An Immodest Proposal

My late father—son of a Russian immigrant—loved to tell of my grandfather's citizenship test. Evidently, my father was able to sit in the room where my grandfather was being tested. Since my grandfather could not write English, I assume that he was given an oral test. I think the questions were known in advance. My father worked out a signal system (coughs, sneezes, and sighs) so that my grandfather answered the questions and became a citizen of the United States of America. What did my grandfather accomplish? Very little, but his son (my father) enlisted in the U. S. Navy after Pearl Harbor and served in the South Pacific. My father was a patriot (as was his father). I wonder what might happen if the POTUS were required to take the new citizenship test? Pass/Fail with 100% accuracy? If the POTUS failed, he would be required to leave office and take up residence in the Green Zone with guards from Blckwater USA. If this is a (fair & balanced) proposal, so be it.

[NYTimes aka Fishwrap]
New Test Asks: What Does ‘American’ Mean?
By Julia Preston

Patrick Henry and Francis Scott Key are out, but Susan B. Anthony and Nancy Pelosi are in. The White House was cut, but New York and Sept. 11 made the list.

Federal immigration authorities yesterday unveiled 100 new questions immigrants will have to study to pass a civics test to become naturalized American citizens.

The redesign of the test, the first since it was created in 1986 as a standardized examination, follows years of criticism in which conservatives said the test was too easy and immigrant advocates said it was too hard.

The new questions did little to quell that debate among many immigrant groups, who complained that the citizenship test would become even more daunting. Conservatives seemed to be more satisfied.

Bush administration officials said the new test was part of their effort to move forward on the hotly disputed issue of immigration by focusing on the assimilation of legal immigrants who have played by the rules, leaving aside the situation of some 12 million illegal immigrants here.

Several historians said the new questions successfully incorporated more ideas about the workings of American democracy and better touched upon the diversity of the groups — including women, American Indians and African-Americans — who have influenced the country’s history.

Would-be citizens no longer have to know who said, “Give me liberty or give me death,” or who wrote “The Star-Spangled Banner.” But they do have to know what Susan B. Anthony did and who the speaker of the House of Representatives is.

Alfonso Aguilar, a senior official at Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that designs and administers the test, said it was not intended to be punitive.

“We don’t seek to fail anyone,” said Mr. Aguilar, an architect of the test.

Immigration officials said they sought to move away from civics trivia to emphasize basic concepts about the structure of government and American history and geography. In contrast to the old test, which some immigrants could pass without any study, the officials said the new one is intended to force even highly educated applicants to do reviewing.

“This test genuinely talks about what makes an American citizen,” said Emilio Gonzalez, the director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, speaking at a news conference in Washington.

The $6.5 million redesign was shaped over six years of discussions with historians, immigrant organizations and liberal and conservative research groups. The questions were submitted to four months of pilot testing this year with more than 6,000 immigrants who were applying for naturalization.

The agency will begin to use the revised test on Oct. 1, 2008, leaving a year for aspiring citizens to prepare and for community groups to adjust their study classes.

The overall format has not changed. Legal immigrants who are eligible to become citizens must pass the civics exam as well as a test of English proficiency in reading and writing. In a one-on-one oral examination, an immigration officer asks the applicant 10 questions of varying degrees of difficulty selected from the list of 100. To pass, the applicant must answer 6 of those 10 questions correctly. The questions released yesterday will remain public along with their answers.

Immigrants are eligible to become citizens if they have been legal permanent residents for at least five years (or three years if they are married to a citizen) and have “good moral character” and no criminal record.

In the pilot runs of the revised test, Mr. Aguilar said, the pass rates improved over the current tests, with 92 percent of participants passing on the first try, as opposed to 84 percent now. At least 15 questions were eliminated as a result of the pilot because they proved too difficult. For example, a question about the minimum wage was dropped because test takers were confused between federal and state rates, Mr. Aguilar said.

In the new test, the pilgrims have been replaced by “colonists,” and they are the subject of fewer questions, while slavery and the civil rights movement are the subject of more. A question was added asking what “major event” happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

The new test drops questions about the 49th and 50th states, but adds one about the political affiliation of the president. There are no questions about the White House. Instead, one question asks where the Statue of Liberty is.

In a statement today, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, one of the groups consulted in shaping the new test, denounced it as “the final brick in the second wall.” The group said the test included “more abstract and irrelevant questions” that tended to stump hard-working immigrants who had little time to study.

But several historians said the test appeared to be fair.

“People who take this seriously will have a good chance of passing,” said Gary Gerstle, a professor of American history at Vanderbilt University. “Indeed, their knowledge of American history may even exceed the knowledge of millions of American-born citizens.”

John Fonte, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, called the new test “a definite improvement.” But he said it should have included questions about the meaning of the oath of allegiance that new citizens swear. “I would like to see an even more vigorous emphasis on Americanization,” he said.

About 55 percent of the applicants who participated in the pilot test were from Latin American countries. Some Latino groups noted yesterday that no question on the new test refers to Latinos.

Mr. Aguilar said that the test was not intended to be a comprehensive review, but rather to include “landmark moments of American history that apply to every single citizen.”

Naturalizations have surged in recent years, to 702,589 last year from 537,151 in 2004, according to official figures. In July the fees to become a citizen increased sharply, to $675 from $405.

Julia Preston is a national correspondent for The New York Times.

Copyright © 2007 The New York Times Company

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Another One Of "Them Damn Pitchers"

Thomas Nast was the editorial cartoonist of the NYTimes during the heyday of Thomas Marcy Tweed aka Boss Tweed. Tweed was the epitome of public corruption (bribes, kickbacks, and embezzlement). Nast savaged Tweed and his NYC cronies regularly on the editorial page of the daily. Tweed said, "I don't care what they write about me; it's them damn pitchers." Ben Sargent is a worthy descendant of Thomas Nast. Yesterday's pitcher skewered the Iranian wacko on his way out of the country. If this is (fair & balanced) visual savagery, so be it.

Ben Sargent (born 1948) is an American editorial cartoonist. Since 1974, he has been drawing editorial cartoons for the Austin American-Statesman. His cartoons are also distributed nationally by Universal Press Syndicate.

He was born in Amarillo, Texas, into a newspaper family. He learned the printing trade from age twelve and started working for the local daily as a proof runner at fourteen. He attended Amarillo College and received a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Texas at Austin in 1970.

Sargent won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning in 1982. He has also received awards from Women in Communications, Inc., Common Cause of Texas, and Cox Newspapers.

He is the author of Texas Statehouse Blues (1980) and Big Brother Blues (1984).

Sargent is married to Diane Holloway, television critic for the Austin American-Statesman, and he has two children, Elizabeth and Sam.

In a profile published in the January 2005 issue of The Good Life magazine, Sargent stated, "As a newspaper journalist, you're professionally obligated to be fair, accurate, complete and balanced. But there are two pages in the back of the paper where we're obligated to be fair, accurate and complete—but we don't have to be 'balanced.' I'm not a pollster. To me, you're obligated as an opinion journalist to express your views no matter what the politics of the day. If you don't, then people will say, 'Why should I read what this guy's saying? He doesn't even know where he stands?' That makes your position as an opinion journalist kind of useless."

Copyright © 2007 The Austin American-Statesman

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The Outrage O'The Day

Colin Powell's invocation of the Pottery Barn Rule in the ramp up to our Iraqui adventure comes to mind in this latest revelation of the disastrous consequences of our "nation building." We have broken Iraq and we now own it. In this AM's local fishwrap, there was a picture of an Iraqi man covering the corpse of his three-year-old nephew. The tyke was the victim of a death squad. To quote Don Imus, this war was fomented by "war criminals." In the meantime, nothing stops the madness of sectarian violence, jihadist violence, and mercenary violence. If this is (fair & balanced) despair, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Refugees? What Refugees?
By Roger Cohen

Malmo, Sweden

A 16-day overland odyssey has brought Mokaled Gamil, a former Iraqi Army officer, to this southern Swedish town, and what he fears now more than anything is resettlement north of the Arctic Circle in some snow-bound place that will ice over his Mesopotamian blood.

“Please, not far north,” he says in passable English, addressing Oskar Ekblad, an official from the Swedish Migration Board. “Too cold.”

Even by the fantastic standards of the Iraq war, the scene is bizarre: Gamil, a 45-year-old ex-colonel from an ex-army, stands outside a hostel full of stained mattresses and stunned Iraqis begging a decent Swede not to be dispatched to some remote reindeer-rich refuge.

“Iraqis are destined to begin their lives again at 45,” Gamil, a Sunni who has fled Baghdad’s Shiite militia, says with a gloomy matter-of-factness worthy of Strindberg.

Many are restarting in Sweden. Between January and August this year, Sweden took in 12,259 Iraqis fleeing their decomposing country. It expects 20,000 for all of 2007. By contrast, in the same January-August period, the United States admitted 685 refugees, according to State Department figures.

The numbers bear closer scrutiny. In January, Sweden admitted 1,500 Iraqis, compared to 15 that entered the United States. In April, the respective numbers were 1,421 and 1; in May, 1,367 and 1; and in August 1,469 and 529.

True, the Iraqis in Sweden are asylum-seekers, whereas those reaching these shores have refugee status conferred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. But the numbers — representing the bulk of the Iraqis getting into a country of nine million and another of 300 million — are no less of an indictment for that.

When Tobias Billstrom, the migration minister, says, “Yes, of course the United States should do more,” you can feel his indignation about to erupt like milk boiling over. He notes that given the huge population difference, Sweden’s intake of Iraqis “is the equivalent of the U.S. taking in about 500,000 refugees.”

Of all the Iraq war scandals, America’s failure to do more for refugees, including thousands who put their lives at risk for the U.S., stands out for its moral bankruptcy. Last time I checked, Sweden did not invade Iraq. Its generosity shames President Bush’s fear-infused nation.

I know, the U.S. is showering aid (more than $122 million in 2007) on Iraq’s neighbors to help more than two million fleeing Iraqis. It set up a refugee task force in February and, when that faltered, appointed two refugee czars this month.

“We want people engaged in this 24/7, breaking down barriers and expeditiously helping the refugees,” Paula Dobriansky, the under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs, told me. “We have a moral obligation, and especially to those who have worked at our embassy.”

A commitment has been made to process 7,000 refugees in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. Visas for 500 Iraqis a year who worked for the U.S. have been promised. But these are velleities. Concern has been unmatched by results. Bush has never addressed the issue, an example of his Green Zone politics: shut out ugly reality and with luck it will vanish.

An aggressive American intake of refugees would suggest that their quick return to Iraq is improbable: that smacks too much of failure for Bush. Moreover, you have to scrutinize refugees from countries “infiltrated by large numbers of terrorists,” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff opined recently.

The result has been “major bottlenecks,” in the words of a leaked cable from the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. Instead of the 7,000 Iraqi refugees supposed to get here this fiscal year, perhaps 1,600 will.

“The numbers are totally embarrassing,” says Kirk Johnson, who worked for the United States Agency for International Development in Iraq. “We can’t recognize a moral imperative any more.”

Imperative is right. People who risked their lives for America are dying or being terrorized because of craven U.S. lethargy. Others are in limbo. Bush now says “Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas.” That’s too glib; one may be waiting to be saved.

The I-told-you-so phase of the Iraq invasion is thankfully ending. What is needed now is consensus on American responsibility. That starts with a more open door to Iraqis in flight. Mr. President, say something.

Gamil lost his job when the army was disbanded. He worked sporadically as a translator. But when threats came — as a Sunni ex-officer he was an obvious target to Shiite militias — “I had to save my life and my wife’s.”

Sweden will give him a lawyer to argue his asylum case. Ekblad says the “overwhelming majority” are approved. Refugees then get a permanent resident permit leading to possible citizenship in five years. “Our costs are huge, and we’d like to see more burden-sharing,” he says.

Burden sharing! How about guts? Swedes are polite to a fault.

Roger Cohen, who became the The International Herald Tribune's first editor-at-large in 2006, began writing an Op-Ed column for the paper in May 2007. He had started his Globalist column on the IHT news pages in January 2004. At the same time, he became The New York Times's International Writer-at-Large. Mr. Cohen had been foreign editor for The New York Times since March 2002. He became deputy foreign editor in August 2001 and acting foreign editor on September 11, 2001.

Previously, Mr. Cohen had been bureau chief of the newspaper's Berlin bureau since September 1998. He was a correspondent in its Paris bureau from June 1995 until August 1998, The Times's Balkan bureau chief based in Zagreb from April 1994 until June 1995, and the newspaper's European economic correspondent based in Paris from January 1992 to April 1994. Before that, he was a media reporter, the position he took on joining The Times in January 1990.

Prior to joining The Times, Mr. Cohen was a foreign correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. In 1983, he opened the Wall Street Journal/Europe office in Rome as chief correspondent, covering Italy and the East Mediterranean, and reporting from Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Lebanon. In 1987, he opened the Journal's office in Rio de Janeiro as chief correspondent/South America, covering Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, Peru and Venezuela.

From 1979 until 1983, Mr. Cohen was a foreign correspondent for Reuters. During that time he was based in London, Brussels and then Rome, reporting on the European Community, NATO, Belgium, Italy and the Vatican.

From 1977 until 1979, Mr. Cohen was a freelance journalist based in Paris. He is co-founder of Speakeasy, a newspaper for students learning English, launched in 1978 by Fernand Nathan, the French publisher.

Mr. Cohen has written "Hearts Grown Brutal: Sagas of Sarajevo," an account of the wars of Yugoslavia's destruction published by Random House (1998), and co-written a biography of General Norman Schwarzkopf, "In the Eye of the Storm," published by Farrar Straus & Giroux (1991). His third book, "Soldiers and Slaves: American POWs Trapped by the Nazis' Final Gamble" was published in April, 2005, by Alfred A. Knopf.

In 2001, Mr. Cohen won the Peter Weitz Prize from the German Marshall Fund for dispatches from Europe, an Overseas Press Club citation for a series on immigration, and the Arthur F. Burns Prize from the Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany for commentary on German-American relations. He has been awarded the Joe Alex Morris lectureship for distinguished foreign correspondence by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, and served as Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University. In 1999, Mr. Cohen was awarded the Overseas Press Club Citation for Excellence in the books category for "Hearts Grown Brutal: Sagas of Sarajevo," and in 1995 he won the Overseas Press Club of America Burger Human Rights Award for his investigation of torture and murder at a Serb-run Bosnian concentration camp. He received the Overseas Press Club of America Citation of Excellence for coverage of Third World Debt in 1987, and the Inter-American Press Association "Tom Wallace" Award for feature writing in 1989.

Born in London, England, on August 2, 1955, Mr. Cohen received an M.A. degree in History and French from Oxford University in 1977.

Copyright © 2007 The New York Times Company

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

It Was Fun While It Lasted?

The Cobra—as dubbed by the National Nicknamer aka The POTUS—offers a contrarian (and sensible) view of the recent reception the Iranian wacko received at Columbia University. However, that said, I wonder if The Cobra would insist that another Holocaust charlatan like David Duke be treated with kid gloves? The Cobra even gets in her own disrespectful shot by referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the "doofus frontman" of the mullahs who currently rule Iran. Today's Iranian theocracy is the product of our installation of the Shah in the mid-fifties and the doofus frontman for the mullahs is another product of "nation-building" in the Eisenhower era. As Malcolm X said, in a different context, "the chickens come home to roost." So, where does that leave us? A better place for telling truth to power when Lee Bollinger confronted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: no pretense that the "doofus" was a legitimate leader. If Lee Bollinger lived in Nicholas Murray Bulter's time and Columbia invited Adolf Hitler to speak on campus in 1933, I would applaud an introduction on the order of the "greeting" that Ahmadinejad received. A doofus in 1933 is no different than a doofus in 2007. A Viennese paperhanger is no different than an Iranian traffic manager. If this is (fair & balanced) symmetry, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
‘Fruitbat’ at Bat
By Maureen Dowd
We just can’t stop being nice to Iran.

First, we break Iraq and hand it over to the Shiites, putting in a puppet who leans toward Iran and is aligned with the Shiite militias bankrolled by Iran. Then, as Peter Galbraith writes in The New York Review of Books, President Bush facilitates “the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia,” with the ironic twist that “there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in Southern Iraq.”

And on top of all that, we help build up the self-serving doofus Iranian president, a frontman with a Ph.D. in traffic management, into the sort of larger-than-life demon that the real powers in Iran — the mullahs — can love.

New York’s hot blast of nastiness, jingoism and xenophobia toward its guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, only served to pump him up for his domestic audience. Iranians felt that their president had tied everyone in knots, including the “Zionist Jews,” as Iranian state television said. The Times reports that Mohsen Rezai, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards, was on TV criticizing the rude treatment his president received: “It is shocking that a country that claims to be civilized treats him that way.”

(It also raised his profile on the evening news here. Katie Couric dryly has told people that she remembers how to pronounce his name with the mnemonic “I’m a dinner jacket.”)

After the Bay of Pigs, J.F.K. and his advisers worried that American foreign policy would no longer seem intelligent. W. doesn’t even try for an intelligent foreign policy. He wallows in a willfully ignorant foreign policy. And this week, his irrational ways were contagious.

The Daily News headline, “The Evil Has Landed,” was one of the milder imprecations. Consider this reasoned analysis from Greg Gutfeld of Fox News: “So the foul-smelling fruitbat Ahmadinejad spoke at that crack house known as Columbia University today.”

The heavy-handed, small-minded reaction that played into the hands of the slippery “I’m a dinner jacket” is not excused by Iran wishing the U.S. and Israel gone.

The Soviet Union’s stated policy for 70 years was the total eradication of American capitalism and democracy — backed up during the cold war with actual nuclear weapons. But while challenging the policies and ideology of the Evil Empire, Ronald Reagan understood he had to engage Mikhail Gorbachev, not ignore or insult him.

Reagan was able to help the Soviet Union — and world communism — to fall apart. All W. has managed to do is destroy the country he wanted to turn into a democracy and make Iran more powerful than it was before.

In a sad testimony to how bollixed up things are in Iraq, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki told the Council on Foreign Relations Monday that civil war has been averted in Iraq — not! — and that Iranian intervention has “ceased to exist.” Gen. David Petraeus recently said that Iran was providing “lethal” support to Iraqi militias.

The president’s irrelevant U.N. speech was a bad combo with the schoolyard name-calling of Lee Bollinger. Even some in the anti-Ahmadinejad audience gasped a bit as Columbia’s president gave the meanest introduction in the history of introductions — one that only managed to elevate the creep sitting on stage with his thugs. Once you’ve made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can’t undo it by belittling him in public. Universities are supposed to be places where you can debate and hear dissenting voices; it would have been far better just to hand the mike to the students and let it rip.

Given the repressive and confused stance of some of our Middle East allies on women and gays, isn’t it insane to get into a war of ideas on homosexuality in the Muslim world?

President Bush is the one who hardened the Iranian resolve to get a nuclear weapon with his policy of negotiating with countries like North Korea that have nukes and invading countries that don’t, like Iraq.

W. and his advisers always act shocked that Iran is meddling in Iraq. Why wouldn’t Iran inflate itself at the expense of its former foe and current enemy?

Even after the Iranian hostage crisis, America never really tried to comprehend the tribal politics in Iran — or Iraq — or bolster the Arab speakers in the intelligence community.

As Mr. Galbraith wrote, Iran’s nuclear program is about prestige. Iranians want to be seen “as a populous, powerful, and responsible country that is heir to a great empire and home to a 2,500-year-old civilization. In Iranian eyes, the U.S. has behaved in a way that continually diminishes their country” — from U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup that reinstated the Shah to W.’s branding them as part of the “axis of evil.”

Wouldn’t sticks and carrots — cultural fluency, smart psychology and Reaganesque dialogue — be a better way to bring the Iranians around than sticks and stones?

Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a columnist on The New York Times Op-Ed page in 1995.

Copyright © 2007 The New York Times Company

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Move Over, Nick! Lee Speaks Truth To Power

Nicholas Murray Butler served as Columbia's president for more than four decades (1902–1945). He not only made Columbia into the major research institution it is today but also won the Nobel Prize for Peace (for his promotion of the Briand Kellogg Pact renunciating war as a tool of foreign policy), ran for the Republican nomination for U.S . President, and served as president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1925-1945). Referring to his vast accumulation of honorary degrees and medals, one newspaper described him as "the most lavishly decorated member of the human race." Lee Bollinger had a Butler moment yesterday as he indicted the wacko president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If this is (fair & balanced) invective, so be it.

[x Columbia News]
President Lee C. Bollinger's Introductory Remarks at SIPA-World Leaders Forum with President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

September 24, 2007

I would like to begin by thanking Dean John Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet for their work in organizing this event and for their commitment to the role of the School of International and Public Affairs and its role in training future leaders in world affairs. If today proves anything it will be that there is an enormous amount of work ahead for all of us. This is just one of many events on Iran that will run throughout this academic year, all to help us better understand this critical and complex nation in today’s geopolitics.

Before speaking directly to the current President of Iran, I have a few critically important points to emphasize.

First, since 2003, the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia’s longstanding tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas, or the weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naiveté about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

Second, to those who believe that this event never should have happened, that it is inappropriate for the University to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech and academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is “an experiment, as all life is an experiment.” I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can, that this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech, the American university, and Columbia itself.

Third, to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.

Fourth, to be clear on another matter - this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any “rights” of the speaker but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves.

We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self- restraint against the very natural but often counter-productive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech.

Lastly, in universities, we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power. We cannot make war or peace. We can only make minds. And to do this we must have the most full freedom of inquiry.

Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

* THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN ON SCHOLARS, JOURNALISTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES

Over the last two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Axima; and just two days ago Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a PhD in urban planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Teheran, under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country. Let me say this for the record, I call on the President today to ensure that Kian Tajbaksh will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Dr. Tajbaksh to join our faculty as a visiting professor in urban planning here at his Alma Mater, in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. And we hope he will be able to join us next semester.

The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today’s speaker to even appear on this campus.

But at least they are alive.

According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at least two children – further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.

There is more.

Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more open, democratic society in Iran. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.

These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called “soft revolution”. This has included jailing and forced retirements of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government “believes that the United States . . . is planning a Velvet Revolution” in Iran.

In this very room last year we learned something about Velvet Revolutions from Vaclav Havel. And we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening – President Michelle Bachelet Jeria of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.

We at this university have not been shy to protest and challenge the failures of our own government to live by these values; and we won’t be shy in criticizing yours.

Let’s, then, be clear at the beginning, Mr. President you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator.

And so I ask you:

Why have women, members of the Baha’i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?

Why in a letter last week to the Secretary General of the UN did Akbar Gangi, Iran’s leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Nobel Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world’s attention from the intolerable conditions your regime has created within Iran? In particular, the use of the Press Law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system.

Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked that you to speak here today. And while my colleague at the Law School Michael Dorf spoke to Radio Free Europe [sic, Voice of America] viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenets of freedom of speech in this country, I propose going further than that. Let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your university about free speech, with the same freedom we afford you today? Will you do that?

* THE DENIAL OF THE HOLOCAUST

In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers.

For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.

You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we’ve provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the “debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity’s capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue’s first line of defense.

Will you cease this outrage?

* THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL

Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

* FUNDING TERRORISM

According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent group as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the US with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria’s efforts to destabalize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.

My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?

* PROXY WAR AGAINST U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ

In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

* FINALLY, IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS

This week the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time because of your government’s refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics; and even Russia and China have shown concern.

Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreements that you have made with the UN nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions and threaten to engulf the world with nuclear annihilation?

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

Lee C. Bollinger is the 19th president of Columbia University.

Copyright © Columbia University 2007

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Give Him Hell, Lee!

Lee C. Bollinger was born in Santa Rosa, California, Bollinger was raised there and in Baker City, Oregon. He went on to graduate from the University of Oregon in 1968 and received a J.D. from Columbia Law School. He served as a law clerk to Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Chief Justice Warren Burger of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bollinger went on to join the faculty of the University of Michigan Law School in 1973, becoming dean of the school in 1987. He became provost of Dartmouth College in 1994 before returning to the University of Michigan in 1996 as president. Bollinger assumed his current position as president of Columbia University in June 2002.

Bollinger's finest hour as a university prexy came when he introduced Iranian wacko Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a controversial forum at Columbia University. In response, the Iranian wacko sounded like a bovine excrement salesman trying to distribute samples to prospective buyers. Bollinger was a far cry from Columbia prexies like Dwight Eisenhower and Grayson Kirk. Bollinger spoke truth to power when he went after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now, we need Bollinger to introduce the POTUS. If this is (fair & balanced) invective, so be it.

[x AP]
Tough US Welcome for Iran's Ahmadinejad

NEW YORK September 24, 2007, 2:53 p.m. ET · Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the stage at Columbia University on Monday to a blistering reception from the president of the school, who said the hard-line leader behaved like "a petty and cruel dictator."

Ahmadinejad smiled as Columbia President Lee Bollinger took him to task over Iran's human-rights record and foreign policy, and Ahmadinejad's statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after a religious invocation, said Bollinger's opening was: "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."

"There were insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully," Ahmadinejad said, accusing Bollinger of falling under the influence of the hostile U.S. press and politicians.

"I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment," he said.

During a question and answer session with the audience, Ahmadinejad appeared agitated. In response to one question, Ahmadinejad denied he was questioning the existence of the Holocaust.

"Granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestian people?" he said.

But then he said he was defending the rights of European scholars, an apparent reference to a small number who have been prosecuted under national laws for denying or minimizing the Holocaust.

"There's nothing known as absolute," he said.

During his prepared remarks, the Iranian president did not address Bollinger's accusations directly, instead launching into a long religious discursion laced with quotes with the Quran before turning to criticism of the Bush administration and past American governments, from warrantless wiretapping to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Bollinger was strongly criticized for inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia, and had promised tough questions in his introduction to Ahmadinejad's talk. But the strident and personal nature of his attack on the president of Iran was startling.

"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," Bollinger told Ahmadinejad about the leader's Holocaust denial. "Will you cease this outrage?"

Ahmadinejad said he simply wanted more research on the Holocaust, which he said was abused as a justification for Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians.

"Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?" Ahmadinejad asked. He closed his prepared remarks with a terse smile, to applause and boos, before taking questions from the audience.

President Bush said Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia "speaks volumes about really the greatness of America."

He told Fox News Channel that if Bollinger considers Ahmadinejad's visit an educational experience for Columbia students, "I guess it's OK with me."

Thousands of people jammed two blocks of 47th Street across from the United Nations to protest Ahmadinejad's visit to New York. Organizers claimed a turnout of tens of thousands. Police did not immediately have a crowd estimate.

The speakers, most of them politicians and officials from Jewish organizations, proclaimed their support for Israel and criticized the Iranian leader for his remarks questioning the Holocaust.

"We're here today to send a message that there is never a reason to give a hatemonger an open stage," New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said.

Protesters also assembled at Columbia. Dozens stood near the lecture hall where Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak, linking arms and singing traditional Jewish folk songs about peace and brotherhood, while nearby a two-person band played "You Are My Sunshine."

Signs in the crowd displayed a range of messages, including one that read "We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism."

————

Associated Press writers Karen Matthews and Aaron Clark contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2007 The Association Press

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Another First! VideoBlog? Why Imus Was Fired?

Today I learned that the Austin fishwrap censored Garry Trudeau's strip — "Doonesbury" — by deleting the first two panels that portrayed the POTUS using the barnyard language that is as integral to his speech as it was to The Trickster in days of yore. The Austin fishwrap runs "Doonesdbury" in the Sunday funnies; my former daily, the Amarillo fishwrap, ran "Doonesbury" in the Opinion section and never on Sunday. Thus, the editors of the Austin fishwrap elected to bowdlerize "Doonesbury" because Garry Trudeau had the POTUS wondering what had become of Karl Rove — aka "Turd Blossom" — to his smartmouth boss. The "Doonesbury" strip then provides a stroll down memory lane in review of all of Rove's masterstrokes in trashing great people from Ann Richards, to John McCain, to Max Cleland, and ending with John Kerry.

Thanks to YouTube, it's possible that Rove or "Turdblossom" (your choice) may have added one more notch to his political hits: Don Imus. Click on the video and listen to a CSpan caller venture that Imus was fired — not for his racist comments about the Rutgers women hoopsters — but for his constant reference to the POTUS and the VP as "war criminals." If Karl Rove could mastermind the smearing of Ann Richards, John McCain, Max Cleland, and John Kerry, the destruction of Don Imus would have been child's play. Imagine the POTUS chortling over Turd Blossom's work and it's not a fantasy that Imus was a victim of Rove's Big Lie operation. If this is (fair & balanced) paranoia, so be it.

Cick on image to enlarge © Garry Trudeau 2007


© CSPANJUNKIEdotORG 2007

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Another Florida Humorist: Bruce Beattie!

Click on image to enlarge. Copyright © 2007 Daytona Beach News-Journal

Bruce Beattie, creator of BEATTIE BLVD., began his cartooning career in the political realm. He joined the Daytona Beach News-Journal in Florida as editorial cartoonist in 1981 and today is syndicated to hundreds of newspapers.

In 1986, he launched a cartoon panel called "Snafu," which later became BEATTIE BLVD., and in 1997 began distribution through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate. In 1992 and 1995 BEATTIE BLVD. was a finalist for the National Cartoonists Society's "Best Cartoon Panel" award.

In addition to syndication, Beattie's cartoons have been featured on "Meet the Press," in the New York Times, New York Daily News, Detroit News, Milwaukee Journal and in several museum exhibits. He won the 1995 South Florida Society of Professional Journalists' Excellence in Journalism award, among numerous other honors.

Beattie is a past president of the National Cartoonists Society, the largest organization of professional cartoonists in the world. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, the Newspaper Features Council, and the International Museum of Cartoon Art. He is featured in the 1995 book A Career in the Comics, and other cartoon publications.

Bruce Beattie is the editorical cartoonist for the Daytona Beach fishwrap. He deserves a Pulitzer Prize. Because I needed practice in posting images to this blog after a one-year, hiatus, this is a twofer and if (fair & balanced) admiration enters the mix, so be it.

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Which Is An Oxymoron: Texas Democrat Or Oklahoma Intellectual?

The resident redneck curmudgeon who writes thrice-weekly columns in the Austin fishwrap doesn't always hit a dinger, but today's offering was a winner. Miami may have Dave Barry and Carl Hiassen, but Austin has had Kelso aince 1976. Today's column is a bit parochial. (The snake reference involved a python thrown through a Taco Bell drive up window at a poor order taker who was ophidiophobic. The perps drove away in a white Dodge pickup and are still at large.) If this is (fair & balanced) japery, so be it.

[x Austin Fishwrap]
If you think the snake needs to see a shrink, you're a Democrat
By John Kelso

Is it genetically possible to be a Dallas Democrat?

Isn't that like claiming to be an Oklahoma intellectual?

Still, up in Dallas, where calling someone snooty is a compliment, some politicians are jumping ship from the Republican to Democratic Party, thinking, I guess, that the Republican ship is going blub blub blub. Leading the charge from right to left — literally — are state Rep. Kirk England and Dallas County Criminal Court Judge John Creuzot. Creuzot is doing the political hokeypokey. A few years back, he changed from Democrat to Republican. Now he's switching back to Democrat.

So he pulled his left foot in, stuck his right foot out, then he pulled his right foot back in and stuck his left foot out. No word on whether he shook it all about. If he shook it all about, he's not a Republican.

Swell, but are these guys really qualified to call themselves Democrats? Or are they still Republicans posing as Democrats so they can keep their jobs? And how do you tell whether you're really a Democrat or a Republican?

If I were in charge, I wouldn't let any elected official in Texas change parties until he explained his position on the following:

If you think the punks who threw the python at the kid working at the Taco Bell drive-through up in Round Rock should do time for assault, you're a Republican. If you think the punks should go to jail for psychological damage done to the snake, you're a Democrat. If you think the snake should go in for counseling, you're really a Democrat.

If you turn down the air conditioner because it's too cold, you're a Republican. If you turn down the air conditioner because Al Gore said so, you're a Democrat.

If you like all the lofts shooting up all over downtown Austin because you think it'll conserve land for bird habitat, you're a Democrat. If you like all the expensive lofts going up in downtown Austin because it will relocate all the riffraff from valuable urban real estate to the trailer parks in Hays County, you're a Republican.

If you drive past a head shop and think, "Those dirty hippies ought to be held down and given a bath," you're a Republican. If you drive past a head shop and think, "I wonder if this store carries a wide selection of hemp products and maybe the Zig-Zag squares," you're a Democrat.

If you thought hanging Saddam Hussein might have violated his rights, you're a Democrat. If you think they should dig him up and hang him again, you're a Republican.

If you're appalled by Austin's new toll roads, you're a Democrat. If you think to yourself, "Boy, I wish I owned one of these new toll roads," you're a Republican.

John Kelso's column appears on Sundays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Contact him at 512-445-3606 or jkelso@statesman.com (e-mail).

John Kelso, a native of New England (NH or VT) is not a Texan; he got here as fast as he could, though. Kelso served in the U. S. Army during the Nam era, but he spent his time on an army post in Germany. Kelso's journalism major gained him the humor column in the post newspaper. After military service, Kelso worked on the West Palm Beach (FL) fishwrap as the outdoor writer and moved on as a journalist-gypsy to Wisconsin. While in America's Dairyland, he received a call from his former boss in Florida; Rich Oppel had moved on to Austin from West Palm to take the reins of the Austin fishwrap. In 1976, Kelso arrived in Austin where he now reigns as the resident redneck curmudgeon three times each week.

© 2007 The Austin American-Statesman

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Hoist By His Own Petard

Earlier this month, a public affairs/political science prof at UT-Austin, Edwin Dorn, wrote a "goodbye to Mr. Chips" piece for the Austin fishwrap in observance of Professor William Livingston's departure to honorable retirement after more than 50 years at UT-Austin. Dorn's appreciation of his mentor/grammar policeman also caught the eye of Marlene Rogers of Austin and she wrote the following to the editor today:

Re: Sept. 1 commentary "Goodbye, good luck, and thanks." As a language instructor, I was very glad to see the article by Edwin Dorn, a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, on the correct use and misuse of the English language. I was disappointed to see that he used the expression "most importantly" incorrectly (in his next-to-last paragraph). It is most important (emphasis supplied), not importantly, to think before you write. I tell this to my students, and to him, importantly. /s/Marlene Rogers

Touché, Marlene Rogers! Professor Dorn fell in love with the sound of his own (written) voice. Unfortunately, this affliction is not limited to those who write in the Austin fishwrap. Such bloviation can be found in this blog more too often than not. If this is (fair & balanced) candor, so be it.


[x Austin Fishwrap]
Goodbye, good luck and thanks
By Edwin Dorn

Today, professor William Livingston will begin his retirement from the University of Texas. Bill served UT in many ways during his 58 years on the Forty Acres: as teacher, scholar, dean, interim president, senior vice president and the mellifluous voice of TEX, the university's computerized online registration process.

For me, however, Bill's most important role was that of grammarian. When I was a UT undergraduate in the 1960s, he was the only professor who took the time to point out the misused words, split infinitives, trite phrases and other bad writing habits that I had brought with me from high school.

Initially, I resented his effort to imprison me in the rigid confines of proper English grammar. But the more bad writing I have seen, the more I appreciate what Bill did for me. I wish there were more like him.

So, as a tribute, I have produced a list of writing pointers. Some are firm rules; others are my personal judgments. Observing these rules will not make you a great writer, but it will spare you the disadvantage of being perceived as — let me put this gently — not yet ready to be taken seriously.

1. Use the active voice. "It was announced by the White House that ... . " is not as crisp as "the White House announced that ... ." But wait: buildings don't announce things. Attributing actions to inanimate objects is a way of concealing responsibility. A writer should state who announced, decided or messed up something.

2. Get to the point quickly, preferably within the first few paragraphs. Then provide supporting evidence, alternative views and nuance.

3. Do not use contractions.

4. Know and observe the difference between the following words, which are confused frequently:

a. affect, effect

b. among, between

c. anxious, eager

d. comprise, composed of. "Comprised of" is not acceptable.

e. continual, continuous

f. currently, presently. Appearances notwithstanding, "presently" means "in the future."

g. hopeful, hopefully

h. impact, influence. Yes, you can use "impact" as a verb, but only if you have modest professional aspirations.

i. I, me. Never, never write "for him and I."

j. its, it's

k. principle, principal

l. that, who. The rule is, "people who", "things that." Do not write, "I don't like professors that correct my grammar" — because it is bad form, not because the professors will take offense.

m. who, whom

5. Avoid unnecessary verbiage and trite modifiers. Examples:

a. Please do not hesitate to contact me: contains four unnecessary words.

b. I am appreciative of ... . Just write, "I appreciate ... ."

c. Very (or totally) unique

d. Truly, really, actually, literally

e. Could be possible. Either something is possible, or it is not.

6. Limit the use of "and." The connective "and" is used for words, phrases or clauses that are of equal value. Thus, when you use "and," you are making a list, not developing an argument. Words that advance an argument include "therefore" and "however."

7. Proofread, ask a friend or classmate to proofread your work, and plan to do some rewriting. Never turn in the first draft.

8. Use a dictionary. If you do not know the difference between "affect" and "effect", do not rely on a computer word processing program to figure it out for you.

9. Consult the experts. I recommend The Elements of Style by William B. Strunk Jr. and E.B. White and Writing with Style by former UT professor John Trimble.

Most importantly, think before you write. What is your principal message, the most important thing you want the reader to remember? The answer should be in the first couple of paragraphs. Crafting those opening paragraphs can be the biggest challenge in writing. Seldom does a writer get them right the first time.

The course I took from Bill Livingston was about the British form of government. I use that knowledge occasionally. What he taught me about writing, I use every day.

Edwin Dorn is a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs of the University of Texas at Austin.

© 2007 The Austin American-Statesman

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Honest Abe Was Right!!!!

The POTUS must be bored in the waning days (How Soon, O Lord?) of his term of office. His handlers allowed the POTUS to answer questions in an unscripted situation. The results remain for all to see. If this is (fair & balanced) incomptence, so be it.

[x NPR]
It's Better To Remain Silent....
By George W. Bush

President Bush on Thursday acknowledged "unsettling times" in the U.S. housing and credit markets but said he was optimistic the economy would remain strong as long as Congress does not raise taxes.

In a wide-ranging news conference at the White House, Mr. Bush answered questions on the economy, Iraq and the Middle East, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP.

"There is no question there are some unsettling times in the housing markets and credits associated with the housing market," the president told reporters.

Asked about the chances of a recession, Mr. Bush responded that he is optimistic about the U.S. economy, "but I would be pessimistic if Congress does what it wants to do and raises taxes."

Pressed on the issue, Mr. Bush said, "You need to talk to an economist."

"I think I got a 'B' in Econ 101, but I got an 'A' in not raising taxes," he said.

The president rebuffed recent comments by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggesting that the administration had been fiscally irresponsible.

"My feelings are not hurt," he said. "I respectfully disagree with Alan Greenspan when he says we didn't handle the fiscal situation well, because we did."

Mr. Bush opened the news conference with a statement challenging Democrats on their proposal for a $35 billion increase in a children's health insurance program. The president has threatened to veto the bill.

The increase for the State Children's Health Insurance Program would bring total spending to about $60 billion, or twice the level sought by the administration.

The president urged lawmakers to send him a simple extension of the current program - which expires at the end of this month – if both sides cannot agree on terms of a new measure.

On the subject of Iraq, Mr. Bush said there has been progress in local communities in Iraq, but people are dissatisfied with the central government.

"Part of the reason why there's not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. Sort of an interesting comment, I heard somebody say, `Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."

In the testiest exchange in the news conference, the president refused to answer a question about Israel's alleged bombing raid in Syria. A reporter asked if Mr. Bush could comment on the target and whether he supported the attack.

After a short back and forth, the president said "I'm not going to comment on the matter means I'm not going to comment on the matter."

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the forty-third and current President of the United States of America, originally inaugurated on January 20, 2001. Bush was elected president in the 2000 presidential election and re-elected in the 2004 presidential election. He previously served as the forty-sixth Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, and is the eldest son of former United States President George Herbert Walker Bush.

Following college, Bush worked in his family's oil businesses before making an unsuccessful run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978. He later co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team before returning to politics in a campaign for Governor of Texas. He defeated Ann Richards and was elected Governor of Texas in 1994. Bush won the presidency in 2000 as the Republican candidate in a close and controversial contest, in which he lost the nationwide popular vote, but won the electoral vote.

As president, Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program and the No Child Left Behind Act. In October 2001, after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush announced a global War on Terrorism and ordered an invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, destroy Al-Qaeda, and to capture Osama bin Laden. In March 2003, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, asserting that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and that the war was necessary for the protection of the United States.

Running as a self-described "war president" in the midst of the Iraq War, Bush was re-elected in 2004; his presidential campaign against Senator John Kerry was successful despite controversy over Bush's prosecution of the Iraq War and his handling of the economy. After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. His domestic approval has declined from 90 percent (the highest ever recorded by The Gallup Organization) immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks to a low of 26 percent (in a Newsweek poll taken in June 2007), the lowest level for any sitting president in 35 years. Only Harry Truman and Richard Nixon scored lower.

© 2007 National Public Radio

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

What's A Cavett??

In the same era when The Trickster asked his henchman, Bob Haldeman, "What's a Cavett?" a more benign boob was governor of Texas. Preston Smith, at nearly the same time asked, "What's a Goulet?" during the planning of Smith's own inaugural ball. A more worldly associate had said that "We can get Goulet." during a discussion of available entertainers for the event. Robert Goulet was the star of several Broadway shows and films at the time. Nearly 40 years later, the POTUS is capable of both the same question ("What's a bin Laden?") and the same mindset. If this is (fair & balanced) buffoonery, so be it.

[x NYTimes]
Him, to Kick Around Again
By Dick Cavett
Gentle reader: Who knew that the subject of obesity would strike such a nerve? The whopping number of replies must have set some sort of record for both clarity and intelligence. I greatly enjoyed reading them, ranging as they do from virtual scholarly essays to “Goodbye, Mr. Cavett.”

And speaking of goodbye, I am not gone but merely at the end of a somewhat lengthy summer layoff. But now you will, I hope, enjoy reading about a happening that involves one of the “big names” of the 20th century. It can only be described as bizarre.

***

“A blast from the past.”

Do you know where this phrase comes from? So far, Google has not produced a firm answer, other than that it’s frequently used by disc jockeys, but no one is confident of who specifically gets credit for its birth.

When trying to place a quote, we are advised to always guess Shakespeare first. (Without checking, I’m fairly certain that King Lear’s “blasted heath” is not “from the past.”)

I gather that the phrase is generally used for something positive; a pleasant reunion with or reminder of something good, like a favorite song. Recently I’ve had a rather startling BFTP, but pleasant is not, shall we say, the first adjective that leaps to mind in describing it.

Here’s what happened. I was called to Hollywood to be part of an event honoring “Pioneers of Television.” The previous year’s honorees had included Sid Caesar, whom I had avidly watched and worshipped in my teens while still in Nebraska. If he was a pioneer, was I -­ who came to TV a quarter century after Sid -­ really one also? And if so, what did that make Pinky Lee, Jerry Lester and Dagmar, and Kukla and Ollie’s Fran? Aborigines?

And what, then, was the man whose name I knew but had never seen until the coaxial cable finally stretched as far as Nebraska? I mean, of course, the then-king of the new medium, Milton Berle. About whom the great Fred Allen once said, “Milton…is the moron’s messiah.”

This year, Betty White, Ed McMahon, Tony Orlando and the hilarious Tim Conway were my fellow “pioneers.” Impertinently, I asked whether we would be making our entrance in a covered wagon.

But let’s get to the blast.

I arrive at LAX, and a nicely groomed and dressed young man approaches, puts out his hand and says, “My name is Trinklein.”

“Not your first name, I hope,” I reply, proving that one should not try to be funny with jet lag.

He is good-naturedly aware that the name is unusual. What remains of my German allows me to translate it mentally into “little drink.” Or even, “drinklet.” Graciously, he concurs with my translations.

Leading me to the obligatory black limo, he says, “I have something in the car that I’m pretty certain will interest you.” Something about all this begins to resemble the harmless-seeming beginning of a spy novel.

In lower levels of showbiz, the surprise in the limo is sometimes a cutie, sporting merely shoes and a baseball cap. I’m told. But Trinklein is clearly too classy for that. As we glide into the river of traffic, he produces a laptop and inserts a DVD, saying that a woman friend of his who has access to such things has gotten this for him. In the sense of the phrase, “Are you ready for this?”, I was not.

The screen is filled by a black and white photo of two men, seated facing each other across a vast desk. The background décor includes various national flags on flagstands. The two men are instantly recognizable; or they are, at least, to everyone above a certain age.

One ­- the one whose office it was ­- is The Great Unindicted Co-conspirator himself. Yes, the admirably earnest but unskilled former member of the Whittier College football team. From Yorba Linda. (Anyone who hasn’t guessed his identity by now must move to the back of the class.)

The other gent’s visual trademark is his tough-guy crew cut: it is the notorious loyal henchman and lickspittle, H.R. Haldeman.

Up comes a sign: NIXON WANTS REVENGE ON TALK SHOW HOST CAVETT. And my blood runs, well, if not cold, at least chilly.

As the chunk of dialogue you are about to read plays out audibly, the still of the two men remains onscreen, creating the illusion that you are seeing them speak the words now being heard in their actual voices.


When the scene begins, it seems my name has just been uttered.

Nixon: So what is Cavett?

Haldeman: He’s…Oh, Christ, he’s…God, he’s..

Nixon: He’s terrible?

Haldeman: He’s impossible. He loads every program…automatically he’ll…

Nixon: Nothing you can do about it, obviously?

Haldeman: We’ve complained bitterly about the Cavett shows.

Nixon: Well, well is there any way we can screw him? That’s what I mean. There must be ways.

Haldeman: We’ve been trying to.

CUT.

A blast from the past indeed. My jet-fogged head didn’t know quite what to make of it. Oddly, I thought, “Is this real?” But Trinklein was clearly not a computer-nerd prankster.

I promise you that, even this long after the fact, there is something unsettling when it’s your name being abused by the chief executive of the United States. And isn’t there something nauseating about the spectacle of the most powerful man in the world scheming to “screw” a late-night chat show that he apparently sees as part of a widespread conspiracy to bring him down? Were there no more important international issues, perhaps, to be worrying about?

I was told that many people think the Nixon tapes have all been heard by now and, like the LBJ tapes, can even be listened to recreationally at home or at the beach.

Not so. It is only recently that the vast body of them were wrested from wherever they were being withheld, and are now the property of the Smithsonian.

I’ve been told that I’m on other tapes, too, embedded along with who knows how rich a lode of still-undiscovered Nixonian utterances of anti-Semitism, homophobia and his somewhat alarming preoccupation with being “a real man.”

Has history ever known so prominent a figure to be at once so frighteningly bizarre and so greatly gifted? Nixon’s rise and fall is almost classical. I’d be surprised if no theater director has yet staged a modern-dress, slightly updated “Richard III” with the lead actor got up as our Tricky Dick: “Plots I have laid, inductions dangerous, by drunken [!] prophecies, libels and dreams to set [those on my enemies list] in deadly hate the one against the other…” etc. And certainly both had winters of discontent.

There’s more to tell in this strange Tale of Two Richards, but I must draw the curtain of discretion for now.

But don’t let me forget to tell you how John Lennon figures in all this.

The host of “The Dick Cavett Show” — which aired on ABC from 1968 to 1975 and on public television from 1977 to 1982 — Dick Cavett is also the coauthor of two books, “Cavett” (1974) and “Eye on Cavett” (1983). He has appeared on Broadway in “Otherwise Engaged” “Into the Woods” and as narrator in “The Rocky Horror Show,” and has made guest appearances in movies and on TV shows including “Forrest Gump” and “The Simpsons.” Mr. Cavett lives in New York City and Montauk, N.Y.

© 2007 The New York Times

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Who "Lost" Iraq?

Today, there was a dustup in the NYC fishwrap. L. Paul Bremer, the first proconsul installed by this administration after the fall of Iraq, wrote an op-ed piece to proclaim his non-culpability for the chaos in Iraq since our "victory" in 2003. Bremer has been stung by the response to "No End In Sight" that is now playing in (mostly) art house theaters. Charles Ferguson, the filmmaker, responded with a multimeda letter to the editor. What a two-fer: skewer Bremer and plug a movie all at the same time.

Ferguson's film, which was the Sundance Film Festival's pick as the best documentary in 2007, explains our Iraqi disaster as the product of the Bush administration's arrogance and ignorance. The POTUS—in the recent book about the Bush presidency, Dead Certain by Robert Draper—tries to distance himself from Bremer (and his handlers: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith). That dog won't hunt, Mr. President. As Ferguson's film clearly illustrates, the buck stops in the Oval Office. Of course, if there had been no invasion of Iraq, this film never would have been made. Unfortunately for the POTUS, if you want to dance, you have to pay the fiddler. If this is (fair & balanced) cinéma vérité , so be it.


[x Wikipedia]
Charles H. Ferguson

Charles Henry Ferguson is founder and president of Representational Pictures, Inc., and director and producer of "No End In Sight: The American Occupation of Iraq," which is his first film. It won a special jury prize for documentaries at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival.

Ferguson was originally educated as a political scientist. He earned BA in mathematics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1978[1], and obtained a Ph.D. in political science from M.I.T. in 1989. Following his Ph.D., Ferguson conducted postdoctoral research at MIT while also consulting to the White House, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Defense, and several U.S. and European high technology firms. From 1992-1994 Ferguson was an independent consultant, providing strategic consulting to the top managements of U.S. high technology firms including Apple, Xerox, Motorola, and Texas Instruments.

In 1994, Ferguson founded Vermeer Technologies, one of the earliest Internet software companies, with Randy Forgaard. Vermeer created the first visual Web site development tool, FrontPage™. In early 1996, Ferguson sold Vermeer to Microsoft for $133 million, [2] which integrated FrontPage into Microsoft Office. After selling Vermeer, Ferguson returned to research and writing. He was a visiting scholar and/or lecturer for several years at MIT and Berkeley, and for three years was a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC. Ferguson is the author of three books and many articles dealing with various aspects of information technology and its relationships to economic, political, and social issues. Ferguson is a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a director of the French-American Foundation, and supports several nonprofit organizations.

For over 20 years, Ferguson has been intensely interested in film, and has regularly attended film festivals such as Telluride for over a decade. In mid-2005, after learning that no major documentary covering U.S. policy in Iraq was being made or was planned, he formed Representational Pictures and began production of "No End In Sight."

Ferguson is unmarried, and divides his time between Berkeley, California and New York City.

Copyright © Wikipedia, 2007

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The Ultimate Hostage: Mecca!

Holding Mecca hostage originated -- not with Westerners or "Crusaders" (as the jihadists style those of the West) -- but with jihadists in Saudi Arabia in 1979. I with little else from Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), but he is correct: no comfort should be granted to the jihadists hiding in the caves of Pakistan/Afghanistan. Let the Arab media carry this message to Al-Qaeda: The United States will hold the following sites hostage: Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia and Qom in Iran. The United States will exchange the Muslim holy sites for the surrender of those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Those states providing sanctuary to the jihadists (aka Al-Qaeda) will doom the Muslim holy sites to nuclear annihilation. No jihadist criminals brought to justice, no pilgrimmages to the Muslim holy sites for 10,000 years. We are not safer and we will never be safer as long as the jihadists hold Mecca, Medina, and Qom without fear. A nuclear attack on Mecca, Medina, and Qom for the obscenity of 9/11/2001. If this is (fair & balanced) bloodlust, so be it.




Terror In The Holy City: Analyzing The Al-Qaida Attacks In Mecca
By John C.K. Daly

The deaths of two suspected al-Qaida militants who blew themselves up in Mecca to avoid arrest has highlighted what the Saudis for years have denied; that al-Qaida has a significant presence in-country, and has even penetrated Islam’s holiest city. As the legitimacy of Saudi rulers rests mostly on their self-proclaimed role as “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,” an attack on Mecca could be seen as a strike on the legitimacy of King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz. A third suspect was killed in a shootout with security forces in the capital Riyadh. Police originally tried to negotiate with the men, but after they opened fire on the security forces the police returned fire. The two dead men were subsequently identified as Muteb al-Mihyani and Sami al-Luhaibi, both in their late twenties. Interior Minister Prince Nayaf said that the pair was part of an eight-member al-Qaida cell, and that two others surrendered while four more were captured. Four Saudis, a Nigerian and a Pakistani were taken into custody, along with a significant quantity of arms, including Kalashnikovs, assault rifles, pistols, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades and explosives. A number of passports, ID cards and pamphlets were also seized.

The security forces subsequently clamped a three-kilometer security perimeter in the al-Sharie district while continuing to search for possible weapons caches. When asked during a press conference if the militants had intended to attack building and pilgrims Nayaf answered, “That is exactly what I mean. In Mecca there are only Muslims from the Kingdom and abroad. There are no other people except Muslims…Certainly buildings, installations and people. All the seized weapons indicate such a plan.”

It was the latest clash between militants and police in a nationwide security crackdown set off by the 12 May 2003 suicide car bombings on Western compounds in Riyadh. Thirty-five people died in the bombings, including nine attackers. About 600 al-Qaida suspects have been arrested since the May attacks.

The Mecca attack follows an earlier incident on 14 June in Mecca, when police attempted to stop a vehicle at a roadblock and gave chase into a Khaldiya district. The occupants of the vehicle then engaged security forces in a gun battle; police eventually stormed the apartment where fugitives took refuge. The London-based Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA) reported that eight security officers and three civilians died in the operation. Most ominously for the security forces, one of the arrested men was wearing a suicide bomber’s belt when captured. Prince Nayaf was under no illusions about who was behind the incident, saying, “we have no doubt about this. It’s very clear and all (attacks) came from al-Qaida.”

The Islamic world has certainly taken note of the al-Qaida Meccan operations. It is a city very familiar to Osama bin Laden; in a supreme touch of irony, it was Osama’s father, Muhammad bin Oud bin Laden, who in 1973 won the contract from the Saudi royal family to rebuild both the Great Mosque and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina. The ongoing renovation is estimated to have cost $17 billion to date. The al-Qaida attacks are shedding a very bright light into some corners that the Saudi royal family would prefer, most notably their ambiguous relationship to bin Laden’s activities. A $1.7 billion lawsuit recently filed in Washington for the families of victims of 9-11 alleges that the Saudi government made millions of dollars of “donations” to al-Qaida in return for a pledge not to attack inside the Kingdom. The relationship was managed by former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal. Turki was in charge of the "Afghanistan file," and had long-standing ties both to bin Laden and the Taliban. Former CIA officer Vince Cannistraro believes that Prince Turki made two trips to meet with bin Laden. Cannistraro said that he had been able to verify independently that on one of the trips the Saudis made "a large monetary offer" of tens of millions of dollars to bin Laden if he would cease his attacks on the Royal Family.

The Great Mosque is no stranger to symbolic political violence. On 20 November 1979, several hundred Sunni radicals under Juhaiman ibn Muhammad ibn Saif al Utaiba captured the Great Mosque complex. Juhaiman came from one of the leading Najdi families. Hundreds of pilgrims were taken hostage, and the Saudi security forces were initially unable to cope. The political agenda of the rebels was to overthrow the Saudi monarchy and sever all ties to the West. As French paratroopers finally recovered the complex after a nearly two-week siege, 250 people lay dead, among them 127 Saudi troops. Sixty-seven captured militants were eventually beheaded for the uprising in four Saudi cities. Bin Laden was deeply impressed by the takeover and tells friends that the rebels were “true Muslims.” It has been reported that one of Osama's half brothers was arrested as a sympathizer of the takeover but was later exonerated. Juhaiman’s charges against the Saudi royal family closely parallel those made by Ayatollah Khomeini against the Shah. Thoroughly alarmed and humiliated by the incident, the Saudi regime began to tighten up and closely monitor all pilgrims, particularly Iranians.

Ten years later a bomb exploded near the Great Mosque, killing a worshipper and wounding sixteen others. Saudi Arabia would eventually execute sixteen Kuwaiti Shi’ias, including ten of Iranian background, for the attack. It is among the repressed minority Shi’ias of eastern Saudi Arabia that al-Qaida has the greatest potential for work. The question is how well Saudi security forces can cope among a minority that they have traditionally suppressed as heretics.

Mecca was never far from bin Laden’s thoughts. During a 1998 interview he said, “To kill Americans and their allies – civilian and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in order to liberate the al-Aqsa (Jerusalem) mosque and the Holy Mosque (Mecca.)” Some of his recruiters found their top candidates there; in November 2002 Saudi officials admitted privately that al-Qaida had recruiters active in Mecca, and that some of the 9-11 hijackers had been recruited there.

Certainly Washington is refocusing its efforts on locating bin Laden, with CENTCOM General John P. Abizaid assigning to Task Force 121 the mission to track down both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The new military grouping is a combination of Task Force 5 from Afghanistan and Task Force 20 in Iraq under one command. The question now is with the growing boldness of al-Qaida operations within Saudi Arabia itself how willing the regime is to work with the West to uncover the terrorists within their midst. Much of the cooperation will be painful for Riyadh, especially the uncovering of its cozy financial ties to those that now seem to be determined to weaken the Kingdom from within. The biggest uncertainty is whether the Saudi royal family will have the strength of purpose to face squarely its deadliest threat and its responsibility in creating it.

Dr. John C. K. Daly received his Ph.D. in Russian and Middle Eastern Studies from the University of London and is an Adjunct Scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC.

Copyright © The Jamestown Foundation 2003.

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Question Of The Day (And Every Day): Are We Safer?

THE question that should be shouted at the POTUS at every public appearance revolves around our safety as 9/11 recedes for another year. All of this talk of "9/11 fatigue" will be meaningless when the jihadists strike again. And, strike again, they will. We are not safer today and we will not be safer so long as the jihadists have sanctuary anywhere in the world. I hold little or no truck with Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), but we must think the unthinkable in responding to the jihadists. We cannot bomb the jihadists out of their caves, but we can bomb Medina first and, if the jihadists do not surrender, we can bomb Mecca. The bombs would be nuclear weapons and both holy sites would be uninhabitable for 10,000 years. We cannot deal with the jihadists in any rational way. There is no other way. The jihadists gloat over the daily casualties our troops sustain in Iraq (miles and miles from the jihadist sanctuaries). We have not been attacked since 9/11 because we are bleeding in Iraq. If this is (fair & balanced) realpolitk, so be it.

[x The Nation]
Are We Safer?
by STEPHEN F. COHEN
[from the May 5, 2003 issue]

The Bush Administration and its cheerleaders in the media are claiming that the "remarkable success" of the US war in Iraq proves its opponents were "spectacularly wrong"--even, some charge, unpatriotic. Intimidated by these allegations and the demonstration of overwhelming American military power, many critics of the war are falling silent. Indeed, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, no doubt speaking for several of the party's presidential candidates, has rushed to urge that "the war...not be on the ballot in 2004."

But critics of the war have no reason to regret their views. No sensible opponent doubted that the world's most powerful military could easily crush such a lesser foe. The real issue was and remains very different: Will the Iraq war increase America's national security, as the Bush Administration has always promised and now insists is already the case, or will it undermine and diminish our national security, as thoughtful critics believed?

In the weeks, months and years ahead, we will learn the answer to that fateful question by judging developments by seven essential criteria:

(1) Will the war discourage or encourage other regional "preemptive" military strikes, particularly by nuclear-armed states such as, but not only, Pakistan and India?

(2) Indeed, will the Iraq war stop the proliferation of states that possess nuclear weapons or instead incite more governments to acquire them as a deterrent against another US "regime change"?

(3) Will the war, and the long US occupation that seems likely to ensue, reduce the recruitment of young Arabs by terrorist movements or will it inspire many new recruits?

(4) With or without more recruits, will the war decrease or increase the number of terrorist plots against the United States, whether at home or abroad?

(5) Will the war help safeguard the vast quantities of nuclear and other materials of mass destruction that exist in the world today, and the expertise needed to operationalize them, or make them more accessible to "evil-doers"?

(6) In that connection, will Russia--which has more ill-secured devices of mass destruction than any other country and which strongly opposed and still resents the US war--now be more, or less, inclined to collaborate with Washington in safeguarding and reducing those weapons and materials?

(7) Finally, considering the rampant anti-Americanism it has provoked, will the war result in more or fewer governments willing to cooperate with--individually or in multinational organizations like the United Nations--George W. Bush's stated top priority, the war against global terrorism?

It is by these crucial (and measurable) criteria that the American people, and any politician who wants to lead them, must judge the Administration's war in Iraq and President Bush's own leadership. Those of us who were against the war and continue to oppose the assumptions on which it was based fear that future events will answer these questions to the grave detriment of American and international security. As patriots, we can only hope we are wrong.

Stephen F. Cohen, professor of Russian studies at New York University, is the author (with Katrina vanden Heuvel) of Voices of Glasnost: Conversations With Gorbachev's Reformers and, most recently, Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia (both Norton).

Copyright © 2007 The Nation

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.