Students as Consumers

Shawn Klein, one of the editors of the Harry Potter and Philosophy volume to which I contributed, has some interesting comments upon the myriad complaints about "consumerism" in education. The problem, he observes, isn't that students regard their education as a service for purchase, since it obviously is just that. Rather, the problem is that students are often confused about what they're purchasing: they're not purchasing the diploma or good grades or even the education. Instead, they're purchasing an opportunity to educate themselves, just as a person who buys a gym membership or personal training sessions is purchasing an opportunity but not a guarantee of getting in shape.

If that sounds interesting, I'd recommend reading the whole post. It's interesting enough that I'd love to see the future Dr. Klein publish a revised version as an op-ed in the Chronicle of Higher Education or somesuch.

Read more...

Innocents in Islam

In the course of some arguments on SoloPassion about moral conduct in war, I wrote the following post about the supposed multitudes of innocents oppressed by dictatorial regimes. I thought it worth reproducing here:

[Someone unworthy of identifying by name] said: "Bearing in mind that most Iranians loathe and despise their enormously repressive theocratic regime and its puritans and religious police and love America..."

If that were true, the Iranians would have overthrown that theocratic regime ages ago. (In fact, it never would have come into existence at all.) No government -- no matter how repressive -- can possibly maintain its grip on power when actively, seriously opposed by a majority -- or even a dedicated minority. The fact that people in Iran might grumble about the concrete policies of their government does not mean that they oppose it in principle. Sure, a few do that -- but the sputtered-out student revolts of a few years ago indicate that they were nothing more than a small minority.

The history of the 20th century proves that people willingly submit to the most horrifying dictatorships -- but not from fear alone. As Ayn Rand illustrated in We the Living, people will accept vicious regimes as fundamentally moral or justified -- and/or they passively submit to the horrors perpetrated by it. In Russia, autocracy was the only respected form of government -- and crushing government interference in economic affairs had a long history. Communism was merely a more extreme version of the kind of government widely accepted as right and proper. Moreover, one basic ideal of the culture -- instilled in substantial part by the Russian Orthodox Church -- was the passive resignation to the evils of this world. The people who accepted and perpetuated those ideals made possible all the evils of Soviet Russia. They cannot rightly claim that they ought to be exempt from the consequences thereof, e.g. in war with free countries defending themselves against Soviet aggression.

Contrary to [quoted person's] fantasies, governments are not imposed upon a people from another dimension against their will. If the Iranians are genuinely opposed to their regime, it's their responsibility to overthrow it. If they fail to do that, then they have no grounds for complaint when the nations threatened by that regime act swiftly and decisively to eliminate the threat. American soldiers certainly ought not be put in harm's way so as to preserve the lives of Iranians who either support their belligerent, theocratic regime, passively accept its evils, or cowardly refuse to act to overthrow it.

In his lecture course on "The Rise of Totalitarian Islam" at OCON this past summer, Dr. Yaron Brook made a good case against the standard view that Iran was substantially pro-Western and pro-American at the time of the seizure of power by the Ayatollah -- and remains so to this day. I won't reproduce my full single-spaced page of furiously-typed notes, but I will highlight a few key points. (Remember that these are just my lecture notes, so I can't guarantee full accuracy in reproducing Dr. Brook's points.)

Iran was actually one of the least Westernized countries in the Middle East at the time of the Revolution. French and English colonization substantially impacted the cultures of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Iran was not so affected: it was in the middle of nowhere, left alone to indulge in its own primitive culture.

The Shah of Iran attempted to Westernize Iran during his rule from the 1950s through 1979. In particular, he tried to aggressively secularize and nationalize Iran. He was also very oppressive, alternating between appeasement and oppression of religious leaders. Notably, the vast majority of the Iranian people never benefited from that Westernization. In fact, the traditional middle class traders in the bazaars were very threatened by the imported Western companies and goods, as well as by Western values. They funded the religious leaders opposed to the Shah. So very few Iranians were actually Westernized. Mostly that influence was limited to just students attracted to communism or socialism. At the time of the Revolution, the country was predominantly Muslim and oriented toward its religious leaders.

Unsurprisingly, many of the pro-Western Iranians left Iran after the Revolution. Many of the student opponents of the regime are just slightly more moderate Islamists. The genuinely pro-Westerners are (1) a very tiny minority and (2) usually socialist. So why is Iran so widely regarded as pro-West? It's due to (1) the rosy memories of pro-Western exiles and (2) Western desire for a better government in Iran without the blood of military conflict.

I've omitted much of great interest in Dr. Brook's presentation, particularly regarding Khomeini's ideology and its relationship to Shiism. Those interested should order the course when it becomes available sometime in the next year.

Read more...

Early Registration

Early registration for The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response ends on October 1st. The conference will be held in Boston from October 20th to 22nd. Don't miss out on the discount!

Ever since I started listening to Leonard Peikoff's major lecture courses, I've regretted that I never saw him speak at the Ford Hall Forum. That feeling has only grown since I listened to audio recordings of all those lectures, since they were consistently fantastic. So when I heard that Dr. Brook was speaking at Ford Hall Forum, I was determined to attend come hell or high water! The weekend conference on the Middle East is just icing on that delicious cake!

Read more...

Gamey Rabbits

In sending me the link, Paul said that this FAQ contains "more than you ever wanted to know about Peeps," but I really don't think that's possible! Personally, I'd say that the best tidbit is found in this question about flavor differences between kinds and colors of Peeps: "Although you might expect Bunnies to have a somewhat gamey flavor, they taste identical to Peeps." Alas, everything really does taste like chicken!

Read more...

The 21st Century Comprachicos

Those who have read Ayn Rand's essay, "The Comprachicos" know that the title refers to a barbaric group of nomads in the 17th century that used to specialize in the deliberate mutilation of children's bodies. Rand goes on to argue that the crippling of a child's mind via progressive education is the 20th century version of this practice.

Well, in the 21st century, the comprachicos have returned to crippling the body. According to this recent report on the genetic testing practices in US IVF (in vitro fertilization) clinics,

Some prospective parents have sought [preimplantation genetic diagnosis] to select an embryo for the presence of a particular disease or disability, such as deafness, in order that the child would share that characteristic with the parents. Three percent of IVF-PGD clinics report having provided PGD to couples who seek to use PGD in this manner. (Page 5 of the report, page 7 of the PDF file.)

Now I can understand why prospective parents might choose to screen their embryos so that their future child won't have a certain crippling disease. But to deliberately select an embryo so that it will seems incomprehensibly monstrous.

Or as this Slate article puts it, "Old fear: designer babies. New fear: deformer babies."

Read more...

Diversity, Dischmiricity

Bloggasm recently published its informal survey on diversity in the blogosphere. I did participate, mostly because I wished to express my opinion that such worries about racial and sexual diversity are seriously wrong. That's particular true in a medium like the blogosphere, since readers don't know your race or sex unless you choose to disclose it. So here are my answers to the survey:

1. What niche does your blog fall into (if more than one, please list)?

My blog is mostly read by Objectivists and others interested in Ayn Rand's ideas.

2. What are the genders of all the bloggers who write for your site?

Three male, 1 female.

3. What are the races for all the bloggers who write for your site (if there are any that you're not sure about, just indicate that you don't know)?

Three Caucasian, 1 Asian.

4. This last question is optional to answer. Please indicate whether or not it's fine for me to quote you for this question: What do you think of the diversity of the blogosphere, both in your niche and as a whole?

You may quote me.

I would NEVER EVER EVER choose my co-bloggers based upon race or sex, nor choose to read or link to other blogs on that basis. There's a very simple reason for that: it would be racist and/or sexist to do so. I judge people by the quality of their writing, their insights, their characters. I do not judge people worthy or unworthy -- in any way -- based upon race and sex.

Moreover, I would be thoroughly insulted if someone read me (the woman) or my husband (the Asian) for that reason. It would be patronizing. I'm a good writer by human standards, not feminine ones.

In short, the racial and sexual diversity of the blogosphere cannot be some kind of noteworthy controversial issue. People of any sex and any race are free to blog if they so choose. If they're good, they will gain an audience. If not, they won't. That's how the blogosphere works. To act on any other basis is racism and/or sexism.

That's not terribly eloquent writing, but I think I got my basic point across.

Read more...

Christianity

I recently received the following e-mail. I don't have time to answer it in any kind of detail. However, I thought some NoodleFoodleDoodlers (i.e. commenters) might be interested in doing so. As for my sketchy reply, suffice it to say that I certainly don't reject Christianity on the basis of anything so specific as Calvinism. I find the ideas in the New Testament utterly repugnant all by themselves. More generally, the demand for faith in the supernatural found in all religions is not just unnecessary to understand the world, but outright antithetical to reason.

Here's the letter. I've told its author to check the comments.

Dear Diana,

You have my apologies in advance if any part of this letter offends you in any way as such would never be my intention. You must forgive me if I have overstepped any boundaries in this, but I recently came across a web page about original sin, specifically referring to John Calvin, and it seemed that this particular doctrine solidified your resolve in that you do not think that Christianity is a religion that loves humanity.

Strangely enough, I have been doing much research on the concept of election and this is the reason I came across that particular page. If you are not familiar with the doctrine of election, it is a doctrine referring to the manner by which one is saved, or chosen, and so forth, and this definition is by no means conclusively definitive.

The first I feel it is imperative to alert you of is this. John Calvin's view of election does not represent Christianity as a whole. While it is true that there are some staunch reformed theologians that hold to this no matter what, not very many people take this view of election. I am one of them and I am particularly saddened to see that it seems to have to done to you what most of its opponents are afraid it would do.

This concept of election, by which you have judged all of Christendom, I find to be biblically inaccurate, as do many theologians across the globe. I won't bore you with the details and alternative viewpoints on this, but I do have a request of you. This same page mentioned that you were raised an atheist. I wasn't raised much of anything and only became a Christian later in life, of my own accord, and always find it strange to see Christians that seem to forget who they are. My point is, if you were raised an atheist, I would like to know why you held to this belief, why you rejected any of the major religions, and so forth. In other words, why do you believe you are right? I should inform you that I would expect an answer far more elaborate that just John Calvin's veritable infanticide. I ask completely unbiased, so please, if you see fit to answer, please respond in like manner.

The reason I ask is because I have never found an atheist that has been able to defend such a position logically, and I would venture to say that I have done a great deal of looking. Ninety percent of all of them eventually just storm off and get mad when philosophically cornered and eventually just fall back on an 'I just can't believe' attitude. The rest fail to understand the flaws in their own argument. If one can't believe, then it logically follows that there is a reason; a quantitative as well as qualitative reason. I am merely looking for these, what have been to me, very elusive antecedents. If you can, please heed my request or feel free to forward this request to a friend or colleague, or anyone at all, that wishes to voice their opinion on this matter and can defend this position logically.

Furthermore, I did notice that this page was made quite a number of years ago. If such a late response proves inconvenient, you have my apologies for this as well.

-Daniel Marcus Manifestation

Comments?

Read more...

Emergency Radiology Case Of The Day

Today's diversion from heavy philosophical topics comes from the emergency room.

A young woman "was brought in from the county jail by correctional officers. They were concerned about her altered mental status, and suspicious of drug use. They had a reason to think she was concealing drugs 'on her person'." Among the various tests performed was the following abdominal x-ray:



As the blogging ER physician reports:

Yes, that's a pistol completely stuffed into the vaginal vault. All of a sudden her agitation and thrashing about seemed a lot more important than it had a few minutes before. How the hell were we to get the gun out without the damn thing discharging?

In the end, there was no real option. She was sedated and taken to the OR for an exam under anesthesia. They put a bulletproof vest over the patient's body to protect the anesthesiologist in the event the gun went off, and had general surgery standing by. The OB-GYN who did the extraction reported a very tense moment when he perceived that the hammer was cocked and there appeared to be a shell in the chamber. An uneventful removal was followed by a moment of letdown when they realized that the device was not, in fact, a gun, but rather a butane torch/cigarette lighter shaped like a gun.

This actually makes sense when you look at the X-ray and realize that the other item in her vagina is a glass crack pipe and its rubber tubing. What good is a crack pipe without a lighter?

Read more...

NetFlix

Does anyone want a free trial month of NetFlix? If so, use this link.

Read more...

I Laughed, I Cried, It Changed My Life!

Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, sent out this announcement:

The print version of the Fall issue of TOS has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. The contents are:

From the Editor

Letters and RepliesThe Decline and Fall of American Conservatism by C. Bradley Thompson

19th-Century French Painting and Philosophy by Dianne Durante

The Jihad on America by Elan Journo

For promotional purposes, the online version of "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism" is accessible to all.

If you've not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the time to act. While supplies last, you can still begin your subscription with the inaugural issue. Subscribe today and we'll mail the first three issues to you right away.

Remembering rave reviews of C. Bradley Thompson's lecture at the last OCON, I was eager to see what he would say in his TOS article, "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism." I read it just now. Wow.

Wait, let me try that again: freakin' wow!

It is eye-opening and jaw-dropping, a stunning analysis that gathers up the oddities we have been seeing in the rise of the Republicans, explains them with some wonderful philosophical detective work, and frames it all in terms of fundamental principles having life and death importance to us all. C. Bradley Thompson brings the goods, and I now understand the cryptic, stammered, rave reviews of his lecture -- along the lines of, "It was amazing: I kept thinking it couldn't get any worse, and then he would reveal a whole new level of badness!" But don't take my word for it: go see for yourself.

If this doesn't cement TOS's place on the map, I don't know what will. Thanks and kudos, guys!

Update from Diana: Brad Thompson will be speaking in Boulder on October 5th and in Denver (Arvada) on October 7th. Both talks will be on education. For more information, see this page and/or e-mail Lin Zinser.

Read more...

Some Assembly Required

The release party for the new CD on which Greg Perkins plays sax is tomorrow! Here's the relevant bits of the e-mail announcement he sent out a few days ago.

Hey, guys -- Kevin Kirk & Onomatopoeia are delighted to finally announce that our new Some Assembly Required CD is available! You can listen to a CD "trailer" I put together (4M MP3), check out the full CD artwork, and order the CD online.

To celebrate its arrival, we are throwing a free CD Release Party! September 24, Starting at 3:00pm at the Esther Simplot Performing Arts Academy, the band will be hosting a mixer for sponsors, supporters, and fans -- and we will be performing material from the CD there in a more intimate, acoustic setting.

What: FREE "Some Assembly Required" CD Release Party
When: September 24, 3:00-4:30pm
Where: Esther Simplot Performing Arts Academy, 516 S. 9th, Boise
Details: Drinks and appetizers available, more info at www.kevinkirk.net

I'm hoping that I can buy a CD from Greg at the upcoming conference on the Middle East in Boston in October. That's a good bet, since Greg is an accomodating guy who will be attending the conference.

Read more...

Great News: California Sues Global Warmers

A Reuters article reports that, "California sued six of the world's largest automakers over global warming on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have caused billions of dollars in damages."

"The injuries have caused the people to suffer billions of dollars in damages, including millions of dollars of funds expended to determine the extent, location and nature of future harm and to prepare for and mitigate those harms, and billions of dollars of current harm to the value of flood control infrastructure and natural resources," it said.
...
[California Attorney General] Lockyer -- a Democratic candidate for state treasurer in the November election -- said the lawsuit states that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing "millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide."

Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to global warming.

This lawsuit is the first of its kind, and I was dismayed to see environmentalist nutballs press to do damage on yet another front. Even on a superficial level, it is so arbitrary: why not sue the car owners for driving them, or the car dealers for selling them, or the gas stations for fueling them, or the oil companies for supplying them. And if it is about carbon dioxide, then why are they picking on cars rather than other sources, such as all the people, pets, and animals we raise for food? What legal or moral principle drives California to pick this particular target vs. any of those others?

But of course this is really driven by the science (or lack thereof) behind the Global Warming movement, which is why we may well end up thanking them for this move.

Remember the recent lawsuit regarding Intelligent Design in the science classroom (a.k.a., "Scopes II" or the "Dover Panda Trial")? The top theorists and proponents from the ID movement were put on the stand and under oath, where they were definitively exposed as dishonest, fraudulent, creationist pseudo-scientists with a religious agenda. Dover was a crushing blow to the ID movement: confident and influential from long taking epistemological liberties in the court of public opinion, they were finally brought into a context where obfuscation, shoddy reasoning, and populist appeals carry no weight. (I highly recommend reading that decision. Written by a Bush-appointed judge, I didn't expect much and ended up impressed with his ability to grasp and relate the scientific and philosophical issues. His obvious anger at their mendacity was icing on the cake.)

So the Church of Global Warming wants to be put on the stand? I say that's great! Prepare for another Dover.

Read more...

Yaron Brook on CNBC - The US and the United Nations

This should be good!

Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear on CNBC's program "On the Money" tonight, Sept. 21, 2006, between 7 and 8 pm Eastern time (4 and 5 Pacific time), to discuss the relationship of the United States with the United Nations.

P.S. Announcements of upcoming TV interviews are sent to you as soon as the program producers confirm our appearance. Sometimes interviews are cancelled by the producers after you have received our announcements. We unfortunately have no control over these last-minute program changes and regret any inconvenience they may cause you.

Read more...

Young Feminist on Marriage

Due to some strange blogosphere brouhaha about her breasts, I ran across this delightful tidbit on the Feministing blog. In commenting upon a recent study, the feminist writes:

The study also found that marriage kept both women and men happier. Don't even get me started, but I just feel like there are so many variables here how could they have possibly come to such general conclusions. Furthermore, I don't deny that having people around you in supportive roles could definitely be good for your health. But what does marriage have to do with that?

That last bit is just too perfect! Paul and I must clearly be working this whole marriage business the wrong way. Or maybe I just need my consciousness raised to show me just how horribly oppressive he really is.

Read more...

Bow and Surrender

Via PhilosopherEagle, a quote from a speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.

PhilosopherEagle notes: "How much clearer can he be? Yet still we wait. Still we give Iran time to prepare for a war. Still we give Iran time to acquire a nuclear weapon."

All true. The quote is also a reminder of what genuine imperialism sounds like for all the pathetically deluded liberals who think that America's self-sacrifice in Iraq is imperialistic empire-building.

Read more...

Paris Overflowing

Part III of Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame is an unnecessary excursion into the architecture of Notre Dame and then Paris itself. Although it is a fine essay in its own right, it doesn't belong in the novel. When I listened to the novel, I was mostly annoyed by the interruption of the plot. Still, this vivid description of the growth of a city encased by walls was sheer delight:

Paris had its birth, as the reader knows, in that old island of the City which has the form of a cradle. The strand of that island was its first boundary wall, the Seine its first moat. Paris remained for many centuries in its island state, with two bridges, one on the north, the other on the south; and two bridge heads, which were at the same time its gates and its fortresses,--the Grand-Chatelet on the right bank, the Petit-Chatelet on the left. Then, from the date of the kings of the first race, Paris, being too cribbed and confined in its island, and unable to return thither, crossed the water. Then, beyond the Grand, beyond the Petit-Chatelet, a first circle of walls and towers began to infringe upon the country on the two sides of the Seine. Some vestiges of this ancient enclosure still remained in the last century; to-day, only the memory of it is left, and here and there a tradition, the Baudets or Baudoyer gate, "Porte Bagauda".

Little by little, the tide of houses, always thrust from the heart of the city outwards, overflows, devours, wears away, and effaces this wall. Philip Augustus makes a new dike for it. He imprisons Paris in a circular chain of great towers, both lofty and solid. For the period of more than a century, the houses press upon each other, accumulate, and raise their level in this basin, like water in a reservoir. They begin to deepen; they pile story upon story; they mount upon each other; they gush forth at the top, like all laterally compressed growth, and there is a rivalry as to which shall thrust its head above its neighbors, for the sake of getting a little air. The street glows narrower and deeper, every space is overwhelmed and disappears. The houses finally leap the wall of Philip Augustus, and scatter joyfully over the plain, without order, and all askew, like runaways. There they plant themselves squarely, cut themselves gardens from the fields, and take their ease. Beginning with 1367, the city spreads to such an extent into the suburbs, that a new wall becomes necessary, particularly on the right bank; Charles V. builds it. But a city like Paris is perpetually growing. ...

Read more...

Failure to Communicate

This hilarious short video from a Norwegian reality TV program shows a woman with a very deep misunderstanding about the nature of computer technology. The first minute or so might be puzzling at first, but it's worth watching the whole thing.

On a more serious note, it also shows how the products of a rational mind can make life incalculably better for those who have no clue about how technology works, let alone how it could even be created.

Read more...

Religious Wit

This is a true story as communicated to me by one of my coworkers.

A local physician was quite well known for being an (apparently) devout Christian. However, he was also having an illicit extramarital affair with one of his female office staff. The rest of his employees found this distasteful, not only because of the gross hypocrisy but also because the doctor was giving his lover unfair preferential treatment at work.

Finally, some of the other employees made up a large sign and snuck it into the doctor's office overnight. It read, "Thou shalt not share thy rod with thy staff".

The female employee who was having the affair with the doctor quickly found another job.

Read more...

Biblical Parenting 101

Ouch! Biblical advice on parenting:

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22: 15)

... and ...

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. (Proverbs 23:13-14)

The Puritans followed this advice: they used to attempt to beat the hell out of their children too. (That's not a joke; that was their actual theory.)

Read more...

Sedalia Sea Monkeys

I'm playing fantasy football for the first time this year with some of the other grad students and staff of the philosophy department. Of course, Peyton Manning is the quarterback of my team, the Sedalia Sea Monkeys. (I couldn't stand to have a conflict of interest there!)

My beloved Sedalia Sea Monkeys lost their first game -- tragically, by less than a third of a point. The final score was 104.08 (me) to 104.35 (my opponent).

Boo hoo.

Read more...

Dr. Onkar Ghate on CNBC

From ARI:

ARI Alert: Dr. Onkar Ghate on CNBC today!

Dr. Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear on CNBC's program "On the Money" today, 9/13/06, between 7 and 8 pm Eastern time, 4 and 5 pm Pacific time, to discuss the National Federation for the Blind's demand that Target Stores make their website accessible to the blind.

ARI Media

P.S. Announcements of upcoming TV interviews are sent to you as soon as the program producers confirm our appearance. Sometimes interviews are cancelled by the producers after you have received our announcements. We unfortunately have no control over these last-minute program changes and regret any inconvenience they may cause you.

Read more...

History of Capitalism

From the Objectivism Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute:

OAC IS NOW ACCEPTING REGISTRATIONS TO AUDIT ITS "HISTORY OF CAPITALISM" COURSE

ARI's Objectivist Academic Center is currently accepting registrations from those interested in auditing its graduate-level course, HOC (History of Capitalism). The course, which begins this week, is offered via online recording and can be taken from anywhere in the world.

This two-semester course, taught by Dr. Eric Daniels, will explore political, intellectual, and legal developments that transformed the United States from a mostly capitalist nation to a mixed economy. By understanding these historical developments, students will learn to analyze the essential nature of government policies and assess their overall effect on a free economy.

For more information on auditing HOC, and the Objectivist Academic Center more generally (including a link to the registration form), please visit our auditing page or write to oac@aynrand.org.

I'm taking the course as part of my studies with OAC. Given the teacher, I have every reason to expect it to be excellent.

Read more...

Muslim Jihadist Denounces Leonard Peikoff

Well, I must admit that I didn't expect Leonard Peikoff to get onto the opinion pages of the New York Times via an "[al] Qaeda intellectual." The opinion essay in question mostly consists of excerpts from Muslim "jihadi" web sites about the anniversary of September 11th. Here's the one relevant to Dr. Peikoff, with the op-ed writers' introduction in italics, then the translated commentary in plain text.

Hamid ibn Abdallah al-Ali is a Kuwaiti ideologue of jihadism -- the only Qaeda intellectual to have posted a text specifically for the Sept. 11 anniversary. The sheik cites an article by Leonard Peikoff, heir and executor to Ayn Rand, that appeared as an advertisement in The New York Times shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

In his article "End States that Sponsor Terrorism," Leonard Peikoff, one of the leading ideologues of American extremism, concluded that America's policy of appeasement toward the Muslim world led to Sept. 11. For 50 years, he writes, American administrations have relinquished their true ownership rights over Muslim oil resources, which they discovered and developed the technology to extract. The solution, according to Mr. Peikoff, is for the United States to eliminate the states that sponsor terrorism with the most lethal weapons at its disposal.

This is exactly the kind of rotten thinking that animates those living in the extreme west of the globe, from where they spread their rot to the rest of the world -- these politicians of underdevelopment, criminality and mass extermination of humanity. This is the arrogance of fascism, of which Bush has accused Muslims recently: in this case it is the fascism of the cross standing on the tribunes of oil. In short, it means that they own our oil that is in our land; they own our blood, which they can shed at will; they own our present and future, and they have the right to change our history and our education!...

Hunger, disease, thirst and regional wars instigated by poverty all stem from the greed of the West, its thirst for plunder and desire to control the world's wealth. These in turn lead to a rate of destruction every year that equals the destruction World War II effected over six years.

The mercenaries who dominate the World Trade Organization ... the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ...the bloodsuckers of the world's poor, the immiserators of nations and the thieves, murderers, shedders of blood: these are the ones who control the international political system. They are the ones who spread their armies throughout the world, terrorizing and stealing the wealth of nations while enslaving them. They are the ones who are exterminating the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and other places. They are the ones who ally themselves to the despotic rulers in order to suck the blood of the people, using companies that are owned by the leaders of their countries and headed by murderers and criminals.

(Via Ray Niles.)

Update #1: Dr. Peikoff's article was also discussed at some length in this op-ed in an Egyptian weekly newspaper. Here's the key section:

When I was researching for this article, I looked for material that may help me identify any change that may have occurred in recent US foreign policy. I found an article written by Leonard Peikoff, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. What caught my eye was not just the title of his article, "End States Who Sponsor Terrorism", but that it was published first 2 October 2001, right after 9/11 and immediately before the war on Afghanistan. The article was republished 9 September 2005, on the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. This says volumes about the vision of the US rightwing, and its persistence.

Peikoff believes that the appeasement policies pursued by successive US administrations towards the Islamic world are responsible for the latter's belligerence, which climaxed on 9/11. Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower's abandonment of oil rights tempted the Muslim world to take its first stabs at freedom. The second stab came from Khomeini's Iran, where US diplomats were held hostage. President Carter, Peikoff goes on, wavered in his response, which encouraged the Muslim world to shed American blood. The first killers were Palestinians who hijacked planes in the late-1960s, before being joined by others eager to get in on the game, Peikoff argues.

Successive US administrations saw Muslim crimes as individual crimes that call for legal action against the perpetrators. But Peikoff proposes a more radical solution: the eradication of all countries that sponsor terror. The expression of "ending" countries that sponsor terror is not one that Peikoff invented. He borrowed it from Paul Wolfowitz, currently president of the World Bank. Only reluctantly does Peikoff agree with Donald Rumsfeld that nuclear bombs cannot be used. For Peikoff, Iran is the key source of terror. Not only does he call for the destruction of Iranian military power, but he also advises "the destruction of every branch in its government".

It would be inaccurate to claim that Peikoff's article encapsulates the current US administration. I understand that President Bush, in comparison with Peikoff, may look like Mother Theresa. Furthermore, the failure of US policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon has given rise to opposition within the ranks of the Republican Party. There is just a slim chance the US administration may learn from its mistakes, but I am not optimistic. This administration is so steeped in its own indoctrination, it is likely to remain as intransigent as ever.

The comment that Dr. Peikoff makes President Bush look like Mother Theresa is more accurate than the author realizes, I'm sure.

Update #2: Dr. Peikoff's article "End States that Sponsor Terrorism" can be found here.

Read more...

Shoshana Milgram on Sale

If you're interested in literature, four of Shoshana Milgram's lectures are on sale at the Ayn Rand Bookstore through September. I haven't heard any of them, so I cannot recommend them in particular. However, I've always found Dr. Milgram's lectures worthwhile.

Oh oh oh! I just realized that one of the lecture courses on sale is Hugo's Notre-Dame of Paris. Since I just listened to The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I'm definitely going to buy that. I was completely and utterly captivated by the novel; it was actually the first Victor Hugo that I've read, despite a year a half of French literature in high school and college. (I highly recommend the superb reading by David Case available from Audible.com. It far surpassed any other reading I've heard.)

Update: *GRUMBLE* In the course of attempting to order some absurd number of lectures from the Ayn Rand Bookstore, I hit the "empty basket" button instead of the "update basket" button -- not once but twice. Augh! (In my defense, they're right next to each other... too close, I think.)

To add insult to injury, I wanted to think on my selections for a while and verify that I didn't have one at home in some dark corner, so I didn't place my order right away. (I was at school.) Now that I've returned home, my shopping basket is empty yet again. At least I have my selections listed on a saved page. I'm not starting over though. I've given up: I'm just going to call in my order. (Really, that's quite unprecedented for me.)

Read more...

Why We Are Losing Hearts and Minds

Given the date, I cannot think of anything better than to post Keith Lockitch's op-ed Why We Are Losing Hearts and Minds.

Our leaders have failed to answer the evil moral ideal of Islamic totalitarianism with a rational ideal of our own.

Five years into our "war on terror," the Iraqi insurgency is raging, with no apparent end to the new recruits eager to wage jihad against the West. Support for offensive action has faded among a disheartened American public, while the terrorists are growing in number and in boldness.

Where have our leaders gone wrong? What kind of leadership failure can demoralize a whole nation of honest, productive citizens, while leaving suicide murderers stirred to righteous action?

The power that inspires righteous action--and which, by its absence, breeds discouragement--is the power of moral idealism. What has brought us to our present state is our leaders' moral weakness in response to the jihadists' moral zeal.

Observe that what draws the recruits to terrorist cells is a powerful ideal: the advancement of their religion. The jihadists believe fervently that Islam is the revealed word of Allah, that selfless submission to Allah is the purpose of life, and that all individuals should be subjugated to Islamic law under a theocracy. They believe in spreading the rule of Islam worldwide, and killing any "infidels" who stand in their way. They are morally outraged by the American ideal of individual liberty and regard our this-worldly, capitalistic culture as an evil that must be destroyed.

America can only defend itself against such a zealous, militant movement if we have moral confidence in our own ideals--and fight for them. We must repudiate the Islamists' "ideals" of other-worldliness, of blind faith, of renunciation and suffering, of theocracy, and proudly uphold the superior, American ideals of reason, freedom, and the pursuit of worldly happiness.

But our leaders have not shown such moral confidence.

When the terrorists of Sept. 11 struck in the name of Islam, President Bush did not identify them as Islamic totalitarians and condemn their murderous ideology and its supporters. Instead, he painted the hijackers as a band of isolated lunatics who had "hijacked a great religion." (Only recently has President Bush even acknowledged that our enemy is Islamic, with his use of the term "Islamic fascism.")

In response to Muslim denunciations of America's secularism, our leaders did not defend this attribute of America, but instead stressed Americans' religiosity. A mere two weeks after Sept. 11, with the ruins of the World Trade Towers still smoldering, our planned Afghanistan campaign, "Operation Infinite Justice," was renamed to appease Muslims protesting that only Allah can dispense "infinite justice."

Unable to defend America intellectually, our leaders are unable to defend her militarily.

Have our leaders acted consistently against terrorist regimes? Consider our policy toward Iran, the primary state sponsor of terrorism. Refusing to identify Iran as the fatherland of Islamic totalitarianism, our president initially beseeched its Mullahs to join our "war on terror." And he has consistently answered their chants of "Death to America" and their quest for nuclear weapons with negotiation and spineless diplomacy.

Have our leaders asserted that they will use America's formidable military to secure our way of life by whatever means necessary? No. Lacking the moral confidence to defeat our enemies, they have instead squandered our military resources and sacrificed our brave soldiers in a futile quest to spread "democracy" around the globe--as though bringing the vote to Muslim mobs sympathetic to Islamic totalitarianism will somehow end the terrorist threat.

The reason the terrorists and their state sponsors are not demoralized is that our leaders have failed to demoralize them. Our leaders' words and actions have signaled that we are not as morally committed to our lives and freedom as the terrorists are to our destruction.

We must make it clear to the jihadists that we will destroy anyone who takes up arms for Islamic totalitarianism. No one wants to fight and die for a hopeless cause. The jihadists will continue to be emboldened and to attract new recruits until they are convinced their goal is unachievable. They must see that we have the moral confidence to defend our lives--to answer their violence with an overwhelming military response, without pulling punches. They must see us willing to visit such crushing devastation on them that they fear us more than they fear Allah.

It is often said that we must win the "hearts and minds" of supporters of totalitarian Islam. Indeed we must: their hearts must be made to despair at the futility of their cause, and their minds must be convinced that any threat to our lives and freedom will bring them swift and certain doom.

The ideologues of totalitarian Islam have seized the power of moral idealism in the service of our destruction. It is time we reclaimed that power in defense of our freedom.

Keith Lockitch, Ph.D. in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

In Yaron Brook's excellent course at OCON this summer, The Rise of Totalitarian Islam, someone remarked that the Islamic totalitarians seeking to destroy the West truly understand the power of ideas, particularly of philosophical ideas. That's true -- and until the West discovers the same, the threat of Islamic totalitarianism will only continue to grow.

Read more...

American Foreign Policy

This article from The Onion is a pretty apt metaphor for American foreign policy.

Read more...

Kitlers

"Kitlers" are cats that look like Hitler, like this one. Our cat Elliot looks at most like a hemi-Hitler.

Read more...

Widows: Reclusive, Befuddled, and Predatory?!?

Wow, this letter to Miss Manners is simply unbelievable:

Dear Miss Manners:

A woman I thought was my friend lost her husband about two months ago. They had tickets to an event I was dying to see, but we just didn't have the connections she did, I guess.

Then after Tony died I figured she wouldn't be going. I called her and told her I knew it wouldn't be the same going by herself so, rather than waste the tickets, my George has a tuxedo. She seemed to appreciate my offer and said, "And you are volunteering George?"

I went to a lot of trouble to get ready. I had my hair, nails and everything done. George rented a tux. When we went by her place to pick up the tickets, there she was in an evening dress. She thought I was going to let her date my husband!

Instead of saying she was sorry for the mix-up, she said that since she was going to be putting the extra ticket at the box office in case somebody needed it, she'd better leave. Then she put us out the door.

George says the polite thing would have been to let him just escort her. HA! I know how widows are. Inasmuch as she didn't have the good grace to let us use the tickets after we went to so much trouble, don't you think she owes us for all the preparations we made? I was so disappointed that I didn't get to attend this event.

Miss Manners replies:

Somebody here should be saying, "And I thought she was my friend!" Miss Manners is only surprised to hear that it is you.

Ah, but you say that you know how widows are. They are reclusive, so that you can safely assume that they want to be left out of things, and so befuddled that it should be easy to pluck what you want from them. At the same time, they are so predatory that husbands cannot be trusted in their company.

Even words do not deter you. Any sensible person would interpret what you said as a kind offer to have your husband escort your friend to the event and your answer to her question as a confirmation. But then you also stated that your husband owns evening clothes when he does not.

Now your idea is to dun the lady for money to assuage your suffering. Miss Manners would not advise this. Not all widows are helpless.

With friends like these...

Read more...

Classification Problem

From Overheard in New York:

Teen boy #1: Is turkey actually, like, protein?
Teen boy #2: Of course. It's got chicken in it.

--Bronx High School of Science

No comment.

Read more...

Noumenal Self Returns

Noumenal Self returns to blogging! Hooray!

Of particular interest are his two posts on the apparently forthcoming Founders College. The first is a sharp criticism of the project on multiple fronts; the second is a response to some criticisms of the first post. (The comments on the first post are particularly worth reading.) While I don't agree with all of NS's criticisms, I agree with enough of them to be highly skeptical of this new college. (Also, in my own case, most of my reasons for being somewhat hopeful about the project in the past have vanished.)

More broadly, I'd like to echo a bit of two comments upon those posts by NS. It's important for Objectivists to critically evaluate the merits of the projects undertaken by Objectivist intellectuals. Such projects are becoming more common, yet not all of them will be wise. Personally, I do try to limit my recommendations to that which I know (or reasonably expect) to be substantially worthwhile, e.g. Dr. Onkar Ghate's SARPO course, the October weekend conference on The Jihad Against the West conference, Scott Powell's First History, Robert Mayhew's Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living and Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem anthologies, The Objective Standard, and so on. I certainly don't promote anything and everything -- for the simple reason that not everything done by Objectivist intellectuals is of genuine value -- to anyone. The production of quality intellectual work is far harder than most people recognize. The answers to interesting questions do not grow on trees; they must be mined by work that is often difficult, frustrating, and grueling. Some intellectuals aren't willing or able to exert that effort. As a result, their work is beset with sloppy errors, superficiality, rationalism, and the like. Others are just headed down the wrong path. My general approach is to simply ignore the work of such people, as I've got too many positive intellectual values in the queue.

Of course, such problems are not grounds to be skeptical of new projects in a hostile way, nor to ignore the good reputation that some intellectuals have justly earned. I'm merely offering a friendly reminder against egalitarianism -- and against allowing hopes to distort judgments.

Read more...

Teller (of Penn &) on Powell History

Three fun bits of news from Powell History:

POWELL HISTORY WELCOMES TELLER!

It has definitely been one of the highlights of my intellectual career thus far to have as one of my students former Latin teacher turned comedian Teller (of Penn & Teller)! As students of Session 4 of "A First History for Adults" have learned, Teller is not nearly as quiet as his television and stage persona would indicate! In fact, Teller has regaled the class with his commentary and with especially incisive write-ups of each lecture as the session has proceeded. To learn what Teller has to say about Powell History, you're welcome to read his most gracious testimonial at: www.powellhistory.com/teller. Thank you Teller!

Teller's testimonial is really lovely. Scott's innovative method of teaching history speaks volumes about the power of the Objectivist epistemology. Unlike most people, he's not focused upon its obvious applications, but using its more subtle features to teach history far better than I've ever seen before. That's really impressive -- and very exciting, I think. Just imagine what else might be done.

1HFA IS NOODLEFOOD!

Another of Powell History's most ardent supporters has been Diana Hsieh of "Noodle Food" fame. Diana's enthusiastic support of Powell History on her very popular blog (www.dianahsieh.com/blog/) has generated some great referrals, and may soon see Diana attending future sessions of "A First History for Adults" for free! (As per previous e-mail announcement, I've expanded my "Referral Rewards" program to $50/referral. That means that if someone becomes a Powell History client as a result of your personal recommendation, you get $50 off your next Powell History class! And there's no limit to the number of referral rewards. It now pays even more to generate clientele for Powell History!) Thank you Diana!

Woohoo! It's my pleasure... not just for the discount, but because I'm delighted to be able to use NoodleFood to promote the good -- as opposed to merely bashing the bad.

SESSION 5 STARTS SEPTEMBER 19

If you've been, reading the constant stream of testimonials from current students (www.powellhistory.com/testimonials.html), and you've been on the verge of signing up for your own session of "A First History for Adults," do not delay any longer! The LAST offering of Part 1: The Story of America starts September 19. If you've ever wanted to truly learn history for yourself--not merely listen to historians tell you what they know, then take this opportunity now! Registration is open, at www.powellhistory.com/registration.html. And if you're sure that you've got American history perfectly integrated, then you'll be happy to hear that pre-registration is also open for 1HFA2-1 (Europe, Context and Foil), starting early next year! If you're a new student to Powell History and you sign up before October, you will qualify for a $25 discount on tuition!)

If you can squeeze out the time and money, you don't want to miss this last opportunity.

Read more...

Steve Irwin Dies

The wonderful Steve Irwin, a.k.a. "The Crocodile Hunter," is dead:

Steve Irwin, the quirky Australian naturalist who won worldwide acclaim, was killed by a stingray barb through the chest on Monday while diving off Australia's northeast coast, emergency officials and witnesses said.

"Steve was hit by a stingray in the chest," said local diving operator Steve Edmondson, whose Poseidon boats were out on the Great Barrier Reef when the accident occurred. "He probably died from a cardiac arrest from the injury," he said. ... Irwin, 44, was killed while filming an underwater documentary off Port Douglas.

I'm really quite sad about the news. Steve was amazing fun to watch: he was probably the most alive person on television ever.

Read more...

The Ayn Rand Archive

Recently, I had a good opportunity on SoloPassion to dispel the standard myth about the Ayn Rand Archives spread by the Ayn Rand Institute's critics that they only permit ARI-affilited Objectivist scholars to access the archives. Since I thought others might run into the same myth, I thought the following two citations of the Archive by non-Objectivists might be helpful. (For the record, I haven't read either of these papers.)

First: Jennifer Burns, "Godless Capitalism: Ayn Rand and the Conservative Movement," Modern Intellectual History, Vol 1, No 3 (2004). Footnote 17 reads:

"Details on Rand's political awakening are taken from Biographical Interview with Ayn Rand conducted by Barbara Branden, Interview # 14, tape # 8, Side 1, "Activities in Politics: 1926 to 1952, The Conservatives," pp. 351-5. Ayn Rand Papers, Ayn Rand Archives, Irvine, CA."

The Ayn Rand Archives is also cited in footnote 56. That paper is available online to academics.

Second: Merrill Schleier, "Ayn Rand and King Vidor's The Fountainhead: Architectural Modernism, the Gendered Body, and Political Ideology," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol 61, No 3 (Sept. 2002). In the general notes on page 327, the author writes:

I would like to thank Jeff Britting, the archivist at the Ayn Rand Archives in Irvine, California (hereinafter referred to as ARA), for giving me unrestricted access to the Rand materials when they were still being catalogued. His many perceptive observations and his generosity benefited the current project.

That's rather more friendly than the gratuitous swipes found in some other journal. The "ARA" is cited multiple times thereafter, along with Barbara Branden, Chris Sciabarra, and others. This article is also available online to academics.

I've also heard of other cases, but those aren't yet in print. If anyone knows of other examples, they are welcome to post them in the comments.

I've not spoken to anyone official about the policy of the Archives, so I don't know the Ayn Rand Institute's official policy. However, the above citations clearly show the standard (usually belligerent) claim that ARI permits access to only ARI-affiliated Objectivist scholars to be a myth. It wasn't ever a terribly plausible claim, I might add. Given ARI's mission and programs, it makes sense that they would grant access to regular academics. ARI wants such people to be publishing on Ayn Rand. Significantly, they may be safely presumed not to have some kind of personal ax to grind, whatever their disagreements with Ayn Rand.

In contrast, some few people have already sliced and diced Ayn Rand with their dishonest axes. The Ayn Rand Institute has every reason to expect more of the same from them, namely that they would twist information gleaned from the Archives to further misrepresent Ayn Rand's person and philosophy. Such people belligerently demand access to the Archives under the guise of "honest scholarship" -- even while misrepresenting its very policy toward them, loudly proclaiming it to be an insular, cultish refusal to deal with non-Objectivists. That's hardly a sign of fair scholarship on their part.

In my view, the resources of the Ayn Rand Archives ought not be spent assisting the dishonest projects of such disreputable scholars. Just consider the obligation it would impose: since the Archives are still under construction and not yet easily available to the public, some honest scholar would be obliged to dig through the Archives to correct the misrepresentations of these dishonest ax-grinders. Not only would that be a huge waste of time, but the correction would likely not spread as far and wide as the lies. (There's already been enough of that, I think.)

The far more critical point is the moral principle of the sanction of the victim. The basic purpose of the Ayn Rand Archives is to preserve the genuine record of Ayn Rand's life and philosophy. To allow scholars with a well-established track record of dishonesty about Ayn Rand access to the Archives would subvert that goal. Those scholars can only be expected to twist the facts to provide semi-plausible cover for their dishonest claims. And if they could cite the Archives, they'd surely be taken even more seriously than they are now.

Similarly, imagine that a well-known Holocaust denier wanted access to an archive of personal remembrances of Holocaust survivors. Should that archive allow him to comb through their files to find those few bits of information that might be twisted into the illusion of evidence? Absolutely not. Or imagine that an academic was given access to the Thomas Jefferson archive, then blatantly lied about the contents thereof in a fairly popular book. Should that archive allow him access for his next project? Absolutely not. The lies of such scholars would be bad enough, but the impression that those lies are truths supported by the materials contained in the respective archives would be even worse. That kind of damage could take years or decades or even centuries to undo.

Notice that in all these cases, the "scholars" have access to more than enough data to correct their own errors on their own. The archive will not make them more honest; it will not change their minds one iota. They are not merely critics, they are liars. Moreover, the fact that more people believe the smears of Ayn Rand and Objectivism than the claims of Holocaust deniers and Jefferson maligners only makes the need to exclude the dishonest scholars from the Ayn Rand Archive all the more pressing: Ayn Rand's reputation isn't yet robust enough to fend off even more lies. Such "scholars" have already done enough damage with their lies: why help them to do more?

Read more...

Government Incompetence

Unlike the anarchists and many libertarians, I am not opposed to government per se. However, I do dislike government ineptitude.

Read more...

Veronica Mars

I just finished watching the Season One of Veronica Mars. Paul and I were watching rented discs from NetFlix, but after the shattering trauma of the revelation in the last episode of Disc 5, I couldn't stand to wait for NetFlix to deliver Disc 6. So I bought the series. (By that point, I also knew that I'd watch it again.) Tonight, I finished the last two episodes. They exceeded all my hopes -- as did the series in general. (Season Two will arrive from Amazon on Thursday.)

Also, just for the record, I'm completely in love with Logan Echolls. Seriously. (Whatever happens in Season Two...)

Read more...

We the Living in Russian?

From Myrhaf:

Do you have any idea where I can get a copy of We the Living in [R]ussian to send to someone in Russia? I've been scouring the web without luck.

I don't know the answer, but I thought some NoodleFood reader might.

Read more...