Reading the latest issue of my favorite left-wing rag, Time, which features the 100 "most influential people" in the world, I came across an interesting entry by Angelina Jolie.  She nominated Somaly Mam, founder of an organization dedicated to eradicating the sex slave industry, which is estimated to generate some $12 billion worldwide each year.  

I have no problem with nominating Mam, who appears in the "Heroes & Icons" section of the top 100, as she is certainly a reasonable nominee for her efforts to combat this scourge against women.  Nor, for that matter, do I have any quarrel with Jolie, most of the time, because, although she seems to me to be in many ways a typical Hollywood liberal do-gooder, she at least spends her own money to pursue her causes, some of which even seem worthy.

I do have one quibble with Jolie's write up on Mam, however.  While describing Mam's life, Jolie characterizes genocidal campaign against the Cambodian people, which killed almost 2 million of them, as a "radical form of communism."  So, Angelina, how would you describe Stalin's form of communism, which is estimated to have killed between 30 and 60 million Russians - no one is quite sure how many died, because there's no way for anyone to count that many bodies?.  Or how about Mao's murder of some 20 - 40 million - again no one is sure exactly how many - Chinese people? Now <em>those</em> are radicals!

The point here, Angelina, is that "radical communism" is redundant.  There's no way to implement a form of government that steals from people who work and gives it to people who don't without using extreme measures, and of course, these extreme measures will always include killing off many of the objectors.  Communism <em>is</em> radical, by definition, and there is no way to avoid this fact.  The best way to combat it, and other forms of legalized theft that reside under the banner of socialism, is to protect the freedoms we hold dearest - including the freedom to enjoy the fruits of our labors.    

Lately, I fear we're not doing to well in this regard.This is unfortunate, because the freedom to keep our own property is just as important as all our other freedoms, and depriving the American people of one will ultimately lead to depriving them of all, ultimately including, in many cases, the right to survive.Reading the latest issue of my favorite left-wing rag, Time, which features the 100 "most influential people" in the world, I came across an interesting entry by Angelina Jolie.  She nominated Somaly Mam, founder of an organization dedicated to eradicating the sex slave industry, which is estimated to generate some $12 billion worldwide each year.  

I have no problem with nominating Mam, who appears in the "Heroes & Icons" section of the top 100, as she is certainly a reasonable nominee for her efforts to combat this scourge against women.  Nor, for that matter, do I have any quarrel with Jolie, most of the time, because, although she seems to me to be in many ways a typical Hollywood liberal do-gooder, she at least spends her own money to pursue her causes, some of which even seem worthy.

I do have one quibble with Jolie's write up on Mam, however.  While describing Mam's life, Jolie characterizes genocidal campaign against the Cambodian people, which killed almost 2 million of them, as a "radical form of communism."  So, Angelina, how would you describe Stalin's form of communism, which is estimated to have killed between 30 and 60 million Russians - no one is quite sure how many died, because there's no way for anyone to count that many bodies?.  Or how about Mao's murder of some 20 - 40 million - again no one is sure exactly how many - Chinese people? Now those are radicals!

The point here, Angelina, is that "radical communism" is redundant.  There's no way to implement a form of government that steals from people who work and gives it to people who don't without using extreme measures, and of course, these extreme measures will always include killing off many of the objectors.  Communism is radical, by definition, and there is no way to avoid this fact.  The best way to combat it, and other forms of legalized theft that reside under the banner of socialism, is to protect the freedoms we hold dearest - including the freedom to enjoy the fruits of our labors.    

Lately, I fear we're not doing to well in this regard.This is unfortunate, because the freedom to keep our own property is just as important as all our other freedoms, and depriving the American people of one will ultimately lead to depriving them of all, ultimately including, in many cases, the right to survive.