The Objective Standard Blog

Archive for August 2006

Thursday, August 31, 2006

How to Solve America’s Terrorism Problem in 5 Easy Steps

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:20 pm

Here is how America could solve her terrorism problem in 5 easy steps:

  1. Stop sacrificing American soldiers to bring “freedom” to savages in Iraq. Pull our soldiers out of that hellhole, and let the savages have their civil war. ( Iraq is not and never was the main source of terrorism against America. Iran and Saudi Arabia are.)
  2. Declare war on Iran.
  3. Obliterate, from high altitude and long distance, all known Iranian military assets, all Iranian government buildings, all Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian leaders, imams, clerics, and government officials. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night). Do not send soldiers in on foot, except as necessary to identify targets or gather intelligence. We do not need to send soldiers in on foot to fight, and it would be immoral to do so. We have many big missiles, fast planes, and good bombs, and we should use these liberally while building bigger, faster, and better ones. (As to innocent non-Americans, such as Iranian children, who would be killed in such a campaign, they are not properly the concern of our government. Nor would their deaths be the fault of our government. Such deaths are always the fault of the force-initiating regime—and of those who in any way support or enable it—whose actions necessitate such retaliatory measures.)
  4. Airdrop leaflets across the Middle East explaining: “From now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies. We look forward to the time when you decide to civilize yourselves, stop taking religion seriously, renounce the initiation of physical force, recognize the principle of individual rights, establish rule of law, and join the free world. Until then, we will be watching you from way up in the sky—higher even than Allah, by means of technology He cannot fathom—and if we see anything that we so much as feel might conceivably pose even a remote threat either to America or to our allies, we will annihilate it and everything in its proximity without further warning.”
  5. Notify the regime in Saudi Arabia that it got lucky and has the option of not being obliterated; that we are prepared instead to seize “its” oil fields and sell them to private industry, in part to pay for the campaign against Iran, and in part to return the fields to private industry where they belong; that it has 24 hours to turn the fields over to our agents; and that if it fails to comply or ignites the fields or does anything to thwart our program, its leaders, like those of Iran, will meet Allah sooner than later.

If we took these (or similar) measures, our terrorism problem would be solved. Sure, there would still be a few isolated instances of terrorism here and there in months and years to come; this much is inevitable given how long we have permitted the Islamists to plan and plot and establish cells. But, so long as we follow through as indicated above and immediately destroy anything that we think looks even remotely threatening, state sponsorship of terrorism against America would be over; the major threat to our lives would be gone.

Of course, we will not take such measures any time soon. Altruism will not let us. We will not take such measures until there is widespread understanding of the moral rightness of doing so—that is, until a substantial number of Americans understand that self-interest is moral and self-sacrifice is evil—and we are a long way from that. But such measures are morally correct—they are what we should do—and everyone who understands that they are should say so loudly and clearly. By placing such actions on the table for discussion, we create an opportunity to explain why they are morally correct—and that is what Americans (and westerners in general) most desperately need to learn.

Related Articles:

Related Posts:

Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC_fire.jpg

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Philosophy

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

A Noteworthy Thrashing of Unreason

Posted by Christian Beenfeldt at 1:32 am

In a recent opinion piece in the Guardian, professor of philosophy Anthony Grayling offers a forthright attack on unreason. Mincing no words, he denounces “the spread of a…virulent cancer of unreason, which is affecting not just the mental culture of our own country but the fate of the world itself.” The unreason he has in mind is religious faith.

Grayling observes that appeals to faith are used to legitimize anything “from superstition to mass murder,” that people of faith are in constant and irresolvable conflict with each other, and that the faith-embracing mindset is “an essentially infantile attitude of acceptance of fairy-stories.” Unlike American conservatives, he understands that faith in Islam, in Christianity, in pagan mythology, and even in garden gnomes all belong in the same category: unreason. He even observes that Stalinism and Nazism are thus fundamentally similar to religion. The alternative to reining in religion, upholding intellectual rigor in education, and increasing enrollment in science, concludes Grayling, is a return to the Dark Ages.

This is all true.

Grayling’s view of reason, however, is critically compromised. To begin with, he offers no definition of reason, leaving the implication that reason is a woozy, contradictory mess that involves being “literate,” “numerate,” “broadly knowledgeable,” and “reflective”—while also being uncertain, tolerant, and pluralistic. But it is not rational to be certain of nothing, tolerant of anything, or accepting of everything.

Worse still, Grayling argues that the fundamental similarity uniting religion and totalitarianism is that they are “monolithic ideologies.” The implication here is that the rational man is a skeptic who makes no broad generalizations and holds no firm philosophical views. Yet, without a comprehensive, reality-based philosophy that defines and stalwartly defends reason, the remaining Enlightenment values in our culture—such as the respect for science and the protection of individual rights—will continue to be eroded by the torrent of skepticism and subjectivism pounding the West. And, without rational answers to the fundamental questions in life, the culture will turn evermore eagerly toward religion—because people need answers to such questions, and religion provides answers, dreadfully wrong though they are.

The solution to the problem of unreason is not a woozy half-skepticism, but a principled defense of rational philosophy. With this in mind, Grayling’s article is worth reading as an example of what the best minds in today’s cultural mainstream can and cannot offer in defense of reason.

Posted in: Philosophy, Religion

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

As Predicted…

Posted by Alan Germani at 8:00 pm

…by Yaron Brook in this ARI press release, Advanced Cell Technology’s attempt to develop a means of harvesting stem cells that meets the approval of religious critics of stem-cell research has failed. From an Australian news source:

The breakthrough technique was meant to answer critics at the papal palace, the White House and beyond, who have long argued that it was ethically reproachable to attempt to save one life by taking another.

But the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, told Reuters in an interview that the new method by Advanced Cell Technology Inc failed to overcome the church’s many moral concerns.

Sgreccia said the procedure was wrong footed from the start—experimenting with embryos is reprehensible, as is use of “unnatural” in-vitro embryos created at fertility clinics, like the ones the US scientists employed in their research.

Advanced Cell then made things worse by extracting what could be a “totipotent” cell, Sgreccia said.

“This is not just any cell, but a cell capable of reproducing a human embryo,”Sgreccia said. He added that, in effect: “a second embryo is being destroyed”.

The Vatican, and any religionist who sides with it on this issue, would rather protect a few embryonic cells—potential human lives—than save or extend millions of actual human lives. That these mystics call themselves “pro-life” while opposing efforts by scientists to prevent human death and misery is utterly reprehensible.

As Advanced Cell Technology has discovered, scientists can’t please religionists who take their faith seriously. Neither well-reasoned arguments nor appeals to human life and happiness will stop religionists from condemning scientific research and procedures that conflict with their baseless beliefs. Rather than trying to avoid such unavoidable condemnation, scientists should proudly proclaim the life-serving potential of stem-cell technology—and point out the irrational, anti-life nature of those who would rather preserve clumps of cells than save human lives.

Posted in: Individual Rights and Law, Religion, Science and Technology

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Bush Should Defeat, Not Debate Ahmadinejad

Posted by TOS Admin at 7:37 pm

Irvine, CA— Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s offer to President Bush for a debate “on how to end world predicaments” is a farce, said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “The Iranian regime is the world’s leading sponsor of the Islamic totalitarian movement that terrorizes us, and it is eagerly pursuing long-range missiles and nuclear warheads with which to terrorize us further. The only way to ‘end world predicaments’ is for this regime to cease to exist. We must defeat Ahmadinejad and his regime—not debate them.”

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

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response

Posted by TOS Admin at 7:35 pm

A three-day conference event including a lecture by Yaron Brook at the Ford Hall Forum

Boston, Massachusetts, October 20-22, 2006

FEATURED SPEAKERS

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum
Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Flemming Rose, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch
Peter Schwartz, author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America
John Lewis, assistant professor of history, Ashland University

Al-Qaeda. Hezbollah. Islamic Jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas … In Lebanon, Syria and Egypt; in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia; in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, in Pakistan and Afghanistan—in almost every country from the Middle East to the Far East a gang of Islamic terrorists is fighting to advance its own “holy” cause. So many groups have declared jihad that it’s hard to keep them all straight—or even to know how seriously to take each of them.

But the threat to the West is deadly serious. We only have to remember Sept. 11 to understand that.

Some analysts have declared that we have entered an “Age of Terror” and that there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups. But is the West really ready to concede victory so easily? Despite their sectarian differences, is there a common goal amongst the assorted terrorist groups? Who are they and what do they actually want? What accounts for the seemingly renewed sense of purpose amongst so many of them? What can and must the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible?

Join us for a special conference to discuss “The Jihad Against the West.” A distinguished panel of Middle East experts has been assembled to answer the most important questions of our time. While the experts will answer these complex questions from different points of view, they all agree on one thing: the real threat is Islamic totalitarianism and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it

Events will take place at Tufts University, Boston’s World Trade Center and Faneuil Hall, concluding with a lecture by Yaron Brook at the Ford Hall Forum.

For more information: http://www.objectivistconferences.com/fordhall06/

Posted in: Events, Foreign Policy and War

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Stem Cell Breakthrough Won’t Satisfy Religious Conservatives

Posted by TOS Admin at 8:32 pm

Irvine, CA—”The researchers at Advanced Cell Technology should be congratulated for their scientific breakthrough,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “But their new method of creating stem cell lines will not stop religious opposition to scientific progress.”

In developing a method of extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, the team was, in part, trying to address the concerns of those opposed to the destruction of embryos. As the team leader said: “There is no rational reason left to oppose this research.”

“But there has never been a rational reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research,” said Dr. Brook. “The opposition comes mainly from religious conservatives and is—by their own declaration—based on faith, not on reason. It is based on the irrational belief that a mere clump of cells is a full-fledged human being.”

“There is no rational reason to morally oppose this research, and its potential to produce treatments for such diseases as diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s is ample reason to morally support it.

“It is a mistake to try to appease religious conservatives on this issue. What they are opposed to, fundamentally, is science as such.”

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

Posted in: Individual Rights and Law, Religion, Science and Technology

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Lebanon Cease-Fire Is a Victory for Hezbollah

Posted by TOS Admin at 9:20 pm

Irvine, CA—"The cease-fire is a resounding victory for Hezbollah and for Islamic fascism," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"How can President Bush declare that ‘Hezbollah suffered a defeat’ in Lebanon when it was neither disarmed nor disheartened by the fighting? How can President Bush declare that the resolution addresses the ‘root cause’ of Hezbollah’s aggression when it does not even mention Iran and Syria for their support of Hezbollah and other terrorist groups?

"A U.N. resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah in Lebanon is not the same thing as the actual disarming of Hezbollah in Lebanon—let alone the defeat of Hezbollah throughout the Middle East. And by urging Israel to end its military offensive, the administration has ended any possibility that Hezbollah will actually be destroyed.

"The only way to end the threat from Islamic totalitarian groups like Hezbollah and their state sponsors is to inflict crushing devastation upon them by aggressive military action."

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

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War

Friday, August 11, 2006

U.S. Muslim Group Should Apologize

Posted by TOS Admin at 7:24 pm

Irvine, CA—Following news of the foiled plot to bomb airlines, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) criticized President Bush for calling the would-be killers “Islamic fascists.”

“CAIR is demanding that we evade the actual goal of those trying to kill us,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “Just as the Soviet Communists and the Nazis sought to impose their version of socialism on the world, so the new killers seek to impose their version of Islam on the world. They seek total power to enact the dictates of Islam. Theirs is an Islamic totalitarian movement.

“I wish Bush would take his own rhetoric seriously, because understanding this fact about the killers is crucial to achieving victory in the war. Only when the political aspiration of Islam—the imposition of its religious dogmas by force—has been shown to result in the deaths of Islamists, not their victims, will we be safe. Only when the cause of Islamic totalitarianism has been thoroughly discredited, will victory be achieved.

“CAIR’s demand that we evade the role of religion in this conflict is undermining America’s self-defense. For this, the group should apologize to all Americans.”

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

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Religion

Friday, August 11, 2006

Bush Administration Betrays Israel and America

Posted by TOS Admin at 7:20 pm

Irvine, CA—”By pressuring Israel to accept the U.N.’s cease-fire agreement, the Bush administration is betraying Israel—and America,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

“In the wake of a plot to kill thousands of westerners, our administration is doing nothing more than having Americans throw out their toothpaste and shampoo. Meanwhile, our leaders are forcing the one country that is actually taking serious action against Islamic totalitarianism to back down. We should be helping Israel to destroy Hezbollah, not urging it to hold back.

“This moral travesty is a betrayal of Bush’s so-called war on terror.”

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

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War

Friday, August 11, 2006

Waiting for the U.N.

Posted by TOS Admin at 7:19 pm

Irvine, CA—”Israel should continue to expand its offensive in Lebanon, not wait for a worthless U.N. resolution,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

“All a U.N. agreement will do is tie Israel’s hands while an ineffective U.N. peacekeeping force fails to stop Hezbollah from regrouping, rearming and preparing for its next campaign of destruction.

“What else can be expected of an organization that claims to be concerned with Israel’s security, while its own Human Rights Council is issuing condemnations of Israel for actually taking action to achieve that security?

“No wonder Ayn Rand referred to the U.N. as ‘that contemptible citadel of global hypocrisy.’”

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

Posted in: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Foreign Policy and War