More Shostakovitch

Last night, at the Kennedy Center, where a friend had invited us to hear the Emerson String Quartet perform three of Shostakovitch's chamber music compositions, as part of the Fortas Chamber Music Series. The quartet, Eugene Drucker, violin; Philip Setzer, violin; Lawrence Dutton, viola; and David Finckel, cello did a really nice job on String Quartet No. 2 in A major, Op. 68; String Quartet No. 4 in D major, Op. 83; and String Quartet No. 8 in C minor, Op. 110. We heard them play some other numbers during the summer at the Ravinia festival near Chicago, where it was about 100 degrees and the air conditioning was turned off. We nearly died from heat prostration during that concert, but this time, the Terrace Theatre was cool and comfortable, and we enjoyed the Russian soul expressed by Bostonian string players. There are more scheduled for tonight, part of a cycle celebration the Russian composer's 100th birthday.

Forgotten Genius

A friend sent me this New York Times story about Nova's biography of Percy L. Julian:

Harvard awarded him a master’s degree but would not support him in getting his doctorate (he earned it at the University of Vienna); potential employers snubbed him. (“We didn’t know you were a Negro,” the DuPont Company told him after inviting him for an interview.)

After doors slammed and opportunities vanished, Mr. Julian landed a job at Howard University, only to become enmeshed in a sex scandal that ended his employment there: He and his future wife were accused of having an affair while she was still married to one of his colleagues.

He spent years teaching at DePauw, in Greencastle, Ind., where a building is now named in his honor, but was denied a faculty position. After almost two decades at the Glidden company, where his research made possible a fire-retardant foam widely used in World War II and the mass production of synthetic progesterone, the company told him to concentrate on things like nonsplattering shortening.

By the time he became successful enough to move with his wife and two children into Oak Park, Ill., a mostly white Chicago suburb, their home was the target of a bomb and a fire.

“The good side was, as a kid I got to spend more time with my dad and stay up late, because we’d sit in the tree outside,” recalls Percy Julian Jr., now a civil rights lawyer in Madison, Wis. “He’d sit there with a shotgun. And we’d talk about why someone would want to do this, and how wrong it was and how stupid it was.”

Huozhe-To Live (1994)

I've been getting a lot of hits from China the past couple of days, perhaps because some of Sidney Sheldon's 300 million books in print are published in Chinese...

I thought I'd put in a plug for a Chinese film that I got from Netflix, thanks to the recommendation of a cousin by marriage. It's called "Huozhe" or "To Live." It tells the story of China from the Revolution until the Great Leap Forward though the story of one family, based on a novel by Wei Yu and Hua Yu. It stars the beautiful Gong Li and emotional Ge You, directed by Yimou Zhang.

It is sort of like a Sidney Sheldon novel, in its emotional pull. And it's just outstanding, capturing the fear that obviously dominates life in China--as well as the suffering people have endured under a variety of ill-considered schemes. It's the type of film that Hollywood used to make here, but no longer does...Five stars. (More about the picture, here.)

A Message from Team Rudy

Why I think Rudy Giuliani really is running for President in 2008. As evidence, here's an email I found in my inbox on February 2nd.

To: Team Rudy
From:Brent Seaborn, Strategy Director
Date: February 2, 2007
Re:Rudy and the Republican Nomination

Over the last month or two there has been a good deal of public opinion polling on the 2008 Republican primary race. I thought it would be helpful to take a step back and take a closer look at how voters - particularly Republican primary voters - feel about Rudy Giuliani and why we think we are well-positioned heading in to the primary season.

Americans Have a Highly Favorable Opinion of Mayor Giuliani
Entering the 2008 primary season, Rudy Giuliani is uniquely positioned among potential Republican candidates because of his extremely high favorability ratings. Recent public opinion polling shows Mayor Giuliani with 61% approval among adults across the country - according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll (Jan. 16-19, 2007). The well respected, bipartisan Battleground Poll (Jan 8-11, 2007) shows the Mayor with 65% favorability among likely voters. More importantly, Mayor Giuliani shows an 81% favorable rating among Republicans and only 10% with an unfavorable opinion.

According to the Battleground poll, Mayor Giuliani also has surprisingly high favorability ratings beyond the base:

70% of independents are favorable,
70% of 35-44 year olds,
74% of married women,
73% of households married with children,
52% of minority voters
The Mayor also enjoys strong approval among white evangelical Christians (76%) and self-described conservative Republicans (82%).

In an even more recent poll, Gallup (Jan. 25-28, 2007) finds Mayor Giuliani also leads among Republicans on 7 of 10 key issues including terrorism, the economy, healthcare and fighting crime. He also leads on 11 of 15 key candidate attributes - including "better understands the problems faced by ordinary Americans", "would manage government more effectively" and what I believe to be the single most important factor - "is the stronger leader."

In sum, while we fully expect these polls to tighten in the months and weeks to come, Republican voters genuinely know and like Rudy Giuliani.

The Mayor Performs Well in Opinion Polls
The Mayor's exceptionally strong approval ratings also translate in to an advantage on Republican primary ballot tests. In 11 of 13 ballot tests in respected national public opinion polls [Fox News, Newsweek, Time Gallup, CNN, NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post] since last November, Mayor Giuliani has a lead - in fact, his lead is on average, more than 5-points over the next closest candidate. And his ballot strength began to trend upward after the 2006 midterm elections.

Mayor Giuliani Leads in Key 2008 Primary States
Mayor Giuliani also leads in a series of other states that will likely prove critical in the 2008 Republican primary:

State Mayor Giuliani Closest Competitor Source
California 33% 19% (Gingrich) ARG - Jan. 11-17
Florida 30% 16% (Gingrich) ARG - Jan. 4-9
Illinois 33% 24% (McCain) ARG - Jan. 11-14
Michigan 34% 24% (McCain) ARG - Jan. 4-7
Nevada 31% 25% (McCain) ARG - Dec. 19-23, '06
New Jersey 39% 21% (McCain) Quinnipiac - Jan. 16-22
North Carolina 34% 26% (McCain) ARG - Jan. 11-15
Ohio 30% 22% (McCain) Quinnipiac - Jan. 23-28
Pennsylvania 35% 25% (McCain) ARG Jan. 4-8
Texas 28% 26% (McCain) Baselice Jan. 17-21

Conclusion
Recent polling continues to suggest Mayor Giuliani is very well positioned within the party - particularly when compared to other potential Republican candidates - to win the nomination.

Mayor Giuliani's favorable public opinion stems not only from his extraordinary leadership in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and in the uncertainty that followed, but also from a remarkably strong record of accomplishments in fighting crime and turning around New York City's economy in the 1990's.

Americans are anxious for fresh Republican leadership on a range of issues. Our voters are drawn to the leadership strength of a candidate during an election. Therefore, as we move forward with exploring a run for President and as we continue to share the Mayor's story of strong leadership and Reagan-like optimism and vision, we hope to see continued growth in our foundation of support.
 
Paid for by the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc. 2006-2007.
All Rights Reserved.

Lady Macbeth of Mtensk

Really enjoyed a concert version of Shostakovich's 1936 opera, Lady Macbeth of Mtensk, performed last night at the Kennedy Center by Valery Gergiev and the Kirov Opera singers, orchestra, and chorus. The program notes explained why this was the Russian composer's last opera--he was ordered to apologize for it by Stalin, or else. He finally apologized--and never wrote another opera again....

Here's a 2004 article about a London production from The Observer, which explains aspects of the historical significance of this work:

Stalin's verdict appeared across page three of Pravda two days later, in an article Shostakovich chanced on while awaiting another train at Archangelsk, headlined 'Muddle in lieu of music'. Shostakovich had written, it said, an 'ugly flood of confusing sound... a pandemonium of creaking, shrieking and crashes... unadulterated cacophony'. Things could, it menaced, 'end very badly' for the composer.

The pen was apparently Stalin's own - and the attack a potential death sentence. These were days of terror in the USSR: in the two years between the opera's premiere and Stalin's attack, some 40,000 of Shostakovich's fellow citizens had been deported to the gulag; many of his friends and family were murdered or disappeared; hundreds of thousands would die in the ensuing purges. Shostakovich reportedly told the writer Solomon Volkov: 'Everyone knew I would be destroyed. And the anticipation of that noteworthy event - for me at least - never left me.'

The axe that fell did not end Shostakovich's life but spliced it, forcing him to work in a world of dichotomy and masks - both to express himself and to survive - obliged often to communicate two messages simultaneously: one for consumption by the authorities, and another confessional, secretly spoken. Thus, some of the most forceful music ever written about the human condition, and political man, began with Lady Macbeth. And this is the work that first invokes the so-called 'Shostakovich Question' - among the most highly charged cultural discourses of the last century - which rages still.

Wikipedia entry on Dmitri Shostakovich here. Here's a BBC Radio 3 documentary on Shostakovich that talks about Lady Macbeth of Mtensk. And here's a link to a review of the Helikon Opera's 2002 Moscow production.

Gian Carlo Menotti

The recent death of composer Gian Carlo Menotti, who died on February 1st, reminds one that he dealt with the issue of diplomats confronting a refugee crisis--not so heroically as a people like Aristides de Sousa Mendes--in his first full-length opera The Consul, first produced in 1954. We saw it a couple of years ago at the Kennedy Center, in an excellent production from Placido Domingo's opera company, and the opera still packed a wallop...

Richard Holbrooke's Holocaust Book...

Well, he appeared at a recent public event for it, and today's New York Times reports that at least Ambassador Holbrooke wrote the introduction for Diplomat Heroes of the Holocaust by Mordecai Paldiel, published by Ktav Publishing. I have a personal interest in this story, since one of the heroic diplomats recognized by Ambassador Holbrooke saved the lives of my mother, aunt, grandmother, and grandfather. My nephew carries his name today:

...the diplomat hero that Mr. Holbrooke highlighted in his remarks was Aristides de Sousa Mendes, an aristocratic Portuguese consul general in Bordeaux, France, from 1938 to July 1940. In May 1940, he faced pitiable crowds of refugees from the German invasion of France, many of them Jews camped in the streets and parks and desperate for visas allowing escape into Spain and Portugal.

He also faced an absolute prohibition by Portugal’s dictator, António de Oliveira Salazar, against issuing transit visas to refugees and especially to Jews.

In mid-June, the consul general agonized for several days, cut himself off from the world, at one moment agitated, at the next despondent. Suddenly he proceeded to his office and announced: “I’m giving everyone visas. There will be no more nationalities, races or religions.”

The next days were frenzied. All day and into the night, visas were issued. Fees were waived. No one filled in names. Sousa Mendes traveled to the Spanish border to make certain that refugees were able to cross. He confronted Spanish border guards when needed — and continued to sign visas.

Lisbon was upset and on June 23 stripped him of his authority. Returning to his property in Portugal the next month, he only disturbed the authorities more by acknowledging his deeds and defending them straightforwardly on humanitarian and religious grounds. Dismissed from the diplomatic service and with 12 children to support, he had to sell his family estate and eventually died in poverty, supported by an allowance from Lisbon’s Jewish community, where he ate at a soup kitchen.

“Diplomat Heroes of the Holocaust,” with an introduction by Mr. Holbrooke, is published by KTAV and the Rabbi Arthur Schneier Center for International Affairs of Yeshiva University. Rabbi Schneier, senior rabbi of Park East Synagogue and founder of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, has been active for decades on behalf of religious freedom and interreligious dialogue.

I can't find it on Amazon (what's wrong with KTAV publishing?) so here's a link to KTAV's website.
More from the Raoul Wallenberg Foundation here.. A Brazilian website (in Portuguese) dedicated to his memory, here. A French book about him, here. Another French website here. A photo of his (haunted?) house here. A theatrical tribute from Biarritz (in French) here. Finally, a stamp featuring a picture of Aristides de Sousa Mendes:

Excerpts from Vladimir Putin's Press Conference

Full transcript on Kremlin.ru:

STEVEN GUTTERMAN (Associated Press): After Anna Politkovskaia’s murder you said that there are people hiding from Russian justice who would like to damage Russia’s reputation. And after Aleksandr Litvinenko’s death your aide Sergei Yastrzhembsky said that this could be part of a plot with that same goal. Can you now tell us a few more details, several months after the tragedy, or say more precisely who you think is behind these murders? Do you think they are foreigners or Russians living abroad? And if yes, then who? Can you name them?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Only an investigation can determine whoever is behind these murders. And moreover only a court can do so, because at the end of the day it is the court that, having weighed all the pro and contra – both the prosecutors’ arguments and the defense of the accused – makes the final decision.

As to prominent murders, then it is true that the problem of the perrsecution of journalists is a very acute problem both for our country and for many other countries. And we acknowledge our responsibility in this. We shall do everything possible to protect members of the press.

I recall not only Anna Politkovskaia – she was quite a sharp critic of the authorities and that is a good thing. I recall other journalists as well, including Paul Khlebnikov. And not long ago one of our American partners said something very true: “Paul Khlebnikov died for a democratic Russia, for the development of democracy in Russia”. I completely agree with him. I fully agree with this evaluation.

As to other well-known crimes, you know that just recently the investigation into the murder of the Vice-President of the Russian Central Bank has been finished. I very much hope that the law enforcement agencies will manage to find the criminals who have committed other, no less prominent crimes, and ones that are no less harmful to our country.

With regards to Litvinenko, I do not have much to add here, except what I have already said. Aleksandr Litvinenko was dismissed from the security services. Before that he served in the convoy troops. There he didn’t deal with any secrets. He was involved in criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation for abusing his position of service, namely for beating citizens during arrests when he was a security service employee and for stealing explosives. I think that he was provisionally given three years. But there was no need to run anywhere, he did not have any secrets. Everything negative that he could say with respect to his service and his previous employment, he already said a long time ago, so there could be nothing new in what he did later. I repeat that only the investigation can tell us what happened. And with regards to the people who try to harm the Russian Federation, in general it is well-known who they are. They are people hiding from Russian justice for crimes they committed on the territory of the Russian Federation and, first and foremost, economic crimes. They are the so-called runaway oligarchs that are hiding in western Europe or in the Middle East. But I do not really believe in conspiracy theories and, quite frankly, I am not very worried about it. The stability of Russian statehood today allows us to look down at this from above.

VERONIKA ROMANENKOVA (ITAR-TASS): Lately more women have come to power in various countries – this includes Angela Merkel, Tarja Halonen and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton in America and Segolene Royal in France.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Guys are simply loafing around, they do not want to work. (Laughter.)

VERONIKA ROMANENKOVA: What is stopping Russian women? When will we see a woman as President of Russia? And could this already happen in 2008 or is it first necessary to introduce quotas for women’s participation in politics? And, incidentally, how are your relations with your women colleagues – is it easier or harder to negotiate with them?

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am not saying anything new when I say that the participation of women in a country’s social and political life is a clear sign of a mature society. We must unfortunately acknowledge that we have very few women not only among the federal leadership, in the regions, in politics in general, in large companies. Few.

Is it necessary to introduce quotas? I don’t know, I am not ready to answer that question. It might be even worse to have some kind of discrimination according to sex. Here there are negatives and positives. But whether we are going to introduce quotas or not, we should certainly aspire to make the authorities more balanced. The presence of women in the authorities always makes them more balanced and more capable.

Storm Warning (1951)

Here's one way to celebrate the anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birthday on February 6th, 1911--pop a DVD of Storm Warning (1951) into your new high-tech HDTV flat-screen system. We caught it last night from Netflix, where it is listed on their Doris Day page. I asked myself after watching, why hadn't I heard more about this film before? Someone I know stumbled upon it because it is listed as a Doris Day film, featured on her website. But the real stars are Ginger Rogers (in a part written for Lauren Bacall) and Ronald Reagan (in a role that seems to be written for Humphrey Bogart), playing a visiting dress model and a local district attorney who confront the Ku Klux Klan in a small town. Steve Cochran plays a Klansman who looks like a cross between Marlon Brando and Elvis Presley. He's a wife-beater and attempted rapist, who comes up against Ronald Reagan's crusade for justice. Guess who wins? It's an antidote to D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

It's well written, credit Blackboard Jungle screenwriter Richard Brooks who is listed as co-author; well-acted, and well-directed. Ronald Reagan plays, well, Ronald Reagan--standing up to the mob, pursuing justice despite boos and catcalls, and coming to the rescue in the last scene. No wonder he was elected President. No wonder he won the Cold War.

You can buy the DVD from Amazon as part of a boxed set, here:Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

Something in the Air

An acquaintance let me know he just published a history of radio, Something in the Air: Radio, Rock, and the Revolution That Shaped a Generation :

This is a big week: I'm finally giving birth. No, no freakish medical experiments, but rather the closest a guy can cometo childbirth, the publication of a book that's been years in the gestation. Apologies for the impersonal approach, but I wanted to let everyone know that "Something in the Air: Radio, Rock and the Revolution that Shaped a Generation," my history of radio from the time TV came along to the present, is out this week. It's the story of how radio responded when a new technology emerged that threatened the very existence of Old Media, and it's the tale of how Americans who grew up in the 1950s, 60s and 70s used the music and the deejays as the soundtrack of rebellion, counterculture and generational change.

I've put a bunch of audio clips of radio sounds from those decades on a site about the book, www.marcfisher.com, where you can also (this promotional biz knows no bounds) buy the book.

But most of all, I just wanted to let folks know that I may finally have gotten my decades-long obsession with radio out of my system. The reviews have been terrific so far, and I'm spending most of my waking hours on the radio, talking to Debbie and Doug on the St. Louis Total Information Morning Show and Bob Edwards on XM and on and on. But the most valuable publicity comes from friends who talk about the book, and so I just wanted to let you know it's out there.

All the best,
Marc

You can buy the book from Amazon here:

Hi-Tech Driver's Ed

A Canadian college friend, with a PhD in traffic science, has come up with a high-tech driver's ed console that looks like pilot training gear. He just appeared on the CBC--demonstrating a Virage system in Montreal. It looks a lot more fun than the driver's ed I class I took in high school..

You can view a clip here:

rtsp://media.cbc.ca/bc_media/canadanow/20070126drivingsimulator.rm

The First Post

Saw an ad for this while doing a Google search--it's British, and looks interesting: The First Post...

Remembering Sidney Sheldon

Today's New York Times ran an interesting obituary of novelist, playwright, screenwriter, and producer Sidney Sheldon. I was sorry to read that he had passed away at age 89. My sympathies go to his daughter, he cast a giant shadow...

Interestingly, I met Sheldon while a high-school student. A friend of mine, we'll call him "K", was friendly with the already best-selling novelist's daughter, and took me along to their house for dinner high up in the hills. We had to pass in front of some very big and very barking German Shepherds. That's not the only reason I'll never forget it--a British roast beef dinner, with Yorkshire pudding, served by a butler. Mrs. Sheldon took us upstairs to listen to Yoga tapes. It was incredibly dramatic, like a scene in a film about Hollywood--Mr. Sheldon seemed to have a New York accent (although he was born in Chicago); his wife seemed to have a British one; and the daughter a perfect mid-Atlantic accent (she was the best-behaved teenager I had ever met, poised, and incredibly adult for a 16-year old, especially compared with bratty yours truly)--lots of fun. The next time, "K" took me to a party at a friend of theirs' home--where I met an aging Groucho Marx. Unforgettable as well. A glimpse into another world.

What I remember most is that all the Sheldons were very nice to me, a complete stranger tagging along. They seemed generous, considerate, and kindly. They chatted with me and seemed unpretentious personally, despite very lavish surroundings.

When I read that he had 300 million books in print at the time of his death, and was worth $5 billion, I felt I was lucky to have been treated so well, and have the personal memories. For more on his interesting life and works, here's a link to the official Sidney Sheldon website.

Vovochka

The other night, thanks to Netflix, we watched Andrei Maksimov's charming Russian comedy about a 10-year old boy celebrating New Year's at a dacha in the countryside. It gives some insight into contemporary Russia--and it's funny...though some Netflix reviewers don't seem to like it.

Daniel Pipes on the Progressive-Islamist Relationship

From the transcript of Daniel Pipes' London debate with Ken Livingstone:

The mayor is a man of the Left, and I am a classical liberal. We can agree that neither of us personally wishes to be subjected to the Shari‘a. I will assume, you [looking at Ken Livingstone] will correct me if I am wrong [short sporadic applause] that neither of us want this as part of our personal life.

But our views diverge sharply as to how to respond to this phenomenon. Those of my political outlook are alarmed by Islamism's advances in the West. Much of the Left approaches the topic in a far more relaxed fashion.

Why this difference? Why generally is the right alarmed, and the left much more sanguine? There are many differences, there are many reasons, but I'd like to focus on two.

One is a sense of shared opponents between the Islamists and those on the left. George Galloway explained in 2005, "the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies," which he then went on to indicate were Israel, the United States, and Great Britain.

And if you listen to the words that are spoken about, say the United States, you can see that this is in fact the case. Howard Pinter has described America as "a country run by a bunch of criminal lunatics." [big applause and shouts] And Osama Bin Laden [stops … ] I'll do what I can to get an applause line. [laughter] And, get ready for this one: Osama Bin Laden called the United States, "unjust, criminal, and tyrannical." [applause]

Noam Chomsky termed America "a leading terrorist state". And Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a leading Pakistani political leader, called it the "biggest terrorist state." [scattered applause]

Such common ground makes it tempting for those on the Left to make common cause with Islamists, and the symbol of this would be the [huge, anti-war in Iraq] demonstrations in Hyde Park, on the 16th of February 2003, called by a coalition of leftist and Islamist organizations.

At other times, the Left feels a kinship with Islamist attacks on the West, forgiving, understanding why these would happen. A couple of notorious quotes make this point. The German composer, Karlheinz Stockhausen termed the 9/11 attacks "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos," while American novelist Norman Mailer, commented that "the people who did this were brilliant."

Such attitudes tempt the Left not to take seriously the Islamist threat to the West. With John Kerry, a former aspirant to the [U.S.] presidency, they dismiss terrorism as a mere "nuisance."

That is one reason; the bonds between the two camps. The second is that on the Left one finds a tendency to focus on terrorism – not on Islamism, not on radical Islam. Terrorism is blamed on such problems as Western colonialism of the past century, Western "neo-imperialism" of the present day, Western policies—particularly in places like Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. Or from unemployment, poverty, desperation.

I would contend that it actually results in an aggressive ideology. I respect the role of ideas, and I believe that not to respect, to dismiss them, to pay them no attention, is to patronize, and to possibly even to be racist. There is no way to appease this ideology. It is serious, there is no amount of money that can solve it, there is no change of foreign policy that make it can go away.

I would argue to you, ladies and gentlemen, it must be fought and must be defeated as in 1945 and 1991, [applause] as the German and the Soviet threats were defeated. Our goal must be, in this case, the emergence of Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, humane, liberal, and good neighborly. And that it is respectful of women, homosexuals, atheists, whoever else. One that grants non-Muslims equal rights with Muslims.

In conclusion, Mr. Mayor, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, on the Left or on the Right, I think you will agree with me on the importance of working together to attain such an Islam. I suggest that this can be achieved not via the get-along multiculturalism that you propose, but by standing firm with our civilized allies around the globe. Especially with liberal voices in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with Iranian dissidents, and with reformers in Afghanistan.

I also propose standing with their counterparts in the west, with such individuals as Ayaan Hirsi Ali [applause], … formerly a Dutch legislator and now in exile in the United States; with Irshad Manji, the Canadian author; [applause] with Wafa Sultan, the Syrian in exile in the United States who made her phenomenal appearance on Al-Jazeera. Individuals like Magdi Allam, an Egyptian who is now a leading Italian journalist; Naser Khader, a parliamentarian in Denmark; Salim Mansur, a professor and author in Canada, and Irfan Al-Alawi, here in Britain. [applause]

Conversely, if we do not stand with these individuals, but instead if we stand with those who would torment them, with the Islamists, with, I might say, someone like Yusuf al- Qaradawi [applause] we are then standing with those who justify suicide bombings, who defend the most oppressive forms of Islamic practice, who espouse the clash of civilizations [notion that] we ourselves reject.

To the extent that we all work together, against the barbarism of radical Islam, a world civilization does indeed exist – one that transcends skin colour, poverty, geography, politics, and religion.

I hope that you and I, Mr. Mayor, can agree here and now to cooperate on such a program.

KateBirch.com

Can't finish writing about my trip to Salt Lake City without putting in plug for the website of artist Kate Birch, who does paintings featuring floral motifs. We saw her and the family in Salt Lake, proud to be able to say she's my cousin. Her daughter Morgan is also a talented young artist, although she doesn't seem to have her own website--yet. Don't know which side of the family the talent comes from--hope some of it, at least, is in my line...

The Dinesh D'Souza Controversy

Dinesh D'Souza certainly knows how to sell books...

A few years ago, when I was between jobs, I almost got a job working for him as a research assistant at AEI. I wasn't hired, and a short time later he left AEI for the Hoover Institution. I don't know him that well, but he's a bright guy and a persuasive writer--which might be why his new book has gotten everyone into such a snit. I was struck by his comment to me that he came to America to study, rather than Britain, because as an Indian he felt that British racism and historical colonialist attitudes would never permit him to be recognized as British, while America offered an opportunity to become accepted as an American in his adopted country. For those who accuse D'Souza of anti-Americanism, I can only answer, "he voted with his feet."

However, his analysis appears to be both provocative in its stress on the importance of culture, while simultaneously pointing out an apparent marriage of convenience between the American left and Osama Bin Laden. Where he errs, I believe, is in his view that a conservative, Christian America would be any less offensive to Dar-al-Islam than a liberal, Secular America. As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, there can be no compromise with Islamist extremists, it doesn't matter what Americans do, the enemy must be decisively defeated--their goal is our destruction.

Nevertheless, the debate he has sparked may prove interesting.

In The Enemy at Home D'Souza arguest that America's cultural left is responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Here's an excerpt from the introduction on his website:

Thus we have the first way in which the cultural left is responsible for 9/11. The left has produced a moral shift in American society that has resulted in a deluge of gross depravity and immorality. This deluge threatens to engulf our society and is imposing itself on the rest of the world. The Islamic radicals are now convinced that America represents the revival of pagan barbarism in the world, and 9/11 represents their ongoing battle with what they perceive to be the forces of Satan.

I have focused so far on American cultural depravity and its global impact. But there is a second way in which the cultural left has helped to produce 9/11. In the domain of foreign policy, the left has helped to produce the conditions that led to the destruction of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. First, under Jimmy Carter, the liberals helped to get rid of the Shah of Iran and thus install the Khomeini regime in Iran. The pretext was the Shah’s human rights failings, but the result was the abdication of the Shah and the triumph of Khomeini. The Khomeini revolution, which has proved the viability of Islamic theocracy in the modern age, was the match that has lit the conflagration of radicalism and fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world. It is Khomeini’s success that paved the road to 9/11.

During the Clinton administration, liberal foreign policy conveyed to Bin Laden and his co-conspirators a strong impression of American vacillation, weakness, and even cowardice. When Al Qaeda attacked and killed a handful of Marines in Mogadishu in 1993, the Clinton administration withdrew American troops from that country. When Al Qaeda orchestrated the bombings of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, President Clinton responded with a handful of desultory counterstrikes that did little harm to Al Qaeda. These American actions, Bin Laden has confessed, emboldened him to strike directly at America on September 11, 2001.

Now that America is fighting back, seeking to uproot the terrorists and transform the political landscape in the Middle East, the left is fighting hard to prevent that campaign from succeeding. It does so not simply by resisting at every stage whatever actions are proposed and implemented to win the war, but, just as importantly, it unceasingly fuels the hatred of American foreign policy among Muslims. It is a common belief among Muslims, for example, that the main reason America consistently sides with Israel is that Americans hate Muslims. A Muslim lawyer I interviewed in Tunis puts the matter this way. “I keep hearing,” he says, “that countries base their foreign policy on self-interest. The self-interest of America is in obtaining access to oil, and we are the ones who have all the oil. The Israelis don’t have any oil. So why is America always on the side of Israel and against the Muslims? Please don’t tell me it’s because Israel is America’s only friend in the Middle East. After all, Israel is one of the main reasons why so many Muslims are America’s enemy. So I am forced to conclude that there is only one reason why America acts against it self-interest and backs Israel against the Muslims. The reason is that Americans hate Arabs. America is violently opposed to Islam. So the Christians are making allies with the Jews to get rid of Islam.”

This is a relatively articulate expression of one of the central themes of fundamentalist propaganda. This is the argument that America is a bigoted nation that wants to take over Muslim countries and steal their oil. In reality this claim is absurd. Americans do not hate Muslims, and America does not want to occupy the Muslim world or seize its natural resources. America supports Israel for complex reasons of history, common ideology, and the domestic political influence of Jewish Americans. So this Islamic perception of American foreign policy is utterly wrong. But it is routinely confirmed by the American left. The writings of leading leftists affirm that yes, America is a racist power that wants to conquer and plunder non-Western peoples. Anne Norton writes that anti-Muslim bigotry is now “the unacknowledged cornerstone of American foreign policy.”[xxxiii] Legal scholar Mari Matsuda insists that “the history of hating Arabs as a race runs strong in the United States” where Arabs are “reviled even more than blacks.”[xxxiv] Rashid Khalidi contends that America’s actions are based on “wildly inaccurate and often racist stereotypes about Arabs, Islam, and the Middle East.”[xxxv] Writing in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, Edward Said claims that “for decades in America there has been a cultural war against the Arabs and Islam” and that Americas Middle East policy is based on blind hatred for stereotypical “sheikhs and camel jockeys.”[xxxvi] By confirming Muslims in their worst prejudices, the American left has strengthened their conviction that America is evil and deserves to be destroyed.

To repeat—because this a point on which I do not wish to be misunderstood—I am in no sense suggesting that the left is disloyal to America. To say this is to confuse the success of the Bush administration, or even of American foreign policy, with the interest of the country as a whole. As we saw earlier with Senator Byrd, the left has its own view of what’s good for America, and it is fiercely loyal to that ideal. So disloyalty is not the issue. The issue is why the left is so passive, reluctant, and even oppositional in its stance in the American war on terrorism. My answer is that the cultural left opposes the war against the radical Muslims because it wants them to succeed in defeating President Bush in particular and American foreign policy in general. Far from seeking to destroy the movement that Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals represent, the amazing fact is that the American left is secretly allied with that movement to undermine the Bush administration and American foreign policy. The left would like nothing better than to see America in general, and President Bush in particular, forced out of Iraq. Although such an outcome would plunge Iraq into further chaos and represent a catastrophic loss for American foreign policy, it would represent a huge win for the cultural left, in fact the left’s greatest foreign policy victory since the Vietnam War.

The notion that the American left seeks victory for Islamic radicals in Iraq may at first glance seem implausible. One person who does not think so, however, is Bin Laden. In his October 30, 2004 videotaped message, apparently timed to precede the presidential election, Bin Laden drew liberally from themes in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 to condemn the Bush administration. Bin Laden denounced Bush for election-rigging in Florida, for going to war to enrich oil companies and defense contracts like Halliburton, for curtailing civil liberties under the Patriot Act, and for reading stories to school-children while the World Trade Center burned.[xxxvii] Apart from the rhetorical flourishes of “Praise be to Allah,” Bin Laden sounds exactly like Michael Moore. And why not? In opposing President Bush and American foreign policy, they are both on the same side.

I may not personally agree with everything Dinesh has to say, but I'll defend his right to say it. He deserves a high-minded point-by-point response from his opponents, rather than the crude attacks that have been levelled at him. If you want to decide for yourself, you can buy the book from Amazon.com here:

Leon Aron on Glasnost at 20

From AEI's Russian Outlook:

On January 27, 1987, at the end of the first working day of the Central Committee meeting, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Mikhail Gorbachev, strode to the podium and declared that the people should be given an opportunity to have “their say on any subject of the society’s life.”[1] From then on, he avowed, the “outside-criticism zones” of Soviet life were a thing of the past. “People must know the whole truth,” Gorbachev told the startled functionaries of the one-party dictatorship, which for seventy years had maintained total control of mass media, employing deafening and unchallenged propaganda, censorship, and terror to suppress the emergence and dissemination of independent thought. “As never before,” Gorbachev continued, “we need the Party and the people to know everything. [We need] [m]ore light!”[2]

To describe this new policy, Gorbachev used the nineteenth-century word “glasnost.” Derived from the old Russian word glas (voice), it had come to mean the ability to voice one’s concerns openly. Along with perestroika (reconstruction), it would soon enter all the major languages as a label for the mammoth transformation of the Soviet Union that was underway.

There were many perfectly valid tactical explanations for introducing glasnost. One of them was to avoid the fate of the previous reformist Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev (1954-64), who was overthrown by the party establishment. By quickly giving people a stake in the liberalization, Gorbachev dramatically expanded the political base of the reforms. The ploy succeeded brilliantly and made Gorbachev invulnerable to the party conservatives. Yet from its beginning as a tactic in the service of a reform, glasnost quickly evolved into the primary engine of a revolution that destroyed the political and economic systems--as well as the very state--that Gorbachev had intended to modify.

Judy, Judy, Judy...

Most interesting of all was today's Times story about Judith Miller's testimony at the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The reporters and editors seemed confused--because they can't discredit Miller and Libby at the same time! If Miller is telling the truth, then Libby is guilty. And if she's not, then Libby may walk.

My view is colored by the fact that Judith Miller reported on my activities during last century's controversy over the National Endowment for the Arts. I found her to be among the most honest reporters around--fair, objective, factual, and straightforward. I also loved her book, GOD HAS NINETY NINE NAMES : Reporting from a Militant Middle East, a sober report on Islamist extremism--that was denounced by Edward Said when it came out. Said, btw, engaged in some of Professor Rosenfeld's "Progressive Anti-Semitism" when he denounced Miller for being a Jew in the pages of The Nation.

Anyhow, Miller's testimony appears central to the Libby case. Whichever way things turn out, Miller clearly has some material for another best-selling book...Meanwhile, you can buy God Has 99 Names from Amazon here:

Byzantine Podcasts a Big Hit

Another interesting story in today's Times featured Lars Brownworth, a history teacher at Stony Brook School who has some 140,000 subscribers to his series of lectures on the Byzantine Empire. You can download them from iTunes via his website.