American GI Forum Resolution Condemns PBS & Ken Burns

From the American GI Forum Website:

AMERICAN GI FORUM OF THE UNITED STATES

RESOLUTION- PBS/Ken Burns Documentary, THE WAR

WHEREAS, The American GI Forum of the United States, is the only Congressionally Chartered Hispanic/Latino Veterans Organization in the United States whose primary purpose is to serve Hispanic/Latino Veterans and their families;

WHEREAS, The American GI Forum was founded by Dr. Hector P. Garcia in 1948 because of the inequities and discrimination inflicted upon returning Mexican-American Veterans after their distinguished service in World War II;

WHEREAS, Hispanic/Latino individuals, as members of the Armed Forces of the United States, served with valor and distinction during World War II;

WHEREAS, In World War II, Hispanic/Latino individuals fought and died for the principles of equality, justice and freedom for all.

WHEREAS, Hispanic/Latino individuals during World War II were the most decorated minority group to receive this Country's highest award, "The Congressional Medal of Honor";

WHEREAS, Hispanic/Latino Americans, as an ethnic group, made tremendous and significant contributions during World War II, for example:

. . . In 1940, while America was still at peace, two National Guard units from New Mexico, the 200th and 515th Coast Artillery (Anti-aircraft) battalions were activated and dispatched to the Philippine Islands. Largely made up of [Mexican Americans]-- both officers and enlisted men from New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas -- the two units were stationed at Clark Field, 65 miles from Manila.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Imperial Navy launched a surprise attack on the American naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, forcing America into war. Within days, Japanese forces attacked the American positions in the Philippines. Outnumbered and desperate, General Douglas MacArthur moved his forces, including the 200th and 515th, to the Bataan Peninsula west of Manila. Here, fighting alongside their Filipino comrades, they made a heroic three-month stand against the large, well-equipped invading forces. As the weeks passed, rations, medical supplies, and ammunition diminished and became scarce. On April 9, 1942, starving and greatly outnumbered, most of the surviving troops were ordered to surrender. After their capture, the American and Filipino soldiers had to endure the 12-day, 85-mile "Death March" from Bataan to the prison camps, followed by 34 months of captivity. Three years later, General Jonathan Wainwright praised the men of the 200th and 515th units, saying that "they were the first to fire and the last to lay down their arms and only reluctantly doing so after being given a direct order."

In the Pacific theater, the 158th Regimental Combat Team, known as the Bushmasters, an Arizona National Guard unit comprised of many Hispanic soldiers, saw heavy combat. They earned the respect of General MacArthur who referred to them as "the greatest fighting combat team ever deployed for battle." Company E of the 141st Regiment of the 36th Texas Infantry Division was made up entirely of [Hispanic] Americans, the majority of them from Texas. After 361 days of combat in Italy and France, the 141st Infantry Regiment sustained 1,126 killed, 5,000 wounded, and over 500 missing in action. In recognition of their extended service and valor, the members of the 141st garnered 31 Distinguished Service Crosses, 12 Legion of Merits, 492 Silver Stars, 11 Soldier's Medals, 1,685 Bronze Stars, as well as numerous commendations and decorations. In all, twelve Hispanic soldiers received the Medal of Honor for their services during World War II.

From 1940 to 1946, more than 65,000 Puerto Ricans served in the American military, most of them going overseas. The 295th and 296th Infantry Regiments of the Puerto Rican National Guard participated in the Pacific theater, while other Puerto Rican soldiers served in Europe.

(Excerpts from: Houston Institute for Culture, The Hispanic Experience, Hispanics in Military Service, Hispanic Contributions to America's Defense, by John Schmal. - Originally published by the Puerto Rico Herald, November 11, 1999.);

WHEREAS, The PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) has announced it is airing in September, 2007, the new Ken Burns documentary series, THE WAR. This seven-part, 14 hour, documentary series, is directed and produced by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. It explores the history and horror of World War II from an American perspective. It follows the fortunes of so-called ordinary men and women who get caught up in the greatest cataclysm in human history;

WHEREAS, This documentary exposes the racism of World War II directed at African-American and Japanese-Americans, however, it fails to outline the same as it affected Hispanic/Latino Americans;

WHEREAS, This documentary purports to honor the heroism of all Americans, when in fact, it glaringly fails to honor those heroic Hispanic Americans who have earned such an honor;

WHEREAS, Whether intentionally or inadvertently, the contributions of Hispanic/Latinos in World War II were omitted;

WHEREAS, This oversight appears to have violated PBS's own policy on "Diversity" i.e.,

. . . Content diversity furthers the goals of a democratic society by enhancing public access to the full range of ideas, information, subject matter, and perspectives required to make informed judgments about the issues of our time. It also furthers public television's special mandate to serve many different and discrete audiences. The goal of diversity also requires continuing efforts to assure that PBS content fully reflects the pluralism of our society, including, for example, appropriate representation of women and minorities. . . .

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,

1. That the American GI Forum of the United States condemns this documentary as not presenting the contributions of Hispanic Americans during World War II and until such time as Hispanics are fairly and adequately represented, demands that it not be aired,

2. That the American GI Forum of the United States requests that the Public Broadcast System forthwith correct this omission.

3. That failure to correct this omission will result in the institution of a nationwide boycott of PBS and its affiliates. Further, we would lead an effort requesting that all public and private funding be curtailed.

For it was Abraham Lincoln who said, "History is not history unless it's true."

Adopted on the 13th day of March, 2007
By the American GI Forum of the United States
National Board of Directors Meeting in Las Vegas, NV
ANTONIO GIL MORALES,
National Commander & Board Chairman

How come I haven't seen this controversy discussed on the Jim Lehrer Newshour, BTW?

Unanswered Questions about NEH Role in Ken Burns Scandal

I sent the following email to the National Endowment for the Humanities about that organization's responsibility for the Ken Burns documentary that has caused such great offense to Hispanic-American veterans of World War II. So far, no answers. I'll let readers know what Dr. Bruce Cole's organization has to say in this regard, as soon as I get a reply...The following email was sent to NEH Public Affairs on March 31, 2007:

Dear NEH Public Affairs,

I have been reading about the controversy over Ken Burns' new documentary about World War II with interest, and would appreciate information on the NEH role, which presumably should safeguard historical accuracy against a filmmaker's "artistic license" in portraying historical events. I assume that is the purpose of academic review and the peer panel process.

Therefore, for publication on my blog, I would appreciate written answers to the following questions:

How much has NEH paid for this documentary? What were the conditions of the grant relating to historical accuracy and comprehensiveness?

Who are the historical advisors for this project?

Who reviewed the grant application for NEH--peer panelist names as well as staff names?

Who signed the final approval for this project?

Did anyone notice the absence of Latino veterans in the documentary prior to the current controversy--as part of the NEH peer review process?

I look forward to hearing from you in this regard.

Yours sincerely,
Laurence Jarvik
Laurence A. Jarvik, Ph.D.
http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com

UPDATE: I have received an email from info@neh.gov calling the attention of "Noel" to this request. I assume that is Noel Milan, director of communications for NEH. So, I'll post NEH's answers to the above questions --once the NEH sends them to me...

Fred Thompson on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The possible Presidential candidate, actor, and former senator had his say in National Review:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali can’t leave her Washington D.C. home without guards.

Born a Muslim in the African nation of Somalia, she was treated as property. Hirsi Ali, though, escaped a marriage, arranged by her father, to a cousin in Canada she’d never met.

Granted exile in the Netherlands, Hirsi Ali rose like cream and was elected to the Dutch parliament. She also wrote a script based on her experience volunteering in battered women’s shelters. There, she learned that her fellow Somali immigrants were maintaining the feudal ways she thought she had left behind.

Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, the great-grand-nephew of the famous painter, made her movie — but paid for it with his life. His Islamist murderer used a dagger to pin a note, promising Hirsi Ali’s death, to the director’s chest. Unsafe, and unwelcome to many, Hirsi Ali came to America last year and was able to live pretty much like a normal person.

But her new autobiography, Infidel, is out now and the usual suspects are furious that she would argue for the liberation of Muslim women. Due to serious and credible threats, she is once again surrounded by guards.

There were many Germans and other Europeans who came to America and warned of the Nazi threat in the 1930s, including writers and filmmakers. Can you imagine that any of them would have ever needed bodyguards?

Hirsi Ali does — right here in America. Yet too many people still don’t understand what our country is up against. They might if they read her book.

Thompson recorded a radio spot with the same message available as an mp3 download here

Gerald Steinberg: Close Down EU-Funded NGOs in Israel

From The Jerusalem Post:

Furthermore, the scale of European government funding for Israeli and Palestinian political organizations that claim to promote human rights, peace and democracy is huge, and largely hidden. The massive Euro-bureaucracy has created a complex network of funding agencies for "civil society" in the region, and no central index or reporting system exists.

Until last year, the EU office in Tel Aviv violated its own principles of transparency and kept the list of Israeli NGO beneficiaries secret, ostensibly due to threats of violence. NGO Monitor's investigations led to a change in this instance, but funding for Palestinian NGOs is still largely covert.

THE CHANGE in Israeli government policy and a willingness to confront such anti-democratic manipulation, particularly by European governments (including non-EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland), marks an important step. Going beyond the terse statement, the Israeli representatives should bring a detailed file on the funding provided for politicized NGOs to every meeting between heads of state, foreign ministers and government officials.

If Europe expects to play a more important role in regional security and diplomacy, it cannot also continue to provide funding designed to undermine the Israeli government's positions, both internally and in the international arena.

In Europe, the amorphous entities known as "civil society organizations" and NGOs also need close scrutiny. These bodies are unelected, and their officials are not accountable.

In democratic societies, government officials who provide funds to these entities generally use this as a means to promote their own interests and objectives, without checks and balances or transparency. In closed non-democratic societies, such as Syria, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, foreign government assistance for NGOs that promote democracy, tolerance, and human rights may have a positive impact, but only if this support is carefully monitored to prevent abuse. Europe's failure to provide such monitoring exacerbates the damage.

Israel, as a vibrant democracy, does not need, and should not be the target of "civil society initiatives" engineered by foreign governments, whether well-meaning or hostile. From this perspective, the example of Bimkom, the security barrier, and the British Embassy is small but highly illustrative.

The time has come to end this misguided and patronizing policy.

Belinda Acosta: "Deplorable" Ken Burns No Da Vinci

In the Austin Chronicle, Belinda Acosta weighs in against Ken Burns and PBS:

Perhaps the most perplexing response to date comes from Lionel Sosa, a Latino member of the PBS board of directors.

"Asking Burns to change his documentary is like asking Leonardo da Vinci to add another apostle to The Last Supper because somebody was left out," Sosa said in a Laredo Morning Times article by Tricia Cortez published March 20. "This is artistic. This is a film. It's not journalism."

Apparently, Sosa needs a dictionary to look up the definition of "documentary."

By comparing Burns to da Vinci, Sosa inadvertently strikes the crux of the matter. Burns' work is branded as the definitive statement on a subject. This brand comes largely because of his affiliation with PBS, the mandate of which is to serve the American public but much more so because of PBS's reach beyond television (already pervasive) as an approved "text" for use in classrooms across the nation.

Being ignorant – willfully or otherwise – of the flesh-and-blood impact of Latinos in World War II, not to mention the role of World War II in defining U.S. Latino history, is, in a word, deplorable. I don't expect PBS to impose its will on a filmmaker's vision – but it is painfully disappointing to discover that PBS's vision is little more than a few "diversity" dishes served at a card table near the banquet table. No, if PBS is truly interested in expanding its base, it means more than making room at the table. It means allowing other cooks in the kitchen when the meal is being prepared.

Sosa makes another interesting statement in the aforementioned Laredo Morning Times article. Although "disappointed" by the omission of Latinos in The War, he says it's up to Latinos, not Burns, to tell their stories.

"We have the talent in terms of writers, producers, directors, and historians to tell the story," he said. "And we have the resources to raise the money to make the films."

In that case, why bother supporting PBS at all?

Antigua Beats USA in WTO Dispute

The WTO has spoken in favor of Antigua's offshore internet gambling business and against American prohibitions--because the US permits domestic gambling. Slashdot reports that if the US doesn't change its policy, them Antigua has the legal right to retaliate against American sanctions--and may do so by permitting bootleg MP3 download sites for media. The Caribbean once hosted rum smugglers and real pirates...will it now become a haven for music and video pirates? This post from TechDirt raises the question:

TechDirt writes "For some time we've been following the ongoing conflict between the US and the island nation of Antigua surrounding internet gambling. Even before the passage of the most recent anti-gambling law, Antigua had gone to the WTO to complain that the US government's actions against online gambling were de facto protectionist measures, and thus violated international trade law. The WTO ended up siding with Antigua, although, quite predictably, the US did nothing to resolve the issue -- in fact, things have only gotten worse. Now the WTO is speaking out again, slamming the US government for its failure to abide by the decision against it. Once again, it seems likely that the US will ignore the decision, although that would give Antigua the right to retaliate. One possibility that's been thrown out there is that Antigua may turn itself into a haven for free music and software and set up some site like allofmp3.com. Of course, the US put pressure on Russia to crack down on that site, as part of the country's admittance into the WTO, but since Antigua is already part of the organization, the US would have no such leverage. Now, the WTO has spoken out again."

For Antigua's view of the dispute, here's a link to the Antigua Online Gaming Association.

First Review of Bernard Weinraub's "The Accomplices"

It hasn't opened yet, but Cameron's Theatre Snobbery at its Finest has published an early--and favorable--review of Bernard Weinraub's new play about Ben Hecht, Peter Bergson and the struggle to save European Jewry during World War II:

I'm having a hard time thinking of one negative comment I can make about Bernard Weinraub's The Accomplices, currently at Theatre Row in a production by The New Group. It's not a great play, but I left feeling that I had seen one of the most interesting and fascinating political dramas in a long while. Weinraub, a journalist by profession who is making his theatrical debut, tells the story of a fringe group in the early 1940s who tried to shine a light on Hitler's regime at a time when the Roosevelt administration was turning a blind eye to it. The performances are universally excellent: Daniel Sauli plays the protagonist (the son of a Palestinian rabbi) perfectly, while Zoe Lister-Jones hits all the right notes as the woman who loves him, and who has spent much of her life running from her Jewish heritage. Veteran David Margulies is superb as the Rabbi Stephen Wise, who chooses to scorn the radical movement in favor of blind support for FDR, and Jon DeVries offers great comic relief (and social commentary) as both the President of the United States and one of the movement's famous supporters, playwright Ben Hecht. Sign yourself up for this exemplary history listen.

Ken Burns Scandal Hits Philadelphia

The Philadelphia Daily News asks: "Que Pasa PBS?":

USUALLY a Ken Burns television documentary is greeted with great anticipation.

But hype for "The War," Burns' seven-part documentary about World War II that's scheduled to air in September on PBS television stations, has been anything but good, considering the outrage it has triggered among Latino organizations.

Burns' documentary, which looks at the war from the perspective of four cities and towns, excludes the contributions made by America's Latinos who fought in World War II, they say. Estimates are that about 500,000 Latinos served in the war. And 12 were awarded Medals of Honor. With a population of 44 million, Latinos are America's largest minority group.

Janet Murgula, president of the National Council of La Raza, sent a letter to Paula Kerger, president of the Public Broadcasting Service. Kerger will soon rule on how PBS plans to handle the omission.

The brouhaha shows Latinos will not allow [themselves] to be marginalized. Even in Philadelphia.

Iran Frees British Hostages

Whew! Glad that's over...

Though I don't know if Iran backed down under international pressure, Britain blinked when she kow-towed to hostage-takers, or if the lesson is, as this BBC report concludes, quoting a relative of one of the hostages :

"Whoever has been in the right or wrong, the whole thing has been a political mess, so let's just get them home," said his uncle, Ray Cooper.

Speaking of World War II Documentaries...

My film, Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die?, is officially released on DVD today by Kino International, in a special 25th anniversary edition that includes a copy of Billy Wilder's historically-significant short film Death Mills as an "extra".

For some unknown reason, I haven't seen any mentions in the press, not even in Dave Kehr's usually excellent NY Times DVD column. Netflix hasn't stocked it yet, either. Don't know why...

So, please go to your local video store to find a copy to rent or buy (or request your public library to stock it). If you live in the Washington, DC metro area our local Potomac Video has four copies in stock--or you can order a copy from Amazon.com here:

Tawfik Hamid on Islamist Extremism

From OpinionJournal.com (ht JihadWatch):

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

Russian Translation of Cultural Challenges to Democratization in Russia

Thanks to the work of Professor Tatiana Samsonova of Moscow State University, my Winter 2006 ORBIS article, Cultural Challenges to Democratization in Russia, is now available in Russian.

Click here to download the Russian version: КУЛЬТУРНЫЕ ВЫЗОВЫ ДЕМОКРАТИЗАЦИИ В РОССИИ--Лоренс Джарвик (MS Word).

Rory O'Connor to Ken Burns: "Re-edit your precious art..."

PBS documentary producer Rory O'Connor chides Ken Burns & PBS for disrespecting Latino WWII veterans, on AlterNet:

As a documentary filmmaker myself, I'm definitely in favor of respecting the work of producers. But isn't respect for the audience also important? In a 14-hour documentary, couldn't Burns have devoted a few minutes (at least!) to include the WWII experiences of America's Latinos? I certainly am not asking for the imposition of any kind of "political litmus tests" for documentaries -- but I am calling for Burns to listen to and show respect for valid complaints from the public broadcasting audience and, in this case, to reassess his startling and ahistorical omission.

But to date both Burns and his PBS supporters seem instead to be circling their wagons and taking a defensive posture, instead of reaching out and trying to rectify the situation. "People, when they see the film, they will see the universality," Burns claims. But Latinos won't see themselves -- and that's the crux of the problem.

To acknowledge the ground that the film does not cover, Burns will begin each episode of the documentary with a title card acknowledging its limited scope. He has also asked PBS and CPB to back the related project of local outreach and production. "The film is done yet there are all these opportunities to tell all these other stories," Burns said.

In other words -- leave it to others to clean up the mess I've made ...

Come on, Ken -- you're better than that! You have fourteen hours in well-promoted prime time, coupled with the most extensive outreach campaigns ever tied to a national broadcast, so why not give it up? Do the right thing! Listen to the voice of the people and then re-edit your precious art ...

So far, however, Burns demurs. "It's not just me that can tell all these stories," he maintains. "This is public broadcasting."

Precisely ...

Happy Passover!

Wikipedia entry here.

Dorothy Rabinowitz on AIPAC's Trial

From The Wall Street Journal:

In October 2005, with pro bono attorney Plato Cacheris at his side, Lawrence Franklin pleaded guilty--a decision he could not avoid making, given the indisputable proof of offense--to keeping classified documents at his home. His indictment charged much more--conspiring to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it, meetings with representatives of foreign nation A (Israel), and Messrs. Rosen and Weissman, cited as furtherance of a conspiracy. The former desk officer for Iran stood charged with conspiracy to "advance his own personal foreign policy agenda" and influence people in government. One Washington insider, hearing this, tartly noted that if all government officials who leaked material to effect policy changes were charged and convicted, the prisons would soon be packed.

The guilty plea brought a sentence of 12 years, seven months--not a light one. Mr. Franklin's hope for reducing it hinges on the cooperation he gives government prosecutors in the trial of the lobbyists. The role assigned him has from the beginning been noteworthy--a reversal of norms. Government officials don't normally get to take part in stings of ordinary citizens. But Mr. Franklin, an official with top security clearance, sworn to protect classified information, is the one asked to wear a wire to amass evidence against the two men with whom he has allegedly conspired. It usually goes the other way around. There is a reason that the government official caught taking a bribe is the object of the law's pursuit, rather than the citizen who has tried to pay him off--and why it is the citizen, crooked as he may be, who wears the wire and gets the possibility of a deal. That reason, of course, is the higher standard expected of those sworn to uphold their offices. If nothing else, the role assigned Mr. Franklin testifies to the government's singular focus on nailing the AIPAC lobbyists.

Even so it remains to be seen what help Mr. Franklin will give the prosecutors at the forthcoming trial of Messrs. Rosenvand Mr. Weissman. In the course of his guilty plea, the otherwise respectful Mr. Franklin forcefully objected to the government's characterization of the self-typed paper about Iran he'd faxed to Mr. Rosen--a document at the heart of one of the significant charges against the lobbyist--as "classified."

"It was unclassified," Lawrence Franklin told the court, "and it is unclassified."

The government would "prove that it was classified," announced the U.S. attorney.

Mr. Franklin: "Not a chance."

What chance the defendants--who asked no one for classified information--have of acquittal and the avoidance of prison remains to be seen. Though Judge T. S. Ellis rejected defense motions to dismiss the charges on constitutional grounds, his early rulings have so far shown a keen appreciation of the meaning this case. In this he stands in sharp contrast to the nation's leading civil rights guardians, these days busy filing lawsuits against the government and fulminating on behalf of the rights of captured terrorists in Guantanamo and elsewhere, while accusing the U.S. of failing to provide open trials and assurances that the accused have the right to view the evidence against them. As of this day neither the ACLU nor the Center for Constitutional Rights has shown the smallest interest in this prosecution so bound up with First Amendment implications. Nor has most of the media, whose daily work includes receiving "leaks" from government officials far more damaging to national security than anything alleged in this case. In this as in the Scooter Libby matter, the desire to see Bush Administration officials nailed apparently counts for more than First Amendment principle.

The government has also moved (in the interest of protecting classified information) to impose strict limits during the trial, on the testimony the public and press will be allowed to hear. If the proposal is allowed, significant portions of the testimony will be available only in the form of summaries. Witnesses, furthermore, would not be allowed to deliver certain testimony directly to jurors, who would instead be told to look at secret documents. It will be, as a member of the Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press, now opposing the government efforts, describes it, "a secret trial within a public trial." (Dow Jones, publisher of this newspaper, has joined the Reporters Committee in filing an objection.)

Will US Bomb Iran?

Russian News Agency RIA-Novosti seems to think so:

MOSCOW, March 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike in early April, a security official said.

The source said the U.S. had already compiled a list of possible targets on Iranian territory and practiced the operation during recent exercises in the Persian Gulf.

"Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory," the source said.

American commanders will be ready to carry out the attack in early April, but it will be up to the country's political leadership to decide if and when to attack, the source said.

Official data says America's military presence in the region has reached the level of March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

The U.S. has not excluded the military option in negotiations on Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran Saturday toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.

The source said the Pentagon could decide to conduct ground operations as well after assessing the damage done to the Iranian forces by its possible missile strikes and analyzing the political situation in the country following the attacks.

A senior Russian security official cited military intelligence earlier as saying U.S. Armed Forces had recently intensified training for air and ground operations against Iran.

"The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said.

More Confessions From Iran's British Hostages

From the BBC:

All 15 Britons held by Iran accept they were in the country's waters despite the UK's insistence they were in Iraqi territory, Iranian state radio says.

The BBC report can be watched here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6510000/newsid_6516700/6516753.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm.

The video names the British frigate involved as HMS Foxtrot.

A friend mentioned that this story reminds him of the Pueblo incident, when an American naval vessel was captured by North Korea on January 23, 1968, humiliating the United States during the Vietnam War. The commander of the USS Pueblo, Lloyd M. (Pete) Bucher was recommended for Courts Martial. The crew was kept prisoner in North Korea for 11 months--and the USS Pueblo remains in North Korea to this day...Wikipedia entry here.

The US Code of Military Conduct would seem to prohibit American POWs from delivering the type of public confessions broadcast on television by Iran's British hostages:

5. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

When questioned, a prisoner of war is required by the Geneva Conventions and this Code to give name, rank, service number (SSN) and date of birth. The prisoner should make every effort to avoid giving the captor any additional information. The prisoner may communicate with captors on matters of health and welfare and additionally may write letters home and fill out a Geneva Convention "capture card."

It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture, or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information. If under such intense coercion, a POW discloses unauthorized information, made an unauthorized statement, or performs an unauthorized act, that prisoner’s peace of mind and survival require a quick recovery of courage, dedication, and motivation to resist anew each subsequent coercion.

Actions every POW should resist include making oral or written confessions and apologies, answering questionnaires, providing personal histories, creating propaganda recordings, broadcasting appeals to other prisoners of war, providing any other material readily usable for propaganda purposes., appealing for surrender or parole, furnishing self-criticisms, communicating on behalf of the enemy to the detriment of the United State, its allies, its Armed Forces, or other POWs.

Every POW should also recognize that any confession signed or any statement made may be used by the enemy as a false evidence that the person is a "war criminal" rather than a POW. Several countries have made reservations to the Geneva Convention in which they assert that a "war criminal" conviction deprives the convicted individual of prison of war status, removes that person from protection under the Geneva Convention, and revokes all rights to repatriation until a prison sentence is served.

Recent experiences of American prisoners of war have proved that, although enemy interrogation sessions may be harsh and cruel, one can resist brutal mistreatment when the will to resist remains intact.

The best way for prisoner to keep faith with country, fellow prisoners and self is to provide the enemy with as little information as possible.

I wonder if this type of code applies for British military personnel?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wins Nobel Peace Prize

(April Fool)

On the other hand, here's a link to Mark Steyn's Chicago Sun-Times column:

On this 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, Tony Blair is looking less like Margaret Thatcher and alarmingly like Jimmy Carter, the embodiment of the soi-disant "superpower" as a smiling eunuch.

Gus Chavez: Ken Burns Documentary "Shameful"

From the San Diego Tribune:

SAN DIEGO – Gus Chavez of San Diego had five uncles who served in World War II, including two who were injured and one who was captured by the Germans. The uncle he's named after died during training for the war.

So Chavez took it personally when he learned that acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns' seven-part documentary about the war, scheduled to air nationally on PBS in September, doesn't feature any Latinos.

“It's a misrepresentation,” said Chavez, a retired San Diego State administrator and longtime local activist. “You have a documentary that runs 14 hours and it doesn't mention the Latino experience? It's unacceptable. It's shameful.”

Chavez, 63, is helping spearhead a campaign called “Defend the Honor” to pressure Burns and PBS not to air the series until changes are made.

The campaign drew support this week from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the American GI Forum, a Hispanic veterans group. Cartoonist Lalo Alcaraz – tipped off to the controversy by Chavez – has been lampooning Burns in his comic strip “La Cucaracha,” which runs in newspapers including The San Diego Union-Tribune.

In a written statement, Burns and co-producer Lynn Novick asked viewers to “refrain from passing judgment on our work until they have seen it.” The statement said:

“We are dismayed and saddened by any assumption that we intentionally excluded anyone from our series on the Second World War. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“For 30 years we have made films that have tried to tell many of the stories that haven't been told in American history. In this latest project, we have attempted to show the universal human experience of war by focusing on the testimonies of just a handful of people. As a result, millions of stories are not explored in our film.”

Carlos Guerra on Maggie Rivas-Rodríguez v. Ken Burns

From the San Antonio Express News:

It was at a meeting in New Orleans' World War II Museum last fall that Rivas learned about "The War," Ken Burns' seven-part epic that will air on PBS in the fall and will be followed by releases of a major book, a soundtrack CD, educational packages and a DVD box set.

"Carmen Contreras Bozak, who was a WAC during World War II, asked if women were (included in the 60-plus interviews) and the producer said that no, (only) women in the home front," Rivas says. Neither has Burns included Native Americans or Latinos in his series.

" 'We're not really looking at individuals' ethnic-group experiences, except for Japanese Americans and African Americans because of their experiences,' " one producer told them, suggesting, Rivas says, that "Latinos' experience wasn't rich and unique, and it was."

Rivas also adds that she won't be satisfied if Burns "finds and interviews someone named Garza and inserts it into this thing because it is being billed as a definitive look at World War II in our country.

"We need the Latino perspective included across the board, in that overall picture," she says. "But there is a much bigger, longstanding issue: Why do Latinos continue to be excluded from PBS specials and general history books across the board?"

If you think Burns' and PBS' blind spot is limited to Latino veterans' contributions, however, consider this: "The War" will premiere nationally on Diez y Seis de Septiembre [Mexican Independence Day].

2nd British Marine Confesses on Iranian TV

Nathan Summers submits:

So, This is the Little Lady Who Started The War (Against Ken Burns): Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez

From her official University of Texas biography:

Rivas-Rodriguez received her Ph.D. as a Freedom Forum doctoral fellow from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1998. Her dissertation, "Brown Eyes on the Web: A U.S. Latino Newspaper Site on the Internet," included a content analysis of a Latino Web newspaper as well as one of the mainstream newspapers in the same market. Rivas-Rodriguez received her master's degree from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism in 1977. She received a bachelor of journalism degree from the University of Texas at Austin in 1976.

She has more than 17 years of daily news experience, mostly as a reporter for the Boston Globe, WFAA-TV in Dallas and the Dallas Morning News. Her first job was as a copy editor for UPI in Dallas. Her most recent professional work was for the Morning News state desk as bureau chief of the border bureau, based in El Paso, covering border states.

Her research interests include the intersection of oral history and journalism, U.S. Latinos and the news media, both as producers of news and as consumers. Since 1999, Rivas-Rodriguez has spearheaded the U.S. Latino and Latina World War II Oral History Project, which has collected interviews with over 450 men and women throughout the country. Stories based on those interviews have appeared in a newspaper dedicated to the project. The project has several other components: a conference, an edited volume of academic manuscripts, a play (through Arizona State University Public Events and the University of Texas' Performing Arts Center), documentary film with educational materials, a general interest book, and a video, audio tape and photographic archive. The project is self-supporting and has enjoyed support from the Austin American-Statesman and the San Antonio Express-News, and has received financial contributions from several foundations, corporations and hundreds of individual donors.

Rivas-Rodriguez was on the committee that organized and founded the National Association of Hispanic Journalists in 1982. She began two of the NAHJ's most successful student projects: a convention newspaper produced by college students and professionals and a nationwide high school writing contest. The convention newspaper has become the model for most other industry organizations (ASNE, NABJ, AJA) as a way to develop mentoring relationships and to train students.

She is the Associate Director of the Center for Mexican American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin.

Recent Courses: J320D Intermediate Reporting, J335 Narrative Journalism, J349T.7 Oral History as Journalism, J395 Covering the U.S.-Mexico Border and J395.1 Professional Writing for Journalists.

Publications: "Brown Eyes on the Web: An Alternative U.S. Latino Newspaper on the Internet" (New York: Routledge), 2003. She was also the editor of "Mexican Americans and World War II", an edited volume (Austin: University of Texas Press, forthcoming).

Guillermo Martinez: Ken Burns' "Intolerable" Documentary

From Florida's Sun-Sentinel:

Like a forest fire in its earliest stages, the flames have not yet erupted. They soon will, however, for the complete disregard of the Latino experience in World War II in a documentary by Ken Burns, scheduled to air for 14 hours starting Sept. 23, is insulting and discriminatory.

This fire has been simmering for weeks, the result of work by a group of Latino civic leaders -- Dr. Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, a journalism professor at the University of Texas in Austin; Angelo Falcon of the National Latino Policy in New York City; Marta Garcia, second vice chair of the executive board of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and Gus Ch–vez, retired administrator from San Diego State University.

The movement these four activists began a few short weeks ago is catching on and drawing the ire of Hispanics across the nation. For what Burns and PBS have done is simply intolerable.

Current: Ken Burns' Anti-Latino Bias "Civil Rights Issue"

In the trade paper of the public broadcasting industry, Karen Everhart Bedford's article is headlined: Burns’ omission seen as Latino civil rights issue.

As long as television and other media continue to marginalize Latinos’ military service and wartime sacrifice, “we continue to be invisible,” said Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin who is leading the charge against The War. “This is one that we’re not going to allow.”

The War documents a “major national experience and we’re not part of it and we don’t want it to be shown until it’s corrected,” said Gus Chavez, a retired university administrator from San Diego who participated in a March 6 meeting with PBS execs. “We are not going to sit still and let historical events of this nature be presented without our input and representation.”

Chavez, a Navy veteran, joined Rivas-Rodriquez in organizing the campaign for recognition that they call “Defend the Honor.”

“We are totally geared to making the general public aware of our concern that this documentary is misrepresenting the war as it’s presented to exclude the Latino experience,” Chavez said.

Defend the Honor

Here's a link to Defend the Honor, a website countering Ken Burns's exclusion of Latino war heroes, which has posted some anti-Ken Burns cartoons. Their mission statement:

A "documentary" about Americans and World War II, to be broadcast by PBS next fall, deliberately excludes any mention of Latino heroes who found to defend the United States from its enemies. This exclusion makes this documentary historically flawed! PBS and the corporate and foundation sponsors of this “documentary” need to know it now, before the film is aired. You need to tell them. Look for contact information at The US Latino & Latina WWII Oral History Project

This website is dedicated to supporting efforts of individuals and organizations to ensure that WWII-era Latinos and Latinas are included in today's general historical narratives. Currently, the focus of this effort is the scheduled September 2007 airing of a 14-hour PBS WWII documentary which fails to include any mention of the Latino experience. Their stories are significant and should be included. The story of our country's wartime experiences are incomplete without including the telling of what happened to Latinos.

AP: Hispanic GIs Protest Ken Burns Documentary

The anti-Ken Burns movement is growing, Suzanne Gamboa reports in the Houston Chronicle:

The latest group to take their grievance to PBS is the American GI Forum, an Hispanic veterans group that has waged numerous civil rights battles for Hispanics and Hispanic veterans.

The American GI Forum is appealing to Hispanic veterans and other Latino groups to write members of Congress and their local PBS affiliate about the documentary that has been six years in the making.

This week, GI Forum President Antonio Morales and other Latino leaders met in Washington with PBS President Paula Kerger to lodge their complaints about the 14-hour Ken Burns documentary set to air this September, Hispanic Heritage month.

"We are not going to tolerate this omission," Morales said after the PBS meeting.

PBS Ombudsman Defends Ken Burns

Apparently the documentary will broadcast four-letter words at a time when children are watching TV, so PBS is asking that the FCC not enforce its obscenity ban against Burns.

Charming.

Read Michael Getler's pre-emptive apologia for the as-yet unbroadcast film here.

Ken Burns' Anti-Latino Agenda

From The Unapologetic Mexican:

Now, Ken Burns, famous "documentary" filmmaker is doing his part as a good American soldier of media, to insure that the future thinks even less of us.

KEN BURNS is a documentary filmmaker who has a lot of cred, and chances are good that you've seen his work. If you use Macintosh's iMovie (or if you've seen any documentary these days that uses still shots as part of its presentation), you are familiar with what is named the "Ken Burns Effect," an editing technique made ubiquitous by his documentaries.

When it comes to American documentary filmmaking, Ken Burns is an institution, frequently hailed as “the most accomplished documentary filmmaker of his generation,” or some other such thing. And I am not denying his chops. (Nor his very disarming and Opie-like aura of amiability!) The man can wield a mean editing decision, script, and shotlist. Ultimately, his presentations are engaging and very well-received, mainstreamed, and most important to this essay—considered fact.

The PBS site tells us that "for over 25 years, Ken Burns has been producing films that are unafraid of controversy and tragedy." And I would have to agree. Because his latest seven-part, fourteen hour film The War, an epic undertaking that took six years to make and that covers the second world war by interviewing forty veterans from four towns—one of them Sacramento, California—and does not include even one Mexican (or Puerto Rican, or Native American, or Latino at all) is a tragedy, when it comes to respecting an accurate history, or the contributions of the descendants of the Indigenous of these Americas.

Mark Steyn on Britain's Iranian Hostage Crisis

He spoke on Hugh Hewitt's radio show:

MS: Well, they were weak when this happened three years ago, and I believe I wrote in the Telegraph at the time that this was a great act of weakness by the British against an act of piracy by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Now if you allow people to get away with it, they try it again. They get a little more bolder. This parading of this woman, this female sailor, Royal Navy personnel rating, as they call it in the Royal Navy, in Islamic clothing, is a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions.

HH: Yes.

MS: But all the people who complain and whine about Gitmo all day long don’t care about countries like Iran violating the Geneva Conventions. Iran can violate them with impunity, and so will continue to do so. And I’m very concerned. Iran, you talk about the chronology, Iran respects far fewer of the basic courtesies between states than the Soviet Union, or the Chinese Communists, or any other traditional enemy of the United States has ever done. And the fact of the matter is that we respond weakly every time this happens. The absolute low point of the Cold War was nothing to do with America’s relations with the Soviet Union, but was Jimmy Carter’s completely disastrous behavior, vis-à-vis Iran in 1979. And the British are in effect reenacting a Carter strategy, 28 years later.

HH: Do you…I noted that you quoted at Nationalreview.com, Speaker Gingrich’s suggestion on this program yesterday, Rush even played it today, that first, blow the gasoline refinery, and then stop the tankers. Do you think there’s a chance in the world the Brits will adopt such a strategy?

MS: No, and I think the thing about it is that if you were to propose that either in the House of Commons, or in the United States Congress, people would regard you as an extremist. You would be accused of escalating the situation. Now I think you could make the case that in fact, you don’t even need to do as Newt was talking about with you, which is to threaten them privately with it for a week. I mean, you could make the case that they should just do it. I mean, Iran surprises us all the time. It seizes sailors, it takes out hit contracts on British subjects like Salman Rushdie, it blows up community centers in Argentina, it seizes the U.S. Embassy. Iran doesn’t threaten to do that, it just gets on with it and does it. And maybe there’s a case to be said for well, maybe we should just do something against Iran. Maybe we should just take out that refinery, and they can wake up to it, and see it smoking when it happens, and then they’ll realize we’re serious. But the fact of the matter is that at the moment, when you hear Speaker Gingrich talk about that on your show, you then think well, can I imagine the British Foreign Secretary threatening that? Can I imagine Condoleezza Rice threatening that? And it’s actually there, and you realize how far all the options have bled away, so that now, Tony Blair is threatening, threatening to very quietly raise the possibility of sometime down the road, getting a U.N. resolution on possible trade, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And we all know that anything meaningful can’t be done by the U.N., because it would be vetoed by some combination of the Chinese, the Russians and the French. So in other words, it’s a non-threat, and the Iranians understand it as such.

HH: And back in Tehran, they say I guess we can push even further, don’t they?

MS: Exactly.

HH: And as a result, great power status, as you wrote at National Review, erodes, and is not quickly reassembled. I don’t know if Great Britain gets it back. As Arthur Herman said, they used to wonder if they’d left a navy big enough to defend Great Britain. Now the question is do they have a navy big enough to defend the navy.

Afghanistanica

I found this interesting blog about Afghanistan via a link Nathan Hamm posted on Registan.

Bloggers Blast Ken Burns

Here:

It always frustrates me whenever I hear stories like this - the ethnic minority experience in America being reduced to the sidelines, especially when it comes to paramount events such as WWII. But the sad fact is that Burns is just the latest in the long list of notable historians who have concocted these white-centric narratives.

And here:

> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:02:10 -0600
> To: Ron Takaki
> From: Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez
>
> Hello, Professor Takaki,
> I am very well aware of your work and indeed was very moved by Double Victory.
> Thank you so much for contacting me.
> A couple of things, in case you haven't sent out the letter. Apparently the
> Burns documentary does include the African American and Japanese American
> experience, but leaves out Native Americans and Latinos, as well, it seems,
> women in the military.
> I'm totally in agreement with you: they mustn't air this in September. I'll be
> meeting with Ms. Kerger and one other PBS executive next Tuesday, March 6. Gus
> Chavez of San Diego will also be with me.
> I'll add you to our listserve and let's see if we can stop this train wreck
> before it happens.
> All my best,
> Maggie

And here:

The two major financial backers to the film are two brands very familiar to the Latino community: General Motors and Anheuser-Busch.

As all in the Latino community know, both companies believe strongly in providing support to la raza.

Wonder how GM and Anheuser-Busch would feel if they knew some of their most loyal consumers were overlooked and flat-out dismissed when it came to acknowledging their important roles in a war story that, thanks to their money, will be broadcast across the nation without even a nod to the fact that Latino soldiers were even there.

Jorge Marsical Slams Ken Burns for "Erasure" of Hispanic Veterans

In a syndicated Scripss-Howard News Service column, Vietnam Veteran Jorge Marsical blasts Ken Burns with both barrels:

First, by erasing the contributions of this nation's Spanish-speaking communities, Burns distorts the collective history of all the people in these United States.

Second, his erasure means that he has no clue about where we are and where we are going as a nation. That as many as half a million Latinos and Latinas served in that war as well as in Vietnam, Iraq and every other U.S. conflict cannot be disconnected from the fact that today Latinos are the largest minority ethnic/racial group in the country...

...Recently, when confronted by a small group of Latinos in San Francisco, Burns offered a flippant, "The film doesn't include gays either."

Mr. Burns, the Latino community will pursue our future by pursuing our past. Despite your obstinate refusal to recognize willful ignorance, we are insisting that we do indeed have a past whether or not you can see it from your isolated outpost in New England.

Our collective future will not be understood without an acknowledgement of the service and the sacrifices that decades of Latinos have bestowed upon the nation.

Is Ken Burns Anti-Hispanic?

According to Josphine Hearn's article in The Politico, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus seems to think think that he is--because his latest PBS documentary about World War II fails to include a single Hispanic veteran:

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has joined a campaign to include Hispanics in an upcoming PBS documentary on World War II, vowing to "put the squeeze" on top public television executives.

"We're very much concerned about the lack of Hispanics in the documentary," Chairman Joe Baca (D-Calif.) said. "That's appalling. That's a no-no to us."

The Hispanic Caucus and other Latino interest groups have been troubled that the 14-hour series -- "The War," by renowned filmmaker Ken Burns and scheduled for broadcast in September -- features no Hispanics, even as it highlights African-Americans and Japanese-Americans. They note that 500,000 Latinos served in World War II.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Tex.) echoed Baca's concerns.

"There is a lot of outrage and anger and disappointment," he said. "We've come so far, and then we haven't. It's our responsibility to put the squeeze on people and educate them."

Baca, Rodriguez and a half-dozen other caucus members met with PBS President Paula Kerger on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to discuss the issue. They did not rule out trying to restrict federal funding of public television if PBS officials do not address some of their concerns.

"The bottom line is we also have the right to do what we can economically with PBS to show our displeasure," Rodriguez said. "I hope it won't come to that."

To help Ken Burns and PBS figure out why Hispanic members of Congress believe he is a racist, here's a link to a website listing Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients from World War II. And, as an old PBS-watcher, might I suggest to the Hispanic Caucus that to speed up a response they might contact Ken Burns' other agency, corporate and foundation sponsors, as well? Here's a list from the PBS website:

Corporate funding is provided by General Motors and Anheuser-Busch. Major funding is provided by Lilly Endowment, Inc.; Public Broadcasting Service; National Endowment for the Humanities; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations; The Pew Charitable Trusts; The Longaberger Foundation; and Park Foundation, Inc.

BTW, I didn't see any Hispanic surnames in these credits listed on the documentary's website:

A Production of Florentine Films and WETA-TV

Directed and Produced by KEN BURNS and LYNN NOVICK; Written By GEOFFREY C. WARD; Produced by SARAH BOTSTEIN: Co-Producers PETER MILLER and DAVID McMAHON; Supervising Film Editor PAUL BARNES; Editors PAUL BARNES, ERIK EWERS and TRICIA REIDY; Cinematography BUDDY SQUIRES; Associate Producers MEGHAN HORVATH and TAYLOR KRAUSS; Narrated by KEITH DAVID with TOM HANKS, JOSH LUCAS, BOBBY CANNAVALE, SAMUEL L. JACKSON, ELI WALLACH, among others; Original Music Composed and Arranged by WYNTON MARSALIS; “AMERICAN ANTHEM” music and lyrics by GENE SCHEER.

Accompanying the series will be a companion book, written by Geoffrey C. Ward and introduced by Ken Burns, that will be published by Alfred A. Knopf in August 2007. The soundtrack will be released in September 2007 by Sony BMG Legacy Recordings.

Victor Davis Hanson on 300

A Classics professor analyzes Hollywood's latest big-screen blockbuster:

Finally, some have suggested that "300" is juvenile in its black-and-white depiction — and glorification — of free Greeks versus imperious Persians. The film has actually been banned in Iran as hurtful American propaganda, as the theocracy suddenly is reclaiming its "infidel" ancient past.

But that good/bad contrast comes not from the director or Frank Miller, but is based on accounts from the Greeks themselves, who saw their own society as antithetical to the monarchy of imperial Persia.

True, 2,500 years ago, almost every society in the ancient Mediterranean world had slaves. And all relegated women to a relatively inferior position. Sparta turned the entire region of Messenia into a dependent serf state.

But in the Greek polis alone, there were elected governments, ranging from the constitutional oligarchy at Sparta to much broader-based voting in states like Athens and Thespiae.

Most importantly, only in Greece was there a constant tradition of unfettered expression and self-criticism. Aristophanes, Sophocles and Plato questioned the subordinate position of women. Alcidamas lamented the notion of slavery.

Such openness was found nowhere else in the ancient Mediterranean world. That freedom of expression explains why we rightly consider the ancient Greeks as the founders of our present Western civilization — and, as millions of moviegoers seem to sense, far more like us than the enemy who ultimately failed to conquer them.

US Government Still Funds Palestinian Terror University

Joel Mowbray's FrontPageMagazine.com article makes sobering reading:

When asked by this journalist about its funding decisions in the West Bank and Gaza, USAID pointed to $2.3 million in assistance provided to Al Quds University. Undermining USAID’s argument that funding the school is wise policy, however, was the weeklong celebration this January of Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas leader known as “the shahid [martyr] engineer.” He is credited with creating the first suicide belts in the mid-1990s and training the next generation of suicide bomb makers.

The school’s celebration of a leading terrorist actually seems to be in line with the beliefs of its leader. The president of Al-Quds University President, Sari Nusseibeh, is widely considered a leading Palestinian moderate—USAID praised him as “one such prominent and respected figure”—yet he, too, celebrates the glories of terrorists.

In an appearance on Al-Jazeera in 2002 with Hamas political bureau chief Khalid Mashaal and the mother of a suicide bomber, Nusseibeh had this to say of the woman who proudly raised a terrorist: “When I hear the words of Umm Nidal, I recall the [Koranic] verse stating that ‘Paradise lies under the feet of mothers.’ All respect is due to this mother; it is due to every Palestinian mother and every female Palestinian who is a Jihad fighter on this land.” (Transcript provided by PMW.)

As Palestinian colleges go, Al-Quds University might well be quite moderate—but that’s the problem. If terrorists are hailed as heroes at the moderate schools, imagine what happens at the more radical ones.

British Hostages on Iranian TV

Submission...(ht Drudge):

Bermard Lewis on the Clash of Civilizations

Bernard Lewis spoke at the AEI's March 7th Irving Kristol award dinner, and had this to say, among other things (ht Melanie Phillips):

That game is now over. The era that was inaugurated by Napoleon and Nelson was terminated by Reagan and Gorbachev. The Middle East is no longer ruled or dominated by outside powers. These nations are having some difficulty adjusting to this new situation, to taking responsibility for their own actions and their consequences, and so on. But they are beginning to do so, and this change has been expressed with his usual clarity and eloquence by Osama bin Laden.

We see with the ending of the era of outside domination, the reemergence of certain older trends and deeper currents in Middle Eastern history, which had been submerged or at least obscured during the centuries of Western domination. Now they are coming back again. One of them I would call the internal struggles--ethnic, sectarian, regional--between different forces within the Middle East. These have of course continued, but were of less importance in the imperialist era. They are coming out again now and gaining force, as we see for example from the current clash between Sunni and Shia Islam--something without precedent for centuries.

The other thing more directly relevant to my theme this evening is the signs of a return among Muslims to what they perceive as the cosmic struggle for world domination between the two main faiths--Christianity and Islam. There are many religions in the world, but as far as I know there are only two that have claimed that their truths are not only universal--all religions claim that--but also exclusive; that they--the Christians in the one case, the Muslims in the other--are the fortunate recipients of God's final message to humanity, which it is their duty not to keep selfishly to themselves--like the Jews or the Hindus--but to bring to the rest of humanity, removing whatever obstacles there may be on the way. This self-perception, shared between Christendom and Islam, led to the long struggle that has been going on for more than fourteen centuries and which is now entering a new phase. In the Christian world, now at the beginning of the 21st century of its era, this triumphalist attitude no longer prevails, and is confined to a few minority groups. In the world of Islam, now in its early 15th century, triumphalism is still a significant force, and has found expression in new militant movements.

Ali Pahlavan: "I Am Very Worried..."

The executive editor of Tehran's Iran News spoke with the BBC about the dangers to world peace in Britain's current hostage crisis:

My understanding of the situation is that this could be a reaction to the UN sanctions which were passed two days ago... the revolutionary guards had promised that some sort of reaction would be forthcoming from Iran.

The revolutionary guards are a very hard line, ultra-conservative wing of the regime who believe that the US and Britain need to be challenged in the Persian Gulf and in the Middle East... their interests need to be challenged in Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq and elsewhere.

So this could be part of the strategy to challenge the British and American supremacy in this part of the world which is troubling. It could lead to confrontation and be a trigger and which could lead to escalation...

... I am worried because it's very different than the 2004 incident. The revolutionary guard is the government now.

So it is troubling and it is worrying. Many of us analysts had predicted an incident in the Persian Gulf, which is very crucial to the global economy and to Western interests and could trigger something disastrous.

Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Global Jihad:

From a summary of a January, 2007 report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, written by Dore Gold:

From the analysis that follows, new principles of Western policy become necessary that reflect the new realities of the Middle East:

*Iran is more determined than ever to achieve regional hegemony in the Middle East and is fueling regional instability across the entire area. It is a cardinal error for the West to believe that Iran can be turned into a status-quo power by addressing a series of political grievances that its leadership may voice (or by apologizing for Western colonial policies toward Iran in the past). Iran's role in the UN-sponsored "Six-Plus-Two" talks over Afghanistan in the late 1990s (with the U.S., Russia, and Afghanistan's neighbors) cannot be compared to its intended role in Iraq. In the Afghan case, Iran had an interest in the containment of a radical Sunni state under the Taliban, where Shiites were only a minority. In the Iraqi, case in contrast, Iran is threatening to dominate a Shiite-majority country. In any case, after 2001, Iran's limited contacts with the West did not prevent its leadership from sheltering elements of al-Qaeda.

*The primary threat to the Sunni Arab states now clearly comes from Iran. The residual Arab-Israeli conflict is not their utmost concern. Indeed, Israel and the Sunni Arabs may have many common threat perceptions. The resulting coincidence of their security interests may not be sufficient to produce any diplomatic breakthroughs in the peace process, where wide gaps remain between Israel and the Palestinians on all the core issues, but it might warrant low level discussions between Israel and its neighbors about how to address the threats that they face.

*There is no short-term diplomatic option for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As long as the present wave of radical Islam continues and successfully dominates Palestinian politics, it is extremely unlikely that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will produce any long-lasting agreements. Further Israeli unilateral pullbacks, in the absence of a Palestinian negotiating partner, are likely to strengthen the grip of radical Islam on Palestinian society and vindicate the success of radical Islam across the region as well. This is precisely what happened with the Gaza Disengagement in August 2005.

*The stabilization of the Middle East requires the neutralization of any of the components of the current radical Islamic wave. In this sense, it doesn't matter if Sunni or Shiite organizations are defeated, for the failure of any one of the elements in the present wave will weaken the other elements as well. The defeat of Hamas among the Palestinians or Hizballah in Lebanon would constitute an enormous setback for Iran. Today, Ahmadinejad's Iran is the main source of regional instability across the Middle East, both directly and indirectly, through proxy organizations that it supports.

*Israel has a continuing need for defensible borders. With the rise of both Sunni and Shiite terrorist capabilities around Israel, the Middle East has become a more dangerous region. Deterrence of these organizations may be very difficult to achieve. Under such conditions, were Israel pressured to concede the Jordan Valley, for example, it would likely expose itself to a steep increase in infiltration to the strategic West Bank, including weapons and volunteers, and thus face the same experience it had with the Philadelphi corridor after the Gaza pullout. At the same time, the vacuum such a move created would increasingly attract global jihadi groups to Jordan, thereby undermining the stability of the Hashemite kingdom, and ultimately the region as a whole.

Smithsonian Chief Forced Out By Scandal

Jacqueline Trescott and James V. Grimaldi report on the end of Lawrence Small's tenure, in today's Washington Post:

Congressional criticism mounted after articles in The Washington Post detailed $2 million in housing and office expenditures by Small, as well as $90,000 in unauthorized expenses...

...Small's spending was the subject of intense public scrutiny after The Post published details last month of a confidential inspector general's report examining his $2 million in housing and office expenses over the past six years.

The Post reported in February that Small accumulated unauthorized expenses from 2000 to 2005, including charges for chartered jet travel, his wife's trip to Cambodia, hotel rooms, luxury car service, catered staff meals and expensive gifts, according to confidential findings by the Smithsonian inspector general.

Last week the Post reported that Small spent nearly $160,000 on the redecoration of his offices in the institution's main building on the Mall shortly after he took the helm. The expenses include $4,000 for two chairs from the English furniture maker George Smith, $13,000 for a custom-built conference table and $31,000 for Berkeley striped upholstery.

Small has also received $1.15 million in housing allowances over a six-year period in return for agreeing to use his 6,500-square-foot home in Woodley Park for Smithsonian functions. To justify those expenses, Small submitted receipts for $152,000 in utility bills, $273,000 in housekeeping services and $203,000 in maintenance charges, including $2,535 to clean a chandelier. The home-repair invoices show $12,000 for upkeep and service on his backyard swimming pool, including $4,000 to replace the lap pool's heater and water pump.

Controversy was a frequent feature of his tenure. In 2004, Small was convicted in federal court of purchasing the feathers of endangered birds. A Post investigation into animal care and deaths at the National Zoo brought reprimands from a leading science group and dismissal of the zoo director, who was handpicked by Small. Early in his tenure Small angered scientists over proposed changes in research across the institution. He eventually backed down.

Last year he upset historians and filmmakers seeking access to institution archives when he signed a semi-exclusive deal with Showtime to mine the Smithsonian's resources for a documentary film channel.

A native New Yorker and graduate of Brown University, Small had a 35-year career in banking and corporate management, including 27 years at Citicorp and eight years as president of Fannie Mae. A tall, imposing man who speaks fluent Spanish, Small is a passionate flamenco guitarist and avid collector of Latin American art.

Last year, a federal investigation into Fannie Mae's business practices found that Small was prominent among executives there who encouraged employees to hit profit targets so that managers, including himself, would receive larger annual bonuses. Regulators say Small advocated tactics that violated generally accepted accounting rules and misled investors.

Despite his troubles, Small never received any public admonishment from the Smithsonian board. Regents boosted his salary from $333,000 in 2000 to $884,733 in 2006. The Smithsonian is both a nonprofit organization under tax laws and a creation of Congress that receives federal appropriations -- last year it got $621 million.

Interview With Jeffrey Gedmin

At the Hudson Institute panel on Russia, "U.S-Russian Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable?", there was a presentation by someone named Don Jensen from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, who appeared instead of Zeyno Baran, the speaker I came to hear. I can't really comment on Jensen, because I couldn't understand what he was saying, if anything. But his presentation made me curious about who is running the store at RFE/RL...

The answer turns out to be one Dr. Jeffrey Gedmin, a former AEI colleage of BBG honcho James Glassman. According to his bio, Gedmin is a trained musician and German area studies expert, last seen heading the Aspen Institute in Berlin. Although he apparently has no broadcasting, media studies, or news gathering experience, Google did turn up this provocative interview with Gedmin containing some memorable quotes worth sharing:

"Why has it become so acceptable that - at elegant dinner parties - very distinguished people openly say, 'I'm not anti-American, but Bush disgusts me and makes me physically sick? He is a war criminal and a real threat to world peace.' I can only interpret such statements as being partly about Bush and partly about using him as an acceptable cover to bash America.

"One can similarly interpret texts such as, 'I despise Sharon, he is a war criminal.' It reflects partly what some people think about Sharon and at the same time it gives them a justifiable cover to express what they truly think, 'Damn the Israelis and Jews, they disgust me.'"

Gedmin suggests that one can almost draw a model of the typical dinner conversation on these subjects in Berlin. "The number of diners is about twelve. Around eight are very angry at me and say, 'You are just wrong.' Some will say condescendingly and patronizingly, 'I'm sorry you feel like that because you have not been nicely treated here and you are a good person.' They add, 'But most Americans, Jews, and Israelis here are completely happy, you must really have been at the bad end of things.'

"Usually at such a dinner a minority of two or three people remain silent. After the dinner they approach me or call me up the next day and say something like, 'Thank God you expressed your opinion, you are absolutely right. We have been thinking what you said the whole time.' I usually reply, 'Where were you at the dinner last night? I would have liked your voice in the conversation.' They rationalize their answer, saying, 'Well, I know, but you made the points so well.'

"Sometimes people even say to me, 'Many more believe in what you said than you think.' I reply, 'Where are they? Let them come out of the closet and join the party.' They remain silent because they are cowards, and they want to be liked and to see what the group thinks. To be in the minority is unpopular. What I do, speaking up for America, or Israel, however, does not require courage such as being a member of the American military in Iraq does, or of the Israeli defense forces fighting terrorism."

After reading the interview in its entirety, I thought: Maybe RFE/RL might direct its broadcasts towards Germany, instead of the former Soviet Bloc...

Will Iran Hang British Marines?

At a panel about Russian-American relations, I ran into Dr. Kenneth R. Weinstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Hudson Institute. I asked him what he thought would happen to the 15 British marines held by Iran, who face death by hanging.

"I think Iran will back down," he responded, saying they would eventually be released. I hope he is right, but I told him that I thought Iran might hang them, just to make a point. Perhaps they are only being held as hostages, to trade for Iranian prisoners in Iraq, or as insurance against UN action.

However, Iran has hanged alleged spies in the past.

In addition, there may be a special significance to hanging Britishers, given England's prior history of imperial domination--Britain occupied half of Iranian territory, then called Persia, for many years. So, I wouldn't be too sure about Iran letting these poor souls go home, unfortunately. Especially given the context of war in Iraq and Afganistan, as well as related threats made against Iran by the British government.

Not just Persians and Arabs have trouble dealing with Britain. As I mentioned to Weinstein, even Israel felt the need to hang British military personnel, during the Yishuv's 1947 struggle for independence. Here's an account of the episode, from the Jewish Agency's website, Studies in the History of Zionism:

* Etzel's most daring operation was the organization of an escape from Acre prison, where dozens of prisoners were incarcerated -- members of Etzel and Lehi -- many sentenced to terms of imprisonment, others - to death. In a brilliantly planned operation, a group of Etzel members broke into the prison at the beginning of May 1947 and freed 41 Etzel and Lehi members held there. The British newspapers dubbed it the greatest prison break in history. In the battle that ensued, 5 Etzel members, including the operation's commander, were killed. 5 more Etzel fighters were taken prisoner by the British, of whom 3 were sentenced to death.

The Etzel kidnapped 2 British sergeants and threatened to hang them if this sentence were carried out. The British did not believe the Etzel would actually hang two innocent British soldiers, and on the 29th of July, 1947, the 3 Etzel members were hanged in Acre prison. They were the last martyrs of the Jewish underground. The next day, Etzel executed both captured British sergeants.

After that, the British stopped hanging Jews.

Royal Navy Permitted British Marine Capture

Seems like my retired US Navy friend was right, the Royal Navy allowed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to seize British marines, according to its rules of engagement, reports Terri Judd in The Independent (UK):

Vastly outnumbered and out-gunned, the Royal Navy team from HMS Cornwall were seized on Friday after completing a UN-authorised inspection of a merchant dhow in what they insist were clearly Iraqi waters. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy appeared in half a dozen attack speedboats mounted with machine guns..

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Forbidden Salad

Google video is addictive, it seems there are people all over the world uploading their videos. From the Hometown Baghdad website, this interesting Iraqi YouTube download is called "Forbidden Salad":

Weird Al Yankovic Videos

From Google Video's Top 100 downloads:White & Nerdy
Which led me to:
Don't Download This Song

Hassan Butt Speaks...

To Bob Simon, on 60 Minutes Sunday night, about his career as a terrorist based in Londonistan. I'm surprised (and somewhat interested in knowing the backstory) to see that 60 Minutes has aired a couple of very interesting--and anti-terrorist--news items lately...

Rudy Giuliani's New Website

Here:

Max Frankel: How Washington Really Works

Today's New York Times Sunday Magazine runs an interesting article by Max Frankel on how "secrets" are routinely revealed in the nation's capital--and why this is a vital part of the American democratic system. He quotes from a memo he wrote to justify publication of the Pentagon Papers:

The governmental, political and personal interests of the participants are inseparable in this process. Presidents make “secret” decisions only to reveal them for the purposes of frightening an adversary nation, wooing a friendly electorate, protecting their reputations. ... High officials of the government reveal secrets in the search for support of their policies, or to help sabotage the plans and policies of rival departments. ... Though not the only vehicle for this traffic in secrets — the Congress is always eager to provide a forum — the press is probably the most important.

Captured British Sailors Face Iranian Death Penalty

The confrontation between Iran and the UK appears to be heating up, according to the Times of London

FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”

The warning followed claims by Iranian officials that the British navy personnel had been taken to Tehran, the capital, to explain their “aggressive action” in entering Iranian waters. British officials insist the servicemen were in Iraqi waters when they were held.

The penalty for espionage in Iran is death.

A friend who once served in the US Navy tells me that the only way the British marines could have been captured is if the British frigate supporting their operation backed down to the Iranian navy in the first place, when the marines were captured. He says the British could have fired on their Iranian captors, which might have stopped them. If that is indeed the case, then Britain may, in a sense, have lost its first naval engagement with the Iranian fleet...so it looks like "mush" rather than "steel" from NATO and the Iraq/Afghan "coalition of the willing."

French Court OKs Mohammed Cartoon Publication

Reuters reports that French public opinion favors the anti-Islamist verdict:

PARIS (Reuters) - A French court on Thursday ruled in favour of a satirical weekly that had printed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, rejecting accusations by Islamic groups who said the publication incited hatred against Muslims.

Following a recommendation by the public prosecutor, the court said the cartoons published by the weekly Charlie Hebdo fell under the category of freedom of expression and did not constitute an attack on Islam in general.

"The acceptable limits of freedom of expression have not been overstepped, with the contentious pictures participating in a public debate of general interest," the court said.

The cartoons, originally published in 2005 by a Danish daily, provoked violent protests in Asia, Africa and the Middle East that left 50 people dead. Several European publications reprinted them as an affirmation of free speech.

With France's presidential election just a month away, the court case has been overshadowed by election politics and added to a debate about freedom of speech and whether religions can be criticised.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the conservative presidential frontrunner, his centrist rival Francois Bayrou, and Socialist party leader Francois Hollande have all spoken out in defence of the weekly.

Melanie Phillips on Leeds University's Kuntzel Affair

Melanie Phillips accuses Leeds University of defending Nazism, when the administration cancelled Matthias Kuntzel's planned lecture on the Nazi roots of Islamist extremist ideology:

Now, fresh information has reached me which reinforces the view that the cancellation was indeed designed to suppress Küntzel’s views. After meeting the university authorities the head of the German department, Professor Stuart Taberner, told his staff that, although he didn’t think censorship was the issue, if Küntzel were to be re-invited the university would have to ‘look closely’ at the subject of his talk.

‘Having now found the text of what I take to be his talk on the web,’ he said, ‘I’m convinced that the university would want to be reassured that it was striking the correct balance between free speech — the expression of ideas — and its obligation to be mindful of the language in which these ideas are framed’.

The real reason for the cancellation was thus laid bare. It was because of what Küntzel was saying. The implication was that his language was somehow inflammatory. But his lecture — which he previously delivered in January at Yale — is merely a scholarly and factual account of the links between Nazism and Islamic antisemitism.

He argues that the alliance between the Nazis and the Arabs of Palestine infected the wider Muslim world, not least through the influence of the Nazi wireless station Radio Zeesen which broadcast in Arabic, Persian and Turkish and inflamed the Muslim masses with Nazi blood libels laced with Arabic music and quotes from the Koran.

Subsequently, this Nazified Muslim antisemitism was given renewed life by both the Egyptian President Nasser and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the intellectual inspiration for both Hamas and much of the current jihad against the west.

So what exactly is the ‘correct balance’ that this account fails to strike? Indeed, Küntzel makes the eminently balanced claim that this history shows there is nothing inevitable about Muslim antisemitism, which is merely Nazism in new garb.

The link he makes is no more than the demonstrable truth. But clearly, it is not possible to speak this truth at Leeds university. And the reason for this is surely that it draws a straight line between today’s Islamic world and Hitler’s Germany.

Indeed, Küntzel sees a seamless connection between Nazism and the jihad against the west. Hitler, he says, fantasised about the toppling of the skyscrapers of New York, the symbol of Jewish power. And the Hamburg trial of terrorists associated with 9/11 heard evidence that New York had been selected for the atrocity because it was a ‘Jewish city’.

For Islamists, however, such a connection threatens the image they have so assiduously cultivated for themselves as the victims of prejudice.

For their appeasers, it destroys the illusion that Islamist extremism arises from rational grievances such as the war in Iraq or ‘Islamophobia’. Worse still, those on the left who march shoulder to shoulder with radical Islamists are thus exposed as the allies of Nazism.

The result is that Leeds has now joined the growing list of universities which have spinelessly given up the defence of free speech, and thus, in the great battle for civilisation against barbarism, run up the campus white flag.

British Captives Taken To Teheran

The BBC News reports that British captives have been moved to Teheran:

The 15 Royal Navy personnel seized at gunpoint in the Gulf by Iranian forces have been transferred to Tehran, Iranian news agency Fars has reported.
The personnel reportedly arrived in the Iranian capital at 1200 local time.

The UK says the eight sailors and seven marines had been carrying out routine duties in Iraqi waters. It has called for their immediate release.

Tehran says the 15 were "illegally" in Iranian waters. They would be asked to explain their actions, Fars said.

In other developments, Iranian armed forces spokesman Gen Ali Reza Afshar told Iranian radio the Britons were in "sterling health" and had admitted to being in Iranian waters.

And the BBC has also learned that Foreign Office junior minister Lord Triesman will meet Iran's ambassador to London on Saturday to demand their release.

This story looks interesting, almost like an Iranian provocation to test Western resolve. Richard Nixon liked to quote Lenin to describe dealing with the Soviets:

"Communist leaders believe in Lenin’s precept: Probe with bayonets. If you encounter mush, proceed; if you encounter steel, withdraw."

It looks like Iran might be reading from the same playbook.

The Russia Journal

Just found this website featuring news about Russia, through its reprint of Nathan Hamm's interview about Registan.

Lyndon Allin on Registan and Central Asia

Andy at Siberian Light has continued his interesting interview series with one of Nathan Hamm, the man behind the legend that is Registan.net. Registan is still one of this blog's top referrers of all time, with most of the hits probably dating back to May of 2005, when I was obsessively blogging about the Andijan massacre. But Nathan is an inspiration for different reasons - he has created an authoritative website about this part of the world, a blog which I'm sure is a must-read for English-speaking followers of the region; and his blog definitely played some role in my decision to just say WTF and take a trip to Uzbekistan in the summer of '05 - though I didn't get around to posting some of the better photos from that trip until last month! People I "met" in Registan's comments section gave me a couple of the more useful travel tips I received.

Channel Four Documentary: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Browsing Google's top videos, I came across this download of Britain's Channel Four Documentary critical of Al Gore's position on global warming--a topic of much discussion on Radio Four podcasts after Britons revolted against Gordon Brown's plan to tax their airline tickets to holiday destinations in warmer climates...

Number 17, With a Bullet?

It's not exactly Billboard's Top 100 chart, but I just saw that ScienceDirect Top 25 Hottest Articles has listed Cultural Challenges to Democratization in Russia • Article Orbis, Volume 50, Issue 1, 1 December 2006, Pages 167-186 Jarvik, L. at number 17 on their chart...A few more downloads and perhaps they'll add a bullet, like Billboard Magazine's...

More on Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers

Thanks to a link on Michelle Malkin's blog to a post by Cathy Seipp's daughter Maia, I found this Lung Cancer Alliance webpage describing an epidemic of lung-cancer among non-smokers, as reported by Heather Wakelee, M.D of the Stanford University Clinical Cancer Center:

"Our paper provides firm data about the number of people who develop lung cancer who are never-smokers. Though we had estimates of these numbers before, we didn't have a comprehensive study that could really put those numbers in perspective. We can now say that lung cancer in never-smokers is as big of an epidemic as cervical cancer in women. Our study lays a foundation upon which further research can build looking at whether rates of lung cancer in never-smokers are increasing, and exploring the case of this disease. Underscoring the magnitude of this problem will hopefully increase awareness of the need for better treatments for all lung cancer patients."

And this item, from the Lung Cancer Alliance press release:

Laurie Fenton, LCA president, praised Dr. Wakelee for her research.

“For years the public health establishment has refused to address lung cancer as a disease, fueling the negative attitude toward lung cancer patients – whether they smoked or not – and using the stigma of smoking to justify the underfunding of research,” said Fenton. “Now we face an epidemic of lung cancer, particularly in nonsmoking women.”

Given the new figures, an estimated 14,200 women who have never smoked will die of lung cancer this year, nearly four times the total number of women – 3,700 – who will die of cervical cancer.