BOOMERBUSTER

BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO

Monday, July 31, 2017

THE MENU PASTRAMI SAUERBRATEN ETC LEFTOVER IMPROV

Why not use leftover seasoning liquids and leftover roasts to give the impression of these specialty meats?

I have discussed this topic before in terms of marinades.

Why not use these leftover liquids to marinade already cooked meat?

Say you have a leftover piece of roast pork butt or beef bottom round or other pot roast, or even some sausages or hamburger.

What do you do with it? One alternative is you can just eat it as a nice leftover roast, as is. That is a good alternative.

Try this. Put it in a large jar of mixed leftover pickle juice, and leftover jar oil too, if you like. This is the tricky part, how much of each?
 
The other concern is of course salt content. You can't use too much of these pickling juices because they always have very high salt content. Even the canned fish oils are high in salt. So you have to be fairly selective and limit the amount of the pickling flavor you try to achieve; do not use too much highly salty liquid for the size of the leftover meat you are trying to flavor. 

These juices can be mild Greek pepperoncini juice, sweet cherry peppers, pickled okra, dill pickles, sweet pickles, pickled onions, sauerkraut juice, capers, some artichoke heart oil or vinegar, olive juices of all kinds, even a little pickled beet juice! You might even throw in a spot of smoked kipper, sardine, or anchovy oil marinara or vinegar juice!

You don't want to keep this all that long in the fridge, just long enough for the leftover roast to take in the pickle and oil flavors you choose, say a day or so, maybe three. Some of these leftover jar contents may themselves be long in the tooth.

Then what do you do? You drain and slice this marinated cooked meat thin and make delicious sandwiches with it, hot or cold.

Call it a homemade pastrami or corned beef or sauerbraten or Greek sausage sandwich. Who will know the difference?

BBC SANCTIONS DOG HOUSE MADURO MUGABE ASSAD KIM JONG-UN

Those are the ones you know about.

The real list is as long as your leg!

What do sanctions mean?

They usually mean merely the cessation of free gift foreign aid and subsidies we had been giving these old darlings for decades now.

ATONALITY

'Tune' a sitar.......

Charm a snake.....

Teach a pig to sing....

WHAT IS THE SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING?

Atonality.

RE WHO ATE REPUBLICANS' BRAINS?

Once in a while, Krugman forgets himself and cuts loose.
 
This is entertaining, but it leaves out the answer.
 
It also fails to ask this question: Who ate the Democrats' brains?
 
Equally good question.
 
Both parties were put in a place where they could then be cannibalized by their own kind, in each party.
 
Who had put them in that place?
 
The vital center liberals in both parties.

Terms search this blog: General Butt Naked, General BN, Ogunda, Don't eat the pygmies, the wrath of Khan

Sunday, July 30, 2017

THE MENU WILD DUCK CALL

My father was himself rather a wild duck.
Most of his duck hunting had happened before I was born.....
He was good at it, I guess. He still had, when I was a child, several different styles of duck caller. There were turkey callers too.
Most people don't even know what these things were.
They were wooden, reeded, musical instruments, really,  like a tiny handheld oboe or clarinet. They had a fairly wide pitch range.
They made quacking and other sounds which the caller could control by both pitch, rhythm, and volume.

The hunter would hold the caller in his hand, with a strand suspended around his neck, and then when ducks would respond, he would drop the caller on its string,  and with the other hand raise the shotgun to his shoulder...sort of a soloist kind of skill there.
 
Anyway, I got a couple of duck breasts, and thought of him.

He was a baritone; got a place in the Ole Miss Choir. He could sing anything in his vocal range. So, duck calling was something he found easy to do, too.

Female mallards, for your information, are masters of atonality, an ideal to which my daughter also aspires.

One can imagine music competitions, only for atonality, where the judges make similar moves to those of hunters with duck caller...they have to put the caller down and raise the gun to fire.

 

FRANKFURT 1833 BUNDESRECHT BRICHT LANDESRECHT CIVIL WARS REVERSE IDEOLOGY

Liberal federalism here smothered a conservative federalist revolution.

Conservative federalism there smothered a liberal federalist revolution.

All part of the Age of the Democratic Revolution, both alike the spawn of 1776 and 1789.

FASHION STATEMENT

Julia Michaels

BBC JULIA MICHAELS

I thought of you, honey.

RE ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES LIABLE IN TORT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?

The tobacco company, and oil spill, analogies......

Re the BP settlement fiasco: how bout strict liability?

How bout this:
 
"They've known for decades they were changing the carbon footprint both in our lungs and in our environment..."

Red meat for a gifted, resolute, and dissolute rhetorician...
a rhetorician who must kill to eat.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

THE MENU THE MAKER'S DIET HADZA HUNTER GATHERERS PRIMATES OF PARK AVENUE

I recommend going back to this for most people.
 
Civilization for most of them has been a bust.

MORE PAGE VIEWS FRANCE THAN US A HIGH COMPLIMENT



Entry
Pageviews
France

34
United States

30
Portugal

11
Poland

5
Brazil

2
Spain

1
Ireland

1

DK DUNKIRK CURRENT POST

"...Born in 1970, Christopher Nolan may understand that he owes his whole life and career to Churchill, and Roosevelt who rallied their peoples and to the admirals and generals who commanded the forces that defeated Hitler--but he chose not to put any such understanding into his film.  More importantly, he does not seem to understand that the allies won the war precisely because the soldiers and sailors and airmen in his film were not thinking only about whether they personally might survive.  They knew that they might not, but they believed that they were fighting for things that justified their sacrifice—and they were right.  The question now before us is whether we can preserve the civilization that we inherited without finding leaders who can rally us behind a common cause, and without reviving some spirit of sacrifice for the common good.  That is something that films could help us do...." DK
 
Just started reading yet another book.....
 
This one seems like it might be useful, but only as background, for DK's speculation at the end of his current post,  whether Hollywood might help us preserve Western Civilization, a rather tall order for the current shape of Hollywood...
 
Hollywood Left And Right: How Movie Stars Shaped American Politics
 

GETTING TO BE AS POPULAR OR INFAMOUS FRANCE AS HERE

EntryPageviews
United States

45
France

29
Poland

3
Brazil

2
Spain

1
Ireland

1
Ukraine

1

THE SECESSIONIST WEST LINCOLN FALLACY ALL OVER AGAIN TRUMP WILL PLAY LINCOLN

Guess what: Freeing the slaves did not at all solve the problem.

All those who believe that are kidding themselves.

In fact, it solved no problem.

asian diplomatic conversation

Yes, we just took over the port at Sri Lanka.
Didn't anyone complain?
We gave assurances.
Hahaha!
They are worried about North Korea! We have paid the Koreans well.
Hahaha! Can't they, you know who, complain about this?
No.
Why not?
Their people would then know they know.
Do we tell our people?
No.
Why not?
Why? The more they know or think they know, the more difficult to maintain order.

AMERICAN PEACE CORP TOURIST DIALOGUE WITH CHINESE WORKER GROUPS ON DOCKS

Peace Corp Tourist: Are you Indian coolies?
No, African.
Tourist, to another group nearby: Are you Chinese coolies?
No, Indian. 
Tourist to another group: Are you  African coolies?
No, Lao.
Tourist to another group: Are you Cambodian coolies?
No, Borneo.
Tourist: Are you Thai coolies?
No, Korea.
 
And so on......

ONLY COMMERCIAL

SRI LANKA CHINA PORT DEAL ON KEY SHIPPING LANE EUROPE ASIA

Map

Assurances given.............

Oh, in passing, it's also right down there, by India's butt!

ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES LIABLE IN TORT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?

They have promoted high consumption of petroleum, coal, electricity, etc., since the beginning really. 

They say climate change is a myth.

There are already large losses due to sea levels rising in coastal areas; runoff and pollution, ocean damage, loss of the ozone layer, skin cancer, rising utility costs, lower productivity, etc., etc.

Governments are sovereign immune and have collaborated with private producer interests...

Private companies have deep pockets...

Think about it.

If anyone seriously tries it, they will see what will be called tort reform.

RE WHOSE JOB IS IT? MARKETS

Re WHOSE JOB IS IT?,  why not throw these observations, mutatis mutandis, into the old discussions regarding the role of the judiciary?

I see no reason to exclude a government branch, and associated private fields around it,  so deserving of such an analysis too, when we have focussed on the executive and legislative in the recent posts.

See the excerpted question and answer below, and the article from which it came:

"Who should police the cottage industry of professional expert witnesses?  The answer in Florida seems to be: juries."

"Monday, March 28, 2011

THE PYRAMID OF EXPERTS EARLY VERSION FROM 03
An early version, but why not show the evolution of the 'notion'? This notion, that of combining experts from different fields for a political, or forensic, predetermined purpose, has been a very powerful tool for many apologists in many fields, not at all limited to law:

"The “Pyramid of Experts".
In eminent domain condemnors and their counsel often aren’t confronting an isolated property owner’s, appraiser’s, or CPA’s, value opinion.  He, usually the appraisal expert witness, piggybacks other experts' opinions: engineers, planners, and others.  
 
Whole engineering, or land planning, conclusions are perhaps even first incorporated into one another, and then, later, into his appraisal opinion, “lock stock and barrel”.  
 
This creates what I have coined a “pyramid of experts”.  
 
This happens because experts may rely on other experts, and in a complex world, often they must do so. See Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, secs. 301.1 and 704.1. 
 
Thus it becomes necessary to attack not just an isolated opinion, but the opposing 'team', by attacking how it is put, and hangs, together.
 
Some pyramiding in a complex, and technical, world is legitimate, valid, and necessary; much is not. 
 
In the real world, in this narrow field, predicate experts insulate value experts from responsibility, and can bolster false positions. 
 
Predicate opinions can cast a false veneer of objectivity on value opinions.
 
A big assumption behind rules allowing incorporating predicate opinions is that they are independent and impartial. 
 
Otherwise, pyramiding them is highly speculative and incompetent.  See F. S 90.105. 
 
Absent independence, the basis for incorporation vanishes.
 
Courts (in Florida) are reluctant to police evidentiary abuses and risk reversal, perhaps especially after Armadillo Partners, Inc. v. DOT, 849 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2003); see Dissent. See Meyer v. Caruso, 731 So.2d 118, refusing to follow Vallott v. Central Gulf Lines, 641 F.2d 347, cited in Ehrdhardt. See Ross Dress For Less, Inc. v. Irene Radcliff, 751 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).  Who should police the cottage industry of professional expert witnesses?  The answer in Florida seems to be: juries.
 
The incorporated opinion must be the type reasonably  relied on during professional practice when not in court.  See Ehrdhardt 704.1, and Burnham v. State, 497 So.2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); See especially Bender v. State, 472 So.2d 1370 (Fla 3d DCA 1985).
 
More importantly, “field” shouldn’t mean the 'playing field' of eminent domain.  Eminent domain is not a very large or neutral “field”.  
 
The rule of evidence clearly contemplates experts who have a professional life in a larger field or subject, outside, and not involving the courtroom. 
 
These larger fields, outside the courtroom, legitimize the process of in-court reliance. 
 
An important implication is that predicate experts should be experts in fields based primarily “outside the courtroom”. See Bender.
 
Yet there is authority (in Florida, and probably elsewhere where the issue exists) for a narrow interpretation of 'field', or subject, for incorporating one opinion into another.  See Ehrhardt 704.1 and Thunderbird v. Great Am. Ins., 566 So.2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 
 
In eminent domain, experts might even claim their “field” is testimony always for one side in litigation, only. Some even so hold themselves out, at their peril. 
 
Most importantly, the rules of evidence are far behind courtroom practice, and tend merely to sanction the loose practices and prejudices of the 'team players'."

Term search, eg, pyramid experts, bonobo pyramid, Boca, natural moral pillars, ignoramitocracy, anti intellectualism, compartmentalization, The Stone, etc.

Compare NYT article today, re SOCIOLOGY forensic EXPERTS:"

See also, terms search this blog: Daubert, substance procedure, Frye

WHOSE JOB IS IT? SCHOOLS ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA GOVERNMENT PRESS HOLLYWOOD?

"Nearly half a century ago, a new fashion swept the historical profession.  Rather than focus on the “great men”—or would-be great men—of history, the decision-makers who initiated, fought, won and lost wars, or passed laws, or ran for office, many historians argued for examining the experience of ordinary—or marginalized—men and women, whom they argued had been neglected in the past.  It took time for this new idea to spread outside the academy."  DK
 
Where did that new fashion come from? From New Deal liberalism going back to Wilsonianism? From populism all the way back to Jackson? Where?

I may have an answer for you, at the end.
 
Let's hold those questions, and read on:
 

 "In the early 1990s, Ken Burns met with a group of professional historians after the screening of his first great documentary on the Civil War, and they took him to task severely for his traditional approach.  His subsequent work has increasingly reflected their criticism. Now, however, this view of history has become mainstream in much of the press and in the media—and it is very much on display in Christopher Nolan’s new film, Dunkirk.  One way to illustrate this is to look at what Nolan left out—the political and military context of the events he shows on the screen." DK

Thus a group of history academics dressed Burns down for not being historical enough in their sense, a sense he points out shared both by the press and the entertainment media as well as by academia.

Thus DK properly identifies the press' and entertainment media's view of history with recent historians' view, as the same unenlightening story, depicting unenlightened men unenlighteningly but entertainingly.


It is now, thus, as little the entertainment media's job to educate the public regarding other historical or political contexts as it is the press's, or the academic historians'. They are all, now, in, how you say, cahoots.

There was a time when the historical and political academy had at times pointed the finger mainly at the press.

This was the kind of interchange that had occurred, back then:

 (Lorch) Newspaper Editor's retort to assembled Scholars: 
"Don't you know what the newspaper business is all about, you bloody fool...For the past ten minutes you've been trying to make me out as some kind of hideous ogre devoid of any shred of social consciousness.

"You act as though you think the job of a newspaper is to be an educational institution for the masses.

"Education is your job, not mine.

"I run a business. That business is to make money. My stock in trade is something called 'news'. It isn't really news all the time-- it's entertainment in the guise of news quite often.... I am not going to print educational stuff that'll put me in the poor house."


Similar charges, no doubt, were levelled, at various times, at Hollywood, for many of the same reasons.

Nowadays, it is the sterile hobby of some in the press, notably Brooks, to point the finger at schools and colleges, not, of course, at themselves, for the failings.  They don't talk much about our hamstringing historical constitutional requirement of decentralized education, and of various private and state institutions in cutthroat duplicative and blind competition to foist their their increasingly obsolescent credentials, and historically setting their own picayune and wayward agendas.

There really is almost no one else left to blame, except, of course, the government in general. (But then remember what President Kennedy had said, about a sentiment like that: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!)

That seems to be the direction in which the discussion in the press and entertainment media on the right has gone, and gone for a long time now: governments in general have all failed, fleeced, and deceived all of us, and everyone everywhere! In the United States, as well as in any state or local government, there are some elements of truth in that.

This is one reason why a few right politicians like Trump have finally, in the last ditch, turned on their erstwhile partners, the press, especially the liberal press, since the press generally had long shown itself to be interested really only in its own dominance over politicians left liberal or right, had kept on accruing power, until the technology tables recently turned, and now finally if not dominance, then, interested at least mainly in its own survival, and must still always always kill to eat.

The liberal press, and now tech media outlets, require governments weak enough to continue to serve as their main prey and facilitator. This has been a problem for the West since the 17th Century. Recent web tech has rendered it insoluble. 

Sadly, for these right politicians, the rightist press has a similar, if even more bestial, agenda going forward...

As Newt himself had so well put it, back then, a cannibal agenda.

So, in the last analysis, whose job is it in the United States, whose job has it been since the 18th Century, really, to educate the masses?

Here are some questions I was going to answer as well:
Where did that new fashion come from (ie DK's new fashion in history)? From New Deal liberalism going back to Wilsonianism? From populism all the way back to Jackson? Where?

The best answer I can think to give to all these questions, going back to the 18th Century:

The market.

 

 

Friday, July 28, 2017

RE THE NEW DEAL OF WORLD TRADE

The New Deal of World Trade article makes some points I have discussed often in the past.
 
Few people nowadays pay any attention to this most important of developments in American foreign policy.
 
It has had a profound impact on what occurred simultaneously, The New Deal.
 
Most Americans blame the ills of globalization on Republican tax breaks for the wealthy starting with Reagan in 1980.
 
The big problems for the American middle and lower so called classes, and for the American people as a nation, had started much earlier, in 1930, had been caused by policies other than lower taxes for the wealthy, had been implemented primarily by Democrats, had coincided closely with, and were actually camouflaged by, the New Deal itself, and then spectacularly, by WWII.

The recovery that was lead by the US following WWII, the institutions as well as The Marshall Plan, played directly into and augmented these already nationally disadvantageous tariff and trade policies.
 
The New Deal of World Trade discusses these issues and makes some important observations.
 
I recommend looking at Alfred Eckes' book Opening America's Market: US Foreign Trade Policy since 1776, in terms of the New Deal and FDR's foreign trade policy, and then what has happened after.

It is hardly simply a partisan fairytale about how the Republicans, starting with Reagan, began to roll back the New Deal only in 1980.

THE NEW DEAL SUCH AS IT WAS

African Americans and the New DealPreviousNext
Digital History ID 3447

Until the New Deal, blacks had shown their traditional loyalty to the party of Abraham Lincoln by voting overwhelmingly Republican. By the end of Roosevelt's first administration, however, one of the most dramatic voter shifts in American history had occurred. In 1936, some 75 percent of black voters supported the Democrats. Blacks turned to Roosevelt, in part, because his spending programs gave them a measure of relief from the Depression and, in part, because the GOP had done little to repay their earlier support.
Still, Roosevelt's record on civil rights was modest at best. Instead of using New Deal programs to promote civil rights, the administration consistently bowed to discrimination. In order to pass major New Deal legislation, Roosevelt needed the support of southern Democrats. Time and time again, he backed away from equal rights to avoid antagonizing southern whites; although, his wife, Eleanor, did take a public stand in support of civil rights. Most New Deal programs discriminated against blacks. The NRA, for example, not only offered whites the first crack at jobs, but authorized separate and lower pay scales for blacks. The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) refused to guarantee mortgages for blacks who tried to buy in white neighborhoods, and the CCC maintained segregated camps. Furthermore, the Social Security Act excluded those job categories blacks traditionally filled. The story in agriculture was particularly grim. Since 40 percent of all black workers made their living as sharecroppers and tenant farmers, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) acreage reduction hit blacks hard. White landlords could make more money by leaving land untilled than by putting land back into production. As a result, the AAA's policies forced more than 100,000 blacks off the land in 1933 and 1934. Even more galling to black leaders, the president failed to support an anti-lynching bill and a bill to abolish the poll tax. Roosevelt feared that conservative southern Democrats, who had seniority in Congress and controlled many committee chairmanships, would block his bills if he tried to fight them on the race question. Yet, the New Deal did record a few gains in civil rights. Roosevelt named Mary McLeod Bethune, a black educator, to the advisory committee of the National Youth Administration (NYA). Thanks to her efforts, blacks received a fair share of NYA funds. The WPA was colorblind, and blacks in northern cities benefited from its work relief programs. Harold Ickes, a strong supporter of civil rights who had several blacks on his staff, poured federal funds into black schools and hospitals in the South. Most blacks appointed to New Deal posts, however, served in token positions as advisors on black affairs. At best, they achieved a new visibility in government.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

RATHER AN INTERESTING SUMMARY though I don't go along with Rothbard etc I'm on the other side

FEE
The New Deal of World Trade
A Caicedo

Much has been said about the ideological origins of the postwar world trade order, but few words have been written on the ideological background of its framers, a group of Progressive lawyers and economists working secretly on the postwar planning committees of the State Department during World War II. Their panacea had little in common with Richard Cobden’s or Frédéric Bastiat’s free-trade teachings. They wanted trade relations regulated through global bureaucratic agencies—in Murray Rothbard’s words, through “the mercantilist-managerial apparatus of global economic control.” Their ideological footprint is still deeply embedded in the system.
Undoubtedly, their intention to curb commercial protectionism was sincere. Most of them grew up watching the direct relation between the “high Republican tariffs” and the power of trusts. (“The tariff is the mother of trusts,” it was said.) Moreover, they witnessed the devastating consequences of the Smoot-Hawley Act (1930) and saw with great hope the openness brought by the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. Nonetheless, they also idealized the federal leviathan as the main source of restraint of the power of trusts. Protectionism was for them just one part of a failing status quo. They envisaged an active government that would guarantee “freedom from want” to the “great mass.” The war, to use Robert Higgs’s term, was the kind of crisis they were waiting for to take leviathan up to a supranational level.
This paradox is incarnated in the “father of the world trade system,” Roosevelt’s secretary of state, Cordell Hull. He was a southern Democrat whose whole life was devoted to curbing the power of the protectionist factions in the North. He is also known as the “father of the income tax,” which many hoped would replace the tariff as a source of revenue. In 1917 Hull, then in the House of Representatives, had a decisive role in supporting the legal reform that brought the first permanent American income tax, which enabled President Woodrow Wilson to finance participation in World War I.
Under Hull’s leadership the State Department formed secret committees at the beginning of World War II to start planning the institutional order of the Pax Americana. These groups counted on financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation and logistic assistance from the Council on Foreign Relations. Their work was carefully documented by Harley A. Notter in Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939–1945 (1949). As Notter wrote, the task was to consider the following questions: “What does the United States want? What do other states want? How do we obtain what we want?”
One thing was certain for them: “the anticipated fact that this country—emerging from the victory with tremendous power—would have profound new responsibilities in connection with practically all vital problems of world affairs and would have to state a policy or at least express an attitude on such problems.”
Back then “to state a policy” normally meant massive government intervention through regulatory bodies. At the international level this would mean, as Professor George A. Finch suggested in 1937, that “a ‘new deal’ in international relations . . . would seem to be worth trying.”
The committee planners saw the history of the international realm in terms analogous to the history of the United States. The question “How do we obtain what we want?” had a clear answer: Let’s give to the world a federal pact that would restrict protectionism among nations, as the Commerce Clause did among the states of the Union; moreover let’s also create a centralized international bureaucracy that would assure a harmonious economic order inspired by the New Deal.

A Global Commerce Clause

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution served as the perfect analogy. The “dormant commerce clause” doctrine permitted the commercial unity of the country. Traditionally the Supreme Court has interpreted article I, Section 8, Clause 3 as a mandate against discriminatory measures taken by the state governments that would imperil the free traffic of goods and services across their frontiers. In other words, that clause has worked as a free-trade charter. (It should be pointed out that the 13 states essentially had a free-trade zone under the Articles of Confederation.)
Why not try a global commerce clause then? The planners only had to take the same rationale one step further, to the international level. This position was clearly stated in 1943 by Charles Bunn, an adviser to the State Department and protégé of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. In an address delivered to the American Political Science Association, Bunn quoted the words of the intellectual icon of Progressive jurists, Oliver Wendell Holmes:
I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several States. For one in my place sees how often local policy prevails with those who are not trained for national view and how often action is taken that embodies what the Commerce Clause was meant to end.
Bunn then added, arguing in favor of the postwar plans: “The world has grown smaller since Holmes spoke. ‘What the Commerce Clause was meant to end’ has become a burning question between nations. The men who try to solve that question and the people who give them power and support must indeed be trained for more than local views.”
During those years the Commerce Clause was decisive in defining the spheres of exclusive jurisdiction between the states and the federal government. According to Progressive lawyers, the growing power of the corporations had to be controlled at the national level since local officials were not able to control the almighty trusts. They demanded from the Supreme Court a broader interpretation of the Commerce Clause to permit nationwide intervention in those realms that had been traditionally under the power of state governments. A “living constitution” must evolve with the “economic reality” of industrial capitalism, they maintained. In that spirit the New Deal lawyer Robert L. Stern had written an influential piece in the Harvard Law Review defining the Commerce Clause as “the great unifying clause of the Constitution.”
We can find the same analogy Bunn drew in many works of the scholars who influenced the framing of the postwar project. Among the best known is Clarence K. Streit’s Union Now (1939), which had a huge impact on the foreign-policy establishment. Streit defended the idea of an Atlantic federation that would form a “union customs-free economy,” resembling the historical example of the American Constitution. In Streit’s own words: “It is the kind of interstate government that Lincoln, to distinguish it from the opposing type of government of, by and for states, called ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people.’ It is the way that I call Union.”

Economic Union

Directly influential on the designing of the world trade regime was Otto Todd Mallery’s book Economic Union and Durable Peace (1943). Mallery was among the leading advocates of interventionist federal policies. (See Murray N. Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, chapter 7). Inspired by Streit, Mallery saw a clear analogy with the opus of the constitutional framers. His book advocated an economic union among nations, governed by an international board structured on the model of the International Labor Organization:
Let Economic Union become the American way of life. “Union” is a glorious word in American history. “The Union, it must be formed,” said the Founding Fathers. “The Union, it must be preserved,” said Andrew Jackson in glowing words. “The Union for-ever,” echoed the boys of 1861 with lusty fervor. To “Union” prefix “Economic.” Not yet is “Economic Union” charged with the same emotion, for it has not been died for, or even lived for.
The Progressive intelligentsia made crystal clear that they wanted a technocratic world government, modeled after the New Deal agencies. Max Lerner (many times adviser to the State Department and in later years a vocal opponent of what he called “the Mises-Hayek school”) could not have been clearer in a widely read 1941 essay:
The American Constitution, with its emphasis upon separate powers . . . is a poor model for a world state. . . . The essence of government today is to be found in a fusion between the consultative, the technical, and the administrative. . . . [T]he measure of our capacity to survive has been our capacity to move away from our earlier Congressional government and our later government by judiciary, toward a newer executive and administrative process. What is true of the American national state must be even truer of the world centralism we are envisaging.
In 1934 Leland Rex Robinson, a member of the Tariff Commission, while writing in favor of Hull’s reforms of trade policy also summarized its underlying ideological consensus: “The so-called ‘liberal’ of a hundred years ago was busy repealing restrictions which limited the gainful activities and discouraged the enterprise of individuals. The ‘liberal’ of today is more likely to be busy thinking out new schemes of political control.”
This ideological environment surrounded the work of the postwar committees of the State Department. Major academic publications, such as the American Journal of International Law and the American Political Science Review, were in those days full of projects for international bureaucratic organizations. Many intellectuals involved in the debate were in close contact with the committees or became members themselves.
The conceptual reference for the work of the postwar planners was the Atlantic Charter of 1941. That treaty—signed by the U.S. and British governments as a prewar arrangement—was aimed, according to its own text, at securing “the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security.” As Elizabeth Borgwardt wrote in her book A New Deal for the World (2005), the “framing of the Atlantic Charter echoed [the] New Deal-inspired synthesis of political and economic provisions.”
The project for a new trade order saw the light of day in 1945 with the “Proposals for Consideration by an International Conference on International Trade and Employment,” known also as the “American Proposal.” Not surprisingly, the proposal called for the creation of an international organization aimed not only at controlling commercial disputes between nations but also at “curbing the restrictive trade practices resulting from private international business arrangements.” The result was the Havana Charter of 1947, which mandated the creation of the International Trade Organization (ITO), something like a worldwide Federal Trade Commission. The American economist Clair Wilcox, chairman of the Havana conference, put it boldly when he wrote that the principles of the Charter were fully compatible with those of “the Sherman Act of 1890 as interpreted by the Supreme Court under the rule of reason.”
Fortunately, the Havana Charter was never ratified by the U.S. Congress and the ITO never was created. That saved us from a worldwide “fatal conceit,” as Hayek would have put it. However, the members of GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) used this provisional protocol as a plan B for many decades, until the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. The WTO was the final fulfillment of a suspended project. This international agency has served to foster corporate interests from the United States and the European Union, favoring free trade on occasion. More often it has been useful for imposing “intellectual property” protectionism on poor countries, while legitimizing agricultural protectionism in rich ones.
Instead of Cobden-Bastiat-Mises-Hayek free trade, we’ve had Hull-Mallery-Lerner managed trade, the fulfillment of the New Deal on an international level.

THE MODERN LEFT WAS A BANKRUPT IDEAL FROM THE DAY IT WAS WHELPED

first, in the Age of the Democratic Revolution, and then later as refined, using the dregs of the Enlightenment, post Hegelianism and economics, among sundry other social science and theological and religious refuse, including an anti clericalism very long in the tooth, now turned against the very anti clerical protestantism which had itself spawned it.

THE MENU PICKLED BEETS IMPROV

If you had boiled beet water, reduced, and leftover dill pickle juice from the jar, why wouldn't you also think to make pickled beets, short shelf life, with those ingredients, by simply throwing them into a jar and refrigerate?

Why?

Why not also borsht?

Why?

THE MENU COUNTRY COOKING IMPROV

Country cooking.
Nobody seems to remember this...talk about lost art.....
There are inklings.
Bill Briwa mentions using pasta water for sauces! I never thought of it. I have discussed using leftover pickle juice etc as marinades or for other purposes, but not pasta cooking water. 
Marcella would never dream of it I am sure, though I never read all her works, nor Julia Child, of course, nor Rombauer Becker, nor 20 others one might name...
But I do use peeled broccoli  stalks for a pickle...I never bothered to also use the stalk peel for vegetable stock! I did think about it, but never did it. Cauliflour, I see no reason not to use the stalks and peels. Zucchini, use the peel, and you can also use the stalk, what there is of it. I leave the peel on beets, a gross heresy for many cooks,  potatoes, etc, but you can also throw them into stock. I have used boiled potato water and beet water for various things... See also Briwa note above re pasta water....
Turnips, great peel. Cucumbers, why peel them in the first place, and then if peel, why not use the peel?
I hate to peel carrots for cooking, it seems counterproductive. Carrot peel is great.  I don't like eggplant peel...
 

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

DUFOURMANTELLE ENTREPRENEURIAL RISK TAKER DUPE PHILOSOPHER GOES DOWN SWINGING

From Predators to Icons to Dupes

SHOULD HUMANS BE ABLE TO MARRY CHIMPS? GREAT LGBT QUESTION

This is frankly now on the liberal table, one of the next shoes to drop:

   
 
 
 
 
 

See Chimpanzee Politics :  It is difficult to imagine an equal rights initiative...

Some will infer that this will lower the bar on human rights....
My own view is that it might raise it.
Certainly it is another step in the march of progress.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

THE MENU

My posts are not for everyone, or even for many. They are idiosyncratic.
I started cooking breakfast for the family at about age 10. I had drunk the first pot of coffee before they got up. I was making pizzas and spaghetti bolognese at age 14, things like that.
I made my chocolate frosted birthday cake, say age 17, when my mother dropped the ball.
Chef Bill Briwa is a good place to start if you want to learn the right way.
I sometimes improvise stuff for an experienced but jaded cook.

CHINA SET TO LAUNCH AN UNHACKABLE NET WHAT DOES ZUCKERBERG THINK

It's all good...

Progress.

RE HUNTINGTON THE CLASH WAY TOO ROSY SEE ALSO BOBBITT SHIELD POSSIBLE WORLDS

I always thought it rather fun to compare these accounts...

This post dedicated to Samuel Glover.

Professor Kaiser, of course, seldom touches this stuff directly. I think he has mentioned Huntington several times.

Huntington, The Clash, is sort of the stake in the heart of Western, Age of the Democratic Revolution liberalism since 1760.

That is a stake incapable of ever being removed.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

CONSTITUTION CONSTIPATION

PRESLEY PERSON CHEROKEES GATES AND OPRAH

I like to think I am distantly related to Elvis...
We have Presleys in our past too.
Elvis' tree doesn't seem to go that far back... 
So did Oprah, have Presleys, back there, funnily enough...
I saw the interview with her and Gates, however, 'all African blood'.
Yet she is so light toned a black.
My great grandmother was a full Cherokee, my family was always embarrassed to admit.
Oprah doesn't look like any all African I ever saw. Maybe a Muslim, but not an all african.
She had a heart to heart with Lisa Marie, some time back.
I wonder what they talked about?

"Any serious program about genealogy, especially dealing with celebrities, cannot leave out a slave-owning ancestor."

My guess is that they don't want to leave out too many slave owning ancestor details for white celebrities, but they also will not shrink from leaving out white slave owning lineage for black celebrities....

So far, Gates is batting 1,000.
But, instead of taking his concerns to PBS or WNET, which is the show’s producing station, Gates took them to Lynton. Gates explained it’s the first time one of his show’s “guests” has asked to edit anything out of a broadcast and that several previous “guests” had discovered they too were descendants of slave owners (including Ken Burns and Anderson Cooper) but they had not asked to censor or edit what the show discovered. But this guest, Gates noted, is a “megastar” and he asked Lynton “what do we do?”
Lynton advised taking it out if no one knew about the situation, but warned it would get tricky if word got out that Gates was editing material based on this kind of sensitivity.
The CEO was correct.
The episode featuring Ben Affleck aired October 14 on PBS. No reference to Affleck’s slave-owning ancestor was made. Finding Your Roots is financed, in part, according to Gates, by the Public Broadcasting Service and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
When the media got wind of Gates’ email exchange with Lynton while poring through the WikiLeaks cache late last week, Gates issued this statement:
The mission of Finding Your Roots is to find and share interesting stories from our celebrity guests’ ancestries and use those stories to unlock new ways to learn about our past. We are very grateful to all of our guests for allowing us into their personal lives and have told hundreds of stories in this series including many about slave ancestors—never shying away from chapters of a family’s past that might be unpleasant. Ultimately, I maintain editorial control on all of my projects and, with my producers, decide what will make for the most compelling program. In the case of Mr. Affleck — we focused on what we felt were the most interesting aspects of his ancestry—including a Revolutionary War ancestor, a 3rd great–grandfather who was an occult enthusiast, and his mother who marched for Civil Rights during the Freedom Summer of 1964.
It had the crackle of confederate money. So too did PBS’ initial statement:
It is clear from the [email] exchange how seriously Professor Gates takes editorial integrity. He has told us that after reviewing approximately ten hours of footage for the episode, he and his producers made an independent editorial judgment to choose the most compelling narrative. The range and depth of the stories on Finding Your Roots speak for themselves.
PBS now says it’s been investigating the situation since Saturday.
PBS’ ombudsman says WNET reps told him Gates’ team had made them aware they wanted to remove the slave-owner reference from the segment but positioned it as a redundancy concern, given the other profiles that already had dealt with slave-owning ancestors. WNET said it did not learn of Affleck’s request, or Gates’ email exchange with anyone at Sony, until the press began calling last Friday. PBS, meanwhile, says it knew nothing of the editing — or the Affleck kerfuffle or the Sony email exchange — until it too started hearing from press on Friday.
“Any serious program about genealogy, especially dealing with celebrities, cannot leave out a slave-owning ancestor,” PBS’ ombudsman scolded this afternoon. “It also seems clear from the emails that Gates knew the stakes involved in terms of PBS credibility yet went with the advice from the Sony executive to squelch the factoid about a slave-owning ancestor and try to keep it quiet.”
The emails, Getler concluded, “make clear that Gates understood the serious journalistic and credibility issues at stake and the risks should this become public” but did not inform PBS.
“As for PBS, they just struck me as asleep at the switch when this broke,” the ombudsman said. “It was pretty apparent from the leaked emails what had happened, and to put out a statement that said essentially nothing and very quickly looked pathetic, as if they were hiding something.
“So PBS, in my view, deserves all the articles and TV reports that have PBS in the headline. PBS invests a huge amount of responsibility, and faith, in those who produce programs for it. They need producers to bring to their attention critical issues, especially ones that may reflect poorly on what people expect of PBS or might damage their credibility.”
Late today, Affleck wrote on Facebook that he did not want a TV show about his family to include a person who owned slaves because “I was embarrassed” and “the very thought left a bad taste in my mouth.” He said he lobbied Gates “the same way I lobby directors about what takes of mine I think they should use,” explaining, “this is the collaborative creative process.” Affleck said he think it’s important to remember that PBS’s Finding Your Roots “isn’t a news program.”
 

THE MENU KITCHEN DESIGN SINKS TASKS AND WORK STATIONS

This is just my conclusion.
Even in a medium sized so called galley kitchen, and even with only one cook, it is a good idea to have two sinks, one dedicated to clean up but also available at times for food prep, and another dedicated to prep, not cleanup.
 
The reasons for this are complicated, but they involve tasks involving sink and work station conflicts, even for one person, and situations where two or more people simultaneously use one kitchen. 
 
The sinks and their respective work stations need to be floor plan separated somewhat, so that either one or two or more cooks can work simultaneously at different tasks, cleanup or prep, or simultaneously at food prep tasks, at different work stations, each adjacent to a sink.

If you have only one sink, and it is large enough, I suggest dividing it up into two sides, one side generally for cleanup and one side for prep, say with two separate basins, or a sink already divided into two basins. Obviously, which is used for which depends on what sits around each of them, on either side, work space, dishwasher, stove, oven, dish storage, etc.

AMMAN WORLD CHANGING SILENCE

"However; some so called world changing things can and do go away in some places; and will increasingly in some others."
 
The Israeli Embassy is attacked in Amman, Jordan, and no official reports have been forthcoming.
 
A lot of very advanced technology is available to tell this story...

SEVERAL THINGS THE WEST SHOULD HAVE LEARNED DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION

and long before, throughout the course of history, really:
 
You don't enslave members of foreign civilizations and races, and then import them into where you want to live. Enslaving them where they are is fine.
 
You don't indenture them as servants within your own civilization, but it is fine to have them as servants while you are in theirs.
 
You don't accept too many, of any kind, race, religion, or ethnicity, as immigrants, ever.
 
One classic example of how this was considered best practice by a great power was Spain up to 1492. It had expelled the moors and the Jews by that date. That probably was considered by them a great success: 'Let them determine themselves somewhere else!'

Of course, a whig interpretation of history will find terrible problems with this course of events, but that is Whig history for you.

LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY HUNTINGTON'S NIGHTMARE SCENARIO CIVILIZATIONAL WAR AND ORDER

The Clash, pb p 312, 1997, was way way too rosy, in retrospect.

JULY FUN COINCIDENCE DIFFERENT SEAS SAME PLAYMATES

 Friday, July 5, 2013

RE BBC CHINA RUSSIA JOINT DRILLS SEA JAPAN

The inevitable.
Leverage? Not too much.

 

Saturday, July 22, 2017 

RE CHINA BALTIC NAVY DRILL WITH RUSSIA

What do you think that means?

Just a fun outing in a rather cold body of water?

Global citizens out together?

 

selfie for the day

Image result for lee marvin public domain images

DOMESTIC POLITICS VERSUS THE BIG PICTURE

DK has an interesting post discussing red versus blue statistical trends.
 
I want to allude once again to the 800 pound gorilla statistics against which these domestics pale into utter insignificance:
 
The West, and the US, are totally outstripped, populationally, and civilizationally opposed, by an enormous mass of very desperately poor people, in different, and mutually hostile, civilizations, scattered across the world.
 
These folks won't vote either for or against either of our so called parties here.
 
They don't really care, deep down, in their jungles, plains, savannahs, and deserts, in their cities and towns, in their hearts and minds, who gets elected to what here or why.
 
They have already moved, and will continue to move, rather, as tsunamis, against us, as against an obstructing, inanimate object, a foreign land mass.
 
You can kid yourself about that, but for only so long, now.

If the world were flat as a breakfast pancake, how much of it could the West, now, get, and for how long, keep?

Less and less and less.

Breakfast of champions. Smell the coffee.