BOOMERBUSTER

BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO

Sunday, May 27, 2018

TIME MAGAZINE GREASING YOU ALL DOWN FOR CHINA NEW INVESTMENT LANDSCAPE

Special Feature BR.
Ng: not a vowel in his last name...and only two consonants.
Why not drop the g? Albert N, or just N for short.
Walker, China 'a classic example of American corporate structure'
'The speed of innovation might scare a lot of countries...'

It's not just an investment landscape, baby!

Great for American investors to have a large, ancient, powerful, innovative, xenophobic, alien, enemy to invest in!

THE MENU RISOTTO PAELLA LEFTOVERS IMPROV

You can use leftover chicken, sausage, and shellfish, and their slop, for this.
Saute a fair amount of arborio rice with a handfull of my drained pickle relish, and olive oil, for several minutes until rice getting brown. Splash in some dry Marsala.
Add some water, and after 5 or so more minutes, throw in whatever you have. You could even toss in leftover crumbled hamburger!
Saute until rice is done, say another 5 minutes, but don't either add too much water, or let it burn. Stir in grated Parmesan just before finishing cooking.

MELTDOWN MELTING POT GLOBALIZATION

INDIAN ECONOMISTS MICKEY MOUSE DUMB DUMBER INEQUALITY

Are night lights on earth captured by satellites from outer space a good way to measure inequality?
Economists Praveen Chakravarty and Vivek Dehejia certainly believe so. They acquired images grabbed by satellites from the US Air Force Defence Meteorological Satellite Programme. These satellites circle the earth 14 times a day and record lights from the earth's surface at night with sensors. They superimposed a map depicting India's districts on their images, allowing them to develop a unique data set of luminosity values, by district and over time.
Using data generated by the night lights, they studied of 387 of 640 districts in 12 states. These districts account for 85% of India's population and 80% of its GDP. Some 87% of parliamentary seats are in these districts. Using the novel methodology, the economists documented income divergence in India.
Most of India is dark at night because there is little economic activity going on. But the delicate tracery of lights as seen from space also showed that the states are becoming more unequal between and within them.
Some 380 districts in 12 states were on average just a fifth as bright as the big cities of Mumbai and Bangalore.
Also, 90% of all the districts are just a third as bright in the night as the top 10% of all districts. And the ratio has worsened between 1992 - a year after India embraced economic reforms - and 2013.
While the pre-1991 years show a modest trend towards convergence of income between different states, the years after show widening divergence. By 2014, the economists found, the average person in the three richest states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra) was three times as rich as the average person in the three poorest states (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh).

This inequality is higher than before Gandhi!
Independence, and Gandhi democracy, actually set India back! According to these economists.
You have to trust economists!
These poor bastards would have been so much better off under the British. Trust me.  

Saturday, May 26, 2018

GLOBALIST ANARCHISM CIVIL LIBERTARIANISM

I just want to spell this out for the challenged rightists. 

These two doctrines or ideologies or forms of action lead to globalization, they are not an escape from it, really.

Why is that? I will let you figure it out.

TIME MOYO MS MORE GLOBALIZATION PLEASE

DPhil, St Anthony's College, Oxford, Milner Group incubator
'Protectionism's false promise...'
'Public policy has not allowed full globalization a genuine chance to lift all boats'...This is the liberal bull I have pilloried by discussing just what genuine full globalization would mean for the Wealthier Western nations' average citizens' median or average income under convergence now long under way.

Same old nonsense, but aggressive re global policy targeting so called optimal, very large scale, migration levels.

She wants a lot of unhindered migration of perhaps billions of poor unemployed people of color into rich countries, regardless of cultural, linguistic, or religious backgrounds.

That's her way of getting greater political stability, democracy, and equality, everywhere. She doesn't like policies which promote American home ownership, claiming it should instead have been spent on infrastructure here, although her larger agenda is for economic growth mostly elsewhere anyway. 

One ill concealed subtext implication is that more fully global average citizens of color would never be able to own a home, even on a very very small American scale, anyway, under global income convergence. She doesn't even want to hint at touching that convergence subject, although she rejects, as I do, the importance or relevance of globalization benefiting mostly the very rich, the typical liberal economist's bogey a la Piketty and Krugman.

I'll ask again, how much equality do you think you want?

Here's another closely related point:

Remember, in her utopian global democracy, people of color would vastly, vastly, outnumber those Western Europeans lacking much color at all. Call them colorless... 

How much global democracy do you think you want? How much do you think your children, or their children would want?

Think about it. That is the last ditch ideological conundrum for the so called Boomer Generation, but I don't lay all, or even most of  the blame on it, as some S & H Whig sophists do.

RE DK CURRENT POST DIALOGUE

What is a State Department for, anyway?

I don't know.

Do you know what Commerce does?

No. But who cares!

THE MENU LEFTOVER RIBEYE BONE AND RISOTTO

Getting ready to chow down... 

Looked out, fans parking in front for folk concert in the park...

Two quite large, but yet muscular, girls got out, one dressed boyish. Both with short hair. The other, high rise tank, low cut short shorts, so low as to display her butt crack...

This visage put me off my lunch...

SELFIE

Clown takes part in a parade during Peru"s Clown Day celebrations in Lima, Peru May 25, 2018

Friday, May 25, 2018

OLD CELLO

Friday, December 2, 2016

DK GREAT BRIEF RETROSPECTIVE ACCOUNT

Friday, May 04, 2018

James Comey's history of the recent United States

James Comey's memoir, A Higher Loyalty, sits deservedly at the top of the best seller list.  Naturally the press comment on the book has focused on his six-month relationship with President Trump--almost leaving out, among other things, his long account of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of her own email server while Secretary of State.  My readers, I know, count on me for different kinds of perspectives than those they get from their news feeds, and I do not intend to disappoint them.  Born at the very tail end of the Boom generation, in December of 1960, Comey's career put him at the heart of a number of critical developments during the last 30 years.  He worked in the office of the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (then Rudy Giuliani) from 1987 to 1993, served in the office of the US Attorney for the Eastern District of  Virginia from 1996 to 2001 (after a brief stint with a Senate Whitewater Committee), became US Attorney for the Southern District of New York in 2001 and was Deputy Attorney General from 2003 through 2005.  Then he went into the world of private law firms and the Bridgewater Associates hedge fund, emerging, according to Wikipedia, with a net worth that has reached $14 million.  (He does not mention this in his autobiography and talks a lot about the strain of raising a large family on a government salary.)  In 2013, Barack Obama surprisingly appointed him as FBI Director, and the rest, as we say, is history.  I may discuss some of the lessons of that experience next week.

Comey dealt intimately with each of our last three Presidents.  He has a lot to say about them all, and about some (though hardly all) of the major achievements and crises of their administrations.  That is where I want to focus, because the book set me thinking, once again, about how we need to think about the last very turbulent 18 years of American history.

Serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, Comey found himself in the middle of two huge constitutional crises:  the Bush's Administration's attempts to continue an illegal NSA surveillance program instituted in the wake of 9/11, code named Stellar Wind, and the Justice Department's efforts to withdraw its endorsement of the torture of Al Qaeda detainees.  These were issues that the leaders of the Bush Administration cared about very deeply.  Reading Comey's account, I was reminded of their ruthless determination to change US law and US foreign policy, and of how much lasting damage they did to our country.

The people behind both Stellar Wind and "enhanced interrogation" (hereafter "torture," its right name), were Vice President Cheney and his counsel, David Addington--with President Bush, it seems, in their wake.  After 9/11 they convinced themselves that black sites and torture were both necessary and effective tools in the war on terror--overruling the views of the more experienced FBI, CIA, and military intelligence, who knew that while torture might get prisoners to say whatever you wanted them to hear, winning the prisoner's trust was the only way to learn the real truth.  The problem, of course, was that the Bush leadership didn't want the truth--they wanted evidence to back up their post-9/11 world view, which held Saddam Hussein responsible for 9/11 and favored war to eliminate non-existent weapons of mass destruction.  To get the memos they needed from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Council, these men--led by Addington--adopted the view that the Executive Branch was the rightful judge of its own powers.  This view has a long history--Thomas Jefferson, for instance, enunciated it in retirement--and John Yoo of the Office of Legal Counsel confirmed to me that it informed his and his colleagues' work when I met him years later at an academic conference.  George W. Bush, echoing Richard Nixon, echoed it in a meeting with Comey.  In 2005, after Alberto Gonzales had moved from the White House to the Justice Department, Comey and some of his colleagues tried to convince him to refuse any further authorization for enhanced interrogation. They failed.  Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of torture was unconstitutional.  But when Barack Obama became President, he simply declared that the United States would no longer use these techniques, while taking no action against those who had done so.  That amounted to a statement that the US would use torture on prisoners only under Presidents that wanted to do so--and now a woman who ran a torture site under Bush is poised to become the Director of the CIA.

Comey talks rather guardedly about Stellar Wind, the NSA's surveillance program that was eventually revealed by Edward Snowden.  He indicates quite clearly that in practice, it went further even than had been authorized or than has ever come to light.  Cheney and Addington were behind it as well, and when Comey and his colleagues tried to stop it, Cheney told him that he, Comey, would be responsible for the deaths of thousands.  The White House successfully scared the New York Times out of publishing stories about the program during 2004, ensuring that the American people would not be able to vote on it in the next election. 

I could not read these accounts--including the story of how Comey and a very sick Attorney General Ashcroft headed off Gonzales's attempt to get the AG to approve an extension of Stellar Wind from his hospital bed--without thinking about how the same spirit dominated other aspects of Bush Administration policy, especially abroad. They immediately saw 9/11 as an excuse to change the rules of domestic surveillance and of prisoner interrogation--and also to change the rules of how the United States behaved abroad.  Now we would undertake wars of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether or not the UN and our NATO allies approved of them.  If the facts about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction did not fit their world view, they would impose other fact.  "We're an empire now," a high Bush official--almost certainly Karl Rove--told reporter Ron Susskind in 2004, "and we create our own reality," leaving the "reality-based community" struggling to keep up.  Like so many other Boomers of every political stripe, the men of the Bush Administration sought to remake the world according to their vision of what it should be.  And even though their assumptions were wrong and their policies disastrous--they succeeded.  The wars they began in Afghanistan and Iraq still continue.  The Obama Administration applied the supposed pro-democracy policy of regime change they had tried in Iraq in Libya and tried to do it again in Syria, with disastrous consequences.  Guantanamo is still open for business, and Obama increased drone strikes, another aspect of our new endless war. 

That was not all.  Bush also cut taxes twice while spending $1 trillion on those wars.  That left the government without necessary resources when the economic crisis of 2008 struck.  The appointments of Roberts and Alioto to the Supreme Court led to the Citizens United and Heller decisions, both b 5-4 votes, which have profoundly changed American life.  Cheney's energy task force seems to have put us on the road to fracking and energy independence.  Whether we like it or not, the Bush Administration did what Lincoln and FDR had done before them--used a crisis to work towards a new vision of the United States.  They could not, in fact, create a better world, because their vision was not based upon reality, but they changed the world nonetheless.   And the two Administrations that followed have done remarkably little to undo the changes they made.

One of the more striking features of Comey's book is his great praise of his contemporary Barack Obama (nine months younger than he), whom, he tells us, he never voted for.  Comey has thought a lot about leadership during his career, and he regards Obama as a superb leader because he had a knack for listening and for empathy.  He was intelligent and self-confident enough to get information from subordinates and listen to opposing views.  George W. Bush, Comey makes clear, preferred to bully subordinates into assent, and Donald Trump is of course almost totally impervious to facts.  But Obama simply did not have Bush's determination to change the government and the world.  He wanted to put partisan rancor aside, rather than use it to build a new Democratic coalition and a Democratic agenda.  He decided not to turn the enormous anger over the financial crisis against the big bankers--and allowed the Tea Party to turn it against him.  He thought he could appeal to values shared across the political spectrum--and he could not.  The Congressional Republicans and the Trump Administration are busily unraveling what remains of his legacy.

The Trump Administration is busily undoing what is left of the New Deal and Great Society, removing old and new restraints on corporate behavior.  It has also added a war on immigrants at home to an endless war on Islamic extremists all over the world, but that effort, to date, is nowhere near large enough to make a real dent in our illegal population of 11 million or so immigrants.  It seems that we may emerge from this great crisis, as we did from the Civil War and Reconstruction, with a large minority of inhabitants without political rights.  In the late 1800s those people were freed slaves; now they are illegal immigrants.

I saw clues scattered through Comey's book about why Boomer leadership has been such a failure.  Boomer leaders are self-centered, narcissistic, and focused above all on their own political well being.  Such was Rudy Giuliani, Comey's first government boss, of whom it was said among his underlings, "the most dangerous place in New York is between Rudy and a microphone."  Such were the Clintons, and Hillary's reliance upon tribal lawyers and suspicion of outsiders did a great deal to bring her down in the end.  Barack Obama--who is not a Boomer--was different, but he could not overcome the inertia of the Boomer political class.  Focused on individual self-expression in their youth, Boomers have created an individualist paradise in which we can no longer work together across political or tribal lines.  This is not unprecedented--the aftermath of the Civil War was quite similar.   But its effects will last for a long time.  Comey's book helps persuade me, once again, that the new transformation of the United States that Strauss and Howe predicted more than 25 years ago is nearly over.  We are stuck with the world my generation made.

RE DK THE LEFT IN THE AGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION

"...No antidote for these evils will be perfect, but history tells me that trying to wipe them off the face of the earth will not work.  Future generations, I hope, will develop new forms of activism based upon reality.  Plenty of historical evidence suggests that such activism can work." DK

Activism can be either left, right, something in between, or some combination, and can most often result from some fourth or fifth thing, like war, famine, depression, plague, etc.

Activism is unfortunately never, ever, based on reality. It is not so much that there is not a very rough approximation to reality possible, at any one time, but rather that various activisms at that time are not based on it but rather on other things in isolation.

There is such a thing as an approximation to historical reality, but it is seldom or never seen, and evidence of it is interpretation rather than evidence.

New forms of activism in the past have not only not been based on reality, but also have long shown themselves to have lead to disaster, most especially for their ostensible beneficiaries.

Thursday, May 24, 2018

THE AGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC DEVOLUTION

Bentham criticizes Blackstone's Whiggish Whig Tory synthesis from the point of view of utilitarianism..... 

RUSSIA DIALOGUE XI'S KIM IN THE BOX

Putin: (choking with laughter) Xi really has em going! Bad Kim, then Good Kim, then Bad Kim! 

Putin Aide: (Ready to burst with mirth) He's getting more out of this than we got out of their stupid election!

Putin: That's the only thing that makes me a little miffed! I hate to be upstaged screwing with the Yankees!

(Both roar.)

Just keep sending Chinese peasants who cross our border to  the Siberian work camps!

(Both roar again.)

GLOBALIZATION LAST DOMINO OF REFORMATION BUT ONE

Globalization will prove even more disastrous than The Reformation, for many of the same reasons.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

TRUMP BOMBING DIALOGUE

Trump: Bomb North Korea, and bomb China too, for good measure.

Trump Military Advisor: We Can't bomb China, because they make all our stuff.

Trump: OK, bomb North Korea, then Bomb Syria, and bomb Russia too, for good measure instead of China!

Trump Military Advisor: We can't bomb Russia because they will bomb us harder, and because they buffer us from China!

Trump: OK. Then bomb the hell out of the Middle East!

Trump Military Advisor: We get a lot of oil from there.

Trump: OK. Then bomb Africa!

Trump Military Advisor: Why?

Trump: I have to bomb something!

Trump Military Advisor: OK. How about Mexico, or South America instead?

Trump: Fine. Africa, Mexico, or South America!

Trump Military Advisor: Thank you, sir!



PUTIN UNISEX BATHROOM DIALOGUE

Russian Home Secretary: Comrade Putin, the intellectuals now want unisex bathrooms.

Putin: I know. Start building unisex bathrooms in some fringe facilities here. Anyone who uses one will then be sent to Siberia! Also designate all bathrooms in Siberia as Unisex.

Russian Home Secretary: Comrade, you may recall that we eliminated bathrooms in Siberia. We said they could use the ground, of which there is plenty.


MILITARY STRIKE DIALOGUE

So, why are we attacking Russia?

They reject gender neutral bathrooms, a violation of Russians' human rights!

How do you know that?

I read it in David Leonhardt's column!

LEONHARDT'S LIBERAL BLACK PHOENIX STACEY ABRAMS GAVIN GRIMM

If young and nonwhite Americans start voting more often, it could transform politics.

Why not ram the weird Democratic issues up Leonhardt's and Abrams' asses?

It would not be, or end up,  in directions, any directions, really, that you, or I, or the LGBTs for that matter, would or should want to go, trust me.

New LGBT democratic directions would be like, say, Gavin Grimm....

The Gavin Grimm ruling is likely to just frost the LGBT butt.... 

They're not likely to get real close with either grass roots, so to speak, negroes, or latinos, even though they all start, as the likes of Leonhardt now hopes, to vote their asses off!

A great thing, for me.

Monday, May 21, 2018

THE REAL PALEO MENU

WHAT REMAINED OF THE NEANDERTHALS AND LEPRECHAUNS

Some few escaped this fate...Prince Harry, for example, shows evidence of a Neanderthal progenitor...

The Original Position, Locke, Rawls

Re: The Beginner's Guide to the Paleo Diet, 
NerdFitness