Political Theatre of the Absurd

Contraception debate: yet another absurdity

2012-02-13T10:25:00.000+01:00

Here is how it goes:
"As ABC’s Jake Tapper was the first to report, the government will allow religious organizations to opt out of the requirement to include birth control coverage in their employee insurance plans. In those instances, the insurers themselves will offer contraception coverage to enrollees directly, at no additional cost.

The White House says this is possible because, overall, contraception saves money. That appears to be true. Independent analysts have found that the upfront costs of providing birth control are less than the long-term costs of prenatal and maternity care. In theory, this means insurers could handle the cost of contraception without drawing extra employer funds."

My comments:
1. The question of what changes when the employer does not include contraception in the insurance plan, but the insurance company is obliged to support this very plan by the free contraception benefits was discussed in this post.

2. The claim that the birth control costs insurance company less than providing for the medical services related to the childbirth is absurd as well - it assumes that, if a woman does not have access to free contraceptives, she will immediately opt for giving a birth to one child after the other. Yes, sure.

3. The whole debate is rather silly. What genuinely amuses me, however, is how seriously such absurd notions are taken by both sides of the debate (by politicians, as well as by journalists).

White people

2012-02-12T10:12:00.000+01:00

"Five myths about white people" - this Washington Post article adds some food for though in connection to the subject that I discussed recently: the attempts to explain right-wing/conservative views and social prejudices as a result of low IQ and lesser "cognitive ability" (whereas intelligent and sensitive people supposedly have no choice but become liberals or communists, also here).

The article doesn't give the sources for the statistics used, but I suppose one will have no difficulty finding the underlying numbers.

1. Here is excerpt on superstitions among uneducated and "intellectual" classes:
"This is a pervasive misconception encouraged by liberals who conflate the religious right with the working class, and by conservative evangelicals who inveigh against the godless ruling class.

[...]

Since the early 1970s, white America has become more secular overall, but the drop has been much greater in the working classes. As of the 2000s, the General Social Survey indicates, nearly 32 percent of upper-middle-class whites ages 30 to 49 attended church regularly, compared with 17 percent of the white working class in the same age group."

2. Here is the sensitive part about the relation between the IQ and the race: I seriously doubt that any "liberal" researchers would dare make out of it the same conclusions that they routinely make about "the conservatives":
"Second, educational attainment is correlated with intelligence. (The mean IQ of white Americans with just a high school diploma is about 99; the mean IQ of whites with a professional degree is about 125.) And children’s IQ is tied to that of their parents. How genes and environment conspire to produce these relationships is irrelevant; the relationships have been stable for decades. As a result, white parents with advanced educations — who are also generally affluent — inevitably account for a disproportionate number of the white kids with the highest SAT scores, best grades and other evidence of academic excellence.

If college admission were purely meritocratic — eliminating favoritism for the children of alumni, celebrities and big donors — upper-middle-class children would still be overrepresented. That’s because the applicants who would be accepted instead would also hail overwhelmingly from the upper middle class."

One have no choice but to accept that comparing people's IQ is not a sufficient ground for claiming a superiority of one social group over another: neither in the case of whites vs. blacks, nor in the case of liberals vs. conservatives.

About the contraception debate

2012-02-11T19:40:00.001+01:00

For my "theatre of the absurd" section - Greg Mankiw formulates precisely the same question that I asked myself in connection to the recent change of the Obama Administration that generated much outcry (I am neutral on this issue, so do not take this post as an attack on Obama.). Here is the essence of the issue:

"Obama took the unusual step Friday of making a personal appearance in the White House briefing room to announce the decision. This amends a rule announced in August and set to take effect this summer that will require employers to provide contraceptive coverage with no out-of-pocket costs as part of their health plans for workers.

Churches have always been exempt from the mandate. However, Catholic and other religious leaders had complained that the rule would force church-affiliated institutions, such as schools, charities, hospitals and universities, to pay for health services that violated their beliefs.

Under the new arrangement — the details of which have yet to be finalized — women who work for such organizations would still be guaranteed contraceptive coverage. But they will obtain it directly from their insurance companies, which must provide the coverage without charging an additional premium."

And here is the Mankiw's simple true/false test (here are my two examples of similar simple logic):
"Consider these two policies:

A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.

B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.

I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it. "

Democracy with a big stick

2012-02-11T19:12:00.001+01:00

Since it is fashionable (and for a good reason) to discuss the demise of the American economic and military power, it is a legitimate question to ask, whether the existing World order will be preserved when the US is no more #1. If you agree that the answer is far from obvious - this article gives some food for though.

Has economics cured poverty?

2012-02-11T12:49:00.000+01:00

I have just began readings Sylvia Nazar's "Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius" - the book that has been recently on many bestseller lists. What struck me from the very beginning is the emphasis from the very beginning that the development of the economics (meaning the economic theory) in the last two centuries has lifted the mankind from the poverty.

I have met this thesis previously and it seems to me rather controversial - after all, according to the World Bank most of the mankind still live in poverty (the poverty threshold is currently set at $1.25 a day, which is very different from what is considered "poverty" in the Western countries.) Ironically, most of the reviews of the book fail to notice this obvious problems, obviously assuming that it is of no interest to the rich Western audience. Indeed, even New York Times criticizes Ms. Nazar not for neglecting the rest of the World, but for being insufficiently attentive to the kinds of problems that have been experienced in the West - particularly the Great Depression and the recent economic crises.

Whether the economics can cure the poverty or whether it merely succeeds in providing high standard of living to "the more fortunate among us" (using the President's Obama language) remains to be seen.

The President's new budget

2012-02-11T09:50:00.000+01:00

President Obama is about to submit to the Congress the new budget proposal, the key feature of which is higher taxes on "the rich":
"The president’s blueprint calls for reductions in spending on federal health programs and the military, a small raise for federal workers and more than $1.5 trillion in new taxes on corporations, hedge-fund managers and the wealthy, in part through the expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on annual incomes of more than $250,000.

Obama also has called for changes to the tax code that would require households earning more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, but senior administration officials said Friday that the blueprint will provide no additional details on how such a levy would be structured."

My comments:
1. Regardless of whether one supports higher taxes or not, we are all aware that none of these tax proposals has a chance to be approved by the Congress. Hence, expect the next round of the government near-shutdowns, credit downgrade threats and so on. At best this is simple politicking, at worst - political extremism.

2. Pay attention how the language regarding the "Buffet tax" transforms as the tax creeps into the tax code: while previously it was about taxing the fortunate individuals, who make more than a million a year, now it is about households, which more often than not consist of several individuals (e.f. parents and children) with income per person much less than a million.

Beware of "Sovereign citizens"!

2012-02-09T08:51:00.000+01:00

FBI goes after anarchists and libertarians, which are termed "sovereign citizens":

"These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.

The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.

Routine encounters with police can turn violent "at the drop of a hat," said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counterterrorism division."

My comments:
1. Perhaps, this should be added to my "theatre of the absurd" section, perhaps not - one would have to know more to decide whether FBI is being serious and ridiculous.

2. The conservative bloggers has taken this as an attack on the Ron Paul's constituency. It is worth noting, however, that disobeying government regulations is a key feature of the Occupy Wall St. movement, starting with the camping in the parks and ending with the confrontations with police. It is interesting to learn whether FBI's view in this case is politically biased.

Not going along with the crowd...

2012-02-08T09:28:00.000+01:00

I re-post this photo from the Facebook. Here is the comment that it came along with:
"Ordinary people. The courage to say no.

The photo was taken in Hamburg in 1936, during the celebrations for the launch of a ship. In the crowed, one person refuses to raise his arm to give the Nazi salute. The man was August Landmesser. He had already been in trouble with the authorities, having been sentenced to two years hard labour for marrying a Jewish woman.

We know little else about August Landmesser, except that he had two children. By pure chance, one of his children recognized her father in this photo when it was published in a German newspaper in 1991. How proud she must have been in that moment."

General strike in Israel

2012-02-08T08:05:00.001+01:00

The Histadrut (the unions) has declared the general of the Israeli government workers, due to the failure of its negotiations with the Finance ministry over the status of the contract workers.

My comments:
1. I generally oppose the strikes, especially those by transportation and medical workers. My reasons are: a) such strikes hold the rest of the country hostages to the whims of a small, but vital for the country's functioning, group , and b) the overall economic damage from such strikes far exceeds the benefits to the strikers.

2. Yet, I have more sympathy for the strikers than for the participants of the "social protests". If you have been reading this blog, then you know the reason: the strikers have clearly formulated demands. In addition, their grievances are legitimate - the contract workers in Israel are a hard-working group of the population, often saddled with the families, who have few reasons to expect a change in their employment status and significant improvements in the near future. These contract workers range from the cleaners to the non-permanent university lecturers (the latter are being fired every Spring and re-hired in the Fall, so that they do not attain the right for the permanent employment benefits.)

Money, money, money...

2012-02-07T12:11:00.000+01:00

A big piece by Washington Post about bi-partisan corruption in the United States Congress. This will probably dominate the American news for teh week to come.

On this background the decision by President Obama to start taking the money from the rich in order to help fund the class war that he is fighting against them looks like a minor hypocrisy.

"Four legs good, two legs bad!"

2012-02-07T09:16:00.001+01:00

A few more comments in continuation on the subject of prejudice as resulting from lower cognitive ability (here and here).

1. The phenomenon in question was succinctly summarized by George Orwell in his "Animal farm" by the phrase "Four legs good, two legs bad!", intended to oppose animals and humans. (Orwell immediately points out that it posed the problem with identifying chickens as animals.)

The beauty of Orwell's animalism is that it can be applied to many settings, for example:
"Conservatives are good, liberals are bad" or "liberals are good, conservatives are bad" (By now you may realize the point that I am making - the problem is not with liberals or conservatives, but with rejecting either of the views in favor of the other one, deemed to be "correct".)

2. One thing that bothers me is the widespread view of the horrors of Fascism as a result of the conflict between the right and left ideologies. The crimes committed by Nazis and fascists have been widely popularized and resulted in most of the "western world" swinging in the direction of the left ideologies. This resulted in the strange state of affairs, when Communism and its horrors are viewed with much less aversion than the Nazi/fascist symbols, and portraits of Che Guevara and red flags are considered "cool" symbols of the social equality rather than the symbols of murder and oppression, which they are to the hundreds of millions who suffered from the Communism.

3. I think that Communism and Fascism are the two expressions of the same phenomenon: exploiting the image of a "common enemy" to unite people behind a "leader" or a political movement. The particular choice of the enemy might be different: it may be the external powers (Such as "the Big Satan" - the US); it may be culturally different groups, such as immigrants or Muslims; it may be differing ethnic or racial groups, such as Jews, Arabs or black; it may be the people who stand apart economically - "the rich".

The excesses of such views were notably demonstrated by Nazism (anti-Jew) and Communism (anti-rich), but, as I have stated above, the latter case is being consistently overlooked.

Abortion

2012-02-07T08:20:00.000+01:00

This article makes a coherent argument against the abortion. It does not convince me, but the problem is clearly identified - the moment when an embryo becomes a person, entitled for the protection of the state, is chosen arbitrarily. This is hardly something that can be dismissed as "the desire of the extreme right to impose its beliefs on the rest of us".

The figures on the number of the abortions, if correct, signify spectacular failure in terms of sexual education and taking care of women's health:

"On the claim that abortion is a “safe” medical procedure: it isn’t a particularly safe medical procedure for the unborn child being aborted. As for abortion being rare, there are roughly 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States each year, meaning more than 3,000 per day, and approximately 50 million since the legalization of abortion in 1973. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

[...]

Which brings me to the matter of line drawing. Where does Rosenthal propose to draw it? What objective criteria should we use when it comes to the point at which unborn life should be protected? Brain waves and brain activity? Substantial development of the nervous system? When the unborn child feels pain? When organs, arms and legs develop? Heartbeat and blood flow? Sentience? Rationality? Viability outside the womb? In the second trimester? The third? And then ask yourself this: What medical or moral basis is there to say the state should protect unborn life during the second (or third) trimester but not during the first? The answer is: There is none."

From Communism to Capitalism

2012-02-06T11:54:00.000+01:00

Seven lessons that the economists learned from the collapse of the Communist economies.

My comment
Note, however, that Eastern European economies were never "communist" in Marxian sense - they were socialist, with socialism taken to its extreme. This largely explains why the social movements of today (Tent City and Occupy Wall St.) have so little support among the immigrants from the former communist countries.

Ordinary fascism

2012-02-06T11:04:00.000+01:00

I have written yesterday about an article that a friend of mine posted on a social network (here). The article claims to explain the racial and anti-homosexual prejudices as the result of lower cognitive ability and general intelligence. It is also claimed that this prejudices are channeled via supporting conservative and authoritarian ideologies.

Ironically, the article itself presents an example of the phenomenon that it claims to investigate: it effectively affirms the existing among "liberal/progressive" community prejudice that the people supporting conservative ideologies or right-wing parties are less educated and less intelligent. This prejudice is particularly strong in the overwhelmingly left-wing academic communities, the members of which, by virtue of their higher level of education, consider themselves intellectually superior to the typically conservative "blue collar" public.

A few additional comments
1. The article discussed is essentially fascist in nature (or as a minimum extremely prejudiced). Indeed, one could conceivably obtain a very similar text by taking an article from a Nazi-time research journal and replacing the references to "conservative/right-wing ideologies" by "Jews/Communists/Liberal democracies", and the references to "lower cognitive abilities/intelligence" by references to "inferior race/scull shape".

2. It is quite embarassing that my friend posted such an article in a public forum, and that it is overlooked by most and even "liked" by some.

3. I admit the possibility that the article might be itself a part of another scientific experiment, similar to Milgram experiment or Standford prison experiment (or perhaps my friend is conducting such an experiment): the authors might have on purpose posted an extremely prejudiced peace of work in order to see the public reaction, and demonstrate how the prejudices similar to those, that have been historically discredited within various kinds of authoritarian/conservative ideologies, quite successfuly continue to exist under the disguise of "liberal/progressive/left-wing" (See my other post on non-liberal and non-progressive nature of many things called "liberal" and "progressive".)

New racism

2012-02-05T14:41:00.002+01:00

Here is what passes nowadays for "research"... Those who are not blinded by either ideology will have difficulty setting this apart from the "research" conducted by Nazi scientists and others in the similar strain:
"Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. "

While it is to be expected that lower intellectual abilities and inabilities to distinguish "the shades of gray" make it more likely for individuals to adopt extremist ideologies, the claim that extremism is limited to the conservative and right-wing ideologies is precisely what is terribly wrong with modern "intellectuals".

An unbiased person has no difficulty pointing out many instances of the "liberal" and "progressive" intolerance towards different opinions, religious convictions, policies etc.

Added later:
Perhaps, my my point will be clearer, if I point out the similarity of this research with the concept of "untermensch", which has earned a rather gruesome reputation throughout the XXth century.

Parenting in US and France

2012-02-04T09:11:00.000+01:00

Here is a good comparative analysis of parenting in US in France. If you are interested in parenting or psychology, then you will be interested in the points that this article makes about delaying gratification, self-sufficiency and parental authority.

Separation of the state and the religion

2012-02-02T21:05:00.000+01:00

These statements put Obama fair and square together with other political leaders guided by the teaching of Jesus, notably Rick Perry and George W. Bush.
"President Obama used an appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday to reaffirm his faith at a time when Republican critics have accused him of a “war on religion,” telling an audience of religious leaders that his policies are grounded in his Christian beliefs.

Obama, speaking to 3,000 people at the Washington Hilton, used passages from the Bible to make the case that his push for a more equitable economy is rooted in a long-honored value system. And he suggested that his proposal to increase taxes on wealthier Americans is consistent with the teachings of Jesus."

Unquestionably, this qualifies for my "theatre of the absurd" section.

"This is not class warfare -- It's math"

2012-02-02T08:59:00.000+01:00

In my yesterday post I noted together the two facts that Reuters preferred to publish on separate days: the size of the planned US budget deficit for the fiscal year 2012 (about $1 trillion), and the amount of revenue that is expected from the "Buffet tax" on the millionaires:
"Revenue generated from the tax has yet to be officially calculated, but Whitehouse said it could raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year."

"This is not class warfare -- It's math" - Barack Obama

Why some social movements succeed?

2012-02-02T08:26:00.000+01:00

A behind-the-scenes alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

My comments:
1. This is a smart policy on Romney's side, since, as the article correctly notes, Ron Paul's supporters are a significant and loyal group within the Republican electorate.

2. Let's give some credit to Ron Paul - he is willing to engage with those who are more likely to win the presidency, for the sake of achieving his goals. This puts him apart from the typical fringe parties which put their ideological purity above any compromise needed to implement their ideas in practice. This is how democracy works - by compromising interests of different groups.

3. Ron Paul also shows a way for social movements to actually achieve some of their goals. Recently, there have been too much excitement about the spontaneous shows of unity, such as the Arab revolutions, as well as the social movements such as the Tent City and the Occupy Wall St. In the aftermath one recognizes that the failure of these movements to achieve substantial results stems precisely from their lack of leadership and their reluctance to engage in politics. The successful examples are the Tea Party, which influences politics via many low-rank elected representatives in the US Congress, as well as the Libertarian movement, represented by a charismatic high-profile politician, such as Ron Paul.

What is poverty

2012-02-01T17:43:00.001+01:00

Here is a clarification regarding what it means being poor in America. I am posting this not out of opposition to helping the poor (they do need help in my opinion) but in order to put the things into prospective for the well-meaning educated middle-class:
"However, understanding poverty in America requires looking behind these numbers at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests near destitution: an inability to provide nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter for one’s family. However, only a small number of the 46 million persons classified as “poor” by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity."

US budget deficit vs. Warren Buffet tax

2012-02-01T13:48:00.000+01:00

US budget deficit is to exceed $1 trillion in the fiscal year 2012 (4th year with such high deficit in a row), which is a significant addition to the national debte of $15 trillion.

This numbers are worth comparing with how much tax can be collected by taxing "the rich", in order to be completely assured that recent class war rhethorics has no connection with attempting to reduce the US debt:
"In September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 10-year deficit at $8.5 trillion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that a Buffett Tax might now raise $40 billion annually. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, estimates $50 billion. With economic growth, the 10-year total might optimistically be $600 billion to $700 billion. It would be a tiny help; that’s all. “The purpose of the Buffett Rule is not to close the deficit gap,” Buffett has said. Hard choices remain, in part because existing deficit estimates already assume steep defense cuts."

Win of secular right in Israel

2012-02-01T08:49:00.000+01:00

In Likud primaries current Israeli prime minister won by a huge margin:
"With 85 percent of votes counted, Netanyahu was leading with 75 percent of votes. Rival Moshe Feiglin took 24%."

1. This is a clear triumph for the secular Israeli right. Combined with the recent Labor primary and the Labor's rise in popularity, we may expect a serious debate during the next election election, rather than a competition between the ideological left and the religious right.

2. Note that Netanyahu has clearly moved towards the center, which accords with the pattern demonstrated by the previous right-wing prime ministers (notably Begin and Sharon):
"A boycott of the vote called by Likud activists in Judea and Samaria to protest Netanyahu’s settlement policies appeared to have succeeded, as polling stations there had an exceptionally low turnout. The organizers of the boycott expressed outrage when people loyal to Feiglin sent text messages saying that the boycott had been canceled."

About liberalism: why I use quotation marks

2012-01-31T10:58:00.000+01:00

Article on subjectm that I am not very interested in, comes up with the following remarkable statement:
"Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-clericalism."

My comments:
1. The imposition of "liberal" values can be seen in the intolerant attitudes towards the evangelical Christians in the US. Another case is the attempts by "liberal" groups to impose economic and academic boycotts on Israel, whereas in Israel itself this takes a form of anti-settler sentiment. Ironically, if a liberally-minded person tries to defend the rights of evangelicals or settlers on their views (without actually agreeing with them), he/she is branded a right-winger.

2. You may have noticed that sometimes I use quotation marks to designate the terms whose linguistic usage does not agree with their literal meaning: "liberal", "progressive", "rich/poor" etc. So, for example, in the US "liberal" is used to designate Democrats, often extremely left-wing ones. Yet, for the reason outlined in the previous comment these people frequently are not liberal in the original sense of the word.

Another case when "liberals" are not really liberals is when one refers to their views on the economy. "Liberals" often advocate limiting the market freedom and discriminating against those who are more economically successful. In this contextm the people who do hold liberal economic views are referred to as "neo-liberals" (or, in an extreme case, "libertarians".) In fact, those who are called "liberals", should be really named "neo-communists" (no offence intended - simple statement of ideology.)

The subject, that goes beyond the theme of this post, is whether one can forgo the economic liberalism, but preserve the liberal freedoms in the other areas of life (freedom of speech, freedom of gatherings etc.) Marx and Lenin would certainly disagree.

Dating, War and Dr. Strangelove

2012-01-29T19:45:00.000+01:00

I discussed recently dating from the point of view of market strategy, and also pointed out the link, where the game theory was applied to the same model. These things are more than a joke: once upon a time the game theory was deciding the fate of the World: it was behind the American (and perhaps also Soviet) strategy during the Cold War era.

This article discusses how game theory led to the Cold War episode, known as "Operation Gian Lance":
"Nixon's madman pose and Giant Lance were based on game theory, a branch of mathematics that uses simple calculations and rigorous logic to help understand how people make choices — like whether to surge ahead in traffic or whether to respond to a military provocation with a strike of one's own. The most famous example in the field is the Prisoner's Dilemma: If two criminal suspects are held in separate cells, should they keep mum or rat each other out? (Answer: They should keep quiet, but as self-interested actors, what they will do is betray each other and both go to jail.) In the Cold War, the "games" were much more complicated simulations of war and bargaining: Would the Soviets be more likely to attack Western Europe if we kept missiles there or if we didn't?

Kissinger had studied game theory as a young academic and strategic theorist at Harvard. In the early '60s, he was part of a group of World War II veterans who became the oracles or "whiz kids" of the nuclear age. Working at newly formed institutes and think tanks, like the RAND Corporation, they preached that the proper way to deal with the existence of nuclear weapons wasn't to act as if the situation was so grave that one couldn't even discuss using them; it was to figure out how to use them most effectively. This was the attitude mocked by Stanley Kubrik in Dr. Strangelove, in which RAND appears thinly disguised as the Bland Corporation."

Absurd face of political correctness

2012-01-29T08:37:00.000+01:00

Loves of absurd will appreciate the opening sentence of this article:
"Richard Nixon was many things — crafty, criminal, self-pitying, vengeful, paranoid. But gay?"

Any pretense of political correctness is washed away by putting in the same row: "crafty, criminal, self-pitying, vengeful, paranoid, gay". The double irony is that Nixon, a Republican, is usually the target of the "progressive" left, which pretends to be the great supporter of sexual minorities.

Finally, the extra level of absurdity is provided by the uniform across the political spectrum vilification of Nixon by the Americans: Yes, he might have been a crook... yet, these very Americans twice elected him the president. He won 1972 election by a landslide, even though the public was already aware of the Watergate scandal. In addition, many of the Nixon's achievements as a US president are things, without which one cannot imagine modern America (for good or for bad):
- first nuclear disarmament negotiations with Soviet Union (one of the treaties concluded, Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, lasted till George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002)
- the end of the Vietnam war,
- establishing relationship with China (imagine that once upon a time the goods "made in China" were not present in American stores)
- first true demonstration of the US commitment to Israel security during 1793 Yom Kippour war
- dealing with the economic crisis and high inflation of the early 70s and abolishing the gold standard (the former is a very contemporary topic, the latter is a favorite subject of the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul)
- introducing first ever in the US environmental regulations
- promoting desegregation of schools and affirmative action

"How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"