Understanding Russian Popular Music

Johnson's Russia List tipped us off to this interesting post about Russian pop music from Russia Blog:

One of my co-workers asked me what a particularly sad song was about. And so I paid attention to the words, though I haven’t listened to it much since then. The song, Davai za Zhizn' (Let’s Drink to Life) by the very popular Russian band Lyube is about a soldier who is terribly wounded, and his comrades are promising him that everything will be ok, that they will all dance at his wedding, that he will hold his kids someday. However, the listener understands that they are just saying these things to comfort an 18 year old soldier who is bleeding to death. The chorus goes: “Let’s drink to us, let’s drink to the end, to the end of the war, to those who used to be with us.” The whole song has melancholy rock instrumentation. So, there’s some Russian rock’n’roll for you.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

Speaking of time in the slammer, conservative diva Ann Coulter's Christmas wish list apparently includes a visit to jail--she's asking to be arrested in her new column, believe it or not. Is she jealous of Judy Miller or Martha Stewart? Maybe Ann might think this thing over-- before somebody takes her up on it...

Life in a Kyrgyz Penal Colony

Felix Kulov, the current Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan, a former Mayor of Bishkek and KGB officer, was sent to a Soviet-style penal colony by the country's former ruler, Askar Akayev. Now, he tells Ferghana.ru what life was like as a political prisoner. It reminded me of Natan Sharansky and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Kulov concluded that the prison experience made him sterner, but not crueler.

Ferghana.Ru: A question to a former policeman and an ex-prisoner. What did imprisonment teach you?

Felix Kulov: I have never thought about it. I do not think it changed me much. Why? Because I never lost touch with my friends beyond the prison walls. I had different sources of information, you know. This prison experience, I'd say that it gave me a lot. There were few hardened criminals behind the bars, you know. Most prisoners were ordinary men jailed for all sorts of reasons. Say, for tax-evasion... They all were different. For example, some prisoners were brilliant software specialists, others were businessmen. Different people. I mean, they were not the scum of society, you know. Just ordinary men... Sure, there were criminals as well, professional criminals. They went on stealing from others right there. Men like that, they cannot help it. Some were junkies. I saw them all. From the point of view of knowledge of life, it was really an experience. It was interesting as well from the point of view of proving oneself. What would I do under the circumstances? How would I behave? What am I?

As a matter of fact, I'm not ashamed for my behavior. I did not stoop. It was all very open and transparent there. Whether or not a man commanded respect and what treatment among other prisoners he got depended on the man himself. Do something venal, and you will be treated accordingly no matter who or what you were in the past life. You begin with scratch over there. I will only tell you that I commanded respect among my fellow prisoners.

There were 600 prisoners in all, including 50 or 60 who were what was termed "reds". That means ex-servicemen of the Internal Troops, former policemen, etc. The rest were the so called "blacks" and they all were divided into two categories. I was a political prisoner. "You are fighting for your truth, and we respect you for that," I was told by both camps or whatever they were. I had their respect but I never meddled in their affairs. They live by their own laws there. I did not set these laws and rules in the first place and knew enough to keep my distance.

As a matter of fact, that's an interesting subject. What is a penal colony? A territory fenced in, with watchtowers and soldiers on them, with people living inside that territory. It is absolutely deserted by night. Just two men somewhere on the tower, warrant officers on duty. They are unarmed, but have a radio to make their reports. A Soviet system, you know. A penal colony, not prison. In Western movies all cells open simultaneously, prisoners take their daily walk, and get herded back in later on. That's probably how things are done there, I do not know. It is different in our penal colonies. You get in, there is not one other prisoner around, you are on your own. Decades of the Soviet regime and this penitentiary system resulted in appearance of certain rules.

Say, a prisoner is not supposed to carry a knife openly. No fights are permitted. Whoever has to settle some issue in that manner, they have to go to the so called forbidden zone beyond the barbed wire. The survivor comes back. That's logical, or there will be endless fights. Sure, they occur too, but they always incur a punishment. A prisoner who got drunk should not show it because not everyone has access to booze. Prisoners do get drunk, but they are supposed to behave themselves. They'd have killed each other in no time at all otherwise. They are all "heroes" there, you know. Shortly speaking, it took many generations of prisoners literally decades to work out all these rules.

Some men become thieves by statute which elevates them to the highest status of the underworld hierarchy. It is they who see to it that these rules are observed and enforce them whenever necessary. Here is one of the rules. Whenever someone puts someone else on drugs, makes this someone else a needle-freak, then this man is in real trouble. He'll be beaten to the inch of his life, until he wishes he did not do it. Whenever it is done in that other life, beyond the barbed wire and fence, it's all right. In a penal colony it is forbidden.

There was not a single episode of rape when I was there. There were the so called "hurt" among the prisoners, and even some gays. Fifteen or so, they lived separately. So far as I know, only two were bona fide homosexuals. As for all others, most of them chose to be thought of and treated as such because, for example, they thought life would be easier. Well, these people did all dirty work - sweeping outdoors, cleaning lavatories...

Not one prisoner was taken by force. This practice is becoming history too - not because it is not "civilized" or something but because reasons must be grave and valid indeed. If the rules are not observed, the rapist will find himself in trouble. He may even get killed for it. That's risky.

I do not perceive any romanticism in all of that. It's just life as it is, life that forces its own rough laws on us. I cannot say that I liked absolutely all rules and laws. Say, all these so called "suits" - thieves, punks, workers, etc. There were episodes of crying injustice as well, and I even tried to do something about it every now and then because I just could not remain a disinterested observer. I had my share of enemies among junkies there. Well, life is life. Neither could I interfere directly. I had to come up with something, some device that would help whoever I was trying to help and at the same time concur with their rules and laws. It was not easy at all but I just could not keep silent.

Notre Dame Mosque: 2048 by Yelena Chudinova

This month's copy of Russia Profile had an interesting book review by editor Andrei Zolotov, Jr. of Yelena Chudinova's dystopian thriller about a possible Islamist conquest of France: Notre Dame Mosque: 2048.

You can't add it to your Christmas gift list, because it hasn't been translated into English yet. Notre Dame Mosque: 2048. has provoked a big splash in Russia, because of its plot--updating the story of the fall of Constantinople and combining it with the legendary French Resistance during WWII. Where Constantinople was once the heart of the Christian world, Paris is symbolizes the heart of the secular world today--brought about by Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire.

In Chudinova's book, the fall of Paris to the Islamists means that in 2048, French who refuse to convert to Islam are locked in to ghettoes, farmers are stoned to death for producing wine, and women must wear the chador. As during WWII, there is a secular underground resistance that blows up bloodthirsty Imams, as well as a secret Catholic community living in catacombs beneath the city. When the liquidation of the non-Islamic ghettoes is announced, secularists and Christians join forces in an uprising the author calls "the Ninth Crusade." Notre Dame is reconquered, Mass is said, and then the Cathedral-turned-Mosque blown up by resistance fighters.

Zolotov concludes his review:

This is more of an ideological statement than a work of fiction. it is a fundamentalist Christian pamphlet in the form of a novel. The author says he main goal is to issue a warning to decrepit European civilization. She also deliberately violates every form of political correctness in her viruently anti-Muslim and anti-liberal stance.

The book, which marks the first inroad of Russia's nascent religious right movement into the realm of fiction, provoked a splash of often justified criticism. However, reading it against the backdrop of the recent French riots was certainly an eerie experience.

Chudinova's controversial novel has been discussed here where she is called Russia's Orianna Fallaci, as well as on this Armenian website and the website of the Union of the Council for Jews of the Former Soviet Union--twice.

If you read Russian, you can buy a copy online from Chudinova's Russian publisher, Lepta Press. Chudinova's Russian biography is online at the "literary cafe" section, under "authors."

You can read a brief English biography here.

David Irving and the Islamist Threat

The arrest of David Irving in Vienna on charges of denying the Holocaust is an interesting development. In a Spectator column calling for his release, titled Let Irving Speak, Rod Liddle noted that there was an Anglo-Saxon free speech issue involved, and asked:

Are we agitating for his immediate release? Has Jack Straw summoned the Austrian ambassador for an explanation? You're having a laugh mate. What about Amnesty International UK? They do excellent work on behalf of prisoners of conscience, i.e., people who are put in prison simply for stating an opinion. Not a hope. Its spokesman told me that it would not be petitioning on Irving's behalf because his views could incite hatred. So sod the freedom of conscience stuff on this occasion then.

What I'd like to suggest is that by the David Irving standard, the US and US supported NGOs might consider dropping support for Islamist "prisoners of conscience" who espouse similar anti-semitic views. And that the US Government and US supported NGOs immediately stop their condemnation of governments that treat Islamists the way Austria treats David Irving.

Certainly the threat currently facing Austria is less great than in many other countries. Yet there apparently is a basis in law and history for their actions to circumscribe free speech.And the "international community" defers to Austria, rather than condemning their actions.

Yet, Austrians haven't acted on the basis of anti-semitic incitement for a couple of generations. But Islamist anti-semites have incited violence around the world. One prominent Holocaust denier who calls for Israel to be wiped off the map happens to be president of Iran--and is supporting global guerrilla movements and their front organizations. Given that there have been actual terrorists acts inspired by Islamist rhetoric little different from David Irving's it is strange that groups like Amnesty International apparently take a threat from David Irving seriously, but not the very real threat from Islamist organizations that celebrated the attack on the World Trade Center, the bombings and riots in London, Madrid, Istanbul, Bali, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, the Phillipines, India, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Russia, France--and Israel, of course.

If David Irving is indeed a threat to Austrians in the view of human rights NGOs, then Western human rights groups might also consider that Islamist anti-semites and holocaust deniers are at least equally a danger -- and stop their vigorous defense of an obvious worldwide incitment to violence by Islamists that makes David Irving look tame by comparison.

Haaretz on the Palestinian Elections

Shmuel Rosner has an interesting analysis of how elections may lead to more terror in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas:

"Didn't you learn the lesson of Hezbollah?" an Israeli asked. "They participated in the Lebanese election, but it didn't stop them from continuing to score points with terror attacks. They didn't "integrate" into the political system, so why do you think it will be different with Hamas?"

The Americans listened carefully. They don't feel comfortable with the current situation, but the influence they have on the PA leadership is limited. Abu Mazen is weak, but there are no alternatives in sight. If it were up to Israel, no Palestinian elections would take place as long as the Hamas question is unresolved. "We will arrest anyone we think is a terror operative," an Israeli official told the Americans. "Make no mistake, elections will not stop us from doing what we think is necessary."

Musings on the Iraqi Election

I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that the focus on the Iraqi election may be misplaced. Democracy is about a lot more than elections. The Soviet Union had elections. Iran has elections today--and calls for wiping Israel off the map. Hitler was elected, after all. As were Bush nemeses Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe.

It may be that this Iraqi election turns out not to be all that important in the long run. It may be that what takes place in Iraq in the days, weeks, months and years following this election will make all the difference.

And about that--as Sam Goldwyn quipped-- it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

Could Topix.net be the Next Google?

I discovered Topix.net in a Google search of links to my website. They had put my article on Larry Markowitz's Uzbekistan talk on their Uzbekistan News page, while Google didn't have it as a news link. Decision: Topix.net. I tried it for "Russia" and found a few interesting blog items with news items. I like the decision not to segregate by kind--putting bloggers on equal footing with the NY Times is a good way to have real competition. So, I added it to my favorites--and will add it to my links column in a moment...

It's Official: Rice to Takeover USAID

On Fox News, via AP, today.

More on Putin's Political Agenda

In Russian Blog: My Political Credo.

This 'n That on the Death of Tookie Williams

This 'n That explains that Tookie Williams was a gambler until the end...

Casque d'Or

The other night we watched our third Jacques Becker film: Casque d'Or. Like La Trou and Touchez Pas au Grisbi, it was superb. This one had Simone Signoret as a really fatal femme fatale, and like the other two, a noirish plot set in the French underworld. Again there were twists and turns, bittersweet moments, and betrayals as well as solidarity. What more can I say other than add it to your Netflix queue? I gave it five stars...

Army v. Navy

So much has happened, that I didn't have a chance to blog about last week's Army-Navy game in Philadelphia. By now the world knows that Navy won, 42-23. The person I went with is from a Navy family, and my uncle served in Naval Intelligence during WWII in India. So we were supposed to root for Navy. We drove up I-95 surrounded by cars, vans, and buses with Navy flags.

But out of sheer contrariness, we were rooting for Army. I'm an honorary member of the WWII 6th Armored Division, and the father of the person I went with got a Purple Heart and Bronze Star as an infantryman in Korea. So we had some rights, there, too.

We got our tickets via StubHub and as a pleasant surprise, they were on the Army side, way up above the 15 yard line. We were surrounded by cadets in Dress Gray rather than Navy Blue. It gave us a good look at the Navy cheerleaders, and fans, from across the field. We saw the Navy goats as well as the army mules.

Unfortunately, Army didn't have what it took to win. Navy really had the better team, it's true. Their fans got happier and happier as our side got sadder and sadder. We stayed till the bitter end (or happy ending).

It was freezing cold. After Russia, the US Military Academy dress gray uniform looked way too thin and flimsy. Where were their fur hats? Brrrr... The spectacle was excellent. The exchange of prisoners at the start was exciting, especially the Navy cadets wearing posterboards reading "Beat Army". Army didn't have that kind of nerve. It was a sign of things to come. The Navy jets were excellent, as were the Army helicopters.

The spirit videos, many of them with Star Wars themes, were funny. The tribute to the troops who have been killed was touching. The half-time ceremonies featuring aging Army astronauts were nostalgic for the long-ago space age. The capper was a live link to the International Space Station, where America's current Army astronaut persuaded his Russian cosmonaut comrade to wear a "Beat Navy" tee shirt. It didn't help Army one bit.

From the spirited crowd at the game, I'd say that inter-service rivalry is alive and well, despite Donald Rumsfeld's transformation of the US Military. The great thing about the game was being with all the service families. Great people. A nice crowd, very much better behaved than a Redskins game I went to a few years ago.

One interesting sidlight was that the game showed the NY Times can't even be trusted for sports coverage. On game day the paper ran a long article on the front page of the sports section, explaining that Army had put together a competitive team and was expected to win by a comfortable margin. If we had put down any money, we would have lost it. Navy's victory was buried in the back pages the next day. No "correction" appeared. So, if that's how they cover West Point and Annapolis, I wouldn't rely on NY Times coverage of Iraq, either. If you can't cover sports, you can't cover news.

Which is why we're glad we saw the game for ourselves. We could be happy Navy won. And for Army, there's always next year...

Condoleezza Rice, Up Close and Personal

Just got back from The Heritage Foundation, where I heard Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speak about "International Support for Iraqi Democracy on the Eve of the December 15, 2005 Elections."

In person, the Secretary appears even slimmer than on television. She looked about 5'6" or so, and the lady sitting next to me said she guessed that Rice wore a size 4 dress, no more than size 6. Extremely elegant, poised, and polished in her presentation. She had a certain star quality, that's not hype. As Billy Crystal says, she looked marvellous. Rice also seems likeable, at least before a friendly Heritage Foundation audience.

The crowd was invitation-only, A-list conservatives--Heritage Foundation board members, former UN Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, former Newsweek editor Arnaud de Borchegrave, and international journalists from places like CNN, Germany's Stern magazine, and elsewhere. I honestly don't know how I got on the invitation list, and I'm grateful that somebody put my name into some database somewhere. The event was fascinating. The hall was full. And it was exciting. I had a seat in the second row, so was up as close as could be (the first was reserved for board members).

Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner beamed as Rice recalled meeting him at Camp David during the George H.W. Bush administration before the collapse of the Soviet Union (and subsequent collapse of the George H.W. Bush administration). She certainly has charisma.

The actual talk was pretty much Bush administration good news talking points--new US base in Romania, countries like Ukraine and Kazakhstan fighting alongside American soldiers in Iraq, Bush's vision for a new Middle East based on peace and democracy, the US doesn't torture but will use any legal method to fight terror, we can't afford to lose, Bush will never retreat, no stability without democracy, and so on.

There were. however, a few moments that seemed like something new.

First, and most striking, Rice asked for international help in prosecuting Saddam Hussein. She said the international community and human rights organizations ought to help hold Saddam accountable for his crimes against humanitiy. Given the trial has been going poorly so far in Baghdad, this sounded like a cry for help. It came across as perhaps even whiny. The US can't see to it that Hussein is convicted? I mean, Rudy Giuliani got John Gotti, for goodness sake. And given opposition to a permanent international criminal court--from conservatives at places like Heritage--it seemed to signal weakness. Bad sign.

Second, also noteworthy, Rice said that as a Soviet expert, she realized that America had faced strategic defeat after strategic defeat in the postwar era, yet went on to win the Cold War--citing the division of Germany, the Greek Civil War, the strong vote for Communist parties, the loss of China. Reminding Americans of those setbacks, and calling them defeats, raised the specter of defeat in Iraq. Rice actually used the "D" word in a talk about Iraq--not Howard Dean--which means there must be some contingency plans at the State Department. Visions of helicopters evacuating the American embassy swirled in my head instead of Christmas sugarplum fairies. If she's thinking about America's defeats, and America's coming back another day, perhaps she's thinking of running away? Another bad sign. Not to mention that Truman was booted out of office for failing to win in Korea, and the millions suffered for generations under communist dictatorships afterwards. Containment policies led to continuous Communist expansion until the election of Ronald Reagan.

Unfortunately, Rice was unable to directly grapple with the question of Islamist extremism, which she held was similar to Communism, although she alluded to it--and at one point, only one point, she actually used the term: "so-called jihad." America's enemies were labeled with euphemisms--"Saddamists" instead of Ba'athists; "Terrorists" instead of Islamists.

She is good at handling a Q&A, to a point. A difficult question from Ali Alyami, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudia Arabia about American cooperation with the Saudis, establishing six committees -- yet none dedicated to democracy -- was parried with disappointing skill. Rice responded that issues of democracy--supposedly President Bush's top priority in foreign affairs--would be covered for the Saudis in a committe on "human development." In other words, America can't even say the word "Democracy."

Despite Rice's winning rhetoric about truth and democracy, brave Iraqis and cowardly terrorists, Rice was never able to directly address the issue Ali Alyami (who told the audience that his son served in Iraq) raised: Saudi Arabia's continued support for Islamist extremists--including those who attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11 and attack our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day. Alyami told me after the event that he believed the Saudi Royal Family and Osama Bin Laden were two sides of the same coin. Until America acts decisively against Saudi Arabia, he said, Osama's support will continue to grow.

So far Rice's message is just not as good as Rice the messenger. The feeling remains that although there is a real jihad going on around the world against America by Islamist extemists, there may not be a real crusade against Islamist extremism by America.

The Heritage Foundation has a slogan: Ideas Have Consequences. Their website declares:

We believe that ideas have consequences, but that those ideas must be promoted aggressively.

It might be a good idea for Secretary of State Rice to take Heritage's message to heart for use in the war in Iraq as well as the larger Global War on Terror.

PS Nothing was said about USAID.

PPS Someone sitting a few seats down said she was going to President Bush's speech tomorrow at Washington, DC's Woodrow Wilson Center. Maybe he'll have something to say . . .

Chingiz Aitmatov Talks to Haaretz

The famous Central Asian author has an interview in the Israeli newspaper, linked on Registan.net.

My Cousin on La Traviata

This is a nice post about some of what Opera means to my Israeli cousin.

Mark Steyn on Iran v. Israel

Steyn is in fine form today. He does a great job on US State Department spokesperson Adam Ereli's pathetically weak response to Iran's president:

So let's see: We have a Holocaust denier who wants to relocate an entire nation to another continent, and he happens to be head of the world's newest nuclear state. (They're not 100 percent fully-fledged operational, but happily for them they can drag out the pseudo-negotiations with the European Union until they are. And Washington certainly won't do anything, because after all if we're not 100 percent certain they've got WMD -- which we won't be until there's a big smoking crater live on CNN one afternoon -- it would be just another Bushitlerburton lie to get us into another war for oil, right?)

So how does the United States react? Well, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the comments of Ahmadinejad "further underscore our concerns about the regime."

Really? But wait, the world's superpower wasn't done yet. The State Department moved to a two-adjective alert and described Ahmadinejad's remarks as "appalling" and "reprehensible." "They certainly don't inspire hope among any of us in the international community that the government of Iran is prepared to engage as a responsible member of that community," said spokesman Adam Ereli.

You don't say. Ahmadinejad was speaking in the holy city of Mecca, head office of the "religion of peace," during a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. There were fiftysomething other heads of government in town. How many do you think took their Iranian colleague to task?

Well, what's new? But, that being so, it would be heartening if the rest of the world could muster a serious response to the guy. How one pines for a plain-spoken tell-it-like-it-is fellow like, say, former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali? As he memorably said of Iran, "It's a totalitarian regime." Oh, no, wait. He said that about the United States. On Iran, he's as impeccably circumspect and discreet as the State Department.

Israel Charges EU Supports Terrorism

I'm not surpised by this Haaretz story:

The Foreign Ministry believes that the European Union has violated international law by talking to Hezbollah and by planning to make contact with Hamas. An internal ministry document obtained by Haaretz states that contact with representatives of these two groups is contrary to international law.

"Several countries have adopted a policy that includes entering into official talks with representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah, or refraining from taking harsh measures against their involvement in terrorism," the document states. "From a legal standpoint, such political considerations cannot justify activity that is contrary to international law."

The writers of the document based their comments on resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council, which outlaw active or passive support for bodies or individuals involved in terrorism.

I wonder if the US might also be in violation of international law in this regard, especially when it comes to Islamists active in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world?

Eugene McCarthy, Remembered

I'm not alone, certainly, to feel a twinge at the passing of Eugene McCarthy. I remember walking the hallways of my Bronx apartment building canvassing for McCarthy at the age of 12. For a long time afterwards, I kept my McCarthy button. I was part of the "children's crusade" against the Vietnam War which led me to other leftist political movements, then after Ronald Reagan's success (and interestingly, Reagan was endorsed by Gene McCarthy) like a pendulum to the right, before I settled into the independent middle-of-the-road where I hope to remain forever.

I crossed paths with McCarthy after I had achieved the age of reason. I was a student at Swarthmore College when McCarthy came to speak in the mid 1970s, in the cavernous Clothier Hall, that in those days resembled a Quaker gothic cathedral. McCarthy seemed depressed. He read some poetry and made sour comments about politics. I remember I asked a smart aleck question about him being a sore loser and letting down those who had believed in him when he quit the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and resigned from the Senate. It may have been the only hostile question. He didn't have much of an answer, and the audience gave me hostile glares. Now that I'm older, I guess I understand a better that maybe he wasn't a sanctimonious fraud, he just ran out of gas. It could have happened to anyone.

Still, if it hadn't been for Eugene McCarthy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan never could have become Presidents -- evidence of, as the Russians like to say, the "irony of life."

State Department to Takeover USAID?

That's the gist of this Financial Times story linked on Free Republic.

It's not a bad idea, in principle. USAID obviously has more than one prostitution scandal in its multi-billion dollar budget. Not to mention my suspicion that it may possibly fund Islamist terrorists or their supporters. In any case, to lose an agency in Washington means that things are screwed-up inside worse than any oustsiders know. Worse than SNAFU. It's equivalent the death penalty for bureaucrats--some people might actually lose their jobs as well as their budgets.

Unfortunately the State Department is hardly the best-managed agency in the US Government. Maybe Condoleezza Rice will change that, but it certainly won't be easy. She's scheduled to make a speech about something at the Heritage Foundation on Tuesday, and I'll try to attend and see if she says something about USAID.

Until then, good night, and good luck...