There are only two forces. Liberty and coercion.
Lyle
November 4, 2012
Comment to Quote of the day—Rivrdog.
[With the proper viewpoint politics can be very simple.
But as we vote today, for all intents and purposes, we only have a choice between coercion and a lot of coercion.—Joe]
There are lots of things that are true enough in general that one is tempted to claim more extensive application is valid. In general this is harmless and the exceptions to the general rule will be handled appropriately. But in the case of enabling government power to enforce what sounds like a good idea you can end up enabling poor law and even evil. Our “war on drugs” is but one example.
Joe Waldron from the WA-CCW email list and long time lobbyist for for CCRKBA gives us the following example and how it was defeated early and decisively:
Several years ago, a City Attorney from a small town north of Seattle tried to interest legislators in a bill that would make possession of a firearm in a public place, while under the influence of alcohol, an offense in itself. He asked the gun lobby for support. We agreed that alcohol and guns do not mix. So we offered to support the bill… provided that the day it took effect, he would accompany us to every cop bar in town and arrest those in violation.
The bill never got introduced.
I took a bunch of psychology classes in college. They were easy and fun for me. In one class I got extra credit for participating in grad student psych experiments. One such experiment required I take some sort of standard psychological test. I tested as pretty normal except for two characteristics. One was something like “logical versus emotional”. I was way out of the normal range in the direction of “logical”. The other characteristic was “psychological mindedness” or some such thing. On that “axis” I again scored way out of the normal range in direction of being very “psychologically minded”. The grad student that went over my test results with me said the logical was consistent with being an engineering major. But the level of psychological mindedness was usually only found in psych grad students or professional psychologists. I guess that explained why I enjoyed the classes and did well.
With that in mind I find some parts of political campaigns extremely interesting and at the same time disturbing.
The disturbing part has nothing to do with the actual policies of the candidates or that they are exploiting, probably intentionally, certain psychological characteristics that have nothing to do with sound policy. And in fact have been exploited by leaders throughout history to lead their people to disaster and massive genocide against innocent people. Of course those same psychological tools have been used for good as well as evil.
In the following two videos one of the more interesting irrational characteristics is being exploited:
That characteristics is that people tend to go along with the crowd. If large numbers of other people are doing something then there is a strong tendency for others to follow along. People attend political events, sporting events, rock concerts, and many religious events and talk about “the energy” of the crowd. Most people crave this mass excitement and want to be a part of it. In politics the words and the intonation of the speeches are specifically designed (intentionally or not) to stimulate this excitement, to encourage you to participate, and for you to “belong”.
If you remember the 2008 election the media made a big deal about the large number of Obama supporters at the Obama political events. I haven’t noticed that this year. And because I donated some money to the Romney campaign this year I get frequent emails from them. Many of them include pictures of large crowds in support of his campaign. The videos above were just a sample.
I find political events boring. I can sense the “energy” people talk about but the “bandwidth” of the communication is so low that I’m bored. I’d much rather read the politicians policy statements than hear vague words expressed with great excitement interrupted by yelling and applause every few seconds. The “energy” is a source of irritation to me. I get excited by seeing things that work rather than things that excite other people.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t “exploit” this psychological characteristic as well. Besides my personal love of explosives and long range shooting Boomershoot is a means of generating excitement to encourage gun ownership and long range rifle skills. When in front of the camera for Boomershoot I try to emote the enthusiasm that will encourage more participants. I’m not interested in the Boomershoot dinner with a crowd of people but I make it happen, attend, talk to people, and usually say a few things to the crowd because that socialization is extremely important to some people.
This psychological characteristic is just one more reason why we need strict limits on governmental powers. It is not the politician with the best policies that necessarily get chosen. There is some component of policy into the final vote tally but to a large extent it is the politician with the best team of psychologists (whether they realize they are psychologists or not) that can exploit weakness in the human mind for votes, money, and volunteers that will win. And there is a high correlation between those with natural ability in this area and the people who should be kept the greatest distance from political power. Limited government is a means of minimizing the damage done by these people. Both because it reduces the ability of them to do damage and because limited power is less attractive to them in the first place.
And what a policy!
Yes! He would rather have the poor be poorer provided the rich were less rich. That is the liberal policy!
Yes it came out! He didn’t intend it to but it did.
Margaret Thatcher
November 22, 1990
From 1:15 in this video:
[H/T to Phssthpok from this comment.
As pointed out at the end of the video as soon as someone talks about “the gap” between the rich and the poor they have revealed themselves and their true nature.
It was over 20 years a friend of mine, Susan K., told me essentially the same thing as part of a pitch about her love of Ayn Rand’s work. I read Atlas Shrugged years earlier when I was in my late teens. I really liked it but I hadn’t really followed up with her other works. Susan got me started again. Susan’s explanation of the preference of the left for poorer people as long as the gap was less was effective on me but it wasn’t as simple and as forceful as the way Ms. Thatcher expressed it.
For a different and more rigorous approach read Thomas Sowell’s book Black Rednecks and White Liberals or one of his many of his other works. The gist is that a critical item overlooked by those that complain about “the gap” is that different people are in the category of “poor” and “rich” over time. Of course someone in their first job is going to be earning far less than someone who has been working and learning about their area of expertise for 40 years. And over larger time spans it is pointed out there used to be complaints about the “railroad barons” and the super rich oil tycoons and others in steel and automobile industries. Those have been replaced by people in new industries and many of those older industries are essentially dead in this country. And even within an industry those with a seemingly invincible grip in one decade can be struggling or gone the next.
Economics is about the optimal allocation of scarce recourses. Optimal allocation obviously increases the total wealth of society. But what the statists don’t realize, or perhaps don’t want you to know so they can obtain personal power or wealth, is that something much closer to optimal allocation occurs when markets and minds are free rather than when dictated by the central committee with their decisions backed up by guns.
Don’t ever be at a loss for words when someone whines about the rich getting richer. Don’t try to explain that it doesn’t or shouldn’t matter if some people get rich or that it means there is opportunity for others to get rich. Handle it as Ms. Thatcher did. Follow it up by forcefully making the case that if the gap between the rich and the poor is a valid cause for government and/or social action then they will never be satisfied until full equality is achieved. And there are those that admit what they demand is full equality in just those words. But what they cannot seem to comprehend is that full equality can only be approximated by everyone being in extreme poverty. Full equality comes with death. And it should come as no surprise the political left is well acquainted with death on a very large scale.—Joe]
What happened since the 1960s is that capitalism morphed towards socialism by accepting all those rules on enterprise which the gov’t wrote, and socialist governments got used to the capitalist bribes, and learned to relax the rules at the right times to promote “welfare capitalism”.
A third political force, libertarianism, sprang up to replace pure capitalism with it’s property rights-driven theory, and a fourth force, Marxism, arose to inject pure collectivism back into what used to be socialism.
The entire process is like watching clouds form and dissipate over the mountains.
Rivrdog
November 2, 2012
Comment to Capitalism v. Socialism
[I really like the metaphor.—Joe]
If you own stock in a gun manufacturer you might want thank President Obama:
From Chart Of The Day: Sturm, Ruger’s Revenues.
Some people just don’t understand unintended consequences (from October 13, 2008):
Sarah and Jim Brady and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its network of Million Mom March Chapters endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President and Senator Joseph Biden for Vice President today, and urged Americans to vote for them.
From looking at the chart and the date of the Brady Campaign endorsement announcement it’s clear the Brady Campaign causes gun sales.* Lots of gun sales.
*I’m just mocking them. Of course I know correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
I’ve been getting a few quasi-random hits on my post “Why are liberals so violent?” It turns out that if you do a search for “why are liberals so violent” (without the quotes) Google gives my post the number two ranking. Bing gives it number four.
I wish we In the Right could/would stop using the term “capitalism”. It’s a Marxian canard, founded in the notion that what we’re about is a system of belief, rather than free markets, and free commerce, which are the natural, self-organizing systems that arise spontaneously when individuals are left in liberty, each to pursue his own enlightened self interest.
Nor is “socialism” the only evil of the Left. Together, the lot of them all bear a single earmark: they are collectivist in nature and deny the sovereignty of the individual. The rest is just persiflage, allowing leftists to pettifog minor distinctions of no matter or moment, rather than getting to the basic point.
Mark Alger
November 2, 2012
Comment to Capitalism v. Socialism
[A very good point. The problem is, of course, that “free markets and free commerce” is not as succinct. And “Liberty” and “Freedom” are too vague. On the other side I think “collectivist”, “collectivism”, and probably even “statist” and “statism” work adequately.
See also his blog post on this same topic here where he says, “Joe is brilliant”. He forgot to mention that I admire myself for my modesty as well.—Joe]
There are at least two ways to interpret Americans Aged 18-29 Have A More Favorable Response To Socialism Than To Capitalism. One is that the young are inclined toward socialism and as they age they will become more capitalist. The other is that capitalism is on it’s way out and as the current capitalist age out socialism is inevitable.
I’m inclined to believe the first hypothesis is more likely to be true than the latter. One of the reasons is that young socialists have been predicting the imminent collapse of capitalism for decades if not longer. Here is one example:
In the last week of May 1968, a rallying call to the working class to take political power into their hands would have tolled the death knell of capitalism on a world scale.
In rural Idaho at the time, and a bit too young, I was too far removed from ground zero of the socialist movements of the 1960s. But I know people who were near the center of those times and places. They too believed within a few decades capitalism would be dead and buried.
I won’t deny that capitalism is weaker and is more likely to be crushed now than at any other time in the last 50 years, but it is far stronger than its detractors of the 1960s thought it would be at this time. Many of those sympathetic to socialism at that time became more capitalist as they grew older.
Perhaps socialism will temporarily bury capitalism in the next few years or perhaps decades. But I believe the young will continue to mature and become more capitalist as they age. Socialism will succeed only because we grant them power based on their stated intention rather than based on the fruit they bring. And results versus stated intentions are becoming more and more clear with each victory the socialists make.
It is those stated intentions that are so seductive we can almost taste the sweetness of the candy. The candy that is laced, by it’s very socialist nature, with carcinogens. What the socialists don’t really understand, and why I say any burial of capitalism is temporary, is that as the cancer takes hold and destroys a society it destroys the great mass of the socialist advocates at a faster rate than it does the capitalists. The capitalists will move to protect their “capital” whether it is their tangible wealth or the intellectual and physical skills that made them more productive than the socialists to begin with. As the socialists rot from the cancer of their own making the capitalists will be the ones to recover and rise from the ashes of the civilization the socialists destroyed.
I don’t know the time scale. There are just too many variables. The elections next week, as important as they are, are probably a minor player in the big picture. The economic collapse of Western Europe and perhaps Japan and China will play a major role. Add in the price and availability of oil and the possibility of glass pockmarks replacing the cities of Iran and/or Israel and you have such huge variables that making such predictions is impossible.
But I believe that even if it has to be resurrected from the ashes capitalism, particularly the right to property and all that derives from that, will rise because it is a natural law recognized and defended by nearly all animals and even our very young. I’ve talked to avowed Marxists and others who looked me directly in the eyes and said, “What’s wrong with socialism?” Their logic is non-existent, their data is cherry-picked, and their arguments are both fragile and brittle.
They can only succeed through deception and force. And at some level they know that too. This is why they have such violent tendencies. This is why they are genocidal. They can only succeed if they can kill off their intellectual competition. But as they run out of places to loot there is a “little problem” waiting for them. Their final, intended, victims are armed.
It is only as we humans go through the process of maturing in the teenage years that our brains turn to mush and advocate for socialism. Most recover but some do not. It is my belief that socialism is now making it’s final push to kill capitalism and although those with mush for brains might actually succeed in the end mush for brains will always lose to superior firepower.
Mayor Emanuel, like his former boss in the White House, doesn’t have a plan that works. Since he seems unwilling to follow the court’s wishes, and appears unable to lead his city out of despair, perhaps he should just get out of the way and give his citizens a level playing field against violent criminals.
Alan Gottlieb
October 30, 2012
CHICAGO MAYOR SHOULD SHARE BLAME FOR MAYHEM, SAYS CCRKBA
[I take a minor exception to the word “give.” I think it should have been “let.”
And if I were to have my way I would go further than Gottlieb and demand Mayor Emanuel be prosecuted under 18 USC 242. But I’m an extremist who believes those who violate rights protected by the Bill of Rights should be punished.—Joe]
Advertising is expensive, and people are good at tuning it
out. Memes catch on because the are pithy and may be hitting at a core truth.
Music can carry a message, tell a story, or just get into someone ear and buzz
there for a while. To get a message across, to teach, you can use massive repetition, or strike an emotional chord
in someone’s brain to trigger a this is
important signal, or massive repetition. Political advertising goes for the
massive repetition, from both sides. But protest songs are almost almost exclusively
a tool of the left. I think it’s because artists tend to be on that side of the
spectrum. What we (the conservative / right) need are some good protest songs to reach the young and the undecided’s in the middle.
The thought came to me that
“Four dead in Benghazi” sounds an awful lot like “Four dead
in Ohio”
A person could either make the song to Neil Young’s tune,
and change the words appropriately, something like:
Two soldiers and no-one’s coming
We’re abandon, on our own
This winter I’ll hear the piper
Four dead in Benghazi
Gotta get to the annex
Terrorists cut ambassador down
We warned higher ups long ago
If you knew him
And found him dead on the ground
How could you tell us to stand down?
SEALS and marines are ready to go
Jets are fueled on the strip
Targets are all lit up
AC130 overhead being called
On for help
Need some rounds on the ground
Two soldiers and no-one’s coming
We’re abandon, on our own
The winter I hear the piper
Four dead in Benghazi
Or they could make a mocking, sarcastic, satire, something
sung to the tune of “Hero of Canton” from firefly, which was (in the show) a
serious folk song, but to us (the audience) is was hysterical because it
misrepresented the facts and Jayne so badly. For that, something that mocks and ridicules
the entire Obama presidency would be best. Something like:
O, the man they call O! / He robbed from the children / and
he gave to the old! / Stood up to the kings / Then he bowed to the floor!
It could reference many of the different doings, from
fund-raising scandals, “green energy, deficits, no budget, Benghazi, etc.
Know any bored song-smiths?
My brother Doug sent me an email with a link. This gives you a hint of what it is about.
Professional trappers don’t catch fast-breeding and destructive feral pigs using hunting dogs and guns, or in little traps one or two at a time. The wily pigs quickly learn to evade humans after such fleeting contacts. So how do the pros trap entire feral pig herds, eliminating them all, from granddads to piglets, in one go?
They feed them, most generously. They kill them with kindness.
…
The moral of the story: If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Don’t go inside the “free corn” pen, not even when all the doors are open. Free food is as dangerous as the sirens’ song to ancient mariners. It is all too easy to get used to being fed, and then to miss the exits closing one at a time.
I read the entire post and all the comments. Most will stop after the first parable which is probably enough to get the point across. Just to make sure read the second one also.
There is an election coming up, so I thought I’d update my
last prediction.
You can create your own scenario here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html
As I write this, at RealClear FL, NC, VA, CO, NV, IA, WI,
MI, OH, PA, and NH are considered “Toss-up”, and Obama has a solid 201 Electoral
College votes, Romney a solid 191.
I think that the polling data showing a MAJOR shift in party
self-identification from D to R (shifting from about a 5 point D advantage in
2008 to about a 2 point R advantage now), a shift in independent support toward
Romney now giving him a double-digit percentage lead (52% to 39%), greater R
enthusiasm / fear-of-consequences, and the persistently underwater job approval
numbers on Obama will all lead to Romney coming out ahead, beyond the
margin-of-fraud, in FL, NC, VA, CO, NH, and IA, for 267 (two shy of a tie). I think he’ll most likely
also take OH, WI, and NV, giving Romney 301 EC votes. That also means Romney could
afford to lose or have contested any one of those, even for FL, or Ohio AND Wisconsin,
and still have 270+.
If the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy suppresses voting in
Philly significantly, or the Benghazi thing blows up further in the DMC
(Democrat-Media-Complex, aka ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc), he may get PA and MI,
too, for 337 EC votes. I consider this only about one chance in five.
If Benghazi goes politically nuclear in the popular press,
and the political rights’ worst fears are realized and popularized prior to the
election (slim chance, but theoretically possible), then the O implosion loses
OR, MN, and ME2, because so many Dems stayed home rather than vote for their former
hero, giving Romney 355, almost as many as Obama did – which would also mean
that the Rs get a solid lead in the Senate, and keep the House. Maybe as much as a 5% chance, here.
If a lot of Dems stay home in disgust because of the national scene, then McKenna wins in WA state as Gov, but Cant(vote)Well will still win re-election in the Senate, because the R party can’t put forth any good candidates in WA, and the Libs in WA are still clueless as to the importance of senators and Cantwell’s ineffectiveness. If party “turnout” is normal, then it’s too close to call, but I’m afraid Insley will have enough friends counting votes that he’ll pull it out.
Since the left is convinced that you cannot be trusted with a gun, cannot be trusted to educate your own kids, feed your own kids, feed yourself, deal directly with your medical care providers, chose the vehicle you want, run your own business without being told how to do it, hire the right people, chose your own light bulbs, chose the energy sources you want, or keep your own money, et al, why on Earth would it trust you to vote? Why should it?
If the very future of the planet itself is in jeopardy, as is claimed, well then; the left would be “out of its mind” so to speak, to allow any election to go the wrong way if there were anything that could be done, by any means necessary, to fix it.
If we want to go further with this line of thought, we could make the same case. If we’re headed for the cliff due to socialist creep, and there is very little time to make a correction, and since the constitution is no longer a functional barrier to socialist creep, since we’re now a de facto pure democracy seemingly bent on self destruction, then what are OUR options?
No; we don’t need election fraud. The left needs it. All we need is the truth, the light of day, and to find a way to begin restoring and enforcing the constitution. We know that the Republican Party as constituted today will not do that, so we’ve refined the context of the question, but not answered it. What are our options?
As little help as it may be, I can answer that in the negative; One option that we do NOT have is that of trying to make everyone like us. We’ll have to tell it like it is, with malice toward none (and that’s a challenge, isn’t it?) and let the chips fall where they may. Pandering and beating around the bush, being afraid of the bare truth, is what got us in this mess, and it is what defines the Republican Party today.
I want to honor my son, Ty Woods, who responded to the cries for help and voluntarily sacrificed his life to protect the lives of other Americans. In the last few days it has become public knowledge that within minutes of the first bullet being fired the White House knew these heroes would be slaughtered if immediate air support was denied. Apparently, C-130s were ready to respond immediately. In less than an hour, the perimeters could have been secured and American lives could have been saved. After seven hours fighting numerically superior forces, my son’s life was sacrificed because of the White House’s decision. This has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with integrity and honor. My son was a true American hero. We need more heroes today. My son showed moral courage. This is an opportunity for the person or persons who made the decision to sacrifice my son’s life to stand up.
Charles Woods
Father of Tyrone Woods one of the former Navy SEALs killed in the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
October 25, 2012
Joe Biden to Father of Former Navy SEAL Killed in Benghazi: ‘Did Your Son Always Have Balls the Size of Cue Balls?’
[The entire attitude of this administration toward the family of the dead is extremely troubling.
That doesn’t even address what Hillary Clinton said. She said they would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Yet we now know the Whitehouse had a live video feed of the attack and could not have seriously believed it was a riot rather than a planned attacked with mortars. The wounds that killed the SEALs were from mortar shrapnel!
I’m reminded of a book I recently finished, How Do You Kill 11 Million People?: Why the Truth Matters More Than You Think.
Take your blood pressure medication then read the whole thing.—Joe]
Barb L. and I saw the movie Atlas Shrugged II Tuesday night. There were only a few people in the theater. And after the movie I ended up spending a few minutes explaining bits of it to Barb and the three guys who sat behind us. None of them had read the book.
I liked the casting better than what they did for part 1. I liked that many scenes were essentially directly from the book. But I can see that it fails to get across the points essential to appreciating Rand’s message. And reading the book just doesn’t work for many people. I know several people that just couldn’t “get into it”. Whereas son James and I were spellbound by the book. It resonated with us like few books ever have.
Because the movie doesn’t resonate as well as I wish it did I almost think the movie would be better described as a documentary of our future with the script published in 1957. Judged from that standpoint it does amazingly well.
This is sad considering (from here) “Atlas Shrugged is the ‘second most influential book for Americans today’ after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club.”
Another data point to indicate we are winning the gun owner rights battle is that in the 2000 election George Bush was saying, apparently reluctantly, he would sign a permanent ban on “assault weapons” if it was put on his desk and his opponent, Al Gore, wanted the AWB as well as restrictions and licensing of ordinary handguns.
In this election President Obama, apparently reluctantly, said he would like to see an AWB passed and his opponent, Mitt Romney says he doesn’t want any more restrictions on firearms.
Hence today we have the more repressive candidate for President of the United States taking the position of the least repressive candidate of 12 years ago.
Yes, I can see an analogy being made to dungeon prisoners celebrating their ration of gruel being increased by 10%. But it is a measurable improvement and the trend for the foreseeable future continues to be favorable.
I’m trying to clean out the freezer a bit, so the next thing
on the menu for the next few weeks is whatever seems to be on the bottom, back,
or mysteriously wrapped. Last night I pulled out a long package of freezer
paper, and we had cod for dinner tonight. Now, the kids don’t really like fish
(they keep telling us), but they like fish-sticks,
so any time we have fish, regardless of preparation method or species, it’s cut
into fairly regular sized things that could arguably be called “sticks,” and
voila! “Fish-sticks,” we tell them.
Not being inspired particularly by all the words on the
first few recipes I looked at, I did the classic “throw some stuff that seems right
together, and follows the spirit of how to cook that thing.” Beat up two eggs
with some salt and pepper to dredge them in before breading. Dump roughly equal
parts Panko bread crumbs, Progresso garlic seasoned crumbs (finished off both
packages) and corn meal together in a bowl for breading. Put on a frying pan
with a bunch (I’d guess nearly a cup) of left-over French-fry oil, which was
made of roughly equal parts canola oil, peanut oil, and bacon grease, with some
small amount of butter. (They were not really deep fried, but it was definitely
NOT the “minimal fat” version of frying.) Cut the cod fillets into roughly
equal hunks (er, I mean, “sticks”), egged, breaded, fried in hot mixed oil until brown and crispy in
the breading and not quite an easy flake in the meat, flip, fry until brown
& crispy on side #2, and the flake is more white than clear. VERY good. The
bacon grease in the oil really makes a huge difference, and starting with the
fillets only barely thawed (still a bit stiff) meant the outside got a hot
enough to brown without the inside getting overcooked and dry. Fish-sticks. No
matter what’s actually inside, they just need to look a certain way for the kids. In this case, what was inside was every bit as good as they appeared.
So, cooking for kids is sort of like politics.
For a lot of people, what is going on inside, the details, are not important.
Just the outside impressions and appearance is what the decision is based on. I’m
hoping when the kids grow up they really understand that cod, wild sockeye salmon,
halibut, trout, tilapia, farmed Atlantic salmon, and mackerel are really VERY
different fish. I’m also hoping that when they grow up and vote it’s not what
the politician LOOKS like or SOUNDS like that makes a difference, but what the
effects of their POLICIES are and HOW they will be enacted and enforced that is
important. Details matter. As a kid,
I don’t expect them to really know or care that much about the details of their
fish-sticks. As an adult, I DO. I suppose there are some obvious jokes to make
here WRT political parties, but I’ll refrain.
…or “Chum in the Water”
Most of us are familiar with the dangers of pandering to dictators bent on world domination, of the Legacy of Neville Chamberlain, and so on. It’s very simple. Show the enemy that you’re a chump, that it can control you, and you get pounced.
I think that Mitt Romney is probably a very nice guy, trying to do the right things. Doing the right things, and getting people to like you, are however very different, often contradictory, goals.
When he decided he needed to hire him some womens (you know, so people couldn’t accuse him of not hiring enough women, because hiring based on a person’s potential value to the company without regard to sex or race, would be….stupid? Unfair? It wouldn’t please the communists?) he apparently failed to understand that he was throwing chum in the water. Condition white. Sharks cannot resist a little chum. When the feeding frenzy erupted last week then, no one has any excuse for not having predicted it. Sharks have a habit of acting like sharks.
HE HAS BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN!!!! HE HAS BINDERS FULL OF WOMEN!!!! (“What kind of pervert is this guy!?” they don’t say). I wonder if he has (GASP) BINDERS FULL OF BLACK PEOPLE TOO! Oh, the horror– someone trying to hire black people. RACIST!!! He wants to put y’all in BINDERS!
No, Grasshopper; don’t pander to insanity. That way insanity will have nothing on you. You pander to it and it gets encouraged. Evil will try to nudge you into doing stupid things. You’ll want to do them to make it happy, to get along, to take some weight off your shoulders, but it’s always a trick.
So I’m making fun of the evil-crazy, right back, but the important thing is to be able to see it and watch it. It can’t stand the light of day.