Putin's Speech

It took a while for the English translation of Putin's speech, but the full text is finally up on the Kremlin's website. A few things I didn't see discussed in media accounts, which focused on demographic issues and his response to Cheney.

1. A coded message that the US is sponsoring Islamist extremist terrorism in Chechnya and other republics in order to weaken Russia, and that Russia will respond forcefully:

The terrorist threat remains very real. Local conflicts remain a fertile breeding ground for terrorists, a source of their arms and a field upon which they can test their strength in practice. These conflicts often arise on ethnic grounds, often with inter-religious conflict thrown in, which is artificially fomented and manipulated by extremists of all shades.

I know that there are those out there who would like to see Russia become so mired in these problems that it will not be able to resolve its own problems and achieve full development.

2. Russia will stick to its policy of involvement in the "near abroad" and considers the European Union--not the US or China--to be its primary partner:

I repeat that our relations with our closest neighbours were and remain a most important part of the Russian Federation’s foreign policy.

I would like to say a few words briefly about our cooperation with our other partners.

Our biggest partner is the European Union. Our ongoing dialogue with the EU creates favourable conditions for mutually beneficial economic ties and for developing scientific, cultural, educational and other exchanges. Our joint work on implementing the concept of the common spaces is an important part of the development of Europe as a whole.

3.Russia ranks relations with the US on a level with China and India, and prefers to work to strengthen rather than weaken the UN framework, in opposition to the Bush administration policy of unilateralism:

Of great importance for us and for the entire international system are our relations with the United States of America, with the People’s Republic of China, with India, and also with the fast-growing countries of the Asia-Pacific Region, Latin America and Africa. We are willing to take new steps to expand the areas and framework of our cooperation with these countries, increase cooperation in ensuring global and regional security, develop mutual trade and investment and expand cultural and educational ties.

I wish to stress that at this time of globalisation when a new international architecture is in the process of formation, the role of the United Nations Organisation has taken on new importance. This is the most representative and universal international forum and it remains the backbone of the modern world order. It is clear that the foundations of this global organisation were laid during an entirely different era and that reform is indisputably necessary.

Russia, which is taking an active part in this work, sees two points of being of principle importance.

First, reform should make the UN’s work more effective. Second, reform should have the broad support of a maximum number of the UN’s member states. Without consensus in the UN it will be very difficult to ensure harmony in the world. The UN system should be the regulator that enables us to work together to draw up a new code of behaviour in the international arena, a code of behaviour that meets the challenges of our times and that we are so in need of today in this globalising world.

Putin is attempting to put Russia back to work with the mission of "balancing" the USA, without directly opposing America or restarting the Cold War. Sort of a "loyal opposition" vision for international relations, not a threat, rather a dissenting and independent power.

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network

While visiting a friend in the hospital with pancreatic cancer, his surgeon mentioned this website for the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. He said that pancreatic cancer was a bigger threat to public health than HIV/AIDS, but didn't get the publicity or funding...

John McCain v. Freedom of Speech

In his latest column, George F. Will explains why it is significant that Senator John McCain not only co-sponsored the troubling McCain-Feingold campaign law, but also said that he's opposed to the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

Presidents swear to "protect and defend the Constitution." The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." On April 28, on Don Imus's radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge:

"I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Will suggests that McCain might be a dangerous to the US Constitution, and his views may be a threat to democracy itself:

Which highlights the stark contradiction in McCain's doctrine and the media's applause of it. He and they assume, simultaneously, the following two propositions:

Proof that incumbent politicians are highly susceptible to corruption is the fact that the government they control is shot through with it. Yet that government should be regarded as a disinterested arbiter, untainted by politics and therefore qualified to regulate the content, quantity and timing of speech in campaigns that determine who controls the government. In the language of McCain's Imus appearance, the government is very much not "clean," but it is so clean it can be trusted to regulate speech about itself.

McCain hopes that in 2008 pro-life Republicans will remember his pro-life record. But they will know that, regarding presidents and abortion, what matters are Supreme Court nominees. McCain favors judges who think the Constitution is so radically elastic that government regulation of speech about itself is compatible with the First Amendment. So Republican primary voters will wonder: Can President McCain be counted on to nominate justices who would correct such constitutional elasticities as the court's discovery of a virtually unlimited right -- one unnoticed between 1787 and 1973 -- to abortion?

McCain told Imus that he would, if necessary, sacrifice "quote First Amendment rights" to achieve "clean" government. If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?

Harry Potter and the War on Terror

Writing in The American Thinker, Bookworm says J.K. Rowling's story has a message for adults in a post-9/11 world:

I don’t pretend to know what J.K. Rowling was thinking when she wrote Order of the Phoenix, but I can’t help but see in this post-9/11 book a perfect analogy to the situation the West faces today, in the real world, in its War against Islamofascism. Some of us, like Harry, know that we have seen evil, acknowledge its existence, and are prepared to fight it. But just as Harry must deal with a government Ministry bound and determined to explain away or ignore the evil in its midst, we too face an anti-War movement that endlessly ignores, explains away, and excuses the most vile acts of terror and human degradation. I have to believe, however, that there are at least some young people who experienced the Twin Towers falling as the formative event of their youth, and who will find guidance and inspiration in Harry’s struggle to wage overcome both evil itself and a cultural indifference to that same evil.

Konstantin on the New Cold War

Konstantin's Russian Blog reacts to Dick Cheney's declaration of a new Cold War in Vilnius:

What do we learn from such verbal maneuvers? First, that America does not really give a damn about freedom and democracy. They are nothing but empty words. When any country does not agree with the US international politics it immediately becomes undemocratic. When any dictatorship does what America wants its democracy status raises to incredible heights. This is a very powerful and meaningful signal. It means that even if Putin gives complete freedom to ORT and RTV, even if he resigns, even if he stops bothering Ukraine and Georgia, he would still be treated as very undemocratic. But the moment he, for example, agrees to punish Iran the US-way, he could immediately double gas prices for the US tiny Eastern European liegemen fearing no political consequences. It only takes some arithmetical calculations: we loose X if we stop building nuclear power stations in Iran and we gain Y if we introduce market prices for the Baltics, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. If X is very close to Y then we have every chance to improve our freedom status and American limitrophes will shut up (or will not be heard by American corporate media, what is the same).

Second, we learn that America is not that strong as it used to be. “Zeus, you are angered. That means you are wrong.” In the 20th century diplomats used to say, “Speak softly but carry a stick in your hand”. Nowadays, as one wise man said, America prefers another saying, “Yell at the top of your lungs and hope that others won’t notice that your stick is broken.”

Third, we learn that America is very myopic. So myopic that winning in some minor internal quarrels means more than loosing global international partners. I don’t talk about allies as in the last three years America alienated all of them (parasites don’t count as allies). Dick definitely gained some points with right-wing Republicans at home for being “hard with Russia”. The fact that the level of anti-Americanism among Russians rose 8% doesn’t bother him at all. Russia is not a democratic country, so Russians will not be given a chance to vote for an anti-American president, won’t they? Iranians voted for an anti-American president although a much more liberal candidate had every chance to win just because Iranians are stupid (or brainwashed). The fact that the US became double hostile towards Iran before the presidential elections doesn’t have anything to do with the outcome.

American political system was based on the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment. Two hundred years ago educated public sincerely believed that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the system of check and balances was introduced. Nowadays America is the only super power. Its power is absolute and no matter how sympathetic I am towards Americans I do realize that the Founding Fathers were right in the long run. American absolute global power makes America absolutely corrupt in the world where no checks and balances exist for this rich, hypocritical, greedy and war-mongering hulk.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Speaks!

Here's an account of her Harvard talk, via Little Green Footballs:

Her voice broke at one point when she reflected on her relationship with Theo Van Gogh. When she was discussing her ideas for Submission Part One with Theo, she had wanted to use puppets, or placards. Theo said, “No, It is better if you put this idea in a film. I want to do this for you.” His main problem with the project was not the danger, it was the utter lack of humor. “Maybe I’ll save the humor for Parts Three and Four?” he joked.

“We thought everything was good after we finished filming. We could start Parts Two and Three. And then one morning, I got a phone call. Theo was,” her voice faltered just a bit “...killed.”

“So now I have to live with the fact that Theo Van Gogh is dead. Though I did not kill him, I have to live with the fact that he is dead. I had protection before Theo Van Gogh was killed. I have to do what these gentlemen tell me to do. I have to comply. I comply with things I am told by the authorities. The emphasis on security... it has made me more radical. I cannot be complacent. Let others do it, it will go away - I can’t do that anymore.”

Iran's Third Way

Daniel Pipes arguest that bombing Iran may be too risky, but so is doing nothing. He suggests a third way to deter Iran:

But is there a third, more palatable option? Finding it is the goal of every analyst who addresses the topic, including this one. That third option necessarily involves a mechanism to dissuade the Iranian regime from developing and militarizing its atomic capabilities. Does such a deterrence exist?

Yes, and it even has a chance of success. Iran, fortunately, is not an absolute dictatorship where a single person makes all key decisions, but an oligarchy with multiple power centers and with debate on many issues. The political leadership itself is divided, with important elements dubious about the wisdom of proceeding with nukes, fearful of the international isolation that will follow, not to speak of air strikes. Other influential sectors of society – religious, military, and economic in particular – also worry about the headlong rush.

A campaign by Iranians to avoid confrontation could well prevail, as Iran does not itself face an atomic threat. Going nuclear remains a voluntary decision, one Tehran can refrain from making. Arguably, Iranian security would benefit by staying non-nuclear.

Forces opposed to nuclearization need to be motivated and unified, and that is made more likely by strong external pressure. Were Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Middle Easterners, and others to act in sync with Washington, it would help mobilize opposition elements in Iran. Indeed, those states have their own reasons to dread both a nuclear Tehran and the bad precedent this sets for other potential atomic powers, such as Brazil and South Africa.

That international cooperation, however, is not materializing, as can be seen at the United Nations. The Security Council meanders on the Iran issue and an Iranian official has been elected to, of all things, the UN's disarmament commission (which is tasked with achieving nuclear disarmament).

Deterring Tehran requires sustained, consistent external pressure on the Iranian body politic. That implies, ironically, that those most adverse to U.S.-led air strikes must (1) stand tight with Washington and (2) convince Iranians of the terrible repercussions for them of defying the international consensus.

HONOR A History by James Bowman

Yesterday, I went to the book party for James Bowman's new book, HONOR: A History. It certainly was honorable of Jim, who I have not seen for years and years, to invite me. I was honored to be there.

The event took place at the American Enterprise Institute, and so I found myself sitting between former Presidential speechwriter David Frum (George W. Bush) and former Presidential speechwriter Ben Wattenberg (Lyndon Baines Johnson). Irving Kristol and Bea Himmelfarb sat at the next table. So you might say that Jim had invited me to an A-list neoconservative party. And I don't know that they all liked what he had to say.

Because in his talk, Bowman put forward the theory that the war in Iraq was about nothing more or less than the ancient notion of Honor. In our case, "National Honor." In the case of Islamist terrorists, personal and religious honor. A clash of honor systems, if not a clash of civilizations.

This--not the Israel Lobby, not the Oil Lobby, not Halliburton--explained why America could not afford to lose. Because Saddam Hussein has definitely been linked to Al Qaeda after the American attack, it was honorable and right to fight him. Since the attack on 9/11, the honor of our nation is at stake.

But, said Bowman, Iraq is like Vietnam in that appeals to honor ring politically incorrect, and the President therefore cannot make them. The last President to invoke National Honor was Richard Nixon--"peace with honor."

And we all know how that ended...

Something to think about.

Hookergate?

That's what they're calling scandal swirling around Porter Goss's departure from the CIA, Down Under. From The Australian:

ALL the ingredients for a spy thriller involving prostitutes, poker, a congressman called Randy and parties at the legendary Watergate complex may lie behind the sudden resignation of Porter Goss as director of the CIA.

The saga has already been named "Hookergate", and the CIA is buzzing with rumours there is more to Mr Goss's departure than meets the eye.

The timing is certainly curious, coming hard on the heels of the CIA's confirmation last week that Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the No3 in the nation's spy agency, who was hand-picked by Mr Goss, had attended poker games at the Watergate and Westin Grand hotels in Washington with Brent Wilkes, a defence contractor and close boyhood friend.

Mr Wilkes is under investigation for allegedly providing Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a disgraced Republican congressman, with prostitutes, limousines and free hotel suites.

The net is also closing in on Mr Foggo, who is being investigated by the FBI for awarding Mr Wilkes a $US2.4million ($3.1 million) contract. Although Mr Foggo has admitted playing poker with Mr Wilkes, he insists no prostitutes were present.

A former senior CIA official said this weekend he had been told by a trusted source inside the agency that Mr Goss, 67, had attended one of the poker games. The CIA has denied it. "Goss has repeatedly denied being there, so if it were to come out he was, he is finished," the ex-official said.

Aleksandr Solzhenytsin On Russia's Future

Interviewed by Vitaly Tretyakov of the Moscow News, via Johnson's Russia List. Some excerpts:

Vitaly Tretyakov: Aleksandr Isayevich, what is your general impression of Russia's present development under President Vladimir Putin as compared with the Yeltsin and Gorbachev era?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: Under Gorbachev, the concept and perception of statehood per se was discarded. (Hence his numerous acts of capitulation and unconditional concessions in foreign policy which won him kudos in the West.)

On Yeltsin's watch, that line was essentially continued, but it was further
aggravated by the uncontrolled plundering of Russia, its property and
national legacy, as well as by inaction and collusion in the face of a
countrywide crisis. Under Putin, efforts were made, although not
immediately, to reverse the trend and save Russia's statehood. At first,
however, some of those attempts were rather cosmetic, but then they became
more focused. Considering our condition and our potentialities, the
country's foreign policy today is sensible and increasingly pragmatic.
Russia, however, has yet much to do to overcome the heavy burden of the
past. The overall condition of the people's life is still difficult and
there is much chaos.

VT: In the past several months there has been a flurry of political and other
activity around the so-called national priority projects, including reform
of the education and healthcare system, the housing and utilities sector,
and agriculture. What do you think about these projects? Were they
correctly prioritized?

AS: When a boat has 99 holes in its hull, with the best of intentions, it is
impossible to fix all of them at once. All of these projects have a right
to be "national priority projects." All of them are vitally important. As
for agriculture and the moribund countryside (a problem that was recently
highlighted by Moscow Mayor Yu. M. Luzhkov in rather forceful terms) - a
countryside that has been abandoned to its fate and degrading for decades
now it is really a pressing need: We are not only becoming dependent on
food supplies [from abroad] but losing valuable lands.

***

VT: I, for one, believe that unless the three principal subjects of
Euro-Atlantic (Christian) civilization - specifically, the North American
Union, the (Western) European Union, and the East European (Russian) Union
- form a strategic alliance (with supra-state bodies), our civilization
will disappear sooner or later. Where do you think salvation for the
Euro-Atlantic civilization lies?

AS: Unfortunately, the global political process is not moving in the direction
that you have just outlined. The United States has been deploying its
occupation troops in one country after another. This has been the case in
Bosnia for the past nine years, in Kosovo and Afghanistan for the past five
years, and in Iraq for the past three years. And it is bound to continue
for a very long time yet. There is no substantial difference between NATO
and U.S. actions. Seeing that Russia today poses no threat to it, NATO is
systematically, persistently expanding its military apparatus - to eastern
Europe and to the south of Russia. This includes open financial and
ideological support for "color" revolutions and the absurd imposition of
North-Atlantic interests on Central Asia. All of this leaves no doubt that
Russia is being encircled with a view to destroying its sovereignty.
Russia's accession to the Euro-Atlantic alliance, which is now forcibly
imposing Western democratic values in various parts of the world, would
result not in the expansion but the decline of Christian civilization.

VT: Do you agree with the view that the world is rapidly moving toward
neo-authoritarianism (probably as a reaction to total liberalism)?

AS: "Total liberalism," as you have aptly put it, has certainly had its day in
the world and is now more or less a spent force. It will be replaced by
some other forms of public and state consciousness, but I would not dare
predict their essence or the forms that they will actually assume.

VT: What is your perspective on the situation in Ukraine? In this context, what
do you think about the problem of the division of the Russian nation (the
largest divided nation in modern Europe)? Should Russia - if not
politically, at least intellectually - ponder the possibility of
reunification of ethnic Russians and Russian lands if Ukraine joins the EU
and especially NATO?

AS: I am pained by what has been going on in Ukraine - ever since the 1991
referendum. The fanatical suppression and persecution of the Russian
language (which, according to previous polls, was used as the main language
by over 60 percent of Ukraine's population) is simply an act of atrocity
that is aimed against Ukraine's own cultural heritage. Vast tracts of land,
which have never been part of historical Ukraine, e.g., Novorossia, the
Crimea and the entire southeastern region, have been forcibly incorporated
into the modern Ukrainian state and into its policy of acquiring NATO
membership at any cost. Throughout Yeltsin's term in office, not a single
meeting that he had with any of the Ukrainian presidents had gone without
capitulation and concessions to them. Pushing the Black Sea Fleet out of
Sevastopol (the city was never ceded to Ukraine, not even under Khrushchev)
is an outrageous humiliation of the entire 19th- and 20th-century Russian
history.

Under these conditions, Russia must not cast Ukraine's multimillion Russian
population to the whims of fate, abandoning it, and cutting off all links
with it.

VT: Is it your view that Russian language and Russian literature are dying - in
the sense that they will never again attain, let alone surpass, 19th and
20th century models?

AS: Despite its uncontrolled contamination with jargon and Anglo-Americanisms
(I am talking not about the natural use of technical terminology but
slavish, fashion-driven borrowings), the Russian language will not degrade,
will not let itself be irretrievably polluted as long as there are Russian
people.

The same is true for Russian literature. Despite all the garbage, it has
preserved its lucid and conscientious core that will yet produce excellent
works supporting our spirit, our morale, and our consciousness.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali To Speak

At Harvard University, on May 9th. (ht LGF)

US Welcomes Burmese Refugees

Accordning to a report in the Navhind Times, some 9,000 ethnic Karen refugees from camps on the Thai-Burmese border may soon be on their way to the United States. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waived anti-terrorism provisions of the Patriot Act that had prevented some families associated with Karen National Liberation Army guerrillas from coming to America. The Department of Homeland Security has decided that non-combatant Karens pose no threat to the United States.

The refugee camps have been an long-term irritant in Thai-Burmese relations, accused of serving as bases for attacks by Burma, and resented by Thailand due to violent incidents at Karen protests.

Thailand's Karen refugees camps have been in operation for 16 years.

UPDATE: More on the Karen at Wikipedia.

CIA Failures Led to Goss Ouster

According to the not always reliable Debka Report, more than poker parties at the Watergate are involved:

Indeed, DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources note the CIA is on its uppers in three vital spheres:

1.US forces are not getting to grips with either of the two segments of the Iraqi guerrilla insurgency: the mostly secular Baathists and the extremist Islamist Iraqi groups and al Qaeda. The continuous upsurge of violence in Iraq means the CIA has failed by and large to penetrate the most dangerous insurgent groups.

2. While the Taliban-al Qaeda rebellion rages in Afghanistan, Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s Iraq wing - far from being crushed - has in the last six months opened up new terror fronts in Sinai, Egypt, Palestinian territories and Algeria.

3. On Iran, the CIA comes up short on two interconnected issues: derailing Iran’s nuclear program with the help of local surrogates which, given the millions of expatriate Iranian exiles who detest the clerical regime, should pose fewer difficulties than penetrating al Qaeda. Secondly, American operatives should have been able to head off the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intelligence agents who have permeated every corner of Iraqi politics and whose influence in Baghdad often prevails over the word from Washington - despite the presence of 135,000 US troops.

Henry Allen: Winning is Everything

In today's Washington Post, a staff writer takes a look at American strategy in Iraq:

"In war, we have to win," said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap.

This was on television about 20 years ago, a PBS series about the war in Vietnam. Giap was sitting behind a desk, as I recall, a picture of lethal ease. He seemed amused to think he knew something that the Americans still hadn't figured out. He added: "Absolutely have to win."

For me, a former Marine corporal who'd heard some Viet Cong rounds go past at Chu Lai, Giap spoke and the heavens opened -- a truth seizure, eureka. I finally had a useful, practical explanation for why we had lost after the best and brightest promised we were going to win. And nowadays, thanks to Giap, I have a theory, no more than that, about why winning is so elusive in Iraq...

Allen believes that the Bush administration doesn't know how to win, and concludes:

This war is not working out the way our leaders thought it would. We could lose. If we lose, we'll be humiliated, we'll be the schoolyard hotshot who picked a fight and then got whipped. I'm tired of our leaders putting me and my country in this position.

I'm not saying I want to fight no wars, or even saying I want to win more wars -- I'm just saying that I want us to win the wars that we fight. And I'm worried that Iraq was never one of them because it was started by people who knew everything except how to win -- who have yet to learn that in war we absolutely have to win.

Afghan Pop Music VJ Killed By Islamists

While driving in the car yesterday, I heard a fascinating interview with Shakeb Issar, Shaima Rezayee's VJ co-host on Tolo TV, who now in hiding in Sweden--after the British embassy refused to grant asylum for diplomatic reasons--on BBC World News. Issar said he lived in the TV studio after Shaima Rezayee, 24, was killed by a single shot to the head on May 18th, 2005 following a denunciation of her music television program as un-Islamic.

Her appearance on television shocked many Afghans with her western-style of dressing and the barest of headscarves, as the only female presenter on the daily TV music show ‘Hop’. Conservative clerics hated her. Young women admired her. 24-year-old Shaima Rezayee stood out, and she had to pay a heavy price for this. First she was fired from her job. Now she has been killed.

This quote about the killing, from the US-government-funded NGO Internews on Jaghury.com makes me want to throw up:

But Aunohita Mojumdar, a media analyst at Internews, says the wrath Tolo incurs needs to be viewed in the context of Afghanistan's recent history. "In a country where all images were banned until the collapse of the Taliban, any TV station in existence would have drawn fire."

Your US tax dollars at work...

UPDATE: Here's a link to the BBC Outlook program interview by Heather Payton, and the BBC summary:

TOLO TV
An Afghan TV host has left his home country and moved to Sweden because he is in fear of his life. 22 year old Shakeb Issar is 22 and he used to host a music show called Hop on Afghan television; he's now living in one room, on state benefits, in Sweden. A year ago he was riding high, wearing trendy western clothes and introducing music videos from all over the world on independent Tolo TV, many of them featuring scantily clad women. Then his co-host, Shaima Rezayee was found dead, beaten up and with a bullet through her head. Shakeb too was getting death threats and he decided it was time to flee the country. He tells Outlook presenter Heather Payton the reasons for his decision.

So far, I have not seen this story reported in the American media--even on MTV news.

UPDATE: Wikipedia entry here.

Cheney Answers Questions About Russia

In Astana, Kazakhstan:

Q Yes, Matt Spetalnick, with Reuters. Mr. Vice President, the Kremlin has dismissed your criticism of Russia's record of democracy and its energy policy as "incomprehensible." Can you respond to that and explain how are you going to get this message across if they don't want to hear it? And what this could bode for the G8 Summit?

And for Mr. President, what do you think of the rising tensions between these two major powers?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't had an opportunity to -- excuse me.

MODERATOR: Excuse me -- which superpowers you were talking about, sir? United States and Russia?

Q United States and Russia. (Laughter.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't had an opportunity to study the response out of Moscow. The speech was very carefully crafted. It made the point that we don't look upon Russia as an enemy by any means, that we want them as a strong friend and ally. But I also made it clear that we had some concerns with respect to the extent to which they seem to resist the development of strong democracies, if you will, in those areas represented by the governments that were represented at the conference in Vilnius in Lithuania.

And I expressed the concern that I heard repeated by many of the people I interacted with at the conference that Russia is using its control over energy resources to gain political leverage of various kinds on those governments that were represented at the conference.

I expect the G8 conference will go forward as scheduled in Petersburg, and that we'll all benefit from a free, open, and honest exchange of views at that conference.

PRESIDENT NAZARBAYEV: (As translated) Well, first of all, I think that there is no such thing as confrontation between United States and Russia. We think that there is a friendly exchange of opinions and views. And we all have to know that every country has their own way of solving their own problems, and that is called politics. And we have to respect politics of every country. But every country also has a right to voice their opinion of what is happening in another country. And if that would be done in a friendly manner, I think we will just benefit from that.

Laura Rozen on CIA Chief's Resignation

War and Piece has a lot of information and theories about Porter Goss's sudden departure from the CIA. IMHO, it looks clumsy from the outside, and doesn't increase one's confidence in the Bush administration...

Ari Halberstam, Rashid Baz, Andrea Elliott & The New York Times

From a very interesting post at Winds of Change:

Joe's posts about white guilt and shame brought to mind several instances of contact between Americans and Muslims which illustrate his theme.

The first two concern young female New York Times journalists whose credulity and callousness derive - I think - from being ashamed of Western culture in the way Joe describes. (This is exactly the kind of person who would be hired and groomed by the Times, which then perpetuates this shame through the approach its reporters take to their stories.) In the contrasting examples Muslims upbraid white Westerners for being ashamed of Western values.

First, Andrea Elliott:
In 1994, three weeks before Passover, Ari Halberstam, 16, was riding in a van over the Brooklyn Bridge when Rashid Baz, in a nearby car, shot a bullet into Halberstam’s brain. . . . On March 5, exactly 12 years to the day Ari died, The New York Times began a three-part series on Imam Reda Shata and the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge. [Ari's mother Devorah] remembered that at the murder trial, witnesses testified that Baz attended a raging anti-Semitic sermon at that very same place. Jews were “racist and fascist, as bad as the Nazis” said a speaker there (not Shata), shortly before Baz got into his car with a Glock semiautomatic pistol and a Cobray machine gun, hunting for Jews.

Keep reading for Mrs. Halberstam's encounter with the author of the series.

But the article, by Andrea Elliot, never mentioned Baz nor his victim. The article, if anything, depicted the mosque as more moderate than not. Elliot did report that the imam praised Hamas and a suicide bomber, even as he “forged friendships with rabbis in New York.”

Devorah Halberstam says she called Elliot and asked if the reporter ever heard of Ari Halberstam. According to Halberstam, Elliot answered, “Who?” She never heard of the murder either, adds Halberstam.

“When I told her the story,” says Halberstam, “she just said, ‘That’s a long time ago.’ I said, ‘Excuse me?’ First of all, it’s hardly a long time ago; second, to say that to a mother is disgusting; and third, terror like that is very pertinent to this day and age, after 9-ll.”

I have no idea how old Andrea Elliott is, but I'm picturing her rolling her eyes, cracking gum and playing with her split ends while talking to Mrs Halberstam on her cell, with her feet up on her desk. The imam was a representative of an exotic culture, and one that she had been taught at her (probably) Ivy League school was treated badly by the West. Mrs. Halberstam was just some Jewish mother, Orthodox yet, nagging her. It was clear to her who deserved respect and who deserved a brush-off.

There's more interesting stuff here about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ron Chernow, Philip Gourevitch and the PEN International Center...

UPDATE: Winds of Change guessed right about Elliott's Ivy League background--according to the ASNE website, she graduated first in her class from Columbia University's graduate school of journalism.

Prosecute the FBI

Someone we know pointed out that since the Massaoui verdict, there is now a precedent for 9/11 prosecutions that leads directly to FBI agents who were warned about the 9/11 attacks yet chose to do nothing. As Peggy Noonan laid out the case in the Wall Street Journal:

This is what Moussaoui did: He was in jail on a visa violation in August 2001. He knew of the upcoming attacks. In fact, he had taken flight lessons to take part in them. He told no one what was coming. He lied to the FBI so the attacks could go forward. He pled guilty last year to conspiring with al Qaeda; at his trial he bragged to the court that he had intended to be on the fifth aircraft, which was supposed to destroy the White House.

He knew the trigger was about to be pulled. He knew innocent people had been targeted, and were about to meet gruesome, unjust deaths.

He could have stopped it. He did nothing. And so 2,700 people died.

As Jeff Taylor noted in Reason magazine, that is precisely the case against the FBI agents who ignored attack warnings documented in the Massaoui trial:

One exchange from the Moussaoui trial makes clear what happened in the weeks running up to 9/11:

"You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man's belongings and you were obstructed," MacMahon said to Samit.

"Yes sir, I was obstructed." Samit replied.

No disaster, it seems, can force reform on the Bureau. The same people are still manning the posts at the FBI and Main Justice. They are going to miss the next terror attack because they are dead-certain to stop the last one. That's what bureaucracies do: cover ass...

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

There's more on Mexico's national holiday here:

In 1862, the French army began its advance. Under General Ignacio Zaragoza, 5,000 ill-equipped Mestizo and Zapotec Indians defeated the French army in what came to be known as the "Batalla de Puebla" on the fifth of May.

Here's an official account of President Bush's holiday party, from the White House web site:

Declaraciones del Presidente acerca del Cinco de Mayo
The East Room
1:57 P.M. EDT

EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias, Sírvanse tomar asiento. Bienvenidos, bienvenidos a la Casa Blanca. Es un honor para mí contar con la presencia de tantos distinguidos líderes hispanos y méxico-americanos aquí para la celebración del Cinco de Mayo. Quizá hayan notado que esta celebración no es el cinco de mayo. (risas). es el cuatro de Mayo. (Risas.) Es un feriado tan importante, que pensamos que comenzaríamos temprano. (Risas.)

Le agradezco a Héctor, un gusto verlo. El director de la SBA está con nosotros hoy. Gaddy Vásquez, gracias por asistir. Gracias a ambos por traer. por traer a su esposa, Héctor. Quiero darle las gracias a Anna Cabral, que es la Tesorera, y me complace que haya traído a Víctor. Gracias por asistir.

Les agradezco a los embajadores que nos acompañan. El embajador de México está hoy con nosotros. Embajador, gracias, y también, mi amigo, el embajador de Estados Unidos ante México, Antonio Garza. Bienvenidos, ambos. Es un gusto que estén aquí. Le agradezco a Eduardo Aguirre, embajador ante España. Gracias por asistir, Eduardo. Hans Hertell, el embajador ante la República Dominicana. Muchísimas gracias a todos por asistir. Gracias por sus servicios al país y gracias, embajador, por sus servicios a su país, también.

Le agradezco al personal militar que está presente hoy. Estamos orgullosos de ustedes. Gracias por llevar el uniforme de Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. (Aplausos.)

Antes de presentar a nuestra artista, quiero compartir con ustedes algunas ideas sobre la importancia del Cinco de Mayo, ya que conmemora un momento gozoso en la historia de México. Los estadounidenses deben comprender que fue un tiempo en que soldados mexicanos ganaron la Batalla de Puebla, y defendieron su independencia. Entonces, obviamente, el Cinco de Mayo es un día de orgullo especial para los ciudadanos de México, como también lo es para los estadounidenses. Es un recordatorio de un patrimonio orgulloso que compartimos con nuestro vecino del sur. Así veo ese día.

Rendimos tributo a ese patrimonio y honramos el calor y la importancia de la amistad entre nuestras dos naciones. Estados Unidos y México están unidos por vínculos familiares y por el comercio y por la historia y por la cultura y por los valores. Ambas naciones creen en los derechos y la dignidad de todos los pueblos. Compartimos una importante relación comercial. Hemos descubierto que el comercio entre nuestras naciones es bueno para nuestros pueblos. Creemos en los ideales de libertad e independencia que representa el Cinco de Mayo.

Aquí en Estados Unidos, los méxico-americanos han ayudado a que nuestro país se desarrolle y han ayudado a moldear nuestra cultura. Los méxico- americanos han hecho que nuestra nación sea cada día más enérgica y más prometedora. Los méxico-americanos han enriquecido la experiencia estadounidense con sus aportes a los negocios y las artes y la música y los deportes. Los empresarios latinos están creando puestos en todo el país; el número de empresas de propiedad de hispanos está aumentando tres veces más rápido que la tasa nacional. Más hispanoamericanos son propietarios de sus casas que nunca antes en la historia de nuestra nación.

Muchos méxico-americanos también han demostrado su devoción a este país al defenderlo. Más de 600,000 de nuestros veteranos son de origen mexicano. Veo que han vuelto algunos de nuestros veteranos. Estoy seguro de que. Es más, tenemos a muchos veteranos presentes. Deseo darles las gracias por darles tan buen ejemplo a aquéllos que ahora llevan el uniforme.

Muchos méxico-americanos han llevado el uniforme militar de Estados Unidos y defienden nuestro país con valor. Están haciendo que Estados Unidos sea más seguro, y a la vez, están sentando las bases de la paz para generaciones futuras.

Sé que nuestros ciudadanos están muy orgullosos de su patrimonio mexicano, y con todo derecho. También sabemos que Estados Unidos ha prosperado como nación porque siempre hemos acogido a los recién llegados, quienes a su vez acogen nuestros valores y nuestra forma de vida. Hacerse estadounidense es un gran privilegio y conlleva responsabilidades. Aquéllos que vienen aquí para comenzar vidas nuevas tienen una responsabilidad de comprender lo que representa Estados Unidos y la responsabilidad de aprender inglés para que puedan comprender mejor nuestro carácter nacional y participar plenamente en la vida estadounidense. Eso es lo que queremos. Hacer este esfuerzo es también clave para aprovechar las oportunidades de Estados Unidos, permitir que las personas surjan en la sociedad y hacer realidad el Sueño Americano.

En este país, estamos teniendo ahora un importante debate sobre la inmigración. Y es realmente importante que tratemos este asunto de una manera que honre las mejores tradiciones de este país. Nuestra nación no tiene que escoger entre ser una sociedad compasiva y una sociedad de derecho. (Aplausos.) Una sociedad de derecho es una que aplica sus leyes y vela por su frontera. Eso es lo que hace que una sociedad sea una de derecho. Una sociedad compasiva rechaza un sistema que trata a la gente como si fuese objeto de contrabando, honra los derechos humanos y la dignidad humana, ayuda a la gente a salir de las sombras de la sociedad, trata a la gente de manera decente y humana.

Entonces, respaldo reforzar nuestras fronteras y apoyo un programa de trabajadores temporales que pondría a trabajadores dispuestos en contacto con empleadores estadounidenses. ¿Ven? Considero que debemos crear un medio seguro y legal para que la gente pueda venir a este país a trabajar. Reducirá el número de personas que tratan de cruzar nuestra frontera a hurtadillas. Tratará a las personas humanamente. Eliminará a los coyotes y falsificadores de documentos. Afirmará nuestra creencia que cada persona tiene dignidad y cada persona tiene valor, y a la vez, facilitará que seamos un estado de derecho y protejamos nuestra frontera. (Aplausos.)

La reforma inmigratoria debe ser integral porque todos los elementos de este problema deben ser abordados conjuntamente o ninguno de ellos será resuelto. El pueblo estadounidense debe llevar este debate con dignidad. Debe recordar que somos una nación de inmigrantes. Debe recordar. (aplausos.) Debe recordar que durante el transcurso de nuestra historia han venido personas a Estados Unidos porque éste es un lugar en el que pueden ir en pos de sus sueños, independientemente de quiénes son o de dónde son.

Los méxico-americanos han traído consigo una cultura basada en la fe en Dios, un amor profundo por la familia y la convicción de que el trabajo arduo lleva a una vida mejor. Cada inmigrante que vive según estos valores hace que Estados Unidos sea un país mejor, hace que nuestro futuro sea más prometedor, como una nación bajo Dios. (Aplausos.)

Mañana, en todo Estados Unidos, habrá muchas celebraciones del Cinco de Mayo. Las presentaciones que veremos hoy representan a lo mejor del talento. Nos recuerdan que somos una nación que es fuerte debido a nuestra diversidad. Habrá mucha música tradicional, como también mucha comida mexicana muy buena, les apuesto. (Risas.) Nos recuerda, de cierto modo, un poco de Texas, ¿verdad, embajador?

Que Dios continúe bendiciéndolos a todos ustedes que tienen la dicha de vivir en este país y que Dios continúe bendiciendo a nuestro país y a los muchos hijos e hijas de México que han hecho de nuestro país su hogar. Feliz Cinco de Mayo, y ahora, es un placer para mí presentar a uno de los mejores talentos de México, Graciela Beltrán (Aplausos.)

Cheney's "Ultimatum"

Kommersant compared Cheney's Vilnius remarks to Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri:

Until yesterday, the White House preferred to criticize Kremlin policies only through press secretaries. U.S. President George W. Bush and politicians close to him spoke of Russia as a reliable partner in the fight against international terrorism, even while admitting to certain disagreements. Cheney's Vilnius speech has broken that tradition and was the most pointed declaration by an American leader since the end of the Cold War.

Cheney Declares War on Russia

Diplomatically:

America and all of Europe also want to see Russia in the category of healthy, vibrant democracies. Yet in Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade. In many areas of civil society -- from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties -- the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people. Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries. No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation. And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements.

Russia has a choice to make. And there is no question that a return to democratic reform in Russia will generate further success for its people and greater respect among fellow nations. Democratization in Russia helped to end the Cold War, and the Russian people have made heroic progress in overcoming the miseries of the 20th century. They deserve now to live out their peaceful aspirations under a government that upholds freedom at home, and builds good relations abroad.

None of us believes that Russia is fated to become an enemy. A Russia that increasingly shares the values of this community can be a strategic partner and a trusted friend as we work toward common goals. In that spirit, the leading industrialized nations will engage Russia at the Group of Eight Summit in St. Petersburg this summer. We will make the case, clearly and confidently, that Russia has nothing to fear and everything to gain from having strong, stable democracies on its borders, and that by aligning with the West, Russia joins all of us on a course to prosperity and greatness. The vision we affirm today is of a community of sovereign democracies that transcend old grievances, that honor the many links of culture and history among us, that trade in freedom, respect each other as great nations, and strive together for a century of peace.

Expect More?

It seems that Donald Rumsfeld isn't the only one grading government programs. The White House has this section on the OMB website, called ExpectMore.gov that officially grades US Government programs. Funny, I've never seen anyone mention these reports anywhere. For example, this item about US Public Diplomacy five years into the Global War on Terror:

Program Assessment

Program
Public Diplomacy

These programs articulate the foreign policy objectives of the US and create an international environment receptive to US interests through exchanges, training and outreach activities. Public Diplomacy also provides US policy-makers with information about how the US and its actions are perceived abroad.

Rating
What This Rating Means

NOT PERFORMING
Results Not Demonstrated

A rating of Results Not Demonstrated (RND) indicates that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing.

* These programs have had difficulty measuring their impact, if they have been evaluated at all. Frequently there is anecdotal evidence that a program is achieving success but there is no formal data to support those claims.
* Few of the State Department public diplomacy programs link budget to performance.
* There is no broad overarching US Government public diplomacy strategy. Because of this lack of a plan, programs such as this one may not be the most effective both in the long and short term.

Improvement Plan
About Improvement Plans

We are taking the following actions to improve the performance of the program:

* Developing an overarching US Government strategic public diplomacy plan.
* Determining if current programs are most effective to reach target audiences and ensuring that those targeted are the most influential to make the greatest impact.
* Presenting resource needs in a complete and transparent manner; and linking resource needs clearly to program activities.

Louis Rukeyser Remembered

From By David Zurawik's obituary in the Baltimore Sun:

At its peak in the 1980s, Wall Street Week was carried on more than 300 public television stations and boasted a weekly audience of 4.1 million viewers. The 30-minute program that aired Friday nights at 8 - four hours after the market closed for the week - was public television's longest-running weekly prime-time series, second only to CBS' venerable 60 Minutes in overall TV tenure. The series was canceled by MPT in June 2005 after three years of audience erosion that followed Mr. Rukeyser's departure.

"Before Louis Rukeyser, there was no such thing as a financial advice show on television," said Douglas Gomery, professor and media economist at the University of Maryland, College Park. "Along with Sesame Street, Wall Street Week was one of the first shows on PBS, a landmark series by anybody's definition. The reason for its success was Louis Rukeyser. He was the franchise - proof that the star system worked even for PBS."

Mr. Rukeyser's ability to translate economics into compelling television talk helped make investors out of millions of Americans: "In essence, what he did was bring Wall Street to Main Street - he made Wall Street understandable in terms of Main Street," said Frank Cappiello, a money manager who appeared as a panelist on Mr. Rukeyser's first PBS telecast in 1970 and his last in 2002, as well as his first and last on CNBC.

"You have to remember when the program started in 1970, we had just been through the Vietnam War and rising inflation, and so much changed financially during that 10-year span from 1970 to 1980. And every week, Lou would be there on TV explaining the changes - from commodities to money market funds - in very simple terms to millions of viewers, many of whom became investors as a result of what they learned from him and the experts he brought in."

A wide-ranging economic expertise only begins to describe the formula that made Mr. Rukeyser one of public television's first major stars - along with Alistair Cooke, host of Masterpiece Theatre, and Sesame Street's Big Bird.

The New York City native, who was dubbed "the dismal science's only sex symbol" by People magazine, was known within the ranks of PBS as "The Big Bird of Prime Time" because of the underwriting support, ratings and viewer pledges that he brought to the fledgling public broadcasting lineup in the 1970s.

In an interview shortly before his own death in August, Baltimore financial analyst Julius Westheimer, who was a recurring panelist on Wall Street Week for 29 years, said Mr. Rukeyser never forgot the audience: "Lou always said that the best educators throughout history were in part entertainers, and he stressed that to those of us who were regulars on the show. He also told us to talk about money, not economics. 'Economics puts people to sleep; money wakes them up,' he used to say."

A Reasonable Verdict...

...in the Moussaoui case. From the Jury form, as published in Newsday:

Section III. Mitigating factors.

Indicate the number of Jurors who find that the defense has established the existence of each listed mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence.

A. That if he is not sentenced to death, Zacarias Moussaoui will be incarcerated in prison for the rest of his life, without the possibility of release. Number of jurors who so find -- five.

B. That Moussaoui has maintained a nonviolent record for the past four years while incarcerated in the Alexandria Detention Center with minimal rules violations. Number of jurors -- one.

C. That the Federal Bureau of Prisons has the authority and ability to maintain Moussaoui under highly secure conditions. Number of jurors -- one.

D. That given his conduct, and the likely conditions of his maximum security confinement, Moussaoui will not present a substantial risk to prison officials or other inmates if he is sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. Number of jurors -- three.

E. That a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release, under the strict conditions the Bureau of Prisons is likely to impose, will be a more severe punishment for Moussaoui than a sentence of death. Number of jurors -- none.

F. That Moussaoui believes that his execution will be part of his Jihad and will provide him with the rewards attendant to a martyr's death. Number of jurors -- none.

G. That execution will create a martyr for radical Muslim fundamentalists, and to al-Qaida in particular. Number of jurors -- none.

H. That Moussaoui's unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family resulted in his being placed in orphanages and having a home life without structure and emotional and financial support eventually resulting in his leaving home due to his hostile relationship with his mother. Number of jurors -- nine.

(On Count III, eight jurors found this mitigating factor to be true. On Count IV, seven jurors found this mitigating factor to be true.)

I. That Moussaoui's father had a violent temper and physically and emotionally abused his family. Number of jurors -- nine.

(On County III, 7 jurors found this mitigating factor to be true. On Count IV, six jurors found this mitigating factor to be true.)

J. That Moussaoui's father abandoned him and his siblings, leaving Zacarias's mother to support and raise their children on her own. Number of jurors -- two.

K. That Moussaoui was subject to racism as a youngster because of his Moroccan background which affected him deeply. Number of jurors -- three.

L. That Moussaoui's mother had a violent uncle or men unrelated to the family living in the home with the family. Number of jurors -- none.

M. That his two sisters and his father all suffered from psychotic illnesses. Number of jurors -- four.

N. That even though he arrived in England with no money and lived in a homeless shelter, he endured the hardship and through perseverance graduated with a masters degree from South Bank University. Number of jurors -- none.

O. That his mother's failure to provide her children with any meaningful religious training or practice left Moussaoui without the theological or intellectual basis to resist the preachings and propaganda of radical Muslim fundamentalists in London who provided him with a sense of group identity he never had. Number of jurors -- none.

P. That Moussaoui suffers from a psychotic disorder, most likely schizophrenia, paranoid subtype. Number of jurors -- none.

Q. That Moussaoui's role in al-Qaida while in Afghanistan was as a security clerk at a guesthouse and as a driver for persons staying at the guesthouse. Number of jurors -- none.

R. That Moussaoui's testimony about his plan to fly a plane into the White House is unreliable and is contradicted by his statements about other plots he was involved in. Number of jurors -- none.

S. That Moussaoui's role in the Sept. 11 operation, if any, was minor. Number of jurors -- three.

T. That he was incarcerated on the day of the Sept. 11 attacks. Number of jurors -- one.

U. That he was an ineffectual al-Qaida operative. Number of jurors -- none.

V. That other persons who were equally culpable in the offense, whether indicted or not, will not be punished by death and/or have not been the subject of a capital prosecution. Number of jurors -- none.

W. That other factors in the background or character of Moussaoui suggest that life without the possibility of release is the most appropriate punishment. Number of jurors -- none.

X. List any additional mitigating factors found by at least one juror and the number of jurors who so found.

-- Defendant had limited knowledge of Sept. 11 attack plans, three jurors.

Viva Bush!

Drudge quotes Kevin Phillips' report that the President sung the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish on the 2000 Presidential campaign trail:

"When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, George W. Bush would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Spanish, sometimes partying with a “Viva Bush” mariachi band flown in from Texas."

Putin Hires PR Firms

Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putin has hired Ketchum Public Relations in the US and GPlus in the EU to improve Russia's image in advance of the G-8 Summit:

London, May 1, 2006 – Ketchum, a global communications firm, today announced that it has been selected to lead a multi-agency team to support the Russian Presidency of the G8 (Group of Eight) and the upcoming G8 Summit in July in St. Petersburg. The team will support the three main priorities of the annual economic and political summit that Russia, as the host country, has selected: ensuring energy security, addressing infectious diseases, and improving education.

Teaming with Ketchum is GPlus, one of the most respected European Union political-communications specialist agencies in Brussels, and in Japan, Gavin Anderson, a leading corporate and financial public relations advisory firm, as well as Ketchum’s affiliate in Moscow, Maslov, Sokur & Associates. The London office of Ketchum was awarded the account following a competitive process.

“We look forward to working closely with the Presidency of the G8 to raise awareness of G8 priorities which are so important to the world today,” said Raymond L. Kotcher, Ketchum senior partner and chief executive officer.

Along with Russia, the G8 consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. The G8 presidency rotates every year. Last year the presidency was held by the U.K. hosting the meeting in Gleneagles; this year, for the first time, it is held by Russia. The G8 meetings serve as a forum for developing solutions to the most pressing world issues of the day.

The primary scope and responsibility of the work entails ensuring a high level of logistical and communications support at the Summit and to promote the three priority issues throughout the year.

“The focus of the G8 meeting is the exchange between world leaders. We are pleased to be handling the communications along with our partners at GPlus,” said Jon Higgins, Ketchum partner and CEO, Europe. Added Peter Guilford, director of GPlus: “This is a prestigious assignment for us. We hope during the course of this year to give the kind of communications support that makes the life of journalists easier at this time of unprecedented focus on Russia and the G8.”

Ketchum's clients include Kodak, Cingular, Carlsberg, Frito-Lay, Levi-Strauss, Mattel, Pepsi, Procter*Gamble, Just for Men, Wendy's, Clorox, FedEx, Fireman's Fund, the Almond Board of California, the California Dried Plum Board, the Canned Food Alliance, the Norwegian Seafood Export Council, Tropicana, Pfizer, Intuit, and the US Potato Board...(ht Johnson's Russia List)

Christopher Hitchens on Iran

From Slate (ht LGF):

In some ways, the continuing row over his call for the complete destruction of Israel must baffle Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. All he did, after all, was to turn up at a routine anti-Zionist event and repeat the standard line—laid down by the Ayatollah Khomeini and thus considered by some to be beyond repeal—that the state of Israel is illegitimate and must be obliterated. There's nothing new in that. In the early '90s, I can remember seeing, in the areas around Baalbek in Lebanon that were dominated by Hezbollah and Amal, large posters of the by-then-late Khomeini embellished (in English) with the slogan, "Israel Must Be Completely Destroyed!" And I have twice been to Friday prayers in Tehran itself, addressed by leading mullahs and by former President Rafsanjani, where the more terse version (Marg bar Esrail—"Death to Israel") is chanted as a matter of routine; sometimes as an applause line to an especially deft clerical thrust.

No, what worries me more about Ahmadinejad is his devout belief in the return of the "occulted" or 12th imam and his related belief that, when he himself spoke recently at the United Nations, the whole scene was suffused with a sublime green light that held all his audience in a state of suspended animation. This uncultured jerk is, of course, only a puppet figure with no real power, but this choice of puppet by the theocracy is unsettling in itself. So is Iran's complete lack of embarrassment at being caught, time and again, with nuclear enrichment facilities that have never been declared to the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

However, words and details and nuances do matter in all this, so I was not surprised to see professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan denying that Ahmadinejad, or indeed Khomeini, had ever made this call for the removal of Israel from the map. Cole is a minor nuisance on the fringes of the academic Muslim apologist community. At one point, there was a danger that he would become a go-to person for quotes in New York Times articles (a sort of Shiite fellow-traveling version of Norman Ornstein, if such an alarming phenomenon can be imagined), but this crisis appears to have passed.

Crunchy Rod Dreher

Today's Washington Post Style section has Hank Stuever's profile of Rod Dreher, author of Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, ... America (or at least the Republican Party).

I met Dreher about ten years ago, when he covered cultural issues for The Washington Times, before he worked for Arianna Huffington, the National Review, and the New York Post. He's now at the Dallas Morning News. He was very bright--he'd been to a special boarding school for geniuses in Lousiana--and seemed to know what he was talking about. He certainly got a good writeup in the paper today. Here's a sample:

The Dreher family likes its comfy, Ikea living-room sofa and nights spent reading. It's about front porches, not Porsches. They like jazz on (yechh) public radio. They are committed to saving the planet. They closely scrutinize what their kids watch and read, and Dreher brags that his sons routinely ask to hear his old college-radio faves on the stereo, the good stuff -- U2 and XTC. What might strike you as sort of post-hippie strikes them, paradoxically, as intrinsically conservative. It's God, family and Elvis Costello. And speaking of kooky old GOP furnishings, they like Peggy Noonan, too. (And she likes them; she's a godmother to their youngest child.)

Before Texas, Rod and Julie Dreher made a really good stab at being Brooklynites. He was a film critic and later columnist at the New York Post. Dreher says he was always the most conservative person at cocktail parties in Manhattan, "unless someone named Podhoretz was in the room."

Since "Crunchy Cons" was published earlier this year (it has gone back for two additional printings, according to a publicist at Crown publishers), Dreher has also taken a drubbing from his punditry cohort, including National Review's Jonah Goldberg, who views "Crunchy Con" as heretical to the "big tent" ideals of the one true Republican faith. Goldberg bites at "Crunchy Con" with occasional essays and blog entries of his own.

"To Rod's credit, he doesn't claim that 'mainstream conservatives' are racists; but he does claim that they are uptight, blue-blazered, two-dimensional men motivated by greed. They are Godless materialists, unthinking dupes of Madison Avenue, with no connection to spirituality or religion unless, that is, you think being an idolatrous votary of the free market counts as being religious," Goldberg wrote in March.

"Crunchy conservatism strikes me now -- as it did back when I first heard about it -- as a journalistic invention, a confabulation fit for some snarking liberal reporter at the Washington Post 'Style' section."

Ding-dong, we're here, a smidge late.

Forgot to bring wine, and we are perfectly okay with the idea that most people don't give the tiniest, insignificant poops about what Jonah Goldberg thinks.

Fouad Ajami: Bernard Lewis at 90

From The Wall Street Journal (ht Michael Barone):

We anoint sages when we need them; at times we let them say, on our behalf, the sorts of things we know and intuit but don't say, the sorts of things we glimpse through the darkness but don't fully see. It was thus in the time of the great illusion, in the lost decade of the 1990s, when history had presumably "ended," that Bernard Lewis had come forth to tell us, in a seminal essay, "The Roots of Muslim Rage" (September 1990), that our luck had run out, that an old struggle between "Christendom" and Islam was gathering force. (Note the name given the Western world; it is vintage Lewis, this naming of worlds and drawing of borders--and differences.) It was the time of commerce and globalism; the "modernists" had the run of the decade, and a historian's dark premonitions about a thwarted civilization wishing to avenge the slights and wounds of centuries would not carry the day. Mr. Lewis was the voice of conservatives, a brooding pessimist, in the time of a sublime faith in things new and untried. It was he, in that 1990 article, who gave us the notion of a "clash of civilizations" that Samuel Huntington would popularize, with due attribution to Bernard Lewis.

The rage of Islam was no mystery to Mr. Lewis. To no great surprise, it issued out of his respect for the Muslim logic of things. For 14 centuries, he wrote, Islam and Christendom had feuded and fought across a bloody and shifting frontier, their enmity a "series of attacks and counterattacks, jihads and crusades, conquests and reconquests." For nearly a millennium, Islam had the upper hand. The new faith conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa--old Christian lands, it should be recalled. It struck into Europe, established dominions in Sicily, Spain, Portugal and in parts of France. Before the tide turned, there had been panic in Europe that Christendom was doomed. In a series of letters written from Constantinople between 1555 and 1560, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, imperial ambassador to the court of Suleyman the Magnificent, anguished over Europe's fate; he was sure that the Turks were about to "fly at our throats, supported by the might of the whole East." Europe, he worried, was squandering its wealth, "seeking the Indies and the Antipodes across vast fields of ocean, in search of gold."

But Busbecq, we know, had it wrong. The threat of Islam was turned back. The wealth brought back from the New World helped turn the terms of trade against Islam. Europe's confidence soared. The great turning point came in 1683, when a Turkish siege of Vienna ended in failure and defeat. With the Turks on the run, the terms of engagement between Europe and Islam were transformed. Russia overthrew the Tatar yoke; there was the Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula. Instead of winning every war, Mr. Lewis observes, the Muslims were losing every war. Britain, France, the Netherlands and Russia all soon spilled into Islamic lands. "Europe and her daughters" now disposed of the fate of Muslim domains. Americans and Europeans may regard this new arrangement of power as natural. But Mr. Lewis has been relentless in his admonition that Muslims were under no obligation to accept the new order of things.

A pain afflicts modern Islam--the loss of power. And Mr. Lewis has a keen sense of the Muslim redeemers and would-be avengers who promise to alter Islam's place in the world. This pain, the historian tells us, derives from Islam's early success, from the very triumph of the prophet Muhammad. Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land; he had led his people through wilderness. Jesus had been crucified. But Muhammad had prevailed and had governed. The faith he would bequeath his followers would forever insist on the oneness of religion and politics. Where Christians are enjoined in their scripture to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's," no such demarcation would be drawn in the theory and practice of Islam.

It was vintage Lewis--reading the sources, in this case a marginal Arabic newspaper published out of London, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, in February of 1998--to come across a declaration of war on the United States by a self-designated holy warrior he had "never heard of," Osama bin Laden. In one of those essays that reveal the historian's eye for things that matter, "A License to Kill," Mr. Lewis would render into sublime English prose the declaration of bin Laden and would give it its exegesis. The historian might have never heard of bin Laden, but the terrorist from Arabia practically walks out of the pages of Mr. Lewis's own histories. Consider this passage from the Arabian plotter: "Since God laid down the Arabian Peninsula, created its desert, and surrounded it with seas, no calamity has ever befallen it like these crusader hosts that have spread in it like locusts, eating its fruits and destroying its verdure; and this at a time when the nations contend against Muslims like diners jostling around a bowl of food. . . . By God's leave, we call on every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for reward to obey God's command to kill the Americans and plunder their possessions whenever he finds them and whenever he can."

Three years later, the furies of bin Laden, and the cadence and content of his language--straight out of the annals of older wars of faith--would remake our world. There would come Mr. Lewis's way now waves of people willing to believe. They would read into his works the bewildering ways and furies of preachers and plotters and foot soldiers hurling themselves against the order of the West. Timing was cruel--and exquisite. The historian's book "What Went Wrong?" was already in galleys by 9/11. He had not written it for the storm. He had all but anticipated what was to come. This diagnosis of Islam's malady would become a best seller. In a different setting, Mr. Lewis had written of history's power. "Make no mistake, those who are unwilling to confront the past will be unable to understand the present and unfit to face the future." We were witnessing an epic jumbling of past and present. It was no fault of this historian that we had placed our bet on the death of the past.

Shelby Steele: White Guilt and Iraq

From OpinionJournal.com:

Today words like "power" and "victory" are so stigmatized with Western sin that, in many quarters, it is politically incorrect even to utter them. For the West, "might" can never be right. And victory, when won by the West against a Third World enemy, is always oppression. But, in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another. Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism. But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it is impolitic to say so.

Britain's Ruling Class "Reverts"

Mark Steyn on the latest religious fad among England's upper-class:

Herbert Asquith is not the most famous British Prime Minister to American ears, but he’s the one who took his country into the Great War, which is the one that ended the Caliphate and delivered the Arab world into British hands. His great-granddaughter, Emma Clark, is now a Muslim. She’s a landscape artist, and has designed an “Islamic garden” at the home of the Prince of Wales. The Honorable Jonathan Birt, son of Lord Birt, the former Director-General of the BBC, is also a Muslim and is known as Yahya Birt. The Earl of Yarborough is a Muslim, and goes by the name Abdul Mateen, though whether he can get served in the House of Lords’ tea room under that moniker is unclear.

The above “reverts” – as Islam calls converts - are not merely the Muslim equivalents of the Richard Gere Buddhists and Tom Cruise Scientologists but the vanguard of something bigger. As English and Belgian and Scandinavian cities Islamify, their inhabitants will face a choice between living as a minority and joining the majority: Not all but many will opt for the latter. At the very minimum, Islam will meet the same test as the hippy-dippy solstice worship does in Vermont: It will seem environmentally appropriate. For many young men, it already provides the sense of identity that the vapid nullity of multiculturalism disdains to offer. As for the gals, I was startled in successive weeks to hear from both Dutch and English acquaintances that they’ve begun going out “covered”. The Dutch lady lives in a rough part of Amsterdam and says, when you’re on the street in Islamic garb, the Muslim men smile at you respectfully instead of jeering at you as an infidel whore. The English lady lives in a swank part of London but says pretty much the same thing. Both felt there was not just a physical but a psychological security in being dressed Muslim. They’re not “reverts”, but, at least for the purposes of padding the public space, they’re passing for Muslim in public.

War Gaming Iran

The American Thinker's James Holmes says Thomas Schelling's negotiating theory explains the Iran crisis in terms of hard bargaining:

Warfare is an instrument of negotiation. In his classic work The Strategy of Conflict, drawing in part on the lessons of Korea, Thomas Schelling declared that “most conflict situations are essentially bargaining situations.” Specialists now take Schelling’s theorizing a step further, defining “bargaining power” as the ability to modify the parties’ alternatives to a settlement – that is, their ability to walk away from the table.

The side that enjoys an acceptable “best alternative to negotiated agreement,” or BATNA, can retire without undue political, economic, or military pain; the side not so blessed has little choice but to strike the best deal it can. In hard bargaining, bolstering one’s own BATNA is essential, as anyone who’s ever dickered over the price of a house will attest. And damaging the other side’s BATNA can’t hurt.

Is War With Iran Inevitable?

No, says Brookings expert Ivo Daalder:

Politically, too, the context for war is very different today than it was in 2002-03. Then, the president was still riding high in the polls, and the American people looked to him as a trusted, competent, and strong leader. Now, Bush's approval ratings have collapsed and Americans have lost faith in his honesty, competence, and leadership. In one recent poll, fully 54 percent of Americans said they did not trust Bush to make the right decision on Iran. And given the trends in public opinion, these numbers are bound to get worse over time. Equally important, there wasn't much political debate about the wisdom of war three years ago. Most Senate and many House Democrats joined Republicans in giving Bush the blankest of blank checks — and a significant majority of Americans supported going to war. Today, the possibility of attacking Iran is hotly — and rightly — debated, and it would be inconceivable for Bush to gain congressional backing for such a move absent a far more dire and imminent threat from Iran.

And then there is the international context. While back then doubts about the direction of American foreign policy had already begun to set in, and opposition to going to war against Iraq was mounting, Bush could still count on getting the backing of many important players. In 2002, that included getting a unanimous vote on a UN Security Council resolution declaring Baghdad in breach of past UN resolutions and warning of serious consequences in case Iraq failed to come into full compliance. In 2003, it meant getting significant military backing from Britain, Australia, and some other key allies — and the political backing of still more countries. Today, even Tony Blair has made clear that Bush would be on his own if he attacked Iran.

None of this guarantees that Bush will not attack Iran — good arguments, huge potential costs, and the absence of political and international support have never been decisive in his calculations. But with the human, economic, political, and diplomatic consequences of the Iraq war so very evident to all, there is nothing inevitable about war with Iran. Indeed, there's a reasonable chance — even a good one — that Bush will make the right decision this time around.

Gerard Vanderleun on United 93

From American Digest (ht LGF):

That's the theme and the pace and the action of "United 93:" How ordinary people, at first strangers to each other, found the courage to act together in the face of certain death.

Despite the whines and the cavils of the weak and the vile and the corrupt among us, "United 93" has no "message."

Despite the rising and continuing attempts to cheapen the film from the spiritually and politically bankrupt that batten off America, "United 93" has no politics.

You don't "review" this film if you have an ounce of soul left to you. You watch it.

"United 93," from the first frame to the last, simply and clearly lets you see what happened high in the air on that day. It is, as the phrase on the poster says, "The plane that did not reach its target." Instead, it reached something unintended and much higher. It became and will remain a legend; an integral part of the tapestry of the American myth from which we all draw what strength remains to us, and, in the future, will surely need to draw upon even more deeply. Like the best of our legends, it arises out of our ordinary people doing extraordinary things.

"United 93" lets you see, without footnotes or the faintest tinge of an agenda of any sort, how ordinary people in one of the most banal yet dangerous modern settings, refused at the last to be cowed or frightened and, knowing full well that all was probably up for them, still fought to save their lives or, in the end, thwart the designs that evil had brought on board.

For when I think, not about the film "United 93" -- that remains a pattern of light and dark in the caves where we come together to share our dreams and myths and more paltry entertainments -- but about the actual flight on that actual day high in the air to the west of the city, I can understand why the passengers, knowing what they knew, would become united in an effort to save themselves.

But I also think that, in the end, saving themselves was not so much on their minds. I think that, at that time and in that place, they understood that those chances were slim indeed. Instead, I like to think that the men and women of United 93 had their souls set upon, in those last moments, the refusal to die as passive victims with seatbelts fastened as the monsters in the cockpit pushed their evil mission to its appointed end.

In a film of brief but telling moments, there's one moment towards the end where you see one man reach down and remove his seatbelt. In that moment you can sense that he goes from being a passive victim to a man who has decided to stand up and engage the evil that has taken control of his life; to take the controls back from thugs and the cut-throats and the mumbling fanatics of a wretched and burnt-out god.

That man, like the firemen who went up the stairs, and his fellow passengers who attacked up the aisle in those last moments, became, in the end, one of the Americans who decided on that day and the days that followed, to stand up. Soon after, that man and all the others on United 93 went into the smoke of that fire in the field.

"United 93" is a simply told, near-documentary look at how that fire in the field came to be. As I said above, the film has no message, but if you -- as I finally did -- choose to go, it will pose you a question: What would you do, an ordinary person in an extraordinary moment when life and death, good and evil, were as clear as the skies over America on September 11? Will you, as so many of our fellow citizens yearn to do these days, stay seated? Or will you stand up?

On one of our days to come, there will be another test. You'd best have an answer prepared.

Jean-Francois Revel

The noted French journalist and anti-Communist died April 30th. You can read some of his writings in English at the Jean-Francois Revel website. (ht Michelle Malkin)

A Brief History of May Day

From Wikipedia:

International Workers' Day (a name used interchangeably with May Day) is the commemoration of the Haymarket Riot of 1886 in Chicago, Illinois, and a celebration of the social and economic achievements of the international labor movement. The 1 May date is used because in 1884 the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions, inspired by labor's 1872 success in Canada, demanded an eight-hour workday in the United States to come in effect as of May 1, 1886. This resulted in a general strike and the riot in Chicago of 1886, but eventually also in the official sanction of the eight-hour workday. The May Day Riots of 1894 and May Day Riots of 1919 occurred subsequently.

Due to these left-wing overtones, May Day has long been a focal point for demonstrations by various socialist, communist, and anarchist groups. In some circles, bonfires are lit in commemoration of the Haymarket Riot usually right as the first day of May begins[1]. [citation needed] In the 20th century, May Day received the official endorsement of the Soviet Union; celebrations in communist countries during the Cold War era often consisted of large military parades and shows of common people in support of the government.

The Red Scare periods ended May Day as a mass holiday in the United States, a phenomenon which can be seen as somewhat ironic given that May Day originated in Chicago. Meanwhile, in countries other than the United States and United Kingdom, resident working classes fought hard to make May Day an official governmentally-sanctioned holiday, efforts which eventually largely succeeded. For this reason, May Day in most of the world today is marked by huge street rallies of workers led by their trade unions and various large socialist and communist parties — a phenomenon not generally seen in the U.S. (which has a history of strong anti-communism) or the UK.

In most countries other than the U.S. and UK, May Day is often referred to simply as "Labor Day".

The Wall Street Journal on the Art Czar

Alice Goldfarb Marquis sent us news of this positive new review of her new biography of Clement Greenberg, by New Criterion editor James Panero, in the Wall Street Journal:

The power of critics such as Clement Greenberg in art or Edmund Wilson in literature -- both did much to shape elite and popular taste in the mid-20th century -- is hard to imagine today. Contemporary art is self-parodic and insulated against Greenberg's style of criticism, and art-world success is now determined almost exclusively in the marketplace, not on the printed page.

And yet in the precincts where art -- and thinking about art -- still matters, Greenberg is "indispensable," as Ms. Marquis notes. In an age when much art criticism is "conducted in a self-referential mumble," she says, "his rhetoric remains a benchmark for persuasive prose in the field of aesthetics." Her biography is a benchmark as well, for discussions of the life and legacy of Clement Greenberg.

Flight 93: Hollywood Got It Right

A member of the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, writing in today's Washington Post, says the Bush administration lied about what happened on 9/11--and Universal Pictures is telling it like it happened in Flight 93:

How accurate is "United 93," Universal Pictures' new movie depicting the drama and heroism aboard the fourth plane hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001? The answer tells us a lot about Hollywood and government in the age of terrorism: The film is closer to the truth than every account the government put out before the 9/11 commission's investigation. Its release marks our passage through the post-9/11 looking glass, with our wildest fairy tales now spun not in Hollywood, but in Washington.

The facts of 9/11 are as simple as they are grim. The military officers in charge of the air defense mission did not receive notice of any of the four hijackings in time to respond before the planes crashed. The passengers and crew aboard United Airlines Flight 93 really were alone. They were all that stood between the hijackers and the Capitol (or possibly the White House). That is the core reality of that morning, and "United 93" gets it right.

A Short History of Language Controversies in the USA

James Crawford's Language Loyalties gives some useful historical background to the debate over Nuestro Himno:

Bilingual education is not a recent invention, but originated in the colonial era. During the 19th century, German-English schooling was authorized by law in several states and flourished unofficially elsewhere. Other European tongues were also taught (sometimes sometimes as the language of instruction and sometimes as a subject) in response to pressure from immigrant communities.<1> But libertarian attitudes did not extend to indigenous languages, as Jon Reyhner demonstrates. Anglicizing the Indian was regarded as a "civilizing" device, an alternative to military measures in pacifying warlike tribes. Children were removed from their reservations, often forcibly, and shipped to faraway boarding schools, where they were punished if caught speaking their native tongues. J. D. C. Atkins, federal Indian Commissioner in the 1880s, describes the policy of eradicating students' "barbarous dialects," along with every other remnant of Indian-ness.

Intolerance also characterized policies toward conquered peoples, notably Spanish speakers in the Southwest and Puerto Rico. The 1848 Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican- American War, made various guarantees to the inhabitants of the annexed territory. While there was no explicit mention of language and cultural rights, many believed that these were implicit in the treaty – as illustrated by the debate over California's 1879 Constitution. In practice, Spanish language rights were seldom observed except in New Mexico, where English speakers were greatly outnumbered before the twentieth century. As detailed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, New Mexico waged a long struggle for statehood against a Congress reluctant to grant self-rule to a non-English-speaking majority. When finally admitted in 1912, the state adopted a constitution with protections for Spanish speakers, for example, the bilingual publication of official documents.

31st Anniversary of the Fall of Saigon

Dennis Sevakis, in The American Thinker, quotes a Vietnamese expert--who says it was a war that the US could have won if political considerations had not hampered the US military:

Bui Tin went on to describe the single biggest error the U.S. committed in the prosecution of the war in Vietnam:

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?

A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.

The Harvard Crimson Remembers John Kenneth Galbraith

Apparently, in addition to being an economist and novelist, he was also the funniest professor at Harvard...

What Does Saudi Arabia Want?

Middle East Quarterly hosts a roundtable discussion on the Saudi kingdom:

Ali Alyami: The House of Saud's only agenda is to stay in power. It will do whatever it takes: kill, murder, incarcerate, destroy. The Saudis have no interest in stabilizing Iraq. I disagree with the idea that it is indifferent to a democratic Iraq. The Saudis hate two things: Shi‘ite empowerment and a democracy on their border. They will do whatever it takes to ensure neither happens.

The Saudi government would like to see the United States stay in Iraq for sixty years. In part, it does not want Washington even to consider invading another Arab country, so getting the U.S. nose rubbed in the mud suits its purposes. Also, a U.S. occupation in Iraq can be just as useful a symbol if the U.S. military gets bogged down in the country.

In Syria, the Saudis have mixed interests. Because the ‘Alawites who control Syria are an offshoot of Shi‘ism, they fear the Assad regime's outreach to Iran and the Shi‘ite government in Iraq. On the other hand, the Saudis fear the alternatives to the Assad dynasty, and fear that chaos in Syria may undercut Lebanon.

Abdullah's Arab-Israeli peace plan was tactically wise. He knew that the Israelis could not accept it because it called for Israel to return all land occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem. The Saudi royal family wants sway over East Jerusalem to add to [their patronage of] Mecca and Medina. Then they will be custodian of three holy places instead of two and will increase their stature accordingly. The Saudi government has no interest in seeing Palestinian-Israeli peace, especially if that results in a democratic Palestine. The Saudis are the greatest financial patrons of Hamas and of Al-Aqsa Brigades and other groups. If Israel and the Arabs make peace and democratization proceeds, the Saudi royal family will lose its power.

What really bothers me about all these discussions is that the Saudi people are never considered. We talk about the women in Saudi Arabia today as if we are talking about women's situations 500, 600 years ago, and then people say there are openings for women, there are openings for religious minorities—but it's still a country ruled by four or five old men who still do not recognize half of their society as human beings.

Cathy Buckle on Zimbabwe

With all the talk of Darfur, and George Clooney's new film showing this weekend, I wondered, whatever happened in Zimbabwe? Here's a link to Cathy Buckle's interesting reports from that country. A sample:

Coming back into the country by road and at night took me back in time 40 years. On the main highway I travelled, for mile after mile the roadside vegetation has not been cut and golden grass, 6 foot high, waves and sways, dipping into the road as you pass. On either side of the road and in the valleys there are no lights from farms anymore and in the distance - as far as you can see in any direction - there is only darkness, not even an orange glow on the horizon from a big town or city. The sight of the bending grass and the intense darkness took me back to journeys in remote country areas during my childhood. Journeys sitting in the back of the family station wagon, elbowing siblings and squabbling, looking out into the darkness watching for eyes. 40 years on though, and the roadside darkness is not from a sparsely populated countryside but from mile after mile of empty or subsitence level farms. Farms once overflowing with production, powered by generators when necessary, which ensured the lights stayed on over vast fields of export flowers and vegetables and kept cold rooms humming day and night. The farms now are just silent and dark.

The lack of urban lights in Zimbabwe these nights is from major and widespread power cuts. On the night of my journey the electricity had apparently been off in an area covering three main towns and over 100 kilometres for twelve hours. The long roadside grass is from municipal negligence - there are no excuses for it - we have abundant manpower due to massive unemployment and pay exhorbitant rates every month in all rural and urban areas. The lack of road signs and reflective lenses to give some light in the night are the result of people desperate for money removing anything and everything they come across - even tin road signs and little squares of shiny material buried in the tar...

Jane Jacobs

Jane Jacobs died on April 25th in Toronto. The New York Times published a nice obituary, City Journal paid tribute, and there's a lot of information about her writings on Wikipedia. My favorite work is her book, Systems of Survival. It's not as well known as her new urbanism, perhaps. Yet it provided real insight--the clash between "trader" (business) syndromes and "guardian" (government) syndromes. We need both sectors, each provides a "system of survival," but there is a problem when the signals get crossed. It provided a really provocative hypothesis that went beyond traditional left-right politics. You can buy it at Amazon.com. Jane Jacobs' life and work showed that one person can indeed make a difference.

Tony Snow New Bush Spokesman

There's a story in Britain's Guardian today. I guess this means that now there's an opening at Fox News Channel...

Another Dubai Deal...

According to radio talk show hostess Tammy Bruce, this time it is for Doncasters, a British-based defense contractor. And Bush relatives are reportedly involved. (ht Roger L Simon)