Gandhi vs FDR

Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote
freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how
human beings, be they ever so experienced and
able, can delight in depriving other human beings
of that precious right.

– Mahatma Gandhi

I like this quote. I suppose that one could also say that you can’t have the freedom to succeed unless you also have the freedom to fail.

Now contrast that quote with this quote.

Four freedoms: The first is freedom of speech and
expression – everywhere in the world. The second
is freedom of everyone to worship God in his own
way, everywhere in the world. The third is freedom
from want . . . everywhere in the world. The
fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the

– Franklin D. Roosevelt

This quote implies that you cannot have the fredom to fail… which would conversly mean that you cannot have the freedom to succeed. If you fail in life then your actions will result in wanting. What about freedom from fear? What things are people fearful of? Should I not be fearful of being fired if I don’t do my job? Should I be fearless of taking risk? How can the government free people from emotion?

I believe that FDR is bastardizing the word ‘freedom.’ Freedom, as in liberty, simply means free from obstruction. Look at how he uses the word ‘of’ and the word ‘from.’

Lets see what our founding fathers had to say about the matter.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, I’d very much like not to be free from fear, nor wanting.

SPECIAL PREVIEW Stimulus: A History of Folly

James K. Glassman

March 2009

Before he was sworn in as President, Barack Obama began to lay out his plans for reviving an American economy that, it would later be discovered, had declined 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, its worst performance in 26 years. About the first part of his project, “stimulating” businesses to invest and consumers to consume through government spending and tax remittances, he was forthcoming and enthusiastic. About the second, stabilizing the financial system, he wished to reserve judgment.

He anointed the stimulus proposal with a convenient and vivid metaphor. “We’re going to have to jump start this economy with my economic recovery plan,” he said on January 3. According to the image, one can jolt a dormant economy into action just as one can hook up polarized cables to a car battery, clamp a defibrillator to the chest, or breathe into the ear of a reluctant lover. Suddenly, the object of our attention will be back in action, aroused.

Alas, the questions raised by a proposed stimulus—whether to apply it, what sort it should be, how much it should cost, and when it should begin and end—are far trickier to answer than problems involving dead batteries. And, remarkably enough, history and economic research offer no conclusive answers. The recession that began in 2008 could turn out to be the worst slowdown since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. For three-quarters of a century, economists have been studying it diligently. And even now they cannot come to a definitive conclusion about the cause of that depression, the reasons for its severity and duration, or what cured it. In an introduction to a book of essays on the Great Depression he compiled in 2000, Ben S. Bernanke, then a Princeton professor and now chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, wrote, “Finding an explanation for the worldwide economic collapse of the 1930’s remains a fascinating intellectual challenge.”

Today, of course, the challenge is more than intellectual. Continue reading

Windows 7 (M3) Running On A PC From 2000/2001

I recently downloaded a copy of Windows 7 Milestone 3 (M3). Curiosity had gotten the best of me. This is the same copy of Windows 7 that Microsoft has just passed out at its recent Professional Developers Conference, PDC. At this conference Microsoft demoed the newest update to their UI (or UX as they like to say now) but unfortunately those new features aren’t in this build as they weren’t stable enough to pass out to the public.

So after I downloaded Win7 M3 I wanted to get it installed to play around with it. I had two options.

  1. Microsoft Virtual PC
  2. My old PC I built in 2000/2001.

I figured that since I don’t use my old PC for anything any more I’d see how it would fair. The following are my notes.

Continue reading

Why I Voted ‘Yes’ On Prop. 8

This November 4th in California there is a Proposition on the ballot to reinstate marriage as between on man and one woman. This is Proposition 8. This blog post is my reasons for voting yes on proposition 8.

Here is some history.

In March of 2000 Californians passed Proposition 22 which clarified the California family code that marriage is between one man and one woman. Prop 22 passed with a 61% of the vote. In May of this year the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22 by citing that there was no legitimate basis to discriminate based on sexual preference and declared Proposition 22 unconstitutional. This is a direct assault on our sovereignty and authority as a democratic-republic.

So now we have Proposition 8 which is set to amend the California Constitution to clarify, again, that marriage is specifically between one man and one woman.

I agree with many of the arguments for Prop. 8, however I think many the arguments don’t go far enough to explain why we should keep marriage between man and woman. This is my attempt to explore my reasons for voting yes on 8.

Continue reading

A Liberal Supermajority – WSJ

An article I wanted to share from the Wall Street Journal.

A Liberal Supermajority

A Liberal Supermajority

Get ready for ‘change’ we haven’t seen since 1965, or 1933.

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on. Continue reading

Blame the bubble on FDR, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton

September 30, 2008

Johan Norberg, on his blog, points out the Democratic intervention that caused the financial crisis

SOME milestones in the prehistory of the crisis. 1933: As part of the New Deal, investment banks are stopped from also acting as commercial banks (which would have given them bank deposits and more stability). 1938: As part of the New Deal, president (Franklin D.) Roosevelt creates Fannie Mae and in 1970 Congress creates Freddie Mac. With their implicit government guarantees they can offer cheaper loans and expand until they dominate the American mortgage market. Continue reading