Monday, March 12, 2007
John Lewis Talk Rescheduled?
Via Nick Provenzo, here is a report to the effect that the College Republicans at George Mason University have decided to sponsor the John Lewis talk that the school dropped under pressure from Moslem students who sympathize with global jihad.
Incidentally, it is worth taking a quick look at the "argument" presented late in the article by the CAIR official.
Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group, said Lewis' call for "immediate, personal destruction" of Muslims devoted to Islamic law makes him an unfit public speaker.Isn't it interesting how brazenly this man condemns a "call to violence against people with a religion you disagree with" while evading the fact that the problem Lewis (and those of us who support him) has with Islam is -- that it calls for violence against anyone who disagrees with it. And then in the very next breath, this jackass claims that, "[N]obody's advocating for [the imposition of Islamic law]".
"Any time you even approach a call to physical violence against people with a religion you disagree with, that's a problem," Hooper said. [bold added]
Oh. On second thought, he's right. Moslems such as Ibrahim Hooper don't "advocate for" Islamic law. They just assume they are right to impose it by whatever means are available. After all, to "advocate for" something would entail presenting rational arguments in order to persuade others of the truth of what you are saying, rather than acting to prevent others from airing opposing views.
There is even more wrong here. Hooper slips in the assumption that men should not "advocate violence" while a religion can, drops the context for the use of force in self-defense by using the leftist code-word "violence", and demands that we not judge an action that is motivated by religion.
So will George Mason stand up to this enemy of freedom, or will it become known by the ignominious nickname of, "'Who is that other' George Mason University"? Only time will tell.
If necessary, we can use the following abbreviation: WITO-GMU for short.
In addition to Radio Dismuke, I have added two other blogs to the sidebar over the weekend. Coincidentally, both authors, fellow supporters of Objectivism, happen to be knowledgeable about chemistry.
Via Objectivism Online this weekend, I learned of the first of these, The Crucible and Column, by Kendall J, who works in the chemical industry and writes with the aim of "celebrating industry, business, the businessman and the conditions which make it and him possible". (He also explains how he came up with name for his blog in that post.)
Our second chemist-Objectivist is an undergraduate majoring in chemistry, Michael Caution, who blogs at Abandon Caution. He is off to a good start, as one can see by his analysis of an article smearing Elan Journo in a campus newspaper. He is also the first to have decoded the color scheme of the covers of the Objective Standard.
Forthcoming: The Objective Standard
I am looking forward to reading Diana Hsieh's review of Tara Smith's The Virtuous Egoist in the next issue of The Objective Standard and will add my own voice to her reminder to renew if you haven't done so already.
Craig Biddle has done a superb job and deserves your support. For that matter, you deserve to have the chance to read some of the best commentary out there, so if you haven't subscribed already, do yourself a favor.
I'll crib Diana's excerpt from Craig Biddle's email announcement here.
If you had a one-year subscription that began with the inaugural issue (i.e., Spring 2006), then the Winter 2006–2007 issue was the fourth and final issue in your subscription. Don't miss the Spring issue; it mails in just a few days! There are three quick and easy ways to renew:At the TOS website, this issue's "available to all" article is "The 'Forward Strategy' for Failure", by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo, which I highly recommend, especially for those who still regard George Bush's persistence in this policy in the face of its utter failure to be a virtue.
1. Renew online by clicking here.
2. Print and fax (or mail) our PDF order form.
3. Or call us toll free at 800-423-6151.
If you've not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the time to act. While supplies last, you can still begin your subscription with the inaugural issue. Subscribe today and receive the first full year of the journal all at once, followed by the Spring 2007 issue a few days later. Or start your subscription with whichever issue you like; just let us know your preference.
Bush's strategy was concocted and advocated dishonestly: It is a product of evasion. The facts are plain, but Bush has refused to accept them. Bush's plan is not some sophisticated alternative means of achieving victory -- a means that somehow sidesteps a self-assertive war; victory was never its purpose. Rather, his plan is a rejection of the very goal of defeating the enemy.Read it all. This strategy is discrediting the very thing we should be doing right now: fighting a real war, which is to say, fighting ruthlessly.
If Islamic totalitarians and their many followers know without a doubt that the consequence of threatening us is their own demise, the world will be a peaceful place for Americans. And that, ultimately, is the end for which our government and its policies are the means: to defend our freedom so that we can live and prosper.
And speaking of burning Bushes, how often do we see such a close temporal succession of cause and effect as we are seeing with Dubya talking "compassion" in South America and being stalked by someone who need only rebut, in effect, that actions speak louder than words?
Cause: President Bush on Friday denied charges that the United States under his leadership has ignored Latin America's poverty and problems. "That may be what people say but it's certainly not what the facts bear out," Bush said. "We care about our neighborhood a lot." [Translation: We agree that a nation's virtue is measured by how much loot it passes out to "the poor".]For the millionth time: One cannot fight an ideological opponent by conceding his basic moral premise. This is why, for once, Chavez is right: Bush is a cadaver. Too bad this still doesn't mean that socialism isn't about to turn much of South America into a "giant cemetery", as an acquaintance of Ayn Rand once called Soviet Russia.
Effect: "We're not planning to sabotage Bush's visit, because we're in the presence of a true political cadaver," Chavez told the regionally televised gathering of about 20,000 people, some of whom waved banners with images of Che Guevara. "Bush is a political cadaver." [Translation: He agrees that what I am doing is good. Now, watch me steal more American property and hand more loot over to you!]
Strike my crack about Bush being stalked. Bush is the bigger idiot here. He's serving as an "opening act" for Chavez, whom he could have and should have deposed ages ago.