Julia Gorin on President Bush's Kosovo Albanian Fans

From Frontpagemagazine.com (ht JihadWatch):

But no, we preferred, and prefer, to cast our lot with the Balkans’ most primitive elements — sacrificing friends to make friends of our enemies. Men who severed Christian heads, killed federal employees who were Albanian for “collaborating”, and violently purged their own ranks are the “statesmen” whom Condoleezza Rice and Nicholas Burns meet with regularly, the men we’ve set up as the legitimate rulers of an ethnically pure pro-American Kosovo, and who were honored guests at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Rather than rule of law, religious freedom, ethnic diversity, equal justice and civil rights, Kosovo is governed by lawless, tribalistic, blood-code-following, clan-oriented mob justice. While reports out of Serbia concern debates in public schools over Evolution versus Intelligent Design theory — similar to our own — a typical report out of Kosovo concerned a debate over whether to kill the KFOR (NATO) mascot because the dog was Serbian.

“We’re defending our way of life,” our leaders told us in 1999. Perversely enshrining those ‘common values,’ a crude replica of the Statue of Liberty overlooks our mono-ethnic handiwork from atop the Victory Hotel where the American flag hangs upside-down just a few yards below. Nearby are Bill Clinton Boulevard and Wesley Clark Avenue — tributes cited recently as examples of the area’s pro-Americanism. (There are also streets named for Eliot Engel, Bob Dole and Madeleine Albright.) Meanwhile, the former terrorists whom we installed as the “Kosovo Protection Force” and as the legitimate government of the province attend annual July 4th celebrations at the U.S. Consulate in Pristina. One proposed banner for the competition to design “Kosova’s” new flag mimics the American flag, with the two-headed black Albanian eagle in the corner where the 50 stars would be, plus red and white stripes.

Great. The narco-terrorist gangster state we created is pro-American. Are we so desperate for an endorsement that we must grasp it even if it comes from a terror-friendly horde, our support of whom is already coming home to roost?

Shuttered Washington Bank at Center of UK-Saudi Bribery Scandal

From the Guardian (UK) (ht lgf):

Last night, the Liberal Democrat leader, Menzies Campbell, demanded to know the role of the attorney general in concealing from the OECD the payments of more than £1bn from BAE to Prince Bandar as part of the al-Yamamah contract.

The money was paid from an account at the Bank of England into accounts in Washington controlled by Prince Bandar. Details of the transfers were discovered by the Serious Fraud Office during the marathon investigation into BAE.

However, the SFO inquiry was suddenly halted late last year. Al-Yamamah, Britain's biggest ever arms deal, which was signed in 1985, involves the sale of Tornado fighter jets and Hawk aircraft.

The Guardian has this week published accusations that £30m a quarter - for at least 10 years - was paid into accounts controlled by Prince Bandar at the Riggs bank in Washington. [NOTE: Riggs bank shut down after pleading guilty to money laundering charges in 2005.]

The attorney general yesterday categorically denied part of the Guardian story in the affair.

He said that he had not ordered British investigators to conceal the £1bn payments from the OECD.

The director of the SFO took responsibility for the decision to withhold information. In a statement, Robert Wardle said the decision was made by his own organisation "having regard to the need to protect national security".

The Guardian investigation has revealed that:

· The attorney general became aware of these payments because of the SFO inquiry into BAE corruption allegations.

· He recognised the vulnerability of the government to accusations of complicity over a long period in the secret payments.

· There is no dispute that, as reported by the Guardian, the fact of the payments was concealed from the OECD when it demanded explanations for the dropping of the SFO inquiry.

· UK government officials have been exposed as seeking to undermine the OECD process, and complaining that its Swiss chairman has been too outspoken.

· When, before publication, the Guardian originally asked the attorney general's office who was responsible for concealing the information from the OECD, the newspaper was told: "The information presented to the OECD bribery working group ... was prepared by AGO and SFO".

The AGO is the attorney general's office. Both departments report to Lord Goldsmith himself.

Last night, when Lord Goldsmith was asked if the concealment was done with his knowledge, he said he could not respond. His spokesman had previously said that full evidence had not been given to the OECD because of "national security" considerations. He also refused to discuss the allegations concerning the payments. "I am not going into the detail of any of the individual allegations," he said.

It also emerged yesterday that Des Browne, the defence secretary, held talks this week with the Saudi crown prince, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz - the father of Prince Bandar - to try to secure a £20bn arms deal for BAE Systems.

Sir Menzies said the attorney general had more questions to answer.

"If it is true that information about payments made to Prince Bandar was not given to the OECD, then that is an allegation of the utmost seriousness. It would be unsupportable for Britain to sign up to an international agreement on bribery and then fail to honour its obligations when an investigation comes too close to home."

Western Michigan University--Rah, Rah, Rah!

When it rains, it pours...

Not just Science Po in Paris, but also someone at Western Michigan University's Department of Political Science in Kalamazoo, Michigan seems to be reading my stuff.

Look at this listing among class assignments for Professor Sybil Rhodes' Introduction to Comparative Politics (PSCI 2400):

Writing assignment # 3 Due Thursday 11/9 in class.

Russian national identity
Questions: What does it mean to be Russian? Is Russia part of the West?

Required article:
Jarvik, Laurence. 2006. “Cultural Challenges to Democratization in Russia.” Orbis 50(1)(Winter).

Here's a link to the WMU website.

It Sounds Even Better in French...

France's venerable "Grande Ecole" Science-Po recently published a digest of my Orbis article, "NGOs: A New Class in International Relations." Since my great-grandfather is buried in Paris' Pere Lachaise Cemetery, you can imagine my pride upon reading the following listing in Science Po's "Articles of the Month" publication:

Jarvik, Laurence Ariel. - NGOs : a "New class" in international relations. - Orbis (Philadelphia) . - (2007,Spring)vol.51:n°2, p.217-238. - Fait partie d'un numéro spécial. - Une nouvelle classe d'acteurs a fait irruption ces dernières années sur la scène internationale, les ONG souvent d'origine occidentale, qui soutiennent la "société civile" contre les élites au pouvoir dans les pays du Sud. Les Etats-Unis ont appuyé à travers l'USAID et certaines multinationales l'activité de ces nouveaux acteurs, mais contrairement aux prédictions, ce basculement du pouvoir (power shift) dans les Etats-nations n'a pas favorisé la démocratie mais encouragé des sociétés dominées par la mafia et les seigneurs de la guerre comme on peut le constater en Afghanistan et en Irak et peut-être bientôt au Soudan.

Now that the article has been digested into French, perhaps President Sarkozy or Bernard Kouchner might understand what President Bush so far has been unable to...

Rabbi Pinchas Eisenbach

Visiting a friend in Chicago over the weekend, someone I know and yours truly met a remarkable rabbi, Pinchas Eisenbach, who called on our friend at Midwest Palliative Care Center and Hospice. Here's a couple of YouTube clips where Rabbi Eisenbach, a student of well-known Chicago Rabbi Soloveichik, discusses some end-of-life issues that he encounters in his practice as hospice chaplain:Here's a link to a 1999 story quoting Rabbi Eisenbach from Jewish World Review.

Anti-Semites in the New York Times Advertising Department

On page twelve of the Week in Review section of today's Sunday New York Times there appears an anti-semitic full-page advertisement from the so-called "Council for the National Interest"--an anti-Israel lobbying organization engaged in a demonization campaign against the Jewish state, American Jews, as well as gentile supporters of Israel in America. Indeed, it is not only anti-semitic, it is also obviously anti-American in its overt attack on our democratic process. IMHO the ad is clearly misleading, inaccurate, fraudulent, makes unfair claims and fails to comply with community standards of decency and dignity.

Today's CNI advertisement mocks a line of presidential candidates--Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, et al.-- as tools of the Jews, depicted lining up to reach a podium emblazoned with a Jewish star (the Israeli flag). The accompanying text decries the influence of the "Israel lobby"--and by implication attempts to slime America's political leadership for seeking Jewish support.

The ad is both offensive and ugly, beyond bad taste as hate speech--it employs anti-Semitic tropes familiar to those who have studied Nazi propaganda. It obviously violates the terms of advertising acceptability published on the New York Times advertising department website:

Advertising Acceptability Guidelines
The New York Times maintains an Advertising Acceptability Department whose function is to examine advertisements before publication to determine if they meet the standards of acceptability The Times has developed over the years.

The Times may decline to accept advertising that is misleading, inaccurate or fraudulent; that makes unfair competitive claims; or that fails to comply with its standards of decency and dignity.

If an advertisement contains statements or illustrations that are not deemed acceptable, and that The Times thinks should be changed or eliminated, the advertiser will be notified. The Times will attempt to negotiate changes with the advertiser; however, if changes cannot be negotiated, the advertisement will be declined by The Times.

In addition, an advertisement must sometimes be declined because of the applicability of laws dealing with such matters as libel, copyright and trademark, the right to privacy, the sale of securities, the sale of real estate and political advertising.

The New York Times maintains clear separation between news and editorial matter and its advertisements. Accordingly, ads that include elements usually associated with The New York Times editorial matter will not be accepted (for example, but not limited to: Times-style headlines, bylines, news-style column arrangements or typography). Additionally, The Times reserves the right to label an advertisement with the word “advertisement” when, in its opinion, this is necessary to make clear the distinction between editorial material and advertising.

The Advertising Acceptability Department can be contacted directly at 212-556-7171 for questions or for a pamphlet containing detailed information on acceptability guidelines.

The fact that today's advertisement was published--despite that it obviously is misleading, inaccurate and fraudulent; that makes unfair competitive claims (all manifest in the cartoon illustration); and that it fails to comply with its standards of 'decency and dignity'"-- indicates that the advertising department and publisher of the New York Times are either completely blind to incitements to Jew-hatred, or insensitive to the problem of anti-semitism and anti-Americanism, or more worryingly--openly endorse anti-semitism and incitement to Jew-hatred.

I don't blame CNI for wanting to spread its hateful message of intolerance. I do hold the New York Times responsible for accepting their ad for publication. The CNI ad was not "fit to print."

Shame on the New York Times.

Amil Imani on Iran and Israel

From AmilImani.com:

Throughout history, Iranians have been known for their tolerance of other creeds and religions. This was particularly notable in their associations and contacts with the Jews. Having been oppressed by the Seleucids and the Romans, the Jews had come to believe that Iran was the only super power capable of saving them from a fanatical foreign yoke, as it had done once before in the Achaemenid period.

The Parthian dynasty role in the liberation of the Jews gave rise to the well-known saying: “When you see a Parthian charger tied up to a tomb-stone in the land of Israel, the hour of the Messiah will be near". This shows the love of the Jews for the Persians as their savoir. Unlike what the clergies are preaching today, the majority of Iranians have enjoyed being a good host to their fellow countrymen, the Jewish population. “In the continuous struggles between the Parthians and the Romans, the Jews had every reason to hate the Romans, the destroyers of their sanctuary, and to side with the Persians: their protectors.”

True Iranians have remained friends of the Jews by both belief as well as deeds. During the shameful Hitlerian campaign of exterminating the Jews, for instance, Iranian missions in Europe, notably the one in France, issued Iranian passports to facilitate the flight of French and other European Jews from the claws of Nazis and their gas chambers—the very gas chambers that the true Muslim, disgracing Iranians, Ahmadinejad, denies ever existed.

Iranians stand for the rights of the Jews as well as the equal rights under the law for any and all religious and secular people. “A friend in need is the friend in-deed,” is an apt saying. It is time for Israel to reciprocate the historical assistance of the Iranians at the hour of their needs. It is payback time now. Israel should give the Iranian people a helping hand by supporting the freedom-loving Iranians. It is the Iranian people who can best end the tyrannical and menacing mullahcracy that is posing a deadly threat to all concerned.

Memo to Bush: Take Up Putin's Offer

Russian President Vladimir Putin tried one of those judo moves that he was trained to use as a black belt--turning Russian weakness into a strength by throwing an unsuspecting partner on his back with an offer of a joint US-Russian missile base in Azerbaijan at the G8 Summit.

Putin's offer is one way to turn American-Russian conflicts into a "win-win" situation. Bush might immediately accept the offer in principle--with details to be hammered out over time.

Putin has put forward a serious deterrent to Iran, as well as any other potential Islamist states or terrorist non-governmental organizations threatening the West. If accepted by Bush, Russia resumes a traditional role as a buffer in the Clash of Civilizations--familiar position for a nation that defeated both Hitler and Napoleon in alliances with the West. Finally, it moves the ball forward on other possible US-Russian joint projects, including, eventually, American participation in Russian pipelines as full partner--rather than competitor. This would mark an end to the "Great Game" played since the collapse of the USSR, and the beginning of a real Alliance of Civilizations, as well as a business partnership that could be rewarding for both America and Russia.

Plus, it has the added advantage of letting Europe know that the US will not be played off against Russia while the EU trades with Iran and other enemies of the USA. Making the EU and Russia equal partners with the US would mark the first step in crushing Osama Bin Laden and his Islamist extremist supporters around the world. The message would be received quite swiftly among American adversaries--it might even lead to peace in Iraq by September. As I learned at Moscow State University, Saddam Hussein's Baathists were educated in Moscow, as was Palestinian president Abbas.

So President Bush, let's talk Texan. The question facing you right now is simply: "Is George W. Bush man enough to say 'Yes' to Putin?"

Joel Mowbray: Fire Register or Lose Al-Hurra Funding, Congress Says

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Register still seems to be toeing the PLO party line. Last Month, on May 15, Al-Hurra's onscreen ticker referred to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 as "al Naqba," which in Arabic means "the Catastrophe." When Mr. Register was informed of this--that in effect Al-Hurra was taking a pro-Palestinian position absolutely not shared by the U.S. government that funds the network--he said to employees in the newsroom that it was appropriate, since it's the term used by Arabs. The ticker was eventually changed, but only after an hour had passed.

Mr. Register has assured Congress that he is committed to fair coverage of Israel. Yet those assurances should be considered alongside his view of the Feb. 9 riots that occurred just outside the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. Despite widespread agreement in the Western media that the riots were started by Muslims, Mr. Register was convinced that Israel was the instigator--and he was determined to catch the Jewish state in the act the following Friday. He wrote an email to Al-Hurra staff saying that he wanted a satellite truck "in place to get people turned away from prayers . . . if the Israelis do this again."

Muslim men under 45 had been turned away from the mosque on Feb. 9--in order to limit the scope of violent riots that Palestinians had already hinted were coming. But so too were Jews, praying at the nearby Western Wall, removed from the area.

This week, the House panel responsible for funding the State Department and all international broadcasters takes up its fiscal year 2008 spending bill. Nine of the 13 members of the Appropriations subcommittee on Foreign Operations have already demanded that Mr. Register's employment be terminated, and now they have an opportunity to hand State and the BBG an ultimatum.

So Mr. Register's defenders should ask themselves: Is it worth risking millions to save someone with so dubious a track record?

NY Sun Links JFK Terror Plot to Iran

From today's New York Sun editorial:

The thing that caught our eye in the plot to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport and its oil lines concerns a detail in respect of the arrest of one of the key Guyanese suspects. It was the fact that the former member of the Guyanese legislature who was fingered in the plot, Abdul Kadir, was arrested in Trinidad on his way to Caracas, Venezuela. According to Mr. Kadir's wife, who was quoted in the Guyanese press, he was there to pick up an Iranian visa that would enable him to attend an Islamic conference in Tehran.

No doubt we will learn more about this plot as the weeks go on. Our sense of the intelligence community is that it is reserving its judgment, though clearly congratulations are in order for Commissioner Kelly, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, Roslynn Mauskopf, and the other officials involved in breaking this case. But our attention has been riveted for some time on growing evidence that the Iranian regime has been moving aggressively to gain influence in our hemisphere, and the big surprise in the latest case is only that it took so long for something to develop.

BTW, The New York Times ran its story on the JFK plot on page C12 (Business Section) of today's national edition--below the fold...

Libby Jail Term Puts Bush On The Spot

Peter Baker writes in the Washington Post:

The sentence imposed on former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby yesterday put President Bush in the position of making a decision he has tried to avoid for months: Trigger a fresh political storm by pardoning a convicted perjurer or let one of the early architects of his administration head to prison.

The prospect of a pardon has become so sensitive inside the West Wing that top aides have been kept out of the loop, and even Bush friends have been told not to bring it up with the president. In any debate, officials expect Vice President Cheney to favor a pardon, while other aides worry about the political consequences of stepping into a case that stems from the origins of the Iraq war and renewing questions about the truthfulness of the Bush administration.

The White House publicly sought to defer the matter again yesterday, saying that Bush is "not going to intervene" for now. But U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton indicated that he is not inclined to let Libby remain free pending appeals, which means the issue could confront Bush in a matter of weeks when, barring a judicial change of heart, Cheney's former chief of staff will have to trade his business suit for prison garb. Republicans inside and outside the administration said that would be the moment when Bush has to decide.

"Obviously, there'd be a significant political price to pay," said William P. Barr, who as attorney general to President George H.W. Bush remembers the controversy raised by the post-election pardons for several Iran-contra figures in 1992. "I personally am very sympathetic to Scooter Libby. But it would be a tough call to do it at this stage."

At the same time, some White House advisers said the president's political troubles are already so deep that a pardon might not be so damaging. Those most upset by the CIA leak case that led to the Libby conviction already oppose Bush, they noted. "You can't hang a man twice for the same crime," a Republican close to the White House said.

Classical Music Boosts DC NPR Station Ratings

Paul Farhi writes in today's Washington Post:

A bunch of European composers who haven't had a hit in decades have been very, very good to radio station WETA.

Since dropping news and talk programming for classical music in January, the Arlington public station has seen its fortunes soar. Ratings have more than doubled since the switchover from BBC and NPR reports to Bach and Brahms concertos. And perhaps just as important to WETA (90.9 FM), pledge contributions from listeners have been gushing.

WETA's strong showing in the first four months of the year likely reflects the death of WGMS-FM, the station that called it quits in January after 60 years as Washington's commercial classical station. WETA, owned by a nonprofit foundation, coordinated its format change with WGMS's expiration, becoming the sole classical outlet on the local airwaves.

The station's early success suggests that classical music isn't dead as a radio format, despite its long decline on commercial stations across the country. According to a study last year by the National Endowment for the Arts, only 28 commercial stations nationwide had a classical-music format in 2005. Public stations have gradually cut back on classical, jazz and other musical forms to focus on news and talk -- exactly the opposite path that WETA has taken this year.

The gains of that change are borne out by WETA's audience totals during the January-March quarter. According to the ratings service Arbitron -- which releases figures for public stations separately from those of commercial stations -- WETA captured 4.9 percent of the radio audience in Washington during the first quarter, up from 2.1 percent in the preceding three months, when WETA was a news-talk station. WETA carried mostly news and talk for a two-year period starting in February 2005.

Those numbers make WETA the region's fifth most popular station, behind traditional powerhouses WHUR-FM (which plays hip-hop), WTOP-FM (all news), WPGC-FM (urban contemporary) and WMMJ-FM (R&B hits).

Paul Weyrich on Western Media's Terrible Russia Coverage

From NewsMax.com:

When Yeltsin was in his second term he was blessed if he hit 29 percent. So I wondered how Kasparov was going to be able to oppose Putin, who at this writing is still scheduled to leave the Russian presidency at the end of his second term. I was thinking of the old Kasparov. This past week I had the chance to visit with Murashev in my home and the topic of Kasparov arose because it bothered me that the Western media had reported that he was held for several hours after a demonstration.

Murashev's views I have come to respect over the past nineteen years. He is very objective. He has seldom been wrong. He tells me that Kasparov has joined with a Marxist who campaigns for the return of Communism. Here is this important pro-democracy figure, Kasparov, who has now joined with his former arch-opponent to get political attention. Murashev says that unfortunately Kasparov has become an almost clownish figure.

He still has a good image in the Western media, however. I feel very badly that Kasparov, who no longer is involved with chess, is no longer respected in Russia. I liked the man. I was honored to be with him.

We have our sad figures who have fallen from grace as well. Think of Harold E. Stassen. I can only wish Kasparov well, but given his reputation, it is not likely we will be seeing him as a serious political figure ever again.

Meanwhile our conversation with Murashev turned to coverage of Russia by Western media. Murashev makes the case that it is terrible. I have seen it up close. Murashev is correct. The question is why?

Is it simply ignorance on the part of Western reporters? How can it be? They can see things with their own eyes. I once asked Igor Gaidar why Russia was receiving such bad coverage.

He said that the Soviets had spent millions to infiltrate the Western media, "Just because the Soviets went away, it doesn't mean these reporters have gone away. They are still there." I have no idea if that is the reason Russia gets such a bad rap. Perhaps some reporters are not communist plants but were sympathetic to the Soviet Union and resent what has taken its place.

I have met so many reporters who looked to the Soviet Union as a remarkable model. They blame the West for its collapse. Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky said that the West did not so much defeat that Soviet Union as it imploded.

Regardless of which notion is acceptable, the West defeated the Soviet Union or it imploded, there is no rational explanation for the coverage Russia is receiving. My own view is that most likely the reason for the bad coverage is resentment over what has replaced the Soviet Union.

A member of a prominent American Democratic campaign once told me that I had no idea how much liberals looked to the Soviet Union as an appropriate model for the West and how angry and confused the left now is that it has fallen. Most reporters belong to the left.

I would often say I would attend a hearing in the Senate and would not recognize the coverage of the same on the evening news. Now the Russians are having the same experience.

Melanie Phillips on Britain's Israel Boycotters--Part II

From the Daily Mail (UK):

The Palestinians have responded to Israel’s departure by launching more than 1,400 rockets at its traumatised civilian population. Since the beginning of May alone, they have fired more than 300 rockets on the southern Israeli town of Sderot, killing two people and injuring dozens more.

What would Britain do if, for example, France started firing hundreds of rockets at Kent with the intention of killing as many English people as possible and taking over Britain? This would be recognised as an act of war and we would respond by military action against France.

But when Israel carries out targeted strikes against Hamas terrorists to stop the attacks on its civilians, it is subject to furious protest.

Virtually every day, Israeli hospitals treat Palestinian children and others injured in the violence in Gaza. What other country in the world would respond in such a way to a people which has not stopped trying to annihilate it for the past 60 years?

Yet Israel is the one country singled out for a boycott. There are no calls for a boycott of countries committing true human rights abuses; no calls for a boycott of Russia over Chechnya, or China over Tibet, or Iran over its persecution of intellectuals and pursuit of genocide.

Instead, Israel is held to a standard of behaviour demanded of no other country while at the same time being singled out for a campaign of vilification based on demonstrable falsehoods.

So what is the reason for this startling double standard? Part of it is sheer anti-Jewish prejudice. But in the main, the perverse obsession with Israel has been caused by widespread ignorance, which has been exploited in turn by a shrewd and sophisticated strategy carried out by the Arab world to delegitimise Israel altogether.

The boycotts are an acknowledged part of that strategy, playing on the widespread misconception that occupation of the West Bank is illegal.

The facts are very different. Under international law, Israel’s occupation is entirely legal as an act of self-defence against Arab aggressors who have never ended their unlawful hostilities.

After the Six-Day War ended, Israel offered to hand back these territories to Jordan and Egypt in return for peace. The answer from the Arab world was a resounding ‘No’. They didn’t want the territories for the Palestinians. They wanted instead to use them to continue their war against Israel.

The only people who have ever opposed a lawfully constituted, peaceful Palestinian state are the Arabs. And yet Britain’s intelligentsia and union activists are busily boycotting and demonstrating against Israel. They are exactly the same kind of useful idiots who once supported Stalin, and waved aside all those who spoke up against the killings and the terror.

There are those who will dismiss what I say because, as a Jew and a supporter of Israel, I am thought to have a large axe to grind. But people said exactly the same thing to those Jews who tried to warn Britain and the world about Hitler in the 1930s. Britain dismissed such warnings then; and as a result the world paid a terrible price.

Dismayingly, the atmosphere in Britain today is all too similar. It is said that tragic history repeats itself as farce. Those who support the boycotts and demonstrations against Israel are helping ensure that history is to be repeated for a second time as tragedy.

Transcript of President Putin's Interview with G8 Journalists

From Kremlin.ru:

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let us not be hypocritical about democratic freedoms and human rights. I already said that I have a copy of Amnesty International’s report including on the United States. There is probably no need to repeat this so as not to offend anyone. If you wish, I shall now report how the United States does in all this. We have an expression that is perhaps difficult to translate but it means that one can always have plenty to say about others. Amnesty International has concluded that the United States is now the principal violator of human rights and freedoms worldwide. I have the quote here, I can show you. And there is argumentation behind it.

There are similar claims about Great Britain, France or the Federal Republic of Germany. The same could be said of Russia. But let us not forget that other countries in the G8 have not experienced the dramatic transformations that the Russian Federation has undergone. They have not experienced a civil war, which we, in fact, had in the Caucasus.

And yet we have preserved many of the so-called common values even better than some other G8 countries. Despite serious conflicts in the Caucasus, we have not abandoned our moratorium on the death penalty. And, as we know, in some G8 countries this penalty is applied quite consistently and strictly enforced.

So I think that such discussions are certainly possible, but I am sure they have no serious justification.

Let me say again that, as far as I know, the German presidency of the G8 wants to formulate rules for dealing with some of the major economies of the world on an ongoing basis. I have already listed these countries and we certainly support our German partners. I think this initiative is absolutely valid.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: A follow-up question. You talked about the problems of a unipolar world. Have you considered the possibility of creating some kind of alliance, some formal relations between countries, which could be seen as an alternative pole in the system of international relations?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think it would be a dead end, the wrong way to go about development. We advocate a multipolar world. We believe that it should be diverse and respect the interests of the overwhelming majority of the international community. We must create these rules and learn to respect these rules.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr President, former Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called you a ‘pure democrat’. Do you consider yourself such?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (laughs) Am I a ‘pure democrat’? Of course I am, absolutely. But do you know what the problem is? Not even a problem but a real tragedy? The problem is that I’m all alone, the only one of my kind in the whole wide world. Just look at what’s happening in North America, it’s simply awful: torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial and investigation. Just look at what’s happening in Europe: harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed on the streets. That’s not even to mention the post-Soviet area. Only the guys in Ukraine still gave hope, but they’ve completely discredited themselves now and things are moving towards total tyranny there; complete violation of the Constitution and the law and so on. There is no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.

DER SPIEGEL: And your country is not moving at all back towards a totalitarian regime?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is no truth in that. Do not believe what you hear.

Charles Moore on Britain's Israel Boycotters and the BBC

From The Telegraph(UK) (ht lgf):

Alan Johnston, under terrorist orders, spoke of the "absolute despair" of the Palestinians and attributed it to 40 years of Israeli occupation, "supported by the West". That is how it is presented, night after night, by the BBC.

The other side is almost unexamined. There is little to explain the internecine strife in the Arab world, particularly in Gaza, or the cynical motivations of Arab leaders for whom Palestinian miseries are politically convenient.

You get precious little investigation of the networks and mentalities of Islamist extremism - the methods and money of Hamas or Hizbollah and comparable groups - which produce acts of pure evil like that in which Mr Johnston is involuntarily complicit.

The spotlight is not shone on how the "militants" (the BBC does not even permit the word "terrorist" in the Middle East context) and the warlords maintain their corruption and rule of fear, persecuting, among others, the Palestinians.

Instead it shines pitilessly on Blair and Bush and on Israel.

From the hellish to the ridiculous, the pattern is the same. Back at home, the Universities and Colleges Union has just voted for its members to "consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions".

Well, they could consider how work by scientists at the Technion in Haifa has led to the production of the drug Velcade, which treats multiple myeloma. Or they could look at the professor at Ben-Gurion University who discovered a bacteria that fights malaria and river blindness by killing mosquitoes and black fly.

Or they could study the co-operation between researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who have isolated the protein that triggers stress in order to try to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, and their equivalents at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge.

The main universities of Israel are, in fact, everything that we in the West would recognise as proper universities. They have intellectual freedom. They do not require an ethnic or religious qualification for entry. They are not controlled by the government. They have world-class standards of research, often producing discoveries which benefit all humanity. In all this, they are virtually unique in the Middle East.

The silly dons are not alone. The National Union of Journalists, of which I am proud never to have been a member, has recently passed a comparable motion, brilliantly singling out the only country in the region with a free press for pariah treatment. Unison, which is a big, serious union, is being pressed to support a boycott of Israeli goods, products of the only country in the region with a free trade union movement.

The doctrine is that Israel practises "apartheid" and that it must therefore be boycotted.

All this is moral madness. It is not mad, of course, to criticise Israeli policy. In some respects, indeed, it would be mad not to. It is not mad - though I think it is mistaken - to see the presence of Israel as the main reason for the lack of peace in the region.

But it is mad or, perhaps one should rather say, bad to try to raid Western culture's reserves of moral indignation and expend them on a country that is part of that culture in favour of surrounding countries that aren't. How can we have got ourselves into a situation in which we half-excuse turbaned torturers for kidnapping our fellow-citizens while trying to exclude Jewish biochemists from lecturing to our students?

Nobody yet knows the precise motivations of Mr Johnston's captors, but it is surely not a coincidence that they held him in silence until the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War approached, and only then made him speak. They wanted him to give the world their historical explanation - Israeli oppression - for their cause.

Yet that war took place because President Nasser of Egypt led his country and his allies declaring "Our basic aim will be to destroy Israel".

He failed, abjectly, and Egypt and Jordan later gave up the aspiration. But many others maintain it to this day, now with a pseudo-religious gloss added.

We keep giving sympathetic air-time to their death cult. In a way, Mr Johnston is paying the price: his captors are high on the oxygen of his corporation's publicity.

As for Israel, many sins can be laid to its charge. But it is morally serious in a way that we are not, because it has to be. Forty years after its greatest victory, it has to work out each morning how it can survive.

NY Post Links JFK Terror Plot to Al Qaeda

Hmmm...will The New York Times put this story somewhere below the fold on page 57 tomorrow?

Al Qaeda's so-called nuclear whiz kid - a "tantalizing terror figure" with a $5 million bounty on his head - was the radical big shot investigators had hoped to snag in their 18-month JFK-plot probe, The Post has learned.

The name of "invisible hand" Adnan Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, reportedly the man Osama bin Laden tapped to lead a previous scheme to detonate nuclear bombs simultaneously in several U.S. cities, came up at several points in taped conversations during the probe, according to law-enforcement sources familiar with the investigation.

Three Muslim men were nabbed Friday in the alleged plan to attack John F. Kennedy International Airport - the "chicken farm," as they dubbed it - which involved exploding a jet-fuel pipeline. A fourth suspect is at large.

Given Shukrijumah's notoriety in the terror world and the fact that he grew up in Guyana, as did three of the suspects, probers immediately homed in on him.

"Eyebrows went up," said one law-enforcement source.

"We thought he could be the invisible hand. He's always in the shadows, particularly in [the Caribbean]. He's passed through it, he's known, his name came up in the conversations.

"He would have been the prize."

So the feds allowed the probe to continue until the last moment, which came when one of the suspects boarded a plane in Trinidad headed for Venezuela - where the United States has no extradition agreement. Authorities weren't willing to risk losing him, so they "pulled the trigger" on the arrests, one source said.

Investigators had yet to collect evidence linking Shukrijumah to the JFK plot, but it's clear his name and efforts were well-known to the suspects.

Shukrijumah grew up in Guyana, according to terror expert and author Paul L. Williams. Shukrijumah's late father, Gulshair, an Islamic scholar, once served as a temporary imam at Brooklyn's al-Farouq mosque, which is well-known in radical circles, Williams said.

The mosque has connections to a scheme to fund an al Qaeda-linked sheik as well as one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

But the mosque's imam, Hile Said, 31, said, "We are against terrorism. We are callers of peace."

National Review on the JFK Terror Plot

Unlike The New York Times, which is obviously in denial (today's story on the terror plot was pubished on page 17), The National Review's editors are on top of the story today:

The enemy’s ideas are frightful: for example, its notion that mass murder is a legitimate means of pressing a socio-political agenda. This is not an aberrational belief espoused by a fringe of jihadist operatives. It is mainstream in Islamic countries and disturbingly common among growing Muslim populations in the United States and Europe.

This time, the hateful ideology infected a cell composed mostly of Guyanese militants, including Russell Defreitas (also known as “Mohammed”), a naturalized American secretly at war with his adopted country, and Abdul Kadir, a former member of Guyana’s parliament who was reportedly en route to a religious conference in Iran at the time of his arrest. It also included another Guyana native said to have ties to the murderous Jamaat al Muslimeen (the Muslim Group), a Sunni terror organization based in Trinidad and Tobago, and a Trinidadian allegedly tied to still other terrorists overseas.

Their inspiration was al Qaeda. Their aspiration was an atrocity more gruesome than 9/11 — a strike aimed not just at airplanes and passenger terminals, but at fuel pipelines that run through dense residential neighborhoods and feed JFK’s thousand planes a day transporting 45 million travelers a year. Their goal was not simply to knock out an airport, but to decimate much of Queens, and with it the U.S. economy.

Overly ambitious? Probably. Defreitas knew the terrain, having retired after years of working cargo at JFK. But his knowledge, and the painstaking surveillance of the target he allegedly did, were unlikely to overcome the technological obstacles to his plan. Further, the cell seems to have lacked financing (although they were actively pursuing it), and they had not yet acquired explosives when the investigation was cut short — apparently by Guyanese authorities understandably concerned that Kadir would evade their coverage if not arrested.

But even if the grand design was beyond the cell’s competence, an attempt could well have killed hundreds of people. As with the recent thwarting of a jihadist plot on Fort Dix, this intended atrocity appears to have been prevented by the cooperation of federal and local law enforcement, who managed to infiltrate the conspiracy with an informant — proving, yet again, that if we are to stop terror attacks rather than react to them, there is no substitute for human intelligence.

The deepest lesson here, though, is that we are at war with an enemy that hates us, that will stop at nothing — even death — to harm us, and that we must understand in order to defeat. That is the first step in the real battle of ideas.

Nina Khrushcheva: Putin is Bush's Doppleganger

On the eve of the G8 summit, Khrushchev's granddaughter writes in the Guardian (UK) that US and Russian leaders present mirror-images of one another (ht Johnson's Russia List):

Next week's G8 summit will probably be the last such meeting for Presidents George W Bush and Vladimir Putin. Seven years ago, at their first meeting in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Bush looked into Putin's eyes and somehow spotted the soul of a Christian gentleman, not that of a secret policeman. Next week, they shouldn't be surprised if they see a mirror of each other, because both men have exemplified the arrogance of power.

Bush and Putin both came to power in 2000, a year when their countries were scrambling to regain international respect: Russia from the chaos of the Yeltsin years and the US from the failed impeachment of President Clinton. Each country thought it was acquiring an unthreatening mediocrity. But both men, on finding themselves in positions of authority, ruled from their default positions: Bush as an evangelical convinced that God was on America's side, and Putin as a KGB graduate convinced that all power comes from intimidation and threats.

And what was the result? Convinced that he is right, and incurious to hear contrary arguments, Bush felt free to undermine the rule of law in America with warrantless domestic surveillance, erosion of due process, and defence of torture, in addition to misleading the public and refusing to heed expert advice or recognise facts on the ground. From the tax cuts in 2001 to the war in Iraq, Bush's self-righteous certitude led him to believe that he could say and do anything to get his way.

The damage that Bush's self-confidence and self-delusion has inflicted was magnified by his gross overestimation of America's power. Quite simply, he thought that America could go it alone in pursuing his foreign policy because no one could stop him. While his father lined up world support, and troops from over a dozen countries, for the first Gulf war, the son thought that allies were more hindrance than help; except for Tony Blair, he did not care to have them. Four years later, Bush's arrogance and mendacity have been exposed for the entire world, including the American public, to see.

Putin also succumbed to the same arrogance of power. Buoyed by high oil prices, he now seeks to bestride the world as if the social calamities that bedevil Russia - a collapsing population, a spiralling Aids and tuberculosis crisis, corruption mushrooming to levels unimagined by Yeltsin - do not matter. At a high-level security meeting in Munich this February, Putin, who usually draws on the secretive, manipulative, and confrontational cold war paradigm of what constitutes Russian diplomatic behaviour, lashed out at the US with the sort of language unheard of since Khrushchev said "We will bury you". American actions were "unilateral," "illegitimate," and had forged a "hotbed of further conflicts".

Putin's assessment of US unilateralism (if stripped of its overheated rhetoric) may be correct; the trouble is that he lacks the credibility to extol moderation in foreign policy. High oil prices have helped him rebuild and centralise the "strong state" that was his goal from the outset of his presidency. But his recent attempts to use Russia's energy resources for political coercion in Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus and elsewhere have exposed Russia as an unreliable partner, unnerving even the Chinese, who do not wish to see a reconstituted Russian empire on their border.

A Note from the Copyright Alliance

This just in, from Patrick Ross of the Copyright Alliance:

Thanks for the mention, Larry! The excerpt you quoted is what we’re trying to do, educate and increase awareness of copyright. I would posit, however, that it is inaccurate to call us Washington’s Copyright Lobby.

Almost all of our members have lobbyists either in-house or outside; they are more than capable of lobbying for their own interests. And more frequently than you might think, my members find themselves pitted against each other on policy issues.

For that reason, I don’t expect our time on the Hill to involve much lobbying for legislation. Rather, our mission will be to remind everyone that while copyright interests can compete in the market and in policy debates, they are united in their belief in copyright. That often gets overlooked, as does the fact that most of those conflicts are not about whether copyright is of value, but rather who gets the value.

This lobbying tag has been applied pretty broadly by journalists, bloggers, etc., and it seems my first order of business as the head of an educational institution is to do a better job of educating people about who we are. It’s a natural assumption to view us as a lobbying group...

Melanie Phillips on Britain's Israel Boycotters

From MelaniePhillips.com:

The hatred of Israel that now courses through Britain’s veins has now erupted in yet another frenzy whose irrationality and spite are scarcely credible. One now gets a whiff of what it must have been like during the witch-hunts of the Middle Ages; one now begins to understand just what Kafka was describing. British Jews are being swept up in a psychic maelstrom targeted at their right to peoplehood. As the violence against Israel increases with more than 300 rockets fired on Sderot and the western Negev since May, killing two Israeli civilians, wounding many others and traumatising untold numbers in addition; as Hamas threatens Israel with an endless war of annihilation; as Iran races towards the nuclear bomb to finish Israel off, Britain’s industrialised and professional classes are deciding once again to take the high ground of moral nihilism and punish not the instigators of this genocidal onslaught but the nation that is their victim.

Delegates at the first conference of the new University and College Union in Bournemouth voted by 158 to 99 to recommend to its branches’ a comprehensive and consistent boycott’ of all Israeli academic institutions. The Alan Johnston video was clearly made under duress but the British licence-fee payer might must have wondered why Fatah al Islam bothered to kidnap him for eleven weeks in order to get him to blame Israel for everything — and blame Britain for Israel as well as for Iraq and Afghanistan — when such views are transmitted by the BBC virtually every day of the week. The Hamas/al Qaeda script on Israel is now the British orthodoxy. And this week’s 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War will usher in a wave of hate-fuelled demonstrations by people supporting those who are working on that same script towards the destruction of Israel, Jewish peoplehood and Jews worldwide....

...Those obsessions, which are built upon lies, have never been challenged. They are the result of a world-wide Arab propaganda campaign shrewdly targeted to manipulate and exploit the preoccupations of the liberal west, which is all too eagerly disposed to take at face value any third world narrative of ‘colonial’ dispossession by western interests, even when this is demonstrably and verifiably untrue in every detail. This has been no mere propaganda campaign but a carefully calibrated strategic inversion of history and reality in order to turn the Arab aggressors into victims and the Israeli victims into aggressors in the western mind. It is a military strategy of systematic deception, dissimulation, fabrication and falsification. And it has surely succeeded – thanks to the intellectual and moral evisceration of British and western intellectuals – beyond the Arabs’ wildest expectations....

...The apartheid comparison is of course a demonstrable and grotesque lie — and a profound insult, moreover, to all those Africans who suffered under real apartheid. The comparison is indeed a kind of apartheid denial. But then all facts are being stood on their heads by the Israel-haters. Israel is blamed for the plight of the Palestinians when the Palestinians are responsible for the plight of Israel. Israel is represented as the aggressor and the Palestinians its victims whereas the Palestinians are the aggressors and Israelis the victims of terror attacks, human bomb atrocities and 1400 rockets from Gaza since disengagement. Israel is accused of preventing Palestinian statehood whereas in reality the Jews agreed to it repeatedly in 1937, 1948, 1967 and 2000 and it was the Arabs who rejected it and tried to destroy Israel instead.

Israel is accused of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide. But it is Israel where Arab students attend university and sit in the parliament and the courts, and where not a day passes when Israeli hospitals aren’t treating Palestinian children injured in the fighting between Palestinians in Gaza; whereas it is Iran that is committed to genocide, and the Palestinians to ethnic cleansing from a Palestine which would be Judenrein and where no Jews would be allowed to live (by fervent agreement of the boycott supporters for whom not one Jewish settlement is to be allowed in ‘Palestinian’ territory.)

Why are facts being turned inside out like this? The UCU resolution had the gall to say that criticism of Israel was not antisemitism, with the clear implication that it never could be antisemitism. Well, no-one has ever said that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. But what’s going is not criticism of Israel. It’s a unique delegitimisation based on lies and libels as a softening up process for Israel’s extinction. It’s singling out Jewish peoplehood uniquely for denial. And it’s that double standard that cannot be explained other than by a profound prejudice....

...What is happening to England, once the most civilised, humane, fair-minded country on earth, but now consumed by hatred of its allies and the desire to grovel to its mortal enemies, is a tragedy.

Dershowitz to Sue British Israel Boycott Organizers

From the Financial Times (UK) (ht The American Thinker):

A top American lawyer has threatened to wage a legal war against British academics who seek to cut links with Israeli universities.

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor renowned for his staunch defence of Israel and high-profile legal victories, including his role in the O.J. Simpson trial, vowed to "devastate and bankrupt" lecturers who supported such boycotts.

This week's annual conference of Britain's biggest lecturers' union, the University and College Union, backed a motion damning the "complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation [of Palestinian land]".

It also obliged the union's executive to encourage members to "consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions".

Prof Dershowitz said he had started work on legal moves to fight any boycott.

He told the Times Higher Educational Supplement that these would include using a US law - banning discrimination on the basis of nationality - against UK universities with research ties to US colleges. US academics might also be urged to accept honorary posts at Israeli colleges in order to become boycott targets.

"I will obtain legislation dealing with this issue, imposing sanctions that will devastate and bankrupt those who seek to impose bankruptcy on Israeli academics," he told the journal.

Sue Blackwell, a UCU activist and member of the British Committee for Universities of Palestine, said: "This is the typical response of the Israeli lobby which will do anything to avoid debating the real issue - the 40-year occupation of Palestine." Jewish groups have attacked the UCU vote, which was opposed by Sally Hunt, its general secretary.

I hope the discovery process reveals exactly which groups are behind all the "boycotts" against Israel--and whether any of them have links to Islamist terror organizations behind 7/7 or 9/11...

Daniel Pipes: CAIR Named "Unindicted Co-Conspirators"

From DanielPipes.org:

June 4, 2007 update: Federal prosecutors have named CAIR and two other Islamic organizations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust, as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas, a designated terrorist group.

In a filing last week, prosecutors described CAIR as a present or past member of "the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations." They listed ISNA and NAIT as "entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood." Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun reports that spokesmen for CAIR did not respond to requests for comment.

This development occurred in connection with the trial, scheduled to start on July 16 in Dallas, of five officials (Shukri Abu-Baker, Mohammad El-Mezain, Ghassan Elashi, Mufid Abdulqader, and Abdulraham Odeh) of the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, accused of sending funds to Hamas. This court filing listed some 300 individuals or organizations as co-conspirators.

What is an unindicted co-conspirator? Someone by and about whom hearsay is permissible in the courtroom. Here is a definition by legal journalist Stuart Taylor, discussing an entirely unrelated case:

The prosecutor is saying in essence in court … that we believe this man was part of the criminal conspiracy, along with the people who are on trial. We haven't indicted him but the relevance of that for the purposes of the trial is that [it] lets them get in more evidence about the unindicted co-conspirator's … out-of-court statements than they otherwise could. It's a way around the hearsay rule. … For example, if they want … one of their witnesses, to talk about what [a person] said to him, ordinarily that would be barred by the so-called hearsay rule. You can't … testify in a trial about what somebody else said out of court. That rule has a lot of exceptions. One of the exceptions is if the person who you're trying to quote … is named by the prosecution as an unindicted co-conspirator, then you can talk about what he said out of court.

Substitute "organization" for "man" and "person" and this description applies to the situation of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT.

Comments: (1) CAIR being named as an unindicted co-conspirator complements the fact that many of its staff and associates are associated with terrorism, as I have documented in this entry.

(2) It is only logical that CAIR, whose origins lie in the Islamic Association for Palestine, which was founded by Hamas, be legally investigated in connection with Hamas.

(3) This may be the first time since 1994 that the press could not find a CAIR spokesman for a comment.

(4) If it turns out that there is substance to the CAIR-HLF connection, then CAIR will be caught out by the changed political and legal environment since 9/11. Put simply, Islamists can no longer get away with they could before then. (I elaborated this in a different context at "Nike and 9/11.")

(5) Whatever the future brings, this designation will hang as a permanent albatross around CAIR's collective neck.

FBI Press Release on Kennedy Airport Terror Plot Case

Click here to download the Department of Justice Press Release by James Margolin and Robert Mendoza, as a PDF file from the FBI website.

As alleged in the complaint, the plot tapped into an international network of Muslim extremists from the United States, Guyana, and Trinidad, and utilized the knowledge, expertise, and contacts of the conspirators to develop and plan the plot, and obtain operational support and capability to carry it out...

...In a recorded conversation following one of the surveillance missions to JFK airport, DEFREITAS predicted that the attacks would result in the destruction of “the whole of Kennedy,” that only a few people would survive the attack, and that because of the location of the targeted fuel pipelines, part of Queens would explode.

In discussing JFK airport as a target, DEFREITAS exulted over JFK airport’s symbolic importance:

Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States. To hit John F. Kennedy, wow .... They love John F. Kennedy like he’s the man .... If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. It’s like you can kill the man twice.

In a later recorded conversation with his coconspirators in May 2007, DEFREITAS compared the plot to attack JFK airport to the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, stating, “even the Twin Towers can’t touch it,” adding that, “this can destroy the economy of America for some time.”

For some reason, the editors placed their story on this case on Page 30 of today's New York Times. It was on Page One of today's Washington Post.

Frank Gaffney on "Islam v Islamists" on C-Span

Tonight, at 8pm, on Q&A.

Ken Burns Plugs "The War" at Book Expo America

Listen to Ken Burns promotional podcast for his book (will there be Latinos in it?) here.

Michael Vlahos on America's Dwindling Moral Authority

From the National Interest:

In broad terms, we have squandered the World War II canon. We have lost its mythic authority. We are at the historical end of its protective embrace. We are on our own now. This intangible is the most significant, and in some ways surprising, consequence of the war. It has resulted from the most temporal of events and will indeed deliver most apparent costs. But before considering the importance of the consequences, it is first necessary to map the landscape of failure, to diagram its dimensions. Our failure has unfolded in four dimensions: in terms of military objectives; reconstruction promises; "hearts and minds" goals and lofty, transformative ambitions for the region.

MILITARILY, AMERICA’S initial success in Afghanistan and Iraq did not bring secure and stable environments to these countries. However, America’s military campaigns have overseen a yearly escalation in chaos and violence in both. And while it is to be hoped that U.S. forces will eventually be extricated successfully, they will leave behind a menagerie of Islamist principalities locked in ceaseless struggle. These, of course, were not our military goals.

America also pledged to redeem and uplift Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we "reconstructed" Germany and Japan after World War II. This promise was not kept. Both countries are in ruins. By some measures, they are worse off than ever. Moreover, money is short, so there is little more we can do to help them. Our policies and practices have perversely helped to achieve the wreckage over which we now preside.

Further, we are losing what we declared to be a "war of ideas." After September 11, the world—even the Muslim world—rushed to our emotional support, but by now we have convinced the overwhelming majority of Muslims that we are attacking Islam itself. We have not liberated Muslims long abused by radical and fundamentalist ideology, as we said we would, or brought them greater freedom. We have failed in our promise to support democracy movements and dissidents, and continue to support political tyranny. Among Arab Muslims especially, we are universally hated.

We also boasted of our aim to transform the region, signaling that not even our "friends and allies" would escape the mighty wind of democratic reform. That boast has evaporated. And we now sit by and watch open political repression without even a mention. Not only do Arab regimes no longer fear us, but others, like Pakistan’s, openly mock us through their support of the Taliban. Our great Muslim adversary, Iran, has gratefully accepted our help in achieving almost all its strategic goals, including formal spheres of influence in Mesopotamia and western Afghanistan. Again, this was hardly our goal.

The aggregate consequence of failure across these four dimensions of our war effort abroad is the larger damage to American interests and the American cause.

Washington's Copyright Lobby

Patrick Ross, a friend of mine, has a new job as head of The Copyright Alliance, representing owners of intellectual property--Washington's Copyright Lobby. Here's a post explaining where they are coming from:

Copyright and You

Why has copyright remained a part of our law and our culture for so long? Because it is vital to a healthy economy, to the preservation of artistic and creative works for all to enjoy, to the creation of new technologies, and to all of us having a vast array of cultural choices.

When artists are confident in their ownership of their creations, they feel able to make them available to a larger audience. Often they’ll work with a producer or distributor. The wider the distribution the more reasonable the pricing, which in turn encourages all of us to go out and buy, read, watch - just plain enjoy - the work before us. Much of the revenue that comes from our appreciation and willingness to watch a creative work goes back to all who worked to make the original vision a reality.

The digital age brings a multitude of opportunities for the creators of copyrighted works as well as their producers and distributors. New business models are being developed every day to create, distribute and market artistic works. We tend to hear a lot about how modern technology is harming the creators of copyrighted works – and plenty of harms do occur – but that doesn’t imply that technology itself is bad. Strong copyright protections do not stop individual creators from taking advantage of advances in digital technologies to bring us creative works we can enjoy in ways we never imagined. Technology and copyright protection need not be at odds with each other. They can both work to the benefit of all of us.

Have you ever heard somebody say, “Of course, we want to see artists get paid,” and then they follow that with a phrase beginning with “but”? Generally the “but” and what follows it, implies a belief that copyright protections are not really important any more. That belief can begin to erode or even eliminate the intellectual property rights accorded to creators in the U.S. Constitution and through global treaties. The U.S. Congress in 1790 -- in one of its first major acts -- passed the first Copyright Act. They did that because they felt it was vital to a newly created and growing country that embodied a belief in the rights of the individual. That wisdom is as true today. If anyone ever says they want to see artists get paid, remind them we already have a system that does that, and it has been doing so successfully for 217 years. It has helped make our American creative culture unique and great, and it will continue to do so.

Amil Imani on American Islamists

From AmilImani.com:

Throwing acid in the face of women who fail to don the hijab, flogging people for sporting non-Islamic haircuts, and stoning to death violators of sexual norms are only a few examples of a raft of daily barbaric acts of Islamists in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and many Islamic lands. Other forms of Islamic brutalities such as Honor Killing have already found their way to Germany and other European countries with the ever-burgeoning Muslim populations.

Wherever Islam goes, so goes its ethos.

Reading about these religiously-mandated horrific acts and even seeing them on television or the Internet may momentarily repulse, but does not terribly concern many Americans. After all, those things are happening on the other side of the world, and those people deserve each other; we are safe in fortress America, so goes the thinking.

But “fortress America” is a delusion that even the events of 9/11 seem to have failed to dispel. Many prefer to believe that the assault of 9/11 was an aberration, since nothing like it has happened again, and it is unlikely that anything of the sort will ever happen again, so goes the wishful thinking.

The reality portrays a vastly different picture. America is far from a fortress given its vast wide-open borders. It is a nation of laws where all forms of freedom are enshrined in its constitution; is where Americans live by humane ethos diametrically different from those of Islamist savagery. Sadly, these differences confer great advantage to the Islamists and place America in imminent danger.

The breach of “Fortress America” from the air on 9/11 is only the first installment of much more forthcoming heinous assaults, unless we abandon our complacency; stop relying on the invincibility of the law-enforcement people; and willingly make the sacrifices that would protect our way of life.

Knowing Islam intimately and having experienced its systemic savagery, has compelled me to warn repeatedly of the deadly imminent threat it poses to all non-Muslims (Why Confront Islamism) attempting to present a comprehensive treatment of the evil precepts and practices of Islamism, I am listing a few facts that should be enough to alarm anyone who cherishes liberty and freedom; awaken anyone who is comforted by the belief that all the Islamic mayhem is limited to an illiterate gang of primitive Middle Easterners and has no implications for America. Sorry, bad news is here already.

• Some 26 percent of American Muslims, ages18-29, support suicide bombings "in defense of Islam," according to findings of a recent Pew poll.

• According to Pew, there are 2.35 million Muslims in America, 30 percent of whom are in the 18-29 age range. Some claim that the number of Muslims is in fact much larger. Even using the conservative Pew numbers, over 180,000 Muslims in America is bomb-approving. This is an alarmingly large number, given that Muslims, as an article of faith, practice dissimulation in dealing with infidels and under-report their true intentions. How many human bombs and bomb-approving people does it take to wreak havoc on our country?

• The 180,000 Muslims living among us don’t define what “defense of Islam” is. It could be anything that they feel constitute an attack on Islam and Islamic values, such as the reported flushing of the Quran down the toilet, the Danish Cartoon, Rushdie’s book, a newspaper article, an Internet posting, or even women not donning the hijab.

• When religious fanatics unreservedly advocate wanton acts of mass murder, they are not likely to shy from coercion and intimidation measures to impose their will on the larger society. In tandem with the cold murder of Van Gogh in Holland, for instance, Islamists had been striving to supplant civil laws with the Islamic Sharia in the country. In other lands such as France, England and Canada, Muslims have also been waging serious campaigns for adoption of the Sharia or some of its provisions, just for starters.

• Ever since 9/11, and possibly before, America has been concerned about terrorists coming from Islamic lands. For this reason, some people advocated profiling as a safeguard against the 9/11 type mass murderers. But how do you profile hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans who are already here and look and act like other Americans? How can an open free society such as ours safeguard the individual freedom we so greatly value and protect the safety of its citizens?

• The immensely difficult task of safeguarding our freedom while ensuring our safety is seriously and repeatedly undermined by Islamist apologists, pontificating academes, vote-hungry politicians, and the mainstream media, each for their own reasons. Here are some of the comfort pills dispensed by the mainstream media’s polls: “Most Muslims seek to adopt American lifestyle" (USA Today); "Muslims assimilate better in U.S. than Europe, poll finds" (New York Times); "Poll: US Muslims Feel Post-9/11 Backlash Despite Moderate Outlook" (Voice of America).

• It is said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The mainstream media’s manipulation of statistics goes beyond selective reporting and qualifies as outright disinformation. Is the U.S. Muslims’ outlook moderate? All U. S. Muslims? What about the self-reported outlook of hundreds of thousands who support mass murder in the “defense of Islam?”

• Even if most Muslims seek to adopt an American lifestyle, a great many Muslims are dead set on using violence to make America conform to their barbaric way of life. Islamism is cancer. Cancer cells are always few at the beginning. Left unchecked, they keep on expanding and eventually devour the non-cancerous.

Islamism v Human Rights

From NTPI.org:

Islamic misgivings about the incompatibility of the UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] with Islam have led to a number of alternative formulations of human rights in Islam while at the same time attempting to demonstrate the compatibility of Islamic law with Human Rights.

Ann Elizabeth Meyer, in her book Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics discusses the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights of 1981 and compares its provisions with those of the UDHR. The UIDHR has been published in two versions: in Arabic and in English. We are told in the English version that the Arabic text is definitive. What is not at all evident is that the Arabic version is actually different from the English in several respects, with the Arabic version being substantially more conservative in tone. In no sense would the English version be acceptable as a certified translation of the Arabic. One is left with the impression that the wording of the English version has been watered down for western consumption.

In other articles we compare the rights of women as they exist in Islamic countries with the rights supposedly guaranteed under the UDHR; show how the rights of non-Muslims are limited in many Islamic states; how freedom of expression is severely curtailed and how freedom of religion and belief are practically nonexistent.

Central to the fair and equitable administration of justice is a codified system of law. The absence of a formal written criminal code in Saudi Arabia, for example, leaves the authorities virtually a free hand in defining what is illegal. In 1996, a Syrian national, Abd al-Naqshabandi was executed for witchcraft, a crime against which no Saudi law exists. (See Victims of Political Islam).

It is not only women and non-Muslims but Muslim men too that deserve the protection of a modern, fair and equitable system of justice based on internationally accepted standards, and a respect for human rights as enshrined in the UDHR.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to human rights under Political Islam is its strong adherence to the Sharia. Many aspects of the Sharia are inimical to the ideas enshrined in the UDHR. In an Islamist state no individual or group of people can have any rights that do not conform to the tenets of the Sharia. Oppression, intimidation, lack of freedom, and ferocious censorship and public executions are the undeniable facts of life in many Islamic societies. The UDHR enumerates the rights of the individual that governments are obliged to protect. But Political Islam is opposed to any concept of individual freedom that is not subordinate to its brutal interpretation of the Sharia.

Christopher Hitchens on French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner

From Slate:

The single best symbol of the change in France is the appointment of Bernard Kouchner to the post of foreign minister. Had the Socialist Party won the election, it is highly unlikely that such a distinguished socialist would ever have been allowed through the doors of the Quai d'Orsay. (Yes, comrades, history actually is dialectical and paradoxical.) In the present climate of the United States, a man like Kouchner would be regarded as a neoconservative. He was a prominent figure in the leftist rebellion of 1968, before breaking with some of his earlier illusions and opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan—the true and original source of many of our woes in the Islamic world. The group he co-founded—Doctors Without Borders, or Médecins Sans Frontières—was a pioneer in the highly necessary proclamation that left politics should always be anti-totalitarian. (His former counterpart, Joschka Fischer of Germany, also took a version of this view before Schröder's smirking Realpolitik became too much, and too popular in Germany, for him to withstand.)

The single best symbol of the change in France is the appointment of Bernard Kouchner to the post of foreign minister. Had the Socialist Party won the election, it is highly unlikely that such a distinguished socialist would ever have been allowed through the doors of the Quai d'Orsay. (Yes, comrades, history actually is dialectical and paradoxical.) In the present climate of the United States, a man like Kouchner would be regarded as a neoconservative. He was a prominent figure in the leftist rebellion of 1968, before breaking with some of his earlier illusions and opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan—the true and original source of many of our woes in the Islamic world. The group he co-founded—Doctors Without Borders, or Médecins Sans Frontières—was a pioneer in the highly necessary proclamation that left politics should always be anti-totalitarian. (His former counterpart, Joschka Fischer of Germany, also took a version of this view before Schröder's smirking Realpolitik became too much, and too popular in Germany, for him to withstand.)

Frank Gaffney on "Islam v Islamists"

From The Washington TImes:

As one of the film's co-executive producers, I began to receive a number of congratulatory messages from all over the country. Most were from people who had followed the saga of this documentary about moderate Muslims who have courageously challenged co-religionists known as Islamists -- adherents to a totalitarian political ideology seeking to dominate the Muslim faith and, in turn, the world. Like innumerable editorialists, bloggers and ordinary citizens around the country, the authors of these messages had been frustrated and outraged when PBS and its Washington flagship, WETA, culminated months of efforts to alter and then censor "Islam vs. Islamists" by refusing to broadcast it, as planned, as part of the "Crossroads" series rolled out last month. They assumed the Oregon announcement meant national distribution was imminent.

Unfortunately, the CPB's arrangement with the Oregon PBS means no such thing. Far from the treatment accorded other "Crossroads" series programs -- nationwide broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service, in prime-time with a substantial promotional budget -- "Islam vs. Islamists" would simply be "made available" to PBS stations. Maybe some would decide to run it over the next few months. Maybe they would do so at 3 a.m. or Sunday afternoons when practically no one is watching. There are no guarantees of pick-up in any, let alone all, major markets.

Worse yet, the Oregon distributors have announced they will accompany the film with the equivalent of a consumer warning label -- a "discussion" that will provide "context" for viewers. Presumably, this means the sort of "context" our film's critics at PBS and WETA kept trying to impose on us: Changes they believed would make it, in their words, less "one-sided" (read, fairer to the Islamists) and less "alarmist."

If past practice is any guide, those recruited to provide such "balance" will likely be representatives of organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). Though these groups are well-known Saudi-funded, pro-Islamist fronts, their views were exclusively and highly sympathetically featured in a documentary called "The Muslim Americans." PBS seemed to have no reservations about airing this wholly one-sided film during the "Crossroads" series roll-out in April.

In short, now that widespread criticism has made it impossible to sustain PBS' suppression of "Islam vs. Islamists," the anti-Islamist Muslims who are its subjects are to be remanded to decidedly second-class coverage. Call it CPB's version of the "Rosa Parks treatment."

Recall that Rosa Parks could have got to her job via public transportation -- as long as she "knew her place" and agreed to ride in the back of the bus. So, too, moderate Muslims can have their stories, as recorded in a film produced with some $675,000 in public monies, shown on the public airwaves -- in at least a few locations at some point in time.

But these heroic figures must know their place, too. And their place is not in prime time, nor national distribution. Only Islamists and their apologists are entitled to front-of-the-bus treatment from those like Robert MacNeil (the host of the "Crossroads" series and producer -- thanks to a sweetheart deal -- of "The Muslim Americans" show), Sharon Percy Rockefeller (wife of one senator and daughter of a former senator, Jay Rockefeller and Charles Percy, respectively, and president of WETA) and the handful of others responsible for PBS' rejection of "Islam vs. Islamists."

If ever there were a time when the American people are entitled to the most comprehensive presentation possible of information concerning the struggle for the soul and future of Islam, this should be it. After all, last week a Pew Research poll found roughly a quarter of the Muslim-American population thinks suicide bombing is legitimate in at least some circumstances. An even larger percentage claimed not to believe that Arabs perpetrated the attacks of on America of September 11, 2001.

The particular irony is that the whole idea behind "America at a Crossroads" was that it was intended to offer the American people 20 programs featuring differing viewpoints and a variety of stories that would, taken together, help inform the public about the post-September 11 world. This creative vision demands that the experiences and warnings of authentically moderate, pro-democratic and tolerant Muslims be treated at least as favorably as the portrayal of those in the Muslim community determined to stifle their voices. Certainly, public broadcasting should not be party to such suppression.

Cuban-American Filmmaker Battles PBS

Our favorite Cuban-American filmmaker, Agustin Blazquez, has sent us this account of his battles against PBS censorship, in the light of the Ken Burns scandal:

PBS: EXCLUSION AND POLITICAL DISCRIMINATION © 2007 ABIP
by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

I am not surprised by the recent commotion, scandal and fight for fairness by Latino organizations in the U.S. against the Public Broadcasting Service -- especially the notable effort of Dr. Maggie Rivas Rodriguez, associate professor at the School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin. She has been tireless in fighting the unforgivable exclusion in the fourteen-and-a-half-hour documentary The War, by PBS protégé Ken Burns, of the Latino and Native American contributions and sacrifices during War World II.

I think these Latino organizations are doing a superb job of exposing the elitist and arrogant PBS, and I hope their actions will force the broadcaster to begin playing straight and fair with all minority groups. After all, these minority groups support PBS with their tax money.

This recent blunder by PBS calls attention to the problem that another Spanish-speaking minority has been having with PBS: for decades, PBS has sponsored and broadcast programs about Cuba that depict the opposite of the reality that Cubans experience first hand. This has been a disservice not only to Cuban Americans but also to the American people as a whole. In spite of multiple complaints by Cuban Americans, however, PBS continues to offend them.

I have written more than 300 articles over the last several years about Cuban affairs and am producing an ongoing series of educational documentaries on the subject.
[http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com/2007/05/agustin-blazquez-speaks.html]

I have been working on this series at great personal sacrifice as an independent; I have received no grants and in fact am not aware of any grants to Cuban Americans for our educational projects. I have produced and directed five documentaries for this series and am now working on the sixth. I have submitted these documentaries to PBS and its series P.O.V. and Frontline. They were rejected. In fact, the works of other Cuban American filmmakers that are contrary to PBS’s point of view are consistently rejected.

PBS appears to be interested only in the point of view reflecting its political agenda, contrary to its statement that it does not interfere with “program content” [see the recently issued “Public Broadcasting Statement on Editorial Independence,” [http://www.apts.org/upload/Public Broadcasting Statement - May 2 07.pdf]

PBS’s statement that it does not interfere with “program content” is belied by its recent announcement that it has arranged with Ken Burns to add the Latino contribution to World War II to his documentary (per a letter dated April 11, 2007 from Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS, to the Defend the Honor Campaign in response to complaints about the documentary’s lack of attention to the taxpaying Latino community of the U.S.) [http://www.nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2007/april/lettertodth.pdf]

It is evident that PBS’s prohibition against interfering with “content” is not absolute; it can be lifted at will, in this case because of political pressure from the Latino community (whose position in this case I support 100 percent).

So, Cuban American filmmakers are excluded -- actually, politically discriminated against -- by PBS, not because of the quality of their films but because of content. I think that is called censorship.

Even the Oscar-winning Cuban exile Nestor Almendros had to agree to allow PBS to edit (shorten) his documentary Nobody Listened before PBS would air it -- and it was broadcast in tandem with Saul Landau's pro-Castro documentary. And PBS’s Frontline rejected Nobody Listened by stating, “Frontline doesn’t produce anti-Communist programs.” PBS appears to be concerned about not offending Castro while not caring about his victims.

Nestor Almendros said in 1990 that he believed taxpayer-funded PBS leans unashamedly toward the political left. “The only country that resisted [showing his documentaries], the only place where there was still strong pro-Castro sentiment, was the U.S.”

Recently, a Latino reviewer in the U.S. said about my documentaries that I am "the most important Cuban documentalist in exile with a very solid body of work." And following the screening of my latest documentary in Madrid, Spain, another reviewer wrote in the Spanish cultural magazine Revista Hispano Cubana, "Agustin Blazquez is one of the most representative filmmakers in exile and his documentaries should be valued at the same level as the best Cuban documentaries of this genre."

In the same review he called my earlier documentary about the Elian Gonzalez case "a masterpiece for its sensibility and poetic air." PBS also rejected this documentary.

On March 6, 1996, the issue of the rejection of my first documentary by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was raised at a hearing before a House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee.

I decided to test the waters again and on April 2, 2007 I submitted a formal proposal package to PBS for a documentary about Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

On May 8, John Prizer, vice president of television program development at CPB, who assists in developing CPB funding priorities and strategic direction for investing programming funds, telephoned to inform me that my project had been rejected.

Mr. Prizer said that PBS would never air my proposed documentary; this was the reason, he explained, that I was the only producer of the 30 who submitted proposals that he called.

He also said that PBS is looking for documentaries of more than one part or miniseries. Since that requirement is not specified in the “PBS Mission,” I think it was a convenient excuse. At any rate, I have repeatedly submitted my series, COVERING CUBA, and PBS has repeatedly rejected it.

PBS does whatever it wants and changes its rules at will, as demonstrated by its contradictory statements and actions regarding the content of Mr. Burns’ documentary.

PBS to date has been untouchable, but we’ll see what happens after the war declared by the Latino organizations to protect their honor. Cuban Americans, as part of the Latin American population living in the U.S., also need to save our honor from PBS exclusion and censorship.

PBS has consistently objected to the content of our documentaries. I feel that this is a violation of our freedom of speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, specifically because the money PBS distributes is public money.

Meanwhile, the pro-Castro documentaries of Estela Bravo (a native New Yorker who has lived in Cuba since 1963 as a member of the pro-Castro privileged foreign elite and a known collaborator with that regime) are shown on PBS without the benefit of showing an opposing point of view. In 1992 and 1993, for example, PBS showed Bravo’s documentary Miami-Havana.

In it, deriding the Cuban American community, Wayne Smith said, “But what you have in Miami, I think, is a very extreme ultra-right group who want no kind of improvement on relations between the two countries.”

In such a way PBS offers opportunities for the pro-Castro side to openly express its contempt and hatred for the Cuban American community in the U.S.

PBS has a history of showing documentaries containing propaganda that has offended my community, documentaries that have not contributed to a better understanding of the Cuban tragedy. In many instances we are misrepresented and maligned in comments by the people featured in those productions. For example, Wayne Smith and others have been featured in various documentaries on PBS qualifying Cuban Americans as “the right-wing fringe,” “virulently anti-Castro,” “fiercely anti-Communist,” “hard-line exiles,” “strident anti-Castroites,” “Miami Mafia” and other epithets.

I am not aware of any current documentaries by Cuban American filmmakers being shown on PBS, with the exception of Adriana Bosch’s documentary about Fidel Castro that aired on January 31, 2005. But either she didn’t research her subject thoroughly or she had to omit a lot of key information in order for her documentary to be aired by PBS.

On Saturday, March 26, 2005, while watching “Viewer Favorites” on PBS/WETA, I was shocked and offended by the singer Eric Burton -- formerly of the rock group The Animals -- wearing a Che Guevara shirt while performing a song on a segment of the presentation.

On March 29, 2005, I wrote a letter to Sheryl Lahti, director of audience services, requesting an apology. I said, “It is shocking that your educational public television station is not aware of Che’s criminal record and let pass such an insensitive and offensive display of disrespect to Che’s victims and the Cuban American community in the U.S. If Mr. Burton had worn a Hitler shirt, he wouldn’t have been presented -- rightfully so -- in order not to offend the Jewish victims and Holocaust survivors.”

No PBS station would dare show a performer wearing Ku Klux Klan apparel or logos that are pro-David Duke or anti-Arab, anti-Islam, anti-Chinese or anti any other minority group in the U.S. It would have been simply edited out without any regard to what its creator intended.

With my letter to Lahti I enclosed an open letter to Carlos Santana by musician Paquito D’Rivera dated March 25, 2006. D’Rivera criticized Santana for wearing a Che T-shirt at the Oscar ceremony. Also enclosed was my article “Che’s Motorcyle Follies” [http://www.camcocuba.org/ADDITIONAL PAGES/BLAZQUEZ/Agustin/BLAZQUEZ-7.html]. I sent copies to Michael Pack and John Prizer of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. To date, I have not received a reply.

A Cuban American advocate for democracy and human rights in Cuba from New York City who read my letter at [http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.com/] wrote a letter of complaint about the Eric Burton blunder on April 4, 2006. The next day he received an e-mail message from Danielle Dunbar [ddunbar@weta.com], WETA’s audience service coordinator.

She wrote, “While WETA airs the fundraising special, we did not produce the program. The show was produced by TJL Productions and distributed by PBS. TJL Productions is solely responsible for its content. Nonetheless, as a public broadcaster that produces, broadcasts and values a wide range of programs that cover a divergent range of topics, it would be inappropriate for WETA to engage in such censorship. While you may dislike images of a particular subject, others may respond favorably to the same image. It is not our intent or role to suppress or promote either view, but to present the program as the show's creator intended. How you feel about that is a matter of personal choice. Further, there are no elements to the program that violate any FCC rules or guidelines. ‘My Music’ has been a very popular program with WETA's members and viewers, and I expect that we will air it again in the future.”

I consider her arguments to be invalid. Of course PBS is responsible, because it uses public money and it decides what to air and what not to air. It is very careful not to show any material that might be offensive to certain minorities -- but it obviously is not concerned about offending Cuban Americans.

I was shocked by Globe Trekker episode 47, “Cuba & Haiti,” broadcast on PBS/WETA on May 18, 2003 and repeated on April 15, 2007. In that episode, the host of the show promoted tourism to Cuba and presented a rosy, fun, happy-go-lucky and exciting view of my country -- where I lived for 21 years -- that was completely at odds with the harsh reality that Cubans face every day.

It is obvious that PBS is choosing to misinform and mislead the American public about Cuba instead of educating them, and it is doing so with taxpayer money.

Now, with Latino organizations’ battle against PBS over Ken Burns’ documentary The War, it is time to reconsider and take some concrete action to correct PBS’s arrogance and bias.

I think the government overseers of PBS should demand that PBS answer the following questions:

How many Cuban American documentary films have been funded by CPB since its inception?
How many of these documentaries have been shown on PBS?
What Cuban American films have been shown on PBS (names, dates, etc.)?
How many Cuban American films or film proposals have been submitted to CPB and/or PBS in the last six years?
How many of these films or proposals have been rejected and for what reasons?

On the May 14 edition of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez said, about Mr. Burns’ documentary, “One weakness that I have seen is that I really do not understand how PBS, in six and a half years, didn’t raise the flag on this. It seems very difficult to understand.” That was a very good point. I guess it will take a public scandal and a threat from the U.S. government to retire taxpayer funding to PBS in order for that biased organization to mend its ways.

If not, the taxpayers and their government representatives are paying for television programs that are misleading the people of this nation.

© 2007 ABIP

Agustin Blazquez, founder and president
UNCOVERING CUBA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (UCEF) A non-profit organization [501 (c) (3)]
AB INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS (ABIP)
Producer and director of the documentaries:

COVERING CUBA, premiered at the American Film Institute in 1995, CUBA: The Pearl of the Antilles, COVERING CUBA 2: The Next Generation, premiered in 2001 at the U.S. Capitol in and at the 2001 Miami International Book Fair COVERING CUBA 3: Elian presented at the 2003 Miami Latin Film Festival, the 2004 American Film Renaissance Film Festival in Dallas, Texas and the 2006 Palm Beach International Film Festival, COVERING CUBA 4: The Rats Below, premiered at the two Tower Theaters in Miami on January 2006 and the 2006 Palm Beach International Film Festival and the 2006 Barcelona International Film Festival for Human Rights and Peace, Dan Rather "60 Minutes," an inside view , RUMBERAS CUBANAS, Vol. 1 MARIA ANTONIETA PONS, COVERING CUBA 5: Act Of Repudiation premiered at the two Tower Theaters in Miami, January 2007, at the Hispanic Cuban Club in Madrid, Spain and will be at the 2007 Palm Beach International Film Festival, and the upcoming COVERING CUBA 6.

Author of more that 300 published articles and author with Carlos Wotzkow of the book COVERING AND DISCOVERING and translator with Jaums Sutton of the book by Luis Grave de Peralta Morell THE MAFIA OF HAVANA: The Cuban Cosa Nostra.