Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Principles in Practice: December 2006

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Dianne Durante's New Blog

Posted by Alan Germani at 8:04 PM

TOS contributor Dianne Durante has started a new author's blog for her forthcoming book, Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan. From her first post:

For the next two months (through February 2007) I plan to post a paragraph or two every day about one of the OMOM essays: what's covered in [essay sections] "About the Sculpture" and "About the Subject," why I chose those particular topics, what I found most surprising when doing the research, and/or what I most regretted deleting. Eventually (in March?) I'll upload out-takes, bibliographical references, and intriguing snippets of research that never even made it into an early draft.

If you have enjoyed Mrs. Durante's TOS articles, "Getting More Enjoyment from Art You Love" and "19th-Century French Painting and Philosophy," or have an interest in representational sculpture, or simply appreciate good art analysis, the blog (which includes great photography) is well worth visiting.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Diplomacy Only Encourages North Korea's Belligerence by Elan Journo

Posted by ARI Media at 12:05 AM

When North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb in October, it erased all doubts about the threat it poses to not only South Korea and Japan, but also to the United States. To end this nuclear stand-off without bloodshed, many people are urging that we pursue negotiations with North Korea and engage in diplomacy. Pitched as levelheaded and practical, this approach would culminate in a supposedly win-win deal: the North promises to halt its nuclear program in exchange for a combination of economic and diplomatic concessions from the West.

But such a deal, like all previous ones, would reward the North for its aggression and strengthen it into a worse menace. North Korea has become a significant threat precisely because we have appeased it for years with boatloads of oil, food and money.

Some twenty years ago, North Korea's nuclear ambitions became glaringly obvious. Ignoring this, the West pretended that this hostile dictatorship would honor a treaty banning nuclear weapons. To get its signature took years of Western groveling and concessions. The North's promises to halt its nuclear program were predictably hollow. By 1993, after preventing required inspections of its nuclear facilities, Pyongyang announced its intention to withdraw from the treaty. Our response?

More "diplomacy"—in the form of the "Agreed Framework," brokered in 1994. For agreeing to freeze its nuclear program, North Korea was offered two light-water nuclear reactors (putatively for generating electricity) and, until the reactors were operational, 500,000 metric tons of oil annually (nearly half its annual energy consumption).The United States, along with Japan and South Korea, paid for these lavish gifts. During these years of apparent tranquility, our handouts and assurances of security buoyed North Korea as it furtively completed two reactors capable of yielding weapons-grade fuel. By 2003—when the North actually did withdraw from the nuclear treaty—it was clear that Pyongyang had continued secretly to develop weapons-capable nuclear technology.

The pattern of America's suicidal diplomacy is clear: the North threatens us, we respond with negotiations, gifts and concessions, and it emerges with even greater belligerence. Witness, in the current talks, North Korea's threat to increase its nuclear arsenal unless its latest set of extravagant demands is satisfied.

Without economic aid, technical assistance and protracted negotiations affording it time, it is unlikely that the North—continually on the brink of economic collapse—could have survived. It is also unlikely that it could have built the fourth-largest army in the world. The North is believed to have sold long-range ballistic missiles to Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Syria. By some estimates, North Korea already has the material to create eight nuclear bombs. As it doubtless will continue engaging in clandestine nuclear development, the North may soon be selling nuclear weapons.

What made this cycle of appeasement possible—and why do our political and intellectual leaders insist that further "diplomacy" will work? Because they reject moral judgment and cling to the fiction that North Korea shares the basic goal of prosperity and peace. This fantasy underlies the notion that the right mix of economic aid and military concessions can persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear program. It evades the fact that the North is a militant dictatorship that acquires and maintains its power by force, looting the wealth of its enslaved citizens and threatening to do the same to its neighbors. This abstract fact, the advocates of diplomacy believe, is dispensable; if we ignore it, then it ceases to exist.

Notice how, in preparing the way for renewed talks, the Bush administration has ceased describing North Korea as part of an "axis of evil"—as if this could alter its moral stature.

What the advocates of diplomacy believe, in effect, is that pouring gasoline onto an inferno will extinguish the fire—so long as we all agree that it will. Thus: if we agree that North Korea is not a hostile parasite, then it isn't; if we pretend that this dictatorship would rather feed its people than amass weapons, then it would; if we shower it with loot, it will stop threatening us. But the facts of North Korea's character and long-range goals, like all facts, are impervious to anyone's wishful thinking. Years of rewarding a petty dictatorship for its belligerent actions did not disarm it, but helped it become a significant threat to America.

There is only one solution to the " North Korea problem": the United States and its allies must abandon the suicidal policy of appeasement.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, December 22, 2006

The Meaning of New Year's Resolutions by Alex Epstein

Posted by ARI Media at 8:22 PM

Every New Year's Eve millions of Americans make New Year's resolutions. Whether the resolution is to get out of debt, to spend more time with loved ones, or to quit smoking, these resolutions have one thing in common: they are goals to make our lives better.

Unfortunately, this ritual commitment to self-improvement is widely viewed as something of a joke—in part because New Year's resolutions go so notoriously unmet. After years of watching others—or themselves—excitedly commit to a new goal, only to abandon the quest by March, many come to conclude that New Year's resolutions are an exercise in futility that should not be taken seriously. "The silly season is upon us," writes a columnist for the Washington Post, "when people feel compelled to remake themselves with new year's resolutions."

But such a cynical attitude is false and self-destructive. Making New Year's resolutions does not have to be futile—and to make them is not silly; done seriously, it is an act of profound moral significance that embodies the essence of a life well-lived.

Consider what we do when we make a New Year's resolution: we look at where we are in some area of life, think about where we want to be, and then set ourselves a goal to get there. We are tired of feeling chubby and lethargic, say, and want the improved appearance and greater energy level that comes with greater fitness. So we resolve to take up a fun athletic activity—like tennis or a martial art—and plan to do it three times a week.

Is this a laughable act of self-delusion? Hardly. If it were, then how would anyone ever achieve anything in life? In fact, to make a New Year's resolution is to recognize the undeniable reality that successful goal-pursuit is possible—the reality that everyone at one time or another has set and achieved long-range goals, and profited from doing so. Indeed, not only is it possible to achieve long-range goals, it is necessary for success in life. To make a New Year's resolution is also to recognize the undeniable reality that rewarding careers and romances do not just happen automatically—that to get what we want in our lives, we must consciously choose and achieve the right goals. We must be goal-directed.

Unfortunately, a goal-directed orientation is missing to a large extent in too many lives. It is all too easy to live life passively, acting without carefully deciding what one is doing with one's life and why. How many people do you know who are in the career they fell into out of school, even if it is not very satisfying—or who have children at a certain age because that's what is expected, even if it's not what they really want—or who spend endless hours of "free time" in front of the TV, since that's the most readily available form of relaxation—or who follow a life routine that they never really chose and don't truly enjoy, but which has the force of habit?

Too often, the goal-directedness embodied by New Year's resolutions is the exception in lives ruled by passively accepted forces—unexamined routine, short-range desires, or alleged duties. It is the passive approach to happiness that makes so many resolutions peter out, lost in the shuffle of life or abandoned due to lost motivation. More broadly than its impact on New Year's resolutions, the passive approach to happiness is the reason that so many go through life without ever getting—or even knowing—what they really want.

It is a sad irony that those who write off New Year's resolutions because so many fail reinforces the passive approach to life that causes so many resolutions—and so many other dreams—to fail. The solution to failed New Year's resolutions is not to abandon the practice, but to supplement it with a broader resolution—a commitment to a goal-directed life.

This New Year's, resolve to think about how to make your life better, not just once a year, but every day. Resolve to set goals, not just in one or two aspects of life, but in every important aspect and in your life as a whole. Resolve to pursue the goals that will make you successful and happy, not as the exception in a life of passivity, but as the rule that becomes second-nature.

If you do this, you will be resolving to do the most important thing of all: to take your happiness seriously.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Don't Say Grace. Say Justice.

Posted by Craig Biddle at 11:10 AM

The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged “God” for the productive accomplishments of actual men.

Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?

Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, and American soldiers.

Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medication that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?

Since God (who does not exist) is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any of them? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?

Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone's life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from here out—don't say grace; say justice: Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they're through. It's the right thing to do.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Airlines Should Be Free to Merge

Posted by ARI Media at 9:25 PM

Irvine, CA—In response to a proposed merger between United and Continental, as well as reports that US Airways is considering a merger with Delta, politicians criticized the companies and called on the Justice Department to block any consolidation in the airline industry.

House Representative James Oberstar, for example, says the government should not allow any airline mergers because they would only benefit stockholders and airline executives. Senator Frank Lautenberg, echoing the anti-merger sentiment in Congress, opposes any merger that the government deems not "good for the flying public."

"But politicians have no right to interfere with the mergers of airline companies—or any other companies," said Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Mergers are a legitimate business strategy used to cut costs, improve efficiency, gain customers, grow sales, and increase profits. All companies, including airlines, should be free to decide whether to merge or break up; if customers do not like the prices or practices of the merged company, they are free to take their money elsewhere."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Why Christmas Should Be More Commercial by Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Posted by ARI Media at 9:56 AM

Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of life. Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic"; the real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously.

In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is a 19th-century American invention. The freedom and prosperity of post Civil War America created the happiest nation in history. The result was the desire to celebrate, to revel in the goods and pleasures of life on earth. Christmas (which was not a federal holiday until 1870) became the leading American outlet for this feeling.

Historically, people have always celebrated the winter solstice as the time when the days begin to lengthen, indicating the earth's return to life. Ancient Romans feasted and reveled during the festival of Saturnalia. Early Christians condemned these Roman celebrations—they were waiting for the end of the world and had only scorn for earthly pleasures. By the fourth century the pagans were worshipping the god of the sun on December 25, and the Christians came to a decision: if you can't stop 'em, join 'em. They claimed (contrary to known fact) that the date was Jesus' birthday, and usurped the solstice holiday for their Church.

Even after the Christians stole Christmas, they were ambivalent about it. The holiday was inherently a pro-life festival of earthly renewal, but the Christians preached renunciation, sacrifice, and concern for the next world, not this one. As Cotton Mather, an 18th-century clergyman, put it: "Can you in your consciences think that our Holy Savior is honored by mirth? . . . Shall it be said that at the birth of our Savior . . . we take time . . . to do actions that have much more of hell than of heaven in them?"

Then came the major developments of 19th-century capitalism: industrialization, urbanization, the triumph of science—all of it leading to easy transportation, efficient mail delivery, the widespread publishing of books and magazines, new inventions making life comfortable and exciting, and the rise of entrepreneurs who understood that the way to make a profit was to produce something good and sell it to a mass market.

For the first time, the giving of gifts became a major feature of Christmas. Early Christians denounced gift-giving as a Roman practice, and Puritans called it diabolical. But Americans were not to be deterred. Thanks to capitalism, there was enough wealth to make gifts possible, a great productive apparatus to advertise them and make them available cheaply, and a country so content that men wanted to reach out to their friends and express their enjoyment of life. The whole country took with glee to giving gifts on an unprecedented scale.

Santa Claus is a thoroughly American invention. There was a St. Nicholas long ago and a feeble holiday connected with him (on December 5). In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore (and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's physical appearance and personality, came up with the idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys in the kids' stockings, then goes back to the North Pole.

Of course, the Puritans denounced Santa as the Anti-Christ, because he pushed Jesus to the background. Furthermore, Santa implicitly rejected the whole Christian ethics. He did not denounce the rich and demand that they give everything to the poor; on the contrary, he gave gifts to rich and poor children alike. Nor is Santa a champion of Christian mercy or unconditional love. On the contrary, he is for justice—Santa gives only to good children, not to bad ones.

All the best customs of Christmas, from carols to trees to spectacular decorations, have their root in pagan ideas and practices. These customs were greatly amplified by American culture, as the product of reason, science, business, worldliness, and egoism, i.e., the pursuit of happiness.

America's tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self-sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent. But the spiritual must start with recognizing reality. Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism; that is what Christmas should celebrate—and really, underneath all the pretense, that is what it does celebrate. It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Regarding: 'Bush's March to the (Mediterranean) Sea,' by Patrick Poole

Posted by John David Lewis at 7:47 PM

This piece draws on Bevin Alexander's analysis of Confederate Civil War General Stonewall Jackson's plan to march north against Washington, D.C. Rather than remain tied down before Union armies in Virginia, Jackson wanted to take the war to his enemy's capital. Southern leaders, being unable to think more broadly than the immediate tactical situation, rejected the plan; the result was not a southern victory, but stalemate and slaughter. Poole suggests that America should follow Jackson's strategy and extricate its troops from Iraq by marching through Syria to the sea, thus removing the Assad regime. The resulting civil war, he says, would change the situation in the Middle East fundamentally, and would serve American interests. Leaving aside Alexander's analysis of the Civil War, what are the merits of Poole's plan?

What's good about Poole's article is that it asks us to think outside the scope of how we are doing things right now. It calls for rejecting our present efforts at fighting an insurgency and for mounting a decisive offense. His plan also identifies the fact that Americans can win, want to win, and will vote for a leader who aims to win. The article is also right to observe that the Iraq Study Group report is a blueprint for retreat into defeat.

What's bad about Poole's actual plan is that it runs thoroughly counter to our proper purpose. There are no tactical reasons to march through Syria to the sea. Such reasons did exist for Civil War generals, given the logistics at the time, but they do not exist in today's context. We should adopt such a plan only if it serves our legitimate policy goals, not on the grounds that it looks tactically impressive. This plan does not serve such goals. Our primary enemies are Islamic Totalitarians, not the secular thugs in Syria. To remove Assad's secular regime—and not the regime in Iran—would leave an even larger power vacuum for Iran to move into. There would be civil war, and, in the end, it is nearly inevitable that the Shiite clerics would win that war. The result would be an Iranian caliphate stretching from the borders of India to the Mediterranean.

There is no escaping the strategic necessity of removing the Iranian regime prior to dealing with anyone else in the region. Syria depends on Iran, not vice versa. A proper respect for Stonewall Jackson would focus on his choice of objectives: Washington, his enemy's capital. The capital we need to hit is Tehran, not Damascus. In the end, Poole's piece does not take its own tactical suggestion seriously. Poole asks us to think about the broader context of the mess in Iraq, and to adopt a drive to victory rather than accept a stalemate; his particular plan, however, would take us in the wrong direction.

(Bevin Alexander's books on Jackson are: How Great Generals Win [Norton, 2002], esp. Chapter 4; and Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson [Hippocrene, 2004].)

Thanks to reader N. Subramanian for pointing out Poole's essay.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Pattern Recognition vs. Real Understanding

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 9:27 AM

Every year, when I give my first test in a grammar or literature class, some new student asks me whether the test will be multiple choice.

Every year, I look him in the eye and say: "I can assure you that you will never, in any class, under any circumstances, at any point in your education at VanDamme Academy, have a test that is multiple choice."

The vast majority of the students' work at VDA is written—in complete sentences, paragraphs, or essays. There is no surer way for the student to master the material, and for the teacher to determine whether he has mastered it.

For the student to write explanations, in complete sentences, about every subject, requires that he have a true understanding of the concepts at hand.

But he can often do well on multiple choice, matching, or other rote exercises with no real understanding.

Children have incredible, sponge-like brains, that give them an almost unlimited capacity for memorization and pattern recognition. The teacher's job is to ensure that this amazing talent does not become a substitute for understanding.

I have encountered this issue repeatedly in grammar class. Grammar texts typically introduce a new concept, such as the prepositional phrase, define it, provide examples, and then ask students to do a series of rote exercises in which they identify the prepositional phrases in a sentence.

Year after year, I find that students do very well recognizing prepositional phrases, such as "in the park," "after the show," "with my friend," and "under the bed," but will also occasionally underline groups of words like "is the winner" or "has the answer" because these groups of words seem to vaguely fit the pattern of a prepositional phrase.

The vast majority of the time they will properly identify the prepositional phrases, and will appear, therefore, to understand what they are doing—but the fact that they identify just one or two of these other groups of words indicates that they in fact have no understanding of the concept, and are simply pattern-seeking and performing the exercise by rote.

If, on the other hand, they are required to write, or at least to explain, that a preposition indicates the relationship between its object and some other word in the sentence, if they are required to describe the nature of that relationship, and if they already have a good, conceptual understanding of verbs and their complements, then they have a real understanding of prepositions, and will not make this error.

David Harriman tells a story about his own educational history that perfectly illustrates the difference between pattern seeking and knowledge.

When Dave was a sophomore at UC Santa Barbara, he took his first course on differential equations. It was a class with 200 students, so the teacher didn't assign homework that was turned in and graded. Instead, he handed out long lists of practice problems, and recommended that the students select and solve enough of the problems to gain confidence in their understanding.

Dave, given his brilliant mind, intellectual ambition, and (according to him) lack of much of a social life at the time, did ALL the practice problems. He thinks he may have been the only student in the class who did. The final exam in the course was supposed to take two hours, but Dave finished in 40 minutes, and got a perfect score.

About a year later, Dave was working on a physics problem, and it involved solving a differential equation.

He remembers staring at the equation and drawing a complete blank, thinking, "What the hell do I do with this?" A year earlier, he would have been able to solve the equation without even thinking. But, of course, that was his problem: he had always solved the equations without really thinking.

Solving differential equations, according to Dave, is an art. There are quite a few techniques, and the trick is to recognize which technique will work on the particular equation of interest.

Faced with the application of differential equations to physics, Dave discovered that he had developed a subconscious, automatized ability to look at an equation and instinctively just know what technique to use. But he had never explicitly identified what he was doing, or why that was the right approach to solving this particular problem.

What he possessed was not real knowledge, but an acquired talent of pattern recognition, which—as it always does—faded when it was no longer in use.

The goal of promoting real understanding rather than memorization or pattern-seeking—is accomplished through hierarchical, integrated, purposeful lectures, and by requiring the students to write. In every subject, students are consistently required not just to provide an answer, but to explain how they arrived at the answer, to justify why it is the answer. For example:

  • On a grammar test, rather than underlining the properly conjugated form of the verb "lie" or "lay" in a given sentence, students might be asked to explain the difference between the verbs "lie" and "lay"— that lie is an intransitive verb and lay a transitive verb that requires a direct object—and then to write their own sentences to demonstrate the proper use of these verbs.
  • In science, rather than simply being asked to draw and name the phases of the moon, students might be asked to explain what causes the moon's phases, and illustrate the relative positions of the earth, moon, and sun for any given phase.

Every assignment demands that they think, that they understand, that they explain, to ensure that they are not automatizing patterns or thoughtlessly repeating conclusions. By asking them always to write, we ensure that they cannot give a false appearance of understanding.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Senators' Letter Is a Violation of ExxonMobil's Freedom of Speech

Posted by ARI Media at 7:57 AM

Irvine, CA—On October 27 Sens. Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) and Snowe (R., Maine) sent a letter to ExxonMobil's CEO requesting that ExxonMobil end its financial assistance and support of groups and individuals who reject global warming claims, and urging it to "publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it."

"This letter constitutes an outrageous violation of ExxonMobil's right to free speech," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Whether or not one believes there is a threat of catastrophic global warming, the government has no right to tell ExxonMobil what ideas it should advocate or fund.

"Free speech means the freedom to promote any idea one wishes without the danger of suppression or punitive action by the government. When two United States senators declare that a company has 'manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years,' that is clearly a thinly veiled threat, and any sensible organization must regard it as such.

"Observe that the senators do not offer a single fact intended to convince ExxonMobil of the truth of their position. Their message is not 'agree with us because,' but 'agree with us or else.' That is a message appropriate to a dictator, not to the representatives of a free nation.

"Defenders of free speech must stand up against this vicious attempt to intimidate ExxonMobil into embracing the global warming cause, and declare that the government has no business telling Americans what they should think or say."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, December 07, 2006

What Real War Looks Like by Elan Journo

Posted by ARI Media at 3:57 PM

The Iraq Study Group has issued many specific recommendations, but the options boil down to a maddeningly limited range: pull out or send more troops to do democracy-building and, either way, "engage" the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy. If you think we've already tried this option and failed, think again. Washington's campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense.

What does such a war look like?

America's security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives—and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression—by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead.

Those who say this is a "new kind of conflict" against a "faceless enemy" are wrong. The enemy Washington evasively calls "terrorism" is actually an ideologically inspired political movement: Islamic totalitarianism. It seeks to subjugate the West under a totalitarian Islamic regime by means of terrorism, negotiation, war—anything that will win its jihad. The movement's inspiration, its first triumph, its standard-bearer, is the theocracy of Iran. Iran's regime has, for decades, used terrorist proxies to attack America. It openly seeks nuclear weapons and zealously sponsors and harbors jihadists. Without Iran's support, legions of holy warriors would be untrained, unarmed, unmotivated, impotent.

Destroying Islamic totalitarianism requires a punishing military onslaught to end its primary state representative and demoralize its supporters. We need to deploy all necessary force to destroy Iran's ability to fight, while minimizing our own casualties. We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us. This is how America and its Allies defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.

Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran's totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.

We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless—it is a tragically meek pretense at war.

Consider what Washington has done. The Islamist regime in Iran remains untouched, fomenting terrorism. (And now our leaders hope to "engage" Iran diplomatically.)

We went to battle not with theocratic Iran, but with the secular dictatorship of Iraq. And the campaign there was not aimed at crushing whatever threat Hussein's regime posed to us. "Shock and awe" bombing never materialized. Our brave and capable forces were hamstrung: ordered not to bomb key targets such as power plants and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers—a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission.

U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers," putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington's self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.)

Bush did all this to bring Iraqis the vote. Any objective assessment of the Middle East would have told one who would win elections, given the widespread popular support for Islamic totalitarianism. Iraqis swept to power a pro-Islamist leadership intimately tied to Iran. The most influential figure in Iraqi politics is now Moktadr al-Sadr, an Islamist warlord lusting after theocratic rule and American blood. When asked whether he would accept just such an outcome from the elections, Bush said that of course he would, because "democracy is democracy."

No war that ushers Islamists into political office has U.S. self-defense as its goal.

This war has been worse than doing nothing, because it has galvanized our enemy to believe its success more likely than ever—even as it has drained Americans' will to fight. Washington's feeble campaign demonstrates the ruinous effects of refusing to assert our self-interest and defend our freedom. It is past time to consider our only moral and practical option: end the senseless sacrifice of our soldiers—and let them go to war.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Iran and Syria Are Our Enemies

Posted by ARI Media at 3:34 PM

Irvine, CA—The Iraq Study Group endorsed the increasingly popular notion that America should ask Iran and Syria to help bring peace and stability to Iraq.

"But Iran and Syria are our enemies," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "These countries are responsible for the maiming and deaths of numerous American soldiers in Iraq. For months Iran and Syria have been fomenting terrorist activity against American troops and Iraqi civilians, providing terrorists with training, weapons and explosive devices.

"The United States should be bombing, not 'engaging,' these terrorist regimes.

"Any U.S. appeal to Iran or Syria for help in Iraq would be suicidal and immoral. By evading the evil of these regimes and pretending that they're peace-seekers who share our goals, the United States would be encouraging and rewarding their aggression. Dispensing with moral judgment is not a short-cut to achieving peace; it is a sure way of unleashing and goading the killers to redouble their efforts against us."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Homework Lie: Part 2

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 11:43 AM

It is not surprising that our no-homework policy does wonders for parents' relationships with their children. I will never forget when a parent sat at my desk one day and, told me, with tears in his eyes: "You have given back our family life."

But, you might ask, how do VanDamme Academy students fare when they are sent off to high school with their homework-laden peers?

Well, consider this typical comment by a parent of a high school student at a school attended by several VanDamme Academy graduates—each of whom had several homework-free years: "Do you have to be a complete genius to go to that school?"

You don't have to be a genius to go to our school or learn from our courses—but the level of knowledge and caliber of thinking that our curriculum instills can make our graduates seem like geniuses.

Our students shine because we make efficient use of the school day, focusing on those subjects which are most essential to the cognitive development of the child—because we give students careful supervision in the development of academic skills instead of shunting that task off to parents—because we revere and enjoy the work itself, and do not feel compelled to "jazz it up" with treats and distractions—because we present the material in a careful, systematic, hierarchical manner, one which allows the child to grasp and keep the knowledge presented—and because the effect of all of this is intelligent, driven students who love to learn.

A few concrete results:

Many VanDamme Academy graduates leave 8th grade having completed Pre-Calculus or Calculus.

Over half the 8th graders have completed the school's rigorous grammar curriculum, and can both write with impeccable grammar and parse any sentence under the sun. Their parents refuse to send me an e-mail until it has been edited by their children.

And our students often do voluntary "homework"—inspired, ambitious, personal homework.

When I assigned the abridged version of Les Miserables, half the class purchased the unabridged version, and read it in pace with the rest of the class.

One year a 10-year-old student, inspired by his study of European history and Shakespeare, took up fencing, and wrote an entire iambic pentameter play over the summer.

Here is the prologue:

This sad tale of Phillippe Joan and his love,
The beautiful Milady Hauthorne Grey,
Doth sadden many of the stars above.
In effort to be with her every day,
He was forced to fight, and sail the great seas,
And slave for pirates in his captured care
And dueling. Love had him down on his knees
As he yearned for his lady. O, she was fair,
And more so than Helen. A man would lay
Gladly his life down for her. He was lost
His country, though, which was her husband. Hate
For Phillippe was on all his lips. That host
Ingracious was both of their tragic ends.
So, gentles, do patience to this play lend.

Remember this poem the next time you hear that the problem with American education is that kids don't do enough homework.

The VanDamme Academy Email List features inspiring stories, exclusive commentaries, and special product offers from one of the best schools in America. Subscribe at www.vandammeacademy.com or send an email to custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject "Subscribe."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

'Racial Balance' Programs Are Racist

Posted by ARI Media at 8:36 PM

Dear Editor:

In Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the Supreme Court will decide whether government schools can ship students around to different schools in the name of achieving a "racial balance." What are the boards of education in question really advocating? Racism.

Back in the 1950s, when some schools were segregated by race, a monstrous injustice existed. Many students were prevented from going to the best schools because of their skin color—a completely non-essential characteristic. That was racism.

Today's proposed "racial balance" programs also prevent some students from going to the best schools available to them because of their skin color. This too is racism. Anytime the government arbitrarily treats some of its citizens differently, it commits a horrendous injustice. Let's hope the Supreme Court remembers that one of its functions is to protect the individual against the government's abuse of power.

Debi Ghate
Vice President, Academic Programs

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

The Homework Lie

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 5:01 PM

Every year, dozens of parents sit at my desk and describe to me the intense frustration they feel as they watch their children churned through the public schools. One of the refrains of their complaints: endless homework.

And no wonder:

  • The work itself is largely pointless. Students must complete countless contrived worksheets meant primarily to satisfy state standards for homework volume.
  • Their children are overwhelmed, trying to cram this busywork into car rides, between after-school activities.
  • Parents do not know the material themselves. They are often unable to help, and sometimes they even hinder the children with their own confused instruction.
  • There is no sacred family time. Instead, the time for bonding between parents and children is compromised by battles over homework.
  • There is no sacred free time; the time the child should be allowed to rest, play, spend time with family and pursue personal interests is compromised by the looming responsibility of performing hours of homework drudgery.

VanDamme Academy has a policy of no homework.

Yes, you read that correctly.

At VanDamme Academy, the only daily, on-going responsibility given the children outside school hours is to read. Reading is an activity best done alone, in the quiet of the child's own bedroom. It is a very independent and personal task, and—if it is the right book and taught properly—a very pleasurable one, too.

Math practice is done in math class. We give students ample time to learn, practice, and master new concepts under the close supervision of the teacher. Essays are written in writing class. Writing, which is one of the most challenging and comprehensive skills a student must learn, demands the constant monitoring and assistance of the teacher.

That such disciplines are neglected during the day—and then sent home in a mad-dash effort to get the kids up to speed for standardized testing—is criminal.

It is not surprising that our policy does wonders for parents' relationships with their children. I will never when a parent sat at my desk one day and, told me, with tears in his eyes: "You have given back our family life."

But, you might ask, how do VanDamme Academy students fare when they are sent off to high school with their homework-laden peers?

You'll have to wait until tomorrow to find out. :-)

[To be concluded tomorrow in "The Homework Lie: Part 2"]

The VanDamme Academy Email List features inspiring stories, exclusive commentaries, and special product offers from one of the best schools in America. Subscribe at www.vandammeacademy.com or send an email to custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject "Subscribe."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, December 04, 2006

Open Letter to Republicans

Posted by John David Lewis at 8:04 PM

There are two things that all Republicans know today: that you lost the mid-term election, and that the loss was a repudiation of President Bush's policies. What you must now figure out is why. Why did Americans vote as they did? What specific policies did they reject? The answer you accept will determine whether you discover a road to victory for your country and your party, or whether you stumble further into defeat.

You have heard—and will continue to hear—many explanations for the election results. You have been told, for instance, that Democratic obstruction stymied the president, and leftist defeatism undermined support for the war. These answers will not cut it. Republicans held a political majority in Washington for six years, and the President was given all the resources and authority he asked for—including a solid re-election two years ago.

You have been told that Democrats wanted to spend like crazy on domestic programs, and that they turned on Bush because he sought to allow Americans greater choice in how they spend their money. But the president has increased spending to a degree not seen since LBJ and FDR, and has not vetoed a single spending bill.

It has been said that the election was about values—meaning, religious values—and that you lost because you were not "Conservative" enough. But what does this mean? That you did not lobby strongly enough for government intervention in family affairs, education, and science? Religious conservatives—such as Senator Santorum—were also soundly defeated. The American people expressed no desire for more religious values in government.

It remains telling that the American people were solidly on the president's side when he promised a reduction in government coercion at home, and a victory in the war overseas (over 80% supported the invasion of Iraq)—and that they withdrew their support only after he failed to follow through on his promises.

I'll offer a different reason for your defeat. You lost because you ceased being Republicans, and became new, "Neo-," Conservatives. You were too Conservative, and not Republican enough. To earn my vote, it is Conservatism that you must reject, in favor of freedom, rights, and reason. You must once again become Republicans—the party of the American Constitutional Republic.

What Republicans once stood for, despite many compromises and errors, was preserving and extending American freedom. But where in recent history have you upheld this value? Have you, for instance, defended America's freedom against foreign enemies? The "Forward Strategy of Freedom" uses our soldiers to dig toilets for foreigners, claims success when a hostile government is elected, and promises years of American casualties. The result has been permanent airport checkpoints at home and armed guards on our borders. Whatever happened to the idea of driving to victory over avowed enemies?

Have you preserved freedom at home? Did you demand spending reductions along with your excellent tax cuts, or rather settle for deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars? Who doubled the size of the Department of Education, which some of us once hoped that Reagan would eliminate, and which is now pursuing a de facto federal takeover of the schools? Who enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley persecutions of businessmen? Who projected government power vigorously into bedrooms and marriage contracts? Who showered government money onto churches as replacements for the local welfare office?

Fiscally, you have accepted without question a God-given imperative to distribute other people's money by force—not as a compromise with the Democrats, but with a commitment to outdo them. Every time you have set out to eliminate or reduce a government program, you have ended up energetically saving it. Social Security, for instance, once facing elimination, has been saved—by Republicans. You have surpassed the Democrats in spending other people's money.

In no case have you been Republicans—meaning, defenders of the American Republic. You have been Conservatives—conservators of your vision of America, in the form of the liberal welfare state.

The first cause of this problem is the moral premise that you share with the leftists: altruism. You have accepted that moral goodness means sacrificing for the (alleged) good of others, and you have worked to shape America in this image. This ideal has defined President Bush's policies overseas, which purport to wage war by bringing benefits to enemy nations. It has defined a domestic policy that sees moral goodness in expanding programs of redistribution. Whereas the Democrats do this in the name of socialism (a discredited doctrine that has wreaked havoc wherever it has been tried), Conservatives do it in the name of "compassion." Democrats base their vision on class warfare and revolution; Conservatives base it on charity. But the practical results are the same: Socialism, now anchored not in Marx, but in civic religion.

Is this what you want for your party? If so, then stay the course, and continue your competition with the Democrats. But if you wake up one day and find that no area of life is beyond the reach of government power, and that we are all wards of the state, then you may rejoice. You will have reached the Promised Land. This is what you wanted.

If, however, you want to restore and protect freedom in the Land of the Free, then you must see the error of your ways. The proper state of man is not that of a beggar, demanding handouts by coercion and moral blackmail. The proper state of man is that of a thinking being—a being free to act on his own judgment for his own sake—free to produce and to trade for what he needs—free to achieve his full intellectual and physical potential—free, that is, from coercion by others.

This idea of freedom is based on a moral conception of man that is radically different from man the dependent. By this vision—the vision of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"—each person is an autonomous moral agent, free to act as his nature requires, for his own benefit, without sacrificing self to others or others to self—free to deal with others voluntarily, by offering values, not by imposing "duties."

But where, in our culture today, is this moral conception to be found? Leftists claim that moral principles—the broad generalizations that define the basic terms of right and wrong for every area of our lives—are not derived from facts. No "is" can lead to an "ought," they claim; moral principles are invented, culturally relative, subject to change, mere conventions that shift with the winds of the day. This premise led to the 1960s, freedom of speech as sit-ins on private property, and freedom from political authority as smashing "the system." The basis of this anarchy is subjectivism—the idea that we create reality in our minds, rather than grasp it through our senses and our reason. There are no absolutes, in this view; there is only man the follower of whims. Vox populi, vox dei.

You were appalled at this, and rightfully so. But what was your answer? There are standards, you said, but they are not derived from facts. With this basic premise you agreed with the leftists: There is no "ought" to be derived from this world. Where then shall we find moral principles? In another world, you said. Moral principles are supernatural and beyond reason, but they are imbedded in society and tradition, and knowable by faith. The result is an undefinable feeling that tells you to give to the poor, to render unto Caesar, to turn the other cheek, and to lose your fortune—or to tax mine—if it benefits others. Vox dei, vox populi.

The root of the moral views shared by leftists and Conservatives remains the conviction that the mind is incapable of grasping moral principles—and that we must rely on the authority of feelings, whether from the immediate consensus (vox populi) or from claims to divine sanction (vox dei). The clash between the leftists and the Conservatives is a clash of feelings. Neither side appeals to the mind; each wishes to impose its views by force.

This elevation of Feelings over Reason is precisely what you must reject. You must learn that your emotions are not tools of cognition. Your feelings will not tell you how to run a business, how to protect freedom, how to win a war, or how to distinguish good from evil.

If you, as Republicans, want to regain control of your party and end its malignant alliance with the looting left, then you must stop being looters yourselves, both in mind and in matter. Intellectually, you must grasp that rights and freedom can be discovered only through rational thought—individual thought—and that only the rational mind makes rights and freedom necessary. Materially, you must end your love affair with socialist redistribution, and become protectors of property rights—the practical expression of individual thought and freedom.

Each man's rights are inalienable from his being. This is a fact of nature—not of "supernature." Since each man must act on his own judgment in order to live as a man, he must be free to do so. This is his basic right: The right to act on his best judgment—that is: the right to do what is right. It is right to identify the facts and think—and to act as reason dictates—because we can live only by using our minds. It is right to keep what we produce—and to trade in a free market—not because this embodies some mystical "invisible hand," but because our lives depend on it. It is right to interact with others by rational persuasion and values—because the alternative is the club. And it is right to use physical force to restrain—and, if necessary, to destroy—those who attack us.

If you Republicans want to become true rightists—and a real alternative to the left—you must accept a morality of reason and become its advocates across the board: in classrooms, in newspapers, in board rooms, and in town squares. You must recognize that there is no dichotomy between what man is and what he ought to do, and no chasm between moral rights and practical consequences. The only true alternative to the left is a view of man as a rational being who owns himself and is the proper beneficiary of his own productive effort.

Grasping this makes it easy to evaluate the numerous issues swamping political discourse today. Domestic programs? Redistribution means taking from one person by force because another (allegedly) needs it. The principle is not changed if extended to millions—only the scope of the destruction is broadened. What of Social Security, Medicare, and government funding of medical research, agriculture, and education? There is no basis in reason for making an employee, a CEO, a doctor, a researcher, a farmer, or a teacher, into a slave to others because he produces—nor to demand the enslavement of others to fund him. Republicans can seize the moral high road by opposing such redistribution forthrightly, as a matter of principle.

The purpose of the government is to prevent criminals from preying on us. We need a domestic policy that does this and this alone—rather than turning police into social workers, and courts into moral censors and persecutors of businessmen. Republicans need to become voices for objective, rights-based, reason-based law, as a matter of principle.

What of foreign policy? Support for the war in Iraq has collapsed because there are no goals being pursued except the sacrifice of our youth for strangers, and no accomplishments except a demonstration of America's weakness. Republicans need to become advocates of a foreign policy of self-interest, by which we fight to defend the freedom of Americans, and only the freedom of Americans, with the goal of a fast and decisive victory when we do fight, as a matter of principle.

To preserve and extend the freedom of Americans was once the mission of the Republicans. But this mission was never properly understood. This is what you must discover. Your choice is: Conservatism (i.e., faith, self-sacrifice, and religion-inspired socialism) and its consequences of enslavement, self-loathing, and further defeat—or proper Republicanism (i.e., reason, self-interest, and individual rights) with its consequences of freedom, self-respect