Monthly Archives: October 2025

“Democracy Wanes in South Asia”

Posted on by
Reply

Sadanand Dhume uses as his canonical examples Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, wherein riots forced the removal of despotic governments and their replacement by popularly chosen leaders. In Nepal in particular, new elections have been set for next March.

Dhume did point out popular failures in Pakistan and Myanmar; however, his apparent concept that popular uprisings are, of necessity, antidemocratic is badly flawed.

This is what our own Declaration of Independence has to say about such popular violence.

[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

A government deciding unilaterally and with little to no warning to censor—abolish!—major communications systems, a government that has had a single Prime Minister for 15 years during carefully controlled elections with opposition candidates routinely jailed, a government dominated for 17 years by a single pair of brothers whose government did little to protect its population from routine violence—each of these governments with their long train of abuses and usurpations… would seem to be prime candidates for the people to decide that their governments’ evils are sufferable and so to move to exercise their right…their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards.

What must Dhume think of the Color Revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, or the People Power revolution in the Philippines, each of which involved the successful popular overthrow of Despotic governments and their replacement with more democratic institutions?

We’ll see what happens in the subsequent elections, particularly in Nepal. Dhume may be correct vis-à-vis his examples, but it’s much too soon to tell.

Apologize?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones’ overt threat of murder against a political opponent and his family. Now Virginia Progressive-Democratic Party Senator Tim Kaine is making clear his enthusiastically continuing support for Jones.

Jay has apologized[.]
I’ve known Jay Jones for 25 years. I think those statements were not in character, and he has apologized—I wish other people in public life would sincerely apologize for stuff.

Jones has apologized, and that makes everything all better. That’s Party’s view of taking full responsibility. Just say some words and call it a day.

No.

Words of apology, no matter how sincerely they’re offered, are nothing but that—words—absent any accompanying corrected behavior, behavior that lasts for a substantial period of time.

Jones has demonstrated no corrected behavior. He’s staying in the race for State’s AG, and he’s doing nothing to atone for his call for murder, nor is he showing any altered behavior regarding his fellow State citizens, political opponents or otherwise.

Short-Sighted and Narrow-Viewed

Posted on by
Reply

The good editors at The Wall Street Journal opined on the leaked-to-the-press Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. They’ve missed on a couple of their points.

Where the compact goes too far is with its demand that schools freeze tuition for five years….

The editors noted that Mitch Daniels succeeded in this for more than just five years, and they insist that the matter should be left to the schools. The editors missed the simple fact that the matter is still left to the schools: they still can set their own tuition rates; they don’t have to sign the Compact, which is an entirely voluntary thing. They’ll still have access to Federal funding, too; they just won’t get preferential treatment.

…cap the enrollment of international students at 15%.

The editors worried about where that threshold came from, since they couldn’t understand it. The short answer, and the long answer, is Who cares? It’s a cutoff point easily achievable that leaves predictable room for (qualified) American students. As this graph shows, there are plenty of schools that would create that room were they to similarly cap their international enrollment:

The only serious question here is whether international enrollment should be capped at all, not quibbling over limits.

The editors’ rationalization for their beefs are that

Limiting tuition and international students at the same time could leave schools with a budget shortfall.

This would be just silly if the editors hadn’t tacitly accepted the Left’s penchant for spending as sacrosanct. The schools always can reallocate their spending, and they always can reduce their spending to fit the revenues coming in. There’s nothing in the proposed Compact to prevent that exercise in fiscal responsibility.

And this:

Well-intentioned but hard to implement is the compact’s effort to combat grade inflation. The compact demands that schools “commit to grade integrity and the use of defensible standards for whether students are achieving their goals.” Good luck trying to figure that out. Will a fleet of auditors investigate if slackers really deserved an A- in Econ 101?

What, then, is the editors’ solution? Just roll over and give up on solving a difficult problem? Their silence on this speaks volumes. It also demonstrates that their comfort zone is up on the porch, whence they can yap in complete safety.

Mamdani’s Procrustean Education Bed

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party’s proudly Socialist candidate for New City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has announced that he wants to truncate children under the age of 5 years to shorten them to fit his short Education bed.

Zohran Mamdani said late last week he wants to end the gifted and talented program for kindergartners in New York’s public schools. News reports say he’d allow this accelerated instruction only beginning in grade 3, with a campaign spokesman arguing 5-year-olds shouldn’t be “subjected” to a policy that “unfairly separates them right at the beginning of their public school education.”

The only equality that socialists will allow is the equality of outcome, which guarantees equality at the lowest level. They cannot tolerate equality of opportunity, an equality that acknowledges all Americans’ right to achieve their full potential in life, an equality that respects all Americans, including those whose full potential might be less than that of others.

Socialism, instead, demonstrates its contempt for Americans by saying none of us can compete on our own, so government must eliminate competition.

Chicago Police Management Confesses

Posted on by
Reply

When ICE agents last week, in the course of their duties were rammed in their vehicles and then trapped and surrounded by 10 violent protesters’ vehicles—violent not least because ICE agents, in the course of this incident, were forced to shoot an armed woman who was threatening them—called the Chicago PD for assistance, the Chicago PD Chief of Patrol ordered his officers to decline to respond with assistance.

Now that city police management team is responding, sort of. The management team’s statement, released over the weekend:

To clarify misinformation currently circulating, CPD officers did in fact respond to the shooting scene involving federal authorities on Saturday to maintain public safety and traffic control[.]

This is management’s confession of their refusal to let the officers render assistance in that lethally dangerous situation. Management ordered its officers to maintain public safety and control the traffic. Not to affirmatively assist the ICE agents—which would have maximized public safety and flowed traffic much better.