Ed Hudgins

Michael – I again thank you—and on this thread, Brant—for bringing reason and balance to the discourse. I tend to post my pieces and then go on to other pieces or TAS projects; I just don’t have the time to spend in long discussions and, in cases where I judge interlocutors to be beyond hope, it is a waste of my time. But I’ve offered additional thoughts here because we see manifest a problem all-to-prevalent among some libertarians and Objectivists: the dropping of context, the inability to deal with complex situations because of a tendency to want to fit every issue into a black-white straightjacket when, in fact, there are shades of gray, though some of those shades are darker and some clearly lighter. In the discussion here, we don’t see a back and forth over, say, wisdom or folly of Israel’s settlement policies on the West Bank (I say it’s the latter). We see the same sort of moral equivalence error of those who argued decades ago that there was little difference between the Soviet Union and the United States. After all, The U.S. repressed blacks, abused Native Americans, blah, blah, blah. I appreciate that part of the problem is the desire of libertarians to fit a complex reality to any overly-simplistic ideology concerning the nature of the world. But I also argue that there is an epistemological problem, a failure of reason. One of my longer-term projects is to develop materials for teaching and training in thinking and judgment from childhood on. This is not just logic classes. It would certainly build on insights of Montessori but it would be much more. It would involve training against the psycho-epistemological errors outlined so well in Shermer’s The Believing Brain. It would take account of the work in recent decades concerning how a child’s mind actually develops. Exciting stuff, but that’s for a future book!

Brant - Nice summary of the Israeli-Jewish situation. And since I'm arguing that judgments must be made in context, here's an obvious one, indeed, one that defines Israel, about Israeli nukes. Jews have been persecuted and subject to repression and slaughter for millennia. The Zionists from the late 1800s were determined to create a place where Jews could live in peace. The Holocaust confirmed in the most dramatic fashion imaginable how right they were about the dangers. And, of course, Israel was attacked by neighbors at the time of independence and many times since, as well as being subject to terrorist attacks. So the Israeli Jews rightly say, "Never again." So when they see a threat they deal with it firmly. Period. This is serious shit. This is life and death. And Israelis know that culture and values matter. They know the soil from which the governments of their neighbors spring. They try to make peace where they can, eg., with Sadat in Egypt. But, as they saying goes, Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity, and have done so for decades. And the Israelis are not naive. They know that there are millions of Iranians who don't like that country's theocracy and would welcome peace. But they also know that the religious fanatics who rule that country are building nukes which they intend to use to wipe out Israel. So they have no concern for whining critics half a world away with their fingers dancing across keyboards nitpicking this or that policy. The Israelis have their fingers on different buttons. This is life and death. And the Israelis indeed prefer life. That tiny country, between 1994 and 2013, racked up a cumulative GDP of over $3 trillion. That's not from foreign aid. That's from wealth creation. We see technological an medical advances coming out of that country every day. For decades the best Israeli policymakers had hoped their country's economic dynamics would lead its neighbors to be peaceful economic partners. They hoped especially that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank would make trade, not war. But that is still a distant dream. So Israel must be diligent.

Michael – I agree that anti-Semitism in many if not most cases is more than envy. I was thinking specifically of leftist intellectuals, the kind who really hate self-made business folks and the U.S. and Israel that have succeeded generally through the efforts of their citizens. Also I appreciate your efforts, not doubt frustrating, to deal with the confused posts on this site. From some 40 years of observing Objectivists—and being one!—I not that more than a few of them have a serious problem actually using its principles to understand and live in the real world—a distinct problem for a philosophy that upholds objective reality above all else. The problem, as many have observed, is that Objectivism emphasizes dichotomies—either-or, good or evil, etc. But the world is complex. People are complex. Countries are complex. This is not to say that principles are of no use. Quite the contrary, in a complex world they are key to understanding the nuanced nature of the world. But more than a few Objectivists have mastered the skill of making sound, balanced judgments that d get to essentials. The leftist indictment of the United States might provide an object lesson for some of those on this thread who seem unable to make sound judgments about Israel. Leftists will often cherry-pick every negative thing they can from America history—slavery, mistreating native peoples, etc. They add in Marxist fallacies about the wealth of America being “stolen” either from the native peoples—a tough argument since there was virtually nothing here when settlers began flowing in—or from the “workers.” They ignore what is unique and good about America, what sets it off from all other countries in history, what made it the prosperous and free city on a hill that, even in its degraded state, makes it a magnet for millions of immigrants. Has was the subject of my commentary, Israel has its faults. But taken in context, we see that the fundamental values underlying its culture and system are the basically those of life, liberty, and prosperity.

In 2005 I wrote a piece entitled "The Means and Ends of Islamists" which, among other things, looked at Hamas, which now rules Gaza, and the culture from which that collection of authoritarian thugs grew. At this point I am discussing a book by by Robert Pape entitled "Dying to Win": [Concerning] Saeed Hotari, a Palestinian Hamas member who killed 21 Israelis in a 2001 suicide bombing in a disco. Pape explains that for Hamas, a supposedly “political” group, “Mosques are a common recruitment ground.” When Hamas members spot potential candidates, their “leaders initiate a discussion of dying for Allah with small groups of young people and invite those who seem particularly interested to join a special Hamas-led class on Islamic study.” These classes identify potential suicide volunteers, who are further indoctrinated in the Hamas version of Islam. Inevitably, some volunteer to die for the cause. As part of their preparation, recruits are taken to cemeteries, where they are told “to prepare for death by lying between grave sites for hours and to wear a white, hooded shroud normally used to cover bodies for burial.” Later they might be returned to the cemetery, “spending a dozen or more hours in a grave while reciting passages of the Koran.” Later I wrote this which, along with rockets fired from Gaza at Israel to kill Jewish civilians, helps explain why it is so difficult for Israel to follow policies that will empower Hamas: The ultimate value of these fanatics was expressed quite bluntly in 1996 by Osama bin Laden, when he said of his terrorists, “These youth love death as you love life.” Death, in fact, is their ultimate value. They are death worshipers—literally. Consider what many Palestinians think of their sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, friends and relatives who kill themselves in order to murder Jews. The father of suicide bomber Saeed Hotari threw a party to celebrate his son’s act, proclaiming, “I am very happy and proud of what my son did.” Family, friends, and neighbors joined the festivities. From all reports, that seems a fairly typical reaction to such suicides. It reveals the true nature and values not only of the bombers but of the community from which they arise. Some might argue that such actions and attitudes are appropriate because of the injustices visited on the Palestinians. Certainly some Israeli policies depart radically from the principles of individualism, justice, and freedom that should guide a civilized country. But while Israeli policies may have imposed injustices and hardships on many Palestinians, the anti-life values prevalent in Palestinian areas have constituted a far greater impediment to securing their happiness and success.

Michael – One possible motive of leftists for hating Israel is the same motive for hating America: hatred of success and achievement by the envious. But as I indicate in my piece, in the case of some libertarians there is the problem of dropping all context. For example, many of Israel’s secular founders were socialists. But the old-time types did have the correct central value of economic progress and prosperity. They wanted to build in Palestine a state modeled after those advanced countries in Western Europe, though by methods with which we disagree. (They founded Tel Aviv as modern city, not a religious shrine.) This was in sharp contrast to the value hierarchies of the various Arab and Muslim leaders in the region, who tended to be tribalists—more so than the Jews—bent on their own power. Local peasants in Palestine were certainly the victims of those leaders, but they were also still in the medieval mindset. There was a major clash of cultures then as there is now between the pre-modern and the modern. So here is a deep, fundamental contrast in values that some libertarians miss by dropping context and focusing only on the aspects of socialism with which we rightly disagree. Or consider how they made the desert bloom, usually on the worst land, which was the only land Arab landlords would sell Jewish settlers. The kibbutzim were little socialist communes. But membership was voluntary; indeed, the members must accept applicants to be part of their community. And member can leave. Further, there were variations of this model. The moshavim were settlements that allowed members to farm their own plots of land and benefit directly from their own efforts, while core infrastructure was still collectively owned. And given the nature of the initial settlement of Palestine by Jews, even libertarian-minded individuals might opt at the start for this sort of social system. Few would-be settlers at that time had the personal capital with which to purchase land; land was purchased by groups or fraternal organizations. Some libertarians seem to get this fluke in their brains about Israel. They see faults—as do I—and let them grow to strangle their ability to judge in context. I wrote my first piece on Israel 30 years ago this month, about the planned U.S.-Israel free trade area. At that time their GDP was $23 billion, their government spending $23 billion, and their national debt $23 billion. I was very critical of the country’s socialistic economy. My criticisms were meant to be constructive and Israel has improved much since then. The point of my piece was to urge libertarians not drop context and to understand the fundamentals.

Israeli Independence And Libertarian Blindness By Edward Hudgins May 6, 2014 — When Israel declared its independence 66 years ago, pursuant to a UN resolution, David Ben Gurion promised the new state “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.” The next day five Arab countries attacked it with the goal of killing all the Jews or driving them into the sea. To the world’s amazement, the fledgling state won and has continued to build a modern, free society. Today, some American libertarians and friends of freedom, who rightly criticize certain Israeli policies, seem blind to the full context of that country’s struggle and the fundamental principles of its founding. Israel for individuals Modern Israel started in the 1880s with Jews immigrating to Ottoman-ruled Palestine. Jews from Western Europe, many secular, came because, in spite of the Enlightenment revolution, they were still subject to ethnic hate. Jews from Eastern Europe and Russia came because they were subject to ghettoization and murderous pogroms. They purchased land, worked hard, and made the desert bloom, sharing many modern agricultural techniques with local Arab peasants, most living in conditions unchanged for a millennium. They were building a modernist, democratic and open society in the Middle East. When the war of independence came, the government announced that Arab villages that did not take up arms against the new state would be left alone, but the inhabitants of those that did side with the invaders would be sent into exile. The invading armies urged Arabs to flee so they wouldn’t be in the way of the planned destructions of the Jews. Today, Arabs and Muslims are among the citizens of Israel and are regularly elected to the Knesset. Orthodoxy and statism vs. securalism and freedom As a state founded by Jews, Israel has faced its own problems squaring its modernist principles with its religious ones. Its greatest internal threat comes not from its Muslim or Arab citizens but, rather, from the ultra-orthodox Haredi. They live off government handouts and push their Taliban-like rules on more traditional and secular Jews. The most contentious issue that concerns friends of freedom in America and other countries is the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Arab inhabitants find their ability to travel freely curtailed because of the way the boundaries of settlements are drawn. Arab farmers find it difficult to access resources. Other rights are curtailed as well. And there is the deeper problem. Haredim and other elements in Israel contend that what they call “Judea and Samaria” should simply be part of modern Israel because it was part of the ancient kingdom of Israel. In this respect, Israel now looks less like a state upholding the ideals articulated by Ben Gurion and more like an imperial power intent on ruling, never mind about the rights of the Arabs who share that territory. But after years of occupation Israel did pull all of its settlements out of Gaza. This did not result in the inhabitants diving into the enterprises of peace, such as educating their children and building their economy. Rather, they elected Hamas leaders, authoritarian thugs bent on the destruction of Israel, who regularly fire rockets into Israel and who kill any Palestinian advocating peace and coexistence with Israel. So libertarians and friends of freedom must appreciate that while Israel engages in some policies that might be politically foolish and not in keeping with the Enlightenment principles, there is no comparison between it and its current neighbors. We see Egypt and other Arab and Muslims countries still struggling to come to grips with a culture of modernity and principles of an open, tolerant society. Today’s anti-Semitism Today we see anti-Semitism on the rise throughout the world. In Europe we see it in part because of the influence of Muslim immigrants who are not instilled with or initiated into the Enlightenment values that created modern Europe. We see it on American campuses with “boycott Israel” movements. And as Russia moves into Ukraine, we see reports that Jews are being ordered to “register” and that Jews in Odessa are considering an emergency evacuation. Israel appealed to the highest standards at its founding 66 years ago. It should be held to those principles. But friends of freedom must avoid a double standard and realize that the real challenge is for Israel’s neighbors to truly become part of the modern world. Israel, for all its faults, remains a free country. --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information *Edward Hudgins, “Egypt Revolts Against Islamists and Obama.” July 3, 2013. *Edward Hudgins, “Israel Vs. Palestinian Moral Smuggling.” June 10, 2010.

That woman’s not just a random nut but the chair of the Republican Party in Georgia (in case you missed the second sentence). And anti-science guy (who I cover in more detail in another piece) in addition to being a Senate candidate in Georgia is a member of Congress and a member of the House Science committee, voting on our laws. Let me explain the issue this way… No, wait, I just did a whole book on the subject, which you can download for free thru Thursday! So study the chapter on the GOP’s crisis and on social conservatives in The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? Then come back here and I’ll give you a quiz on the material. But don’t worry, it will be short answer and multiple choice. No essay!

Georgia GOP’s Genital Obsession By Edward Hudgins April 9, 2014 - The Georgia GOP leader is working to turn the Republican state Democratic again with her idiotic obsession with her neighbors’ genitals. The party’s state chair, Sue Everhart, said “Lord, I’m going to get in trouble over this [she got that right!], but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married,” adding that “If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship.” As if her concern for other peoples’ “equipment” weren’t bad enough, she went on to explain what she considers a true dangers of same-sex unions: “You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.” Are you serious? I might ask if there’s an epidemic today of hetero friends staging such sham marriages for better benefits since they currently face that temptation. In any case, let’s put Everhart’s silly scenario in political context. Georgia Republicans are going into a primary to select a candidate to run for Senate to replace a retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss. The Democratic nominee will likely be is Michelle Nunn, the daughter of popular former Senator Sam Nunn. Already one of the leading GOPers, U.S. Congressman Paul Broun, has shown himself a fool by loudly denouncing “evolution, embryology, big bang theory” and most of modern science. This ignoramus sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. And now we have Everhart reinforcing the image of the Republican Party as a bunch of yahoos, making a Democratic Senate victory that much more probable. Even if Miss Peach State or the GOP Senatorial hopefuls hold whacky beliefs, they need to shut up about them and worry about getting their own priorities straight rather than worrying about whether their neighbors are straight. Obama and his cronies are growing government control over every aspect of our lives and these are the issues that these Republicans spout off about? This is why the Republican Party needs to go through a radical realignment. The legal and personal relationships that consenting adults make with one another, and which in no way limit the liberty of others, are none of the government’s business. Extreme social conservatives who won’t get with the limited government GOP program should leave the party. If the GOP is to win elections in the future, it must become a modernist party that consistently stands for individual liberty. It must attract new constituents, especially young people looking for futures full of opportunities and the new entrepreneurs who understand the power of the human mind to create such better futures. And this means shedding the likes of Everhart. ---- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? February 2014.*Edward Hudgins, “GOP Helps North Carolina, Georgia Democrats Win.” March 18, 2014

Freedom wins in the end and the book contains one photo: of my two little girls! Rate it and review it on Amazon for maximum impact! Cheers! Ed

Today, Wednesday April 9 from 12:30pm - 1:30 pm EST, I will be interviewed live on the Ben Swann radio show. The subject: My new book The Republican Party's Civil War: Will Freedom Win? Tune in live on the web here: http://benswann.com/radio/

Thanks for downloading! Don't forget to rate and review it on Amazon!

Free Kindle Download: The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? The Atlas Society this week is offering a free Kindle download of The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win, a new, provocative book by Dr. Edward Hudgins. A fratricidal conflict is raging within the Republican Party between establishment Republicans, who simply want to make the welfare state work efficiently, extreme social conservatives who give priority to limiting liberty, and limited-government Republicans who favor freedom. At stake is the GOP’s very soul and whether the party—or the country—has a future at all. Hudgins demonstrates how the GOP is in demographic decline. To survive and win elections, he argues for a radical realignment. Constituencies in the party that reject the restoration of liberty should be allowed—or asked—to leave. A modernist GOP should renew itself with fresh blood: entrepreneurial wealth creators, young people, and immigrants. Download this book between now and Friday! Read it! Then rate it and review it on Amazon so that your voice for liberty will be heard!

NASA Wastes Money On Doomsday Report By Edward Hudgins March 27, 2014 — A NASA-commissioned study predicting civilization’s imminent collapse actually demonstrates what’s wrong with both government and academia. Goddard Space Flight Center commissioned mathematician Safa Motesharrei and his team at the nearby University of Maryland to play Nostradamus. But Motesharrei isn’t calculating the odds of an errant asteroid impacting Earth. He’s not even crystal-balling, based on politicized science, a cataclysm caused by global warming or a new Ice Age, whichever happens to be in vogue. Given that Motesharrei’s group is named the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, we should not be surprised that he blames our coming doomsday, as well as past collapses of civilizations over the millennia, on economic and political factors, not just resource issues. The idea that civilization is about to collapse is so wild that it raises a host of questions. But the existence of the project itself raises a more basic question: “Why on Earth—or any other planet—is NASA wasting taxpayer dollars on such stuff?” NASA is supposed to be pioneering space travel and exploring the solar system, not bankrolling dubious socio-economic studies. Talk about mission creep! Leftist canards But, then, what of the study itself? Did NASA stumble onto some cosmic revelation that allows us overlook its misuse of funds? Hardly! Motesharrei’s study just repeats the usual leftist canards. Motesharrei looks at five factors—population, climate, water, agriculture and energy—and concludes that our society hasn’t long to live because of 1) "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity [of the Earth]” and 2) “the economic stratification of society into Elites [the rich, of course] and Masses (or ‘Commoners’).” He explains that “... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels.” Poor growing richer Wow! The Marxist paradigm is as alive and wrong today as it was in the nineteenth century. Let’s sort out this mess. To begin with, when the term “inequality of wealth” is uttered, everyone on the left and confused folks across the political spectrum have an almost visceral reaction based on the premise that such inequality is immoral as such. It isn’t. Individuals who become more prosperous than others by producing goods and services with which to trade with their fellows are creators who should be celebrated. Individuals who gain more than others through government transfers or special favors are crony expropriators who should be condemned. The moral—and practical—meaning of wealth depends on how one earned it. But Motesharrei’s study is also suggesting, as did Marx, that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer as the ranks of the latter swell. Marx predicted that the result would be the collapse of the capitalist system with socialism to follow. Motesharrei suggests a collapse of civilization and he seems pessimistic about whether a post-apocalyptic paradise can follow. Marx was wrong because he failed to understand that as production skyrocketed because of the efficiencies of the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century, labor as well as capital and other resources came into greater demand. Over time, in a free market economy, all prospered and the “masses” or “Commoners” filled the ranks of the new Middle Class. And key to the spread of prosperity to all was the fact that some individuals are responsible for creating more wealth than others. Think of Henry Ford who figured out how to mass produce automobiles and offer them for a price that the “Commoners” could afford. Or think of the information and telecommunications wizards who in recent decades have put computers in every home and smartphones in every hand. This is why their wealth is “unequal”: they are creators of immense value. Famine of understanding You might think that Motesharrei could easily see that technology today continues the process of enriching all. But, instead, he argues that “Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.” Consumption? Doesn’t increased consumption just mean more of every imaginable convenience of life for those supposed impoverished “Commoners?” Speaking of historical patterns of collapse, he adds that “the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society.” Famine? (Wow! The “Elites” eat that much?) The fact is that after World War II new agricultural techniques and genetically modified strains of wheat and rice that can grow in a wider variety of environments and increase crop yields many-fold have vanquished the prospects of mass starvation. Surely genetically-modified food, if not stopped by governments cow-towing to eco-loonies, will continue to keep us all well-fed. And surely if governments stop mandating that we literally burn food such as corn as “alternative fuels,” a bigger concern will be obese “Commoners” rather than emaciated ones, as we see today in America. The ultimate resource Motesharrei seems to think economic gains are temporary because efficiency always leads to increased consumption which eventually means that resources are depleted. Motesharrei could have avoided his most fundamental error if he had looked to another Maryland professor, the late, great Julian Simon. In his book The Ultimate Resource, Simon showed that there is no resource problem because the ultimate resource is the human mind. Ayn Rand made this point as well by observing that there is no such thing as a “natural resource,” that there is only raw material in our universe, raw material that human beings learn—by the use of their minds—to utilize for their survival and well-being—raw material we can make into spaceships that can travel to the Moon and the planets! Which brings us back to NASA. If Motesharrei were right, if we’re all doomed in the coming decades, then NASA’s own projects are for naught and it should simply shut down. But since NASA was foolish enough to sponsor that study, it should probably shut down in any case! ---- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “It’s Getting Better All the Time -- Book review of Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler, Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think.” *William R Thomas, “Why Ecology Requires Economics -- Book review of Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.”

GOP Helps North Carolina, Georgia Democrats Win By Edward Hudgins March 18, 2014 -- Leading candidates for the 2014 North Carolina and Georgia Republican nominations for Senate are throwing the election to Democrats. Planned pandering Let’s begin in North Carolina where Senator Kay Hagan, a Democrat, is very vulnerable. Greg Brannon is the frontrunner for the GOP primary to challenge her. Speaking about Planned Parenthood, Brannon alleged that “They said we already know abortion is fine, why stop in the womb? Why not three months after? Why should we end the responsibility at that point? It could happen in America. Florida's trying to do it right now and so is Georgia.” This is not true. One Planned Parenthood lobbyist in Florida, as slow-witted as some Republicans, was asked what a Planned Parenthood physician should do in case an abortion actually results in a live birth. Instead of giving the obvious answer to this no-brainer, she said she’d have to check on the Planned Parenthood position. Planned Parenthood in Florida then stated unambiguously that physicians should “provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant.” It’s one thing to oppose government funding of Planned Parenthood and abortions—and much else. It’s another thing to sound like a dogmatic ideologue who will make up anything to smear an opponent in order to pander to potential voters. Georgian with no mind Mosey down the Atlantic coast to Georgia and you’ll find Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican, retiring and creating an open seat that you’d expect the GOP to easily hold. But the Democrat frontrunner for that seat is Michelle Nunn, the daughter of popular former Senator Sam Nunn. And in the top three of the crowded Republican primary field is U.S. Congressman Paul Broun. In a video addressing a church audience, Broun asserts that “God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, big bang theory—all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.” He went on to assert that the Earth is only about 9,000 years old. Unbelievably, this ignoramus serves on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Double damage Extreme social conservatives like these two do double damage to the GOP. First, they tend to lose elections. Both Todd Aikin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana lost Senate races in 2012 in part based on their inane remarks about abortion. And in Virginia, not only did Ken Cuccinelli’s socially-conservative views contribute to his loss in the governor’s race in 2013, E.W. Jackson, the GOP candidate for lieutenant governor, looked foolish as well for his assertion (in a book) to the effect that biological evolution is disproven because chimpanzees can’t talk. Such blinkered, dogmatic, and irrational Republicans scare away not only independent voters but also the emerging class of socially-liberal entrepreneurs that might turn to a pro-free market party if not for such embarrassing candidates. Second, such extreme social conservatives empower the “let’s just make the welfare state work better” establishment Republicans like Karl Rove who rightly want to see fewer of Brannon and Broun types running under the GOP banner. Compared to such conservatives, even the RINOs can sound reasonable. The Republicans need to get their priorities straight and focus on the need to roll back the scope of government. They would do well to keep their views on theology to themselves. They’re not running for pope. Only a modernist GOP will be able to succeed in the twenty-first century. ------- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, editor, The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? February 2014. *Edward Hudgins, “GOP Should Invite Social Conservative Extremists to Leave.” April 5, 2013. *Edward Hudgins, “Republicans Help Virginia Evolve to Democrats.” June 12, 2013.

Obama Endangers Israel By Edward Hudgins March 7, 2014 — President Obama’s ignorance, arrogance, and warped morality are endangering Israel and making another Middle East war more likely. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Obama this week. In an interview in advance of the meeting, Obama declared, “The U.S. won’t be able to defend Israel if peace talks fail. If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.” He went on to offer the barely-concealed threat that Israel could face international isolation and sanctions from countries and companies unnamed. We can debate the extent to which Obama’s statements are ignorant, malicious, or both. But let’s look to the facts to put Israel’s situation in its full context. Seeking life and freedom Jews began their modern migration to what was then Ottoman-ruled Palestine in the 1880s to escape anti-Semitism and pogroms. Many of those pioneers brought with them Enlightenment and modernist values. Many Jews settled in cities like Haifa and they founded their new city, Tel Aviv. Others purchased what was considered useless land from Arab landlords and created productive farming communities, often sharing their agricultural techniques with impoverished local Arabs. And because the Ottomans and, after World War I, the British rulers could not protect the Jews, they formed self-defense forces. This was a matter of life or death. After World War II, with thousands of Holocaust survivors seeking entry into Palestine, the Jews finally gained U.N. approval for a new independent state. The State of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948, with the founders offering equal rights to Arabs, Muslims, and Christians in a multi-ethic community. The next day Israel was attacked by five Arab nations bent on driving the Jews into the sea. To the world’s surprise, the new state beat back the Arab armies and survived. This was a matter of life or death. The Arabs and Muslim inhabitants who did not take arms against the new state and, thus, were not sent into exile, remained in Israel and, along with their descendants, became Israeli citizens with rights not enjoyed elsewhere in the Arab world. Seeking peace Since independence Israel has been attacked many times by its national-state neighbors as well as by terrorist groups that specialize in murdering innocent men, women, and children. Israel has extended its borders and occupied territory to ensure its security. And it has given back territory when it has been able to make peace with former enemies, a peace that recognizes and ensures Israel’s right to exist. Israel is at peace for example, with Egypt and Jordan. It has been a matter of life or death. The Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank have been the most contentious issues in recent decades. While some West Bank settlements might serve security purposes, most settlements have become liabilities, created resentment and, in the end, should be dismantled, with any associated property rights issues dealt with. In 2006, Israel did pull all its settlements and troops out of Gaza. But the inhabitants did not turn to building their economy, educating their children, and other enterprises of peace. Rather, the terrorist group Hamas took over, vowing to destroy Israel. Hamas regularly fires rockets into Israel and murders Palestinians who seek peace. In 2009, Netanyahu froze new settlement construction in the West Bank in order to bring the Palestinians back into peace talks. His government has always maintained that the future of the settlements would be dealt with in a final peace agreement. And this week he said, “Of course some of the settlements won’t be part of the deal, everyone understands that.” But he indicated that most settlements would be dismantled when he said “I will make sure that [the number remaining] is as limited as possible.” It is in this context that Obama makes his outrageous pronouncements that assume 1) that the Palestinians long for peace, and 2) that the Israelis are the only thing standing in the way. Israel is hardly a perfect society. It has its own internal conflicts between secular and religious Jews. But a fundamental problem for the peace process is that Israel is a prosperous, open society with a culture of modernity in a region of countries and peoples still struggling to overcome authoritarian or theocratic systems rooted pre-modern cultures. Israel wants a peace that will ensure its survival, but it has good reasons to be suspicious of its neighbors, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza most of all. Iran rising Israel now faces another mortal threat from the theocratic fanatics who rule Iran, who are the chief exporters of terrorism, who vow to wipe our Israel, and who are developing nuclear weapons with which to do so. This is a matter of life or death. Obama’s recent agreement with Iran does little to slow its development of nukes, and the Iranians publicly ridicule him; General Masoud Jazayeri called Obama “the low-IQ U.S. president” and declared the effectiveness of U.S. options “a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children.” A strong, principled American president, Republican or Democrat, might be able to deal with the complex Middle East situation. But Obama’s lack of any moral compass makes it more likely that Israel will need to act unilaterally to prevent a mushroom cloud from wiping out Tel Aviv. It will be a matter of life or death. ---Edward Hudgins is Director of Advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: Edward Hudgins, “Israel vs. Palestinian Moral Smuggling.” June 5, 2010. Edward Hudgins, “Iran And Obama’s Hollow Moral Core.” June 25, 2009. David Kelley, "Does Islam Need a Reformation?" Spring, 2011 William Thomas, “Free World Order.” November 9, 2011.

Leftists Celebrate Anti-Semites By Edward Hudgins February 28, 2014 — Who we celebrate as heroes says much about ourselves. The celebration by leftists of two anti-Jewish nuts is an advertisement of the celebrants’ own moral sickness and hypocrisy. Ruling lizardsIn February, Leftist bastion PBS aired a documentary entitled Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth. Walker won a Pulitzer Prize for her 1982 novel The Color Purple, which was made into motion picture. Walker is also a fan of the lunatic delusions British ex-sportscaster and Green Party spokesman David Icke. In an interview last year Walker said of Icke, “What I was remembering was how he called our oppressors ‘blue eyed devils.’ Now who could that have been? Well, we see them here in David Icke’s book as the descendants of the reptilian race that landed on our sweet planet.” You read it right folks. This is not an Onion story. Icke believes that our world is ruled by an Illuminati Brotherhood of interplanetary reptilians from the constellation Draco who are disguised as humans, come here to steal “monatomic gold,” which supposedly has magical powers. If you stifle your gag reflex and get through the particulars of Icke’s insanity you would not be wrong to think it sounds like an interplanetary version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Icke is an admirer of that notorious anti-Semitic forgery. This suggests something about the weird workings of the minds of those prone to invent bizarre conspiracy theories to explain the problems of the world, with a focus on secret cabals. Attacking JewsWhich brings us back to Walker. Has she done anything recently that might call her to the attention of PBS? Well, last year she published a book entitled, The Cushion in the Road. In it she compares Israelis to Nazis, declares that Israel has no right to exist, and defends terrorist attacks on Israelis. Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman says that "Walker has sunk to new lows with essays that remove the gloss of her anti-Israel activism to reveal someone who is unabashedly infected with anti-Semitism.” Walker is not simply arguing against particular policies of the Israeli government; that’s fair game. Instead, she perpetuates the same hatred that has plagued Jews for centuries. And she gives a pass to the Islamist thugs in the Middle East and those among her beloved Palestinians who oppose every civilized and Enlightenment value. And she is celebrated by PBS. Double standardWhen Mel Gibson makes anti-Jewish or racist slurs, liberals and leftists demand that he do the whole apology tour thing. Gibson is white and a Christian, though a particularly nutty version. But to show their “tolerance,” the liberals and leftists go out of their way to honor Walker, who is black, ignoring the bigotry she perpetrates. Leaders black and white should seek to overcome bigotry, promoting the goal of judging individuals by their merits rather than by membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. These liberals and leftists deserve perhaps as much damnation as Walker. They should know better and it is their double standard that props up such haters.----- Edward Hudgins is Director of Advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

Obama's Subtle "You Didn’t Build That" Rhetoric By Edward HudginsJanuary 31, 2014 -- If you missed President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address or forgot about it as soon as he uttered the obligatory “God bless the United States of America,” you have at least this in common with your fellow Americans. But in an election year it is useful to reflect on what Obama did in his address so you can anticipate how he might be selling his statism in the months to come. Peppered propaganda Obama did not do what his PR folks had telegraphed to us, that is, hammer “inequality”—i.e., the need to steal from the makers to give to the takers—or, in leftist-speak, to make things “fair.” Oh, that goal was there in his policy prescriptions, but he wrapped redistribution in a rhetoric that would appeal to middle-of-the-spectrum Americans rather than hard-core expropriators. He peppered his propaganda with words like “responsibility.” He used the word “work” 67 times, often in variations like “hard-working.” And to appeal to all the out-of-work and out-of-the-workforce Americans, he used the word “job” 38 times. He highlighted and praised some entrepreneurs. Maybe this was his way of making the entrepreneurs sitting right there in the House chamber in front of him as well as those watching on TV forget that in 2012 he told them, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Collective credit Of course, he gave the government credit for the achievements of others or argued, by implication, that private parties could achieve little without the state. Thus, he said, “My administration has launched two hubs for high-tech manufacturing in Raleigh and Youngstown, where we’ve connected businesses to research universities that can help America lead the world in advanced technologies.” Gee, how would such a thing ever happen without billions of dollars in federal deficit spending? And speaking of “jobs,” how did the one named “Steve” manage to bring his business from an operation in his parents’ garage to the star of Silicon Valley without heavy government handouts? It is with the sort of rhetoric he used in the State of the Union speech that Obama and his ilk subtly imprint collectivism in the hearts and minds of Americans. They fuzzy up the picture. They speak of the activities of entrepreneurs and the help from or “partnership” with government in the same breath. Then who achieved what will blend together in people's minds. So, business folks, Obama’s sticking with “You didn’t build that.” Phony CEO Obama was posing as the benevolent CEO of America, directing us all and bestowing on us benefits—health care, pay raises, whatever we want. But, of course, the country is in such precarious economic shape because of his policies. He’s not the CEO. The country is not his “company” to manage. He’s the doctor who breaks our legs and then offers quack remedies that in the long run only exacerbate our pain. And he charges an outrageous price, which includes the loss of our liberty and the destruction of the Constitutional system of checks and balances established by our Founders. In his State of the Union address, Obama simply repackaged his collectivist and authoritarian ideology. So, if you missed it, you didn’t miss anything new. But you should be aware that he’s pushing the same old poison that continues to kill the country. ------ Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: Edward Hudgins, “Obama’s Grab-Bag Socialism.” April 4, 2009. Edward Hudgins, “Obama’s Poison For Entrepreneurs.” July 24, 2012. Edward Hudgins, “Fighting For Freedom Against Reelected Obama.” November 7, 2012.

Barbara at a California TAS conference. Roger B - Your girl?

If Talia had been looking at me in that photo, you wouldn't see as much of her lovely face! But here's a photo of us both looking at the camera, doing our "Doctor Zhivago" thing!

A Happy New Year 2014 to all my friends at OL, especially Michael Stuart Kelly and Kat! (Note that our full-of-energy twins have an easier time staying awake past midnight than mommy and daddy!)

A 2014 New Year's Wish By Edward HudginsDecember 31, 2013 – A new year is usually a time when we recommit ourselves to making a difference in our own lives, when we reflect on our past achievements--and, perhaps, shortcomings--and anticipate with excitement the opportunities that tomorrow will offer. I hope you’ll take a moment to check out “Every Day a New Year,” one of my past pieces in which I offer hope. A new year also means pondering the past and presaging the future of our politics and culture. I see the future in the past--and, thus, reason for optimism. Looking back On the political front, we saw in the past year the welfare state continue to collapse under its own contradictions. Obamacare not only made clear, even to many blinkered Barack backers, the gross incompetence of government. It also saw too few healthy young Americans—many of them early Obama boosters—agreeing to sacrifice their own self-interest by signing up to pay outrageously high insurance rates in order to foot the bill for the system. And it saw more and more physicians refusing to participate. Atlas was shrugging. We saw in the past year revelations about government spying on almost everyone in the world. This made clear even to many who saw the state as a soft, benevolent puppy that, in fact, it is a monster growing more ravenous for total power and total control over our lives. We saw in the past year lying by paternalist politicians taken to a new level, showing that deceit is essential to the statist. And we saw in the past year mainstream recognition of a libertarian alternative to Democrats who want to control our pocketbooks and Republicans who want to control our pants. But for skepticism about the state to transform society, a philosophical revolution is necessary. Atlas on the offensive And this is why I say that I see the future in the past--and, thus, reason for optimism. Last year, my Atlas Society colleagues and I continued our outreach to the young people who are our future. I’ve enjoyed sharing ideas with so many folks who are excited about their own lives and, thus, who want a free society in the future. And last year, especially through our Business Rights Center, my Atlas Society colleagues and I reached out to even more entrepreneurs and business folks, those who help make our world prosper, who are persecuted for the virtue of being creative and productive. And last year my Atlas Society colleagues and I revved up production of insightful videos on Objectivist philosophy. And I’m excited about the new year because we have plans to build on these past achievements so that we can really make a difference. Freedom to flourish This brings me back to personal renewal and making a difference in our own lives. The reason a free society with a rational culture is to be sought is that it offers us opportunities to flourish and prosper as individuals. So I hope for 2014 that you seek, above all else, these goals, and that you have a Happy New Year! ------ Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

My thoughts about SOLOPassion are mixed. Linz and I have had some well-publicized disagreements, most recently concerning Barbara Branden. (I don’t think that he is freezing SOLO because Barbara is gone.) I am interested in what ideas he will develop concerning aesthetics. But I’ll offer two criticisms apart from those already offered on this thread. First, I do think that advocacy involves both making rational arguments and stirring up passions, in Lindsay’s word, KASS. But the passions should never block one’s own clear thinking. I thing they often do in his case. Second, I do agree that it is important for people to have heroes. But we need to put admiration in context. Some might write off Thomas Jefferson as a contemptible villain because he owned slaves. But so, unfortunately, did many men. The difference was the Jefferson also helped forge a free country—at least for whites—based on the moral principle of individual rights. In this he was a hero. But to say he was a hero is not to ignore his faults, e.g. owning slaves. There’s a tendency for some hero-worshippers to see a situation as too black and white when there are, in fact, shades of gray involved. While I welcome hero worship, justice mandates that we not ignore the full context and reality of individuals. For the sake of argument, let’s say that Barbara Branden was wrong about Linz and alcohol. I thought she overstated the case. But to say this is not to ignore all of the wonderful things about Barbara about which I’ve posted. Perhaps for Linz it was easier to throw out the baby with the bathwater and to simply launch a jihad against what he demonizes as evil. But that is injustice. (I fault Valiant most of all. To say his book was one-sided and unjust hack job is an understatement.) I hope as Linz takes time off from SOLO to reflect on Objectivism and aesthetics that he puts passion in its rightful place, under the rule of reason. I know he’ll disagree with me here and protest that he does so already. Well, he and I also disagree on just how bad off the world is today. He thinks we’re doomed and there’s no stopping a collapse. I agree that things are bad but I do see reasons for hope. Perhaps he’s right and there’s little hope for the world or for him changing. I hope he’s wrong. We shall see.

Thought you'd like to know that Lindsay Perigo has announced that SOLOPassion will cease to be active as of January 1, 2014. He wants to take time to develop his ideas about Objectivism and aesthetic renewal. As I've posted there, and as most of you know, Linz and I have had some serious differences. But I've also appreciated his interest in aesthetics among other things. I do wish him the best in his new pursuits. While I hope he doesn't lose his passion--can't imagine that!--I do hope that perhaps our differences will diminish has he comes to more subtle understanding of many matters. We shall see.

Thanks Michael! Hope you guys can get to the Summer Seminar, this year in New Hampshire!

Happy Holidays And The Synergy Of The Season By Edward HudginsDecember 23, 2013 – As we approach the end of the year, I hope all of you are in a holiday mood. I certainly am! (Ed and Talia with Sophia and Allegra) During the year, I tend to focus in my blogs on politics and culture, and too often on what is seriously wrong with them. But the whole point of living in a free society and a healthy, rational culture is that we can focus on our own pursuits, our own dreams, and the things in life that we, as individuals, love. One of the things I enjoy is producing my commentaries; I hope you find them informative and enlightening. And as my twins approach their third birthday, I find my self-discipline seriously challenged; I want to write reams and reams about just how happy and fulfilled I am as a father! I hope each of you take the time to reflect on those things that give you joy. There’s a synergy in this season, when we each take joy in our own lives and see the joy of others. To enhance your holiday mood, I offer my past reflections on “The Four ‘Cs’ Of Christmas.” And here are some thoughts I offered on “Why We Give Gifts.” I wish you all the very happiest of holidays!