Obama/FDR

My greatest hope for Obama is that he’ll hit his head really hard or something and suddenly become a conservative and do things right.  But that’s not going to happen.

So, my greatest realistic hope for Obama is that he’ll really mess up the country over the next four years and incite a Carter-Reagan repeat, possibly with Palin being the Reagan equivalent.  This seems pretty likely, if he continues the same way he has been.

However, there’s another likely scenario that I’m terrified of.  What if Obama turns out to be another FDR?  I don’t mean policies and such, we already know he’s more or less the same there.  But what if he’s just as good at deceiving the American people into thinking that the economy continues to be horrible in spite of his efforts as opposed to because of them?  We wouldn’t get four terms of Obama, unless the country falls apart even faster than it is right now, but we might get two terms of Obama followed by two more terms of an Obama-like candidate.  Now that’s scary.  And what’s even scarier?  That we wouldn’t have a WWIII to pull us out this time.  And even scarier?  That we would have a WWIII to pull us out this time.

So, I’m just going to hope for a Carter repeat and pray that someone knocks some sense back into America.

FDR Was One of the Worst Presidents in History

I know what you’re thinking.

• FDR ended the Great Depression.
• FDR advanced the cause of blacks.
• FDR was immensely popular.

For the most part, simply NOT true.

FDR did not end the Great Depression.  Have you ever looked at the simple facts?  The Great Depression started in about 1930 and lasted until about 1940 (not exact, give me specifics if you want).  People blame Hoover for this depression and credit FDR with getting us out, but Hoover was only president for two of these years and FDR was president for eight of them (1932 > ).  Now why do you think that the depression lasted until we entered WWII (which, by the way, is what really saved us, what with the selling war materials and such)?  Because of the New Deal.  Think about it.  The government pays people for “beutification projects” and such stuff.  What does the US get out of this?  Nothing much.  All that’s happening is money being moved around a little.  No revenue is being generated, because those workers aren’t producing anything.  Now, some of the projects did produce some things, like roads and such.  So, the New Deal wasn’t 100% horrible, but neither was it the saving grace that the liberal educators of our country make it out to be.  Pouring money into worthless things like beutification projects and bailing out banks (not the same as what we’re doing now, but similar) prolonged the depression until WWII.

On Wikipedia, you can read about how FDR opposed anti-lynching legislation! Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d think that any friend of the blacks would want to pass legislation preventing their murder.  His reasoning was essentially that he required the support of the lynchers (southern Democrats).  That may very well be true, but anyone with an ounce of decency would be willing to commit political suicide to stop mass murder (*cough* Bush *cough*), provided, of course, that such measures would last.  Now, I’m not saying that FDR was anti-black.  After all, he did pass some equal employment legislation or other, but he was not the champion of blacks that we’re taught he was in history class.  He even opposed integration in the military.

FDR was immensely popular?  True, but see previous post.

Popularity Versus Quality, Presidentially Speaking

You know how the hippies are always saying that Bush was (one of) the worst president(s) ever?  Have you ever asked them why they think that?  They’ll give you a few reasons.

1. The economy tanked on his watch.
2. He invaded Iraq for oil.
3. He’s immensely unpopular.

There might be a few more, but let’s stick with these.

1. The economy tanked as a result of several things.  Bush played his part, but a lot of it (like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) were around since the Clinton era and were his fault only in that he did not eliminate them.  Also, notice how the economy improved when Bush took office.  Never heard much about that, didja?  Also, the economy was fine for the six years when “conservatives” held Congress and tanked after roughly two years of a liberal Congress.  So, obviously, the answer is the most liberal President this country has ever seen.
2. This is just idiocy and I shake my head in disgust every time I hear it.  You don’t have to agree with our invasion of Iraq (I’m not 100% behind it myself).  You don’t have to think Bush did a perfect job of handling that whole thing, but invading for oil?!  Okay, take a look at this.  It’s about a month old, but it’ll do.  In February, 64% of foreign oil came from the top five countries that export oil to us.  That means that 5.9 million barrels per day accounts for 64%. Iraq is number 6, with 554 thousand barrels, which amounts to roughly 6%.  So after roughly eight years of occupying Iraq, it only sends us 6% of our imported oil.  That means that either Bush & Cheney really, really messed up, or that Bush invaded Iraq for less than 6% of our oil (because I think we were already getting some; not sure about that though, correct me if I’m wrong).  If oil was that important to us, I think we’d be invading Canada and Mexico, too, since they collectively account for around a third of our imported oil (and their militaries aren’t all that much better than Iraq.  Bigger, yes, but better?  And some Canadians would probably be happy to be under capitalism again and some Mexicans would probably be glad to be rid of the whole pesky illegal immigration thing.)  Anyway, the idea that we invaded Iraq for oil is absurd.
3. Popularity?  Really?  Guess who won the most one-sided election in history?  George Washington.  Great President.  Guess who won the second most one-sided election in history?  Ronald Reagan.  Great President.  Guess who won the third?  Obama.  Horrible President, so far.  Fourth?  FDR.  Again, horrible President.  Sometimes there is a correlation, sometimes there isn’t, but whether a President is popular or not is nothing to base an argument on how good a President they were on.

Now, a lot of you are probably thinking “FDR wasn’t a horrible President; he was one of the greatest we ever had, why else would he be re-elected three times?” I’m going to put up another post in a minute about that.

End of the World Cheaper Than Expected – Freedom a Dissapointment

So I was reading over the latest IMAO post. In it, Frank refers to a recent article in which scientists predict that the world will end in 2012. He makes a good point.  If we could create our own energy source, we could destroy the Sun before it destroys us and be free of its gravitational pull.  That freedom would probably dissapoint us, though, when we encounter the asteroid belt.

Anyway, I was reading part of the article he linked to, and in the first couple of paragraphs, scientists predict that this Sun-caused catastrophe would cost the U.S. one to two trillion dollars.  I laughed.  And laughed.  And laughed some more.  An apocalypes is going to cost us a mere trillion dollars?!  That’s pocket change compared to the almighty riches of the Obama administration!  I mean, we’ve spent two trillion dollars in the last six months, why not a couple more in four years?  We could just enslave some third world country to pay for it, since no one in the government cares about consequences of actions anymore.

Bible Update – Genesis 1 & 2

Chapter 1 of Genesis has been re-vamped to include verse numbers.  Chapter 2 of Genesis has been added.

Death Penalty & SCAAC Record

It has come to my attention that SCAAC has received thirty-two views today.  Since, so far, SCAAC’s all-time high is thirty-eight, I decided to publish this post in a shameless attempt to break my own record, small as that may be.  And if I can do that at midday on a Wednesday (the record was set on a Friday), I’m just that awesome.  So here goes.

The death penalty is one of the few areas (including foreign policy and drug legalization) where I don’t totally agree with the traditional conservative viewpoint.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully understand the reasoning for the death penalty and don’t really disagree with any of it, but I have two problems with it.  First, our justice system is imperfect.  It’s unlikely that an innocent would be given the death penalty, but the American justice system is a human, and therefore flawed, institution and it is therefore possible.  Second, I don’t see how we have the right to decide who lives or dies.  A murderer is a menace to society, sure, and should be kept away from the public for the remainder of his life, but I don’t know that we have the right to say that he should die.  I’m not saying he (or she) doesn’t deserve it.  As Zo says, someone who kills someone else has forfeited his right to live.  That’s not my question.  He doesn’t have the right to live.  But my question is, do we have the right to kill him?

If all who deserved to be killed were killed, the environmentalists would be thrilled, because humankind would cease to exist.  The apostle Paul would never have preached or written a single Biblical letter.

So basically, my take on the death penalty is similar to my take on torturing terrorists: I would never do it myself (even if I had the stomach for it); I would never condone someone else doing it; but I’m not going to waste much of my energy protecting these sorts of people.  Ultimately, a candidate’s stance on the death penalty would not affect my vote one way or the other unless he and his opponent were nearly identical on everything else.

Oh, and one more thing.  I’ve seen the following on Facebook (Flair) several times:

Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?

The answer?  We don’t, you liberal wuss!  Do we kill a murderer to show people that killing is wrong? No, we kill the murderer to ensure that he never kills anyone again.  This is a common misconception.  Criminals are not incarcerated for their convenience, and they’re not punished (generally) to set an example for others!  They’re punished to deter crime, and nothing more.  1) The criminals are off the street, preventing them from doing more crime.  2) The punishment keeps others from becoming criminals.  We don’t care if the would-be criminals think the crime is wrong or not; we just care that they don’t perpetrate the crime!

So come on, let’s get seven views on this one!

Technical Difficulties

I’ve been having some adware problems with my computer. So, I tried to restore the image last night. That didn’t work, so I’m just going to give Fedora Core another go. While I’m getting stuff up and running, posts will probably be intermittent and communication will be off-and-on. Please bear with me during these technical difficulties.

Bible Update – Matthew 13

Chapter 13 of Matthew has been uploaded under “The Bible”.

Bible Update – Ephesians 4

Having quoted the “unwholesome talk” verse when laying the ground rules for comments, I feel it is necessary to make that easily available.  Chapter 4 of Ephesians has been uploaded under the “The Bible” page.

Other Documents Update – Three Arguments Against Concealed Carry on Campus

I’ve uploaded the newest Other Documents document, Three Arguments Against Concealed Carry on Campus by Jamie Freeze.  Freeze is a columnist for The Carolinian, a student paper from the University of North Carolina – Greensboro.  Three Arguments, along with He’s Got a Gun, were handed out to students of NCSU in brochure format in last week’s Open Holster protest.