The Roosevelt Legend

In Bulton W. Folsom Jr.’s 2008 book New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America he lists the four points of FDR’s legend:

1. The 1920’s were an economic disaster;
2. The New Deal programs were a corrective to the 1920s, and a step in the right direction;
3. Roosevelt (and the New Deal) were very popular;
4. Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader.

All (except maybe the third point) are bogus.

First, the 1920’s weren’t an economic disaster. Ever heard of the Roaring 20s? The automobile, movie, radio, and chemical industries skyrocketed during the 1920s. Okay, in the beginning of 20’s, the national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% and runaway inflation. President Harding signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 and the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922. He proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding did not live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years. And who was Harding’s predecessor in those early 20s you might ask? Progressive Woodrow Wilson that’s who. So, why do progressive historians believe the first point? Because they say workers back then didn’t have purchasing power. That they saved too much. In other words, it’s those mean-evil businesses oppressing its workers. The same old same old.

Second, The New Deal weren’t corrective and a step in the right direction. According to the New Deal book, the National Recovery Act damaged American businesses by allowing industrialists to collaborate to set the prices of their products, and even the wages and hours that went into making them. In other words, no free-market. So, much for the Left being for the little guy.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act paid farmers not to produce on part of their land. Then, farm prices would be pegged to the purchasing power of farm prices in 1910; finally, millers and processors would pay for much of the cost of the program. What’s more, power would be centralized through the secretary of agriculture, who would set the processing taxes, target the price of many commodities, and tell farmers how much land to remove. A step in the wrong direction it sounds like to me. Another example of gov’t thinks it knows best.

Was FDR popular with the people? Sort of. He was charismatic and charming. People liked his fireside chats. The press put a positive spin on him and his New Deal programs. And oh, yea. The public could drink liquor legally again.

Finally, Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader. Let’s look at that opinion more closely. Putting aside the administrator part (which what is really important to the Left) let’s talk about his “moral” leadership. He bragged (actually lied) to a group of farmers that he wrote the constitution of Haiti and actually ran the country. He not only said this once but multiple times in speeches. FDR used patronage to command the loyalty of Democrat congressmen for his more controversial New Deal programs. He lied about cutting expenses and balancing the budget when he ran for president. 

As for being a good administrator—you make the call. Roosevelt used a "competitive administration" strategy to maximize presidential power at the cost of confusion, delay and inefficiency. He made sure in each policy area that several top officials had overlapping jurisdictions. They would feud and have to bring the problem to FDR, who wanted to make every final decision. For example, in the case of the PWA relief program, the competition over the size of expenditure, the selection of the administrator, and the appointment of staff at the state level, led to delays and to the ultimate weakness of PWA as a recovery instrument. Well, I guess if your definition of a good administrator is “ maximizing power no matter what the costs are” then by that definition FDR was a good administrator.

The Fractal Beauty of Feudalism

"Feudal" is today a pejorative term, but feudalism was in some ways well suited to a time of instability. Like the classic chiefdom, it kept food on the table without relying on a sound currency or on trade with distant peoples. It also kept warriors at the ready. This was especially impressive because, with the ascendancy of armored cavalry (due largely to the coming of the stirrup), equipping warriors got expensive. It was almost as if, today, no soldier could safely set foot on the battlefield without his own personal tank. The solution to this financial challenge—giving knights lordship over chunks of property they could subdivide for the use of peasants—worked well enough. And making each lord a governor of his immediate subordinates (not just peasants, but any other vassals) made for a decentralized government—a handy thing in a time of poor roads, low literacy rates, and other barriers to distant administration.

Perhaps most important, feudalism’s nested structure, its long chain of mutual obligation, gave the system a kind of resilience. Each link in the chain was a simple and direct nonzero-sum relationship; a lord and his vassal both benefited from the deal, and had consecrated this interdependence with ornate oaths of devotion. So if for any reason the bonds at the highest level broke, the lower levels of the hierarchy tended to stay intact out of mutual self-interest. When kingdoms collapsed, they broke up into regional or local polities, not into anarchy. Moreover, because larger units were structurally identical to the smaller units constituting them—mathematicians call this a "fractal," or "self-similar," structure—subsequent reassembly could proceed readily.

Source: NonZero. The Logic of Human Destiny. (2000) by Robert Wright.

Stand Your Ground 101 – Part 3

From US Concealed Carry.com (Aug. 15):

Now, those of us in the carry community learn early on in our training the importance of avoiding conflict, and most of us would likely try to find a way to escape a dangerous situation before using deadly force. So why do we need Stand Your Ground? There are a number of good reasons.

First, without Stand Your Ground (whether in statute or in precedent law within your state), prosecutors routinely, and often egregiously, abuse the concept of retreat, arguing that unless the defendant used every outrageous (and sometimes virtually impossible) option to run, crawl, hide, go through a door, or otherwise escape a situation, they cannot claim self-defense.

Contrary to claims by opponents, Stand Your Ground does not “wipe away” the long-standing principles of self-defense.  A defendant always has to conform to all of the common law rules of self-defense. Obviously, if you provoked the confrontation, or if at some point you came to be seen as the aggressor, or in some other way were found to have violated the standards of deadly force, then Stand Your Ground may not even be applicable, let alone help you. [read more]

In Part 1 of this trilogy the author John Caile talks about what states have Stand Your Ground:

“The following is a list of states that have enacted laws specifically affirming one’s right to stand your ground when defending yourself against a serious imminent threat, with no duty to retreat, so long as you are in a place you have a right to be in. States that have adopted a stand your ground doctrine through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws are not included in this list:

Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.

Then Mr. Caile talks about states with the “castle doctrine.”

As noted above, some states have self-defense laws, either through statute or case law, that are similar to stand your ground laws, but with at least one key difference. These laws generally apply only to the home or other real property (such as an office) and are often referred to as “castle doctrine” or “defense of habitation” laws. These states include:

Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia.

Finally, states that the “duty to retreat” law. I believe you should only retreat if you have to reload. Ha!

The following states impose some form of duty to retreat before deadly self-defense is authorized:

Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

The author, of course, has a part 2 you can read too. In that article he goes into detail about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

Glenn Beck Breaks Down ‘The Anatomy of a Racist’

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 1):

Glenn Beck tackled “the anatomy of a racist” on his television program Thursday, arguing that there are three traits racists usually have in common, regardless of their backgrounds or against whom they discriminate.

He began by putting the issue in the context of today’s issues, saying that before, during, and after the Zimmerman trial “the media sensationalized the story and turned it into a clash of races — but were they trying to report the truth, or were they trying to stir up old animosities?”

“The people who stood by the Constitution and said let’s rationally look at this and let this play out in the courts were called racists,” he said.  “…Tonight I ask the question, Who are the real racists here? And how do we identify them? Is there a pattern to a racist? What is the true anatomy of a racist?” [read more]

These are the characteristics of a racist. Glenn Beck added the fourth:

1) They don’t see people as individuals. They see people as groups only.

2) They are unable to judge a situation fairly or objectively.

3) They seek power by creating conflict and dividing people for personal gain.

4) Racists usually hate the Jews, whether they’re black or white, they’ll unite on their hatred for the Jews.

Now, Glenn didn’t say this but in my opinion the Left definitely has the first and third characteristic. They sometimes have the second.

Now, anyone can be a racist, sexist, classist, lookist, etc. especially if you have the first characteristic. Once you stop seeing people as individuals but as part of a group you have dehumanized them—ie you treat them as an object. After that you can mistreat them, harm them, manipulate them, and control them without feeling guilty. You have become a border-line sociopath. Bureaucracies have a tendency to be sociopathic over time.

GOP can't let loyalty and power trump innovation

From Fox News.com (Aug. 7):

Mitt Romney’s loss last November precipitated acknowledgement within the GOP of the vast “digital divide” between the Democratic and Republican parties, and the role it plays in driving election outcomes.

The GOP’s technological shortfalls have been well documented and widely discussed by pundits and political operatives, including the party’s own leadership. In fact, the RNC’s 2012 post-mortem, the “Growth & Opportunity Project,” identified a lack of “relevant data and analytics” as a primary reason for Republican losses in 2012.

The term “digital divide” is commonly used to describe the technological disparity between the parties, and I, too, use it for consistency’s sake. But what we saw in 2012 was not a divide -- it was a gaping void. Calling it a “divide” wrongly implies equal knowledge and capability.

Republicans have neither, and thus stick with what they know: outdated, expensive, time-intensive polling, accompanied by “spray and pray” television ad campaigns that have lost their effectiveness in recent years due the rise of DVRs and online television. [read more]

I agree with the opinion article. The GOP has to understand that to the DNC winning elections is war to them. They will do anything to win. Now, I am not saying the GOP has to hit below-the-belt but they have to go on the offense. They have to differentiate themselves from the DNC. The voter wants a choice not an echo as someone once said. The GOP has to preach the conservative message and live by it when they are voted in and show why the progressive message is wrong for the country. But to do both the GOP needs knowledge of itself and its opponent.

Yes, the GOP needs to use the technology effectively but it’s still the message that is important. The GOP needs to reach the hearts and mind of the voter.

The reason why China became communistic nation instead of a Judeo-Christian nation is because the missionaries back then did not spread the word out about Jesus. The communists did a better job telling the population about Stalin than the missionaries about Jesus. This is what the communist officer said to the missionary:

“Your missionaries have been in China for over a hundred years, but you have not won China to your cause. You lament the fact that there are uncounted millions who have never heard the name of your God. Nor do they know anything of your Christianity. But we communists have been in China less than 10 years, and there is not a Chinese who does not know….has not heard the name of Stalin…or something of communism….We have filled China with our doctrine.”

Let what the officer said be a lesson to the GOP---spread the word of conservatism.

Giving Till it Hurts: An Interview with Barbara Oakley

From FEE.org  (JULY 29):

The Freeman: When I first saw the term “pathological altruism” it was, for me, as if the two words were like peanut butter and jelly—rather like “enlightened” and “self-interest.” But can you give our readers the basic idea?

Oakley: It’s really the simplest idea around—pathological altruism is merely altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm. Altruism, in other words, isn’t an unmitigated good. In fact, it can have horrific consequences. The old adage “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is all too true. What the concept of pathological altruism does is to put the aphorism’s essence onto scientific footing, so we can examine it more carefully and truly understand its effects.

Altruism arises in large part from our pre-wired sense of empathy for others. We often don’t realize that our empathy can trick us—it can be like an emotional, rather than optical, illusion. You feel a knee-jerk flash of wanting to make someone feel better, and you can end up doing that person a disservice. Whether you give an alcoholic the drink he craves, or a student a high grade she hasn’t earned, or you encourage truly unaffordable home ownership or taking out of student loans that will result in a lifetime of indentured service—all of these actions can feel like they’re helping, but they truly aren’t.

The concept of pathological altruism doesn’t imply that altruism itself is problematic. Instead, this concept illustrates that both empathic emotion and rationality are important in truly attempting to perform an altruistic act. Sometimes the best thing to do to help someone else is not what your knee-jerk empathetic feelings are telling you to do. In a culture where we’ve been increasingly taught—virtually indoctrinated—to “follow our passion” and to believe that empathy is a “universal solvent” that will disentangle all difficulties, pathologies of altruism can flourish. The unwitting result of this kind of altruism is detrimental for everyone.

The Freeman: Do you believe pathological altruism can explain many of the horrors of the twentieth century? If so, why?

Oakley: Philosopher Eric Hoffer wondered, in his book The True Believer, how people could be so caught up in mass movements that lead to so much horror. We need wonder no more. People often become entranced and entrenched in these horrific movements because, at the time, they believe they are helping others. Hitler himself noted that it was when he appealed to people’s best traits—their sense of caring and hope for others—that he had them.

Altruism is truly the best of human characteristics—and simultaneously the source of our worst.

[read more]

When a gov’t forces or puts societal pressure on people to be altruistic  that is wrong. I believe the philosopher Ayn Rand said this.  Helping people out because you want to and because the people need it is fine. But you have to be careful. If you go beyond their need you can screw up their life. Like when countries help other countries that had disasters with food and clothing. If the country doesn’t need the initial help anymore you can screw up their economy. Economist call this “unintended consequences.”

Then there are rulers who do altruistic actions to make themselves look good in the public eye and not necessarily to help out those in need.

Democrat manual: How to lie about gun control

From WND.com (Aug. 9):

Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”

The 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” [read more]

The reason the Left uses an emotional appeal is because it is easy and dramatic. Also, you cannot argue with an emotion appeal. No facts will persuade a person using an emotional appeal.

The example of emotional appeals this manual uses are:

It breaks my heart that every day in our country (state or city) children wake
up worried and frightened about getting shot.

Just imagine the pain that a mother or father feels when their young
child is gunned down.

These reckless laws have gun-toting vigilantes roaming the streets making all
of us less safe in our own neighborhoods.

Basically, the manual is using  a fear appeal. The first two examples are showing how the Left are using children as a prop for their argument. But then again this is nothing new. They always say “let’s do it for the kids” when it comes to most social issues except for abortion. It’s almost a mantra of the Left.

The manual is basically an attack on the NRA. They are the enemy. Here are some examples of what the author’s of the manual thinks of the NRA:

There is a reason why the NRA falls silent at times of high-profile gun violence incidents.  The last thing they want is an American conversation centered on the terrible toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

When talking to base audiences, put responsibility for the stunning lack of common sense in America’s gun laws where it belongs – at the feet of the NRA. For decades, NRA officials, the firearms industry, and their allies on Capitol Hill have waged a relentless effort to gut common sense gun laws and to pass reckless measures that put more people at risk.  This has been matched by an equally vigorous effort to hamper the enforcement of gun laws at every turn.  For example, the NRA has advocated for guns in sensitive places, such as in national parks,  bars, and college campuses,  and for loaded gun carrying without a permit.

And here’s what the manual instructs the user to say about the NRA:

You don’t hear much from the NRA and their allies when violence strikes.  That's because they can't possibly defend their reckless agenda in the face of such terrible human pain and suffering.

The NRA wants powerful, dangerous weapons in every neighborhood. That's not freedom, it's fear.

The NRA officials like to talk about freedom.  Well, how about our right to be free from the gun violence killing our children and ravaging our neighborhoods.

I'll tell you what's really fast and furious here.  The way the NRA and its allies play fast and loose with the facts - and how furious the American people should be that the NRA’s constant attacks on the ATF help gun-runners get away with murder.

Did you notice the third example of powerful language as the manual labels it.  It uses children again as a prop.

White House creates 'nudge squad' to shape behavior

From Fox News.com (July30):

The federal government is hiring what it calls a "Behavioral Insights Team" that will look for ways to subtly influence people's behavior, according to a document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team could make government and society more efficient.

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.

"Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals," reads the government document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply for positions on the team. [read more]

Could make society “more efficient?” Can you say social engineering. I wonder if “more efficient” means making society put people in power who are for social justice,  collective salvation and a “living” constitution? Just wondering.

Hopefully, the team isn’t thinking of putting pleasant orders in the air in neighborhoods while Obama, Hillary, or any other democrat is talking on the TV especially when you are sleeping. Or do the reverse for any republican or conservative.

This insights team is reminiscent of  The Psychohistorians in Isaac Asimov’s 1951 novel Foundation. The Psychohistorians were able to subtly influence people’s behavior psychically. They could also predict human history. A progressive’s wet dream.

This team being created is a power trip for The Left. No doubt about it.

The Martin-Zimmerman Tragedy

I wonder if Trayvon Martin “profiled” Zimmerman? I mean the 911 operator told Martin she thought Zimmerman was a gay guy out to rape Martin. She really should be reprimanded for making such an accusation without proof. Also, maybe Martin saw Zimmerman as a meek and mild person to attack. He wouldn’t fight back. That could be why the race hustlers are going after him like they are. They are basically bullies.

Martin is just a symbol to them. They don’t really care about him. I feel sorry for the Martin and Zimmerman family. I don’t feel sorry for Martin himself. He attacked Zimmerman for no reason. He could have chose not to attack him. Self-control anyone? If he would’ve he would still be alive today. Every action has a consequence. Then again maybe he was on something that affected his thinking.

Some are saying that Zimmerman didn’t have to kill Martin. That Zimmerman’s life wasn’t really in jeopardy. That’s pure speculation. It’s pretty simple in my mind. This is a case of self-defense. Period. Put yourself in Zimmerman’s place. You are walking back to your car. All of a sudden you get attacked from behind. Your head gets smashed against the ground real hard by a younger and stronger person who is saying he is going to kill you. Then the attacker tries to grab your gun. What would you do?

One other thing. If Martin had survived the gun shot would he have been prosecuted for assault and battery? Or even attempted murder? I guess we’ll never know.

Finally, that trial should have never happened. If the situation was the same and it would have been two people of the same race were involved—it probably wouldn’t have gone to trial. The race hustlers wouldn’t have cared. The jury made the right verdict.

Guess Who’s Going to Pay for Congressional Staffers’ Increasing Insurance Premiums?

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 2):

For months we’ve been hearing from both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. terrified that the implementation of Obamacare would decimate their staffs. Some senators and congressmen talked about a serious “brain drain” in Washington when their staff members leave. Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.), who voted for the health care law, said making the law apply to elected officials and their staffers was “simply not fair.” [read more]

So, the Ruling Class doesn’t want their healthcare to be part of Obamacare. What else is knew. For a long time Congress didn’t pay any social security tax.

The Elites never want to be part of anything to do with the Commoners. After all in their eyes they are “special” and too good for those programs. They just make the laws they want everyone else to obey.

In other news, Big Labor doesn’t want to be part of Obamacare either. Figures. If Obamacare is such a mess (which it is) why don’t everybody get exempted from it. Or make it an option for everyone to get exempted from it. Well, that means most everyone (except of course for the far-loopy-Left) would want an exemption.

‘Unprecedented’ Effort Underway to Keep Secrets From Leaking

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 1):

The CIA is polygraphing its operatives on a regular basis in an “unprecedented” effort to prevent Benghazi secrets from leaking out, CNN’s Drew Griffin is reporting, citing unnamed inside sources.

“Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings,” the bombshell report reveals. “The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.”

More from CNN:

• It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
• In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”
• Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

The CIA responded to CNN’s report in a statement, claiming it “enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress,” according to Jake Tapper.

It has also been revealed that as many 35 Americans were in Benghazi on the night of the deadly terror attack, CNN reports, citing anonymous inside sources. As many as seven were wounded and 21 Americans were reportedly working in the building known as the CIA annex. [read more]

Also from the The Blaze.com (Aug. 2):

The Obama administration is “changing names” of the Benghazi survivors and “creating aliases” to keep them hidden from congressional investigators and the American people, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) told Greta Van Susteren on Thursday night. He also said the administration is “dispersing them around the country” to keep them out of sight. [read more]

The Benghazi cover-up gets more and more interesting. Like reading a Brad Thor novel.

Software experts attack cars

From Reuters.com (July 28):

Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek say they will publish detailed blueprints of techniques for attacking critical systems in the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape in a 100-page white paper, following several months of research they conducted with a grant from the U.S. government.

The two "white hats" - hackers who try to uncover software vulnerabilities before criminals can exploit them - will also release the software they built for hacking the cars at the Def Con hacking convention in Las Vegas this week.

They said they devised ways to force a Toyota Prius to brake suddenly at 80 miles an hour, jerk its steering wheel, or accelerate the engine. They also say they can disable the brakes of a Ford Escape traveling at very slow speeds, so that the car keeps moving no matter how hard the driver presses the pedal. [read more]

That’s nice to know. At least ships and planes are safe to use. Then again maybe not: GPS flaw could let terrorists hijack ships, planes.

Well, you can still walk and ride a bike without anxiety, I guess.