Mediaboss Marketing

Over winter break, I decided to re-read the Harry Potter series after it was referenced by Jordan Peterson, a famous Canadian psychologist, in a YouTube video. I got through the first three books before getting to school and used the extra time the past two weeks to watch all eight movies with my friends. As a kid, I fell in love with the books and movies because of the incredible world J. K. Rowling brought to life. The endless surprises in Hogwarts Castle, the quidditch matches, the every flavor jelly beans, the butterbeer from Hogsmeade and countless other aspects of the wizarding world had me hooked instantly. Even at this age, I find the images in the books and movies fascinating. However, after listening to Petersons video and going through the books and movies again, I realized how much more there was to the series than a well-crafted fantasy world.

In Petersons video, he stresses the importance of making yourself dangerous. He claims that a truly great man or woman must have the ability to do damage to others in some form, but harnesses his or her talent towards the good. He argues that people mistake not doing bad things as the mark of a good person. Peterson pushes back saying that many people are incapable of hurting others in the first place or they only do what is considered just due to fear of retribution for their actions. Basically, if people were put in a situation of power, many would treat people worse. In order to become this idealized man or woman, you must mold yourself into a very capable person. How you do so and the capabilities you would possess is up to the individual. After you have been molded into this highly capable person, you then must use your abilities to contribute towards the good. Essentially, being of high competency and using it in a positive way are the marks of a high character man or woman.

In the Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling echoes the same message as Peterson. From birth, Harry has immeasurable potential, but he is not prepared to face Voldemort at full strength as a 12-year-old just entering Hogwarts. First, Harry must learn spells and basic wizarding activities in order to build up his abilities. Then, he faces challenges along the way that bolster his courage and knowledge on Voldemort. In each book, Harry ends up battling a weakened Voldemort and his followers until he finally is prepared to take on Voldemort at full strength in the final book. While Harry fulfills Petersons vision of a great man by building up his talent and using it for good, his similarities to Voldemort show the overlap in a great person and evil one. They shares rare abilities like speaking to snakes, and Harry can even see inside Voldemorts mind. It is even revealed that a part of Voldemorts soul lives within Harry. As equally powerful men, Harry and Voldemort have nearly everything in common besides their intentions and character. While Voldemort intends on living forever and having everything to himself at all costs, Harry desires peace and the well-being of his friends and family. Voldemort uses his power for his own sake; Harry uses his power for the good of others.

In addition to the contrast between Harry and Voldemort, Rowling shows how many individuals that are civilized in a typical situation act terribly once they have power. Many followers of Voldemort, called Death Eaters, were normal members of society while he was out of power. However, upon his return, they exploited their perceived opportunity to gain power. Again, as Peterson argues, doing nothing wrong when you lack power does not mean an individual is a good person. The true test of a man or woman is how they act when they have an opportunity to exploit a situation for their own benefit at the expense of another.

The Harry Potter series has created an incredible fantasy world that absorbs the attention of most readers or watchers. Because of its many kiddish magical aspects, it is easy to mark Harry Potter as a kids story. However, its examination of good and evil individuals lends to a greater lesson in the story. It raises three primary questions for the reader to consider in his or her life. Which abilities will you work towards to make yourself a capable individual? How will you build up those abilities? Then, finally, how will you use your capabilities for the good of society? With that said, given the story evokes such intricate truths and questions, I think its safe to say that Harry Potter is more than just a childrens book.

Mikey Colgan is a sophomore from Boston, Massachusetts, studying finance and ACMS. He is an avid college basketball fan and resides in Morrissey Hall. He can be reached at [emailprotected] or @Mikeycolgs15 on twitter.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

See the original post:
Harry Potter is more than a children's book - Observer Online

By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Jan 25, 2022

Massive convoys of trucks are converging on the nations capital. About 50,000 truckers are involved. In one place the convoy stretches more than 40 milesand thats before the separate convoys, coming from different corners of the nation, meet for their final approach. Tens of thousands of people are lining the highways to show their support; women are bringing hot meals out to the truckers when they stop to rest.

Doesnt that sound like a news story to you? Its happening right now in Canada. But you probably havent read it in your local newspaper; you certainly havent seen it covered on the major-network reports.

If the truckers were protesting gender discrimination, or even the rising cost of diesel fuel, this protestwhich produces some very dramatic visual imageswould lead the nightly TV newscasts. But the Freedom Convoy is protesting Covid-lockdown restrictions, and the major media have very obviously resolved to spike stories about any such protests. And so Silence.

Oh, I was able, with a bit of extra digging, to find a reasonably accurate Reuters story about the convoy. And CBC allowed that hundreds of truckers were protesting. But if you want any details at all, you need to look to non-traditional news providers, such as our friends at LifeSite News.

The mainstream media are not providing the news here; quite on the contrary they are deliberately suppressing the spread of public information. This is not a new phenomenon, of course; I have frequently commented on the curious blindness that afflicts reporters in Washington, DC every January, so that they do not notice the March for Life. But that willful blindness is now spreading, so that journalists ignore any developments of which their editors do not approve. Moreover, the self-appointed censors of social-media platforms do their best to shield readers from any facts that leak through the ever-tighter net.

And the major media are not alone in their campaign to restrict the flow of information. The same problem is very much in evidence in the field of educationespecially higher education. (See Jordan Petersons explanation of why he finds it morally untenable to remain on the faculty of a major university.

We can complainwe often have complainedabout liberal bias, in the media and in academe. But those complaints, too, are filtered out of mainstream conversations; they reach only those who are already inclined to agree, those who are open to alternate views. The fundamental problem, as Peterson explains, is that alternate views are actively suppressed, with increasing vigor and without apology.

Critics of the mainstream media outlets sometimes refer to them as the legacy media. The term is apt, I think. Like the fortunate offspring of wealthy families, these outlets have inherited powerful positions, built on the work of prior generations. Those prior generations amassed their influence by providing the public with information. The current leaders of the legacy media have abandoned that effort. Rather than giving people accurate information, and trusting responsible adults to form their own opinions, the mainstream media are now determined to shape opinions directly, telling people what they must think, suppressing contrary evidence and dissenting opinion. Today the most interesting news coverage is provided by upstart services, struggling to find an audience.

Complaints about media bias have very little impact. They, too, are filtered out of mainstream conversations, so that they reach only those people who already agree.

First, refuse to support the institutions that suppress the free flow of information. Insofar as possible, do not give them subscriptions, or tuition, or even attention.

Next, explore the alternatives. Not all of the new online sources of information are reliable; some discernment is necessary. Compare different accounts, and notice which outlets provide coverage that holds up to scrutiny. But do not be frightened away from new outlets simply because they are scorned by the legacy media.

Third and most important, inform your friends. And not only your Facebook friends, who may or may not actually be your real-life acquaintances. Share the news directly. Face-to-face conversations are always best, but email works well, too. Keep in mind that the internet was designed precisely to allow remote communications among people with shared interests. If the social-media giants thwart your efforts to share information, find other routes.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and his heroic allies showed how underground communicationssamizdatcould build a movement powerful enough to topple a political monolith. As the Soviet empire collapsed, the bid to control the spread of information will collapse, too. Facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things. The truth will out.

Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

There are no comments yet for this item.

More here:
Censorship and samizdat on the internet - Catholic Culture

Breadcrumb Trail Links

This convoy appears to me to reflect a great deal of legitimate anger and frustration at our pandemic responses

Publishing date:

When Barack Obama was elected it was truly historic. Plus after eight years people were fed up with George Bush failing as a uniter, not a divider. But after eight years of Hope and change, Americans elected Donald Trump, and weve never had a mea culpa that just possibly Obamas condescending attitude had a polarizing effect. Then theres Justin Trudeau.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Ostensibly hes all about sunny ways, sexy smiles and bringing us together. But watch him in action and somethings not right. Lyndon Johnson, no stranger to hardball politics, was fond of saying Come now, and let us reason together and sometimes he even meant it. Whereas Trudeau recently declared the vaccine-hesitant racist and misogynist without even checking whether they were angry old white men. He just reflexively invoked a mean-spirited stereotype.

It turns out vaccine skepticism is more common among non-whites. Of course they could still be racist, but theres a subject for another day. Or maybe not, because Monday I got one of those vapid PMO statements about commemorating something nobody heard of, World Day for African and Afrodescendant Culture.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Only a few avant-garde activists know Afrodescendant is the new Black. Not even my woke spell-checker has gotten there yet. But Trudeau is so shallow and shiny he reliably reflects the progressive Zeitgeist, including obsessing over racial differences, which promotes division not inclusion. Especially in a holier-than-thou tone about the basket of deplorables he has the misfortune to govern, the invariable invidious subtext of Mr. Blackfaces smirking homilies about tolerance.

Trudeau is in fact a bully. Remember him elbowing his way through some MPs when he didnt get his way? I think he got away with it partly because it seemed so out of character people had trouble processing it. But Im not sure Trudeau really gets away with his ethical lapses and ruthless responses to criticism, including somehow tossing Jody Wilson-Raybould under the bus.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

I dont just mean his party is stuck at a level of popular support and Parliamentary seats that would have made Keith the Rainmaker Davey green about the gills. I mean lowering the tone of politics can bring Pyrrhic victories that preserve your own standing temporarily at the expense of souring the public mood in ways that make the nation permanently less governable.

It has happened in the United States, and its a tragic, horrible sight. I presumably dont have to remind readers that I was an anti-Trumper before he was even a candidate and have never wavered in my insistence that he was morally and mentally unfit for the office. But I have also maintained that for the other party to spend half its time promoting lunatic causes like defund the police and the other half sneering at MAGA deplorables has made things worse not better.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Now consider Trudeaus knee-jerk reaction to this truckers freedom convoy. Its the only kind of reaction he has. And it was vindictive and shallowly partisan. I regret that the Conservative Party and conservative politicians are fearmongering to Canadians about the supply chain, but the reality is that vaccination is how were going to get through this. So yes, he reached out. With a wedge in one hand and a sledgehammer in the other. Never mind I see where youre coming from, but please consider this alternative.

This convoy appears to me to reflect a great deal of legitimate anger and frustration at our pandemic responses, including the casual trampling of what we thought were our rights and freedoms. But as Ive said about supporting Trump, the fact that people are asking important questions does not mean they have found sensible answers. So we should be having a conversation.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

To that end, let me seek to bring people together if only by insulting them all equally. Because its not just Trudeau and not just politicians. Even Jordan Peterson, or whoever manages his Twitter feed, recently denounced medical fascists while Ezra Levant said Trudeau wants a Reichstag Fire excuse to criminalize his enemies.

No. Do not give in to the dark side. No Hitler, no cow poop. Lose the tinfoil hats and expletives on Twitter, and mind your manners and morals as well as your IQ in public debate.

I dont mean surrender your principles. LBJs mantra was from Isaiah 1:18 and reads in full Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. So he wasnt exactly weak-kneed or non-judgemental. But he was suaviter in modo, sometimes. He would listen. He would meet you half-way, if only to subject you to a mix of flattery, arm-twisting and, if necessary, rational discussion.

OK, his presidency exploded too. But at least he tried.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See more here:
John Robson: Justin Trudeau the supreme divider of Canadians - National Post

Content warning: This article discusses transphobia and misogyny.

Controversial U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson has announced that he is no longer a tenured professor at U of T. By 2017, he had stopped teaching courses at U of T, but retained a tenured position.

In an article in the National Post, Peterson explained the reasons for his retirement. He claimed that equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) initiatives at the university created career barriers for supremely trained heterosexual white male graduate students and made faculty positions less of a meritocracy.

Since 2016, Peterson has become a major media figure famous for his conservative political views. He has made a number of high-profile appearances on television and podcasts. He has also published a number of books, a podcast, and some online courses. He has often said that contemporary university departments and society at large are overly influenced by identity politics. This stance has attracted a large number of both supporters and critics.

In a statement to The Varsity, U of T confirmed that Professor Jordan Peterson retired in the fall and now holds the rank of Professor, Emeritus.

Timeline of events

Peterson has long been a controversial figure. In 2016, he posted a series of YouTube videos where he spoke against political correctness and Bill C-16, an amendment to both the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Criminal Code, which introduced gender expression and gender identity as protected under the CHRA. The videos were initially reported on by The Varsity in 2016 and drew attention from the media and the world at large, with many students and academics at U of T speaking against Peterson.

Peterson alleged that the bill curbed free speech because it forced people to use certain pronouns for others against their will for example, using the gender-neutral pronoun they for transgender and nonbinary people who prefer it over gendered pronouns like he and she. He continued to publicly denounce the bill for months in television appearances and YouTube videos, which gained significant media attention.

A number of faculty and student groups spoke against Peterson, with hundreds signing an open letter calling on U of T to fire him. Members of the university administration sent a letter to Peterson asking that he respect students pronouns and urged him to stop speaking on the topic on the grounds that using someones incorrect pronouns is a form of discrimination. At the time, Peterson was critical of the letter, describing it as an attempt to silence him.

Protests were held at the university both in support of and against Peterson, including an event called UofT Rally for Free Speech at which Peterson spoke. Reports of multiple threats against trans and nonbinary students on campus followed the protests.

Cassandra Williams vice-president, university affairs of the University Toronto Students Union at the time, and a vocal critic of Peterson said the anti-Peterson protests aimed to call out the university for supporting and enabling people who are causing harm to trans people. Debates were also held on campus discussing the subject of free speech and trans rights.

Since 2016, Petersons profile has extended far beyond the university. His media appearances, debates, and bestselling book, 12 Rules for Life, have created his reputation as a right-leaning public figure and have drawn supporters worldwide. Some of his supporters have harassed and doxxed his critics. He has made vigorous attacks on identity politics, which he often calls postmodern neo-Marxism. Critics have described his various beliefs as transphobic, misogynistic, conspiracy theories, and a dangerous influence on others.

Retirement

In his National Post article, Peterson explained the reason for his retirement. He wrote that he had hoped to be an academic forever but, among other reasons, he was unable to reconcile his beliefs with the appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion and equity at U of T. These facts rendered my job morally untenable, wrote Peterson.

Peterson further claimed that heterosexual, white graduate students who are men face a negligible chance of getting research positions due to the existence of EDI initiatives, and that there arent a sufficient number of qualified candidates that belong to minoritized groups for universities to be able to fill diversity targets.

He also railed against other equity initiatives in higher education, such as mandatory equity training for teaching faculty, which he claimed is ineffective.

In response to Petersons article, a spokesperson for the university pointed to the universitys employment equity reports, which found that between 2019 and 2020, the proportion of appointed faculty who identified as men remained constant.

The spokesperson also highlighted the universitys Statement on Equity, Diversity, and Excellence, which asserts that An equitable and inclusive working and learning environment creates the conditions for our diverse staff and student body to maximize their creativity and their contributions, thereby supporting excellence in all dimensions of the institution.

Criticisms of Petersons claims

In an email to The Varsity, U of T Professor A.W. Peet, who has frequently criticized Peterson and has debated him in a widely seen television appearance in 2016, responded to his claims. They wrote that Peterson was a poisonous presence on campus, pointing to research that has identified Petersons rhetoric as a radicalization pathway for social media users, which has harmed U of Ts reputation.

I am tremendously relieved that he is no longer a professor at UofT. He harmed a lot of members of our community in recent years, including me, wrote Peet.

In an email to The Varsity, U of T Professor Emeritus Ronald de Sousa, who criticized Petersons original comments about Bill C-16 in 2017, also criticized Petersons article, writing that he wrongly portrayed people who are women, racialized, or LGBTQ+ as utterly unqualified.

Over half a century ago, when I was myself appointed to the University of Toronto, heterosexual, white male graduate students such as myself faced virtually no competition, wrote de Sousa. Pointing out that historically, academia has largely been dominated by white, heterosexual men, he mentioned that his graduate universitys policies dictated that no women were to be enrolled. If there simply is not enough qualified BIPOC people in the pipeline, shouldnt we support efforts to change that? wrote de Sousa.

I think [Peterson] should have had the decency to resign sooner, Peet added.

Continued here:
Controversial professor Jordan Peterson retires from tenured position at U of T - Varsity

Dave Ramsey, a personal finance expert for Christians, came under fire last week. On his radio show The Ramsey Show he spent some time arguing that Christian landlords are not at fault if tenants become unable to afford rent:

Okay, I own rental property, single family homes, among many other properties that we own. And if I raised my rent to be market rate that does not make me a bad Christian. I did not displace the person out of that house if they can no longer afford it.

Many accused Ramsey of engaging in mental gymnastics to avoid his moral responsibility to his tenants:

As a Christian interested in economics, Ramseys comments and the surrounding controversy piqued my interest. Ive never been a Dave Ramsey follower. I wont get into particular disagreements I have, but, put simply, I dont believe his money management philosophy will lead to the best financial results for many. At the same time, I dont deny his program has been helpful to some.

But, disagreements on personal finance aside, is Ramsey right or wrong here? Are critics correct or are they reaching? As with most answers, some nuance is required here.

First, lets begin with what the critics have right. Even though changes in supply and demand lead to changes in market prices, individual business owners are free to charge different prices. An owner need not passively set prices where everyone else does.

Second, the Bible does tell Christians be charitable and help the poor. At this point it needs to be stated that the Bible, and the words of Jesus in particular, is often twisted when it comes to matters of money. But even with this in mind, its unambiguous that the Bible calls giving a righteous act. Consider 1 John 3:17 which says, But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

So are Christian landlords called to be charitable to their tenants? I think the answer is a pretty straightforward yes. In that sense, I believe some criticism of the above statement is warranted.

Its imaginable that a Christian landlord could be generous and keep prices lower than the market price to help the destitute. In fact, in the context of the full video, Ramsey does explain situations where hes made exceptions to help his tenants on a case-by-case basis. And there are likely many cases where this would be the loving thing to do.

At the same time, Ramseys statement about market forces cant be ignored. Consider a market for housing that experiences a sudden increase in demand. When demand increases for housing, people are willing to pay more for it. This drives the price of housing up and makes it more profitable to rent houses. But the story doesnt end here.

Those higher profits draw more suppliers into the housing market. When there are more people providing housing, the cost of providing housing goes up.

To see why, consider the cost of a landlord repairing an HVAC system. When the amount of landlords is relatively small, they dont have much competition hiring HVAC repairmen. In this case, the price is low.

When a larger quantity of rental suppliers (landlords) enter the housing market, however, there is more competition to hire contractors to come fix HVAC systems. With this increased competition, the price of HVAC repair is bid up. In other words, an increase in the demand for housing causes an increase in demand for contractors which increases the cost of being a landlord.

HVAC repair is only one example. All of the factors used in running a housing rental business increase in demand and price as more landlords enter. And so long as landlords can make a profit by entering the rental market, they will enter. This drives up costs until all the profits created by the increase in demand dry up. At the new, higher price, the economic profit tends to zero.

Notice what this means for a landlord who doesnt raise prices. If rental companies charging higher prices are tending toward zero profit, maintaining a lower price means tending toward a loss. The housing is being rented for the same price, but now the cost is higher. This means losses.

If a landlord had lower costs than competitors, the business may still be able to operate profitably. But the higher the market price goes relative to the price the landlord charges, the closer the landlord is to making a loss, everything else held constant.

The result of the logic is clear. If the price of housing goes up and a landlord chooses not to increase the rent, there is some point where they will start making a loss.

At this point critics may say, so what? After all, charity means you lose wealth right? I agree with this too. If we expected people to be materially better off from charity, wed all be giving to get rich quick.

But heres the final problem. Losses arent sustainable forever. If a landlord freezes rent today, and prices and costs continue to increase, at some point the landlord will go out of business.

And a Christian cant be generous with tenants if they dont have a business to produce wealth in the first place.

Heres where critics get into really weird territory. Christians involved in any kind of business can always be charitable to the point of going out of business. Christian grocery store? Give away all your food for free. Christian school? Hire the best teachers and don't charge any tuition. Christian landlord? Buy more houses and let people stay in them for free. If you arent out of money, you can always donate more.

This logical conclusion seems unambiguously bad. If Christian businesses are obligated to give until they go out of business, there wont be Christian businesses. And if there arent Christian businesses, there wont be any more charity from Christian businesses.

My claim isnt that Christian business-people should never be generous. As I already stated, I believe they should. But ignoring market forces entirely only guarantees there wont be Christian businesses.

This logic extends into our personal lives too. Once your LLC is out of business, you still have personal wealth to give away. And here we come to a final conclusion.

Unless your interpretation of the Bible is that you have to maintain zero worldly possessions, you recognize implicitly that some amount of charity in the present is imprudent, if for no other reason than it will prevent future charity or fulfillment of obligations (to family for example).

If your standard is never having earthly possessions, you have a consistent criticism of Ramsey, though Im unsure how youre reading this article without any possessions.

Charging below market price is effectively giving money to charity. You make a loss, and in exchange someone is better off. Christians can choose to do this. In many cases I believe we are called to. But perpetual losses mean you will run out of money. Market changes can be ignored, but their consequences cannot.

So if Christians are called to give, but they arent called to give everything in the immediate present, when are we called to give our wealth away and to whom? Should a landlord forgive the rent of a fourth tenant even if it means going out of business in a year and forsaking the other three getting a break? How much savings should landlords with family have on hand?

There isnt a flowchart to answer all these questions. The details of specific circumstances are where the answers lie. However, I think Christians are given a straightforward rule of thumb. Our security should be found in Christ, not in the things of this world. If the decision to not be charitable at a particular time is based on our desire for things of the world, our heart is in the wrong place.

If charity is forgone because Christians believe their resources can be better stewarded for the love of God and others elsewhere, we have a different story.

Its possible that Ramseys own philosophy is to give to charity mainly outside of his business. Should someone diminish their giving to one cause in order to be able to accept losses in their business? The less income you have, the less you can give, after all. Again, I think the answer here depends on the situation.

Im not sure if Ramsey does this or not. I dont know his finances. But this manner of giving isnt uncommon for capitalists in the US, as it lines up well with the fact that the US has been the most charitable country in the world for a decade now.

My guess is that, on balance, most Christians in and outside of business could be more generous. No one is without sin. But pretending like market forces are irrelevant to our decisions as stewards doesnt help others or our mission any more than ignoring the laws of physics helps our ability to aid someone whos falling out of a building.

Read the original here:
Was Dave Ramsey Right or Wrong about the Responsibilities (or Lack Thereof) of Christian Capitalists? | Peter Jacobsen - Foundation for Economic...