Evening Course on Objectivism Starts October 20!

From the Ayn Rand Institute:
The Ayn Rand Institute is offering a six-session evening course on Objectivism called “Introduction to Ayn Rand’s Philosophy.” This course is designed for readers of Ayn Rand’s fiction who are now interested in learning about her philosophical system. Classes begin October 20, 2005 at 7:30 PM (Pacific). Participants may attend in person at ARI’s offices in Irvine, California, live via telephone, or by listening to recordings of each class through the Internet. For more information on the course and how to register, please visit www.objectivistconferences.com/intro. For those already familiar with Objectivism, we encourage you to forward this announcement to your friends and acquaintances who are new to the philosophy and may be interested in this introductory course.

"Muslim Opinion" Be Damned

By: Alex Epstein

To listen to most of our foreign-policy commentators, the biggest problem facing America today--four years after Sept. 11th--is the fact that many Muslims are mad at us.

"Whatever one's views on the [Iraq] war," writes a New York Times columnist, "thoughtful Americans need to consider . . . the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world." In response to Abu Ghraib, Ted Kennedy lamented, "We have become the most hated nation in the world, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons." Muslim anger over America's support of Israel, we are told, is a major cause of anti-American terrorism.

We face, these commentators say, a crisis of "Muslim opinion." We must, they say, win the "hearts and minds" of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shutting down Guantanamo, by being more "evenhanded" between free Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority--and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim world. If we fail to win over "Muslim opinion," we are told, we will drive even more to become terrorists.

All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America is irrational and undeserved. Consider the issue of treatment of POWs. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq and at Guantanamo--many of whom were captured on battlefields trying to kill Americans. Yet these same Muslims are silent about the summary convictions and torture--real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid--that are official policy and daily practice throughout the Middle East.

Or consider "Muslim opinion" over the U,S, handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the United States is accused of not being "hard enough" on Israel--a free nation with laws that protect all citizens, Jew and Arab alike--for Israel's supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet "Muslim opinion" reveres the Palestinian Authority, a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestinians of every basic freedom, keeps them in unspeakable poverty, and routinely tortures and executes peaceful dissenters.

So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers. These people oppose us not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because they are steeped in a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion--one that views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity. They do not seek respect for the rights of the individual (Muslim or non-Muslim), they seek a world in which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam.

The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies--and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them--especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would make us safe, expose Islamic anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the better Muslims to support our ideals and emulate our ways.

President Bush, like most politicians and intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to "Muslim opinion": appeasement. Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands--e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques. Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for--such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel--he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion" and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead of destroying terrorist regimes that wage war against the West--including, most notably, Iran--he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some as "coalition partners."

Such measures have rewarded our enemy for waging physical and spiritual war against us. "Condemn America," they have learned, "and American leaders will praise your ideals and meet your demands." "Attack America via terrorist proxy," terrorist states and movements have been taught, "and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but redouble its efforts to buy your love."

Every attempt to appease "Muslim opinion" preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every concession to angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next Sept. 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies--"Muslim opinion" be damned.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

Earn College Credit for Studying the Works of Ayn Rand!

An undergraduate course that uses Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal as the required reading material will be offered this fall online at National University of San Diego. This course is ECO 430
- Economics & Philosophy. Since it is online, it can be taken from anywhere in the world, all one needs is access to the internet. The course is offered through National's School of Business and Management.
This is a chance to earn college credit while learning about the philosophic foundations of a capitalist society. There are no prerequisites for this course. To take it, you just need to apply to National University and enroll in the course.

Please note that this course was organized independently of the Objectivist Academic Center and the Ayn Rand Institute and that neither the OAC nor ARI necessarily endorses this course. Neither the OAC nor ARI has any affiliation with National University.
A limited number of scholarships of $800 each are available to cover some of the cost of taking the course. To apply for a scholarship, just send an official academic transcript of your most recent class work and a 500-750 word statement describing why you deserve one of the scholarships to

Professor Brian Simpson
National University
11255 N. Torrey Pines Rd.
La Jolla, CA 92037

Send your application materials by September 20, 2005. The course starts on September 26th.

Here is a description of the course:

Students will learn about the relationship between philosophy and economics. They will study the philosophic foundations of free market economics, as well as other economic ideas. They will learn about the link between ethics and economics, as well as about the important function of businesses in the economy. Students will study topics such as the Objectivist ethics, altruism, individualism, racism, the virtue of integrity, why businessmen should be honest, the nature of the antitrust laws, the gold standard, the nature of government and rights, government financing in a free society, among other topics.
This course has been created by Dr. Brian Simpson. Dr. Simpson is an assistant professor in the School of Business and Management at National University.
National University is the second largest private university in California and is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
For more information about National University, go to National's website at www.nu.edu. Students can apply to National University from its website. Simply follow the links to the online application. Students can register for the course by calling 1-800-NAT-UNIV and asking for an admissions advisor. Just tell the advisor you want to register for ECO 430 - Economics & Philosophy. If you have any questions, email Dr. Simpson at bsimpson@nu.edu, or call him at 858-642-8431 or through the NU operator at 1-800-NAT-UNIV.

"Work On The Supply"

On Sunday, Tommy Tomlinson at The Charlotte Observer described how important cars are to you and me, observed that gas prices have gone up quite a bit, and then made this excellent point:

We need to work on the supply.

Bravo. But instead of explaining why there is not enough supply of oil or explaining how to increase it; he went on to suggest hybrids, light rail and street cars, and alternate fuel. Hmmmm.

None of those increase the supply of oil. Here is an excellent article, now five years old, by Floyd Farleigh and Dr. Andrew Bernstein which forecasted the current situation and explains what to do to about Tommy's suggestion to "work on the supply". A few excerpts:

The United States has abundant supplies of oil and natural gas that it currently is prohibited from developing. These exist in two major areas. One is offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the other is in Alaska. The OCS is an area that stretches 200 miles out from the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. Half the oil in the OCS, particularly off the California coast, is in areas that are currently closed by environmental restrictions.

The second area abundant in oil is in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, states that "ANWR could produce oil for decades, adding as much as $325 billion to the U.S. economy and reducing imports by well over one million barrels per day."

and...

For example, recent gas prices in Chicago and Milwaukee topped $2 per gallon. This was caused by a new EPA regulation called "RFG-2." One result of this ruling is that on a trip from St. Louis to Chicago, a driver passes through four government-created "gasoline control zones." With three octane grades in each zone, producers must supply twelve different gasoline blends for service stations along a single 300-mile stretch of highway. The added cost this entails for producers necessarily sends prices skyrocketing.

They provide other reasons for the skyrocketing. Be sure to read the whole thing.

The problem is not OPEC. Nor is it greedy oil company executives. Not buying gasoline on a selected date will do nothing to change the reality of the situation. It is environmentalists and your elected officials whom are the problem. If you are unhappy with oil prices, then you need to raise your voice to, as Tommy says, "work on the supply". Use the above article to add content to that voice.

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Hurricane Katrina and "Lame Political Opportunism"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit reported on a New York Times article which attempts to link global warming to hurricanes and thus to the damage in New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina.

For some perspective, check this out from The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:





The top chart is hurricane maximum attained wind speed which has very slightly decreased since 1940. The number of hurricanes is the bottom line. The number has clearly declined since 1940. CO2 emissions have been rising during this period as any environmentalist will tell you. Why the decrease in hurricanes?

Because the above data goes only to 1997 or so, I took a look at what NOAA had to say. It provides a table by decade. Because the data shows the current decade only 40% complete, I extrapolated (unscientifically) to see what our decade would look like if it continued in the pattern of the first four years. Multiplying the 9 hurricanes by 2.5 gets to 22.5 hurricanes for the decade. That is on track with the 1870's, 1880's, 1890's, and the 1940's.

So something is causing hurricanes to increase of late, but given the data from the late 19th century, global warming is not the cause. I would agree with Glenn that:

It's sad to see such lame political opportunism at a time like this.

Nature magazine in 2004 had this to say:

The United States is bracing itself for a bruising encounter with Hurricane Ivan, currently storming across the Gulf of Mexico. The damage caused by the hurricanes Charley and Frances is still fresh, and the tropical storm Jeanne looks set to intensify to hurricane strength shortly. Surely there must be a reason behind this battering?

But climatologists are insisting it is pure chance. Global warming is probably having little or no effect on the number of hurricanes, they say, and there have been no more hurricanes this year than last. In 2003, however, most of the storms blew themselves out over the sea. This year, many of them have headed straight for populated areas, which is simply bad luck.

"They just happened to be aligned towards land this year," says Robert Weisberg, an expert in hurricane prediction at the University of South Florida in St Petersburg. "There is no apparent underlying trend."

And let us remember that global warming is a hypothesis which has been politicized. It is not a theory.

UPDATE: Changed date from 8/31 to 9/1. No material changes.

Crossposted to the Egosphere