Jun 6, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses, Dollars & Crosses 2
Writes Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe:
...the burning immigration problem of our time isn't that too many people are breaking the rules to get in. It is what they are finding when they get here.
Instead of a national commitment to assimilation, a cynical multiculturalism sends the message that our culture is no better than any other, so there is no particular reason to embrace the American experience. ''Bilingual" education and foreign-language ballots accelerate the loss of a common English tongue, making it easier than ever for newcomers to cluster in linguistic ghettoes. Identity politics erodes the national identity, encouraging immigrants to see themselves first and foremost as members of racial or ethnic groups, and only secondarily as individuals and Americans.
From the day he got off the boat from Europe, my father lived up to the code that expected immigrants to go to work, learn the language, obey the laws, and become an American. My immigrant son, I hope, will live up to it too. The melting pot, it used to be called, before political correctness intervened. That political correctness is what has caused the present crisis. The crisis won't be solved by blaming the immigrants.
For more on multiculturalism, read Diversity and Multiculturalism: The New Racism and Multiculturalism's War on Education. For more on immigration read The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration.
Jun 5, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Robert Tracinski in TIA Daily on the reporting on Haditha:With the help of the American mainstream media, Iraqis are now apparently "enraged" at the US over these cases—but much less enraged at terrorists who continue to murder civilians by the dozens in public markets. [...] [The mainstream media] are merely acting to provide a propaganda victory for the enemy—and in providing disproportionate coverage of these stories, they are working to demoralize the American people.
From Cox and Forkum:
Comments Michelle Malkin in "The Truth About Haditha":
Let me repeat that: The investigations are ongoing. Not complete. Official reports aren't expected for several weeks. I do not know the truth about Haditha. Neither do Murtha and the media outlets calling the alleged massacre a massacre before all the facts are in.
[...]
There are countless numbers of anti-war zealots on the American Left rooting for failure. They believe the worst about the troops. They've blindly embraced frauds who've lied about their military service and lied about wartime atrocities. They've allied themselves with socialist kooks and coddled murderous dictators. They are looking for any excuse to pull out, abandon military operations and reconstruction, and impeach the president. They insist on giving suspected foreign terrorists more benefit of the doubt than our own men and women in uniform. And that, I know, I am not willing to do. [...] I will remind you that while the murder of civilians is and remains an anomaly in American military history, it is the jihadists' way of life.
Jun 1, 2006 | Politics
Writes Harry Binswanger on The Solution to Ilegal Immigration - Capitalism Magazine:
The problem of “illegal” immigration can be solved at the stroke of a pen: legalize immigration. Screen all you want (though I want damn little), but remove the quotas. Phase them out over a 5- or 10-year period. Grant immediate, unconditional amnesty to all “illegal” immigrants.[...]I admire those who broke our rotten, rights-defying anti- immigration laws to come here. These brave people knew it was better to live in America under a stigma, in the semi-shadows, than as “legals” in their native countries.
May 26, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA— "The House's decision to keep a 25-year-old moratorium on oil and gas drilling off much of the nation's coasts is a disgrace," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute."At a time when oil and gas prices are hitting record highs, our politicians should be removing, not entrenching, obstacles to oil and gas production.
"Politicians say keeping the moratorium is justified because oil and gas drilling off the coast would ruin the view and threaten the beaches with oil spills. But there is no such thing as a "right" to an unobstructed view of the horizon. Moreover, oil spills are rare events against which oil companies take reasonable and effective precautions. As long as oil companies are held financially responsible for any property damages their activities may cause, we should let them drill at will."
May 25, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA--The Senate bill passed last Thursday boosting fines against media companies that violate "indecency" standards is an ominous attack on the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Just as the government doesn't fine newspapers that publish cartoons that some Muslims deem indecent, it shouldn't fine broadcasters that air shows that some viewers deem indecent. Viewers are free to change the channel or turn off their TV set if they do not like what they see. They can't be forced to patronize a station they find indecent.
Moreover, it is the parents--not the government--who should be responsible for determining what their children are allowed to watch on TV.May 17, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
This has been on the internet for a while but it is still relevant today:Global Warming Lecture by Dr Art Robinson Instructor
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Play Video - HTTP Server Real Player
Download (7.5 MB) as a zip file Real Player
May 13, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
The Objective Standard's now has a blog ("Principles in Practice"), where you will find principled commentary on cultural issues and current events. The blog debuts with a post by John Lewis entitled "The Social Worker and The President."http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog
May 12, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA—"The reborn Afghanistan is hailed as a success in the Bush administration's 'war on terror,' but in reality America's campaign there has been a drastic failure. Legions of undefeated Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are resurging. They have launched suicide bombings and rocket attacks on American and Western troops, and are besieging several Afghan provinces."The U.S.-endorsed, and supposedly friendly, Afghan government is committed not to protecting individual rights, but to enshrining sharia--jailing 'blasphemers' and threatening execution to apostates. Such a regime cannot be counted on to oppose the forces behind the attacks of 9/11.
"Washington failed to eradicate the terrorist-sponsoring Taliban and to make Afghanistan a non-threatening regime, because its battle plans are shaped by the moral code of self-sacrifice.
"Instead of waging a ruthless war of self-defense, Washington pulled its punches in the air bombing and ground war--for fear of upsetting Afghans and Muslims elsewhere. By embracing a 'compassionate' war, Washington renounced victory."
May 12, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
Comments John Lewis in the new Objective Standard blog on Tom Miller's Review of Flight 93:Miller is right about all of this, especially his forceful identification of the Islamic empire as the enemy's goal, and its connection back to the founder of Islam. This is what needs to be remembered. Miller is also right not to name Saddam Hussein as one of those advocating the Islamic empire—Hussein was just a tyrant of the non-religious type and an enemy of Iran. If only our government had empowered our soldiers—the guys being shot at—to take out the Islamic totalitarians, instead of digressing into Iraq…[Link]
May 11, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
Reports Reuters:U.N. peacekeepers, aid workers and teachers are having sex with Liberian girls as young as 8 in return for money, food or favors, threatening efforts to rebuild a nation wrecked by war, a report said on Monday.
Save the Children UK said an alarming number of girls were being sexually exploited by men in authority in refugee camps and in the wider community, sometimes for as little as a bottle of beer, a ride in an aid vehicle or watching a film.
[...] The 20-page document said local people reported sexual exploitation by peacekeepers in every location where a contingent of the UNMIL peacekeeping force was stationed, highlighting the continuing problem of sex abuse by U.N. forces.
Allegations of sexual misconduct have dogged U.N. operations in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Haiti and especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the world body has accused members of its biggest peacekeeping force of rape, pedophilia and giving children food or money in return for sex. ["Peacekeepers, teachers prey on Liberia girls: report"]
Apr 30, 2006 | Business, Politics
by Harry Binswanger, Ph.D.
This is a defense of phasing-in open immigration into the United States. Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases. (And note: I am defending freedom of entry and residency, not the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship).An end to immigration quotas is demanded by the principle of individual rights. Every individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that nation. One has rights not by virtue of being an American, but by virtue of being human.One doesn’t have to be a resident of any particular country to have a moral entitlement to be secure from governmental coercion against one’s life, liberty, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, government is instituted “to secure these rights”–to protect them against their violation by force or fraud.A foreigner has rights just as much as an American. To be a foreigner is not to be a criminal. Yet our government treats as criminals those foreigners not lucky enough to win the green-card lottery.Seeking employment in this country is not a criminal act. It coerces no one and violates no one’s rights (there is no “right” to be exempt from competition in the labor market, or in any other market).It is not a criminal act to buy or rent a home here in which to reside. Paying for housing is not a coercive act–whether the buyer is an American or a foreigner. No one’s rights are violated when a Mexican, or Canadian, or Senegalese rents an apartment from an American owner and moves into the housing he is paying for. And what about the rights of those American citizens who want to sell or rent their property to the highest bidders? Or the American businesses that want to hire the lowest cost workers? It is morally indefensible for our government to violate their right to do so, just because the person is a foreigner.Immigration quotas forcibly exclude foreigners who want not to seize but to purchase housing here, who want not to rob Americans but to engage in productive work, raising our standard of living. To forcibly exclude those who seek peacefully to trade value for value with us is a violation of the rights of both parties to such a trade: the rights of the American seller or employer and the rights of the foreign buyer or employee.Thus, immigration quotas treat both Americans and foreigners as if they were criminals, as if the peaceful exchange of values to mutual benefit were an act of destruction.To take an actual example, if I want to invite my Norwegian friend Klaus to live in my home, either as a guest or as a paying tenant, what right does our government have to stop Klaus and me? To be a Norwegian is not to be a criminal. And if some American business wants to hire Klaus, what right does our government have to interfere?The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: “This is our country, we let in who we want.” But who is “we”? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.American land is not the collective property of some entity called “the U.S. government.” Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, “We have the right to decide who is allowed in” means some individuals–those with the most votes–claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.Our constitutional republic respects minority rights. 60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%. Nor can a majority dictate to the owners of private property. Nor can a majority dictate on whom private employers spend their money. Not morally, not in a free society. In a free society, the rights of the individual are held sacrosanct, above any claim of even an overwhelming majority.The rights of one man end where the rights of his neighbor begin. Only within the limits of his rights is a man free to act on his own judgment. The criminal is the man who deliberately steps outside his rights-protected domain and invades the domain of another, depriving his victim of his exclusive control over his property, or liberty, or life. The criminal, by his own choice, has rejected rights in favor of brute violence. Thus, an immigration policy that excludes criminals is proper.Likewise, a person with an infectious disease, such as smallpox, threatens with serious physical harm those with whom he comes into proximity. Unlike the criminal, he may not intend to do damage, but the threat of physical harm is clear, present, and objectively demonstrable. To protect the lives of Americans, he may be kept out or quarantined until he is no longer a threat.But what about the millions of Mexicans, South Americans, Chinese, Canadians, etc. seeking entry who are not criminal and not bearing infectious diseases? By what moral principle can they be excluded? Not on the grounds of majority vote, not on the grounds of protecting any American’s rights, not on the grounds of any legitimate authority of the state. THE MORAL AND THE PRACTICAL That’s the moral case for phasing out limits on immigration. But some ask: “Is it practical? Wouldn’t unlimited immigration–even if phased in over a decade–be disastrous to our economic well-being and create overcrowding? Are we being told to just grit our teeth and surrender our interests in the name of morality?”This question is invalid on its face. It shows a failure to understand the nature of rights, and of moral principles generally. Rational moral principles reflect a recognition of the basic nature of man, his nature as a specific kind of living organism, having a specific means of survival. Questions of what is practical, what is to one’s self-interest, can be answered only in that context. It is neither practical nor to one’s interest to attempt to live and act in defiance of one’s nature as a human being.Yet that is the meaning of the moral-practical dichotomy. When one claims, “It is immoral but practical,” one is maintaining, “It cripples my nature as a human being, but it is beneficial to me”–which is a contradiction.Rights, in particular, are not something pulled from the sky or decreed by societal whim. Rights are moral principles, established by reference to the needs inherent in man’s nature qua man. “Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.” (Ayn Rand)Every organism has a basic means of survival; for man, that means is: reason. Man is the rational animal, homo sapiens. Rights are moral principles that spell out the terms of social interaction required for a rational being to survive and flourish. Since the reasoning mind cannot function under physical coercion, the basic social requirement of man’s survival is: freedom. Rights prescribe freedom by proscribing coercion.“If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.” (Ayn Rand)Rights reflect the fundamental alternative of voluntary consent or brute force. The reign of force is in no one’s interest; the system of voluntary cooperation by mutual consent is the precondition of anyone achieving his actual interests.To ignore the principle of rights means jettisoning the principled, moral resolution of conflicts, and substituting mere numbers (majority vote). That is not to anyone’s interest. Tyranny is not to anyone’s self-interest.Rights establish the necessary framework within which one defines his legitimate self-interest. One cannot hold that one’s self-interest requires that he be “free” to deprive others of their freedom, treating their interests as morally irrelevant. One cannot hold that recognizing the rights of others is moral but “impractical.”Since rights are based on the requirements of man’s life as a rational being, there can be no conflict between the moral and the practical here: if respecting individual rights requires it, your interest requires it.Freedom or force, reason or compulsion–that is the basic social alternative. Immigrants recognize the value of freedom–that’s why they seek to come here.The American Founders defined and implemented a system of rights because they recognized that man, as a rational being, must be free to act on his own judgment and to keep the products of his own effort. They did not intend to establish a system in which those who happen to be born here could use force to “protect” themselves from the peaceful competition of others. ECONOMICS One major fear of open immigration is economic: the fear of losing one’s job to immigrants. It is asked: “Won’t the immigrants take our jobs?” The answer is: “Yes, so we can go on to better, higher-paying jobs.”The fallacy in this protectionist objection lies in the idea that there is only a finite amount of work to be done. The unstated assumption is: “If Americans don’t get to do that work, if foreigners do it instead, we Americans will have nothing to do.”But work is the creation of wealth. A job is a role in the production of goods and services–the production of food, of cars, computers, the providing of internet content–all the items that go to make up our standard of living. A country cannot have too much wealth. The need for wealth is limitless, and the work that is to be done is limitless.From a grand, historical perspective, we are only at the beginning of the wealth-creating age. The wealth Americans produce today is as nothing compared to what we’ll have two hundred years from now–just as the standard of living 200 years in the past, in 1806, was as nothing compared to ours today.Unemployment is not caused by an absence of avenues for the creation of wealth. Unemployment is caused by government interference in the labor market. Even with that interference, the number of jobs goes relentlessly upward, decade after decade. This bears witness to the fact that there’s no end to the creation of wealth and thus no end to the useful employment of human intelligence and the physical effort directed by that intelligence. There is always more productive work to be done. If you can give your job to an immigrant, you can get a more valuable job.What is the effect of a bigger labor pool on wage rates? If the money supply is constant, nominal wage rates fall. But real wage rates rise, because total output has gone up. Economists have demonstrated that real wages have to rise as long as the immigrants are self-supporting. If immigrants earn their keep, if they don’t consume more than they produce, then they add to total output, which means that prices fall (if the money supply is constant).And, in fact, rising real wages was the history of our country in the nineteenth century. Before the 1920s, there were no limits on immigration, yet our standard of living rocketed upward. Self-supporting immigrants were an economic benefit not an injury.The protectionist objection that immigrants take away jobs and harm our standard of living is a solid economic fallacy. WELFARE A popular misconception is that immigrants come here to get welfare. To the extent that is true, immigrants do constitute a burden. But this issue is mooted by the passage, under the Clinton Administration, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which makes legal permanent residents ineligible for most forms of welfare for 5 years. I support this kind of legislation.Further, if the fear is of non-working immigrants, why is the pending legislation aimed at employers of immigrants? OVERCROWDING America is a vastly underpopulated country. Our population density is less than one-third of France’s.Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population–from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. That would make America almost as “densely” populated as today’s England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these calculations exclude Alaska and Hawaii, and count only land area.Contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a “doll hospital”–a store specializing in the repair of children’s dolls. Such a specialized, niche business requires a high population density in order to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a “Secret Shopper” (two jobs actually listed on Craig’s List). Not in Paducah.People want to live near other people, in cities. One-seventh of England’s population lives in London. If population density is a bad thing, why are Manhattan real-estate prices so high? THE VALUE OF IMMIGRANTS Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children.The vision of American freedom, with its opportunity to prosper by hard work, serves as a magnet drawing the best of the world’s people. Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people America needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America.Here is a short list of some great immigrants: Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, most of the top scientists of the Manhattan Project, Igor Sikorsky (the inventor of the helicopter), Ayn Rand.Open immigration: the benefits are great. The right is unquestionable. So let them come. Dr. Binswanger, a longtime associate of Ayn Rand, is a professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute. Special Offer: Dr. Binswanger moderates Harry Binswanger's List (HBL)--an email list for Objectivists for discussing philosophic and cultural issues -- a free one-month trial is available at: www.hblist.com.Apr 15, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
Who: Jeffrey Finkle, president of the International Economic Development Council (arguing to preserve eminent domain), and Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute (arguing to abolish it). Frederick Thomas of MHz Networks will moderate. What: A formal debate on a subject of great importance to every American. When: Monday, May 1, 2006, 7:00 PM–9:00 PM. Where: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, D.C. The public and media are invited. Admission is free.The Issues: In the wake of the controversial Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, some legislators are moving to place limits on the government's power to seize citizens' property for use by private enterprises. Is it appropriate under certain circumstances for the government to use eminent domain for the purpose of transferring a citizen's property to a private business—or is this practice wrong in principle? Moreover, while the government is constitutionally authorized to take citizens' property for "public use," the question remains: Is this policy moral—and is it practical?
Does the government have a moral right to take citizens' property under certain conditions—or do citizens have an absolute right to their personal property? Does robust economic development require the occasional use of eminent domain—or would economic progress be greater if property rights were upheld as truly inalienable? What are the moral issues involved in eminent domain? What are the practical issues? Are the moral and the practical necessarily at odds—or can they be reconciled? Mr. Finkle and Dr. Brook will present the facts in support of their respective positions.
The Debaters: Mr. Finkle became the president and CEO of the International Economic Development Council in August 2001, following IEDC's birth through the merger of the Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED) with the American Economic Development Council (AEDC). Prior to the merger, Finkle served for 15 years as president and CEO of CUED. During that time, he oversaw the vast expansion of that organization's membership and influence, as well as strengthening its financial footing. Dr. Brook is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. As a recognized expert on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dr. Brook has been interviewed extensively by the print, radio and television media for the Objectivist position on current events. Among his recent interviews have been appearances on Talk Back Live (CNN), Your World with Neil Cavuto (Fox News Channel), The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel) and Closing Bell and On the Money (CNBC).
Mr. Finkle and Dr. Brook will be available for interviews after the debate. Contact: Craig Biddle, (804) 747-1776, cbiddle@theobjectivestandard.com. This event is sponsored by The Objective Standard, a new journal of culture and politics. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/
Apr 12, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Professor Bob Carter a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research in the UK Telegraph:For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
[...] In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
[...] Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. [...] scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research.
[...] The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming. ["There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998", Bob Carter, UK Telegraph, 9 April 2006]
Apr 3, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
Tuesday, April 11, 2006 (7:30pm - 10:30pm); University of Southern California, Davidson Conference Center, Embassy Room
Confirmed Panelists: Dr. Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum.
The Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed have sparked a worldwide controversy. Death threats and violent protests have sent the cartoonists into hiding and have had the intended effect of stifling freedom of expression. The reaction to these cartoons raises urgent questions whose significance goes far beyond a set of drawings. What is freedom of speech? Does it include the right to offend? What is the significance of the worldwide Islamic reaction to the cartoons? How should Western governments have responded to this incident? How should the Western media have responded? These and related issues will be discussed by panelists from different backgrounds and perspectives. A questions-and-answers period with the audience will be included. Please note that the cartoons in question will be displayed at the event. Respect for the discussion forum will be strictly enforced. For more information, contact: USC Objectivist Club
Mar 31, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA--"The UN Security Council's call on Iran to halt its nuclear program will not stop Iran, but actually abet its pursuit of nuclear bombs," said Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute."It is absurd to think that any UN admonishment could derail the belligerent theocrats in Teheran. The Security Council's feeble statement gives them yet more time to continue building their bombs.
"This perverse gambit perpetuates the myth--inherent in the failed diplomatic efforts that preceded it--that Iran's leaders will listen to reason. But the ruling mullahs are religious mystics orchestrating a terrorist war on the West. To combat this avowedly irrational enemy we must retaliate by force. The time for military action against Iran is long since past."
Mar 30, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
IRVINE, CA--Yesterday, in a shameful act, NYU broke its own official policy and denied free speech to its students.After having approved the display of the Danish cartoons for a panel discussion on free speech, NYU's administration reversed its decision in the face of Muslim protests.
A day before the panel discussion was to take place, NYU gave the student event organizers a non-negotiable ultimatum: if you display the cartoons we will close the event to non-NYU guests. This was in spite of the fact that NYU's own rules leave this decision to the student sponsoring organization.
And even though the students opted for not showing the cartoons, NYU barred entry to at least two journalists and more than 30 registered guests. Even after learning that Muslim students had sabotaged the event by acquiring and destroying two hundred tickets to leave as many seats empty, NYU officials still refused to allow non-NYU guests to enter.
In caving in to fear, in restricting and obstructing attendance, in forbidding the display of the Danish cartoons, NYU handed a victory to the Islamic totalitarians and their facilitators. In standing up to the destroyers of free speech, the NYU student sponsors of the free speech panel showed the courage that the NYU officials lack.
Mar 28, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--"In a seemingly mundane decision, New York University has sacrificed the principle underlying its flourishing and the survival of civilization--free speech," said Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute. NYU is refusing to protect a student group's right to display the Danish cartoons of Mohammad at a panel discussion on free speech on March 29. The group's event was to be open to the public, but at the last minute NYU retreated. Under the pretense of maintaining campus security, the administration contradicted its own stated policy on free speech by requiring that, if the cartoons are displayed, the event be limited only to "members of the NYU community." The student group now must turn away more than 150 members of the public who had planned to attend the panel.
"The university's shameful appeasement of Muslim and anti- free-speech groups--which have vowed to protest the event-- underscores the urgent need to display the cartoons in defense of freedom of speech," said Dr. Brook. "Free speech protects the rational mind: it is the freedom to think, to reach conclusions and express one's views without fear of coercion of any kind. And it must include the right to express unpopular and offensive views, including outright criticism of religion. NYU--which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom--ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it. "If intimidation and threats are allowed to compel writers, cartoonists, thinkers and institutions of learning into self- censorship, the right to free speech is lost. If Muslims are allowed to pressure critics of Islam into silence, critics of religion will be next. And then everyone else."
A Panel Discussion on Free Speech
Panelists: Peter Schwartz, former chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America; Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims; and Jonathan Leaf, New York Press editor who resigned over his paper's decision not to publish the Danish cartoons. Moderator: Dr. Harry Binswanger, professor of philosophy and member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute. What is planned: (1) A display of the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (2) A panel discussion and Q & A on the meaning of the worldwide reaction to the cartoons. Where: New York University, 60 Washington Square South at NYU Kimmel Center, Eisner and Lubin Auditorium (4th Floor), NY, NY 10012. When: March 29, 2006, 7 to 10 PM
Summary: ARI's Peter Schwartz will participate in a panel discussion on the Mohammad cartoon controversy. He will explain: Why the eruption of violence and the issuance of death threats make completely irrelevant the question of whether the cartoons are in bad taste. Why the idea that freedom of the press must be "coupled with press responsibility" means that free speech is not a right, but a fleeting permission. Why every Western newspaper and media outlet should have immediately re-published or shown the cartoons in solidarity with the cartoonists. Why the cowardly and appeasing response of many Western governments--including our own--will only invite further aggression. Other panelists will present their own views.
Mar 23, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses
A great clarification by Nicholas Provenzo:I don't respect Muslims for their beliefs. I respect the Muslims right to hold their beliefs (and harm no one but themselves in the process) but I have nothing but contempt for any code that damns existence on this earth in the name of the supernatural.
