The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published April 29 by Grand Junction Free Press.
The same day Atlas Shrugged Part I arrived in theaters, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I came out on disk. A few days later the Oscar-winning King's Speech followed. These films vary dramatically in content and quality, yet they share an important theme: the fight against tyranny.
The hastily produced, low-budget Atlas Shrugged hardly does justice to Ayn Rand's epic novel, though it remains basically true to Rand's story and offers some good cinematography and acting. (It also offers some really bad acting in parts.) The film opened April 15 in Denver and other larger cities.
While the film misses the rich psychological complexity of the novel, it conveys Rand's critique of the political oppression of producers. The basic story is that a railroad executive and steel manufacturer go into business together to rebuild a Colorado rail line of vital economic importance. Meanwhile, bureaucrats and politically connected "businessmen" join forces to shackle and loot the producers. Mysteriously, the nation's top producers begin to disappear.
Part of the power of Atlas Shrugged is that much of the real world sounds remarkably like the novel. FreedomWorks even put a quiz online, asking, "Can you tell the difference between quotes from elected U.S. government officials and [villains in] Ayn Rand's iconic book Atlas Shrugged?" Often it's difficult, with President Obama threatening to soak the rich and Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., castigating the iPad for displacing jobs.
Unlike the low-budget, limited release Atlas Shrugged, the Harry Potter film consumed an enormous production budget and earned the box office to justify the expense. Like Rand's works, the novels of J. K. Rowling offer richly complex characters that challenge the filmmaker.
While Rowling and Rand would clash over various political and philosophical issues, the writers would agree about the importance of defeating tyrants. The basic story arch of the Potter series follows Voldemort's rise to dictatorial power and Harry's quest to stop him.
(For more detailed discussion of Rowling's work, see the Expanded Edition of Ari's book, Values of Harry Potter, at ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.)
In many ways Voldemort resembles one of the 20th Century's most vicious tyrants, Hitler, particularly in his bigoted cruelty. The King's Speech targets Hitler directly.
Mostly The King's Speech is about a man with a speech impediment, a stammer, who works hard to overcome it. Only the man is King George VI, and his ability to speak becomes vitally important when he must lead his nation to war.
The King's Speech richly deserves its awards, having presented an inspirational story with a phenomenal cast on a limited budget. The film offers two lessons to the producers of Atlas Shrugged. First, a great film can overcome meager funding. Second, a film climaxing with a long and important speech, whether the king's speech or John Galt's speech, can keep the audience riveted if properly set up and presented. (Galt's speech does not appear until the third part of the story.)
True, as Christopher Hitchens warns us, The King's Speech downplays the missteps of George VI. For example, Hitchens writes for Slate, "When Neville Chamberlain managed... to hand to his friend Hitler the majority of the Czechoslovak people, along with all that country's vast munitions factories," George congratulated and supported him. Yet George and the English came through in the end, and that counts for a great deal.
When you watch The King's Speech on disk, be sure to listen to the original address on which the related scene of the film is based (or catch it on YouTube). It is moving seven decades later.
King George says, "We have been forced into a conflict. For we are called, with our allies, to meet the challenge of a principle, which if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the world. ... Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might makes right."
The films about Harry Potter and George VI portray the defeat of a tyrant who would institute that primitive doctrine. Somebody like Hitler or his fictional counterpart Voldemort takes might, brute force, to its logical conclusion and attempts to impose universal enslavement.
Rand too had intimate knowledge of tyranny, having lived through Russia's bloody revolution and escaped the oppressive Soviet regime, which slaughtered even more people than the Nazis did.
But Ayn Rand went further and fully articulated the opposite principle of "might makes right," the principle of individual rights, according to which each individual holds the right to his own life and the fruits of his labor. If we wish to restore vitality to the "civilized order in the world," it is the principle of individual rights for which we must fight.
The King's Speech is spectacular, and the Potter film is very good. The film based on Rand's novel, though flawed, is good enough to view and at times very moving. But, after you enjoy these movies as works as art, take to heart their warning against tyranny.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Walter Walker Opposed Grand Junction's Socialists
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published April 15 by Grand Junction Free Press.
Back in the era when the Daily Sentinel was "published every day in the year, except Sunday," and a monthly subscription cost just fifty cents, the paper's editor Walter Walker waged rhetorical war against the city's socialists.
Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto in 1848, and his ideas gained traction in subsequent decades, culminating in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and a socialist sweep through much of Asia.
American intellectuals too flocked to socialist ideas. The so-called Progressives arose in the early 1900s, and in 1927 some of future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's advisors-to-be visited Joseph Stalin. See Amity Shlaes's book on the Great Depression for details.
Jeannette Smith writes for the Fall 1997 Journal of the Western Slope that, by 1913, "socialism had thrived for many years in Grand Junction and Walter Walker stood as one of the movement's staunchest foes." Smith notes that, in 1909, using a system of ranked voting, the city elected Thomas Todd of the Socialist Party as mayor. Based on Smith's notes, we looked up several fascinating old articles.
To get a sense of the local popularity of socialism, consider this September 7, 1908 story: "Nearly one thousand people crowded and packed into the Park opera house last night to hear Eugene V. Debs, the socialist candidate for president of the United States." It was "one of the greatest audiences that ever turned out to hear a political speaker in Grand Junction."
Yet Walker consistently opposed Mayor Todd's socialistic program. For example, the editor relentlessly derided Todd over his city-run ice house. The January 26, 1912 paper quoted Todd, "I am firm in the belief that the city should own and operate its own ice plant." Yet Todd's proclaimed savings of $30,000 a year defied reason, as "only $24,000 worth of ice was used here last year," Walker retorted. (Note: while the articles are unsigned, we'll follow Smith in attributing the anti-socialist editorials to Walker.)
Walker concluded the essay, "Municipal ownership of everything -- whether that thing is paying while privately owned or not -- is the song of the radical reformer. We have the municipal owned wood pile, now we are to have the municipal owned ice plant: wonder if the mayor will call attention to the need for a municipal owned lumber yard next?"
A few days later, on January 30, Walker pushed harder, suggesting "that the mayor demonstrate his abounding love for his 'masters' by cutting down the price of lumber at the yard he owns and operates in this city."
The paper argued "that the man who experiments with his own money, or who is willing to cut his own profit for the benefit of the people, is more of a patriot than he who wants the public to put up for his benevolent operations, and whose great heart yearns first to take over somebody else's business."
We can only imagine what Walker might say to today's local politicians who control recreational facilities, golf courses, theaters, swimming pools, ambulances, and so on.
Just a few weeks earlier (December 22, 1911), Walker had lambasted the "socialistic municipal wood pile." The article mocked, "Even some of the socialists have smiled to see the lack of the 'Reds' on the woodpile." Instead, four to six men worked the pile daily for food and accommodations at the jail; "the only men at work are some hoboes who drifted in... No family men have applied." Moreover, the article notes, the "the Coal Dealers association" vowed to "fight against the city entering into the business."
Not long after the controversies over the wood pile and ice house, Walker berated Todd yet again over the city's support for the socialistic Industrial Workers of the World.
"The Grand Junction city administration was engaged in a mighty poor businesses yesterday afternoon when it made an appropriation to feed the members of the notorious I.W.W. who are passing through the city this week," an April 9, 1913 article relates.
Walker continues, "We are not surprised at the socialist mayor pulling off a stunt like this: but we are surprised at the other commissioners for standing for it... Thus again does this city come under the lime-light as a 'haven for hoboes...' What right have the city commissioners to make an appropriation to care for these worthless, country-hating, law-denouncing drones? ...Grand Junction has been made a laughing stock in such matters often enough. It is time to call a halt."
Walker noted the hypocrisy of the city supporting those who "denounce the country, the government and the laws, and urge the use of revolutionary methods," while at the same time dragging to jail "some poor devil down in the flats [who] gives another a swig of whiskey."
We're sure that, if Walker were around today, we would often enough find reason to criticize his views. We're also sure that often we would unite to condemn the modern heirs of Todd's socialist schemes.
Back in the era when the Daily Sentinel was "published every day in the year, except Sunday," and a monthly subscription cost just fifty cents, the paper's editor Walter Walker waged rhetorical war against the city's socialists.
Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto in 1848, and his ideas gained traction in subsequent decades, culminating in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and a socialist sweep through much of Asia.
American intellectuals too flocked to socialist ideas. The so-called Progressives arose in the early 1900s, and in 1927 some of future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's advisors-to-be visited Joseph Stalin. See Amity Shlaes's book on the Great Depression for details.
Jeannette Smith writes for the Fall 1997 Journal of the Western Slope that, by 1913, "socialism had thrived for many years in Grand Junction and Walter Walker stood as one of the movement's staunchest foes." Smith notes that, in 1909, using a system of ranked voting, the city elected Thomas Todd of the Socialist Party as mayor. Based on Smith's notes, we looked up several fascinating old articles.
To get a sense of the local popularity of socialism, consider this September 7, 1908 story: "Nearly one thousand people crowded and packed into the Park opera house last night to hear Eugene V. Debs, the socialist candidate for president of the United States." It was "one of the greatest audiences that ever turned out to hear a political speaker in Grand Junction."
Yet Walker consistently opposed Mayor Todd's socialistic program. For example, the editor relentlessly derided Todd over his city-run ice house. The January 26, 1912 paper quoted Todd, "I am firm in the belief that the city should own and operate its own ice plant." Yet Todd's proclaimed savings of $30,000 a year defied reason, as "only $24,000 worth of ice was used here last year," Walker retorted. (Note: while the articles are unsigned, we'll follow Smith in attributing the anti-socialist editorials to Walker.)
Walker concluded the essay, "Municipal ownership of everything -- whether that thing is paying while privately owned or not -- is the song of the radical reformer. We have the municipal owned wood pile, now we are to have the municipal owned ice plant: wonder if the mayor will call attention to the need for a municipal owned lumber yard next?"
A few days later, on January 30, Walker pushed harder, suggesting "that the mayor demonstrate his abounding love for his 'masters' by cutting down the price of lumber at the yard he owns and operates in this city."
The paper argued "that the man who experiments with his own money, or who is willing to cut his own profit for the benefit of the people, is more of a patriot than he who wants the public to put up for his benevolent operations, and whose great heart yearns first to take over somebody else's business."
We can only imagine what Walker might say to today's local politicians who control recreational facilities, golf courses, theaters, swimming pools, ambulances, and so on.
Just a few weeks earlier (December 22, 1911), Walker had lambasted the "socialistic municipal wood pile." The article mocked, "Even some of the socialists have smiled to see the lack of the 'Reds' on the woodpile." Instead, four to six men worked the pile daily for food and accommodations at the jail; "the only men at work are some hoboes who drifted in... No family men have applied." Moreover, the article notes, the "the Coal Dealers association" vowed to "fight against the city entering into the business."
Not long after the controversies over the wood pile and ice house, Walker berated Todd yet again over the city's support for the socialistic Industrial Workers of the World.
"The Grand Junction city administration was engaged in a mighty poor businesses yesterday afternoon when it made an appropriation to feed the members of the notorious I.W.W. who are passing through the city this week," an April 9, 1913 article relates.
Walker continues, "We are not surprised at the socialist mayor pulling off a stunt like this: but we are surprised at the other commissioners for standing for it... Thus again does this city come under the lime-light as a 'haven for hoboes...' What right have the city commissioners to make an appropriation to care for these worthless, country-hating, law-denouncing drones? ...Grand Junction has been made a laughing stock in such matters often enough. It is time to call a halt."
Walker noted the hypocrisy of the city supporting those who "denounce the country, the government and the laws, and urge the use of revolutionary methods," while at the same time dragging to jail "some poor devil down in the flats [who] gives another a swig of whiskey."
We're sure that, if Walker were around today, we would often enough find reason to criticize his views. We're also sure that often we would unite to condemn the modern heirs of Todd's socialist schemes.
Labels:
PPC
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
No One Lives Forever
With some regularity I hear the claim that, with sufficient advances in medical science, people can live forever -- become immortal. Clearly that's nonsense.
Perhaps someday medical science will be able to halt and reverse the aging process in humans, to cure heart disease, cancer, and the other diseases that kill us, and thereby to grant people an indefinitely long life, without death from "natural causes." But obviously an indefinitely long life is not the same thing as immortality.
Two things kill people besides medical problems: homicide and unintentional injuries. CDC reports that, in 2007, 18,361 U.S. residents (6.1 per 100,000 population) died by homicide. And 123,706 (41.0 per 100,000 population) died by unintentional injury. The fraction of people who die every year of non-medical causes, then, is 0.000471.
According to my geek friend Paul Hsieh, one can calculate average life expectancy simply by dividing one by the death probability, which in our case renders 2,123 years. Paul adds, "Of course, there's a long 'tail' of some people who might live for" very much longer than that. Thus, the "half life" of the population -- the time by which half the original population would be dead -- would be a few hundred years less than the average, or 1,472 years. (Paul recommends the discussion at Wikipedia for details.)
No doubt a life span over two millennia is a very long time, but it is hardly immortality. Such a state obviously would dramatically impact our understanding of a "normal human life." It would also replace the norm of expecting to die of natural causes with the expectation that all death would result from largely random and unexpected causes.
There are some variables with this. Obviously, not everybody is at the same risk of dying by unintentional injury or homicide. A drug-dealing extreme-sports fanatic is much more likely to die prematurely than, say, a fit librarian. And it's possible for the human-caused (as opposed to medical) death rate to change over time within a society.
Then there's the remote possibility of being able to "back up" one's consciousness, say, by daily transmitting a large data packet to a backup site on Mars, such that a person could be regenerated even if his physical body died. Now we're really talking far-out science fiction. But if you look at the rate of technological advances over the last hundred years, perhaps it's not so crazy a scenario.
But even with very-long lifespans, death would remain a possibility, and therefore, an inevitability. You'd have to worry about wars, large-scale interstellar events, and so forth. If your backup gets destroyed (or there's nobody around to access it) and you're stuck in the middle of a brutal thermonuclear war, you're pretty screwed.
Even the possibility of ending death by medical causes seems incredibly remote; the notion of backing up one's consciousness far more so. So why should anybody alive today care?
To me, the real value of such speculation is to remind ourselves that everybody dies. Within Ayn Rand's theory of ethics, this fact establishes life as the basic metaphysical alternative (to death) that gives rise to the entire phenomenon of value. In some sense it is our need to keep ourselves alive that gives rise to value as such. How that works out remains complicated and controversial, but it's an important insight, I'm convinced.
I hardly expect to outlive Methuselah, though I'd like to live to be 120 in good health. I expect that might become fairly normal within the next century, provided politicians do not continue to muck up health care and the economy as a whole.
Perhaps someday medical science will be able to halt and reverse the aging process in humans, to cure heart disease, cancer, and the other diseases that kill us, and thereby to grant people an indefinitely long life, without death from "natural causes." But obviously an indefinitely long life is not the same thing as immortality.
Two things kill people besides medical problems: homicide and unintentional injuries. CDC reports that, in 2007, 18,361 U.S. residents (6.1 per 100,000 population) died by homicide. And 123,706 (41.0 per 100,000 population) died by unintentional injury. The fraction of people who die every year of non-medical causes, then, is 0.000471.
According to my geek friend Paul Hsieh, one can calculate average life expectancy simply by dividing one by the death probability, which in our case renders 2,123 years. Paul adds, "Of course, there's a long 'tail' of some people who might live for" very much longer than that. Thus, the "half life" of the population -- the time by which half the original population would be dead -- would be a few hundred years less than the average, or 1,472 years. (Paul recommends the discussion at Wikipedia for details.)
No doubt a life span over two millennia is a very long time, but it is hardly immortality. Such a state obviously would dramatically impact our understanding of a "normal human life." It would also replace the norm of expecting to die of natural causes with the expectation that all death would result from largely random and unexpected causes.
There are some variables with this. Obviously, not everybody is at the same risk of dying by unintentional injury or homicide. A drug-dealing extreme-sports fanatic is much more likely to die prematurely than, say, a fit librarian. And it's possible for the human-caused (as opposed to medical) death rate to change over time within a society.
Then there's the remote possibility of being able to "back up" one's consciousness, say, by daily transmitting a large data packet to a backup site on Mars, such that a person could be regenerated even if his physical body died. Now we're really talking far-out science fiction. But if you look at the rate of technological advances over the last hundred years, perhaps it's not so crazy a scenario.
But even with very-long lifespans, death would remain a possibility, and therefore, an inevitability. You'd have to worry about wars, large-scale interstellar events, and so forth. If your backup gets destroyed (or there's nobody around to access it) and you're stuck in the middle of a brutal thermonuclear war, you're pretty screwed.
Even the possibility of ending death by medical causes seems incredibly remote; the notion of backing up one's consciousness far more so. So why should anybody alive today care?
To me, the real value of such speculation is to remind ourselves that everybody dies. Within Ayn Rand's theory of ethics, this fact establishes life as the basic metaphysical alternative (to death) that gives rise to the entire phenomenon of value. In some sense it is our need to keep ourselves alive that gives rise to value as such. How that works out remains complicated and controversial, but it's an important insight, I'm convinced.
I hardly expect to outlive Methuselah, though I'd like to live to be 120 in good health. I expect that might become fairly normal within the next century, provided politicians do not continue to muck up health care and the economy as a whole.
Monday, April 25, 2011
A Comment on Comments
I moderate comments. I do so to block spam and craziness. Do I discourage some possibly interesting comments by moderating? Perhaps. But to me the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Note that I do not necessarily agree with any comment that I let through. I allow comments that I consider to be interesting and civil. Often I reply to comments with which I disagree, but not always.
Today an anonymous poster complained that I have blocked multiple comments from him. (I'll say "him" though I don't know the gender.) In order to save everybody's time, am happy to explain some reasons I block comments.
First, often I consider anonymous comments, particularly argumentative ones, to be somewhat cowardly. Why should I take you seriously if you won't even give your name? Obviously I cannot know how many of some particular poster's comments I have blocked when they are all marked "anonymous." I think I've accidentally left an anonymous comment here or there, just because I'm used to my blog and various other services automatically inserting my name. Generally, though, I make sure to leave my name when I post comments on other people's services. True, there are occasions in which leaving one's name might put one in danger, but that's not been the case with any anonymous comment I've ever received for my blog. Nevertheless, my default position is to post all anonymous comments, unless they suffer some other serious problem. (Many or most anonymous comments are spam, by the way.)
Second, I am extremely likely to block any comment that includes a gratuitously insulting personal attack against me.
Third, often I block comments that add nothing interesting to the discussion, particularly if they pertain to an old post. Comments like "Wow, that was really interesting" are of this sort.
Fourth, generally I block comments with rampant spelling and grammatical errors. If you can't be bothered to subject your comment to minimum standards of editing, don't expect me to post it.
Fifth, I am likely to block any comment that claims, as the anonymous comment of today did, that by blocking comments on my own web page, that somehow makes me the equivalent of a censor. Anonymous is perfectly free to post his asinine comments on his own web page, where the rest of us are perfectly free to ignore him. My property, my rules. Moderating comments is no more censorship than is stopping a drunk from breaking into my home to deliver a speech.
Note that I do not necessarily agree with any comment that I let through. I allow comments that I consider to be interesting and civil. Often I reply to comments with which I disagree, but not always.
Today an anonymous poster complained that I have blocked multiple comments from him. (I'll say "him" though I don't know the gender.) In order to save everybody's time, am happy to explain some reasons I block comments.
First, often I consider anonymous comments, particularly argumentative ones, to be somewhat cowardly. Why should I take you seriously if you won't even give your name? Obviously I cannot know how many of some particular poster's comments I have blocked when they are all marked "anonymous." I think I've accidentally left an anonymous comment here or there, just because I'm used to my blog and various other services automatically inserting my name. Generally, though, I make sure to leave my name when I post comments on other people's services. True, there are occasions in which leaving one's name might put one in danger, but that's not been the case with any anonymous comment I've ever received for my blog. Nevertheless, my default position is to post all anonymous comments, unless they suffer some other serious problem. (Many or most anonymous comments are spam, by the way.)
Second, I am extremely likely to block any comment that includes a gratuitously insulting personal attack against me.
Third, often I block comments that add nothing interesting to the discussion, particularly if they pertain to an old post. Comments like "Wow, that was really interesting" are of this sort.
Fourth, generally I block comments with rampant spelling and grammatical errors. If you can't be bothered to subject your comment to minimum standards of editing, don't expect me to post it.
Fifth, I am likely to block any comment that claims, as the anonymous comment of today did, that by blocking comments on my own web page, that somehow makes me the equivalent of a censor. Anonymous is perfectly free to post his asinine comments on his own web page, where the rest of us are perfectly free to ignore him. My property, my rules. Moderating comments is no more censorship than is stopping a drunk from breaking into my home to deliver a speech.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Ken Clark Pitches Grassroots Radio
Ken Clark, a cohost of Denver's Grassroots Radio (weekdays 5-7 pm on AM 560) discusses his show.
Labels:
PPC
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Why Atlas Shrugged Part I Is a Good Movie
The views on Atlas Shrugged Part I range from lavish praise to moral denunciation. My reaction immediately after viewing it opening night was that it is "basically good," despite some obvious problems with it. See my initial review as well as some audience reactions.
Having just watched the film again, I stand by my initial review, though I enjoyed the film even more the second time.
I wanted to see the film again just to enjoy it on the big screen. However, I also wanted to check my initial estimation of it. Undoubtedly before I saw it I expected it to be an utter failure, yet I was nevertheless excited to see it, so I felt quite relieved that it turned out to be much better than I expected. But had I erred on the side of overemphasizing its merits while ignoring its flaws? No. This movie got a great deal right, much more than its detractors recognize. The fact that it also got a lot wrong explains why I describe it as good but not great.
I have seen several basic camps emerge in evaluating the film.
1. Some fans of Ayn Rand lavish the film with praise, regardless of the virtues and flaws of the movie, simply out of fandom.
2. Some fans of Ayn Rand bitterly condemn the film, refusing to acknowledge any virtues of the movie, because the film does have some flaws and is not consistently true to the spirit of the book. (The fact that the film lists David Kelley as a consultant, while Kelley remains on very bad terms with Rand's heir Leonard Peikoff, does not help in this regard. Disclaimer: while I recognize the value of some of Kelley's older works, such as The Evidence of the Senses, I think he's gone basically off track since then and that Peikoff's criticisms of him are on target. Moreover, I think the film's producers would have done far better to turn to somebody who actually knows something about film, such as the Ayn Rand Institute's Jeff Britting.)
3. Various conservatives praise the film for its political messages, regardless of the quality of the film. This group likes the film basically for its propaganda value.
4. Various leftists condemn the film because they hate Ayn Rand and everything she stands for, and there's no way they'd ever say anything good about anything relating to her.
5. Some, like me, enjoyed the film yet see in it virtues and flaws. Some basically didn't enjoy it because they put more weight on the problems that I too recognize.
6. The large majority of Americans, meanwhile, wonder what the hell this is all about or ignore the film completely. But maybe the film will encourage some of these people to grab the novel off their shelves and blow the dust off of it.
Frankly, I'm as skeptical of those who cannot find fault with the film as I am of those who cannot find anything to like about it.
First I'll review what I liked about the film. Obviously there are spoilers below!
The Cinematography: The Colorado landscapes are gorgeous. The bridge is stunning. The interior settings are rich. I particularly enjoyed the construction scenes of the John Galt line. This is all the more impressive considering the film's limited budget.
The Acting: I have heard that the acting is "wooden," claims I regard as silly. Some of the acting is superb: see Patrick Fischler as Paul Larkin, Rebecca Wisocky as Lillian Rearden, and Armin Shimerman as the bureaucratic scientist. Matthew Marsden does a very good job as the entitled sniveler James Taggart.
Unfortunately, the acting of the heroes is on the whole less-good than the acting of the villains. Of the heroes, my favorite performance is Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt. Though physically he does not match the Ellis of the novel, I liked what he did with the role. He turned nicely from bitter anger toward the Taggarts to warmth toward Dagny and Hank.
I really liked Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden. I like the way he smiles lightly at his metal. I have heard the complaint that he smiles too much throughout the film; this is not the Hank of the novel. No, it is not, but the Hank of the novel is horribly emotionally repressed for the first third of the story, and that would have been extraordinarily difficult to portray in a stand-alone movie. Notice that Bowler invokes both the fond half-smile as well as a sarcastic, forced smile with his wife. His acting is anything but "wooden;" it is subtle and emotionally rich.
Those who call Taylor Schilling's performance of Dagny "wooden" I think unfairly malign her intentionally understated performance. What I get from her performance is what I get from the Dagny of the novel: a very rich emotional life hidden (from those who don't know her) by a hardened exterior. I thought she did this very effectively, though I grant some of her hand gestures are a little awkward.
The Setting: The film does a very nice job setting the context for the story. Very quickly it establishes that we are in the near future, that the global economy is falling apart, that rail is now the most critical component of transportation, and that bureaucrats continue to seize control over the economy.
True, the novel Atlas is timeless, almost an alternate reality of a slightly altered America of the past. But imagine how hard that would have been to set up in a film. You'd have to communicate to the audience why we're seemingly in the past, but not America's actual past. That would be incredibly difficult to do, and I think critics of this aspect of the film simply haven't given much thought to the enormous challenge of setting the context. Remember, we are now several additional decades away from the quasi-historical setting that Rand envisioned.
My own solution, what I've envisioned, is a film shot in black-and-white, with certain scenes (including Galt's Gulch) shot in color. But such an approach brings its own set of difficulties and risks.
The Themes: True, the film only skims the intellectual surface of Rand's novel. But consider what the film does manage to convey. Dagny makes decisions based on her first-hand understanding of the facts. The producers move the world. There is a difference between producing versus mooching and forcing, and the latter are wrong. The film largely stays true to the intellectual underpinnings of Rand's works, and it does so without (or only rarely) sounding didactic. That's quite a feat.
The Pacing: I've heard the complaint that the film is too fast, that the audience won't follow the story, etc. I disagree with all that. Yes, the film moves along briskly, as I think appropriate. Imagine the reviews if the film seemed to drag! The best comparison I can think of on this point is Joss Whedon's Serenity, which also compresses an enormous amount of background into the opening sequence and moves the story along quickly. I'm not bothered by this. Anyone who pays attention to the movie can follow the basic turns of the story. To me the film is "richly layered" in a way that invites multiple viewings.
Next I'll address some of the other criticisms I've heard about the film.
The Bracelet: I did think the film misses much of the emotional richness of the bracelet scene. Dagny is nearly out of her mind with anger during the scene, and that simply does not come across. Dagny should have confronted Lillian as she berated the Rearden bracelet in front of others, as happens in the novel. Still, if you forget the book, the scene works okay.
The Music: Frankly, I didn't even notice the music my first viewing. I've heard complaints that it's not spectacular. But usually if you're thinking about the music while watching a film, the music isn't doing its job. This time, because I was consciously thinking about the music, I did notice it, and I enjoyed it. I liked the pristine horns during the train run.
The Drinking: The first time I watched the film, I didn't notice that the characters often have a drink in their hands. I noticed this time because others have commented on it. But it doesn't bother me. I also noticed that Hank was drinking coffee at his anniversary party, sitting in bored solitude, which is just right.
The Sex: True, the sex scene between Dagny and Hank captures nothing of the emotional complexity of the book. Rather than include a silly "I want to kiss you" scene, I think the film should have cut straight from the train scene to a far more rowdy sex scene. That would have left all of Hank's conflicts suitably in the background. Still, I didn't hate the sex scene; I just don't think it did much for the movie.
Ellis's Strike: I didn't notice this the first time, but I did after others pointed it out. Ellis's strike is oddly split up. It's as though he goes on strike, then comes back to burn his wells. But I think it's not too hard for a viewer to make this work; just assume that Ellis had to stick around for a while to close down his business, which is actually how the characters often go on strike in the book.
Stadler: Yes, I was surprised by the casting for Dr. Stadler. But, again, try to forget the book and just contemplate whether the character works within the movie. He works okay (not great). Yes, the dialog about the three students seems to come out of nowhere. But, again, it's fairly easy for a viewer to fill in the gaps: Stadler is generally disillusioned because he lost three great students, so now he doesn't give a damn about Rearden, either. I don't think that's too big of a gap for a viewer to cross. A few words could have made the connection clearer.
Owen Kellog: Ethan Cohn's "Owen Kellog" is again nothing like the book. I think the role was basically miscast and misacted. Still, it's not impossible to believe that a mousy man is nevertheless quite competent at his job, and the viewer basically has to take his background on Dagny's word, anyway.
Now I want to touch on the truly bad aspects of the film.
Hugh Akston: It's absolutely impossible to believe that the Hugh Akston of the film is a brilliant philosopher. Hopefully they'll fix that for future parts.
Dagny and Francisco: I still hated the scene where Dagny casually offers to sleep with Francisco to secure a loan. That line served no purpose, and it greatly distracted from the emotional impact of the sequence.
Francisco: I didn't consistently hate the film's portrayal of Francisco, but I didn't like it, either. It's impossible to believe that this scruffy barfly is some sort of great man. I think the actor could have done an okay job if he'd had a better understanding of the character or better direction (and a better costumer). One of the film's missed opportunities is the first scene between Francisco and Hank; this should have been electric, but it was instead a little boring.
The Motor: In the case of the motor, I think the film needed to stray farther from the novel. You have this great climax of the train run, then this long and seemingly pointless quest for the motor. That time could have been spent building up the train run more completely. For example, the novel's scenes of the room full of engineer volunteers, and the guardians of the rail, reveal the deep importance and emotion of the event, yet those scenes are absent from the film. In general, the train run, though inspiring, didn't capture Dagny's ecstatic state of mind, which means it didn't set up the sex scene as well as it could have.
Some of my favorite films are far from cinematically perfect. I absolutely loved Equilibrium and saw it many times in the theater, though it too has some problems. Whedon's Serenity remains one of my all-time favorites, despite some somewhat cheesy scenes with "Mr. Universe" and some less-than-spectacular digital effects. While I'll never like Atlas as much as I like those other two films, it definitely joins my list of favored films.
I return to where I began: I think Atlas Shrugged Part I is a "basically good" film despite its flaws. And I just don't get those who think the film deserves nothing but praise or nothing but condemnation. I still think I've made the best analogy: it's Atlas Shrugged as directed by the Fountainhead's John Snyte, though I would add, on a good day.
Having just watched the film again, I stand by my initial review, though I enjoyed the film even more the second time.
I wanted to see the film again just to enjoy it on the big screen. However, I also wanted to check my initial estimation of it. Undoubtedly before I saw it I expected it to be an utter failure, yet I was nevertheless excited to see it, so I felt quite relieved that it turned out to be much better than I expected. But had I erred on the side of overemphasizing its merits while ignoring its flaws? No. This movie got a great deal right, much more than its detractors recognize. The fact that it also got a lot wrong explains why I describe it as good but not great.
I have seen several basic camps emerge in evaluating the film.
1. Some fans of Ayn Rand lavish the film with praise, regardless of the virtues and flaws of the movie, simply out of fandom.
2. Some fans of Ayn Rand bitterly condemn the film, refusing to acknowledge any virtues of the movie, because the film does have some flaws and is not consistently true to the spirit of the book. (The fact that the film lists David Kelley as a consultant, while Kelley remains on very bad terms with Rand's heir Leonard Peikoff, does not help in this regard. Disclaimer: while I recognize the value of some of Kelley's older works, such as The Evidence of the Senses, I think he's gone basically off track since then and that Peikoff's criticisms of him are on target. Moreover, I think the film's producers would have done far better to turn to somebody who actually knows something about film, such as the Ayn Rand Institute's Jeff Britting.)
3. Various conservatives praise the film for its political messages, regardless of the quality of the film. This group likes the film basically for its propaganda value.
4. Various leftists condemn the film because they hate Ayn Rand and everything she stands for, and there's no way they'd ever say anything good about anything relating to her.
5. Some, like me, enjoyed the film yet see in it virtues and flaws. Some basically didn't enjoy it because they put more weight on the problems that I too recognize.
6. The large majority of Americans, meanwhile, wonder what the hell this is all about or ignore the film completely. But maybe the film will encourage some of these people to grab the novel off their shelves and blow the dust off of it.
Frankly, I'm as skeptical of those who cannot find fault with the film as I am of those who cannot find anything to like about it.
First I'll review what I liked about the film. Obviously there are spoilers below!
The Cinematography: The Colorado landscapes are gorgeous. The bridge is stunning. The interior settings are rich. I particularly enjoyed the construction scenes of the John Galt line. This is all the more impressive considering the film's limited budget.
The Acting: I have heard that the acting is "wooden," claims I regard as silly. Some of the acting is superb: see Patrick Fischler as Paul Larkin, Rebecca Wisocky as Lillian Rearden, and Armin Shimerman as the bureaucratic scientist. Matthew Marsden does a very good job as the entitled sniveler James Taggart.
Unfortunately, the acting of the heroes is on the whole less-good than the acting of the villains. Of the heroes, my favorite performance is Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt. Though physically he does not match the Ellis of the novel, I liked what he did with the role. He turned nicely from bitter anger toward the Taggarts to warmth toward Dagny and Hank.
I really liked Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden. I like the way he smiles lightly at his metal. I have heard the complaint that he smiles too much throughout the film; this is not the Hank of the novel. No, it is not, but the Hank of the novel is horribly emotionally repressed for the first third of the story, and that would have been extraordinarily difficult to portray in a stand-alone movie. Notice that Bowler invokes both the fond half-smile as well as a sarcastic, forced smile with his wife. His acting is anything but "wooden;" it is subtle and emotionally rich.
Those who call Taylor Schilling's performance of Dagny "wooden" I think unfairly malign her intentionally understated performance. What I get from her performance is what I get from the Dagny of the novel: a very rich emotional life hidden (from those who don't know her) by a hardened exterior. I thought she did this very effectively, though I grant some of her hand gestures are a little awkward.
The Setting: The film does a very nice job setting the context for the story. Very quickly it establishes that we are in the near future, that the global economy is falling apart, that rail is now the most critical component of transportation, and that bureaucrats continue to seize control over the economy.
True, the novel Atlas is timeless, almost an alternate reality of a slightly altered America of the past. But imagine how hard that would have been to set up in a film. You'd have to communicate to the audience why we're seemingly in the past, but not America's actual past. That would be incredibly difficult to do, and I think critics of this aspect of the film simply haven't given much thought to the enormous challenge of setting the context. Remember, we are now several additional decades away from the quasi-historical setting that Rand envisioned.
My own solution, what I've envisioned, is a film shot in black-and-white, with certain scenes (including Galt's Gulch) shot in color. But such an approach brings its own set of difficulties and risks.
The Themes: True, the film only skims the intellectual surface of Rand's novel. But consider what the film does manage to convey. Dagny makes decisions based on her first-hand understanding of the facts. The producers move the world. There is a difference between producing versus mooching and forcing, and the latter are wrong. The film largely stays true to the intellectual underpinnings of Rand's works, and it does so without (or only rarely) sounding didactic. That's quite a feat.
The Pacing: I've heard the complaint that the film is too fast, that the audience won't follow the story, etc. I disagree with all that. Yes, the film moves along briskly, as I think appropriate. Imagine the reviews if the film seemed to drag! The best comparison I can think of on this point is Joss Whedon's Serenity, which also compresses an enormous amount of background into the opening sequence and moves the story along quickly. I'm not bothered by this. Anyone who pays attention to the movie can follow the basic turns of the story. To me the film is "richly layered" in a way that invites multiple viewings.
Next I'll address some of the other criticisms I've heard about the film.
The Bracelet: I did think the film misses much of the emotional richness of the bracelet scene. Dagny is nearly out of her mind with anger during the scene, and that simply does not come across. Dagny should have confronted Lillian as she berated the Rearden bracelet in front of others, as happens in the novel. Still, if you forget the book, the scene works okay.
The Music: Frankly, I didn't even notice the music my first viewing. I've heard complaints that it's not spectacular. But usually if you're thinking about the music while watching a film, the music isn't doing its job. This time, because I was consciously thinking about the music, I did notice it, and I enjoyed it. I liked the pristine horns during the train run.
The Drinking: The first time I watched the film, I didn't notice that the characters often have a drink in their hands. I noticed this time because others have commented on it. But it doesn't bother me. I also noticed that Hank was drinking coffee at his anniversary party, sitting in bored solitude, which is just right.
The Sex: True, the sex scene between Dagny and Hank captures nothing of the emotional complexity of the book. Rather than include a silly "I want to kiss you" scene, I think the film should have cut straight from the train scene to a far more rowdy sex scene. That would have left all of Hank's conflicts suitably in the background. Still, I didn't hate the sex scene; I just don't think it did much for the movie.
Ellis's Strike: I didn't notice this the first time, but I did after others pointed it out. Ellis's strike is oddly split up. It's as though he goes on strike, then comes back to burn his wells. But I think it's not too hard for a viewer to make this work; just assume that Ellis had to stick around for a while to close down his business, which is actually how the characters often go on strike in the book.
Stadler: Yes, I was surprised by the casting for Dr. Stadler. But, again, try to forget the book and just contemplate whether the character works within the movie. He works okay (not great). Yes, the dialog about the three students seems to come out of nowhere. But, again, it's fairly easy for a viewer to fill in the gaps: Stadler is generally disillusioned because he lost three great students, so now he doesn't give a damn about Rearden, either. I don't think that's too big of a gap for a viewer to cross. A few words could have made the connection clearer.
Owen Kellog: Ethan Cohn's "Owen Kellog" is again nothing like the book. I think the role was basically miscast and misacted. Still, it's not impossible to believe that a mousy man is nevertheless quite competent at his job, and the viewer basically has to take his background on Dagny's word, anyway.
Now I want to touch on the truly bad aspects of the film.
Hugh Akston: It's absolutely impossible to believe that the Hugh Akston of the film is a brilliant philosopher. Hopefully they'll fix that for future parts.
Dagny and Francisco: I still hated the scene where Dagny casually offers to sleep with Francisco to secure a loan. That line served no purpose, and it greatly distracted from the emotional impact of the sequence.
Francisco: I didn't consistently hate the film's portrayal of Francisco, but I didn't like it, either. It's impossible to believe that this scruffy barfly is some sort of great man. I think the actor could have done an okay job if he'd had a better understanding of the character or better direction (and a better costumer). One of the film's missed opportunities is the first scene between Francisco and Hank; this should have been electric, but it was instead a little boring.
The Motor: In the case of the motor, I think the film needed to stray farther from the novel. You have this great climax of the train run, then this long and seemingly pointless quest for the motor. That time could have been spent building up the train run more completely. For example, the novel's scenes of the room full of engineer volunteers, and the guardians of the rail, reveal the deep importance and emotion of the event, yet those scenes are absent from the film. In general, the train run, though inspiring, didn't capture Dagny's ecstatic state of mind, which means it didn't set up the sex scene as well as it could have.
Some of my favorite films are far from cinematically perfect. I absolutely loved Equilibrium and saw it many times in the theater, though it too has some problems. Whedon's Serenity remains one of my all-time favorites, despite some somewhat cheesy scenes with "Mr. Universe" and some less-than-spectacular digital effects. While I'll never like Atlas as much as I like those other two films, it definitely joins my list of favored films.
I return to where I began: I think Atlas Shrugged Part I is a "basically good" film despite its flaws. And I just don't get those who think the film deserves nothing but praise or nothing but condemnation. I still think I've made the best analogy: it's Atlas Shrugged as directed by the Fountainhead's John Snyte, though I would add, on a good day.
Labels:
PPC
Grassroots Radio Hosts Atlas Shrugged Event
Ken Clark and Jason Worley of Grassroots Radio broadcast from Westminster April 15 to celebrate the release of Atlas Shrugged Part I. Here three people who attended the event share their thoughts on the political scene.
Labels:
PPC
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Voices of the Tea Party
So what do Tea Party supporters actually think? Listen to these April 15 interviews from Denver.
Labels:
PPC
Monday, April 18, 2011
What's a Horcrux?
On the same day Atlas Shrugged came out in theaters, the seventh film of the Harry Potter series arrived on DVD. I'm very interested in both films; see my reviews of Atlas I and Hallows I.
Central to the plot of the Potter novels is the Horcrux, an object of great evil that manifests the major characteristics of the villains: viciousness toward others, an obsession with physical objects, and a pathological fear of death. I released a short video further explaining the Horcrux:
For a more detailed account, see my book, Values of Harry Potter.
Central to the plot of the Potter novels is the Horcrux, an object of great evil that manifests the major characteristics of the villains: viciousness toward others, an obsession with physical objects, and a pathological fear of death. I released a short video further explaining the Horcrux:
For a more detailed account, see my book, Values of Harry Potter.
Labels:
PPC
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Atlas Shrugged Audience Reactions
After the Atlas Shrugged Part I opening in Westminster last night, I asked audience members what they thought of the film. Of course, I could catch only a few people, and some didn't want to be recorded. (One lady who declined an interview said the film reminded her of Dynasty.) Here are all the interviews I did capture. Among this group the view of the film was relatively positive. See also my take.
Labels:
PPC
Go See Atlas Shrugged Part I!
As I mentioned earlier in the week on Twitter, I had never been so excited to see a film for which I had such low expectations. But I truly enjoyed the film adaptation of (the first part of) Atlas Shrugged.
I see that one lonely reviewer listed at Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a passing grade, leaving Atlas with a paltry six percent rating overall. Yet I am reminded of the scenes in Atlas in which the State Science Institute pans Rearden Metal for political reasons. While Atlas is not as good a movie as Rearden's product is a metal, I think the film faces comparable biases. I think that a film of comparable production value, but based on a politically correct novel or pushing a leftist agenda, would have scored in the forty to sixty range at Rotten Tomatoes.
Based on the trailers, I wasn't sure I'd enjoy the performances of Taylor Schilling (Dagny Taggart) or Graham Beckel (Ellis Wyatt). But I thought they did a fine job. Generally I was impressed with the acting throughout. I was disappointed with Jsu Garcia as Francisco D'Anconia; he played more of a bar-hopping playboy, whereas the real character is a refined, intensely elegant man. And the character of philosopher Hugh Akston is completely misplayed. But everyone else is quite good, and at moments inspired. Patrick Fischler brilliantly portrays the conflicted Paul Larkin, and Rebecca Wisocky nails the serenely devilish Lillian Rearden.
The film looks beautiful. The outdoor scenery and the interior locations are gorgeous. I loved the sequences of building the rail line. And the train run itself proves inspirational (though it retains something of a digitized look).
No, the film does not come close to the intellectual or psychological depth of the novel. And sometimes the film gets the book totally wrong, as when (according to the film) Dagny casually offers to sleep with Francisco to secure a loan. Wrong, wrong, wrong. But the film remains basically true to the story and gets a great deal right.
I've spent quite a lot of time contemplated the Harry Potter universe, and, like Atlas, the last two Potter films leave out wide swaths of the books on which they are based. Both Rowling and Rand spend a lot of time inside the heads of the characters, and that's extremely difficult to carry across on screen. While obviously the Potter films have much larger budgets, I think they're roughly as true to their source material as the Atlas film is to Rand's novel.
Another apt comparison is the 1949 adaptation of Fountainhead. Atlas is a far better adaptation. In the older film, both Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal play their characters (Howard Roark and Dominique Francon) totally wrong. (In fairness, Roark would be very hard to portray well.) By contrast, at least at moments Schilling and Grant Bowler (Hank Rearden) revealed the true spirit of their characters.
Of course, it may be hard to top the 1942 unauthorized Italian production of We the Living.
Honestly, I prepared to endure the movie clinching my teeth and trying to keep myself from getting continually ripped out of the story by bad acting and technical faults. But that didn't happen at all. Instead, I was impressed by the opening sequences, and slowly I relaxed, forgot my trepidation, and started to enjoyed it.
No, the film is not the novel. But at least the film respects the novel. Overall the film succeeds, which is a feat under any circumstances, and particularly given the film's extremely low budget (something like ten million dollars). So go see the movie. And then forget the movie as much as possible and return to the book.
Labels:
PPC
Friday, April 15, 2011
Hsieh Reviews Rand's View of Rights and Capitalism
Diana Hsieh reviewed Ayn Rand's ideas earlier this month at Liberty On the Rocks, Denver. Here, she discusses Ayn Rand's theory of rights and addresses luck and capitalism.
Labels:
PPC
Thursday, April 14, 2011
What's 'Values of Harry Potter' All About?
For those curious about my book, Value of Harry Potter, I'm reproducing a summary I just posted to the book's web page.
The release of the Expanded Edition of my book Values of Harry Potter offers a good opportunity for me to walk people through the book.
In the Introduction, I quickly review my own history with the Potter series and introduce the main topics of the original edition. I also summarize my take on the religious themes of J. K. Rowling's novels: "Some people argue that the books should be avoided because they oppose Christianity. Others argue that the books should be read and praised because they promote Christian themes. My claim is that the Christian elements of the Potter books are real but disconnected from the broader moral themes of the books."
Chapter One, "The Heroic Fight for Values," first discusses the major values that Harry Potter and his allies pursue: their lives and the lives of loved ones, their liberty, and their ability to live and work in peace. In contrast, "all the villains achieve is misery and self-destruction;" they destroy the values that make life worth living. The last part of the chapter, "Values in the Face of Death," reviews the stories of Lily protecting Harry with her life, Dumbledore doing the same for Draco, and Harry confronting Voldemort thinking he'll die in the process. I argue that these cases, too, illustrate the heroes acting heroically for their values.
Chapter Two, "Independence: Mark of the Hero," explores the virtue of independence in Rowling's heroes and the vice of dependence (or, to invoke Ayn Rand's term, second-handedness) in the villains. Independence in this context means approaching "all of life…according to one's own considered judgment of the facts," not "ignoring others, disdaining them, avoiding their company, or rejecting their help." Key examples of the second-handed approach are the Dursleys and Gilderoy Lockhart. The section, "Second-Handers and Power," discusses how power-lusters such as Minister Fudge, Dolores Umbridge, and Voldemort himself embody the second-hand mentality. By contrast, the heroes of the novels, particularly Dobby, Hermione, and Harry, maintain a fierce independence.
Chapter Three, "Free Will: 'It Matters Not What Someone Is Born,'" considers the similarities and differences between Harry and Voldemort. "Rowling shows that choice is key" to the very different paths they travel. The chapter also reviews the cases of Sirius Black and Severus Snape as illustrations of the power of free will. However, free will also has its limits, and the chapter explores these as well, as illustrated by the cases of Ariana (Dumbledore's sister), Merope (Voldemort's mother), and the house elf Kreacher.
Chapter Four, "The Clash of Love and Sacrifice," grows more critical. Is Lily's act of protecting Harry an example of sacrificial love in the Christian tradition? Invoking the wisdom of Aristotle, I argue that it is not; instead, Lily acts to protect her most cherished value. Though Rowling herself injects Christian symbolism into her stories, her characters actually show that they act in pursuit of their own values, and calling that "sacrifice" makes little sense. The chapter also considers the cases of Ron "sacrificing" himself on the chess board, Harry rescuing his enemies, and Dumbledore caring for his sister.
Chapter Five, "Materialism and Immortality," examines the significance of the Horcrux, an object of great evil. Central to the plot of the novels is Harry's quest to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes. I argue that, while Rowling suggests belief in an immortal soul is necessary for virtue, her characters actually demonstrate otherwise.
For the Conclusion to the original edition, "Mischief Managed," I discuss Rowling's work as an example of Romantic literature. I argue, "The deeper magic of Harry Potter flows through our world, too."
Part Three: Additional Essays consists of eight essays new to the Expanded Edition.
The Psychology of Harry Potter reviews Rowling's experience with depression and relates it to the dementors of the novels. The essay goes on to explore the psychological significance of boggarts, the Mirror of Erised, the Resurrection Stone, and the scar that Voldemort gives Harry.
Wizard Law and Segregation reviews the various roles that government plays in the novels. In brief, the government protects wizards from harm, oppresses other races (which the heroes condemn), and regulates various behaviors. Notably, Rowling creates a world in which wizards forcibly segregate themselves from Muggles, something that seems at odds with Rowling's broader themes of political liberty.
News Media in Harry Potter counters criticism of the novels' treatment of journalism. I argue that Rowling actually presents a "constructive view of journalism within the series." I conclude, "The novels encourage readers to critically examine claims, regardless of their source, for internal consistency and adherence to the facts. Most importantly, the series urges readers to fight for the truth."
The final five essays review The Tales of Beedle the Bard, contrast Rowling's use of magic with the magic of fantasy writers J. R. R. Tolkien and Lloyd Alexander, recount "Harry Potter's Lessons for Muggle Politicians," discuss some similarities between Rowling and Ayn Rand, and review the Potter films.
If this seems interesting to you, I invite you to read my entire book!
The release of the Expanded Edition of my book Values of Harry Potter offers a good opportunity for me to walk people through the book.
In the Introduction, I quickly review my own history with the Potter series and introduce the main topics of the original edition. I also summarize my take on the religious themes of J. K. Rowling's novels: "Some people argue that the books should be avoided because they oppose Christianity. Others argue that the books should be read and praised because they promote Christian themes. My claim is that the Christian elements of the Potter books are real but disconnected from the broader moral themes of the books."
Chapter One, "The Heroic Fight for Values," first discusses the major values that Harry Potter and his allies pursue: their lives and the lives of loved ones, their liberty, and their ability to live and work in peace. In contrast, "all the villains achieve is misery and self-destruction;" they destroy the values that make life worth living. The last part of the chapter, "Values in the Face of Death," reviews the stories of Lily protecting Harry with her life, Dumbledore doing the same for Draco, and Harry confronting Voldemort thinking he'll die in the process. I argue that these cases, too, illustrate the heroes acting heroically for their values.
Chapter Two, "Independence: Mark of the Hero," explores the virtue of independence in Rowling's heroes and the vice of dependence (or, to invoke Ayn Rand's term, second-handedness) in the villains. Independence in this context means approaching "all of life…according to one's own considered judgment of the facts," not "ignoring others, disdaining them, avoiding their company, or rejecting their help." Key examples of the second-handed approach are the Dursleys and Gilderoy Lockhart. The section, "Second-Handers and Power," discusses how power-lusters such as Minister Fudge, Dolores Umbridge, and Voldemort himself embody the second-hand mentality. By contrast, the heroes of the novels, particularly Dobby, Hermione, and Harry, maintain a fierce independence.
Chapter Three, "Free Will: 'It Matters Not What Someone Is Born,'" considers the similarities and differences between Harry and Voldemort. "Rowling shows that choice is key" to the very different paths they travel. The chapter also reviews the cases of Sirius Black and Severus Snape as illustrations of the power of free will. However, free will also has its limits, and the chapter explores these as well, as illustrated by the cases of Ariana (Dumbledore's sister), Merope (Voldemort's mother), and the house elf Kreacher.
Chapter Four, "The Clash of Love and Sacrifice," grows more critical. Is Lily's act of protecting Harry an example of sacrificial love in the Christian tradition? Invoking the wisdom of Aristotle, I argue that it is not; instead, Lily acts to protect her most cherished value. Though Rowling herself injects Christian symbolism into her stories, her characters actually show that they act in pursuit of their own values, and calling that "sacrifice" makes little sense. The chapter also considers the cases of Ron "sacrificing" himself on the chess board, Harry rescuing his enemies, and Dumbledore caring for his sister.
Chapter Five, "Materialism and Immortality," examines the significance of the Horcrux, an object of great evil. Central to the plot of the novels is Harry's quest to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes. I argue that, while Rowling suggests belief in an immortal soul is necessary for virtue, her characters actually demonstrate otherwise.
For the Conclusion to the original edition, "Mischief Managed," I discuss Rowling's work as an example of Romantic literature. I argue, "The deeper magic of Harry Potter flows through our world, too."
Part Three: Additional Essays consists of eight essays new to the Expanded Edition.
The Psychology of Harry Potter reviews Rowling's experience with depression and relates it to the dementors of the novels. The essay goes on to explore the psychological significance of boggarts, the Mirror of Erised, the Resurrection Stone, and the scar that Voldemort gives Harry.
Wizard Law and Segregation reviews the various roles that government plays in the novels. In brief, the government protects wizards from harm, oppresses other races (which the heroes condemn), and regulates various behaviors. Notably, Rowling creates a world in which wizards forcibly segregate themselves from Muggles, something that seems at odds with Rowling's broader themes of political liberty.
News Media in Harry Potter counters criticism of the novels' treatment of journalism. I argue that Rowling actually presents a "constructive view of journalism within the series." I conclude, "The novels encourage readers to critically examine claims, regardless of their source, for internal consistency and adherence to the facts. Most importantly, the series urges readers to fight for the truth."
The final five essays review The Tales of Beedle the Bard, contrast Rowling's use of magic with the magic of fantasy writers J. R. R. Tolkien and Lloyd Alexander, recount "Harry Potter's Lessons for Muggle Politicians," discuss some similarities between Rowling and Ayn Rand, and review the Potter films.
If this seems interesting to you, I invite you to read my entire book!
Labels:
PPC
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Objectivism: Hsieh Summarizes Rand's Philosophy
Ayn Rand's Objectivism is an integrated philosophy, not just a political view, Diana Hsieh explained April 6 at Liberty On the Rocks.
Labels:
PPC
Monday, April 11, 2011
Expanded 'Values of Harry Potter' Addresses Psychology, Government, and Media
Colorado political writer Ari Armstrong releases the Expanded Edition of his book, Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles, April 21.
The new edition adds eight new essays to the original 2008 book. Those essays include:
* "The Psychology of Harry Potter," which compares author J. K. Rowling's personal experiences with depression to the dementors of the novels.
* "Wizard Law and Segregation," an essay that reviews the political themes of the novels and evaluates the forced separation of wizards and non-magical Muggles.
* "News Media in Harry Potter," which reviews the attitudes of Rowling's heroes and villains toward media and counters criticism of the novels.
"I am thrilled to have the opportunity to return to Rowling's magical world and review its parallels to our own world, especially in the areas of psychology, government, and media," Ari said about his work of literary criticism.
The release date marks the anniversary of Harry's use of a luck potion to obtain a crucial memory about arch-villain Voldemort.
The book is already available in paperback and Kindle.
Review copies (paperback or pdf) may be requested from Ari at ari (atsignhere) freecolorado (dothere) com.
For more information about the book see ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.
The new edition adds eight new essays to the original 2008 book. Those essays include:
* "The Psychology of Harry Potter," which compares author J. K. Rowling's personal experiences with depression to the dementors of the novels.
* "Wizard Law and Segregation," an essay that reviews the political themes of the novels and evaluates the forced separation of wizards and non-magical Muggles.
* "News Media in Harry Potter," which reviews the attitudes of Rowling's heroes and villains toward media and counters criticism of the novels.
"I am thrilled to have the opportunity to return to Rowling's magical world and review its parallels to our own world, especially in the areas of psychology, government, and media," Ari said about his work of literary criticism.
The release date marks the anniversary of Harry's use of a luck potion to obtain a crucial memory about arch-villain Voldemort.
The book is already available in paperback and Kindle.
Review copies (paperback or pdf) may be requested from Ari at ari (atsignhere) freecolorado (dothere) com.
For more information about the book see ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.
Labels:
PPC
Atlas Shrugged Movie Trivia
Get ready for the Atlas Shrugged movie! Try to answer these seven questions about Ayn Rand's novel. Diana Hsieh asked the questions at the April 6 Liberty On the Rocks in Denver.
Here are the questions:
1. What does John Galt's motor use as its power source?
2. What was the title of Dagny Taggart's first job?
3. What is Mr. Thompson's position in the government?
4. What is Mr. Thompson's first name?
5. What are the two metallurgical achievements of the State Science Institute?
6. What is Francisco D'Anconia's full name?
7. What color are John Galt's hair and eyes?
For the answers, see the video starting at 2:02!
Here are the questions:
1. What does John Galt's motor use as its power source?
2. What was the title of Dagny Taggart's first job?
3. What is Mr. Thompson's position in the government?
4. What is Mr. Thompson's first name?
5. What are the two metallurgical achievements of the State Science Institute?
6. What is Francisco D'Anconia's full name?
7. What color are John Galt's hair and eyes?
For the answers, see the video starting at 2:02!
Labels:
PPC
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Glass Reflects on CU Gun Debate
In this guest article, Bob Glass reviews an April 6 event he attended in Boulder.
Venturing into the people's Republic of Boulder is always part freak show and part sensory overload of political correctness. I got more of my share of both when I attended a symposium/debate entitled "Happiness is a warm Gun." This event which took place in the University Memorial Center was part of CU's Conference on World Affairs.
This has become an annual event where silver-haired liberals get to feel intellectually and morally superior to the common folk as they drink their half decaf mocha lattes along with tenured professors and listen to how evil capitalism is, how oppressive Israel is, and how imperialistic America is, as the ice caps melt and polar bears must resort to cannibalism. This all occurs with tax subsidies of course.
Having owned a gun store in Boulder and Longmont during the tumultuous years of the Columbine shootings and the Clinton/Reno fiascoes at Waco and Ruby Ridge, I knew what it was like to be a lightning rod for the media looking for anyone foolish enough to defend individual liberty and the Second Amendment in particular.
When I saw that Sheriff Richard Mack was to be one of the panelists at this event I thought it might be worth my while to attend. For those of you not familiar with Richard Mack, his is the classic story of the cop gone good. In a nutshell he decided to take his oath of upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States seriously. As he read the Constitution and the words of our founding fathers he began to understand what liberty and limited government were all about. He came to the inevitable conclusion that all gun laws as well as the war on drugs are unconstitutional and illegal. Hearing such ideas from Objectivists and Libertarians, even Conservatives is not so unusual. Hearing it from a man who spent most of his adult life in law enforcement is.
There were three other people on the panel besides the moderator. Terri Burke is the executive director of the Texas ACLU. Her claim to fame on the panel was to assert that the ACLU had no position of gun control but did however view the Second Amendment as a collective rather than individual right. I didn't get the opportunity to explain to her that her position was a contradiction in terms. Just as well as I don't think she would have had a clue as to what I was talking about. She asserted that the Second Amendment only talked about the state's right to heavily control and regulate its own armed forces -- what was then the militia and what is now the national guard. Again I did not get the chance to explain to her that the Bill of Rights is all about protecting individual citizens against the tyranny of the state and that the term "well regulated" in the context in which it is used in the Second Amendment means well-provisioned.
The third panelist was Colin Goddard, a former student at Virginia Tech now working with the Brady Campaign. His role on the panel was that of professional victim. Goddard was shot on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Tech when a deeply disturbed individual went on a murderous rampage. If you can't wheel out James Brady himself or at least get Tom Mauser to get the water works flowing, then a gunshot victim and now professional lobbyist will have to do. Goddard's main focus was that the current system of doing background checks on gun buyers (the Brady Bill) is insufficient and the government needs greater power and more money to check more thoroughly into a person's legal and medical history. He also asserted that there is no "need" for a variety of firearms now being sold and they should be made illegal. [Editor's note: John Lott and others have pointed out that the shooting occurred despite the campus gun ban, and Lott argues, "those bans actually encourage those attacks."]
Rounding out the statist panel was Jimmie Moore. Moore, now a municipal court judge in Philadelphia, played the role of the victimized Black man in America who despite his violent boyhood in the projects rose above the gun culture and went on to become a lifelong public servant. Moore's main assertion is that we cannot control our own behavior -- as evidenced by the rash of shootings in our cities -- and therefore the government must step in and control us for our own good. He dismissed the Constitution as a document that condoned slavery and oppressed women and therefore has no validity today. He went on to say the the Constitution is a living, breathing document that is always in a state of flux and subject to the interpretation of judges and the times in which they live. Yes, this man is a judge.
Richard Mack showed great courage and character stepping into this viper pit with a bulls eye painted on his back. His arguments were constitutional, historical, and statistical, showing time and time again how gun control does not work and how the greatest threat to freedom and security is the state itself. The other panelists and the crowd of about 300 treated him like a pinata, taking turns whacking him with their emotion-filled, illogical arguments.
When it came for me to ask a question I immediately pointed out the inherent unfairness of having three gang-up against one. Once the moderator saw that I was not toeing the party line of political correctness he tried to silence me by going to the next person with a question. Big mistake on his part. This turned into an ugly shouting match between us as I stood my ground and said my full piece despite the obvious irritation on the face of the now-silent moderator and the groans coming from the crowd.
After the "discussion" ended an Israeli couple came over to me and thanked me for taking the stand that I did. They told me that originally Sheriff Mack was not scheduled to speak, but it was only through their efforts and invitation that they got him on the panel. So much for the concept of a free exchange of ideas and opinions on a college campus. I shook Richard Mack's hand and thanked him for having the cojones for swimming in the piranha tank. As I left the auditorium, a few more people came up to me and thanked me for saying what I did. But for the most part I was met with stares and snarls of contempt. Just another day at the office in the People's Republic of Boulder.
Venturing into the people's Republic of Boulder is always part freak show and part sensory overload of political correctness. I got more of my share of both when I attended a symposium/debate entitled "Happiness is a warm Gun." This event which took place in the University Memorial Center was part of CU's Conference on World Affairs.
This has become an annual event where silver-haired liberals get to feel intellectually and morally superior to the common folk as they drink their half decaf mocha lattes along with tenured professors and listen to how evil capitalism is, how oppressive Israel is, and how imperialistic America is, as the ice caps melt and polar bears must resort to cannibalism. This all occurs with tax subsidies of course.
Having owned a gun store in Boulder and Longmont during the tumultuous years of the Columbine shootings and the Clinton/Reno fiascoes at Waco and Ruby Ridge, I knew what it was like to be a lightning rod for the media looking for anyone foolish enough to defend individual liberty and the Second Amendment in particular.
When I saw that Sheriff Richard Mack was to be one of the panelists at this event I thought it might be worth my while to attend. For those of you not familiar with Richard Mack, his is the classic story of the cop gone good. In a nutshell he decided to take his oath of upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States seriously. As he read the Constitution and the words of our founding fathers he began to understand what liberty and limited government were all about. He came to the inevitable conclusion that all gun laws as well as the war on drugs are unconstitutional and illegal. Hearing such ideas from Objectivists and Libertarians, even Conservatives is not so unusual. Hearing it from a man who spent most of his adult life in law enforcement is.
There were three other people on the panel besides the moderator. Terri Burke is the executive director of the Texas ACLU. Her claim to fame on the panel was to assert that the ACLU had no position of gun control but did however view the Second Amendment as a collective rather than individual right. I didn't get the opportunity to explain to her that her position was a contradiction in terms. Just as well as I don't think she would have had a clue as to what I was talking about. She asserted that the Second Amendment only talked about the state's right to heavily control and regulate its own armed forces -- what was then the militia and what is now the national guard. Again I did not get the chance to explain to her that the Bill of Rights is all about protecting individual citizens against the tyranny of the state and that the term "well regulated" in the context in which it is used in the Second Amendment means well-provisioned.
The third panelist was Colin Goddard, a former student at Virginia Tech now working with the Brady Campaign. His role on the panel was that of professional victim. Goddard was shot on April 16, 2007 at Virginia Tech when a deeply disturbed individual went on a murderous rampage. If you can't wheel out James Brady himself or at least get Tom Mauser to get the water works flowing, then a gunshot victim and now professional lobbyist will have to do. Goddard's main focus was that the current system of doing background checks on gun buyers (the Brady Bill) is insufficient and the government needs greater power and more money to check more thoroughly into a person's legal and medical history. He also asserted that there is no "need" for a variety of firearms now being sold and they should be made illegal. [Editor's note: John Lott and others have pointed out that the shooting occurred despite the campus gun ban, and Lott argues, "those bans actually encourage those attacks."]
Rounding out the statist panel was Jimmie Moore. Moore, now a municipal court judge in Philadelphia, played the role of the victimized Black man in America who despite his violent boyhood in the projects rose above the gun culture and went on to become a lifelong public servant. Moore's main assertion is that we cannot control our own behavior -- as evidenced by the rash of shootings in our cities -- and therefore the government must step in and control us for our own good. He dismissed the Constitution as a document that condoned slavery and oppressed women and therefore has no validity today. He went on to say the the Constitution is a living, breathing document that is always in a state of flux and subject to the interpretation of judges and the times in which they live. Yes, this man is a judge.
Richard Mack showed great courage and character stepping into this viper pit with a bulls eye painted on his back. His arguments were constitutional, historical, and statistical, showing time and time again how gun control does not work and how the greatest threat to freedom and security is the state itself. The other panelists and the crowd of about 300 treated him like a pinata, taking turns whacking him with their emotion-filled, illogical arguments.
When it came for me to ask a question I immediately pointed out the inherent unfairness of having three gang-up against one. Once the moderator saw that I was not toeing the party line of political correctness he tried to silence me by going to the next person with a question. Big mistake on his part. This turned into an ugly shouting match between us as I stood my ground and said my full piece despite the obvious irritation on the face of the now-silent moderator and the groans coming from the crowd.
After the "discussion" ended an Israeli couple came over to me and thanked me for taking the stand that I did. They told me that originally Sheriff Mack was not scheduled to speak, but it was only through their efforts and invitation that they got him on the panel. So much for the concept of a free exchange of ideas and opinions on a college campus. I shook Richard Mack's hand and thanked him for having the cojones for swimming in the piranha tank. As I left the auditorium, a few more people came up to me and thanked me for saying what I did. But for the most part I was met with stares and snarls of contempt. Just another day at the office in the People's Republic of Boulder.
Labels:
PPC
Hsieh Explores Atlas Shrugged's Deeper Themes
Philosopher Diana Hsieh, who recorded a wonderful series of podcasts about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, discussed some of the novel's deeper themes April 6 at Liberty On the Rocks, Denver. As her main example Hsieh focused on the psychological destruction of the scientist Robert Stadler.
(Be sure to read all about my financial links to Hsieh, as the FTC unjustly requires me to post, and which illustrates why the agency should be abolished.)
(Be sure to read all about my financial links to Hsieh, as the FTC unjustly requires me to post, and which illustrates why the agency should be abolished.)
Labels:
PPC
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
TV Reporters to Register with the Federal Government
The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published April 1 by Grand Junction Free Press.
A menace stalks our society, contributing daily to panic and untimely death. Irresponsible television reporting whips the public into a passionate frenzy and leads them to make imprudent decisions, sometimes with fatal consequences.
Clearly there should be a law. Congress should require reasonable, common-sense television controls to register all reporters with the federal government and require background checks to purchase cameras and other sensitive equipment. After all, it's for the children.
Yes, that's our attempt at an April Fool's joke. But our point is quite serious: the First Amendment and the freedom of speech protects the rights of journalists, even though some journalists act irresponsibly and contribute to harmful and even deadly behavior.
Similarly, the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense rightly protects peaceable gun owners, even though a tiny fraction of people with guns handle them irresponsibly or even commit horrific crimes.
Apparently Don Coleman's idea of news reporting over at KJCT Channel 8 is to lie to law-abiding, peaceful gun owners by calling them under false pretenses to harass them about existing gun laws. Coleman reports that his station called people making private gun sales and asked them about background checks, knowing full well that private sales are not subject to such checks. Coleman's resulting report is a barely-disguised editorial masquerading as news.
The background check system is riddled with problems, to which we'll return. First we want to demonstrate that irresponsible journalism can in fact help to kill people, something journalists might care to remember when they advocate forcing people to register with the federal government to practice their Constitutional rights.
* Seth Mnookin, author of The Panic Virus, writes the "media seized hold of the story" about the bogus link between vaccines and autism and "helped to launch one of the most devastating health scares ever." This "led to outbreaks of deadly illnesses like Hib, measles, and whooping cough."
* Gary Taubes argues in Good Calories, Bad Calories that the media contributed to the demonization of saturated fat in favor of high-carb grains, promoting more obesity and diabetes.
* "The media are much more likely to do scare stories about plane crashes than car accidents," John Stossel points out, leading some people to avoid planes in favor of risker car travel.
* While much of the media have sensationalized the risks of nuclear power in the wake of Japan's earthquake, Lachlan Markay writes for Newsbusters that "wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy." Science writer Matt Ridley adds, "Compared with coal, oil, gas and biofuels, nuclear energy is pretty harmless and its environmental footprint is minuscule." Tom Zeller of the New York Times points out that most nuclear reactors in the world are even safer than those in Japan. Yet media fear mongering may encourage Americans to utilize relatively dangerous forms of energy.
* What about guns? John Lott writes in The Bias Against Guns, "Though not always intentionally, the media and government have so utterly skewed the debate over gun control that many people have a hard time believing that defensive gun use occurs -- let alone that it is common or desirable." This media bias discourages some from considering the benefits of gun ownership, leading to more criminal victimization.
Yet, even though "pens don't kill people, bad journalists do," we fully endorse the First Amendment and its protections for all writers and speakers. The law should not punish good journalists for the irresponsibility of a few.
Likewise, the law should punish criminals who misuse guns, not responsible gun owners who help keep society safe by discouraging crime. But punishing the responsible is precisely what background checks are about.
Properly they are called "background registration checks," because they register gun owners with the federal government. No, the names are not kept in a central database; they are kept on file by gun sellers, accessible to federal agents on request.
Under a demagog, such information easily could be abused. Those who want the global history of how gun-owner registration can lead to gun confiscation (and far worse) should see Death by 'Gun Control' by Aaron Zelman and Richard Stevens.
There is no magical, all-knowing Santa Claus who checks his list during a background check. The lists can be wrong, or somebody with a similar name may be wrongly delayed. When it comes to buying a tool for self-defense, delays can matter.
At Colorado gun shows, private sales must go through licensed dealers for a background check, adding to the costs of the gun.
Meanwhile, we have little reason to believe that background checks stop crime. Usually a criminal has easy access to black-market guns, or he'll pass a check anyway. Meanwhile, we're paying state and federal agents tax dollars to sit around running checks rather than chase down actual criminals.
Remember that nothing is so dangerous to our lives and the future of our nation than unjust, abusive laws.
A menace stalks our society, contributing daily to panic and untimely death. Irresponsible television reporting whips the public into a passionate frenzy and leads them to make imprudent decisions, sometimes with fatal consequences.
Clearly there should be a law. Congress should require reasonable, common-sense television controls to register all reporters with the federal government and require background checks to purchase cameras and other sensitive equipment. After all, it's for the children.
Yes, that's our attempt at an April Fool's joke. But our point is quite serious: the First Amendment and the freedom of speech protects the rights of journalists, even though some journalists act irresponsibly and contribute to harmful and even deadly behavior.
Similarly, the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense rightly protects peaceable gun owners, even though a tiny fraction of people with guns handle them irresponsibly or even commit horrific crimes.
Apparently Don Coleman's idea of news reporting over at KJCT Channel 8 is to lie to law-abiding, peaceful gun owners by calling them under false pretenses to harass them about existing gun laws. Coleman reports that his station called people making private gun sales and asked them about background checks, knowing full well that private sales are not subject to such checks. Coleman's resulting report is a barely-disguised editorial masquerading as news.
The background check system is riddled with problems, to which we'll return. First we want to demonstrate that irresponsible journalism can in fact help to kill people, something journalists might care to remember when they advocate forcing people to register with the federal government to practice their Constitutional rights.
* Seth Mnookin, author of The Panic Virus, writes the "media seized hold of the story" about the bogus link between vaccines and autism and "helped to launch one of the most devastating health scares ever." This "led to outbreaks of deadly illnesses like Hib, measles, and whooping cough."
* Gary Taubes argues in Good Calories, Bad Calories that the media contributed to the demonization of saturated fat in favor of high-carb grains, promoting more obesity and diabetes.
* "The media are much more likely to do scare stories about plane crashes than car accidents," John Stossel points out, leading some people to avoid planes in favor of risker car travel.
* While much of the media have sensationalized the risks of nuclear power in the wake of Japan's earthquake, Lachlan Markay writes for Newsbusters that "wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy." Science writer Matt Ridley adds, "Compared with coal, oil, gas and biofuels, nuclear energy is pretty harmless and its environmental footprint is minuscule." Tom Zeller of the New York Times points out that most nuclear reactors in the world are even safer than those in Japan. Yet media fear mongering may encourage Americans to utilize relatively dangerous forms of energy.
* What about guns? John Lott writes in The Bias Against Guns, "Though not always intentionally, the media and government have so utterly skewed the debate over gun control that many people have a hard time believing that defensive gun use occurs -- let alone that it is common or desirable." This media bias discourages some from considering the benefits of gun ownership, leading to more criminal victimization.
Yet, even though "pens don't kill people, bad journalists do," we fully endorse the First Amendment and its protections for all writers and speakers. The law should not punish good journalists for the irresponsibility of a few.
Likewise, the law should punish criminals who misuse guns, not responsible gun owners who help keep society safe by discouraging crime. But punishing the responsible is precisely what background checks are about.
Properly they are called "background registration checks," because they register gun owners with the federal government. No, the names are not kept in a central database; they are kept on file by gun sellers, accessible to federal agents on request.
Under a demagog, such information easily could be abused. Those who want the global history of how gun-owner registration can lead to gun confiscation (and far worse) should see Death by 'Gun Control' by Aaron Zelman and Richard Stevens.
There is no magical, all-knowing Santa Claus who checks his list during a background check. The lists can be wrong, or somebody with a similar name may be wrongly delayed. When it comes to buying a tool for self-defense, delays can matter.
At Colorado gun shows, private sales must go through licensed dealers for a background check, adding to the costs of the gun.
Meanwhile, we have little reason to believe that background checks stop crime. Usually a criminal has easy access to black-market guns, or he'll pass a check anyway. Meanwhile, we're paying state and federal agents tax dollars to sit around running checks rather than chase down actual criminals.
Remember that nothing is so dangerous to our lives and the future of our nation than unjust, abusive laws.
Labels:
PPC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)