Charles Crawford v David Miliband on Terrorism and Apartheid in South Africa

The former Ambassador to the former Yugoslavia takes on the British Foreign Minister and his recent statements on the BBC in praise of ANC terrorism and the former Communist Party's leader in South Africa:

On the Miliband/terrorism point, the FS was either simply wrong or missed a key point.

It is not whether terrorism is 'morally justifiable'. It is whether those who use terrorist methods to win power are more likely than not to use terror to stay in it.

Insofar as South Africa has emerged from apartheid 'peacefully' and today is in not too bad shape, it is because the ANC/SACP did not use terrorism (other than against fellow Africans which as we know did not count) on any great scale.

On the whole (and wisely, albeit at great cost) the South African masses did not rise up violently against apartheid, but let unrelenting pressures and contradictions of different shapes and sizes erode it.

In fact, if there was an ANC/SACP armed struggle at all it was against other African groupings (PAC/AZAPO/Inkatha). Which is why some 30,000 Africans and almost no 'whites' were massacred in South Africa's legendary Peaceful Transition to Democracy.

Plus the ANC/SACP/UDF in the mid-1980s had a clear policy of unleashing 'the worse, the better' revolutionary terror in the townships, with necklacings and other horrors being perpetrated by groups of demonic school-children. Hence, 20+ years later, South Africa's amazing violent crime rate.

In short, ANC/SACP terrorism did not 'blow down' apartheid. P W Botha's heart attack and the collapse of Communism in Europe did.

The BBC link to the interview coyly describes Joe Slovo as a 'leading member of the ANC and the first Housing Minister in Nelson Mandela's government'. The point, of course, is that Slovo was the leading South African communist and formal head of the 'military wing' of the ANC/SACP alliance. Slovo was at the heart of ANC/SACP policy-making for years, plus a close suck-up of Moscow and vigorous apologist for Communism anywhere he found it.

So here we have the ghoulish spectacle of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband extolling the merits of this dark character, a great friend of his own Marxist father Ralph Miliband.

Slovo by the usual standards of Communists was something of a moderate and pragmatist. He had to be. Years of exile forced him to grasp that the South African masses were not to be mobilised for a brisk, amazingly violent surge aimed at toppling apartheid. And he seems to have been avuncular in large doses, chatting over Marxist ideology with assorted Milibands. What a great life indeed!

Yet Slovo has to bear a significant responsibility for the carnage inflicted by the SACP/ANC in the townships in its drive for sole power as apartheid ended, and the calamitous crime-rate thereafter. Not an issue I suspect the Miliband family has given much thought to, such is the Labour Party's fevered admiration for the ANC/SACP.

Plus, while Slovo was devoted to the cause of freedom for South Africans, he was openly and shamefully against freedom for those trying to cast off communism.

See how the SACP urged Moscow to suppress the pro-freedom movement in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Slovo later claimed to have had personal doubts about this, but fealty to Moscow was a prerequisite for leadership in the anti-apartheid struggle. And that was what counted, not some higher principle of real empowerment and freedom for all.

His ideological writings were ghastly beyond description. His famous piece Has Socialism Failed written in 1990 is a cracker of the genre. It agonizes over the ruin which has come to the classic Communist project as the Berlin Wall crashed, and meanders in a jargonised pseudo-logical way towards a purported condemnation of the 'Stalinism' which Slovo had championed for most of his life.

Avuncular Joe scratches for nuggets of Marxist hope in the wreckage:

The transformations which have occurred in Poland, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria are revolutionary in scope. With the exception of Romania, is there another example in human history in which those in power have responded to the inevitable with such a civilised and pacific resignation?

We should remember De Gaulle's military response in 1968 when ten million workers and students filled the streets of Paris. It is not difficult to forecast how Bush or Thatcher would deal with millions in their streets supported by general strikes demanding the overthrow of their system of rule.

Huh?

Of course for Slovo Communism in fact did quite well in lots of respects:

Among other things, statistics recently published in The Economist (UK) show that in the Soviet Union - after only 70 years of socialist endeavour in what was one of the most backward countries in the capitalist world - there are more graduate engineers than in the US, more graduate research scientists than in Japan and more medical doctors per head than in Western Europe. It also produces more steel, fuel and energy than any other country (The World in the 1990s; Economist publication).

How many capitalist countries can match the achievements of most of the socialist world in the provision of social security, child care, the ending of cultural backwardness, and so on? There is certainly no country in the world which can beat Cuba's record in the sphere of health care.

Lies and/or specious drivel.

It was all just a mistake:

We believe, however, that the theory of Marxism, in all its essential respects, remains valid and provides an indispensable theoretical guide to achieve a society free of all forms of exploitation of person by person.

The major weaknesses which have emerged in the practice of socialism are the results of distortions and misapplications. They do not flow naturally from the basic concepts of Marxism whose core is essentially humane and democratic and which project a social order with an economic potential vastly superior to that of capitalism.

My own abiding personal memory of Slovo comes from 1990, a huge rally organised by the ANC/SACP in Jo'burg soon after they were unbanned. Slovo was the final speaker. The crowd had been brought to life by the late Chris Hani leading rounds of cheery Kill the Boer chants and dancing.

Slovo at last rose to speak. Perhaps the proudest moment of his career to date.

And as he started droning on, the Africans started to go home in their droves. Who was this boring old white man anyway?

Slovo on centre-stage could see for himself what was happening. The South African masses were at last voting freely, albeit with their feet. And not for him!

The more impassioned his voice as he glorified the SACP/ANC, the faster people left. It was really remarkable. By the time he finished he was almost shouting, but to desultory applause - the stadium was close to empty.

All the pro-ANC media and its white Leftist elite of course ignored this astonishing spectacle in reporting the event. It was not just appallingly embarrassing for themselves in their self-proclaimed intellectual leadership roles. Worse, far worse, it did not fit the Narrative.

Was Slovo's a 'great life'? In its own tenaciously dogmatic, blinkered, selfish blood-flecked way, perhaps it was.

Does he deserve a fawning BBC piece led by a British Foreign Secretary?

No.

Dr. Howard Dean's Prescription for Health Care Reform

News of Dr. Howard Dean's book tour in the Washington Post. He's proposing his own solution to the health-care mess:

Dean did take a few shots at the Obama administration's handling of the current debate. "I think that there's a very mixed message coming out of the administration," he said. "What I'm selling is something that's really clear."

What Dean is selling is his latest book, or at least the proposal outlined in it. "Not to shill for my own book, but if you have $12.99 or whatever it is to spare, 'Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform' actually explains all this in plain English in about 130 pages, and you can get through it in a good afternoon," he told the Poland Spring crowd.

Why the former Vermont governor, DNC chair and practicing physician wasn't named HHS Secretary by President Obama, I'll never figure out. In any case, here's his prescription:

Much has been made of the 48 million Americans who don’t have health insurance. Their stories are heart-rending, and it’s a scandal that in the wealthiest nation on earth, we do not cover everybody. No other industrial democracy in the world puts up with this embarrassment. But the debate on healthcare reform—which is coming to a peak once again—should also focus on the fact that many Americans who do have health insurance don’t find out that it doesn’t adequately cover them until them until it is too late.

What’s the real issue?

The real issue in the debate over healthcare reform is not whether we should have “socialized medicine” or not. It’s whether we should continue with an extraordinarily inefficient system that today features a private insurance industry that takes large amounts of money out of the healthcare system for shareholders, administrators, and executives, while denying people the basic coverage they have paid for.

How to frame the debate.

The debate about healthcare reform is not a debate about how much a role the government should play. Instead, the debate should focus on this simple question: Should we give Americans under 65 the same choice we give Americans over 65? Should we give all Americans a choice of opting out of the private health insurance system and benefiting from a public health insurance plan? Americans ought to be able to decide for themselves.

What Americans Should Demand of Real Healthcare Reform.

Choice: Everyone should be able to choose between a public health insurance option—like Medicare— or a private health insurance option.
No forced moves: If you like the health insurance coverage you have, you should be able to keep it.
Coverage options for small business: Very small businesses should have the option of handing over health insurance coverage for their employees to a public or private plan subsidized by the government.
Everybody in, nobody out: Public and private health insurance plans should turn no one away based on illness, pre-existing conditions, or other criteria.
Similar premiums for everyone: Despite age or illness, all Americans should be able to opt into a public or private healthcare without wide discrepancies in cost based on age or previous illness.
More options, not less: Healthcare reform should expand Americans’ healthcare choices, not reduce them.
Financial protection: A public health insurance option is more affordable because it’s more efficient. This protects families’ financial health.
Fewer of your healthcare dollars spent on overhead: A public health insurance option is much cheaper to operate and will help reduce non-health-related overhead costs.
Universality: Everyone other than those already covered by Medicare or Medicaid should have the option to join a public plan.
Portability: A public health insurance plan should cover you no matter how many times you move, no matter who you work for, and no matter where you live.

More at DeansHealthCare.com... and in this YouTube clip (sure wish they didn't have that distracting flag in the background, though...):

FBI Had 600-Page File on Michael Jackson

The existence of Michael Jackson's FBI file was unearthed by a FOIA request from blogger Michael Petrelis (ht FOIABlog):

When I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for any records they may have in their archive on Michael Jackson, I expected the agency would reply saying they didn't locate any such records, or that there were only a handful on pages on the late entertainer. I was wrong.

A letter from the FBI yesterday informs me they've located close to 600 pages on him. As I've learned from years of filing these sort of FOIAs, it's going to be a while before anything is released, and, when pages are eventually provided to me, they could be quite mundane.

England v Britain

An interesting account of the present state of the age-old ethnic conflict, in the light of Scottish Prime Minister Gordon Brown's attempts to come up with a national ideology for Great Britain (apparently being subjects of Her Majesty is no longer sufficient identity, as a member of the EU), can be found on the Britology blog. (ht Charles Crawford)

2) Don’t say ‘England’, or – if you have to – marginalise it: In order for Englishness to be re-presented as Britishness in this way, Brown needs to suppress or marginalise all references to England. This is because the thing he has to avoid at all costs is referring to the real political history of Britain, which is that the British state has been predominantly driven and moulded by English national and economic interests; and that England could once again develop a national consciousness that, this time, could see its interests as being better served outside the UK, rather than inside. This marginalisation is evident in the above-quoted reference to “our nurturing Scottish, Welsh, Irish and English identities and sensibilities”: putting ‘English’ last in line after the smaller nations, as if England were only one and – by implication – almost the least important driver of British identity; well, the least distinctive element in Brown’s Britishness, that’s for sure.

Another example is a quite ludicrous passage referring to the recent financial crisis:

“I believe a debate on Britishness is well timed, because of its relevance to the recent financial crisis. When it struck, no one questioned the British state standing behind banks headquartered in Scotland [yes, they bloody well did!]. No one discussed what a Wales-only response might be to the selling of sub-prime mortgages, or wondered how Northern Ireland might find its own solution to changing global conditions”.

Yes, this is where the discussion ends. ‘What about England, you f***er?’ was literally my response on reading this (well, OK, without the asterisks, if you see what I mean). The point being that people did question whether England would be better off weathering the financial crisis on its own: that it wouldn’t have been so s***ing awful in the first place, and then we wouldn’t have had to mortgage the future of the next generation of English kids and NHS patients to prop up the Scottish banks (and Chancellors) that had been foremost in getting us into the mess in the first place. (While on the subject of the NHS, you’ll love the lyrical passage about how it is an example of our fairness and unity as a ‘nation’. What a load of absolute tosh: there are four NHS’s thanks to Brown and New Labour, and the English one gets the smallest per-capita funding of them all – really united and fair!)

Of course as every Scot knows, the Irish, Welsh and Scots are the native Britons--the English are of course historically Germanic and Norman invaders from across the Channel who first drove them out of their homeland...then out of Scotland to Canada and Ireland to the USA and Australia. The Welsh had been penned in by Offa's Dike.

Happy Birthday, Central Asian Bloggers!

Nathan Hamm and Joshua Foust's Central Asia Blog has just turned six...

Also, Happy Birthday to Ferghana.ru! Russia's Central Asian News website, edited by Daniel Kislov, which recently turned ten.

Pop Culture is a Lagging Indicator

Just a thought, inspired by dinner last night with a "public diplomacy" official who asserted that because the world mourned for Michael Jackson, it indicated that the world was looking to America for leadership rather than, for example, China.

Someone I know at the dinner suggested that, to the contrary, cultural influence follows on the heels of economic, political, and military power--that culture, especially pop culture, is a lagging rather than leading indicator. Which means that countries with a low profile culturally--for example, again, China--would become culturally dominant globally after achieving primacy in other spheres. The argument is simple. French became the language of diplomacy in the 19th Century not only because of the appeal of French artists, writers, and composers, but because Napoleon had conquered most of Europe. To understand and communicate with the French, one needed to know French. After the Franco-Prussian War, with the rise of German military and scientific might, German became the culture to know, and everything from Beethoven to Thomas Mann to Richard Wagner to goose-stepping soldiers de rigueur. Viz., Christopher Isherwood's Berlin Stories. With the crushing of Germany in World War II, English came to replace French as the language of diplomacy and German as the language of science. Widepread Anglophilia was a reflection of the fact that the sun never set on the British Empire. With the collapse of that Empire and assumption of the mantle by the USA, dressing for dinner and memorizing Keats and Shelley were abandoned in favor of blue jeans, country-western music, and Michael Jackson. Likewise one may chart the rise and fall of interest in Russian culture according to the ups and downs of the Cold War.

In this model of cultural dominance, the spread of a particular cultural icon's image around the world is dependent on base of military, economic, and political supremacy.

In sum, the continuing spread of American culture, and indeed American values, depends upon military victory, economic prosperity, and political dynamism. To the extent to which other nations are victorious, prosperous, and dynamic, their cultural influences should follow.

Thant Myint-U: Talk to Burma

Senator Jim Webb seems to be following Thant Myint-U's advice in yesterday's Washington Post:

Last winter the Obama administration announced a review of Burma policy. I hope it will reconsider the United States' long-standing reliance on sanctions. It's not just that they don't work, but that they've been hugely counterproductive, taking away the one big force -- American soft power -- that could have played a role in reshaping the landscape.

Asia has experienced many successful democratic transitions, and none came about because of the sanctions and lectures that Western powers and advocacy groups seem to think will work in Burma. Generals don't negotiate away their power in the face of threats. You have to change the ground beneath them.

Engagement is not just about talking -- it's about dealing with the powers that be enough to get a foot in the door and create new facts on the ground, especially through economic contacts with the Burmese people. Nor is it based on the notion that economic development will automatically produce democracy, but that we must tackle simultaneously Burma's political and economic ills.

Many in America and worldwide are again outraged by goings-on in Burma. But without new thinking, 20 more years will pass and the dream of a prosperous, democratic Burma will be more distant still.

Julie & Julia: A Movie About Coping With 9/11?

Yesterday someone I know and I went to see Meryl Streep in Julie and Julia at our neigbhorhood Avalon theatre.

I have to admit bias. I interviewed Julia Child briefly at a PBS convention, and wrote about her shows for my book PBS: Behind the Screen. She was indeed very tall, very jolly, and peered down at me, hunched over, like a crane. So it seems that Meryl Streep certainly got her right.

I didn't mind the alternating story as much as some people. It seemed to illustrate an important and recurring theme: the failure of the Lower Manhattan Development Commission to rebuild the World Trade Center after 9/11. The picture repeatedly returns to the wasteland where the Twin Towers once stood, as well as repeatedly shows the "cube farm" where calls from the public were answered by people who could do nothing to help. So, I thought to myself, this explains the intensification of the "foodie" pheonomenon that swept New York. It was a displacement of rage, a form of dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by fulfilling some primal drives--to eat good food, for example. Okay, it seemed the message of the film came through, if one can't rebuild the World Trade Center, at least one can cook Boeuf Bourguignon...

It gave the film a very sad, almost tragic, after-effect...at least on this viewer. How pathetic that the young people of New York, the "best and the brightest" (Julie Powell had been, in the film at least, editor of the Amherst literary magazine), are unable to deal directly with the attack on their city. Instead, the drive to accomplish something meaningful--such as the defeat of Al Qaeda and its allies--had been sublimated in the face of an unresponsive and incompetent bureaucracy. This turning away from the world of work resembled, in a sense, the "inner emigration" described by Anti-Nazi Germans during World War II, or the victims of Stalinist repressions. Since nothing can be done about politics or society, just bake a tasty chocolate cake for your family and friends.

In addition to overwhelming sadness in the film, there is evidence of this phenomenon in posts on Julie Powell's blog:

Maps - I'm sorry you feel that my book expresses no compassion for the families of 9/11 victims,because that was not my intent at all. I merely wanted to show that being faced with that suffering - and with the various complaints of everyday New Yorkers who seemed to feel that their irritations with, say, the memorial design or some such, equating the agonies and traumas of those who had actually suffered in that horrible event - took a toll on me personally, as a secretary with no power to truly help, and overwhelmed by bureaucratic nonsense. I could have written a varnished pretty version of my experience, all sweetness and light, but to me that is what would have been dishonest and disrespectful to those who have truly suffered so much.

Also - I'm not a government drone anymore, and the Ritz-Carlton is on Sony's tab.

She certainly doesn't say that it filled her with pride to be part of a vital and patriotic effort to rebuild New York. And her callers in the film say that they "hate" what the government is doing.

(So do I, as you can see from my post of July 8, 2008: "Rebuilding what your enemies destroy is War Propaganda 101--it's what the British did after the Nazis flattened the Houses of Parliament...and the Pentagon did after 9/11. The dithering and unseemly fighting over the money surrounding the World Trade Center project sends a very bad signal of weakness and disarray to America's adversaries. The empty lot is a victory for Terrorists. Putting something else there would be a victory for Al Qaeda ('Look Mom, we blew it up.'). It signals fear...")

The subtext of Julie and Julia is a terrible commentary on New York's--and America's--response to the greatest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. It merits expansion into another film of its own....

Another Uzbek Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Protester Hospitalized

(Ferghana.ru photo)

Nothing so far in US media about continuing protests and a hunger strike against RFE/RL by Uzbek dissidents--but Russia's Ferghana.ru has the story:

Isokzhon Zokirov, another active member of the Birdamlik opposition movement, is placed in hospital. It is worth mentioning that on August 10, the representatives of the Birdamlik opposition movement declared open-ended hunger strike, demanding the abolishment of the censorship of Uzbek service – Radio Ozodlik – and offer the tribune to all the leaders of Uzbek political opposition, residing both in Uzbekistan and abroad. The hunger strike is taking place in front of RFE/RL headquarters in Washington, DC.

Doctor are providing medical aid to Zokirov
Bakhodir Choriev, the leader of the Birdamlik movement, informed Ferghana.RU that on the fourth day of the event Isokzhon Zokirov flaked out and at about 2 pm, local time, he was placed in hospital. Zokirov is in grave condition.

Zokirov on the way to hospital
This is the second member of the movement, placed in hospital. Ferghana.Ru reported earlier that on the third day of the hunger strike, the oldest participant 73-year old human rights activist Yadgar Turlibekov felt sick and the protesters had to call for ambulance. Today, Mr. Turlibekov is in one of the hospitals in DC and feels better.
"So far none of RFE/RL representatives inquired about our health condition either personally or by phone. This is sad that after two participants were placed in hospital there is still no reaction from RFE/RL management – Choriev notes. – We will continue the hunger strike and whatever happens to us will be on RFE/RL’s head..."

Charles Crawford on the Future of Bosnia

From the World's First Diplomatic Blogoir:

Bosnia is a sulky donkey with three bickering heads, unimpressed by the EU's remote carrots and unmoved by sharp smacks on its rump from successive High Representatives.

Hopeless? No. I'd go for a New Deal. A fast-track EU membership with visa-free travel for all Bosnians, in return for a new constitution. This would create three regions, each dominated by one community but with substantive responsibility for its own affairs, all with light but real central powers and a push to make Bosnia the least regulated economy in Europe. A fair, coherent structure which rewards responsibility and private initiative.

Alas, to reach there things will have to get notably worse, to bring all concerned in Bosnia and Brussels to agree that, finally, there is no alternative. A future Foreign Secretary will need strong nerves.

Bosnia is, of course, a remarkable example of diplomatic action for all sorts of reasons. It is a small country whose population is half the size of London's, in Europe, literate and so on. If we can't fix that, what can we fix?

Bosnia shows how if the foundations of policy are illogical and incoherent, the results will be so too, far into the future.

And it reminds us that having launched an unsatisfactory project the 'international community' then must not be surprised when it takes on new exotic life-forms of its own which, by virtue of being in some way 'organic' and legitimised over time are damn difficult to change later without serious breakdown.

My ideas, such as they are, are to give Bosnia a constitution which roughly corresponds to reality and is coherent in itself, something the current one concocted in huge haste at Dayton to help B Clinton get re-elected is not.

The main problem with a sort of 'three Entity' arrangement is that the largest group (Bosniacs/Muslims) hanker after a 'one Entity' outcome, which necessarily suits them as the largest group.

But that, I think, is not now achievable, or fair. In part because the Bosniacs themselves have refused to contemplate 'ethnic disarmament'.

Former President Izetbegovic put this to me in so many words: "we won't accept ethnic disarmament for fifty years". His argument was that the Bosniacs at some two million people had to build their strength for many years to come, as they were surrounded by some 15 million dangerous Serbs and Croats.

So be it. By insisting on maintaining their ethnic weapon stockpiles, maybe for plausible reasons, the Bosniacs now will do well to be part of a BH that actually works and starts to get richer, which means a BH rearranged to function sensibly.

But someone will have to do very heavy lifting to achieve anything like that, when attentions are on even more ghastly problems further East...

My Cousin, the Hero Nominee

My cousin, Rabbi Ben Tzion Kravitz, has been nominated as a hero of the Jewish Community of Los Angeles.

Tell us about your nominee. Why should he or she be recognized as a Jewish Community Hero?

Rabbi Kravitz is the founder of Jews for Judaism. Through his work he has brought a tremendous amount of people closer to Judaism

What problem did your nominee identify in the community that needed to be solved? How has your nominee's efforts made a difference for others?

Rabbi Kravitz's work has helped dampen the lure to other religions. Jews for Judaism is the only full time worldwide organization that combats deceptive proselytizing that targets the Jewish community.

If you feel like it, you can see other nominees and vote, at this website.

In Case You Missed Yesterday's Perseid Meteor Shower...

Bill Clinton Praises US Secretary of State's Dancing Ability

In the NY Daily News:

At an event promoting Zagat Survey's first-ever guide to Harlem, the former president made specific mention about his wife's seven-nation tour of Africa.

"I saw on television Hillary boogying with those women," he said, eliciting a knowing titter from the audience.

"You see that?" Bill Clinton said to the crowd. "In Kenya, and I thought, well, you know, Kenya? Harlem? What am I chopped liver? Maybe I can get her to come and do that here."

Bill's right, Hillary can dance...Let's go to the videotape:

American Diplomatic Smackdown!

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton practices "smart diplomacy" winning "hearts and minds" by answering audience questions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
More "smart diplomacy" to be found in State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley's discussion of the above incident at the daily press briefing:

QUESTION: P.J., you told CNN that the student who asked the question yesterday was apparently lost in translation, had touched a nerve with Secretary Clinton. I was wondering if you can explain a little more of what you meant by that. And also, does Secretary Clinton have any regret? Is she sorry that she lost her cool over this offense?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would say two things: First, it is our understanding that the student – perhaps he was nervous in talking to the Secretary of State. He meant to say – meant to ask a question about the views of President Obama. By mistake, he said the views of President Clinton. So there was a – and he was speaking one language, but obviously, as I said, what the Secretary heard, I think you have to put it in context. Obviously, she is the Secretary of State. As we’ve seen, her husband, as a significant global figure in his own right, has his own agenda.

But as I said to CNN, it’s important to understand the context here, that one of – an abiding theme that she has in her trip to Africa is empowering women. As the question was posed to her, it was posed in a way that said I want to get the views of two men, but not you, the Secretary of State. And I think it – obviously, she reacted to that. But I think it’s part of something that she is obviously very passionate about, which is making sure that if – that the role of women in the agricultural sector and the political sector and civil society – if Africa is going to advance in the future, the role of women has to be more significant in the continent than it is today.

QUESTION: But back to my core question, though, sir.

MR. CROWLEY: And just to finish the --

QUESTION: Does she have any regret?

MR. CROWLEY: Just to finish the point --

QUESTION: Go ahead. I thought you were done. I’m sorry.

MR. CROWLEY: -- at the conclusion of the town hall, she and the young man got together and I don’t think there were any hard feelings that were --

QUESTION: But chauvinism aside, sir, does she have any regret about --

MR. CROWLEY: I have not talked to the Secretary. She is --

QUESTION: -- losing her cool as the top diplomat in public?

MR. CROWLEY: She’s currently in the air coming back from Goma and I have not talked with her.

QUESTION: Was the student selected to make – to ask a question?

MR. CROWLEY: I --

QUESTION: Pre-selected?

MR. CROWLEY: I do not know.

QUESTION: Isn’t it – doesn’t it strike you as a little bit odd to take on a student like this? It’s hardly an argument between equals, whatever he might say that’s outrageous or unsettling. Does it suggest a certain super-sensitivity on the Secretary’s part?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, obviously, she reacted to what she heard, but resolved it with the student before the event ended.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on this. You just said that this was an error on the student’s part. Yesterday --

MR. CROWLEY: No, no, I’m saying it’s been reported that the student meant to say President Obama, said President Clinton by mistake.

QUESTION: Well, okay. No, but that’s what I’m trying to clarify, because yesterday, officials at the State Department and what the traveling party were saying that this was a translation error by the translator. You’re saying now that this was --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I --

QUESTION: -- a student being nervous and saying the wrong thing. Which one is it?

MR. CROWLEY: We – I wasn’t there, okay? And I was careful when I talked to CNN to say there may have been an error in translation. Clearly, she reacted to the English translation of the student’s question. It has been reported – I’ve seen one report where the student said he meant to say something else rather than what he did say. There was – the traveling party went back to the French – the original question as it was posed in French to try to understand exactly what the student said. I don’t know what the sourcing was by the network that I saw last night that said that the student meant to say something else.

All I’m saying is that, to Barry’s question, which is how the Secretary responded to the question as it was posed to her in English, I think it’s important to put that in context, which is she’s in Africa focused significantly on the role of women in that country, and as it was posed to her, as she said, I’m the Secretary of State, do you want to ask – you want my opinion on an issue, I’m happy to provide it. But she’s not there to provide a perspective of --

QUESTION: I understand that, but --

MR. CROWLEY: -- as it was posed in English.

QUESTION: Right, I understand that. Okay, I guess where my confusion was is that you were describing the incident in the initial question – answer to your initial question. And I’m kind of curious why you chose to highlight the --

MR. CROWLEY: I have not talked to the traveling party today to find out if they have further clarified, based on their analysis last night. I don’t think that we have a problem with the translation per se, and the report that the student said I meant to say Obama, I said Clinton, so that there – actually, the question was fairly posed, but that the student posed the question the wrong way, I have no reason to doubt that version of events.

QUESTION: Okay. So that’s sounds to be the one you’re going with then.

MR. CROWLEY: Well --

QUESTION: I mean, you’ve gone back to that several times, so --

MR. CROWLEY: Put it this way: If you want to ask me about the Secretary’s comments, I’ll be happy to take – to go into that in further detail. I can’t speak for the young student.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I switch topics?

MR. CROWLEY: Please. (Laughter.)

Columnist Maureen Dowd explained, in today's New York Times:

Hillary’s KO in the Congo on Monday made the covers of both New York tabloids. Using tough hand gestures not seen since “The Sopranos” went off HBO, Hillary snapped back at an African college student who asked about the growing influence of China on Africa and then, according to the translator, wanted to know: “What does Mr. Clinton think?”

It turned out that the student was trying to ask how President Obama felt about it. But before he was able to clarify, the secretary of state flared: “Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state. I am.”

This raw, competitive response showed that the experiment in using the Clintons as a tandem team on diplomacy may not be going as smoothly as we had hoped; once more, as with health care, the conjugal psychodrama drags down the positive contribution the couple can make on policy.

At Tuesday’s State Department briefing, Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley explained that Hillary was particularly irritated to feel overshadowed by men in Africa, where she is pushing her “abiding theme” of “empowering women.”

Nice try, P.J. But we all know Hillary could just as well have made the same comment in Paris. (And looking unhinged about your marriage on an international stage hardly empowers women.) She may have been steamed about Bill celebrating his upcoming 63rd birthday in Las Vegas with his posse. The Times’s Adam Nagourney irritated Clinton Inc. when he reported that Bill went to the pricey Craftsteak restaurant at the MGM Grand Hotel Monday night with Hollywood moguls Steve Bing and Haim Saban, and former advisers Terry McAuliffe and Paul Begala, among others.

Uzbek Protesters Picket Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty HQ

In Washington, DC, no less. Didn't see coverage in the US media. I learned about this protest from Ferghana.Ru:

On August 10, 2009 the Birdamlik movement activists started open-ended hunger strike in front of Radio Liberty headquarters in Washington (District of Columbia) with the demand to cancel the censorship of Uzbek Service of Radio Liberty (Radio Ozodlik) and offer its air time for all leaders of Uzbek political opposition, residing both in Uzbekistan and abroad.

More here.

UPDATE: 73-year old Uzbek protester hospitalized.

British Diplomatic Smackdown! Charles Crawford v Craig Murray

The World's First Diplomatic Blogoir takes on the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, over his criticism of Bill Clinton's photo-op with Gulanara Karimova--wealthy and beautiful daughter of Uzbek President Islam Karimov--at an AIDS benefit held in Cannes:

Appalling: Gulnara Karimova?
6th August 2009

Craig Murray swings at President Clinton for being photographed with the 'appalling' Gulnara Karimova, the not unattractive daughter of the leader of Uzbekistan.

Just why Clinton is posing with the appalling Gulnara Karimova is unclear. But it might well relate to the continued efforts by the Obama administration to improve relations with President Karimov of Uzbekistan. As reported here in March, the US has signed new treaties with Uzbekistan, on use of the country for land transit to US forces in Afghanistan.

This jogged something in the back of my mind. But what .......?

Oh yes! Got it.

Craig's book Murder in Samarkand, pp 210-211. It describes a bekilted Craig's pride at being joined at the Queen's Birthday Party hosted by the President's daughter Gulnara - her first ever presence at a national day event! Unheard of!

And Gulnara was quite hot:

... charming and girlish ... in a simple dress and laughing eyes ... giggling at my light conversation...

Gulnara even flirted with Craig, prettily wondering about getting a job as his interpreter as they fended off a passing drunken Uzkek functionary.

Appalling!

Who is Charles Crawford? According to his blog:

Charles Crawford retired from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the end of 2007 after nearly three decades in the UK's Diplomatic Service, most of it spent serving in or dealing with communist and post-communist Europe.

His first job on joining the FCO in 1979 was to head the Indonesia Section, followed by his first posting, to communist post-Tito Yugoslavia. He returned to London in 1984 and after a year on the Aviation Desk was appointed FCO Speech-writer. He was posted to South Africa in 1987 as part of the Embassy team led by Ambassador Robin Renwick working to end apartheid.

Returning to London in 1991 he worked in the FCO Department dealing with the Soviet Union as communist rule collapsed. He then spent three years in Moscow as Political Counsellor and then served three times as HM Ambassador: in Sarajevo (1996-1998); in Belgrade (2001-2003) and most recently in Poland (2003-2007).

This varied career has given him considerable senior operational experience in the diplomatic and policy aspects of the post-Cold War transition process in Russia/CIS and Poland as well as the specific post-communist, post-conflict circumstances across former Yugoslavia. He speaks to varying degrees Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, Polish, Russian, French and Afrikaans.

In 2005 he acquired some fleeting notoriety when a 'blackly humorous' personal email he sent to FCO colleagues from Warsaw about the EU Budget negotiations was leaked to the Sunday Times.

He is now pursuing a private consultancy career from his home in Oxfordshire in England. He is open to all generous offers. And married with three children.

BTW, Harper's Ken Silverstein says he has heard that Gulnara Karimova may be a donor to the Clinton Foundation.

UPDATE: Former British ambassador Murray appears in this recent episode of BBC Newsnight along with a former Uzbek KGB defector

Arianna Huffington: Financial Sleaze Threatens Health Care Reform

Finally, someone has noticed the obvious connection between the failure of health care reform and sleazy financial bailouts that keep paying multi-million-dollar bonuses to Wall Street executives... Her name is Arianna Huffington:

Because of the wonderful quality of fungibility, your tax dollars are helping to pay obscene bonuses to executives of banks that would otherwise have gone belly up. Here are some lowlights: Goldman Sachs made $2.3 billion in 2008, but gave out $4.8 billion in bonuses; they also received $10 billion in TARP funds and more than $12 billion of taxpayer money as a counterparty to AIG. JPMorgan Chase made $5.6 billion, but gave out $8.69 in bonuses; they received $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money. Citigroup and Merrill Lynch lost $54 billion, but gave out $9 billion in bonuses. It must have helped that taxpayers wrote them a check for $55 billion. As the report dryly puts it, "there is no clear rhyme or reason to how the banks compensate or reward their employees."

"Everybody understands," Geithner said on This Week, "that we cannot have our financial system go back to the practices that brought this economy to the brink of collapse." It's true, we all understand it. The problem is, the system has already gone back. Risky derivatives are traded again, bonuses disconnected from performance are being handed out again, bank lobbyists are spending tens of millions to undermine necessary regulatory reforms again. The only real long-term solution is for the government to ensure that there are no financial institutions too big to fail anymore, so that if they continue to act irresponsibly, then they are just allowed to fail. That's capitalism, remember? The creative-destruction consequences of a free-enterprise system that all these bonus-loving bankers love to extol.

If we're really going to protect taxpayers and create a more stable system, the most important reform is to never again be held hostage by institutions that pose a systemic risk and therefore have the power to tell us: "If you don't give us the money, we're going to blow up the whole system." Actually, what we have now is worse than a hostage system because in a classic hostage setup, after you pay the ransom you get the hostage back. We've paid more than a king's ransom, but have not taken the hostage -- our financial system -- back from the banks.

The administration is considering, for example, splitting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and putting their troubled assets in a new government-backed entity, but nothing is being done about the much more powerful, too-big-to-fail banks. Indeed, the only reason banks like Citigroup could announce a profit last quarter is because all the toxic garbage on their balance sheets is still being treated as though magically it will one day turn into gold.

This has about as much chance of happening as Larry Summers' hope that the banks will, as he put it, "join us in working to create the right kind of regulatory system." But why would they voluntarily "join us" to mess up the good thing they have going? After all, if their toxic assets -- whether commercial real estate or credit cards -- continue to go down, guess who is going to pay?

As Geithner said to Stephanopoulos, "We can do this, it just requires the will to act." But the will to act is different than the will to use reformist rhetoric or the will to launch a tirade urging reform, as Geithner did last Friday.

The window for reform is closing. After the August recess, all energy in Washington will be devoted to health care. I hope we get a great plan. But even if we do, with a financial system in which we're still being held hostage by the banks, another collapse is inevitable -- taking everything, including a great health care plan, down with it.

Eli Matz on "The Invention of the Jewish People"

Passover Eve, 2009
Slaves We Were in Egypt: From Freedom to Slavery!
By Eli Matz

Passover eve, 2009, spring in New York, it is still a bit cool, but Passover stands at the gate and many Jews in New York City and its vicinity, my family and I among them, are getting ready to celebrate the holiday of liberation and freedom.

The holiday of Passover has always been a very important part of my Jewish inner intellectual development. I grew up in Israel as a typical Israeli, that is, a secular Israeli, in the Fifties and Sixties of the Twentieth Century. In our house we always celebrated the holiday of Passover in a family tradition that was imported from Russia and Poland, with foods reflecting our Ashkenazic Jewish roots: gefilte fish, knoedlich, chrain, “Matzot Rishon,” and other delicacies that my mom made, such as matzah layer cake with the matzah dipped in wine and covered in chocolate. I don’t think the “authentic” people who left Egypt in ancient times ever tasted gefilte fish. But this was the Twentieth Century, and so, that is how we celebrated the Passover, with four glasses of Israeli Carmel red sweet wine filling our cups throughout the Seder.

We celebrated the Passover holiday of liberation, especially in my youth, connected to the modern Israeli revolution and the political creation of the new reborn Israeli nation. My parents, who arrived in Israel in 1947 on the ship the Exodus, symbolically viewed the holiday of Passover as something larger than just the eating of Passover matzah. They, too, had come to the “Promised Land” to reclaim their lives after the Holocaust. The Passover holiday, more than anything else, gave them the opportunity to celebrate that newfound opportunity. Passover, the holiday of liberty, steeped in matzah and charoset, infused with wonderful spring weather and fabulous Israeli salads, all contributed to the happy holiday atmosphere, to the atmosphere of liberation from slavery, in the home and in the streets. I, of course, loved that event; I always asked the four questions and took a few sips from the Carmel wine -- and I did not get drunk!

The celebration of this spring holiday, “Chag HaAviv” as we called it then, ultimately left some deeper stirrings within me, urging me on to find a deeper meaning in the holiday and in Israeli life. My search led me to a serious unlayering of history; for this I wandered first to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, next to the University of Massachusetts, and then on to New York to Yeshiva University and to the Graduate Center of City University. Throughout the 1970’s decade, my studies pulled me in many different directions. As far as I am concerned, I studied quite a lot, although perhaps my teachers had other opinions about me.

I never seriously taught anywhere, I never received any academic positions, and ultimately I let go of my doctoral dissertation. Years went by, years of work in the office supply business in the city of New York. The office supply business did supply me with lots of pens, but it took many years before I could seriously start writing about all sorts of issues connected to the Holocaust, Israeli politics and Jewish culture. Ever since my childhood, I have always collected and read books. My home in Rishon Lezion in Israel was always full of books. Likewise in the United States throughout my years here I have bought and collected books. Over the past forty years my collection has focused on the history of Jews – primarily American Jews and Jewish Israelis. In the last few years, I have started meditating deeply on aspects of the Passover holiday, the historical holiday loaded with bricks, pyramids, cement and liberty. I have collected Passover haggadot from different places in the world. In addition, I have read historical, theological, anthropological and philosophical pieces on the Passover haggadah. They were all extremely interesting, but I felt that something was missing in them. Although I could not really figure out exactly what that was, I knew that what was missing had something to do with a broader concept of Jewish history and its sources. Then I found a book written a few years ago by a professor at Tel Aviv University, Shlomo Sand, titled, The Invention of the Jewish People. This book touched my heart and mind, and it solved some historical questions that had been bothering me for many years. I made contact with Sand, and once in awhile we converse over the telephone. I must admit that he is the one who awakened my suspicion that the Passover haggadah is not merely an instructional guideline for a meal in the style of the Greek or Roman fashion. But in it there is something historically deeper that is connected to our theological and anthropological Jewish life. I will try to explain some of that connection here.

Going back to Sand’s book for a moment, for me the deeper question would be, “How was Judaism invented?” The invention and origins of Judaism and the lifestyle of Jews is not an issue for Orthodox Jews; for those who believe, there is no issue with belief, and in no way am I trying to criticize their beliefs. That is not the purpose of this essay. Rather, I am trying to understand the starting point of our becoming Jews: What led to this phenomenon? Was it the belief in one G-d, or was it something else that at this moment is outside of our understanding?

I sought out historical material on that subject matter, and around two years ago I wrote a short essay on the Passover haggadah. The Passover haggadah is a very interesting historical/theological document that became the central piece of the holiday. From a cultural point of view, the Passover haggadah has been a center of activity involving writing and printing, music, painting and drawing, that Jews throughout the centuries have invested time and thought in. The historical exodus from Egypt predated any Passover haggadah, and there was definitely not a Passover haggadah in existence during the First and the Second Temple periods. Therefore, the question is, when and why did the Passover haggadah arrive as an instructional notebook and a theological guide, instituting our annual celebration of the exodus from slavery to freedom. The fact is, historically there is not a single archeological remnant nor any material in the Egyptian hieroglyphics that points to the story that is told in the Bible relating to this event. (One can go even further to say that there is hardly any archeological evidence of the kingdoms of David and Solomon in the history of Jews in ancient times, despite excavations that have been going on for more than 100 years in Israel and its vicinity). What we need to do is go beyond our focus on the Exodus event itself to a broader look at where the idea of this exodus from Egypt came from, and how the religious wise men of Judaism turned it into the central theme of Judaism. Attempts to understand how the Bible was written still create headaches and confusion for scholars, and to-date they do not put forth a single explanation and definitely not an agreed-upon conclusion. There are many theories and documents. I will try to define my own theory that offers some logical explanation based on our historical past. One must, of course, bear in mind that this is only an explanation and a theory, and not a final conclusion, of the subject matter.

The crystallization of the Biblical story of the exodus is, according to many researchers, a product of the Persian period of Jewish history. This period starts around 550 BCE, at the beginning of the Persian conquest of the Middle East, and ends with the Greek conquest of the Middle East around 325 BCE. This 225-year span includes the time period when Ezra the Scribe acted on behalf of his Persian superiors to reestablish Judaism in Judea, and there is common historical agreement that he played a major role in the theological formation of Judaism. But there is something additional to explain about the Persian period. In my mind, the most critical element here is the return to the land of Israel of Ezra the Scribe, Nehemiah the governor, and other Jewish officials. The Persians, who ruled a huge empire at that time, may well have signified the central cause for the drastic change in Judaism, even though many historical documents of that period are still not available. For I believe that the Persians, who at that time were fighting against the Egyptians, the Greeks, and other cultural and political groups in the Middle East, brought the Jews, their allies, back to Jerusalem and the kingdom of “Yehud” as a strategic necessity in their endless wars with the Egyptians. The Biblical story of Egypt that was set down as historical material in the Persian period is full of negative narrative towards ancient Egypt. As a matter of fact, the Bible describes Egypt as the place of all evil. It can thus be theorized that the Biblical writing, in its crystallization of a negative Egyptian narrative, was an attempt to help the Jews of the period of Ezra the Scribe to integrate into the Persian Empire. The imaginary building of pyramids and the mythical story of the exodus from Egypt serve to shape a Jewish ethos that can fit well if we consider Jewish survival in the Persian period. A critical message could be extracted from the Bible and the story of the exodus emphatically depicting an attribute of the ancient “Hebrew People” that would not permit anybody to make them slaves, despite the fact that two-thirds of the ancient world lived in slavery as a way of life. This was a revolutionary idea: the idea of “freedom,” and especially the freedom to worship one’s own G-d, was fundamental, deep and enlightened. This concept of freedom is what later on shapes the Passover haggadah into a political declaration of independence of Jews, many many years before any other ethnic group ever thought about it. The Persian period is, then, the one that brought us the Bible, which thus can be understood to be a revolutionary call challenging all the established ideas of ancient times. Positioning their G-d as the only One who guards His nation, the Hebrews, leads them from slavery to freedom as an act of G-d, gives them G-d’s Torah and rules, and combines this with the covenant of the “Promised Land” where His nation can worship Him and establish a way of life, is an astonishing concept. It sounds fantastic, if only it happened that way.

Moving from the Biblical writings, the writing of the Passover haggadah as an instructional document was carried out in the ninth century in Babylonia, 2000 years after the supposed event of the exodus. However, at this time it was the Arab Moslems who were the ruling party, and this rendition of the Biblical story was an attempt by Saadia Gaon to crystallize the haggadah. The haggadah starts with a historical absurdity in Aramaic. The HaLachma Anya prayer says: “This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt.” Historically it is well known that Ancient Egypt, up through the end of the Roman period, was known as the “breadbasket” of the world. I guess the rabbis thought of it differently. Beginning the haggadah with the HaLachma Anya in the Aramaic language may at first glance appear to be strange; however, looking deeper it may also be telling, because the Persians used Aramaic as their lingua franca, or their administrative language. The theory developed by historian Shlomo Sand that the Jews were never really expelled from Palestine by the Romans after the fall of the Second Temple is especially interesting because it has the intellectual elements to stand up in a deep conversation on the subject of Jewish and general history. After a period of “long exile” (galut aruka), that means after the survival of Judaism as a religion of certain people -- and the cause of survival of Judaism is the fact that this group of people, the Jews, were able to proselytize other groups of people -- we arrived with a great “mazal tov” to the Israeli celebration of liberty and independence in 1948. Ben Gurion, the Socialist who established “Medinat Yisrael,” the Israeli State, as “hamamlachtiut” (the kingdom) via a rabbinical recipe of a crystallized theology that took 2000 years to develop, did not understand the principle of new nationalities and the sovereignty of new emerging nations, including his own Israeli nation that erupted in 1948. All this political business of mamlachtiut (a kingdom) did not function well in 1948, and it is not functioning well in 2009. But we will get to that in a moment. To religious Israeli Jewish groups such as “Gush Emunim” and other staunch believers in the right to the “Promised Land,” the arrival of the Messiah has been seen as just around the corner (apropos, the concept of the Messiah is a Persian idea). Indeed, all groups of Jews, in their attempt to return to the “Promised Land,” did not have a historical, geographical or political understanding of the region. The effort to survive amidst this void of understanding led to the 1967 war, that resulted in a victory in the battle but a total defeat in the war. Ultimately, this war caused the total breakdown of political common sense that even Ben Gurion with his mamlachtiut could not have predicted.

And here we arrive at the year 2009, the period of the rebirth of the modern Israeli nation, or as the Israelis call it lately, the “State of the Jewish People.” A new government of secular Jews sees the future of Israel as an extension of anachronistic religious beliefs with the “Promised Land” as part of its politics -- totally irresponsible politics without wisdom signifying the return to slavery and the escape from reality and liberation. Where Natanyahu and Lieberman, the two wise men of Israeli politics, will lead us is predictable….It is not going to be to liberty and freedom.

Yoo-Hoo, Ms. Kempner!

Filmmaker Aviva Kempner lives one block from this blogger, and her new film Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg!, a film biography of Gertrude Berg, is playing two blocks away. Our local diner has a large billboard promoting the film, and the Avalon movie theatre gives us a discount as members. So, why not go and see for ourselves? Which someone I know and myself did. We both enjoyed the film, nostalgia for my Bronx (Yoo-Hoo, Ms. Sotomayor!) and our New York City days...we had a friend who lived across our airshaft (Yoo-Hoo, Mr. Horowitz!). Molly Goldberg reminded me of my Grandma Minnie. There were some wonderful interviews (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying that Justice Marshall addressed her as "Mrs. Goldberg" when she pled before the Supreme Court as an attorney...she took it as a compliment), as well as some not-so-great moments (Susan Stamberg, apparently channelling Lauren Bacall, declaring that Molly Goldberg did not have a Yiddish accent--cut to a clip of Molly with a Yiddish accent). But overall enjoyable, nostalgic, and most important of all--not mean-spirited for a moment...

So, why not go?

In the meantime, here's the trailer:

Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg Trailer from Aviva Kempner on Vimeo.

Bob Barr on Gates v Crowley

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

So far, in what has become a mini-drama involving a white cop, a black professor and a president of the United States, we have had a racial confrontation, an arrest, a release, a presidential gaffe, a presidential back-track, a presidential invitation to quaff a brewski, a staged meeting at the White House and a promise of more meetings to come.

The saga involving Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley has been elevated to the status of a Rose Garden summit. Still, the attention devoted to the event’s racial angle has obscured the real importance of the incident.

The degree to which race played a role in the confrontation at Gates’ house will likely never be truly known to anyone other than the key participants themselves. What clearly did factor into the unfortunate encounter was the notion that, in the post-9/11 world, citizens must be prepared to explain themselves to the police and prove to the satisfaction of the authorities who they are under virtually any circumstance - even within the walls of their own house.

Airline passengers are now required to prove who they are to the satisfaction of government authorities in order to board for a journey they have paid for. Anyone trying to enter a building housing a government office has to show “proper identification” to gain entry. These and many other manifestations of government control have nothing to do with the legitimate effort to prevent weapons or explosives from being brought onto public conveyances or into government buildings. Legitimate exercises of government power are being employed more and more to control behavior and limit individual freedom.

The pattern is emerging that for the government to fulfill its self-delegated responsibility to keep us safe, its agents can demand to know who we are and what we are doing at all times.

Our British sovereigns demanded the same subservience of colonists in pre-independence America. Fortunately, our forefathers correctly viewed such plenary and arbitrary power as incompatible with fundamental liberty. They codified this principle in the Fourth Amendment; adopted as part of our Constitution when the Bill of Rights became effective in 1791. Since then, it has been axiomatic that citizens should not be subject to unreasonable searches or seizures - the government cannot take your belongings or arrest you, absent a good reason.

Of course, since that day 218 years ago, federal, state and local governments have constantly probed for ways in which to reclaim the power over the citizenry expressly taken from them in the Constitution. Understandably, a degree of tension always has accompanied efforts to define that balance between individual freedom and government control. Still, the sanctity of one’s person and home to be free from unreasonable and arbitrary demands by the police for access or explanation has largely remained a cornerstone of our society.

Efforts by the government beginning in the late 1960s to prosecute the “war” against drugs opened the door to a much-expanded sphere of control, within which the citizen’s ability to withstand government access to their private lives was greatly reduced. Court decisions in recent years had restored a degree of that lost privacy and curtailed at least some excesses of government power.

Unfortunately, the terrorist attacks eight years ago slammed the door on the re-emerging notion that there are limits to government snooping and control over the individual.

What occurred on Gates’ porch was but the latest example of government controlling a citizen (regardless of race) based on the flimsiest of evidence, and of the power to arrest anyone, anytime who does not meekly submit to such control. Until we start questioning those premises, we will not have begun to address something much more important than racial prejudice.