Author: WyattPitts

Would you rather watch a movie alone in a theater or online if they cost the same? Let’s start with some pros and cons of watching a movie alone in a theater. 

Pros: There’s the experience of watching a movie. The sound is great and the screen us huge. You have comfortable chairs and there aren’t many distractions. Movie theaters make you stay quiet and put your phones on silent. You are alone and that means that probable no one will sit next to you. This lets you do some stuff like using all the cupholders and armrests. You can buy theater popcorn and drinks. 

Cons: Many people like to watch a movie with their family or friends. Being alone isn’t great for everyone. The sound can sometimes be too loud, but you can’t do anything about it. If you have to use the bathroom, then they won’t pause the movie. You just miss a part of it. The snacks and drinks are very expensive. The tickets are also really expensive. If there are a lot of people, then you’ll have to sit next to some people who you don’t know and that can be very awkward. 

Now lets go over the pros and cons of watching a movie alone online. 

Pros: It will be in your house, so you can act however you like, dress in whatever (even nothing), and you can mess with the movie. Turn up and down the sound and pause it if you need to do something. You can buy whatever snacks you want beforehand which are also probably cheaper than they are at a theater. You can recline on your couch if you wanted to and use blankets. No one else is there to tell you to stop. You can get the movie for cheaper and keep it forever.

Cons: Like I said before, many people like to watch a movie with their family and friends. Not everyone likes to be alone. The screen is smaller, so you might miss something important. There could often be many distractions from the outside world. Surround sound in a movie theater is great, but you don’t have that at home. Unless your rich and built a small theater into your house. 

In conclusion, I need to answer the question. Would I rather watch a movie alone in a theater or online if they cost the same? I would rather watch a movie alone online. The experience at a theater is great, but everything is cheaper not at a theater. 

According to Wikipedia, “The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen” to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.” The broken window fallacy describes the things seen and the things not seen. If you break a window, then you have to use your money to fix it. This is the thing that is seen. What would have happened if you didn’t break the window? You would have used your money to buy something else that could have helped you in some way. This is the thing that is not seen. there are so many other things that you could use that same amount of money for that you used on the window that you broke. 

According to Study.com, “Government intervention is when the government gets involved in the marketplace for the purpose of impacting the economy.“ In this essay, I am supposed to write an example of the broken window fallacy as applied to a government intervention that was not discussed by Hazlitt, so let’s do that. 

An example of this is war. During war, government spend millions of dollars on the military programs. This is the thing which is seen. But what about the thing not seen? That same amount of money could have been spent on things like healthcare, food, clothing, giving people more jobs. 

dPresident Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. Franklin D. Roosevelt was the 32nd president of the United States of America. He was president from the years 1933-1945. He was born on January 30, 1882, and lived for 63 years. He died on April 12, 1945. He was president for three and three-fourths terms. He is so far, the only president to be president for more than two terms. He served for almost twice as long as any other president in the history of America. According to Wikipedia, “Roosevelt won a third term by defeating Republican nominee Wendell Willkie in the 1940 United States presidential election. He remains the only president to serve for more than two terms.” What is he best known for other than serving for the longest of any other president? According to Wikipedia, “He created numerous programs to provide relief to the unemployed and farmers while seeking economic recovery with the National Recovery Administration and other programs. He also instituted major regulatory reforms related to finance, communications, and labor, and presided over the end of Prohibition.” He was president for the Great Depression and World War 2. Many people believe that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but failed to warn the American military commanders in the Pacific. Did he know whether or not they would be attacked? If he did, then how? And why did he fail to warn the military commanders in Hawaii? There are so many questions, but by the end of this essay, you will know the answers to the questions. 

On the seventh of December in the year 1941, the Japanese surprised America by attacking their fleet on the Hawaii island of Oahu. The Japanese were successful in their attack and destroyed Americas Pacific fleet. None of the military commanders in the pacific had any warnings of this attack, so they didn’t know anything until it was too late. This was the reason to why America joined World War 2, even though we remained neutral for the beginning of the war. Soon enough, We got revenge on Japan by launching nuclear missiles at their towns. They surrendered and we won the war. The war lasted six years, which may not seem like a long time, but if you were in the war it would have felt like a lifetime. For many of them it was. 

According to Independent Institute, “On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers.” This website says that we intercepted radio signals from Japan to their fleets, but neglected to do anything about it. If Roosevelt knew then why didn’t he do anything about it? It is also possible that Japan knew that we were intercepting their transmissions?

So, America knew that we would be attacked, but we didn’t know when or where at Pearl Harbor. It should have been obvious though, that Japan would attack Americas fleet. Navel records prove that the United States did indeed intercept messages from Yamamoto to his fleet.  So the president did know about the coming attack. Why didn’t he warn his fleet just in case? He should have prepared them, even if they didn’t know where the Japanese would attack. There were some American officials that believed that the Philippines were going to be the target of the attack. The Philippines were warned, but the idea to warn Americas fleet must have never occurred to them. Or maybe it did, but they thought that Japan wouldn’t risk it, or maybe they thought the fleet could handle themselves. Either way, Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7th. They were neither warned nor ready for an attack. If they were warned, they could have been prepared and possible stopped Japan’s attack. They weren’t warned though and received a brutal attack. The day after, America declared war on Japan and joined World War 2 all because Pearl Harbor wasn’t warned of a possible attack. 

But why attack Pearl Harbor? Well Japan wanted to build its own empire, but it lacked the resources to do this. For one, 96% of Japan’s oil was being imported. In 1940 when Japan occupied French Indonesia, America retaliated by freezing all of Japan’s assets in the U. S. This cut off 96% of Japan’s oil. Japan decided to take oil by force. Although Ja[an was afraid that they might encourage America to join the war if they attacked British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in the south. So instead Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbor, hoping that America might try to negotiate peace instead of joining the war. Instead, the U. S. did the complete opposite of what Japan assumed they would. They attacked America to keep them out of the war because they knew that they were too strong to defeat. In the end, America was the one that defeated Japan. Japan had a better chance of winning the war before America joined. It is their fault that America joined and would have been better if they didn’t attack Pearl Harbor. Although, in a way it is somewhat America’s fault that they had to join. If the U. S. didn’t cut off Japan’s oil supply, then Japan would have had no need to attack Pearl Harbor. Although, with a lot more oil Japan could have done a lot more damage than they already had. In the end, America might have had to join anyway. 

The statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific” is really only half true. President Roosevelt knew that Japan would be attacking, but he had no idea where. Roosevelt believed that Japan would attack the Philippines. It’s not that he failed to warn the military commanders in Pearl Harbor, it’s just that the idea didn’t occur to him. Or more likely, the idea did occur to him but he thought that Japan would have to be very stupid to do that. The Philippines were warned of an attack, but they weren’t attacked. So Roosevelt knew there would be an attack in early December, but he didn’t fail to warn Pearl Harbor. He just didn’t think Japan would be so stupid. 

There was also a communications delay. It turns out that America did give Pearl Harbor a “Heads up”, but there was a communications delay which prevented the message from getting to Pearl Harbor in time. The government believed that you would have to be craze and stupid to attack their Pacific fleet, so they didn’t believe that Japan would attack. They tried to tell them where they believed an attack would be and a “Heads up”, but the communications were delayed and didn’t get there in time. Pearl Harbor was indeed attacked and suffered because of this. This was very surprising for America, but they responded by joining the war. 

What was the cost of Pearl Harbor? According to Census.gov, “The attack killed 2,403 U.S. personnel, including 68 civilians, and destroyed or damaged 19 U.S. Navy ships, including 8 battleships. The three aircraft carriers of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were out to sea on maneuvers.” According to Wikipedia, “Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor took place on December 7, 1941. The United States military suffered 19 ships damaged or sunk, and 2,403 people were killed. Its most significant consequence was the entrance of the United States into World War II.” According to National Archives (.gov), “Following the devastating attack, Congress declared war on Japan, bringing America officially into World War II. All of the Pearl Harbor battleships save three, the USS Arizona, the USS Oklahoma, and the USS Utah, were raised, rebuilt, and put back into service during the war.” Many people were killed, ships were destroyed, and of course, Pearl Harbor was destroyed. Japan couldn’t have expected America to just let them go after they attacked them. It is possible that Japan wanted America in the war. Japan wanted more land. That land was in Australia. America was allied with Australia. If Japan just attacked Australia, then America would have tried to protect Australia. If Japan took out enough of Americas supplies and stopped them from wanting in the war, then Japan could attack Australia and taken the land they wanted. Nobody knows exactly why Japan did what they did. I am sure that there are experts on this matter, but even they don’t know what the Japanese were thinking whenever they did what they did.

So far, I have been giving information about why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. What about what happened afterwards? According to Census.gov, “The attack killed 2,403 U.S. personnel, including 68 civilians, and destroyed or damaged 19 U.S. Navy ships, including 8 battleships. The three aircraft carriers of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were out to sea on maneuvers.” According to Wikipedia, “Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor took place on December 7, 1941. The United States military suffered 19 ships damaged or sunk, and 2,403 people were killed. Its most significant consequence was the entrance of the United States into World War II.” According to National Archives (.gov), “Following the devastating attack, Congress declared war on Japan, bringing America officially into World War II. All of the Pearl Harbor battleships save three, the USS Arizona, the USS Oklahoma, and the USS Utah, were raised, rebuilt, and put back into service during the war.” But this is only how brutal the attack was. After the attack America declared war on Japan, on December 8, 1941. Remember that before the attack on Pearl Harbor America claimed to be neutral. They could have stayed neutral after the attack, but what would you do if one of your cities were bombed? Thankfully, not all of Americas fleet was at Pearl Harbor when the bombing occurred. If president Roosevelts message had gotten to Pearl Harbor, then that many casualties may have been avoided. There might have been more. Nobody knows, but the outcome would have been the same. America still would have joined the was whether or not they were prepared for Japan’s attack. 

Japan believed that if they attacked Pearl Harbor, then the whole American fleet would be destroyed. Without their fleet, America would be scared and surrender. Instead America retaliated and joined the war. This is the opposite of what Japan wanted, but they were expecting it. This is why they did their best to destroy the entire fleet before America had time to react. There were many deaths and many ships were destroyed, but other than that the only damage was on the environment. Japan forced America into a war, even though Japan’s men would have been better spent on a country that was in the war. If they attacked one of Americas allies, then America might have joined anyway. Because of the bombing at Pearl Harbor, America joined the war. Because of the bombing on Japan, America ended the war. It’s funny how bombs had America join and end the war with Japan. Now just because Japan surrendered doesn’t mean that the war was over. Japan still had allies that were fighting, but soon they surrendered. America and its allies won, and that was the end of the second World War. 

Throughout this entire essay I have been repeating myself. For this paragraph imaging that you are the president. You take away most of Japan’s oil, but declare that you are neutral for this war. Well Japan doesn’t like that, so they plan to attack one of your islands. You send out messages to different islands to prepare them, because you believe that they will attack. Well they do attack and successfully win. You realize that your letter didn’t make it to Pearl Harbor in time. Well you declare that you are joining the war. Would you have? Roosevelt declared that America was joining the war, but would you have. Would you have just let them get away with it? I would have joined the war. Well you join the war, but it goes on for a while. then you have the opportunity to launch nuclear bombs at Japan and get revenge. Would you have? If you did, then would you bomb towns, or military bases? The president bombed villages. Japan surrendered for the lives of their people. Soon after the other enemies surrender. You just won your second world war! Was it worth it? What did it cost you? Thousands of people died and for what? Those who started the war didn’t even win. So many people died for no reason. Couldn’t they have just not started a war and everyone would still be alive? Sin corrupts every heart. Those in power want more power. That’s how it always is. 

I have covered all the material that I have planed to cover. I hope that this essay has been helpful. 

Why was this movie “The Birth of a Nation”, the first blockbuster?, According to pbslearningmedia.org, “The film is considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. Thomas Dixon, who wrote the book The Clansman, on which The Birth of a Nation was based, reveled in its success. ‘The real purpose of my film was to revolutionize Northern audiences that would transform every man into a Southern partisan for life.'”  According to Wikipedia, this movie was “…a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith…” According to Wikipedia, “Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film’s success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S. In response to the film’s depictions of black people and Civil War history, African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested.” The author of the book The Clansman (the book the movie is based on), Thomas Dixon, wrote: “My object is to teach the North, the young North, what it has never known—the awful suffering of the white man during the dreadful Reconstruction period. I believe that Almighty God anointed the white men of the South by their suffering during that time . . . to demonstrate to the world that the white man must and shall be supreme.”

A blockbuster is a really big and good movie. According to Oxford Reference, “A film with an extremely high *production and *marketing budget that attains considerable commercial success. The term ‘blockbuster’ derives from the word used to describe large-scale bombs used in World War II.” In the silent  film era, this movie was said to be the greatest blockbuster. Many people loved it and this is why it is a blockbuster. Well, the white people liked it. The movie angered the African-Americans because of how they were portrayed in the movie. They have even tried to have the movie banned, but that didn’t work out well. Woodrow Wilson made it the first movie to ever be shown at the White House. 

So the movie was a good blockbuster, but a terrible movie. I do think that the African-Americans were portrayed badly, but don’t think that the movie should be banned. 

Why wouldn’t someone voluntarily offer you a job at twice today’s minimum wage? Minimum wage is the least amount of money that someone can pay you for working for them. Whichever state of America you live in the minimum wage is different. It is supposed to be enough to keep you alive for up to whenesver you get paid next. Minimum is what you are usually paid if you have a small job like a janitor or lifeguard. If someone offered you to pay you twice as much the minimum wage to be a janitor, then you should probably take the job until you find a better one. If you can survive off minimum wage, then you can do better with twice as much. 

Why wouldn’t someone voluntarily offer you a job at twice today’s minimum wage? One reason is because they are only required to pay you minimum wage. Unless they really need someone to take the job they are going to pay you the bare minimum. If there was a law that made businesses pay you twice the minimum wage, then they would have to. If they were going to make a law about it, they should just change the minimum wage. Everyone would prefer to have twice the minimum wage, but if the job isn’t extremely important, then you will get minimum wage. Do your best to get a good job where you’ll get paid well, but while your trying to you should have a small job that pays minimum wage. 

Is the novel, “Philip Dru”, a defense of liberty? Philip Dru was a book written by a man named Edward M. House. According to Wikipedia, “Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his title was honorary and he had performed no military service.” According to Goodreads, “The story is about a man, Philip Dru, who leads a revolt against the United States government because it had become too corrupt. After the revolution, he scraps the Constitution and makes himself “Administrator.” He then changes every concept of national and state governments to reflect his view of governance.” Here is an extremely quick summary of the book. Philip Dru joined the military and he was a military genius, but while in the desert he went blind. He won a military competition against other military people, while he was still in his twenties. He was asked to rejoin the military, but refused and went into politics. In the end, he leads a revolt against the government, because it becomes too corrupt. Finally he becomes the dictator of America. 

Is the novel, “Philip Dru”, a defense of liberty? Liberty is most commonly known as freedom to do whatever you choose. That’s why the pilgrims came to America in the first place. They wanted liberty. They were being oppressed because of their religion, so they went to America to be free. That is why Philip Dru is not a defense of liberty. Philip Dru becomes the dictator of the America. According to the Dictionary a dictator is “a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.” Dictators have complete control over their territory. They oppress people and make them do whatever they want them to. Since we live in America, we have freedom of religion, speech, etc. We also have three common rights. Life, liberty, and property. These thing no one can take away from us as long as we live in America. A dictator would take all of these away from people. Their three basic rights and freedom. America has three separate parts of government to help America not become a dictatorship country. There are the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. They all have different roles to play in the government and all keep limits on the government to keep America a free country. When Philip Dru became a dictator, he basically said that he wanted total and complete rule over all that happened in this country. That is nothing that we want and hopefully our government never does anything like it. 

According to Wikipedia, “The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen” to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.” 

The broken window fallacy describes the things seen and the things not seen. If you break a window, then you have to use your money to fix it. This is the thing that is seen. What would have happened if you didn’t break the window? You would have used your money to buy something else that could have helped you in some way. This is the thing that is not seen. there are so many other things that you could use that same amount of money for that you used on the window that you broke. 

this same example can be used for the building of a bridge. When you build a bridge, then is can do things for others like create jobs. But what would the money have been used or if the bridge wasn’t built? Then something else could have been built instead and possible have made other ways for people to get jobs. Once the bridge is built, then you won’t need those workers anymore. Will they get fired or will you have another project for them? 

Would I have voted for the income tax amendment in 1912, based on the arguments in “Philip Dru”? Philip Dru was a book written by a man named Edward M. House. According to Wikipedia, “Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his title was honorary and he had performed no military service.” According to Goodreads, “The story is about a man, Philip Dru, who leads a revolt against the United States government because it had become too corrupt. After the revolution, he scraps the Constitution and makes himself “Administrator.” He then changes every concept of national and state governments to reflect his view of governance.” Here is an extremely quick summary of the book. Philip Dru joined the military and he was a military genius, but while in the desert he went blind. He won a military competition against other military people, while he was still in his twenties. He was asked to rejoin the military, but refused and went into politics. In the end, he leads a revolt against the government, because it becomes too corrupt. 

What was the income tax of 1912? It was the sixteenth amendment of the constitution and was ratified on February 3, 1913. It gave the congress authority to issue an income tax, but not based on the population. 

Would I have voted for the income tax amendment in 1912, based on the arguments in “Philip Dru”? Before this book I would have never voted for any tax laws, but after this book I still wouldn’t vote for any tax laws. The message of this book is progressivism. According to Wikipedia, “Progressivism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to advance the human condition through social reform – primarily based on purported advancements in social organization, science, and technology.” There are also many things in this book that are implausible that made me not want to vote for income tax. A guy in his twenties has better military skills than all the commanders and officers. In one week, he raises enough funds for his massive army in just one week. His army of 500,000 untrained men beats an army of 600,000 trained men. He goes on to rule the world as a dictator. None of this could have ever happened. 

Which of these three authors, O. Henry, Jack London, Ambrose Bierce, would you prefer to read on your own time? 

O. Henry was just the pen name of a well known American author named William Sydney Porter. He was born in September 11, 1862 and died in June 5, 1910. He wrote many short stories, poems, and non-fiction stories. He is most known for his short stories. Some of these are The Gift of the Maji, The Duplicity of Hargraves, and The Ransom of Red Chief. His most popular short story was The Gift of the Maji. 

Jack Griffith Chaney was an American novelist, journalist, and activist. He was better known as Jack London. He was one of the first authors to become an international celebrity. Just from writing, he made a very large fortune. In the year 1913, he was making over ten-thousand dollars in a month. That much is a third of a million dollars today. He was born in January 12, 1876 and died in November 22, 1916. Many of his works are still famous today. Some examples are  White Fang (1906), Call of the Wild (1903), The Sea Wolf (1904). These are some of the better known works of Jack London. 

According to Wikipedia, “Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce was an American short story writer, journalist, poet, and American Civil War veteran. His book The Devil’s Dictionary was named one of ‘The 100 Greatest Masterpieces of American Literature’ by the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration.” He was born on June 24, 1842 and lived until the year of 1914. In the year 1906, his most famous work was published. This is called The Devils Dictionary. According to Wikipedia, “Described as “howlingly funny”, it consists of satirical definitions of English words which lampoon cant and political double-talk.”

Which of these three authors, O. Henry, Jack London, Ambrose Bierce, would you prefer to read on your own time? I would read Jack London’s books on my own time. O. Henry wrote good short stories, but I don’t really like short stories. I like a good long story. Ambrose Bierce’s book The Devils Dictionary was an actually dictionary, but with humorous definitions. I wouldn’t necessarily read this, but I would define some things to my friends with it. 

Would you read more of Mark Twain’s writings even if they were not assigned in a course? I love reading. I read anytime that I get a chance. I only knew of two of Mark Twain’s books before I took this course; ‘The Adventures of Tom Sawyer’ and ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’. He has many famous pieces of literature read around the world. He is most known for these two books. The stories I was assigned to read this week were funny and entertaining. According to Poetry Foundation, “Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, was born in Florida, Missouri, in 1835. A distinguished novelist, fiction writer, essayist, journalist, and literary critic, he ranks among the great figures of American literature. His novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) is generally considered his masterpiece. His novels A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889) and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and The Innocents Abroad (1869), a travelogue and cultural critique, are also highly regarded. Twain’s travelogues Life on the Mississippi (1883) and Roughing It (1872) are prized for their humorous insights into American life in the late 19th century. Many would agree with H.L. Mencken, who wrote of Twain in A Mencken Chrestomathy, ‘I believe that he was the true father of our national literature.’” According to Biography, “Mark Twain, whose real name was Samuel Clemens, was the celebrated author of several novels, including two major classics of American literature: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. He was also a riverboat pilot, journalist, lecturer, entrepreneur and inventor.”

Would you read more of Mark Twain’s writings even if they were not assigned in a course? I read some of his books when I was much younger than I am now. Then, I did not find those books very interesting, but I hated reading then. Now, I love reading. I am sure I would find those same books much more interesting if I read them today. there are some of his books which I would not read for fun. There are others which I would be glad to read for fun. It really depends on what book it is. If I know people who like it, then I will read it. If they didn’t like it, then I wouldn’t read it.