A few obvious things

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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...

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

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

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.