"Another unfortunate species of chicken bred thirty years ago has also come home to roost in the Republican coop this week: the idea that politicians' sex lives are newsworthy. Republican lawmakers, it seems, received emails accusing their leader, Kevin McCarthy, of having an affair with a Republican colleague. She denied it, but there is no way of knowing whether it played a role in his decision to give up the speakership. I have no idea whether the accusation was true, but a government composed of people who have never been guilty of an affair would be chosen on a very poor basis. I for one do not want it." DK
Nothing new here, really, just another layer of the artichoke of the media market place being peeled back.
Terms search Lorch, Drew Pearson fallacy, muckraking
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Sunday, October 11, 2015
RE THE KENNEDYS
Only a fool and his brother both get themselves killed by double crossing the mob.
This is not a profile in courage, but rather in hypocrisy and stupidity.
See Real Lace re what the so called Irish aristocracy thought of the Kennedys.
They are only now saying there was another shooter re RFK.
This is not a profile in courage, but rather in hypocrisy and stupidity.
See Real Lace re what the so called Irish aristocracy thought of the Kennedys.
They are only now saying there was another shooter re RFK.
POSTSCRIPT TO THE LAST POST
The Russia China Alliance, one could see it coming a mile away.
What another enormous blunder.
The TPP, what a bad joke on all concerned.
What another enormous blunder.
The TPP, what a bad joke on all concerned.
RE RUSSIA SYRIA THE WEST AND THE REST THE SO CALLED LONG WAR
We blundered in 1917 1918 by not partitioning Russia at the time of the Revolution, rather than entering the war on their side. See Lansing's rationale, Wilson's, and ours, for entering the war, in 1917.
We blundered again in not pushing them back from Eastern Europe in 1944 1945, what I have called The Patton Solution, and thus in allowing them to develop and deploy nuclear weapons in 1948 1949.
We blundered again, in booming other hostile undeveloped and harmless civilizations to offset their influence during and even after the Cold War.
Regarding Russia we are toast.
Bobbitt and others have called it The Long War.
I call it a long series of blunders, and, in a sense a long surrender of Western Civilization.
We blundered again in not pushing them back from Eastern Europe in 1944 1945, what I have called The Patton Solution, and thus in allowing them to develop and deploy nuclear weapons in 1948 1949.
We blundered again, in booming other hostile undeveloped and harmless civilizations to offset their influence during and even after the Cold War.
Regarding Russia we are toast.
Bobbitt and others have called it The Long War.
I call it a long series of blunders, and, in a sense a long surrender of Western Civilization.
ONE COULD ALSO CALL IT FALLOUT FROM THE REFORMATION
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2015/10/re-perennial-political-fragmentation-dk.html
RE PARLIAMENTARY NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
"There is an obvious, though unlikely, solution to the situation in the House: the election of a new Speaker by a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats, together with an agreement to keep funding the government at current levels, forget about Obamacare and immigration, and leave Planned Parenthood on its own. That would be the equivalent of a Parliamentary National Government, such as Britain formed in each of the two world wars. It would definitely isolate the anti-government revolutionaries, and it would also force some Republican presidential candidates, in all probability, to support the deal. I do not expect it, but I I thought I would put it forward to introduce a ray of hope into perhaps the most hopeless American political moment that I have ever lived through in 68 years." DK
Wonderful forlorn suggestion.....
It seems to me that this horse left the proverbial barn, here, both ideologically and structurally, after 1776.
Wonderful forlorn suggestion.....
It seems to me that this horse left the proverbial barn, here, both ideologically and structurally, after 1776.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
THE TRI JANUS FACE OF LEFT AND RIGHT AND LIBERAL DK'S CURRENT POST AND MY REMARK
"They evidently feel no obligation to make our institutions work because they do not believe in them. Sometimes it seems that shutting down the government isn't their nightmare, but their fondest dream...." DK
The vestige, what is left of the impoverished left here, never believed in the US, but was a utopian globalist movement beginning to end.
The liberal, and conservative, international globalist economic and political, order came to look very suspiciously at the nation state itself, as well as, ultimately, Western civilization itself, sadly enough, much less an Anglo American Western civilizational remnant offshoot.
This has been the tragic legacy of the Cecil Rhodes project, as it morphed down through the 20th Century and beyond.
It did not start out that quite way, but that is how it has ended.
Rhodes thought there was only one civilization, the English one, really. He wanted to lift all peoples into an advanced state, under enlightened English tutelage.
Blunder.
The vestige, what is left of the impoverished left here, never believed in the US, but was a utopian globalist movement beginning to end.
The liberal, and conservative, international globalist economic and political, order came to look very suspiciously at the nation state itself, as well as, ultimately, Western civilization itself, sadly enough, much less an Anglo American Western civilizational remnant offshoot.
This has been the tragic legacy of the Cecil Rhodes project, as it morphed down through the 20th Century and beyond.
It did not start out that quite way, but that is how it has ended.
Rhodes thought there was only one civilization, the English one, really. He wanted to lift all peoples into an advanced state, under enlightened English tutelage.
Blunder.
Friday, October 9, 2015
RE PERENNIAL POLITICAL FRAGMENTATION DK CURRENT POST
"This morning on NPR I heard an unlikely source point to another problem: the failure of authority at all levels of our political system. For 40 years, a commentator (whom I did not initially identify) said, we have had political reforms decentralizing our government, legislative bodies, and political parties, and making it harder and harder for anyone to exercise effective leadership. The Speaker of the House no longer enjoys power over committee assignments and campaign funds, and thus has no way to bring his troops into line. The commentator,. who stated this very telling point without a hint of partisanship, turned out to be David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Rather than dismiss the remark based upon its source, I take all the greater pleasure in commending Mr. Frum for his insight because he happens to be on the other side of the aisle." DK
This trend is neither new, or uncharacteristic, in this country, unfortunately.
Weak central government, and strong localism were built into the constitution, unfortunately.
This trend is neither new, or uncharacteristic, in this country, unfortunately.
Weak central government, and strong localism were built into the constitution, unfortunately.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
BOBBITT HOWARD
http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=3387
Just a little bit of Bobbitt dreamland here, from 2003.
I still have to watch Howard's rejoinder, but it is really intramural, in a sense .
Just a little bit of Bobbitt dreamland here, from 2003.
I still have to watch Howard's rejoinder, but it is really intramural, in a sense .
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Friday, October 2, 2015
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/portrait-of-leonardo-da-vinci-by-lattanzio-querena-1768-1853-149324249-58ade0133df78c345be03db4.jpg)
Thursday, October 1, 2015
RE MUDSLINGING
"Mccarthyism, mudslinging is typical tactic of right, as right has more emphasis on self interest, the left is more altruistic in basic principle." Ed Boyle
Interesting that he refers to mudslinging. Muckraking seems to have been reserved as a term for Democratic publicists, apparently, but not exclusively. Anderson, Pearson, etc.
Similar principles however apply. McCarthy was a politician who was really a glorified muckraker, so to speak, though not a quote publicist except through others, and his committee. He had quite a bully pulpit.
Take a look at Wikipedia, muckraker.
See, here, Drew Pearson fallacy, Lorch, etc.
Interesting that he refers to mudslinging. Muckraking seems to have been reserved as a term for Democratic publicists, apparently, but not exclusively. Anderson, Pearson, etc.
Similar principles however apply. McCarthy was a politician who was really a glorified muckraker, so to speak, though not a quote publicist except through others, and his committee. He had quite a bully pulpit.
Take a look at Wikipedia, muckraker.
See, here, Drew Pearson fallacy, Lorch, etc.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015
RE PARTY PARTY
Republican: "Climate change is a fantasy."
Democrat: "Cap and Trade is the answer, whether yes or no."
Democrat: "Cap and Trade is the answer, whether yes or no."
Sunday, September 27, 2015
RE COURT CONUNDRUM NYT
Many dreamy Americans do not know it, but this has been the rule, rather than an exception, in the criminal justice systems in virtually all states. There are fifty of them. Think about it.
Saturday, September 26, 2015
DIALOGUE NYT
President: "Theft of commercial property is off limits."
Chief thief: "I agree."
Terms search: Never, in the history of human conflict........
Steingart has a passage p 163 echoing my remark, "Never in the history of human conflict...."
"BUSINESS EXECUTIVES ARE LOATH TO DISCUSS..."
"Never before in history has there been such a massive transfer of knowledge--without war or conquest-- from one social group to another"
Chief thief: "I agree."
Terms search: Never, in the history of human conflict........
Steingart has a passage p 163 echoing my remark, "Never in the history of human conflict...."
"BUSINESS EXECUTIVES ARE LOATH TO DISCUSS..."
"Never before in history has there been such a massive transfer of knowledge--without war or conquest-- from one social group to another"
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
RE THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT
One has to study a work like this to really begin to see why and how WWI, and then WWII, rolled out in the manner in which they did.
Americans have long been taught, more or less, that they were really mainly German wars of aggression; that both wars were more or less caused by Germany, and that the other powers were more or less innocent victims of these aggressions.
Michael Howard even took this position in "Prussia In European History," "1945-End Of An Era?", and elsewhere, although some of his writings, throughout, appear at times to grudgingly acknowledge a more complicated picture of causes and responsibilities.
Professor Kaiser also adhered to this kind of account in Politics & War, p 323, although he, too, I believe, was in a position to know better.
Nothing could be farther from the truth, when one looks at behind the scenes accounts and at the geopolitical situation.
Kennan wrote some good works on the 19th Century diplomatic and historical run up to WWI.
The Crimean and Franco Prussian Wars were not merely isolated aberrations, either.
Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, gives a fuller behind the scenes account of responsibility, going back into the 19th century, than found elsewhere.
Americans have long been taught, more or less, that they were really mainly German wars of aggression; that both wars were more or less caused by Germany, and that the other powers were more or less innocent victims of these aggressions.
Michael Howard even took this position in "Prussia In European History," "1945-End Of An Era?", and elsewhere, although some of his writings, throughout, appear at times to grudgingly acknowledge a more complicated picture of causes and responsibilities.
Professor Kaiser also adhered to this kind of account in Politics & War, p 323, although he, too, I believe, was in a position to know better.
Nothing could be farther from the truth, when one looks at behind the scenes accounts and at the geopolitical situation.
Kennan wrote some good works on the 19th Century diplomatic and historical run up to WWI.
The Crimean and Franco Prussian Wars were not merely isolated aberrations, either.
Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, gives a fuller behind the scenes account of responsibility, going back into the 19th century, than found elsewhere.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
RE WESTERN POLITICS
Professor Kaiser thinks a great era in Western politics came to an end in, say, 1980, "...It isn't: a great era in western politics came to an end several decades ago and a new one is not in sight....."
I say it came to an end in, say, 1890....
That is a rather big, but not so very big, difference.
I say it came to an end in, say, 1890....
That is a rather big, but not so very big, difference.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
NYT EUROPE SHOULD SEE REFUGEES AS A BOON AND FROM WHERE
How about say 20 M Chinese some day? Would that be a boon?
How about 10M Africans? Would that be a boon?
I have argued that we should perhaps take all Israelis, before they are, eventually, slaughtered in the Middle East. That may not be a good idea, either, and certainly not a boon to the US, but I do not have a better one. Imagine demanding Putin, or China, or India, take some Israelis, say 5M? or Poland, 2M ? Or Turkey 2M?
How about 10M Africans? Would that be a boon?
I have argued that we should perhaps take all Israelis, before they are, eventually, slaughtered in the Middle East. That may not be a good idea, either, and certainly not a boon to the US, but I do not have a better one. Imagine demanding Putin, or China, or India, take some Israelis, say 5M? or Poland, 2M ? Or Turkey 2M?
Friday, September 18, 2015
POLITICALLY THE VITAL CENTER THE HOLLOW CENTER
The so called vital center has turned out to be the hollow center of Western Civilization. It began in Europe. Very complicated really.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
RE NYT TODAY GETTING TO TRUMP'S LEVEL AS AN AMERICAN VOTER
"I want to see all the candidates' butts.
Then, I'll make a decision."
Then, I'll make a decision."
the menu
Re game birds, I recommend using Wolfert's recipes, and substitute snipe for quail wherever possible.
When I was a kid, we used to hunt for quail with beagles, but we also liked to go around lakes, while we were out there, and chase up snipe, with the jeep, with the windshield down, and just shoot at will when one rose from the swamp.
Snipe hunting would be a good thing for you to learn to do.
Google search snipe hunting, YouTube.
When I was a kid, we used to hunt for quail with beagles, but we also liked to go around lakes, while we were out there, and chase up snipe, with the jeep, with the windshield down, and just shoot at will when one rose from the swamp.
Snipe hunting would be a good thing for you to learn to do.
Google search snipe hunting, YouTube.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
the menu
Reading the "The Times" chapter in The Anglo-American Establishment, one needs a break, so demoralizing is the account there.
Why not advert to Wolfert's book The Cooking of South-West France.
I recommend her chapter on game.
Why not advert to Wolfert's book The Cooking of South-West France.
I recommend her chapter on game.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
RE REAL BLUNDERSHIP AND OTHER ISSUES OF DECLINE OF WEST
Here is a reference I picked up, rereading The Anglo-American Establishment:
Alfred Zimmern: Europe In Convalescence, 1922. You can read it at Archive.org
Of course, it turned out hardly to be a mere convalescence........
Wilsonian blundership, and the blunders of the so called parvenu, Lloyd George, among others.
It is also a wonderful account of the foibles of politics, and how it was transformed in the 19th and into the 20th century, of the problems of industrialization, academic specialization industrialization, the decline of the integrity of the Press, the industrialization commercialization cooptation and compartmentalization of university systems everywhere, and other things.
Alfred Zimmern: Europe In Convalescence, 1922. You can read it at Archive.org
Of course, it turned out hardly to be a mere convalescence........
Wilsonian blundership, and the blunders of the so called parvenu, Lloyd George, among others.
It is also a wonderful account of the foibles of politics, and how it was transformed in the 19th and into the 20th century, of the problems of industrialization, academic specialization industrialization, the decline of the integrity of the Press, the industrialization commercialization cooptation and compartmentalization of university systems everywhere, and other things.
Monday, September 14, 2015
RE WALDORF ASTORIA
Google search: Waldorf Astor
An enthusiastic member, with his wife, after say 1930, of the Milner Group.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
RE ALL THE NYT LIBERALS ARE GLOATING OVER WESTERN EUROPE TAKING IN REFUGEES VERSUS EASTERN AND MUSLIM RESISTANCE
Remember what happened several decades after Europe was inundated with hundreds of thousands of poor ignorant Eastern European Jews, from Russia?
Take a guess.
How does the NYT feel about that wonderful civilizational globalizational integration?
Perhaps they say, "Why not give these refugees their own special holocaust in Western Europe eventually, too?"
In some ways, that makes sense, when you come from a sad heritage of perennial refugee dom.
My own view is that they should be required to remain in the Muslim world, whether they are Muslim, Orthodox, or Western Christian, just as Russia and Poland should have been required to keep their Jewish and other minorities rather than exporting them to the West, or, especially, (a British accommodation to Russia) to a Jewish no man's land, hardly a homeland, like Palestine.
Take a guess.
How does the NYT feel about that wonderful civilizational globalizational integration?
Perhaps they say, "Why not give these refugees their own special holocaust in Western Europe eventually, too?"
In some ways, that makes sense, when you come from a sad heritage of perennial refugee dom.
My own view is that they should be required to remain in the Muslim world, whether they are Muslim, Orthodox, or Western Christian, just as Russia and Poland should have been required to keep their Jewish and other minorities rather than exporting them to the West, or, especially, (a British accommodation to Russia) to a Jewish no man's land, hardly a homeland, like Palestine.
direct democracy and Facebook converge
Pretty soon you will be able to vote, instantaneously, on whether your next door neighbor should be able to go to the bathroom four times tomorrow, or only two times;
and on such things as whether China, or Japan, should be allowed to take over all of our military contracts, direct democracy voter override the so called low bid.
and on such things as whether China, or Japan, should be allowed to take over all of our military contracts, direct democracy voter override the so called low bid.
REAL LEADERSHIP MONEY IS THE CHEAPEST THING BILL CUNNINGHAM NYT
If you look at the motivations of the Milner Group, read Quigley's book, you see that these people were not motivated, at all, ever, by money.
Of course they, mostly, came from privilege, but that, for them, was a given.
That is what you call a service aristocracy.
One of the really big big things the colonists repudiated, as Bailyn noted many times, and have lacked, from the beginning, and forever after, was an aristocracy, and I would add, a service aristocracy.
This fact, that they, the Milner Group, as a group had little economic or financial sense, had tragic consequences, but that is another story here.
Maybe Lord Rothschild is a special case, but his financial activities, connected with the group, are hardly discussed by Quigley.
Of course they, mostly, came from privilege, but that, for them, was a given.
That is what you call a service aristocracy.
One of the really big big things the colonists repudiated, as Bailyn noted many times, and have lacked, from the beginning, and forever after, was an aristocracy, and I would add, a service aristocracy.
This fact, that they, the Milner Group, as a group had little economic or financial sense, had tragic consequences, but that is another story here.
Maybe Lord Rothschild is a special case, but his financial activities, connected with the group, are hardly discussed by Quigley.
RE REAL LEADERSHIP
Frederick could not have accomplished as much without the Prussian aristocracy, a service aristocracy, to back him.
Neither, later, could Bismarck.
Louis XIV, earlier, controlling but taking counsel with, the French aristocracy, most of whom. he insisted, attend upon him at court, a locus classicus.
Maybe someone will correct me, if this rambling remark is off the mark.
Neither, later, could Bismarck.
Louis XIV, earlier, controlling but taking counsel with, the French aristocracy, most of whom. he insisted, attend upon him at court, a locus classicus.
Maybe someone will correct me, if this rambling remark is off the mark.
RE REAL LEADERSHIP
A good, modern example, of real, although in several important ways tragically flawed leadership, can be found in the Milner Group. Additionally, this Group accounted for only a segment, and not the whole, of the British aristocracy of the time.
WHAT WOULD REAL LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE?
Let's go back to that question.
If you look at past leadership, it has generally tended to be based on some class or group that was traditionally socially politically and or dynastically prominent in the state or civilization, not really or actually on any one single individual.
Some traditional examples are aristocracies, general staffs, ministries, etc.
If a single leader emerged somewhat, he traditionally came from such a class or group. If the leadership class or group broke down, he could come from anywhere.
Modern examples of the breakdown of a leadership class or group, and a so called real leader, emerging from elsewhere, are Hitler, Lenin.
If you look at past leadership, it has generally tended to be based on some class or group that was traditionally socially politically and or dynastically prominent in the state or civilization, not really or actually on any one single individual.
Some traditional examples are aristocracies, general staffs, ministries, etc.
If a single leader emerged somewhat, he traditionally came from such a class or group. If the leadership class or group broke down, he could come from anywhere.
Modern examples of the breakdown of a leadership class or group, and a so called real leader, emerging from elsewhere, are Hitler, Lenin.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
RE DK CURRENT POST WIDE VARIETY OF REASONS
Here's Randall Collins' current post first page:
"Everything in the human world has four aspects. They are easy to remember by putting them in four boxes:
The ECONOMIC box: This is a short-hand for the ways in which things are material, practical, or economic.
The POLITICAL box: Again a short-hand, for everything that involves power and conflict.
The SOCIAL box: the ways that people interact with each other, especially their emotions, rituals, and networks.
The CULTURAL box: people’s ideas and ideals about what they are doing.
Everything human has these four requisites. If one or more is missing, the thing will fail.
Success requires all four in the right amounts. What are the right amounts? We shall see."
RE DK CURRENT POST
"For a wide variety of reasons, which I cannot possibly take up today, it is less likely than at any time in my lifetime that either the government or the public could achieve a real strategic grasp of these problems."
Great sentence. Everyone who reads it, and stops to think in their whatever fashion, now may, or may not, think to ask, what reasons?
Kettle of worms really. Hard to answer that.
Whatever the reasons are, what are the solutions?
Here are some of the traditional candidates:
Make the www freer, and more open, (liberal international technological order) than we already blunderingly have? Not really....
Beef up NATO even more? Not really....
More Ridenour prizes? Not really..
More journalism as usual please? Not really.....
A little more McNeill Lehrerism? Not really....
More Fox News ism? Not really...
More Rush? Not really.....
Party reforms? Not really...
More congressional committees? Not really...
More presidential Committees? Not really...
Less government generally? Not really....
More government generally? Not really...
More trickle down economics? Not really...
More trickle out economics? Not really...
More free trade please (Terms search Brooks) ? Not really...
More globalization? (What about, then, a regional union, say bond politically with China in a 'PU' Pacific Union? Not really...
More American educational system? Not really...
How about credential pyramiding, say post post doctoralism? Not really...
Why not let MNCS, especially the big defense finance and technology ones, dictate strategy? What do you think?
Turn the government over to actors, even very famous ones?
Not really......
How about not only universal suffrage, from age, say, 14, they're precocious, but direct democracy for all of them, on every political issue state, local, international, and federal? Not really.......
Great sentence. Everyone who reads it, and stops to think in their whatever fashion, now may, or may not, think to ask, what reasons?
Kettle of worms really. Hard to answer that.
Whatever the reasons are, what are the solutions?
Here are some of the traditional candidates:
Make the www freer, and more open, (liberal international technological order) than we already blunderingly have? Not really....
Beef up NATO even more? Not really....
More Ridenour prizes? Not really..
More journalism as usual please? Not really.....
A little more McNeill Lehrerism? Not really....
More Fox News ism? Not really...
More Rush? Not really.....
Party reforms? Not really...
More congressional committees? Not really...
More presidential Committees? Not really...
Less government generally? Not really....
More government generally? Not really...
More trickle down economics? Not really...
More trickle out economics? Not really...
More free trade please (Terms search Brooks) ? Not really...
More globalization? (What about, then, a regional union, say bond politically with China in a 'PU' Pacific Union? Not really...
More American educational system? Not really...
How about credential pyramiding, say post post doctoralism? Not really...
Why not let MNCS, especially the big defense finance and technology ones, dictate strategy? What do you think?
Turn the government over to actors, even very famous ones?
Not really......
How about not only universal suffrage, from age, say, 14, they're precocious, but direct democracy for all of them, on every political issue state, local, international, and federal? Not really.......
RE US DROPS CHARGES NYT
Rather ridiculous, really, in the larger scheme of things at this late date.
Terms search: game over, smell the coffee.
Terms search: game over, smell the coffee.
Monday, September 7, 2015
POWER AND PLENTY
The authors hardly have even a sniff of civilizational issues, and then they pooh pooh them, at the end of the book.
Civilizational issues biting them on the butt, throughout their account really, and they don't even feel the bites.
They call it North and South, developed and undeveloped.
That's as far as they go really.
it's an economist's ideological agenda, crossing civilizational lines, to human welfare in general.
They say things like 'China and India are returning to their natural great power weight'.
Neither China nor India ever had a great power weight for very long. They each had large sedentary fragmented populations.
That made them potential victims, not great powers.
For much of the time, each of them was dominated by neighboring or remote civilizations, the Mongols or Manchus, Europeans or Japan, for China, and the Muslims, or British, for India. Most of the time they merely wallowed disjointedly, and played defense against invasion or encroachment.
Civilizational issues biting them on the butt, throughout their account really, and they don't even feel the bites.
They call it North and South, developed and undeveloped.
That's as far as they go really.
it's an economist's ideological agenda, crossing civilizational lines, to human welfare in general.
They say things like 'China and India are returning to their natural great power weight'.
Neither China nor India ever had a great power weight for very long. They each had large sedentary fragmented populations.
That made them potential victims, not great powers.
For much of the time, each of them was dominated by neighboring or remote civilizations, the Mongols or Manchus, Europeans or Japan, for China, and the Muslims, or British, for India. Most of the time they merely wallowed disjointedly, and played defense against invasion or encroachment.
GLOBALIZATION AS THE CAUSE OF WAR NOT AS THE CAUSE OF PEACE
Let's focus on this theme for a while here, what do you say.
Back in the days of mercantilism, they could not really even distinguish trade from war. "What matters this or that reason..." At least they, back then, had a clearer concept of the relationship than contemporary specialized economics and other experts in other fields now do. Sad commentary on knowledge, specialization, and history.
"As General Monck put it with military directness in demanding a renewal of war against the Dutch in 1662: ‘What matters this or that reason? What we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have.’ Trade meant wealth, wealth enabled one to wage war, war made possible yet more trade: who could resist the lure of this logic?”
“The British Way In Warfare: A Reappraisal”, The Causes Of War, Howard, 1983.
Back in the days of mercantilism, they could not really even distinguish trade from war. "What matters this or that reason..." At least they, back then, had a clearer concept of the relationship than contemporary specialized economics and other experts in other fields now do. Sad commentary on knowledge, specialization, and history.
"As General Monck put it with military directness in demanding a renewal of war against the Dutch in 1662: ‘What matters this or that reason? What we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have.’ Trade meant wealth, wealth enabled one to wage war, war made possible yet more trade: who could resist the lure of this logic?”
“The British Way In Warfare: A Reappraisal”, The Causes Of War, Howard, 1983.
the London menu for Bupe
Basturma sausages, roast lemon potatoes, Greek salad, pita, baklava (optional), red w, brandy.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
RE RANDALL COLLINS' CURRENT POST MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2015/07/four-requisites-for-success-or-failure.html
RE POWER AND PLENTY GLOBAL CONVERGENCE AND WAR
The last half century has been an unparalleled period of trade globalization and convergence. With that I would agree wholeheartedly.
They see fitful but substantial, and hopeful, but far from full blown laissez faire, convergence, between North and South, in the last half of the 20th Century.
What does this mean? It means, really, that the Western growth has been steadily declining, relative to growth of the Rest, for the last half century plus, since WWII. West is North, Rest is South, in their vernacular.
They think this relative convergence (they do not talk much about it as a relative decline of the West, but some passages acknowledge this candidly) of global trade is a good thing for everyone, everywhere. ' Human welfare ' is how they put it.
They implicitly have the concept of limitless growth; although they discuss limits of growth, and market and frontier saturation, this fact does not seem to alter their model of globalization growth as a universal good, and a force for peace, even given gathering materials scarcity and environmental degradation.
What does it all really mean?
"The great wars of history....are the outcome, direct or indirect, of the unequal growth of nations...." Mackinder
They see fitful but substantial, and hopeful, but far from full blown laissez faire, convergence, between North and South, in the last half of the 20th Century.
What does this mean? It means, really, that the Western growth has been steadily declining, relative to growth of the Rest, for the last half century plus, since WWII. West is North, Rest is South, in their vernacular.
They think this relative convergence (they do not talk much about it as a relative decline of the West, but some passages acknowledge this candidly) of global trade is a good thing for everyone, everywhere. ' Human welfare ' is how they put it.
They implicitly have the concept of limitless growth; although they discuss limits of growth, and market and frontier saturation, this fact does not seem to alter their model of globalization growth as a universal good, and a force for peace, even given gathering materials scarcity and environmental degradation.
What does it all really mean?
"The great wars of history....are the outcome, direct or indirect, of the unequal growth of nations...." Mackinder
Saturday, September 5, 2015
POWER AND PLENTY TRADE AND WAR
They do talk about globalization as a cause of war.
This is how they put it: The deglobalization, breakdown of global trade, caused by WWI lead to or caused WWII.
Deglobalization causes war, globalization prevents war, that is the implicit thesis of the passage, and of the book.
This is how they put it: The deglobalization, breakdown of global trade, caused by WWI lead to or caused WWII.
Deglobalization causes war, globalization prevents war, that is the implicit thesis of the passage, and of the book.
POWER AND PLENTY
Paints the economists' perennial picture of their concept of the relationship between post mercantilist war and trade: Good trade liberalization and globalization, hampered intermittently in its march toward universalization by imperialism and wars.
War is the bad boy, trade is the good boy.
I want to paint for you a different picture, a darker picture, of the relationship between war and trade, both before and after mercantilism.
War is the bad boy, trade is the good boy.
I want to paint for you a different picture, a darker picture, of the relationship between war and trade, both before and after mercantilism.
RE MIGRATION
Blocking mass movements of people from other civilizations into yours is not a bad thing.
There are 122 million Mexicans, who are basically American Indians Civilization, not European.
There is a reason why The Great Wall Of China was built. It was built to block the Mongols, and then the Manchus, who could otherwise simply ride, or even walk, into China.
That is also the primary reason why China turned away from its coastal border, and from engagement with long distance oceanic trade after 1500, in order to concentrate on the Mongol threat which had been ever present for hundreds of years.
There are 122 million Mexicans, who are basically American Indians Civilization, not European.
There is a reason why The Great Wall Of China was built. It was built to block the Mongols, and then the Manchus, who could otherwise simply ride, or even walk, into China.
That is also the primary reason why China turned away from its coastal border, and from engagement with long distance oceanic trade after 1500, in order to concentrate on the Mongol threat which had been ever present for hundreds of years.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
SPEAKING OF CIVIL WAR BLUNDERSHIP
Lee almost took the Capitol, early on. Well, maybe a slight exaggeration, but the South could have, at that point it seems. Lee 20 miles from Washington...the South was still engaging armies, not taking or destroying cities.
What an idiotic thing, to force the secessionists, with much better military men in charge down there, to that extremity.
What an idiotic thing, to force the secessionists, with much better military men in charge down there, to that extremity.
RE FOIBLES OF THE CIVIL WAR AND REAL BLUNDERSHIP
"After the Republican Party largely abandoned the freed slaves after 1876,..." DK
It had been the Republican Party, after all, 12 years before, which had freed them, as a war measure, under Lincoln.
Sad commentary all around, really. freeing the slaves as a war measure was real blundership, not real leadership.
Not really about real leadership, any where you turn, back then.
It had been the Republican Party, after all, 12 years before, which had freed them, as a war measure, under Lincoln.
Sad commentary all around, really. freeing the slaves as a war measure was real blundership, not real leadership.
Not really about real leadership, any where you turn, back then.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
RE TRADING AMERICAN INTERESTS
Power And Plenty, p 455 has a nice passage reprising how the US moved toward free trade already in 1930, and the Presidency, fatefully, took over trade from Congress, The U.S. Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, 1934. It happened under FDR.
Of course, Congress was no place to lodge responsibility for anything requiring long term leadership, such as trade or industrial policy.
But then, neither was the Presidency.
The Japanese had MITI, Chalmers Johnson. We had nothing that even came close.
New Deal free trade was for liberal, peace loving, regimes everywhere, to fight the global Depression, not just for Depression era Americans.
In the wake of other consequences flowing from WWI, this free trade would lead, in decades to come, to a frightful series of developments both environmentally, commercially, and militarily, including the industrial military and agricultural booming of most of the then underdeveloped world, and the hollowing out of the US industrial base, first by Japan, then by everyone else with low wages.
Of course, Congress was no place to lodge responsibility for anything requiring long term leadership, such as trade or industrial policy.
But then, neither was the Presidency.
The Japanese had MITI, Chalmers Johnson. We had nothing that even came close.
New Deal free trade was for liberal, peace loving, regimes everywhere, to fight the global Depression, not just for Depression era Americans.
In the wake of other consequences flowing from WWI, this free trade would lead, in decades to come, to a frightful series of developments both environmentally, commercially, and militarily, including the industrial military and agricultural booming of most of the then underdeveloped world, and the hollowing out of the US industrial base, first by Japan, then by everyone else with low wages.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Monday, August 31, 2015
RE A HECKUVA JOB krugman THE REAL LEADERSHIP THEMES
This article, unfortunately, misleads much more than it informs.
Misleading in so many ways....
Misleading in so many ways....
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)