Mark

Jim, Regarding “The Effect” article you say: “There’s no evidence and no examples, it’s just a rant.” I can see how you might think that if that’s all you read. Roger should have made it easier to view the source ( http://ARIwatch.com ), where you’ll find that “The Effect” is the concluding article in a series. Reading it alone is like reading the last paragraph of a lawyer’s brief all by itself. Indeed, where’s the evidence? There’s plenty of evidence.

Robert Jones visited ARI Watch and had an unpleasant experience: “... read a whole lotta hooey. This site is ONLY about ARI’s positions vis-a-vis the War On Islam.” I guess there are two points here: ARI Watch is “a whole lotta hooey” and, in addition, it should address other things besides the war. Leaving the ‘hooey’ charge aside, could it be that ARI Watch – which calls itself a critical review of ARI – finds little to criticize about ARI other than its position on the war and related subjects? And that this position is far more important than the others? And that ARI itself gives it prominence? Regarding ARI: “... I do believe their hearts are in the right place.” Good people can make mistakes, but I find it incredible that ARI acts as it does out of some fumbling good will. (Considering the remainder of Robert’s post and his other posts I don’t share his idea of a well positioned heart anyway.) Robert then says ARI Watch is so bad it makes him want to defend ARI – for the first time in his life! ARI Watch does repel many sorts of people. It’s pro Ayn Rand, and liberals hate Ayn Rand. (Paleo-conservatives were never too keen on her either.) It’s anti the Bush administration, and neo-conservatives love the Bush administration. It’s critical of ARI, and “official-minded” Objectivists love ARI. (The other organized group – TOC/TAS – has pretty much the same position on the war as ARI.) Read the ARI Watch “Cheers” page to find some positive remarks about it. Then Robert Jones goes robotic: “If all you know how to do in foreign policy is bash Israel, then, yes, you ARE an anti-Semite!” Well, Robert, nobody asked you. In any case, anyone who criticizes Israel for anything soon gets used to such attacks. You are immediately called an anti-semite. (Such an anti-semite!) Not to mention obsessed (which in fact applies to ARI). And your argument is characterized as bashing. Robert again: “Betcha dollars-to-doughnuts it’s owned by some CAIR offshoot.” The assumption here is that practically everyone who criticizes Israel is Arab. Be that as it may, and it ain’t, Robert loses his bet.

Renee writes : “... Thanks to ARI Watch I now know that not only is the Ayn Rand Institute actually detrimental to the Objectivist Movement, but they may very well be responsible for 9/11! ...” Getting into the swing Chris responds : “... Thank you! I thought George Bush did all of 9-11. I guess it was Lenny Peikoff.” If you disagree with ARI Watch, silence will persuade your readers better than silly remarks.

Michael’s latest post insinuates that the attitude of ARI Watch towards ARI is: “... demonize, i.e., distort and omit facts and make things up ...” “Make things up” is an indefensible slur. As for “distort and omit facts,” though that too is a slur, if I were charitable I could see how someone might think it at first. Sometimes ARI will turn 180 degrees on an issue and then pretend they were going in that direction all along. But that they contradict themselves is their problem not mine. For an analysis of one case see the review of ARI’s “What We Owe Our Soldiers” While acknowledging that ARI is poison (‘hemlock’) Michael in an earlier post claims that ARI Watch is just another (‘battery acid’). I myself view ARI Watch as herbicide (Roundup) for weeds in the garden of Objectivist discourse. Purple prose that, but Michael’s metaphor asked for it. “ARI has done some very good things and has some products I buy and use.” I too have been reduced to ordering ARI products. I do it through a bookstore though. That way ARI takes a 40% hit (anyway that’s what the bookstore discount was with Second Renaissance some years ago), and you pay no shipping (which may be more than the sales tax you will pay). Also it costs you nothing to return something if it’s damaged. Mark Hunter ARI Watch

Chris Grieb, .... "In the early years of NBI a book called ..... Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace ..... was sold by NBI. The book was collection ..... of revisionist essays about the US involvement ..... in World War II." Amazon.com lists three books of that title. The only one around at the time you mention is: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, with essays by William Henry Chamberlin, Percy L. Greaves Jr., George A. Lundberg, George Morgenstern, William L. Neumann, Frederic R. Sanborn, Charles Callan Tansill. 1953, republished 1982. http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-War-Peace-...6797516-6268652 and http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-Peace-Harr...6797516-6268652 Is that the one?