. The explanation came from Josiah Dubois, a Treasury official who served with the War Refugee Board actually rescuing Jews-- who then went on to prosecute Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg trials. As Dubois noted in his memorandum to Secretary Morgenthau on the acquienscence of the US government in the extermination of the Jews, one reason that steps were not taken to rescue Jews from Hitler was oppostion from the British government, an important American ally. To appease Arab public opinion, the British had persuaded the US government not to rescue European Jewry, using a variety of excuses. For, as the mandatory power in Palestine, the British were concerned that if Jews were rescued, they might go to their historic Jewish homeland, despite the 1939 White Paper restricting immigration . So, British foreign policy objectives required trapped European Jews to die, rather than be able to move to Israel. By the time American protests led to the formation of the War Refugee Board in 1944, it was too late--the vast majority of Jews had already been killed.
, based on the Tango, "Uno." Here it is:
"What we wanted to know was why aren't more people watching it and what would it take to attract a younger audience?" said Bob Knapp, president of Neubrand, a marketing and brand consultant. Viewers had told researchers they perceived the series as a "dusty jewel that was hard to find in the PBS crown," Eaton said. They wanted to know whether to expect "Jane Eyre" or Jane Tennison, "Bleak House" or "White Teeth"?You can read Smith's full article on the LA Times website.
The result was a compromise between changing everything or changing nothing, Knapp said, the literary equivalent of "brand new look, same great taste."
Faithful Anglophiles
However, one informed observer suggested that PBS, by trading off the halo effect of the "Masterpiece" name may actually cheapen the brand by diluting it like Cherry Coke and Vanilla Coke. Laurence Jarvik, author of "Masterpiece Theatre and the Politics of Quality," said that under the original Mobil Oil sponsorship, the series preserved its brand integrity because its executives were driven as much or more by personal passion than market research. "What was good about it is that you knew what you were getting: A slice of British costume drama," he said.
Last Sunday I and a few other girls began our trip to New York. We were going to shop and enjoy the Christmas spirit. We made ourselves comfortable on first class, drank white wine and looked forward to go shopping, eat good food and enjoy life. When we landed at JFK airport the traditional clearance process began. We were screened and went on to passport control. As I waited for them to finish examining my passport I heard an official say that there was something which needed to be looked at more closely and I was directed to the work station of Homeland Security. There I was told that according to their records I had overstayed my visa by 3 weeks in 1995. For this reason I would not be admitted to the country and would be sent home on the next flight. I looked at the official in disbelief and told him that I had in fact visited New York after the trip in 1995 without encountering any difficulties. A detailed interrogation session ensued. I was photographed and fingerprinted. I was asked questions which I felt had nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was forbiddento contact anyone to advise of my predicament and although I was invited at the outset to contact the Icelandic consul or embassy, that invitation was later withdrawn. I don't know why. I was then made to wait while they sought further information, and sat on a chair before the authority for 5 hours. I saw the officials in this section handle other cases and it was clear that these were men anxious to demonstrate their power. Small kings with megalomania.You can read the rest of the story at http://eggmann.blog.is/blog/eggmann/
I was careful to remain completely cooperative, for I did not yet believe that they planned to deport me because of my "crime". When 5 hours had passed and I had been awake for 24 hours, I was told that they were waiting for officials who would take me to a kind of waiting room. There I would be given a bed to rest in, some food and I would be searched. What they thought they might find I cannot possibly imagine. Finally guards appeared who transported me to the new place. I saw the bed as if in a mirage, for I was absolutely exhausted. What turned out was something else. I was taken to another office exactly like the one where I had been before and once again a long wait ensued. In all, it turned out to be 5 hours. At this office all my things were taken from me. I succeeded in sendinga single sms to worried relatives and friends when I was granted a bathroom break. After that the cell phone was taken from me. After I had been sitting for 5 hours I was told that they were now waiting for guards who would take me to a place where I could rest and eat. Then I was placed in a cubicle which looked like an operating room. Attached to the walls were 4 steel plates, probably intended to serve as bed anda toilet. I was exhausted, tired and hungry. I didn't understand the officials’ conduct, for they were treating me like a very dangerous criminal. Soon thereafter I was removed from the cubicle and two armed guards placed me up against a wall. A chain was fastened around my waist and I was handcuffed to the chain. Then my legs were placed in chains. I asked for permission to make a telephone call but they refused. So secured, I was taken from the airport terminal in full sight of everybody. I have seldom felt so bad, so humiliated and all because I had taken a longer vacation than allowed under the law.
This just in from the UK, thanks to a tip from my BBC podcast of Radio Four's Today Programme this morning: John Purnell's Department for Media, Culture, and Sport has relased a White Paper intended to re-organize arts funding in Britain. Known as the Mcmaster Review, it is titled: Supporting excellence in the arts - from measurement to judgement.If you want a "Renaissance," instead of more bureaucracy and peer panels, encourage competition. Set the "Royal" institutions against the "National" ones, the West End versus the South Bank, and the Regions against London. Artists are as competitive as footballers. Use that energy to foster excellence. Let artistic organizations compete openly and fairly for funding according to fixed criteria, ranked like athletes, so that the heavyweights can't crush the bantamweights.Still, it is nice that Sir Brian is even talking about "excellence" in the arts. Sir Brian's report has started a debate that I wish we were having here in the USA, and for that he deserves thanks.
I got an email the other day from Lynn Smith, a Los Angeles Times reporter covering PBS. She found my book about Masterpiece Theatre with a Google search, and wanted to know what I thought about the big changes to the series. I'll let the LA Times report what I had to say to Ms. Smith (the story is scheduled for Friday's Calendar section). "I haven't any right to criticize books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone."Thanks to my own Google search, I discovered Emily Auerbach's interesting article in the Virginia Quarterly Review: "A Barkeeper Entering the Kingdom of Heaven": Did Mark Twain Really Hate Jane Austen?" Here's an excerpt:
Mark Twain Letter to Joseph Twichell, 9/13/1898
Mark Twain expressed unparalleled hatred of Jane Austen, defining an ideal library as one with none of her books on its shelves. "Just that one omission alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn't a book in it," Twain insisted in Following the Equator. Did Mark Twain genuinely detest Jane Austen? Or was the bushy-eyebrowed, irascible Twain merely posing?
In his extensive correspondence with fellow author and critic William Dean Howells, Mark Twain seemed to enjoy venting his literary spleen on Jane Austen precisely because he knew her to be Howells' favorite author, In 1909 Twain wrote that "Jane Austin" [sic] was "entirely impossible" and that he could not read her prose even if paid a salary to do so. Howells notes in My Mark Twain (1910) that in fiction Twain "had certain distinct loathings; there were certain authors whose names he seemed not so much to pronounce as to spew out of his mouth."
His prime abhorrence was my dear and honored prime favorite, Jane Austen. He once said to me, I suppose after he had been reading some of my unsparing praise of her—I am always praising her, "You seem to think that woman could write," and he forbore withering me with his scorn, apparently because we had been friends so long and he more pitied than hated me for my bad taste.
Rather than pitying Twain when he was sick, Howells threatened to come and read Pride and Prejudice to him. Twain marveled that Austen had been allowed to die a natural death rather than face execution for her literary crimes.
Abusing Power to Suppress Truth: Letter 1: 24 February 2007You can read the whole thing, at this link.
The case of Lennart Bage (Sweden)
President, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Rome
14-15 February 2007
In this and possible future emails I shall describe the substance of my revelations which led you to bar me from IFAD’s Governing Council on 14 and 15 February 2007; your cowardice in not informing me in advance of my travel to Rome that I would be barred; your dastardliness in obliging junior colleagues to tell lies to keep me out; your abuse of the Italian police to bar me from an international meeting; and ask for an apology and compensation...
