bruce, STILL don't care what you THINK she MIGHT have said and/or done.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!! There are people that have lived that are more significant than I!!!!!!!!!! WTF son. do you think I'm a self- centered, self-absorbed ,ego-manicial conservative Republican or something? Dumbass. On Jul 3, 4:16 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > Many people who have been dead for longer than 25 years are more significant > than you Holly. > > That's why people still write about them,and never will about you. > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > bruce, > > > Who cares what you THINK she MIGHT have done. Woman's been dead for 25 > > years. > > > On Jul 3, 3:19 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ayn Rand vs. Barack Obama on Iran Column by Erika Holzer - Jun 30, 2009 > > 40 > > > ratings from readers > > > After Iran's recent clampdown on protesters, it took Barack Obama a full > > > week to denounce the regime's brutality. Ever wonder what Ayn Rand's > > > reaction to the same circumstances would have been? > > > > How would Ayn Rand’s response to the Iranian crisis have differed from > > > Obama’s? For many conservatives, libertarians, and even some > > Objectivists, > > > the answer is not self-evident. > > > > It depends on one’s definition of “self-interest.” > > > > An articulate critic of California’s spendthrift politicians recently > > > blasted away at a seemingly infinite list of special-interest groups > > > lobbying for government handouts — until he veered off track with a > > > wisecrack remark about “Randian self-interest” being in the same league > > with > > > the “self-interest” demands of teachers’ unions, civil service > > bureaucrats, > > > and the like. > > > > But anyone conversant with the philosophy of Objectivism and its > > > uncompromising defense of individual rights is acutely aware that when > > Rand > > > spoke of self-interest, it was with a crucial modifier in mind: > > > rationalself-interest. And to seek the > > > unearned, as the above-named special-interest groups do, is both patently > > > irrational and antithetical to the concept of individual rights. > > > > Bearing this in mind, what would be Ayn Rand’s take on the current > > Iranian > > > crisis? > > > > In “The Wreckage of the Consensus” Rand wrote about the “...need for a > > > foreign policy based on long-range principles, i.e., an ideology.” > > (Emphasis > > > Rand’s.) “But,” Rand stated emphatically, “a revision of our foreign > > policy, > > > from its basic premises on up, is what today’s anti-ideologists dare not > > > contemplate....” She went on to point out that “[a] proper solution would > > be > > > to elect statesmen — if such appeared — and with a radically different > > > foreign policy, a policy explicitly and proudly dedicated to the defense > > of > > > America’s rights and national self-interests…” (emphasis mine) (The > > > Objectivist, April 1967). > > > > In other words, unlike Obama, whose “foreign policy” is so fuzzy as to be > > > almost devoid of principles (not even short-range, let alone long-), Rand > > > would have advised a newly elected president to give high priority to a > > > clear-cut foreign policy as soon as he took office, thus eliminating the > > > possibility of being caught off-guard — as Obama was — five months into > > his > > > first term by the Iranian crisis. > > > > Nor is it hard to predict how Ayn Rand would have defined America’s > > > “self-interest” today in dealing with the likes of Ayatollah Khamenei or > > > Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if some talk show host were to interview her. All one > > > has to do is extrapolate from a revealing 1964 Playboy interview, > > > substituting Iran for Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Cuba. > > > > Playboy: What about force in foreign policy? You have said any free > > nation > > > had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.… > > > > Rand: Certainly. > > > > Playboy: ...And that any free nation today has the moral right — though > > not > > > the duty — to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” > > > (Emphasis mine.) Correct? > > > > Rand: Correct. A dictatorship — a country that violates the rights of its > > > own citizens — is an outlaw and can claim no rights. > > > > Playboy: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba > > or > > > the Soviet Union? > > > > Rand: Not at present. I don’t think it’s necessary.... I would advocate a > > > blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of the Soviet Union; and you > > would > > > see both of those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American > > > life.... ” > > > > Rand also told her interviewer: “I do not believe that an individual > > should > > > cooperate with criminals, and for the same reason, I do not believe that > > > free countries should cooperate with dictatorships.” > > > > In other words, Ayn Rand would disagree with well-meaning conservatives > > and > > > Objectivists who think that we necessarily have a duty to intervene in > > Iran. > > > > Robert Tracinski, in his June 22, 2009 TIA Daily newsletter, writes that > > > “[w]e have the opportunity to encourage the collapse of the > > > longest-standing, most militant modern Islamic regime — a leading sponsor > > of > > > terrorism.” He also makes this understandable assumption: “The success of > > > the new Iranian revolution is, of course, vital to American’s interests.” > > > > But is it? > > > > Despite the heart-rending plight of literally millions of Iranians (many > > of > > > them young men and women whose “Death to Dictatorship” protests and brave > > > defiance of a monstrous regime have been met with bloody slaughter), from > > > Ayn Rand’s perspective whether our government should intervene — and if > > so, > > > how — rests on what is in America’s self-interest. > > > > That said, I think a strong case can be made that Ayn Rand would conclude > > it > > > is in America’s rational self-interest to intervene. > > > > On June 22, 2009, Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the late Shah of Iran — > > > who normally keeps a low profile — addressed a packed room of sobered > > > reporters at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. ten days after > > the > > > protest movement began. “If the popular uprising in Iran is crushed,” > > > Pahlavi warned, “this would not only threaten global stability but could > > > lead to nuclear war.... [F]anatical tyrants who know that the future is > > > against them may end their present course on their terms: a nuclear > > > holocaust.” > > > > Columnist Pat Buchanan recently noted that despite Obama’s efforts to > > > sweet-talk the ayatollahs into linking their nuclear program to energy > > > purposes, the regime has continued to engage in the process of enriching > > > uranium. > > > > Columnists Dick Morris and Eileen McGann are convinced that Iran is a > > “dire > > > threat to our national security.” That the president of the United > > State’s > > > “pathetic performance vis-à-vis Iran...cannot but send a message to all > > of > > > America’s enemies that his “transparent appeasement of Iran’s government > > and > > > it’s obvious lack of reciprocation” show him to be “a wimp” and sends a > > > clear signal to rogue nations that Obama is “clueless” about handling > > > foreign policy crises (emphasis mine). That “...[A]s North Korea prepares > > to > > > launch a missile on a Hail Mary pass aimed at Hawaii, Obama’s Democrats > > > slash 19 missile interceptors from the Defense Department budget.” > > > > To be a “wimp” under these circumstances is to be an appeaser, which is > > what > > > Barack Obama is. And in Ayn Rand’s view, rogue nations like Russia and > > Nazi > > > Germany (read Iran, North Korea, Putin’s Russia) “...like any bully, feed > > on > > > appeasement.” Such bully regimes, Rand stated, would “retreat placatingly > > at > > > the first sound of firm opposition” (emphasis mine) (Los Angeles Times, > > Nov. > > > 11, 1962). > > > > Obama has proved deaf to the arguments Ayn Rand would have made about how > > to > > > deal with the revolution in Iran. It took him one week of dithering with > > his > > > advisors before he saw fit, in the words of Jonah Goldberg, > > Editor-at-large > > > of National Review Online, to give “a full-throated denunciation of the > > > regime’s clampdown and a statement of support for the protesters.” (And > > only > > > after Congress and the Europeans had beat him to it, Goldberg noted > > dryly). > > > “[I]f the clerical junta prevails,” Goldberg warned, “anyone who shakes > > > hands with Ahmadinejad will have a hard time washing the blood off his > > > own....” > > > > All things considered, I think that Ayn Rand would have quickly sized up > > the > > > Iranian crisis and weighed the threats to our country’s national > > security. > > > She’d have grasped that if the most powerful man in the world — the > > > president of the United States — did not confront the ayatollahs and > > > voice strong > > > unqualified support of the protesters, our country would risk nuclear > > > proliferation, not just in Iran, but in other rogue nations. That the > > > unthinkable — nuclear holocaust — was a real possibility. > > > > I think that, as Robert Tracinski correctly argued, “The success of the > > new > > > Iranian revolution is ... vital to America’s interests.” > > > > And I have no doubt that Ayn Rand would have written a scathing > > denunciation > > > of President Barack Obama for not recognizing and acting on his moral > > > dutyto — if not invade Iran — then at least to support the Iranian > > > revolution > > > with all the means at his disposal. > > > > Erika Holzer < > >http://www.theatlasphere.com/directory/profile.php?id=11740>’s > > > vigilante suspense thriller Eye for an > > > Eye< > >http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0595.. > > .>was > > > a Paramount feature film directed by John Schlesinger and starring > > > Kiefer Sutherland and Sally Field. For more about her other books, > > fiction > > > and non-fiction, and her most recent book, Ayn Rand: My Fiction-Writing > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
