Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu & James Robinson

The title is intriguing.  Does this book reveal the secrets of national economic success?  Point out things that lead to national poverty?  Read on.
  It is an infuriating read.  Glittering generalities, vague language.  Few real examples.  Some of the few examples given are plain wrong.  Other examples are taken from obscure times and places unfamiliar to all but a few specialists.  The authors settle down to condemning "extractive policies" and praising "inclusive policies" without either defining these ideas or giving many examples.  They do tell us how the Spanish Conquistadors stuck it to the conquered Indians, but that is about it for examples.  They speak disparagingly about Jared Diamond's theory but it is clear that they don't understand what Diamond was saying.  They claim the English Civil War was a turning point that set England upon the course to the industrial revolution.  But they don't discuss the sides, the issues, the winners, the losers, the connection with the industrial revolution, or the outcome.  
   The thesis of the book is that national wealth or poverty is determined by government policy, but things break down there.  "Inclusive policies" adopted by governments lead to wealth, extractive policies lead to poverty.  Which sounds like  " The gostalk distims the doshes" to me.  The best examples given are the two Korea's, and an obscure town on the US-Mexican border.  With the same history, geography, natural resources, ethnicity, North Korea lives in poverty whereas South Korea is one of the richest nations on earth. The only difference between North and South is the government.  The border splits Nogales in two, the town on the US side is healthier, wealthier, and better served than the town on the Mexican side.  All of which is well known and obvious, but no details are given.  What specifically makes the successful ones successful.
   One of the authors, Robinson, is a Harvard professor, the other ,Acemoglu, is an MIT professor.  I don't expect much of Harvard professors, but I am disappointed that an MIT faculty member would put his name to such an unsatisfactory piece of writing.

Ivan Lopez?

How does a man get a Russian Christian name and a Spanish surname?  The newsies haven't looked into this at all.

Jeanne Shaheen casts 96 votes so far this year

That's about one vote a day.   Actually the Senate has this quaint custom of requiring two votes on every issue.  First they vote to take a vote, and then they vote on the issue.  So less business than you might think got transacted.  So what did our democratic senator vote for?

Top vote getter, with 55 voters, was nominations.  Judges mostly but some administration appointees like Janet Yellen for the Federal Reserve chairman.   The rest of 'em were just middle weight judges for all over the country.  The constitution does require the "advise and consent" of the Senate for judicial appointments, but I never expected anything like that number of judges.

Next , there are the 9 votes cast to extend unemployment benefits beyond two years.  Used to be, un employment only lasted a few weeks to tide you over til you found a new job.  Now it runs for two years, and Jeanne voted 9 times to make it even longer.

Then there a 8 votes for the "doc fix".  Some years ago, Congress voted a sizable cut in medicaid/medicare rates.  The doctors all screamed.  Rather than repeal the cuts for good, Congress votes a postponement of them, every year.  Nothing is ever really final in Washington.

Then we come to 8 votes for mystery bills.  The website said "No short title submitted for this bill".  So it could be anything.  The Senate should never pass a mystery bill.  If we don't even have a title, it could be anything, and is probably harmful.  Jeanne voted for these concealed time bombs 8 times.

And now we get to flood insurance.  Private companies refuse to write flood insurance because it's a loser.  Everyone knows which land will get flooded and which won't.  Homeowners liable to getting flooded buy flood insurance. Homeowners on higher ground don't.  All flood insurance policies have to pay off after the flood happens.  In response to the cries of owners of waterfront property, and realtors, and mortgage lenders, Congess passed a federal flood insurance plan years ago.  You can buy flood insurance from the feds, the premiums aren't cheap, but the coverage is first rate. And Uncle Sam looses barrels of money after every flood.  It got so bad, that the Biggert-Waters reform act was passed in 2012 to try and limit taxpayer losses.Since nothing is ever final in Washington,  the flood insurance lobby keeps bringing up bills to repeal Biggert-Waters.  Jeanne Shaheen voted for Biggert- Water repeal 4 times.

And we have 4 votes in favor of assorted waivers to Obamacare. Three votes in favor of reforms that are supposed to do something about sexual assault in the armed forces. 2 votes in favor of the farm bill, and a single vote each for Ukraine aid, raise the federal debt limit, and to kill parts of the Budget Control Act.

So.  We have 55 votes for democratic judge nominees, 27 votes that give taxpayer money away, 8 mystery votes, 6 miscellaneous votes.

Scott Brown is looking better and better,

CIA pleads its Behghazi case

They are on TV as I write this.  They had a CIA guy name of Morell (a good name in mushrooms) in front of a Congressional committee.  Morell was acting CIA director at the time.  He had a group of (unnamed) DC based CIA pundits (analysts he called them)  gin up a report on Bengasi, day after it happened.  He says the analysts never talked to the White House,  no pressure was ever placed on them, and they came up with the "It was a protest that got out of hand" story.  Some hour later, a report from the CIA station chief on the ground in Benghasi came in, the station chief  called it a terrorist attack.  Morell claims he passed the station chief's report on the the analyists, and the analysts stuck with their story.  So Morrell  decided to go with the DC based chairborne warriors rather than the field officer on the scene.  And that's how Susan Rice went on the talk shows that Sunday and peddled the "demonstration that got out of hand" story to the country. 
   Good work Morell.  Anyone knows that first hand reports from a responsible man on the scene are more dependable than vaporings from DC pundits. 

What's wrong with making political contributions?

I dunno.  But Harry Reid thinks it is unAmerican for the Koch brothers to contribute money in support of their political beliefs.  Far as I am concerned, putting money behind your political beliefs is a commendable act of good citizenship..  Especially when I agree with some of those beliefs.  There are plenty of left wing rich guys giving money to Democrats  (the name George Soros comes to mind ). 
  America is a two party country.  Supporting either party is a public good.   

It's acceptable even if it doesn't meet spec.

This from Mary Barra, new GM CEO to a Congressional committee investigating the GM ignition switch failures.
  In all my career in engineering, I never heard anyone ever say anything like that.  The rule anywhere I ever worked was simple, if it doesn't meet spec, back it goes and we don't pay for it.  That's what incoming inspection is about.
  To hear the CEO of GM, a long time engineer there, say that GM would accept parts that don't meet spec means that GM doesn't believe in written quality standards.  Apparently GM will ship anything, whether it is any good or not.
   Talk about a dysfunctional corporate culture.
   Mulally at Ford would never say anything like that. 
   My next car won't be from GM.  

Artichokes

An amusing veggie to eat.  Actually a thistle.  You pluck off the leaves one by one and nibble the tender part off the bottom of the leaf.  With mayonnaise.  You discard the tough and fibrous upper part of the leaf.  They are in season, not too expensive, and tasty.  One artichoke can make a nice light meal, and many of us find a light meal plenty filling.  The impressive size of the artichoke, and the amount of plucking and nibbling makes them seem like more of a meal than they really are.  Note.  DO NOT put the used leaves down the disposal.  They are tough and stringy and will clog your drain, but good, every time.
   Cooking is simple.  Boil or steam them until tender.  About 45 minutes.  The Barefoot Gourmet has an entire chapter explaining how to prepare them.  Barefoot is into garlic, and recommends slicing up a whole fresh garlic clove and placing slivers of garlic in between the artichoke leaves.  Me, I'm not a real garlic fan so I skip that part.  But do slice off the stem and the top 1/2 inch or so, leaving a round spot about the size of a silver dollar.  Put them in a pot, sprinkle a generous amount of salt on the cut off tops, dribble some olive oil on top of the salt.  Add cold water and go for it. 
   Virtuous.  And tasty.