Hyphenated-American

The heart of stone

2011-12-04T01:27:00.000-08:00

You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh
Oscar Wilde

"This administration – I try not to pat myself too much on the back – but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration. Whether it’s making sure that our intelligence cooperation is effective, to making sure that we’re able to construct something like an iron dome so that we don’t have missiles raining down on Tel Aviv, we have been consistent in insisting that we don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.”

"U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta urged Israel to get to the "damn table" in peace talks with the Palestinians, an unusually blunt comment that inserts him into the Middle East peace process. In remarks at a Brookings Institution conference, Panetta called on Israel to again start negotiations with the Palestinians. "Just get to the damn table. Just get to the table," Panetta said during the event in Washington. "The problem right now is we can't get them to the damn table to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences."

Leon Paneta, December 3, 2011.

Currently, PLO refuses to negotiate with Israel unless she forbids the Jews from building houses in the disputed territories. This makes Leon's demands to Israel all the more absurd - and damaging to Israel. All in all, he is now claiming that it is Israel that refuses to negotiate, and this issurely bad for Israel and is helpful for the PLO and Hamas. Is this what true friends do?

"Speaking Wednesday at a Jewish conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union (EJU,) Howard Gutman told participants he was apologizing in advance if his words are not to their liking...
A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Gutman said. He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism. The American envoy, a lawyer by training, is Jewish and played a major role in fundraising for the Democratic Party. He was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama. " Howard Gutman, US ambassador in Belgium, November 30th, 2011.

I assume the next thing we will hear is Obama's proclamation that we must make distinction between traditional Islamo-phobia, which should be condemned, and Jewish-Christian-Hindu hatred for Moslems, which stems from the ongoing conflict between the Moslem world and the rest of the planet. Obama needs to argue that the peace treaty between Islamic world and Israel, West and India will significantly diminish Jewish-Christian-Hindu Islamophobia. Oh, and last thing - if Moslems stop blowing themselves up, it would also help with the air-travel. BTW, do you feel a little bit Islamophobic, each time you need to go through the TSA? It's quite understandable, actually, according to the Obama administration. Ah, but I say this in jest - the Obama administration has no problems finding excuses for Anti-semitism - but Islamophobia is something it would never accept.

And now for something completely different

"Both parties came together to cut payroll taxes for the typical middle-class family by about $1,000, but that tax cut is set to expire at the end of this month. We can’t let that happen. We’re going to keep pushing Congress to make this happen. They shouldn’t go home for the holidays until they get this done."

Barack Obama, December 3, 2011

President Barack Obama will be setting off later this month for a 17-day Christmas vacation in Hawaii with his family. The White House travel office said Obama has no public events scheduled for the trip, which is scheduled for Dec. 17 to Jan. 2.... The 17-day Christmas vacation follows Obama’s 11-day vacation to Martha’s Vineyard this summer. From Blaze

This takes the prize
I remember years ago reading Hayek's proposal for multiple currencies, and Thatcher's criticism of the EU currency. About 6 years ago, I've learned about the CIA's prediction of the imminent EU breakup in 2012. While CIA is not known for its predictive power, this intrigued me, and I started following the EU and I've learned about the euro-skeptics, the shenanigans with referendum (there is even a blog called EU Referendum) and the ~~EU constitution~~ Lisbon Treaty. Of course, when famous Russian dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky compared EU with the CCCP back in 2006, I got even more interested. And most certainly, no story about EU would be complete without the issue of moslem immigration to EU. And now, we can see the European Union rapidly coming to an end - and no amount of American help can stop it. The project was doomed from the start - and what amazes me most is the fact that this was known to the EUs architects. I am curious if it is possible to file a civil lawsuit against those bustards.

"Euro doomed from start, says Jacques Delors"

The euro project was flawed from the start and the current generation of European leaders has failed to address its fundamental problems, Jacques Delors, the architect of the single currency, declares today....

Famous in Britain for his public clashes with Baroness Thatcher in the 1980s over closer European integration, Mr Delors says that he shares some of the concerns that were expressed by British politicians and economists about the euro before its creation.

When “Anglo-Saxons” said that a single central bank and currency without a single state would be inherently unstable, “they had a point”, he admits.

In summary - the European Union and the euro currency were launched by the left-wing bureaucracies and supported by the mainstream media in order to bring peace, democracy and prosperity to Europe. Today, both EU and euro are bankrupt and we are told that if euro is not saved, European continent and the entire world will be on the brink of economic destruction. Moreover, European people must immediately give up democracy and sovereignity to save the euro - there is simply no other way.

Amazingly, none of the EU optimists and promoters in the government and the media are in any danger of losing credibility. What's even more amazing is that most of the liberal ideas in the 20th century are faced with the same imminent threat of destruction as the EU. Walk down the memory lane and check out the liberal predictions about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare. All of those programs were supposed to solve our social and economic problems, cut the government spending (in the long run, of course), eliminate poverty and make poor people self-sufficient. Conservative predictions of the fiscal unsoundness of these programs (as well as the creation of a permanent class of people dependent on the government handouts) were brushed aside as mean-spirited. Today, our federal, state and local governments are on the brink of bankruptcy, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare grew beyond the wildest dreams of the most ardent socialists - and yet, the American poor are apparently getting poorer and poorer. In case you are wondering, the total federal, state and local spending on Medicare+Medicaid+Social Security+Welfare is a staggering 2.6 trillion dollars in 2011 alone (and don't forget to add 900 billion dollars on education). And somehow, as the New York Times recently proclaimed: "Yet one old problem has not changed: the poor have rapidly gotten poorer." In summary, the US government is spending itself into oblivion trying to save the poor from poverty, and yet the poor get poorer. And apparently we cannot get rid of all those liberal programs, because this would destroy our country. The same programs that were supposed to bring the era of peace and prosperity to US are now threatening to bankrupt the nation - and we cannot get rid of them because that would cause the economic Armageddon. So let me ask again - was it a mistake to start these programs in the first place - just as it was a mistake for Europe to launch the euro? And why do the same people people who cheerleaded the euro and the Medicare-Medicaid-Social Security-Welfare sound so smug today?

As Oscar Wilde famously said: "You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh". Indeed....

Barack Obama, November 30, 2011

Science - this is what people use to predict the future

2011-11-26T21:17:00.000-08:00

Opinions differ. But if I have to express an opinion based on my education as an egineer, I would say that science is a method of analyzing the facts and coming up with a theory that explains them and allows to predict the future. No more, and no less. A theory or a suggestion is not a science - but a method which is to discover that theory and test it against existing and new facts is science. Albert Einstein is famous for proposing a "Special Theory of Relativity" - a theory that nicely described existing facts. What is less known is that Einstein worked very hard to develop a set of experiments that could test his theory. The great scientist refused to conclude that his ideas were correct until they were compared with the results of 4 rather complex experiments.

And this introduction brings us to Paul Krugman, probably the most talented and famous among the liberal economists.

The Comeback Continent, 2008, Paul Krugman

Today I’d like to talk about a much-derided contender making a surprising comeback, a comeback that calls into question much of the conventional wisdom of American politics. No, I’m not talking about a politician. I’m talking about an economy — specifically, the European economy, which many Americans assume is tired and spent but has lately been showing surprising vitality.

Why should Americans care about Europe’s economy? Well, for one thing, it’s big. The G.D.P. of the European Union is roughly comparable to that of the United States; the euro is almost as important a global currency as the dollar; and the governance of the world financial system is, for practical purposes, equally shared by the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve.

But there’s another thing: it’s important to get the facts about Europe’s economy right because the alleged woes of that economy play an important role in American political discourse, usually as an excuse for the insecurities and injustices of our own society.

In fact, however, tales of a moribund Europe are greatly exaggerated....

Since 2000, employment has actually grown a bit faster in Europe than in the United States — and since Europe has a lower rate of population growth, this has translated into a substantial rise in the percentage of working-age Europeans with jobs, even as America’s employment-population ratio has declined.

In particular, in the prime working years, from 25 to 54, the big gap between European and U.S. employment rates that existed a decade ago has been largely eliminated. If you think Europe is a place where lots of able-bodied adults just sit at home collecting welfare checks, think again.

I don’t want to exaggerate the good news. Europe continues to have many economic problems. But who doesn’t? The fact is that Europe’s economy looks a lot better now — both in absolute terms and compared with our economy — than it did a decade ago....

What’s behind Europe’s comeback? It’s a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe’s broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access.

What European countries definitely haven’t done is dismantle their strong social safety nets. Universal health care is a given. So are a variety of programs that support families in trouble, helping protect Europeans from the extreme poverty all too common in this country. All of this costs money — even though European countries spend far less on health care than we do — and European taxes are very high by U.S. standards.

In short, Europe continues to be a big-government sort of place. And that’s why it’s important to get the real story of the European economy out there.

According to the anti-government ideology that dominates much U.S. political discussion, low taxes and a weak social safety net are essential to prosperity. Try to make the lives of Americans even slightly more secure, we’re told, and the economy will shrivel up — the same way it supposedly has in Europe.

But the next time a politician tries to scare you with the European bogeyman, bear this in mind: Europe’s economy is actually doing O.K. these days, despite a level of taxing and spending beyond the wildest ambitions of American progressives.

Learning from Europe, 2010, Paul Krugman
As health care reform nears the finish line, there is much wailing and rending of garments among conservatives. And I’m not just talking about the tea partiers. Even calmer conservatives have been issuing dire warnings that Obamacare will turn America into a European-style social democracy. And everyone knows that Europe has lost all its economic dynamism.

Strange to say, however, what everyone knows isn’t true. Europe has its economic troubles; who doesn’t? But the story you hear all the time — of a stagnant economy in which high taxes and generous social benefits have undermined incentives, stalling growth and innovation — bears little resemblance to the surprisingly positive facts. The real lesson from Europe is actually the opposite of what conservatives claim: Europe is an economic success, and that success shows that social democracy works.

Actually, Europe’s economic success should be obvious even without statistics. For those Americans who have visited Paris: did it look poor and backward? What about Frankfurt or London? You should always bear in mind that when the question is which to believe — official economic statistics or your own lying eyes — the eyes have it.

In any case, the statistics confirm what the eyes see.

It’s true that the U.S. economy has grown faster than that of Europe for the past generation. Since 1980 — when our politics took a sharp turn to the right, while Europe’s didn’t — America’s real G.D.P. has grown, on average, 3 percent per year. Meanwhile, the E.U. 15 — the bloc of 15 countries that were members of the European Union before it was enlarged to include a number of former Communist nations — has grown only 2.2 percent a year. America rules!

Or maybe not. All this really says is that we’ve had faster population growth. Since 1980, per capita real G.D.P. — which is what matters for living standards — has risen at about the same rate in America and in the E.U. 15: 1.95 percent a year here; 1.83 percent there.

What about technology? In the late 1990s you could argue that the revolution in information technology was passing Europe by. But Europe has since caught up in many ways. Broadband, in particular, is just about as widespread in Europe as it is in the United States, and it’s much faster and cheaper.

And what about jobs? Here America arguably does better: European unemployment rates are usually substantially higher than the rate here, and the employed fraction of the population lower. But if your vision is of millions of prime-working-age adults sitting idle, living on the dole, think again. In 2008, 80 percent of adults aged 25 to 54 in the E.U. 15 were employed (and 83 percent in France). That’s about the same as in the United States. Europeans are less likely than we are to work when young or old, but is that entirely a bad thing?

And Europeans are quite productive, too: they work fewer hours, but output per hour in France and Germany is close to U.S. levels.

The point isn’t that Europe is utopia. Like the United States, it’s having trouble grappling with the current financial crisis. Like the United States, Europe’s big nations face serious long-run fiscal issues — and like some individual U.S. states, some European countries are teetering on the edge of fiscal crisis. (Sacramento is now the Athens of America — in a bad way.) But taking the longer view, the European economy works; it grows; it’s as dynamic, all in all, as our own.

So why do we get such a different picture from many pundits? Because according to the prevailing economic dogma in this country — and I’m talking here about many Democrats as well as essentially all Republicans — European-style social democracy should be an utter disaster. And people tend to see what they want to see.

After all, while reports of Europe’s economic demise are greatly exaggerated, reports of its high taxes and generous benefits aren’t. Taxes in major European nations range from 36 to 44 percent of G.D.P., compared with 28 in the United States. Universal health care is, well, universal. Social expenditure is vastly higher than it is here.

So if there were anything to the economic assumptions that dominate U.S. public discussion — above all, the belief that even modestly higher taxes on the rich and benefits for the less well off would drastically undermine incentives to work, invest and innovate — Europe would be the stagnant, decaying economy of legend. But it isn’t.

Europe is often held up as a cautionary tale, a demonstration that if you try to make the economy less brutal, to take better care of your fellow citizens when they’re down on their luck, you end up killing economic progress. But what European experience actually demonstrates is the opposite: social justice and progress can go hand in hand.

In the real world, the European paradise appeared to be built on sand. Apparently, Paul Krugman's theories are proven wrong - the European continent, instead of coming back, is taking it in the backside - and rather hard. Here is just the latest news about Europe...

Europe's Crisis to Overshadow U.S. Data in Coming Week, 2011

U.S. investors will return from the Thanksgiving holiday weekend to face continued uncertainty over Europe's debt crisis.

Since spiraling into chaos in the early summer months, Europe's debt crisis has confounded policymakers' attempts at containment.

As Americans were gorging on deep-fried turkey and stuffing on Thursday, European officials from Italy, Germany and France were busy shooting down proposals that might have helped put the eurozone on the path toward fiscal stability.

Among the rejected proposals was the creation of eurozone bonds. Meanwhile, European Central Bank policymaker Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Paramo said eurozone nations should not rely on the central bank to resolve the debt crisis, confounding observers who contend more ECB action is needed.

By Friday, Italy was forced to pay record interest rates at a government bond auction in order to raise a planned 10 billion euros. Italian 10-year bond yields rose to 7.32%, considered too high to be sustainable. Economists are doubtful that Italy, which faces a debt pile equal to 120% of its gross domestic product, will be able to escape trouble purely through fiscal austerity measures.

Pessimism surrounding Europe's debt dilemma remains persistent, with analysts anticipating a worsening of conditions next week. A report from Barclays Capital on Friday predicted Europe would slip into a recession in the fourth quarter as Italy and Spain were forced to seek financial aid from outside sources to prevent a collapse.

Does Europe circa 2011 look in any way like the Europe that Krugman described in 2008 or 2010? If I were cruel, I would say that Krugman's prediction of Europe's future is only matched by his marvelous ass kissing of Enron in 1999 (after all, he was Enron's paid consultant). But I want to be fair now, and I must concede that one of Krugman's statements was undeniably correct and struck into the heart of the European economic model: "...what European experience actually demonstrates is... : social justice and progress can go hand in hand."

In reality, social justice and progress always go hand in hand. There are no "ifs" or "cans" - one follows the other, like the seasons. If YOU take from the man who earned, and give it to the man who did not - YOU commit the social injustice. And when economic progress comes to a screeching halt - don't ask who caused it, because YOU did it, it's YOUR fault. We cannot achieve economic progress without social justice - and Europe abandoned all the pretense of the standards of justice when they decided to build welfare socialism. And now, the bell tolls for you, Europe - and for all the pseudo-scientists like Krugman. And if America does not wake up and abandon the road to serfdom - this country will be next and follow Europe into the abyss. Economic science had long discovered it - which is why conservative, libertarian and objectivist economists knew that Europe was about to fail, while liberal economists like Krugman were blind to this eventuality. If Krugman were a scientist, he would be brave enough to concede that welfare socialism was a failure. But Krugman is not a scientist, he is a left-wing ideologue who does not a crap about science. The poor shmuck is paid to to give left-wing spin to whatever news NYT chooses to publish - which is why he was never able to develop a theory consistent with the facts observable in real life. And this why nothing that he writes can be used to predict the future. The end.

In search of cheap amusement: listening to Air America

2011-11-05T16:05:00.000-07:00

When I drive the car, I normally listen to the progressive right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin or Lars Larson. If there is a commercial break, or my shows are not on the air, I switch to the NPR channel. And if NPR is boring (well, more realistically, when I get bored with NPR's prudish liberalism mascarading as objective reporting), I switch to the reactionaries at Air America. And these folks never fail to say something stupid in 5 minutes tops.

Today, I was driving to the car repair and I could not find anything on the progressive radio, so I switched to Air America. The AA host was talking about all kinds of stuff with some left-wing patsy. I switched to AA when the guest was complaining about the medical insurance companies - apparently those evil capitalists for some reason don't want to give away all of their money to cure all diseases at once for all of mankind - unlike, say, Soros, Obama or Kerry who donated their riches to the poor.

Later, the show condemned the evil conservatives who dared to have their programs on the AM-radio and thus broke the left-wing media monopoly. It's no surprise that the "democratic", "progressive" left wants to shut down the opposition because liberal ideologyis always crushed in the free marketplace of ideas. Every ones knows this, including the left-wing patsies. And this is exactly why all "people's democracies" maintain "people's" control over media - only NPR and PBS are allowed in the socialist paradise, no Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
The funniest part is that the self-proclaimed "progressive" Air America is as reactionary as the good old Brezhnev style communists - and for some reason even the host of today's show sounded like Brezhnev in 1981 - a man who could hardly pronounce a single word due to his mental and physical exhaustion. At some point, the Air America's General Secretary wandered into the discussion of the evil coal and oil companies and how renewable energy was a cheap and reliable way to sustain our civilization. A minute later he shared the following pearl of scientific knowledge (I quote him from the memory):

"Renewable energy sources like wind PRODUCE ELECTRONS, which they then put into the grid."

As an electrical engineer I was dumbfounded - how could anyone who has finished American high-school (equivalent of a Russian middle school back in my days) say such an obviously stupid thing. I don't want to go into details, but wind-powered generators do not "produce electrons", nor do they "put them on the grid". What they do is generate the Electromotive Force, which pushes the electrons which are already in the grid into particular direction. The grid is made of conductive material (copper for example) - a material which already has an abundance of free electrons. In order to generate electric current you need a force applied to those free electrons - which is what the electrical generators do. To presume that the electrons are produced in the electrical generators is simply wrong. That's even dumber than Obama's promise that Obamacare would cut medical premiums by 3000% or Obama's discovery of the Austrian language. It surely is not as stupid though as when Obama told the crowd that he had already visited all 57 states of the Union, and there was only one remaining state he needed to visit - but then, Obama is a brilliant guy, so his stupidity is unbearably brilliant - Nobel Peace Prize level of stupidity.

But that is not all, of course. A few weeks ago, alas, there was a commercial break on the progressive radio talk shows, and I switched to Air America. I was confident that they would not disappoint me and I was expecting them to say something stupid. And boy, did they ever! The host was interviewing one of the Occupy Wall Street scumbags - and the scumbag explained what kind of food, blankets and stuff they needed people to donate to the movement (those folks always need handouts because they are useless scumbags - but it goes without saying, right?). At some point, the scumbag veered into more philosophical issues and he started complaining that Obama did not fulfill his election promises. And then he said something which was rather startling - apparently, what America needed was the return of FEODOR Roosevelt. He repeated this at least three times - FEODOR Roosevelt this, and FEODOR Roosevelt that. I assumed that the dumbass was talking about FRANKLIN Delano Roosevelt - but I may be mistaken, maybe indeed there was a Feodor Roosevelt who changed America during Great Depression, and the books will be written about that miracle maker, Feodor Roosevelt. But more realistically, I guess he heard a lot of times about FDR - and his feeble mind decided that the letters "F" and "D" stood for Feodor. After all - liberal education is not about learning facts and history - it's about brainwashing the students with politically correct propaganda. And who cares if the liberal saint who pushed through the New Deal was Feodor or Franklin Roosevelt - heck, it could have been Nadezhda Konstantinovna Kruskaya - who cares?

The last episode, of course, reminded me of Joe Dumbass Biden. Any time someone says something really dumb - I measure it in Bidens (Bd). It's quite rare though than someone reaches the level of 1 Bd - most of the time it's mBd or even μBd.

As you may recall, Obama thinks very highly of Slow Joe. Apparently, the two fit each other perfectly on the intellectual level - two mediocrities amplify each other's stupidity - a perfect lossless resonant circuit . As Obama proclaimed a year ago: "The single best decision that I have made was selecting Joe Biden as my running mate. The single best decision I have made. I mean that. It's true."

And speaking of Biden here is the quote from him that would make you laugh until you realize that this imbecile is a heartbeat away from the presidency: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.” Granted, he got the name right (it's Franklin, not Feodor - so well done, Joe), but the rest of this statement is utterly wrong. FDR was not, of course, the US president when the stocks crashed in 1929 - nor did the television exist during the Great Depression.

Mind you, that Biden is also the same foreign policy expert who in 2008 debates with Sarah Palin managed to say the following: “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.” Apparently, US and France kicked out Hezbollah form Lebanon - which must be a huge surprise to Hezbollah and Israel and everyone else in the Middle East.

The same Slow-Joe Biden said in 2008 that the reason why republicans didn't like Obama was simple - they were not used to someone who was very smart and educated and they didn't know how to handle it. Yes, Joe, you are 3000% right. God love you, Slow Joe, and I hope Air America will help you with all those electrons that they put in the grid. Just follow the one in a big yellow hat - and it will get lead you to all the 58 states of the Union so you could spread the message - and people won't mind if you speak the Austrian language, which came from the countries like Europe.

Once more, we need to hear Feodor Roosevelt talk on the TV - party like it's 1929. All the smart folks support you.

P.S. On my way back from the gym today, I turned on Air America again. One of the occupistas was breathlessly explaining all the wonderful things that the occupy-wall street mob was achieving. Here is a passage that made me laugh out loud (I quote from memory):

I am sitting there with people I would have never met otherwise and we are discussing things. It's quite amazing that we together are changing American democracy.

Can you imagine the arrogance and stupidity of this girl? This poor creature seriously believes that because she was having a chat with a smelly hippie - she somehow changed America. "That's one small chat for a liberal girl, one giant leap for mankind". At least, I hope it won't become the "Great Leap Forward" - although with those cretins you never know - sometimes things spiral out of control.

I can only imagine the amount of disappointment that this liberal patsy will feel when someday she understands that she achieved nothing, that her talks in the park were worse than useless and that her brain is filled with mush. But then, the real question is - does she have or will she ever have enough grey matter to comprehend this? What really bugs me about those fools is their complete and utter lack of humor and self-awareness. And yet, I can tell you that these creatures remind me of myself - when I was younger, much younger. I think I was about 5 years old when I draw a picture of a car, and I was very proud because I also included my ground breaking ideas on the actual car design. I came to share my geniosity with my Mom, and according to my parents, the following dialogue ensured:

HA, 5 years old: Mom, look at this, I've designed a car.
Mom: Very interesting. Explain to me how it works.
HA, 5 years old: There is a button, you press it, and the car goes faster. And when you need to slow down, you press another button. And then there is a button to turn left, and a button to turn right.
Mom: Hm. And how do the buttons do all that that?
HA, 5 years old: It's very simple - there is a mechanism inside the car that reacts to the button.
Mom: How does this mechanism work?
HA, 5 years old: I haven't figured out this yet, but I think that's not relevant - my invention is to use the buttons for the car. Isn't it cool?

Granted, I was 5 years old back then, so I have a valid excuse. But what excuse do those 25-30-50 year old occupistas have for proposing essentially same stuff I had proposed when I was 5 - and applying it to the American society?

If you listen to those guys, you will realize their plan is even more primitive than my ingenious invention - at least my plan could not hurt anyone. And what do these guys propose?

Question: How do you propose to make America better?
Answer: Hell, let's spread the wealth around, abolish capitalism and declare free love. And let's not forget the most important part - pass the joint, comrade.

That's all it is to the Occupy Wall Street movement - and Air America and the entire Democratic Party. It's nothing more complex than that. It's sad - but funny. Very funny indeed. As Karl Marx famously said: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” I believe the occupistas are that farce, the comic re-do of the 1960-70ies left-wing movement which lets us all have a good hearty laugh before the hard work starts in 2013. We need to clean up the country we call "United States of America."

Let's talk about the occupistas

2011-10-16T23:14:00.000-07:00

I was watching the Occupy Wall Street movement, and there are quite a few things I wish to say about them. Luckily, plenty of people said a lot of smart stuff by now, so I will be mostly quoting them. All in all, the Occupy Wall street needs to ask itself a few questions...

Uncle Ed: You always have to question everything, don't you?
Billy Costigan: Maybe it would have done you some good to have some *questions* from time to time, you know? "Am I an asshole? Are my kids a mess? Is my wife a money-grubbing whore?" I mean, those are questions, right? "Have I ever been good to my dying sister or am I just now pretending to be?" Quote from the movie "Departed"

"The student activists are the comprachicos' most successful products: they went obediently along every step of the way, never challenging the basic premises inculcated in the Progressive nursery schools. They act in packs, with the will of the pack as their only guide. The scramble for power among their pack leaders and among different packs does not make them question their premises: they are incapable of questioning anything...

Their hysterical screaming still carries a touch of pouting astonishment at a world that does not respond to an absolute such as: "I want it". The three-year-old whim-worshiper becomes the twenty-year-old thug." Ayn Rand, "Return of the Primitive"

As is customary, liberal activists, people who often proclaim their own independent thought and mind, as well as courage to question authority appear to be nothing more than beggars, who want to be taken care of. Why should the working Americans take care of them? Well, I am glad you asked, since this young fella has all the reasoning worked out in detail. Nice dogie, he wants a bone. Which reminded me of an old quote: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

Mind you though, that not every one of those Occupistas are ignorant bums. Apparently, there are some very educated people among them. Here is one such diamond among the scum:

"Tracy Blevins, 41-year-old Manhattan resident, has a doctorate in biomedical science but lost her job as an adjunct professor at Touro College this spring. She's since been getting by on odd jobs; most recently, she acted as a cross-country driver for $2,000."

I honestly say that this info got me very interested, since someone with a PhD in biomedical science should have done much better than this. After all, biomed is not like "womyn's studies", there are jobs in the real world for those folks. So, I've looked a bit more and here is what I found on this Tracy Blevins....

Here is same Tracy Blevins in 2002, described as somewhat more than just a simple PhD in biomed. Here it goes:

"The first one I notice is a blond wearing almost nothing and holding a sign saying "Pot Whore" (the links are from her sign, I take no responsibility). Around her are several individuals who haven't bathed or washed their clothes or combed their hair in weeks, many of them are smoking, and appear to have been doing so constantly for the last 50 years. Everybody has a pamphlet (green party, free Palestine, animal rights..the whole shootin' match). Just to complete the party atmosphere, an odd looking fellow in a suit and suspenders is carrying a sign saying "corporate America feeds our children" and "meat-eating Republicans thank Nader for electing Bush".

Dr.Blevins responds to this post with a few corrections of her own, mostly protesting the author's claim that she had a pass. Apparently, Dr.Blevins' was doing her "second full week of performances of my one woman show on Wall Street." So, what else ~~Pot Whore~~ Dr.Blevins had to say? Well, back in 2002 she had a 10 point program for the NYC - an easy way to the world nirvana. Dr.Pot Whore, take it from here:

1. No Pot Arrests
2. 200 FREE Gifts
3. Teachers Fly Free
4. Family Nudist Colony NYC
5. Graffiti the Subway
6. Parks for the People
7. Red Light District
8. FREE Medicine
9. Geezer Disco
and
10. Let’s LIVE at the World Trade Center

All in all, this woman is clearly certifiable - and I am a bit surprised that the AP forgot to explain to its readers that ~~Pot Whore~~ Dr.Blevins is a nutcase.

And speaking of nutcases - it's quite amazing (although, not so much if you try to find out about the history of these movements) that the Occupistas managed to excite both the Nazis and the Communists. Apparently, both movements love them dearly.

I will let the Nazis say their first word (after all, they started the war):

As I have so often in the past spoke on - the White Working Class - is going PAST, the BOILING POINT, and is quickly reaching ULTIMATE EXPLOSION! THEY want ANSWERS! THEY want RESULTS! All of which this evil corrupt, decadent JUDEO-CAPITALIST SYSTEM is incapable of giving them. WHY? Because its BOUGHT and SOLD to the CORPORATE ELITISTS who are fast turning America into a "South American" style - THIRD WORLD WAGE-SLAVE STATE - ( complete with MILLIONS of BROWN illegal aliens willing to ACCEPT YOUR JOB for LOW WAGES and NO BENEFITS ) where, currently 3% of the population CONTROL 85% of the nation’s WEALTH! And the "GREAT DIVIDE" is GROWING each and every year that passes.

WE - the WHITE WORKING CLASS - have been LIED TO and totally DECIEVED - just the other day, the system APPROVED THREE MORE so-called "Free-Trade" deals. ALL of which mean that MORE JOBS are going to be SENT OVERSEAS - YOUR JOBS! Don't you CARE? Enough to DO SOMETHING?

NOW is the TIME! GET INVOLVED! IT’S YOUR FUTURE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU can DO - ONE of TWO THINGS - SUBMIT to the uncaring GREED of these CORORATE, WALL STREET THUGS and their SOCK-PUPPETS in GOVERNMENT. OR, - YOU can RESIST! I CHOOSE RESISTANCE for MY FAMILY and MYSELF!

And the American Communist party was equally delighted to see the proles (Is Pot Whore / PHD a bourgeois capitalist pig or a working girl?) rise up. Here is their communique...

The movement is the newest wrinkle in the all-people’s upsurge against the banks and corporations and reflects a new level of class-consciousness.

While there is a wide range of political and ideological trends, there is a consensus against corporate greed, getting money out of politics, taxing the rich and putting people before profits.

A big challenge for the CPUSA and left, progressive movements is to link these demonstrations with the labor led all-people’s coalition and help deepen understanding that the path to progress must be through electoral and political action including defeating Republican Tea Party reaction in 2012.

Of primary importance is linking it with the burgeoning fight for jobs and especially passage of the American Jobs Act.

We can also play a role in offering more advanced programmatic ideas like nationalizing the banks and socialism.

To have a positive impact, the CPUSA and YCL must be a part of the “Occupy” movement, participating at every level and building greater local support for the actions among labor and progressive forces.

Unlike the Nazi scum, the communist scum is a much better speller - and he does not overuse the capital letters. I believe it's partly because he is somewhat better funded than the Nazi scum.

And just for your entertainment you can enjoy watching a liberal activist (who is also a trust fund baby) reduce himself to tears. He does a perfect imitation of Keith Olbermann - so why is he not on the (p)MSNBC?

And what liberal anti-capitalist party can be successful without some antisemitism? It's not cool fighting the corporations and banks if you don't get to attack the Jews. Patricia Mcallister, the self- identified employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District, you can take it from here:

"Zionist Jews who are running these big banks... they need to be run out of this country"

No surprise that the Nazis and the Communists love the Occupistas - they too dislike the Jews and the Zionists, and the banks. Damn! What surprises me a little bit is that a government employee is so cavalier in publicly stating her anti-semitism. Sounds like the LA Unified School District is very tolerant of bigots and racists - which too is not so surprising when one remembers that LA is solidly under the liberal control.

Anyways, some of the folks in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement are not there to ask for more handouts or to kick them Zionist Jews out of US. American ~~Government~~ Public Media will explain it now:

Steve Asher hadn't joined the protests before, but this march brought him out.

Steve Asher: I live in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn.

Vanek Smith: How did you get here?

Asher: Subway. And I had to count the pennies to make sure I could afford it.

Asher says he's upset that a New York state tax on millionaires is expiring at the end of the year. He lost his job in the non-profit sector last year and has been scraping by on unemployment benefits of $400 a week. That's 400 taxable dollars.

Asher: It is really irritating when I'm struggling, struggling to make that $400 go as far as it can, to hear of a tax cut for a multimillionaire.

Let's do some math - $400 a week - that's $20.857 a year. According to this site, that's more than what a US private with more than 6 years of experience is paid. I wonder why should government handouts in NYS give out more than what we pay the soldier spilling his blood in Afghanistan (or, as Obama would call it - "Overseas Contingency Operation")? I would really want to know the actual reasons for this obscenity.

Of course, not everyone is like little Steve. There are people of principle among the occupistas. Welcome to Anne Wiswell, one of the courageous protesters.

Twenty-three-year old Anne Wiswell has been active in the Occupy Wall Street protests from the start. She says her family's reversal of fortune is why she's here. She was a student at the New School until last year, when her parents told her they couldn't afford pay for her education any more.

Hm. So, that's what happened to her - her parents could not afford to pay for her studies in the "New School". How tragic. What's the "New School", you may ask - why can't we just live with all the old schools, like MIT, Caltech, Columbia? I took some time to learn more about the "New School", and I found that it's quite a place to get your education - of course, you won't find a job with that education, but why talk about little things. Here is what this school says about itself:

The New School is a legendary progressive university comprising schools bound by a common, unusual intent: to prepare and inspire its 10,510 undergraduate and graduate students to bring actual, positive change to the world. From its Greenwich Village campus, The New School launches economists and actors, fashion designers and urban planners, dancers and anthropologists, orchestra conductors, filmmakers, political scientists, organizational experts, jazz musicians, scholars, psychologists, historians, journalists, and above all, world citizens-individuals whose ideas and innovations forge new paths of progress in the arts, design, humanities, public policy, and the social sciences.

A "legendary progressive university... bound by a common unusual intent... to inspire students to bring actual, positive change to the world". Damn! I wonder how much this shit costs, and I am curious what kind of thinkers this school prepares. Answering the first question - the school estimates that a Full-Time On-Campus Resident is expected to spend $57,568 a year. And to answer your second question, here is what the "New School" student Anne Wiswell had to say when her parents could not afford her "studies":

It was this massive realization -- "Oh my gosh, I have to support myself. Welcome to the real world."

Damn, girl , I am glad for you. Finally that $57,568 that your parents spent to educate you did something good for you. It's a real world out there, and you need to learn to support yourself. This reminded me of an old Woody Allen's joke: "When I was kidnapped, my parents snapped into action. They rented out my room". So, what did little Annie do when she realized she was now responsible to earn her living? American ~~Government~~ Public Media, gives us the full story:

It was this massive realization -- "Oh my gosh, I have to support myself. Welcome to the real world." I need to get involved with government policy so that I can afford to live in this country and in this city.

Yes, Anne Wiswall, you need to... What?! Demanding for a government handout is not the same as supporting oneself, you idiot - it's quite the opposite, you dumbass. You dried your parents finances, and now you want to do same to the taxpayers? Girl, supporting yourself means earning your living, not running around and screaming "I need a handout, please give it to me".

I will finish my letter with two quotes, which succinctly summarize the Occupy Wall Street movement.If anyone objects to any of these quotes - I suggest you put together at least some explanation on what those Occupistas propose. Right now, they sound like spoiled ignorant children who want to be taken care off. That's not the movement of the working class - that's a mob of parasites and swindlers.

"Man's mind is his basic means of survival - and of self-protection. Reason is the most selfish human faculty: it has to be used in and by a man's own mind and its product - truth - makes him inflexible, instragent, impervious to the power of any pack or any ruler. Deprived of the ability to reason, man becomes a docile, pliant, impotent chunk of clay, to be shaped into any subhuman form and used for the purpose by anyone who wants to bother." Ayn Rand, "Return of the Primitive"

"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans - anything except reason." Thomas Sowell, "Dismantling America".

Two articles, a few days apart...

2011-10-05T22:45:00.000-07:00

"Rich people are being ‘demonized’ for flaunting their wealth. Poor dears!"

The latest group to claim victim status is the rich. Actually the super-rich, whose wealth ordinarily exempts them from pity. While they are not yet subjected to airport profiling (except for early boarding and club access), they sense that the public is turning subtly against them — otherwise how could President Obama propose raising their taxes? [How many liberals expressed sympathy for Obama - a man who lives richer than super-rich, and who has more security and privileges than any man on the planet?]

Admirers of the rich, led by pundits and politicians on the right — from Laura Ingraham to Larry Kudlow — have long derided the victimization claims of African Americans, women, gays and the unemployed, but now they’re raising their voices to defend the rich against what they see as an ugly tide of “demonization.”

At a time when poverty is soaring, unemployment hovers grimly above 9 percent and growing numbers of Americans suffer from “food insecurity” — the official euphemism for hunger [actually, this is official euphemism for a situation, when people may not have stocked enough food to sustain themselves for 10 weeks] — this concern may seem a tad esoteric. At a time when executive compensation is reaching dizzying new levels [The article provides no evidence to support this claim - let alone explain why suddenly all rich people are supposed to be executives] and the gap between the rich and everyone else is growing as fast as the federal deficit, it may even seem a little perverse. [The more Obama spends, the bigger the gap. Maybe it's not a coincidence?]

But even beyond the taxes-and-deficits debate, in which wealthy Americans have been routinely characterized as yacht owners and corporate-jet fliers, the rich have indeed suffered a few blows to their self-esteem. Last year’s film “The Social Network” was unflattering to exemplars of both new and old wealth, and now two new television series are being hyped by some in the media as incitements to class warfare. In “2 Broke Girls,” a couple of young women struggle to survive — not as runway models or high-maintenance housewives but, shockingly enough, as waitresses. And Time magazine titillatingly describes ABC’s “Revenge,” set in the Hamptons, as “a target-rich environment of polo players and stock traders” in which a young woman stalks the singularly overprivileged people who, years earlier, ruined her father. No less a social commentator than “Revenge” star Madeleine Stowe has observed that “we’re dealing in a particular time right now in American history where I think the average American is going to want to see a takedown of the rich.” [In the 1930ies, an average German also wanted to see a takedown of the Jews - after all, Jews were responsible for the defeat of their country during WWI - or so the uneducated brainwashed idiots thought. The story repeats itself - now suddenly we are supposed to think that all rich people are evil.]

You would never guess from all the talk of demonization that the rich enjoy perhaps the strongest PR machine on the planet, far beyond their entourages of agents, publicists and assorted image-makers. The mainstream media, for example, are not owned by collectives of busboys and taxi drivers, and even the “liberal” outlets among them are not pitched toward the impecunious. They may snicker when the occasional hedge fund manager is brought to justice, but they’ve been equally snarky about populist actions against the rich, such as the ongoing occupation of Wall Street, which is newsworthy if only for the levels of brutality it’s elicited from the NYPD. Or did you know that the Transportation Security Administration just won union representation this summer? Probably not, because that’s “labor news,” which has been all but supplanted by “business news.” [It would be interesting to compare who has a better PR - American blacks or rich. After all - when was the last time you've seen a report in the mainstream media that would equate all blacks with criminals, evil-doers and try to take them down?]

The article continues in the same fashion, on, and on and on, quoting a few stupid rich folks and somehow using these examples to prove that all rich people are evil. Well, let's compare this article with another article, published just a few days later...

Steve Jobs Dies: Apple Chief Created Personal Computer, iPad, iPod, iPhone

Steve Jobs, the mastermind behind Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod, iMac and iTunes, has died, Apple said. Jobs was 56....

Jobs co-founded Apple Computer in 1976 and, with his childhood friend Steve Wozniak, marketed what was considered the world's first personal computer, the Apple II...

Industry watchers called him a master innovator -- perhaps on a par with Thomas Edison -- changing the worlds of computing, recorded music and communications...

The highlights of Jobs's career trajectory are well-known: a prodigy who dropped out of Reed College in Oregon and, at 21, started Apple with Wozniak in his parents' garage. He was a multimillionaire by 25, appeared on the cover of Time magazine at 26, and was ousted at Apple at age 30, in 1984.

In the years that followed, he went into other businesses, founding NeXT computers and, in 1986, buying the computer graphics arm of Lucasfilm, Ltd., which became Pixar Animation Studios.

He was described as an exacting and sometimes fearsome leader, ordering up and rejecting multiple versions of new products until the final version was just right. He said the design and aesthetics of a device were as important as the hardware and software inside.

In 1996, Apple, which had struggled without Jobs, brought him back by buying NeXT. He became CEO in 1997 and put the company on a remarkable upward path.

By 2001 the commercial music industry was on its knees because digital recordings, copied and shared online for free, made it unnecessary for millions of people to buy compact discs.

Jobs took advantage with the iPod -- essentially a pocket-sized computer hard drive with elegantly simple controls and a set of white earbuds so that one could listen to the hours of music one saved on it. He set up the iTunes online music store, and persuaded major recording labels to sell songs for 99 cents each. No longer did people have to go out and buy a CD if they liked one song from it. They bought a digital file and stored it in their iPod.

In 2007, he transformed the cell phone. Apple's iPhone, with its iconic touch screen, was a handheld computer, music player, messaging device, digital wallet and -- almost incidentally -- cell phone. Major competitors, such as BlackBerry, Nokia and Motorola, struggled after it appeared.

By 2010, Apple's new iPad began to cannibalize its original business, the personal computer. The iPad was a sleek tablet computer with a touch screen and almost no physical buttons. It could be used for almost anything software designers could conceive, from watching movies to taking pictures to leafing through a virtual book.

I fully realize that appealing to the liberal common sense is a worthless exercise. It's like reminding a Nazi that a Jew has saved his child's life. But still - I want every leftie who reads this post, every time when he rails against the evil rich folks - to imagine the face of Steve Jobs, and the great things he achieved in his life. He is the rich white male that you are demonizing - and when people like him are gone - your world will come to an end. The only reason why you live a nice house with electricity, drive a car to your work and watch TV is because of people like him. When you defeat the Steve Jobs of this world - you will bring death and destruction to this planet.

Pass this bill now?

2011-09-11T01:00:00.000-07:00

As you may recall, president Obama recently demanded Congress to pass his "jobs bill" (in order to avoid any confusion, I will call if "Stimulus 2"). According to Obama, this bill will on one side spend about 450 billion dollars to stimulate the economy, and yet is fully paid for through tax increases and spending cuts. In his speech, Obama sounded convinced that the US economic is in dire straits [I love "Dire Straits"] and Congress must drop everything it is doing and "pass the bill". Here is the exact quote: "It [Stimulus 2] will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan [Stimulus 2] right away.”

I say - "Amen, Brother". The GOP must announce that all of next week will be devoted exclusively to reading Obama's Stimulus bill and line-by-line discussion thereof. The White House is kindly asked to submit the bill (which must be passed "right now") on Monday, September 12, 2011, before lunch time. Any and all activity in Congress (House and Senate) not associated with Stimulus 2 is stopped for the next week, due to the urgent request of the president to pass his Stimulus 2 bill.

In the unlikely event that Obama's Stimulus 2 bill cannot be located by the end of this week, the House and the Senate will jointly send a letter of reprimand to president Obama for being such a narcissistic douche bag.

P.S. In all seriousness, we all know that there is no "jobs bill which is fully paid for", and as we all know, "CBO cannot score a speech". Obama behaves as an affirmative action student who wants professor to check his final exam right now and give him a solid A+++ - and he did not even bother to submit it. This is disgraceful. Obama deserves to be smacked by Congress. That's the only way to teach him manners.

P.P.S. Imagine that for the whole week, one congressman after another gets in front of TV and silently stands there for 10 minutes.
"What's he doing?"
"He is reading Obama's jobs bill."
"But I cannot hear anything."
"Well, that's cause there is not jobs bill, but I am glad GOP is trying to pass it anyways."

Obama and the Democrats have to ... make government work", Part 2

2011-08-07T23:20:00.000-07:00

I don't think a single week goes by without some left-wing journalist/activist/economist making a heart-felt appeal to increase the government spending. And as is customary, one of the reasons given for such an increase is the need to rebuild our infrastructure - roads, bridges, sewers and the like. Even our president is asking for money to "rebuild the infrastructure". According to laprogressive, "He [Obama] says he wants an “infrastructure bank” that would borrow money from private capital markets to pay private contractors to rebuild our nations roads, bridges, airports, and everything else that’s falling apart." One strange thing though - Obama just spent 900 billion dollars on stimulus, which was also sold as a project to fix our bridges and roads - "the biggest government infrastructure investment since the interstate highway system was launched in the 1950s". And the folks on my second most favourite blog, Alexandria, got in the game and demanded more government spending for roads, bridges - well, you know the rest. Of course, building new roads is a major government spending (4 million miles of roads, 600,000 highway bridges, 117,000 miles of rail, 11,000 miles of transit lines, 19,000 airports, 300 ports won't come cheap), and the liberals require tax increases.

Let's look at this issue from a historic perspective. In 2010, the federal government spent 92 billion dollars on transportation, while the total government (federal, state and local) transportation bill was 271 billion dollars. As a matter of perspective, the federal spending in 2010 was 3,456 billion dollars, and the total government spending was 5,799 billion dollars. In other words, out of every dollar that Obama spent in 2010, only 2.7 cents went for transportation. For all levels of the US government, the number was only slightly higher - 4.67 cents on the dollar. In short, the spending on roads, bridges, airports and "everything else that has to do with transportation" is a minor portion of the budget - practically a rounding error. So, every time when a liberal tells you that he needs more of your money to fix the roads - show him this statistics.

Now, while the transportation costs are a minor blip compared to the entire government spending, these are far from being small if you put them in historical perspective. Here is a singular point of reference - the launch of Interstate Highway System during the Eisenhower presidency. During the first 5 years of the project (1956-1960), the federal government built 10,000 miles of highway. It was far from an easy task, according to this government publication:

High standards were adopted for the interstate highway system. Access to all interstates was to be fully controlled. There would be no intersections or traffic signals. All traffic and railroad crossings would be grade separated, requiring the construction of more than 55,000 bridges. Interstates were to be divided and have at least four wide traffic lanes (two in each direction) and adequate shoulders. Curves were to be engineered for safe negotiation at high speed, while grades were to be moderated, eliminating blind hills. Rest areas were to be conveniently spaced. Each interstate was to be designed to handle traffic loads expected 20 years after completion.

I've collected the information on the cost of this project during these 5 years, and the total federal transportation spending from 1956 to 1960 was 110 billion dollars (in 2010 dollars) - which is only slightly above the federal transportation spending for 2010 alone (92 billion dollars). In fact, in 2009, the federal government spend another 107.2 billion dollars for the transportation improvement. If one includes the fact that technology advanced considerably during the last half a century, it remains remarkable that president Obama was able to spend so much money on "roads and bridges", enough money to build 20,000 miles of the interstate highway - and yet deliver so little. For all intents and purposes I could not even find any publication which would tell us how many thousands of miles of highway the federal government built in 2009 or 2010 - and I strongly suspect that the actual number is probably measured in hundreds of miles, if even that.

In order to illustrate the absurdity of the current situation (and to demonstrate how difficult it would be for the Democrats to make the federal government work), let me show a comparison between two projects, 80 years apart.

Empire State Building

The Empire State Building is an architectural marvel, and one of the most striking attractions in New York City. The building itself was constructed during the Great Depression and is a living monument to that era and the city it so proudly illuminates... For 40 years after it was constructed, it held the record for being the largest skyscraper in the world. The building has starred in over 90 movies, and it remains one of New York City's most popular tourist attractions.

At the time it was built, the Empire State Building was the center of a competition between Walter Chrysler, of the Chrysler Corporation, and John Raskob, creator of General Motors. The competition, appropriately enough, was to see who could build the highest building first... In the year 1929, Mr. Raskob set about this task with a group of very well known investors...

The excavation for the project began on January 22, 1930 and took only one year and 45 days to complete, or 7 million hours. The masonry for the structure was completed on May 1, 1931, significantly ahead of schedule. On that date, President Herbert Hoover pressed a button in Washington, D.C. to officially open the building by turning on the Empire State Building's lights.

The total cost to construct the skyscraper was $40,948,000, including the cost of the land. The building alone was constructed with a little over $24,000,000.

According to this site, in 2010 dollars, the total cost of the Empire State building is 500,000,000 dollars (in my calculation, it's closer to 590,000,000 dollars, but I digress). So, on one side we have an "architectural marvel", "one of the most striking attractions in New York City", which is 1,050 feet above ground with 102 floors and 6,500 windows. What have we got on the other side?

Columbia River Interstate Bridge

The Interstate Bridge (also Columbia River Interstate Bridge, I-5 Bridge, Portland-Vancouver Interstate Bridge, Vancouver-Portland Bridge) is a pair of nearly identical steel vertical-lift, through-truss bridges that carry Interstate 5 traffic over the Columbia River between Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, in the United States...

The bridge is frequently a bottleneck which impacts both traffic on the freeway, as well as on the river. The Oregon and Washington state departments of transportation are jointly studying how to replace the bridge. Initially, the estimated cost for a replacement bridge was around $2 billion, but that number has climbed steadily to around $4.2 billion.

On one side, this bridge is no "Empire State Building", not even close. The Oregon architects also don't need to buy the land in Manhattan to build a architectural marvel. And yet, note that the estimated cost of replacement is nearly 8 times the cost of the Empire State Building. But that's not all - there is more.... According to the official site:

1. How much have we spent on the project [rebuilding the Columbia River Interstate Bridge], what do we get from it, and where did the money come from?

Since 2005 the project has spent a total of $127 million. It has been funded about equally by Washington and Oregon, with additional contributions from the federal government. The current phase of the project is wrapping up this year. Since 2005, the funds have been spent on engineering, project management, transit planning, public involvement and communications (required by the federal NEPA process), and environmental studies, including preparation of a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The majority of the money spent to date in all project areas supports the current project design, including the bridge type.

After spending 6 years deliberating on how to replace the Interstate Bridge (3 times longer than it took to build the Empire State Building - from a concept drawn on napkin to the actual building open for customers) and spending 127 million dollars (more than 20% of the total cost of the Empire State Building project), the governments of Oregon and Washington still could not decide on what they wanted to build. According to another official site,

The Columbia River Crossing project team is currently refining designs for each of the project’s components based on public and local partner agency input.

In case you are wondering, the governors of both states, Oregon and Washington are hard-core liberals.

So tell me, dear leader, what are the chances that Barack Obama and the Democrats will answer Joan Walsh's plea to make the government work? Don't answer all at once, comrades...

"Obama and the Democrats have to ... make government work", Part 1

2011-08-07T16:07:00.000-07:00

A very recent article in Salon proclaimed that Obama needed to "make the government work" in order to create new jobs. The exact job-creating mechanism proposed by the author Joan Walsh is, as could be expected, is solidly liberal and includes three major paths to prosperity:
1. More government spending
2. More government spending
3. More government spending.

I am not sure if anyone following the current discussion on job creation is surprised by the breath-taking diversity of proposals by Joan. She surely gave a lot of thought to the current economic situation, and worked out a very serious plan to cut unemployment. It clearly demonstrates that liberals are ready to deal with a serious crisis of confidence of the American people towards the bankrupt American government. After all, what is more likely to convince our struggling nation that liberals take federal debt seriously - than spending another gazillion dollars on some community bulding project. "If only Obama spent more on stimulus", whisper some economists - "we would have a perfect economy by now".

Apparently, the idea is that when the government spends another trillion dollars, the economy rebounds due to an increase in the never-defined "demand". Of course, it's rare that anyone of those famed economist explain where that trillion dollars is supposed to come from - apparently it just magically appears in the hands of the government (the Santa Claus school of economics). An economist of the Austrian school though would contend that the government must first withdraw that trillion dollars from the economy before it can spend it - so in the end, there is no net stimulus to the economy - there is only transfer of money from private economy through IRS and into the hands of the government clients. The other two options for the government to get a hold of a trillion dollars are equally troublesome - government borrowing from private investors (which also means less funds would be available to the private businesses) or money printing (which means the government robs anyone who holds cash).

In short, the argument between the Austrians and the American Santa Claus liberals reminds me of a rather similar discussion between two characters in a famous Russian cartoon.

Feodor: We are broke, we need the money.
Dog Sharik: How about we sell something we don't need?
Feodor: In order to sell something we don't need, we have to buy something we don't need - and we can't afford to buy anything because we don't have the money.

The position of a liberal economist is virtually indistinguishable from what Sharik proposed - but then, Sharik was a very nice friendly character - which is not something you can say about professional liberals. In fact, if you disagree with a liberal journalist/economist/politician on this subject - he is likely to call you a "terrorist", a "jihadist", "Hezballah", "Taliban" - and the only thing that is stopping him from biting you is his cowardice.

Double dip recession

2011-08-04T21:34:00.000-07:00

The most unexpected thing about the Obama recession of 2011 is how many people failed to expect it. The US economy was like a giant locomotive, derailing in a slow-motion movie, and yet, the multiple well-respected experts could not foresee the coming crush. The obvious root cause of the blindness of the liberal economists is, at its core, their profound ignorance of how the economy works. They just do not understand the most basic things about the wealth creation. But before I jump to a more detailed discussion, let me first post a few quotes from my own blog.

The first quote comes from my November 2008 article, right before the elections.

Well, one thing that makes me feel better [about democratic lead in the polls] is that Obama seems to be gaining ground, and may well be our next mumbler and stumbler in Chief, while the libs will continue their control of Congress.

Some political party will pay dearly for all the crazy spending, bankrupt SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Someone will have to make hard decisions on the war with Islamo-fascism. Someone will have to deal with failing Europe, resurgent Russia, belligerent and powerful China, insane global warming scares.

If all of that falls on the narrow shoulders of Obama, Pelosi, Reid - and they fail (and fail they will) - the DNC will have to pay a dear price. Can Obama be better for the GOP and America than Jimmy Carter was? I most surely think so.

So 4 years from now, when unemployment is 10-12%, inflation is 10%, GDP is down, stocks are down, our economic freedom is gone, I can look at liberals and tell them: "You folks were kind of stupid in 2008, weren't you? Now, drop on your knees and beg for forgiveness". Isn't it totally worth it? I say yes...

In short, the chickens are coming home to roost - and the liberals may be the ones organizing the welcome party for them. Libs did not want to reform the Social Security under Bush - heck, they will have to deal with it under Obama. Libs thought we could easily win the war by talking to our enemies - smile, Obama will have 4 years to cool down Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest by talking to them. Libs did not want to cut welfare spending - they got Obama who will expand it. Taxes are too low for companies? Obama will raise them. You think our economy can sustain the liberal Congress, liberal president and the coming recession? Think again.

Bush is doing his best to avoid the recession under his watch. He is pumping the market with paper, so he could postpone the inevitable. And stupid democrats are playing along. Whoever is elected will have to deal with a crisis of Gargantuan proportions, and Obama is the best guy to screw it up – since I don’t want a republican to do it. In short, good freaking luck to liberals and what the liberals lovingly called "A Magic Nergo".

And yes, don't let me forget - Europe is, not feeling too good. Something to do with sclerotic liberal economy and "youths". It will get worse soon. Don't be surprised - liberal policies are quite advanced in Europe - like the advanced stage of cancer. I believe the Europeans should run for their life...

All in all, I expect Obama presidency to be an utter failure, and I do expect the Republican party to cleanse itself by 2012 and take over Congress and Presidency.

Who can honestly argue that my 2008 predictions were not spot on? Notice that nearly everything I said - did happen - the US economy is in shambles, Europe is disintegrating, American foreign policy is in disarray, and unemployment and inflation are rising yet again. How in the hell could Hyphenated American know all that in 2008?

Here is another quote - from an article I wrote in April 2009, when Obama's economic plans were put into action. Back then, if you don't remember, the stocks were starting to rise, it seemed that Obama was pushing back the unemployment.

I remember the former Russian Prime-Minister, Egor Gaidar explaining back in the 90ies to his leftie liberal opponents (former communist apparatchiks) in the Duma that printing money is bad for the economy. While there is some initial euphoria after the money influx, after 6-9 months the inflation catches up, and all the results of the stimulus are gone, and the people are saddled with even more discombobulated economy, mal-investment and high unemployment. In short, things got worse, not better.

Lets now examine the United State. Bush and his liberal cohorts in Congress and Senate pushed a lot of money in late summer, and fall. You surely remember the stimulus checks, money for the banks, the whole nine yards. Trillions of dollars left the government purse and were injected into the economy. It's April now, and the stocks started an unexplainable rise, while unemployment is going up. If you know economic theory - there is nothing puzzling in this situation. Wait for the inflation to hit the stores pretty soon now. It will become ugly. Will it be worse than 10% inflation? It most likely will - since don't forget that Obama makes Bush look like a fiscal ultra-conservative. It will be a long and sustained inflation. Should we expect price controls? Very plausible from this administration.

The New World Order is here - same as Old Europe.

Again, my predictions mostly came true - except I under-estimated the time constant of the US economy. Back in 1990ies, the lag between the government's massive spending and inflation was about 9 months in Russia, while it appears to be closer to about 2-4 years in the US. I presume this is due to 2 main reasons - US economy is much larger than the Russian economy (and don't forget that some of the newly minted dollars spill over to other countries), and American people are less used to high inflation (which means the people's reaction is slower). But all in all, again, my predictions were quite good - Obama's "stimulus" created a false short-term stimuli to the economy and masked the actual problems. When the money ran out, the recession returned - and I believe it will be worse than the 2008 recession.

So, how did it happen? The money pumping started under president Bush, and it was greatly accelerated during the Obama administration. It can be argued that most of TARP money was actually returned to the government, which means Bush's actions did provide a short term relief to the economy without too many immediate negative effects (in the long run, "too big to fail" policies will lead to even more outrageous policies of the big business - the so-called "moral hazard"). But Obama's stimulus money was completely spent - or mis-spent if you want to be more accurate. It would be very difficult to find any long-term positive effects from any item on the long menu of the 2009 stimulus bill - the fixed-sum handouts to the poor and middle class, the "shovel-ready projects" which did close to nothing to fix the infrastructure. Undeniably, spending 900 billion dollars in two short years did create a false impression that the economy was recovering and did promote the short-term spending spree, but in the end it could not solve the underlying causes of the 2008 recession - and once the money was gone, and reality rose its ugly head, the recession came back with a vengeance. What I also expected was that Obama would surely impose numerous rules and regulations that would seriously damage the US economy - which he proudly did. From CO2 emissions, to union rules (for example, Boeing-busting by the labor department), Obama's jihad against energy producers - coal industry, oil exports from Canada, and illegal moratorium on drilling after BP-Obama disaster. The so-called "Dodd-Frank Bill" was a rather brave attempt to drastically increase the role of the government in financial markets (same government that bankrupted Fannie and Freddie - as well as Medicare and Social Security, and grew the national debt to 100% of the GDP). Last but not least was the bonanza of regulations due to Obamacare - the naked attempt by the liberal elite to take over the national healthcare. I also expected Obama to raise taxes - which he undeniably did through the so-called Obamacare. And of course, the federal spending went completely out of control under the current president. It's sufficient to note that 2011 budget is larger than 2007 budget (last one written by the republicans in Congress and signed by Bush) by a hefty 1.1 trillion dollars.

All in all, even without Obama's busy schedule to destroy the US economy, America was in a bad shape. But the last 2.5 years made the economy fundamentals far worse than they were in 2008 - which is something I expected a Marxist community organizer would easily achieve. Artificial work projects, handouts to the poor and subsidies are inherently a wrong way to promote the wealth creation. Any person who studied the Austrian economic theory understands that these measures will only give a temporary and false feeling of recovery - which will have undeniable negative consequences in the long run. When the government decides to spend a billion dollars on a feel-good project, it does not help the economic recovery - quite the opposite. What it does is it essentially competes for resources with real businesses, and makes the wealth creation more expensive. If you plan to build a store - the labor and the materials becomes more expensive, since the government is now using those. When the government borrows a trillion dollars, the loans to private businesses become more expensive and they cannot expand. In other words, the money for the stimulus have to come from somewhere, and this somewhere is your pocket. How could that really help you? Imagine someone (for clarity, let's call him "Obama") inviting you to a most fabulous party with champagne and caviar, and most exquisite meats. You are having a good time, enjoy yourself to the fullest. And the next day you find out that this "someone" used your credit card to pay for the party. Now comes the tricky question - are you better off financially after this party? Of course, this analogy is only partly accurate - while Obama did put all the expenses on your credit card, he did not invite you to the party - unless you are among his core supporters (union leaders, Soros and the like).

In general, Obama's stimulus had no chance to succeed. But what made it worse - it was coupled with myriads of other steps, each one making it more difficult, more risky, more expensive to run a business in America. In short, Obama's stimulus and Obama's policies made the double-dip recession inevitable - and utterly predictable.

From 2009 to summer 2010 I was rather amazed (and amused) by the thousands of economists who proclaimed that a double-dip recession was extremely unlikely. Where are those economists now? What happened to them? What did not surprise me was the reaction of large and small businesses, most of whom stubbornly refused to invest or spend the "record-breaking" profits from the last few years. Apparently, they too understood that the Obama-recovery was built on the sand, and it would soon end. And now it's ending, and the hard times are ahead of us. Very, very hard times are ahead of us. I predict this - don't forget to write it down. The only people who can get us out of these troubled times are the Tea-Party. No one else has the guts and the brains to do the right things.

What are they even talking about?!

2011-07-27T23:25:00.000-07:00

I am reading the debate about the debt ceiling, and I feel like most of the left-wing went completely nuts. They talk about mythical "draconian cuts" to the federal government - and they seem to be dead sure they are telling the truth. And this just a few months after the previous "draconian cuts" of tens of billions of dollars to the 2011 budget, which in reality were worth a measly 38 million dollar. Today, comrade E. J. Dionne, a man enamored with the ideas of big government published another article full of lies, distortions and plain idiocy. Characteristically, as any leftie, he called himself a "moderate" (according to him, anyone slightly to the right of Lenin is a "moderate"). And one passage really made me upset:

"Instead, the center bends. It concocts deficit plans that include too little new tax revenue. It accepts cuts in programs that would have seemed radical and draconian even a couple of years ago."

Let me put things in perspective - please see the table below which summarizes the nominal federal and total spending (federal, state and local) on Medicaid and welfare - and shows how much these two programs grew in just the last few years. Once you see the numbers, you will understand that even a couple years ago, today's federal budget would indeed seem radical - even extreme - but not in the way E.J. presented it to the readers.

And now tell me - who believes that after all is said and done, that the federal, state and local spending for 2011 is likely to be cut? Heck, what are the chances that welfare and Medicaid spending will simply go to the level of 2007 - back when no one was starving on the streets. In fact, if 2011 budget were to kept at 2007 levels, it would have been smaller by a hefty 1.1 trillion dollars - even though the federal interest payments were higher by 30 billion dollars in 2007. Now, put this 1.1 trillion dollars in your calculator, and you will notice that the federal deficit in 2011 would be cut from the impossible 1.645 trillion dollars to a rather more reasonable 545 billion dollars. And, ladies and gentlemen, don't forget that 2007 was NOT a spend-thrift budget, not at all - even in 2007 the federal government was spending money like there was no tomorrow.

The entire debt and deficit discussion is insane - what are these politicians even talking about? We can easily cut the federal budget to 2007 levels - and that won't be a real "cut" to the liberal programs - we will simply return to a less insane level of spending prior to the Democrats takeover of the budget.

And when we do go back to 2007 levels - then we can start discussing on the balance between tax increases and the cuts to entitlements.

As far as the "revenue enhancements" - I personally believe that there are plenty of ways to increase revenues without raising taxes. The best way to raise revenue is by increasing employment and improving the economy. For example, we can abolish the minimum wage - the biggest hurdle to the employment of young and unskilled laborers. We can further help revenue by abolishing the entire Labor Department and liberalize the union laws. The next step would be to drop the "Endangered Species Act" - which would immediately bring back millions of jobs destroyed by the EPA. And finally - and this one is really the most fruitful idea - we can impeach each and every statist from the federal, state and local government and restore the American Dream. All these measures combined will surely bring far more revenue than any idea that our Inglorious Leader will devise in the next 3 million years. But then - don't forget that as Obama said a few years ago, he cares more about "social justice" than revenue.

A few obvious things

2011-07-10T20:43:00.000-07:00

I always enjoy reading the left-wing intellectuals - and for rather nefarious reasons. I guess the best explanation for this sick pleasure of mine can be described in one word - "schadenfreude". The dictionary defines it as: "pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others". There is nothing more pleasurable than watching a liberal intellectual, an arrogant prick, tie herself in knots trying to solve a rather trivial problem.

Catherine Rampell, a liberal reporter for the NYT, wrote an article, which posed a rather peculiar question - "where is the outrage?" Poor Cathy is bewildered why she cannot find much attention paid to the incredibly high unemployment numbers. Here is the passage that made me smile...

Fourteen million, in round numbers — that is how many Americans are now officially out of work. Word came Friday from the Labor Department that, despite all the optimistic talk of an economic recovery, unemployment is going up, not down. The jobless rate rose to 9.2 percent in June. What gives? And where, if anywhere, is the outrage? The United States is in the grips of its gravest jobs crisis since Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House. Lose your job, and it will take roughly nine months to find a new one. That is off the charts. Many Americans have simply given up. But unless you’re one of those unhappy 14 million, you might not even notice the problem.

Cathy also notices an obvious lack of organizing among the unemployed - which too remains a puzzle to her and the experts she interviewed.

"“There used to be a sense that unemployment was rich soil for radicalization and revolt,” says Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor of labor history at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “That was a motif in American history for a long time, but we don’t seem to have that anymore.” But why? It’s partly because of the greater dispersion of the unemployed, and partly because of the weakening of the institutions that previously mobilized them.

But why, screams Kathy. Well, as Michael Bulgakov said in his novel Master and Margarita, "This ain't Newton's Binomial". Next thing you know, Kathy will be pondering another puzzle - why did Cindy Sheehan, the "absolute moral authority" was turned into an unperson by the media? And where is the anti-war movement gone? And where is the liberal outrage about Obama's illegal war in Libya? All these are questions which are extremely hard to answer for people with mediocre minds - and hence the NYT always has such an impossibly hard time figuring them out.
Let's start with the obvious. As left-wing blog salon pointed out - bad economic news are bad for Obama's re-election campaign.

...the swing voters who will decide the 2012 election won't be relying on a measured analysis of the logic of each party's case to make up their minds. It's the state of the economy that will dictate their verdict. If they perceive it to be improving, they will reject the GOP's claims about Obama's "failed" economic stewardship. But if they believe it is stagnant or getting worse, the GOP line will be music to their ears. Which is why the new unemployment data released Friday morning is so devastating for Obama. As Andrew Leonard noted already, the numbers themselves -- a 9.2 percent unemployment rate and almost nonexistent job creation for June -- are truly awful. But what's worse for Obama is whatever job-creation momentum seemed to exist a few months ago is now completely gone.

In other words - it makes perfect sense for Obama and his lackey's in the media to downplay all bad economic news and pretend that all is honky dory. And don't ignore what Obama's political guru, David Plouffe recently said:

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers. People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’

And don't forget the infamous "recovery summer of 2010" promoted by the Obama administration - with an explicit goal of defending the stimulus spending. Of course, if the public feels that economy is in bad shape, it will conclude that Obama's frantic economic policy - from 900 billion dollar stimulus to multi-trillion dollar Obamacare was a failure. In light of these revelations - is it really such a damn mystery why the mainstream media tries to make the suffering of unemployed American to become invisible to the public? Which is just another way of repeating the conclusions of a research on media bias by a diverse group of scientists from London School of Economics, Dipartimento di Economia Pubblica e Territoriale and Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

"We find evidence that newspapers with pro-Democratic endorsement pattern systematically give more coverage to high unemployment when the incumbent president is a Republican than when the president is Democratic, compared to newspapers with pro-Republican endorsement pattern."

And don't forget this astute observation by Mark Helprin, later was popularized by James Taranto:

"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."

Of course, when Obama-the-Messiah became president, the armies of homeless, hundreds of thousands strong disappear from the media (just as the US anti-war left became pro-war when Hitler attacked USSR). The unemployment suddenly became "funemployment". After reading this article from the LA Times - who will have the heart of stone to rise against unemployment? Indeed, unemployment is a blessing, not a curse according to LA Times. they even invented a new term "funemployment", just to show that even unemployed people enjoy their life during the Obama presidency.

For the 'funemployed,' unemployment is welcome. These jobless folks, usually singles in their 20s and 30s, find that life without work agrees with them. Instead of punching the clock, they're hitting the beach.

Moreover, it's also a sign of independence. Indeed, we probably should celebrate unemployment - it's so great, everybody should be unemployed...

What most people would call unemployment, Van Gorkom embraced as "funemployment."

While millions of Americans struggle to find work as they face foreclosures and bankruptcy, others have found a silver lining in the economic meltdown. These happily jobless tend to be single and in their 20s and 30s. Some were laid off. Some quit voluntarily, lured by generous buyouts.

Buoyed by severance, savings, unemployment checks or their parents, the funemployed do not spend their days poring over job listings. They travel on the cheap for weeks. They head back to school or volunteer at the neighborhood soup kitchen. And at least till the bank account dries up, they're content living for today.

"I feel like I've been given a gift of time and clarity," said Aubrey Howell, 29, of Franklin, Tenn., who was laid off from her job as a tea shop manager in April. After sleeping in late and visiting family in Florida, she recently mused on Twitter: "Unemployment or funemployment?"

Never heard of funemployment? Here's Urban Dictionary's definition: "The condition of a person who takes advantage of being out of a job to have the time of their life. I spent all day Tuesday at the pool; funemployment rocks!"

It may not have entered our daily lexicon yet, but a small army of social media junkies with a sudden overabundance of time is busy Tweeting: "Funemployment road trip to Portland." "Funemployment is great for catching up on reading!" "Averaging 3 rounds of golf a week plus hockey and bball. who needs work?"

As frivolous as it sounds, funemployment is a statement about American society. Experts say it's both a reflection of the country's cultural narcissism -- and attitudes of entitlement and self-centeredness -- and a backlash against corporate America and its "Dilbert"-like work environment.

"Recession gives people permission to be unemployed," said David Logan, a professor at USC's Marshall School of Business. "Why not make use of the time and go do something fun?"

Jean Twenge, co-author of "The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement," said in some cases, many employees had lost balance between work and life, with too many late nights and weekends spent at the office. When they stop working, they realize how much they had given up.

After you read this long and rather bizarre ode to "funemployment" - do you still wonder why there is no organized movement to lower unemployment? Heck, it's all obvious - the media wants you to think that things are go A-Okay in the Good Old USA.

And if you think that "funemployment" is a bogus idea - here is something else for you. The NYT (same newspaper that published Kathy's insane ravings) wrote a rather optimistic article about the economy entitled "For Those With Jobs, a Recession With Benefits". Apparently, unemployment may be a blessing for the rest of the country. An attentive reader won't be astonished to find out that this point of view was proposed in 2010, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the liberal icon.

For many of these long-term unemployed, the financial and psychological damage will last for years. For most other workers, however, the situation has had a perverse, and mostly overlooked, silver lining.

What's that "overlooked silver lining", you may ask? It's easy, really, the rest of the country seems to be enjoying higher real wages - which means all of us with jobs should be quite content with the current economic reality.

But since this recent recession began in December 2007, real average hourly pay has risen nearly 5 percent. Some employers, especially state and local governments, have cut wages. But many more employers have continued to increase pay.

Something similar happened during the Great Depression, notes Bruce Judson of the Yale School of Management. Falling prices meant that workers who held their jobs received a surprisingly strong effective pay raise.

This time around, nominal wages — the numbers people see in their paychecks — have risen throughout the slump, as companies have passed along some of the impressive productivity to their (remaining) workers. Meanwhile, inflation has been almost non-existent, except for parts of last year, when real wages did briefly fall.

Indeed, who in their mind would claim that Obama's economic policies were a failure? As Kathy noted: "Even in the 1980s and 1990s, angry workers descended on Washington by the busload." But who would lead them now? Do you expect ACORN to stage loud demonstrations in front of the White House? Of course not. Or can this happen today?

Back in the 1960s or even the 1980s, the unemployed organized around welfare or unemployment offices. It was a fertile environment: people were anxious and tired and waiting for hours in line.

“We stood outside of these offices, with their huge lines, and passed out leaflets that said things like: ‘If you’re upset about what’s happening to you, come to this meeting at this church basement in two weeks. We’ll get together and do something about this,’ ” recalls Barney Oursler, a longtime community organizer and co-founder of the Mon Valley Unemployed Committee in the early 1980s. “The response just made your heart get big. ‘Oh, my God,’ they’d say, ‘I thought I was alone.’ ”

Surely 2011 is a good time for the "community organizers" - but would they try to direct people's attention to high unemployment and make the failure of Obama-economy more obvious? Not really. Would the media make a big deal of a faltering US economy? Well, the same media that welcome Obama as a savior of the universe? In all honesty, Kathy's pondering on why the current economic crisis is not on the front pages of the newspapers is rather adolescent. Was she born yesterday?

By the end of the article, Kathy does manage to finally locate one group that actually cares about high unemployment - and this is when she finds the answer to her puzzle. Kathy, you can take it from here:

To the extent that frustrations are being channeled at all, they are being channeled largely through the Tea Party. But the Tea Party is mostly against devoting government resources to helping the unemployed.

Tea Party activists, for example, are more likely to believe that providing benefits to poor people encourages them to stay poor, and to believe that economic stimulus has made the economy worse.

Why populist anger over the poor economy is leaning right, rather than left, this time around is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps it is because Democrats, traditional friends of labor, control the White House and the Senate.

Ah - so there's the answer. The entire left-wing establishment is reluctant to raise the issue of unemployment because the left-wing President runs the country. In other words, all the community organizing has nothing to do with making life better for the workers - it is really more about supporting the left-wing. Do you think that Soviet bureaucrats publicly criticized Stalin for Holodomor? And don't forget the NYT publicly announcing that there was no starvation in the Soviet Union - and getting the Pulitzer prize for this piece of propaganda. After writing off 10 million people who died from starvation in the USSR - it's a piece of cake for the NYT to ignore the bankruptcy of Obama's economic policy. As George Orwell noticed in 1945, "[I]t was considered equally proper to publicise famines when they happened in India and to conceal them when they happened in the Ukraine. And if this was true before the war, the intellectual atmosphere is certainly no better now."

It is not surprising that poor Kathy could not mention that the mainstream media is strangely silent on the crisis. Between the reports on "funemployment" and "summer of recovery", there is little for them to say about the suffering middle class. And that too is because media supports Obama and his ultra-left-wing policies. All in all, there really is no mystery why the left-wing anger about unemployment is missing. But apparently Kathy could not say so in the reliably liberal NYT - she knows that there is nothing more dangerous than pointing out the obvious. As liberals tell us: "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." And Kathy is no revolutionary - she needs the NYT paycheck - and so the obvious will continue being a mystery to her. It's sometimes profitable to appear being a dummy and Kathy surely knows how to do that perfectly.

News of the day - Hyphenated-American became a US citizen

2011-06-30T22:48:00.000-07:00

Today, On June the 30th, 2011, Hyphenated-American has joined the ranks of citizens of the Great United States of America. In the presense of hundreds of witnesses he recited the sacred oath of an American:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Only in America?

2011-06-26T20:29:00.000-07:00

Today, I was reading an article in the Los Angeles Times, and it became obvious yet once again to me - liberals are complete and utter idiots. Not all of them, of course, but the liberals who work as journalists for major newspapers are imbeciles. They don't know squat about anything, they have a hard time adding two and two - and yet they feel superior to the rest of the world. Here is the opening passage in the article:

It was imperfectly odd. It was strangely unsettling. It was uniquely American.

On a balmy early Saturday summer evening, the U.S soccer team played for a prestigious championship in a U.S. stadium … and was smothered in boos.

Its fans were vastly outnumbered. Its goalkeeper was bathed in a chanted obscenity. Even its national anthem was filled with the blowing of air horns and bouncing of beach balls.

Most of these hostile visitors didn't live in another country. Most, in fact, were not visitors at all, many of them being U.S. residents whose lives are here but whose sporting souls remain elsewhere.

Welcome to another unveiling of that social portrait known as a U.S.-Mexico soccer match, streaked as always in deep colors of red, white, blue, green … and gray.

Ah - isn't it sweet. Your own team is booed in its own country by the non-American-Americans - and you feel strangely ecstatic about this incident. Isn't it great that those non-American-Americans hate our American team - it's so beautiful, so refreshing, so uniquely American. Undoubtedly, Bill Plaschke, the imbecile who wrote this idiotic self-congratulating article (isn't it cool when people hate team America?) feels proud about himself and the country. It's so unique when recent immigrants (possibly illegal immigrants, if I may say so), the immigrants who demand American citizenship (and handouts, and preferential treatment at jobs and university admissions) - express their solidarity with the sh*thole they crawled out and crap on American flag and American anthem. Only in America, says Bill - and you know that deep inside his soul, Bill adds - only because of people like me.

This story reminded me of a similar episode - the non-American-Americans protesting the students who dared to wear tee shirts with American flags. After all - isn't it entirely reasonable that American flags in American schools are a clear sign of disrespect towards the non-American-Americans? I am sure that Bill was pissing blood, he was so upset that some of those redneck American-Americans dared to bring in an American flag. It's so racist - he thought - so un-American to bring an American flag to an American school. It's uber-American though to boo American anthem, of course, and it's uniquely American style of patriotism.

Let's start with the obvious. As James Bennett noted - "democracy, immigration, multiculturalism… pick any two". Any country with unlimited immigration which does not try to assimilate the new-comers will eventually be torn apart if it is a democracy. People who booed American football team are not Americans - they may be aliens from Mars, they may be Mexicans, or Russians - but they are not Americans.

Secondly, the situation described by Bill is hardly unique to our country. Back in 2008, French team was also booed by non-French-French people during the game between France and Tunisia. Here is the appropriate passage from the French media:

A warm autumn evening in Paris’s Stade de France, the UFO-like landmark French stadium. Two teams : France and Tunisia, invited for a friendly game. Sixty thousand spectators, including many French youths of Tunisian or North-African descent. All in all just another ordinary football game. Only it wasn’t.

Things went sour even before the game started, when loud boos and jeers nearly covered the voice of the young Franco-Tunisian singer performing the French national anthem. Afterwards, all through the game, incessant catcalls targeted Hatem Ben Arfa, born in France to Tunisian parents, who opted to play for his birth country despite overtures from the Tunisian Federation.

Of course, this was hardly the first time when non-French-French booed the French national anthem during the football match. Back in 2001, same "uniquely American thing" happened during the game between France and Algeria.

A football match between France and Algeria provided one of the first warning shots to the French political elite from the heart of the banlieues.

As the band struck up "La Marseillaise" before the friendly match in the Stade de France, in the northern Paris suburb of Saint-Denis, the national anthem was booed. But what shocked France was that those who booed were not Algerian fans but French-born second and third-generation immigrants with French nationality. The banlieues had spoken, and the catcalls from the suburbs were telling the government that the country's model of integration had failed.

That incident took place in October 2001, six years after President Jacques Chirac was first elected, having campaigned on a platform of healing the "social fracture" of poverty and exclusion that left millions of citizens out in the cold.

And of course in 2005, same very attitude was reported from the non-French-French citizens:

In Aulnay-sous-Bois last Saturday morning, a similar scene was played out in which the elected representatives of the republic were reminded that the "social fracture" is more serious than ever, and that the young Arabs on the estates still feel alienated from a mainstream society which has abandoned them to their own devices.

The mayor of Aulnay, Gérard Gaudron, had hoped that a march would mobilise the population against the violence on the estates and bring out a sense of solidarity. But as soon as a group of city councillors and shopkeepers began singing "La Marseillaise" there were noisy complaints from the crowd.

And when one thinks about France and its issues with non-French-French, what actually comes to mind? The 2001 booing of the French national anthem was followed by massive riots on the streets of French cities in 2005, burning of 9 thousand cars and general unrest. In 2007, the non-French-French were able to burn down a library, two schools and a police station (how in the hell can you burn down a police station?!) in addition to hundreds of cars. The rioters also started to use the guns against police - which was a rather startling new development given the fact that France has pretty strict rules against the gun possession.

Bill Plaschke through his ignorance may conclude that it is uniquely American when immigrants openly and purposely disrespect the country they joined to move to. Mr.Bill Plaschke will even celebrate the early signs of the American nation being torn apart. What unfortunate is that LA Times is stupid enough to hire people like Plaschke to brainwash the readers instead of educating them. Do the owners and editors of LAT really think that the police will protect them from riots and violence which are inevitably coming? F*cking morons, all of them.

Obama's war

2011-06-25T01:18:00.000-07:00

The NATO coalition has been waging a war in Libya since March 19. Let's look at some statistics. NATO is an organization of 28 states. It's combined annual military budget is more than 1 trillion dollars. The population of all NATO countries is close to 800 million people. On the other side of the conflict - Libya, a country of 6.4 million people and a nominal annual GDP of 74 billion dollars. One day of war costs the US taxpayers 285 million dollars - which is more than Libya's entire GDP. And yet, for more than 3 months, Muamar Kaddafi has been able to withstand an attack by the mightiest military machine in the world - and the current situation can be best described as "quagmire". The "days, not weeks" military campaign turned into a long and bloody affair with no light at the end of the tunnel. When looking at Obama's war, the most relevant quote that comes to mind is Napoleon's maxim - "An army of sheep, led by a lion, is better than an army of lions, led by a sheep". It is quite possible that at some point in the future (maybe eve tomorrow), a lucky missile will kill Kaddafi and bring an end to the conflict. It is also entirely plausible that some random Libyan major will decide to switch sides and bring Kaddafi's head on a platter as a gift to the rebels. Even if something like this happens in the next few weeks, one thing is certain - the entire war is a disgrace to America and its allies.

The failure of Obama's warmongering in Libya is evident to all, and it seems the White House understands that it needs to do something about it (or rather say something uplifting). A "small victorious war" turned up to be neither. Hillary Clinton, the "I am sick and tired of people who say if you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic" dissident suddenly changed her mind. Yesterday the old witch shouted the following:

I say with all respect that the Congress is certainly free to raise any questions or objections, and I’m sure I will hear that tomorrow when I testify.

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

In short, you either support Obama's "dumb war", or you support Kaddafi. No "ifs" of "buts", no "Dissent is Patriotic" - it's either you are with us or you are with the mass-murderer. No shades of grey here. How quickly things change. Does she really think that denouncing all critics of Obama's war she can win support of the American people?

What's more surprising to some readers is how the most "cerebral" president of all times, Barack Hussein Obama launched this small victorious war. He is a man known for taking unusually long time before reaching a decision - and he is also known to unmistakably choose the worst possible course of action.

For more than 2 weeks people in Libya were rebelling against Kaddafi, and his regime was on the brink of collapse. While this was going on, Obama was characteristically silent. At some point Kaddafi was able to regroup and pushed the rebels back. When all appeared to be lost for the Libyan revolution, Obama rushed into action and crawled on his knees to UN and the Arab League and begging them to give him permission to intervene. After the UN nabobs were generous enough to give him a nod, Obama sent the NATO bombers against Kaddafi's troops. To confirm once again my initial impression of Obama as a man of unusually feeble mind for someone with a high-school diploma, 2 weeks later he suddenly became very curious about the nature of the Libyan rebels he rushed to support and he sent CIA to investigate them. Apparently, it did not enter his mind to find this out BEFORE he rushed into war.

Even today, no one in his administration can explain whether the rebels are Islamist scum, or they are pro-American freedom fighters. I suppose we will find this out once Kaddafi is ousted - or in the immortal words of Nancy "Dumb ass" Pelosi "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

And here is food for thought - the provinces that rebelled against Kaddafi are known for sending record numbers of recruits to fight the Allies in Iraq. While Kaddafi is certainly a thug worthy of a rope around his neck, it may be that the rebels are even worse. It's rather difficult to discern why Obama decided to support the Islamists in their jihad against Kaddafi - instead of letting these two sides kill each other at will. As Henry Kissinger said about the Iran-Iraq war - "It's a shame both sides cannot lose". And don't forget that even Obama's own Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates stated that Libya posed no threat to the USA whatsoever, and there was no national security issue.

But as far as Obama's behavior goes - it actually gets worse (or better depending on your perspective). For some reason, our president decided to ignore the War Power Acts in its entirety. A few years ago, when asked about Bush's possible attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities (which by all means do constitute a danger to the US security), both Barack Obama and his side-kick Joe Biden were unequivocal. Here is what future vice-president thought in 2007:

I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I'm now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the United States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him."

I can only guess that the same "best-known constitutional scholars" later approved Obama's attack on Libya - and confirmed that Obama did not need the Congressional authorization to continue the war indefinitely - overriding the opinions of career lawyers. Of course, back in 2007, Obama was also unequivocal about the limits of the president's power:

Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Answer: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

It's also amusing to read that back then, Obama even believed that the president had no right to detain American citizens. From the same source:

Question: Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

Answer: No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.

Quite ironically, only a few years later, Obama decided that targeted assassination of American citizens is allowed by the US Constitution. If anything, Obama's understanding of the US laws is extremely flexible - in fact one could argue that he does not care a bit about the US Constitution and instead follows the Lenin's principles of "revolutionary conscience". Here is the direct quote from the Soviet Decree from December 5th, 1917:

Местные суды решают дела именем Российской Республики и руководятся в своих решениях и приговорах законами свергнутых правительств лишь постольку, поскольку таковые не отменены революцией и не противоречат революционной совести и революционному правосознанию.

My translation:

Local Courts make legal decisions on behalf of the Russian Republic and in their decisions follow the laws of the previous governments only as long these laws are not abolished by the revolution and do not contradict the revolutionary conscience and revolutionary justice.

Read this decree carefully and think - is there any indication that Obama's legal views are drastically different from those of Lenin? If so, I would like someone to list those differences. I hope my reader keep in mind that Lenin wrote those decrees when he had absolute control of Russia - while Obama's powers are severely limited by the US armed forces, which would not let him launch the Red Terror.

Last but not least I must mention once again Obama's refusal to pursue Congressional resolution supporting the war in Libya. Indeed, he had 3 months to do that - and yet, he demonstrated no desire in convincing the Congress to provide a legal justification for the war against Libya. Indeed, his claims that the war in Libya is not a war (they call it now "kinetic military action") are not taken seriously by anyone. Why is he doing so? The answer to that is rather simple - Obama is and always was a very intellectually lazy man - he simply does not think it's worth his efforts to follow the US Constitution. Why bother with the niceties - when instead he can spend his time with the fundraisers or playing golf?!

Here is just one example of how far he can go ahead and insult our troops just by simply not bothering to check the most important details. I believe a man so intellectually sloppy cannot be smart and educated - it's just not feasible...

During his remarks to troops at Fort Drum today, the President was reminiscing about the times he has spent with the US Army's 10th Mountain Division, when he got something wrong.

"Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."

The problem is, Jared Monti was killed in action in Afghanistan, on June 21, 2006. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, September 17, 2009. President Obama handed the framed medal to his parents, Paul and Janet Monti. He and the First Lady comforted them in the Oval Office following the ceremony.

Seriously, if you are going to make a speech and you got the urge to mention the name of a hero - would it really hurt to check his name first? And once you start putting together his other famous gaffes - the 57 American states that he visited, the 3000% decrease in insurance premiums, Austrian language - and compare him with president Bush (can you find anything that Bush said in 8 years of his presidency that was even remotely as embarrassing as what Obama blurted out in the last 2) - it's impossible to believe the media mantra about his super-human mental abilities. In fact, the facts point to something quite different.

But fear not, ladies and gentlemen, in November 2012 American people will get a chance to correct the mistake they made in November 2008. I hope this time they will take the elections seriously. I don't know about you, but I am certainly done with our first Affirmative Action president.

You can't not LOVE this man, Barack Hussein Obama

2011-06-18T18:26:00.000-07:00

About a month ago our commander-in-chief proclaimed that Middle East has witnessed a “Teutonic shift“. Assuming that it was not a goof (Obama is known for his deep knowledge of the European history – for example he is famous for re-discovering the long-lost “Austrian language“), he was right on the money. Indeed, with the advancement of Moslem Brotherhood (a largely secular group according to Obama’s administration) in Egypt, recent re-unification between PLO and Hamas as well as success of jihadists in Libya, the Middle East is starting to look more and more as Nazi Germany. Now, granted, Teutons were a German tribe well before Hitler, but many people in Europe would not doubt recognize the meaning of Obama’s description.

In general, this president showed us all an example of a ~~bald~~ bold leader, not afraid to speak the truth to power. Let’s put together a few quotes from Obama – just to see the uncompromising honesty and integrity of our commander-in-chief.

“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided…” 2008

“We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.” 2007

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. ” 2008

Last but not least, Obama’s famous speech about the Iraq war. It sounds so different today – so out-of-place. One thought surely creeps in – “Did he say Iraq or Libya, Hussein or Kaddafi?”

I

don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history…
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

2002.

By the way – the best thing about Obama is not just his sincerity and how he strives to uphold his principles. What I admire about him is that he first collects all necessary information, analyzes it, and then makes a decision. Here is a quick example – follow the sequence.

1.Libyan people rebel against Muammar Kaddafi.

2. At first, the rebellion appears to go quite successfully, but then Kaddafi counter-attacks.

3. After 2-3 weeks of weighting the odds, when the rebels’ position appear to be untenable, president Obama launches a war against Libya.

4. A few days later, president Obama asks CIA to find out and inform him who are the rebels that he went to war for.

As an engineer, I find this sequence puzzling – but then, I deal with real world, not community organizing. BTW, speaking of community organizing – can someone send me the job description for a community organizer? I’ve read Obama’s memoirs, and he went into details explaining what he did for year in Chicago – but I still don’t understand what was his actual responsibility.

Nicholas Kristof stole my idea

2011-06-17T00:20:00.000-07:00

Many months ago I was talking to my liberal neighbor. At some point we started discussing a rather pathetic state of American education, and I shared with him a rather brilliant idea of mine. "Look neighbor," I said, "US government spends more on education that it spends on the military (back in 2008, the difference between the two was a startling 130 billion dollars a year). Our military are the best in the world, and our education is the worst in all of civilized world. And don't forget that military spending covers 1.5 million active military personnel - and they've got aircraft careers, tanks, warplanes and nuclear missiles. On top of that, millions of retired soldiers who were wounded and are now provided free medical care. On the education side, we've got about 3.2 million teachers , and a few thousand concrete buildings. When our army goes to war, we can watch on TV how a missile flies into a chimney and blows up a whole bunch of nasty folks into smithereens. When our educators go to educate - all we got is a long list of complaints. On the military side we've got hydrogen bombs and Martin F-22 Raptor (150 million dollars a piece) - and we can kill the entire world 50 times over if we choose to. On the education side - well, our schools are a laughing stock. It is obvious that the only way to drastically improve our schools is by turning them to the military to run - because our educational professionals are not worth a bucket of warm spit".

I must confess that I was rather amazed that Nicholas Kristof somehow found out about my idea and wrote an article about it on the pages of the New York Slimes. But don't forget that Kristof is an idiot, so he could not grasp the enormity of my idea - and he f*cked it up. According to him, the US military is a little piece of socialism in America (and a well-run piece of socialism at that). He was most amazed by the day-care facilities run by military, the health-care, and as a side note, he mentioned that our soldiers don't seem to suck too badly. He was also quite taken by the rather egalitarian pay in the military, and the fact that military academies are among the best in the world. And then, in a rather stunning show of complete ineptitude (so typical of liberal quasi-intellectuals), he decided to compare our military with the private sector - which meant that he missed the entire crux of my idea.

So, Mr.Kristof, let me explain to you what you missed the first time. Our military are part of the government, so we, as taxpayers, run it as we damn please. We cannot, say, decide how much a CEO of a private corporation can make - but we set the pay for the "public servants" because they work for us. If you are in awe of our military and you want to emulate their success - then try to deal with the rest of the government. Let me remind you that our military are not unionized. They are not allowed to collectively bargain for better medical care. They cannot go on strike. Their participation in the political process is severely limited. There are no tenures in the military and if you perform badly, you lose your job. If a soldier disobeys direct order of his superior, he will be court-martialed. And he cannot simply call in sick and march to the capital and demand more pay. And yes, most of our soldiers are right-wing, and they had to go through blood sweat and tears to be admitted to the military.

So, if you are serious about your praise for the military, and you are concerned about the low standards of the US education, then you will join me in demanding that our educational system be run in the same fashion as our military (and probably by the same generals). We can start by immediately forbidding our teachers to participate in political activity, the unions will be abolished, the teacher pay will be not allowed to go above the pay of our military personnel. The tenure must become the thing of the past, and teachers will be hold personally responsible for their actions. And if a teacher goes on strike - he will be sent to a military jail - no ifs or buts here.

In short, Mr.Kristoff, if you want the rest of the federal, state and local government to even approach the efficiency of our military, we must treat our "civil servants" as soldiers. Let's start with the haircuts first - I've seen a few folks in the local public school who looked like they needed to see a barber. They are no hippies in the army, private!

Why you need to read Ann Coulter, Part 1

2011-04-21T22:22:00.000-07:00

As my readers probably know, I was born, raised and educated in the former Russia/USSR. I remember growing up in the socialist paradise - and I remember feeling quite disgusted with it.
When I moved to the US, it was only natural that American right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter appealed to me. After all, their views of socialism, progressivism and so-called "liberalism" were indistinguishable from mine. I am actually quite impressed that they were able to gain so much insight into communism without actually living under the communist yoke.

And speaking of Ann Coulter - I've read most of her books, and I must confess that her books gave a plethora of new information. For example, I was quite ignorant of Joe McCarthy, and her expose on this American patriot slandered by the left was very valuable. Speaking of slander - how many of you know why one of the left-wing inquisitors started whining about McCarthy's "decency"? What exactly did McCarthy say that the leftist found so disgusting? I have a strong feeling that few of you know the actual story - and I challenge you to answer me without doing the internet search.

While Coulter's history lessons are valuable to anyone who wants to learn the truth, she also teaches her readers how to quickly dissect liberal arguments. As she said in one of her books (I am quoting from the memory): "When a liberal expresses outrage about particular issue, but he is vague on the details, you can be pretty sure that he is lying". Let me show how Ann's maxim can be used to analyze an article by Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press. Amazingly, the article starts with a bold-faced lie:

"As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all."

What evidence does Stephen provide to prove his assertion that super rich pay less in taxes? Here it is:

"The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992."

Now, remember what Ann Coulter said - if a liberal is vague on details, he is lying. Notice that Stephen undoubtedly took some time to collect the evidence to prove that super rich pay less in taxes. But if you look at the actual statistics that he cites - you will surely discern that none of it proves his point. Yes, indeed, the rick pay taxes at lower rate than before - but does it prove that they pay less in absolute numbers? When my wife showed me this article - I immediately noticed that Stephen was trying to create an impression that statistics confirmed his hypothesis - but then he clearly avoided giving actual numbers on the tax revenue collected from the super rich. If anything, this was proof positive to me that he was lying.

So, as an honest and hard-working man I found the government website that quoted the taxes collected from the super rich - it can be found here, see Table 1 -- Selected Items for Taxpayers with the Top 400 Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), 1992-2007. I put all the numbers in the Excel, and here is the graph that shows the tax rates for the richest 400 households in US from 1992 to 2007.

And indeed, comrade Stephen is correct, "average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992". But how about the actual tax revenue? Figure below shows how much federal income tax was collected from the 400 richest households in US.

As the figure shows, the tax revenue collected from the super rich grew from $4,601,023,000 in 1992 to $14,454,803,000 in 2007 in constant 1990 dollars. This is a 300% growth - which clearly shows that Stephen was lying. And let's make the next step, and put the tax rates and tax revenue for the richest 400 households on the same graph:

Evidently, cutting the tax rates for the super rich did not in any way cut the tax collection. One could easily argue that tax cutting increased the revenue - just as the Supply-Side economists predicted.

Of course, Stephen was not the only one who rushed to support Obama's proposal to soak the rich. A reliable Obama's lackey, E.J. Dione Jr. also jumped in the same wagon. In his Washington (com)Post article, he quotes a liberal economist David Cay Johnston. According to David:

“The effective rate for the top 400 taxpayers has gone from 30 cents on the dollar in 1993 to 22 cents at the end of the Clinton years to 16.6 cents under Bush. So their effective rate has gone down more than 40 percent... The overarching drive right now is to push the burden of government, of taxes, down the income ladder.”

Is this true? Well, indeed the tax rate for the top 400 taxpayers indeed went down (from 22% in 2000 to 17% in 2007). But does it mean that the tax burden shifted down the income ladder? Here is the graph from the exact same government site, which proves that David was lying:

As the readers can see, the top 400 households are now paying a larger portion of the total federal tax revenue. Indeed, that portion went from 1% in 1992, to 1.19% in 2002 - and then skyrocketed to 2% in 2007. Indeed, it's easy to see that lower tax rates on the top 400 households resulted in absolute gain in tax revenue from them - and their relative contribution to the federal tax collection nearly doubled. Does this look in any way similar to what the liberals are proclaiming?

Again, I suggest anyone to remember Ann Coulter's axiom - when liberals are vague in details - that means they are lying. If a liberal article gives you all kind of statistics - but none of it directly proves the assertion - that means the article is lying. The authors went through the pain of looking at all available statistics - and he decided to withold the numbers that prove that he is wrong.

And surely the New York Slimes could not walk away from repeating same numbers, and making same conclusions - without actually bothering to quote the tax revenue from the richest households. Charles Blow, the NYT columnist in an article called "Pirates of Capitol Hill" writes the following:

...in just the period from 1992 to 2007, the tax rate on the top 400 households in America — those with an average annual income of nearly $350 million — fell by more than a third. In fact, the tax rate for these supermillionaires is now less than the tax rate for average Americans.

He concludes the article with a call for murder and mayhem:

More tax cuts would be gluttony in a time of starvation. That is not America. That is a nation about to be plundered, and a people laid to waste.

For some reason, Charlie neglected to mention that lower tax rates resulted in increased revenue from the top 400 households. In what way is this harmful to the US economy? People earn more money and pay more in taxes - why does that bother Charlie so much? And moreover, and most importantly, why did he "forget" to compare the tax receipts in 1992 and 2007? Is it because it was inconvenient truth?

Last but not least I must note that an article with similar claims (richest 400 households see a drop in taxes) was published on Alexandria - a blog which I also contribute to. The article quotes same numbers as the previous authors, and just as previous authors it refuses to divulge the dynamics of the actual taxes paid by the rich. The end of the article is rather instructive:

This special treatment of the wealthy might well be worthwhile if it had produced the job creation and growth predicted by supply siders. Instead, we saw years of stagnation with growth largely limited to the financial sector. Now, Ryan wants to reduce top tax rates to 25%, while eliminating loopholes. I say close the loopholes first. Prove that you overcome the political clout of the wealthy to have specific tax laws written, then we can talk about lowering rates, after the debt is reduced.

Of course, had the author took the pain of examining the actual tax revenue, he would have noticed that, just as the supply siders predicted, lowered tax rates on the rich produced more revenue. And once we examine the empirical evidence that shows exactly that - the idea to raise tax rates on the rich can be seen as a naked attempt to punish the rich for their success - even at the cost of lowered revenue. As Alexandria's left-wing blogger Hector infamously explained - he was fine with making the poor people even poorer if only that allowed him to punish the rich. And that's what it all about - American liberals do not mind hurting the poor people in America, they do not care about the negative effects on the tax revenue - their purpose is to hurt the rich. This is pure, unadulterated evil.

"Hatred of a neighbor is to deliberately wish him evil, and is thus a grave sin (CCC 2303 and Galatians 5:19-20).”

Last but not least - don't forget to read Ann Coulter - her books are a valuable tool for American patriots.

They called him "Papik"

2011-04-11T00:35:00.000-07:00

My Years As Kaddafi’s Nurse

There is a most peculiar article in the Newsweek - Oksana Balinskayaa describes her career as a Muamar Kaddafi's personal "nurse". According to Oksana, "the job of the nurses was to see that our employer stayed in great shape..." Hm. I bet she tried her best to keep him in shape. Of course, the job had its pluses and minuses: "I had everything I could dream of: a furnished two-bedroom apartment, a driver who appeared whenever I called. But my apartment was bugged, and my personal life was watched closely."

The bloody Libyan dictator was nicknamed "papik" by the cohort of "nurses" - a Russian slang term for "sugar daddy". According to Oksana, her relationship with "papik" was purely platonic - except for the occasional blood-pressure measurements she had to perform on the old dictator. The article is very touching - but in a rather bizarre way - imagine being touched by an old prostitute with syphilis, who is missing half of her front teeth - and who is offering you her professional services. Some of the passages made me laugh - take this one for example:

Gaddafi chose to hire only attractive Ukrainian women, most probably for our looks. He just liked to be surrounded by beautiful things and people. He had first picked me from a line of candidates after shaking my hand and looking me in the eye. Later I learned he made all his decisions about people at the first handshake. He is a great psychologist.

This passage has all the sincerity of a 24 year old prostitute - think about the "Pretty woman". Kaddafi surrounds himself with beautiful people (i.e. Oksana). He chose her (he must be a great psychologist). Self-centered naivety, multiplied by a very low IQ, and intensified by absolutely non-existent distinction between right and wrong. Well, am I talking about this poor Ukrainian girl or the editors of Newsweek? Hm. That's a tough question.

How could they forget what they never knew?

And speaking about American "nurses" to the elderly papiks - there was another amusing article by a liberal journalist promoting left-wing policies. But before I dissect the article - let me introduce its author, Will Hutton. Mr.Hutton is a very distinguished man - a governor of London School of Economics, a visiting professor at the University of Manchester Business School and the University of Bristol, a visiting fellow at Mansfield College Oxford, a trustee of the Scott Trust that owns the Guardian Media Group, rapporteur of the Kok Group and a member of the Design Council's Millennium Commission.

How the hell did he get there - you may ask? How can someone reach this level of power? He must be a distinguished academician, or a very successful businessman? No, not really. Mr.Hutton is neither. According to wikipedia, he got his BSocSc studying Sociology and Economics at the University of Bristol, worked some time as a equity salesman for a stock broker, and then he left for the MBA at INSEAD at Fontainebleau near Paris. But then, this genius joined the government-funded media outlet BBC and worked there as a journalist for 10 years. And this wise career move opened him all the doors he needed to succeed. In short, he is a "nurse" to the British government media papik, the BBC.

Here is how Mr.Hutton describes his life as a journalist for BBC:

We traveled in great style. I accompanied BBC to the United States, Italy, Portugal, and Venezuela, and whenever BBC was in a good mood, it asked us if we had everything we needed. We would get bonuses to go shopping. And -every year BBC gave all its staff gold watches with its picture on them. Just showing that watch in Britain would open any door, solve any problem that we had.

Ahm - editor's correction - this passage was inadvertently transferred from another article - actually, it was Oksana Balinskayaa's description of her life with Muamar Kaddafi. I sincerely apologize for this error. In fact, I don't think that BBC actually gave Mr.Hutton a watch - but it does seems like the British establishment made sure that Mr.Hutton everything he needed - and that clearly did not include the brains. After all - why does an establishment whore needs brains?

The article that nurse Hutton printed in a left-wing friendly Guardian pushes a set of rather simple ideas - the government should continue to grow, debt is not an issue, bailouts for everyone. What distinguishes this article from some other articles is a rather amazing naivety demonstrated by its author. Here are a few examples with my comments...

He [Lord Keynes] had wanted to destroy the theory propagated by economists and politicians who preached balanced budgets, public austerity, the primacy of national sovereignty and freedoms for finance at home and abroad. Instead, he wanted rules that would acknowledge countries' interdependence and create global institutions and a global currency to give governments room for manoeuvre to act intelligently and creatively to stimulate jobs, trade and growth.

There is a Russian saying that paper can suffer anything - but how could Guardian suffer this?! Firstly - something obvious - a man who writes about rules that "acknowledge countries interdependence" deserves to be publicly whipped for the rape of English language. Government laws do not "acknowledge" anything - and if countries are indeed "interdependent" - that does not have to be acknowledged through government rules - like the laws of the universe do not require the government bureaucracy to write new rules and regulations. Secondly, the budgets must at some point be balanced - one way or another. And thirdly, what's the evidence that "global currency" leads to the governments to "act intelligently and creatively to stimulate jobs, trade and growth"? Indeed, the massive crisis in the EU, the coming bankruptcy of the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) can be directly traced to the fact that these countries (and many others in the EU) behaved irresponsibly because they relied on the common currency and the cheap loans that came with it. It would be rather instructive if Mr.Hutton was forced to publicly defend his contention that the euro-currency in any way promoted intelligent acts by the PIIGS. I am willing to agree that PIIGS governments are rather creative in their attempt to make the German workers pay for their failed policies - but is this something that Mr.Hutton truly wants to see on the global scale?! The Germans are very hard-working people (which is why we call them, "ze Germans"), but I doubt they can save the entire world from bankruptcy - and neither would they be willing to.

And yet, the article becomes unbearably funny when Mr.Hutton criticizes Portugal for doing exactly what it is expected to do in lieu of the common currency:

Across the Atlantic, an army of hedge funds and investment banks forced a lame-duck Portuguese government to turn to the IMF and European Union for a multibillion euro bail out.

And what's most amazing is that the governor of London School of Economics puts Portugal's refusal to cut spending in same line with - you guessed it - the efforts of the Mr.Hutton's great nemesis, the conservatives - to cut spending. A few weeks ago, the Portuguese Parliament voted against the austerity measures - and as a result their bonds dropped as a rock. Their only other option to prevent bankruptcy was to beg IMF for a handout. Read the entire passage below, and prepare to be startled by Mr.Hutton's inconsistency:

In Washington, a resurgent Republican party took the American government to within two hours of being closed down for lack of politically authorised funds as it battled for swingeing cuts in federal spending. Across the Atlantic, an army of hedge funds and investment banks forced a lame-duck Portuguese government to turn to the IMF and European Union for a multibillion euro bail out. In Britain, George Osborne championed the breathtaking speed of his budget reduction plan by saying he would not play Russian roulette with British economic sovereignty.

But isn't the Portuguese government doing exact opposite of what the Tea Party in US and conservatives in Britain are doing? While conservatives attempt to cut spending in order to prevent the bankruptcy of their nations, Portuguese government refused to do so - and is now forced to beg IMF for a handout. What in the world can Mr.Hutton be thinking? Apparently, it's bad to cut government spending - and it's also wrong to ask IMF for the bailout. What's left to do for a cash-poor government?

But fear not, ladies and gentlemen, Mr.Governor of London School of Economics will propose a clear plan how to get out of debt without cutting the government spending. Here is how he contrasts his thought-through path to nirvana with the primitive ideas of the Tea Party plebs. Prepare to be blown away - this ball is going for the stars.

These are all examples of politicians responding in changed circumstances to new challenges. The question is whether they are right. For example, even US Democrats agree with Tea party activists in the Republican party that if the US repeats what it did in the 2000s, then US public debt will double and become insupportable. The argument is whether the response should be to take an axe to the US federal government or whether the government, despite financial constraints, is part of the solution through its role in triggering more and sustainable growth.

What, that was not enough for you? Here is more:

In Europe, the Portuguese government could have run its affairs with more discipline and investors are wary that they could lose money if there is a default or debt restructuring.

Ah - so, the solution to the debt crisis is to have government a part of the solution through "triggering more and sustainable growth?!" And don't forget about the need for the government "to run its affairs with more discipline". And if that does not give an exhaustive explanation of what Mr.Hutton proposes - then nothing really can. Damn, why haven't we thought of this before? Mr.Hutton's solution reminds me of an old Russian joke...

Once upon there lived mice and everyone harassed them. They went to a wise owl for advise and said: - "Wise Owl, please help us. Everyone harasses us in the forest.What should we do?"

Owl thought about the question and replied: "You should become hedgehogs. Hedgehogs have needles, no one can harass them."

Mice were very happy, and ran home. But on the way home, one mouse asked: "How do we become hedgehogs?"

And the mice ran back to ask the wise owl how they can turn into hedgehogs.

They came to the wise owl and asked: - "Wise Owl, how can we turn into hedgehogs?"

And the wise owl replied: "Guys, don't give me this crap - I solve strategic problems."

But back to our wise M.Hutton....

After Mr.Hutton explains the strategy of dealing with the overwhelming debt which crippled EU and US, he triumphantly proclaims that IMF is a great institution, because it allows Portugal to use it as a papik (without the need for Portugal to check EU's pulse). He also believes that "Government is inevitably part of the solution, not the irredeemable problem." To me, the government has as much claim to be part of the solution, as a man who killed his parents can plead for sympathy because he is an orphan.

Mr.Hutton finishes his article with a call to idiots of the world to unite and fight against common sense:

Economists and business leaders should not let the chancellor get away with Tea party-style statements about Britain risking bankruptcy and having no choices but to suffer. Keynes dedicated his life to challenge that thinking and for some years kept it at bay. The bad news is that it may only be disasters, like the one Keynes lived through, that will make people change their minds. The good news is that there are a lot of a very good and iconoclastic economists – many here – from many countries who want to take up the fight again. It's a race against conventional thinking – and time.

And indeed, the solution to the debt problem that Mr.Hutton proposes is easy to implement - the government should make things better - a simple solution to a very complex problem. Why haven't we thought of that before?! Wise, very wise Mr.Hutton, thank you.

After I re-read Mr.Hutton's article and compared it with the article written by Kaddafi's "nurse" - I came to a conclusion that I was rather unfair to the Ukranian nurse. If anything, she seemed to be far smarter, and more practical than Mr.Hutton. I guess, her experience of serving the despot, as well as the spectacle of his unexpected downfall taught her a number of valuable lessons. I believe it would make perfect sense for the BBC to sponsor Mr.Hutton's internship as a nurse for a Middle-Eastern dictator - which would surely broaden Mr.Hutton's horizons and radically improve his understanding of economics. Hey, it's a win-win situation. Anyone knows of a dictator who wants to have his "pulse checked" by a middle-aged slightly balding distinguished male journalist, who specialises in economics?

A voice from the past

2011-03-31T20:04:00.000-07:00

Back in the 1980ies, Soviet newspapers and magazines were finally freed from the diktat of the communist regime, and they started publishing enormous amounts of anti-communist material. For more than half a century, most popular Russian writers could not show their best stories and novels to the readers - or they had to severely self-censor in order to be published. The authors who left USSR were completely cut off from the Russian public. But at last, the gates were open, and we could see the enormity of Russian literature of the 20th century - from Bunin and Nabokov to Bulgakov, Erofeev and Dovlatov. Some of the people (and this surely includes my family) have read some of the books forbidden by the regime - but even we had only a glimpse of the great works of the Russian writers of that period.

In the 1980ies, magazine "Ogonek" was probably the most popular among the Soviet public - it was read by everyone, from a conscripted soldier to a party functionary and a university academic. Ogonek was an openly anti-communist magazine and at the time it was most hated by left media outlet in the entire country - the members of Politburo regularly discussed its articles and just as regularly demanded Gorbachev to close it, or to change its editor-n-chief, Vitali Korotich.

A few words about Korotich. Before perestroika, he was a normal, average member of the communist nomenclatura, smoothly moving from one post to another. But when Gorbachev put him in charge of a popular Soviet magazine, he waked up from the sleep and became a devoted anti-communist. It's not as strange as it sounds - after all, communism was a state religion in the USSR, and heretics were regularly sent to Siberia for re-education. But once Gorbachev removed the whip, no carrots in the world could keep Russian intelligentsia at the feet of the communist party. And boy, did they pay back for the years of communist oppression!

I think it was in 1991 or so, when Korotich shared a rather amusing anecdote from his life. At some point (this was after perestroika), Korotich travelled to US to give a lecture about Soviet Union to an American audience - I assume it were mostly American professors, intellectuals and the like who came to his presentation. Mind you, these were supposedly highly "educated" and "credentialed" Americans, most of the them were familiar with the works of Solzhenitsyn. For about 2 hours, Korotich patiently explained the horrors of communist regimes, portrayed the cruelty of Stalinism and described how the Soviet leaders ruthlessly punished any dissent. During the Q-n-A session, a woman stood up and proceeded to ask a question. Here is what she said: "I understand that Stalin killed millions of people and sent tens of millions of people to forced labor camp. I also understand that he silenced all his critics. But I still cannot understand one thing - why hasn't anyone called the police?!" Korotich said in his article that this question left him completely speechless. He understood that there was nothing in the world that he could say to this woman.

And this is pretty much what I feel right now when I watch an American senator, Dianne Feinstein "usually considered one of the clearer Democratic thinkers on national security and the military in Congress" wonder if the world can simply arrest Muamar Kaddafi for crimes of humanity. Wouldn't that be simpler than a ground invasion?! I now know exactly how Korotich felt...

Say, nu...

2011-03-30T23:00:00.000-07:00

I was reading the recent articles about Obama's refusal to seek Congressional authorization of the Libyan war - and one thought came to my mind. Isn't this a bigger offense than Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal? After all, Reagan's only crime was to supply weapons to the Nicaraguan patriots who fought against the communist scumbags. This Obama character is bombing a sovereign country to the smithereens (granted, Kaddafi and his thugs richly deserve it), and he is now talking about supplying the pro-Al Qaeda rebels with US weaponry (again, without Congressional authorization, let alone the fact that it's against the UN resolution which put an arms embargo). Obama's policy is not only illegal - it's worse - it's stupid and it is harmful to the American people. WTF? Has our affirmative action professor gone kinetic?

The Obama doctrine

2011-03-30T21:53:00.000-07:00

I am sure that many of my readers are aware that American President finally rented the time on TV and explained the reasons for American war against Libya. It's a bit disappointing that it took him 10 days to gather all the courage to face the nation - but it's better late than never. For some reason, Obama failed to explain why he did not seek the approval of the US Congress (an impeachable offense according to Vice-President Biden and Senator Obama), but we cannot expect our President to tackle all the issues at once. I assume he will explain why he changed his mind on the presidential powers some time later (but probably before 2012). But all jokes aside - our President took his time to explain the Obama doctrine of American foreign policy. I don't want to tire you with the details - since the most succinct summary of the speech was written by a famous liberal journalist, Thomas L. Friedman: "Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky."

At this point, American foreign policy is run based on a hope that Obama somehow will get lucky, and things will turn out okay in the Middle East. "Hope-n-Change" now runs on prayer.

As Thomas-the-believer wrote:
"I hope Qaddafi’s regime collapses like a sand castle, that the Libyan opposition turns out to be decent and united and that they require just a bare minimum of international help to get on their feet. " Thomas left out Egypt in his prayer - after all, it could be rather dangerous if Moslem Brotherhood (a mostly secular organization according to Obama administration) will seize the power in one of the largest nations in the Middle East and declare (mostly secular) jihad against Israel and US.

Anyway, it's quite humbling to see one liberal intellectual who believes only dumb luck can now fix the policies of another liberal intellectual. This is not exactly the common behaviour among the university professors from my time. As Cicero famously said - "о tempora, о mores!"

Two stories, 9 years apart

2011-03-19T21:16:00.000-07:00

Missiles strike Libya in first wave of allied assault - March 2011

BENGHAZI, Libya — A coalition of American and European forces bombed Libyan targets by air and sea Saturday in the first phase of a military campaign to drive Moammar Gadhafi from power.

French warplanes fired the first shots in the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war, destroying government tanks and armored vehicles in the region of the rebels' eastern stronghold, Benghazi. Hours later, British and U.S. warships and submarines launched more than 110 Tomahawk missiles against Gadhafi's air defenses around the capital Tripoli and the western city of Misrata, which has been besieged by Gadhafi's forces, Pentagon officials said.

Early Sunday morning, several loud explosions were heard in Tripoli, followed by what sounded like bursts of anti-aircraft fire.

Libyan state TV on Sunday quoted the government's armed forces command as saying 48 people were killed and 150 wounded in the allied assault. The statement said most of the casualties were children. The report could not be independently confirmed.

The aim of the coalition's operation, dubbed Odyssey Dawn, was to enforce a United Nations-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya and stop Gadhafi from attacking overwhelmed rebel forces in the east.

"This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," President Barack Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."

Less than two hours after Obama spoke, Gadhafi, who has ruled Libya for 41 years, said in a telephone call to Libyan state TV that he will arm civilians to defend Libya from "colonial, crusader" aggression.

"It is now necessary to open the stores and arm all the masses with all types of weapons to defend the independence, unity and honor of Libya," Gadhafi said.

"We call on the peoples and citizens of the Arab and Islamic nations, Latin America, Asia and Africa to stand by the heroic Libyan people to confront this aggression, which will only increase the Libyan people's strength, firmness and unity."

Barack Obama's Iraq Speech, October 2002
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka [HA: Both Auschwitz and Treblinka were in Poland]. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Reading "The New Republic" for entertainment purposes

2011-02-19T00:03:00.000-08:00

So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today -- I already said this -- would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent -- that’s not my numbers, that’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says -- for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace. How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.

Obama's speech to his supporters

Will the 3000 percent reduction be effective in all 57 states?

Posted by mndasher in response to Obama's prediction.

I assume that everybody is still allowed to buy more than one health insurance plan. I would like to become multi-millionaire and the sooner the better.

Posted by Observer Mar in response to Obama's prediction.

Reading "The New Republic" for entertainment purposes
People ask me from time to time - "Alex, why do you read liberal authors?". I normally reply that I like entertainment, and liberal authors are always entertaining. Their opuses are sometimes funnier than the best comedies. I remember some time ago there was a show on TV where they would roll a particularly bad movie and have two dolls comment on it. Naturally, most of what liberals write is of so low intellectual quality, that pointing out the fallacies in their articles is as easy as shooting the fish in the barrel. But still, someone has to shoot the fish in the barrel - where do you think you get your fish products from? More importantly, from time to time you need to open your soul and let Hannibal Lecter out, so he breathe some fresh air.

The article that spiked my attention this time was published in the ever-so-entertaining "The New Republic (for idiots)". It was written by Jonathan Cohn about evil republicans who are going to cut federal funding for some impossibly long-named government healthcare program. Here are a few selected quotes that capture the main gist of the article...

...the Republicans are also proposing a more immediate cut in health care spending--one that could impose real hardship on a population that can ill afford to bear it....

..How big is the cut? On paper, House Republicans propose to reduce clinic funding from current levels by $1 billion, or roughly a third of their total federal funding...

..based on estimates from the Senate Appropriations Committee and the National Association of Community Health Centers, it sounds like more than 100 clinics could close and more than 1000 clinics could reduce services, leaving around 3 million people without a regular source of affordable health care...

... Downsizing or shuttering clinics also means laying off some of the people who work there. How many jobs are we talking? The Center on American Progress pegs the loss at 178,000 in the next year....

Now, lets me summarize this. Evil GOP wants to cut 1 billion dollars from the federal medical funding. According to TNR, that would result in closing of 100 clinics, reduction in service for more than 1000 clinics, 3 million people would be left without affordable health care and 178,000 workers would be laid off.

Let's now look at the facts. Federal, state and local spending on Medicaid increased from 2006 to 2010 by a hefty 66.4 billion dollars (66 times more than the amount of money that GOP is willing to cut from the government medical care for 2011). If Jonathan's numbers on the consequences of cutting 1 billion dollars from the government spending are correct, then during the last 4 years, 6600 new clinics were open, 199 million new people got access to "regular source of affordable health care", and nearly 12 million people were hired to work for the government health care.
(Note that the inflation during the last few years was pretty low, so I am not losing a lot of accuracy when I am quoting the nominal budget numbers.)

But this is hardly the end of it. In 2010, the total government spending on Medicaid was 335 billion dollars (which is 335 times the amount that the GOP is trying to cut). Again, if Jonathan is accurate in his dire predictions, then the entire Medicaid spending was sufficient to support 33,500 clinics, provide "regular source of affordable health care" to 1 billion people (that's "billion" with a very capital "B") and employ nearly 60 million people exclusively for Medicaid. On top of that, the government spent additional 452 billion dollars on Medicare - which at least would mean 45,200 more clinics and 80 million medical workers.

It's true that Jonathan Cohn made a number of weasel disclaimers:

Calculating the precise impact of those cuts is tricky...

Although I can't vouch for the precision of these figures...

I can't speak to that figure's veracity...

Disclaimers or not, but Jonathan was aptly described in a very good British movie "Snatch":

Doug (coming up with an excuse): Avi, I'm not telepathic.

Avi: You're plenty stupid, I'll give you that.

In all fairness, I need to remind everyone that it was Jonathan Cohn who actually published these ridiculous numbers on the pages of TNR, and it was his responsibility to check if they passed the laughing test. And indeed, the statistics he quotes fails the laughing test with flying colors - as one would expect from the data presented in a liberal publication. And if (there's a really small "if") Jonathan is completely lacking any common sense and skills to perform the most basic arithmetic operations, then TNR editors and fact checkers were supposed to check his numbers and tell Jonathan to drop the article (and hang himself). But neither of these things happened, and poor miserable liberals are consuming Jonathan's statistics without a single doubt in their minds - just check out the comments on the TNR website and note that not a single liberal was smart enough to question the numbers.

I want to end this article with a quote from a great American movie - "The Producers" - which pretty much illustrates fuzzy liberal math in general, and Jonathan's in particular (and don't forget Obama's 3000% cut in premium costs)...

Max Bialystock: Leo, how many percentage of a play can there be all together?
Leo Bloom: Max, you can only sell one-hundred percent of anything.
Max Bialystock: And, how much of "Springtime for Hitler" have we sold?
Leo Bloom: Twenty-five thousand percent.

Indeed, Jonathan Cohn has sold to his readers far more than 100% of the GOP proposed cut to the medical budget of the US government. It's probably close to the Leo Bloom's twenty-five thousand percent. But that's life, some people studied math in school, and some dreamed of becoming liberal journalists. You cannot have both.

A few passing remarks...

2011-02-15T22:43:00.000-08:00

JAY LENO: “Michelle Obama was expecting jewelry for Valentine’s Day but nothing extravagant. She says the president is very responsible when spending his own money.” (Via Andrew Malcolm on Facebook).

Lamestream Media
According to Kathleen Parker, we must judge the quality of a journalist by how many times he got hit in the head. Apparently, the more abused journalist produces better work. Moreover, according to Kathleen, journalists should be celebrated not because they seek the truth (and actually find it), but because they are good meaning people. Here is the appropriate passage:

There's something in the constitution of those who sign up for Journalism 101 that makes them want to be part of the action but also to do something of value. The bias so many recognize in the media is, among other things, a bias toward the underdog, whether that's an unwed mother or an oppressed people. That government thugs want to silence reporters in Egypt is understandable. The camera is focused on the powerless masses who want to unseat their pharaoh.

This surely explains why the lamestream media protected Obama and waged a war against Joe-the-Plumber - it's obvious that Obama is an unwed mother/underdog/powerless mass, while Joe is the pharaoh.

Last but not least, I love when a liberal feels superior - internet makes it easy to go back and mock her when reality gives a call. Kathleen feels rather boastful of the American journalists going to Egypt to report about the revolution. Compare Kathleen's appraisal of the Katie Couric and reality...

Watching Katie Couric being harassed and shoved by a crowd of angry men in Cairo was especially jarring. Our little Katie? Make no mistake Perky Katie is also brave Katie...

I'd wager that every reporter confined to a cubicle at this moment wishes he or she were there, even with a touch of quiet gratitude for being safe. It isn't only to be where the action is but also to bear witness to history and to the eternal human struggle to be free.

Well, Katie had enough history and enough human struggle, and obviously she is in no mood to stay there anymore. It's one thing to report about religion of peace - it's quite another to deal with it up close and personal. Katie Couric may be brave, but she would rather watch the Egyptian revolution from the NY cubicle. I assume it gives her some perspective - after all a few more days in Egypt, and perky Katie may lose all political correctness and multi-culturism. According to insidetv:

As violence against journalists in Egypt continues, Katie Couric and Brian Williams have left the country. Last night, Couric returned to New York City, while Williams reported live from Amman, Jordan. Anderson Cooper remains in Cairo, reporting from a dimly-lit, undisclosed location last night and admitting he was “a little bit scared”.

Liberal approach to education
University of Cincinnati to drop computer science major:

The University of Cincinnati will stop accepting undergraduate majors in computer science starting in fall 2012. About 125 current students in the program will be able to complete their programs. The move by the College of Engineering and Applied Science is one step toward reducing the college's academic programs to 11 from the current 17, Dean Carlo Montemagno said. It's driven by impending budget cuts that could slice $4.9 million off this year's $24 million budget, he said.

For some reason, "Africana studies" and "Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies" are not affected. And that makes perfect sense. For example, students can still "specialize in Sexuality Studies or Transnational Feminisms. As part of the Transnational Feminisms specialization" - but they got no computer science. It should make you proud that in WGSS: "students have the option to study abroad in Canada or Mexico. The department explores the intersections of race, nationality, class, gender and sexuality.A commitment to social activism has been, is and always should be a dimension of a program based in large part on justice." And don't forget, that for Africana studies, "As we move into the next century, it will be extremely important for all of us, Black, white, Asian and others, to understand the interplay of forces that help to structure the existence of Black people." Surely, the rest of the world has moved to the new century 11 years ago, but who is counting - these guys are working on something really important, so don't expect them to update their calendar.

Last but not least (well, you cannot be less than Africana studies and Women's studies - it's impossible), there is the sociology department - and as the website says, students study "race and health care in the U.S., war and children's life chances around the world, urban inequality and segregation, and the politics of abortion and capital punishment."

I am sure we are glad that government funded University of Cincinnati chose to close computer science in order to fund liberal propaganda. Political interests Uber Alles.

Obama versus Carter
I am sure that my readers remember that in 1979, Iranian "students" led by the mullahs attacked the US embassy and seized 52 US citizens. Obama is trying his best to outdo comrade Carter - and finally he can boast that a US diplomat is held as prisoner by Pakistan. There is, of course, a rather stark difference between the two cases. After all, Iranian mullahs are/were sworn enemies of the United States, while Pakistan is officially a US ally, funded by the federal government to the tune of nearly 10 billion dollars lately. How many more US diplomats will be taken in the next 2 years?

The next big Obama's achievement in foreign policy will be the denunciation of the Camp David Peace Accords by the new Egyptian government. It's coming, and you know it...

Revolution as good as its people, Part 3

2011-02-12T23:18:00.000-08:00

This article is Part 3 of my series of articles (Part 1 and Part 2) on the Egyptian revolution.

The Luzhin defense, Fiddler on the Roof, Hollywood and Egyptian Revolution

Do you know what's the difference between art in America and everywhere else? I remember reading an article in a Russian newspaper - that was long time ago, maybe in 1991 or 1992. The author was describing a movie he had recently watched on the video - it was a Russian thriller, and I honestly don't remember the name of the movie, let alone its contents. What struck me then were the comments of the Russian movie critic - I will try to reproduce them as close to the original as possible. Of course, my reader should understand that the original article is impossible to find now, so I was complelled to rely on my rather faulty (but very inventive) memory.

The main characters of this movie find themselves in a situation where there is no way out. Mind you, if it were an American movie, a "situation with no way out" would simply mean that there is a way out but you need to work really hard to find it (and kill a bunch of bad guys in the process). But it's a Russian movie, so "no way out" means - NO WAY OUT, irrespective of how much you try.

Why am I telling you this? Please, be patient, comrades, ladies and gentlemen, the explanation is forthcoming....

When I was preparing the second part of my article on the Egyptian revolution, I decided to refresh my memory on Nabokov's immortal novel "The Luzhin Defense". What's more important though, I wanted to check the English spelling of the name "Luzhin". As I discovered, they've already shot a movie based on Nabokov's novel, and this made my search that much easier. I dutifully found the link to the movie, copied the title - and then my eyes scrolled down the page and I read the description of the movie plot. I must confess that I was a bit startled by it. Let me compare the ending of the movie and great finale of the actual novel.

Here is the ending of the Western movie based on Nabokov's novel:

Luzhin, who is in his muddied wedding suit, sits in his room as Natalia and the hotel staff try to open the door. But before they can get in, the troubled chess grandmaster throws himself out of his bedroom window and dies. The tragic death is witnessed by Valentinov who has just arrived by car.
The film then concludes in the competition hall where Natalia completes the competition using her fiance's notes. Turati does exactly what Luzhin expected and loses. Katkov and Turati then leave acknowledging the Pyrrhic victory and the genius of Luzhin.

And here is Nabokov's version (my translation from Russian to English - with deepest and most sincere apologies to all Nabokov fans). This passage (last in the book) follows right after Luzhin climbs out the window:

Now both of his legs were hanging outside the building, and he had only to release his hold on the wall and he would be saved. But before letting the wall go, he looked down. It seemed like hasty preparations were ongoing: the reflections of the windows were leveling, and the abyss was falling apart into the pale and dark squares, and the very that instant Luzhin unclenched his hands, the instant that an ice-cold air rushed into his mouth, he saw the eternity that obsequiously and inexorably opened to him.

Someone kicked out the door. Several voices started to roar: " Alexander Ivanovich [Luzhin’s first and middle names], Alexander Ivanovich! " But Alexander Ivanovich did not exist.

In the movie you get if not the classical Hollywood happy ending - but something damn close to it. By all means, Luzhin commits suicide, but his genius is vindicated. Of course, this dilutes the entire theme of the novel - actually making the novel far weaker as a work of art. In the original, the chess match remains unfinished, and the chess experts cannot decide whose position is better - making Nabokov's ending far more dramatic. But Hollywood thinks it must make people feel better - and that certainly takes precedence over art.

Where the hell am I going with this, you may ask. Fear not, my readers, I will make my point when it's ready...

About a week ago I walked into the living room and found my wife watching "Fiddler on the Roof" on TV. I was rather perplexed - I remember reading the novel "Tev'e, the milkman" back in the 1980ies, and it was a rather unsettling experience. The novel is about a Jewish milkman, who lives in the Russian empire in the beginning of the 20th century. He has 7 daughters, a wife, and he makes money selling milk and butter and other dairy products (as the Monty Python said - "blessed are the cheesemakers"). At first his affairs go up a little bit, then things get worse, then his life becomes miserable, horrible, unbearable - and finally it gets much worse again. In short, if you want to keep your spirits up, I strongly suggest you don't read this book.

Anyway, after a couple of hours, when the movie was over, I asked my wife what in the hell she was thinking - why would she watch it? "Tev'e the milkman" would make even the most cold-hearted person feel bad for the Jews. "Well, it was not that tragic, really", she replied. "I mean, sure, things were kind of hard for Tev'e, but in the end he, his wife and his daughters leave Russia and move to America. You can even say he was lucky." Her answer puzzled me a bit. Here is the dialogue that pursued (my memory is a tad hasty, but that's how I remembered it)...

HA: Tev'e leaves Russia and moves to America?

HA wife: Yes, he does, with his daughters and his wife.

HA: No, he does not. In the end of the book, he is kicked out of his house, and he has no idea where he would go. Moreover, his wife cannot possibly follow him to America - she is dead.

HA wife: That's strange.

HA: Say that again. Anyway, I am intrigued. What did the director do with his daughters?

HA wife: They are okay, most of them are following him to US, and one of this daughters is waiting for her husband to be released from exile, so they could also join Tev'e in America.

HA: Hm. How about his daughter that had an affair with a rich youngster and drowns herself?

HA wife: That was not in the movie. BTW, his daughter Tzeitel and her husband Motel are moving to Poland, but later they plan to join Tev'e in America.

HA: That's impossible.

HA wife: Why?

HA: Well, for one, Motel is also dead.

In short, Hollywood took a very dark novel describing the life of a Jewish family and turned it into a light story with a happy ending. They even resurrected a few dead people to achieve this - definitely a miracle.

"Sure, we got it, but how does it have to do with Egypt?!" - you may ask me....

Well, it's time to put the cards on the table. I believe that Hollywood and the Western entertainment industry conditioned the common public to expect a happy ending. Indeed, after watching hundreds of movies, it's only natural to notice that every time a character finds himself in a sticky situation, he must choose the riskiest path possible - and that would be his 100% guaranteed ticket to success. And honestly, it does require a certain amount of sophistication to distinguish between the work of fiction that you see on TV and the latest reports from Egypt - which you also see on TV (and which too very often contain an unhealthy amount of fiction). Seeing the jubilant crowd gather in the Cairo downtown and hysterical media reporters shouting about democracy and freedom naturally makes you believe that things in Egypt will certainly get better once the hated dictator Mubarak is gone. As a side note I must add that only a few months age Mubarak was universally described by American media as a moderate Arab leader and a staunch ally of the United States - they loved to use this description when he was criticizing the Jewish State for her treatment of the palestinian arabs. But that is all gone and forgotten - today, Mubarak is the only one who is standing between Egypt and peace, prosperity and candy. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia".

But if I may go back to the original theme - it requires sophistication to see that Hollywood Happy Ending is a rather rare thing in real life - particularly when you leave the civilized world and move to the rest of the planet. What are chances that the latest commotion in Egypt will end well? There were plenty of revolutions in the last few hundred years, and only very few of them had a happy ending. It is quite typical to hear of a revolution which starts as a popular uprising against the oppressive regime and ends up with a bunch of psychopaths taking over the country and building an even more oppressive regime - so oppressive indeed that the people wish they never revolted against the previous oppressive regime. Let's go through the memory lane, and take a look at a dozen of significant revolutions.

Some people may reasonably say that "Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results" - but surely it is quite instructive to look at past results ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.") It's also fair to ask - does Egypt have a better chance to succed than numerous Soviet "stans" (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) and become a prosperous free country? While you are pondering this, here is the poll of the Egyptian population - and this poll answers all the questions you may have on how Egypt will most likely look after genuinely democratic elections (which is what many people are pushing for)....

Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of Hezbollah: 30%
Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of Hamas: 49%
Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of al Qaeda: 20%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that think it’s good that Islam is playing a large role in politics: 95%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians who think it’s bad that Islam is playing a small role in politics: 80%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that think Islam’s role in politics is positive: 85%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that believe there is struggle between modernizers and fundamentalists in Islam and identify themselves with moslem fundamentalists: 59%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that believe there is struggle between modernizers and fundamentalists in Islam and identify themselves with moslem modernizers: 27%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support gender segregation in the workplace: 54%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support stoning people who commit adultery: 82%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support whippings, cutting off hands of people for theft and robbery: 77%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support death penalty for people who leave Islam: 84%
Egyptian demographics: 90% of the Egyptian population is moslem.
Last but not least – about 95% of Egyptian girls suffer genital mutilation.

And if you are a bit more sophisticated than an average lamestream journalist and you want to know who are those people standing on the streets and fighting against Mubarak - I can tell you right now. These are the people who mutilate Egyptian girls, who support death sentence for apostasy, who stone couples for committing adultery and yes, they would also cut off hands of the people for theft and robbery. Who wouldn't wish such a crowd to run a country, right? Heck, an average Egyptian makes taliban look moderate.

Last but not least - in 2009 and 2010, liberal activists and their lackeys in the mainstream media were counting percentages of black people among the Tea Party (apparently they were not enough blacks according to the voluntary government diversity standards updated daily in the New York Times). There were unconfirmed reports that someone shouted "Nigger" at a black congressman - and that was considered to be the conclusive proof that the entire Tea Party was scarily evil. Egyptian protesters draw the Star of David on the photos of Mubarak (apparently it means he is evil) - and the media yawns.

Imagine the outrage if it were revealed that 10% of the people in the Tea Party (not 90% as in Egypt) were mutilating girls? Or what would the journalists say if they discovered that 10% of the Tea Party activists supported the murder of anyone who renounced Christianity? God Almighty, we would have heard non-stop stories about the evil, racist, misogynist, and fundamentalist Tea Party monsters. And yet, same journolistas find nothing alarming about the views of Egyptian people. Why is that? Is it because they are so conditioned to the Hollywood Happy Ending? Is it political bias? Is it because Egyptians are "the other", the "noble savage" - and it's "politically incorrect" (i.e. blasphemous) to be critical of them? Or maybe, it's all of the above - the perfect marriage (in California and 5 other states - perfect civil union in the rest of the nation) of "Hollywood Happy Ending", "Political Correctness" and political bias.

And here is my conclusion: infamous Hollywood Happy Ending plays a critical role in the current inability of the American cultural and intellectual elite to correctly estimate the inherent risks of the Egyptian revolution. In short - the guys who claim to be the smartest people in the room are stupid. And anyone who thinks that Moslem Brotherhood is a "largely secular group" is a f*cking moron who ought to have his head examined with a baseball bat - that would be the Russian-style Happy Ending.

President Hosni Mubarak

2011-02-10T22:37:00.000-08:00

Journalists: President Mubarak, is it true that you are preparing a farewell address to the Egyptian people?
President Mubarak, surprised: Why? Are my people leaving somewhere?

— Господин президент, — обратились к Хосни Мубараку журналисты. — Говорят, вы собираетесь выступить с прощальным посланием к народу?
— А что, мой народ куда-то уходит? — с удивлением ответил Мубарак.

Taken from here.

Revolution as good as its people, Part 2

2011-02-05T17:46:00.000-08:00

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--

Liberal radio talk show as free entertainment
I was listening to the NPR a few days ago (before the recent uptick of violence), and I caught the last few minutes of the Robert Siegel's show "All Things Considered". I must confess that this NPR anchor is adorable (they all are, but this one is really something special), his arrogance can only be matched by his ignorance and stupidity. And trust me, his arrogance is amazing - just listen to his voice when he introduces himself - this man is practically collapsing from a sudden realization of his importance. He can't even pronounce his name in one breath "Robert Siegel" - it's crucial for the listeners to remember his name, every syllable and vowel of it, for the rest of their lives - and thus he proudly presents himself as "Robert Sea-gul". Dale Carnegie famously quipped "The most beautiful thing a person can hear is their name" - but I bet he never expected Robert Siege to take this figure of speech so literally. Damn, I love Booby - he never fails to lighten up my day.

Anyway, Booby is interviewing an American student in Egypt, and two themes of the interview become quite obvious. On the one side, this student is very excited for the Egyptian people and is very happy that they are rebelling against Hosni Mubarak. The second theme - she feels compelled to cut short her studies in Egypt and to come home. The rather stark contrast between these two themes did not seem to bother neither the highly-esteemed NPR talk show host Robert See-eee-Gull, nor the American student (whose name escaped me because of its irrelevance).

Amazingly, same disconnect can be noticed in the reports from the mainstream media - on one side you can feel the euphoria of Western tourists in Egypt - but on the other side, it's clear that same euphoric tourists are getting into fistfights in the Cairo international airport for the right to get on the first plane out of Egypt. As the expression goes - those folks are voting with their feet (and fists), and their vote does not betray much confidence in the Egyptian revolution. And I can relate to that - after all, who wants to spend the next couple of years as a hostage in the dungeon run by the peace activists from the Moslem Brotherhood? It's not 1979, some people have learned their lessons about the "religion of peace" - at least as much as it may relate to their own ass. They may strongly support the Egyptian revolution, but they prefer to do so at a safe distance of at least 10,000 miles under the protection of Western troops. Even the most devoted multi-culturist knows the difference between theory and practice - Karl Marx called it "dialectics", simpler minds call it "hypocrisy".

Who among us hasn't lived through a revolution?
I will volunteer a guess and say that probably none of you have lived through a revolution, let alone two. I was lucky enough to personally witness the last two revolutions in Russia - in 1991 and 1993. And I must add, I saw them up-close and personal because at the time I lived in an apartment which was in a walking distance from the Moscow White House. To tell you the truth, living through troubled times provides you with a plethora of experience, knowledge and wisdom - which may not be in high demand when the things are quiet, but are golden when society enters turbulent times. Therefore I claim my expertise of the Egyptian revolution and compel you to read carefully this story about Kings and Cabbage that I am about to share with you.

A bit of self-promotion
I must confess that even though my education is purely technical (I earn my modest living as an Electrical Engineer working for a large corporation), I have a passion for history, economics and literature. I must add that my engineering background helps a lot in my non-technical studies - because I am trained to spot bullshit and notice patterns. If you add the fact that I was born, raised and educated in the USSR, then moved to the US and settled there - it's clear that I have a rather odd blogger, I may even be one of a kind. Kind of like Barack Obama - but with smarts, sense of humor and valuable personal experience. And yes, I don't need the teleprompter - I believe a baseball bat is much more handy. Speaking of the game of baseball - I've heard that in 2010, they sold in Russia one baseball glove, two baseballs and 100,000 baseball bats. Isn't it amazing?!

Where is this all going to?
I am writing this article to share my views on the revolution in Egypt and what we should expect from it. In summary - if Mubarak and/or his henchmen do not hold to power, and the protesters are successful, Egypt will see the rise of a theocracy much more reactionary than Iranian regime, and the war with Israel is inevitable. In the meantime, Egyptian people will suffer, and the Egypt will be a much more oppressive and poor society than it is today (and it's not like Egypt is a beacon of freedom and prosperity today). In the immortal words of Shenderovich, "In Tunisia, people are joyful from the fall of the authoritarian regime, and can see the return of their local Islamic fundamentalist. Soon, there will be such spiritual revival on the wreckage of authoritarianism, that you will wear yourself out burying all the corpses."

How do I intend to prove this thesis? My article will put together a potpourri of stories from the past and present, analysis of previous revolutions and a healthy amounts of speculation. The whole story will be told in concentric spiral - the way Nabokov wrote his famous novel "The Gift". Good luck digesting that mess.

Let's learn from the past: Communist revolution and Doctor Zhivago
There are plenty of books about the communist take-over in 1917, the subsequent Civil War, mass murder, starvation and destruction engineered by Lenin - the unhappy summary of the unhappy 74 years of communist rule. I would recommend reading Paul Johnson's "Modern Times", Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "One day in life of Ivan Denisovich", " Gulag Archipelago", "In the First Circle". Moreover, don't forget to familiarize yourself thoroughly with Michael Bulgakov's "Heart of a Dog", "A Dead Man's Memoir: A Theatrical Novel" and "White Guard" and Isaac Babel's "Red Cavalry".

I must confess that although all these books are excellent guides to history and some of them are true literary jewels (I believe Bulgakov is the best Russian writer of all times), "Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak is most relevant to our conversation about the revolution in Egypt.

The first time I read "Doctor Zhivago" in the 1990ies - and I could not get pass the first 100 pages. The plot was a bit too thick for my taste, too many characters, and the book as a whole was a mixture of Maxim Gorkiy and Vasiliy Aksenov. The second time I attempted to read it was a year ago - after all Pasternak was a famous Russian writer, and I felt ashamed that I was unfamiliar with his work. Moreover, I decided that I was too young 2 decades ago, and this time I would surely enjoy the novel by the Nobel Prize winner. And lo and behold, by the page 100 it all came back to me and I was ready to call it quits. The plot and the characters did not upset me (these were quite traditional and did not raise my ire), it's the number of cliches that suffocated me. For example the main heroine Lara, a young and bright girl, is wondering who is shooting at the tsarist police and the army during the Moscow uprising in 1905 - and answers her own question with a jaw-dropping banality. It goes like this:

"It must be the boys" - Lara thought... She was thinking not just about Nikkie and Patul, but about all the people in the city who were shooting at the army. "Good honest boys", she thought, "they are good - that's why they are shooting at the army".

This passage made me puke my guts out - damn, Pasternak was writing this in the 1950ies, when the criminality of the communist revolution was already apparent to all decent people (and decent people don't read the New York Times). But still, I decided to finish the book - this time there was no surrender, I would read the entire novel. And what would you think - it got only worse. By the end of the first 1/4 of the book, doctor Zhivago is singing a panegyric to the 1917 revolution calling it the breath of fresh air. Here is the quote which literally made me nauseous:

I could say the following: everyone had two revolutions, a private one and a common one. I believe that socialism is an ocean, and like an ocean absorbs the rivers, it will absorb all the private revolutions and become the ocean of life, the ocean of originality. The ocean of life, as I say, of life that you could see in the paintings, the genius life, an enriched life. But now people decided to try it not by reading books, not as a hobby, but in reality.

Damn, I was pissed after I read this crap. The communist revolution was a breath of fresh air?! How could he? How could he even write this? At this point I decided I needed to finish this book - I had to know what the hell Pasternak was thinking.

And then slowly but steadily things start changing. The life gets worse for Zhivago and his lover, Lara. Eventually they escape from the communist regime, and settle in a abandoned house. After a while, Zhivago is "nationalized" and forced to serve in a communist insurgent gang as a doctor, and he is lost for some years. When the gang falls apart, he comes back in search of Lara - and you can feel how all the characters steadily lose all hope to ever get back to a normal life, and death is creeping closer and closer to them. By this time, the inhuman cruelty of the communist regime was seen as a natural - as Dovlatov once said "cruelty was as common as humidity".

In one of the later chapters, doctor Zhivago is talking to the commander of a group of red insurgents, Pamphil Palyh - a devoted murderer, a man with the blood of thousands of people on his hands. The description given to this man is unbearable. Here is my translation:

At the beginning of the revolution [1917], based on the experience of the 1905 uprising, they [the communists] were afraid that the revolution would be a short-lived event in the history of educated elites, and won't touch the lower classes. This is why they tried to propagandize among the common folks, to revolutionize them, to excite them, to inflame them.

During the first days [of the revolution], people like soldier Pamfil Palyh, who without any need for persuasion deeply hated the intelligentsia the noblemen and the officers, seemed a rare find by the excited left-wing intellectuals and was highly valued. Their inhumanity was seen as a highest achievement of class consciousness, their barbarity - as ideal proletarian firmness and revolutionary instinct. That was Pamfil's fame. He was indispensable to the leaders of insurgents and the party leaders.

The end of the novel is instructive - the main characters finally realize not just the nature of the communist revolution - but also how they themselves were personally responsible for it. Lara's explanation for the horrors of the communist regime is quite instructive:

All of a sudden, there was this jump from idle, innocent life into blood and screams, total insanity and wilderness of every-day and every-hour, legalized and glorified murder. Maybe, this can never go by and be forgotten. I am sure you remember how everything started to crumble. The train schedule, the food supplies to the cities, the basics of the family foundation, the foundations of morality.

What came to the Russia was not truth. The worst horror, the root of the future evil was the loss of belief in the value of one's own point of view. People imagined that the time to follow the voice of one's own conscience is gone, that you must follow the opinion of someone else, and live according to the views of other people. The slogans took precedence over everything else, first the tsarist slogans, then the revolutionary slogans. Society's delusion became all-encompassing. Everything was under its influence.

The way the book turned around was absolutely amazing - and I had to read it in its entirety to comprehend that Pasternak was showing the process by which the pre-revolutionary views of intelligentsia in Russia were changing from radical pro-socialist romanticism to post-revolutionary skepticism (The New York Times intellectuals would call it "fanatical anti-communism").

On a lighter note, I must add that I could think of two other works of art which had a similar unexpected twist. The first of one is more obvious (and much more trivial) - "Fight Club". I am sure my readers remember the moment when it is revealed that the main protagonist Tyler Durden and the positive hero Jack are one and the same person.

Please return your seatbacks to their full and upright and locked position.
We have just lost cabin pressure.

It's called a "changeover". The movie goes on and nobody in the audience has any idea.

The second example that comes to mind is Nabokov's novel "Luzhin Defense". In this book, the main character is a talented Russian chess player Alexander Luzhin, a man who has only only passion - playing chess. And this game drives him to insanity he starts seeing the whole world as part of a giant chess game. In the end, he attempts to leave the world of chess and live a normal life, but this proves to be impossible in spite of all his attempts. In the end, he finds the ultimate effective defense from the chess insanity - he jumps from a building with his head first. Apparently, the only defense that he could find was suicide - the "Luzhin Defense".

How does it all have to do with Egypt?
You may ask "What is the connection between "Doctor Zhivago" and the Egyptian revolution?" Well, the fundamental truth is - no revolution cannot be better than the people. And a revolution which involves the whole country cannot be better than the average citizen of the nation. If the average citizen is a neanderthal, then what you will get is a revolution that will inevitably promote the values of neanderthals - irrespective of the phraseology used by the leaders. Take a quick look at the latest polling results of the Egyptian people:

Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of Hezbollah: 30%
Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of Hamas: 49%
Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of al Qaeda: 20%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that think it's good that Islam is playing a large role in politics: 95%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians who think it's bad that Islam is playing a small role in politics: 80%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that think Islam's role in politics is positive: 85%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that believe there is struggle between modernizers and fundamentalists in Islam and identify themselves with moslem fundamentalists: 59%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that believe there is struggle between modernizers and fundamentalists in Islam and identify themselves with moslem modernizers: 27%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support gender segregation in the workplace: 54%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support stoning people who commit adultery: 82%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support whippings, cuttings of hands of people for theft and robbery: 77%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support death penalty for people who leave Islam: 84%
Egyptian demographics: 90% of the Egyptian population is moslem.

Last but not least - about 95% of Egyptian girls suffer genital mutilation. Note, the people that you see on the streets of Cairo, demonstrating for democracy and freedom are the same people who would kill anyone who wishes to leave Islam. Same ones who cut of women's genitalia. Same ones who would stone people for committing adultery. Do you really feel like they are just like you, or maybe you are a tad more evolved than those people?

In all fairness, I must note that cutting off female genitals is hardly the biggest concern for the people of Egypt - it is far more important to them that dictator of Egypt keeps peace with Israel instead of whacking those pesky Jews like Hitler did (or did not - depends who and when you ask in the Middle East). For example, while the moslem world is not currently known for its flourishing book industry (I wonder if the whole moslem world of more than 1 billion people publishes more books than a tiny state of Israel), it surely spends considerable resources on publishing and popularizing Hitler's memoirs.

For example, recent Al Jazeera's report on the Cairo book fair is a tad discomforting: "The fair also has its darker sides, with anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion and of course plenty of editions of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for sale."

And sure, OF COURSE, there are plenty of editions of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" for sale in Cairo's book fair - what else would you expect?! That "Of course" from the Arabic meida outlet is worth more a thousands pages of research about anti-semitism among moslems, and what we should expect from the Middle East "Peace process". And it surely is expected that when the Egyptian populace wants to show their dislike of their beloved leader, Hosni Mubarak - they OF COURSE draw a Jewish Star on his portrait. After all, calling someone a Jew is the ultimate insult, is it not (reminds me of Obama's spiritual leader, rev. Wright and his talk about evil "Jews" who don't let his favourite student talk to the teacher)? Just look at the photo from Reuters (a few more photos can be seen here) and wonder - why hasn't the media paid a little bit of attention to this nazi symbolism? But never mind the media - think what you are to expect from the Egyptian revolution if it is successful. I am not sure about you, but to me, this revolution speaks with a little bit of a German accent. And I don't mean to insinuate that Egyptian cars will soon be produced with German quality.

When I think of Hosni Mubarak and the Egyptian revolution, I remember Kissinger's wise remark on the Iran-Iraq conflict: "It's a shame they can't both lose".

Revolution as good as its people

2011-01-31T00:35:00.000-08:00

It's too late, and tomorrow I need to get up early, drive my son to school, and then go to work and earn my living. Hence this post will be short and to the point....

Daily Mail Reporter: Cameron and Obama hold crisis talks, both calling for 'political reform'; Death toll reaches 102 and at least 2,000 have been injured. Thousands of prisoners escape from jails as riots go into sixth day. Around 30,000 British tourists were stranded in Egypt today as army planes buzzed low over Cairo on the sixth day of uprisings.At least 102 people have been killed, more than 2,000 are injured and there were calls for a multi-party democracy to emerge as President Hosni Mubarak's grip on power loosens. Gangs of armed men attacked at least four jails across Egypt before dawn today, helping to free hundreds of Muslim militants and thousands of other inmates as police vanished from the streets of Cairo and other cities.

Governments scramble to fly citizens out of Egypt: FRANKFURT (Reuters) – Governments started arranging for planes on Sunday to bring home citizens stuck in Egypt, where violent protests of the rule of President Hosni Mubarak have given way in some parts of Cairo to looting.

Jerusalem Post: "Cairo: Anger starting to focus on Israel, US"

Famous museum in Cairo looted and partly destroyed during the riots. Point of reference - video of Taliban barbarians destroying the statue of Buddha in Afghanistan.

History of Islamic reform in the 20th century - the most important contributor is the "Moslem Brotherhood". One cannot understand Osama ben Laden, Hezballah, Hamas, Taliban and Iranian mullahs without acknowledging the influence of the Brotherhood. Here is the excerpt on Moslem Brotherhood from wikipedia:

"The Society of the Muslim Brothers (often simply الإخوان Al-Ikhwān, The Brotherhood or MB) is an Islamist transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab statesThe group is the world's oldest and largest Islamic political group, and the "world's most influential Islamist movement." It was founded in 1928 in Egypt by the Islamic scholar and Sufi schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna."Today, Moslem Brotherhood is the strongest organized force in Egypt.

According to Stratfor: "The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Hamas armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB. The MB has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party."

Let's look at some key statistics, which give us some perspective on the people of Egypt...

Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of Hezbollah: 30%
Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of Hamas: 49%
Percentage of Egyptians that have a favorable view of al Qaeda: 20%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that think it's good that Islam is playing a large role in politics: 95%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians who think it's bad that Islam is playing a small role in politics: 80%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that think Islam's role in politics is positive: 85%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that believe there is struggle between modernizers and fundamentalist in Islam and identify with moslem fundamentalists: 59%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that believe there is struggle between modernizers and fundamentalist in Islam and identify with moslem modernizers: 27%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support gender segregation in the workplace: 54%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support stoning people who commit adultery: 82%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support whippings, cuttings of hands of people for theft and robbery: 77%
Percentage of moslem Egyptians that support death penalty for people who leave Islam: 84%

Egyptian demographics: 90% of the Egyptian population is moslem.

Last but not least - let's walk down the memory line. Let's look at the photos of the graduates from the University of Cairo (photos were taken from this site).

Class of 1959

Class of 1978

Class of 1995

Class of 2004

How do you feel about the events in Egypt? Please, don't be shy, share your opinion. If you want to know my opinion - people who installed Ayatollah Homeini as a supreme leader of Iran in 1979 were far more moderate than the Egyptians in 2011.

In summary, my view on the struggle between Mubarak and Moslem Brotherhood is best explained by Henry Kissinger (he said this about the Iran-Iraq war, but is equally applicable to the current situation): "It's a shame they can't both lose".

What happens in the Middle East, does not stay in the Middle East

2011-01-27T23:05:00.000-08:00

The latest news from the Middle East are rather bleak. Firstly, the Tunisian strongman was ousted, and the country is in chaos. Next, we got the Egypt on the verge of collapse. And now there are reports of violent demonstrations in Jordan and Algeria. On one side, I have no sympathy for these "towelhead monarchies", as they were aptly called in the movie "Body of Lies". But realistically, the people who are battling these dictators are even worse - just think about Iran or Cuba, and what happened to those countries when the American-supported dictators were ousted. Once the anti-American assholes come to power (democratically or not), they have a tendency to stay in power for a long time, and make everyone feel nostalgia for the old regimes. As Mark Steyn described Middle East democracy - "one man, one vote, one time".

It's fair for my reader to ask - Hyphenated American, what makes you think that those nice people protesting on the streets won't try to build a nice Western liberal democracy? Well, as I often confess on my blog - it's a hunch - and given the fact that my intuition on all things political was perfected in the USSR, I tend to trust my hunches. Here is why I think we have little good to expect from Tunisia: it was wildly reported that the crowds in Tunisia were extremely violent, they were shooting people left and right, and they ransacked the stores. This is not how the liberal democrats (I mean it in European sense, of course - American liberal democrats are famous for their riots) behave. Back in the 1980ies, anti-communist demonstrations in Eastern Europe were non-violent, peaceful and no one thought of attacking the stores. Fast forward to 2009 - Iranian people were non-violent, they even protected policemen who were were surrounded by crowds. But those bums in Tunisia (and I think the situation is same in Egypt, Algeria and Jordan) are not like that.

The positive side of this dynamic is that the more anti-American the government is, the more likely that the people love America. So, if we want Egyptian people to be on our side - Moslem Brotherhood should come to power. Of course, this would lead to another war in the Middle East (I think it won't take long until the new government formed by the moslem moderates will move to re-militarize Sinai and/or close Suez to Israeli ships), but then any objective observer saw it coming. The actions of the current American president will push the region to another bloody conflict in the very near future. It's "Sputnik time" for the Middle East - time for the moderate moslems to start bombarding Israeli cities with their rockets. Stay tuned, things will get very interesting very soon. Don't forget to buy the popcorn.

The saddest thing about the Ground Zero Mosque - nothing about it surprises me

2011-01-23T23:27:00.000-08:00

I am sure the readers are painfully aware of the controversial plan to build a mosque on the Ground Zero. The promoter of this project, Imam Feisal Rauf is highly regarded by the liberals (from the US president all the way to the lowly community organizer), while conservatives are outraged. The Imam is highly critical of American foreign policy (really, it's US fault we were attacked on 9/11), and he steadfastly refuses to denounce Hamas. In short, he is the epitome of moderate Islam - or at least the Islam that is promoted by the media in this country.

But very recently it was decided Imam Feisal was too controversial (or maybe he had other things to do), and the moslem community elected another moderate Imam Abdallah Adhami to be the senior adviser to the Ground Zero Mosque. And it did not take long until it became clear just how moderate this Imam Abdallah is - he proclaimed that it is necessary jail people who leave Islam. Here is the exact quote: ""If someone leaves the din, leaves the path privately, they cannot be touched. If someone preaches about apostasy, or preaches their views, they're jailed." He added: "In Islam, in the Quran, theoretically, if you look over the Quran from cover to cover, you literally have the right to the choice to reject God's message. The only thing you do not have the right to do is to spread this conviction, lest you, quote unquote, pollute others."

He showed some mercy by proclaiming that today situation is slightly different, and that "If you left Islam, nothing happens. The Muslims are 1.5 billion people; they are not going to be hurt by a few thousand leaving." Should you be allowed to "pollute others"? I've listened to the audio quite carefully, and it does not seem like he is against punishing the polluters. Very moderate indeed.

And the saddest part - I am not surprised.

Your comment is awaiting moderation

2011-01-23T22:39:00.000-08:00

Today I've got into a discussion with an Associate Professor in the History Department at Colorado State University, HistoryAnn. On her blog, she shared her outrage that a former republican congresswoman Heather Wilson expressed doubts about the quality of American higher education. The essence of HistoryAnn's disagreement was quite obvious - surely this republican is a blind ideologue, and her views should be ignored. What caught my attention was the following passage, which revealed quite a lot about HistoryAnn. Quite a lot, I must add.

I’ve always thought that there was a very straightforward reason for why university faculty and other highly educated people tend not to support Republican ideas: the more you know about the world, the dumber they seem. There’s no conspiracy at universities against conservative ideas–indeed, even Marxist Feminists like me teach about very conservative ideas all the time: patriarchy, hierarchy, Thomas Hobbes, the Divine Right of Kings, nineteenth century proslavery ideology, anti-women’s suffrage, anti-unionism, anti-communism, Father Coughlin, the John Birch Society, Impeach Earl Warren bumper stickers, “free market” ideology, and the like. And you know what happens? When students read the primary sources laying out these ideas, they usually see them for what they are: brutally, coarsely self-interested, unfair, and un-American.

I've wrote a letter to historyAnn, expressing my utter puzzlement with her rather arbitrary decision to describe a wide range of very contradictory ideas as "conservatism". We quickly got into a sparring match, and it seems like your own blogger, Hyphenated American, is now listed as a "person of interest". My latest entry was not published, and "is awaiting moderation". Here is what I wrote - luckily I was able to save my last message to the Marxist Feminist Ann (I am not sure if it will be published or not):

Ann,

I guess our discussion is getting too long, and indeed it is your blog, and you can do whatever you want with it. Sorry for bothering you.

What upsets me most is that liberals very often flat out refuse to debate the pros and cons of conservative ideology, and instead prefer to fight with the straw men.

Instead of listening to honest critique of conservatism, we hear denouncements of wacky ideas of the past, which have no connection to conservatism. Just as you called pro-slavery movement “conservatism”, I can say that naziism and communism and benladeism are part of the history of liberalism. I know world history pretty damn well to make whole lot of factual connections, and we can play this game non-stop. But then – does it REALLY help you to understand the ideas that I believe in? Does it REALLY make you confident that you are correct, and I am wrong (let alone dumb and evil and un-American)? And honestly, between you and me, I need to tell you that if you truly were convinced that American conservatism is wrong, you would have debated it head on, instead of indulging in criticism of evil ideas of the past, ideas which have nothing, absolutely nothing in common with American conservatism. I don’t know if it is patriotic or not to abandon the straw men (I am a bit idiosyncratic of the word “patriotic” for the reasons we don’t have to discuss now), but it surely is intellectually honest to do so. But then – who cares, really, we all will be dead in 3 million years.

Anyway, here is the rub. On what basis did you decide that Father Coughlin, a revolutionary socialist, was a conservative? On what basis did you conclude that pro-slavery was part of conservatism? On what basis would you NOT qualify the 21st century movement to abolish social security, welfare, medicaid and medicare as non-conservative? And what about Hitler-Mussolini-Lenin-Stalin-Mao – these 5 were clearly revolutionaries – so are they conservatives or liberals? And if the popular point of view, a point of view which was dubbed “conservatism” some decades ago, is according to its very supporters, fundamentally, irreversibly, standing in defense of individual liberty, small limited government and justice – then why are you are discussing ideas which run contrary to the essence of American conservatism – and assume these two are identical?!

I understand why you believe that this discussion may seem to be only tangentially tied to the issue of Rhode scholarship. But in reality it is not – about 40% of what you wrote was devoted to the rather bizarre claim that conservatism is “brutally, coarsely self-interested, unfair, and un-American”. I assumed that you took some time to think it through, before accusing 30% of American population of being (let’s be honest here) dumb scumbags. Was I wrong?

Miss HistoryAnn clearly believes that "conservatism" is same as "status-quo-ism" - but does it make sense? And then - if someone is "fiscally conservative" - does it mean that he supports 1.5 trillion dollar annual deficits? And shouldn't defense of Roe vs Wade be called "conservatism"? Questions, questions...

P.S. Comrades, please, don't flood her blog with attacks. I still want to play there. Pretty please with sugar on top of it?
P.P.S. I am curious if I were to proclaim that "history of infection diseases" is the history of liberalism - would that be considered an intellectual argument by Ann?

Making conclusions based on a hunch

2010-12-29T22:37:00.000-08:00

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...

2010-12-17T23:45:00.000-08:00

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....

2010-11-28T22:48:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-11-02T04:00:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-24T05:00:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-18T04:00:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-13T21:51:00.000-07:00

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"

2010-09-06T00:49:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-02T00:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-31T22:08:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-31T11:00:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-31T00:21:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-08-29T14:59:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-28T02:38:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-18T19:04:00.000-07:00

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.

An acute case of liberal affluenza

2010-08-17T23:05:00.000-07:00

I've recently finished reading Thomas Sowell's latest book entitled "Intellectuals and Society". Among many interesting things, Professor Sowell noted certain patterns of liberal-slash-intellectual behavior - and it always amuses me to find the examples of such behavior in the media. Here are a few obvious examples from the article "Feeling the pinch? Cheer up – affluence made us miserable" recently published in a British newspaper. ...

1. An affluent liberal (who comes from a very prosperous family) believes that people don't really need wealth.

The author of the aforementioned article, Oliver James is a graduate of the most expensive and selective boarding school for boys in the world, Eton college. (For some perspective it is sufficient to note that Eton is popular with the British Royal Family; Princes William and Harry are Eton graduates.) After Oliver received a degree in Social Anthropology (what the hell is that?) at Cambridge University and a psychology degree from Nottingham University, he did a quick stint at Brunel University and Cassel Hospital in Richmond. But a normal hard-working life was not for Oliver, so instead he became a movie producer for the government-run BBC (apparently, his connections from Eton and Cambridge helped him to get the necessary financial support by the government-run media outlet). Oliver is an author of multiple books and documentaries criticizing "consumerism" - or, in other words, he is upset when the plebs dare to purchase colored TVs at the time when he had to sell one of his prize-winning horses. Oh, the injustice of free market economy!

2. The liberal in question makes far reaching pronouncements on how societies should operate, while demonstrating obvious economic ignorance.

In his article, Oliver mistakenly equates affluence with high indebtedness - which tells you how much this genius understands basic economics. On the other side, it's quite plausible that a man with Oliver's pedigree (British nobility no less) would think that truly rich people are up to their necks in debts (prostitutes and gambling are the main sinks of income for nobility in all countries) - in fact any one who comes off the pages of the Dickens's books would have reached same conclusions.

3. Same liberal asserts without any evidence that the time during right-wing president/prime minister was unusually egotistic and that economic liberty equals greed and is evil, while the economy run by the government is virtuous.

According to Oliver:

"Incubated in the 1960s, the virus [i.e. the attempt of the prols to improve their living conditions] was spread wider and in more virulent form by Mrs Thatcher and her Blatcherite successors (Blair and Brown). This selfish capitalism (free market economics) has greatly increased our likelihood of mental illness: we are twice as likely to suffer (23% of us) than our mainland Western European cousins (only 12%), who have relatively unselfish capitalist economies....

Less materialistically motivated populations tend to be more family and community minded. In societies like Denmark, for example, people are much more liable to be concerned about the well being of a child who seems distressed in public. If a wallet is dropped, it’s much more likely to be handed in. There are much higher levels of trust between people of all ages, less cynicism about government."

4.The liberal intellectual asserts that people don't need to earn more money - and anyone who does so is simply misguided, or suffers from what Marxists call "false consciousness".

Oliver puts it this way:

"...I believe there will be a gradual increase in the extent to which people come to realise that they do not need such high incomes if they spend less. As we rediscover the difference between real needs and false wants – confected by advertising and peer pressure – we will start to wake up and smell the coffee: compared with much of the population of the world, nearly all of us are incredibly wealthy. If we can just get on with enjoying that wealth through better family lives, intimate friendships, communities and enjoyable hobbies, we will be a whole lot more mentally healthy."

And true that - who would be more prepared to distinguish between the real needs and false wants of prols than Oliver James, a man who shared his bedbunk with British royalty? I cannot think of anyone else, honestly- his name is always the first in the list.

5.The future is bright if only people do exactly as the liberal tells them to

The article arrogantly proclaims - "The shift to healthier values – from having to being – will not happen suddenly." But what does Oliver believe are healthier values (I will ignore the false contradition between having and being)? Well, less wealth, less work, less personal responsibility. In short, Oliver wants adults to become more like children - and he means it literally.

"Instead of these materialistic values, we need goals and motives that are driven by real satisfaction of authentic needs. That means a greater concern with the pleasure of an activity for its own sake, rather than possible external benefits. Like children’s play, this kind of activity takes the person into a state of “flow”, where time passes without your noticing, a state of full absorption. I witness this in my children every day, but adults can have lives like that too. It’s often achieved by pursuing paid work that is interesting to you rather than seeking promotion or greater salaries – within a corporation, for example, putting interest in the work ahead of material or promotional gains. Oddly enough, that can actually lead to greater success, although it is not the goal."

It's evidently only a matter of time before liberal psychologists will declare competitiveness and desire to succeed as a new and dangerous mental disorder. As Beatles sang - "Back in USSR" - a country where a citizen who did not believe in the communist ideology was pronounced mentally sick, and was sent off to a psychiatric hospital for compulsory medical treatment.

The true value of Oliver's insane pronouncements could be best understood if one were to imagine the Eton grad repeating these obnoxious claims in front of a janitor, a waitress or a mechanic. It would be interesting to see what would be the reaction of a working man who has to support a family - when he is advised to give up his bread-n-butter profession and instead emulate children and find some fun activity. After all - who wants to be a janitor? Just satisfy your authentic needs and find an interesting and engaging job. For example Oliver did just that - with a little help from his ancestors and millions of dollars from the government subsidies. This is surely beyond Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" insanity - this is more akin to "Why do they need to eat bread - it is so fattening - let them pick a hobby instead".

The real question is - why does Oliver, a British blue blood, highly educated in liberal sciences would desire to suppress the people's desire to improve their living conditions? The answer is simple - and I will use slightly modified wikipedia's quotes to explain the root causes of Oliver's mental illness. Oliver has caught the "liberal affluenza".

Liberal affluenza:

liberal affluenza, n. a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, anxiety and occasionally violent outburst resulting from either the dogged pursuit to control over people's life or envy of someone's achievements.

liberal affluenza, n. 1. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from desire to feel morally superior to others; 2. An unsustainable addiction to feeling of self-importance.

Proponents of the term consider that prizing of endless increase of one's power over other people's lives may lead to feelings of worthlessness and dissatisfaction rather than experiences of a 'better life', and that these symptoms may be usefully captured with the metaphor of a disease. They claim some or even many of those who became important members of political society will find the political success leaving them unfulfilled and hungry only for more power, finding that they are unable to get pleasure from the limited amount of influence they have on other people, and desire for more power may come to dominate their time and thoughts to the detriment of personal relationships and to feelings of happiness. The condition is considered particularly acute amongst those with inherited wealth, who are often said to experience guilt, lack of purpose and dissolute behavior, as well as obsession with holding on to power. Given the inability of those people to succeed on their own accord, they put particular emphasis on attacking and denigrating the people who achieved their position in life through hard work.

It's time for a bailout

2010-08-12T23:26:00.000-07:00

I was watching Jon Stewart's show (see below) and one thought immediately crept into my paranoid Russian-Jewish-Cossack-Chinese mind: I think Obama will try to bail out the race card. I am sure the rev. Wright wing of the Democratic party is already working hard on this. Heh-heh-heh....

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Race Card Is Maxed Out

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party