Frontpage Interviews guest today is Philippe Karsenty, the founder and president of Media-Ratings, the first media-ratings agency in the world that closely monitors French media outlets and, among other things, their anti-American and anti-Israeli bias.
FP: Philippe Karsenty, tell us a bit about your background, what Media-Ratings is and what motivated you to create it.
Karsenty: Media-Ratings was created in 2004 in reaction to all the mistakes, and sometimes lies, that the French media outlets were publishing on every subject. I have a financial background and I thought that the tools we used on the financial markets, ratings agencies, could be applied to the media sphere. I gathered a group of intellectuals, teachers and journalists and we created a strict method of analysis: the PHILTRE, which stands for Precision, Homogeneity, Independence, Liberty, Transparency, Responsibility and Exhaustivity.
We treat all sorts of subjects, from French politics to international politics, economy or even celebrities.
This has allowed us to gain credibility on every subject, including anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism and anti-Semitism.
FP: So tell us about the eye you keep on the French medias bias on these themes.
Karsenty: Anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism and anti-Semitism are very present in the French media outlets, but not only there; they are everywhere in French society, from the bottom to the top. For example, Jacques Chirac recently said that liberalism will be destroyed as communism was in the 20th century. He never said what will replace liberalism but he just predicted the end of it. Linguo alert = "liberal" in an european context (as used here) means "free market/libertarian", note socialist/progressist as it does in the USA; note that our Dear President also said recently in a dinner (same quote?) that it would be worse if France became liberal than if it became communist." No comment. Remember, he's a conservative...
Anti-Americanism is also very present in the French political and intellectual life. Never forget how our actual prime minister, Villepin, travelled all over the world to fight American diplomacy before the Iraqi war. Another thing interesting to think about: not one French newspaper or magazine supported the US in the war in Iraq. Not even one. And when you asked French diplomats or intellectuals why America was going at war against Saddam, they answered that it was because Bush was receiving marching orders from Ariel Sharon.
Anti-Semitism is more complex in the French media. In France, you cant say I hate the Jews but its very positive for your career, as an intellectual, a journalist or a diplomat, to say that Israel is an evil state and that you want it to disappear. For example, Villepin said in 2001 that Israel was a parenthesis of the history that will not last very long. He became foreign affair minister a year after, then interior minister, and hes now prime minister.
FP: Why do you think Jew-Hate and anti-Americanism are so strong in France?
Karsenty: In the French political and intellectual sphere, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are very present. Even if almost everybody knows this was a forgery, almost everybody thinks with these Protocols in the back of their mind.
As I said, the Iraqi war was launched, according to most of the French people, in the name of Israel. And if you look at the nuclear bomb in preparation in Iran, you see that the French media only focus on the Israeli supposed interest. They just forget that if Iran provides terrorists with dirty radioactive material, its Europe that could be affected very soon. They also forget to recall that Europe has no missile anti-missile as Israel has with the Hetz. This means that, objectively, Israel is less endangered by a nuclear Iran than Europe. But, if you hear French media, the only country is danger is Israel and French people dont want to fight a billion of Muslims to defend 6 million Israelis.
Concerning anti-Americanism, France will never forgive America to have saved it twice during the 20th century. Never.
FP: True, true. So what are the forces against you? Can you talk about the tactics your opponents have used to try to stop you from your efforts?
Karsenty: The whole French elites are against Media-Ratings. We disturb them because we oppose them when they lie. French media outlets hate us because we are criticizing them all the time. The French government dislikes us because we are not accepting their lies, especially concerning foreign affairs. We revealed that they lied on Iraq, on French so-called hostages in Iraq, on the behaviour of the French army in Ivory Coast and on many other issues where French diplomats were wrong.
French media outlets and politicians found many ways to stop us. First, weve been served with many lawsuits. They sue us for defamation. They know that were right and that well win our cases. But they know it takes most of our energy to defend ourselves, and also most of our resources. While were defending, were not criticizing them.
FP: So what is going on with the state of Muslims in France? There are areas in your country now where women have to veil themselves in fear of being attacked?
Karsenty: I would say that the problem in France is not with the Muslims but with few extremists Muslims who want to impose their ideology. There is also a problem with French politicians, diplomats, intellectuals and journalists who are willing to collaborate with those extremists. They think theyll have peace through this pattern. They are just appeasing and delaying the confrontation.
FP: Well I think the problem is larger than there being "a few extremists" but perhaps we'll have this out in another forum. What happened in the Al Dura controversy? Why is it so difficult to make it right and correct it?
Karsenty: The Al Dura controversy is the biggest media scandal in the world. It occurred more than 5 years ago and it twisted the brains of hundreds of millions of people, thinking that the Jews, or the Israelis, which is the same for many people in Europe, kill Arab kids on purpose. This image is now in everyone brain. Its a forgery that developed anti-Semitism, but not only, also anti-Americanism and Id say, anti-Western values all over the world. Never forget it occurred a year before 9/11.
Now, we are very few who try to have this story corrected. The problem to have this right is that the French elites are very happy with it because it confirms their hate feelings against Israel and the Jews. Israel-bashing is a national sport in France.
On the other side, the Israeli government is not willing to fight. First because they dont realize how strong was the impact of this image on western brains. The second reason is, unfortunately, that they have other deals (Iran Syria, Lebanon ) with France and that, now, they dont want to endanger their relationship with Chirac.
But, Im confident. At the end of the story, people will be forced to admit that we are right. There will be a lawsuit in 4 months because the French TV who broadcasted the Al Dura forgery, France 2, sued us for defamation. Well expose our case and their lies and incoherence. Theyll respond but, as weve seen their evidences, Im really confident on the result of the lawsuit.
FP: Is there any future for the Jews in France?
Karsenty: I am not sure. It really depends on the next few years. Either the next French government will go on collaborating with some rogue states and terrorist groups as they have been doing now for the last past 10 years. In this case, the Jews will be not be welcome in France anymore, except if they spit on Israel and America. Im not really concerned by the large number of Muslims in France. Im more concerned by the French habit to collaborate with any dictator or group who will intimidate them, especially if they propose to get rid of the Jews. Look at how Chirac, and most of the French diplomats, always protected the Hezbollah and now, how hes trying to help the Hamas. Never forget theyve been the best allies of Saddam Hussein and other Jew killers and haters like Arafat, Hafez el Assad or Ghadafi.
FP: When the students went on strike to protest the new legislation about employers have the right to fire young people, many of us here were very confused. What is this all about? Employers should have the right to hire and fire who they want to, no?
Karsenty: As a Frenchman, I would say no. (laughs)
The French economic culture is based on the fact that employers are ugly capitalists who try to exploit their employees and that their only goal is to fire them to make huge profits. You have to understand that France has an official unemployment rate of 10% but that the real figures are much higher usual figures given for real unemployment is 16-17%, based on official registries, which list both registered and unregistered job seekers. Being fired in France is a big trauma and many people stay unemployed many years before finding another job. There is no flexibility in France. Whereas an American employee can move from New York to Miami to find a new job, a regular French employee wouldnt accept a new job which will force him to move a hundred miles. And the French legislation is on his side, he has the right to refuse.
FP: Next year, France will have elections. What are the possibilities?
Karsenty: The worst case scenario would be that Chirac will be re-elected. It seems now impossible but never forget that the day Chirac leaves the Elysee, some judges will try to put him in jail for corruption and other wrongdoings. So, hell do whatever he could to keep on being president.
If Chirac doesnt run for office again, Sarkozy (the right?) will probably oppose Segolene Royal (the left), who is our Hillary. There is also Le Pen, the far-rightist, who will probably be very strong at this election again.
My anticipation is that Royal the leftist will win because Sarkozy has a weak team and that the credibility of right is very low now.
Concerning anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, I would say that any new French president will be better than Jacques Chirac who is really the worst weve never had.
FP: Philippe Karsenty, thank you for joining us today.
#1
With all due respect to the poster of this article, these near daily postings of The rise of Anti-Semitism type articles on RB are becoming quite tedious. In one respect I can see a vague relevance regarding culture, general foreign policies as it relates to Israel and in particular Mid East terrorism. However the articles of late have the decidedly narrow tone that anyone who criticizes Israeli policies is in reality a covert Jew Hater. Which is an assertion that I reject. Ironically this article makes blanket accusations backed up by innuendo and out of context statements. The very same thing they profess to loath. IMO, these hollow arguments are in fact detrimental to their stated cause not unlike the vacant Racism-Lite charges that are constantly being advanced.
#2
Ok, criticism acknowledged, though this one was more posted because it related to a french website I find interesting (=shameless plug), rather than the whole "rise of the antisemitism" thing.
#3
I think these articles are very relevant! Anti-semitism is like the canary in the coal mine. The fact that Europe is acting like it did in 38 and our new Hitler is getting ready to have them wear arm patches is a good measure of how much water a sinking ship has taken on.
However the articles of late have the decidedly narrow tone that anyone who criticizes Israeli policies is in reality a covert Jew Hater.
That's not true of serious criticism of Israeli policy, but is true of the bogus blame Israel antisemitism on the left.
The fact that you are ignoring the log in the eye of France and focusing on the speck in the eye of Israel makes a statement.
#4
The fact that you are ignoring the log in the eye of France and focusing on the speck in the eye of Israel makes a statement.
Hey 2b, if you want to read some bias by omission in my comments have at it. I just happen to believe the following statement from the above article is nothing less the absurd.
In this case, the Jews will be not be welcome in France anymore, except if they spit on Israel and America.
#6
well if you had said so in the first place... but instead you said this, "However the articles of late have the decidedly narrow tone that anyone who criticizes Israeli policies is in reality a covert Jew Hater."
when in fact you and I both know pefectly well that in America, anti-semitism always sounds just like this, "lots of my friends are Jewish - it's the zionist Isralies occupiers who are responsible for 911 and every other evil in this world."
Maybe America can provide Ayaan Hirsi Ali the true freedom she yearns for.
By Bruce Bawer
OSLO If there's anything in Europe today that's more alarming than the number of European Muslims who hold radically undemocratic views (40 percent of British Muslims would like to see Britain under sharia law), it's the feckless way in which government officials tend to respond to those views. Particularly if they include explosions of public complaints and protests.
More often than not, most officials choose appeasement over standing up for democratic values. The exceptions are rare. One of them is Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen - who, faced with the Muhammad cartoon riots, strongly reaffirmed Denmark's commitment to freedom of speech. Another is the Netherlands' Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Muslim turned outspoken critic of Islam. Ms. Hirsi Ali, who has been confronted with a relatively sudden and stunning challenge by her country's minister of immigration to her Dutch citizenship, resigned this week from her seat in the Dutch parliament.
Hirsi Ali's name became familiar to many people outside the Netherlands in November 2004, when Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in an Amsterdam street in retribution for his film "Submission: Part One," a blunt critique of Islam's treatment of women. Hirsi Ali, who wrote the film's script, was herself threatened with murder in a note from Mr. van Gogh's killer.
Hirsi Ali knows a good deal about her film's subject: As a young girl in Somalia, she was a devout Muslim who wore full hijab. Later, however, experiencing Western freedoms as a refugee in the Netherlands, she took an increasingly critical view of the oppression and intolerance she had witnessed in her youth - and that to her horror, she saw around her in Dutch Muslim enclaves. After 9/11, she rejected Islam entirely. Years of menial jobs and university study preceded her election to the Dutch parliament, where she called on her government to challenge the abuse of women in Muslim communities, advocated the closing of state-funded Muslim schools which taught children to hate infidels and democracy, and proposed legislation to protect girls from genital mutilation.
Even after van Gogh's murder, unintimidated by death threats and by the need for daily round-the-clock armed protection, Hirsi Ali continued to speak truth to power. She was the kind of immigrant whom democratic leaders should hold up as an example; indeed, she was the very model of a responsible citizen of a democracy. Yet many of her fellow politicians - mired in traditions of consensus and trouble-avoidance - viewed her as they had viewed van Gogh and the murdered politician Pim Fortuyn, as a troublemaker.
Even Hirsi Ali's neighbors in The Hague turned on her. A few weeks ago, anxious about living near a woman who was a terrorist target (no matter that she was a target precisely because she was defending their freedoms), other residents in her apartment building won a court battle to evict her. In recent days, Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk has gone one better, citing incorrect details on Hirsi Ali's applications for asylum in 1992 and citizenship in 1997 (which Hirsi Ali admitted to, and explained, years ago) as justification for rescinding her Dutch citizenship.
Next week, Hirsi Ali plans to move to Washington, D.C. Here in Europe, a continent where the likes of Norway's Mullah Krekar - founder of the terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - are able to live free and undisturbed, it's clear why Hirsi Ali has been the victim of this lightning-fast attempt at denaturalization: By continuing to lift her voice in anger, she stands in the way of an illusory "multicultural harmony."
Fortunately, not everybody in the Dutch parliament is against Hirsi Ali. Ms. Verdonk is now under fire and may lose her job, and Hirsi Ali may well receive a new passport. Yet whatever happens, the fact remains that she has been put through a disgraceful episode which, like the murders of Mr. Fortuyn and van Gogh, is a stain on the Dutch heritage of freedom and tolerance.
That one of the noblest and bravest among Dutch public servants has faced the prospect of losing her citizenship is a measure of the degree to which some Dutch leaders prefer attacking the messenger over dealing with the acute social problems facing their country. In the US, Hirsi Ali will doubtless remain an eloquent voice for freedom; one can only hope that Americans will heed her message. The Netherlands' loss will be America's gain.
Bruce Bawer is the author of "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within" (Doubleday). He lives in Oslo.
#1
My Boycott of Dutch products and companies stands. I won't trade with back stabbing cowards.
Posted by: SPoD ||
05/19/2006 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Welcome, Ms, Ali. We very much appreciate your voice of intelligence, clarity, and courage speaking out against the monstrosity of Islam. I hope that you find the US to be the home you are looking for.
#6
No! It was because of her politics. Her falification of her papers has been well-known for **YEARS***. She has freely admitted it publically years ago.
The spineless cowards are only now using it as an excuse to appease the terrorists and sacrifice her on their altar of appeasement and multi-culturism.
All of the people in this country especially those in the blogosphere venting about how to deal with the illegal immigration problem should try thinking about this:
Why has this become such a blazing issue in American politics?
I don't mean the numbers, the costs, the drugs or the crime. I mean:
Why did this precise issue arise at this precise time?
The problem with the border has existed for many years and although serious, is nowhere near as serious as our prosecution of the War on Islamofascism. And yes, I know there is a danger that terrorists could slip across the border but that danger pales in comparison with the danger that Iran will develop nuclear weapons and use them or that North Korea has them. We need to prioritize our battles and realize who and what our enemies are.
The current crisis has been orchestrated by the ANSWER communists who still undoubtedly take their marching orders from Moscow. Their demonstration's objective was not to promote immigrant rights, but rather to serve as a lightening rod to inflame passions among those who have been arguing that border security was non-existent for years. The president has been notoriously hesitant to do anything to strengthen the borders (granted that he has been preoccupied) and this issue more than any other would serve to divide the conservative and leftist branches of the political party in power. As a chess player I have to grant that it was a masterful stroke. Divide and conquer. Sow fear, uncertainty and doubt into the American political mixture and hope for a backlash in November.
Why, you may ask, would anyone want to do this? Heh, let me state the reasons. If you were Vladimir Putin, or the Central Committe of the Communist Party of China, what would you like to see the world look like in 10, 20, 50 years? Would you like to see it dominated by the United States economically and militarily? I think not.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The United States is currently the preeminent military and economic powerhouse in the world. It is too strong for either of those players to take on by themselves, but it is not invincible or omnipotent. They need it to be weakened so that in the future they will have the opportunity to dominate global resources in their own interests. This leaves them the dilemna of choosing between confronting the US now or hoping that it will be less formidable in the future. Since confrontation now would be counter productive and reveal their future designs they need to find a way to weaken us without appearing to be directly involved. The classic way to achieve this is through the use of proxies. In the old days they would have used 'liberation' movements and guerilla warfare to attempt to wear us down. Today, needing to be more discrete to keep capital flowing into their countries, they will use states and ideologies with ingrained hostility to the US as their proxies. Let us not forget that the axis of evil included Iran and North Korea, both of which fit the bill for the type of proxy that would be required. Their support for these proxies will need to be covert, no outright statements of support. Their actions will be diplomatic or 'economic' as in selling advanced air defence systems, nuclear reactors, oil and food.
The impending crisis of American action against Iran was first reacted to by the "Cartoon Crisis" which was an attempt by the Islamofascists of several stripes to cow the peoples of Europe. It was only partially successful and, in fact, may have appeared to backfire in some respects as the Europeans began to wake up and realize the extent of the enemy infiltration in their midst. But Europe was ever only a secondary concern. The real problem from their viewpoint was the US and the growing American resolve to act regardless of the support of others.
Iran doesn't have enough people at its beck and call who have sufficient US experience and contacts to identify a potential weak point in the American political world and apply masterful pressure to make that point explode into a turmoil of acrimony and divisiveness. Even the chinese don't have the ability. Only one nation has the necessary knowledge, means, opportunity and motive. That nation is Russia. Their analysts have been studying the US for over 50 years and have kept current on every trend in American politics. It would be childs play for them to come up with a short list of triggers that could disrupt the American political process. They still have their agents in the US and the west who can be counted upon to support any cause that is detrimental to the United States. Look at who the anti globalization forces and now the Reconquista movement are being led by. ANSWER has always been a communist front organization and remains so today.
Now, you may ask, why would Russia and China be interested in an Islamofascist victory over the United States? The answer is they are not. They fully know that the US will most likely prevail in this war, in fact they are counting on it. They have their own problems with Islamofascists which they will deal with brutally once an American victory is imminent. The object is to make that American victory as costly as possible. To do that they must forestall American action to allow their proxies time to prepare.
There is little doubt that the administration is aware of this and events certainly appear to support the premise of growing US-Russian hostility. Take for example Vice President Cheney's remarks in Lithuania two weeks ago and the reaction of Sergey Lavrov the Russian Foreign Minister at a dinner with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
If I am correct in my expectations, the next stumbling block in this war will be the announcement of a mutual defense pact between Iran, Syria and North Korea which will raise the spectre of a nuclear war if we attempt the elimination of Iran's nuclear production capabilities. I suspect that may have already secretly occured, we already know that there are realtionships between these countries. That could be the reason why the steam went out of the impetus earlier this year to intervene and why great emphasis has been accorded to ballistic missile defence in both the US and Japan.
This war is not just about Islamofascism, although that was the opening blow, and it is not about to end quickly or neatly for us or for anyone else. Like all wars it will spiral out of control and consume those who thought they were immune from its reach. So wake up and start paying attention or we will be consumed in the fires.
May God Bless the United States of America.
Posted by: DanNY ||
05/19/2006 00:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
agree, interesting. But I have to take issue with two points - as that is my nature :-)
1. But Europe was ever only a secondary concern No, the west wasone. If Europe is only a secondary concern it is becasue it is already a weakened foe.
2. While it may be true that they are using the border issue to stir up trouble, they have never understood Americans because they just don't think like we do.
You said, "The impending crisis of American action against Iran was first reacted to by the "Cartoon Crisis" which was an attempt by the Islamofascists of several stripes to cow the peoples of Europe. It was only partially successful and, in fact, may have appeared to backfire in some respects as the Europeans began to wake up and realize the extent of the enemy infiltration in their midst"
I would suggest to you that the immigration issue has likewise backfired beyond the comprehension of those who are not Americans by culture. The sentiment over immigration has unified liberals and conservatives. While the liberals are content to blame Bush - the vitrol from the left regarding illegal immigrants is very surprising to me.
It may work to stir up havoc in the MSM and political front - but at the dinner table discussions, the result seems to be that it has for the first time in 10 years given liberals and conservatives something to agree about.
#3
Interesting post, DanNY. I hadn't thought about the Russia aspect -- an interesting take on what I agree is the unexpected strong reaction to the generation-long border leakage (although the May Day festivities did *not* help the ANSWER position).
#4
"It may work to stir up havoc in the MSM and political front - but at the dinner table discussions, the result seems to be that it has for the first time in 10 years given liberals and conservatives something to agree about."
While I agree there has been some overlap in agreement that something needs to be done, I think the primary objective is diversion of our attention from the war with a secondary objective of regime change in november. It also gives Russia and China some breathing space to think up new ways to slow down our progress on winning over the europeans in favor of action.
"(although the May Day festivities did *not* help the ANSWER position)"
Heh, the ANSWER folks are cannon fodder, useful idiots. The success of their position is of no concern. The succcess of the diversion is the objective and so far that is proceeding perfectly.
Posted by: DanNY ||
05/19/2006 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
good point - but the reason that it is such an effective diversion is that is a real problem that both parties have failed to address.
The Dem's will come up with some candidates who will do what the alway do - give lip service but no meaningful action and thus they will steal votes. But the Repubs can easily rectify this by taking some meaningful action - do the right thing instead of pandering to the illegal votes.
#1
The question remains the same - iff the USA is mil-diplom preoccupied in the ME, will anything happen o'er in TAIWAN-NORTH KOREA's part of the world, separately or mutually!? North Korea does the threatin' and rantin' against JAPAN, China's PLAAF-PLAN does the de facto buzzin' and penetratin'. China is also relocating large air units and naval assets near the People's Socialist Republic of Vietnam, a good indicator that China does NOT trust anti-everybody Commie Vietnam yet as a full-fledged ally - China's buildup is also close enough to both Taiwan and the northern Philipines.
#2
The US should tell China that a crazy North Korea will have three results. (a) A militarized and paranoid Japan (b) an eventually unified nuclear Korea (c) US absence from the region to control the two.
If they really thought it out they'd have smashed North Korea long ago.
EFL - HT to Powerline - RTWT - it counters the MSM gloom and doom righteously!
Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can be a disorienting experience these days. Within hours of arriving here, as I can attest from a recent visit, one is confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable. It is created in several overlapping ways: through television footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists and political gurus predicting further doom or pontificating about how the war should have been fought in the first place; by authors of instant-history books making their rounds to dissect the various fundamental mistakes committed by the Bush administration; and by reporters, cocooned in hotels in Baghdad, explaining the carnage and chaos in the streets as signs of the countrys impending or undeclared civil war. Add to all this the day's alleged scandal or revelation — an outed CIA operative, a reportedly doctored intelligence report, a leaked pessimistic assessment — and it is no wonder the American public registers disillusion with Iraq and everyone who embroiled the U.S. in its troubles.
It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts the realities of present-day Iraq. Part of the problem, faced by even the most well-meaning news organizations, is the difficulty of covering so large and complex a subject; naturally, in such circumstances, sensational items rise to the top. But even ostensibly more objective efforts, like the Brookings Institution's much-cited Iraq Index with its constantly updated array of security, economic, and public-opinion indicators, tell us little about the actual feel of the country on the ground.
To make matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to describe the situation have been contaminated by the increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor the idea of war that they would banish it from human discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances, military power can be used in support of a good cause. But whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people.
For someone like myself who has spent considerable time in Iraq — a country I first visited in 1968 — current reality there is, nevertheless, very different from this conventional wisdom, and so are the prospects for Iraq's future. It helps to know where to look, what sources to trust, and how to evaluate the present moment against the background of Iraqi and Middle Eastern history.
Since my first encounter with Iraq almost 40 years ago, I have relied on several broad measures of social and economic health to assess the countrys condition. Through good times and bad, these signs have proved remarkably accurate — as accurate, that is, as is possible in human affairs. For some time now, all have been pointing in an unequivocally positive direction.
The first sign is refugees. When things have been truly desperate in Iraq — in 1959, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1980, 1988, and 1990 — long queues of Iraqis have formed at the Turkish and Iranian frontiers, hoping to escape. In 1973, for example, when Saddam Hussein decided to expel all those whose ancestors had not been Ottoman citizens before Iraq's creation as a state, some 1.2 million Iraqis left their homes in the space of just six weeks. This was not the temporary exile of a small group of middle-class professionals and intellectuals, which is a common enough phenomenon in most Arab countries. Rather, it was a departure en masse, affecting people both in small villages and in big cities, and it was a scene regularly repeated under Saddam Hussein.
Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003, this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television sets — and we can be sure that we would be seeing it if it were there to be shown. To the contrary, Iraqis, far from fleeing, have been returning home. By the end of 2005, in the most conservative estimate, the number of returnees topped the 1.2-million mark. Many of the camps set up for fleeing Iraqis in Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia since 1959 have now closed down. The oldest such center, at Ashrafiayh in southwest Iran, was formally shut when its last Iraqi guests returned home in 2004.
A second dependable sign likewise concerns human movement, but of a different kind. This is the flow of religious pilgrims to the Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Whenever things start to go badly in Iraq, this stream is reduced to a trickle and then it dries up completely. From 1991 (when Saddam Hussein massacred Shiites involved in a revolt against him) to 2003, there were scarcely any pilgrims to these cities. Since Saddam's fall, they have been flooded with visitors. In 2005, the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina.
Over 3,000 Iraqi clerics have also returned from exile, and Shiite seminaries, which just a few years ago held no more than a few dozen pupils, now boast over 15,000 from 40 different countries. This is because Najaf, the oldest center of Shiite scholarship, is once again able to offer an alternative to Qom, the Iranian holy city where a radical and highly politicized version of Shiism is taught. Those wishing to pursue the study of more traditional and quietist forms of Shiism now go to Iraq where, unlike in Iran, the seminaries are not controlled by the government and its secret police.
A third sign, this one of the hard economic variety, is the value of the Iraqi dinar, especially as compared with the region's other major currencies. In the final years of Saddam Husseins rule, the Iraqi dinar was in free fall; after 1995, it was no longer even traded in Iran and Kuwait. By contrast, the new dinar, introduced early in 2004, is doing well against both the Kuwaiti dinar and the Iranian rial, having risen by 17 percent against the former and by 23 percent against the latter. Although it is still impossible to fix its value against a basket of international currencies, the new Iraqi dinar has done well against the U.S. dollar, increasing in value by almost 18 percent between August 2004 and August 2005. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, and millions of Iranians and Kuwaitis, now treat it as a safe and solid medium of exchange
My fourth time-tested sign is the level of activity by small and medium-sized businesses. In the past, whenever things have gone downhill in Iraq, large numbers of such enterprises have simply closed down, with the countrys most capable entrepreneurs decamping to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states, Turkey, Iran, and even Europe and North America. Since liberation, however, Iraq has witnessed a private-sector boom, especially among small and medium-sized businesses. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, as well as numerous private studies, the Iraqi economy has been doing better than any other in the region. The countrys gross domestic product rose to almost $90 billion in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), more than double the output for 2003, and its real growth rate, as estimated by the IMF, was 52.3 per cent. In that same period, exports increased by more than $3 billion, while the inflation rate fell to 25.4 percent, down from 70 percent in 2002. The unemployment rate was halved, from 60 percent to 30 percent.
Related to this is the level of agricultural activity. Between 1991 and 2003, the countrys farm sector experienced unprecedented decline, in the end leaving almost the entire nation dependent on rations distributed by the United Nations under Oil-for-Food. In the past two years, by contrast, Iraqi agriculture has undergone an equally unprecedented revival. Iraq now exports foodstuffs to neighboring countries, something that has not happened since the 1950s. Much of the upturn is due to smallholders who, shaking off the collectivist system imposed by the Baathists, have retaken control of land that was confiscated decades ago by the state.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The worst thing said in the case involving rape charges against Duke University students was not said by either the prosecutor or the defense attorneys, or even by any of the accusers or the accused. It was said by a student at North Carolina Central University, a black institution attended by the stripper who made rape charges against Duke lacrosse players.
According to Newsweek, the young man at NCCU said that he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted, "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past."
This is the ugly attitude that is casting a cloud over this whole case. More important, this collective guilt and collective revenge attitude has for years been poisoning race relations in this country.
It has torn apart other countries around the world, from the Balkans to Sri Lanka to Rwanda. Nor is there any reason to think that the United States is exempt from such polarization.
At one time, the black civil rights leadership aimed at putting an end to racism, and especially to the perversion of the law to convict people because of their race, regardless of guilt or innocence.
Today, this young man at NCCU represents the culmination of a new racist trend promoted by current black "leaders" to make group entitlements paramount, including seeking group revenge rather than individual justice in courts of law.
This attitude poisoned the O.J. Simpson case and it is now polarizing reactions to the Duke University case. Racial polarization is a dangerous game, especially dangerous for minorities in the long run.
Tragically, the way the Duke case is being handled, it looks as if District Attorney Michael Nifong is pandering to these ugly feelings. Legal experts seem baffled as to why he is proceeding in the way that he is because it is hard to explain legally.
It is not hard to explain politically, however. The District Attorney may well owe his recent election victory to having tapped into the kinds of racial resentments expressed by the young man at North Carolina Central University.
Now Mr. Nifong is riding a tiger and cannot safely get off. His bet best may be to let this case drag on until it fizzles out, long after the media have lost interest. His extraordinary postponement of the trial for a year suggests he understands that.
In the meantime, the taxi driver who provided the first airtight alibi for one of the accused Duke lacrosse players has been picked up by the police on a flimsy, three-year-old charge, supposedly about shoplifting. He was held for five hours for questioning -- reportedly not about shoplifting, but about the Duke rape charges.
Does this smell to high heaven or what?
The taxi driver himself is not accused of shoplifting. But two women who were passengers in his cab were. Since when are taxi drivers held responsible for what their passengers did before or after being in their cab?
What purpose can this harassing of the taxi driver serve? His account of what happened in the Duke rape case has already been corroborated by a surveillance camera at the bank to which he took one of the lacrosse players, as well as by other time-stamped records indicating where his passenger was during the time when he was supposed to be raping a stripper.
If the prosecution cannot discredit the taxi driver's statement in a court of law, what can they gain by harassing him? One thing they can gain could be to at least stop the cabbie from going on television again to repeat what he has said before.
If nothing else, the harassment can serve as a warning to anybody else who might feel like coming forward with testimony that undermines the prosecution's case.
Is this America or some banana republic?
Some people in the media saw this case from day one as a matter of taking sides rather than seeking the truth. They want to be on the politically correct side -- for a black woman against white men -- and the facts be damned.
If such attitudes prevail, we will indeed become a banana republic. Or worse.
#1
According to Newsweek, the young man at NCCU said that he wanted to see the Duke students prosecuted, "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past."
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the 'reparations' crowd are directly responsible for this attitude. If you want a race war, this is definitely the way to go.
#2
The race baiting industry is indeed partially responsible but the real fault lies both with those on the political left who never met a minority who wasn't a victim in need of compensation and with all of us for failing to say, "Enough!" and put a stop to this nonsense.
#3
Trial put off for a year? I don't know North Carolina law at all, but isn't there a way for the defense to force the trial to start? Justice delayed is justice denied.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/19/2006 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Gotta wait 'til after the fall elections, Steve. When the DA is safely reelected, the charges can be quietly dropped.
#6
IMHO - this is a bad choice (2 black strippers with criminal records and diminished capacity) a POS lying self-interested Prosecutor facing a reelection, and a bored MSM. Could eventually lead to racial inflamed wars... Thks DA Nifong, asshole
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/19/2006 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
This is out of Nifong's hands.
One of those three young men comes from a family sufficiently well off to finance a lawsuit on behalf of the entire team and the former coach against Nifong, personally and officially, the city of Derm and Duke University for denial of civil rights, malicious prosecution and defamation with damages based on the impact on the earnings of 30 Duke grads over the next 40 years.
If Nifong doesn't bring the case, you only need to file the suit in the Federal District Court of the kid from New Hampshire and start negotiating with the insurance companies. Derm will be the big loser, but they deserve it if they want to let Nifong play these racist games.
The news said that the accuser is former navy but she did not serve her full enlistment. She *claims* she got thrown out of the navy for getting pregnant - my bullshit meter immediately spiked. If one digs deeper I've got a "country boy special breakfast" that says she was thrown out either for psych or medical incapabilities or some other gold brick shit. I've never heard of any females in recent history being asked to leave the mil for having kids out of wedlock. If that we're the case then about 10% of the Marine females I know would've been asked to leave years ago. If I were the defense attorney for these guys I'd be digging up her mil record - I bet it's full of *irregularities*.
#9
she's made similar accusations in teh past. Nifong should be recalled and charged with misuse of funds for re-election. She's a liar and he's inflamed racial tensions for his own beefit. Remove his BAR license.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/19/2006 21:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"young man at NCCU"
obviously not a criminal justice major, must be poly sci
. . . The real accomplishment of "The Da Vinci Code" is that Dan Brown has proven that the theory of conspiracy theories is totally elastic, it has no limits. The genre's future is limitless, with the following obvious plots:
Bill Clinton is directly descended from Henry VIII; Hillary is his third cousin. Jack Ruby was Ronald Reagan's half-brother. Dick Cheney has been dead for five years; the vice president is a clone created by Halliburton in 1998. The Laffer Curve is the secret sign of the Carlyle Group. Michael Moore is the founder of the Carlyle Group, which started World War I. The New York Times is secretly run by the Rosicrucians (this is revealed on the first page of Chapter 47 of "The Da Vinci Code" if you look at the 23rd line through a kaleidoscope). Jacques Chirac is descended from Judas.
None of this strikes me as the least bit implausible, especially the latter. I'd better get started.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/19/2006 06:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shiraq being a muslim convert wouldn't strike me as too preposterous (after all, there is a persistent rumor about his daughter/consigliere Claude having converted and being the mother of a lil' Kamel, the father being a morrocan).
#2
There are similar rumours about Prince Chuckie being a Mooselimb, but he has to keep it secret cos the King has to be Church of England - Defender of the Faith and all that.
#6
Right, and the royal family had DaVinci's sperm on ice, but, since Charlie was shooting paper wads, Princess Di pushed a couple of cold packets up for fun and produced Wills and 'arry.
From Oliver Stone's JFK through The X Files to Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code, Hollywood catapults ideas from the radical fringe into the cultural mainstream
ONCE upon a time, if someone approached you whispering about the hidden bloodline of Christ or the machinations of an ancient secret society, you could be reasonably certain that the person was a card-carrying conspiracy theorist or a fully-fledged nut (neither category being mutually exclusive).
Nowadays, those who espouse such loopy beliefs are more often than not reasonably normal folk. They have simply taken the fictional revelations of Dan Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code a tad too seriously. As Ron Howard's cinematic adaptation of Brown's potboiler is set for worldwide release today, prepare for the coming swell of converts to the tale's distorted version of history.
It is not the first time popular entertainment has catapulted ideas from the fringe into the cultural mainstream. During the past decade or so, Hollywood has sanitised an assortment of weird beliefs and helped create what American political scientist Michael Barkun identifies as "a culture of conspiracy".
Take Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), a film that encouraged audiences to scoff at the Warren Commission's findings (that is, that a "magic bullet" fired by a lone gunman had killed president John F. Kennedy). Stone would rather that we believe the leaders of the US military-industrial complex ordered Kennedy's assassination as part of a brilliantly orchestrated and masterfully concealed coup d'etat. The hard evidence for such a conspiracy is scant at best, but the film left numerous people convinced of the theory Stone championed.
Not long after the release of JFK, The X Files (1993-2002), along with a plethora of similar productions, introduced a whole set of obscure terms from UFO belief into common parlance. If, as these popular shows contended, the US government had long conspired to conceal the truth about flying saucers, somewhere along the way someone must have dropped the ball. By the late 1990s, everyone seemed to know about Roswell, Area 51, Men in Black and alien abductions.
Along with fictional dramas, a range of conspiracy-oriented documentaries - from Fox's ridiculous Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction? (1995) to Michael Moore's ideologically skewed Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) - have contributed to the retardation of mass political culture.
Intercutting the real with the staged and bombarding the audience with emotive footage and questionable data, these dubious productions served up an easily digestible but nonetheless half-baked reality, a type of dissent for dummies.
Even though conspiracy films usually lack substantive evidence for their extraordinary claims, this is not to say that their production values are similarly absent.
Indeed, the better the quality of the film, the better are its chances of influencing an audience.
For example, JFK, as with much of Stone's work, is a visually stunning masterpiece filled with solid performances from an incredible ensemble cast. It is not surprising that its faux revelations hoodwinked so many viewers.
Exceptional film-making rarely equates with accurate history. Cinema is an art form that encourages its practitioners to strive for brevity. A good film-maker knows when to cut to the chase and usually does so sooner than later.
Simply put, the dramatic requirements of the medium demand that complicated historical processes be condensed into fast-paced, simplistic narratives (much as they are in conspiracy theories).
Although the re-creation of relatively uncontested historical events is problematic enough, when dramatising a more contentious account the probability of a film-maker accurately portraying the past is infinitesimal.
Stone says he regularly evoked dramatic license when making JFK. Departing not just from the historical record but also from the conspiracy theories on which he based the film, Stone created fictional characters and fabricated events to further simplify its crypto-historical narrative.
Of course cinema, unlike, say, the written word, provides one with little time to consciously engage the specifics of each scene before the following scene begins. Instead, a film's mesmerising visuals, often mixed with a powerful musical score, can facilitate the transference of ideas directly into the viewer's subconscious mind.
This is the magic of cinema, the medium's ability to help the audience suspend their disbelief so they can temporarily immerse themselves in the on-screen world. Unfortunately, pundits with a political agenda, a la Moore, can engage in a type of cinematic sleight-of-hand and slip distorted facts and fallacious reasoning past the critical faculties of audience members.
Film has long been the propagandist's weapon of choice for this reason. Hitler and Stalin were both big fans of its inherent powers of persuasion. So was Lenin, who hailed cinema as "the most important of all the arts". Indeed, one cannot properly understand modern cinema without taking into account the influence of totalitarian film-makers on its development.
Figures such as the great Soviet film theorist Sergei Eisenstein and the Nazi documentarian Leni Riefenstahl developed cinematic techniques particularly suited to the transference of ideological messages. Many of these techniques remain in the armamentarium of today's film-makers.
I'm pretty sure Howard has no ideological barrow to push with his adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. But who really knows? This is probably a moot point anyway. Because whatever his beliefs are regarding the controversial book, Howard is an Academy Award-winning director who is more than capable of taking the audience on a cinematic thrill ride, jam-packed with exciting revelations (bogus as they may be).
Productions such as JFK and The X Files have demonstrated that this is often all it takes to inject fringe ideas into popular thought. Indeed, there will be plenty of cinemagoers walking out of darkened theatres during the coming weeks in an intellectual state similar to that of a child waking from a dream, unsure of where the imaginary world ends and real life begins.
What this means is that along with blathering about JFK's assassination, UFO cover-ups and 9/11 conspiracies, the ranks of the ill-informed will now take it on themselves to enlighten the rest of us on the truth about the sexual relations of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. It's enough to make you say - through gritted teeth - "Hooray for Hollywood."
Dean Bertram is an independent film-maker and writer. He recently completed his PhD thesis on UFO belief and American culture at the University of Sydney.
#1
heh, no such thing as negative publicity. For every weak mind willing to believe in their favorite soap character and the Da Vinci Code, there will be another percentage who will become interested in Christianity and discover why his Gospel has survived for centuries.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
