The Last Capitalist

A site dedicated to restoring individualism in the United States of America

Archive for July, 2008

Global Warming Debate, or Lack Thereof

Posted by jemartynowski on July 15, 2008

I would like to take the time to point out an excellent blog related to weather and climate.  They outline the fallacy of global warming using facts, which to the global warming people are known as “useless details.”

Watt’s Up With That (new link on the right) is a great site that gives good information constantly about the false claims made about climate change.  The site is run by a former meteorologist who takes the complete mockery of his passion seriously.  He is clearly unhappy about the willingness to spread a lie that many people in his field have.  Despite this, he is an envrionmentalist to a degree, and supports better practices in that area, which I admire. 

Back to the point of this post.  As pointed out on Watt’s Up With That, the many champions of man-made global warming continue to refuse debate.  Dr. James Hansen, one of the biggest names to come out and make end-of-the-world statements, was invited to an open debate about the subject by the College of William and Mary.  They had Dr. Patrick Michaels, a global warming skeptic, as the representative for the counter arguement.  You would assume that a good situation like that would be a nice opportunity to make your points.  However, knowing that there is no real factual evidence to back up his claims, Dr. Hansen refused with an arrogant “not interested” in an email.

“His reply — devoid of any salutation, punctuation, capitalization or signature — came an hour after Mr. Katz sent his original e-mail.”

Look, it is one thing to try to avoid debate on a subject when you make some rediculous claims about it.  It is another to do this when you are a public figure with a pretty wide range of influence.  It is on a completely different level when you do all this and want to charge those who disagree with you with “crimes against humanity.” 

For those counting at home, that makes the two most prominent global warming voices refusing to debate their position with others.  I hate to keep harping on this subject, but it is going to be very important during the next president’s term.  There will be much legislation based on the completely false idea of global warming and it will affect you.

Advertisements

Posted in global warming skeptics | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Let’s Be Clear On Ethanol

Posted by jemartynowski on July 9, 2008

It has come to my attention that the American people need a little education when it comes to alternative fuel sources.  During recent debates I’ve had with friends and colleagues, I noticed a strange misconception from most everyone:  They all believe that corn ethanol is a great alternative to oil and is being blocked by big oil and Republicans.

The fact that this is the basis for all of the expensive gas debates that are going on means you cannot have a good debate about the situation.  See, there are assumptions here that are completely off the mark, thereby ruining a logical discussion.  Let’s take both of these points and break them down with thinking and logic.

1.  Ethanol is a great alternative to gasoline. 
Well, it could be, depending on the details. The first problem with this assumption is that everyone buys into Barack Obama and friends with their corn-based ethanol.  (Let’s get this out of the way:  Obama has friends in the Corn-based, domestic ethanol industry who give him much, including advice.  Don’t listen to one thing he says about it.)  Corn-based ethanol is not as cheap as we’d like to think.  Corn prices have basically been rising in conjunction with oil prices because of the ethanol craze causing our food costs to go up.  Plus, the only way these corporations can create ethanol at all is the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies they receive.  Obama, who favors more of these subsidies for his friends’ companies, doesn’t tell you that much of that money goes right back into the pockets of those oil companies he claims to oppose.  McCain, on the other hand, favors free markets which means eliminating the subsidies and the $.54/gallon tariffs on foreign ethanol made from sugar.  Which brings us to…

2.  Ethanol is being blocked by big oil and Republicans who are in their pocket.
As previously mentioned, McCain is actually pushing for the sugar-based ethanol, mostly imported from Brazil, to be more easily available here in the United States.  The first of two main reasons for this is that it would be cheaper.  Eliminating the tariffs would drop the price of this fuel source by $.54/gallon for us.  Plus, the subsidies for corn-based ethanol would no longer have to be funded by us, the taxpayers.  The second reason is that ethanol made from sugar is much more efficient than it’s corn-based counterpart.  Ethanol from corn produces less than two units of energy for every one unit put into making it, whereas the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than eight to one.  Imagine the drop in energy costs if we were able to import this cheaper fuel source on a large scale.

Remember these main points when ignorant Socialists try to argue the energy issue with you.  There is no logical argument against facts.  As a matter of fact, the only point Obama has made is that he wants to get Midwesterners to develop a new source for ethanol, switchgrass.  However, since corn is so expensive, farmers won’t change what they’re growing for something less profitable.  Unless Obama wants the government to start telling us what we can and can’t plant and sell…

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election, Alternative Energy, Capitalism and Politics, Socialism and Democrats | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stop the “Outrage” in Sports Journalism

Posted by jemartynowski on July 3, 2008

OK, we get it.  Sports franchises are the devil.  The players are all in it for the money.  The owners are greedy.  All the sports writers out there keep complaining about sports as a business and how terrible it is.  Oddly enough, they work for some of the biggest sports businesses in the world in Fox Sports, ESPN, etc.  Well, I’m outraged at all of you ignorant writers out there.

Ian O’Connor of Fox Sports wrote an article about the NFL and their PSLs.  For those of you unfamiliar with these, they are Personal Seat Licenses which allow the owner of one to purchase season tickets in a designated area.  They are expensive and therefore price many people out of owning said season tickets.  Tough, I say. 

Look, these teams are not charities.  They do not own the team simply to make us happy.  They are businesses which must report to their stockholders.  By O’Connor and others’ theory, these owners shouldn’t get full value for their product.  Compare it to this example:  I can’t afford a Cadillac, but since I’m a big fan of Cadillacs, I think it’s unfair that I have to pay so much to get one.  I want a brand new Cadillac for $15,000.  Well, I’m out of luck.  See, there are enough people willing to pay more for a brand new one, so that’s what they’re going to sell it for.  Do I think it’s way too much for a car?  Sure, but that’s how free markets work.  I can’t have everything I want.

Let’s look at Ian O’Connor’s ignorant arguments individually:

“On any given Sunday, a dozen or so franchises are using the PSL the way a common burglar uses a crowbar to pry open a back door in the dead of night.”

This is so wrong I don’t even know where to start.  I guess I’ll just point out that a burglar doesn’t offer you a product for the money he takes, not to mention that the burglar also doesn’t give you the choice of whether or not to do business with him.  Again, it can’t be burglary when it’s a peaceable, voluntary transaction.  Using an example that makes not logical sense to make a point sound more intense makes you look like more of an idiot. 

“But consider the longtime Giants fan who builds a nice four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath home, only to find that the escalating costs of living makes it next to impossible for him to pay the mortgage.
That guy doesn’t get to knock on John Mara’s door and demand that the Giants owner cover his mortgage, pay his heat and electricity bills, and reimburse him for the gas used on the drive to East Rutherford. So what gives Mara the right to ask this fan who faithfully wore his LT jersey at every home game across the 17 years separating the Giants’ second Super Bowl title from their third to cover unforeseen construction costs?”

No, Ian, no.  When you use examples, also use logic.  First of all, Mara is not knocking on anyone’s door asking for handouts.  He is selling them a product and charging more for it.  Now, if you think it’s too much, don’t buy it.  Eventually he’ll have to lower the price if nobody is going.  If they do still go, then that’s just good business on his part:  offering a product at the price people are willing to pay.  If you can’t afford it, again, that doesn’t mean they have to sell it to you at the price you want.

“If that means pricing Texas Stadium lifers right out of the new place, hey, life’s tough.”

This is the kind of thinking that really annoys me.  It is full of assumptions.  First, O’Connor is assuming that he knows exactly which fans are “real” fans and which are not.  He assumes that people who are willing to pay for the expensive tickets are  not real fans, just some random rich people who had nothing to do on Sundays.  That’s some good prejudice, Ian.  Or is it that people don’t deserve to go to games because they have money and you are the almighty arbiter of who has too much money and who doesn’t have enough?  If that’s the case, you should run for the office of the President, seeing as that’s what we think we’re voting for any more.

Don’t think Mr. O’Connor is the lone culprit in inciting the crowds against business owners.  J. A. Adande of ESPN recently published an article about the Supersonics owners moving the teams in which he misses many of the same points.  However, that situation involves a lot more of a legal mess with leases and the like, but everyone forgets that the owner owns the team, hence the term “owner.” 

I understand the fans points on many of these, being from Cleveland and all, but we cannot forget our own faults in the team moving issues.  We voted to build a new stadium and arena for the Indians and Cavs, but turned down Modell when he wanted to replace the crap-hole we called Municipal Stadium.  He wasn’t innocent, but there were problems on both ends. 

All I’m saying is don’t buy into these spiteful rants from journalists just trying to turn a situation into something it’s not.  Ian O’Connor obviously has a difficult time understanding Capitalism, but still, he could do better.  Even though he’s a sports journalist, he should still practice some restraint, logic, and honesty.

Posted in Capitalism in Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

I Think I’m Gonna be Sick

Posted by jemartynowski on July 1, 2008

I just read an article from Time magazine from June 2, and it actually made me sick to my stomach.  Until I read this, I kept convincing myself that people were just ignorant to how far toward socialism the left was leaning.  Now, on the other hand, I am genuinely sick.

After reading this article I actually had a sick feeling in my stomach for awhile.  Ladies and gentleman, this is what the Democrats actually want.  Perhaps what makes me the sickest about all of this is that they don’t even need to hide it anymore.  The article claims that something needs to be done to take wealth from the top earners in our country and give it back to the lower income citizens.

Sounds noble, like Robin Hood.  The only way to change this is to steal something that was earned by a citizen through peaceable, voluntary exchange and give it to…who?  Who makes these decisions about wealth redistribution?  See, the difference between Robin Hood and the American Socialists is that freedom wasn’t there in Robin Hood’s era.  There was no way to better yourself.  You had no choice but to do what you were told by the government, whoever that may be.  This is why we have Capitalism in the first place.

There are many reasons why Capitalism is the best form of society.  The most important reason it is better than wealth redistribution is that nobody decides anything for you.  You are free to do what you wish with your resources.  Peaceable, voluntary exchange.  With Socialism, wealth redistribution, or whatever you want to call it to make it sound good, it is not peaceable or voluntary.  Besides who do you think should have the right to decide who gets what?  The beaurocracy?  I’m sure that doesn’t sound like a very exciting option.  Especially those who live in Cleveland

Hopefully we will not be so blind as to look to government intervention in a time that isn’t really that bad to “save” us from ourselves.  Hell, if it wasn’t for much of the government intervention previously, we wouldn’t have many of the problems we do today.   If anything, we need the opposite of the Socialism that Time suggests.  In the long run, I hope freedom will prevail. 

 

Posted in 2008 Presidential Election, Capitalism and Politics, Socialism and Democrats | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »