"Artist" Tortures Dog in Costa Rican Gallery

Agustin Blazquez, our favorite Cuban-American documentary filmmaker (also a painter), sent us this item :

Please sign and crosspost to everyone you know. Not just rescuers. Send to friends and family, too.

This is a very serious matter...

In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved him to death.

For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died.

Does it look like art to you?

But this is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central America decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.

PLEASE HELP STOP HIM.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html

Please read to the end of this....He has been INVITED to do this again THIS year.

Note: He paid five local children to help him catch the terrified stray dog...in the impoverished area. The dog had no way to escape capture or his fate once he was in the hands of this cruel maniac.

But this is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.

PLEASE HELP STOP HIM.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html


Besides signing the petition, please also write or e-mail the gallery that will host the 2008 exhibition to ask them to prohibit him. We can also write to other galleries that carry his other works and ask them to boycott him. Here's some addresses:

(1) EXHIBITION IS TAKING PLACE AT:

info@madc.ac.cr

Centro Nacional de la Cultura
Antigua Fábrica Nacional de Licores.
Avenida 3, calle 15/17. San José, Costa Rica.
Teléfono: (506) 257 7202 / 257 9370
Fax: (506) 257 8702


(2) ANOTHER GALLERY SHOWING HIS WORK:
This is the email address to a gallery which currently holds some of
Vargas' work for display and sale. If anyone would like to ask the gallery to
drop him from their list of artists the email address is below.
Email address: info@jacobkarpio-galeria.com

ALSO: The Animal Legal Defense Fund. suggests:

At this point, we feel the most effective method of protest is to write local animal protection agencies demanding they put a stop to this exhibit. You can search for agencies here in the Latin America/Caribbean section http://worldanimalnet.org/new.asp?co=&geo=SA&prov=&cat=are

On the other hand, we received this email today:

Hello Larry!

Re today's blog post: are you sure that everything this "artist" says is true?

Juanita Bermúdez, director of the Códice Gallery, insisted Natividad escaped after just one day. She said: 'It was untied all the time except for the three hours the exhibition lasted and it was fed regularly with dog food Habacuc himself brought in.'

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2269320,00.html

Chaining up a dog and forcing it to go without food and water in the name of art is a surefire way of making yourself unpopular with animal lovers. The furore created by Damien Hirst's pickled sheep and Tracey Emin's dirty bed pales into insignificance against the international outrage Guillermo 'Habacuc' Vargas has unleashed.

The Costa Rican has been called an animal abuser, killer and worse over claims that a stray dog called Natividad died of starvation after he displayed it at an exhibition last year at the Códice Gallery in Managua, Nicaragua. Vargas tethered the animal without food and water under the words 'Eres Lo Que Lees' - 'You Are What You Read' - made out of dog biscuits while he played the Sandinista anthem backwards and set 175 pieces of crack cocaine alight in a massive incense burner. More than a million people have signed an online petition urging organisers of this year's event to stop Vargas taking part.

Vargas, 32, said he wanted to test the public's reaction, and insisted none of the exhibition visitors intervened to stop the animal's suffering. He refused to say whether the animal had survived the show, but said he had received dozens of death threats. [emphasis mine]

Juanita Bermúdez, director of the Códice Gallery, insisted Natividad escaped after just one day. She said: 'It was untied all the time except for the three hours the exhibition lasted and it was fed regularly with dog food Habacuc himself brought in.'

Then again, it may be Ms. Bermudez who's pulling our chain, but this whole matter's not be so cut and dried... it may be as serious as you report, or it may be another artist-provocateur exploiting not animals, but people's capacity for outrage and willingness to embrace it.

Regards,
James

Is it true? I don't know...this looks bad: "He refused to say whether the animal had survived the show, but said he had received dozens of death threats." Maybe one of our readers in Costa Rica can tell us for sure...

Meanwhile, if Habcuc did it, it wouldn't have been the first time. At least one "artist" has killed a dog before, in the USA--Tom Otterness, according to Wikipedia:

Gary Indiana criticized Otterness for an independent work done while part of the East Village art scene in the mid-eighties called "Shot Dog Piece", in which Otterness "adopted a dog and then shot it to death for the fun of recording his infantile, sadistic depravity on film."

Here's what Indiana's wrote in New York Magazine:

But I’m repulsed by this show’s inclusion of Tom Otterness, a sculptor of limitless nonentity despite his demonstrated skill at conning public-art commissions and taste-impaired collectors into making him rich. Mr. Otterness, once upon a time, adopted a dog and then shot it to death for the fun of recording his infantile, sadistic depravity on film. I’d like the New Museum’s visitors to keep that in mind while looking at this creep’s work. Mr. Otterness isn’t one of those special exceptions deserving the adage “Lousy person, terrific artist.” Lousy both.

It didn't seem to hurt Otterness's art career--his "public art" installations include works on display at a New York City public school. As an alumnus of P.S. 24 in the Bronx, it makes me very sad...I found this post in the comments section of a Flickr site that gives more detail:

candidoescandido says:

I'm afraid... no I'm still very, very angry because in fact the piece about Shot Dog Piece is absolutely true. I was an art critic in New York at the time and I know how very difficult it was (and still is) to break into the NY art world. I used to hear the gallery owners complain about the young artists coming around and leaving their slides (God forbid that they would actually see the works themselves). The gallery owners could show a maximum of what- a dozen artists a year? So it was unfortunately necessary to do something to attract the attention of those with the power to make an artist and Otterness was hungry to make it and hit on a 'good idea'. I saw the video at a gallery I cannot remember at a group show. I didn't stay for the whole thing but I saw the puppy playing at Otterness’ feet as he lay sitting on the ground under a tree. Then he picked up a gun and shot it. I turned away so I couldn't authenticate whether or not he filmed the death throes of the dog or not. The accompanying material lead one to believe that the dog was his old family pet and was at the end of its useful life anyway. So that’s the story- a young artist so hungry to make it that he killed a dog in order to attract attention. Now the beloved artist is the toast of Beverly Hills with his own factory/foundry in Brooklyn and I think its more of an indictment of the incompleteness of the Internet that not one page details this crime than its being a cause for suspicion as to the truth of Otterness’ canineacide.

According to the Brooklyn Eagle, Otterness has apologized for killing the dog...but, I don't believe it has brought the dog back.

Bernard Avishai on The Hebrew Republic

I was in the World Bank "InfoShop" bookstore on Friday and happened upon a copy of Bernard Avishai's new book, The Hebrew Republic: How Secular Democracy and Global Enterprise Will Bring Israel Peace At Last. Reading the jacket blurb, I thought Avishai's thesis sounded very familiar. I realized that I had already heard a similar proposal from Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook) and Samuel Merlin in the 1970s. They had handed me a copy of their manifesto calling for an Israeli constitution--promised to them as members of the first Knesset. The failure to write a constitution, Merlin and Bergson argued at that time, was at the root of Israel's insecurity in the world. Israel had to define herself first politically, before peace would be possible. At the time, I didn't understand what they were saying. It seems that Bernard Avishai did, and has taken Bergson and Merlin's message to heart in the mission of his new book. On page 12, Avishai notes his meeting with Bergson in 1975 to discuss the concept. As Bergson explained, an Israel with a constitution that separated religion and the state would look more like America, less like England. It would be Jewish in the way America is Christian, for historical, cultural and demographic reasons--and Israeli Arabs would be truly equal citizens, in the way that American Jews can be equally American. Israelis could be Israelis, Jews could be Jews, Arab Jews would be able to achieve full equality in Israel, while American Jews would not be made to feel guilty about living in the Diaspora. Such a vision should equally appeal to many Russian immigrants, who are not officially Jewish, yet form a significant part of today's Israeli immigrant class. Just as descendants of Mayflower pilgrims do not constitute the majority of the American population, descendants of Zionist pioneers need not be a demographic majority in Israel to maintain the values of the founders. Israeli nationalism, not Jewish religion, would become the driving force in national development. Israel would transform into a Hebrew Republic, more than merely a Jewish State--in the way that the Republic of Ireland replaced the Irish Free State. Today, the Republic of Ireland is booming, no longer fighting England in Protestant-Catholic warfare. A Hebrew Republic of Israel could develop a similar relation with her Arab neighbors.

Maybe it wouldn't work, but in this age of religious fanaticism, recasting Israel as a secular nation along Herzl's original Zionist principles deserves serious consideration and debate. To get started, heres' a link to Avishai's interview with himself on his blog:

Q: As opposed to a Jewish state, why do you espouse a Hebrew republic?

BA: The Hebrew Republic is the Jewish state as the most original forces in the Zionist movement conceived it. It is a democratic country whose language is Hebrew, much the way the French Republic is French. I am not proposing anything terribly original here. I’m just trying to bring Israel up to code. In a way, I’m trying to imagine what Israel would look like if it accepted the charter of the European Union and became a member, as I hope it eventually will be.

Zionism originally grew out of the insight that to survive in the modern world Jews would have to transform themselves into a nation. Jews would embrace scientific doubt, tolerance, individualism, and get out from under the suffocating power of rabbinic orthodoxy. They conceived of a Hebrew enlightenment. Many Zionists, is true, were appalled by the growing power of anti-Semitic movements in Europe. But Jews who were mainly concerned about that went to America, not to Palestine. The Hebrew Republic is merely a retrieval of Zionism’s original vision, that Jews should ask modern questions, from technological to erotic questions, in Hebrew.

Why the US Might Reconsider Support for Separatism

(ht Drudge) Tibet, Xinjiang, Chechnya, Kosovo...might serve as precedents for the mother of all separatist movements--the "reconquista" of the American Southwest. Samuel Huntington warned about it in Who Are We?--and now Absolut Vodka (Swedish) is promoting it--in a Mexican advertising campaign. Here's the LA Times account:

The billboard and press campaign, created by advertising agency Teran\TBWA and now running in Mexico, is a colorful map depicting what the Americas might look like in an "Absolut" -- i.e., perfect -- world.

The U.S.-Mexico border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 when California, as we now know it, was Mexican territory and known as Alta California.

Following the war, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México ceded to the United States to become modern-day California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Arizona. (Texas actually split from Mexico several years earlier to form a breakaway republic, and was voluntarily annexed by the United States in 1846.)

The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of leading Latino advertising agency Grupo Gallegos in the U.S.

Ucedo, who is from Argentina, said: “Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, so this is their way of reclaiming it. It’s very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea.”

But he said that were the campaign to run in the United States, it might fall flat.

“Many people aren’t going to understand it here. Americans in the East and the North or in the center of the county -- I don’t know if they know much about the history.

“Probably Americans in Texas and California understand perfectly and I don’t know how they’d take it.”

Why You Can't Take Your Water Bottle Onboard Your Flight

From today's Daily Mail (UK):

A gang of British Muslims planned to blow up seven planes within hours in the biggest terrorist atrocity since 9/11, a court heard yesterday.

Two thousand passengers would have died in the plot by eight fanatics working "in the name of Islam", the jury was told.

It could have involved up to 18 suicide bombers. And they were almost ready to strike.

The jets they targeted would all have been bound from Heathrow to cities in the U.S. and Canada, it was claimed.

Once the first had exploded the authorities would have had to watch, powerless, as the six others were downed.

Plastic soft-drink bottles were to be the murder weapon - filled with explosive and connected to a detonator.

The alleged plot led to a ban on liquid containers bigger than 100ml which is still in force at UK airports.

Had it been successful, the death toll would have far eclipsed the 52 killed on July 7, 2005, when four suicide bombers detonated their rucksacks on the London transport system.

And if the conspirators chose to blow themselves up over land, the number of casualties in the air and on the ground could have exceeded the Twin Towers attacks in which nearly 3,000 died.

Yesterday eight men went on trial at Woolwich Crown Court in South-East London accused of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to commit an act of violence likely to endanger the safety of an aircraft.

Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said: "What these men intended was a violent and deadly statement of intent which would have a truly global impact.

"These men were actively engaged in a deadly plan designed to bring about what would have been, had they been successful, a civilian death toll from an act of terrorism on an almost unprecedented scale.

"If each of these aircraft was successfully blown up the potential for loss of life was indeed considerable.

"And there would be little if any chance of saving any of them from their impending disaster.

"For when the mid-flight explosions began the authorities would be unable to prevent the other flights from meeting a similar fate as they would already be in mid air and carrying their deadly cargo."

He described the defendants as having the "cold-eyed certainty of the fanatic".

Charles Moore: Treat Islamists Like Thatcher Treated Arthur Scargill

First read this interesting speech on how to defeat Islamists in The Spectator. Charles Moore recalled Thatcher's victory over another extremist--Arthur Scargill, who brought Britain to a halt with miner's strikes and Moscow gold--at the Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture entitled: "How to Beat the Scargills of Islam". You can listen to the speech as an mp3 file on this link at the Center for Policy Studies, thanks to Sophie Kydd. Or, you can read it here, as a PDF file:

Indeed, to return to my trade union analogy, even if we want to do a base deal with the extreme, self-appointed spokesmen of Islam today, we should recognise that they cannot deliver. Everything is in flux. We are seeing a battle about modernity. The struggle to replace the old, tribal immigrant leaders is led, on one side, by a rigorous revolutionary creed, a sort of God-intoxicated Militant Tendency which thinks it is in the vanguard of history. Hizb ut Tahrir, for example, sells itself as an organisation that scorns most of what happens in mosques, puts little emphasis on prayer and even holds out the prospect of much wider marriage opportunities than are traditional. It acts modern.

On the other side are those genuine reformers who long to live at peace in the free Western world, who are in Britain by choice as well as by chance.

I think the extremists are as brittle as was Arthur Scargill and, unless we are so foolish as to help them, they will not prevail. The bearded men who brandish placards calling for the beheading of those who insult Islam because of a few harmless cartoons will quite soon come to look as outdated as those pickets with their mutton-chop whiskers gathered round braziers and shouting ‘Scab!’ in the 1970s.

Conservatives, who have the advantage over the Left of being unembarrassed by British history, should study the interesting fact that tens of thousands of Muslims volunteered — they were not conscripted — to fight for the British Empire in two world wars. In the first, they fought against the Ottoman Empire, to which, in theory, they owed spiritual allegiance. Why did they do so? Not, surely, because they were offered multiculturalism, but because they felt themselves respected and secure in the self-confident British political culture of that time.

We should bear in mind the importance of the individual rather than the group. A believing Muslim will naturally regard his belief as encompassing his whole life, but that will not mean that he makes no separation between his personal beliefs and his politics.

Our Western language of rights and freedom puts great stress on the fact that each person is entitled to choice and autonomy. We must never allow our respect for any organised religion to allow us to forget the individual rights of its adherents and of the rest of us. We must not fall into the trap of speaking of Muslims as being defined, for purposes of most public policy and law, by their religion. For most purposes, we do not need to speak to Muslims through self-appointed gatekeepers. Muslims here, like Jews and Hindus and Sikhs and Christians and nothings and don’t knows, are individual men and women and they are British.

But it may also be that, purged of its current political deformations, Islam will indeed have things from which British society can profit. I am in correspondence with a Muslim thinker who criticises the ‘identity politics’ pursued by so many Islamist leaders. He says such attitudes produce only anger and pride. Muslims are enjoined, he says, to be ‘scholars of the heart’. In Islam, the word ‘honour’ does not have to go with the word ‘killing’, but can have a real meaning which it has too often lost in our secular society. So can ideas of dignity, of obligation to elderly parents, of community. He quotes a Sufi saying: ‘If every man were to mend a man, then every man would be mended.’ Our broken society, of which conservatives rightly talk so much today, has need of such mending.

.

Carla Bruni Joins Gordon Brown in UK

From The Guardian, today:

Moving rapidly to capitalise on the national explosion of Carlamania, which saw Bruni-Sarkozy heralded as a new Princess Diana during the French state visit to the UK last week, Brown will formally announce the latest addition to his "government of all the talents" in a speech tomorrow at the Institut Français in South Kensington, London.

For too long, he will say, Britain has suffered an inferiority complex with regard to mainland European countries such as France and Italy, whose citizens are seen as effortlessly stylish and sophisticated.

"I want a Britain, now and in the future, where good taste and sophistication are the birthright of the many, not the privilege of an elite, whether in fashion, in food and drink, or in cultural pursuits," Brown will say. To launch the scheme, the Italian-born Bruni-Sarkozy, 40, will relocate to London for three months, starting in June, according to one Brown aide. She is expected to commute back to Paris via Eurostar for French state engagements involving her husband, President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"At first, when it became clear she was going to upstage [Sarkozy] during the state visit, we got a bit worried about it all looking a bit frivolous," the aide said. "But it was during the banquet at the Guildhall that the prime minister had his eureka moment. Yes, she charmed him. But the key point is that he is committed to putting that charm in the service of a better Britain."

Bruni-Sarkozy will focus initially on improving the UK's dress sense and cuisine. The aide joked that she would steer clear, for the moment, of the other popular British assumption about the French and Italians - that they have more exciting sex lives.

She is understood already to have spoken to the chief executive of Marks & Spencer, Stuart Rose, to discuss the launch of an affordable range of high-street designs inspired by the demure tailored grey suits that won her so much acclaim during last week's visit. They were created for Dior by the British designer John Galliano, who has signed up as a supporter of Brown's plan. The M&S versions will be roomier, and may incorporate several more practical features, such as zip-up pockets and mobile phone holders.

Bruni-Sarkozy has also expressed an interest in meeting Jamie Oliver to develop plans to introduce a more "continental" approach to eating and drinking, which could see British parents encouraged to serve small volumes of red wine with meals to children as young as seven or eight.

To coincide with the prime minister's announcement, the thinktank Demos will release a report this week arguing that the answer to a wide swath of social and economic problems facing Britain may lie in adopting a more French approach.

"The missing ingredient in the UK's approach to a range of pressing policy challenges is straightforward: it is savoir-faire," the report's authors said in a press release.

The study concludes that numerous national problems - including the decline of Britain's railway infrastructure, the collapse of Northern Rock, and the scourge of binge drinking - could all have been more successfully addressed had politicians and bureaucrats demonstrated "a certain je ne sais quoi".

Bush Resigns!

From CommonDreams.org:

Today, I am resigning as President of the United States because I have compromised the trust of my constituents.

"Several months ago, I publicly declared my innocence because I was not strong enough to face the truth.

"So, I misled my family, staff, friends, colleagues, the public -- even myself.

"For all of this, I am deeply sorry.

"The truth is -- I broke the law, concealed my conduct, and disgraced my high office.

"I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions, and most importantly, the trust of my friends and family.

"Some time ago, I asked my lawyers to inform the special war crimes prosecutor that I would like to plead guilty and begin serving a prison term.

"Today is the culmination of that process.

"I will continue to cooperate with the government's ongoing investigation to the best of my ability.

"In my life, I have known great joy and great sorrow.

"And now I know great shame."

(April Fool)

Dith Pran, 65

Sad to read that Dith Pran has died of pancreatic cancer. We saw him years ago, when someone I know and I worked with groups trying to save the Boat People and aid Cambodian refugees. His life presented a legendary example of courage.Here's a link to his New York Times obituary,:

Mr. Schanberg wrote about Mr. Dith in newspaper articles and in The New York Times Magazine, in a 1980 cover article titled “The Death and Life of Dith Pran.” (A book by the same title appeared in 1985.) The story became the basis of the movie “The Killing Fields.”

The film, directed by Roland Joffé, showed Mr. Schanberg, played by Sam Waterston, arranging for Mr. Dith’s wife and children to be evacuated from Phnom Penh as danger mounted. Mr. Dith, portrayed by Dr. Haing S. Ngor (who won an Academy Award as best supporting actor), insisted on staying in Cambodia with Mr. Schanberg to keep reporting the news. He believed that his country could be saved only if other countries grasped the gathering tragedy and responded.

A dramatic moment, both in reality and cinematically, came when Mr. Dith saved Mr. Schanberg and other Western journalists from certain execution by talking fast and persuasively to the trigger-happy soldiers who had captured them.

But despite his frantic effort, Mr. Schanberg could not keep Mr. Dith from being sent to the countryside to join millions working as virtual slaves.

Mr. Schanberg returned to the United States and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting from Cambodia. He accepted it on behalf of Mr. Dith as well.

Carla Bruni & Georges Seurat

Michel Compte's fully unveiled photograph of France's First Lady,which goes on sale as lot 0064 among photographs from the collection of Gert Elfering at Christie's New York on April 10th has a significant art-historical pedigree. It is an homage to Georges Seurat's Models:

From WebMuseum, Paris:

1887-88; Oil on Canvas, 78 3/4 x 98 3/8 in. Signed, bottom right; The Barnes Foundation, Merion, PA.

Following Bathing at Asnieres and La Grande Jatte, Models is the third large picture that Seurat exhibited in public, and the second executed in his new pointillist-or "neo-impressionist"-manner. It was, until now, less famous and popular than the preceding two, only because it has been less looked at and studied, and was almost never reproduced. Nonetheless, one of the artists' most ambitious works, Models is also among the most important paintings of his career, and one of the richest in interpretive possibilities, as significant for the history of modern painting as Cézanne's large Bathers or Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon.

This canvas is painted on the same monumental scale as the history paintings at the official Salon. Seurat's contemporary Arsene Alexandre wrote that it represented the young painter's attempt ``to prove that his theory, which was so well-suited to subjects en plein air, was applicable to large-scale interiors with figures''. In fact, in the context of La Grande Jatte, one objection to Seurat's technique had been that the pointillist system of contrasting color was suited, at best, to the representation of immaterial things-light, water, or foliage, for example-but not the human figure. In the fall of 1886, then, this more traditional subject matter represented a distinct challenge to Seurat's revolutionary technique. Keeping within the confines of realism, the title clearly implies a depiction of contemporary models at work- or a single model in three separate stages of activity: disrobing, dressing, and posing. The scene can be precisely dated from accessories and hairstyles that were in fashion in 1886-1887, and also from the presence of La Grande Jatte, which is shown leaning against the studio wall within this painting, and which had been an object of scandal a few months before, at the last impressionist exhibition of 1886.

Seurat's context is commonplace: nudes in a studio before a painting that rests on the floor. But the artist exploits every possible connection between the two elements of his composition: the nude women might be models from La Grande Jatte-where they appear fully dressed- who have returned to the studio to disrobe. Strewn about the foreground are articles from the "painting-within-a-painting": the hats, shoes, parasols, and a small basket of flowers that have been cast off by these women. Such elements tempt us to contemplate oppositions: dressed and undressed, truth and artifice, nature and culture, the captured instance of daily life and the timelessness of art.

Geert Wilders Releases Fitna

(ht Radio Netherlands):

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103.

We report, you decide...

UPDATE: More info on Wikipedia.

UPDATE: After being pulled by LiveLeak following threats, Fitna was made available on Google Video, here:

More Google Earth Art

Carl Holzman, a Google Earth artist from Chicago (scroll down), let us know about Evert Schut's Google Earth art website in Holland. It's called "Google Earth Art," and features links to yet more Google Earth artists on the web.

Pete Hoekstra on Geert Wilders Fitna

It looks like when Voltaire's sentiment, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," is shared by at least one American in Congress...

From today's Wall Street Journal:

What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.

Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver's Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.

European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was "unavoidable" and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.

I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.

A central premise of the American experiment are these words from the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are similar statements in the U.S. Constitution, British Common Law, the Napoleonic Code and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, hundreds of millions in the U.S. and around the world enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and many other rights.

These liberties have been won through centuries of debate, conflict and bloodshed. Radical jihadists want to sacrifice all we have learned by returning to a primitive and intolerant world. While modern society invites such radicals to peacefully exercise their faith, we cannot and will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.

Mr. Hoekstra, who was born in the Netherlands, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Voltaire Quote of the Week

Quoi que vous fassiez, écrasez l'infâme, et aimez qui vous aime...

Angels Over Broadway (1940)

I had not idea that 1940 was such a good year for movies. First, City for Conquest (scroll down), now Angels Over Broadway. This noir melodrama was written, produced, and directed by Ben Hecht. It's one of the best movies I've seen. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. is great, Rita Hayworth is terrific, Thomas Mitchell steals the show, and John Qualen gives a deeply moving performance as a suffering soul. Don't know why I never heard of it at UCLA Film School... I'm glad it's on DVD, and stocked by Netflix.

If you need to know more before ordering, DVD Verdict has a nice review by Judge Barrie Maxwell (retired).

Jawa Report v. Network Solutions Censorship

Following the suspension of Geert Wilders' website, Jawa Report asked Network Solutions some questions about their hosting policies:

I just spent 30-40 minutes on the phone with Network Solutions (based in PA), complaining about their removal of the fitnathemovie.com website.
Ultimately, I was only able to get as high as a woman named Shannon, the Assistant to the Executive Officer (his name is Roy Dunbar), who gave me a polite brush off, without actually answering any of my questions.

But I was making her very uncomfortable...I could actually hear her blanching over the phone!
I explained why I was contacting her (she was already aware of Fitna), and when I was done explaining my gripe (forcefully), she asked me if I had any specific questions for her.
So I asked her some specific questions, and informed her they were for an article I was writing for a popular conservative blog...where upon her voice became even gloomier:
1. "Why did you remove a website for TOS violations when there was nothing but a parking page with the text "Coming Soon", and a photo of the Quran?"
She directed my attention to the notice on the page, saying "It is what it is."

2. "Why is an American based company willing to practice preemptive censorship, when there has not yet been any violation?"
Again, she had no answer.

3. "Is it Network Solutions' common practice to remove websites on the day prior to their launch, after months of work have gone into promoting those websites?"
She said she was not aware of such a practice, but she could forward my question upward.

4. I informed her I was in the process of building a new, massive website (true), and that I had planned to host with Network Solutions prior to this debacle (not true).
I asked her why American companies should give Network Solutions their business, when her company has demonstrated their willingness to ruin their customers' livelihoods for the sake of political correctness, and their own bottom line?
She just sort of sputtered, told me she understood my point, and assured me she'd look into it.

5. I asked her why an American based hosting company is more concerned about disgruntled Muslims than protecting free speech on the Internet?
Dead silence.

6. I asked her for contact information for her boss, Roy Dunbar (CEO of Network Solutions), as she was unable to provide me with answers to my questions, and she declined, stating she could not allow every complaint to go directly to him, because he was a busy man.

I informed her I too am a busy man, and that I had just wasted more than a half hour of my time, being shuffled from person to person, trying to get answers she was ultimately unwilling or unable to provide.

I informed her I knew she was not personally responsible for this debacle (I had been pretty tough on her), and I apologized for what I was going to have to do.
I explained that, unlike radical Muslims, law abiding citizens did not have the option of issuing threats or becoming violent, thus our only recourse is to become such a pain in the ass that companies such as Network Solutions find offending Muslims preferable to the time and resources wasted dealing with us.

I told her I would be posting the gist of our conversation online, at a popular site, and that she was in for a bad week. I really hope I'm right.

Network Solutions
Roy Dunbar, CEO
10 Azalea Drive
Drums, PA 18222
800-333-7680
www.networksolutions.com

Here's an excerpt from the Network Solutions acceptable use policy:

I. You agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:

Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, hate propaganda, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.

More internet censorship, reported by Jihadwatch.org, here.

UPDATE: Jawareport says it demanded Network Solutions stop hosting Hezbollah websites, and Network Solutions agreed to take them down.

A commenter at Jawa noted that Network Solutions was providing services to Hizballah, a specially designated terrorist group. They were providing DNS services. Domain name services are how your computer finds the IP address of the server where a website is located. It is unlawful for US companies to provide services.

This AM Robert Spencer and Allahpundit also posted the DNS information for Hizbollah. Our own Jawa co-blogger Kafir also posted his interaction with Network solutions here.

Soon the complaints to Network Solutions about Hizbollah's websites resulted in Network Solutions suspending DNS services to Hizbollah.org

Will the Bush administration now prosecute Network Solutions for aiding a terrorist organization? I wouldn't hold my breath...

Happy Easter!

Here's an item from Wikipedia:

Easter, also called Pascha, is the most important religious feast in the Christian liturgical year.[1] It celebrates the resurrection of Jesus, which Christians believe occurred on the third day after his crucifixion around AD 33. Many non-religious cultural elements have become part of the holiday, and those aspects are often celebrated by many Christians and non-Christians alike.

Easter also refers to the season of the church year called Eastertide or the Easter Season. Traditionally the Easter Season lasted for the forty days from Easter Day until Ascension Day but now officially lasts for the fifty days until Pentecost. The first week of the Easter Season is known as Easter Week or the Octave of Easter.

Easter is termed a moveable feast because it is not fixed in relation to the civil calendar. Easter falls at some point between late March and late April each year (early April to early May in Eastern Christianity), following the cycle of the moon. After several centuries of disagreement, all churches accepted the computation of the Alexandrian Church (now the Coptic Church) that Easter is the first Sunday after the first fourteenth day of the moon (the Paschal Full Moon) that is on or after the ecclesiastical vernal equinox.

Happy Purim!

Like Navruz, Purim has Persian origins...Rabbi Alan Iser explains, in The Jewish Exponent:

Alcohol is a traditional part of Purim. The Talmud says people should become so tipsy that they do not know the difference between "Cursed be Haman" and "Blessed be Mordechai." The writer, Calvin Trillin, once said the theme of most Jewish holidays is: "They tried to kill us, we won, let's eat." On Purim, in addition to "let's eat," it's "let's party." While Judaism is not a religion that advocates teetotaling, drunkenness is generally frowned upon. Alcohol loosens inhibitions, and drinking is a risky business; again, note the theme of risk, because it may entail losing control, but on Purim almost anything goes.

We can transgress taboos and make fun of things we normally venerate. Cross-dressing, forbidden by Jewish law, is permitted on Purim when we masquerade. There is a tradition of "Purim Torah," much like Torah learning presided over by a Purim "rabbi." Even in yeshivot, greatly respected teachers may be mocked on Purim. On this day, we are permitted to be what we usually are not.

Purim is a holiday for letting off steam in a religiously sanctioned way and allowing some forbidden urges. Especially during times of persecution, Jews needed a reason to celebrate their survival and enjoy a holiday where the results were the polar reversal of what so often happened in Jewish history.

In gematria (Jewish numerology), "Cursed be Haman" and "Blessed be Mordechai" are numerically the same. The Kabbalists point out that they are also equal to the phrase "emunah peshutah," which means "simple faith." Hopefully, we do not need the alcohol to have faith in the Jewish future and faith that God will provide us with guidance along the way.

Have a joyous Purim and l' chaim!

Will Hillary Denounce Bill For Inviting Rev. Wright to the White House?

The NY Times published this photo today of Bill Clinton playing host to Chicago's Rev. Jeremiah Wright--at the White House.

Why hasn't the press demanded that Hillary explain her position on the Wright controversy? Why does it appear to be OK for Bill to have him to the White House, as an official guest of the President--but not for Obama to attend his church?

The Times says that records show that Hillary was right there with Bill and Rev. Wright, as First Lady:

And according to the newly released schedules of Mrs. Clinton by the National Archives of her years as first lady, she was in attendance, too.

Her schedule reads:

“Religion Leaders Breakfast (w/POTUS)” in the East Room from 9-10:30 a.m.

Format:
- The President and First Lady are announced into the East Room and proceed to their tables.
- The Vice President makes remarks and introduces The President.
- The President makes remarks and introduces Dr. Reverend Gerald Mann.
- Dr. Reverend Gerald Mann gives blessing.
- Breakfast is served.
- Following breakfast, The President opens discussion.
- Upon conclusion of the discussion, The President introduces Dr. Reverend James Forbes.
- Dr. Reverend James Forbes gives benediction.
- The President, First Lady, and Vice President depart.
PARTICIPANTS: Approx. 130 guests to attend.

City for Conquest (1940)

Saw this the other night, thanks to Netflix. Incredible story, a symphony of New York. Starring Jimmy Cagney, Ann Sheridan, Anthony Quinn--and Elia Kazan as "Googie," a mobster with a heart. Directed by Anatole Litvak, photography by James Wong Howe, music by Max Steiner. Incredible--especially for New Yorkers and former New Yorkers... Had no idea that Kazan was such a good actor. No wonder he did great things with Brando and James Dean, among others....You can watch a clip from YouTube here: And you can order the DVD from Amazon.com here: Here's what DVD Savant has to say about it:

City for Conquest is an ambitious James Cagney movie given the full Warner treatment. Although it doesn't quite hit the mark on any of its four or five themes it gives them all a college try; it's become a favorite of Cagney fans. It is a gangster picture, a boxing picture, a "poetic" symphony-of-the-city epic, a starstruck show-biz career picture --- and for a finale it even tries to graft on the end of Charlie Chaplin's City Lights. Until this DVD release, City for Conquest was also a movie with a mysterious missing element -- an entire wrap-around framing story. I'll be scratching my head about that mystery a little further into the review. The bottom line is that City for Conquest is a unique end-of-the-Depression-years thriller with special performances from James Cagney and Ann Sheridan.

Supreme Court to Rule on DC Gun Ban

Someone I know served on a DC jury a couple of weeks ago in a gun case. The accused, a 60-something used car salesman, had been stopped and frisked on the street. The police found a gun. He was arrested, and released on bail. A couple of weeks later, after meeting with his attorney, he remembered that he had been on his way to turn in the gun to a DC police officer. At the trial, a DC police officer testified to this effect. So, the jury declared the defendant "not guilty." DC law permits someone to possess a gun if he intends to turn it in to the police. After acquittal, the prosecutor and defense attorney briefed the jury on the defendant's background--he had prior arrests for attempted murder and other crimes, but no convictions.

My personal verdict: the DC gun law is pointless. More from Tom Knott in the Washington Times today:

The U.S. Supreme Court's justices are making noises that suggest they will restore the Second Amendment rights to residents of the nation's capital, as they should be.

The D.C. Council imposed a handgun ban on its citizenry in 1976, ostensibly to save lives. The measure has not worked out as envisioned, predictably enough.

The nation's capital earned the dubious distinction of being the nation's murder capital in the early '90s, when the violence spiked because of the crack epidemic. The number of murders in the city peaked at 479 in 1991. There were 181 murders in the city last year, with more and more neighborhoods in the city undergoing gentrification and some of the violent crime spilling over into Prince George's County.

This is the demographic reality that no city lawmaker is apt to utter in public. City lawmakers are more apt to blame the murder rate on the easy accessibility of handguns in Maryland and Virginia, a thin argument that ignores the vagaries of the human condition. If a gang member or drug dealer wants a handgun, regardless of the law, you can be certain he can make a quick call to secure one in short order.

Not that the nine justices are inclined to make their ruling based on an interpretation of the murder statistics of the city. Theirs is a higher pursuit of the Constitution, of what the Framers actually intended with the Second Amendment, whether its reference to service in a militia extends to individuals having a right to bear arms.