Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
At an anti-war "teach-in" this week, a Columbia University professor called for the defeat of American forces in Iraq and said he would like to see "a million Mogadishus" -- a reference to the Somali city where American soldiers were ambushed, with 18 killed, in 1993. "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," Nicholas De Genova, assistant professor of anthropology at Columbia University told the audience at Low Library Wednesday night. "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The crowd was largely silent at the remark. They loudly applauded De Genova later when he said, "If we really believe that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine." ... [Teach-in organizer Eric] Foner said that because of the university's tradition of freedom of speech, it was unlikely De Genova would suffer professionally in any way because of what he said. "A person's politics have no impact on their employment status here, whether they are promoted, whether they are fired or whether they get tenure," Foner said. [Newsday, 3/27/03]
Foner's last comment is presumably said as if it were a good thing, but what it actually reveals is that universities today are powerless to put an end to dishonesty and intellectual malpractice within their ranks. True freedom does not require anyone to provide a platform for anyone else; it leaves people free to boycott or withdraw their support from those they disagree with. Freedom of speech means that force cannot be used to stop you from expressing your views, not that you have a right to other people's resources in doing so. The idea of "academic freedom" means that academics should be permitted to be intellectually irresponsible and that no one should be allowed to do anything about it. This is one big reason why our universities are such centers of dishonesty today--and they will remain that way, until the public wakes up and stops supporting them.
Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Bicycle champion Lance Armstrong says: ". . . Nobody wants a war. Not me. Not President Bush. Not Tony Blair. No one. But sometimes it may be unavoidable. I absolutely support the President and absolutely support our troops."Mar 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The San Francisco Chronicle's former tech columnist Henry Norr is upset that he's been suspended after getting himself arrested at a peace rally. He told his supervisors the day before that he intended to break the law and get arrested, but seems to think his employer shouldn't care about that. He's angry that they're suspending him for falsifying his timecard--he took a sick day for his time in jail: "I did so because I was sick--heartsick over the beginning of the war, nauseated by the lies and the arrogance and the stupidity that led to it, and deeply depressed by the death and destruction it would bring." Again he expects people to sympathize with his self-admitted dishonesty. If the Chronicle buckles to lefty pressure and reinstates him, you'll be seeing a vivid example of the sanction of the victim at work: this kind of nonsense couldn't go on without the acquiescence of good people who don't have the moral courage to stand up to it.Mar 28, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Tiger Woods website:I have great respect for the men and women fighting overseas to protect our way of life in Iraq and other parts of the world. As the son of an Army officer, I understand the strength, courage and discipline required to successfully carry out their missions in hostile environments and feel tremendous pride they are representing us.
Obviously, no one likes war. Our Congress and President tried hard to avoid the use of force, but ultimately decided it was the best course of action. I like the assertiveness shown by President Bush and think we owe it to our political and military leaders, along with our brave soldiers to be as supportive as possible during these difficult and trying times. I just wanted to take this opportunity to let our forces know that I am thinking about you and wishing you and your families the best.
100% class. And let's not forget Wayne Greztky:
"All I can say is the president of the United States is a great leader, I happen to think he's a wonderful man and if he believes what he's doing is right I back him 100 per cent," said Gretzky, in Calgary for a news conference for Ronald McDonald Children's Charities. "If the president decides to go to war he must know more than we know, or we hear about. He must have good reason to go and we have to back that." [...]
"A lot of people in the world don't have the answers but we've got to believe in the president of the United States and as I said, I happen to think he's a great leader. God bless him and I hope that everybody gets home safe." [...]
"I guess we get it more in the United States because actors and singers - they all think they know politics. I'm tired of watching people who are not in politics give their opinions. Quite frankly that's what we have governments for and that's why we elect governments." ["The Great One wades into discussion of U.S.-Iraq war, praises Bush", Canadian Press]
Gretzky also made another comment:
"We shouldn't be worrying about what entertainers or athletes or Wayne Gretzky or Don Cherry says (about the war)," he mumbled into the mikes, looking baffled and not a little peeved. "It's immaterial. We're not presidents or prime ministers. We're entertainers and athletes." [Edmonton News, "Asking celebrities about war is silly", March 26, 2003]
Michael Moore and the the Dixie Chicks take note.
Mar 28, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin gave a talk at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies in his first visit to Britain since the outbreak of war. During a question and answer session at the end of his speech he refused to answer the question: "Who do you want to win the war?" [SkyNews, March 27, 2003]
Hey, it's better then saying "Saddam" right?
Mar 28, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In a his latest rant Libertarian writer, Jerome Tuccille equates Bush's assault against Saddam's Regime as a war against the "Iraqi" people:Bush's war against the people of Iraq is nothing less than a continuation of the imperialistic, colonialistic policies that have characterized European countries over the centuries, and U.S. foreign policy... [Stop Bush Now, March 27, 2003]
Pray tell, what the hell has Saddam been doing for the past decade in
Iraq?
Now some may argue that I am painting Libertarians with an overly broad stroke. After all,
some Libertarians support the war. To which I would argue that any "political philosophy" which includes both
pro-war and anti-war views on Iraq is inherently contradictory, and is invalidated for that reason. Yet this is precisely what Libertarianism as a philosophy does--and by doing so it invalidates itself as a political philosophy in particular, and as a philosophy in general (since a given political philosophy necessarily assumes a larger philosophical foundation to be put into practice) as it provides no
guidance on what actions are moral and proper in the political sphere.
What is needed is a political viewpoint based on the absolutism of individual rights (
Objectivism provides this foundation nicely)--a philosophy that claims to support individual rights, but at the same time sanctions opposite "viewpoints," merely muddies the waters leaving the individual rights based arguments diluted under a morass of eclectic statism posing as a defense of liberty.
