Michelle Malkin on Danish Cartoon Crisis

Her Washington Times column is directly on target in its explanation of why a Danish newspaper printed cartoons of Mohammed:

The newspaper was making a vivid editorial point about European artists' fear of retaliation for drawing any pictures of Muhammad at all. (Remember: It's been little more than a year since Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist gunman over his movie criticizing violence against women in Islamic societies.)
A Danish author had reported last fall he couldn't find an illustrator for a book about Muhammad; the Jyllands-Posten editors rose to the challenge by calling on artists to send in their submissions and publishing the 12 entries received.
The reaction to the cartoons resoundingly confirmed fears those artists expressed about radical Islamic intolerance and violence. The Jyllands-Posten reported two illustrators received death threats and went into hiding. The Pakistani Jamaaat-e-Islami Party put a 5,000-kroner bounty on the cartoonists' heads. A terrorist outfit called the "Glory Brigades" threatened suicide bombings in Denmark over the artwork.
Despite how relatively tame the pictures actually are (compared not only to Western standards, but also to the vicious, anti-Semitic propaganda regularly churned out by Arab cartoonists), the drawings have literally inflamed the radical Muslim world and its apologists...First, they came for the cartoonists. Then, they came for the filmmakers and talk show hosts and namers of evil. Next, who knows?

She has more photos on her blog, http://www.michellemalkin.com.

More Forbidden Images of Mohammed...

...like this one from South Park, can be found on The Religious Policeman's website.

NY Times: We Won't Print Danish Cartoons

Well at least we know whose side people are on.

The NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, among other papers, published photos of "Piss Christ." At the time of the NEA controvery, their editorials denounced Christian fundamentalists. Today, they side with Islamist fundamentalists.

Here's Joel Brinkley's apologia in the New York Times:

Major American newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, did not publish the caricatures. Representatives said the story could be told effectively without publishing images that many would find offensive.

"Readers were well served by a short story without publishing the cartoon," said Robert Christie, a spokesman for Dow Jones & Company, which owns The Wall Street Journal. "We didn't want to publish anything that can be perceived as inflammatory to our readers' culture when it didn't add anything to the story."

In a midafternoon meeting on Friday, editors at The Chicago Tribune discussed the issue but decided against publishing the cartoons. "We can communicate to our readers what this is about without running it," said James O'Shea, the paper's managing editor.

Kudos to Brit Hume for showing the pictures on his Fox News show, shame on CNN for pixillating them. If I hadn't already cancelled my NY Times subscription a few years ago, I'd cancel it now.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Danish Cartoon Crisis

Theo van Gogh's collaborator posts these and other photos of posters from recent anti-Danish demonstrations on her website. She takes these threats very seriously...

Italian Newspapers Reprint Danish Cartoons

Links at FreeThoughts.com.

US State Department Q&A on Danish Cartoons

From Little Green Footballs:

QUESTION: Yes? Can you say anything about a U.S. response or a U.S. reaction to this uproar in Europe over the Prophet Muhammad pictures? Do you have any reaction to it? Are you concerned that the violence is going to spread and make everything just —

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven’t seen any — first of all, this is matter of fact. I haven’t seen it. I have seen a lot of protests. I’ve seen a great deal of distress expressed by Muslims across the globe. The Muslims around the world have expressed the fact that they are outraged and that they take great offense at the images that were printed in the Danish newspaper, as well as in other newspapers around the world.

Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views. For us, freedom of expression is at the core of our democracy and it is something that we have shed blood and treasure around the world to defend and we will continue to do so. That said, there are other aspects to democracy, our democracy — democracies around the world — and that is to promote understanding, to promote respect for minority rights, to try to appreciate the differences that may exist among us.

We believe, for example in our country, that people from different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, national backgrounds add to our strength as a country. And it is important to recognize and appreciate those differences. And it is also important to protect the rights of individuals and the media to express a point of view concerning various subjects. So while we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view. We may — like I said, we may not agree with those points of view, we may condemn those points of view but we respect and emphasize the importance that those individuals have the right to express those points of view.

For example — and on the particular cartoon that was published — I know the Prime Minister of Denmark has talked about his, I know that the newspaper that originally printed it has apologized, so they have addressed this particular issue. So we would urge all parties to exercise the maximum degree of understanding, the maximum degree of tolerance when they talk about this issue. And we would urge dialogue, not violence. And that also those that might take offense at these images that have been published, when they see similar views or images that could be perceived as anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, that they speak out with equal vigor against those images.

QUESTION: That the Muslims speak out with equal vigor when they see — that’s what you’re asking?

MR. MCCORMACK: We would — we believe that it is an important principle that peoples around the world encourage dialogue, not violence; dialogue, not misunderstanding and that when you see an image that is offensive to another particular group, to speak out against that. Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us. But it is important that we also support the rights of individuals to express their freely held views.

QUESTION: So basically you’re just hoping that it doesn’t — I’m sorry I misspoke when I said there was violence, I meant uproar. Your bottom line is that both sides have the right to do exactly as they’re doing and you just hope it doesn’t get worse?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I —

QUESTION: You just hope it doesn’t escalate.

MR. MCCORMACK: I gave a pretty long answer, so —

QUESTION: You did. I’m trying to sum it up for you. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: A couple of years ago, I think it was a couple of years ago when, I think it was the Syrians and the Lebanese were introducing this documentary about the Jews — or it was the Egyptians — this Administration spoke out very strongly about that and called it offensive, said it was —

MR. MCCORMACK: I just said that the images were offensive; we found them offensive.

QUESTION: Well, no you said that you understand that the Muslims found them offensive, but —

MR. MCCORMACK: I’m saying now, we find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.

Yes.

QUESTION: One word is puzzling me in this, Sean, and that’s the use of the word “unacceptable” and “not acceptable,” exactly what that implies. I mean, it’s not quite obvious that you find the images offensive. When you say “unacceptable,” it applies some sort of action against the people who perpetrate those images.

MR. MCCORMACK: No. I think I made it very clear that our defense of freedom of expression and the ability of individuals and media organizations to engage in free expression is forthright and it is strong, you know. This is — our First Amendment rights, the freedom of expression, are some of the most strongly held and dearly held views that we have here in America. And certainly nothing that I said, I would hope, would imply any diminution of that support.

QUESTION: It’s just the one word “unacceptable,” I’m just wondering if that implied any action, you know. But it doesn’t you say?

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

Danish Cartoonists Go Into Hiding

According to The Times of London, Danish cartoonists have gone into hiding, afraid for their lives as a result of the international agitation against their published cartoons of Mohammed.

Strangely, I didn't hear any condemnations of the threats from Britain's Jack Straw or US State Department Sean McCormack.

Margaret Thatcher, on the other hand, stood up to terror and offered Salman Rushdie full-time police protection. She remembered what Bush and Blair have forgotten: Appeasement breeds aggression.

Roger L Simon on Denmark

From Astute Blogger:

WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE .... on the part of artists and writers!?

Has the WGA or PEN (or any other artists' or writers' organizations) voiced ANY support for the Denmark?

NOPE. They are as silent about this afront to freedom of expression as they were about the murder of Theo van Gogh. They SHOULD be as supportive to Denmark as the dozen or so European newspaper which have reprinted the cartoons in a fabulous display of solidarity with Denmark.

This blogger happens to be a former official of the WGA and PEN. That they are both silent on this issue does not suprise me in the slightest. Much of their membership is probably not even aware of it.

Clash of Civilizations Continues

Ghe Financial Times says rage against Denmark is still spreading:

Angry protests over newspaper cartoons of the prophet Mohammad continued to spread globally on Friday as Muslim leaders and politicians in Europe expressed mounting concern that the outrage could destabilise the multicultural continent.

In Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, protesters stormed the lobby of the Jakarta high-rise building housing the Danish embassy. Other incidents and protests were reported from Pakistan to the Darfur region of Sudan and the Palestinian territories, where European Union observers evacuated Danish and French nationals after gunmen had briefly held a German man in the West Bank on Thursday night.

In London, hundreds of Muslims marched from the Regent's Park mosque, one of the biggest Islamic centres in Europe, to the heavily protected Danish embassy, bearing placards declaring “Behead the one who insults the prophet” and “Free speech go to hell”.

The most serious religious clash since the 1989 Salman Rushdie affair erupted last September when Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures of Mohammad, the seventh-century founder of Islam, in protest at what it called “the rejection of modern, secular society” by some Muslims.

The debate only boiled over last month when European newspapers began reprinting the cartoons, considered blasphemous by many Muslims, sparking a fresh wave of protests in the Muslim world, including boycotts of Danish products and the recalling of ambassadors to Copenhagen.

Islamik Trossamfund, a small Danish Muslim organisation, has been accused of throwing petrol on the fire after its leaders toured the Middle-East circulating highly offensive pictures of Muslims that had never appeared in the Danish press.

Support Denmark.com

It's the pen v. the sword; bloggers and writers v. mobs and their fanatic leaders; free speech v. submission.

Denmark's supporters are rushing to their electronic pens, as one can see at websites like Support Denmark.com.

Palestinians Rage Against Denmark

Reuters reports from the Palestinian Authority:

"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

In mosques throughout Palestinian cities, clerics condemned the cartoons. An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind the drawings should have their heads cut off.

"If they want a war of religions, we are ready," Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon.

About 10,000 demonstrators, including gunmen from the Islamic militant group Hamas firing in the air, marched through Gaza City to the Palestinian legislature, where they climbed on the roof, waving green Hamas banners.

"We are ready to redeem you with our souls and our blood our beloved prophet," they chanted. "Down, Down Denmark."

Will Danish Cartoons Spark World War III?

The BBC is reporting here and here and in a reader's forum here a worldwide "clash of civilizations" over those famous Danish cartoons of Mohammed.

Could this really spark World War III? It seems hard to believe that matters will get so out of hand--yet one remembers that a simple visit by Ariel Sharon to Jerusalem's Temple Mount sparked the Palestinian Intifada; the National Endowment for the Arts' funding of "Piss Christ" led to a Republican takeover of the US Congress; and Paris's kidnapping of Helen of Troy led to the Trojan War-- as well as a line that seems appropriate in relation to the Danish cartoon crisis:

"Is this the face that launched a thousand ships?"

Little Green Footballs has a slideshow of the cartoons, here. Bigger than what we posted below, and makes clear that they are not very nasty, as Andrew Sullivan described them, "tame" by American standards.

For another historical reference, see Voltaire's play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le prophète. Background on a banned Geneva revival, here.

More about today's calls to war at Little Green Footballs.

Human Events has posted a cartoon gallery here.

Financial Times story here.

Telegraph stories here and here.

More reason to like Sarkozy:

This from the Guardian: But not everyone was acquiescent. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said he preferred "an excess of caricature to an excess of censure".

African American Lives

I just loved watching this Henry Louis Gates PBS show tonight, part detective story, part science program, part inspirational saga, part history, part autobiography of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. I am happy that PBS made it, every segment is interesting in a different way. Congratulations to everyone involved in a wonderful television series that has so many different levels that it is hard to talk about.

Putin Meets the Press

Meanwhile, back in the Kremlin, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin held a 3-hour press conference. You can read the full transcript here. Of particular interest to me was his answer to a question about Uzbekistan:

STEVEN GUTTERMAN (correspondent for the Associated Press, USA): During your presidency you said that Russia is a European country that shares European culture and values. But sometimes Russia supports certain opinions or a certain regime in the former Soviet Union which obviously does not share these values. For example, events in Andizhan and Russian support for Uzbekistan's actions during these events. Do you not think that these approaches are incompatible?

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not think that these approaches are incompatible, especially since we know better than you do what happened in Andizhan. And we know who trained the people who ignited the situation in Uzbekistan and in that city in particular, where they were trained, and how many of them were trained. This does not exclude the fact that there are a great many problems in Uzbekistan, but it does exclude the fact that we take an approach in which we oscillate, or in which we could allow ourselves to shake up the situation in that country.

You probably know what the Fergana valley is and you know how difficult the situation is there, the population's situation and their level of economic well-being. We do not need a second Afghanistan in Central Asian and we shall proceed very carefully. We do not need revolutions there, we need an evolution which will lead to establishing those values you spoke about, but that will not encourage explosions like the ones we faced in Andizhan.

Also interesting was Putin's analysis of the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections:

MOHAMMED AMRO (Al-Jazeera): Mr President!

After Hamas' victory in the Middle East there have been certain statements from the west threatening to stop or diminish the help they give the Palestinian population.

Will your position on this issue change? And do you agree with the opinion that what is happening now in the Middle East is the failure of American diplomacy?

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is a big setback, an important setback for American efforts in the Middle East. A very serious setback.

I think that if we want to resolve these difficult global problems than we must only do so together and not invite the participants in the process to pull the chestnuts out of the fire, but rather sit down together and to listen to each other right from the beginning and to take corresponding decisions.

Our position concerning Hamas differs from the American and western European positions. The foreign ministry of the Russian Federation never declared that Hamas is a terrorist organization. But this does not mean that we approve and support everything that Hamas does and all the declarations that they have made recently. We think that it is one thing when this political force was the opposition and trying to get into power and we know that throughout the whole world very often the opposition makes very radical statements. It is another thing when it receives the people's vote of confidence and must make sure that the people who believed in this movement feel the positive results of their authorities' work. ves the people's vote of confidence and must make sure that the people who believed in this movement feel the positive results of their authorities' work. And for this it is necessary to leave behind the extremist positions, to recognize Israel's right to exist and to have relations with the international community.

We call on Hamas to do these things. In any case we would consider refusing to help the Palestinian people a mistake.

Of course, he spoke about the Russian-Ukranian gas showdown:

OLGA SOLOMONOVA (Trud newspaper): I have a question concerning Russian-Ukrainian relations in the gas sector.

It seems that everything had been resolved at the beginning of this year, that you agreed on everything. You met personally with Yushchenko. Everything seemed normal.

Now, as is well-known, Ukraine is once again starting to take gas outright and Gazprom is constantly increasing deliveries to Europe.

What is your impression of this situation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all I consider very positive the fact that we were able to agree with Ukrainian leadership on a common approach towards supplying Ukraine with Russian energy. It is positive both for our bilateral relations and for the energy situation in Europe and in the world.

And I consider that Ukrainian leadership took a courageous and correct step when it accepted these agreements. These agreements were a compromise and each party is satisfied with them. Along with this, you are correct. We agreed on everything, signed everything regarding prices, fixing prices, the volumes of deliveries. And despite all of these agreements and without any conflicts, we were faced with the situation in which a large amount of Russian gas is being siphoned off from the pipelines through which it is exported to Europe. During a cold period in Ukraine this amounted to 34-35 million cubic metres of gas per day. Gazprom wanted to remake these losses for western European consumers and unilaterally increased daily deliveries by 35 million. What happened next? Our Ukrainian partners continued to take 35 million daily in addition to the supplementary amount that Gazprom was delivering, that is 70 million cubic metres a day.

And now I would like to ask a question to those sceptics who didn't believe it was necessary to construct the Northern European Gas Pipeline under the Baltic Sea. Is this pipeline necessary to ensure a stable gas supply to western Europe or not? Whoever talks about this theme in the future must reflect on whose interests they have at heart, the interests of their own population or other interests that are difficult to justify. 

We expect that we shall be able to find an equilibrium in our relations with our Ukrainian partners. I am happy about the fact that, in contrast to previous years, our Ukrainian partners said straight out that they were taking this gas, there was no tentative to cover up, nor to distort the fact. It is important to us that we are paid for this gas according to the prices we agreed on. This can be done either at the end of February or in another way, seeing as the quantity of gas delivered to Ukraine, the quantity of Russian gas, is limited to 17 billion cubic metres a year. This means that at one point the total volume shall be determined and then we must agree on the new volume. But it is important that this is not hidden but discussed openly. I hope that these discussions will lead to a positive result.

The most Russian moment seemed to be this exchange with a reporter who covers the Russian automobile industry and asked to test drive the President's car:

FEDOR BYSTROV (Volga Press): ...And I have a second question if you do not consider it out of place: would it be possible to use your private car for a test drive? I think that many Russians would be interested to know what is in the President's car.
Well, using this opportunity, I would like to invite you to drive in a Togliatti.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you, thank you for the invitation.
Which car would you like to receive? (excitement in the room)
FEDOR. BYSTROV: A Volga.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: A Volga?
FEDOR BYSTROV: Yes, I would like to do an article on a Volga.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Okay, fine, we agreed.

Like Putin, I'm surprised any reporter wants to test-drive a Volga . . .

We Have Lots More Danish Readers Now . . .

Buy Danish! Campaign Grows

From Little Green Footballs. The Danish article mentions Bang & Olufsen, perhaps of interest to some of our more affluent audiophile readers...

Ann Althouse on the State of the Union

Ann Althouse:

A nice, vigorous speech. Full of optimism and courage. Ack! Now the NBC commentators come on and talk first about the "deep divisions" in the room. The Republicans applauded a lot more than the Democrats. Isn't that disturbing? "We just plain disagree on every fundamental issue that is confronting this country," Tim Russert says in a dire tone. What can Bush get done? Very little! Hey, forget your damned optimism and get depressed fast, people.

Enough for me. I'm switching over the the TiVo'd "American Idol."

Switchgrass?

Listening to Bush's State of the Union speech, according to the New York Times written by my old contact at the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Bill McGurn (better than the average Bush speech, Bill!), the word switchgrass sounded strange.

Luckily, Jim Lehrer, who is from Texas, explained it to David Brooks on PBS afterwards, and I looked it up. Yep, it's a biomass fuel that can be made into pellets or ethanol and burned for energy instead of oil, coal, or gas. There's more at this University of Kentucky website

How do I invest?

Jill Carroll Still Alive

According to this CNN report, she's been shown crying and pleading on Al Jazeera television, asking for more Iraqis to be released in exchange for her life.

It's painful to watch . . .

James Na on Google's China Deal

The Asianist has some harsh words for the search engine giant's Chinese censorship plan, along with a link to this stinging animated cartoon by Mark Fiore

New Twist in Abu Hamza Case: Judge's Home Burgled, Laptop Stolen

And according to this story in the Daily Mirror, the laptop contained the judges' case-notes on Abu Hamza. Accordig to the Glasgow Daily Record, the judge maintains the theft is not related to Abu Hamza's case. Meanwhile, Scotland Yard is investigating.

Montgomery, Alabama Mourns Coretta Scott King

From the Montgomery Advertiser:

Montgomerians of all ages and races mourned Mrs. King, both as a neighbor in the late 1950s and as a leader advancing the cause of civil rights for decades after her husband’s death.

Thomas McPherson, vice-president of the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Foundation, said he was saddened by Mrs. King’s death, but glad for the work she’s done.

“I’m proud of the fact that Mrs. King, in her own right, has left a legacy that will serve as a guide and a motivator in the continuing struggle for equality,” McPherson said. “She was a woman of true character, of commitment and of loyalty to her husband.”

The Rev. Michael F. Thurman, pastor of Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, recalled Mrs. King as a woman of incredible strength.

“My first meeting with Mrs. King was 25 years ago when I was in college at Morehouse in Atlanta, her husband’s alma mater,” Thurman said. “She was a very stately woman, very poised. I remember thanking her for the contributions she had made, the sacrifices she had made for this nation.”

Thurman said Americans will remember Mrs. King for her leadership in her years after her husband’s death and for the dignity she showed during her husband’s funeral.

“The footage from the funeral is etched in the nation’s mind,” he said.

Thurman said Mrs. King was left to pick up the pieces when her husband was assassinated.

“We failed to realize that his family paid a price. He was taken from his family at the age of 39. They had a dad and a husband who was the victim of a crime, who sacrificed his life. I’m sure his family endured a feeling of ‘Why us? Why did my family have to be the chosen one?’ For Mrs. King, it meant that she was left to rear her children as a single parent. She showed incredible strength to not only tackle the task of being a single parent but in the course of tremendous grief, she was able to make a contribution to further her husband’s vision, to continue to give life and meaning to his values.”

Danish Boycott Crisis Grows

According to this BBC report, the Danish paper in question has now apologized for offending Muslims, while defending its right to free speech. Here's the text of the apology (ht lgf):

Honourable Citizens of The Muslim World

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten is a strong proponent of democracy and freedom of religion. The newspaper respects the right of any human being to practise his or her religion. Serious misunderstandings in respect of some drawings of the Prophet Mohammed have led to much anger and, lately, also boycott of Danish goods in Muslim countries.

Please allow me to correct these misunderstandings.

On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like. The initiative was taken as part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.

Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds that they violated our ethical code.

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten attaches importance to upholding the highest ethical standards based upon the respect of our fundamental values. It is so much more deplorable, therefore, that these drawings were presented as if they had anything to do with Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten.

Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.

I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.

That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.

As a result of the debate that has been going on about the drawings, we have met with representatives of Danish Muslims, and these meetings were held in a positive and constructive spirit. We have also sought in other ways to initiate a fruitful dialogue with Danish Muslims.

It is the wish of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten that various ethnic groups should live in peace and harmony with each other and that the debates and disagreements which will always exist in a dynamic society should do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

For that reason, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has published many articles describing the positive aspects of integration, for example in a special supplement entitled The Contributors. It portrayed a number of Muslims who have had success in Denmark. The supplement was rewarded by the EU Commission.

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten takes exception to symbolic acts suited to demonise specific nationalities, religions and ethnic groups.

Sincerely yours
Carsten Juste
Editor-in-Chief

My own two cents is, why such sensitivity to hurt feelings over a Danish newspaper cartoon--but none to sermons in mosques, fatwas against Americans and Jews, and articles and cartoons in the Islamist press making all sorts of offensive statements? Is this a one-way or a two-way street? Does Denmark, or the US, or Israel, now have a right to demand that Saudi Arabia muzzle its imams, and censor Arab media? If so, when will this sensitivity begin to show itself?

Or, is the Danish case really more about an imposition of submission and craven kow-towing to Islam? In which case, it is not only a violation of freedom of speech, it is also a violation freedom of religion--the right to live free from Islamic law.

UPDATE: Here are the cartoons in question, from Samizdata.net:(ht AndrewSullivan.com)

Jeff Jacoby: Bush is Delusional

About Hamas' victory in Palestinian elections, says Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe (ht lgf):

Some of that delusion was on display at the White House on Thursday, when President Bush painted the Palestinian election as a ''healthy" exercise in civic reform:

''Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo," Bush explained. ''The people are demanding honest government. The people want services. They want to be able to raise their children in an environment in which they can get a decent education and they can find healthcare. And so the elections should open the eyes of the old guard there in the Palestinian territories. . . . There's something healthy about a system that does that."

Spare us, Mr. President. If a slate of neo-Nazi skinheads swept to power in a European election, would you say that the voters were seeking ''honest government" and ''services"? Palestinians are not stupid, and it insults their intelligence to pretend that when they vote to empower a genocidal organization with a platform straight out of ''Mein Kampf," what they're really after is better healthcare. Islamist extremism isn't needed to fix Palestinian hospitals any more than fascism was needed to make Italian trains run on time in the 1920s. If Palestinians turned out en masse to elect a party that unapologetically stands for hatred and mass murder, it's a safe bet that hatred and mass murder had something to do with the turnout.

By the same token, Hamas's new duties are not going to turn it into a moderate group of diligent civil servants. When violent Islamists win political power, their brutality and zealotry do not diminish. (See Khomeini, Ayatollah and Taliban, Afghan). The notion that Hamas now has ''a choice to make" is just another example of the delusional thinking that is so pervasive when it comes to the Palestinian Authority.

Konstantin: Punish Ukraine , Georgia for Supporting Dictators!

Konstantin's Russian Blog takes Anthony Robinson's anti-Gazprom Prospect Magazine article to task for supporting Turkmenbashi and Iran's Ayatollahs over Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin:

Gazprom’s compromise with Ukraine came at the expense of central Asia, whose gas can only reach western Europe through Gazprom’s Russian pipelines. While Russia is no longer subsidising Ukraine, the Turkmens and Kazakhs are.

Hold on, Anthony! Do you mean now that Ukrainian democratic government is helping dictators like Turkmenistan’s Saparmurat Niyazov remain in power as you stated in the previous passage? Shouldn’t the civilized world punish Yushchenko for his support of dictators? Should we condemn Saakashvili the Georgian for buying natural gas from Iran?

Interestingly, last time I checked, Stalin was more popular in Georgia than in Russia . . .

Support Free Speech--Buy Danish!

Little Green Footballs has suggested a "Buy Danish!" campaign to offset a threatened Islamist boycott against Danish goods. Fundamentalists objected to a published newspaper cartoon depicting Mohammed. The newspaper refused to apologize, citing freedom of the press and free speech principles. Next thing you know, reports came in that Saudi Arabian supermarkets were blacklisting Danish goods. Here's a link to an Arab News story about the boycott.

Meanwhile, I feel like joining the Buy Danish! campaign started by some contributors to the History News Network.

"BUY DANISH" ASK MY DANISH FRIENDS/ UPDATE

John Zimmerman is right. The Muslim countries have chosen to pressure liberal little Denmark in order to teach the media and governments, which stand by them, a lesson which does not bode well for free speech or satire. Kuwait has joined the Saudi boycott (the Saudi market alone is worth 1.2 billion) and I suspect the rest will follow. So, here is a plea from my Danish friends:

"If you Americans look with this great sympathy on our case, couldn't you then raise a consumer support of DK in the US? The opposite of a boycott. A movement of: "Buy Danish!" Please?

You can easily eat and digest all our famous Danish cheese at your millions of breakfast-tables from Seattle to Atlanta. Then the boycott (which is escalating fast down there now) will be harmless.

Well, we can and should. In fact the idea immediately occurred to the readers of Charles of LGF who was kind enough to post the news about the Saudi boycott on his popular site. They recommended you buy not only the always delicious Danish butter cookies but also:

Danish Havarti cheese

Carlsberg and Tuborg Beers.

Arla owns White Clover Dairy, a Wisconsin company so buy that brand. It comes under White Clover and Holland Farm.

Danish Crown hams ( DAK (sold at Sam clubs)... baby back ribs, because they come from Denmark.

You shop online at The Danish Foodshop and Danish Deli Foods.

You can also buy gorgious Danish porcelain and LEGO for the kids.

Gevalia coffee

So, I'll think I'll buy Carlsberg beer and Havarti cheese next time I'm in the supermarket. And LEGO makes a nice gift for children. To help out finding Danish products, here's a link to New York's Danish-American Chamber of Commerce for information about big-ticket items, if any of our readers have their own businesses and want to help the Danes out (Maersk shipping comes to mind)...

30 Years In The Making . . .

Ruth Caplin's new film Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont, starring Joan Plowright, has just opened in Washington, some three decades after the writer first started work on her screenplay, based on a novel by Elizabeth Taylor (the British writer, not the actress). Moral of this story: Persistence does pay off.

Smithsonian To Choose National Museum of African American History Site

And in today's Washington Post, Jacqueline Trescott makes a very strong case for a museum on the National Mall:

In 1863, Philip Reid, a slave, finished supervising the bronze casting of the statue "Freedom" for the U.S. Capitol. When it was hoisted atop the dome, a 35-gun salute rattled across Capitol Hill.

A hundred years later on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. declared that black citizens should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Hundreds of thousands cheered.

The vast ribbon of grass between the majestic Lincoln and the marble Capitol has been a public stage for all Americans, but African American history especially has played out on and around the Mall in scenes that are symbolic, salutary and shameful.

Everywhere on the Mall are echoes of marching feet, slaves' cries, market peddlers' calls, children's laughter and the singing of black men at the Million Man March.

But there never has been a place there to commemorate the African American story. Today, more than 42 years after King's triumphant moment, that history is expected to find a home. The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is scheduled to meet this morning to select a site for the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Of the four spots under consideration, two are on the Mall and two are nearby.

A Blog From Finland...

Nettipäiväkirja is the name of this blog, which links to this site--in Finnish!

Neal Sher: AIPAC's Saudi Connection

A former AIPAC executive charges in The Jewish Week that the Bush administration may be prosecuting the American Jewish lobby in order to appease the Saudis--and AIPAC might be too scared to fight back...

Moreover, there are reports from the Executive Committee meeting held during the conference that AIPAC leadership displayed near total deference to the administration. Former AIPAC President Melvin Dow apparently took the lead in killing any proposed policy that might step on toes at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Now, evidence that its agenda may have been compromised can be found in AIPAC’s total failure to pursue The Saudi Arabia Accountability Act — one of the most important pieces of national security/anti-terrorism and pro-Israel legislation pending before Congress:

Proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter in June 2005, the bill aims to halt “Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents, and for other purposes.” When introduced, it had bipartisan support across the ideological spectrum.

The legislation is bolstered by the work of many serious experts — both in and out of government — who for years have been alerted U.S. authorities to the dangerous and deadly activities of Saudi entities, many of which are part of or directly controlled by the government in Riyadh. The legislation’s text cites evidence, for example, that Saudi entities furnish at least 50 percent of the current operating budget of Hamas.

Predictably, the Bush administration opposes the legislation; it has no intention to take on the Saudis, despite overwhelming evidence of their heavy involvement in financing, supporting and advocating terror and anti-American and anti-Israel hatred.

But AIPAC’s failure even to acknowledge the legislation (check its Web site — not a word) let alone push for passage, is inexcusable. Can there be a more quintessential example of pro-Israel legislation? So, what’s the problem?

It’s hard not to conclude that AIPAC’s timidity is directly linked to the predicament in which it finds itself. This is no time, AIPAC leaders undoubtedly are thinking, to challenge and upset an administration that already has demonstrated that it is ready, willing and able to play hardball. Having given in on Rosen and Weissman, AIPAC has sent clear signals that it is willing to pull punches, if that’s what it takes, to preserve “access” and “influence.”

But political clout and financial resources are not ends unto themselves. The pro-Israel community has worked long and hard to build a strong and wealthy lobby. It has a right to expect — indeed, demand — from AIPAC leadership an organization with not just brains and brawn, one with the guts to take on, when the cause so dictates, even those they otherwise consider to be friends.

The very last thing the community needs are leaders acting as though they are guests in their own country.

One wonders, will Bush and Cheney be prosecuted for sharing American war plans with Prince Bandar (as Bob Woodward documented in Plan of Attack)--or does the Bush administration consider Saudi princes who permit Saudi suicide bombers to cross into Iraq to kill American soldiers and civilians to be more trustworthy than Israelis?

Russian Military Hazing Causes Draftee's Double Amputation

Ronald Reagan played a victim of a double amputation in King's Row, uttering his favorite movie line (and title of his autobiography), "Where's the rest of me?" when he woke up from the anasthesia. Now, a real-life case has occurred in the Russian military, where a young draftee was beaten, tortured, and had his legs amputated. It is a major scandal in Russia, protests have broken out, military officers have been fired, TV news has broadcast graphic accounts, as well a a phone number to make donations to the victim. Strangely, not too much press here in the USA, although the biggest news in Russia...

Here's an excerpt from the Reuter's story:

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian officers must face punishment over the case of a young conscript who was beaten so badly that his legs and genitals had to be amputated, the soldier's sister demanded on Saturday.

She spoke as demonstrators in Moscow angrily called for the dismissal of Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov after the brutal bullying incident in which the victim's suffering was made worse because medical treatment was delayed.

Andrei Sychev, 19, was tied up and beaten for hours by drunken soldiers over the New Year holiday at a tank academy in Chelyabinsk, in the Ural mountains.

Ivanov said Moscow wasn't told about the attack for 25 days and sought to stem outrage by dismissing the general in charge of the tank academy, Russian state television reported.

Some soldiers and officers at the academy have been arrested on suspicion of being involved in the violence -- known as 'dedovshchina' -- that older conscripts dole out to fresh soldiers.

"I consider they are all guilty as they were in charge and should have stopped this 'dedovshchina' or at least not allowed it to get this far," Sychev's sister, Marina Muffert, told Reuters by telephone.

"I hope they find those who are guilty for this and that they are punished," she said.

"He can't speak because of the oxygen tube but he can croak a few words and he could take some liquid food today."

Sam Donaldson Celebrates Mozart's Birthday

Last night we went to the Kennedy Center, to see the National Symphony Orchestra under maestro Leonard Slatkin's production of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Abduction from the Seraglio. It was a lot of fun, Douglas Fitch's staging was cute, the orchestra and singers were all great, especially Osmin. The cherry on top of the confection was an appearance by ABC's veteran Washington correspondent Sam Donaldson in the role of Pasha Selim, the Ottoman Emperor--in whose harem the action takes place. He had some outstanding dialog (his role was spoken, not sung), ranging from "My dungeons are filled with people who don't like me..." to, "If they cannot be won by love and kindness, let them go..."

It was a whole lot of fun, and a great way to pay tribute to the musical genius -- in a quite inside-the-beltway fashion. There's another performance tonight, if you have nothing else to do, and are near Washington.

Happy Year of the Dog!

It's Chinese New Year (also celebrated in Russia), and this is the year of the dog:

People born in the Year of the Dog possess the best traits of human nature. They have a deep sense of loyalty, are honest, and inspire other people¡¦s confidence because they know how to keep secrets. But Dog People are somewhat selfish, terribly stubborn, and eccentric. They care little for wealth, yet somehow always seem to have money. They can be cold emotionally and sometimes distant at parties. They can find fault with many things and are noted for their sharp tongues. Dog people make good leaders. They are compatible with those born in the Years of the Horse, Tiger, and Rabbit.

Was Mozart Really Like "Amadeus"?

Mozart's 250th birthday seems like the right time to link to this essay on the Mozart Project website by A. Peter Brown discussing how the composer's life differed from its portrayal in Amadeus:

Amadeus the play and movie, as well as the books by Hildesheimer and Carr, derived their success from the unquestionable fascination Mozart holds for us today. Without the name of Mozart, the deep interest in these artifacts of our own culture would not exist. For those who want letters, memoirs, and other primary sources in order to make their own interpretation, these are readily available, but they cannot be taken as "just the facts," for nearly every writer of letters and memoirs, as well as the purveyors of rumors, had his own agendas and beliefs. It is from the documents themselves and their interpretation that the Mozartean mythologies flourished.

Why does Mozart command so much attention? Perhaps it stems from the eternally misguided effort to understand the man behind the music. Although Mozart's music is often recognized as universal, it has received varying interpretations of its essential meaning. For example, critical opinion of the Symphony No. 40 in G Minor K. 550 is one of total admiration, but its character has remained elusive. Robert Schumann found it classical in the strict sense, full of Grecian "lightness and grace." Alfred Einstein thought it a "fatalistic piece of chamber music." Jens Peter Larsen believed it was not the expression of a private mood. Robbins Landon stated that it belongs to a series of works revealing the downside of Mozart's manic tendencies, while Jack Westrup found in it the spirit of opera buffa. Probably no work of the symphonic canon elicits such a wide range of affective reactions from knowledgeable critics. But perhaps it is this variety of reactions to his music that explains the varied interpretations of the person. Perhaps it is only in this sense that the biographies with their explanations of the man parallel the receptions of the music. While one can attempt to set the historical record straight, Shaffer's and Forman's Salieri had it right on one count: the phenomenon of Mozart transcends explanation.

Daniel Pipes: Hamas Hoisted Bush With His Own Petard

Daniel Pipes analyzes implications of the Hamas victory:

In brief, elections are bringing to power the most deadly enemies of the West. What went wrong? Why has a democratic prescription that's proven successful in Germany, Japan and other formerly bellicose nations not worked in the Middle East?

It's not Islam or some cultural factor that accounts for this difference; rather, it is the fact that ideological enemies in the Middle East have not yet been defeated. Democratization took place in Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union after their populations had endured the totalitarian crucible. By 1945 and 1991, they recognized what disasters fascism and communism had brought them, and were primed to try a different path.

That's not the case in the Middle East, where a totalitarian temptation remains powerfully in place. Muslims across the region – with the singular and important exception of Iran – are drawn to the Islamist program with its slogan that "Islam is the solution." That was the case from Iran in 1979 to Algeria in 1992 to Turkey in 2002 to the Palestinian Authority this week.

This pattern has several implications for Western governments:

Slow down: Take heed that an impatience to move the Middle East to democracy is consistently backfiring by bringing our most deadly enemies to power.

Settle in for the long run: However worthy the democratic goal, it will take decades to accomplish.

Defeat radical Islam: Only when Muslims see that this is a route doomed to failure will they be open to alternatives.

Appreciate stability: Stability must not be an end in itself, but its absence likely leads to anarchy and radicalization.

Returning to the dilemma posed by the Hamas victory, Western capitals need to show Palestinians that – like Germans electing Hitler in 1933 – they have made a decision gravely unacceptable to civilized opinion. The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority must be isolated and rejected at every turn, thereby encouraging Palestinians to see the error of their ways. (Emphases mine)

I'll believe Bush is serious about winning only when Daniel Pipes is given a powerful public position...

Maryland Buys Uncle Tom's Cabin

Hamil Harris had an interesting story in the Washington Post yesterday about Uncle Tom's Cabin, which the state of Maryland has purchased as a historical monument. Not only did the cabin really exist, Harriet Beecher Stowe's book was inspired by the autobiography of Josiah Henson, a slave who escaped to Canada and worked on the Underground Railroad:

Henson later returned to Maryland in hopes of buying his freedom, but Riley [his owner] refused to grant it. As a result, he returned to Kentucky to get his wife, and they escaped to Canada to freedom. Henson became a minister and founder of a Canadian settlement called Dawn.

In 1849, Henson wrote his autobiography. Stowe read it after they met in Massachusetts. Three years later she published "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

Marion Joyce, spokeswoman for the Montgomery County Planning Board, said that one of her favorite stories about Henson is about his return to Montgomery County after he had earned his freedom and Riley had died.

"When he knocked on the door, Mrs. Riley asked who it was, and he said Sy, which was his nickname, but she didn't believe him," said Joyce, adding that Riley's wife knew how to tell if it was really Henson because he had broken his arm protecting her husband in a fight.

Henson's arm was deformed, and Riley's wife asked to touch it.

"Sy, it is you. You are a gentleman now," the woman reportedly commented. Henson responded, "Mrs Riley, I always was a gentleman."

Mark Steyn on Hamas's Win

Steyn spoke about the Palestinian election on Hugh Hewitt's radio show:

They won a landslide. And you know, I don't want to make a frivolous comparison, but in a sense, this is a kind of Joel Stein vote. I mean, they're basically saying that the Fatah line, which is that we believe in a two-state solution, but at the same time, we subsidize and glorify terrorism and suicide bombers. They're saying to hell with that humbug hypocrisy line. Let's vote for the party that says we don't believe in a two-state solution, where what we are, we want to drive every last Jew into the sea. And in that sense, this is a less hypocritical expression of where the Palestinian people are at, than supporting Fatah was. Also, I would say that of course, Fatah was incredibly corrupt. Basically, they were in the tenth year of the five year parliament. I mean, you can imagine if the Bush administration says don't worry, folks, we're going to stick around until 2013. And Fatah had spent most of the last ten years taking all the money from the European Union, and basically salting it away in their Swiss bank accounts. That's...eventually, that's going to catch up with you.

HH: The other thing that comes to mind that my friend, Dennis Prager, made very obvious, no honest person can deny now that the Palestinian people want Israel destroyed.

MS: No, and that's right. And I think you're much better knowing honestly and truly where people stand. And often times, particularly in the Middle East, the West has gotten into trouble because its believed leaders who have come up with a form of words that plays well in English language media, and that is not what they tell their own people, or where their people are. And the great thing about Hamas is they're perfectly open. They want to destroy Israel, they don't want it there. That's their bottom line. And I think that's very clarifying.

HH: Let's be cold and clear-eyed about this, Mark Steyn. I believe this means there is an inevitable war out there between Israel and Palestine, because Hamas is going to have to deliver to its constituents what it wants, doesn't it?

MS: Well, I don't think it will...I don't actually think it will be a war. In a sense, I think in the immediate future, what it does is it gives Israel a greater leeway to secure itself with the wall. Nobody's going to argue when you're living next to Hamas that you don't have the right to build a wall. That argument, which the Europeans and other people have made, looks absolutely stupid now. But I think what it does tell you is that in the end, the Palestinians are the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the Earth. Every city you go to...you go to New York, you go to London, you go to Paris, you meet talented, energetic Palestinian doctors and lawyers and accountants. All the talent got out of there in the late 1940's and early 50's. You imagine people, third, fourth generation, the people who stuck around because of this insane dream that they're going to get some olive grove of their great-grandfathers back one day, can you imagine what kind of idiot is going to stick around for sixty years for that? So it's the absolute worst of the Palestinian people who are in Gaza, and in the West Bank. And it's a terrible tragedy for them. But it is the fact that they've been wrecked by being essentially mollycoddled by the U.N. and world opinion for sixty years.

Steyn also discussed his belief that Saddam did have WMD in Iraq, with host Hugh Hewitt:

I want to switch, if I can, to Saddam, and his general who is running around the United States with a new book saying that they shipped airplane loads of WMD out of Iraq and into Syria. Mark Steyn, he can make his own case, but if a ranking Saddamite had come forward and said there were no WMD's, do you think he would be getting what? 5, 10, 100 times the publicity that this fellow is?

MS: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I don't think...the fact of the matter is, when you look at the regime's behavior, they behaved as if they had WMD. When you're in that, what you call the Syrian Desert, which is...sort of spreads over Syria, Jordan and Iraq, when you're in that part of the world, you stumble across these huge bases that just have numbers and letters. They're all called H-2 and H-3. And these things go on for mile. And you drive in them, because when I was there, the gates had all been sort of torn down. And you think, well, what the hell is this? It's not an airfield or anything. What was he keeping here? And then you go up to the Syrian border, and you see it's basically just a line in the sand. There was all kinds of stuff that disappeared over there, because essentially, the United States and the United Nations chose to give Saddam effectively a year to get the stuff out of the country.

World Economic Forum Magazine Calls for Israel Boycott

Roger L. Simon tipped us off to this story about anti-Israel propaganda, calling for a boycott of Israel, in the World Economic Forum magazine distributed in Davos, Switzerland. Davos organizer Klaus Schwab apologized, and pulled the story off his website. But I'd suggest it's not enough.

Actions speak louder than words. If Schwab is truly sorry, here's a suggestion for Professor Dr. Schwab to reall demonstrate he's not an anti-semite or anti-Israel:

Move next year's World Economic Forum meeting to Jerusalem, Haifa or Tel Aviv...

Haaretz: Hamas Win Is Victory For Netanyahu

Haaretz's analysis today makes some sense--Benjamin Netanyahu may regain Israel's top job, thanks to Hamas. And they may strike a peace deal:

Rabin brought Arafat. Arafat brought Benjamin Netanyahu and Sharon to power. Sharon brought Hamas. And Hamas will yet bring back Netanyahu - and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

How Harvard Lost Russia

Author David McClintick, writing in Institutional Investor, details the intricate web of corruption, fraud, and abuse, paid for by the US government through USAID, that eventually cost America Russia's friendship--an NGO called the Harvard Institute for International Development (ht Johnson's Russia List):

Since being named president of Harvard University in 2001, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers has sparked a series of controversies that have grabbed headlines. Summers incurred the wrath of African-Americans when he belittled the work of controversial religion professor Cornel West (who left for Princeton University); last year he infuriated faculty and students alike when he seemed to disparage the innate scientific abilities of women at a Massachusetts economic conference, igniting a national uproar that nearly cost him his job; last fall brought the departure of Jack Meyer, the head of Harvard Management Co., which oversees the school's endowment but had inflamed some in the community because of the multimillion-dollar salaries it pays some of its managers.

Then, in quiet contrast, there is the case of economics professor Andrei Shleifer, who in the mid-1990s led a Harvard advisory program in Russia that collapsed in disgrace. In August, after years of litigation, Harvard, Shleifer and others agreed to pay at least $31 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. government. Harvard had been charged with breach of contract, Shleifer and an associate, Jonathan Hay, with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.

Shleifer remains a faculty member in good standing. Colleagues say that is because he is a close longtime friend and collaborator of Summers.

In the following pages investigative journalist David McClintick, a Harvard alumnus, chronicles Shleifer's role in the university's Russia Project and how his friendship with Summers has protected him from the consequences of that debacle inside America's premier academic institution.

ff duty and in swimsuits, the mentor and his protégé strolled the beach at Truro. For years, with their families, they had summered together along this stretch of Massachusetts' famed Cape Cod. Close personally and professionally, the two friends confided in each other the most private matters of family and finance. The topic of the day was the former Soviet Union.

"You've got to be careful," the mentor, Lawrence Summers, warned his protégé, Andrei Shleifer. "There's a lot of corruption in Russia."

It was late August 1996, and Summers, 42, was deputy secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Shleifer, 35, was a rising star in the Harvard University economics department, just as Summers had been 15 years earlier when he had first taken Shleifer under his wing.

Summers' warning rose out of their pivotal roles in a revolution of global consequence -- the attempt to bring the Russian economy out from the ruins of communism into the promise of Western-style capitalism. Summers, as Treasury's second-in-command, was the architect of U.S. efforts to help Russia. Shleifer's involvement was more intimate. Traveling frequently to Moscow, he was directing key elements of the reform effort under the banner of the renowned Harvard Institute for International Development.

Working on contract for the U.S., HIID advised the Russian government on privatizing its economy and creating capital markets and the laws and institutions to regulate them. Shleifer did not report formally to Summers but rather to the State Department's Agency for International Development, or AID, the spearhead of the U.S.'s foreign aid program.

Personal affection as much as official concern prompted Summers' admonition. He had come to know that Shleifer and his wife, Nancy Zimmerman, a noted hedge fund manager, had been investing in Russia. Though he didn't know specifics, he understood just enough to worry that the couple might run afoul of myriad conflict-of-interest regulations that barred American advisers from investing in the countries they were assisting.

Summers did not restrict his warnings to Shleifer.

"There might be a scandal, and you could become embroiled," Summers told Zimmerman. "You should make sure you're clear with everybody. People might want to make Andrei a problem some day. The world's a shitty place."

Summers' warnings proved at once prophetic and ineffectual. Even as Shleifer and his wife strove to reassure their friend, they were maneuvering to make an investment in Russia's first authorized mutual fund company. Within eight months their private Russian dealings, together with those of close associates and relatives, would explode in scandal -- bringing dishonor to them, Harvard University and the U.S. government. The Department of Justice would deploy the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston to launch a criminal investigation that would uncover evidence of fraud and money laundering, as well as the cavalier use of U.S. government funds to support everything from tennis lessons to vacation boondoggles for Harvard employees and their spouses, girlfriends and Russian pals. It would, in the end, be an extraordinary display of an overweening "best and brightest" arrogance toward the laws and rules that the Harvard people were supposed to live by.

Says one banker who was a frequent visitor to Russia in that era, "The Harvard crowd hurt themselves, they hurt Harvard, and they hurt the U.S. government."

Mostly, they hurt Russia and its hopes of establishing a lasting framework for a stable Western-style capitalism, as Summers himself acknowledged when he testified under oath in the U.S. lawsuit in Cambridge in 2002. "The project was of enormous value," said Summers, who by then had been installed as the president of Harvard. "Its cessation was damaging to Russian economic reform and to the U.S.-Russian relationship."

Reinventing Russia was never going to be easy, but Harvard botched a historic opportunity. The failure to reform Russia's legal system, one of the aid program's chief goals, left a vacuum that has yet to be filled and impedes the country's ability to confront economic and financial challenges today (see box, page 77).

Harvard vigorously defended its work in Russia, but in 2004, after protracted legal wranglings, a judge in federal district court in Boston ruled that the university had breached its contract with the U.S. government and that Shleifer and an associate were liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Last August, nine years after Summers and his protégé took their stroll along that Truro beach, Harvard, Shleifer and associates agreed to pay the government $31 million-plus to settle the case. Shleifer and Zimmerman were forced to mortgage their house to secure their part of the settlement.

Russia's struggles today certainly don't result entirely from Harvard's misdeeds or Shleifer's misconduct. There is plenty of blame to share. It is difficult to overstate the challenge of transforming the economic and legal culture, not to mention the ancient pathologies, of a huge, enigmatic nation that once spanned one sixth of the earth's land surface, 150 ethnicities and 11 time zones. The Marshall Plan, by comparison, was simple.

Summers wasn't president of Harvard when Shleifer's mission to Moscow was coming apart. But as a Harvard economics professor in the 1980s, a World Bank and Treasury official in the 1990s and Harvard's president since 2001, Summers was positioned uniquely to influence Shleifer's career path, to shape U.S. aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it and even to shield Shleifer after the scandal broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused himself from the school's handling of this case, he made a point of taking aside Jeremy Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect Shleifer.

Months after Harvard was forced to pay the biggest settlement in its history, largely because of his misdeeds, Shleifer remains on the faculty. No public action has been taken against him, nor is there any sign as this magazine goes to press in late December that any is contemplated.

Throughout the otherwise voluble university community, there has been an odd silence about the entire affair. Discussions mostly have taken place sotto voce in deans' offices or in local Cambridge haunts, such as the one where a well-connected Harvard personage expressed deep concern, telling II: "Larry's handling of the Shleifer matter raises very basic questions about the way he governs Harvard. This is fraught with significance. It couldn't be more fraught."

The silence is now beginning to break, thanks to the leadership of academic worthies like former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis, who is finishing a book about the university to be published in the spring by Perseus Public Affairs. Lewis agreed to show II the manuscript, in which he asserts, "The relativism with which Harvard has dealt with the Shleifer case undermines Harvard's moral authority over its students."

As Glenn Reynolds says, read the whole thing . . .

Mark Steyn on Canada's Conservative Revolution

Mark Steyn is crowing about the Candian election, in The Australian

A SAD day for Michael Moore. In the event of a terrible tragedy, the corpulent anti-corporate crusader is wont, like the Queen and Kofi Annan, to issue a formal statement to the world. And his "Michael Moore Statement On Canadian Election" made distressing reading: "Oh, Canada - you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right?"

Well, no. In a very Canadian kind of revolution, we rose up yesterday and threw the bums out but gave them a soft, fluffy landing, nevertheless installing in office a minority government that somehow managed to get itself elected despite having the word "Conservative" in its name.

Daniel Pipes Endorses Hamas

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. Daniel Pipes has taken sides against the US-subsidized Palestinian Authority and the Fatah party, (weakly) endorsing Hamas:

Fatah is dubbed moderate and Hamas extremist; or, in the even more dramatic terms of an Associated Press headline today, "Palestinians choose between pursuing peace or confrontation with Israel." In fact, the differences between them are merely tactical; a more accurate headline would be "Palestinians choose between pursuing more overt or more covert destruction of Israel." Basically, Hamas speaks its mind and Fatah dares not. And Hamas provides the social services that Fatah cannot because its honchos have stolen the funds.

Ironically, this means that there is some reason to prefer Hamas to Fatah, for it prompts a more negative response from Israelis, Europeans, Americans, and others. But the New York Sun has already made this point for me a couple of days ago, in a house editorial titled "Recipe for Trouble":

a victory by Hamas, evil though the organization is, might not be all bad. At least then it would be clear to everyone what Israel is facing, an enemy committed to its complete destruction. … With Hamas in power, the Palestinian Authority could be seen, even by the American state department, for what it is, a terrorist state with the aim of destroying a free and democratic American ally. It would join the ranks of Iran and Syria as a rogue state that America would seek to isolate and roll back rather than subsidize with taxpayer dollars.

So, while I do not wish Hamas well in any manner at all (an article of mine appearing today in USA Today calls for it to be destroyed), there will likely be some benefit in having it complicit in the Palestinian Authority.

The American Thinker on Iran v. Israel

Writing in The American Thinker, J.R. Dunn says Israel can't afford to wait until Iran attacks with nuclear weapons:

An acute observer might well think that everyone involved was trying to ease the way for a strike to be carried out – by the U.S. or Israel or both. It really wouldn’t matter so long as the EU and the UN were not involved. (The French nuclear threat only highlights this point – it’s best read as a statement intended to direct Iranian intentions elsewhere.) Israel, after all, does have a history of the coup de main, the all-or-nothing strike such as occurred in 1956, 1967, and 1981.  Look at the situation from Israel’s point of view to grasp how far it may be forced to go. This is the state founded in the shadow of the Holocaust, as a lifeboat for oldest surviving nation on Earth. The only people the world ever consciously tried to destroy.

To the Israelis, a hostile Middle Eastern state gaining nuclear weapons renders the level of risk effectively infinite. They will be facing not defeat, not humiliation, but effective annihilation. Under these circumstances, any level of response is justified. In the past week, two prominent Israelis, Benjamin Netanyahu and chief of staff Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, have both publicly stated that “the threat to Israel is existential.” On January 21st Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz went even further: the Iranian people face “havoc and destruction” if their government fails to stand down. They should be taken as meaning what they say.

Those words may be the only warning anyone ever gets.  There was a point during the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 when it appeared that the Egyptians had broken though Israeli lines in the Sinai at the same time the Syrians were about to drive across the Golan. Although never verified, it’s been reported on some authority that Moshe Dayan placed the Israeli nuclear strike force on full alert, the planes at the ends of the runways with their engines hot, their weapons armed, ready to head for their targets.

The “go” phrase was, “The Temple has fallen for the third time.” It didn’t happen then. And I think it can taken as a given that the Temple will not fall this time either. Apart from that, everything else is up in the air. Except for the jets – and they’re always ready to go.

Kofi Annan's Role in Sudan's Suffering

Roger L. Simon objects to the Washington Postproviding editorial space for the UN Secretary-General to posture on Sudan, without mentioning Kofi Annan's responsibility for the unfolding tragedy.

More on Moscow's British NGO Spy Scandal

In the Moscow Times

British Spy Scandal 'Rocks' Moscow NGOs

Tony Blair didn't deny Russian charges that British spies have used high-tech rocks as electronic mail drops in a spy scandal that threatens to envelope Western-supported NGOs--through British funding and contacts, some of whom have been named as accused spies. Here's RIA Novosti's version:

The program also alleged that Marc Doe, a first secretary at the British Embassy in Moscow, had been authorizing regular payments to Russian non-governmental organizations. Several documents signed by him were shown as evidence of cash payments to NGOs operating in Moscow, including 23,000 pounds (about $40,000) to the Moscow Helsinki Group, and 5,719 pounds ($9,700) to the Eurasia Foundation.

Another document signed by Doe, a 27-year-old graduate of Durham University, contained information on cash payments for an obscure project for establishing schools of public inspectors in remote areas of Siberia and Russia's Far East.

FSB spokesperson Diana Shemyakina said earlier that thousands of NGOs were working in Russia, although only 92 were officially registered by the Justice Ministry. Most of them were founded and provided with funds by the U.S. government and public organizations, and by its NATO allies, she said.

Non-governmental organizations with financing from other countries are thought to have played a major role in the "revolutions" that have swept former Soviet states in recent years, prompting some Russian politicians to raise concerns that similar activities were being carried out in Russia. Parliament passed a bill restricting the operation of NGOs at the end of last year.

Apart from Doe, the Rossiya program said embassy employees Christopher Pirt, 30, and Paul Cronton, were also involved in espionage, as was 32-year-old researcher Andre Fleming.

On the other hand, this Guardian story from Britain is more amusing, sort of "Get Smart" meets "Austin Powers."

An x-ray of the box, shown on Russian state television, showed four big batteries and a radio transmitter-receiver tightly packed together - a device of such crude simplicity it would have made Q, James Bond's technical wizard, shudder.

"First the Russian asset would walk past the stone," Nikolai Zakharov, deputy spokesman for the Federal Security Service (FSB), as the KGB is now known, told the Guardian. "He would send information to the stone from his palmtop, and later the embassy employee would pass by and collect it from another palmtop."

He said the device, a 21st century version of the "dead letter drop", had a range of up to 20m and could send and receive coded signals to or from small palmtop computers, almost identical to those available on Britain's high streets. It enabled British diplomats to communicate indirectly with their alleged Russian agents: it meant they never had to be in the same room as them. Four members of the British embassy staff were identified by the Russians and accused of being part of a spy ring. The four were all still at their posts last night.

Interfax, the Russian news agency, reported that the FSB had fanned out across Moscow to check other potentially suspicious rocks. Sergei Ignatchenko, chief spokesman for the FSB, told the agency that a second device had been spotted but was retrieved by British agents.

The echoes of Ian Fleming and John le Carré will raise a smile in Britain and elsewhere. But there is serious side to this, and not only for the alleged Russian agent being held in Moscow accused of handling state secrets. Though old cold war enemies - such as Britain and Russia - have set up procedures to cooperate quite closely on counter-terrorism, they still indulge in a mutual spying game. The second oldest profession is as alive and as well as the oldest.

But on another level it is troubling. For if the British are guilty, they have threatened the work of NGOs, by crossing the line between democracy-building and espionage. And that may mean big trouble for democracy-builders everywhere...

Thieves of Baghdad

Last night a friend was talking about this book at dinner, and mentioned a really nasty review in today's Washington Post. When I saw the review myself, of this new book about the search for the art looted from the Baghdad Museum in today's Washington Post, I understood her excitement. The reviewer, Post critic Philip Kennicott, complained that the author sounded hostile to journalists, bureaucrats, and ivy-leaguers. He called him a "Marine snob." The Post's message, it's a good read--but don't read it!

So I thought: This book by William Bogdanos--a US Marine who tracked down the treasures and discovered the looting of the Iraq museum was an "inside job"--must be REALLY interesting.

After I get a copy, I may have some more to say....

Moscow's Ismailovsky Flea Market in 360 Degrees

I really love these 360-degree panoramas...

Kanan Makiya on European Racism on Iraq

From an interview in on Democratiya.com(ht War and Piece):

People like myself, those of us who went into Iraq after April and March 2003 as part of the effort to transform this country, have felt betrayed by Europe as a whole. We were attacked by the media of all the surrounding countries, countries utterly hostile to the sort of values on which Europe rests. Satellite stations distorted what was going on. The silence in Europe at that moment gave enormous sustenance to all those forces struggling against the transformation of Iraq. It enabled the Jihadis, the Ba'athists, the extreme Arab nationalists, and the Arab regimes, to say 'Look at the hostility of Europe to what the United States has done!' Europe made it possible to isolate not just the United States but everything that is represented by the west. Europe gave strength to the argument that it was a traditional colonist land grab or oil grab, which was nonsense, of course.

I would say that much of the strength of the hostility of the Jihadi movement, and of the forces that have made life so horrible in Iraq, came from the silence of Europe. Europe has a lot to answer for. It's not even that it was half-hearted. They fell in completely with the language of the non-democratic Arab regimes. They bought their line and they seemed to stand for the same things. They undermined entirely the values of the operation. Europeans knew that the United States was not going to permanently occupy Iraq. Deep down the smarter Europeans must have known it wasn't just about oil. It was - rightly or wrongly - a way of changing the traditional western attitude towards the Arab Muslim world. It was an end to the support for autocratic and repressive governments. It was a new view that if we are going to succeed in this war against terror then we are going to have to be viewed by the populations of this part of the world in a totally different way. Now Europe might not have thought it was the right time. Europe might have thought it should be done differently. But Europe should never have been seen to be undermining the argument itself.

Europe was justifying and supporting the foundations on which these repressive regimes stood. It had acquiesced so fully in that relativist language it had no views of its own that it thought could be shared. More: it looked racist because it looked like the democratic values it enjoyed were not possible for Arabs and Muslims to enjoy. All of a sudden the shoe was on the other foot entirely. It was not the Americans who were the imperialists or racists. It was the Europeans who, by sitting back, were saying 'you Arabs and you Muslims really can't do any better than this, so why mess around with this thing in the first place?'

Abu Hamza's Website

Also from Internet Haganah, this link to Abu Hamza's website: Shareah.org.. A sample Q & A:

Are Suicide attacks Haram?

Question:

Are Suicide attacks haram? In our country some Alims says that suicide attack leads you to jahhannam (Hell fire).

Answer:

Asalaam 'alaikum

If (the operation) is done for (the sake of) suicide just so that the person can die and run from his difficulties then it is haram (unlawful) of course.

But if it is done as a tactic of war because there is no other strong mean to resist the enemies then it is of course one of the highest and noblest form of shahadah (martyrdom).

Wasalaam 'alaikum

Shaykh Abu Hamza Al-Misri

Ann Coulter on the Alito Hearings

Ann says it was important:

Sam Alito marks the final purging of the Bork experience.

All the Democrats could do was scream about his inactive membership — back in the '70s — in CAP, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which had a magazine called Prospect, which once ran an article, apparently satirical, complaining about Princeton admitting co-eds. In my mind, the only potentially disqualifying aspect of Alito's record was that he wasn't a more active member of CAP, a group opposed to quotas, set-asides and the lowering of academic standards at Princeton.

Then this week, we found out Sen. Teddy Kennedy still belongs to an organization that doesn't admit women. Oh — also, he killed a girl.

I'm fairly certain I've mentioned that before — I don't recall, Mr. Chairman — but I don't understand why everyone doesn't mention it every time Senator Drunkennedy has the audacity to talk about how "troubled" and "concerned" he is about this or that nominee. I bet Mary Jo was "troubled" and "concerned" about the senator leaving her in trapped in a car under water while he went back to the hotel to create an alibi.

It's not as if Democrats can say: OK, OK! The man paid a price! Let it go! He didn't pay a price. The Kopechne family paid a price. Kennedy weaved away scot-free.

Is Spielberg's 'Munich' Based on a Fabrication?

I found this interesting posting on The Internet Haganah website, following links from the Jawa Report story below. It seems they have found an item published in the Guardian that throws the credibility of Spielberg's 'Munich' into question:

Israeli Yuval Aviv, who teamed up with Canadian George Jonas to write Vengeance, the bestseller on which Spielberg's "Munich" is based, never served in the Mossad or any Israeli intelligence organization. His nearest approximation to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early '70s. The tale he had woven was apparently nothing more than a Walter Mitty fabrication.

Jawa Report Tip Leads to Conviction

Little Green Footballs tipped us off to this interesting story of bloggers catching a would-be terrorist in the midwest, thanks to a lead from The Jawa Report.

It turns out that "Ahmed" was really Jordanian born Mohammed Radwan Obeid. Obeid had fraudulently immigrated to the United States by marrying an American woman, and then having the marriage annuled. Obeid was working as a cashier in Dayton, Ohio last year and living with his girlfriend in a nearby town. It was from the Troy branch of the Miami (Ohio) County public library that he began to seek out fellow jihadis.

Obeid's posts at jihadi forums was noticed by more than those anti-terrorist crusaders who monitor them. Obeid's posts about nuclear weapons and gun silencers was somehow noticed by reference librarian Laura Girolamo. Ms. Girolamo contacted the FBI who, using their newly found powers under the Patriot Act, were able to confirm the librarians suspicions.

At about the same time, a Jawa Report reader from Virginia, David Vazquez, began e-mailing Obeid. Obeid was under the false impression that Vazquez was a fellow jihad supporter. Obeid, he says, was now trying to recruit him for a terrorist cause.

Obeid told David Vazquez in e-mails that "we are starting a big operation that will make 9/11 nothing but a little bit of headache."

According to Vazquez, "I was very alarmed at the words (Obeid) was saying." He contacted the FBI.

Armed with the knowlege provided them by their ability under the Patriot Act to monitor public library computers, and by David Vazquez's saved e-mail conversations, the FBI picked up Obeid on March 28th for 'immigration violations'.

When asked about whether or not the e-mails were his, Obeid denied that they were. Since he was asked under oath, Obeid's denials amounted to knowingly and willfully making a false material representation.

A Federal immigration judge ordered Obeid's deportation in September. Obeid was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in October. He pleaded guilty to the felony charge of lying to Federal investigators.

James Taranto on Uncle Salvador's Escape to Turkey

This is a great story, by James Taranto in Friday's Wall Street Journal:

Working for a newspaper, I often feel as though I'm observing history from a ringside seat. When I visited Istanbul a few years ago, my favorite uncle, Salvador Taranto, told me the story of a direct encounter with history--an encounter in which history might easily have swallowed him up.

It was late December 1942. Salvador, my father's elder half-brother, was a 25-year-old Turkish citizen living in Marseilles, in the south of France, which the German army had occupied the month before. He was also a Jew. (When I tell people my last name, they often ask if I'm Canadian, since the English pronunciation is similar to "Toronto." In fact, Taranto is of Italian origin and is a common Jewish name in Istanbul, where my father was born and raised.)

The Nazis were not yet deporting Jews from Marseilles, but Salvador wisely decided to leave. "I wrote a letter to the Ministry of Interior [in Vichy, the occupation capital], telling that I am a Turkish citizen of Jewish religion, and, as you don't want foreigners and Jews in France, I would like to receive my exit visa."

Salvador was called to the local prefecture and asked to present his passport. He complied, though he feared it would be confiscated. But the news was good. "OK, you have an exit visa from France," a local bureaucrat told him. "But you have to leave within three or four days." There were no passenger ships to Istanbul, Salvador recalled, so the only way to get there was by rail. "The next day, I took the train--I left."

He traveled overnight to Milan and went to the Consulate of Croatia, a nominally independent fascist puppet state. There he made the mistake of saying he was Jewish. "After half an hour, they told me, 'Sorry, you cannot have a Croatian visa.' " He waited outside, and when the consul left for lunch, Salvador confronted him to demand an explanation. "I know that you are [a] Jew," the diplomat told him, "so I cannot give the visa."

Salvador proceeded to the Turkish Consulate, where he was advised to travel on. Aboard the train, a passport-control officer told him that before he even got to Croatia he would need a German visa to travel through another portion of occupied Yugoslavia. He got off in Trieste, Italy, and went to the German Consulate, where he applied the lesson he had learned in Milan. The Germans asked his religion, and he said "Musulman"--French for Muslim. They asked his parents' names. He said his mother was "Aisha," a common Turkish name, "instead of Rebecca," because, as he told me, "Rebecca is a name [that is] 100% Jew." His father's first name, Vitali, was Italian, so it didn't arouse suspicion. He got a visa, valid for 24 hours.

Then came the most unnerving part of the journey. A border guard at the Italian city of Postumia (now Postojna, Slovenia) turned him back, saying his visa was valid only at Fiume (now Rijeka, Croatia), some 50 miles away. To get there before the visa expired, he had to hitch a ride on a freight train. When he crossed into German-occupied territory, a Nazi officer wearing a swastika armband was waiting to greet him.

"He told me, 'Welcome.' He brought me to a wooden house: 'You will sleep here.' " It was dinnertime, and the train onward would not come until morning. In the officers' mess, a large portrait of Hitler hung on the wall, looking down on Salvador. After a meal of soup and bread, it was on to the guesthouse. "I didn't undress, because . . . I thought they were looking at what I was doing. . . . I didn't sleep, because I was afraid." In the morning one of the Nazis summoned him when the train arrived. In an act of kindness that today is hard to fathom, the Nazi gave him "a big piece of bread" to tide him over for the trip.

There's more, and it is worth reading the whole article.

Jill Carroll's Father Offers Deal

On Arab television, Jim Carroll told his daughters' kidnappers:

As a father, I appeal to you to release my daughter for the betterment of your cause," Carroll said. "Allow her to be your voice to the world. Her life as a reporter will better serve your purpose than her death."

I seem to remember similar self-abasing statements during pleas offered in the Daniel Pearl case. While they are understandable under such pressure, it was distressing to hear them then, and I am distressed to see them now--because they sound like surrender and submission to terrorist demands.

BBC: Abu Hamza Launches Defense

The BBC has an eyewitness account of Abu Hamza's defense as his trial in London continues:

For the defence, Edward Fitzgerald QC's opening had been simple.

"Mr Hamza is probably the most frequently abused and ridiculed figure in this country," he said.

"Certain sections of the press delight in having a go at him. They call him 'Hook' and 'Hookie';

The Ox Bow Incident

Tim Dirks lists this 1943 William Wellman western melodrama, starring Henry Fonda, Anthony Quinn, Henry Morgan, Dana Andrews, and Jane Darwell, among his picks for the greatest films on his his FilmSite devoted to Hollywood classics.

I couldn't agree more. We saw it on a Netflix DVD, watching it on a laptop, and it holds up on the small-screen very well. A post at the IMDB page discussed the relevance of the film's message to today's debates over torture, Guantanamo, "rendition," "enemy combatants", and NSA eavesdropping. The original intent of the film's producers was to make a statement about Nazism and how it took root. What makes the film a classic is that it actually has withstood the test of time beautifully. It could equally have been about McCarthyism or accusations of sexual harrassment.

What is the difference between a legitimate posse and a lynch mob? That is the question posed by screenwriter Lamar Trotti and director William Wellman. The answer is: due process.

In the Ox Bow incident, three innocent men are hanged because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Rather than go through a cumbersome trial and the law's delay, the mob kills first and asks questions later. Seven men oppose the mob, but are unable to stop the travesty of justice. In that sense, the film is a tragedy. Among the protesters are Henry Fonda and Henry Morgan. They are in the minority, they are out-voted, and they are right. The hot-headed majority, baying for blood instead of justice, is wrong. They compound their crime when it turns out that the man they thought had been killed was merely wounded, and has recovered--and the perpetrators found elsewhere.

Tragic irony. Deeply moving. Brilliantly filmed and acted.

A reminder why it is important to determine who is guilty by trial by jury in open court--not to protect terrorists but to protect the rest of us from becoming what we are fighting against.

Only respect for rule of law is differentiates a posse from a lynch mob--or band of terrorists. In this film, Henry Fonda embodies that deeply American value.

Yes, you can add it to your Netlfix queue.