Monday, October 26, 2020

Joe Biden Brings Up Hitler

Yesterday, Joe Biden seemed not to know who he was running against. Before his wife corrected him, he declared that he was standing between America and four more years of George…. Apparently, he was stuck in a time warp and was reliving the presidential campaign of 2004.

Surely, this tells us that a Biden presidency will immediately cause nations around the world to respect American again. Huh?

But then, at the debate last Thursday, Biden claimed that America had had a good relationship with Hitler before he invaded some other countries.

He said:

We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe, the rest of Europe. Come on.

As for the relationship with Hitler, the Roosevelt administration was doing its best to stay out of the war. 

In September, 1938 Roosevelt sent Hitler this polite message:

The conscience and the impelling desire of the people of my country demand that the voice of their government be raised again and yet again to avert and to avoid war.

As you know, Hitler did not take FDR’s words seriously. The American president could expostulate, but he had shown himself weak when it came to doing something to stop Hitler. By that time Hitler had already annexed Austria and was threatening to invade Czechoslovakia. Under the circumstances Roosevelt's words were plaintive, no more or less.

As for the timing, FDR sent the telegram while the British, led by Neville Chamberlain, were negotiating with Hitler in Munich. The negotiation that would lead Britain to appease Germany. In effect, FDR was asking Hitler to be nice. His was a gesture of surrender to Hitler. And it may seriously have undercut Chamberlain’s negotiating position.

Let us also recall, there is no harm done in trying to have constructive relationships with foreign dictators and even tyrants. As William Ury, director of the Harvard Negotiation Project, once remarked, when asked whether it was good or bad for Trump to have try to cement a good relationship with foreign tyrants, said that it was a good thing to be soft in personal terms and hard on the terms of the negotiations. Being friendly costs you nothing, as long as you are strict about your goals. Being tough and then giving in is a bad strategy.

The issue with FDR and Germany was the failure to meet aggression and the threat of aggression with anything more than empty words. There is nothing wrong with being nice, until the situation requires strength. Even after Hitler had shown his colors, FDR remained inert.

As for who did have a good relationship with Hitler, who adored and lionized him, the answer is The New York Times. Yes, that New York Times.

It is not just that the Times covered up for Hitler and killed the news about the persecution of Jews, its intrepid reporter painted a glowing portrait of him.

Robert Spencer reports the story on Pajama Media. The Times author was Anne O’Hare McCormick. She wrote her puff piece on July 9, 1933, a few months after Hitler had taken over Germany.

It is an impressive document, which sounds like it was written by a love-smitten schoolgirl:

At first sight the dictator of Germany seems a rather shy and simple man, younger than one expects, more robust, taller. His sun-browned face is full and is the mobile face of an orator….

His eyes are almost the color of the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid. He appears untired and unworried. His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit.

In the country he has plastered with banners and insignia he wears only a small gold eagle in his buttonhole. No flag or swastika is in sight.

He begins to speak slowly and solemnly but when he smiles — and he smiled frequently in the course of the interview — and especially when he loses himself and forgets his listener in a flood of speech, it is easy to see how he sways multitudes. Then he talks like a man possessed, indubitably sincere…. Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.

Spencer continues to describe the McCormack story:

In the 29th paragraph of a 41-paragraph article, she recounts that she asked him: “How about the Jews? At this stage how do you measure the gains and losses of your anti-Semetic [sic] policies?” Hitler answered, she said, with “extraordinary fluency,” and she records his answer – a tissue of victim-blaming and excuse-making – at considerable length.

The Times was aware of Hitler’s anti-Semitism. Yet, it simply did not care.

Then, McCormick recounts, “seeing the second part of the question was not going to be answered, your correspondent referred to the position of women.” Ah, yes: when the interviewee doesn’t want to answer the tough question, go on to something easier. The Times and its allies today always keep this in mind when interviewing Democrats. This surrender mollified Hitler as well: “Herr Hitler’s tension relaxed. He smiled his disarming smile.”

As journalism goes, it deserves a place in the Hall of Shame.

#JewsforTrump Rally Attacked

Yesterday, a group called Jews for Trump rallied in New York City. The result, as you might have expected, was that Black Lives Matter protesters attack them violently.

Of course, it’s all about the rhetoric. The New York Times plays down the fact that one group was attacking the other. It tries to pretend that both groups were equally involved in the attacks. According to the Times, skirmishes occurred.

Seven people were arrested during skirmishes between opposing sides in Manhattan, where Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer and the city’s former mayor, encountered protesters targeting a caravan of cars organized by a group that identifies itself as Jews for Trump.

Compare and contrast with The Daily Mail’s more vivid description of what happened:

A massive #JewsForTrump convoy in Manhattan descended into chaos as anti-Trump protesters began vandalizing cars and brawling with MAGA fans in Times Square.

Videos showed the protesters ripping flags off of cars in the convoy and throwing red paint and punches as they faced off with President Donald Trump's supporters on Sunday afternoon.  

Police were seen arresting at least four people as brawls broke out between the dueling groups when the convoy reached the heart of Manhattan.  

Vandalism, throwing punches, flinging red paint, ripping flags off of cars, brawling-- non-violence in action.

I report. You decide.

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Is China the New Evil Empire?

Given the current political climate and given the reports of the Biden family sellout to Chinese interests, it is difficult to look at our major strategic competitor objectively. In a political season, everything becomes politicized-- though the Trump administration effort to blame China for the coronavirus does not seem to be working.

As for the multitude of Republican 2024 presidential candidates who are basing their incipient campaigns on anti-China sentiment-- including Cruz, Cotton, Pompeo et al.-- I have found their tone to be off. I am sure that no one cares, but, when you start sounding like Elizabeth Warren, you should do some serious self-reflection. 

Besides, it is trendy on the right to consider China the new evil empire and to confuse today’s Communist Party with yesterday’s. David Goldman counts among the very few who has tried to be rational about China, but he has been drowned out by the din.

For those who care-- and if you don’t, stop reading now-- yesterday the Financial Times published a column by hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio. 

Dalio’s was a sobering assessment. It has even more value since it echoes points I have argued occasionally on this blog. As noted, David Goldman has done the same, though with far more information than I possess.

Dalio opens:

For as long as I can remember, people have said that China cannot succeed. Communism doesn’t work. Authoritarianism doesn’t work. The Chinese aren’t creative. They have a big problem with bad debts and property speculation. Yet every day we see China succeeding in exceptional ways.

It has achieved some of the world’s lowest Covid-19 case rates. Over the past year, its economy grew at almost 5 per cent, without monetising debt, while all major economies contracted. China produces more than it consumes and runs a balance of payments surplus, unlike the US and many western nations. This year nearly half the world’s initial public offerings will be in China, including Ant Financial’s $30bn listing, the world’s biggest ever. Even Tesla’s best-selling Model 3 car may soon be made entirely in China.

Obviously, we are not going to compete effectively with China by ranting about injustice or even about having more anti-racism training. We are being consumed by our own bias-- not our racial bias-- but our hatred of China.

The world order is changing, yet many are missing this because of a persistent anti-China bias. China’s extraordinary performance isn’t new. 

In fact, apart from the 1839-1949 “Century of humiliation”, it has historically been one of the world’s most powerful countries and cultures. Just over the past four decades its economic changes have been remarkable. Whatever criticisms you may have about Chinese “state capitalism”, you cannot say it hasn’t worked, even if you strongly disagree with how Beijing has done it.

When I first visited China 36 years ago, I would give $10 pocket calculators to high-ranking officials. They thought they were miracle devices. Now China rivals the US in advanced technologies and will probably take the lead in five years. Since 1984, per capita incomes have risen more than 30 times, life expectancy has increased by a decade and poverty rates have fallen nearly to zero. In 1990, China’s first stock market was launched, designed by seven young patriots who I knew. Since then, it has become the second largest in the world.

Things are not looking bad for China:

Meanwhile, China’s economy is roughly the same size as the US’s and expanding at a faster pace — so time is on China’s side. It has a growing population of well-educated people, with around a third of the world’s science and technology university majors, three times the US share. It also produces and collects vastly more data to process with artificial intelligence. For many in the west, this has a dark side in terms of state surveillance. But for many Chinese it reinforces positive social norms while also promising vast efficiencies. One way to look at China’s relative power is that, with four times the US population, when its per capita income reaches half the US’s in about 25 years, its economy will be twice as large.

Then again, we are training more social justice warriors and more lawyers. China produces high technology-- increasingly with its own equipment-- while America can do nothing but sue.

I think it fair to say that Dalio is an investing genius, so we pay special attention to his outlook in that arena:

Last, there are the investment implications. As a global macro investor, I think a lot about how much I should invest where, looking at fundamentals and how others are positioned.

China’s fundamentals are strong, its assets relatively attractively priced, and the world is underweight Chinese stocks and bonds. These currently account for 3 per cent or less of foreign portfolio holdings; a neutral weighting would be closer to 15 per cent.

This discrepancy is at least in part due to anti-Chinese bias. I think it is about to change. Chinese markets are opening up to foreigners, who can now access at least 60 per cent of them compared with 1 per cent in 2015. Benchmark weights in major indices are rising. As a result, I expect China to enjoy favourable capital inflows that will support the currency, already at a two-year high, and financial markets too. All this argues for a China overweight in my portfolio.

Of course things can go wrong in any country. Beijing may not stay its current course of economic reform, though I doubt that will happen. The US and China are also competing fiercely — some say warring — over trade, technology, geopolitics, capital markets and military power. No one can know how bad these wars will be, which country will win, or how. That is why I diversify and allocate money to both countries.

What causes countries to succeed or to fail. Dalio explains:

In the long run, timeless and universal truths determine why countries succeed or fail. In brief, empires rise when they are productive, financially sound, earn more than they spend, and increase assets faster than their liabilities. This tends to happen when their people are well educated, work hard and behave civilly. Objectively compare China with the US on these measures, as I chronicle in an ongoing study, and the fundamentals clearly favour China.

I trust that the news does not brighten your day.

Prejudice and bias always blind people to opportunity. So, if you have been a China sceptic for reasons that don’t square with what is happening there, I suggest you clear your mind. Likewise for events in the US and its place in the changing world. The eve of the US election is a good time to reflect on both.

It’s time to get over our bigotry about China.

Peace in the Middle East

Peace is breaking out in the Middle East. What with Sudan signing an accord with Israel, Trump’s diplomacy seems to be working. Considering that John Kerry, a man who is being considered for yet another government job, insisted that it couldn’t be done, we now have further confirmation of the sheer vapidity of John Kerry. 

Anyway, ABC News and even the New York Times are touting Trump’s achievement. Heck, even CNN pronounced it a significant foreign policy accomplishment. (Via Hot Air and Maggie’s Farm)

ABC reported:

Either way, Friday's events mark a historic new chapter, 18 months after the Sudanese people overthrew their strongman leader in mass protests. Facing fuel and food shortages and sky-high inflation, Sudan is desperate for international assistance, humanitarian aid, and foreign investment, all of which have been stymied or outright blocked by U.S. sanctions.

Despite the advances, several critical hurdles remain, including for the U.S. victims of terror attacks who have legal claims against Sudan.

In an agreement reached between the State Department and Sudan's transitional government, the country agreed to pay $335 million to the victims of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, victims of the USS Cole attack, and the family of murdered USAID employee John Granville.

The New York Times was less sanguine, but at least it was balanced.

About all that Israelis could truly savor in Friday’s announcement by President Trump that he had fostered another diplomatic breakthrough was its symbolic value: Sudan was the scene of the Arab League’s defiant 1967 Khartoum Resolution. Soon after Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, the league’s members all vowed in the resolution “No to peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.”

Suddenly, Sudan, of all the Arab countries, was saying yes to all of the above.

In that sense, even the limited economic and trade relations that President Trump ballyhooed on Friday as a victory “for peace in the world” would drive another nail in the coffin of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s old strategy of maintaining Arab solidarity behind the rejection of Israel until the Palestinians establish a state.

One suspects that the Times is reporting the story because it believes that Joe Biden will win the election, regardless.

It does note, not unreasonably, that Trump is trying to pull in some Jewish votes in Florida and Pennsylvania. When you run a political campaign that’s what you do.

On the other side, a The New York Post article suggests that Trump is perhaps the most pro-Jewish president ever.

And yet, American Jews, in a spasm of ingratitude, seem far more likely to vote for Joe Biden, the man who served in an administration that was the most anti-Jewish ever.

Saturday, October 24, 2020

America's Shrunken Mind

Everyone is now worried about the state of the American mind. Anastasia Berg and Jon Baskin, editors of something called The Point, take up a challenge laid down by Professor Allan Bloom more than three decades ago. They want to reopen the American mind.

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, being of a more whiny disposition, declared that the American mind has shrunk. Fancy that. If he had a wee bit more imagination Cohen would have opined on the fact that a certain profession has dedicated itself to head shrinking.

Cohen allows himself to be carried along by the spirit of the Times-- the New York Times, that is-- and blames it all on Donald Trump. Amazing manifestation of what happens when your mind shrinks. 

The American mind, such as it is, belongs to our intellectual elites, to our educators, to our media professionals, our therapists, even to our lawyer class. As an aside, if you think that our psycho professionals are men and women of science, you have missed the point entirely.

Anyway, if the American mind has seen better days-- and if it has not seen very many worse days-- the fault, dear friends, must lie with our intelligentsia.

How did this group become so completely dumbed down? Well, it was the first group in America to make ideology a job qualification. And it led the nation in diversity hiring. One likes to bemoan the fact that American college students do not know much of anything about the great works of philosophy and literature. But, one must add that precious few professors today can teach the great books. 

If an idiot named Ibram X. Kendi can hold a chair at Boston University and can write a best selling book complaining about racial oppression, you have to ask yourself whether he could teach a course on Plato or Virgil or Shakespeare-- or even sociologists like Max Weber, Emile Durkheim or Erving Goffman. Kendi is simply talking about what he knows, and a sad sight it is. 

As for the columns under consideration today, both from the Times, begin with Berg and Baskin. 

What did professors expect to happen when they informed those students that the texts humanists had pored over for millenniums were nothing more than vectors of ideology and oppression? Who could blame these students for transferring into economics or computer science — as so many now have?

Dare we say that there is not very much of a market for social justice warriors. One understands that the humanities and social sciences are now the province of students who cannot do STEM subjects. However much tech oligarchs have become intellectual tyrants, censoring any thought that they believe will harm their businesses, they still hire for merit, not diversity. 

For the most part, I must add. Nowadays they have bought themselves a heap of trouble-- well deserved, I would say-- by hiring Democratic party political hacks and put them in charge of censoring political speech.

Obviously, the dumbing down of the humanities and social sciences has led to the reduction, even the elimination of academic departments. Before it was even trendy, they were proving the point that the NBA just learned: go woke; go broke.

Berg and Baskin continue:

Even before the pandemic upended university budgets, many schools faced challenges — falling enrollments, reduced public funding and the prospect of corporate restructuring. Now liberal arts colleges are shutting down at even higher rates, and job losses at colleges are multiplying (nonprofit private and public institutions shed an estimated 337,000 jobs from February to August, according to federal data). Some predict that unless Congress passes a new stimulus bill with aid for higher education, things are about to get much worse. Words like “apocalyptic” and “extinction” keep showing up in otherwise dispassionate analyses of the situation.

Bloom’s insights are vindicated today not only by the shrinking enrollments in English, history and philosophy departments, but also by the rise within those departments of conceptions of humanistic education that privilege scientistic knowledge accumulation, political activism and the cultivation of “analytical skills” thought to be prized in Silicon Valley. 

Strangely, but not surprisingly, the authors feel optimistic about the future. They see reading groups and book clubs forming around the nation. If this does not become an instance of the blind leading the blind, it would be a good thing. One is slightly less optimistic.

Unfortunately, they imagine that the purpose of a humanities education lies in addressing grandiose philosophical questions-- what is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Where are we going? What is truth?

These are warmed over Platonism. They are not the be-all and end-all of humanities education. We would do better to understand that the purpose of philosophy is to teach people how to think, clearly and rationally. But, it should also teach people how to communicate, how to persuade and how to conduct one’s life. And the purpose of literature is to teach people how to use language, how to express oneself, and even how to construct stories. 

Some people are really good at these skills. If you do not learn by reading their great books, you will end up not knowing much of anything.

If anyone cares, I do not think that Berg and Baskin make a very good case for clear thinking and good writing-- by example.

But, such is life. We move on to Roger Cohen who is in a lather about the president. He does not think that head shrinkers have any responsibility for the shrunken American mind, so he blames it all on Donald Trump. As though the Trump administration is responsible for the American academy and the American media. It is difficult to blame Trump for the unhinged rants of people who despise him beyond reason, but this does not deter Cohen. Why miss a chance to show how poorly you think?

Anyway, Cohen, who writes better than the above authors, opens with an interesting observation about the two presidential debates:

Among the words or phrases that were never spoken in the two presidential debates were:

Syria, human rights, drones, democracy, inequality, dictatorship, Israel, Palestine, Middle East, United Nations, World Health Organization, Guantánamo, European Union, Britain, Brexit, France, Italy, Hong Kong, Africa (or any single African state), South America, terrorism, multilateral, authoritarianism, alliance.

That’s a pretty good measure of the shrinking of the American mind.

As noted above, the head shrinking profession must bear some responsibility for this. After all, granting your feelings pride of mental place will ultimately make you stupid.

Perhaps it is too obvious for Cohen's capacious intellect, but the candidates were not choosing the questions at the debates. If the debate commissars decided not to mention foreign policy-- because it might make Trump look good-- the fault does not lie with Trump. 

As I said, Cohen blames Trump. After all, he is a Timesman to the bone:

The shrinking of the American mind involves a kind of numbness. It has become difficult to think or see beyond the noise emanating from the White House. Indignation fatigue has set in. There he goes again. That plaintive whining voice. Without respect for truth, without respect for science, what debate can there be?

And, Joe Biden’s outright lies? Not a word from the great Cohen. I would note an astute observation posted by a commenter on this blog yesterday. Biden comes across as “abrasive, thin-skinned, rude and insulting.” He is also, as we have often noted, indecent, especially in his manhandling of women.

And, let’s not mention, the political party that pretends to represent the thinking class has nominated a candidate who cannot string together two grammatically correct sentences. Holding Joe Biden up as the antidote to the shrunken American mind shows raw political bias. Biden has had brain surgery. He is clearly mentally deficient. 

About that the great Cohen has nothing to say-- no surprise there.

Consider that the American left has been shrieking at Trump every day during his administration. Consider how many of them have harassed, defamed, slandered and abused him-- it takes a special warp of mind to blame Trump for their constant lies. As for who is shrieking contempt, consider which political party has turned senate hearings for court nominees into a cacophony of contempt. In truth, it has always been the Democrats. And, they did not start it during the Trump administration.

As for reconciliation and outreach, the American left has set about to destroy-- to destroy the people it despises, to destroy the cities it controls and to destroy the rule of law. Why is this so? Simply put, the Democratic Party base is comprised of idiots.

In them, I saw the reflection of an American society in which constructive debate is near impossible. Trump has governed through fomenting division and violence. He has almost never risen to themes of reconciliation or outreach. As a result, American debate is reduced to rival tribes shrieking contempt for each other. These tribes forget that nobody ever had their mind changed by being made to feel stupid.

And Cohen closes with some pseudo-intellectual pabulum:

The essence of America is openness. History, geography, immigration and fate have established that. The shrinking of the American mind under Trump therefore amounts, for Americans, to a dangerous denial of themselves. Prolonged for another four years, in a second Trump term, it would negate the American idea, without which, at least for this immigrant, the United States, as conceived, with all its flaws, ceases to be.

One assumes that Cohen thinks that America is constituted by open borders. In truth, no country is constituted by open borders. If it was it would not be a country.

If you would like to hold out a brief glimmer of hope, consider this fact. Among those who have spoken and written most eloquently against the current leftist madness have been writers on the left. Did you notice, that during the Russia collusion hoax and the impeachment fiasco, many of the best commentaries were written by people like Stephen Cohen, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz.

Unfortunately, they are something of a dying breed in American liberalism. But they are all liberal, and they have all maintained their integrity. But they are all on the elderly side-- Cohen recently passed away-- and they can defend themselves against the baying mobs of the new left. They have never stooped to the blame-it-on-Trump hysteria of a Roger Cohen.

Friday, October 23, 2020

The Perils in Equality

Let’s see. Somehow or other the husband of this Reddit writer has gotten the idea that both spouses should contribute equally to the household. This means, they should not contribute sums that are proportional to their incomes, but they should contribute the same each. After all, isn’t that what equal means? And aren't we all in favor of equality?

This is obviously a reductio ab absurdum, a ridiculous conclusion drawn from bad ideas. In today’s world, people have learned that the ultimate indignity for a woman is to be dependent on her husband. She must have her own career, her own income, her own wealth, her own possessions. 

She should be independent and autonomous, fully equal in all senses of the word. I doubt that I could find five people who would dispute this article of secular dogma. 

And yet, when you put it into practice, in a couple where each individual is a self-defined and self-contained human monad, you have a problem. What if the husband makes considerably more money than wife, but refuses to contribute proportionally to the household? Because he believes in equality. For every dollar-- in this case pound-- that he contributes, he wants her to contribute exactly the same.

In truth, this fulfills the terms of the dogma. And yet, in practice the woman is suffering. Wouldn’t you know it-- when feminist fairy tales become reality women suffer.

Anyway, here is the letter that the disgruntled wife has sent to Reddit:

Venting her frustrations, the woman wrote: 'We both earn good salaries in the same industry. He’s been working full time about 10 years longer than I had (grad school) and makes about $100,000 more than I do because he’s more senior at the company. 

'We split all vacations, rent, dinners out, groceries about 50/50. We spend the same amount on each other for holidays, etc. I took pride in it because he complained carrying extra weight for his ex who made way less than him took a toll on him, and I felt proud I could provide more to shared expenses.

'However recently I proposed splitting bills by %. So for example, if we combine incomes and his makes up 80 per cent he covers 80 per cent of expenses and I cover 20 per cent. He said this would be unfair because he busted his butt to get his high salary over many years and why should he be punished for making more? 

'He says he made sacrifices to save and get to this income level (even before we were together), and he and also doesn’t think it’s fair he should have to contribute more than me because I made my choices to go to grad school and I would be earning more if I didn’t.

'He stands to inherit millions while I will inherit nothing so I want to save more for my own financial security and peace of mind. I have decent savings (no debt) but still feel this would be more fair. He says it’s all “our money” anyways, so why does it matter if it’s in his account or my account - I asked him the same thing? So Reddit what’s fair?'

Obviously, most commenters sympathize with the wife. And yet, no one asks how they would divide the family income if she has a baby and decides to stay at home. Should she be forced to go back to work? What if he refuses to pay a disproportionate share of childcare?

I have not read all the comments-- life’s too short-- but clearly defining each spouse in a marriage as a self-contained, self-involved, self-obsessed, independent and autonomous human monad leads to no good.

The Empathy Candidate

As you know, empathy is all the rage. It drips off of everyone’s mouth, like drool. 

The psycho world has embraced it as the ultimate emotional panacea. They believe that good parenting and good neighboring and good job performance all depend on empathy. Heck you don't even have to communicate with anyone-- all you need to do today is to feel their feelings.

If you believe that, you have drunk far too much of the Kool-Aid.

For the counter view, I recommend Paul Bloom’s book: Against Empathy. And take a look at my post on the topic of sadistic empaths.

Bloom has argued persuasively that we should not confuse empathy-- which means, from the Greek root, feeling with-- with compassion-- which means feeling for. You can feel for someone and even come to his aid without feeling his pain.

As you know, Bill Clinton became famous for telling us that he felt our pain. A lot of good that did. Telling someone that you feel their pain is not only absurd-- you can only feel your own pain-- but, considering the proximate political source, you can be assured that telling a woman that you feel her pain is a pick-up line.

We might ask whether Clinton felt Juanita Broaddrick’s pain when he was raping her-- but that would be slightly impertinent.

In today’s political climate, the conventional wisdom, embraced by the most conventional minds, has it that Joe Biden is chock full of empathy while Donald Trump lacks empathy. Now, if only Trump had felt more pain he would have done a better job at dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. And yet, would you also say that the Lord High Executioner of the coronavirus, that would be New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, was lacking in empathy when he sent recovering patients to nursing homes. Thus, causing New York State to lead the nation in coronavirus deaths. All the while, empathetic Andy has written a book proclaiming his great crisis management skills. Some people have no shame whatever.

For the record, the countries which have done the best in dealing with the virus-- mostly those in Asia-- do not have the highest levels of empathy. As one Chinese citizen claimed, China has done well because its people know how to follow rules.

Anyway, we have been told, over and over again, that Joe Biden is chock full of empathy. He feels deep feelings for his son Hunter. We have even seen a picture of Joe hugging his wayward drug-addicted grifter of a son. If it means anything to say that someone's life is a trainwreck, Hunter Biden certainly qualifies.

Naturally, in our thoroughly feminized culture, people love it when they see men showing their feelings, their emotions and their empathy. They thrill to see macho man Joe Biden hug his loser of a son.

And yet-- what if the current presidential election were being decided in terms of parenting skills? 

Which candidate would have the advantage if we were to judge them by their children's lives. If parental and paternal empathy is the standard, doesn’t that imply that we ought to judge Joe Biden on the way his son Hunter’s life has turned out. 

Considering parenting skills, who has turned out better, the Trump children or Hunter Biden?

Keep in mind, Hunter had an affair with his dead brother’s widow. Most decent people mourn the loss of a brother. Hunter saw it as an opportunity to fuck his widow. Why not exploit grief?

Hunter was a crackhead drug addict who parlayed his father’s political position into lucrative business deals. He had no qualifications for any of the jobs he had; he is being investigated for money laundering and even child pornography.

Does he show us what a good thing it is to have an empathetic father? Or does he suggest that empathy is seriously overrated as a parenting and a governing skill?