Mike Renzulli

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/resignation-of-john-mccaskey-facts.html

Not altogether surprising but I don't think it was a good idea for John McCaskey to post the e-mail nor follow up with comments. I realize Dr. McCaskey should have the right to dissent, however this looks like had he not resigned McCaskey would have been another notch on Leonard Peikoff's belt of ousting people who disagree with him.

I have tried looking for the actual source but am unable to find it. However, I do recall hearing or reading somewhere that a Hamas leader made such a statement. Yet your answers, while condemning attacks don't seem to be the same as condemning terrorism neither have you condemned Hamas specifically. You see, a Fox News reporter pressed a representative of the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a recent news report to condemn Hamas but he would not. The CAIR rep instead side-stepped the question stating that CAIR denounced terrorism and I believe Hezbollah but not Hamas. It has been discovered by an FBI investigation that CAIR has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Thanks to President Obama, the USDOJ bagged a prosecution or investigation into the matter further. Your answers to mine seem vaguely similar to the CAIR spokesperson's answer. So I will ask you once again: do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization and the statement made by the group's leader that I quoted geared to kill the Jews?

It was a serious mistake for the Republicans to cave on the government shut down and many of the things they campaigned on with the Contract With America in the mid 1990's. The 2000's were mixed as I have come to appreciate the Presidency of George W. Bush yet their spending money like drunken sailors is obviously one of the factors that did them in at the polls. Like you I hope the Republicans do better this time and it looks like they just might. Recent news reports lead me to conclude they have become more ideological since many conservatives have heeded the call by Rush Limbaugh as per the speech he gave at a CPAC conference not too long ago to, essentially, embrace principles over pragmatism. The Republicans have become much more libertarian than they have in recent years since they are emphasizing economic issues rather than social ones, respectfully. The L.P. for all of its merits was geared to be a educational platform for libertarians as well as one that would do advocacy politics. The problem is that many now want to get elected at any cost even at the expense of the party's core philosophy. Not a good idea for an ideologically driven political party.

This past May I left the Libertarian Party after 12 years and switched to the Republican Party. I was an officer with the L.P. on the state and county level for the last 4 years of my involvement. The reason for my switch was, in part, due to the L.P.'s opposition to the War on Terrorism (on which I have come around) and Obama and the Democrat's socialist agenda. Mainly the enactment of their health care bill. Any lack of differences between the Republicans and Democrats have been erased due to the bailouts, spending, appeasement of radical Islamists and Obamacare. Likewise, a vote cast for a third party candidate (such as a Libertarian or Green) will be wasted since the candidate that can reverse the Obamanomics enacted could be defeated due to votes siphoned away. At best, the best reason to vote Republican is, at the very least, to reverse the crap Obama and Congressional Democrats have pushed through. Hopefully the G.O.P. will gain the majority in Congress and in the state legislatures. Doing so can help stave off anymore nonsense Obama, Pelosi and Reid want to implement. As much as I would like the Libertarian Party to be viable, the unfortunate fact is that they have one major hurdle that inhibits the L.P. from being able to achieve major party status: the first-past-the-post voting method. If the U.S. had ranked choice or single-transfer voting then voters could rank candidates in order of their preference. The way things are now, people have to choose the lesser of two evils. In countries that have alternate voting methods (like Germany) they have viable libertarian-leaning political parties such as the Free Democrats. Until the method of voting and overall culture is changed in the U.S. voters (including libertarians) will have to either not vote or choose candidates from one of the two major parties. The Republican Party is probably as close the U.S. will get to having a libertarian political party. Thoughts anyone?

Hm! I do not see an answer to my question. Perhaps my question was not clear. I will ask this way. One of the heads of Hamas was quoted recently saying he opposed the end of Israel because it would make it easier for his organization to hunt down and kill the Jews. So you support this policy or are you against it? Ah the age old question.. Does one condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization? I had a feeling someone might ask.. I hope you're not looking for a Yes or No answer to that.. I believe there are more than 100 different definitions for terrorism out there so to respond to you with a yes or no, would be unbecoming of anyone that has any intellect. Unless of course, you're a shock jock on the radio or Bill O'Reilly and in those cases the general public seems to accept it.. Which is just stupid and simply a game I don't wish to play. In an article for the NY Times Bruce Hoffman noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism." So as you can see it's a loaded question that takes on the assumption that a terrorist organization has a specific meaning.. However, if we're looking at terrorism as a specific tactic. That is, a type of guerrilla warfare aimed at harming the infrastructure that is used by a government, army or organization as it was used in the US War of Independence to gain freedom for Americans from the British and establish the USA. Which was a good thing.. Or as it was used in Afghanistan to push the Communists occupiers out of that country.. Or as it was and still is taught to Western intelligence agencies like MI6 and the CIA as well as special forces units like the British Special Air Service and the US' Delta Force to use on Russia should Russia ever attack then that is, in my opinion, a legitimate tactic of warfare. So the question is, when is this tactic justified to be used? I believe it is justified when the tactic is used to try and destroy, impede or remove the ability for a government, army or organization to wage an unjust oppression against innocent people.. I can also say very clearly that even though I am not a part of the military apparatus of New Zealand nor even a citizen here, if New Zealand (God forbid) were to ever be attacked and invaded then I would most certainly resist such an invasion and would definitely employ those 'terrorist' tactics against the occupying army, its infrastructure and any puppet government they tried to set up here. Of course, that is conditional.. It's not just a free for all.. In any type of warfare, including this type of guerrilla warfare I do condemn and would never support nor partake in any attack intended at harming unarmed civilians not engaged in warfare against me and believe the most utmost care should be taken to avoid casualties of unarmed civilians.. That would include condemning attacks that are directed at harming unarmed Israelis..

Adonis, Do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization?

Since Barbara posted an endorsement of The Intellectual Activist while advising of a trail offer for the newsletter, I wanted to post a deal (link below) I took advantage of a few weeks back. I have just subscribed to The Wall Street Journal and have found the paper to be a great source of not only international news but also on politics and (of course) business. I found a coupon where you can get a 4 weeks free subscription to WSJ's website that expires at the end of August. Best of all, rather than pay the subscription all at once, WSJ will take monthly installments that average to about $9 a month. The New York Times recently announced they will adopt a subscription-based website is a sign of things to come for internet-based news and their decision spurned me to locate a good news source other than The Grey Lady and in addition to Fox News. I have found The Wall Street Journal to be an outstanding source of news and commentary. http://www.theexaminingroom.com/coupons/wallstreetjournal.html

Okay that settles it. Since Barbara has given TIA her thumbs up, I will jump on the bandwagon. Until recently I didn't know TIA's head Robert Tracinski was purged from ARI due to a disagreement he had with Leonard Peikoff. But if Barbara and Robert Bidinotto like The Intellectual Activist, I think TIA is definitely worth checking out. Out of respect to Robert Tracinski and to honor his work I have linked to TIA at my Objectivist club's website too. I am glad Tracinski stuck to his guns despite being kicked out of ARI. I have read samples of articles posted at TIA's website and they are pretty good! I understand why the naysayers are not too keen to TIA and respect their dissent. But I will give the magazine a try. I can't wait to start reading it!

Jerry's reasons match my own about OL. I like posting and interacting with other people here very much. Overall, the people who paruse these boards are good folk. That includes the ones who run it too.

I don't like many facets of THE PATRIOT ACT but now believe, overall, we need it in order to combat terrorism. I also bounced the idea of restricting the ability of facilities for cults being built or being able to exist off of Edward Cline on Facebook and he gave a very good response. He stated that people join cults of their own volition (which is true) and that no Scientologist or Moonie has ever flown a jet airliner into a skyscraper nor made it a point to conduct a suicide bombing. He went on to point out that children born and raised in Muslim environments literally become Muslims for life and their ability of volition is crushed. Despite being irrational, cult religions (like the Moonies and Scientologists) are not aggressive beligerent creeds and are not a threat to this country. I largely agree with his point and can understand the logic behind his reasoning on Islam itself. Fortunately, despite assurances of death if one leaves, many people DO leave Islam and nothing ever happens to them. However, I am sure Muslims who leave the faith are largely concentrated in western countries and those who do want to leave Islam in countries where it is prominent are discouraged from doing so or are severely punished.

I tend to agree with this statement, understand and respect where you are coming from. Nth I also thank you for posting the columns. Yet in terms of the overall debate on this subject, what the Imam who is speaking for and leading this effort has not only said but will not do in terms of condemning actual terrorist groups (like Hamas) for their activities I think suspicion and opposition to this is warranted. If an enemy is involved in a deception there are ways to find out either by observing what they do and also what they say. In the case of the Cordoba Project the fact that, according to an op-ed in Forbes mag, Imam Rauf is now traveling throughout middle eastern countries on the State Department dime on a multicultural-oriented trip could mean that he will simultaneously try to convince monarchs of Muslim countries to help pay for it. One of the places Rauf is visiting is Saudi Arabia. As many of you may know, the country outlaws facilities and maybe even the existence of religions other than Islam and is known to help pay for the construction of mosques worldwide. To the best of my knowledge, the Saudis have not done very much to halt the spread of the Wahabbist <sp> theology that was taught in Saudi schools (madrassas) until the U.S. complained about it back when Bush was President and terrorism was at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. I understand the most Muslims may not want to or will not do what they are told or are advocated by their spiritual leaders. The ones who don't participate in violence and truly want to live in peace should be praised, supported as well as allowed to associate in manners of their choosing. However, Muslims who advocate or participate in activities that promote terrorism or participate in such causes are another matter and should be dealt with harshly. Not far from where I live an Islamic center is going up where the imam the center just hired was one of the 6 flying imams. The group were removed from a USAirways flight in 2006 because the flight staff concluded they acted suspiciously. The imams then later sued with the help of CAIR's legal arm and were given settlement money last year. Some of the imams involved in the incident have been linked to Islamic extremist groups. In fairness I have not seen any evidence that the imam in charge of the Phoenix center is associated with any extremist groups and a review of the Islamic center's website indicates the group that meets there is friendly to outsiders. This tells me that the Islamic center here is probably void of any influences of the radical jihadists and I feel comfortable that it will not be a magnet or harbor for radical Islam. With the radicalization of Faisal Shazad I am very concerned about efforts like Cordoba as well as the potential for radical Islam to come about moreso in this country. Especially since the seeds of it growing much more than it has in the U.S. are there. Unless Cordoba is stopped it would mean a victory for Islamic Jihadists.

I may have been critical of Leonard Peikoff in the past but on this point I have to agree. The fact is that the U.S. government is at war with radical Islam and not the religion itself. By Imam Rauf (who is heading up the project) sidestepping a question posed to him about Hamas is certainly telling of where his loyalties lie. For example, back in May David Horowitz pinned down a UCSD student (who happened to be Muslim) with this point during a Q&A session he gave at a YAF conference held on campus. The student in question tried to dodge answering Horowitz's question on whether or not she condemned Hamas. It wasn't until Horowitz quoted a statement from a Hamas commander that he hoped Israel would still remain in existence since it would make his job of killing the Jews easier (essentially pinning the student down from another angle) if she favored or opposed the Hamas commander's statement that the student finally admitted she was for it which means she supports Hamas and its goal of exterminating the Jews. Edward Cline brought up a good point in an essay he posted about this subject a short time ago. He points out that the City of New York approved the sale of the New Yorker Hotel to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's religion in 1994. The hotel now exists as somewhat of a revenue stream for the Unification Church. The City of New York is going to help enable radical Islam just like it helped enable Moon's cult in 1994 which (as many of you may know) is known to subject its members to brain washing and seperating people from their families. I would not want this center near my property anymore than I would want a center for Scientology or Moon's religion close by either. In the case of the Mosque it will be used as an outlet to spread the ideas of radical Islam which, in turn, will contribute to inspiring more Muslims to become terrorists. The fact is that the U.S. and its allies are at war with the radical strains of Islam which includes the Imams and members of the religion who subscribe to it and the countries and groups who support this theology and terrorist activities. Since that is the case it is proper for government to prevent the sale of a structure and even seize properties or assets of groups or individuals that assist in the spread of this vile, evil ideology. I believe the city of New York acquired the building in question via condemnation that, in turn, makes it the landlord. If the suit against this property sale is successful then you can thank New York City and Mayor Bloomberg for helping to allow the placement of an enemy army literally in our our front yards. To further expand on this point I would also dare to argue that since government is created to protect individual rights it has the right to prevent groups (such as cults) that indulge in involuntary mind control, indoctrination and other activities that involve involuntarily seperating people from their loved ones and friends from being able to create or erect structures or acquire assets so that they can perpetrate their activities and spread their ideas.

Jerry, I apologize for the delay in responding to this but HOLY MACKERAL you hit it right on the head! I would love to read what Krathammer and George Will had to say about Iran too since I agree with you and them that the Iranian coup was justified. Please link to them sometime. You are correct there were certain points of U.S. policy that she criticized but, by and large, she was correct and the U.S. had to act aggressively in order to stop the U.S.S.R. and communism from dominating the world. Thanks so much for this as you said what I have wanted to say for a long time. I lacked the clarity in order to articulate what you have put down all along.

I think the only person being delusional is the author of this essay. She cannot prove her premise and yet relies on ad-hoc accusations and red herrings to make her case. What is disturbing is that the author may have not ever read Hirsi Ali's book Infidel or, if she did, went into reading the book with pre-concieved notions as to what the book is about and/or ignorance about Islam. I base my relationships on the kind of relations I have with others regardless of their race or religion. If they do not try to decieve or lie to me and do not commit acts of aggression against me I will trade and might even look to start a friendship or acquaintance of some kind with them. I have no problem trading and being in relations with Muslims so long as they do not commit acts of violence against me or anyone else. In terms of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's experience, the fact that she has to live in hiding with body guards since her life is still in danger as the result of her work speaks volumes of the people who she has angered. Hirsi Ali has obviously told the truth or those who want her killed or attempt to slander her reputation would instead seek to engage, debate, or discuss her experiences and points in an effort to prove her wrong. Having been a Christian for over 30 years I can associate a similar experience to what Ms. Hirsi Ali went through. Though I did not have my genitals mutiliated, like her ability to think, my ability to think nearly was. Fortunately, and thanks to Ms. Rand's philosophy, I have been able to not only assert my individuality but my sanity and live a life of reason and rationality too. Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves a Nobel Prize for her efforts. I will not hold my breath that the Nobel Committee will give her one due to the fact that they have given people like Al Gore and Paul Krugman awards.

Yes the movie is entertainment for those looking for a good .... er .... great movie to catch. To answer your question, yes the spinning top did wobble at the end.

Monica and I went to see Inception last night. All I can say is: Run, don't walk, to see it! Aside from it having a great storyline, acting, special effects, etc. this is a film every Objectivist would adore! I was drooling with the themes displayed in this film and it's final message. Inception not only delves into the nature of reality but also answers philosophical questions such as: Does existence exist? and Do you know what you think you know? If so, how do you know? The movie is a combo sci-fi and action film that takes place in the present focusing on a team of individuals who place themselves in people's dreams in order to extract information and manipulate people usually for reasons of a clandestine nature and are for hire. However, despite the actions of the team not being moral due to their attempts at manipulation, this is not the main focus of the movie. What Inception is about is Leonardo DiCaprio's character (Dom Cobb) struggling with philosophical contradictions and his attempts to make sense of them and overcome them. I won't go more into details but agree with one reviewer said Inception is the best film of the 21st Century!

Hi Rich, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. This was a very nice and thoughtful event that happened. Thanks for sharing it and for your condolences. I think its great you celebrated your life with your marriage despite the passing away of your friend. He sounds like he was a remarkable individual. My mom was too. I am sure, despite his passing on, your friend would have wanted you to go on with your marriage and it is good that you did. Monica and I will be going on with mine despite my mom's passing away. I think its the best way to commemorate her memory by showing that I am going on with my life and enjoying it. Like your friend, I am sure that's what my mom would have wanted.

I apologize for the delay in responding to you. I am not entirely sure what Dawkins said in his book with regards to this which is why I included maybe in my original post. I will check his book The God Delusion today and see what he actually says unless you would like to quote from The Gold Delusion and tell us Dawkins's views on death and dying from the book itself. Dawkins has stated in articles I have find on the internet that fear of death is illogical. Christopher Hitchens made a very good point that I think came from a public speech he made that can be found on YouTube. He said we should not be afraid of death but it makes sense to be afraid of dying itself. I have come to understand that Dawkins makes a similar point in The God Delusion too. I believe Hitchens stated that its mainly the faithful who scare people into wondering if they will go to heaven/nirvana which explains why many religionists fear of death and dying could keep them in the fold of their religions since they want to be sure their souls will go on after they die. I know I subscribed to this view when I was a Christian. You mean where Dawkins says we shouldn't despair too much because we can only be six sevenths sure that our loved ones actually are dead and not just in some other imaginable state?

I had the opportunity to briefly read C.J. Jones's book Godless Grief. It stated much of what I had originally read in the first book I read by Theresa Rando titled How to Go On Living When Someone You Love Dies. Also, I was turned off by Ms. Jones's reeling against selfishness and greed in one of the chapters of her book. If you do suffer the loss of a loved one, I would recommend Dr. Rando's book rather than Ms. Jones's. Dr. Rando's is not only just as comprehensive but also more widely available and competitively priced. While Dr. Rando does believe in God, the references to her personal beliefs are a paragraph or two of the book and are hers alone. She also points out how kids can lose their faith after a parent or loved one dies but that's it. Otherwise, Dr. Rando makes no attempt to prosthelyze <sp> for religion and her information is very good. Also, you could even toss in reading the chapter on death that George Smith makes in his book Why Atheism? and maybe even Richard Dawkins's remarks from his book The God Delusion.

http://www.theopenpress.com/index.php?a=press&id=77494 Production on adapting J. Neil Schulman's Prometheus award-winning science fiction novel "Alongside Night" into a movie will soon begin with actor Kevin Sorbo ("Hercules", "Andromeda") to be Executive Producer and star of the film.

I certainly hope you and Michael are right. What concerns me are not only the terrorist networks outside the U.S. but also the homegrown jihadists that are coming about too such as Faisal Shazad. My fear is that with the economy being so bad that the next Congress will have to enact MASSIVE spending cuts which will include agencies like the C.I.A. and F.B.I. that would affect their anti-terrorism efforts. If the anti-terrorism sections of these 2 agencies are slashed, it will make it easier for groups like Al-Quaeda to not only recruit people domestically but also send jihadists onto our shores leaving us vulnerable to attack.

Yes it is. Here is why: Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . . Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason. Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all. - Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 2. It would be one thing if there was a movement who liked both Christianity and Objectivism and decided to pick and choose which tenets of either philosophy they decided to follow. However, there is a (albeit small) group of people who claim to be Objectivists while simultaneously Christian. To do so is an insult to the philosophy if not Ms. Rand herself. Quite herself since (if one studies both philosophies) one sees that Objectivism and Christianity are not compatible with one another. Objectivism is based on reason and egoism while Christianity is based on self-sacrifice and faith.

While I have not been able to figure out where the Sufis fit in, aside from their dispute about the legitimacy of the the Shi'ites claim about Ali, I find little difference between Sunni and Shia Islam. Could you briefly explain what they are or point me in the direction of the sites that do and if the religion allows for or tolerates dissent within it's ranks? Near as I can tell, Averroes's influence seems to have been the last time that any semblance of toleration or secular influence has influenced the faith. Also, do you think based on your knowledge of Islam that we can defeat the Islamists trying to invade or attack us? Mike, This is inaccurate. If it were true, there would be no difference between Sunnis and Shiites, let alone Sufis. Michael

Agreed. I posted a commentary that is still in the Articles section of this site that delves into this further. Like I said in it, if Ms. Rand and Piekoff wanted to have a completely closed system they would have used the model that Andrew Galambos used for his Free Enterprise School. Galambos contractually made people agree they would never repeat or use any of the knowledge they acquired in his courses in print without his permission. While his venture was very successful and people attended his classes by the hundreds in which word got out about his school mainly by word of mouth. Yet you do now know or hear anything about Galambos and his volitional science philosophy since his closed system method by contract was so successful that he and his philosophy are relegated to the realm of the unknown or ancient relics. As for me, I think Objectivism itself is systematic to where it does not need to be changed. Just expanded upon. Any of the claims by orthodox Objectivists that Objectivism is closed and their writings on the matter are nothing more than rationalizations and are not grounded in reality.