Fareed Zakaria Lies About Right Wing Terrorism

Look at the cart when he discusses who is committing terrorism in the EU, the number of "Right Wing" terror attacks in 2010 are ZERO! Yes that is not what he says or implies during the story. Another point is that it is extremely inaccurate to compare what it called "right-wing" in Europe and what is "right-wing" in the USA. It is like comparing apples and pears.

Read the report:
2011 EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report

Here are reports from prior years (suffice it to say the trend has not changed):
2010 EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report
2009 EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report
2008 EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report
2007 EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report



The chart is below:

UPDATE: Spinning the Unemployment Numbers

Did the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) create for save jobs? The answer is “sort of” and “absolutely not,” depending on how it is evaluated. Yes people were hired and others not fired because of money provided by the act. I will not address the fraudulent tabulation of the exact number because there are plenty of other articles that already address this issue. What none of the reported numbers takes into consideration is the impact of the “Crowding Out Effect,” which is “any reduction in private consumption or investment that occurs because of an increase in government spending…” For jobs this means the administration and CBO have not counted the “Destroyed or Prevented” jobs that have resulted from the ARRA. You can not count it one way and not the other and still be intellectually honest.

The following articles address this in more detail:
Caroline Baum of Bloomberg: “Obama Omits Jobs Killed or Thwarted from Tally”
Joseph Lawler of the American Spectator: "Destroyed or Prevented"

How Racism Should Be Defined - Part 1

The way I see racism should be (at least in the media and politics) defined in two different ways.

Racism:
1) The pejorative invocation of race for the purpose of demeaning, debasing, or dismissing an individual or group.

2) The complimentary invocation of race for the purpose of implying the superiority of an individual or group.

Therefore whenever someone says "predominantly white tea party," or "of course so-and-so is a good at (Insert activity) his is (Insert race)" etc. then it is a racist statement regardless of the source of the comment.

Do not talk to me about code words, dog whistle politics, etc. because until the Amazing Randi certifies you are a mind reader then you have no credibility; especially when you are the same one invoking race.

Part 2 will cite specific examples of racism as I have defined it.

Anti-Palin Attack Machine Going Way Beyond Rational Debate

Anti-Palin attack machine going way beyond rational debate. How any objective observer can watch and read the psychotic attacks against Sarah Palin and not question the sanity of the attacker is beyond me.

I wonder if the insane intensity of these attacks will backfire on the attackers. It is one thing to spin a policy dispute to make a rival seem, uncaring, mean, etc. However, it is an entirely different thing the throw buckets of hate gas on the flame of disagreement. It has gotten to a level of ridiculous. I am actually inclined to vote for Palin precisely because of they are doing to her.

As much as they say she can't win, is a light weight, that they want her to bring it on, the truth is they know she can win. They are terrified of her, because she not only represents everything they hate but because her mere existence is antithetical to their own socio-feminist-collectivist narratives.

KENNETH P. VOGEL of Politio's take:

She is a promiscuous, petty and unintelligent, yet deviously conniving warmonger intent on capturing the Oval Office and, from there, the world.
Those are just some of the opinions about Sarah Palin held by members of a small but extremely active network of gadflies, bloggers and authors who have devoted much of the last 2½ years to proving their case to American voters.

This self-styled anti-Palin movement — whose members span the globe and are mostly but not exclusively liberals — has been behind some embarrassing revelations about the former Alaska governor, her family and allies. But some of their leading theories have been thoroughly discredited and earned them widespread criticism...Read more

To see some of this hate just Google Image search Sarah Palin the first page alone has sexist hateful vile examples of the unhinged attacks on her.

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Review

I finally got to see Atlas Shrugged today, so you finally get the benefit of my review. A few caveats before I begin. First some movies are not reviewable by the same standards used to evaluate most films. Examples of this are The Passion of the Christ and Harry Potter (all films).

The Passion of the Christ is impossible to review because if you are a devote Christian the movie passionately recreates the central story and theme of the entire religion, any production deficiencies are not of consequence for those who embrace the story religiously (literally). Conversely a person not a Christian or not sympathetic to Christianity might see the same film as a virtual snuff film with little redeeming qualities.

The Harry Potter movies are based on the most popular contemporary novels. The books are beloved by millions around the world. The books are long and filled with numerous sub-plots, red herrings, and subtleties that can not easily be translated to film. Watching the films without the context of having read the books or at least without some understanding of the plots and themes is at best confusing and at worst frustrating. Once again those who have read the books love the movies as a supplemental visualization of the stories they love. This makes Harry Potter a tough review because to review the movie is in effect to review the books either together or as juxtaposition. The two can not really be separated.

Atlas Shrugged suffers from both the issue of being based on a huge novel with sub-plots and subtleties as well as being based on an ideology; an ideology that is antithetical to that which is put forth in our “pop” culture.

What Atlas Shrugged is must be addressed with reviewing the novel or film. Rather than being dystopian prophecy it is a parable of the battle between individualism and collectivism. Collectivist will scoff at the idea that a greedy businessman could be acting morally in his pursuit of wealth. However, Ayn Rand believed that this is not a contradiction. Complicated personalities, like Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds’, do not fit into this type of philosophical novel. Therefore she wrote her characters as almost cartoonish caricatures devoid of some of the complexity one might otherwise hope for in a different kind of story.

With these caveats in mind I will put forth my review from the following perspectives. Does the movie effectively express the themes of the novel for those who do not possess the context of reading the novel? Will devotees of the novel appreciate its cinematic treatment in this film?

I will not try to interpret the film from the perspective of someone who possesses both the context of having read the novel and who hold hostilities to its ideology. These people cannot be expected to give it a fair review, not because they are dishonest but because no film based on this novel, no matter how well made, could be expected to satisfy them and still stay true to the source material.

Who can win the Presidency Part 2: How to Guarantee a GOP Victory

In my previous post on “Who can win the presidency” I detailed how on many occasions the “unelectable” candidate wins. I will not rehash those reasons now, rather I am going to give a very simple plan that will guarantee a GOP victory.

For the GOP to win the presidency they need only follow these steps:

Step 1:
Play tough but fair in the Republican primary. Hash out the trunk issues that will dominate the general election. The candidates must not forget that the aim is not to destroy the other GOP candidates rather to pitch your case why they should get the honor of squaring off against the Democrats nominee.

The Spinning of Employment and Unemployment Numbers

During a recent news search online I stumbled across an amusing satirical article by Eoin O'Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor.

This article was poking fun at a recent report about the inability of American to pass a citizenship test. At the bottom of the article there was a link that read “RELATED: Are you smarter than a Fox News viewer? Take our quiz.” I clicked the link and was presented with a quiz, the first question being:

1.Is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation:
1) Saved or created several million jobs
2) Saved or created a few jobs
3) Caused job losses.

I stopped after reading this question because I remembered this from somewhere. My suspicions were correct when I read the pages fine print.

“…American voters were quizzed on their knowledge of issues and facts raised in the 2010 midterm elections, in a survey by World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

Respondents were also asked where they get their news from: Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, newspapers, network TV news, public broadcasting.

The survey found that "substantial levels of misinformation were present in the daily consumers of all news sources." But Fox News viewers were significantly more likely to be misinformed than those who get their news from other sources. And, greater exposure to Fox News increased the degree to which viewers were misinformed…”

I remember hearing about this “study” and a subsequent rebuttal by Lee Doren on his “How the World Works” YouTube channel. Please go watch it after you read this article.

The President Setting Precedence

Why did the President not consult congress before authorizing the US Military to participate in the UN authorized attack of Libya? Simple, he is establishing a precedent.

This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for the Obama administration. Whether it is defying court orders or having the EPA over step its authority or FCC and net neutrality, the goal is to set precedence.

This allows them to argue that they are just being consistent with precedence if they are challenged on even more divisive issues in the future. Once a court rules that the camel’s nose in the tent is legal or if no one challenges the nose in the tent, then it is much easier to bring in the whole damn camel, flies, hump and everything else. For example if the Individual Mandate in Obama Care is ruled Constitutional, then the government can use the "legality" of requiring a person to by health insurance to require them to buy almost anything.

Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is related to the case at hand but is not a binding precedent on the court under common law legal systems such as English law. However, persuasive authority may guide the judge in making the decision in the instant case. Persuasive precedent may come from a number of sources such as lower courts, "horizontal" courts, foreign courts, statements made in dicta, treatises or law reviews. In Civil law and pluralist systems, as under Scots law, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts.

Generally the idea is to set precedents that are not “too” controversial or that are not too impactful on most citizens. The attack on Libya would easily get congressional approval, but by not getting that approval for a popular action, he makes it quasi-legal to take unpopular actions, using the prior action as legal justification.

Do wolves have a right to eat?

Do wolves have a right to eat?  If so what if they can’t catch a deer or rabbit or whatever else they like to eat?

What if they are a lone wolf or in a pack, does that make it different. What about the whelps (pups) do they have the right to eat? What if their mother gets killed or is sick and can not feed them?

If so, what about the burden placed on the wolves prey? Should the deer lie down so the wolf can kill it, just because it is hungry? Conversely, does the deer have a right not be eaten?  Does it have the right to run away?

The answer is “no” the wolf does not have a right to eat; the deer does not have a right not to be eaten. However, the deer does have the right to run away and the wolf has a right to chase the deer.

But wolves, lone and in packs, do eat deer and deer do try to run away. So, what’s the point? The point is rights are inherent in nature, no matter what law is passed, wolves do not have a right to eat deer and deer can not have the right not to run away from the wolves that chase them.

A right can not impose an obligation on another and a right can not be infringed for the benefit of another.

Who can win the presidency? It’s not necessarily who you think.

Who can win the presidency? It’s not necessarily who you think. Conventional wisdom says that Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama could not win.

Lincoln - 1860:
In 1860 Lincoln only won 39.8% of the vote, but was elected largely in part because of dual political schisms.

The Democrats were divided over the concept of “popular sovereignty” in the case of slavery. In the decades before the American Civil War, the term "popular sovereignty" was often used to suggest that residents of U.S. territories should be able to decide by voting whether or not slavery would be allowed in the territory. This concept was associated with such politicians as Lewis Cass and Stephen A. Douglas. Note: neither faction was in favor of ending slavery.

Die-hard former Southern Whigs and Know Nothings who felt they could support neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party formed the Constitutional Union Party. They wanted to compromise on slavery but otherwise were “similar” in other ways to the republicans.

As a result of this four way election, an unattractive failed lawyer managed to get enough votes to win the 1860 election, thanks to being the only choice of abolitionists. Keep in mind that in 1859 the biggest story in the country was the trial and execution of John Brown. This in no small part made slavery the trunk issue of 1860.

Therefore, thanks to political schisms, Ole’ John Brown, and other ancillary issues, Lincoln (who should not have been able to win) won.

Nixon – 1968:
Nixon who failed to win against Kennedy in the razor thin election 1960, came back to win against Hubert Humphries and George Wallace in 1968. Again this resulted on no small part to the split democratic ticket. Wallace represented the segregationist wing of the Democratic Party ran as an Independent when he failed to get the nomination from his party.

The Democrats, who wear the incumbent party in 1968, were also severely hurt do to anti-war sentiment bubbling up among their own constituents. The anti-war protests and the schism over segregation were the trunk issues of 1968.

Reagan – 1980:
Reagan ran for the Republican nomination ion 1976 and nearly defeated the incumbent president. However, despite this near success many did not consider him a serious candidate. He was vilified by the media in a time before there were any significant conservative outlets. There was no Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Internet, etc. He was also under attack from the dominate moderate/liberal wing of his own party. At best he was in a close race with Carter in late October; some people have suggested he was down 8% but a closer analysis suggest it was fairly even in the polls prior to the Oct 29 debate. Yet despite being an “amiable dunce”, just an actor, and too conservative… he came back and demolished Carter.

The horrible economy and the problems in the middle-east, both of which could be lain at President Carter’s feet, were the trunk issues that Reagan road to his victory.

Clinton – 1992:
Bush 41 had a 90% approval rating coming out of Desert Storm; there was serious media chatter that the Democrats should nominate him from president even though he was an incumbent Republican president. Many of the obvious choices from the Democratic nomination decided not to run.

However, Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking his 1988 campaign pledge against raising taxes, the economy was in a recession, and Bush's perceived greatest strength, foreign policy, was regarded as much less important following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful climate in the Middle East after the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.

Just as in 1860 and 1968 the election of 1992 had an additional candidate who drew enough support to impact the elections result.

The public's concern about the federal budget deficit and fears of professional politicians allowed the independent candidacy of billionaire Texan Ross Perot to explode on the scene in dramatic fashion—at one point Perot was leading the major party candidates in the polls. Perot crusaded against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), internal and external national debt, tapping into voters' potential fear of the deficit. His volunteers succeeded in collecting enough signatures to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states. In June, Perot led the national public opinion polls with support from 39% of the voters (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton).Perot severely damaged his credibility by dropping out of the presidential contest in July and remaining out of the race for several weeks before re-entering. He compounded this damage by eventually claiming, without evidence that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding.

The trunk issues of the economy, the end of the cold war, and Perot’s candidacy resulted in Clinton winning with only 43.01% of the vote.

Obama – 2008:
The election of 2008 what noteworthy because it was the first election since 1972 that did not have an incumbent president or vice president on the ballet.

Barrack Obama, a junior senator from Illinois, decided to run against the Democrat’s presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. Conventional wisdom held that his lack of experience, ultra liberal views, and even in mixed racial heritage made him unelectable.

He was however, able to ride enormous support from the old guard media, a recession, and waning support for two ongoing wars, to victory over a moderate Republican John McCain.

I have listed five unlikely winners of the Presidency and some of the reason why they won, what commonalities are there between the examples I have listed and how does this apply to today.

In three of the five (Lincoln, Nixon, Clinton) there were more then two candidates that received enough votes to sway the election. The other two (Reagan and Obama) had two had trunk issues of a bad economy and unrest in the Middle East.

What can we learn from this? How do five (by conventional wisdom) unelectable men get elected.

The simple answer is this. Despite any negatives a candidate may have, if he or she can articulate a message that resonates with the electorate. Then that candidate can win. That is not to say “any” message well articulated can be a winner that is not the case.

A candidate can not come across as “crazy.” Seeming crazy is easier to do than one might expect when in the sport light of a Presidential Campaign. Ross Perot, Howard Dean, and Ron Paul all have fell victim to the “sin” of appearing somewhat crazy. Opponents and their supporters in the media and blogosphere will pounce on a candidate who does or says something crazy.

A candidate can not be short or ugly. This might be unfair but the reality is short and or ugly candidates are less viable in these days of visual media. Height is often said to be the single physical characteristic that most often correlates to victory in a Presidential elections.

So can Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich…et al win. The answer is absolutely, but it depends.

How is the economy?
What is the national security situation?
How do they deal with their negatives?
How do they appeal to independents and single issue voters?
How do they handle a hostile media?
Can they articulate their message well?
Can they get their message out?

What is a “worker” and what is “working class?”

Formal definitions are easy enough to find such as:

Worker: member of working class: a member of the working class, especially a factory employee or manual laborer.


And


Working class is a term used in the social sciences and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs (as measured by skill, education and lower incomes), often extending to those in unemployment or otherwise possessing below-average incomes. Working classes are mainly found in industrialized economies and in urban areas of non-industrialized economies…working class is defined and used in many different ways. When used non-academically, it typically refers to a section of society dependent on physical labor, especially when compensated with an hourly wage. Its use in academic discourse is contentious, especially following the decline of manual labor in postindustrial societies. Some academics question the usefulness of the concept of a working class.

These are somewhat precise, so how do these apply to teachers in Wisconsin? All are college educated, many with Master’s degrees, making above average wages? The simple answer is they don’t. By tradition etymology many of the so called workers in the United States are actually employees.

A more honest definition of “worker” would be “anyone who pays union dues.” Note that I did not say union members. This is because many employees working in “union shops” are forced to pay dues to unions to which they do not belong. In rhetorical terms “worker” and “working class” are anyone who fits the purpose of socialist leaning political activists.

The terms have been undefined and are functionally meaningless. There use is wholly political and designed to imply a class separation that does not exist. This is especially true in the case of the Wisconsin teachers, who are generally more educated, better paid, engage in little if any physical labor, and do not produce a tangible product. This is not to diminish the role of teachers in general, there are supremely important and are often underappreciated.

So what terms are more appropriate? I have five suggestions:

• Non-union employee: This is someone with a job who is not self employed and is not in a union, the more general term “employee” is also acceptable for this person
• Private sector union employee/member: This is someone with a private sector job who is in a union, e.g. a UAW member working for Caterpillar making tractors would
• Public sector union employee/member: This is someone with a public sector job who is in a union, e.g. our Wisconsin teachers
• Self employed: This is someone who owns the business or is an independent contractor, e.g. family doctor, independent website designer, car dealer
• Unemployed: Someone without a job

When we allow a words and phrases like worker and working class to because misused and morphed into political tools that have nothing to do with their definition then we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated.