Making conclusions based on a hunch

Long time ago, there was a Cold War going on, the war between the so-called Western Democracies and the Communist bloc - the union of the so-called "People's Democracies". This Cold War actually resulted in the rather brutal death of hundreds of millions of people in the proxy wars in Africa, Asia and South America, but apparently it was cold enough compared to the alternative.

Back then (just as now), Western intelligence services had very limited access to the internal workings of the Communist countries (as Churchill famously quipped: "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma"). But nature abhors vacuum, and the new science was born - they called it "Kremlinology". A large number of well-paid American social scientists (I feel nauseous even using this oxymoronic term, "social scientists") were pouring over the photographs of the Soviet Politburo, counting the minutes each communist leader was speaking during the Party Congress, analyzing the sequence of names in the official newspapers. Indeed, as any former Soviet citizen would know, every step of the leaders of the communist junta was rehearsed, and every detail had a meaning. You could theoretically find out who was favored by Brezhnev and his clique by the order in which the government members were walking up the Lenin's mausoleum during the May Day parade. All that may be in the past - or is it really?

This year, the Nobel Committee, apparently ashamed of its 2009 decision to grant the award to Barack Hussein Obama (former community organizer, most famous for being the most thin-skinned US president of all times) decided that 2010 will be different. And indeed it was, The Nobel Prize was awarded to a person with actual achievements, Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. According to wikipedia, he is a "Chinese literary critic, writer, professor, and human rights activist who called for political reforms and the end of communist one-party rule in China". What's even more amazing is how much his views are in line with the views of the pro-Western Soviet dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Valeria Novodvorskaya, anti-Putin activist Viktor Shenderovich and pro-freedom writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Indeed, Liu Xiaobo may prove to be a little bit too progressive and too pro-Western for American progressive intellectuals. One must not forget that the denounciation of Western culture and support for socialist cannibals is a requirement for anyone who wishes to be considered an intellectual in the US. In fact, I was struck by the views that this brave man had the audacity to say – indeed he would be in danger of losing his job and face continuous harassment from the socialist thugs if he were a professor in American university – let alone the communist paradise of China. Here are a few of the most outrageous quotes from him:

“In a 1988 interview with Hong Kong’s Liberation Monthly (now known as Open Magazine), Liu was asked what it would take for China to realize a true historical transformation.

He replied: “(It would take) 300 years of colonialism. In 100 years of colonialism, Hong Kong has changed to what we see today. With China being so big, of course it would require 300 years as a colony for it to be able to transform into how Hong Kong is today. I have my doubts as to whether 300 years would be enough.”

I read this and laughed – damn, this guy is a classical Russian liberal (don’t mistake a Russian liberal for an American one – because a Russian liberal is solidly pro-Western, pro-freedom and anti-socialist).


Later Liu said something which rings true to all pro-Western intellectuals in the Soviet Empire:

“Modernization means whole-sale westernization, choosing a human life is choosing Western way of life. Difference between Western and Chinese governing system is humane vs in-humane, there’s no middle ground… Westernization is not a choice of a nation, but a choice for the human race”.

According to wikipidea, he did not stop with this heresy against the edicts of American liberalism and said something even more outrageous:

In his 1996 article titled “Lessons from the Cold War”, Liu argues that “The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible.” He has defended U.S. policies in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which he thinks is the fault of the “provocateur” Palestinians.

Liu also published a 2004 article in support of Bush’s war on Iraq, titled “Victory to the Anglo-American Freedom Alliance”, in which he praised the U.S. led post-cold-war wars as “best examples of how war should be conducted in a modern civilization.” and predicted “a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq will emerge.” During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu again praised Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the US’s wars.

I am in a 100% agreement with everything this man says – with the exception of one quote from 2009 - I cannot think like that :

“I have no enemies, and no hatred. None of the police who have monitored, arrested and interrogated me, the prosecutors who prosecuted me, or the judges who sentence me, are my enemies. While I’m unable to accept your surveillance, arrest, prosecution or sentencing, I respect your professions and personalities, including Zhang Rongge and Pan Xueqing who act for the prosecution at present.”

With all due respect, but I consider this approach to be fundamentally wrong. I think it was Valeriya Novodvorskaya who wrote that when she was arrested, she would specifically tell the KGB officers that’s it was their fault, their responsibility, and they should be ashamed of what they are doing. In other words, it was not business, it was very personal. Same attitude was also expressed by a famous Russian writer

 Vladimir Voinovich - he recalls in one of his books how he was shaming the KGB officer and telling him that his only noble way out was to commit a suicide (KGB was forcing Voinovich out of the country).

Last but not least I must recall Solzhenitsyn's call to Russian people to defend themselves with knives, hammers and any dangerous objects they could find during the political arrests. His slogan was "Let's make them (the KGB) scared of us".

All in all, it's obvious that Liu does not share the hatred of communism and communists, hatred which is common among many Russians, hatred so vicious that it darkens your mind and you are ready to tear your enemies bit by bit. For any Russian-speaking reader of this post who forgot this feeling, I would point to a famous song by Alexander Galich about the funeral of a Nobel-winning Russian writer Boris Pasternak - a man who was driven to death by the vicious campaign of the communist regime in the 1950ies. As Galich said (my translation) – “we will remember every name of every person who raised his hand” (i.e. voted to condemn Pasternak for his anti-communist novel “Doctor Zhivago”).


It seems though that my post somewhat slipped away from the main topic of Kreminology. But fear not, Hyphenated American is on the case.

After the Nobel Committee had announced its decision to award the prize to a famous dissident, Chinese government, quite understandably, got upset. The Chinese progressives told the world that this award was “counter-productive” (or something pompous like that) and forbade Liu’s wife to leave China – so that no one could accept the award. The communists did something even better – they told everyone who would listen that it would be very appreciative of the China’s allies who would refuse to be present during the award ceremony. And this is where Kreminology finds its use. According to the media, 18 countries openly refused to come the ceremony, and the list of the countries is not without surprises: Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu raised the stakes even further, by stating: “As far as I know, at present, more than 100 countries and organisations have expressed explicit support for China opposing the Nobel peace prize, which fully shows that the international community does not accept the decision of the Nobel committee.” All in all, only 44 countries were present during the ceremony.

It should not surprise anyone that Iran, Sudan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Ukraine, Cuba boycotted the award ceremony. I don’t know what the hell is wrong with Tunisia, the Philippines and Morocco – but it makes sense to mark these three as supporters of oppression.

The remaining ones are rather peculiar – Pakistan, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Egypt. Pakistan is now being pumped up with US money and military equipment with one goal in mind – to keep it from falling under the power of local moderate moslems. In spite of much advertised moderation of the “Religion of Peace”, it is known that some moderate moslems may start cutting off heads of the infidels and stoning adulterous women if US does not stop them – so it makes sense for the civilized world to keep those moderate moslems in check. The Pakistani government is now fully dependent on the US good will, and if that good will disappears, the Pakistan’s Prime Minister Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yousaf Raza Gillani make wake up one day and discover that his head is hidden in the drawer. The governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are in even worse position, given that US troops currently occupy both of these nations. Saudi Arabia exists solely because the US protects it from the neighbors with a rather large army contingent. And yet, all four of these American satellites smugly ignored Obama’s calls to democracy and instead supported Chinese brutal regime. Egypt is receiving about 2 billion of US aid annually – and yet it pissed on Obama and joined China (I support the pissing part, but I strongly disagree with cowtowing to the commies). Colombia was famously rebuffed by Obama in 2008 (he said that he would not support the trade deal with the US ally because of his support for the unions) and Obama was still stuck on stupid in 2010.

In short, I understand why Colombia, which is now seeking good relationship with Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chavez, endorses Chinese brutality against its dissidents. Amazingly, US government has no influence over our protectorates – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, while I have no illusions about the first three, Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be different, but apparently under Obama’s supervision they turned into classical Third-World anti-American dictatorships. In fact, I would even say that there is no reason for the US troops to continue their fight in these two countries – I officially declare that I lost all hope in the occupation. The fact that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan sided with China against democracy is, what any Kreminologist would say, a very troubling sign which should not be ignored.


In short – Obama, bring the boys back home, there is nothing for us to achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore. After all the successes in 2007-2008 in Iraq, you squandered it all. Bring the boys back home, Obama, bring the boys back home. We need them here – and maybe we can use them to control our border with Mexico. Last but not least, it would be easier for them to vote, once they are back in the country – and God knows these boys don’t vote for the anti-American scum.

Some things never change...

In case some of my readers forgot,  I was born and educated in the USSR - and the accidence of my upbringing made me a rather keen observer of some issues. There are certain details that may be missed by an American, or some things may be not given sufficient attention. Due to the complete Soviet control over media, a typical Soviet citizen was conditioned to make far reaching conclusions based on rather small details, which he could glance from the communist press, as well as getting a rather good insight through a technique called "reading between the lines". In fact, I don't think the world has ever seen people as trained to read between the lines that the Soviets. And still, even though I follow American news rather closely, I was surprised by the news that Castro's regime banned Moore's movie "Sicko". According to the wikileaks:

[T]he memo reveals that when the film was shown to a group of Cuban doctors, some became so “disturbed at the blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba that they left the room”.


Castro’s government apparently went on to ban the film because, the leaked cable claims, it “knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them.”…

The cable describes a visit made by the FSHP to the Hermanos Ameijeiras hospital in October 2007. Built in 1982, the newly renovated hospital was used in Michael Moore’s film as evidence of the high-quality of healthcare available to all Cubans.

But according to the FSHP, the only way a Cuban can get access to the hospital is through a bribe or contacts inside the hospital administration. “Cubans are reportedly very resentful that the best hospital in Havana is ‘off-limits’ to them,” the memo reveals.

I must confess that I utterly detest Michael Moore, and I know that the guy is a serial liar (which perfectly explains why he was the guest of honor during the John Kerry's Convention. And this news makes perfect sense to me - I believe that while Cubans hate their progressive slave masters - they absolutely detest Michael Moore. And yet, to find that Cuban communists decided that Moore was too deceitful even for their state propaganda - that is something that I find extremely entertaining.

Don't forget this little jewel when a liberal complains that there are no true leftists in America. For all we know, Michael Moore is significantly to the left from Fidel Castro.

Did you miss me? I am back....

I've been quite busy for the last few weeks - balancing my work and family responsibilities left precious little time for explaining what is wrong with the world. But now I am back and ready to 
smack the afflicted and the comfortable, giving comfort to no one except a few selected people (if you were not notified of being selected, then get ready for the beating).

I occasionally visit this site in order to find out the views of mainstream left-wing Americans, who freely speak their mind. It's not a terribly impressive read, but it keep me informed of what the liberals really think. I think it makes sense to spend some time today and respond to a couple of the posts.

Where did the money go?
It is customary among the left to portray the industrialists as evil incarnate. In fact, it remains unclear why we even allow those horrible creatures (the industrialists) to exist - why not kill them all? This post brings forward a caricature of the company owners, and it is no less vile than the Nazi caricatures of the Jews. Why is it okay to depict all industrialists as murderers, while no such generalization is welcome for the Religion Of Peace? After all, when was the last time you saw a corporate CEO mutilating his workers - and when was the last time you've heard of people being beheaded in the name of Religion of Peace?

It's fair to say that it makes little sense to project the actions of a few Islamic extremists (how few remains to be seen) on the whole Mohammedan religion - and we are reminded of this daily by liberals. And yet, the same liberals are ready to depict the entire group of people as evil without any hesitation (heck, the liberals are actually ecstatic every time they can slander the industrialists). In case you are wondering, I reproduced the entire list of Danish cartoons - the cartoons that resulted in multiple riots by the proponents of Religion of Peace and hundreds of deaths - and were denounced by liberals as inflammatory.

It's fair to ask - which cartoon was more inflammatory - the one that showed industrialists maiming the workers or any of the Danish cartoons? But I digress...

When one reads the original article that accompanies the cartoon, it becomes quite clear that there is practically nothing to explain the viciousness of the caricature. The author does not even attempt to explain how it is the fault of industrialists that wages stagnated in the last few decades - let alone to provide empirical evidence that real after-tax income and benefits failed to grow. This article reminded of an old anti-semitic Russian saying perfectly illustrates the liberal view of industrialists:

Если в кране нет воды,

Значит выпили жиды.

Если в кране есть вода,

Значит ссут они туда.

In my translation it becomes:

If there is no water in the faucet

It means the Jews drank all the water

If there is water in the faucet

It means the Jews peed in it.

A more nuanced (but no less wrong) analysis is proposed in the Alexandria article and relies on a Washington Post article that discusses the root causes for the lack of upper mobility of American workers. As one would guess, the reason for this is pretty straightforward - the government does not spend sufficient amounts of money on education. And, as one could have guessed, the latest cruel cuts to the state budgets caused major pain and suffering - as numerous anecdotal evidence cited by the article tries to prove.

But apart from anecdotal evidence - what is the real deal with the US education? I've plotted two graphs which show total federal, state and local education spending in US as percentage of GDP. The second plot shows how total spending on Tertiary education changed with time. Both of these graphs prove conclusively that lack of funding is NOT the issue that is negatively affecting American education. If anything, the spending grew considerably from 3% of the GDP in the 1950ies to 7% in 2010 - and the growth visibly accelerated in 2008. The same is true for the tertiary education - it's share of GDP grew from 0.4% to more than 2% - an amazing 5-fold increase. In short, the rumors about underfunded education have been greatly exaggerated, and the education spending exploded in the last few decades - and not just in nominal numbers - it clearly outpaced even the GDP growth.

It took me about 20 minutes to get all this information and put it into the presentable form - why haven't the so-called "journalists" done same thing? What is the reason that the mainstream media feeds American citizens with plethora of anecdotal evidence, and is incapable of looking at the aggregate data? Is it because those journalists are stupid and ignorant - or because they are ideologues who refuse to cite the inconvenient numbers? My guess that it's the combination of all three - blind obedience to liberal ideology, stupidity and ignorance.

Federal, State and Local spending on education as percentage of GDP

Federal, State and Local spending on Tertiary education as percentage of GDP

Multiculturalism and liberalism

It's a common belief among liberals that all cultures are essentially equal, that a proclamation of  superiority of particular religion is morally and factually wrong. This article from Alexandria follows the usual script - an ultra-left-wing blogger Hector dared to suggest that Christianity was better than Islam, and he was attacked mercilessly by another blogger. When I read the posts like this, I always wonder if the liberals who write them are ready to include conservatism in general and Tea Party activism in particular in the list of protected ideologies (mind you that religious belief is inevitably an ideology). Should we assume that any liberal who claims the supremacy of his ideology over conservatism " as Osama bin Laden’s minions are demonstrating," is lead "inevitably to a claim to dominion"? In fact, if devoted liberal truly believe in their supremacy, then liberals should be organizing a terrorist network to establish the Kingdom of Liberalism on earth and Obama's friend Bill Ayers is not an extremist - he is nothing more than a consistent liberal.

There is of course, a bigger issue at play, which makes the comparison even less beneficial to the liberals. For example, one can believe that Jesus is the savior, and that all other religions are inferior to Christianity - while being perfectly resigned to letting other people choose their own "opium" of preference. It's not the same with people who strongly support liberal causes. For example a man who believes in supremacy of government-run medical care (aka "universal healthcare") cannot possibly support the right of other people to opt out from his plan. A president who thinks some people earn too much money, and he should have to power to seize their property at gun point and distribute it among the more deserving candidates (based on the famous Leninist concept of "revolutionary conscience") cannot allow the evil capitalists and the racist white middle class the right to choose their own way. It is ironic that liberals, people who by the very definition of their ideology require massive violence or threat of violence against the people to fulfill their dreams - to proclaim as unacceptable and tyrannical the pronouncement of supremacy of one's religious beliefs. The claim "it's for your own good" does not become any more benevolent if it does not deal with your afterlife and religious dogma - and instead requires you to give up your fruits of labor. I suggest all progressive conservatives should once and for all seize the incoherence of liberal message on multiculturalism and use it against them. It's fun, ain't it?

In order to make my blog even more entertaining, I will occasionally provide interesting quotes from interesting people. Here is what famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy said more than a century ago:

 “...Будучи революционером, нельзя быть правдивым, нельзя не лгать, нельзя быть смиренным и добрым, а надо быть готовым для будущей мнимо благой цели на всякого рода гадости и совершать их”.

My translation:

"When you are a revolutionary, you cannot be truthful, you cannot not lie, you cannot be humble and kind - instead you must be ready to commit all kinds of awful things - and actually do commit them for the illusive future good of mankind".

Who broke the Messiah?

During the last few months, a number of political activists proposed a rather interesting meme - American people are frustrated with Obama because they simply expected too much of him. As Spike Lee correctly noted: "People expected Obama to be like Jesus and walk on water. "  And surely Lee is not alone - you can easily find thousands of articles repeating the same idea - American voters over-estimated Obama's promise, that no president could have achieved what was expected of him.

Granted, the liberal intellectuals did had some unrealistic hopes - for example watch this highly educated and motivated African-American woman telling the media that when Obama is elected, she "won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car....  won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage”. Not to be outdone, Louis Farrakhan (a respected Black leader and a renown expert of the extraterrestrial life) proclaimed that Obama was the Messiah. Surely our President did not run away from promising quite a bit on his own - for example he assured the American people that he would single-handily lower the sea levels, provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless. And yes, the Guatanamo Bay was supposed to be closed, the unemployment were to stay below 8% and the US allies would be delighted to help America to win the war in Afghanistan and kill Osama ben Laden - while Iran would be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons.

An attentive reader may ask a rather obvious question stands - how did people in the age of information were so misinformed as to clearly over-estimate the abilities of a former community organizer? Indeed - how could it happen? Americans are known to be practical people, and yet they fell in love with the crook and gave him the keys to the house. Who is responsible for this mess?

Back in spring 2010 I told two of my liberal friends that GOP would very likely took back the House in the next elections. The guys laughed at me, and said that I was nuts. According to them, Obama was wildly popular with American people, Tea Party was crazy and would surely push away the independents. In short, they could not imagine how GOP could win the 2010 elections. Clearly, my friends were convinced that Democrats would not lose the House, and I decided to check just how certain they were in their belief. I offered each of them a $50 bet - and both of them gladly agreed to it. A few months later they both conceded that they lost the bet. As you could imagine, I was mocking them mercilessly the entire time - telling them just how much I would enjoy spending their money on a good cause. But I went further and told them that the result of this bet was not accidental. Unlike my liberal friends, I actually listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News, and both of these sources provided me with enough valuable information to conclude way ahead of my friends that GOP would take over the House. As one of my friends replied - what I said was even more painful to him than losing $50.

Indeed, the smart ass comment to my liberal friends have a lot of truth in it. Quite a lot of people did expect a lot from Obama administration - one could say no politician could do what he was supposed to do. Today, it's a rather common place argument that Obama suffers from the unreasonable expectations of the public. And yet - I did not have those unreasonable expectations - actually I thought he was a man with no experience, useless education and extreme left-wing beliefs. Nearly every man who listened to Rush Limbaugh and watched Fox News surely realized that Obama was not an able administrator, nor could expect him to be better than an average US president. And yet, millions of people saw Obama as "some kind of God".

There are two lessons that American people have to learn this debacle. Firstly, they need to understand that they need to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News if they want to get valuable information about liberal politicians. It surely is not enough to get the news and analysis from the Mainstream Media. And secondly - anyone who proclaims that Obama was burdened with too much expectation should explain who EXACTLY created this expectation. It's not sufficient to proclaim that the Obama hype of 2008 damaged his presidency - one must immediately point out the media outlets and specific reporters and journalists who promoted the Obama myth, who failed to inform the American people about the limitations of the new president. Let's start naming names - Chris Matthews, David Weigel and thousands of others. These are the people who created the Obama myth - and who could never trusted again. And the biggest losers are the so-called "conservatives" like David Brooks who blindly fell in love with Obama. The same conservatives who smugly denigrate Rush Limbaugh and Fox News as too simplistic, fell to the primitive swindle of a used-community organizer. As Brooks infamously remembered his encounter with Obama: "“I remember distinctly an image of -- we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” Well, David, you should have ignored the pants and listened to what Obama was saying.

So, do you still wonder who broke the Messiah? The media did. They turned a man of average intelligence and murky past into the Savior of the Nation. Of course he underperformed. Blame the media. Keep in mind that most of people in mainstream media are stupid, and don't forget to listen to Rush Limbaugh - he tells you the truth. I've got $100 to prove it.

I am forced to interrupt the regular broadcasting to share sad news with my readers

With great personal pain I announce that on Saturday, October 23, 2010, former president of the United States, Jimmy  Carter went completely bonkers. During his interview with Deseret News, he declared without a trace of irony that during his administration, US “had almost complete harmony with every nation on Earth.” Carter administration spanned the years 1977-1981, the climax of the Cold War, when Soviet Union was at the peak of its power. Some readers may not remember that in 1979 USSR invaded Afghanistan and Jimmy Carter confessed that his opinion of the Soviet Empire drastically changed because of this naked act of aggression (this statement undoubtedly made people wonder what this imbecile thought about the USSR prior to the Afghan war). Of course, the harmony of the Soviet-US relationship hardly worsened because of the Afghan war, and the fact that Carter decided to boycott the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow – after all, it’s was a small quarrel between close friends – that’s at least the impression one would get from what Jimmy tells the newspapers today.

At the same time, the US-Iranian relationship were also blossoming. In 1979, Iranian students stormed the US embassy and in utter humiliation to Jimmy Carter, held 52 Americans as hostages for 444 days. During the rescue operation, three Marines and five Air Force crew members were killed. I have a feeling that the hostages and the families of the dead soldiers would gladly agree with Carter that US “had almost complete harmony with every nation of Earth” - particularly with Iran. In fact, they may even find Carter’s remarks deeply gratifying on many levels.

Of course, we cannot ignore multiple bloody conflicts in Africa, terrorism in the Middle East and communist warfare in the South America – which only added unforgettable flavor to the world harmony. In short, the world was a pretty dangerous and violent place during Carter’s administration, and US spent whole lot of money building nuclear bombs as well as numerous other instruments for industrial-scale killing of human beings. In short, ”US had almost complete harmony with every nation on Earth”. If this looked like harmony to Carter, than he is nuttier than the peanuts he was growing as a farmer.

Not satisfied with sharing his rather unconventional opinion on foreign policy, Carter decided to brag a little bit about the multiple successes of his economic policy. Our former president talked creating jobs during his term  (don't forget the infamous misery index), promoting human rights (people in the USSR could attest to how much he succeeded), and his success in tackling  the energy policy (gasoline rationing comes to mind). He was particularly proud that he gave away the Panama Canal (designed, built and paid for by American people) to Panamanian kleptocrats.

There is only man on this planet that can make Jimmy Carter seem like a relatively competent leader - and the name of this unique man is "Barack Hussein Obama". I wonder who will be our next Ronald Reagan.

Reading left-wing articles - Part 1

With a meteoric fall in Obama's personal approval ratings, and the "Chronicle of a Death Foretold" of the Democrat Party in the coming Congressional elections, the liberal operatives in the Mainstream  Media are actively looking for the root causes of the failure of their agenda. As is customary in American politics, the liberals are disciplined enough not to question the validity of their ideology, but instead are busy trying to discover some way to blame this on the inherent evilness, stupidity and ignorance of the American people. For a while, the liberals proclaimed that any disagreement with Obama's plan to "fundamentally change America" could be easily traced to racism. But alas, this argument is too worn out these days and fails to sway a lot of people. "Ah, the old racism argument" is how people react to it this day. Long gone are the times when Obama could proudly proclaim  that "White folks' greed runs a world in need" - and get a standing ovation from the liberals. Ah, the good old days of Obama-mania.

A rather typical response these days from liberals is that American people are stupid, ignorant, childish and just too scared to see the brilliance of Barack Hussein Obama. As Bill Press famously said - "American people are spoiled" and that they are too critical, too quick to rush to judgement, too negative, too impatient. In other words - the Messiah cannot do miracles under so much pressure.

Not to be outdone in smuggness by a pack of liberal  reporters, President Obama proclaimed that American people were too damn scared to think clearly and comprehend his inherent brilliance. Of course, it comes to reason that the 2008 decision to put a community organizer in charge of the entire country - the decision that was made during the nerve-racking financial crisis - was probably not the wisest idea - and I can easily imagine Obama telling American people that they were responsible for his failures as president because they were stupid enough to vote for him. It's quite clear though that liberals are dreading the next elections, and as Obama himself noticed - people are hardwired to ignore logic and science when in terror - so one can expect Obama and his lackeys to come up with quite bizarre arguments and claims in the coming weeks.

And yet, if anything, like the energizer bunny, the liberals never stop and keep seeking the reasons to explain their lost popularity - and somehow this should involve the evilness of American people. A rather original argument was recently offered by Anne Applebaum, who in a recent article proclaimed that Obama's unpopularity is caused by - wait for it - popular resentment for upward mobility. Apparently, American people turned against Obama in 2010 because it was finally revealed that he (and his wife) came from the relatively modest roots. Up until that time Americans were in love with Obama and his glamorous wife - which I speculate was due to a mistaken belief by some that Obama was a long lost offspring of the Kennedy clan. Alas, in 2010, American people came around and read the two-volume long memoirs of Barack Obama and discovered a horrible truth - this man was no Kennedy - in fact he was raised by a dopey no-good do-gooder mother (perpetual graduate student in Indonesia) and her typical white parents. What a surprise - Obama did not grow up in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts - instead he was raised in the slums of Indonesia and a private school in Hawaii. Surely that had the most devastating effect on Obama's popularity - and not, say, the failure of Obama's economic policies.

A mildly surprising aspect of Anne's article was that she never came around to actually present any evidence supporting her claim that Americans resent upward mobility - in fact one could have just as easily speculated that American people cooled down to Obama because they resented his busy golf schedule or the fact that he throws a baseball worse than a 12 year girl with two left hands. For all it's worth, Anne talks a lot about Ivy League schools and their wonderfulness and how everyone who was admitted to those universities are the best and the brightest people on Earth - with IQs higher than Einstein's and perfect SAT scores - which by itself is a rather questionable claim. Clearly, Obamas, the proud graduates of the Ivy League schools, must be the top SAT scorers and possess IQs so high that the current testing methodology cannot reach those levels. And surely the American people fully share Anne's admiration of Obamas' intelligence and scholarly success - their only beef is with the fact that Obama came from a atypical white family.

Neither of that is true. To start with, no one begrudges Obama that he was not born with a silver spoon up his ass like Ted Kennedy. In fact, this is probably the only think that all American like about him. Secondly, quite a lot of people have serious doubts that Obama actually deserved to be admitted to the Ivy League schools, let alone be elected president of the United State. Anne seems to be rather forgetful that conservatives spent the entire 2008 demanding Obama to release his student records (SAT, LSAT scores, his student grades and the list of classes he took). Same conservatives were saying that Obama had absolutely nothing in his record to justify his claim to the US presidency. Somehow, Anne does not acknowledge that there is no evidence that Obama deserved admission to Harvard (and Columbia), that he was a mediocre student and the only reason why he got into Ivy League schools was due to his race and political connections. "Can this man run a hot dog stand?" was a popular question back in 2008 - and it was surely not because people resented meritocracy - but rather because they instinctively suspected that Obama's meteoric rise had nothing to do with his merits. "We need for the black guy to prove we are not racists" is hardly equivalent to a call to vote for a man who is an underachiever - and if anything, Obama was a clean slate even to the journalists after the elections in 2008. According to Charlie Rose, Obama "is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches". Interestingly enough, the people who tried to investigate Obama's academic credentials are now being prosecuted by the FBI - after all, the records of Obama's student merits are the most guarded secret in the United States.  

Anne also does not shy away from saying that Americans resent Michele Obama because of how much she achieved solely because of her own hard work and high IQ. So, what exactly did this female hyper-Einstein achieve worthy of hatred (and not contempt which is a prevalent feeling towards Michele on the right-wing blogs)? Well, according to Applebaum, Michele Obama is a "daughter of a black municipal employee, graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School, is now first lady." I have little doubt that marrying a future president of the United States is a marvelous achievement worthy of Nobel prize (don't laugh at this joke - Obama got his award for even less) - but Michele's admission to Ivy League schools was not based on her scholarly work or incredible intelligence. According to liberal Newsweek "Some of her teachers told her she didn't have the grades or test scores to make it to the Ivies. But she applied to Princeton and was accepted." And poor Michele spent all the years in Princeton and Harvard suffering from a well-justified feeling that she was not good enough to be in those universities - after all, people vastly superior to her  intellectually but rather unlucky in their skin pigmentation (Whites, Jews and Asians) had to be excluded to give way to the academic mediocrities like Michele and Barack Obama.  And things got hardly better when Michele received her law degree - in fact her career was nothing to talk about until Barack Obama was elected the US senator - and on that day her salary was tripled (a rather odd coincidence - but something rather typical in Chicago). Of course, the facts I am reciting now are well-known to anyone paying attention, so it's understandable that Anne attempts to ignore them in order to get an inch closer to her desired proof that it's American evilness that prevents us from seeing just how lucky we are to have Barack Obama and Michele Obama govern our nation from the White House. It's doubly ironic that Anne makes an argument about the decisive role of IQ and SAT scores to get into Ivy league schools - only to be blown off by Michele Obama herself, who said that "If my future were determined by my performance on a standardized test I wouldn’t be here. I guarantee that."

And yes, Anne believes that Barack and his wife Michele are meritocrats who got everything they got (Ivy League education, millions of dollars in earnings and the White House residency) solely due to their hard work and superior intelligence. In fact, poor Anne uses the Obama and meritocrats practically interchangeably - as if these two were synonyms. And, according to Anne, Americans dislike and envy Obamas for their well-deserved rise to success. There is no other possible reason for this dislike evidently - even though Obamas seem to be the first couple that lost its popularity because of American envy. Surely, the poor (and worsening) state of American economy cannot possibly explain why Americans turned away from Obama. High unemployment, exponential rise in debt coupled with Obama's arrogance and dismissiveness of the working people could not change the American mind. For Anne Applebaum the worsening state of economy and rising distrust of the federal government and its ability to run the affairs of the nation are so inconsequential that she flatly  refuses to even mention them as alternative explanations to Obama's unpopularity. It's fair to say that few people are more closed-minded than the ones who claim they fight for diversity - and Anne Applebaum is a prime example of this blindness. But I have no doubt that my readers are smarter than that - and I promise Part 2 of this article will keep you engaged (and enraged).

Part 2 - a few salient features.

• Why conservatives don't like the "elites" - and what they do they even mean when they use this term?
• Anne Applebaum dowdifies the quote from Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Thomas, in order to prove her point.
• Why could possibly Americans have cooled to Michele Obama?
• Barack Obama and his undergraduate years - Hyphenated American finished reading "Dreams from My Father" and is bursting with information to share.

A few Russian jokes

US economy was in poor conditions two years ago.
US economy was in poor conditions last year.
US economy is in poor conditions this year.
It is projected that US economy will be in poor conditions next year.
If anything, it's fair to say that Obama has stabilized the US economy.

______________________________________________________________

During the traditional ceremony of stoning the adulteress women, Iranian President Ahmadinejad devoted part of his speech for a reminder about the suffering of Palestinian people under the cruel Zionist regime.

The end of "Irrational Exuberance"

A few days ago I ran across an article by Eugene Robinson on the stupidity of American people - and it was a highly enjoyable read. Eugene is very upset at the American people because they "stupidly" changed their minds about Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. And he does not mince words - he calls Americans "a bunch of spoiled brats", while their opposition to Democrats is nothing more than a "temper tantrum". In order to prove the irrationality of American people, he uses a very peculiar argument:

Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they're ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans -- for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn't an "electoral wave," it's a temper tantrum.

In reality, Eugene ignores that the people's decision to vote for Republicans is based on personal interest and trust - given the horrible state of the US economy, Americans were compelled to ignore their contempt for the GOP and vote with their pocketbook. According to the Rasmussen poll of likely voters, Americans "now trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 of the important issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports." The table below compares the voters' trust for Democrats and Republicans.

The biggest criticism of Americans that Eugene is willing to share with his readers is that the people apparently lack the necessary patience, and instead of waiting for Obama to solve all the problems, they want everything to be resolved right away. Ironically, this is same Eugene Robinson who in 2007 triumphantly proclaimed that he lost patience with Iraq war (speaking about ironies, his article quite coincidentally was named "No time for patience in Iraq"), and it was foolish to give surge a chance. Of course, same Eugene Robinson lost his patience way before 2007 - for example in his 2005 article (that's just 2 years after the invasion of Iraq - the time comparable with Obama's presidency), he proclaimed "We're the ones trapped in the dark with no exit sign in sight." In a 2006 article, Eugene (the future guru of perseverance) proclaimed that Bush's surge was a waste of time and lives (the patient Eugene named his article "A 'Surge' in Wasted Sacrifice"), and that an increase in "troop strength that has almost no chance of making any difference". According to him, the surge was "arguably the worst imaginable "way forward" in Iraq". Why did he make this conclusion? Let me quote the end of the article in full - for the benefit of a reader who is in the mood for a chuckle:

It is unconscionable to think about dispatching more young men and women to Iraq without the realistic expectation that their presence will make a difference in a war that is no longer in our control. Here in Washington, proponents of a troop "surge" speak of giving the whole Iraq adventure one last try. But they sound as if they're more concerned about projecting an image of American resolve than anything else. Does anyone think a symbolic troop increase is going to have the likes of Moqtada al-Sadr or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tossing and turning through sleepless nights?

Doubling the number of American troops in Iraq would be wrong -- we need to get out, now, before we set the whole Middle East on fire -- but at least a surge of that scale would have a purpose. The modest increase now on the table would be purposeless and wrong. What could be more immoral than sacrificing American blood and treasure to save face in a lost war?

And now, after 1.5 years of Obama's presidency and 3.5 years of the overwhelming Democrat's control over the House and the Senate, Eugene is angry at the American people for their decision to change the course of the country.

Talking about patience, in the same 2005 article, Eugene told the readers that Bush was leaving the country with "crushing national debt, rising economic inequality, a poisoned political atmosphere". Note that from 2000 to 2005, president Bush increased Gross National Debt by 2.3 trillion dollars, and during all 8 years of his presidency it went up by 4.4 trillion dollars. President Obama was able to match Bush's 8 year debt increase in just two years increasing it by 4.5 trillion dollars. In terms of GDP, Bush increased the debt by 12.2% of the GDP during his entire presidency, while Obama raised it by 27.9%. And in the future, Obama's deficits show no trend of closing with the rather moderate levels during Bush administration - far from it. All the predictions show the trillion dollar deficits as far as the eyes can see.

 So, what could explain Eugene's apparent tolerance and patience with president Obama and utter impatience with president Bush? One plausible explanation that comes to mind is that Eugene's political sympathies played some role in his "unexpected" growth of patience with the election of a new president. The second explanation takes into account Eugene's poor reasoning skills - for example in he proudly proclaimes that the "richest Americans need to pay higher taxes" and his main argument for this appeal to class envy is rather strange - according to Eugene, this is "because they [the richest Americans] earn a much bigger share of the nation's income and hold a bigger share of its overall wealth." This is a rather silly argument - since it flunks the most basic requirements of logic. When Eugene demands the rich to pay more in taxes - it is unclear what exactly is his point of reference. Should they pay more than the rest of the population? Even with flat income tax rate (which we do not have) the rich would be paying higher taxes than the rest of the population. Due to the current progressive taxation system, the richest Americans already pay a disproportionately large share of federal income taxes. If on the other side, this was an argument to raise taxes on the rich - Eugene's reasoning is clearly silly. Richest Americans by definition earn larger share of income, so the argument that we need to raise taxes on them because they have more money is a never-ending argument. In fact, following Eugene's logic, we need to keep raising taxes on the rich until their income and wealth falls to the levels of the rest of the population - which is an argument for communism. All in all, Eugene's sloppy thinking is not uncommon for the left-wing intellectuals, who have been educated in all subjects except the ones that require logical thinking and self-criticism.

But still, if I am generous enough to ignore the various fallacies in the article - does Eugene's main argument that Americans lack patience and need to give more time to the Democrats in power hold water? After some analysis it struck me that what we experience today with the Democrats in power has a close analogy in the latest few economic (and intellectual) bubbles that burst in the last 10 years. I want to remind the readers that back in 2000, some economists and journalists predicted that the Dow Index could reach 50,000 in the near future and that at 36,000 "stocks are both safe and undervalued". Note that it is 10,460 today - after the dot come bubble, the housing bubble and the banking bubbles burst. If you remember the 90ies, I am sure you can recount multiple experts asserting the people that the new economy was different, that the dot-com companies did not have to follow the old traditional Price per Earnings expectations (or as our affirmative action genius "unexpectedly" changed  it to Profits per Earnings). A few pedants can even remember the now infamous book "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market". According to publishers, "In Dow 36,000, James Glassman and Kevin Hassett see a bright future for stocks, but rather than looking at external factors, the two base their prediction on the intrinsic value of equities and their ability to generate cash." And there are predictions that look downright hilarious these days. Do you remember the claims that housing market will keep going up? Here is a book named "Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust - And How You Can Profit from It: How to Build Wealth in Today's Expanding Real Estate Market" - and its title will make even Al Gore to giggle.

But this is not the end of it - let's not forget the predictions of the end of history by Francis Fukuyama - he even wrote a book in 1992 entitled "The End of History and the Last Man" to prove that the world history has come to an end - democracy won over all other regimes. In short, "Nothing to see here, comrades, walks away slowly". Of course, Fukuyama is indeed a rather peculiar character in his own right. I don't think there are a lot of people with his credentials - a Ph.D. from Harvard, prediction that the world "struggle between ideologies is largely at an end" in 1992, recommendations to president Clinton to support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, advice to president Bush to remove Saddam Hussein from power in 2001, and opposition to the US attack on Iraq in end 2003. Today he equates neoconservatism with Leninism and believes that president Bush "overestimated the threat of radical Islam to the US." As luck would have it, he is now a strong supporter of Barack Hussein Obama, and given his perfect record, I think it's a very good sign for Republicans.

Just in case anyone is interested, I have put the front covers for these three books side by side. As the Romans said "Sic transit gloria mundi", which can be vaguely translated as "Thus passes the glory of the world".

But before you start laughing, here is another book from 2009, entitled "Death of Conservatism" - predicting, as one may guess, the apparent death of conservatism. I remember the triumphant author of this book, Sam Tanenhaus, making rounds on the radio and television and giving interviews to various enthusiastic talk-show hosts. The publishers of this book proclaimed that it "celebrates and mourns the end of the harshly ideological strain of conservatism that reached full flower during the presidency of George W. Bush...Tanenhaus argues that Republicans must moderate their focus on ideological purity if they are to return from the political wilderness and offers trenchant criticism of the liberal excesses that previously led to a long Democratic exile from the White House." The new edition of this book is advertised thus:  "Will almost certainly prove to be one of those rare books in American history that have a signal impact on both the political movement and the public at large…. Taut, eloquent, provocative and carefully argued. " On top of that, we have the Newsweek editor Evan Thomas who declared on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." And who could forget the infamous article from the Time magazine "The Republicans in Distress: Is the Party Over" from May 2009 that had this to say about conservatism, republican ideas and the future of this country:

The party's ideas — about economic issues, social issues and just about everything else — are not popular ideas. They are extremely conservative ideas tarred by association with the extremely unpopular George W. Bush, who helped downsize the party to its extremely conservative base. A hard-right agenda of slashing taxes for the investor class, protecting marriage from gays, blocking universal health insurance and extolling the glories of waterboarding produces terrific ratings for Rush Limbaugh, but it's not a majority agenda.

The Newsweek also marked the idiot territory with a rather ridiculous claim that "We are all socialists now" - which was a rather drastic overstatement - unless Newsweek was talking exclusively about the Washington DC insiders, and ignored the opinions of the American people. As readers may remember, Washington Post decided in 2010 that Newsweek was too much of a loser to keep, and the entire Newsweek enterprise was sold for less than 1/2 of the price of one lousy Newsweek magazine that you can get over the counter at a foodstore. Dr. Sidney Harman, the man who bought it for one dollar, remarked that "NEWSWEEK is a national treasure" - which is probably true (but very unsettling) given the huge debt that the nation now carries.

So, what is the parallel between the multiple bubbles of the last decade and the Democrats losing grace? The Democrats won the elections in 2006, and this was the beginning of the Democrat-bubble. The inauguration of Barack Obama was the time when the Democrat stocks were at their peak. As Obama famously claimed: "“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” As Mark Steyn famously quipped - "When you’ve spent that long waiting in line for yourself, it’s bound to be a disappointment."  Today we are observing a long anticipated market correction in the political arena - the people woke up to the inherent inability of the Democrat Party to solve the complex problems that America faces - as Eugene correctly lists them: "restructuring our economy, renewing the nation's increasingly rickety infrastructure, reforming an unsustainable system of entitlements, redefining America's position in the world". Unfortunately, today's Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular are institutionally incapable to solve the nation's problems - given their complete dependence on corrupt government unions, welfare-addicted minority groups and the media-academy complex. Their general ignorance of the operation of the free market economy and the modus operandi of foreign enemies of the United States make the task of governing completely impossible. "Hope-n-Change" is hardly a plan for this great nation - it's more of a slogan for a middle school sports team.

Back in 2008 I predicted the bursting of the Democrat bubble - but I must confess that I was mistaken about the exact date of the collapse - I believed the Republicans would need more time to recover and they would be able to fight back as late as 2012. It is certain now that  they will achieve significant improvements in the political climate this coming November elections. All in all, it's fair to say that media has oversold the Democrat Party, and it is quite certain a big chunk of it will pay the ultimate price - some media outlets will lose their reputation and eventually go broke. It may well be that the New York Times, Washington Post and possibly CBS will follow the steps of the Newsweek magazine and Air America - but this too will be only the beginning. The people are finally awake, and soon we will see the bursting of the biggest bubble in the world - the Democrat bubble. It's time to squeeze this zit out of the skin of our nation.

A few words about the Ground Zero Mosque

We've been hearing a lot lately about the Ground Zero Mosque. According to liberals, its organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a moderate moslem, a man of peace. Jeffrey Goldberg, for example, claims that Feisal is the most dangerous enemy of Osama ben Laden - which is a surprising statement if one considers that Feisal travels around the world and visits moslem countries easily and with no apparent fear of Islamists. On the other side, everyone knows at least a few folks that need 24/7 protection in the middle of Europe from Osama ben Laden and his band of merry terrorists - for example Danish cartoonists were personally threatened by Osama - as well as the newspapers that dared to publish the cartoons and the governments that did not prosecute the newspapers. I am not even talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who was expelled from her Dutch apartment by a judge because he decided her presence was endangering the neighbors. It remains to be seen if the people who live close to the Ground Zero Mosque can actually force it to be moved because according to Goldberg, this mosque is a very likely target of terrorist attack by Osama ben Laden. Of course, it would be unwise to hold the breath waiting for this decision, because there is no one on this planet (including Goldberg himself) who believes that Osama ben Laden is against Feisal's plan to build a victory mosque on the Ground Zero.


But apart from the obvious, there are more interesting things to discuss. It's been widely reported that Feisal is quite critical of American policy - he even went as far as claim that America killed more moslems than Al Qaeda killed non-moslems. And same Feisal said that 9/11 was American fault. But the funniest thing happened when this outspoken moderate moslem was asked about Hamas (same Hamas that publicly approved of Feisal's idea to build the mosque on the Ground Zero). Ah, that question was inconvenient for the moderate Feisal, and he flatly refused to concede that Hamas was a terrorist organization. It's one thing to blame America for 9/11 and say that US is worse than Al Qaeda - it's a very different issue altogether to condemn Hamas. Feisal is indeed very moderate when it comes to discussing Hamas, i.e. moderate in his response to Hamas' crimes. Here is what he said when he was pressed about Hamas:

Aaron Klein: Do you believe that the state department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Imam Rauf: Um, well, I mean. Look, I am not a politician. I try to avoid the issues of. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. There was an attempt in the 90’s to have the UN define what terrorism and say who is a terrorist. There was no ability to find agreement on that… and I am a bridge builder.

Aaron Klein: But I am asking, is Hamas a terrorist organization?

Imam Rauf: Aaron, Aaron, my work, my work, I’ve defined my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, neither will I accept to be placed, in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another.


Let me summarize - blaming America for 9/11? The bridge building Feisal is ready 100%. Say anything negative about terrorist group Hamas? Nope, that's too controversial for him. Maybe Feisal is good at building bridges between his mosque and Hamas - but he is surely not building any bridges between "moderate Islam" that he represents and American people.


And just so that the readers had some understanding of who Feisal is covering for - here one bit of information. On August 31st, Hamas terrorists slaughtered 5 Jews - Avishai Shendler, 24; Kochava Even-Haim, 37; Talya Imes, 45; her husband Yitzhak Imes, 47; and their unborn baby. Their photos are shown below.

Here is another photo - the mother and the father in this photo are dead - killed by Hamas and the children in the photo are orphans now.

Make no mistake about it - these Jews were murdered solely because they were Jews. And Hamas, the organization that Feisal the "moderate moslem" is unwilling to condemn, gleefully claimed responsibility for this murder. Indeed, Feisal's brothers in arms called it "heroic operation".

Anyone who has not shame and no decency can continue claiming that Feisal is a moderate, peaceful moslem - go on, show your face, the country has to know its scoundrels. I am sure there is a special place in hell reserved for those that enable Islamic terrorism - and it is waiting for you.

Hyphenated American on the Jimmy Z show - August 2010

Jimmy Z was kind enough to invite me once again on his show to talk about the issues of the week.
It took me the a couple of minutes to get in the groove, but then my presentation became smooth and entertaining. Here are the topics that we discussed:


Military voters sold out by the Pentagon (and GOP should take it personally) • Obama going after your 401(k) • Bizarre arguments in support for Islamists and Hamasque at Ground Zero. Liberals and Islamists are playing with fire. • Per popular demand: Is Obama a Moslem? An honest analysis of a controversial issue. Plus - quick run through a few conspiracy theories popular during Bush’s presidency • Corruption and The Black Congressional Caucus •

All in all, I am satisfied with my appearance on the show, and I believe my [non-left wing] readers will enjoy it.

Having more fun than the government allows

As you know, I've started posting some of my letters on the Alexandria blog. I am also commenting on this blog quite often. As you may imagine my progressive thinking is not necessarily appreciated by everyone there, but it will pass - I am sure I will charm everyone there with my polite manners and diplomatic choice of words. In the meantime, I've posted a new letter there, and I have a feelling some of the people will enjoy reading it...

_________________________________________________________________


I've been having an interesting discussion with comrade Siarlys Jenkins, and he made the following peculiar observation:

They [bloody capitalists] don’t hire as a public service, they hire because they think they can make money out of hiring you. As long as the taxation rate is below 100%, they’ll get to keep more of that profit than if they didn’t hire you at all.

Our co-blogger was advocating a drastic increase in the taxation of profit (as long as the rate is below 100%, the capitalists will keep hiring folks and developing their business, right?), and he believes that it's obscene when anyone earns more than 1 million dollars. It was never explained why 1 million dollars was the cut-off sum (for example an afghan sheep herder may decide that making more than 50 thousand dollars is obscene and should be taken away to feed the poor in Kenya) - but that's a separate issue - and I suggest you read an article on my blog that explores this particular question. But the idea of maximizing the tax rate on profit intrigued me - I cannot deny that. In order to demonstrate the fallacy of Siarlys thinking, I composed a simple arithmetic problem. I am curious how many of the intellectuals on the Alexandria blog would be willing to spend the time to solve it. I would also appreciate people commenting on the result - why do they think the tax rate at which it becomes uneconomical to invest is lower than 100%.


I am thinking about investing $100. It’s a one time deal. If everything goes right (80% chance), I will profit $50 from it. There is a 20% chance that everything will go wrong, and my entire investment will be lost. At what tax rate for the profit will it become uneconomical for me to make this investment? Discuss the results.


I believe this little problem will be useful for two reasons. Firstly, it would allow the intellectual community of this blog to entertain themselves with a trivial mathematical problem (and who of us does not enjoy reading math books from time to time?). Secondly, this problem illustrates the complexity of the free market economy, and some ill-effects of taxation which may not be apparent at the first glance.

What's new, pussycat? #13

The world continues its slide to Armageddon - and my blog judicially chronicles the events leading us to the end of the world. A few thousand more years - and we may meet our Maker. But let's drop this defeatist talk and instead go around the world in 10 minutes.

Pentagon allows suppression of military vote
In a rather bizarre move (okay, who am I kidding - it was all expected), Pentagon allowed 5 states to ignore the law that protected the right of American armed forces to vote. The Move Act was written in such a way as to guarantee that American soldiers would have access to the voting ballots in time to be able to cast their vote. But apparently, the government bureaucracy understood that military vote could seriously weaken the President and his lackeys in Congress, and the states pushed the military for waivers. Currently, 5 states received the waiver from Pentagon - and these states are: Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Washington. As luck would have it - four out of five are run by Democrats - while only half of American governors were elected as Democrats. It is also quite coincidental that American military vote Republican, and - if you still believe in coincidences, our current president is a Democrat, and his lackeys are in control of Pentagon. It is also estimated that the suppression of military votes may have a considerable influence on the 2010 elections in some states - in short, it would benefit the Democrats. And this long list of coincidences reminded me of a quote from the movie "Godfather":

Tom, don't let anybody kid you. It's all personal, every bit of business. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life is personal. They call it business. OK. But it's personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather. If a bolt of lightning hit a friend of his the old man would take it personal. He took my going into the Marines personal. That's what makes him great. The Great Don. He takes everything personal Like God. He knows every feather that falls from the tail of a sparrow or however the hell it goes? Right? And you know something? Accidents don't happen to people who take accidents as a personal insult.

I think it's the right time when American conservatives start treating accidents as a personal insult. I hope in January, when GOP takes over Congress, they listen to the voices of reason and start investigating what's going on in the White House, how the stimulus money, the TARP money was spent and what happened to Democrats who voted for the Obamacare. Let's turn on the light and see who starts running.


Obama is targeting your 401(k)
It's been prophesied that at some point liberals will try to nationalize your savings. Well, it seems like the Obama administration decided that there will never be a better moment. As Turkish from the movie "Snatch" would say:

Obama is gonna exploit the situation. He's gonna pull the taxpayer pants down, grease him up... and aim for penetration.

The U.S. Department of Labor is planning to have  joint hearing with the Department of the Treasury on whether government life-time annuity options funded by U.S. Treasury debt should be required for private retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k) plans. In short, Obama wants to nationalize 401(k) and IRA. After all, someone has to fund his expensive habits (and I am not talking about the trips to Spain and the golf games and the rock-star concerts in the White House). The usual suspects - government unions, interest groups are already on board - after all they need government funding too and someone has to pay for that. More details can be found here.



Ground Zero Hamasque may get government funding
As expected, the promoters of Hate-mosque on Ground Zero can now safely rely on getting government some government help. According to El Reuters: "The Muslim center planned near the site of the World Trade Center attack could qualify for tax-free financing, a spokesman for City Comptroller John Liu said on Friday, and Liu is willing to consider approving the public subsidy."

After all, our country is in tip-top financial state, we can afford to build a extremist mosque on the ground where 3,000 Americans were slaughtered by moslem terrorists. Obviously, if we refuse to do that,  moderate moslems will conclude that we are being islamophobic and they will very likely join Al Qaeda and try to kill us. Those moderate moslems are a very touchy bunch - peaceful, of course, but short-tempered as hell. Someone may even say they have an explosive temper - and we better not tempt them. As for me - I am waiting until American people fulfill Churchill's prediction "The Americans will always do the right thing . . . After they've exhausted all the alternatives." And by simple elimination we will find what we need to do. And again, I need to quote Turkish from the movie "Snatch":

It had previously occurred to me...


... that he'd taken the demise of his mother rather lightly.

For every action, there is a reaction.

And a pikey reaction...

... is quite a f*cking thing.

Well, the Moslem fundamentalists may think that Americans have taken the destruction of the World Trade Center and deliberate murder of 3,000 innocent civilians rather lightly. But as some history buffs know, an American reaction is quite a f*cking thing - just ask the Japs and the Krauts.

Whass up with Congressional Black Caucus?

I've been reading this article today, and it struck me - there may be a pattern here and I think I can discern it. Mind you, as an engineer, I am conditioned to notice patterns. So, lets take a quick look.

Case 1: "Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D., Texas), a long-serving congresswoman from Dallas, improperly awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, violating nepotism and ethics rules by giving the funds to multiple relatives and the children of top aide Rod Givens."

Case 2: "Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) is a twenty-term member of Congress representing New York’s 15th district [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus]. Rep. Rangel’s ethics issues stem from (1) improperly leasing four rent controlled apartments; (2) improperly using congressional stationery; (3) failing to report rental income from a vacation property; and (4) trading legislative assistance for contributions to the Rangel Center at City College. Rep. Rangel was included in CREW’s 2008 congressional corruption report."

Case 3: "Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., is an eight-term member of Congress, representing Illinois’ 2nd district [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus]. Rep. Jackson’s ethics issue stems from his bid to be appointed to a vacant Illinois Senate seat and subsequently, the federal investigation of former-Governor Rod Blagojevich."

Case 4: "Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) is a ten-term member of Congress [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus], representing California’s 35th congressional district. She is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee. Rep. Waters’ ethics issues stem from a meeting she arranged between officials at the Department of Treasury and OneUnited Bank, a bank with which she has financial ties. Rep. Waters was included in CREW’s 2005 and 2006 congressional corruption reports for unrelated matters."

Case 5: "Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) is a first-term senator from Illinois [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus], appointed to the U.S. Senate in December 2008 by former Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of then President-elect Barack Obama. Sen. Burris’ ethics issues stem from the circumstances surrounding his appointment."

Case 6: "Representative Laura Richardson (D-CA) is a two-term member of Congress, representing California’s 37th congressional district [and a member of Congressional Black Caucus]. Rep. Richardson’s ethics issues stem from accepting favorable loans and her failure to properly report a loan on her financial disclosure statements. Rep. Richardson was included in CREW’s 2008 report on congressional corruption."

Case 7: And then we got Rep. William Jefferson, D-La, a member of Congressional Black Caucus, and the man infamous for stuffing 90 thousand dollars in the freezer in his Congressional office.

Quite coincidentally, 5 out of the 15 Most Corrupt Members of Congress of 2010 belong to the Congressional Black Caucus. In 2008, there were only 48 members in the Congressional Black Caucus, while there are a total of 535 men and women in the 2010 Congress. I am sure my readers can do the math and see that a member of Congressional Black Caucus is 4 times more likely to get into the List of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress than an average congress member. And, as you may imagine, Congressional Black Caucus is now asking Congress to curtail its ethics investigations and make them less transparent to the public.

I am curious if this analysis should result in some kind of disclaimer for the Congressional Black Caucus - for example they may warn congressmen that wish to join that the Black Caucus may significantly increase the chances of corruption and may possibly lead to long prison terms (which are undeniably bad for health). But leaving the jokes aside - why is this Caucus so irredeemably corrupt? The answer to this question is very simple - Congressional Black Caucus is a self-selected group of liberal politicians who adore corrupt Third World regimes, and who personally befriend totalitarian dictators like Castro and Hugo Chavez. Moreover, the Congressional Black Caucus is a symptom of a serious decease which affected the Black community and the Black leadership - the complete breakdown of moral character, standards of decency and integrity. That is not to say that "All Black People are corrupt" - far from it, of course. The Black community can be proud of its most outstanding members - Thomas Sowell, the leading intellectual of this century not just in America but the entire world, a famous economist Walter Williams, an upstanding and courageous Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and leading feminist and civil-rights leader Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But unfortunately, the Black community shuns its heroes and instead follows the scoundrels like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. Until this trend is reversed, the Congressional Black Caucus will continue to look more as a criminal enterprise than a union of Black intellectuals, and the black communities will continue to be poor, uneducated and dangerous. As the saying goes - we deserve the government we have, and unfortunately, the Black Community today fully deserves its congressmen. I hope I will live long enough to see the Black Community to break the chains of the ideas of perpetual victimihood and other liberal big-government crap. By all means, it will be a glorious day when we see this.

I made this prediction in January 2010

Sometimes it's fun to re-read my old posts. Here is one from January 22, 2010 (the link to the original is here).

Accusations of racism in the November 2010 elections


Today, president Obama is rapidly falling in the polls. It's easy to imagine that in November 2010, some Democratic congressmen will be trying to distance themselves from Obama as much as possible, and they will most likely proclaim their independence from the president. And it is also quite possible that Republicans will be running ads trying to link them with Obama. I imagine the ads saying something like "A vote for such and such candidate is a vote for the liberal policies of president Obama".


And this brings me to the second point. It is well-known that liberal politicians love to accuse their opponents of being racists. So, it is quite possible that in November 2010, some liberals will complain that the ads that link their candidates to Obama are racist, and that by invoking the image of Obama, the Republicans are simply appealing to the white racism and bigotry. This will be the re-run of their criticism of the Willie Horton ads - but this time, it will be Barack Hussein Obama who will be the boogie-man.


What do you think - is my prediction plausible?

Self-congratulation as a basis for economic policy

A careful observer will notice a certain meme in liberal writing - a meme of evil corporations exploiting poor helpless workers. For example, a liberal poster here claimed the 19th century coal mine owners were "further impoverishing workers and enriching owners". One question never asked (let alone answered) is why exactly the workers would leave their friends and relatives, their homes, villages and towns and move across the country in order to work for heartless mine-owners? Were they masochistic, or they saw certain benefits which are/were not apparent to the liberal by-standers?

And the second question, also rarely asked - did the mine owners improve the lives of those workers when they offered them jobs or did they make those lives more miserable? And if the answer to this question is "yes, indeed getting a job in the coal mine was a step up for workers", - does it mean that the mine owners did more good than evil - possibly more good than all the liberal do-gooders and busybodies ever dreamed of?

The liberal post also reminded me of an old story - back in 19th century the new immigrants who recently arrived to the NYC lived in horrible over-crowded, rat-infested apartments and the liberal busy-bodies eventually pushed through numerous laws that made such dwellings illegal. And what do you know - these ungrateful immigrants were upset at the do-gooders - apparently, the immigrants chose to live in overcrowded apartments so that they could save money and send it to their relatives in progressive Europe - or they used money to send their kids to better schools. It was also reported that poor immigrants and the house-owners would conspire against the government authorities and numerous inspectors with an explicit goal to continue living in the squalid conditions. Dumb bustards - instead of thanking the liberals, they cursed them! But in the end, with new laws and tough enforcement of these new laws (monitored not only by the government bureaucracy, but also multiple liberal activists and progressive reporters) the housing costs skyrocketed - and the ability of poor immigrants to save money was severely diminished.

All in all, as this story demonstrates that more evil than good comes from the attempts of well-meaning but ignorant and self-adoring liberals to improve the lives of the "masses". Apparently, freedom to choose can be beneficial to the common people - while leaving the self-important liberal activists without anything keep themselves busy with (and be outraged about). It should not surprise anyone that individual liberty (particularly in economic affairs) is hated by American liberals - it robs them of the right to feel morally superior.