Friday, April 27, 2007

This Week on the Web (April 21 – April 27)

********************************************************************************************

Picture of the Week:

The Latest in "Green Transportation"

Vital Signs Blog

Ford Motor Company, fast losing ground to its competitors, has moved aggressively into the area of "green transportation" with its 2008 hay-powered Ranchero IV. The company admits that consumers used to traditional automotive transportation will have to make some adjustments in storage, upkeep, and convenience. And they also acknowledge that the time to get where you're going may be just a bit extended.

Nevertheless, with the desperate need to reduce CO2 emissions before the polar ice caps melt and wash civilization away altogether, Ford is confident that the Ranchero IV will become a big-seller. In particular, Ford is looking for big sales numbers from Democrat politicians, Church of England prelates and the leadership of the National Association of Evangelicals.

COMMENTARY

John Lewis's Talk at GMU

Alan Germani, Principles in Practice

Last night, TOS contributor Dr. John Lewis delivered his speech “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” to a packed auditorium at George Mason University. Despite a coordinated effort by GMU’s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to disrupt the event, Dr. Lewis argued logically and persuasively that military measures along the lines of those employed by the United States against Japan in World War II are necessary to end the spread of political Islam. Political Islam seeks to enforce tenets of the Koran through police brutality—to eliminate the dissemination of Judaism, Christianity, secularism, and all other conflicting viewpoints—to destroy “sinful,” this-worldly Western culture—to keep homosexuals firmly in the closet—to keep women ignorant, unseen, and subservient to their husbands, fathers, and brothers—to subjugate all to the will of Allah. Such a political-religious movement, Dr. Lewis showed, is contrary to freedom and the requirements of human life and should therefore be quashed.

Members and supporters of SDS were, of course, unmoved by Lewis’s logic. Rather than listen to his arguments and challenge him with intelligent questions, these advocates of democracy stood with their backs turned to Dr. Lewis from the moment he began to speak and remained thus for the duration of the talk—fortifying their visual display with interruptive banter and childish snickering that made it difficult for others in the audience to stay focused on the content of the speech. Through their actions last night, members of SDS showed that they support the agenda of political Islam and that they—true to their brainless thuggery—are either unconcerned with or oblivious to the fact that, under an Islamic regime, protests such as theirs would be met with gunfire.

Given the widespread confusion concerning the concept “democracy”—used by some to mean liberty, by others to mean the right to vote, and by very few to mean mob rule (its actual meaning)—members of SDS should consider renaming their organization in order to accurately reflect that which they advocate. My suggestion? Students for Totalitarian Dictatorship (STD). Such mentalities are part and parcel of an ideological disease that, through actions like those taken last night, works studiously to infect the culture with Sharia Law—attacking the right to free speech and every other right on which human life depends. It is unfortunate that these pustules will also be saved from the Islamists if their American host ever heeds Dr. Lewis’s excellent advice.

Read more about the event here.

Then and Now

Gus van Horn

A century later, despite the fact that our vastly higher general level of prosperity and numerous technological advances could make the rebuilding and fortification of New Orleans against future storms easier in some respects than that of Galveston, the recovery of the Crescent City moves at a snail's pace while nearly three times the entire pre-hurricane population of 1900 Galveston will remain on the dole at the time by which a more enterprising citizenry had managed to build a seawall a century earlier.

Once again, we have a glaring example of the fact that the welfare state does not bring about what most Americans know as prosperity. And yet, the man-made welfare state is accepted as an unquestionable, unalterable, metaphysical fact. Why? Because no one will ask why it is that they are asked to help their fellow man above and beyond imminent peril, and into perpetuity. Because of the widespread ethics of altruism, which provides the welfare state with its moral justification.

Such is the power of the philosophical ideas that motivate the members of a society: In one century, Americans on a sandbar raised their own homes and built a seawall to fend off a major hurricane; by the next, the citizens of a once-great city fled it, never to return or help in its reconstruction, to live in perpetual lassitude as parasites on a nation of suckers who could not raise more than a feeble objection to the fact that it was being taken advantage of.

Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates

Christopher Hitchens, Townhall.com

One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence.”

Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)

Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.

It seems likely that Jefferson decided from that moment on that he would make war upon the Barbary kingdoms as soon as he commanded American forces. His two least favorite institutions—enthroned monarchy and state-sponsored religion—were embodied in one target, and it may even be that his famous ambivalences about slavery were resolved somewhat when he saw it practiced by the Muslims.

How About Economic Progress Day?

John Stossel, Townhall.com

Watching the media coverage, you'd think that the earth was in imminent danger -- that human life itself was on the verge of extinction. Technology is fingered as the perp.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

John Semmens of Arizona's Laissez Faire Institute points out that Earth Day misses an important point. In the April issue of The Freeman magazine, Semmens says the environmental movement overlooks how hospitable the earth has become -- thanks to technology. "The environmental alarmists have it backwards. If anything imperils the earth it is ignorant obstruction of science and progress. ... That technology provides the best option for serving human wants and conserving the environment should be evident in the progress made in environmental improvement in the United States. Virtually every measure shows that pollution is headed downward and that nature is making a comeback." (Carbon dioxide excepted, if it is really a pollutant.)

[…]

The precautionary principle, popular in Europe, is the idea that no new thing should be permitted until it has been proved harmless. Sounds good, except as Ron Bailey of Reason writes, it basically means, "Don't ever do anything for the first time."

Tax winners and losers

Bruce Bartlett, Townhall.com

According to the CBO, those in the top quintile paid 85.3 percent of all such taxes in 2004. In 1979, the first year of the CBO study, this group paid only 64.9 percent.

Inclusion of payroll taxes in the calculation doesn’t change the picture that much because the top quintile of households paid 44.2 percent of all payroll taxes in 2004. Overall, this group paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes—well above their share of reported income, which was 53.5 percent.

Of course, we have a progressive tax system and the wealthy are expected to pay more than their proportional share of taxes. The CBO data confirm that our federal tax system is indeed very progressive. Looking at all federal taxes, including payroll taxes, those in the lowest quintile paid 4.5 percent of their income to the federal government in 2004, the second quintile paid 10 percent, the third paid 13.9 percent, the fourth paid 17.2 percent, and the top quintile paid 25.1 percent.

The tax cuts enacted by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have lowered the top tax rate quite a bit—it has fallen from 70 percent in 1979 to 35 percent today. Moreover, Reagan also raised the payroll tax rate by three percentage points. Knowing only this, one would assume that the wealthy are paying much less than they were in 1979 and the poor are paying much more. In fact, every income class has seen a decline in its effective federal tax rate (taxes as a share of income), including payroll taxes.

[…]

A new study by the Tax Foundation attempts to calculate the benefits of government spending by income quintile in the same way taxes are calculated. It shows that government spending is also steeply progressive, with those with low incomes receiving far more than those at the top.

According to the study, those in the bottom quintile received 33.8 percent of all federal spending in 2004, the second quintile received 21.8 percent, the third quintile received 16 percent, the fourth quintile received 13.4 percent, and the top quintile received just 15 percent.

The reason for this is that many of the federal government’s largest programs are geared specifically to aid those with low incomes. In the case of Social Security, the benefit formula gives those in the bottom quintile twice as much in benefits at retirement as they paid in taxes during their working lives, according to another CBO study. Those in the top quintile only get back half the taxes they paid. Consequently, the overall Social Security program, looking at both taxes and benefits, is steeply progressive—a point that is almost always ignored by those who complain about the burden of the payroll tax on the poor.

********************************************************************************************

Other links

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Objective Standard

Capitalism Magazine

4Commonsense.net

OpinionJournal.com

Junk Science

Activism Humor

The Intellectual Activist

Web Logs

Principles in PracticePrincipled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”

Cox and ForkumPolitical cartoons and commentary

Noodle Food

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin

Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com

Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

4CommonSense

**********************************************************************************************************

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).

Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.

To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.

If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.

Friday, April 20, 2007

This Week on the Web (April 14 – April 20)


********************************************************************************************

Quote of the Week:

I realize that CBS has the right to fire any employee for making racist statements and that this is not a violation of their freedom of speech. Only the state can abridge our freedom of speech. Only state action is censorship in the full meaning of the word. The problem is that in our mixed economy, with the FCC regulating broadcasters, we have to ask: did CBS fire Imus because they feared state action? Did the FCC factor into their thinking at all? And if it did, is not censorship from fear of regulatory action in fact censorship?

- Myrhaf

Editorial Cartoon of the Week:

Appeasers (by Dr.Seuss)

Cox and Forkum

COMMENTARY

Suffering in Silence: Rachel Carson's ideas are still popular, with deadly effect.

Katherine Mangu-Ward, Opinion Journal

At the time of the controversy, DDT was used widely as an insecticide on U.S. farms. Since World War II, it had also proved remarkably effective at controlling insect-borne diseases, but Carson essentially ignored that fact; so have her successors.

Some of Carson's star anecdotes about DDT's carcinogenic qualities turned out to be flawed: Her tale of "a housewife who abhorred spiders" spraying her basement in August and winding up dead of "acute leukemia" by October seems absurd to the modern reader, as does the man who winds up hemorrhaging in the hospital due to a "severe depression of the bone marrow" just "a short time" after spraying for roaches. Neither cancer could have been caused by DDT in so short a time.

Partly as a result of Carson's work, the U.S. banned DDT in 1972, around the same time as most of the developed world. In 2001, the Stockholm Convention, a global treaty, banned DDT as part of a "dirty dozen" of agricultural chemicals.

The convention contains a tightly circumscribed exception for continued public health use, but even that exception almost didn't make it into the final document. Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and more than 300 other environmental groups fought tooth and nail against it. In recent years, many such groups tried to get a complete ban on all DDT uses by 2007--in time for Carson's birthday.

To what effect? The World Health Organization now estimates that there are between 300 and 500 million cases of malaria annually, causing approximately one million deaths. About 80% of those are young children, millions of whom could have been saved over the years with the regular application of DDT to their environments.

Freedom's champions

Frank Gaffney, Jewish World Review

It was so, well, Soviet. This weekend's news clips showed Russian goon squads charging courageous opponents of an authoritarian Kremlin, truncheons flailing, roughing up the dissenters and arresting their leaders. One of those detained on Saturday was Garry Kasparov, the long-time World Chess Champion and a world-class champion of freedom.


Although Kasparov was subsequently released, his forcible detention is a sign of the extent of Vladimir Putin's repression and the master of the Kremlin's confidence that the Free World will not protest, let alone punish, the Russian government's ever-more aggressive behavior at home and abroad. If the Kremlin can move with impunity against the most visible, widely admired and gutsy of its critics, no one in Russia is safe. And the world beyond will become more dangerous, too.

[…]

As it happens, others who are Freedom's Champions are being badly treated closer to home. In this space last week, I reported that a film about what was happening to courageous anti-Islamist Muslims in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe was being suppressed by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Unfortunately, that remains the case at this writing - a situation being enabled by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which paid $675,000 in taxpayer funds to make this film but is now cooperating in PBS's refusal to air it unless the documentary is reworked.

[…]

Matters have been made worse by the replacement of our film in PBS' "America at a Crossroads" line-up this week by a film produced by the series' host, Robert MacNeil, as part of a sweetheart deal with PBS and its Washington flagship, WETA. MacNeil's documentary is entitled "The Muslim Americans." It is an appalling, politically correct but disinforming paean to organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and others who are part of the Islamist problem in this country, not the solution.


It is time to choose. Do we stand with those who have the courage to risk everything to oppose the totalitarians and their ideologies? Or do we stand with their oppressors, in the vain hope that the latter will treat us better?

Only Egalitarian Racist Speech Allowed

Myrhaf

The shock jock can exist only in a free society. Tyrants do not like being laughed at. In the USSR, instead of Howard Stern or Mancow, they had Pravda -- the truth as approved by the state. Shock jocks depend on the freedom of speech; if they can’t say what they want no matter whom they offend, then they cannot function.

[…]

What is the difference between Tom Joyner’s racism and Imus’s? In our egalitarian, altruist culture, one can joke about the powerful, but not about the weak and oppressed. Some collectivism is respected, some collectivism will get you fired from CBS. If media corporations were to fire all buffoons who make collectivist statements, then all buffoons would be fired. Indeed, some broadcasters who are not considered buffoons, such as Tom Joyner, would be fired. Imus was attacked and fired not because he was collectivist, but because he was inegalitarian.

The New Left is multiculturalist -- a crude, racist vision of the world that views people not primarily as individuals, but as members of a racial group. Imus, a white male, attacked African-Americans, a class of victims, and this speech is forbidden. As altruism demands, the strong must sacrifice for the weak. White males must not make racist statements about African-Americans.

Racism is a terrible evil, a form of collectivism as Ayn Rand wrote, but the left only views racism by the strong as racism. Egalitarian racism, or multiculturalism, is one of the pillars of the New Left. As egalitarian racists, today's liberals are the most predominant racists in American history. They are also the most dangerous racists in American history. Not only is egalitarian racism (multiculturalism) not reviled, it is idealized throughout our culture and indoctrinated into students. The New Left is transforming America from an individualist nation into a racist one.


Other links

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Objective Standard

Capitalism Magazine

4Commonsense.net

OpinionJournal.com

Junk Science

Activism Humor

The Intellectual Activist

Web Logs

Principles in PracticePrincipled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”

Cox and ForkumPolitical cartoons and commentary

Noodle Food

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin

Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com

Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

4CommonSense

**********************************************************************************************************

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).

Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.

To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.

If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.

Friday, April 13, 2007

This Week on the Web (April 7 – April 13)

********************************************************************************************

Quote of the Week:

Hypocrisy is caused by the failure to think for oneself, and the resulting desire to say or think what you THINK others want you to say or think. Hypocrisy cannot develop if you possess self-esteem. If you possess self-esteem, you are too confident in your own thoughts, and you like yourself too much, to retreat into the laziness of phoniness. It's interesting how many things commonly recognized as vices, such as hypocrisy, actually result from too little self-respect and too little self-esteem--yet "selfishness" is considered the greatest vice of all. I don't understand this contradiction. How can allegiance to yourself be so bad, if allegiance to yourself is the only way to avoid things everyone agrees are bad?

- Michael Hurd

COMMENTARY

Neither Liberals nor Conservatives Support Our Troops

Alex Epstein, Capitalism Magazine

Supporters and opponents of President Bush's Iraq War are clashing in a furious debate over who truly supports our troops. The President's critics say they are supporting our troops by setting a timetable to bring them home from an "unnecessary" war. Supporters of the Iraq war say they support our troops by supporting their "vital" mission in Iraq.

In fact, neither liberals nor conservatives truly support the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend America. For both, "support our troops" is a cheap, undeserved claim to patriotism--one that obscures their unwillingness to do what is truly necessary to protect America and its soldiers.

Granted, almost everyone wants to give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs: the best weapons, armor, provisions, and training available--as well as praise, gratitude, and encouragement. But for our government to truly support our troops, it must do far more than help them do their jobs; it must give them the right jobs to do--the jobs that will effectively defend America while minimizing the risk to their lives. Our government must place soldiers' lives at risk only when American freedom is threatened, and during war it must give them the objectives and tactics that will defeat the enemy as quickly as possible.

Water Torture

Rand Simberg, TCS Daily

The government is telling me when I can water my lawn and wash my car.

I'm used to the government telling me that I shouldn't hold up liquor stores, or kill people because they looked at me the wrong way, or that I have to pay taxes, or which side of the road to drive on, or even how deep to bury my irrigation system. I can live with those things. But this notion that I can only water my lawn at certain times seems like a whole new encroachment on my liberty.

Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Rather than defending liberties, which was what I was taught that the purpose of government was, it seems that modern government has decided that its role is instead to circumscribe them as much as possible.

[…]

What about the poor people, who will have to purchase a cheaper brand of pet food for granny if their bill to water their lawns goes up?

Well, ignoring the fact that poor people have deeper concerns than how green their lawn is, the solution to this is to provide a "lifeline" of cheap water to allow basic needs -- toilet flushing, drinking, dishwashing, bathing -- and then jacking up the price considerably for gallons beyond those required to meet those needs. So everyone can afford the basics, rich and poor, and those who want to grow rice in their backyard will pay through the nose. They can do it, but they will pay for it, not the rest of us.

Phony Science and Public Policy

Walter Williams, Townhall.com

The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let's look at it.

Many Americans find tobacco smoke to be a nuisance. Some find the odor offensive, and others have allergies or asthma that can be aggravated by smoking in their presence. There's little question that tobacco smoke causes these kinds of nuisances, but how successful would anti-smokers have been in a court of law, or public opinion, in achieving the kind of success they've achieved based on tobacco smoke being a nuisance?

A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogenic.

Fuzzy Climate Math

George Will, Washington Post

In a campaign without peacetime precedent, the media-entertainment-environmental complex is warning about global warming. Never, other than during the two world wars, has there been such a concerted effort by opinion-forming institutions to indoctrinate Americans, 83 percent of whom now call global warming a " serious problem." Indoctrination is supposed to be a predicate for action commensurate with professions of seriousness.

For example, Democrats could demand that the president send the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate so they can embrace it. In 1997, the Senate voted95 to 0 in opposition to any agreement that would, like the protocol, require significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in America and some other developed nations but that would involve no "specific scheduled commitments" for 129 "developing" countries, including the second-, fourth-, 10th-, 11th-, 13th- and 15th-largest economies (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Indonesia). Forty-two of the senators serving in 1997 are gone. Let's find out if the new senators disagree with the 1997 vote.

Do they also disagree with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"? He says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases such as infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.


********************************************************************************************

Other links

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Objective Standard

Capitalism Magazine

4Commonsense.net

OpinionJournal.com

Junk Science

Activism Humor

The Intellectual Activist

Web Logs

Principles in PracticePrincipled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”

Cox and ForkumPolitical cartoons and commentary

Noodle Food

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin

Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com

Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

4CommonSense

**********************************************************************************************************

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).

Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.

To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.

If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.

Friday, April 06, 2007

This Week on the Web (March 31 – April 6)

********************************************************************************************

Quote of the Week:

Envy rests on the false belief that good things happen only through "luck," chance, supernatural forces or sociological, biological destiny. A person doesn't envy another "because he accomplished and I didn't." A person envies another because "good things happen to him, and they don't happen to me." The very content of the emotion reveals the false premise upon which envy relies. That false premise is the widespread notion that choice has little to do with success.

Interestingly, people with the right premise tend not to envy, but to admire. "He accomplished something that I didn't" doesn't fuel hatred or jealousy; it fuels admiration and respect. It might even generate the emotion: "If he can, maybe I can too--in my own way."

- Michael Hurd

Editorial Cartoon of the Week:

Syriana

Cox and Forkum

Syria and Iran were partners in crime in Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Israel and used the democracy of Lebanon as a human shield as it helped provide weapons that rained death and destruction on civilians in Israeli cities and towns. It acted as a conduit for arms flowing to Hezbollah from Iran used in Hezbollah's attacks.

Syria has been linked to the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and a host of other anti-Syrian political leaders as it works to destabilize the country it occupied for over two decades. Pelosi won't be able to talk to Lebanon's former industry minister, Pierre Gemayal. He was assassinated as part of Syria's and Hezbollah's plan to destabilize Lebanon.

**************************************************************************************

Editor’s Note: Also see Pratfall in Damascus from the Washington Post


NEWS

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

The Daily Mail

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

U.K. Troops Faced Intense Pressure In Iran

CBS News

Some of the British sailors held in Iran for 13 days said they were blindfolded, stripped, interrogated and pressured psychologically and emotionally during their captivity.

Lt. Felix Carman said the crew was isolated and slept in stone cells on piles of blankets.

"All of us were kept in isolation. We were interrogated most nights and presented with two options. If we admitted that we'd strayed, we'd be on a plane to (Britain) pretty soon," Carman said at a news conference. "If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison."

Speaking alongside Carman, Marine Capt. Chris Air said the 15 British sailors and marines faced an aggressive Iranian crew. "They rammed our boats, and trained their heavy machine guns, RPGs, and weapons on us. Another six boats were closing in on us. We realized our efforts to reason with these people were not making any headway, nor were we able to calm some of the individuals," Air said. "We realized that had we resisted there would have been a major fight, one we could not have won and with consequences major strategic impacts. We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians and do as they asked."

COMMENTARY

The Trouble With Islam: Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence

Tawfik Hamid, Opinion Journal

These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it.

[…]

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

[…]

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.



Other links

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Objective Standard

Capitalism Magazine

4Commonsense.net

OpinionJournal.com

Junk Science

Activism Humor

The Intellectual Activist

Web Logs

Principles in PracticePrincipled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”

Cox and ForkumPolitical cartoons and commentary

Noodle Food

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin

Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com

Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

4CommonSense

**********************************************************************************************************

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).

Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.

To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.

If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.