Roger L. Simon on the UN Scandal

Roger L. Simon writes:

Well, I am sorry Mr. Goldstone but I am actually amazed you would put your name publicly to such nonsense (next time I would advise speaking, as did your female cohort from the committee, on 'condition of anonymity' or some such). Why am I so sure this is nonsense? Because I have known personally about Parton's disaffection from the committee for over a month - that is long before the committee made its interim report and therefore long before Parton, Duncan or anyone else had 'completed their work.' Indeed, I had learned some time ago that somewhere around or about March 11 Parton had already tried to resign, but then was presumably persuaded to stay on or talked out of it by other members of the committee. What promises were made to him at that time about the 'thoroughness' of the investigation I do not know, but I strongly suspect they were trashed within weeks or even days after having been made.

And I would be willing to testify about what I do know under oath. How about you, Mr. Goldstone? Oh, I'm sorry again., You were only testifying as to your 'understanding.' You're safe behind your weasel words. Smear Parton and Duncan. Smear Mouselli. Smear anybody you want to defend kleptocracy at the United Nations. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe you. Or believe your committee's final report. We would be idiots.

Rice on Echo Moscow Radio

The transcript of her interview is online at MOSNEWS.COM. Here's an interesting question and answer about American support for democratic revolutions in the former USSR:

ECHO MOSKVY: What is better, the export of democracy, or the export of socialist revolutions? You probably know that at the beginning of the last century there was a concept of exporting revolutions from the USSR. Now is the United States exporting democracy?

RICE: No, there are very serious differences, historical differences, and from the practical point of view there is no necessity to export democracy. The people themselves feel that they want to have those freedoms that you get from democratic development. If you ask people whether they want to be able to say what they want to say, whether they want to practice whatever religion they chose, whether they want the freedom to educate their children, girls and boys, whether they want to be free from that knock on the door from the secret police, the people will say, yes, of course we want this. And that is why there is no need to export democracy or to implement democracy from above. People must be given the opportunity to freely express their wishes. And they will choose democracy, and so here I think the old terminology about exporting democracy has gotten old.

ECHO MOSKVY:Then what is the role that the U.S. plays in the processes we witness now on the former Soviet territories, I mean the so-called velvet revolutions in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine? Did the U.S. play any role there? What was it?

RICE: The U.S. role only involved us saying that people have a right to control their future, that democracy should develop worldwide and that the U.S. and the EU supported civil society and NGO’s in those places. But the people of these countries took steps towards freedom deliberately, this is important, and I hope the Russian people will see that the U.S. does not want to restrict Russian influence in these countries. We actually see the situation not as a game where someone loses and someone wins, but as a game where everybody can win, when flourishing and economically developed countries evolve around Russia. I think this is a game with no losers.

ECHO MOSKVY:There is an opinion that Ukraine, Georgia and now Azerbaijan, where you are for some reason establishing military bases, have become areas where Russian and U.S. interests collide. The U.S. have arrived where the USSR, Russia, the Russian Empire used to have its interests. This is seen as a challenge.

RICE: I’d like to point out what I see as a difference between a 19th and 21st century view of these regions. We know about your historic, cultural, economic contacts of the Soviet period and earlier that of the Russian Empire. But a modern pattern of interaction is based on mutually beneficial contacts — in trade, economy, politics. There is no reason for Russian influence in these regions to diminish, if it’s based on transparent and beneficial contacts. What’s more, we do not regard ourselves as a country that wants, as you said, to take Russia’s place. We are not trying to overtake a zone of Russian influence, what we want is a free economic and trade development zone. Both the U.S. and Russia should maintain good relationships with these countries. And considering the geographical factor, Russia is bound to maintain a very close relationship with them.

Ann Coulter's Family Album

You can't read the article without paying Time, but a slide show of Ann Coulter's family album is available to the public at TIME: Right From the Start Photo Essay. It's pretty interesting to look at family photos from New Canaan, Connecticut as well as high school and college portraits. It shows that Ann is really a nice girl--but she is too thin, and now it's time for her to settle down, get married and raise some kids (look at the expression her eyes in the snapshot of Ann with her mother Nell).

More on Putin's New Cossacks

...correcting an earlier post here, from The Russian Dilettante's Weblog:

Not only did Bolsheviks abolish the Cossack estate, which was natural as the old, antiquated estate system had to be put to rest. They literally abolished -- killed that is -- a large number of Cossacks (with help from the poorer Red Cossacks); many others were resettled. This policy was known as 'De-Cossackization' (raskazachivanie); it peaked during the Civil War and the Collectivization.

'Cossacks' once described communities of those who had moved out or escaped from Muscovy and Poland-Lithuania to live a life of robbing and farming in the huge steppe area in-between the sedentary agricultural Ruthenia and its various neighbors, including the unpleasant steppe nomads. Russians slowly but surely colonized the steppe and closed in on their troublesome neighbors in the South and the South-East, leaving less space for the Cossacks' highwaymanship. The Russian Cossacks then stroke a bargain with Moscow, promising to perform military service, as frontier guards in particular, in return for a degree of self-government. Turns out I have written about them before. But keeping in mind the Civil War of 1918--1922 and the Collectivization, I doubt if many of the inhabitants of Russia's traditionally Cossack areas are descended from pre-1917 Cossacks. Are we going to see a new Cossack estate emerge when Russian rebels and misfits stream down south and all the way to the Far East, Russian borders in need of protection more than ever since 1700?

In any case, I still think Putin's New Cossacks might present a p.r. problem for a country that is supposed to be moving forward into the modern, democratic, era. Sounds like a throwback to the days of the Tsar...

Power Line on the Bolton Controversy

Thanks to Roger L. Simon's interesting discussion of the Bolton affair, where he compares the pathetic charges against Bolton--getting big play in major media--with serious charges against the UN--being downplayed in major media--I clicked on Powerline's analysis, called Senate Slanderfest to Continue.

Yes, it is like Clarence Thomas, and yes, for Bolton to be confirmed the Republicans will need to stop trying to rush the nomination through and instead make time their ally. Each charge certainly can be fully discussed--and each witness against Bolton fully discredited. What I've seen so far is only lukewarm support from Republicans on the committee, while Democrats have been in attack-dog mode. The Republicans employ a disgruntled former staffer for Bolton on the Senate Foreign Relations committee--which may indicate something. Lugar simply has been offering weak support, not strong support. Why? We don't know. He may have some problems with Bolton himself.

The point is, Bolton may or may not be a jerk, but many effective trial lawyers are jerks, and if they are good in the courtroom, nobody cares if they scream at people or throw things.

BTW, Bill Clinton and Hilary are both notoriously difficult to work for. Henry Kissinger was a notorious "serial abuser" of his employees (to use lobbyist Carl Ford's term). Dick Armitage himself has a reputation for being high-strung.

Perhaps the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might take a look at the entire corporate culture at the State Department--and read all the grievance reports filed in the last year into the Congressional testimony, to put the charges in Bolton's office into some perspective.

Finally, I hope we hear the whole story about the USAID grant dispute which got Bolton into the Kyrygyzstan fray. How does it come about that a "Republican" political consulting firm like Black, Manafort hires the head of the Dallas chapter of "Mothers Against Bush" on a project? Let's open up the USAID grant process in democracy-building (obviously a failure in Kyrygzstan, given recent events) to public scrutiny--in the interests of transparency and good government. It might prove embarrassing to the Republicans who got the USAID contracts in question, but such a fresh look might prove useful in fixing some of the very serious problems the US is facing with public diplomacy around the world.

We're in a Global War Against Terror, aren't we?

Jewish Leaders Untroubled by Pope Benedict XVIth's Nazi Past

According to Haaretz : "[Rabbi David] Rosen believes that Ratzinger's German background has shaped his attitude toward Israel and the Jews. "It is a significant factor in his understanding of the evil and danger of anti-Semitism," he says. "It is certainly a factor in his positive commitment to Catholic-Jewish relations. He is conscious of the burden of history."

[World Jewish Congress chairmain Israel] Singer, who is also chairman of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC), dismisses fears that have been expressed in some quarters - in Israel and in the Jewish world - over Ratzinger's membership, as a boy, in the Hitler Youth. 'At that time, every child was forced to be a member of the Hitler Youth,' says Singer, who recently met Ratzinger at the funeral for Pope John Paul II."

Rice to Keep an Eye on Khodorkovsky

Reuters reports on the Putin-Rice meeting: "Rice, on her first visit to Moscow as Washington's top diplomat, also said the United States would be watching the outcome of oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky's trial 'to see what (it) says about the rule of law in Russia'. A Moscow court is to hand down a verdict in Khodorkovsky's fraud trial on April 27."

Kyrgyzstan Story Delays Bolton Confirmation

From CTV.ca:

Democrats on the committee said they were continuing to receive fresh allegations of Bolton behavior that was imperious or worse.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the panel, read from what he said was a letter from a U.S. Agency for International Development worker in Kyrgyzstan who alleged Bolton harassed her - not sexually - while he was in private practice representing a company.

'She's prepared to provide an affidavit. The letter she sent in, and I'm going to just take a second here, it says, `When I was dispatching a letter to AID, my hell began. Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel, throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door, and genuinely behaving like a madman. I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton then routinely visited me to pound on the door and shout threats.''

The committee's delay was a surprise, coming after the White House expressed fresh support for Bolton and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid all but conceded the nomination would be cleared for a floor vote.

Handicapping Bolton's chances of confirmation in advance, Reid said it was possible Democrats would try to block it if Republicans pushed ahead with their plans.
The committee's decision left the timetable unclear, but a two-week delay seemed to be the minimum that could be expected.

Well, let's get this out in the open and have some hearings of the "He said, she said," kind--Kyrgyzstan in the news again. From the letter, I'd say it doesn't really look like Bolton did anything terribly bad--but who knows? The hearings might be the "Tulip Revolution" meets "Anita Hill." I hope that at the hearing we'll find out exactly what the alleged crime Bolton's accuser allegedly might have gone to prison for, relating to USAID contracts, really was...

We might remember that Clarence Thomas was confirmed after far more embarrassing charges had been levelled.

New Pope's Books Now Bestsellers

Book sales soar for new pope reads the headline in the San Diego Union. You can click on the link for some of his titles...

10 Years After Oklahoma City

A decade later, the bombing of the Oklahoma CIty Federal Building seems a trial-run for the terrorist attacks that were to strike New York and Washington a few years later. At the time, those who sought to connect Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols's actions to Middle Eastern terrorists were dismissed as fantasists--although one of these individuals was one of McVeigh's lawyers. (Here's the preface from Stephen Jones' book, OTHERS UNKNOWN: TIMOTHY MCVEIGH AND THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING CONSPIRACY.)

Over time, eyewitnesses to "John Doe Number 2" were discredited, links between Elohim City and Arab terrorism were ignored, and President Clinton went so far, at the time, to blame talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh for a "climate of hate" that motivated McVeigh and Terry Nichols--even though McVeigh declared the proximate cause of his attack was Clinton's own seige of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, as well as his sympathy for Iraqi victims of American bombing during the Gulf War.

One thing is perfectly clear, as President Richard M. Nixon used to say: Timothy McVeigh did not become a terrorist because of a lack of democracy in the United States. Those who argue that Bush's democracy revolution will stop terrorism might ask themselves--why didn't American democracy stop McVeigh and Nichols?

They could have written letters to their congressmen. Instead, they blew up innocent men, women, and children. That's why the events of April 19, 1995 might be seen as a dress rehearsal for the dreadful terror attacks of September 11, 2001...

Who Was Pope Benedict XV?

Why did the new Pope choose the name Benedict? Perhaps because he wanted to link himself with this predecessor. You can find some information about Pople Benedict XV, who led the Vatican during WWI, at this website. As a German, from Bavaria, Ratzinger is no doubt well-aware of the after-effects of the collapse of the Habsburg Empire due to the Great War...

Victor Davis Hanson on the Papacy

From VDH's Private Papers::A Pope for All Seasons: "A strong pope--as in the case of John Paul II, who boldly opposed Soviet totalitarianism--can provide a bulwark for an agnostic European culture at large increasingly adrift. A caretaker pontiff will only worsen the continent's disturbing lack of confidence in its own origins and once hallowed values.Apart from his political skills, language fluency and vitality, the pope was a man of letters who still believed in what he could not prove by physical evidence. Thus he reminded all of us that reason and faith are not incompatible but are symbiotic and were always at the heart of our very culture. So John Paul II was a powerful reminder that intellectuals can pray, while churchgoers should cultivate the mind. And at this late age, at this troubled time, he was thus a rare gift out of the long past to a now increasingly uncertain West.

"Atque in perpetuum, pater, ave atque vale."

Rice in Russia

According to this story by Peter Lavelle, Rice will be conciliatory towards Russia during her visit to Moscow this week. That's bad news for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Americanizing businessman who faces 10 more years in jail -- unless Bush pressures Putin to release him.

Lavelle says Rice is a "dove" when it comes to Russia, while Bush is a "hawk." On the other hand, he says Bush will defer to Rice's experience when it comes to Russian policy.

Based on my Moscow experience, it sounds like a fair description of what's going on. Though, according to Mosnews.com, Rice has already raised issues of press freedom and democracy:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed concern over press freedom in Russia.

En route to Moscow for negotiations with the Russian President Vladimir Putin, she said the Kremlin’s tightening grip on power and Russia’s pliant media are “very worrying,” Reuters reported.

“Trends have not been positive on the democratic side,” Rice told reporters. “The centralization of state power in the presidency at the expense of countervailing institutions like the Duma (parliament lower house) or an independent judiciary is clearly very worrying. The absence of an independent media on the electronic side is clearly very worrying.”

Earlier, Reporters Without Borders asked Rice to raise the question of press freedom in Russia during her negotiations. In an open letter to Rice, the organization noted serious threats to press freedom in Russia. Journalists in Russia are being subjected to a rising spiral of violence with many suffering brutal attacks, the letter said.

So maybe she'll remember to say something about letting Khodorkovsky go... My real hope for improved relations depends on whether the Russians manage to persuade the Secretary of State to play some Tchaikovsky piano concerti for Putin.

Bad News on Afghan Radio

Also in The Moscow Times, this Reuters report: "KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Afghanistan's Taliban guerrillas launched a clandestine radio station on Monday, broadcasting anti-government commentaries and Islamic hymns from a mobile transmitter. Called 'Shariat Shagh,' or Voice of Shariat, after the station the Taliban ran while in power, the broadcast can be heard in five southern provinces, including the former regime's old power base of Kandahar. 'We launched the broadcast today through a mobile facility,' said Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi, speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location."

Personal Diplomacy in St. Petersburg

The Moscow Times reports that the American Consul in St. Petersburg has donated his collection of African art to a Russian museum,

...saying that he wanted to give treasures from his days in Cameroon and Burundi to a city where he had experienced his happiest professional moments.

U.S. Consul General Morris Hughes, 59, who is set to retire and leave his post Tuesday, delivered his African collection to the city's Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, or Kunstkamera. 'These things are a part of my life in diplomacy,' he said at a ceremony marking the donation. 'And I'm glad that this part of my home will belong to the museum.'

Hughes gave the museum about 50 objects of everyday African life, such as a drum, a vessel for beer and a mask. He said he had collected the objects during his six years of diplomatic service in Cameroon and Burundi.

Michael Rubin on Iraq

Writing in Middle East Forum, Michael Rubin says the US Government is turning the Iraqi government--and people--against us; continuing to occupy Saddam Hussein's palaces, taking sides in local political disputes, as well as turning a blind eye to stealing by Allawi's cronies...

Putin's Challenge for Russia

Leon Aron analyzes the Russian leader's strategy for his nation:

Whatever else history's verdict on the Putin presidency may be, his regime has proved an important diagnostic tool for uncovering, or confirming, several systemic illnesses of Russia's body politic--as well as its healthy segments capable of withstanding the centripetal pressures.

Some of the institutional deficiencies and vulnerabilities that provided targets of opportunity for the authoritarian project stem from constitutional ambiguities and incomplete or absent laws, including those governing elections to both chambers of the federal assembly and regional governorships. In other cases, such as the post-Soviet legal system, the laws are explicit and adequate, yet they are ignored and subverted because of society's indifference or the absence of effective mechanisms of societal control over implementation.

At the same, although often weakened, restricted, and subverted by the authorities, a number of institutions bequeathed by the 1991 revolution have proved resilient. They include relative freedom of speech, press, and demonstrations, and a general tolerance of opposition and dissent--all of which have proved indispensable in the last sixteen months for the victorious pro-democracy mobilizations in the proto-authoritarian societies of Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. In Russia's case, these liberties are rooted in the 1993 constitution, which, although in obvious need of clarifying amendments, is nevertheless far from outliving its usefulness.

In the end, an institutional analysis of Russian politics reveals a contradictory system engaged in a dangerous balancing act. Such incoherence cannot be sustained for long. Either the regime must evolve toward full-blown 'classic' authoritarianism that succeeds in dismantling all the key democratic structures--or there will be a reaffirmation and renewal of the revolutionary legacy of the division of powers, freedom of all media, judicial independence, and the separation of power and property.

Will Bolton's Kyrgyzstan Past Bring Him Down?

A former USAID worker, Melody Townsel, knows Bolton from Kyrygyzstan--and doesn't like him, either. Here's her letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as found on the Daily Kos.:

I'm writing to urge you to consider blocking in committee the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.

In the late summer of 1994, I worked as the subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan officially awarded to a HUB primary contractor. My own employer was Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, and I reported directly to Republican leader Charlie Black.

After months of incompetence, poor contract performance, inadequate in-country funding, and a general lack of interest or support in our work from the prime contractor, I was forced to make US AID officials aware of the prime contractor's poor performance.

I flew from Kyrgyzstan to Moscow to meet with other Black Manafort employees who were leading or subcontracted to other US AID projects. While there, I met with US AID officials and expressed my concerns about the project -- chief among them, the prime contractor's inability to keep enough cash in country to allow us to pay bills, which directly resulted in armed threats by Kyrgyz contractors to me and my staff.

Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began.

Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.

When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.

He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor's replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I'm not).

When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks -- with the direct intervention of US AID officials -- to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID's appoinment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated.

As a maligned whistleblower, I've learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.

John Bolton put me through hell -- and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn't just unforgivable, it was pathological.

I cannot believe that this is a man being seriously considered for any diplomatic position, let alone such a critical posting to the UN. Others you may call before your committee will be able to speak better to his stated dislike for and objection to stated UN goals. I write you to speak about the very character of the man.

It took me years to get over Mr. Bolton's actions in that Moscow hotel in 1994, his intensely personal attacks and his shocking attempts to malign my character.

I urge you from the bottom of my heart to use your ability to block Mr. Bolton's nomination in committee.

Respectfully yours,

Melody Townsel
Dallas, TX 75208

The atmosphere of the USAID project sounds right, but it's not clear who's to blame, either. Apparently, from her own account, Townsel got another job in Kazakhstan, in a "leadership position," so her career doesn't seem to have suffered from the confrontation. But still, any time Central Asia is in the news, it's interesting. I wonder why Bolton reportedly said Townsel was headed to prison and then nothing happened? From this and other stories it is beginning to look like Bolton's bark may be worse than his bite...

Who is Bolton's accuser? I googled "Melody Townsel" and came up with this from KERA, the PBS station in Dallas: "Melody Townsel is a single mother of a four-year-old girl, and an entrepreneur who runs Townsel Communications, an independent communications consulting firm. Townsel is a native Texan who has lived and worked as a journalist and a public relations executive in 22 countries." (Why does there always seem to be a PBS connections?)

Here's The NY Times account of Towel's charges:

Ms. Townsel, identified as active in a group opposed to President Bush, was interviewed by the committee last week, but it was not clear how much the committee would try to make of her charges. Responding to her accusation, Edwin Hullander, who was executive vice president of International Business and Technical Consultants Inc., the firm that employed Mr. Bolton as counsel, said he had not heard of any such incident happening until Ms. Townsel's recent accusation. He said he had checked with two people who were there at the time who were also unaware of it, and who said they believed they would have heard about a confrontation if it had occurred.

And here's The New York Sun version :

The latest accusations of abuse aimed at the president's nominee to be America's ambassador to the United Nations come from a self-described "liberal Democrat" who in 2004 helped organize the Dallas chapter of "Mothers Opposing Bush."

BTW, take a look at this long list of IBTCI's current projects around the world. It still seems to be a big USAID contractor.

New Plays from Ancient Greece

The Independent reports that Oxford scientists using infra-red technology have opened up the "Oxyrhynchus Papyri," a collection of ancient Greek plays, previously unreadable. They've already translated four scripts, and more are in the pipeline. Authors include Sophocles, Euripides, Hesiod, Lucian, Archilochos.

Some serious competition for Tony Kushner and his kind, just in time, IMHO. The Independent wonders if this discovery might lead to "a second renaissance." More here and here. (Thanks to Artsjournal.com for the tip)

Mark Steyn on John Bolton's "Disloyalty to His Subordinates"

In The Chicago Sun-Times: "If the Senate poseurs and the media wanted to mount a trenchant critique of Bolton's geopolitical philosophy, that would be reasonable enough. But there's not even a pretense of any of that. Instead, his opponents have seized on one episode -- an intelligence analyst in a critical position with whom Bolton and others were dissatisfied -- and used it to advance the bizarre proposition that every junior official should be beyond reproach, and certainly beyond such aggressive ''body language'' as putting one's hands on hips. Or as Peter Beinart, editor of the New Republic, complained to the BBC the other night: Bolton was ''disloyal to his subordinates.''
It's been obvious for three years now that the torpid federal bureaucracies -- the agencies that so comprehensively failed America on 9/11 -- are resistant to meaningful reform, but Beinart, in demanding that the executive branch swear fealty to the most incompetent underling, distills the ''reform'' charade to its essence: We'll talk reform, we'll pass reform bills, we'll merge and de-merge and re-merge every so often, we'll change three-letter acronyms (INS) to four-letter acronyms (BCIS) just to show how serious we are, and a year or four down the line we may well get real tough and require five-letter acronyms.
But in the end we believe underperforming bureaucrats in key roles should be allowed to go on underperforming until retirement age. And, if you happen to show you're just the teensy-weensiest bit upset with one of them, we'll blow it up into a month of hearings on TV." (Thanks to Roger L. Simon for the link...)

Safe Driving Tip: Buy a Silver Car

The New Scientist reports that studies show silver cars are twice as safe as the average automobile, while black, brown or green vehicles have twice the number of accidents.

Was Heritage Foundation Chief on the Take?

In fallout from the Tom DeLay investigation, Tom Edsall, in today's Washington Post reports that payments to a Hong Kong based consulting firm co-founded by Ed Feulner, Heritage's president, led to a change in thinking about Malaysia at the Washington think-tank. The story appears to be based on documents from the Jack Abramoff Indian tribes investigation:

For years, the Heritage Foundation sharply criticized the autocratic rule of former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, denouncing his anti-Semitism, his jailing of political opponents and his 'anti-free market currency controls.'

Then, late in the summer of 2001, the conservative nonprofit Washington think tank began to change its assessment: Heritage financed an Aug. 30-Sept. 4, 2001, trip to Malaysia for three House members and their spouses. Heritage put on briefings for the congressional delegation titled 'Malaysia: Standing Up for Democracy' and 'U.S. and Malaysia: Ways to Cooperate in Order to Influence Peace and Stability in Southeast Asia.'

Is think-tank work funding-driven across the political spectrum? You betcha. On the other hand, this story is interesting because it implies personal business ventures affected policy priorities for a non-profit.

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...