Agustin Blazquez on Senator Dodd's Cuban Connections

by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

"Senator Dodd is not concerned about the hardship of the Cuban people, he is just interested in business." This quote does not come from the Cuban American exiles but from the Human Rights Lawton Foundation in Havana last May 11, 1999, after Christopher Dodd's visit to the communist ruled island.

In a document replying to Senator Dodd‚s recommendations for the lifting of the US embargo signed by Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, Migdalia Rosado Hernandez and Rolando Muñoz Yyobre addressed to the people of the US --but not reported in the US media -- the directors of the human rights foundation expressed their consternation about Dodd's statements.

The document says "the lifting of the embargo has to be conditioned to respect the human rights of the Cuban people, the freedom of all political prisoners, a multi-party system and free elections, because these principles must take precedence over business."

What the Lawton Foundation expresses is the overwhelming desire of all pro-democracy organizations inside Cuba and the majority of the Cubans, as well as the exiles not only in the US but in other countries.

While opinions differ as to the means to achieve the goal, it is unquestionable that the vast majority of Cubans are united in their democratic desires. After all, four decades ago Castro stole what many believed to be a renaissance of democracy in Cuba.

Cubans in general --based on their first hand experience--are better informed about the Cuban reality and can make a better assessment than a foreigner who, quite naturally, is not as well acquainted with the history and the mechanisms at work within Castro's Cuba. The opinion of the ordinary Cubans should be the primary consideration before adding mistakes to the many already made by the US during this 40-year example of the failure of communism.

According to the Lawton Foundation and the judgement of better-informed Cuban sources, Senator Dodd twisted the Cuban reality to favor US businessmen who are willing to exploit the cheap semi-slave labor that Castro is offering in order to enrich themselves. They stated that Dodd's intention as well as the ones of other US politicians recalls those of the "Nazi-communist pact signed by Ribbentrop and Molotov."

Dodd said that the lifting of the US embargo would be "good business" for Americans. But the human rights foundation says, "Christopher Dodd and his followers are showing their disdain for the principles of freedom. The communist system is the origin and cause of the dire situation of the Cubans."

Echoing what others on the island have been saying for years, the Lawton Foundation states, "the humanitarian aid donated to relieve the Cuban people is being sold at the stores and pharmacies for US dollars only," to benefit Castro‚s regime.

"The Cuban people are hostages of the Castro-communist dictatorship," and they urge the "support and solidarity of the American people and the international community." The document points out that "Castro voted in favor of the embargo against the government of South Africa," and question, "Why lift the US embargo of Castro while in Cuba there reigns an ethnic, political, economic, social and informational apartheid?"

The Lawton Foundation document was not newsworthy to the US media, and was obviously ignored by Dodd and his followers who treat Cubans as a nuisance to be dismissed.

Senator Dodd - who later claimed he only was responsible for the reservation of the room - was involved in the reception to honor Maria de Ia Luz B‚Hamel, the Director of Trade Policy for North America from Cuba's Ministry of Foreign Trade and Igor Montero Britto, the Vice President and Chief Commodity Buyer for ALIMPORT, both agencies of Castro's regime. This "people-to-people" contact with Castro's cronies was shamefully held on July 21, 1999, at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill and was sponsored by the anti-US embargo Alliance for Responsible Cuba Policy, the American Farm Bureau Federation and several grain commodity groups.

This inflammatory action by Senator Dodd and the American farmers prompted protests from Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Bob Menendez, the three Cuban American members of the House of Representatives and a demonstration championed by Cuban Americans in front of the Dirksen Senate Office Building held on July 21, 1999.

The peaceful demonstration was organized by Israel Moya of NoCastro.com and the Mothers & Women Against Repression for Cuba (M.A.R.) based in Miami. A delegation of women dressed in black for the event flew from Miami, headed by its president, Sylvia G. Iriondo. Also present were members of the Alliance of Young Cubans.

What is phony about the rush to establish business arrangements with Castro‚s regime at the end of the Clinton Administration is that the ordinary Cubans are left out. This is not free enterprise. Ordinary citizens are forbidden to participate in business ventures with foreigners.

The supposedly non-governmental companies in Cuba that are authorized to make business are front companies owned and operated by Castro's regime and his cronies from the army and security forces. in charge of repressing the people. Therefore, all business that Dodd and his followers want to do in Cuba directly benefits Castro's regime helping him to stay in power against the will of the people. In fact, they would be supporting a tyranny. Ordinary Cuban citizens stand to gain more repression from these business deals. Nothing more.

Anybody who really knows the mechanisms at work in Castro's Cuba knows that fact. But Dodd and his followers apparently are playing with the ignorance of the misinformed American people. And who is responsible for this ignorance? The US media, who for decades has been avoiding to expose the reality of Castro's regime. Cubans and their suffering seem to be inconsequential to many.

Rolando Muñoz Yyobre, one of the signatories of the Havana-based Human Rights Lawton Foundation‚s document says, "The embargo is not against people, but against the government." Also Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet added that, "the embargo is one of the arms of non-violent civic resistance" against Castro's tyranny.

On June 7, 1999, Dr. Biscet and five others began a 40-day hunger strike "one for each year of tyranny" at Migdalia Rosado Hernandez‚ humble apartment at Tamarindo 34 in Havana asking for the respect of human rights and the liberation of all political prisoners in Cuba. Hundreds of people throughout Cuba and abroad joined in that effort.

Unfortunately, silence was the rule of the US media and Cubans once more were deprived of the solidarity that would have helped to make a difference. Also, the publicity would have served to alert Dodd and his followers that business with Castro‚s Cuba would not be morally acceptable. Those politicians and businessmen who play in the uncharted muddy waters with the tyrant, eventually will pay a price.

© 2005 ABIP Agustin Blazquez is producer/director of the documentaries COVERING CUBA, CUBA: The Pearl of the Antilles, COVERING CUBA 2: The Next Generation & COVERING CUBA 3: Elian presented at the 2003 Miami Latin Film Festival and the 2004 American Film Renaissance Film Festival in Dallas, Texas and the upcoming COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below and Dan Rather--60 Minutes:an inside view.

A Sign of Hope in Northern Virginia

A Surprise Russian Landing in Manassas (washingtonpost.com):

As science star Ricky Yezzi took the stage in the Osbourne Park High School auditorium yesterday morning, 400 of his schoolmates cheered and whistled as if he had just come home victorious from a big game. The shaggy-haired 18-year-old quelled the noise long enough to introduce his two new acquaintances: one of Russia's premier cosmonauts and a top Russian space scientist.

For the next 90 minutes, Yury Usachev and Alexander Martynov talked about the U.S.-Russian partnership on the international space station, a possible manned mission to Mars and the physics of doing somersaults in space. The rare in-school field trip was made possible by Yezzi.

The Man Who Brought Down President Nixon

Justice really is blind. The man who brought down President Richard M. Nixon was William Reckert, a blind federal transcriber who discoverd the 18 1/2 minute gap in the Watergate tapes that led to Nixon's impeachment. Here's Reckert's obituary from today's Washington Post.

Another Pathetic Attack on John Bolton

Today The Washington Post actually made fun of his haircut and glasses. No, they're not Daniel Ortega's Ray-Bans...

Britain's Music Manifesto

In my Russian class last night, the instructor talked about how important music is to Russian culture and education--and how backwards the West can seem in comparison. Then he noted that Tony Blair is a convert to this view, and announced a movement to bring music education to the center of British education. I googled the reference, and found there's actually a whole movement in the UK, centered around this Music Manifesto.

William Kristol on "Pathetic" Attacks on John Bolton

Kristol says he's not even a "screamer." From The Weekly Standard:

THE ASSAULT ON JOHN BOLTON--a collaborative effort of Senate Democrats, the liberal media, and some quasi-Republicans resentful of his success--has now degenerated from an earnest (if misguided) critique of his views to a pathetic attempt at character assassination.

I worked with John Bolton in the first Bush administration. I know many people who have worked with him and for him in this administration. Carl Ford's characterization of Bolton as a 'kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy' is disingenuous. No, let's call a spade a spade--it's dishonest.

John Bolton is no 'kiss-up.' Quite the contrary. Over the last four years, he was famously willing to challenge his bosses, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, at the daily 8:30 State Department senior staff meeting. He paid a price for this, especially by earning the enmity of Armitage. Carl Ford, the former State Department intelligence chief, was a close associate of Armitage.

Nor is Bolton a 'kick down sort of guy.' In fact, Bolton has always had a reputation as a straight shooter, a good boss, and not a screamer--unlike, say, Armitage. (Not that Armitage's screaming should disqualify him from a future appointment, either. Lots of able public officials have been screamers.) The fact is, John Bolton lost trust in a subordinate of Ford who had tried an end run around him and then asked, according to the subordinate's immediate boss in the intelligence shop, only that he be "moved to some other portfolio."

A Sign of Hope In Russia

Court Rules for Simpsons Cartoon - The St. Petersburg Times:

MOSCOW - After spending a day in court watching cartoons, a Moscow judge on Friday rejected a lawsuit brought against RenTV for broadcasting two American programs that the plaintiff said had piqued his young son's interest in cocaine and prompted the child to insult his mother.

The Khamovniki District Court judge rejected the claim by Igor Smykov, who filed the suit almost three years ago claiming that the cartoon series 'The Simpsons' and 'The Family Guy' were morally degenerate and promoted drugs, violence and homosexuality.

Smykov sued the channel in June 2002, asking for compensation of 50,000 rubles, which was eventually increased to 300,000 rubles ($10,770). He also demanded that the station be banned from airing the two programs or at least be required to show them.

Bolton Fight Really About Fidel Castro, Says Robert Novak

Robert Novak's column today makes the case that Senator Chris Dodd's opposition to Bolton is motivated by his support for the Cuban dictator:

Dodd renewed the fight when President Bush named Bolton to the UN, exposing grave disputes inside the national security bureaucracy. Bolton was accused of bullying State Department analyst Christian Westermann, who claimed Bolton exaggerated Cuba's germ warfare potentialities. Bolton has charged that Westermann went behind Bolton's back to undermine his case while his Heritage speech was being cleared by intelligence.

Bolton also came under fire from Dodd for questioning CIA officer Fulton Armstrong's assessment on Cuban arms. (The CIA had asked that Armstrong's name be kept secret because he now serves overseas, but his name was inadvertently divulged in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing by both Chairman Richard Lugar and Sen. John Kerry.) Dodd's theme that Bolton intimidated intelligence analysts was faithfully repeated by rote in questioning by other Democrats.

But should Armstrong have been free of criticism? During his tenure as assistant secretary of state, Reich on several occasions asked, without success, that Armstrong be removed. This CIA analyst was notorious inside the national security bureaucracy for faulty judgments on not only Cuba but also Haiti, Venezuela and Colombia. To his critics, Armstrong always favored positions of such anti-U.S. heads of state as Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. It is doubtful that Democratic senators questioning Bolton, other than Dodd, knew about Armstrong's background.

It is also doubtful most senators knew much about former Assistant Secretary of State Carl Ford when he testified against Bolton Tuesday. Although he characterized himself as a faithful conservative Republican, former CIA analyst Ford worked for Democratic Sen. John Glenn for five years. Federal Election Commission filings indicate he contributed to both Democrats and Republicans, to both John Kerry and George W. Bush. Ford, as President Bush's appointee, was giving funds to Democrats Jane Harman, Charles Rangel and Daniel Inouye.

In his testimony Tuesday, Ford was hardly questioned about Bolton's actual assessment of Castro's germ warfare capability. Chris Dodd was able to drive Otto Reich out of the government because he was anti-Castro. It remains to be seen whether that also is John Bolton's fate.

There may be something to this theory. I think I remember meeting Senator Dodd, many years ago, at a Hollywood fundraiser for Nicaraguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. Or maybe Ortega was at a fundraiser for Senator Dodd? I can't remember, exactly. In any case, I think the event took place at the home of actor Mike Farrell, at a real Hollywood movie-star mansion, on a big lawn, in a tent. What struck me at that time was that Ortega was wearing a pair of very expensive, high-fashion, Ray-Ban sunglasses, and appeared very "radical chic." Let's just put it this way--most of the people there were rooting for the Sandinistas -- and very much against Ronald Reagan.

Michelle Malkin on the "Kill Bush" phenomenon

CafePress has pulled it's "Kill Bush" t-shirts from the market, after Michelle Malkin published an oped column with this conclusion:

'Oh, but it's all in good fun,' the libs will shrug. Yeah, just like the Guardian's call last fall for someone to kill Bush. Just like the wave of campus attacks on conservatives. Just like the vicious anti-troops, anti-Bush slogans: 'We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot their Officers' and 'Bush is the disease. Death is the cure.'

'Where's your sense of humor?' the libs will ask.

Where's their decency? Their sanity?

Welcome to the sick world of the pro-assassination Left.

Update: Yes, thanks for all the e-mails on the assassination exhibit at Columbia College of Art in Chicago. Power Line and Jeff Quinton have more.

Update: 4/14. CafePress has yanked the 'Kill Bush' products.

Ironic that some of these same people simultaneously pretend to be opposed to the death penalty...

Texas CAIR Founder Convicted of Terrorism

Little Green Footballs notes that the founder of a Texas chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been convicted of all 21 federal counts of conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist.

Ghassan Elashi, by the way, was the founder of the Texas chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations--CAIR. But that's obviously not a piece of information that mainstream media wants you to know, because not a single news or wire story mentions it.

Putin Brings Back Cossacks

I don't know if he's thought through the public relations aspect of this decision in the West, or not, but apparently Vladimir Putin is reviving the Russian Cossacks. He's already submitted a draft law to the State Duma defining a "Cossack society." These Cossacks will be available for Russian military and law enforcement purposes.

Until the Russian Revolution, there were some 4 million Cossacks. Abolished by Lenin in 1920, Stalin revived the Cossacks in 1936, and Cossack Units fought the Germans in World War II. After the war, the Cossacks were again disbanded. (Thanks to Siberian Light for the tip.)

More on Iraq from Roger L. Simon

Roger L. Simon: More Chalabi Wasabi

Report from Afghanistan

I noticed this Afghanistan story today on Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit.com:

INSTAPUNDIT'S AFGHANISTAN CORRESPONDENT, Maj. Robert Macaraeg, reports:

Guess who dropped in to Kanadahar Air Field (KAF)? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Earlier he flew out to a Forward Operating Base, returned to KAF and then reenlisted 11 soldiers, gave a speech, did a question and answer session and then posed for photos with soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors.

He gave a 10 to 15 minute speech on why we are in Afghanistan. He mentioned after 2000 years Afghanistan had its first free election after the Soviets occupation and brutal rule of the Taliban. He was optimistic about the future of Afghanistan and said that the Afghan people wanted a bright future. Also he mentioned the devotion to duty that SFC Smith who was just awarded the Medal of Honor.

Then it was the question and answer session. He has a good sense of humor, but did not sugar coat his answers. The questions ranged from the new XM-8 rifle for the infantry, immigration and citizenship for foreigners who serve in the US military, shorter rotations for the US Army and why not military police can earn the new Close Combat Badge. One thing that struck me that he did not B.S. anybody. When he did not know the right answer, he said he would get back to you or deferred to one of Generals to give the straight answer.

One soldier asked the question on why America gets such a negative view of events here. Rumsfeld asked the soldier to repeat the question to make sure that he understood then smiled and laughed. He said "do you think I control the press?" That got a good laugh out of everybody; then he said if you look at any newspaper or TV news program all the headlines are negative. Negative headlines sell. He said with our (military) emails and letters that we send home, people in America will see the good that the military is accomplishing. Also Americans can sort through the news and see the truth. I totally agree with him.

After that he stood with service members for 30 minutes and took photos and shook hands. You can see that he enjoys meeting the troops. I have seen in the previous Sec Defs and Presidents who just did a five minute grip and grin, but Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld impressed the troops and in the dining facility (DFAC) comments were made that he should serve his full term.

I've noticed that Rumsfeld seems to be more popular with the troops than with the press. Perhaps that's because Rumsfeld seems to be counting on the Internet to bypass the press . . . .

Yukos Lawyer Targets Germany

The Moscow Times reports that Yukos' legal team has charged Germany as a co-conspirator against Mikhail Khodorkovsky:

Robert Amsterdam, an adviser to Mikhail Khodorkovsky's legal team, said Tuesday he would go to Berlin this week to call on German lawmakers to investigate Chancellor Gerhard Schroder's support for the Kremlin's legal onslaught against the former Yukos CEO.

Amsterdam accused Schroder of turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in Khodorkovsky's trial, in exchange for 'chips' for German companies in winning Russian contracts.
Schroder has been one of the few world leaders to openly back President Vladimir Putin over the case, which has resulted in the partial rena-tionalization of Yukos and Khodorkovsky facing up to 10 years in prison on charges of fraud and tax evasion.

After Yukos' main production unit, Yuganskneftegaz, was sold off last December, Schroder called the auction 'an internal affair,' in contrast to the reaction of the United States, which condemned it and earlier expressed concern over 'selective application' of the law in the Khodorkovsky trial. The Council of Europe has condemned the case as political.

Khodorkovsky's Final Statement

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once Russia's richest man, was sentenced to ten years in prison the other day. You can read his entire final statement on MOSNEWS.COM:

When somebody says that the Yukos case led to the strengthening of the state's role in the economy, it arouses in me nothing but bitter laughter. Those people, who are busy robbing Yukos' assets today, do not have any real relationship with the Russian state and its interests. They are merely dirty-handed and self-centered bureaucrats, nothing more.

The whole country knows why I was put in jail: so that I wouldn't prevent the company from being robbed. At the same time, the people who organized the prosecution against me personally, tried to scare the authorities and society with my mythical political ambitions. They openly deceived the president, as well as other representatives of the country's highest political authorities and Russian society as a whole. I am convinced that in our global and transparent world there are no secrets that won�t be revealed with time. And the judgment of history will put everything in its rightful place. It is not a secret to anyone that the fabricated criminal cases against me and against other Yukos executives were damaging to the Russian economy. The amount of Russia's lost capital has grown by six times, and Russian and foreign investors' trust in our Motherland as an object for investment has been undermined. Well, let the full responsibility be laid upon those who designed my arrest and are now trying to send me to jail.

The whole world knows that the “Khodorkovsky case”, planned by certain representatives of a homegrown criminal bureaucracy, brought a heavy blow to the reputation of Russia and of its authorities. But nothing could stop these greedy people, who decided to grab for themselves the main enterprises and assets of Yukos at any cost. Nothing could stop them — not even the direct loss, which they have brought and are still bringing everyday to our country, to our statehood.

All of Russia knows that the prosecutors were unable to prove any of the charges against me. The attempts to blame me for a variety of crimes have turned into an obvious joke. And even prosecution witnesses were, in fact, testifying on my behalf.

I still think President Bush could ask Putin to let Khodordovsky go, before he attends V-E celebrations in Russia this May. Putin has the power to pardon Khodorkovsky, and the US might ask him to do so. It would actually help Russia, by improving the climate for international investment, as well as the United States' commitment to rule of law.

Denver Post: Attacks on Bolton "Pathetic"

The Denver Post had the same reaction to the Bolton hearings that I did: "In the end, the attacks on him - based as they are on 16-year-old comments and a three-year-old intelligence dispute, seemed not only petty and personal, but pathetic." The question remains, do Democrats think such a stupid plan of attack on Bolton makes them look good? If there isn't anything more than this, why subject Bolton--and the American public--to such a waste of time?

BTW, the intelligence employee mentioned in yesterday's testimony was a GS-14. Any Washingtonian knows it is almost impossible to fire a civil servant at that level. It is highly doubtful that Bolton, an experienced Washingtonian, would not have known that. Which may mean that Mr. Ford may have been lying to Congress -- the crime Ollie North was convicted of -- when he told Senators that he had the impression that Bolton wanted him to fire the employee...

Who is ex-CIA Agent Carl W. Ford, Jr.?

He's apparently a Washington, DC lobbyist and consultant to arms dealers, as well as John Bolton's chief accuser in today's Senate hearing. Here's his online bio from the website of the lobbying company he works for:Cassidy & Associates. According to the bio, his clients have included Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon, helping them sell to the Japanese, South Korean, and Taiwanese military.

Who is CIA Agent Fulton Armstrong?

Little Green Footballs has some links about the man Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both mentioned at John Bolton's confirmation hearing...(is "Fulton Armstrong" a real name?)

Are NGOs International Criminal Entrerprses?

In his interesting article, The U.N., Preying on the Weak, in today's Washington Post, Peter Dennis observes that the UN-affiliated NGOs were up to more than hanky-panky: "In fact, abuse at these camps went beyond sexual violations: Injustices of one sort or another were perpetrated by U.N. missions or their affiliated nongovernmental organizations every day in the camps I visited. Corruption was the norm, in particular the embezzlement of food and funds by NGO officials, which often left camp resources dangerously inadequate. Utterly arbitrary judicial systems in the camps subjected refugees to violent physical punishment or months in prison for trivial offenses -- all at the whim of officials and in the absence of any sort of hearing."

Kremlin on the Charles

That's what Daniel Pipes calls Harvard, in his article, Conservative Professors, an Endangered Species. I'd say "Extinct" might be more accurate, at least in liberal arts faulties (law, political science and economics have a few positions available...).

Bull Moose Blog

We just found out tha an old acquaintance runs the Bull Moose Blog. On it you can find the latest Washington gossip, and political tidbits, combined with some analysis and even jokes...

Bolton to be Grilled...

The John Bolton hearing should make for interesting TV. If he can't stand up to today's grilling by Democrats, how can he be trusted to stand up to Kim Jong Il as UN Ambassador? It should make a nice preview for his debating style. Does Bolton have what it takes? As I remember, Bolton easily made mincemeat of a bullying Tim Sebastian on BBC's "HardTalk" a few years back...

A Plug Another Cousin's Book...

Sharon Kaufman's A Time to Die just came out, and my mother sent me this review from The San Francisco Chronicle. It sounds timely, in light of the Terri Schiavo case. Money quote: "'The American system of 'long-term care' is more than fragmented,' Kaufman writes, 'it is absurd.' She adds later, 'the events that unfold for many elderly patients and the pathways they travel before they die are dictated primarily by Medicare and Medicaid payment policies. No one knows this.' The emphasis is hers. "

Congress Proposes to Take Control of Charities

And Heather Higgins, who I met a number of years ago when she was called Heather Randolph and running her own family foundation, writes on OpinionJournal - Extra that she doesn't like the idea:

The added costs are easily absorbed by the huge charities that already employ large bureaucracies, but they will devastate small shops with limited budgets and largely volunteer non-professional staff. New rules would limit board size--another blow to fund-raising--and prescribe governance policies, duties and composition.

The proposals would require the IRS to grade each charity against its definition of 'Best Practices.' The IRS already receives annual 'Form 990s' from most nonprofits (detailing officers, revenues and expenditures), and can audit any nonprofit at any time. These proposals may clarify that process, and if so that's all to the good. But some now propose an expanded process that could put most, if not all, charities through an extensive review as frequently as every five years. This would involve submission of massive documentation to the IRS justifying the charity's compliance, restating its charitable goals and offering detailed narratives about its policies and operations, all to be made public.

Moreover, the IRS could require accreditation for the maintenance of tax-exempt status, and could contract out some of these powers to private accrediting entities. There is already deep concern on both sides of the political aisle that the IRS, despite denials, has had its auditing powers used for political purposes. Accreditation is an area where Congress must proceed with great caution. Accreditation by private organizations can be an excellent idea if voluntary and competitive, but mandatory and monolithic accreditation as a substitute for IRS oversight could stifle diversity while doing nothing to alleviate fears of misuse.

Sleepless at 34,000 Feet

A sobering short story, on This 'n' That. A sample:

I don't recall how or why, but we began to converse. I recollect that it had to do with the dinner menu. I also discovered that he was not African American. His accent was Pakistani. And quite frankly, after I'd heard him speak, I didn't want to talk with him anymore. Shame on me, for I had stereotyped him as a radical Muslim possibly associated with terrorist activities. The recent atrocities visited upon innocent women and children in Russia was still fresh in the news and in my mind. Because of that, mostly, I felt nothing but animosity for him and his religious faith.

As it turned out, my assumptions about his country of origin and religious faith were correct. Because he soon began to speak about the virtues of Islam. I quickly became a circumspect listener, reluctant to discuss or hear about the Islamic faith on an airplane 34,000 feet in the air of all places.

As Glenn Reynolds says, read the whole thing.

A Link to Slate...

To note a reference to our post on Saul Bellow in Judgment Call by Bidisha Banerjee (scroll down)...

A Plug for my Cousin's Blogs

Cousin Lucy's Spoon and Travels in Boo Land.

Kyrgyzstan: What is to be Done?

I've posted my suggestions onRegistan.net.

Mark Steyn: The Pope Was Right About AIDS

From The Telegraph: "The question now is whether His Holiness was as right about us as he was about the Communists. The secularists, for example, can't forgive him for his opposition to condoms in the context of Aids in Africa. The Dark Continent gets darker every year: millions are dying, male life expectancy is collapsing and such civil infrastructure as there is seems likely to follow.

But the most effective weapon against the disease has not been the Aids lobby's 20-year promotion of condom culture in Africa, but Uganda's campaign to change behaviour and to emphasise abstinence and fidelity - i.e., the Pope's position. You don't have to be a Catholic or a "homophobe" to think that the spread of Aids is telling us something basic - that nature is not sympathetic to sexual promiscuity. If it weren't Aids, it would be something else, as it has been for most of human history."

Photos of the Pope's Funeral

Katherine Lopez, at National Review Online, has posted a photo-essay on Pope John Paul II's funeral.

Will Iraq Now Welcome Back Its Jews?

Thanks to a tip from Roger L Simon, I saw this interesting item from neo-neocon.

I was reading a thread at LGF about Talabani's selection as interim President of Iraq, when I saw this remark by a commenter named sandspur:

Just saw a little clip of Talabani on FNC. Sorry I can't quote him verbatim, but he said that Jews, Arabs, all will be treated equally.

As extraordinary as Talabani's election was, this comment seemed even more extraordinary. Why mention Jews? Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a link for the quote. But in researching it, I came across some other information that I found fascinating.

There are almost no Jews left in Iraq, although it once teemed with them, and the Jewish presence there was ancient. At the time of WWI, one-third of the population of Baghdad is estimated to have been Jewish. But anti-Semitism in Iraq increased during the early 1940s, influenced by Nazi-inspired leaders who staged a coup (and I don't mean "Nazi-inspired" as a metaphor; I mean it literally). Violence against Jews intensified after the state of Israel was established, and most of the Jews of Iraq left the country.

Well, it turns out that this mention of Jews by the Kurdish Talabani was no fluke. Today, while researching this, I came across an extraordinary article written in 2001 by Michael Rubin, entitled "The Other Iraq." Read the whole thing, as Glenn Reynolds would say.

According to Rubin's article, written before the Iraq war that deposed Saddam, many Kurds were already expressing approval of Israel and studying the country as a model for their own autonomy and liberation. Victims of persecution and genocide themselves, they could identify. What's more, they despised the Palestinians for their support of Saddam. The older generation of Kurds remembered the absent Iraqi Kurdish Jews fondly, and even the younger generation were able to listen to Israeli radio, watch Israeli TV, and access Israeli websites, unlike the inhabitants of the rest of Iraq.

So Talabani's statement doesn't come out of the blue, although it was a total surprise to me. I was ignorant of this long history of relative goodwill in the Kurdish part of Iraq towards Israel and the Jews.

MISTAKES WERE MADE: Charlie Clark's New Book

My friend Charlie Clark has a new book out. It's MISTAKES WERE MADE: PEOPLE WHO PLAYED THE ROLE OF “GOAT” IN HISTORY. Here's his synopsis:

Ask someone to describe his worst mistake and he will probably pause before replying, ``I'd prefer not to discuss it.'' Ah, but what if you had a ringside seat in the lives of people who suffered the fate of committing major errors in full view of a public that forever ties them to the gaffe? In this captivating collection of nine historical profiles, Charlie Clark offers a blow-by-blow description of the mistakes made by some history’s most famous “goats” in such areas as the military, exploration, technology, and the arts. Most intimately, he takes the reader through the painful aftermath to show you how each of these reverse heroes coped with the role. You’ll meet such memorable characters as the pioneer guide who misled the Donner Party, the college football lineman who ran the ball the wrong way, and the record executive who rejected the Beatles.

To order, click on this link to amazon.com.

Cathy Buckle on Zimbabwe's Election

From Cathy Buckle's Letter from Zimbabwe: "My descriptions of the last two elections told of war veterans breaking down doors, burning huts and force marching villagers to rallies and all night re-education sessions. They told of arson, of petrol bombs being thrown through windows, of women being raped and men being beaten with electric cables, sticks and batons. The things that were done to the people of Zimbabwe in the last two elections were so widespread that there was hardly a suburb or even a street where there was not a victim, a relation or an eye witness. We saw the blood, broken bones, burns and bruises with our own eyes; we heard the screams, groans and cries with our own ears. From February 2000 to March 2005 we have waited for the perpetrators of those deeds to be apprehended, tried and convicted for their crimes but we have waited in vain. There has been no accountability and so now we watch, we listen, we keep our mouths shut and we wait. The old saying that a leopard does not change its spots is very much in our minds just a few days before elections. "

Congo: 3.8 Million Dead in 6 Year Conflict

This International Rescue Committee report reveals the scale of mass-murder that followed the overthrow of Mobutu. "Democracy Revolutionists" might want to consider this precedent before overthrowing their next authoritarian government...

Power Line on Anti-Semitism at Columbia University

Here at Power Line.

Dershowitz on Columbia University's Anti-Semitism Scandal

Interviewed by CAMERA:

I have a letter in front of me from one of the most prominent alumni, a major contributor, who says: 'I'm poised to replace Columbia as the main beneficiary of my charitable remainder trust.' If President Bollinger thought that he would calm fears about the one-sidedness by appointing a committee that includes two people who are part of the problem, not part of the solution, he was misguided...

DP: What’s the difference between free speech and academic freedom?

AD: Free speech and academic freedom apply to what a professor says outside of the classroom. Academic freedom does not entitle the professor to limit discussion in class ideologically. However, if a professor wanted to, he or she could say "I just do lectures, there are no questions." Why anybody would take that course, I don’t know, but a professor has the right to do that. And a professor has the right to say, "I will call on students based on alphabetical order, or based on who raises their hands first," but a teacher cannot refuse to take questions from a student based on content, and a teacher may not punish students for the ideological content of their views. Nor can students be restricted from attending a class, or registering for a class based on their ideological views.

These principals are part of the academic freedom and freedom of speech of the students, and the university must always balance, particularly in the setting of a classroom, the academic freedom and speech rights of the student versus the academic freedom and free speech rights of a professor.

Top 100 Saudi Companies

This looked interesting. A list of the 100 biggest Saudi companies, from Arab News. The biggest of all is the "Kingdom Holding Company."

Complain about PBS, NPR and Pacifica!

At this link to the CPB Ombudsmen. They've added another layer of bureaucracy to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Ken Bode, retired host of PBS's "Washington Week in Review" and William Schulz, former Washington editor of "Reader's Digest" have been hired as dual ombudsmen. If you want to give them some work to do, and put your tax dollars to work, just fill out this form any time you are unhappy with anything you see or hear on PBS, NPR or Pacifica radio...

Anne Applebaum on Pope John Paul II

The article is titled, How the Pope 'Defeated Communism'. She points out that secular political activities were as important as John Paul II's spiritual efforts...

Saul Bellow is Dead

Roger L. Simon tipped us off to this obituary of Saul Bellow. The Nobel-prize winning author was not too appealing when I was younger, I really couldn't read any of his novels. Too dense, somehow.

This famous quote repeated in his New York Times obituary was off-putting even at the time it was uttered:

"Who is the Tolstoy of the Zulus? The Proust of the Papuans?" The remark caused a furor and was taken as proof, he said, ""that I was at best insensitive and at worst an elitist, a chauvinist, a reactionary and a racist - in a word, a monster." He later said the controversy was "the result of a misunderstanding that occurred (they always do occur) during an interview."

Who is the Pushkin of Chicagoans? The Dumas of Bostonians? one might respond.

Then, I found one book I really liked: Ravelstein, based on real-life University of Chicago professor Allan Bloom.

I couldn't put that one down, it was just fascinating. Perhaps because I had been around so many neo-conservatives and "Great Books" types. Most fascinating of all was the hostility Bellow generated from certain neo-conservative circles. For example, I attended a panel at the Hudson Institute where Bellow was condemned for writing explicitly about Ravelstein's homosexuality, among other things (Ravelstein also took money from his students, and lounged about all day in a bathrobe). I had the feeling that those present would have banned the book, had they been able to do so. It was really kind of scary and depressing. Practically Soviet-style denunciations for deviationism, from a very dour and drab set of panelists, who didn't like the idea that a neo-conservative was being "outed" as a complicated human being, even as a fictional character. After all, it's a novel. But the panelists seemed to have no appreciation of Ravelstein as literature, only an instrumental view that it didn't serve "the cause."

Yuck.

That Bellow could provoke such a reaction, forcing certain people to reveal how they really thought (or didn't, more accurately put), was a tribute to his power as a novelist.

High Minded Realists v Democracy Revolutionists

In a thoughtful essay, Dmitri Simes and Robert Ellsworth, writing in The National Interest, call for "high-minded realism" as a foreign-policy alternative to President Bush's democracy policy. It's worthwhile reading the whole thing. Here's a sample:

High-minded realists do not disagree with the self-appointed champions of global democracy (the neoconservatives and the liberal interventionists) that a strong preference for liberty and justice should be an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. But they realize that there are tradeoffs between pushing for democracy and working with other sovereign states--some not always quite democratic--to combat global terror. Realists also, following the advice of General Charles Boyd, understand the need to 'separate reality from image' and 'to tell the truth, if only to ourselves'--not to play fast and loose with facts to create the appearance of acting morally.

And they are aware that there are important differences in how the United States helps the world achieve freedom. Indeed, in his first press conference after his triumph at the polls, President Bush used three different terms in talking about America's global pro-democracy effort. He discussed the need 'to encourage freedom and democracy', to 'promote free societies', and to 'spread freedom and democracy.'

'Encouraging' democracy is not a controversial position. Nearly everyone in the world accepts that the sole superpower is entitled and indeed expected to be true to its core beliefs. 'Promoting' democracy is more vague and potentially more costly. Still, if the United States does so without resorting to military force and takes into account the circumstances and perspectives of other nations, then it is likely not to run into too much international opposition. 'Spreading' democracy, however, particularly spreading it by force, coercion and violent regime change, is a different thing altogether. Those who suspect they may be on the receiving end of such treatment are unlikely to accept American moral superiority, are bound to feel threatened, and cannot reasonably be expected to cooperate with the United States on other important American priorities, including the War on Terror and nuclear proliferation.

Roger L. Simon says CSPAN Finds "Balance"

Roger L. Simon reports that CSPAN has decided not to "balance" Deborah Lipstadt with David Irving, after all...

IRS Chief: Charities Cheat on Taxes

Today's Washington Post has a story about IRS Commissioner Mark Everson's complaint that non-profits are abusing their tax-exempt status:

"Charities and other nonprofits exempted from taxes because they serve a public purpose have become a hotbed of tax evasion and abuse, according to the head of the Internal Revenue Service.

'We can see that tax abuse is increasingly present in the sector,' and unless the government takes effective steps to curb it, such organizations risk 'the loss of the faith and support that the public has always given to this sector,' Internal Revenue Commissioner Mark W. Everson said in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee detailing abuses his agency has found.

Mark Steyn on the Terry Schiavo Aftermath

In The Chicago Sun-Times:

Once you get used to designating living, breathing bodies as 'non-human entities,' it's easy to bandy them ever more carelessly -- as they do in the eminently progressive Netherlands, where their relaxed attitude to pot and prostitution led to a relaxed attitude to euthanasia which looks like relaxing the Dutch people right out of business. It's all done quietly over there -- no fuss, no publicity; you go in to hospital with a heavy cold and you're carried out by the handles. (By 'handles,' I mean a coffin, not a ceremonial phalanx of Monteagles and Princetons.) But that's not the American way. This is a legalistic society, where grade schools can't have kids knocking a ball around without getting a gazillion dollars worth of liability insurance. I was in Price Chopper the other day and they had a little basket of Easter samples on display accompanied by a page of full print outlining the various sub-clauses of the company's 'tasting policy.' That's America. In Holland, you can taste a cookie without signing a legal waiver, and, if you get food poisoning from it, the doctor will discreetly euthanize you to avoid putting your family through the trauma of waiting six hours for the stomach pump to become available. That's not how the American cookie crumbles. Euthanasia here will be a 10-year court culminating in slow-motion public execution played out on the 24-hour cable channels.

The Republicans did the right thing here, and they won't be punished for it by the electors. As with abortion, this will be an issue where the public moves slowly but steadily toward the conservative position: Terri Schiavo's court-ordered death will not be without meaning. As to 'crack-ups,' that's only a neurotic way of saying that these days most of the intellectual debate is within the right.

If, like the Democrats, all you've got are lockstep litmus tests on race and abortion and all the rest, what's to crack up over? You just lose elections every two years, but carry on insisting, as Ted Kennedy does, that you're still the majority party. Ted's quite a large majority just by himself these days, but it's still not enough.

Roger L. Simon: Volcker Committee "Slimed" Witness

Roger L. Simon: Mystery Novelist and Screenwriter: "But I do know this. Mouselli had an 'identity confidentiality agreement' with the Volcker Committee while it conducted its investigation. One the eve of release of the report (March 25), the Committee asked that he waive it. After being assured that they regarded his testimony as 'reliable and credible' and would report it as such, Mouselli agreed to the waiver. Then the Committee slimed him, using ex-Baathist officials to do their dirty work. How shameful."

This book looks interesting...

Walter Isaacson reviews Stacy Schiff's 'A Great Improvisation': Our Man in Parisin the NYTBR:

After a year of playing both seductive and coy, Franklin was able to negotiate a set of treaties with France that would, so the signers declared, bond the countries in perpetuity. One French participant expressed the hope that the Americans ''would not inherit the pretensions and the greedy and bold character of their mother country, which had made itself detested.'' As a result of the arrangements made by Franklin, the French supplied most of America's guns and nearly all of its gunpowder, and had almost as many troops at the decisive battle of Yorktown as the Americans did.

Schiff scrupulously researches the details of Franklin's mission and skillfully spices up the tale with the colorful spies, stock manipulators, war profiteers and double-dealers who swarmed around him. Most delightful are the British spy Paul Wentworth, so graceful even as he is outmaneuvered by Franklin, and the flamboyant playwright and secret agent Beaumarchais (''The Barber of Seville'' and ''The Marriage of Figaro''), so eager to capitalize on the news of the American victory at Saratoga that he was injured when his carriage overturned while speeding with a banker from Franklin's home to central Paris. Least delightful is the priggish and petulant John Adams, ''a man to whom virtue and unpopularity were synonymous'' and whom Schiff merrily tries to knock from the pedestal upon which he was placed by David McCullough.

John Paul II Remembered...

From Reuters:

Another of the Pope's major achievements was to bring the Catholic Church to an historic rapprochement with Jews after 2,000 years of hostility when the Vatican formally recognized the state of Israel in 1993.

That led to the realization of a third dream in March 2000 when he made a long-desired trip to the Holy Land, visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories and calling for peace at every stop along the way.

In a momentous gesture that brought tears to many eyes, he left a personal note in the cracks of Judaism's sacred Western Wall in Jerusalem asking for forgiveness for the past sins of Christians against Jews.

Natan Sharansky's Case for Democracy

Sharansky's Case For Democracy

Michael Ledeen noted at his AEI panel on the democratic revolutionary movement last week that Richard Perle assigned those present to readNathan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror in order to understand what President George W. Bush is up to.

Well, I read it, and I see why Perle likes it, because the core argument of the book is that the Jackson-Vanik amendment was responsible for the collapse of the USSR as well as the release of dissidents and refuseniks like Sharansky. Since Perle was an aide to the late Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, and was involved with the issue, it must be nice to read such a grateful testimonial.

Obviously, Sharansky's account of his suffering and the importance of the Helsinki accords and Jackson-Vanik amendment are compelling.

The problem comes in applying the lessons to the current situation. Because Sharansky notes that his mentor, Andrei Sakharov, called for changing the fear society of the USSR to a freedom society (Sharansky's terms) in order to compete with the West in a comptetitive race to the future. That is, the USSR and the USA shared the same Western enlightenment goals of human progress, scientific and technological development, and education. The prestige enjoyed by scientists and academicians in the former USSR gave Sakharov the status to make his views widely known -- Sharansky had also studied physics. Thus, the USSR and USA were ostensibly headed towards the same end, just by different means. In the case of the USA the means required freedom, in the case of the USSR the means required fear. Dissidents in the USSR shared the same goals as their American adversaries.

This is not true of some anti-American dissidents in unfree societies today.

Sharanky describes his prison life with harrowing accuracy, and what really sticks out is that Sharansky describes his fellow inmates, whether Russian Orthodox, nationalists, democrats, or Jewish refuseniks as committed to non-violence, tolerance, and other values even Voltaire would understand and support. That is, supporting Russian dissidents meant supporting allies of freedom and democracy.

When it comes to Israel, Sharansky does an excellent job of describing the hostility of the "Human Rights" NGOs to the Jewish state. And he talks at length about the importance of ending the fear societies in the Arab world, for the sake of their Arab populations. He says the West should champion oppressed Arab advocates of freedom societies. No argument there.

But there is something important missing from the book--and from Perle, Ledeen, et al. when they talk about supporting democracy.

What is to be done with those opponents of the fear societies who don't want freedom societies, who don't want progress, who don't value science, who don't believe in tolerance? What is to be done with those, who under the cover of "democracy" are actually advocating tyranny--who want to turn back the clock to the Middle Ages? That is, Islamist extremists who are poised to exploit "democracy-building" projects through the practice of "taqqiyeh"?

For example, what should Russia do about Chechnya? Sharansky does not discuss this. Yet is was the Chechen crisis that caused the collapse of the liberal democratic consensus in Russian politics. Given a choice between security and democracy, the population chose security--because "democracy" led to an Islamist extremist rogue state, governed by Sha'aria, tield to the Taliban and Bin Laden, that practiced kidnapping, drug-dealing, and oppression--and then launched attacks on neighboring Russian lands.

If an independent Chechnya turned into a disaster, eventually leading to the Second Chechen War, what might prevent a new state of Palestine from following that dismal path?

So, while convinced in principle that America should support democracy, helping those who seek to build a freedom society rather than a fear society, I think Sharansky and his advocates need to better work out some distinctions between those who are truly commited to democracy -- including the protection of minorities -- and those who might use it as a tactic toward seizing power, making matters worse than they are today.

Sharansky is well worth reading, and I'm glad Perle mentioned it. The book is well-written and thought-provoking. But it marks the beginning of a discussion, not the end.

Victor Davis Hanson: Bush Was Desperate After 9/11

Victor Hanson admits that Bush's "Democracy Revolution" agenda is a Hail-Mary pass born of fear and desperation:

Only democracy was new. And only democracy -- and its twin of open-market capitalism -- offered any hope to end the plague of tribalism, gender apartheid, human-rights abuses, religious fanaticism, and patriarchy that so flourished within such closed societies.

It was not just idealism but rather abject desperation that fueled the so-called neoconservative quest to try something new.

Hanson's confession rings true, yet reminds one that while necessity may indeed be the mother of invention, "abject desperation" does not always lead to the correct solution to any particular problem.

Not to quibble with Hanson, but neither democracy nor capitalism are new to the Middle East, and they are no guarantee against terror. For example, Lebanon had both, before it was destroyed in a calamitous civil war, a base for fanatics, extremists, terrorists, and so forth.

Inside the Pew Charitable Trusts

Martin Wooster takes on the big foundation's multi-million dollar lobbying campaign: "What is striking about this confession has less to do with campaign-finance reform--a bust anyway--than with the stealth politics of Pew and foundations like it. There are certain do-good entities, and Pew is one of them, that enjoy a charmed life: On NPR and in David Broder columns, to take a couple of leading indicators, they are treated as benign truth-tellers, so high-minded as to be beyond politics. But they are, naturally, as partisan as any 'special interest' could be."

Bush Wins Nobel Peace Prize (April Fool!)

In a surprise announcement, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has announced that George Walker Bush, President of the United States, has been selected to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005.

In its announcement, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited Bush's lifelong commitment to world peace, democracy, and human development. He was congratulated for swiftly sending two US Presidents to South Asia with Tsunami relief; overthrowing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein; increasing trade with Africa; supporting democracy in formar Soviet republics of Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan; and improving relations with the EU, Russia, and China. In addition, the Nobel Prize Committee said President Bush deserved special recognition for his work to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, noting "the American President's steadfast support for a Palestinian state living in peace with her Israeli neighbor."

President Bush will receive his award in Oslo this October from the King of Norway.

Instapundit on the Sandy Berger Scandal

Instapundit.com seems to think Clinton's former National Security Advisor is a crook who got off with a slap on the wrist: "So Berger stole, and destroyed, classified documents as part of a politically motivated coverup. Let's just be clear about that. Criminal penalties, aside, the man's career in public life should be over, and he certainly should never have access to classified documents again. Unfortunately, the penalty he'll actually receive looks rather light -- certainly lighter than most folks who stole and destroyed classified documents would undergo. That makes it all the more important that the details of his misbehavior get plenty of attention, and that they're remembered long-term."

House of Fools

Richard Perle's comment yesterday that he couldn't imagine anyone choosing slavery over freedom set me to thinking about Andrei Konchalovsky's stunning Russian dramaHouse of Fools. In the tradition of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) and King of Hearts, it has a different mentality. For in this film, the mad are not sane and the sane are not mad. Rather, the mad are really mad. The sane are really sane. But the situation and the suffering they face when put into each other's worlds is the conflict that makes the movie. What they have in common is their humanity. Mad and sane, Russian and Chechen, they are all human.

House of Fools is set during the first Chechen War (1996), in a small mental hospital on the border of the breakaway republic. As fighting nears, the doctor and nurse abandon the patients--a cross-section of the Russian public including everyone from dissidents to poets to Armenians and Muslims--ostensibly to find a bus in order to evacuate the hospital. Left to their own devices, the patients run amok. Then, the Chechens arrive, occupying the hospital. Some Russian troops follow, return a dead soldier, and sell the Chechens ammunition in exchange for drugs. The Chechen and Russian commander discover that they had been comrades-in-arms in Afghanistan, so the Russian lets the Chechen keep the dollars he had promised him ("for your mullah"). A beautiful and sensitive mental patient falls in love with one of the Chechen fighters, and tries to marry him--betraying her personal icon, Canadian singer Bryan Adams, to whom she has erected a shrine in her hospital room. (Canadians are saints, apparently, and heaven is a song and dance party on a passing train).

In the end, fighting resumes, so the wedding is not completed.

Then a band of Russians takes over the hosptital, chasing out the Chechens. Blood and death everywhere. The gates of the hospital are open, the patients could escape--but they decide to stay, and wait for the doctor to return. He does, and the patients remain in their "House of Fools," as the Russian soldiers leave.

What is striking about this film is that the Russian mental patients find life in the hospital is preferable to life outside. That is, where Jack Nicholson chooses freedom in Milosz Forman's film, Yulia Vsotskaya chooses to stay in confinement rather than go into the raging war between Russians and Chechens. The Russian hospital is a true asylum, a shelter from the violence and fear of the outside world. And while the American hospital is run by sadistic nurse Ratched, Dom Durakov's Russian hospital is commanded by a kindly doctor, who really does have his patients at heart.

So, whether one chooses freedom or security, it seems to me, depends on what is happening outside. Compared to the Chechen insanity, the mental hospital, as crazy as it is, is better. Now, it is pretty clear that the hospital is a symbol of the old USSR, the doctor leaving the collapse of the old system, the insanity that followed the chaos of the "bandit captialist" period, and the Chechen War--the Chechen War. The cast of characters is just so Russian--poets, dancers, dissidents, whores. The old saying that Russia has two problems--Roads and Fools--this is about the fools that are Russia,and humankind.

I can't recommend "House of Fools" highly enough. It is the Clash of Civilizations on a truly human scale. It is tragic, comic, and profound in turns. And should be required viewing for all "democracy revolutionists..."

Bush's plunge in polls

... tied to domestic issues - The Washington Times: " Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, Gallup also found that only 35 percent of Americans approve of his handling of Social Security, compared with 56 percent who disapprove. While other surveys show greater approval of the president's Social Security stance, he generally polls worse on domestic issues than foreign."

Bottom Line: Bush is squandering his second honeymoon on an unpopular domestic agenda. If he can't deliver, it may even weaken his hand in foreign policy matters, because weakness is contagious. My 2 cents: Bush should pick a couple of battles he can win.

Victor Davis Hanson Talks to Saudi Arabia

VDH's Private Papers has an interesting interview by Idris A. Ahmed, editor of Al-watan, a Saudi newspaper, where Victor Hanson contemplates the state of the world without the United States (something some people in Saudia Arabia might be praying for?)...

Roger L. Simon: Oil-for-Food Cover-Up?

Roger L. Simon: Mystery Novelist and Screenwriter suggests the Volcker report may be just that: "To my knowledge the committee has never gone to Nigeria, or anywhere in the developing world, to pursue its investigation. They have restricted themselves to the more comfortable venues of New York, Paris, London and Geneva. But the heart of Africa and the Middle East is where the information on Oil-for-Food can be found."

You Say You Want A Revolution...(II)

John Fund, in today's Wall Street Journal, calls for an uprising--against President Hillary Clinton, after she's elected in 2008...

More on Kofi Annan from Roger L. Simon

He's not happy that the media is reporting that Annan has been "exonerated:"

The NYT has a superficially stern but also superficially naive editorial on the Volcker Committee interim report this morning. They assert that the panel "largely exonerated Mr. Annan of personal corruption in the awarding of a contract to a company that employed his son." But that's not quite true. They must realize the committee found no evidence of such corruption so far. Quite a different thing. And the Times' writers (you can be sure this was a thoroughly vetted editorial) were also aware (it is briefly alluded to near the bottom of the editorial) that three years' worth of Oil-for-Food documents were shredded by Annan's deputy. You don't have to be Woodward and Bernstein to smell a rat here.

That they do not call for Kofi's resignation is also interesting. The Times itself moved quickly to change executive editors when it was found that a reporter, Jayson Blair, had fabricated stories. Yet Oil-for-Food, even at the level that it is currently understood, is far worse than a few made up tales. It concerns mass thievery, the starvation of children and the very nature of Security Council decision-making leading up to war. If this isn't a firing-offense, what is?

You Say You Want a Revolution...

Well, you know, we all want to change the world... (in the words of Lennon-McCartney).

This morning I heard Richard Perle, Michael Novak, Michael Rubin, Laurent Murawiec,and Michael Ledeen discuss the worldwide democratic revolution at the American Enterprise Institute, at a symposium called Is It a Revolution or What?. I'll give them credit for this, they seemed committed to the proposition that liberty is spreading throughout the world, thanks to the Bush doctrine. But one had to pause when Ledeen concluded the session with words from a dead Bolshevik: "It's not a revolution in one country, for those comrades who remember these things..."

You should be able to watch the whole thing by clicking the "video" link on the AEI website. Perhaps David Horowitz might be able to tell us precisely where the Bush Democratic Revolution fits into the Marxist-Leninist theoretical paradigm of "Permanent Revolution."

Unfortunately, as the grand words rolled on and on during the session, I couldn't help remembering the German Democratic Republic and the People's Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, not to mention Iran, which is officially a democracy.

At the seminar, Perle said he couldn't imagine people actually choosing slavery over freedom, but it has happened throughout history--especially when people fear for their safety and security. Unless America is very careful, there is a risk that some of today's "democrats" may develop into tomorrow's tyrants. You don't have to look far from home. For example, the United States supported Fidel Castro as a democratic reformer, against Batista, in the early days of the Cuban Revolution. And President Carter favored the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.

Remembering Harold Cruse

Today's New York Times has an obituary of the well-known author of The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual:

Harold Wright Cruse was born in Petersburg, Va., on March 8, 1916, and moved with his father, a railway porter, to New York City as a young child. After graduating from high school, he worked at several jobs but was ambitious to become a writer. He served in the Army in Europe during World War II.

After the war, he attended the City College of New York briefly but never graduated. In 1947, he joined the Communist Party and wrote drama and literary criticism for The Daily Worker, although he was never doctrinaire. In the 1950's, he wrote several plays, and in the mid-1960's he was co-founder, with LeRoi Jones (now Amiri Baraka), of the Black Arts Theater and School in Harlem.The more he learned about the arts, the more he deplored what he saw as a white appropriation of black culture, particularly as exemplified by George Gershwin's folk opera "Porgy and Bess." He called for blacks to embrace their cultural uniqueness.

His later books include "Rebellion or Revolution?", "Plural but Equal: A Critical Study of Blacks and Minorities and America's Plural Society" and "The Essential Harold Cruse: A Reader" edited by William Jelani Cobb with a foreword by Stanley Crouch.

Harold Cruse impressed me when he attended a symposium on the future of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities we organized in 1996 at New York University. He made a passionate and personal presentation, and permitted us to publish his text in our book, The National Endowments: A Critical Symposium. In our panel discussions, Cruse was intelligent, irreverent, and afraid of nobody. His very participation--at a time when we were being shunned by the intellectual and cultural establishment who would permit no criticisms of the cultural agencies--was a very much appreciated gesture.

His book Plural But Equal was not only thought-provoking and original, it probably will be read for many years to come. Interestingly, the writer who introduced his collected writings, Stanley Crouch, was also a member of our NYU symposium.

One didn't have to agree with everything he had to say, to agree that Harold Cruse said many things worth saying. It was a privilege to have met him.

Agustin Blazquez is Angry With His Local PBS Station...

Here's why, the Cuban-American filmmaker sent us a copy of his complaint:

Ms. Sheryl Lahti, Director of Audience Services

WETA Channel 26
2775 South Quincy Street
Arlington, VA 22206
703 998-3407
Slahti@weta.com

Dear Ms. Lahti,

On Saturday, March 26, 2005, while watching “Viewer Favorites” on your public television station, I was shocked and offended by the singer Eric Burton - formerly of the group “The Animals” – wearing a Che Guevara shirt while performing a song on a segment of your presentation.

As a Cuban American, as a writer and a filmmaker, I am acquainted with the Che as a mass murderer who executed, without trial, many Cubans at La Cabaña fortress in Havana as well as in the Sierra Maestra Mountains before 1959.

Below I enclose a recent open letter from the famous saxophonist Paquito D’Rivera to the famous guitarist Carlos Santana who sported a Che t-shirt while performing at the last Oscar Awards ceremony.

Below D’Rivera’s letter I am enclosing one of my published articles, this one about Che.

It is shocking that your educational public television station is not aware of Che’s criminal record and let pass such an insensitive and offensive display of disrespect to Che’s victims and the Cuban American community in the U.S. If Mr. Burton had worn a Hitler shirt, he wouldn’t have been presented – rightfully so - in order not to offend the Jewish victims and Holocaust survivors.

I think your public television station should apologize.

Sincerely,
Agustin Blazquez
Writer & filmmaker
Silver Spring, MD
ABIP.USA@verizon.net

cc. Michael Pack and John Prizer of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Paquito D’Rivera and various publications

When is a TV Ad not a TV Ad? When it's on PBS...

I had to laugh, once again, at The New York Times (login required) today, reading Nat Ives' article about PBS's non-commercial commercials, and coming across this:

The 15-second commercial for Chipotle, a Mexican restaurant chain owned by McDonald's, will accompany 'How to Cook Everything: Bittman Takes On America's Chefs,' on some 150 public television stations across the country. The program features Mark Bittman, a cookbook author who writes a column for the Dining section of The New York Times, which is a sponsor of the program.

In the story, the Times repeats PBS's claims that their ads are not ads. How come?

The Chipotle spots had to toe some very fine lines. For example, the guidelines allow people in the spots to consume a product as long as they do not appear to enjoy it overtly. So the producer instructed the actors in its pledge drive spoof not to look too thrilled.

Maybe the New York Times is becoming a humor magazine...

Terri Schiavo's Case is an Exception

Andrew McCarthy says that the facts are unusual: "It is not for nothing that we say bad cases make bad law. We have no reason to believe Terri's situation is more a paradigm than an aberration. For most husbands in Michael Schiavo's shoes -- anxious to get on with new lives and aware that a stricken wife's family was willing and able to take on the burdens of care -- we can reasonably hope that ending the wife's life would not become an obsession. Most men or women in Michael's circumstances would step aside. Many, if they'd entangled themselves in new relationships, would avail themselves of the ready legal framework for ending the marriage. Most spouses would not suddenly remember, seven years after the fact, that their partners had evinced a carefully considered wish to die rather than be sustained if they were ever to become incapacitated."

Is Kofi Annan A Crook?

That's the main question underlying Roger L. Simon's story on the UN's Oil-for-Food Investigation. Paul Volcker's report is scheduled for release tomorrow. Simon claims it shows that Annan may have been closer to his son's scandalous business activities than previously revealed.

The Future Belongs to Blogs

Says Roger L. Simon: Mystery Novelist and Screenwriter:

Let This Prediction Be True!

Buried several paragraphs down in an interesting World Peace Herald analysis of blog influence on the 2004 election is the following prediction by Scott Anthony:
...20 years from now, there will be an entirely new industry based on blogs. Just a few years ago, he noted, when eBay was launched, it was selling novelty items, such as Pez candy dispensers. Today, it is a major retail force that even sells automobiles.

Who's Scott Anthony, you ask? (I did.) He is the co-author of 'Seeing What's Next' (Harvard Business School Press, 2005), and a partner in Innosight LLC in Watertown, Mass. Let's hope he does - see what's next, I mean."

Bruce Thornton on "Dhimmitude"

From VDH's Private Papers
a review of Bat Ye'or's book on Islamism's triumph in Europe and aspirations in America : "As Ye'or documents, the key to Islamist terrorism is Israel, but not in the way most people think. For the jihadist mentality, Israel must be destroyed, if not by bombs and tanks, then by piece-meal concessions and sheer demography. It make take fifty years, it may take a hundred, but like the medieval Crusader kingdoms, this manifestation of the dynamic power of Western cultural ideals cannot be allowed to survive as a constant reminder of Islamic civilization's failure. Israel's war is our war, and until we forcefully assert that linkage in our public pronouncements and more important in our actions, everything else we do just buys some time, in which the forces of appeasement and the murderous energy of the jihadists will do their work."

James Q. Wilson: Living Wills Don't Help

From OpinionJournal : "But scholars have shown that we have greatly exaggerated the benefits of living wills. Studies by University of Michigan professor Carl Schneider and others have shown that living wills rarely make any difference. People with them are likely to get exactly the same treatment as people without them, possibly because doctors and family members ignore the wills. And ignoring them is often the right thing to do, because it is virtually impossible to write a living will that anticipates and makes decisions about all of the many, complicated, and hard to foresee illnesses you may face.

For example, suppose you say that you want the plug pulled if you have advanced Alzheimer's disease. But then it turns out that when you are in this hopeless condition your son or daughter is about to graduate from college. You want to see that event. Or suppose that you anticipate being in Terri Schiavo's condition at a time when all doctors agree that you have no chance of recovering your personhood and so you order the doctors to remove the feeding tubes. But several years later when you enter into a persistent vegetative state, some doctors have come to believe on the basis of new evidence that there is a chance you may recover at least some functions. If you knew that you might well have changed your mind, but after entering into a PVS you can make no decisions. It is not clear we would be doing you a favor by starving you to death. On the contrary, we might well be doing what you might regard as murder.

There is a document that is probably better than a living will, and that is a durable power of attorney that authorizes a person that you know and trust to make end-of-life decisions for you."

Egypt Will Test Bush's Democracy Policy

Kirk Sowell wonders if Egypt will mean triumph or tears for President George W. Bush (tip via Publius Pundit):

I say that Egypt, not Iraq, may be the democracy movement's toughest test because of the difference between the two countries. Iraq's most prominent religious figure, the Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has long been a genuine democracy advocate. So it is not so surprising that the United Iraqi Alliance, which ran with his endorsement, would show its democratic bone fides after winning an election, as they have now. But in Egypt the [Muslim] Brotherhood is by far the most powerful Islamist movement, and the most powerful and well-organized opposition group in the country. While the Brotherhood has renounced violence as a means of taking power in Egypt, they consistently push for Egypt to abrogate its peace treaty with Israel and go to war, and is brimming with enthusiasm for jihadism in the Al-Qaeda mode.

Of course, it is not certain that the Brotherhood would win. Mubarak might win a free election, and there is also a non-Islamist opposition movement whose most prominent leader, Ayman Nour, was recently released from prison. The belief that the Brotherhood can win is based largely on their repeated success in winning professional and student association elections (lawyers, teachers, etc.). But perhaps their organizational advantage would be less key in a national election. I will simply note that if there is a free election and the Muslim Brotherhood does win, the world could face its first democratically-elected terroristic government - since 1933.

Manzarali on Mark McGwire's Steroid Troubles

From This 'n' That: "Come on, Mr. McGwire. It's an easy question. If steroid use in major league baseball has already been determined to be illegal, why would it not be cheating? In other words, Mr. McGwire, it wasn't cheating in your heart and mind. But it's not too late. You still have time to become a true hero. And you don't have to be juiced to succeed. All you need is a clear conscience."

This Book Looks Interesting

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance...

Happy Easter

Here's a page of Easter links atEaster on the Net...

Not "Mission Accomplished" in Kyrgyzstan

Scraps of Moscow reminds us that it is too early to tell what will happen in the aftermath of the Kyrgyz revolution. Commenting on Daan van der Schreick's analysis in The Moscow Times, which argues that in the aftermath of the current revolt, Kyrgyzstan's 1990s-era experiment democracy may be viewed by leaders or neighboring countries as a cause of instability rather than an example to follow:

Probably this has idea has been mentioned elsewhere, but this is the first place I've seen it articulated in print. This sort of deflates the triumphalism I've seen on several US right-wing blogs, people crowing about the triumph of democracy. Sorry, guys, what happened in Bishkek is not really related to the 'liberation' of Iraq or to any US actions - in fact, I've seen reports that the US played on both sides of this game.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that the US supported the protesters, based on Ambassador Young's statements, as well as the way events played out. You could more reasonably conclude that Russia seems to have played both sides. But Lyndon's conclusion is worth thinking about:

As several more thoughtful bloggers have noted, the proof of the new government will be in the pudding - will we see democratic elections in the near future as promised, or will the opposition-turned-rulers get busy feeding themselves at the corruption trough, a rich tradition in the former Soviet space?

Easter Tourists Return to Jerusalem

From the San Jose Mercury News:

For people whose livelihood have depended upon the flow of tourists to Jerusalem's holy sites, the intifada, or Palestinian uprising, indeed has been a path of sorrows. Millennium celebrations at the start of 2000 helped bring more than 2.5 million visitors to Israel, perhaps half of them Christian pilgrims. After fighting broke out between Israel and the Palestinians in September of that year, that number plummeted, eventually falling nearly two-thirds.

The Israeli Tourism Ministry said visitors had increased about one-third over levels at this time last year, although numbers still lagged pre-intifada levels. The falloff in fighting over the past two months, though, reassured many people who had put off earlier travel. In Jerusalem, different faiths jostle up against one another every day, and [Good] Friday was no exception.

Washington Celebrates Walt Whitman

Today's Washington Post has an interesting guide to Walt Whitman's 10 years in Washington, DC, suitable for a walking tour. The article, detailing where he lived and worked from 1863-1873--military hospital, Department of the Interior, Attorney-General's office, and so forth-- begins with this verse from Leaves of Grass:

But each man and each woman of you I lead upon a knoll,

My left hand hooks you round the waist,

My right hand points to landscapes of continents, and a plain public road.

-- Walt Whitman, untitled version of 'Song of Myself' in 'Leaves of Grass,' 1855

The boarding houses he slept in have been torn down, but the government office buildings remain. There is a move to rename the street in front of the National Portrait Gallery after Whitman...

Bad Democracies, Good Dictatorships

Curzon considers the paradoxes of democratization in the light of the Kyrgyz crisis:

Clarrifying policy between good, established democracies and bad, corrupt dictatorships is easy. Regime change in France would be silly; regime change in Turkmenistan would be most welcome. But what we increasingly see is a messy choice between good and bad democracies. In an age where democracy is fetishized by politicians and NGOs alike and where the EU, the US, and the UN require third world countries to hold elections before the recieve aid, the emerging challenge for policymakers is to recognize when democracies are dysfunctional and when dictatorships are enlightened.

Robert Conquest on Democracy

From The National Interest (via TheRussianDilettante):

Another aspect of premature 'democracy' is the adulation of what used to be and might still be called 'the city mob' (noted by Aristotle as ochlocracy). In France, of course, in the 1790s, a spate of ideologues turned to the Paris mob, in riot after riot, until the 18th Brumaire, Napoleon's coup of 1799. The ploy was that, as A. E. Housman put it, a capital city with far fewer inhabitants could decide the fate of the country's millions.

That democracy is not the only, or inevitable, criterion of social progress is obvious. If free elections give power to a repression of consensuality, they are worse than useless. We will presumably not forget that Hitler came to power in 1933 by election, with mass and militant support. The communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 was effected by constitutional intrigues backed by 'mass demonstrations.' We need hardly mention the 'peoples' democracies' and the 90 percent votes they always received.

As to later elections, a few years ago there was a fairly authentic one in Algeria. If its results had been honored, it would have replaced the established military rulers with an Islamist political order. This was something like the choice facing Pakistan in 2002. At any rate, it is not a matter on which the simple concepts of democracy and free elections provide us with clear criteria.

Herb Meyer Was Right

According to thisYahoo! News Report: Kyrgyzstan President Resigns.

Putin to Visit Israel

According to the BBC, Vladimir Putin will make his first visit to Israel at the end of April, a sign of improving relations between Moscow and Tel Aviv. (Though I doubt he'll pay a call on fugitive Yukos executives living there--unless he pardons Khodorkovsky, first).

How Do You Build Democracy?

Daniel Pipes worries President Bush may have the wrong theory of democracy-building:

The theory implied here is that running for office – with its emphasis on such mundane matters as fixing potholes and providing good schools – will temper Hezbollah and Hamas.

Count me skeptical.

The historical record does not support such optimism. When politically adept totalitarians win power democratically, they do fix potholes and improve schools – but only as a means to transform their countries in accordance with their utopian visions. This generalization applies most clearly to the historical cases (Adolf Hitler in Germany after 1933, Salvador Allende in Chile after 1970) but it also appears valid for the current ones (Khaleda Zia in Bangladesh since 2001, Recep Tayyip Erdog˘an in Turkey since 2002).

The Latest on the Crisis in Kyrgyzstan

Can be found on Nathan Hamm's Central Asian website: Registan.net...

Tony Blair's Revenge...

DG Mark Thompson will sack over 5,000 people at the BBC, says The Guardian:

More than one in five BBC staff now face losing their jobs as further details of director general Mark Thompson's radical revamp emerged yesterday, including the loss of 1,500 jobs in programme-making divisions such as news and sport.

Initial estimates of up to 5,000 job cuts are being hastily revised upwards by broadcasting unions, which are threatening strike action if compulsory redundancies are enforced.

Including jobs that will be lost as a result of redundancies, the outsourcing of some roles and the sell-off of commercial divisions such as BBC Broadcast and BBC Resources, up to 6,000 jobs are now expected to go in the biggest ever cull of staff at the corporation.

Why Dictatorships Fall

The riots in Kyrgyzstan led us to this article. Former CIA operative Herbert Meyer explains why dictatorships fall, in this interesting article I found at Publius Pundit. It is based on his work with Bill Casey in fighting the USSR in the Reagan administration. About current events, he is sanguine. He says Kyrgyzstan will go the way of the USSR because the generals won't shoot their own children. I don't know, there is a lot of regionalism in Kyrgyzstan, and although not a perfect democrat, Akayev really wasn't a dictator. Plus the question of Islamic extremism is a factor that needs to be considered, since instability can open the path to a fundamentalist takeover--viz., the Shah of Iran.

In addition, I saw Akayev on Russian television for the Moscow State University Anniversary celebrations (he's an alumnus of MGU), so I think the Russians might have something to say about what happens next. They didn't do anything in the Ukraine, but that isn't a guarantee they will do nothing now. Do they have the troops? Well, there are 25,000 Russian soldiers in Tajikistan.

It is always hard to make predictions, as Sam Goldwyn might have said, especially about the future...

Jeff Jacoby on Why America Ought Not Torture Terrorists

From The Boston Globe:

THE CONVENTION Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United States ratified in 1994, prohibits the torture of any person for any reason by any government at any time. It states explicitly that torture is never justified -- ''no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification for torture.' Unlike the Geneva Convention, which protects legitimate prisoners of war, the Convention Against Torture applies to everyone -- even terrorists and enemy combatants. And it cannot be evaded by ''outsourcing' a prisoner to a country where he is apt to be tortured during interrogation.

In short, the international ban on torture -- a ban incorporated into US law -- is absolute. And before Sept. 11, 2001, few Americans would have argued that it should be anything else.

Catherine Johnson on Terry Schiavo

From Roger L. Simon: Mystery Novelist and Screenwriter: "Terri Schiavo's parents have hope that their daughter's functioning can be improved or perhaps one day cured with treatment, therapy, and emerging knowledge. They may be right, they may be wrong. Or they may be ahead of their time, because one day brain damage will be repairable. That's my bet. In the meantime they choose to love and care for their daughter.

"Her legal husband chooses to starve her to death.

"If he starved his dog, he'd be arrested."

Buckley on George Kennan

William F. Buckley reminds us that not everyone admired George F. Kennan, who died last week at the age of 101. Here's his waspish farewell from National Review Online.

RAND Reports LAX Lines Terrorist Targets

I stood in one of these incredibly long lines at LAX (and finally understood why everyone I met in LA hates Bush). A RAND corporation study and a GAO report confirms what I thought while standing on the side of the road for half an hour, inhaling fumes (luckily it was sunny, a beautiful day in Southern California)--Long lines of people waiting to get to their flights can attract terrorists.

Here's the Los Angeles Times story. Money quote: "Long lines at airports are 'the single greatest vulnerability that we have in the domestic U.S. at the moment,' said aviation consultant Billie Vincent, a former Federal Aviation Administration security chief. The General Accounting Office released a report this week that said heightened screening procedures and truck-sized explosives-detection machines in airport lobbies — added after 9/11 — had created crowds that put passengers at risk. 'In the '70s, gangs in Europe entered airports and machine-gunned and killed people,' said Stephen Van Beek, policy director for Airports Council International-North America. 'Terrorists know if they did that today, it would be highly publicized.'"

BTW, A number of people missed flights due to the long lines and security hassles, so had to try to fly standby, and then one didn't even get on my flight, which was full, so he had to wait for the next one. Not too good for business or the LA tourist industry, I thought. And I wondered, after the humiliation of taking off my shoes, and my jacket, and taking my laptop out, and so forth: Whatever happened to constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, don't they apply to air travellers?

David D'Arcy's Last Moments at NPR

From an account by Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times:

A short time later, Rehm again called D'Arcy — this time with a lawyer listening in — and read him a termination notice, which said in part: "In reporting on this subject basic editorial standards of journalism were overlooked such as presenting the facts in a fair and balanced way. In addition the museum was not given an opportunity to respond to the harsh criticism raised in the piece."

D'Arcy's editor at "All Things Considered," Tom Cole, was suspended without pay for one day. Rehm, D'Arcy said, told him that "Cole agreed with all the criticisms and had showed the appropriate remorse."

Wolfowitz on the 60th Anniversary of Victory in WWII

Found something on the web from the US relating to the 60th Anniversary of Victory in WWIIand it is by Paul Wolfowitz!

Elie Wiesel teaches us that we must speak about unspeakable deeds, so that they will be neither forgotten nor repeated. Most of all, he offers personal witness to all humanity that in the face of the most horrific oppression, there is always hope that the goodness of the human spirit will prevail.

That is the larger meaning of why we gather here today. We’re here to reflect on the magnitude of the occasion, how totalitarian evil claimed millions of precious lives. But just as important, the member nations attending today are affirming their rejection of such evil and making a statement of hope for a more civilized future, a hope that “never again” will the world look the other way in the face of such evil.

For if there is one thing the world has learned, it is that peaceful nations cannot close their eyes or sit idly by in the face of genocide. It took a war, the most terrible war in history, to end the horrors that we remember today. It was a war that Winston Churchill called “The Unnecessary War” because he believed that a firm and concerted policy by the peaceful nations of the world could have stopped Hitler early on. But it was a war that became necessary to save the world from what he correctly called “the abyss of a new dark age, made more sinister … by the lights of a perverted science.”

This truth we also know: that war, even a just and noble war, is horrible for everyone it touches. War is not something Americans seek, nor something we will ever grow to like. Throughout our history, we have waged it reluctantly, but we have pursued it as a duty when it was necessary.

America may need more of this sort of remembrance, along with restoration of the WWII alliance, to win the global war on terror.

Will Russia Tilt Towards Israel?

Mark Katz thinks so, writing in Middle East Quarterly, and says Chechen terrorists are one reason for Putin's move:

But what has motivated Putin to make this choice? Putin's history indicates a deep, emotional commitment to defeating the Chechen rebellion. He denies that the Chechen rebels have any legitimate basis for complaint against Moscow and refuses to negotiate with them. Putin does not appear to doubt the rightness of his hard-line policy toward Chechnya, even in the face of international outrage. Sunni Islamists see Russia as being as much of an enemy as the United States and Israel. European leaders criticize Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya. Even at the height of Russian collaboration with "Old Europe" to block United Nations approval for the U.S-led intervention in Iraq, French president Jacques Chirac raised the issue of Russian human rights violations in Chechnya while hosting Putin at a Paris banquet. After the September 2004 Beslan tragedy, the Russian foreign ministry "reacted with outrage" at the implied criticism of Moscow's policy in an EU statement asking "the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened." Very few have given the unequivocal support for Putin's Chechnya policy that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has.

Sharon, who is fluent in Russian, has established a genuine bond with Putin. Both share a similar mindset about their Muslim opponents: they are terrorists with whom there can be no negotiation. Both Putin and Sharon use force against opponents they believe undeserving of sympathy, and both share a bond formed by their resulting vilification in the West.

While Sharon is not the first or only Israeli official to express sympathy for Russia's Chechnya policy, Sharon's key role in the improvement of bilateral relations is suggested by the improvement under his watch. Prior to Sharon's accession, Putin was content to leave the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the hands of the strongly pro-Palestinian Russian foreign ministry. Only after his first meeting with Sharon in September 2001 did Putin's pro-Israel tilt emerge.

Wyman Institute's Letter to C-Span

Here's the letter from Rafael Medoff to C-Span, about the Deborah Lipstadt-David Irving case:

Connie Doebele, Executive Producer, Book TV, C-SPAN 2 or booktv@c-span.org

Dear Ms. Doebele:

On behalf of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, I am writing to express our opposition to your reported decision to broadcast a lecture by Holocaust-denier David Irving, to "balance" your intended broadcast of a lecture by Holocaust historian Prof. Deborah Lipstadt.

We support Prof. Lipstadt's refusal to participate in this project. Falsifiers of history cannot "balance" historians. Falsehoods cannot "balance" the truth. Justice Charles Gray of the British Royal High Court of Justice, in his verdict on April 11, 2000 dismissing Irving's libel suit against Prof. Lipstadt, concluded that Irving "is antisemitic and racist" and ruled: "Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."

Just a few weeks ago, we concluded Black History Month. Presumably C-SPAN did not consider broadcasting a program about Black history that would be "balanced" by a program featuring someone denying that African-Americans were enslaved. C-SPAN should not broadcast statements that it knows to be false, nor provide a platform for falsifiers of history, whether about the Holocaust, African-American history, or any other subject.

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies recently issued its second annual report on Holocaust-denial around the world. It found that Holocaust-denial is a real and growing problem, and continues to be actively promoted in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere, and in some cases enjoys government sponsorship. If C-SPAN broadcasts a lecture by David Irving, it will provide publicity and legitimacy to Holocaust-denial, which is nothing more than a mask for anti-Jewish bigotry.

We strongly urge you to cancel your planned broadcast of the Irving lecture, and to proceed with your original plan to broadcast Prof. Lipstadt's forthcoming lecture at Harvard University.

Cordially,

Rafael Medoff, Ph.D.

Director, The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies

I noticed a number of anti-semitic callers on C-Span the last time I tuned in, and wondered it were just chance, or a problem with C-Span's staff--either insensitivity or something worse.

Now, I think it may be something worse. Which is a shame, because C-Span had been the best channel on TV for many years. I don't know if Brian Lamb was not paying attention, or if this reflects the unfortunate effect of the literary world's trendy anti-semitism.

Where's the Outrage?

In his Boston Globe column, Jeff Jacoby asks for a better response to torture allegations.

Another Reason to Like Victor Davis Hanson

This article on insane Bush-hatred:

So what gives with this crazy popular analogy — one that on a typical Internet Google search of “Bush” + “Hitler” yields about 1,350,000 matches?

One explanation is simply the ignorance of the icons of our popular culture. A Linda Ronstadt, Garrison Keillor, or Harold Pinter knows nothing much of the encompassing evil of Hitler’s regime, its execution of the mentally ill and disabled, the systematic cleansing of the non-Aryans from Europe, or mass executions and starvation of Soviet prisoners. Like Prince Harry parading around in his ridiculous Nazi costume, quarter-educated celebrities who have some talent for song or verse know only that name-dropping “Hitler” or his associates gets them some shock value that their pedestrian rants otherwise would not warrant.

Ignorance and arrogance are a lethal combination. Nowhere do we see that more clearly among writers and performers who pontificate as historians when they know nothing about history.