Saturday, December 07, 2002

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT AND PEJMAN VIEWERS: Big thanks to Glenn and Pejman for linking me. As you can tell, I needed the hits. But I felt strongly enough about the issue that I felt I should email them, and apparently they felt the issue was important as well. Now it's time to let Campus Activism know how you feel.

I'll try to post updates as I hear about them from our campus listserv.
LIBERTARIANISM NOT "PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH": This interesting tidbit was emailed to me by the American University Libertarians, an organization of which I'm a part of. It involves an email exchange between one of our club members and a member of Campus Activism, a nationwide activist website. After we sent a statement indicating we wanted to become affiliated with their website, we received the following reply.

Hello,

CampusActivism.org's mission is to serve progressive campus activists.
If we broadened our scope, we'd be taking on too much making it difficult
for people to find information useful to them.

We edit entries that made signficant mistakes in entering their data
(for instance saying they are a national group when they are not), and
delete groups that do not meet our political or campus criteria.

I regret to inform you that we have deleted your group as it is not left
of center. While this may seem cruel, you are free to setup a website
for rightwing groups if you so choose. In fact, you can use the software
that we are creating (see http://sourceforge.net/projects/e-activism/) and
have released under the GNU GPL (free software) license to do exactly
that.

Peace,

Aaron


Wow, he just labeled the Libertarian party as "right-wing". Obviously this guy knows nothing about politics. Anyways, here was the response from one of our club members:

Hi,

I'm writing in regards to some information I was forwarded regarding
your website, CampusActivism.org. It seems to me that, in light of
the letter that I've pasted below, your website is somewhat misleading:
There is no mention on the opening page of your website that only
/certain/ activist groups are allowed to promote themselves, while
others are subject to have their entries deleted at your discretion.
Because your site is presented as a place to come to find out about
activism on campus, with no mention of it's political prejudices, it
would tend to give those students who come to the site with the
intention of getting politically involved a skewed idea about what
options are available to them.

While I have no problems with the fact that you would post a site
which excludes those groups who have different political views than
your own, I think it's quite misleading to do so while making it seem
that your site is an inclusive list of activist groups on college
campuses (as the name "CampusActivism.org" suggests). The
description on the opening page of your site, "Our goal is to build a
just society -- a world free of sexism, racism, heterosexism, poverty,
environmental destruction, and war." doesn't go far enough to
disclose your prejudices. This is evidenced by the fact that the
group who received the letter I've posted below, being of a libertarian
political affiliation, would certainly not be inherently opposed to such
ideals. (Though they may, perhaps, disagree with other groups listed
on your site about the method we should use to bring about those
ideals - i.e. they would discount the use of coercive force for bringing
about the world you've described, they would very likely agree with
the goals you've listed).

I would like to encourage you to do one of two things: present your
site as what it is - a list of groups that meet a rather narrow set of
political requirements - in a more prominent way, or turn your site
into what it presents itself to be at first glance - a very useful inclusive
listing of activist groups arranged by college campus.

I thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns, and hope you
will consider taking them to heart.

Sincerely,

Shane


If you wish to let Campus Activism know about the fallacy of their mission statement, you can contact Aaron at akreider@nd.edu or the other heads of the organization at nassar@WPI.EDU and n_i_c_k_l@yahoo.com. Let them know that libertarians are much more "progressive" than left-wingers claim to be. Tell them to change their mission statement or to accept "right-wingers" because disallowing our side of the debate assumes that we are not "progressive", which is a complete distortion of the truth.
IS TRENT LOTT RACIST OR JUST STUPID: Here's what he recently had to say about the recently-turned-100 year old Strom Thurmond.

Now Thurmond has definitely changed his ways and no longer the man he once was. But to support the 1948 version of the man is outright racist and one of the reasons why many Democrats believe the propaganda fed to them by their party claiming that Republicans are constantly trying to oppress minorities. So either Lott does want to do this or he's just stupid. I'm going with the latter.
MORE OF THE SAME IN FRANCE: So you think all those claims of France being anti-Semitic are greatly exaggerated? Just America's way of taking shots at the French? Well you thought wrong.

France and the entire EU is becoming more and more anti-Semitic with each passing day.

Friday, December 06, 2002

CATCH A BABY!: Go ye here and help save the world from Michael Jackson.
TIMES GIVES IN: Realizing that censoring any dissent in a newspaper which claims to be balanced is completely unethical from a journalist standard, the New York Times and its power hungry editor Howell Raines finally gave in.
METS GET GLAVINE: Tom Glavine is now a Met. And I'm willing to bet that somehow, someway, the Mets are going to continue to suck.
OSAMA BIN ACTION FIGURE: Apparently it's a big seller in much of the Arab World. And that's a problem that the US (and the entire West for that matter) needs to address.

Tuesday, December 03, 2002

GUN CONTROL NOT WORKING IN THE UK: Here's a story showing the England has the worst crime rate in the world. It also has some of the strictest legislation against guns in the entire world. But I thought gun control reduced crime?!?

The problem with gun control is the following. The person who feels safest in a "gun free" society is not the average citizen, but the criminal, who will be getting his gun off the black market since he's well...a criminal. And since he knows that no one can rightfully defend themselves since they're not allowed to carry a weapon, well then that criminal can pretty much rob or shoot whoever the heck he wants and there's nothing that the average citizen can do to defend themselves.
MY LETTER TO SULLIVAN: I recently sent the following to Andrew Sullivan. It represents my personal feelings on the subject matter of America's gradual acceptance to apathy of minority groups.

Hey Andrew,

I'm a college libertarian/"South Park Republican" at American University who happens to agree with just about all your views. (I tend to be more resistant to any war on Iraq but otherwise we tend to agree on just about everything). I read your blog on an almost daily basis. Earlier today, I saw your entries on the Defense of Marriage Act and the rights of homosexuals, and I'm definitely with you on them.

Anyways, my point is the following. I seem to have noticed a trend recently on college campuses and in America in general which I'll call the "apathy movement". In other words, I believe that with the exception of some of the religious right (who I personally despise) and the occasional liberal, America has generally grown so tolerant of unpopular views or "lifestyles" that most people have gone past the point of acceptance and are now at a point of apathy. At first, this may seem like a bad step to take. But looking closely, I no longer "accept" you as a homosexual in America (although I never had a problem with homosexuals in the first place), but rather am apathetic to your life style. Not only do I accept your life style, but I also don't really care that it's your life style. In most instances, I probably wouldn't even notice and if I did, it really wouldn't make a difference to me. Perhaps a movement from acceptance to apathy should be the long term goal of all minority groups. After all, they are merely trying to be regarded as equals and nothing more. Liberals want us to "tolerate" all individuals, the South Park Republicans and libertarians want us to be apathetic to them. So when I read your blog, I read it because I think you're an excellent writer with a similar ideology to me. I really don't give a damn if you're a homosexual or any other lifestyle choice.


Acceptance is somewhat of a forced term. It implies that even though I don't agree with your lifestyle, I still can put up with you. It sounds too much like tolerance. Apathy should be the true goal of minority movements. If I'm apathetic to minorities, then I regard them as equals to me and it implies that I do agree with their lifestyle.

Monday, December 02, 2002

SULLIVAN WEIGHS IN: Here's Andrew Sullivan's take on the Miss World debacle. As always, he nails it.

A columnist in the Guardian, the wonderfully named Ros Coward, argued that the West should respond to attacks on free speech by avoiding offense to bigots: "The Nigeria debacle shows how naive people are about this divide between cultures, especially in a post-Sept. 11 world. A culture where a woman can be stoned to death for adultery clearly contains elements that will not be entranced by a parade of female flesh or the 'modernity' it promises. To hold the contest during Ramadan compounds the insult." Do any of these female journalists worry in print about a fatwa being pronounced on another female journalist, who has succeeded in her work despite being in a brutally misogynist culture? Not so far. Her right to write freely seems not as important as sensitivity to other cultures.

Now imagine a scenario in which, say, the play "Corpus Christi" was produced in New York (as it was). The play was highly offensive to some fundamentalists because it depicted Jesus as gay. What if a mob of enraged Christians, after a holy sermon at a neighboring church, had decided to torch the office of the New York Times because they ran a favorable review, or to burn down the theater? What if they killed hundreds of innocent bystanders in their rage? What if they issued a call to all faithful Christians to kill playwright Terence McNally for his blasphemy? Do you think the rampage would be described as "atheist-Christian riots"? Do you think leftists would call on the playwright to be more sensitive in future? Would the mayor of New York blame the theater? Yet when it comes to a far, far deadlier menace to our freedoms than fundamentalist Christianity, much of the left is silent or, worse, making excuses for this Islamist threat.

This is what cultural relativism, p.c. journalism and decadent feminism amounts to: a failure to grasp that freedom is under attack. The only reason I am writing this column is because I live in a free society. One of the keys to that free society is freedom of the press - even to be disrespectful, annoying, blasphemous. What just happened in Nigeria is that a newspaper's offices were burned to the ground, a journalist has had a death sentence pronounced on her, and hundreds of people have been killed because of radical Islam's hatred of our freedoms. The propriety, politics and principles of a beauty pageant are utterly irrelevant. If I don't like such a pageant, I have many ways to protest. But killing people isn't one of them. That isn't so hard a line to grasp. So why have so few grasped it?


MISS WORLD MULTICURALISTS: Multiculturalism at its "finest" folks. Take a look at this press release by the Miss World Pageant following the murder of hundreds of civilians in Africa.

The Miss World Organisation and all of the Miss World contestants were shocked and deeply saddened by the appalling comments made in the Nigerian Newspaper "This Day" that led to such a tragic loss of life.

Miss World brings together young women who are from many faiths.

The views expressed in this article were offensive to all of us and caused considerable anguish, for all the Miss World contestants, crew and staff.

Our deepest sympathies are extended to all those people who have been affected.

Reports in some British Newspapers claim that Miss World was responsible for this,

This comment was totally and utterly without foundation and it is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, ironically both by the Nigerian Editorial and some British Editorial they can have tragic consequences.


No mention of the hundreds killed in the attacks following the "offensive" comments. Apparently it's ok to set fire to hundreds of people because some comment hurt your feelings but saying something mean is extremely repulsive. It's official: multiculturalism is stupid.