Marine veterans appalled by University of Washington attempt to spin Boyington controversy
Below is the Marine veterans' answer the University of Washington administration's weasel-like response to the Boyington open letter.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
A group of Marine Corps veterans remain dismayed by the University of Washington's response to the national outrage surrounding a decision by the university's student government to quash a proposal that would have honored university alumnus and Medal of Honor recipient Gregory "Pappy" Boyington with a small memorial.
Angered by reports that the student government's action was animated by the view that Boyington was a "white male" who killed other people and thus was not a role model worthy of emulation, a group of one-hundred-fourteen Marine Corps veterans wrote an open letter to the university community defending Boyington and calling on the university community to reconsider its decision. Yet instead of a thoughtful response to an upsetting controversy, the veterans received a form letter reply that denied that any of the outrageous statements reported in the media took place.
According to Nicholas Provenzo, author of the open letter and a Marine veteran, the university is attempting to spin the controversy away rather than take ownership of the appalling statements made against the memory a great American hero.
"This controversy didn't miracle itself into existence," says Provenzo. "What did happen was members of the public examined the posted minutes of the student senate meeting where the monument proposal was voted down. When they read the offensive and incendiary statements made by some of the students, that was enough to ignite the firestorm."
"It's the students own record of their meeting that sparked this national outrage," says Provenzo. "Yet the university nevertheless has the gall to accuse the public of misconstruing the very words the students used to describe their own debate."
"This issue is about more than just a monument to one man," says David Williams, another veteran signatory of the open-letter. "It is about recognizing that the actions by certain people in history were essential toward protecting the freedoms that are the basis of our nation and civilization."
"The irony of this debate is that the students are now spiting on the memory of a man whose very deeds allow them to speak their minds without fear of repercussion from police, church, or government," says Williams.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:11 AM |donate | link
|
|
Friday, February 17, 2006::
It's official--we're evil!
Imagine my pride when scanning the website server logs, I found that CAC has been listed at the "Portal of Evil," a leftist website seemingly run by the kind of people who set fire to McDonalds because Big Mac's oppress the proletariat. They didn’t like our review of Craig Biddle’s “Loving Life” (so I wager his Objective Standard Google ad that shows up in their site will leave them foaming at the bit) and they didn’t like some other stuff so boring I can’t even make myself recall what they said.
I did rate my own mention from an anonymous classmate at George Mason who didn't like the fact that I'm not as handsome as him and that I mentioned my ex-wife the opera singer in--get this--a class that looked at opera and politics. The goofball was also upset that I wrote a column in the campus paper and set up a table to sell Atlas Shrugged (He didn’t mention the Rachel Corrie posters though). Hey, what can I say? I’M EVIL!!! Muuuuhahahaha!!!
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:31 PM |donate | link
|
|
University of Washington spins "Pappy" Boyington outrage
I received the following form letter reply from the University of Washington for the Marine veteran’s letter that was sent out this morning:
President Emmert asked me to respond on his behalf to your message about the Associated Students of the University of Washington (ASUW) Senate debate regarding a memorial to honor Col. Boyington.
The ASUW Senate, an arm of student government on campus, is a forum in which students discuss a wide range of issues, including the proposal for the memorial. After considerable debate, the resolution failed by a tiebreaker vote. As ASUW Senate Chair Alex Kim described in the message below, students thought long and hard about their decision and cast their votes for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons that have been publicized are addressed in Mr. Kim's report.
According to Mr. Kim and ASUW President Lee Dunbar, who co-sponsored the resolution, many students felt that we should honor all veterans appropriately, and not single out one, even though Col. Boyington was a Medal of Honor winner. It should also be noted that thanks to the work of Dean Emeritus Brewster Denny and the contributions of many UW alumni, several years ago the University erected a fitting memorial to UW students, faculty and staff who lost their lives in World War II.
Different versions of what transpired during the debate have circulated through the electronic media. I hope you will take a moment to read Mr. Kim's account. I also hope that regardless of one's point of view on this issue, the exercise of democracy that occurred at the Senate meeting can be seen as a meaningful learning opportunity for the students engaged in the debate.
Sincerely,
Eric S. Godfrey Acting Vice President for Student Affairs
It has recently come to our attention that the actions of the ASUW Student Senate last night have been greatly misrepresented to the student body and the general public. As such I wanted to clarify what actually occurred.
The Student Senate exists to create official student opinion by bringing together student representatives from all across campus. The resolution concerning Colonel Boyington (available online at http://senate.asuw.org/legislation/12/R/R-12-18.html) cited the Colonel's exemplary service record, including the fact that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for service in World War II. The resolution called for the creation of a memorial in his honor. Passage of the resolution would not have necessarily resulted in the creation such a memorial, but would have recommended it to the University of Washington.
The debate within the Senate was fair, balanced, and respectful. Senators representing a diverse array of viewpoints spoke on the resolution, raising numerous points as to the merits and demerits of the resolution.
1.) The ASUW Student Senate declined to support the construction of a memorial for an individual. This in no way indicates a lack of respect for the individual or the cause, merely that the Senate did not support the construction of a memorial. The Senate weighed factors such as financial viability, the logistics of implementation, which historical points are relevant, and the difficulty in assessing which veterans should be memorialized over others. Questions regarding these factors were not addressed in the legislation itself and thus became points of debate during the meeting.
2.) Senators speak on behalf of the opinions of their constituents. This legislation has been posted publicly for nearly a month and senators have used that time to discuss the issues with their constituents. There is no way to distill a central argument of the Senate for or against any piece of legislation the Senate discusses. While the vote itself is a yes or no decision, the reasons senators choose to vote in a particular manner vary widely. Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent a decision by the Therefore, it is inappropriate to represent a decision by the Senate as resulting from any single statement or point-of-view.
3.) No senator speaking in opposition to the resolution suggested that deaths in war are the equivalent of murder. One senator, in making a motion to remove references to the number of Japanese planes shot down, suggested the focus of the resolution should be on the man's service to his country. The sponsor of the amendment suggested that death in war was sometimes a "necessary evil" and that the focus of the honor should not be on the necessary evil, but rather on the service. That motion passed overwhelmingly. A further amendment to remove the text of the inscription of the Medal of Honor from the legislation subsequently failed overwhelmingly.
4.) No senator stated that we should not pass the resolution on the grounds that Colonel Boyington was a "white male." One senator stated that we have many monuments and memorials to white males, but did not suggest this was a reason to not support the resolution.
Throughout the debate in the Student Senate, the tone was very respectful.
If you have any additional questions, please contact: ASUW President Lee Dunbar (asuwpres@u.washington.edu), Student Senate Chair Alex Kim (asuwssch@u.washington.edu), Student Senate Vice-Chair Erin Shields (asuwssvc@u.washington.edu) or Director of Operations Karl Smith (asuwbdop@u.washington.edu)
Alex Kim Student Senate Chair Associated Students of the University of Washington 206.543.1780(office) 206.669.9562 (mobile) http://senate.asuw.org/
Office of the President University of Washington Room 301, Gerberding Hall Box 351230 Seattle, WA 98195 Phone: (206) 543-5010 Fax: (206) 616-1784
This is what one calls spin. “Oh we didn’t to this, we did that—Oh, we didn’t mean this, we meant that.”
This story didn't just miracle itself into existence. What did happen was someone read the posted minutes of the student senate meeting that nixed the monument proposal with all its incendiary quotes, and that was enough to ignite the firestorm.
It's their own minuets—how can the university accuse the public of misconstruing the very words the students themselves used to memorialize their senate meeting?
My spin detector is signaling red hot here. Time to get thinking about the next steps . . .
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 12:55 PM |donate | link
|
|
A Leaden Silence on the Islamic Threat to Free Speech
An ominous silence has followed the initial uproar over the Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. The silence is deafening, emanating from two quarters that properly should be the most concerned: the news media and the government. They are either oblivious or indifferent to the crucial issue of the inviolability of the First Amendment.
Instead, they are obsessed with issues far removed from the question of whether or not anyone has the right to mock an idea or an icon or simply express thoughtful criticism of it. New Orleans and the Katrina victims, Vice President Cheney's hunting accident, videos of state policemen hit by passing cars while writing speeding tickets, obese children, and truth in multi-grain cereal labels, comprise just a fraction of the myopic fare offered on primetime news. So many deserving scrub pines obscure the redwoods in the distance.
The continuing destructive and deadly riots against the cartoons in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other locales now only merit incidental reportage, if any at all. Our politicians as well have tiptoed around the cartoon subject with a pusillanimity hard to credit them. They are otherwise so voluble about everything else, such as the necessity of smoking bans, gun control, reducing high cholesterol, punishing oil companies for their profits, and simpler Medicare prescription drug guidelines.
One should not blame semi-clueless, photogenic news anchors too much; they are just highly paid teleprompter readers posing as reporters cum entertainers. They read whatever their highly paid, politically correct house news writers churn out on orders from their editors. Who are they to initiate a probe into the speech restrictions of the Campaign Finance Law?
One can, however, charge a heavier responsibility to our politicians. Every one of them is sworn to uphold the Constitution, but not one has dared say much about the Danish cartoonists and how their predicament and jeopardy might just as easily be imported to the U.S. and experienced by American cartoonists. A veritable "clash of civilizations" is underway. Not one governor, senator, or representative has shown the least inclination to enter the fray on behalf of his electorate or constituents, or even demonstrated awareness of the clash.
One might be tempted to think they are exercising discretion as the better part of valor; after all, they could very well be targeted for Islamic violence or at least a noisy demonstration by Muslims if they publicly took the side of free speech and never minded anyone's offended feelings. But that temptation would be brief, given the venal and pragmatic character of most politicians. Their philosophy of serving and protecting productive Americans is to manage and regulate their lives for their own good, in exchange for handsome salaries, generous medical benefits, bountiful retirement plans, and innumerable perquisites. All paid for by fettered and yoked tax cows.
The realm of ideas and rights seems too frightening for most politicians to venture into. They fear it for one of two reasons: they might discover principles which they might otherwise feel compelled to champion, but would not want to for various reasons ranging from party loyalty to careerist inconvenience; or because they might anticipate the shame of ignorance and a sense of inferiority that can only be assuaged by a pragmatic disdain projecting a sense of superiority. As one Oxford don, a professor of logic, remarked: "Philosophy teaches you how to detect bad arguments, so it is no surprise when politicians are not keen for it to be studied." Nor keen to study it, either.
Silence is golden, goes the proverb. Golden, perhaps, for a spell of contemplation and cogitation. Silence can be leaden, too, signaling a baleful ignorance or a pernicious turpitude when the times demand the knowledge, courage and character of our Founders. Listen carefully; you might in time hear the dull thud of the First Amendment as it falls behind a diverting forest of the pedestrian and mundane, unheralded by our pseudo-Solons and unnoticed by the news media.
::: posted by Edward Cline at 12:08 PM |donate | link
|
|
Thursday, February 16, 2006::
"Pappy" Boyington letter update
Below is the final draft of the open letter I wrote in answer to the recent decision of the University of Washington's student government to quash a proposal to erect a small monument to Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a beloved Marine Corps legend.
One-hundred-fourteen Marine veterans have signed the letter which I will submit to the university president, student government president and campus newspaper at first business tomorrow.
The letter and its signatories are below. Please note that participation in the letter should not be taken as a sign of support for CAC.
An open letter to the students, faculty and staff of the University of Washington:
According to the University of Washington student government, university alumnus Gregory "Pappy" Boyington is not a person university students should strive to emulate and he should not be honored with a memorial on campus because as a Marine Corps officer, he was a "rich white man" who killed the enemies he fought.
As veterans of the Marine Corps who have dedicated our lives to the defense of America, we find the student government's position deeply offensive and hypocritical. The exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of an American academic institution is the product of America's protection of the freedom of the mind. Without that freedom, the university itself ceases to exist.
Yet during the Second World War, the freedom of the mind was under deliberate attack by the forces of fascism and military dictatorship. American victory was only achieved because of the great courage, skill, and commitment of those who fought-a group of men and women who often won their battles at a great personal cost.
Few better personify the history of this struggle than Colonel "Pappy" Boyington. A maverick leader, Boyington assembled one of the most effective air wings in the Pacific theater of battle and was personally responsible for twenty-eight aerial victories over Japanese fighters. As commander of the famous "Black Sheep" squadron, Boyington led a formation of twenty-four Marine fighters over a Japanese airbase where sixty hostile aircraft were grounded. There, Boyington and his men persistently circled the airdrome and shot down twenty Japanese fighters without the loss of a single American aircraft. Later shot down himself and captured by the Japanese, Boyington endured twenty harrowing months as a prisoner of war.
Yet in final victory, Boyington bore no hatred toward his former enemy, and even credited a Japanese woman for saving him from death by starvation while he was a prisoner. A grateful nation chose to honor Boyington with the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross, America's two top awards for heroism and valor under fire.
In the face of such achievement, it is inconceivable to us that the students of today's University of Washington would throttle an attempt to honor one of their university's most famous and illustrious alumni. The university community stands in part due to the deeds of this giant, yet today it seems all Boyington's memory receives from the university is malice and false witness.
Worse, these curses against Boyington's name come at a time when a new generation of Americans are locked in a life-and-death struggle with an enemy no less as tyrannical than the one Boyington had to face. Will this new generation of American servicemen and women be denied the inspiration of the University of Washington's great alumnus because a handful of students blanch at the thought of killing an enemy who is trying to kill us and are wedded to a pet ideology that slanders courage?
We, the undersigned hope not. We urge our fellow Americans to remember Boyington as a unique American hero, worthy of emulation, and we urge the students of the University of Washington to redress the injustice its student government has committed against a great hero's memory.
Andrew G. Adams, Sergeant '77-'91 Robert Adao, Chief Warrant Officer 3 '73-'97 Daniel Bailey, Corporal '67-'68 Dr. Andrew S. Berry, PhD, Private '82 Robert J. Bennett, Master Sergeant '66-'92 Gregory J. Bertling, Lance Corporal '74-'80 Cassandra D. Bieber, Lance Corporal, '98-'02 Karl T. Bischof, Corporal '51-'53 Bruce Bley, Lance Corporal '67-'70 Michael J. Bogle, Lance Corporal '93-'97 C. F. Brockman, Sergeant, '47-'51 Dane Brown, Lance Corporal '64-'69 Wilbert Browning. Jr. Sergeant '76-'82 William Buck, Master Sergeant '56-'80 Gary Budd, Staff Sergeant '66-'72 Don Bumgarner, Lance Corporal '66-'68 Joseph P Carey, Corporal '64-'67 John M. Chaffee, Sergeant '63-'67 Mike Cheramie, Gunnery Sergeant '83-'03 Lloyd H. Cole, Staff Sergeant '72-'86 John J DePrimo, Sergeant '81-'94 Paul A. Dexter, Sergeant '71-'78 Paul W. Doolittle, Sergeant '81-'91 J. Russ Dufresne, Corporal '83-'88 Kevin A. Dunwoody, Staff Sergeant '82-'98 Lynann Eckhoff, Corporal '90-'94 John R. Edwards, Lance Corporal '81-'84 Ken Elliott, Sergeant '63-'67 Don Faria, Staff Sergeant '45-'52 Nick Feder, Sergeant '65-'68, '83-'89 Jack Fitzgerald, Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class, USN '66-'69 Andrew Fletcher, Sergeant '81 -'91 Julie G. Foreman, Lance Corporal '90-'93 Roy E. Fulmer, Corporal '73-'77 Ricky Gagnon, Sergeant '77-'81 Ralph J. Gallagher, Lance Corporal '66-'68 Tim J. Gawry, Corporal, '81-'85 Joseph Galvan, Sergeant '94-'04 Sylvia Gonzalez-Miller, Sergeant '91-'04 Robert Grocholski, Sergeant '54-'64 David Halik, Staff Sergeant '72-'78 Dennis L. Healy, Corporal '66-'70 Philip L Hickman, Private First Class, '65-'68 Eric C. Holt, Staff Sergeant, '88-Present Eric R. Howard, Sergeant, '91-'95 James C. Hues, Sergeant '64-'68 Wayne Humphrey, Staff Sergeant, '60-'70 Gerald A. Humphrey, Corporal '55-'63 Larry D. Imus, Staff Sergeant '65-'73 Mark Jackson, Corporal, '70-'72 Jannina Johnson, Lance Corporal '88-'90 Ray Jones, Staff Sergeant '58-'70 Floyd Kay, Staff Sergeant '48-'52 Glenn K. Kellar, Lance Corporal '73-'75 William Kereluk, Corporal '86-'92 Robert J. Koceja, Sergeant '68-'72 Bart Kohler, Corporal '92-'98 William G. Lang, Lance Corporal '64-'67 Jack Lahrman, Corporal '56-'58 Sean Leach, Sergeant '92-'00 John Lewis, Master Gunnery Sergeant '65-'92 J.J. Lovett, Staff Sergeant '90-Present Brian W. Lusebrink, Sergeant '68-'72 Kelly T Mallory, Lance Corporal '87-'90 William G. Marciniak, Staff Sergeant '66-'72 Loyde Mcillwain, Sergeant '85-'91 Michael D. McFarland, Lance Corporal, '67-'73 Mark A. Medina, Staff Sergeant, '86-'95 Rondi Miller, Sergeant '86-'92 David M. Nelson, Sergeant '89-'95 Nathan C. Nickerson, III, Sergeant '80-'83 Dick Overton, Staff Sergeant, '69-'71 Jason M. Paul, Corporal '96-Present Donald R. Parkins, Corporal '63-'69 Gene Pelletier, Sergeant '68-'72 Jon Pelletier, Lance Corporal '03-Present Maria Pelletier, Lance Corporal '71-'73 Antonio Pineiro, Sergeant '83-'92 Nicholas P. Provenzo, Corporal '88-'93 Frank V. Rago, Corporal '81-'89 George Reilly, Corporal '60-'64 Carlos R. Rickman, Corporal '89-'96 Martin Rochelle, Gunnery Sergeant '84-'04 Donald W. Roland, Private First Class, '49-'52 Andrew M. Rubio, Sr., Corporal '90-'94 Edward D. Schmidt, Private '70-'76 Andrew Schwake, Staff Sergeant '81-'94 Aren W. Self, Corporal '71-'75 Ronald C. Shaw, Gunnery Sergeant '66-'87 J. J. Shaver, Sergeant, '66-'74 Robert J Silva, Sergeant '77-'87 Michael D. Snell, Gunnery Sergeant, '76-'98 Kenneth W. Soto, Sr., Gunnery Sergeant '78-'96 James Stedman, Corporal '60-'64 Chris Stergos, Corporal '00-'05 James C. Swinarton, Sergeant '99-'03 Brent Talbot, Staff Sergeant '81-'90 Charles B. Terven, Jr., Sergeant '63-'68 Robert B. Thompson, Private First Class '47-'51 William Tipton, Private First Class '68-'70 John A. Trusewicz, Lance Corporal, '60-'66 Anthony R. Villa, Master Sergeant, '81-'04 Amy M. Vorndran, Corporal '98-'01 David K. Wardley, Corporal '80-'84 Ronald Wicker, Master Sergeant '57-'78 Keith Windsor, Staff Sergeant '93-Present Kevin Winters, Gunnery Sergeant '81-'01 David R. Williams, Sergeant '96-'05 David A. Wilson, Sergeant '65-'73 James A. Wilson, Corporal, '78-'82 Cindy Witham, Corporal, '80-'86 Cpl Perry Woolsey, Corporal '70-'79 Robert J. Yanacek, Master Sergeant '78-01 Jason Zug, Lance Corporal '87-'90
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 9:05 PM |donate | link
|
|
Wednesday, February 15, 2006::
University of Washington should honor 'Pappy' Boyington
Below is the text of an open letter I am composing in regards to the recent decision by the University of Washington's student government to quash a proposal to erect a small monument to Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a WWII Marine Corps legend.
My goal is to get marine veterans to sign the letter which I will submit to the university president, student government president and campus newspaper. [Hat tip: Grant Jones at the Dougout]
An open letter to the students, faculty and staff of the University of Washington:
According to the University of Washington student government, university alumnus Gregory "Pappy" Boyington should not be honored with a memorial on campus because as a Marine Corps officer, he was a "rich white man" who killed the enemies he fought, and was not a person university students should strive to emulate.
As veterans of the Marine Corps who have dedicated our lives to the defense of America, we find the student government's position deeply offensive and hypocritical. The exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of an American academic institution is the product of America's protection of the freedom of the mind. Without that freedom, the university itself ceases to exist.
Yet during the Second World War, the freedom of the mind was under deliberate attack by the forces of fascism and military dictatorship. American victory was only achieved because of the great courage, skill, and commitment of those who fought-a group of men and women who often won their battles at a great personal cost.
Few better personify the history of this struggle than Colonel "Pappy" Boyington. A maverick leader, Boyington assembled one of the most effective air wings in the Pacific theater of battle and was personally responsible for twenty-eight aerial victories over Japanese fighters. As commander of the famous "Black Sheep" squadron, Boyington led a formation of twenty-four Marine fighters over a Japanese airbase where sixty hostile aircraft were grounded. There, Boyington and his men persistently circled the airdrome and shot down twenty Japanese fighters without the loss of a single American aircraft. Later shot down himself and captured by the Japanese, Boyington endured twenty harrowing months as a prisoner of war.
Yet in final victory, Boyington bore no hatred toward his former enemy, and even credited a Japanese woman for saving him from death by starvation while he was a prisoner. A grateful nation choose to honor Boyington with the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross, America's two top awards for heroism and valor under fire.
In the face of such achievement, it is inconceivable to us that the students of today's University of Washington would throttle an attempt to honor one of their university's most famous and illustrious alumni. The university community stands in part due to the deeds of this giant, yet today it seems all Boyington's memory receives from the university is malice and false witness.
Worse, these curses against Boyington's name come at a time when a new generation of Americans are locked in a life-and-death struggle with an enemy no less as tyrannical then the one Boyington had to face. Will this new generation of American servicemen and women be denied the inspiration of the University of Washington's great alumnus because a handful of students blanch at the thought of killing an enemy who is trying to kill us and are wedded to a pet ideology that slanders courage?
We, the undersigned hope not. We urge our fellow Americans to remember Boyington as a unique American hero, worthy of emulation, and we urge the students of the University of Washington to redress the injustice its student government has committed against a great hero's memory.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 3:58 PM |donate | link
|
|
Atlas on UPN?
I had heard from several sources about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged being used as a prop device for the UPN sitcom One on One, but it wasn't until I saw this clip [Hat Tip: NoodleFood and CyberNet] that I realized just how utterly remarkable the presentation was. The Atlas Shrugged reference is exact, informative and precisely what one might say if they were to offer a brief explanation of Objectivism to a friend.
The story goes like this: an 18-something Breanna is stressed out while preparing for a college philosophy test on Objectivism the next day. Her friends enter and explain to her that Objectivism is an integrated philosophy that Ayn Rand developed to show man as he is-and ought to be. After a quip about the cover of the book (Breanna's boyfriend Arnaz notes that if Atlas is holding up the world, what then is he standing on), they all get to studying.
And that's the clip. Incredible!
Now I can just imagine someone saying that's not how you present philosophy and the portrayal was on UPN, so it can't be any good. Oh, spare me. The fact is a 5th season sitcom ran a positive portrayal of Objectivism that featured attractive young people treating the philosophy as something a person with high aspirations ought to know. That's fantastic.
Hell, I wish I would have had that to watch when I was a Marine on sea duty instead of all those tapes of Family Matters my platoon-mate's mother had sent him.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 8:59 AM |donate | link
|
|
Tuesday, February 14, 2006::
Islam makes 'Freedom of Speech' the new Ground Zero
A reader who read "The Myth of the 'Moderate' Muslim," and agreed with most of my main points in it, remarked: "I still can't bring myself to close the door on Islamic reformation, as you apparently have."
I've closed the door on such a reformation, unless, as I state in my "Moderate Muslim" article, someone steps forward to eviscerate the creed. Now, as far as the "taming" of Christianity is concerned, one should keep in mind the Old Testament and the New. The Old is as bloody-minded as the Koran is now; the New, dominated by Christ, the code of self-sacrifice, indiscriminate forgiveness, and so on. There is no such division in the Koran, and won't be, until and unless someone creates one, lifting out and rendering "benign" the least belligerent elements of the existing Koran to create a "New Koran," one that is as "passive" and un-in-your-face as the New Testament is, as an alternative to the "Old Koran."
However, it beggars the imagination how anyone could ever give Mohammed, the central figure and chief prophet of Islam, a moral "make-over" that approximated Christ's persona as a humble, kindly, passive savior and preacher of neighborly love. Mohammed is the Attila of Allah, all fire and sword. It would be as absurd to attempt such a transformation as to attempt to recast Hitler as an exemplar of St. Francis of Assisi. The instances of Mohammed's examples of "tolerance" and "peaceful coexistence" are practically nil.
That is the only way Islam can be salvaged and "tamed." However, as I remark in my article, it would no longer be "Islam," but instead an insipid, watered-down shadow of its former self. It is unlikely to happen any time soon. The man who would propose it probably would invite a fatwah and the attentions of the Islamic religious police.
Islam now is both a theocratic system and a political goal. Its proponents refuse to separate the two agendas; in fact, cannot separate them without committing apostasy. The religion and the politics are one and the same. This explains their push to have Sharia law "coexist" with secular law in Western countries. If Western judges and legal philosophers concede that Sharia is just as legitimate a legal system as the secular, we are doomed.
Imagine the disaster if agents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, managed to sneak a nuclear device into midtown Manhattan and explode it. That would be the physical destruction of the city and its inhabitants. Now imagine the disaster if loyalty to value-negating multiculturalism permitted our courts and the legal profession to proclaim that Sharia law must be "respected" and granted supreme authority over all American Muslims. That would be a philosophical disaster and a greater mortal blow.
Sharia law is a primitive, anti-conceptual, concrete-bound religious system of Islamic jurisprudence, weighted heavily in favor of the Muslim male. What is permitted by it? Murder, rape, assault, mutilation, blood feuds, looting, and slavery -- all crimes that can be allowed or mitigated by Muslim judges, mystical "experts" who rely in their adjudication on the Koran, the Sunna from the Hadith, the ijima, and other murky sources and authorities. Virtually everything that Western law treats as a crime against individuals is not a crime in Islamic law. Westerners who do not believe in Sharia law, or more likely have never even head of it, have been judged and executed by both Muslim judges (the "witch doctors") and their counterparts, the terrorists (the "Attilas").
Omar Ahmad, an official of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the leading Islamic organization in the U.S. and an advocate of "respect" for all things Islamic, once stated, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." The website containing that statement, violent quotations from the Koran, and particulars of the Islamic agenda of conquest (not assimilation), has been taken down, very likely because it was too blatant a confession of Islamic means and ends.
This is a disaster waiting to happen, and multiculturalism has prepared the new "Ground Zero." The twin towers of freedom of speech and free minds are smoldering. Will they collapse? It is certainly a "clash of civilizations" we are witnessing today. Only our political leaders, the news media, and most of our intellectuals are oblivious to it. Most of them are too busy advocating their own brands of totalitarian submission.
Onkar Ghate, a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, in an Op-Ed deftly connected the principal dots between the Christian injunction to "love our enemies" (that is, not pass moral judgments on them, and to speak no evil of evil men and evil ideas) and the failure of our government and news media to come to the defense of the Danish cartoonists. ("The Twilight of Freedom of Speech").
Aiding and abetting in that betrayal of the Danes and of America itself is the not-to-be-questioned "faith" of multiculturalism, which imbues its religious and secularist adherents with the "virtue" of turning the other cheek. Since the cartoons that mocked Mohammed were claimed to be offensive to Muslims, the White House and State Department with abject humility practically apologized for them, while the news media issued grave disclaimers and ostensively took no sides on an issue that not only affects them, but the efficacy and meaning of the First Amendment. "Your most cherished beliefs have been insulted and ridiculed by irresponsible persons, and we are sorry for that. Please accept our apologies. We beg your forgiveness."
Self-censorship of that kind will ultimately foment a move for the overt censorship of those who refuse to turn the other cheek and exercise their right to speak out.
The reader also wondered about the "more secular Muslims living and working in capitalistic Western countries" who "probably fall into a non-fundamentalist category." These are the very same "silent" Muslims who let the killers "misrepresent" their creed. They are silent either from fear of retaliation or because they agree with the killers but are too timid to say it outloud. Their brothers in Paterson, New Jersey and in Brooklyn danced in the streets and passed out candy when the WTC was attacked, celebrating the event with the same gleeful fervor as their brothers in the Arab countries.
If one wanted to witness a grotesque instance of men celebrating the destruction of the good because it is good, the "Arab street" here and abroad provided it on 9/11. One needn't be a fundamentalist to be a mute follower or silent sanctioner.
I contend that the more civil, "secularized" Muslims are between that rock and a hard place I mention in the article. It's either/or for them. They either discover reason, individualism and genuine freedom, and repudiate Islam, or they remain passive ciphers and objects of suspicion by the rest of the population. Just as Christians cannot remain loyal to reality and ghosts at the same time, and must ultimately choose between them (but most of them don't), so it is for Muslims.
I'm sure there are many former Muslims who left the mosque, but we won't hear much from them for the reasons I cite in my article: they would become the targets of death squads or some other form of persecution. Salman Rushdie is the most notable example. There are no alternatives for them. All one can do at present is introduce Muslims to Objectivism, but what would that accomplish, if they fear reason, dismiss it as "godless", or claim it is a handmaiden of faith? Most Christians do. And most Muslims sense better than many Christians that God and reason are antithetical.
The reader asked: "If there are no and can be no moderate Muslims, what do you propose doing about the Muslims who do exist?"
I don't think it's a question now of what we do with them. It's a question of what they're doing about us. They know the nature of their enemy, our own leaders and intellectuals. They're determined to push this clash of civilizations to its limits. If we had the power to "do something about them," the first step would be to proclaim without apology or hesitation that this is a Western country that upholds reason, individual rights, freedom of speech, and capitalism, and plays no favorites in religion. Obey our laws, or face prosecution.
You would tell them: If you conspire to overthrow our government, you will be charged with treason and made to bear the consequences. If you do not like those terms, then relocate to a country that is more conducive to your philosophy of existence, such as it is. Just don't attempt to impose it on free men, who will fight back if they are not disarmed by censorship, ignored or excoriated by the news media, or made sitting ducks by the likes of our contemptible State Department.
Muslims, or those among them who secretly doubt the morality of their creed, must consider becoming independent individuals who hold reason as man's only means of survival and happiness. I don't say it's impossible, but at the present, the odds are against it. Islam is scoring victory after victory -- by default. Islam seems to be efficacious; why shouldn't the rank-and-file Muslim side with the odds-on winner? What could ignite a magnum of introspection and questioning among Muslims would be a resounding defeat at the hands of the West (such as nuking Iran's nuclear facilities now). At the current pace of events, and given the cowardice and virtual submission to Islam of our political leaders, that isn't much in the cards, either.
Many Objectivists have had religious backgrounds. But they discovered the value of free minds, individualism, and freedom of speech -- or the right to challenge any idea or belief -- and made a break with their past. The key element was in their valuing these things as attributes of living happily and successfully on earth.
Imagine how much more oppressive and thought-suffocating Islam and a Muslim household in a Muslim "ghetto" (and a self-created ghetto, at that) must be compared with the average Catholic (or Protestant or Jewish) household, and try to project the level of independence and commitment necessary to abandon that environment. A Muslim wrestling with his honesty and secret convictions would risk ostracism, banishment, or much worse, murder or mutilation, if he let them be known. No doubt everyone has heard of the Mafia "code of silence" and "loyalty to the family," which is supposed to be an ethical guide to good gangster behavior. Break the code, betray the "family," and you die.
Islam is one humongous moral Mafia that relies on submission, faith, fear and force to keep its followers in line and to prosecute its jihad. And its "godfather" is Mohammed. It was not a coincidence that in my original article I drew an analogy using Coppola's Don Corleone and the obsequious mortician. It concretized the essential relationship between Islam and its followers.
::: posted by Edward Cline at 10:31 AM |donate | link
|
|
Monday, February 13, 2006::
Woohoo! CAC's new website goes live!
Well, the new site is up and humming. Let me know if you bump into any problems. And now I can focus on the good stuff--the strategic plan for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism!
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 11:39 PM |donate | link
|
|
Book Review: The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein
NB: This review is by Gideon Reich and is the first installment of CAC's new "Capitalist Book Club" series.
As recently as the late 1980s, intellectuals were still discussing the supposed approaching convergence between communism and capitalism. It was claimed that the capitalist United States was suffering from an inadequacy of social services, while the Soviet Union failed to protect personal freedom. Faced with such problems, it was argued that the US and Soviet systems would eventually meet halfway, with the US becoming more socialist and the Soviet Union less totalitarian.
It wasn’t until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the absurd notion of "convergence" was finally discredited along with most remaining hopes of establishing a so-called socialist paradise. Partly as a result, there was a resurgence of interest in capitalism and the reasons for its success, and a host of books have since been published seeking to explain various aspects of the capitalist system.
What was missing, however, was a single volume that presented the historical origins, moral justification, and practical success of capitalism. Such a volume would correct the misconceptions most people still have of capitalism’s origins and early history, and answer their misgivings over the justice of laissez-faire. Andrew Bernstein’s The Capitalist Manifesto succeeds admirably as such a book.
The Capitalist Manifesto covers the history of the pre-capitalist era, the dramatic positive effects of the industrial revolution and its origins from within the Enlightenment ideas of the 18th century. Describing the American Enlightenment, Bernstein observes:
..[T]he essence of the Enlightenment, and of its influence on the new nation, was its uncompromising commitment to man's faculty of reason. For this, the 18th century philosophes owed much to Newton. It is not merely the birth of the principle of individual rights during this period that is important. As will be seen, capitalism rests upon the reverence for the reasoning mind that is the hallmark of Enlightenment thought and culture. (p.42)
The identification of reason as the primary tool of production is an important theme of the book and this identification serves to integrate its various parts. Relying on the philosophy of Ayn Rand in the excerpt below, Bernstein explains that reason is man’s only means of survival and he ties its use to the historical facts:
The goods and services that men must produce to sustain their lives are myriad. From pens and pads, to rich agricultural harvests, to skyscrapers and cities, to a multitude of others, man's productive activities are fundamentally reliant on one human faculty: his reasoning mind.
Human beings come on earth unarmed. Whereas animals survive by means of a physicalistic characteristics as size, strength, footspeed, wings, etc., man has no similar abilities. His brain is his only weapon. To build shelter, he must know at least the rudimentary principles of architecture. To cure diseases, he must study medicine. To grow crops and to domesticate livestock, he must understand the basics of agricultural science. All of this, indeed, every advance and creation on which human survival depends, requires rational thought.
This central truth of human life was illustrated by the glorious achievements of the Scientific, Technological and Industrial Revolutions described above. (p. 188)
Among the various historical episodes in the book, Bernstein depicts the Scottish Enlightenment, which he views as having taking the lead in applying reason and science to material problems. In the 18th century, Scotland
…aspired to the Enlightenment ideal, upholding secular rationalism and the rights of the individual….It stood for capitalism, the rising middle class, an emphasis of education and enlightenment, an industrious work ethic and repudiation of the warrior-plunderer code—and as a consequence, growing urbanization and prosperity. (p. 77)
It is through its detailed and extensive moral defense of capitalism that The Capitalist Manifesto stands out from among books on capitalism. In addition to chronicling the beneficial practical results of capitalism, Bernstein identifies the nature of value and moral principles and explains how capitalism is the only social system that supports the principles consistent with man’s nature and the requirements of his life. While familiar to readers of Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, the ideas within the Manifesto’s philosophical chapters provide a perfect complement to Bernstein’s detailed coverage of the history and origins of capitalism.
There are numerous other gems in the book, including an extensive polemics section in which Bernstein demolishes the arguments that capitalism is the cause of slavery, imperialism, and war.
Unfortunately, in this age when most history texts are still under the influence of modern variants of Marxism, people receive profoundly misleading ideas about capitalism’s history, practice, and morality. The Capitalist Manifesto is the ideal antidote to the kind of education most people are receiving today. It deserves to have the widest possible readership.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 1:00 PM |donate | link
|
|
Sunday, February 12, 2006::
Mohammed, prophet of Islam and the face of jihad
It hadn't dawned on me the CAC should be showing one of the "forbidden" images of Mohammed on our website until I was shoveling snow last night. So here it is--feel free to place on your website as well.
