all, about the population there, really, frankly.
Period. You can kid yourself.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
why not bring this one back from the archives
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2010/08/andy-martin-socrates-cartoon.html
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)