Ann Coulter on Nicolas Sarkozy

From AnnCoulter.com:

In celebration of France's spectacular return to Western civilization, I bought a Herve Leger dress on Monday, and we're having croissants for breakfast every day this week. This delicate French pastry, by the way, is in the shape of a crescent to commemorate the Crusaders' victory over Islam. Aren't the French just peachy?

"Sarkozy the American," as he is known in France, called Muslim rioters "scum." Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

He explained his position on Muslim immigrants in France, saying: "Nobody has to, I repeat, live in France. But when you live in France, you respect its rules. That is to say that you are not a polygamist. ... One doesn't practice female genital mutilation on one's daughters, one doesn't slit the throat of the sheep, and one respects the republican rules."

Sarko never issued an apology or entered rehab. To the contrary, he said: "I called some individuals that I refuse to call 'youth' by the name they deserve. ... I never felt that by saying 'scum' I was being vulgar, hypocritical or insincere."

Is there a single American politician who would speak so clearly without then apologizing to Howard Dean?

It looks like the Democrats are going to have to drop their talking point about Bush irritating the rest of the world. Evidently not as much as Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world. The politicians who hate Bush keep being dumped by their own voters.

At the Democratic presidential debate a few weeks ago, B. Hussein Obama carped that Bush had "alienate(d) the world community" and vowed that he would build "the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years."

Democrats are terrific at building alliances. Remember how Jimmy Carter won the love of the world by ditching our ally the Shah of Iran, allowing him be replaced by a string of crazy ayatollahs? Since then, we haven't heard a peep from that area of the world.

The smartest woman in the world sniped that she would "create alliances instead of alienation."

Yes, it was spellbinding how her husband charmed North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and his sociopathic son Kim Jong Il by showering them with visits from Jimmy Carter and gifts from love-machine Madeleine Albright. And that was that: No more trouble from North Korea!

As I understand it, the center of the supposedly America-hating world is France. But now it turns out even the French don't hate America as much as liberals do.

Au contraire! (We can say that again!) Our Georgie is the most popular American with the French since Jerry Lewis.

Tony Blair's Resignation Speech

From the UK Labour Party website:

I have come back here, to Sedgefield, to my constituency. Where my political journey began and where it is fitting it should end.

Today I announce my decision to stand down from the leadership of the Labour Party. The Party will now select a new Leader. On 27 June I will tender my resignation from the office of Prime Minister to The Queen.

I have been Prime Minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world today, that is long enough, for me but more especially for the country. Some times the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down.

It is difficult to know how to make this speech today. There is a judgment to be made on my premiership. And in the end that is, for you, the people to make.

I can only describe what I think has been done over these last 10 years and perhaps more important why.

I have never quite put it like this before.

I was born almost a decade after the Second World War. I was a young man in the social revolution of the 60s and 70s. I reached political maturity as the Cold War was ending, and the world was going through a political, economic and technological revolution.

I looked at my own country.

A great country.
Wonderful history.
Magnificent traditions.
Proud of its past.

But strangely uncertain of its future. Uncertain about the future. Almost old-fashioned.

All of that was curiously symbolized in its politics.

You stood for individual aspiration and getting on in life or social compassion and helping others.

You were liberal in your values or conservative.

You believed in the power of the State or the efforts of the individual. Spending more money on the public realm was the answer or it was the problem.

None of it made sense to me. It was 20th century ideology in a world approaching a new millennium. Of course people want the best for themselves and their families but in an age where human capital is a nation’s greatest asset, they also know it is just and sensible to extend opportunities, to develop the potential to succeed, for all not an elite at the top.

People are today open-minded about race and sexuality, averse to prejudice and yet deeply and rightly conservative with a small ‘c’ when it comes to good manners, respect for others, treating people courteously.

They acknowledge the need for the state and the responsibility of the individual.

They know spending money on our public services matters and that it is not enough. How they are run and organized matters too.

So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning; for sweeping away all the detritus of the past.

Expectations were so high. Too high. Too high in a way for either of us.

Now in 2007, you can easily point to the challenges, the things that are wrong, the grievances that fester.

But go back to 1997. Think back. No, really, think back. Think about your own living standards then in May 1997 and now.

Visit your local school, any of them round here, or anywhere in modern Britain.

Ask when you last had to wait a year or more on a hospital waiting list, or heard of pensioners freezing to death in the winter unable to heat their homes.

There is only one Government since 1945 that can say all of the following:

More jobs
Fewer unemployed
Better health and education results
Lower crime;
And economic growth in every quarter.

This one.

But I don’t need a statistic. There is something bigger than what can be measured in waiting lists or GSCE results or the latest crime or jobs figures.

Look at our economy. At ease with globalization. London the world’s financial centre. Visit our great cities and compare them with 10 years ago.

No country attracts overseas investment like we do.

Think about the culture of Britain in 2007. I don’t just mean our arts that are thriving. I mean our values. The minimum wage. Paid holidays as a right. Amongst the best maternity pay and leave in Europe. Equality for gay people.

Or look at the debates that reverberate round the world today. The global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty. Climate change. The fight against terrorism. Britain is not a follower. It is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today’s world: its interdependence.

This is a country today that for all its faults, for all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, is comfortable in the 21st Century.

At home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but confident of its future.

I don’t think Northern Ireland would have been changed unless Britain had changed. Or the Olympics won if we were still the Britain of 1997.

As for my own leadership, throughout these 10 years, where the predictable has competed with the utterly unpredicted, right at the outset one thing was clear to me.

Without the Labour Party allowing me to lead it, nothing could ever have been done. But I knew my duty was to put the country first. That much was obvious to me when just under 13 years ago I became Labour’s Leader.

What I had to learn, however, as Prime Minister was what putting the country first really meant.

Decision-making is hard. Every one always says: listen to the people. The trouble is they don’t always agree.

When you are in Opposition, you meet this group and they say why can’t you do this? And you say: it’s really a good question. Thank you. And they go away and say: its great, he really listened.

You meet that other group and they say: why can’t you do that? And you say: it’s a really good question. Thank you. And they go away happy you listened.

In Government you have to give the answer, not an answer, the answer.

And, in time, you realise putting the country first doesn’t mean doing the right thing according to conventional wisdom or the prevailing consensus or the latest snapshot of opinion.

It means doing what you genuinely believe to be right.

Your duty is to act according to your conviction.

All of that can get contorted so that people think you act according to some messianic zeal.

Doubt, hesitation, reflection, consideration and re-consideration these are all the good companions of proper decision-making.

But the ultimate obligation is to decide.

Sometimes the decisions are accepted quite quickly. Bank of England independence was one, which gave us our economic stability.

Sometimes like tuition fees or trying to break up old monolithic public services, they are deeply controversial, hellish hard to do, but you can see you are moving with the grain of change round the word.

Sometimes like with Europe, where I believe Britain should keep its position strong, you know you are fighting opinion but you are content with doing so.

Sometimes as with the completely unexpected, you are alone with your own instinct.

In Sierra Leone and to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, I took the decision to make our country one that intervened, that did not pass by, or keep out of the thick of it.

Then came the utterly unanticipated and dramatic. September 11th 2001 and the death of 3,000 or more on the streets of New York.

I decided we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our oldest ally.

I did so out of belief.

So Afghanistan and then Iraq.

The latter, bitterly controversial.

Removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease.

But the blowback since, from global terrorism and those elements that support it, has been fierce and unrelenting and costly. For many, it simply isn’t and can’t be worth it.

For me, I think we must see it through. They, the terrorists, who threaten us here and round the world, will never give up if we give up.

It is a test of will and of belief. And we can’t fail it.

So: some things I knew I would be dealing with.

Some I thought I might be.

Some never occurred to me on that morning of 2 May 1997 when I came into Downing Street for the first time.

Great expectations not fulfilled in every part, for sure.

Occasionally people say, as I said earlier, they were too high, you should have lowered them.

But, to be frank, I would not have wanted it any other way. I was, and remain, as a person and as a Prime Minister an optimist. Politics may be the art of the possible; but at least in life, give the impossible a go.

So of course the vision is painted in the colours of the rainbow; and the reality is sketched in the duller tones of black, white and grey.

But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right.

I may have been wrong. That’s your call. But believe one thing if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.

I came into office with high hopes for Britain’s future. I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain’s future.

This is a country that can, today, be excited by the opportunities not constantly fretful of the dangers.

People often say to me: it’s a tough job.

Not really.

A tough life is the life the young severely disabled children have and their parents, who visited me in Parliament the other week.

Tough is the life my Dad had, his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke.

I have been very lucky and very blessed.

This country is a blessed nation.

The British are special.

The world knows it.

In our innermost thoughts, we know it.

This is the greatest nation on earth.

It has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short.

Good Luck.

Vladimir Putin's Victory Day Speech

I don't see anything on this Kremlin.ru post directed against the USA--but do see phrases that might refer to a threat from Islamist extremism. Decide for yourself:

Speech at the Military Parade Celebrating the 62nd Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War

May 9, 2007
Red Square, Moscow Printer-Friendly Version


PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: Citizens of Russia,

Veterans of the Great Patriotic War,

Comrade soldiers and sailors, sergeants and warrant officers,

Comrade officers, generals, and admirals,

I congratulate you on this celebration of our great victory, on this occasion of tremendous moral significance and unifying force. I congratulate you on this date that is imprinted forever on the destiny of Russia and the heart of every Russian citizen.

The Great Patriotic War was an unprecedented tragedy for our entire people, sweeping its fiery way across our country and leaving scars in our families and hearts that have still not healed to this day.

But the war did not break our people’s spirit and it gave birth to numerous examples of mass heroism. Even as they faced all manner of torment and hardship, even as they saw their comrades fall, our soldiers nonetheless retained their faith in Victory.

Millions of people defended the independence and dignity of their country on the fronts and in the rear, under occupation and in underground resistance, and they proved that a people fighting for its freedom and its very right to live is invincible.

We bow our heads before their fearlessness and will, before the memory of those whose courage and unity defeated the aggressor and stopped Fascism in its tracks, before those who gave our country and the entire world a future.

This is an occasion to reflect on the destiny of our world, on its stability and security, and on the lessons of that terrible war which are gaining ever greater meaning and significance with every year.

Today we pay tribute to the countries that fought together against Hitler. We shall not forget their contribution to the defeat of Nazism.

Victory Day not only unites the people of Russia but also unites our neighbours in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. We are deeply grateful to the generation of people whose difficult fate it was to face this war. They have passed on to us their traditions of fraternity and solidarity and their truly hard-won experience of unity and mutual aid. We will preserve this sacred memory and historical legacy.

Those who attempt today to belittle this invaluable experience and defile the monuments to the heroes of this war are insulting their own people and spreading enmity and new distrust between countries and peoples.

We have a duty to remember that the causes of any war lie above all in the mistakes and miscalculations of peacetime, and that these causes have their roots in an ideology of confrontation and extremism.

It is all the more important that we remember this today, because these threats are not becoming fewer but are only transforming and changing their appearance. These new threats, just as under the Third Reich, show the same contempt for human life and the same aspiration to establish an exclusive dictate over the world.

It is my conviction that only common responsibility and equal partnership can counter these challenges and enable us to join forces in resisting any attempts to unleash new armed conflicts and undermine global security.

Dear veterans,

Through your tremendous endeavours, you vanquished Fascism and brought freedom to millions of people. And after the Victory was won, you toiled heroically to raise towns and villages from the ruins and rebuild peaceful life.

We bow low before you and express our gratitude to all who fought for and deserved this Victory. We cherish the eternal memory of all who gave their lives, all who fought to bring us peace.

Russia will always remember this great Victory and the great deeds of our fathers and grandfathers. Like them, we will selflessly defend the interests of our Motherland. We will work together to build a prosperous and peaceful future for Russia.

Glory to you, soldiers of the Great Patriotic War!

Glory to the victorious people!

Congratulations!

Happy Victory Day!

Alex Alexiev's Testimony About PBS Censorship of "Islam v. Islamists"

Another producer spoke out in Anchorage, Alaska, about PBS's "barely concealed sympathy for the Islamist point of view."

Alex Alexiev
Comments to Board of Directors
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Anchorage, Alaska
May 7, 2007

Madam Chairwoman, ladies and gentlemen of the CPB board

On behalf of ABG Film Inc., Iíd like to thank President Pat Harrison and the CPB board for this opportunity to present our views with respect to the current controversy regarding our film' Islam vs. Islamists; Voice from the Muslim Center' and hopefully dispel some of the misconceptions surrounding it.

Among such misconceptions for instance, are PBS' continuing claims in written responses to public inquiries that our film is 'still in the production and editing process.' This is simply not true. Our film is completely finished and we have no intention of doing any additional work to it. It has been submitted and rejected by PBS for what we believe are political reasons or ñ as Congressman Jim Walsh has put it succinctly--censorship.

And it was deliberately censored not because it was not finished or did not meet PBS technical standards, but because PBS/WETA did not like its central message. By doing that, PBS/WETA overturned the judgment of CPB, which approved of both
the message of this film and our cinematographic rendition of it, through two years of vigorous Crossroads competition against 440 other projects.

My colleagues Martyn Burke and Frank Gaffney of ABG Films will shortly discuss the process of spiking this movie by PBS in greater detail. I'll just focus on one aspect of it ñ the PBS/WETA treatment or rather mistreatment of the filmís message regarding the struggle for the soul of Islam between moderate Muslims and their radical Islamist co- religionists

What was the message that PBS/WETA did not like? Very simply it is our belief that moderate, anti-Islamist Muslims who believe in the values of democratic society are presently subjected to unprecedented pressure, intimidation and threats by the Islamists- dominated Muslim establishment in America and throughout the West.

Examples of the highly negative attitudes by PBS/WETA producers to the message of our film abound throughout the written critiques we have received from them, but, in the interest of time, Iíll mention only a few of the more telling ones:

• Thus, we have been taken to task for believing that Muslim 'parallel societies' operating according to their own norms as enclaves within Western society are incompatible with the basic ideals of secular democratic society.

• Accused of 'demonizing' Islam by showing the intimidation tactics used by the Islamists against the moderates.

• Asked to provide 'objective clarity' why shariía jurisprudence and 'blood money' settlements are not compatible, and even positive contributions, to the basic norms of democratic society.

• Told that 'extremism and moderation depend on where you stand,' implying that for PBS/WETA officials there is no objective reality to extremism and itís all a matter of opinion. This is exactly what extremists and terrorists have been
arguing.

The expressed attitudes of PBS/WETA toward 'Islam vs. Islamists' betray a barely concealed sympathy for the Islamist point of view, which makes a mockery of their public obligation to fairness.

In conclusion, let me say that this is an attitude that finds a direct and forceful practical expression in the hiring of two individuals with strong Islamist sympathies as advisors to the Crossroads series and commissioning without competition and than airing Robin McNeil's film Muslim Americans which, in our view, is little more than a puff piece for radical Islamist organizations and individuals in America. In both the case of McNeil's film and the Muslim advisors, we have the individuals involved acting as both key referees of what Crossroads films key were to be aired and interested parties in one particular film and point of view. This is a blatant conflict of interest, to say nothing of an egregious violation of the PBS's own much touted goals of fairness, objectivity and transparency in public broadcasting.

Thank you for your attention.

Frank Gaffney's Testimony on PBS Censorship of "Islam v. Islamists"

He testified at a hearing held by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in Anchorage, Alaska (ht Free The Film.net) (no wonder I didn't see an article about this in the Washington Post):

Frank Gaffney
Comments to Board of Directors
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Anchorage, Alaska
May 7, 2007


We are grateful for the opportunity to produce a film about what is, arguably, the most important issue of our time: the nature and future character of the Muslim faith.

At a moment when ideologues called Islamists are seeking to determine both, too little is known by non-Muslims about these issues and too few Muslims are exposed to the voices and ideas of anti-Islamists among their ranks.

We believe CPB did a real public service by selecting our documentary as part of a rigorous competition conducted for the Crossroadî series. The thousand or so people who have seen our finished film to date - including Members of Congress, film industry leaders and experienced journalists ñ-have uniformly described it as powerful and compelling.

Unfortunately, the subsequent treatment of our film by PBS and WETA, which has been described to you by my colleagues, has seriously disserved the American people who paid for this film.

This is true not just because our film has been suppressed. Worse yet, the Crossroadsîseries broadcast, as part of its initial roll-out, a film produced by series host Robert MacNeil -- a film that provided a grossly misleading picture of Muslims in America.

MacNeil's film -- which was awarded on a sweetheart deal basis outside of the competition -- amounts to a propaganda windfall for the Islamists in this country. It exclusively portrays, legitimates and even lionizes organizations and individuals closely tied to the ideological movement whose oppression of moderate Muslims we chronicle.

It was appalling that MacNeil's alternative view -- which can only be described as 'highly one-sided'-- was aired without ours at least being aired at the same time. That was precisely the sort of variety of viewpoints Crossroads was supposed to showcase. The failure to do so represents an abdication of the public broadcasters' responsibility for fairness and balance in what they disseminate.

Under these circumstances, we request that CPB release the distribution rights to our film without further delay or impediment so as to enable others who share our view that it should be widely and promptly seen by the American people--the mission of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting-- to disseminate it as soon as possible.

Based on our hard experience, moreover, it seems clear that -- in the absence of systemic reforms -- it is very likely that such abdications of fairness and balance will continue to be the norm in the future. Unless changes are made, filmmakers whom the PBS system is prepared to blacklist will be unlikely even to have documentaries considered, let alone aired.

We respectfully submit that, as a necessary corrective, CPB should create a mechanism modeled on the Independent Television Service (ITVS). As you know, ITVS is allocated $12 million per year and 26 prime-time slots on PBS for filmmakers who can only be described as far Left in their political orientation and subject matter. Filmmakers who represent viewpoints, and can produce programming that appeals to, the roughly fifty percent of the American taxpaying public who own the public airwaves and who are disserved by ITVS ought to have similar vehicle for facilitating and disseminating such productions.

Jorge Mariscal: Fire Ken Burns!

From Scripps Howard News Service:

PBS and Ken Burns still don't get it.

After months of negotiations with Latino advocacy groups, academics, veterans and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the powers that be at PBS and their house director, Ken Burns, fail to understand the real issues at stake in his exclusion of the Latino experience in his World War II documentary "The War."

In an article published May 5 in The New York Times, Burns continued to make self-aggrandizing and ignorant statements.

According to the Times, Burns called his 14-hour series, scheduled to be shown during Hispanic Heritage Month in September, "a sort of epic poem and not a textbook."

He must be kidding. Several weeks ago, Burns compared his film to the U.S. Constitution. Now he says it's sort of an epic poem.

If he knew anything about epic poems, he would know that they were composed with the goal of representing an entire community's historical experience. They had nothing to do with an individual artist's personal vision. The singer of the Iliad or the Poem of the Cid was simply a vehicle for a shared collective experience.

Clearly, Burns is not interested in any of these things. He has his individual "vision," which cannot be tampered with. He is a self-righteous romantic who has no business and not enough knowledge to chronicle an event as momentous as World War II.

No one in the group that raised questions about the film asked Burns to turn it into "a textbook." Let him be as lyrical and non-narrative as he wishes. No one wants to deprive him of his artistic freedom. But he has no right to invent a history of the war that excludes a community that paid a very high price for its participation.

The Times article stated: "Mr. Burns, who was not at the meeting (between PBS executives and Hispanic leaders), said he found it painful that the controversy was erupting over a film in which he explores an episode of American history that brought citizens together."

Burns is pained by the controversy. Then why doesn't he stop his pain by doing the right thing? Is his "vision" more important than an inclusive account of the war? It was his flawed "vision" and sloppy research (not those who raised legitimate questions) that created divisions.

While it is certainly true that World War II brought the American people together, Burns needs to go back to school to learn about events like the Zoot Suit Riots and the Felix Longoria case. World War II was not as utopian for some communities as Burns thinks it was. He didn't do his homework.

Burns should either fire his researchers or fire himself. As long as PBS continues to take money from the public treasury, it should fire all of them.

Sneak Preview of Ken Burns WWII Film Exposes Anti-American Message

From this account on The Bostonist, it sounds like Hispanic veterans won't be the only audiences unhappy with Ken Burns' upcoming marathon meditation on World War II:

In the Q&A, moderated by Lisa Mullins of PRI's "The World," an audience member expressed that Burns was too "rah rah" about the role of American troops. Burns responded with, "If you saw the whole film, you would take that back, I promise you." In the introduction and during the Q&A, Burns stressed what he felt was a major theme of the documentary: "War is horrible." And at one point he said that he wanted the whole audience to realize what it was really like to fight: "We wanted to put you uncomfortably in the battle."

Your tax dollars at work...

Daniel Pipes: Support Turkish Secularists Against Islamists

From DanielPipes.org:

The first march took place in the capital city, Ankara, on April 14, organized by Şener Eruygur, a former general who is president of the Atatürk Thought Association. An estimated 300,000 secularists (i.e., moderate Muslims) held up banners with pictures of the republic's founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, chanting slogans along the lines of "We don't want an imam as president," "We respect belief, but not radicalism," and "Turkey is secular and will stay secular!"
A young woman carrying a huge Turkish flag, Muge Kaplan, explained that the crowd is Muslim and believes in Islam, but it doesn't want Islam "to become our whole way of life." A farmer, Bülent Korucu, asserted that the crowd is defending its republic "against religious fundamentalists."

Repeating these themes, a second march on April 29 in Istanbul boasted 700,000 marchers. On May 5, smaller marches took place in the western Anatolia towns of Manisa, Çanakkale, and Marmaris.

Nor are the masses alone in resisting AKP's Islamists. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer warned that, for the first time since 1923, when the secular republic came into being, its pillars "are being openly questioned." He also inveighed against the imposition of a soft Islamist state, predicting that it would turn extremist. Onur Öymen, deputy chairman of the opposition Republican People's Party, cautioned that the AKP's taking the presidency would "upset all balances" and create a very dangerous situation.

The military – Turkey's ultimate powerbroker – issued two statements reinforcing this assessment. On April 12, the chief of staff, Gen. Mehmet Yaşar Büyükanıt, expressed his hope that "someone who is loyal to the principles of the republic—not just in words but in essence—is elected president." Two weeks later, the military's tone became more urgent, announcing that the presidential election "has been anxiously followed by the Turkish Armed Forces [which] maintains its firm determination to carry out its clearly specified duties to protect" secular principles.

This resolute stand against Islamism by moderate Turkish Muslims is the more striking when contrasted with the cluelessness of Westerners who pooh-pooh the dangers of the AKP's ascent. A Wall Street Journal editorial assures Turks that their prime minister's popularity "is built on competent and stable government." Dismissing the historic crossroads that President Sezer and others perceive, it dismisses as "fear mongering" doubts about Prime Minister Erdoğan's commitment to secularism and ascribes these to petty campaign tactics "to get out the anti-AKP vote and revive a flagging opposition."

"Even if Erdoğan walked on water, the secularists wouldn't believe him," observes a former American ambassador to Turkey, Morton Abramowitz. Olli Rehn, the European Union's "enlargement commissioner," instructed the Turkish military to leave the presidency election in the hands of the democratically-elected government, calling the issue "a test case" for the armed forces to respect its political masters, a position the U.S. government subsequently endorsed.

Is it not telling that great numbers of moderate Muslims see danger where so many non-Muslims are blind? Do developments in Pakistan and Turkey not confirm my oft-repeated point that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution? And do they not suggest that ignorant non-Muslim busybodies should get out of the way of those moderate Muslims determined to relegate Islamism to its rightful place in the dustbin of history?

We Are Not Amused...

This photo of Queen Elizabeth II visiting President Bush is from the official White House website... Meanwhile, actress Helen Mirren has snubbed Her Majesty, saying she was too busy to attend an audience in Buckingham Palace on May 1st--a truly Republican rejection of royalty that made headlines as far away as China.

That makes Helen Mirren the real Queen, IMHO.

Someone I know--who went to English boarding school--suggested that President Bush might have done better to follow President Franklin Roosevelt's example, than to affect pomp and circumstance. FDR served King George VI Nathan's hot dogs during a 1939 visit to Hyde Park, NY:

The King was so pleased with "this delightful hot-dog sandwich" that he asked Mrs. Roosevelt for another one.

Lileks Column Killed by Star-Tribune

James Lileks is one of the funniest bloggers on the internet--so it's news that his column has been cancelled by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Here's a link to his account (ht The American Thinker):

As it happens, they've killed my column, and assigned me to write straight local news stories.

Really.

There’s been some talk that I might leverage my mad web skillz into a tech beat, reporting on the Internet. But a local beat about the Internet? How many stories can do you about six guys in a loft coding a hot new start-up? And heaven forbid we have to illustrate them, because then you get the inevitable geek-by-the-screen shot. Look! He’s customizing the drop-down location menu so it defaults to the United States instead of Afghanistan!

I don’t want to write about the Internet. I want to write on the Internet. I’d rather develop content than report about content developers. It’s that simple, and it’s also a matter of recognizing my failings: I am not Biff Deadline, Ace Reporter. I can do long stories with lots of color, all aslosh with subjective opinions, but writing straight news - clearly, simply, briskly - is a skill I lack, and I take off my hat to those who've mastered that discipline.

My column will end a week from this Friday. (There’s a series of pieces I can’t wait to write.) After that, it's just-the-facts-ma'am - and I'll no longer be telecommuting, either. This means I will start burning my share of hydrocarbons like a good American. Hell, I may leave the vehicle running all day outside the building just to make up for lost time. Maybe I will put a green roof on the car to balance things out. Some turf, some switchgrass. It's murder on the paint but we all must do our part.

Would it matter if you contacted the paper? It very well might. Here's the reader's rep's page.

If I can get my column back and / or a nice big Online gig, that would be a satisfactory conclusion. Reporting on internet start-ups as opposed to joining an internet start-up – eh, not so much.

And let that be the last time the phrase “not so much” is used here. It’s old. We’ve all had a jolly laugh, but I heard Jeff Foxworthy use it on an oil-change commercial, which is like the UN-approved international standard for something being over.

Washington Madam Wants Clients Made Public

Fox News reports that Washington Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey wants the names of her government official clientele released to the public. Apparently, they allegedly include military officials, IMF staffers, and at least one Justice Department prosecutor:

McLEAN, Va. — A lawyer for alleged Washington madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey wants ABC News to disclose the identity of a federal prosecutor identified in a recent news report as a client of Palfrey's escort service.

In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Palfrey's civil lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, contends that the Justice Department should compel ABC to disclose the prosecutor's identity and whether he had any role in the Palfrey investigation.

In a report Friday on its "20/20" newsmagazine, ABC News reported that a review of Palfrey's phone records revealed that her client list included officials at NASA, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, military officers and a "career Justice Department prosecutor."

But ABC did not identify those individuals, saying that their names were not prominent enough to be newsworthy.

Given the potential for blackmail here that might affect national security, the administration of justice, or international economis--blackmail potential that now applies to ABC News and the Disney corporation as well as the prostitution ring as a result of the network's possession of records--one would think that someone might champion "the public's right to know" in this case...

An Interview with Bernard Weinraub, Author of "The Accomplices"

Bernard Weinraub’s drama about the reaction of America to the Nazi extermination of European Jewry, The Accomplices, performed by the New Group at the Acorn Theatre,closed its New York run on May 5th, shortly after the author received a Drama Desk award nomination--alongside such veteran luminaries as August Wilson, Tom Stoppard and Peter Morgan. Apparently there were others in New York who liked the play as much as I did. (My review here) And it seems that you don't have to be Jewish to like "The Accomplices". For example, Lawrence Mass compared The Accomplices to Larry Kramer’s The Normal Heart in the Gay City News:

So striking is "The Accomplices" a demonstration of everything Kramer is trying to say in "The Normal Heart" about what happened in World War II and its applicability to AIDS that the two plays would make a perfect pairing. (There is even a Lipizzaner Stallions incident, parallel to the one documented in "The Normal Heart," that garners prime front-page coverage in the New York Times, preempting the Holocaust, just as it preempted AIDS 40 years later!).

Apparently, the message of "The Accomplices" may be universal. In order to find out more about Weinraub's goals as a playwright, I interviewed him by phone on May 2nd.

Q: Why did you write “The Accomplices”?

A: The story has always fascinated me, the story of what Bergson and all of his people did, beyond that the story of what the government did not do and what American Jews did not do, was a story that seemed to me had not really been fully told. I mean people knew about it to some degree, but not really, from my point of view. It just wasn’t a story that that many people knew about, that’s why I wanted to do it.

Q: Were you surprised by the reaction, or lack of reaction, to the play?

A: I was surprised, had the play come out ten years or 20 years ago, there would have been much more of a reaction…at this point in time, it’s hard to respond to the criticisms…on the one hand I say it is not a well-known story, on the other hand, the defenders of FDR and some of the Jewish groups can’t really defend too much longer what happened, and even when you read some of the books now, most recently about the Roosevelt administration by Michael Beschloss, they are quite critical…I actually picked up a biography of Stephen Wise that was obviously favorable--but on the issue of what he did or didn’t do during the war, it was critical.

Q: What about the public reaction?

A: On the one hand I was surprised that there wasn’t much reaction, on the other hand, I wasn’t. Over the last 20 years, it has taken that long for people to react to what happened or didn’t happen during the War, Arthur Morse book in the 70s, in the last 20-30 years people finally came to terms, and so it took a long time, but I think people are now…the response of audiences is pretty extraordinary, very emotional response from audiences. Some say they didn’t realize, some say they knew about it, we have these talkbacks on Tuesday nights, you don’t understand what the situation was in the 30s…I think Wise is a complicated figure, in some ways the most complicated figure in the play, people who are sympathetic to him say you have to understand the tenor of the times, Father Coughlin and how careful Jews had to be then. There was so much anti-semitism in the country that Jews had to be really careful. And I understand that completely.

Q: How did you turn historical events into a drama?

A: You’re dealing with an issue, the major tragedy of the 20th Century, and so who am I to deal with the major tragedy of the 20th century? You are dealing with a level of government indifference and responsibility, a level of fear, panic, an enormous tragedy, problem trying to make it into a play about a man, about Peter Bergson, and not just make it a polemic, and to try to make it human and not just a mouthpiece, and that is a major problem in terms of writing the play…He makes a lot of speeches, you have to make him 3 dimensional, you have to give him a personality, it’s a drama, not a documentary, and he’s a fascinating figure, it’s still a play and you had to give him in drama, he had to go through whatever a figure goes through in a drama, if you look at contemporary dramas, there are a certain number of contemporary dramas that use real figures—currently it’s Nixon, or scientists that Michael Frayn writes about, and certain license had to be taken...

Q: Was the work of Michael Frayn an influence on your writing? Were there other influences?

A: I read Michael Frayn with fascination, he took real issues and real people and turned it into drama—Copenhagen about Heisenberg and the Bomb, Democracy about Willy Brandt and the Guillaume Affair—he’s really brilliant about how he does it. I read Peter Morgan’s latest play Frost/Nixon, and the movie The Queen. What’s interesting about all of them is that all of the people are utterly 3-dimensional. Someone like Morgan makes someone like Nixon utterly 3 dimensional, you are totally sympathetic to him and fascinated by him, it’s kind of brilliant. The opposite problem was with Bergson, you had to make him not just a hero, but make him flawed, not just having 2 hours of a wonderful guy.

Q: The producer of my documentary says you captured the relationship between Breckenridge Long and FDR perfectly. What do you say to those who would argue that Roosevelt would not have permitted European Jews to be kept out of the USA, if he had known they were destined for extermination?

A: All those people who say that Breckenridge Long was just a minor functionary, that’s just absurd. Breckenridge Long worked for FDR, FDR appointed him.

It’s like saying Rumsfeld and Cheney were architects of the Iraq war and Bush had nothing to do with it--that’s just wrong.

Breckenridge Long was a significant figure, obviously, the refugee policy, thousands of Jews barred from coming in—FDR appointed Breckinridge Long, knew what was happening, and kept him in the job for whatever reason—part and parcel of that administration, FDR was responsible for Breckenridge Long.

I remember a debate on this question between historians David Wyman and Arthur Schlesinger on PBS’s Charlie Rose show. Schlesinger was defending FDR, and Wyman took out this 4-foot long form designed by Breckenridge Long, and unrolled it—we have have a copy of it in the play—and Wyman said, this is what the administration did under FDR. That essentially shut up Mr. Schlesinger.

Q: I was struck by how critical the play was towards Roosevelt, was this intentional?

A: FDR was obviously in many ways a great President, he saved the country economically from the Depression, yet I cannot get into the mindset of people who said “you win the war and Jews are saved,” or “you can’t bomb the camps,” or “you can’t do anything about immigration policy.”

I don’t want to make FDR into an evil figure, it’s just too easy, I don’t think he was an evil figure, it is much more accurate to think of people as dimensional figures. I even try to make Long dimensional in terms of his fears of immigrants and what they mean to him personally, when you read Wyman, he called Long a nativist, more anti-immigrant than just anti-semitic. Long didn’t want any immigrants here, he didn’t want any foreigners here during WWII. It was a pretty brutal way to behave.

Q: How did this play get produced in New York?

A: I won a contest called Stellar Network, US-UK organization, online. One of the judges was Ian Morgan, who is a director at the New Group. He liked the play a lot. The prize was a reading of the play.

The reading was with Daniel Sauli, who played Bergson in the play, right now. Ian Morgan took the play to the artistic director of the New Group, Scott Elliott, he read the play and said he wanted to do it. It is very unusual for anyone to want to do a play at all, so I owe it all to Ian Morgan and Scott Elliott, they went way out on a limb, and I worked on the play with Ian Morgan and Scott Elliott, who was kind of the producer of the play, doing a lot of cutting, the play was really long and a little bit repetitious. Scott Elliott had some good ideas about the structure of the play, ending the first act with the pageant, that kind of stuff, moving things around a bit. Ideas about the form of the play. No talk about what the play said, it was really the shape of the play, and they were great.

Q: Who is director Ian Morgan? Is he British?

A: Ian Morgan is in his 30s, grew up in Middletown CT. Both parents are academics at Wesleyan.

Q: Do you think your novel about the New York Times, Bylines, may have caused some hard feelings at the newspaper that affected their review of "The Accomplices"? It seemed more negative than most other reviews that I read.

A: I don’t think so. My novel was a long time ago. It was a personal novel, and not a happy experience. It should have gone through my typewriter 3-4 more times.

The only thing about the Times in the play is the way the Times dealt with the Holocaust—Rosenthal has written about it, Alex Jones’ book goes on at some length about that. There is a book by Laura Leff, a whole book about the Times and the Holocaust, very detailed and very good. So, this is not a new story about how the Times covered the events. Leff book pretty terrific, the way the Times covered it was shocking. In the last 20 years, all this stuff has been coming out.

Q: What will your next play be about?

A: I don’t want to talk about what I’m writing about. This is what I like to do, the best part is the research. I spend a lot time reading and researching, again it deals with a period in time, the 40s-50s, but it has nothing to do with the Holocaust. It will be a fact-based play, it interests me, personally.

Q: How do you feel to be nominated for a Drama Desk Award?

A: The Award nomination is totally thrilling. I went to Drama Desk event, and it was thrilling to be in there with Tom Stoppard, Peter Morgan, August Wilson. Andrew Polk the actor who played Merlin, was also nominated. Thrilling to be in that league. This guy David Harrow, who wrote Black Bird, is also an Englishman.

Q: Do you think the British get more respect for writing about serious subjects?

A: There are a lot of serious plays, but off Broadway. People seem to like British plays. British plays become easier to produce on Broadway, when something has a success in London.

Q: Will your play be performed in London?

A: It has been submitted to British theatres, it has been talked about in Israel, other cities in US, like LA, someone in Washington seems to be interested.

Q: Have there been any difficulties in staging The Accomplices?

A: This play has 8 actors, a big cast, actors play multiple roles, it can be a little complicated, everyone likes to have as few actors as possible because of the expense.

Q: How do you feel about the future for the play?

A: I hope it has a life of its own, a life after NY. I hope it does. It has been personally thrilling. The audiences have been enthusiastic and emotional.

Q: Is this play primarily for Jewish audiences?

A: The actors, some of them are Jewish, some of them are not Jewish. They have been so involved in the play itself. They tell me that they have never had an experience like this. It has been thrilling experience for everyone, including me--just to have audiences respond this way. Audiences thank ushers, they are very emotional, it not your usual experience. People come up and say they have parents or grandparents who perished in the Holocaust. They leave weeping. It has been much more emotional than I ever dreamed. It’s been a Jewish audience but not just Jews. All kinds of people have come. I never imagined this.

Sarkozy Beats Royal 53%-47%

Complete results at LeFigaro.fr, which has published Sarkozy's reform agenda here (in French). Google English translation reads:

“I WILL SAY very front, for to do everything afterwards.” This creed, Nicolas Sarkozy hammered since mid- January, date of its nomination by UMP. With the wire of the months, that which was not yet that candidate thus drew up his program and his priorities. And reaffirmed that it would act as of its arrival with to be able, in order to give a sign of its will “to make the policy differently”. In theory, Nicolas Sarkozy should take “a few days of reflexion”, enters today and on May 17, date completion of mandature of Jacques Chirac.

“Ten days to digest the countryside and to live the function presidential”, according to its own terms. period will enable him to choose its Prime Minister definitively, as well as the fifteen ministers who will compose his government. Secretaries of State who will assist the ministers will be named, them, which after the legislative ones, on June 17. To receive the whole of the two sides of industry Between on May 16 and on June 17, the new one president should print his mark on priority topics in its eyes: the social one, taxation, environment and the international one. Initially, it should receive the whole of the two sides of industry. The latter will be encouraged to work with the new chief of the government on the method and the calendar reforms to come (flexisecurity, social democracy…). This go will be used to give one sign extremely in favour of the social dialogue, but also to put a corner on the question of the minimum service. In the tread of the appointments with the trade unions and employers, that which was committed respecting the ecological pact of Nicolas Hulot should start to prepare a “Grenelle” of the environment with ONG, the industrialists and the two sides of industry.

The elected president wants to also print his mark with the international one. Two displacements, one in Brussels and the other in Berlin are already registered with the program. It is necessary “to advance quickly on the simplified treaty and to resolve the operation of Europe”, underlines its entourage. But Nicolas Sarkozy “wants to also be ready with to work and to legislate as of the installation of the new Parliament”, indicated Francois Fillon. Some bills symbolic systems - including one on safety and another on the universities - should be launched quickly, in order to be presented at the national representation at the time of the extraordinary session of summer. The collective budgetary, in July, would have in addition to allow to make pass social and tax measurements of which it the most spoke during countryside and which, there still, is symptomatic mark of “  rupture  ” that Nicolas Sarkozy wants to print.

Lastly, the new president of the Republic should also benefit from July 14 to take a turning symbolic system. In addition to the procession soldier, Nicolas Sarkozy wishes to organize a festival of youth and Europe. And one thinks of arranging with the oubliettes the traditional televised interview.

Since this blog has been covering Sarkozy for a while, we were not at all surprised that he won this election decisively. We endorsed his candidacy on September 15, 2006...

Here's a link to President Sarkozy's website.

Vive la France!

Anne Williamson on the Meaning of the World Bank's Wolfowitz Scandal

From LewRockwell.com:

Wolfowitz's agenda puts at risk a very cozy world based on the post–World War II modus operandi in which dollar loans are extended to undeveloped and impoverished nations in order to grab control over their resources and governments. The main point is the loan, not the borrower's ability or commitment, but the lender's claim on national collateral. The corruption emerges from institutional action, action inherent in and according to the World Bank's design as a political lender masquerading as a humanitarian enterprise, and nothing effective can be done about it as long as the institution exists. Reform is not an option, only elimination.

For the well-positioned second-raters that people the Bank, there's no advantage in trading in a country club existence and perfumed reputation just to browbeat and bludgeon troops out of poor nations in return for dollar grants. It's so much more agreeable to posture as a helping-hand, hiding the nasty imperial bits in the loan covenants. True, the policies the loans require often lead to public riots, and to resource, land and territorial wars among their clients, but the mainstream media never connects the loans to their bloody consequences. At worst, details of the borrower's thievery leak out.

What's really at stake for staff is the richest, absolute best government plantation in the entire world. World Bankers, along with IMF, IFC and EBRD employees, enjoy a mem-Sahib lifestyle; tax-free six-figure salaries, foreign expeditions involving first-class travel, five-star hotels, generous per diems, lavish banquets, and – if one is obliged to "stay on" overseas for "mission" work – extensive local staff and personal aides, language tutors, tuition support for the children, numerous mandated vacations home per annum, residential rent subsidies, full insurance packages, diplomatic mail for those legally-dubious art acquisitions, the best address, and fancy invites.

If you are a foreign national lucky enough to escape your native backwater for an assignment in Washington, or London, or Paris, or Geneva – all the best places! – there is no treachery you wouldn't commit to stay in place. (The very best institutional reform scheme ever put forward was Christopher Fildes's suggestion to move the Bank's headquarters to Bangladesh.)

If you are a consultant, or an academic "adviser," you'll keep your honest opinions to yourself, and do the job, no matter how mad or useless. There's no way your university could, or your firm would, roll out a red carpet like the World Bank does.

If you are a Third World borrower and a government official and therefore advantageously-positioned to skim the loans and use the principal for purposes more useful to you and your continuing hold on power than to the nation, the World Bank is your literal lifeline. Without scads of dollars to hand out, an honest election or worse – open revolt – are always possibilities.

If you are a large, richly-endowed private corporation with an eye on the profit possibilities in some foreign hellhole, you'll play along, doing your bit to legitimize, publicize and generally support the Bank. After all, those giveaway loans may well be your critical leverage indirectly. Tit for tat. Loan for license.

Clearly, there's a lot of mouths to be fed. Luckily for the class of useless hors d'oeuvre eaters, there is China.

China is a rare creature in the World Bank firmament in that it is a large and paying customer, taking full advantage of the Bank's subsidized loans despite having an unprecedented $1.2 trillion in reserves. The income China represents to the World Bank is critical; already the Bank's sister institution, the IMF, an agency China does not patronize, is unable to make enough of a return on its international loans to pay its costs and is currently floating the idea of selling a portion of the Fund's contributed gold horde for cash to pay for their jobs and privileges.

The World Bank does not wish to be similarly indisposed.

There really wasn't much heat in the Shaha Riza story. After all, a couple of middle-aged parasites and public policy bores divvying up a big bag of other peoples' money while giving free reign to their shared delusions of bayonet democracy and the Middle East is somehow depressingly familiar.

But in the initial scandal data dump to the Washington Post on 12 April ("World Bank Chief's Leadership Role Called Into Question"), one sizzling fact leaked out apparently by mistake as it was never mentioned again in future reports. The maverick leak was an e-mail "noting that the bank had received a warning from China that it might halt future borrowings if Wolfowitz refused to curb anti-corruption investigations."

Wolfowitz is toast.

Alas, the Bank is not. Not yet, anyway.

Peggy Noonan Says Fred Thompson Won GOP Debate

In the Wall Street Journal:

Each had flubs and false moves. Something tells me it will all get more interesting, and not only because Fred Thompson will get in.

Michelle Malkin Interviews Frank Gaffney about PBS Censorship

Of his documentary film Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center, at HotAir.com.

More information at FreetheFilm.net.

Watch Gaffney's appearance on Fox News' O'Reilly Report above.

Watch trailer here.

Ryan Sager on the Republican Presidential Debate

From the NY Sun (ht Michelle Malkin):

But, now, to name the winners and losers. Off the bat, let me stipulate that I don't consider any of the seven dwarves to necessitate much analysis. Ron Paul is a pure libertarian, so I always enjoy hearing from him. But I'll stick mostly here to the Big Three. Winner: Mitt Romney. Loser, by a mile: Rudy Giuliani. Treading water: John McCain.

Mr. Romney: If anyone stood out from the other candidates, in terms of looking polished and poised, it was clearly Mr. Romney. He got off some of the best lines of the night, partially because Chris Matthews gave him some oddball questions (I particularly liked: "I don't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want." [see: 8:38]). He, more than any of the others, managed to sound reasonable and assured no matter what he was saying. He's still got a major flip-flopping problem, and basically lied about it during his answers on abortion. But any casual observer of the debate (were there any non-junkies watching?) would probably have to view him as head-and-shoulders above the others.

Mr. Giuliani: At this point, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the Giuliani campaign is in a full meltdown. The former mayor simply wasn't himself on that stage, trying to contort himself into something the religious right can accept, while at the same time refusing to pander to them in any way that would actually help him win the nomination. Basically, he was offending them while seeming terrified of offending them. His answer on abortion [see: 8:29] will go down as one of the worst moments of either debate so far this season — just painful to watch. His inability to say more than five seconds worth of positive things about Christian conservatives [see: 8:44] was also truly awful. He was thrown a softball and chose to bash himself over the head with the bat instead. The campaign is still salvageable for Mr. Giuliani, but if tonight wasn't his operation's wake-up call, nothing will be.

Mr. McCain: Maybe it's because I've seen too much of him recently, but Mr. McCain was really relying on a lot of canned lines at this debate, and it was grating. He didn't embarrass himself like Mr. Giuliani, but he didn't distinguish himself either. He may be the tortoise in this race. But it's no fun watching him plod.

Christopher Hitchens on Mormonism

My father tipped me off to this Hitchens essay in Slate:

If the followers of the prophet Muhammad hoped to put an end to any future "revelations" after the immaculate conception of the Koran, they reckoned without the founder of what is now one of the world's fastest-growing faiths. And they did not foresee (how could they, mammals as they were?) that the prophet of this ridiculous cult would model himself on theirs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—hereafter known as the Mormons—was founded by a gifted opportunist who, despite couching his text in openly plagiarized Christian terms, announced that "I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad" and adopted as his fighting slogan the words, which he thought he had learned from Islam, "Either the Al-Koran or the sword." He was too ignorant to know that if you use the word al you do not need another definite article, but then he did resemble Muhammad in being able only to make a borrowing out of other people's bibles.

In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon." He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the "Burned-Over District," in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of an ancient history.

A vanished and vanquished Indian civilization had bequeathed a considerable number of burial mounds, which when randomly and amateurishly desecrated were found to contain not merely bones but also quite advanced artifacts of stone, copper, and beaten silver. There were eight of these sites within twelve miles of the underperforming farm which the Smith family called home. There were two equally stupid schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in such matters: the first were the gold-diggers and treasure-diviners who brought their magic sticks and crystals and stuffed toads to bear in the search for lucre, and the second those who hoped to find the resting place of a lost tribe of Israel. Smith's cleverness was to be a member of both groups, and to unite cupidity with half-baked anthropology.

Mixed Reviews in Salt Lake City for PBS Mormon Documentary

Carrie Moore reports on the response in Utah, in the Deseret News:

With few of the major issues facing the LDS Church left untouched, the final installment of the four-hour PBS documentary on "The Mormons" drew responses all across the board late Tuesday night among Utahns of different faiths — and particularly Latter-day Saints.

This stained-glass window, completed in 1913 by an unknown artist, depicts the first vision in which the prophet Joseph Smith Jr. said God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in 1820 in answer to prayer.

Sacred temple rites, death, family life, intellectual dissidents, excommunication, homosexuality, blacks and the priesthood, missionary work, conversion and obedience were among the topics chronicled in Tuesday night's installment, looking at the modern church.

Gold plates, angels, revelation, basic doctrine, persecution, polygamy and the Mountain Meadows massacre were covered in Monday's part one, which looked at the church's early history. The effort is believed to be the most in-depth broadcast examination to date on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, both past and present.

Fred Woods, a religion professor at Brigham Young University, said he doesn't think people of other faiths "would have understood Mormons by this documentary. Just as Jews understand Judaism and Muslims Islam better than outsiders, LDS people understand their faith better than someone (Helen Whitney in this case) looking from the outside in."

He credited the filmmaker for the many interviews she included, though he said, "There was too much of those who did not present what Mormonism is really all about, particularly by those who had left the faith and therefore presented a tainted view."

Quoting the apostle Paul, he said, "The natural man (or woman) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:11,14).

Official response from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints here.

Christopher Hitchens on George Tenet

From Slate (ht Drudge):

Notice the direct quotes that make it clear who is the author of this brilliant insight. And then pause for a second. The author is almost the only man who could have known of Zacarias Moussaoui and his co-conspirators—the very man who positively knew they were among us, in flight schools, and then decided to leave them alone. In his latest effusion, he writes: "I do know one thing in my gut. Al-Qaeda is here and waiting." Well, we all know that much by now. But Tenet is one of the few who knew it then, and not just in his "gut" but in his small brain, and who left us all under open skies. His ridiculous agency, supposedly committed to "HUMINT" under his leadership, could not even do what John Walker Lindh had done—namely, infiltrate the Taliban and the Bin Laden circle. It's for this reason that the CIA now has to rely on torturing the few suspects it can catch, a policy, incidentally, that Tenet's book warmly defends.

So, the only really interesting question is why the president did not fire this vain and useless person on the very first day of the war. Instead, he awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom! Tenet is now so self-pitying that he expects us to believe that he was "not at all sure that [he] really wanted to accept" this honor. But it seems that he allowed or persuaded himself to do so, given that the citation didn't mention Iraq. You could imagine that Tenet had never sat directly behind Colin Powell at the United Nations, beaming like an overfed cat, as the secretary of state went through his rather ill-starred presentation. And who cares whether his "slam dunk" vulgarity was misquoted or not? We have better evidence than that. Here is what Tenet told the relevant Senate committee in February 2002...

Read the whole thing.