The Latest: Trump Says ‘I Don’t Care’ About Iowa Dispute

Trump, who on Wednesday was accusing Cruz of election fraud and calling for an Iowa do-over, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he’s so focused on the Feb. 9 contest in New Hampshire that “I don’t care about that anymore.”

Don’t care?

Wait a minute, Trump is helping to elect the next POTUS and he doesn’t care? #fail

Source: The Latest: Trump Says ‘I Don’t Care’ About Iowa Dispute – ABC News

Iran’s leader says never trusted the West, seeks closer ties with China

DUBAI (Reuters) – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for closer economic and security ties with China, saying Iran had never trusted the West, as the two countries agreed to increase bilateral trade more than 10-fold to $600 billion in the next decade.

Truly a relationship made in heaven. The USA would have had to create this relationship, if it didn’t just all happen by itself. :)

The reason is this:

It sounds to me like

China is the epicenter of the looming crisis. China in today’s cycle is what US housing was during the financial crisis in 2008. In 2008, China reacted quickly, resorted to fiscal stimulus, which saved the boom and even amplified it. In addition, however, the liquidity from the QE-program in the US flooded into the country, which even accelerated the uptrend – in terms of credit growth and investment, the boom in China grew into the biggest excess in the history of mankind.

and Iran could use all the excessive commodities it can now buy, as sanctions are lifted, and its economy becomes a player in the developing market.

It’s a relationship made in heaven, because China’s relationship with Turkey is strong enough that they hold combined military exercises and strong enough with Russia that there is much in integration at their border regions, and Iran is basically at war with the Arab Sunni kingdom.

Whither that “Kingdom” is heaven, has yet to be seen.

 

Source: Iran’s leader says never trusted the West, seeks closer ties with China – Yahoo News

Donald Trump wants to make Chinese goods more expensive. Is that a good idea?

Donald Trump thinks China is pushing the US around, economically speaking. Beijing manipulates its currency and unfairly subsidizes domestic production to the detriment of American workers, in his view. So earlier this week he proposed doing something about it: Mr. Trump, in an interview with The New York Times editorial board, said that if elected he’ll favor slapping a 45 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the US.

Donald Trump is correct. China is pushing the US economy around. There are many in the Republican base that don’t like this fact. So if elected, Donald Trump will accomplish what the Tea Party can only dream about, the destruction of the world Consumer Economy.

Consumers can’t do their job (As Bush II said, “go out and spend money” to paraphrase) if they can no longer go out and buy anything. As it is, China is keeping inflation for things in the Consumer Economy artificially low, in it manipulation of its currency, which Trump promises to end.

Has Trump just become the darling of the Tea Party? I don’t know. As we saw in the 90’s Soviet Union, it is hard to destroy your enemy if your enemy has some sort of an economy. I think we can safely assume that the Tea Party exist because of war, and, as such, should be going after the economy.

There are three domains of war, and Trump needs to master all three domains: fear, interest, and honor, to become a warrior POTUS. It is hard to destroy your enemy’s economy without war, so for Trump to become the darling of the Tea Party he needs to think war.

Trump has mastered two of the domains of war: fear and interest. I am not sure, as a businessman, he will ever master the last domain: honor, until after the sell. Oh sorry, I mean election.

Source: Donald Trump wants to make Chinese goods more expensive. Is that a good idea? – Yahoo News

Ranchers who inspired Oregon occupation report to prison – Yahoo News

But others said from a tactical standpoint, the government’s cautious response would make sense no matter who was holed up in the government building in the reserve.

That is not true. If it was Occupy Wallstreet occupying the government building, they would have won the first round against corporate America.

As it was: the strategy of the militia was such that the fact the ranchers reported to prison made the militia’s strategy one of loosing, instead of winning.

The Militia is against the government of the USA, but pro-corporate America.

Oregon and the local ranchers won this round.

Source: Ranchers who inspired Oregon occupation report to prison – Yahoo News

Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds (the mahdi’s arrival)

The greatest thing about a fiction narrative is that truth can be told without a lot of facts running around and distracting us. So in the movie “Lucy” and when actor Morgan Freeman tells us there are only two outcomes for the OODA loop of a cell,  because it is fiction, we can take those facts presented in the fictional movie as truths and run with it.

I already fictionalized what he said by asking you to think of the cell’s life as an OODA loop. If you don’t know what an OODA loop is, then you might as well move on or Google, because I’m not going to get into that discussion here. What I will say is that it sounds to me like cancer starts when, like Lucy, when one cell in your body gives up. There are two option at the end of every OODA loop. Option 1: a human cell becomes immortal and is called a cancer and becomes immortal or Option 2: dying and letting the next generation takeover.

In other words, for a human battling cancer and in a moment of time for one of their cells at the center of its environment, the cell sees no future for other generations of its kind and position. Within the confines of the cells position it becomes immortal and is called cancer. Through the consequences of this decision, the cell’s loop is literally broken by the magnitude of the inertia of that decision and the outcome of this revelation (through the cell’s decision process) and the cell stops evolving and the cell becomes cancer.

A friend of ours, who we have loved since she was 3-years-old, recently died of brain-cancer. I have a hard time believing there was any cell in her body that had given-up, but I have no clue as to what the environment was like when the cell did give-up.

I have said once that cellphones are the cigarettes of her generation, and she loved the cell phone, and selfies, and Facebook, and all that connecting they represent. In a word, she lived inside her connected generation, so it is hard to blame either her or her cellphone. She basically ended her last 60 days of life expressing herself with the one finger that could still move, and thanking the doctors who kept cutting on her brain (de-massing) down to the last finger. So she was not a quitter in any sense of the word.

But just because one cell might have given-up, it doesn’t mean we should overlook the objects and those connections that might have produced such a toxic environment and made a cell simply give up on evolution and go immortal.

What it does mean is that we have to observe the narrative from a distance and the magnitude of the narrative is by distance square. In other words, that distance our friend had to travel in battling cancer is very hard to remember, because, I, for one, think about that little girl everyday, and remaining positive is still good medicine.

Still,  that movie did produce a powerful image as the “mahdi” Lucy sees no future and becomes immortal. What’s that mean? Is the mahdi a form of cancer, or vice versa?

Conservative donor Koch urges end to ‘corporate cronyism’

DANA POINT, Calif. (AP) — Billionaire industrialist and conservative political donor Charles Koch welcomed a group of roughly 450 like-minded fundraisers to one of his twice-annual conferences Saturday by challenging them to advocate for ending “corporate cronyism” – even if those policies help their businesses.

Ha! Well sure, end corporate cronyism, when political cronyism has more return on the dollar.

In other words, why continue to hire like-minded individuals, when you can crush them with those you have legally bought within the Constitutional structure.

Once inside the boundaries of the US Constitution, those bought can include everyone within the structure of the US Constitution. By dropping cronyism you can gain 3 branches of government. There is definitely more bang for your bucks when you buy those within the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the US Constitution.

I don’t think anyone can accuse the Koch brothers of thinking small. The people they need to advance their Conservative agenda are only cronys if you have to hire them instead of buying them, and the Koch brother are willing to put their money where their mouths are, i.e. around the structure of the US Constitution. :)

via Conservative donor Koch urges end to ‘corporate cronyism’ – Yahoo News.

A Good Business Model Builds Barriers Not Fences

People power, Russia style: Small-town lessons about Russian democracy – Yahoo News

“The local amber operators live in the Baltiysk area, they know the place and the people, and in a variety of ways they take the local population’s interests and needs into account. They ran the district council, but nobody claims they were doing a bad job of it,” says Vladimir Abramov, an independent political expert. “They were mostly members of United Russia and big supporters of Putin.”

So the businessmen put the military structure (which had basically dissolved) to work manufacturing a product positioned in the world’s market, and Putin’s culture followed those businessmen back to their town and voted. It voted to make a decision, but not to change a position. In other words, they are still with Putin and the system seems to be working.

But did the businessmen create barriers that controls the velocity between those in the town and those in the global market, or did they try to build a fence around the town and whose gate only opens to the few?

For me a gate, which is what every good fence needs, is no good unless it’s there as an ornament. Those in the know (know how to open gates) seem to build close to the gate, and, in a way, those building close to the gate are in charge of the structure. I am just saying, I think those living close to the gate can become barriers too easily jumped over and too limiting in letting the few move around the barrier that represents, in this case, those voting. On the other hand, the town is dealing with a natural resource similar to oil, so maybe a closed system is not too bad, as long as the gate is well guarded. As we have seen in the Ukraine, if those guarding the gate are weak, the system doesn’t last long.

If including the military culture within a Capitalistic system creates fences or barriers, I don’t know the answer. The system inside the Russian town maybe Communistic or not, but the financial advantage in the world goes (so far) to the Capitalists.

But this business model the Russian businessmen of the town used is very similar in structure as what the Chinese used in Pakistan. In the Chinese system it seemed to be a winning strategy, but since I last looked, I don’t know if the Chinese model built barriers or fences.

In the Chinese model, they hired all ex-military higher-ups to run their manufacturing and the Chinese kept their economy going by keeping their people working. The business model had, what is called, a Cheap Trick. A Cheap Trick is basically a structure-building narrative with an advantage. The advantage in this case was that the military leaders took charge of the Chinese (I am thinking mostly Chinese workers) manufacturing facilities after serving in the Pakistani military as generals. Normally such a thing would raise some eyebrows with thoughts of nationalizing the manufacturing in Pakistan.

But the move in hiring these ex-generals were thought to be on the up and up. There was no pretext to hide this fact locally, nationally, and globally, and the global Capitalist responded favorably.

Perhaps in the successful Chinese model some events could give us clues as to what kind of structure we are dealing with inside the model’s environment. Maybe one event,  The Red Mosque Massacre, could show us either barrier or fence building.

After the inhabitants of The Red Mosque made a violent attack on a Chinese massage parlor (Who knew massage parlors were even available in Pakistan?), the Pakistan Government responded to the Chinese request, to protect Chinese citizens, by making the inhabitants of the mosque, who were mostly the women who perpetrated the attack on the massage parlor, a target to be massacred.

So in that instant, there was mostly fence building going on, as the Pakistani Army, in effect, isolate the Chinese from the people inside the mosque and surrounding environment.

On the other hand, as the article points out, nobody seems to be jumping over the Putin barrier, so maybe the Town’s model will be just as successful, as that used by the Chinese in Pakistan, but at a smaller magnitude per event.

via People power, Russia style: Small-town lessons about Russian democracy – Yahoo News.