Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 30

• If killing Jihadists with drones ticks the Jihadists off and make them want to cause even more terrorism then why the heck did Obama have Bin Laden killed? After all Bin Laden was their leader. Wouldn’t that action really tick them off?
• To the Left group identity is the only identity that is important and relevant.  The Left really need to think outside the group.
• I wonder if Native Americans of the past had people who blamed bows-and-arrows for crime.
• If all of humanity is downloaded to a supercomputer who is going to maintain the supercomputer’s physical structure? I mean someone or some group has to be still in their skin so to speak to make any repairs. You can’t do that bodiless inside a computer.
• If I was a defendant in court, I would be nervous being judged by low-information jurors.
• Creativity requires risk-taking, questioning the status quo, and individuality. A collective therefore cannot be creative.
• A penny saved is a penny taxed.
• I believe there hasn’t been a law in a country where owning a firearm is mandatory. Think about it.
• Truth and reason are optional to the Left especially the far-Left.
• It’s too bad in those Star Trek shows that someone didn’t leave behind the Constitution in an underdeveloped planet. Then again it probably wouldn’t have made a good plot.

An Argument for Truth

Without truth there is only manipulation. In other words, many of our postmodern people suggest there’s a brave new world. Dismantle all these fancy claims to truth and we get down to the fundamental agendas of power. So just strip it all away and we’re in a great state. If our power game is stronger than everyone else’s, we’re in great shape. But what happens if we’re weaker than others? If there’s no truth and truth is dead, and knowledge is only power, then might makes right. The victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall. That of course was what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel were standing against. They did not have the powers but they had truth. Because of truth, they could not and would not be manipulated.

But that’s true not only in the grand cosmic sense, like bringing down the Soviet Union, it is also true in all sorts of other ways, for example, when people have a family member who is a tyrant emotionally. or a boss is extremely controlling, or a professor is thoroughly unfair in his manipulations. Whatever the situation is in human life, the only way to stand is on the basis of truth. Without truth, there is only manipulation.

Without truth there is no freedom. When I was at Oxford, one of the grand old men of the university was Isaiah Berlin, the great Jewish philosopher. And repeatedly I saw him teasing American graduate students. He would say, “You know, in America you come across to England with only half of your freedom,” and they would look at him. He would expound freedom with two dimensions, and said that most Americans only had one dimension (but he said the same to the British too).

In other words, most people, for example, the archetypal teenager, would say that freedom is “freedom from.” The teenager is free from parents, from professors, from the police, from any parental supervision, and thinks that’s free: freedom from. And of course that is a very vital part of freedom, whenever there are tyrants and repressive authorities, becoming free from is a big deal.

Freedom is not just freedom from, it’s freedom for. As Lord Acton, the great Catholic historian, put it, “It’s not just the permission to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.” Real freedom depends on knowing who we are, because we’re most free when we are ourselves. G. K. Chesterton says we can free a tiger from its cage, but we can never tree it from its stripes. Stripes are part and parcel of the tiger. We can free the camel from the zoo, but for heaven’s sake don't free it from its hump. The hump is part and parcel of being a camel.

In other words, we have to discover the truth, the character, the nature of what something is in order for it to be itself and be free. We need to know the truth of what it is, And without truth, there is literally no freedom.

I suggest that many of our fellow citizens do, sort of half-consciously, believe in truth. But in a day when it’s unpopular, and now it’s associated with religious totalitarianism and Osama bin Laden and so on,  people are ashamed to say that they believe in truth, and we need to build back in some of these fundamental arguments for the importance of truth.

Source: Os Guinness, “Time for Truth,” A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Usually when someone is not being himself he is hiding an agenda that involves power. Like a sociopath. Or the gov’t punishes the person for being himself. Or he is an undercover policeman.

Are terrorists setting U.S. wildfires?

From WND.com (Sept. 11):

As the 2013 season of devastating wildfires continues to rage across the American West, the question of arson as a form of major terrorism is again being raised.

Already this year, 35,440 reported fires have burned a total of 3.9 million acres, with a quarter-million acres scorched the iconic Yosemite National Park.

Large blazes continue to burn in several states, with six alive in Idaho, five each in California and Montana, and one each in Alaska, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas and Washington.

The National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, says at this time last year, 45,278 fires had burned 7.9 million acres, and in 2011, there were 55,619 fires devastating 7.2 million acres.

In July 2012, William Scott, a former National Security Agency official and Aviation Week editor, told the American Center for Democracy that terrorists are using fire as a tactical weapon of war.

“Perhaps the most simple form of economic warfare is wild land arson,” Scott said in his “Fire Wars” presentation. “That’s just setting fires in U.S. forests [and] grasslands.”

“For any terrorists that are determined to inflict significant damage with very little investment or risk, fire is an extremely high-leverage weapon of mass effect.”

Scott explained that after U.S. Navy SEALs killed al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, they “captured a treasure trove of material that provided some unprecedented insight into the al-Qaida plans. And one of those was a detailed campaign for starting fires throughout the [American] West.” [read more]

Magic Words and False Gods

Any productive action requires clear thinking on the part of the acting person. This is particularly true of communication. In The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science (1962), Ludwig von Mises remarked that the “worst enemy of clear thinking is the propensity to hypostatize, i.e. to ascribe substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts." 
In other words, there’s no such thing as “society.” 
Mises continues:
Hypostatization is not merely an epistemological fallacy and not only misleads the search for knowledge. In the so-called social sciences it more often than not serves definite political aspirations in claiming for the collective as such a higher dignity than for the individual or even ascribing real existence only to the collective and denying the existence of the individual, calling it a mere abstraction.
The fallacy of hypostatization, however, is not confined to people holding collectivist views. It is also practiced by people who stress the importance of individual liberty.
If the so-called collectivist falls into hypostatization fallacy in using the magic word society (“it's society’s fault”; “society will intervene”) the so-called individualist employs the same fallacy when he uses the magic word market.

When people use the terms “society” and “market” it would seem there is an overarching almighty entity that has a life of its own. This entity is supposed to do everything, to redress any tort, to administer justice, to increase well-being on earth, and lead us to the Promised Land.

Hypostatization should therefore be carefully avoided, because the fallacy is unreal, ambiguous, and divisive. It’s unreal because it is devoid of a proper empirical foundation that could clarify, with a certain exactitude, the features and sphere of reference of the hypostatization. It’s ambiguous because it signifies different things to different people; conflicting meanings could be attributed to the same hypostatization. So clearly it is also divisive. It can be taken up by politicians and demagogues in order to invent fake agents and fake enemies that become the convenient scapegoats of those in power.

One should: Replace sloppy uses of “the market” with the concrete expression people engaged in free exchanges; and then operationalize the expression by measuring the effective level of freedom (accessibility, universality, etc.) on the one hand, or impediments to those concrete exchanges (tariffs, quotas, etc.) on the other—noting any corresponding growth or diminishment in wealth.

Source: Gian Piero De Bellis, “Magic Words and False Gods,” The Freeman, Aug. 29, 2013.

Glenn Beck: Why I Am Against War in Syria

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 9):

I want to address everyone making the opposite argument today than they did 10 years ago:

Why have you switched?

Are you doing it merely because of politics or because of loyalty to Obama? Have you had an honest pivot point?

Too much is at stake to not know or admit the honest answer to this question. You may disagree with me on almost everything I say – that’s fine — but I defy you to look at the facts of Syria and come away concluding this is something America should be engaging in.

War with Syria is suicidal and here are just a few reasons why.

China’s Foreign Minister said American should ‘think thrice’ before acting and exercise ‘extreme caution’ in what is a clear declaration of support for Assad’s regime. Russia has unabashedly come to the aid of Assad by sending a steady stream of weapons and recently they bolstered their naval presence near the Syrian coast with a missile cruiser and a destroyer among other ships. Iran, of course, has vowed to support Syria ‘to the end’ in the face of possibly military strikes from the United States.

Since the Arab Spring the Middle East has come unraveled – something that didn’t seem possible given its already volatile nature. Egypt is on the verge of civil war, Libya is suffering in lawless ruin, and Syria is mired in a deadly civil war that’s killed hundreds of thousands of people. The Assad regime, the radical terrorists fighting against Assad, and the Obama administration itself all admit a limited and measured strike from the United States will neither end the civil war nor change regimes.

So why bother doing it? What is this really all about?  Here are a few of the keys:

-Assad saw what happened in Egypt and Libya and he’s making sure he does not suffer the same fate. He’s a dictator desperately trying to hold onto his power through any means possible.

-Iran doesn’t have many allies around the world, but Syria is one of them. Iran depends on Syria to funnel weapons to terrorist organization Hezbollah, whose main base of operation is in Lebanon. Hezbollah views any threat to the Assad regime as a threat to Palestinians and Lebanon.

-Syria hosts a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean and Russia needs the access to warm water ports or else they are either land locked or ice locked.

-Another major factor is oil & natural gas. Syria is one of the most strategic places for pipelines to flow into Europe. Qatar proposed a massive pipeline that would weave through Syria, but Assad turned that down in 2009 and instead partnered up with Russia and Iran to get the pipeline, which is due to open in 2016.

When questioned about the high cost of the war, Secretary of State John Kerry assured Americans by saying Arab nations have agreed to fund the entire cost of the war. Certainly this isn’t out of the kindness of their hearts or because they enjoy the United States getting militarily involved in Middle Eastern affairs – it’s because there’s a boat load of money at stake. If you want to figure out which side of the Syria conflict a particular nation is on, just figure out if they benefit or are harmed by the ‘Islamic pipeline’ and you’ll likely have your answer. [read more]

In the news:

Sept. 9: Assad’s Dire Warning to American Journalist: ‘Expect’ Retaliation.

Sept. 9: GOP Rep. Reveals Why He Believes the Benghazi Attack and U.S. Policy on Syria Are Likely ‘Intimately Related Issues’.

What is the difference between killing 1,000 people by conventional means like a machine gun and killing them by using chemical gas? I mean the result is the same: They’re dead. I guess being gassed to death could be more painful and slow than being shot to death. A bad death versus a good death you could say. But still you are dead.

If those four embassy people in Benghazi got gassed to death instead of being tortured then killed would Obama have got involved over there? Oh, by the way. If America does attack Syria we better boost security in our embassies. Should do that anyway around Sept. 11.

Elementary Students Taught Gov’t = Your ‘Family’

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 30):

Fourth-grade students in Illinois are learning that “government is like a nation’s family” because it sets rules and takes care of needs such as health care and education.

So says a worksheet for social studies homework that was distributed to students at East Prairie School in Skokie, Ill, complete with a drawing of Uncle Same cradling a baby that represents the citizens.

Students are then prompted to answer 10 questions comparing government and families, including how their family provides for their health care needs and how the government does the same, and what rules families set and what rules government sets.

The worksheet it titled, “What is Government?” and then goes on to answer that question.

“Government is all of the agencies, departments, organizations, groups, individuals in a nation who make, carry out, enforce, and manage conflicts about rules and laws,” the worksheet says. [read more]

So, we went from “It takes a village.” to “It takes the government.” To the Left a natural progression. This is pure indoctrination.

Let’s see now. Can a family tax its members? No. Can a family create money? No. Can a family make war and/or invade another family? It can but it is illegal to do that. But a government can do all the above.

So, what are the functions of a family if gov’t is equivalent to the family?

1. Regulation of sexual & reproduction. Well, I don’t think the Left wants this function since it is against abstinence. It thinks teenagers have no self-control (they are just wild beasts you know) and therefore should use condoms. Not to mention the Left is pro-abortion.
2. Teaching new generations values, norms, attitudes, and beliefs.  When the Left talk about gov’t is equivalent to the family this is what they really mean. But it is their values, norms, attitudes, and beliefs  they want to teach. That way the Left can stay in power by turning out progressive voters.
3. Protection of the young. Except for the fetus gov’t tries to do this but the real family can do it better.
4. Affection. To be affectionate to someone you have to personally know someone. A gov’t can’t have affection for its citizens because it is bureaucratic by nature and there are too many citizens to personally know. If it has any “affection” toward its  citizens it’s only because they “tow the party line” so to speak. Otherwise they are punished.

If a gov’t is a family then why is America not enforcing its border? A family doesn’t let strangers on its land or in its home without permission. Or all the governments of the world one big “happy” family? Hmmm.

Actually, a gov’t can be more like a cult than a family. Then again a cult pretends to be a family to its members.

So, what’s the lesson the kids are learning? Gov’t is more important than your own family. You don’t need your family to take care of you. That’s the gov’t job.

Inside North Korea

North Korean schoolchildren learn grammatical conjugations of past, present, and future by reciting “We killed Americans,” “We are killing American,” “We will kill Americans.” The learn elementary school math with word problems that subtract or divide the number of dead American soldiers to get the solution. Yet, at the same time, since 1964 the school curriculum has made English, not Russian, the mandatory foreign language of study.

Children are taught that Kim Jong-il gave them their clothes, toys, and books, and to love Kim more than they love their parents. They are taught they they can live without their parents but they cannot live without love for and undying loyalty to Kim il-sung.

US Geological Survey assesses N. Korea to have some of the world’s largest untapped reserves of coal, iron ore, limestone, magnesite, and other minerals akin to rare earth reserves (tungsten, molybdenum, and niobium-tantalum.) A Goldman Sachs report estimated the value of N. Korea’s mineral deposits at 140 times the country’s GDP.

Per capita gross national income has contracted from $1,160 in 1990 to $960 in 2009.

N. Korea is one of the world’s biggest counterfeiters of  U. S. currency. N. Korea’s fake $100 bill is so authentic-looking that US law enforcement agencies refer to it as the “supernote,” because it is based on printing technology and a specialized ink that is better than the original bills produced by the US gov’t. N. Korea is also one of the world’s biggest producers of counterfeit cigarettes and medications, including Viagra.

Source: The Impossible State. North Korea, Past and Future (2012) by Victor Cha.

North Korean news headlines:

Aug. 30: Kim Jong-un's Ex-Girlfriend 'Shot by Firing Squad'

Aug. 21:  Prison Camps in North Korea Routinely Torture, UN Inquiry Told

Feb 28, 2012: Expert: North Korea Can Flood World With Fake U.S. Cash

Honesty Pays

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 28):

Four football players from William Paterson University entered a local general store in Wayne, N.J., on Sunday afternoon in search of sunglasses and batteries. The door was open, so they let themselves in and got the items they needed, but there were no store employees to be found.

The four men were then captured on surveillance video…leaving money at the register and waving to the cameras. One of the players even dug through his pockets for change to make sure he paid the right amount in tax.

Marci Lederman, Buddy’s Small Lots store manager, said she was happy to see the football players pass on the opportunity to “ransack” or steal items from her store.

“They picked up a few items, and they left cash on the counter and waved to the cameras. Who does that?” Lederman told Yahoo! News. [read more]

Who does that? Honest people that’s who. In a world where hoodlums break into stores and steal items especially during riots it’s nice to see the youth of America doing the right thing by respecting other people’s private property. 

If you are wondering why there was nobody in the store when the boys entered, it was because the store was closed. The football players thought it was open because the store was half-lit and the front door’s lock wasn’t working.

Syrian rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons

From The Examiner.com (Aug. 30):

In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the rebels told Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has written for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC, they are responsible for the chemical attack last week.

Gavlak is a Middle Eastern journalist who filed the report about the rebels claiming responsibility on the Mint Press News website, which is affiliated with AP.

In that report allegedly the rebels told him the chemical attack was a result of mishandling chemical weapons. [read more]

Yea, Obama better think twice (or even thrice) before attacking Syria.

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.