Saturday, June 19th, I decided that I wanted to go see a movie in a theater. My wife is away visiting her parents and I thought it was a good time go head to the local movie house and see the new movie "Whiteout", which, to me, looked good.
I got to the theater, asked for one adult ticket please, paid $8.50 and got a paper ticket (tickets were made of cardboard years ago and cost much less). I got some popcorn and Pepsi and tramped down the hallway in search of the room (there were about 8 films showing a once) where my film was showing.
I found it after going turning several corners and looking up a the signs above the entrance doors looking for one that said "Whiteout". I entered and to my shock, (this movie was supposed to start at 7:40, it was 7:20 now) the entire theater was empty! Great choice in seatings, so I settled down in the middle of the middle, which is where I like to sit. I munched on my popcorn, watched some interesting things on the screen (movie quizes, picture scrambles) which I got wrong on the first try, but aced them when they came by for the third time.
I was expecting a bit of a crowd to suddenly appear to keep me company. After all, you don't go to theaters just to see the movie, you want to enjoy it in the company of about 100 or so others. It's much more enjoyable then.
Only one other person showed up, sat several seats behind me, and then left during the preview and did not come back. Yes, indeed, I was now the only one to see this particular showing. That beats a current record when I saw a film with my cousin years ago and it was only he and I and the manager watching "The Seven Faces of Dr. Lau".
Is this the sign of very hard times? Would the film had run even if I didn't show up? Is there anything more pathetic (I would think so, but...) than showing a film to an empty movie house.
Well, the film was OK, nothing spectacular, and Kate looked nice as a Marshall. It was interesting to try and figure out who the bad guys were and there were a few surprises. I would give this movie a 6 out of 10. The next time I go see a film, I hope there are more people there.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Objectivism vs. Subjectivism
Objectivism is the name of the philosophy that Ayn Rand created. It's standard of value is man's life. Good is defined as anything that enhances or protects man's life. The evil is anything that threatens or destroys man's life. That's pretty clear and the ethics of good and evil have been given a foundation which explains the differences so well.
The politics of Objectivism is Capitalism.
Since Objectivism is the opposite of Subjectivism, it begs the question: what is Subjectivism's standard of value? It must be the opposite of man's life. In Subjectivism, the good is defined as anything that threatens or destroys man's life; the bad is anything that enhances or protects man's life. What is the politics of Subjectivism? It could either be Communism, Socialism, Facism, or any other 'ism. This is why, in any country that has tried any of these systems, winds up with a whole lot of dead people.
Remember it's standard of value That now explains why those kinds of societies are so devastating to human life, and why I say that if you advocate any of those kinds of political systems, you are actually advocating death to all, whether you know it or not.
The politics of Objectivism is Capitalism.
Since Objectivism is the opposite of Subjectivism, it begs the question: what is Subjectivism's standard of value? It must be the opposite of man's life. In Subjectivism, the good is defined as anything that threatens or destroys man's life; the bad is anything that enhances or protects man's life. What is the politics of Subjectivism? It could either be Communism, Socialism, Facism, or any other 'ism. This is why, in any country that has tried any of these systems, winds up with a whole lot of dead people.
Remember it's standard of value That now explains why those kinds of societies are so devastating to human life, and why I say that if you advocate any of those kinds of political systems, you are actually advocating death to all, whether you know it or not.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Philosophy
America seems to be full of people who know absolutely nothing about philosophy. This is a tragedy beyond words. Without an understanding of philosophy, there can be no understanding of anything. People may think they know things, but they really do not. Philosophy answers questions that other disciplines cannot. To begin with, philosophy has 5 parts:
1 - Metaphysics
2 - Ethics
3 - Epistomology
4 - Politics
5 - Aesthetics
One cannot understand philosophy without understanding the above 5 parts and how they interrelate.
Those who wish to learn more can read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" to get a clear picture of why it is necessary to have one, but also to have one that is 100% consistent.
1 - Metaphysics
2 - Ethics
3 - Epistomology
4 - Politics
5 - Aesthetics
One cannot understand philosophy without understanding the above 5 parts and how they interrelate.
Those who wish to learn more can read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" to get a clear picture of why it is necessary to have one, but also to have one that is 100% consistent.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Proper Role of Government
The proper role of government has never really been agreed upon by a majority of people. I am here to tell you what it is. This is not my opinion, this is reality. I did not make reality, reality is what it is and no one can change it.
Governments are created for one major purpose only: to protect individual rights. This includes right to life, which includes right to property. This is the purpose of the police force: to protect the citizens of the country from each other, to ensure that rights are defended. The purpose of the armed forces are to protect the citizens from foreign aggressors who may violate individual rights to life and property.
The one only other proper function of government is to enforce contracts. Without this function, businesses could not survive. Agreements made, papers signed and handshakes would mean nothing.
No other function of government is necessary. Governments are not supposed to provide you with jobs, with health care, with currency, or regulate business in any way. That is a rogue government, who force businesses to spend billions of dollars "proving" to some bureaucrat in Washington that they are in compliance with the uncountable number of rules regulations that make absolutely no sense at all.
Washington has created hundreds of thousands of committees, boards, and agencies to "help" this country. The result is a nightmare for anyone running a business. Small businesses are hurt the most. They lack the resources to fend off the army of government employees whose only function is to find a reason to shut them down.
This is unacceptable. I find it incredulous that American people put up with such nonsense.
Governments are created for one major purpose only: to protect individual rights. This includes right to life, which includes right to property. This is the purpose of the police force: to protect the citizens of the country from each other, to ensure that rights are defended. The purpose of the armed forces are to protect the citizens from foreign aggressors who may violate individual rights to life and property.
The one only other proper function of government is to enforce contracts. Without this function, businesses could not survive. Agreements made, papers signed and handshakes would mean nothing.
No other function of government is necessary. Governments are not supposed to provide you with jobs, with health care, with currency, or regulate business in any way. That is a rogue government, who force businesses to spend billions of dollars "proving" to some bureaucrat in Washington that they are in compliance with the uncountable number of rules regulations that make absolutely no sense at all.
Washington has created hundreds of thousands of committees, boards, and agencies to "help" this country. The result is a nightmare for anyone running a business. Small businesses are hurt the most. They lack the resources to fend off the army of government employees whose only function is to find a reason to shut them down.
This is unacceptable. I find it incredulous that American people put up with such nonsense.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Which Social System is the Best?
To educate anyone who might read this, I offer the following brief explanation of the "ism's" and other systems as they actually are, not as you might wish them to be:
Communism : The state is everything, the individual is not important.
Socialism : Society is everything, the individual is not important.
Facism : The state is everything, the individual is not important.
Dictatorship : The dictator is everything, the individual is not important.
Monarchy : The king is everything, the individual is not important.
Theocracy : God is everything, the individual is not important.
Democracy : The majority is everything, the individual is not important.
Capitalism: The individual is the most important.
All of the first seven do not differ fundamentally from each other. All have the common attribite of being anti-human. Capitalism is the only social system that is possible if you want to be pro-human. Of course, if you hate human beings with a passion, go ahead and advocate any of the first seven. You have a right to do so (only in a Capitalist society).
Communism : The state is everything, the individual is not important.
Socialism : Society is everything, the individual is not important.
Facism : The state is everything, the individual is not important.
Dictatorship : The dictator is everything, the individual is not important.
Monarchy : The king is everything, the individual is not important.
Theocracy : God is everything, the individual is not important.
Democracy : The majority is everything, the individual is not important.
Capitalism: The individual is the most important.
All of the first seven do not differ fundamentally from each other. All have the common attribite of being anti-human. Capitalism is the only social system that is possible if you want to be pro-human. Of course, if you hate human beings with a passion, go ahead and advocate any of the first seven. You have a right to do so (only in a Capitalist society).
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Case Against Minimum Wage Laws
Minimum wage laws are a completely unnecessary throw back to European Socialism which have absolutely no purpose in a free economy.
There are three, and only three posibilities:
1 - The minimum wage is too high. This is bad, causes unemployment and undue hardship to employers.
2 - The minimum wage matches what people are being paid already which makes it ridiculous to have such a law.
3 - The minimum wage is lower than what people are being paid already which makes it even more ridiculous to have such a silly law.
There are no more possibilities, all have been covered and all are either bad or unnecessary. America needs to get rid of this law once and for all. No one has a right to tell you what price you can charge for your services.
There are three, and only three posibilities:
1 - The minimum wage is too high. This is bad, causes unemployment and undue hardship to employers.
2 - The minimum wage matches what people are being paid already which makes it ridiculous to have such a law.
3 - The minimum wage is lower than what people are being paid already which makes it even more ridiculous to have such a silly law.
There are no more possibilities, all have been covered and all are either bad or unnecessary. America needs to get rid of this law once and for all. No one has a right to tell you what price you can charge for your services.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Robber Barons?
Following the principle that it isn't what you don't know that will get you into trouble, but what you think is true that is not.
This is the case of the term "Robber Barons" which is usually reserved for those pioneers of industry who are responsible for railroads, factories, plants and other miracles of the last century.
Typical of peasant mentality, the masses called them villians, charletons, robbers and exploiters. This is so far from the truth, it is tragic. Without them there would have been no railroads, no factories, and no jobs. Hundreds of thousands of people benefited from their effort and in wanting to be paid for this effort, they were called selfish bastards.
If I hear anyone speak the term "Robber Baron", I know I am speaking to someone with a limited knowledge of fundamental economics and is simply repeating what other people have said. In my opinion, it is a complete lack of any independent thinking of that person and they have probably never read a book beyond "The Hardy Boys" or "Black Beauty".
Read "Atlas Shrugged", "Economics in One Lesson", "The Fountainhead", or "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" in order to get a clear picture of what went on during the building of American infrastructure.
Stop thinking like a peasant and more like an American.
This is the case of the term "Robber Barons" which is usually reserved for those pioneers of industry who are responsible for railroads, factories, plants and other miracles of the last century.
Typical of peasant mentality, the masses called them villians, charletons, robbers and exploiters. This is so far from the truth, it is tragic. Without them there would have been no railroads, no factories, and no jobs. Hundreds of thousands of people benefited from their effort and in wanting to be paid for this effort, they were called selfish bastards.
If I hear anyone speak the term "Robber Baron", I know I am speaking to someone with a limited knowledge of fundamental economics and is simply repeating what other people have said. In my opinion, it is a complete lack of any independent thinking of that person and they have probably never read a book beyond "The Hardy Boys" or "Black Beauty".
Read "Atlas Shrugged", "Economics in One Lesson", "The Fountainhead", or "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" in order to get a clear picture of what went on during the building of American infrastructure.
Stop thinking like a peasant and more like an American.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Fireworks in Minneapolis 2009
Last night my wife and I drove downtown Minneapolis, parked near what is known as the Cafe Royale, walked up Hennepin Avenue across the Hennepin bridge over to the Stone Arch bridge and set up our two portable captain's chairs (very light) and awaited the fireworks show.
The amount of people around the area seemed a bit down from years past, but there did seem to be more vendors of taste-good, bad-for-you type food.
The show started at 10:00 with the usual stuff. A fellow next to us commented how he liked the circles, hearts and smiley face displays. There were many circles, and two smiley-face ones (one of them upside-down). These are (or used to be) produced by Starr Fireworks Display based in Arthur, North Dakota. I used to work for them back in the 80's and recall seeing how the circles, hearts and smiley-faces were made.
It was a good show, nothing amazingly new which is to be expected. Kind of wondering sometimes what there is to celebrate these days.
The amount of people around the area seemed a bit down from years past, but there did seem to be more vendors of taste-good, bad-for-you type food.
The show started at 10:00 with the usual stuff. A fellow next to us commented how he liked the circles, hearts and smiley face displays. There were many circles, and two smiley-face ones (one of them upside-down). These are (or used to be) produced by Starr Fireworks Display based in Arthur, North Dakota. I used to work for them back in the 80's and recall seeing how the circles, hearts and smiley-faces were made.
It was a good show, nothing amazingly new which is to be expected. Kind of wondering sometimes what there is to celebrate these days.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Great Dust Bowl of the 1930s
I was watching the History Channel the other day and they had a special on the dust bowl of the 1930's and it's causes. The #1 cause of the drought was thought to be that the jetstream moved and shifted south which brought less rain to the prairies.
That was only part of the reason. After the government hired a soil expert to go examine the ground, he concluded that the major fault for the drought and the topsoil blowing around lay solely with the government.
Why? When the U.S. government wanted to settle the midwest, they offered homesteads in the fertile ground for farming. Without farming, they correctly concluded, there wouldn't be much to eat so they offered the land at modest prices to entice the farmers in to grow crops.
That was the fertile ground. There were other millions of acres that were not so fertile. There were areas of not much rain, and perhaps the soil wasn't so rich. Prairie grass grew there, but little else could handle the harsh conditions.
The government tried to get people to settle in this area also, but found it a bit difficult as people knew it wasn't good crop land. So, they upped the ante and offered double the land and that got the people moving there from countries where land ownership was either forbidden or very rare.
When the people moved into the prairie grasslands, they plowed them under and planted crops. The crops did not grow, so they plowed them under the following year and planted more crops. These crops did not grow either. Over a few years, the topsoil had very little to hold it down and it blew around with the slightest wind.
This, in conjunction with the jet stream shift, lead to a very severe drought. The dust in the air stopped the sunlight from evaporating the moisture that was in the soil so it stayed there, instead of heading into the sky like it should, and leading to rain.
The net result of this was the dust bowl. No crops, drought and dust storms were the norm. Living conditions were miserable and along with the depression, made things almost unbearable.
If the government had not offered this land for development, the prairie grass would have stayed. When the jet stream then shifted south, the topsoil would have stayed where it was.
Abuse of the land lead to this disaster and the blame for this is strictly with the government who encouraged farmers to settle there.
If this sounds familiar, it should. The government is to blame for our current economic crisis as they encouraged bankers and mortgage companies to give loans to people they never should have. This lead to an economic "dust bowl" that should never have happened in this country.
When I make a mistake, I only affect myself and perhaps my immediate family. When the big Gov. makes a mistake, it causes hardships for millions and they usually point the finger elsewhere. The time has come to get rid of big government and remove their power over our economic lives.
That was only part of the reason. After the government hired a soil expert to go examine the ground, he concluded that the major fault for the drought and the topsoil blowing around lay solely with the government.
Why? When the U.S. government wanted to settle the midwest, they offered homesteads in the fertile ground for farming. Without farming, they correctly concluded, there wouldn't be much to eat so they offered the land at modest prices to entice the farmers in to grow crops.
That was the fertile ground. There were other millions of acres that were not so fertile. There were areas of not much rain, and perhaps the soil wasn't so rich. Prairie grass grew there, but little else could handle the harsh conditions.
The government tried to get people to settle in this area also, but found it a bit difficult as people knew it wasn't good crop land. So, they upped the ante and offered double the land and that got the people moving there from countries where land ownership was either forbidden or very rare.
When the people moved into the prairie grasslands, they plowed them under and planted crops. The crops did not grow, so they plowed them under the following year and planted more crops. These crops did not grow either. Over a few years, the topsoil had very little to hold it down and it blew around with the slightest wind.
This, in conjunction with the jet stream shift, lead to a very severe drought. The dust in the air stopped the sunlight from evaporating the moisture that was in the soil so it stayed there, instead of heading into the sky like it should, and leading to rain.
The net result of this was the dust bowl. No crops, drought and dust storms were the norm. Living conditions were miserable and along with the depression, made things almost unbearable.
If the government had not offered this land for development, the prairie grass would have stayed. When the jet stream then shifted south, the topsoil would have stayed where it was.
Abuse of the land lead to this disaster and the blame for this is strictly with the government who encouraged farmers to settle there.
If this sounds familiar, it should. The government is to blame for our current economic crisis as they encouraged bankers and mortgage companies to give loans to people they never should have. This lead to an economic "dust bowl" that should never have happened in this country.
When I make a mistake, I only affect myself and perhaps my immediate family. When the big Gov. makes a mistake, it causes hardships for millions and they usually point the finger elsewhere. The time has come to get rid of big government and remove their power over our economic lives.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Gran Torino
Watched Gran Torino last Thursday; really enjoyed the movie. Clint Eastwood does a great job of portraying a bigoted Korean War veteran who just lost his wife and is discovering friends in places he never dreamed of. I highly recommend it.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Star Trek
I saw the new Star Trek movie a few weeks ago in the theatre. I thought it was very good and a lot like the TV series. Although not a true trekkie, I am a big fan of the original series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)