The Objective Standard Blog
The Objective Standard Blog
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Spring Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Spring issue of TOS is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning March 20; and the Kindle edition will be delivered to Kindle subscribers on March 30. For promotional purposes, we are making Steve Simpson’s article “Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America” available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Spring issue are:
ARTICLES
Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America by Steve Simpson
Government-Run Health Care vs. the Hippocratic Oath
by Paul HsiehThe Virtue of Treating People Like Animals: Why Human Health Care Should Mirror Veterinary Health Care
by Sarah GelbergThe Practicality of Private Waterways
by J. Brian Phillips and Alan GermaniNorman Borlaug: The Man Who Taught People To Feed Themselves
by Audra HilseMaking Life Meaningful: Living Purposefully
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Reviewed by Heike LarsonWinning the Unwinnable War edited by Elan Journo
Reviewed by Grant W. JonesWhy Are Jews Liberals? by Norman Podhoretz
Reviewed by Gideon ReichCapitalism Unbound by Andrew Bernstein
Reviewed by Ari ArmstrongEssays on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged edited by Robert Mayhew
Reviewed by Daniel WahlThe Sparrowhawk Series by Edward Cline
Reviewed by Dina Schein FedermanBorn to Run by Christopher McDougall
Reviewed by Daniel WahlYour Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
Reviewed by David H. MirmanNewton and the Counterfeiter by Thomas Levenson
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not do so today? You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Monday, February 15, 2010
Nothing Less than Victory: Now Available!
John David Lewis' new book, Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History, has been released and is now available for purchase. Congratulations Dr. Lewis!
For a taste of Dr. Lewis' masterful analysis and writing, see his article "'No Substitute for Victory' The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism."
Labels: Announcements, Foreign Policy and War
Saturday, January 02, 2010
How to Deal with the Somali Pirates
According to the New York Times, Somali pirates hijacked a British-flagged vehicle carrier off the Somali coast late on Friday. For a principled and historically grounded analysis of what the civilized world should do about such atrocities, read Doug Altner's excellent essay “The Barbary Wars and Their Lesson for Combating Piracy Today.”
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, History
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
The Winter Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Winter issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning December 20. For promotional purposes, we are making Robert Mayhew’s review of Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Winter issue are:
ARTICLES
Pharmacide: The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Self-Destructive Effort to Loot America
by Cassandra ClarkAntitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration’s Anti-Business Cudgel
by Eric DanielsWhat the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” HR 3962, Actually Says
by John David LewisThe California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Governmental Assault on Property Rights
by Paul BeardThe Barbary Wars and Their Lesson for Combating Piracy Today
by Doug AltnerObjective Moral Values
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns
Reviewed by Robert MayhewHeaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer
Reviewed by Gus Van HornRed Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner
Reviewed by Daniel WahlIslamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh
Reviewed by Andrew LewisThe Israel Test by George Gilder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
Due to popular demand, we have extended our 60% off sale through January 1. Online subscriptions—including gift subscriptions—are only $19. If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the perfect time to give it a try. And if you are looking for the perfect gift for an active-minded friend or relative, what could be better than a steady stream of clearly written, easy-to-read articles addressing current events and cultural issues from a rational, principled perspective? You can purchase gift subscriptions online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Enjoy your holidays!
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Don't Say Grace, Say Justice
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, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.
Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine 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 is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? 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 now on—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.
Labels: Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Berlin Wall and the Meaning of its Fall
Here’s a superb 2-part discussion by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate about the history of the Berlin Wall and the significance of its fall.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, History, Philosophy
Monday, November 09, 2009
The Day Communism Crumbled: Remembering the Fall of the Berlin Wall
Here’s a great discussion with Yaron Brook and Terry Jones on PJTV about the fall of the Berlin Wall. (Free registration may be required.)
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2681
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, History
20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall
Here’s a nicely done video by the folks at CEI commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall (HT Michelle Minton):
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, History
Thursday, October 01, 2009
The Fall issue of TOS has been Posted and Mailed
The print edition of the Fall issue has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. (Due to production difficulties, the print edition was mailed a few days late. I apologize for the delay.) The contents of the Fall issue are:
ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David LewisAmerica’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein
An Unwinnable War?
by Elan JournoThe Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig BiddleThe Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael DahlenHow the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul HsiehHow Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein FedermanThe Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel WahlFred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott HolleranThe Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, there is no time like now. You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Fall Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making both John David Lewis’s article “Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” and Paul Hsieh’s article “How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability” available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Fall issue are:
ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David LewisAmerica’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein
An Unwinnable War?
by Elan JournoThe Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig BiddleThe Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael DahlenHow the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul HsiehHow Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein FedermanThe Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel WahlFred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott HolleranThe Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not subscribe today? You can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Friday, September 11, 2009
Our Self-Crippled Warby Elan Journo
Watching video of the Twin Towers imploding, we all felt horror and outrage. We expected our government to fight back—to protect us from the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. We knew it must, and could, be done. Fighting all-out after Pearl Harbor, we had defeated the colossal naval and air forces of Japan. But eight years later—twice as long as it took to smash Japanese imperialism—what has Washington’s military response to 9/11 achieved?
The enemy that struck us—properly identified not as “terrorism” but rather the jihadist movement seeking to impose Islamic law worldwide—is not merely undefeated, but resurgent.
Islamist factions in Pakistan fight to conquer that country and seize its nuclear weapons. The movement’s inspiration and standard-bearer, the Islamic Republic of Iran, remains the leading sponsor of terrorism, and may soon acquire its own nuclear weapons.
Then there’s the Afghanistan debacle. Eight years ago, practically everyone agreed we must (and could) eliminate the Taliban and its jihadist allies—a primitively equipped force thousands of times less powerful than Imperial Japan. Now that goal seems unreachable.
Today swaggering holy warriors control large areas of the country. They summarily execute anyone deemed un-Islamic, and operate a shadow government with its own religious law courts and “virtue” enforcers. Last year the CIA warned that virtually every major terrorist threat the agency was aware of threaded back to the tribal areas near the Taliban-infested Afghan-Pakistan border.
Why have we been so unsuccessful?
No, the problem is not a shortage of troops, nor is the remedy another Iraq-like “surge.” That sham, appeasing solution entails not quelling the insurgency, but paying tens of thousands of dollars to insurgents not to fight us, for as long as the money flows. And it means leaving Iraq in the hands of leaders far more committed to jihadists than Hussein. No, the crucial problem is the inverted war policy governing U.S. forces on the battlefield.
Defeating the Islamist threat demanded that we fight to crush the jihadists. Victory demanded we recognize the unwelcome necessity of civilian casualties and place blame for them at the hands of the aggressor (as we were more willing to do in World War II). Victory demanded allowing our unmatched military to do its job--without qualification. Instead, our leaders waged a “compassionate” war.
Before the Afghan war began, Washington defined lengthy “no-strike” lists including cultural sites, electrical plants--a host of legitimate strategic targets ruled untouchable—for fear of affronting or harming civilians. Meanwhile, we sent C-17 cargo planes to drop 500,000-odd Islam-compliant food packets to feed starving Afghans and, inevitably, jihadists.
Many Islamists survived, regrouped and staged a fierce comeback.
The no-strike lists lengthened. So, necessary bombing raids are now often canceled, sacrificing the opportunity to kill Islamist fighters. Jihadists exploit this to their advantage. Lt. Gen. Gary L. North tried to justify the policy to a reporter: “Eventually, we will get to the point where we can achieve—within the constraints of which we operate, which by the way the enemy does not operate under—and we will get them.”
“Eventually”—for another eight years?
In Washington’s “compassionate” war, we give the enemy every advantage--and then compel our soldiers to fight with their hands tied . . . ever tighter.
Naturally, U.S. deaths have soared. More Americans died in the first eight months of this year (182) than in all of last year--the bloodiest year of the war, up till now.
If Afghanistan now seems unwinnable, blame Bush and Obama. Bush crusaded not to destroy the Taliban but to bring Afghans elections and reconstruction. Obama’s “new” tack is to insist we spend billions more on nation-building and bend over backwards to safeguard the local population. Both take for granted the allegedly moral imperative of putting the lives and welfare of Afghans first--ahead of defeating the enemy to protect Americans.
This imperative lies behind Washington’s self-crippled war—a war which could have worked to deter other jihadists and their state-sponsors, but instead encourages them to attempt further attacks.
How many more Americans must die before we challenge this conception of a proper war?
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War
Four Important Articles for this God-Awful Date
“End States Who Sponsor Terrorism” by Leonard Peikoff
“Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein
The “Forward Strategy” for Failure by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo
“No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John David Lewis
Labels: Foreign Policy and War
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Jewish Settlements and Israeli Law
We are hearing a lot now about Israel’s creation of “Jewish” settlements on “Palestinian land.” These settlements are created, we are often told, to extend the “apartheid state” of Israel by squeezing out the local populations and establishing a superior Jewish ruling class. Typical here is CBS News anchor Bob Simon, who in January of 2009 described Israel as an “apartheid state.”
To understand this, it is instructive to read an Israeli Supreme Court ruling, the Decision on Katzir, dated March 8, 2000, which applies directly to the issue of land, and to the rights of Arabs under Israeli law.
A Jewish group, the Katzir Cooperative, which accepts only Jewish members, had received land from the Israeli government for a settlement in 1982. The group later tried to prevent an Arab couple from building a home in this settlement. The Arab couple sued. In the ruling, the Supreme Court summarized the basis of the suit as follows: “The Petitioners claim that the policy constitutes discrimination on the basis of religion or nationality and that such discrimination is prohibited by law with regard to State land.”
The Court heard the case, and ruled against the cooperative. This section from the ruling is direct and clear about the applicable principle:
The Court examined the question of whether the refusal to allow the petitioners to build their home in Kaztir constituted impermissible discrimination. The Court's examination proceeded in two stages. First, the Court examined whether the State may allocate land directly to its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality. The answer is no. As a general rule, the principle of equality prohibits the State from distinguishing between its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality. The principle also applies to the allocation of State land. This conclusion is derived both from the values of Israel as a Democratic state and from the values of Israel as a Jewish state. The Jewish character of the State does not permit Israel to discriminate between its citizens. In Israel, Jews and non-Jews are citizens with equal rights and responsibilities. The State engages in impermissible discrimination even it if is also willing to allocate State land for the purpose of establishing an exclusively Arab settlement, as long as it permits a group of Jews, without distinguishing characteristics to establish an exclusively Jewish settlement on State land ("separate is inherently unequal").
Next, the Court examined whether the State may allocate land to the Jewish Agency knowing that the Agency will only permit Jews to use the land. The answer is no. Where one may not discriminate directly, one may not discriminate indirectly. If the State, through its own actions, may not discriminate on the basis of religion or nationality, it may not facilitate such discrimination by a third party. It does not change matters that the third party is the Jewish Agency. Even if the Jewish Agency may distinguish between Jews and non-Jews, it may not do so in the allocation of State land.
On principle Israeli law is not religious; it is secular. Many of the settlements are Jewish, and we might assume that establishing Jewish enclaves in the Jewish state would be encouraged. But the law gives them no privileged status. The Jewish state is not akin to the Islamic state of Iran—in which clerics rule—or to that of Saudi Arabia, in which an ancient religious text is the law of the land. In Israel, all are equal in principle before the law. While under Israeli control, Jerusalem is an open city. People of all religions—and of no religion—can walk around freely, protected by Israeli law.
There is an important limitation here. Many of the areas that Israel was forced to take in self-defense, following the 1967 and 1973 attacks, are under military law, because Israel’s enemies have not ended the war, and because these areas have not been formally annexed. The source of this problem is the Arab leadership, who refused to accept an Arabic state next to Israel, as called for in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, November 29, 1947, and rather declared war on Israel. Unremitting suicide attacks were the source of the later separation wall. But this is all the more reason to end the war, eliminate the ambiguity, and extend Israeli law—and its principle of non-religious discrimination—fully into those areas.
Palestinian opposition to Jewish towns—as well as the ruling of the Israeli court—demonstrate where the commitment to apartheid lies, and it is not in Israel. Palestinian leaders do not thank Israel for its instructive example in separating politics from religion, while pressing to instill such principles in their own society. They rather condemn Israel, and demand its withdrawal under threat of force.
(The author thanks Boaz Arad for his assistance.)
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Leftist Fantasy vs. the True Story of the Atomic Bombs
Bill Whittle of PJTV annihilates the leftist fantasy, most recently espoused by Jon Stewart, that our atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “immoral,” and that Harry Truman was a “war criminal.” Whittle shows that our use of the atomic bombs saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, who otherwise would have had to launch a massive ground invasion in which the death toll would have been astronomical. He also shows that our use of the bombs saved (at minimum) hundreds of thousands (and more likely millions) of Japanese lives.
Whittle’s video dovetails perfectly with John Lewis’s definitive essay on the subject: “Gifts from Heaven”: The Meaning of the American Victory over Japan, 1945. Watch the first, read the second, and send the links to anyone you know who is still confused about the facts surrounding America’s profoundly moral military decision. Americans need to demand of our government the same kind of decision with respect to Iran, and to demand it, Americans need to know the truth about our bombing of Japan.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, History
Yaron Brook on Islamic Totalitarianism
In Yaron Brook’s latest interview on PJTV, he discusses Islamic Totalitarianism and its primary sponsor, Iran; how the U.S. has turned the other cheek every time Iran has (directly or indirectly) attacked Americans; what the U.S. (and Israel) should do about this Iranian-sponsored assault on the West; and the need of a moral revolution in America to enable Americans to defend themselves not only from foreign assaults but also from domestic corruption.
The interview is superb; don’t miss it.
Labels: Announcements, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A Snapshot of Obama's Obscene Foreign Policy
Caroline Glick has written a good piece summing up the global situation in the wake of President Obama’s recent travels to Britain, France, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and Iraq. Here’s an excerpt:
Somewhere between apologizing for American history—both distant and recent; genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash the US’s nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America’s missile defense programs and emasculate the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles and their fellow former Soviet colonies, “Don’t worry, be happy,” as he leaves them to Moscow’s tender mercies; humiliating Iraq’s leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American history, President Obama made clear to the world’s aggressors that America will not be confronting them for the foreseeable future.
Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington.
In addition to the abominations identified by Glick, the Obama administration is considering cutting a deal with Iran to the effect that, if the death-to-America-chanting theocracy will agree to “talks” regarding its atomic program, then America will permit it to continue enriching uranium and to go full steam ahead with its nuclear facilities.
Meanwhile, North Korea—which may already have enough plutonium to produce a half dozen atomic bombs, and which recently shot a multistage rocket over Japan—has vowed to “restore nuclear facilities it has been disabling and resume operating them, apparently referring to its five-megawatt plutonium-producing reactor and other facilities at the Yongbyon complex north of Pyongyang”—and to “reprocess spent fuel rods, also apparently referring to an activity at Yongbyon”—and to “‘actively consider’ building a light-water nuclear reactor.” In response, the Obama administration has done and likely will do nothing beyond participating in another round of finger shaking via the U.N. Security Council.
This Bush-like sellout of our security will continue until Americans repudiate the morality of altruism—which demands such self-sacrificial measures—and embrace the morality of rational egoism—which calls for the unwavering defense of America and her allies. Those who care to defend the civilized world need to discover the virtue of self-interest so that they can credibly advocate a foreign policy of self-interest. A good place to start is with Ayn Rand’s book The Virtue of Selfishness.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Seals Have Done What 'God' Could Not
Those who are thanking an alleged “God” for the rescue of American cargo ship captain Richard Phillips are engaging in a grave injustice. Phillips was saved not by “God,” who does not exist, but by Navy Seals, who deserve full credit for this marvelous feat.
Paraphrasing one of the protagonists from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the brutes who believed they could defeat their betters by force have learned what happens when brute force encounters mind and force.
Cheers to the Seals!
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Saturday, April 11, 2009
What Is America's Stake in the Arab-Israeli Conflict?
Who: Elan Journo, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
What: A talk followed by Q&A
Where: American University (Washington DC), School of International Service building, room 203
When: Wednesday April 15, 8:30 p.m.
Contact: Jasmine Whiting, auobjectivists@gmail.com
Description: Many people claim that U.S. policy regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict has been destructive of our security—and that a change in direction is urgently needed. Echoing many of his predecessors and legions of commentators, President Obama has announced plans to make dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict a “key diplomatic policy” of his administration. What kind of policy toward that ongoing conflict is actually in America’s interests? What policy can enhance U.S. security? What in fact have been the effects of Washington’s policy? Has it been unfair? If so, to whom—the Arab-Palestinian side, or Israel? In a presentation addressing these and other questions, Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute will offer a secular moral case for principled U.S. support of Israel.
For more information on this and other ARI events, please visit www.aynrand.org/events_other.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War
Friday, April 03, 2009
What Is America's Stake in the Arab-Israeli Conflict?
Who: Elan Journo, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
What: A talk followed by Q&A
Where: Travelodge Hotel, 925 Dixon Road, Toronto, Ontario, M9W 1J8
When: April 6 at 7:00p.m.
Admission: $25 for the general public, and $10 for students with identification. No need to RSVP.
Description: Many people claim that U.S. policy regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict has been destructive of our security—and that a change in direction is urgently needed. Echoing many of his predecessors and legions of commentators, President Obama has announced plans to make dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict a “key diplomatic policy” of his administration. What kind of policy toward that ongoing conflict is actually in America’s interests? What policy can enhance U.S. security? What in fact have been the effects of Washington’s policy? Has it been unfair? If so, to whom—the Arab-Palestinian side, or Israel? In a presentation addressing these and other questions, Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute will offer a secular moral case for principled U.S. support of Israel.
For more information on this and other ARI events, please visit www.aynrand.org/events_other.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Obama Whitewashes Iran by Elan Journo
In his address to the joint session of Congress, President Obama said that “We cannot shun the negotiating table” in conducting our foreign policy. He’s previously elaborated that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” And Iran’s president Ahmedinijad tentatively welcomes “talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere.”
The shared idea, evidently, is that our conflict with Iran stems largely from a past failure to use so-called diplomacy to settle disputes. Alluding to George W. Bush’s supposedly tough policy, Obama has said he wants to restore “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years” ago.
Really? Thirty years ago this November, followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, who spearheaded Iran’s Islamic revolution, stormed the U.S. embassy in Teheran and took the personnel hostage. President Carter gently admonished Iran, but ruled out military retaliation. Instead his advisors spent months dreaming up schemes to bribe Iran into releasing the hostages—while bending over backward to enable the regime to save face. In the end Khomeini’s Islamist theocracy collected a handsome payoff for its aggression, and concluded, rightly, that if attacked, America would crumple to its knees.
Was Obama thinking of the 1980s? In April 1983 Iran’s jihadist proxies in Lebanon rammed a truck bomb into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut; the Reagan administration responded by doing nothing. Months later, encouraged by Washington’s inaction, Teheran issued a kill order—via its ambassador in Syria—to its allied groups in Beirut. Early one morning, an Islamist suicide bomber set off a massive explosion at the barracks where U.S. marines were sleeping and killed 241 of them.
Reagan spouted hot air about not backing down—and soon after ordered the U.S. troops to bug out. The jihadists wanted America out, they slaughtered our troops, and we caved in and gave them what they wanted.
Osama bin Laden, like jihadists in Iran and elsewhere, viewed our response to the Beirut bombings as further proof that their ideologically driven war was a viable cause. And so, inspired by Iranian aggression, the anti-American jihad kept ramping up.
Maybe Obama meant the fabled halcyon days of the 1990s, when President Clinton tried to mend fences with Iran?
In 1996 a team of jihadists—financed and trained by Teheran—blew up the Khobar Towers building in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen. Clinton’s administration learned that Iran was behind the attacks. But Washington brushed aside any notion of retaliating against Iran, in order to facilitate a “reconciliation” with that murderous regime. In an eerie parallel with today, Iran expressed its openness to U.S. groveling—an opportunity Clinton seized.
So, Clinton attended a speech by Iran’s leader at the U.N.; the administration also permitted the sale of much-needed aircraft parts to Iran, among other sweeteners. Granted the cover of respectability, Iran was emboldened to continue fomenting Islamist aggression and avidly pursue its then-embryonic nuclear program.
Obama’s appeasing diplomacy re-enacts the disastrous policy of the past. Our policymakers evaded Iran’s character as an enemy, and by rewarding its aggression with bribes and conciliation, they encouraged a spiral of further attacks.
No. Bush was no exception to this trend. After 9/11 his administration invited Iran—the leading sponsor of Islamist terrorism—to join an anti-terrorism coalition(!). Talk of an axis of evil was quickly abandoned, and Washington backed the European scheme to bribe Iran to halt its nuclear program. By late last year, there was talk of opening a U.S. Special Interests Section (a step down from an embassy) in Iran. Meanwhile Bush’s welfare mission in Iraq negated U.S. security and left Iran untouched to grow more powerful and resolute.
A genuinely new, rational policy toward Iran would turn away from the last 30 years and begin by facing up to Teheran’s ongoing proxy war against us.
Elan Journo is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on foreign policy. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Watch and Learn from Hugo Chavez
Washington, D.C.—Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has halted construction of a private shopping mall in downtown Caracas as a first step toward confiscation. “We’re going to expropriate that and turn it into a hospital—I don’t know—a school, a university,” said Chavez on his weekly radio show.
“Americans can learn an important lesson from the spread of socialism in Venezuela,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “What is Chavez counting on when he grabs a private building and vows to make it into a hospital, school, or university? He’s counting on his listeners to excuse the seizure of private property because a higher moral purpose is supposedly being served.
“Chavez is relying on the fact that socialism embodies the world’s moral ideal of individual sacrifice for the ‘common good.’ History has taught him that no opponent will denounce that ideal. And so he climbs to the moral high ground, turning his back on socialism’s dismal historical record of economic decline, lost freedoms, and human misery.
“As long as the moral ideal of self-sacrifice remains unchallenged, socialism will continue to spread—not only in the third world, but in America as well.
“There is a rational alternative. It’s laissez-faire capitalism, which upholds the individual’s moral right to live and work for his own sake, not society’s. But to establish freedom we must dig up the moral roots that continue to nourish socialism worldwide.”
### ### ###
Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his Op-Eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
To interview Mr. Bowden or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrand.org
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
John David Lewis Speaking Twice in Israel
Who: John David Lewis, visiting associate professor of political science at Duke University
What:
- A talk on "The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism: A Proper Policy," at the Facing Jihad Conference, in Jerusalem, Sunday, December 14, at 10:30 a.m.
- A talk on "Israel's Moral Right to Exist," at Tel Aviv University, Monday, December 15, at 6:00 p.m.
These should be superb lectures, so if you are in Israel, be sure to attend.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Forthcoming Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Winter issue of The Objective Standard is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning December 20. For promotional purposes, “Capitalism and the Moral High Ground” and “Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative” are available early and to all.
The contents of the Winter issue are:
From the Editor
Letters & RepliesARTICLES
“Capitalism and the Moral High Ground” by Craig Biddle
“Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative” by John David Lewis
“Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet” by Raymond C. Niles
“Bubble Boy: Alan Greenspan’s Rejection of Reason and Morality” by Gus Van Horn
“The Assault on Energy Producers” by Brian P. Simpson
“Demystifying Newton: The Force Behind the Genius” by Gena Gorlin
“Errors in Inductive Reasoning” by David HarrimanBOOKS REVIEWED
New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton Folsom Jr. (reviewed by Eric Daniels)
Better Day Coming: Blacks and Equality, 1890–2000 by Adam Fairclough (reviewed by Gus Van Horn)
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, you can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151. And the Standard makes a great Christmas gift for your active-minded friends, colleagues, and relatives. Everyone concerned with the future should be reading this journal today.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Foreign Policy and War, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Psychology, Science and Technology
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Don't Say Grace, Say Justice
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, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.
Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine 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 is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? 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 now on—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.
Labels: Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology, The Arts
Monday, October 27, 2008
On Loving America
One thing that is often implied, if not explicitly stated, in this election is that John McCain—like George Bush—really loves his country. Of course McCain makes mistakes in particular areas, but, according to this view, these are the forgivable errors of a true patriot. McCain's values and principles are fundamentally sound, it follows, he just errs in the practice. Given his good principles, we are told, he can "learn" to better apply them. If we advocate for his election on the basis of these principles, we are told, we can then guide him to better apply these principles in practice.
This same argument has been made about Bush for eight years. Now we are hearing it applied to McCain: elect him, and he will somehow "learn" to repudiate his socialist economic plans, his plans to keep American troops fighting for others, etc. etc.
This is nonsense for at least three reasons.
First, why would a 72-year-old man suddenly learn to repudiate that which he has advocated for the past 35 years? What motive would lead him to do this? There is none. He will continue to advocate that which he has automatized and practiced for decades: McCain wants an economic plan that differs only in detail from that of Obama, because he agrees in principle with Obama.
Second, even if McCain did (somehow) have an epiphany of insight (a light in the sky?), why should he reject the very means he used to achieve the presidency? Why should the very success of his efforts lead him to reject those efforts and the altruistic principles at their foundation? He will have a mandate—both in the electorate, and in his own mind—to continue, and to expand, the program that got him elected.
Third, and more deeply: To love a thing is to know and love its nature. McCain sees America as the land of service, where our goodness is measured by our willingness to sacrifice. Is this America's nature? If it is, then McCain loves his country, and we should support his plans to increase the sacrificial, socialist economic policies that he has advocated. But let us not fool ourselves about what we are supporting: a socialist vision of America that differs profoundly from its constitutional principles.
Of course, what McCain loves about America is not its essence. America’s purpose is not a “more perfect” welfare state, but rather a more perfect union of free individuals. Let us then recognize that McCain neither knows nor loves America. He loves an image that is the very antithesis of America. As president he will "learn" to more strongly apply his "love" by shaping America into that image: a nation of sacrificers.
Let us consider more broadly the Republicans over the past two generations. What have the leading Republicans actually learned since Goldwater? On a policy level they have learned to quit worrying about and instead love the welfare state. They claim not to oppose it, but to better manage it. The essence of their domestic policy is: “my gang will do a better job.”
But on top of this pragmatism, they want to be moral, which to them means being “compassionate” with our wealth. Their guiding management principle is: to redistribute wealth while purporting to cut taxes. To be both moral and politically successful, the Republicans have learned to love the welfare state.
Meanwhile the Democrats are learning to love God. Each has learned: There is no electoral success without religious socialism, or, if this makes you uncomfortable, socialistic religion.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Notice of Special Event: Mr. Flemming Rose on 'Free Speech in a Globalized World'
What: A Lecture by Mr. Flemming Rose, editor of Jyllands-Posten, publisher of the Danish Muhhamad cartoons, on "Free Speech in a Globalized World."
When: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 7:00 PM
Where: Page Auditorium, Duke University
In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the Islamic figure Muhammad with images of terrorism. The newspaper's publishers stated that they wanted to bring issues of free speech and censorship forward into public awareness. The result was a firestorm of protest, ordered by clerics some weeks after the publication, that highlighted the seriousness of this issue. Over one hundred people were killed in the ensuing riots.
This event will be a unique opportunity to hear the cultural editor of this publication explain the decision to publish these cartoons, the issues at stake in the decision, and the meaning of the protests and the violence that followed. A Q&A will follow the talk.
Flemming Rose is a journalist with long experience in European, Russian, and American issues. He has been awarded the "Free Speech Award" from the Danish Free Press Society.
Web Site: www.committeeforfreespeech.com
Contact: John Lewis, Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University, john.d.lewis@duke.edu
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Jail Time for Blasphemy Under Religious Constitution
Washington, D.C.—“The 20-year jail sentence for blasphemy handed down to Sayad Kambakhsh in Afghanistan this week is the kind of outrage to be expected under any constitution that enshrines Islam as the state religion and the Koran as the supreme law of the land,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
A council of mullahs acting under court authority had originally decreed capital punishment for Kambakhsh, a 24-year-old journalism student charged with possessing anti-Islamic books, starting un-Islamic debates in class, and downloading and distributing Internet articles saying that Muhammad ignored women’s rights. That death sentence, which was endorsed by Afghanistan’s upper house of parliament, has now been overturned on appeal.
“In 2006, mobs of clerics were clamoring for the death of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan whose ‘crime’ was converting to Christianity,” Bowden said. “And now, Sayad Kambakhsh faces two decades in jail unless an international outcry embarrasses Afghanistan’s government into lifting the sentence.
“Criminal punishment of blasphemy is fundamentally unjust and outrageous, and ad hoc protests offer no long-term solution. If Islam’s stranglehold on Afghanistan’s government is to end, that nation must adopt an American-style constitution protecting individual rights, including freedom of speech and religion. The strict separation of church and state erects an institutional barrier to religious persecution, as American history shows.
“But a nation that exalts mystical dogma and tribal allegiances cannot be expected to think in such terms. ‘The guy should be hanged,’ said an 18-year-old student at the American University in Kabul, at the time of Kambakhsh’s death sentence. Added a Muslim cleric: ‘He should be punished so that others can learn from him.’ For such people, freedom is an intolerable obstacle to the overriding goal of enforcing Islam.
“When the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan, its stated policy was to promote ‘democracy.’ That policy has now achieved its exact aim. The Afghan government reflects the democratic will of the people. The people want to punish blasphemers, and their constitution allows them to do so lawfully.
“Bush’s policy was based on his delusional belief that Afghans are as freedom-loving as Americans. But what they truly value is religion. Sayad Kambakhsh is living—at least for now--proof that religion injected into government is hostile to freedom.”
########
Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor, who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
Thomas Bowden is available for interviews on this topic.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@AynRandCenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Totalitarian Islam and the Threat to Free Speech
What: A panel discussion on the nature of totalitarian Islam and its threat to free speech, followed by a Q&A
Who: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute; Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; and Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten
Where: Ward One, Auditorium One, American University, Washington, D.C.
When: Thursday, October 23, 2008, at 6 pm
Admission is FREE and open to the public.
Description: What is the nature of totalitarian Islam—is it limited to terrorism or is it a broader movement? Are non-Muslims its only victims? Who precisely is the enemy? Does the West bear responsibility for creating this movement? What policies can defeat it?
Defenders of Islam around the world have striven to silence critics with threats, protests and acts of violence. How should the West respond to demands for censorship, as in the Danish cartoon controversy?
Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bios:
Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle East issues. Dr. Brook has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including FOX News, CNN, and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. Abroad, he appears weekly in Israel’s Jerusalem Post, Italy’s l’Opinione, Spain’s La Razón and monthly in Canada’s Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is one of the most accessed Internet sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, The O’Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al-Jazeera.
Flemming Rose is a Danish journalist, author and the cultural editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In September 2005 Mr. Rose commissioned a series of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad. He was concerned about the tendency toward self-censorship in Europe and some Muslims’ insistence on special treatment of their religious sensitivities in the public domain, which he wanted to bring forward for debate. The backlash from Muslims around the world caused an international crisis and the Danish government experienced its worst foreign policy crisis since the Nazi occupation during WWII.
For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Thursday, October 09, 2008
America's Soldiers Deserve Better
Washington, D.C.—Asked when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security, Barack Obama pointed to Darfur and Rwanda, saying, “When genocide is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.” McCain agreed: “We must do whatever we can to prevent genocide.”
But according to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “Vowing to send U.S. troops on selfless missions is a travesty.
“What Obama dismisses as standing ‘idly by’ really means: to protect the irreplaceable lives of American soldiers by refusing to ship them off on sundry ‘peacekeeping’ missions that do nothing to make us safe. That is not some cold-hearted gesture, but the government’s moral obligation. Nothing but a threat to American lives or freedom can justify putting our soldiers in harm’s way. Demanding they spill their blood in order to stop warring tribes from slaughtering each other is an obscene violation of their rights—regardless of how noble McCain or Obama thinks the cause is.
“Our soldiers deserve better. Instead of sacrificing U.S. treasure and lives for the alleged welfare of foreigners, we should demand a foreign policy that treats American security as its exclusive concern.”
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC, and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213, media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Islamic Totalitarianism’s Threat to Civilization
What: A panel discussion about the nature of Islamic totalitarianism and how to defeat it. A Q&A will follow.
Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam
Where: HIB (Humanities Instructional Building), Room 100, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697
When: Monday, October, 13, 2008, at 7 pm
This event is open to the public. Admission is FREE.
Description: From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency–it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an “age of terror” and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory . . . but is the conventional wisdom right?
Bios:
-
Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle East issues. Dr. Brook has served in the Israeli Army and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on numerous radio and TV programs, including FOX News, CNN and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.
-
Dr. Wafa Sultan is a secular Syrian-American writer and thinker, best known for her participation in Middle East political debates, widely circulated Arabic essays and television appearances on CNN, FOX News and Al-Jazeera. She named the Islamic threat to the West as “a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose.” Her outspokenness has brought her both threats and praise. Dr. Sultan is currently working on a book to be titled “The God that Hates.”
For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org
### ### ###
Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews now and after this event.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Afghanistan-Pakistan Nightmare
Washington, D.C.—Seven years into the Afghanistan war, America faces resurgent Taliban and Islamist forces carrying out more daring and increasingly deadly attacks on U.S. troops. Suicide bombings, once rare, are a commonplace in Afghanistan. According to news reports, the number of roadside bombs has been climbing (from 1,931 in 2006 to 2,615 last year). More Americans died in Afghanistan this year, so far, than did in the first three years of the war, combined.
Appearing before Congress, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported, with signal understatement, that he’s “not convinced we’re winning in Afghanistan.”
Why has this war—once thought of as the right war—gone so wrong?
U.S. military and intelligence officials have pointed to the tribal belt along the Afghan-Pakistan border as a source of the problem. The region is a safe haven for Islamists, where they train, plot and launch attacks on Western forces in Afghanistan (and on targets in the West). Many officials suspect Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, of colluding with the Islamists and allowing them sanctuary, and complain that Pakistan’s government—a supposed U.S. ally—has failed to do enough to root out the Islamists. The remedy now being pushed in Washington involves sending U.S. Special Operations forces on raids in the tribal areas (as recently happened) and deploying several thousand more troops in Afghanistan.
But while there’s reason to believe Islamists enjoy the support of Pakistan’s intelligence services and military, this is far from the fundamental reason why, despite a U.S. war against them, the Islamists are resurgent in Afghanistan. This nightmare is yet another result of Washington’s broader “compassionate” war.
From the beginning, our military was ordered to pursue Taliban fighters only if it simultaneously showed “compassion” to the Afghans. The U.S. military dropped bombs—but instead of ruthlessly pounding key targets, it was ordered gingerly to avoid hitting holy shrines and mosques (known to be Taliban hideouts) and to shower the country with food packages. And even more so today, according to a report by the New York Times, “vast numbers of public, religious and historic sites make up a computer database of no-strike zones” while Air Force lawyers vet all air strikes. The U.S. deployed ground forces—but instead of focusing exclusively on capturing or killing the enemy, they were also diverted to “reconstruction” projects for the sake of the Afghan population.
The Bush administration allowed the enablers of bin Laden to flee and find a welcome home in Pakistan’s tribal region, where they regrouped. Washington then passed off to Pakistan the dirty work of rooting them out. Given that Pakistan had helped create and put the Taliban in power, it should be no surprise that the Islamists there have grown stronger. (They feel themselves so safe that they hold press conferences and give interviews by cell phone.)
The half-hearted war in Afghanistan failed to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda. Instead of defeating them, Washington’s timid war scattered the Islamist forces and left them with the moral fortitude to regroup and launch a brazen comeback. What we need is a war policy that proudly places America’s interests as its exclusive moral concern and ruthlessly destroys our enemies.
### ### ###
Mr. Journo is a fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He specializes in foreign policy and the Middle East. His writings have appeared in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, and the Globe and Mail of Canada. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. Mr. Journo has been a guest on numerous nationally syndicated radio programs.
Elan Journo is available for interviews on this topic.
To interview Mr. Journo or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213
media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The Forthcoming Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Fall issue of The Objective Standard is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, “McBama vs. America” and “The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists” are available early and to all.
The contents of the Fall issue are:
ARTICLES
“McBama vs. America” by Craig Biddle“The Resurgence of Big Government” by Yaron Brook
“The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists” by Alan Germani
“Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America” by Paul Hsieh
“Deeper Than Kelo: The Roots of the Property Rights Crisis” by Eric Daniels
“The Menace of Pragmatism” by Tara Smith
“How the FDA Violates Rights and Hinders Health” by Stella Daily
BOOKS REVIEWED
Mugged by Reality: The Liberation of Iraq and the Failure of Good Intentions, by John Agresto (reviewed by Elan Journo)Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (reviewed by Eric Daniels)
The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, by Ronald Kessler (reviewed by Joe Kroeger)
The Tyranny of the Market: Why You Can’t Always Get What You Want, by Joel Waldfogel (reviewed by Eric Daniels)
First into Nagasaki: The Censored Eyewitness Dispatches on Post-Atomic Japan and Its Prisoners of War, by George Weller (reviewed by John David Lewis)
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, there is no time like now. You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151. Everyone concerned with the future should be reading this journal today.
Labels: Announcements, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion
Friday, August 29, 2008
Islamic Censorship by Default
Washington, DC—Random House has called off publication of a historical novel about the Prophet Muhammad's wife Aisha, after the company received advice the book could incite violence by Islamic radicals.
"Random House's decision is the tragic result of America's failure to defend free speech against totalitarian Islam," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.
"In 1989, when Ayatollah Khomeini called for the execution of Salman Rushdie and Islamists firebombed American bookstores, the United States did nothing. In 2006, when two major book chains refused to sell copies of Free Inquiry magazine featuring the Danish cartoons of Muhammad for fear of Muslim violence, the United States did nothing. Is it any surprise that some Americans are now afraid to publish material that could be deemed 'offensive' to Islam?
"If a publisher faces the prospect of violent reprisals, and knows that the U.S. government will do nothing to protect it, that is censorship—as much as if our own government had shut down Random House's printing presses.
"The American government exists to protect our rights, including our right to free speech. By defaulting on its responsibility, it has allowed theocratic thugs to dictate what Americans can say, write, and publish. It needs to send a message that it will no longer tolerate any threat against the right of Americans to speak freely about any subject, including Islam.
"How much longer will our government allow Islamic radicals to tell us what we can say?
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Creeping Christianity in the U.S. Military
Irvine, CA—An active-duty soldier has sued the Department of Defense, alleging discrimination by the U.S. Army on the basis of his atheism. Specialist Jeremy Hall claims that, for example, he was ostracized by Christian soldiers when he refused to hold hands around the table and join in a Christian prayer at Thanksgiving. His federal lawsuit asserts he was also kicked off the promotion track for lacking religious faith.
"This lawsuit highlights one aspect of the insidious process by which the religious right's 'faith-based' agenda is corrupting American institutions," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "In the faith-friendly atmosphere of the Bush administration, religionists are taking big swings at the wall of separation between church and state. The allegations in this suit are consistent with recent controversies over evangelical proselytizing at the Air Force Academy and mealtime prayers at the Naval Academy.
"The military is duty-bound to actively shield its soldiers from ostracism and persecution such as that alleged in Specialist Hall's suit. Servicemen, like all Americans, are legally and morally entitled to exercise freedom of thought, which includes the freedom to accept or reject religion according to their own best judgment.
"In their interactions, soldiers should be required to cooperate based on their common values—a patriotic commitment to America's self-defense and to carrying out the specific tasks that goal requires. Religious dogma only undermines such rational cooperation, as centuries of faith-based warfare and persecution demonstrate.
"The religious right must be put in its place before it irreparably damages the wall between church and state. Americans are entitled to expect that the military, the courts, and the President will unite in protecting the First Amendment rights of all citizens. That means opposing, not promoting, attempts to inject religion into American institutions such as the armed forces."
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat by Elan Journo
Imagine that your neighborhood is overrun by a gang. These brutes are wielding crowbars, knives, and pistols in a frenzied spree of home break-ins and mugging and murder. Now suppose the police reveal that their grand strategy for dealing with this gang is to block them from getting submachine guns—as if without such weapons, the gang would no longer bother people.
Would you sleep soundly at night?
Or would you be outraged? Of course you would, because this gang—even without more powerful weapons—is already a serious menace that must be stopped.
Now, what would you say if this ridiculous what-if scenario resembled our actual response to the very real threat from Iran?
Ever since taking U.S. embassy staff hostage in 1979, the Islamist regime in Teheran has led an international spree of bombings, hijackings, and other terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners. Now politicians and diplomats, who put up with Iranian aggression for years, are loudly promising to block Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
On the campaign trail, for instance, the candidates debate how (i.e., with or without preconditions) they'd negotiate to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuke—on the idea that without such a weapon in Iranian hands, everything will be hunky-dory.
But the uncomfortable truth is that if the mullahs got a nuke, Iran would not suddenly undergo a Jekyll-and-Hyde transformation from a friendly neighbor into a rabid enemy. Iran long ago proved itself a threat that must be stopped; a nuclear arsenal would only make it a far worse threat.
For three decades the ayatollahs of Iran have been using proxies—such as Hezbollah—to carry out murderous attacks. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps helped create and train Hezbollah, which hijacked a TWA airliner and which kidnapped and tortured to death American citizens. Iran pulled the strings behind the 1983 bomb attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and later the barracks of U.S. Marines, killing 241 Americans. Iran also orchestrated the 1996 car bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died.
There's more: The 9/11 Commission found that "senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives," and that "8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi 'muscle' operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001." During the Afghanistan war, Iran welcomed fleeing al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Today, according to the U.S. military, Iran is running training camps near Teheran for Iraqi insurgents, who return to Iraq to practice and train others in their bomb-making skills. There's also growing evidence that Iraqi insurgents get bomb technology from Iran.
What's going on here?
A rational assessment of Iran would have to recognize that the mullahs in Teheran have been conducting a proxy war against America. The inspiration for this war is Iran's jihadist goal of imposing Islamic totalitarianism globally. Iran is a leading sponsor of jihadists and the self-identified role model for exporting its Islamic revolution to other countries. It is the sworn enemy of the West. We should take seriously its call to bring "Death to America!"—because it has already done so.
But too many American diplomats and commentators refuse to judge Iran. Instead, they regard its past hostility as a string of disconnected crises, unrelated to Iran's ideological agenda. They avoid naming the nature of the regime and behave as if its acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be the decisive event. But that particular weapon—despite its power—cannot be the whole story, since we don't worry about other countries, such as France and Britain, having nukes. The rarely admitted difference is that the regime in Iran would eagerly press the launch button.
This fear-the-weapon-not-the-killer mentality refuses to understand the threat posed by Iran right now. This view holds that only the concrete facts about Iran's arsenal have any practical significance, while its abstract, ideological goals and character can be disregarded with impunity. But whether Iran uses one nuke, or attacks with more conventional weapons, its victims are still dead.
Our leaders' narrow concern with Iran's nuclear capability cannot make the regime's longstanding hostility to America go away. Americans should face the real character and conduct of the Iranian regime, before it is too late.
Elan Journo is a resident 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 © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Israel and the Front Line of Civilization
I just returned from a speaking engagement at Tel Aviv University (pictures from the trip are on my website). My honorarium was four days of sight-seeing in Tel Aviv, Abu Gosh, Jerusalem, En Gedi and Masada, and a series of meetings with writers, policy analysts, academics and writers. I came back with one overriding conclusion, which stands for me stronger than it did before my trip: Israel stands at the front-line of the war between civilization and barbarism. As Eric Hoffer wrote over forty years ago, “as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us all.” (“Israel’s Peculiar Position,” LA Times 5/26/68)
Israel is America’s best friend in the world today. It is Western in every fundamental respect: Its secular government has prevented both civil war and tyranny since its founding; its citizens’ rights are largely protected; its press is free and open; its court system is independent of executive fiat; and its economy is vibrant. It has its share of lunatics, but they have not taken over the culture. It is “middle-eastern” only in location.
While driving through Israel, one cannot help but remember that the area can become a military front at any moment. A sign in the road points left to Ramallah, home of Yasir Arafat—you can drive there (we did not), but an Israeli soldier will soon stop you to warn that the army cannot protect you if you go further. Straight ahead is the road to Jerusalem, which is just a few miles away. It’s all so close.
In less than half hour’s drive, the seacoast climate of Tel Aviv changes to the desert climate of Jordan. Bedouin camps—temporary structures, some with camels in front—squat between towns with high-tech industry. Jerusalem itself is deeply permeated with religious fanaticism of all kinds, and with neighborhoods defined by ethnic identities. The line that divided Israeli tanks from those of Arabs during the numerous attacks on Israel is a street—you can walk down it.
On the highway—a modern road built by the Israelis—I see towns surrounded by trees. The trees were nearly all planted by the Israelis. This is something little known in the U.S.: The Israelis have planted tens of millions of trees in a desert that had never before been planted, and they remain committed to planting in the Negev Desert, especially near Beer Sheva. Trees did not exist here before 1948. The so-called “Green Line” originally dividing Israel from its neighbors is called such because it literally is a line of green.
At one point we come over a hill, and there are two towns ahead. The one on the left is an Israeli “settlement”—to use the popular phrase in the western press today—and on the right is an Arab town. To the left is a sea of trees among the buildings, and to the right, none. What the press and politicians in America call “illegal settlements” are Israeli towns, with factories, high-tech industries, and homes—built on hills where there was previously nothing but sand—bringing economic life and civilization to the desert.
There can be no basis for calling these towns “illegal” because, prior to Israel’s establishment of civilization in the area, no law and no government existed there (so-called “International Law” notwithstanding). It is also little known in the United States that when the Israelis announce their intent to withdraw from these areas, thousands of non-Israeli inhabitants—Muslims and Arabs—pick up and move to Israeli-controlled areas (Daniel Pipes has recounted some of this). Life under Hamas is hell, life in Israel is good, and most locals know it.
As usual, Israel is blamed for the inability to make peace with a foe that is dedicated to destroying her. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expresses a dominant view in the U.S. State Department when she rants against Israeli towns as an “impediment to peace.” Yet observe the Palestinian leadership’s response to Rice: "With the arrival of that black scorpion with a cobra's head, Condoleezza, I began to worry that she would use her venomous fangs and hiss to kill this initiative and new spirit that we should protect” said Hamas Minister of Culture 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh,in remarksaired on Al-Aqsa TV on June 15, 2008.
The deepest cause of the conflict between Israel and those purporting to lead the Palestinian people is philosophical: the deep inculcation of jihad into the minds of Palestinian youth, in the form of a violent ideology that has nothing to offer except the destruction of Israel and claims to paradise as a reward for death. Samples of this ideological material have been collected at the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center; follow the link to “Captured Material.”
Until the motivations for jihad against Israel are admitted, confronted, and repudiated, the causes of war will remain in place, festering in the minds of each new generation of children. All else—the “settlements,” the check-points that prevent non-Israelis from freely partaking of the Israeli economy, the claims to economic devastation, the “historic connection” to a soil that the Palestinians never planted—is pretense. To see this, all one need ask is why Israel’s return to the 1967 borders would remove a cause of war, given that Israel was attacked when she held those borders. And, of course, for Israel to retreat to those borders now would leave foreign enemies a few miles from Tel Aviv. This would be national suicide for Israel, a new holiday for Hamas, and the end of civilization in the Middle East.
The Israelis have made the desert bloom. Tel Aviv—with its skyscrapers and trees—was entirely undeveloped before the Israelis came and replaced primitive huts with modern buildings. The first Israeli settlers purchased land from inhabitants, and built a city where none existed. Today, their economy is robust and is expected to grow nearly 4% in 2009. And remarkably, despite the constant threat of war and the ceaseless missile attacks, Israeli society is largely unmilitarized. Yes, there is a draft—but outside of a military base I saw no soldiers in Tel Aviv, and rarely saw a military vehicle on the highways.
By driving enemies back and building walls to keep them out, the Israelis have been able to create a peaceful island in a sea of violence. (When was the last time you heard of an “Israeli Day of Rage” and saw Israelis shooting automatic weapons into the air in celebration?) Given the intensity of attacks on Israel, one must wonder whether this ability to live in peace isn’t the real bone of contention with her enemies.
My trip to Israel made even more obvious to me that Israeli interests and American interests are in perfect alignment. The achievement of Israel’s goals—a permanent end to the war, and the establishment of peace under a rational government—are American interests. And the Israelis know it. Never in any country I’ve visited (I’ve been to over a dozen) have I seen so many American flags. Never have I walked into a shopping mall and seen a line of life-size mannequins of American soldiers with the host country’s flag on their shoulders. If only the American people and their politicians knew that Israel is our premier—and perhaps only—cultural and political ally in the world today. If only Americans realized the consequences of abandoning that ally.
Blog Feed
Click the button below to subscribe to our blog's feed.
Get the Feed
Subscribe to the journal for people of reason.
Topics
- Announcements
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism
- Business and Economics
- Education
- Environmentalism
- Events
- Foreign Policy and War
- Healthcare
- History
- Individual Rights and Law
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Religion
- Science and Technology
- The Arts
Blog Archive
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
Advertisement
Advertisement
