The Opening of the American Mind

I had seen the ads for taped lectures from The Teaching Company, and a few years before had met Alan Kors, who recorded a series of lectures on Voltaire, but until dinner last Friday with a professor who had come to tape a series of talks on Russian Literature, I didn't know much about the operation. Turns out they have their own recording studio, and the people involved appear to be knowledgeable and dedicated. My dinner companion said he had enjoyed the experience.

Suddenly, it seemed less like a kitschy mail-order self-improvement great books thing, and more like a serious effort to spread learning, while making some money at the same time. The company was founded by Thomas Rollins, former chief counsel for the Senate Labor and Human Resources committee. He felt teaching was undervalued, and wanted to do something to promote great university teaching. Well, as a teacher, I certainly agree with that mission.

To judge from the website, he's done what he set out to do. Here's an excerpt from Philip Daileader's lecture on the state of universities in the High Middle Ages, relevant to a lot of us adjuncts and part-timers today:

Although all universities were founded for more or less the same reasons, nonetheless, two different types of universities emerged in the High Middle Ages. Paris and Bologna were rather different institutions, in many respects. They were different in terms of their academic specialties, and they were different in terms of their structures.

Paris was best known for theology. Bologna was best known for its law faculty, especially its civil law and secular law courses. The differences in structure often reflected these differences in academic specialization. The University of Paris was run by the teachers, magister, or "master," in the singular, magistri in the plural, whereas the University of Bologna was run by the students, not by the faculty. All medieval universities followed one of these two models, either the master-dominated University of Paris, or the student-dominated University of Bologna.

The reason for these different structures was the manner in which teachers were paid. Theoretically, no teacher was ever supposed to charge money, or demand money for teaching. All teaching should have been done for free, because knowledge was God's gift to humanity, and for a human being to charge money for that which was actually God's, was presumptuous. The teacher was to rely solely on gifts, freely given by students out of gratitude for the fact that teachers had shared God's knowledge with them. In practice, this was a highly unsatisfactory system of remunerating teachers; one who had to show up in class, and pray that someone gave him an apple, so that he could eat that day, and different sorts of arrangements had to be reached, whereby teachers could feed themselves.

In Paris, because it was so strong in theology, and the theology faculty really dominated the university, most teachers were supported by the Church. They were given salaries, called benefices, that they were able to live off of. Because the teachers in Paris, for the most part, did not have to rely on student gifts, but rather, were paid by the Church, they were free of student control, and were able to run the university as they saw fit.

At Bologna, with its strength in the law faculty, especially in secular law and in civil law, teachers had to rely on student fees directly for their livelihood, and since students were paying their salaries, students got to run the university. Indeed, modern teachers can only shudder with horror when they see the consequences for the poor faculty members at the University of Bologna. If you had been a master teaching at the University of Bologna, and you wanted to leave town for any reason, a getaway weekend, etc., you had to post bond with the students, guaranteeing that you were going to return to the University of Bologna, and actually teach your classes.

Teachers were fined for all sorts of infractions by the student body; I hope they don't see this tape. If you failed to attract five students to your class on any given day, you, the teacher, were marked as absent, because you had failed to gather a quorum, and you were fined for having been absent, even though you had been physically present. If you failed to keep pace with the syllabus, and you fell behind on your lecturing schedule, that, too, was a fine that you had to pay. If you were late for class, well, that was also a fine. It could be rather lucrative to be a student at the University of Bologna.

The manner in which the master's salary was negotiated at Bologna also seems rather odd today. At the beginning of an academic semester, during the first meeting of class, you as the master would choose one student from the class, a student whom you trusted. That student was given the responsibility of negotiating your fee for that semester with the student body. You, then, had to exit the room and sit outside anxiously, while the student, on your behalf, talked with the other students about how much you were actually worth. Given the fact that the student negotiating your fee had to pay whatever fee was negotiated, the results were not always that lucrative from the master's point of view. If you as a master had a choice between an appointment at the University of Paris, or the University of Bologna, well, that was a no-brainer. You wanted to go teach at Paris.

Perhaps when the history of teaching is taught a few centuries from now, a professor will cite the Teaching Company as an alternative to Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind...

UPDATE: Here's an article on the subject from The Chronicle of Higher Education

A Russian Blog From New Orleans

It's called SpeakRussian, hosted by Natalia Worthington, whom I discovered by looking for Russian podcasts. On her site, or via podcast, you can hear her impressions of Hurricane Katrina and the flood, as well as pick up a few Russian words...

Human Rights Watch Report: 82nd Airborne Tortured Prisoners

After looking at this report, I thought, the US has no right whatsoever to complain about any other country's treatment of prisoners--until we have cleaned up our own act...

London Mayor Advocates Terrorism

Making comparisons to partisans who fought the Nazis, London Mayor Ken Livingtone has called for the death of Uzbekistan's president, according to The Washington Times:

"But what do you say today to someone in Uzbekistan, where you have a monstrous and oppressive regime, which casually dismisses the lives of its people, a corrupt regime hanging onto power?"
Referring to demonstrations in Uzbekistan this year during which security forces opened fire on civilian protesters, he asked: "What option is there for someone who wants to see freedom, justice and democracy in Uzbekistan, other than to remove from power the people that keep that country in the grip of dictatorship?
"I see no way other than through the assassin's bullet or the assassin's bomb."

IMHO this comment is an on-the-record statement of what many in the NGO and Western crowd believe but will not say on-the-record. They are on the side of the terrorists--despite the obvious fact that the terrorists are sworn enemies of the West and the USA; who perpetrate the most horrific atrocities, who have an ideological and religious commitment to a goal that equally horrific; despite the evidence that they will ruthlessly carry out their plans if they ever achieve power, not shrinking from the extermination of their allies of the moment--as happened in Iran.

Livingstone says he knows of anti-Nazis who killed Nazis, and that was OK, not terrorism. Well, Livingstone should realize that Uzbekistan -- as part of the USSR -- was as anti-Nazi as anyone during WWII. And, the same sort of Islamist groups that now issue fatwas against Karimov--and the USA, Russia, Israel, India, Britain and even Denmark-- fought with the SS for Hitler. Ideologically, historically, and tactically, the Andijan "insurgents" are Nazis.

Incredibly, the Mayor of London made issued his fatwa against Karimov even after bombers linked to the same Islamist extremist groups responsible for the Andijan uprising created havoc in London on July 7th, 2005. In the end, Livingstone's statement goes beyond appeasement, "objectively" (to use a Marxist term that 'Red Ken" surely understands) siding with fascism and Nazism, as well as terrorism.

If Karimov is a legitimate target, why not Bush, Blair, or someday perhaps, Livingstone himself?

What if they gave an antiwar rally and nobody came?

Asks Little Green Footballs today. We were down near the mall--and there was practically no one on the side streets--no traffic, no crowds. Whatever the body count, it was a non-event. Except for the mainstream media, probably. The real news is that people aren't mad enough to take to the streets (yet).

If you don't believe me, here's a photo from EU Rota on LGF.

The low turnout doesn't mean the American public likes the present situation in Iraq, just that they like what the antiwar crowd is offering a whole lot less. A more hawkish Democratic party would probably sweep the next elections, IMHO...

Michael Ledeen: Bush Fails Iran Test

From National Review:

Our policymakers have thus far utterly failed to design anything worthy of the name of an Iran policy, even though it is arguably the single most important challenge we face. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley recently answered a question about Iran policy by saying that we did indeed have a policy, but we hadn’t yet written it down. This is reminiscent of the old riddle of whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is there to hear it: can there be a policy if nobody can define it?

Lacking any defined policy, we can only judge the president and his aides by their actions, and there aren’t any, aside from the occasional speech or offhand remark at a press conference. The mullahs see that, and treat it with the contempt it deserves. We are currently indistinguishable from the Europeans, who run whenever the Iranians snarl at them.

This is not a war on terror, it is paralysis at best, and appeasement at worst. The hell of it is that it is costing thousands of lives, and will cost many more until the terror masters are destroyed, or we surrender. Those words were inconceivable for many years, but it is a sign of our present fecklessness that they are now entirely appropriate. We can still lose this war. And we cannot win it so long as we are blinded by our potentially fatal failure of strategic vision: we are in a regional war, but we have limited our actions to a single theater. Our most potent weapons are political and ideological, but our actions have been almost exclusively military.

Our main enemy, the single greatest engine in support of the terror war against us, whether Sunni or Shiite, jihadi, or secular, Arab or British or Italian or Spaniard, is Iran. There is no escape from this fact. The only questions are how long it will take us to face it, how effective we will be when we finally decide to act, and how terrible the price will be for our long delay.

Ann Coulter Doesn't Want Roberts

Ann Coulter thinks Roberts is the wrong choice for Chief Justice.

For Christians, it's "What Would Jesus Do?" For Republicans, it's "What Would Reagan Do?" Bush doesn't have to be Reagan; he just has to consult his WWRD bracelet. If Bush had followed the WWRD guidelines, he would have nominated Antonin Scalia for the chief justiceship.

As proof, I refer you to the evidence. When Reagan had an opening for chief justice, he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist. While liberals were preoccupied staging die-ins against Rehnquist and accusing him of chasing black people away from the polls with a stick — something they did not accuse Roberts of — Reagan slipped Scalia onto the court.

That's what Reaganesque presidents with a five-vote margin in the Senate typically do. Apart from toppling the Soviet Empire, Scalia remains Reagan's greatest triumph.

Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job. He has suffered lo these many years with Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. He believes in a sedentary judiciary. He's for judicial passivism. Scalia also would have been the first cigar-smoking, hot-blooded Italian chief justice, which I note the diversity crowd never mentions.

Bull Moose: "God Bless Texas"

The Bull Moose talks Texan about Hurricane Rita--and Texas politics. Right now, musician Kinky Friedman is leading all other candidates in the race for Governor...

Something to think about...

Giuliani Backs Sharon

Hizzoner is in Israel on a visit. He had this to say, according to Haaretz:

Former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is in Israel as the keynote speaker for today's Ness Technologies seminar, said yesterday that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's efforts to implement the disengagement were a sign of his patriotism. Giuliani said Sharon reminds him of baseball superstar Babe Ruth.

Just like Ruth - but unlike younger leaders like Sharon's party rival Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Giuliani also praised - Sharon has been proving his ability for many years, during which he always placed the state before himself, the former mayor said.

Senator Clinton Will Vote Against Roberts

Although Clinton says she expects Roberts to be confirmed, her protest statement is strong, and might help to deny him the 2/3 of the Senate necessary:

"After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts’s writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf...I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm,,, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts’s intellect, character, and legal skills."

Enough about Russia...

Here's The Scotsman on Hurricane Rita...

Russia Starts International TV Channel

In English, it's called "Russia Today." But unlike the BBC World Service, it's not about the World, it's about Russia. Maybe they should think again, and call it "The World Today" on the Russian Broadcasting Corporation World Service... They already are using British anchors! (Think again, Vladimir Vladimirovich, about using some on-air talent from Kansas, Nebraska, and Illinois).

Putin to Host Call-In TV Show

I watched Putin's call-in TV show when I lived in Tashkent in 2002. It was sort of a Christmas special, for what the Russians call "Novi God." Like Santa, Putin was making a list of who had been naughty and who had been nice.

It was just fascinating. We have nothing like it in the US. And I doubt George W. Bush's could pull off something like this. I wish we had something like it in the US. Putin sits at a table, with a file folder full of papers, and answers questions like a good government official should.

As in past years, the call-in show will be broadcast on state-run Channel One and Rossia television as well as on state-owned Mayak radio. Television cameras will be set up in cities across the country so that people "will get the chance to ask their president a question live" on the air, the Kremlin spokeswoman said.

In addition, the presidential administration is again opening a call center to collect additional questions and it will also be accepting questions by e-mail, she said.

A total of 1.53 million questions were submitted to the broadcast in 2003. Putin answered 68 over 2 1/2 hours.

Then, Putin cancelled the show last year while I was living in Moscow (his popularity was dropping). Now that he's at 70 percent public approval in the polls, maybe he feels more confident.

Not all the questions were friendly in 2002. People were concerned about their pensions and unpaid salaries, and not shy about it. There was even a question about bringing back the Tsar (Answer: Nyet!).

It is a cross between C-SPAN and a local "Ask the Mayor." There is also the idea that the unanswered questions might be forwarded to the right government bureaucrat for action. Two journalists, video hookups (one from a Russian military base Tajikistan), phone calls. For hours. Afterwards, almost all my Uzbek students who saw it were impressed by Putin (it was shown on Russian cable TV). So was I.

A Russian-American Alliance? (cont'd)

RIA-Novosti reports that the American and Russian armies are planning joint military exercises for next year. Maybe Bush and Putin did agree on something?

Senate Hears Able Danger Testimony

I was listening to C-SPAN radio in the car this morning, and heard some just fascinating testimony from Congressman Curt Weldon about "Able Danger" at this Senate hearing, chaired by Senator Arlen Specter. Senator Grassley came on and made a strong statement, basically "give 'em hell," which which Specter chose to associate himself. Here's a sample of what Weldon had to say:

It was during the briefings on Able Providence that I was provided additional information about Able Danger. I was told that Able Danger had amassed significant data about Al Qaeda and five worldwide cells – one of which had linkages to Brooklyn and has been referred to as the Brooklyn cell. I was told that Able Danger identified the Brooklyn cell – to include Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers – more than one year before September 11, 2001. Additionally, I was informed of an effort to share specific information with the FBI about Al Qaeda in September 2000 – one year before 9/11 – and that three meetings for that purpose were abruptly cancelled hours before they were scheduled to take place.

This new information was startling, and caused me to review the 9/11 Commission Report to see if any reference to Able Danger was contained therein. Realizing that no such reference existed, I asked my Chief of Staff to personally contact the 9/11 Commission and determine if they had been briefed about Able Danger. On May 18, 2005, the 9/11 Commission Deputy Staff Director Chris Kojm said that the staff had been briefed, but had decided "not go down that route". Still puzzled that no mention of Able Danger had been made, I raised this question with 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer during a meeting in my office on May 23, 2005. He told me that he had never been briefed on Able Danger. 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said the same thing during a lunch on June 29, 2005. He expressed dismay and suggested that I pursue the issue further.

How could it be possible that two 9/11 Commission staffers received two briefs, by two different members of Able Danger, in two different countries, on the same subject, yet no such information was brought to the level of a Commissioner. One is left to wonder if there was a similar information sharing problem within the commission.

On June 27, 2005, dismayed by the fact that Able Danger was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report, I took to the floor of the House of Representatives to outline the entire Able Danger story for my colleagues and the American people. In the weeks following that speech, I methodically briefed the Chairs of House Armed Services, Intelligence, Homeland Security and FBI Appropriations Oversight Committee.

The New York Times picked up the story in August and ran three straight days of stories. On each day, the 9/11 Commission changed their story.
• First, they said that they were never briefed.
• Second, they said that they were briefed and that there was never a mention of Mohammed Atta.
• Third, they said they were briefed, Atta was mentioned, but they found Able Danger to be 'historically insignificant".

As someone who had supported the creation of the 9/11 Commission and their recommendations, even though more then half were already recommended by the Gilmore Commission, I was incensed by this cavalier attitude. Along with my Chief of Staff, we pursued the operatives involved in Able Danger throughout the months of July and August. We identified five officials who confirmed the facts of Able Danger, as well as knowledge of massive data and materials tied to the effort. We identified an FBI agent who played a role in arranging meetings to share information on U.S. persons that were abruptly cancelled. We also identified a technician who did Able Danger analysis and an individual who admitted to destroying Able Danger data – up to 2.5 terabytes. This data contained information on U.S. persons with ties to terrorism that could have helped prevent 9-11 and possibly even be used to track terrorist movements today. The person who destroyed this data has also spoken about how Major General Lambert, the J3 at U.S. Special Operations Command, was extremely upset when he learned that his data had been destroyed without his knowledge or consent.

On at least four occasions, I personally tried to brief the 9/11 Commissioners on: NOAH; integrative data collaboration capabilities; my frustration with intelligence stovepipes; and Al Qaeda analysis. However, I was never able to achieve more than a five-minute telephone conversation with Commissioner Tom Kean. On March 24, 2004, I also had my Chief of Staff personally hand deliver a document about LIWA, along questions for George Tenet to the Commission, but neither was ever used. [I would like to submit for the record.] Had the Commission been more thorough, I would have provided all of the leads that I recently pursued on my own. In the end I was ignored by the Commission. In fact, on the day the Commission provided the first brief for House Members in the Cannon Caucus Room, I attended and was the first to be recognized. I asked the Commission why they did not meet with Members who had worked intelligence and security issues prior to 9/11, and Lee Hamilton told me that "the Commission did not have time to meet with every Member who had information to share."

This story might have legs, after all, if the Senate finally lets the chips fall where they may...

Putin Meets Yankee Oilmen

Here's Kommersant's account of their tete-a-tete at Washington, DC's Madison Hotel:

Ten minutes after the press conference ended, Putin was meeting with oilmen in the Madison Hotel. He announced that meeting while still at the press conference. “We will speak about projects for American participation in the Russian economy, mainly in the energy sphere,” he said.

It was already known that there was only one project, the development of Shtokmanovskoe deposit. ExxonMobil chairman of the board Lee Raymond, president of that company Rex Tillerson, ConocoPhillips president James Malva, Chevron chairman of the board David O'Reilly and LUKOIL head Vagit Alekperov were waiting for the Russian president at the Madison. Alekperov was sitting in the center of the group and center of the conversation. They probably weren't asking how to cozy up to Putin. (It is unclear that Alekperov know the answer to that question.) I overheard that they were asking about how Alekperov found the U.S. market. (LUKOIL has 1400 gas stations in the United States.)

Putin was included in the conversation.

“Welcome to the United States!” Malva greeted him.

It would have been more logical to wish him a safe trip home, since he was leaving the country in an hour and a half, after three days there.

Putin began by mentioning that the U.S. receives only an insignificant portion of Russia's energy resources. “According to various estimates, oil is just over 2 percent. That means that petroleum products are 0.3 percent, and there has just been the first delivery of natural gas. Our potential is huge.”

He went talking about that potential as they moved to another room and left the journalists behind. The conversation lasted ten minutes, and was completely unnecessary. More interesting was that Putin then spoke with each oil executive one-on-one.

Malva and Alekperov went in together to see him. There was ten minutes scheduled for each of three meetings. That first meeting went according to schedule.

Malva recounted, “I told the Russian president about our investment projects in Russia. He approved.”

Malva has learned the rules of the Russian market well. We can be sure that, with an approach like that, ConocoPhillips has a bright future in Russia.

I asked Alekperov if they talked about the Shtokmanovskoe deposit.

“We are not involved with that project,” he said with a shrug. That meant no, obviously.

Tillerson from ExxonMobil spoke with Putin for no less than half an hour. He looked gloomy and refused to comment afterwards, but he might always look like that.

Chevron head O'Reilly, on the other hand, was jubilant on his way out of the meeting. He told Putin, and subsequently everyone else, how much his company suffered from the hurricane, which was practically not at all.

The second topic of their discussion was, finally, the Shtokmanovskoe deposit. “Mr. Putin made it clear that he knows that the Chevron Co. has passed the second stage of the competition, and is one of the five companies still in the running for the development of the deposit,” O'Reilly said.

Then they talked about energy security at the Big 8 summit coming up in St. Petersburg.

“We spoke in general terms about the general topic,” O'Reilly said.

He tried to get away after that, but he was asked if he thought Chevron was closer to developing the Shtokmanovskoe deposit after his conversation with Putin.

“Gazprom should answer that question,” he said, caught short. “Their management will make the decision. I only told the president that we are glad to have been chosen at the second stage.”

The only American journalists there asked who asked for the meetings, the executives or Putin.

“I don't know,” he said heavily. “But the fact that Mr. Putin wanted to meet speaks of his interested in the development of Russia as a country that can become a supplier of both natural gas and oil.”

He made a halfhearted attempt to leave again and was asked about Shtokmanovskoe again.

“It seems to me that you… that is, people, don't understand,” he said, beginning to show his annoyance. “That question will be decided by Gazprom.”

If he really thinks so, he, unlike his colleague from ConocoPhillips, has little future on the Russian market. But he probably isn't as uninformed as that.

I heard from sources in the Russian delegation that the discussion of the Shtokmanovskoe deposit with both O'Reilly and Tillerson was limited to only a few phrases. Putin made believe that he was more interested in how American strategic oil reserves were doing after the hurricane. And they gave him detailed descriptions of the technical specifications that allowed them to weather the hurricane.

That is, Putin is satisfied just to meet those people so far. The intrigue is just beginning.

How to Drink Vodka and Stay Sober

Konstantin's Russian Blog tells you how to do it.

Author's Guild Sues Google

The issue is Google Print, according to the Washington Post:

A Google spokesman said the company regretted that The Authors Guild had chosen to sue rather than continue discussions.

"Google Print directly benefits authors and publishers by increasing awareness of and sales of the books in the program," Google said in a statement. "Only small portions of the books are shown unless the content owner gives permission to show more."

A year ago Google began working with five of the world's libraries -- at Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, the University of Michigan and the New York Public Library -- to make large parts of their book collections searchable on the Web.

The action by the 86-year-old Authors Guild is part of a push by the organization to roll back efforts by Web sites to make the contents of books freely available online.

In a related case, the group has been seeking for a decade to force online publishers from New York Times Co. to Amazon.com to pay royalties to writers whose stories appear in online databases without their consent.

In August Google said it planned to temporarily scale back plans to make the full text of copyrighted books available on its Internet site.

I've used Google Print, and liked it, yet the question is whether Google Print is actually harming authors or helping them. In the end, I imagine the Author's Guild and Google will come up with some ASCAP or BMI type of royalty scheme, based on click-through counts. All this can be worked out, I'm sure, using digital technology. It's only money...

Department of Homeland Stupidity

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for this link to Michelle Malkin's column on the latest cronyism caper to come out of the Bush administration.

Leon Aron on the Republican Party of Russia

Putin seemed pretty entrenched when I lived in Moscow last Winter, but what if Leon Aron is right?

ONE OF THE MOST POTENTIALLY significant events in Russian politics this year was the national conference of the Republican party of Russia (RPR). It witnessed what may prove to be the last credible attempt to create a democratic opposition with broad enough appeal to contest the Kremlin's control over the Duma (parliament) in 2007 and the presidency in 2008.

Largely forgotten before this year, the RPR is one of Russia's oldest liberal (in the Russian sense--right-of-center, pro-market, and reformist) parties. Founded in 1990, it failed repeatedly to gain a foothold in the Duma, and sank from view. This year, however, the party was back in the headlines, overhauling its rules, adopting a new platform, and installing new leaders.

It was clear on the morning of July 2, in the Rusotel Hotel on the outskirts of Moscow, that this renewal went beyond any mere reorganization. Rejuvenation, even exuberance, was in evidence in the auditorium where several hundred delegates from 58 of Russia's 89 provinces applauded and booed. The gathering overflowed with an energy and optimism I have not seen among Russian democrats since the revolution of the late 1980s.

Most reminiscent of those halcyon days, however, was the abandon with which the delegates criticized the government. Their indictment was remarkable both in its scope and its merciless intensity. It found vigorous expression in the documents released by the conference--an "Appeal to the Citizens of Russia" and a platform--as well as in speeches and debates, which were webcast live on the party's website.

Bush a Decisive Leader--NOT

(ht andrew sullivan)

Karzai to US: "Yankee Go Home!"

Maybe it is due to Bush's Katrina fiasco, but I have long thought that Islam Karimov's eviction of the US military from Uzbekistan, with the support of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Russia, China, et al.), might have a ripple effect in Afghanistan. Of course, I had no idea that this would happen so quickly. Today, Afghan president Hamid Karzai also seems to be saying: "Yankee Go Home!"
The Guardian has this report:

Karzai demanded an immediate end to foreign troops searching people's homes without his government's authorization. He also said foreign governments should "concentrate on where terrorists are trained, on their bases, on the supply to them, on the money coming to them" - a veiled reference to support that militants allegedly get from neighboring Pakistan.

Afghan officials have repeatedly accused Pakistan of aiding Taliban rebels and other militants, a charge Islamabad vehemently denies.

"I don't think there is a big need for military activity in Afghanistan anymore,"Karzai told reporters. "The nature of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan has changed now.

"No coalition forces should go to Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government. ... The use of air power is something that may not be very effective now. ... That's what I mean by a change in strategy."

It was the second time Karzai has publicly challenged the U.S.-led coalition. In May, before a trip to Washington, he demanded more authority over the 20,000-member U.S.-led coalition here, but President Bush said they would remain under American control. In addition to the coalition troops, there are 11,000 NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

There's an interesting Eurasianet profile of Karzai by Ahmed Rashid from 2001 that contains this revealing quote:

"The tragedy was that very soon the Taliban were taken over by Pakistan’s Interservices Intelligence (ISI) and they became a proxy for a foreign power. Then they allowed Arabs and other foreigners to set up terrorist training camps on Afghan soil and I began to organize against them," he said. "By 1997 it was clear to most Afghans that the Taliban were unacceptable because Osama bin Laden was playing a leadership role in the movement. I warned the Americans many times, but who was listening - nobody," he added.

And this:

According to a US diplomat, the issue of whether or not to support Karzai provoked a heated debate between the US departments of state and defense. Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly was reluctant to support Karzai out of concern that such a move would anger Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. "There was real anger at Powell from the military because he was accepting at face value whatever the Pakistanis were telling him, when in reality they were doing nothing constructive in the Pashtun belt," the US diplomat said.

Washington only decided to support Karzai in the first week of November - four weeks after the bombing campaign started - and only after the Pentagon had taken the decision to support a Northern Alliance attack on Mazar-i-Sharif.

Interesting, the Pentagon supported Karimov against the State Department's support for human rights NGOs. Sounds like a familiar situation. So, stay tuned...

Remembering Simon Wiesenthal

Roger L. Simon mentioned that Simon Wisenthal had passed away. Here's the story in Haaretz.

Putin Grants Pushkin's Descendants Russian Citizenship

According to this RIA Novosti report, they currently live in Belgium.

Will Safavian Sing?

If he does, this could be big news:

The Bush administration's top federal procurement official resigned Friday and was arrested yesterday, accused of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government. It was the first criminal complaint filed against a government official in the ongoing corruption probe related to Abramoff's activities in Washington.

The complaint, filed by the FBI, alleges that David H. Safavian, 38, a White House procurement official involved until last week in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, made repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002.

(HT War and Piece)

Musharraf's Historic Speech

Daniel Pipes praises the Pakistani leader for opening up to Israel and the Jewish diaspora:

Most news coverage of the Musharraf speech focused on the prospect of Pakistan opening diplomatic relations with Israel (Reuters: "Pakistan leader urges US Jews to help make peace"), but what is potentially of lasting importance about the Musharraf address – beyond the mere fact of its being delivered to a Jewish organization – was the president's respectful, accurate, and constructive comments about Jews.

He began with the important observation that Jews and Muslims "have many similarities and few divergences in their faith and culture," then listed three specifics: belief in the oneness of God, shared ways of greeting, and a common phrase in the Talmud and Koran. And Moses, he pointed out, is the prophet most often referred to in the Koran.

Mr. Musharraf noted how "our experiences and histories intertwine" and then elaborated on what he called the two communities' "rich and very long" history of interaction. He mentioned the "shining examples" of Cordova, Baghdad, Istanbul, and Bukhara, the golden period of Muslim Spain, and the joint experience of the Spanish Inquisition. Generalizing from the inquisition, he correctly asserted that Jews and Muslims "have not only lived together and shared prosperity, but also suffered together."

A Russian-American Alliance?

That's the stated aim of this website. I found it on a link at Registan. It looks a lot more Russian than American, Gleb Pavlovsky seems to run the show. Right now, it looks unlikely. But stranger things have happened. I don't know who is lobbying for this type of thing on the American side right now. On the other hand, maybe Putin helped Bush out with the Korea talks. And if Hillary Clinton becomes President...

Ben Paarman's Central Asia Blog

Has some nice photos posted today...

Human Rights Watch Condemns British Antiterrorism Plan

Their headline:U.K.: Detention Plan Amounts to Punishment Without Trial

Moscow Cat Theatre Comes to NYC

We saw the New York Times article announcing the Moscow Cat Theatre has come to New York, and thought about going. Our Moscow friends said it was sort of a cat circus, but if you had a cat, you'd seen the show. So we don't know yet if we'll go. But we do know that we like their website.

More on Uzbekistan

My account of Shirin Akiner's appeareance at Johns Hopkins University to discuss the Andijan violence in now online at Registan.

Judy Miller's Jailhouse Guest List

Carol D. Leonnig writes in today's Washington Post that some of Washington's most powerful figures have visited Judy Miller in jail.

Locked in the Alexandria Detention Center for the past 11 weeks, New York Times reporter Judith Miller is cut off from the world. She has no Internet access and precious little opportunity to view CNN. Her phone calls are limited, friends say. Her daily newspaper arrives a day late.

But for 30 minutes nearly every day, the world comes to her: A parade of prominent government and media officials, 99 in all, visited Miller between early July, when she was jailed for refusing to be questioned by a federal prosecutor, and Labor Day, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.

Her visitors have included Bob Dole, John Bolton, and Tom Brokaw...

Cashing in on Katrina

The Project on Government Oversight has posted this list of government contracts for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. (ht War and Piece)

No Deal

According to MosNews, Putin and Bush could not come to an agreement at the Washington summit:

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave no support to his U.S. counterpart George W. Bush in his bid to to bring Iran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions and acknowledged he has not yet forged an international consensus on how to deal with Tehran’s alleged nuclear program.

Peter Baker's Washington Post account of the meeting can be read here.

Yale Russian Chorus Alumni Concert in Washington, DC

A friend from Russian class has invited us to the Yale Russian Chorus alumni concert in Washington, DC. Admission is free, so if any of our readers lives in the national capital area, it might be worth a trip. Here are the details:

When: Sunday, October 2, 4:00pm
Location: George Washington University Lisner Auditorium, 730 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC View Map
Phone: (202) 994-6800

Heres a picture of the chorus meeting President Clinton (a Yale Law alumnus):

A Democracy Blog

Just found Democracy Rising,through a link in Registan's comment section.

Roger L Simon Remembers Robert Wise

A short and sweet tribute to the director of West Side Story and The Sound of Music...

Mr. Putin Goes to Washington

For some inexplicable reason, I haven't yet received my invitation to cover the White House meeting today between Presidents Bush and Putin, so have had to cover it from The Washington Post, which has been pretty good so far. Here's my two cents, informed by living in Moscow and Central Asia as well as Washington, DC...

It is sure to be a significant meeting, for right now, believe it or not, Putin is in a stronger position than Bush, so is negotiating from strength, an old Ronald Reagan tactic.

Russia's GDP is growing faster than the US economy, the new Russia-China military alliance pretty much balances the US technological edge with millions of "boots on the ground," and Putin is at 70 percent approval in Russian public opinion polls, while Bush is at the lowest ebb of his career. To add insult to injury, today's Post reports that the US space program is now dependent on Russian technology, in the wake of the space shuttle tragedy.

Bush has egg on his face not only from shuttle screw-ups, but also from the dismal stalemate in Iraq, the pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina, and his weakness in the face of North Korea and Iran's nuclear threats. The Ukrainian and Kyrgyzstan "color revolutions" have bogged down into partisan infighting. Georgia is a basket case, totally dependent on American aid. The former Yugoslavia remains under NATO military occupation, and the Kosovo situation has not been resolved. Not to mention the Middle East, where American-backed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas--educated in Moscow--has not yet managed to rein in Islamist terrorists.

Bush needs some friends now, and will have to bend a little to get them. It is in his interest to have Russia as a friend, rather than an enemy.

So, what does Putin want? It's pretty clear from his UN speech that he wants to be an equal partner to the West, rather than an adversary. And he wants the fight against terrorism--read Islamist terrorism--to become the new common cause of the UN Security Council. Since the Council was formed in WWII, and represents the Allied Powers of Britain, America, Russia, China, and France, he's basically trying to restore the WWII, pre-Cold War relationship between the Great Powers. Here's the money quote from Putin's UN speech the other day, with my interpretation in brackets:

I am convinced that today, terrorism represents the main danger to the rights and freedom of mankind, and to the steady development of states and peoples. [Forget "democracy-building," free markets, development, and all your other trendy priorities]

In connection with this, the UN and the Security Council should be the headquarters for coordinating international cooperation in the struggle against terror --Nazism's ideological successor.[Revive the WWII Alliance (my emphasis)]

They must also help coordinate the settlement of deep-rooted regional conflicts on which terrorists and extremists of all kinds breed by using the historical baggage of religious, ethnic and social inequalities. [Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Central Asia, et al.]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is necessary to use not only states' ressources but, most importantly, the large opportunities offered by civil society, mass media, cultural and educational cooperation, and interconfessional dialogue to oppose ideologues that preach a clash of civilisations, and terrorist agression. [Shut down Islamist mosques and madrassahs, bankrupt Islamist charities]

Who if not the UN can take on this coordinating and organising role? Here it can base itself on the support of all member countries, on the cooperation of influential international organisations, and on regional integration associations. [If you try and go around the UN, we will fight you. No more NATO interventions in Yugolsavia]

Russia intends to increase her participation both in the international reaction to crises, and in assistance for development and progress. Next year, within the framework of Russia's membership in the G8, the CIS, and the Council of Europe we will continue to work together on this major issue. [Let us into your clubs as a full member, and we will help you. Keep us out, and we will hurt you]

Putin clearly wants the United States to end its support for Islamist guerilla movements in Chechnya and Central Asia, in exchange for Russian support of American positions perhaps vis-a-vis Iran and Iraq. I don't think it sounds like a bad deal. While perhaps Russia can't "deliver" Iran or Iraq, they still have considerable influence in the Middle East and as recent events have shown, are able to make trouble even if they can't defeat the West.

However a genuine full partnership with Russia would mean less hanky-panky by the CIA and its cut-outs in the former Soviet bloc, perhaps in exhange for Russia pulling back in Latin America--where Venezuela and Cuba now enjoy Russian support in the same way Ukraine and Georgia are American outposts.

While not exactly another Yalta, a partnership with Russia might mean that the UN could become an effective instrument for ending the threat of Islamist terror, just as the Allies crushed the Nazis through the UN. The UN's effectiveness, that has been hampered by US-Russian tensions, could be turned against a common foe.

That is Putin's strategy, I believe. It is why he wanted Bush at the V-E day celebrations in Moscow. And at this point, I think it seems reasonable to consider seriously Putin's approach to the war on terror as a credible alternative to that offered by American neoconservatives, realists, or isolationists. That means America has to drop the Cold War stuff and, as Bill Clinton liked to say, "focus like a laser beam" on defeating terrorism.

With Russia as a full partner, Osama Bin Laden and his Islamist supporters will no longer be able to play "divide and conquer" games. My guess is that a true alliance of the UN Security Council could crush the Islamists very quickly indeed--but Bush and his cronies might not be able to count on post-Administration payouts from their Saudi friends...

On the other hand, with Russia now rolling in petrodollars, perhaps Putin could offer to put Bush Senior (and Clinton for that matter, since they are doing a doubles act these days) on the board of his newly-reorganized Yukos?

Dr. Akiner Comes to Washington

At the invitation of Dr. Fred Starr, who heads the Central Asia and Caucuses Institute at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, Dr. Shirin Akiner, a lecturer in the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, came to Washington tonight. She discussed reactions from international human rights groups, governments, and ordinary citizens to her controversial report on the breakout of violence in the Uzbek city of Andijan on May 13th, 2005. She was strikingly well-spoken, with a charming British accent. Her talk was filled with illusions to British history ranging from Henry II to the shooting of an innocent Brazilian bystander by armed police in the London Tube following the July 7th bombings.

I'm currently writing up my impressions of her talk. In the meantime, the photos below give a sense of the excitement of the occasion, where Dr. Akiner had a chance to confront her critics, including Justin Burke, editor of Eurasianet.

There was one real bombshell that I can share right now.

Dr. Akiner charged that an excutive of International Crisis Group in London tried to get her fired. Akiner claimed she had a copy of a poison pen letter written by the ICG executive (she would not name him). Akiner charged the letter contained an untruth intended to damage her reputation that was either a deliberate lie or evidence that the person was too lazy to check facts. Akiner added she had the letter with her, and would show it if challenged. She noted that she believed an ICG staffer was in her audience. In a long Q & A, no one challenged the truth of her charge. According to the list of registered guests provided by SAIS, Jonathan Greenwald would have been the representative of International Crisis Group in attendance. Here is his ID photo from the ICG website. His name was number 28 on the attendance list. Greenwald's bio on the ICG website says he is vice-president for research and publications, so he should have been able to respond. If Greenwald wasn't there for some reason, no one else spoke up for ICG, either.

All of which may mean International Crisis Group just had the guts ripped out of its reputation by Dr. Akiner.

More to come...

Shirin Akiner listens to a question from an audience member following her talk at SAIS

Fred Starr and Shirin Akiner answer Justin Burke

Eurasianet editor Justin Burke questions Shirin Akiner

Shirin Akiner answers Fred Starr's question

Shirin Akiner presents her paper at SAIS

Fred Starr introduces Shirin Akiner

The Al Dura Affair Exposed

This Commentary article by Nidra Poller documents how French TV perpetrated a hoax in the Al Dura affair, when reporters blamed Israel for killing a Palestinian boy murdered by Palestinians. (ht New Sisyphus)

I suspect things like this may still go on in mainstream "journalism" and "human rights" reporting, whenever hidden political agendas clash with inconvenient facts...

Thoughts from Bob

Thanks to Google's new blog search feature (see below), I found this interesting website, that has some thoughts about monopoly and the problems in New Orleans.

Making one big super-agency (FEMA/DHS) with a monopoly on disaster relief made things worse than having a number of competing agencies, according to this theory.

I believe it.

Another Neat Feature!

Google Blogsearch...

Mark Steyn on Pennsylvania's Flight 93 Memorial

Most of us are all but resigned to losing New York's Ground Zero memorial to a pile of non-judgmental if not explicitly anti-American pap: The minute you involve big-city politicians and foundations and funding bodies and 'artists' you're on an express chute to the default mode of the cultural elite. But surely it's not too much to hope that in Pennsylvania the very precise, specific, individual, human scale of one great act of American heroism need not be buried under another soggy dollop of generic prettified passivity. A culture that goes to such perverse lengths to disdain its heroes cannot survive and doesn't deserve to.

(ht Little Green Footballs)

BTW, I'm not resigned to losing NYC's Ground Zero. New Yorkers could just rebuild the World Trade Center, as Washingtonians did with the Pentagon. No museums, no "artists". To paraphrase Christopher Wren, New Yorkers could say: "If you seek their monument, look around you." It's the same reason Churchill rebuilt the Houses of Parliament exactly as they were after the Blitz--to show that the Nazis couldn't destroy it. New Yorkers still have a chance to do the same...

Bush Joins "Incompetents Anonymous"

The Bull Moose has a cute post today:

The Moose notes that the President has enrolled in a twelve-step program.

"Hi, I'm George W. and I'm an incompetent." That is what the President tentatively declared yesterday when he accepted "responsibility" for the Katrina fiasco. Ok, maybe he just implied it. But it is clear that the President just enrolled in Dr. Karl Rove's (Director of the Federal Emergency Image Management Agency) Twelve Step Poll Recovery Program.

Dr. Karl insisted that his patient enroll in the program when it became apparent that the "shift the blame to the locals" strategy wasn't working. Even Brit Hume was having difficulty with the talking points. Panic has stricken the ranks of the President's supporters as there is a fear that old Rush will reach for the Vioxx again and the GOP Congress will go on an inebriated spending binge.

The rest is funny, too. Read the rest of it here.

Will Leahy Block Roberts?

Darren Allen writes in the Montpelier (VT) Times-Argus that Senator Leahy is growing "frustrated" with Roberts. This is the ranking Democrat's hometown paper, and may give some indication that Leahy will attempt to block the confirmation. The grounds would seem clear: According to Leahy Roberts lacks candor before the committee. In other words, they don't trust him:

MONTPELIER – Without more specific answers from Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, Sen. Patrick Leahy said Tuesday he will have to make up his mind based on what he already knows about the president's pick to be the 17th leader of the Supreme Court.

And, if his growing frustration with a man he has become more critical of since his nomination earlier this summer is any indication, the Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat isn't satisfied with what he's heard in the two days of confirmation hearings.

"He makes a wonderful appearance, he's very bright, but I think he is taking too much to heart what a lot of Republican lawmakers are telling him," Leahy said in a brief telephone interview from Washington, referring to the GOP's advice to not give answers to questions seeking the judge's personal opinions.

"In some areas he has not been as forthcoming in the hearing as he was in private meetings," said Leahy, who is now poised to weigh in on his 11th Supreme Court nominee. The Vermonter has met privately with Roberts twice over the last two months. Some of the most troubling issues, Leahy said, have to do with individual rights, the right to sue, abortion rights and whether or not the president is above the law.

Can Leahy pull this off? I'm sure the Democrats are counting votes right now. If I were a Democrat, I'd throw as much sand in the gears as possible over the next few days, while Bush is at a record low in the public opinion polls...

Bush and the "R" Word

Belgravia Dispatch reflects on the President's upcoming speech:

Meantime, in closing, a word on the "R" word. I seem to recall that Don Rumsfeld, around the time of Abu Ghraib, also said he accepted 'responsibility' for what happened. But it's one thing to utter the R word, another thing to really mean it. This seems to be something of a peculiar Washington phenomenon, doesn't it? Some grandee states, flatly, that they accept responsiblity for this or that outrage. And then, in practice, they really don't. Nothing happens to connect the statement of assuming responsibility to, you know, some action that might evidence a connection between stating they take responsibility and, well, taking it. But, hey, they said they did, and so, you know, all is well and one garners kudos for all the Trumanesque 'buck stops here' bravura. But we always knew Washington was a strange place, right?

Attorney-General Janet Reno accepted "responsiblity" for the Waco tragedy--but didn't resign, either. IMHO, that led to a Republican House and Senate.

Whatever Bush says, it no longer matters.

The Guardian on Rioting in Northern Ireland

Here's The Guardian's account of recent riots in Northern Ireland.

I Love This Feature

The sitemeter box on the left has a link to an animated world map that shows the last 100 places that have looked at this blog. It's nice to see hits from around the world...

Wow!

Samsung has announced 32 gigabyte flash memory cards.

Where Have We Seen This Before?

Hat tip to Roger L. Simon for this photo of a burning synagogue (abandoned, luckily) in Palestinian-controlled Gaza (you can read the accompanying article here)...

What's Cooking?

Enjoyed Gurinder Chadha and Paul Mayeda Berges first film on DVD, What's Cooking?(2000). An ensemble melodrama, set at Thanksgiving, the picture criss-crosses four family holiday get-togethers in the same Fairfax neighborhood in Los Angeles--one Mexican, one Vietnamese, one African-American, and one Jewish. Each one has its share of fights and tensions, and it is really a different look at Thanksgiving, which is refreshingly unsentimental. Yet the filmmakers have a heart. A tough balancing act, but they pull it off. It reminds me a little of film school, but there's some nice acting. You can see the seeds of Bend it Like Beckham, and Bride and Prejudice. The themes of multicultural family and multicultural romance are the same. They seem to be getting better and better...

Will Bush Nuke Iran?

The Washington Post headline readsPentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan. And it seems to be a threat to Iran.

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would 'respond with overwhelming force' to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said 'all options' would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, Bush has lost credibility due to both Katrina and the WMD issue in Iraq. Were he to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran, or North Korea for that matter, Bush would risk more than impeachment with his gamble--he would risk war crimes trials for making aggressive war and killing innocent civilians. Especially if the rest of the world is not convinced that he were justified. Ironically, Chinese and Russian judges might condemn George W. Bush to death at the International War Crimes Court.

Maybe he needs to think things through a little, since his strategies have not worked so far, and this proposal sounds both dangerous and irresponsible, at least to a layman who grew up in the era of Mutual Assured Destruction, and remembers that the Russians still have 7,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenal.

Andrew Sullivan: The More You Look, The Worse It Gets

Writing in the London Times, Andrew Sullivan lays into the 3 Cs of the Bush administration: cronyism, corruption, and "conservatism." His verdict on Bush?

He campaigned fundamentally on his ability to run the country in wartime, on emergency management, on protecting Americans from physical harm. That was his promise. It was swept away as the waters flooded New Orleans. And Al-Qaeda was watching every minute of it.

The Constant Gardener

Just saw The Constant Gardener with Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. As I see everything through the prism of Antigua, now, it was interesting that Fiennes played a British diplomat. His relation, Sir Eustace Fiennes, was Governor-General of Antigua during the colonial period. On his death, Sir Eustace left a bequest that pays for the Fiennes Institute, an almshouse and old-age home that cares for needy Antiguans to this day. An earlier Fiennes, Lord Saye and Sele, was the founder of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. His descendant, a cousin of Ralph Fiennes, still lives in Broughton Castle. We toured this National Trust home, and it is worth a look. It is quite possibly the homiest castle in England.

In any case, although the plot was ridiculously PC (why kill people over a report that sounds like dozens already posted on the internet--or tonight's 60 Minutes story about Amgen?), everything else about the movie was first rate--travelogue, suspense, acting, sets, costumes, music, lighting, and so forth. So, forget the storyline, and just take a bath in Anglophile porn.

Pew Poll: Bush Sinking

Andy Kohut summarized this Pew Poll on the same Lehrer Newshour (a really good show, btw). Bush is ahead of Richard Nixon in the middle of Watergate, but that's about it. His popularity is way down, sinking fast in the Big Muddy...

This may turn out to be Bush's Waco. After the Clinton administration botched the David Koresh operation, the country turned to the Republicans, who swept into Congress. In 2006, if the Democrats play the good government card instead of the race card, they can pull off the same trick.

Then, impeachment looms for Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. One reason for Democrats to try and hold off confirmation of Supreme Court nominees for a year or two...

Calling Clark Kent (Ervin)!

I watched the former DHS-IG on the Lehrer Newshour last night talking about New Orleans, and was impressed with the content of his comments as well as his manner. Ervin deftly inserted the needle in Bush administration positions (his style reminded me a little of Robin McNeil). Here's what Ervin told Margaret Warner last night, about FEMA chief Michael Brown:

I question whether it makes sense to put Brown back in Washington to be in charge of overall FEMA efforts since obviously this kind of thing can and likely will happen again. I think the larger issue is whether there's leadership at the top of FEMA that has the competence that's necessary to do the planning and preparedness that is necessary to make sure this kind of response doesn't happen again.

Ervin was so impressive--Who is this guy? I thought--that I googled him.Here's another quote:

CLARK KENT ERVIN: Well, it seems to me at the Department level as a whole there has been a lack of attention to detail, a lack of focus on management. And I think we're seeing the consequences of that. It seems to me absolutely inexcusable that, frankly, both the secretary as well as the FEMA director said it wasn't until Thursday that they learned there were thousands of people stranded without food and water when all you had to do was turn on the television set to see that. So it seems to me a lack of attention to detail. And it is just inexcusable. It is inexplicable. I don't have an explanation for it. I don't know that there is one.

Turns out that until he was canned, Ervin had been a loyal Bushie, from Texas. He was apparently purged, best as we can figure out, because he was competent and good at his job (which made some Bush cronies look bad). Here's the USATODAY story on his departure from government service. Title: "Ex-official tells of Homeland Security Failures."

While in office, Ervin made some scathing findings. He reported that:

• Undercover investigators were able to sneak explosives and weapons past security screeners at 15 airports during tests in 2003.

• Federal air marshals, hired to provide a last line of defense against terrorists on airlines, slept on the job, tested positive for alcohol or drugs while on duty, lost their weapons and falsified information in 2002.

• Department leaders should have taken a more aggressive role in efforts to combine the government's myriad terrorist watch lists since the department was created in 2003.

• The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) gave executive bonuses of $16,477 to 88 of its 116 senior managers in 2003, an amount one-third higher than the bonuses given to executives at any other federal agency.

• The TSA spent nearly $500,000 on an awards banquet for employees in November 2003. The cost included $1,500 for three cheese displays and $3.75 for each soft drink.

The department complained that many of Ervin's reports were based on outdated information. After the report on air marshals, border and transportation chief Asa Hutchinson said the problems had long since been fixed.

Ervin, a Harvard-trained lawyer who worked for Bush when he was governor of Texas and for Bush's father in the White House before that, couldn't explain why he didn't get the nod to continue his work. It "will be an enduring mystery to me," he said.

Ervin currenlty heads the Homeland Security program at the Aspen Institute.

Mark Helprin on 9/11's Fourth Anniversary

He lets loose with both barrels in The Wall Street Journal.

Rotting Oranges in Ukraine?

Yushchenko has fired everyone due to a corruption scandal, and Kommersant has this analysis of recent developments in the current Ukrainian crisis.

British Expats Won't Leave New Orleans

This is an interesting story about Britishers staying put in the Big Easy...

Japan Today: Barbara Bush Blunders

Hurricane Katrina is taking a toll on America's international stature. I watched Karen Hughes funble her way through a BBC World interview last night talking about "elements" in New Orleans; and the Japanese press seem to be picking up on Barbara Bush's Marie Antoinette approach:

U.S. President George W Bush is not the only member of his prominent political family to be drawing criticism for public utterances about Hurricane Katrina: His mother has raised eyebrows too.

In widely reported comments after visting evacuees at a Texas sports arena, former first lady Barbara Bush on Monday seemed to suggest a silver lining for the "underprivileged" forced from their flooded homes in New Orleans.


"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality," she said in a radio interview from the Astrodome in Houston, Texas.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this — this is working very well for them," she said.

The Horse's Curse

Last night at a dinner party, met children's book author Fiona Darling, who wrote The Horse's Curse. The book is about St. Patrick, who drove the snakes from Ireland, and his horse, among other things...

Great Job, Brownie?

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link to this Florida Sun-Sentinel editoral pointing out that they called for Brown's firing a year ago, due to his incompetence!

But nothing can restore FEMA's full functionality so long as the agency's incompetent director, Michael Brown, remains at the helm. Brown, a patronage appointee with no previous disaster management experience, embarrassed himself last year with his attempts to justify FEMA's waste of more than $31 million in hurricane relief given to areas not affected by a hurricane. After a South Florida Sun-Sentinel investigation exposed the waste, the newspaper called for Brown to be fired. It now repeats that call.
This year Brown embarrassed the whole country. Three days after Katrina struck, he admitted to being surprised to learn that thousands of people were suffering without food or water in New Orleans' convention center. This from the man who was supposed to be in charge of federal relief efforts.
Brown is in over his head. If FEMA is ever to become effective again, his dismissal must be the first step.

I'm sure the Democrats are looking into FEMAs business dealings with former FEMA head and Bush crony Joe Allbaugh, as well as any contracts with Dick Cheney's Halliburton or Kellogg, Brown & Root.

If they find anything, they can impeach Cheney first, then go after Bush. So maybe the Republicans might want to act so they can pick Bush's replacement, instead of the Democrats. Also, if I were the Democrats, I'd hold off any Supreme Court confirmations for a long time...

Our new cat, Moxie.

Willa Cather on TV

Last night, to take my mind off disasters, I watched the PBS American Masters documentary about Willa Cather. It was sort of interesting, and made me think of my internship with TV producer-director Glenn Jordan, who did a Hallmark Hall of Fame based on O Pioneers! in 1992, starring Jessica Lang. Turns out that there are quite a few Willa Cather stories on IMDB's list of her tv movies. They have been directed by A-list talent like Jack Gold, Joseph Sargeant, and Karen Arthur.

I learned from the PBS show that Cather wasn't much of a country mouse at all; rather, a Greenwich Village bohemian (she lived on Bank Street), who left Nebraska as soon as she was able to do so. She was obviously a lesbian, a very successful editor at McClure's Magazine, and became a best-selling author despite the failure of her first novel. She began writing later in life, and in the 30s fell afoul of the Communist Party types who wanted proletarian novels. Her work has stood the test of time, and her interesting personality has made me interested--for the first time--in reading what Willa Cather wrote. It wasn't all about wheatfields and praries, it turns out...

Is Al Franken a Liar?

Michelle Malkin thinks so.

The Lincoln Memorial, Revisited

On Monday, with an old friend from UCLA Film School, I went to see the Lincoln Memorial after many years. (He pointed out that it was featured in the last scene of the 2001 remake of Planet of the Apes). It had been at least a decade since the last time I climbed the steps leading to the statue of the Great Emancipator that stares down the National Mall to the US Capitol. The World War II and Korean War Memorials had been added since my previous visit. Now, flanking Lincoln's left and right were remembrances of failed or stalemated military episodes: Vietnam and Korea. Straight ahead were America's successes, WWII, the Washington Monument (remembering the American Revolution), and the US Capitol -- itself surmounted by a goddess of liberty.

The Lincoln Memorial seemed to be in a state of disrepair. It looked like mold was growing inside, and moss seemed to be on the exterior marble. The grass was uncut in places, and construction work put piles of dirt and debris on the side, as well as unsightly chain-link fences.

In the basement of the monument there is now a small museum. It has a section devoted to Martin Luther King's March on Washington, and a small selection of Lincoln quotes about slavery and union, installed at the instigation of visiting schoolchildren in 1990, who collected pennies to pay for the exhibit because there was nothing about Lincoln's life in the temple-like statuary hall above.

The statue of Lincoln was kept pretty clean, but the rest of the imitation Greek Temple was in need of some upkeep. It almost reminded me of visiting Chor Minor or the Lodi Gardens in Delhi. Lincoln seems to be fading into the distant past. His accomplishment, and its relevance to the American purpose of proclaiming liberty throughout the world, seems to be in danger of being forgotten as well.

My friend didn't believe Lincoln was against slavery--and that if even if he had been, so what? Slavery was obviously wrong, against the Declaration of Independence, against Scripture, against simple human decency. Of course, he was right.

Yet, Lincoln did face a struggle to end the practice in the United States--whether its end was the result of or the cause of the Civil War, in the end, is a mere debating point. The fact is that before Lincoln's presidency, the US was a slave society, and afterwards, it was no longer. Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died in the struggle, not defending their homes, but defending a principle. It makes little difference whether you call that principle Union or Freedom; because the Confederacy's principle had been slavery.

This fight for freedom continued in America's wars around the world--including Vietnam and Korea. The Korean memorial has its motto engraved in stone: "Freedom isn't Free." A cliche, perhaps, yet one that has truth to it. There is slavery in North Korea but not in South Korea. Of course, Vietnam and Cambodia both became slave societies after the American withdrawal.

So Lincoln's struggle is not ancient history. Slavery is a constant threat to humankind that must be fought in every generation. It existed in the former Soviet Union, a slave society, with slave labor camps. Slaves built the Moscow metro, the grand boulevards, the Stalinist skyscrapers--and cut timber in the camps of the Gulag, as well. Slavery existed in Nazi Europe, they built the V-2 rockets that exploded in London, they made chemicals for IG Farben, and after being worked to death, were exterminated at places like Auschwitz and Treblinka. China had a slave system, of course, on the Soviet model.

There is widespread slavery today, according to the Anti-Slavery Society. There is slavery in Saudi Arabia , and the Sudan. Anywhere where people are forced to work without being paid, can be physically abused or killed by their bosses, there is a slave system.

And if Osama Bin Laden gets his way, we shall all be "slaves to Allah." That is why the Global War on Terror is worth fighting--it is in fact a Global War Against Slavery.

Which is also why the Lincoln Memorial remains deeply relevant, and deserves better upkeep than it seems to be getting from the Bush administration (if only it looked as nice as the official photo above...).

And Now For Something Completely Different...

There's been so much bad news, that I didn't have a chance to mention that Hammasa Kohistani was chosen as the new "Miss England" for the annual "Miss World" contest. She was born in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and hopefully will help improve the image of that very interesting country. There's a nice webpage devoted to her British beauty contest victory at The Jawa Report.

FEMA and DHS

All this talk about taking FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security raises the question: If the Federal Emergency Management Agency doesn't belong there, what does?

After all, FEMA would have to take care of the aftermath had it been an atom bomb in New Orleans. If they can't handle a hurricane, what would happen with a dirty bomb, a suitcase bomb, a chemical attack, a germ attack? Don't even want to think about it...

The answer is that nothing belongs in Homeland Security, the agency shouldn't exist, it has a bad name, an impossible mission, and obviously is a mess. The US appears to be worse off--and more unprepared--today than on 9/11.

Time to go back to the drawing board. The situation is actually too serious for partisan politics, since America is facing insane suicide killers who will stop at nothing. Bush might have to be impeached.

While it sounds farfetched even to me, the best scenario I can come up with to get some proper leadership quickly is:

Step One: Cheney steps aside.

Step Two: Rudy Giuliani becomes VP.

Step Three: Bush is impreached or resigns.

Step Four: Giuliani takes over, fires everyone, bangs heads together, and cleans up the mess the Bushies made--hopefully, with a bipartisan government of national unity with someone like Zell Miller or even Hillary Clinton--before Osama Bin Laden strikes again...

Belgravia Dispatch

My wife told me to read what this website had to say about Hurricane Katrina. I did, and shall add it to my blogroll, forthwith...

PS Also recommended reading Michelle Malkin and Andrew Sullivan.

Inside Russia's Valdai Discussion Club

The Club unites former Sovietologists, that is, leading American and European experts on post-Soviet territory, as well as Russian politicians and analysts.

Before meeting the President [Putin] last Monday a group of fifty foreign experts had been through a real marathon: in the first half of the day they listened to the speeches of Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Vladislav Surkov, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov, Minister of Communications Yevgeny Reiman, Minister of Oil and Natural Resources Yury Trutnev, and finally three deputy ministers from the government's 'economic' bloc. The experts who had been used to patiently screen bits of information from the former U.S.S.R. and later on from Russia, were literally showered with exclusive and often classified information.

The participants in the second session were very prominent figures, too. It was attended by Marshall Goldman (US), a seasoned expert on Soviet studies, Germany's best known expert on Russia Alexander Rahr, leading foreign policy expert from France Thierry de Montbrial, and Lord Howell, a shadow minister in the British Parliament, to name but a few. In other words, these were the best of the best.

Nic, Bupkis & Nichevo

Just found that there was a link to here from Nic, Bupkis & Nichevo, so thought I'd return the favor...

Bloggers Do the American Political Science Association Convention

Last Friday, I attended the American Political Science Association convention at Washington, DC's Mariott Wardman Park and Omni Shoreham Hotels. It was huge. For fans of what Washingtonians call "show business for ugly people," it seemed something like a buttoned-down version of the Cannes Film Festival. The APSA convention motto: "Mobilizing Democracy." (I had my mobile phone with me, does that count?)

At registration, I spotted Washington Post columnist David Broder and Princeton University professor Cornel West. The 0800 am session on Bush's presidential leadership style, in which Princeton political science professor Fred Greenstein predicted that Bush would come back from outrage over Hurricane Katrina in the same way he came back after 9/11 was packed--Broder was in the audience, as was Brookings Institution political guru Thomas Mann, among other American politological luminaries. Washington Post reporter John Harris shared a scoop, as he contrasted the governing styles of Bush and Clinton, then revealed that Hillary likes Bush Junior's style and hopes to emulate it. Yikes!

I missed seeing Republican bigwigs Elliott Abrams, and Bill Kristol, or former Clinton advisor William Galston, who appeared at some other panels, (I guess they aren't too busy doing their jobs to bloviate with academics) but did have a chance to drop in on a panel about the Bush doctrine in Iraq.

It featured John Hopkins professor Francis Fukuyama, who appeared with Princeton's John Ikenberry, and the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer. The banner hanging above their heads read: "APSA: Networking a World of Scholars."

It was strange to hear Fukuyama, one of the signatories of the famous (or notorious) 1998 letter to President Clinton calling for the American overthrow of Saddam Hussein, now mocking the Bush doctrine as an equivalent to the Wizard of Oz scene where the munchkins come out singing "Ding, dong, the Witch is dead..." Fukuyama may be right now, or he may have been right then, or he may be wrong twice in a row. Could he have been right twice in a row? Who knows? Maybe the Bushies thought it was the end of history, or something? I admit that I don't know...

I do know that I certainly would want to think twice before I would trust anything Fukuyama has to say about politics or world affairs.

The worst was yet to come. Professor Ikenberry was icky in the extreme, he actually used the term "final solution" in connection with Bush's policies in Iraq, a creepy academic type, who thought he was so cute and clever. Ikenberry appeared so amoral and calculated that he made Fukuyama look good by comparison. Mearsheimer seemed to be the most "realistic" of the bunch, arguing that the Bush doctrine is dead, though no one will admit it. This, at least, is a testable hypothesis. We have three years to see if he is right or wrong...

Most interesting--after the book exhibit, which really was great, all publishers were there, and some gave away free books, which I'll discuss as I read them--was the Claremont Institute's panel on bloggers and politics, concentrating on Powerline's coverage of the Dan Rather 60 Minutes II scandal. Both John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff were there, and there was a lively debate about blogs versus newspapers with Jeff Gertz of The Washington Times and the Boston Globe's Peter Canellos. Canellos gave the liberal line pretty well, and Hinderaker agressively challenged him. It was almost like watching Crossfire. (You can see Hinderaker v. Canellos in the picture above.)

At that same session, I learned that author and US News correspondent Michael Barone is now a blogger, since he was introduced from the audience as a member of the tribe.

Overall, I'd say reporters at APSA were more interesting than professors, and bloggers at least as interesting as journalists. And before attending APSA, I didn't realize that Bush political appointees cared what political science professors thought (a mistake, IMHO).

Karen Hughes and the Islamists

Thanks to a tip from Powerline (I went to their panel session about Dan Rather at the American Political Science Association over the weekend), I read this disturbing article by Joel Mowbray detailing Karen Hughes' embrace of the Islamic Society of North America, a reportedly pro-Islamist organization according to Mowbray.

Hughes' PR strategy seems to be dangerous, and indicates that the Bush administration may not have learned from its mistakes in the soon-to-be "Islamic Republic of Iraq." The State Department's position on her appearance seems to be a direct provocation to Russia over Chechnya. If I were the Russian ambassador, I'd file a diplomatic protest immediately, based on the information in Mowbray's account, as Hughes' appears to be consorting with supporters of terrorism:

When asked about much of the above, State spokesman Clay seemed uninterested. He first argued that Hughes' appearance was no big deal, since the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security were also sending representatives. But DHS and DOJ sent low-level department lawyers who are neither principals nor political appointees. Not the same thing as sending someone who's logged countless hours by the President's side.

Clay also defended the appearance before ISNA by noting, 'They do not support terrorism.'

Except when they do.

In a January 2000 press release, ISNA declared, 'In order to honor the Shaheeds and the Mujahideen of Chechnia, ISNA has decided to dedicate Shawwal 1, 1420, the day of Eid al Fitr as 'Solidarity with Chechnia Day' throughout North America.'

'Shaheeds' is the term used by jihadists for glorification of suicide bombers. U.S. law officials think that the 'shaheeds' and 'Mujahideen' in Chechnya are terrorists; many of the most high-profile terror cases since 9/11 have involved support for those forces.

Even giving Clay the benefit of the doubt that he did not know of the Chechnya statement, is lack of support for terrorism the only bar which an organization must clear?

Administration officials--particularly someone of Hughes' prominence--should embrace the organizations fighting the Saudi takeover of Islam in America, not the group perhaps most responsible for perpetrating that very takeover.

Spun off of the Saudi-created and funded Muslim Students Association (MSA) over 20 years ago, ISNA is likely the largest single provider of Islamic materials to mosques in America.

For a sampling of what might be contained in Saudi-sponsored pamphlets and literature, one need look no further than the Freedom House report issued earlier this year. Using Muslim volunteers to gather Saudi-published or sponsored materials in more than a dozen prominent mosques across the country, Freedom House found shocking intolerance, anti-Semitism, and even explicit endorsement of violence.

Bush Can Learn From Putin

That's the advice from Konstantin's Russian Blog, in relation to the tragedy in New Orleans.

The Islamic Republic of Iraq?

Writing in The National Review, Andrew McCarthy responds to Charles Krauthammer's cheerleading on behalf of the Bush administration's new Iraqi constitution, one that make Islam the state religion:

An obsession that all people must submit to the authority of Islam is the beating heart of militancy. Concededly, the proposed constitution is not a militant document — there is much in it that would be anathema to jihadists. Still, the drive to impose Islam formally as the state religion, over the objections of a substantial minority of Iraqis, is hardly an augur of moderation.

Read the whole thing, as Glenn Reynolds likes to say...

Gas Prices Get Personal

Just paid $3.57 a gallon for gas here, near Dulles airport. When I got back to DC, saw the same gallon of gas cost between $3.71 and $3.79.

I'm old enough to remember the Carter Years of stagflation, OPEC, and hostages, so I'd say things are looking a little too much like the 70s already...

Bush Cronyism in FEMA Disaster

The polite word is "networking," the blunter term is "cronyism" --the result of Washington politics as usual in picking the head of FEMA has been calamity in New Orleans, according to
the Boston Herald (War and Piece had this tip earlier):

Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Brown spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders' and horse-show organization based in Colorado.

``We do disciplinary actions, certification of (show trial) judges. We hold classes to train people to become judges and stewards. And we keep records,'' explained a spokeswoman for the IAHA commissioner's office. ``This was his full-time job . . . for 11 years,'' she added.

Brown was forced out of the position after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures.

``He was asked to resign,'' Bill Pennington, president of the IAHA at the time, confirmed last night.

Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh, the previous head of FEMA until he quit in 2003 to work for the president's re-election campaign.

The White House last night defended Brown's appointment. A spokesman noted Brown served as FEMA deputy director and general counsel before taking the top job, and that he has now overseen the response to ``more than 164 declared disasters and emergencies,'' including last year's record-setting hurricane season."

Bush's strategy of spreading enough graft around to keep both Republicans and Democrats happy may come back to haunt him and his party. Newt Gingrich, who organized the Republican revolution that began with exposure of a Congressional check-kiting scandal, once said that people will tolerate corruption so long as they receive government goods and services, but that if they don't get them, they won't tolerate corruption--and it can become an explosive political issue.

Also, there are probably some other scandals lurking, such as questions about construction contracts on the New Orleans levees. Why did they give way, could shoddy construction or engineering, or improper inspections, due to corruption, be to blame?

If the Democrats stick to a "good government" political strategy, rather than race-baiting, they stand a good chance to take the House back in 2006 using this issue. Then, they will be in a position to impeach Bush over the New Orleans flood (even if the Senate stays Republican), which may help their chances in 2006. As the Washington Post editorial argued yesterday, literally billions of dollars have been spent on disaster preparedness since 9/11--yet America was totally unprepared for New Orleans. That means money has been lost, wasted, or stolen by President Bush and his administration. So it should be an interesting election year...

Galveston Hurricane of 1900

Wikipedia has interesting entry on the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, a forerunner to Katrina...

Bush Opens Begging Bowl

The most depressing news yet, from China's Xinhua News Agency:

 WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States, suffering from heavy death toll and economic losses wrought by Hurricane Katrina, will accept any offers of aid from abroad, the White House said Thursday.

    "We are open to all offers of assistance from other nations, and I would expect we would take people up on offers of assistance when it's necessary," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

    Also on Thursday, US President George W. Bush has asked his father, former president George Bush and his predecessor, former president Bill Clinton to lead fundraising efforts for the victimsof Hurricane Katrina.

Can't we take care of our own? Even India refused international aid, after the Asian tsunami...

Don't Blame the Neocons

Brendan O'Neill says the Clinton administration built up Al Qaeda, by turning a blind eye to Islamist militants funded and supplied by Iran during the Bosnian conflict in what is now former Yugoslavia. He notes that many reputed Al Qaeda terrorists have well-documented ties to groups active in Kosovo and Bosnia, as well as Chechnya. Unfortunately, the article in The Spectator.co.uk is available by paid subscription only. I hope they open it up...

War and Piece Says FEMA Head Not Qualified

Will Bush's cronyism do him in? War and Piece thinks it might:

My lord, the guy heading FEMA has no qualifications. What was he doing before getting pulled into FEMA by the Bush administration in 2003? He was an estate planning lawyer in Colorado and of counsel for the International Arabian Horse Association Legal Department. And yes, it is the same Michael D. Brown.

He Might Have Stopped...

This White House photo by Paul Morse says it all: Bush is unable or unwilling to get personally involved, in order to help people in New Orleans. He won't stop his plane to get out and take a look, comfort the suffering people of the Gulf Coast, or crack heads to be sure that the job is being done right.

Any other President--or mayor, or governor, or normal elected official in a democracy--would have been down on the ground, in hip boots, wading through the muck, encouraging rescue and recovery efforts. If he didn't want to get wet, Bush might have more closely inspected the damage from a helicopter, as he did in NYC after 9/11. Instead, Bush chose to stay above it all, peering down from the comfort of his Air Force One seat.

The White House has long had the reputation of refusing to put the President in "uncontrolled" situations. He took three days to get to NYC after 9/11, something this New York native has never forgotten. Better late than never...but if Bush can't deal with "uncontrolled" situations in his fifth year in office, IMHO he's not qualified to be President of the United States.

Human Rights Activist Arrested in Moscow Terror Plot

Little Green Footballs tipped us off to this Mosnews story about the activities of former Guantanamo prisoners.

All in all, of the seven Russian Guantanamo prisoners extradited from Cuba in 2004, only two are not in custody.

Airat Vakhitov, arrested Saturday, was engaged in human rights activities in Moscow, Vremya Novostei reports. He wrote articles and was working on a book about rights violations in Guantanamo, was going to travel to London for the former Guantanamo prisoners Round Table, as was Rustam Akhmyarov.

If the police manage to link the two Guantanamo prisoners arrested in Moscow and those arrested in Tatarstan, it may prove that they are related to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the newspaper summed up.