Robert Spencer on the DNC's Imam

From Frontpagemag.com

A touching moment of ecumenical generosity and hope for peace? Not quite. In mentioning “Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed,” Al-Husainy no doubt sounded as if he was expansive, broad-minded, and not narrowly sectarian to the assembled Democrats. But in fact, he was almost certainly invoking them in their capacity as Muslim prophets: it is mainstream Islam that all of these were prophets who taught Islam, and that the followers of Moses and Jesus corrupted their teachings to create Judaism and Christianity. The Qur’an says that Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian, but a Muslim (3:67), and depicts Jesus denying his own divinity (5:116) -- and this, of course, is the Imam’s frame of reference. So what seems to be a gesture of ecumenical generosity actually amounts to a declaration of religious supremacism and the delegitimization of other religions.

What’s more, if a Christian priest or minister had prayed at a DNC meeting that those attending be guided away from the path of those doomed by God, the outcry would have been swift and shrill. Those whom God dooms? Hardly a concept that fits comfortably into today’s culture of non-accountability, but evidently it was acceptable to the Democrats when coming from a Muslim, although many of them would almost certainly been among the first to condemn the same sentiment coming from a Christian.

In this, in any case, the Imam was echoing the Fatiha, the first sura of the Qur’an and most common prayer of Islam. It asks Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam -- cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito’s book Islam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians. The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that “the two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.” ...

...Of course, many of these ideas are mainstream among Democrats nowadays, so it is perhaps not surprising that Al-Husainy would have been welcome at the DNC meeting. The peculiar episode of his invocation is emblematic of the larger alliance between the Left and the global jihad – an alliance that may make the DNC’s conversion to Islam unnecessary, as the anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism of the jihadists is already abundantly in evidence among them. Perhaps this is a marriage of convenience for the Left, but, as the jihad continues to advance, it is one they will almost certainly someday come to regret.

Robert Spencer on Dinesh D'Souza

Like Victor Davis Hanson, Robert Spencer doesn't like Dinesh D'Souza's new book:

It is in this connection that he mentions my books Islam Unveiled and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, along with Serge Trifkovic’s superb Sword of the Prophet. (Trifkovic has ably answered D’Souza here.) D’Souza’s point about such books, however, can again just as easily be used against him by inverting his thesis. While he claims that criticism of Islam breeds jihadists, it is just as easy to say that there is no better way to repel anti-jihad leftists and push them into the arms of the jihadists (with whom so much of the Left is already allied), than to dub them “the enemy at home.”

Even worse, when D’Souza assumes that peaceful Muslims will have a greater sense of solidarity with jihadists than with non-Muslims, he destroys his entire thesis. For if these peaceful Muslims really abhor jihadism, they should have no reason to object to critical presentations of the elements of Islam that foster jihadism. But if a few books will be enough to drive them into the arms of the jihadists, then how committed could they really have been to peace and moderation in the first place? D’Souza is assuming that they regard global jihad terrorism as less damaging to their religion than “Islamophobic tracts,” which in itself completely undermines D’Souza’s assumption that jihad terrorism is a twisting of “traditional” Islam. Shouldn’t violence perpetrated in the name of their cherished religion make them much more indignant than some books that explore the Islamic roots of jihad terrorism – even if those books were offensive (which they aren’t by any rational standard)? Throughout his book D’Souza makes moral equivalence arguments about the Judeo-Christian tradition and Islam. At one point, as we have seen, he even asserts that the Islamic moral code of stonings and beheadings amounts to Old Testament morality (but doesn’t bother to explain why no Jews and Christians practice stoning or beheading). Yet the equivalence breaks down on the level of behavior: Christians have never embraced violence in reaction to innumerable insults to their faith in recent years. Why should we ask or expect less of Muslims?

And by the way, it is odd that D’Souza, for all his disgust for the Left, would pick up on the Leftist coinage “Islamophobia,” a trumped-up, politically manipulative term intended to stifle debate. I would have thought D’Souza would be ashamed of using it until I read his recommendation that “the right” stop producing books like mine. He has denied that this was a call to silence me and others like me, and I’m sure it wasn’t: if Trifkovic and I begin to retail the prevailing PC fictions about Islam as a religion of peace and join mainstream analysts in declining to hold Muslims accountable for their actions (since they’re just reacting to the depredations of bad old America), I am sure D’Souza will be happy if we flourish.

In a sermon broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television in 2000, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, a member of the Palestinian Authority’s Fatwa Council, anticipated D’Souza’s call to alliance and declared: “Allah the almighty has called upon us not to ally with the Jews or the Christians, not to like them, not to become their partners, not to support them, and not to sign agreements with them. And he who does that is one of them, as Allah said: ‘O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies, for they are allies of one another. Who from among you takes them as allies will indeed be one of them.’ . . . Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them.”[13]

In this Abu Halabiya was quoting Qur’an 5:51 (“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them”) and 9:5 (“slay the idolaters wherever ye find them”). His application of these words to the contemporary political situation would thus resonate even with “traditional Muslims,” whose Qur’an is the same as that of the jihadists. And Abu Halabiya intended it to resonate in that way.

If the exportation of American depravity were to end tomorrow, it would not efface these and other words from the Qur’an, or keep preachers from using them to prevent any peaceful accord between Muslims and non-Muslims. That D’Souza suggests that it would manifests an appalling ignorance of Islamic theology, history, and present reality. He writes that “no real understanding of Islamic culture is possible that refuses to take Islam seriously,” yet he ends up doing just that. In the fourteenth century, the Byzantine Emperor John VI Cantacuzenes entered into an alliance with the Ottoman Turks, whom he invited into Europe to help him win a dynastic dispute. In the fifteenth century, the Ottomans seized Constantinople and destroyed the Byzantine Empire, and were greatly aided in doing so by having a base in Europe.

Dinesh D’Souza, no less short-sighted and naïve as John VI Cantacuzenes, is exhorting conservatives today to rush into an alliance that would ultimately bring upon themselves the same disaster.

Victor Davis Hanson on Dinesh D'Souza

It seems that Victor Davis Hanson doesn't like Dinesh D'Souza's new book (ht JihadWatch):

D'Souza's solution is for conservatives here to embrace conservative Muslims, in a shared struggle against both the American left that misrepresented us and the jihadists who now misrepresent them.

But D'Souza's strained effort to fault millions of Americans for 9/11 proves no more convincing than was Susan Sontag's or Jerry Falwell's.

First, he libels a number of "domestic insurgents" who "want bin Laden to win." His list is nonsensical. Whatever one may think of the wisdom of Jimmy Carter or the late Molly Ivins, or of intellectuals like Tony Judt, Martha Nussbaum and Garry Wills, none of them wanted al-Qaida to defeat the United States — a victory that would have ended liberal tolerance here.

The novelist Salman Rushdie is also posted on D'Souza's proscription list. But why would the author of "The Satanic Verses" wish the jihadists to prevail when he himself was nearly killed as the object of an Iranian fatwa?

Second, D'Souza should reread al-Qaida's rambling complaints against the United States. They are just as often incoherent as they are angry at American decadence.

Bin Laden at times whined about the American failure to sign the Kyoto treaty on global climate, white racism, the bombing of Hiroshima, even improper campaign donations. If we took these terrorist rants as seriously as D'Souza does, then al-Qaida might seem to be a radical leftist organization furious at the supposed sins of a conservative United States.

Third, why should we think Islamic objections to our culture could justify the violence of the extremists? Jihadists may not like Western drug use, homosexuality, rap music or abortion any more than we do female circumcision, polygamy, sharia law and gender apartheid, which are as common in the Middle East as our purported offenses are in the West. But would anyone thereby justify Americans suicide-bombing Muslim civilians?

Fourth, in terms of giving possible offense to Muslims, others (such as the Indians, Russians and Chinese) have violently surpassed anything blamed on the United States. But bin Laden rammed planes into our towers, apparently because he bet (wrongly) that America was least likely to strike back. And wounding the United States — the most powerful symbol of a free, prosperous West — would offer the best propaganda coup for galvanizing other Muslims.

Fifth, and most regrettable, is D'Souza's belief that ideology trumps Americans' shared history and values. But despite the differences between red- and blue-state America, we find more in common with each other than with conservative Muslims in a gender-segregated Saudi Arabia or a religiously intolerant Iran.

Inside the Yenching Palace

Last night someone I know and yours truly enjoyed a Beijing Duck dinner at Washington's Yenching Palace restaurant. There had been news stories about Walgreen's buying the building which has been a Chinese restaurant for some half-century. The owners are reportedly closing up shop. I had last been there many years ago with my father, when it was known as Henry Kissinger's favorite Chinese restaurant. Now, having eaten there last night, we know why. Not only because of the diplomatic connection--the Cuban Missile Crisis was apparently resolved there as well as Nixon's opening to China--but also because of the nice old-fashioned decor: booths, jade carvings, Chinese murals; the nostalgic bar serving martinis as well as flaming tropical drinks; and the well-preserved cash-register, coat check room, and telephone booth. White tablecloths, plenty of food, good service. It's not expensive. And, there's a take-out menu. The talk in the restaurant is that they will stay open a few months longer, so if you are in Washington, try and get to the Yenching Palace for dinner--before it's history...

Melanie Phillips on Jewish Accomplices to Genocide

The author of Londonistan takes on the danger posed by "progressive" Jewish support for Islamist extremism, in her latest column:

The phenomenon of this Jewish fifth column for Arab and Muslim terror is now doing serious damage to the struggle for survival not just by Israel but by the west in general. Two writers have recently produced withering critiques of these people and the harm they are doing: Bruce Bawer, author of While Europe Slept, and Professor Alvin Rosenfeld, whose article has horrified American liberal Jews who refuse to acknowledge their own faces in Caliban’s mirror.

One of the most painful aspects of all of the Jewish tragedy is that, throughout the unending history of Jewish persecution — from the medieval Christian converts to Marx and beyond —Jews have figured, for a variety of reasons, as prominent accomplices of those who wished to destroy the Jewish people. These signatories are firmly in that lamentable tradition. And since today’s principal battleground is — as the Islamists well understand but we in the west do not — the battleground of ideas, the contribution of these Israel-bashing Jewish intellectuals to the cause of those who hate Jews, the west and human rights is immense.

When Daniel Pipes was recently drowned out by Islamists at the University of California-Irvine, this (via LGF) was what they were saying:

They have no future. And it’s just a matter of time before the state of Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth.[Crowd: Takbir! Allahu akbar!] Justice will be restored then. Those people who are there legitimately … the people there will, will rule. There will be no injustice any more there. So just keep on doing what we’re doing. Our weapon, our jihad, our way of struggling in this country is with our tongues. We speak out, and we deflate their morale, and this is the best we can do right now….[Crowd: Takbir! Allahu akbar!]

At a time when Iran is threatening to nuke Israel into kingdom come, the words of the prophet come to mind: your destroyers are among you.

Christopher Hitchens on Robert Conquest

From The Wall Street Journal:

Just as one can never imagine Mr. Conquest raising his voice or losing his temper, so one can never picture him using an obscenity for its own sake. A few years ago he said to me that the old distinctions between left and right had become irrelevant to him, adding very mildly that fools and knaves of all kinds needed to be opposed and that what was really needed was "a United Front against bulls--t."
For all that, his life has been lived among the ideological storms of the 20th century, of which he retains an acute and unique memory. He was himself a communist for a couple of years in the late 1930s, having been radicalized while studying in France and observing events in Spain. "I was even a left deviationist--my best friend was a Trotskyist and when King George V was crowned we decorated the college at Oxford with eight chamberpots painted in red, white and blue." He left the party after asking what the line would be if Chamberlain ever declared war on Hitler, and receiving the reply: "Comrade, it is impossible that the bourgeois Chamberlain would ever declare war on Hitler." This he found "oafish." "I didn't like the word 'impossible.' "

Wartime service in Bulgaria, which made him an eyewitness to Stalin's takeover of the country at the end, was proof positive. From then on, working as a researcher and later as a diplomat for the British Foreign Office, he strove to propose a social-democratic resistance to communism. "I'd always been a Labour man and somewhat on the left until the 1970s, when I met Margaret Thatcher and she asked my advice." That advice--which translated into the now-famous "Iron Lady" speech--was to regard the Soviet system as something condemned by history and doomed to fail. If that sounds easy now, it wasn't then (though Mr. Conquest insists that it was George Orwell who first saw it coming).

Like many people with a natural gift for politics, Mr. Conquest finds that he distrusts those who can talk of nothing else. His affiliations are undogmatic and unfanatical (he preferred Tony Blair over Margaret Thatcher's successor John Major), and he does not bother to turn out at election times. "I'm a dual national who's a citizen of the U.S. and the U.K., so that voting in either place seems rather overdoing it." On the events of today he is always very judicious and reserved. "I have my own opinions about Iraq, but I haven't said a great deal about the subject because I don't know all that much about it."

How often do you hear anyone talking like that? If he had done nothing political, he would still have had a life, and would be remembered as the senior figure of that stellar collection of poets and writers--John Wain, Philip Larkin, Kingsley Amis--who became known in the Britain of the 1950s as "the Movement." Liddie Conquest happens to have written rather authoritatively about this group, though that's not how they met. "I was teaching at the University of Texas in El Paso and he came to give a poetry reading. But it wasn't until I met him later in California that something 'clicked,' as people like to say."

Mrs. Conquest might be described as a force of nature, and also as the wielder of a Texan skillet that yields brisket of a rare and strange tenderness; Anthony Powell in his "Journals" was again committed to understatement when he wrote of her engagement to "Bob" that "she is charming, and he a lucky man."

"I know you meet different lefties from the ones I know," he says, referring obliquely to some recent tussles between your humble servant and the Michael Moore faction. "But I've always been friends with what I call 'the good left.' " In the days of the old Soviet Union, he kept up a solid friendship with the radical Russian scholar Steve Cohen, author of a study of Nikolai Bukharin and husband of Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, and admired his objectivity. "I helped out Scoop Jackson against Kissinger on the Soviet Jewish question. Pat Moynihan helped me get a job at the Wilson Center in Washington in the 1970s."

I remind him that I once introduced him to that other great veteran of the Bay Area, Jessica "Decca" Mitford, and that in the course of a tremendous evening she was enchanted to find that this dreaded friend of Mrs. Thatcher was the only other person she'd ever met who knew all the words to the old Red songbooks, including the highly demanding ditty: "The Cloakmaker's Union Is a No-Good Union," anthem of the old communist garment district. At the close of that dinner I challenged him to write her a limerick on the spot, and he gallantly and spontaneously produced the following:

They don't find they're having to check a
Movement of homage to Decca.
It's no longer fair
To say Oakland's "not there" She's made it a regular Mecca.

The old girl was quite blown away by this tribute, and kept the inscribed napkin as a souvenir.

Mark Steyn on Extremist Influences in American Politics

Mark Steyn is in high dudgeon about the Democratic Party hosting an extremist at a recent meeting (ht Little Green Footballs):

Russia Warns West Over Kosovo

RIA Novosti has published an article by Sergei Markedonov of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis about the showdown between Russia & China versus the US and EU over Kosovo. After reading Markedonov, I'd ask George Bush to think twice before provoking another crisis in the Balkans--because the US is not in the same position it was in the 1990s, and Russia is richer and stronger than ever before, so strong that she might be looking for an excuse to "bloody the nose" of what appears to be an agressive, belligerent, and hypocritical West. If it's "payback time," I don't know that provoking a battle over Kosovo will help very much in the Global War on Terror (Remember Osama Bin Laden? He's for an independent Kosovo, too). Does Bush really want to "bring it on" in Kosovo, with the full plate facing America around the world right now?

There's another factor to consider--the basic threat of spreading separatism even farther around the world. Russia is threatening not only to stir up secessionist sentiment in places like Georgia's Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but also--reading between the lines--rekindling struggles for places like Corsica, Euskadi (Basque country), and who knows, perhaps Northern Ireland. Candad (Quebec Liberation Front) and Latin America (remember Puerto Rican separatism?)...

Markedonov's plea to set up agreed-upon conditions for secession and self-determination among the great powers should not be dismissed, as it provides a welcome "time-out" from a showdown that may end up no better than the results of US-EU policies to date in Afganistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Timor, or the Palestinian Authority:

The first criterion for recognizing self-proclaimed entities could be their validity as a state. Why doesn't the international community rush with Kosovo's recognition? The reason is quite pragmatic. It is not because of Orthodox Serbs, but because state governance there has been replaced with the clan system.

The second criterion could be a mother country's ability to control a breakaway territory by any means other than deportation and ethnic cleansings. What, apart from the "broad autonomy" rhetoric, can Georgia give to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Azerbaijan to Karabakh? After all, if these territories are re-integrated, Azerbaijan will get Armenians as its new citizens, while Georgia will receive Ossetians, Abkhazes, Armenians and Russians. In other words, re-integration should be assumed impossible if it can lead to a military conflict.

The third criterion could be the existence of democratic procedures in self-proclaimed states.

The fourth one - real (not Kosovo-like) guarantees of ethnic minorities' rights, secured by law and in real life.

And, the fifth could be the establishment of bilateral economic, diplomatic and other relations between a mother country and a breakaway territory.

Only by setting clear criteria for recognizing self-proclaimed territories will the international community be able to break the Kosovo deadlock and prevent (or, at least, minimize) the possibility of emerging similar precedents somewhere in Europe or Eurasia.

The unilateral moment is clearly over, and it would be a mistake to assume that the US can bluff its way through, or bully Russia and China. Let's not be afraid to negotiate. As Churchill famously said in another context: "Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War..."

More Shostakovitch

Last night, at the Kennedy Center, where a friend had invited us to hear the Emerson String Quartet perform three of Shostakovitch's chamber music compositions, as part of the Fortas Chamber Music Series. The quartet, Eugene Drucker, violin; Philip Setzer, violin; Lawrence Dutton, viola; and David Finckel, cello did a really nice job on String Quartet No. 2 in A major, Op. 68; String Quartet No. 4 in D major, Op. 83; and String Quartet No. 8 in C minor, Op. 110. We heard them play some other numbers during the summer at the Ravinia festival near Chicago, where it was about 100 degrees and the air conditioning was turned off. We nearly died from heat prostration during that concert, but this time, the Terrace Theatre was cool and comfortable, and we enjoyed the Russian soul expressed by Bostonian string players. There are more scheduled for tonight, part of a cycle celebration the Russian composer's 100th birthday.

Forgotten Genius

A friend sent me this New York Times story about Nova's biography of Percy L. Julian:

Harvard awarded him a master’s degree but would not support him in getting his doctorate (he earned it at the University of Vienna); potential employers snubbed him. (“We didn’t know you were a Negro,” the DuPont Company told him after inviting him for an interview.)

After doors slammed and opportunities vanished, Mr. Julian landed a job at Howard University, only to become enmeshed in a sex scandal that ended his employment there: He and his future wife were accused of having an affair while she was still married to one of his colleagues.

He spent years teaching at DePauw, in Greencastle, Ind., where a building is now named in his honor, but was denied a faculty position. After almost two decades at the Glidden company, where his research made possible a fire-retardant foam widely used in World War II and the mass production of synthetic progesterone, the company told him to concentrate on things like nonsplattering shortening.

By the time he became successful enough to move with his wife and two children into Oak Park, Ill., a mostly white Chicago suburb, their home was the target of a bomb and a fire.

“The good side was, as a kid I got to spend more time with my dad and stay up late, because we’d sit in the tree outside,” recalls Percy Julian Jr., now a civil rights lawyer in Madison, Wis. “He’d sit there with a shotgun. And we’d talk about why someone would want to do this, and how wrong it was and how stupid it was.”

Huozhe-To Live (1994)

I've been getting a lot of hits from China the past couple of days, perhaps because some of Sidney Sheldon's 300 million books in print are published in Chinese...

I thought I'd put in a plug for a Chinese film that I got from Netflix, thanks to the recommendation of a cousin by marriage. It's called "Huozhe" or "To Live." It tells the story of China from the Revolution until the Great Leap Forward though the story of one family, based on a novel by Wei Yu and Hua Yu. It stars the beautiful Gong Li and emotional Ge You, directed by Yimou Zhang.

It is sort of like a Sidney Sheldon novel, in its emotional pull. And it's just outstanding, capturing the fear that obviously dominates life in China--as well as the suffering people have endured under a variety of ill-considered schemes. It's the type of film that Hollywood used to make here, but no longer does...Five stars. (More about the picture, here.)

A Message from Team Rudy

Why I think Rudy Giuliani really is running for President in 2008. As evidence, here's an email I found in my inbox on February 2nd.

To: Team Rudy
From:Brent Seaborn, Strategy Director
Date: February 2, 2007
Re:Rudy and the Republican Nomination

Over the last month or two there has been a good deal of public opinion polling on the 2008 Republican primary race. I thought it would be helpful to take a step back and take a closer look at how voters - particularly Republican primary voters - feel about Rudy Giuliani and why we think we are well-positioned heading in to the primary season.

Americans Have a Highly Favorable Opinion of Mayor Giuliani
Entering the 2008 primary season, Rudy Giuliani is uniquely positioned among potential Republican candidates because of his extremely high favorability ratings. Recent public opinion polling shows Mayor Giuliani with 61% approval among adults across the country - according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll (Jan. 16-19, 2007). The well respected, bipartisan Battleground Poll (Jan 8-11, 2007) shows the Mayor with 65% favorability among likely voters. More importantly, Mayor Giuliani shows an 81% favorable rating among Republicans and only 10% with an unfavorable opinion.

According to the Battleground poll, Mayor Giuliani also has surprisingly high favorability ratings beyond the base:

70% of independents are favorable,
70% of 35-44 year olds,
74% of married women,
73% of households married with children,
52% of minority voters
The Mayor also enjoys strong approval among white evangelical Christians (76%) and self-described conservative Republicans (82%).

In an even more recent poll, Gallup (Jan. 25-28, 2007) finds Mayor Giuliani also leads among Republicans on 7 of 10 key issues including terrorism, the economy, healthcare and fighting crime. He also leads on 11 of 15 key candidate attributes - including "better understands the problems faced by ordinary Americans", "would manage government more effectively" and what I believe to be the single most important factor - "is the stronger leader."

In sum, while we fully expect these polls to tighten in the months and weeks to come, Republican voters genuinely know and like Rudy Giuliani.

The Mayor Performs Well in Opinion Polls
The Mayor's exceptionally strong approval ratings also translate in to an advantage on Republican primary ballot tests. In 11 of 13 ballot tests in respected national public opinion polls [Fox News, Newsweek, Time Gallup, CNN, NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post] since last November, Mayor Giuliani has a lead - in fact, his lead is on average, more than 5-points over the next closest candidate. And his ballot strength began to trend upward after the 2006 midterm elections.

Mayor Giuliani Leads in Key 2008 Primary States
Mayor Giuliani also leads in a series of other states that will likely prove critical in the 2008 Republican primary:

State Mayor Giuliani Closest Competitor Source
California 33% 19% (Gingrich) ARG - Jan. 11-17
Florida 30% 16% (Gingrich) ARG - Jan. 4-9
Illinois 33% 24% (McCain) ARG - Jan. 11-14
Michigan 34% 24% (McCain) ARG - Jan. 4-7
Nevada 31% 25% (McCain) ARG - Dec. 19-23, '06
New Jersey 39% 21% (McCain) Quinnipiac - Jan. 16-22
North Carolina 34% 26% (McCain) ARG - Jan. 11-15
Ohio 30% 22% (McCain) Quinnipiac - Jan. 23-28
Pennsylvania 35% 25% (McCain) ARG Jan. 4-8
Texas 28% 26% (McCain) Baselice Jan. 17-21

Conclusion
Recent polling continues to suggest Mayor Giuliani is very well positioned within the party - particularly when compared to other potential Republican candidates - to win the nomination.

Mayor Giuliani's favorable public opinion stems not only from his extraordinary leadership in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and in the uncertainty that followed, but also from a remarkably strong record of accomplishments in fighting crime and turning around New York City's economy in the 1990's.

Americans are anxious for fresh Republican leadership on a range of issues. Our voters are drawn to the leadership strength of a candidate during an election. Therefore, as we move forward with exploring a run for President and as we continue to share the Mayor's story of strong leadership and Reagan-like optimism and vision, we hope to see continued growth in our foundation of support.
 
Paid for by the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc. 2006-2007.
All Rights Reserved.

Lady Macbeth of Mtensk

Really enjoyed a concert version of Shostakovich's 1936 opera, Lady Macbeth of Mtensk, performed last night at the Kennedy Center by Valery Gergiev and the Kirov Opera singers, orchestra, and chorus. The program notes explained why this was the Russian composer's last opera--he was ordered to apologize for it by Stalin, or else. He finally apologized--and never wrote another opera again....

Here's a 2004 article about a London production from The Observer, which explains aspects of the historical significance of this work:

Stalin's verdict appeared across page three of Pravda two days later, in an article Shostakovich chanced on while awaiting another train at Archangelsk, headlined 'Muddle in lieu of music'. Shostakovich had written, it said, an 'ugly flood of confusing sound... a pandemonium of creaking, shrieking and crashes... unadulterated cacophony'. Things could, it menaced, 'end very badly' for the composer.

The pen was apparently Stalin's own - and the attack a potential death sentence. These were days of terror in the USSR: in the two years between the opera's premiere and Stalin's attack, some 40,000 of Shostakovich's fellow citizens had been deported to the gulag; many of his friends and family were murdered or disappeared; hundreds of thousands would die in the ensuing purges. Shostakovich reportedly told the writer Solomon Volkov: 'Everyone knew I would be destroyed. And the anticipation of that noteworthy event - for me at least - never left me.'

The axe that fell did not end Shostakovich's life but spliced it, forcing him to work in a world of dichotomy and masks - both to express himself and to survive - obliged often to communicate two messages simultaneously: one for consumption by the authorities, and another confessional, secretly spoken. Thus, some of the most forceful music ever written about the human condition, and political man, began with Lady Macbeth. And this is the work that first invokes the so-called 'Shostakovich Question' - among the most highly charged cultural discourses of the last century - which rages still.

Wikipedia entry on Dmitri Shostakovich here. Here's a BBC Radio 3 documentary on Shostakovich that talks about Lady Macbeth of Mtensk. And here's a link to a review of the Helikon Opera's 2002 Moscow production.

Gian Carlo Menotti

The recent death of composer Gian Carlo Menotti, who died on February 1st, reminds one that he dealt with the issue of diplomats confronting a refugee crisis--not so heroically as a people like Aristides de Sousa Mendes--in his first full-length opera The Consul, first produced in 1954. We saw it a couple of years ago at the Kennedy Center, in an excellent production from Placido Domingo's opera company, and the opera still packed a wallop...

Richard Holbrooke's Holocaust Book...

Well, he appeared at a recent public event for it, and today's New York Times reports that at least Ambassador Holbrooke wrote the introduction for Diplomat Heroes of the Holocaust by Mordecai Paldiel, published by Ktav Publishing. I have a personal interest in this story, since one of the heroic diplomats recognized by Ambassador Holbrooke saved the lives of my mother, aunt, grandmother, and grandfather. My nephew carries his name today:

...the diplomat hero that Mr. Holbrooke highlighted in his remarks was Aristides de Sousa Mendes, an aristocratic Portuguese consul general in Bordeaux, France, from 1938 to July 1940. In May 1940, he faced pitiable crowds of refugees from the German invasion of France, many of them Jews camped in the streets and parks and desperate for visas allowing escape into Spain and Portugal.

He also faced an absolute prohibition by Portugal’s dictator, António de Oliveira Salazar, against issuing transit visas to refugees and especially to Jews.

In mid-June, the consul general agonized for several days, cut himself off from the world, at one moment agitated, at the next despondent. Suddenly he proceeded to his office and announced: “I’m giving everyone visas. There will be no more nationalities, races or religions.”

The next days were frenzied. All day and into the night, visas were issued. Fees were waived. No one filled in names. Sousa Mendes traveled to the Spanish border to make certain that refugees were able to cross. He confronted Spanish border guards when needed — and continued to sign visas.

Lisbon was upset and on June 23 stripped him of his authority. Returning to his property in Portugal the next month, he only disturbed the authorities more by acknowledging his deeds and defending them straightforwardly on humanitarian and religious grounds. Dismissed from the diplomatic service and with 12 children to support, he had to sell his family estate and eventually died in poverty, supported by an allowance from Lisbon’s Jewish community, where he ate at a soup kitchen.

“Diplomat Heroes of the Holocaust,” with an introduction by Mr. Holbrooke, is published by KTAV and the Rabbi Arthur Schneier Center for International Affairs of Yeshiva University. Rabbi Schneier, senior rabbi of Park East Synagogue and founder of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, has been active for decades on behalf of religious freedom and interreligious dialogue.

I can't find it on Amazon (what's wrong with KTAV publishing?) so here's a link to KTAV's website.
More from the Raoul Wallenberg Foundation here.. A Brazilian website (in Portuguese) dedicated to his memory, here. A French book about him, here. Another French website here. A photo of his (haunted?) house here. A theatrical tribute from Biarritz (in French) here. Finally, a stamp featuring a picture of Aristides de Sousa Mendes:

Excerpts from Vladimir Putin's Press Conference

Full transcript on Kremlin.ru:

STEVEN GUTTERMAN (Associated Press): After Anna Politkovskaia’s murder you said that there are people hiding from Russian justice who would like to damage Russia’s reputation. And after Aleksandr Litvinenko’s death your aide Sergei Yastrzhembsky said that this could be part of a plot with that same goal. Can you now tell us a few more details, several months after the tragedy, or say more precisely who you think is behind these murders? Do you think they are foreigners or Russians living abroad? And if yes, then who? Can you name them?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Only an investigation can determine whoever is behind these murders. And moreover only a court can do so, because at the end of the day it is the court that, having weighed all the pro and contra – both the prosecutors’ arguments and the defense of the accused – makes the final decision.

As to prominent murders, then it is true that the problem of the perrsecution of journalists is a very acute problem both for our country and for many other countries. And we acknowledge our responsibility in this. We shall do everything possible to protect members of the press.

I recall not only Anna Politkovskaia – she was quite a sharp critic of the authorities and that is a good thing. I recall other journalists as well, including Paul Khlebnikov. And not long ago one of our American partners said something very true: “Paul Khlebnikov died for a democratic Russia, for the development of democracy in Russia”. I completely agree with him. I fully agree with this evaluation.

As to other well-known crimes, you know that just recently the investigation into the murder of the Vice-President of the Russian Central Bank has been finished. I very much hope that the law enforcement agencies will manage to find the criminals who have committed other, no less prominent crimes, and ones that are no less harmful to our country.

With regards to Litvinenko, I do not have much to add here, except what I have already said. Aleksandr Litvinenko was dismissed from the security services. Before that he served in the convoy troops. There he didn’t deal with any secrets. He was involved in criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation for abusing his position of service, namely for beating citizens during arrests when he was a security service employee and for stealing explosives. I think that he was provisionally given three years. But there was no need to run anywhere, he did not have any secrets. Everything negative that he could say with respect to his service and his previous employment, he already said a long time ago, so there could be nothing new in what he did later. I repeat that only the investigation can tell us what happened. And with regards to the people who try to harm the Russian Federation, in general it is well-known who they are. They are people hiding from Russian justice for crimes they committed on the territory of the Russian Federation and, first and foremost, economic crimes. They are the so-called runaway oligarchs that are hiding in western Europe or in the Middle East. But I do not really believe in conspiracy theories and, quite frankly, I am not very worried about it. The stability of Russian statehood today allows us to look down at this from above.

VERONIKA ROMANENKOVA (ITAR-TASS): Lately more women have come to power in various countries – this includes Angela Merkel, Tarja Halonen and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton in America and Segolene Royal in France.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Guys are simply loafing around, they do not want to work. (Laughter.)

VERONIKA ROMANENKOVA: What is stopping Russian women? When will we see a woman as President of Russia? And could this already happen in 2008 or is it first necessary to introduce quotas for women’s participation in politics? And, incidentally, how are your relations with your women colleagues – is it easier or harder to negotiate with them?

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am not saying anything new when I say that the participation of women in a country’s social and political life is a clear sign of a mature society. We must unfortunately acknowledge that we have very few women not only among the federal leadership, in the regions, in politics in general, in large companies. Few.

Is it necessary to introduce quotas? I don’t know, I am not ready to answer that question. It might be even worse to have some kind of discrimination according to sex. Here there are negatives and positives. But whether we are going to introduce quotas or not, we should certainly aspire to make the authorities more balanced. The presence of women in the authorities always makes them more balanced and more capable.

Storm Warning (1951)

Here's one way to celebrate the anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birthday on February 6th, 1911--pop a DVD of Storm Warning (1951) into your new high-tech HDTV flat-screen system. We caught it last night from Netflix, where it is listed on their Doris Day page. I asked myself after watching, why hadn't I heard more about this film before? Someone I know stumbled upon it because it is listed as a Doris Day film, featured on her website. But the real stars are Ginger Rogers (in a part written for Lauren Bacall) and Ronald Reagan (in a role that seems to be written for Humphrey Bogart), playing a visiting dress model and a local district attorney who confront the Ku Klux Klan in a small town. Steve Cochran plays a Klansman who looks like a cross between Marlon Brando and Elvis Presley. He's a wife-beater and attempted rapist, who comes up against Ronald Reagan's crusade for justice. Guess who wins? It's an antidote to D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation.

It's well written, credit Blackboard Jungle screenwriter Richard Brooks who is listed as co-author; well-acted, and well-directed. Ronald Reagan plays, well, Ronald Reagan--standing up to the mob, pursuing justice despite boos and catcalls, and coming to the rescue in the last scene. No wonder he was elected President. No wonder he won the Cold War.

You can buy the DVD from Amazon as part of a boxed set, here:Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

Something in the Air

An acquaintance let me know he just published a history of radio, Something in the Air: Radio, Rock, and the Revolution That Shaped a Generation :

This is a big week: I'm finally giving birth. No, no freakish medical experiments, but rather the closest a guy can cometo childbirth, the publication of a book that's been years in the gestation. Apologies for the impersonal approach, but I wanted to let everyone know that "Something in the Air: Radio, Rock and the Revolution that Shaped a Generation," my history of radio from the time TV came along to the present, is out this week. It's the story of how radio responded when a new technology emerged that threatened the very existence of Old Media, and it's the tale of how Americans who grew up in the 1950s, 60s and 70s used the music and the deejays as the soundtrack of rebellion, counterculture and generational change.

I've put a bunch of audio clips of radio sounds from those decades on a site about the book, www.marcfisher.com, where you can also (this promotional biz knows no bounds) buy the book.

But most of all, I just wanted to let folks know that I may finally have gotten my decades-long obsession with radio out of my system. The reviews have been terrific so far, and I'm spending most of my waking hours on the radio, talking to Debbie and Doug on the St. Louis Total Information Morning Show and Bob Edwards on XM and on and on. But the most valuable publicity comes from friends who talk about the book, and so I just wanted to let you know it's out there.

All the best,
Marc

You can buy the book from Amazon here:

Hi-Tech Driver's Ed

A Canadian college friend, with a PhD in traffic science, has come up with a high-tech driver's ed console that looks like pilot training gear. He just appeared on the CBC--demonstrating a Virage system in Montreal. It looks a lot more fun than the driver's ed I class I took in high school..

You can view a clip here:

rtsp://media.cbc.ca/bc_media/canadanow/20070126drivingsimulator.rm

The First Post

Saw an ad for this while doing a Google search--it's British, and looks interesting: The First Post...