Many Obama supporters would like to believe that their beloved is favored above all by Americans. Unfortunately for them this is not the case. Obama is the second least popular president in 40 years. These five presidents have rated higher than Obama at the end of the 100 day mark: Ronald Reagan with 67% approval, Jimmy Carter with 63%, George W. Bush with 62% Richard Nixon with 61%, and George H.W. Bush with 58%. Of course we're not hearing to much of this in the liberal media. After propping up this poster boy it would be wrong to actually begin reporting the news. Instead they ignore the facts and pretend that everything is just honky dory.
As The Washington Times explicates, the reason for this low rating is that Obama ran as a moderate, yet he has only governed our country from far left field. The people responsible for allowing this person into our most honored American office should at the very least admit their mistake. Obama was voted into office by claiming he was going to reduce government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. Blame was his biggest weapon. He blamed the economic crisis on the excessive deficit, and at no time did he say that increased deficit spending was the answer.
Although, most believe people rarely learn from their mistakes, one can hope that this mistake will wake people up to the dangers of where our society is moving along. Changes need to be made in the natural order of our thinking. Socialism or Capitalism. We all decide our future.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Gun Control Facts and Fallacies
Talking facts often lead to heated and unfounded debates among those who wish to enforce their lifestyles upon others. Gun control zealots often spout the rhetoric that because England has stricter gun control laws and lower murder rates than The United States, the gun laws obviously are the difference. However, one can easily compare Germany to Switzerland and discover that gun ownership is three times as high in Switzerland, yet the Swiss have a much lower murder rate. This is true in many other countries as well: Israel, New Zealand and Finland, for example. Rural Areas in the United States have higher rates of gun ownership, and lower murder rates. And, for the country as a whole, gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century followed by a decreasing murder rate. Stricter gun laws create more death. This is a simple fact, based upon dozens of empirical studies. These facts are rarely commentated on in the media, however.
The fallacious arguments continue. The media and anti-gun advocates argue guns serve only one purpose, to kill. This is true, but there is also a reason guns are considered “the great equalizer.” Many gun control advocates claim the atrocious shootings of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and more are caused by a lack of gun control laws. Once again this comes in direct conflict with facts and logic. It is gun free zones where American’s are the least safe. All of the following areas were gun free zones where the only person with a gun was the shooter: New York City Pizza shop (employee shot 15 times, two officers killed), The Amish West Nickel Mines School in Pennsylvania (5 children murdered), Columbine (killing 13 and injuring 23), Virginia Tech (32 killed and many injured), and finally Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas where Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp complied with the gun free zone law and placed her gun in her glove compartment before entering the restaurant (23 murdered, 20 injured –Dr. Hupp had to watch her parents being murdered, fully aware her gun was sitting in her glove compartment). These horrific tales are merely the beginning, and if American’s do not begin to understand the concept and morality behind the rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” we shall be doomed to repeat our past mistakes.
But, what about the children? Many people for and against gun laws explain their biggest problem with the debate is the fact that many children die in gun related incidents. To most this sounds like a great reason to ban guns, yet those willing to see facts will understand the illogic. Most children killed by guns are not merely toddlers who happened upon a loaded weapon lying around. The majority of those ‘children’ are members of teenage criminal gangs who purposefully terminate each other. Unfortunately, there are some children who do in fact die by gun related incidents, but fewer than die in bathtubs. I doubt anyone will advocate banning baths, or fire, knives, chairs, swimming pools, electric cords, or the biggest killer of children: vehicles.
Having a gun in the house will increase a family’s chance of being harmed is one of the most popular gun related dogmas. The reasoning behind this idea is that if a criminal breaks in and sees you holding a gun he is more likely to attack. Once again factual research tells us the exact opposite is true. People who have not resisted have gotten hurt twice as often as people who resisted with a firearm. Of course, those who resisted without a firearm got hurt the most.
People who are in favor of gun control laws because they believe stricter laws leads to less gun related deaths are not the problem. These individuals will easily be swayed once they read some facts on the matter. The problem lies with those who advocate and have the power to ignore such facts. Many books and studies have been released and are available to the public, yet the vast majority of people perpetuate the fallacious arguments. Books such as Pointblank by Gary Kleck, Gun and Violence by Joyce Lee Malcolm, and one of the most researched books, More Guns, Less Crimes by John lott; Mr. Lott analyzed 18 years of crime data from all 3,054 U.S. counties, and he discovered that there was nothing more decisive in lowering violent crime rates than the passage of ‘right-to-carry’ gun laws. In Counties with populations of 200,000 or more, the concealed-carry laws lead to an average drop in murder rates of 13 percent. Sadly, these facts are rarely discussed in gun control advocate circles. When John Lott attempted to give some of his initial studies to a gun control advocacy group, she refused. After the book was published, ABC contacted the leader of that group to garner her comments; she said the study was flawed. When Lott later phoned her to ask how she could say the study was flawed when she refused to even look at the study, she hung up. People who base their reasoning on unsound logic must deny all facts or their so-called ‘logic’ will crumble like a house of cards.
The evidence on the other side is just plain silly. One of the most cited studies was done in the New England Journal of Medicine back in ’93. This article claimed that guns in the home increase the risk of violence and death. The way they ‘discovered’ this was based on comparing people who were killed in their homes with a sample of similar people in the general population. Those who were killed at home owned guns more often than the others. This is equivalent to the fallacy of judging hospitals by their death rates. People who go into hospitals are more likely to die than people who don’t go to hospitals. Does this mean hospitals are dangerous? Or could it mean that people who go to hospitals already have health risks? Death rates are higher in world-class medical facilities than in the local county hospital, but the reason for this is people go to those hospitals with worse ailments than those who go to county hospitals. It is just as fallacious to assume that people with guns in their homes were in no more danger initially than those who do not have guns in their homes. Some of these people with guns in their houses were criminals to begin with and were killed by the police.
These facts continue on endlessly. Criminals are more likely to back off if they see a potential victim is carrying a weapon. Many school shootings were stopped by a person with a gun, schools such as: Edinboro, Pa., Appalachian Law School and Peal, Miss. Yet, only 1 percent of news stories pointed out the fact that the killers were stopped by a person with a gun. In one incident (Appalachian Law School in Grundy Va.,) an off duty Sherriff/law student got his gun out of his car and pointed it at the perpetrator who then raised his hands and dropped the gun. Fellow students then tackled the suspect. Upon a search of all the news stories reported it is almost always stated that the gunmen was merely ‘tackled by students,’ with no mention of the sheriff student. The idiocy behind believing a group of students simply ‘tackled’ an armed gunman is too much for words. One last fact worthy of mention is only 12 percent of bad guys purchase firearms from gun stores or pawn shops; according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
2nd Amendment rights are under attack. People here on campus, and all over the world, espouse the belief that we must increase gun control laws. Leaving guns in the hands of civilians is a dangerous undertaking they say. The majority of the population believes in the fallacy that ordinary people are too careless to own guns, and we’d be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals paid by the government. Herein lies our greatest danger. When a government has nothing to fear from its people, its people will be defenseless against their government.
Look to history for proof. The main tool for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South was disarmament. In Florida, patrols would search blacks’ homes for weapons and would confiscate them and punish the owners. In contrast, the North allowed blacks to own guns and they were able to sometimes defend themselves against racial mob violence. There are many atrocities throughout history which showcase the error in allowing government to control all weaponry: Stalin’s mass murders, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name a few. Imagine a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto holding off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with merely a handful of weapons. Then imagine 6 million Jews armed with rifles being herded into cattle cars; not likely.
Fortunately for us, our framers were intelligent enough to embed our right to defend ourselves in our Constitution. It may be hard to believe now that someday our government will force us to comply with their wishes, however, a free people can only make that mistake once. We must never forget the words of one of our greatest fore-fathers Benjamin Franklin when he said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
April 22nd is Exploit the Earth Day
April 22nd should be exploit the Earth Day
Instead of the fanaticism associated with earth day, American’s especially should understand the fundamental need to transform the raw materials of the earth into life supporting/enhancing tools for our future. Environmentalism VS capitalism. These are the two choices open to western civilization, and we may be coming to the inevitable crossroads where only one can continue along its designated path. Unfortunately for human beings, only capitalism is meant for life on earth. The philosophy behind environmentalism is that nature has intrinsic value. In reality this equates to a man-hating ideology where human beings must not infringe on the supposed ‘rights’ of tree shrubs and caribou.
The mentality is anything done in nature is good, and anything done by man is bad. If beavers ravage trees its good because it is done in nature. If solar and sunspot activity effect the temperature of the earth it is good because it occurs in nature. If a virus comes along and wipes out a billion human beings it is lauded as the right thing. Yet, if human beings build oil refineries, dams, coal factories and more, it is condemned as immoral by environmentalism. Many readers may come to the conclusion that this writer is exaggerating and say that ‘they don’t really mean it.’ Don’t be so sure about that. Those who truly listen to the consistent advocates of environmentalism in the public light will come to realize the full determination these communal thinkers have. Philosopher Paul Taylor mentions “the ending of the human epoch on earth,” in his book Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. In David M. Graber’s review of Bill McKibben’s book The End of Nature Mr. Graber explicates the environmentalist view in all its grandiosity “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet… Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” The vernacular used by environmentalists leaves no room for doubt; they advocate an all out condemnation of humankind.
For those wishing to live their lives to the fullest of their capabilities will see themselves hindered in every respect by these so-called lovers of the earth. If a person chooses to ‘respect’ the environment and build a more eco-friendly and efficient form of energy producer, they would most assuredly choose nuclear. However, they would meet every obstacle imaginable by the green movement. Moreover, these greenites choose to ignore all relevant facts and come to their own conclusions when it comes to the environment. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just ruled that C02 is a pollutant, and this ‘pollutant,’ which we are all made of and plants need to live, is condemned and shall be regulated as a pollutant. Sea levels will raise to catastrophic levels is their reasoning. Yet, if one were to do even the most modest amount of investigation it would become very clear this is not the case.
For one there is only a modest net loss in Greenland. Second, 90% of earth’s ice is in Antarctica. This is also where 80% of our fresh water comes from. The assertation that western Antarctica has suffered a loss of ice is very true, but eastern Antarctica is four times as large and getting colder. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic research has issued a report explicating the “significant cooling in recent decades.”
Many such facts can be easily unveiled if one were to be actually interested in the facts. There may be many environmentalist who believe in the green cause because it sounds like a good idea, and “who wouldn’t want to help mother earth?” Unfortunately, they may be unaware of the dire impacts these rulings and regulations may have on our world economy. It will mean many of the things we need to survive will increase in price and scarcity such as: gas, electricity, food, medical treatment, and more. Some may believe that an increase won’t be so bad. The problem is the ripple effects will be much more grandiose than anyone will be able to imagine. When oil reached 150 dollars a gallon this last summer many people were speaking of the dire consequences to the world economy, if we were to reach 200 dollars it could mean total devastation. Our world may not be able to survive the ‘help’ of these environmentalists.
Today, earth day, celebrate not the environmental movement, but celebrate the men and women of the mind. Celebrate those who wish to convert the raw materials around us into our houses, cars, groceries, oil, energy, computers, latte’s, fine dining and more. We should not condemn such people but applaud them for their commendable work in saving and enhancing all of our lives.
Instead of the fanaticism associated with earth day, American’s especially should understand the fundamental need to transform the raw materials of the earth into life supporting/enhancing tools for our future. Environmentalism VS capitalism. These are the two choices open to western civilization, and we may be coming to the inevitable crossroads where only one can continue along its designated path. Unfortunately for human beings, only capitalism is meant for life on earth. The philosophy behind environmentalism is that nature has intrinsic value. In reality this equates to a man-hating ideology where human beings must not infringe on the supposed ‘rights’ of tree shrubs and caribou.
The mentality is anything done in nature is good, and anything done by man is bad. If beavers ravage trees its good because it is done in nature. If solar and sunspot activity effect the temperature of the earth it is good because it occurs in nature. If a virus comes along and wipes out a billion human beings it is lauded as the right thing. Yet, if human beings build oil refineries, dams, coal factories and more, it is condemned as immoral by environmentalism. Many readers may come to the conclusion that this writer is exaggerating and say that ‘they don’t really mean it.’ Don’t be so sure about that. Those who truly listen to the consistent advocates of environmentalism in the public light will come to realize the full determination these communal thinkers have. Philosopher Paul Taylor mentions “the ending of the human epoch on earth,” in his book Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. In David M. Graber’s review of Bill McKibben’s book The End of Nature Mr. Graber explicates the environmentalist view in all its grandiosity “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet… Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” The vernacular used by environmentalists leaves no room for doubt; they advocate an all out condemnation of humankind.
For those wishing to live their lives to the fullest of their capabilities will see themselves hindered in every respect by these so-called lovers of the earth. If a person chooses to ‘respect’ the environment and build a more eco-friendly and efficient form of energy producer, they would most assuredly choose nuclear. However, they would meet every obstacle imaginable by the green movement. Moreover, these greenites choose to ignore all relevant facts and come to their own conclusions when it comes to the environment. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just ruled that C02 is a pollutant, and this ‘pollutant,’ which we are all made of and plants need to live, is condemned and shall be regulated as a pollutant. Sea levels will raise to catastrophic levels is their reasoning. Yet, if one were to do even the most modest amount of investigation it would become very clear this is not the case.
For one there is only a modest net loss in Greenland. Second, 90% of earth’s ice is in Antarctica. This is also where 80% of our fresh water comes from. The assertation that western Antarctica has suffered a loss of ice is very true, but eastern Antarctica is four times as large and getting colder. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic research has issued a report explicating the “significant cooling in recent decades.”
Many such facts can be easily unveiled if one were to be actually interested in the facts. There may be many environmentalist who believe in the green cause because it sounds like a good idea, and “who wouldn’t want to help mother earth?” Unfortunately, they may be unaware of the dire impacts these rulings and regulations may have on our world economy. It will mean many of the things we need to survive will increase in price and scarcity such as: gas, electricity, food, medical treatment, and more. Some may believe that an increase won’t be so bad. The problem is the ripple effects will be much more grandiose than anyone will be able to imagine. When oil reached 150 dollars a gallon this last summer many people were speaking of the dire consequences to the world economy, if we were to reach 200 dollars it could mean total devastation. Our world may not be able to survive the ‘help’ of these environmentalists.
Today, earth day, celebrate not the environmental movement, but celebrate the men and women of the mind. Celebrate those who wish to convert the raw materials around us into our houses, cars, groceries, oil, energy, computers, latte’s, fine dining and more. We should not condemn such people but applaud them for their commendable work in saving and enhancing all of our lives.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles (A review)
Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles
By, Ari Armstrong
With over 400 million sales and having been translated into 67 languages, and making the author –J.K. Rowling – the first person to ever become a billionaire from book sales, the Harry Potter series has been a fantastic success. Fans enjoy the series for a vast assortment of reasons; ranging from simply finding a new realm in the fantasy genre, to the underlying philosophical premises presented in the novels. Over, 50 books have been written on the boy wizard. Many of these espouse the obvious religious morality of Harry potter. John Grangers’ Finding God in Harry Potter, and many other books seem to merely discuss Harry Potters’ morality from a religious standpoint. In a book entitled What’s A Christian To do with Harry Potter?, author Connie Neal says “If you are firmly set against Harry Potter, I won’t try to dissuade you, as that is one biblically viable position.” Fans desiring something more seem to have nowhere to go. These books shower their viewers with allegories of Christ, sacrifice for others, the afterlife and more. Yet, upon reading the books, these allegations don’t seem to match up. What does Harry really seek in his life? It doesn’t seem clear that he wishes to live his life as an altruistic Christian. After all, it is a Christian’s duty to turn the other cheek to evildoers. For example, Mathew 5:39 “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” The philosophy of Harry is diametrically opposed to this. The Harry books are filled with opportunities for him to ‘turn the other way,’ yet he never does. The reason is the idea of altruistically sacrificing ourselves to anyone and everyone is simply not as prevalent in Harry Potter as many would like to believe.
Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles a book written by Harry Potter fan Ari Armstrong argues that the real theme of the series is the “heroic, courageous fight for values.” Rowling’s works not only renewed literacy in young people, but more importantly, renewed a sense of moral literacy. As Ari writes, “Adopting the virtues portrayed by the heroes of Harry Potter can make you a better person.” Ari makes it clear throughout his book what morals he speaks of. As he elucidates, the morality of the Potter series does not promote sacrificing life on earth, but instead supports the notion of living life fully.
In his first chapter, Ari clearly covers each value the characters embody-heroes and villains alike. If we are to understand why Harry’s morality is the correct one, we must contrast it with an incorrect one, namely that of Voldemort the antagonist in the Potter series. Values presents the real case against Voldemort: He isn’t evil because he was predisposed to be; it wasn’t some innate biological malfunction. It was a clear and conscious decision on his part to lead a life in which he has no true values.
Chapter two covers the independence of the characters throughout the story. Here Ari brings us a grand explanation of the difference between living first handedly and second handedly through others; or, as Ayn Rand made famous in her book The Fountainhead, the parasite vs. the primary movers. Although, Harry may not be a true primary mover in the sense of a Howard Roark, or Albus Dumbledore, by living his life for himself and based off of his own independent thinking, Harry is able to continuously lead a good and noble life. Here we learn how a simple book series designed for teens can show us all how to live proper lives.
On September 30th, 2008 Ari was invited to 9 News in order to explain how the Harry Potter series could teach politicians and leaders in general, how to act. He Includes such advice from the books as: “Do the right thing even when it’s difficult,” “Government is not always the answer,” and among others “Don’t cling to power.” Masterfully, Ari uses stories from the books to explicate the importance of morality in our lives.
In arguably one of the more important chapters of the book Values, chapter three discusses free will. By comparing individuals in the Potter series who grew up in good, bad and horrible situations, and their subsequent rise – or fall – Ari showcases to his readers that ‘it matters not what someone is born.” It is beneficial to anyone born in any circumstance anywhere in the world to comprehend that our future is determined by our choices. As Dumbledore points out to Harry in his second year, “it is not our abilities that determine who we are, but our choices.” Ari seems to argue that the philosophy of choice appears to be the most dominant theme Rowling chooses to explore.
In part two of Ari’s book he dives into a more literal and moral criticism. Chapter four “The Clash of Love and Sacrifice,” Ari points out many inferences people have in regards to Harry’s likeness to Jesus. In comparing Harry to the philosophy of Christianity and contrasting that idea with the philosophy of Aristotle and Ayn Rand, Ari gives sufficient evidence to some of the problems inherent in Rowling’s premises. Ari makes it clear that Harry does not act consistently in a self sacrificial manner throughout the books and, in fact, acts egoistical.
In the chapter entitled, “Materialism and Immortality,” Ari discusses such ideas as ‘materialism and the pathological fear of death,’ and ‘supernaturalism and death.’ Ari mentions the flaws in such thinking and how Rowling again mixes some of her premises. He also points to Rowling’s more prevalent Christian ideals being construed in an apologetic manner.
In the end, we must put down the last Harry Potter book and remember that the boy wizard and his friends are not real, yet the imagined work of a single mom. However, as in all great works of art, we can be left with a singular vision of the books impacts upon our lives. Works of art may show us we are going down a path not best suited to our true desires. It may teach us, make us laugh, cry, and change. Although, Potter isn’t real he can teach us all how to love better, enjoy a great conversation, and compete in our favorite sports. Most importantly the books can teach us how to attain the values best suited to each and every one of our lives. Ari Armstrong shows us that, through Harry, we can learn life isn’t just what is; but what can and ought to be.
If you would like to purchase Ari Armstrong's book Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles it is for sale on Amazon.com for 12.95, click HERE to purchase
By, Ari Armstrong
With over 400 million sales and having been translated into 67 languages, and making the author –J.K. Rowling – the first person to ever become a billionaire from book sales, the Harry Potter series has been a fantastic success. Fans enjoy the series for a vast assortment of reasons; ranging from simply finding a new realm in the fantasy genre, to the underlying philosophical premises presented in the novels. Over, 50 books have been written on the boy wizard. Many of these espouse the obvious religious morality of Harry potter. John Grangers’ Finding God in Harry Potter, and many other books seem to merely discuss Harry Potters’ morality from a religious standpoint. In a book entitled What’s A Christian To do with Harry Potter?, author Connie Neal says “If you are firmly set against Harry Potter, I won’t try to dissuade you, as that is one biblically viable position.” Fans desiring something more seem to have nowhere to go. These books shower their viewers with allegories of Christ, sacrifice for others, the afterlife and more. Yet, upon reading the books, these allegations don’t seem to match up. What does Harry really seek in his life? It doesn’t seem clear that he wishes to live his life as an altruistic Christian. After all, it is a Christian’s duty to turn the other cheek to evildoers. For example, Mathew 5:39 “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” The philosophy of Harry is diametrically opposed to this. The Harry books are filled with opportunities for him to ‘turn the other way,’ yet he never does. The reason is the idea of altruistically sacrificing ourselves to anyone and everyone is simply not as prevalent in Harry Potter as many would like to believe.
Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles a book written by Harry Potter fan Ari Armstrong argues that the real theme of the series is the “heroic, courageous fight for values.” Rowling’s works not only renewed literacy in young people, but more importantly, renewed a sense of moral literacy. As Ari writes, “Adopting the virtues portrayed by the heroes of Harry Potter can make you a better person.” Ari makes it clear throughout his book what morals he speaks of. As he elucidates, the morality of the Potter series does not promote sacrificing life on earth, but instead supports the notion of living life fully.
In his first chapter, Ari clearly covers each value the characters embody-heroes and villains alike. If we are to understand why Harry’s morality is the correct one, we must contrast it with an incorrect one, namely that of Voldemort the antagonist in the Potter series. Values presents the real case against Voldemort: He isn’t evil because he was predisposed to be; it wasn’t some innate biological malfunction. It was a clear and conscious decision on his part to lead a life in which he has no true values.
Chapter two covers the independence of the characters throughout the story. Here Ari brings us a grand explanation of the difference between living first handedly and second handedly through others; or, as Ayn Rand made famous in her book The Fountainhead, the parasite vs. the primary movers. Although, Harry may not be a true primary mover in the sense of a Howard Roark, or Albus Dumbledore, by living his life for himself and based off of his own independent thinking, Harry is able to continuously lead a good and noble life. Here we learn how a simple book series designed for teens can show us all how to live proper lives.
On September 30th, 2008 Ari was invited to 9 News in order to explain how the Harry Potter series could teach politicians and leaders in general, how to act. He Includes such advice from the books as: “Do the right thing even when it’s difficult,” “Government is not always the answer,” and among others “Don’t cling to power.” Masterfully, Ari uses stories from the books to explicate the importance of morality in our lives.
In arguably one of the more important chapters of the book Values, chapter three discusses free will. By comparing individuals in the Potter series who grew up in good, bad and horrible situations, and their subsequent rise – or fall – Ari showcases to his readers that ‘it matters not what someone is born.” It is beneficial to anyone born in any circumstance anywhere in the world to comprehend that our future is determined by our choices. As Dumbledore points out to Harry in his second year, “it is not our abilities that determine who we are, but our choices.” Ari seems to argue that the philosophy of choice appears to be the most dominant theme Rowling chooses to explore.
In part two of Ari’s book he dives into a more literal and moral criticism. Chapter four “The Clash of Love and Sacrifice,” Ari points out many inferences people have in regards to Harry’s likeness to Jesus. In comparing Harry to the philosophy of Christianity and contrasting that idea with the philosophy of Aristotle and Ayn Rand, Ari gives sufficient evidence to some of the problems inherent in Rowling’s premises. Ari makes it clear that Harry does not act consistently in a self sacrificial manner throughout the books and, in fact, acts egoistical.
In the chapter entitled, “Materialism and Immortality,” Ari discusses such ideas as ‘materialism and the pathological fear of death,’ and ‘supernaturalism and death.’ Ari mentions the flaws in such thinking and how Rowling again mixes some of her premises. He also points to Rowling’s more prevalent Christian ideals being construed in an apologetic manner.
In the end, we must put down the last Harry Potter book and remember that the boy wizard and his friends are not real, yet the imagined work of a single mom. However, as in all great works of art, we can be left with a singular vision of the books impacts upon our lives. Works of art may show us we are going down a path not best suited to our true desires. It may teach us, make us laugh, cry, and change. Although, Potter isn’t real he can teach us all how to love better, enjoy a great conversation, and compete in our favorite sports. Most importantly the books can teach us how to attain the values best suited to each and every one of our lives. Ari Armstrong shows us that, through Harry, we can learn life isn’t just what is; but what can and ought to be.
If you would like to purchase Ari Armstrong's book Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles it is for sale on Amazon.com for 12.95, click HERE to purchase
Sunday, April 5, 2009
OIL VS Alternative Energy
Many claims are made by politicians, however most people would agree that very few are actually upheld. A lot of what a politician says, especially during an election period, is what people want to hear. This all makes sense from a politician’s standpoint, given their incentives and restraints. However, it is very dangerous to continue to take any politician just on their word. Studies and facts need to be taken into account. For example, a politician who proclaims they will bring down our dependency on foreign oil, while at the same time fight global warming by curbing c02 emissions, must change their stance when facts and reality will not coincide with such claims. The question we must ask ourselves is how a politician could possibly accomplish such a feat and how this agenda affects each of us.
On one hand, if we are attempting to decrease our foreign oil dependency it makes sense to increase America’s refining and drilling capabilities. This is not very plausible given the incentives and constraints which are given to American explorers and refiners of oil. So the solution for a politician is rather complex. A politician will have a hard time convincing extremist environmentalists, and many in the general public, that freeing up the energy market would actually create an increase of America’s energy supply and drop the price of gas and other products affected by oil. What a politician does instead of this is go for the oldest and most trusted of allies, blame. Pointing fingers at all the people who seem to be villains by merit of their actions, such as the greed of corporate CEOs. Politicians claim that while these companies are getting rich the constituents of a particular politician are being hit where it hurts them the most, their pocket books. Politicians point fingers at these CEOs and exclaim that these companies’ profits are too extreme to be mere ‘economics.’ In their minds, Americans having to pay ever increasing amounts of money at the pump, while oil companies make record breaking profits is simply unacceptable.
Many will claim that we must invest in alternative energy. While there is nothing wrong with individuals spending their own time and effort on a new type of energy, it is highly immoral to make taxpayers pick up a bill for someone’s political agenda. Many people claim this is the best way to secure our future. It is praiseworthy for those who wish to invent new ways to convert nature’s resources into energy. However, it is not praiseworthy to spend billions of dollars on futile endeavors not worth their weight in paper. The idea that crippling oil companies and forcing alternative energy to the forefront of our current economy is reminiscent of the broken window fallacy made famous in Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. The fallacy is when one claims that by the destruction of property, we actually create wealth. Its claim is that if a hoodlum were to throw a rock and break the window of a baker, it is not a bad thing, because now the baker, upon replacing his window for one hundred dollars will allow the man fixing his window to buy a new suit, which will give money to the tailor and so on. The fallacy is that the shopkeeper must now spend his hundred dollars on a new window, instead of on new shoes for himself, or new equipment (capital) to help his business. This misallocation of resources is the fallacy. And, it is no different than allowing the government to hinder oil companies from doing their job, while at the same time, giving millions or billions in subsidies to alternative energy advocates. We are simply rerouting precious resources. Confiscating hard earned money from taxpayers and handing the money to whomever has the most political pull at that moment.
An oil company is like any other company. It provides a product to a customer and asks for money in return; trading value for value. There is no gun involved. Therefore, there is no force. Men and women are free to purchase the product or not. There is no denying our need for energy, as individuals and as a society. The discovery and subsequent success of oil is due to its value to each of us as individuals, not because the company forced people to buy its product.
The claim that oil companies are cartels or monopolies is also a myth. The idea here is that these oil companies collude with each other to force us to purchase their products and force out any competition. The basis for this argument is that capitalism will inevitably lead to collusion or monopoly of some sort. Oil companies, like any individual, act in a self interested manner. If an oil executive decides it is in his best interest to collude with other oil companies in order to increase the demand for their product, it is their right to do so. The oil executive will soon discover, however, why such endeavors have failed throughout the history of capitalism.
The failure will begin simply. As all the oil companies in collusion raise prices above market level, some of the colluders will realize the opportunity for undercutting their fellow conspirators and making a profit. Once again, greed comes to the rescue. Each company will realize the opportunity and work to seize it. Businesses do not make money by simply raising prices; they make money by lowering prices, making the product available to more people, and by increasing output, quality and more. To understand this more just simply look to history. Standard Oil was accused of price collusion, predatory pricing and much more. The facts tell another story however. In 1869 the price of kerosene was 30 cents a gallon, and 28 years later the price decreased to 5.9 cents. People paying 30 cents in 1869 probably did not complain as prices began regularly dropping. Another classic example in more recent history is the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA). This company was able to gain and hold an actual monopoly. Did they raise prices? No. In fact, it lowered its prices dramatically. ALCOA was the only producer of ‘primary’ aluminum in America (there were foreign competitors). In 1887, aluminum was 5 dollars a pound and by 1941 it was 15 cents a pound. The reason ALCOA would drop prices when they had a monopoly, rather than increase, is simple; substitutions. ALCOA knew that if they were to raise prices their customers would simply purchase substitutes such as wood.
In a free market, would people have alternatives to oil if oil became a monopoly? Yes. If the market was free and open, and oil companies began to collude to increase prices, people would begin looking into alternative forms of energy. They would not need government to confiscate money from the population and feed it to alternative energy, because people would be motivated by profit. As prices rose above market level, investors would shift their money from oil to alternative energy, thusly creating true wealth. Economic fact: money flows to its most valued uses.
Although this scenario is possible it is actually unlikely. Oil companies would not increase prices, as ALCOA did not raise prices, because they know economics: raising prices above market level will bring in more competition that will drive down price. By freeing the oil companies, we would solve all problems. Oil companies would compete with one another by reducing prices and increasing quality. The end product would eventually be a cheaper and cleaner burning fuel.
These facts don’t stop oil executives from being attacked for making a profit. During this previous summer when the price of gas rose to 4 dollars a gallon, senators dragged oil executives to Capitol Hill in order to investigate ‘bad’ business practices. Senator Patrick Leahy claimed they wanted to identify the causes of the rising prices of oil. The problem was oil executives were not in charge of the price of oil, the market was, as is determined by supply and demand. Notice these executives were condemned for making large profits during this time and considered greedy and evil, but also notice that as prices dropped to almost 1 dollar a gallon across the country, there was no congressional hearing to praise these individuals for their hard work; nor, was there much in the media about the benevolence of these executives. This makes sense given politicians’ and the media’s incentives to be elected and receive high ratings. For nothing gets officials elected faster – or higher ratings - than enormous problems in our country.
So, what does the government do to help the problem? Create more problems. Refining and distributing oil involves millions of interactions. The government impedes these interactions every step of the way. I will very briefly outline three major aspects of oil and how government interferes.
DRILLING
America has large sections of its underground oil off limits to oil explorers, such as the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve and our coasts. This causes the U.S. to have to purchase more of its oil from outside of the country. If these sections were to be freed up to allow for oil exploration there would be a larger supply of world oil to help with the ever increasing global demand. This past summer saw huge profits for oil companies. These profits did not go directly into the executive’s pockets. The vast majority was reinvested into the oil industry. These oil companies were able to purchase new drilling equipment and more efficient rigs to transport their product more safely, among other investments.
REFINING
There have not been any new refineries built in America in over three decades. Inevitably, this causes much inefficiency in the older refineries still in existence. The reason for these inefficiencies is that the government has passed so many environmental laws, thereby making new refineries uneconomical, leading to the extinction of many old refineries. From 1990 to 2004, 50 out of 194 refineries were shut down. These regulations have caused the current refineries to produce at full capacity, due to high demand. This limits the contingency for catastrophe. Which make it nearly impossible to shift from one oil sector to another. When the government interferes with supply and demand the result is always the same. The oil companies are then unable to offset certain sectors during a time of crisis, the net effect is a spike in price. As full producing refineries are shut down due to unforeseen externalities, the only way supply and demand can correct themselves is through an increase in the price of oil.
Another unfortunate byproduct of a government that creates restraints (rather than incentives to build new refineries) is that there has been an overall decline in the actual capacity refineries can handle. While capacity has declined demand has increased. What this all equates to is a country that has less ability to create more supply as demand increases. When any problems occur where more oil is needed, we must turn to foreign supply.
DEMAND
As China and India have grown exponentially, it is obvious that global demand for oil will increase accordingly. As companies begin to adjust to the new demand, the price of oil will increase. In a free market, oil companies will simply increase output to make a higher profit by decreasing prices and meeting the new demand. In a market that is shackled by government, meeting consumer needs is much harder than in a free market.
Fortunately, American consumers are making smarter choices. For the first time in decades, trucks have lost their spot as the number one vehicle sold in America. This will trigger a decrease in oil consumption at home.
Profits allow oil companies to reinvest in the drilling and refining of oil, so long as the government doesn’t get in their way. Oil Companies receive a bad rap whenever something unwanted happens in the economy. However, the fact remains that American oil companies remain the most efficient oil producers in the world, despite the regulations and restraints imposed by the government. It is time for American voters to implore congress to step aside so that the professionals can do their jobs.
On one hand, if we are attempting to decrease our foreign oil dependency it makes sense to increase America’s refining and drilling capabilities. This is not very plausible given the incentives and constraints which are given to American explorers and refiners of oil. So the solution for a politician is rather complex. A politician will have a hard time convincing extremist environmentalists, and many in the general public, that freeing up the energy market would actually create an increase of America’s energy supply and drop the price of gas and other products affected by oil. What a politician does instead of this is go for the oldest and most trusted of allies, blame. Pointing fingers at all the people who seem to be villains by merit of their actions, such as the greed of corporate CEOs. Politicians claim that while these companies are getting rich the constituents of a particular politician are being hit where it hurts them the most, their pocket books. Politicians point fingers at these CEOs and exclaim that these companies’ profits are too extreme to be mere ‘economics.’ In their minds, Americans having to pay ever increasing amounts of money at the pump, while oil companies make record breaking profits is simply unacceptable.
Many will claim that we must invest in alternative energy. While there is nothing wrong with individuals spending their own time and effort on a new type of energy, it is highly immoral to make taxpayers pick up a bill for someone’s political agenda. Many people claim this is the best way to secure our future. It is praiseworthy for those who wish to invent new ways to convert nature’s resources into energy. However, it is not praiseworthy to spend billions of dollars on futile endeavors not worth their weight in paper. The idea that crippling oil companies and forcing alternative energy to the forefront of our current economy is reminiscent of the broken window fallacy made famous in Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. The fallacy is when one claims that by the destruction of property, we actually create wealth. Its claim is that if a hoodlum were to throw a rock and break the window of a baker, it is not a bad thing, because now the baker, upon replacing his window for one hundred dollars will allow the man fixing his window to buy a new suit, which will give money to the tailor and so on. The fallacy is that the shopkeeper must now spend his hundred dollars on a new window, instead of on new shoes for himself, or new equipment (capital) to help his business. This misallocation of resources is the fallacy. And, it is no different than allowing the government to hinder oil companies from doing their job, while at the same time, giving millions or billions in subsidies to alternative energy advocates. We are simply rerouting precious resources. Confiscating hard earned money from taxpayers and handing the money to whomever has the most political pull at that moment.
An oil company is like any other company. It provides a product to a customer and asks for money in return; trading value for value. There is no gun involved. Therefore, there is no force. Men and women are free to purchase the product or not. There is no denying our need for energy, as individuals and as a society. The discovery and subsequent success of oil is due to its value to each of us as individuals, not because the company forced people to buy its product.
The claim that oil companies are cartels or monopolies is also a myth. The idea here is that these oil companies collude with each other to force us to purchase their products and force out any competition. The basis for this argument is that capitalism will inevitably lead to collusion or monopoly of some sort. Oil companies, like any individual, act in a self interested manner. If an oil executive decides it is in his best interest to collude with other oil companies in order to increase the demand for their product, it is their right to do so. The oil executive will soon discover, however, why such endeavors have failed throughout the history of capitalism.
The failure will begin simply. As all the oil companies in collusion raise prices above market level, some of the colluders will realize the opportunity for undercutting their fellow conspirators and making a profit. Once again, greed comes to the rescue. Each company will realize the opportunity and work to seize it. Businesses do not make money by simply raising prices; they make money by lowering prices, making the product available to more people, and by increasing output, quality and more. To understand this more just simply look to history. Standard Oil was accused of price collusion, predatory pricing and much more. The facts tell another story however. In 1869 the price of kerosene was 30 cents a gallon, and 28 years later the price decreased to 5.9 cents. People paying 30 cents in 1869 probably did not complain as prices began regularly dropping. Another classic example in more recent history is the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA). This company was able to gain and hold an actual monopoly. Did they raise prices? No. In fact, it lowered its prices dramatically. ALCOA was the only producer of ‘primary’ aluminum in America (there were foreign competitors). In 1887, aluminum was 5 dollars a pound and by 1941 it was 15 cents a pound. The reason ALCOA would drop prices when they had a monopoly, rather than increase, is simple; substitutions. ALCOA knew that if they were to raise prices their customers would simply purchase substitutes such as wood.
In a free market, would people have alternatives to oil if oil became a monopoly? Yes. If the market was free and open, and oil companies began to collude to increase prices, people would begin looking into alternative forms of energy. They would not need government to confiscate money from the population and feed it to alternative energy, because people would be motivated by profit. As prices rose above market level, investors would shift their money from oil to alternative energy, thusly creating true wealth. Economic fact: money flows to its most valued uses.
Although this scenario is possible it is actually unlikely. Oil companies would not increase prices, as ALCOA did not raise prices, because they know economics: raising prices above market level will bring in more competition that will drive down price. By freeing the oil companies, we would solve all problems. Oil companies would compete with one another by reducing prices and increasing quality. The end product would eventually be a cheaper and cleaner burning fuel.
These facts don’t stop oil executives from being attacked for making a profit. During this previous summer when the price of gas rose to 4 dollars a gallon, senators dragged oil executives to Capitol Hill in order to investigate ‘bad’ business practices. Senator Patrick Leahy claimed they wanted to identify the causes of the rising prices of oil. The problem was oil executives were not in charge of the price of oil, the market was, as is determined by supply and demand. Notice these executives were condemned for making large profits during this time and considered greedy and evil, but also notice that as prices dropped to almost 1 dollar a gallon across the country, there was no congressional hearing to praise these individuals for their hard work; nor, was there much in the media about the benevolence of these executives. This makes sense given politicians’ and the media’s incentives to be elected and receive high ratings. For nothing gets officials elected faster – or higher ratings - than enormous problems in our country.
So, what does the government do to help the problem? Create more problems. Refining and distributing oil involves millions of interactions. The government impedes these interactions every step of the way. I will very briefly outline three major aspects of oil and how government interferes.
DRILLING
America has large sections of its underground oil off limits to oil explorers, such as the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve and our coasts. This causes the U.S. to have to purchase more of its oil from outside of the country. If these sections were to be freed up to allow for oil exploration there would be a larger supply of world oil to help with the ever increasing global demand. This past summer saw huge profits for oil companies. These profits did not go directly into the executive’s pockets. The vast majority was reinvested into the oil industry. These oil companies were able to purchase new drilling equipment and more efficient rigs to transport their product more safely, among other investments.
REFINING
There have not been any new refineries built in America in over three decades. Inevitably, this causes much inefficiency in the older refineries still in existence. The reason for these inefficiencies is that the government has passed so many environmental laws, thereby making new refineries uneconomical, leading to the extinction of many old refineries. From 1990 to 2004, 50 out of 194 refineries were shut down. These regulations have caused the current refineries to produce at full capacity, due to high demand. This limits the contingency for catastrophe. Which make it nearly impossible to shift from one oil sector to another. When the government interferes with supply and demand the result is always the same. The oil companies are then unable to offset certain sectors during a time of crisis, the net effect is a spike in price. As full producing refineries are shut down due to unforeseen externalities, the only way supply and demand can correct themselves is through an increase in the price of oil.
Another unfortunate byproduct of a government that creates restraints (rather than incentives to build new refineries) is that there has been an overall decline in the actual capacity refineries can handle. While capacity has declined demand has increased. What this all equates to is a country that has less ability to create more supply as demand increases. When any problems occur where more oil is needed, we must turn to foreign supply.
DEMAND
As China and India have grown exponentially, it is obvious that global demand for oil will increase accordingly. As companies begin to adjust to the new demand, the price of oil will increase. In a free market, oil companies will simply increase output to make a higher profit by decreasing prices and meeting the new demand. In a market that is shackled by government, meeting consumer needs is much harder than in a free market.
Fortunately, American consumers are making smarter choices. For the first time in decades, trucks have lost their spot as the number one vehicle sold in America. This will trigger a decrease in oil consumption at home.
Profits allow oil companies to reinvest in the drilling and refining of oil, so long as the government doesn’t get in their way. Oil Companies receive a bad rap whenever something unwanted happens in the economy. However, the fact remains that American oil companies remain the most efficient oil producers in the world, despite the regulations and restraints imposed by the government. It is time for American voters to implore congress to step aside so that the professionals can do their jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)