Viva Cinco de Mayo!

From VivaCinodeMayo.org:

The 5th of May is not Mexican Independence Day, but it should be! And Cinco de Mayo is not an American holiday, but it should be. Mexico declared its independence from mother Spain on midnight, the 15th of September, 1810. And it took 11 years before the first Spanish soldiers were told and forced to leave Mexico.

So, why Cinco de Mayo? And why should Americans savor this day as well? Because 4,000 Mexican soldiers smashed the French and traitor Mexican army of 8,000 at Puebla, Mexico, 100 miles east of Mexico City on the morning of May 5, 1862.

The French had landed in Mexico (along with Spanish and English troops) five months earlier on the pretext of collecting Mexican debts from the newly elected government of democratic President (and Indian) Benito Juarez. The English and Spanish quickly made deals and left. The French, however, had different ideas.

Under Emperor Napoleon III, who detested the United States, the French came to stay. They brought a Hapsburg prince with them to rule the new Mexican empire. His name was Maximilian; his wife, Carolota. Napoleon's French Army had not been defeated in 50 years, and it invaded Mexico with the finest modern equipment and with a newly reconstituted Foreign Legion. The French were not afraid of anyone, especially since the United States was embroiled in its own Civil War.

The French Army left the port of Vera Cruz to attack Mexico City to the west, as the French assumed that the Mexicans would give up should their capital fall to the enemy -- as European countries traditionally did.

Under the command of Texas-born General Zaragosa, (and the cavalry under the command of Colonel Porfirio Diaz, later to be Mexico's president and dictator), the Mexicans awaited. Brightly dressed French Dragoons led the enemy columns. The Mexican Army was less stylish.

General Zaragosa ordered Colonel Diaz to take his cavalry, the best in the world, out to the French flanks. In response, the French did a most stupid thing; they sent their cavalry off to chase Diaz and his men, who proceeded to butcher them. The remaining French infantrymen charged the Mexican defenders through sloppy mud from a thunderstorm and through hundreds of head of stampeding cattle stirred up by Indians armed only with machetes.

When the battle was over, many French were killed or wounded and their cavalry was being chased by Diaz' superb horsemen miles away. The Mexicans had won a great victory that kept Napoleon III from supplying the confederate rebels for another year, allowing the United States to build the greatest army the world had ever seen. This grand army smashed the Confederates at Gettysburg just 14 months after the battle of Puebla, essentially ending the Civil War.

Union forces were then rushed to the Texas/Mexican border under General Phil Sheridan, who made sure that the Mexicans got all the weapons and ammunition they needed to expel the French. American soldiers were discharged with their uniforms and rifles if they promised to join the Mexican Army to fight the French. The American Legion of Honor marched in the Victory Parade in Mexico, City.

It might be a historical stretch to credit the survival of the United States to those brave 4,000 Mexicans who faced an army twice as large in 1862. But who knows?

In gratitude, thousands of Mexicans crossed the border after Pearl Harbor to join the U.S. Armed Forces. As recently as the Persian Gulf War, Mexicans flooded American consulates with phone calls, trying to join up and fight another war for America.

Mexicans, you see, never forget who their friends are, and neither do Americans. That's why Cinco de Mayo is such a party -- A party that celebrates freedom and liberty. There are two ideals which Mexicans and Americans have fought shoulder to shoulder to protect, ever since the 5th of May, 1862. VIVA! el CINCO DE MAYO!!

More on Cinco de Mayo from the Nevada Observer.

Ann Althouse on the Kentucky Derby Drama

Here, reflecting on Eight Belles, Althouse quotes Montaigne:

"At the stumbling of a horse, at the falling of a tile,... let us... say to ourselves, 'Well, and what if it had been death itself?'"

Boris Johnson Bans London Tube Boozing

From The Sun (UK):

Alcohol will be made illegal in a bid to curb crime and yobs on the Underground network – as Boris promised Sun readers in his campaign to become Mayor.

Any under16s caught misbehaving on Tubes or buses will have free travel passes seized. They will have to do unpaid community work to get them back.

Boris will also put 440 community support officers on buses to tackle antisocial behaviour.

The Tory, who is celebrating his first official day as Mayor today, said yesterday: “I have instructed members of my team to crack on with implementing our manifesto pledges. It is now time to get down to business.”

"Happy 60th Birthday, Israel: Well Done For Surviving"

While reading about Boris Johnson's victory in London in his house organ, I saw this cover story by Melanie Phillips, which is worth reading in its entirety on The Spectator (UK) website::

What would Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion have said if, on the day that he declared the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, he had known that six decades thence Israel would be encircled by its enemies, hopelessly outnumbered and fighting for its existence? He would surely have said: so what’s new?

Next week, on 8 May, Israel celebrates the 60th anniversary of that declaration. With every decade that it clocks up, people ask the same question: will Israel still be there for the next one? It is indeed astonishing that it has not only survived but is flourishing. Its situation as a permanently embattled nation is unique. On the day after Ben-Gurion declared its independence, six Arab armies invaded and tried to wipe it out. With the current exception of Egypt and Jordan, the Arab and Muslim world has been trying ever since.

If Boris Johnson becomes British Prime Minister someday, perhaps he'll name Melanie Phillips as his Foreign Minister...

What US Elections Really Mean

In Cousin Lucy's Spoon: The American Election Campaign: choose your family or choose your century?, my cousin has an interesting perspective to share. She says the current campaign is really about choosing one's family and century:

Having spent my life looking for patterns, I'm ashamed of how long it took me to see these two. The first one hit me only yesterday. Americans (including me) will be voting for the member of a nuclear "family" they want to lead them: Dad (McCain, the protector), Mom (Hillary, the ambitious hard-worker), or Son (Obama, the futurist)?

Alternatively, today it occurred to me that we're also choosing our favorite century: 19th (McCain), 20th (Hillary), or 21st (Obama).

Looking at it either way, you can see why I haven't decided yet. If I'm in a pessimistic or fearful mood, I like McCain, pragmatic - Hillary, optimistic - Obama.

Please discuss.

You can't post comments here, but you can post them on Cousin Lucy's Spoon...

Charles Moore on Boris Johnson's London Mayoral Victory

From the Telegraph (UK):

The change of mood is the most striking thing. When I approached my London polling station early on Thursday morning, I noticed the happy bustle. Far more people were voting than is usual in local contests, and they seemed keen to do so.

Friends who were in different parts of the capital in the course of the day told the same story. The extra people voting were those who had been written out of the script of Ken Livingstone's "world city". Mainly white, mainly middle-class, mainly in work, mainly with families, they were the sort of people who instinctively describe themselves as English without trying to make a political or racial point.

For them, there was never a crock of gold at the end of Ken's rainbow coalition. They did not have their parents' suspicion of gay liberation or new ethnicities. They were genuinely tolerant. But they were fed up with being told to "celebrate diversity" in their "vibrant" city when their actual experience was of schools where speaking English was a struggle, hospitals without enough beds, and streets and parks and buses not safe for their children. No, they didn't think that all Muslims were terrorists, but they were annoyed at being assured, despite the evidence of several court cases, that no Muslims were.

For such people, it was not a good thing that London drifted away from the country whose capital it is. This "post-national" stuff might be fine for the international bankers whom Ken encouraged to run up skyscrapers, for religious leaders like Yusuf Qaradawi whom Ken honoured though he advocates suicide bombing, for the assorted ideologues on Ken's payroll; but for a normal, modern Londoner, there was a growing sense of dislocation. In 2005, multi-cultural London literally blew up in their faces.

Boris Johnson has reached these voters, not by complaining and growling, but by cheering them up. He represents qualities which they like – an amused, relaxed, unjingoistic Englishness, anti-bureaucratic, politically incorrect but not right-wing. He is like something out of the novels of Charles Dickens - a national archetype whose character flourishes in the London air.

Here's Boris Johnson's victory speech on YouTube (ht The Spectator [UK]):

Winner: Boris Johnson Elected Mayor of London

EDITOR MATTHEW D'ANCONA congratulates a contributor to The Spectator (UK):

Greetings to all CoffeeHousers from the 29th Floor of Millbank Tower, where the faithful have gathered to toast our new Mayor - who, poor fellow, is stuck at the count waiting for official public confirmation of the triumph that Downing Street conceded hours ago, the bookies have already accepted, and the Evening Standard has announced in a special late edition.

It is a pleasure and a privilege to congratulate Boris on his victory - as his successor at the Spectator, his friend and (above all) a Londoner. Be in no doubt: this is a sensational achievement. Ken Livingstone has dominated London politics for a quarter century and presided over a coalition of formidable strength. In 2000, he ran rings around the New Labour machine at its mightiest. To dislodge him is a historic act of giant-killing and a remarkable moment in the capital's political history.

Labour will insist that this is a London story with no national consequence. The opposite, of course, is the case: for the first time since the general election of 1992, the Tory Party has won a major contest. The victorious candidate has captured the imagination of the whole country. His election dramatises and personifies the Conservative revival more vividly than any policy announcement or mini-manifesto could ever do. Tomorrow morning the whole country will be talking about the Boris Effect and wondering what comes next.

So: well done, my friend. You deserved this victory for which you fought and fought and fought against a veteran opponent. The torch has indeed been passed. All the best from your friends at the Spec: enjoy tonight, and then - to work!

Here's a link to Boris Johnson's entry on Wikipedia that contains this quotation:

Islam and Muslims

Johnson made the following comments about Islam in his Spectator column shortly after the July 7 bombings in 2005:

"It is time to reassert British values…That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem. To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions. The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? "When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?"

Another tidbit from Wikipedia:

On his father's side Johnson is great-grandson of Ali Kemal Bey, a liberal Turkish journalist and interior minister in the government of Damat Ferid Pasha, Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire who was murdered during the Turkish War of Independence. During World War I Boris's grandfather and great aunt were recognised as British subjects and took their grandmother's maiden name of Johnson.

BBC profile here.Curiously, Johnson's socialite first wife, Allegra Mostyn-Owen, appears to teach at a madrassah:

Minhaj-ul-Quran Madrasah
292-296 Romford Road, Forest Gate, E7
Newham Mosque Workshops
From July 2005, artist Allegra Mostyn-Owen has been running after school art workshops in Minhaj-ul-Quran Mosque in Forest Gate. Allegra’s inspiring work with 5-14 year old boys and girls has earned her a special achievement award from the current Imam, Sadiq Qureshi and a great deal of local support.
Offscreen are now trying to support Allegra through their resources and artists in schools programme.
May 2006
Contact teacher: Allegra Mostyn-Owen, freelance artist/educator

Losers

Diana West's column about the Hudson Institute's recent panel discussion of Douglas Feith's new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism today is headlined The Big Lie in Iraq.

I think her point may have been a little more subtle than her headline writer's. For West noticed a telling phenomenon taking place among the panelists at the event, an inability of supposedly intelligent men to answer obvious questions:

The classic clueless moment, however, came later in an answer to a question from the floor: Did the administration ever tell Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to bar combatants from crossing their borders into Iraq or else? And if not ("not" is clearly the answer since these borders have been Grand Central Station for jihadists), why not? Mr. Wolfowitz owned up that the U.S. had said something or other at some point but overall, the consensus on the dais came down to a big, shrugging non-answer.

I got one of those answers myself, at least from Mr. Feith. I asked: What did these gentlemen think the U.S. would ultimately get out of Iraq in exchange for our massive investment of blood and treasure? And had they learned anything to make them doubt the president's often repeated promise that Iraq would become an "ally" in the "war on terror?" Shrug. Not interested in answering.

This type of shrugging response is not actually a Big Lie, it is a sigh of resignation, an admission of defeat, that signals to the listener, "there is no point in even trying to explain..." Gloria Emerson wrote about the US government losing Vietnam in Winners and Losers: Battles, Retreats, Gains, Losses, and Ruins from a Long War. Now--whatever he says to the contrary--his performance at the Hudson Institute makes it clear that Douglas Feith has published a first-person account of losing Iraq. He clearly feels guilty about his role, which must be why Feith says he is donating proceeds to a charity for wounded veterans. If he wanted to spare the Administration embarrassment, he would have slipped quietly away. Instead, like a Shi'ite celebrating the martyrdom of Ali, he flagellated himself in full view of an audience, live and on C-Span.

Russians believe suffering purifies the soul. And certainly, the panel of experts who discussed Feith's book helped make some things perfectly clear. They provided a valuable look inside the "bubble" of the American foreign-policy establishment. Admitting they were "clueless" about the insurgency, the panelists demonstrated a striking lack of curiosity. For as West pointed out, they didn't deal with any larger issues:

They had assembled at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. for a discussion of Mr. Feith's new book "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism," but what they were drawn to discuss was went wrong with the war in Iraq.

It is a rather large topic. Would it cover, perhaps, such grand themes as the multicultural Big Lie that insists Western ways may be grafted — presto! onto Islamic cultures? Or maybe the difficulties inherent in the Western-style, humane projection of power against 7th-century terrorist barbarians? No.

As it happened, I sat a couple of rows in front of West, next to the man who asked the question about why the US didn't scare off Iraq's neighbors, Ali Alyami, of the Center for Human Rights and Democracy in Saudi Arabia. I saw a lot of familiar faces in the room, Bushies and Reaganites who had crossed my path since coming to Washington. I don't know how it came across on C-Span, but the feeling in the room was akin to visiting a family sitting shiva.

Only Dan Senor seemed to have a reasonable perspective on events. He impressed Diana West, and he impressed me. He pointed out that the Iraq war is not a hypothetical academic or bureaucratic excercise, but a real war affecting real people. He stated that the Americans can go home, but the Iraqis must live with the consequences.

Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Peter Rodman, on the other hand, looked like broken men. At one point someone in the audience passed around a note to the effect that this panel makes one despair of American leadership. The body language, the silences, the glances, the sighs, the shrugs all added up to a sense of loss, pathetic rather than tragic, for there was no greatness to it.

Hudson deserves great credit for hosting this panel discussion.

The Blogger Who Brought Down Al Franken

His name is Michael Brodkorb, and his website is Minnesota Democrats Exposed. Today, his exposure of Franken's tax problems made the AP wires...

Russia Investing in Iraq

Lukoil CEO Vagit Alekeprov said that Russia is back in business in Iraq:

Russia Today: The geography of your business outside Russia is really impressive. What countries or regions are the most important for you and are you starting any new projects?

Vagit Alekeprov: The priority for us is Iraq, with its unique West Kurna 2 project. My latest trip to Baghdad gives me confidence that this project will be a success. We feel that the top leaders of the country are interested in creating an investment climate in Iraq so that huge amounts of money - which will be billions and billions of dollars - will be invested to develop their unique fields.

More details on the partnership with Conoco-Phillips from the Rebuild Iraq website. Background to this deal in an August 2007 Kommersant article. You can read a biography of Vagit Alekperov on Wikipedia.

John LeBoutillier on How Democrats Can Win in 2008

The former Republican Congressman has a suggestion for the Democrats:

Obama is faltering. He has not won a primary since February 22.

How can these Super-Delegates not see what is so plain to us all: Obama cannot win a national election. He is easy pickings for the GOP - even when the Republican candidate seems out-of-it half the time and engenders no conservative enthusiasm at all - and even in a year that is tailor-made for the Democratic Party.

It is obvious that these career politicians know Hillary and can’t stand her. OK, fine. Then they ought to do what this space suggested last week: nominate Al Gore and make Obama the Veep candidate. That ticket - Gore/Obama - would win this November. They would screw the Clintons - something they both want to do - and they would keep the Democratic base together and happy.

Boy, that would also show up Bush...

Why Haven't We Heard More About This?

Video from Jedreport.com.

Here's an analysis of North Carolina politics that mentions Hillary''s acceptance of Governor Easley's remark in passing, from John Hood's article on National Review Online:

The next day, Hillary Clinton stood next to Gov. Mike Easley at N.C. State’s McKimmon Center. It’s a continuing-education center where thousands of North Carolinians have come for such programs as teacher training, crop-science presentations, and state 4-H Congress. Clinton had just come from touring a nearby bio-manufacturing institute on campus. Standing before a small crowd and a gaggle of reporters, she accepted the endorsement of a folksy two-term governor with a NASCAR following and a populist style (his most-newsworthy comment was that Hillary “made Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.”)

May Day!

Today is a holiday all over the world--except the USA, where it started, according to Wikipedia:

May Day can refer to various labour celebrations conducted on May 1 that commemorate the fight for the eight hour day. May Day in this regard is called International Workers' Day, or Labour Day. The choice of May 1st was a commemoration by the Second International for the people involved in the 1886 Haymarket affair in Chicago, Illinois. As the culmination of three days of labor unrest in the United States, the Haymarket incident was a source of outrage and admiration from people around the globe. In countries other than the United States and Canada, residents sought to make May Day an official holiday and their efforts largely succeeded.
For this reason, in most of the world today, May Day has become an international celebration of the social and economic achievements of the labour movement. Although May Day received its inspiration from the United States, the U.S. Congress designated May 1 as Loyalty Day in 1958 due to the day's appropriation by the Soviet Union.[4] Alternatively Labor Day traditionally occurs sometime in September in the United States. Some view this as an effort to isolate American workers from the worldwide community.[5]

UPDATE: Received this email from Agustin Blazquez, the Cuban-American documentary filmmaker:

Today is May 1st, the international day communists celebrate "the workers redemption from exploitation." But in reality it should be known and called as "The International Day of Slave Workers Under Communism." And people all over should demand the end of communism slavery.

My best,

Agustin

Here's a link to a preview of his latest film, about the use of Cuban slave labor in Curacao:

Ann Althouse: Wright Controversy Helps Obama

A different interpretation of events from Ann Althouse:

But I see a way for this awful problem to help Obama. It ties back to the original reason he became so popular. Obama seemed to offer a path out of the old-style racial politics that is based on grievances and demands and race as victimhood. Obama did not talk about race. He was black but he didn't talk about race. Now, Wright is rubbing our faces in the racial issues that Obama didn't want to talk about, and maybe he was disingenuous for submerging these things. But if Obama loses, Wright and his ilk will be magnified. They will have been instrumental in destroying Obama, yet they will use fact that Americans rejected Obama to reinforce their critique of America.

The message Obama needs to convey is: Take me now, whatever my flaws, or you will be saddled with people like Wright for decades. If we are disgusted by Wright, we shouldn't reject Obama. We should embrace him as the best hope we're ever going to have.

Rev. Wright and the United Church of Christ

Recent editorial dicsussion of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's media circus/speaking tour of Washington, DC led me to the source--I stumbled into the National Press Club shortly after his 8:30 AM press conference ended and witnessed throngs of supporters and protesters inside and out, surrounded journalists with tape recorders, cameras, and so forth. To date, the story has centered on racial controversy, political calculation and suspicions voiced by commentator Juan William on Fox News that Wright may now be working for Hillary Clinton. Errol Louis of the New York Daily News agreed: "It also turns out that [Barbara] Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club 'who organized' the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter..." (Which raises the question: Why aren't people calling on Hillary supporters to "distance" themselves from Wright?)

But there has been little discussion to date of the theological underpinnings behind Rev. Wright's sermons. In today's Washington Post, associate editor Eugene Robinson for the first time points out what should have been obvious:

The problem is that Wright insists on being seen as something he's not: an archetypal representative of the African American church. In fact, he represents one twig of one branch of a very large tree.

The reason, not mentioned by Robinson, is that Rev. Wright is a Congregationalist minister. His Chicago Trinity UCC church is a member of the United Church of Christ. Wright is not a Southern Baptist--he is a New England Puritan.

It is well-known that Congregationalists were among the New England Abolitionists. However, the same church was exposed by Nathaniel Hawthorne in The Scarlet Letter, the same institution persecuted Quakers, and burned witches. Like Rev. Wright, congregationalists have always been extremists, sometimes in a good cause (Abolition), sometimes not (Witch-Burning).

Such extremism has yielded results, winning through intimidation is not a new concept. Today Congregationalists tend to be found among the richest and best-educated segments of the population--and Rev. Wright's Hyde Park congregation (which from the newspaper accounts appears to do double duty as a political machine), close to the University of Chicago, is no exception. Wright has been a pastor to the privileged and the powerful of Chicago.

What this means is that the problem with Rev. Wright is a problem with the extremism inherent in Congregationalist doctrines. It is not a racial problem, but a theological one. The extremism preached by Rev. Wright has obviously been accepted by the United Church of Christ--there has been no move to expel him from the fellowship of Congregationalists, nor to denounce his teachings. Indeed, no newspaper has called upon UCC to "distance" itself from Wright--because it is impossible. Rev. Wright is a good Puritan, preaching hellfire and damnation.

A glance at the UCC's website makes Rev. Wright's theological chain-of-being obvious:

Take UCC identity seriously. If you want to serve as a pastor or in any other authorized ministry in the United Church of Christ, you should be able to say honestly to yourself that you love our denomination. You should know UCC history and polity and be willing to communicate your knowledge and enthusiasm to others. Being connected and staying connected to the whole UCC family as well as our ecumenical partners is part of what it means to be a minister in the UCC.

The Wright controversy represents a religious, not a racial, problem. In fact, the UCC has stood by Wright. The Rev. John H. Thomas General Minister and President United Church of Christ had this to say:

Is Pastor Wright to be ridiculed and condemned for refusing to play the court prophet, blessing land and sovereign while pledging allegiance to our preoccupation with wealth and our fascination with weapons? In the United Church of Christ we honor diversity. For nearly four centuries we have respected dissent and have struggled to maintain the freedom of the pulpit. Not every pastor in the United Church of Christ will want to share Pastor Wright's rhetoric or his politics. Not every member will rise to shout "Amen!" But I trust we will all struggle in our own way to resist the lure of respectable religion that seeks to displace evangelical faith. For what this nation needs is not so much polite piety as the rough and radical word of the prophet calling us to repentance. And, as we struggle with that ancient calling, I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.

Puritan New England was a Theocracy that persecuted heretics. That doesn't bother Puritans (hence, "God Damn America") but it must give non-Puritans pause. Which is why the controversy over Rev. Wright gives renewed meaning to the underlying principles that caused Thomas Jefferson--not a Puritan--to insist on the separation of Church and State. If Senator Obama realizes this, he may be able to turn this crisis into an opportunity.

UPDATE: More on Rev. Wright's 1984 Cuban Council of Churches-sponsored trip to Havana in an article by Humberto Fontova.

Public Diplomacy 36,000

At dinner last night, someone said that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has held up the nomination of millionaire Harvard grad, former Washington Post investment columnist, and AEI fellow James Glassman -- to the post of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Glassman is author of Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market, a notorious 1999 book of investment advice which could have cost any reader a fortune had it been followed. Here's a sample comment on the book's Amazon.com listing:

James Glassman should apologize for his stupidity, his arrogance, and this book, which lured in a whole lot of amateur investors just as the stock market was about to go bust.

Glassman was also co-author of a doomed report from the Advisory Board on Public Diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim World, following the release of which in 2003, American prestige plunged lower than the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The reason cited by our dinner companion: problems with Radio Farda, America's Persian service, which Glassman supervised as head of the Board of International Broadcasting and which featured anti-American broadcasts. This view was supported up in a comment posted on MountainRunner about the controversy:

God bless Tom Coburn for doing what no one else in the US has the courage to do--clean out the Voice of America. If you think Jim Glassman is "America's combatant commander in the War of Ideas," then you are carrying the wrong person's water. Just ask one of the many VOA employees who tried to warn Jim about the anti-US fakes at Voice of America. Instead of helping, Mr. Glassman has turned his back on us. My friends at Voice of America tell me that most of the people in charge of the Persian channel don't even speak Farsi. We Iranians can spot a fake when we see it. Why can't you?

President Bush is sticking with his nominee, despite the fact that at this point in the war for hearts and minds around the world there is nobody in charge of America's messaging...and apparently Senator Coburn is adamant that Glassman not be appointed. Rather than nominate another candidate who might be unanimously approved, Bush is picking a fight with Coburn.

IMHO, there must be someone in a country of 300 million who could do the job better than Glassman and who is willing to take the job. On the Republican side, Torie Clarke did a good job in the Pentagon (though she might not want to work for Bush again); on the Democratic side someone like James Carville or Paul Begala. Best of all would be an actual expert on Islamist extremism in general and Iran in particular--such as Daniel Pipes.

Senator Coburn is right to hold up his nomination and demand someone with better qualifications, untainted by failures of the Bush Administration. I hope he continues to stand fast on this one.

Tom Hayden on Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama

It's beginning to look a lot like 1960s battles are being re-fought in the Democratic Party. Here's an excerpt from Tom Hayden's attack on Hillary Clinton in The Nation:

She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.

Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists". Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. (All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein's sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.)

All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?

It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.

Yasmina Reza on Nicolas Sarkozy

This article by Alan Riding in yesterday's New York Times about Dawn Dusk or Night: A Year with Nicolas SarkozyYasmina Reza's new book on President Sarkozy of France, had some interesting tidbits:

The book, “L’Aube le Soir ou la Nuit,” nonetheless caused a stir here. While many French viewed their new president as a dynamic young leader bent on modernizing France, Ms. Reza described him variously as impetuous, irascible, sentimental, occasionally vulgar, frequently childish.

Now, eight months later, the book has been translated into English as “Dawn Dusk or Night” and was published in the United States on Tuesday by Alfred A. Knopf. Along the way, something peculiar has happened. Ms. Reza’s portrait of Mr. Sarkozy, 53, is the one that has stuck, lent credence by his taste for glitter, his divorce from one beautiful woman and hasty remarriage to another, his sharp tongue and his penchant for political action.

Another — perhaps apocryphal — life-imitates-art story from Paris comes to mind. “I don’t look like that,” Gertrude Stein is said to have remarked in reaction to Picasso’s 1906 portrait of her (now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art).

“You will,” Picasso supposedly replied.

Ms. Reza, who likes to describe her book as “an impressionistic sketch,” has been surprised by what has followed its publication. “It is as if Nicolas Sarkozy stepped out of my pages and now leads his own life,” she said in an interview in her Left Bank apartment.

You can buy a copy of the book from Amazon.com:

Hillel Kook and The Hebrew Republic

Bernard Avishai has let me know that he posted some sample chapters from his new book, The Hebrew Republic: How Secular Democracy and Global Enterprise Will Bring Israel Peace At Last on his website on his website, in PDF format. An excerpt I found particularly interesting:

A FINALWORD about the book’s title. I first heard the term Hebrew republic from Hillel Kook, a minor Zionist celebrity, whom I met in 1975. I was a young political scientist living in Jerusalem and had written a series of articles on Israeli affairs for the New York Review of Books.Kook had read them and decided I needed some mentoring. He was then a man in his sixties, still robust and almost always accompanied by (and in what seemed intimate conversation with) his striking new wife. He sported a gray goatee, tweed jacket, and had a lean aspect—a modern Jewish aristocrat, I thought, with an air of precise, perpetual disappointment. He was the nephew of Jewish Palestine’s first chief rabbi, Abraham Isaac Kook, and had been an aide to Revisionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. In the 1940s, under the pseudonym Peter H. Bergson, he organized the New York–based Emergency Committeeto Save the Jewish People of Europe, the first American group to organize against the Nazi horrors then unfolding.

Kook became a member of the first Knesset in Menachem Begin’s Herut party—which he left in disgust after one term. Israel, he began to warn, was heading for a fall because it had not shaken free of its revolutionary Zionism. It had failed to enact a written constitution. It was still in the thrall of old socialist Zionist institutions. It was being blackmailed by rabbis. It was completely lost regarding its own minorities. It had failed to redeem the real promise of Zionism, which was to create a “Hebrew republic.” These ideas struck a chord, but there was something so familiar, so material, about Kook’s liberalism that I could not quite believe it applied to the bloodied, noisy, metaphysical Israel emerging around me after the Yom Kippur War. He died near Tel Aviv in 2001, and I had not been in touch with him for years.

But more and more I’ve been thinking about him, and how he personified Gramsci’s famous dictum that the pessimism of the intellect should be coupled with the optimism of the will. So let us say, willingly, that it will take another generation to implement a Palestinian peace and, with it, slowly realize the vision of a Hebrew republic, which is actually a return to the most original Zionist vision. Fresh arguments will have to be made for this inspired vision, in Israel and in Western democracies. And fresh arguments, coming at a dark moment, have to pass a plausibility test that standard arguments, however stale and improbable, do not. Then again, a generation or more is not too much to ask. That is the time it took all of us to create the disaster we will now have to unmake.

Avishai neglected to mention that Bergson also founded the Hebrew Committee of National Liberation, to support Israel's struggle for independence from Great Britain.

A Russian Perspective on Kosovo

From Desperate Dispatch:

A daily Russian newspaper, Argumenty i Fakty, claims many of these states have to tackle their own separatist conflicts. “The Kosovo precedent will inspire them,” the paper writes. “Time will show if Kosovo is the beginning of the end of Europe.”

A more liberal Rossijskaya Gazeta is equally fatalistic. “Kosovo marks the emergence of new principles of international law” where the United Nations is a legal “non-entity” and the “rule of force once again features as a key principle of world order.”