CHUCKMAN'S SUKIYAKI

CHUCKMAN’S SUKIYAKI
I love Japanese food in general, but this dish is one of my favourite meals from any cuisine. It offers a complete, delicious meal from one pot. It’s all preparation and little cooking.


INGREDIENTS:

1 ½ pounds of Beef – decent steak like top sirloin is good – sliced into very thin strips – Tip: slice steak when partially frozen to get best results, or use a good long scissor

Shirataki Mushrooms – about 6 to 8, depending on size – caps sliced thinly, stems not used - fresh or dried – if you use dry, soak in warm water for half an hour before cutting

Bok Choi – 1 large stalk or equivalent Baby Bok Choi – Greens sliced thinly, leave white bottom for a future recipe

1 pound soft Tofu – break up with fingers until little chunks like cottage cheese

Scallions – 4 large – sliced very thinly

Onion – 1 large – sliced very thinly

½ cup Soy Sauce – Kikkoman’s distinctive flavour is best for this

½ cup Sake

1 Tbsp sugar or sugar substitute

Togarashi – Japanese Red Pepper powder – available in any decent Asian grocery and even some supermarkets

Soba (Japanese buckwheat) Noodles – 3 or 4 of the little bundles as they typically come packaged

Oil sufficient for cooking a stir fry


METHOD:

Prepare sauce, combining Soy Sauce, Sake, and Sugar and set aside.

Place Noodles – remove little plastic ties first - into a medium pot of boiling water. Cook just a couple of minutes – they are very thin - and drain. Oil very lightly to keep from clumping and set aside.

Lightly oil large frying pan and cook Onion slices until translucent. Add Beef slices and Mushroom slices, cooking an additional minute or two stirring as you fry. Add Bok Choy and cook briefly until reduced by water loss. Add Tofu and Scallions and Sauce. Simmer briefly.

Add Noodles, stirring into mixture.

This ready to serve as soon as well mixed except for the Togarashi powder. I consider it essential, but some do not use it. By leaving it until last, you can customize plates.


NOTES:

Traditional Japanese people eat Sukiyaki with a raw egg on top.

Soba Noodles are not the noodles traditionally used, but I like them very much, and they are much easier to find than the more exotic noodles made from sweet potato which even many Asian grocers do not carry.

Togarashi is zesty but not hot.

Japanese Ginger (Sushi) Pickles, for me, go with Sukiyaki the way a big dill pickle goes with a corned-beef sandwich. Serve them cold on the side.

You may also make Sukiyaki with chicken.

CHUCKMAN’S FRESH CORN SALAD WITH MEXICAN FLAVORS

CHUCKMAN’S FRESH CORN SALAD
A delicious way to use fresh corn

SALAD:
4 Cobs of fresh Corn
1 medium Zucchini quartered lengthwise and sliced thinly
1 small Red Sweet Pepper diced finely
1 medium Red Onion finely chopped
2 Stalks Celery finely sliced

DRESSING:
1 Lime – zest and juice – use two limes if you want a strong Lime flavor
2 Tbls Rice Vinegar
1 Tbls Chilli Powder
Tabasco sauce – several shakes or to taste
Fresh Cilantro – several sprigs finely chopped
Oil sufficient for a dressing - at least 2:1 to acids

Sea Salt coarse

METHOD:

Cut corn off cleaned cobs. Combine with other chopped vegetables and set aside.

Mix dressing but leave until ready to serve salad so that Lime does not dehydrate vegetables. Sprinkle coarse Salt when serving.

NOTE: I use old glass spice bottles with screw tops to mix dressings, putting in ingredients, closing top, and shaking vigorously. Works nicely, and you can store any leftover.

REVIEW OF PETER GREEN'S ALEXANDER TO ACTIUM

Here indeed is a difficult book to review: it is so obviously a work of impressive scholarship, yet it has a number of notable shortcomings.

The comment has been made in other reviews that Green is an elegant writer, but I believe that only superficial readers or the author's friends and associates would say that. Green's writing has important and obvious flaws that prevent the book from being what it might have been.

While he sometimes offers elegant sentences, he too often offers convoluted sentences or sentences stuffed like long, fat sausages, sometimes even diverging from the subject in the course of setting down his words. He also maintains a rather superior gesturing in his prose. I know the effect Green likely hoped he was achieving - the majesty of Edward Gibbon or Thomas Macaulay - but he just does not succeed.

He is often an extremely pedantic writer, generously sprinkling his text with words and phrases not just from Greek and Latin but German and French, and always selecting obscure words or Latinisms where solid Anglo-Saxon words would serve better.

There are indeed times when a foreign expression captures the special sense of a concept that a translation may loose, and I have no objection to their use where that is true, but that is not the case here.

I very much object to the gratuitous use of foreign words and phrases to display an author's learning, something which makes the work less accessible to many while simply annoying others with a gimmick related to the use of "as the eminent, such-and-such prize-winner once said..." to bolster a quoted source's authority (something Green spares us). The effects are poisonous in a work of this nature.

Yet Green knows a great deal about his subject, and I certainly learned from him despite the faults. His interpretation of the Hellenistic world after Alexander as representing a decay and gradual departure from (reaching almost a bastardization of) Greece's true classical period is interesting, and he mounts some strong supporting evidence for the view.

The book is not properly understood as a history, because large portions of it are arguments of positions on historical or philosophical or esthetic or moral issues. There's nothing wrong with that, but potential readers should be aware of the fact.

There is such a huge cast of characters involved in the three great divisions of Alexander's conquests over a couple of centuries that one loses track of some of them in the narrative, many of course being minor or simply having left few records, but one might have hoped for a clearer, more sustained narrative of the truly important figures. There is a sense of fragmentation here which may be just the fault of a fragmentary record.

There is a considerable difference in Green's success in explaining some events. He sometimes leaves you mentally saying, "Yes, indeed," while other times he leaves you saying, "What?"

Despite the flaws, this is a significant book and one worth reading by anyone interested in the Hellenistic era and in the successors to the dead Alexander and in the rise of imperial Rome.

REVIEW OF ARNALDUR INDRIDASON'S ARCTIC CHILL

I am not a traditionally a reader of mysteries, but since my wife introduced me to selected writers, there are a few to whose new books I quite look forward.

Scandinavian writers of this genre appeal a great deal. After all, part of what we get from any novel is being taken into a world we do not know, and the place and people names of Scandinavia are exotic and fascinating. Also, there is a great touch of humanity in the stories coming from Scandinavian writers, quite in distinction to some well-known, hard-boiled American writers whose fiction I find almost unreadable.

Norway's Karin Fossum is chief among the Scandinavians, being a writer and storyteller of top quality, but I enjoy Iceland's Arnaldur Indridason too. His first books were not in the same class with Fossum's, but with Arctic Chill, he rises to a new level of quality. This is fine and gripping book, an interesting tale with many twists and turns.

Indridason weaves several plots together here and manages them with great skill. The two criminal cases - a murder and a separate missing person - actually nicely reinforce each other and are used to introduce some interesting complexities.

Indridason is always a clear writer, but this book introduces a new level of sophistication in his storytelling. We still have his intelligent, very human, and sympathic detective, Erlendur, a man with whom we feel it might be nice to spend some time discussing the human condition. We still have the wonderfully forbidding weather and brooding landscape of Iceland as major characters.

This is a book you will not want to put down. Highly recommended.

CHUCKMAN'S ZESTIEST LENTIL SOUP

MY ZESTIEST LENTL SOUP

1 Pound dry Red Lentils
2 Boxes Beef Stock
1 pound of Spanish Chorizo Sausage – Sweet – sliced thinly
1 large Onion - diced
1 large Green Pepper - diced
2 medium Carrots – sliced thinly
2 stalks of Celery – sliced thinly
Hungarian Sweet Paprika – at least two tablespoons, more if you like
Salt – to taste
Pepper – coarsely ground – at least 1 teaspoon

Bring a medium pot of water to boil and add Lentils. Boil for 5 minutes. Drain with a strainer and add to the Beef Stock in a large soup pan.

Saute Onions and Carrots until softened. Add Green Pepper and Celery to cook a briefer time. Add Paprika to vegetables and continue cooking a brief time to work in all the Paprika with oil and cook through.

Add Onions, Carrots, Green Pepper, Celery to pot of Beef Stock.

Add Chorizo slices to frying pan and briefly sauté. Then add to Stock. Add pepper.

Simmer for at least fifteen minutes, longer if you like something closer to a porridge consistency with much softened vegetables.

Great with yogourt.

REVIEW OF SEBASTIAN FAULKS' BIRDSONG

This is a difficult book to review, the reason being is that it has so many contradictory qualities. It has some good writing combined with material that is sentimental and even purplish.

It has some strong images, and it has a series of preposterous incidents. It is packed with improbabilities.

The author starts with a mini-version of Flaubert's "Madame Bovary," oddly hybridized with Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover." While there is some nice writing here, it strikes me as self-consciously so, and the story lacks any freshness.

There are ridiculous improbabilities in this part of the book. Why would an English firm considering a business venture with a French firm send this young man, the protagonist, Stephen, to size up the opportunity? He isn't even educated in business. He is very young. And he proves emotionally unstable.

And why would the French proprietor - M. Azaire, husband of the beautiful woman, Isabelle, who becomes Stephen's lover - have Stephen spending time at lunches and other business of the floor workers in his plant? It's a genuinely silly idea.

The sentimentality begins shortly after Stephen and Isabelle become lovers, and, in cheap romantic fashion, Isabelle suddenly disappears with their young child, returning to her family.

When you get into the Great War, supposedly the real stuff of the book, you will wonder why you've had about ninety pages of rehashed Madame Bovary. You will find out towards the end, but it is a very unsatisfying idea of neatness and completeness that drives things.

Here and there in the war business, there are a few strong images and interesting stuff about the tunnel systems that were extensively used in the Great War.

But the author even manages to make the front sentimental and clichéd. Egad, there's even the proverbial friend who has never been with a woman and who is given the surprise present of a prostitute one night.

There's lots of hard drinking and calculatedly gruesome incidents - pure Hollywood. And the author has nothing fresh to say about the war we haven't all seen in movies or read in other books.

The end-of-war portion was clearly written with the hope of selling the book for movie rights. The idea of two men trapped in a huge tunnel far underground is gruesomely interesting, but the author draws it out to impossibly long time with an impossibly heroic series of efforts. People typically die after 3 or 4 days without water, but Stephen hangs in there for God knows how long.

Yes, he licks a bit of brackish water in a corner in his Herculean labors, but that just wouldn't do it.

His rescue would have been a good surprise - he is rescued by Germans digging in their own lines - had it been handled well. But we get an awkward effort by a couple of Germans, one of whom, we have explained at some length and repetition, happens to be Jewish. Why? Why is the author suddenly focusing on a man's religion? An intended irony about a good Jewish soldier in the German army? Whatever the intention, it simply does not work.

The ending is silly, the author bringing us what he regards as full circle.

I really do believe Faulks thought he was writing a racier, more action-filled "Gone with the Wind" for World War I in hope of a big movie contract.

I read this book wanting to like it, thinking from things I read that it might be another of those memorable books about people caught in the gears of war, but I found it impossibly flawed.

REVIEW OF DAVID HACKETT FISCHER'S CHAMPLAIN'S DREAM

Not every historical character is so lucky in his biographer as Samuel de Champlain is in David Hackett Fischer. Fischer has tremendous good will and sympathy towards his subject, and that always makes a biography more pleasurable to read.

Champlain was an explorer, a mapmaker, an artist, a writer, a capable captain of people in difficult circumstances, an idealist, a seasoned soldier, and person of extraordinarily good temperament. In short, he was a French version of the fabled Elizabethan man, and with qualities of character superior to many Elizabethan men.

This is a very good book: it has a genuinely heroic subject in Champlain, and it tells a great story in vigorous language.

Fischer follows in part the example of Samuel Eliot Morison's "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," a venerable though somewhat dated biography of Columbus, by using his personal knowledge of sailing and the contemporary geography of Champlain’s New France to bring vivid life to his story and explain matters like the naming of certain places. Since I too know and have lived in some of these areas, I found this fascinating.

His treatment of the Indians of New France is refreshingly honest yet sympathetic, much in the spirit of Champlain himself, and by honest I’m including the very brutal aspects of aboriginal society sometimes overlooked today in sentimental history.

The book’s shortcomings are relatively small. Fischer is repetitive in small quantities at times, repeating some fact or observation offered not many pages before. This surely is the fault of a somewhat slack editor.

Another fault is in the somewhat poor reproduction of many illustrations, including a number of Champlain’s own drawings.

Fischer also does not tell us enough about certain matters such as Champlain’s marriage, a fascinating subject involving as it does a woman from a fairly distinguished French family who comes and spends time in New France. He briefly tells us how the marriage goes through ups and downs, but any reader will want a few more details filled in, if indeed such material exists in the records.

A significant book for Canadian history, the history of North American settlement and exploration, the history of North American aboriginal people, and all lovers of good biography and good yarns.

REVIEW OF RUSS BAKER'S FAMILY OF SECRETS

This is one of those books which, while not being great, is nevertheless of some value.

Baker takes the point of view that it is impossible to write a book about George W. Bush without writing also about his father. I agree: George Junior would not ever have amounted to more than a small-time failure at business in Texas without his father's friends and influence.

The dual approach has certainly been taken before, a favorite father-and-son biography of mine being Anthony Cave Brown's Treason in the Blood about master-spy Kim Philby and his remarkable father, Harry St. John Philby.

But the parallels do not continue. George Junior is not a figure of personal achievement or significant talent; Kim Philby very much was, whatever you think of his treasonous work. Harry St. John was almost a character from Shakespeare; Bush pere is a fairly uninteresting, but intelligent, government-service lifer from a wealthy family. Brown's book is masterly; Baker's only interesting and competent.

I think Baker failed to investigate some of these matters adequately. For example, I, along with many others, do not believe Bush Junior either bright or hard-working enough to have earned a place in the prestigious universities he attended, much less graduate. He was certainly what is called a "legacy" student: someone who does not make the grade but is given a pass in the hope his wealthy family will contribute generously to the endowment fund. This is a common practice at "ivy league" universities, one of whose constant aims is their own perpetuation as institutions.

The main fact about Bush pere Baker attempts to establish is that he has a lifelong association with the Central Intelligence Agency. He does not prove this, but I think he offers strong circumstantial grounds for a reasonable assumption.

Bush pere's C.I.A. connection was not news for me: being in the past a serious student of the Kennedy assassination, I knew Bush pere's name came up in the long and costly secret war against Castro's Cuba. Also, the C.I.A.'s headquarters at Langley, Virginia, is named after Bush pere, and that kind of honor isn't granted for serving one quite short stint as Director.

I found the first half of the book a bit slow-moving. The pace picks up in the second half, and while Baker never achieves a consistent level of fascinating story-telling, some events are beautifully summed up. He does a handsome job, for example, with the story behind the story that cost Dan Rather his job at CBS News over documents purporting to prove Bush's shabby record with the National Guard in Texas.

There is a mistake or two here, but they are minor. Baker says Lewis "Scooter" Libby was pardoned, but, in fact, Bush only granted clemency on Libby's sentence. His conviction stands, despite the efforts behind the scenes of Dick Cheney, whose dirty work he did, to get him a pardon.

But then Bush never was one much for pardons, or compassion for that matter.

REVIEW OF NICHOLSON BAKER'S HUMAN SMOKE

This is an odd book: its format is less like a book than a research folder or elaborate clipping file for the writing of a more conventional history. Its subject is undoubtedly controversial for some because it makes strong statements about the nature of modern war and it questions the clarity with which we traditionally define the heroes and villains in that vast human enterprise in destruction called World War II.

The book consists of a long series of quotes from all kinds of documents and publications and from famous people. The quotes go in time sequence leading up to and during World War II, and they are selected and orchestrated to make important points about modern war.

The points made here are so difficult for some to accept that I believe the author wanted to use a method that excluded his own voice, offering only the actual words of those who lived the history. In the end, the book has a powerful impact and its title nicely captures what it is about.

As a student of history, I did not find eyebrow-raising facts here, although particular quotes were startling, but I know many will not have been exposed to the disgusting facts of modern warfare. I have long believed, and I wrote an essay on the subject a few years ago, that the methods of modern warfare render the term terrorism meaningless. America or Israel today routinely kills far more civilians than soldiers. You simply cannot use horrible weapons and methods like napalm, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, or carpet-bombing without doing this.

The author makes the point strongly - and I do think it an important one - that it was not Hitler who started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians but the British. He shows Churchill's history of advocating gruesome destruction for enemies of the British Empire. This part of Churchill was less than valiant and less than honourable and had little to do with the values of democracy.

More generally, the conclusion emerges inexorably that there are no heroes in the gruesome business of turning war into something that targets civilians more than armies.

REVIEW OF ALEKSANDR FURSENKO'S AND TIMOTHY NAFTALI'S KHRUSCHEV'S COLD WAR

This book is a gripping read, and it contains new insights into the Cold War, and the authors add some interesting brushstrokes to our historical portrait of Krushchev.

Khrushchev has always been a minor hero of mine. I call him a minor hero because one cannot talk about heroism in an unqualified way with a major figure of an absolute government. Beethoven angrily re-titled the dedication of the Eroica symphony, and I agree with his sentiments in doing it, yet it remains possible to admire some aspects of Napoleon's career.

All individuals must be judged with an appreciation for the constraints under which they operated, and Khrushchev did some very important things and maintained a kind of idealism, despite its rough peasant expression. Khrushchev did want his people to achieve a better life; he cared a great deal about improving agriculture; he was a sincere believer in the ultimate benefits of socialism; he did not want war; and he did want peaceful coexistence with the West before that phrase became commonplace. Above all, Khrushchev was and remains a very human figure, something that cannot be said of a great many absolute leaders.

Khrushchev's role in changing the operations of the Soviet government after decades of Stalin - perhaps the most terrifying dictator of the modern era - was heroic, something I believe he has never been adequately recognized for in the West.

But the same man was ready to crush revolt in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

The title of the book is absolutely accurate: this is Khrushchev's Cold War. Other actors enter and leave the stage, but Khrushchev shapes the story. In that sense, it is necessarily incomplete as a history of the Cold War.

The new insights in the book come from Soviet archives not opened until well into the 21st century. They include who knew what when; the impact of certain events on the Soviet leadership; the real reasons for certain Soviet positions in international affairs; and some of the misunderstandings of American analysts and leaders at the time.

In a few cases, the authors indicate that materials are missing yet, so the book cannot be taken as definitive.

But the book is indispensable to understanding the Cold War, aspects of how the Soviet Union worked, and the Cuban Missile crisis. It is recommended to all with interest in these subjects and to anyone just wanting a good historical read.

CHUCKMAN: ADVERTISEMENTS FOR MYSELF

CHUCKMAN'S SAVORY MIDDLE-EAST STYLE STUFFED PEPPERS

CHUCKMAN’S SAVORY MIDDLE-EAST STYLE STUFFED PEPPERS

INGREDIENTS:

2 Cups Dry Couscous (Whole wheat or regular)

2 Cups Chicken Broth for Couscous (You will obtain this from the Chicken you cook)

1 Cup or more Chicken Stock for Sauce (You will obtain this from the Chicken you cook)

2 medium Onions

1 or 2 Carrots

4 Legs and Thighs of Chicken

Chatta – Pepper Paste from the Mideast (This is not hot, it is savory - available at any Middle East grocer)

4 Large Green (or Red) Sweet Peppers

Oil – for frying

1 Tablespoon Corn Starch (dissolved in a small quantity of water – for moderately thickening Sauce)

Tomato - a handful diced

METHOD:

Simmer Chicken pieces in a large saucepan of water until flesh easily pulled off.

Take out Chicken and let cool a bit. Set aside liquid (your Stock).

To prepare Couscous, boil 2 Cups of Stock (liquid from cooking Chicken), add dry Coucous, stir together, cover, and remove from burner. Couscous is ready in 5 minutes.

When cool enough to work with, shred Chicken meat, removing skin.

Finely slice or dice Onions and grate Carrot. Saute in a frying pan. Add several Tablespoons of Pepper Paste. When Onion is soft, add shredded Chicken and just warm through.

Stir together Chicken, Onion, and Carrot mix into prepared Couscous.

Halve and seed Green Peppers. Place on small baking sheet (covered with parchment paper, or oiled), or use Pyrex casserole dish, oiled. Pile up with Couscous mix. Cover with foil and bake at 350 for about an hour.

Prepare Sauce on stovetop. Use desired quantity of Chicken Stock, adding several Tablespoons of Chatta paste, a quantity of chopped Tomato, and a generous sprinkling of dry parsley. Add Corn Starch and water mix. Simmer covered for half an hour.

Pepper filling will be lightly browned. Serve as is with Sauce on the side.

NOTES:

Also serve Yogurt on the side, if desired (very nice).

The Coucous/Chicken filling mixture is delicious on its own – a kind of West Asian fried rice.


OTHER INTERESTING INGREDIENTS:

For the Couscous/chicken filling include: pieces of thinly sliced lemons that have been quickly sautéed, sliced (canned) artichoke hearts, olives, or pistachios.

REVIEW OF LAURA THOMPSON'S AGATHA CHRISTIE: AN ENGLISH MYSTERY

I enjoyed an interview with Laura Thompson on CBC Radio, and I thought her biography of Agatha Christie might well be good reading, even though I am not a fan of its subject.

I enjoy any first-rate biography, and the times Ms. Christie lived through are loaded with interesting events and people. She was moreover a remarkable literary phenomenon, becoming a house-hold name, setting record runs for plays, and creating two unforgettable characters - Miss Marple and M. Poirot.

Reading the first few pages of this book, I was sure that I had been right: this was going to be a fine book. In these pages, Ms Thompson creates almost a prose-poem around the idyllic time in Ms. Christie's childhood.

But my illusion gradually faded: the book is a weak one, having a number of faults.

First, Ms. Thompson uses a huge number of quotes from Ms. Christie, to such an extent I regard them as padding. I don't object to using quotes in the fashion Ms. Thompson does, I just object to the sheer volume of them.

Second, Ms. Thompson, time and again, refers to this or that old photograph, making some special observations about them, but virtually none of these photographs is included in the book's selection of photos.

Third, Ms. Thompson appears to have done a weak job of research on some topics, as for example the crucial one around Ms. Christie's first husband leaving her. I think the questions readers have around that event, and there are many, are left not answered.

Fourth, the sense and drama of history is largely missing from a book covering a remarkable era.

The book is a real disappointment.

BOOK REVIEW OF JAMES AND BEN LONG'S THE PLOT AGAINST PEPYS

This book is very good narrative history; in parts, it is truly excellent.

The period of English history from the Restoration of the Stuarts in the person of Charles II, 1660, to the Glorious Revolution, the overthrow of James II, younger brother of Charles in 1688, is a fascinating one, and the events of this book take place during a portion of that period.

The immediate background to these events includes the English Civil War and the rise and fall of the Cromwells. It is a time marked by an extreme turmoil over religion, Protestant versus Catholic, in the affairs of state. Ironically, the period covered was also one of considerable and fairly open decadence in English society, showing once again how little religion has to do with morals.

This book has as chief characters Samuel Pepys and one of the lesser-known nasty pieces of work in modern history, John Scott. With a cast like that, you almost cannot miss.

Pepys, famous for a diary, which is a fact-filled look at part of the period's society and a somewhat salacious record of its morals, was an able and conscientious (at least after the Restoration) civil servant who rose to high rank. The important part of his career was associated with the Royal navy, going from Clerk of the Acts to the Navy to Secretary to the Admiralty Board and finally to Secretary for the Affairs of the Admiralty.

Scott was a lifelong fraudster, murderer, and opportunist who rose up and fell down several times in several countries. With "the gift of the gab," a talent for forgery, and great energy in his schemes, Scott was almost certainly a psychopathic personality. He crossed paths - and as it happens, swords - with Pepys virtually by accident. His unquenchable hatred of Pepys apparently was sparked by a random event in which Pepys, just doing his official duty, thwarted one of Scott's high-flown schemes for gaining fame and fortune. His intense hatred was then harnessed by those interested in the overthrow of Charles II, especially Lord Shaftsbury, himself a considerably larger-than-life and rather grotesque figure.

Pepys was charged with being a secret Catholic and being part of a plot to kill the King and see a Catholic Monarchy installed. The main accuser was the psychopathic John Scott. A modern reader might think that this seems such a simple matter to clear up - especially the part about being a Catholic, which Pepys was not - but there was an atmosphere thickly charged with paranoia and suspicion in England at the time, and it was being actively added to by people like Shaftsbury, himself interested in turning over the existing monarchy.

Because this period was also one of a rapidly changing balance of power between Parliament and the Crown, the King and his brother - the future James II - were not in a position to simply lift a loyal public servant from extreme danger. Pepys spent a long and exhausting period fighting charges that already had seen notable prisoners hung, cut down alive, castrated, disemboweled, and drawn-and-quartered - the contemporary penalty for treason, a penalty which itself tells us something of the frenzied paranoia of the time. He was in and out of prison, had many court dates, and spent a small fortune collecting evidence and trying to understand the precise nature of the plot against him, although he had understood immediately that it was part of some unknown larger effort to get at the Stuarts.

Ultimately he was victorious, but only because he was smart, had considerable resources to employ, and enjoyed a few lucky brakes with past associate or victims of Scott's coming forward from various countries, and, most importantly, the King finally felt comfortable enough reaching down with limited but indispensable help.

The first part of this book reads like a rip-roaring crime novel, but it may be enjoyed on several levels. The English paranoia of the time and the dark operations of the courts in matters of treason remind one very much of the insane swirl of events in America following 9/11. Pepys could almost be an American secret prisoner under the deliberately misnamed Patriot Act. The almost unbelievable career of John Scott reminds one of the way career killers and abusers are so rarely caught even today before they have done immense damage to others. The meek definitely do not inherit the earth still.

AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT - A CONTEMPORARY CHRISTMAS TALE

AND TO ALL, A GOOD NIGHT
A Contemporary Christmas Tale

John Chuckman

It was only a matter of time before Santa Claus himself came under the Neanderthal-eyed scrutiny of American intelligence. After all, Santa’s citizenship is unknown, and he crosses borders with no passport or other form of identification. No one knows whether he even has a valid pilot’s license.

Although his image is well known, there is no official photograph on file with American border control, and he has never been fingerprinted or body-searched. Most disconcerting of all, he delivers parcels to children all over the world, including the children living in the Axis of Evil. His intentions with this activity are not understood beyond some fuzzy generalization about kindness and generosity to all. Clearly, here was the world’s largest unplugged pipeline to potential terrorists.

It was only after receiving no response to several urgent letters from the State Department requesting an immediate meeting in Washington that a decision was made to approach Santa’s North Pole solitude. As usual in such matters with the people now running America, a wing of America’s most lethal killing machines was employed for the purpose. You never know what you might encounter in such a forbidding place.

As the planes first zoomed over the icy silence of the North Pole workshop, one of the pilots decided to swoop down for a closer look. He was one of those daring fly-boys, and his tail struck the only wire for thousands of miles around, the North Pole Telegraph, sending his plane hurling into the workshop in a ball of flames with tons of ammunition and missiles exploding.

Santa and Mrs. Claus rushed out of their snow-blanketed gingerbread house to see what was happening, trying to calm the terrified reindeer running from their stable at one end of the house. The elves, too, scurried towards the stable, trying to stop the reindeer from running or flying off.

Above, in the dark vault of sky, the other pilots observed the explosion and saw missile trails smoking into the air. They also saw the frantic activity below and quickly concluded their comrade had come under anti-aircraft attack. So they swooped down in attack formation, rapid-fire canon tearing into everything ahead of them.

Most of the reindeer fell in the snow, spurting warm blood across the bluish-white surface. Most of the elves, too, fell gasping for life. Mrs. Claus received a wound in the head and instantly fell limp. Santa tried heroically to reach his wife but realized the situation was hopeless and turned, running into the darkness accompanied by Prancer, the only surviving reindeer.

The only witness to the massacre is one surviving elf now living somewhere in Canada under an assumed identity, fearful for his life. It is only from his testimony that we know anything about Santa’s fate.

Realizing the horrific mistake they had made, the pilots dropped white phosphorus bombs with the intention of incinerating all evidence. The entire North Pole lit up and Santa and Prancer could be seen in the distance on a huge block of ice drifting off into the dark sea, the ice everywhere cracked and weakened by the combined effects of white phosphorus and years of global warming.

Within in a few hours, the beating sound of a black helicopter approached Santa and Prancer. The elf, from his hiding place in a snowdrift, could only make out intermittent sounds across the howling coldness, but it seems armed men emerged from the helicopter, shot Prancer and shackled Santa, shoving him into the dark, beating machine. The elf heard a word that sounded like Guantanamo and Santa has not been heard from since. Reports of his fate reached the International Red Cross and organizations like Amnesty International, leading to inquiries, but these have been met only with silence from American authorities.

CHUCKMAN'S MEXICAN SHEPHERDS' PIE

CHUCKMAN’S MEXICAN SHEPHERDS' PIE

2 pounds of Ground Beef

1 Large Sweet Red Pepper – diced

2 Cans Re-fried Beans – Herdez from Mexico is my favorite

A Couple of Handfuls of Frozen Corn

A Couple of Handfuls of Grated Cheddar Cheese

1 Can La Victoria Mexican Enchilada Sauce (Hot variety)

A Couple of Tablespoons of Chipotle Concentrate – available in many supermarkets

1 Package Knorr Au Jus – Prepared according to package


DIRECTIONS

Lightly sauté Beef along with Chipotle concentrate. Place in the bottom of a medium-sized, buttered casserole pan.

Pour half of La Victoria Sauce over, and pour all of prepared Knorr Au Jus over.

Let cool a bit. Spread Corn and Red Pepper over evenly. Salt lightly.

Using a table knife or spatula, spread Refried Beans evenly over top, just as you would mashed potatoes with traditional Sheppards' Pie.

Spread Grated Cheese evenly over top.

Dribble second half of La Victoria Sauce on top.

Bake about half an hour at 350º.

Serve with plain yogurt. Sprinkle with chopped cilantro if you like.

CHUCKMAN TRANLATION: IN ROMANIAN

“”" De curând a fost o reclamă la televizor, una în care un cuplu tânăr merge sau alunecă într-un loc fermecător, o fantastică lume colorată şi primitoare, un fel de Disneyland biblic. Fiecare pas al scurtei lor călătorii este întâmpinat de oameni care zâmbesc călduros, care se mişcă încet şi chiar fac câte o plecăciune, întâmpinându-i la fiecare întoarcere cu Şalom!

Este interesant faptul că toate feţele din reclamă sunt acelaşi gen de feţe pe care am putea să le vedem în New York sau Londra, excepţia fiind că toate sunt scăldate în lumină antică strălucitoare. Nu vedem tipuri dure de fundamentalism care taie crângul de măslini şi înjură pe toată lumea, chiar şi alţi evrei, ca fiind intruşi. Cu siguranţă nu vedem imigranţi aroganţi care se plimbă ţanţoş cu mitraliere, rânjind la cameră.

Cuplul îşi face rapid drum de la un peisaj plăcut la altul – imagini cu străduţe antice şi clădiri din Orientul Mijlociu, iar în final un bărbat care udă o grădină, luminat de soarele din fundal, în aşa fel încât fiecare strop pe care îl împrăştie este văzut ca o binecuvântare făcând deşertul să înflorească.

Nu vedem puncte de control pline de arme, nici sârmă ghimpată, nici ziduri de beton care fac ca zidul Berlinului să pară pitic. Nu vedem palestinieni, ba mai mult decât atât, nimeni care să aducă a arab. Nu vedem cozile interminabile de la punctele de control cu oameni săraci care aşteaptă cu orele doar pentru a-şi rezolva problemele de zi cu zi sau să se ducă la spital. Nu auzim soldaţii care îi înjură sau îi abuzează.

Nu vedem imagini ale giganticei închisori în aer liber care este Gaza, nici încetul şi inumanul asediu care înhaţă acel loc noapte şi zi, făcând aprope imposibil pentru un milion şi jumătate de suflete să se îmbrace şi să mănânce şi să se bucure de comodităţile de bază. Cu siguranţă nu vedem rachete Hellfire incinerând oameni, aşa cum a făcut una acum câteva zile omorând şase, fără nici cea mai mică urmă de legalitate.

Nu, este cuplu tânăr şi frumos care, pe scurt, alunecă visator prin fantezia însorită, femeia cu fermecătorul ei păr lung, buclat şi roşcat strălucind în soare.
Ultima imagine a bărbatului zâmbitor, care stropeşte un petec de grădină plin de lumina soarelui, mi-a adus aminte de o altă bucată dintr-un film, o excentricitate istorică scoasă de curând la lumină.

Celălalt film era asemănător, din multe puncte de vedere, deşi este vechi de 70 de ani şi în alb şi negru. A fost făcut din motive asemănătoare. A fost creat cu ocazia Jocurilor Olimpice din 1936 din Germania, iar satanicul geniu al marketingului, Joseph Goebbels, a văzut necesar faptul că trebuia să-i reasigure pe vizitatori de tratamentul Germaniei cu privire la evrei.

Vedeţi, deşi în 1936 Holocaustul era la distanţă de câţiva ani, chiar şi crimele şi incendiile şi jefuirile Nopţii de Cristal erau încă la o distanţă de doi ani, tot au existat tratamente urâte şi brutale la adresa evreilor germani, generând peste graniţe o acoperire mediatică neplacută. Naziştii erau preocupaţi ca nu cumva „presa nefavorabilă” să ţină turiştii departe de ceea ce era plănuit a fi cele mai grandioase Jocuri Olipmice de până atunci.

Vechiul film oferă o variantă fantezistă a tratamentului naziştilor faţă de evreii germani. Arată un sat vesel, de evrei relocaţi, în care oamenii se plimbă de jur împrejur şi arată plăcut şi fac lucruri plăcute. Este o scenă, în mod special, în care nişte evrei cară uriaşe bidoane de apă şi stropesc cu plăcere grădini mari şi luxuriante. Ei bine, filmul este inferior ca şi calitate faţă de filmul făcut în 2008 în Israel, trei sferturi de secol mai târziu, dar unul poate fi scuzat dacă ar gândi că cuiva din Israel i-a venit ispiraţia din filmul dr. Goebbels.

Dar poate că nu: la fel ca şi condiţiile, ideile şi acţiunile au tendinţa de a se înmulţi peste naţiuni şi epoci în repetate rânduri. Istoria este uitată cu regularitate, principalele poveşti sunt repuse în scenă de noi directori şi cu alte liste de caractere, şi rar mi-a fost dat să văd un exemplu mai asemănător decât prezentul efort al Israelului de re-branding.

A apărut o nouă reclamă acum, aceasta este cu vizitatori copii care trec prin diferite secvenţe de imagini strălucitoare. Dusă este femeia cu păr roşcat. Poate a fost intenţionată o serie de reclame, dar nu am putut să nu mă gândesc, poate reclama cu frumosul păr roşcat a fost restrasă deoarece prea multor telespectatori le aducea aminte de Rachel Corrie. Ea a fost un vizitator real în Israel, o femeie tânără, inocentă şi cu un caracter dulce, cu părul blond-roşiatic, cel puţin înainte de a fi făcută bucăţi de un buldozer israelian blindat D-9 deviat de la treaba lui de a sfărâma case arabe.

Cu siguranţă nu ăsta este genul de imagine pe care vrei să-l transmiţi prin efortul tău de re-branding. “”"

BOOK REVIEW OF CURT GENTRY'S J. EDGAR HOOVER

This biography is a study in quiet, creepy state terror, terror as it took hold in a modern democratic state. No black shirts, no armbands, no drums, just quiet, behind-the-scenes abuse of power, blackmail, fraud, spying without warrants, illegal arrests and deportations.

Naive Americans are sometimes heard to ask how could people in other lands allow evil people to take power? Well, this book will show you how it is done and how it was done in their own country.

As someone else has said, it is a book every American should read. Little that the war criminal, George Bush, has inflicted on the American people wasn’t practiced much earlier under Mr. Hoover.

Gentry’s book reads like a good novel with a strong narrative, and it is loaded with interesting anecdotes.

There have been several interesting biographies of Hoover, but this one is the one I most strongly recommend. This focuses on his career and use of power, and it is there that the truly important story is to be found.

Gentry several times hints around Hoover's homosexuality but doesn't dwell on it. We know from Anthony Summers' book that Hoover had a rather bizarre private life as a flamboyant cross-dresser. This wouldn't be of any great significance except that Hoover had no tolerance for homosexuals in government, having been responsible for destroying the careers of a number of them.

Gentry also makes clear that the insane Joseph McCarthy was largely the creature of Hoover. Hooveer fed him tidbits or sometimes worked backward to supply some printed support after McCarthy had gone off half-cocked bragging about things in public he had not one shred of evidence to support. McCarthy was a drunk looking to spark a lackluster career. He was also thought to be a pedophile, but none of these things mattered to Hoover so long as he could use McCarthy to his purpose. Only when McCarthy stopped being useful did Hoover drop him.

Presidents like Johnson and Kennedy and even Roosevelt eagerly ate the political filth he fed them by hand, casting shame on their legacies. Hoover compromised many people who should have been his strongest critics, including, for example, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union.

For all his years of abuse and excess, it is not clear that he ever achieved anything in the way of making America a safer, more secure place from external and internal enemies.

An important chapter of Hoover’s time in power remains inadequately scrutinized: his full role in the investigation of Kennedy’s assassination. As Gentry documents and as others have documented, the FBI was well aware before the assassination of serious threats against Kennedy and yet seems to have taken inadequate action to thwart them.

Hoover’s role in “solving” the crime remains one of the great mysteries of 20th century American history. The Warren Commission had no independent investigative ability. All it did was take Hoover’s rushed, inadequate, and pre-judged investigation and re-package it. And we know now that the so-called Warren Report was riddled with errors and misjudgment and the selective use of facts. It was a piece of Soviet-era state rubbish posing as detailed investigation.

If, as many who have studied the assassination believe, it was the work of the American Mafia, we have an automatic explanation for Hoover’s shoddy work. Hoover claimed he never believed the Mafia existed until he was almost forced to accept it. He chased pathetic “reds” rather than the real criminals who were eating away at the substance of American society. Many have theorized that the Mafia held evidence, perhaps photographs, of Hoover’s homosexuality and cross-dressing, keeping him neutralized for decades in exactly the way Hoover neutralized so many politicians and potential critics.

I like very much the way Gentry briefly followers through the successors of Hoover at the FBI, summarizing their changes and contributions, and it is not an uplifting story.

The very fact that the FBI building in Washington still has Hoover’s name on it in big metal letters tells us a great deal about the nature of power in America.

CHUCKMAN’S VERSION OF ALEPPO SOUP (LENTIL SOUP FROM SYRIA)

A simple and tasty soup.


1 Cup of Red Lentils

6 Cups of Chicken Stock (or Water may be used for vegetarian version)

1/4 Cup Chick-Pea Flour (aka, Gram Flour - available in any Indian or Mideast grocery store)

1/2 Cup Lemon Juice

3 or 4 Garlic Cloves, crushed

1 Teaspoon Cumin

1/4 Teaspoon Cayenne

1/2 Teaspoon Coriander

Salt to taste


Simmer Lentils in bulk of Stock for about 5 minutes, reserving a small portion of Stock.

Mix Chick Pea Flour in reserved Stock, making a thickening agent. Add to Lentils.

Add Lemon Juice, Cumin, Coriander, Cayenne, and Salt to Lentils.

Saute crushed Garlic briefly until golden. Add to Lentils.

Simmer for about 20 minutes.


This soup is delicious as made above, but it provides a base for many variations. Bits of roasted Lamb and/or fresh Cilantro are nice additions.

BOOK REVIEW OF SIMON WINCHESTER'S THE MAN WHO LOVED CHINA

REVIEW OF SIMON WINCHESTER'S THE MAN WHO LOVED CHINA BY JOHN CHUCKMAN

This is a good read. Simon Winchester provides a tight and fairly vigorous story of the remarkable man, Joseph Needham.

Needham was a brilliant man, gifted in science and languages. He was also a genuine non-conformist, both in his personal life and in political affairs, and he had the fabled abilities of a great scholar to sit for all hours of the day, day after day, analyzing ancient texts and writing world-recognized works about what he discovered.

Needham had the good fortune of being appointed by the British government, as a scientist of world reputation, on a mission to unoccupied China during World War II. His task was to contact as many Chinese academics as possible and help them obtain the resources, provided by the British government, they needed to carry on their work. This was both war-time assistance and an investment in future relations.

As in any effort he undertook, Needham quickly went to work with great vigor. He made a couple of epic journeys across large stretches of China and a number of smaller ones. He contacted many people of note, helping scientists and scholars obtain equipment and supplies to keep their efforts going under the great privations of war.

But, at the same time, he also did something else very important. He collected, wherever he found them and could purchase them, ancient Chinese texts which went back to England with him. Very early the idea struck him of writing a scholarly work on the ancient contributions of China to technology and science.

Needham was such an impressive intellect and so clearly in love with China - he typically wore gowns styled after the gowns worn by Chinese scholars and spoke fluent Mandarin and was bursting with enthusiasm about the things he saw and discovered - that a number of Chinese who only met him briefly were motivated to collect, long after he went home to England, and send him great quantities more of truly precious historical materials.

Needham's great project, a virtual encyclopedia of the history of Chinese science and technology, was never finished by him, but the volumes he did write were immediately embraced by the academic world as important new contributions to knowledge, and the work remains a classic.

Needham discovered - then unknown outside China - that the Chinese had invented a remarkable number of things before they were discovered in Europe. Moveable type - first in the ninth century as wood, later as bronze - was perhaps the most remarkable of these, but there were literally hundreds of others including an early compass and some very early sophisticated mathematics.

Needham's volumes became an important East Asian collection in the libraries of Cambridge University.

An interesting anecdote in the book, unrelated to the subject, concerns Needham's tours to lecture on his discoveries. One was to Chicago, and author Winchester discovered that Theodore Kaczynski, the gifted mathematician who later sank into deep schizophrenia and became the infamous Unabomber living in the wilderness, attended a lecture.

Winchester speculates whether that lecture, including a discussion of gunpowder as it did, might have influenced Kaczynski later. I did think this speculation a bit naïve and a bit of research would have eliminated it. Kaczynski grew up in Chicago, as I did, and as a teenager he made the newspapers with the sophisticated rockets he was building. His rockets were made of metal and used fuel more sophisticated than gunpowder, becoming a subject of interest because they climbed over a mile in altitude, possibly threatening civilian aviation. It seems pretty clear he did not need Needham's lecture on gunpowder.

My only regret about this book is that it was too brief. Needham and his adventures and work are a large subject.

ON THE DEATH OF AN OLD GOOD FRIEND

WRITTEN FOR A NEWSLETTER ADDRESSING THE OLD CHICAGO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS

My old good friend, Preston E. Uney (Bradwell 1959/ South Shore 1963), died on July 7, 2008. He was an aeronautical engineer living with his wife and adopted children in Colorado.

Preston's dad ran a small toy store on Stony Island in the 1960s until the changing neighborhood destroyed his business. The family lived for many years in a small house on Kingston Ave. just south of 79th.

His older sister, Marie, taught us both to dance, however awkward the results. His father, an immigrant from Russia, used to tell electrifying stories of the Russian Front in WWII.

Preston was an interesting independent-minded kid who must have been the only student carrying a Socialist Workers Party sign around South Shore High in the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign. He will be missed.

A LIST OF MEMORABLE FILMS

Here is a list of films I made recently for a younger friend unfamiliar with many classics. I could certainly add to it. Perhaps I will from time to time.


THESE ARE ALL INTERESTING FILMS, MANY ARE GREAT AND MANY ARE CLASSICS. NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO BE COMPREHENSIVE.

HITCHCOCK

FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT (1940)
LIFEBOAT (1944)
NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
REAR WINDOW (1954)
SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943)
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN (1951)
SUSPICION (1941)

STANLEY KUBRICK

2001 SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
DR STRANGELOVE (1964)
PATHS OF GLORY (1957)

FRANK CAPRA

ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944)
IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)

JOHN HUSTON

AFRICAN QUEEN (1951)
MALTESE FALCON (1931)
TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE (1948)

ELIA KAZAN

EAST OF EDEN (1955)
FACE IN THE CROWD (1957)
ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)

ALAIN RESNAIS

HIROSHIMA, MON AMOUR (FRENCH – 1959)
LA GUERRE EST FINIE (FRENCH – 1966)
PROVIDENCE (BRITISH-FRENCH – 1976)

HUMPHREY BOGART

AFRICAN QUEEN (1951)
CAINE MUTINY (1954)
CASABLANCA (1942)
MALTESE FALCON (1931)
PETRIFIED FOREST (1936)
TREASURE OF SIERRA MODRE (1948)

CARY GRANT

ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944)
BRINGING UP BABY (1938)
FATHER GOOSE (1964)
HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940)
MONKEY BUSINESS (1952)
MR. BLANDINGS BUILDS HIS DREAM HOUSE (1948)
NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940)
SUSPICION (1941)

SPENCER TRACY

BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK (1954)
DESK SET (1957)
THE MOUNTAIN (1956)

KIRK DOUGLAS

CHAMPION (1949)
DETECTIVE STORY (1951)
LETTER TO THREE WIVES (1949)
LONELY ARE THE BRAVE (1962)
PATHS OF GLORY (1957)

MARLON BRANDO

ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)
ONE-EYED JACKS (1961)

ALEC GUINNESS

KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS (BRITISH – 1949)
LADYKILLERS (BRITISH – 1955)
MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT (BRITISH – 1951)
TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY (BRITISH 1979 - MADE FOR TELEVISION)

JAMES MASON

BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978)
FIVE FINGERS (1952)
NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
ODD MAN OUT (BRITISH 1947)

LAUREL AND HARDY

THE SHORTS MADE IN 1920S (SILENTS) AND 1930S (SOUND) CONTAIN MANY HILARIOUS SCENES – EXAMPLE: THE PIANO MOVERS. AVOID ALL THEIR FEATURE-LENGTH FILMS.

KATHRINE HEPBURN

ADAM’S RIB (1949)
AFRICAN QUEEN (1951)
BRINGING UP BABY (1938)
DESK SET (1957)
HOLIDAY (1938)
PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940)
SUMMERTIME (1955)

BETTE DAVIS

ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)
DARK VICTORY (1939)
JEZEBEL (1938)
LITTLE FOXES (1941)
PETRIFIED FOREST (1936)

OLIVIER DE HAVILLAND

GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
THE HEIRESS (1949)

EVA MARIE SAINT

HATFUL OF RAIN (1957)
NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)

INTERESTING ODDITIES

ADVISE AND CONSENT (1962)
AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD (GERMAN 1972)
ALPHAVILLE (FRENCH 1965)
AMADEUS (1984)
AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
ATLANTIC CITY (FRENCH 1980)
BABETTE'S FEAST (DANISH 1987)
BLOWUP (BRITISH – 1966)
BURNT BY THE SUN (RUSSIAN 1994)
CHAMPAGNE FOR CAESAR (1950)
CINEMA PARADISO (ITALIAN 1988)
CYRANO DE BERGERAC (FRENCH 1990)
DAY FOR NIGHT (FRENCH 1974)
DOCTOR MABUSE (GERMAN 1922)
DR STRANGELOVE (1964)
FACE IN THE CROWD (1957)
FACES (1968)
FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (1967)
HATFUL OF RAIN (1957)
INVESTIGATION OF A CITIZEN ABOVE SUSPICION (ITALIAN 1970)
JUNK MAIL (NORWEIGAN 1997)
KOYAANISQUATSI (1983)
LOCAL HERO (BRITISH 1983)
MARRIAGE OF EVA BRAUN (GERMAN 1979)
MILAGRO BEANFIELD WAR (1988)
MOTHER KUSTERS GOES TO HEAVEN (GERMAN 1976)
O LUCKY MAN! (BRITISH 1973)
OF MICE AND MEN (1940)
REPULSION (BRITISH-FRENCH 1965)
ROOM AT THE TOP (BRITISH 1958)
SEDUCTION OF MIMI (ITALIAN 1972)
SEVEN BEAUTIES (ITALIAN 1976)
SHAME (SWEDISH 1968)
SUNDAYS AND CYBELE (FRENCH 1962)
TATIE DANIELLE (FRENCH 1991)
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946)
THE CONFORMIST (FRENCH 1970)
THE DARLING (BRITISH 1965)
THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987)
THE RED SHOES (BRITISH 1948)
THE REMAINS OF THE DAY (BRITISH 1993)
THE SERVANT (BRITISH 1963)
THE TENANT (FRENCH 1976)
TIME AFTER TIME (BRITISH 1979)
TOKYO STORY (JAPANESE 1953)
UGETSU (JAPANESE 1953)
WAGES OF FEAR (FRENCH 1952)
WOMAN IN THE DUNE (JAPANESE 1964)

SHAKESPEARE ADAPTATIONS

CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT (1966)
HENRY V (BRITISH 1944)
RICHARD III (BRITISH 1955)
ROMEO AND JULIET (ITALIAN-BRITISH 1968)

JUST FUN FILMS

A HARD DAYS NIGHT (BRITISH 1964 - THE BEATLES)
BREAKING AWAY (1979)
DIVORCE, AMERICAN STYLE (1967)
DUCK SOUP (1933)
FRIENDLY PERSAUSION (1956)
HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (BRITISH 1939)
IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
JOHNNY STECCHINO (ITALIAN 1992)
MA VIE EN ROSE (FRENCH 1997)
MISTER DEEDS GOES TO TOWN (1936)
MORGAN! (BRITISH 1966)
MY LIFE AS A DOG (SWEDISH 1985)
NINOTCHKA (1939)
NO TIME FOR SARGEANTS (1958)
RED BALLOON (FRENCH 1956 - SHORT)
SINGING IN THE RAIN (1952)
STOLEN KISSES (FRENCH 1968)
THE COMMITMENTS (BRITISH 1991)
THE MAN WHO LOVED WOMEN (FRENCH 1977)
THE SLINGSHOT (DANISH 1993)
THE THIN MAN (1934)
TRAFIC (FRENCH 1971)
ZAZIE IN THE METRO (FRENCH 1960)
O.HENRY'S FULL HOUSE (1952)
ON THE TOWN (1949)

GREAT CRIME, COPS & GANGSTERS

BREATHLESS (FRENCH 1959)
CAPE FEAR (1961)
DAY OF THE JACKEL (BRITISH 1973)
DIABOLIQUE (FRENCH 1954)
DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
DRESSED TO KILL (1980)
FRENCH CONNECTION (1971)
M (GERMAN – 1931)
MADIGAN (1968)
MARATHON MAN (1976)
PIERROT LE FOU (FRENCH 1965)
POLICE (FRENCH 1985)
RUNAWAY TRAIN (1985)
THE THIRD MAN (BRITISH 1949)
WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS (1956)
WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (1957)
POPE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE (1984)

GREAT SPY FILMS

IPCRESS FILE (1965)
SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD (1966)
TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY (BRITISH 1979 - MADE FOR TELEVISION)

GREAT WESTERNS

HIGH NOON (1952)
ONE-EYED JACKS (1961)
SHANE (1953)

GREAT WAR FILMS

ATTACK! (1956)
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957)
DAS BOOT (GERMAN 1982)
GRAND ILLUSION (FRENCH 1937)
KING AND COUNTRY (BRITISH 1964)
PATHS OF GLORY (1957)
PLATOON (1986)
WAR AND PEACE (RUSSIAN 1968)
ZULU (BRITISH 1964)
STEEL HELMET (1951)
THE BRIDGE (GERMAN 1960)

INTERESTING SCIENCE FICTION/ MILD HORROR

2001 SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
ALIEN (1979 – NONE OF THE AWFUL SEQUELS)
AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981)
BLADE RUNNER (1982)
COLOSSUS: THE FORBIN PROJECT (1970)
FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (BRITISH 1967)
FRANKENSTEIN (1931)
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956)
KING KONG (1933)
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968)
NOSFERATU (GERMAN 1922)
QUEEN OF BLOOD (ITALIAN 1966)
ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968)
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951)
THE THING (1951)

GREAT ROMANCE FILMS

AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (1951)
ROMEO AND JULIET (ITALIAN-BRITISH 1968)
SABRINA (1954)
THE QUIET MAN (1952)
UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG (FRENCH 1964)

OTHERS, UNCLASSIFIED

AMADEUS (1984)
HOOP DREAMS (1994)
INNER CIRCLE (RUSSIA 1991)
JEAN DE FLORETTE/ MANON DES SOURCES (FRENCH 1987 – TWO FILMS)
KEYS TO THE KINGDOM (1944)
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
PELLE THE CONQUOER (DANISH 1988)
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)
TUNES OF GLORY (BRITISH 1960)
TWELVE ANGRY MEN (1957)
UMBERTO D (ITALIAN 1952)
VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE (1962)

BOOK REVIEW: RICHARD DAWKINS' THE GOD DELUSION

There has been a great deal of noise over this book. To my mind, it mostly amounts to the proverbial tempest in a teapot.

First, despite the right of religious liberty people in advanced countries supposedly enjoy, we are regularly immersed, willy-nilly, in religious muck. The last couple of decades in America, the nightly news has featured everything from endless demands for prayer in public institutions and the creation myth being taught in schools to attacks on doctors doing legal abortions and silly fights over displaying the ten commandments in public courts. What’s so terrible about the other side getting a little publicity for a change?

Richard Dawkins is a pleasant and clear writer. The first part of his book is genuinely funny, hilarious in places, as he pokes fun at the absurd stories and rules of the Bible. At his best, he reminds me of Mark Twain in Letters from the Earth.

I think he is much less successful in the middle part of the book in trying to establish a logical framework for thinking about religion. Religion simply is not logical, none of it, ever, and just as the scholastic fathers tried over and over to “prove” the existence of God – Dawkins entertainingly goes through some of this – this effort seems futile.

There is an aspect of religion that I believe Dawkins misses. It is the cultural dimension of much of religion. We know many Jews, as in Israel for example, are quite worldly and not believers, yet something binds them to the heritage of their religion. That something is what Dawkins misses.

Religion works very much like prejudice: there are simply attitudes and perspectives that groups of people share together as a cultural inheritance, and the attitudes are generally detrimental to, and disparaging of, others.

I share the belief that religion has been responsible for many of humanity’s miseries. The record of Christianity has likely been the bloodiest of any religion, despite all the blubbering today about Islam. Christianity has been at the root of crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, mass murders, civil wars, torture, destruction of aboriginal people, slavery, and countless other horrors and abuses.

But I do not believe for an instant that religion and its abuses will stop any time soon, and I certainly do not believe that any words I can say will change the views of the religiously-minded. But Dawkins does appear to believe this, which I think is a little naïve for a man of such exceptional talent.

I believe it quite likely that we inherit our tendency for religion, just as we likely do for our politics. If that is true, we will only see the superstition and prejudice of religion disappear as humans evolve.

Most people who do not take their religion too seriously will enjoy at least a good portion of this provocative book, but the seriously religious would best avoid it.

BOOK REVIEW: THOMAS DILORENZO'S THE REAL LINCOLN

Let me say, right off, that this is not a biography of Lincoln. It is not even a character study because most of Lincoln’s character is never touched here. This is a study – I think it fair to call it an attack - of one aspect of Lincoln, his ideological purpose in fighting the Civil War. However, it is a determined, fact-filled attack, worth reading.

I have always believed, on the basis of my own studies, that the American Civil War was unnecessary, but this is a view that arouses hostile feelings in Americans as it runs against the public-school civics course beliefs around that conflict.

There is definitely an American Civic Religion with a set of tenets and sacred writings and a cast of mythically-endowed characters comparable to the chief figures of the Old and New Testaments. Many well-known American historians, some quite eminent, are conscious or unconscious proponents of the Civic Religion, not such a difficult thing as you might first imagine because history, just like good police detective work, involves interpretation, judgment, and instincts. The raw facts, when they are even known, are always susceptible of emphasis and interpretation.

So it was refreshing to find a serious writer who also believes that the war was unnecessary.

However, Dilorenzo’s reason for saying the war was unnecessary is different to my own. The author believes that Lincoln consciously used the war to impose the so-called American System of the Whig Party and Henry Clay, destroying the powers of the individual states and centralizing government in the United States. I believe rather that this was one of the unavoidable effects, wars always and everywhere being far more revolutionary events than people generally recognize.

There can be no doubt that Dilorrenzo marshals a strong case, but I believe that he largely fails to prove his main thesis. Lincoln, although not the sentimental figure of American text books and the Lincoln Memorial, was not America’s Joseph Stalin.

Most of his fact-marshalling is impressive, but when he goes off on a tangent to give a background on the basic political split between Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, he actually gets it rather wrong. Jefferson was anything but the kind of figure he is in the eyes of libertarian devotees like Dilorenzo. He was hungry for power, hungry for empire, and ruthless to those who opposed him. He bent or broke laws many times and never was bothered about rights of others where they stood in the way of his vision. Jefferson was, in short, everything the author claims Lincoln was.

The tone of this book becomes almost oppressive as the author hammers away with citations and anecdotes tending to support his view – in other words, the author is guilty of overkill.

The sense of oppressiveness is increased by the fact the author writes from an ideological viewpoint, not many pages convincing the reader of the author’s pronounced libertarian attitude. In general, I do not like histories or biographies written with an ideological perspective, but here the fault is compounded by the author’s narrow focus.

I don’t think anyone with a fairly open mind can study Lincoln and come away with a view like Dilorenzo’s. Lincoln himself was a victim of believing in the American Civic Religion of his day. He genuinely believed in The Union as a semi-mystical concept. Lincoln was a genuine skeptic with regard to conventional religion and the existence of God, and the feelings that might have had an outlet there attached themselves to “The Union.” He was tough and hard-headed in many respects, but he would have been, in this writer’s judgment, temperamentally incapable of launching and continuing a vast war for the purpose of installing Whig policy.

For those interested, the reviewer believes the Civil War was unnecessary because most great wars are unnecessary and rarely solve anything. For example, World War I only created the foundation for World War II. The American Civil War, which was not fought over slavery, solved little about the ugly institution of slavery. The South went on for about a century afterward with a new set of arrangements for its black citizens hardly better than the previous institution.

The Civil War did establish the anti-democratic principle that no state can separate from the United States, hardly an admirable or advanced attitude. The Civil War is also the tipping point in America becoming a world power with fervent imperialistic views (demonstrated earlier in a more provincial theater of operation in many policies such as the Mexican War), again hardly an admirable outcome.

I believe too that the angry, long-unforgiving South actually dragged the United States backward in social progress over the next century. The United States might have become a better, more decent place without the South and its superstitious religion and traditions of personal honor, much resembling the blood-feud attitudes of backward places like Armenia. And slavery itself would have naturally died out even in the South in a few decades as it did in so many places like Brazil.

CHUCKMAN'S VERSION OF GENERAL TSO'S CHICKEN

I love Chinese food. This recipe is my version of a classic.


CHUCKMAN’S VERSION OF GENERAL TSO’S CHICKEN

INGREDIENTS

Chicken – Use either traditional cut-up Chicken Breast (about a pound – cut into bite-size pieces) or Drumettes or Drumsticks – drumettes or legs are unconventional but delicious – you need a greater weight to compensate for bones.

Broccoli – One medium head

Canola or Peanut Oil for frying

Dried crushed Chilli Peppers

Garlic – 1 medium-to-large clove, finely chopped

Ginger – a good-sized chunk (about the size of an average thumb), finely chopped – fresh is valuable for this recipe for its aromatic quality, but in a pinch, use bottled

Chicken Broth – 3 Tablespoons

Rice Vinegar – 2 Tablespoons

Hoisin Sauce – 2 Tablespoons (available in any Asian market and many supermarkets)

Sesame Oil – 1 Teaspoon

Sugar or Sugar Substitute – 2 Teaspoons Sugar or equivalent Substitute - the Substitute works nicely in this recipe

Dark Soy Sauce – this is the thicker type that has molasses in it

Cornstarch – a few Tablespoons

Dry Sherry – a good splash


METHOD

Spread Chicken pieces on a plate or platter and sprinkle lightly with cornstarch, a generous splash of Sherry, and a smaller splash of Soy Sauce. Toss lightly together and let stand briefly.

Blanch broccoli in a Covered Saucepan with a small amount of water on bottom. Bring water to a rapid boil, continue a minute or two, remove from the heat, and cool with cold running water. Broccoli will be bright green and par-cooked. Chop into florets and thin stalk slices. Set aside.

The sauce consists of 2 Tablespoons of Rice Wine Vinegar, 2 teaspoons of sugar or equivalent of sugar-substitute, 2 Tablespoons of Hoisin Sauce, 1 Tablespoon Dark Soy Sauce, a large clove of Garlic finely chopped, a chunk of fresh Ginger finely chopped, 1 Teaspoon of Sesame Oil, 3 Tablespoons of Chicken Broth, and a generous sprinkle of crushed Chili Peppers. Set aside.

Mix about 1 Teaspoon more of Cornstarch and a splash of cold water. This will thicken sauce when cooking. Set aside.

GENERAL NOTE ON STIR-FRYING

This ingenious, fuel-saving method of cooking is done in a hierarchy of cooking times, the ingredient requiring the most time being first – when all ingredients are together, they are cooked with the sauce briefly.

In this case, start with the Chicken. Saute the Chicken pieces lightly (do not overcook or flesh looses its succulence).

If you are using drumettes or legs, you will need a more substantial cooking time, especially legs – they should become golden and no blood should run.

Add blanched Broccoli and stir briefly.

Add Sauce ingredients. Add thickener.

Let simmer together a few minutes.

OPTIONS

Make the flavour very hot with plenty of chili peppers or use a Teaspoon of genuine Chinese Hot Chili Oil (this is very hot stuff, available in any Asian market). Or add Whole Dried Chilis (a dozen or so) to stir-fry after Chicken – this is a traditional ingredient.

Sprinkle servings with finely-sliced green onions and/or crushed peanuts.

CHUCKMAN'S QUICK, THIN CHEESE/ BACON/ SPINACH PIZZAS

An absolutely delicious snack or light meal or appetiser

CHUCKMAN’S QUICK, THIN CHEESE/BACON/SPINACH PIZZAS


INGREDIENTS:

Commercial Tortillas or Flat Breads – the very thin kind – whole wheat or white – 7 small ones for the amounts in this recipe

Oil – to lightly coat tortillas

Red Sauce – leftover or a good bottled – you need just enough to coat each tortilla

Cheese – grated – I suggest a mixture of mozzarella, parmesan, and provolone, but use your favourite - have enough to cover each tortilla generously

Spinach – I small box of frozen – thawed and excess water lightly squeezed out

Bacon – thick-sliced kind – cut – through the width - five or six strips, each about half an inch wide – this will yield enough small chunky pieces for 5 or 6 to a tortilla

METHOD:

Preheat oven to 400.

Saute Bacon chunks ahead, drain and let cool – do not over-crisp because it will cook additional time in the oven.

Use a cookie sheet for Tortillas, either lightly oiled or, as I prefer, covered with parchment paper (no clean-up with this wonderful stuff).

Lightly oil both surfaces of each Tortilla. Spread a very thin layer of the sauce on one side.

Sprinkle each Tortilla with Spinach.

Sprinkle each Tortilla with 5 or 6 chunks of Bacon, spread fairly evenly.

Sprinkle generously with Grated Cheese so it is almost spilling over.

Bake until all the cheese has melted and turned lightly golden – this should be on the order of 10 minutes, but go by appearance

Serve either whole as light meals or sliced (scissors work best) into wedges as an appetiser.

FURTHER SUGGESTION: Top cheese with thinly sliced brown mushrooms before baking.

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN TURKISH

İsrail’in paradoksları

Amerikalı yazar John Chuckman, İslamonline’da yer alan yazısında İsrail’i yüzyıllardır inatlaştıran anti-semitizm ve bunun sonucu olarak meydana gelen kabus gibi gelişmelerin bizzat kendisinin 19. yüzyıl milliyetçiliğinin etkisinden çıktığını belirtiyor. Siyonistlerin 19. yüzyıl Avrupasında, 16. yüzyıldaki zihniyetle Avusturya-Macaristan İmparatorluğuna benzer aşırı
milliyetçilik duygularının etkisinde yeniden bir Yahudi devletini kurduklarını söylüyor.

Amerika’yı Vietnam savaşına duyduğu tepki yüzünden terkeden ve Kanada’ya yerleşen John Chuckman’ın İsrail’i orta çağ zihniyetinde olmakla suçladığı yazısından bazı önemli noktalar:
“İsrail’in kuruluşu, çok eski zamanlara dayanan ve özellikle 19. yüzyılda çözülmeye yüz tutan bir sorun olan etnik ya da dini kimlikli devletlerin kurulması meselesinin tekrar gün yüzüne çıkmasına sebep olmuştur. Mesele, Yahudi milletini yüzyıllardır inatlaştıran anti-semitizm ve başka şeylerin olması ve bunun sonucu olarak meydana gelen kabus gibi gelişmelerin tahribatıdır.

Tahribatın bizzat kendisi 19. yüzyıl milliyetçiliğinin etkisinden çıkan en büyük kabus sonucudur. 19 yüzyıl, Avrupa’da milliyetçiliğin patladığı ve kendisine çok sayıda taraftar bulduğu bir yüzyıl olmuştur. Gerçekten de ‘millet’ ve ‘milliyetçilik’ kavramlarının çok farklı anlamlarla yorumlandığı bir yüzyıldır. Modern İtalya, modern Almanya, Yunanistan ve diğerleri kurulmuştur. Ortak bir dil ve kültür olarak tanımlanan ‘ulus devlet’ fikri, sadece toprak büyüklüğüne önem veren ve bir çok farklı kültürleri bünyesinde bulunduran imparatorluk ve krallıkların ardından, modern çağda yeni bir gelişmeydi. Örneğin, Avusturya-Macaristan İmparatorluğu, milliyetçiliğin en koyu zamanlarına girerken tam olarak çok dilli bir devletti.

19. yüzyıl Avrupasında Siyonistler, aynı aşırı milliyetçilik duyguların etkisinde yeniden bir Yahudi devletini kurmuşlardır. Onlarca yıl süren gayretlerin sonucunda, Yahudiler için İsrail’i kurmak tek çıkış yolu olmuştu.

Tuhaf olan, Naziler de 1935 Nuremberg Kuralları’nda Yahudilerle anlaşmakta çok güçlük çekmişti. Yıllar sonra Nazilerin, güçlerini arttırmaya çalışan Yahudilere karşı besledikleri kinin nedenini anlamış olduklarını düşünebilirsiniz. Ama bütün bunlar yine de yaşadığımız kıyıma bir engel teşkil edememişti.

İSRAİL, ORTA ÇAĞ ZİHNİYETİNDE
Ve şimdi İsrail’in Orta Çağ zihniyetinin başka bir versiyonunu sürdürmesi acı bir paradoks. Sadece Yahudiler için anlaşılabilir olan Yahudi anlayışı, İsrail’e göç etmeyi ve orada kalmak için cömert yardımlar almayı bekliyor. Her nasılsa -nasıl düşünürse düşünsünler- bu anlayış, anlaşmazlıklar ve zamanda yeni ayarlamalar, Yahudi inançlarına zıt olan çok eskiden kalma çeşitli Afrikalı grupların kabul edilmesi sorunu var. Dahası, İsrail’in kendi içinde de, Fundemantalist Yahudiler ile Reformcu Yahudiler arasında büyük anlaşmazlıklar var.

Başka bir paradoks da, vatandaşlarının dini ve/veya etnik kimliğine dayanan tabanlı bir devletin nasıl dünyanın globalizasyon aşamasında büyük bir etkisinin olabildiğidir? Bu soru İsrail üçüncü dünya bölgesinde olduğu sürece uygun olmaz. Aynı Afganistan’ın çok uzun süre geçse bile modern ekonomiye geçemeyeceği gibi.
Bugün, Avrupa’nın ekonomik yönden gelişmiş ülkelerinin nüfus yapılanmalarında çeşitlilik görünüyor. Örnek olarak Almanya’da Türkler, Fransa’da Araplar. Başka birçok ülke de bu yönde yapılanıyor. Bunun birçok nedeni var. Savaşlardan sonra milyonlarca insanın kalacak bir yeri olmaması, sayısız çatışmalar sonucu mültecileri ülkelerine kabul edenler, nüfus artışının statik ya da düşüş gösteren oranı, üçüncü dünya ülke vatandaşlarının daha gelişmiş ülkelerdeki cazip iş olanaklarına ilgi duyması...

Bunun ne sonuca gideceği açık. Yüz ya da daha fazla yıl sonra, hiçbir modern ulus bugün göründüğü gibi olmayacak. 19. yüzyıl anlayışının iddia ettiği devleti oluşturan tek etnik grup görüşü demode olacaktır.

İsrail 21. yüzyılı geçebilecek mi? Dünyanın en güçlü ülkesi ABD ile globalizasyonun bütün devrimci güçleri, yakın ilişkileri içinde, İsrail gibi küçük bir ülkenin dini kimlikle varlığını sürdürmesine göz yumabilir mi? Teorik olarak bakılırsa, bu pek imkanlı görünmüyor. En azından mantığa uygun düşmüyor.

İsrail’i bir duvarla çevreleme fikri, İsrailli bazı fanatikler tarafından çözüm olarak öne sürülmüştü. Bu, Berlin Duvarı’nın ırkçılığına yapılan eleştirilerin herbirini hakediyor. İsrail ve Filistin toprakları, Berlin’in iki parçası gibi, birbiriyle doğal ve özel bağlantıları var.

Yahudi devletinin en büyük paradoksu, belki de Yahudilerin dünyanın başka yerlerinde İsrail’de olduklarından daha güvenli ve rahat yaşadıklarıdır. Bu tabii ki her zaman böyle değildi ama şimdi durum bu. Yahudiler bugüne kadar yaşadıkları ikametgah sorununu şimdi Filistinlilere karşı bir silah olarak kullanıyorlar.”

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN SPANISH

¡Pero si es un zopenco!

John Chuckman
YellowTimes

Traducido para Rebelión por Germán Leyens

Françoise Ducros, directora de comunicaciones del Primer Ministro de Canadá, Jean Chretien, dijo en una conversación privada que Mr. Bush era un zopenco por la manera como impuso su obsesión respecto a Irak en una reunión de la OTAN en Praga, que tenía otros temas importantes que resolver. La mayoría de la gente informada del planeta clasificaría su observación en la misma categoría que "los cereales azucarados son un desayuno horrible," pero es tan raro que se escuche aunque sea la más ligera verdad sobre el patético director gerente de EE.UU., que se ha provocado un cierto revuelo.

Sucedió sólo porque su observación privada fue reproducida por un periódico fundado por el magnate de la prensa canadiense Conrad Black, un hombre que renunció a su ciudadanía para que lo aceptaran en la Cámara de los Lores de Gran Bretaña, que le otorga la posibilidad de pontificar en salas neogóticas disfrazado con una amplia toga escarlata rematada por bullones de pelusas blancas. Pero sus buenas obras en Canadá lo siguen de cerca, así como el periódico absurdamente tendencioso que creó, The National Post, sigue cumpliendo con su deber –en este caso, informar sobre una observación indudablemente privada, únicamente para crearle problemas al Primer Ministro liberal de Canadá.

No sé qué pasa con los "neocons", tal vez sea su afinidad con la extraña derecha religiosa, tal vez sea un desarrollo emocional atrofiado, pero sufren de esa necesidad de andar husmeando en los asuntos privados de otros. Husmean en los cubículos de los aseos, bajo las camas, o en los contenidos de las canastas de ropa sucia buscando material político adecuado –la absurda acusación contra el Presidente Clinton fue el mayor resultado del siglo de esta extraña necesidad.

Una mancha sobre un vestido, unas pocas palabras deshonestas de un Presidente, obviamente ansioso por evitarse bochornos, y ya está, se gastan cien millones de dólares, se inmoviliza a toda una nación durante meses, y se publican como si fueran documentos gubernamentales oficiales, palabras y descripciones más adecuadas para el tipo de literatura conocida como 'ficción romántica', a la disposición de cualquier niñito para que los lea.

Uno de los advenedizos yanquis-neocon, reuniendo cada gramo de autoridad que sus facciones tirando a rosa, regordetas, de bebé, son capaces de exteriorizar (¿se han dado cuenta cuántos de estos tipos se parecen a bebés regordetes? –Gingrich, Falwell, Robertson, Limbaugh, etc. Probablemente exista alguna clave concreta en el asunto que nos lleve hacia algún síndrome desconocido de anormalidad genética.) exigió una disculpa y el despido de Ms. Ducros. Pero el Primer Ministro Chretien está hecho de material más sólido. Lo fotografiaron en el Parlamento, con su mano ocultando un bostezo.

Pienso que estos eventos suman considerable fuerza a los argumentos por una mayor participación de las mujeres en la política. Las mujeres han demostrado una superior capacidad para reconocer la desnudez vergonzante de un emperador muy excéntrico.
La Ministro del Exterior de Japón Makiko Tanaka, hija de un antiguo primer ministro, hizo el año pasado la observación privada en una cena en EE.UU. que Bush "es un imbécil perfecto." Esto, de nuevo, difundido, por cierto, por los "neocons", incluyó precisamente la palabra que el mismo Bush había utilizado durante su campaña electoral para describir a un reportero periodístico, no a un político que amenazaba la paz mundial, cuya honradez le molestaba. Bush se negó a pedir disculpas por lo que fue una observación privada hecha ante un micrófono abierto. La observación de Tanaka, asimismo, fue privada, pero fue rápidamente forzada a abandonar el gobierno japonés.

La ministro de justicia alemana Herta Däubler-Gmelin, otra mujer dura, astuta, hizo recientemente la observación que el truco de Bush de evitar dificultades interiores mediante la guerra había sido previamente probada por Hitler. Los estudiantes de historia sabrán que su declaración no fue más que la manifestación de un hecho indiscutible, pero, hasta hoy, el Jefe-cara-de-bebé de Washington se niega incluso a reunirse con el canciller alemán, una actitud patética por parte de un hombre con semejante poder. Cualquier político con algo de inteligencia real dejaría pasar las cosas, basándose en una calidad que generalmente se llama gentileza, o esplendidez, o clase, pero no hay que perder el tiempo buscando una calidad semejante en los tipos "neocon" de EE.UU.

La petulancia de Bush por una observación intrascendente, subraya el motivo por el que se nos obliga a orbitar peligrosamente alrededor de Irak, un país bastante intrascendente, aplastado ya por la guerra y el embargo. Sadam lo hizo pasar mal a papá, y eso basta para poner en peligro, literalmente, el futuro de la paz mundial. Habría que repetir la acusación de Clinton en una escala épica, con música wagneriana bañada en sangre y mística.

La obsesión es particularmente angustiosa cuando procede ante un fondo de revelaciones de que Corea del Norte, un régimen extraño, como el que más, ya tiene un par de bombas atómicas y ciertamente tiene un programa muy activo de fabricación de material fusible. Corea del Norte también posee misiles que pueden alcanzar varios de los principales centros poblados de Asia.

La obsesión se presenta, también, ante un fondo de explosiva inestabilidad en el Oriente Próximo. Mr. Bush simplemente pasa por alto las inmensas obligaciones que EE.UU. tiene en esa área. Se niega a ver que sus teutónicos caballeros de la guerra contra el terror, vistos por muchos como perdidamente infectados con prejuicios anti- musulmanes, sólo hacen que una situación letal, se haya más letal todavía.
Mientras tanto, EE.UU. pasa el tiempo desplegando inmensos recursos para matar una mosca.

Zopenco, sin duda.

[John Chuckman es ex economista jefe de una gran compañía petrolera canadiense. Tiene muchos intereses y es un estudiante de historia de toda la vida. Escribe con un deseo apasionado de honradez, del dominio de la razón, y de la preocupación por la decencia humana. No es miembro de algún partido político y rechaza lo que ha sido llamado la "cultura de la queja" de EE.UU. con su costumbre de reducir todo tema importante a una discusión improductiva entre dos grupos simplistamente definidos. John considera que lo honra el haber abandonado Estados Unidos como un joven pobre del lado Sur de Chicago, cuando el país se lanzó en el asesinato sin sentido de unos tres millones de vietnamitas en su propio país, porque sucedía que optaron por posiciones económicas equivocadas. Vive en Canadá, país al que gusta de calificar de "reino amante de la paz".]

El correo de John Chuckman es: jchuckman@YellowTimes.org
[Nota del traductor para angloparlantes: la palabra original en inglés, por supuesto, en el caso de la Sra. Tanaka, fue "asshole".]

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN SLOVAK

A všetkým dobrú noc!
____________________________________

To bola len otázka času, než sa Santa Claus tiež ocitol na muške neandertálskeho oka amerických tajných služieb. Napokon, občianstvo Santa Clausa je neznáme a prekračuje hranice bez pasu alebo inej formy identifikácie. A nikto nevie, či vôbec má platnú pilotnú licenciu.

I keď je jeho obraz dobre známy, v záznamoch americkej hraničnej kontroly niet žiadnej oficiálnej fotografie a nikto mu nikdy neodobral odtlačky prstov, ani ho neprehliadal. A čo je ešte znepokojujúcejšie, ten odovzdáva deťom balíčky všade vo svete, vrátane tých detí, čo sa nachádzajú v osi zla. Pokiaľ ide o túto aktivitu, jeho motiváciám sa nerozumie; je tu len akási hmlistá generalizácia o jeho dobrote a veľkorysosti voči všetkým. Očividne je tým najväčším vodcom pre potenciálnych teroristov.

Až po obdržaní niekoľkých naliehavých žiadostí od ministerstva zahraničia o okamžité stretnutie vo Washingtone sa urobilo rozhodnutie preniknúť do Santovho ústrania na severnom póle. Čo je také zvyčajné u ľudí, čo dnes riadia Ameriku, pokiaľ ide o takéto záležitosti, pre tento účel nasadili letku amerických najsmrtonosnejších strojov. Nikdy neviete, na čo môžete naraziť na takom neprívetivom mieste.

Keď lietadlá prvý raz preletovali nad ľadovou tíšinou dielne na severnom póle, jeden z pilotov sa rozhodol zniesť nižšie, aby sa mohol lepšie prizrieť. Bol to taký ten typický smelý nalietavač a jeho chvost pritom nechtiac narazil na jediný drôt široko-ďaleko - telegraf severného pólu, čo malo potom za následok, že lietadlo sa zrútilo do dielne ako ohnivá guľa, za výbuchov ton výbušnín a rôznej munície na palube.
Santa a pani Clausová vybehli zo svojej snehom pokrytej perníkovej chalúpky, aby videli, čo sa stalo, pokúšajúc sa upokojiť vystrašených sobov, aby neutiekli alebo neuleteli.

Hore, na potemnelej klenbe oblohy, iní piloti pozorovali explóziu a videli vo vzduchu dymové stopy po raketách. Takisto videli horúčkovitú aktivitu dolu a rýchlo došli k záveru, že ich kamarát sa stal obeťou proti-lietadlového útoku. A tak zlietli smerom nadol v útočnej formácii, trhajúc na kusy rýchlou streľbou z ťažkých zbraní všetko pred sebou.

Väčšina sobov sa zrútila do snehu, rozlievajúc teplú krv po modro-bielom povrchu. Aj väčšina škriatkov padla, lapajúc po dychu. Pani Clausovú trafili rovno do hlavy a hneď odpadla. Santa sa hrdinsky snažil dostať k nej, ale uvedomil si, že situácia je beznádejná, a tak sa obrátil, bežiac v temnote, za doprovodu Prancera, jediného soba, ktorý to prežil.

Jediným svedkom tej masakry je škriatok, ktorý teraz žije niekde v Kanade pod inou totožnosťou, obávajúc sa o svoj život. Len vďaka jeho výpovedi vieme teraz niečo o osude Santa Clausa.

Keď si piloti uvedomili strašný omyl, ktorého sa dopustili, zhodili na miesto bomby s bielym fosforom v úmysle zahladiť všetky stopy. Celý severný pól sa rozžiaril a v diaľke bolo vidno Santa Clausa a Prancera na veľkej ľadovej kryhe, plávajúcej na temnom mori a ľad všade popraskaný a oslabený kombinovaným účinkom bieleho fosforu a rokov globálneho otepľovania.

O pár hodín nato sa k Santovi a Prancerovi priblížil bubnujúci zvuk čiernej helikoptéry. Škriatok mohol zo svojho úkrytu v snehovom záveji počuť len prerývané zvuky výkrikov, nesúce sa temnotou, ale zdalo sa mu, že z helikoptéry vystúpili ozbrojení muži, zastrelili Prancera, spútali Santu, postrkujúc ho do temného, bubnujúceho stroja. Škriatok začul slovo, ktoré pripomínalo "Guantanamo" a odvtedy už o Santovi nik nepočul.

Správy o jeho neblahom osude sa dostali na Červený kríž a také organizácie ako Amnesty International, čo potom viedlo k skúmaniu tej záležitosti, ale americká vrchnosť na ne odpovedá len mlčaním.

_______________________________________
John Chuckman, The Truth Seeker

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN RUSSIAN

Джон Чакмен

Жалкие либералы Америки: продолжение сериала

Споры вокруг последнего фильма Майкла Мура "Фаренгейт 9-11" проливают яркий свет на характер современного американского либерализма. Весь этот шум создает впечатление, что произошло нечто действительно радикальное и важное.

Это не так. Этот шум представляет собой очередной пример того, что Роберт Хьюз называл американской "культурой жалоб" - бесконечные пререкания, которые никогда ничего не решают, и ведутся ради самого процесса.

По своей сути, этот фильм абсолютно консервативный, что осталось практически незамеченным, за исключением проницательной рецензии Роберта Йенсена "Глупый белый фильм". Фильм Мура не объясняет ничего о тех событиях, которые он обещает расследовать.

Цель Майкла Мура - это позволить американским либералам почувствовать какие они хорошие, вместо того чтобы поставить под вопрос свое общество, которое бросает на планету все более длинную, холодную и темную тень. Такая работа хорошо оплачивается, и Мур становится действительно богатым человеком, нечто вроде придворного шута на хорошем содержании для тех, кто временами испытывает уколы либеральной совести или простой порядочности.

Мур любит избражать из себя большого невинного паренька из американской глубинки, этакого современного Спэнки МакФарланда, только намного старше, с довольным видом волочащегося в потрепанной бейсбольной кепке, верного ценностям Флинта (штат Мичиган) 50х гг., и с невинным видом задающего неудобные вопросы о серьезных вещах. Такой Сократ из американской глуши в мешковатых штанах и кроссовках.

Это привлекательный образ для умственно путанной, инфантильной культуры США. И все же именно эти свойства сделали возможным вторжение в Ирак и другие ужасные действия этой страны.

В отличие от прямолинейного Спэнки, в Муре живет довольно неприятный шут, или проказник. Я имею в виду не талант к смешному, который обеспечивает быструю распродажу его книг, а определенную склонность к ухмылке, мелким пакостям. Это хорошо заметно во многих эффектах, которые он использует, порой весьма хитро, в кини и на телевидении, чтобы заснять реакцию тех, кто не пошел бы на прямой разговор с ним.

Его фильм основан на том самом непоследовательном мышлении, полном недоказанных посылок и туманных намеков на заговоры, которое, в той или иной степени, типично для большинства американских СМИ. Это мышление типично и для президента, который продолжает говорить нам, что он разорил Ирак и потратил сто миллиардов долларов для того, чтобы спасти жизни американцев.

Несколько месяцев назад Мур рассказал всему миру, что он обрел своего кандидата в президенты в лице генерала Уэсли Кларка. Это заявление должно бы было встревожить людей, потому что взгляды Кларка неотличимы от взглядов Буша, а поведение генерала в бывшей Югославии было высокомерным, провокационным и опасным.

Мур просто хочет избавится от Буша, и ради этого он готов поддержать опасного оппортуниста Кларка. В своем фильме он собрал амальгаму отношений, предположений и интересных, но, в основном, мало проясняющих суть дела кинофрагментов в надежде вызвать взрыв эмоций, достаточный для того, чтобы отделаться от Буша.

Но почему Мур, а я вижу его как представителя либеральной Америки, так хочет избавиться от Буша, что готов занять беспринципную позицию, поддерживая кандидата не менее, если не более опасного?

Не думаю. что это оттого, что Буш представляет опасность американским ценностям, любимый аргумент американских либералов с их путаницей в голове. Ведь Буш во многом верно отражает эти ценности. Я думаю, что так отчаянно стараются избавиться от Буша, потому что он компрометирует их. В Буше есть что-то нестерпимо американское, что-то такое, что обнажает неприглядную правду об обществе, которое он представляет. Как это было с братом президента Никсона, который пытался построить империю общепита на основе "гамбургера Никсона", или как в случае с вечно ноющим любителем пива Билли Картером, братом другого президента.

Да, Буш причинил миру много зла. Но президент не может действовать в одиночку. Когда в последние дни своего президентства Никсон ночами бродил по коридорам Белого дома как бормочущий призрак с кувшином виски, вооруженные силы и другие ведомства были предупреждены не подчиняться приказам, которые не прошли через установленные законом инстанции. И не только правительство ограничивает власть президента. Это также и Конгресс, и вообще, американский народ. Антивоенные протесты времен вьетнамской войны не имели силу закона, но они сильно влияли на политический курс правительства. Кровавое фиаско в Ираке произошло с соучастием Конгресса, включая сенатора Керри, и при пассивном согласии большинства американцев.

Правда заключается в том, что Буш представляет собой довольно типичного, зажиточного американца среднего возраста. Он говорит и мыслит так, как говорит и мыслит огромное число американцев. Он бегает и играет в гольф. У него есть склонность к школьным проделкам, как и у Мура, но менее хитрым. Он без тени сомнения принимает за правду все сказки об Америке, ее официальную версию о себе как о богоизбранном месте на земле, со свободой и справедливостью для всех. Это то, что объединяет его с Майклом Муром и либералами, размахивающими звездно-полосатым флагом.

История личного спасения Буша близка и знакома десяткам миллионов американских семей (Буш страдал алкаголизмом, но уверяет, что выздоровел - ред.). Тот же американец, который не может похвалится своей историей такого рода, ищет ее в дешевых журналах на стойках супермаркетов и телевизионных ток-шоу. Это национальное помешательство на идее начать свою жизнь сначала представляет собой еще одну форму инфантилизма..

Буш всегда наслаждался обеспеченной жизнью, ничем не заслужив ее. Но ведь это и является мечтой огромного числа американцев, выбрасывающих свои деньги на лотерейные билеты и рулетку. Американцы любят смотреть семейные теледрамы, вроде Оззи и Харриет в 1950х, где никогда ничего серьезного не случается, а просто славные люди плывут себе в лишенном времени пространстве. Многие современные шоу, такие как Зайнфельд, это просто более хипповые версии того же самого.

Весьма типично отсутствие у Буша какого-либо интереса к серьезным книгам--по всей видимости он не прочитал ни одной--к настоящему искусству и новым идеям. Последним президентом США, который испытывал какой-то интерес к искусству и мысли, был Кеннеди. Это, а также безразличие Буша к миру за пределами США ставит его в самую середину средней Америки.

Меня могут спросить: "мы знаем Буша как жестокого человека с признаками психопатии. Как же его можно сравнивать его со средним американцем?" Видите ли, средняя Америка это отнюдь не безвредное, приветливое место, каким представляет ее Голливуд в своих фильмах-конфетках. Это место, где тридцатилетняя супружеская пара убеждена в своем праве иметь в пригороде дом с шестью спальнями на большом куске земли и, по крайней мере, два лесовоза перед ним (т.е. два джипа или т.п. машины - ред.). Это место, в котором люди игнорируют все отвратительные аспекты своего общества: гетто, деградирующие школы, отсутствие медицинской помощи для десятков миллионов. Это место, где непрестанное требование потреблять все больше угрожает будущему всей планеты. И это то место, которое толкает Америку к созданию глобальной империи.

В отличие от утверждений либералов, Буш идет по столбовой дороге амриканской истории. Детские лозунги, призывающие "вернуть нам Америку", или, еще хуже, наклейки с вопросом к Бушу "Чувак, где моя страна?" есть именно ничто иное, как инфантилизм. Буш - это неуклюжий, неприятный образчик традиционного американского поведения и ценностей. Разве вторжение в Ирак основывалось на каких-то других убеждениях и ценностях, чем вторжение под лживым предлогом на Кубу? Как насчет агрессии против Мексики или захвата Гаити? Или холокоста во Вьетнаме и Камбодже? И чем отличается "Пэтриот акт" Буша от драконовских законов времен Джона Адама или бесчинств ФБР при Гувере?

Как красочного героя Марлона Брандо в фильме "На набережной", американцев всегда привлекало то, что обычно называлось "классом" (в смысле как в фразе "высокий класс" - ред.). В фильмах золотой эпохи Голливуда, от Джона Гарфилда до Хамфри Богарта, это слово встречаешь на каждом шагу именно в этом смысле. Ведь пульсирующая сердцевина американского существования - это делать деньги, как можно больше денег, как можно быстрее и любой ценой и почти любыми средствами. В конце концов, ты должен показать "класс".

В то время как вкус американской культуры изменился, особенно что касается полного забвения сочувствия к обездоленным характерного для периода после Великой депрессии, в ней остается заметным желание найти какой-то эквивалент понятия "класса" 1950х . Это видно повсюду, от названий моделей машин и жилых районов до мод популярных американских дизайнеров вроде Ральфа Лорена или таких фигур как Марта Стюарт. Одна из проблем с Бушем это то, что, несмотря на всю его типичность, у него нет "класса". Досадно иметь империю, чей цезарь становится посмешищем для всего мира, для всех тех говорящих где-то там на птичьих языках народов, которые издеваются над лидером богоизбранной страны.

Я отношусь с подозрением к нытью американских либералов по поводу убитых в Ираке профессиональных солдатах, в сущности, горстке солдат по сравнению с десятками тысяч невинных иракцев, убитых как в этой войне, так и в результате предшествующей ей жестокой десятилетней блокаде, организованной американцами. Это относится и к сцене материнских слез в фильме Мура. Нет, я не имею в виду самих этих бедных матерей, чья потеря реальна. Я говорю о рассчете самого Мура на предсказуемый эффект, который эти сцены должны были вызвать у американских зрителей. Вид небольшого числа завернутых в флаг гробов представляется почти единственной силой, питающей вялое антивоенное движение в этой стране.

Когда в этом фильме раздаются жалобы по поводу убитых американских солдат, я не мог не подумать обо всех тех слезах, пролитых у мемориала солдатам США павшим во Вьетнаме. О слезах, пролитых над теми, кто погиб, неся уничтожение и разрушение народам других стран. И никогда, ни единой слезы, пролитой о миллионах человеческих жизней, загубленных Америкой.

В куда более трогательном документальном фильме времен Вьетнамской войны под названием "Сердца и умы" есть такая сцена. Вьетнамский бедняк убивается над телом своего убитого ребенка, одного из тех бесчисленных невинных людей, убитых американцами, летающими слишком высоко, чтобы видеть ужас, который они сеют. За этой сценой следует интервью с комфортно сидящим генералом Уэсморлендом, который читает лекцию на предмет того, что азиаты имеют иное отношение к ценности человеческой жизни, чем американцы. Да, это тоже пропаганда со стороны документалиста, но убийственно правдивая и незабываемая.

Это был прекрасный документальный фильм, но ему не грозило сделать своего создателя богатым человеком. Американцы просто напросто не интересуются страданиями других народов, особенно, когда они являются их источником. И хотя ради справедливости надо отметить, что такие страдания им позволяют видеть крайне редко, все же поразительно насколько у них отсутствует спсобность вообразить, что происходит, когда их самолеты сбрасывают тысячи тонн взрывчатки и шрапнели.

Но даже если вы не разделяете моих чувств и вас трогают слезы матерей в заключительной части фильма Мура, будьте очень осторожны, когда пойдете голосовать против Буша. Керри до сих пор не сказал ни единого слова в осуждение этой войны. Он не осудил Буша и ограничился повторениями официальных данных о действительном положении вещей в Ираке, которые все мыслящие люди знали еще за год до опубликования этого доклада. Взгляды Керри на положение на Ближнем Востоке, его услужливое потворствование самым темным интересам Израиля обещают новые беды в будущем. Он является убежденным и тупым сторонником глобальной империи.

Здесь мы подходим к настоящей трагедии Америки и действительной причине 11 сентября и и других ужасов, а именно: к убийственной готовности Америки играть роль глобальной империи со всей жестокостью и нецивилизованностью, которые для этого потребуются. Пусть мне объяснят, как такой идейно путанный фильм, как фильм Мура, даже если он поможет свалить Буша, может внести хоть какой-то вклад в решение великой дилеммы Америки: ее ненасытной жадности и готовности к ужасным деяниям под аккомпанимент высокопарных слов.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Джон Чакмен (Chuckman) в прошлом главный экономист большой канадской нефтянной компании. Он покинул США (Чикаго) в молодости и бедности, когда американское правительство приступило к уничтожению миллионов вьетнамцев только потому, что они хотели устроить свою экономику на неправильных, с точки зрения США, принципах. Живет в Канаде. Вы можете посклать ему свое мнение об этой статье по адресу

chuckman@YellowTimes.org

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: A PAKISTANI LANGUAGE

Segalanya Dengan Nama Jesus
Posted on Thursday, May 15 @ 01:03:09 EDT by admin

Assalamualaikum sdr.

Dalam keghairan kita mengharungi dunia hidup yang penuh dengan keindahan ciptaan Allah SWT kita perlu sentiasa berwaspada dengan persekitaraan kita yang penuh dengan ranjau dan onak. Dalam banyak hal orang Islam sentiasa Take for granted terhadap apa yang berlaku di sekeliling kita sehingga dah terantuk baru terngadah.

Oleh itu Paksu akan cuba mengupas beberapa isu yang sentiasa dekat dengan kita sebagai Muslim yang beramal (practicing Muslim) agar Paksu sendiri dan anak buah Paksu dapat sama-sama menghayati Islam sepenuhnya.

Kali ini Paksu tertarik untuk mengulas satu penomena yang serius yang menghentam Islam tetapi kita samada sedari atau tidak tak ambil pusing. Macam juga isu COCACOLA yang banyak dibincang di situs ini sebenarnya kita dilanyak dari kiri-kanan atas bawah luar dalam namun kita masih leka. Nama ancaman ini yang Paksu sebut sebagai Dengan Nama Jesus. Dengan Nama Jesuslah maka bumi kita dijajah, malah seluruh dunia. Orang Kristian akan membuat segala sesuatu untuk mematikan Islam. Kini mereka seolah-olah mempunyai justifikasi melalui peperangan melawan keganasan yang = Islam.

Sedarlah segala-galanya adalah Dengan Nama Jesus. Sebuah tabloid melaporkan melalui tulisan oleh John Chuckman bahawa Presiden AS mempunyai penasihat agamanya bernama Franklin Graham anak Billy Graham yang memainkan peranan yang sama kepada Nixon. Franklin Graham adalah di antara mubaligh Kristian gaya motivator yang menjadi kegilaan (craze) masyarakat AS. Orang seperti ini selalu berceramah di TV (yang sedihnya perkara seperti ini pun sudah menjadi perkara biasa di TV Indon….dan awas apa yang menghalang daripada ianya berlaku di negara Islam Malaysia…kan Injil terjemahan yang menggunakan Allah sebagai Tuhan Kristian pun sudah dihalalkan oleh negara Islam Malaysia) dan seminar besar-besaran (Macam forum Perdana). Billy Graham Organization adalah sebuah organisasi yang besar dan kaya yang berjaya “menyelamatkan” orang Kristian dan konvert. Apa yang menjadi isunya ialah Graham melalui organisasinya, Samaritan`s Purse mengajak pengikutnya kepada satu fahaman Kristian yang sempit yang orang Kristian arus perdana sendiri merasa jijik. Dinominasi(mazhab) Kristian yang dibawanya adalah The Southern Baptists yang terkenal dengan kepercayaan ekstrim yang pada awalnya menyingkir kaum Negro daripada gereja kemudian menetang usaha kemanusiaan yang dibawa oleh Dr King. Kini Franklin (yang gemar bermain dan mengumpul senjata otomatik) yang menjadi kawan rapat Rumah Putih dengan organisasi-organisasi licik mereka sedang memasuki Iraq dalam usaha untuk mempengaruhi orang Iraq melalui bantuan dan dakwah/dakyah mereka. Sebelum perang Iraq Franklin Graham telah memberi ceramah(surmons) hari good Friday di Pentagon (Kementerian Pertahanan AS). Di antara kata-katanya; “Kita bukan menyerang Islam tetapi Islam telah menyerang kita. Tuhan Islam bukanlah Tuhan yang sama. Dia bukan anak Tuhan kepercayaan Kristian dan Judeo-Kristian. Ia adalah Tuhan yang berbeza, dan saya yakin ia adalah ugama yang cukup jahat dan keji”

The Southern Baptists akan juga turut memberi bantuan kepada Iraq. Dan bayangkan apa yang mereka akan buat kerana bekas presiden Southern Baptists Mission Board, Jerry Vines pernah berkata bahawa Nabi Muhammad SAW adalah “seorang perogol kanak-kanak yang dirasuk syaitan”…astagfirullah ! ! (Teringat apa kata Farish Noor, seorang Melayu Islam terhadap Rasullallah… lebih teruk lagi daripada itu yang ditulis dalam surat kabar milik kerajaan tak lama dahulu dan dia masih bebas malah menjadi perantara forum di TV kerajaan). Jadi jangan hairan apabila Bush kata `kita akan perang salib(crusade)` apabila menara WTCnya runtuh. Ini selaras dengan pandangan sempit Kristian yang dianutinya iaitu Islam mesti diperangi dengan apa cara sekali pun.

Penulis John Chuckman merumuskan bahawa adalah jelas dan nyata tindakan Pentagon memerangi pengganas adalah pembunuhan professional diatas nama Jesus untuk negara.
Jadi Paksu berseru kepada semua termasuk pemegang kuasa memerintah dan diri Paksu sendiri supaya mengatur langkah dengan berhati-hati jangan tersangkut reba lalu rebah dan terpijak jerangkap samar lalu musnah.

WallAllahu`alam
PAKSU
Alorsetar 150503

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN NORWEGIAN

RELEVANTE LINKER
» Sjå John Edwards si tale sjølv - på dems2004.org

Eg høyrde fleire setningar frå John Edwards si landsmøtetale på radioen før eg slo av. Hadde eg høyrd meir hadde eg spydd.

av John Chuckman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slik som det var fekk eg eit grufullt flashback til då eg var tolv år gamal og på midtvestbaptistane si leir, Camp Sycamore. Der sat eg i møtehallen i betong, med skjorta klistra til stolen medan ein struttande liten prest sprøyta spytt- og sveitteperler inn i skumringa medan han skreik om helvete.

John Edwards er ein rein Elmer Gantry (ref. til kjend bok og film - sjå t.d: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451522516/104-8735699-3623155?v=glance, red.anm).

Men kva kunne du venta deg frå ein fyr som brukte tjue år på å springa etter ambulansar på jakt etter djupe lommer han kunne saksøkja, alltid viftande med armane og smilande som eit ekorn? Amerika sine advokatar og evangelistar-til-sals har mykje til felles, og når dei kjem frå stader som Dog Bite, North Carolina, er det mest umogleg å skilja dei frå kvarandre. Det er alltid eitt sirupssøtt ytre og eit skinande smil - berre tenk på Jerry Falwell og Pat Robertson - i den nådelausa jakta på ting som samfunnet hadde klart seg best utan.

Her er nokre liner frå John si offisielle heimeside om korleis han ser på karriera si: "I... tjue dedikerte John karriera si til å representera familiar og born skada av andre si skjødesløyse. John hjalp desse familiane gjennom å stå opp mot den mektige forsikringsindustrien og deira armear av sakførarar, og dermed med å koma gjennom dei mørkaste stundene i liva sine og å takla enorme utfordringar. Hans glødande kamp for folk som dei som arbeidde i mølla med far hans gav han respekt og anerkjenning landet rundt".

Det høyrest ut som ein reklame for den neste episoden av "Rescuing Little Nelle from the Clutches of Snidely Whiplash". Sjølvsagt er det det som ikkje som ikkje vert sagt som ofte er viktig. Kvifor kjempa John berre for "familiar og born"? Er det noko gale med å representera folk utan familiar eller born? Sjølvsagt ikkje, men språket hans er kloakk henta frå den republikanske familieverdikomposthaugen.

Stod John mot armear med advokatar? Nei, faktisk var John ein i rekkene av advokatar som no svermar over Amerika som om det skulle vore eit uheldig utslepp av mordarbier frå eit laboratorium. Over alt dei kjem sprer dei konflikter og frykt. Reklamen seier ikkje at i løpet av desse tjue åra har John gjort seg sjølv til ein svært rik mann gjennom saker som har bidratt til høgare forsikringsprisar for oss alle, men det er sanninga. "Stått opp mot den mektige forsikringsindustrien" kunne like så godt våre "Sugd så mykje pengar han kunne ut frå dei store pengebingane til forsikringsindustrien". Som så mange av Amerika sin noverande avling krokodilletåreevangelistar som håpar å sjå ein reprise av brød- og fiskmirkalet frå kollektbøssene hjalp John familiar gjennom deira "mørkaste stunder", og klarte såvidt å samla seg opp ei formue til han kom i førtiåra. Vel, eg har ikkje noko mot suksess, men eg har noko mot ei slik falsk framstilling.

Sidan dei fleste søksmål er sosialt nedbrytande og økonomisk uproduktive er det noko særleg uroverkkjande over at eit av rovdyra i bransjen søkjer ein høg posisjon. Det er jo amerikanske lovgjevarar si manglande emne til å gje tilstrekkeleg gode lover og anstendige reglar som har skapt den trugande jungelen der søksmål blomstrar.

Å lesa resten av John si tale på Internett hadde ein fordel, eg slapp å høyra hans 'folkelege' tone og å sjå hans overveldande og godt innøvde kroppspråk. Likevel skjøna eg fort kvifor John var så god som advokat. Folk ville vel inngå forlik berre for å sleppa å høyra han i retten i månadsvis. Min favorittdel i talen hans er denne:

"Når du vaknar om morgonen og sit ved borna dine rundt kjøkenbordet og snakkar med dei om dei store moglegheitane i Amerika, gjer deg trygg på at dei veit at John (Kerry, red.anm) trur i våre kjerner (uttrykket brukt på engelsk er "at our core", når det er omsett til kjerne er det ut frå omsyn til meiningsinnhald seinare i artikkelen, red. anm) at i morgon vil vera betre enn i dag. Som alle andre har eg lært mange lekser i livet mitt. To av dei viktigaste er at, for det fyrste, det alltid vil vera liding og kamp, du kan ikkje få den til å forsvinna. Men den andre er at folk som har ei god og sterk vilje kan gjera forskjell. Den eine leksa er ei trist ei, den andre er inspirerande. Me er amerikanarar og me vel å vera inspirerte".

I tillegg til at halvparten av Amerika sine ekteskap ender i skilsmisse kan du aldri overbevisa meg om at mange av familiane som finst att tar opp "Amerika sine store moglegheiter" rundt frokostbordet. Ser du ikkje for deg dei urolege borna som hyler om korleis nokon åt opp all frokostblandinga eller om kva for ein idiot mattelæraren er før dei brått fell til ro når faren i huset bestemmer seg for å løfta sine Lincoln-aktige augebryn, kanskje etter ei velsigning av dagens porsjon Kelloggs, og byrjar å snakka om dei store moglegheitane i Amerika. Høyrest ikkje det berre litt for rart ut? Dersom det er dette som føregår heime hjå John bør du vera redd for at han kjem til makta. Dersom det ikkje er dette som skjer - kvifor seier han det?

Sanninga er, og eg er sikker på at John veit dette, at få familiar i det heile sit saman rundt frukostbordet i Amerika, og dersom dei faktisk gjer det er det størst sjanse for at eit fjernsyn okkuperer den tida. Og for millionar av fattige familiar er det slett ikkje frukost for bordet. Er det ikkje difor Head Start gjev born mat på skulen? Sjølv i middelklassefamiliar i forstadane har dei det travelt nok med å koma ut av dørene tidsnok til å nå morgonrushet eller stader der dei priviligerte borna skal sleppast av for ein av sine mange aktivitetar. Og korleis liker du den setninga om at det i frukostseremonien også skal gjerast plass til å "gjera deg trygg på at John og eg trur i våre hjarta at i morgon vil vera betre enn i dag". John og eg trur i våre hjerte? Kvifor kan dei ikkje berre tru? Kvifor må det vera i deira kjerne - kva det no enn tyder? Ordet synast å fortelja om ein atomreaktor, og ikkje om eit menneske. Uansett, det har vore nok av forstyrra individ opp gjennom historia som har gjort krav på ei eller anna form for mystisk kjerne av noko-eller-noko-anna. For å vera ærleg er denne utsegna så patroniserande og latterleg at ho får meg til å lura på kor rasjonell John kan vera.

Og kva meiner John med at i morgon skal vera betre enn i dag? Det minner om orda til ein bestemt gamal amerikansk religionsprofitør som brukte å opna pengejaktene sine med å seia: "Noko BRA skal skje med DEG!". Men det er verre enn det, fordi det er så utruleg usannsynleg og dumt, han gjev deg ei oppmoding til å snakka alvorleg med borna dine om dei hovudlause reklamepåstandane til to kjøpte og betalte politikarar. John har ein eller to minigudstenester i nesten kvar einaste korte avsnitt. Du skulle tru at han freista å bli soknerådsformann og ikkje visepresident. Eg liker hans fyrste lekse "det vil alltid vera liding og kamp - du kan ikkje få den til å forsvina". Er det dette leiarar i store land skal snakka om? Treng me valkampanjar med ord knabba frå Oprah Winfrey?

Og så er det: "At folk som har ei god og sterk vilje kan gjera forskjell. Den eine leksa er ei trist ei, den andre er inspirerande. Me er amerikanarar og me vel å vera inspirerte". John tenkjer truleg på den typen "inspirert" prestar snakkar om, som Guds inspirerte ord. Den typen inspirert tillet ingen feil, Gud gjer ikkje slike, og heller ingen spørsmål og ingen kritikk. Fint for ein politikar å omfamna, føl deg sjølvrettferdig, medan du i realiteten ber folk om å halda kjeft.

I den verkelege verda, og det er jobben til politikarar å forhalda seg til denne, er ikkje alltid "inspirert" ein sunn sinnstilstand. Inspirert av kva? Inspirert til å gjera kva? Folk kan like gjerne vera inspirertt til å gjera forferdelege ting som til å gjera gode ting. Orda vert ofte brukt av tilhengjarane til store tyrannar. Tyskarane brukte ofte ordet for å skildra Føraren. Blodbadet i Vietnam var inspirert av ei sjuk, nesten religiøs tru på at ein måtte stogga kommunismen. Vil du ikkje seia at den smilande svindlaren Pat Robertson var inspirert når han nyleg ytra framom med å invadera Iran for å kasta heidningane?

Avsnittet er fullt av setningar som får ein til stilla å spørsmål. Utgjera ein forskjell til kva? Eg kan ikkje hjelpa for å tenkja på klisjeen om at vegen til helvete er brulagt med gode intensjonar. Sorry, John, men det er ikkje mangel på leiarar med sterke viljer i verda, og kvar einaste ein av dei trur på sin eigen godskap. Det faktumet er ganske sikkert ein av menneskerasa sine verkelege forbanningar.

Resten av John si tale er overstrødd med drepande klisjear og jamvel motsetjingar. Ein stad seier han "Eg står her i dag klar for å arbeida saman med dykk og John [Kerry] for å gjera Amerika sterkt igjen". Vel, eg trur at det siste ein kvar tenkjande person på planeten ynskjer seg er folk som arbeider for å gjera Amerika sterkare. Amerika har destabilisert to land, drepe titusenvis av menneske, torturert og fengsla folk feilaktig berre fordi det hadde makt til å gjera det. Makt fungerer på den måten, som Lord Acton så klokt sa, den korrumperer. Jakt etter nok av ho og du får absolutt korrupsjon.

John si tale tar opp temaet med to Amerika, og dersom han hadde teke for seg det genuine problemet med to forskjellige og skilde samfunn i Amerika (faktisk trur eg det er tre, inkludert den rike klassen representert av alle presidentkandidatar) kunne kanskje sagt noko verdt å høyra på. John seier: "Men sanninga er at me framleis lever i to forskjellige Amerika, ein for folk som har levd den amerikanske draumen og ikkje treng uroa seg meir og ein for dei fleste amerikanarane som arbeider hardt og framleis strevar for å få endane til å møtast. Det treng ikkje vera slik". Men det var John sjølv som akkurat fortalde oss om korleis kamp og vanskar ikkje vil forsvinna, var det ikkje? Så, kva er det han seier?

Om utdanning seier John: "Me burde ikkje ha to offentlege skulesystem i dette landet, eit for dei rikaste samfunna og eitt for alle andre. Ingen av oss meiner at kvaliteten til eit born si utdanning burde verta kontrollert av kor dei bur eller kor rikt samfunnet deira er".

John må vita godt at utdanning ikkje i fyrste omgang er eit ansvar for den føderale regjeringa under USA si grunnlov frå syttenhundretalet, så kva snakkar han om? Kva føreslår han å gjera med situasjon der nokre skular i forstadane har professorar som lærar og klasseturar til Europa, medan skular i urbane strok har rom med rusta kranar og bunsenbrennarar som ikkje verkar? Sanninga er at alle gode ting i Amerika, inkludert medisinstell og politisk makt vert delt ut etter emne til å betala, så kvifor skulle det vera annleis med utdanning?

John legg til: "Me burde ikkje ha to ulike økonomiar i Amerika, ein for folk som er sikra for livet, borna deira og borneborna deira og ein for dei fleste amerikanarane som lever frå lønning til lønning". Kva betyr dette, utover populistisk tåkeprat? Eg har inga aning, og eg mistenkjer at John heller ikkje har det.

Her har du presten John om problem: "og du veit kva som skjer om noko går gale - eit born vert sjukt, nokon får sparken eller om det er eit finansielt problem, du går rett utanfor stupet. Og kva er det fyrste som forsvinn? Det er draumane". Draumane? Eg trur verkeleg at det siste folk i problem er uroa over er draumane sine. Dei er opptekne av å kome seg gjennom dagen med eit fnugg av stoltheit att, eller kanskje av å overleva. Gjer John dei ekte hjelp eller eit luftslott av draumar og inspirasjon?

Her er eit utval juvelar frå Presten John om 11. september: "Me vil gjera akkurat det som trengst, så lenge det strengst, for å trygga oss mot at det skal skje igjen, ikkje mot vårt Amerika", "Me skal styrka den nasjonale tryggleiken og hamnene våre, vakta om den kjemiske industrien vår og støtta brannmennene, politiet og ambulansepersonllet. Me vil alltid bruka vår militære makt for å trygga det amerikanske folket", "Og me har ein utvilsamt klar beskjed til al-Qa'ida og resten av desse terroristane. De kan ikkje springa. De kan ikkje gøyma dykk. Og me kjem til å øydelegga dykk".

Trur John at det er folk i USA - med unntak av den vesentlege gjengen med militstypar, survivalists og folk som gler seg til Armageddon som ynskjer at det skal skje igjen? Meiner han at det er folk, bortsett frå dei rundt to millionane i fengsel, som ikkje stør politiet? John sitt løfte om å jakta terroristar er henta rett ut frå superheltteikneseriane, og er det ikkje akkurat dette den forvirra Bush trur han har drive på med heile tida? Kva føreslår John som er annleis? Han seier absolutt ingenting om å bruka vanlege diplomatiske og juridiske kanalar for å ta valdelege kriminelle, og ingenting om å styrka internasjonale institusjonar. Nei, det er berre Amerika-ditt og Amerika-datt, det same totalt narsissistiske greiene som gjer at verda er kvalm av å høyra frå Amerika. Ingen ynskjer seg ein ven som berre snakkar om seg sjølv og nekta å hjelpa nokon utan på sine eigne vilkår, men amerikanarar som John trur at desse eigenskapane på ein eller annan måte vert attraktive i verdenspolitikken. Til liks med sin medkandidat Kerry leverer han berre endå meir trugslar om å ikkje nøla med å bruka militærmakt for å drepa endå fleire folk.

Hugs på at John sit i Senatet sin etterretningskomite og dermed har ei svært høg tryggleiksklarering og spør deg sjølv kva han var i stand til førutsjå eller kjempa for anten før eller etter 11. september. Svaret er: Ikkje mykje. John sitt yndlingsprosjekt er no å starta eit nytt innanlands etterretningsorgan - endå eit organ til milliardar av dollar på topp av det eksisterande nettet av organ og dette dedikert spesielt til å spionera på innbyggjarar i landet. Høyrest det ut som ideen til nokon som genuint er oppteken av rettar og fridom? Nokon burde spørja John om han er ein tilhengjar av å avskaffa den forferdelege Patriot Act, men eg tviler på at han ville koma med eit ærleg svar.

Presten John kombinert med Kerry - den skummelt ambisiøse mannen viss forståing av mot tydde å skyta sivile trygt frå ein elvebåt i Vietnam - gjer at eg har eit dystert bilete av framtida for Amerika og dermed for verda. At dette uærlege paret og den usmakelege Bush er det beste Amerika kan tilby som leiarar seier noko grufullt om denne skremmande mektige nasjonen: landet er råka av ein øydeleggjande fattigdom når det gjeld kreativitet og ånd.

--

John Chuckman er tidlegare sjefsøkonom for eit større canadisk oljeselskap. Han reiste som ein fattig ung mann frå Chicago i protest mot Vietnamkrigen. Han tek i mot kommentarar på adressa: chuckman@YellowTimes.org

Kommentaren er henta frå YellowTimes.org, ei internasjonal alternativ nettavis. YT oppmodar til at stoff frå avisa vert spreidd så lenge den originale kjelda vert gjeve opp. Denne omsetjinga er gjort av dilettant.no og kan nyttast fritt så lenge YT sine krav er stetta.

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN ITALIAN

Una delle grandi scoperte del tardo 20mo secolo fu l'esistenza dei buchi neri.

La loro esistenza era implicita nella teoria della relatività di Albert Einstein e le loro inimitabili caratteristiche furono elaborate da Stephan Awking ed altri. In generale, una nuova generazione di telescopi ed osservatori a raggi X ci permisero di osservare direttamente quello che era stata la teoria.

Come ogni ragazzo affascinato dalla scienza sa, derivano da stelle che collassarono perché i loro motori a fusione sprizzarono benzina. Il risultato fu che pezzi di massa si ingrossarono catturando materia ed energia attiva, entrando nei loro spazi gravitazionali.

Il moderno Israele prese spunto di un'idea come grande stella , un rifugio per un popolo orribilmente ingannato, ma molti osservatori sono oggi d'accordo che la grande stella parve collassarsi in una oscura massa che avvolgeva lo spazio geopolitico dell'intero pianeta.

Il mondo si aspetta che Mr. Bush si lanci in una terribile guerra contro l'Iraq. L'unico scopo di questa guerra era un colpo preventivo agli in stancabili avversari di Israele .Ma la buona fede della nazionale discussione in America è così distorta dalla massiccia gravitazionale corrente che persino molti oppositori della guerrra non capiscono che cosa devono obiettare.

Nessuna testimonianza significativa è stata offerta alle insistenti asserzioni di Bush.Un argomento per proteggere le fonti intelligenti potrebbe essere accettato come ragione per non rilasciare dettagli al popolo, ma il ridicolo è che nessuna prova è stata fornita ai leaders della Nato. Francia e Germania non richiederebbero la relazione visto che sono stati velocemente tacitati poiché per Mr. Powell il caso era diverso.

L'Irak non ha disturbato nessuno per 12 anni, e allora perché la subitanea corsa alla guerra prima che gli ispettori delle armi avessero compiuto il loro lavoro? L'unica spiegazione che appare giustificabile è che il momento temporaneo, furibondo della pubblica opinione americana, originato dal 9 XI può essere indirizzato verso una guerrra che non potrebbe essere sostenuta altrimenti.

Non importa l'invenzione deliberatamente sviante dell'invenzione di armi di distruzione di massa, non c'è nessuna prova che l'Iraq abbia armi significativamente strategiche. E' virtualmente certo che non ha materiale fissile per armi nucleari e sappiamo, dai capi ispettori delle armi, che le costose facilitazioni per la fabbricazione di materiale fissile sono state distrutte.

Non c'è nessuna prova che Saddam Ussein abbia avuto in passato affari con Al Queda, anzi è noto che c'era una considerevole animosità tra Hussein e Bin Laden
La conoscenza che il segreto programma di armamento fosse stato ricostituito dopo che gli ispettori delle armi lasciarono l'Iraq nel 1998, potrebbe aver successo se le squadre di ispettori ben equipaggiate dalle agenzie intelligenti avessero potuto scorazzare su tutto il territorio irakeno, liberi in ogni momento di agire, sarebbe veramente illusorio. E notizie illusorie sono una pericolosa base per andare in guerra.

Per rassicurare Israele, ogni partito ragionevole vorrebbbe vedere in Iraq un regime strettamente controllato, ma questo non è sufficente per il sempliciotto Presidente Americano che insiste per fare la guerra e infliggere altri orrori ai civili Iracheni. E non è sufficente per Mr. Sharon che incita Mr. Bush e proclama maniacalmente che l'Iran dovrebbe essere attaccato in seguito.

Come può la gente dimenticare, oppure non gliene importa, che la guerrra moderna significa la morte di molti civili. La proporzione tra civili e militari uccisi è cresciuta esponenzialmente fin dalla prima guerra mondiale. Il punto focale per l'America sul super controllo aereo e la sua riluttanza ad accettare qualsiasi casualità può solo far peggiorare il trend. La questione di andare in guerra ora, per l'America è che tiene poco conto della morte perché i morti sono sempre di più dall'altra parte e non sono sotto gli occhi di un pubblico che si ritiene informato da una stampa pesantemente indifferente.

Le istruzioni della stampa del generale Schwarzkopf con le clips di film ad alta definizione, durante la tempesta del deserto, lasciano l'impressione che le munizioni di precisione avevano ridotto la guerra ad una pulita, senza sangue computer game.

La verità è che circa il 95% delle munizioni usate nella guerrra del deserto non erano di precisione. Le munizioni di precisione sono estremamente costose ed estremamente precise per questo sono destinate ad applicazioni speciali. Le buone vecchie, stupide bombe e l'artiglieria sono le uniche cose da usare quando si vuole fare in fretta una cerneficina. Qulcosa come centomila civili Irakeni sono stati uccisi dalle munizioni americane che non erano di precisione.

Quello che ci aspettiamo per questa guerra abbiamo la sensazione che l'economia si arrenda e si pieghi alle minaccie e con l'incertezza di una vasta e distruttiva promessa inflazione e disorganizzazione che sempre accompagnano le guerre e all'inconfessabile e pazzo vortice sul prezzo del petrolio.

Quello che ci aspettiamo da questa guerra abbiamo la sensazione che l'economia si arrenda e si pieghi alle minaccie e alll'incertezza di una vasta e distruttiva impresa alla promessa inflazione e disorganizzazione che sempre accompagnano la guerra e all'inconfessabile pazzo vortice sul prezzo del petrolio.

Come ci aspettiamo da questa guerra, il Presidente ha indirizzato a un imbarazzante mondo al ritmo di una fondamentalista, enorme predica dal suo pulpito , minacciando il fuoco dell'inferno offrendo ai cinque e tre quarti di bilioni di gente che vive fuori dell'America ma che sono ancora attaccatissimi alle sue arbitrarie decisioni, rassicurando osservazioni come " il corso di questa nazione non dipende da decisioni di altri."

Il Presidente mescola l'incertezza economica appoggiando intensi deficit e offrendo di tenere quieti gli americani preoccupati, con giganteschi tagli di tasse, una bizzarra economica versione di "potete avere tutto e averlo ora"

Come ci aspettavamo da questa guerra, Israele ridusse la West Bank in uno squallido paesaggio senza speranza. Tutti i precedenti impegni, come quello dell'accordo di Oslo, sono stati ignorati. Tutte le passate risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite, imponenti risoluzioni su Israele sono state ignorate persino mentre gli U.S. asseriscono che l'Iraq deve essere attaccata per aver ignorato le risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite. Il Leader della Palestina è trattato come un virtuale criminale sotto forma di arresti domiciliari col quale è impossibile ogni discussione.

Nessun più degno nemico di ingiustizia e odio soffiava su Nelson Mandela e Desmon Tutu. Essi avevano messo in chiaro senza tema di errore che cosa vedevano nella West Bank, una ripetizione in ogni dettaglio dell'odioso regime di Aparheidness del Sud Africa, ma la collassante forza del destino assorbì anche le emozioni di simpatia che avrebbero dovuto attrarre gli Americani. Come ci aspettavamo da questa guerra, che Israele avesse avanzato approcci con gli U.S. per 1O bilioni di dollari o più di assistenza, oltre i tre bilioni che riceve automaticamente ogni anno ( e per giusto dovrebbero aggiungere i due bilioni pagati annualmente per far stare tranquillo l'Egitto ). Questo denaro è estremamente necessario perché Israele sta conducendo una guerra apparentemente a perpetuità.

Israele si comporta come una piccola repubbmica regionale geopolitica degli S.U. anche nell'intento di voler costruire una triade di forze nucleari ( missili di terra, bombardieri, missili con basi sottomarine tutte nucleari compatibili). Questa è una nazione la cui popolazione è circa uguale a quella dell'Ecuador, circa un decimo dell'un per cento della popolazionne mondiale. I costi di questo sperpero sono indescrivibili.

La guerra del terrore di Bush, piuttosto che essere una chiara campagna perdente contro questi attuali responsabili per un 9/11 , è diventata l'etichetta di rancori contro tutti quelli che sulla facciA della terra ostaacolano o si oppongono alla politica estera americana. La guerra del terrore è un buco nero che succhia energie, risorse, principi.

Non è come se una buona parte del mondo non capisse che cosa sta succedendo. Ragionevoli voci vengono dalla Francia, dalla Germania, dall'Italia, dal Canada, dall'Egitto, dal Sud Africa, dalla Russia, dalla Cina, da altrri paesi, ma Bush annuncia che se è necessario " lo farà da solo" , cioè l'intero pianeta VOLENTE O NOLENTE deve essere coinvolto in un grande vortice di distruzione.

John Chuckman

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN HUNGARIAN

JOHN CHUCKMAN

Beteg munka

David Frum neo-konzervatív kiáltványa

A címben foglalt kifejezés nem tartozik kedvenc szavaim közé, de néha egy kifejezés olyan pontosan a lényegre tapint, hogy annak nehéz ellenállni. A "neo konzervatív kiáltvány" pontosan kifejezi szerzőinek mondanivalóját. A fenti kifejezés az Amerikai Egyesült Államok külpolitikájára vonatkozik. Az amerikai elnökök Hübele Balázsa számára készült terv az egész világ átrendezését látja elő. A terv, az elnök eddigi afganisztáni és iraki sikereinek megítélése alapján, az Amerika ellenesség további növekedéséhez és az általános politikai zűrzavar egész világra kiterjedő további fokozódásához vezet.

Figyelemre méltó az is, hogy az embereknek ez a különleges csoportja - a neo konzervatívok milyen előszeretettel használják a tizenkilencedik századbeli Európa radikálisinak jelszavait. Nehéz lenne pontosan megállapítani, hogy a szélsőjobboldal hatalmas példányszámban gyártott kiadványaiban hányszor, és hányféleképpen fordulnak elő a "forradalom", "forradalmi", valamint a "radikális", és a "kiáltvány" kifejezések. Meglehet, hogy ezeknek a szavaknak a különleges szóösszefüggésben való használata kezdetben csak hatást keltő kampány fogás volt, de ez a nyelvhasználat sokkal leleplezőbb, mint megalkotói gondolnák.

Hitler is nagy előszeretettel használta ezt a nyelvet. A tűzoltó fecskendő nagyságú személygépkocsik kedvelője, a sétapálcás és köpenyes opera látogató, a tea délutánok és az elegáns teasütemények ínyence mindig ezt a nyelvet használta, amikor katona csizmában és korbácssál a kezében büszkélkedett a nyilvánosság előtt.

A kiáltvány egyik szerzője David Frum, aki évek hosszú során, a földi javakkal bőven megáldott szélső jobboldal képviselőinek propaganda szócsöve volt. Frum nagy pillanata akkor érkezett el, amikor a jelenlegi elnök beszédírójának szerepével tüntették ki. Bush elnök beszédeinek minőségét tekintve, azt gondolhatnánk, hogy a beszédírói rang valóban lefokozást jelent, de Frum itt is kitett magáért. Felesége, vagy maga Frum, elkövette azt a hibát, hogy nyilvánosságra hozta, hogy az elnök beszédében felhasznált "gonosz tengelye" kifejezés David Frum képzeletének szüleménye. Az ilyesmit nem szokták nyilvánosságra hozni. Az embereknek azt kell hinniük, hogy ezeknek a szavak Balázs elnök fejéből pattannak ki. Amikor azonban a washingtoni koktél partik egyikén, Frum, vagy felesége ezzel eldicsekedett, mielőtt másnaposságukból felocsúdhattak volna, fentről azonnali csomagolásra szólították fel őket.

David Frum ezzel elmulasztotta életének legnagyobb összekacsintási, rábólintási, és befolyás közvetítői lehetőségét, és azóta is térden csúszva igyekszik visszakönyörögni magát a hatalom kegyeibe. Richard Perle-vel közösen írt könyve, most vagy megmenti Frum ketté tört életpályáját, vagy nem, de ez az első alkalom, hogy hónapok óta ismét talpra álljon.

Richard Perle külön bemutatására nincs szükség. Ő a washingtoni Fekete Lagúna, mélyén élősködő, méreggel átitatott testű szörnyetege. Perle is az egyik rangos propaganda gyártó üzem nagyra becsült munkatársa, hadügyminisztériumi haszonhajhászó, az Egyesült Államok minden eddigi gyarmatosító háborújának, és bombázó akciójának a szekértolója, Izrael katonai megoldási módszereinek lelkes és kitartó híve.

A kiáltványt a két szerző közösen írt könyve alkotja, amelynek címe: „A Gonosz megsemmisítése - Hogyan nyerhető meg a terror elleni háború.” Végre, egy izgalmas, és eredeti gondolatokat sugalmazó cím. A gonosz megsemmisítése? Mikor szűnnek meg a neo konzervatívok úgy beszélni mintha IKE 700. írnánk? Talán az Istennel kufárkodó vándorcirkusz két tagja, Pat Robertson, és Jerry Falwellis is szerepel a könyv forrásainak, és ihletőinek listáján?

Már a cím maga is megfélemlítő, mert ha valaki abban a helyzetben van, hogy az atomhajtású anyahajók, és a termo-nukleáris fegyverek igénybe vételét befolyásolhatja, a külpolitikában pedig a gonosz megsemmisítéséről beszél, az igen veszélyes ember. Önkéntelenül is Ripper őrnagy a „a lényeg tisztaságának a hanyatlása” feletti aggodalma jut eszünkbe, amint a „Dr. Strangelove” – ban útjára bocsátja atomfegyverekkel ellátott bombázóját. Félelmetes, hogy az ország elnöke ma ugyanezeket a képtelenségeket szajkózza. Ami a megelőző támadásokat illeti, - azokat Hübele elnökünk is az Amerikai Egyesült Államok hivatalos politikai doktrínájának minősíti.

A könyv szerzői amiatt aggódnak, hogy Washingtonban hiányzik a győzelem iránti akarat. Győzelem iránti akarat? Ez a kifejezés az 1944 körüli Berlin recsegő rádióhullámainak hideg borzongást idéző kijelentéseit idézi. Valóban, a nyelv olykor sok mindent elárul.

Az amerikai haderő hosszú távú elkötelezettségeit tekintve, már alig bír el több megterhelést, a közvélemény pedig belefáradt a halott katonákról való hírekbe. Ilyen körülmények között az embereknek megvan a véleménye a győzni akarás hiányáról. Ehhez bizonyosan hozzájárul az adók csökkentése ellenében történő felelőtlen költekezés. Az épületes kereskedelmi mérleg negatív mutatója pedig azt jelzi, hogy ez a fejvesztett politika összességében, az Egyesült Államok gazdasági biztonságát veszélyezteti. De, amint tudjunk, a gonosz elleni harc hevében nincs félúton való megállás.

A kiáltvány hemzseg az olyan kitételektől, amelyek azoknak az amerikaiaknak igyekeznek a kedvébe járni, akik soha sem olvasnak tényleges híreket, és könyveket a nemzetközi helyzetről, de mellüket verve hangoztatják abbeli véleményüket, hogy hogy miként kell bánni az idegenekkel. A Meglepetések meglepetéseként, Frum és Perle könyvében megtalálható a Szíriában, és Iránban végrehajtandó rendszerváltás történelmi szükségszerűsége is, de arról, hogy ehhez a keresztes hadjárathoz honnan állítanak elő még több keresztes vitézt, amíg ugyanakkor Afganisztánban, és Irakban is harcolnak, csak a könyv végén találunk majd apró betűs választ. Az Amerikai Egyesült Államoknak, az a különben is elítélendő verbuválási módszere, hogy ösztöndíjak kecsegtetésével vásároljanak szegény sorsú újoncokat, máris elvesztette lendületét, amint a fiatalok belátják, hogy az ösztöndíjért, és az iskolai képesítésért ténylegesen részt kell venni egy undorító és értelmetlen háborúban. A beaf steaken hízott washingtoni „forradalmáraink” nem törődnek azzal, hogy a világ hogyan fogadja ezt az erőszakon alapuló nemzetközi politikát. Felkent vezetőjük máris több kárt tett az Amerikai Egyesült Államok és barátai, s szövetségesei közötti jó viszony elmérgesítése terén, mint bármely más elnök az ország történelmében. Frum és Perle úgy vélik, hogy az Amerikai Egyesült Államoknak meg kell szabadulnia a nemzetközi közvélemény béklyóitól. Ha Marx mondhatta, hogy az emberiségnek le kell ráznia bilincseit, úgy Frum és Perle is odamodhatja az emberiségnek, hogy le is út, fel is út.

Úgy tűnik, hogy a két szerzőt nem szolgálták ki ingyenesen valamelyik frites és bifteck francia vendéglőkben, mert azok éktelenül dühösek a franciákra. Azt javasolják, hogy az Egyesült Államok vetélytársként kezelje Franciaországot, tekintet nélkül arra, hogy a tízen nyolcadig században Franciaország biztosította az Amerikai Egyesült Államok szabadságát, és azóta is több háborúban, és a nemzetközi váltságok idejében is megbízható szövetségesnek bizonyult. A két szerző nem veszi tekintetbe azt sem, hogy Franciaország mai is a világ szabadság eszme, és az emberi szellem egyik kiemelkedő bástyája. Azoknak az egyetemes emberi értékeknek a letéteményese, amelyekhez Frum és Perle is állítólag igazodnak. Azt sem veszik tekintetbe, hogy Franciaország már sikeresen megvívott egy terror elleni háborút, mielőtt az divatos lett volna a neo-konzervatív táborban. Franciaország ezt más országok kormánya, és politikai rendszerének a megdöntése nélkül valósította meg, a szerzőknek azonban eszébe sem jut, hogy netán Franciaország e téren szerzett tapasztalata hasznos lehet az Amerikai Egyesült Államok számára. Franciaországot meg kell büntetni, valószínűleg azért, mert annak, Irak megtámadására vonatkozó fenntartásai közül ma már mindegyik beigazolódott.

Frum és Perle történelmi felfogása nem csak a közép kelet teljes felforgatására, és a régi és megbízható szövetségi viszonyok elmérgesítésére szorítkozik. Ázsiában is nagy dolgokat számítanak véghez vinni. Elsőként Észak Korea katonai zárlatát helyezik kilátásba. Azt javasolják, hogy az Egyesült Államok komolyan foglalkozzon Észak Korea atomerőműveinek a lebombázásával. Ezek a kijelentések, a közveszélyes gyújtogatók szavai, akik készek arra, hogy a saját kedvtelésükre égő gyufát dobjanak Los Angeles közvetlen közelében lévő, felettébb gyúlékony talajra. Hogy a világnak mi a véleménye minderről, az egyáltalán nem számít. Az sem számít, hogy a közvetlenül veszélynek kiszolgáltatott dél koreaiak hogyan vélekednek egy esetleges Észak Korea elleni támadásról. Erre vonatkozólag a két szerző az elnök nézetét tartja mértékadónak: „Ha nem vagy velünk, akkor ellenünk vagy.” Mindez arra épül, hogy Washingtonban jobban tudják mi a koreaiak érdeke, mint maguk a koreaiak. A két szerző egy életen át a világhatalmat gyakorló bennfentesek kegyeinek kiérdemlésével foglalkozott, és ennek alapján most szakértőknek képzelik magukat, abban, hogy magát a világhatalmat hogyan kell gyakorolni.

A kiáltvány sok mindenről szól, de a saját hivalkodó állításaival ellentétben, a terror megszüntetéséről nem. Amint azt Durham bátor anglikán püspöke, Tom Wright kijelentette: „Bush és Blair iraki kalandja olyan mintha egy csoport fehér huligán arra vállalkozna, hogy ők majd megoldják a kábítószer kereskedést Brixtonban (London egyik legrosszabb városnegyedében) Ez nem azt jelenti, hogy Irakban minden rendben lett volna, de arról van szó, hogy Bush, és Blair nem a legmegfelelőbb emberek a kérdés megoldására. A kiáltvány a fehér huligánok állandó felhatalmazását, illetve megbízatását látja elő. Azoknak a nézeteknek és felfogásoknak a megváltoztatását szorgalmazza, amelyeket az átlagos amerikai, vagy nem ért, vagy amelyeket az elfogadhatatlannak tart. Egy olyan félelem – diktálta világot teremt, amelyben soha sincs elég biztonság. Ez a felfogás párhuzamos azzal, ami az Izraelt érintő területek eseteiben tapasztalható. Izrael soha sincs eléggé biztonságban. Az idegen területek megszállása, a megtorlások, a háborúk sem hozták meg az elvárt biztonságot. A letartóztatások, és a kínzások alkalmazása sem jelent elég biztonságot. A kémkedések, és a merényletek sem teremtették meg a tökéletes biztonságot. Az atomfegyverek sem teremtik meg a biztonságot. Azt minden bizonnyal, a falak sem fogják megteremteni.

Izrael paranoiás rendszere az őszinte békekötés elutasításán alapszik. Az Amerikai Egyesült Államok térhódító, és romboló politikája is ezt az utat követi, azzal, hogy Afganisztánban megteremtette Bin Ladent, lehetővé tette Hussein törekvéseinek megvalósítását, és magára vonta Irán huszonöt éve tartó gyűlöletét. Frum és Perle nem forradalmi jellegű politikai változásokat látnak elő, hanem Izrael paranoiás politikai rendszerét szándékoznak az egész világra kiterjeszteni.

Ez az őrült világfelfogás Orwell 1984. c. regényét tükrözi azzal a különbséggel, hogy az általános belső jogfosztottságot a kisajtón vezetik be. Az a terror elleni háború örve alatt valósul meg, és nem pedig a nyílt rendőri önkény hatalomra jutásának folytán következik be. Az eredmény ennek ellenére, ugyanaz. Amerika ténylegesen rendőrállam lesz.

A kiáltvány egy fajta amerikai küldetéstudatbeli dokumentumként is felfogható. Hasonlóan, mint a múltbeli „Manifest Destiny”, amely ugyan csupán az észak amerikai őslakósokat, és a spanyolokat érintette. Ez az új küldetéstudat, ma a római birodalom bíbor vörös színeit öltve az egész világra kiterjed. Megvan hozzá a katonai hatalmad Amerika, használd. Ne törődj a világ másik kilencven öt százalékának a véleményével, vagy félelmével.

A könyv megjelenésének időpontja alapján feltételezhető, hogy a könyv tényleges célja, Bush elnöknek viszonylagos mérsékeltként való beállítása. Bush azonban egyáltalán nem mérsékelt, hiszen elnöksége idején a könyv minden kitételének, és javaslatának a megvalósítására történtek kísérletek. Bush, tehát nem mérsékelt, de nem is háborús hős, ennek ellenére azonban a maga együgyű módján mégis megkísérelte hősként bemutatni önmagát, és az amerikaiak jelentős többsége ezt el is hitte ezt neki. Ezek szerint miért ne hinnék el, hogy mérsékelt politikát igyekszik folytatni? Egy évvel ezelőtt ki hitte volna, hogy Bush képes lesz Irak megtámadására, egy olyan cselekedetre, amelynek évekre szóló súlyos következményei lesznek?

A háború megindokolására felsorakoztatott kifogások, ma már egytől egyik megdőltek, de a felmérések azt mutatják, hogy az amerikaiakennek ellenére is támogatják az elnököt.

Meglehet, hogy ez a kiáltvány – még akkor is, ha józan ésszel szemlélve, egy igen beteg munka, mégis, az egész világ sorsát meghatározó jóslatnak bizonyul.

Fordította: Kaslik Péter

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN GREEK

Το πράγμα χωρίς τον εγκέφαλο

Από John Chuckman < chuckman@YellowTimes.org >
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/thingwithnobrain06may04.shtml
6 Μαϊ'ου, 2004

(YellowTimes.org) -- είχα μια δυσάρεστη στιγμή στο θάμνο ημέρας που αποφασίστηκε για να εξετάσει "τον αραβικό κόσμο." Είναι άτομο που μπορώ να σταθώ, έτσι όταν έρχεται η φωνή του στο ραδιόφωνο, το μεταστρέφω πάντα μακριά. Καλά, αυτή τη φορά επίσης μακριά μακριά και απαραιτήτως ακούστηκα μερικές προτάσεις, αυτές αρχίζοντας από "τους ανθρώπους στο Ιράκ πρέπει να καταλάβουν και πρέπει να καταλάβουν .."

Πρέπει; Η άλαλη υπεροψία των λέξεών του ζάλιζε. Πάνω από το κακώς-επιλεγμένο λεξιλόγιό του, το άτομο δεν ζήτησε συγγνώμη ποτέ όπως έμαθα αργότερα από το Διαδίκτυο. Εδώ ήταν ένας διοικητής που μιλά για την inexcusable βιαιότητα ενάντια στους ανίσχυρους φυλακισμένους που λένεων στα εκατομμύρια των ν ανθρώπων που πρέπει να καταλάβουν. Εδώ ήταν ένα παθητικά-ανεπαρκές άτομο που προσπεράστηκε έτσι από τα γεγονότα ότι αισθάνθηκε την ανάγκη να εξετάσει "τον αραβικό κόσμο," και τους έλεγε τι πρέπει να καταλάβουν.

Φυσικά, η απέραντη, ανεγκέφαλος υπεροψία του διαβιβάστηκε σε άλλους τρόπους. Εξέτασε το "αραβικό κόσμο" χωρίς τη χρησιμοποίηση των δικτύων ότι πολλοί ακούνε. Θέλησε μια ασφαλή έξοδο - χρηματοκιβώτιο, δηλαδή για τον και τη γνωστή ανικανότητά του να χειριστεί οποιαδήποτε ερώτηση πιό σύνθετη από "πώς Mom;" Απέφυγε σκόπιμα το Al Jazeerah, ένα δίκτυο που ρωτά τις σκληρές ερωτήσεις και στους του οποίου υπαλλήλους οι στρατιώτες του έχουν στοχεύσει σκόπιμα και έχουν σκοτώσει.

Αναρωτιέμαι πόσων ο νέος τρομοκρατών θάμνος έχει δημιουργήσει σε όλη τη Μέση Ανατολή; Φανταστείτε την οργή των νέων αραβικών ατόμων που βλέπουν τις εικόνες άλλων νέων αραβικών ατόμων με τα ύψη πίεσης τους στις τσάντες που χρησιμοποιούνται όπως το απόρριμμα μιας χυδαίας υπόγειας πορνογραφικής ταινίας; Μερικές από τις πιό φοβερές σκηνές δεν έχουν αναμφισβήτητα καμία φωτογραφία επειδή οι δράστες σχεδόν βεβαίως δολοφονήθηκαν. Ακόμα και οι χαμογελώντας κρετίνοι από τον bayous και backwoods της Αμερικής που φαίνεται στις δημοσιευμένες εικόνες ξέρουν καλύτερα από για να φωτογραφιστούν δεσμεύοντας τη δολοφονία.

Ως επί το πλείστον, οι ένοπλες δυνάμεις των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών δεν μισθώνουν το είδος καθαρός-αποκοπής, Sir-rj'hnontas τα πρόσωπα αμετάβλητα χρησιμοποιώ ως εκπρόσωποι δημόσιος-σχέσεών τους. Χρειάζονται τους ανθρώπους που θα εκπαιδευθούν για να σκοτώσουν και να υπακούσουν τις κατατάξεις, και οι περισσότερες από τη δολοφονία πρόκειται να γίνουν στις φτωχές, απόμακρες θέσεις όπου οι φωνές των θυμάτων δεν ακούγονται ποτέ στην Αμερική.

Στρατιωτικοί recruiters γεμίζουν ένα καλό μέρος των ποσοστώσεών τους από τα πολλές μελαγχολικές τέλματα και τις τρώγλες της δημοκρατίας. Τους γεμίζουν με το είδος ανθρώπων που ειδάλλως να μην απασχοληθούν σε όλοι. Παίρνουν αναμφισβήτητα ένα δυσανάλογο μερίδιο των ανθρώπων που απολαμβάνουν και τον πόνο, το είδος ανθρώπων που βρίσκεται σε κάθε κοινωνία στη γη.

Δεν παίρνει μια μεγάλη προσπάθεια της φαντασίας να προσδοκηθεί τι θα συμβεί πότε δίνετε σε τέτοιους ανθρώπους μερικές εβδομάδες εκπαιδευτικός στα φονικά και λάμποντας παπούτσια και τις στέλνετε μακριά σε ένα απομακρυσμένο έδαφος όπως το Ιράκ, μια θέση τους της οποίας ανθρώπους μπορούν να καταλάβουν, και για τις οποίες ξέρουν μόνο τον ανενημέρωτο, προκαλώντας τα συνθήματα του Προέδρου τους.
Όταν ένα αξιοκαταφρόνητο ήθος poy όπως το θάμνο κάθεται άνετα στην καρέκλα δέρματός του και υπογράφει μια κατάταξη να εισβληθεί ένα απόμακρο έδαφος, είναι ακριβώς οι φρίκες της φυλακής Abu Ghraib αυτός απαραιτήτως εκδόσεις.

Θυμηθείτε τον υπολοχαγό Calley και τα αγόρια του που δολοφονούν ένα ολόκληρο χωριό στο Βιετνάμ; Εκείνο το καλό παλαιό αγόρι δεν δοκίμασε ποτέ τη σημαντική δικαιοσύνη μιας στιγμής. Υπήρξε πραγματικά μια βιαστική επιχείρηση για μια στιγμή στα αναμνηστικά Calley υπολοχαγών, ειδικά στο νότο.

Υπήρξαν διάφορες τέτοιες σφαγές που ανακαλύφθηκαν στο Βιετνάμ, και ένα μπορεί να αμφιβάλει ότι άλλες πήγαν άγνωστες. Ακόμα ήταν η σχισμή περίπου είκοσι-χιλίων λαιμών, συνήθως του χωριού ανώτεροι υπάλληλοι, από τα γενναία άτομα των ειδικών δυνάμεων. Αλλά ακόμη και τους ναζιστικός-όπως τη σφαγή δεν θα μπορούσε να συγκρίνει με την εργασία των ατόμων που πετούν τα αεριωθούμενα αεροπλάνα, αποκαλούμενοι πολεμικοί ήρωες ατόμων ακόμα στην Αμερική, άτομα που βομβάρδισαν συστηματικά και τις αμέτρητες πόλεις, χωριά, και αγροκτήματα, παράγοντας αρκετά θύματα για να θάψουν την πόλη της Ουάσιγκτον κάτω από ένα βουνό της μμένων σάρκας και του αδραχτιού, σχεδόν όλα τους πολίτες.

Κατά τη διάρκεια εκείνου του πολέμου, το ι μίλησε μιά φορά σε έναν αμερικανικό παλαίμαχο του παγκόσμιου πολέμου ΙΙ για τη φρίκη αυτό που πήγαινε επάνω. Μου είπε μια ιστορία. Ήταν σε ένα τραίνο με δύο άλλους Αμερικανούς και έναν γερμανικό αιχμάλωτο πολέμου. Ένας από τους Αμερικανούς έβαλε ξαφνικά το αυτόματο πιστόλι του στο ύψος πίεσης του Γερμανού και φύσηξε τους εγκεφάλους του έξω. Δεν είχε κανέναν λόγο και γέλασε ακριβώς μετά από να κάνει το.

Όπως έχω γράψει πριν, δεν μπορώ ποτέ να ξεχάσω κάποιο που ήξερα στο γυμνάσιο λέγοντας με για το πώς αυτός και οι φίλοι του θα συσσώρευαν σε ένα αυτοκίνητο και θα οδηγούσαν κάτω στο γκέτο μερικές νύχτες, δοκιμάζοντας τα "μειωμένα niggers" για την εύθυμη ψυχαγωγία της θέας τους που έτρεξαν για τις ζωές τους. Έχω συνδέσει πάντα εκείνη την επίπονη μνήμη με τα άτομα που βίασαν αργότερα και δολοφόνησαν τον τρόπο τους σε ολόκληρο το Βιετνάμ.

Δεν είναι ότι Αμερικανοί είναι χειρότεροι από άλλους ανθρώπους, είναι ότι είναι οι ίδιοι. Ακόμα ενθαρρύνονται συνεχώς για να σκεφτούν ότι είναι καλύτεροι - πιό προηγμένος, εκπαιδευμένος, περισσότερο αφιερωμένος στις δημοκρατικές και ανθρώπινες τιμές. Στις λέξεις του Προέδρου, "η Αμερική ξέρω τις προσοχές για κάθε ndividual." Καλά, εκτός από το γεγονός ότι εκείνες οι περιγραφές εγκαθιστούν στην καλύτερη περίπτωση μια μειονότητα Αμερικανών, που σκέφτονται ότι είστε καλύτεροι από οι λιγότερο τυχεροί άνθρωποι είναι μια εγγυημένη μέθοδος για την αδικία και τη φρίκη.
Σημειώνω ότι σε αυτήν την ημέρα ακόμη και οι περισσότερες φοβερές εικόνες των ιρακινών παιδιών που παραμορφώνονται και που σκοτώνονται με τον αμερικανικό βομβαρδισμό δεν δημοσιεύονται από το βασικό Τύπο του νομού. Πολλοί Αμερικανοί είναι συναισθηματικοί, και οι εικόνες των καταπληκτικών και παραμορφωμένων παιδιών να παραγάγουν τα αποτελέσματα που δεν επιδιώχτηκαν από εκείνους που τρέχουν τη χώρα, αλλά οι εικόνες φυλακών μπορούν να χαρακτηριστούν ως εξαίρεση, ως βλάβη μερικών κακών ανθρώπων που σπάζουν τους κανόνες.

Καλά, ποια κοινωνία δεν έχει τέτοιους κανόνες; Εκεί τίποτα ειδικό για την Αμερική επίσημα να αντιτάξει τα βασανιστήρια, την ταπείνωση, και τη δολοφονία. Ακόμα και οι δικτατορίες θέτουν δημόσια τέτοιους κανόνες, αλλά ποια κοινωνία όχι να παραβιάσουν τους κανόνες μόλις βυθίζει στη σαπρή επιχείρηση του πολέμου;
Ένας γαλλικός τηλεοπτικός σταθμός έχει λάβει μια τρεις-και-α-μισή μαγνητοταινία λεπτού από ένα αμερικανικό ελικόπτερο που λαμβάνεται τον περασμένο Δεκέμβριο. Υπάρχουν ένα πειραματικό και στρατιωτικό γκάγκστερ εν πλω, και συζητήσεις ανώτερων υπαλλήλων διαταγής τους σε τους σε ένα ραδιόφωνο. Ο αμερικανικός στρατιώτης πυροβολεί τρεις άοπλους Ιρακινούς, ένας-ένας, δεδομένου ότι ο διοικητής αποφλοιώνει τις κατευθύνσεις του σε τον. Το τρίτο άτομο προσπαθεί να κρύψει, και προσπαθεί έπειτα να σέρθεί μακριά, σαφώς πληγωμένος. Ο ανώτερος υπάλληλος τον διατάζει που σκοτώνεται, και είναι γρήγορα.

Θυμηθείτε τις συνομιλίες ραδιοφωνικής μετάδοσης των αμερικανικών πιλότων κατά τη διάρκεια της πρώτης σύγκρουσης κόλπων δεδομένου ότι και βομβάρδισαν τα μίλια των ιρακινών στρατιωτών που πιάστηκαν σε μια μαρμελάδα κυκλοφορίας ενώ υποχωρώντας από την πόλη του Κουβέιτ; Ακούσαμε τις λέξεις, σαφώς προφορικές με την ίδια αίσθηση της διασκέδασης που άκουσα δεδομένου ότι ένα νέο άτομο στο Σικάγο, "αυτό είναι όπως το shootin" ψάρια σε μια κάννη!" ραδιοφωνική μετάδοση στην τηλεόραση χωρίς οποιαδήποτε σχόλιο ή κριτική από τους εκφωνητές ή τους πολιτικούς.

Σε αυτήν την ημέρα, δεν υπάρχει καμία εξέταση στην εξαφάνιση περίπου τρεις χιλιάες φυλακισμένων στο Αφγανιστάν. Μια ευρωπαϊκή αποδεικτική ταινία προτείνει έντονα την αμερικανική συνενοχή στη μαζική δολοφονία τους έξω στο επιδόρπιο από μερικούς από τους πιό τραγελαφικούς πολεμάρχους με τους οποίους οι ΗΠΑ συνδέθηκαν. Οι φυλακισμένοι σύμφωνα με τις υπάρχουσες πληροφορίες οδηγήθηκαν, εργάζονται μετά από τη batch, που γεμίστηκε στα φορτηγά, μέσω μιας ήλιος-ψημένης αγριότητας, που ασφυκτιά στην θερμότητα ενώ αμερικανικά στρατεύματα που πρόσεξαν αδρανώς.
Μην ξεχάστε τις λέξεις του Donald Rumsfeld σχετικά με τους φυλακισμένους στο Αφγανιστάν. Είπε δημόσια ότι όλοι οι ξένοι μαχητές που συλλαμβάνονται πρέπει να σκοτωθούν ή να περιτοιχιστούν μόνιμα μακριά. Σκέφτεστε ότι το είδος ηγεσίας να επηρεάσει τις τοποθετήσεις σέρνεται οι διάδρομοι των στρατιωτικών φυλακών με τους ανθρώπους στο έλεός τους;
Οι πόλεμοι είναι μια εντελώς ακάθαρτη επιχείρηση, και, εκτός αν είστε διαφθαρμένοι, δεν τους αρχίζετε. Ο θάμνος είναι αρμόδιος για αυτό που έχει συμβεί στο Ιράκ και το Αφγανιστάν τόσο σίγουρα όσο και οι γερμανικοί ηγέτες ήταν αρμόδιοι για τις πράξεις των στρατιωτών τους κατά τη διάρκεια του παγκόσμιου πολέμου ΙΙ.

Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman

[ Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman είναι προηγούμενος κύριος οικονομολόγος για μια μεγάλη καναδική επιχείρηση πετρελαίου. Έχει πολλά ενδιαφέροντα και είναι ισόβιος σπουδαστής της ιστορίας. Γράφει με μια εμπαθή επιθυμία για την τιμιότητα, τον κανόνα του λόγου, και την ανησυχία για την ανθρώπινη ευπρέπεια. Είναι μέλος κανενός πολιτικού συμβαλλόμενου μέρους και παίρνει την εξαίρεση σε αυτό που έχει κληθεί πολιτισμό της Αμερικής το "της καταγγελίασ" με τη συνήθειά του μείωσης κάθε σημαντικού ζητήματος σε ένα μη παραγωγικό όρισμα μεταξύ δύο simplistically καθορισμένων ομάδων. Θ*Ιοχν άφησε τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες ως φτωχό νέο άτομο από τη νότια πλευρά του Σικάγου όταν επιβιβάστηκε η κυβέρνηση στη δολοφονία των εκατομμυρίων Βιετναμέζος στο έδαφός τους επειδή συνέβησαν να αγκαλιάσουν τις λανθασμένες οικονομικές πίστεις. Ζει στον Καναδά, ο οποίος είναι τρυφερός της κλήσης "του peaceable βασίλειου." ]

Θ*Ιοχν Chuckman ενθαρρύνει τα σχόλιά σας: chuckman@YellowTimes.org

Το YellowTimes.org είναι διεθνείς ειδήσεις και δημοσίευση άποψης. Το YellowTimes.org ενθαρρύνει το υλικό του για να αναπαραχθεί, ανατυπωμένος, ή η ραδιοφωνική μετάδοση υπό τον όρο ότι οποιαδήποτε τέτοιαδήποτε αναπαραγωγή προσδιορίζει την αρχική πηγή, συνδέσεις Ιστού http://www.YellowTimes.org. Διαδίκτυο σε http://www.YellowTimes.org εκτιμάται.

Θα συμπαθούσατε να λάβετε τα επίλεκτα άρθρα YellowTimes.org μέσω του ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου;
Σε αυτή την περίπτωση, θα λάβετε μια Δευτέρα, την Τετάρτη και την Παρασκευή ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου από YellowTimes.org. Αυτό το ηλεκτρονικό ταχυδρομείο περιέχει το ένα άρθρο χαρακτηριστικών γνωρισμάτων που περιλαμβάνεται στο σώμα του ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου. Θα σας παρασχεθούν έπειτα οι περιγραφές και οι συνδέσεις άλλων άρθρων που δημοσιεύονται σε YellowTimes.org από την τελευταία αναπροσαρμογή ειδήσεων.

Σημάδι επάνω κατωτέρω!

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN FRENCH

L' Amérique véreuse

La vie quotidienne américaine se déroule au milieu de bruits 24h sur
24, une orgie de d' autosatisfaction et d' auto-félicitaion, qui se
déverse à gros torrents des téléviseurs, radios, magazines, films,
évènements sportifs, et de sermons glorificateurs sur cette "Demeure
du héros" qu' est l' Amérique, selon ces organes.

Ce battage ininterrompu de renouveau nationaliste est tellement devenu
la toile de fond de la vie américaine au quotidien, que nombreux sont
les Américains qui ne se rendent même pas compte qu' il y a quelque
chose d' anormal dans tout ce fatras.

Dans "L' Archipel du Goulag" il y a une scène magnifique.

Aprés un discour de Staline, l' audience applaudit, applaudit et ne
peut plus s' arrêter d' applaudir. Chacun observe son voisin, pour
voir qui va s' arrêter le premier, avant de s' arrêter à leur tour,
mais le voisin agissant de même, continue d' applaudir. Les
applaudissement menacent de contineur éternellement.
Pourquoi ?

Parceque les hommes du NKVD parcourent les allées, pour voir qui va s'
arrêter le premier.

Il existe un parallèle inconfortable entre l' Amérique de Busch et la
Russie de Staline, spécialement lors de l' adresse du Discour de l'
État de L' Union.

Bien que le Président n' ait rien dit de transcendant , d' imaginatif
ou empreint de compassion, tout le monde applaudissait, et
applaudissait et continuait d' applaudir. Certains commentateurs des
media américains s' abaissèrent jusqu' à comparer la médiocre
logorrhée de Busch avec les discours brillants de Roosevelt.

Plusieures personnalités des media se portèrent volontaires pour
émettre leurs commentaires personnels chauvins et nationalistes, comme
s' ils éprouvaient le besoin irrésistible de démontrer publiquement
leur bonne foi patriotique.

Quelle immense déception est devenue l' Amérique d' aujourd' hui

Ce pays est un monde de morts, riche, bruyant, vertueux. Un endroit oú
les colporteurs du fondamentalisme, avec leurs coiffures pétrifiées
par trop de lacque, et leurs maquillages aussi épais que des crêpes
supplient qu' on leur laisse la place pour remplir le vide moral du
pays, seulement pour s' ajouter à la cacophonie mercantile qui sert de
toile de fond au quotidien américain.


Une place oú le chauvinisme et la médiocrité sont généreusement
récompensés et loués.
Les Américains, un peuple qui se déchaîne au sujet de ses droits et
des redressements des torts qui lui sont faits, n' accordent pas la
moindre pensée à leurs propres responsabilités.

Le comble: Un peuple qui se vante d' être plus libre qu' aucun autre
peuple sur terre, sans même connaitre ces autres peuples auxquels il
se compare.

Moteur de consommation insatiable d' un pays dont la vision en tant
que nation a été réduite à consommer toujours plus sans égards à
personne d' autre sur cette planète.

Un peuple dépouvu de finesse qui blâme toujours autrui si quelque
chose va mal.

Les Américains, à peine 4% de la planète, gobent plus de la moitié des
drogues illégales de la planète, mais dans leurs discours stridents et
dans toutes leurs mesures bancales de politique étrangère, c' est
toujours la faute du Mexique, de la Colombie ou du Vietnam, ou du
Panama, ou de la Filière Française, ou de quelqu' un d' autre.

N' importe qui, sauf ceux qui continuent d' avaler ou de renifler
toutes sortes de drogues, et sauf, bien entendu, les fonctionnaires
américains véreux qui sont, avec évidence, indispensable pour
maintenir largement disponible le flot de ces marchandises.

Un de ces grands moments de l' histoire oú l' hypocrysie devient
vraiment insupportable a été atteint lors de la création de "bulletins
de notes" annuels qui devaient refléter la façon dont plusieurs pays
contrôlent le trafique de drogue
Pendant que ces pays, enfants irresponsables qui devraient se
soumettre au paternalisme bienveillant de la sage et vertueuse
Amérique, cette même sage et vertueuse Amérique se défonçait au rythme
de plusieures millions de livres de drogues chimiques.

L' Amérique a une longue histoire de fraude électorale dans sa
politique locale.
Il est largement admis, que le truquage des votes, spécialement à
Chicago, a donné à John Kennedy une victoire qu' il n' avait pas
méritée, lors des élection en 1960.

L' auteur Robert Caro a révélé comment la carrière politique de Lyndon
Jhonson, au Texas, a été facilité par la fraude électorale. Et
maintenant , plus de 2 siècles aprés la création de la République
américaine, elle ne peut encore pas, avoir d' élections
présidentielles propres.

En plus de la fraude et de sa réticence à faire des dépenses pour s'
assurer un traitement convenable des bulletins de vote, l' Amérique s'
accroche à la méthode la plus corrompue qui soit pour financer les
campagnes électorales, en redéfinissant la liberté d' expression par
l' argent privé. Plus il y en a et mieux c' est.
On pourrait pû penser que les milliards de dollars dépensé par la CIA
pour corrompre les gouvernements étrangers, auraient permis de tirer
des leçons sur la façon de procéder chez soi.

Malgré un tel historique des États-Unis, le Département d' État, ne
cesse jamais de porter, publiquement, des jugements sur les
insuffisances démocratiques des autres pays.

Les mêmes jugements qui auraient pourtant mérité de s' appliquer au
comportement du Congrés lors de la mise en accusation de Clinton,
président élu, ne sont finalement que des éléments du même dispositif
tocard que les "bulletins de notes" sur le trafique de drogue : c' est
toujours quelqu' un d' autre qui a tort.

C est même pire, les sermons sur la démocratie et les droits sont
fréquemment utilisés comme armes pour obtenir des concessions
commerciales. Il est impossible d' être plus hypocrite que cela.

Aprés avoir mentionné la corruption de la CIA durant des décennies,
ses interférences dans les affaires intérieures de nombreux pays, on
se rappelera la réaction outragée des législateurs américains, il y a
quelques années, devant l' affaire d' argent chinois supposément
introduit, mais jamais prouvé, dans le circuit des financements des
campagnes électorales américaines.

Comment ? Est-ce que ces Chinois avaient eu une telle audace !
Souiller une élection américaine !

Les mêmes législateurs n' ont jamais considéré qu' eux mêmes, en
tolérant un système de financement d' élections aussi corrompu,
avaient été responsables du fait de rendre possible de telles
malversations.

Examinons l' épouvantable fiction de Busch au sujet de l' "axe du
mal".

On a presque envie de demander si le choix des mots reflètent les
effets délétères d' une longue habitude de la cocaïne.

Le fait est que la plus part de la terreur qui règne à travers le
monde est une réponse directe à la politique étrangère américaine qui
reflète les rêvasseries et les souhaits des habitants de l' état de
Géorgie ou de l' Iwoa plutôt que les conditions à l' étranger.

En Afghanistan, Les "gamineries fraternelles" auxquelles se livrait la
CIA avec la vie des autres , au montant de 3 milliards de dollars, ont
procuré beaucoup de plaisir à Washington et à Z. Brzezensky, tant que
cela a duré, et personne ne s' inquiètait de Ben Laden et ses armées,
jusqu' au jour, oú ces derniers décidèrent que les USA étaient aussi
peu bienvenus que l' URSS.

Mais cela doit être la faute de quelqu' un d' autre, aussi , allez l'
Amérique !
Destruction de toutes les infrastructures de l' Afghanistan, massacre
de milliers d' innocents, et arrestations de milliers d' autres
personnes.

Un ancien diplomate américain a révélé que des centaines de visas
avaient été accordés aux moujahedines afghans.

Comment aurait-il autrement pû être possible que 19 individus entrent
illégalement aux E.U., certains d' entre eux y travaillant pendant des
mois, sans attirer l' attention de ces immenses agences, qui
envahissent littéralement le vie de tout le monde aux USA, que sont La
CIA, le FBI et la NSA, dont les activités d' espionnage coûtent des
dizaines de milliards de dollars par an ?
Chaque coup de téléphone, fax, emails, sont totalement contrôlés, en
Amérique, et partiellement à l' étranger.

Aprés les attaques contre le WTC et le Pentagone, de nombreux media
américains blamaient le Canada, pour avoir laisser entrer les 19
terroristes, blâmes qui se révélèrent totalement faux, par la suite.
Mais depuis d' énormes pressions furent et sont exercées sur le
gouvernement canadien au sujet du terrorisme.

L' Amérique, simplement, préfère blàmer qulqu' un d' autre plutôt que
de nettoyer devant sa propre porte.

Il y a quelques années la nation la plus riche de la terre, décidait
d' arrêter de payer ses dûs à l' ONU, violant ainsi des engagements
qu' elle avaient pris il y a de nomreuses années. D' un geste arrogant
de la main elle balaie ses responsabilités et blâme l' ONU pour
gaspillage et excés de bureaucratie.

L' affaire du "gaspillage et excés de bureaucratie" provenait, en
fait, de législateurs américains qui passèrent des années à enquêter
sur une insignifiante affaire d' immobilier qui avait mal tournée, et
qu' ils transformèrent en un cirque dément.

Les mêmes personnes s' apprêtent maintenant à dilapider des milliards
de dollars dans des projets de défense inutiles et a inventer de
nouvelles lois pour diminuer les libertés aux États Unis. Pendant que
l' ONU doit faire des pieds et des mains avec l' espoir d' en obtenir
une maigre portion.

Il y a quelques années, les experts américains, étaient abasourdis de
constater qu' un test nucléaire produisait des radiation qui
donnaient la même "signature " que celle laissée par la tête nuclaire
américaine la plus avancée. La thése de l' espionnage fut aussitàt
avancée, et ainsi commança la longue et humiliante épreuve de Wen Ho
Lee, né à Taiwan, spécialiste en armement nucléaire, travaillant aux
États-Unis.

Sa carrière fut ruinée malgré qu' il n' existait pas l' ombre d' une
preuve de sa culpabilité.

L' explication, la plus rationelle, que les Chinois, peuple
intelligent et plein de ressouces, étaient, par eux-mêmes, arrivés
aux mêmes résultats que les Américains, avait peu de chance de
prévaloire aux États-Unis, puisque quelqu' un de "là-bas" (un chinois)
était "ici" (en Amérique) pour porter le blâme.

Le cas du petit garçon cubain, Elian, fournit ce qui peut être
considéré comme le cas d' école le plus remarquable de ce comportement
américain aussi obtus qu' arrogant. Conçue dans la haine de Castro,
une politique d' immigration irréfléchie consistant à accorder le
status d' immigrants à tous les Cubains qui arrivaient à atteindre les
rivages américains aprés avoir risqué leurs vies sur des embarcations
de fortune, avait attiré, comme beacoup d' autres avant elle, la mère
de l' enfant dans un piège mortel.

Le petit garçon avait encore, à Cuba, un père qui l' aimait, de la
famille et des amis, mais ils avaient la malchance de vivre dans le
"mauvais" pays.

Voilà donc un enfant déja traumatisé qui est soumis, à Miami, à une
épreuve tout aussi rude, pendant des mois, hotage d' une idéologie
comme le furent en leur temps, les hotages américains en Iran, pendant
que les media et le gouvernement américains ridiculisaient et
insultaient, à plusieures reprises, son père, sa famille, et bien
entendu c' était encore une fois la faute de quelqu' un d' autre, dans
ce cas: Fidel Castro.

Je terminerais en disant à mes lecteurs que je n' élève aucune
objection avec ceux qui sont en désaccord avec moi, seulement avec
ceux qui tiennent des propos grossiers, ou obscènes, et je dois avouer
que les Américains en produisent une horrible quantité.

John Chuckman, journaliste politique canadien.

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN DUTCH

VS hoogste op de ranglijst van geestelijk gestoorden


Een grote en gezaghebbend onderzoek, onlangs gepubliceerd in de Journal of the American Medical Association, bevestigt wat ik allang had vermoed, namelijk dat er meer geestesziekten en krankzinnigheid, véél meer, in Amerika voorkomen dan in andere ontwikkelde landen.

Het onderzoek, geleid door een onderzoeker van Harvard Medical School, vond bewijs van mentale problemen in 26,4% van de mensen in de VS, tegenover b.v. 8,2% in Italië. De onderzoekers waren bezorgd over zaken als gebrek aan toegankelijkheid voor behandeling en niet genoeg behandeling, maar voor degenen die bezorgd zijn over een veilige en fatsoenlijke wereld denk ik dat het meest opvallende simpelweg het hoge percentage is. De wereld wordt geleid door een natie waar meer dan een kwart van de mensen echte mentale problemen heeft.

Dit is heel verontrustend. De komende jaren zal de wereld behandeld blijven alsof het de zandbak in de achtertuin is van de families Bush, Rumsfeld, Lieberman, Kerry, Albright en andere gepriviligeerde, zelfzuchtige en niet bijzonder wel-ingelichte figuren van de Amerikaanse gevestigde orde.

Amerikanen leven in een heel stressvolle samenleving, onder de strikte principes van het Sociaal Darwinisme. Een bijna onbeperkte bewondering voor hebzucht domineert de Amerikaanse cultuur op het ogenblik. Ja, Adam Smith’s 'onzichtbare hand' hield zelfbelang in, maar lees die bedachtzame en meelevende filosoof nog eens en vergelijk wat hij zegt met de chimpanseekreten die we nu uit Amerika horen.

Wat de stress betreft in de Amerikaanse samenleving: ik bedoel hiermee niet alleen de harde strijd voor het individu om het bestaan, maar ook het feit dat het hele verhaal van Amerika er één is geweest van niet aflatende agressie. Het is het verhaal van ‘met de vuist op tafel slaan’ zoals Tennessee Willams zelf het beschreef.

Als Amerika in Europa had gelegen, zou haar geschiedenis bijna parallel lopen met die van Duitsland en zijn lange, oorlogszuchtige pogingen om het continent te domineren. Het is alleen omdat zoveel van Amerika’s agressie gericht is geweest op wat dun bevolkte streken leken – als de Ohio vallei, de Great Planes, Canada, Mexico en Hawaï – dat mensen er anders over denken. Andere plaatsen waren niet zo dun bevolkt en tegenstand in plaatsen als de Filippijnen werd met veel bloedvergieten onderdrukt.

Mijn kritiek op de VS gaat niet over hoe zij haar eigen samenleving wil inrichten, maar over hoe haar activiteiten naar de rest van de wereld worden uitgestrekt. Haar acties in de wereld lijken te vaak op een akelige dronkaard die zich een weg baant in uw woonkamer en het vloerkleed onderspuugt.

Irak is een uitstekend voorbeeld. Het netto-effect van de invasie van Irak is een totaal gedestabiliseerd land, nu vol met mensen die Amerikanen verfoeien voor hun wreedheid en arrogantie, terwijl er ongetwijfeld vroeger velen waren die ergens Amerika van een afstand bewonderden. Saoedi-Arabië is ook gedestabiliseerd, waarvoor velen Bush hadden gewaarschuwd voordat hij zijn kruisvaarders op mars zond. Vele oude vrienden en geallieerden, zoals Frankrijk en Canada, zijn op een stomme manier beledigd voor het aanbieden van gezond advies en het niet meedoen aan de mars naar de hel. Tony Blair’s pathetische vod van een regering hangt aan een zijden draad na in te zijn gegaan tegen de duidelijke wil van het Britse volk. Blair heeft gemerkt dat de stem die hij dacht te hebben verdiend in de oorlogsberaadslagingen op arrogante manier terzijde geschoven werd door Bush en zijn fanatiekelingen. Israël’s staatsterrorisme op de Westoever en Gaza, vrolijk toegejuicht door Bush (en Kerry), is tot een nachtmerrie-achtig niveau gestegen en als u denkt dat dat geen verband houdt met al de haat jegens Amerika in de wereld, bent u of dwaas of u valt onder de meer dan een kwart van de Amerikanen die professionele hulp nodig heeft.

Olieprijzen zijn hoog en onstabiel, evenals het Amerikaanse tekort op de betalingsbalans. Internationale veiligheidsmaatregelen, waar degenen met een politiementaliteit zo dol op zijn, maar waarvan nog nooit aangetoond is dat ze de echte kwade jongens tegenhouden, worden stompzinnig lastig en onhandelbaar. Maar Amerika steunt Bush nog steeds, wat haar kleine stam liberalen ook wil geloven. Amerika’s geschiedenis van kleine stammen kennend, veronderstel ik dat het een gezond zelfbelang is om enthousiasme voor te wenden voor kleine dalingen in Bush’ peilingen en voor een oninteressant en nietszeggend alternatief als John Kerry.

Ik kan er niets aan doen, maar bij dit onderzoek heb ik het gevoel, net als bij zovele onderzoeken, dat deze het voor de hand liggende bevestigt.

John Chuckman

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN ARABIC

ÅÓÑÇÆíá¡ÝáÓØíä æßäÏÇ
John Chuckman - 23/10/2006 - 18:05 | ãÑÇÊ ÇáÞÑÇÁÉ: 479


ÑÆíÓ æÒÑÇÁ ßäÏÇ ÇáËáÇËæä ÈÇáãÇÆÉ¡ÓÊíÝä åÇÑÈÑ¡ ÝÞØ ÃáÞì ÎØÇÈÇð Ýí ãÃÏÈÉ ÈÚäí ÈÑíË. ÚÇÏÉð¡ áä íßæä åäÇß ÔíÆÇð ÈÇÑÒÇð Ýí åÐÇ¡ áßä ßáãÇÊå Ýí åÐÇ ÇáæÞÊ ÏÚãÊ ÈíÇäÇÊ ãËíÑÉ ááÌÏá ÃáÞÇåÇ ÈíäãÇ ÞÕÝÊ ÅÓÑÇÆíá áÈäÇä ÈÔßá æÍÔí.
åæ ÃíÖÇð ÇÓÊãÑ ÈÞíÇÏÉ æÊÏ ãä ØÑÇÒ ÌãåæÑí ÌÏíÏ ÞÈíÍ Åáì ÓíÇÓÉ ßäÏÇ ÇáæØäíÉ ÈÚÏ ÊÓãíÉ ãÑÔÍí ÇáÞíÇÏÉ ÇáÊÍÑøÑííä "ãÚÇÏæ ÅÓÑÇÆíá."
åÇÑÈÑ ÞÇá ÈÃä ÍßæãÊå ÊÏÚã Íá ÏæáÊíä Ýí ÇáÔÑÞ ÇáÃæÓØ. Êáß ÓíÇÓÉ ÃßËÑ ÇáÍßæãÇÊ ÇáÛÑÈíÉ¡ æáã íßä åäÇß ÔíÁ ÃÕáí Ýí ØÑíÞÉ åÇÑÈÑ áÚÑÖåÇ. åÐÇ ßÇä äæÚÇð ãä ãÇÏÉ ÝÇÊÑÉ ãÈåãÉ äÍä ÞÏ äÓãÚåÇ ãä ÃæáãíÑÊ äÝÓå.
"ÍßæãÊäÇ ÊÄãä ÈÍá ÏæáÊíä -- ÍíË ÝíåÇ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ ÂãäÉ æäÇÌÍÉ ÊÚíÔ Åáì ÌÇäÈ ÏæáÉ ÝáÓØíäíÉ ÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ ÝÚÇáÉ æãÓÇáãÉ."
Åäå áÃãÑ ãËíÑ ááãáÇÍÙÉ ÞáÉ ÇáÊäÇÙÑ Ýí ãÇ ÞÇáå åÇÑÈÑ " ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ ÂãäÉ æäÇÌÍÉ "ãÞÇÈá ÝáÓØíä ÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ äÇÌÍÉ æãÓÇáãÉ. ÃäÇ áÇ ÃÚÑÝ áãÇÐÇ ÇáÇÒÏåÇÑ áÇ õíÍÓÈ ááÝáÓØíäííä¡ áßä ßãÇ íÝåã Ãí ÔÎÕ ÇáÇÞÊÕÇÏ ÇáÊØæíÑí íÚÑÝ¡Ãä ÇáÅÒÏåÇÑ ãÝÊÇÍ Åáì ÇáãÄÓÓÇÊ ÇáãÊØæÑÉ ÇáÍÏíËÉ ÇáÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ. ÃäÊ ÝÞØ ÊÍÕá Úáì ÇáØÈÞÉ ÇáãÊæÓØÉ ÇáæÇÓÚÉ ÇáÊí ÊÕäÚ ÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ ãä ÇáãÍÊãá ÎÇÑÌ Çáäãæ ÇáÕÍí.
ÃäÇ ÃÔß Ãä åÇÑÈÑßÇä íÔíÑ¡ ÃËäÇÁ ÇáÏÚæÉ Åáì ÇáÓáÇã ãÚ ÏæáÊíä¡ ÈÇáßÇÏ Åáì ãæÖæÚ ãËíÑ áÌãåæÑ ÈÚäí ÈÑíË¡ Ãäå áã íÑì Ãí ÊßÇÝÄ Ýí ÇáÌÇäÈíä. Åä áã íßä¡ ÑÈãÇ åæ ÓíæÖÍ Ýí æÞÊ ÂÎÑ ãÇ ÞÕÏå.
åÇÑÈÑ áã íÚÑøÝ ãÇ ÞÕÏå ÈÝÚÇáíÉ. ÝáÓØíä¡ ßãÇ íÚÑÝ Ãí ÔÎÕ ãáã ÈÇáæÖÚ¡ áÇ íãßä Ãä Êßæä ÝÚøÇáÉ ßãÌãæÚÉ ãÍÇØÉ ÈÇáØæÇÈÚ ÇáÈÑíÏíÉ ÇáÈÇäÊæÓÊÇäÇÊ¡ ÇáãÝåæã ÇáæÍíÏ ÇáÐí ÇÚÊÈÑÊå ÅÓÑÇÆíá áÏæáÉ ÝáÓØíäíÉ ÃÈÏÇð.
Åäø ÇáÚäÕÑ ÇáÑÆíÓí Ýí ÈíÇä åÇÑÈÑ åæ ãÇ ÇáÐí íÚäíå ÈÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ æÓáãíÉ. Êáß ÇáßáãÇÊ áíÓÊ æÇÖÍÉ ÌÏÇð ßãÇ ÞÏ íÈÏæ ááæåáÉ ÇáÃæáì. ÇáÕÝÊÇä ÈÇäÊÙÇã ãáÊæíÊÇä Ýí ÇáãÚäì¡ ÎÕæÕÇð ãä ÞÈá ÇáæáÇíÇÊ ÇáãÊÍÏÉ.
ÑÈÍÊ ÍãÇÓ ÇäÊÎÇÈÇð ÕÇÏÞÇð æãÝÊæÍÇð Ýí ÝáÓØíä¡ ãÝÍæÕÇð ÈÏÞÉ ÚÇáãíÇð¡ áßä äÊíÌÉ Êáß ÇáÇäÊÎÇÈÇÊ ßÇäÊ ãÑÝæÖÉ ãä ÞÈá åÇÑÈÑ æÂÎÑíä¡ ãÇ ÓÈÈ ÍÇáÉ ÝæÖì Ýí ÇáÔÄæä ÇáÝáÓØíäíÉ¡ ãä ÇáãÍÊãá Ãä ÃÌåÒÉ Ããä ÅÓÑÇÆíá äæÊ ÇáÔíÁ ÐÇÊå ÚäÏãÇ ÏÚãÊ ÍãÇÓ ÓÑÇð ÞÈá ÓäæÇÊ áãÚÇÑÖÉ ÝÊÍ. ÍãÇÓ áã íÊÚáã ÇáßáãÉ ÇáÓÍÑíÉ ÇáãØáæÈÉ Íæá ÇáÇÚÊÑÇÝ ÈÅÓÑÇÆíá¡ ÑÛã Ðáß ÍãÇÓ áÇ íÔßá ÊåÏíÏÇð Åáì ÅÓÑÇÆíá¡ Ãæ ÈæÖæÍ ÃÌåÒÉ Ããä ÅÓÑÇÆíá áã Êßä ÃÈÏÇð áÊÓÇÚÏå Ýí ÇáãÑßÒ ÇáÃæá.
ÍãÇÓ áíÓ ãÓáÍÇð ÈÔßá ÌíÏ¡ æáÇ åæ¡ ãÍÇØ æãÎÊÑÞ ãä ÞÈá ÅÓÑÇÆíá¡ ÞÇÏÑ Úáì Ãä íÕÈÍ ßÐáß. ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÊÊÍÏË ßãÇ áæ ÃäåÇ áÇ ÊÏÑß Ãä ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÚíÈ áÇ íÛÊÝÑ¡ áßä ÇáÍßæãÇÊ ÊÝÔá Ýí ÃÛáÈ ÇáÃÍíÇä Ýí ÇáÇÚÊÑÇÝ ÈÇáÍßæãÇÊ ÇáÃÎÑì. ÇáæáÇíÇÊ ÇáãÊÍÏÉ Êãáß ÞÇÆãÉ ØæíáÉ áÍßæãÇÊ áã ÊÚÊÑÝ ÈåÇ Ýí ÇáãÇÖí æÍßæãÇÊ áÇ ÊÚÊÑÝ ÈåÇ ÇáÂä. åÐÇ áíÓ ÏÇÆãÇ ÔíÆÇð ÐßíÇð áÝÚáå¡ áßäå áíÓ ÌÑíãÉ¡ åæ áíÓ ÍÊì åÝæÉ¡ æåæ ÞÏ íßæä ÝÞØÉ äÞØÉ ÊÝÇæÖ.
ÍãÇÓ áã ÊÛÒæ ÅÓÑÇÆíá¡ æáã ÊÌÑí ÍãáÉ ÇÛÊíÇá áÒÚãÇÁ ÅÓÑÇÆíáííä - ßáÇ ÇáÚãáíÊíä ÅÓÑÇÆíá ßÑÑÊåãÇ ÖÏ ÝáÓØíäííä Ýí ÃæÞÇÊ ÛíÑ ãÚÏæÏÉ. Ýí ßá ãÑÉ ÈÚÖ ÇáÃÝÑÇÏ ÇáÓÇÎØíä Ýí ÛÒÉ íØáÞæä ÕÇÑæÎÇð ãÍáíÇð ÛíÑ äÇÝÚ¡ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÊÛÊÇá ÃÚÖÇÁÇð ãä ÍãÇÓ Ãæ ÊÑÓá ÏÈÇÈÇÊåÇ Åáì ÛÒÉ¡ ÞÇÊáÉð ãÏäííä. ãä ÇáãÝÊÑÖ , ÝáÓØíä ÓáãíÉ ÓÊßæä æÍÏÉ ÅãÇ ÍíË áíÓ åäÇß ÃäÇÓ ÓÇÎØíä Ãæ ÍíË ÊæÌÏ ÏæáÉ ÔÑØÉ ßÝæÁÉ ÊæÞÝåã ÌãíÚÇð.
åÐÇ ÊæÞÚ ÛíÑ ãÚÞæá. åæ ÈÈÓÇØÉ áÇ íãßä Ãä íßæä. ãÚ ßá æÙÇÆÝ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÇáÚäíÝÉ æÇáÃÚãÇá ÇáÇäÊÞÇãíÉ¡ åí áã íÓÈÞ Ãä ßÇäÊ ÞÇÏÑÉ Úáì ÝÑÖ ÓáÇã ãØáÞ¡ áíÓ ÍÊì Úáì ÃÑÖåÇ ÇáÎÇÕÉ. ßÇä åäÇß ÃÚÏÇÏÇð ßÈíÑÉ ãä ÍÇáÇÊ ÇáãÓÊæØäíä ÇáÅÓÑÇÆíáííä ÇáãÊãÑÏíä íØáÞæä ÇáäÇÑ Úáì ÝáÓØíäííä ÃÈÑíÇÁ ÇáÐíä íáÊÞØæä ÒíÊæäÇ Ãæ íÏíÑæä ÎÑÇÝÇð¡ æßÇä åäÇß ÞÊá ÌãÇÚí áÝáÓØíäííä Ýí ÚÏÏ ãä ÇáãÑÇÊ¡ ßãÇ Ýí ÞÈÉ ÇáÕÎÑÉ æÌÈá Çáåíßá. ãÇ åæ ãÞÏÇÑ ÇáÞÏÑÉ ÇáÃÞá áÃí ÓáØÉ ÝáÓØíäíÉ áÝÑÖ ÓáÇã ãØáÞ Ýí ÇáæÞÊ ÇáÐí ÊãäÍåÇ Ýíå ÅÓÑÇÆíá ãÕÇÏÑ ãÍÏæÏÉ æÍÑíÉ ÍÑßÉ ÈÔßá ÊÇÝå ¿
ÈæÇÞÚíÉ¡ ÊæÞÚ ÇáÓáÇã ÇáãØáÞ íÌÈ Ãä õíÊÑÌã ßÍÇÌÒ ãÊÚãÏ Åáì ãÓÊæØäÉ ÓáÇã ÃÕíáÉ. áãÇÐÇ ÓÊÓÊÚãá ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÍÇÌÒ Åáì ÇáÓáÇã Ýí ÇáæÞÊ ÇáÐí áã ÊÝÔá ÈíÇäÇÊ ãÓÄæáíåÇ ÃÈÏÇð Ýí ÐßÑ ÇáÓáÇã¿
áÃä ÃßËÑ ÒÚãÇÁ ÅÓÑÇÆíá¡ ãä ÇáãÍÊãá ßáåã¡ ÃÈÏÇð áã íÊÑßæÇ ÇáÍáã ÇáãÓÚæÑ áÊÍÞíÞ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÇáÃÚÙã , ãÝåæã áÇ íÓãÍ ÈæÌæÏ áÇ ÇáÖÝÉ ÇáÛÑÈíÉ æáÇ ÇáÝáÓØíäííä. áíÓ ßá ÒÚíã ÊÍÏË ÚáäÇð Íæá åÐÇ ÇáãæÖæÚ¡ áßä ÚÏÏÇð ãäåã ÝÚáæÇ. ÇáÃÑÞÇã ÇáÈÇÑÒÉ ÇáÃÎÑì Ýí ÅÓÑÇÆíá ãä æÞÊ áÂÎÑ ÊÍÏËæÇ ÃíÖÇð áãÕáÍÉ åÐÇ ÇáåÏÝ ÇáÊÏãíÑí.
åäÇß áä íÈÏæ Ãí ÔÑÍ ÚÞáÇäí¡ ãÇ ÚÏÇ ÇáÏÚã ÇáÚÑíÖ áåÐÇ ÇáåÏÝ¡ áÑÝÖ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÇáÏÇÆã ááÇãÊËÇá Åáì ÇáÇÊÝÇÞíÇÊ ÇáÊí ßÇä íãßä Ãä ÊäÊÌ ÓáÇãÇð¡ ÇÊÝÞíÇÊ ÃæÓáæÇ ÑÈãÇ Êßæä ÇáãËÇá ÇáÃÚÙã. ÚãáÊ ÅÓÑÇÆíá æÞÊÇð ÅÖÇÝíÇð áÊÍØíã ÇÊÝÇÞíÇÊ ÃæÓáæ¡ äÇÓÈíä ÝÔáåã ÏÇÆãÇð Ýí ÇáÚáä Åáì ÇáÝáÓØíäííä ÐÇÊåã ÇáÐíä ÚãáæÇ ÈÌÏ áÑÄíÉ æáÇÏÉ ÇáÇÊÝÇÞíÇÊ. ÑÝÖ ÇáÓíÇÓíæä ÇáÅÓÑÇÆíáíæä ÇáÃßËÑ ÊØÑÝÇ ÇáÇÊÝÇÞíÇÊ ÈÔßá ãÝÊæÍ ãäÐ ÇáÈÏÇíÉ.
ÇáÈíÇä ÇáÊÕÚíÏí Ýí ÎØÇÈ åÇÑÈÑ¡ ÕæÊå íÑÊÝÚ ÈÇáÞæÉ æÌãåæÑå íÑÊÝÚ áÃÞÏÇãå ÈÔßá ÍÑÝí¡ ßÇä¡ "ÏæáÉ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ,ÃãÉ ÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ¡ åæÌãÊ ÈÍÒÈ Çááå , ãäÙãÉ ÅÑåÇÈíÉ -- Ýí ÇáÍÞíÞÉ ãäÙãÉ ÅÑåÇÈíÉ õÃÏÑÌÊ ÈÔßáò ÛíÑ ÔÑÚí Ýí åÐå ÇáÈáÇÏ¡ "æ" ÚäÏãÇ íÊÚáÞ ÇáÃãÑ ÈÇáÊÚÇãá ãÚ ÍÑÈ Èíä ÅÓÑÇÆíá æãäÙãÉ ÅÑåÇÈíÉ¡ åÐå ÇáÈáÇÏ æåÐå ÇáÍßæãÉ áÇ íÓÊØíÚÇä æáä íßæäÇä ãÍÇíÏíä."
ÊÚÑíÝ åÇÑÈÑ ááÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ íÈÏæ æßÃäå ÇáÊÚÑíÝ ÇáÃãÑíßí áåÇ: ÇáÍßæãÇÊ ÇáÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ åí ÇáÊí ÊÊÝÞ ãÚ ÇáÓíÇÓÉ ÇáÃãÑíßíÉ. äÍä äÚÑÝ Ãä ÃãÑíßÇ ÃÓÞØÊ ÇáÚÏíÏ ãä ÇáÍßæãÇÊ ÇáÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ Ýí ÇáÚÇáã ãÇ ÈÚÏ ÇáÍÑÈ¡ íÊÖãä Ðáß ÃæáÆß Ýí åÇíÊí¡ ÊÔíáí¡ ÅíÑÇä¡ æÛæÇÊíãÇáÇ. Çáíæã åí ÊåÏÏ ÍßæãÉ ãäÊÎÈÉ Úáì äÍæò äÙíÝ Ýí ÝíäÒæíáÇ æÊåãá ÊãÇãÇð ÍßæãÉ ãäÊÎÈÉ Úáì äÍæò äÙíÝ Ýí ÝáÓØíä.
ÃãÑíßÇ õÊÙåÑ äÝÓåÇ ÌÇåÒÉ ÏÇÆãÇð ááÚãá ãÚ ÃæÛÇÏ ãÚÇÏíä áÍÞæÞ ÇáÅäÓÇä ÚäÏãÇ ÊÔÚÑ Ãä ãÕÇáÍ ãåãÉ ãåÏÏÉ ÈÇáÖíÇÚ¡ ÇáÌäÑÇá ÇáÈÇßÓÊÇäí ãÔÑøÝ æÇáÈÚÖ ãä ÃÓíÇÏ ÍÑÈ ÊÍÇáÝ ÇáÔãÇá ÇáãÎíÝíä Ýí ÃÝÛÇäÓÊÇä ÃãËáÉ ÍÇáíÉ. ßÇä åäÇß ÇáÚÔÑÇÊ ÃßËÑ ÃËäÇÁ ÇáÍÑÈ ÇáÈÇÑÏÉ¡ íÊÖãä Ðáß ÇáÑæãÇäí ÏÑÇßæáÇ ÓíæÓíÓßæ æÔÇå ÅíÑÇä¡ æÖÚæÇ Ýí ÇáÓáØÉ ãä ÞÈá ÎáÇá ÇäÞáÇÈ ÃÓÞØ ÍßæãÉ ÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ. Åä ÇáÊÚÑíÝ ÇáÃãÑíßí ááÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ ÇäÊÞÇÆí ÌÏÇð Ýí ÃÍÓä ÇáÃÍæÇá.
ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÚÑÖÊ Ýåã ããÇËá ááÏíãÞÑÇØíÉ ãä ÇáÈÏÇíÉ. ÅÓÑÇÆíá ßÇäÊ ÌÇåÒÉ áãÓÇÚÏÉ ÝÑäÓÇ æÈÑíØÇäíÇ áÛÒæ ÇáÓæíÓ Ýí ÇáÎãÓíäÇÊ¡ ÇáÚãá ÇáÐí ãËøá ÇäÞØÇÚ äÝÓ ÞÈíÍ ÃÎíÑ ãä ÇÓÊÚãÇÑíÉ ÇáÞÑä ÇáÊÇÓÚ ÚÔÑ. ÚãáÊ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ãÈÇÔÑÉ áÓäæÇÊ ÈÇáÊÝÑÞÉ ÇáÚäÕÑíÉ Ýí ÌäæÈ ÃÝÑíÞíÇ¡ ÍÊì ÈÔßáò ÓÑí ÞÏãÊ áåÇ ãÓÇÚÏÊåÇ Ýí ÊØæíÑ æÇÎÊÈÇÑ ÓáÇÍ äææí (ÃÓáÍÉ ææÓÇÆá ÃÒíáæÇ Úä ØÑíÞ ÇáæáÇíÇÊ ÇáãÊÍÏÉ ÚäÏãÇ ÃÎÐ ÇáãÄÊãÑ ÇáæØäí ÇáÃÝÑíÞí ÇáÓáØÉ). ÓÇÝÇß¡ ÔÑØÉ ÇáÔÇå ÇáÓÑíÉ¡ ÇáÐíä ßÇä ÇÎÊÕÇÕåã ÓÍÈ ÃÙÇÝÑ ÇáäÇÓ¡ ßÇäæÇ ãÏÑÈíä ãä ÞÈá ÇáæßáÇÁ ÇáÃãÑíßÇä æÇáÅÓÑÇÆíáííä.
ÈíÇä åÇÑÈÑ ÇáÏÚã Çáßáí áÅÓÑÇÆíá Ýí áÈäÇä áíÓ ÈÇáÊæÇÝÞ ãÚ æÌåÇÊ ÇáäÙÑ æÇáÓíÇÓÇÊ ÇáßäÏíÉ ÇáÊÞáíÏíÉ. íÑíÏ ÇáßäÏíæä ãíÒÇäÇð æÅäÕÇÝ. ÇáÏÚã ÛíÑ ÇáÞÏíÑ áÅÓÑÇÆíá ãÓÇæí áÅÚØÇÆåÇ ãÑæÑÇð ÍÑÇð áÊßÑÇÑ ÇáÚÏíÏ ãä ÇáÃÔíÇÁ ÇáæÍÔíÉ ÇáÊí ÝÚáÊåÇ¡ ÃÔíÇÁ ÃßËÑ ÇáßäÏííä áÇ íÏÚãæäåÇ.
ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÃËÈÊÊ¡ ãÑÇÑÇð æÊßÑÇÑÇð¡ ÅäåÇ ÊÍÊÇÌ ÅÚÇÞÉ äÝæÐ ÇáÂÎÑíä. ÇäÊÞÇÏ ÅÓÑÇÆíá áÇ íÌÚá Ãí ÃÍÏ ãÚÇÏí áÅÓÑÇÆíá. ÅÓÑÇÆíá¡ ãä ÇáãÍÒä¡ ÚãáÊ ÇáÚÏíÏ ãä ÇáÃÔíÇÁ ÇáãÎÒíÉ ÇáÊí ÊØáÈ äÞÏÇð ãä ÃæáÆß ÇáÐíä íÍÈæä ÇáÍÑíÉ æÍÞæÞ ÇáÅäÓÇä¡ ÈÏÁÇð ÈÇÓÊãÑÇÑåÇ Ýí ÇáÓÌä ÇáÚãáÇÞ Ýí ÇáåæÇÁ ÇáØáÞ áÃÑÈÚíä ÓäÉ.
åÇÑÈÑ íÌÈ Ãä íÚÑÝ ÈÃäå ÚäÏãÇ íÊÍÏË ÒÚãÇÁ ÅÓÑÇÆíáíæä ãËá ÃæáãíÑÊ Ãæ ÔÇÑæä Úä ÏæáÊíä¡ åã áÇ íÚäæä ÇáÔíÁ äÝÓå ÇáÐí ÞÏ íÊæÞÚå ãÑÇÞÈæä ãÚÞæáæä.
åã íÞÕÏæä ÏæáÉ ÖÚíÝÉ ãÍÇØÉ ÈÑÏÝ ÍíË íÌÈ ááÇäÊÎÇÈÇÊ ÈËÈÇÊ Ãä ÊÏÚã æÌåÉ äÙÑ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÝÞØ Íæá ßá ÔíÁ , ÏæáÉ æÕæáåÇ Åáì ÇáÚÇáã ÚãáíÇð ÊÍÊ ÓíØÑÉ ÅÓÑÇÆíá¡ æÏæáÉ ãæÇØäæäåÇ áÇ íãáßæä ÅÏÚÇÁÇÊ ãåãÇ ßÇä ãä ÃÌá ÇáãäÇÒá¡ÇáãÒÇÑÚ¡ æÇáãáßíÉ ÇáÃÎÑì ÇáãÓÊæáì ÚáíåÇ ãä ÞÈá ÅÓÑÇÆíá.ãÆÇÊ ÂáÇÝ ÇáãÓÊæØäíä ÇáÅÓÑÇÆíáííä ÇáÐíä íÚíÔæä Ýí ÇáÖÝÉ ÇáÛÑÈíÉ¡ Ýí ÇáãáßíÉ ÇáÊí ÃõÎÐÊ ÊÏÑíÌíÇð ãäÐ ÍÑÈ ÇáÃíÇã ÇáÓÊÉ åäÇß áíÈÞæä. ÍÞæÞ ãáßíÉ ÇáÝáÓØíäííä Åáì ÇáÈíæÊ æÇáãÄÓÓÇÊ Ýí ÇáÞÏÓ¡ ÇáÊí åã ãäÒÚÌíä ãäåÇ ÈÔßá ÊÏÑíÍí ÈÔßá ÊÏÑíÌí¡ ÊÕÈÍ ãáÛíÉ.
ÛÒÊ ÅÓÑÇÆíá áÈäÇä ãÑÊíä ÈÏæä ãÈÑÑ ÔÑÚí. åí ÞÊáÊ ÇáÚÏíÏ ãä ÇáÂáÇÝ Ýí ÇáãÑÉ ÇáÃæáì æÍæÇáí 1,600 ÂÎÑ ãÑÉ.ÏãÑÊ ãÏíäÉ ÈíÑæÊ ÇáÌãíáÉ Ýí ÇáãÑÉ ÇáÃæáì æÌÒÁ ãäÇÓÈ ãä ÇáãÏíäÉ ÇáãÚÇÏÉ ÇáÈäÇÁ ÂÎÑ ãÑÉ. ÃÓÞØÊ ÂáÇÝ ÇáÞäÇÈá ÇáÚäÞæÏíÉ¡ ÇáÓáÇÍ ÇáÃßËÑ ÔÑÇð Ýí ÇáÊÑÓÇäÉ ÇáÃãÑíßíÉ¡ Ýí ÇáãäÇØÞ ÇáãÏäíÉ. Ýí ÇáæÇÞÚ¡ åÐÇ ÇáÚãá ÎáÞ ÍÞá ÃáÛÇã ÚãáÇÞ¡ Úãá ÛíÑ ÔÑÚí ÈãæÌÈ ÇáãÚÇåÏÉ ÇáÏæáíÉ¡ ãÚ ÃáÛÇã ÊäÝÌÑ ãÚ ÞØÚ ãä Óáß ÍÇÏ ÊÔæå ÇáÌÓã.
ÍÒÈ Çááå ÇáÐí ßÇä ÚÐÑ ÅÓÑÇÆíá áÛÒæ áÈäÇä ÂÎÑ ãÑÉ áã íÛÒæÅÓÑÇÆíá. åã íØáÞæä ÕæÇÑíÎ ÇáßÇÊíæÔÇ ÎÇÕÊåã ÛíÑ ÇáãÄËÑÉ äÓÈíÇð ÝÞØ ÚäÏãÇ ÊäÊåß ÞæÇÊ ÅÓÑÇÆíáíÉ ÇáÍÏæÏ¡ Ãíø åã íÚãáæä ÈÈÚÖ ÇáÇäÊÙÇã Ýí ÇáÓÑ. æÙíÝÉ ÍÒÈ Çááå ÇáÑÆíÓíÉ¡ Úáì ÇáÑÛã ãä ßá ÇáÎØÇÈÇÊ Íæá ÇáÅÑåÇÈííä¡ Ãä Êßæä ÞæÉ ÝÏÇÆíÉ ãÚÇÑÖÉ Åáì ÇáÇÍÊáÇá ÇáÅÓÑÇÆíáí ÌäæÈ áÈäÇä. ÑÛÈÊ ÅÓÑÇÆíá áãÏÉ ØæíáÉ Ãä ÊæÓÚ ÍÏæÏåÇ Åáì Êáß ÇáãäØÞÉ¡ æåäÇß ÈíÇäÇÊ Ýí ÇáÓÌá Åáì Ðáß ÇáÊÃËíÑ¡ ÊÚÈíÑ ÂÎÑ áÅÓÑÇÆíá ÇáÃÚÙã. ÇÍÊáÊ ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÌäæÈ áÈäÇä áÚÏÉ ÓäæÇÊ ÈÚÏ ÇÍÊáÇáåÇ ÇáÃæá¡ æãÇ ÒÇáÊ ÊÊãÓß ÈÞØÚÉ ÃÑÖ ÈÚÏ ÇäÓÍÇÈåÇ.

John Chuckman ßÇÊÈ ãÓÊÞá¡ ÇÞÊÕÇÏí ÑÆíÓí ãÊÞÇÚÏ áÊíßÓÇßæ ßäÏÇ.

CHUCKMAN TRANSLATION: IN CHINESE

中国新式武器震惊美国 (图文)
2007/07/27 16:53 阅读: 1

摘要: 6月26日出版的《巴勒斯坦编年史》杂志以《中国的新式武器》为题，节选加拿大作家约翰•恰克曼(John Chuckman)的著作《美帝国的衰落》，表示中国的新式武器屡屡出乎美国意料。文章说，中国并未挑战美国的世界领导地位，也从未将挑战美国的世界领袖地位作为自己的目标，然而中国的新式武器频频让美国感到震惊不安。
东方网

氢弹爆炸时产生的冷凝云

6月26日出版的《巴勒斯坦编年史》杂志以《中国的新式武器》为题，节选加拿大作家约翰•恰克曼(John Chuckman)的著作《美帝国的衰落》，表示中国的新式武器屡屡出乎美国意料。文章说，中国并未挑战美国的世界领导地位，也从未将挑战美国的世界领袖地位作为自己的目标，然而中国的新式武器频频让美国感到震惊不安。

文章指出，中国最近在军事问题上多次让美国吃惊，尤其让美国感到诧异的是，美国人在相关领域的表现并不理想，因此一部分美国行政机构开始对此感到烦燥不安。


中国多年前成功进行一枚热核弹头试爆之后，美国立即通过大气采样展开化学成份分析。美国人在化学分析中惊讶地发现，中国的核武研制水平已经赶上了美国当时最好的W-88型核弹头。美国人根本不相信中国会在短时间内取得如此巨大的成果，甚至怀疑美国内部出现了叛徒，向中国泄露核武机密。这最终在美国导致了一场类似麦卡锡运动的清查叛变者行动。(注：麦卡锡•约瑟夫•雷芒德，美国政治家，来自威斯康星州的美国参议员，他曾指责许多军队官员、新闻媒介内部工作人员和公众人物为共产党，并指挥一个永久委员会分会对他们进行调查和公开审判。他的指控从未成立，1954年他受到议会的谴责。)

清查活动最终将矛头集中指向洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室的一名华裔美国科学家。《纽约时报》随后在美国联邦调查局(FBI)授意下，对这名华裔科学家进行了极其严厉的含沙射影的攻击。联邦调查局并对这名华裔科学家提出了一系列荒谬可笑的指控，企图对他提起诉讼，但是最后因为缺少事实依据而不得不将他释放。然而这名华裔科学家的科研生涯就此结束，而他的个人声誉也被蒙上了永远的污点。

然而事实上正是中国自己的新一代充满智慧的科学家与工程师，依靠自己的实力研发出了最新技术。当然，他们也借鉴了一些随处可得的、公开的世界新科技成果。迄今为止，中国已经将大量人造地球卫星送入地球轨道，并实现了载人航天飞行，同时还在实施极具挑战性的太空项目计划，包括登月计划等。美国军方一直习惯于将近地空间视为其最重要的基地，并将成为美军未来“战力投送”的跳板。美国当前正在积极实施太空军事化计划，而美国也已经感到了主要来自中国的潜在挑战。印度当前在太空军事化领域的实力则相对较弱。

中国今年初进行的卫星摧毁试验令美国大惊失色。中国卫星摧毁试验的目标是一颗废弃的气象卫星，这颗气象卫星位于地球上空约500英里的运行轨道，而美国的间谍卫星和全球定位卫星也几乎处于相同高度的运行轨道。中国的卫星摧毁试验显然获得了成功，废弃气象卫星被成功摧毁。中国卫星摧毁试验发出的信号非常清楚和明确：中国现在已经具备摧毁美国卫星的能力，而这些卫星现在被称为是美国的“战争之眼”。而就在中国实施卫星摧毁试验之前不久，美国刚刚承认，中国发射的高能激光，或者其它某种从地面发射的定向能量束，曾射中美国一颗运行在中国上空的间谍卫星，并使得这颗间谍卫星短暂“失明”。

卫星摧毁试验引起了各界对于中国的攻击性及其太空军事化的大量指责，但是这些主张是完全错误的。事实上，美国多年来一直致力于暗中逐步实现太空军事化。举例来说，比如航天飞机项目计划，实际上通常都是以军事用途为目的。对于科研活动而言，航天飞机无疑太过昂贵，而且效率也极低，根本无法满足科研要求，有时甚至会导致重要科研项目被迫推迟。

美国的大部分军事卫星与间谍卫星的实际性能至今仍然是一个谜。美国积极广泛地使用这些卫星，使得它们事实上已经成为一种武器。与美国友好的国家会获得美国卫星提供的数据资料支持，这些资料的价值无法估量。与此同时，那些与美国相对立的国家则会处于一种非常不利的位置。美国曾经为了自己的利益，利用军事卫星以及间谍卫星，为伊拉克入侵伊朗以及以色列袭击黎巴嫩提供情报支持。在上述两种情形下，美国的军事卫星和间谍卫星担负的并非防御角色，而是在支持进攻。

或许最明目张胆的太空军事化就是美国的新反导导弹项目计划，因为该计划不仅仅是满足于开展研究而已，还将部署实际武器系统。不管美国现有的反导系统是多么的无效－－迄今为止在反导试验中已经失败多次，而独立科学家也告诉我们，利用电脑编程控制反导系统事实上已经超出了人类当前的能力范围，但是美国再次投入上百亿美元用于反导系统建设已经无法不让中国和俄罗斯感到警惕不安。一些科学家和专家早在几年前就已经警告说，美国的新“星球大战”项目计划将带来新一轮军备竞赛，他们的预言无疑是正确的。针对美国的反导系统，俄罗斯已经宣布将开发新型弹头，新型弹头在飞向目标时将以不可预知的螺旋曲线飞行。此外，俄罗斯可能也会将高精度的“白杨－M”型洲际导弹投入服役。

中国针对美国反导系统的反应则包括其摧毁间谍卫星的能力，以及在增加其洲际导弹数量的同时，进一步改进洲际导弹的性能质量。中国的东风－31A型导弹是其第一种固体燃料洲际导弹，这意味着它可以比其它现有的液体燃料导弹发射得更快，同时它也是中国第一种可以覆盖美国每一个角落的洲际导弹。东风－31A型洲际导弹可以机动发射，潜射型也正在研发当中。然而特别值得注意的是，中国的核威慑力量迄今为止依然非常有限，只包括已知的大约24枚导弹，是否在此基础上有所增加尚不得而知，而即使有所增加数量也应该有限。

中国使用卫星摧毁试验试图引起美国就反导导弹系统举行谈判磋商的注意。而事实上，他们也的确引起了美国的关注，华盛顿对此作出了非常不愉快的反应，但是未来双方是否会就此举行谈判尚不得而知。美国对于中国立即提议就反对太空军事化条约举行谈判置之不理。美国固执地坚持其反导防御立场，声称反导系统是其全面反恐举措的一个有效组成部分。然而美国的相关言论的可信程度微乎其微，美国计划在前苏联的卫星国部署部分反导导弹，而相关计划针对俄罗斯的成份非常大。此外，还有消息说，美国也计划在阿富汗部署反导导弹，意在针对中国的洲际弹道导弹(ICBM)。

最近来自中国的另一个军事奇迹是其歼－10后掠翼战斗机揭开面纱公诸于众。中国此前一直对歼－10战斗机的研发制造工作严加保密，因此它突然出现在世人面前让大家颇感惊讶。歼－10战斗机与美国F－16战斗机、欧洲“台风”战斗机以及俄罗斯米格－29战斗机大体上属于同一代战斗机，尽管它的具体性能指标目前尚不清楚。不管它是否达到了上述其它一线超音速战斗机的性能标准，歼－10战斗机都代表着中国在技术和生产领域取得的非凡成就。

CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: PIZZA - CRUST AND SEVERAL SPECIAL TOPPING COMBINATIONS

I have been a serious cook for decades, this being one of the reasons I was able to serve as restaurant reviewer for a metropolitan newspaper. When I say "a serious cook," I mean someone who goes beyond using the recipes of others and creates his or her own. From time to time I will post some of mine.


CHUCKMAN’S PIZZA MEDITERRANEAN

If you follow the directions, you will enjoy one of the best pizzas you've ever eaten.


Whole wheat or white crust – recipe below
Thin layer tomato sauce – recipe reference below
Oil-soaked sun-dried tomatoes, thinly sliced
Crumbled (pre-cooked) Italian sweet sausage
Thinly-sliced canned artichokes
Thinly-sliced onion, salted and soaked ahead
Thin-sliced red pepper, salted and soaked ahead
Fresh mushrooms, thinly-sliced
Kalamata olives
Mozzarella cheese - grated
Fontina cheese - grated
Olive oil


PIZZA CRUST – USE ALSO FOR A NICE FOCCACIO

Whole Wheat Flour and All Purpose Unbleached Flour mixed dry – up to 60% Whole Wheat - 3 Cups Total (Note: pour about 3 ½ cups – saving a bit for dusting later – also amount of Flour absorbed by water varies with climate and weather).

Note: If you do not want Whole Wheat crust, use only All Purpose White.

Lukewarm Water - 1 Cup
Regular dry yeast – 1 Teaspoon
Salt – about 1 Teaspoon
Oil – to use as required
Sugar – pinch or two (not required but helps yeast rise faster)


Place yeast (and sugar if using) into container with warm water. In about 5 minutes, providing room is warm, this is ready to mix with flour. Pour about half of flour mix into large bowl with yeasty water; stir until incorporated; add a splash or two of oil; add more flour and stir more; continue until you have desired consistency which is not too sticky.

Leave dough to rise – Suggestion: cover bowl with plastic wrap and then a tea towel –place bowl over sauce pan full of hot tap water – this will assure good rising even when room is not hot. Depending on conditions, rising will take 1 or 2 hours.

Dust risen dough for rolling out – Oil large cookie sheet and roll dough with rolling pin, or you can use hands pounding and stretching. Once sheet is covered, lightly oil top of dough. Cover rolled dough with plastic wrap loosely and place cookie sheet over pan of hot tap water for
second rising.

When dough has risen, remove plastic and bake briefly in preheated at 450 . About 3 to 4 minutes should do to par-cook crust – this gives better crust results than putting toppings on raw dough. Remove par-cooked dough from oven and allow to briefly cool.

Dress the Crust with desired toppings – recommended order: sauce, cheese, chunky toppings. Bake again in 450 oven for between 5 and 10 minutes. You must watch because different thicknesses of topping will need more or less time. You can check edge of crust after first 5 minutes.

Corn Meal Option:

Sprinkle bottom of oiled cookie sheet with golden corn meal before rolling out dough. Adds a pleasant crispness and taste.

Note for variations in crust:

If you use about 1/2 to 2/3 more water, you will get a very sticky dough which cannot be rolled and must be spread out by hand. Doing this will yield a chewier crust filled with the air pockets characteristic of gourmet breads.

Another variation is to use Pastry Flour instead of All-purpose Flour and to incorpoate an egg white in the dough. Some gourmet pizzerias use a crust like this produces. It is good, but not my favorite.

Note for Foccacio: Dough is baked only once – 5 to 8 minutes at 450. Watch it for perfect light gold color. It is first brushed with oil and lightly sprinkled with coarse sea salt.

You may also very lightly sprinkle with parmesan grated. Try light lightly sprinkling with Rosemary. If you want garlic twist, crush a few cloves with salt in a mortar and pestle, then add to oil.


GENERAL TOPPING NOTES

Use my general red sauce from Eggplant parmesan (below). You may leave out pepper flakes or increase them as per your taste. In a pinch, use a good bottled sauce.

Toppings like Italian sausage or bacon should be lightly pan-cooked before putting on pizza. Cooking time for crust is not adequate for such raw ingredients to fully cook unless they are used in tiny slices.

Classic cheese topping is Mozzarella, but Mozzarella and Parmesan (or Asiago) or Fontina and Provolone (my favorite for a cheese pizza) are excellent. Grating the cheese works best for even melting.


A CLASSIC COMBINATION

Chunks of Sweet Italian Sausage and Onions (treated as above). Serve with simple green salad with red vinegar and oil dressing.


MY NICOISE PIZZA

Use chunks of canned tuna; Kalamata or Nicoise olives; thin slices of Fennel; Small par-boiled chunks of potato; small slices of par-boiled greenbeans; a few capers; anchovies; crumbled hard-boiled egg; ultra-thin tomato slices on bottom.

CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: EGGPLANT PARMESAN

CHUCKMAN'S EGGPLANT PARMESAN
A memorable dish

(Remember, this is a recipe not written down till recently. I use the pinch-and-peek-and-taste method when I cook like this.)


3 or 4 medium eggplants (or their large-sized equivalent) - peeled and cut in half lengthwise, then sliced into moderately thick slices.
You don't have to peel if you like the skin.

Parmesan cheese - grated - crucial that this be pretty decent stuff (no Kraft!).

Mozzarella cheese - grated as for pizza - again quality cheese is important - Tre Stella whole milk is very good. Lots of this.

Flour - sprinkled on plate for coating.

Breadcrumbs - sprinkled on plate for coating.

Eggs - beaten in a bowl for dipping to coat. Add a little milk to thin.

Salt - mixed in with flour - to taste. Be generous.

MY BASIC RED SAUCE:

Use crushed canned tomatoes (two large cans), a generous addition of dry white wine, a couple of anchovies or equivalent anchovy paste, a small can of tomato paste, a finely chopped onion, a sprinkling of Basil, a small sprinkling of red chilies (only enough to hint - sauce is not to be hot), and a couple of tablespoons of sugar. Bring to boil and simmer over low heat, covered, for maybe an hour.

Olive oil


Dip each slice of eggplant slice lightly in flour (salted), then in egg, then in breadcrumbs. The slices are then nicely fried till golden and put aside to cool (By the way, these themselves make a delicious snack or side dish).

Oil a large rectangular pyrex casserole-type oven pan.

Dribble a little sauce on bottom of pan. Place cool eggplant (fried) slices over bottom. Dribble sauce over. Sprinkle each type of cheese over (be generous), but suit your taste preferences on proportions. Do another layer, etc., until ingredients used up. Finish top with sauce and then cheese.

Bake in a not-very-high oven (250-300) with aluminum foil on top. Let this go awhile. Check in an hour. You want sauce to slowly thicken a bit and of course cheese to melt and bubble through. You have to judge. You'll need at least an hour of this slow cooking. Finish off in higher oven (say 350) with no cover (note if things got a little too dry, add a touch of sauce first.). Watch this carefully so it doesn't dry up too much.

The key to this cooking technique is to obtain a result of a thickened slush of sauce with savory cooked cheese baked in - this is my preference anyway.

Simpler: You could also just bake the whole thing, once assembled, in a regular fashion. Maybe about 350, uncovered, for not long, say 20 minutes. This will not be as nice. Again watch that it doesn't dry out.


VARIATIONS

Add Greek Kalamata olives to sauce.

Make a "putanesque" sauce by frying up some onion, garlic, and green pepper (all chopped finely). Add some capers, some Greek olives. This makes a very savory sauce for this or pasta - especially Penne Rigate.

CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: GOLDEN PUMPKIN RAISIN MUFFINS

CHUCKMAN'S GOLDEN PUMPKIN RAISIN MUFFINS

2 Cups All-purpose flour

2 Tsp Baking powder

1 Tsp Baking soda

1 Tsp Cinnamon

1 Tsp Nutmeg

1/2 Tsp Salt

3/4 Cup Brown sugar - packed

1 Egg - large

1/3 Cup Canola oil

2/3 Cup Buttermilk

11/2 Cup Pumpkin - canned

3/4 Cup Raisins

Zest from one large orange (Optional but recommended)

Juice from one large orange (Optional but recommended)


In one large bowl, combine and mix all dry ingredients. In separate bowl, whisk egg and other liquid ingredients plus raisins.

Combine and spoon into twelve baking cups.

Bake in preheated oven at 400° F for 22 to 28 minutes.
____________________________________________

Also good with currents, a small batch of cranberries, and walnuts.

CHUCKMAN ORIGINAL RECIPE: MOROCCAN LENTIL SOUP

I have been a serious cook for decades, this being one of the reasons I was able to serve as restaurant reviewer for a metropolitan newspaper. When I say "a serious cook," I mean someone who goes beyond using the recipes of others and creates his or her own. From time to time I will post some of mine.

JOHN'S MOROCCAN LENTIL SOUP

A rich thick soup, almost a stew, that smells like the perfumes of Arabia. Much like Asian cooking, the work here is all in the preparation of ingredients, such as chopping. Cooking is simple.

SPICES:

Salt to taste - maybe 1 Teaspoon (if you do not used canned stock which is already salty)
1 Teaspoon freshly-ground Black Pepper
1 Teaspoon ground Tumeric
2 Teaspoons ground Cumin
1/4 Teasoon ground Ginger/ or better, a little grated fresh
1 Teaspoon ground Cinnamon
1 Bay leaf (may be omitted)
Ideally a Pinch of Saffron - so expensive, I often do not use

NOTE:

The above spice mix is characteristic of Morocco - it may be used for roasting vegetables, too. You may increase proportionately if you like even stronger spicing.

VEGETABLES & MEAT:

2 19oz. Cans of Red (or green) Lentils. You start with dried, but there is little advantage once you've prepared and soaked.

4 Cups fresh Chicken Stock/ or 2 condensed cans diluted. If you want a thinner soup, use more. For vegetarian version see NOTE under Meat.

1 Can crushed Roma Tomatoes (buy whole and crush with potato masher).

1 Tablespoon Tomato Paste

About 1 Pound of hunks of lamb/ pork/ or chicken lightly sauteed Use inexpensive cut of lamb. You may have meats in chunks or slices or whole pieces of sauteed chicken.

NOTE: Skip meat and substitute vegetable stock for vegetarian version of soup.

Fresh Cilantro (if available) - Don't cook, chop up & sprinkle on finished soup. Also
good without.

2 Onions - chopped

4 Cloves Garlic - chopped

4 or 5 Stalks of Celery - chopped into thickish slices

1 Red Sweet Pepper - chopped into chucks

Lemon zest from half a lemon

OPTIONS:

1 or 2 Potatoes - diced and put in with vegetables.

1 Lemon - sliced very thin & sauteed lightly for relish on top of soup when served.

Croutons - made of baguette style bread, buttered and baked at 350 until lightly gold.

A Cup or Two of Couscous, cooked separately, and stirred in at finish.

EASY DIRECTIONS:

Put stock and tomatoes and spices including zest in a soup pot to simmer. Sautee onions, garlic, pepper, celery and tip into simmering stock mix.

Sautee meat just until browned very lightly and tip into stock mix. If using whole pieces of chicken, brown each nicely. Simmer the whole thing at least half an hour - I prefer a longer time to blend flavors.

Take a couple of ladles before serving and buzz in blender, returning to soup. Leave most of soup ingredients whole. This step not necessary, but nice for a thicker broth.

Serve with cilantro, thin lemon slices, and/or croutons. Warm pita is an excellent accompaniment.

BOOK REVIEW: RICHARD WATSON'S LIFE OF RENE DESCARTES

RICHARD WATSON'S LIFE OF RENE DESCARTES BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, January 28, 2005


This is truly a dreadful book.

The author attempts to do something loosely along the lines of Samuel Eliot Morison's "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," a fascinating, though dated, book that combines Morison's knowledge of the sea and sailing with a biography of Columbus. The author of "Cogito Ergo Sum," however, fails entirely.

In Wilson's effort - a very thin volume for a book purporting to be a biography of a major intellectual figure - we read almost as much about Wilson and his wife touring locations in Europe as we do about Descartes. The result is something a little like a poorly written script for one of those old corny school film strips.

Wilson never comes to grips with what makes Descartes great, and the vocabulary he uses - when he isn't saying things like "Gee!" or "Awesome!" - is that tiresome, annoying one typical of American social science academics of the second or third order.

The book actually contains errors regarding the period that even an amateur can spot.

This book is recommended only to be avoided.

BOOK REVIEW: W. JACKSON BATE'S SAMUEL JOHNSON

REVIEW OF W. JACKSON BATE'S SAMUEL JOHNSON BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 23, 2005


Samuel Johnson was a brilliant critic, perhaps the greatest English writer after Shakespeare, a fascinating eccentric, and a genuinely heroic man. The great merit of Mr. Bate's biography is that he succeeds in the magical illusion of bringing Johnson alive again, giving us a vivid sense of what it might have been like to know him.

The highest praise for this book is the regret you will feel when the pages end and Johnson's great figure bows out. The biography is that rare item, a genuinely inspiring book.

BOOK REVIEW: JANET WALLACH'S DESERT QUEEN

REVIEW OF JANET WALLACH'S DESERT QUEEN BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 23, 2005


This book should be required reading for all students of affairs in the Middle East, as well as for students of the great pageant of the British Empire. Here is the story of the remarkable woman who helped create modern Iraq.

Gertrude Bell was brilliant, gifted in languages, and ferociously brave. Ms. Bell travelled across deserts, climbed mountains, made contributions to archeology, served as an important intelligence source and an unusual diplomat, smoked in public, and sat as an equal with many fierce desert chieftains.

Her understanding of the Arabic people was sounder in many ways than the mystical nonsense of Lawrence of Arabia, a much better known figure.

I cannot call this a great book, for Janet Wallach is less than a great writer, but this is a good book on an important and neglected subject. Wallach brings us many interesting details of Gertrude Bell's extraordinary life.

BOOK REVIEW: WILLIAM HERNDON'S LINCOLN

REVIEW OF WILLIAM H. HERNDON'S LINCOLN BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 24, 2005


With a certain group of American historians, largely those concerned with preserving images of America's founders and luminaries as saintly figures in white plaster togas, this book remains controversial.

In fact, it is perhaps the greatest biography of an American historical figure ever written. It is recommended highly to all lovers of good biography. It is indispensible to serious students of American history.

The official defenders of America's Civic Religion dislike this book because it captures some raw and awkward aspects of Lincoln, but Lincoln was rather raw and awkward and self-taught. It is the rise of such a man to such heights, plus his great natural eloquence, that make Lincoln remarkable.

Such historians love to cite this or that relatively insignificant error (in a 500-page book replete with details) to discredit Herndon, but Herndon's own detail and sense of honesty make him the best argument against such foolishness.

No one was better qualified than Herndon to record the life of Lincoln, having been his friend and business partner for many years. Herndon also conscientiously compiled a large archive of letters and memorials after Lincoln's death.

Herndon focuses on the personal Lincoln, and it is especially his observations about Lincoln's religious skepticism and family life that so disturb those who would have Lincoln embalmed like Lenin. Herndon gives us a vivid Lincoln, and if you like good biography, you will be impressed. The book was clearly a labor of love, and that fact still comes through more than a century after it was written.

BOOK REVIEW: GERALD POSNER'S CASE CLOSED

REVIEW OF GERALD POSNER'S CASE CLOSED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 25, 2005


There has been an industry in Kennedy assassination books, with nearly half of them ridiculous and nearly another half having no integrity. In my judgment, Mr. Posner's book belongs to the latter category.

Posner's book not only contains errors, it brings nothing fresh to the controversy. Posner simply re-interpreted parts of the body of old evidence according to his inclination, and he is an awkward writer. But it is the body of evidence itself which is in question, or at least many important parts of it.

Anyone interested in the Kennedy assassination couldn't help noticing this lamentable book being widely reviewed and praised in the mainline press. You must ask yourself, why would that be, when other very able books went largely ignored?

The Warren Commission was only a prosecutor's brief, and a fairly poor one at that. Indeed, the Commission itself investigated almost nothing, relying entirely on Hoover's FBI for investigative work.

Shortly before the Warren Report was released, Bertrand Russell issued sixteen questions about the assassination. Having seen an advance copy, he knew the Report would answer none of them.

To this day, there is no answer to his questions, and most especially this one: "If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?"

In the case put forward by the Warren Commission, and echoed by writers like Posner, the assassination boils down to an ordinary murder which should be a matter of no secrecy.

Russell's question echoes again and again down the decades as adjustments are made to the official story. Employing techniques one expects to be used for covering up long-term intelligence interests, various points raised by early independent researchers like Joachim Joesten have been conceded here or there along the way without altering the central finding. This is an effective method: concede details and appear open to new facts while always forcefully returning to the main point.

A significant writer along these lines is Edward Jay Epstein, an author whose other writing suggests intelligence connections. His first book on the assassination, "Inquest," conceded numerous flaws in the Warren Report. Epstein went on in subsequent books, "Counterplot" and "Legend" to attack at length - and for the critical reader, quite unconvincingly - ideas of conspiracy, Oswald's intelligence connections, and his innocence.

Posner's book is nothing more than a continuation along the same line of effort.

If you only ever read one book on the Kennedy assassination, it should not be Posner's. That book should be "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers(5 STARS) with absolutely first-class investigative journalism and a clear and compelling narrative.

"Conspiracy," now aging in some aspects, was startling when published, not startling because of extreme claims, but startling for its skilled marshaling of a huge body of facts. It is done so well, you will not be able to put it down.

And if you still insist on reading Posner, you really owe it to yourself also to read Summers.

BOOK REVIEW: CONOR O'BRIEN'S THE LONG AFFAIR

REVIEW OF CONOR O'BRIEN'S THE LONG AFFAIR BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 25, 2005


This is, quite simply, one of the most important books ever written about Jefferson. It redresses the terrible imbalance created by American historians who think of the Founding Fathers as the Twelve Apostles re-incarnated. Critics of the book should understand that O'Brien is a world-class scholar.

When O'Brien published "The Long Affair," about Thomas Jefferson and his peculiar admiration for the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, the Sage for Archer Daniels Midland (aka George Will) went into a word-strewn fit over the book. I think Will's excesses speak to the quality of most criticism of the book.

Perhaps, the single thing about the book that most upset George was O'Brien's comparison of a statement of Jefferson's to something Pol Pot might have said. Jefferson wrote in 1793, at the height of the Terror, "...but rather than it [the French Revolution] should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is." George wrote off Jefferson's brutal statement as "epistolary extravagance," and attacked O'Brien for using slim evidence for an extreme conclusion about an American "hero."

George went so far as favorably to compare the work of Ken Burns with that of O'Brien, calling Burns "an irrigator of our capacity for political admiration," as compared to one who "panders" to "leave our national memory parched."

I mean no disparagement of Ken Burns, but he produces the television equivalent of coffee-table books. O'Brien is a scholar, the author of many serious books. The very comparison, even without the odd language, tells us something about George.

But language, too, is important. The irony is that George's own words, "irrigator of our capacity for political admiration," sound frighteningly like what we'd expect to hear from the Ministry of Culture in some ghastly place (dare I write it?) such as Pol Pot's Cambodia.

But George should have known better. This letter of Jefferson's is utterly characteristic of views he expressed many different ways. Jefferson quite blithely wrote that America's Constitution would not be adequate to defend what he called liberty, that there would have to be a new revolution every 15 or 20 years, and that the tree of liberty needed to be nourished regularly with a fresh supply of patriot blood.

Jefferson's well-known sentimental view of the merits of sturdy yeomen farmers as citizens of a republic and his intense dislike for industry and urbanization bear an uncanny resemblance to Pol Pot's beliefs. Throwing people out of cities to become honorable peasants back on the land, even those who never saw a farm, was precisely how Pol Pot managed to kill at least a million people in Cambodia.

What is it about many of those on the right relishing the deaths of others in the name of ideology? You see, much like the "chickenhawks" now running Washington, sending others off to die, Jefferson never lifted a musket during the Revolution. While serving as governor of Virginia, he set a pathetic example of supporting the war's desperate material needs. He also gave us a comic-opera episode of dropping everything and running feverishly away from approaching British troops in Virginia (there was an official inquiry over the episode). Jefferson turned down his first diplomatic appointment to Europe by the new government out of fear of being captured by British warships, a fear that influenced neither Benjamin Franklin nor John Adams.

But real heroes aren't always, or even usually, soldiers. Jefferson, despite a long and successful career and a legacy of fine words (expressing thoughts largely cribbed from European writers), cannot be credited with any significant personal sacrifice over matters of principle during his life. He wouldn't give up luxury despite his words about slavery. He never risked a serious clash with the Virginia Establishment over slave laws during his rise in state politics. And in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, he lamely and at length blamed the king of England for the slave trade, yet, when he wrote the words, it was actually in his interest to slow the trade and protect the value of his existing human holdings.

Unlike Mr. Lincoln later, who had none of his advantages of education and good social contacts, Jefferson did not do well as a lawyer. He never earned enough to pay his own way, his thirst for luxury far outstripping even the capacity of his many high government positions and large number of slaves to generate wealth. Again, unlike Mr. Lincoln, Jefferson was not especially conscientious about owing people money, and he frequently continued buying luxuries like silver buckles and fine carriages while he still owed substantial sums.

Jefferson spent most of his productive years in government service, yet he never stopped railing against the evils of government. There's more than a passing resemblance here to the empty slogans of government-service lifers like Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich who enjoy their government pensions and benefits even as they still complain about government. Jefferson's most famous quote praises the least possible government, yet, as President, he brought a virtual reign of terror to New England with his attempts to enforce an embargo against England (the "Anglomen" as this very prejudiced man typically called the English).

Jefferson, besides having some truly ridiculous beliefs, like those about the evils of central banks or the health efficacy of soaking your feet in ice water every morning, definitely had a very dark side. Any of his political opponents would readily have testified to this. Jefferson was the American Machiavelli.

It was this side of him that put Philip Freneau on the federal payroll in order to subsidize the man's libelous newspaper attacks on Washington's government - this while Jefferson served in that very government. At another point, Jefferson hired James Callender to dig up and write filth about political opponents, an effort which backfired when Callender turned on Jefferson for not fulfilling promises. Callender famously dug out and publicized the story about Sally Hemings, Jefferson's slave-mistress, his late wife's illegitimate half-sister (slavery made for some amazing family relationships), a story we now know almost certainly to be true (by the way, dates point to Sally's beginning to serve Jefferson in this capacity at 13 or 14 years old). It was this dark side of Jefferson that resulted in a ruthless, years-long vendetta against Aaron Burr for the sin of appearing to challenge Jefferson's election to the presidency.

Jefferson expressed himself in embarrassingly clear terms about his belief in black inferiority. And it is important to note that in doing so, he violated one of his basic principles of remaining skeptical and not accepting what was not proved, so this, clearly, was something he believed deeply. There is also reliable evidence that on one occasion he was observed by a visitor beating a slave, quite contradicting Jefferson's public-relations pretensions to saintly paternalism.

When Napoleon sent an army attempting to subdue the slaves who had revolted and formed a republic on what is now Haiti, President Jefferson gave his full consent and support to the bloody (and unsuccessful) effort.

Hero? I have no idea how George Will defines the word, but by any meaningful standard, Jefferson utterly fails.

Read the book, and decide for yourself.

BOOK REVIEW: PETER ACKROYD'S DICKENS

REVIEW OF PETER ACKROYD'S DICKENS BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 28, 2005


There are some oddities in the style of Mr. Ackroyd, and his book contains some, what might be called, experimental chapters, fantasies or dreams or prose poems on subjects the author associates with Dickens. Ordinarily, I would find these things a bit off-putting.

But Mr. Ackroyd succeeds in giving us an overwhelmingly animated and penetrating portrait of the great Victorian author. This huge book - and no smaller effort could capture Dickens' spirit - crackles with energy, the very kind of driving energy so characteristic of Dickens himself.

Dickens was a strange man with immense drives and desires going off in many directions and personal habits that might well at times be regarded as unbalanced. He was not the sentimental, storytelling Victorian father figure he is sometimes regarded, although he could be quite sentimental about family and friends and his storytelling ability had few equals.

He behaved at times as a petty tyrant and was highly opinionated, always a man of immense curiosity, a traveler, a political activist, a generous man, a workaholic, a man eager for every possible shred of success and acclaim, a talented actor and mimic, a man seemingly possessed at times, as when carrying on conversations with himself, imitating his own characters in a mirror or going for walks as long as twenty miles alone or living with the ghosts of his fractured childhood.

A whirlwind of experience and desires helped make this naturally talented man such a great novelist. There are similarities to the titanic storm that was Beethoven. In both cases, the young man in his first blush of success could be truly charming while the aging figure could be quite unsettling.

The book contains many interesting anecdotes and details of Dickens' England, as well as Dickens' America since he made two journeys to America, a place he both hated and was fascinated by.

Highly recommended to all lovers of good biography, all students of English literature, and all students of English history.

BOOK REVIEW: AVI SHLAIM'S THE IRON WALL

REVIEW OF AVI SHLAIM'S THE IRON WALL BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, March 2, 2005


Let me start by advising that this is a dry book to read, so it is not for the average reader of narrative history. But its meticulous scholarship makes it an indispensable book about affairs in the Middle East.

People sometimes use the phrase "meticulous scholarship" to send up a warning flag that you had better not argue with what follows. But that is not so here. This book represents genuine scholarship, serving neither the purpose of public relations for Israel nor an attack upon it.

After offering some background on the origins of Zionism, Mr. Shlaim's theme is a review of the first half-century of Israeli policy. The title, an expression coined by an early Zionist, aptly sums up the thrust of that policy.

The author goes where scholarship leads, and he does not flinch from including less-than-heroic episodes that many contemporary books and news sources ignore.

Of course, in some matters of extreme sensitivity, there are still no adequate official documents available to scholars. In such cases, Mr. Schlaim tells us what he knows and goes no farther, leaving us with full confidence in his integrity.

I do not see how anyone can consider him- or herself well-informed on the Middle East without having read this book. It truly is that important.

BOOK REVIEW: RICHARD RUSSO'S STRAIGHT MAN

RICHARD RUSSO'S STRAIGHT MAN BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, March 4, 2005


This has to be one of the funniest books ever written.

Russo brilliantly sends up the pretensions and foibles of the staff and administration of the English Department at a small Pennsylvania university. It's one of those truly dismal, mediocre places, rarely mentioned in the same breath as America's world-class institutions, but which abound across the country.

About the first third of this book is almost non-stop laughter. The pace slows for a while, but picks up again. Near the end Russo gives us one of the funniest scenes ever written. I wouldn't want to reveal any of it to spoil your enjoyment.

The book is a departure for Russo, most of whose novels are reworkings of another theme, his childhood relationship with his very unusual father. Russo's effort along these lines reached its highest achievement in the modern masterpiece, "Nobody's Fool."

BOOK REVIEW: THOMAS FIEDMAN'S LEXUS AND OLIVE TREE

THOMAS FRIEDMAN'S LEXAS AND OLIVE TREE BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, March 11, 2005


It is stunning how little Thomas Friedman understands about globalization, but that didn't stop him from writing a book about it.

Friedman's tone reminds me of the bluff guy who sweeps up to you in a bar, slaps you on the back and starts pouring out the fast-paced patter of a top-producing aluminum-siding salesman. Friedman's goal in every paragraph is to close a sale and unload as much product on you at as high a price as possible.

Most of what we call growth and science goes back only about 500 years to the Renaissance. Before that for centuries people stayed in the same little village, spoke the same words, went to the same church, and in general knew nothing their fathers and mothers didn't know. All great events like the "Enclosures" in England or the "Industrial Revolution" were steps in the same relentless march forward.

Globalization is just the latest manifestation of a now-constant flow of changing technology inducing permanent, long-term economic change. It promises to be a very troubling and unsettled period as local customs, habits, laws, and even languages come under great stress of huge and rapid changes. It is not unrealistic to anticipate revolutions, civil wars, and great human migrations coming out of these changes over the next century or so, just as industrialization or enclosures generated many social and political disturbances.

Ironically enough, America itself, despite its status as world economic power, faces huge problems adjusting to these sweeping, inevitable changes in the world. Ordinary Americans are going to have to make big adjustments in their expectations (the so-called American dream), and there is going to be huge pressure to participate in new and expanding international institutions required to regulate these massive changes.

The modern nation state evolved directly out of these forces, but as the process goes on, the nation state itself will feel heavy forces of erosion. All of this, of course, is in directions opposite to America's present course.

But don't look for a clear explanation of any of this from Friedman. Friedman's sales pitch includes a call to making the world safe for McDonald's, Pepsi, and America Online. The tone is genuinely depressing.

Friedman's gems include belittling Silicon-Valley executives who stress their international identity. Like a stereotype of the ugly American, Friedman bellows, "Oh, yeah? Then, the next time I.B.M. China gets in trouble in China, call Jiang Zemin for help."

Does Friedman truly think high-tech business can be global without concessions to local interests? Think of car plants today. No government allows you to just keep exporting cars. Sooner or later you build a local plant, and you adapt to local conditions. You certainly obey local laws. And you certainly hire mostly local people. America's F-16s, the kinds of things Friedman is so fond of referring to, don't change any of that.

This book represents a kind of catch-22 for Americans. If they embrace Friedman's parochial, beat-the-drum-for-America attitude, they will only be even less prepared for the unavoidable era of dramatic change coming.

BOOK REVIEW: GORDON WOOD'S RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

GORDON WOOD'S RADICALISM OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION , March 11, 2005


Mr. Wood's book tries to put some intellectual and moral sizzle back into an American Revolution that has long come to be regarded by world scholars as something less than an earth-shaking event.

Despite much-labored efforts, Mr. Wood fails, and he is pretty dull along the way in presenting his case. It really could not be otherwise, for his basic thesis is faulty. The Revolution has been summed up, quite accurately I believe, as a group of home-grown aristocrats taking power from a group of foreign-born aristocrats.

America's central myth about its founding goes something like this: An extraordinary bunch of men, dressed in frock coats and wearing powdered wigs, closeted together after a long and heroic war against tyranny, worked unselfishly to give the United States a perfect modern system of government.

These notions manage to get thoroughly muddled with Puritan religious ones that have been around since America's colonial days, producing a story with strong overtones of a biblical legend.

This set of myths and attitudes has been called America's Civic Religion, and it is an apt name. Gordon Woods does not seriously question this fuzzy, half-mythical view.

The first truly important cause for American independence was Britain's victory in the French and Indian War (more generally called the Seven Year's War). The French in the 1750s were setting about constructing a series of forts both along the Canadian border and in places like the Ohio river valley. Their intention was to prevent the westward expansion of the British colonies and to lock up much of the valuable fur trade.

British colonists did not look favorably on this development. Their intense desire was to become rich through land speculation and endless westward expansion, the kind of activity, apart from marrying a rich widow, that made George Washington one of the wealthiest men in the colonies, one with rather a reputation for sharp business practices.

The colonists were used to a rather privileged position that none of them wanted disturbed. They lived a healthy and relatively happy life, as all the statistics and observations of the time attest. Foreign observers frequently commented on how healthy Americans under the Crown were. As well, it was widely observed, and commented on in Europe, that these colonies - well before the Revolution - were amongst the freest places in the world to live.

Britain did win the war, but at considerable cost. The colonies' first reaction to British victory was joy and celebration. It was later that a series of what can only be regarded as reasonable tax measures to have the colonists help pay the costs of the war aroused such great antipathy in the colonies. The view was simply this: The war was over, the benefits to the colonists could not be re-claimed by Britain, so the colonists felt no obligation to help pay beyond what they had contributed during the war. Hatred of taxes - unavoidably associated with crippling good, sound government - has remained to this day a feature of the American cultural landscape.

So, after the French and Indian War, things at first looked favorable for the desires of settlers to build limitless land empires, but then several developments considerably darkened the view.

A key one was the Quebec Act which vastly extended the territory of Quebec to include what today is Illinois as part of a vast Quebec Territory. Most Americans will not know what a huge storm this caused in the colonies because it is not an attractive subject for elementary texts.

First, it appeared to make the possibility of endless western expansion impossible. England, quite fairly and reasonably, wanted to discourage expansion over the Appalachians into Indian territory like the Ohio valley as a way of maintaining peace. The Mother Country had a conscientious policy of avoiding further conflicts with native Americans. This policy American colonists had tended to ignore, but the creation of a new Western jurisdiction under a Catholic province like Quebec, was an entirely different matter.

There was a paranoid fear of "papism" in the colonies, peopled as they were by many Puritan extremists who had run away from the dislike they often aroused in the old country. Anti-Catholic feeling ran very high in the American colonies. Indeed, it was an old custom, and remained the custom for decades after the Revolution, to burn effigies of the pope each year on Britain's Guy Fawkes Day. America's nasty-tempered Puritan settlers wanted nothing to do with "papists." Yes, the very same nasty, hateful words we heard during the Northern Ireland conflict over the last thirty years were constantly on the tongues and in the newspapers of American colonists.

Britain's final reaction to the colonists' refusal to pay taxes, after a long period of adjustments in the taxes and talks with colonial representatives, and to their contempt for Imperial regulations over boundaries and trade - many of the colonies' richest men such as John Hancock were simply smugglers - triggered an authentic "grass-roots" revolt in Massachusetts.

When the unthinkable actually happened in Massachusetts - violent revolt being originally unthinkable for most well-known and established colonial figures like Franklin or Washington or John Adams - there was no going back. The central issue became one of how things were to be managed by the colonies' ambitious little Establishment.

Washington's appointment as commander-in-chief represented an important turning point. What had been an almost spontaneous revolt organized by militia groups who elected their leaders became an organized opposition with an organized army under an appointed commander who suddenly started lashing and hanging volunteers who didn't obey orders or show proper respect. Washington, the cold Virginia aristocrat, expressed contempt in his letters for the New England militiamen who had taken all the chances and started the whole business. He wanted to command a real army with smart uniforms and traditional discipline just like the British army he so admired. He had been frustrated for years about getting a permanent commission in the British army, something that was then rarely awarded to colonials.

The real lessons of the American Revolution include the fact that early Americans were not motivated by quite the high ideals that contemporary Americans generally attribute to them. Anti-Catholicism and greed for Western expansion were basic causes. So, too, antipathy to taxes. Still, given enough time, America outgrew some of these early narrow prejudices.

Many will recall that the Pulitzer Prize for journalism has been awarded to mediocrity and even downright fraud, but this book is the perfect example of how little the Pulitzer Prize for history means as a guide to quality and stimulating work. Perhaps this generalization is true of all prizes, but it has been egregiously so in the case of the Pulitzer.

BOOK REVIEW: EDWARD J. EPSTEIN'S ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES

EDWARD J. EPSTEIN ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 1, 2005


The Assassination Chronicles consists of three short books - Inquest, Counterplot, and Legend - written over a period of about a dozen years and combined into one volume.

Inquest established Epstein's bona fides on the Kennedy assassination and is the most readable volume. It is essentially an effort to concede criticisms of early and penetrating critics such as Joachim Joesten while preserving the Warren Commission's central findings intact. It contains pretty much nothing that others had not already said by the time of its publication.

Other writing of Epstein's suggests intelligence connections, and his handling of the issues around the assassination tend very much to serve official interests.

If you are informed on the hard facts of the assassination, Counterplot and Legend are almost unreadable. There is a palpable sense of reading a case against an accused without a word from the defense. These are not investigations in any meaningful sense of the word. Epstein assumes the role of Judge Warren without the judicial robes, dressed instead in the deceivingly casual dress of a supposedly authentic critic.

There is no explanation to this day for the secrecy that still surrounds important parts of the Kennedy assassination, and it is this secrecy that blurs and distorts so much of the key evidence. Were this not so, books like Epstein's would not be published. Except for the concessions made in his first volume, Inquest, Epstein simply does not deal with the case's central issues of missing evidence, weak evidence, and implausible evidence. He stands ready to accuse and judge a man who had no motive, almost no means, and against whom what genuine facts we have would never convince a conscientious jury.

Something terribly significant has been kept from the world for more than forty years since the assassination, and books like The Assassination Chronicles, or Gerald Posner's update, aka Case Closed, are significant efforts along the way to keeping it that way.

One can only speculate on the reasons for all the secrecy, including the possibility that the CIA and FBI never understood who was responsible. Now, there was a state secret worth keeping in a time of Cold War paranoia. And the secrecy concerns are still valid. After all, the CIA and the FBI blew it on the imminent fall of the Soviet Union and on the activities of the 9/11 gang who entered the U.S. with legally-issued visas to take flying lessons.

No one should read this book without also reading Anthony Summers' monumental work of genuine investigation, Conspiracy.

BOOK REVIEW: IAN KERSHAW'S HITLER (VOLUMES 1 AND 2)

IAN KERSHAW'S HITLER (VOLUMES 1 & 2) BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 6, 2005


This biography (actually two volumes, Hubris and Nemesis) is well worth reading. Kershaw is a sound, if not elegant, writer and tells a story you will want to finish, but the book has significant faults.

Historians still do not know exactly how to reckon with the phenomenon of Hitler. The man was like a giantic cyclonic storm that suddenly welled up and unleashed death and misery on a colossal scale.

And for that reason he stands as the most influential man of the 20th century, not the greatest or the most gifted, but the most influential.

His existence brought to life such memorable opponents as Churchill, his defeat established forty years of Soviet dominance over much of Europe, and his beastial acts unquestionably led to the founding of modern Israel, setting off great difficulties in the Middle East for decades.

The ironic thing about Kershaw's book is that the author says he does not understand Hitler. Hitler remains a mystery to him, and Kershaw even says that in some ways his book is not a biography of the man but of the era in Germany. This is not satisfying to the reader wishing to understand better.

Kershaw's thesis of Hitler as a an almost compulsive gambler who struck it lucky for a while is weak. Hitler's rise to lead a great nation of Europe and his years of early diplomatic and military victories call for a more insightful explanation than a heavy run of luck. Kershaw gives credit to Hitler as an instinctive propagandist (in advertising terms, a talented marketer), but that is about as far as he goes to explaining this eye of the greatest storm in human history.

Historians, naturally enough, are reluctant to write anything that could be interpreted as admiration, but other historians have managed a better job of dealing with Hitler's talents and personality, notably Alan Bullock, Joachim Fest, and William Shirer.

One new element that Kershaw brings is a focus on Hitler's being responsible for the Holocaust, not that any responsible historian ever has denied it, but naturally enough there is no paper trail. I think Shirer is better on the horrors Hitler inflicted. I also think a more insightful treatment of this kind of psychology is found in Gitta Sereny.

One of the great mysteries of Hitler's psychology is his anti-Semitism. There is just no accounting for its immensity, and Kershaw does little to enlighten us here.

Read this book and the other authors I have mentioned and decide whether you agree with me that the definitive biography of Hitler has yet to be written.

BOOK REVIEW: PAT BARKER'S REGENERATION TRILOGY

PAT BARKER'S REGENERATION TRILOGY REVIEWED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 6, 2005


The Regeneration Trilogy is both wonderful and disappointing, an odd combination of characteristics for a set of novels, but then the First World War itself was characterized by heroic exhileration and utter dispair, by encrusted tradition and unanticipated revolution, by invention and backwardness.

Ms Barker takes us to an institution, a quiet and somewhat remote place, seemingly safe from the savagery of the Western Front, where damaged men are sent in hopes of recovery. She quickly has us involved in several fascinating characters, the full extent of whose experiences she only gradually reveals. Most interestingly, the characters of the men themselves are only gradually revealed, as often to our horror as satisfaction.

After reading the first volume, I could hardly wait for the second. It was the third volume I found disappointing. The disappointment comes through what she does with characters we have become intensely interested in, but I'll not reveal any details and leave it to new readers to see whether they agree.

The characterizations of the first two volumes are wonderful (although I am not a great fan of mixing real people in with fictional characters, the practice does not feature too heavily), and Ms. Barker gives us a remarkable sense of what that terrible war meant, particularly in ordinary lives on the home front.

Ms. Barker's trilogy is highly recommended for those interested in history, students of human psychology, and those who enjoy good writing and a gripping story.

BOOK REVIEW: SHELBY FOOTE'S CIVIL WAR TRILOGY

SHELBY FOOTE'S CIVIL WAR TRILOGY REVIEWED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 6, 2005


Shelby Foote's trilogy of the American Civil War has been called America's Iliad and Odyssey, and in some ways it is an apt comparison.

The Trojan War certainly held a comparable place for ancient Greeks as America's Civil War holds for contemporary Americans. I've always wondered why this should be so.

I think there are several major reasons. First, the anvil of the Civil War is where America's rise to world power is hammered out. Lincoln, in the long-term view, is less the Patriarch who frees slaves than he is the successful Corporate Lawyer who forges the nation into a feared industrial and military power. The Civil War is revolutionary for America's status, just as the Great War marked the beginning of the decline for Great Britain.

Second, in a country that has never really quite experienced the horrors of war in the modern era (American deaths for example in World War Two were a little more than half of one-percent of the fifty million lives total, and losses in the First War were almost insignificant out of total losses), the Civil War stands as America's time of great sacrifice and bloodshed.

There is also the myth and color around the nature of the Old South, stuff about gentlemen, honor, and manliness. Southerners certainly accepted this dreamy view, at least the small number with money, while the other dirt-poor farmers were bound to them through dread of Blacks and the feared effects of slavery's end. Northerners, too, came to accept the colorful myths, and many still do. Southern culture of course was based on slavery, and it was a brutal culture in many aspects, but America has never really come to grips with slavery in its history, and the myths are appealing.

Mr. Foote collected some wonderful, colorful anecdotes about the daring deeds or marvelous escapes of leading characters in his long narrative. The telling of these tales does remind one of Homer's various intense scenes with leading characters preparing for or engaging in combat. These come like delightful arias in a long opera.

Certainly, Mr. Foote has captured the great panorama of the Civil War, at least in its military aspects. Some might think the three-thousand pages of narrative a bit excessive, but fans of the Civil War and those who like a good yarn that lasts and lasts will greatly enjoy the books.

Comparisons with Homer may be taken too far. Homer was a poet. Shelby Foote's prose are sturdy and workman-like.

Mr. Foote does not deal with all political, social, and economic dimensions of the Civil War, but then that isn't his job, just as it wasn't Homer's.

This raises a possible philosophical criticism of the work. To a certain extent, with the work's color and sweep and bold deeds, Mr. Foote could be charged somewhat with helping to perpetuate the myths of the Old South, but this is not a point I would want to insist on because those who want to fully understand the Civil War must read other books. This one does just what it sets out to do.

BOOK REVIEW: D.J.TAYLOR'S THE LIFE OF ORWELL

REVIEW OF D. J. TAYLOR'S ORWELL THE LIFE BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 13, 2005


This is a difficult book to categorize. It is well written, contains many interesting anecdotes, but it misses the essential Orwell.

Taylor's gloomy, otherwordly, ex-Etonian, ex-imperial policeman simply does not add up to Orwell. The sum of the parts is much less than the man. Taylor's book is a bit like an autopsy, the pathologist clearly never being able to comprehend the stiff, dead flesh and bottled samples before him as the full human being they were. Nevertheless, autopsies do tell interesting tales.

Orwell's gloomy temperament puts him not outside the mainstream of writers but exactly in the company of so many important writers. The list of writers with some form of depression, whether alcoholism or gloominess, is so huge - Greene, Swift, Hemingway, Le Carré, Dickens, Gissing, O'Neill, Twain, Faulkner, etc, etc. - one comes to think of the quality almost as a job requirement. It provides one of the special lens through which critical writers see the world. One has to believe Taylor understands this, but his book conveys only clinical observations of gloominess snipped from letters, diaries, and conversations.

As far as Orwell's otherworldliness, Orwell was clearly in the great tradition of English eccentrics, and that is an important component of his appeal. There is a long and glorious line of them from Dr. Johnson and Jane Austen down to Alec Guinness, Margaret Rutherford, and Vanessa Redgrave. Yet Taylor only offers clinical observations and never puts them in their proper context.

Orwell was not an important novelist, so it seems a bit gratuitous to say so as Taylor does. In fact, he wasn't even a very good novelist. Yet books like Keep the Aspadistra Flying do provide a keen sense of his Englishness. Missing entirely from Taylor's autopsy is a sense of Orwell's quintessential Englishness. When Orwell writes of getting back to the feel of heavy English coins and having mahogany tea, readers get a sense of pure distilled Englishness. This comes through also in quasi-journalistic books like The Road to Wigan Pier or Down and Out in Paris and London - important early efforts at what today might be called investigative journalism - books which Taylor rather disparages both in terms of Orwell's re-arranging actual events and being an observer mentally wearing an Eton tie.

What Orwell was is a critic, and a rather magnificent one. I am reminded of Degas' description of Monet as "Only an eye, but what an eye!"

Orwell had an exquisite sense of justice and a very sensitive barometer for tyranny plus he had the words to convey vividly his sensibilities. Taylor virtually misses this in his examination of bile and stool samples. Taylor too often puts Orwell's political criticism down to miss-directed, soft-Left thinking of an ex-Etonian. Orwell himself recognized the simpering nature of much of the Left's views, yet he struggled bravely with finding a vocabulary to accommodate his sympathies. He possibly did not come to recognize himself for what he was, a scorching critic of both Left and Right. After all, his time was short. That is how it is when you die in your forties.

He was also an important literary critic, and while Taylor recognizes this, I don't believe he gives it a full enough examination.

Taylor sadly drags out the subject of anti-Semitism, perhaps the most overly-used epithet of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. If Orwell was anti-Semitic - and I do not believe this for a second - it was in the same vague sense of virtually all Englishmen of his time. The English have always had a degree of xenophobia, a quality whose obverse side is the very set of qualities defining Englishness. I am tired of discussions of whether Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice makes the greatest playwright in human history anti-Semitic, discussions which always ignore the human qualities and sense of justice Shakespeare gives his character, and just so, Orwell, overall a truly decent man.

There has been a good deal of writing in recent years about Orwell, much of it wrong-headed, from claims being made that he would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq (!) to sentimentality. Little of it captures Orwell the independent and remarkably clear-thinking critic. Taylor gives us no sense of what it was that animated Orwell, other than some almost silly stuff about getting back at people like the headmistress of his school. There is almost a sense in this book of a high-class hatchet job done on Orwell, but I don't want to push that point. What makes Orwell truly important is minimized, and what wasn't important is given a good deal of weight. Perhaps that is the fate of great critics who support no one's ideologies and preconceptions.

This book should be read only with an awareness of its limited approach to the subject. This is not Orwell, but a somewhat interesting display of bits and memorabilia in museum cabinets.

Please see my review of Gordon Bowker's Orwell biography, a superior work (published in the same year) in most respects to Taylor's.

BOOK REVIEW: ANN WROE'S THE PERFECT PRINCE

REVIEW OF ANN WROE'S THE PERFECT PRINCE BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, April 25, 2005


The subject of this book is one of those remarkable stories of someone who may have been a prince escaped from murder or a clever and well-tutored imposter. This is the Anastasia story of England in the late 1400s. Was the subject of this book Richard Plantangenet, Duke of York, second son of Edward IV, or one Perkin Warbeck (a name with various spellings including Werbecque) from Tournai in what today is Belgium? Ms. Wroe, while telling an interesting story and enlightening us on many of the story's complexities, does not solve the mystery.

A bit of the background to the Prince Richard/Warbeck story is known to many through Shakespeare's wonderful play, Richard III, where Richard's nephews, the sons of Edward IV, are murdered in the Tower at Richard's command. But Shakespeare was concerned with drama and human character and notoriously inaccurate in his histories. The legend of a hideous, spidery Richard III is no more valid than the story of Anne Boleyn, mother of Elizabeth I, having bizarre markings plus an extra finger on one hand, a story which served the interests of Henry VIII in demonizing his legally-murdered wife.

Shakespeare's Richard was the creation of several writers, notably Sir Thomas More, a truly nasty piece of work always ready to burn "heretics" alive and yet coming down to us in popular history as the noble "Man for All Seasons." More wrote to please and flatter the Tudors.

Richard's character is today regarded as heroic, and it is not certain at all that he had the young princes murdered, as indeed it is not certain that the princes were murdered. Richard's terrible death on Bosworth Field marked the start of Henry Tudor's reign as Henry VII, father of tyrant Henry VIII and grandfather of the redoubtable Elizabeth Gloriana.

Wroe's book has a number of faults. First is a stylistic tendency for a dreamy drifting-off from the narrative with paragraphs of associations and tidbits of obscure fact. You might call this illustrating the manuscript. Some find it appealing, and so do I when it is not overdone, but it can be irritating, as it sometimes is here, reminding me somewhat of the excesses of Fernand Braudel in The Identity of France.

For someone concerned with a display of detailed and even obscure scholarship in the early part of the book, Wroe, in the latter part, offers some almost naively simple scenes. In speaking of Warbeck's confession at his execution, for example, Wroe says, "The last thing they [the condemned] did was to speak falsehoods. It is almost unthinkable that Henry would have forced such a thing on Perkin, or that he would have agreed to do it."

Nonsense. Invariably at public executions of important or notable persons, they confessed their guilt, just as virtually all accused did at Stalin's show trials. The King's powers were too sweeping for it to be otherwise. In the case of treason, individuals were hung before being taken down, still alive, to be disemboweled and castrated, then to be drawn and quartered. A nod from the King allowed death to occur mercifully on the gallows. Also in the case of treason, the condemned person's children could be turned into paupers through confiscation of all property, or they could be treated with some degree of leniency. The wife and any relatives faced terrible possibilities were the death not an acceptable one (Warbeck left a wife and a son in England).

The book's index is inadequate, a considerable fault in a book about an era in which spelling was almost guesswork. The name Warbeck, for example, is not listed alphabetically for at least a cross-reference.

Still, this is a book worth reading, and, at times, it flows nicely.

BOOK REVIEW: LISA JARDINE'S ROBERT HOOKE

REVIEW OF LISA JARDINE'S ROBERT HOOKE BY JOHN CHUCKMAN , May 4, 2005


Robert Hooke's life was curious, a neglected topic that makes good reading, although a full, living sense of this man is missing from the book.

He was an ingenious, creative man, abounding with energy and interests in his younger years, whose acquaintances and friends included Boyle, Pepys, and Wren. He was widely recognized as a physics and general science experimenter of exceptional ability - a designer of both accurate instruments and experiments in which to employ them - almost certainly the greatest of his day. He might be viewed from today's perspective as something of the Ernest Lawrence of his day versus the great theorists.

Hooke's interests included astronomical measurements, microscopy, fossils, watches, the behavior of gases, and more. He was also interested in theoretical concepts although his mathematical abilities fell far short of people like Newton or Leibniz. Still, he came up with the hypothesis of the inverse-square law for gravity which he sent to Newton, asking him to prove mathematically whether it was valid. Newton never gave Hooke appropriate credit for Hooke's early insight, and it is not clear whether this was owing to Hooke's annoying carping or Newton's own very unpleasant temperament.

Hooke's early musings on the layers of fossils found on his native Isle of Wight demonstrate a remarkable analytical and creative mind at work. He got the process of their formation pretty close to right lifetimes before the meaning of fossils was widely recognized in science.

Ms. Jardine made the happy discovery of what is likely Hooke's portrait (no known one survives), a picture that had long been identified as being of John Ray. The circumstances of her discovery make a wonderful little tale early in the book.

What comes through so strongly from some of Jardine's anecdotes is how the basic philosophy of science had advanced by the second half of the 17th century, Hooke's time. This was, after all, only a few decades after Francis Bacon, yet the main points of modern science seem to be assumed by Europe's leading tinkerers and scientists.

Hooke's story is not a happy one, but I will leave that for readers to discover. Ms. Jardine is at times a slightly awkward writer, but she has an interesting story to tell and, on the whole, she tells it well. Ms. Jardine also wrote On a Grander Scale, a biography of the wonderful Christopher Wren. The book on Hooke she regards as a companion volume to the one on Wren. Do read both.

BOOK REVIEW: RICHARD RUSSO'S NOBODY'S FOOL

REVIEW OF RICHARD RUSSO'S NOBODY'S FOOL BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, May 13, 2005


This a wonderful book. It will have you smiling, laughing, and concerned with the lives and events of a place that might otherwise be seen as of little worth.

Anyone who has driven through the secondary roads of Northern New York will recognize the book's breathtaking authenticity. This is the land of rusting cars sitting on blocks in front yards, old farm houses slumped over and left unpainted for decades, and ugly roadside beer joints with neon window signs.

The town at the center of the story is a place, once somewhat grand, now for years in serious decline. Charm can be spotted in the decayed gingerbread woodwork of century-old houses whose residents are too poor or old to keep them up. Some huge old trees give parts of the main street a disguise of faded elegance.

The town might be taken as a metaphor for the main character, Sully, who is slowly rotting into the same fabric of decay. Sully is charming, offensive, funny, and pathetic in turns. He is both biting observer of the town's slide into oblivion and full participant.

Sully is a complex human being, and surely one of the most memorable characters in modern American literature. He is actually one of a number of attempts by Richard Russo to come to terms with the man who was his extraordinary father. Most of these attempts have not been as appealing or successful as Nobody's Fool, the only exception being The Risk Pool, another fine book, where his central character is a boy thrown by circumstances into the bizarre, chaotic life of his father, a much rawer character than Sully.

Russo has the gift to hold a place up to laughter while yet never separating himself from what he is having us laugh at. It is that quality that gives grace to a story that could fall into brutal sarcasm.

The film that was made of this book was the kind of fine little film Hollywood just does not make anymore. It was a terrific role for an older Paul Newman, and, if you saw it, I think you will find yourself hearing his voice and intonations sometimes as you read Sully's lines.

But the book is far richer and more interesting than the film. It is quite simply a modern masterpiece.

BOOK REVIEW: RICHARD MANGO'S ATATURK

REVIEW OF RICHARD MANGO'S ATATURK BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, May 13, 2005


This is a disappointing book. The main points of Atatürk's career - hero of his country's war for independence and founder of the modern secular state of Turkey, a man with some remarkably modern views for his place and time - make him one of more attractive hero-figures of the twentieth century.

But somehow Mango does not succeed in giving us the living, breathing man. Indeed, Mango manages to make some of the genuinely exciting events of Atatürk's career read like rather dull broadsheet accounts.

Mango is certainly a scholar. That comes right through, but there is a somewhat lifeless quality that characterizes much of what should be a smashing yarn of great wars, declining empire, and dashing figures. The great number of Turkish place names and people do not make reading any easier, although Mango does offer a guide to pronunciation at the front.

Interestingly, this appraisal is quite at odds with cover quotes from reviews. One gets expert reviewers' ambiguities like "Takes its place at the top," or "...a higher level of biography than any previous account." Book reviewing in major publications has always been something of game, full of backscratching, favors, and artful ambiguities. The gap here between reviewers' words and Mango's actual work is rather notable.

Still this is a biography of an important figure, one about whom there is limited material in English. It is definitely worth reading.

BOOK REVIEW: D.J. TAYLOR'S INSIDE GEORGE ORWELL

REVIEW OF GORDON BOWKER'S INSIDE GEORGE ORWELL BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, June 22, 2005


This book is the best of the newer Orwell biographies, but it still falls short in some respects. Bowker does a far better job than D. J. Taylor at creating a sense of continuity and purpose in Orwell's life. Bowker is a good writer, occasionally showing bits of inspired analysis, but still there are passages of utility-grade stuff.

The two biographies, Bowker and Taylor, published in the same year, offer readers an opportunity to compare two quite different treatments of the same life, treatments that both use previously unknown materials. Taylor's treatment is more episodic and seems to lose no opportunity to highlight something dark, unflattering, or unpleasant about Orwell.

Bowker gets at Orwell's quintessential Englishness. I was happy he used exactly that word, Englishness, which I think is an important and appealing aspect of Orwell. It is a word I've always associated with Orwell much as I do with figures such as Dickens or Graham Greene. This is a quality virtually ignored by Taylor, unless you accept his references to old-boy school snobbery as a rough substitute, references I believe are clear distortions.

Bowker is sympathetic to his subject without ever being servile or sentimental, a position which is right for a biographer. While Taylor makes some effort to convince us of his old admiration for his subject, his words ring false. Taylor displays strong antipathy towards his subject, releasing it slowly through the book, and to my mind this is never the correct position for a biographer. Moreover, the clash between Taylor's claims of admiration and his clear antipathy introduces a howling note of falseness that warns of the author's intent.

Bowker does an excellent job of summarizing the saga of Orwell's widow (his second wife) Sonia and his literary legacy - a tale in which the new Cold War becomes an important element - an interesting topic with which Taylor doesn't do much. Bowker also does a nice job of explaining why a biographer would write about Orwell despite the author's well-known wish that he wanted no biography.

The portion of new material in either book dealing with Orwell's sex life does not shed a pleasant light on part of his character. I couldn't help thinking of passages in Benita Eisler's Byron dealing with the poet's grotesque servant-boy swapping and Mediterranean tours to buy boys in various countries - activities that would put him in prison today - passages that frankly left me feeling as though I needed fresh air. No, Orwell wasn't as twisted as Byron, but he was double-dealing in his sexual affairs and apparently sometimes found the charms of young girls selling themselves in exotic lands an irresistible purchase.

I very much agree with Arthur Koestler's observation, quoted in Bowker, "I don't think George ever knew what makes other people tick, because what made him tick was very different from what most other people tick." Orwell was in many ways what contemporary speech might describe as "out of it." He was, if you will, an authentic English eccentric. This may help explain why Orwell was such a powerful critic and observer while remaining a second-tier novelist.

In a way, something like this may be said of many incisive critics and great artists. The divine Mozart with his scatological letters and often buffoonish behavior. Beethoven's constant moving to new apartments, thunderous emotional storms, and self-destructive attachment to a worthless nephew. The ticks and quirks of the magnificent Samuel Johnson. Dicken's unbelievably obsessive, compulsive behavior.

At the more extreme end of the scale, we have Rousseau's bizarre temperament, always ready to attack friends and admirers. The strange Herman Melville who may just have murdered his wife. Marcel Proust's sadistic penchant for sticking pins into live mice.

Sometimes I think it is better just to enjoy the work of genius rather than digging too deeply into the lives of its creators. For this reason I am almost fearful of reading Norman Sherry's third volume on Graham Greene (reported to focus heavily on the unsavory aspects of Greene's life), one of my favorite twentieth-century writers and critics. But then again, we want to understand, and we find it almost irresistible to read about the lives of artists we have come to love. And whatever unpleasant we may learn, it remains the greatness of their work that drew us to them.

Orwell wrote some of the twentieth century's best essays and occasional pieces, and, in 1984, not long before his death, he displayed a kind of penetrating political insight rarely seen before or since. Since great writing is so often the work of mature people, we undoubtedly missed a great deal when he died at 46.

BOOK REVIEW: ALA BASHIR'S THE INSIDER

REVIEW OF ALA BASHIR'S THE INSIDER BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, October 31, 2005


This is an interesting book. Doctor Ala Bashir was as much an insider as it possible to be without being treated as a criminal by Bush's invasion forces. He served as a personal physician to Saddam Hussein for about twenty years. He is also an artist whose work Hussein favored.

This book is not a biography, and it is not a history in any proper sense. Rather, it is a series of anecdotes by an intelligent observer about life in Iraq under Hussein. Internal consistencies and other evidence suggest that this is an honest work, although we would like to read considerably more on some subjects.

In the dark world of dictatorship, to be favored by the leader often means to run into bitter dislike from other members of the regime, and this was certainly Bashir's experience. We are reminded by his anecdotes that dictators often are not aware of all that goes on within various fiefdoms, or if they are aware, they often feel unable to change things - a great irony, yet one confirmed by the lives of many from Hitler to the American Pharaoh, Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago.

Bashir confirms that a good deal of American propaganda gives an inaccurate picture of Hussein. Although Hussein could be ruthless and violent, he had a genuine concern with improving conditions of life for Iraqis, building many hospitals, schools, and cultural institutions. He actually advanced Iraqi women's rights significantly concerning important matters like a woman's right to initiate divorce.

Surprisingly, Hussein could even be a good listener, so long as the subject was not one on which he had made up his mind. Hussein was not a Stalin, and he had no admiration for Hitler. He enjoyed books, particularly history and biography. Bashir is pretty sure from personal experiences that Hussein is not an anti-Semite, but he would not even listen to anyone concerning a change in policy towards Israel.

Many of the problems in Hussein's regime were family problems. Hussein depended on clan and family strongly for loyalty, and he knew perfectly well that this often ended up with less competent people in senior positions. Bashir makes clear that Hussein's son, Uday, was mentally ill, and that on least one occasion Hussein was ready to punish him severely. Yet time usually softened Hussein's temper, and he expressed affection for a pretty-much worthless son.

While we all know that American policy favored Iraq over Iran, contributing to the terrible brutality of their 8-year war, Bashir suggests the CIA was there at the beginning, assisting the coup that led to Hussein's eventual assumption of power.

Those seeking to understand affairs in the Middle East will find this book refreshing, without propaganda or bombast. It is of limited scholarly use, but it is definitely worth reading, its main faults being a limited range of subjects and sketchy coverage.

BOOK REVIEW: KARIN FOSSUM'S HE WHO FEARS THE WOLF

REVIEW OF KARIN FOSSUM'S HE WHO FEARS THE WOLF BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, December 18, 2005


I am not a regular reader of mysteries, but my wife has encouraged me to read a number of interesting writers in this genre. One of my favorites is Norwegian writer, Karin Fossum.

He Who Fears the Wolf is a story with her appealing character, Chief Inspector Konrad Sejer, a quiet, thoughtful man with unusual powers of observation and a somewhat melancholy personal life that keeps him immersed in his work. The contrast with gun-waving, bellowing American detectives is notable and welcome. In this character, as in so many of Ms. Fossum's characters, there is a deep sense of humanity and decency.

In Wolf, Ms. Fossum creates another wonderful character, Erkki Johrma, an insane-asylum escapee. Ms. Fossum always displays an interest in the disturbed and rejected of society, but with Errki she has worked something of a miracle.

This story contains what must be one of the most memorable series of scenes in mystery books, to say nothing of literature. It involves the escape of a bank robber and a hostage, and there is a quality here that reminds me of Don Quixote - pathos, absurdity, and subtle humor combined with a very sympathetic view of the human condition. I cannot give any details without spoiling it for you.

Ms. Fossum is also a poet, and her descriptive powers are considerable, but she manages her descriptive passages with quick brushstrokes. She never creates a burden for those who like mystery books to move along briskly. Some might even regard her descriptions of bloody scenes as a bit overpowering.

Please don't think this is an "artsy" book despite its literary qualities, this is a genuine murder mystery, well-paced and gripping. It is a book you will not want to put down.

BOOK REVIEW: LEONIE FRIEDA'S CATHERINE DE MEDICI

REVIEW OF LEONIE FRIEDA'S CATHERINE DE MEDICI BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 3, 2006


This book is an interesting failure. It is well worth reading and contains many interesting passages, but Ms. Frieda fails in her stated aim of creating a more sympathetic understanding of Catherine de Medici and the difficulties under which she labored.

Catherine is widely seen as a talented, scheming and ruthless power-behind-the-throne figure, doing almost anything to promote and protect her children which included two Kings of France. Catherine's era overlaps that of a truly great queen, England's Elizabeth I, so her story includes figures such as Mary Queen of Scots and Philip II of Spain and includes the great waves of violence that crashed across Europe following the Reformation. You just can't come up with better historical material.

Ms. Frieda does a creditable job of telling her story, at times rising to gripping narrative as when she describes events around the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, an orgy of killing in which something on the order of ten to twenty thousand Huguenots were slaughtered, many having their throats cut in their beds.

Ms. Frieda's explanation of Catherine's role in the Massacre is that she only wanted to have a small group of leaders killed while conveniently gathered for the wedding of Henri of Navarre, a Protestant of Valois blood, and Catherine's daughter, Margot. Ms. Frieda's thesis is that what was to be a small "surgical operation" got completely out of hand with Paris mobs taking to killing anyone even suspected of being a Protestant, as though killing a group of guests at a royal wedding, had it gone no further, would have been just fine.

Ms. Frieda is not the first to put the thesis forward, but it fails utterly to soften our view of Catherine. There is little proof supporting Frieda's interpretation, but, in ordinary common law, if you commit a crime that generates a still bigger crime, you are not free of guilt. Beyond that, no one knew better than Catherine, after all her terrible experience with French Catholic-Protestant relations, what a seething place Catholic Paris was. To have Admiral Coligny, a much-admired Huguenot, and other high officials assassinated at that time in that place was criminally stupid, apart from all considerations of ethics and proper statecraft.

She wheedled her mentally-unbalanced son, Charles IX, into agreeing to the vicious plan, in part out of her sick jealousy over Coligny's friendship and influence with the King. When Charles, in one of his maniacal rages, finally roared his infamous "Kill them all" order, shouldn't the supposedly careful and subtle Catherine have understood how the words could be misinterpreted?

One can't avoid seeing Catherine as the classic over-protective, hot-house mother, willing to forgive her bloody awful darlings anything, willing to do almost anything for them. Such people always do a great deal of harm in ordinary life and even more when they are in high places. This sick trait of Catherine was compounded by the fact that there was raging madness in her Valois-de Medici brood. Charles IX, Henri III, and her daughter Margot, who married the future king, Henri of Navarre, were simply mad, unfit to rule even in ordinary times, but these were not ordinary times. There was Catherine working feverishly for their interests, effectively against the interests of France as a whole.

Other unsavory aspects of Catherine's character come through even in this book. Her horrible execution, many years later, of the Count de Montgomery, the man who accidentally killed her husband, Henri II, in a jousting entertainment, is just one. Henri, who had insisted on another joust, had publicly forgiven the man as he lay dying. Catherine waited for many years to take her bloody revenge. Frieda says this is one of the only examples of her taking vengeance, but that statement comes after having dismissed many convenient deaths, widely suspected at the time to have been poisonings.

Read this book and others - it contains an excellent bibliography - to decide for yourself how best to interpret Catherine's work. You will, in any event, be exposed to interesting times, and you will be glad you aren't living in them.

BOOK REVIEW: FRANCIS CARR'S MOZART AND CONSTANZE

REVIEW OF FRANCIS CARR'S MOZART & CONSTANZE BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 3, 2006


Here is biographical study blended smoothly with murder mystery. The cause of Mozart's death remains a mystery after many attempts to explain it. Despite the great success of Amadeus, the idea that the composer Salieri poisoned Mozart out of jealousy is generally not credited. Francis Carr skillfully reopens the question of poisoning, but with a new and plausible suspect, having set the stage with an analysis of Mozart's and Constanze's marriage.

It may seem hard for the general reader to believe that so little is known about parts of the life of so great a figure as Mozart. No matter which biography of Mozart you pick up, you find efforts to explain certain blanks in the life of a man so celebrated in his own time. So, too, the odd manner of his funeral and burial. Carr's thesis brings together and explains a number of these mysteries.

In the second half of the book, Carr does a superb job of documenting inconsistencies and reopening the question of why Mozart's remains were treated the way they were. In this matter he masterfully sweeps away the weak explanations of major biographers, especially those around the burial laws of Emperor Joseph II.

The book has a good many passages quoted from Mozart letters, a practice that I generally find less than happy, being so often used as padding. But here the letters are skillfully used to establish Mozart's feelings and attitudes towards his wife as well as providing key testimony from figures such as Constanze's sister Sophie. The absence of letters at certain times, presumably destroyed by Constanze, is itself a line of evidence. Because the heart of the book - Mozart's relationship with his wife and what happened to cause Mozart's death and strange burial - can be little more than an extended essay, the author may be forgiven some padding.

The book is well enough done that you may find yourself reading it in one sitting, just as I did.

If you had previously rejected the idea that Constanze was an inappropriate wife for Mozart, believing it based in prejudice and being aware, through letters, of Mozart's great affection for her, this book may just change your mind.

BOOK REVIEW: PETER GWYN'S THE KING'S CARDINAL

PETER GWYN'S THE KING'S CARDINAL REVIEWED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, March 15, 2006


Here is investigative historical scholarship of the highest order, ranking with J.J. Scarisbrick's remarkable Henry VIII. Written in good, clear prose, every chapter of The King's Cardinal is packed with subtle observations and deductions from existing documents.

Wolsey is an interesting figure for many reasons. He was butcher's son who rose to the highest offices of church and state, the kind of career we usually associate with the modern era rather than with a time when feudal titles tended to be requirements for all important posts in government. Wolsey's capacity for work was breathtaking and his talents were considerable. Most interestingly, here was a man who understood the demands of realpolitik as well as Machiavelli yet maintained a genuine concern for humanism, enlightenment, justice and fair dealings in society.

There is surprisingly little reliable evidence for details of Wolsey's life, yet a substantial body of his correspondence and observations of others during his years in power survives. Thus, this book is less a biography of the controversial Cardinal than an analysis of important acts and policies while he was in power.

Gwyn strips away, carefully, layer by layer, many myths and misunderstandings that have accumulated over five centuries and managed to cloud understanding of Wolsey. Most importantly, he makes it clear that Henry ruled and Wolsey served, sweeping away the image of the younger Henry as playboy king who handed over most serious business to his Cardinal/Chancellor.

Gwyn makes it clear that it was Henry's bull-headed demands for progress on the divorce, "the king's Great Matter," coming at a time when Wolsey had many other important issues with which to deal, that were the cause of his downfall.

I love Wolsey's words in a final interview with Sir William Kingston, keeper of the Tower: "Therefore, Master Kingston, if it chance hereafter you to be one of his [Henry's] privy council...I warn you to be well advised and assured what matter ye put into his head; for ye shall never pull it out again."

Here is a book for all lovers of scholarly history and biography, for all serious students of English history, for students of foreign policy and statesmanship, and for all those who want to understand how a first-rate scholar goes about his business.

BOOK REVIEW: ROLAND JACQUARD'S IN THE NAME OF OSAMA

ROLAND JACQUARD'S IN THE NAME OF OSAMA REVIEWED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, March 17, 2006


This book is a poor effort. It reminds me of one of those quickie books about the Mafia from the 1960s that were indigestible piles of newspaper cuttings and police tips. Such books spilled over with supposed mobster names and sinister-sounding activities, all with no perceivable organizing principle or meaningful analysis.

Just so Jacquard's book. After you've read it, you will understand almost nothing more about bin Laden than you knew before you read it. Jacquard has the name of every insignificant Arab-sounding individual ever given a parking ticket somewhere in the Western world, often going off on a pointless tangents from his attempt at a narrative on bin Laden. Unfortunately, the dozens of undefined organizations Jacquard mentions sound a lot like the Devil's Circle in that silly 1930s cliffhanger serial, The Three Musketeers.

The one interesting thing about this book is that it confirms a theory of mine concerning so-called experts on terror. In the United States especially, there are scores of such fellows regularly appearing on television news or writing other quickie books. No one ever seems to question how they are qualified to be considered experts in terror. After all, terrorist organizations are very secretive. How much did we ever learn about the IRA, a truly professional terrorist organization if there ever was one?

Much of what is claimed to be known today about al Qaeda, for example, is the result of American torture in a chain of post-invasion gulags. Like a child's cry of "uncle!" hoping to be released from a bully's grip, the words of the tortured are of little worth.

I am still trying to find a worthwhile book about bin Laden, but in the meantime, Jacquard's book is recommended only to be avoided.

BOOK REVIEW: LAMAR WALDRON'S ULTIMATE SACRIFICE

LAMAR WALDRON'S ULTIMATE SACRIFICE REVIEWED BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, October 17, 2006


This is a disappointing book. I had looked forward to what promised from some comments and reviews to be the first important book on the Kennedy assassination since Anthony Summers' Not In Our Time.

I am, readers will note, discounting numerous books since that publication which re-state old evidence, trying to give it some new twist, and conclude Oswald was the lone assassin.

The main merit of this book is that it does not accept the official story of the assassination. However, it attempts to prove a specific alternate theory, and it fails to do so. Along the way, it is pretty dull.

The first fault of this book is that it is poorly written - dull, heavy, and repetitive. The poor writing to which I refer is not just a matter of style. It includes, for example, many examples of saying, after suggesting some line of thought, that the authors will get to that in a later chapter. This is prima facie evidence of poor organization.

The poor writing includes such annoying faults as introducing facts or quotes with phrases like "as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist said...." Haynes Johnson is introduced three or four times this way. Alert readers will recognize a technique to bolster a claim beyond its merit. In general, one expects such quoted information to stand on its own, not on the citation of a newspaper-marketing award.

The book descends into a almost silly hush-hush tone with a number of footnotes or parenthetical statements about how the authors are protecting the identities of certain people. After making such claims, the authors sometimes proceed to suggest who in fact is involved, the worst example of this being the suggestion that Che Guevara was the CIA's man in Cuba ready to kill Castro.

Another fault of the book is a truly enormous amount of quoted material. This is a lazy-minded practice, a substitute for good analysis. It is also simply padding used to create the kind of fat book many expect on a serious topic like this.

The book brings little that is genuinely new forward. Almost every idea in it has been suggested previously by others, including a number of books on the Mafia as assassins.

The idea that there was a secret C-Day plan (the authors' nickname for a coup and friendly invasion of Cuba being run in top secret by Robert Kennedy) only puts into new words what has been general understanding for years. President Kennedy was a jingo, as was his brother. He embraced the idea of American interference in the affairs of others. He was also part of a family that never accepted defeat with good grace. Neither of the Kennedy brothers would accept the embarrassing defeat of the Bay of Pigs nor the partial-defeat of the resolution to the Cuban missile crisis.

But the book's greatest fault is not proving its thesis. This book has a superficially plausible thesis, that the Mafia infiltrated secret Kennedy plans against Cuba and used the existence of these plans as cover for the assassination, knowing the government would be too embarrassed to reveal the truth afterward.

If indeed the Mafia were behind the Kennedy assassination, then it is doubtful there can be convincing direct evidence left, and indeed the authors fail to produce any. They assemble a complicated story from snippets of still partially-censored government documents and casual remarks. And as all people who have studied the assassination know, the most interesting government documents have never been released or do not exist.

Of course, the Mob doesn't leave filing cabinets full of paper documenting its crimes the way the Nazis did. The best we have had is whispered word that so-in-so said they killed Kennedy.

When you give the authors' thesis a second thought, you realize it is faulty from the start. Why would the government be intimidated about the revelation of its plot in the context of the early 1960s when almost anything anti-Castro was acceptable? Why would the government not go ahead with C-day after the assassination, just using the assassination as cover?

More generally, the CIA's dirty-operations people, armed camps of violent anti-Castro refugees, professional criminals, and other nasty hangers-on were all so tightly bound together in the costly, anti-Castro plots of the early 1960s, it seems inadequate to think of one of the elements, and the smallest element, as separate and influencing exclusively the course of events. Many anti-Castro Cubans themselves hated Kennedy, viewing him as weak in their cause. They didn't need the Mafia, having been generously financed and armed to the teeth by the CIA.

Al Qaeda's future training camps in the mountains of Afghanistan were small, under-financed efforts compared to these American operations involving thousands of people and tens of millions of dollars. It was a giant criminal, terrorist plot financed by government. It failed in its purpose, Castro outlasting two generations of American Presidents, but it managed to kill many people, waste huge amounts of money, and do a great deal of damage.

BOOK REVIEW: WILLIAM TAUBMAN'S KHRUSCHEV

BOOK REVIEW OF WILLIAM TAUBMAN'S KHRUSCHEV BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, February 26, 2007


It's about time we had a decent biography of Nikita Khruschev.

Khruschev is a more important historical figure than seems generally appreciated today. He was something of a refreshing presence on the dreary world scene of the late 1950s and early 1960s. I remember his American tour, and you couldn't help but find a kind of pleasant and infectious quality in some of his observations and activities. I believe he sincerely wanted to slow or halt the Cold War the same way he diminished the horrors of Stalinism, an historic achievement.

Taubman doesn't capture the more idealistic sense of Khruschev, which I believe was genuine, because I was a young man through his time and took an interest in events.

Taubman's Khruschev is a bright (Khruschev had considerable analytical ability and a remarkable memory) peasant risen to the top, an extremely crude man, always regretful about his lack of formal education, who never ceases to behave as something of a Father Karamazov. I have no doubt there is truth here, but it provides an incomplete picture.

Was Khruschev any cruder than what we now know of the private life of John Kennedy, who had prostitutes swimming in the White House pool while Jackie was away, or of the public Lyndon Johnson, who used to conduct interviews and bark orders while relieving himself? I ask this because Taubman repeats the word crude or offers anecdotes about crude behavior many, many times.

Even as a young man I thought many of Khruschev's crudities were not so great as they were treated by America's press. The banging of his shoe at the U.N. is a favorite example. Crude? Yes. But significant beyond style? I think not much.

I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in biography, the period, world affairs, or Soviet history, but I do have reservations about it, and it should be read with some caution.

Taubman weaves into the text too great a sense of the correctness of America's position and policies of the time, giving a sense of Khruschev largely representing an irritating and sometimes dangerous opponent to them. America often behaved in provocative and dangerous ways through the Cold War. Taubman mentions some matters, as Eisenhower's saying that if the Soviets over-flew the United States the way the United States regularly invaded Soviet airspace there would be war, but the week-to-week reality of this is not stressed enough here to appreciate the intensity of the Soviet point of view. There were many such matters, including American submarines actually colliding with Soviet boats.

Taubman gives a lot of attention to Khruschev's well-known habit of rattling his rockets in speeches, but we are not given enough background for why he might do this. The Pentagon actually had plans in the mid-1950s for an atomic pre-emptive attack on the Soviets. Generals like Curtis LeMay, the man who bombed Japan to the point of gratuitous horror, openly advocated nuclear hostilities. And, of course, America had used the atomic bomb, twice.

Taubman's treatment of matters like the Cuban Missile Crisis suffers from this. The U.S. had a huge, generously-finaced terrorist operation going against Cuba at the time, including along more than one track, and that is an important part of the background that Taubman treats with what I believe is neglect. Taubman's words on the ghastly Bay of Pigs does reveal hints of American jingo attitudes. They are not offered loudly, but they are there, and I think they should not be if we want to understand what motivated Khruschev.

One of the great missing chapters in the book is any detail around the Kennedy assassination. The assassination is there but not treated adequately. It was, after all, an epic event which had great consequences on both the Soviets and America. Of course, to treat the assassination adequately involves going into issues that remain murky and controversial.

Despite my reservations, the book is an interesting and worthwhile read, however, I certainly do not agree with the New York Times review which said "Succeeds in every sense...unlikely to be surpassed any time soon...."

BOOK REVIEW: ROBERT FISK'S THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILIZATION

BOOK REVIEW OF ROBERT FISK'S THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILISATION BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, July 16, 2007


Everyone concerned with contemporary world affairs should read this book. Fisk aims to capture the sweep of events in Western Asia over decades, and he largely succeeds.

It is not a great sweep-of-history book in the sense of Gibbon or Macaulay - Fisk is a journalist, not an historian - although it has great journalistic passages.

Fisk provides an indispensable antidote to much of the propaganda and disingenuousness that plagues mainline media on the subjects of the Middle East and terror, much the way the Internet is plagued with innumerable viruses and Trojan horses.

Robert Fisk is one of the world's great war correspondents, and if you haven't read him at his passionate best, read the sections of this book about the Soviet Union in Afghanistan or the first Gulf War. He has lived in the Middle East for decades, and he has hurled himself into the conflicts there time and again.

To some, particularly defenders of Israel's excesses, Fisk is a controversial figure. But there is relatively little legitimate controversy possible in Fisk's reporting. He writes what he has witnessed, and he has spent many years putting himself at risk to be a witness.

The faults of the book are few.

At over twelve hundred pages, it may prove off-putting for new readers, but if this is a fault from one perspective, it is a strength from another. The book stands as an invaluable, comprehensive reference for events in the Middle East over recent decades. Forgotten a name involved in a famous event or a date? You are almost sure to find it here.

One of Fisk's stylistic manners is to get the name of obscure witnesses, as an individual soldier, or details such as the serial number off the scrap of a shell used in a battle or incursion, verifying where it came from. These are the practices of a seasoned, professional journalist and often provide Fisk with leads to still other stories.

For new readers, it should be emphasized that Fisk generally is a clear writer, so the length of the book should not discourage you.

The other fault is its episodic nature, although again this is a fault only from some perspectives.

The episodic nature undoubtedly derives from Fisk work as a columnist, and I think it likely a good part of the book is taken from re-worked columns or old notebooks. It is important to stress that the book is not a collection of old columns, a common kind of book from so many columnists.

Fisk enjoys reading himself, and the sense of an omnivorous reader of newspapers and history books pervades his work.

BOOK REVIEW: COMMENTS ON VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S RECLAIMING HISTORY

COMMENTS ON VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S RECLAIMING HISTORY BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, August 7, 2007


People impressed by big fat books will be impressed by this one, but in a sense its very size is a judgment against it.

It is no great feat for experienced court prosecutors to churn out voluminous documents. They do it all the time in their court briefs, taking pages of legalese to say what should take paragraphs of good, clear English.

It is fitting in more than one way that Bugliosi is a prosecutor, for this book is a prosecutor's brief, just a fatter one than the ones produced by Bugliosi's predecessors like Gerald Posner or Edward Epstein.

But size here serves another purpose. What I would call intimidation. How could you possibly argue with this massive pile (1,600 pages) of evidence and argument?

The truth is that it is not hard at all to argue with it.

Bugliosi follows his predecessors who used pretty much the same evidence to reach the same conclusions which any independent-minded student of the assassination understands is impossible, that is, that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone.

Bugliosi had no new evidence of any significance with which to work. He simply looks at the same old stuff ad nauseam. Those familiar with the evidence know the truth is that until we have new evidence, Bugliosi's conclusion cannot possibly be reached by a conscientious investigator.

The key fact of the assassination is that the existing evidence is not adequate to convict anyone, and certainly not Oswald. There is of course other evidence in existence which has never been released. The CIA and the FBI have files they have never released.

We know this from many bits of evidence, including references in documents we do have and from situations about which we can positively conclude evidence must exist by the nature of things. A good example of the last is the CIA surveillance photos and recordings of Oswald, or someone pretending to be Oswald, in Mexico City. An obviously incorrect photo was released and the claim was made recordings were erased.

Oswald's connections with the FBI have never been satisfactorily examined. There are many circumstances suggesting his being a paid informant for the FBI, especially during his time in New Orleans. A letter Oswald wrote to a Dallas agent just before the assassination was deliberately and recklessly destroyed by order of the office's senior agent immediately after the assassination with no reasonable explanation.

Oswald had no motive for killing Kennedy, having expressed admiration for the President. Bugliosi cannot get around this fact, only pursuing the typical path of all his forerunners of attacking Oswald's character.

Oswald's being promptly assassinated himself by Jack Ruby, a man associated with the murky world of anti-Castro violence, someone whose past included gun-running to Cuba and enforcer-violence in Chicago, is a gigantic fact that sticks in the throat of any author like Bugliosi. It has never been explained and is not here.


Of course, there is always Bertrand Russell's unanswered questions after he had reviewed an advanced copy of the Warren Report: "If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?"

Russell's question goes to the heart of the matter, as you would expect from one of the greatest mathematical minds of the 20th century. It has never been answered, and certainly not by Bugliosi.

It must be embarrassing for Bugliosi that Italian authorities recently, near the release of his book, conducted a series of tests with Oswald's ridiculous choice of weapons, a 1940 Mannlicher-Carcano, one of the last rifles in the world a determined assassin would choose.

Army sharpshooters could not come close to Oswald's supposed feat of loading the crude bolt-action rifle and firing it three times.

Moreover, in their tests using animal parts, it was shown impossible for a bullet to emerge from Kennedy virtually intact as the Warren Commission said "the magic bullet" did.

Of course, when we limit ourselves to three times loading and shooting for the rifle, we are already playing the Warren Commission's game. There were in fact at least four shots as a closely-analyzed recording clearly showed.

Recent analysis at Texas A&M University also showed that the ballistics evidence used to rule out a second gunman had been misinterpreted.

BOOK REVIEW: MARK ANDERSON'S SHAKESPEARE BY ANOTHER NAME

REVIEW OF MARK ANDERSON'S SHAKESPEARE BY ANOTHER NAME BY JOHN CHUCKMAN, August 23, 2007


This is a biography of Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, but the focus of this book is not so much to document the Earl's life as to demonstrate that the Earl was the author of the plays and poems we ascribe to William Shakespeare.

The known facts of Shakespeare's own life are few and seemingly unpromising to have produced the language's greatest poet. Many scholars and critics over the centuries have speculated that others were responsible for the plays and poems.

In de Vere, Anderson does have a fairly strong candidate. The author does show many connections between events in the life of Edward de Vere and facts and references in Shakespeare's work.

I think Anderson's strongest argument is the idea that a man like the real William Shakespeare, actor and theater producer, a man without any access to high levels of government, a man who so far as we know never traveled to any extent, and a man who would not have had access to any great library, simply would not be familiar with all the sophisticated matters touched on in the plays.

To bolster this general argument, Anderson identifies many circumstances from the plays that may be explained in terms of de Vere's experience, but they all remain suggestive, and in many cases Anderson does go through a rather tortured effort to make what he regards as a strong point.

Anderson offers many other supporting suggestive bits such as anagrams and drawings seeming to reveal another as the actual playwright and passages annotated by de Vere in contemporary books. The whole of this is suggestive, at times powerfully so, but it is somewhat less than convincing.

Although I enjoyed this book, nevertheless, in the end, I remain unconvinced. As Anderson says himself, there is no "smoking gun" - and, God, how I wish a scholar writing about our greatest writer would avoid such clichéd American expressions.

The most important doubt for me is found in de Vere's own known writing. While his letters show a man of learning and eloquence, I just do not hear Shakespeare in his words. There are times when Anderson says a reference in a letter is the same matter as a reference in a play or poem, but the magic of the language just isn't there to my mind.

Several interesting thoughts come to mind with the de Vere thesis. First, de Vere - wastrel and swashbuckler, was not a particularly pleasant or even ethical man, quite different to the figure most of us imagine Shakespeare's being.

Second, de Vere was not just a failure as a businessman, he was a total failure at being even the keeper of his inheritance. He had no commercial sense at all.

In the American national battery of tests for teachers some years ago, I noticed an odd question about Shakespeare in which the "correct" answer was about his being a good businessman - running a successful theater company, etc - rather than the romantic ideal of the artist. I thought the question heavily biased by America's focus on making money. If de Vere was Shakespeare, the question is not only odd, the desired answer was altogether wrong.

Despite my reservations, this is a book that should be read by all admirers of Shakespeare and by all who are fascinated by the Elizabethan period.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE NEWSPAPER IN MEMORIUM FOR ROBERT SORENSEN AN OLD GOOD FRIEND

Robert Peter Sorensen, born Chicago Sept. 11, 1909, to Oscar Sorensen and Catherine Ke