He's answered you, Chris. That question is the "Tar Baby at the side of the road," he says. He doesn't want to get "entangled". Seems like a pretty straight-forward question to you and me. Why he thinks he will get entangled only he can say and he's not saying.

Hence his nickname, "Mark-Make-the-Most-of-It".

All I've asked is whether you are willing to denounce anti-semitism and anti-semites for their anti-semitic views. Is there something about this that you find hard to do?

"I think there’s much of value in Israel Shamir’s work"

Well, of course you would. So who is this Israel Shamir you all ask?

Take a look.

First, he is a fraud:

Shamir the fraud

Second, he is a neo-Nazi:

Shamir the neo-Nazi

"Mark", isn't it time for you to crawl back into your hole?

Before we leave however, here's a choice excerpt from the second article:

"Shamir" exceeds the extremism even of people like DePaul University's Norman Finkelstein (another of "Mark's" heroes). Even Nigel Perry, a hater of Israel who runs the pro-terror "Electronic Intifada" Web site, has denounced "Shamir" as an anti-Semite after "Shamir" ran a column containing medieval anti-Jewish blood libels. PLO front groups love him,..."

“Jewish supremicists” is an  in-your-face  term that aptly describes  Israel-can-do-no-wrong  fanatics. I don’t like David Duke and I rather doubt he would like me. Israel Shamir uses the term in question. Does that, by itself, make me an admirer of Israel Shamir?

Actually, if you’re interested, I think there’s much of value in Israel Shamir’s work (along with some things I completely disagree with), but Fred’s stupid deductive method is not the way to find out what I think about it.

Stupid, as in really really dumb. And arbitrarily linking to David Duke only shows how stupid this stupid man thinks you are.

Fred and Chris, like one-note Johnnies, can’t stop piping “Anti-semite!” “Anti-semite!” They’re part of the trouble with an unmoderated, or too-lightly moderated, discussion group. One can have an informative discussion with many people, but then you have to put up with idiots like Fred and friends.

The treatment – the anti-semite treatment – the Tar Baby at the side of the road which if fought only entangles – doesn’t work with me. Perhaps this is what annoys Fred and friends no end. I don't fight the Tar Baby: if criticizing Israel-worship is anti-semitic, then I am an anti-semite. Yes, Fred, make the most of it.

Are you referring to "Mark-Make-the-Most-of-it"?

The same "Mark" who on these very boards just a few months ago penned these eloquent words, "I am critical of people who try to make Ayn Rand a poster-girl for Jewish-supremacists when in fact she never wrote a word about being Jewish. If this be anti-semitism, make the most of it."

Now, I found the reference to "Jewish-supremacists" rather curious since the only other place I can find mention of it is in a title of a book by the neo-Nazi, former KKK leader, David Duke: "Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question".

Would it surprise you if Duke, too, denies he is anti-semitic?

Another of "Mark's" heroes?

Ya think "Mark" is going to get around to answering my implied challenge to denounce anti-semitism?

Gee, "Mark" doesn't "like either camp". Of course not. He prefers a Palestinian terrorist camp. Isn't that right, "Mark"?

“HB reversed his position on Bush's Forward Strategy for Freedom (took him long enough!). Beyond that, you'll have to wait for him to write more articles.”

Thanks for your reply, Mike.

Bill wrote:
“Binswanger has recently stated that he changed his view of Bush and the Forward Strategy of Freedom ... . At one point he was amongst the more pro-Republican Objectivists. No longer. I suspect this has happened to many Objectivists. But somehow I also suspect that it won’t happen to Wakeland and Tracinski.”

Somehow I agree {smile} – anyone who reads TIA or TIA Daily knows why a smile is appropriate. Since in the long run their stand could mean loss of income for Tracinski due to losses in circulation, in a way it’s admirable that he sticks by his principles in spite of their unpopularity with ARI. I don’t like either camp myself.

A while back you said that the people at ARI are not neocons. True, but as far as the run up to the Iraq War is concerned, ARI and the neocons presented the same arguments. The ARI stuff might have been written by William Kristol.  See  “Relentless Propaganda”  and the footnotes to  “What We Owe Our Soldiers”.

Binswanger has recently stated that he changed his view of Bush and the Foward Strategy of Freedom after viewing Yaron Brook's most recent lecture. Essentially, he came to realize that the FSF is not based on self-interest and self defense but has self-sacrifce and altruism as its core. He said that he was also heavily influenced by Bradley Thompson's artlicle on Conservatives. I detect a significant shift in his views. At one point he was amongst the more pro-Republican Objectivists. No longer. I suspect this has happened to many Objectivists. But somehow I also suspect that it wont happen to Wakeland and Tracinski.

By the way, did Tracinski just issue a not so subtle challenge to DIM in yesterday's TIA Daily?

HB reversed his position on Bush's Forward Strategy for Freedom (took him long enough!). Beyond that, you'll have to wait for him to wrtie more aticles.

- Mike

You forgot on your little cribsheet-scorecard:

Supports Israel?
Binsangwer: Yes
Tracinski: Yes

Index it!

Hey "Mark," while you stonewall on the question of whether you're an anti-semite, you could answer in any number of other ways while still taking the Fifth, as it were. Such as: what's your opinion of anti-semites? Positive? Negative? Anti-semites should be denounced, yes?

"Mark"'s spiffy index-grid scheme even comes with its own set of instructions for easy navigation. I applaud your thoroughness, sir.

Oh, and just because you're an Israel-hating piece of shit, doesn't mean that Fred is going to choke on gall.

Go on now, pout and moan like a big baby like you did on HPO. Remember that, "Mark"? It was great. "Fred lied! He said that I mentioned that Rand didn't flaunt her Jewishness! Big fat liar Fred is! I don't care if the Google archives back him up on precisely that! You're the problem! I'm not the problem! Waaaaaaa!!!!"

My mistake, Mike. I was letting “Guantanamo and the Geneva Convention” by Harry Binswanger (October 4, 2006) do double duty for both torture and the election. I was also thinking of his article of last year “Bush’s Speech on Freedom” about how grateful he was to Bush. Binswanger’s thoughts certainly tended in the direction of supporting the Republicans in the election and if he were as consistent as Tracinski he would have advocated voting Republican. Apparently he didn’t. What did he say on HBL?

The second Binswanger article is reviewed at:
How to Kill an Idea.

Binswanger did not advocate voting Republican in 2006. Why do you think he did?

- Mike

More silly sarcasm from Chris. What’s the point? He doesn’t like my novel indexing scheme I guess. I think it’s cool. The old index is for paper, strictly passé. This new way is made to take advantage of hyper-linking. (It’s not always suitable though – the website can’t have too many pages.)

Early on someone at what is now RoR thought the index was some kind of scorecard. Well, yes, sort of. After someone else asked what the heck it was I added the instructions you see now.

Chris should think what he’s doing. He hates my website, yet he drives people there in order to see this amazing index (scroll down a bit).

Fred, old boy, you grow tiresome.

And think of your health, man. You’ll choke on your own gall one of these days.

------------
ARI Watch

"Mark" of course can "visualize" anything he wants since he is not under restraint of reality and he can make it up as he goes along (such as he does in comparing Binswanger and Tracinski when he obviously doesn't know wtf he is talking about).

But let's not forget the most important thing about "Mark". He's an anti-semitic Israel-hating piece of shit. Everything else is secondary.

Mike –

Unrestricted immigration:
Yes and Yes.
Vote Republican 2006:
Yes and Yes.
Torture, a legitimate governmental means of inquiry:
Yes and Yes (though Tracinski has his questions).
Onward to Iran, the next Iraq:
Yes and Yes.

Hey "Mark," I admire your dedication in putting up an entire grid on your website. Could you do a Binswanger-Tracinski grid to visualize the above relationships?

Mike –

If painted in the full gamut of color Binswanger and Tracinski would have their differences, but in crude primary colors:

  Unrestricted immigration:
     Yes and Yes.
  Vote Republican 2006:
     Yes and Yes.
  Torture, a legitimate governmental means of inquiry:
     Yes and Yes (though Tracinski has his questions).
  Onward to Iran, the next Iraq:
     Yes and Yes.

I don’t subscribe to Binswanger’s list. Do you have time to summarize how he differs from Tracinski?

------------
ARI Watch

Doubtless concern with ideas will look like obsession to some people. To me it seems natural to resent the Ayn Rand Institute’s perversion of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. In any case ARI Watch is a part-time activity. If it bothers Chris – for his thanks is snide sarcasm – too bad.

Thanks to "Mark" for continuing to fulfill his mission in life by keeping a close watch on all the goings-on at ARI. Obsession, anyone?

Harry Binswanger says pretty much what Tracinski does regarding politics and he’s still on ARI’s board of directors.

No. Binswanger made his positions clear on HBL over the last few weeks. They are not the same as Tacinski's.

- Mike

Diana Hsieh –

Robert Tracinski is no longer associated with ARI. I phoned ARI today and asked the receptionist.

ARI issued no public statement about the departure of one of their most visible and prolific writers. At one point he was “the editorial director of the Ayn Rand Institute” (see ARI’s June 2, 2003 “The Road Map to Hell”) then dropped to “a senior writer” or “senior editor.” It seems the last thing wrote that ARI published was on January 12, 2004: “Martha and the Tall Poppies” where he’s called “a senior writer.”

As recently as April 16, 2006 CapMag (but not ARI) published his “Time to Fight the Real War” and called him “a guest writer with the Ayn Rand Institute.” But it turns out CapMag is mistaken. A friend emailed The Intellectual Activist this evening and asked them when Tracinski had ended his association with ARI. They (actually his wife) replied that he chose to end his employment there “a number of years” ago, to focus on TIA.

So if the ARI website is correct, that would have been some time after January 12, 2004.

Diana suggests that Tracinski doesn’t belong at ARI. Yet Harry Binswanger says pretty much what Tracinski does regarding politics and he’s still on ARI’s board of directors. I agree that Tracinski is no Objectivist, but then I don’t think any of the folks at ARI are doing too well in that line.

Note: This post was edited from its original to reflect new information.

------------
ARI Watch

"I see him as a defender of Western Civilisation in the face of a concerted effort to destroy it"

Hear hear, Lindsay.

Not to mention that Americans are dying, not to set up free societies in the middle east, but Islamic states that due to their anti-life ideology, will eventually become major threats to the United States. Taking out Saddam was a good thing. Replacing him with an Islamic state, however, is nothing short of suicide. Don't fool yourself. Bush is not fighting for freedom. He is fighting for Democratic Islamo-fascist totalitarianism.

Adam Buker

Music Composition
www.adambuker.com

I totally disagree with Dr. Peikoff's comment that people who disagree with his views regarding voting do not understand Objectivism. However, he does not claim that not voting Democrat across the board is immoral. Not only that but this new view of Peikoff's contridicts his earlier view regarding voting and both Dr. Peikoff's views contridict Miss Rand's.

However, as disrespectful as Dr. Peikoff's statement was to Objectivists that disagree with him, it is not nearly as bad as statments from many of his opponents, statements such as yours. And I don't even agree that one should have voted straight Democrat, at least not for the reasons Dr. Peikoff gave!

But it is obvious that Mr. Perigo uses the same non-method of argument that he critizes Dr. Peikoff for, replacing insults for arguments. "If you disagree with my views on voting you don't understand Objectivism!" "If you agree with Dr. Peikoff you are a cultist!" As such, I will not waste my time on this phony's "Objectivist" site any longer.

P.S. I stand corrected - Mr. Tracinski hasn't been affiliated with ARI for a few years it seems.

Ok Linzio, you see Bush as an advocate of liberty.

I see him as a defender of Western Civilisation in the face of a concerted effort to destroy it. This is the tiny bit of context you Hsiekovians drop.

This is the point where we disagree. He is not a principled advocate of liberty. He does not fight for individual rights. On the issue that you see good in Bush, the war against "terrorism", he is choosing to fight a battle on terms that make it impossible for him to win. Bush says that Islam is a religion of peace. Bush is Neville Chamberlain.

What nonsense. Saying "Islam is a religion of peace" doesn't make someone Neville Chamberlain, especially if he also acknowledges "Islamo-Fascism." It makes him mistaken, but not necessarily an egregious appeasing Democrat type. Much less does it furnish a rationale for voting blanketly for the latter. Anyone who does that is squarely in the Chamberlain camp.

That's all from me here. I'm gonna have some lunch & start on my Epilogue.

Ok Linzio, you see Bush as an advocate of liberty. This is the point where we disagree. He is not a principled advocate of liberty. He does not fight for individual rights. On the issue that you see good in Bush, the war against "terrorism", he is choosing to fight a battle on terms that make it impossible for him to win. Bush says that Islam is a religion of peace. Bush is Neville Chamberlain.

In this case, the enemy of my friend is my enemy.

Who has argued that not voting Democrat across the board is immoral? If you have Dr. Peikoff in mind you should reread what he actually wrote.

Can't you cultists read?!

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

In other words, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

Linz, my claim is that Repubs are just as antagonistic to liberty as the Democrats. Do you agree?

Yes. Or more accurately, I'm not sure about just as but it's fair to say, "Both are antagonistic to liberty in different respects." Except in one crucial respect unique to the present context: the #1 existential threat to liberty right now is Islamo-Fascism, and Bush is facing up to that threat, however imperfectly. Criticise him, urge greater KASS upon him, by all means, but to desert him in these circumstances and vote as a matter of principle across the board for his opponents who want to KASS down or even cut and run in the face of that threat is disgraceful.

Linz

Who has argued that not voting Democrat across the board is immoral? If you have Dr. Peikoff in mind you should reread what he actually wrote.

Who has argued that Democrats are epitomes of good? For this I have no clue who you could possibly mean.

Linz, my claim is that Repubs are just as antagonistic to liberty as the Democrats. Do you agree?

If you disagree what is your evidence?

Linz said, "So do I, but I wouldn't vote for Neville Chamberlain just because Bush wasn't Roman enough." And if you think that's the opposing view, then you are quite confused. (Or rather, you've accepted Tracinski's false characterization of the debate.)

I have indeed mischaracterised the opposing view. It is not merely that Bush is not Roman enough, it's that he's EVIL, and one must vote Democrats (those epitomes of GOOD) across the board or be IMMORAL. Sorry about that.

Linz

Linz said, "So do I, but I wouldn't vote for Neville Chamberlain just because Bush wasn't Roman enough."

And if you think that's the opposing view, then you are quite confused. (Or rather, you've accepted Tracinski's false characterization of the debate.)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

"Robert Tracinski is a senior writer for ARI and he isn't a neocon in any way."

I would seriously doubt that Robert Tracinski has any association with ARI these days. He hasn't written for them for many years, nor spoken at an ARI event since 2003. He's not listed on their page of speakers and writers. He's been openly hostile to ARI's positions for some time now. (Jack Wakeland even called it "doing the enemy's work" in an essay RT published.)

(For the record: I don't think he's a neo-con, but I also don't think he's advocating Objectivism.)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

That's "asinine," you ass.

ARI has always championed a Roman approach to war and I love them for it.

So do I, but I wouldn't vote for Neville Chamberlain just because Bush wasn't Roman enough.

Linz

Robert Tracinski is a senior writer for ARI and he isn't a neocon in any way.

The claim that ARI is pro-Neocon is assinine. You might be able to make that claim for Tracinski and Wakeland over at TIA. But to do that for ARI is ridiculous. There have been no greater defenders of uncompromised, offensive warfare aimed at the relentless devestation of our Islamic enemies than ARI affiliated writers. ARI has always championed a Roman approach to war and I love them for it.

...is the brain child of a lone fanatical ARI-hater who likes to present his hack jobs here on SOLO from time to time.  Pay him no bother.

--Dan Edge

I think the real purpose of this article is summed up in this paragraph..

"To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights."

The real purpose of Mr. Epstein’s article is not to celebrate Memorial Day, it is to whitewash the Iraq War and ARI’s part in promoting it. His article is one long “We didn’t mean it, we didn’t mean this!” when in fact what they were saying during the run up to the war was right out of the Neocon playbook. The consequence to U.S. soldiers was predictable.

For more see
“What We Owe Our Soldiers”  Reviewed

Whilst all press releases from ARI are of immense quality, I applaud this with particular passion.

This sentence is worth repeating.

"our soldiers have been compromised with crippling rules of engagement that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above their own"

I am so proud to be an Objectivist