Mark

There are two felons involved. Ken Hajjar, convicted of cocaine distribution and now a New Hampshire’s voting machine programming executive, and John Elder, convicted of narcotics trafficking, who then ran the Diebold ballot printing plant and is now an elections consultant. About eighty percent of the NH votes were on Diebold machines. The following two excerpts are by Bev Harris of Black Box Voting: CONVICTED FELONS The Diebold ballot printing plant at the time we got records on the overages, was being run by a convicted felon who had spent four years in prison on a narcotics trafficking charge. No, not New Hampshire’s voting machine programming exec Ken Hajjar, who cut a plea deal in 1990 for his role in cocaine distribution. This was another convicted felon, John Elder, who ran the Diebold ballot printing plant; he’s now an elections consultant. We have so far been unable to learn whether New Hampshire has convicted felons printing their ballots; ... ... [There is] evidence that one state-paid printing vendor is NHCI -- New Hampshire Correctional Industries, a prison-based printing outfit. New Hampshire Correctional Industries is a job training program for inmates. After they get out of prison they have a skill! I’m not sure we want a bunch of ex-convicts running around in New Hampshire with ballot printing expertise, so I hope a different ballot printing vendor will show up. New England voting machine firm has executive criminal record They program every single voting machine in New Hampshire, Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. But did state officials in five New England states ever do a criminal background check on this company’s executives? Do the laws of these five states even ALLOW them to hire convicted criminals for services paid for by the state? What about over 500 local towns and municipalities? According to my sources, LHS Marketing and Sales Director Ken Hajjar grew up with owner John Silvestro in Lawrence, Massachusetts. They both moved to Londonderry, New Hampshire, where Ken Hajjar was arrested, indicted, and pleaded guilty to “sale / CND” and sentenced to 12 months in the Rockingham County Correctional facility, and fined $2000. As things go for the politically connected, he was then given a deferred sentence and $1000 of his fine was suspended. [Photostat of “The defendant is sentenced to the RCHC for not more than 12 months. Commitment is deferred for a period of 1 year. ...”] Hajjar doesn’t limit his involvement in the voting machine business to sales. According to an interview conducted by Dori Smith, as reported here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5320 , Hajjar totes memory cards around in the trunk of his car and defends the boggling concept of swapping out memory cards during the middle of elections. Hold onto your hats, there’s more. Start with this YouTube video, if you haven’t already seen it: Don’t miss this BradBlog story: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5320

Some comments on the above video, entitled “NH: Paul supporters out in force for primary recount.” It gives the impression that the recount is about Ron Paul. He didn’t request this recount, and it’s about a fair election not any particular candidate. At first I was annoyed Scanlan was given so much time, but maybe your footage will make good evidence in a trial. People in Ohio went to jail for what they did in 2004. Your video gives the impression that, except for the vault business, everything is hunky-dory. No mention of the joke “seals,” slit boxes, a former convicted felon in charge, etc.. At least your narration did utter “Black Box Voting dot Org” so interested viewers can look it up. See my post here.

RidleyReport (Dave Ridley), “I’m a news videographer and I shoot stories about the growing liberty activity here in New Hampshire ... the state motto is, well you know the state motto.” Let me guess ... Cast your vote and ignore the fraud ? Have you covered the issue of vote fraud ? This goes beyond any particular candidate. (It also goes beyond New Hampshire.) There’s abundant evidence of fraud presented behind the following links: MP3 interview of Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, conducted by the noisy and obnoxious Alex Jones. Repellent too, but concentrate on Bev – it’s a good introduction. Videos: Articles The people doing this work are heroes, or rather (in most cases) heroines, but don’t expect Andrew Bernstein to be celebrating them.

Robert Campbell, About anchor babies: Ron Paul argues not that the illegal mother and child should be deported in spite of the 14th amendment, he argues that the 14th amendment is not applicable to illegals. It certainly sounds reasonable. You don’t break a law and then self-righteously shout “Gotcha!”

Philip Coates, Generally I like your posts on other subjects but must disagree on this one. What you say boils down to something from the Cold War: Better Red than dead. To exaggerate only a little: Better we let the Neocons set up a police state starting with the Military Commissions Act, the Militia Act, the Homegrown Terrorist Act, etc. Otherwise the savage, backward, irrational, nihilistic, resourceful, powerful Muslims will kill us all. In just a few months, so there’s no time to care about minor stuff like individual rights. The word “overthrew” when applied to Saddam omits two facts: 1. A photograph and silent video clip of Rumsfeld and Saddam, from the National Security Archives, December 20, 1983. This was not the first time the U.S. had aided Saddam Hussein. In 1963 the CIA supported a coup in Iraq to install the Ba’ath Party, and Saddam was a prominent member. The Ba’ath Party Interior Minister Ali Saleh Saadi has said: “We came to power on a CIA train.” 2. Afterwards the U.S. furnished Saddam with chemical and biological weapons. See Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement. In 1988 the USS Vincennes while aiding Iraq accidently shot down a commercial Iranian airliner, killing all 290 passengers. How was this retaliatory? How is what the U.S. is doing in Uzbekistan retaliatory? How is propping up a thug in Pakistan retaliatory? One could go on, including giving cluster bombs to Israel, knowing that Israel will use them on the Lebanese. How is that your war? U.S. foreign policy has been insane for decades, and the chickens are coming home. This is mistaken, see above. See also The CIA in Iran by James Risen, New York Times 2000. (Multipage article: see the table of contents at middle right.) and CIA coup, 1953 I agree with the replies of sjw and Wolf DeVoon about this.

I inadvertently started reading Robert Kolker (aka Ba'al Chatzaf)’s post. It began: “If it were not for war mongers I would have ended up in the gas chambers and become a cake of soap on some Nazi's bath tub.” At which point I looked to see who the idiot was who wrote this and skipped the rest. The above baloney is a part of traditional Nazi Holocaust history that’s been debunked even by mainstream historians. The “Nazi soap” story is ridiculous. It’s an atrocity story that’s part of propaganda common around war time. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could say it’s hogwash right out loud in Germany and Austria and not go to jail. Cecil Adams writes a bit on this at the end of The Straight Dope. As for Mr. Kolker’s personal concern, I mean really, would even one so degraded as a Nazi Storm Trooper want a cupboard full of Robert Kolker soap? To wash himself with?

Daniel Pipes’ review of Jonah Goldberg’s book makes it sound good, but I noticed two details which betray Pipes’ usual agenda. One of them Martin Radwin already pointed: conservatives may talk limited government but under them government doesn’t shrink, it grows – sometimes even faster than under the liberals. The neoconservatives don’t even talk limited government. They’re as explicitly for big government domestically as they are for projecting it overseas. The other detail in Pipes’ review is buried in the middle: ... “If the German version [of fascism] was militaristic, .... the American one (which Goldberg calls liberal fascism) .... is nearly pacifist.” Pacifist? Let’s remove the slur and replace the above with “American liberals opposed U.S. entry into foreign wars.” Then the truth is the opposite. The liberals (or “progressives” as they sometimes call themselves) were very much in favor of U.S. entry into WWI, WWII, and initially even Vietnam (e.g. John Kennedy). Around 1914 John Dewey wrote several New Republic magazine articles promoting U.S. entry into the war in Europe. I’ve read them and they are amazing. He says how it would be a good thing because it would get Americans used to the idea of government control of private property – it’s that bald and brazen. Dewey was typical of the fascist liberals. (Randolf Bourne is a notable exception.) Come WWII, again it was fascist liberals like FDR who wanted the U.S. in the war. The better conservatives like Robert Taft and of course Ayn Rand (using “better conservatives” very broadly, their philosophies differed), on the contrary, were “America Firsters.” Pipe’s statement is completely wrong. Setting aside the “pacifist” smear the truth is just the opposite. I referred to Daniel Pipes’ usual agenda. The “pacifist” smear is part of it. He’s as much a neo-conservative as that amorphous term allows. (The only thing they all have in common is unequivocal support for Israel.) Daniel Pipes has shared the podium several times with Yaron Brook, and once, I think, with Leonard Peikoff. How often does Pipes denounce the Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act, the Defense Authorization Act, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, the Martial Law Act? Ever? Anyway, about as often as ARI, which is never.

... “It’s been almost fifty years since the NR review of Atlas.” National Review reprinted Whittaker Chambers’ stupid (stupid, stupid) review January 5, 2005 in celebration of the magazine’s 50th anniversary. “Celebration” is the word they used.

Re: Brant Gaede His position is consistent with the following from another thread: Going from “Government is force” to “Force rules everywhere” is hard to follow. Brant Gaede, a cynical materialist per above, can proclaim his decency until he’s black in the face. We’re not talking about Brant Gaede torturing people if he “had to” (talk about a circular argument – just like Yaron Brook’s), we’re talking about government institutionalized torture. I’ve written about this before on ARI Watch and will again. Government doesn’t necessarily mean slavery, or that we must put up with police torture warrants per Dershowitz.

Chris, ... “Mark; Why are you even reading the ‘lady’? .... Don't you have better thing to do?” {smile} The “lady” – were quotes ever more appropriate? – seems to be popular among ARI supporters, either people who support ARI knowing what it’s really doing or people who’ve been fooled into thinking ARI lives up to its name. I hardly ever read Noodlefood. I dropped in last night to see if there was something I could comment on in order to broadcast a link to ARI Watch. There’s something to be said for preaching to the choir when you don’t belong to the church.

Merlin, Just so other readers know what’s going on (I didn’t quote Ms. Hsieh’s first post “ARI’s Growing Impact”), Yaron Brook wrote: “The impact of that op-ed [the ARI op-ed in the WSJ] has been extremly [sic] encouraging. Both Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Sen. John Kyl of Arizona have referenced Tom's article ...”

Our evaluations differ!

Diana Hsieh posted a “Dear ARI Contributor” letter from Yaron Brook telling of an ARI article which had made it into a major newspaper and then soliciting donations. Here is my post in reply, and Diana Hsieh’s response – all this on her blog Noodlefood. (begin quote) Thursday, November 29, 2007 Comment ID: #2 Name: Mark URL: http://ARIwatch.com Yaron Brook takes the successful placement of Thomas Bowden’s excellent article “Deep-Six the Law of the Sea” in the Wall Street Journal as an opportunity to solicit contributions to the so-called Ayn Rand Institute. Since a contribution can have no strings attached any contribution you make will help promote everything coming out of ARI, not just Thomas Bowden. And it would help pay for Yaron Brook, whose compensation for the year ending September 2006 was $352,538.00 or almost 7% of ARI’s expenses. Is that salary extraordinary? What percent of expenses is usual for the salary of the president of a company he doesn’t own outright? Go around saying things like (to paraphrase Mr. Brook) “if torturing people helps defend our cities – and indeed it does – then it’s OK for the police to torture people – I meant to say the CIA” and maybe you too can command an annual salary of $352,538 ! See http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?...&orgid=8345 Thursday, November 29, 2007 Comment ID: #2 Name: Diana Hsieh “ARI Watch” Mark: I've deleted your idiotic comment. Go away and do not come back. You are not welcome to post in these comments – ever. (end quote) It’s difficult not to get the impression that Ms. Hsieh doesn’t like yours truly. My admittedly flippant comment made four good points: 1. ARI is a package deal, you get the bad (almost all of it these days) with the good. 2. Very possibly Yaron Brook is overpaid. 3. When Mr. Brook repeatedly says “If X then Y” he really means “X.” 4. His torture argument applies just as well to your local police as it does to the international CIA. All of which Ms. Hsieh finds “idiotic.”

ARI, the Objective Standard, and Capitalism Magazine (sometimes an ARI writer will publish an article on capmag.com and nowhere else) have been utterly silent about Ron Paul’s candidacy. I don’t belong to the Harry Binswanger List but an advertisement from it says the title for November 4 was Saint (Ron) Paul. It doesn’t sound good. Can anyone here tell us what Mr. Binswanger said in that post? Please be as precise as possible if you can’t quote him outright.

Robert Campbell, You quote the following sentence because of the aside at the end: “Today one could say exactly the same about the Iraq War, which was really Israel’s war.” and reply: “... my impression is that as of March 2003, when Gulf War II [a.k.a. the Iraq War] began, those in power in Israel generally considered the ruling council of Ayatollahs to be a more dangerous adversary than Saddam Hussein.” Maybe so, but wouldn’t the relevant date be before the start of the Iraq War? Once the invasion started there was little point in urging it. In 2002 and early 2003 the Israeli government did urge the U.S. to invade Iraq, as did Israel’s amen corner in the U.S. (for example the neoconservatives and ARI) – often coated with a flaking layer of American self-interest. This is not controversial. Here are a few news articles: Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack Sharon Government Urges Prompt Action Against Saddam CBS News; August 16, 2002. Attack Iraq soon, Sharon aide says http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/...77p-10983c.html (dead link) NY Daily News; August 16, 2002. The United States should attack Iraq soon to stop dictator Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons, Israeli officials said yesterday. “Postponing the action to a later date would only enable Saddam to accelerate his weapons program, and then he would pose a more formidable threat,” said Ranaan Gissin, a top adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Israel reportedly helping with U.S. war preparation USA Today; November 3, 2002. Israel is secretly playing a key role in U.S. preparations for possible war with Iraq, helping to train soldiers and Marines for urban warfare, conducting clandestine surveillance missions in the western Iraqi desert and allowing the United States to place combat supplies in Israel, according to U.S. Defense and intelligence officials. Israel Urges US to Attack Iraq: “Sooner, Rather than Later” IAP News; January 18, 2003. A former Israeli ambassador to Washington who is now advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has urged the Israeli government to step up pressure on the Bush Administration to accelerate the war on Iraq. Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region New York Times; February 27, 2003. ... With Oslo in tatters, the Israelis are now putting similar hopes in an American war on Iraq. ... many in Israel are so certain of the rightness of a war on Iraq that officials are already thinking past that conflict to urge a continued, assertive American role in the Middle East. ... Israel regards Iran and Syria as greater threats and is hoping that once Saddam Hussein is dispensed with, the dominoes will start to tumble. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ... a report prepared [in 1996] by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000.” ... Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. And here’s some commentary: Pentagon Office [of Special Plans] Home to Neo-Con Network by Jim Lobe; August 7, 2003. An ad hoc office under U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy[,] Douglas Feith[,] appears to have acted as the key base for an informal network of mostly neo-conservative political appointees that circumvented normal inter-agency channels to lead the push for war against Iraq. Though Iraq was no danger to the U.S., Israel thought it was a danger to Israel. Israel and its worshippers in the U.S. wanted, and helped get, the U.S. to invade Iraq.

Reply to Michael, continued: The Tar-Baby reference is apt. For readers unfamiliar with American culture, a Tar-Baby is something which superficially might seem worth fighting but by its nature you can’t win against, you only get entangled deeper and deeper. It’s a trap. The word comes from one aspect of a story in the Uncle Remus series by Joel Chandler Harris: Br’er Fox has it in for Br’er Rabbit, who always gets the better of him. Br’er Fox constructs a statue out of tar and turpentine he calls a Tar-Baby and places it by the roadside, then hides and waits. Br’er Rabbit comes along – a type A personality judging from previous stories – and, thinking the Tar-Baby a living creature, says hello. The Tar-Baby stands mute and Br’er Rabbit feels insulted at its lack of response. He becomes all worked up about this and finally starts hitting the Tar-Baby and gets his forepaws stuck in it. Then he kicks the Tar-Baby and gets his hindpaws stuck. Br’er Fox jumps out of hiding and gloats at finally catching Br’er Rabbit. (But Br’er Rabbit outwits him, yet again – described in the next story in the series.) Can you imagine Br’er Fox’s reaction if Br’er Rabbit, instead of getting mad at the Tar-Baby, had ignored its churlish taciturnity, delivered a cheerful soliloquy, and walked on? It really annoys the Israel worshippers.

Reply to Michael’s post: In the essay “Ayn Rand on Israel” I acknowledge that Ayn Rand supported Israel, and I quote a – or rather the – published statement of hers to that effect. In sum I say three things: 1. Supporting Israel was not as important to Ayn Rand as it is to ARI. The evidence, I think, is conclusive. In all her written work – seven books of essays, not to mention her fiction – there is but one, count ’em, one, reference to Israel. You can throw in her published letters and journals too – there is nothing more. This is a large body of work yet only one reference to Israel, and then in the later Leonard Peikoff days. Now consider ARI. Do a Google search of their site for Israel and you get well over two hundred references ( http://www.aynrand.org/site/Search?query=israel ). Or just look at the indexes of ARI’s op-ed and press release archives. Though lately ARI has been quiet about Israel, go back a while and it looks like Commentary magazine. There are entire articles devoted to Israel. Ayn Rand’s one reference is a paragraph in a long essay about Vietnam, with Taiwan thrown in with Israel. One reference versus a cataract. 2. I acknowledge that when Ayn Rand was asked about Israel she answered that she supported Israel. I offer an apologia, because it’s needed. I also say that she is not entirely innocent here, or in her one written reference. 3. I suggest that her opinion might well be different today, given further crimes by Israel and more readily available reporting and commentary. This, of course, is impossible to prove literally. It’s a way of saying that support for Israel, knowing the facts, is inconsistent with her philosophy. Michael turns 1-2-3 into: ARI Watch informs Ayn Rand of what she really thought. Not exactly the result of careful reading. In case my essay isn’t clear – and I think it’s clear enough: Ayn Rand was mistaken about Israel. Perversely mistaken, for Israel contradicts her philosophy in spades, not least of which is its historical sympathy with Soviet Russia. The only excuse for her I can think of is ignorance, and it’s not a heartening excuse. This post to OL does not replace the essay. I worked on the essay to get the right tone. The purpose of ARI Watch is not to criticize Ayn Rand. Mike Renzulli said some nice things about ARI Watch (thanks Mike) and one of them was that it “let the chips fall where they may.” The chips don’t fall where I’d like on the subject of Israel and that disappointment is obvious in the essay. But the chips don’t fall where ARI would like either, and ARI’s view of Israel (see “The Moral Case for Supporting Israel”) is a distortion of Ayn Rand’s, even granting her ignorance.

“Confessed” is the wrong word. Here’s the background Michael ignores: Michael and some others noted that I criticize Israel (and I do, for reasons they evidently can’t bring themselves to address, as Greybird noted). Then on that basis Michael refers to my “rhetoric that borders on antisemitism.” Borders! I’m not going to play that game. If ARI Watch be anti-semitic, make the most of it. I don’t confess to being an anti-semite, I proclaim it. If Michael doesn’t like that tar-baby word, he can stop playing bait and switch. For more see Jeers on ARI Watch. -oOo- Michael says “gimme a break” about my saying “giving to Israel is a traitorous act.” That claim, as he must know, is at the end of a long essay containing evidence that Israel is not an ally but rather an enemy of America. Aiding such a country is traitorous. Michael doesn’t deserve a break when he pretends – and pretend is the right word – that this observation comes out of nowhere.

Michael is mistaken, I can’t do any better than what I wrote. In fact I think that it’s pretty good, and that I’ve made a good case for my statement. (COMMENT DELETED BY ADMINISTRATION.) I could just as well say: Come on Michael, you can do better than secret reliable sources you’re afraid to expose. But I don’t say that. I’d written: Each time someone buys a book by Ayn Rand part of the purchase price eventually goes to ARI ... The worst I see – and here I repeat my last post – is that my statement relies on the word “eventually.” But even though the statement is not perfect if you’re worried about the details, when I wrote the article there was no point in elaborating when I had more important things to say, and I still see no point in elaborating, though I have now done so. How could we change the statement? Consider: Each time someone buys a book by Ayn Rand Mr. Peikoff gets a percentage of the purchase price. Mr. Peikoff helps ARI financially by etc (see my earlier post) and he is better able to do so because of the income he gets from Ayn Rand’s books. Or: Mr. Peikoff, who owns and controls Ayn Rand’s estate, has little or nothing to do with the financial viability of ARI. For that’s what Michael is really saying.

I’d written that Mr. Peikoff continually helps finance ARI. The claim has been made that this is backwards, not only does he not financially support ARI, it’s the other way around: he charges them for the use of some items bequeathed to him by Ayn Rand. Believing that ARI pays for the right (in many cases the exclusive right) to publish copyrighted work is certainly reasonable, but the net effect is to the financial advantage of ARI as well as Mr. Peikoff. Elaboration in two parts: 1. Mr. Peikoff owns the copyrights, so royalties would go to him first. Now consider his attitude towards ARI in his talk “America versus Americans” given April 6, 2003: ”... we at the Ayn Rand Institute are doing what we can to spread some better ideas. Dr. Yaron Brook alone, its executive director – sitting right there – in the last six months has been interviewed on 59 radio and television programs and in the press, and has given 31 speeches to groups large and small, trying to get the word out. But no one man even he, no one institute, can change the world.” Given Mr. Peikoff’s admiration and his ‘we’re all going to die’ outlook, isn’t it extraordinarily likely that he donates a lot, and regularly, to ARI from the royalty income bequeathed to him by Ayn Rand? (Of course ARI gets money from other sources as well.) If Mr. Peikoff believed his house was on fire, would he charge the firemen an entrance fee? Of course not, he’d almost certainly help them all he can, and gratis. This is not a sure thing. One can only infer with what I consider a high degree of probability that Mr. Peikoff regularly donates to ARI. The part below is a sure thing. 2. Mr. Peikoff allows ARI to call itself the official Ayn Rand organization, and he allows ARI to be the exclusive distributor of many of Ayn Rand’s works. The cash value of both is enormous. Without question Mr. Peikoff continually provides value to ARI which translates into money, money over and above whatever ARI might pay for the privilege of receiving these favors. One might reply that what I wrote is easily construed as something more specific. Here’s the entire contended phrase from my article (emphasis added): “... Leonard Peikoff continually finances it [ARI] from Ayn Rand’s estate. Each time someone buys a book by Ayn Rand part of the purchase price eventually goes to ARI, ...” It’s not so bad. Why burden the reader with text like this post? Making the lack of precision here into some sort of exemplary crime is ridiculous. The claimant should get some sense of proportion. -oOo- When I get around to it I’ll put this in the website’s “Jeers” section and perhaps reference it in the article.

Michael makes much of welcoming me but soon is referring to my “ham-handed lopsided rhetoric” and “nonstop voluminous haranguing” etc as if reading such epithets will convince me to mend my ways. He descends to the level of Robert Jones. My writing, Michael says, “borders on antisemitism.” No, Michael, it is antisemitism. Michel refers to ARI Watch as “bashing” – the word not only means severe criticism but connotes mindless and reckless criticism. He claims my writing “exaggerates too much” – rather vague that. I would say, along with Greybeard (thanks Greybeard) that it’s frequently restrained – and anyway ARI is so bad on some issues it would be hard to exaggerate. On first reading I didn’t understand why Michael next digresses into a discussion of Jewish and Muslim culture. But we soon see why. “I say this because ...” Hold it right there. No he doesn’t. Israel does not represent Jewish culture (contrary to their propaganda), and not all Jews are Israelis (though they say something like that too). Michael continues: “... I have detected a strong anti-Israel bias in your writing.” Actually my disgust with the actions of Israel is as obvious as the Rock of Gibraltar. Michael would sail into the Mediterranean and with surprise declare: I have detected a big rock ! Note that my “bias” is not prejudice. I seek justice. After investigating, and getting over the “not perfect but the vanguard freedom” business, you’ll find that Israel is no ally of America. I elaborate on ARI Watch, replying to ARI with but a fraction of the articles ARI puts out promoting the contrary view. “I am not a big fan of scapegoating-type rhetoric.” Thus insinuating that the rhetoric of yours truly is “scapegoating.” The word is pejorative. By itself it’s just name-calling. “Based on all this, I ... ask you a question. Do you have a pro-Muslim bias or are you affiliated with any kind of Islamic organization, or is ARI Watch?” Michael’s question is not based on anything except the ridiculous notion that only a Muslim would critique Israel. Michael’s introductory phrase “Based on all this” makes his question a loaded one. And why ask the question? It’s an arbitrary insinuation I made fun of in an earlier post. (On the other thread “The Effect by Mark ... on ariwatch.com” post 23) “I hope I have managed to convey that I favor speaking well of cultures on matters like achievement, and that includes the different Islamic cultures.” This seeming concern for an alleged muslim’s sensibilities is, I suspect, only a way of saying yet again that ARI Watch looks like it was written by muslims. “... despite the lapse I mentioned, I do find your standard of scholarship on ARI Watch generally pretty good ...” OK, which is it, one lapse or riddled with errors? “If you are interested in accuracy as a value ... .” How shall I reply? Forget it Michael, I don’t value accuracy ? Stating the above premise is like beginning: If you aren’t beating your wife ... . Another insinuation in the same vein: ARI Watch “would benefit greatly from using a fact-focused approach ... .” As if it uses some other approach. Michael says he once wrote in my style. I didn’t know he wrote articles and have read only a few of his posts here, but maybe he flatters himself. In his earlier post Michael claimed that in general ARI Watch makes things up. In his post considered here he insinuates several times (though once says otherwise) that ARI Watch is generally wrong. He refers to a plurality of errors. I trust even he will agree that his one alleged example – and presumably he put his best foot forward – is a very minor error if error it be. There’s a mass of data on ARI Watch, hundreds of statements. Naturally I don’t think there are any factual errors but I will appreciate it if anyone brings any to my attention. I address Michael only substantive criticism in the next post. -oOo- One last thing. After all the insults, Michael has the fatuity to say: “I hope you find value here and, please, make yourself at home.” Who’s he trying to fool? Fortunately my home-life’s a lot more pleasant !

Regarding ARI Watch, Robert Jones refers to: “The anti-Semitic bile spewed forth on this website ...” Oh brother. As I said on the other thread called “ARI Watch, Any Information,” where Robert makes a similar noise, anyone who criticizes Israel must get used to such treatment. To be sarcastic, I could care less. Robert continues: “... I think debating it, or even analysing it seriously (even if to point out its myriad flaws and inconsistencies), is a serious mistake.” “... a fruitcake’s political hallucinations.” “... this thing simply smells like CAIRs smear tactics. I see this as a set-up – to establish some kind of atmosphere on the web that ARI is a bigoted, anti-Arab/anti-Moslem hate group – and then bring in the REAL CAIR to finish off the job (i.e., lawsuit by CAIR and the ACLU). This is a hunch on my part ...” “... It really had ought to be looked into.” AUGH! The Arabs did it ! Or maybe the Persians? Robert writes the above (before my little joke) after reading – or more likely just glancing at – some reasoned and evidenced criticisms of Israel in response to ARI’s massive promotion of same. On that basis very possibly I’m an Arab, a member of C.A.I.R., and part of a conspiracy to use the legal system to take down ARI. Now what was that about the political hallucinations of a fruitcake? In another post Robert imaginatively refers to ARI Watch: “... accusing them [ARI] of Zionist conpiracies ...” ARI Watch does point out, with abundant quotes, that ARI considers Israel an ally of the United States. Is this a Zionist conspiracy? Or does Yaron Brook being a native of Israel, which ARI Watch mentions, make a Zionist conspiracy? All in all Robert is super-touchy and slings smears with abandon. “... shrill cant render it beneath debate.” “A child’s whining harangue ...” These epithets more appropriately describe Robert’s own post (I hope to ignore him in future). Like Robert Bidinotto he takes his hatred of the content of ARI Watch and judges the style to match.

Robert Bidinotto calls my little article a “semi-literate screed.” In other words: half illiterate and tiresomely long. I gather he didn’t like it. But I think a more objective consideration would find that the article (the conclusion of a series – which Robert well knows) is short (not that length by itself matters), literate, and obviously has stirred up some people. Perhaps Robert confuses content with style: he hates the content so the style must be bad. Other epithets in his brief post are: ... grossly unfair and unjust ... (insinuation) crude ... (insinuation) dishonorable ... a purveyor of nonsense I disagree, but then you knew that already.

Robert Campbell calls “The Effect” an: “... unfocused blast. If you are going to criticize the Leonard Peikoff Institute ... you have to be prepared to provide specifics.” Indeed. Please see the website of which “The Effect” is but the conclusion. Too bad Roger didn’t provide a real link because at the top of each page is: ARIwatch.com. We can agree on the following: “When the general public becomes aware of some of the political stands taken by ARI’s principals and spokespeople, there can be negative consequences for the way Rand is viewed. ... ... “... I can’t see Rand having a whole lot of patience with Peter Schwartz inserting one of his third-rate essays into a collection of her writings, or with spokespersons for LPI [ARI] praising Franklin D. Roosevelt ... .”

Neil writes: “I bet that if she [Ayn Rand] were alive, she would probably support its [ARI’s] general approach to things.” And Chris: “I suspect Ayn Rand would probably approve of what ARI is doing.” Consider: 1. She valued individual rights, ARI says they’re expendable. 2. She opposed FDR’s war, ARI uses it as an object lesson. 3. She thought torture was what thugs do, ARI thinks it’s a legitimate method of state inquiry. 4. She hated the National Review and its ilk, ARI pays lip service to that hatred while embracing their policy. 5. She supported Israel in ignorance of its past and future crimes against America, ARI has no such excuse (and neither would she today). 6. She valued the truth, ARI by its actions holds the truth in contempt. These points and others can’t really be put in sound bites but I’d bet the other way.