From Middle East Quarterly:
"While critics skimmed [Raphael] Patai's book for generalizing quotes, they skirted the book's premise, as restated by De Atkine: culture matters and cultures differ. The realization by Americans that culture counts explains the commercial success of several cultural handbooks, addressing the very issues that concerned Patai. And while there is no reason to believe that The Arab Mind had the specific influence Hersh attributed to it, the resulting publicity has sent its sales soaring, further extending the life of the book. The following is De Atkine's foreword to The Arab Mind, reprinted here...
"...Finally, in his 1983 edition, Patai takes an optimistic view of the future of the Arab world but adds a caveat to his prediction with the comment that this could happen "only if the Arabs can rid themselves of their obsession with and hatred of Zionism, Israel, and American imperialism." In the eighteen years since those words were written, none of these obsessions has been put to rest. In fact, they have increased. The imported 1960s and 1970s Western ideologies of Marxism and socialism have given way to Islamism, a synthesis of Western-style totalitarianism and superficial Islamic teachings, which has resurrected historical mythology and revitalized an amorphous but palpable hatred of the Western "jinns." Nevertheless, many astute observers of the Arab world see the so-called "Islamic revival" with its attendant pathologies as cresting and beginning to recede. Ultimately, the Arabs, who are an immensely determined and adaptable people, will produce leadership capable of freeing them from ideological and political bondage, and this will allow them to achieve their rightful place in the world."
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Giuliani on Kerry
Responding to quotes from Matt Bai's New York Times article, Giuliani takes on Kerry:
"'So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we've talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn't understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it's just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does.'"
"'So I think this is a seminal issue, this is one that explains or ties together a lot of things that we've talked about. Even this notion that the Kerry campaign was so upset that the Vice President and others were saying that he doesn't understand the threat of terrorism; that he thinks it's just a law enforcement action. It turns out the Vice President was right. He does and maybe this is a difference, maybe this is an honest difference that we really should debate straight out. He thinks that the threat is not as great as at least the President does, and I do, and the Vice President does.'"
Why the Afghan Election Matters
From The Argus:
"If you haven't heard by now, the big fuss about yesterday's election in Afghanistan was over the use of the wrong ink. As the above picture shows, there were different methods for inking the thumbs of voters.* Now, I have no information either way, but I have seen nothing to indicate that all or only one of the two kinds of ink washed off. Regardless, the election is hailed as a major success, free of major irregularities. And, you know what, thank goodness that what everyone is complaining about is ink. Complaints about inks, ballot design, and what have you are the kinds of things that happen every day in democracies. That's not to say that Afghanistan has arrived, but it took a major step. Pictures of voters defy many of our stereotypes about what a democratic citizenry looks like, and to see hands emerging from beneath the folds of burqas to drop ballots into boxes makes for a pretty powerful image if you ask me. The success of yesterday's election lies in that it happened, that the Afghan people were enthusiastic about it, and that 'violence was the exception, not the rule.' Instead, there was excitement and celebration across the country (via Robert Tagorda)."
"If you haven't heard by now, the big fuss about yesterday's election in Afghanistan was over the use of the wrong ink. As the above picture shows, there were different methods for inking the thumbs of voters.* Now, I have no information either way, but I have seen nothing to indicate that all or only one of the two kinds of ink washed off. Regardless, the election is hailed as a major success, free of major irregularities. And, you know what, thank goodness that what everyone is complaining about is ink. Complaints about inks, ballot design, and what have you are the kinds of things that happen every day in democracies. That's not to say that Afghanistan has arrived, but it took a major step. Pictures of voters defy many of our stereotypes about what a democratic citizenry looks like, and to see hands emerging from beneath the folds of burqas to drop ballots into boxes makes for a pretty powerful image if you ask me. The success of yesterday's election lies in that it happened, that the Afghan people were enthusiastic about it, and that 'violence was the exception, not the rule.' Instead, there was excitement and celebration across the country (via Robert Tagorda)."
Monday, October 11, 2004
Roger L. Simon on the American Media
Roger L. Simon: Mystery Novelist and Screenwriter:
"Bad Fiction: I confess I paid little attention to ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin's memo to his staff until a friend reminded me to look late last night. I did a double take. Are these people actually paid to do this? Even if journalism school (or whatever training Halperin took) is essentially meaningless, you would think that, after Rathergate, basic common sense would dictate you didn't put nonsense like this on paper, even internally:
Oolala. Talk about arrogance and bon chic bon genre... not even the pretense of journalistic even-handedness is made. It's almost self-parody. In fact, it is. Allow me to be blunt. These buffoons of the mainstream media as presently conceived must be upended and destroyed, their objectivity be revealed as the farce that it is. They are writers of fiction - and bad fiction at that. Strike that. Make that horrendous boring propaganda worthy of this building [ed. note, in Moscow during Soviet times]."
"Bad Fiction: I confess I paid little attention to ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin's memo to his staff until a friend reminded me to look late last night. I did a double take. Are these people actually paid to do this? Even if journalism school (or whatever training Halperin took) is essentially meaningless, you would think that, after Rathergate, basic common sense would dictate you didn't put nonsense like this on paper, even internally:
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done. Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win. We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
Oolala. Talk about arrogance and bon chic bon genre... not even the pretense of journalistic even-handedness is made. It's almost self-parody. In fact, it is. Allow me to be blunt. These buffoons of the mainstream media as presently conceived must be upended and destroyed, their objectivity be revealed as the farce that it is. They are writers of fiction - and bad fiction at that. Strike that. Make that horrendous boring propaganda worthy of this building [ed. note, in Moscow during Soviet times]."
Nathan Hamm on the US Elections
From Holland's Amerika kiest:
"Needless to say, I'm disappointed with both candidates. The world stands at a turning point, and the times call for an extraordinary leader. Instead, our choice in America is between two ordinary men, neither of whom are doing anything to help make clear to Americans the gravity of the choice they will make next month."
"Needless to say, I'm disappointed with both candidates. The world stands at a turning point, and the times call for an extraordinary leader. Instead, our choice in America is between two ordinary men, neither of whom are doing anything to help make clear to Americans the gravity of the choice they will make next month."
Who Is Matt Bai?
The blogosphere is buzzing with reaction to Matt Bai's profile of John Kerry in the New York Times Sunday Magazine yesterday. So we looked him up, and found this biography at Newsweek.MSNBC.com. 1990 Tufts graduate, 1994 Columbia Journalism School product, so he knows his East Coast Liberals.
Bai's Kerry profile was genuinely interesting, and had some nice character moments, such as the time John Kerry told his aide to get rid of the Evian water and replace it with something American--Saratoga water, it turned out, after some prodding from Bai. "Sometimes I drink tap water," Kerry admitted. A Marie Antionette let-them-eat-cake moment, if there ever was one. The article quotes Yale's John Lewis Gaddis on the history of American pre-emption, and sketches out what a Kerry doctrine might look like, if Kerry could ever explain it. Basically, it's Bush-lite, the war on terror without the military.
Best of all is Bai's account of Kerry's apparent Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Symptoms include uncontrollable rages, generalized hostility and paranoia, and frequent flashbacks to killing people in Vietnam, a subject Kerry repeatedly raised with Bai.
Overall, an article well-worth reading, and not quite the sycophantic pablum that one has come to expect from The Times Magazine. Bai has a future ahead of him.
The same paper also has an almost pornographic front-page story of Kerry's wealthy childhood, summers spent in a French chateau, and Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous existence today as a neighbor of George Soros and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Times story makes Kerry sound almost like Citizen Kane. All he needs is a sled called "Rosebud"...
Bai's Kerry profile was genuinely interesting, and had some nice character moments, such as the time John Kerry told his aide to get rid of the Evian water and replace it with something American--Saratoga water, it turned out, after some prodding from Bai. "Sometimes I drink tap water," Kerry admitted. A Marie Antionette let-them-eat-cake moment, if there ever was one. The article quotes Yale's John Lewis Gaddis on the history of American pre-emption, and sketches out what a Kerry doctrine might look like, if Kerry could ever explain it. Basically, it's Bush-lite, the war on terror without the military.
Best of all is Bai's account of Kerry's apparent Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Symptoms include uncontrollable rages, generalized hostility and paranoia, and frequent flashbacks to killing people in Vietnam, a subject Kerry repeatedly raised with Bai.
Overall, an article well-worth reading, and not quite the sycophantic pablum that one has come to expect from The Times Magazine. Bai has a future ahead of him.
The same paper also has an almost pornographic front-page story of Kerry's wealthy childhood, summers spent in a French chateau, and Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous existence today as a neighbor of George Soros and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Times story makes Kerry sound almost like Citizen Kane. All he needs is a sled called "Rosebud"...
Nathan Hamm on the US Elections
From the Dutch websiteAmerika kiest:
"Needless to say, I'm disappointed with both candidates. The world stands at a turning point, and the times call for an extraordinary leader. Instead, our choice in America is between two ordinary men, neither of whom are doing anything to help make clear to Americans the gravity of the choice they will make next month."
"Needless to say, I'm disappointed with both candidates. The world stands at a turning point, and the times call for an extraordinary leader. Instead, our choice in America is between two ordinary men, neither of whom are doing anything to help make clear to Americans the gravity of the choice they will make next month."
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Mark Steyn on Friday's Bush-Kerry Debate
From The Telegraph:
"And, if you want to know the real difference, after 90 minutes of debate it came in the final exchange of the night: 'The truth of that matter,' said Bush, 'is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he [Kerry] were the President of the United States.'
Kerry replied: 'Not necessarily.'
That's John Kerry: the 'not necessarily' candidate. Saddam might not necessarily be in power. He might have been hit by the Number 37 bus while crossing the street at the intersection of Saddam Hussein Boulevard and Saddam Hussein Parkway in downtown Tikrit. He might have put his back out with one of his more vigorous concubines and been forced to hand over to Uday or Qusay. He might have stiffed Chirac in some backdoor deal and been taken out by some anthrax-laced Quality Street planted by an elite French commando unit."
"And, if you want to know the real difference, after 90 minutes of debate it came in the final exchange of the night: 'The truth of that matter,' said Bush, 'is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he [Kerry] were the President of the United States.'
Kerry replied: 'Not necessarily.'
That's John Kerry: the 'not necessarily' candidate. Saddam might not necessarily be in power. He might have been hit by the Number 37 bus while crossing the street at the intersection of Saddam Hussein Boulevard and Saddam Hussein Parkway in downtown Tikrit. He might have put his back out with one of his more vigorous concubines and been forced to hand over to Uday or Qusay. He might have stiffed Chirac in some backdoor deal and been taken out by some anthrax-laced Quality Street planted by an elite French commando unit."
Saturday, October 09, 2004
From Our "Your Tax Dollars At Work" Department...
From Unixdude, this item about a recent grant from the National Endowment for the Arts:
"$35,000 NEA Grant Funds Musical About A Killer!
NEA -- the National Endowment for the Arts -- is giving the La Jolla Playhouse thirty-five thousand dollars to 'develop' a musical based on the life of San Diego gay prostitute turned serial killer Andrew Cunanan. Cunanan as you might recall killed fashion designer Gianni Versace as the last (himself not withstanding) of his many victims. The musical, titled 'Disposable,' will be developed by three Playhouse associates ---- playwright Jessica Hagedorn (whose 'Dogeaters' went from the Playhouse to off-Broadway a few years ago), composer Mark Bennett (creator of the score for the Playhouse's 'Eden Lane' last year) and director Michael Greif (who ran the Playhouse as artistic director from 1994 to 1999).
Is this really how we want our government spending our tax dollars? Not mine, thank you. It seems that the NEA is linked quite frequently to Insufferable Art. So whether you want to see dancing vaginas or a guy nailing his tiny johnson to a board [one moment, please, while I wince in pain], the NEA can 'help' us all! Unfortunately, the artists that receive NEA funding are no more an 'artist' than the guy down at Subway that makes my sandwich. Further, the NEA is way beyond the point of reform. It must be abolished."
"$35,000 NEA Grant Funds Musical About A Killer!
NEA -- the National Endowment for the Arts -- is giving the La Jolla Playhouse thirty-five thousand dollars to 'develop' a musical based on the life of San Diego gay prostitute turned serial killer Andrew Cunanan. Cunanan as you might recall killed fashion designer Gianni Versace as the last (himself not withstanding) of his many victims. The musical, titled 'Disposable,' will be developed by three Playhouse associates ---- playwright Jessica Hagedorn (whose 'Dogeaters' went from the Playhouse to off-Broadway a few years ago), composer Mark Bennett (creator of the score for the Playhouse's 'Eden Lane' last year) and director Michael Greif (who ran the Playhouse as artistic director from 1994 to 1999).
Is this really how we want our government spending our tax dollars? Not mine, thank you. It seems that the NEA is linked quite frequently to Insufferable Art. So whether you want to see dancing vaginas or a guy nailing his tiny johnson to a board [one moment, please, while I wince in pain], the NEA can 'help' us all! Unfortunately, the artists that receive NEA funding are no more an 'artist' than the guy down at Subway that makes my sandwich. Further, the NEA is way beyond the point of reform. It must be abolished."
Kerry on Record Against Kyoto Protocol
Nathan Hamm found this article from the Grand Forks Herald, and shared the link with InDC.com, evidence Kerry is against Kyoto :
"BOSTON - During the presidential primaries, Sen. John Kerry quietly renounced support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming. More recently, as it readied itself for the Kerry lovefest in Boston, the Democratic Party surreptitiously removed from its platform support for Kyoto - a treaty, in large part, personally negotiated by its last presidential candidate Al Gore. John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, who supports Kyoto, should be forgiven if he is surprised by Kerry's position, which essentially is now the same as President Bush's. Delegates to the recently convention were confused as well. Indeed, the general public could be forgiven for not knowing Kerry's stance on Kyoto. After all, none of the major media outlets have highlighted his rejection of Kyoto and his campaign has gone to great lengths to portray Kerry's position as pro-Kyoto. For instance, Teresa Heinz Kerry recently boasted that Kerry had attended more Kyoto conferences than any other major politician. Kerry, as usual, wants to have it both ways. He wants to appear pro-Kyoto in public before the camera's, while actually rejecting the treaty as a policy matter. But I digress, this is not to pan Kerry's apparent hypocrisy but to praise his decision to reject Kyoto and to call on him to reject other proposals that would require U.S. companies to unilaterally reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"BOSTON - During the presidential primaries, Sen. John Kerry quietly renounced support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming. More recently, as it readied itself for the Kerry lovefest in Boston, the Democratic Party surreptitiously removed from its platform support for Kyoto - a treaty, in large part, personally negotiated by its last presidential candidate Al Gore. John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, who supports Kyoto, should be forgiven if he is surprised by Kerry's position, which essentially is now the same as President Bush's. Delegates to the recently convention were confused as well. Indeed, the general public could be forgiven for not knowing Kerry's stance on Kyoto. After all, none of the major media outlets have highlighted his rejection of Kyoto and his campaign has gone to great lengths to portray Kerry's position as pro-Kyoto. For instance, Teresa Heinz Kerry recently boasted that Kerry had attended more Kyoto conferences than any other major politician. Kerry, as usual, wants to have it both ways. He wants to appear pro-Kyoto in public before the camera's, while actually rejecting the treaty as a policy matter. But I digress, this is not to pan Kerry's apparent hypocrisy but to praise his decision to reject Kyoto and to call on him to reject other proposals that would require U.S. companies to unilaterally reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
The Diplomad on the Australian Election
From The Diplomad:
"The Diplomads are dancing with joy! Normally a horrible sight, but forgive us for today is one of great joy! Howard has won!!!!!! Our Diplomad in the Pacific is watching (Aussie) ABC and reports that the media types look positively glum -- grasping and gasping for an explanation of how the hated, stoooopid, ignorant, lying Howard has crushed the opposition and made the pollsters look, well, stoooopid! PM John W. Howard has pulled off one of the great electoral victories of our time and is on his way to becoming the longest serving Australian PM. Congratulations to PM Howard. And heartiest congratulations to the Aussie electorate: they ignored all the nonsense screamed about Howard -- one of the three most vilified men on the planet along with Bush and Blair -- and proved that Australia is not Spain, not Canada, not the EU, it's, it's . . . . Australia! And it doesn't get much better than that."
"The Diplomads are dancing with joy! Normally a horrible sight, but forgive us for today is one of great joy! Howard has won!!!!!! Our Diplomad in the Pacific is watching (Aussie) ABC and reports that the media types look positively glum -- grasping and gasping for an explanation of how the hated, stoooopid, ignorant, lying Howard has crushed the opposition and made the pollsters look, well, stoooopid! PM John W. Howard has pulled off one of the great electoral victories of our time and is on his way to becoming the longest serving Australian PM. Congratulations to PM Howard. And heartiest congratulations to the Aussie electorate: they ignored all the nonsense screamed about Howard -- one of the three most vilified men on the planet along with Bush and Blair -- and proved that Australia is not Spain, not Canada, not the EU, it's, it's . . . . Australia! And it doesn't get much better than that."
Andrew Sullivan on the Debate
From www.AndrewSullivan.com:
"A DRAW: That's my basic take, although the debate was more interesting than that makes it seem. On style, the president was clearly far better than in the first debate. I think he's woken up and realizes he can lose this thing. He was aggressive, clear most of the time, had a good rapport with the audience and, as the debate went on, became more relaxed. There were moments early on, however, when he seemed to me to be close to shouting; and his hyper-aggressiveness, having to respond to everything, went at times over the line of persuasiveness. Early cut-away shots weren't helpful either. He tended to look up at Kerry blinking fast, twitching a little, and occasionally smirking and even winking to friends in the audience. Not presidential. He was strongest on stem cell research, where most of his work was done by the questioner. But his clear formulation - 'to destroy life in order to save life is one of the most difficult moral concundrums we face today' - was eloquent and correct. I'm with him on this one. I also found his response to the abortion question better than Kerry's. How you can respect human life and be in favor of partial birth abortion is simply beyind me. Bush is also clearly right that the war on terror cannot be restrained merely to police work against al Qaeda. On all these things, his performance was immeasurably better than last week. "
"A DRAW: That's my basic take, although the debate was more interesting than that makes it seem. On style, the president was clearly far better than in the first debate. I think he's woken up and realizes he can lose this thing. He was aggressive, clear most of the time, had a good rapport with the audience and, as the debate went on, became more relaxed. There were moments early on, however, when he seemed to me to be close to shouting; and his hyper-aggressiveness, having to respond to everything, went at times over the line of persuasiveness. Early cut-away shots weren't helpful either. He tended to look up at Kerry blinking fast, twitching a little, and occasionally smirking and even winking to friends in the audience. Not presidential. He was strongest on stem cell research, where most of his work was done by the questioner. But his clear formulation - 'to destroy life in order to save life is one of the most difficult moral concundrums we face today' - was eloquent and correct. I'm with him on this one. I also found his response to the abortion question better than Kerry's. How you can respect human life and be in favor of partial birth abortion is simply beyind me. Bush is also clearly right that the war on terror cannot be restrained merely to police work against al Qaeda. On all these things, his performance was immeasurably better than last week. "
Roger L. Simon on the Second Presidential Debate
From RogerLSimon.com:
"I thought this was a big win for Bush, but I admit it, I can't stand John Kerry. I find him the most fake candidate of my lifetime. LEt's see how the pundits spin it."
"I thought this was a big win for Bush, but I admit it, I can't stand John Kerry. I find him the most fake candidate of my lifetime. LEt's see how the pundits spin it."
Mark Steyn on the Second Presidential Debate
From SteynOnline:
"INSTANT DEBATE REACTION!
WINNER: BUSH! (and whoever loaded his percolator)
The unasked questions: Is there anything you can ask John Kerry that he doesn't have a plan for? Is his plan to have a plan for everything? If you ask him whether he's concerned that something might come up that he doesn't have a plan for, does he have a plan to deal with things he hasn't planned? Has he planned for the possibility that he might misplace one of his plans?"
"INSTANT DEBATE REACTION!
WINNER: BUSH! (and whoever loaded his percolator)
The unasked questions: Is there anything you can ask John Kerry that he doesn't have a plan for? Is his plan to have a plan for everything? If you ask him whether he's concerned that something might come up that he doesn't have a plan for, does he have a plan to deal with things he hasn't planned? Has he planned for the possibility that he might misplace one of his plans?"
Friday, October 08, 2004
Victor Davis Hanson on Iraq
From VDH's Private Papers:
"In fact, Kerry's only chance for honest intellectual criticism of the Bush administration might have come from the right: stern remonstrations over our tolerance of looting, inability to train Iraqis in real numbers, laxity in shutting off the borders, failure to control arms depots, tolerance for terrorist enclaves in Fallujah, and sloth in releasing aid money to grass-roots organizations. Yet by putting a tired Richard Holbrook or a whining Jamie Rubin on television, Kerry suggests that far from chastising Bush for doing too little, he believes that the president has already done too much.
"The administration's gaffes all share a common theme of restraining our military power in fear of either Middle Eastern or European censure. But once one climbs into a cesspool like Iraq, one must either clean it up or go home, and that means suffering the 48-hour hysteria of the global media about collateral damage in exchange for killing the terrorists and freeing the country. Only that way can we impress the fencesitting Iraqis that we employ an iron fist in service to their own security and prosperity, and thus we — not the beheaders and kidnappers — are their only partners for peace."
"In fact, Kerry's only chance for honest intellectual criticism of the Bush administration might have come from the right: stern remonstrations over our tolerance of looting, inability to train Iraqis in real numbers, laxity in shutting off the borders, failure to control arms depots, tolerance for terrorist enclaves in Fallujah, and sloth in releasing aid money to grass-roots organizations. Yet by putting a tired Richard Holbrook or a whining Jamie Rubin on television, Kerry suggests that far from chastising Bush for doing too little, he believes that the president has already done too much.
"The administration's gaffes all share a common theme of restraining our military power in fear of either Middle Eastern or European censure. But once one climbs into a cesspool like Iraq, one must either clean it up or go home, and that means suffering the 48-hour hysteria of the global media about collateral damage in exchange for killing the terrorists and freeing the country. Only that way can we impress the fencesitting Iraqis that we employ an iron fist in service to their own security and prosperity, and thus we — not the beheaders and kidnappers — are their only partners for peace."
Who Is Behind the Taba Bombing?
From Haaretz :
"As in Thursday's attacks in Sinai, the attacks in Bali, Casablanca and Mombasa were characterized by a series of strikes indicating meticulous planning, collection of intelligence and impressive operational ability on the part of the attackers. Another common thread is that the targets were identified with Israel or Jews - the Tunisian synagogue, the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel, the Arkia flight - as well as attacks on synagogues in Istanbul about a year ago. There were extremist Muslim organizations in Egypt that began to carry out such terror attacks even before September 11, 2001 in an effort to destabilize the Egyptian regime. In 1995, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad attacked a Cairo hotel and killed a number of Greek tourists. In 1997, terrorists from the Egyptian 'Jama'a Islamiya,' headed by Rifa'at Taa, slaughtered 69 Western tourists in southern Egypt. He was later counted among those signing a Osama bin Laden's manifest declaring the creation of Al-Qaida and a war against Christians and Jews."
"As in Thursday's attacks in Sinai, the attacks in Bali, Casablanca and Mombasa were characterized by a series of strikes indicating meticulous planning, collection of intelligence and impressive operational ability on the part of the attackers. Another common thread is that the targets were identified with Israel or Jews - the Tunisian synagogue, the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel, the Arkia flight - as well as attacks on synagogues in Istanbul about a year ago. There were extremist Muslim organizations in Egypt that began to carry out such terror attacks even before September 11, 2001 in an effort to destabilize the Egyptian regime. In 1995, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad attacked a Cairo hotel and killed a number of Greek tourists. In 1997, terrorists from the Egyptian 'Jama'a Islamiya,' headed by Rifa'at Taa, slaughtered 69 Western tourists in southern Egypt. He was later counted among those signing a Osama bin Laden's manifest declaring the creation of Al-Qaida and a war against Christians and Jews."
Who is Elfriede Jelinek?
Here's her biography, from NobelPrize.org:
Elfriede Jelinek was born on 20 October 1946 in the town of Mürzzuschlag in the Austrian province of Styria. Her father, of Czech-Jewish origin, was a chemist and worked in strategically important industrial production during the Second World War, thereby escaping persecution. Her mother was from a prosperous Vienna family, and Elfriede grew up and went to school in that city. At an early age, she was instructed in piano, organ and recorder and went on to study composition at the Vienna Conservatory. After graduating from the Albertsgymnasium in 1964, she studied theatre and art history at the University of Vienna while continuing her music studies. In 1971, she passed the organist diploma examination at the Conservatory.
Elfriede Jelinek began writing poetry while still young. She made her literary debut with the collection Lisas Schatten in 1967. Through contact with the student movement, her writing took a socially critical direction. In 1970 came her satirical novel wir sind lockvögel baby!. In common with her next novel, Michael. Ein Jugendbuch für die Infantilgesellschaft (1972), it had a character of linguistic rebellion, aimed at popular culture and its mendacious presentation of the good life.
After a few years spent in Berlin and Rome in the early 1970s, Jelinek married Gottfried Hüngsberg, and divided her time between Vienna and Munich. She conquered the German literary public with her novels DieLiebhaberinnen (1975; Women as Lovers, 1994), Die Ausgesperrten (1980; Wonderful, Wonderful Times, 1990) and the autobiographically based Die Klavierspielerin (1983; The Piano Teacher, 1988), in 2001 made into an acclaimed film by Michael Haneke. These novels, each within the framework of its own problem complex, present a pitiless world where the reader is confronted with a locked-down regime of violence and submission, hunter and prey. Jelinek demonstrates how the entertainment industry’s clichés seep into people’s consciousness and paralyse opposition to class injustices and gender oppression. In Lust (1989; Lust, 1992), Jelinek lets her social analysis swell to fundamental criticism of civilisation by describing sexual violence against women as the actual template for our culture. This line is maintained, seemingly in a lighter tone, in Gier. Ein Unterhaltungsroman (2000), a study in the cold-blooded practice of male power. With special fervour, Jelinek has castigated Austria, depicting it as a realm of death in her phantasmagorical novel, Die Kinder der Toten (1975). Jelinek is a highly controversial figure in her homeland. Her writing builds on a lengthy Austrian tradition of linguistically sophisticated social criticism, with precursors such as Johann Nepomuk Nestroy, Karl Kraus, Ödön von Horváth, Elias Canetti, Thomas Bernhard and the Wiener Group.
The nature of Jelinek’s texts is often hard to define. They shift between prose and poetry, incantation and hymn, they contain theatrical scenes and filmic sequences. The primacy in her writing has however moved from novel-writing to drama. Her first radio play, wenn die sonne sinkt ist für manche schon büroschluss, was very favourably received in 1974. She has since written a large number of pieces for radio and the theatre, in which she successively abandoned traditional dialogues for a kind of polyphonic monologues that do not serve to delineate roles but to permit voices from various levels of the psyche and history to be heard simultaneously. What she puts on stage in plays from recent years – Totenauberg, Raststätte, Wolken. Heim, Ein Sportstück, In den Alpen, Das Werk and others – are less characters than “language interfaces” confronting each other. Jelinek’s most recent published works for drama, the so-called “princess dramas” (Der Tod und das Mädchen I-V, 2003), are variations on one of the writer’s basic themes, the inability of women to fully come to life in a world where they are painted over with stereotypical images.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
CBS Responds to Criticism of Dan Rather's Forgeries
From BoycottCBS.com:
"Addressed to BoycottCBS.com founder Michael Paranzino, the email from the CBS -- Black Rock -- headquarters in New York City was brief and to the point:
"A check of the computer-generated email headers provided to track abuse confirms that the email was sent from servers at CBS headquarters (170.20.116.206 and 170.20.9.150 , tadata@cbs.com)."
And we thought hate was not a famiy value...
"Addressed to BoycottCBS.com founder Michael Paranzino, the email from the CBS -- Black Rock -- headquarters in New York City was brief and to the point:
PARANZINO..YOU'RE A PUTZ!
GET A LIFE PARANZINO!!!!
"A check of the computer-generated email headers provided to track abuse confirms that the email was sent from servers at CBS headquarters (170.20.116.206 and 170.20.9.150 , tadata@cbs.com)."
And we thought hate was not a famiy value...
Martin Kramer on Dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood
He's against it. From Martin Kramer's Sandstorm:
"The wrong Muslims. Now if some of the Islamists today were on a march to power, the case for dialogue might be more compelling. But where are these Islamists? Where is the Khomeini of Saudi Arabia or Iraq? Skeptical as we may be about the prospects for the Saudi monarchy or the Iraqi government, it is difficult to see Islamists who could replace them. And what would we talk about in a dialogue with the kinds of Islamists who seek to seize power in Saudi Arabia or Iraq? Would not such a dialogue merely antagonize and alienate those forces for stability that still have a chance to see the crisis through? And do we really think that were we to facilitate the ascent of any of these groups, they would be grateful for it? Any more so than the Afghan mujahideen?
"In sum, dialogue with Islamists, far from undercutting the jihadists, would undercut their opponents. It would muddle the message of the war on terror--the message that there can be no middle ground, and that Muslims must choose. Islamists not only wish to create a middle ground in the Middle East, but they seek to extend it to American soil. Few things could undermine the war on terror more thoroughly than dialogue with them, because it would facilitate just that.
"The United States has no use for equivocating Islamists. The United States does have use for dialogue with believing Muslims--those who share its vision of a Middle East that is free, and free of terror."
"The wrong Muslims. Now if some of the Islamists today were on a march to power, the case for dialogue might be more compelling. But where are these Islamists? Where is the Khomeini of Saudi Arabia or Iraq? Skeptical as we may be about the prospects for the Saudi monarchy or the Iraqi government, it is difficult to see Islamists who could replace them. And what would we talk about in a dialogue with the kinds of Islamists who seek to seize power in Saudi Arabia or Iraq? Would not such a dialogue merely antagonize and alienate those forces for stability that still have a chance to see the crisis through? And do we really think that were we to facilitate the ascent of any of these groups, they would be grateful for it? Any more so than the Afghan mujahideen?
"In sum, dialogue with Islamists, far from undercutting the jihadists, would undercut their opponents. It would muddle the message of the war on terror--the message that there can be no middle ground, and that Muslims must choose. Islamists not only wish to create a middle ground in the Middle East, but they seek to extend it to American soil. Few things could undermine the war on terror more thoroughly than dialogue with them, because it would facilitate just that.
"The United States has no use for equivocating Islamists. The United States does have use for dialogue with believing Muslims--those who share its vision of a Middle East that is free, and free of terror."
Mark Steyn on the Cheney-Edwards Vice Presidential Debate
From SteynOnline:
"INSTANT DEBATE REACTION!
WINNER: CHENEY!
Classic Daddy Party performance, underlined by Edwards' closing with his maudlin generic hardscrabble vignettes. Simply by being who he is, Cheney made the other guy look a lightweight. Edwards had one good trick: he worked the format better - using the 30-second add-ons for his sharpest and best rehearsed jabs and leaving Cheney no time for rebuttal. That aside, I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan on much these days, but I'm with him on this: Cheney is way sexier than Edwards, who seems cheesier and emptier every time I see him."
"INSTANT DEBATE REACTION!
WINNER: CHENEY!
Classic Daddy Party performance, underlined by Edwards' closing with his maudlin generic hardscrabble vignettes. Simply by being who he is, Cheney made the other guy look a lightweight. Edwards had one good trick: he worked the format better - using the 30-second add-ons for his sharpest and best rehearsed jabs and leaving Cheney no time for rebuttal. That aside, I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan on much these days, but I'm with him on this: Cheney is way sexier than Edwards, who seems cheesier and emptier every time I see him."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)