New look and new information on Dr. Lewis’ site.
Month: May 2011
Download Amy Peikoff’s latest podcast on current political issues from an Objectivist perspective at Don’t Let It Go…Unheard #15. Topics covered include: The Patriot Act provision extensions, Rand Paul’s proposed amendments to the Patriot Act, and the main-stream media’s coverage of it all; The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program; Egypt reopens its border with Gaza; and more.
From Ron Pisaturo:
This call for 1967 [border] lines, along with the qualification about swaps, illustrates the absurd extreme to which Obama will push his evil premise … that the solution to the problem between Israelis and Palestinians should be based on “the needs of both sides.”
For Obama and a long line of American Presidents before him, right and wrong, good and evil, earned and unearned are irrelevant considerations; what counts is need. Since Palestinians need just as much land and wealth as Israelis do, and since Israelis currently have more of these things, it is Israel that must make concessions.
Given the book’s title, and given that the authors are not known Objectivists, I expected pretentiousness and ignorance. I was wrong; I’m pleased to say it is neither. Despite its shortcomings, the book has two great virtues: 1. it exhibits a far better understanding of Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism than I can recall seeing from anyone outside “the movement,” and 2. the writing is supple and first-handed, gliding you comfortably along a 300-page journey.
Richard Salsman over at Forbes.com in Kill The Un-American Patriot Act: makes the case for repealing this monstrous act:
[…] The misdirection and dishonesty so emblematic of the Act is dramatized
by its acronym, “USA PATRIOT,” which stands for “Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” No law that so violates Fourth
Amendment rights can be said to “unite” or “strengthen” America. The Act
effectively jettisons that long-cherished principle of civilized
criminal law and American jurisprudence: that one is presumed innocent
until (and unless) proven guilty. Under the Act we’re all assumed to be
guilty unless we prove our innocence. What could be more un-American than that?
[…] Americans have been made no safer since 9/11, even though the PATRIOT
Act has dramatically enhanced the prerogative and power of the CIA, FBI,
DHS, DEA, IRS, ATF, TSA and the police to search phone records, e-mails
and medical documents, or to issue search warrants absent judicial
pre-approvals. The Act also has expanded the Treasury’s power to invade
financial privacy and transactions.
The Act has significantly broadened the arbitrary discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities to detain and deport even legal immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts or financing. With the TSA, perfectly innocent American travelers are subjected to horrible and invasive treatment which if experienced at their workplace would be deemed unlawful sexual harassment. In the end, absolutist governments are staffed by officials just like these – those who operate above and beyond the law which others must abide.
That quintessential American, Benjamin Franklin, wrote correctly, in 1759, that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Indeed, without liberty we must lack the prosperity and righteousness needed to defend our security. These principles are embodied in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in its Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to ensure that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The PATRIOT Act and its auxiliary measures work slowly but surely to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment.
[…] By definition, anyone who dares to oppose the PATRIOT Act is presumed to be “un-patriotic.” In fact, by opposing it we oppose an American police state. That’s precisely where this horrid Act inexorably moves us, especially given the open-ended nature of the so-called “war on terrorism,” which is an unwinnable war aimed at a tactic which involves no specific end date yet also no specific place on earth where it might not occur. This irrational, self-defeating scheme of “security” entails an eternal and ubiquitous state of emergency – a setting which only empowers government to impose “extraordinary measures” to curb and quash our rights and liberties, without end or limit. It’s well known that today’s conservatives care little for our Fourth Amendment rights, but what about those hypocritical civil libertarians, who were right to protest and fight when Mr. Bush violated rights with the Act, but now stand by silently as Mr. Obama does the same thing?
[…] If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it? More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare’s biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.
Dr. Hurd’s third book is finally available for sale! Autographed copies of “Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)” are available directly from DrHurd.com.
In his new book, Dr. Hurd shows people how to avoid the dangers of most contemporary therapies and how to rely on your own judgment when facing emotional problems. It is an indispensable guide to choosing a therapist who can produce the best results for you.
Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference) also includes a foreword written by none other than celebrated clinical psychologist Stanton Samenow, Ph.D.
Here’s a link to the broadcast of Amy Peikoff’s Don’t Let It Go Unheard — webcast to talk on politics and politics from an Objectivist perspective. This is the best podcast on politics from an Objective perspective so it is definitely worth a listen if you could not attend the live broadcast. Issues discussed: The (Non) Rapture; Obama’s call for Israel to use pre-1967 borders as starting point for “peace” negotiations; Obama’s reaction to GOP Senators’ request that he adhere to the War Powers Act with respect to Libya; What to do about Pakistan; The Obama Administration’s brand of “transparency”; and Planking.
Almost everyone in Europe knows about the Nakba, which followed the 1948 Arab-Israeli war; although most refugees fled on the advice of invading Arab armies, they have never been allowed back, and this is a running sore. Yet very few people know that 800,000 Jews were in turn forced out of Arab lands during this and subsequent years, on top of another 200,000 Jews from other Muslim countries such as Iran.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict as far as most people know it runs like this: Jews came from Europe, bought up bits of Palestine until they were numerous enough (thanks partly to financial support from Americans) to take on the Arabs. They then beat them in a war and took their land. Yet this is only half the story.
And if one takes the view that Palestine was not a nation before its conflict with the Israelis formed a national consciousness but part of Transjordan, then the transfer of Arabs out of Palestine and Jews in is not unusual for the era. Tragic, yes, but not unusual. Populations were always moved where competing groups vied for sovereignty, and while one can lament the older, more tolerant and more diverse world, from belle époque Vienna to pre-Nasser Egypt to the old Constantinople, one cannot blame groups for wishing independence.
Everywhere where these transfers happened there was great suffering and injustice, and the same goes for the Jews forced out of Arab countries. The story of Iraq’s Jews is especially sad even for the standards of the last century; a 2500-year-old community was destroyed in months, with ancient families who had lived among Baghdad’s plushest districts for generations finding themselves homeless and impoverished in an alien land. Just like the Palestinians forced over the border, in fact. The difference is that the Israelis did not keep Arab Jews in camps for 60 years to prove a point, but helped them to integrate. I guess that’s why third-generation Syrian-Israelis aren’t clamouring at the border for their right to return.