Effective Resource Management for Growing U.S. Businesses

Within and outside of academia, it was always difficult to take the "speech is violence" bunch seriously. Or at least it should have been difficult. The Black Lives Matter movement's slogan "silence is violence" is no exception. It may no longer be feasible to take the BLM seriously given that dozens of its local chapters have celebrated the slaughter of Jews, while the national organization has remained completely silent. Another weird irony is that many Western imbeciles, such as the Harvard undergraduates who signed a letter criticizing Israel and praising Hamas, are now pleading not to be "cancelled." Similar incidents have happened at York University and elsewhere. We'll see how things shake out in time. For my part, I'm divided between giving folks a taste of their own medicine and declaring Cancel Culture Détente. The former appears to be consistent with the notion of natural justice; the latter with charity, though I am concerned that it may be exploited by unscrupulous persons.Anyway, the movement formerly known as "the Left" is not just brain-dead, but also ethically inept. When making the local Starbucks a "safe space" became more important than paying fair wages to employees and paying fair taxes to governments, the cancer had already spread. Now, apparently left-wing partisans have been exposed as supporters of a pogrom, as well as racism, violence, rape, indiscriminate murder, and even infant incineration. These partisans, as I already knew, are out of ideas, with no plan or policy to tackle economic disparity or construct stable, long-lasting communities. Worse, they have been exposed as the spitting image of their declared enemies—racists and "literal Nazis" whom they see everywhere and claim to condemn. We must never listen to any of them again

It's been two weeks since Hamas.

horrible terrorist attacks in Israel sparked moral indignation and raised the risk of another major Middle East confrontation.The Hub has been working on these advances since we awoke that fateful morning. Readers may have observed that the majority of our discussion has reflected one particular point of view. We've condemned Hamas, chastised anyone who attempted to justify or rationalize the attacks, and defended Israel's right to self-defense. Some have inquired about our editorial position and what prompted us to take such a firm and unmistakable stance—especially in an era when far too many people have equivocated in the face of evil.We thought we'd try to answer these questions here. Not that it matters, but there are no Jews on our little crew. We are not too zealous Zionists. Our perspective is not limited to Israel, Hamas, or the Middle East in general. It refers to something deeper—even civilizational—that we see as vital to The Hub's mission and ideals.We opposed the attacks and supported Israel because we feel the events of the last two weeks represent opposing views on the correct aspirations for individuals, society, and politics.

Israel is a liberal democracy with the rule of law.

democratic institutions, a market economy, and, despite its peculiar circumstances, a real commitment to pluralism. Its civic life is based on an idea of individual dignity and freedom, which has been shown to promote prosperity, stability, and, ultimately, human flourishing. In just 75 years, Israel has developed into one of the world's most vibrant and successful countries because to these concepts and institutions.Hamas, which was declared a terrorist organization by the Canadian government in 2002, represents the polar opposite of these motivations and attributes. It defines itself entirely as opposed to Israel. Its goals are Israel's destruction, and its methods are indiscriminate violence. Its vision for its own people is characterized by an authoritarian and intolerant type of Sharia law that has resulted in the cancellation of elections, the arrest and execution of its opponents, and harsh restrictions on individual rights and freedoms, particularly for women.These extreme contrasts reveal themselves on several levels. At the individual level, they express opposing viewpoints on the universality of human dignity and the core of human freedom. At the societal level, they are a fight between a free and open society and a closed society—one that prohibits free expression or exchange. At the political level, they represent competing views for human rights protection and pluralism.

When viewed in these terms, the decision.

of where to side in such a conflict is pretty simple. We wholeheartedly support what former Prime Minister Stephen Harper described in his 2014 speech to the Knesset as "the only country in the Middle East to anchor itself to ideals of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law."The events of the last two weeks have done little to alter our opinions. Time hasn't passed so quickly that we should forget that the only reason we're even talking about these issues is that in the early hours of October 7, Hamas terrorists crossed into Southern Israel and murdered, raped, and tortured Israelis at a music festival and in their homes before taking over 200 of them (including 30 children) as hostages back to Gaza. The Israelis resting in their beds that morning were not looking for battle. It was forced upon them by the savagery and destruction of their assailants.We have been unable to identify with anyone, especially those in our own country, who have attempted to justify, rationalize, or even celebrate these heinous assaults. However, it's been difficult to understand people who may have opposed them at the time but have now reverted to unfairly criticizing Israel in the name of "balance."