Christopher Hitchens v. Dinesh D'Souza

My father sent me a link to this debate on the question: Is Christianity the Problem?. It took place at Cambridge University, video on Richard Dawkins' website.

Big Picture

Saw Le Monde correspondent Corine Lesnes speak at SAIS yesterday evening about "le divorce" of Nicolas Sarkozy, when host Justin Vaisse plugged her blog, Big Picture. Lesnes, a fashionable Frenchwoman of a certain age, well-dressed, well coiffed, and with a big smile, was--bien sur--very catty about Sarkozy, pointing out his low marks at university (he failed his final exam!); his bad French (oooh la la!), his immigrant stock (not exactly news), and his appeals to the right and co-optation of the left (is that supposed to bad?). After bashing Sarkozy for doing everything himself--and all at once to fox his opponents--while sidelining the prime minister (Francois Fillon, according to Wikipedia, although Lesnes did not mention his name), Lesnes then complimented Sarkozy for calling her boss, the director of Le Monde, personally dialing the number on his own phone.

So what's the problem?

Since Lesnes said everyone is talking about Sarkozy's divorce, I went to her blog to find out more. But when I got there, it was even more interesting to this Washingtonian--Lesnes has posts about John Bolton's latest book, and taxis in DC switching from the Zone System (my preference) to Meters (tick, tick, tick while stuck in traffic). And, by the way, Sarkozy is coming to town on November 7th (where's my invitation?).

John Bolton: Bush Will Bomb Iran

John Bolton made his prediction at a lunch with Financial Times Washington bureau chief Edward Luce:

... As we wait for the bill, we finally get round to the subject of Iran. Bolton finishes with a flourish, confidently predicting that George W. Bush will launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office.

He can’t resist one last European dig. “Four years of European diplomacy have given the Iranians the one asset they could not have purchased – and that was time,” he says, wagging his finger. “And now, irony of ironies, after fiddling around with all this futile diplomacy, we finally have a French president who sounds just like we do on Iran.” C’est la guerre, I think. A sobering conclusion to a sober Anglo-Saxon meal.

Robert Lantz, R.I.P.

Talent agent Robert Lantz died last week, aged 93. His passing was noted in Variety, the show business bible, and in the New York Times.

...His constellation included the writers James Baldwin, Lillian Hellman and Carson McCullers; the actors Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Yul Brynner, Montgomery Clift, Myrna Loy and Liv Ullmann; the photographer Arnold Newman, the film director Milos Forman, the playwright Peter Shaffer and the lyricist Alan Jay Lerner.

Clients begat clients: Ms. Taylor introduced him to Mr. Burton, her fifth husband, and Justice William O. Douglas introduced him to Chief Justice Rehnquist....

...Born in Berlin on July 20, 1914, Mr. Lantz dreamed of being an author like his father, a screenwriter in the silent-movie era. He moved to London in 1935, after Hitler came to power, and worked as a story editor for American film companies. Following World War II he came to New York and began a new life representing creative artists: stars of the stage and screen, literary lions and, occasionally, public figures who thought they had a book in them.

Mr. Lantz was one of the last members of an old school: he did not use e-mail or computers. He took 10 percent of his authors’ earnings, not 15 percent, hewing to a tradition widely abandoned in the late 20th century. He made his deals with handshakes.

Interestingly, Robbie Lantz was my first agent. He offered representation after the release of Who Shall Live and Who Shall Die?. His office handled negotiations with an Auschwitz survivor who had written a memoir after retiring from the garment business--he wanted me to direct his life story. Lantz was charming, a real Berliner with an accent. His office was dark and modernist, very Continental. Someone I met in New York called him a "collector" of talent, rather than an ordinary agent. We parted ways some time after the deal fell through. When I read his obituary, I thought it was nice to have once been part of Lantz's collection...

Alchemies of the Eye

A plug for an exhibition at New York's Amsterdam Whitney Art Gallery featuring paintings by my cousin, Louise Link Rath. It's called "Alchemies of the Eye," and continues until October 30th. If you can't make it in person to the art gallery in Chelsea, my cousin also has a personal website displaying her artwork.

Henry Kissinger on Condoleeza Rice's Middle East Summit

From the Khaleej Times (UAE):

Arab opinion is far from uniform. At least three points of view are identifiable: a small, dedicated but not very vocal group genuinely believing in co-existence with Israel; a much larger group seeking to destroy Israel by permanent confrontation; an offshoot willing to negotiate with Israel but justifying negotiations domestically as means to destroy the Jewish state in stages. Are the moderate Arab states prepared to expand and strengthen the group committed to genuine co-existence? Will recognition of Israel bring an end to the unrelenting media, governmental and educational campaign in Arab countries that presents Israel as an illegitimate, imperialist, almost criminal interloper in the region?

Several moderate Arab states have been extraordinarily reluctant to come to Annapolis. If they appear, will they treat their presence as their principal contribution for which one-sided pressure in Israel is deemed the appropriate concession?

Even more portentous will be the profound implications for the balance of forces within the Arab world. Moderates there will be less praised for their achievement than accused of having betrayed the Arab cause. The statement of the supreme leader of Iran attacking the Palestinian peace process and warning Arab states not to participate in it is likely to be the beginning of a systematic campaign. The US will be able to sustain the proposed course only if it is prepared to extend long-term support to its Arab partners against the foreseeable onslaught.

The peace process will therefore merge with the generic conflicts of the Middle East. The Annapolis conference cannot be the end of a process; rather, it should lay the groundwork of a new, potentially hopeful phase that will continue into future administrations. But it should not be driven by the US political calendar. If either America's Arab or Israeli friends are asked to take on more than they are able to withstand, there's the risk of another even larger blow-up. A preparatory “solution'' that tears the body politic of the parties apart will prevent ultimate progress. Breaking the psychological back of the US's Israeli ally would only embolden the radicals and thereby destabilise the entire region — whatever contrary arguments conventional wisdom advances.

Agustin Blazquez: Che Was No Hero--An Open Letter To Public Broadcasting

CHE WAS NO HERO: AN OPEN LETTER TO PUBLIC BROADCASTING © ABIP 2007
by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton

I could not believe my ears on Monday October 8 at what Public Radio International (PRI), THE WORLD, was broadcasting about Che Guevara. At taxpayer expense, since the NPR stations which broadcast the program are supported by grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

PRI, THE WORLD was solemnly commemorating the 40th anniversary of Che’s capture and death. The show was contributing to the myth that Castro created glorifying a man who in real life was a cruel assassin who miserably failed in his all of his revolutionary assignments, with two exceptions: executing 216 people including minors, and wrecking Cuba’s economy. Is that a hero who should be celebrated on public radio?

According to a recent article by Ernesto Betancourt at Diario Las Americas recounting Che’s failure as a guerrilla, “Che was a sadist who enjoyed firing the last shot in the executed men in the Sierra Maestra” [Mountains].

Che failed in all his guerrilla operations in the Caribbean, Africa and Bolivia, meeting death in Bolivia at the hands of the local military and the CIA. Sound like a t-shirt hero to you? And, why should Public Radio International provide free advertising to merchandise a failed Cuban terrorist?

Betancourt documented that Che was a racist when it came to working with both blacks in Africa and the South American Indians. Che had a marked superiority complex and was arrogant when in command. However, he didn’t act like as a hero when he faced his own death – like many of those he executed in Cuba - Che pleaded for his life. For more details, read Humberto Fontova’s article on Che’s un-heroic death at this link. How can it be justified for public broadcasting to use tax money to further Che’s false hero status--with no mention of the atrocities he committed against innocent civilians?

I was upset by the PRI broadcast, because last May PBS rejected my documentary proposal for CHE: The Other Side of an Icon, intended to balance misinformation in the media about Che Guevara--to show the real, historical side of Che as a killer and terrorist whose world-wide merchandising as an icon of revolution paved the way for the cult of Osama Bin Laden (click on the image to read the PBS letter). The Corporation for Public Broadcasting participated in this rejection, according to a phone call from CPB executive John Prizer. CPB president Patricia Harrison is former co-chair of the Republican National Committee. CPB chair Cheryl Halpern is also a Republican. Strange that Republicans reward broadcasts that glorify Che Guevara with financing and airtime, yet reject programs critical of enemies of the USA. Why?

My statements are not outrageous. Che was clearly a communist assassin, a terrorist who hated the United States and wanted to use nuclear arms to destroy America (this is on public record). Che symbolizes the opposite of the American dream. He was certainly not a hero to be admired, any more than other, lesser murderers.

The PRI “report” both misinformed and misled the public broadcasting audience. Yet it was broadcast on public radio stations, without a single protest from supposedly anti-Communist Republicans who now run the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So, after hearing Che’s praises sung, we can adapt a Lenin truism and say, when it come to CPB, “American taxpayers, and Republicans, will give Che the rope to hang them with...”

© ABIP 2007

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

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

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

Israel Turns to Russia, France for Help...

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made a quick visit to Moscow and is heading to Paris to shore up support, according to the Jerusalem Post:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert traveled to Paris Sunday for talks that will focus on Iran, carrying in his pocket what he said was a guarantee from Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia would not "put Israel in a place where it could be threatened."

Olmert's trip to France comes just three days after his lightning visit to Russia and a three-hour meeting with Putin.

Olmert told reporters en route to Paris that his meetings in Russia were "serious and important." He said he talked extensively with Putin about the Iranian issue and was "satisfied" with what he heard.

Olmert's snap visit to Russia came after Putin questioned in Teheran whether Iran was developing nuclear weapons and warned the West against attacking Iran.

Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Saltanov and Moscow's envoy to the Quartet Sergei Yakovlev arrived in Jerusalem on Sunday for two days of talks. The talks are to concentrate on the Palestinian track, but are also expected to deal somewhat with the Iranian nuclear issue.

The two met on Sunday with Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramovitch, and are set to meet Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday. Israel is expected to impress upon the two the importance of continuing to isolate Hamas.

According to the Foreign Ministry, the visit was planned some four weeks ago as part of a regional tour that will also take the pair to the PA, Egypt and Jordan. The purpose of the visit, according to the officials, is to hear from the sides their positions in the run-up to the proposed Mideast meeting later this year in Annapolis.

Perhaps the road to Middle East peace runs not through Baghdad, as President Bush once argued, but through Moscow and Paris?

Inside the Jack Anderson Papers

Jack Anderson's friend Dr. Terry A. Hinch invited me to the dedication of Jack Anderson's Papers at George Washington University's Gelman Library last night. Anderson's widow, along with many of Anderson's 9 children were at the reception, which featured exhibits of Anderson's most famous stories in glass cases. George Washington University president Stephen Knapp, who used to teach English at UC Berkeley --my own Alma Mater--paid tribute, along with the librarian, former colleagues (who showed a 5-minute video) and his son Erik. Erik noted that the FBI wanted Anderson's papers, no doubt to identify leakers. The family fought the FBI, and the Anderson family won. Evern after death, Erik pointed out, it was Jack Anderson-1, FBI-0. Terry had introduced me to Anderson a while back, at his Potomac Church of the Latter-Day Saints. And I have to say, Jack Anderson was a very nice man--at least to me. His fearless investigative journalism had really "spoken truth to power." Terry told me that Jack Anderson had smuggled a gun through security on Capitol Hill soon after they installed metal detectors, and risked arrest for the story. He was follwed by FBI agents while doing church work. He certainly broke more than his share of stories, and was his own man, with a syndicated column that at its peak reached some 60 million readers. I'm glad that his papers will be available to scholars and the public. He filled the role of journalist as conscience of the nation. A friend of Terry's, who used to work in the Pentagon, said at the reception that when making an executive decision he always thought: "What would this look like if it made its way into in Jack Anderson's column?" That sums up Jack Anderson's legacy in a nutshell. His writing helped keep American government honest. Too bad we don't have Jack Anderson writing today...

Wikipedia entry here.

Daniel Pipes: Giuliani is no George Bush

From the Jerusalem Post:

Ever in lock-step, Time magazine's blog likewise asserted last week that Giuliani's "message seems to be that Bush's policies for the region have worked pretty well, so let's have more of the same." How odd. Actually, the opposite should be apparent about Newsweek's six featured advisors - Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer, Peter Berkowitz, Nile Gardiner, Robert Kasten, and myself. First, we collectively had many disagreements with Bush administration policies and, second, we lacked impact on them. In other words, the real story is Giuliani's fresh start in foreign policy, joined by a cast unconnected to the current president's successes and failures...

How About Those Indians?

Last night's playoff game means that Cleveland is almost in the World Series:

It was the second time this series the Indians have put up a seven spot -- the first coming in the 11th inning of the 13-6 victory in Game 2 at Fenway Park.

"Somebody gets it going," Blake said, "and there's maybe a little advantage, a little momentum going there, and it's just a combination of guys working the pitcher and just battling."

This battle, for all intents and purposes, was over, once that 35-minute fifth was finalized. The Red Sox kept it moderately interesting with consecutive solo shots from Kevin Youkilis, David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez in the sixth, but the Indians weren't going to cough this one up.

The Tribe's focus now is to not cough up a prime opportunity to wrap this thing up at home on Thursday night. They'll have their ace Sabathia on the mound, and another bustling Jacobs Field crowd behind them.

Only when -- and if -- that next victory comes will this story have the final chapter the Indians are seeking out.

"We're up, 3-1, and that doesn't mean anything," Martinez said. "We've got to finish them off."

Rabbit Bentzion Kravitz on Ann Coulter

Rabbi Kravitz spoke at my cousin Paul's memorial service in Los Angeles' Hillside Memorial Park last Saturday, below the impressive Al Jolson memorial fountain inscribed "Sing Sweet the Song of Israel." Here's one rabbi's alternative to David Horowitz:

Ann Coulter’s statement, that Jews need to be perfected by accepting Jesus, simply articulated what evangelical Christians believe in their hearts but avoid in order to make their message more palatable. By saying Jews need to be perfected she is replacing the word “perfected” for the classic missionary term “completed.” This insinuates that Jews are incomplete and imperfect.

Ann quotes Jerry Falwell that Jews can serve God with the law but Christians have the improved fast-track through the blood of Jesus. In fact, Pat Robertson said the same thing. When I challenged him in person he admitted that his Christian beliefs also teaches that it is impossible for Jews to keep the entire law since we all “fall short” and can only get to heaven through Jesus.

Evangelicals may claim they love Jews and Israel, but until they respect Judaism as a valid path to God they will continue to seek our conversion. We need to educate Christians what the Bible really teaches in context and in the original Hebrew. Until then they will continue to repeat the same inaccurate teachings that Christianity has been preaching for centuries. To get started you can download, for free in 7 languages, my Jewish Response to Missionaries handbook at www.JewsForJudaism.org.

Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz
Jews for Judaism

David Horowitz on Ann Coulter

This comment certainly caught my eye:

I have received a surprising number of emails from friends basically asking "What are you going to do about Coulter?" This is a reference to her recent comment that she is hoping for the perfection of the Jews. My response is this: what else would a Christian hope for? That's the message of the New Testament: Jesus came to fulfill, complete, perfect the Law. If you're a Christian, that's what you believe. If you don't accompany this belief by burning Jews who refuse to become perfected at the stake why would any Jew have a problem?

Why do some Jews think that Christians should not really believe what they believe while it's okay for Jews to really believe they are God's Chosen People? I don't get it. Whatever happened to the pluralism of ideas? In any case, what I'm going to do about Coulter is finish her latest exhilarating book, If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans, which happens to be a hall of fame of her so-called "over the top" moments that drive leftists crazy. Right on Ann.

Emiliano Antunez Responds to Agustin Blazquez's Open Letter to Ron Paul

Received this via email:

OPEN LETTER TO AGUSTIN BLAZQUEZ

Mr. Blazquez I have read your Open Letter to Presidential Candidate Ron Paul regarding his stand on the Cuban Embargo and I am not at all surprised, that many like yourself in the Cuban-American community still don't get it. I myself am a Cuban American who for many years saw nothing wrong with the Embargo or Travel Restrictions. But one day I realized that its not about Cuba, Castro or the US but about individual freedom and respect for private property.

By using the power of government to restrict travel or commerce, we become the mirror image of our enemy (Castro/Communist). US regulations mostly at the behest of Cuban-Americans have become just as Kafkaesque as those imposed by Castro's bad joke of a government; do you really think that Castro's hold on power depends on the ability of the US government to define who is a relative, or tell people where they can or can't go and how many times or what they can or can't do with the money they earn? If so he (Castro) would not have lasted 48 years (and counting) in power.

Just as I oppose the embargo, I would be opposed to foreign aid, or taxpayer backed credit to Cuba or any other country. For too many years a large number of Cuban-Americans have focused on Castro rather than the real reason the battle for Cuba was lost, freedom, individual rights, and respect for private property (see Machado, Batista and Castro), how do you propose to restore them in Cuba while advocating exactly the opposite here?

On some of your more specific points:

"1. What is good for agribusiness in Texas is not necessarily good for the Cuban people."


The economic problems (and they are many) in Cuba are caused by its own socialist system, but I don't see where having more food around would be detrimental to the "Cuban people." To imply the Ron Paul's position is based on agribusiness is to be either blind to his voting record in congress for 20 years or an uneducated (Calle Ocho) knee jerk reaction.

2. Doing business in Cuba is not doing business with Cuban business owners. The Cuban government requires that all foreign business done in Cuba be conducted with the Cuban government as intermediary. As revealed by many participants, foreign companies must pay the regime in dollars to get workers, and the regime keeps 90% of the salaries; workers receive just 10%, and they are paid in Cuban pesos. Independent labor unions are forbidden. On August 11, 1989, Carlos Miguel Suarez and Isidoro Padron Armenteros were executed in the city of Sagua La Grande, Cuba. Their crime? Trying to organize an independent labor union.

Again this is not about Cuba. It is about the right of individuals (or private companies) to do with their products or assets as they see fit (without taxpayer subsidy) here in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If we regulate or restrict trade we become the monster we seek to destroy. Since Cuba's economy is in shambles (due to socialism) their purchasing power is minuscule. To think that Cuba's economy will improve simply because someone is allowed to sell them something is too believe in the viability of socialism. Cuba can buy anything it wants from any other country on the globe yet it is an economic basket case, WHY? Not because of the embargo (that's actually Castro's excuse) but because socialism or any other restriction of trade or free enterprise will fail history has proven that time and again. It is unfortunate that the Castro's government chooses to repress its people but that is an issue for Cuban's to resolve. As a matter of fact many of those offering to resolve that problem today from US shores fervently supported Castro's revolution and rule (for many years in some instances). Some of these same fervent anti-Castroite's support socialist economic panaceas here in the United States.

3. The embargo is working. If it had not been in place, the Cuban government would have had more money to spend on spreading communism and terrorism around the world and on maintaining control of and suppression of the Cuban people. It may even have been able to afford nuclear weapons by now. It is on public record that Castro asked Nikita Khrushchev to use nuclear missiles against the United States during the missile crisis in 1962 and that Che also wanted to use nuclear weapons to destroy the U.S. In addition, the embargo may prove to be a bargaining chip for a future change of government there.

You would have to believe in the viability of socialism (See USSR) to think that the embargo is any kind of bargaining chip. Castro is aware (more so than some folks in Miami) of the many faults of his system and has used the embargo as nothing more than an excuse for his complete failure. I personally would not do business with Castro or any communist simply because chances are they would not pay, because socialism espouses theft. Those who do decide to do business with this crowd will find that out sooner or later (at their own expense). The Embargo is working? NO Cuba's socialist economy has failed miserably.

4. Doing business with Cuba does not put pressure on the Castro government to increase freedoms; it merely reinforces the existing elitist system, since the only Cubans permitted to do business with foreigners are the privileged elite, who are chosen by the government. But not even the elite can put pressure on the Castro government, because their status can change in the blink of an eye.

Again its not about Castro, its about maintaining and respecting individual and property rights here in the US. The earth does not revolve around Castro (that would be the sun).


5. Many naively point out the role of free trade in overturning the totalitarian regimes of countries such as China and Russia. But as reported by 60 Minutes on Sunday, September 23, 2007, and many other sources, Russia is resuming its totalitarian police state. The television program 20/20 reported a few weeks ago that Vladimir Putin has created a Hitler Youth–type organization to fight dissent, similar to Castro’s dreaded paramilitary Rapid Response Brigades, which equate to the “Tonton Macoutes” of the late Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier. All are used to control, intimidate and create fear among ordinary citizens.

This is unfortunate but sadly not new (see French Revolution) in human history. If Mr. Putin or anyone else chooses to go down that road they will wreck their countries economy, he of all people should know better since he lived through the demise of the USSR. If the Russians go down the path of totalitarian rule and socialism they will merely self-destruct as they did the first time. It is also not the job of the US government (at least not according to the CONSTITUTION) to "liberate" all the peoples of the World (See Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua etc etc etc).

"7. The unscrupulous businessman’s"

Here you really sound like your nemesis, unscrupulous businessmen fail in free and unfettered markets. I will leave it here because if I continued this would become a course on the constitution, free markets and free trade, and being a good capitalist and valuing my time I would have to charge you real money -as opposed to Cuban pesos or US Dollars- for it (you would be more tha free to decline such an offer).

One final note, I couldn't help noticing your strong support of TV and Radio Marti, and though I share your hate for Castro and what he has done to Cuba, I can't in good conscience support the use of confiscated US taxpayer dollars to fund of something that has at best questionable value and should if anything be privately funded.It is extremely easy (and lucrative) to be "patriotic" with other peoples confiscated money.

Respectfully and Sincerely
Emiliano Antunez
Miami, Florida

Thant Myint-U on The Right Way to Save Burma

From Sunday's Los Angeles Times' Opinion Section:

The country only began to crawl out of its isolation in the early 1990s, when the regime finally began to welcome foreign trade and investment back to the country and asked for help in reforming the economy. As important, the army agreed to cease-fires with nearly all the various rebel armies. But all this came at the same time that Burma's new democracy movement -- headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of a revered hero of the Burmese independence movement who had been assassinated -- was pressing hard for political change. The West began to impose sanctions to support her position, pushing the generals back into their shell.

And so the stage is set for an even worse turn in the future. We have seen the anger and frustration on the streets of Rangoon (now called Yangon by the junta). The cease-fires remain fragile, but the international community has done little or nothing to encourage moves toward a just and sustainable peace. There is the dire poverty. And there is the fragility of the state itself. In Burma, the army has become the state -- there is little else. And yet the present officer corps, having grown up in international isolation, has little sense of the alternatives and remains deeply distrustful of the outside world.

There is still time to avoid the nightmare, but I'm afraid it will take a lot more than the international community is likely to give. Avoiding disaster will require high-level attention and commitment beyond the couple of weeks when Burma is on the newspaper front pages and television screens. It will require an acceptance that long-distance condemnation and Western economic sanctions don't mean much to the half-century-old military regime, a regime that has long been comfortable in isolation and needs only a modicum of money and trade from the outside world. It will require a realization that Burma sits right in the middle of Asia's economic miracle, that harnessing Burma to that rapid change is the surest way to raise up living standards, and that access to Western markets and Western ideas will make all the difference in determining whether the Burmese become equal partners of China and India or merely the providers of cheap labor and raw materials. And it's only when the Burmese ruling elite are exposed to the world that they will see a need to mend their ways.

Avoiding disaster in Burma will mean taking a long-term and pragmatic approach and understanding that democracy won't be created overnight. Cooperation among the United States, China and India will be essential, but it cannot be based on a policy of "regime change." We need to see the bigger picture in Burma -- not only the protests and the repression but also the ethnic conflicts, the pressing need to reform the economy and the urgency of delivering assistance to the most vulnerable people, especially the children. The war, poverty and repression are all interlinked; progress on all these fronts needs to happen together.

British Judge Rules Al Gore's Film Partisan Political Propaganda

Now that Al Gore has joined Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger as a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, this legal judgement may not make a difference. Still, the text of the decision makes for interesting reading.Here's a link to the full text (PDF) of Justice Burton's October 2nd decision in Stuart Dimmock v. the Secretary of State for Education and Skills--the British case challenging school showings of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

This abstract comes from the Heartland Institute website:

In the matter between Stuart Dimmock, Claimant and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (now Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families), Defendant, British High Court Justice Michael Burton determines former U.S. Vice President Al Gore’s global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, promotes “partisan political views.”

The case was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a truck driver, member of a local school council, and the parent of children aged 11 and 14. The defendants are British ministers responsible for the government education system, who had ordered nationwide distribution of Al Gore’s film. Dimmock said the film is inappropriate for showing to school-age children because it is politically biased, scientifically inaccurate, and contains “sentimental mush.”

After outlining nearly a dozen serious factual errors in the film, Burton determined it could continue to be shown in schools, but only if accompanied by a teaching package that includes limiting and cautionary “guidance notes” and other films, including a counter-film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” produced by Britain’s Channel 4.

Fravahar's Video Tribute to Iranian Victims of Islamism

(ht Amil Imani)

Yichus

As my cousin Paul lay dying in his West Los Angeles nursing home last week, my cousin Dorothy, his sister who now lives in Israel, talked about the importance of Yichus. Paul was a decorated WWII Navy veteran, who participated in some of the fiercest fighting in the Pacific Theater. After the war, he had led a quiet life as an engineer. He was proud of his service to our country in the US Navy, which began when he volunteered after Pearl Harbor, age 17, and ended after V-J Day. As a Navy veteran and member of the "Greatest Generation," Paul had been the creator of his own Yichus.

After Dorothy's discussion, I wanted to learn more about the concept and its importance in Jewish thought. Thanks to Google, I found this discussion in a commentary by Rabbi Aron Tendler at Torah.org:

Most of us think of Yichus from the position of the recipient not the initiator. We are the children of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah, Yakov, Rachel, and Leah. We are the recipients of their unique accomplishments and reputations. We did nothing to earn it, yet it defines who we are. Unfortunately, many of those who have it do not know that they have it, or care that they have it. That means that as important as Yichus might be to the recipients its practical value is only as great as the recipient's awareness and caring. Understanding Yichus demands that we begin seeing Yichus from the position of the initiator, the one who really cares about it, rather than the recipient who may care less.

As Moshe began his final words to the Bnai Yisroel the question of Yichus was foremost in his mind. Moshe was the product of Yichus and also the creator of his own Yichus. He knew that the amazing experiences of the 40 years in the desert were the foundation of the nation's identity and Yichus. It was what made them unique and apart from all the other nations of the world. Therefore, it needed to be preserved in the written word, but even more so, in the hearts and minds of the nation. It was incumbent upon the children of the Exodus to embrace their own Yichus so that they could be the progenitors of Yichus for their own children and grandchildren.

The transmission of Yichus is far more the responsibility of the initiator than the recipient. The initiator must engender in his recipients a sense of pride in the past and personal commitment for the present and future. The actions of the fathers are a foretelling for their children because it is the actions of the fathers that guarantee the passage of Yichus to their children.

Everyone knows that personal Yichus is the most important Yichus of all. However, every new beginning is really a reconnecting with a Yichus that extends back to the Avos, Imahos, and Moshe Rabbeinu. Personal Yichus simply picks up where previous generations left off.

Gathered in the Plains of Moab within sight of the Promised Land, Moshe summoned the entire assembly. His call was all embracing and inclusive, from the heads of the Tribes to the water-carriers and woodchoppers. He addressed a population of men, women, and children uniquely diverse and independent, yet sharing a collective Yichus and destiny. As a nation they had been molded apart from Egypt and independent of the outside world. However, they were the Sons of Jacob and they were not independent of each other.

"Each of you serves an essential job in the collective service of G-d. You cannot do it alone. You cannot give over the full Yichus without each other. We are a nation and it was to a nation that G-d gave His Torah. From the greatest to the lowest, from the most scholarly to the simplest, each of you has a job and each of you is responsible to the collective future of our people. We have all gathered to accept G-d's covenant and be His nation. So it was promised to our fore fathers and so will you witness the completion of that promise. However, far more important than being the fulfillment of past promises is your main job as guarantors of the future."

Christopher Hitchens on Ayaan Hirsi Ali

From Slate (ht LGF):

Suppose the narrow and parochial view prevails in Holland, then I think that we in America should welcome the chance to accept the responsibility ourselves. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become a symbol of the resistance, by many women from the Muslim world, to gender apartheid, "honor" killing, genital mutilation, and other horrors of clerical repression. She has been a very clear and courageous voice against the ongoing attack on our civilization mounted by exactly the same forces. Her recent memoir, Infidel (which I recommend highly, and to which, I ought to say, I am contributing a preface in its paperback edition), is an account of an extremely arduous journey from something very like chattel slavery to a full mental and intellectual emancipation from theocracy. It is a road that we must, and for our own sake as well, be willing to help others to travel.

For a while, her security in America was provided by members of the elite Dutch squad that is responsible for the protection of the Dutch royal family and Dutch politicians. The U.S. government requested that this be discontinued, for the perfectly understandable reason that foreign policemen should not be operating on American soil. The job has now been subcontracted, and was until recently underwritten by The Hague. If The Hague defaults, then does the "war on terror" administration take no interest in protecting the life of one of the finest enemies, and one of the most prominent targets, of the terrorists? Hirsi Ali has been accepted for permanent residence in the United States, and would, I think, like to become a citizen. That's an honor. If she was the CEO of Heineken or the president of Royal Dutch Shell, and was subject to death threats while on U.S. soil, I have the distinct feeling that the forces of law and order would require no prompting to consider her safety a high priority.

Fareed Zakaria on Burma

Zakaria cites Thant Myint-U's policy advice, in Newsweek:

One of the lessons of Iraq surely is that a prolonged sanctions regime will destroy civil society and empower the worst elements of the country, those who thrive in such a gangland atmosphere. If the purpose of sanctions is to bring about a better system for that country, devastating its society is a strange path to the new order. Burma is a particularly complicated place for such an experiment because it is riven with ethnic divisions and conflict. The Burmese government has been fighting 17 ethnic rebel groups for more than 50 years. Many of the rebels now control territory and run their own drug and resource cartels. The country is a failed state waiting to happen. Its one functioning national institution is the Army. Bringing liberal democracy to the country is going to be a challenge anyhow, and it is being made more difficult by the evisceration of its society.

In the early 1990s, after refusing to accept the results of an election in which Suu Kyi won, the Burmese regime began—haltingly—to open up the economy. But Western sanctions quickly put an end to such moves. Thant Myint-U, a former senior U.N. official and author of "The River of Lost Footsteps," a wonderful and affectionate portrait of Burma, argues that had that process of trade, travel and investment been encouraged, "Burma today would look more like Vietnam. It would have many more connections with the world, much more economic and social activity, and the regime would be far more constrained and reluctant to use force or engage in crackdowns."

The other effect of sanctions has been that American firms have mostly been replaced by Chinese companies. (This is precisely what's happened on a larger scale in Sudan, where American firms discovered and built the country's oilfields, then had to abandon them because of the worsening human-rights situation, and now find that the fields have been picked up by Chinese state oil companies.) And while it is perfectly fair to blame Beijing for supporting a dictatorial regime, the Indians, the Thais, the Malaysians and others have also been happy to step into the vacuum in Burma. Is this a net gain for America, for Burma and for human rights?

Thant, who has a celebrated pedigree in Burma—he is the only grandson of U Thant, the third secretary-general of the United Nations—hopes for sustained diplomatic pressure to get the regime to begin a process of real reform, involving the United States, China and India. "If the three countries can reach some consensus, that's the only outside pressure that is likely to matter," he says. "America can still play a crucial role. What the Burmese really want—if they had a choice—is not to be another province of China. They aspire to be a proud, independent country. There are many people there, even in the regime, who want to have good relations with America and the West. But my fear is that the West, momentarily aroused, will reflexively impose new sanctions and then move on. The result will be that the West's role in Burma will decline even more, China's will rise, and Burma will be further away from a liberal democratic future."