__________________


Defeating market theocrats since 2001.

The article to which you link unabashedly speaks of "the supposed menace posed by the USSR." The pro-Soviet nature of this commentary makes it just about as impressive to me as the commentary of, say, the Grand Kleagle of the KKK or the leader of an Aryan Nations cell.

By the way, there is something inherently uncivil and below-the-belt about one's speaking ill of the recently departed. I would make an exception, I admit, for Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri--or for anyone promoting an insurgency against the West (in particular "The Great Satan," a.k.a. the US; and "The Little Satan," a.k.a. Israel); but not for those with whom I merely disagree politically or philosophically.

__________________


Defeating market theocrats since 2001.

Do you have any proof of the accusations contained in the first sentence, from a source that does not tilt significantly to the left?

By the way, I do not know if Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was an anti-Semite or not; if he was, well, it is a disgraceful attribute. But Winston Churchill was apparently anti-Semitic also; yet I view him as the principal hero of WWII. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., at times, was a fellow-traveler with communists; yet this cannot fairly be used to attempt to vitiate his enormous accomplishments in the field of civil rights. And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves; but he was nonetheless a great man, in my opinion--especially since it would be unfair to superimpose contemporary standards upon those who lived 200 years ago.

__________________


Defeating market theocrats since 2001.

It certainly isn't plain to me. Why, pray tell, would you find the comparison "ridiculous"?

The overriding accomplishment of Winston Churchill was his successful effort in guiding the Allies to victory in WWII. With Dr. Martin Luther King, it was his tremendous breakthroughs in pricking Americans' consciences, thereby leading to the passage of historical civil-rights legislation. And with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, it was his strenuous opposition to totalitarian ideology. Despite the personal shortcomings of any of these men, their monumental achievements cannot be denied; and these cannot fairly be subordinated to their personal failings.

Would it be fair to suggest that you may be philosophically opposed to the anti-totalitarians of the world; and that you may be prone to seize upon the personal failings of the anti-totalitarians, in order to try to undermine their moral authority?

I wonder why the double standard? Could it be that you come from the west?

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yes, I do. From America, more specifically.

But there is no double standard at all. An exception, yes; but that is far from the same thing. It would be very hard not to celebrate the death of terrorists, who target a nation's citizenry in order to try to bring it to its knees--and ultimately, to undermine all democracies, and install sharia law throughout the entire world. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's opposition to tyranny is in no way comparable to that.