Konstantin on Russian Winter

Konstantin's Russian Blog waxes eloquent about Russia's "General Winter":

A couple of years ago I talked with one British intellectual about WWW2. As almost all British intellectuals younger than 50 he soon started talking about General Frost that saved Soviets from imminent catastrophe. I asked him, “What about Admiral Channel? If England were not separated from the Continent by English Channel it would’ve taken German tanks only a couple of weeks to roll over streets of Glasgow.” He went mad. Totally mad. He started raving about British patriotism, bravery, tenacity, professionalism, superb command, etc. etc. Admiral Channel saved Hitler, he said, as it also prevented Brits from rolling over Berlin in a week or so.

People who talk about General Frost somehow forgot that Russians are not superhuman and suffer from frost exactly the same way as Germans. Only Russians know Russians winters are cold but Germans (and French and Swedish before them) somehow forgot about it. It speaks a lot about German military professionalism.

Text of Bin Laden Message

Text from BBC Monitoring:

My message to you is about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the way to end it.

I had not intended to speak to you about this issue, because, for us, this issue is already decided: diamonds cut diamonds.

Praise be to God, our conditions are always improving, becoming better, while yours are the opposite.

However, what prompted me to speak are the repeated fallacies of your President Bush in his comment on the outcome of US opinion polls, which indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of the forces from Iraq, but he objected to this desire and said that the withdrawal of troops would send the wrong message to the enemy.

Bush said: It is better to fight them on their ground than they fighting us on our ground.

In my response to these fallacies, I say: The war in Iraq is raging and operations in Afghanistan are on the rise in our favour, praise be to God.

The Pentagon figures indicate the rise in the number of your dead and wounded, let alone the huge material losses.

To go back to where I started, I say that the results of the poll satisfy sane people and that Bush's objection to them is false.

Reality testifies that the war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq, as he claims.

In fact, Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources.

On the other hand, the mujahideen, praise be to God, have managed to breach all the security measures adopted by the unjust nations of the coalition time and again.

The evidence for this are the bombings you have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries of this aggressive coalition.

As for the delay in carrying out similar operations in America, this was not due to the failure to breach your security measures.

Operations are in preparation and you will see them on your own ground once the preparations are finished, God willing.

Based on the above, we see that Bush's argument is false.

However, the argument that he avoided, which is the substance of the results of opinion polls on withdrawing the troops, is that it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land and for them not to fight us on our land.

We do not object to a long-term truce with you on the basis of fair conditions that we respect.

We are a nation to which God has disallowed treachery and lying.

In this truce, both parties will enjoy security and stability and we will build Iraq and Afghanistan which were destroyed by the war.

There is no defect in this solution other than preventing the flow of hundreds of billions to the influential people and war merchants in America, who supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the full text via the AP and NY Times, which has this tidbit:

Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.

In that there is a lesson for you.

IMHO, this is indeed the Bin Laden strategy, though I don't know that if he has calcuated his endgame as carefully as the Russians, who are now in comeback mode...

Muscovites Enjoy -30 Degree Weather

At least, according to the Moscow Times...

Iraq Blog Count

In my googling for the Jill Carroll story, I found this interesting blog about Iraq blogs--Iraq Blog Count.

Al Jazeera on Jill Carroll

Al Jazeera reports kidnapped American freelancer Jill Carroll was "anti-occupation":

Muthana Harith al-Dhari, head of the influential Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), condemned and denounced all violent acts that expose innocent citizens – regardless of their identities – to danger.

Al-Dhari told Iraqi television: "Regarding the recent kidnapping of the American journalist [Jill Carroll] ... This journalist is one of the anti-occupation journalists. Indeed, she wrote many articles that explain the negative signs of the occupation. Also, in a recent story, she focused on the violations performed by government security forces against civilians.

"So, [its possible] that the occupiers might not be far removed from responsibility for this event. But if it was done by some anti-occupation forces then this is a message from us to make them understand the situation and release her in order to allow her to go back to work and participate in uncovering the real reasons for the American occupation in Iraq and the violations against its people."

Interestingly, I heard Jackie Spinner of the Washington Post on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS tonight say that Carroll had no agenda. And the Committee to Protect Journalists has called Carroll "a neutral observer." So who is to be believed in this case: Al Jazeera's Iraqi source, or the Committee to Protect Journalists and a Washington Post correspondent?

Here's a link to an interesting 2005 article with Carroll's byline, from American Journalism Review, A Grim Foreshadowing.

Here's a different sort of Blogger's reaction...a Christian Blogger's response here...an Iraq Blogger here...and a tribute to her translator, Alan, here (scroll down to "Thanks for the Music").

Brooks Boliek on Jill Carroll's Kidnapping

I got to know Brooks Boliek a decade ago, when he covered PBS for the Hollywood Reporter. Here's his remembrance of supervising Jill Carroll as a reporter for States News Service.

Here's a link to a digest of Jill Carroll's war reporting. And here are some no longer active links from Google to Katy Carroll's defunct blog Lady of Arabia:

Holiday Tradgedy in Iraq

31 Aug 2005 by Katie
I got this email from Jill today in response to the stampede in Baghdad today.
She also sent me these great pictures of her making a traditional dish for the
religious holiday today. Jill's the one in the black abaya. ...
Lady of Arabia - http://ladyofarabia.blogspot.com

Jill at the Khadamiya Shrine

26 Aug 2005 by Katie
I got this great email from Jill today. Just to give you an idea of what she's
up to. Not sure if she went for fun or for a story, but here it is:. "... This is
a picture of where I was today. I was sitting in the shrine in the middle ...
Lady of Arabia - http://ladyofarabia.blogspot.com

UPDATE: According to the LA Times, Carroll was a friend of the late Marla Ruzicka, who was killed in Iraq. Here's a link to Carroll's tribute to Ruzicka in the Christian Science Monitor.

Al Jazeera editor Natasha Tynes has posted a tribute to her friendship with Jill Carroll,here and on her weblog.

Central Asian Dining Hits New York City

Julie Moskin's NY Times article today about Central Asian restaurants in "Regostan" (Rego Park, Queens) and Brighton Beach brought back some fond memories of living in Tashkent. I hope the food Julie Moskin found is a little less greasy and the restaurants don't use cottonseed oil in the plov. On the other hand, I'd really miss the fresh lepioshka (aka Non)...

Human Rights Watch: Torture Deliberate US Policy

From Kenneth Roth's introduction to Human Rights Watch's 2005 Annual Report:

President Bush continued to offer deceptive reassurance that the United States does not “torture” suspects, but that reassurance rang hollow. To begin with, the administration’s understanding of the term “torture” remained unclear. The United Nations’ widely ratified Convention against Torture defines the term as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” Yet as of August 2002, the administration had defined torture as nothing short of pain “equivalent…to that…associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will likely result.” In December 2004, the administration repudiated this absurdly narrow definition, but it offered no alternative definition.

The classic forms of torture that the administration continued to defend suggested that its definition remained inadequate. In March 2005, Porter Goss, the CIA director, justified water-boarding, a sanitized term for an age-old, terrifying torture technique in which the victim is made to believe that he is about to drown. The CIA reportedly instituted water-boarding beginning in March 2002 as one of six “enhanced interrogation techniques” for selected terrorist suspects. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in August 2005, the former deputy White House counsel, Timothy Flanigan, would not even rule out using mock executions.

Moreover, President Bush’s pronouncements on torture continued to studiously avoid mention of the parallel prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. That is because, in a policy first pronounced publicly by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2005 Senate testimony, the Bush administration began claiming the power, as noted above, to use cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as the victim was a non-American held outside the United States. Other governments obviously subject detainees to such treatment or worse, but they do so clandestinely. The Bush administration is the only government in the world known to claim this power openly, as a matter of official policy, and to pretend that it is lawful.

Here's the introduction's topic links:

Introduction

Torture and Inhumane Treatment: A Deliberate U.S. Policy

A Compromised U.S. Defense of Human Rights

British Complicity with Torture

Canada’s Ambivalent Position

Detention

Counterterrorism as an Excuse for Silence

The European Union

The Nefarious Role of Russia and China

Darfur and the African Union

International Justice

The United Nations

Conclusion

Notice anything missing?

I'll clue you in: There is no chapter heading devoted to threats to human rights from Arab or Islamic countries, organizations, or terrorist groups. While I agree the US should stop torturing prisoners, it is clear from the emphasis of this Human Rights Watch report that the authors believe human rights are under greater threat from the US, UK, Canada, the EU, Russia, and China than from Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

HRW's manifest priorities undercut the historic struggle for progress in human rights, just as George Bush's defense of torture does, by missing the real threat to human rights today--the organizations, religious leaders, and countries that don't even pay lip service to Enlightenment principles underlying the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What Roth is doing rhetorically in his introduction, it seems to me, is a bit like criticizing President Lincoln for abolishing Habeus Corpus during the Civil War--and not mentioning a threat from Southern Slavery or the firing on Ft. Sumter. After all, John Wilkes' Booth shouted 'Sic Semper Tyrannis!' after shooting Lincoln. Was Booth a 'terrorist,' or a 'freedom fighter,' driven to rebellion by Lincoln's repressive rule?

Think carefully...

More on London's Abu Hamza Trial

Here's the latest story from London's Telegraph, about incitement to suicide bombings directed at tourists:

Abu Hamza, the Muslim preacher, promised his followers "72 beautiful women in paradise" if they became suicide bombers and called on them to target tourists.

The Old Bailey heard Hamza, preaching in a video tape made at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London. He said the aim of jihad (holy war) was to humiliate non-believers and convert them to Islam.

He added: "Now look at the suicide bombs. Does it fulfil all these purposes? Yes, all of them."

Hamza, 47, is accused of nine counts of soliciting to murder, four counts of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour and two further counts of possessing abusive recordings with a view to distribution and possession of a document useful to preparing terrorism.

He praised the mujahideen (holy warriors) and added: "You tell me by Allah, what other obligation in Islam, when the person dies have these kind of things that he will be shahid [martyr], he will have the mercy of Allah, no fear upon him, 72 beautiful women in paradise. These given to him as the first gift."

He was asked by a member of his audience: "I was wondering whether suicide bombing is allowed?"

Hamza replied: "It's not called suicide, it's called Shahid operation. Suicide, this is what people call it to put people off it.

"Because if the only way to hurt the enemies of Islam is by taking your life, then it is allowed."

Hamza added: "When these things happening to the disbelievers, Allah shake them, shake their hearts. Why?

"Because they become terrified. 'These people, what can we do? They're crazy, they're crazy, what can we do?'"

He said tourism was haram (forbidden) and tourists were the shaitan (satan) of all countries.

Sabbah's Blog has another view of the trial.

John LeBoutillier on America's Coming Political Revolution

I hope this John LeBoutillier article is about New York's Rudy Giuliani running for President:

The ‘playing field’ is being ‘prepped’ as if according to a pre-determined script:

A) An increasingly unpopular war with no seeming end - based on questionable evidence of WMD - and supported by both political parties’ establishment;

B) Rising gas prices - (which rise at the drop of a hat) - and home heating fuel - all of which inject worry and cynicism into the body politic;

C) A series of scandals sweeping Washington DC - and which are infecting both political parties;

D) A burgeoning mess for senior citizens who suddenly cannot get their life-saving prescriptions filled - owing to the new Medicare Prescription Drug Program - a product of both political parties;

E) A so-called Mainstream Media which is increasingly shown to be full of fraud and bias and mis-reporting;

F) A corrupt business environment symbolized by Enron, World Com and so many others;

G) The Pentagon’s inability to get life-saving body armor for our troops in Iraq - until someone leaks the internal results of a Pentagon study and then, with 5 days, a shamed Pentagon announces a new shipment of the armor to Iraq;

H) The increased national debt and tragic trade deficit;

I) And the biggest scandal of all: the flood of illegal immigrants across our borders - a scandal which both parties happily turn their cheek to.


This list could go on and on.

It symbolizes the decay of our political leadership - and of character in America.

Today, our celebrity-driven culture idolizes the wrong traits: excessive pride, bragging, rudeness, greed and disgustingly brazen behavior.

And our leaders - in both parties - have shown themselves for what they are: more interested in being somebody instead of doing something.


Yes, all of this decay is ‘prepping the battlefield’ for something long predicted in this space: the inevitable successful run for the White House by an Independent Third Candidate who runs against both political parties for being corrupt co-conspirators in the internal decay of our once-great nation.

Ross Perot in 1992 was leading in all polls going into June of an election year - over an incumbent President Bush and Democrat nominee Bill Clinton. But Perot was strange, didn’t really want to win (he just wanted payback on Bush for a slight in the 1980's) and when he saw that he might indeed win he dropped out of the race. Then, a few months later and starved for attention, he re-entered the race, performed well in the presidential debates and won a respectable 19% of the popular vote.

Now, 16 years later, American has changed. All of the problems listed above have driven up the cynicism level. More and more voters express dismay over the political establishment. And we still have 3 long years to go!

Who will this Independent Third Candidate be?

Will he be some celebrity kookball like Donald Trump? If so, he will be lucky to garner 5 % of the vote.

But if this candidate has legitimate political credentials, is good on TV and can ‘connect’ with the voters, then he can win.

And his victory will be the beginning of something we desperately need in our country: a new political revolution.

Taliban Comes Back in Afghanistan

The BBC is reporting a resurgence of the Taliban:

The US envoy to Nato has said that a British-led military force due to move into southern Afghanistan must be ready to fight resurgent Taleban militants.

The American Thinker on The New York Times

Roger L. Simon tipped us off to this item about phony anti-American propaganda published on the NY Times's website:

So the formerly authoritative New York Times has published a picture distributed around the world on the home page of its website, using a prop which must have been artfully placed to create a false dramatic impression of cruel incompetence on the part of US forces. Not only did the editors lack the basic knowledge necessary to detect the fake, they didn’t bother to run the photo past anyone with such knowledge before exposing the world to it.

There is an old saying in journalism about stories which editors really want to run: “too good to check.” It is plainly clear that the New York Times thought this story was too good to check. Their standard of “good” is painfully obvious to all.

Without the internet and blogosphere, probably they would have gotten away with it.

Daniel Pipes Corrects the Pope

Daniel Pipes obviously has chutzpah. He doesn't accept the doctrine of infallibility. Today he argues that Pope Benedict is mistaken about the nature of Islam:

I must register my respectful disagreement. The Koran indeed can be interpreted. Indeed, Muslims interpret the Koran no less than Jews and Christians interpret the Bible, and those interpretations have changed no less over time. The Koran, like the Bible, has a history.

For one indication of this, note the original thinking of the Sudanese theologian Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85). Taha built his interpretation on the conventional division of the Koran into two. The initial verses came down when Muhammad was a powerless prophet living in Mecca, and tend to be cosmological. Later verses came down when Muhammad was the ruler of Medina, and include many specific rulings. These commands eventually served as the basis for the Shari'a, or Islamic law.

Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha's ideas accepted, most of the Shari'a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize.

Even without accepting a grand schema such as Taha proposed, Muslims are already making small moves in the same direction. Islamic courts in reactionary Iran, for example, have broken with Islamic tradition and now permit women the right to sue for divorce and grant a murdered Christian equal recompense with that of a murdered Muslim.

As this suggests, Islam is not stuck. But huge efforts are needed to get it moving again.

Killer Bait aka Too Late for Tears

Another Netflix goodie: Killer Bait (1949). Lizabeth Scott is a really bad femme fatale, a true sociopath, so convincing in her lies that I believed every one she told--as she killed again and again. Dan Duryea is bad, but not quite as bad as Scott. The rest of the cast is awfully good in this low-key, slow-paced thriller that builds to a tremendous Tosca-like operatic climax. The cops are fools, and only an angry man with a grudge, a mysterious stranger played by Don DeFore can save the day. Add it to your queue.

The Meaning of the Martin Luther King Holiday

Coretta Scott King explains:

The Holiday commemorates America’s pre-eminent advocate of nonviolence --- the man who taught by his example that nonviolent action is the most powerful, revolutionary force for social change available to oppressed people in their struggles for liberation.

This holiday honors the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway.
Every King holiday has been a national "teach-in" on the values of nonviolence, including unconditional love, tolerance, forgiveness and reconciliation, which are so desperately-needed to unify America. It is a day of intensive education and training in Martin’s philosophy and methods of nonviolent social change and conflict-reconciliation. The Holiday provides a unique opportunity to teach young people to fight evil, not people, to get in the habit of asking themselves, "what is the most loving way I can resolve this conflict?"

On the King holiday, young people learn about the power of unconditional love even for one's adversaries as a way to fight injustice and defuse violent disputes. It is a time to show them the power of forgiveness in the healing process at the interpersonal as well as international levels.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is not only for celebration and remembrance, education and tribute, but above all a day of service. All across America on the Holiday, his followers perform service in hospitals and shelters and prisons and wherever people need some help. It is a day of volunteering to feed the hungry, rehabilitate housing, tutoring those who can't read, mentoring at-risk youngsters, consoling the broken-hearted and a thousand other projects for building the beloved community of his dream.

Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we "will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question, he said, is `what are you doing for others?'" he would quote Mark 9:35, the scripture in which Jesus of Nazareth tells James and John "...whosoever will be great among you shall be your servant; and whosoever among you will be the first shall be the servant of all." And when Martin talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life. "I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others," he said. "I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life...to love and serve humanity.

We call you to commemorate this Holiday by making your personal commitment to serve humanity with the vibrant spirit of unconditional love that was his greatest strength, and which empowered all of the great victories of his leadership. And with our hearts open to this spirit of unconditional love, we can indeed achieve the Beloved Community of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream.

Anoniblog's Tips for Dissident Bloggers

From the Anoniblog Wiki:

Across the globe, countries that discourage free speech have followed their citizens into the blogosphere. According to one count, in the last two years at least 30 bloggers (and there are no doubt more) have been interrogated, arrested, tortured and sentenced to long prison terms for the "crime" of speaking critically about their governments. Regardless of your culture, your country, your politics or religion, we believe you deserve to speak your mind without falling afoul of state power. Unfortunately, what you deserve and what you get are not always the same thing. So, for those of you who wish to speak out on your blogs, but who do not wish to risk imprisonment or worse for doing so, we have prepared guides that will help you to blog more safely by blogging more anonymously.

But please note: Blogging can never be completely anonymous. With enough time, resources and political will, a group or government can discover who you are. We cannot guarantee that even if you follow the instructions on these guides to the letter that you will run no risk. You always take a chance when you speak your mind to people who cannot tolerate dissent. But we hope that these guides will enable you to minimize those risks, or at least be more aware of them.

Please think of what we've done here as a starting point. We encourage you to expand, update and edit the existing guides. If your country, area or language is not represented, we hope you will take advantage of the resources we have provided and build your own anonymous blogging guides. Above all, as you help to develop this resource, we wish you to stay safe and free and speaking to the world as your conscience dictates.

(ht The Religious Policeman)

John R. Bradley on Saudi Arabia

From an inteview with the author of Saudi Arabia Exposed:

Q. What are the key themes and central messages of your book? What is your underlying thesis?

My thesis is that Saudi Arabia is an empire, and to understand what Saudi Arabia is you have to go back to the 1920s and early 1930s, the formative years just before the kingdom was established in 1932. What you find is the country that would become Saudi Arabia was then made up of very distinct regions: the Hijaz in the West, which was liberal and diverse; the Eastern Province, which is majority Shiite; the Asir region, where the people worshipped the local ruler as a saint; and the northern regions like Al Jouf, where the locals had historic tribal ties to Iraq and Syria.

All these regions were conquered by the Al Saud dynasty and the Wahabi zealots they employed as foot soldiers. Al Saud hegemony was imposed, often with the sword. There were no fewer than 26 major rebellions. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. What I discovered when I travelled to these regions was that resistance to Wahabism especially has remained very strong — that Hijazis have a pluralistic and liberal tradition which they are very much aware of, that Asiris have not accepted the Al-Saud-Wahabi hegemony; and that in fact there are still men and boys who still wear flowers in their hair in the mountains down there: hardly Wahabi behaviour.

The Eastern Province is still majority Shiite, and they are persecuted. In the north there has been a minor rebellion in Al Jouf, which represents tribal and other groups trying to take advantage of a perhaps fatally weakened Saudi regime in the wake of 9/11 and the ensuing domestic violence to reassert territorial claims.

I see the Saudi people as not wanting to overthrow the Al Saud regime, but very much aware of their diverse history, which is denied them in the name of an alien ideology. They want to reclaim that history, just as people who lived under the Soviet Empire — in Poland, East Germany, or even Russia itself — were waiting for the moment to cast off the ideology that oppressed them: Communism.

The Religious Policeman on the Hajj Tragedy

Here.

Anne Althouse on the Alito Hearings

I'll defer to the professional expertise of the law professor and blogger:

Ah, thank God, it's finally over! I waited so long for Supreme Court appointments, and I was so excited about finally getting to some hearings. But, wow, the drudgery of following these things!

To Russia, With Love...

Earlier this week, I had a chance to hear Dr. Margaret Paxson present a book talk at Washington's Woodrow Wilson Center about her study of life in a Russian village, entitled Solovyovo. I had met Dr. Paxson in Moscow, where she was selecting Russian academics to come to America. We had an interesting lunch discussion, where she expressed some skepticism of the prevalent view in the West that the 1990s reign of the oligarchs had been a necessary stage in the transition from Communism to Capitalism. It was a perspective that I had heard from Russians, but not often from Americans. So, when the invitation to her book talk arrived in my email box, I made sure to attend.

The event was quite interesting, because Dr. Paxson's talk was illustrated with photos of the village taken by a Washington Post photographer that looked like something from the 19th Century--men sharpening hand-scythes, women harvesting hay with wooden rakes, horses, wooden houses, piles of potatoes. The snapshots reminded me of descriptions found in Gogol's Dead Souls or Wallace's Russia on the Eve of Revolution: 1905. And also of Sholom Aleichem's Anatevka, but without his Russian Jews.

Dr. Paxson read a chapter from the book, and her intonation and style seemed very Russian--poetic, elegaic, romantic, emotional. The many Russians in the room loved every word. It was a poem to village life, the heart and soul of Russia. Although there was a little bit of academic stuff in the presentation and discussion, what Paxson has obviously done is document her love for the Russian peasantry--an eternal theme of the Russian Slavophil movement. Paxson even said she found cosmopolitan and internationalist Moscow "depressing".

It was a very Russian event, and clearly Dr. Paxson loves rural Russia very deeply. Which in these days of Russia-bashing, was a delightful and surprising thing to hear in a Washington think-tank.

Still More on Abu Hamza

Channel 4 News reports:

Abu Hamza preached that killing non-Muslims was justified even if there was no reason for it, the Old Bailey has heard.

"Killing an adulterer, even if he is a Muslin is OK. Killing a Kaffir (unbeliever) who is fighting you is OK.

"Killing a Kaffir for any reason you can say it is OK even if there is no reason for it," he told an audience.

A video of Hamza's talk given in September 1999 and entitled "Adherence to Islam in the Western World" was played to jurors trying him on race-hate allegations.

In it he says Islamic beliefs should be spread with the help of the sword.

ICG's Kid-Glove Coddling of Saudi Arabia

The International Crisis Group has been one of the most outspoken advocates of tough sanctions, boycotts, and international investigations of the government of Uzbekistan. So I took a look at their website to see what they are up to in Saudi Arabia. Not too much, it seems. But I did find this recent report on the oppression of Shiites. Curiously, ICG is not advocating the same approach as they have put forward for dealing with Uzbekistan. Don't challenge on the Saudi family head-on, ICG advises. Instead, they say: "But foreign pressure directly targeting the issue, especially in light of growing suspicions that the U.S. is hostile to Islam and championing Shiites regionally, could backfire."

In fact, the direct confrontation with Uzbekistan recommended by ICG did backfire, leading to the closing of the US air base in Karshi-Khanabad. And failure to confront the Saudis directly, as I was convinced by Dr. Alyami yesterday, will achieve precisely nothing.

Perhaps that's what ICG really wants?

AEI Hosts Arab Dissidents and Reformers

This morning I attended a fascinating series of panels at the American Enterprise Institute, called
Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Dissidents and Reformers from the Arab World Speak Out. It was hosted by AEI's Danielle Pletka and Michael Rubin, and featured Egyptian Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Tunisian Neila Charchour Hachicha, Libyan Mohamel Eljahmi, Yemenites Ali Saif Hassan and Hafez Al-Bukari (a famous Uzbek name, I wondered about his family origins, perhaps Uzbeks in Saudi Arabia?), Kuwaiti Rola Dashti, and Iraqi Kanan Makiya.

Strangely, there was no representative from Saudi Arabia on the panel--though my new acquaitance, Dr. Ali Alyami was in the audience, and asked a question.

If I had to characterize the speakers, I'd say Pletka and Rubin gave good introductions, and Kanan Makiya some excellent closing remarks about the difference between dissidents and reformers. Most outstanding speakers were Rola Dashti, who declared:

Yes, with our will, determination, perseverance and support of friends like you we won our first battle against the ideology of radical Islamists, our dream came true and things started to change...But winning the battle is not enough, we need to win the war against these radical Islamists who not only oppress women, but also embrace extremism as a mode of thinking, enclosure as a mode of life, and terrorism as a mode to conflict resolution...

And Nelia Charchour Hachicha, who pointed out:

Therefore, under long-lasting autorcarcies free elections do not offer a 'democratic' solution since the electoral tool becomes a demagogical tool...Now, pacifying first the Moslem societies to allow free elections seems to me the right way to obtain real democratic elections. But! Under the imperative condition that we first get an open political context to build a free independent civil society.

The most disturbing presentation came from Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who had been jailed by Hosni Mubarak and freed only due to American pressure. He basically appeared as an advocate for the Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that the Muslim Brothers could become the Arab world's equivalent of European Christian Democrats during the Cold War. Neither of the Arab women panelists were convinced, and neither was I. He seemed to be, at best, a sincerely misguided liberal, or at worst a liar and a con man.

For during the Cold War, Christian Democrats shared an anti-Communist ideological agenda with Western liberals. But today, the Muslim Brotherhood shares an anti-Western ideological agenda with Islamist terrorists. The correct analogy would be to European Communist parties during the Cold War. American strategy--correctly, IMHO--sought to exclude them from governments, not to empower them, because they were on the side of America's adversaries. The same policy would be wise to follow with the Muslim Brothers. To answer President Bush's famous question, they are "against us." Helping them to win elections--as some member of the audience from the National Endowment for Democracy stated the US government has been doing--is suicidal as well as dumb.

In the end, the event well and truly produced a great deal of both heat and light, and the AEI is to be commended for actually hosting a vigorous and exciting debate. A good next step, if AEI is serious about reform and dissidence in the Arab world, might be to add a panel on the question of democracy and human rights in Saudi Arabia, and invite Dr. Alyami to participate...

More on the Abu Hamza Trial

From The London Time's Sean O'Neill:

TWO very different Abu Hamzas appeared at the Old Bailey yesterday as the trial of the former imam of Finsbury Park mosque was shown video recordings of the radical cleric preaching.

Abu Hamza al-Masri sat in silence in the dock watching a much more animated and younger version of himself. The on-screen Abu Hamza was passionate, gesticulating with the stumps of his amputated arms as he emphasised the plight of Muslims around the world, the duty to fight the unbeliever and the evils of democracy.

This Abu Hamza emphasised the need for young Muslim men to train for jihad and to identify targets including the law courts, banks and brothels — all of them symbols of corrupt “kuffar countries” like Britain.

Living in such a country was, the angry figure in the flickering video said, little better than visiting a lavatory. Clearly visible on the screen was Abu Hamza’s hook. He does not wear the hook in court and this was the first time the jurors had seen it.

Abu Hamza, 47, denies all the charges on a 15-count indictment made up of nine offences of soliciting to murder, four of inciting racial hatred, one of possessing offensive recordings and one of possessing a terrorist manual, the Encyclopedia of the Afghani Jihad. The key evidence in the prosecution case against him is contained in video and audio tapes of sermons and lectures delivered by Abu Hamza between 1997 and 2000. The first of these to be aired was recorded seven years ago at a public meeting in Whitechapel, East London.

Abu Hamza’s lecture began slowly, condemning Muslims for enjoying the comforts of life in Britain — cookers, fridges, television and takeaway chicken — while their brothers and sisters suffered around the world. But as he warmed to his theme — the establishment of the Khilafah, or Islamic state — his voice reverberated in the wood-panelled courtroom.

Abu Hamza spoke in rapid-fire broken English. It was stream of consciousness, delivered over a period of more than two hours. He rambled and ranted, dictated and demanded, issued orders and captivated his listeners. Occasionally, there were flashes of humour; he mocked the former UN Secretary-General with a joke from The Fast Show, calling him “Boutros, Boutros, Boutros Ghali ”. The sound quality was poor but the judge, jurors and lawyers had a typed transcript. The prosecution alleges that the meaning of Abu Hamza’s words is unambiguous and amounts to encouraging his followers to commit murder.

Human Rights Watch Reports on Saudi Arabia

I was struck by how feeble current Human Rights Watch reports on Saudi Arabia seem, when compared to their extensive campaign against Uzbekistan. No calls for international investigations, no calls to ban Saudi officials from entry to the EU or USA, no calls for boycotts, no demands to break military alliances, and so on.

Yet Saudi Arabia is the main funder of Islamist terror, in addition to being home to a terrorist regime that oppresses non-Wahabi Muslims (I learned yesterday that even Sufi Muslims in the Hejaz must practice their traditional faith in secrecy), allows slavery, oppresses women, and so on.

By any reasonable standard Uzbekistan is freer than Saudi Arabia. So why the double standard at Human Rights Watch? How exactly does the organization select its campaign targets? Is there any transparency to the process? Why not more pressure on Saudi Arabia, right now?

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

Lunched today with Saudi dissident Dr. Ali Alyami, who asked tough questions of Condoleeza Rice at the Heritage Foundation a little while ago. He was passionate and impressive (reminded me a little of my anti-Castro filmmaker friend Agustin Blazquez). Dr. Alyami referred me to the website of his organization The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia. He had so much to say, I encouraged him to write a book about how to bring democracy and human rights to Saudi Arabia. If he ever does, for what its worth, I'd plug it on this blog...

Abu Hamza Trial Continues

The New York Times ran this dull Alan Cowell story, haven't seen the paper yet to find out what page. My guess is that it's not page one, even though Hamza's followers were part of the plot to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11--and the US is seeking extradition to try him for crimes here in America. I do know the Washington Post buried Kevin Sullivan's account of the trial on the bottom of page A 18.

The British press corps is on top of the story, though. Here's a link to the BBC account of today's events, Channel 4 News , Reuters , the Daily Telegraph , the Guardian , the Times of London , the Financial Times, the Sun and the Daily Mail.

Abu Hamza Trial Begins in London

Here's The Guardian's account:

The Muslim cleric Abu Hamza encouraged his followers to murder "non-believers", the Old Bailey heard today at the start of his trial.

The preacher singled out Jews, proclaiming in one of his sermons that "Hitler was sent into the world" because of their "treachery, blasphemy and filth", the jury was told. Mr Hamza also claimed that Jews controlled the west and must be removed from the Earth, the court heard.

Opening the prosecution case, David Perry told the jury they would hear tapes and watch video of the 47-year-old cleric "preaching hatred".

Mr Perry said that Mr Hamza told his followers that that "as part of the religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, it was part of the religious duty to kill".

Mr Hamza, 47, from west London, faces a total of 15 race hate charges, including nine charges under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 alleging he solicited others at public meetings to murder Jews and other non-Muslims. He denies all the charges.

Mr Perry said that Mr Hamza was a well-known preacher or speaker in the Muslim community who frequently gave talks at meetings and delivered sermons at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London before it closed in 2003.

The barrister said the "prosecution's case, in a sentence, was that that the defendant ... was preaching murder and hatred in these talks".

Mr Perry said Mr Hamza possessed a book called the Encyclopaedia of Afghani Jihad, which ran to 10 volumes and described how to make explosives and also "explained assassination methods and ... how a terrorist unit, or a military unit, can most effectively operate".

Mr Perry said: "What the prosecution say about that encyclopaedia is that it was a manual for terrorism. It was a manual that would assist and be designed to assist any person who is likely to be engaged in preparing or actually carrying out a terrorist act."

Mr Hamza faces a charge relating to the encyclopaedia under section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which accuses him of possession of a document, which contained information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

He also faces four charges under the Public Order Act 1986 of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred".

A further charge alleges Mr Hamza was in possession of video and audio recordings, which he intended to distribute to stir up racial hatred. It was some of those cassettes that formed the basis of the prosecution's case, Mr Perry said.

The lawyer said: "You will hear the tapes and we will hear that the defendant, Sheikh Abu Hamza, encouraged his listeners, whether they were an audience at a private meeting or a congregation at the mosque, to believe that it was part of a religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, God, and as part of the religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, it was part of the religious duty to kill."

It will be interesting to see how the New York Times and Washington Post cover this case...

The Last Hurrah

Here's another good film for your Netflix queue, John Ford's 1958 classic The Last Hurrah. I had seen it years ago, and remembered liking Spencer Tracy. But I hadn't remembered how funny and touching it was. Maybe because I am older--and have seen a little bit more. I really enjoyed the whole Irish immigrant angle, which I had forgotten, especially when Spencer Tracy barges into the restricted "Plymouth Club" to confront a group of Yankee bluebloods having lunch in their private dining room. All sorts of great acting, and supporting players Lionel Barrymore, Pat O'Brian, John Carradine. A laugh and a tear. And lines to remember, like: "You know what America's greatest spectator sport is? Politics."

I would have liked to have had this film when I taught American culture in Russia.

The Unofficial Chopin Homepage

I found this tribute to Chopin while following up on Jerzy Antczak's film version of the composer's life. It has lots of interesting links, plus MIDI versions of his music.

How to Write a Novel in a Year

Louise Doughty tells you how to do it, in this article from London's Telegraph.

For those of us who come from decidedly non-literary backgrounds, there is something wonderful about being a writer - all the shallow stuff we are supposed to despise; the café talk, the book launches, the scanning of literary pages feeling guiltily gratified when a friend gets a bad review. Forget for a moment the loneliness, paranoia and financial insecurity, Being a Writer is great fun.

But there is a catch. You have to write. This is something that would-be writers sometimes appear not to have grasped , , ,

Doughty also has a place to post your writing, for others to read your work-in-progress. (ht This 'n That)

The Alito Confirmation--What's It All About?

Seems like some sort of strange charade, people going through the motions of an inexplicable marathon ritual. Unless there are some dramatic developments, people may ask what all the fuss was about. I'm not following it very closely right now--but Heather MacDonald is, and published an interesting oped about Alito's significance, in the Wall Street Journal today.

A Russian (and Baltic) New Year's Scrapbook

You can see a lot of nice pictures of Estonia and Russia at New Year's over on Scraps of Moscow.

360 Degrees of the Great Wall of China

I'm really getting into discovering 360-degree panoramas on the internet. Here's one of the Great Wall of China.

From Our Hell Hath No Fury Department

Did Viktor Yushchenko think things through before he scorned Yuliya Tymoshenko?

KIEV, December 10 (RIA Novosti) - Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko said Tuesday she approved of the decision by the Supreme Rada, Ukraine's parliament, to dismiss Yuriy Yekhanurov's government.

"This means that the next prime minister and the next government will be elected by the Ukrainian people, and not a backstage regime," she said.

According to news reports, Tymoshenko is now leading the opposition to her former "Orange Revolution" comrade, Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko. Tymoshenko has apparently made peace with Ukraine's pro-Russian faction, in advance of upcoming elections.

British General Slams US Military in Iraq

From Australia's The Age:

THE US Army in Iraq has been accused of cultural ignorance moralistic self-righteousness, unproductive micro-management and unwarranted optimism in a magazine published by the army.

The scathing critique of the US Army and its performance in Iraq was written by a senior British officer.

In an article published this week in the army magazine Military Review, Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was deputy commander of a program to train the Iraqi military, said American officers in Iraq displayed such "cultural insensitivity" that it "arguably amounted to institutional racism" and may have spurred the growth of the insurgency.

The army has been slow to adapt its tactics, he argues, and its approach during the early stages of the occupation "exacerbated the task it now faces by alienating significant sections of the population".

Here's a link to the original article in Military Review: Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations by Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, British Army.

A Plug For Kate O'Beirne's New Book

Kate was one of the few people who was nice to me after I left the world of conservative think-tanks. Although we don't always agree on everything, she's very, very smart and also entertaining. In addition to heading the Washington bureau of National Review, she's a lawyer from New York City, where her father owned a 52nd Street jazz club, of all things . . .

Mark Steyn on Michael Crichton

The Canadian wit discusses State of Fear and the Kyoto protocol--siding with Michael Crichton against the Green movement:

Question: Why do most global warming advocates begin their scare statistics with "since 1970"?

As in, "since 1970" there's been global surface warming of half a degree or so.

Because from 1940 to 1970, temperatures fell.

Now why would that be?

Who knows? Maybe it was Hitler. Maybe world wars are good for the planet.

Or maybe we should all take a deep breath of CO2 and calm down.

BTW, Russian climatologists generally don't like the Kyoto protocol, either.

Bremer Picks Fight With Holland Over Afghanistan Troops

According to this United Press International story, the hapless former American viceroy in Baghdad appears to be trying to scare Holland into sending more troops to Afghanistan by threatening their American investments:

In an interview with Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant' Bremer said that while he understood Dutch concerns, a failure to send troops would raise questions in Washington about NATO's commitment if the mission doesn't go ahead. Bremer said, 'What is NATO all about if our allies are not prepared to stand should-to-shoulder with us?'

Bremer added that while Europe wanted more international cooperation, 'when the possibility emerges, people are side-stepping it. Time and time again decisions must be taken by the U.S. government, by Congress, that influence Dutch economic interests. It is not difficult to imagine decisions could be taken that would not be in the interests of the Netherlands.'

What can one say? Bremer almost lost Iraq--and if he keeps this up, he's on track to lose Holland as well as Afghanistan.

One thing about the Dutch, they are tough and do things their way.

If they send more troops to Afghanistan, it won't be to make more money. And if they don't do it, it won't be to make more money. Frankly, Holland is rich, and doesn't need our charity.

According to US Government reports, the Netherlands is currenlty the third largest foreign investor in the United States, after Great Britain and Japan.

Statements like Bremer's are not just crude insults, they are an invitation for the Dutch to stand up to American bullying by sticking it to us in Afghanistan.

Because of diplomatic bungling by the Bush administration in the war on terror, Spain has dropped out; Uzbekistan has kicked us out; and we are now waiting to find out what Holland wil do . . .

If Holland can put an end to the Bush administration's pathetic bullying, that will be be a service to humanity--and world peace.

When a Neighbor is Murdered . . .

The news that retired New York Timesman David E. Rosenbaum had been murdered a few blocks from our house has been troubling. Most disturbing of all has been the peculiar way the Times and Post have gingerly stepped around the story as a bona-fide news event.

There was not any first page coverage in either paper--although journalists killed, kidnapped or jailed in other countries are often covered in the main headlines. In fact, the NY Times initially printed only an obituary, without any news story whatsoever.

The reason may be emotional, that the death of a co-worker is too upsetting to print. However, I suspect that it reflects the conscious and unconscious biases at the Times and Post that have hampered their coverage of news elsewhere in the world.

For if the papers had been doing their job, the surviving family members would not have told reporters that they can't imagine who could possibly have killed a 63-year old man for his wallet. In DC, and in every American city, there are people killed every day for even less.

Right now, the DC area is facing some sort of crime wave. Violence has spilled out of the center city into places like Prince George's County and the neighborhood where David E. Rosenbaum was bashed in the head. Had the major media cared about this violence when it happened to non-subscribers, there is every likelihood that police might have cracked down before the perpetrators--emboldened by their ability to operate ever more widely--took a chance on Gramercy Street, NW. So, unable to accept their guilt, now the Times and Post downplay what should be a front-page story demanding at least the head of Washington's inept police chief--and probably the Mayor too. But they don't want to rock the boat, and so tiptoe around the failure of the government to fulfill its most basic function--the preservation of streets one can walk on.

Like common criminals, terrorists can get away with whatever people let them do. If the Times and Post showed that they cared about the victims of street crime, they would also be able to show that they care about the victims of terrorism. But to do that would require a re-thinking of their most closely held prejudices about law and order. Their sympathy for criminals rivals their sympathy for terrorists. And it is a problem for the David E. Rosenbaums of this world.

Where are the people like New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani when you need them?

The Acropolis in 360 Degrees

Found this link to Arounder, a website featuring 360-degree panoramas of international tourist destinations. You can check out the Acropolis on this site, as well as other destinations around the world.

Plus VR Magazine has more about panoramas.

Clash of Civilizations Hits Denmark

Today's NY Times ran a shorter (and almost censored-sounding) version of Dan Bilefsky's International Herald Tribune article about the rise of Islamist extremism in Copenhagen:

In a secluded community center a few blocks from the school, Fadi Abdul Latif, the spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark, said in an interview that the ban on school prayer was just the latest outrage from a political establishment that was trying to criminalize Islam in order to discredit the religion.

'The government says it's O.K. to make jokes about urinating on the Koran,' Abdul Latif said. 'They are inciting violence and provocation so that they can make new laws that discriminate even more against Muslims.'

He added that the anti-Muslim rhetoric of the Danish People's Party had contributed to a swelling of Hizb ut-Tahrir's ranks in recent months.

'When Muslims see the discrimination here, they begin to listen,' Abdul Latif said.

In 2002, Abdul Latif was charged with distributing hate literature that attacked Jews and praised suicide bombers as martyrs. A leaflet quoted a verse from the Koran: 'And kill them from wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.' He received a 60-day suspended sentence.

In 2004, Abdul Latif distributed a flyer exhorting Muslims to 'go help your brothers in Falluja and exterminate your rulers if they block your way.'

The story struck my eye because when I lived in Uzbekistan, the media reported claims that the authoritarian regime of Islam Karimov drove young people to join Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Strangely, now the NY Times and International Herald Tribune report claims that liberal Danish democracy and freedom of speech are driving people to join the same Islamist extremist group.

My guess is that it has more to do with the Bush administration's failure to catch Osama Bin Laden or secure a decisive victory in Iraq. People like to bet on a winner. And right now, it looks like Bush is a loser. Which may be why people from Tashkent to Copenhagen are flocking to join extremist groups.

Crush them decisively, and the membership will decline dramatically. There's a precedent from the USA, in the case of a domestic terror group, not so very long ago--anyone remember the Michigan Militia?

Roger L. Simon on Google Video

The blogger, author, and Hollywood screenwriter wonders: Is Google Video the future of the media industry?

Tony Kornheiser on the Washington Redskins

From today's Washington Post:

Come closer, I don't want to shout this:

The Redskins are the luckiest people alive.

Did you hear me? I said the LUCKIEST people alive!

That was a touchdown, boys and girls. A touchdown that would have tied the game late, and given all the momentum to Tampa Bay. Except it wasn't. Because Edell Shepherd couldn't hold the ball. Shepherd had everybody beat, and he couldn't hold the ball.

Chopin: Desire for Love

The other day I watched Jerzy Antczak's musical biography Chopin: Desire for Love on DVD. It is the third film about Chopin and Georges Sand that I have seen. First there was the dazzlingly lush and sentimenal 1945 Hollywood classic: Song to Remember, starring Paul Muni, Merle Oberon, and Cornel Wilde as Chopin. Then, Jame LaPine's quirky American independent remake starring Hugh Grant. Judy Davis, Bernadette Peters, Emma Thompson, Julian Sands, Mandy Patinkin: Impromptu. Now--Chopin: Desire for Love. The latest looks at the story of George Sand and Frederic Chopin from a Polish perspective, and is just fascinating because it is so different.

Of course, I'm biased. Jerzy Antczak was my teacher at UCLA in the 1980s. He was a superb instructor, and as part of our course he screened his 1976 historical epic Nights and Days for us, a Polish War and Peace or Gone with the Wind. It was fascinating, because the style was so different from that of an American film. There was a wildness and intensity and spontaneity that was at first confusing, but seemed to a sort of signature style. In any case, he was trying to make another film, and I felt bad for him that Hollywood didn't seem supportive. I was afraid he'd never do another picture. We lost touch over the years, as I moved away from filmmaking and into Washington, DC think-tank circles.

When I went off to Moscow to teach last year I learned that after many years, Jerzy had indeed made another film, about Chopin. That would be interesting. Well, I thought, I'll be near Poland, maybe I can visit. So I emailed him, only to find out that he was still in Los Angeles. He was friendly, and offered to send me a copy of the picture, but I hesitated. What if I didn't like it? I wouldn't want to hurt his feelings...

Last week I bit the bullet, and ordered it from Netflix. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I really enjoyed it. After living in Russia and the former Soviet Union, I found he really captured something in the oppressive relationship between the Russian Grand Duke and Chopin--something I found in the post-Soviet space when it came to personal relations. Chopin had to leave before he suffocated.

Now, it seems to me that in telling Chopin's story, Jerzy was telling his own story of moving to Hollywood. I don't know if there's a George Sand in his life, but the very end, where Chopin's sister takes his heart back to Poland, struck me as a message from Jerzy, as well as a comment on Chopin. Wherever he lived, his heart was still in Poland.

The film has outraged some music lovers and Chopin fans (not to mention fans of George Sand), because unlike other versions, this Polish film depicts Chopin as spoiled, petulant, and childish. And Georges Sand as an inconsiderate and selfish woman who sacrifices her family to her young lover. But somehow, it makes more sense than either the very cutesy lovebirds in Impromptu or the dramatically romantic couple in Song to Remember. (Though I still love the Hollywood classic).

If I hadn't watched the other films, I might have been bothered. But having seen some talented and creative people acting badly, the "warts-and-all" approach Antczak chose for Chopin: Desire for Love, made a lot of sense to me. Yes, these people had problems, psychologically and emotionally. And yet because of, or in spite of, these problems, they made beautiful music and literature together.

In a sense, you come away saying to yourself, I'd like to listen to his music, but I'm not sure I would want to live with Frederic Chopin. The beauty of his music came for his yearning for a better life--a desire for love that perhaps was never fully realized in his lifetime.

Anyway, I'd recommend this film with the warning that this Chopin is not a pleasant fellow (he's certainly no Tom Hulce as a giggling Mozart), and unless you know something of the story of Chopin's life, the dramatic montage may be a little difficult to follow. That said, it is really a beautiful picture.

Add it to your Netflix queue.

UPDATE: Through a google ad on this blog, I found a link to the Carthusian cell where Chopin composed music in Majorca, Spain, which plays a role in the film, here. It is now a Chopin museum.

Moscow? Tashkent? No--Albany, NY . . .

Empire State Plaza, 2005

The Australian on Ariel Sharon

Martin Chulov writes:

What next for Israel is a question intrinsically tied to the immediate future of the Middle East. The options for much of the Arab world are not appealing. A time of turmoil appears certain in Israel, at a juncture in the region where time cannot be spared. Gaza, the February 2005 peace summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, the formation of Kadima and the UN speech convinced a reluctant Arab world that Sharon had matured into a Jewish leader they could deal with.

There is no one of his stature waiting in the wings, except perhaps the perennial loser of Israeli elections, the 82-year-old Shimon Peres, who split from the Labor Party to follow Kadima after being cast aside by his partyroom. Peres and Sharon are the only two lions left from the Ben-Gurion days. Alongside Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak they are the last living historic political figures in the region.

But there are serious doubts that Peres, also a political turncoat, could unify the disparate band of political refugees that comprises Kadima. They were there because of one man's vision and presence. The group may retain the vision, but, without Sharon's presence, Kadima is set to crumble. It is not without irony that Sharon fell on the day Kadima was officially registered as a political party.

Neurosurgeons at the Hadassah Hospital will gradually try to wake the comatose Israeli giant to assess the damage his massive stroke caused. As they do so, many Israelis will be making amateur medical assessments of their own, such as why their prime minister was given blood-thinning medication known to be linked to cerebral haemorrhaging or why he was taken one hour away to Jerusalem, past an emergency ward much closer to his farm.

They will also want to know why surgeons waited three weeks to schedule minor surgery to correct the congenital hole in his heart. Sharon's stroke came less than 11 hours before he was due to be readmitted after the minor collapse he suffered on December 18. There is, of course, an outside chance that Sharon may make a Lazarus-like return to health. But even then, his authority to lead will have died. In its absence, the region faces upheaval, and a startling awakening.

The end of the line for Sharon has revealed a sign of the times. Stability had been brought to the Middle East not by Arab wise men, but by a Jewish warrior.

Michael Barone on How Blogs Changed American Politics

Writing in US News and World Report, Barone declares that blogs helped Bush and the Republicans by discrediting the mainstream media, while simultaneously moving Democrats to the fringes of the left, rather than back to the center:

The right blogosphere's greatest triumph came after CBS's Dan Rather on September 8 reported that Bush had shirked duty in the National Guard and the network posted its 1972-dated documents on the Web. Within four hours, a blogger on freerepublic.com pointed out that they looked as though they had been created in Microsoft Word; the next morning, Scott Johnson of powerlineblog.com relayed the comment and asked for expert views. Charles Johnson of littlegreenfootballs.com showed that the documents exactly matched one he produced in Word using default settings. CBS defended the documents for 11 days but finally confessed error and eased Rather out as anchor. MSM tried to defeat Bush but instead only discredited itself. The Pew Center's post-election poll showed a sharp decline in the credibility of newspapers and broadcast TV and a sharp increase in reliance on cable news, especially Fox News, and radio.

So what hath the blogosphere wrought? The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republicans' adversaries in Old Media. Both changes help Bush and the Republicans.

This 'n That on West Virginia's Coal Mine Tragedy

Hollywood blogger This 'n That compares yesterday's tragic news from West Virginia to what happens in Billy Wilder's classic film Ace in the Hole.(Amazon.com photo credit David Forehand)

Agustin Blazquez's New Documentary to Premiere in Miami

Just received this email today:

Dear Readers,

Agustin Blazquez and Jaums Sutton's important new documentary, Covering Cuba 4: The Rats Below, will premiere Saturday, January 21 at 8pm at the Tower Theater in Miami (1508 SW Eighth St.). It's free and will be followed by a panel discussion I'm in.

More information about the documentary is at Cuba Collectibles . I hope to see you there and encourage you to spread the word!

Best,

Myles

Presented by Miami Dade College

COVERING CUBA 4
THE RATS BELOW
(with Spanish subtitles)

US Corporate collaboration with totalitarian Cuba!
The truth about the Elian Gonzalez affair!
What the American liberal media won’t tell!
This complex story unravels through the testimonies of:

DAVID HOECH, DELFIN GONZALEZ, DENNIS K. HAYS, JAMES B. LIEBER,

JIM GUIRARD, LARRY KLAYMAN, MYLES KANTOR and the late REED IRVINE


featuring the songs “Solo Un Niño,” written and performed by
LUISA MARIA GÜELL
and “Sin Esperanzas,” written and performed by
GUSTAVO REX

Contacts: Alejandro Rios: 305-237-7482 & 305-989-1701
Beverly Counts Rodrigues, Director of Public Relations with the Press: 305-237-3949

COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below available through www.CubaCollectibles.com

also available COVERING CUBA 3: Elian the real story of injustice and deception by the U.S. government and the American media, COVERING CUBA 2: The Next Generation is a tool to bypass the wall of censorship of the U.S. media that prevents the average American citizen from learning and understanding why Cuban Americans act the way they do in their quest for freedom and democracy for their homeland and CUBA: The Pearl of the Antilles is a nostalgic visual and musical memory dating from pre-Columbian times to January 1, 1959. There is no narration to distract from the visuals or the music, just a few subtitles indicating the year and the places throughout the six original Cuban provinces. This enchanting documentary features 26 glorious melodies by the great Cuban composers performed by Cuban artists.

La Stampa on Russia v Ukraine

Today's Johnson's Russia List has this interesting article from La Stampa (translated by BBC Monitoring) explaining what Putin is up to in Urkaine:

BBC Monitoring
West forces Russia "play defence" if it is not treated as partner - analyst
Source: La Stampa website, Turin, in Italian 4 Jan 06

Text of interview with Russian political scientist Nadia Arbatova by
Francesca Sforza, in Moscow, date not given, entitled "'The West does not
understand how Putin's mind works'", published by Italian newspaper La
Stampa website on 4 January; first paragraph is La Stampa introduction

Moscow: The West's mistake? "You do not understand Vladimir Putin," said
Nadia Arbatova, director of the Institute of European Political Studies at
the Academy of Sciences in Moscow and head of the Russia in a United Europe
Committee. Much listened to in the Kremlin, but often tending in the
opposite direction compared to the ideas of the presidential
administration, Arbatova is convinced that too many post-Cold War
prejudices are still enduring between Russia and Western democracies, and
that the gas war with Ukraine - which broke out at the same time as the
first Russian presidency in the history of the G8 started - has shown once
again how much certain attitudes inherited from the past are hard to kill.

[La Stampa] Nadia Arbatova. Is Moscow's decision to shut off the gas taps
to Kiev a response to the Orange Revolution?

[Arbatova] I believe the question has to be framed in a broader context.
Moscow has not reacted against the legitimate desire of the Ukrainians to
choose their own leader, nor can it be said that cutting off the gas to
Kiev is the direct consequence of the waving of flags in Maidan
[(Independence) Square] a year ago.

Instead, Russia is worried about the enlargement of NATO to countries
traditionally in its sphere of influence and especially the fear of
remaining excluded from the big alliances. It is pointless to deny that
Moscow has special interests in the former Soviet republics - that that is
certainly not a crime - but my impression is that the Western democracies
have refused to accept this reality as a given geopolitical fact.

[La Stampa] Who has erred more in this negotiation?

[Arbatova] There have been mistakes by both sides. From the beginning, Kiev
showed itself reluctant to accept an increase based on the new laws of the
market - to which, in contrast, it gave its approval when it obtained the
status of market economy from the European Commission - and Russia, on the
other hand, made a mistake in not understanding that Kiev needs time to
build a stable economy.

[La Stampa] You must admit that interrupting the supply of gas is not a way
to facilitate a calm resumption of the negotiations on the prices. How do
you think it will be possible to go back to sitting down around the same table?

[Arbatova] What for the Western countries constitutes a reason for outrage
does not have the same importance, for example, to the Ukrainians
themselves, who in fact responded with the same language, illegally
withdrawing gas, as they have always done in the past. I understand the
bewilderment of the West, but this is about different languages, which have
to do with a long history of bilateral relations and which cannot be
replaced overnight by systems imported from Washington or Brussels. We can
debate ad infinitum about which of the two systems is the best, but in the
meantime why not recognize that there are, first of all, two different systems.

[La Stampa] So you believe that the negotiations will resume as if nothing
had happened?

[Arbatova] I think precisely that. Of course, now we are in a delicate
phase, where many sensitivities have been hurt, and there has been a
succession of mistakes by both sides, partly because at stake in this
negotiation is not only the question of the price of gas, but the future
balance between Moscow and Kiev. It is necessary to decide what type of
relationship we want to have, whether based on the laws of the market
economy or on other political objectives. If Ukraine wants to be completely
independent of Moscow, then I believe it is necessary to give it enough time.

[La Stampa] Russia has just assumed the presidency of the G8, and many
Western leaders think that Putin wants to play the energy card to put a new
power politics into operation.

[Arbatova] Russia is important for Europe and for all countries, but I
believe that the system of relations must now set itself a further goal. If
the West continues to perceive Russia as a threat, it is obvious that the
Russians will be forced to play defence; if, on the other hand, there is
the political will to start thinking of Russia as a partner, to involve it
in the decisions in an equal manner, then it is necessary for the West to
change its attitude towards Moscow.

A stroke of key

A stroke of key is a Russian blog that links to this website. I'll add it (and Netflix Fan) to my blogroll, asap. So check it out...

The Secrets of Netflix

Can be found on the Netflix Fan blog . . .

Haaretz's Q & A with Ehud Olmert

Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmertanswered questions in a revealing online interview with Haaretz.com last June 15th, which noted that the former Mayor of Jerusalem and Minister for Minorities (Arabs) "... is the most prominent supporter among Likud ministers of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan. He was the first politician on the right to enunciate the basic principles behind this plan..." Now, he's Prime Minster, and the interview is even more interesting than the first time round, since it gives some clue as to where he plans to take Israel.

Konstantin On Russian Ukrainian Gas War

I guess I'm not all alone after all. Konstantin's Russian Blog says Western criticism of Russia is ridiculous:

The way Western mainstream media “analyzed” Russian-Ukrainian natural gas crisis is the peak of idiocy. It simply incredible – a cocktail of logical inconsistencies, libel, juggling with fact and outright political propaganda. Just one “analytical” pearl that covers it all – Ukraine rightly refused to accept four times price hike as this price would ruin its economy. Does it mean that when natural gas prices would drop four times Russia would have the right to demand that Europeans pay the old price? Because such low prices would ruin Russian economy? Because well being of Russians depends on high gas prices? Because Evil West uses natural gas prices as an instrument of political blackmail? Because they want to put Putin on his knees? Would good Europeans agree with such arguments? I doubt it strongly. Actually I’m absolutely sure that Europeans would discard such arguments as stupid and silly. Somehow this perverse logic works well when it comes to Ukraine.

Now, if I could only find a non-Russian who saw things this way...

Where Do Our Readers Come From?

Washington Post Praises Bull Moose

I've had a link in my blogroll for a little while, and today the Washington Post is puffing Bull Moose, aka Marshall Wittman. Most of what they say is true about him being a nice guy, he's always been nice to me. For example, when he headed the Washington office of the Christian Coalition in the 90s, Marshall invited me to give a talk on Woodstock at their annual convention -- as part of a panel on the cultural legacy of the 60s. It was pretty high-level, and intellectually interesting. (That's when I saw the unfunny "comedian" Al Franken in person for the first time, but not at our panel.) Marshall moved on his way, and I moved on my way, but I've always thought he was not mean--which is a rarity in Washington. So, he deserves all the nice words in the Washington Post today. Congratulations, Marshall!

Now, will Wittmann finally get a slot on CNN?

Tucker Carlson on the Jack Abramoff Scandal

Tucker Carlson turns state's evidence against his former conservative colleagues on MSNBC:

Why were supposedly honest ideological conservatives like Sheldon and Reed and anti-tax activist Grover Norquist involved with Jack Abramoff in the first place? Keep in mind that Abramoff's business wasn't just gambling, which by itself should have been enough to scare off professional moralizers like Sheldon. Jack Abramoff was a lobbyist for Indian gambling. Over the years Abramoff and his now-indicted partner took more than $80 million from a half a dozen tribes in return for their efforts to keep Indian gambling revenues tax free.

Step back and think about this for a second. Indian tribes get a special pass from the federal government to run a high-margin monopoly simply because they are Indian tribes, which is to say, simply because of their ethnicity. This is the worst, least fair form of affirmative action, and it should be anathema to conservatives. Conservatives are supposed to support the idea of a meritocracy, a country where hard work not heredity is the key to success and everyone is equal before the law. Conservatives should despise Indian gambling on principal.

And some still do. But others got rich from it, and now they're likely headed to jail. I'll be cheering as they're sentenced. Weirdos and charlatans and self-interested hacks like Lou Sheldon and Grover Norquist have long discredited the conservative ideas they purport to represent. Their political allies in Washington and Congress may be tempted to defend them. I hope they don't. We'll all be better off when they're gone.

Russia, Ukraine: "Let's Make a Deal!"

It's all over but the shouting, according to Reuters.

I still say Russia won this particular confrontation with the West. Let's see how the G-8 summit turns out...

The Washington Post on What's Wrong with USAID

Today's Washington Post editorial about serious problems with US foreign aid programs is so good, I'm going to quote it in full. Whoever wrote it knows what they are talking about. (This seems like the tip of the iceberg, I wish the Post would run one of those multi-part investigations they do so well.).

I'm especially glad that the Post discusses the harm done by working through NGOs. I could not have said it better myself.

Here's their editorial:

Reforming Foreign Assistance

Tuesday, January 3, 2006; A16

THE BUSH administration has done more to expand foreign assistance than any administration since John F. Kennedy's. According to the measures used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. government aid came to more than $19 billion in 2004, nearly double what it was in 2000. But the government's competence in dispensing this aid is questionable, and the Bush administration knows it. The president's team deserves support from Congress in its efforts to improve aid's efficacy. Unfortunately, it may come up against suspicion and resistance fueled by self-interest.

The core problem in foreign aid is to strike a balance between legitimate oversight of how tax dollars are spent and counterproductive overregulation. In the 1980s a congressional backlash against corruption in aid triggered an increase in Washington oversight that went too far, causing a new form of waste more pernicious than the old sort. Because some aid money routed through government ministries in poor countries had gone astray, Congress insisted that future aid be routed through nongovernmental organizations with good accounting capabilities. In practice, this meant the money went to U.S.-based groups with high overheads. Many did good work, but their costs exceeded those of ministries and aid groups in the developing world, even allowing for some corruption. Moreover, the reliance on U.S. organizations undermined poor countries' sense of ownership of their development programs, damaging the long-term struggle to foster self-sufficiency.

This error led directly to a second one. Having decided to route aid money through U.S.-based groups, Congress began to micromanage how that money would be spent, depriving recipient countries not only of managerial control but also of a say in their own development priorities. The new cohort of U.S.-based aid contractors encouraged this process by lobbying Congress to protect their programs with budget earmarks; this undermined the priority-setting power of the administration as well as of recipient countries. The result was an aid program not only high on contractors' head-office costs but also low on flexibility. As if to parody its own mania for control, Congress went so far as to mandate that U.S.-financed building in developing countries should comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The result is that remote clinics in Afghanistan have wheelchair ramps; never mind that there are no wheelchairs in the vicinity.

This mess was compounded by a final mistake during the 1990s. Faced with a Congress that had grown more skeptical of aid even as it had seized minute control over its disbursement, the Clinton administration smuggled foreign-assistance cash into other parts of the federal budget. The result is a U.S. aid program that's split among more than a dozen spending accounts, some of which duplicate efforts and some of which may even work at cross-purposes.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants to rationalize this situation. Her team talks mainly about setting priorities for aid rather than letting a patchwork of earmarks and scattered spending accounts putter along without central coordination, but Andrew S. Natsios, the outgoing administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, is also eloquent on the case for local ownership of aid programs. The administration should be encouraged to turn its tentative discussions into a robust reform initiative. But already there have been complaints that the administration is trying to "politicize" U.S. assistance by asserting State Department control -- an odd objection considering how political aid is already. These suspicions of politicization are likely to be compounded by obstruction from U.S.-based aid contractors, who will resent a threat to their earmarks. This resistance must be understood for what it is: special-interest lobbying that hardly serves the interests of poor countries.

Gas--the New Oil

I may the only one who believes this--I can't even convince people I know--but it looks to me like Russia is winning the Ukrainian gas showdown. Here's what the Financial Times has to say:

Gas supplies to Europe returned to normal on Tuesday after Russia restored pipeline deliveries under heavy international pressure. However, Gazprom said Europe’s gas supplies remained under threat as it would not continue to compensate indefinitely for gas “stolen” by Ukraine. “Sooner or later Ukraine will have to pay for this,” said Sergei Kupriyanov, a spokesman for Gazprom.

Ukrainian officials have admitted to taking an unspecified amount from the pipeline but claimed it was gas from Turkmenistan that travels along the same route.

Russia said it was buying up all available Turkmen gas and there was none spare for Ukraine. Officials maintain that any gas taken by Ukraine from the pipeline is therefore Russian gas stolen from European customers.

In other words, Russia was correct to charge Ukraine with diverting European gas, which means Russia was supplying Europe as promised, although not Ukraine. It was Ukraine, not Russia, that proved to be an unreliable supplier, because gas was diverted before being delivered to customers.

Now none of this matters right now, while the EU and US are beating up on Russia. But it matters in Russia. Russia wasn't going to keep Ukraine shut off, IMHO. They were sending a message, a shot across the bow, "probing with bayonets" in Leninist terminology. Russia was reminding Europe that destabilizing Russia could affect EU energy security. What if Putin's government were overthrown, and every local oblast diverted gas promised to the EU? Well, it wouldn't be a pretty picture for Germany and others dependent on Russian gas.

Yes, there was a political message to the EU and US. I'll translate for you: Stop trying to push Russia around.

At the time of the Orange Revolution, an American diplomat gloated to me, "What can Russia do?"

Now Russia has shown that there is at least one thing she can do. Like the OPEC boycott of 1973, which shifted money and power to the Arabs in the global economy, Russia's move is a step towards shifting money and power back to the post-Soviet space. With Russia planning to rebuild its Army and Navy, those LNG tankers from Qatar won't be more secure unless the EU, US and Russia are all on the same page. And Russia can sell a lot of its oil and gas to China, if the EU and US don't want to play ball.

Yes, it was a crude power play by Putin. But IMHO, I think the message was received. We'll be able to test this hypothesis empirically. If Russia is treated with as much respect as Saudia Arabia by the EU and US from now on, it means that Russia played its hand correctly.

UPDATE: I'm not the only one, after all. Alexei has this comment posted on Tim Newman's White Sun of the Desert:

By the way, Gazprom’s new Ukraine tactic has nothing to do with the Cold War (The Economist must be desperately in love with Yulia Timoshenko but that doesn’t make them less superficial). Gazprom is not jeopardizing Europe’s gas supply, that much is obvious. Whether they can force Ukraine to pay what Europe pays for its gas is questionable but at least they have already exposed the Ukrainian importer’s theft of Gazprom gas. It might be the most sensible thing Gazprom has done since Putin installed the new management.

After Moxie (WARNING: If you don't like catblogging, skp this post!)

Our cat Moxie died suddenly last Wednesday, just fell over and was gone within a minute. It was a real "sudden death." We had never seen such a thing. One moment she was there, the next--gone. The vet couldn't find anything wrong at the autopsy, told us it was probably a birth defect. The Birman breed is known for them. It was strange because we had kept her inside and were very protective after losing two previous cats last year. One was probably kidnapped, the other hit by a car in an alley (we blame a silent Prius). But Moxie's life was shorter than the cats who went out. For a week the world seemed very dark. We cancelled a planned trip because we couldn't deal with the suddenness.

The story has a bittersweet ending, luckily. Yesterday, someone we know, in a pure coincidence, showed up with a kitten from her sister's cat, who had a litter. Did we want him? Yes. He doesn't have a name yet, though we went to the vet today and were told he's in good shape, about 10 weeks old, and tested negative for feline leukemia virus. We think we'll keep him... and I'll post a photo later.

White Sun of the Desert

Through a link on Registan, I came across Tim Newman's blog, which he calls White Sun of the Desert. For those who don't know Russia, it is the title of a classic Russian film about Central Asia...

BTW, Tim Newman has an analysis of the current Russia-Ukraine Gazprom dispute, too. (He works in Dubai.)

The American Thinker on "Transgressive" Art

Turns out, it's really not transgressive, after all...

Mark Cuban's Investment Advice for 2006

It's worth considering Mark Cuban's financial advice for 2006, since he's made a lot of money for himself and some of his investors.

Mark Cuban v. The New York Times

I wondered what that long, weird article by about bloggers by Katherine Seelye in today's NY Times business section was all about, so I checked out Mark Cuban's blog, since there was some cryptic commentary buried in the Times story, and they usually bury the lead. Sure enough, Cuban had a lot to say. Which leads to the question: Is the New York Times having a nervous breakdown?

And more--might Mark Cuban bid to buy the NY Times company, a la Charles Foster Kane?

Full disclosure: I actually made some money investing in Mark Cuban's Broadcast.com when it was acquired by Yahoo!

Tube Strike Hits London

We got a nice surprise New Year's Day call from a couple of our friends in London--by cell phone, they were sitting in Joe Allen's--who told us that there was a big Tube strike in London, but that everyone was taking it in stride. This story from The Independent has details.

Curiously, one of the friends on the phone had just been in New York on the eve of the Christmas MTA strike...

World Faces Anti-Semitic Tsunami

Speaking to the BBC, British Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks warned that the rapid spread of Islamist extremism threatens to flood the world with violence and hatred on a scale not seen since World War II:

"This is all a kind of tsunami of anti-Semitism which is taking place a long way from this country but (of) which Europe seems unaware," he said.

Here's a link to the Chief Rabbi's London website

Roger L. Simon on Spielberg's Munich

Simon takes apart the film, from the vantage point of a professional screenwriter, here.

And here's a link to Bret Stephens' Wall Street Journal review, mentioned by Simon.