Friday, May 30, 2014

Tumblr Pansies, I Yuck Your Yums

"You have a foot fetish... Jesus... How many heels are in your closet... What are these pics of women's feet doing in your room... I thought I knew you. Sicko."

Don't yuck my yums is the LGBT, LGBT-friendly, and Tumblr pansy phrase for don't judge my fetish or persuasion as gross or bad. This theme or meme is a way of "validating sexual experience and diversity through a lens of enthusiastic consent". This is how fragile the minds of Millenials are. God forbid anyone say that something they do has a negative value. Everything must not only be tolerated but praised. All deviation must be approved and considered normal because they do not want to feel they are the horrible oddball like back in grade school when they were still wetting the bed and sleeping with a teddy at 12. The Internet only reinforces their deluded view of their fetish. They can find an Internet echo chamber community of that they brag is "50,000 members on the web", which means out of 7,000,000,000 people, they found a tiny sliver of humanity as broken and pozzed up as they are. There are 1.2 million hoarders in America. No one is calling that normal.

They can say it all they want, but they will not stop the thought. People will find their kink weird, and yes, consider them a freak. Even worse, they will be an oddball who is a whiner. These freaks have academia and the mainstream on their side constantly telling us that every deviant behavior is normal while men wanting younger women is unnatural. TIME magazine is on the trans* train now. These Faberge egg young adults can not take the status hit.

Furries? I yuck your yum.
Foot fetishists?  I yuck your yum.
Got a thing for midgets?  I yuck your yum.
Balloon fetishist?  I yuck your yum.
Cuckold fetishists? I yuck your yum.

*Hi Tumblr-bots who found this. Yeah, I know pedantic arguing is I linked to a non-Tumblr blog that used the phrase yet mocked it as a Tumblr pansy thing. It's the Tumblr culture. You guys are like an echo chamber of dysfunction and degeneracy.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Watch the Thai Coup's Aftermath

On the periphery of the American Empire is where the first moves against democracy and towards Caesarism will take place. These changes are fantastic to watch not just for the event but for the reaction in American media. Like smearing Modi after his win in the Indian elections, framing the Thai coup and what is revealed as facts is telling. The press is keen on hiding the main cause and portraying the coup in a negative light without legitimacy. Democracy is the only way, and voting must be restored as soon as possible that will provide progressive approved results for any regime to have legitimacy.

Media organs like Vox and the Daily Beast are there to tell you everything a cool Internet reader like you would need to know about the Thai coup. Vox claims to tell you everything you need to know with its cards. In ten cards, they explain the historical problem of coups in Thailand, the problem of a king who has any power, and in a really odd way, never explains the immediate cause: corruption. Thailand has seen its corruption score drop in recent years. The ruling party is a billionaire who used populist slogans to amass enough votes from the illiterate masses to win election after election. With democratic electoral supremacy established through vote buying, leadership has acted in a pocket lining manner (sound familiar?). The Daily Beast tells readers all they need to know without mentioning corruption either; it is just good old fashioned government programs that people are angry about. They even use a Romney citation to describe the regime's opponents.

The Daily Beast article reveals an incredibly smart truth moment about democracy that the writer did not even realize they were unveiling:
The Shinawatras’ enemies maintain that democracy is about governance and conduct as well as winning elections, and they insist that the Shinawatras won by essentially bribing the electorate with promises of “stuff,” in much the same way Mitt Romney accused President Obama of winning reelection.
The enemies of the regime's leadership believe that governance and conduct matter!?!?!??!!? It is not just winning elections. All that matters is winning. That is legitimacy. This is the mind of Vox/Daily Beast types. Thaksin and his cronies won an election, let them run all over society and loot. To its credit, the New York Times mentions the corruption issue. Opposed to its coverage of the Tea Party, the UKIP or LePen's rise, the Times approves Thailand's populist movement. The Times mentions the growing problem in Thailand amongst the educated who have "become skeptical of the notion of one person, one vote, which they say hands too much power to uneducated provincial voters who support Mr. Thaksin." Those are dangerous words for print because, God forbid, what one could say of the illiterates' voting preferences in America. Running the voting results of borderline retarded Miami, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Detroit would crush the Democrat margin of victory and lie of the left being the party of smarties.

America's Secretary of State and even the useless UN Secretary-General spoke out against this coup. The coup supporters seem to want a return to voting but with changes. What will they be able to get away with? A limited franchise, voter minimum requirements, maybe an indirect voting system like Argentina's 19th century voto cantado or something else might be in the cards, and if America allows it. Watching geopolitical events of the last year, Thailand's elites should press for all they can to set up a system for stability and their control now, just ask Assad. Maybe the Thai military is talking to the Egyptian military because they have moved off the radar as they kill off anyone they deem a Muslim extremist. Like a mystery film where the thrill is not in finding out the reveal but in wondering how the hero will react to finding out the secret, it would behoove Americans with an eye on America's electoral future to watch what happens in Thailand.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Pushing Amnesty With the Perfect Illegal

The ruling class is really painting thick layers of red rover red rover let everyone come over comprehensive immigration reform. The I-35 corridor series in the New York Times kicked off with a horrible start in Laredo, Texas. Relying on places can be dodgy, especially when a reader may know something real about the town. The media needs people. The Times feels it has found the perfect illegal with Mario Hernandez. SWPL readers will automatically associate the name with the Mexican immigration issue, and can push out of their mind the other Hernandezs around them. It is laughable as Mr. Hernandez is an incredibly unique individual in relation to the problem of illegal immigration (forget legal), but the media will still march on proclaiming him as an example of the pitfalls of our system that needs reform now.

Mario Hernandez has "deep roots" in the US. He was a child who came over from Cuba in the mid '60s. He is not an illegal because of the unique immigration story of Cubans in America, and as a Cuban, he is also part of a high achieving immigrant group compared to other Hispanics. The Times is using him as a symbol though with a follow up on his ordeal, including his patriotic zeal in voting in elections since 1976 despite not being a citizen. In their rush to use a symbolic immigrant in limbo who is a perfect angel, we see how broken our government is. He gets jobs with government agencies. He registers to vote in multiple states. He is employed in multiple jobs. No one catches on that he is not a citizen. This Mario is the symbol of a system desperately needing reform, and reform in the progressive manner. It will not be for more strict enforcement, because Mario is a perfect example of innocent illegal immigrants. Pay no attention to the thousands of criminal immigrants the government releases back on the streets.

Our system is not intended to catch everything. It is meant to hoover in more immigrants to eventually birth kids that will automatically be citizens and potential Democrats. At the least, they will be cheap labor and demand for social services at churches. Mr. Hernandez did live a spotless life: no criminal past, worked all his life, married, raised son who served in the military and just wanted to take a cruise in retirement. He is not a symbol for the illegal experience, but for the Cuban-American experience. The horrible sham of using Mr. Hernandez as a symbol for the plight of illegal immigrants that should cause reform is that he is the exception. The other Mr. Hernandezs in the US are more likely creating billboards for the Mexican drug cartels warning Texas police officers of death fi they do not take bribes. Sailer sees what the Times misses in the Mexican tattoo shops that mimic the cartel veneration of Santa Muerte. If we do reform immigration, it will be per the Times and their cronies wishes. There will be no efficiencies and tracking improvements to help a case like Mario Hernandez, because for every spotless record Mario it will help reward, it would find ten tattooed Marios to deport.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Illegitimacy Good, Questioning Modernity + Careerism Bad

The NY Times editorial board must have some on ice like I do with blog posts. I mean they must lack topics to push opinions on with our boring world. Editorials on ice is the only way I can explain this garbage editorial on fixing Japan's declining birth rate. This is a problem Japan's had for years, and the decline in births has been going on for decades. This is a global problem outside of Africa, and it is worst in Japan. Rather than a series on the self-annihilation of the developed nations and the slowing of births in developing nations not inhabited by Africans, the NY Times just publishes an editorial on Japanese birth rates, shoehorning their American social programming message "more social dysfunction".

One would think the Keynesian geniuses at the Times would use this as an opportunity to push exotic schemes to create incentives for people to form families and have multiple children. Japan's debt bomb will eventually go off one day, but for now the Keynesians could have fun. Why do they need population growth? Is it just to push the almighty GDP and their social welfare system? Japan may shrink and settle to a size that is appropriate for their society's goals with those having replacement level and above children becoming the heirs of the next phase in Japanese society.  The editorial could have suggested financial mechanisms to induce births. A Japanese version of the earned income tax credit, which would be just more government spending for the Japanese to print more dollars to cover. There is a short recognition of government spending on social welfare spending, but this does not target the two people making the decision to have the child directly. Instead, we get this brilliant plan:
One big reason for the low fertility rate in Japan is that women are increasingly postponing marriage in order to work longer and build a career. Over one-third of women between the ages of 30 and 34 are unmarried, and in Japan’s conservative society, marriage remains the socially accepted condition for having children.
Only 2 percent of Japanese babies are born outside of marriage, and there is still a strong stigma attached to such births. The vast majority of single mothers are divorced, as divorce has become more socially acceptable over the past generation or so. Public policies, like the tax laws, continue to discriminate against mothers with children born out of wedlock compared with divorced mothers with children.

This would be incredibly smart if the Times had not just published an epic article on the new American class divide being marriage and having kids in vs. out of wedlock. The dysfunction from single motherhood is so widespread that the progressive media can only fight a fallback option now and avoid mentioning how they pushed "single moms can do it as well as married parents" for decades. Japan's birth rate might bump up, but so would countless socioeconomic dysfunctions.

This is all the media mandarins have because first they would have to recognize the odd thing about "women are increasingly postponing marriage in order to work longer and build a career". Does that statement "work longer" mean they'd all automatically opt out? Does the Times wonder why Japanese women cannot find the time to find a mate? How do men do it? What is the magic trick men perform where they can build a career and find a spouse? Why would the Times solution of illegitimacy help these working women when in fact, it would complicate their lives? As women are the gatekeepers on reproduction "my body, my right", a series on this from the Times would discuss the dark side of the career gal in the city dream they push.

There is something else, even deeper. The scare articles last year were that the Japanese were not having sex anymore. Then other articles said no, they are having plenty of it. Business Insider recycled this no sex panic theme this year. They are having sex, just not making babies. This is hedonism and modernity turned to 11. No sense of continuing the chain of your culture. No sense of leaving something for the future that is part of your family and society. A frivolous existence of mass consumerism and focus on their individual experience. The media cannot train their eyes down that path and create a discussion of that phenomenon because for the SWPLs reading the Times, that hits a little too close to home.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Modi Evil Conservative Bad Juju Symbol

April 15th 2009 - Modi organizes a Tea Party protest with special signs funded by the Koch brothers.

November 2000 - Modi confuses old Jewish voters in Florida, tricking thousands into voting for Pat Buchanan.

1995 - Modi calls a fat Jewish girl up and says "Monica, you should apply to be an intern in the White House"

1994 - Modi killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, drove his car to OJ's house and dropped a bloody glove out back.

Winter 1986 - Modi sends a young woman to meet retired US Senator and presidential frontrunner Gary Hart. That woman's name: Donna Rice.

Spring 1980 - Modi makes a phone call, "Helicopter mission over the desert at night across a nation you've been arming for years? It'll be a breeze President Carter!"

1968 - An 18 year old Modi interns at hotels across America as a forward scout for the thousands of Indians who will buy hotels and motels in the US. MLK and RFK are both shot at a motel and hotel. Just sayin'.

November 22, 1963 - Shots ring out in Dallas and no one pays attention to the little 13 year old Hindu on the grassy knoll.

Himalayas 1930s - Nazi hikers attempt to trek up various mountains. Random drops of semen are left behind. Over a decade passes before a Hindu woman becomes pregnant to give birth in 1950 to a little Nazi Modi, formally named Narendra Modi.

The media has been doing its best since the Indian election to signal that Modi is bad. These datelines are blurbs the media wishes it could use and not be laughed at.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Obama Is Not Rare Political Talent

Oh the glee that the right wing is exhibiting as President Obama's incompetence and fumbling grows is on display on many fronts. They cackle at the number of scandals, both of great and small importance, that pile up, causing one to wonder if the variety of scandals actually helps distract people. In these articles, they still do not get it. It is not the scandals that matter. It is not Obama's actions that matter. All that matters it he number of voters on one's side and who counts the votes. Yes, he is incompetent and governs poorly, but it does not matter in our democracy.

Buried right in the article that you can imagine the writer crossing his arms and nodding with a smug expression after hitting publish is this gem:
The emerging narrative of Barack Obama, the one that actually comports to reality, is that he is a rare political talent but a disaster when it comes to actually governing.
This line reveals the stupidity. How is Obama a rare political talent? I'm being serious. The media cannot see that he has a passive-negative style nor can they admit that he is the product of the media and Axelrod-Emanuel's machinations in 2008 and 2012. How many insider books and biographies can be printed that paint him as a self-obsessed manic-depressive who hates the job? Anyone going to catch on but Steve Sailer? President Obama fumbled in 2008, and was bailed out by the media crowning him over Clinton and then a financial crisis to seal the deal. Obama foolishly went to lobby for Chicago to get the Olympics when the deck was stacked for Brazil. He acted like a petulant child at the climate conferences. Obama campaigned for Corzine, the VA governor race in 2009, Martha Coakley in 2010 (all losses), but then avoided campaigning for his old Senate seat to remain Democrat in an incredibly tight election. He caved on a tax-spend deal even before the Tea Party wave Republicans were in office. The defining picture of the OBL raid wait makes him look like an extra, not the C-in-C. He flubbed the debates, but secret tape of Romney saying "47%" gave him a great propaganda line even if the concept was true.

Tell me what are his talents snarky columnist?

1. He is black but not threateningly black. Gay rumors about him sound too plausible.
2. "He speaks so well".
2a. He could get the benefit of low expectations for intelligence so that when he read speeches full of clichés and empty platitudes, white media members could gush.
3. He is the one black politician, if not only, who earned a state wide seat that had no track record of massive corruption that the Democrats could push.
4. He had a Harvard degree.
5. He could be called the cool black guy to SWPLs and the black man that black woman had wished they had married or had as a son so they turned out at generational highs to save his hide in 2012.

That is not talent. Those are a series of traits. There is no talent to being the whitest black man in the public eye since Bryant Gumbel. That is not hard when you are raised by whites, have few if any black acquaintances growing up, and attend elite schools. His talent is not talent. His defining feature is that he could inspire the turnout, the media chose him over Clinton and his handlers could work marvelous campaigns. He is not a rare talent, but a rare being: the non-threatwning, arugula eating, eloquent black guy still married to a black woman. Cliff Huxtable come to life.

For these neocons to admit that, they would have to admit that these politicians are selected and that all that matters is the turnout. Commentary is a part of this system, so they cannot pull the curtain back and explain how their sword touches a politician's shoulder deeming him worthy of national attention. President Obama is a symbol for his voters and a figurehead in our system. Why else would the mainstream media gush over Elizabeth Warren (female alternative to Clinton) and Julian Castro (first Hispanics president) and hint at the White House in the future? Governors Brian Sandoval and Susana Martinez do not count (republican). We have long since moved beyond positive policies or effective governance. Quick: what was the major legislative achievements in 2013? Can you name one? All that matters is who won the last election and who wins the next. In his moment, Obama is the right combination to get the right number of votes from just enough people.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Selecting Commencement Speakers

What the hell is going on with American colleges and commencement speaker boycotts? Any speaker is a target by the ruffians of any college. It is quite pathetic that any small group of students can prevent a paid speaker, as well as an indictment on the universities not having a grasp on security and control. Must be too busy penciling in raises, benefit bumps and pension feathering to actually govern the university. Who spoke at your graduation? Does it really matter? Senator Arlen Spector spoke at my sister's. Platitudes, some flattery for the parents, and well wishing but it was nice to say a US Senator spoke there. Cornell in spring of 2002 had Danny Glover speak at convocation, not graduation. There were no protests because the protests happened at speaker selection committee level.

Being seniors during 9/11, we knew we would be remembered as the "9/11 Class". Alumni were victims of the attacks. There were apocryphal stories of students receiving calls from people in the Towers during classes. Dubious, but you always wondered. All my professors cancelled classes that week except the British visiting professor. When the committee got together, a solid group of students wanted Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani to be the convocation speaker. Unfortunately, the committee had too many cathedral trainees who could not set aside petty politics to recognize the moment. Scratch Rudy.

Cornell reached out to President Bill Clinton. His wife had kicked off her senate campaign on campus, but Bill wanted big cash. Who could meet prog political demands but have name recognition. Danny Glover. Now after Glover accepted, Clinton came back saying he would do it for free, but we could not turn baxk on Glover's acceptance. That spring Glover spoke at convocation, and he sounded off. He repeated himself. My father joked on him in our section to small laughs, repeating Glover's line that " african-american girls are menstruating before the age of age". Still gets laughs at my parents' house.

After the convocation, my family took pictures at some nice spots then made our way to Willard Strait Hall for the committee refreshment reception. My aunt and I got a picture with Glover. Why was his speech off? He appeared drunk but did not smell of alcohol. Our guess: pills slurred his words. No one protested him but they should have for "Gone Fishing". He is taller than me ao it is Hollywood magic that he and Mel Gibson look remotely the ame height in their buddy cop franchise.

Commencement speakers have a screening process, so the polite kids of my school protested then. At these colleges, they screen and select their speakera carefully. The problem is the student body has changed. Protesting a speaker is a meaningless act and attention seeking. The world will not change, but it becomes a protest nugget for later recall when the graduate becomes a lifetime activist tool. Cathedral foot soldiers have to have origin stories. Taking on the big, establishment speaker is quite the fake feather in an Occutard's hat.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

NY Times Starts Immigration Corridor Propaganda Series

The corruption of the drug trade in Mexico and possibly in the US, if the press bothered to look, would earn Pulitzers. Our media would rather push the narrative rather than expose the truth. What is out there with the cartel wars crushing the Zetas over and over, the Sinaloa-USG connection and Chicago would be extremely interesting paths to walk down, but that would be problematic for the regime. If we are going to talk about the border and Mexico, it must be on immigrants just looking to become American and for a better life. The recent NY Times article on Laredo is laughable in this manner. If it is any indicator, we know it will be SWPL mental junk food oh hopeful Mexicans in Texas, hateful natives and cheery Somalis in Minnesota.

The article is dripping in sentimental notions of the immigrant experience. They lead you off with a story from a school. Everyone loves kids.
“What does independent mean?” she asked at the end of the passage. “Alone?” one student responded. “Free?” another said.“As you know, a lot of people come to the United States from other countries,” she continued, referring to the early English colonists. “Do you know why?”“Los van a matar"(they will be killed), a girl with a ponytail said. “People come from Mexico because there’s no jobs,” another student said. Suddenly, everyone was engaged and shouting — “To be safe!” “In Mexico, they steal your organs and sell them!” — until a petite girl near the front quietly added: “They want a better life.”

Mexico's unemployment is 4.8 percent. These kids mouth the same platitudes that liberals give with the touching final statement being about a better life, what a coincidence. The Times is already priming their readers to think that gosh, even these little kids can see the simple yearning to be free and safe that is causing this flow of immigration. Any in depth reporting on Mexico? No. Moving on.

These immigrants want to set up roots. Border patrol has become tougher though, starting after 9/11 because damn the USG for caring about the border at all after terrorists attacked the nation and the border is a giant weak spot. These immigrants are not migrants though, they care and are setting up shop.
Fewer Laredoans now go south to visit friends or shop, while more from Mexico land here, staying longer instead of just visiting or moving on. Some are desperate and willing to accept lower wages. Others push their children into public schools, setting them up with distant relatives who sometimes apply for food stamps if the children were born on the American side of the border, leading to complaints that Mexican families are more interested in benefits than work.

People have a kid on our side of the border, which makes the kid a citizen. They then set their kid up with distant relatives (wait, the environmental effects must be awful), and sometimes apply for food stamps. Worst of all, people notice this and complain about the easy to see abuse of our immigration and welfare system. Why did you notice racist? Interesting thing throughout the article is the stressing of permanent roots and settling down and permanency. The Times wants to signal to people that there is no changing this situation. Just as easy as a dumb law can "make" a person a citizen by birthplace despite obvious predilections towards Mexico and abusing a system of handouts, a law can be made to remove said persons. This is incredibly comical in an article that mentions Laredo's near 30% foreign born population. They came here, they can be shown the door.

The article pays scant attention to the cartels that use Laredo as a huge point of entry, with the Nuevo Laredo (Mexico/Laredo (USA) river crossing as a main bottleneck.

But along with the legitimate trade — Laredo is the busiest commercial port of entry on the border, processing $98.5 billion in imports last year — comes whatever else the country desires or demands. Late at night, residents near the river often wake up to helicopters and squealing tires as drug smugglers try to outrun the American authorities. Immigrants, meanwhile, have come across in a variety of ways.Some have border-crossing cards that let them travel about 25 miles into the United States for up to 72 hours. Others were born in the United States, but stayed in Nuevo Laredo until the violence exploded about four years ago as the Gulf Cartel and the Zetas, rival drug traffickers, fought for territory. An unknown number have also come north as tourists or slipped across illegally.

Laredo has a ton of border incidents involving the cartels. Laredo has been trying to overcome a horrible reputation from the drug war. They have elevated crime numbers, and this is on the safer side of the Nuevo Laredo-Laredo duo. Attempting to close a business deal, my Texas coworkers demanded that any meetings be morning and lunch meetings because they refused to be in Laredo after dark. The Times article treats the police measures to protect the border and to respond to violence as obstacles and insurmountable. It is as if the need for a blended border town comes first ahead of beheaded citizens and Mexicans.

The numbers the Times cites are horrifying when viewed without the friendly school children (most who ARE citizens), the Mexican who gave his kids Anglo names and the happy civic festivities. The school is 99.9% Hispanic and 99.3% economically disadvantaged (poor?). The population doubled from 1990 to 2012. The city is 30% foreign born. It is wrong to notice the immigrants using welfare. It is wrong to question why the spigot is always turned on. It is wrong to yell "Go back to your own country" to opposing football teams because hey, their families came here 13 years earlier and had an anchor baby; they are AMERICAN! It is wrong to question if a city that is 30% foreign born could be seen as American. Expect this same digging for any positives and framing with children, when they get to Somalis living in Minnesota volunteering for jihad "back home".

If the Times has been harping on income inequality, the declining wealth of the middle class and working man, and the opportunities for minorities, why have these immigrants poured in from Mexico so much in the last 20 years? What is so horrific in Mexico that they are fleeing to live in a hellhole like Laredo that the Zetas used for their US entry point? Why would the Mexicans pile into an area to live at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder? Does Carlos Slim's 8%, soon to be 17%, share of the Times mean that reporting and investigating cannot be done? Stock prices are set at the margin, and I guess we know how the Sulzbergers feel. This series is about how immigration is changing America, conveniently hiding even 1980s America and avoiding mentioning how America already has changed. Since reporting will never be done on the real problems in Mexico these people are running from, how about we frame the idea of cities like Laredo in an entirely different way that is more fair to the reality of the situation. Running from a third world country, avoiding a war between competing factions, living on the welfare government charity of a foreign nation... Laredo is a refugee camp.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Middle East Clients + Petrodollar Up for Grabs

The sad state of American "state media" is that we must seek foreign media outlets for news the US media suppresses. Black on white crime, teachers molesting students, NSA spying and geopolitical issues are newsworthy in foreign outlets but not in the US. If they do make it, there is heavy filtration and framing to keep the progressive narrative intact. As international relations are about domestic politics, the media mandarins have to play up any gay or transgender angle despite it being the West that is out of step. There have been plenty of rumblings abroad, and it appears Middle East clients might be up for grabs, leading to the end to the petrodollar.

Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, recently stated that the US could not guarantee security for the gulf nations anymore. The New York Times coverage of the speech does not mention the lack of commitment from Hagel, which makes Sec. Hagel's remarks appear to be about the region coming together to get over fractures of the last few years. The following block quote is not referenced by the Times.
“Bilateral ties with the United States and American military presence are not enough to guarantee regional security,” US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel told a GCC ministerial conference in Riyadh yesterday. “America’s engagement with Gulf nations is intended to support and facilitate, not replace, stronger multilateral ties within the GCC.”

That is a pretty big step away from the Kissinger pledge for security and modernization if you keep buying oil only in dollars 1970s deal. This is important because US military might and patrols of commercial sea lanes are what make the petrodollar work. We are the muscle and the dollar is suppose to have a stable value that would discourage oil producers from demanding gold for oil like the old days. The papers say the US is on the brink of exporting oil. Weird how the US is still importing 9.7 mil barrels per day (crude oil + petrol products) with generational highs in domestic production and suppressed oil use due to an economic depression.

The Saudis are the key as they export so much oil, and they have been sending emissaries to China recently. The Saudis are mad at the US making nice with Iran. The Iran window ends in July, and the prospects do not look good. Iran took the window as an opportunity to strengthen ties to China and Russia, while telling their people over and over that the US had recognized Iran's right to enrichment and having a nuclear program. The Iranians have played this well, while current American friends Israel and the Saudis fume. Hard to see the gains the US made. It is similar to Egypt signing billions in military deals with Russia and planning joint exercises with Russia for the first time in decades. The military men in charge of Egypt do not trust the US, seeking other patrons.

Why should anyone trust the US? Letting Iran play the US like a violin helps none of our supposed allies. The US State Department and CIA moved Mubarak out when bread became too expensive, and has verbally supported the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy over the military's decisions. On top of all of this, the printing presses continue for the dollar devaluation crew. Our clients will look for new dance partners. Oil independence is an illusion. The US oil production is up thanks to technology and private land exploration, responding to the incredibly high price of oil. Those rigs produce far less per well, which means any drop in the price and they are not economical. Our media is there to constantly tell us oil independence is around the corner and that evil Putin hates gays and wants to reform the evil Soviet Empire. Good distractions from the real security concerns in play around the globe. Security, both physical and financial, may push our clients into other arms. When that happens, the petrodollar will be history and no amount of oil rigs will prevent the fallout.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Michael Sam Can't Lose

Courage. Courage is defined in our negative society as a gay football player coming out of the closet in a set up arranged by his handlers and the sports media right before the NFL combine, being praised in the sports media for it effusively, having anyone who even hints at your life or actions sent to the Gulag and fined, having the President congratulate you personally for being drafted at the very end of the NFL draft and now, getting a reality show, sorry, documentary for Oprah Winfrey's network OWN made to track your climb into the NFL. Courage is when a teen has to figure out when to tell his or her parents they are gay. My guess is that if a parent disapproves, the media is not there to shame them and then have them fined or fired by their boss. Michael Sam was a crafty guy with coming out, using the sports media and the cache to toy with teams. Sam is not a dummy. He knows in our current media and social environment that he cannot lose.

1. If Michael Sam proves his doubters and haters wrong, he plays for a decade and earns good money while being a real life spokesman for gays. Book for great money and lifetime of speaking gigs. Win
2. If Michael Sam proves his doubters and haters right and washes out immediately, he will be able to whine about the NFL culture not helping him, the pressure of being the 1st gay NFL player or the circus of it all. Michael Sam will write a book for good money and make the speaking gig circuit. It does not matter if it is a small college, their gay-straight alliance will want him, and that still pays cash. Win.
3. If Michael Sam plays a few seasons of meh play, copy the washout path but throw in some sports talk gig since he will be a special case (gay) and he actually played with the big boys! Win.
4. If Michael Sam gets injured and retires young, he can do all of the book and speaking tours with the added bonus of blaming his poor career on an injury. Win.

Sam has already whined that he should have been taken higher, using the gay excuse. Another first team All-American, Jackson Jeffcoat, was not drafted at all. Prove it on the field. What Sam has that no other 7th round draft pick has to fall back on is a special little tag (1st gay) that he gets to carry all his life for praise and rewards from progressive institutions. He has OWN following him with cameras, which he will be compensated for handsomely. No other rookie is getting that. Darn, those Christians will no accept him and those mean homophobes (lurking in the shadows avoiding fines and firings), but they do not run America's colleges, America's media and America's HR and sales departments who hire guest speakers for functions. Whatever path he takes, Michael Sam can't lose.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Comment or No Comment From Obama

One upside to the Obama presidency is that it hopefully has dashed the ideas Millenials and liberal voter blocs had about the power of the presidency. At this point, even blacks have to be feeling let down that he never "blacks up" on anything. Extremel low information voters may not get it, but how much is it them not getting it or them getting it but choosing not to care? Denial is powerful. A pattern with the bully pulpit under President Obama is the diminishing size of targets. Obama's general commentary resembles a gelded, browbeaten husband where he decides to comment on the dumbest or least important thing and remains mute on stuff that matters. Maybe the comparison is the dad who does not notice his oldest son being an oxy pill popper, his daughter's meth teeth but he sure as well go nuts over the weeds in his neighbor's lawn. Obama's selective commentary creates the opportunity for a fun game.

Russia discusses plans and actual execution of moving away from trade in dollars. While kicked out of the G8, that does not diminish Russia's standing in the international economic order. Anything that reduces the use and flow of dollars is a major deal in our financial situation. The possibility that G8 nations and other middle to large sized economies are taking steps to drop the dollar is important. Do we get a comment from Obama? No.

NFL spends the 249th draft pick in the NFL draft on an openly gay man. Sports fans roll their eyes at the focus on Michael Sam. Do we get a comment from Obama? Yes!
The President congratulates Michael Sam, the Rams and the NFL for taking an important step forward in our Nation’s journey. From the playing field to the corporate boardroom, LGBT Americans prove everyday that you should be judged by what you do and not who you are.  
Let us stop one moment to laugh at the irony in this comment from Obama. A president that no one would know if he were not half black is congratulating a 7th round draft pick that casual fans would not know of or have seen cry on the strategically placed television cameras that "you should be judged by what you do and not who you are. No one would know either of them if they were not gay black men.

China has been pretty busy. China calls Iran a strategic partner, placed an oil rig in what was seen as Vietnamese waters and is holding military exercises with Russia. China is really flexing their muscles, and whatever happened with that Iran sanctions thing? Has that backfired completely? Iran takes the window of sanction relief to sign giant economic and military deals with Russia and China, and Israel and the Saudis are flaming mad. Who exactly is the US picking up as a new ally or partner? John Kerry calls the oil rig actions provocative, but what does Obama have to say? Nothing.

Elderly owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Donald Sterling, asked his mistress on a taped phone call to not take pictures with some blacks. This mushroomed into a giant fiasco for the NBA. The media ran with this as the most racist thing in the world this month. Did Obama have a comment about this? Yes, many. In his words, Sterling made "incredibly offensive racist statements". I hope he is not listening to Jay-Z's albums then when he visits the White House.

In Syria, a nation where the Saudis and Qataris funded different rebels, and the US sent weapons for fighting as well as material, Syrian Christians are being killed daily. Some of the church's oldest communities and individual churches are being destroyed. This kind of death and destruction solely on the basis of religion, and with US being slightly culpable, could it, would it elicit some words from President Obama? No.

After years of back and forth religious conflict that will likely escalate to a civil war, a terrorist organization of Muslims kidnapped just under 300 girls in Nigeria. Would President Obama comment on the bigger picture problem in Nigeria? Would he mention the steady flow of religious attacks by both sides, and maybe even the after effects of Muslims from Qadaffi's regime that he had hired as mercenaries making their way back to Nigeria to do some damage? No, but President Obama did comment that it was "heartbreaking" and "outrageous". He speaks so well!

Just look at the desperation in this woman's eyes

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

African Women, HIV + NY Times Stupidity

If you pretend HIV is not a gay disease in America, then you can be shocked, surprised and confused as to why women make up a higher percentage of HIV infections in Africa than in the developed world. The NY Times goes to extremes to find out why this may be the case (parasites) without asking a simple question: what percentage of HIV infections are gays in sub-Saharan Africa? Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one but no one wants to believe it. Answering questions, or looking at phenomena, is much tougher when the narrative must be shoehorned into every piece of analysis.

The article starts off with a mystery that is so simple any kid who went through the HIV-AIDS scare of the late '80s-early '90s knows the answer.
While around the world a vast majority of AIDS victims are men, Africa has long been the glaring exception: Nearly 60 percent are women. And while there are many theories, no one has been able to prove one. In a modest public health clinic behind a gas station here in South Africa’s rural KwaZulu/Natal Province, a team of Norwegian infectious disease specialists think they may have found a new explanation. It is far too soon to say whether they are right. But even skeptics say the explanation is biologically plausible. And if it is proved correct, a low-cost solution has the potential to prevent thousands of infections every year. The Norwegian team believes that African women are more vulnerable to H.I.V. because of a chronic, undiagnosed parasitic disease: genital schistosomiasis (pronounced shis-to-so-MY-a-sis), often nicknamed “schisto.” 
What percentage of African AIDS cases are gays? Some more tap dancing is later in the article.
For years, theories have abounded as to why African women become infected with H.I.V.: for example, that they are more likely to have overlapping sexual partners — not always by choice — while women elsewhere have boyfriends or husbands in series. That rape, incest and domestic violence are rife in southern Africa, where the AIDS epidemic is worst. That syphilis and herpes are rampant. That impoverished, fatherless young women are forced to pay with sex for food, clothes, grades and even car rides. 
They get infected the same way first world women do, unprotected sex or IV drug use. No IV drug use, it must be unprotected sex. What is "overlapping sex partners"? Is this a euphemism for they have sex with multiple men, which puts them at risk of sex with a super spreader? I am worried I may commit a thought crime here, so New York Times tell me what is safe to think and say. Fortunately, the article does cite experts who doubt this theory. They point out the presence of the schisto parasite in regions with lower HIV infection rates. Anyone ask if the 60% of HIV infections are women lines up with other STDs that show more women infected than men (herpes).

Women make up more infections in Africa because the gay concentration in the developed world. They have problems in Africa like rape, lack of condom use and promiscuity. This parasite explanation is a joke. It does not stand up, but it is not meant to stand up. The theory is being selected and boosted in the Times because the Times wants you to see African ladies in the field and feel pity that a parasite is making them catch the HIV. Shucks, why are women 60% of HIV cases in Africa but much less elsewhere? Do not mention the gay vector to the disease being different in different regions. Cannot mention a negative feature to gays. Could it be rape, avoidance of condoms and promiscuity? No, do not mention that. Come on, what about rape? No, that is a cause but not enough of a cause to explain the numbers, plus we cannot mention the rape epidemic of southern Africa (the glorious rainbow nation). HIV causes the progressive media to play hopscotch often because the most afflicted are protected groups and it is usually a preventable disease. It is not the fault of the women. It is not the fault of rapists and men who cannot be bothered to use a condom (weird, African descendants are overrepresented in HIV infections in the US, too, hmmm). It is a bug. A parasite you cannot see, but you pick up simply by being outside. Oh cruel fates.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

GOP Alters Nomination Process, Establishment Wins

In an effort to alter their presidential nomination process yet make it worse, the GOP is adopting changes for 2016, trying desperately to blunt populist fever. If you needed further proof that we have a one party system with inner and outer party pieces, it is this suite of changes in the midst of the GOP establishment trying to wreck insurgent or grassroots campaigns in the heartland this year (Kentucky, Kansas, Nebraska). Establishment vs. Tea Party, where the Establishment is very much the party of business and government. These changes, as well as defensive measures take against the Tea Party and co-opting Tea party candidates, are the signal that nothing will change until external players force change.

In defense of these changes, the GOP is limiting the number of debates to six. I do applaud this as the Democrats first in 2004 created the twelve man field with too many debates, that the Democrats repeated in 2008 and the GOP took to heart in 2012. In reality, why not limit debates to candidates polling above 8%, which would destroy Bachmanns and Kucinichs from siphoning votes off of a frontrunner like them in an attempt to help the other frontrunner in exchange for a cabinet position (Michele Bachmann did this for Romney). The point about selecting the moderators is a good one as anyone who recalls George Stephanopolous asking about birth control repeatedly in a debate about domestic + economic issues. The media had to prepare the "War on Women" somehow. Those are two smart moves if debates are spaced right and moderators selected to discuss non-rainbow pride, non-contraceptives, non-gimmedats issues.

There is something weird to this, and here is where the blunting the Tea Party, populist bit comes into play.
After the first four states vote and the campaigns move into March, candidates would be awarded delegates on a proportional, rather than winner-take-all, basis. The scenario is designed to allow insurgent candidates the chance to stay competitive and prove their campaign mettle in larger states that might otherwise favor better-funded candidates.The early March window would, in theory, prevent a candidate from catching fire in the early states and then riding a wave of momentum to delegate-rich victories in expensive states such as Florida or Texas.
This could be the "No More John Kerrys" move. In 2004, John Kerry effectively won the nomination because he won Iowa. He kept winning because he wont he primary or caucus before, despite no one really expecting it or wanting it. In reality, this change to proportional keeps front runners who stumble early in the game because they can win proportional allocations, which states can mess with, and weather rough patches. The change allows states to be winner take all or proportional into March, and some states may find it beneficial to stay winner take all. The proportional allocation killed Hilary Clinton as Barack Obama stumbled. Despite her wins in huge states like Ohio and Texas, Obama magically always kept it close in delegate allocations despite clear Clinton wins. Anyone can easily see this benefiting a crappy campaigner who just happens to have Sheldon Adelson backing him up financially.

This also kills the idea of any populist guy connecting with the voters and knocking out Captain Establishment by "catching fire" early. A grassroots guy out of nowhere cannot now win a big state on a Super Tuesday and collect all delegates. If a big state goes proportional, that momentum is not rewarded, giving the frontrunner time to outspend in another state but also delegates. In 2012, Ted Cruz caught fire. Cruz is a good speaker and an opportunistic politician, but was the insurgent, Hispanic who defeated the hand picked establishment white guy in Texas. Cruz surged in the first round to force a run-off, and then fundraised like mad and trounced Dewhurst. Could a Cruz type candidacy win a presidential primary? Possibly, but given the new schedule, they will run into road blocks. Given the reduction in debates, they may not get free advertising and exposure, which the debates are, giving the advantage back to Adelson's favored boy. He was mismanaged, had back surgery that messed with his ability to campaign and had one gaffe, but this late entry and catch fire routine was the path Rick Perry could have aimed for in 2012.

The real depressing message these changes send is that the last gasp of any populism from the remaining Americans with any money to spend on elections is leashed and chained to a fence. I also would not be shocked to see this backfire if enough states switch to proportional allocation and no one collects enough delegates for the nomination. Roughly two years ago, I wrote on the Tea Party's success versus Occupy Wall Street's failure. It came down to the voters represented within each party, and the fact that the GOP, by having many middle class white voters, had the last chunk of voters outside traditional corporate and union interests who could fundraise and help a non-establishment candidate. If they are being attacked by the GOP Establishment rather than embraced, it is over. The left cannot create OWS associated candidates because they are a top down party with few voting blocs that have the resources to fund Huey Long type populists that used to exist in the old Democrat party. Sorry, folks, both parties are bought lock, stock and barrel, but you already knew that. Let us hope the Chinese, the Russians and the oil exporters get sick of our shenanigans before to long and put us out of our USG induced misery.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Nicholas Wade Shows Why the System Needs Feminist Biology

Somewhere along the way, the New York Times and the Onion progressed to a point where headlines are interchangeable. How can you parody the modern world when the President visits Asia and during a press conference involving a foreign prime minister of a country that just had a plane crash with silence on the motive, he fields a question about an octogenarian sports team owner and still proceeds to give his opinion. Sterling is "ignorant" if you are wondering, proving that ignorant is the go to word for even Ivy League blacks when offended by another. It is all absurd. An absurd news item recently popped up about feminist biology. Another absurd item is Nicholas Wade, thirty year veteran science editor at the New York Times, was smeared within a week of publication of his new book on genes, race and the problem of the modern world. These absurdities are related. If you are going to smear and suppress Nicholas Wade for discussing natural science and where it leads, you will need to make up phony realms of science like feminist biology.

Wade's dismissal by the pundit class is for simply writing a book that expands the conversation about genetics, race, abilities and modern day consequences. He was a great mind for thirty years until that book was deemed unfit for public consumption. Progressives read, ore pretended to read, his work for decades. Now that he dares to step out, he must be smeared. Current progressive beliefs of human neurological uniformity must not be challenged. The progressives are creationists with regards to the brain, and any gaps in cognitive functions are due to privilege, oppression, the right cartoon, playing classical music for twenty minutes in the morning when a child is in utero or not enough public expenditures on schools. Because Wade has hard science as his source, it challenges the team that claims to be pro-science therefore he must be made radioactive.

If you purge hard science, what will you have left? Progressive approved science, which might run into problems if reality does not comply with the whims of the mandarins in charge at this moment. The progressive elites change their minds on things, forever drifting leftward, so today's proper science will not be tomorrow's. Now the University of Wisconsin's endowed fellowship for feminist biology makes sense. The progressives will have to create their fields of science to play in that are properly vetted for ideological purity. Note that this fellowship is created within the power of the campus' "Center for Research on Gender and Women". This is not new, and similar to Melissa Harris-Perry's statement on public children, it echoes some old Germans. In William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, he notes how when the Nazis took control they Nazified education. It was not just professors, but the subjects themselves.
The teaching of the natural sciences, in which Germany had been so pre-eminent for generations, deteriorated rapidly. Great teachers such as Einstein and Franck in physics, Haber, willstaetter and Warburg in chemistry, were fired or retired. Those who remained, many of them, were bitten by the Nazi aberrations and attempted to apply them to pure science. They began to teach what they called German physics, German chemistry, German mathematics. 

The idea was that science, math and whatever had been considered hard concepts were actually tied to the Aryan blood. They wanted to look at science from an Aryan point of view. Read the blurb on the University of Wisconsin fellowship, and it reads incredibly close to those old Nazi influenced professors. Gender biased research and there needs to be a feminist point of view towards research or subject matter. Instead of world jewry destroying civilization, it is the evil scientific patriarchy. If Wade is scourged for a book and feminist biology is rewarded a piece of the limited education pie, what signal does it send for prospective science majors and researchers who do not toe the ideological line 100 percent?

The progressives have to attack Wade because any slight bump and the house of cards feelings based ideology is shown to be a fraud. The big outlets can choose to avoid his book and its conclusions, or twist its content and smear him. It is disgusting, but what of science? They have feminist science coming to help replace old, evil science. Maybe we can get race sciences for the race studies departments that need more funding across America. The American Enterprise Institute knows this is a joke, but will not take the last step. Sneakier in the feminist biology piece is that this fellowship will eventually develop undergrad courses. Those courses will become science courses that are approved for anyone to take to fulfill their science requirement in the liberal arts education so that even in the science realm, young women will get their steady dose of modern feminism. Science was a strength in American universities. Like the Germans before them, just how rapid will the deterioration of the fields be with open and overt ideological machinations.

Friday, May 09, 2014

When Did Kim Kardashian Peak?

All seriousness and no play makes for a downer blog or a blog where the writer takes him or herself too seriously. At some point, you might envision what type of bar patron a blogger is and categorize bloggers that way (I do). I'd never want to be the guy staring into the glass of whiskey with a tie undone, shaking his head and muttering about the woes of the world. My life is good. I have a three month old and three year old who are wicked easy children, moving from one to two kids is easy when the first is not in diapers (note if you're planning on kids). My wife is doing great and treats me awesome. We now both have gym routines to accommodate having two kids. Like all gyms, my gym has a magazine rack, which is mostly chick magazines with the extremely thin Sports Illustrated and GOLF magazine added. I do not count Men's Health or GQ as those are for the gays who go there (has to be one). The chick mags usually have one Kardashian on the cover at a minimum. It got me thinking... when did Kim Kardashian's looks peak?

We all peak. Roosh said a man's player peak is 43. I'll disagree on the basis of common male pattern baldness or greying hair, but I do not have access to his audience's demographics so I do not know what reader worries he has to alleviate. Men do have a later peak than women. I like to look for the absolute peak of a model, actress, singer et cetera to use that as their entry when debating beauty of public figure females. Grace Kelly in 1953 is a pretty hard one to top. From the 1:25 minute mark onward in the "Hips Don't Lie" video for Shakira is her peak. The great thing about Kim Kardashian being such a camera whore is that we've seen a steady progression to her look. Keep in mind, I am white, so on her "ass size" spectrum, I like the lean end because there is a point where it expands to just a fat ass and is no longer attractive. Side note: my theory on this is black men may have liked a little extra jit but started lying about liking large, even enormous, asses because black women (their dating pool) hit high obesity levels before everyone else.

Analysis: Early Kim was not really peak Kim despite being much younger. Sex tape "leak" is not peak so scratch 2007. A nice constant she has is great hair. It's processed and well styled with her squad, but she has great looking hair. Her breasts have also become larger, which just might be due to natural growth since she is an hourglass or could be well done work by Dr. Li (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and say natural). There is also a point where the plastic surgery she had performed on her face moved her from attractive woman to the cat eyed, interchangeable celebrity look. That cat eye look definitely hit by 2011. Pregnancy Kim is 2012, which she was smart to have a kid as she learned from Paris Hilton that you need to have a kid and continue the saga if you still want attention and to build your brand. The window is 2008 to 2011. Some good photos that represent that window.






Hard to pick from. Her weight did fluctuate even in that window. We could refine her peak as Summer 2008 to mid-2011. She had slimmed down and had some work done to her facial features but not too much. She looked good before and after that '08 to mid-'11 window, but not her absolute best. I am going to pinpoint her peak even within that window: late October 2009, specifically, when she wore her Princess Jasmine Halloween costume.

Very Good

How many curvy brunettes with dark eyes copied her idea after that photo was released? Over/Under is set at 5 million.

Thursday, May 08, 2014

What Would the Clippers Cost? $2 Billion

Seems that the NBA is moving as hard as they can to force Donald Sterling to sell his Clippers. Will Sterling fight it? The man fought civil rights lawsuits with glee in the courts. Imagining him defending his Clippers ownership in the waning years of his life is easy. Anyone else find it odd that brand new commissioner Adam Silver in the first 90 days on the job gets to take down the despicable yet longest tenured owner in the NBA? It is like Sterling had enough dirty laundry on David Stern (1985 NBA draft fix), but nothing on new guy Silver. Say Sterling relents, and goes without a fight. Even if the owners do not realize the horrible precedent they would set, they would all jump at the chance to see the Clippers sold and all franchises valuations reset. Steve Sailer has been all over this, yet he throws out the number $1 billion for a cost. If the Clippers sell, they will cost $2 billion.

Before delving into this, a moment on the stupidity of the media outrage cycle and NBA mismanaging this. Stiviano is now allegedly under investigation for extorting Sterling. Good thing the NBA wrapped up their investigation in 48 hours and threw a ban at Sterling, which ESPN applauded at every opportunity. No one questioned it on ESPN. I hope Sterling fights them and for one added reason. For thirty years the NBA and the sports media have openly dumped on his ownership. Yes, Sterling has mismanaged it. Sterling also allowed Elgin Baylor to be the most inept general manager in professional sports years before other teams had black executives. Some of the Clippers woes were bad luck like Danny Manning becoming healthy after he left the team and wunderkind draft pick Shaun Livingston, who some compared to Magic Johnson for a point guard, blew out both knees before age 24. Sterling finally has some luck go his way, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin staying healthy, and finally has a sexy franchise, and the league goes right after him to take it away. I hope he torches the league.

Going back to my NBA franchise sales bubble top post, buried in Simmons' Grantland article, he specifically mentions that it would take $1.7 billion for Sterling to string you along if you wanted to buy the Clippers from him. That means $1.7 billion is the starting point. Simmons is a shill for the NBA, and on the NBA's broadcast pre/post-game show. The NBA has a couple months to lean on Sterling, and if he relents, we will know by June that he is selling. Oprah has expressed interest in buying the team (obviously with a team of owners), Magic fronts for Michael Milken, and who knows who else would come out of the woodwork. My money would be on Eli Broad coming out of nowhere to be a key, clean piece to another LA ownership group, which the league could support and stay clear of allegations Magic manipulated this situation. A smart ownership group would do what the Miami Dolphins did where there is the majority owner, but he offered celebrities in Miami a piece of the Dolphins to call themselves owners and add cache to the game experience (same as Jay-Z did for seven years with the Nets). It would be an LA franchise, so an ownership group could collect $1 million per celebrity and create the Lakers' "celebs at the game" effect within the ownership group. They are not just fans, they part of the franchise!

The Magic-Milken group overpaid for the Dodgers so if they have serious bidding competition, competitive juices will most likely make them go to extremes. There is a wild card. Say June arrives and Sterling agrees to sell to the highest bidder. Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade, and Lebron James all become free agents this summer (due to age, Wade may not opt out of his deal). Might need a sign and trade to make it work. What happens to the bidding process when one of those three, especially Lebron and Carmelo, say, "I never would've considered the Clips, but with Sterling gone, I may sign there". An LA franchise now is not just an LA franchise but an LA franchise that may add one of those guys. If Bill Simmons can back of the envelop estimate that Lebron is worth half a billion to a franchise, then if $1.7 billion was what it would take to get Sterling interested, then $2.2 billion is the possible upside. Rename the franchise (LA Stars), which will remove the Clippers-Sterling stink and force people to buy new merchandise. Lots of immediate money making potential.

This scenario assumes Sterling is not fighting this to his death bed. Let us not forget that the team is also his wife's property, which is part of their odd marital arrangement. She was not exposed as an evil racist, right? Criticize David Stern all you want, but there is no way he would have allowed this to mushroom the way it did. Stern would have called his sources with the LA Times and told them to nip it, kind of like how they spiked former gambling referee Tim "the game is rigged" Donaghy's book deal. Stern would have called Magic and said, "Look, Magic, stop woofing or your HIV will act up, do not elevate this by calling for Sterling's franchise publicly". Stern would have said the league would look into it, but in the meantime enjoy the amazing playoffs. Stern would have kept the focus on the game, and let the outrage cycle (already lower due to his intervention) play out. This would have blown over, and most likely, Sterling would have announced he was stepping down from operations and handed it off to one of his two surviving adult children. Reality is different. What we are left with is a greedy set of owners eyeing higher franchise values, a shady criminal mistress, a sleazy octogenarian billionaire, hungry ex-financial felons and HIV infected potential owners, the racial grievance industry and a media that loves to hype faux crises. I hope Donald Sterling fights this to his dying day because our entertainment and the media that provides and pimps it deserves to be dragged through the mud for all they have done. If he loses his fight, Sterling will demand a hefty payday. Fight or no fight, the Clippers will cost $2 billion.

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

Vox's Report on Herpes Wasn't About Herpes

Vox has been a pretty awful news source. It is easy to envision Jeff Bezos listening to Ezra Klein's Powerpoint pitch, doodling and grimacing as he formulates his no thanks. They recently had a post on why more people have herpes than ever, many don't even know it, and it's A-OK! ESQUIRE jumped on this for Vox's manipulation of data to include simplex 1 (common cold sores) with simplex 2 (the sex sores) in order to boost numbers while crafting the post to imply it's all sex sores, so don't bother testing or worrying. Some others jumped on Vox for discussing STDs as if they are risk free and consequence free, when in reality there are a host of physical side effects and possible pathogen mind and behavioral alterations. Missing from this valid criticism is the awareness that this is part of a wider campaign to diminish the negatives of STDs, push STD acceptance and if it relates to s3x, it must be good.

Herpes has only been made to seem decent and livable because the world was introduced to HIV-AIDS. Before HIV-AIDS, herpes was the crushing news your doctor would give you. There was no cure, and you lived with it forever and ever. In Vox's view, herpes is no big whoop. First they mash numbers up to say almost everyone has it. Then they say do not worry about it. Forget about simplex 1 vs. 2, looking at the graph, not everyone has it, especially non-blacks who have much lower rates of herpes infection. Does it seem like the media has been pushing STDs, because it has. Slate argued that Canada's new law requiring HIV+ people to inform potential lovers they are HIV+ is bad. This is a death sentence. Not three years like the '80s and early '90s, but still dead after twenty. Slate thinks that is bad. There have been articles on HIV+ being a turn on for gays (bugchasing). Gay men looking at HIV like it is a creation outside of conception that heteros do. We read in these outlets that we should not discriminate with our choices of partners versus those with STDs. This is once again dragging people down to the level of those who spread, infect, et cetera whom we might say are easy, loose or oh no, I'm slut shaming. Trans* is not the only new frontier in pushing sex boundaries.

Once again, this is the steady drumbeat of pushing an angle or new frontier in one direction. Cosmo does not warn women that a #39 might come with physiological risks, but that a #39 will totally torch their sex life! Ask Prudence might as well be renamed "I'm a degenerate screw up, help me force this on my partner" with a special focus on married people in condoned cheating polyamorous situations. This happens in incredibly small numbers, but is selected for promotion steadily by the media to discuss. Kind of like the steady positive portrayal of the porn industry the last few years with profiles on James Deen, Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox and just in time since those other two are played out, Asa Akira. Prep school to porn star is the pitch. She saves money! She is a feminist! She is a millionaire! Her book is titled "Insatiable - Porn A Love Story", which is wonderful because it encapsulates how women are portrayed in porn: insatiable. The men watching need to think at any moment any woman in any situation will sleep with them. Other performers in porn are wondering just how much garbage, lies and white washing is in the book. Akira is a Prius driver who does not talk dirty in Japanese in movies to not denigrate her ancestors but will do anything on camera with anyone. Like Weeks/Knox the idea of an upper middle class girl getting nasty in porn is too much for the media to resist when the common path is lower class girl transitions from stripping or nude modeling into porn and moves her boundaries further each time calls for shoots stop. Akira is the level headed exception for now (she could go nuts anytime) that the media will use to say these folks are normal just like you and me. My retort would be, "Out of the thousands of performers, how many have been happily married for over 5 years?" >crickets<

The slant to these stories is always the same, as the sex positive side is pushed. Some girls are running into stripping to pay for college because of Weeks/Knox. It's not genetic, and it's definitely due to Knox's exposure since there was no rush of girls out to strip when the book "Ivy League Stripper" was published in 1995. I doubt the media could find more than five married couples in porn who have been married for over five years (forget US average length of marriage), but we can easily find over five who have caught HIV-AIDS, committed suicide or gone through addiction issues just in the last few years. In coverage of Deen, Weeks/Knox, Akira or whomever, does the media ever portray someone who pushes back as just a regular Joe concerned about the effects of wanton sexuality on our society? No. They are called Santorum extremists or whatever slap at Christians the media wants to use at the moment. That is not the point of the media's stories though. Unrestrained sexuality, voluntary motherhood, everyone belongs to everyone else... am I missing any communist-socialist slogans with regards to sex? Vox telling SWPLs not to worry about herpes because everybody has herpes is just another bucket of water to add to the sea of sex we float in. The point is to push sex at every turn and in every platform and never once ask the question, "Of course you can do that, but should you"?

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Usefulness of Hedge Funds

Hedge funds can be of some good, right? Not for the reasons that media fools might say like liquidity, but behind the scenes. On the advice of a friend, I'm currently invested in a penny stock play. I'm not sure how bad that sounds and if I should be scared of myself simply by the fact that I'm writing sentences like that. The stock is DOLNQ, and this is not advice, just looking at how things work. Basically, I invested a wee bit in a company whose price had taken a big hit but where I thought there was a decent possibility of recovery to match the risk as my friend pitched it. Pure gamble play really. Last month it looked like that gamble had backfired on me completely. The company filed for Chapter 11 and the way in which they did it would have had the common stock expire worthless. Shares plummeted. Instead of selling and recouping my last couple of hundred bucks by selling for one or two cents a share, I decided to hold on and teach myself a bit of a lesson (by in theory losing every dollar). Fortunately, hedge funds are big enough muscle to combat insider duplicity.

I thought the way in which they had agreed to the bankruptcy filing was a bit odd, but I'm no expert. Apparently though, there are some much more savvy (rich) investors out there, i.e. hedge funds, who thought the same thing. Five hedge funds formed an equity committee and have sought to challenge the bankruptcy ruling. They think the company is fudging numbers and that stock holders should be getting a payout. There was a hearing yesterday where the company sought to have a judge disband the equity committee and let the prepackaged bankruptcy plan forge ahead. Judge told them 'No way. The equity committee stays intact and you need to work something out with them'. Apparently, this is quite out of the ordinary as equity holders almost always lose out. Long time investor and financial blogger, Bill Cara, has spun yarns on bankruptcy shenanigans screwing over equity holders. This might be a case where the courts help shareholders, probably because bigger fish are involved and not just the little guy. Now the two sides have until May 27 to reach an agreement. This is what the hedge funds were angling for all along. The thought is that there is about $50 million worth of equity that the shareholders should be entitled to and that there are 30 million shares outstanding, meaning a payout of over $1.50/share in an optimum outcome.

That to me is what makes this an interesting investment. It's not about whether the company will perform well or not, it's about how the world of big money works and what a bunch of lawyers get together and negotiate. There are some rich hedge funds that realized the company was trying to take advantage of the system by filing for a bankruptcy plan that helped out a very small group of creditors and offer lavish payouts to a couple of executives that violate terms agreed to beforehand. Instead of letting that happen, they are buying up all the shares after the stock crashed and then using their lawyers to force the company to let the hedge funds share in the spoils of their taking advantage of the system by saying "if you want us to go away and let you proceed, you need to pay us". I find it intriguing because to me, there is no way that these hedge funds are doing this for a small gain. They must believe that they are going to be able to get a hefty portion of that $50 million they believe is out there.

The stock has been run up in the last week and a half from a penny or two up to about $0.14. This seemed to be the level the hedge funds were comfortable with before knowing the outcome of the hearing yesterday. So, I'm trying to figure out just how sure of a bet this is or if it's sure at all. Based on what I know, things seem legit and there will be a nice payout. $1.50 per share seems to be the high estimate but most folks believe that the payout will be north of $1/share. I can still buy at around $0.14. I've made a decent sized play already. How confident am I in the outcome? Because if I'm confident in what I've put down already, why shouldn't I take advantage of the situation and try to increase the payout? If we're talking buying at say $0.15/share and getting a payout at $1, that's a nearly 700% return.

Something about pigs get slaughtered is coming to mind and making me uneasy but I am very intrigued by the idea of a BIG payout. Also, 'too good to be true' is nagging at me. I will kick myself if I miss the opportunity though. I seem to have a found a niche (short track record though it may be) of winning on the stocks when my play is not performance based but based on the practices of big money. The Russian OTC stock where the two billionaires were struggling for control and did a stock buyback played out well for me (Norilsk Nickel). This would put them both to shame. I feel like if I don't play in situations like this (high risk-high reward), I'm missing out on the only real chances I'll ever have to accumulate real FU money. Regular shareholders like you and me do not have that muscle, but hedge funds can pull together resources to fight cronyism for their gain and to help some fellow travelers. In short, fight on hedge funds because some small time greedy bastards are holding on like barnacles.

Real reporting on the issue here. This is NOT advice.

Monday, May 05, 2014

It's Not the Citigroup Clique, It's the Rubin Clique

They get so close. Some people in it and totally of it get close, but do not quite grasp it. Nomi Prins recently published a book "All the Presidents' Bankers" and United States Senator Elizabeth Warren penned an essay on the Citigroup Clique where they talked about the cozy relationship between bankers and even liberal presidents that march under the equality banner. These two women cannot name the name, but they get so close. Part of it is seeing the American democratic system as it is at face value. Voters vote for politicians who seek donors. In reality we have powerful, large interests that use their money to select politicians to get what they want with the indirect blessing of voters. The bankers, and especially this clique, pulled off a wonderful theft of a party, and it goes back twenty five years. What Warren, Prins, and even Matt Taibbi miss is that Robert Rubin is the man who has pulled the strings and his decisions over two decades ago shape our world today. It is not the Citigroup Clique that is the inner-ring of the insiders' club, but the Rubin Clique and financial technostructure it represents that holds sway over our political economy.

In her book, Prins is very explicit about President Clinton selecting Robert Rubin for the Treasury Secretary role. Rubin worked at Goldman, dun dun dunnnnn. Warren mentions the number of former Treasury secretaries who worked at Citigroup. Tabbi will always cite the evil Goldman guys who have control of the world. There is one connection within all of this: Rubin. If you just look at the connections, it is his crew and their interests which dominated the outcomes of financial issues in the last 20 years as well as the path the Democrats have taken since Clinton's election win in 1992. Prins is wrong to say Clinton selected Rubin. Rubin selected Clinton. Rubin had been a major fundraising force for years for the Democrats due to his connection to Bob Strauss. Walter Mondale saying in his convention speech he was going to raise taxes to attack the deficit? Rubin's idea. Was Rubin part of the Dukakis economic team in 1988? Yes, along with Reich and other familiar faces from the Clinton era. Rubin was part of the network of donors and money men behind the Democrat Leadership Council (

In a quick summary, the DLC was created in the mid '80s as a nonprofit with seed money from financial figures to help Democrats who were not part of the New Left and far left turn the Democrats took in the '68-'76 period. They were mostly white, male politicians fighting for their survival like Al Gore, Dick Gephardt and others with aspirations for higher office but not the super liberal bona fides of the coasts that became dominant in presidential primary seasons. The Democrat drubbing of 1984 sparked the DLC's creation, and similar to how the New Left manipulated the party and primary process from '68 to '80, the DLC slowly and surely started a process of changing the primary process to get their man to the White House. The DLC made it their focus to shoot straight for the presidency rather than work its way grassroots through states. They found willing partners in desperate and ambitious white, male Democrats in states shifting to the Republicans. Think of this like a top down establishment vs. Tea Party, except Jesse Jackson is mocking the DLC for being too white and the Democrats for the leisure class.

Rubin's connection to Bill Clinton is similar to the slimy way that current Republican presidential hopefuls are flying off to see Sheldon Adelson or other huge donors on the right for primary campaign funds. Money mattered, and in 1988, Dukakis won because he was the last man with any cash. The DLC was
setting up 1992 for one DLC candidate (to not split the primary vote between their guys like in '88). The DLC was absolutely critical in creating the idea of Super Tuesday with a special Southern flavor to Super Tuesday. Before donors rallied around one DLC man, Clinton was flown multiple times back east in a pageant type set up where he auditioned for elite media and financial figures. Clinton impressed these men, one of whom was Rubin. Clinton was their guy. He was a Southern white governor who they could play down the liberal social issues, and play up governor experience and keep the focus on the economy. The DLC also benefited from major liberal names (Mario Cuomo being the most prominent) not entering the race due to President Bush's, at the time, strong standings after the Persian Gulf War.

There is one more unmentioned boost in the primaries for the DLC. Jesse Jackson chose not to run for president in 1992. This cleared the South of a black candidate, and set up the DLC's southern boy for a sweep down south. Look at the first Super Tuesday's primaries, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma were centrist states with DLC infrastructure. Clinton swept them and established himself as the front-runner. Clinton bled through money due to needed advertising because of early set backs like losing to Paul Tsongas or the Jennifer Flowers problem. Fortunately, Clinton was fundraising like mad from Wall Street while speaking about helping Main Street. Who was his Wall Street fundraising chair in 1992? Ken Brody, a member of the Goldman Sachs management committee that answered to CEO Robert Rubin. Brody was a very active fundraiser, receiving praise from Rahm Emanuel in 1992. In this 1992 Chicago Mag fluff profile, the media and David Axelrod lavish praise on Rahmbo for behavior that anyone would be ashamed to exhibit fundraising for a small town charity, let alone the presidency. The money poured in to save Clinton because even after he had the nomination sewn up, he still trailed both Bush and Perot in May of 1992. The year 1992 was an incredibly interesting political year that no one ever discusses deeply for its importance or its unique results.

Clinton was elected and Rubin played role of director of the 
national economic council, which was created like the national security advisor for the president. Rubin could select what economic priorities Clinton's team would focus on. Rubin was the conduit for Treasury bondholders to give their yea or nay to ideas by the Clinton administration. Rubin's neoliberalism wishes were granted as the Clinton administration took steps to slow down spending, push NAFTA despite unions screaming bloody murder and lift taxes but not too much. This was a world where Congressman answered a bit more to their states, not national directives, and Ross Perot had scared them immensely. Rubin gets what he wants early on, and oh, who was now in charge of the Export-Import bank? The Goldman Executive who ran Clinton's Wall Street fundraising, Ken Brody. The real push for the banks getting what they wanted was when Rubin was confirmed for the Treasury Secretary role. He was confirmed in January of 1995, and his first two steps were to bailout Mexico which was really a bailout of the banks involved in Mexico's loans, using an odd quirk of the Treasury's power over objections of Congress (both from the left and right), and at the end of February 1995, putting the administration's weight behind the idea of repealing Glass-Steagall.

But wait, Matt Taibbi always says it was evil lobbyists and grotesque Republicans who pushed it through with compliance by Clinton? What are you typing? It is true it was lobbying, led by Sandy Weill. It is true the Republicans were supporters of repeal, and now that they had won Congress in the 1994 elections, they could allow the plans to progress through Congressional procedures. The Republicans were supporters of repeal for ideological reasons as they had picked up the mantle of deregulation from the Friedman-libertarian wing of the party. They never could get it in the '80s due to Democrat control of Congress. Now they had control and thought along ideological grounds. Republicans never think of the real world consequences of things and actually believe in their ideology and that playing by the rules of the game are what matter. If Clinton represented his party of the little guy, unions, poor minorities and Main Street, he would not have allowed his Treasury Secretary to announce support of repeal in 1995, but it happened. Who made policy? Who controlled whom? This removed the veto threat if it passed with a bare majority, and if you read articles on Rubin's statements, he was supporting the GOP positions on repeal. Glass-Steagall was repealed several years later in a bipartisan matter, only because it expanded the Community Reinvestment Act, forcing banks to expand minority home loans in exchange for the ability to merge and play with money in the derivatives sphere where their expertise could create a fence from other banks to intrude and drive down profits.

Even while working on repealing Glass-Steagall, Rubin and his cadre were hard at work. Rubin's underling at Treasury was Larry Summers. Russian looting was run by Harvard, Summers, and the IMF with Stanley Fischer helping there. The Asian Financial Crisis that pumped hot money into Asian exporters and watched as they did not have reserves to cover their loan exposures was resolved with Rubin's consultations between the banks who held loans and the nations. The IMF created punitive measures that opened the door for foreign banks to move in, which Citigroup would later do. The IMF had a young man named Timothy Geithner crafting the plans for how Asian countries would fix their economies. The Asian countries also looked at China's currency reserves and how they protected China from the financial pandemic of 1997. China, heh, Rubin pushed for China to receive improved trading status with the US, thinking it would improve their human rights issues by economic engagement. Sure. Other Asian exporters joined the Chinese game of export earning recycling and
Bretton Woods Two was born. Suddenly, the US had even more bond buyers and could export more of their inflation, keeping the Ponzi going. This new pool of dollar recycling drove down US Treasury interest rates, which pulled down all other rates as debt instruments' risk premium is related to the UST market. A totally new Ponzi was the changing of student loans from dischargeable in bankruptcy to non-dischargeable that happened on Rubin's watch, driving down student loan interest rates but creating new debt slavery opportunities. Capital gains taxes kept dropping, which was a long time ideological wish for the GOP and a huge sop to the financial interests. The media cheered all of this. Rubin and Summers were hard at work keeping derivatives from being regulated, and breaking down the international financial barriers as if they could foresee a future of gigantic American banks with huge economies of scale.

This all creates a situation in 2000 where banks can grow however they want, the Democrats have slowly sucked in corporate money as more corporations see how Rubin used donations to get what the banks want, derivatives will be a money maker for banks that they can dominate and keep out competition from eroding earnings, and foreign nations must allow US banks in as competition. The US dollar was incredibly strong in the year 2000, which was not hard with budget surpluses due to dotcom bubble capital gains, job growth, slowed spending growth and decimated foreign currencies. The other major trend is that Rubin's work has reduced risk in foreign lending due to direct bailouts, created new sources of US debt buying benefiting current high risk bondholders and in the case of student loans, making them a lenders dream since default risk is eliminated. Sandy Weill's Citigroup was the premier child of the Glass-Steagall repeal (early on), and if you look at what they did, they followed the areas Rubin had newly created. Citigroup went heavy into taking on more risk. They played with derivatives, they went hard into subprime home lending, they entered the student loan market and they pushed foreign banking.

Where did Rubin and his cronies go? Rubin resigned from the Treasury exactly the day after the House voted to pass the legislation that would repeal Glass-Steagall. Rubin went to Citigroup merely three months after leaving the Treasury (where he earned over $100 million while in his vague role) and took a seat on the board at Harvard University and the Council on Foreign Relations. Summers went from the Treasury to president of Harvard to play with their endowment, which had grown due to Russian looting that he and Rubin had been the higher ups handling. Fischer went to Citigroup, Geithner to the NY FED, and Jack Lew (current Treasury Secretary) also followed Rubin to Citigroup. Once the Democrats won the White House again in 2008, they knew they were safe. The cadre of Rubin cronies could go right back into the Federal power positions.

This is important because if you read Sheila Bair's book on the financial crisis or other articles on what exactly happened, Citigroup was the sickest of our big banks and should have been broken up. Some financial reporters said if Citigroup was not broken up by Labor Day 2009, America would know Obama was not going to reform Wall Street. Bair writes in her book how politically connected Citigroup was but never says how they are connected. Citigroup had Rubin in a consigliere role (his word), no real responsibility, but he gave advice. In reality, it was a mobster mentality of earn over $100 million and guide a firm but have middle men push buttons. Rubin also had an ace in the hole. The Pritzker billionaire family in Chicago was a major backer of a young Barack Obama. They vouched for him, and the Rubin cash flowed his way. Rubin knew his men would be welcome in Obama's administration and he was right. Summers and Geithner took major roles in the early Obama administration, and advised him on the Japanese model, not the Swedish model for dealing with the banks. Even more pathetic is this. Aaron Ross Sorkin reports one small bit in his major book on the financial crisis that Geithner, in the midst of thinking about what to do with the banks, contemplates the open Citigroup CEO position. That was a huge conflict of interest, one man's interest. Why break up a firm you could become CEO of and earn millions quickly? In either Bair's or Neil Barofsky's book, you read how cozy and nice Geithner was to banks, especially the sick, triple bailed out Citigroup? He was bailing it out possibly anticipating the CEO job. Rubin called him to say it would be Vikram Pandit, but hey, thanks for waffling on destroying us and now we're safe with more bailouts.

It is a clique. These men do reap huge rewards. If you look at the actions and the outcomes, they and the institutions they play for after benefit. Harvard earned millions and is so independently wealthy that they now make it free for any student whose family earns less than $60,000 annually. Citigroup grew into a global behemoth, and still lives because they knew, and still know, they could use the government to bail them out. Even one that is held by the party of the ever drifting leftward lumpenproletariat. Maybe Bair, Prins and Warren avoid being specific about Rubin's clique because they do not want to have their books spiked like Anne Williamson's epic on 1990s Russian looting. Senator Warren might have her eye on a bigger political prize, too. Journalists noted the dissolution of the DLC, but did any say it was because it had thoroughly taken over the left?

Prins and Warren are on the right track, but part of their problem is how they view our political process. This is best exemplified by Senator Warren's take on campaigning.
Many Republicans openly acknowledge their ties to Wall Street, but Democrats have campaigned on an alternative approach focusing on expanding opportunities and leveling the playing field for the middle class. Democrats’ slogans have won some elections, but once in power, Democratic administrations have too often stacked top positions in government with people close to Wall Street. Stanley Fischer is a good man and has earned my respect, but this is a real and growing problem. If the big banks can seize both parties, then the Democrats—and the country—lose the central economic argument that government should work for the people, not just for the rich and powerful.
Sorry, Senator Warren, but what if the real vector of action is not Democrats campaigning and then stacking their administrations with Wall Street types but Wall Street types stacking elections with candidates to spout rhetoric that will receive media support and enough popular votes to allow them to loot once inside. Rubin, Summers, Fischer, Emanuel, Lew all are part of a clique that selects figureheads who represent specific ideals for the right election, shucks, maybe Rubin's clique needs some religious diversity to suppress any accusations of smart, Jewish guys manipulating ethnic voting blocs for financial gain. Senator Warren asks if the big banks can seize both parties, blind to the last twenty years of political history. Clinton's administration pushed through deregulation. Obama never cleaned out the big banks or broke up too big to fail banks when he had the nation's support and hope. The big banks already have both parties.

Maybe the Rubin clique has such connections that these writers cannot name the beast. Maybe they are naïve politically. This is all out there to find. I am not interviewing shadowy figures. I am simply reading their statements as well as public documentation of what happened. Professor Barry Strauss would test my history class by giving us four people, places or events. A test would read, "pick three and say why they should be grouped". A cursory review would choose a specific set of three, a deeper view another set of three and the deepest view a different set of three. Yes, Nomi Prins, these men are all technocrat bankers. Yes, Elizabeth Warren, these men are all Citigroup figures. Citi did not bring them together as it was an endpoint for some of them after their government work. Citigroup was the end result of their government work. Geithner never made it to Citigroup, but he and Russian looting enabler Anatoly Chubais are both at the Council on Foreign Relations under Rubin. Banking itself did not bring them together since Summers and Fischer were academics. The prime mover, the prime connector, and the man who was the ignition to that firestorm is Robert Rubin. These men are all Rubin's men. This is Rubin's Clique.

* I have spent the last couple of years researching Robert Rubin. Not just him but what factors came into play in American politics, the economy and money to put such a man into such a position to help the technostructure of Wall Street get what they want. I am writing what I hope to be an entertaining book (15K words so far) on him and how we got here. I posted this (3K words), which is a condensed piece of part of the book (the '90s), because this is the clique who has the hand on the scale.