David Brooks, "Why Men Fail": Genetics and Culture?

Thank God, I can finally explain to my wife that I'm not to blame for my dismal set of communication skills - it's all about genetics and culture - which have yielded only five Facebook friends, four of whom are family members and one of whom is deceased.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Men Fail" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/brooks-why-men-fail.html), David Brooks tells us that men are dropping out of the labor force and explains why:

"To succeed today, you have to be able to sit still and focus attention in school at an early age. You have to be emotionally sensitive and aware of context. You have to communicate smoothly. For genetic and cultural reasons, many men stink at these tasks."

Brooks goes on to cite a new book, "The End of Men," by Hanna Rosin, which posits, in David's words, that men "are waiting around for the jobs that left and are never coming back" and "still adhere to the masculinity rules, which limit their vision and their movement."

I don't entirely agree with this gender based argument. Rather, all of American society is being forced to adapt to a new set of economic norms: employment in manufacturing, which in the past offered a haven to many American men, is disappearing from the landscape, owing to overseas outsourcing and robotics. In its stead, more service jobs are becoming available, yet perhaps many, without regard to gender or flexibility, have yet to recognize and acknowledge this sea change.

An example of such a shift, on a smaller scale, closer to home? My wife grew up on a kibbutz, an Israeli agricultural collective. It had always been assumed by kibbutz children that the collective would offer them jobs in agriculture from cradle to grave, and a high percentage of kibbutz children - both male and female - never finished high school. Regrettably for them, the kibbutz was also forced to adapt to modern economics, demanding industry grounded on high tech and a more skilled work force, leaving many of those who had ignored their education unprepared to cope. Then, too, several of these collectives were effectively forced to file for bankruptcy.

In the US, maybe women are indeed better able to cope with this shift from manufacturing to service type jobs, owing to historic expectations where they are best positioned to make headway and climb the ladder, but ultimately everyone, including genetically and culturally deprived men, will need to adapt to a new set of economic circumstances.

Meanwhile, I suppose we should all be grateful that Brooks provided us with this much needed respite from the hardwired inanity and lies being disseminated in 2012 by Republicans and Democrats, both men and women.

[For the sake of transparency and good order, I should inform you that since publication of this blog entry, I was "defriended" by one of my Facebook friends - I won't say by whom, given that I'm already in enough trouble with her - taking my total down to four.]

Paul Krugman,"Obstruct and Exploit": The Republicans Are to Blame, Yada, Yada, Yada

And Paul Krugman has the audacity to call Paul Ryan a fraud?

In his latest New York Times op-ed "Obstruct and Exploit" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html), Krugman begins with a question:

"Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment.

. . . .

The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.

. . . .

But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president’s policies have failed."

Krugman goes on to claim that even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 2009 and 2010 ("for only a few months," as the good doctor would have it), the Republicans were responsible for obstructing Obama's efforts to remedy the economy by means of filibusters.

The Republicans "prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies"? I have a question for Krugman: Does he remember the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ARRA"), a Keynesian economic stimulus package, enacted by Congress and signed into law by Obama in February 2009, intended to create and safeguard jobs with immediate effect. Well, ARRA, which was enacted notwithstanding those nefarious Republicans and which had little beneficial effect on the economy, is "surprisingly" not mentioned by Krugman.

Krugman's much vaunted American Jobs Act? The doctor fails to mention the anticipated cost of this proposed legislation, i.e. $447 billion. Krugman tells us that the act would have added 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012. So divide $447 billion by 1.3 million jobs, and what do you get? Taxpayers would have been saddled with a cost of $344,000 per job.

The American Jobs Act also called for funding a "Pathways Back to Work Fund" in the amount of $5 billion, although it was never quite clear who would administer these funds or for what exact purpose they would be dispensed. Honestly, does this make sense to you?

Although Krugman would relieve the president of all responsibility for America's economic malaise, he also fails to mention that notwithstanding Republican "obstructionism," Obama has managed to add, over the course of only three and a half years, some $5 trillion to America's total of $16 trillion in debt.

Apparently, notwithstanding Krugman's protestations, the Republicans have done a very poor job of getting in Obama's way.

Iran Feels the Heat

As reported today by Lebanon's Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Business/International/2012/Sep-09/187276-iran-currency-dives-to-record-low.ashx#axzz25zH0ygkT), Iran's currency, the rial, has started to unwind:

"Iran's currency on Sunday slid to a new record low against the dollar, with the central bank saying it was trying to manage the plunge amid an 'economic war with the world.'

Street traders were exchanging one dollar for more than 24,000 Iranian rials, according to specialised websites giving real-time rates.

That was a plunge of some five percent over Saturday's rate and around 10 percent since last Wednesday, when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admitted on state television that Western sanctions were causing 'problems' in exporting oil and international financial transactions.

The latest street rate was nearly double the fixed, official rate of 12,260 rials that the government reserved for its agencies and a few privileged businesses.

Iran's rial has lost around half its value this year.

. . . .

The depreciation has added to inflation, which the central bank puts at 23.5 percent but which outside observers say is much higher."

The reason for this chaos? Simple. Until recently several of the world's leading banks thought they could play fast and loose with American sanctions against dealing with Iran. This ended when Standard Chartered PLC, the UK's fifth largest bank, agreed in August to pay a $340 million fine to a New York regulator for violating US money laundering regulations involving transactions for Iranian customers.

Meanwhile, HSBC is also being grilled by the authorities in the US and could face fines of up to $1 billion for money laundering activity involving transactions with Iran, Cuba and Sudan.

In short, several of the world's leading banks, which until now had snubbed their noses at the American authorities, are actively engaged in a turnabout having direct implications upon the Iranian economy.

Then, too, given the utter failure of the P5+1 talks with Iran concerning Tehran's nuclear development program, Germany, France and the UK are all calling for harsher sanctions (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19526674), whereas Canada has completely cut its ties with Iran (see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/08/f-iran-canada-diplomatic-relations.html).

All of which will make it increasingly difficult for Iran to supply the Assad regime in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon with arms and funds.

Maureen Dowd, "Playing Now: Hail to Us Chiefs": Yup, She's Pissed at the President

Maureen Dowd is perhaps most alluring when vexed.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Playing Now: Hail to Us Chiefs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-playing-now-hail-to-us-chiefs.html), Dowd bristles at the president's claim that "the election four years ago wasn't about me," and provides a laundry list of grievances involving Obama's first term failures which should now be attributed to those who elected him. Among Dowd's barbs:

• "We never should have let the Congressional Democrats run wild with their stimulus spending on pork that didn’t even create the right kinds of jobs."
• "We should have listened to Joe Biden instead of getting rolled by the generals on Afghanistan."
• "Maybe we relied too much on Valerie Jarrett, a k a the Night Stalker and Keeper of the Essence."

Stimulus spending? She's right. US debt has gone up by more than $5 trillion since Obama took office, and it now stands at over $16 trillion with no end in sight.

And don't tell me Obama saved the auto industry. GM is again facing bankruptcy.

What has Obama's stimulus brought us? As observed by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-96000-jobs-in-august-unemployment-rate-drops-to-81-percent/2012/09/07/30374bfa-f8e9-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html?hpid=z1):

"The unemployment rate declined in August to 8.1 percent, a drop that occurred largely because 368,000 people left the labor force. The Labor Department counts only those actively seeking a job as unemployed.

The percentage of people older than 16 in the workforce reached its lowest level since 1981, according to the Labor Department. Nearly 70 percent of men were working or looking for a job — the lowest percentage since the government began tracking the statistic in 1948."

The war in Afghanistan? Dowd is right again. Obama can only blame himself for escalating this tragic involvement, which has cost the lives of hundreds of American soldiers at a price of over $8 billion per month.

Valerie Jarrett? I find it terrifying that a person with so few qualifications, other than her ability to find favor with Barack and Michelle (both of whom are also without economic or foreign policy qualifications), has been entrusted with shaping the fate of the free world.

You want to know why Hillary decided to visit East Timor, population one million, rather than attend the convention? Ask Rahm Emanuel and William Daley. Obviously, Hillary is even angrier than Maureen.

[Jarrett is facetiously known as the "Night Stalker" owing to her habit of tailing after Obama on his way back from the West Wing to the White House residence. Yes, it's all about access to the king and the wielding of power. Winter is coming.]

Frank Bruni, "Haunted by Hillary": In Fact, Hillary Chose Not to Be in Charlotte

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Haunted by Hillary" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-democratic-convention-haunted-by-hillary.html?_r=0), Frank Bruni observes the absence of Hillary Clinton from the Democratic Convention:

"Her day job, as secretary of state, had her in Asia. And a picture of her in East Timor, watching Bill’s speech, circulated quickly and spoke to why there’s such fascination with her these days."

Hillary's job kept her away from Charlotte? This is pure nonsense. Given her popularity, Hillary's presence in Charlotte would have been an enormous boon to Obama's campaign, but she chose not to attend and not to speak on the president's behalf.

Pressing foreign affairs business in East Timor with its population of some one million? Spare me.

Enough said.

New York Times Editorial, "Jobs and Politics": No Mention of $16 Trillion Debt

In an editorial entitled "Jobs and Politics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/opinion/jobs-and-politics.html?_r=0), The New York Times calls for additional spending by the US federal government to create jobs, given Friday's dismal employment report. Of paramount importance to the Times, the report should not encourage voters to support Romney:

"But properly understood, the report should not encourage voters to support Mitt Romney. That’s because boosting tepid job growth requires stimulative fiscal policy — including spending to rehire teachers and to rebuild schools, roads and other infrastructure, as well as loan modifications for underwater homeowners. Mr. Obama has proposed all of that, while Republicans have blocked such measures and the Republican agenda rejects them."

Additional stimulative government spending? To encourage ventures such as Solyndra? To rescue GM, again teetering on bankruptcy, a second time? Will David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe manage this new program?

Even more to the point, what will be the source of this funding? According to a March 2012 CBS News article (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/):

"The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

. . . .

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services."

Moreover, it was just announced by the Treasury Department that US debt is over $16 trillion (see: http://news.yahoo.com/us-national-debt-hits-16-trillion-republicans-blast-031301848.html). How would the Times finance this new round of stimulation?

Borrow more money from China? Okay, but how does it get paid back? Where is Obama's detailed deficit reduction plan? In fact, it doesn't exist, but why should that matter to America's responsible citizenry?

Charles Blow, "The Engagement Gap": Obama Leads Among Narcissists

How do Obama and Romney fare when narcissists are polled?

Although there are obviously no such statistics being kept, perhaps an indication is provided by Charles Blow's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Engagement Gap" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/opinion/blow-the-engagement-gap.html?_r=0). Attempting to divine who will emerge victorious in November, Blow observes:

"Obama also has twice the number of Twitter retweets and YouTube comments, likes or views as Romney, and nearly 80 percent more Facebook likes, according to the report."

Facebook and Twitter? If they were to disappear tomorrow from the face of this earth, I don't think it would make much of an impact upon most of us, with the possible exception of those who foolishly invested in Facebook's IPO.

If Blow wishes to engage in a more relevant statistical analysis having a direct bearing on the election, perhaps he would do better to examine the employment figures released by the US Department of Labor yesterday. As observed by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-adds-96000-jobs-in-august-unemployment-rate-drops-to-81-percent/2012/09/07/30374bfa-f8e9-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html?hpid=z1):

"The unemployment rate declined in August to 8.1 percent, a drop that occurred largely because 368,000 people left the labor force. The Labor Department counts only those actively seeking a job as unemployed.

The percentage of people older than 16 in the workforce reached its lowest level since 1981, according to the Labor Department. Nearly 70 percent of men were working or looking for a job — the lowest percentage since the government began tracking the statistic in 1948."

I wonder how many of these unemployed persons and people who have left the labor force now spend their days tweeting.