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

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

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

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

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

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

Defend the Honor

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

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

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

AP: Hispanic GIs Protest Ken Burns Documentary

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

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

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

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

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

PBS Ombudsman Defends Ken Burns

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

Charming.

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

Ken Burns' Anti-Latino Agenda

From The Unapologetic Mexican:

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

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

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

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

Mark Steyn on Britain's Iranian Hostage Crisis

He spoke on Hugh Hewitt's radio show:

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

HH: Yes.

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

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

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

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

MS: Exactly.

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

Afghanistanica

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

Bloggers Blast Ken Burns

Here:

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

And here:

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

And here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Ken Burns Anti-Hispanic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Production of Florentine Films and WETA-TV

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

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

Victor Davis Hanson on 300

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Government Still Funds Palestinian Terror University

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

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

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

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

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

British Hostages on Iranian TV

Submission...(ht Drudge):

Bermard Lewis on the Clash of Civilizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Global Jihad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smithsonian Chief Forced Out By Scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview With Jeffrey Gedmin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Iran Hang British Marines?

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

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

However, Iran has hanged alleged spies in the past.

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

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

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

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

After that, the British stopped hanging Jews.

Royal Navy Permitted British Marine Capture

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

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

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