Mann to Man

The American Condition Politically, Culturally, Economically

My Photo
Location: Williamsburg, VA, United States

Raised in rural Greenbrier Co. WV, BS Chemistry WVU, PhD Chemistry, GA Tech,Chemistry Faculty, GA Tech, 1965-1969, Dir R&D BASF Fibers 1969-1982,Sr.Exec. R&D, Burlington Industries, 1982-1986,Owner/CEO Mann Industries (formerly BASF fibers)1988-1995, CEO/Owner The Mann Group Consultants, 1987-2009, wife Carol, daughters Leigh, Susan

Sunday, July 29, 2012


I beg all readers to watch each of these links entirely. Ms. Anita Moncrief, the speaker, was a member of ACORN, a liberal who supported Barack Obama. She spoke a few weeks ago here in my town and will do so again in September. She exposed voter fraud that we know existed, and will again this election cycle. However, media will not cover it as Ms. Moncrief exposes their refusal to do so, even preventing their reporters from covering, in 2008. I hope all honest and patriotic Liberals and anyone on the left will watch the entirety, although without doubt, some will refuse to do so. If you want truth, watch both of these links.

Part I II

Friday, July 27, 2012


This post is a response I made to a friend who sent the link at the end of the post. I will write a more complete treatise on the debt issue, but perhaps the information here will be helpful. As always, I invite comment and critique.Please go to the link.

Information in the link below has been around a while and is chilling each time I see it. Unfortunately, he is correct. There are a few points, facts and fallacies that aren't reported. One fallacy is the way government reports total debt and debt-to-GDP (a critical factor in paying it). You may have seen my reports that the real debt-to-GDP is 107% and rising while gov't reports say about 70%. BIG Difference! $5 Trillion of the $15+ Trillion national debt is to the Social Security Trust Fund (owed to ourselves as the gov't sees it). There is no intention to pay this. I've speculated on this for 2-3 years and finally an Obama shill said exactly those words in a debate. So, I consider this proof.... although it is undeniable from other evidence.
Then the question is, Does government intend to pay off the remaining debt? My conclusion is that they cannot possibly intend to pay it with dollars of current value....NO WAY. So, absent a doubling-to-tripling of the economy and tax revenues, which absolutely cannot and will not happen, the only "solution" is to monetize the remaining 2/3rds. Of course, this portends the same for the SS debt if they didn't plan to write it off. In fact, it is essentially written off now....they don't even consider it!! 
Once the asset deflation spiral subsides, we must see a large inflationary spiral. I have thought it would have come by now, but The Fed has held it off and asset devaluation (led by housing) has prevailed. The Fed is out of arrows in their quiver in spite of commentary to the contrary. A Weimar-like event is possible, although I pray it doesn't happen.
I've never bought in to conspiracy theory, but for the first time I am about to think Obama wants a total meltdown. There are definite signs now. The bad news is..... 40% of voters seem not to have a clue or to care.

Thursday, July 19, 2012


AMERICA'S FUTURE: Michael Gerson's column today in The WP "Obama's Strategy Hurts too" is especially poignant to me. He addresses the extreme polarization of America today and concludes that "America is on its way to a disturbing destination, a nation with responsibilities of a super power and politics of a BANANA REPUBLIC. 20 years ago this coming October, as I was leaving VA for a great job in ...NC, I spoke to the Chamber of Commerce about our national condition. I raised many eyebrows when I said, "If we don't correct the trend in our country, in 20-30 years we could be 3rd world-like, BANANA REPUBLIC." In this case, I am sorry to have been prescient. Obama didn't create the condition or start the trend, but he is now the patron saint for the radicals who have been on this course since the '60s. Many say "partisan politics" is the cause... They have it backwards. Partisan divide and political dysfuntion are the results -- 50 years of insidious attack on traditional America and pushback that may have failed forever to squelch it in November 2008.

Friday, July 13, 2012


 Leonard Pitts is a syndicated columnist working out of the Miami Herald. An overwhelming majority of his columns are related to racism and incite more than they inform. Of course, he's an Obama acolyte who has a large megaphone to promote Obama. He's a talented writer with a prejudiced message but, as with too many of the Obama spokespeople, often stretches credibility and truth. The problem, as I see it, is that too many people who do not think for themselves simply buy into the rhetoric and pass it on as gospel. Since going on Facebook, I find this to be prevalent in those of political left persuasion. I no longer refer to them as liberals, an honest and respectable descriptor co-opted by the parasitic Progressives. I'm tired of the claims of "racism" against anyone who rejects Obama and I'm tired of the dishonesty and the mindless reflexive support shown by his acolytes and sycophants. Hence, I am speaking out against such people as Pitts. Below is a piece one of the newspapers who carries his column published for me today. I thank them for their fairness and intellectual integrity in doing so.

To: Editor, The Daily Press
From: Joe A. Mann
Subject: Columnists Leonard Pitts vs. Susan Estrich

Columnists Susan Estrich and Leonard Pitts, both possess excellent writing skills – admirable use of words, continuity of thought, style. And, while they share the philosophy of the political left, therewith their similarities end. Estrich is credible and deserves readership, even from those of us who may differ with her opinions. Pitts is not credible. Sadly, his work can be viewed legitimately as talent wasted, driven by his prejudices. I concluded long ago that without the “race issue,” he would have nothing to write about. His written word can be equated to the race baiting of Sharpton and others. Pitts' recent anti-American column doubled down on his incredibility.

Susan Estrich, in her Daily Press column July 9, used the opening scene in HBO's, “Newsroom,” as exemplary of anti-Americanism in the news, but the comparison with Pitts' recent column cannot be ignored. Both presented “long lists” of reasons America is not a great country. I applaud Estrich for having the courage to express her respect for America. Surely, some will criticize her for doing so – a sign of the times.

I will continue to read Susan Estrich for an honest view that will most often differ from mine. I will never read another Pitts column and will encourage hundreds, even thousands, in my network to do the same.

J. A. Mann
James City County/Williamsburg

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

ECONOMY OF THE '90S -- to counter some dishonest claims of the 2012 campaign

This article published in full in the Virginia Gazette, a Tribune Company, on 01/Nov/2004
It is being posted here as promised to a Facebook conversant, Bobbie Bebber,  on 07/10/2012
It is intended now, as it was in 2004, to put some truth into the dialogue about the economy and what drives it. Next I will post a piece on the 2008 meltdown to try to counter the nonsensical assertions of the so-called "failed policies of the past." Bush policies, of course. Not at all true.
To: Editor, The Virginia Gazette
From: Joe Mann
October 30, 2004

Economic factors of the ‘90s: Part 2

In the presidential campaigns much has been said and written to compare the economy and job creation in the Clinton administration versus that of Bush. Much is misleading and much is just plain wrong. A study of the economy back to the FDR administration is revealing. While space doesn’t permit a complete treatise here, a summary of conditions during the Clinton and Bush years can be informative.

Of the many factors that affect the economy, and hence job creation, oil prices and interest rates are common threads. One or the other, or both, can be found as common denominators in all so-called “business cycles.” Superimposed upon these common factors are extraordinary ones.

Clinton in ’92 and Bush in 2000 took office under vastly different conditions.

The recession of ’91, fueled by the double impact of interest rates that peaked at 9 ¾% (Fed Funds rate) in ’90 and oil prices that shot up from less than $20/barrel to $44 in ’91 during the Persian Gulf war.

By mid-1992 the Federal Reserve drastically reduced the Fed Funds rate to 3% to help halt the recession that they had helped fuel. The rate stayed low until the Fed increased it to 6 ½% in 2000. This rate promoted a long bond inversion that always presages a recession. Investors and economists never bet against interest rates and never doubt an inverted long bond yield curve! The recession of 2001 had started for Bush. Then came the devastating effects of the attacks of 9/11. I will not elaborate on this event.

After the Persian Gulf War, oil prices plummeted to as low as $9/barrel, rising to the mid-teens for many months before leveling at about $20-25/barrel during most of the ‘90s.

A look at how interest rates and oil prices can affect the economy is revealing.

During the Carter administration Fed Funds rates stayed in double digits and peaked to an astronomical 20% in late ’80 and early ’81 – a huge factor in the economic malaise for which the administration became known.

As for oil, Americans consume 20 million barrels per day. The more than $20/barrel increase in price in ’91 took more than $400 million/day out of the general economy and led to higher prices for almost all of what we consume – 40 % of oil usage is for gasoline!

Conversely, when the Gulf War ended oil prices came down by about $30/barrel, effectively putting upwards of $600 million/day back into the pockets of consumers and businesses. Can anyone doubt the economic impact of such a huge swing from an outflow of $400 million/day to an inflow of $600 million/day? A huge benefit to the Clinton administration.

A look at extraordinary effects on the economy of the ‘90s is even more revealing:

Corporate capital expenditures reached unprecedented levels – most of it fueled by the internet craze. And, while the internet has matured and become a vital part of business and personal transactions, it has not supported the huge capital outlay.

Telecoms alone were spending at rates of $60 to $80 billion/year during much the ‘90s, most of it on thousands of miles of high speed fiber optics – for the internet age.
Today, less than 3% of the fiber optic cable is lighted, outfitted and in use. And, the telecom industry is in shambles.

Investments in new internet-oriented businesses poured billions of dollars into the economy – much of it wasted, but it was spent and the economy benefited. IPO’s sprung up on Wall Street like weeds in an untended field. A prominent term in the investing world was “burn rate,” as untested managers spent with reckless abandon. Some of these start-ups have survived, some flourish such as Google, but most have died.

The Y2K effect, a “problem” that proved not to be, was a huge economic factor in the ‘90s that is discussed by no one.
The Gartner Group estimates expenditures on Y2K to be $200 billion direct expenditures in IT (+ $100 Billion in litigation costs) in US businesses and government and up to $600 billion worldwide.
Since the US controls 60% of IT the business, it is legitimate to add to the $200 billion another $200 billion that was spent by foreigners in the US.
Most of the expenditures occurred from 1995 to 2000 according to Dr. Leon Kappelman, chair of the SIM Y2K Working Group.

Corporate fraud became rampant in the ‘90s. The full effect of this is not known, but huge amounts of money made on paper in the ‘90s evaporated by 2000 as fraud was revealed in many companies – WorldCom, Global Crossing, Quest, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Ernst and Young, and more and now Insurance companies. There will be more.

Finally, it is appropriate to point out that the claims by supporters of President Clinton, even by Robert Rubin, that the tax increase of Clinton fueled the ‘90s economy by taking pressure off the bond market is not only counter-intuitive but has been thoroughly debunked with data by many including the Wall Street Journal. To give credit where it is due, I believe Rubin and other experts have backed down from this claim. But, as recently as the Democrat convention, comedienne/activist Jeanene Girafolo espoused it in an interview that included Robert Reich. Reich’s explanation of the ‘90s boom was, “we invested in education and health care which made people more productive – and he is a Berkeley professor!
Further to give credit, there was much that Clinton could have done to damage the economy of the ‘90s, and many in his administration tried – Hillary’s health care proposal for one. But, Clinton did not interfere, as did Carter. He governed as a centrist and that was positive for the economy.

With much misinformation in the public, I felt compelled to give some alternatives that can be backed up with data.

Dr. J. A. Mann, PhD
Williamsburg, VA
October 30,2004

Thursday, July 5, 2012


It is utterly ridiculous for Obama, the media and other Obama sycophants and acolytes to assert that Romney has more campaign funds than Obama!!! Not only does Obama have all of the normal sources such as the 40% who support him reflexively ... without a thought as to what he is actually doing, unions, the trough-feeders such as dependent class, trial lawyers and more, BUT HE HAS THE WHOLE US TREASURY AT HIS DISPOSAL AND HAS USED IT CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE DURATION. AFL-CIO'S TRUMKA IS SHILLING FOR HIM AS I WRITE THIS, WHILE THE NEWS IS REPORTING ABOUT THE UNION OWNING LUXURY RESORTS. Those of us who have been in that arena know how unions operate and what they are now -- Democrat political machines, not protectors of their people. When will people understand the facts? Most never will!
Even more insane is the claim that Obama is better at creating jobs and Romney is the jobs exporter. It is insanely false, but30- 40% will not question it!! We're on the road to perdition and that 40% doesn't care.

That's a subject for a major write.


Your form letter response is not surprising and is reminiscent of the current DOJ's approach to issues, even scandals. Your referencing PolitiFacts is a copout in that, 1. it puppet's the DOJ's position and, 2. it doesn't address my major issue -- "why remove the national "colors" to be replaced by stark black and why remake the website at all? This is but one more case that is emblematic of current government and their supporters attempting to remove all symbolism of "traditional America." This is unacceptable.


Here is the form letter response I got in response to my rather detailed commentary to the DOJ webmaster. I know of one other person who got the same response and I'm sure all questioners will get the same. Why should we expect more from a DOJ that works only for Holder and "his people" (his words) and President Obama? As for me, I'm totally disgusted with these guys, but more disgusted with the voters. At this moment, Obama is giving a speech that is a good one for "organizing" but absolutely not for governing. 

SUDDEN ANNOUNCEMENT: Fox News has cut Obama's speech. They announced that they expected reports on China and some other issue and they were not in the business of "giving free campaign to Obama." It is all this president knows!!! And, 40% of mindless people will support him reflexively...... mostly trough-feeders!!
Thank you for your interest in the Department of Justice website. The department debuted the site’s new design in October 2009 with a focus on making the site easier to use.
The design was inspired by the architecture of the main Depa rtment of Justice building in Washington, DC. For instance, we sampled the limestone from the building to create the site’s main background color. We used architectural photos as headline images to anchor major pages. We incorporated a quote from the building’s façade into the design as well.
All of these design choices were guided by the goal of creating a final design that was modern, while at the same time evoked the tradition, independence and seriousness of purpose of the Justice Department.
Information about the quote may be found here:
We hope you find this article informative and thank you for your interest in the Department of Justice. We welcome your ideas and suggestions on how we can continue to provide you with a superior web experience.
U.S. Department of Justice

Wednesday, July 4, 2012



As we close out the 236th year of America's declared independence, I am compelled to think about the nation's leadership – and how it has changed. America has devolved from a beginning, where the best among the people, those who had done the most for the nation, were sought out to lead them, and rose to do so, to a nation where the best among us do not seek to lead and the least among us, who have done little to nothing for the nation, do – and are elected.

When sought out to be the first president of the United States of America, George Washington asked, “.... have I not done enough for my country.” He met the call and became the father of America, the greatest nation known.
Compare President Washington to the current president who declared that if we'd elect him he would “change America” [transform her into a nation in his image and of his prejudices]. And, he is doing it.


Earlier I posted concerns expressed by many about the changes in the DOJ website. I do not post many items from the web, rather I try to do my own analysis of issues and write my own thoughts. Occasionally, I do post other pieces when I find them credible. Accordingly, I posted a piece regarding the new DOJ website changes. A bit of furor has arisen over the changes. I have studied the issue, and hereby stand by my posting and thank the friend for sending it. From my analysis, I conclude that, while the focus of most has been on the quotation from a questionable philosopher, the real operative issues are why remove the "colors" and why change the site at all. PolitiFacts focused on the wrong issues, as did many of those on the web. Hence, what is legitimately a question of continued destruction of American symbolism is buried in subterfuge of a lesser issue, perhaps not an issue at all. While this may not seem to be a big issue with all of the major ones we have to deal with, it is emblematic of the trend that threatens "traditional America." With these thoughts, I take liberty to post below a letter written to the website manager at DOJ.

Department of Justice
United States of America

This letter is to express profound concern for the changes made to the DOJ website. I have read your explanation and reasoning for changing the website. Frankly, a stretch of credulity is required for thinking people to accept your reasoning. I have also read PolitiFact's explanation of the quotes included therein. While there is valid reason for concern over the chosen quotes, and PolitiFact's rationalization thereof, the operative questions are different.

If the website is to emphasize the jurisprudence system of the United States of America, why not emphasize the essence of British Common Law, which our forefathers wisely chose, over all others such as Napoleonic Law, as the basis of our Constitutional Republic? Why focus, in an operative document, on quotations from philosophers, whose intentions legitimately can be debated, and have been – the basis of objections of some?

Why eliminate the national “colors,” the American flag that symbolizes traditional America, and replace it with stark black symbolizing nothing? I would ask that you simply take this question for its intent and to avoid any impulse to interpret it as having any other purpose. This is legitimately viewed as but one more example of the trend of too many today, including some in current government positions, to eliminate symbolism of “traditional America.” Other examples are: failure to salute the flag and the national anthem, removal of “In God We Trust,” forbidding reciting of the pledge of allegiance, prohibiting display of the American flag in certain situations, and more.

Why revise the website at all? The explanation of doing so to make the site more easily useable requires suspension of analytical thinking and reality given the questionable changes noted herein.

I ask you to consider these questions as legitimate concerns, and to avoid the impulse to shuck them off as “radical” thoughts, all too often the claim when today's government officials are questioned in any way. I'd also suggest that you consider the reality that DOJ is to be questioned justifiably today for many legitimate reasons from avoiding prosecuting voter intimidation to not dealing appropriately with what must be characterized as scandals. The change in the website may not rise to the level of seriousness as these issues, but it is quite serious in the context of the trend to destroy the symbols of “traditional America.” Thank you for your attention.


Dr. J. A. Mann, PhD
Williamsburg, VA