In Lake City for a funeral last Friday, had lunch at Tucker's Restaurant in the historic Blanche Hotel (I recommend the fish fry with cheese grits). According to the Wikipedia entry, Al Capone and Johnny Cash were among the guests who stayed there in years gone by. We were told of its glory days as home-away-from-home to tobacco-buyers from up North. It's now an office building.
JABALYA, GAZA STRIP — Most people remember the headlines: Massacre Of Innocents As UN School Is Shelled; Israeli Strike Kills Dozens At UN School [NOTE: The NY Times' headline read "Israeli Shells Kill 40 at Gaza UN School"].
They heralded the tragic news of Jan. 6, when mortar shells fired by advancing Israeli forces killed 43 civilians in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. The victims, it was reported, had taken refuge inside the Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys, a facility run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
The news shocked the world and was compared to the 1996 Israeli attack on a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, in which more than 100 people seeking refuge were killed. It was certain to hasten the end of Israel's attack on Gaza, and would undoubtedly lead the list of allegations of war crimes committed by Israel.
There was just one problem: The story, as etched in people's minds, was not quite accurate.
Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed. The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.
Certainly some women, and all infants, are innocent victims of the conflict. But Hamas successfully makes all women and all “children” victims, knowing that the sob sisters/brothers of the West accept this for their own reasons. Those reasons may vary, from cultural anti-Americanism, historic anti-Semitism, or the peculiar European adoration of everything Third World.
All this being said, and concentrated in the simple statement that Hamas is not deterrable and its supporters are seldom real “civilians,” why does anyone—especially the Israeli government, elected to protect its citizenry and territory—pretend otherwise?
The answer, and a disturbing one, is that Israel, or at least its elites, are more “Western” than is good for them or their people. The implicit message of the Israeli officials’ claim that “regime change” in Gaza is not an objective of Operation Cast Lead is problematic. If sincere, Tel Aviv is wasting lives—Jewish and Palestinian—for very short-term success. If not, the problem is worse, because it only creates confusion—in Israel, among Palestinians, and elsewhere.
Ultimately, the only solution—itself limited in time because of the permanency of dysfunctional Palestinian political culture—is the physical destruction of Hamas in Gaza, by killing most of its militants and leaders, be they “political” or “military” (is there a difference, outside Western artificial legalistic and emotional circles?)
As it is now, Israel’s claim that the goal is not Hamas’ removal from power in Gaza is either dishonest, a PR statement, or delusional. The destruction of Hamas’ military/terror capabilities would make it unattractive to Gazans, who like winners (if they kill Israelis). Anything else would convince most Gazans, who are always ready to be convinced, that Hamas is the way to go, electorally or practically.
Ultimately, the total physical destruction of Hamas in Gaza and the introduction of PA elements, even and especially if that means renewed intra-Palestinian conflict, is the only stable, if not permanent, solution. Since Hamas cannot be deterred, dealt or “negotiated” with it, a fact Hamas itself admits, is a lost cause—it simply has to be destroyed. Hence all Euro-pacifist demands or UN pseudo-solutions are inherently irrelevant.
The whole idea, or so-called principle, of total protection of undefined “civilians” promoted by leftists supporting Hamas without the courage to say so (the perennial Bianca Jagger, etc.), is not limited to Gaza’s conflict. That is just the latest pretext of a peculiarly irresponsible phenomenon. Thus the government and people of Sri Lanka are on the brink of finally winning their decades-long war against one of the world’s worst terrorist groups—the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the “inventors” of suicide bombings and responsible of some 70,000 fatalities since 1984. The reaction from Amnesty International and associates? “Too many civilians” are being killed or displaced—not the rational question of how many civilians, Tamil or others, would be saved by ending the war.
But no, self-proclaimed human rights or humanitarian NGOs, when not actively encouraging irregular forces by treating them equally with state actors, push for regulations on states, since they cannot do so on Hamas or similar non-state actors. The result is always that the conflict between state and non-state actors, whether in Gaza, Israel, Colombia, Sri Lanka, or elsewhere, is prolonged—with more “civilians” and innocents, whatever their definition, falling victim to violence.
It may appear cynical or brutal to say that in some circumstances—the Gaza conflict now being an obvious one—more violence, if correctly targeted, means fewer real civilian victims and better long-term chances of calm, if not peace. If Israel and those who truly seek calm in the Middle East in the long-term are serious, they should support the total military defeat of Hamas, rather than spill tears over the loss of “civilians.” This is a lesson that can be applied to conflicts far away from the Middle East. However, the prospects of this happening are not good, and the result is likely to be more and more “civilians” such as infants sleeping in their cribs being killed from Kyber to Mullaitivu to Gaza. Lack of clarity and reason truly kills.
It is historically fitting that Samuel Huntington called upon Americans to conserve America. In the seventeenth century, the first Huntingtons arrived in America, as Puritans and as founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In the eighteenth century, Samuel Huntington of Connecticut was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. In the nineteenth century, Collis P. Huntington was a builder of the transcontinental railroad. In the twentieth century, Samuel P. Huntington was for half a century the most consistently brilliant and creative political scientist in the United States. Huntingtons had been present at the creation for most of the great events of American history, and Samuel Huntington knew intimately and believed intensely in what America was all about. His ideas about America and its role in the world were simultaneously original, conservative, and consequential. He was a splendid exemplar of American creative intelligence and intellectual courage.
Someone who didn't pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes until audited, and didn't pay in full until approached about this position, can not be trusted to honestly administer billions of bailout dollars...
IMHO Doubt deserves all the Oscars that Slumdog Millionaire is in line to receive. I just couldn't get over what a terrific job director John Patrick Shanley did in moving his stage play--which I saw in Los Angeles with Cherry Jones--to the screen. Meryl Streep is outstanding. She really has a Bronx (not Brooklyn, not Queens) accent. Phillip Seymour Hoffman also excellent. The sets are excellent, the costumes are excellent, the acting is excellent, the music is excellent. And the drama is likewise excellent. Thought-provoking, moving, and deep. The film is better than the play...best movie I've seen this year!
Not that it will stop the manipulative roman-a-clef about English boarding school sadism from winning a bunch of Oscars. Danny Boyle's direction reeks of British Imperialist Condescension. Surprised it wasn't called "You're a Better Man Than I Am, Gunga Din." No wonder some people in Mumbai are mad...it is indeed insulting. Better to read Rohinton Mistry's A Fine Balance (Oprah's Book Club)to which this film pays homage--uncredited, of course...the British apparently are still good at stealing from Indians.
Finally saw Ron Howard's film adaptation of Peter Morgan's play Frost/Nixon yesterday afternoon. I was struck by the scene where Frank Langella plays Nixon's Piano Concerto Number One--best thing in the picture, IMHO. Plus the "drunk dialing" scene was very well done, plus the follow up "checking" familiar to AA and Alanon veterans.
Otherwise, a little bit cardboard cutout, by the numbers, Peter Morgan strikes this blogger as a British author who only knows Americans from the outside. Frost/Nixon is definitely not The Queen.
The Frost=Nixon doppelganger angle was taught to us as an obvious gimmick in my first screenwriting class at You See LA film school. Hey, the hero and the villain are two sides of the same person divided in two! That's deep. Get me the Joseph Campbell coverage!
Guess what, Peter Morgan? As Lloyd Bentsen would say, I wrote about David Frost and Richard Nixon for my PhD dissertation, and David Frost was no Nixon. And, Frost was no lightweight--he founded London Weekend Television, hosted That Was the Week That Was on NBC as well as British TV, as well as the David Frost Show and was known as the wittiest and most intelligent man on TV. Nixon wasn't going downmarket from Mike Wallace--he was going upmarket. But how could a Britisher be expected to know that (on the other hand, Ron Howard should know better)?
IMHO, Nixon was an Anglophile as well as a keen student of the snobbery and pretentions of Ivy League dopes, who no doubt correctly concluded that a confession to a big-shot Briton would redeem him...which it did. Plus the money was good. And he enjoyed being with big shots, which the film did capture. The self-pitying aspect played true. Checkers, You Won't Have Dick Nixon to Kick Around Anymore, Resignation, Frost/Nixon. The same act worked time after time...not that Morgan noticed.
Nixon wasn't finished by his on-air confession, he was just beginning another act--senior statesman. Doesn't anyone remember Bill Clinton asking Nixon's advice? So the storyline rang false. The acting was good, though. And some of the blubbery Checkers speech characterization from Langella worked, too. I couldn't get past Michael Sheen's Tony Blair to see him as Frost, though he's a good actor and gave it a try. I don't know how they could have made Frost look more different, but maybe someone could have thought of something. And where were the Hollywood feminists at Universal and Imagine entertainment on this one? The women--Pat Nixon, Diane Sawyer, and Caroline Cushing--have nothing to say or do except stand around and look pretty! Yet Pat Nixon, who studied acting and worked in the movie industry; Diane Sawyer, who went on to co-star with Mike Wallace; and Cushing, who went on to set up a marketing and PR firm are mere eye-candy. Before feminism, they would have had parts like Barbara Stanwyck's, Bettye Davis's, and Lauren Bacall's. Does Peter Morgan hate women?
In any case, thanks to google and YouTube, I quickly found this video of Nixon performing his composition on the Jack Paar show in 1963...thought it worth sharing:
Thoughts on FOIA Executive Order [NOTE: Corrected to "Presidential Memorandum"]
Now that I've had some time to digest President Obama's Executive Order on the FOIA, I have some thoughts on it.
The biggest implication, I believe, is the signal it sends. This Executive Order states that there is a presumption of disclosure of government records and it was sent on the first day of the new administration. It tells the Attorney General to issue guidelines consistent with the Executive Order. I believe it is an instruction to the Department of Justice and all agencies that past practices need to be revisited and the withholding for the sake of withholding days are past.
I think the Reno memorandum of October 1993 will be the place the Department of Justice will start in making the FOIA more open. However, I hope that Justice doesn't stop there and listens to open government groups that have circulated ideas about improving the FOIA.
My advice to the Department of Justice is to be bold and rethink underlying assumptions about why certain records should not be released pursuant to the FOIA. As an example, does the release of pre-decisional documents always chill the decisional process of the government? I don't think it is always true and the use of exemption 5 on every pre-decisional document should be rethought.
On the whole, I think yesterday was a great day for the FOIA, but there is much work to do in the months ahead.
Other Fed watchers were disappointed that someone with an established reputation as a regulator didn't get the job.
``Geithner's appointment raises questions about the willingness of the New York Fed to aggressively supervise financial holding companies in its territory because there is very little in Geithner's resume that shows experience in regulatory issues,'' says Tom Schlesinger, 55, executive director of the Financial Markets Center, a Philomont, Virginia-based nonprofit group that monitors the Fed.
`Tough Cop'
``The New York Fed could have sent a message by appointing a well-known tough cop with regulatory experience and a professed willingness to crack down on financial crimes,'' says Schlesinger. ``Geithner may prove to be that kind of individual, but it is improbable at this time.''
A couple of our friends have come from Chicago for the inauguration...they're at Union Station waiting for Barack Obama's Amtrak train right now...so this blog may not be a going concern till Wednesday. Meanwhile, you can find an inaugural event near you with this handy dandy website from Barack Obama's Presidential Inaugural Committee at http://events.pic2009.org/page/event/search_simple.
Why pay more? I stumbled into Kelly's Art and Frame while on my way to art class in Alexandria, VA. Not only does she own the gallery and do her own framing, Kelly is an artist from Buffalo, NY who paints abstractions that to my amateur eye seem just as nice as Hans Hoffman's. Can you tell which of these is by the famous German artist? Believe it or not, Hutchinson sells her original canvases for $150...sometimes in person at Eastern Market on weekends in DC...
How many times have we been told how to prepare for a water landing before takeoff? I never believed it was possible, thought it was only PR to reassure frightened passengers. Now--I believe. If Chesley Sullenberger can land a jet without engines in the Hudson river, without hitting a building, a bridge, or a boat, and if all those boats came to help rescue without worrying about liability or other excuses, my faith in America is restored. There is nothing Americans can't do.
We wanted to tell you about a new feature on Change.gov which lets you bring your ideas directly to the President.
It's called the Citizen's Briefing Book, and it's an online forum where you can share your ideas, and rate or offer comments on the ideas of others.
The best-rated ones will rise to the top, and after the Inauguration, we'll print them out and gather them into a binder like the ones the President receives every day from experts and advisors. If you participate, your idea could be included in the Citizen's Briefing Book to be delivered to President Obama.
Throughout this Transition, a truly inspiring number of citizens have gotten involved. We hope that you remain involved through the Inauguration and beyond.
To: Esther Foer Judith S. Goldstein Executive Director Executive Director Sixth & I Historic Synagogue Humanity in Action 600 I Street, N.W 1088 Park Avenue Washington D.C. 20001 New York, NY 10128 1-202-266-3231 1-212-828-6874 Fax: 202/408-5124 FAX212.410.4969 efoer@sixthandi.org
And to Defenders of the Honor
On first hearing about plans to ask the poster boy of Latino and Latina public documentary film exclusion to share his "VISIONS OF RACE IN AMERICA," as part of the festivities surrounding President Elect-Barack Obama's historic inauguration on January 20, 2009, some thought it was simply a joke in poor taste. After all, there was a well-publicized national outcry in 2007 when Ken Burns left Latinos out of his 14.5-hour documentary about World War II.
But on further investigation (See: http://www.humanityinaction.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=879) , it appears to be a fact: Humanity in Action and the Washington D.C. Sixth and I Historic Synagogue have asked Ken Burns to speak about a topic on which he is an anti-authority. Ken Burns has demonstrated repeatedly a peculiar blindspot to Latinos, so his "Vision of Race" is not only incomplete, it is wildly inaccurate and a slap in the face to Latinos.
Hard to believe it escaped anyone who keeps up with the news that in 2007, Burns united Latinos and non-Latino supporters to decry the absence of Latinos in his WWII documentary. We knew that an estimated 500,000 Latino and Latina patriots fought, while other Latinos and Latinas supported the war effort on the homefront - and those contributions are too often left out of books, movies, etc. about WWII. But the issue was larger, than World War II -- it focused attention on the historic omission of Latino contributions to our nation. So when the Ken Burn documentary was set, Latinos reacted loudly and proudly: The voices of our community against Ken Burns and PBS were strong and included over thirty national Latino organizations, and thousands of individuals and elected officials from the country. In the end, Burns did add on two short Hispanic and one Native American film bits-- at the end of three episodes, after the screen went to black and the theme began. Many felt his addition was passive-aggressive; it was not the "seamless addition" he had promised in an April 2007 meeting in Washington with Latinos, including elected officials and representatives of major Latino organizations, as well as Defend the Honor. We came to know that Burns is a serial eraser of Latinos -- he did the same in previous documentaries on baseball and on Jazz.
That he would be chosen to discuss race in America is painful. Latinos made a difference in Obama winning the 2008 election and we are celebrating his inauguration enthusiastically. But news that Burns has been chosen as a major speaker on the topic of race in America is a bleak reminder that Latinos are not considered, by some, an important part of our own country.
The question we have for the event sponsors, Sixth & I Historic Synagogue and Humanity in Action is simple: why was Ken Burns, of all people, chosen to speak on this topic at this event when there are many others who are knowledgeable and considered experts on the issues of "race" in America and the world?
Humanity in Action's mission statement reads, in part: "Humanity in Action believes that an important test of a genuine democracy is how it treats its racial, ethnic, and religious minorities..." Does that not include Latinos in our country? Inviting Ken Burns to speak about race raises doubts about Humanity in Action's respect for the Latino community.
We are deeply disappointed by the Washington D.C. Sixth and I Synagogue's involvement in co-sponsoring the "VISIONS OF RACE IN AMERICA" presentation. We express our concerns over what appears to be a lack of sensitivity on the part of the well-respected Historic Synagogue, representing a community that has been active in establishing a Latino-Jewish Dialogue. This inter-ethnic community effort has been advanced over the last seven years by the American Jewish and the Latino communities. In fact, the results of a "landmark survey" in Latino-Jewish Relations released in 2001 by The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding under the leadership of Rabbi Marc Schneier states the findings "provide a roadmap for Latinos and Jews to address of mutual cooperation and concern." The Ken Burns/Latino issue is important and must be addressed by all Latino-Jewish Dialogue groups in the country. The San Diego Latino-Jewish Coalition is building relationships among and between our communities and was one of the first to expressed concern and dismay over Ken Burns exclusion of Latinos and Latinas in his PBS The War documentary.
Those of us involved in the Defend The Honor campaign and many others involved in building community relations between ethnic groups call on the Humanity in Action and Sixth and I Synagogue to reconsidered their invitation of Ken Burns to speak on "VISIONS OF RACE IN AMERICA." If Burns is provided a forum to speak about a matter that we consider sacred, then there should representation by Latinos who may address the continuing omission of Latinos in our nation's historical narrative. We will be glad to provide a list of knowledgable speakers.
We request that the Executive Directors of the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue and the Humanity in Action organizations to reach out and invite representatives of Defend The Honor to meet and discuss our mutual concerns and interests. We also request all supporters of Defend The Honor to express their sentiments on this issue and their vision of race in America to the Executive Directors of Sixth & I Historic Synagogue and Humanity in Action and to Defend the Honor. Please send us a copy of any correspondence. Constructive change requires constructive dialogue.
For additional information and perspective on Defend The Honor and the contributions of Latinos to the WWII effort, go to www.defendthehonor.org
Gus Chavez Co-founder Defend The Honor & member of the San Diego Latino-Jewish Coalition guschavez2000@yahoo.com
The Senate's Advice If she accepted it, Hillary Clinton would find it easier to manage questions about her husband's foreign fundraising. Wednesday, January 14, 2009; A16
AT THE outset of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's otherwise gentle and uninformative confirmation hearing for Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday, Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.) clearly spelled out the problem presented by foreign contributions to Bill Clinton's foundation. "The Clinton Foundation," he said, "exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a donation. It also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the secretary of state in relation to foreign givers or their countries."
"Every new foreign donation that is accepted by the foundation comes with the risk that it will be connected in the global media to a proximate State Department policy or decision," Mr. Lugar added. "Foreign perceptions are incredibly important to U.S. foreign policy, and mistaken impressions or suspicions can deeply affect the actions of foreign governments toward the United States." The senator concluded that "the only certain way to eliminate this risk" is for the Clinton Foundation to refuse new foreign donations while Ms. Clinton is secretary of state.
Mr. Lugar was only stating the obvious. The Clinton Foundation, which has pursued such worthy projects as combating HIV/AIDS and climate change, has collected millions in donations from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf governments, as well as from prominent supporters of Israel, Indian industrialists and the Blackwater security firm -- to name just a few of the potentially sensitive cases. Questions continue to arise about apparent conflicts between Ms. Clinton's actions as a senator and the foundation's fundraising: The Associated Press reported yesterday that Ms. Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting firms or individuals tied to contributions to her husband's foundation.
Yet senators mostly shied away yesterday from probing this obvious minefield -- or, in the case of several Democrats, endorsed the loophole-ridden disclosure agreement the Clintons negotiated with President-elect Barack Obama. Ms. Clinton said nothing about the issue in her opening statement. When she was pressed for more disclosure by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), she stonewalled: "All the answers are in the record," and "there is no intention to amend" the memorandum negotiated with Mr. Obama.
To his credit, Mr. Lugar released a list of improvements that former president Clinton could make to the disclosure agreement. These are eminently sensible: For example, instead of disclosing new foreign contributions only once a year, the foundation would immediately report all gifts of $50,000 or more, and all such donations from foreigners at the time they are pledged. Also, a State Department ethics review would cover all donations above $50,000 from foreign sources -- and not just foreign governments. Ms. Clinton would be doing herself, and Mr. Obama, a favor by pressing her husband to accept greater disclosure or, better yet, to suspend foreign fundraising. Otherwise, the questions raised by senators yesterday will haunt her, and her president, throughout their tenure.
For goodness sake, Bill raised $109 million--why does he need to keep working?
In Lake City for a funeral last Friday, had lunch at Tucker's Restaurant in the historic Blanche Hotel (I recommend the fish fry with cheese grits). According to the Wikipedia entry, Al Capone and Johnny Cash were among the guests who stayed there in years gone by. We were told of its glory days as home-away-from-home to tobacco-buyers from up North. It's now an office building.
to which this film pays homage--uncredited, of course...the British apparently are still good at stealing from Indians. 
