Public broadcasting producers and bureaucrats aren't happy. A forum for producers in New York last year erupted in shouts and general rancor against the Tomlinson regime. One producer even complained that a new documentary series on terrorism amounted toCPB asking him to ``do the bidding of the Pentagon.''
Where will it end? Some press critics, most recently Jack Shafer of the online magazine Slate, have revived calls to privatize public broadcasting once and for all. But that's unlikely: We've been there before. Even those Republican congressmen fretting about bias like having CPB dollars flowing into their districts.
Others, me included, predict confidently that public broadcasting will survive, though perhaps a bit more boringly than before, if such a thing is possible.
The Moscow Times also has a nice online photo essay.
As an orchestra struck up a triumphant march, the parade started on the square with a procession of cadet drummers and standard-bearers. They were followed by formations of soldiers wearing World War II-style uniforms and carrying insignias symbolizing the different military units that fought in the war. The formations included sappers carrying mine detectors and leading sniffer dogs on leashes; tank men in black uniforms and padded headsets; and infantrymen brandishing long Mosin rifles with bayonets.
As the cavalry passed by the viewing stands, the orchestra muffled its music to avoid scaring the horses, although some still shied nervously on the granite cobblestones.
A total of 7,000 soldiers participated in the parade.
When legendary wartime polutorka trucks entered the square, thousands of war veterans wearing shiny medals leaped to their feet in the reviewing stands. Veterans sitting in the trucks waved red carnations as tears ran down their cheeks. Putin smiled back at them, his own eyes red with tears. Ivanov, his eyes also watery with tears, applauded and pressed his hands over his breast.
Of the foreign dignitaries, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi cheered the veterans most enthusiastically. Japan's Koizumi was most reserved. 'His stern face meant that he was expressing respect,' a spokesman for the Japanese delegation, Akira Chiba, explained later.
As the trucks rolled through the square, 12 fighter jets -- in two formations of nine and three planes -- screamed overhead, painting the sky with red, blue and white smoke to form the national flag.
(Tbilisi, April 13, 2005)--Since the 'Rose Revolution'that brought a new government to power in 2003, the Georgian authorities have failed to end widespread torture of detainees in the criminal justice system, Human Rights Watch said in a briefing paper released today.The government hasn't adequately grappled with torture...The 27-page briefing paper, 'Georgia: Uncertain Torture Reform' describes the ongoing impunity for torture, a problem that persists despite some government measures taken to combat it.
The briefing paper documents how the new government's campaigns against corruption and organized crime led to new allegations of due process violations, including torture and ill-treatment. It also details the measures the government has taken to combat torture. These include outside monitoring of police stations and steps to improve police professionalism, particularly in the collection of evidence.
The briefing paper details several cases of torture, including cases that highlighted problems associated with the new plea-bargaining system that the current government enacted last year. Law enforcement officials used the plea-bargaining system to cover up allegations of torture, promising lower penalties to defendants who agreed to the officials' version of events, which did not include the allegations of police abuse. Officials asked for monetary payments in exchange for releasing the defendant from custody.
When someone called to strike up a stirring military march for a parade through central Moscow, hardly anyone ever imagined it would be 'The Stars and Stripes Forever.' Or that the Stars and Stripes itself, hoisted aloft by an Army sergeant, would lead the U.S. Army Europe Band up the Russian capital's main thoroughfare, past cheering crowds, to greet a train full of Russian war veterans.The Russian Army band played "The Holy War," a number from World War II. Some lyrics: "Rise up, great country/ Rise up for mortal combat/ Against the dark fascist force,/ Against the damned horde!"
'I've met every president. I've met hundreds of kings and queens. But marching through Moscow behind three of my soldiers carrying the American flag is pretty much the highlight of my career,' said Lt. Col. Thomas H. Palmatier, commander of the Army band, which came here along with President Bush and other U.S. officials to help mark the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. 'We played inside the Kremlin walls! We played 'The Stars and Stripes Forever'
Six decades later, this memory and the solidarity our people showed are still important to us. And we need a clear-sighted, lucid attitude to the lessons of war, in connection with the danger of contemporary threats.
There should be no illusions: the ideas of fascism and racial superiority still persist. They are still very strong and may, by setting nations on to fight and by duping people, lead to a new catastrophe.
Similar ideas lie at the base of extremism and terrorism, which the modern world has already encountered. And they are just as ruthless as Nazism. Understanding this, we must strengthen cooperation in the war on this evil, which genuinely threatens civilisation.
I am certain: the international community has every capability for this. A resource of cooperation has already been built up. There is an understanding of the need to prevent new dangers together. And together to oppose them.
Without exaggeration, a recognition of this was earned by suffering in the period of the Second World War. It was strengthened and built up as we emerged from the era of global ideological confrontation. And it is required once more, in our times, during the formation of the international anti-terrorist coalition.
(Thanks to Artsjournal.com for the link)
Pull the $390 million federal plug on the PBS parent and the local stations, -- and force some change. If the old shows have a following, find a way to put them online, then spend that federal money more wisely by helping hook up poor households to broadband Web service.
Experiment with video blogging, podcasting and cellphone transmissions, where all media must eventually go if they want a future audience. The public is finding its voice in ways that have little to do with old concepts of public television, and the medium needs to change radically to survive.
Or not. Local stations could stick with the formula that generates 85 percent of funding and make it work. Unhook the federal tether and use local donors' money to serve the local area. The people, as individuals or foundations, already give most of the money. They should feel at least half of the programming is generated locally and aimed straight at them. If local stations want to buy national programming, they would use their membership and local foundation and university money to seek material from providers rejuvenated by new competition.
The counterarguments have become as old as the programs. This nation will not be funding public television with European-style dollars anytime soon. A new tax on other media to better fund PBS is about as likely as Howard Stern hosting 'NOVA.'
It is time to search for new ideas rather than hunker bitterly behind the old ones.
Even as the Air Force prepares to prevent the clouds from raining on the Victory Day parade, there is one cloud that is likely to hang conspicuously over the head of President Vladimir Putin.If Putin seriously wants more American investment, he might want to let Khodorkovsky go.
While the president plays host to world leaders on Monday, his country's most high-profile prisoner, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, will be awaiting a verdict a week later in a case seen as a turning point toward greater Kremlin dominance over political and economic life.
Prosecutors have called for a maximum, 10-year sentence for Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev, and their lawyers have said they expected no leniency on May 16. Some observers, however, have said they would not be surprised by a reduced sentence of five years.
Thus Victory Day, appropriated for Putin's private use, has become a tool for settling international scores.
The Russian people, veterans included, have no place in the festivities. This was made abundantly clear not long ago by Nikolai Kulikov, a Moscow city government liaison with law enforcement agencies. 'Our hope is that the weather will be conducive to traveling out of the city and that the majority of Moscow residents will leave for their dachas.' Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov later attempted to correct Kulikov's tactless statement by asserting that millions of Muscovites would join in the festivities. Never mind that they'll only be able to 'join in' on the outskirts of the city. Metro stations in the city center will be closed on May 9, and road traffic within the Boulevard Ring will be severely restricted. The organizers have also made it as difficult as possible for people to reach the Bolshoi Theater, a traditional meeting place for war veterans. On May 8, Putin will meet with a group of heavily vetted veterans; those without special passes will be turned away. On May 9, Pushkinskaya will be the closest working metro station to the Bolshoi Theater, meaning that vets in their 80s will have to walk about two kilometers to meet up with their comrades-in-arms.
This is not simply a matter of bureaucratic incompetence in the mayor's office and the presidential administration. The Victory Day celebration plans clearly demonstrate the Kremlin's desire to exclude the people from this most popular of holidays. And they seem to have succeeded. Russians were indignant when the Latvian president made a scornful remark about veterans here celebrating Victory Day by setting out dried fish and vodka on a sheet of newspaper. Well, that's exactly what's going to happen because, as it turns out, the leadership of this country treats its veterans with equal disdain. Masking this disdain with speeches and drum rolls doesn't change a thing.
845 Third Avenue
Maybe there'll be something I can write about in the Times today? I thought as I headed for the computer, and there it was on the front page of the online edition: a building where I used to work, its lobby windows shattered by a bomb. 845 Third Avenue, between 51st and 52nd Streets, is a high-rise office building that houses the British consulate, so the attack must be connected to today's election. It was jolly decent of that Brit, though, to set it off at 3:50 am when no one would be hurt. The bomb consisted of two toy grenades -- one of them the size of a pineapple -- filled with gunpowder.
I worked there from September 1977 to September 1979, reading manuscripts for a literary agency. It was a schizoid agency -- on one hand its clients included Norman Mailer and Garry Wills and a mob of successful genre writers, and on the other hand it charged reading fees to amateurs. I've calculated that I read 3,500 manuscripts there in five years (there had been an earlier stretch at a different address), typing a million words a year. The outside world did not know that the reading fees paid the agency's overhead; the legitimate stuff was all gravy.
I was one of the half-dozen 'fee men' who read who skimmed two or three full?length books each working day and, for each book, pounded out a 2,000-word rejection letter containing various proportions of formulaic advice, sarcastic or sincere consolation, genuine craftsmanly evaluation, and false encouragement. We sat in a white room the size of a smallish bedroom, divided into six cubicles, each with a heavy battleship-gray IBM Selectric that, under our abuse, needed a new ribbon every week or two and frequent oilings and alignments. That was where I learned to pour out copy. I had got the job straight out of college by taking a test consisting of reading a Western short story -- cunningly crafted to include every possible literary and marketing flaw -- and writing a letter to the author. I got the job despite the fact that I couldn't type, and by necessity I got my speed up to 100 words a minute with four fingers . . .
Ahead of the world leaders' visit to Moscow, Russian diplomats and lawmakers have sought to justify the Kremlin's refusal to condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, arguing that the treaty was dissolved by Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.I'm not a diplomat or a historian, but I'd say Bush may be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory here. Does he really want to get into a fight over this issue? America's record isn't perfect, either. First, the US itself stayed neutral until December 7, 1941 as Hitler smashed his way across Europe. American companies such as Ford and Standard Oil did business with the Nazis during this period. Second, the US refused to open a second front until June 1944, after Russia had bled considerably to stop the Nazis, bearing the brunt of the fighting, and England had been almost crushed by the Blitz. Third, the US agreed to the division of Europe at Yalta, a very sore point among Polish-Americans at the time. Finally, the USSR renounced the pact already.
Also, since the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet in 1991 denounced the treaty's secret protocols that detailed the carve-up of Poland and the occupation of the Baltic states, another denunciation is not necessary, Pikayev said.
Sergei Yastrzhembsky, Putin's envoy to the EU, said that Russia would not apologize to the Baltic states either. Soviet troops were not occupiers but welcome liberators, he said.
His comments were echoed by Federation Council member and last Soviet Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov, who said that the Baltic countries 'should be grateful' for Soviet occupation. These countries 'should themselves apologize' for the fact that some of their residents fought on the German side in the war, Interfax reported him as saying.
Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin conducted a thorough review of progress toward their shared goal of a stable, secure, integrated and undivided democratic Europe. They agreed that the end of military confrontation, ideological conflict, and division of the Euro-Atlantic region into opposing blocs has created an historic opportunity for all of its peoples. They emphasized their determination to cooperate closely to ensure that in the future, all peoples of the Euro-Atlantic region shall enjoy the benefits of a stable, just and peaceful order.
. . . yeeesss that horrid rat slime bag, adolph hitler and his mistress eva braun died in that bunker in berlin as the ussr RED army troops were closing in on him,, he shot her and then took poison,,, his S S men then set fire to them out side of the bunker,!!!! in a dirt ditch. as the RED ARMY took over all of Berlin... and all the nazi troops gave UP !!!! P S. brieuc ,, the RED army WON ww2,,, i say that loud and clear !!!!!!!!! if it was not for the RED army,,,, we will still BE in NORMANDY... au revoir,, bon soir, MEL . . .
After I entered the camp over the wall, I was not able to see the confinement area, and had no idea where it was. My vision was obscured by the many buildings and barracks which were outside the confinement area. The confinement area itself occupied only a small portion of the total camp area. As I went further into the camp, I saw some men from company I collecting German prisoners. Next to the camp hospital, there was a L-shaped masonry wall, about eight feet high, which had been used as a coal bin. The ground was covered with coal dust, and a narrow gage railroad track, laid on top of the ground, lead into the area. The prisoners were being collected in the semi-enclosed area.You can read more about Sparks in his biography, Sparks: The Combat Diary of a Battalion Commander (Rifle, WWII, 157th Infantry Regiment, 45th Division, 1941-1945) by Emajean Jordan Buechner.
As I watched about fifty German troops were brought in from various directions. A machine gun squad from company I was guarding the prisoners. After watching for a few minutes, I started for the confinement area. After I had walked away for a short distance, I hear the machine gun guarding the prisoners open fire. I immediately ran back to the gun and kicked the gunner off the gun with my boot. I then grabbed him by the collar and said: 'what the hell are you doing?' He was a young private about 19 years old and was crying hysterically. His reply to me was: 'Colonel, they were trying to get away.' I doubt that they were, but in any event he killed about twelve of the prisoners and wounded several more. I placed a non-com on the gun, and headed toward the confinement area.
It was the forgoing incident which has given rise to wild claims in various publications that most or all of the German prisoners captured at Dachau were executed. Nothing could be further from the truth. The total number of German guards killed at Dachau during that day most certainly not exceed fifty, with thirty probably being a more accurate figure. The regimental records for that date indicate that over a thousand German prisoners were brought to the regimental collecting point. Since my task force was leading the regimental attack, almost all the prisoners were taken by the task force, including several hundred from Dachau.
During the early period of our entry into the camp, a number of company I men all battle hardened veterans, became extremely distraught. Some cried, while others raged. Some thirty minutes passed before I could restore order and discipline. During that time, the over thirty thousand camp prisoners still alive began to grasp the significance of the events taking place. They streamed from their crowded barracks by the hundreds and were soon pressing at the confining barbed wire fence. They began to shout in unison, which soon became a chilling roar. At the same time several bodies were being tossed about and torn apart by hundreds of hands. I was told later that those being killed at the time were "informers." After about ten minutes of screaming and shouting, the prisoners quieted down. At that point, a man came forward at the gate and identified himself as an American soldier. We immediately let him out. He turned out to be Major Rene Guiraud of our OSS. He informed me that he had been captured earlier while on an intelligence mission and sentenced to death, but the sentence was never carried out.
The long, festive brunch would evolve into preparations for dinner, when my parents' best friends and relatives would start to arrive. Uncle Yasha, Dad's best friend, began the war as a soldier in the people's militia, which was called up to defend Moscow when the Germans were on the outskirts of the city.
They were given one rifle, made in 1896, and a few bullets to share among five soldiers. Clearly, they were intended to defend Moscow with their bodies, as the majority of them did. Uncle Yasha survived, however, and was in Lithuania when the final victory came four years later.
Now aged 89, he feels even sicker than he already is when he hears from the Baltic states about the memorial erected to the soldiers of the Wehrmacht and the SS veterans marching the streets there.
The 60th anniversary of Victory Day, which Moscow will celebrate with much fanfare next Monday, along with some 56 visiting heads of state and other dignitaries, has nothing to do with my old folks. My 84-year-old mother was given an envelope with 1,000 rubles ($35) and a gift -- a cheap duvet that can hardly comfort her, dying as she is from cancer. The money is less than the price of the medical procedure she needs each day.
Uncle Yasha received the same 1,000 rubles, plus two wristwatches. Why two? He doesn't know, but he laughs: 'Two watches are exactly what I need right now, seeing as I've one foot in the grave.'
None of them even received a simple thank-you postcard from the president -- or anyone else, for that matter. (At least, 10 years ago, a card signed by Boris Yeltsin arrived in each veteran's home.)
Of course, next week's celebration is not about those who fought on the front lines defending the country. It is about the regime, whose best grandchildren are back in charge.
There is now a growing convergence between the US analysis and mine, but there are still important differences. While throwing the spotlight on local and regional jihadi organizations, the State Department's analysis still fails to see them in the larger context of the role of the International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People. It projects the ideologies of the local organizations as inspired by that of al-Qaeda and fails to take note of and analyze the impact of the Deobandi ideology of the Pakistani jihadi organizations on the thinking of bin Laden and his organization.
In my assessment, the birth of the concept of a global jihad against the US and Israel could be traced to the Binori madrassa of Karachi; and the role of Ramzi Yousef of Pakistan and other perpetrators of the explosion at the New York World Trade Center in February 1993 in the spread of this concept has not been adequately analyzed by Western, Israeli and Australian experts. The New York explosion of February 1993 was the first shot in this global jihad and the preparations for it were made in the Binori madrassa and not in any set up of al-Qaeda.
It is surprising that these experts, who often tend to over-focus on the writings and statements of the late Abdullah Azam, have paid so little attention to the interview given by an unidentified leader of the HUM (then known as the Harkat-ul-Ansar) to Kamran Khan of the News of Islamabad in February 1995, which was carried by the paper under the title Jihad World-Wide. This interview contained a detailed account of the role of the HUM in the jihad in the southern Philippines. Kamran Khan subsequently came out with another investigative report on the efforts of Ramzi Yousef to export jihad to Saudi Arabia.
The repeated mistakes in analysis of the US could be attributed to the inclination of its experts to make their analyses suit the political agenda of their leaders, thereby failing to read the writing on the wall. Unless and until there is adequate self-correction, one cannot rule out a repeat of the terrorist attacks in the US, Bali, Mombasa, Casablanca, Madrid, etc.
Finally, the fourth installment of the series COVERING CUBA by the acclaimed filmmaker team of Agustin Blazquez and Jaums Sutton is available in a limited Special Edition DVD , exclusively through CubaCollectibles.com.
This limited Special Edition DVD features COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below. This 105-min. documentary exposes to the American people how the mighty power of a corporation influences the U.S. government - in this case the corrupt Clinton administration - and brings tragedy to an innocent child and everyone else in the way, using the Gold Rule of power, money and greed.
It is a fascinating story of intrigue and deceptions that the U.S. media censored because of the economic and political leverage of this corporation that sponsors many of the leading political programs on the major TV and Radio networks.
It is a story kept hidden because of the prevalent U.S. media dislike for a minority group in America.
It is a story of secret corporate manipulation of the U.S. government, the media and the American people creating support for their corporate greed, all while staying hidden just under the surface.
Mrs Flegel said that after Hitler's suicide, Goebbels took over as leader, but no-one paid any attention to him.
'His last subordinates shot themselves in succession,' she said. 'And those who didn't shoot themselves tried to flee.'
She said she remained, however. 'I had to look after the wounded.'
In the newspaper interview, Mrs Flegel described the atmosphere in the bunker as the noise of approaching Soviet forces grew.
'You could feel that the Third Reich was coming to an end,' she said. 'The radios stopped working and it was impossible to get information.'
Mrs Flegel added that when the Soviet troops arrived, they were well-behaved and advised her to lock her door.
She said she stayed for several days, and was one of the last people to leave the bunker.
On the morning of May 2, 60 years ago today, Russians soldiers poked their head round the bunker's entrance.You can read the full transcript here.
"By this stage there were only six or seven of us left in the bunker," Ms Flegel said. "We knew the Russians were approaching. A [nursing] sister phoned up and said, 'The Russians are coming.'
"Then they turned up in the Reichschancellery. It was a huge building complex. The Germans were transported away."
Ms Flegel insists that the Russians she had encountered treated her "very humanely", despite the mass rape of German women by Russian soldiers elsewhere in the city. They had a "look round", discovered the bunker's underground supplies, and then left, she said, advising her to lock her front door.
The Red Army allowed her to continue work as a nurse for the next few months, treating wounded Russians, until she ended up in the hands of the US Strategic Services Unit, one of the precursors of the CIA.
Ms Flegel said her "interrogation" by the Americans in November 1945 was little more than an informal chat over dinner. "They invited us to have dinner with them and treated us to six different courses in order to soften us up. It didn't work with me, though."
Ms Flegel's testimony - including her conviction that Hitler was dead, an important statement for the victorious allies - was deemed sufficiently important that it remained classified.
The censored sections include recommendations that the American military modify their checkpoint procedures to give better and clearer warning signs to approaching vehicles.
The official Italian report on the incident expected to be published this week will accuse the American military of tampering with evidence at the scene of the shooting.
The Americans invited two Italians to join in their inquiry, but the Italian representatives protested at what they claimed was lack of objectivity in presenting the evidence and returned to Rome.
Relations between Rome and Washington remain tense.
Allah's will is done.
That's how it's supposed to go. The beheading Fred witnessed went off a little differently. The executioner botched the job.
'I don't know if the prisoner had a short neck or he just jerked funny when they jabbed him in the back, but the blade glanced off his shoulder and only cut through half his neck,' Fred said.
'He fell over sideways,' he said. 'I never saw so much blood. It was squirting out all over the place from the gash in his neck. He started moaning. It was awful. Even though he was doped to high heaven, it must have hurt like hell. It took two more swings to hack his head off.'
'When it was over, I'll be damned if a doctor didn't walk over to the body and check his pulse,' Fred said. 'It was weird, seeing him kneel down next to a headless body, holding the wrist to make sure he wasn't going to get up and walk away.'
While walking in the countryside, two Uzbeks and two Kyrgyz fell in a hole. "I'll give you a hand up," the younger Uzbek said to the older. "Then, when you're on solid ground, you can pull me up." The older man agreed, the Uzbeks freed themselves and then went on their way.
The two Kyrgyz men looked at each other grimly, and one began climbing out of the hole on his own. "Hey, you can't do that," yelled the other man, pulling on his companion's legs. "If you get out, I'll be alone and stranded."
Putin's State of the Nation address:Ahhh, Civilization--the love that dare not speak its name...
A good speech overall, but it must be about some other country in a parallel world. I'm going to pick one bit that I know all Russia-watchers in Blogistan will get exercised about.
Also certain is that Russia should continue its civilising mission on the Eurasian continent. This mission consists in ensuring that democratic values, combined with national interests, enrich and strengthen our historic community.
Judging by the context, Putin is talking about Central Asia. Russia shooting itself in the foot again... Here's why. First, 'civilizing mission' gab is hopelessly pass?. Nobody cares about the mission; instead, you'll get branded a racist, imperialist, neo-Kiplingian and whatnot. Even Americans, out on a mission in Iraq, don't dare to call it by its proper name.
We are happy to announce the public airing of an important new documentary telling the story of Japanese diplomat Chiune Sugihara. The documentary is called "Sugihara: Conspiracy of Kindness." The Visas for Life Project has been working with film producers Rob Kirk and Dianne Estelle for the last several years. We congratulate Dianne and Rob for their years of hard work.
As you may know, Chiune Sugihara was the first diplomat depicted by the Visas for Life: The Righteous and Honorable Diplomats Project. The Visas for Life Project was happy to introduce Sugihara's rescue story to the United States in January 1995.
The documentary has had some wonderful reviews, including the Wall Street Journal and an upcoming article in US News and World Report.
We believe this is one of the best documentaries ever produced on diplomatic rescue during the war. Several Sugihara family members, including his widow Yukiko Sugihara, are interviewed in this moving documentary. Many Sugihara survivors are also interviewed. One is Ben Fischoff, of New York, who helped finance the film.
A particularly moving segment of the Sugihara documentary was taken at Mir Yeshiva in Jerusalem, Israel, during the April 1998 Visas for Life Project tour of Israel. As you may know, Sugihara issued more than 300 visas and saved an entire Jewish religious academy from destruction by the Nazis. Many of the former students and teacher pay tribute to Mrs. Sugihara.
The documentary will be shown as part of the 60th anniversary commemoration of the end of World War II, and as a part of Yom Hashoah at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.
Please mark your calendars and watch this remarkable documentary honoring one of our courageous diplomats. Also, please pass this information along to your family and friends.
On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers in 13,000 businesses across the United States walked off their jobs in the first May Day protest in history. Within a few years, the fight was won. But, in the early part of the 20th century, the US government, recognizing May Day's galvanizing potency, tried to curb May 1 celebrations and their radical resonance by establishing an alternative: Labor Day, a holiday devoid of historical significance--but one offering a paid day off!
Did you see that picture in the paper this week? It was the same day as the announcement that Sir Elton John was to wed Mr David Furnish, and just above it was a touching portrait of an obviously smitten younger man gazing soulfully into the eyes of a portly bespectacled older man as they strolled hand in hand through a field of blooming bluebonnets. Unfortunately for my blood pressure, the spooning couple were not Sir Elton and his betrothed but Crown Prince Abdullah and George W. Bush. The Saudi strongman was yet again visiting the Bush ranch at Crawford, which is bad enough, but this time the President couldn't keep his hands off him. The guy had barely touched down and Bush was purring, 'Hey, what say we step into the yard and shoot the big love scene for Michael Moore's next crockumentary'
At such moments, it's like September 12 over again. It's at least three years since I first argued that ranch breaks should be reserved for America's real friends -- Tony Blair, John Howard-- and not for a regime which has very successfully exported its civil war to the rest of the world. The Saudis are under a lot more pressure than they were back then -- hence Abdullah's feints towards faux 'reform'. Nonetheless, only the other day the chief justice and big Abdullah sidekick was captured on video urging Saudi men to go to Iraq and fight the Americans -- and still the Crown Prince gets ranch privileges from Bush. Someday his prince won't come, I hope. When I called for the President to give the Saudi royals the finger, this isn't exactly what I had in mind.
Read the whole thing.
Estela had the right to make her documentary, and taxpayer-funded PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts had the right in 1993 to sponsor the POV broadcast and now this New York Times pro-Castro film festival in New York City to show it. But being free in the U.S., I also have the right to criticize this dishonest piece of pro-Castro political propaganda.
There is nothing like freedom. One day, not far in the future, I hope, Cubans will enjoy freedom in Cuba in spite of the efforts of collaborators like Estela Bravo.
Put together, these connections add up to a quiet political and military Russian penetration of Middle East forces close to the fringes of power in a way that will not arouse too much attention in Washington, but will at the same time provide Moscow with an inside track to regional developments and jumping-off points for broader penetrations.
This careful balancing act was aptly illustrated just before the Putin trip in an announcement by foreign minister Sergei Lavrov that Russia would begin withdrawing its troops from Georgia by the end of the year. This step came after a long period in which the Kremlin ignored demands from Washington and Tbilisi to eliminate the Russian military base in the former Soviet republic. But, when combined with a Russian initiative to gain a stronger foothold in the Middle East, this step signaled a tit-for-tat deal whereby Moscow would pull back from a key Caucasian region in Washington's favor while pressing forward in the Middle East. This deal will most certainly figure high on the agenda of the Bush-Putin summit next month.
In the war on terror, cooperation between Moscow and Jerusalem is more sparing than Israel would like. The Russians command a rich fund of intelligence on the Arab world, the Palestinians and al Qaeda's activities in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf and Iraq. Moscow has cut Israel out of its counter-terror loop for a reason. Gone are the days of late 2001 and early 2002 when, in the aftershock of the 9/11 attacks, Putin collaborated fully with Bush on data that helped the American-led coalition successfully invade Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda. These days, the Kremlin plays its cards very close to its chest. Jerusalem's bid for intelligence-sharing with Moscow was rebuffed in early 2004 when the Russians indicated they were open only to one-way traffic from Israel, but offered nothing of value in exchange.
Another important dimension of Putin's Israel visit comes from his attitude to the ex-Russian community. While most Israeli institutions and media treat Russian citizens as new immigrants to be absorbed in the overall fabric of society like all previous waves of newcomers, for the Russian president they are not ex-Russians but expatriates, exemplars of Russian culture, art, sport, language and education. Putin does not see a million Russian-speaking Israelis, but the largest Russian minority in the Middle East, which must be fostered, protected and sponsored. He is personally in regular contact with several Israel-Russian business figures and he rates these connections as highly as any political ties.
After a friend was beaten because she'd exposed an inch of her wrist while checking the size of underwear in the market, Munvara decided that she'd had enough and headed up to Mazar-i-Sharif, beyond Taliban control, to find a way out of the country. "I vowed that I would not go back so long as there was a Muslim government in Afghanistan," Munvara said, her body taught with fury.
Her husband, also a refugee, put his hand on her knee, then turned to me and cracked, "Islam, Islam, Islam. You can't imagine how tired we are of hearing about Islam."
The National Gallery of Art is suspending its school tours for the next academic year as part of a general reevaluation of its educational programs. The guided tours served 34,000 students last year.
So Frederick Vreeland's opposition to Bolton, which is being promoted as a non-partisan critique by a "former colleague," throws the issue of Bolton's nomination into stark relief. John Bolton stands for a certain set of opinons and values, which mirror those of President Bush: he doesn't think America is to blame for terrorist attacks; he doesn't think the U.N. is morally superior to the U.S.; he thinks the job of an American diplomat is to advance the interests of the United States, not other countries; and he sees neither virtue nor advantage in treachery toward American allies, especially Israel. Bolton's enemies hate him because of these values and opinions, not because he lacks the suave manners of the State Department clique that, for decades, has gotten everything wrong about the Middle East.
The culture of the people who were called "rednecks" and "crackers" before they ever got on the boats to cross the Atlantic was a culture that produced far lower levels of intellectual and economic achievement, as well as far higher levels of violence and sexual promiscuity. That culture had its own way of talking, not only in the pronunciation of particular words but also in a loud, dramatic style of oratory with vivid imagery, repetitive phrases and repetitive cadences.
Although that style originated on the other side of the Atlantic in centuries past, it became for generations the style of both religious oratory and political oratory among Southern whites and among Southern blacks--not only in the South but in the Northern ghettos in which Southern blacks settled. It was a style used by Southern white politicians in the era of Jim Crow and later by black civil rights leaders fighting Jim Crow. Martin Luther King's famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 was a classic example of that style.
While a third of the white population of the U.S. lived within the redneck culture, more than 90% of the black population did. Although that culture eroded away over the generations, it did so at different rates in different places and among different people. It eroded away much faster in Britain than in the U.S. and somewhat faster among Southern whites than among Southern blacks, who had fewer opportunities for education or for the rewards that came with escape from that counterproductive culture.
Nevertheless the process took a long time. As late as the First World War, white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi scored lower on mental tests than black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. Again, neither race nor racism can explain that--and neither can slavery.
The redneck culture proved to be a major handicap for both whites and blacks who absorbed it. Today, the last remnants of that culture can still be found in the worst of the black ghettos, whether in the North or the South, for the ghettos of the North were settled by blacks from the South. The counterproductive and self-destructive culture of black rednecks in today's ghettos is regarded by many as the only "authentic" black culture--and, for that reason, something not to be tampered with. Their talk, their attitudes, and their behavior are regarded as sacrosanct.
The people who take this view may think of themselves as friends of blacks. But they are the kinds of friends who can do more harm than enemies.
Very soon, on May 9, we shall celebrate the 60th anniversary of victory. This day can deservedly be called the day of civilisation’s triumph over fascism. Our common victory enabled us to defend the principles of freedom, independence and equality between all peoples and nations.Let's see how Bush answers Putin's offer on May 9th.
It is clear for us that this victory was not achieved through arms alone but was won also through the strong spirit of all the peoples who were united at that time within a single state. Their unity emerged victorious over inhumanity, genocide and the ambitions of one nation to impose its will on others.
But the terrible lessons of the past also define imperatives for the present. And Russia, bound to the former Soviet republics – now independent countries – through a common history, and through the Russian language and the great culture that we share, cannot ignore the general desire for freedom.
Today, with independent countries now formed and developing in the post-Soviet area, we want to work together to correspond to humanistic values, open up broad possibilities for personal and collective success, achieve for ourselves the standards of civilisation we have worked hard for – standards that would enable us to build a common economic, humanitarian and legal space.
We will stand up for Russia’s foreign political interests, but we also want our closest neighbours to develop their economies and strengthen their international authority. We would like to achieve synchronisation of the pace and parameters of reform processes underway in Russia and the other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. We are ready to draw on the genuinely useful experience of our neighbours and also to share with them our own ideas and the results of our work.
Our objectives on the international stage are very clear – to ensure the security of our borders and create favourable external conditions for the resolution of our domestic problems. We are not inventing anything new and we seek to make use of all that European civilisation and world history has accumulated.
Also certain is that Russia should continue its civilising mission on the Eurasian continent. This mission consists in ensuring that democratic values, combined with national interests, enrich and strengthen our historic community.
We consider international support for the respect of the rights of Russians abroad an issue of major importance, one that cannot be the subject of political and diplomatic bargaining. We hope that the new members of NATO and the European Union in the post-Soviet area will show their respect for human rights, including the rights of ethnic minorities, through their actions.
Countries that do not respect and cannot guarantee human rights themselves do not have the right to demand that others respect these same rights.
MOSCOW, April 25 (RIA Novosti) - Presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush made a joint statement on the 60th anniversary of Soviet and US troops meeting on the Elbe, Germany, toward the end of World War II, reports the Kremlin press service.We are offering an unabridged text of this statement by the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States of America. "Soviet and American troops met on the Elbe river sixty years ago this day, April 25, 1945. "The two nations will ever remember epoch-making handshakes on the Elbe, which came among the most spectacular symbols of our countries' martial fraternity as they were together fighting Nazi tyranny, oppression and aggression.
We bow to the feats of martial valor performed by Allied soldiers. We shall never forget the sacrifices they made for the sake of Allied victory.
"The sixty years since that day have seen reconciliation in Europe, overcoming the Cold War aftermath, the fall of barriers that used to divide countries and nations, the increase of affluence, and progress of liberty and democracy.
"The century starting now has seen new challenges to our countries' security, terrorism and mass destruction weapon proliferation among them. However, the chances are building up to achieve lasting peace based on the law and on shared values of freedom and democracy. Russia and the United States are working for ever-closer partnerly ties. In this situation, the meeting on the Elbe reminds us of the vast benefits we can provide to our two countries and to the whole world, when we are at one in the face of global challenges to use our newfound opportunities for progress and partnership."
But it is ridiculous to spend time dealing with these charges. Indeed, I suspect even the anti-Bush Doctrine Republican senators on the Foreign Relations Committee will ultimately be too embarrassed to hang a "No" vote on such flimsy scaffolding.
And do the Democrats--the party of Richard Holbrooke and Madeleine Albright--really want to have as a new standard for exclusion from high office whether an official has ever lost his or her temper? For future government jobs, perhaps the Democrats should add to the job description: Only girlie men need apply.
But to dismiss the assault on Bolton as farcical and inconsequential is to miss its real meaning, and its impact if successful. True, if Bolton is not confirmed, another Bush-doctrine believer will be nominated for U.N. ambassador, and, under Condoleezza Rice's direction, the Bush foreign-policy caravan will move on.
But that's not all this fight is about. Bolton's accusers want to send the message that it's okay, perhaps, to agree with a conservative president's policies--but it's a career-ender if you take on the bureaucracy or the establishment aggressively on behalf of the president.
Weisburd, 41, a half-Irish, half-Jewish New Yorker, said that like other Americans he was deeply affected by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He wanted to enlist in the military, but his age and health issues made that impossible.For some reason, Post editors didn't seem to want to put a link to the site in their story's lede, so, here's a link to Internet Haganah (http://haganah.org.il/haganah/).
Then, about a year later, he saw a news story about a Web site that showed what appeared to be a kindergarten class in the Gaza Strip acting out terrorist attacks. He was outraged and went to his computer to do some research, eventually discovering the name of the company hosting the site. He e-mailed the owner of the Web-hosting company at 6 a.m. By 8 a.m. the site was down.
From that success, the former philosophy major from George Washington University set up "Internet Haganah,"-- the latter word in Hebrew means "defense" and was the name of the underground Jewish militia in British-controlled Palestine from 1920 to 1948. The site, dedicated to fighting back against Islamic terrorist sites, has more than 30,000 unique visitors each month.
On another morning that same week in early April, Weisburd called up an e-mail informing him that someone on a Yahoo bulletin board was soliciting donations to go on a "jihad" somewhere. Within a few minutes, Weisburd is able to find three of the messages and trace their origin -- from cable modems at someone's home and at a New England school district. He hit the forward button and sent the information off to a law enforcement contact.
In her letter, Ms Finney said she was a lawyer-adviser working on policies when Mr Bolton called her into his office in late 1982 or early 1983. She wrote that he asked her to persuade delegates from other countries to vote with the US to weaken World Health Organisation restrictions on marketing of formula in the developing world.
She said she refused because improper use of the formula can be deadly. Mr Bolton then 'shouted that Nestle [one of the biggest producers of formula] was an important company and that he was giving me a direct order from President Reagan'.
'He yelled that if I didn't obey him, he would fire me,' she wrote. 'I said I could not live with myself if even one baby died because of something I did ... He screamed that I was fired.'
The State Department would not comment. But on Friday, a spokesman said once the allegations were explored, it would lead to the 'inescapable conclusion that Mr Bolton would be an excellent ambassador'.
Donald E. Herdeck, 80, whose small Washington publishing house brought worldwide attention to dozens of Third World writers, including two winners of the Nobel Prize for literature, died April 20 of congestive heart failure at his home in Pueblo, Colo.
A onetime State Department diplomat, Dr. Herdeck was on the faculty of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service when he decided that the easiest way to obtain the books he wanted to teach in his classes would be to publish them himself. He launched Three Continents Press in 1973 and found his greatest acclaim 15 years later when one of his authors, Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz, was awarded the Nobel Prize.
Donald Herdeck's Three Continents Press published the works of two Nobel Prize winners.
Despite scant critical attention and little commercial demand, Dr. Herdeck had published Mahfouz's works in small editions since the 1970s. But the Nobel proved to be a mixed blessing for Three Continents, which had just one employee beside Dr. Herdeck.
The entire stock of Mahfouz's novels, translated into English from Arabic, sold out in one day, and it took weeks to reprint them. Dr. Herdeck received a call at home from an angry bookseller, who scolded him for being "a terrible businessman."
He recounted the conversation to The Washington Post's David Streitfeld: " 'Here you have this wonderful Nobel Prize winner, this wonderful author, and you don't have copies of his books! What's wrong with you?'
"Herdeck responded with something like this: 'And where have you been for the last 12 years, when we had thousands of these books sitting in our warehouse and they sold only in trickles? What was wrong with you?''"
The weak bromides touted by the Dems in lieu of a policy -- a legalistic approach to the war on terror, greater deference to the U.N. and America's ''friends'' -- were defeated at the polls. Since then, they've been further discredited: The failure of terrorist prosecutions in Europe underlines how disastrous John Kerry's serve-'em-with-subpoenas approach would be; the sewer of the Oil-for-Food scandal and the attempts by Kofi Annan to castrate the investigation into it demonstrate yet again that there is no problem in the world today that can't be made worse by letting the U.N. have a hand in solving it; and America's ''friends'' -- by which Kerry meant not allies like Britain and Australia but the likes of France and Canada -- turn out to be some of the countries most implicated in the corruption of U.N. ''humanitarianism.''
Republican voters understand this. Why don't Republican senators? The rap against John Bolton is that he gets annoyed with do-nothing bureaucrats. If that's enough to disqualify you from government service, then 70 percent of citizens who've visited the DMV in John Kerry's Massachusetts are ineligible. Sinking Bolton means handing a huge psychological victory to a federal bureaucracy that so spectacularly failed America on 9/11 and to a U.N. bureaucracy eager for any distraction from its own mess. The Democrats' interest in derailing Bush foreign policy is crude but understandable. But why would even the wimpiest Republican ''moderate'' want to help them out? Who needs capuchin monkeys in the Senate when GOP squishes are so eager to tap-dance for Democrat organ grinders?
Confusion over words
American media are good at parrotting key words to the whole world but bad at exporting concepts. Part of the problem is linguistic and cultural flippancy. Two words spelled almost the same in two languages do not have to have the same meaning in both. When ideology-peddlers ignore this well-known fact, absurdity ensues.
Take "individualism." To its Anglospheric proponents, it means taking responsibility for one's actions and well-being. To many Russians, the word embodies a different worldview: "I want it all for myself. I don't give a sh*t about you guys." In Russia, Dillinger would be called an individualist but Bill Gates' one-word description would more likely be smart, risk-taking, enterprising, lucky. He might as well turn out an "individualist," but not necessarily.
"Collectivism" to many American freedom-preachers is being told what to do by a group one happens to belong to. Often enough in Russia, it means team spirit, helping one's friends, pulling resources to achieve a common goal.
To be properly understood in Russia, one has to use "responsibility" to convey the notion of individualism, and I can't think of a good word to describe the "bad" variety of collectivism. For its totalitarian extremes, the first thing that comes to mind is what the good old Vladimir Zhirinovsky (yes, the one who seems an ultrachauvinistic clown) said when he announced his support for Yeltsin in 1996: "Communists got into every Soviet citizen's bed."
This offers an opportunity for Bolton defenders to try to get the debate back where it belongs, on the substantive merits of his nomination rather than the sideshow disputes over whether he has occasionally spoken sharply to people and the 11-year-old off-the-wall allegation of abuse by the founder of the Dallas chapter of ?Mothers Opposing Bush.? Bolton has been nominated not to ?serve? the United Nations, as liberals have it, but to serve the president of the United States and the goals of his foreign policy there. He is such a superb choice partly because there is as little chance of him being captured by the U.N. bureaucracy as there was of him being captured by the State Department bureaucracy. We would expect and hope that at the end of Bolton's tenure at the U.N. he will have earned just as much enmity from recalcitrant bureaucrats at Turtle Bay as he did at Foggy Bottom.
This was at the root of Bolton's dispute with Powell. Since he has no strong philosophical moorings himself, Powell quickly became the servant of the permanent State Department establishment, for whom Bush's post-9/11 reorienting of U.S. foreign policy was discomfiting at best. Bolton was not just a believer in Bush's foreign policy, but regarded it as his professional duty to represent it in a building where he knew it wouldn't make him popular. Yes, this occasionally meant clashes with bureaucratic underlings. This was sometimes necessary ? it is President Bush's appointees who are supposed to be setting the direction of the U.S. government, not bureaucrats with their own agendas. But it mostly meant that Bolton was routinely disagreeing with Powell and Armitage, who are now bent on exacting their revenge in a campaign marked by Powell's trademark underhanded style.
