Friday, December 30, 2005

Rational For A Snarky Blog

Thanks to a righty in the Austin daily's Op-Ed section, I am affirmed in my curmudgeonliness. I have argued politics for most of my life. The beauty of a blog is that it affords a bully pulpit and no one contradicts the truth in my posts! If this is (fair & balanced) ranting & raving, so be it.

[x Austin Fishwrap]
So what's so wrong with partisan politics?
By Jonah Goldberg

The great cliche among the chin-stroking, eat-your-spinach types these days is that they've never seen Washington so partisan. What's funny is that there probably hasn't been a time in the last 20 years when the forces of David Broderdom haven't waxed dyspeptic about the "tone in Washington."

But at this time of year — when everybody talks about peace on Earth, goodwill toward men, and all that jazz — the lament over partisanship takes on a particularly melancholy tone. If only we could be more like the citizens of Bedford Falls in "It's a Wonderful Life," where everybody comes together out of a common love of their fellow man. (I think the image of citizens joyously leaping at the opportunity to upend their purses and empty their wallets is particularly attractive to some in Washington.)

One of the greatest sources of political grief is the confusion of personal passions and preferences for political principles. In our own lives we all believe in comity and cooperation. In business we are encouraged to work as a team. The ideal in family life is mutual sacrifice and support. Most religions teach that we should treat our fellow man as a brother. We have a tendency to believe that these sorts of values should inform our politics as well. How many dictators have justified their rule on the grounds that the nation needs a strong father figure?

In the United States, the migration of social values to politics leads to the perennial question: "Why can't we all just get along?"

Politicians from both sides of the aisle take advantage of this natural human desire. Bill Clinton promised to get us past the "brain-dead politics of left and right." His wife has spoken many times of how we all need to get past our "partisan differences." George W. Bush was elected in part on his promise to "change the tone" in Washington and be a "uniter not a divider."

Of course, there's nothing wrong with people being more polite to one another. But the belief that a healthy liberal democracy is one in which partisanship has disappeared is not merely ignorant, it's dangerous. Liberal democracy ceases to exist when partisanship vanishes. Democracy is about disagreement before it is about agreement.

Now, obviously, some forms of partisanship are less admirable than others, and I'm sure we can all think of examples on our own. But out of deference to the spirit of the season, let's keep them to ourselves. Rather, let's look at this dispassionately.

If you were on trial for murder, would you want your lawyer to put aside his differences with the prosecution and, in the spirit of bipartisanship, strike a compromise? Sure, lawyers on both sides should be polite and obey the rules as officers of the court. But we understand that there are some things more important than the spirit of compromise in a system designed to be adversarial.

American politics is adversarial by design too. Partisanship and ambition are the vehicles by which important arguments are made.

Take judicial confirmation battles. Republicans and Democrats alike have been grossly hypocritical or inconsistent on judges. Depending on whose party is running the show, the arguments about how judges should be confirmed has gone back and forth like a windshield wiper. When the GOP was out of power, Republicans pounded the table about their responsibility to study the records of the nominees, while the Democrats insisted the president deserved deference. Flip things around and — boom — the Republicans want deference and the Dems bust out the Federalist Papers.

When you hear people say, "We need to get past partisan differences," what they are really saying is you should shut up and agree with me. Similarly, when public health experts, child advocates, televangelists, environmentalists and the rest insist that this or that isn't a political issue, it's a health issue, child-safety issue, moral issue or whatever-kind-of-issue, what they are really saying is that we shouldn't have a political argument about my cause. Because my cause is beyond politics. You should just agree with me and do it my way.

But even when people make this argument in all sincerity, they miss the point. Virtually all issues are political issues the moment we ask politicians to deal with them.

Politics is about choosing among competing public goods or competing public harms, and expecting politicians to hold hands like the Whos of Whoville and sing in a circle is to ask them to stop being politicians.

So, yeah, peace on Earth and goodwill to all men is nice. But we shouldn't let that get in the way of a good argument.

Jonah Goldberg is Generation X's answer to P.J. O'Rourke. His tongue-in-cheek commentary appears in a huge array of newspapers and magazines.

Copyright © 2005 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Alley Oop Was A Creationist?

The Creationists have coopted Alley Oop! This comic strip from the earliest memories of my childhood was a fanciful creation of V.(incent) T. Hamlin who found himself in Iraan, TX during an oil boom in deep West Texas. Some fossilized dinosaur tracks were discovered by oil field crews and Hamlin created a nonsensical prehistoric era where men and dinosaurs coexisted. Science has proved that the dinosaurs lived gazillions of years before humankind walked the earth. Carbon dating of fossil remains and other such technologies demonstrate that the dinosaurs died mysteriously (an asteroid strike?) long before human beings existed. The best the Creationists can do is republish Alley Oop as "proof" that men and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. If this is (fair & balanced) folly, so be it.

[x Toonpedia]
Alley Oop
By Don Markstein

Vincent T. Hamlin developed an interest in fossils while working on advertising layouts for a Texas oil company in the early 1930s. When he decided to try his hand at a comic strip, the prehistoric past suggested itself as a topic. He named his Stone Age hero after words used by French gymnasts and trapeze artists ("Allez Oup"), surrounded him with supporting characters (girlfriend Ooola, pal Foozy, antagonist King Guz, pet dinosaur Dinny, etc.), and started sending the whole menage out to syndicates.

The strip was bought by a small syndicate named Bonnet-Brown, which began distributing it on December 5, 1932 — but less than six months later, Bonnet-Brown was no more, and Oop was homeless. Shortly after, tho, Newspaper Enterprise Association (syndicator of Our Boarding House, Wash Tubbs, Out Our Way and other well-known features) picked it up. Its "official" start date, August 7, 1933, is actually the day it started appearing as an NEA strip. The Sunday page began September 9, 1934. He's been appearing seven days a week ever since, making him one of the earliest, and certainly the longest-running cave man in comics.

Don Markstein's Toonopedia (subtitled "A Vast Repository of Toonological Knowledge") is a Web encyclopedia of print and animated cartoons. While the site aims for comprehensiveness, it makes little or no pretense of having a neutral point of view. Markstein is the sole writer and editor of Toonopedia.

Markstein, who has been a cartoonist for Walt Disney comics, has focused his attentions on American and other English language cartoons, with the goal of developing the largest online resource on American cartoons.


Text © 2005 Donald D. Markstein.

[x Reason]
Artifact: Dinosaurs vs. Darwin
By Jesse Walker

It was Claude Bell, the proprietor of an inn on Interstate 10, who erected the dinosaurs of Cabazon, California. First came Dinny the apatosaurus, built in the ’60s and immortalized in the 1985 film Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure. Then came a giant Tyrannosaurus rex, left incomplete when Bell died in 1989. Like the original dinosaurs, these beasts have evolved with the times: First they were denounced as eyesores, then they were embraced as icons, and now they’ve experienced a religious conversion.

The Los Angeles Times reports that creationists have been buying roadside dinosaur parks around the country and turning them into anti-evolution museums. Visit the Cabazon Dinosaurs today, and you can pick up Darwin-bashing literature at the gift shop; at similar attractions you’ll see the evidence, such as it is, that dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden and were transformed from vegetarians to carnivores by man’s original sin. “Go to Disneyland, they teach evolution,” the evangelist Kent Hovind of Pensacola’s Dinosaur Adventure Land complains to the Times. “It’s subtle—signs that say, ‘Millions of years ago.’ This is a golden opportunity to get our point across.”

As a card-carrying evolutionist, all I can say is this: Keep the faith, Dinny. Roadside attractions should be weird. And better a private park than a public school.

Jesse Walker is the Managing Editor of Reason, where he has written about a variety of topics, from pirate radio to copyright law to suburban sprawl. He is the author of Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America, published by New York University Press in October 2001.

Walker's articles have appeared in a number of publications, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Salon, The New Republic, L.A. Weekly, National Review, No Depression, Telos, and Z. He has also worked as a DJ, a dishwasher, and a miscellaneous office grunt, and was once hired to help move a clandestine dog farm.

Walker is a graduate of the University of Michigan, where he received a B.A. in History.


Copyright © 2005 Reason


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Jeffrey Hart Is A Thinking Conservative

One of the more striking points that Professor Hart makes is that the Republican "Southern Strategy," beginning with Barry Goldwater in 1964 and continuing through today has produced a Republican party that is (in Hart's words) bereft of "prudence, education, intellect and high culture. It is an example of Machiavelli's observation that institutions can retain the same outward name and aspect while transforming their substance entirely." Most Republicans down South think that Machiavelli is a brand of auto tires. To quote another neocon, Richard Weaver, "Ideas have consequences." If this is (fair & balanced) rumination, so be it.

[x Wall Street Journal]
The Burke Habit: Prudence, skepticism and "unbought grace."
By Jeffrey Hart

In The Conservative Mind (1953), a founding document of the American conservative movement, Russell Kirk assembled an array of major thinkers beginning with Edmund Burke and made a major statement. He proved that conservative thought in America existed, and even that such thought was highly intelligent--a demonstration very much needed at the time.

Today we are in a very different and more complicated situation. Nevertheless, a synthesis is possible, based on what American conservatism has achieved and left unachieved since Kirk's volume. Any political position is only as important as the thought by which it is derived; the political philosopher presiding will be Burke, but a Burke interpreted for a new constitutional republic and for modern life. Here, then, is my assessment of the ideas held in balance in the American Conservative Mind today.

Hard utopianism. During the 20th century, socialism and communism tried to effect versions of their Perfect Man in the Perfect Society. But as Pascal had written, "Man is neither angel nor brute, and the misfortune is that he who would act the angel acts the brute." In abstract theory was born the Gulag. One of conservatism's most noble enterprises from its beginning was its informed anti-communism.

Soft utopianism. Both hard and soft utopianism ignore flawed human nature. Soft utopianism believes in benevolent illusions, most abstractly stated in the proposition that all goals are reconcilable, as in such dreams as the Family of Man, World Peace, multiculturalism, pacifism and Wilsonian global democracy. To all of these the Conservative Mind objects. Men do not all desire the same things: Domination is a powerful desire. The phrase about the lion lying down with the lamb is commonly quoted; but Isaiah knew his vision of peace would take divine intervention, not at all to be counted on. Without such intervention, the lion dines well.

The nation. Soft utopianism speaks of the "nation-state" as if it were a passing nuisance. But the Conservative Mind knows that there must be much that is valid in the idea of the nation, because nations are rooted in history. Arising out of tribes, ancient cosmological empires, theocracies, city-states, imperial systems and feudal organization, we now have the nation. Imperfect as the nation may be, it alone--as far as we know--can protect many of the basic elements of civilized existence.

It follows that national defense remains a necessity, threatened almost always by "lie-down-with-the-lambism," as well as by recurrent, and more obviously hostile, hard utopianisms. In the earliest narratives of the West, both the Greek "Iliad" and the Hebrew Pentateuch, wars are central. Soft utopianism often has encouraged more frequent wars, as it is irresistibly tempting to the lion's claws and teeth. The Conservative Mind, most of the time, has shown a healthy resistance to utopianism and its various informing ideologies. Ideology is always wrong because it edits reality and paralyzes thought.

Constitutional government. Depending on English tradition and classical theory, the Founders designed a government by the "deliberate sense" of the people. The "sense" originated with the people, but it was made "deliberate" by the delaying institutions built into the constitutional structure. This system aims at government not by majorities alone but by stable consensus, because under the Constitution major changes almost always require a consensus that lasts over a considerable period of time. Though the Supreme Court stands as constitutional arbiter, it is not a legislature. The correct workings of the system depend upon mutual restraint among the branches. And the court, which is the weakest of the three, should behave with due modesty toward the legislature. The legislature is the closest to "We the people," the basis of legitimacy in a free society. Legislation is more easily revised or repealed than a court ruling, and therefore judicial restraint is necessary.

Free-market economics. American conservatism emerged during a period when socialism in various forms had become a tacit orthodoxy. The thought of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman informed its understanding of economic questions. At length, the free market triumphed through much of the world, and today there are very few socialists in major university economics departments, an almost total transformation since 1953. But the utopian temptation can turn such free-market thought into a utopianism of its own--that is, free markets to be effected even while excluding every other value and purpose . . .



. . . such as Beauty, broadly defined. The desire for Beauty may be natural to human beings, like other natural desires. It appeared early, in prehistoric cave murals. In literature (for example, Dante) and in other forms of representation--painting, sculpture, music, architecture--Heaven is always beautiful, Hell ugly. Plato taught that the love of Beauty led to the Good. Among the needs of civilization is what Burke called the "unbought grace of life."


The word "unbought" should be pondered. Beauty has been clamorously present in the American Conservative Mind through its almost total absence. The tradition of regard for woodland and wildlife was present from the beginnings of the nation and continued through conservative exemplars such as the Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who established the National Parks. Embarrassingly for conservatives (at least one hopes it is embarrassing), stewardship of the environment is now left mostly to liberal Democrats.

Not all ideas and initiatives by liberals are bad ones. Burke's unbought beauties are part of civilized life, and therefore ought to occupy much of the Conservative Mind. The absence of this consideration remains a mark of yahooism and is prominent in Republicanism today. As if by an intrinsic law, when the free market becomes a kind of utopianism it maximizes ordinary human imperfection--here, greed, short views and the resulting barbarism.

Religion. Religion is an integral part of the distinctive identity of Western civilization. But this recognition is only manifest in traditional forms of religion--repeat, traditional, or intellectually and institutionally developed, not dependent upon spasms of emotion. This meant religion in its magisterial forms.

What the time calls for is a recovery of the great structure of metaphysics, with the Resurrection as its fulcrum, established as history, and interpreted through Greek philosophy. The representation of this metaphysics through language and ritual took 10 centuries to perfect. The dome of the sacred, however, has been shattered. The act of reconstruction will require a large effort of intellect, which is never populist and certainly not grounded on emotion, an unreliable guide. Religion not based on a structure of thought always exhibits wild inspired swings and fades in a generation or two.

Abortion. This has been a focus of conservative, and national, attention since Roe v. Wade. Yet abortion as an issue, its availability indeed as a widespread demand, did not arrive from nowhere. Burke had a sense of the great power and complexity of forces driving important social processes and changes. Nevertheless, most conservatives defend the "right to life," even of a single-cell embryo, and call for a total ban on abortion. To put it flatly, this is not going to happen. Too many powerful social forces are aligned against it, and it is therefore a utopian notion.

Roe relocated decision-making about abortion from state governments to the individual woman, and was thus a libertarian, not a liberal, ruling. Planned Parenthood v. Casey supported Roe, but gave it a social dimension, making the woman's choice a derivative of the women's revolution. This has been the result of many accumulating social facts, and its results already have been largely assimilated. Roe reflected, and reflects, a relentlessly changing social actuality. Simply to pull an abstract "right to life" out of the Declaration of Independence is not conservative but Jacobinical. To be sure, the Roe decision was certainly an example of judicial overreach. Combined with Casey, however, it did address the reality of the American social process.

Wilsonianism. The Republican Party now presents itself as the party of Hard Wilsonianism, which is no more plausible than the original Soft Wilsonianism, which balkanized Central Europe with dire consequences. No one has ever thought Wilsonianism to be conservative, ignoring as it does the intractability of culture and people's high valuation of a modus vivendi. Wilsonianism derives from Locke and Rousseau in their belief in the fundamental goodness of mankind and hence in a convergence of interests.

George W. Bush has firmly situated himself in this tradition, as in his 2003 pronouncement, "The human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth." Welcome to Iraq. Whereas realism counsels great prudence in complex cultural situations, Wilsonianism rushes optimistically ahead. Not every country is Denmark. The fighting in Iraq has gone on for more than two years, and the ultimate result of "democratization" in that fractured nation remains very much in doubt, as does the long-range influence of the Iraq invasion on conditions in the Middle East as a whole. In general, Wilsonianism is a snare and a delusion as a guide to policy, and far from conservative.

The Republican Party. Conservatives assume that the Republican Party is by and large conservative. But this party has stood for many and various things in its history. The most recent change occurred in 1964, when its center of gravity shifted to the South and the Sunbelt, now the solid base of "Republicanism." The consequences of that profound shift are evident, especially with respect to prudence, education, intellect and high culture. It is an example of Machiavelli's observation that institutions can retain the same outward name and aspect while transforming their substance entirely.

The Conservative Mind is a work in progress. Its deviations and lunges to ideology and utopianism have been self-corrected by prudence, reserved judgment as an operative principle, a healthy practical skepticism and the requirement of historical knowledge as a guide to prudent policy. Without a deep knowledge of history, policy analysis is feckless.

And it follows that the teachings of books that have lasted--the Western tradition--are essential to the Conservative Mind, these books lasting because of their agreements, disagreements and creative resolutions. It is not enough for conservatives to repeat formulae or party-line positions. The mind must possess the process that leads to conservative decisions. As a guide, the books, and the results of experience, may be the more difficult way--much more difficult in a given moment than pre-cooked dogma, which is always irresistible to the uneducated. Learning guards against having to reinvent the wheel in political theory from one generation to the next.

For the things of this world, the philosophy of William James, so distinctively American, might be the best guide, a philosophy always open to experience and judging by experience within given conditions--the experience pleasurable or, more often, painful, but utopia always a distant and destructive mirage. Administrations come and go, but the Conservative Mind--this constellation of ideas--is a permanent achievement and assesses them all.

Jeffrey Hart, professor of English emeritus at Dartmouth, is author of The American Conservative Mind Today (ISI, 2005).

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Not Letterman: A Top Ten List About Iraq In 2005

Juan Cole is not a David Letterman wannabe. Cole's use of the Top Ten List shtik detracts from a serious message. We have ignored — and continue to ignore — the Middle Eastern cultures, politics, geography, languages, and religions. Ignorance is fatal and the United States is approaching the terminal stage in short order. Some would argue that we are in the terminal stage of international health. Juan Cole is a Middle Eastern expert. The Brits would call him an Orientalist. Unfortunately, the Bushies have no time for such "nuances" as more knowledge about a problematic region of the world. Instead, the President of the United States babbles about an "Axis of Evil" as if he were channeling the ghost of FDR during WWII. If this is (fair & balanced) erudition, so be it.

[x Informed Comment: Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion (Blog)]
Top Ten Myths about Iraq in 2005
By Juan Cole

Iraq has unfortunately become a football in the rough and ready, two-party American political arena, generating large numbers of sound bites and so much spin you could clothe all of China in the resulting threads.

Here are what I think are the top ten myths about Iraq, that one sees in print or on television in the United States.

1. The guerrilla war is being waged only in four provinces. This canard is trotted out by everyone from think tank flacks to US generals, and it is shameful. Iraq has 18 provinces, but some of them are lightly populated. The most populous province is Baghdad, which has some 6 million residents, or nearly one-fourth of the entire population of the country. It also contains the capital. It is one of the four being mentioned!. Another of the four, Ninevah province, has a population of some 1.8 million and contains Mosul, a city of over a million and the country's third largest! It is not clear what other two provinces are being referred to, but they are probably Salahuddin and Anbar provinces, other big centers of guerrilla activity, bringing the total for the "only four provinces" to something like 10 million of Iraq's 26 million people.

But the "four provinces" allegation is misleading on another level. It is simply false. Guerrilla attacks occur routinely beyong the confines of Anbar, Salahuddin, Ninevah and Baghdad. Diyala province is a big center of the guerrilla movement and has witnessed thousands of deaths in the ongoing unconventional war. Babil province just south of Baghdad is a major center of back alley warfare between Sunnis and Shiites and attacks on Coalition troops. Attacks, assassinations and bombings are routine in Kirkuk province in the north, a volatile mixture of Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs engaged in a subterranean battle for dominance of the area's oil fields. So that is 7 provinces, and certainly half the population of the country lives in these 7, which are daily affected by the ongoing violence. It is true that violence is rare in the 3 northern provinces of the Kurdistan confederacy. And the Shiite south is much less violent than the 7 provinces of the center-north, on a good day. But some of this calm in the south is an illusion deriving from poor on the ground reporting. It appears to be the case that British troops are engaged in an ongoing struggle with guerrilla forces of the Marsh Arabs in Maysan Province. Even calm is not always a good sign. The southern port city of Basra appears to come by its via a reign of terror by Shiite religious militias.

2. Iraqi Sunnis voting in the December 15 election is a sign that they are being drawn into the political process and might give up the armed insurgency So far Iraqi Sunni parties are rejecting the outcome of the election and threatening to boycott parliament. Some 20,000 of them demonstrated all over the center-north last Friday against what they saw as fraudulent elections. So, they haven't been drawn into the political process in any meaningful sense. And even if they were, it would not prevent them from pursuing a two-track policy of both political representation and guerrilla war. The two-track approach is common among insurgencies, from Northern Ireland's IRA to Palestine's Hamas.

3. The guerrillas are winning the war against US forces. The guerrillas are really no more than mosquitos to US forces. The casualties they have inflicted on the US military, of over 2000 dead and some 15,000 wounded, are deeply regrettable and no one should make light of them. But this level of insurgency could never defeat the US military in the field.

4. Iraqis are grateful for the US presence and want US forces there to help them build their country. Opinion polls show that between 66% and 80% of Iraqis want the US out of Iraq on a short timetable. Already in the last parliament, some 120 parliamentarians out of 275 supported a resolution demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, and that sentiment will be much stronger in the newly elected parliament.

5. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, born in Iran in 1930, is close to the Iranian regime in Tehran Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraq's majority Shiite community, is an almost lifetime expatriate. He came to Iraq late in 1951, and is far more Iraqi than Arnold Schwarzenegger is Californian. Sistani was a disciple of Grand Ayatollah Burujirdi in Iran, who argued against clerical involvement in day to day politics. Sistani rejects Khomeinism, and would be in jail if he were living in Iran, as a result. He has been implicitly critical of Iran's poor human rights record, and has himself spoken eloquently in favor of democracy and pluralism. Ma'd Fayyad reported in Al-Sharq al-Awsat in August of 2004 that when Sistani had heart problems, an Iranian representative in Najaf visited him. He offered Sistani the best health care Tehran hospitals could provide, and asked if he could do anything for the grand ayatollah. Sistani is said to have responded that what Iran could do for Iraq was to avoid intervening in its internal affairs. And then Sistani flew off to London for his operation, an obvious slap in the face to Iran's Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei.

6. There is a silent majority of middle class, secular-minded Iraqis who reject religious fundamentalism. Two major elections have been held. For all their flaws (lack of security, anonymity of most candidates, constraints on campaigning), they certainly are weather vanes of the political mood of most of the country. While the Kurdistan Alliance is largely secular, the Arab Iraqis have turned decisively toward religious fundamentalist parties. The United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite fundamentalists) and the Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni fundamentalists) are the big winners of the most recent election. Iyad Allawi's secular Iraqiya list got only 14.5 percent of the seats on Jan. 30, and will shrink to half that, most likely, in this most recent election. A clear majority of Iraqis, and the vast majority of the Arab Iraqis, are constructing new, fluid political identities that depend heavily on religious and ethnic sub-nationalisms.

7. The new Iraqi constitution is a victory for Western, liberal values in the Middle East. The constitution made Islam the religion of state. It stipulates that the civil parliament may pass no legislation that contradicts the established laws of Islam. It looks forward to clerics serving on court benches. It allows individuals to opt out of secular, civil personal status laws (for marriage, divorce, alimony, inheritance) and to choose relgious canon law instead. Islamic law gives girls, e.g., only half the amount of inheritance received by their brothers. Instead of a federal government, the constitution establishes a loose supervisory role for Baghdad and devolves most powers, including claims on future oil finds, on provinces and provincial confederacies, such that it is difficult to see how the country will be able to hold together.

8. Iraq is already in a civil war, so it does not matter if the US simply withdraws precipitately, since the situation is as bad as it can get. No, it isn't. During the course of the guerrilla war, the daily number of dead has fluctuated, between about 20 and about 60. But in a real civil war, it could easily be 10 times that. Some estimates of the number of Afghans killed during their long set of civil wars put the number at 2.5 million, along with 5 million displaced abroad and more millions displaced internally. Iraq is Malibu Beach compared to Afghanistan in its darkest hours. The US has a responsibility to get out of Iraq responsibly and to not allow it to fall into that kind of genocidal civil conflict.

9. The US can buy off the Iraqis now supporting guerrilla action against US troops. US military and civilian officials in Iraq have on numerous occasions alleged in the press or privately to me that a vast infusion of billions of dollars from the US would dampen down the guerrilla insurgency. In fact, it seems clear that far more Sunni Arabs support the guerrilla movement today than supported it in September of 2004, and more supported it in September of 2004 than had in September of 2003. AP reports that the US has spent $100 million on reconstruction projects in Diyala Province. These community development and infrastructural improvements, often carried out by US troops in conditions of danger, are most praiseworthy. But Diyala is a mess politically and a major center of guerrilla activity (see below), which simply could not be pursued on this scale without substantial local popular support. The Sunni Arab parties, which demand US withdrawal and reject the results of the Dec. 15 elections, carried the province, winning 6 seats.

The guerrillas are to some important extent driven by local nationalism and rejection of foreign occupation, as well as resentment at the marginalization of the Sunni Arab community in the new Iraq. They have a keen sense of national honor, and there is no evidence that they can be bribed into laying down their arms, or that the general populace can be bribed on any significant scale into turning the guerrillas in to the US. Attributing motives of honor to one's own side and crass economic interests to one's opponent is a common ploy of political propaganda, but we should be careful about believing our own spin.

Even a simple economic calculation would favor the guerrillas fighting on, however. If they could get back in control of Iraq through a coup, they'd have $50 billion a year in oil revenues to play with. The total US reconstruction aid promised to Iraq is only $18 billion, and much of that will be spent on security-- i.e. it won't benefit most Iraqis.

10. The Bush administration wanted free elections in Iraq. This allegation is simply not true, as I and others pointed out last January. I said then, and it is still true:

Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.

Iraq's situation is extremely complex. It is not a black and white poster for an American political party. Good things and bad things are happening there. The American public cannot help make good policy, however, unless the myths are first dispelled.


posted by Juan @ 12/27/2005 06:33:00 AM

Juan R. I. Cole is Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History in the History Department of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Cole has written extensively about modern Islamic movements in Egypt, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia.

Copyright © 2005 Juan Cole


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

"Munich" Is NOT A Holiday Film!

The day after Christmas, I stood in line at one of the suburban cinema palaces (20+ screens) to see Spielberg's "serious film of 2005": "Munich." I thought that I would be alone (virtually) in the single venue assigned to this grim film, but it was SRO. Terrorism, Zionism, and Paybackism are tough fare for a holiday film audience. I viewed this film in the vicinity of the "People's Republic of Austin," as the red-meat, right-wing majority (outside Austin) terms it. So, the crowd — in retrospect — should not have surprised. Of course, multiple screens were devoted to "great" films like "King Kong" and "The Family Stone," and whatever. The terror visited upon the so-called Palestinian masterminds of the 1972 Olympics horror in Munich is imagined in less than "Saving Private Ryan" detail. Steven Spielberg and his scriptwriters created a plausible account of the assassins dispatched by Israel's Mossad (national security agency) to extract an "eye for an eye" penalty upon the Palestinian planners of the Munich horror of 1972. Eventually, 9 of the 11 Palestinian "masterminds" were assassinated (both on-screen and off-) and — of course — there has been no violence between Palestinians and Israelis since that time. If this is (fair & balanced) despair over the human condition, so be it.

[x The New York Times]
Connections: Seeing Terrorism as Drama With Sequels and Prequels
By Edward Rothstein

"There's no peace at the end of this," warns Avner, the morally anguished Mossad assassin, as Steven Spielberg's new film, "Munich," draws to a close. And by "this" he means the targeted killings that Israel is said to have begun after 11 of its athletes were murdered at the 1972 Olympics by members of the Palestinian Black September offshoot of Fatah.

But Mr. Spielberg, in collaboration with his screenwriters, Eric Roth and the playwright Tony Kushner, also has a different "this" in mind. The camera pointedly settles on the period's skyline of lower Manhattan, showing the World Trade Center in sharp relief.

The warning and image are meant to suggest that militant attempts to destroy terrorism lead not to peace but to cycles of violence, and that the 9/11 attacks may even be consequences of Israel's response to the Munich massacre. A war on terror amplifies terror. Moreover, the movie teaches, opposing sides begin to resemble each other. Moral credibility is destroyed along with hope.

The same argument is being made now about the war in Iraq, of course, as well as about Israel's continuing responses to terrorism. Indeed, before "Munich" opened, when it was reported that the film would emphasize the ethical qualms of the Mossad assassins, Mr. Spielberg explained, "By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today." But can we? Though said to be "inspired by real events," Mr. Spielberg's film taps into a highly influential theory about terrorism that itself bears little relation to what is known about this history.

The theory asserts that terrorism is a violent and extreme reaction to injustice - the last resort of the oppressed. Typically, this injustice theory is used to explain left-wing terrorism. It not only coincides with the justifications offered by terrorists themselves, but it also accompanies a belief that a just cause lies behind the terrorist attack. The theory is never applied to right-wing terrorism - whether of the brown-shirt or Timothy McVeigh variety - and thus pre-selects its proofs.

Accepting the theory also leads to other convictions. If terrorism is solely the result of injustice, then without the injustice there would be no terrorism. So the best response is to work for justice. Threats, vengeance, security strictures - anything other than the addressing of legitimate grievances is ultimately futile. In particular, since killing terrorists does nothing to alter injustice, it will do nothing to alter terror. Instead, it only leads to more injustice, turning the victims of terrorism into mirror images of the terrorists themselves.

The theory and its prescriptions are the guiding presence in "Munich." Mr. Spielberg doesn't have to show the terrorists as sympathetic characters, and they aren't; the theory fully acknowledges that terrorism is morally grotesque. The question is how to respond to it. The film tries to show that Israel made the wrong choice. The Israeli agents are given an education in the injustice theory.

Along the way, of course, the injustice is acknowledged: a Mossad agent and a Palestinian terrorist both express their attachments to the same land. But the Israelis are tainted by blindness, by a failure to understand. Thus, Avner's mother sounds like a terrorist herself in her amoral declaration about Israel: "Whatever it took, whatever it takes, we have a place on earth at last." Golda Meir shows her own lack of perception when she establishes the Mossad team. "I don't know who these maniacs are," she proclaims about the Munich terrorists.

Gradually, as the assassinations begin, the moral weight of their acts brings the team of assassins close to breakdown. Avner (played by Eric Bana) hesitates before shooting one of his targets. The Mossad agents argue about whether they should rejoice in their success. One suggests that the Palestinians learned their tactics from the Israelis. Another, pointing to increasing acts of terror around the world in apparent response to their success, says, "All the blood comes back to us." By the end of the movie, Avner thinks the Israelis are going to kill him. He renounces his country. And he warns of a cycle of violence.

But the film is so intent on its theory that it eagerly departs from previous accounts - or even plausibility about how Mossad agents might act. It supposedly takes its guidance from George Jonas's contested 1984 book, "Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team," which is itself presented as an account based upon the recollections of the disenchanted head of the Mossad team. But Mr. Jonas's Avner, unlike Mr. Spielberg's, is not paralyzed by moral doubt; Mr. Jonas writes that he has "absolutely no qualms about anything they did."

Moreover, the film, to make its argument about the cycle of violence, ends up treating the Munich massacre almost as if it were the original act of Palestinian terror. The elimination of context makes the Israeli response seem intemperate, while all future acts of Palestinian terror are treated as if they were responses to the Israeli assassinations. But as the historical Meir well knew, in the years before Munich, maniacal terrorists aligned with the Palestinian cause had bombed a Swissair jet, thrown hand grenades into crowds at Israel's airport, hijacked planes and associated themselves with other terror groups trained and partly financed by the Soviet Union. These, like the attacks that followed Munich, were part of a continuing war, not evidence of an amorphous cycle of violence that developed out of Israel's attempts to undermine terror.

Aaron J. Klein's new book, "Striking Back: The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response" (Random House) based on interviews with unnamed Mossad agents, casts doubt even on the existence of Avner's assassination team, portraying instead a series of individual acts that had mixed success. But Mr. Klein suggests that one of the attacks portrayed in the movie actually succeeded in making a "searing impression in the Arab world," helping increase fear and deter terror. He points out: "The numbers show a steep slide in the frequency of terror attacks against Israelis and Israeli institutions abroad from 1974 to the present."

The precise truth of what happened is mired in the secrets of spycraft, but the film shapes the sources and evidence to lend support to the injustice theory. Which poses a challenge for Mr. Spielberg: How does he propose to undermine terror? Simple: by eliminating injustice and increasing understanding. Mr. Spielberg has said that he will be buying 250 video cameras and distributing them to Palestinian and Israeli children so they can share films about their own lives. Perhaps there will be peace, then, at the end of that?

After award-winning terms as music critic for The New Republic and chief music critic for the New York Times, Edward Rothstein (PhD, Chicago) is now cultural critic-at-large for the Times, writing in the Arts & Ideas section on culture, literature, music, intellectual life, and technology—in articles that move from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’s Fab Five to Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School in two paragraphs. "Connections," a critic's perspective on arts and ideas, appears every other Monday.

Copyright © 2005 The New York Times Company


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Have You Got It Enya?

I don't care for Stravinsky and I can tolerate only some types of jazz (Dave Brubeck?). As far as New Age music goes, I don't care for Yawnee (or whatever), but I do like Enya's sound. I first heard an Enya CD sitting in the great room of a baronial home on the Isle of Man. How I ended up in such a place is a story too long for any blog. As a result, I have most of Enya's CDs and listen to them on occasion in an Enya festival. I have yet to see a leprechaun, though. Perhaps I need to eat a bowl of Lucky Charms cereal while listening to Enya. If this is (fair & balanced) philistinism, so be it.

[x Slate]
The Faerie Queen: The secret to Enya's success.
By Jody Rosen

Who is Enya? More to the point: What is she? It's a question you can't help but ask of the 44-year-old singer from County Donegal, Ireland, who, over the past 20 years, has carved a niche as popular music's faerie queen. She's slathered her songs in otherworldly reverb, overdubbed her voice into angelic choirs, and appeared in music videos gliding through mist-shrouded landscapes. When we last heard from her, in 2002, she was crooning songs on the Fellowship of the Ring soundtrack—in Elvish. On the cover of her new album, "Amarantine," she gazes out with big dewy moon eyes, wearing what appears to be a spinnaker. Search beneath its billows and you would undoubtedly find a pair of wings and a wand.

Enya may not be of this earth, but she's done rather well here. She began her career in 1980, singing with her brothers and sisters in "Clannad," which blended pop tunes and traditional Irish folk music. She left the family band two years later, hooking up with producer/composer Nicky Ryan and lyricist Roma Ryan, the husband and wife who remain her collaborators to this day. The trio worked on film and television scores for several years before graduating in 1987 to proper albums, but those early gigs left their mark. To call Enya's music "cinematic" is an understatement—nearly every song plays like the soundtrack for a majestic film montage, with the camera swooping from lush green valleys to craggy coastlines and upward, zipping past mountain peaks, punching through cloud cover, soaring into the blue and beyond, to touch the face of God, or Gandalf.

On the opening song of Enya's self-titled debut album, "The Celts," this potent formula is already in place. A synth bassline provides a gentle throb; a major key melody swells, crests, recedes, and swells again. Rising over the music is Enya, or rather, Enyas—her voice multitracked into what sounds like a Gregorian choir on helium. The production values have been refined in the years since, with a synthesized string orchestra sound replacing the debut album's garish keyboard gusts. But Enya and the Ryans haven't altered their basic musical template one bit. And why should they? Enya broke through to a mass audience with "Watermark" (1988) and has gone on to sell 65 million records worldwide. The arrival of "Amarantine," currently No. 10 on the Billboard album chart, is a reminder that Enya is one of the savviest operators in the music business and, well, an original. Twenty years ago, no one dreamed that there would be a huge audience for an ethereal female vocalist singing pseudo-classical airs with misty mystical overtones—and Enya remains the genre's only practitioner. No one has even tried to imitate her.

On "Amarantine," Enya delivers her usual goods. The mood is worshipful and the tempos stately. There is a great deal of plinking and plucking; Enya is fond of harpsichords (or synthesizer approximations thereof) and, especially, pizzicato, the engine of many of her songs, including her signature hit, "Orinoco Flow" (Sail Away)." The new album's title track (and first single) is an Enya song par excellence, with every beat of every measure marked by little string stabs, the singer's voice majestically inflated by reverb and the lyrics a string of fuzzy beatitudes: "You know love is with you when you rise/ For night and day belong to love." The song is insipid and insufferable; it may be the worst thing I've heard on the radio all year. It's also a fiendishly effective mood-piece.

Enya has sold more records than any Irish artist besides U2, and she has leveraged her roots, flavoring songs with uilleann pipes, singing in Gaelic, and gesturing in other ways to Riverdance enthusiasts. But Enya's real musical sources are less Old Eire than High Church. There is a maxim variously attributed to Bob Dylan and Elton John—"When in doubt, write a hymn"—and Enya and the Ryans have written hymns ad nauseam. Their signature trick is the use of multitracking to create the soul-stirring lushness of a full vocal choir. It's a cost-saving measure, for one thing. Why hire a roomful of monks when you can conjure a plainchant choir by simply overdubbing Enya's voice to infinity? The result is a singular sound—unreal, inhuman, spooky, and "spiritual"—perfect for those who desire the mystique of medieval choral music without, you know, the medieval music or the chorus. Naturally, it's impossible to replicate this effect in live performance, and Enya has never mounted a concert tour, which has only added to her air of mystery. Roma Ryan, meanwhile, has made the churchy connection explicit, writing several songs for Enya in Latin.

On "Amarantine," though, there's a different kind of linguistic stunt. Inspired by their Fellowship of the Ring experiment with Elvish, Enya and Roma Ryan decided to create their own language, Loxian. I wish I could report that this gambit involves smoked salmon; in fact, it revolves around the more banal topic of extraterrestrials. The Loxians, Ryan told the Guardian, "Are much like us. They're in space, somewhere in the night. They're looking out, they're mapping the stars, and wondering if there is anyone else out there. It's to do with that concept: are we alone in the universe?"

Ryan has written a book about the language, Water Shows the Hidden Hear (also the title of a song on "Amarantine"), in which we learn, among other things, how to ask a Loxian if he'd like a cup of tea ("Hanee unnin eskan?"). The lyricist claims that it was necessary to invent an alternative language because "some pieces that Enya writes, English will just not sit on." But judging by songs like "Less Than a Pearl," one of three Loxian numbers on the new album, Loxian is not appreciably more mellifluous than English or Gaelic or Latin or any of the other terrestrial tongues in which Enya has sung. I suspect other, cheekier motives: an effort to deepen Enya's reputation as a mystic and to tighten her grip on the Hobbit crowd. What's Loxian for "brand extension"?

The truth is, it really doesn't matter what language Enya is singing in. No one is listening to her words; the beginning and the end of her appeal is that big gauzy sound. Even if you hate the aesthetic, you have to respect the craft. Beneath Enya's billowing sonic mists, you can discern the structures and symmetries of classic pop songwriting: the melodic hooks that leap out from every song, the revitalizing excursion of an eight-measure bridge, the triumphal return to the main theme. It all might be perfectly tolerable if it weren't so queasily feather-light. As Enya's career has progressed, and her air-goddess shtick has become more entrenched, the bottom end has disappeared from her songs, to the point where, on Amarantine, there is virtually no bass, no lower-register sounds, nothing to ground the music. Enya would do well to remember that, once in a while, everyone—earthling, Middle-Earthling, and Loxian alike—needs to bang on a drum.

Jody Rosen is The Nation's music critic and the author of White Christmas: The Story of an American Song.

Copyright © 2005 Slate


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Merry Christmas, Dub?

Wowser! The Chicago Trib — that left-wing rag — ran a very predictable Op-Ed piece on December 25, 2005, by the paper's chief political columnist. In it, ol' Steve Chapman (who grew up in Dub's home town) claims that calling Dub an Imperial President is an insult to all emperors. Hooyah! If this is (fair & balanced) slander, so be it.

[x Chicago Tribune]
Beyond The Imperial Presidency
By Steve Chapman

President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.

He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but insists that anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.

His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration's secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it."

But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.

Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."

He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.

But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative court flatly refused.

In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration would suddenly decide that Padilla could be treated like a common purse-snatcher -- a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.

If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig -- who just a couple of months ago was on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too much Christ in Christmas.

This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.

But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?

After all, the government could have easily gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims that he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress -- a Republican Congress, mind you -- wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.

Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.

Chapman came to the Tribune in 1981 from the New Republic magazine, where he was an associate editor. He has contributed articles to several national magazines, including Slate, The American Spectator, National Review and The Weekly Standard.

Born in Brady, Texas, in 1954, Chapman grew up in Midland and Austin. He attended Harvard University, where he was on the staff of the Harvard Crimson. He graduated with honors in 1976 and later did graduate work at the University of Chicago.

Steve Chapman has three children and lives in suburban Chicago.


Copyright © 2005 The Chicago Tribune


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Monday, December 26, 2005

Tom Tomorrow's Review Of 2005 In Two Parts

Click on each image to enlarge. Tom Tomorrow's comic, "This Modern World," really nails Bill O'Reilly's (and Faux News') Christmas Fight Club. If this is a (fair & balanced) exposure of hallucinations, so be it.




Copyright © 2005 Salon


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Sunday, December 25, 2005

Faux News And The Phony War On Christmas

Faux News spent most of Christmas Day bewailing the secularization of the United States, especially during the pagan-influenced "Holiday Season." "Holiday" is the code word among atheists, communists, lesbianists, homosexualists, and the American Civil Liberties Unionists. Move over Pat Robertson and your Christian Broadcasting Network, here comes Faux News as the voice of the Christian Right. Of course, Pat Robertson is a model of Christian charity. Assassinating Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is a great sermon topic and then praying that the good people of Dover, PA suffer famine, flood, and pestilence because they threw Intelligent Design (aka Creationism) out of the Dover public schools is another stroke for the Lord. Move over, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, here come John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly strangely has been silent about Nicholas Kristof's invitation to go with him on a trip to Darfur. This would give O'Reilly a chance to stand up for some REAL little people (and get his head cut off in the bargain). In the meantime, The Frankster cuts right to the chase: Faux News and its endless supply of talking heads is the real blasphemy of our age. When Ted Haggard, the White House's favorite evangelist, can proclaim that Jews will burn in Hell because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ, I pray that Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, and all of their followers spend eternity hopping from one foot to the other in the Hot Place. If this is (fair & balanced) hope, so be it.

[x The New York Times]
I Saw Jackie Mason Kissing Santa Claus
By Frank Rich

THE good news today is that the great 2005 war on Christmas, the conflagration that launched a thousand op-ed pieces and nearly as many battles on Fox News, is now officially over. And yes, Virginia - Christmas won!

Secularists, Jews, mainline Protestants and all the other grinches failed utterly to take Kriss Kringle down. Except at those megachurches that canceled services today rather than impede their flocks' giving and gorging, Christmas is alive and well everywhere in America. Last night NBC even rolled the dice and broadcast "It's a Wonderful Life" in prime time. With courage reminiscent of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's defiance of Stalin, the network steadfastly refused to redub the final scene's cries of "Merry Christmas!" with the godless "Happy holidays!"

As Michelle Goldberg wrote last month in her definitive debunking for Salon, there was in fact no war on Christmas, but rather "a burgeoning myth of a war on Christmas." Most of the grievances cited by Christmas's whiniest protectors - red and green banned from residents' wardrobes in Michigan, "Silent Night" censored in Wisconsin - were either anomalous idiocies or suburban legends. The calls for boycotts against chain stores with heathen holiday trees lost their zing when it turned out that even George and Laura Bush's Christmas card had called for a happy "holiday season."

But like every other chapter of irrational hysteria in America's cultural history, from the burning of "witches" in colonial Salem to the panic induced by Orson Welles's radio broadcast of the fictional "War of the Worlds" on the eve of World War II, the fake war on Christmas was not without its hidden meanings. Or not so hidden. If you worked at Fox News, wouldn't you want to change the subject from the war in Iraq to a war in which victory is a slam-dunk?

Rabble-rousing paranoia about a supposed assault on Christmas also has a strong anti-Semitic and far-right pedigree. In Salon, Ms. Goldberg noted that fulmination about supposed Jewish opposition to Christmas dates to Henry Ford's infamous "The International Jew" of 1921. That chord is sounded in the very first anecdote in the book by the Fox News anchor John Gibson, "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought": a devastated father discovers that his 4-year-old son has brought home preschool artwork showing a Hanukkah menorah and Kwanzaa candles, rather than a Christmas tree. But Mr. Gibson goes on to add ecumenically that "not just Jewish people" are out to kill Christmas. As he elucidated on Christian radio, all non-Christians are "following the wrong religion," though he reassures us that they will be tolerated "as long as they're civil and behave."

Even so, much of this manufactured war was more banal than malicious. Like Christmas itself, an anti-Christmas scare is an ideal means for moving merchandise. The first Fox News segment warning darkly of a war on Christmas occurred on Oct. 20 - coincidentally the very day that Mr. Gibson's book hit the nation's bookstores. Many of the five dozen ensuing Fox segments contained lavish plugs for the book or for the Christmas baubles hawked by Bill O'Reilly on his Web site - no yuletide loofahs, alas. (His wares were initially listed as "holiday" gifts until a Web exposé forced a frantic rebranding.) Even Fox News's obligatory show Jew - Jackie Mason, ostensibly representing an organization called Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation - seized the mercantile opportunity, using the "war on Christmas" to plug a stand-up booking on Long Island.

But to fully parse the war-on-Christmas myth, it helps to examine it in the larger context of what "The Daily Show" would call This Year in God. Though religion has always been a fulcrum of culture wars in America, its debased role in that debate has fallen to new lows of lunacy since Election Day 2004. That's when a single vague exit poll found that 22 percent of Americans considered undefined "moral values" in casting their ballots. Ever since, politicians of both parties, Fox News anchors and any other huckster eager to sell goods, an agenda or an image have increased the decibel level of their pandering to "people of faith."

An ersatz war on Christmas fits all too snugly into a year that began with the religious right's (unsuccessful) efforts to destroy the box office and Oscar prospects of Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" and "save" Terri Schiavo and that ended with a federal judge banishing intelligent design from high school biology classes. In his sweeping 139-page opinion, that judge, John Jones III, put his finger on the hypocrisy of many of those most ostentatiously defending faith from its alleged assailants in America. Referring to the fundamentalists on the Dover, Pa., school board, he wrote that it was "ironic" that those who "so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy." That passage fits much of the dishonesty and cynicism perpetrated in the name of religion in America over the past 12 months.

This was the year that two C.E.O.'s charged with wholesale corporate fraud, Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom and Richard Scrushy of HealthSouth, both made a show of public prayer to ward off legal culpability. In Mr. Scrushy's case, the strategy worked. Faced with the prospect of life in prison and the forfeiture of $279 million, he quit his suburban Birmingham, Ala., church to join a largely blue-collar African-American congregation more in keeping with his potential jury pool, secured his own ordination as a nondenominational minister, and bought local TV time for a prayer show featuring himself, his third wife and various members of the clergy. The jury acquitted him on all 36 felony counts.

"God is good," he proclaimed after his victory news conference. To which one can only add: amen.

A no less unctuous spectacle was provided this year by Bill Frist, the Senate's majority leader and self-infatuated doctor-in-residence. Mr. Frist played God on national television by giving a quack diagnosis of Ms. Schiavo's condition based on a videotape, and then endorsed a so-called Justice Sunday megachurch rally demonizing "activist" judges - including, no doubt, any who may yet pass on the legality of his brilliantly timed stock sales. Though the senator's farcical behavior is worthy of Molière, he is hardly unique among his peers with presidential aspirations. Chastened by a perceived "moral values" deficit that might haunt her in 2008, Hillary Clinton now wears her history as "a praying person" on her sleeve. In June John Kerry told a gathering that he "went back and read the New Testament the other day" - which presumably will prevent him from erroneously citing Job as his favorite New Testament text, as Howard Dean did in 2004.

Liberals have a lot to learn about the God racket, however. The right is masterly at exploiting religion and religious (or quasi-religious) leaders for its own fun and profit. Just look at how a few phone calls from Karl Rove flimflammed Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family into serving as a useful idiot in support of the Harriet Miers nomination long after most other conservative leaders had bailed out.

THE more we learned about the scandals enveloping Tom DeLay and his favorite lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, this year, the more we learned of how Mr. Abramoff, the founder of a now defunct Washington yeshiva and two defunct kosher restaurants, manipulated a trinity of Billy Sundays to do his bidding: the Christian Coalition's former executive director, Ralph Reed, the Traditional Values Coalition's Rev. Louis Sheldon (dubbed "Lucky Louie" by Mr. Abramoff) and Dr. Dobson. Though all three are vocal opponents of gambling, they were each recruited for stealth campaigns for the lobbyist's casino and lottery clients. The campaigns were disguised as "anti-gambling" crusades (often because they were in opposition to casinos competing with Abramoff clients), and these pious gentlemen, Lucky Louie included, have denied any knowledge that they were trafficking in the wages of sin. If they're actually telling the truth, they are even bigger dupes than Mr. Abramoff took them for.

To those who fear the worst from a born-again president whose base is typified by these holy rollers and the Christmas demagogues of Fox News, a fundamentalist theocracy seems as imminent in America as it does in the "democracy" we've been building in Iraq. Only last week did Ted Haggard, an evangelical preacher much favored by the White House, fan those fears by insisting to a Jewish television interviewer, Barbara Walters, that anyone who worshiped a different God from Jesus Christ would "unfortunately" be consigned to hell.

But it's also possible that 2005 may turn out to be the year the God card was so wildly overplayed in politics and commerce alike that it began to lose its clout with Americans who are overdosing on the strict speech and belief codes of Christian political correctness. That the judge who ruled so decisively in Pennsylvania's revival of the Scopes trial is a Republican appointed by President Bush is almost enough to make the bah-humbug crowd believe in Santa Claus.

Frank Rich writes an Op-Ed column every Sunday in The New York Times.

Copyright © 2005 The New York Times Company


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Friday, December 23, 2005

53.4 Million People Need To Get A Life

Only 160K geezer bloggers? I tried to interest the Computer Club in Geezerville (where I live) in blogs and blogging, but my effort was stillborn. I encountered a geezerette today who didn't know how to copy/paste a Web address out of an e-mail message. I feel as I'm living in "the land time forgot." At least it's not Skull Island. If this is (fair & balanced) gerontology, so be it.

Older, Wiser Bloggers: Want a Place in the Blogosphere? Join the Club
By Patrick J. Kiger

Only 0.3 percent of the Internet's estimated 53.4 million bloggers are age 50 or older, according to a recent study by Perseus, a Web survey firm, but their ranks—160,000 or so—are growing.

Among the pioneers is Millie Garfield, 80, of Swampscott, Mass., who's been writing "My Mom's Blog" for the past three years. "One day, I saw an article in the Boston Globe about bloggers, and so I asked my son Steve, who's into computers, 'What the heck is this blogging thing?' " she says. "He said, 'Ma, you should start your own blog.' "

Using Web-based blogging software, she's able to share with the world her observations and musings—even her recipe for apple crisp. Garfield's recent topics have ranged from sightseeing at the Grand Canyon to reminiscences about "Mexican Hayride," a 1940s Cole Porter musical. She's become so hooked on blogging, in fact, that she seldom watches TV anymore.

Clarence Bowles, 65, of Erlanger, Ky., calls his Web journal "Can You Hear Me Now?" It allows him to share his thoughts on movies, fishing and the monthly meetings of his Good Ole Boys Club companions. "I like having my own soapbox to speak to the world on," he says.

Perhaps the dean of older bloggers is Ronni Bennett, 64, of New York. Her blog, "Time Goes By," may be the only one that focuses exclusively on aging-related issues. Bennett, a former managing editor of CBSNews.com, often writes as "Crabby Old Lady," opining on subjects such as the dearth of cosmetics for older faces.

"Ninety-eight percent of what is written about getting older is about disease, decline and disability," Bennett says. "I'm trying to be an advocate for older people by taking on the youth and beauty police."





Blogosphere 101: Older Bloggers List
By Patrick J. Kiger

My Mom's Blog "Thoroughly Modern Millie" Garfield, age 80, writes about everything from her travels to the Southwest to her recipe for baked apple crisp. She also includes humorous video clips, such as her recent discourse on packages that are too difficult for older fingers to open.

Clarence Bowles's Can You Hear Me Now? is the 65-year-old Kentucky man's soapbox for giving his views and observations on life, ranging from movies to fishing. "I like to write from my heart and write with as much emotion as I can," he says.

Texas Trifles is authored by Liz "Cowtown Pattie" May, who writes about her teenage experiments with Miracle Whip as a hair treatment, turkey buzzards, killer bees and other oft-amusing aspects of living in the Lone Star State.

Full Fathom Five written by English teacher and Maine resident Mary Lee Fowler, gives a snapshot of life in a "rural community of artists, craftsmen, farmers and gardeners, all united by our love of nature." Recent entries dealt with the experience of teaching English to Chinese immigrants and Fowler's adoption of a 10-month-old Grand Pyrenees-Husky puppy named Cody.

As Time Goes By (What it's really like to get older) may be the Internet's only blog devoted to aging issues. It's the work of former radio producer, TV scriptwriter and pioneering Web journalist Ronni Bennett, who writes in the guise of "Crabby Old Lady" about age discrimination and other subjects.

Frank Paynter's Sandhill Trek is about life on the farm, dealing with the inevitable loss of beloved pets, progressive politics, nature and other topics, rendered in sometimes lyrical prose.

The oddly-named Cop Car's Beat doesn't have anything to do with crime. Instead, it's the diary of an older woman blogger who writes about activities ranging from quilting to disaster relief work.

Silver Fox Whispers is written by a former elementary school teacher who now spends a lot of time traveling with her husband in their RV. She writes about childhood Halloween pranks in her native Minnesota and the difficulties of catching a pesky rat with a cruelty-free trap, among other topics.

The Joy of Six by Joy, a woman in her late fifties, often features her Ogden Nash-style poems about the pleasures and tribulations of everyday life.

Pure Land Mountain is written by Robert Brady, an American expatriate who has been living for the past three decades in Japan. Topics range from life in the rural countryside near Osaka to the joys of eating in Japanese noodle shops, to Brady's passionately dissenting view of U.S. foreign policy and politics.

AARP does not recommend or endorse any of these websites. AARP is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites. Please be advised that there are other similar websites available which were not reviewed and are not listed here.


Copyright © 2005, AARP. All rights reserved.


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Evolution Rules!

Even that Dumbo, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), is backtracking on the evolution front. Facing likely defeat in his reelection campaign, Santorum has denied his creationism cronies 3 times. The good people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are sick and tired of the creationist crowd. Dumbo Santorum senses the direction of the new winds in the Keystone State and he is trying to trim his sails. If only the good sense in Pennsylvania could take hold in Kansas and Texas and all of the other states where the Yahoos have renounced reason and science. That would be a start in making 2006 better than 2005. If this is (fair & balanced) delight, so be it.

[x HNN]
How the Anti-Evolution Debate Has Evolved
By Charles A. Israel

In this last month of the year, when many Americans’ thoughts are turning to holidays—and what to call them—we may miss another large story about the intersections of religion and public life. Last week a federal appeals court in Atlanta listened to oral arguments about a sticker pasted, and now removed, from suburban Cobb County, Georgia’s high school science textbooks warning that evolution is a “theory, not a fact.” The three-judge panel will take their time deciding the complex issues in the case. But on Tuesday, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled the Dover Area ( Penn.) School Board’s oral disclaimers about scientific evolution to be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The school district’s statement to students and parents directed them to an “alternative” theory, that of Intelligent Design (ID); the court ruled found “that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (Kitzmiller opinion, p. 31)” Apparently in a case about evolution, genealogical metaphors are unavoidable.

Seemingly every news story about the modern trials feels it necessary to refer to the 1925 Tennessee Monkey Trial, the clash of the larger-than-life legal and political personalities of William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow in the prosecution of high school teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of state law. As an historian who has written about evolution, education, and the era of the Scopes trial, I will admit the continuities between 1925 and today can seem striking. But, these continuities are deceiving. Though the modern court challenges still pit scientists supporting evolution against some parents, churches, and others opposing its unchallenged place in public school curriculum; the changes in the last eighty years seem even stronger evidence for a form of legal or cultural evolution.

First, the continuities. In the late 19th century religious commentators like the southern Methodist editor and professor Thomas O. Summers, Sr. loved to repeat a little ditty: “When doctors disagree,/ disciples then are free” to believe what they wanted about science and the natural world. Modern anti-evolutionists, most prominently under the sponsorship of Seattle’s Discovery Institute, urge school boards to “teach the controversy” about evolution, purposefully inflating disagreements among scientists about the particulars of evolutionary biology into specious claims that evolutionary biology is a house of cards ready to fall at any time. The court in the Dover case concluded that although there were some scientific disagreements about evolutionary theory, ID is “an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion” not science. In a second continuity, supporters of ID reach back, even before Darwin, to the 19th century theology of William Paley, who pointed to intricate structures like the human eye as proof of God’s design of humans and the world. Though many ID supporters are circumspect about the exact identity of the intelligent designer, it seems unlikely that the legions of conservative Christian supporters of ID are assuming that Martians, time-travelers, or extra-terrestrial meatballs could be behind the creation and complexity of their world.

While these issues suggest that the Scopes Trial is still relevant and would seem to offer support for the statement most often quoted to me by first year history students on why they should study history—because it repeats itself—this new act in the drama shows some remarkable changes. Arguing that a majority of parents in any given state, acting through legislatures, could outlaw evolution because it contradicted their religious beliefs, William Jennings Bryan campaigned successfully in Tennessee and several other states to ban the teaching of evolution and to strike it from state-adopted textbooks.

Legal challenges to the Tennessee law never made it to the federal courts, but the constitutional hurdles for anti-evolutionists grew higher in 1968, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epperson that an Arkansas law very similar to the Tennessee statute was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The law’s purpose, the court found, was expressly religious. So anti-evolution was forced to evolve, seeking a new form more likely to pass constitutional muster. Enter Creation Science, a movement that added scientific language to the book of Genesis, and demanded that schools provide “equal time” to both Creation Science and biological evolution. Creation Science is an important transitional fossil of the anti-evolution movement, demonstrating two adaptations: first, the adoption of scientific language sought to shield the religious purpose of the statute and second, the appeal to an American sense of fairness in teaching both sides of an apparent controversy. The Supreme Court in 1987 found this new evolution constitutionally unfit, overturning a Louisiana law.

Since the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision, the anti-evolution movement has attempted several new adaptations, all of which show direct ties to previous forms. The appeal to public opinion has grown: recent national opinion polls reveal that nearly two-thirds of Americans (and even higher numbers of Alabamians) support teaching both scientific evolution and creationism in public schools. School board elections and textbook adoption battles show the strength of these arguments in a democratic society. The new variants have been far more successful at clothing themselves in the language—but not the methods—of science. Whether by rewriting state school standards to teach criticisms of scientific evolution (as in Ohio or Kansas) or in written disclaimers to be placed in school textbooks (as in Alabama or Cobb County, Georgia) or in the now discredited oral disclaimers of the Dover Area School Board, the religious goal has been the same: by casting doubt on scientific evolution, they hope to open room to wedge religion back into public school curricula. But as the court in yesterday’s Dover case correctly concluded, Intelligent Design is “an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion” not science. Old arguments of a religious majority, though still potent in public debate, have again proven constitutionally unfit; Creationists and other anti-evolutionists will now have to evolve new arguments to survive constitutional tests.

Charles A. Israel is Associate Professor of History at Auburn University and author of Before Scopes: Evangelicals, Education, and Evolution in Tennessee, 1870–1925 (University of Georgia Press, 2004).

Copyright © 2005 The History News Network


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Sic Semper Tyrannis, Saddam?

Saddam has seized control of his own trial. The Bushies can't get anything right in Iraq. What are they going to do with Saddam? The wags (Don Imus and Howard Stern) both call for the reinstatement of Saddam as the only sumbitch on this green earth who can bring order to Iraq. As Imus said it: "Clean him up and tell him no more torturing or terrorizing Iraqis and no more threats against the neighbors." The rationale is that Saddam is the only sumbitch who made Iraq work. If this is (fair & balanced) realism, so be it.

[x Policy Review]
On the Disposal of Dictators
By Victorino Matus

In between his defiant court appearances, Saddam Hussein sits in a cell, probably eating a bag of Doritos. He also enjoys Cheetos and Raisin Bran Crunch, at least according to the Pennsylvania National Guardsmen once assigned to him and recently interviewed by Lisa DePaulo for GQ. And despite his being heavily guarded and under constant observation, he seems to have adjusted quite nicely to his new surroundings.

“All his drinks, from milk to water to orange juice, had to be room temperature,” writes DePaulo. “He wouldn’t eat beef but seemed to like fish and chicken. Salads were acceptable, but only if they came with Italian dressing,” which he used to marinate his olives. The guards say at times Saddam would be “singing and dancing a jig, clapping his hands, stomping his feet.”

He might as well enjoy it now, for as his trial resumes, Saddam will have to address more serious issues, such as the charge of crimes against humanity. To date, lawyers have formally charged Hussein with responsibility for just one massacre, in the Shiite village of Dujail, dating from 1982 and totaling 143 deaths. But as sources told the Washington Post’s Andy Mosher, “the limited scope of the Dujail massacre made it easier to investigate, producing a less complex case than other alleged crimes.” Whether he is found guilty of murdering a few hundred or tens of thousands, the penalty undoubtedly will be death.

“The Iraqis will definitely kill him,” says Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Middle Eastern specialist with the cia and currently a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. As for how, Gerecht points out that “hangings have been common practice in the more modern parts of the Middle East” while official beheadings have become a thing of the past.

But then what?

Should the Iraqi government cremate Saddam’s body, scattering his ashes to the four winds, his name never to be uttered again? Perhaps the tribunal could simply bury Saddam intact but in an unmarked grave, his precise whereabouts kept a state secret. Or his corpse could be returned to his family and given a proper burial, turning his plot into a shrine for thousands of sympathizers. Then again, he could be both hanged and decapitated, his torso tossed into a ditch while his head is stuck on a spike in public view for the next several years.

When it comes to dealing with an ex-dictator’s body (or that of a war criminal), at some point in time, men have done all of the above and more. But which methods have successfully closed dark chapters in history and which ones have led to public embarrassment or worse? It might be helpful to examine a few historical examples spanning the good, the bad, the ugly, and the just plain bizarre.

The Nazi inner circle

In the early hours of October 16, 1946, the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany, executed ten men for their roles in Hitler’s Third Reich. Convicted of crimes against humanity and crimes against peace, these former high-ranking members of the Nazi regime faced the sentence of death by hanging. As far as formal executions go, the Allies dispatched the ten quite efficiently, in under two hours. Whitney R. Harris, in his remarkable Tyranny on Trial (Southern Methodist Press, 1954), vividly describes the first convict on his way to the gallows, the “white-faced” foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop:

“At eleven minutes past one o-clock in the morning . . . [Ribbentrop] stepped through the door into the execution chamber and faced the gallows on which he and the others . . . were to be hanged. His hands were unmanacled and bound behind him with a leather thong. Ribbentrop walked to the foot of the thirteen stairs leading to the gallows platform. He was asked to state his name, and answered weakly, ‘Joachim von Ribbentrop.’ Flanked by two guards and followed by the chaplain, he slowly mounted the stairs. On the platform he saw the hangman with the noose of thirteen coils and the hangman’s assistant with the black hood. He stood on the trap, and his feet were bound with a webbed army belt.” His final words were, “God protect Germany, God have mercy on my soul. My last wish is that German unity be maintained, that understanding between East and West be realized and there be peace for the world.” (Ribbentrop would then dangle for almost twenty minutes before dying.)

And so it went for the other war criminals, each given a chance to say a last word. Hans Frank, the one-time governor-general of Poland who had once stated that “Poland shall be treated like a colony; the Poles will become the slaves of the Greater German World Empire” and had helped liquidate at least 3 million Jews, was rather muted in the end: “I am thankful for the kind treatment which I received during this incarceration and I pray God to receive me mercifully.” Julius Streicher, aka “Jew-baiter Number One,” yelled out a fierce “Heil Hitler!” and even told the hangman that “The Bolshevists will one day hang you.”

Afterwards, the bodies of the executed were photographed and, writes Anthony Read in The Devil’s Disciples (W.W. Norton, 2004), “wrapped in mattress covers, sealed in coffins, then driven off in army trucks . . . to a crematorium in Munich, which had been told to expect the bodies of fourteen American soldiers. The coffins were opened up for inspection . . . before being loaded into the cremation ovens. That same evening, a container holding all the ashes” — including those belonging to Field Marshal Hermann Göring, who had committed suicide a few hours earlier — “was driven away into the Bavarian countryside, in the rain. It stopped in a quiet lane about an hour later, and the ashes were poured into a muddy ditch.” (Read also reveals that following ss Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler’s suicide, a British sergeant-major “wrapped his corpse in camouflage netting, tied it with telephone cable, and dumped it in the back of a truck.” The body was subsequently taken to the nearby woods, buried in a hole, and covered up.)

In the late hours of May 31, 1962, former ss Lieutenant Colonel Adolf Eichmann was also hanged for crimes “against the Jewish people.” This time it occurred in Jerusalem, where he was delivered after having been kidnapped in Argentina. Prior to his execution, Eichmann consumed half a bottle of red wine and refused both a chaplain and a hood. As Hannah Arendt reported from Israel at the time: “He walked fifty yards from his cell to the execution chamber calm and erect, with his hands bound behind him. When the guards tied his ankles and knees, he asked them to loosen the bonds so that he could stand straight.” Just before his death, this former head of the Gestapo department for Jewish “emigration” declared: “After a short while, gentlemen, we shall all meet again. Such is the fate of all men. Long live Germany, long live Argentina, long live Austria. I shall not forget them.” Eichmann’s body was later cremated, his ashes strewn into the Mediterranean Sea.

The cremation of the bodies of the guilty and the dispersion of their ashes have left sympathizers of the Nazi cause with nothing tangible to memorialize, no gravesite to venerate. This is no minor detail, as we will see in the case of the Tokyo tribunal.

Tojo

On december 23, 1948, some two years after the executions of Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East put to death seven Japanese “Class a” war criminals, found guilty of acts such as crimes against peace, conventional war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The precise sentence was death by hanging.

Among the seven were General Matsui Iwane, held responsible for the Rape of Nanking, and former foreign minister Koki Hirota. But by far the most prominent was wartime prime minister Hideki Tojo, whom many believe was a scapegoat since the Allies had no intention of prosecuting the emperor. (During the trial, Tojo insisted he could not take any action without Hirohito’s consent — a position he would reverse a few days later.)

Like Göring and Himmler, Tojo concluded that suicide was the optimal solution. But his attempt failed disastrously — he managed to survive shooting himself four times in the chest. And though he would later hail the “strength of American democracy” and be grateful to the soldier who donated blood to him, many of Tojo’s supporters were left embittered. “When he belatedly summoned the will to die,” writes John W. Dower in his Pulitzer Prize-winning Embracing Defeat (W.W..Norton, 1999), “[and] chose the foreigner’s way of the bullet rather than the samurai’s way of the sword, and then botched even this, it was more than aggrieved patriots could bear.”

When his time came, notes Dower, the former prime minister “asked the Americans not to let Japan turn Red, and concluded his parting testament by apologizing for ‘mistakes’ the military may have made but also asking the United States to reflect on the atomic bombs and their bombing campaign against civilians.” Like his fellow condemned prisoners, Tojo went to the gallows wearing “salvage work clothing” bearing no insignia — the only head of state executed for war crimes. His remains were then cremated but not dispersed. (Exactly where his ashes were kept for the next 30 years remains unclear.)

All told, more than 900 Japanese prisoners (as well as a few Koreans) were executed in Allied tribunals throughout the Far East. Many of their ashes are now interred in the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. And among them, along with the almost 2.5 million other souls of the war-dead said to have taken residence there since the Meiji Restoration, can be found the actual ashes of “Class a” war criminals (14 in total), including Tojo, whose urn was secretly placed there in 1978 and only publicly disclosed the following year.

In 1985, Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone made the first official state visit to the Yasukuni Shrine. The current head of state, Junichiro Koizumi, has made annual pilgrimages there since 2001, much to the distress of China and South Korea. Meanwhile, as mentioned in an August Washington Post story by Ayako Doi and Kim Willenson, one member of the Diet, Masahiro Morioka, recently described the Tokyo tribunal as a “show trial” based on such “arbitrarily made up . . . notions as crimes against peace and humanity.” Some of his colleagues, the authors note, “praised Morioka for giving voice to their feelings, at last.”

Despite some parliamentary debate, there are currently no plans for removing the remains of the “Class a” war criminals from the Yasukuni Shrine.

The Ceausescus

Not that cremation and dispersion is the only solution. Saddam’s remains could simply be buried in an unmarked grave — assuming either that the exact location can be kept secret or that, if located, no one would care to do anything about it. Such is the case with Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu.

For 24 years, the Ceausescus reigned supreme over Romania. As prime minister and deputy prime minister respectively, the couple created a powerful cult of personality: Everywhere you turned there were portraits of them (often air-brushed). State television constantly showed Ceausescu giving speeches, which, incidentally, were also available in books and recordings. Newspapers praised him for his genius.

And Nicolae Ceausescu had friends abroad as well. From the very moment of taking power in 1965, he had distanced himself from the Soviets — not participating in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and even condemning the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Presidents Nixon and Ford paid him visits, and he and his wife were welcomed to the Carter White House. But when Ceausescu decided to employ drastic measures in order to slash his multibillion-dollar national debt — meaning brownouts, gas rations, cutting off heat in the winter, and severe food shortages — the public tide turned against him.

As the Iron Curtain came down throughout most of Eastern Europe in the fall of 1989, Romanians were emboldened to demonstrate and demand reform. This culminated in a mass protest on behalf of a popular Lutheran minister on December 15 in the western city of Timisoara. Two days later, Ceausescu’s personal Securitate force and other units opened fire into the crowds, turning the rally into a bloodbath. The killings were by explicit order of the prime minister.

When demonstrators in Bucharest came out against Ceausescu on December 21 (after he foolishly called for the rally, unaware of any strong sentiment against him), he and his wife decided to escape from party headquarters in a helicopter. One of the indignities, it was later reported, was that for lack of space, the mechanic had to sit on Ceausescu’s lap.

The farce lasted just a day, and by Christmas, the prime minister and his deputy were standing before a military tribunal, facing charges of genocide. The trial lasted two hours and resulted in guilty verdicts and immediate sentences of death by firing squad.

“It was not enough to remove Mr. Ceausescu from office,” wrote Celestine Bohlen and Clyde Haberman in the New York Times some 15 years ago. “He had to be exorcised from Romanian life, his body displayed before the people in an electronic-age version of a public execution, his sins put before Romanians so they could see for themselves the awfulness of it all.”

It certainly wasn’t pretty. According to a video of the execution first aired on French television, Mrs. Ceausescu pleaded not to be tied up, saying, “You are bruising my hands. This is shameful. . . . I raised you like a mother.” Her husband remained silent but in tears. According to the Associated Press report at the time, “Soldiers placed the couple, who were not blindfolded, against a brick wall and others rapidly opened fire, emptying their magazines. The Ceausescus crumpled under the bullets. . . .” It has been estimated that some 120 shots were fired at them.

Afterwards, the bodies were wrapped in canvas and taken to an abandoned sports arena. Several days later, their remains were placed in coffins and buried in unmarked graves somewhere in Bucharest. In May of 1990, Western journalists were taken by gravediggers to the supposed final resting place of the Ceausescus, described by the ap as “two plots overgrown with weeds,” both bearing wooden crosses with different names. But even today Romanian officials cannot confirm where the two are buried, though one officer at the Romanian embassy in Washington did say that someone has indeed scrawled the names of the Ceausescus on two crosses next to each other in a graveyard in Bucharest.

Because the hatred of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu was so widespread, no shrine has sprouted among the weeds in that Bucharest cemetery. Nor does anyone seem to have stolen their bodies, as was the unfortunate case of the corpse of Benito Mussolini.

Il Duce

As public executions of ex-dictators go, Mussolini’s is probably the most memorable in recent history. Who hasn’t seen the photos of his bloated and beaten body strung upside down in front of a Milan gas station? And yet the Italian leader had been dead for a day when bystanders at Piazzale Loreto decided to hang his corpse alongside those of his mistress Clara Petacci and two other Fascists for all to see. Mussolini’s actual execution, in fact, is an event that continues to be shrouded in mystery.

Like Tojo, Mussolini managed to embarrass himself in his final moments. Rather than make a last stand against his enemies, the ex-dictator attempted to flee, dressed in a German greatcoat and helmet. Partisans arrested him in Dongo on April 27, 1945, and shot him the next day. Sergio Luzzatto, a history professor at the University of Turin, points out in The Body of Il Duce (Metropolitan Books, 2005) that despite numerous conspiracy theories, the facts are basic and unchanged 60 years later: “Il Duce and his mistress were shot in front of the gates of Villa Belmonte at Giulino on the afternoon of April 28, 1945, by a squad of Communist partisans.”

But did he resist? What were the dictator’s last words, if any? Communist newspapers at the time, Luzzatto notes, described Mussolini as “behav[ing], in the final days and minutes of his life, like a dust mop of a man,” adding that he “died like a dog.” Walter Audisio, the partisan ringleader presiding over Il Duce’s execution, claimed the ex-dictator was silent before he died. But an account by Audisio’s comrade, Aldo Lampredi, “written in 1972 exclusively for the Communist Party leadership and only published in 1996,” according to Luzzatto, tells us otherwise: “Il Duce actually rose to the occasion as he faced the firing squad: widening his eyes, tugging open the collar of his coat, he shouted, ‘Aim for the heart!’”

That the corpses of Mussolini, his mistress, and the Fascists were dumped at the Piazzale Loreto in the early hours of April 29, 1945, was not mere happenstance. One year earlier, the bodies of 15 executed partisans had been piled on top of each other in that very same square in retribution for an attack. Now was the time for payback.

All of the Fascists were assaulted, but locals devoted extra energy to the corpses of Il Duce and Clara Petacci, spitting on them and even supposedly urinating on them. When “with a certain mercy,” writes Richard Bosworth in his biography, Mussolini (Arnold Publishers, 2002), the ex-dictator was lifted up, his body “was covered with detritus. Brain matter seeped out from wounds which were especially deep on the right side of Mussolini’s head.” As for his mistress, someone “had tied up her skirt so that, as she swung upside down, she did not expose too much of her charms to the raucous and unforgiving public.”

Mussolini’s body was later taken to the University of Milan for an autopsy. Luzzatto details the findings: “head misshapen because of destruction of the cranium . . . eyeball lacerated, crushed due to escape of vitreous matter; upper jaw fractured with multiple lacerations of the palate; cerebellum, pons, midbrain, and part of the occipital lobes crushed; massive fracture at the base of the cranium with bone slivers forced into the sinus cavities.” American doctors then removed slivers of his brain for further analysis (some suspected Il Duce suffered from madness brought on by syphilis). For the next 20 years, these brain slivers were kept at St. Elizabeth’s hospital in Washington, D.C. They were returned to the Mussolini family in March 1966. (It turns out he did not suffer from syphilis.)

The rest of Il Duce’s body was taken to a cemetery outside Milan and quickly buried in an unmarked grave — though word would quickly spread of his whereabouts. On April 23, 1946 — early Easter Sunday — a young neo-Fascist named Domenico Leccisi and two others dug up the dictator’s remains, wrapped it in canvas, and threw it onto a cart, vanishing into the night. Apparently there were a few bumps along the way, and authorities would later discover “pieces” of Mussolini nearby, including part of a finger.

For more than three months, Mussolini’s corpse was crammed inside a steamer trunk, hidden in a village, taken to the mountains, and kept inside a monastery. After police apprehended Leccisi and agreed to certain clerical demands for a Christian burial, the body was placed in the chapel of the Cerro Maggiore convent outside Milan. Between 1946 and 1957, his whereabouts remained a state secret — not even Mussolini’s family knew where he was. As Sergio Luzzatto relates, “By declining to return the body to the Mussolini family, the Italian government wanted to prevent Il Duce’s grave from becoming, for better or worse, a shrine.” He continues, “The authorities did not want the cemetery at Predappio, Mussolini’s birthplace, to turn into a pilgrimage destination for neo-Fascists, nor did they want any of the vandalism inflicted on the Musocco cemetery [site of the original grave] while the body was buried there.”

Nevertheless, prior to national elections in 1958, Italy’s Christian Democrats acceded to the right-wing Italian Social Movement’s demand that Mussolini be returned to the family plot in Predappio (in exchange for much-needed support) and, on August 31, 1957, the body of Il Duce was permanently laid to rest. Soon, thousands of neo-Fascists were making the pilgrimage to Predappio — and dozens were arrested, either for wearing the banned black shirt or for making the illegal Fascist salute. These sympathizers were soon greeted by veterans of the resistance, who pelted their buses with stones. By 1960, the fighting between the two sides had escalated enough to help bring down the Christian Democratic and neo-Fascist coalition. “The anti-Fascist demonstrations were so significant,” writes Luzzatto, “that never again would the Christian Democrats govern with neo-Fascist backing, preferring to seek partners on the left.”

Things are much more peaceful today, and visitors still come to see the Mussolini plot in Predappio. There’s even a guest book if one is so inclined.

Posthumous punishment

As outlandish as it might seem, there is something of a tradition of punishing dictators posthumously. In Mussolini’s case, this occurred a day after his execution. But in the case of Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England, it actually happened more than two years after his natural death. On January 30, 1661, a year into the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, parliament ordered the posthumous execution of the persons responsible for the regicide of the previous Stuart monarch, Charles i. So, along with those of Henry Ireton and John Bradshaw, Oliver Cromwell’s remains were taken from his vault in Henry vii’s chapel and hanged and decapitated. His body was then thrown into an unmarked pit while his head sat on a pike above Westminster Hall for several years. According to the Cromwell Association, it wasn’t until March of 1960 that the head, “a rather undignified collector’s item” over the centuries, found its permanent resting place, “immured in the ante-chapel of Sidney Sussex, Cambridge,” where Cromwell had been an undergraduate.

Deaths of enemies of the state are often subject to heavy symbolism. A month after the executions of the Ceausescus, one of the prosecutors told a Romanian magazine that the couple had actually run amok in the courtyard before being gunned down, exposing their lack of courage. (This was contradicted later by the actual video footage.) As mentioned above, the last words of Il Duce, “Aim for the heart!” were kept secret for years. News reports instead emphasized the humiliating circumstances of Mussolini’s arrest. Sergio Luzzatto notes the powerful imagery of the ex-dictator “with his lover in one hand and gold from the central bank in the other,” adding that many Italians “saw this last act as evidence of Mussolini’s cowardice, thievery, and infidelity to his wife.” Even Oliver Cromwell wasn’t spared: When the embalming of his corpse was botched, critics interpreted this as a sign of his inner “corruption and filth.” Some went so far as to say the corpse “burst all in pieces.”

And so it will be with Saddam (though it is doubtful he will burst into pieces). What will be his last words, if any? How will he behave in those final minutes? (No matter how he dies, Saddam should consider himself fortunate not to suffer the same fate as one of his opponents — supposedly fed alive to wild dogs.) What is to be done to his body thereafter?

Ideally, says Richard B. Frank, author of Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (Random House, 1999), “the best course of action is execution followed by cremation and a scattering of the physical remains. This does not completely solve the problem of creating a shrine since a shrine can be abstract and need not actually hold remains. But overall I believe the absence of actual remains tends to diminish quite significantly the symbolic power of the shrine.”

Indeed, the Nuremberg model has the most appeal — Baathist sympathizers would be left with nothing physical to venerate. But keeping in mind the objection to cremation in Muslim society, the Iraqi special tribunal will have to ponder an alternative.

“They will follow standard Muslim practice, burying it in the ground,” says Reuel Marc Gerecht. After his death by firing squad or hanging, Saddam’s remains will probably be returned to his family, as is the custom. At the same time, Gerecht adds, “I don’t imagine the government will allow a headstone or a memorial, as is customary with many Sunni Arabs in Iraq.”

Perhaps Saddam will be buried next to his sons, Uday and Qusay, in the Tikrit family plot, which one newspaper has described as “untended mounds of earth.” Considering all of the other untended mounds of earth that concealed mass graves throughout the country, this might be just the right thing to do.

Victorino Matus is an assistant managing editor at the Weekly Standard.

Copyright © 2005 The Hoover Institution


Really Simple SyndicationGet an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader.