Let's talk about racism, Part 1

The topic of race and racism is one of the most dangerous in American public discussion. As Eric Holder, a highly controversial Attorney General said, "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and we, I believe continue to be in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” He also added:

If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us...

"If we're going to ever make progress, we're going to have to have the guts, we have to have the determination, to be honest with each other. It also means we have to be able to accept criticism where that is justified," Holder told reporters after the speech.

 

I believe that Mr.Holder is right, and I will try to be brave and honest when discussing race in America. I promise to my reader that I will not be cowed by race mongers hurling insults at me for telling the truth to power.

Exhibit 1. Race resentment from the NYT and the academia


I was reading this article from the NYT, and its fallacies became immediately apparent to me. The article is called "How Much Does Race Still Matter?" and it purports to examine the effects of Obama's election on the racial resentment in America. The first obvious flaw of the article is that all the research quoted by the author examines exclusively the attitude of White Americans versus Black Americans. The article itself concedes that there are 32% more Hispanics than Blacks - and yet, the author fails to find any research articles that examine the racial resentment between Blacks and Hispanics, let alone Asians and Blacks (and vice verse). The author also does not even attempt to discuss the racial prejudice towards White people in America - and given the ubiquity of institutional racism in universities and employment (the so-called "affirmative action"), this blindness to the obvious is unexplainable.

But what bothered me most is the article's discussion of a set of questions (put together by Tesler and Sears) which purportedly showed (if answered "incorrectly") a person's "explicit anti-black attitudes". The author conceded that not everyone agreed with these questions, but apparently, a lot of scientists did agree with Tesler.

I believe it would be educational for my readers to answer these questions (and read my own replies) and then debate which answers could be judged as demonstrating "explicitly anti-black attitudes".

1) Irish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.

For some undisclosed reason, the questioners decided to ignore the multiple non-White minorities that were able to over-come the prejudice and work their way up in the American society. These, of course, include the Chinese, Koreans, Indians, and Japanese, Arabs, Persians, Thai, Malaysians and Vietnamese. If anything, the people from these minorities can claim higher median income than the White people. It is also quite well-known, that all minorities suffered discrimination's (and many of them are still discriminated in university admissions and job applications) both by the government and the private business. Indeed, discrimination against Asians is legal today, and is even openly promoted by the federal, state and local governments. And yet, in spite of that, these groups are extremely successful in the US. Based on this undeniable evidence, I am forced to conclude that the Blacks can and should achieve success in this country without any "special favors". I would even contend that any "special favors" would prove to be disastrous to the Blacks and the race relations.


2) Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.

Tens of millions of poor, illiterate minority immigrants came to the US in the 20th century, and in spite of continuous discrimination were able to achieve the living standards far above the level of the White Americans. There is absolutely no reason to presume that American Blacks cannot achieve the same success.


 3) Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.

Given the wide-spread usage of "affirmative action" which explicitly discriminates against White and Asian workers and applicants, and given the fact that the US economy is mostly free, there is no evidence to suggest that the Blacks "got less than they deserve." In fact, the opposite may actually be quite true.


4) It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.

Given the history of minority empowerment in America, it is beyond any doubt that the Blacks may achieve much more than the Whites if they demonstrate the same level of dedication to success as Asian-Americans and Jewish-Americans have in the 20th century.

Liberty and justice for all: Continued

As man is free, we say he exists for his own sake and not for another's
Aristotle, "Metaphysics"

My previous article on liberty and justice (which I also re-posted on a popular political website Alexandria) received a number of responses - including a post specifically written as a direct criticism of my letter.  I will try to write a response to this post as soon as the time permits - but as a quick summary I must confess to be astonished that a post so verbose, and which clearly required some effort from the author was amazingly brilliant at completely missing the point of my original post.

But the most confused and therefore more delightful response to my article was produced by the Wired Sisters, a regular writer (or a group of writers) at Alexandria, and I decided to reproduce it here in its entirety (see below):

Whose freedom? Must the Catholic church be “free” to keep its employees from getting contraceptives on their employer’s health insurance, or should those employees be “free” to spend their health care dollars any way they deem appropriate? Should the slave owners in the antebellum South have been “free” to own their slaves, or should the slaves have been free to choose their own work and homes? Should Lester Maddox have been “free” to decide who all got to eat in his fried chicken place, or should African-American citizens of the state of Georgia have been free to decide where to eat lunch? There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Everybody’s freedom can conceivably, at some point, intersect with and impede somebody else’s. Justice lies in the balancing act between them.
 

At first I thought that Wired Sisters was rather confused in her discussion of liberty, that she refused to discuss "liberty" as a term with an actual meaning and instead attempted to build an emotional argument against my article. But then I thought about it some more, and reached a different conclusion - while somewhat confused, Wired Sister's did follow a certain pattern, which will become obvious when her reply is put in the proper context. In order to trace the roots of Wired Sister's thinking, I will reach into the past and seek enlightenment from our great forefathers. For example, Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party, addressed the very question of liberty in 1864, and had this to say:

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name———liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names———liberty and tyranny.

It is known which definition of liberty Lincoln and his Republican Party believed in 1864, while it's also apparent what the pro-slavery party, the DNC chose as their version of "liberty". The most remarkable thing is that in spite of all the amazing changes that we have seen in our nation during the last 150 years, the demarcation line between the main political parties remains largely unaltered.

It's beyond any doubt today which party believes that liberty is "for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor", and which party thinks that liberty is "for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor." As if to demonstrate the first line of thinking, Friedrich Hayek, an intellectual leader of modern day conservatism who influenced such major historical figures as Churchill, Goldwater, Thatcher and Reagan, defines liberty as:  "The state in which a man is not subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of another or others". He continues: "Freedom thus presupposes that the individual has some assured private sphere, that there is some set of circumstances in his environment with which others cannot interfere".

Barack Obama famously counters this with "You did not build that" and "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money". Rawls, a famous liberal philosopher argued (as summarized by Richard Posner) that "no one should be allowed to keep more of his earnings than necessary to 'incentivize' him to exert himself in a way that will maximize the social product."

It is quite obvious that the definition that Hayek and Lincoln used -  could not or would not resolve ALL the issues that society may need to confront in regards to individual liberty, but it is undeniable that we can use it as a guiding star in our discussion. For example, it's easy to see that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association are obvious components of the general freedom that we are discussing, while "freedom to handouts" is clearly not.

And this brings me back to the series of questions asked by the Wired Sisters - and it becomes apparent that it can be easily answered based on the values and views of the Republican Party of Lincoln and Hayek.

Of course, freedom is a gift for everyone. And yes, Catholic Church may choose which medical insurance plans it offers to its employees for obvious reasons. No one is forced to become an employee of the Catholic Church, and no one has a right to force Catholic Church to buy any particular insurance for their employees. Anyone who does not like the insurance which is provided by the Catholic Church is free to seek other employment. This is the only policy that would protect the freedom of the Catholic Church and its employees.

When the government is prescribing the type of medical insurance or payment that Catholic Church provides to its employees, it is clearly violating the freedom of association. It's quite obvious that employees have no inherent right to be provided with a specific (or any) type of insurance as a reward for their work - because that would clearly violate the rights of the Catholic Church.

The alternative to freedom of association is to have someone to coerce Catholic Church at gun point to buy an insurance chosen by a third party - which is clearly morally wrong and unjust. And let's not forget, this is exactly what the Lincoln enemies in 1864 believed in - "for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor."

In order to underline the contrast between the Lincoln's Party and the Party of slavers, let me quote two significant economists from each camp. Frank Hyneman, a famous conservative economist and supporter of individual liberty said: "The primary function of government is to prevent coercion and so guarantee to every man the right to live his own life on terms of free association with his fellows".

Paul Krugman, a liberal icon had this to say: "“I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it.” 

While it's relatively clear how a legal system can built in accordance with ideas of Frank Hyneman, Krugman's "rule of law" clearly cannot coexist with the ill-defined institutions "that limit extremes of wealth and poverty", since neither can be defined, and the government will be operating based on the whims of the electorate.


Wired Sisters' questions about the slavery are actually quite peculiar. It is true that some White people in the South (and the North) believed that Black people were inherently inferior, and thus could not be trusted to attend to his own affairs, and required the elite to be their "keepers". Moreover, freeing the slaves was supposed to be detrimental to the economy, and the "common good", and the blacks were better off as being a property of the  kind-hearted white elites than being free people competing for employment  with evil non-feeling capitalists. Apparently, it was preferable being an actual slave than being a "wage slave" (a term popular with Democrat slavers 150 years ago and Democrat liberals of today).  It's quite uncanny how DNC arguments against freedom for slaves  in the 19th century shown here and here were preserved to become the arguments against individual liberty in the 20th century.

The most amazing thing is that Lincoln's arguments targeting the Democrat Party could be used today when debating individual liberty. For example this passage from Lincoln's speech would make any supporter of individual liberty smile, because it perfectly explains why left-wing belief in anointed elites running the lives of hoi polloi is silly:

You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

Wired's Sisters issues with Lester Maddox can too be easily resolved if we follow Lincoln and Hayek. While Maddox bigotry against Black customers is shameful, he has a right to refuse service to anyone. While I surely sympathise with the people who are upset about his behavior, it's undeniable that no one, Black or White has an inherent right to demand someone to work for them - and this includes cooking food at the restaurant. You simply cannot force other people to associate with you - your freedom ends exactly where other man's freedom begins. No one can have a claim on other people's labor - and Lester Maddox may be an evil man, but he is no one's slave.

Wired Sisters is, of course, correct that no one's freedom is absolute, and we may think of many different situations where the definition of liberty used in this article may prove to be insufficient. And yet, the words of Lincoln and Hayek must be our guarding light, and it is quite clear that all the situations that Wired Sisters was able to conjure are easily resolved without any conflict between the freedoms of different people.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that contrary to liberal view, there is also no inherent conflict between justice and liberty, and justice may only exist in a free society, where people are free to choose. One may also claim that  liberty and justice are inseparable...

Liberty and justice for all

I was reading this article on Internet - and as is customary, I grabbed my head with both hands and screamed "How can you people be so stupid?!" But let me go directly to the quotes that show the confusion which is inherent to American so-called "liberalism" and "progressivism"...

A meritocratic society can’t be an entirely egalitarian society, and the principle of limited government recognizes that some injustices can’t be corrected. The challenge of democratic politics is to balance and reconcile these equally indispensable, unavoidably contradictory ideas: on one side liberty, and on the other justice.

In the later part of the article, Clive Crook, the self-described progressive makes it obvious that the type of justice he claims is in conflict with freedom - is the so-called "social justice", and it is clear that he associates justice with equality of result. He never attempts to explain why he believes that justice demands that all people earn same amount of money or achieve equal success. Indeed, it's well understood that justice requires equal treatment under the law - and people of different abilities, treated equally are unlikely to achieve same results. For example, it's obviously absurd to proclaim that the world is unjust because Garry Kasparov was the world chess champion, and not, say, Al Sharpton or Joe Biden. The rules of chess are equally applied to all, and no one stops Al Sharpton from competing in the chess tournament - it is his innate abilities and circumstances of his life which made his participation absurd.

It's also quite obvious that taking at gun point the fruits of labor from one group of people and giving to another is fundamentally unjust. One can support Medicaid, welfare, foodstamps and subsidized housing as acts of mercy - but it's impossible to make a claim that these programs represent an act of justice. Indeed, one could notice that the only type of society that practices justice in any reasonable form is a society where people are left to their devices and allowed to direct their own lives with minimal coercion from the government or fellow citizens.

Liberals often pronounce that no one truly achieves everything in his life due to his own personal efforts. As Barack Obama infamously proclaimed "You did not build that", while the faux-indian Elizabeth Warren muttered that "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own". But this line of reasoning seems to ignore the obvious - while everyone can use roads, and bridges and schools, only very few people actually succeed, while a great majority of people succumb to an average life. So, what did the successful people do differently? This is a question not asked, let alone answered by Obama and Warren. And if people are treated justly - i.e. equally by the state, who would expect equal results from millions of people, each of them an individual, each of them different, each with his own talents, character traits and personal choices? You can certainly complain that God or destiny or Gaia did not give you the talent to create new things or perseverance to work on the project, but it's irrational to blame society for your own deficiencies - and what's worse, it is actually rather counter-productive.

If anything, history shows that any attempts to fight the conceived "injustice" of freedom ends in the loss of both freedom and justice. Even if I ignore the major experiments in "redistributive justice" in USSR, North Korea and China (which ended in the worst possible injustice in the last 1000 years), one can easily see that if anything, all latest experiments in Western Europe and USA for equality of result did not end up in more justice.  For example, America showed a dramatic reversal in the growth of living standards and equality after the major liberal programs (Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, subsidized housing) were put into effect. Obama's proclaimed attempts to "invest in communities" resulted in expected massive handouts of taxpayer money to his donors, political allies and supporters, while the taxpayers were left with tremendous debt obligations and sluggish economy.

The coming bankruptcy of the welfare state both in Europe and US also demonstrates that the attempt to give up freedom in order to gain justice is also unsustainable. It's clear that American society is getting closer and closer to a crisis - when young and relatively few workers will be faced with massive demands for their fruits of labor to pay for the massive federal, state and local debts - while at the same time supporting tens of millions of retired baby-boomers. Ignoring the obvious financial peril, our president is vastly expanding the welfare state, which in turn promises even steeper tax penalties for the future Americans.

In the final analysis, the concept of justice cannot exist in a society without freedom. Any attempt to ignore this fundamental truth will result in the breakdown of society - and America's choice of Barack Obama in 2012 is another step on the path to destruction of this fine country. When tens of millions of people confidently believe that they have a right to take the fruits of labor of other people - be it "millionaires and billionaires" or the families which earn more than an arbitrary sum ($250k or 400k) , and these people are a majority, the fall of the country into the abyss may be inevitable. No freedom, no justice, no prosperity - Live free or die. This is the choice for our country.

Some statistics for the policy wonks

It is often proclaimed that it normally takes very long time for the economy to recover after a financial crisis. During one of the on-line arguments, I was once challenged to compare the recovery after 2008 crisis with the recoveries from similar financial crises in the past. My opponent offered me a list of recessions - and I arbitrarily chose to analyze the crisis of 1907 (I confess my laziness to check the other ones).

But before wasting a lot of numbers, here is the background for the 1907 recession. According to wikipedia:

The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers' Panic or Knickerbocker Crisis, was a financial crisis that occurred in the United States when the New York Stock Exchange fell almost 50% from its peak the previous year. Panic occurred, as this was during a time of economic recession, and there were numerous runs on banks and trust companies. The 1907 panic eventually spread throughout the nation when many state and local banks and businesses entered bankruptcy. Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks and a loss of confidence among depositors, exacerbated by unregulated side bets at bucket shops. The panic was triggered by the failed attempt in October 1907 to corner the market on stock of the United Copper Company. When this bid failed, banks that had lent money to the cornering scheme suffered runs that later spread to affiliated banks and trusts, leading a week later to the downfall of the Knickerbocker Trust Company—New York City's third-largest trust. The collapse of the Knickerbocker spread fear throughout the city's trusts as regional banks withdrew reserves from New York City banks. Panic extended across the nation as vast numbers of people withdrew deposits from their regional banks.

Lets examine the aftermath of the 1907 crisis and how quickly economy recovered under the unobstructed free market economy - and then compare with the recovery under president Obama and welfare socialism.


From 1907 to 1912, the real GDP grew from 801 billion dollars to 857 billion dollars (all are in 2008 dollars). The real growth of the economy was 7% , five years after the start of the financial crisis. The data was downloaded from the website "Many Eyes".

In 2007, the US GDP was 14,071 billion dollars (in 2007 dollars) according to the website  Infoplease. In 2012, the US GDP is expected to be 15,903 billion dollars (in 2012 dollars) according to website Forecasts. When I add the 11% total inflation from 2007 to 2012 (inflation calculator is here), the 2007 GDP in 2012 dollars becomes 15,619 billion dollars. This means that the real GDP growth from 2007 to 2012 was only 1.8%.

In short, the US economy recovered much faster from the 1907 financial crisis than from the 2008 financial crisis. After 5 years, the US economy grew by 7% and 1.8% respectively (1907-1912 and 2007-2012).

Please keep these numbers handy when someone tells you that Obama's recovery is not unusually slow.

Liberals say the darndest things

Liberals say the darnedest things when they think no one is watching them. A hard-left media outlet Huffington Post published an in depth article examining the problems faced by the Republican Party. It's an interesting read for an attentive reader. One passage made me laugh out loud:

"But as I [Huffington Post reporter] sat among the Heritage's luncheon crowd -- part of a daylong anti-poverty forum -- a series of more immediate and pressing questions came to mind: How will the Republican Party and the broader conservative movement it's meant to embody fix their problems with the poor, the disadvantaged, women and minorities? How will the Republican Party evolve?  Romney's loss forced the GOP to recognize that its support is built on a shrinking base of aging, ethnically monolithic, and geographically isolated voters -- while the Democrats have amassed a coalition of growing and engaged constituencies."

Most of the rest of the article is spent on the author challenging the GOP activists on how they plan to rectify this situation and attempt to persuade the "poor and disadvantaged" to vote Republican. The unstated but apparent assumption is that the number of poor people will grow in Obama's America, and will give DNC a ruling majority unless Republicans find a way to appeal to this growing demographic. This logic is based on actual facts on the ground, the number of people on foodstamps went from 28.2 million in 2008 to 47.7 million people in 2012. Not only that - the number of people receiving disability benefits jumped from 9,273,839 in 2008 to 10,890,896 in 2012.

And yet, it makes me wonder - who will notice this pearl of wisdom? Why is it that even the Democrats allies in the media assume that poverty will skyrocket under Obama?  And an even more penetrating question - if "poor and disadvantaged" are the key allies of the DNC, and their number is expected to expand under the Obama administration - is it really unnatural to assume that growth of poverty in the last 4 years may not be accidental? After all, Obama holds the keys to the US economy....

Right to choose and union violence

Michigan Congress has finally passed a law that allows workers the choice to leave the unions, and the Democratic party is not happy and threatening violence. The State Democratic Rep. Douglas Geiss, speaking on the House floor on Tuesday already warned that unless the democratically elected representatives back off, "There will be blood, there will be repercussions." Some of the local schools are closed, because the "educators" are calling sick and joining the anti-worker, pro-union demonstrations. The union thugs are brazenly attacking the supporters of human rights in front of the video-cameras. And our beloved president has joined the anti-choice chorus.

Unless the police and the federal authorities crack down on union violence, I expect things to get considerably worse. It's only a matter of time before union thugs attack a wrong Tea Party patriot on the streets of Michigan.  This is America, 2012. Four more years. Sigh.


A few quick poll questions for the readers.
If you were attacked by a union thug in the same manner as shown on this video, what would you have done?
And how would you have responded to another union thug screaming "Get the f*ck out of my face?"
 Do you believe Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are partially responsible for the union violence?
 Last but not least, back in 2010, the media made countless reports about the alleged racist shouts from the Tea Party demonstrators - the allegations which proved to be groundless. Why are the union thuggery and violence not reported in the mainstream media, even when there is clear video evidence to prove it?

This is his plan A

“… a comprehensive plan to bring down our deficits, to streamline our tax system, to do it in a balanced way — including asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more, so that we can still invest in things like education and training, and science and research.” Barack Obama….

The latest rhetoric from Barack Obama raises a series of interesting questions. Say, Republicans agree with Obama and do ASK the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more, and yet, the wealthiest refuse. What’s Plan B?

And speaking of which, why isn’t Obama ASKING wealthiest Americans to pay more right now? It’s not like he cannot get time on TV to appeal to the “millionaires and billionaires” to pay more in taxes.
Last but not least, why isn’t Obama himself paying just a little bit more – is he waiting for a separate invitation? Well, Barry, consider then I asked you to pay more, since you are one of those evil “millionaires and billionaires”. Moreover, I am also asking you to save some money for the taxpayers, and stop using Air Force One as a taxi. It’s not too much to ask, right?

Using science to detect bias in the news

From time to time I listen to the NPR - I normally do this when progressive right-wing radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Mark Levin) is either off the air, or there is a commercial. And I normally notice the left-wing bias of the reporting quite easily. I remember back in 2008, NPR reported about the epic struggle between Obama and McCain. First, NPR reporter with Obama campaign presented Obama's side - the future president was extensively quoted (at least 2-3 minutes of his speech was run uninterrupted, with the usual theme of evil republicans, president Bush, and how Obama would solve all the problems). Next was the NPR reporter with McCain's campaign. He also quoted McCain's speech - and it lasted something like 10 seconds - McCain speech was limited to his greetings to the audience. It is also a rather normal thing for NPR, when quoting Romney, to put him in context (i.e. quote the Democratic rebuttal), while Obama's quotes are left unchallenged.

I am too lazy to search for transcripts from NPR, so instead I decided to concentrate on CNN - a supposedly mainstream, middle of the road news agency. In order to provide scientific proof of the mainstream media bias, I will compare two recent articles from CNN, which can be found on their site today and which are run concurrently. I will use statistical analysis to compare the reporting on both candidates - and I will let science to show if the conservative claims about liberal bias hold water.

Both articles were written to answer essentially same question:
If Romney takes the White House and If Obama wins a second term

Article #1, A Romney presidency: 'Bringing people together' faces reality check
Analysis: The subtitle itself questions if Romney is honest about his claims that he will bring people together. But it would be more beneficial to look at statistics of who is quoted in the article. It starts with a quote from Romney, 58 words. It then refers to unnamed Romney's critics who believe he is lying (35 words), who also quote Romney out of context to demonstrate his insincerity (17 words). After this, the article quotes a Romney supporter, who attempts to fight back the critics, (72 words). This is followed by a quote from someone from a self-described independent (28 words).  Reid's former spokesman Jim Manley is given his chance to threaten Romney if he tries to push for conservative agenda (57 words). A self-described independent Widmer then proceeds to attack the Tea Party (20 words). After that, another quote Romney, 50 words in all. The article ends with a short quote from Romney strategist, 22 words.

Altogether
Romney: 108 words (not counting out-of-context quote by Democrats - 17 words)
Romney supporters: 94 words
Independents: 48 words
Democrat critics: 92 words

Article #2, Second Obama term would confront fiscal crisis before inauguration
Analysis: While the subtitle for Romney called into question his sincerity, the Obama article accentuates the difficulties that president Obama would have to overcome.
The article starts with quote from a Democrat who claims that Romney and Ryan "fake compassion". This claim is immediately put in context of evil republicans (13 words). It then proceeds with a account of fiscal difficulties that lie ahead. David Axelrod gives his criticism of the Republican party (54 words). It then quotes Obama (45 words), immediately followed up with a quote from Obama's policy director (30 words). Senator Durbin, a democrat that gives his opinion, (43 words), and some unnamed democrats (19 words). After some indirect quotes from democrats, Durbin manages to put in another 18 words. Barack Obama comes back on the stage with 28 words, and Durbin again (15 words). Obama's strategist kicks in 84 words explaining Obama's agenda for illegal immigration reform. Some unnamed democrats add 16 words of wisdom. President Obama, not to be outdone, offers his opinion about Republicans (57 words), with David Axelrod finishing it (56 words). Unnamed Democrats add their support for the president and their disdain for evil Republicans (122 words). Mitch McConnell (Republican) is quoted (23 words) to show his past disagreement with Obama.  The last quote in the article is from Obama's adviser, 33 words.

Altogether
Obama: 130 words,
Obama supporters: 503 words
Independents: 0 words
Republican critics: 23 words

Comparison between articles
In the article about Romney, GOP/DNC quote ratio was 2.2
In the article about Obama, DNC/GOP quote ratio was 27.5.

Statistical Conclusion: CNN bias in quoting is about 10:1 in favor of Democrats.

GM, Chrysler and Boeing

The latest political scandal is Romney's attempt to blame Barack Obama for GM and Chrysler attempt to drastically increase their facilities outside of US. Italian owned Chrysler is moving its Jeep production to China according to Bloomberg report, while according to Forbes, GM is outsourcing its production to Mexico, Russia, India and China. It was left unsaid that NASA is now outsourcing its manned space program to Russia, while its work is now limited to 3 main tasks (neither of which have anything to do with space). According to the head of NASA:

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he [Barack Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"

While the Obama's NASA debacle is not talked about much, Romney's comments about Chrysler and GM outsourcing were challenged directly by Obama, his friends in the media as well as GM's and Chrysler's management. The main argument made by Obama, et al was that massive investments overseas by the bailed out car companies did not effect the Americans workers and thus cannot be called "outsourcing".

Yahoo diligently quotes Barack Obama attacking governor Romney:

"When you try to change the facts just because it's convenient to your campaign, that's not change.Trying to massage facts, that's not change," Obama told a lively crowd of about 2,800 supporters here at the Franklin County Fairgrounds.

"We've been seeing this out of Gov. Romney and his friends over the last few weeks right here in Ohio," the president continued. "You've got folks that work at the Jeep plant who've been calling their employers worried, asking, Is it true? Are our jobs being shipped to China? And the reason they're making these calls is because Gov. Romney's been running an ad that says so. They said, That's not true. Everybody knows that's not true. The car companies have told Gov. Romney to knock it off."

One peculiar thing about Obama's defense of GM/Chrysler's outsourcing is its inconsistency with the previous decisions by his administration. Apparently, Obama believes that if a company opens a new factory outside US, and does not cut any facilities in US, then there is no outsourcing. Yet, in 2011, when Boeing decided to extend its manufacturing capabilities to "right of work" South Carolina, and invested there 750 million dollars, the Obama administration immediately filed a lawsuit against Boeing. The reason for this swift action was apparent - Obama-friendly union of Boeing workers was in the middle of negotiations with the Boeing management, and they needed some help from their friend in the White House. And what could be better than a threat by the Labor Department to shut down Boeing's expansion to South Carolina? In the end, under the threat of losing billions of dollars, Boeing offered the unions  much better contract than they could expect otherwise:

On Wednesday night, the union announced that 74 percent of its 31,000 Boeing workers in Washington State had voted to ratify a four-year contract extension that includes substantial raises, unusual job security provisions and a commitment by Boeing to expand aircraft production in the Puget Sound area,”

It's quite clear that Obama and the media would treat an expansion of a private business to other parts of US as "outsourcing" - if such understanding may benefit unions contributing to Obama. And this is a legal decision by the Labor Department, even if the expansion includes the United States territory. But when it concerns the businesses friendly to Barack Obama, then the same theory does not hold water, particularly if it can hurt Obama's chances for reelection.

So, my dear leader, when an Obama supporter asks you about Romney's talk about GM and Chrysler outsourcing, don't forget to mention the curious case of the Boeing corporation.

What this presidental election is about: Paul Krugman speaketh

Among liberal intellectuals, Paul Krugman is a man in his own category. On one side, he is a Nobel Prize laureate for his work on international trade, professor of economics at Princeton, and a NYT columnist. He is also famous for being a paid consultant for Enron, a energy giant that declared bankruptcy in 2001. For the last few decades, Paul Krugman became known for his unabashed advocacy of the left-wing causes (welfare socialism, anti-Israel jihad and affirmative action). His articles in the NYT became a source of pride for partisan liberals - and embarrassment for the left-wingers who haven't yet subscribed to the maxim "ends justify the means". The NYT own public editor publicly acknowledged that:

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.
 

 Serious non-partisan economists like Robert Barro and Edward Prescott express quite evident contempt for Paul Krugman and don't even consider him to be a professional macro-economist. There are, of course, plenty of right-wing bloggers who entertain themselves by attacking Krugman's multiple straw men and distortions. Here is one nice article mocking the Enron consultant, entitled "Why Paul Krugman Doesn’t Like Us. And Vice Versa".

But while the economics professor with perpetually frightened eyes (look at any of his photos) is wrong about practically everything, still, from time to time he writes things that are undeniably correct - and I suspect that he later regrets telling the truth. I was particularly impressed with one of his latest articles about the meaning of the 2012 presidential election. According to Krugman:

Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy.

He goes even further with a rather interesting assertion:

Will they [American people] vote for politicians who want to replace Medicare with Vouchercare, who denounce Social Security as “collectivist” (as Paul Ryan once did), who dismiss those who turn to social insurance programs as people unwilling to take responsibility for their lives?

Of course, since the article was published on September 30, 2012, Paul Krugman was under the arrogant impression that Barack Obama would be re-elected,  and he was worried if people's would be followed.

If the polls are any indication, the result of that referendum will be a clear reassertion of support for the safety net, and a clear rejection of politicians who want to return us to the Gilded Age. But here’s the question: Will that election result be honored?

Paul Krugman then proceeds to advice Obama not only to continue, but accelerate the failed policies: spend more, borrow more and ignore the coming bankruptcy of the entitlement programs. The professor rejects the need for any type of compromise with Republican party and violently objects to an idea of reforming Social Security. He ends the article with a stern warning to Barack Obama:

This election is, as I said, shaping up as a referendum on our social insurance system, and it looks as if Mr. Obama will emerge with a clear mandate for preserving and extending that system. It would be a terrible mistake, both politically and for the nation’s future, for him to let himself be talked into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Of course, Paul Krugman does not spend any time on discussing the other possibility - that Obama would lose. It's a common joke that economists prefer to weight different options and possibilities. It's quite obvious that Paul Krugman is blind to any alternatives to his worldview. But I hope that the readers of my blog have a somewhat more complex view of the universe, so we need to look at the possibility that Mitt Romney will be elected president. And in this case, Krugman's claims will definitely hold water - it will be a referendum on the "New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare", and if he wins, Romney will be given the authority to dismantle the entire liberal structure which is choking American economy. So, Dear Reader, please, save this article for November 6th, and don't forget to send it to your liberal friends. Directly from the horse's mouth - American people voted against liberalism. The question is - will liberals honor the will of the people if they lose? And a more important question is - if Romney wins, when will Krugman write an article proclaiming that Romney has no mandate?

Where is "Storok"?

From time to time, I listen to Obama - and then I think - did he really say this? Like when he promised Americans that Obamacare would cut insurance premiums by 3,000%? Or when he proclaimed that "Here is what I will say, if four Americans get killed it is not optimal..." The closest to that is JFK telling German people "I am a jelly doughnut.  Today, Obama said something similar, although not that entertaining:

And when I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn’t take donors. I didn’t attend fundraisers. I went to Yad Beshef (ph), the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable. And then I went down to the border towns of Storok (ph), which had experienced missiles raining down from Hamas.
 

Apparently, the wooden-tongued Obama did not visit "Yad Beshef" or the "towns of Storok". He did visit  Yad Vashem, and the town of Sderot though. One can easily see how deeply he was influenced by these two visits - although one could suspect that the memory of that visit did not stay too long.

Independent fact checking the debate: aircraft careers and submarines

During the foreign policy debate, Governor Romney's criticised Obama's policy of unilateral disarmament:

"Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917," Romney said. "The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. ... We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me."

Romney also said the U.S. Air Force is "older and smaller" than at any time since it first flew in 1947 and that the U.S. has begun to move away from its traditional stance of being able to simultaneously fight wars on two fronts."

In his response, President Obama replied:

"I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works," Obama said, beginning a sharp assault on Romney's foreign policy knowledge.

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

Independent Fact Check of Obama's defense of his military budget strategy
While it's true that today's American military ships are more powerful than they were in 1916, it's also true of the enemies of US also upgraded their navy. What's more important, Barack Obama sounded as if submarines and aircraft carriers are a novelty which dramatically change the naval campaigns in the 21st century. In reality, according to wikipedia:

The first military submarine was Turtle in 1776, a hand-powered egg-shaped device designed by the American David Bushnell, to accommodate a single man. It was the first verified submarine capable of independent underwater operation and movement, and the first to use screws for propulsion.

What's is more amazing is that submarines were used  even during the American revolutionary war. The first all-metal submarine was built in Russia in 1834, and it was equipped with rockets. Submarines were used extensively during WW1 and WW2. First nuclear submarine sailed in 1955.

The first aircraft carriers found their service in 1914 in the Japanese navy. Aircraft carriers were used extensively during WW2.

Independent Fact Check rates Obama's defense of his cuts to the military budget as MOSTLY FALSE and MISLEADING for his attempt to present aircraft carriers and submarines as relatively new military tools, which are changing the 21st century military priorities.


 

What to talk about during the debates

This is the last debate between Romney and Obama, and it may well determine the winner of the elections. I hope that governor Romney came prepared, and here are a few very late suggestions on the issues he should raise.

1. American ambassador to Libya was dragged naked through the streets of Bengazi. It's now apparent that he did not get enough security to protect him from the Al Qaeda terrorist groups. President Obama needs to explain who in his administration is responsible for this failure to protect our ambassador. Who decided that it was sufficient to have 5 Libyan guys armed with walkie-talkies to protect our consulate in the Al Qaeda infiltrated country?

2. During his discussion with Medvedev, president Obama promised him that he will have more flexibility to deal with strongman Putin after the American elections. President Obama clearly did not want to share his agenda with America people. Why is that?

3. President Obama's national security team publicly proclaimed that Moslem Brotherhood, a terrorist Islamist group is a "mostly secular group". It's apparent that this mistaken view is one of the reasons why Obama administration backed the Moslem Brotherhood starting with 2009 speech in Cairo. Will president Obama make sure that if elected, President Obama will surround himself with more competent advisers?

4. President Obama greatly increased US involvement in the Afghan war and thousands of American troops were killed. Yet, there is no indication that there was any improvement in the situation in Afghanistan. Does Obama take personal responsibility for his failure to win in Afghanistan?

5. It's been widely reported that the day after the murder of ambassador to Libya, president Obama left Washington DC, without meeting with the security team and travelled to Las Vegas to meet his supporters. Was it necessary for president Obama to do it?

A potpourri of stories, quotes and jokes

Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot reported:

Obama had always had a high estimation of his ability to cast and run his operation. When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning: “I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,” he said. “It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.” Obama said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaign’s political director. “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told him. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
 

Barack Obama, November 21, 2007:

“Well, I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian but I also understand their point of view… My sister is half Indonesian, I traveled there all the way through my college years and so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and the perspectives these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world and when you combine that with my work on the Senate Forum Relations Committee on everything from nuclear proliferation to issues of genocide then I think that the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer, and that’s something that [the Bush] administration has failed to understand.”

Barack Obama, July 25, 2008:

"But Afghanistan is a war that we have to win. We do not have an option. We can't have a situation in which al Qaeda and the Taliban have created safe havens, that are potentially disruptive not only in the region but end up being the focal points around which terrorist attacks are planned, that could affect Paris or New York.

So we don't have a choice. We've got to finish the job. And that involves not just the military, it also involves economic development."

NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, October 23, 2008:

We’re beginning to get a sense of how Barack Obama’s political success could change global perceptions of the United States, redefining the American “brand” to be less about Guantánamo and more about equality. This change in perceptions would help rebuild American political capital in the way that the Marshall Plan did in the 1950s or that John Kennedy’s presidency did in the early 1960s.

Barack Obama, 2006:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Barack Obama, 2009:

"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Of course, insufferable Andrew Sullivan, 2007:

What does he [Obama] offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm [dumb ass wanted to say that the soft power went up exponentially. A logarithm is the inverse function of exponent, so Kristoff literally said that Obama would have very little effect. Of course, math is not for journalists]. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can....

Obama, by virtue of generation and accident, bridges this deepening divide. He was brought up in a nonreligious home and converted to Christianity as an adult. But—critically—he is not born-again. His faith—at once real and measured, hot and cool—lives at the center of the American religious experience.

Evan Thomas, Newsweek, 2009:

"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Last but not least - and probably the best yet: "Is Obama an enlightened being?" from the San Francisco Chronicle:

No, it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more.

Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

Obama, one of the most arrogant man of his time, willing and eager to use the full power of the state for his expansive purposes was elected president of the United States. As Obama himself said during his inauguration:

...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth..

And as the old saying goes - the mountain gave birth to a mouse. Now, to be fair, the sick still get healthcare, but good jobs are gone, the oceans are uncharged, and the war against Islamism is getting hotter and hotter.

Matthew 7:16 You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

 After 4 years of bowing to dictators and apologizing for American sins, Obama was not able to improve American image abroad. In fact, the moslems are even less impressed by Obama than they were by Bush.


AP reports the obvious:

"WASHINGTON - Images of angry mobs in Arab cities burning American flags and attacking U.S. diplomatic posts suggest the Muslim world is no less enraged at the United States than when President George W. Bush had to duck shoes hurled at him in Baghdad."

People love Obama in Afghanistan

A Taliban attack on a coalition base in Afghanistan killed two U.S. soldiers and destroyed six Harrier jets, according to reports Sunday.

Insider Attacks Rise; U.S. Halts Training

In recent years, there has been a rise in attacks by Afghan forces against their coalition counterparts. The attacks, which the military calls “green-on-blue” or “insider” assaults, have heightened worries about how the coalition troops, who are training members of the Afghan Army and the police, can protect themselves while working at close quarters with Afghan forces.
 

In one of a series of recent steps, the military decreed that American and NATO service members should always carry a loaded magazine in their weapons, to save precious moments if attacked by Afghan forces. Another initiative, now a priority, is a program named “Guardian Angel” that calls for one or two soldiers to monitor the Afghans during every mission or meeting, officials say.

The “angels,” whose identities are not disclosed to the Afghans, must be prepared to fire on anyone who tries to kill a coalition service member.

 Obama loses Egypt to Islamists:

President Barack Obama says the U.S. would not consider Egypt an ally, “but we don’t consider them an enemy.” Obama said in an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo that Egypt is a “new government that is trying to find its way.” And he warned that if the Egyptian government takes actions showing “they’re not taking responsibility,” then it would “be a real big problem.”

Pakistan, exponentially warming up to president Obama:

The imprisoned Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA find Osama bin Laden's compound, Dr. Shakil Afridi, managed to make a phone call to Fox News' Dominic Di-Natale and describe the brutal torture he says he's been subject to since being arrested for treason last year.

 

He described how during his own interrogation, in which he was tortured with cigarette burns and electric shocks, ISI officers attacked him for assisting the U.S...

He was blindfolded for eight months and handcuffed with his hands behind his back for 12 months, he says. His treatment has left a debilitating effect on his eyesight and limbs...

“I tried to argue that America was Pakistan’s biggest supporter – billions and billions of dollars in aid, social and military assistance -- but all they said was, ‘These are our worst enemies. You helped our enemies.’” ... Afridi told Fox News he helped the CIA out of love for the U.S., and swore that he would help America again despite suffering crippling torture and psychological abuse during the 12 months he was held by Pakistan’s spy agency.
 

I am not going to talk about the state of the US economy, everyone knows about high unemployment, slow GDP growth, exponential growth of the federal debt - and anticipated return of recession in 2013, which is at this point is pretty  much unavoidable. But here is a story to make you smile.


Russian-American joke

A clerk from the Enviromental Protection Agency comes to a farm and tells the old farmer:

”I need to inspect your farm and make sure that you are not violating the laws protecting the wetland." "Okay," says the farmer, "but don't go in that field over there".

The man from the EPA says, “Sir, I have the full authority of the Federal Government. See this card? This card means I am allowed to go WHEREVER I WISH on any agricultural land in the country. No questions asked. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand?”

The farmer nods politely and goes about his chores. Soon after, he hears loud screams and sees the man from the EPA running for his life in the field, followed by an angry bull.

The EPA man sees the farmer and screams for help. The farmer throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs, ”Your card! Show him your f@cking card!”

I am still waiting for the moment when Obama will show his "f@cking card" to the Islamists, the economy, the European Union, the Chinese, the Russians and the oceans - and make them all behave well. 
 

Behold the monkey

I was looking through this article, and it suddenly occurred to me - it reminds me of someone, someone very famous. Here is the excerpt from the article...


Spanish woman who disfigured painting of Christ lawyers up, wants money

Spanish woman who made headlines worldwide for her botched attempt to restore a 20th-century painting of Jesus Christ says she has hired lawyers and wants royalties from the fees church owners are charging visitors...The local artist, 80-year-old Cecilia Gimenez, initially defended her volunteer work saying she was restoring the decaying "Ecce Homo" ("Behold the Man") portrait because no one else would. The before and after pictures went viral across the globe and tourists began arriving in droves -- but very few were leaving donations according to Ars Technica. The sanctuary's owners, the Santi Spiritus Hospital Foundation, reportedly made $2,600 in four days from visitors wanting to see "Ecce Mono," or "Behold the Monkey" as it's now called, Ars Technica reported...

The story blew up on social networks and put the northern Spanish town of Borja and its population of about 30,000 at the center of an international joke. Gimenez said she suffered from anxiety attacks, according to El Correo, and sought privacy. With upcoming litigation though, she "apparently recovered from the anxiety she initially experienced and is now looking to get paid," as Gawker said.

Even before I finished reading the article, I realized that this is a perfect description of Obama handling of America. He thought it was decaying, he volunteered to help, and now he became an international joke. And yet, he is trying to get paid back - i.e. to be re-elected. If anything, this is the best illustration of conservative criticism of the Obama's policies. He took over America when she was in trouble, and completely screwed everything he touched - to the point it is no longer recognizable. "Behold the Monkey" indeed.

As if to underscore this point, the Obama administration decided to "improve" our national flag. The illustration below shows what happened to our national symbol under the Commander in Chief - from star spangled banner to Obama-centric propaganda tool now promoted by the Obama administration.