Belly Up in Venezuela
From Cox and Forkum:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said on Saturday the country's entire energy sector had to be nationalized, reinforcing his socialist revolution and possibly giving himself more targets for state take-over. But he said he would permit foreign firms to hold minority stakes in energy deals. The anti-U.S. leader, in power since 1999, this week announced he would nationalize power utilities and the country's biggest telecommunications firm, confirming his status as the catalyst of Latin America's swing to the left. "We have decided to nationalize the whole Venezuelan energy and electricity sector, all of it, absolutely all," Chávez said in his annual state of the nation address to parliament, potentially opening up more projects for state acquisition in the No. 4 crude exporter to the United States. The president was reinaugurated this week for a term that runs through 2013. Chávez has already pursued oil and gas projects and power utilities but on Saturday left no leeway for a private company to hold a majority in operations anywhere in the energy sphere. What will be targeted? It was not immediately clear whether his pronouncement on nationalizing the whole sector was a precursor to moves against specific projects or companies. Venezuela will have to judge how closely private firms must be connected to the country's oilfields, refineries, pipelines, gasoline stations and coal mines to count as targets for nationalization. Huge oil service companies such as Halliburton and Schlumberger operate in Venezuela but Chávez gave no indication whether deals involving such businesses were now in his sights.Also from CNN: Venezuela, Iran to finance opposition to U.S..
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- fiery anti-American leaders whose moves to extend their influence have alarmed Washington -- said Saturday they would help finance investment projects in other countries seeking to thwart U.S. domination. The two countries had previously revealed plans for a joint $2 billion fund to finance investments in Venezuela and Iran, but the leaders said Saturday the money would also be used for projects in friendly countries throughout the developing world. "It will permit us to underpin investments ... above all in those countries whose governments are making efforts to liberate themselves from the [U.S.] imperialist yoke," Chavez said. "This fund, my brother," the Venezuelan president said, referring affectionately to Ahmadinejad, "will become a mechanism for liberation." "Death to U.S. imperialism!" Chavez said. Ahmadinejad, who is starting a tour of left-leaning countries in the region, called it a "very important" decision that would help promote "joint cooperation in third countries," especially in Latin America and Africa.
Democracy versus Victory: Why the “Forward Strategy of Freedom” Had to Fail
Democracy versus Victory: Why the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" Had to Fail by Yaron Brook. Recorded September 12, 2006 (63 mins.) Free video playback available on the ARI Registered User Page (free registration required)The Injustice of Saddam’s Trial
From the archives:"A trial that presumes Hussein's innocence can achieve nothing but a travesty of justice.Saddam Hussein is not a private citizen, whose guilt requires proof in an objective court of law, but a dictator whose incontestable evil was manifest to any rational observer of his tyranny. The Bush administration, after all, determined that Hussein was so vicious that we had to go to war to topple his regime." -- Elan Journo, The Injustice of Saddam's Trial (February 1, 2006)
Murdering Dictator Saddam Hussein Executed
From Cox and Forkum:
The Iraqi High Tribunal's appellate chamber on Tuesday upheld Saddam Hussein's death sentence in the Dujail massacre case, Judge Aref Shaheen announced. Shaheen said the court's decision was the final word in the case. The toppled Iraqi dictator's execution must take place before January 27, Shaheen said. Iraqi law requires a death sentence to be carried out within 30 days. On November 5, Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging for his role in the 1982 killings of 148 people in Dujail, a mostly Shiite town north of Baghdad. Hussein's attorneys appealed, and the appellate chamber began reviewing the case December 5. Hussein's chief defense attorney, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said he had heard about the decision, but said it came from "an illegitimate and unconstitutional court." "We are not surprised by this crazy ruling," al-Dulaimi said. The lawyer, speaking from Amman, Jordan, said three other members of the defense team met with Hussein on Tuesday before the decision was announced and described him as being in high spirits. Under international law, most governments have the power to stay any executions, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has said his government would not do so in Hussein's case. The White House released a statement praising the court's decision. "Today marks a milestone for the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law," said Scott Stanzel, deputy White House press secretary. "We look forward to seeing the written judgment. Saddam has received due process and the legal rights that he denied the Iraqi people..."From CNN: Baathists: 'Grave consequences' if Hussein's hanged.
The Baath Party, the political movement that ruled Iraq during the Saddam Hussein era, is warning there will be "grave consequences" if former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is executed. Saying it would hold the United States responsible, a message appeared on al-basrah.net Tuesday that read: "The Baath and the resistance are determined to retaliate in all ways and all places that hurt America and its interests if it commits this crime." If the execution is carried out, the largely Sunni-Arab Baathists said they also will retaliate against members of the Iraqi High Tribunal. And they vowed a complete shut-down of peace negotiations between the Baathists and coalition forces. The Baathists have been operating as part of the insurgency against the U.S. and its allies since Hussein's regime fell in 2003.Looks like Old Man 2006 got to the lever first. From CNN: Hussein executed, Iraqi TV stations report.
Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been executed, according to two Arabic language media outlets. Hussein was hanged before dawn on Saturday in Iraq, at about 6 a.m. (10 p.m. Friday ET), the U.S.-backed Al-Hurra television reported. Al-Arabiya reported that Barzan Hassan, Hussein's half-brother, and Awad Bandar, former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court, were hanged after Hussein. All three were convicted of killings in the Iraqi town of Dujail nearly 25 years ago. Earlier, Munir Haddad, a judge on the appeals court that upheld the former dictator's death sentence, and an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki each confirmed the paperwork needed for Hussein's execution had been prepared late Friday. "All the procedures have been completed," Haddad said. At the same time, a U.S. district judge refused a request to stay the execution. Attorney Nicholas Gilman said in an application for a restraining order, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington, that a stay would allow Hussein "to be informed of his rights and take whatever action he can and may wish to pursue." Haddad had called Gilman's filing "rubbish," and said, "It will not delay carrying out the sentence," which he called "final."
Olmert’s Whisper of Peace
From Cox and Forkum:
In an apparent gesture to Syria, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday he is open to "any whisper of peace" from Israel's enemies. Syria has recently signaled it would like to reopen peace talks with Israel, which broke down seven years ago. Olmert has rejected the offers, citing Syria's support for anti-Israel militant groups in Lebanon and the Palestinian areas. In a speech to graduates of an air force pilot's course, Olmert indicated he is softening his opposition. "The state of Israel is open to any whisper of peace from our neighbors and across our borders," he said.This is another in a series of recent capitulations by Olmert. As Charles Johnson put it, the Olmert cave-in is nearly complete. There's not much left, short of giving Ahmadinejad some GPS coordinates as a good-faith measure. From Reuters: Olmert suggests Palestinian prisoner release.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested on Sunday he could release some Palestinian prisoners this week, even though Gaza militants have yet to free a captured Israeli soldier. ... Israel has also recently hinted at more flexibility over the release of Palestinians responsible for violence against Jews -- those who it says have "blood on their hands."From AP: Israel to remove West Bank roadblocks.
Israel agreed Monday to remove some of the military roadblocks that have hindered Palestinian travel in the West Bank, one of several gestures aimed at boosting moderate President Mahmoud Abbas in his bitter struggle with the militant Islamic Hamas. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert approved streamlining checkpoints and removing roadblocks "to strengthen moderate (Palestinian) elements," according to a statement from his office. Olmert has already offered $100 million in frozen tax income to Abbas and indicated he might release some Palestinian prisoners. ... Removing roadblocks has also stirred opposition. Only a fraction of the more than 400 permanent barriers in the West Bank would be taken down, but the Israeli army commander in the West Bank, Brig. Gen. Yair Naveh, warned in a closed meeting that even that would aid Palestinian militants in attacking Israelis, according to security officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.UPDATE -- Dec. 29: A welcome reversal on the prison exchange issue ... for now. AP reports: Israel won't free Palestinian prisoners. (via LGF)
Israel rejected Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' request for a quick release of prisoners to bolster nascent peace moves, saying Friday that Palestinian militants must first free a captured Israeli soldier. The decision was a setback for the moderate Palestinian leader as he jockeyed with the radical Islamic Hamas group for popular support in the increasingly turbulent West Bank and Gaza. Abbas had hoped Israeli concessions would strengthen his argument that talks — not violence — are the Palestinians' best hope for achieving a state. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, himself fighting low approval ratings, has sought in recent weeks to re-energize his government with a push to revive long-stalled peace efforts with the Palestinians. The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot reported Friday that Olmert was prepared to hold back-channel talks to resolve the intractable disputes that derailed previous peace efforts, including the final borders of a Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin declined to comment on the report.
Why Lebanon Is Poised to Fall into Islamist Hands
Irvine, CA--In the so-called "war on terrorism," we supposedly only face a small number of isolated killers, whose goal of creating Taliban-style regimes is thoroughly rejected by an overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East. "Yet," says Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "Lebanon is poised to fall into the hands of the murderous jihadist group Hezbollah--thanks to mass street demonstrations. How can this happen?" "Contrary to Washington's evasions, in reality huge numbers of Muslims in the region support the jihadist cause of totalitarian Islamic world domination, and they want vicious killers such as Hezbollah to rule them. That is why, for more than a week, hundreds of thousands of people, out of a tiny population of four million, have been demonstrating in the streets of Beirut. "Hezbollah, which was elected to office and won control of three ministries in Lebanon's government, now wants total control--and its followers are encouraged. After all, Washington said that it wanted the people of the region to express their 'political conscience.' The people have spoken: they demand 'Death to America, Death to Israel.' "The situation in Beirut is another illustration of the wide popularity of the jihadist goal. Islamists have gained power in the Palestinian territories and in Iraq, and have become a major force in Egypt's parliament. "The enemy we face is an ideological movement--including the regimes that support it--not isolated 'terrorists.' Refusing to recognize that, Washington has absurdly insisted on bringing elections, rather than defeat, to our enemies--and thereby made them stronger."Christmas Reading
A Commercialized Christmas Carol by Wayne DunnWhat anti-commercial Ebenezers need is a little chain-rattling visit from the Ghost of Christmas Past.Dickens' A Christmas Carol by Michael Marriott
Of all the works written about Christmas, perhaps the most influential, save Clement Moore's poem, The Night Before Christmas, is Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. Published in 1843, the story of the curmudgeon Ebenezer Scrooge has entertained millions with its altruistic message of Christmas giving by the rich to those unable to buy their Christmas goose.
It's a Commercial Life by Wayne Dunn
Whenever I hear that familiar Yuletide condemnation "Christmas is too commercial," I recall George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life" wishing he'd never been born. For just as he didn't realize the positive impact he'd had on others, the anti-commercial brigade doesn't realize the positive impact commerce has on Christmas.
Airlines Should Be Free to Merge
Irvine, CA -- In response to a proposed merger between United and Continental, as well as reports that US Airways is considering a merger with Delta, politicians criticized the companies and called on the Justice Department to block any consolidation in the airline industry. House Representative James Oberstar, for example, says the government should not allow any airline mergers because they would only benefit stockholders and airline executives. Senator Frank Lautenberg, echoing the anti-merger sentiment in Congress, opposes any merger that the government deems not "good for the flying public." "But politicians have no right to interfere with the mergers of airline companies--or any other companies," said Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Mergers are a legitimate business strategy used to cut costs, improve efficiency, gain customers, grow sales, and increase profits. All companies, including airlines, should be free to decide whether to merge or break up; if customers do not like the prices or practices of the merged company, they are free to take their money elsewhere."Kofi Annan: Parting Shot
From Cox and Forkum:
Kofi Annan had some strong words Monday for the United States in his farewell speech as secretary-general of the United Nations. ... "When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose, for broadly shared aims, in accordance with broadly accepted norms."There are few greater compliments for America then being chided by Annan for not kow-towing to world opinion. Annan went on to say:
As things stand, accountability between states is highly skewed. Poor and weak states are easily held to account, because they need foreign assistance. But large and powerful states, whose actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained only by their own people, working through their domestic institutions. That gives the people and institutions of such powerful states a special responsibility to take account of global views and interests, as well as national ones. ... In fact, it is only through multilateral institutions that states can hold each other to account. And that makes it very important to organize those institutions in a fair and democratic way, giving the poor and the weak some influence over the actions of the rich and the strong.Allow me to translate: By "some influence over the actions of the rich and the strong" Annan means "the legal force to counteract the sovereignty of America." Good riddance to Annan. Too bad the U.N. itself won't follow him.
Senators’ Letter Is a Violation of ExxonMobil’s Freedom of Speech
Irvine, CA--On October 27 Sens. Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) and Snowe (R., Maine) sent a letter to ExxonMobil's CEO requesting that ExxonMobil end its financial assistance and support of groups and individuals who reject global warming claims, and urging it to "publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it." "This letter constitutes an outrageous violation of ExxonMobil's right to free speech," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Whether or not one believes there is a threat of catastrophic global warming, the government has no right to tell ExxonMobil what ideas it should advocate or fund. "Free speech means the freedom to promote any idea one wishes without the danger of suppression or punitive action by the government. When two United States senators declare that a company has 'manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years,' that is clearly a thinly veiled threat, and any sensible organization must regard it as such. "Observe that the senators do not offer a single fact intended to convince ExxonMobil of the truth of their position. Their message is not 'agree with us because,' but 'agree with us or else.' That is a message appropriate to a dictator, not to the representatives of a free nation. "Defenders of free speech must stand up against this vicious attempt to intimidate ExxonMobil into embracing the global warming cause, and declare that the government has no business telling Americans what they should think or say."Iraq Study Group Report
From Cox and Forkum:
In 1945, Americans knew that there was truly "no substitute for victory," as General MacArthur said in his farewell speech to Congress. In 1945, Americans also knew the meaning of "victory." It was not a mere word, empty of content. It named a specific task, and a precise goal. To say that our aim today is "to attain victory" can be as empty and futile as urging a college student to "do well," or a businessman to "succeed." What constitutes "doing well"? What is "success"? How will we know when we have achieved "victory"? The question is: What is it that we really need from the enemy? History offers yet another example. The words proclaimed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which defined the terms of victory, and which he held intransigently for over two years, are "Unconditional Surrender." Bringing long-term peace to the world, said FDR,This is just a glimpse of the essay's analysis, so as I urged before: Read the whole thing. And when you do, contrast it to what Bush said today about our enemies. The CNN headline captures the essence: Bush tells Iran, Syria how they can join Iraq talks.involves the simple formula of placing the objective of this war in terms of an unconditional surrender. . . . Unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the . . . Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy . . . which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other peoples.In other words, continued FDR:We have learned that if we do not pull the fangs of the predatory animals of the world, they will multiply and grow in strength . . . [they] must be disarmed and kept disarmed, and they must abandon the philosophy which has brought so much suffering to the world.The term "Unconditional Surrender" has been closely linked to Civil War General Ulysses S. Grant, who demanded "no terms except unconditional and immediate surrender" from his southern foe at Fort Donelson, Kentucky. For this victory, Grant was heroized as "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. To Americans of the time, "U. S." stood for Ulysses S. Grant, for the United States, and for Unconditional Surrender. Americans demanded nothing less than victory, and equated victory with their own identity as a nation. This is what we must regain today: the sense of ourselves as right to drive victoriously over a viciously evil enemy. We must demand the unconditional surrender of the Islamic State in Iran--and of every other Islamic Totalitarian State on earth--to the legitimate laws of man, the laws that protect individual rights.
After talks with his top Iraq war ally President Bush on Thursday indicated that Iran and Syria might be included in regional talks about Iraq, if they meet certain conditions. ... The Iraq Study Group report also called on the United States to hold talks on the war with Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, a nation which has not enjoyed diplomatic relations with Washington in the nearly three decades after the Iranian revolution. "Having an international group is an interesting idea," Bush said. "We have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a possible change in U.S. policy, a policy that's been in place for 27 years," said Bush. "And that is that, if they would like to engage the United States, that they've got to verifiably suspend their [nuclear] enrichment program."So there's been a "change in U.S. policy." Bush would like us to believe that we nonetheless have Iran on the defensive and that the West has set the terms. But in reality it is Iran that is setting the terms. The Islamic Republic is an openly hostile enemy who is not only pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of numerous agreements but is also actively involved in killing our troops in Iraq -- and yet they have suffered no negative consequences. It is an act of appeasement to even consider talks with Iran because it rewards their past behavior. Iran has set the terms by pursuing whatever policies are in their interest while the West merely reacts with words. Why would Iran suddenly begin to punish themselves for our sake, just because we asked, when their current strategy is working just fine? Until the Iranian regime is defeated militarily, there can be no meaningful talks. Bush may admit that the situation in Iraq is "bad," but until he admits that Iran is the real source of the problem, the situation will only get worse.
Lecture: Flemming Rose on “Why Publish the Danish Cartoons?”
Flemming Rose is the Cultural Editor for the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, the person who commissioned and then published the cartoons of Mohammed that became known as the Danish Cartoons. First published September 30, 2005, they created a furor around the world last spring. These dramatic events were caused by one man and one newspaper, with the able assistance of 12 political cartoonists. Flemming Rose tells his story: why he commissioned the cartoons, the reasons for their publication, and puts the cartoons in a larger context of the battle of ideas in today's Europe. This battle is about freedom of speech, respect for and by religion, the integration of Muslims into European culture and wider immigration issues. While this talk may leave you wondering about the future of America, Europe and the entire world, Mr. Rose will inspire you and show you how ideas influence the world. There will be a Q & A after the talk. There is no charge to attend this event, and it is open and intended for the public. Members of the media are welcome to attend. Don't miss this rare opportunity -- Flemming Rose is only in this country for a short time.Monday, December 4, 2006 at 7:30 pm; Wittemyer Courtroom, Wolf Law School Building, University of Colorado at Boulder. For further information, please contact Ideas.Matter@yahoo.com, or jim.manley@objectivistclubs.org or Lin Zinser at 303.431.2525. Co-sponsored by Ideas Matter! and the Boulder Objectivist Club.
No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
Writes Professor of History, John Lewis, in "No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism" at the Objective Standard:On December 7, 1941, we were attacked by Japan, a country then governed by a militaristic, religious ideology, in pursuit of a divine empire, with indoctrinated soldiers who soon used suicide tactics. We chose the ruthless, offensive response. Three years and eight months later, the Japanese surrendered, their country in ruins, their people starving. Five years after the attacks, Japan had a constitution that included the following (from its famous Article 9): "[T]he Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation. . . . The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized." Sixty years after the U.S. ended two generations of aggressive Japanese warfare, Japan remains free, productive, and friendly to America. The Japanese have not abandoned their traditions—nor has anyone asked them to do so—but they no longer use them to kill and enslave others. Rather than seek our destruction, Japan has become a staunch political ally, a robust free-market competitor, and an invaluable economic producer. Rather than build bombs and fighter planes with which to attack us, the Japanese build cars and computers that contribute immensely to our own high standard of living. In perfect contrast, the second option—the pragmatic, altruistic, limited-military response—has been the basic approach of the Bush Administration to the attacks of September 11, 2001. What are the results?For the results and the cure read Dr. Lewis' brilliant article. From Cox and Forkum:
Putin and the Rule of Law
From Cox and Forkum:
This cartoon was originally posted on February 22, 2005, and is one of over 400 illustrations in our new book, Black & White World III, which can be purchased online through us, or Amazon.com From FoxNews: British Airways to Contact Passengers After Traces of Radiation Found on Planes.Two British Airways jets tested positive Wednesday for low-level radioactive contamination as the probe into the apparent murder of a former KGB agent uncovered a trail leading directly from London to Moscow. FOX News has learned that British authorities are checking into whether anyone onboard the planes are associated with the radiation poisoning death of ex-Russian spy and Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko. ... Litvinenko, who died Nov. 23 in a London hospital, claims Russian President Vladimir Putin was behind his death. The former spy said he believed he had been poisoned on Nov. 1, while investigating the death of another Kremlin detractor investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya. His hair fell out, his throat became swollen and his immune and nervous systems were severely damaged, he said.From the San Francisco Chronicle: Russia -- the usual suspected assassin; Kremlin denies all, everybody shrugs.Whether the Russian government is really behind the death of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko, 21st century Russia still looks like the kind of country that would assassinate its adversaries James Bond-style by slipping radioactive polonium-210 into their sushi. After all, a former KGB spy holds the nation's highest office [President Vladimir Putin]. Former intelligence operatives are senior Cabinet members. The state controls virtually every media outlet. Many who, like Litvinenko, dare to criticize the government are intimidated, imprisoned or exiled. Some are murdered, their cases unsolved. The Kremlin obstructs the work of international civil liberties watchdogs and silences domestic adversaries who criticize human rights abuses, particularly in the war-torn republic of Chechnya. Given this record, it is not surprising that many people have been quick to pin the blame on the Kremlin, even though the Kremlin's many accusers have offered no evidence of its guilt, said Sarah Mendelson, an expert on Russia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.From CNN: Full statement by Alexander Litvinenko.You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women. You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.
Lecture: The Fountainhead as a Romantic Novel
The Fountainhead as a Romantic Novel By Tore Boeckmann In the first chapter of The Fountainhead, we learn that Howard Roark's drawings "were sketches of buildings such as had never stood on the face of the earth." Yet the Dean, a champion of classicism, tells Roark that "all the proper forms of expression have been discovered long ago." The conflict between the classicist, who copies, and an artist like Howard Roark, who originates, runs through The Fountainhead and illustrates the novel's wider theme: the conflict between the parasite and the creator. Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead is itself the work of a creator. In fact, as Tore Boeckmann shows in this lecture, the novel was written by the same basic method as its hero, Howard Roark, follows in creating his architectural designs. But the work of a creator is original. Can there be a method for creating the new? Mr. Boeckmann demonstrates that there is such a method. Identifying its nature, he shows how this method gives rise to every concrete aspect of The Fountainhead. And he shows how the method of The Fountainhead, and of Howard Roark, is essential to the romantic school of art. (This lecture is based on an essay in Robert Mayhew's new book, Essays on Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead.") Tore Boeckmann's mystery short stories have been published and anthologized in several languages. He edited Ayn Rand's The Art of Fiction, and has lectured at Objectivist conferences in America and Europe . Recent publications include " The Fountainhead as a Romantic Novel" and "What Might Be and Ought to Be: Aristotle's Poetics and The Fountainhead" in Essays on Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead," edited by Robert Mayhew. Tuesday December 5, 2006; Kimmel Center Room 914-Silver, New York University; 7:00pm; e-mail: nyu@objectivistclubs.org; Map.Free-Speech, Kramer and the “N-Word”
From Cox and Forkum:
Black leaders challenged the entertainment industry, including rap artists, actors and major studios, to stop the use of the racial slur that triggered the scandal involving "Seinfeld" comic actor Michael Richards. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader, and others said Monday they will meet with TV networks, film companies and musicians to discuss banning the racial slur that is a derogatory term for blacks. They also sought an effort by the public to stop using the term. ... Richards, who played the wacky neighbor Kramer on "Seinfeld," triggered outrage with a November 17 racial rant against two black men when he was heckled during a stand-up comedy routine at the Laugh Factory nightclub in West Hollywood. ... Richards has made several apologies, including one Sunday on Jackson's syndicated radio program, in which he has said he is not a racist and was motivated by anger. At the press conference, comedian Paul Mooney said he has used the "n-word" numerous times during stand-up performances but will no longer do so after watching Richards' rant. "He's my Dr. Phil," the black comedian said. "He's cured me." Asked about free-speech issues, Jackson said the word is "unprotected."So much for the left and freedom of speech. Even the uncommon but innocuous word "niggardly" caused a bit of a controversy in 1999: D.C. aide in 'niggardly' flap will return to City Hall.
A white aide to Washington Mayor Anthony Williams who resigned after using the word "niggardly" in a conversation will be returning to city government, ending a flap over what critics derided as political correctness run amok. ... On January 15, Howard used the word "niggardly" -- a synonym for "stingy" -- in a conversation with two aides. Eleven days later, he resigned as rumors were spreading that he had used a racial epithet. ... But columnists and commentators pounced on the incident as yet another example of the ludicrous state of politics and race relations in Washington.
Snow Gray
From Cox and Forkum:
THE Bush administration has not been known for dramatic policy shifts, until last week. For while the US President was making tentative noises that Syria and Iran might have a role to play in salvaging something from the wreckage of Iraq, the previously unthinkable was already happening. Damascus and Tehran have been talking to senior Washington diplomats and advisers about their role in creating some kind of stability in the region. James Baker, the former Secretary of State leading a task force of Washington's "wise men" to try to find the most palatable policy options available is acting as a proxy for the administration as it tries to persuade Iran to put pressure on Shi'ites to compromise while also pressuring Syria to use its influence with the Sunni leaders of the insurgency. The US's new willingness to engage Iran was demonstrated when Baker recently had a three-hour dinner with Tehran's ambassador to the UN. ... Although the US is not officially speaking with either Damascus or Tehran, Baker's talks point the way towards a future in which it is compelled to shift direction in private, even if it continues to take a hard line publicly. Baker himself has repeatedly argued that "it is not appeasement to talk to your enemies". Even so, the remaining hawks in the administration ask what possible carrots the US can offer Syria and Iran - the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism - in return for their help in Iraq that would not themselves negate key elements of American foreign policy. The Baker view, however, has at least one powerful ally in the administration. Robert Gates, nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defence, is also in favour of talks with Iran and Syria. Gates, who is currently serving as a member of the Iraq Study Group, will now advocate engagement from inside the administration.From Hamilton Spectator: Democracy in Iraq out of reach for now, Kissinger says.
Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, a frequent adviser to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, has concluded that the United States must choose between stability and democracy in Iraq -- and that democracy, for now, is out of reach.