Mar 4, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous....Nine of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country....Abdul Hashimi, the head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organisation that is hosting the protesters, told the shields to choose between nine so-called "strategic sites" by today or quit the country.
The Iraqi warning follows frustration among Saddam Hussein's officials that only about 65 of the shields had so far agreed to take up positions at the oil refineries, power plants and water-purification sites selected by their hosts. [Daily Telegraph, 2/3/03]
Mar 4, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Yahoo! News today:LOS ANGELES - The entertainment industry must not blacklist people who speak out against war with Iraq, the Screen Actors Guild said.
This is such a crock. The ones who face blacklisting in far-left Hollywood are the few Hollywood supporters of the war. Fortunately most Americans aren't sympathetic to the Hollywood lefties, and the real concern is that the American public will boycott them. That, if anything, is what the execs are concerned about, and indeed should be.
Mar 3, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Today in Manhattan's Union Square subway stop I saw a guy with a "No War" sign that was printed from A.N.S.W.E.R., the Marxist organization that has been the main force behind anti-war protests.
The guy was shouting, "Money for schools, not for war!" I asked him, loudly enough for passersby to hear, "So are you a Marxist like A.N.S.W.E.R.'s members, or are you their patsy?" He said, "What?" and I repeated the question. He said "I don't know what you're talking about" so I nodded and said, "Oh, you're a patsy."Mar 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Developer Larry Silverstein, who looked like he was going to block any building taller than 70 stories from going up at the World Trade Center site, has not only approved the Libeskind design; he's agreed to pay for the spire:
Developer Larry Silverstein threw his support behind the soaring new vision for Ground Zero yesterday, vowing to pay for a 1,776-foot spire that would raise the city's skyline higher than any other in the world.
Silverstein's commitment for the first time offered rebuilding officials a solid way to pay for the signature tower in architect Daniel Libeskind's plan.
"Larry says the plan presented today is extraordinary, and he's completely supporting the plan," said Silverstein spokesman Gerald McKelvey. [New York Daily News, 2/28/03]
This is actually not too surprising, the Libeskind proposal does address Silverstein's concerns: The spire that extends to 1,776 feet (including the antenna on top) only has 70 floors of office space in it. Above that is a "vertical garden" that Silverstein wouldn't have to worry about leasing. All the other office buildings in the project are shorter.
The tower is slim and tapering; with less of its volume in the upper stories, concerns about fire safety and evacuation would be alleviated. Finally, the latest revision of Libeskind's proposal rebuilds all 10 million square feet of office space that were lost, as Silverstein insisted; he has added one more tower and heightened some of the adjoining buildings.
To the question: Why would Silverstein pay for all those extra floors for a garden? I think the answer is: Having the world's tallest building makes it a landmark site, which is why people would want to lease space in it. The Sun reported just the other day that space is always in demand at landmark sites. And Silverstein also knows a lot of people will be very angry with him if he insists on short buildings, perhaps even to the point of boycott--and that will hurt his market.
Meanwhile, here's an aesthetic comment by New York Sun architecture critic James Gardner with which I agree:
[T]he fact that the slurry walls held up and are rough hewn [does not] really say anything about the pluck of New Yorkers (I think that was supposed to be the point). And the fact that the sun will shine on the memorial each year at precisely the moment when the Twin Towers were hit hardly makes for any interesting form.
In fact, if there is any parallel between the form and the message of Mr. Libeskind's design, as of most of the other contributions, it is that both formally and contextually, he is trying to do things that are simply not within the competence of architecture, of inhabitable structure. It is the Frank Gehry phenomenon....
[A]ll the meanings that all the forms in Mr. Libeskind's design are supposed to express are entirely invisible unless another medium (a written text) is invoked to bring them to light: There is simply no way the eye can take in, or even care about, the fact that the main building is 1,776 feet tall. [New York Sun, 2/28/03]
Mar 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
All we heard from the American Left since 1970s is condemnation of how the American government supported dictators such as the Shah, Pinochet, and Noriega. The Left has blamed all ills of the world on America's puppet "rightwing dictatorships." The Left promoted an embargo of South Africa's Afrikaaner government, even though it caused tremendous hardship on South Africans, and especially among their poor. The Left generally supported the US invasion of Somalia to depose of warlords, as well as the invasion of Bosnia to fight Milosevic. For thirty years the Left has purportedly wanted America to depose of dictators who violate "human rights" by both economic and military means. A significant portion of the Left--and probably the vast majority--are not pacifists. They have demonstrated a willingness to war for some issues.
So why is it that the Left is so vociferously opposed to deposing Saddam Hussein by war? There are a few--only a few--possibilities.
1) They aren't opposed to war per se, just war not sanctioned by the UN.
2) They aren't opposed to wars in which America has nothing to gain, e.g., Bosnia and Somalia. They are only opposed to war in which America has a conceivable interest, such as in Iraq.
3) They aren't opposed to war per se--they are just opposed to war with Saddam Hussein, for some reason.
4) They aren't opposed to war against Saddam Hussein per se, but they hate America so much that they do not want us--or perhaps President Bush--to be victorious. That is, even if they want Saddam Hussein to go, it pales in comparison to their desire to hold down America, to lessen its stature, to make it vulnerable.
I will comment on each of these possible motivations in a future post.Feb 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the New Yor Sun:A grand jury yesterday indicted eight people on terrorism charges, among them Sami Amin Al-Arian, a professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida. Mr. Al-Arian is a "Palestinian activist" who had come to be something of a cause celebre for those who beleive that any scrutiny of radical Muslims in America is the symptom of a nascent police state.
Mr. Al-Arian gained national attention after September 11, when videotaped comments calling for "Death to Israel" led his university employers to begin the process of attempting to fire him. His supporters claimed that he was being unfairly persecuted for his political beliefs and challenged his dismissal. [...]
Prominent among Mr. Al-Arian's defenders in his fight with the University of South Florida was "Officials at the University of South Florida…have started proceedings to fire him -- essentially for being a fiery Palestinian activist who embarrasses them," Mr. Kristof wrote in a March 1, 2002, column. "A university, even a country, becomes sterile when people are too intimidated to say things out of the mainstream." ["Under the Tampa Palms," Editorial, New York Sun, February 21, 2003]
If Sami Amin Al-Arian had been videotaped publicly calling for "Death to Gays" or "Death to Blacks," would the New York Times be rallying to defend his academic freedom. Doubtless the Times would take such statements to be "hate speech," while "Death to Israel" is "protected discourse."
In other words, the Times considers inciting hatred against Israelis acceptable in a university. Why? Presumably because that paper thinks it not necessarily unreasonable to cast Israel as an oppressor. "Hate speech," in other words, is antagonistic speech the Times considers unreasonable.
What if the University of South Florida deems Mr. Al-Arian's "Death to Israel" unreasonable? Apparently the Times allows only itself the privilege of passing such judgments.
