Friendships on the dark side

New developments about Arafat's links to the KGB, written by the former chief of Romanian intelligence. A must-read.

Some excerpts:

"First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth."

"Next, the KGB gave Arafat an ideology and an image, just as it did for loyal Communists in our international front organizations. High-minded idealism held no mass-appeal in the Arab world, so the KGB remolded Arafat as a rabid anti-Zionist. They also selected a 'personal hero' for him -- the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man who visited Auschwitz in the late 1930s and reproached the Germans for not having killed even more Jews. In 1985 Arafat paid homage to the mufti, saying he was 'proud no end' to be walking in his footsteps."

"In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. 'You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and over,' Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize with their fake displays of the olive branch."

Sequestering the Candidate
It has now been 43 days since John Kerry faced reporters for any considerable length of time. What is he hiding from? This WaPo piece seems to provide the answer:

Privately, campaign aides say the campaign is trying to keep Kerry "on message" and does not want to run the risk that he might make other news.

If this is how much his campaign trusts him to present a coherent view of his positions, what does this say about his ability to be president? Can you imagine high level talks on nuclear disarmament with the North Koreans? Would he be able to focus and stay "on message" enough to wring a deal out of them?

If his campaign is handling him like a small child, who is the more intelligent of the two candidates now? Who is being run by his handlers and advisors and who is actually his own man? I think that these are legitimate questions for the Bush-is-a-chimp crowd to answer.

And Always Blogging, Blogging, Blogging Toward Freedom

Our thoughts go out belatedly to the victims of the 9/11 attack three years ago, and to our troops abroad fighting for freedom today. We highly suggest reading President Bush's national radio address, which is really inspiring.

And on a separate note, it's time for your quasi-monthly listing of what sends people a-browsing to our humble blog-o-nook.

kerry raise taxes top percentage
Winged immigration
mild schizophrenia
are teachers have the right to form unions cite some prove
free 2004 arabian dance hits to listen right now [a first choice provider]
Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American Public
dorm porn
why do t-shirt slogans offend
Bill Buckley the CIA station chief
nambla for kerry endorsements
sex lives in early 1900s sex districts new york white women black men
which olsen twin are you
incest site blogspot.com
careers in social work with a minor in spanish
yale sperm bank
darwin fish car ornament
arnold Schwarzenegger appell immigrant license
their navels torture

Al Gore, Lunatic
In this New Yorker piece, Gore says regarding Bush's religious beliefs:

It’s the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They all have certain features in common. In a world of disconcerting change, when large and complex forces threaten familiar and comfortable guideposts, the natural impulse is to grab hold of the tree trunk that seems to have the deepest roots and hold on for dear life and never question the possibility that it’s not going to be the source of your salvation. And the deepest roots are in philosophical and religious traditions that go way back. You don’t hear very much from them about the Sermon on the Mount, you don’t hear very much about the teachings of Jesus on giving to the poor, or the beatitudes. It’s the vengeance, the brimstone.

Isn't Gore, in some sense here, guilty of the same exact thing that Bush is? He's essentially blaming Bush for seeing the world too much in black and white. But the tone of this quote (and the comparison to Wahabiism) seems to indicate that Gore views religiosity in the same black and white tones he blames Bush for viewing the rest of the world, namely that evangelical Christianity of the Bush kind is evil, while a nuanced enlightened Southern Baptism that Gore seems to practice is good.

I've never been a great fan of traditionalists, but I don't think that there is a good structural critique of traditionalism of the kind that Gore is making here. What I mean is, I am not sure that one can criticize traditionalism (of any kind) from the standpoint of it being too stark in its moral findings. Most ideologies suffer from this problem, however. Whether it be Christian fundamentalism, Wahhabiism, extreme secularism, Communism, Objectivism, or Progressive Liberalism, all assume that their worldview is correct and the other worldview is wrong. Now, obviously, each of these differ to an extent in the way they treat the opposition: whether they are just mistaken, or evil. But, it seems that Gore and others who agree with him think that Bush and Republicans are evil, are guilty of the same kind black/white thinking for which they hate Bush. They can't attribute a disagreement of opinion to him. So instead, they attribute evil motives to him.

At this point, I think that Gore has lost it.

Violence in Ossetia - An Afterword
If you haven't heard of what happened in Russia in the last week, you have been living under a rock. But, as a native Russian (well, from Ukraine, but close enough), I thought I might have something new to the analysis of the situation.

Speaking to my parents at dinner tonight, I was trying to figure out what the Ossetians are like. The fact that they are in Southern Russia, makes me immediately suspicious of whether the kidnappings were targetted at Russia qua Moscow or at the Ossetians in particular.

The history of Southern Russia is quite sad. For years, as part of the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union, there was constant ethnic clashes, particularly between Muslims and Christians. The Azerbaijanians (Muslims) engaged in ethnic cleansing of Armenians(Orthodox/Catholic) in the town of Sumgait in February of 1988. Add to that the strife in Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, the Chechen War in 1994, and you have a very very volatile region. Historically, the peoples of that region, being the frontier between Russia and what were considered less civilized peoples of the Ottoman Empire, Persia, Arabia, etc., had a somewhat militaristic attitude. For example, the ethnic dress of male Cossaks, Georgians, and other peoples in that region include bullet-holders in the front of their jackets. The tribal ethical systems of their neighbors and the obvious hardships of frontier life (even though the land was fertile, raids by various Ottoman peoples was always a looming threat under Tsarist rule) helped form the social culture of the peoples of the region.

One of the particular problems is that many of the cultures of Southern Russia (this is according to my parents' recollections) have a very clan-like tribal structure in which vigilante justice and revenge are quite common. This is particularly true in Chechnya where families remember century-old feuds and grievances (for example, their long-standing beef with the Soviets for forced resettlement to Northern Kazakhstan under Stalin). Ossetians, who are largely Christian, have a similar sense of restoring honor to one's family and avenging crimes committed against them.

This history of Southern Russia makes me wonder whether there is a chance for a rekindling of ethnic strife as a result of this incident. I would imagine the men of Beslan are not all too happy to have their women and children held hostage at gunpoint and then shot in the back by Muslim lunatics, ten of whom were reportedly Arabs not from Chechnya itself. I would think that one option - which would not be too pleasant - would be for the Ossetians in Georgia (in South Ossetia) and the Ossetians in Russia (in North Ossetia) to unite and carry out acts of violence against Chechens and other Muslims (possibly the Azerbaijanians?) in vigilante fashion.

If this happens, Russia would have real problems on its hands as it would have to try dealing with two peoples both of which are not very happy with Russian rule (the Chechens for obvious reasons and the Ossetians for not protecting their children enough) and both of which are waging battle with each other in the same general area where Russia is trying to develop oil pipelines. It could also open up the potential for other Al-Qaeda groups to enter the region and fight on the Muslim side against the various factions (Russians, North Ossetians, South Ossetians, Armenians if they get in the way, etc) much like what we see in Iraq.

I don't know if this will happen, but I would imagine that it is likely enough to happen that it is something to think/worry about. If you know about the situation in the region and have some thoughts, I'd be interested to hear ( genev - *at* - aya *dot* yale *dot* edu).