OP-EDs from ARI


Kat

Recommended Posts

I am starting two threads to put the OP-EDS that come out of The Ayn Rand Institute and The Objectivist Center. As I add things, I will link to them so this first post will serve as an index. Inclusion in this thread does not mean that Michael and I endorse or disagree with the views stated in the articles. This is simply a place to see the media releases put out by The Ayn Rand Institute.

ARI's OP-EDs

5/17/06 "Price Gouging" Can't Be Objectively Defined--and Should Not Be a Crime

5/25/06 What We Owe Our Soldiers

6/7/06 Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan

6/14/06 European Governments vs. Apple's Rights

6/21/06 Media Ownership Restrictions Should Be Abolished

7/8/06 The Unlearned Lesson of Ken Lay and Enron

7/10/06 Keep Our "Addiction" to Oil, End Our Allergy to Self-Assertion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Price Gouging" Can't Be Objectively Defined--and Should Not Be a Crime

Dear Editor:

The House has approved a bill that imposes criminal and civil penalties (up to $150 million for refiners and $2 million for retailers) on any energy company found guilty of "price gouging." But selling at prices some people feel is too high violates no one's rights--there is no such thing as a right to cheap gasoline. Moreover, "price gouging" has no objective meaning or definition--it is in the eyes of the beholder. People who complain about "price gouging" merely want a product at a lower price than it's being sold for.

Perhaps recognizing the unsolvable problem of objectively defining "price gouging," the House bill does not even attempt to do it, but delegates the task to the Federal Trade Commission.

But as Jeffrey Schmidt, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition admits, "One of the problems with price gouging is that there are a lot of different definitions of what price gouging is."

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has his own "definition": "we know price gouging when we see it."

"Price gouging" laws are like the sword of Damocles, hanging over the heads of businessmen, who at any time may be found guilty of the "crime" of selling at market prices that politicians deem too high. Businessmen should not have to live under this constant threat; as owners of the products they sell they have the moral right to set the prices.

David Holcberg

Ayn Rand Institute

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What We Owe Our Soldiers

By Alex Epstein

Every Memorial Day, we pay tribute to the American men and women who have died in combat. With speeches and solemn ceremonies, we recognize their courage and valor. But one fact goes unacknowledged in our Memorial Day tributes: all too many of our soldiers have died unnecessarily--because they were sent to fight for a purpose other than America's freedom.

The proper purpose of a government is to protect its citizens' lives and freedom against the initiation of force by criminals at home and aggressors abroad. The American government has a sacred responsibility to recognize the individual value of every one of its citizens' lives, and thus to do everything possible to protect the rights of each to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This absolutely includes our soldiers.

Soldiers are not sacrificial objects; they are full-fledged Americans with the same moral right as the rest of us to the pursuit of their own goals, their own dreams, their own happiness. Rational soldiers enjoy much of the work of military service, take pride in their ability to do it superlatively, and gain profound satisfaction in protecting the freedom of every American, including their own freedom.

Soldiers know that in entering the military, they are risking their lives in the event of war. But this risk is not, as it is often described, a "sacrifice" for a "higher cause." When there is a true threat to America, it is a threat to all of our lives and loved ones, soldiers included. Many become soldiers for precisely this reason; it was, for instance, the realization of the threat of Islamic terrorism after September 11--when 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered in cold blood on a random Tuesday morning--that prompted so many to join the military.

For an American soldier, to fight for freedom is not to fight for a "higher cause," separate from or superior to his own life--it is to fight for his own life and happiness. He is willing to risk his life in time of war because he is unwilling to live as anything other than a free man. He does not want or expect to die, but he would rather die than live in slavery or perpetual fear. His attitude is epitomized by the words of John Stark, New Hampshire’s most famous soldier in the Revolutionary War: "Live free or die."

What we owe these men who fight so bravely for their and our freedom is to send them to war only when that freedom is truly threatened, and to make every effort to protect their lives during war--by providing them with the most advantageous weapons, training, strategy, and tactics possible.

Shamefully, America has repeatedly failed to meet this obligation. It has repeatedly placed soldiers in harm's way when no threat to America existed--e.g., to quell tribal conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. America entered World War I, in which 115,000 soldiers died, with no clear self-defense purpose but rather on the vague, self-sacrificial grounds that "The world must be made safe for democracy." America's involvement in Vietnam, in which 56,000 Americans died in a fiasco that American officials openly declared a "no-win" war, was justified primarily in the name of service to the South Vietnamese. And the current war in Iraq--which could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East--is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of "civilizing" Iraq by enabling Iraqis to select any government they wish, no matter how anti-American.

In addition to being sent on ill-conceived, "humanitarian" missions, our soldiers have been compromised with crippling rules of engagement that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above their own. In Afghanistan we refused to bomb many top leaders out of their hideouts for fear of civilian casualties; these men continue to kill American soldiers. In Iraq, our hamstrung soldiers are not allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency--and instead must suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy.

To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.

This Memorial Day, we must call for a stop to the sacrifice of our soldiers and condemn all those who demand it. It is only by doing so that we can truly honor not only our dead, but also our living: American soldiers who have the courage to defend their freedom and ours.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute and is reprinted with permission

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan

By Elan Journo

Unlike the seemingly endless war in Iraq, America's campaign in Afghanistan is widely considered a success in the "war on terror." We have nothing more to fear from Afghanistan, our policy makers tell us, because the war accomplished its two main goals: al Qaeda and its sponsoring regime, the Taliban, are long gone, and the country has a new, pro-Western government. But as the daily news from Afghanistan shows, in reality the war has been a drastic failure.

Legions of undefeated Taliban and al Qaeda soldiers have renewed their jihad. Flush with money, amassing recruits, and armed with guns, rockets and explosives, they are fighting to regain power. In recent months they have mounted a string of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against American and NATO forces; more U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan in the last 18 months than did during the peak of the war.

Taliban forces have effectively besieged several provinces in southern Afghanistan. Local officials estimate that in some provinces the "number of Taliban . . . is several times more than that of the police and Afghan National Army." Taliban fighters are said to amble through villages fearlessly, brandishing their Kalashnikovs, and collecting zakat (an Islamic tithe) from peasants. With astounding boldness, they have assassinated clerics and judges deemed too friendly to the new government, and fired rockets at a school for using "un-Islamic" books.

How is it that four years after the war began--and in the face of America's unsurpassed military strength--Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are once again threatening American interests?

Victory in Afghanistan demanded two things. We had to destroy the Taliban and we had to ensure that a non-threatening, non-Islamic-warrior-breeding regime take its place. But we did not think we had a moral right to do either.

Our military was ordered to pursue Taliban fighters only if it simultaneously showed "compassion" to the Afghans. The U.S. military dropped bombs on Afghanistan--but instead of ruthlessly pounding key targets, it was ordered to gingerly avoid hitting holy shrines and mosques (known to be Taliban hideouts) and to shower the country with food packages. The U.S. deployed ground forces--but instead of focusing exclusively on capturing or killing the enemy, they were also diverted to a host of "reconstruction" projects. The result is that the enemy was not destroyed and crushed in spirit, but merely scattered and left with the moral fortitude to regroup and launch a brazen comeback.

Even with its hands tied, however, the U.S. military succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime--but Washington subverted that achievement, too.

A new Afghan government would be a non-threat to America's interests if it were based on a secular constitution that respects individual rights. The Bush administration, however, declared that we had no right to "impose our beliefs" on the Afghans--and instead endorsed their desire for another regime founded on Islamic law. Already this avowedly Islamic regime has jailed an Afghan magazine editor for "blasphemy"; recently, Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity, faced a death sentence for apostasy. The new Afghan regime cannot be counted on to oppose the resurgence of Islamic totalitarianism. Ideologically, it has nothing to say in opposition to the doctrines of the Taliban (two members of the Taliban leadership are in the new government). It is only a matter of time before Afghanistan is once again a haven for anti-American warriors.

The failure in Afghanistan is a result of Washington's foreign policy. Despite lip-service to the goal of protecting America's safety, the "war on terror" has been waged in compliance with the prevailing moral premise that self-interest is evil and self-sacrifice a virtue. Instead of trouncing the enemy for the sake of protecting American lives, our leaders have sacrificed our self-defense for the sake of serving the whims of Afghans.

The half-hearted war in Afghanistan failed to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda. It failed to render their ideology--Islamic totalitarianism--a lost cause. Instead, at best it demonstrated Washington's reluctance to fight ruthlessly to defend Americans. How better to stoke the enthusiasm of jihadists?

America cannot win this or any war by embracing selflessness as a virtue. Ultimately, it cannot survive unless Washington abandons its self-sacrificial foreign policy in favor of one that proudly places America's interests as its exclusive moral concern.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

European Governments vs. Apple's Rights

Dear Editor:

European governments have no right to force Apple to make downloads from iTunes compatible with the products of its rivals.

If music listeners don't like the limitations of Apple's products and want to be able to play purchased music on any device they own, they are free not to buy from Apple and to look for alternatives. They, or their representatives, have no right to dictate to Apple what capabilities to include in its products.

The violation of Apple's property rights, as well as those of Microsoft and other American companies, is a serious threat to innovation and technological progress. If these companies are not free to create products as they see fit, and are not allowed to profit from their new creations, innovation will decline.

David Holcberg

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. Reprinted with permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media Ownership Restrictions Should Be Abolished

Press Release - June 21, 2006

IRVINE, CA-- Once again there is a widespread outcry over a possible FCC relaxation of restrictions on television, radio station and newspaper ownership. But, said Alex Epstein, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "Media ownership restrictions should not only be relaxed, they should be abolished altogether.

"These draconian regulations, justified on the grounds of 'localism,' suppress freedom in the media marketplace--by preventing successful media companies from buying television, radio stations, or newspapers from willing sellers. Those who want to run stations focusing on local news should have to compete in the free market. If local owners can't succeed on the airwaves, they are free to try cable or the Internet--but they have no right to get the FCC to muscle out superior competitors on their behalf."

Alex Epstein

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. Reprinted with permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Keep Our "Addiction" to Oil, End Our Allergy to Self-Assertion

By Alex Epstein

Politicians and commentators from both parties are decrying our "addiction to oil." They exhort us to embrace costly programs to reduce our consumption of oil as quickly as possible. The primary rationale for this is national security. Our oil consumption is dangerous because, in the words of a New York Times editorial, "Oil profits that flow to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries finance . . . terrorist acts." With the same justification, President Bush has called for cutting "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025 . . . and mak[ing] our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

But Americans are not "addicted" to oil. "Addiction" implies an intense desire for something harmful. But we do not desire oil irrationally; we consume it because it is a wonderful, life-sustaining product. Oil is unmatched as an efficient, safe source of portable energy. It enables us to affordably ride, drive, or fly anywhere we wish, and fuels a transportation industry that enables us to trade anything with anyone from anywhere around the world. We are not addicted to oil any more than we are addicted to the myriad values it makes possible, like fresh food, imported electronics, going to work, or visiting loved ones.

The problem we face today is not our love of oil, but oil-rich dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia--who use ill-gotten profits to spread totalitarian Islamic ideology around the world and terrorize us with their minions. The solution is not to punish ourselves by renouncing oil--but to punish our enemies until they renounce their aggression.

As the most powerful nation on earth, the United States has many options at its disposal.

One means of ending the Iranian and Saudi threat would be to issue an ultimatum to these regimes: cease all anti-American aggression immediately, or be destroyed. Many, witnessing the Iraqi quagmire, might scoff at this option. But such a course is eminently practical if America's unsurpassed military forces are committed to the task, not of "rebuilding" or "liberating" these states, but of making their inhabitants fear threatening America ever again.

Another means of addressing the threat would be to remove Middle Eastern oil fields from Iranian and Saudi control, put them in the hands of private companies, and then employ surveillance and troops to secure that oil supply. Contrary to popular assumption, Middle Eastern dictatorships have no right to their nationalized oil fields, which should be private property--the property of individuals who work to find and extract the oil.

Still another option might be a comprehensive, all-out embargo by the United States and its allies to starve the leader of the enemy, Iran, until the regime crumbles and the Islamic totalitarians lose their will to fight.

Which policy is best is for military strategists to determine--but our politicians and intellectuals refuse to consider any of these options. Instead, they decry our "addiction to oil," condemn us for not all wanting to drive Priuses, and urge, as penance, that we cut ourselves from the world oil market. Can anyone honestly believe that such asceticism will protect us from attack--given that Saudi Arabia and Iran both actively sponsored terrorism when oil was $10 a barrel?

Why do our leaders eagerly embrace impractical policies that punish Americans, while eschewing practical options that would punish our enemies? Because the practical policies would involve "going to war for oil," "America imposing its will on the rest of the world," upsetting the "international community," and all of today's other foreign policy taboos--i.e., they are branded immoral because they involve American self-assertion.

Our leaders do not believe that America has a moral right to assert itself in self-defense. This is why we engage in self-effacing, appeasing "diplomacy" with easily defeated enemies like Iran and Saudi Arabia. And this is why, when we actually do go to war (after such diplomacy fails), we pull our punches and declare our purpose to be lavishing the good life on hostile foreign peoples. Now, after over 2,500 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars put in service of mob rule in Iraq, we are told to give up the lifeblood of our civilization rather than wage real war against our enemies. Could anything be more encouraging to our enemies than the knowledge that America will make Americans, not them, pay for their aggression?

This senseless sacrifice must stop. It is past time to adopt a foreign policy of self-assertion and self-interest--i.e., a truly moral policy.

Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Unlearned Lesson of Ken Lay and Enron

By Alex Epstein

Former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay has just died, just over a month after being convicted of fraud, and almost five years after his company's cataclysmic collapse. The common perception of Lay is that he and other Enron leaders brought about the company's fall because, eager to make money, they schemed to bilk investors. The ethical lesson, it is said, is that we must teach (or force) businessmen to curb their selfish, profit-seeking "impulses" before they turn criminal.

But all this is wrong.

Enron was not brought down by fraud; while the company committed fraud, its fraud was primarily an attempt to cover up tens of billions of dollars already lost--not embezzled--in irrational business decisions. Most of its executives believed that Enron was a basically productive company that could be righted. This is why Chairman Ken Lay did not flee to the Caymans with riches, but stayed through the end.

What then caused this unprecedented business failure? Consider a few telling events in Enron's rise and fall.

Enron rose to prominence first as a successful provider of natural gas, and then as a creator of markets for trading natural gas as a commodity. The company made profits by performing a genuinely productive function: linking buyers and sellers, allowing both sides to control for risk.

Unfortunately, the company's leaders were not honest with themselves about the nature of their success. They wanted to be "New Economy" geniuses who could successfully enter any market they wished. As a result, they entered into ventures far beyond their expertise, based on half-baked ideas thought to be profound market insights. For example, Enron poured billions into a broadband network featuring movies-on-demand--without bothering to check whether movie studios would provide major releases (they wouldn't). They spent $3 billion on a highly inefficient power plant in India--on ludicrous assurances by a transient Indian government that they would be paid indefinitely for vastly overpriced electricity.

The mentality of Enron executives in engineering such fiascos is epitomized by an exchange, described in New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald's account of the Enron saga, between eventual CEO Jeff Skilling and subordinate Ray Bowen, on Skilling's (eventually failed) idea for Enron to sell electricity to retail customers.

An analysis of the numbers, Bowen had realized, "told a damning story . . . Profit margins were razor thin, massive capital investments were required." Skilling's response? "You're making me really nervous . . . The fact that you're focused on the numbers, and not the underlying essence of the business, worries me . . . I don't want to hear that."

When Bowen responded that "the numbers have to make sense . . . We've got to be honest [about whether] . . . we can actually make a profit," Eichenwald recounts, "Skilling bristled. 'Then you guys must not be smart enough to come up with the good ideas, because we're going to make money in this business.' . . . [bowen] was flabbergasted. Sure, ideas were important, but they had to be built around numbers. A business wasn't going to succeed just because Jeff Skilling thought it should."

But to Skilling and other Enron executives, there was no clear distinction between what they felt should succeed, and what the facts indicated would succeed--between reality as they wished it to be and reality as it is.

Time and again, Enron executives placed their wishes above the facts. And as they experienced failure after failure, they deluded themselves into believing that any losses would somehow be overcome with massive profits in the future. This mentality led them to eagerly accept CFO Andy Fastow's absurd claims that their losses could be magically taken off the books using Special Purpose Entities; after all, they felt, Enron should have a high stock price.

Smaller lies led to bigger lies, until Enron became the biggest corporate failure and fraud in American history.

Observe that Enron's problem was not that it was "too concerned" about profit, but that it believed money does not have to be made: it can be had simply by following one's whims. The solution to prevent future Enrons, then, is not to teach (or force) CEOs to curb their profit-seeking; the desire to produce and trade valuable products is the essence of business--and of successful life.

Instead, we must teach businessmen the profound virtues money-making requires. Above all, we must teach them that one cannot profit by evading facts. The great profit-makers, such as Bill Gates and Jack Welch, accept the facts of reality--including the market, their finances, their abilities and limitations--as an absolute. "Face reality," advises Jack Welch, "as it is, not as it was or as you wish. . . You have to see the world in the purest, clearest way possible, or you can't make decisions on a rational basis."

This is what Enron's executives did not grasp--and the real lesson we should all learn from their fate.

Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Medieval Sexual Morality at the FDA

August 7, 2006

Irvine, CA--"The FDA must stop the stalling tactics that have prevented over-the-counter sale of the 'morning-after pill,'" said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"There is no question about the safety of the drug. The FDA's own advisory panel endorsed it three years ago for over-the-counter use. The delays are clearly an attempt by conservative FDA officials to impose their brand of medieval sexual morality on Americans. Such an egregious violation of the separation of church and state is unacceptable in a free country."

### ### ###

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release

http://www.aynrand.org/

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARI - Letter to the Editor, August 10, 2006

You may view this message as a formatted Web page in your browser:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=omPKVYwnz_uimyNFMjXIcg..

Dear Editor:

If termites are weakening a home's foundation, what do we do? We call

the exterminator and eliminate the problem. If armed robbers are at

our doors trying to break their way in, what do we do? We defend

ourselves to the best of our abilities until the authorities arrive to

eliminate the threat.

If Islamic totalitarians come close to murdering hundreds of people by

mixing common household materials to blow up airplanes, what do we

do? Apparently, we stop carrying liquids and gels in our carry-on

luggage.

What should we do? We should insist that our government eliminate

the real source of the problem decisively and quickly. Islamic

totalitarian groups such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, and the countries

supporting them such as Iran and Syria, are hell-bent on attacking

Americans. They will not stop unless we make it impossible for them to

function or regroup. Their infrastructure and support networks

have to be permanently disabled as quickly as possible in whatever way

our military recommends. A drawn-out, five-year "War on Terror"

where we help build roads, plants and hospitals in the Middle East

only strengthens the resolve of our enemies.

And they'll keep trying to blow up planes in the meantime.

Debi Ghate

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release

http://www.aynrand.org/

MINIMUM WAGE, MAXIMUM WRONG

Sept 12, 2006

IRVINE, CA--There is an accelerating trend of big-city governments passing minimum wage laws that far exceed either the state or federal minimums. Yesterday, contrary to this trend, Mayor Richard Daley vetoed a measure that would have raised Chicago minimums to $10.00 an hour plus $3.00 in fringe benefits by mid-2010.

“Daley’s veto was right--but he and other political leaders should go further and abolish the minimum wage altogether,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute and a former finance professor. “By mandating a certain level of wages, the government violates the rights of both employers and employees to reach a voluntary agreement based on their own judgment of what they can afford.

“Those who provide jobs are not the slaves of city hall, and have a right to set the wages they are willing to pay. And those who are willing and eager to work for relatively low wages--either because they are unskilled, inexperienced or would rather have a low-paying job than no job at all--have a right to do so.

“In a capitalist system, the price of labor (i.e., wages) is determined in the same way as all other prices: by the individual judgments and voluntary decisions of buyers and sellers.”

### ### ###

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release

http://www.aynrand.org/

"Universal" Health Care Is Immoral

September 13, 2006

Irvine, CA--"Governor Schwarzenegger should be commended for his commitment to veto the California Health Reliability Act, which seeks to eliminate private medical insurance and establish a state-run health insurance system in California," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the basic issue is not, as the governor indicated, that the system would be too expensive. 'Universal' health care is immoral.

"Health care is not a right. The fact that someone cannot afford the latest medical test or treatment does not entitle him to force others to pay for it--just as he is not entitled to a free gym membership on the grounds it would improve his health.

"There is a crisis in health care, but its cause is government interference in the health care system. The solution is to leave doctors, patients and insurance companies free to deal with each other on whatever terms they choose--not to socialize American medicine."

### ### ###

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand Institute. All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release

Columbus Day Celebrates Western Civilization

October 04, 2007

Irvine, CA--Columbus Day, observed this year on October 8, will celebrate the 515th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of America.

"Although in recent decades Columbus Day has fallen out of favor in many circles, it is vitally important that we continue to celebrate this holiday with pride," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Columbus Day is, at root, a celebration of the worldwide spread of Western civilization--a value that is under attack from multiculturalists at home and Islamic totalitarians abroad.

"Multiculturalism, which rejects the idea that some cultures are superior to others, makes it possible for American Indian activists to get away with castigating Columbus as a 'cultural imperialist,' calling for abolition of his holiday and replacing it with 'Indigenous Peoples Day.' This is outrageous. Contrary to the multiculturalist position, it is possible to demonstrate objectively that one society is superior to another--by the standard of what benefits human life. By this standard, modern industrial society is incomparably superior to the barbaric, tribalistic Stone Age culture of the Indians who predated Columbus.

"Those who attack Columbus Day are attacking the distinctive values of Western civilization that America so proudly embraces--reason, science, individual rights, and capitalism. This is especially dangerous at a time when those exact values are under assault from Islamic totalitarians who terrorize us as part of their quest to destroy our civilization and replace it with a worldwide Islamic theocracy.

"Americans need to understand that their lives and happiness are at stake in the struggle to uphold the core values of Western civilization--a struggle that is epitomized by the continuing controversy over Columbus Day.

"We need not evade or excuse Columbus's flaws--his religious zealotry, his enslavement and oppression of natives--to recognize that he made history by finding new territory for a civilization that would soon show mankind how to overcome the age-old scourges of slavery, war, and forced religious conversion," Bowden said. "On Columbus Day, we must continue to celebrate that civilization, and declare our resolve to defend it against both its intellectual and political enemies."

### ### ###

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

ARI's press releases are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from commercially available databases and from Web sites that have an apparent interest in publication material.

The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Here is the latest ARI release:

One Million Ayn Rand Novels in Classrooms This Year

February 5, 2008

IRVINE, CA--With a shipment of 80,000 books in January, the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has placed more than 1 million copies of Ayn Rand's novels in the hands of high school teachers and their students across North America.

This astounding number of books has been provided for free by ARI, over the last six years, to high school teachers in the United States and Canada, as part of its mission to promote Ayn Rand's ideas in today's culture.

According to Marilee Dragsdahl, ARI's education manager, "Since we began this program in 2002, we sent teachers about 600,000 copies of Anthem, 400,000 copies of The Fountainhead and 50,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged. To date, 20,000 teachers have received and are using in their classrooms the Ayn Rand novels we sent them."

Each school year ARI distributes promotional flyers that offer free classroom sets of Ayn Rand's novels to English and language arts teachers, department heads and principals, as well as selected counselors and high school administrators. "This offer," said Mrs. Dragsdahl, "is available to both public and private high schools throughout the United States. Through this program, which I have been running since its inception, we estimate that almost 2 million students have read and studied Ayn Rand's novels."

"Each teacher who requests these books," explained Mrs. Dragsdahl, "receives a classroom set of the novels, along with a teacher's guide, lesson plans and information about ARI's annual Anthem, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged essay contests, which may well be the largest in the United States. We also offer phone and e-mail support to teachers to facilitate their teaching of the books in their classes. The response has been excellent."

Here is what some of the teachers who received free books from ARI and taught them in their classrooms had to say:

"Students were excited about the novels. They appreciated having their own copy and not having to share with other students. Overall positive experience for everyone involved. . . . Your providing a complimentary classroom set of books was a great offer, as budget constraints are a real issue in our district." (San Diego, CA)

"Our school could not have been more thrilled to receive all those free texts, and our students are gaining so much from them!" (Esparto, CA)

"In an age when we battle a multitude of distractions and apathy, these books have helped ignite a new spark in the classroom." (Victoria, TX)

"[My students] absolutely LOVED The Fountainhead. Over half of the students who read the novel cite major changes in the way they perceive their roles in their own lives. Many students feel that the novel has a life-changing impact, and several students convince friends in other classes to read the novel, as well.” (Carlsbad, CA)

"Students responded [to Anthem] with thoughtful reflection. They were honors 9th graders, and it was the first time they really had a book that presented them with so much to think about." (Covina, CA)

"I love Anthem and The Fountainhead. I have been recommending them to other teachers and students throughout my 20-year career." (Sierra Vista, AZ)

More information on the Free Books to Teachers program is available at the Ayn Rand Institute's Web site, www.aynrand.org/freebooks.

### ### ###

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
I am starting two threads to put the OP-EDS that come out of The Ayn Rand Institute and The Objectivist Center. As I add things, I will link to them so this first post will serve as an index. Inclusion in this thread does not mean that Michael and I endorse or disagree with the views stated in the articles. This is simply a place to see the media releases put out by The Ayn Rand Institute.

ARI's OP-EDs

5/17/06 "Price Gouging" Can't Be Objectively Defined--and Should Not Be a Crime

5/25/06 What We Owe Our Soldiers

6/7/06 Washington's Failed War in Afghanistan

6/14/06 European Governments vs. Apple's Rights

6/21/06 Media Ownership Restrictions Should Be Abolished

7/8/06 The Unlearned Lesson of Ken Lay and Enron

7/10/06 Keep Our "Addiction" to Oil, End Our Allergy to Self-Assertion

Hi Kat,

did you decide not to try to keep track of all the OPEDs? What i see here seems to be only 2006, and not all of that.

some have been replying/posting is with press releases, which is not the same thing obviously. but i think an archive of published OPEDs is a good idea.

i've only just joined your website, and openly share with you that i am employed by TAS. but we at TAS are objective Objectivists and want to know the truth about everything. Through scrutiny is discovered truth and, so, happiness.

yours,

Mat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now