text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87768992015-07-30T10:23:21.242-04:00THE NEW REFORM CLUBGOD & MAN IN THE 21ST CENTURYHunter Bakerhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-12599196364766278082015-07-20T19:45:00.001-04:002015-07-30T02:20:18.955-04:00Why study Edmund Burke?

The late Russell Kirk, one of the proponents of Burkean thought in the second half of the 20th century, provides an answer that question in this essay provided by The Imaginative Conservative website: Why Edmund Burke is Studied. In short, Burke is studied because he stands as a key proponent of the notion of ordered liberty that nurtured the birth of our own Republic:

Because he was a principal defender of that world of reason, and order, and peace, and virtue in which the United States participated, through its inheritance of civilization. Constitution, custom, convention, and prescription give society a health continuity, as Burke knew; and he pointed out that prudent change is the means of our preservation; he understood how claims of freedom and claims of order must be kept in a tolerable tension. Such truths he taught not as a closet-philosopher, but as a practical statesman and manager of party. His speeches and pamphlets were read by the men of 1996 and the men of 1787 -- and studied with yet closer attention after 1789. No other political thinker of their own time was better known to the American leaders than was Burke.
Burke was an English Whig politician and theorist, a member of Parliament at the time of the American Revolution and an ardent defender of the British constitution in the face of dangerous innovation from abroad. At the time time, he was a proponent of reform and sought reconciliation with the American colonies in the run-up to the American Revolution. At the foundation of the American concept of liberty is, among other sources, Burke. And as Kirk points out, not even the American Federalists can substitute for Burke's wisdom in guiding the course of prudential politics.Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-57622836707811262842015-07-17T18:52:00.000-04:002015-07-18T05:15:18.832-04:00Where do our rights come from?

The op-ed is from a while ago (2012), but here's Lawrence Lindsey over at the Wall Street Journal reflecting on the question in this blog post's title: Geithner and the "Privilege" of Being American. As Lindsey points out, the Founding Fathers thought that our fundamental rights of life and liberty precede the State. In other words, the State does not provide us with our rights and grant them to us, rather the State merely recognizes rights that already exist. Our rights are not boons provided to us by our betters, by those who rule over us. The task of our leaders is to protect the rights that are ours by nature.

Of course, rights and duties need effective expression though the positive law. As the late Russell Kirk never tired of pointing out, natural law and natural justice are not substitutes for positive law, but rather the predicates upon which positive law depends to function properly to order human community towards order, justice and peace.

The weak spot in Lindsey's argument is that he fails to identify precisely where our rights do come from. If not from the State, then what is their basis? For the Founders, the source of our rights is divine Providence, in the God who creates and sustains the world -- "nature's God" to use a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. At the root of liberty, at the root of limited government, at the root of human freedom, is the truth that prior to and above the State there exists a Power to whom the State itself is subordinate. Take away that truth and the foundation for human rights & limited government collapses in a heap.

Alexander Hamilton, that great American founder whose memory as of late has been under continued assault, understood this well. Writing in The Farmer Refuted in 1775, Hamilton built upon the work of the English jurist William Blackstone to eloquently hold forth on the origin of human rights:

Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensibly, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.

This is what is called the law of nature, "which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately, or immediately, from this original."

Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety.
And then in words that stand among the most powerful written during the American revolutionary period, Hamilton thundered:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
The relationship between natural law and human rights has been a well-understood and affirmed part of American law and politics for most of our history, until fairly recent times. Not restricted to the Right, liberals long affirmed this fundamental principle, both in theory and in political rhetoric at the highest levels, as this except from President John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address shows:

"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." Amen to that, Mr. President. Amen to that. Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-35959706133662353392015-07-15T00:18:00.001-04:002015-07-17T01:10:02.194-04:00Man vs. Nature. Who Won?
"Man's conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature's conquest of Man. Every victory we seemed to win has led us, step by step, to this conclusion. All Nature's apparent reverses have been but tactical withdrawals. We thought we were beating her back when she was luring us on."
―  C.S. Lewis,  The Abolition of Man

Tom Van Dykehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-70348335809402213402015-07-10T06:50:00.000-04:002015-07-10T06:50:00.599-04:00Five for Friday 3Five posts to inspire reflection and conversation over the upcoming weekend. There's a common thread to all the posts, but instead of spoiling the fun by saying what it is, I'll leave it up to each reader to determine what links these five posts together. Have a great weekend!

Frohen on Kirk on the Constitution: the University Bookman reprints a fine review by Bruce Frohnen of Russell Kirk's book on the American Constitution, Rights and Duties: The Character of Our Constitution. As Frohnen notes,

Early in the book, Kirk points out that our "Constitution had been designed by its Framers, in 1787, to conserve the order and the justice and the freedom to which Americans had grown accustomed." Thus Kirk takes issue with ideologues who seek to convince us that America was created ex nihilo through the drafting of an abstractly philosophical Declaration of Independence. The Declaration, and the War for Independence, must be seen as our Founders saw them: as defensive measures intended to protect Americans' traditional and chartered rights from an overreaching English Parliament.
That's just a taste of Frohnen's review -- read it all, and better yet, get a copy of Kirk's book and read it closely. There is much wisdom there. I first read Kirk's book on the Constitution when I was a law student, and it was the first book by Kirk that I ever read. I was immediately impressed by his wisdom and insight, and quickly devoured everything he had written that I could get my hands on. I would have loved to have met him and studied with him, but alas that was not to be. But he lives on in his writings, and thanks to them we can all be Kirk's students. And he is a fantastic teacher! Of history and literature and on the roots of our country's polity and order.

Franklin and Jefferson on the Lord's Prayer: among the Founding Fathers, Franklin is often thought to be one of the most secular. This is a misreading of Franklin. While he was not an orthodox Christian, Frankly was a strong theist who consistently thought of his religious views in relationship with the general teachings of genetic colonial Protestantism regarding divine providence, the power of prayer and the Last Judgment. Franklin even went so far as to update the Lord's Prayer from the New Testament for his own personal use, and that prayer definitely reflects Franklin's own religious beliefs in a providential, personal God who is the ground of the moral law and who cares for each human person:

1. Heavenly Father, 2. May all revere thee, 3. And become thy dutiful Children and faithful Subjects. 4. May thy Laws be obeyed on Earth as perfectly as they are in Heaven. 5. Provide for us this day as thou hast hitherto daily done. 6. Forgive us our trespasses, and enable us likewise to forgive those that offend us. 7. Keep us out of Temptation, and deliver us from Evil.
Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography, post-1784, quoted in The Founders on Religion: A Book of Quotations, edited by James H. Hutson (Princeton Univ. Press: 2005), pg. 166.

If Franklin's version of the Lord's Prayer evidences a strong belief in a personal God who intervenes in human affairs and who answers prayer, the version provided by Thomas Jefferson in his own version of the Gospels, the so-called Jefferson Bible, is even more traditional -- deviating lightly from the version of the Lord's Prayer given in the Authorized King James Version. Jefferson is often invoked by those hostile to religion as someone who was opposed to religion. And it is true that Jefferson disagreed with orthodox Christianity and was a critic of organized religion for the most part. But he also was a strong believer in a theistic idea of God, a deity who governs the world through Providence. Jefferson's version of the Lord's Prayer evidences that belief:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (Beacon Press: 1989), pg. 87.

When referring to the religious view of the Founders, it is easy to fall into anachronism on either side, either viewing the Founders as a whole as proto-evangelicals or viewing them as proto-free thinking "New Atheists." Both views are incorrect. Even the most secular of the Founders were strikingly religious by modern standards, and affirmed beliefs in strong-theism, of a personal God who intervenes in human affairs, responds to prayer, who authors a moral law, and who will hold each human being accountable for their violations of that law as well as for how they treat those who have sinned against them. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both testify to this fact.

Rhetoric as a necessary component of a liberal education: "Oh, that's just rhetoric," is a refrain that sadly is heard far too often in regard to politics or any kind of civic engagement. But as this article by Sean Lewis over at The Imaginative Conservative rightly points out, the study of rhetoric -- the presentation of ideas and concepts -- is critical for liberal education. The study of rhetoric is one of the pillars of classical education, and the recovery of the integrity of rhetoric is essential to forming a disciplined mind.

One good place to start a study of the use of language is with George Orwell's magnificent treatise on writing & rhetoric: Politics and the English Language.

Reagan's agenda in his own words: as the country prepares for another presidential political campaign, the memory of Ronald Reagan will no doubt be powerfully in mind for conservative & Republican voters. It might be a good idea to see the consistency and the changes in Reagan's approach to politics and policy across his life in politics. Below are three examples, from the beginning, peak and close of Reagan's political career, of speeches where Reagan set out his political vision.

Here is Reagan's first major venture on the national political stage, his Time for Choosing speech in support of the Goldwater campaign in 1964:

After serving two terms as governor of California and then running successfully in 1980 against President Jimmy Carter, Reagan delivered his first First Inaugural Address in 1981:

Finally, at the conclusion of his second term of office in 1989, President Reagan addressed the country in his Farewell Speech, talking about his hopes for the future of our country:

Conservatism is not an ideology: Reagan's political principles, both their flexibility and their deep consistencies, raise the question of how conservatism reconciles principle & prudence in the field of practical politics. Russell Kirk, one of the great explainers and developers of the conservative tradition in the 20th century, explained conservatism's fundamental approach:

The conservative understands that the circumstances of men are almost infinitely variable, and that any particular political or economic policy must be decided in the light of the particular circumstances of time and place -- an enlightened expediency, or prudence ... Conservatism, I repeat, is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics. It does not try to excite the enthusiasm of a secular religion. If you want men who will sacrifice their past and present and future to a set of abstract ideas you must go to Communism, or Fascism, or Benthamism. But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in the wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles. The high-minded conservative believes in Principle, or enduring norms ascertained through appreciation for the wisdom of dead generations, the study of history, and the reconciliation of authority with the altered circumstances of our present life. He is a highly reasonable person, although he looks with deep suspicion on the cult of Reason -- the worship of an abstract rationality which asserts that mundane planning is able to solve all our difficulties of spirit and community. But the high-minded conservative detests Abstraction, or the passion for forcing men and societies into a preconceived pattern divorced from the special circumstances of different times and countries.

From Prospects for Conservatives (Regnery Gateway: 1989), pg. 8-9. Within that passage from Kirk is the antidote to virtually all of the big picture problems that have developed on the Right for the last 35 years.Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-71516152462150937402015-07-08T17:23:00.000-04:002015-07-08T17:23:05.729-04:00John Adams on divine providence, liberty & equality under the law

An interesting essay on that topic by J.W. Cooke is now posted over at the First Principles blog: The Fragile Balance: John Adams on Liberty and Equality. Adams' view of liberty was grounded in a belief in divine providence, as Cooke points out, a providence that decreed not only the fate of nations but also the fate of individuals. Since providence would place different people in different circumstances, strict equality was not only undesirable, it was impossible.

What was possible, Adams believed, was equality of personhood before the law. And as Cooke explains, Adams saw four vehicles by which such equality could be brought about:

Adams looked to four sources for a tolerable solution to this painful dilemma. The first was Christianity. "The only equality of man that is true," he wrote,"was taught by Jesus: 'Do as you would be done by.' The same Jesus taught 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.''' A second source of amelioration involved the inculcation of virtue and knowledge. "The way to improve society and reform the world," he admonished his readers, "is to enlighten men, spread knowledge, and convince the multitude that they have, or may have, sense, knowledge, and virtue." The latter, in particular, required a negation of selfishness that would do much to mitigate the rapacity of the rich and the misery of the poor. Third, if the poor could be indoctrinated in the virtues of thrift and industry, if they could be taught that their property might be improved by hard work and self-denial, then much envy would be deflected and much social unrest averted. A more mundane key to peace was balanced government. Adams argued that the Constitution had gone as far as man ought in establishing an "equality of rights." The interests of the poor were balanced against those of the rich in the legislature, while the powers of the executive and those of the legislative and the judicial in turn were matched. The result, Adam hoped, would be an equilibrium of power (a balance of forces) that would prevent a factional or individual despotism.
Cooke's essay is an insightful glimpse into the thought of one of our most philosophical founders. Well worth a read.

[Cross-posted over at American Creation.]Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1767488407754816572015-07-06T15:21:00.004-04:002015-07-06T15:21:54.304-04:00Bp. John Carroll's prayer for the young American Republic

I've posted on this over at American Creation, but I thought I would share this post with the readers here at The New Reform Club now that we have just finished celebrating the Independence Day holiday.

The first Roman Catholic bishop in the United States, John Carroll, came from a prominent Maryland Catholic family. His brother Daniel Carroll signed both the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution. His cousin Charles Carroll was the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. John Carroll had a critical role in the early American Republic as well, although not in the political sphere. John was a Catholic priest and eventually was ordained the first Catholic bishop for the young United States of America, and then later elevated to be the country's first archbishop. In 1791 he composed the following prayer to be said in all Catholic parishes throughout his diocese (which at the time consistent of the entire United States). The prayer was a demonstration that the ancient Catholic faith was compatible and at home with the principles of the Republic:

We pray Thee O Almighty and Eternal God! Who through Jesus Christ hast revealed Thy glory to all nations, to preserve the works of Thy mercy, that Thy Church, being spread through the whole world, may continue with unchanging faith in the confession of Thy Name.

We pray Thee, who alone art good and holy, to endow with heavenly knowledge, sincere zeal, and sanctity of life, our chief bishop, Pope N., the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the government of his Church; our own bishop, N., all other bishops, prelates, and pastors of the Church; and especially those who are appointed to exercise amongst us the functions of the holy ministry, and conduct Thy people into the ways of salvation.

We pray Thee O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through whom authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment decreed, assist with Thy Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the President of these United States, that his administration may be conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty. We pray for his excellency, the governor of this state, for the members of the assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their respective stations with honesty and ability. We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal. Finally, we pray to Thee, O Lord of mercy, to remember the souls of Thy servants departed who are gone before us with the sign of faith and repose in the sleep of peace; the souls of our parents, relatives, and friends; of those who, when living, were members of this congregation, and particularly of such as are lately deceased; of all benefactors who, by their donations or legacies to this Church, witnessed their zeal for the decency of divine worship and proved their claim to our grateful and charitable remembrance. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and everlasting peace, through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Amen.
This is just one example of the devotional piety of the tiny and somewhat beleaguered English Catholic population of post-Revolutionary War America. Prior to the massive influx of Irish, German and then Italian & Eastern European immigrants starting in the 1840s, the Catholic faithful in the United States were relatively few in number and often a target for anti-Catholic demonstrations and propaganda. Despite this, the Catholics in early America tended to be a patriotic bunch, embracing the new Republic's guarantees of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. This embrace extended beyond the reach of mere politics, and affected the liturgical piety of the Catholic Church in the young United States -- an interesting example of how religious institutions not only embraced the new American order after the Revolutionary War, but worked to strengthen and support it. Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-87603183871990309982015-07-04T05:56:00.000-04:002015-07-04T05:56:00.276-04:00"A nation was born in a day"

The interest, which in this paper [the Declaration of Independence] has survived the occasion upon which it was issued; the interest which is of every age and every clime; the interest which quickens with the lapse of years, spreads as it grows old, and brightens as it recedes, is in the principles which it proclaims. It was the first solemn declaration by a nation of the only legitimate foundation of civil government. It was the corner stone of a new fabric, destined to cover the surface of the globe. It demolished at a stroke the lawfulness of all governments founded upon conquest. It swept away all the rubbish of accumulated centuries of servitude. It announced in practical form to the world the transcendent truth of the unalienable sovereignty of the people. It proved that the social compact was no figment of the imagination; but a real, solid, and sacred bond of the social union. From the day of this declaration, the people of North America were no longer the fragment of a distant empire, imploring justice and mercy from an inexorable master in another hemisphere. They were no longer children appealing in vain to the sympathies of a heartless mother; no longer subjects leaning upon the shattered columns of royal promises, and invoking the faith of parchment to secure their rights. They were a nation, asserting as of right, and maintaining by war, its own existence. A nation was born in a day.
- John Quincy Adams, Speech on Independence Day, July 4, 1821.Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-62575676958933179252015-07-03T17:57:00.003-04:002015-07-03T18:08:43.153-04:00Tillman on Values and Dignityby Seth Barrett Tillman
Guest Blogger

"The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."—Justice Clarence Thomas in Obergefell v. Hodges, [2015] (dissenting)

_____________________________

"Mrs Thatcher came only twice [to the Conservative Philosophy Group], once as prime minister. That was the occasion for a notable non-meeting of minds. Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Norman</st1:place></st1:city> had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values.

Enoch Powell: No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.'

Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the <st1:place w:st="on">Falklands</st1:place>): 'Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.'

'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.'

Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism. (Mr Blair would have been equally baffled.)"

[The Right Honourable Enoch Powell quoted in John Casey, The revival of Tory philosophy, The Spectator, March 17, 2007 (emphasis added).]
Tom Van Dykehttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-71084051107802566282015-07-03T05:32:00.000-04:002015-07-03T05:32:00.529-04:00Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots

There's been something of a trend in the last few years of biographers spending time and effort to recount the lives of American founders outside what some of us refer to as the "Top Tier" (Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton). Books recounting the lives and work of Abigail Adams, John Jay, Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, Thomas Paine and others are becoming more and more common. And on the whole, that is a very salutary development. Our Revolution and Republic were made not only by a relatively few great men, but by many people working (sometimes at cross purposes!) to build and "secure the blessings of liberty" for themselves and for their "posterity" (to quote the Preamble of the Constitution).

One founder who has benefitted from this trend in biography is Virginian Patrick Henry. Once considered a major founder by historians, Henry's overall status has declined since the 1930's, when a fixation on those founders of long-ranging national stature took hold on most prominent historians and biographers. Fueled by the "Jeffersonian ends via Hamiltonian means" ideology of the Roosevelt administration, the focus on Jefferson in particular but also Madison and to a lesser extent Jefferson's nemesis Alexander Hamilton, shaped a good deal of popular history well into the current period. Patrick Henry, a politician who was most at home in Virginia and who never aspired to the presidency, was left behind -- a quirky, Southern, states-rights kind of founding father who was increasingly overlooked by an historical profession that was more and more enamored by the power of nationalized government.

One book that seeks to bring Henry back into the limelight is Thomas S. Kidd's biography of the great Virginian, Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots (Basic Books: 2011). Kidd, who teaches history at Baylor University, has published extensively on American religious history, and he brings a keen eye towards the deep principles -- some religious, some secular -- that formed the foundation of Henry's career as a lawyer, patriot and politician. Kidd begins his biography with an overview of Henry's place in popular consciousness over time, detailing the ebbs and flows in the attention paid to him. Once the narrative turns to Henry himself, Kidd provides a detailed and contextualized overview of the broader social forces at work in Henry's life. Backcountry Virginia is described & explained, the impact of the Great Awakening is discussed and the beginnings of the crisis with Great Britain are set out -- all with an eye towards explaining how these broader forces worked to shape the social, theological and political environment in which Henry found himself. Insightfully, Kidd's exploration of Henry's world never falls into the trap of ascribing Henry's character and beliefs solely to the surrounding culture -- instead Kidd paints a nuanced picture of the interaction of Henry's own distinct personality with the institutions and issues of his day.

And what issues they were! As Kidd notes, Henry was in the thick of virtually all of the major trends and episodes in the late colonial, revolutionary and early republic periods in American history. From the explosion in evangelical Protestant religiosity during the Great Awakening -- a religious fervor that without question accelerated the pace towards the Revolution -- to the fiery debates over American independence, Henry was there, consistently struggling against the notion of centralized government authority under the crown. Then, after the Revolution's success, Henry took up again the banner against centralized authority by becoming a leader in the fight against the ratification of the current Constitution, preferring the looser form of national government provided by the earlier Articles of Confederation. With the Constitution's passage, Henry became a leading voice against the Federalist majority during the Washington administration and the first part of the Adams' administration. Then, alarmed at the growing radicalism of Jefferson and his emergent Democratic Republican political party, Henry made the choice to defend the principles of order and the rule of law against what he saw as the the corrupt and violent disposition of Jefferson and his disciples.

Even the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts could not persuade Henry to join the Jeffersonians. Instead, he held his tongue in spite of private opposition to the Acts, and endorsed fellow Virginian, Federalist and future Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall for a seat in Congress. Thanks to Henry's support, Marshall won a narrow victory. Thus was Henry's way paved towards a role at the end of his life as a major player in national politics.

The anti-Christian ideology of the French Revolution also moved Henry in a more conservative direction, as he realized that he forces unleashed by Revolutionary France had the potential to destroy the bonds of ordered liberty itself. Up until that time, Henry had been active in fighting against the Federalists, going so far as to peacefully work towards the creation of separate republics in the west as American settlers spread out across the continent. No more. In his private correspondence, he began to identify more and more strongly as an orthodox Christian. In one letter to his daughter Betsy, Henry distanced himself from the Deistic movement and lamented that he had failed to make more public affirmations of his own Christian faith:

Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is aid by the Deists that I am one of their number, and indeed that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory, because I think religion of infinitely higher importance the politics, and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But indeed by dear child this is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast.
With the rise of the Jeffersonian Republicans and their flirtation with French-influenced political ideology, Henry took stock of the times and make a momentous political move. At first privately and then publicly, he shifted to the Federalist Party, allying himself directly with his former opponents. From a critic of the Constitution he became one of its most ardent advocates, defending loudly the national charter that he had so resolutely opposed. For Henry, what was at stake in the Federalist-Jeffersonian struggle was the notion that free and republican government was possible only with a virtuous and devout citizenry. As Kidd reports, Henry wrote a scathing denunciation of the ideology of the French Revolution, going so far as to state that it was, in Henry's words, "destroying the great pillars of all government and of social life; I mean virtue, morality and religion." It was to prevent this acid ideology from warping the American experiment in ordered liberty that Henry embraced his former enemies in the Federalist Party.

Kidd does a very solid job of describing the different intellectual components of Henry's political career. As an historian of religion, Kidd pays particular attention to the spiritual beliefs that animated Henry, both in his private and public life. Henry's commitment to both established religion and religious liberty are explored, with Kidd providing particular detail to Henry's early prominence as a trial lawyer defending religious establishment in colonial Virginia. Kidd demonstrates that Henry's early support of establishment in Virginia was of a piece with his concern over centralized authority -- by emphasizing that it was the Virginia colonial government that established religion in the colony, Henry struck a blow against royal control of the Christian churches in Virginia. Since the church was established by the colony rather than by the crown, the church was accountable not to the King but to the colonial government and its laws. The clergy's civil appointments could therefore be revoked by the colonial government if the clergy sided with the King against the Virginia authorities. Thus colonial establishment of religion, for Henry, was a key institutional limitation on the power of the crown, reinforcing the decentralized nature of the British Empire while at the same time strengthening local allegiances and local accountability. As such, establishment was a tool that could be used to expand the liberty of the colony, providing a buttress to its efforts at local control.

In addition to detailing the efforts Henry made throughout his career to advance the cause of liberty, Kidd does not shy away from the great stain on Henry's political life, his defense of the institution of chattel slavery. Like many of the founders, Henry was quick to denounce slavery in the abstract while clinging tightly to the institution in practice. Henry's practical embrace of slavery included engaging in the odious slave trade, oftentimes clouded with a great deal of self-delusion about the moral virtue of the act of buying and selling his fellow human beings. Kidd recounts one episode where Henry sought to purchase slaves from a neighboring estate he was attempting to buy. "Henry was concerned that they [the slaves] were too expensive," Kidd recounts, "but in a magnanimous tone he wrote that 'they are so extremely desirous of staying with me, I consent to take them.'" Henry here manages to turn his act of buying human flesh into an act of kindness towards those enslaved. As Kidd notes, Henry's talk of liberty and his anti-slavery rhetoric aside, the Virginian "would never fundamentally alter his attitude about trafficking in slaves." Enmeshed in an economic system built on slavery, Henry's own wealth and privilege were dependent on the peculiar institution. "Land and slaves," as Kidd explains, "were Henry's means of securing his financial security."

In the last chapter of the book, Kidd provides a even-handed evaluation of the political principles that undergirded Henry's views. Detailing the use and in some cases the abuse of Henry's memory by both liberal and conservative partisans, Kidd does a solid job of conveying the complexities of Henry's views and how different his concerns were from those of the modern era. At the same time, Kidd notes that Henry was of all the major founders the most religiously orthodox, holding to the basic tenants of Anglican Protestantism. Henry also held a solid conviction in the need not only for localized government but also for public morality -- for the governing structures of a society to be grounded on virtue and the common good.

As Kidd writes, if Henry were to come back today, his message would be challenging to all the major players in our political climate. "True freedom, he might warn us, lies not in doing whatever we want. Freedom is doing what we should do, for the sake of community and the republic." Patrick Henry deserves far more attention today than he is getting. Kidd's book goes a long way in correcting that problem. It is well worth reading.Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-66898954720205049402015-07-02T05:42:00.000-04:002015-07-02T05:42:00.026-04:00George Washington, civic religion and a providential God

George Washington's pronouncements regarding civic religion were usually couched in general language. He rarely referred to God in specific confessional terms, for example, but rather used generalized language that reflects often common 18th century Deistic terminology. This use of generalized language was often paired with terminology designed to appeal to religious believers of a more orthodox Christian persuasion.

It is this pairing that more often than not leads to a good deal of the confusion regarding Washington's own religious beliefs and his view of faith in public life. A good example of Washington's use of language in this regard can been seen in one of his more significant public pronouncements, the Circular Letter to the Governors of All the States regarding the disbanding of the Continental Army in 1783. In that letter, Washington seeks to reinforce the stability of the early American Republic as the Continentals returned home after winning independence. In his letter, Washington makes two particularly important points regarding the role of religion in civil life. The first is that for a variety of reasons, including divine "Revelation," human society is improving. As Washington writes:

The free cultivation of letters, the unbounded extension of commerce, the progressive refinement of manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and, above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have a meliorating influence on mankind, and increased the blessings of society.

Note that Washington, while listing many human accomplishments in this process of improvement, he attaches priority to "the pure and benign light of Revelation." It was divine Revelation, in Washington's statement, that was most to account for the progressive improvement in human society. Not a dry and cramped secularism or a humanism operating in a universe where God is simply an inattentive watchmaker, but Revelation proceeding from an active God who was communicating with human beings, moving them constantly forward toward a better future. Washington argues that because of these many advantages -- both human and revelatory -- the happiness of the citizens of the United States as "a Nation" (and Washington uses both the singular indefinite article and a capital "N") is for the taking. If happiness and freedom do not result, "the fault with be entirely" our own.

Second, Washington further reinforces the importance of God's action in human events by commending the state governors and their respective states to divine care. "I now make it my earnest prayer," he writes, "that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection[.]" Washington then states that he hopes that God would move the citizens of the country to "cultivate" a host of proper civic virtues: obedience to governmental authorities, fellow-feeling for each other -- both fellow citizens and particularly for the returning veterans of the Continental Army -- and, most interestingly, to emulate those virtues "which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion[.]" (Italics in the original.) After including a brief and common list of those virtues, Washington states that without "an humble imitation" of the example of the Divine Author, "we can never hope to be a happy nation."

What one sees in Washington's Circular Letter is language used that is non-confessionally specific, but which takes for granted certain key religious ideas: 1) God is active in human affairs, moving human beings towards greater goodness and social solidarity; 2) because of the advantages they benefit from, the citizens of the United States are responsible for their freedom and happiness; and 3) human beings are called to imitate the attributes of God as He has revealed them. While Washington's Circular Letter is not a fully developed treatise in civic theology, it does manifest the key points of Washington's own views about the role of religion in human society. And Washington's vision in that regard was one that viewed religion as a positive force in human life and civic affairs. It is not, to say the least, a vision of civic life that is hostile to religious faith. While couched in language that is not expressly orthodox, it is couched in language that is certainly amenable to orthodox interpretation.

Far from religion ruining everything, to borrow a phrase from the late Christopher Hitchens, in Washington's Circular Letter religious faith stands as the well-spring for civic virtue and human happiness.

[Cross-posted at American Creation.]Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-15974824920366962112015-07-01T07:27:00.000-04:002015-07-01T07:27:00.050-04:00"A free society is by definition a pluralistic society"

Wisdom from an often-overlooked scholar & writer of the middle-part of the 20th century:

Most Americans today accept it as an axiomatic truth that we live in a free society. I often wonder, however, how many of us realize that a free society is by definition a pluralistic society. A pluralistic society is one in which there are many different centers of authority, influence, and opinion, competing with one another, arguing with one another, trying by various means to expand their spheres of influence, and producing a great variety, richness, and animation. In such a society there is no single voice, government, cultural, ethical, religious, or social. There are many voices, each speaking from its point of view and striving to maintain itself in the general competition for belief and support. In direct contrast stands the monistic ideal of society, experienced by many millions of persons in other lands, which does have only one voice, and which works by many means toward effecting a unanimity of opinion, belief, and sentiment on all the issues of this life. That system bears the name totalitarian, and it is by now an obvious fact that these two are engaged in a gigantic rivalry to capture the imagination of the world.
- Richard M. Weaver (1910-1963), Responsible Rhetoric, reprinted in In Defense of Tradition: Collected Shorter Writings of Richard M. Weaver, 1929-1963, edited by Ted Smith III (Liberty Fund: 2000), pgs. 290-291.Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-69263752703419500962015-06-30T17:49:00.003-04:002015-06-30T23:46:25.940-04:00"The greatest security in a Republic"

Alexander Hamilton on the best defense of the American system of government, namely respect for the laws that govern us:

If it were to be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest security in a Republic? the answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws -- the first growing out of the last. It is by this, in a great degree, that the rich and powerful are to be restrained from enterprises against the common liberty -- operated upon by the influence of a general sentiment, by their interest in the principle, and by the obstacles which the habit it produces erects against innovation and encroachment. It is by this, in a still greater degree, that caballers, intriguers, and demagogues are prevented from climbing on the shoulders of faction to the tempting seats of usurpation and tyranny.

- Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), Tully No. III, Aug. 28, 1794, reprinted in Alexander Hamilton: Writings (Library of America: 2001), pg. 830.

Of course, it helps if those laws are themselves respectable.Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-63147117791012530852015-06-29T11:02:00.000-04:002015-06-29T11:02:00.130-04:00Politics in the pulpit: two views from two Johns (John Jay & John Adams)

John Jay is an often-overlooked Founding Father when it comes to questions of religion in the public square. An orthodox Protestant Christian with a strong aversion to Roman Catholicism, Jay was nonetheless a proponent of religious liberty as a general proposition who believed that while religion should have a role in guiding the moral development of society, it should also refrain from stating positions on every political issue.

This is evident in one of Jay's letters to Jedidiah Morse, where Jay wrote as follows:

Although the mere expediency of public measures may not be a proper subject for the pulpit, yet, in my opinion, it is the right and duty of our pastors to press the observance of all moral and religious duties, and to animadvert on every course of conduct which may be repugnant to them.
- Letter dated January 1, 1813.

Jay is far from advocating a naked public square in his work, but his statement to Morse demonstrates a concern that pastors not address political issues beyond the specific competency of religion to address -- those issues that directly impacted on moral & religious duties. This active though restrained role was, to Jay, one that was supported by the witness of the Old Testament.

John Adams also addressed the role that religious preaching should play in the political life of the commonwealth. As he wrote prior to the formal outbreak of the American Revolution:

It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted. For example, -- if exorbitant ambition and venality are predominant, ought they not to warn their hears against those vices? If public spirit is much wanted, should they not inculcate this great virtue? If the rights and duties of Christian magistrates and subjects are disputed, should they not explain them, show their nature, ends, limitations, and restrictions, how much soever it may move the gall of Massachusettensis?
- John Adams, Novanglus (1774) reprinted in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, ed. by Norman Cousins (Harper & Brothers: 1958), pg. 90.

For Adams as much as for Jay, the role of preachers was to stir the hearts of their listeners to do good and to emulate virtue, while not avoiding necessary public issues in an explanation of the duties that believers have in the political arena. When thinking on the role of formal religion in public life, it might be a good idea to pay attention to John Jay's sage words regarding the proper role intersection of politics and the pulpit.Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-48848123042425249862015-06-26T21:43:00.002-04:002015-07-09T00:53:29.447-04:00Five for Friday 2

Divine Providence and the American Revolution:

Upon the whole nothing appears to me more manifest than that the separation of this country from Britain, has been of God; for every step the British took to prevent, served to accelerate it, which has generally been the case when men have undertaken to go into opposition to the course of Providence, and to make war with the nature of things.

John Witherspoon, Sermon delivered at a Public Thanksgiving after Peace, November 28, 1782, quoted in The Founders on Religion: A Book of Quotations, James H. Hutson (editor) (Princeton University Press: 2005), pg. 18.

John Dickinson and the American Constitution:  that's the topic explored in this fascinating post over at The Imaginative Conservative. Did you know that the Federalist Papers weren't the only defense of our Constitution at the time of its proposal? American founding father John Dickinson wrote a set of articles, under the pen name Fabius, in defense of the proposed Constitution. How powerful was Dickinson's argument in favor of the Constitution? Powerful enough to earn the praise of the Father of Our Country, George Washington. Read the entire post by George S. Ahern to learn more. And I now have another book to add to my queue at the local public library!

Frank Meyer and Richard M. Weaver Discuss Libertarianism and Conservatism: the Philadelphia Society has audio recordings posted of a fascinating discussion about political theory between paleolibertarian Frank Meyer and paleoconservative Richard M. Weaver. There is additional commentary recorded by other noted folks as well, but the discussion between Meyer and Weaver is what got my attention. Both Meyer and Weaver advocated the fusion of libertarianism with conservatism, although in differing proportions, with Meyer arguing for a largely libertarian approach to politics, while Weaver advocated for a moral traditional conservatism that incorporated elements of the libertarian critique of the scope of government. Amazing to hear their voices express their thoughts!

Founders Famous and Forgotten: that's the title of this post by Daniel L. Driesbach, posted over at The Imaginative Conservative. Driesbach provides an insightful overview of why we consider some founders are important, why others fall by the wayside of popular imagination, and why some of the less-known founders are still critically important for understanding our constitutional and political order. Driesbach concludes his essay with this word of warning -- something anyone interested in the American Founding should keep constantly in mind:

The near exclusive focus on a select few virtually deified famous founders impoverishes our understanding of the American founding. It also departs from the canons of good scholarship. The demands of honest scholarship require scholars to give attention to the thoughts, words, and deeds of not only a few selected demigods but also an expansive company of men and women who contributed to the founding of the American republic.
Our nation was not built only by those we consider, in light of our own prejudices & perspectives, "great men." To understand our nation, we need to broaden the scope of the men & women we consider worthy of study.

Cold Warrior for Freedom, Cold Warrior for Peace:  there's a great article by Fred Barnes posted over at The Weekly Standard: The Real Reagan. Barnes does a good job in a short space debunking many of the myths about Reagan that have grown up since his affliction with Alzheimers disease and his passing. Well worth a read. One point about Reagan that is often overlooked by his modern admirers is his moral opposition to nuclear weapons. Reagan was a staunch defender of the West who rightly understood that the Soviet empire was evil to its core. But he also was opposed to the strategy of mutual assured destruction and he very much wanted to help create a world free of nuclear weapons. As Barnes writes:

[T]he big ideas of the Reagan era came from Reagan himself. The biggest was his obsession with eliminating nuclear weapons entirely, a goal he pursued despite the opposition of many of his advisers and his closest foreign ally, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. It was Reagan, not his aides, who came to the conclusion that mutual assured destruction, the theory that fear of massive nuclear retaliation would deter a first strike by the United States or the Soviet Union, was immoral. "What's so good about a peace kept by the threat of destroying each other?" Reagan asked "many times," according to Secretary of State George P. Shultz. "The public was hesitant to embrace" Reagan's idea, Shultz writes in the foreword to Reagan's Secret War, and "advisers Reagan trusted and who were experts in this area didn't support it. But none of that diminished Reagan's conviction."

 And it was Reagan who thought it possible to win the cooperation of the Soviets. All they needed was assurance of America's good intentions. Shultz agreed and became his closest adviser. Reagan rebuffed efforts by hardliners in his administration to have Shultz fired, explaining in his diary on November 14, 1984, "George is carrying out my policy."
His most ambitious -- and most mocked -- strategic plan to accomplish these goals was SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was ridiculed by Reagan's opponents as "Star Wars." Far from being something out of science fiction, SDI was a forward thinking effort to use technology to create a defensive system that would render nuclear weapons obsolete. Reagan showed himself to be no reactionary, but rather a visionary with his proposal. And he was willing to reach out to the leaders of the Evil Empire to do it. Even if that meant rejecting the direction his hardline advisors wanted to take.Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-64291019622341822202015-06-26T16:19:00.001-04:002015-06-26T16:22:06.844-04:00The conservative vision of John Dos Passos

I first became aware of John Dos Passos thanks to an introductory course in American literature I took at my local community college in 1989 or so. The University Bookman has published this overview of the thought of Dos Passos by the late Richard F. Hill: Dos Passos: A Reassessment.

Hill points out the considerable evolution that Dos Passos underwent over the course of his productive life, moving from communism to conservatism, eventually becoming enamored with the ideas and image of Thomas Jefferson.

The Jeffersonian mythos provides the key approach to politics and human flourishing that motivated Dos Passos in his shift from the totalitarian Left to a more traditionalist vision of community and order. As Hill explains:

It is the dream of the little man, the small farmer and worker who wants to be free from centralization and tyranny, whether it come from business or labor, the right or the left. It is represented by what are surely his most sympathetic characters throughout his fiction, early and late. They are the real keys to Dos Passos' sympathies and the best evidence for his consistency.
The whole piece by Hill is much worth reading, and provides significant insight into the work of one of the most overlooked American writers of the 20th century. Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-59643745506960018312015-06-23T01:30:00.000-04:002015-06-23T01:34:12.443-04:00Colonial Americans were better readers than modern Americans -- what a shock!

That's the topic of this post over at Freakonomics: Were Colonial Americans More Literate than Americans Today? The answer is yes, perhaps not quantatively, but qualitatively. The people who could read were far better readers than we are, as the post notes. I attribute this to the more rigorous standards of basic education (the study of Latin or Greek tends to enable people to follow complex synatax more effectively in English, plus the study of those languages boosts English vocabulary when it comes to the numerous words in our language which are often derrived from Latin and Greek roots). The near uniform exposure of colonials to that jewel of the English language, the King James translation of the Bible, didn't hurt either.Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-90196971097767085772015-06-07T23:57:00.001-04:002015-06-07T23:59:12.630-04:00Jean Elshtain on the orientation of Catholic social theoryOver at The Mirror of Justice law blog, Michael Moreland posts an excerpt from the work of the late scholar Jean Elshtain on Catholic social thought. Elshtain was a clear thinker and her work is very much worth reading, as this little bit of her analysis indicates:

Catholic social thought does not offer a "third way," as if it were simply a matter of hacking off bits and pieces of the individualist-collectivist options and melding them into a palatable compromise. Rather, it begins from a fundamentally different ontology from that assumed and required by individualism, on the one hand, and statist collectivism, on the other. The assumptions of Catholic social thought provide for individuality and rights as the goods of persons in community, together with the claims of social obligation.
Indeed. Both libertarians who try to ground their own ideology's particularities in Catholic social thinking, as well as big-government statists who do the same, are both missing the boat. Catholicism isn't trying to "do" politics, it is proposing a way of looking at the world that incorporates both the human person and the common good. Natural law, the principle of subsidiarity, and the principle of solidarity form the bedrock of Catholic social teaching. The atomized and desiccated ideologies of the day have much to learn from Catholicism as a consequence.

Related item:  The Imaginative Conservative has posted a piece where the late Catholic social justice scholar Stratford Caldecott discusses a recent statement by Angelo Cardinal Scola discussing the modern idea of rights, an idea that is central to both libertarianism and modern liberalism. Scola makes the point that without a proper understanding of the human person, informed not only by an understanding of the person as an individual but also as a member of a community, there is little room to productively talk about the kind of rights that people hold. The cardinal speaks of this as "I-in-relation." As Caldecott puts it:

It seems to me that the Cardinal is getting at the following. Human rights can only be based on (a) the inherent or intrinsic value of the person, existing in relation to God, cosmos, environment, and fellow human beings, and (b) the actual needs (rather than wants) of that person in that situation if he is not just to survive but to flourish. This requires that we know at least roughly what a human being is and what causes him to flourish—in other words, we need an adequate anthropology. Without that, we are whistling in the dark.
Precisely.

Another related item:  I have had the good fortune of being cited by Prof. Elshtain for an article I wrote on just war theory when I was a law student. Not to brag or anything. If interested my article, which explored Catholic influences on just war theory, can be found here at the Gonzaga Journal of International Law website.Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-42891457902156779722015-06-01T20:39:00.002-04:002015-06-01T23:46:32.924-04:001½ Reasons Why Jimmy Carter Wasn't So BadAt Patheos, David Swarz tries to help reliably liberal scholar and Carter biographer ["Redeemer"] Randall Balmer's attempt to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that was the Carter Era. Balmer should be given a medal for service to his party, ideology, and biographical subject.

Swarz: [Balmer] points out that Carter's presidency was sabotaged by events quite beyond his control—and that his significant accomplishments have been unfairly obscured.

Jimmy Carter's presidency was sabotaged not by events, but by Jimmy Carter the person. His failure was as a leader, a president's Job One, in his third-class temperament. Even an ideologically friendly press and a Congress controlled by his own party despised him.

On the 5 'significant accomplishments' Balmer lists:

1. Carter's commitment to human rights was nice, although in confronting only the free world's allies [allies of convenience if not necessity] for their sins but not the other bad actors of the world, Jimmy Carter only encouraged the enemies of human rights to invade Afghanistan and use proxies like the Sandinistas to replace one tyranny with another. And of course there's the brutal Ayatollah regime that replaced the arguably less wicked and certainly less dangerous Shah of Iran..

2. The Camp David Accords. Truly historic. The only question is how much credit Jimmy Carter gets for facilitating them: When a country wants peace with Israel, it gets peace. Anwar el-Sadat—the great man, may he rest in peace— did just that.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/sadat.html:

Convinced that peace with Israel would reap an enormous "peace dividend," Sadat initiated his most important diplomatic ploy. In a speech to the Egyptian parliament in 1977, Sadat affirmed his desire to go anywhere to negotiate a peace with the Israelis.

3. Giving back [giving away] the Panama Canal. Symbolically important to the Western anti-imperialist chattering class, but with no salutary effect in the real world except to necessitate Geo. HW Bush's surgical removal of the criminal Noriega regime.

4. Nuclear non-proliferation. Balmer takes a rather ¿huh? route in crediting Carter's halting nuclear initiative with Soviet Premier Brezhnev for Ronald Reagan's bold initiative with Gorbachev as "[Carter's] efforts would pay off in the 1980s."

Uh huh.

5. "A theology of limits." Can't even get near this one, sorry.* No debate could even be held on these terms--because these terms cannot even be agreeably defined.

In fairness, I'd have nominated President Carter for starting the Reagan Defense Buildup, which along with the refudiation of the Nixon/Kissinger policy of détente [the acceptance of the status quo of Soviet geopolitcal gains], brought about the close of the Cold War.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/06/us/reagan-acknowledges-carter-s-military-buildup.html

You missed that one, Mr. Balmer. Although, as a qualified historian, I reckon you didn't miss it atall. Why, I'd bet it would make #1 on your The Worst Things about Jimmy Carter. Heh heh.

_____________________________________

*Balmer: "While Carter's invocation of Niebuhr sometimes led to race-baiting, his seriousness about Christian faith (which motivated many of the just-discussed policies) led to some remarkable sermonizing at the White House. Perhaps the most important (and politically reviled) was the so-called "malaise speech" of July 15, 1979. Near the end of his presidency (marred by economic stagnation and an energy crisis), Carter secluded himself at Camp David where he tried to make sense of it all. He read Scripture and Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful. He met with Christopher Lasch, author of The Culture of Narcissism. He emerged from the compound speaking about "a crisis of the American spirit" in the tone of an evangelical jeremiad: "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now worship self-indulgence and consumption."

"Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns," Carter sermonized, but "owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning." Critics may have panned Carter's idealistic approach to the energy crisis as politically naïve, but it was nonetheless a penetrating cultural critique. He was probably the most theologically profound president since Lincoln."

Oh, my. Lincoln, slavery and the preservation of the Republic, Jimmy Carter and the Energy Crisis [since obviated by good ol' American pluck and ingenuity, fracking technology!].

Sigh. Randall Balmer's invocation of the sublime Mr. Lincoln renders Jimmy Carter all the more ridiculous. Sorry, sir. Your subject is unworthy of your rhetorical skill.Tom Van Dykehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-59884150097484742742015-05-18T01:01:00.001-04:002015-05-18T19:37:30.406-04:00Best Wishes, David Letterman, But You Left Us Worse Than You Found Us

I enjoyed David Letterman for many years, became a fan way back at his morning show [1980]. Loved the irreverence, and the silliness of "Stupid Human Tricks" and the like.

"Irreverence" means nothing anymore, of course ['transgressiveness' is the rule rather than the exception], because you can't have a comedy of manners when manners no longer exist.

Silliness [Sid Caesar, Laugh-In, Monty Python, Hee-Haw, Will Ferrell] will never go out of style, though. But at some point Dave abandoned silliness, which is fun, for dadaism, which is nihilistic. By the '90s, I remember mocking Dave's comedy laziness, that he could yell, "Pork Chops!" and the sycophantic audience would howl in delight.

Sure enough, only a few months later, on the back of an LA bus I saw Dave in an ad for Late Night that read

HONK IF YOU LOVE PORK CHOPS!

True story. Don't remember if I honked or not, but I wished I'd have tried to get a gig writing for Dave. I was clearly a comedy genius, just like him. Letterman clearly gave some people some joy--or its equivalent--but unlike Carson, I think he left us more cynical, less informed rather than more, harder rather than softer.

His interviews were indifferent, and when they weren't indifferent, they became undisguisedly partisan. Johnny Carson brought America together the next morning around the water cooler. If anyone asked "Did you see Letterman last night," the answer became increasingly, Sorry, I gotta get back to my desk.

Strangely enough, Dave, I'd still rather watch you than Jimmy or Jimmy [Fallon, Kimmel, respectively] because I'm a kind of edgy guy myself, but I'm glad to see you go. The Jimmys are more delightfully silly than you ever were, and they're less corrosive to the culture. Sarcasm has its place [I loved Frank Zappa], but it should be a very small place.
_____________________________

Epilogue, more to come: Dave's successor, debating the theology of the Eucharist with a Pulitzer-winning Catholic dissident and kicking his ass? Stephen Colbert, now, there's an interesting fellow.

Stephen Colbert vs. Garry Wills on the Real Presence: Guess Who Carried the Day?

Tom Van Dykehttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-82281280468094938602015-05-13T01:21:00.000-04:002015-05-13T01:21:05.521-04:00Russell Kirk's Rights and DutiesThe University Bookman reprints a very fine review by Bruce Frohnen of Russell Kirk's book on the American Constitution, Rights and Duties: The Character of Our Constitution. As Frohnen notes,

Early in the book, Kirk points out that our "Constitution had been designed by its Framers, in 1787, to conserve the order and the justice and the freedom to which Americans had grown accustomed." Thus Kirk takes issue with ideologues who seek to convince us that America was created ex nihilo through the drafting of an abstractly philosophical Declaration of Independence. The Declaration, and the War for Independence, must be seen as our Founders saw them: as defensive measures intended to protect Americans' traditional and chartered rights from an overreaching English Parliament.
That's just a taste of Frohnen's review -- read it all, and better yet, get a copy of Kirk's book and read it closely. There is much wisdom there. I first read Kirk's book on the Constitution when I was a law student, and it was the first book by Kirk that I ever read. I was immediately impressed by his wisdom and insight, and quickly devoured everything he had written that I could get my hands on. I would have loved to have met him and studied with him, but alas that was not to be. But he lives on in his writings, and thanks to them we can all be Kirk's students. And he is a fantastic teacher! Of history and literature and on the roots of our country's polity and order. Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-42939297860819754302015-05-04T01:32:00.003-04:002015-05-04T01:32:57.748-04:00Free to Speak Our Mind; Too Bad We've Lost It

A friend, knowing me to be a religious conservative, was surprised when I favorably cited Life of Brian. He sent me a YouTube link to a debate between John Cleese and the Bishop of Southwark, Mervyn Stockwood, televised shortly after the film's release in 1979, in which the bishop claimed that Cleese's humor would be the downfall of Christendom. It was presumed I should sympathize with that view.

But history has proven the bishop wrong. These days, entertainers like Cleese and Ricky Gervais, down to political types like Bill Maher, and further down to purportedly serious types like Richard Dawkins, and so on, are not the faithful's principal concern. Sure, I might wish for less crass humor at the expense of religion, or for more serious engagement with the arguments by those who purport to be high-minded. But I am ultimately comfortable with the debate, because that's what it's all about: a prolonged exploration of the issues that hopefully turn up flecks of truth along the way.

No, the problem for Christendom is that today, the televised debate between Cleese and the bishop probably couldn't happen without an elaborate scheme of trigger warnings, possibly resulting in a disinvitation or calling the whole thing off.

Last week, several members of PEN America, "a nationwide community of novelists, journalists, editors, poets, essayists, playwrights, publishers, translators, agents, and other professionals," decided that they would not honor those murdered at Charlie Hebdo. In short, even avowed free-speech advocates start checking the fine print of their mission statement when the speech in question takes a critical eye at a presumptively aggrieved minority.

Matt Welch takes the air out of the charges that Charlie Hebdo is racist, but that misses the point. Liberalism has legal and cultural components. Legally, we guarantee free speech. Culturally, however, we try to signal that certain speech is boorish and unwelcome. What irked Christians about Piss Christ, for example, was cultural radicals misusing the law for cultural ends. Everyone understands artists are provocateurs, but surely the state need not subsidize the provocation. That was liberalism's left foot stepping on its right foot — going beyond legally permitting speech to affirmatively encouraging oafish, disrespectful speech. It was the law treading on culture.

The massacre of Charlie Hebdo is the opposite. Muslims deserve cultural respect like anyone else. And in the abstract, we might be uncomfortable with ridiculing religion just to have a go. It's a jerk move. On the other hand, when Muslims threaten violence against lawful speech, that's the right foot treading upon the left — culture trouncing the law.

This aggression will not stand, man. That culture needs to be reminded of its place. One way to do that is for liberalism to flex both its legal and cultural muscle. It can reaffirm its legal protection for free speech regardless of who it offends. And just as important, it can widely publicize the cartoons and venerate their deceased creators. Tastefulness is a luxury liberalism cannot afford. Yes, the works might disrespect many good, faithful Muslims' beliefs, and that is unfortunate. But it appears that too many have not taken the lesson that their culture must co-exist within a legal framework.Tim Kowalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-91476331164140324032015-05-04T00:02:00.004-04:002015-05-05T01:30:46.477-04:00Garry Wills on conservatism and its view of governmentWhat is the conservative conception of the proper role of government? The American Conservative has posted an essay originally written in 1964 by now-liberal but then-conservative Garry Wills that seeks to answer that question: The Convenient State. Just in the midst of the Goldwater moment in the GOP, Wills wrote a cogent and classically informed take on the necessity and limits of the state in conservative thought.

Far from being utopian or ideological, conservatism as Wills explains builds upon the fundamental conviction within western civilization that there is a zone of individual liberty upon which the state may not intrude, a part of man that is his and his alone. Libertarianism expands this zone beyond its prudential limits, while totalitarianism denies its existence altogether. In the western world, conservatism has thus seen the role of the state as limited, as a vindicator of justice that respects the individuality of the human person. In this, it seeks (as conservatism always does) to preserve balance. In this, Wills follows no less a conservative thinker than Edmund Burke.

Where libertarianism suffers the temptation to eschew justice in favor of maximization of private privilege and restraint from limitation, and totalitarianism absorbs the individual into a vision of the true, the good and the beautiful that is uniform and coerced, for the Wills of 1964 conservatism embraces the contingent nature of justice in human societies marked by diversity and variety. In its quest, conservatism avoids the sterile and dogmatic seduction of rationalism; not for the conservative is the quixotic attempt to remake society on the basis of abstraction. As Wills puts it:

Each society must form a unique constitution, an "agreed station" of components, growing out of the resources it can command. The ideal state–of a justice or a freedom defined outside any particular human context–is as meaningless as some uniform ideal of individual fulfillment. Is monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy the best form of government? Such a question simply breeds further questions: Best for what society? And what kind of monarchy or democracy? These questions are as hopeless as similar ones would be in the case of an ideal life for individuals. Is it better that man be an artist or philosopher, monk or martyr, doctor or teacher, worker or statesman? And if he is a doctor, should he engage in research, psychology, or compassionate work among the poor? If an artist, should he write or paint in an austere or demonstrative style? To attempt an abstract answer to these questions is to deny the mystery of individuality, the secret springs of motive, that make up the human fact of freedom. As ever, rationalism leads to sterile paradox, to an ideal freedom that is a denial of freedom.
Read it all.Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-43357257372969221972015-04-28T11:33:00.000-04:002015-04-28T12:05:53.780-04:00The multitudes of Oscar Wilde

One of the great wits of Victorian literature had a life-long fascination with Catholic ritual & art which eventually blossomed, toward the close of his life, in a conversion to the Catholic faith. This is explained in this article over at the Catholic Education Resource Center: The Long Conversion of Oscar Wilde. In our era Wilde is usually celebrated for his embrace of a bohemian lifestyle, but if one looks deeper into the works & life of the man, strong currents of a spiritual river that eventually flowed to the Tiber become visible. So, who was Wilde? As the author of the article, Andrew McCracken, points out, Wilde contained multitudes: "writer, wit, voluptuary, gay man, failed father and husband, sensitive soul, laughing stock, broken heart, eleventh hour Catholic convert."

Stephen Fry, who embodies many of the same traits as Wilde in modern cloth (replacing, unfortunately, Wilde's interest in Catholicism with an avant-garde embrace of atheism), conveys some insight about Wilde's humor & deeper spiritual perspective in this discussion of Wilde's approach to literature:

 Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1693955133279325532015-04-27T18:47:00.001-04:002015-04-27T18:49:11.000-04:00Thomas Paine's surprising influence on Ronald Reagan

Awhile back I finished up historian John Patrick Diggins' book on President Ronald Reagan. Diggins brings up an interesting point that I hadn't realized, namely that Reagan's views were strongly influenced by Thomas Paine. Paine is the one founding father that Reagan quoted the most, and much of Paine's ideology -- individual liberty, a suspicion of large institutions, hostility to taxation and government regulation, etc. -- is evident in Reagan's general approach to conservatism as a governing political philosophy.

Paine's influence on Reagan accounts, in Diggan's telling, for much of Reagan's unorthodoxy as a modern conservative. As a result, Reagan's brand of conservatism was remarkably untraditional in its rhetoric. In several different contexts, Reagan quoted Paine's stirring line, "We have the power to begin the world anew" -- a very untraditional sentiment, one that displays the precise opposite of the customary conservative impulse to embrace the necessity of restraint in public reform. Reagan embraced Paine's idea that human beings can liberate themselves from corrupt & oppressive structures in order to create a new order of liberty & individualism.

While Reagan appealed to voters of a more traditionalist perspective, he was no fawning disciple of Russell Kirk & even less a disciple of Edmund Burke. Behind Reagan's conservatism was a streak of radicalism that is unappreciated by many conservatives today who tend to be overly hagiographic when speaking of the former president. The lack of depth about the nature of Reagan's beliefs is sadly shared by many progressives who demonize Reagan because of his success in shaping the political landscape in a more conservative direction.

It is a fascinating twist of history that the most radical founding father serves as a primary philosophical influence on the most successful conservative president of the 20th century. Any attempt to understand Ronald Reagan must take into account the influence of Thomas Paine on his work. And any attempt to appreciate Thomas Paine's influence on America must look to the impact his work had on the ideas, rhetoric & program of President Ronald Reagan.Mark DeForresthttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-58993044194725093242015-04-22T02:49:00.000-04:002015-04-22T02:49:00.942-04:00The evangelical-deist alliance at the American foundingHistorian Thomas Kidd, one of the sharpest evangelicals working as a professional historian today, has a well-worth reading post over at the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission website asking the question: Founding faiths: Was America founded as a Christian nation? This nuanced and deeply thought out post examines the alliance of devout evangelicals and more skeptical deists that brought about the unique American experiment in ordered liberty, especially religious liberty. As Kidd writes:

Even Thomas Jefferson, a deist hailed as a hero of today's secularists, took a generous approach toward the public role of religion after disestablishment. For example, Jefferson routinely attended religious services in government buildings as president. Jefferson was the author, of course, of the 1802 letter in which he argued that the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation" between church and state. But the same weekend he sent this letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, a Baptist minister named John Leland preached before a joint session of Congress, with the president in attendance. The actual history of faith and the Founding, then, confounds our expectations. Evangelical Baptists were the staunchest advocates of church-state separation, and their union with deists like Jefferson made the Baptists' vision of religious liberty a reality. You could hardly imagine this collaboration of skeptical politicians and traditional believers today. Their partnership worked, however, because deists such as Jefferson realized that religious liberty did not require rigid secularism. The Baptists, for their part, knew about Jefferson's personal skepticism, but they supported him because he was the champion of real religious freedom. Not all America's Founders were devout Christians, but America was founded with Christian principles in mind. Among the most vital of those ideals – one that could bridge the gap between evangelicals and deists – was an expansive concept of religious liberty.
Read it all.Mark DeForresthttps://email@example.com


text:
Highly Recommended Activities
Ubud Village Eco Cycling
Visits will be made at local dwellings that maintain traditional Balinese architecture and your guides will explain the functions of the different structures in the family courtyard.
Location : Ubud, Bali, Indonesia
Duration : 6 Hours (approx)
24 Jun 2015 - 31 Dec 2015Rp.325.000
Bali International Rafting
The longest river rafting routes in Bali, the water extremely clear and flows around numerous hairpin curves along the 16 km course, enjoy navigating numerous rapids and steering clear water and the rocks.
Location : Karangasem, Bali, Indonesia
Duration : 7 Hours (approx)
Puri Tirta Spa
Puri Tirta Spa combines traditional Asian treatments with the purest ingredients to promote healing and deep relaxation with 10 treatment (couple) rooms and manicure pedicure hall.
Location : Sanur, Bali, Indonesia
Duration : Varies
Sanur Village Cycling
Experience local traditions and every day life. Learn from local and enriched your own skills and knowledge, get an experience you will never forget!
Location : Sanur, Bali, Indonesia
Duration : 3 Hours (approx)
24 Jun 2015 - 31 Dec 2015Rp.799.000
Bali Big Day Out
Enjoy Seawalker Tour & Bali International Rafting in One Day.
Location : Bali, Indonesia
Duration : 9 Hours (approx)
22 Jun 2015 - 31 Dec 2015Rp.475.000
Seawalker The Original
Seawalker Tour allows everyone to enjoy marine life, with minimum equipment and minimum fuss! Seawalker is a soft dive system, which means you only use our unique Seawalker helmet design without the need for a dive tank.
Location : Sanur, Bali, Indonesia
Duration : 1,5 Hours (approx)
Bali Activities : #1 Online Booking Activities in Bali
As an Online Company we are able to offer the lowest prices and most effective service for travellers who seek to order all kinds of activities, that we offer as "HOT DEALS" as long as the reservations can be accessed
Why Choose Bali Activities ?
Our purpose is to provide the easiest and most effective service to travellers seeking to order from our considerable choice of activities—to fill your holidays,and even more important, save time and money during your holiday in Bali.
- Best Price Guarantee
- Exclusive Offers
- No Booking Fee, No Hidden Cost
- Realtime Payment Notification
- Seat Guarantee Availability
- We Open 24/7 to recieve Your reservation
- Secure Payment Gateway
Places to Stay in Bali
- avg/nightRp.1.250.000
Puri Santrian Sanur Bali0 reviews
Situated along the coast of upscale Sanur on the tranquil south eastern end of the island
- avg/nightRp.3.500.000
The Royal Santrian Sanur Bali0 reviews
An elegant haven by the sea, a collection of luxury villas designed to fulfill your desires for seclusion, comfort and the good life
- avg/nightRp.1.175.000
Griya Santrian Sanur Bali0 reviews
Centrally located on the white sandy beach of Sanur and within walking distance to local shops, restaurants and markets

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Videos tagged "Altamont"
Andrew Reynolds: Emerica Stay Gold B-Side08:24
www.emerica.com Emerica presents: Andrew Reynolds Emerica Stay Gold B-Side+ More details
Chad Kerley and Theotis Beasley MARKIT split edit02:59
This month we have a split edit featuring our own Chad Kerley and pro skateboarder Theotis Beasley. These two are so dialed at what they do and we've been wanting to film an edit with them for a while now, so here it is! Filmed and edited by Christian Rigal Music: Ace hood- Free my niggas Check us out online: Www.MARKITBMX.com Follow us on Twitter: Www.Twitter.com/MARKITBMX LIKE us on Facebook: Www.Facebook.com/MARKITBMX+ More details
See Kenny's new pro decks, available at The Kayo Store now: http://www.thekayostore.com/collections/expedition-one SITE: http://www.thekayocorp.com/KAYOTV FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/DaPlayground TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/Daplayground INSTAGRAM: http://www.instagram.com/daplayground+ More details
Altamont East Coast Skate Rock tour video by Ty Evans19:49
Ty Evans for Altamont Two bands, two mags, three vans, seven shows, 14 stitches, the Altamont skateboarding team plus 10 of the world's best skaters and one baby! It all ads up to one insane Skate Rock tour video, filmed and directed entirely in HD by Ty Evans for Altamont. Follow Bad Shit and the Goat & The Occasional Others as they blast your eardrums on their recent East Coast Skate Rock tour presented by Altamont. "Skate Rock is what it is, a lifestyle, a way to see things in a different light. This music and these videos are all done by skaters for skaters …" --Jake Phelps, Thrasher Altamont recently got together with Bad Shit, The Goat, Thrasher, The Skateboard Mag, Nixon and the Altamont skateboarding team plus some very special guests for a musical meltdown and tour up the East Coast on their skateboards. Did Phelper vomit on Atiba? Baca vs. Theotis in the battle of the roadies? Spanky vs. Trixie in a contest of pure muscle? Will anybody remember to bring their skateboards? Watch the video and see why true skateboarding could never become an Olympic sport...+ More details
"Good Luck" is a film by Derek Heydle, premiered in October 2011, featuring Lamare Hemmings, Cyril Jackson, Lalo Trejo, Graham Harrington, Val Arkenstone, Casey Morrissey, Tislam Smith, Tony Karr and Stevie Perez. EDITED BY Derek Heydle FILMED BY Derek Heydle Marvin Moran PHOTOGRAPHY Jared Sherbert Cameron Strand ART DIRECTION Derek Heydle Jared Sherbert ADDITIONAL FILMING Sage Caswell Andrew Rios Kevin Martinez Sal Gutierrez Mikey Alfred Evan Walsh Mikendo Mike Marasco Ty Evans Roger Bagley Steve Chalme Ira Ingram Justice Ott James Rivas Aryeh Kraus Stevie Perez Val Arkenstone Casey Morrissey Graham Harrington Billy Bliefer Justin Cefai Josh Krzywonos Mike Gilbert Tyler Cichy Cole Matthews Fernando Castillo Cody Green Joe Bressler A special thanks goes out to Val Surf, Chocolate Skateboards, Altamont Apparel, Huf Footwear and Apparel, Adidas Skateboarding, Skullcandy Headphones, and Independent Trucks for sponsoring the video.+ More details
Originally link and stats on /vimeo.com/39201565 Desillusion magazine and Nixon proudly present their latest video instalment "This is Andrew", a video portrait paying tribute to US street skateboarder Andrew Reynolds. Growing up in a small town in Florida, Andrew started skateboarding at a very young age. Due to his exceptional talent – Reynolds won the first contest he ever entered – he drew the attention of the skate industry and landed on some of the top sponsored teams as a teenager. Following Tony Hawk and others to the Californian epicentre of skateboarding at the age of 18, he met fellow skateboarders like Jim Greco, Ali Boulala and Knox Godoy, later on known as the "Pissed Drunx", ruling the streets of LA. Years of money, fame, and fast living follow, until Reynolds aka "The Boss" became the first one to reach a turning point in his life. Going down the hard road of rehab and recuperation, he managed to rise back on track maintaining his skill, style and laid back approach. With his part in Emerica's "Stay Gold" Andrew again impresses the skateboarding community, fans and friends, showing the world how far stern determination and true passion can lead you. "This is Andrew" is a thoughtful portrait of one of the most intriguing personalities skateboarding has seen. In some unprecedented interview footage Reynolds shares what inspires him and made him change his lifestyle, his love for skateboarding and deep loyalty to his friends. After the great success of "This is Trouble", a short movie portraying snowboarder and musician Trevor "Trouble" Andrew that was launched this past February ( vimeo.com/desillusion/thisistrouble ), "This is Andrew" is the second tribute video Nixon x Desillusion magazine dedicate to one of their most influential inspirations in the board sports scene. The video comes along with the latest issue of Desillusion magazine featuring Andrew Reynolds as an exclusive guest editor, available from Monday, 16th of April, 2012. More: nixon.com dslmag.com Music: Explosion in the sky - "Our last day as children" Pink Floyd - "Time" (buy it on itunes bit.ly/Pink_Floyd_Time) Bob Marley & The Wailers - "Pass it on" (buy it on itunes bit.ly/Bob_Marley_Wailers_Pass_It_On)+ More details
THE PICTUREBOOKS "Little Cheapf...s / A Day in the Life of The Picturebooks"04:37
Emerica and Altamont present THE PICTUREBOOKS "Little Cheapf...s / A Day in the Life of The Picturebooks" Music, Skateboarding, Motorcycles...that´s all we need...THAT´S IT !!!+ More details
Elphomega's Doppelgänger music video. Phantom Pop (BOA, 2011) Directed & Post Produced by Modularestudio / Pedro Márquez and David Triviño Produced by bRIDA Starring by Sergio Albarracín, Juan Antonio and Andrea Romero Cinematography by Jesús Chacón Set Design & Costumes by Ana Ruiz and Rocio M. Chicano Production Assistant by Sofía Varas Composed by NEO Carlos R. Pinto and Lyrics by ELPHOMEGA Sergio Albarracín modularestudio.com pedromarquez.co.uk jesuschacon.com brida.es+ More details
Andrew Reynolds: About Altamont02:35
http://altamontapparel.com, http://facebook.com/Altamont, http://twitter.com/Altamont Andrew Reynolds talks about Altamont+ More details
http://altamontapparel.com/contributors/sammy-baca/+ More details
What are Tags?
Tags are keywords that describe videos. For example, a video of your Hawaiian vacation might be tagged with "Hawaii," "beach," "surfing," and "sunburn."


text:
Ghana's mixed fortune as a dumping ground for e-waste
Return to Kuwait: The class of 1990
28 Apr 2012 10:28 GMT | Politics, Europe, Ukraine
Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine's jailed former prime minister, has been on a hunger strike since last week to protest against her alleged beating in prison.
A group of German doctors have appealed to the Ukrainian government to allow her to be treated for severe back pain overseas.
She was jailed last April in a case some Western governments considered to be politically motivated.
Al Jazeera's Nick Spicer reports from Berlin.
Source: Al Jazeera
Former prime minister, who was jailed last month, also charged with theft and concealing foreign currency revenues.
Tymoshenko vows to fight on after being found guilty of abusing her authority in trial criticised by US, EU and Russia.
Politics, Europe, US & Canada, Russia, Ukraine
Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments
are provided by your own free will and you take sole responsibility for any direct
or indirect liability. You hereby provide us with an irrevocable, unlimited, and
global license for no consideration to use, reuse, delete or publish comments, in
accordance with Community Rules & Guidelines and Terms and Conditions.
Migrants from Calais refugee camp risk their lives in continuous attempts to cross into UK under the English Channel.
Europe, France, Refugees
A year after truce collapses El Salvador gangs seek new path to engage government in another truce process.
Poverty & Development, Latin America, El Salvador
Cuba offers free sex change surgeries and government-sanctioned Pride marches, but activists say more change is needed.
Human Rights, Cuba, Fidel Castro
Denton residents protest confederate symbols while elsewhere other monuments are still being erected.
US & Canada, United States, Arts & Culture
Arrest of right-wing activist Meir Ettinger over "activities in a Jewish extremist organisation" follows hate crimes.
Politics, Middle East, Israel, Jerusalem
Official of YPG group battling ISIL says they are willing to coordinate with anyone who is ready for democracy.
War & Conflict, Syria, Middle East, Syrian crisis
Travelling from village to village in northern Argentina, one man works to find lasting solutions to endemic problems.
Business & Economy, Environment, Latin America
A four-part series that reveals how a secret pact formed a cartel that controls the world's oil.
Business & Economy, Middle East, Iran
After days on a crowded boat crossing the Mediterranean, one Syrian refugee family strives for a new future in Austria.
War & Conflict, Syria, Immigration
101 East explores how Japan's funeral industry is getting creative as the ageing nation runs out of space for the dead.
Arts & Culture, Asia Pacific, Japan