Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15 | Page 16 | Page 17 | Page 18 | Page 19 | Page 20 | Page 21 | Page 22 | Page 23 | Page 24 | Page 25 | Page 26 | Page 27 | Page 28 | Page 29 | Page 30 | Page 31 | Page 32 | Page 33 | Page 34 | Page 35 | Page 36 | Page 37 | Page 38 | Page 39 | Page 40 | Page 41 | Page 42 | Page 43 | Page 44 | Page 45 | Page 46 | Page 47 | Page 48 | Page 49 | Page 50 | Page 51 | Page 52 | Page 53 | Page 54 | Page 55 | Page 56 | Page 57 | Page 58 | Page 59 | Page 60 | Page 61 | Page 62 | Page 63 | Page 64 | Page 65 | Page 66 | Page 67 | Page 68 | Page 69 | Page 70 | Page 71 | Page 72
Michael Ubaldi, April 18, 2005.
I've received an e-mail forward from activist Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi that carries some bothersome news. Daneshjoo.org, website for the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, has been taken down due to lack of funds. If you are at all able to donate, SMCCDT asks that it be done through PayPal. Simply log in and denote to "SMCCDI - Daneshjoo" as recipient via their e-mail address.
Michael Ubaldi, April 17, 2005.
Catch a leftist in an affront to the public record and he'll throw everything from Jim Crow to Mahatma Gandhi to trip you up. Glenn Reynolds overturned syndicated columnist Sylvester Brown's try at the most repulsive illiberal canard against President Bush's success in establishing a democratic vision for the Near East. In retaliation, Brown stooped lower, chiding American license to judgment with the scold's adage: a drunk who goes sober is forever that drunk.
Glenn does well knocking aside Brown's misappropriation of a Gandhi quotation: indeed, the only ones who are forced to accept democracy are a nation's strongman minority. As for Gandhi's moral implications, satyagraha is an appeal to conscience; it is useless if an oppressor has none. In Kiev and Beirut, buttressed by international succor and arms, it can succeed. In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, as one of Glenn's correpondents has pointed out, it could not. Gandhi showed us just how much pride and arrogance can be held by a man in rags, to have thought that his singular experience in British India defined Adolf Hitler better than the simple metric of good and evil — demonstrating, from the error, that peace is made only with peaceable men.
Dwelling too much on the failures of men ends in relativism and misanthropy. Liberating Iraq was a judgment of Saddam Hussein and dictatorship, and Brown argues that flawed men and states can do no good. Yet every American shortfall Brown recites is one that has been overcome by those who have seen wrong and moved to correct it. There could be no stronger repudiation of the balance-of-power doctrine than the president's 2005 State of the Union address.
This past week despotisms and free-world intellectuals with axes to grind were looking to mar Japan's stride towards complete, democratic sovereignty. It doesn't matter that Japan paid dearly for its crimes in war, or that it has become a model in sixty years of liberalism; redemption and transcendence, and the good Tokyo has and will accomplish matter far less to Japan's detractors than does revenge and a troubling design to thwart ideals guiding the new country. So which does Sylvester Brown want more, Third World liberty or Western guilt?
Michael Ubaldi, April 15, 2005.
The bad news — Iran's oppressive theocracy survives, continues to abuse its own citizens and foreigners alike, is ever-closer to an atomic weapon, and both stands and functions as a terrorist monument — remains the same. But good news is found in greater measure these days. While Michael Ledeen and Peter Ackerman are sharply skeptical visionaries, not easily pulled from an objective by wishful idling, they may find that their recent proposal on how the free world can help Iranians liberate themselves coincides with work on Capitol Hill:
A U.S. congressional committee has approved legislation seeking to strengthen existing U.S. sanctions on Iran and put more pressure on Iran's government on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, while providing greater support for Iranian democracy groups. The Iran Freedom Support Act declares it should be U.S. policy to support human rights and pro-democracy forces in the United States and abroad opposing what it calls the non-democratic government of Iran.
The United States will decide this summer whether to pursue a tougher stance on Iran's nuclear program at the United Nations Security Council, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published on Thursday.
Michael Ubaldi, April 15, 2005.
The Psalmist signed off for good reason. Rich Lowry:
[C]ounselors have the best of intentions, but whenever such a tragedy strikes, it brings to mind an old New Yorker cartoon. Two cowboys look at something in the distance. "Hard to tell from here," one of them comments. "Could be buzzards, could be grief counselors."
Michael Ubaldi, April 14, 2005.
The fascistic and grimly humorously titled People's Republic of China has a long and terribly consistent policy of suppressing the trade and passage of information in and out of its monumental police state. And Beijing would rather you not pay attention to its efforts to seal off every libertarian recess that the free world's technology punches through.
Michael Ubaldi, April 14, 2005.
Exclaims Mohammed, from Baghdad: "We can fairly say that we're witnessing the birth of an Iraqi blogosphere." Judging by the number of links he's found for us, it's quite a brood. His commentary is not only vital to the incredible rise of free speech in Iraq but to the recent acquaintance with medius popularis the West is enjoying as well.
Michael Ubaldi, April 13, 2005.
Wretchard shows us excerpts from humanitarian Theodore Darymple's harrowing journey through iniquity and its injury, and I stopped short at this sentence:
In the worst dictatorships, some of the evil ordinary men and women do they do out of fear of not committing it.
Pulling the topic momentarily off course, if I may: That's an ethical node where some of the greater Christian church, as they move leftward into relativism — taking Paul far too literally, as if he were misanthropist — fail in their teaching to the point of heresy. The temptation of obsessive martyrdom — of finding God in whatever circumstances, the more difficult the better — leads to excuses for despots' kingdoms of suffering and a withering contempt for the failures of those living in freedom. They risk looking fondly to persecution. A man with the help of a Providential hand, we'd say, can rise above any trouble but fifty years of a post-industrial democratic West show clearly that man does the greatest work for himself and others when separated from God by nothing more than his own free will. There are plenty of trials in peace — and too many horrors under compulsion.
What's curious about Darymple's narrative is that while the dictatorial society thrives in its nihilism on a regulation of evil acts, the welfare state government doesn't — but accomplishes much of the same thing by leaning collectivist in accordance with a private plan, stripping weaker individuals of protections while inviting the more fit population to careen into a numbness of self-absorbed irresponsibility mislabeled as "rights." Fortuitously, Roger Kimball wrote on this subject in yesterday's New Criterion, quoting James Fitzjames Stephen on John Stuart Mill, "men are so closely connected together that it is quite impossible to say how far the influence of acts apparently of the most personal character may extend." The United States Constitution and its amendment process were meant to limit the power of government, so we are told by the individualists. As an absolute, not true. The 13th Amendment stands as one of the most sweeping abrogations of legally recognized "rights," insofar as the right of men to own other men; and it was an overdue redaction. Even where common law substitutes a constitution, as in Theodore Darymple's Britain, natural law insists that no man will have his rights to life, voice and property taken away without reasoned judgment — certainly not by the arbitrary wishes of a peer.
The funnily ubiquitous "right to privacy" exists only in the imagination, and the belief in it thrives best in urbanity, where personal association is highly transient and community is unstable. Anonymity does relieve us of some burdens — but not everything. After all, something is killed when a woman terminates a healthy pregnancy; someone is affected by the degeneration from another's substance addiction; one or more dependents must contend with an ad-hoc family, especially if it is condoned by the state; someone must pay the price for a threshold below which those living blithely can be summarily euthanized; and something is lost when the life of one fairly convicted of voluntary murder is considered as inviolable as one acquitted, or when those who forfeit their rights to certain protections have them returned anyway.
These things are the rights of the potent, got at the expense of the humble, and nothing more than rule of the strong — authoritarianism — on a small scale. Again, Stephen says it best, "Could anyone desire gross licentiousness, monstrous extravagance, ridiculous vanity, or the like, to be unnoticed, or, being known, to inflict no inconveniences which can possibly be avoided?" Not at all. Which is why we should be wary of those who see liberty, itself a cooperative brace among men, inconsequential to good works or, once achieved, suited for other pursuits.
Michael Ubaldi, April 12, 2005.
I've had my differences with his work of late but the grand old man wrote the best words on the nomination of the president's United Nations ambassador:
Mr. [John] Bolton is in the tradition of singular people who, while serving their presidents faithfully, nevertheless leave their personal stamp on their ambassadorships. Jeane Kirkpatrick was a mountainous moral presence in the U.N., while Daniel Patrick Moynihan reminded us that Socrates still lives, even if he couldn't predictably win a Senate seat in Rhode Island. It would be a sign of great democratic health if one or two Democrats on the committee were to vote to confirm Bolton, but meanwhile, all rests on Lincoln Chafee, who was named after Abraham Lincoln.
Michael Ubaldi, April 12, 2005.
Joel Engel has a piece on the shifting meanings of the word liberal. He wants to retrieve the word for an older, better liberalism. Fair enough. And several of his specific points are reasonable. But a few of them go overboard in a way that weakens his force. ...It may be that liberals should be criticized for not doing enough to distance themselves from people who hold [extremist] sentiments; but it is neither true nor fair, I think, to suggest that most liberals hold those sentiments themselves. And it advances no worthwhile cause to depict our society as more divided than it actually is.
"Liberal" needs to be reapplied as a circumstantial political definition; not an intrinsic, ideological one. And at the same time, terms "liberal" and "conservative" must be separated from "left" and "right." With a quick glance at world history we find that infant exposure, elder or infirmed mercy-killing, arbitrary coupling or sanctioned chemical intoxication is not at all "progressive" or unprecedented to societal evolution; while no precursor exists for morally outlawing dictatorship, globalized trade that respects sovereignty, a market-invested middle class, or equal respect for the sexes within long-held social arrangements. Literally, today the "right" is liberal and the "left" is conservative.
Michael Ubaldi, April 11, 2005.
General Douglas MacArthur — strategic genius, democratist, New Dealer, and science fiction visionary. Andrew Stuttaford:
Before Mulder there was MacArthur, General Douglas MacArthur. The penultimate London Spectator quotes from a speech that MacArthur made to West Point cadets in 1955: "The next war will be an interplanetary war. The nations of the earth must someday make a common front against attack by people from other planets."