Nifong Resigns

The odious bastard (ahem - prosecutor) at the center of the Duke Lacrosse case "tearfully resigned" from the stand today, claiming he wasn't a liar. Right and pigs fly Mr. Nifong. Just so glad to have this over with - now can we begin firing the Group of 88? Or at least putting them on trial for slander?

News & Observer

Chavez Pushing the Envelope

Apparently Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, in addition to previous arms buys, is attempting to procure nine submarines from Russia. That would make the socialist regime in Caracas one of only three nations in the Caribbean basin with such ships, with the US clearly having predominance. It's also typical caudillo/socialist nonsense: no conventional weapon employed by the Venezuelans is a serious threat to US forces (tends to happen when ideological purity is the foremost criterion for advancement) but just possessing them makes them more macho.

I wonder if in retrospect Bush will be chastised for failing to put a stop to the reinfection of South America with socialism. Democracy has a less than sterling success record in the region, making me wonder if the old policies (he may be an SOB but at least he's our SOB) still aren't better suited. It also defies reason why we're not making a bigger scene over the stream of arms from Russia and China to Venezuela (somehow I think Monroe must be spinning in his grave for this violation of his doctrine).

Another Spurs Championship A Foregone Conclusion?

So I think San Antonio's 75-72 defeat on the Cavaliers pretty much seals the series; no team's ever come back from a 3-0 Finals deficit and given the way the Spurs are playing, the Cavaliers seem unlikely candidates to make history. Given that, I don't think it's premature to write a postmortem.

First off, the Cavaliers are only as good as the King. And LeBron can be damn good. His performance in game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals - the last 25 points for the Cavs, all 18 in overtime, 48 on the night - was nothing short of spectacular. The Pistons couldn't seem to stop him and when they finally got around to it in game 6, Booby Gibson burned them from outside the arc. But when LeBron doesn't deliver - see basically all three games to date in the Finals and credit the Spurs' Bruce Bowen for that - the Cavs are pretty mediocre.

The Spurs are good. Period. Feel free to hate Tony Parker with a passion, not only because he's marrying Eva Longoria (green-eyed monster + hatred) but because at what? 6 feet? he's ridiculous. Oh and because he's French.

The Bulls showed their stuff in that four-game sweep of the Heat. Add an inside scorer (Joakim Noah was working out for the team last week) and suddenly I think they're top 4 in the conference with Cleveland, Detroit and Miami (not in that order). It's also been suggested that Ben Gordon's a goner in the off-season - fine by me. Sure he delivered once or twice in the post-season and was pretty good in the regular season, but there seems to be few good arguments for keeping him. Luol Deng, by the way, is a baller (if you've never seen his single-handed demolition of UNC from one of the2003 Duke-UNC games, it's worth digging up and watching).

Obviously the most surprising storyline was the Warriors' defeat of the top-seeded Mavericks. However the greatest missed opportunity was a Warriors-Suns series, or as a friend characterized it "First to 200 points wins."

Game 4 is tomorrow night.

Go to Hell Carolina Go to Hell!

It's not basketball that's got me saying that right now, instead it's politics: former Carolina basketball coach Dean Smith endorsed Johnny-boy Edwards over the weekend. I think Dean's always been something of a liberal - he was something of a leader in the desegregation of NCAA D1 basketball - but this is just galling.



(Okay so it's not Duke-UNC but it's still the Crazies in fine form

The Map

Everyone's been posting it; despite that I thought it was worth putting up myself. Each state's individual GDP is compared to a country of roughly the same GDP. So Illinois's GDP is much the same as Mexico's. Alaska as Belarus? I don't know which side of that surprises me more - the oil-rich empty vastness or the authoritarian Baltic state.



















(Credit to Pajamas Media)

Fred and Rudy

In what's got to be the most over-reported news of the day, not-yet-declared candidate Fred Thompson is quickly catching up with (or even surpassing) Rudy Giuliani in some recent polls. It's not entirely surprising that the Fred Express is doing so well: he's well-liked by members of the conservative establishment (Mary Cheney, famously the target of John Edwards' assualt during the 2004 VP debate, just signed on to his campaign) and following their cues, the masses seem to have taken to him as well.

On to the news: a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll has Giuliani leading Fred 27%-21% (and Giuliani beating HRC by 10%). The poll doesn't test any Democrats against Fred, however, thus failing to illuminate the crucial "electability" dynamic.

However, a new Rasmussen poll found the two tied at 24% apiece, whereas Rudy was leading 23%-17% just a week ago. I don't think Rudy's peaked too soon, I just think the electorate (especially the conservatives who as of yet have not found anyone sufficiently conservative for their tastes yet electable) is excited by the buzz and his potential. Whether or not he can live up to the hype in a major way remains to be seen. He's got the star power - and although it's just Law & Order, at least it's not Bedtime for Bonzo! - and he's been making the right noises on the issues, but I'm still skeptical if this is any more than a temporary phenomenon.

The other thing that the Times/Bloomberg poll mentions is that Romney, who has been doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire (though they don't cite their own numbers to that extent) gets decimated by Clinton or Obama in the general. I have to believe it's his Mormonism: to "mainstream" Christians, it's a little too cultish and to secularists (to whom all of Christianity is just a little cultish), it's just down right freaky.

Anyone else notice the "values" buzz lately? I've been collecting some articles on it and pondering - maybe something tomorrow?

More Michael Yon From Iraq

Michael Yon, itinerant independent journalist and blogger, has given the world another unbiased look at things in Iraq; this is the sort of stuff that never makes it in the media. Yon's currently with the Queen's Royal Lancers in southern Iraq, where our allies are watching the border. Both pictures and coverage are great, be sure to spend some time reading it (as well as looking at some of his old pieces). I won't deign to comment extensively on it, because Blackfive has done it well.

On Top Of My Reading List

Coming out tomorrow: Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10. From Amazon:

On a clear night in late June 2005, four U.S. Navy SEALs left their base in northern Afghanistan for the mountainous Pakistani border. Their mission was to capture or kill a notorious al Qaeda leader known to be ensconced in a Taliban stronghold surrounded by a small but heavily armed force. Less then twenty-four hours later, only one of those Navy SEALs remained alive.

This is a story that I think barely made it into the media but finally it's being told. Powerline has a link to the first chapter online somewhere. Far more is available from the fine fellows over at Blackfive; especially noteworthy are two entries whose links I'll put directly here. Both are from Froggy Ruminations, home of two SEALS-turned-bloggers. One is one of their thoughts on the funeral of those that died that day, the other is their account of things as heard through the SEAL grapevine.


From what I can tell, this SEAL's story is truly incredible; I believe he's now back at it in Iraq. I don't know where we get these guys but the entire country owes them a debt of gratitude we cannot hope to repay.

The Forgotten Man

Some might remember Amity Shlaes; she used to write a column for the Financial Times. Now she's the author of the just-released The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Conservative economic historians don't often write histories of the era (or write much history in general), and if the book is anything like Shlaes' eminently readable columns, it'll be a treat. Check out reviews from Powerline and Opinion Journal if you're curious.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall

20 years ago today...

CAIR Membership Takes a Nosedive Pt. 2

The full Washington Times article on CAIR's declining membership is here; last night was obviously on a preview. Enjoy!

SecDef Levin?

It's something of a nightmare. Today's Opinion Journal spoofs the current state of affairs on the Hill with its 535 wannabe generals as well as Gates' refusal to go to bat for outgoing JCS Chair Peter Pace (though the White House inexplicably continues to support Gonzales!). They rightly question whether Gates is trying to be the "anti-Rumsfeld by appeasing the likes of Mr. Levin, but his kowtow only makes Mr. Bush look weaker as a Commander in Chief who can't even select his own war generals. Mr. Levin was quick to brag about his latest conquest, confirming for reporters that he had told Mr. Gates that General Pace's nomination would have resulted in a fight."

A fight? I'm not sure if Gates is keeping count but I say bring it on! Democrats would have to be sure to have all of their ducks in a row on this one (meaning ensuring Biden, Dodd, Clinton, and Obama are present); delay would leave them option to charges of hamstringing the war effort. Of course with us at 48 (49 as soon as Thomas [RIP] has a successor appointed) and likely Lieberman; though Johnson's healthy again (glad to hear it), he's not likely to return immediately. Thus that makes at worst (assuming McCain deigns to show up) a 50-49 Democratic victory along party lines (with Lieberman voting right) and likely a victory with several swings from the Dems (or the absence of any presidential nominee).

Obviously Gates' real desire was to avoid the inevitable accompanying hearings but this White House (and apparently this SecDef as well) remain terrified of going on the offense. Pace is a veteran of Hue; nothing Levin or the rest of the defeatists/revisionists on Armed Services could throw at him would rattle him. Though obviously he could never convince those close-minded hacks that this war is not only winnable but just. I say go for it - at the very least showing some spine will remind the Democrats there still is an executive branch and they don't have all the say on the war (though even if they did the media would still call this "Bush's war").

Several years ago in Washington I had the honor of meeting then-Vice-Chair Pace; he was an impressive man and an impressive speaker. He served his country courageously and well, putting his life on the line, for decades only to be discarded by an administration too craven to defend him as he defended his country. I'm honestly ashamed of my president and party. And it goes without saying that I'm disgusted with Levin and the rest of his party's grandstanding, abusing the freedom that so many brave soldiers, sailors and airmen (as well as Marines) have died to preserve over the centuries.

"Hate Crimes" Meets Theater of the Absurd

Though I don't think I've blogged on it, I consider the concept of "hate crimes" odious and almost Orwellian, punishing as it does not so much the action but the thought underlying it (this article from yesterday's ChiTrib also highlights the difficulties in charging blacks with hate crimes against whites - perhaps because there is no white Al Sharpton?)

Now it's once again gone from odious to absurd: a suit on appeal (unsurprisingly, from the crazy 9th Circuit) to the Supreme Court holds that "the words 'natural family,' 'marriage' and 'union of a man and a woman' can be punished as 'hate speech' in government workplaces."

Apparently this whole mess began when a gay/lesbian group of city employees in Oakland sent out an invitation to participate in "National Coming-Out Day;" when asked whether distributing such tripe was legitimate, the city manager responded (in his best ultra-PCese) that "'celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement' was part of the city's role to 'celebrate diversity.'" Since when do cities have to celebrate diversity?

A group of traditionally-valued employees which had formed in response and reached out via posted fliers to "people of faith" who opposed attempts to redefine marriage was then accused by a lesbian employee of making her feel "targeted" and "excluded." At this point, the courts issued a "ruling said the words 'natural family' and 'marriage' had 'anti-homosexual import.'" The two women accused of "targeting" and "excluding" this dyke (pardon - is that not PC?) complained that their first amendment rights were being compromised. Which is technically true, unless you may in any unintentional or imagined way insult minorities, gays, or women (white men, Southerners, and military personnel not included).

It's now up to the Supreme Court to decided whether - as the 9th Circuit ruled - an employer's administrative interests (in this case diversity) trumps the employees' free speech. I certainly don't consider that a compelling government interest (which must be shown to limit speech), and I doubt Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito will either. The Court already found "hate speech" constitutional in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) and though I'm not sure that's really the issue under consideration here, I hope that the Court takes this opportunity to overrule that precedent as well as throw out this latest bit of 9th Circuit BS. On the flip side of the "diversity" coin, I believe they previously found diversity to be a compelling interest in one of the affirmative action cases (Bakkae?) and thus have a certain degree of precedent (one that Ginsberg will no doubt cite in her dissent).

PC nonsense combined with judicial absurdity, topped with an infringement of our free speech: the Left finds a new way to repel me every day.

One final depressing side note: the then-city manager is now the DC School Board president, no doubt injecting such garbage into the District's curriculum, rather than working on things like, say, fixing the broken schools.

More Anxiety in Eastern Europe

Yesterday I discussed Bush's ecstatic reception in Albania as well as the historical circumstances partially underlying it. Now we're seeing more rumblings from the Balkans.

On the one hand, Bulgaria has asked to be covered by the proposed US missile shield. As a Soviet satellite, the government in Sofia is all too familiar with the Kremlin meddling in their neighborhood. Ironically, Bulgaria was created from Russian spoils of war in 1877 when Tsarist armies attempted to dismember the feeble Ottoman Empire. The Russians then came close to entering Constantinople itself, which would have produced a war with Austria and Britain as well; the former because it considered the Balkans its backyard, the latter because they feared Russian control of the Dardanelles and a warm-water port would threaten their lifeline to India via Suez (for much the same reason, Russia and Britain played the "Great Game" in Afghanistan).

Speaking of artificial state constructs (which Afghanistan most certainly is), Serbia reacted indignantly to Bush's support for an independent Kosovo; this is the same response that the international community has heard from Putin. The present warmth between the two states (at a time when few can tolerate Putin) is an extension of a rather long-standing friendship. Prior to the overthrow of the tsars, Russian often pursued a pan-Slavic policy, attempting to bring all Slavic peoples (including Serbs) under the double-headed Romanov eagle. Although that ethnic motive partially disappeared with the rise of the USSR (which thought far more globally than merely the Balkans), a large swath of the region - formerly under Austro-Hungarian rule - was reconstituted into Yugoslavia ("The Land of the South Slavs"). See where this is all going? The two feel a certain kinship. In contrast, Kosovo, which the Serbs claim as their own, is populated primarily by ethnic Albanians, thought to be descended from ancient Illyrians (which also contributes to Bush's reception).

What's unfortunate about all of this is that the Balkan Peninsula is a region the rest of the world ignores at their own risk, so often has it been a flashpoint for international events. But it's rarely on the media's radar screen, and only is at present because of the President's visit (the additional fact that some states, such as Bulgaria, are enthusiastic allies makes covering them especially unappealing to the MSM). Despite this, developments there are worthy of study: the region seems to finally be moving past its bitter sectarianism but simultaneously it remains ripe for Putin's meddling, especially if it is ignored by Western public opinion.

More Thoughts on France

A few pieces came to my attention today that I thought were worth highlighting in the wake of yesterday's French elections and the challenges that Sarkozy's government will face in coming months. First off, Socialist Segolene Royal, maneuvering to avoid total disaster at the polls, has proposed an alliance with Francois Bayrou's centrist Democratic Movement (MoDem). Many seem doubtful whether such a move will stave off electoral catastrophe or merely stanch the bleeding.

Despite Royal's outreach, I think that we may be seeing the death throes of France's Socialist Party (PS). While the Left in other European countries has moved away from pure socialism towards social democracy, the PS has remained firmly wedded to full-fledged socialism. Bayrou's relatively centrist MoDem was partially offering an alternative to the old left/right divide but he failed to make it into the second round. Should the PS suffer a crushing blow in the upcoming election, and should Sarkozy succeed in implementing his reforms, the party may be too devastated to offer any serious opposition, ceding its role as a major party to MoDem or another. This isn't to say it would disappear altogether but rather be reduced to the ranks of the minor parties of the left, which includes not only your garden-variety communists and greens but also parties devoted to "workers' struggle" party and at least one Trotskyist party (not kidding).

The second item of note was that French Sikhs have gone to the European Court of Human Rights, seeking permission to wear their turbans in school as well as in official identification photos. As to the former complaint this is a consequence (unintended or not) of the controversial law passed a few years ago banning students from wearing overt religious identifiers (aimed primarily at Muslim girls' headscarves) in schools. The law is rooted primarily in the traditional French zealousness for a certain national unity without regard for race or religious creed, a notion which has been severely abused in recent years.

The law came under fire from multiple directions when it was passed. Some accused it of being an assault on Islam (apparently Europe too has its grievance theater types). One of the more interesting criticism I remember at the time was the Economist's libertarian reaction. Of course young Muslim girls donning the head scarf may not actually be their choice?

CAIR Membership Takes a Nosedive

According to the Washington Times, CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization which claims to speak for all of America's Muslims while actively peddling grievance theater designed to show everything (including reports of suspicious activity) as bigoted anti-Muslim behavior - has seen a 90% drop in its membership over the last six years. As the author rightly pointed out, the organization's recent appearance in the news as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a terror case likely won't bring the masses back. What I most found intriguing (and I hope the Times will more fully flesh this out tomorrow) are the individual donors who have been providing most of the organization's budget; more to the point, how many of them are members of the Saudi royal family?

Journalism AC (After-Couric)

Apparently Fox - whose news is sufficiently sensationalized (has Greta van Susteren ever discussed anything but Paris Hilton or murdered/missing white girls?) and whose reality TV shows are even worse - has come up with a harebrained new concept: letting a model do the news. The show, called Anchorwoman (no doubt an homage to Will Ferrell's misogynistic Anchorman), will feature a swimsuit model/WWE actress with no prior journalistic experience doing the local news in Tyler, Texas. Obviously the locals aren't happy. But if Katie Couric, who has experience but no gravitas, can do CBS Evening News whats to keep a bimbo with no experience and no gravitas from doing the local news?

What's priceless is journalists getting steamed over this apparently devaluing their profession. Please. Two words (one?): Rather-gate. Another two (definitely two this time): Paris Hilton. If we're going to make up news or cover bimbos all day long, a reality TV show with a bimbo doing the news isn't anything new. So long as she can read off a teleprompter she's fine.

Ron Paul the Money Man?

Ron Paul, the crazy Texan who entered politics because Nixon took us off the gold standard, is making waves with rumors that his campaign may have raised some $5 million. That would put him where McCain was last quarter and at about half of Giuliani and Romney's then totals. Now my question is who in God's name is crazy enough to donate to this guy? Obviously the same loons who overran LGF's post-debate polls but it doesn't explain who they are! Coming on top of Rasmussen's poll a few weeks ago which showed 35% of Democrats (and 22% of Americans overall) believe Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, I'm starting to doubt our national sanity.

Though I have nightmares about the infinitesimal chance that Paul becomes the nominee, I think a more like and realistic scenario is that he'll be rejected by the mainstream of the GOP; I have to believe that most of his supporters are cross-over independents and/or moonbat Democrats who can't vote in most GOP primaries, making his defeat more likely. However he'll refuse to accept defeat and pull a Lieberman, running independently and on a platform that would make Ross "Giant Suckin' Sound" Perot sound positively sane. What the hell is wrong with this world?

I'm Not Dead Yet!

Despite everyone's fervent wishes to the contrary (except perhaps for the President and Senator Kennedy), it would appear that the immigration monster is still stirring. Kaus (h/t Instapundit) outlines W's strategy to resuscitate his monster; AFP has Bush saying he'll take a more hands-on/personal role in working with the Senate to pass it. Let me get this straight: a President with a job-approval rating in the low 30s goes to the Hill to harangue a Congress with a job-approval rating equally as low or lower - and we expect this to work? I just wish Congress would do everyone a favor, declare this dead and move quickly to pass a toothy border security bill. With that done, Republicans might be more willing to talk, though I still think there are too many in both parties who are at least somewhat opposed to any guest worker program (i.e. most of those who voted for Dorgan's amendment last week).

And now for something completely different...

Death Penalty Deters?

Recent studies suggest just that! Obviously its opponents disagree, attacking the studies as "flimsy" and published in "second-tier journals" (perhaps top-tier journals wouldn't publish them because they violate liberal orthodoxy?). Still, the findings suggest each execution saves between three and fifteen lives. Read it all.

H-Bomb = Homo Bomb?

Apparently the Pentagon considered developing a "gay bomb," aimed at turning affected individuals gay. Some gay activists latched on and made a hullaballoo, and Jules Crittenden has some fun, analyzing the weapon using "the most progressive, libertarian, gender-orientation accepting, peace-loving standards possible." One offended liberal blamed the Bush administration for the weapon, developed, by the way, in 1994 what's next? Blaming W for don't ask don't tell? The stupidity of such individuals would almost be cute if they couldn't vote...as always, I find WSC's greatest argument against democracy ("a five minute conversation with the average voter") validated.

France Truly Ready for Reform?

Sure they elected conservative, reform-minded, America-loving, tough-on-crime Nicolas Sarkozy president, but it was unclear how serious the French commitment to change was. That commitment was made apparent today with the nation's parliamentary elections. According to the AP, Sarko's UMP (originally, "(Union pour la majorité présidentielle" now "Union pour un Mouvement Populaire") took 46% of the vote; in contrast the Socialists, party of presidential runner-up Segolene Royal, took roughly 36%. Of course, given the absurd complexities of the French electoral system, this is only the first round of parliamentary balloting. But it bodes well for the composition of the new Assemblée nationale, potentially with the UMP having an absolute majority. Obviously that'll help Sarko's reform program.

Some right-minded analysis is especially interesting (I plead ignorance: I was unaware that Pajamas Media had a correspondent in France); particularly that the "depressed" (61%!) turnout may signal bitter Socialists stayed home.

So what's Sarko going to do with this majority? Ideally, he'll implement major economic reforms - throw out the infamous 35-hour work-week, the generous welfare benefits, the difficulties in terminating employees - and address the violence in the banlieus, perpetrated primarily by disaffected Muslim youth (the surge of car-burnings that breached the US media's veil of silence was hardly exceptional). Whether or not he'll succeed remains to be seen, but this is definitely a move in the right direction.

NYT Newsflash!

There's a war on! Tigerhawk dissects a bit from the Times (all the news that fits) in which they seem to have stumbled over jihadi ideology - someone let their blinders slip - but desperately try and play dumb, digging up some ivory tower-dwelling navel gazing type to liken jihad-related deaths and civilian deaths in Iraq. Or something. His style's far better than mine. Read away. The original Times piece, discussing (I kid you not) "jihadi etiquette" can be found here - it might as well be from the Onion.

(h/t: LGF - here's to hoping they're back up soon)

George Will Abuses Democrats

Today's WaPo has George Will viciously abusing Democrats on their collective economic policy (bad pun); Democratic candidates are rehashing the same old tripe they've been bemoaning for decades, hoping Americans are sufficiently fed up with the GOP to allow them to raise taxes. In addition to abusing their policy notions and setting the record straight on the economic health of the current administration (you wouldn't know the economy's been healthy and growing if you only listened to Democrats and the media), he rightly questions the underlying philosophy (all too infrequently critiqued):

When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been "spread evenly"? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of "fairness" does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them?

Ouch. Fairness, when defined by the modern left is nefarious as well as a governmental concern. As the Gipper said, "the nine scariest words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help!'"

It's ironic: at a time when parts of the Continent may finally be moving away from their long-cherished and viciously destructive tax-strangled welfare states, Democrats want to implement exactly the sorts of policies that have rendered Old Europe's economies so sclerotic. Hillary as the anti-Thatcher?

I Love The New Criterion

Just throwing that out there. This particular outburst of emotion/warm fuzzies is in response to Roger Kimball's demolition of a new and allegedly "edgy" art exhibit at Bard College, an exhibit, as Kimball so wonderfully puts it, comprised of

"huge images of body parts—yes, those body parts—floating on the walls of a darkened room, minatory videos of men doing things—yes, those things—to each other, or to themselves, all of it presented in the most pretentious fashion possible.

Duke's gorgeous new Nasher Museum hosted a mind-numbingly awful exhibit that might have been called "Tree Hugger's Delight" - but it couldn't hold a candle to this rubbish. Art? Excuse me? But as bad as it is, Kimball borders on the dismissive - the critically dismissive:

the thing to appreciate about “Wrestle,” about the Hessel Museum and the collection of Marieluise Hessel, and about the visual arts at Bard generally is not how innovative, challenging, or unusual they are, but how pedestrian and, sad to say, conventional they are. True, there is a lot of ickiness on view at the Hessel Museum. But it is entirely predictable ickiness. It’s outrage by-the-yard, avant-garde in bulk, smugness for the masses. And this brings me to what I believe is the real significance of institutions like the art museum at Bard, the Hessel collection that fills it, and the surrounding atmosphere of pseudo-avant-garde self-satisfaction. The “arts” at Bard are notable not because they are unusual but because they are so grindingly ordinary...Far from “challenging” or “subverting” the status quo, the 1,700 objects she [Hessel] has accumulated are the status quo. And far from “struggling” with questions about gender or feminism or anything else, she has simply issued a rubber stamp endorsing the dominant clichés of today’s academic art world. “Academic,” in fact, is the mot juste: not in the sense of “scholarly,” but rather in the sense that we speak of “academic art,” stale, conventional, aesthetically nugatory. A wall full of photographs of two girls does nothing to “interrogate” (a favorite term of art- and lit-crit-speak) identity any more than a mutilated doll forces us to reconsider our usual notions of whatever-it-is those odious objects are supposed to make us reconsider. Really, the only thing exhibitions like “Wrestle,” or institutions like the Hessel Museum, challenge is the viewer’s patience.

Ouch. Just to reiterate: I love TNC.

PS - read the whole article and savor his historical perspective as he destroys modern art.

At Least One Muslim Country Loves America

Bush is currently visiting Albania - the first US president to do so - and has received an enthusiastic welcome. Many in the media, if they could find Albania on a map might be surprised not only because it's a foreign country (they all hate us, right?) but also because it's 70% Muslim. Of course until 1985, Albania was ruled by paranoid, xenophobic Enver Hoxha, a man who might give Kim Jong Il a run for his money if there was a "Least Cuddly World Leader" competition.

I think the warmth of Bush's reception is based on three interrelated factors. First off, Albania's traumatic experience with the "wonders" of Communism are so fresh - and the country still so desperately poor - that unlike elsewhere there is no knee-jerk lefty response; closely-linked is the fact that America is still seen as a force for good in the region. On a personal level, as the article noted, US programs (probably through USAID) are lending to Albanians - microfinance is one of the developing world's greatest weapons against poverty. On a regional level, the US remains a bulwark against Russian meddling, as with Putin's opposition to an independent Kosovo.

The Balkans have always been a playground for Russian imperialist/expansionist efforts. Prior to World War I, this was because Tsarist Russia feared the Ottoman Empire and later because (oftentimes wrapped in the veil of pan-Slav ideology) the declining Ottomans, the "sick man of Europe," was for Russian expansion. Russian and Austria sparred in the region (though not as far west as Albania) too before the Great War, again jockeying for control of former Ottoman possessions. After the Second World War, much of the region fell under communist (though not always Soviet) rule. Thus in a lingering Cold War sense, America is the regional Good Guy; the autocratic resurgence of Putin's Russia isn't likely to change that perception in the immediate future. (In fact, I'm wondering if such attitudes aren't prevalent in many parts of the former USSR).