The Ayn Rand Lexicon
The ideas of the philosopher Ayn Rand i.e. the ideas of her philosophy of Objectivism can now be found on the internet through "The Ayn Rand Lexicon; Objectivism from A to Z". This book which was edited by Harry Binswanger has been available since around 1986. Now it will be instantaneously available to millions or billions of people around the world who are interested in ideas and are trying to understand our culture today and history in general.
"Through excerpts culled from Ayn Rand's many articles, lectures, and books, this work presents the Objectivist view on some 400 topics in philosophy, politics, art, economics, and psychology. The Lexicon thus serves as a mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism, complete with a conceptual index and extensive cross-references."
Many, many people have read her novels: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We The Living and Anthem and have had their lives changed. Now, a deeper understanding of her revolutionary ideas can be delved into deeper with the Lexicon. (Ayn Rand Lexicon).
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Noble Prize for the Biggest Scam of the Ages
The seams in Gore's global warming scam are being ripped apart as more and more people have a closer look at what this man is spouting (Robert Tracinski at The Intellectual Activist does an excellent job of covering this issue).
"If you must declare a debate over, then maybe it's not. And if you have to gussy up your agenda as "our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level," then it deserves some skeptical examination." (John Stossel)
"Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10."
"Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn't want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.
"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.
"Considering that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?" (Steven Milloy).
Michael Asher reports on the fact that the foundation of the global warming scam-the Greenhouse Gas theory-is under serious attack from new research funded by the US National Science Foundation.
Gore's rants about global warming is part of the whole environmentalist movement that hates modern life and uses the cloak of science to legitimize their goals of dismantling all that humans have accomplished over the centuries. Global warming is a fantasy and a wish based on the desire of these environmentalists' to live in nature and their deep down hatred of man and progress. But even deeper they hate reason the foundation for man's rise from Neanderthal to Homo Sapiens. Remember the unabomber Ted Kaczynski? He openly stated "I wanted to live like a Neanderthal".
We used to live "in nature" but as man painstakingly rose from bare existence to a technologically advanced civilization they did one thing that environmentalists do not do - use reason to solve problems and create a life filled with rewarding challenges and benefits.
"If you must declare a debate over, then maybe it's not. And if you have to gussy up your agenda as "our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level," then it deserves some skeptical examination." (John Stossel)
"Gore also says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10."
"Perhaps worse than the film’s errors is their origin. The BBC reported that Gore knew the film presented incorrect information but took no corrective steps because he didn't want to spotlight any uncertainties in the scientific data that may fuel opponents of global warming alarmism.
"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.
"Considering that a key 25 percent of "An Inconvenient Truth" is not true — and perhaps intentionally so — it seems only fair that Gore offer a refund to moviegoers, DVD/book purchasers and speaking sponsors. Where are the class action lawyers when you need them?" (Steven Milloy).
Michael Asher reports on the fact that the foundation of the global warming scam-the Greenhouse Gas theory-is under serious attack from new research funded by the US National Science Foundation.
Gore's rants about global warming is part of the whole environmentalist movement that hates modern life and uses the cloak of science to legitimize their goals of dismantling all that humans have accomplished over the centuries. Global warming is a fantasy and a wish based on the desire of these environmentalists' to live in nature and their deep down hatred of man and progress. But even deeper they hate reason the foundation for man's rise from Neanderthal to Homo Sapiens. Remember the unabomber Ted Kaczynski? He openly stated "I wanted to live like a Neanderthal".
We used to live "in nature" but as man painstakingly rose from bare existence to a technologically advanced civilization they did one thing that environmentalists do not do - use reason to solve problems and create a life filled with rewarding challenges and benefits.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
"Tax His Land, Tax His Bed, Tax His Table, Tractor and Mule"
Thought you'd want to see all the taxes we are paying. These are probably not all of them but should be enough to give you heartburn. I am quoting from a "Letter to the Editor" in the Battle Creek Enquirer of 16 October 2007. I doubt the Democrats accomplished all this looting all by themselves without Republican help along the way. I separated out the 7 telephone taxes so that they stand out for you. Have fun and try not to swallow too much bile.
Accounts receivable tax, Building permit tax, CDL license tax, Cigarette tax, Corporate incometax, Dog license tax, Excise taxes, Federal income tax, Federal unemployment tax, Fishing license tax, Food license tax, Fuel permit tax, Gasoline tax (42 cents/gallon), Gross receipts tax, Hunting license tax, Inheritance tax, Inventory tax, IRS interest charges, IRS penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor tax, Luxury taxes, Marriage license tax, Medicare tax, Personal property tax, Property tax. Real estate tax, Service charge tax, Social Security tax, Road usage tax, Sales tax, Recreational vehicle tax, School tax, State income tax, State unemployment tax,
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility taxes, Vehicle license registration tax, Vehicle sales tax, Watercraft registration tax, Well permit tax,Worker’s compensation tax.
The writer concludes: "Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago; our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt; had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. Do you know what happened? Can you spell "Democrat?"
Accounts receivable tax, Building permit tax, CDL license tax, Cigarette tax, Corporate incometax, Dog license tax, Excise taxes, Federal income tax, Federal unemployment tax, Fishing license tax, Food license tax, Fuel permit tax, Gasoline tax (42 cents/gallon), Gross receipts tax, Hunting license tax, Inheritance tax, Inventory tax, IRS interest charges, IRS penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor tax, Luxury taxes, Marriage license tax, Medicare tax, Personal property tax, Property tax. Real estate tax, Service charge tax, Social Security tax, Road usage tax, Sales tax, Recreational vehicle tax, School tax, State income tax, State unemployment tax,
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility taxes, Vehicle license registration tax, Vehicle sales tax, Watercraft registration tax, Well permit tax,Worker’s compensation tax.
The writer concludes: "Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago; our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt; had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. Do you know what happened? Can you spell "Democrat?"
Lying and Cheating in the Cause of Global Warming
The supposed scientific consensus of the Global Warming crowd appears to be coming apart. “Global Warming Delusions” is the title of a remarkable article by Daniel Botkin, a biologist and ecologist working on Global Warming (Wall Street Jr, 17 October 2007). It appears that some global warming scientists are scaremongering because they want us to change our ways. It’s so nice to have people so preoccupied with the earth that they are willing to do anything – lie, cheat and cause mayhem in order to achieve their irrational ends as evidenced in this article.
“Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
"Case in point: This year's United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20%-30% of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming -- a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct. …But elsewhere, including North America, few plant species went extinct, and few mammals.
"We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not...
"I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate…
"…Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.
"A recent article in the well-respected journal American Scientist explained why the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melting from global warming… That it couldn't be global warming directly (i.e., the result of air around the glacier warming) was made clear by the fact that the air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier. The author also studied the shape of the glacier and deduced that its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. Although acknowledged by many scientists, the paper is scorned by the true believers in global warming.
"We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster. But during the famous medieval warming period -- A.D. 750 to 1230 or so -- the Vikings found the warmer northern climate to their advantage. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie addressed this in his book "Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000," perhaps the greatest book about climate change before the onset of modern concerns with global warming. He wrote that Erik the Red "took advantage of a sea relatively free of ice to sail due west from Iceland to reach Greenland. . . . Two and a half centuries later, at the height of the climatic and demographic fortunes of the northern settlers, a bishopric of Greenland was founded at Gardar in 1126."
"Many of my colleagues ask, "What's the problem? Hasn't it been a good thing to raise public concern?" The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves." (Read).
Democrats Plunder Michigan
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.
The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1851.
Is there any difference between the plunderers in Lansing and those of our history books? Today our politicians commit "legalized" plunder and the citizenry quietly and meekly takes it without so much as raising it's collective voice. At least the historical plunderers unabashedly knew what they were and what they were doing.
See if this makes sense. Michigan has a 1.75 billion dollar deficit caused by our politicians runaway spending. They just pass a "flurry of bills" that will bring in 1.35 billion dollars. So, 1.75 + 1.35 billion equals 3.1 billion dollars in taxes for Michigan citizens which will inevitably mean more job losses and emigration of the best and the brightest from our state.
"The House and Senate passed a flurry of bills in the hours before and after a midnight deadline, including an income tax increase, an expansion of the state’s sales tax and an emergency extension budget that would give lawmakers an extra month to eliminate the deficit." (Read)
"An 11.5 percent income tax increase and expansion of the 6 percent sales tax to a strange brew of services will close most of the $1.75 billion hole in the state budget year that began Monday.
"The tax on 23 new services -- which will generate $725 million over a full year -- means Michigan now taxes 49 services, according to the Treasury. The state already taxes some services, including storage and auto leasing. That puts the state at 27th in the country in the number of services taxes, up from 36th, Kleine said. "
"Another measure of tax burden is state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income, with the national average at about 11 percent. Kleine said the new tax boosts mean Michigan edges up from slightly below 11 percent to slightly above 11 percent.
"But the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., which tracks such data, takes a different view of Michigan's ranking. The combination of the sales and income tax hike puts Michigan's tax burden at 11th-highest in the nation, up from No. 14, the institute says...
" 'Republicans refused to put up votes for anything,' said House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township. 'Basically, this entire package was delivered by Democrats.' "
This is downright corruption and ineptitude by our legislatures but especially the Democrats.
The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1851.
Is there any difference between the plunderers in Lansing and those of our history books? Today our politicians commit "legalized" plunder and the citizenry quietly and meekly takes it without so much as raising it's collective voice. At least the historical plunderers unabashedly knew what they were and what they were doing.
See if this makes sense. Michigan has a 1.75 billion dollar deficit caused by our politicians runaway spending. They just pass a "flurry of bills" that will bring in 1.35 billion dollars. So, 1.75 + 1.35 billion equals 3.1 billion dollars in taxes for Michigan citizens which will inevitably mean more job losses and emigration of the best and the brightest from our state.
"The House and Senate passed a flurry of bills in the hours before and after a midnight deadline, including an income tax increase, an expansion of the state’s sales tax and an emergency extension budget that would give lawmakers an extra month to eliminate the deficit." (Read)
"An 11.5 percent income tax increase and expansion of the 6 percent sales tax to a strange brew of services will close most of the $1.75 billion hole in the state budget year that began Monday.
"The tax on 23 new services -- which will generate $725 million over a full year -- means Michigan now taxes 49 services, according to the Treasury. The state already taxes some services, including storage and auto leasing. That puts the state at 27th in the country in the number of services taxes, up from 36th, Kleine said. "
"Another measure of tax burden is state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income, with the national average at about 11 percent. Kleine said the new tax boosts mean Michigan edges up from slightly below 11 percent to slightly above 11 percent.
"But the Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C., which tracks such data, takes a different view of Michigan's ranking. The combination of the sales and income tax hike puts Michigan's tax burden at 11th-highest in the nation, up from No. 14, the institute says...
" 'Republicans refused to put up votes for anything,' said House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township. 'Basically, this entire package was delivered by Democrats.' "
This is downright corruption and ineptitude by our legislatures but especially the Democrats.
Another Idiotic Michigan tax - A Turtle Fence
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? Frederic Bastiat (1801-1851).
Michigan is in the sewer financially, our governor shut down the government recently (NY Times) and people are leaving our state by the droves because of poor job prospects for the young and incredibly high taxes so what are our legislatures wasting their time on this month?
"A congressman disputes the state's contention that it's worth $318,000 in federal money to keep turtles from becoming roadkill.
"Installation is expected to begin this week on a 2-mile-long fence along both sides of U.S. 31 in Muskegon, in west-central Michigan. It is intended to prevent hundreds of turtles, some of them protected species, from being killed as they migrate to nesting sites along the Muskegon River, which the highway crosses.
"Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., questions why the Michigan Department of Transportation did not consider using the money on other projects 'more related to the movement of people and products.'
"The 4-foot-high chain-link fence has been planned for two years. State officials consider it a relatively inexpensive solution to a problem that affects traffic safety and the environment of rare turtle species." (Read).
These politicians in Lansing should be held accountable for being idiotic and wasteful. No scheme for separating us from our money is too stupid.
Michigan is in the sewer financially, our governor shut down the government recently (NY Times) and people are leaving our state by the droves because of poor job prospects for the young and incredibly high taxes so what are our legislatures wasting their time on this month?
"A congressman disputes the state's contention that it's worth $318,000 in federal money to keep turtles from becoming roadkill.
"Installation is expected to begin this week on a 2-mile-long fence along both sides of U.S. 31 in Muskegon, in west-central Michigan. It is intended to prevent hundreds of turtles, some of them protected species, from being killed as they migrate to nesting sites along the Muskegon River, which the highway crosses.
"Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., questions why the Michigan Department of Transportation did not consider using the money on other projects 'more related to the movement of people and products.'
"The 4-foot-high chain-link fence has been planned for two years. State officials consider it a relatively inexpensive solution to a problem that affects traffic safety and the environment of rare turtle species." (Read).
These politicians in Lansing should be held accountable for being idiotic and wasteful. No scheme for separating us from our money is too stupid.
A Crack in Aura of an Invincible Hillary Presidency
The Globe and Mail from Canada had a VERY interesting commentary by Camille Paglia a so called "firebrand writer" who teaches at the Philadelphia University of the Arts. She says that Clinton "has no vision" and "can't win the general election against any of the leading Republican presidential candidates".
"Hillary is having trouble with educated women of her generation. We seem to be the hardest sell for her right now because we've observed her, admired her, embraced her - and then become disillusioned. There's a sense that she doesn't possess core values. One feels she's uncentered in some odd way. And the chaos of her domestic life is not reassuring...
"She has tremendous powers of denial to block out what is going around her in her own family life. But she's also able to perceive herself as an ethical, God-fearing, Bible-reading Methodist who is quasi-saintly for her commitment to ethical causes. She will not admit a mistake. She has no power of self-analysis. She thinks all her problems are due to her enemies.
And we don't want a situation when Bill Clinton is acting as proxy president in the White House...
"There's something about Hillary that's anhedonic - the inability to take pleasure in the moment. Everything for her is this beady-eyed scheming for the future, combined with this mass of resentments for the past, the people who have done them wrong...
"We want to turn the page. We don't want to go backward into the Clinton years, which is what will happen if she's nominated...
Ms. Paglia's take on the inevitability of a democratic presidency is very interesting: "I don't know where people are getting the idea that the Democrats are a shoo-in. I don't see them gaining the White House unless there's a third-party spin off, like Ross Perot. I listen to conservative talk radio, because the callers really do give one a sense of where popular sentiment is at the moment. And I just don't see how any of the Democratic candidates is going to be able to present the national-security credentials that will be crucial in this election. The Republicans have [Mitt] Romney, [Rudolph] Giuliani, [Fred] Thompson, even [Mike] Huckabee - a series of candidates who would be way more credible than Hillary, if only because of the projection of strength they give." (Read)
"Hillary is having trouble with educated women of her generation. We seem to be the hardest sell for her right now because we've observed her, admired her, embraced her - and then become disillusioned. There's a sense that she doesn't possess core values. One feels she's uncentered in some odd way. And the chaos of her domestic life is not reassuring...
"She has tremendous powers of denial to block out what is going around her in her own family life. But she's also able to perceive herself as an ethical, God-fearing, Bible-reading Methodist who is quasi-saintly for her commitment to ethical causes. She will not admit a mistake. She has no power of self-analysis. She thinks all her problems are due to her enemies.
And we don't want a situation when Bill Clinton is acting as proxy president in the White House...
"There's something about Hillary that's anhedonic - the inability to take pleasure in the moment. Everything for her is this beady-eyed scheming for the future, combined with this mass of resentments for the past, the people who have done them wrong...
"We want to turn the page. We don't want to go backward into the Clinton years, which is what will happen if she's nominated...
Ms. Paglia's take on the inevitability of a democratic presidency is very interesting: "I don't know where people are getting the idea that the Democrats are a shoo-in. I don't see them gaining the White House unless there's a third-party spin off, like Ross Perot. I listen to conservative talk radio, because the callers really do give one a sense of where popular sentiment is at the moment. And I just don't see how any of the Democratic candidates is going to be able to present the national-security credentials that will be crucial in this election. The Republicans have [Mitt] Romney, [Rudolph] Giuliani, [Fred] Thompson, even [Mike] Huckabee - a series of candidates who would be way more credible than Hillary, if only because of the projection of strength they give." (Read)
Monday, October 15, 2007
Atlas Shrugged: The Movie (hopefully)
It looks like it just might happen - the stars are aligned in the skies for a movie production of a novel that totally influenced my life ATLAS SHRUGGED. For those of you who are not aware of this amazing novel written by Ayn Rand and published in 1957 there is a big hole in your life. This writer using the medium of a novel was able to explain philosophically and experientially how a society can go bankrupt financially and morally if the men of the mind, i.e., the thinkers and creators are not allowed to thrive. She explained how the intrusion of politics into the realm of economics and culture can stifle creativity and slowly rot a culture. Of course we have many examples of this occurring in the 20th century: The Soviet Union, China, Vietnam...the list is very long.
And guess who is playing Dagny Taggart? Angelina Jolie. The Director is Vadim Perlman (The House of Fog and Sand) and the script writer is Randall Wallace (Brave Heart). So there is hope that a decent job, at least, will be done (read and read).
It's hard to explain how absolutely eyeopening this novel was to me at a time in my life in my 20's when politics did not make sense, religion seemed to be a fraud and my question was why was Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater and telling us to do the same? Atlas Shrugged showed me that the arch enemy of the creators or the men of the mind throughout history have always been control freaks, power lusters and altruists. Their dominating way of controlling the able was to regulate and command them to sacrifice to those more needy.
The question that Ayn Rand raised in her novel was - why must the creators sacrifice on the altar of the needy? She caused a revolution in thinking that has and still is changing the way people view their lives on earth.
And guess who is playing Dagny Taggart? Angelina Jolie. The Director is Vadim Perlman (The House of Fog and Sand) and the script writer is Randall Wallace (Brave Heart). So there is hope that a decent job, at least, will be done (read and read).
It's hard to explain how absolutely eyeopening this novel was to me at a time in my life in my 20's when politics did not make sense, religion seemed to be a fraud and my question was why was Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater and telling us to do the same? Atlas Shrugged showed me that the arch enemy of the creators or the men of the mind throughout history have always been control freaks, power lusters and altruists. Their dominating way of controlling the able was to regulate and command them to sacrifice to those more needy.
The question that Ayn Rand raised in her novel was - why must the creators sacrifice on the altar of the needy? She caused a revolution in thinking that has and still is changing the way people view their lives on earth.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Peace Prize for Al Gore???
It is now certifiable. The Noble Peace Prize is a farce and a joke because it was given to a lier. London's High Court scrutinized his film "An Inconvenient Truth" and found nine lies (Nine Untruths and Al Gore's Inconvenient Judgement). So many other deserving nominees out there and they give it to an environmentalist who is a wanna be President of the United States. How about Alvaro Uribe President of Colombia who has done a remarkable job of turning around this terrorist beleaguered nation. Mary Anastasia O'Grady at the Wall Street Journal does a good job of analyzing the immense problems President Uribe faces regarding drugs, terrorists and our democrats who do not want to sign the free trade agreement with Colombia but want to lift the trade embargo with Cuba headed by a dictator (Read).
Friday, October 12, 2007
Pretending by the Left
Multiculturalism is a philosophy built up of lies and self-deceits. And it is killing us as a nation both politically and socially. Andrew Claven (City-Journal.org) has a penetrating analysis of what the Left is willing to do in order to avoid the truth (Read "The Big White Lie").
The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to
lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to
declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to
say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions
are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is
a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.
Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that
depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and
hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their
gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility.
It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.
This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only
advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all.
From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and
multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family,
leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But
because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition
inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to
rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s
handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s
redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the
most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was
queen....
...And because we’ve allowed leftists to define the language of political
good manners—don’t say women are less scientific; don’t remark that black people
bear the same responsibility for their actions as whites; don’t point out that
the gunman was a Muslim, it’s not nice—the sort of person willing to speak the
truth isn’t always the sort of person you want to be seen with. It sometimes
takes, I mean, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity to withstand the obloquy
attached to stating the facts of the matter. If these people in their public
personae seem harsh to more genteel conservatives, it may be because it requires
that extra dollop of aggression to shatter the silence created by the Left’s
increasingly elaborate sensitivities.
Still, mannerly as we would rather be, truth-telling continues to be
both compelling and ultimately satisfying. There is, after all, something
greater than courtesy. “Firmness in the right,” Lincoln called it, “as God gives
us to see the right.” We find ourselves at a precarious moment in an endeavor of
great importance: namely, the preservation of Western rationalism and liberty.
It does mankind no good to allow so magnificent an enterprise to slip away
merely for fear of saying the wrong thing.
The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to
lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to
declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to
say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions
are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is
a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.
Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that
depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and
hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their
gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility.
It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.
This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only
advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all.
From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and
multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family,
leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But
because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition
inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to
rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s
handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s
redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the
most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was
queen....
...And because we’ve allowed leftists to define the language of political
good manners—don’t say women are less scientific; don’t remark that black people
bear the same responsibility for their actions as whites; don’t point out that
the gunman was a Muslim, it’s not nice—the sort of person willing to speak the
truth isn’t always the sort of person you want to be seen with. It sometimes
takes, I mean, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity to withstand the obloquy
attached to stating the facts of the matter. If these people in their public
personae seem harsh to more genteel conservatives, it may be because it requires
that extra dollop of aggression to shatter the silence created by the Left’s
increasingly elaborate sensitivities.
Still, mannerly as we would rather be, truth-telling continues to be
both compelling and ultimately satisfying. There is, after all, something
greater than courtesy. “Firmness in the right,” Lincoln called it, “as God gives
us to see the right.” We find ourselves at a precarious moment in an endeavor of
great importance: namely, the preservation of Western rationalism and liberty.
It does mankind no good to allow so magnificent an enterprise to slip away
merely for fear of saying the wrong thing.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Why Multiculturalism is Bad and Wrong
How did humanity survive without multiculturalism up until the late 20th century? And why does this dreadful idea-that all cultures are equally deserving of our respect and awe-linger in our colleges and news media when all can see how devastating it is when our soldiers have to fight "carefully" so as not to kill "innocent" Iraqis or target a mosque? I think this is the result of decades of neglect of American History and World History by our rotten public schools. Only history properly taught can give a people a sense of honor and pride in country. Do we deserve to honor the United States of America? You bet! Below is an article posted at Ciy-Journal.org by Bruce S. Thornton (READ).
Fighting at a Disadvantage
Bad cultural habits plague the West in the War on Terror.
Bruce S. Thornton 10 September 2007
...Let’s start with the ideology of multiculturalism, which has become pervasive, from university and grade-school curricula to Disney cartoons and the mainstream media. Don’t believe the spin that multiculturalism just recognizes the contributions of other cultures and ethnic minorities; the West has been doing that since Herodotus wrote admiringly about Egypt in 450 BC. In fact, multiculturalism attacks the West as uniquely oppressive and destructive, all the while idealizing the non-Western “Other” as more authentically human and humane, more in tune with nature, more communal, and less materialistic than all those repressed Westerners enslaved to technology and the “cash nexus.”
Even a cursory survey of world history explodes these romantic clichés and noble-savage fantasies. The West’s sins have been the sins of humanity everywhere. But the goods of the West—political freedom, consensual government, human rights, rationalism, and respect for the individual, to name a few—are unique to the West and account for its success. Just ask the millions of non-Western Others who every year risk their lives to migrate to Europe and America, even as virtually nobody goes in the other direction.
...In the post-9/11 context, and before it, multiculturalism predisposed many in the West to look on Muslims primarily as fascinating Others, victimized by Western racism, imperialism, and colonialism. We rationalize Islamic terror and place the blame for it elsewhere—on ourselves. We saw such self-flagellation in the days after 9/11, when numerous Western intellectuals, most notoriously ex–University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, blamed the terrorist attacks on American crimes and rationalized 9/11 as the “justice of roosting chickens,” as Churchill’s speech was titled.
The therapeutic sensibility that now dominates our public thinking reinforces this tendency to excuse Islamic terror. Unlike the old tragic vision of the classical West, which saw human suffering as the consequence of an imperfect human nature and our own bad choices, the therapeutic sensibility sees suffering as a temporary glitch caused by unjust social and economic structures. Evil is just a superstition, for people’s environments, not their own choices, cause destructive actions. The terrorists whom the unenlightened call “evil,” then, are themselves victims; we should assist them in reforming their unjust environments. Meanwhile, we ignore the numerous Islamists, from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, who tell us very plainly why they want to destroy us: because we are infidels who must convert to Islam, live in submission to it, or die.
Such hypersensitivity compromises our fight against Islamic radicalism in a thousand ways, ranging from self-censorship—for example, the Washington Post’s recent refusal to run an innocuous installment of Berke Breathed’s comic strip Opus for fear of offending Muslims—to politically correct warfare that refuses to accept the brutality, destruction, and death that have always been the cargo of war. We have seen such self-defeating behavior repeatedly in Iraq, where the Army’s rules of engagement have made U.S. forces hesitant to fire on mosques even though terrorists frequently use minarets as firing platforms. To the extent that we remain unable to recognize both the precious goods of our own culture and the destructive dysfunctions of the enemy’s, we will continue to fight at a disadvantage. And 9/11 will be not just a bad memory of our past, but also the harbinger of our future. (Read)
Bruce Thornton is the author of Greek Ways and the forthcoming Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow-Motion Suicide (Encounter Books).
Fighting at a Disadvantage
Bad cultural habits plague the West in the War on Terror.
Bruce S. Thornton 10 September 2007
...Let’s start with the ideology of multiculturalism, which has become pervasive, from university and grade-school curricula to Disney cartoons and the mainstream media. Don’t believe the spin that multiculturalism just recognizes the contributions of other cultures and ethnic minorities; the West has been doing that since Herodotus wrote admiringly about Egypt in 450 BC. In fact, multiculturalism attacks the West as uniquely oppressive and destructive, all the while idealizing the non-Western “Other” as more authentically human and humane, more in tune with nature, more communal, and less materialistic than all those repressed Westerners enslaved to technology and the “cash nexus.”
Even a cursory survey of world history explodes these romantic clichés and noble-savage fantasies. The West’s sins have been the sins of humanity everywhere. But the goods of the West—political freedom, consensual government, human rights, rationalism, and respect for the individual, to name a few—are unique to the West and account for its success. Just ask the millions of non-Western Others who every year risk their lives to migrate to Europe and America, even as virtually nobody goes in the other direction.
...In the post-9/11 context, and before it, multiculturalism predisposed many in the West to look on Muslims primarily as fascinating Others, victimized by Western racism, imperialism, and colonialism. We rationalize Islamic terror and place the blame for it elsewhere—on ourselves. We saw such self-flagellation in the days after 9/11, when numerous Western intellectuals, most notoriously ex–University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, blamed the terrorist attacks on American crimes and rationalized 9/11 as the “justice of roosting chickens,” as Churchill’s speech was titled.
The therapeutic sensibility that now dominates our public thinking reinforces this tendency to excuse Islamic terror. Unlike the old tragic vision of the classical West, which saw human suffering as the consequence of an imperfect human nature and our own bad choices, the therapeutic sensibility sees suffering as a temporary glitch caused by unjust social and economic structures. Evil is just a superstition, for people’s environments, not their own choices, cause destructive actions. The terrorists whom the unenlightened call “evil,” then, are themselves victims; we should assist them in reforming their unjust environments. Meanwhile, we ignore the numerous Islamists, from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, who tell us very plainly why they want to destroy us: because we are infidels who must convert to Islam, live in submission to it, or die.
Such hypersensitivity compromises our fight against Islamic radicalism in a thousand ways, ranging from self-censorship—for example, the Washington Post’s recent refusal to run an innocuous installment of Berke Breathed’s comic strip Opus for fear of offending Muslims—to politically correct warfare that refuses to accept the brutality, destruction, and death that have always been the cargo of war. We have seen such self-defeating behavior repeatedly in Iraq, where the Army’s rules of engagement have made U.S. forces hesitant to fire on mosques even though terrorists frequently use minarets as firing platforms. To the extent that we remain unable to recognize both the precious goods of our own culture and the destructive dysfunctions of the enemy’s, we will continue to fight at a disadvantage. And 9/11 will be not just a bad memory of our past, but also the harbinger of our future. (Read)
Bruce Thornton is the author of Greek Ways and the forthcoming Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow-Motion Suicide (Encounter Books).
Friday, October 05, 2007
Stop the Disaster of Socialized Medicine
Ayn Rand Institute Press Release
It's Time to Jump SCHIP October 05, 2007
Irvine, CA--President Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was established to insure children whose parents did not qualify for Medicaid but who could not afford private health insurance. The expanded program would have covered an additional four million children from households that have yearly incomes as high as $83,000. Bush declared that while he "strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP," he regards its expansion as a dangerous step toward socialized medicine.
"But by declaring his support for SCHIP," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Bush has already endorsed the perverse moral principle that is leading us toward socialized medicine.
"In trying to justify any government welfare program--whether social security, food stamps, or socialized medicine--advocates appeal to the fact that the intended recipients need the service but are unable to pay for it. Thus, the fact that some families 'need' health care but can't afford it entitles them to it--and so the government must institute programs like Medicaid and SCHIP to ensure that they get it. Such appeals count on the unstated principle that 'need' is the criterion of moral value and standard of just desserts.
"In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand exposes the viciousness of this moral principle, showing how it sacrifices the productive and successful to the incompetent and indolent. 'A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness--non-existence--as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defeat: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw--the zero. Who provides the account to pay these claims? Those who are cursed for being non-zeros, each to the extent of his distance from that ideal. Since all values are the product of virtues, the degree of your virtue is used as the measure of your penalty; the degree of your faults is used as the measure of your gain' (Atlas Shrugged).
"This moral inversion underlies the demand for socialized medicine, which says that some people's need of health care gives them the right to make slaves of doctors, insurance companies, and hospitals. If we are to avoid the destruction of our health care system promised by socialized medicine, we must reject the perverse moral principle at its root and restore freedom to America's health care system."
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
It's Time to Jump SCHIP October 05, 2007
Irvine, CA--President Bush vetoed a bill on Wednesday that would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was established to insure children whose parents did not qualify for Medicaid but who could not afford private health insurance. The expanded program would have covered an additional four million children from households that have yearly incomes as high as $83,000. Bush declared that while he "strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP," he regards its expansion as a dangerous step toward socialized medicine.
"But by declaring his support for SCHIP," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Bush has already endorsed the perverse moral principle that is leading us toward socialized medicine.
"In trying to justify any government welfare program--whether social security, food stamps, or socialized medicine--advocates appeal to the fact that the intended recipients need the service but are unable to pay for it. Thus, the fact that some families 'need' health care but can't afford it entitles them to it--and so the government must institute programs like Medicaid and SCHIP to ensure that they get it. Such appeals count on the unstated principle that 'need' is the criterion of moral value and standard of just desserts.
"In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand exposes the viciousness of this moral principle, showing how it sacrifices the productive and successful to the incompetent and indolent. 'A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness--non-existence--as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defeat: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw--the zero. Who provides the account to pay these claims? Those who are cursed for being non-zeros, each to the extent of his distance from that ideal. Since all values are the product of virtues, the degree of your virtue is used as the measure of your penalty; the degree of your faults is used as the measure of your gain' (Atlas Shrugged).
"This moral inversion underlies the demand for socialized medicine, which says that some people's need of health care gives them the right to make slaves of doctors, insurance companies, and hospitals. If we are to avoid the destruction of our health care system promised by socialized medicine, we must reject the perverse moral principle at its root and restore freedom to America's health care system."
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
"Lee Bollinger's Disease"
William Smith is a satirist who writes hilarious political commentary at TCS. But there is a serious note in this article concerning people who are willing enablers of evil by giving them a platform on which to sound "reasonable".
Psychiatric Association Releases Final Report on "Lee Bollinger's Disease"
By William S. Smith : 03 Oct 2007
(SATIRENEWSSERVICE) The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) today issued its long-awaited, massive study on Intelligentsia Derangement Disorder (IDD). Known popularly as Lee Bollinger's Disease, IDD is characterized by profound disruption in cognition involving the most fundamental human attributes: language, thought, perception and desire for self preservation.
The disease has been found in epidemic proportions on university campuses. The WPA study, which included extensive case histories of every single academic in the United States and Western Europe, reports that 99.99999% of all, non-economist social science professors are affected as are almost all tenured members of the "Arts" faculties of universities throughout the developed world.
According to the Report's main author, Dr. Edith Erwachsenenwelt, M.D., Ph.D., the cognitive development of most sufferers of IDD ends in early adolescence whereas non-sufferers experience continued development of their cognitive capacities throughout adulthood. "The cessation of the process of adult cognitive development," said Dr. Erwachsenenwelt, "produces the following symptoms, all of which are exhibited by each and every IDD sufferer":
Psychiatric Association Releases Final Report on "Lee Bollinger's Disease"
By William S. Smith : 03 Oct 2007
(SATIRENEWSSERVICE) The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) today issued its long-awaited, massive study on Intelligentsia Derangement Disorder (IDD). Known popularly as Lee Bollinger's Disease, IDD is characterized by profound disruption in cognition involving the most fundamental human attributes: language, thought, perception and desire for self preservation.
The disease has been found in epidemic proportions on university campuses. The WPA study, which included extensive case histories of every single academic in the United States and Western Europe, reports that 99.99999% of all, non-economist social science professors are affected as are almost all tenured members of the "Arts" faculties of universities throughout the developed world.
According to the Report's main author, Dr. Edith Erwachsenenwelt, M.D., Ph.D., the cognitive development of most sufferers of IDD ends in early adolescence whereas non-sufferers experience continued development of their cognitive capacities throughout adulthood. "The cessation of the process of adult cognitive development," said Dr. Erwachsenenwelt, "produces the following symptoms, all of which are exhibited by each and every IDD sufferer":
- an inability to distinguish between real and false threats to personal, cultural and societal safety;
- irrational beliefs about the role of universities in a free society (the WPA Report cites as examples all volumes of The Journal of the American Indoctrination Association);
- an obsessive need to make self-congratulatory statements about the perceived brilliance and enlightenment of irrational personal beliefs and thoughts;
- an uncontainable compulsion to support extreme forms of violence so long as such violence is explained as the manifestation of colonialism, discrimination, socio-economic disparity or indigenous religious belief (the Report cites all editions of the now defunct Soviet Peace Quarterly published by The Harvard University Press and Wahhabi Weekly published by a consortium of two hundred Middle Eastern Studies Departments;
- A simplistic understanding of various sophisticated concepts such as freedom of speech (the study cites, among numerous examples, "Khmer Rouge, Peaceful, Pastoral, Progressive", Academic Monthly, March, 1975 Vol 15, pp 215-240; and "9/11: an Issue of Free Speech for Jihadis", The Smart Sociologist, October 2001, Vol 27, pp 1445-2002);
- the obsessive and compulsive misuse of metaphors involving Adolph Hitler;
a specific paranoid delusion involving a mythical demon known as "Bush!" who is ascribed extraordinary, supernatural powers (the WPA Report cites approvingly, the pioneering work that uncovered "Bush Derangement Syndrome", Krauthammer, Charles, M.D., American Journal of Progressive Delusions, 2003, Vol 902, pp 1435-2742 and 2005, Vol 1245, pp 4351-6572); - an inability to express gratitude toward those who protect and sustain IDD sufferers (the Report cites the U.S. military and U.S. taxpayers) during the long duration of their illness; and, recurring hallucinations about Jews (the WPA cites the work of actual members of the intelligentsia, Mearsheimer and Walt in The Protocols of the Journal of Anti-Semitic Advocacy, July 2006, Vol 102,345,776, pp 1-1245; and the numerous delusional books and articles about Jewish conspiracies by such self-proclaimed members of the intelligentsia as Carter, J.E. among many others). READ the rest here.
Imagine a Culture of Reason
There have been many articles commemorating the 50 year anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged. But one paragraph caught my attention and my hopes for the future. Written by Yaron Brook, Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute it describes beautifully what kind of future we could have if we would commit ourselves to a culture of reason.
Imagine a future America guided by the principles found in Atlas Shrugged--a culture of reason, where science is cherished and respected, not banished from biology classrooms and stem-cell research labs--a culture of individualism, in which government is the protector of individual rights, not its primary violator--a culture in which markets are not just regarded as the most effective option of an imperfect lot, but in which laissez-faire capitalism is recognized and venerated as the only moral social system--a culture in which business innovators understand that ambition, productive effort, and wealth creation are not just practical necessities, but moral virtues--a culture in which such innovators, proudly asserting their right to their work, are fully liberated and their productive genius fully applied to the generation of unimaginable economic progress. (READ)
Imagine a future America guided by the principles found in Atlas Shrugged--a culture of reason, where science is cherished and respected, not banished from biology classrooms and stem-cell research labs--a culture of individualism, in which government is the protector of individual rights, not its primary violator--a culture in which markets are not just regarded as the most effective option of an imperfect lot, but in which laissez-faire capitalism is recognized and venerated as the only moral social system--a culture in which business innovators understand that ambition, productive effort, and wealth creation are not just practical necessities, but moral virtues--a culture in which such innovators, proudly asserting their right to their work, are fully liberated and their productive genius fully applied to the generation of unimaginable economic progress. (READ)
Monday, October 01, 2007
Ahmadinejad Scares Even Khamenei
The Aussie News & Views of October 1 had an interesting article on Ahmadinejad, our favorite comedian (did you know that there are no comedians in the Middle East?) about the nature of thugs like him. The article is by Barry Rubin (Global Research in International Affairs).
Ahmadinejad’s goals, then, are his control over Iran , Iran ’s control over the Persian Gulf area (especially Iraq ), Israel ’s destruction, Iranian leadership over the Middle East , the expulsion of Western (and especially American) influence from the region, and even world domination, in roughly that order.
Basically, Ahmadinejad is not a unique phenomenon in modern Middle East history. The role to be filled is that of the leader of the Arabs and Muslims as well as prime enemy of America , Israel , and the West. In this respect, he is comparable to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s; Iran ’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 1970s and 1980s; Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and 1990s; and Usama bin Ladin during the period before and especially after September 11, 2001. Yet Ahmadinejad has also become a symbol for the radical Islamist challenge to everyone else in the world
What makes Ahmadinejad different? The key element here, and one due to his own words and behavior, is that he seems not to be held back by caution, a rational calculation of the balance of forces, even if judged by the standard of his predecessors aside from bin Ladin of course. In other words, Ahmadinejad seems capable of anything and consequently far more dangerous. This conclusion is not just a matter of Western projection. I’ll bet that at times he scares even Khamenei. Read
Ahmadinejad’s goals, then, are his control over Iran , Iran ’s control over the Persian Gulf area (especially Iraq ), Israel ’s destruction, Iranian leadership over the Middle East , the expulsion of Western (and especially American) influence from the region, and even world domination, in roughly that order.
Basically, Ahmadinejad is not a unique phenomenon in modern Middle East history. The role to be filled is that of the leader of the Arabs and Muslims as well as prime enemy of America , Israel , and the West. In this respect, he is comparable to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s; Iran ’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the 1970s and 1980s; Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and 1990s; and Usama bin Ladin during the period before and especially after September 11, 2001. Yet Ahmadinejad has also become a symbol for the radical Islamist challenge to everyone else in the world
What makes Ahmadinejad different? The key element here, and one due to his own words and behavior, is that he seems not to be held back by caution, a rational calculation of the balance of forces, even if judged by the standard of his predecessors aside from bin Ladin of course. In other words, Ahmadinejad seems capable of anything and consequently far more dangerous. This conclusion is not just a matter of Western projection. I’ll bet that at times he scares even Khamenei. Read
John Bolton Speaks His Mind On Australian TV
I love John Bolton for his courage and his no nonsense approach to the truth. He doesn't get bogged down with fads. He says it like it is - he's a straight shooter - and he was the only voice of reason in that den of iniquity the United Nations.
Transcript
TONY JONES: Now to our guest. John Bolton is the former US ambassador to the United Nations. Before that he was a principal advisor to President Bush as Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, a position he held from 2001 to 2005. He's now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and he joins us in our Washington studio. John Bolton, thanks for being there.
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER US AMBASSADOR TO THE UN: Glad to be here.
TONY JONES: Now you would have heard the French Foreign Minister saying - warning, in fact - that the world should prepare for war to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. Do you agree with him?
JOHN BOLTON: Absolutely. Life is about choices, and if the choice is between a nuclear capable Iran and the pre-emptive use of force - I might say a limited use of force - to break their control over the nuclear fuel cycle, I don't think there's any question that's what you have to look at.
TONY JONES: At the same time, the BBC is reporting there's a firm belief in Tehran that the US, enmeshed as it is in Iraq, is in no position to attack Iran. Now, you get the impression, at least many do, that Iran is ready to call America's bluff.
JOHN BOLTON: Well the Iranian statement obviously reflects no comprehension of what our global disposition of forces is or our capabilities. If that's what they think, they are sadly mistaken. Nobody's looking to call anybody's bluff here. Nobody thinks the use of force is an attractive option. But let's come down to the real question: is the use of force as an alternative preferable to Iran having nuclear weapons? No question about it, in my view.
TONY JONES: Could you imagine a war with Iran and what the consequences of that would be?
JOHN BOLTON: Let's get this straight one more time. We're not talking about a war such as we had in Iraq. We're talking about, quite likely, a limited air strike against, for example, the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, or the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, or the heavy water reactor at Arak, that would prevent Iran from getting from uranium in the ground to highly enriched uranium in a nuclear warhead. That is the kind of attack that we're talking about. TONY JONES: But John Bolton, that assumes it would stop there, that the Iranians wouldn't do anything in response, for example they wouldn't do anything to destabilise the position even further in Iraq or Afghanistan or Lebanon, that they wouldn't use international terrorism, that they wouldn't threaten the West's oil supply?
JOHN BOLTON: You mean as opposed to what they're doing now? Look, if this regime can intimidate us with oil at $80 a barrel but without nuclear weapons, imagine what will happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons. If they can see their way clear to this kind of bluster at this point, what will happen after they actually have the weapons? What's your answer to that?
TONY JONES: Well General John Abizaid your former commander in the Middle East has in a sense answered that on your side of the Atlantic overnight. He said the US could live with a nuclear-armed Iran and indeed the West is living already with a nuclear-armed North Korea.
JOHN BOLTON: Well, I'm not very happy about living with a nuclear-armed North Korea because of the threat they pose not only in East Asia but even in the Middle East as we've seen, and facts are not fully clear yet but the possibility of nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea. The notion that living under the threat of a possible use of Iranian nuclear weapons is acceptable may appeal to some people but it's not the kind of life I want to live and I don't think it's the kind of life that people in Israel, for example, or other American friends and allies in the region are happy to live with.
TONY JONES: Do you think the United States would countenance an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?
JOHN BOLTON: Well, I think again, we're not entirely sure of the details of the recent Israeli strike against Syria, but I don't hear any loud objections coming out of the Administration here in Washington to that and if the Israelis were able to accomplish something similar to what they did against Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor the early 1980s I think the world would be a safer place.
TONY JONES: Yes, we've been reading and we've heard your response in the past few days to Israeli television about that story about the Israeli strike in Syria. Do you believe it is what unnamed US officials are saying? In other words do you believe it was a strike on a secret Syrian nuclear facility?
JOHN BOLTON: Let me just say for the third time, all of the details are not yet known. But I think it would be unlikely that Israel would risk the possibility of negative consequences from a strike inside Syria unless it was against a very high value target such as a facility involved with weapons of mass destruction. So simple logic points to the direction that this must have been considered an extraordinarily high threat by the Israelis for them to conduct such an operation.
Listen to the rest of the Video.
Transcript
TONY JONES: Now to our guest. John Bolton is the former US ambassador to the United Nations. Before that he was a principal advisor to President Bush as Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, a position he held from 2001 to 2005. He's now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and he joins us in our Washington studio. John Bolton, thanks for being there.
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER US AMBASSADOR TO THE UN: Glad to be here.
TONY JONES: Now you would have heard the French Foreign Minister saying - warning, in fact - that the world should prepare for war to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. Do you agree with him?
JOHN BOLTON: Absolutely. Life is about choices, and if the choice is between a nuclear capable Iran and the pre-emptive use of force - I might say a limited use of force - to break their control over the nuclear fuel cycle, I don't think there's any question that's what you have to look at.
TONY JONES: At the same time, the BBC is reporting there's a firm belief in Tehran that the US, enmeshed as it is in Iraq, is in no position to attack Iran. Now, you get the impression, at least many do, that Iran is ready to call America's bluff.
JOHN BOLTON: Well the Iranian statement obviously reflects no comprehension of what our global disposition of forces is or our capabilities. If that's what they think, they are sadly mistaken. Nobody's looking to call anybody's bluff here. Nobody thinks the use of force is an attractive option. But let's come down to the real question: is the use of force as an alternative preferable to Iran having nuclear weapons? No question about it, in my view.
TONY JONES: Could you imagine a war with Iran and what the consequences of that would be?
JOHN BOLTON: Let's get this straight one more time. We're not talking about a war such as we had in Iraq. We're talking about, quite likely, a limited air strike against, for example, the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, or the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan, or the heavy water reactor at Arak, that would prevent Iran from getting from uranium in the ground to highly enriched uranium in a nuclear warhead. That is the kind of attack that we're talking about. TONY JONES: But John Bolton, that assumes it would stop there, that the Iranians wouldn't do anything in response, for example they wouldn't do anything to destabilise the position even further in Iraq or Afghanistan or Lebanon, that they wouldn't use international terrorism, that they wouldn't threaten the West's oil supply?
JOHN BOLTON: You mean as opposed to what they're doing now? Look, if this regime can intimidate us with oil at $80 a barrel but without nuclear weapons, imagine what will happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons. If they can see their way clear to this kind of bluster at this point, what will happen after they actually have the weapons? What's your answer to that?
TONY JONES: Well General John Abizaid your former commander in the Middle East has in a sense answered that on your side of the Atlantic overnight. He said the US could live with a nuclear-armed Iran and indeed the West is living already with a nuclear-armed North Korea.
JOHN BOLTON: Well, I'm not very happy about living with a nuclear-armed North Korea because of the threat they pose not only in East Asia but even in the Middle East as we've seen, and facts are not fully clear yet but the possibility of nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea. The notion that living under the threat of a possible use of Iranian nuclear weapons is acceptable may appeal to some people but it's not the kind of life I want to live and I don't think it's the kind of life that people in Israel, for example, or other American friends and allies in the region are happy to live with.
TONY JONES: Do you think the United States would countenance an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?
JOHN BOLTON: Well, I think again, we're not entirely sure of the details of the recent Israeli strike against Syria, but I don't hear any loud objections coming out of the Administration here in Washington to that and if the Israelis were able to accomplish something similar to what they did against Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor the early 1980s I think the world would be a safer place.
TONY JONES: Yes, we've been reading and we've heard your response in the past few days to Israeli television about that story about the Israeli strike in Syria. Do you believe it is what unnamed US officials are saying? In other words do you believe it was a strike on a secret Syrian nuclear facility?
JOHN BOLTON: Let me just say for the third time, all of the details are not yet known. But I think it would be unlikely that Israel would risk the possibility of negative consequences from a strike inside Syria unless it was against a very high value target such as a facility involved with weapons of mass destruction. So simple logic points to the direction that this must have been considered an extraordinarily high threat by the Israelis for them to conduct such an operation.
Listen to the rest of the Video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)