Author: Gary Ivey

I never thought it would happen, but Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” has finally been released and it is great! (official website)

Actually, just Part 1 was released yesterday.  It will be a trilogy, since the book is over 1,000 pages.  It’s been about 15 years since I read the book, which first appeared in 1957, but the message has never been needed more than now.

It is being independently distributed which means I only know of three theaters within 100 miles of Atlanta that are showing it.  The website has a place to request the movie be shown in your area.  MovieFone.com’s reviews show that 92% of people like the movie, but only 27% of movie critics like it.  That figures, since most movie critics are limousine liberals and the message of “Atlas Shrugged” is anathema to them.  The book is sort of the Libertarian’s credo, but it makes Liberals/Progressives spit nails.

Here’s my review: The movie does a good job of generally following the book but manages to be paced well and doesn’t lag.  I’ve written books and screenplays and I know how difficult it can be to adapt one to the other.  “Atlas Shrugged” is one of those “unfilmable” books, because there is SO MUCH lofty dialog (pages and pages of it), but the movie captures the essence without slowing the pace.  My wife hasn’t read the book so I asked her if she followed everything and she said she did.  In fact, she exclaimed her disappointment when it ended with “To Be Continued…” and said it didn’t feel as long as it was.

I was curious, going in, how they would make the railroads as important in the movie as they are in the book, and they actually solved that problem neatly in the first couple of minutes (I won’t give it away).  Still there are incongruities because things are so different now than they were in 1957.  I wasn’t sure but what they might set the movie in the 1950s, but, while that would have solved the incongruities, it would have also made its message easier to dismiss as belonging to another time.

One difficulty that the movie has no less than the book is that the heroes are corporate tycoons, which are the favorite whipping boys of the establishment in Hollywood (if I see one more movie where the villain is a real estate developer I may scream!).  Most people are accustomed to thinking of corporate management as undeserving of their salaries and “workers” as unappreciated and the real reason for business success.  Getting the average person to get their minds around the creativity and risk required to launch a business venture is difficult.  However, if a few people are made to think about where real value comes from, maybe the tide can be turned away from the “looters” (Ayn Rand’s word) that are in control of Washington DC today.

Leave a Comment

I didn’t get to hear President Obama’s speech on the budget the other day because it was in the middle of the day and I work for a living, but the excerpts I’ve heard have been very disappointing,

I understand Obama recommends taxing the rich.  How creative!  How original!  Who would have seen that coming?

Although he talked about billionaires, the tax increase will actually affect anyone making $250,000 or more.  One analysis says that, to close the deficit gap by raising taxes on “the richest Americans”, the tax rate would need to be 134%!  Yes that means we would have to take 34% more than EVERYTHING the high wage earners make to solve our deficit problem.

Now Obama is saying he was wrong to vote against raising the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate (and a Republican wanted to raise it), so now he says we MUST raise it.  But 40 cents on every dollar the Federal Government spends is already borrowed, which means we are paying interest on our interest now.

If that doesn’t alarm you, you aren’t paying attention.

2 Comments

“A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.” Ayn Rand

Leave a Comment

We are at a tipping point. The point at which the weight shifts and everything crashes down one way or the other.  In fact, the rancor in Washington DC over the 2011 AND 2012 budgets is because both Democrats and Republicans realize we are at this point.

On the right, the Tea Party movement came about because an awful lot of people who are usually too busy to be involved realize that our country’s debt is completely unsustainable.  They believe drastic action is necessary to avert economic disaster.

On the left, people who depend on government, from employees to recipients of government handouts to foreign heads of state with hat in hand are adamant that spending must go up, ever upward. The Democrats are counting on the weight of the dependent class to tip things in their favor.

Never mind the 2011 budget, since the fiscal year is half over, and if Congress doesn’t make a deal, there could be shutdowns every other month.  The Republican-led House Budget Committee’s 2012 budget for the next 10 years is being roundly condemned for cutting $6 trillion compared with previous budgets.  It should be pointed out that spending still goes UP in this budget, just not as much as the previous budgets.

There is also a Tea Party Caucus proposal that cuts more than $9 trillion and balances the budget by 2020.  Neither this proposal nor the official committee product are expected to survive the Senate vote.  This raises several questions:

1. If we can cut $9 trillion, almost a trillion a year, how much are we spending, for Pete’s sake?
2. If the official budget proposal only cuts $6 trillion, how long will IT take to balance the budget and will I live to see it?
3. If cutting $9 trillion takes 9 years to get us even, how long will the Democrats’ plan take?

Leave a Comment

So the Federal government spent eight times what it took in in revenue during March! But Nancy Pelosi says if we cut anything from the budget, seniors and children will starve. Seniors and children are outraged!!!! Not about budget cuts but that Nancy Pelosi thinks they are so incompetent that they will starve without government money!

Pelosi’s outburst was prompted by Wisconsin Congressman and House Budget Director Paul Ryan’s proposed budget for 2012, which cuts government spending by several trillion (with a “T”) dollars over several years.

I haven’t had time to see the details of the budget, since I work for a living, but in view of the extreme fiscal irresponsibility of the Obama and the Democrat-led Congress, which only needed two years to double the national debt that took almost 250 years to accumulate, you’d think some some cutting would make sense.

Earth to Nancy:  when you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

Common sense is completely lost on Washington DC.  Even liberals have to live their daily lives conservatively.  If they don’t they’ll wind up homeless, in jail or at least in an episode of “Cops”.  But apparently Washington, DC is like some parallel universe, where none of the rules apply.  Lollipops grow in manicured beds, the Potomac flows green with hundred dollar bills and the pigeons poop Susan B. Anthony dollars.

Could someone please STOP THE INSANITY?!

1 Comment

I hear a lot of frustration from people who watched as President Obama went to Brazil and encouraged them to drill for oil, promising we would buy from them, all the while the deep-water wells in the Gulf of Mexico are idle and we aren’t drilling off Florida and California and in Alaska’s ANWR.

It seems the only energy Obama is enthusiastic about is wind and solar.  However the point needs to be made that wind and solar TOGETHER make up LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of the energy generated in the US.  Add to that the fact that, of roughly $250 billion spent on wind and solar last year, only $8 billion came from private investment.  The rest came from some government entity (article).

In other words, almost no one believes in solar and wind power enough to invest their own money in it.  Politicians are plenty willing to pour billions of other people’s (read “taxpayer”) money into it, but even environmental groups spent more on lobbyists than they invested in actual research and development of alternative fuels.

I’m in favor of the development of alternative fuels, but shouldn’t the people who talk about it all the time put their money where their mouths are?

Leave a Comment

By 2050, three Federal programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, will take all the tax revenue that the government collects, according to a study by the Cato Institute (article).

That means every other activity of the government, from the president’s salary to F-18’s to toilet paper for the restrooms at Yellowstone Park, will have to be financed with borrowed money.  Of course the interest on our debt will be through the roof by then, but to pay it we will have to borrow the money.

This astounding revelation means just one thing: We the people need to change our expectations of what government is supposed to do for us, because relatively soon it won’t be able to do much.

Yet the cries from the American people for more and more benefits from the government coffers continue to crescendo.  Rich as well as poor look for advantages by appealing to the generosity of politicians eager to curry favor and the resulting votes that will keep them in office.  It is a deadly cycle which may not be possible to break, because few, whether homeless drug addicts or multinational corporations, can resist the attraction of thousands of dollars, sent for merely filling in the paperwork.

And yet if we don’t stop the cycle, it will, no MUST come crashing down.  And the result will be widespread pain and privation.

Leave a Comment

Since America has gotten involved in the Libyan civil war, the streets of American cities have been full of left-wing anti-war demonstrators reminiscent of the demonstrations against Iraq during the Bush Administration.

Oh, wait.  No they haven’t.

Which is weird.  Is it possible that THIS war for oil is OK because of who is in the White House?  Could it be that the left is hypocritical?

Unfortunately, it’s a lot more sinister than that.  How was Saddam Hussein different from Mubarak of Egypt and Qaddafi of Libya?  One important difference is that Hussein was a threat to Israel and Mubarak and Qaddafi were/are not.

Put that together with the fact that Obama has been in favor of the popular uprisings in Egypt and Libya but not the popular uprising in Iran and you have a definite pattern emerging.

When both Mubarak and Qaddafi are gone, two major obstacles to the elimination of Israel will be gone and popular sentiment against the beleaguered country will hold sway.

I have never understood the left’s hatred for Israel and love for the Palestinians, but I guess I can just add that to the list of things I don’t understand on the loony left.

Leave a Comment

I’ll admit right off the bat that I have mixed emotions about the entry of US and “coalition forces” into the Libyan civil war.

First, there’s no question that Qadaffi is a bad actor.  He’s a military dictator, an admitted state terrorist, and mega-thief.  In other words, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

HOWEVER.

Could the same have been said about Mubarak in Egypt next door?  Why didn’t we intervene then?  And aren’t there a dozen other foil-hat dictators around the world who need deposing as well?  What is our policy about the unrest in Bahrain and Yemen?  Those governments are ostensible allies.  What will we do for — or against — them?  And what, God forbid, if the unrest spreads to Saudi Arabia?

But more important, it appears that President Obama made one speech about Libya 10 days ago or so, but never contacted anybody in Congress concerning US military involvement.  Congress never undertook debate or passed a resolution on the subject.  I know it’s true we haven’t had an official declaration of war since 1941, but I think presidents usually at least TRY to get a go ahead from Congress before committing troops.

I know that George W. Bush and secretary of State Colin Powell spent months (while they were “rushing to war”) making the case before putting American boots on the ground in Iraq.  They sought and got multiple resolutions from both Congress and the UN before taking action.

In this case, however, nothing seemed to happen until the UN Security Council vote and then within minutes there was a full scale assault on Libyan troops underway, with multiple countries participating.

I support the right of the Commander in Chief to make preparations for military action without revealing all the cards in his hand, but something bothers me about this.

I guess one thing that bothers me is that I can’t see what the immediate US interest is in opening a third front in our Middle East venture.

Surely it couldn’t be about oil?

Leave a Comment

The Chevrolet Volt was hailed as the new paradigm in environmentally friendly transportation.  It was THE justification for the Federal government’s bailout/takeover of General Motors, which had for decades been America’s largest corporation.  The first Volts rolled off the assembly line in December with GM saying they would build at least 15,000 in 2011; more if the demand warranted, and 60,000 in 2012.  But consumers are staying away in droves.

Sales of the Volt in December were 326 units.  Admittedly sales didn’t start until the 10th and it is only being offered in California, the New York Tri-State area, Washington DC and Texas.  But, except for Texas, the celebrated Volt ought to have sold like hotcakes in those left-leaning, populous states.  GM has got to be disappointed.  Surely the first full month would be better with production fully ramped up, right?

Wrong.  January, 2011 sales were 321 and February sales fell to 281!

What?  Sales are going down?  How could this be?

Well it could be that, after all the hype, the Volt is really just another hybrid.  Although it was hyped as a fully electric car, it turns out that it does have a gasoline-powered engine.  And it is an expensive hybrid at that, with a base sticker price over $40,000 and fully equipped prices easily going over $50,000.  There is a $7,500 bailout — er — tax credit for Volt buyers, but it doesn’t seem to have opened many wallets.

True, you can charge the Volt on household current without a special charging station.  There are other differences with formerly available hybrids, primarily that the 4-cylinder engine can be used to charge the battery that powers the car instead of having the gasoline engine power the car directly.  But at freeway speeds it will likely just be an internal combustion engine car like all the others.

The battery-power range is a mere 25-50 miles according to GM and Consumer Reports puts it much closer to the bottom number in real-world tests.

Add that to the fact that it only seats four, requires premium gasoline and CR says it only gets 30 mpg in full gasoline mode and it’s easy to see why it isn’t selling; $50,000 is just too much.  After all, my 5-passenger, 6-cylinder Toyota Avalon gets 31 on the highway.

More: http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels_print.html

1 Comment