By Dawn's Early Light

Fox News on GodBlogCon 2005

Kudos to Fox News for carrying this AP story on GodBlogCon 2005 [DEL posts on here and here].  The first ever convention of Christian bloggers was held last month at Biola University.  The Fox News story is fair and balanced from this blogger's perspective.

"Many bloggers are now writing about religious oppression, poverty and world hunger, instead of hot-button issues such as abortion, homosexuality and assisted suicide, said the Rev. Andrew Jackson, a seminary professor and pastor at the Word of Grace Church in Mesa, Ariz.

'With blogging you tend to break out of those circles and you see other points of view,' Carter said. 'There's a bigger world out there than gay marriage and abortion.'

At one well-attended workshop — 'When Non-Christians Read Your Blog' — Biola University professor Timothy Muehlhoff (search) gave instructions on writing about faith without alienating nonbelievers.

He stressed that God blogging has the potential to be a "train wreck" because done wrong it can reinforce stereotypes of evangelical Christians as angry and close-minded "pit bulls of the culture wars.'

'As Christians today we are embroiled in the argument culture and we have forgotten this one thing: Blessed are the peacemakers,' he said. 'Wouldn't it be nice if we could say we brought a level of civility back to the conversation?'"

There is more to Christianity online than the typical Main Stream Media debates.  The SCBA is a great example of the diverse opinions and areas of interests to a group of Christian bloggers.  There is a tremendous amount of collegiality and civility among Christian bloggers that I have experienced online.  It is a wonderful, growing community. 

I am looking foward to meeting more Christian bloggers at GodBlogCon 2006!

Lessons of Eason Jordan Still Not Learned

Bill Roggio over at Winds of Change has a post that calls readily to mind Eason Jordan’s comments about the US military targeting journalists intentionally.  Bill's post follows up on excellent work by This isn’t writing, it’s typing and BLACKFIVE.  Linda Foley, the national president of the Newspaper Guild, which is part of the Communications Worker of America union, has made a recent similar charge to Mr. Jordan's.  This piece from Editor & Publisher quotes Ms. Foley from May 13, before the National Conference for Media Reform in St. Louis, as saying:

"Journalists are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. And what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal."

Like Mr. Jordan, her comments are recorded, though Mr. Jordan's never became available from Davos.  Her charges are a disservice to the men and woman of the United States military risking their lives for a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan.  Her comments are a disgrace to the journalists she represents.  Her comments also lack concrete claims.

Her statements led me to do some research into her prior public comments on the US military.  What I found was quite interesting.  This is not the first time Ms. Foley has made these types of accusations.  However, what is most telling is Ms. Foley's lack of concern for the truth in retelling a story.  Capturing tone and meaning when quoting an individual is extremely important.  Taking words and phrases out of context from another individual to attack that individual is disgraceful journalism.  Ms. Foley has apparently done just that in the past, which further calls into question her credibility on this issue.

Linda Foley wrote "Looking ahead: DoD news flash: war is dangerous" on April 18, 2003 as president of her union to the Newspaper Guild faithful.  Let us start with what she factually gets right in her article:

"At least a dozen journalists have died in Iraq since the conflict began on March 20, including two Americans: Washington Post columnist and former Guild member Michael Kelly, who died in a Humvee accident, and David Bloom of NBC News, who succumbed to a pulmonary embolism. Both were embedded with U.S. troops at the time of their deaths. Both, tragically, left behind families with young children and many admiring friends and colleagues.

Several other journalists were killed in the midst of combat or as victims of suicide bombings and other violence. Even after the fall of Baghdad to U.S. troops, seven journalists were beaten, robbed and narrowly escaped lynching at the hands of Iraqi militia in the central city. Before the Iraqi government crumbled, Iraqi officials expelled several journalists from Baghdad, including the CNN crew; armed militia kidnapped two Newsday reporters and a freelance U.S. photographer, who eventually escaped to Syria; and Iraqi troops attacked an entourage of Polish journalists."

Then she begins her list of acts committed by the US military against journalists covering the war:

"But the deaths caused by U.S. air strikes on the Baghdad offices of the Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television networks and by a U.S. tank’s shelling of the Palestine Hotel, unofficial headquarters of journalists stationed in Baghdad, raised heightened worldwide alarm over the safety of journalists covering the war.

Taraq Ayyoub of Al-Jazeera was killed on April 8 as U.S. bombs severely damaged the Baghdad office of his Qatar-based network. Cameraman Zouhair al-Iraqi was critically injured in the blast. That same morning, another U.S. air strike damaged the nearby offices of Abu Dhabi TV, trapping 30 journalists for nearly a day. The U.S. military denied that its 'smart bombs' had been aimed at the networks’ offices.

Also killed on April 8 in the Palestine Hotel were Taras Protsyuk of Reuters and Jose Couso of Spain’s Telecinco. Several other journalists also were wounded in that attack. U.S. officials said a tank was responding to what appeared to be sniper fire coming from the hotel, although journalists on the scene disputed the claim.

These weren’t the only questionable journalistic casualties involving U.S. troops in Iraq. During the first week of the war, ITN British journalist and NBC News contributor Terry Lloyd and members of his crew were reportedly killed by 'friendly fire.' And, following the ferocious late March sandstorm, two Israeli journalists and a Portuguese television reporter were allegedly beaten by U.S. troops and detained for 48 hours before they were shipped to Kuwait and let go."

The United States military and the Bush administration allowed reporters to choose to embed with coalition forces, rather than shutting them out of the war, like during the 1991 Gulf War.  Over 500 journalists chose to embed with US forces.  Journalists who chose to enter the war zone without knowledge of the US military had every right to make that choice.  However, blaming the US military for journalists dying in Iraq in the middle of a combat zone during the height of fighting is clearly unfair. 

Ms. Foley, along with Amnesty International and 6 other journalist unions, called on the US to launch an independent investigation.  In closing she states:

"So far, the only word from the Pentagon in response has been an admonition from spokeswoman Victoria Clarke that journalists should remember 'war is dangerous business.'

I’ll say."

I have a good deal of respect for Ms. Clarke and thought she handled her tenure as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs with class and competence.  I found it hard to believe she would be so callous about journalists dying in a war zone, even if they were not a part of the DoD's embed program.

Here is what Ms. Clarke did say on April 14, 2003 during a press briefing:

"War is also hazardous for journalists, as we know. At great personal risk, many of them have reported the conflict first-hand. We salute these professionals and offer our condolences to their families.

(Pause while list of names of journalist casualties is shown.)" The list of the 10 names of journalists, both the 2 embedded and 8 non-embedded can be found here.

Ms. Clarke did not say "war is dangerous business", she said "War is also hazardous for journalists, as we know" and then saluted the "professionals" offering sympathy to their families.  In fact, Google has only one result that reports quotes "war is dangerous business". Who do you think said it, Ms. Clarke?  No, it is Linda Foley's article, misquoting Ms. Clarke to make a political point against the men and women of the US armed forces. 

Knowing that Ms. Foley is willing to take a statement of condolence and turn it 180 degrees 2 years ago makes me take her recent claims with a great deal of skepticism and wonder how she came to head a union of journalists that are supposed to seek out truth and accuracy by their profession.

Anne Applebaum Defends Newsweek, Attacks Pentagon

As readers of Dawn's Early Light know, I am quite a fan of Ms. Applebaum (See here).  However, I disagree with her column "Blaming the Messenger" found in today's Washington Post (HT: Instapundit).

Her main argument is:

"But surely the larger point is not the story itself but that it was so eminently plausible, in Pakistan, Afghanistan and everywhere else. And it was plausible precisely because interrogation techniques designed to be offensive to Muslims were used in Iraq and Guantanamo, as administration and military officials have also confirmed."

I would counter that any argument made in the government-controlled, ill-educated Middle East that is anti-American or anti-Israel in nature would probably be believed, regardless of its plausibility.  Take, for example, the 2002 Al-Riyadh article that accused Jews of using the blood of Christians and Muslims in foods to celebrate the Jewish holiday of Purim (see here for the MEMRI and World Net Daily review and additional commentary here).  This claim is still accepted as fact to many Muslims in the Middle East.  Or how about the popular Middle East Arab newspaper claim that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center?  (For a great list timeline of this conspiracy theory, click here). 

Believing crazy conspiracy theories against the US or Israel is not confined merely to the Muslim world.  Our French allies bought a good number of copies of Thierry Meyssan's book that argued no Boeing 787 hit the Pentagon and that it was all a US conspiracy on 9/11.

Many of the Chinese believe the US purposely targeted their embassy during the Balkan conflict.

Anne Applebaum concludes:

"Opponents of these methods, among them some of the military's own interrogation experts, have argued, on the contrary, that 'special methods' are not only ineffective but counterproductive: They might actually inspire Muslim terrorists instead of helping to defeat them. They might also make it easier, say, for fanatics in Jalalabad to use two lines of a magazine article to incite riots.

Blaming the messenger, even for a bungled message, doesn't get the administration off the hook. Yes, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, people need to be very careful, not only about what they say but about what they do. And, yes, people whose military and diplomatic priorities include the defeat of Islamic fanaticism and the spread of democratic values in the Muslim world need to be very, very careful, not only about what they say but about what they do to the Muslims they hold in captivity."

Ms. Applebaum is bright and well educated and has done more research than many great historians on prison atrocities, especially the Gulags in Russia. (Her book Gulag is a must read).  However, I find it incredible to believe that if the US showed just a bit more compassion and sensitivity in dealing with people who have no qualms about killing even their own Muslim men, women and children (see al-Zarqawi's recent justification of Muslim murder) that passions would not be inflamed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere, regardless of a story's plausibility. 

Unlike, Ms. Applebaum, I do blame the messenger.  I think her defense of Newsweek is not a defense at all, but rather reads as an attack against Sec. Defense Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration, and Pentagon to obfuscate the real culprit that caused almost a score of deaths, the MSM.  Knowing her regular writing, this seems hard to believe.  It may be her focus and knowledge of state prison abuses that is driving her attack and helps her look past the 17 dead as a result of careless journalism.  But in the end, in this obviously sensitive area, the culprit is the reckless, thoughtless story, that Newsweek later confessed was untrue.

Update: Welcome Instapundit readers.  If you have found this post of interest, please take a look at Dawn's Early Light's posts on China and India.  DEL believes the US is creating an impressive alliance structure in Asia to contain China and promote India.  Enjoy.

Interesting Perspectives on the Newsweek Tragedy

There is commentary aplenty on the Newsweek mess of the false story of Koran flushing at Gitmo.  Dawn's Early Light has nothing substantive to add to this debate other than a further sense that the Main Stream Media is continuing to lose its gatekeeper position as it continually blows major stories with a telling bias.

However, I have seen and been sent several pieces with different perspectives worth reviewing that I would like to share with my readers:

• Dennis Prager writing over at Real Clear Politics:

"It is quite remarkable that many Muslims believe that an American interrogator flushing pages of the Koran is worthy of rioting, but all the torture, slaughter, terror and mass murder done by Muslims in the name of the Koran are unworthy of even a peaceful protest.

Nevertheless, one will have to search extensively for any editorials condemning these primitives in the Western press, let alone in the Muslim press. This is because moral expectations of Muslims are lower than those of other religious groups. Behavior that would be held in contempt if engaged in by Christians or Jews is not only not condemned, it is frequently "understood" when done by Muslims.

That, not phony reports about an American desecrating Koranic pages, should really upset Muslims. It won't. Just as the CBS and Newsweek debacles won't upset the American news media.
The lowest of the Muslim world and the elite of the Western world: Anti-Americanism makes strange bedfellows."

• Bill Roggio over at the Fourth Rail:

"One of the greatest hurdles we face in fighting a nihilistic enemy bent on the destruction of our civilization is not their military prowess, but the inherent biases that exist within our own media elites. The desire to promote their agendas at the expense of the truth or our safety provides a measure of comfort to our enemy, who hopes to divide us from within.

Evan Thomas (a man in the know who stated during the 2004 Presidential election; “The media, I think, wants Kerry to win”) reports “More allegations, credible or not, are sure to come” with respect to the treatment of detainees in Gitmo. Our politically biased, fact and logic challenged media no doubt will report these allegations, the effects on the War on Terror be damned. They have a message to deliver, and it is a message al Qaeda wishes to be disseminated. That the media do not recognize this or worse, do not care, speaks volumes about their competence to accurately report the news."

• Marvin Hutchens over at Little Red Blog:

"It is not that I don’t believe Newsweek made an error, I believe the reporting was erroneous, the question for me is whether or not Newsweek knew, in advance of its publication, that the story lacked credibility, would cause an outrage, and would further damage U.S. relations with the Muslim world. It is hard for me to accept that Newsweek’s staff of supposedly worldly journalist and editors weren’t aware of the potential for a story of this nature to become a spark in the tinder box that is the Muslim world. I believe they either knew, and were okay with it, or worse, knew and wanted it."

• Thomas Collins over at Quillnews:

"We are dealing with a professional mindset that is simply not part of the regular world being defended by the bravery and blood of volunteers.  These people are simply in denial about the peril our freedoms are in and otherwise willfully arrogant about the lack of maturity and responsibility demonstrated every day in the MSM.  The insularity and elitism that has cost these media market share, consumer confidence, advertising revenues, circulation, viewers, readers – the very approval that all civilized instructions require let alone commercial enterprises – has also insulated these otherwise good people from the common sense that even a gas station earning minimum wage knows.  It's hard to beat the simple statement made by SecDef Rumsfeld on Capital Hill Monday:  'People lost their lives. People are dead. People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be careful about what they do.'"   

Men and women of the United States were put in harm's way by Newsweek's faulty reporting.  That some in the MSM want to turn this story around and blame the Bush Administration policies further decreases the public's remaining respect for the legacy media.  America's reputation has suffered again and people have lost their lives. 

I think all of the above bloggers have merit in their comments.  Until we see the double standard that militant Islam is afforded confronted in the MSM, as Dennis Prager points out, we can have little progress over bridging issues that divide us in America.  The War on Terror is too important to our way of life, but the WoT is often treated by the MSM as just another story, devoid of moral clarity.

We are an increasingly polarized nation between red and blue.  The MSM represents blue state thinking and biases as talk radio and the right side of the blogosphere represent the red states.  MSM biases are hard to question when the facts are hazy and deadlines near with what appears to be a major scoop.  Ask Dan Rather, ask Howell Raines about the importance of fact checking and reporting the truth, not how you believe the truth probably is based on one's political bent. 

Newsweek has dealt itself, the MSM and our country a decent blow.

Does the NYT Editorial Board read the NYT?

The New York Times has an editorial today that seems to have been written in a complete vacuum to recent news events.  I don't know if it is because the NYT is not covering news that it should and therefore its editorial board is not reading other news accounts or if the editorial board is not reading its own paper.  Either way, "A Rising China" is an amazing piece of ignorance.

"China's rapid economic growth and steady military modernization are transforming power relations across Asia. In recent weeks, Beijing has reached out to its old rival, New Delhi, courted Taiwanese opposition parties and fanned old grievances against Japan. This comes on top of the long-term deals that Chinese diplomats have been signing to give Beijing special access to the raw materials of Southeast Asia and Australia.

It's time for the United States to take more notice. America may still be Asia's dominant military power, but its economic role is receding as China advances. Unfortunately, Asian policy, long a stepchild for the Bush administration, has been further marginalized, thanks to the exit of the State Department's most respected Asia hands, Richard Armitage and Mitchell Reiss. Paul Wolfowitz's move to the World Bank leaves a similar void at the Pentagon."

There is the thesis.  The United States is asleep at the wheel.  Surprising, since Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice has visited 6 Asian nations (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Japan and South Korea), including China, since January 2005 with a clear goal of containing China.  Surprising also since Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick is in Asia doing a 6-country tour currently, with China as a primary focus (see DEL here).  Mr. Zoellick is even working to build a relationship with Vietnam, aiding the Bush Administration's quest to reach out to former enemies that share a common goal of not seeing a hegemonic China [See DEL here].  Dawn's Early Light traces just three major US foreign policy moves in Asia: 1) reaction to China over Taiwan 2) relations with Japan to contain China and 3) building a strategic relationship with India to contain China.

US Foreign Policy with China over Taiwan: Maybe the editors missed this article from the NYT prior to Sec. Rice's visit "China Releases Political Prisoner Ahead of Visit by Rice" (March 17, 2005) that focused on human rights successes by the US.  Could they also have missed this NYT headline "Rice Urges Europeans Not to Resume Arms Sales to China" after the diplomatically suave Beijing government passed the "anti-secession law" which authorized "non-peaceful means" to reunite China?  [See DEL here and here].  President Bush on his trip to Europe received support from the EU that they would not lift the ban on arms to China that has been in place since the 1989 Tianamen Square massacre.

Secretary Rice, prior to President Bush's election was the one to coin the phrase in Foreign Affairs (2000) that China was a "strategic competitor".  The Bush Administration is intensely focused on countering a "rising" China.

US Foreign Policy with Japan to Contain China: What about this headline from the NYT "With Taiwan as Security Issue, Rice Prepares to Meet Japan Leaders" that states "But an administration official said the United States and Japan would also issue a joint statement on Saturday confirming a 'common strategic direction' on policies toward Taiwan, China and other regional issues. On Taiwan, the statement will "encourage the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan Straits dialog," the administration official said. This would be the first time that Japan has joined the United States in voicing public concern over China's growing military buildup in the area."  The same article states [See DEL here and here] that "She and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld are scheduled to meet with Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura and Defense Agency Director General Yoshinori Ono."  This meeting paved the way for the update to the US-Japanese Security Arrangement that added the defense of Taiwan to its purpose.

Additionally, The International Herald Tribune (owned by the NYT) writes:

"Japan, a long-term U.S. ally, is also seen to be cooperating with Washington in a new initiative to build closer ties with India in response to China's growing influence."

The US seems to be particularly focused on Asia while fighting a major war in Iraq and around the world in the War on Terror.  However, the NYT editorial position states:

"Japan: For years, the United States has urged Tokyo to cast off its postwar pacifism and play a larger role in regional defense. Japan's current prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, is happy to oblige. But he has combined a more assertive military stance with an embrace of right-wing nationalism that offends and alarms the Asian nations that suffered wartime Japanese aggression and atrocities. His repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo have been particularly provocative; the shrine is where top Japanese war criminals are among the honored and the country's Asian conquests are celebrated.

"In this context, it was a mistake for Washington to encourage Japan recently to declare a security interest in matters concerning Taiwan, a former Japanese colony. Beijing seized on this declaration, along with Japan's bid for a permanent United Nations Security Council seat, as a pretext for permitting three weekends of anti-Japanese violence last month. Beijing achieved its purpose of throwing Tokyo onto the defensive, but is wrong to oppose Japan's Security Council bid and reckless to stir up past grievances. China and Japan, Asia's two biggest economic powers, need to work out a healthier relationship, and Washington should be actively looking for ways to help them."

The US is criticized for having Japan support a democratically elected government in Taiwan with military force.  The NYT position appears to be not to defend any friend or bear any burden for the cause of democracy, but rather to not upset rising totalitarian nations.  This is a ridiculous position, especially in light of the fact that the US doesn't control Japanese prime ministers.  What was the proper US response to China for authorizing "non-peaceful means" to reunite Taiwan to the mainland in the esteemed opinion of the NYT editorialists? 

The US has supported Japan becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which would help balance a rising China.  [See DEL here]  Such a proactive policy of supporting a friendly democracy in Asia would seem to be a positive step in addressing China's "rise".

US Foreign Policy with India to Contain China:  The US Sec. of State surprisingly offered India the opportunity to purchase 126 F-16s or F-18s, (here from the NYT) on her visit to New Delhi.  She also offered New Delhi nuclear technology that was also attacked in the NYT editorial pages.  Dawn's Early Light wrote on March 25th that the US was offering India major incentives to join the American efforts to promote democratic India over communist China:

• India should purchase the US F-16s (up to 125 aircraft)
• The US will approve a smaller sale of F-16s to Pakistan, with New Delhi's knowledge
• The US will offer future, more advanced military hardware including:
  • missile defense
  • nuclear reactor technology
  • high tech programs
  • other advanced US weapon systems
• The US will engage in a long-term strategic relationship with India to contain China and proactively work to propel India into being a major 21st century world power.

What about state-owned India Air's recent decision to purchase 50 Boeing aircraft over Airbus that was heavily lobbied by Mr. Mineta, the US Transportation Secretary, as well as Sec. Rice?  The NYT covered the Boeing purchase here. 

Willy Lam of the Jamestown Foundation makes a well-researched and structured argument to the same effect in his piece "Beijing's Alarm Over New 'US Encirclement Conspiracy'".  Mr. Lam writes:

"One of Beijing's worst nightmares seems to be coming true. Having apparently steadied the course in the Middle East, the Bush administration is turning to Asia to tame its long-standing 'strategic competitor.' While this particular term has been shelved since 9/11 – and Sino-U.S. relations have improved thanks to China's cooperation with Washington's global anti-terrorist campaign – there are signs at least from Beijing's perspective that Washington is spearheading multi-pronged tactics to contain the fast-rising Asian giant."

Contrast this with the NYT editorial:

"China's prime minister visited India last month and signed a series of agreements intended to increase bilateral trade and end a long-festering set of border disputes that once brought the two countries to war. An improved relationship between these rapidly developing countries, which are home to about 40 percent of the world's population, can only be welcomed. But it signals an enormous shift in the Asian power equation."

The Chinese can offer an increase in trade to India.  The US can offer technological assistance, trade, access to nuclear technology for power, safeguarding oil supplies from the gulf, military technology and hardware, support for a UN Security Council seat, and many other benefits.  It would appear the US is providing far better incentives to India than China is.  And additionally, India is much less likely to end up in a war against the US than it is its rival China, whom it has fought with several times before over border disputes.

The NYT editorial is markedly pacifist in nature and seems to be blind to the major US foreign policy initiatives in Asia that its own newsroom has reported on.  Whether or not you agree with the policy of containment for China, one cannot argue that the US does not have a proactive policy regarding a "rising" China and cannot argue that the US is not working with Asian countries to support that policy.

Pope Benedict XVI

I watched with interest yesterday the "Habemus papum!" (Latin for "We have a pope!") switching between the various networks.  I found most of them poor in coverage and analysis.  The Fox News special commentator, upon hearing that Cardinal Ratzinger, whom had been elected to be the next pope, had taken the name Benedict XVI, observed that "there were 15 Benedicts before him".  While the Fox commentary seemed clueless, MSNBC and CNN seemed to stop translating the Latin once the new pope began his blessing.

Hugh Hewitt has a must read piece summarizing the naive editorial reaction of the major papers in America here. 

Reuters runs with an interesting story titled "U.S. Cardinals Warn Against Snap Judgments on Pope" with the key paragraphs at the top of the article:

"U.S. cardinals criticized on Wednesday snap judgments on Pope Benedict XVI, saying some media coverage had been 'skewed' toward a mistaken caricature of the new Church leader as an iron-fisted conservative.

'I think we just have to be very careful about caricaturising the Holy Father, and very simply putting labels on this man of the Church,' Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles told reporters in Rome."

I find it ironic that secular media institutions are calling on the Vatican to take certain stances on issues of faith.  I do not recall these same liberal opinion makers calling for a new type of Islam.  The editorials that Hugh Hewitt links to with their criticisms give me more hope, not less, for this pope.  As a Protestant, my prayers are with him and his flock.  I think the MSM is wrong on this pope as well.

Update: Anne Applebaum, who is not "Catholic or religious", has an exceptional analysis of the European reaction to Cardinal Ratzinger's papacy.  She writes:

"For the many Europeans who dislike religion, it was easy enough to dismiss the late pope as a "backward" Pole, and to find him inconsequential even when he somehow persuaded millions of young people to attend his outdoor "youth" Masses. But the advent of a German pope, who in fact shares many of John Paul II's views, may well make religion part of the European political debate again, this time on the western as well as the eastern half of the continent. At the very least, a German-speaking pope will be hard for Germans to ignore.

This will be a debate worth watching, even if you aren't Catholic or religious (and I am neither), because it will reveal much about the direction in which European politics is heading. It might also hold clues to the future of the battered, long-suffering transatlantic relationship. While many of the cultural differences between Europe and America are vastly overstated, the religious differences are profound."

Ms. Applebaum concludes with this observation:

"In their decision not to pick a pope from a part of the world in which the church is actually growing, the cardinals showed that they've nevertheless not given up on the continent where the papacy was born. Perhaps they see some trend that is invisible to the rest of us. Perhaps they are betting that the enormous growth in the European Muslim population, with all the questions it raises about national identity in countries such as Holland and France, may lead many Europeans, if not directly back to religion, then at least to a recognition that there is a role for the church in public life, or at the very least in history books."

Wading into the Estrich-Kinsley Debate

It took Anne Applebaum's piece today to really fire me up about this crazed Susan Estrich witch hunt against Michael Kinsley over the lack of female columnists in the editorial section of the major dailies. (Ms. Estrich is mad that Michael Kinsley of the LAT does not carry her syndicated opinion column).  If you haven't been following, here is a recap from different sources:

• Instapundit - here and here
• Slate - see Jack Taper here about his former boss
• Los Angeles Times - here
• Real Clear Politics - here from Susan Estrich and here
• Washington Post's Howard Kurtz here

What has me so annoyed is that Ms. Applebaum finds it necessary to write on this issue instead of what she would prefer to write on such as the status of the IRA and how it may apply to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  That sounds like a very fascinating read that I hope the WaPo will still have her run with.  Instead, she is effectively having to answer to Ms. Estrich and, without naming any names, the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's whinny piece.

While I don't always agree with LAT Editorial Manager Michael Kinsley, I have a great deal of respect for him.  The tirade that Susan Estrich has launched against him both personally and publicly is deplorable.  Under Mr. Kinsley's leadership, I found SLATE to be an interesting read.  My favorite columnists to read in the old days of SLATE were, in order:

• Anne Applebaum (exceptional foreign reporting and analysis especially with regard to Eastern Europe and Russia)
• Mickey Kaus (see my description to the right)
• Dahlia Lithwick (don't always agree, but excellent legal review of major legal cases and viewpoints I don't naturally see)
• Emile Yoffe
• Timothy Noah (read Mr. Noah less now, but enjoyed him often under the Kinsley days)

Two of the above happen to be women.  As Jack Tapper of Slate points out with dripping irony to Ms. Estrich:

"In his long, miserable chauvinist career, Kinsley has done more to block women, their views, and their professional aspirations than any journalist I know. Just ask Dorothy Wickenden, Ann Hulbert, Jamie Baylis, Emily Yoffe, Helen Rogan, Suzannah Lessard, Jodie Allen, Judith Shulevitz, Jodi Kantor, Margaret Carlson, Dahlia Lithwick, Kathleen Kincaid, Lakshmi Gopalkrishnan, June Thomas, and others"

I want quality commentary, and the readership of the LAT, NYT, WaPo and others want quality commentary.  Susan Estrich's attacks may be giving her the attention she craves, but is doing little to advance her cause. As Ms. Applebaum puts it:

"As for Estrich, I don't know much about her at all, except that she's just launched a conversation that is seriously bad for female columnists and writers. None of the ones I know -- and, yes, I conducted an informal survey -- want to think of themselves as beans to be counted, or as "female journalists" with a special obligation to write about "women's issues." Most of them got where they are by having clear views, knowing their subjects, writing well and learning to ignore the ad hominem attacks that go with the job. But now, thanks to Estrich, every woman who gets her article accepted will have to wonder whether it was her knowledge of Irish politics, her willingness to court controversy or just her gender that won the editor over...

In the paragraph I have remaining (this, girls, is truly the hardest thing about newspaper columns: making the idea fit the space) I'm not going to discuss the thorny question of whether some affirmative action policies do some good, of whether newspapers matter anymore anyway, or even return to the subject of Sinn Fein. Those are complex, gender-neutral issues, and I've now used up my allotted weekly slot on a "women's issue" instead. Happy, Susan Estrich?"

A Little Reported Bill on Freedom and Democracy

Publius Pundit has a real coup of a post that is NOT (as of March 12, 2005, this link yields no US news stories only Senate office links and some foreign press) being reported in the MainStream Media. Apparently there is a new bill before the House and Senate named the "Advance Democracy Act".   It was supported in a press conference by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA).  Here is a summary of some of the bill's key provisions (from Publius Pundit):

• "Declares that it is the policy of the United States to promote freedom and democracy as a fundamental component of U.S. foreign policy, to see an end to dictatorial and other non-democratic forms of government, and to strengthen alliances with other democratic countries to better promote and defend shared values and ideals.
• Establishes in statute the Under Secretary for Global Affairs with a strong mandate to promote democracy and fundamental freedoms; expands the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to specifically include democracy promotion; and enhances the Human Rights and Democracy Fund controlled by that Bureau.
• Establishes a new Office of Democracy Movements and Transitions and separate Regional Democracy Hubs to be points of contact for democracy movements and to promote democratic transitions and democratic consolidation, and creates a Democracy Promotion Advisory Board to provide outside expertise to the Department of State on democracy promotion and to conduct a study on the efficiency and effectiveness of current U.S. democracy assistance.
• Requires the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on democracy that will include a specific action plan, developed in consultation with local organizations, individuals and movements, to promote and achieve transition to democracy in non-democratic countries.
• Provides for U.S. embassies to be “islands of freedom” and encourages U.S. ambassadors to promote democracy in non-democratic countries, including by meeting with representatives of democracy movements and speaking out on democracy and human rights in such countries, particularly at universities."

Here is a bipartisan effort to promote democracy abroad, encourage the State Department to fulfill President Bush's Inaugural address, and have embassies become an "island of freedom" and the MSM ignores it, though they were at the press conference. (See Publius Pundit's initial link of a blogger that covered the conference and how he got into it here.  It is quite an intriguing read).

Could Bush Be Right (The Left Reconsiders)

There is a growing list of "Could Bush be Right?" articles from Europe, America and the Left in general. (Glenn Reynolds has been posting several of them and lists the The Independent's article).  One must always give credit to the opposition when one is self critical.

Here is a list of "Could Bush be Right?" articles, though a couple are from pro-war papers which is noted:

• Toronto Star of Canada, "Admit it: Bush was right on Iraq", February 1, 2005 (Hat Tip: Washington Post)
• The Independent of London "Was Bush Right After All?", March 8, 2005
• Der Spiegel of Germany "Could George W. Bush Be Right?", February 23, 2005 (prior post here)
• Der Spiegel Part II of the above regarding Bush's relationship with Putin "Could Bush Be Right -- Take Two", February 25, 2005
• Newsweek of the United States "What Bush Got Right", March 14, 2005
• Macleans of Canada "Maybe Bush Was Right", March 11, 2005
• Khaleej Times of UAE reprints Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria article "What Bush got right"
• Cape Times of South Africa (subscription required) "Bush has been right", March 7, 2005
• Halifax Live of Canada "Three Cheers for Idealism", March 7, 2005
• The Economist of the United Kingdom "Democracy Stirs in the Middle East", March 3, 2005
• Time of the United States with a Charles Krauthammer article (he supported the war strongly) "Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine", March 7, 2005
• Chicago Sun-Times of the United States with a Mark Steyn article (he also strongly supported the war) "Election validates Bush's vision of Iraq", March 6, 2005
• Boston Herald of the US "America's thankless task: US forays pave way for real peace", March 6, 2005
• US News & World Report of the US "A sudden, powerful stirring", March 14, 2005
• The Guardian of London doesn't quite give credit to Bush with this blame America line ("As the old Arab order crumbles, a revolution gets under way" March 6, 2005):

"So the source of the movement that some detect sweeping the Middle East is varied and complex. Some ascribe it to President Bush's vigorous championing of democracy in the region. Others point to long standing social and political currents, even suggesting that America's strategic interests have themselves inhibited reform among its loyal yet autocratic Gulf allies."

• The Financial Times of London "Winds of Change in the Middle East", March 5, 2005
• The New Zealand Herald of New Zealand "Syria's withdrawal a sign of change across the Middle East", March 8, 2005 and also here with another article making a similar point
• The Times Online of the United Kingdom and supporter of the invasion "A taste of freedom", March 6, 2005
• Chicago Sun-Times referred to me by reader Gary "What's So Shocking About Having Second Thoughts", February 2, 2005
• Le Monde of France (in French) with a translation from The Belgravia Dispatch (Hat Tip: Instapundit) "Printemps arabe", March 8, 2005.
• Wall Street Journal writing up a transcript of Jon Stewart interview of Clinton Aide Nancy Soderberg "But as an American". (Hat tip to Insane Troll Logic), March 2, 2005
• Gulf News of the UAE "'Kifaya' is the bud of a new movement on Arab streets", March 8, 2005
• New York Times of the US "For Bush, No Boasts, but a Taste of Vindication", March 9, 2005
• Washington Post of the US capital "Is Bush Right?", March 8, 2005
• Independence Online of South Africa "Was Bush right after all?", March 9, 2005
• The Sunday Telegraph of London "The Bush revolution has only just begun", March 6, 2005
• The Christian Science Monitor of the US "The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right" by NPR's liberal Daniel Schorr, March 4, 2005

There are more articles than these, but these are some of the more notable I found online.  Please feel free to add more in the comments section below, and I will add to this list. For the Left's current spin see here for an article in the Washington Post.

The North Korean Party Line Courtesy of the LA Times

I started reading Hugh's commentary on a Los Angeles Times article on North Korea today.  I canceled my subscription to the LAT long ago for its clear and consistent editorialism in its non-editorial pages.  I told myself, I would not let Hugh work me up on this one, because such is the Los Angeles Times. 

However, his post was passionate and he was focused on the issue, so I thought I would read the "offending" article.  It is maddening and extremely one sided.  I am shocked, even by my extremely low opinion of the Los Angeles Times, that they would print such a clearly North Korean propaganda piece.

So, let's fisk the article (LAT in blue):

"He arrived at the entrance to a North Korean government-owned restaurant and karaoke club here in the Chinese capital with a handshake and a request. "Call me Mr. Anonymous," he said in English.

This North Korean, an affable man in his late 50s who spent much of his career as a diplomat in Europe, has been assigned to help his communist country attract foreign investment. With the U.S. and other countries complaining about North Korea's nuclear weapons program and its human rights record, it's a difficult task, he admitted."

So the Barbara Demick, the LAT reporter is talking to a North Korean diplomat, that enjoys the luxuries of living away from his own country's oppressive regime trying to "raise money" (unless of course he is looking to sell arms or trade technology), in a North Korean owned club in China.

"'There's never been a positive article about North Korea, not one,' he said. 'We're portrayed as monsters, inhuman, Dracula … with horns on our heads.'"

I am glad to see Mr. Anonymous now has a friend and a positive article in the Los Angeles Times.  He can't use this line in anymore with reporters.

"So, in an effort to clear up misunderstandings, he expounded on the North Korean view of the world in an informal conversation that began one night this week over beer as North Korean waitresses sang Celine Dion in the karaoke restaurant, and resumed the next day over coffee.

The North Korean, dressed in a cranberry-colored flannel shirt and corduroy trousers, described himself as a businessman with close ties to the government. He said he did not want to be quoted by name because his perspective was personal, not official. Because North Koreans seldom talk to U.S. media organizations, his comments offered rare insight into the view from the other side of the geopolitical divide."

Well at least the North Koreans and us can agree we like Canadian singers.  That is a start for diplomacy isn't it?  More that unites our two governments than divides us.  I also love the imagery of the cranberry-colored flannel shirt with cords.  It brings to mind this image.  Very strong, masculine image of a down to earth former diplomat.  (To listen to the Monty Python Lumberjack song click here)

This is the business man described with "close ties" to the government of North Korea.  The talking points fed to the Los Angeles Times continue.

"He said better relations with the United States were key to turning around his nation's economy, which has nearly ground to a halt over the last decade amid famine, the collapse of industry and severe electricity shortages. "For basic life, we can live without America, but we can live better with" it, he said."

The North Korean government subjects its people and especially children to starvation.  Over two-thirds of North Korean children are malnourished. According to Disaster Relief, a partnership of the Red Cross, CNN Interactive and IBM,  "To survive the months ahead, millions of famished North Koreans will eat wild plants, tree bark, and noodles and cakes made of indigestible grasses and cornstalks."

The Lumberjack continues to be quoted:

"Yet he voiced strong enthusiasm for his country's recent announcement that it had developed nuclear weapons. The declaration, which jarred U.S. officials, was not intended as a threat, he said, but merely a way to advance negotiations.

'Now that we are members of the nuclear club, we can start talking on an equal footing. In the past, the U.S. tried to whip us, as though they were saying, 'Little boy, don't play with dangerous things.'

A colleague, a 55-year-old man also visiting from North Korea, nodded.

'This was the right thing to do, to declare ourselves a nuclear power. The U.S. had been talking not only about economic sanctions, but regime change,' the businessman said. 'We can't just sit there waiting for them to do something. We have the right to protect ourselves.'"

How much did the North Koreans spend on a nuclear weapons program that they shared with countries that support terrorism such as Libya?  Nowhere does the Los Angeles Times point out that North Korea has 1.2 million soldiers, the world's 4th largest army, or that it spends 20%-25% of its GDP on military spending.  Does the Los Angeles Times wonder why the North Korean economy is in the tank with defense spending 5 times that of the United States on a percentage of GDP basis?

"'The North Koreans said they were keenly attentive to the language used by Bush administration officials in regard to their country. They were relieved that in this year's State of the Union address the president didn't again characterize North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," as he did in 2002. But they were greatly offended that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called North Korea an "outpost of tyranny" during her confirmation hearings.

"We were hoping for change from the U.S. administration. We expected some clear-cut positive change," the North Korean said. "Instead, Condoleezza Rice immediately committed the mistake of calling us an outpost of tyranny. North Koreans are most sensitive when they hear that kind of remark.'"

Condi's tough talk upsets the North Koreans.  A country that has its children eating bark off of trees that spends 25% of its GDP on defense is an "outpost of tyranny".  "We were hoping for change from the U.S." is code for "we were hoping for John Kerry" (whom they supported during the campaign). 

"He believes that Americans have the wrongheaded notion that North Koreas are unhappy with the system of government under Kim Jong Il. "We Asians are traditional people," he said. 'We prefer to have a benevolent father leader.'"

Kim Jong il is no benevolent father leader.  He is a leader who starves his people, works to build nuclear weapons, fires missiles over his neighbors like Japan, exports drugs for cash and speaks of leveling Los Angeles with a nuke.

"He also said that U.S. criticism of North Korea's record on human rights was unfair and hypocritical. In its annual human rights report on Monday, the State Department characterized North Korea's behavior as 'extremely poor.' It said 150,000 to 200,000 people were being held in detention camps for political reasons and that there continued to be reports of extrajudicial killings.

'Is there any country where there is a 100% guarantee of human rights? Certainly not the United States,' the businessman said. 'There is a question of what is a political prisoner. Maybe these people are not political prisoners but social agitators.'"

The only reminder to the LAT reader of North Korea's problems comes in this paragraph about human rights, but quickly gives the North Korea response that the US isn't perfect, therefore don't complain about people dying in political camps and starving.

"While Westerners tend to stress the rights of the individual, he said, "we have chosen collective human rights as a nation…. We should have food, shelter, security rather than chaos and vandalism. The question of our survival as a nation is dangling."

The North Korean admitted that "it is no secret that we have economic problems," and he said North Koreans were themselves largely to blame because they let their industry become too dependent on the socialist bloc countries. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, trade fell sharply.

But he faulted the United States for the collapse of a 1994 pact under which North Korea was supposed to get energy assistance in return for freezing its nuclear program. The agreement fell apart after Washington accused North Korea in 2002 of cheating on the deal, and the U.S. and its allies suspended deliveries of fuel oil."

The North Koreans cannot even provide their own description of "collective human rights".  This whole concept is a joke and a communist response to all human rights abuses.  The 1994 agreement, as symbolized with this picture

The article continues.  You can read it.  There really is no point, unless you are hungry for "news" straight from Pyongang.