Barack Obama's Politics of Explanation crosses paths with a giant spider from outer space

This tale has been cross-posted, with colorful illustrations, at Rezko Watch. Merry has also added additional links to the post and appended some interesting related material. So you might want to drop in at RW to read this post.

"In Chicago it's difficult to tell who's a mobster, a businessman, or a politician."
-- From Alderman Roti's Nephew Frank "Toots" Caruso's Name Comes Up in Family Secrets Chicago Mob Trial

DING DONG

PUNDITA: [putting on a French accent] Oui?

DAVID PLOUFFE: I urgently need to speak to The Amazing Pundita! My name is David Plouffe. I'm the campaign manager for Barack Obama's presidential campaign and I must speak with The Amazing Pundita!

PUNDITA: Madame is indisposed. Call for an appointment next year.

DING DONG DING DONG KNOCK! KNOCK!

PUNDITA: Oui?

PLOUFFE: Please tell her I'm here to ask for magic lessons! I'll pay any price!

PUNDITA: [opening the door a crack and reverting to her small-town Washington, DC twang] Did David Axelrod end up at the bottom of a river?

PLOUFFE: Pardon?

PUNDITA: Isn't Axelrod the campaign manager?

PLOUFFE: Oh! I see -- no, no, he's the master strategist; I'm the campaign manager.

PUNDITA: David Plouffe? David Plouffe? Where have I heard that name before? Have you managed other political campaigns?

PLOUFFE: A few here and there.

PUNDITA: What do you want?

PLOUFFE: I need to make the city of Chicago disappear. I don't want to hurt anybody but could I just send it to another plane or something until December? Is that possible?

PUNDITA: With practice anything is possible. [ushering Plouffe into the parlor] Why Chicago?

PLOUFFE: Have you heard about Stuart Levine's testimony on Monday at Tony Rezko's trial?

PUNDITA: Then why not simply make the trial disappear? Why an entire city? Think carefully before you lie a second time to someone you believe can make a city vanish.

PLOUFFE: No no I wasn't lying, I just wasn't answering. Chicago -- have you ever been there?

PUNDITA: No.

PLOUFFE: It's a wonderful -- it's a fascinating -- oh hell; it's a cesspool. Look, do you want to see the presidential campaign come down to the Democratic nominee having to keep explaining and explaining about every little thing that doesn't meet the smell test for somebody who's never lived in a big city?

All I'm asking is to make Chicago vanish for a few months. If you can teach me to do that I'll pay anything you ask. And if he gets into the White House -- you want the US in Iraq for a hundred years? How about if you get to name the Secretary of State? I promise; anything you want!

PUNDITA: Have you considered that your request is a slippery slope? Chicago today. But how do I know you won't show up next week asking to make Kenya vanish?

PLOUFFE: Oh no; I think we can talk our way around Kenya! It's just Chicago; I promise.

PUNDITA: All right; I can give you a free trial lesson to test your aptitude for magic. However, it would take more practice than you have time for to learn to make something actually disappear.

What you can learn with reasonable practice is to transform something into something else. So while you can't make Chicago disappear, you can learn to transform it into another city. How does that option sound to you?

PLOUFFE: That sounds wonderful! How about changing Chicago into Pittsburgh?

PUNDITA: Follow me.

PLOUFFE FOLLOWS PUNDITA INTO THE BACK YARD.

PUNDITA: We'll start with transforming something small and simple into something else that's small and simple. [pointing her magic wand at a passing chipmunk] Bunny.

THE CHIPMUNK TRANSFORMS INTO A BUNNY. PUNDITA HANDS THE WAND TO PLOUFFE.

PUNDITA: Now all you have to do is transform the bunny back to what it was originally. Ready?

PLOUFFE POINTS THE WAND AT THE BUNNY.

PLOUFFE: Gee, once you have the wand in your hand you realize it's a power so awful --

THE BUNNY TRANSFORMS INTO A 20-FOOT TALL TARANTUALA AND ADVANCES ON PLOUFFE.

PLOUFFE: [screaming in terror] Help!

PUNDITA: What begins with "C" and ends with --

PLOUFFE: [swinging the wand at a tarantula leg] This is awful!

THE TARANTULA TRANSFORMS INTO THE SEPOY MUTINY OF 1857.

PUNDITA: [diving under a patio table] What begins with "C" and ends with "K?"

PLOUFFE: [ducking rifle fire and thwacking the wand at a lunging sepoy] Who are these crazy people?

THE SEPOY MUTINY TRANSFORMS INTO THE PRESENT SENIOR FELLOWS OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

PUNDITA: [screaming in terror] WHAT BEGINS WITH "C" AND ENDS WITH "K?"

PLOUFFE: Chappaquidick?

PUNDITA: Gimme! [snatching the wand from Plouffe and pointing it at the CFR] CHIPMUNK!

THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS TRANSFORMS INTO THE CHIPMUNK.

PLOUFFE: [collapsing into a lawn chair] That's a chipmunk? I thought it was a rat.

PUNDITA FANS HER FACE WITH A HANDKERCHIEF, THEN MATERIALIZES A SHOT OF SOUR MASH WHISKEY AND GULPS IT DOWN.

PLOUFFE: Well! How do you think I did for a first try?

PUNDITA: Aside from you almost being eaten by a spider from outer space, run through with a saber and giving me heart failure? In future you might want to avoid situations where your life depends on listening to instructions.

PLOUFFE: I promise I'll listen more carefully in the second lesson!

PUNDITA: There can't be a second lesson because there's an old saying in these parts: A man who can't tell between a chipmunk and a rat won't know the difference between his promises and lies.
* * * * *

Convicted felons, associates of the American Mafia, Mafia-corrupted labor unions, Mafia-tainted gambling casinos, international con artists, including wanted fugitives, and associates of Islamic terrorists are among those who have contributed to the campaigns of Senator Robert "The Torch" Torricelli, an analysis of Federal Election Commission records, published reports, and other documents reveals. [...]

In 1996 Torricelli was caught on an FBI wiretap soliciting contributions over a telephone at a Florida pizza parlor under surveillance for suspected Mafia ties, the Associated Press’ John Solomon would later report. Among those captured speaking with Torricelli were Francis and Sam Roti, the nephews of Fred Roti, a Chicago politician convicted in 1993 of racketeering, bribery, and extortion with members of the Chicago Mafia Family and the Laborers Union.

On the FBI tapes Torricelli asks for $1,000 contributions from the Rotis and their associates and the Rotis then suggest that their native Chicago would be a good place for Torricelli to raise funds, even though Chicago is a thousand miles away from the constituents Torricelli would represent. [...]

In February [2001], the New York Times reported that three top Aides to Torricelli, Adam Crain, Executive Assistant Roberta Stern, and former campaign manager David Plouffe, had received letters from the Justice Department notifying them they were targets of the investigation into the 1996 Torricelli campaign. [...]

If Torricelli is not indicted, it will lend credence to those on the political Right who have claimed a Special Prosecutor should have handled these cases from the beginning, noting that while several "small fish" were convicted -- and given minor sentences -- not a single politician who was a recipient of these illegal funds was ever charged."
-- From In the Money: Senator Robert Torricelli And His Campaign Contributors

Speaking of the devil -- William Ayers, that is -- and Barack Obama, the candidate of change

It seems only just yesterday -- come to think of it, it was yesterday -- that I mentioned William Ayers. It was also yesterday that I observed to a correspondent:

Last night watched CNN, MSNBC, Fox for reaction to Obama-Hillary 'debate.' For me, the point that floated to the top is that Obama and spinners in his camp are being very effective at characterizing questions re his relationship with Ayers, Wright, his comments about small town, etc. as "wedge" issues and a distraction from the "real" issues.

And they're managing to present every question they characterize as "wedge" as a 'discrete' issue, separate from the other wedge issues, which diverts public attention from the pattern of Obama's associations, judgment and behavior. Yet all those wedges add up to a big pie.

I had no idea at the time I wrote those words that by nightfall the world would be abuzz with discussion about the Ayers question that George Stephanopoulos of ABC News put to Barack Obama.

Odd; after all these months of Rezko Watch blog shouting inside a glass booth about Ayers, after all these many weeks of Sean Hannity pounding away at the issue inside a glass booth -- a few words from ABC television and darned if everyone suddenly discovers William Ayers.

Thus, the awesome power of the mainstream media. Laugh at it, rail against it, but dismiss it at your expense.

Today, Rezko Watch has the roundup on the Ayers-Obama issue, including reports that were overlooked for months by the mainstream media. And last night Lou Dobbs launched a broadside:

From Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN, April 17 transcript:

DOBBS: Senator Obama, today, is defending his relationship with a former member of a terrorist group known as the "Weather Underground," a man named Bill Ayers, a leader in that group that bombed government buildings back in the '60s and '70s. My guest tonight says Ayers, who hosted Senator Obama at his home in the 1990s, was strictly a terrorist who had bombed the Pentagon in 1972.

Andrew McCarthy is also a former federal prosecutor who, in fact, led the investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He is also the author of the important new book, Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.

[About] Bill Ayers, we're hearing today from Mayor Daley that he also knows Ayers and he's just a fine fellow and no problem, don't be -- please don't be discomforted by Senator Obama's relationship with him.

MCCARTHY: Look, of all the people who've ever bombed the Pentagon and the State Department and the New York City police headquarters, I'm sure [Ayers is] one of the best. But I -- my sense is that regular Americans aren't going to see it that way.

DOBBS: Senator Obama, you are declaring rather straightforwardly, is denying some relatively close relationships that he is suggesting are not -- are distant.

MCCARTHY: Yeah, well he's denying the relationship, but I think more importantly what he's trying to obfuscate is that there's a trajectory to all of this and there's a theme that runs through it and whether its some of the statements made by his wife or Reverend Wright or Bernadine Dohrn and Ayers, the fact is he's comfortable --

Bernadine Dohrn being Ayers' wife; the other Weather Underground terrorist who was Ayers' wife. But [Obama] is comfortable with people who hate this country. And I think when he talks about and makes the theme of his campaign "Change," and since he hasn't really explained to us much about the change, we're entitled to infer, from the people he's comfortable with, who are social revolutionaries, the kind of change he wants to make in America.

DOBBS: You're including, obviously, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

MCCARTHY: Of course, right.

DOBBS: And Ayers ... Others?

MCCARTHY: Well, there's Rashid Khalidi, who was a recipient of some of the largess that Obama controlled when he was on the Woods Board. He is somebody who was --

DOBBS: He was on the board with Ayers ...?

MCCARTHY: Yes, when Obama was on the Woods Board with Ayers, they gave grants to Rashid Khalidi, and his work. Now, he has denied being a member of the PLO. But there's no question he's an apologist for Palestinian terrorism, including suicide attacks against Israeli soldiers.

DOBBS: Let's talk about your book, as well. And that is a memoir of the jihad.

There is a reluctance, and as you suggest in the book straightforwardly, to come to terms with the reality that we are in a conflict with a competing ideology.

MCCARTHY: Yes. We would rather think that this is basically a marginal fringe group of lunatics who have hijacked an otherwise peaceful religion. And, boy, I wish that was true.

But the fact remains that what the ideology that we're up against, which is the ideology that fuels all the terrorism, is an ideology of long-standing 14th century --

DOBBS: Radical Islam.

MCCARTHY: Yes, radical Islam, which has demanded the [fealty] of rich and poor, educated and uneducated. I don't think we should underestimate the power of it.

DOBBS: Andrew McCarthy. "Willful Blindness: A Memoir of The Jihad." on terror today." Thanks, a very important book. We can't recommend it highly enough.

ABC News tries to save the Democrat Party and gets vilified for it

Last week, on his Sunday show, John Batchelor mentioned something to the effect that the Clinton campaign and others were sitting on a bombshell about Barack Obama, and that the information hadn't been released because efforts were still being made to properly vet it.

I don't recall whether Batchelor meant that 'news media' were the others or whether he even used the word 'others' but clearly he had the bombshell information. And my strong impression is that he was referring to others in the media as well.

No, he gave no hint about the nature of the bombshell, but I thought of his words last night while I watched the "debate" between Obama and Hillary Clinton that was sponsored by ABC News.

It wasn't really a debate; it was a chance for ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson to grill the candidates and with emphasis on nailing down Obama on his position about William Ayers. The questions they put to Obama within the first hour have been met with angry protests from Obama supporters.

I'm not going to leap to the conclusion that the bombshell, if you'll pardon the expression, has to do with Ayers. But given Mr Obama's way with words it really is necessary to nail him to an unequivocal statement -- to the extent he's capable of not equivocating.

Nor am I sure that ABC News has the information that Batchelor referred to, but I do know that not too many weeks ago, there was a sudden and striking change in the ABC News attitude toward Obama. The kid loves started to come off with regard to Obama's connection to Tony Rezko. ABC has not pushed Obama as hard as they might have done but since that incident (which, if I recall, occurred on the Stephanopoulos show) they have pushed.

It may be that there's more to the sea change than Obama's relationship with Rezko, Ayers, Wright, and a host of other highly questionable associates. And perhaps ABC's increasing toughness with Obama has more to do with the mounting accumulation of Obama's misstatements and lies than any one incident or a 'bombshell.'

But if a bombshell gets dropped, it could be more than a severe blow to Obama's campaign; it could unleash furious questions about the DNC's longstanding refusal to properly vet Barack Obama. I suspect the most furious questions would come from American blacks, who have done much to support the Democrat Party.

Gates of Vienna Forest and Cultural Counterjihad

Background
Last Wednesday I published my take on the Fitna Rosetta Stone project created by Gates of Vienna blog and observed:

It is impossible to explain in a few words, to someone who is completely new to the topic, the many levels of importance of the Gates of Vienna Fitna Rosetta Stone project. So I thought the best introduction was to publish a series of email exchanges with Baron Bodissey, one of the two GOV authors (Dymphna is the other). I disagree with Baron that the project is more symbolic than practical but I'll leave that discussion for later.

On Friday Baron published his response in Conversations With Pundita: The Counterjihad, the War to Save Civilization, and Distributed Emergence, in which he observed:

As often happens, my thinking about certain topics wasn't clear (or even entirely conscious) until I wrote it down while trying to explain it to somebody else. [...] it’s salutary every now and then to step back and take a look at the larger picture of what we're doing. Having conversations with intelligent and well-informed people helps me gain that perspective.

From where I stand I can't see anything but trees. It’s not possible to see the forest. None of us can. But it’s occasionally entertaining to imagine what a forest looks like.

Consider this my attempt to describe the forest; I can't promise it will be entertaining but I hope it will inspire others to elaborate on my observations.
* * * * * *
A Gates of Vienna reader, Sagunto from Amsterdam, helped me make up my mind about how to categorize Gates of Vienna. The reader began by quoting the concern I expressed in my Fitna post: "I'm not entirely happy with Baron’s title suggestion (Counterjihad); I don't think it conveys the scope of Gates of Vienna," then asked:

Why's that? What happened at the Gates of Vienna 1683 was Counterjihad, pure and simple (and victorious). It therefore is the one word that i.m.o. exactly conveys, maybe not the "scope", but definitely the focus of GOV.

Finding his logic unassailable, I concede the simple reality of the blog's name, which is clearly explicated with the phrase:

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.

However, GoV is not a milblog; it focuses not so much on armed conflicts as on political-cultural ones. Unlike Vienna in 1683, modern Europe is not in conflict with invading Muslim armies. Rather, Europeans (to include Anglos) are battling each other over issues connected with Muslim settlements in Europe and immigration of large numbers of Muslims from non-European regions.

For readers outside Europe who haven't been following this story:

The battles have been bloodless -- so far -- except for scattered incidents of 'bullying' carried out by one faction against another -- usually those calling each other "fascist" or "Nazi" from one side and some variation of "Quisling" from the other.

And there have been numerous violent incidents carried out by non-European Muslims against the Europeans in the countries where Muslims have settled. (And to a much lessor extent hate crimes have been carried out by Europeans against Muslims.)

Yet those who speak of European "dhimmitude" are imprecise to the point of misleading. Dhimmi is associated with conquered peoples and the Muslims haven't conquered so much as a micron of European soil.

To whatever extent Europeans now feel overwhelmed by Muslim populations it is the Europeans who created the situation. It evolved from European government policies, and with the tacit and even overt approval of the majority in European societies that accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants.

Protests against the situation have launched an ever increasing political-social struggle that has received very little attention in the American mainstream media -- and I suspect the same is true in Canada.

Even when there is coverage, it's done in a narrow and piecemeal fashion; e.g., reporting on the number of votes received by a 'extreme' right wing party in say, France, and which has 'something' to do with immigration.

You can't get a handle on the struggle through such reports. You can't understand the myriad issues unless you follow European blogs specializing in the issue, and keep up with press reports in several European countries. Yet this tack can bring you up against the language barrier if you are not fluent in a range of European languages. And it requires a big investment of time for someone who's just trying to see the big picture.

That's where Gates at Vienna comes in. There are other North American blogs that routinely or sporadically report on various aspects of the European struggle. But GoV specializes in discussing the struggle.

And even though it's an American blog it has many European readers and contributors, which means it often presents ideas that are quite 'foreign' to the American viewpoint. Too often, American commentators who support counterjihad and want to resist Islamization apply the American paradigm to Europe, which distorts many issues across the Pond.

Gates of Vienna is also a place to find English-language European blogs and translations of European press reports that deal with unfolding events in Europe and which present opinion on the myriad aspects of the struggle.

The struggle is not monolithic across Europe; it's viewed and approached differently depending on the European country -- and often there are strongly conflicting opinions and approaches within a country.

For non-European readers who are starting to fog out -- well, the struggle I've outlined could result in the dissolution of the European Union -- or at the least, several countries could leave the union.

And the struggle is very definitely going to be played out, in some fashion, in North America -- and here I would not exclude Mexico. Not today, not tomorrow, but it's on the way and could end the two-party political system in the USA. Thus, what we can learn from the Europeans can avert much grief down the line.

And if we substitute 'Latin Americans' for Muslim immigrants, many regions in the USA are already grappling with the kind of issues that have led to so much turmoil in Europe.

Indeed, the issues are rooted not in any one ethnicity or religion but in globalization and open societies. Here is where we begin to see the Gates of Vienna forest. Once you get oriented to the discussions at GoV, it comes clear that Europeans are bringing up issues that haven't been addressed for generations by anyone but academics.

We are seeing non-academics having to sort through very deep questions relating to rule of law, theology, human rights, nationalism, cultural identity, and so on, and trying to frame it all within modern democratic political solutions.

To add another layer, Muslims are not being left out of this discussion and are generating their own internal conflicts. Indeed, the conflicts between Europeans and Muslims are acting as a crucible for a great reawakening in Islam; a great intellectual foment, as Islamic scholars battle it out with each other as to what Islam means and how it fits with the modern era.

This is just why I believe that the Fitna Rosetta Stone project has a practical aspect. If you don't know what people are really saying about your religion, if you don't have access to the criticisms, how can you correct your understanding and that of others?

The truth is that the Muslims who don't speak Western languages often receive Western criticisms about Islam through a very distorted filter. The filter is translations provided by Muslims who represent some variation of the Saudi interpretation of Islam, and who are virulently anti-Western.

So how can you have useful debate when much of it is lost in translation? The Fitna Rosetta Stone translation project addresses just that question.

All the above suggests that conflicts relating to the fate of European cultures are generating a kind of renaissance that may define our era. That is the forest I see when I study the Gates of Vienna blog.

From all this, perhaps Baron and Dymphna can forgive me for fussing about how to categorize GoV for my blogroll. I will split the difference between "Counterjihad" and "The War for Civilization" by naming the category "Cultural Counterjihad." And I might include this essay in the category by way of explaining my view of Gates of Vienna.

Next step? I would suggest a project to list and categorize the major debates arising in different European countries with regard to immigration/assimilation issues and preserving European cultures. Nothing fancy; maybe in chart form.

Weasels at DEFCON 1: What Obama said at the fundraiser, what he says he said, and what the New York Times says he said

"And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-- Barack Obama, April 6

"What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is they've got family, they've got their faith, they've got the traditions that have been passed onto them from generation to generation. Those aren't bad things. That's what they have left."
-- Barack Obama, April 13

For a second day, Mr. Obama sought to explain his remarks at a recent San Francisco fund-raiser that small-town Pennsylvania voters, bitter over their economic circumstances, “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations.
--The New York Times, April 13

I do not know, and I am not sure I want to know, why the Times doesn't like the word "bitter" coming from Mr Obama's mouth. Maybe they're beginning to wonder where the bunny is, too.

Go ahead, laugh at me for hanging garlic around the doors and windows. We'll see who laughs last if you think it's elitism that drove his comments.

Fjordman weighs in on the Tibet-China discussion

A lively discussion is going on at Gates of Vienna, touched off by my response to comments about the Baron's discussion of my post regarding the Fitna Rosetta Stone project:

Tibet, the Laogai, and Western self-loathing. Fjordman is one of my idols, so I was thrilled he took the time to respond.

There will be at least one other Pundita post this week on the discussion but now I'm logging off for the rest of the day.

Where is the bunny, Mr Obama?

This entry is cross-posted at Rezko Watch.

Sometime after posting yesterday's entry on Barack Obama's 'Small Town America' remarks, I came across an essay at a site called UNCoRRELATED that gave me quite a turn. The essay is titled Angry Barack Obama:

... why did he choose the angry Rev. Wright? Why did he court such an angry wife? Why did he hang out with angry Leftists like Bill Ayers, who were angry to the point of bombing their own country?

The writer goes on to quote Jim Geraghty at NRO, who found passages in a book by Obama that are practically a confession that he is (or was, at the time of the exchange) an angry man.

It was luck that I tuned into the Friday night Lou Dobbs show, which spent the entire hour discussing Obama's Small Town America comments. At the show's end I switched the channel to Fox to see what the Red Meat conservatives were saying about Obama's remarks.

I was startled by Sean Hannity's comments and those of Andrew Card. Sean and Card spoke about Obama's 'typical Left elitism' and the locale -- San Francisco -- where Obama had delivered the remarks. Sean was fixated on the idea that Obama had made his remarks to "elitists."

I'd just finished watching the Lou Dobbs show, which had featured an interview with the blogger who broke the story about Obama's remarks. The blogger made it clear that Obama had addressed a very mixed group:

"There was the wife of an army surgeon. There were Safeway grocery store union workers. There were professors, there were housewives, it was quite a cross-section of prosperous California."

So much for the idea that because Obama knew he was speaking to an elitist audience, he felt he could let his hair down. He wasn't speaking only to elitists, and his practiced politician's eye would have told him that.

And Obama had to know that many Californians hail from small towns all over America. So what possessed him to make those remarks in that setting?

At the time I shrugged off the question and what I considered to be Sean's mistake. It was still early in the news cycle and I figured he'd take the weekend to absorb all the details about the ruckus. Just for good measure I made sure to include the CNN interview with the blogger in my post on Obama's remarks.

Yet later in the day, when I checked on the news about Obama's remarks, I saw that the entire issue had been framed in the media as a question about elitism. That struck me as all wrong, although I couldn't propose an alternate theory, except that Obama was an idiot. Then after thinking over the piece at UNCoRRELATED, a pattern emerged from many things I noted over the months about Obama's actions.

Before I continue, full disclosure. I am in perfect agreement with a remark that Mark Steyn made some months back about the US presidential contenders: "How did it come down to these three?" So only the name "Nadhmi Auchi" was able to focus my attention on the campaign and Barack Obama.

Yet my very first clear impression of Obama, which took place a few weeks earlier, was alarm. After seeing a campaign TV ad for him I announced to a friend, "Just thought you'd like to know that an organization is cribbing from Nazi propaganda films to market Barack Obama as the nation's next president."

After the friend got me to describe the ad, he calmed me down by saying that most American college students don't even know who won World War Two, and that the people who filmed the ad were just trying to make him look like a rock star.

I didn't buy the part about the college students. But I found it easier to accept the explanation when I began researching Obama and his connections to Tony Rezko. Ever since March 2, when I first wrote about Obama, I've made it clear that I thought he was a typical corrupt Chicago politician and stupid enough not to realize where all Rezko's connections led. My essays about Obama reflected that view; I considered him more of a phony that anything else.

My view also led me to assume that Obama was initially drawn to Chicago because he thought that Rezko's connections would help him rise fast in politics. After mulling over the UNCoRRELATED piece I blurted, "Maybe he wasn't drawn there by politics. Maybe the hate drew him."

There's a lot of anger in many big cities but Chicago could be described as Hate Central, USA. The city is not only the headquarters of the Nation of Islam and Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church, it's also a magnet for other movements, and for Americans such as William Ayers, whose middle name is hate.

There are people who feed on other people's hate; the hate vibe makes them feel more 'alive.' If Obama is one of those people then many of his 'life decisions,' and his recent 'gaffes' while under pressure, would show in a new light.

For example, when under pressure he couldn't talk about his grandmother without suggesting that she was filled with hate, although he didn't use that word. He wouldn't, if he were an emotional vampire; he would use substitute words such as anger, fear, frustration, bitterness, and so on. But for emotional vampires, it's all about the strongest negative emotions -- hatred, rage.

Now that I've scared myself silly, I recall it was just a few weeks ago that I laughed at Spengler for playing armchair psychologist about Obama. I don't know how much stock to put in my own ruminations on Obama's psychology but I am going to publish them, in the futile attempt to stop a runaway train.

I don't think it was elitism that prompted Obama to use suicidal language for a politician in a struggle for the world's most powerful office. I suspect the language stemmed from a compulsion, although not necessarily the one I suggested.

Yet there does seem to be a pattern of Obama being drawn to hate-filled people -- and lest anyone assume that his relationship with Ayers is casual, I suggest a reading of John Batchelor's comments on the issue.

My pattern, however, is that I still find it hard to see Obama as anything more sinister than a corrupt Chicago politician. So I'm going to close by quoting what I know will be my all-time favorite comment on the presidential contender, which was posted on April 12 by Ms. Sonia Trevino at ABC News blog

obama reminds me of a magician i saw as a little girl. he put a bunny in a hat and then pulled out a quarter. i was 7 y.o and i was not fooled i stood up and screamed where is the bunny, where is the bunny, what did you do with the bunny.

Barack Obama, The Economist's pick for President of the United States

"In the dangerous second decade of the century, when Vladimir Putin returned for a third term as Russian president and stood poised to invade Ukraine, it was the EU that pushed the Obama administration to threaten massive nuclear retaliation."
-- The Economist, March 17-23, 2007 issue; predictions on the European Union's future.

Pundita's reply to The Economist:

March 2
Barack (I'm not a crook) Obama, Nadhmi (I'm not a crook) Auchi, Tony (I'm not a crook) Rezko, and the Democrat (We're not idiots) leadership

March 13
How you learned to stop worrying and love Obama

March 18
Wattel Toys unveils Barack Obama Talking Doll

March 19
The Obama Plan for beating al Qaeda: talk them to death

March 20
Barack Obama's race speech is a knowledge test, not a Rorschach Test

April 12
Weasels in a Bunker

Weasels in a bunker

April 11, 6:50 AM

Brrrrrrinnng! Brrrrrrinnng!

[Barack Obama campaign manager David Axelrod gropes for the red phone next to his bed]

AXELROD: [groggily] Hullo?

OBAMA: David, I can explain. I had a sip of wine and a bite of cheese at the fundraiser and I had an allergic reaction. That's the only reason I said what I did.

AXELROD: [fully awake] Let's hear it.

OBAMA: First let me lay out the narrative --

AXELROD: Can the crap. What did you say?

OBAMA: Remember one of those little fundraisers in San Francisco last week? I um said some things that the Clinton and McCain camps will try to spin as my being against small town America.

AXELROD: [raising his voice] What the -- what did you say?

OBAMA: I said -- look, you have to understand the context of my remarks and how this combined with my allergy.

AXELROD: [screaming into the phone] WHAT DID YOU SAY?

OBAMA: Listen, let's not worry about what I said. I'm calling to let you know my remarks were tape recorded and the Huffington Post just published them.

AXELROD: Was it a spy from the Clintons?

OBAMA: Uh, no, it was one of those old white ladies who follow me around the country. She's a supporter, maxed out her donations to my campaign, I think. But see I think she's from a small town. And she blogs.

[David Axelrod frantically punches buttons on the red phone and sets up a conference call.]

JEN PSAKI and TOMMY VIETOR, Obama campaign spokespersons [in unison]: We hear and obey!

AXELROD: Listen carefully: You cannot confirm or refute the remarks attributed to Barack Obama at a fundraiser in San --

JEN and TOMMY: That will be hard, sire! The audio is clearly his voice.

AXELROD: [yelling] YOU CANNOT CONFIRM OR REFUTE. If Clinton and McCain say anything about the remarks, talk about McCain's cruelty to the middle class and Hillary's stupid proposals. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? NO DIRECT REFERENCE TO WHAT OBAMA SAID!

[Axelrod punches more buttons on the phone.]

SUPERDELGATES IN UNISON: Yes David!

AXELROD: Tell me exactly what the twit said. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh. Whaddya mean there's no way to say the remarks were taken out of context?

SUPERDELEGATE: Evidently he used the occasion to present a thesis that if small town Americans just had better jobs and pay, they wouldn't need to take refuge in religion and guns and be xenophobes.

AXELROD: If you get a call from the Lou Dobbs show to appear and comment on anything Obama said about anything, you have the mumps. Understand? [slamming down the phone receiver] Next time I use a professional actor for the presidential run.
* * * * * *

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Senator Obama's Small Town Remarks Largely Criticized

Aired April 11, 2008 - 19:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[...] Tonight, uproar and fury after stunning remark by Senator Obama. Senator Obama blasts small town America in front of wealthy donors. Obama's remarks could shake the entire presidential campaign. We'll
have complete coverage.

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, news, debate and opinion for Friday, April 11. Live from New York, sitting in for Lou Dobbs, Kitty Pilgrim.

PILGRIM: Good evening, everybody.

Outrage tonight after Senator Obama blasts small-town America. The remarks could seriously damage Senator Obama's presidential campaign. Obama made the remarks in front of wealthy donors at a fund-raiser in San Francisco last Sunday. The news was first reported by the "Huffington Post" Web site. The "Huffington Post" provided an audio tape of what Obama said.

Let's listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D-IL) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been done now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration and each successive administration has said that these communities are going to regenerate but they have not.

And it's not surprising that then they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

PILGRIM: Now Senators Clinton and McCain immediately pounced on Obama's comments. They criticized Obama for being insensitive and out of touch. The Obama campaign tried to limit the political damage as soon as this news broke.

Obama's campaign said, "No one from our office was there. We don't have a campaign recording. We are neither confirming nor refuting." We will have extensive coverage tonight from the campaign trail and from the finest strategists. We begin with an exclusive interview with "Huffington Post"'s Mayhill Fowler who broke this story.

Mayhill, thanks for joining us on the phone.

MAYHILL FOWLER, BLOGGER: You're very welcome.

PILGRIM: Mayhill, please set the scene for us. What kind of a crowd was assembled here, first of all to set the scene, the context of these remarks.

FOWLER: This is a fundraiser, the fourth in the day. This last Sunday in San Francisco and Marin and the South Bay in California. And it was at a house in Pacific Heights. There were maybe 350 to 400 people there. Quite a crush. Quite a crowd. These were people that had maxed out their donations to Senator Obama and among that group is myself.

PILGRIM: How would you characterize them, prosperous, middle class, wealthy, what category?

FOWLER: That's a very good question. You shouldn't have the impression these were very wealthy donors. These were mostly middle class and upper middle class who, I'm guessing, like myself, had slowly given money over time to Senator Obama until they reached the $2,300 cap.

There was the wife of an army surgeon. There were Safeway grocery store union workers. There were professors, there were house wives, it was quite a cross-section of prosperous California.

PILGRIM: And they had maxed out their $2,300 donations.

Mayhill, you told me in a previous conversation on the telephone, you always record what you report. So you had a tape recorder going at the time. Tell us how that played out, how you had this tape recorder going. What you noticed as he was making remarks.

FOWLER: I cover the campaign for Off the Bus, for the "Huffington Post." I'm a citizen journalist. I've been covering the campaign since last June, intensely since September. I had just been in Pennsylvania following the Obama bus tour from west to east across the state. So I would say his frame of mind was the same as in Pennsylvania, calm, relaxed, very upbeat, full of confidence.

PILGRIM: The remarks we quoted at the top, when you heard those remarks, what was your reaction and the reaction of those attending the event?

FOWLER: Two different reactions. First of all I should say it's not the first fundraiser I've been to. Most of the ones I go to I don't write up. I don't think they're probative of anything. I wasn't expecting this one to be probative.

Therefore I was quite surprised when he waxed at length and eloquently on a number of topics. And the first thing that caught my attention was ruminating about possible choices for a running mate should he be a nominee. I was also struck by what he said about Pennsylvanians particular since I had just been in Pennsylvania meeting the same people that he was talking about.

But I would say most people there, I can't speak for all of them, but most of the people there don't follow the campaign at enough of a detail or at length to have been struck by his having saying things that he hadn't said before.

PILGRIM: Mayhill, you wrote in your blog that these comments you felt reinforced negative stereotypes. When you wrote this blog, how much time between the event and when you wrote it. How much did you consider what you were going to write in the blog and did you realize you might generate --

FOWLER: I gave it a great deal of thought. Sunday night I went home and right away I wrote the piece right way about choosing the running mate. That appeared on "Huffington Post" on Monday.

I was not initially going to write about Senator Obama's remarks about Pennsylvanians. Because, frankly, I didn't want to bring down the campaign. I gave it more thought and I decided that the remarks bothered me enough that I wanted to write them up.

PILGRIM: Mayhill Fowler, of "Huffington Post," thank you so much for joining us and describing your recording of these remarks at the event in San Francisco. Thank you, Mayhill.

FOWLER: You're very welcome.

PILGRIM: Our senior political correspondent, Candy Crowley, joins us now from Terra Haute, Indiana. Candy, what is the Clinton campaign saying about the Obama remarks?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me start with just one thing. The Obama campaign put out a statement about this directed mostly at John McCain who as you know said this proves Obama is out of touch. And listen, said if John McCain wants to talk about who is out of touch, talk about the tax cuts he supports for rich people. They tried to explain these remarks by saying the senator has long said that people are angry at their government for not delivering on promises particularly on politicians.

To with the problems of the people. The campaign was all over the blog really before it hit mainstream media. They were pushing it to reports, showing it to reporters. And at a Pennsylvania economic round table, Hillary Clinton took her shot.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) [...]

PILGRIM: All right. Thank you very much Candy.

Let's turn to Bill Schneider, our political analyst.

Bill, your reaction to these remarks this evening?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it's certainly true that a lot of voters are angry and bitter over the war, over trade, over the economy. But he got into trouble for one precise reason, and that is because he said that people turn to religion and guns, by which I assume he means thinks like hunting, and that they criticize trade and illegal immigration because they are bitter and frustrated with their lives.

Now that's a causal assertion, religion, guns, and criticism of trade and illegal immigration because they are bitter and frustrated with their lives.

A lot of voters are going to find that statement untrue and insulting to their values and condescending. So I think to be fair we have to hear a fuller explanation from Senator Obama of what he meant. Maybe an explanation and maybe an apology would be in order.

But we need to hear more about what was his intention in making that causal statement.

PILGRIM: Bill, we heard Mayhill Fowler remark that when she heard it she was particularly struck by it.

We do have the Obama campaign statement in response to the McCain and Clinton campaign attacks on Senator Obama.

Let me read Senator Obama's campaign statement: "Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up for the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities. If John McCain wants a debate about who is out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now he wants to make permanent."

That was the Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor who gave us that statement now -- Bill.

SCHNEIDER: Well, that doesn't quite answer the question. It really changes the subject. Because he has to explain what he meant by the assertion that people's bitterness and frustration are causing them to turn to religion. And anti-trade sentiment and criticism of illegal immigrants. As I said, a lot of people are going to find that condescending and insulting.

And I think he needs a fuller explanation of what he intended to say by that statement. I think the woman who was there said she was bothered by it, some people in the room were bothered by it a lot of voters will be bothered by it. It requires a fuller explanation than that.

PILGRIM: It certainly does. Bill Schneider, thank you very much.

Let's turn to my panel in these studios.[...]

Cross-posted at Rezko Watch. Don't miss the pix accompanying my post over there.

China Olympics debacle: Pundita lectures athletes on the Laogai, the Dalai Lama on message discipline, and leaders of the Free World on how to lead

I will show you what all the protests around the world about China's human rights record have accomplished:

The Olympics have been so upstaged by complaints about China's human rights record that the central government has reportedly invited several British and U.S. public relations agencies to discuss how to better improve its image.

In other words the protests have accomplished nothing. Now how did that come about? For the answer I'll review some recent developments (emphasis throughout mine):

A high-ranking Olympic official declared Wednesday that anti-Chinese protests during the torch relay had been 'unacceptable,' while acknowledging that he had watered down an official statement urging China to settle the conflict in Tibet.

It seemed that Britain's Prime Minister had made an unequivocal statement by announcing he would not attend the Olympics opening ceremonies but here's what actually happened:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said he is sticking to a plan to attend the closing ceremonies of the Olympics, while sending his sports minister to the opening celebrations.

In Brussels, the European Parliament voted 580-24 to call on European Union government leaders to consider boycotting the opening ceremonies unless China resumes negotiations with the Dalai Lama. But:

The non-binding resolution floated "the option of non-attendance" to pressure China to talk to the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.

In the United States, the Leader of the Free World announced after consultation with the senior minister of Singapore's authoritarian government that Beijing's leaders should reach out to the Dalai Lama. But President Bush continues to insist that he will attend the opening ceremonies in Beijing.

What about the resolution passed Wednesday by the U.S. House of Representatives, and the similar resolution introduced in the U.S. Senate, which call on China to end the crackdown in Tibet and “enter into a substantive dialogue” with the Dalai Lama?

There is absolutely nothing behind either resolution except hot air, and Beijing knows this. There's not even a call to boycott the Olympics in Bejing.

I could go on supplying examples but I think by now you get the picture. Beijing has taken the measure and knows the leaders of the Free World are wafflers.

So the tragedy is going to play out exactly as it did with the crackdown on Burma's protestors:

Before the Olympics starts, Beijing will arrange for a meeting between mid-level officials and representatives of the Dalai Lama. Nothing will come of the meeting but it will give world leaders and China business lobbies the excuse they need to show up at the 2008 Olympics.

In the case of Burma there wasn't much that Western leaders could do. There is something that leaders of the Western Free World can do with regard to the China Olympics, if the leaders can manage to present a united front.

How to explain that novel concept? It means agreeing on a principle then everybody agreeing to stick to it; in this case, sticking to the principle that it's a really bad idea to show political support for China's human rights record.

However, it would be easier for leaders of the Free World to present a united front if His Holiness the Dalai Lama would engage in message discipline, or what used to be called 'coherence' before the word was banned from diplomatic circles.

How can His Holiness practice message discipline in this instance? Well, if you know about the holocaust that China inflicted on Tibet, and if you're the leader of Tibetans in exile, you should leave it to others to praise China's culture.

Also, if you're urging an investigation of China's actions in Tibet, then it's not coherent to opine on the world stage that the 2008 Olympics should be held. You don't have to say the games should not be held -- just don't bring up the subject and reply 'No comment' if anyone asks.

Just -- how to explain? Just don't contradict your position all over the place. If you know China's government is doing really bad things to your people, this is not the time to praise China's culture and be a booster for a bunch of athletic games.

Practicing coherence, forming a united front -- none of this is rocket science. But now we come to the tricky part; here I always have to get down on my tummy and draw little stick figures.

You need to get past the idea of trying to play teacher to the Chinese.

The Chinese have been engaged in diplomatic relations for thousands of years. That means it's taking candy from a baby for China's leaders to deal with your attempts at diplomacy.

There is no combination of carrot-and-stick words you can think up that the Chinese cannot talk their way around. And there is no way your words can change the behavior of the Chinese.

So, announcing that you might or will boycott the Olympics, if China's leaders do not change their behavior, will get you nothing besides smoke in your eyes.

What you can do is change your behavior. How to do this? Act in the manner of a leader of free peoples.

When China's leaders see actions from you, they can change their behavior -- but only in response to your actions to alter your own behavior, not in response to your lectures about what Chinese should do.

So it's not a matter of your yammering at the Chinese about human rights and saying you might not attend their Olympics party. Beijing is just being Beijing. It's you who made a mistake; you should never have agreed to attend the Olympics while China's government was still repressive.

And leaders of the Free World should never have supported the decision by the International Olympics Committee to hold the Olympics in Beijing. However, that decision was made in 2001 -- so for a number of today's world leaders the decision happened before their watch.

In any case, correct your mistake and do so publicly. Announce that you will not be attending any part of the 2008 Olympics because China's government is repressive, and that you made a mistake by agreeing to attend. End of story, and don't change the story, no matter how China's leaders rage.

What you can also do, behind the scenes, is warn Beijing that if they attempt to launch a trade boycott or financial actions in retaliation against any country that supports your decision, you will see to it that the country receives your economic support.

If you combine these actions with coherence of speech and a united front, you've done the best you can to rectify the mistake of the China Olympics and you've well represented the Free World.

Finally, for athletes outside China who want to participate in the 2008 Olympics, do you have any idea what your presence at the games will be supporting?

Read this report from China Human Rights Defenders, which explains that the houses of 1.25 million Chinese were demolished to make way for Olympic venues. Very few of the Chinese who lived in those house have received compensation for being turned out. Remember, or learn, that those Chinese have no rights under law because the communist system does not allow them to own property; the government is the only owner.

And remember, or learn, about the Laogai:

In China the abundant work force often costs nothing: they are prisoners condemned to hard labor. Further, the raw materials are sometimes the prisoners themselves: their dead bodies are used for the cosmetic industry and the illegal traffic of organs.

We are referring to the Laogai, which in Chinese means “reform, reeducation through work.” These are the concentration camps which are the foundation of the Chinese prison system as well as its “economic” system.

This is where toys, clothes, mineral products, etc., are produced, the fruit of the 18-20 hours of daily labor of prisoners, mostly political dissidents, in their daily efforts to complete the “rehabilitation process” they were sentenced to by the representatives of the Chinese Communist Party.

[...] How many Laogai are there? It is impossible to know [...] because they are continuously closed and re-opened in different places. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch estimate that at present there are circa 1000 camps with 6,000,000 prisoners.

Visit this site for reports on U.S. Congressional Hearings, Briefings, Testimony and Resolutions on the Laogai and Human Rights in China.(1)

I know that you trained for years to participate in an event that should be a tribute to human potential. But realize that naming today's China as a site for the Olympics was an awful affront to humanity.

1) MIDNIGHT UPDATE
A reader thinks the number of Laogai camps and prisoners cited in the above article may be old or an exaggeration. The reader supplies the figures: 500,000 prisoners in 310 're-education' camps. But the reader didn't supply a source for those figures. Half a million sounds low to me yet there is the problem of getting accurate data, as noted above. Any figures are going to be a very rough estimate. However, the article's main points about the Laogai are beyond dispute.

John Batchelor scores, Mark Steyn soars, Marc Lemire roars, and Pundita thanks Richard Warman

This has been quite a week. Protestors drawn from all over the world turned the Olympics torch relays in London, Paris, and San Francisco into an indictment of China's thug government. And my picks for U.S. President and Vice President in 2012 spent two days on Capitol Hill finding different ways to say "No" nicely to politicians who want the US out of Iraq yesterday.

There have been smaller victories this week for freedom defenders -- smaller but no less significant:

> Broadcaster John Batchelor launched a blog called Torchwatch, which posts on his radio reports about the Olympic torch protests and repression in China, and also carries essays and reports from other news sources on those issues. Here is a list of the guests he's lining up for this Sunday's "Torch Show."

(7:00 PM ET Update: John has added more guests who are confimed for the Sunday show and will speak about China-Tibet-Olympics issues.)

> John scored again this week with his discussion at Human Events about more pieces of the Tony Rezko-Barack Obama puzzle. The fireworks about Obama's relationship with William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright have obscured the biggest story about his questionable associations.

The problem is that the biggest story is very complex and doesn't lend to MSM sound bite reporting. Yet for months Batchelor has been patiently unearthing the details of the ties that bind Obama to Rezko and Rezko's vast web of corruption.

B. Merry at Rezko Watch does a great job of explaining the significance of Batchelor's latest article on the Obama-Rezko File.

> Mark Steyn's America Alone: The end of the world as we know it arrived at U.S. bookstores in paperback.

Mark has written a new introduction, which summarizes the book's impact since its original publication and discusses recent major events that support the book's thesis.

This news has great importance for Washingtonians because we can stuff the paperback edition into our over-stuffed briefcases, which means we can snatch moments to actually read the entire book. (The hardcover edition is gathering dust under a pile of other hardcover books that I've labeled with sticky notes screaming MUST READ NOW.)

The other great importance of the paperback edition is that it underscores that a 'school' is coalescing around Mark Steyn's points -- the school's formation greatly helped along by attempts in Canada to quash Mark's discussions about civilizational collapse.

Speaking of the Steyn School, Milt Rosenberg at Chicago's WGN 720 radio show will be talking to Mark Steyn for TWO hours tonight, starting at 9:00 PM. The show is available online and also as an archive. See Mark's website for news about his other media appearances this week and for discussion of his book's paperback launch.

> Marc Lemire has done it again; actually, he did it on March 31 but it wasn't until today that he posted the details to his new blog. In one sentence:

In a motion filed on March 31, 2008 before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Marc Lemire is demanding that the CHRC disclose the fake names they used on internet message boards and to reopen the hearing so that the CHRC employees can be cross examined.

The great significance is that he's demanding that the Canadian Human Rights Commission reveal ALL the aliases they used over the years to entrap victims of Canada's Section 13 law.

> This week serial Section 13 complainant Richard Warman launched libel suits against five Canadian FreeSpeechers; this, in the futile attempt to restore his lost face, and which is going to backfire.

But I would like to thank Mr Warman for shoving me off the fence. Last week I sat around giving a long-winded excuse to my readers about why I was listing only one blog relating to the Canada FreeSpeechers on my blogroll. Thanks to Warman's libel suit, this weekend I am going to add to my blogroll every blog I can find related to Canada's Free Speech movement.

Gates of Vienna and the astounding Fitna Rosetta Stone project, Part 1

"Time is God’s tool; and while He does some things in the twinkling of an eye, other stuff is years upon years."
-- Binks

It is impossible to explain in a few words, to someone who is completely new to the topic, the many levels of importance of the Gates of Vienna Fitna Rosetta Stone project. So I thought the best introduction was to publish a series of email exchanges with Baron Bodissey, one of the two GOV authors (Dymphna is the other).

I disagree with Baron that the project is more symbolic than practical but I'll leave that discussion for later.

One of the interesting things about the Fitna Rosetta Stone project is the number of years it took Dymphna and Baron to establish Gates of Vienna blog to the point where they could manage such a complex project involving thousands of volunteers. Yet when it all came together, they were able to do things more quickly than many international organizations.

The Rosetta Stone is an Ancient Egyptian artifact which was instrumental in advancing modern understanding of hieroglyphic writing. The stone is a Ptolemaic era stele with carved text. The text is made up of three translations of a single passage, written in two Egyptian language scripts (hieroglyphic and Demotic), and in classical Greek. It was created in 196 BC, discovered by the French in 1799 at Rosetta, a harbor on the Mediterranean coast in Egypt, and contributed greatly to the decipherment of the principles of hieroglyphic writing in 1822 by the French scholar Jean-François Champollion. Comparative translation of the stone assisted in understanding many previously undecipherable examples of hieroglyphic writing. ...

The term Rosetta Stone has become idiomatic as something that is a critical key to a process of decryption or translation of a difficult problem.

Baron,
I am sorry to hear Dymphna is ill again. It may cheer her to learn that I am creating a category on my blogroll just for Gates of Vienna titled "Europe in the House of War." In an earlier post I mentioned that GOV was long overdue for specific recognition at Pundita for their coverage of the European struggle against Islamification.
Pundita

"Pundita,
I think Dymphna has already written you -- she's well enough today to get on the computer a little bit. It's very kind of you to give Gates of Vienna special recognition. Yes, we concentrate on Europe, because to me that's the most important front in the war.

But the "Rosetta Stone for Fitna" project is actually broadening our reach. It made me realize that everything I do is done by personal networks. I used to read news stories on my own and cobble them together for my essays, but our blogging success has changed all that -- I don't get much time for independent reading! Yet I have excellent tipsters, so I get a constant flow of good up-to-date information. TB is my watchdog over Northern and Western Europe, and also the Arab press. He reads everything.

Insubria and C. Cantoni cover the Mediterranean and the Maghreb for me, mostly via ANSAmed, ADNKronos, and AsiaNews.

With all of these, I stay up to date on anything important, but I can use only about 5% of the material sent to me. So I try to make sure none of it goes to waste -- I pass China material on to you, Pacific Rim stuff to Wretchard, Spanish-diaspora tips to Fausta, Israel and Jewish issues to Tundra Tabloids and Israel Matzav, and pretty much everything to Fjordman, Henrik at Europe News, and the Brits in CVF.

In the last few days, as the new volunteers have poured in to offer their services for translation or to help subtitle the videos, I've started to get assistance from beyond Europe. We just started corresponding with an Argentinian and a Uruguayan, and an Indonesian guy translated Fitna into Indonesian for us last night. More and more Central and Eastern Europeans are getting in touch, too.

It feels like we're breaking into new territory here. Less than 24 hours elapsed between the time I posted about Indonesia's reaction to Fitna and when the three versions of the movie subtitled in Indonesian went up onto the web. I don't think the State Department or the UN can work that efficiently, and this was a volunteer operation.

So it's a distributed network in action, doing what it does best. It's not me or Dymphna or any other person doing all this; it's a nexus of contacts, a lattice of information that spreads unbelievably quickly.

My only jobs are to grease this network to make it work a little more efficiently, and to write lucid copy to accompany the news stories. The rest of the work is done by thousands of people who have volunteered to join the cause of the Counterjihad.
Baron"

Baron,
After your comments about GOV going global I am thinking of changing the category title from "Europe in the House of War" to "The Civilizational War." If you can think of a better title please let me know

Also, if you can snatch a moment can you send me the link to the first Fitna Rosetta Stone post, and if it doesn't contain an explanation about why you termed it Rosetta Stone, could you toss in a few sentences about this for me to publish?
Pundita

"Pundita,
I call it “The Counterjihad”. Not everybody likes the term, but it seems to me the shortest and best summary of what we’re all part of. It says, “Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, Christians, Mormons, and Atheists are all included.”

The Rosetta Stone posts:

Rosetta Stone for Fitna
Rosetta Stone for Fitna Part Two
Rosetta Stone for Fitna Part Three
Rosetta Stone for Fitna Part Four
Rosetta Stone for Fitna Part Five
Rosetta Stone for Fitna Part Six

The overview:

Fitna Translations

I never did explain the title! I guess I just assume readers know what the Rosetta Stone is — and I also used an image of it in the graphic that goes with the posts.

I started the “Rosetta Stone” process when I organized the translations of Lionheart in January. The idea was to get versions in as many languages as possible — hence the “Rosetta Stone” meme. We got 17 languages for Lionheart:

But we pushed it up to 20 for Fitna.

Lionheart was a dry run for Fitna, in a way. It helped me to corral a team, and design a system of rapid response for translation. We were anticipating the movie (I had a reliable tip about the date), and were very ready to mobilize as soon as it arrived. The emails went out that night, and the first translation rolled in the next day.

Fitna came out on the Thursday afternoon, and by the following Monday we had it in 19 languages (the Indonesian version came later, and there may be more yet to come, fingers crossed).

This was due to diligent and rapid effort on the part of a lot of different people. It was not me, or Dymphna, or any other single person who gets the credit; it was the entire team, some of whom — the go-betweens and the tipsters — don’t get any public mention.

So the translation team — all volunteers, most of them using pseudonyms, nobody getting paid — is ready for other important projects when they turn up.

You’d have to pay a lot of money to be able to do the same thing in any of the traditional ways, and even then you might not get it done so quickly. This is distributed intelligence at its finest. Everybody who stepped forward to help is a hero, IMHO.

The subtitling process was different — most of subtitled versions were created by people who have nothing to do with us. Maybe four or five of our translations were used to make subtitles. But I gathered links to any of the available downloads as people sent them to me, so that we could have one location where people could find Fitna, in as many languages and formats as are available.

If you want some fun, Google “Fitna download” and see what happens!

The goal of the Rosetta Stone project (or projects) is more symbolic than practical, although there is some practical value in it.

Normally, the really big stories in the blogosphere are in English, German, French, or Spanish — the languages of other smaller countries aren’t included, even though they have their own vibrant, intelligent, mature blog cultures.

Almost every literate Dane is also literate in English. But the same is not true of Czechoslovakia or Portugal — they’re at least as likely to learn German or French in school as they are English.

So delivering something to them in their own languages, translated by their own citizens, is a way of recognizing that they are distinct, sovereign countries and cultures, and that we are in solidarity with them. It’s true multiculturalism, one that respects the existence of other cultures on equal terms, *but within their own countries.*

It’s a little easier for an American to coordinate such an effort, because I don’t have a dog in any of the fights — between Germans and Poles, British and Irish, Portuguese and Castilians, Serbs and Croats, Danes and Swedes, etc., etc. I tend towards a partiality for the Danes and the Brits, but I don’t take sides in any of the squabbles.
Baron"

Dymphna:
I just received an email from Baron saying I was "kind" to give GOV special recognition. The thanks should be from my side. I consider myself lucky that you discovered Pundita in 2005 or else I might not have found GOV, especially not back then.

(One of my regrets is that the time I spend plowing through reports leaves me little time for scouting interesting blogs.)

GOV is a very important site because for years it has specialized in reporting on the growing situation in Europe, which as of last year had clearly transcended the war on terror. This is a civilizational war. Yet it has been carefully kept out of the mainstream news in the United States. So the situation in Europe that Mark Steyn reported on in his book America Alone (2006) was stunning news to most Americans -- but not to those who had been reading Gates of Vienna for years.

Also, as you know, I jumped into the Section 13-free speech issue in Canada very early; what you don't know is that reading GOV for years had helped me instantly recognize the wider implications of the issue. The civilizational war is not just over there across The Pond.

And once again, my years of reading GOV made me quick to realize the implications of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Sharia speech -- as my involvement with the Section 13 affair and readings of Canadian free speech blogs caused me to instantly recognize the import of the archbishop's diatribe against free speech.

Many issues from many quarters are dovetailing, and only those Americans who are closely following 'Europe in the house of war' and the Section 13 struggle are aware of how all this is building to impact the United States of America.

The other day I joked that MSM editors and TV news producers in the US are praying, 'Oh God please don't let the American public learn about the war in Europe until after the presidential election.'

It's unlikely that more than a handful in the US journalism profession are aware of the war but if they knew, probably many would be making just such a prayer. When I listen to the speeches from the three presidential candidates about how America can get along better in the world, I seriously wonder if their advisors stopped reading European newspapers three years ago. America is the emerging as the hero for many Europeans fighting to save their culture.

As for Bush's Democracy Doctrine, many people around the world are indeed angry about it -- they're angry because Bush and the state department didn't go far enough to support the doctrine and in several spectacular instances beytrayed it; e.g., continuing to support Egypt's repressive regime, taking China off the list of countries that greatly abuse human rights, and on and on.

Yet few people around the world understand how things work at Foggy Bottom. I've had to eat so much crow about America's stated support for democracy in other lands that I'm growing feathers. It's very frustrating to lecture other countries about democracy when your nation's foreign office is hell bent on sucking up to repressive regimes.
Pundita

Dear Dymphna and Baron:
Thank you both for your recent informative letters -- and Baron, thanks for taking time to write up an overview of the work that went into the Fitna Rosetta Stone project.

The project has so many angles it's hard to encompass it in a short writing. Today's post, which allows Baron to speak for the project, is a start.

I'm not entirely happy with Baron's title suggestion (Counterjihad); I don't think it conveys the scope of Gates of Vienna. But if I don't come to a decision it will be next year before you get your own category on my blogroll. Right now I'm leaning toward "The War to Save Civilization." I've given myself the deadline of 10:00 PM to make up my fussy mind.
Pundita

Today in San Francisco it's the Adaptives versus men and women of conscience

Let's face it: If you're a member of the International Olympics Committee and don't happen to be the China representative or have the brain of a flea, by now you've concluded that holding the 2008 Olympics in China ranks right up there with do-it-yourself appendectomy kits for stupid ideas.

It doesn't help when the vice president of the International Society of Olympic Historians snorts, "I think the idea that the Olympics shouldn't be politicized is silly."(1)

So right this minute, everyone on the IOC is watching the clock for the start of today's San Francisco Olympic torch rally. Yesterday the IOC announced they were looking for signs about whether to abandon the rest of the international portion of the torch relay. Ostensibly the IOC is worried about broken bones along the torch route:

An IOC official, Director General Urs Lacotte ... said the Olympic organization has been pressuring the Beijing Organizing Committee to redraw the torch relay to limit the potential for violence. The IOC will step in, Lacotte said, the first time a torchbearer is injured or protests become unmanageable - that is the limit.

"In London, where the torchbearer was accosted by a protester, well, that was very near the limit," he said.(2)

What is the limit after what happened at the Paris protests yesterday? Mass casualties?

The IOC leaders are not concerned about torch bearers going to the hospital. They're waiting for the Beijing Olympic Committee to stop holding them at gunpoint. This is so they can cancel a public relations disaster for the Olympics by letting the torch relay run only in China, where the country's military will ensure that there are zero protests along the route.

But it's too late to cancel this day.

They've been arriving all week in San Francisco, from all around the United States and Canada, to take part in today's protest of the torch relay, the only time the 2008 Olympics torch will be carried on North American soil. Most of the arrivals aren't professional human rights activists, they're citizens from all walks of life and backgrounds, drawn to the Golden Gate city by the call of conscience.

Ranged against the protesters are various officials doing what could be called the Adaptive Dance.

There is San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom, prodded into ever greater adaptive postures by the city's board of supervisors since three pro-Tibet activists scaled the Golden Gate Bridge and the Paris Torch Melee:

"We anticipate problems here," Newsom told CBS 5 television yesterday. ... Newsom said a six-mile torch route released last week was now likely to be changed and could even be adapted during Wednesday's event.

"We will continue to adapt," Newsom said. "This route is not fixed. It will continue to change and it will change up until the torch is passed -- and even during the middle of the route."(3)

And there's the adaptive Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and representative of the 8th Congressional District of California, which consists of four-fifths of the City and County of San Francisco.

I guess it was the Speaker of the House who walked arm-in-arm with the Dalai Lama just a few weeks ago to show sympathy for the plight of the Tibetans, and who proclaimed the Chinese crackdown on Tibetans "a challenge to the conscience of the world."

And I guess it was the San Francisco political representative who declared:

"[T]he Olympics should provide more opportunity for free expression, not less," but who stopped short of speaking in favor of the protest resolution.

Authored by San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly along with Tibetan and Falun Gong activists, the resolution urges the city's representative in the torch ceremony to "make publicly known that the 2008 Summer Games Torch is received with alarm and protest."(1)

Such an unequivocal statement of conscience would have offended San Francisco's business community and lobbyists, who see to it that China does big trade with the city.

Of course there are limits to how much one can upbraid the city's business community for being quite so adaptive, given that the U.S. Department of State saw fit to be adaptive and remove China from the list of most repressive countries -- and just in time for China's crackdown in Tibet last month.

If China had been kept on the list, the city elders would have had the perfect excuse to refuse the Olympic flame's presence.

And that's the way things are, as we await the dawn in San Francisco.

1) Free Tibet vs Free Speech Zones, Mother Jones

2) IOC considers abandoning torch relay's international route, Canwest News Service

3) San Francisco bracing for Olympic flame protests, AFP

VIVA LA FRANCE!

"It is inadmissible that the games are taking place in the world's biggest prison."
-- Sylvain Garel, French democracy activist

Not to short the London protests, but the French protestors paid a magnificent tribute to the spirit of the modern Olympics, which were launched near Athens.

Would that San Francisco comes close to Paris in protesting "the flame of shame," but that's unlikely. San Francisco's mayor and several on the city's board of supervisors have shown great hypocrisy on the matter of the protests.

As for the dizzy Olympics organizers and athletes who wept at the tumult in Paris -- stop sniveling and stand up for freedom. Viva la France!

Olympic Torch Relay Descends Into Chaos
By JEROME PUGMIRE and ELAINE GANLEY

PARIS (AP) — Paris' Olympic torch relay descended into chaos Monday, with protesters scaling the Eiffel Tower, grabbing for the flame and forcing security officials to repeatedly snuff out the torch and transport it by bus past demonstrators yelling "Free Tibet!"

The relentless anti-Chinese demonstrations ignited across the capital with unexpected power and ingenuity, foiling 3,000 police officers deployed on motorcycles, in jogging gear and even inline skates.

Chinese organizers finally gave up on the relay, canceling the last third of what China had hoped would be a joyous jog by torch-bearing VIPs past some of Paris' most famous landmarks.

Thousands of protesters slowed the relay to a stop-start crawl, with impassioned displays of anger over China's human rights record, its grip on Tibet and support for Sudan despite years of bloodshed in Darfur.

Five times, the Chinese officials in dark glasses and tracksuits who guard the torch extinguished it and retreated to the safety of a bus — the last time emerging only after the vehicle drove within 15 feet of the final stop, a track and field stadium. A torchbearer then ran the final steps inside.

Outside, a few French activists supporting Tibet had a fist-fight with pro-Chinese demonstrators. The French activists spat on them and shouted, "Fascists!"

[...]

Throughout the day, protesters booed trucks emblazoned with the names of Olympic corporate sponsors, chained themselves to railings and hurled water at the flame. Some unfurled banners depicting the Olympic rings as handcuffs from the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame cathedral. Others waved signs reading "the flame of shame."

The Interior Ministry said police made 18 arrests.

Officers sprayed tear gas to break up a sit-in by about 300 pro-Tibet demonstrators who blocked the route. Police tackled protesters who ran at the torch; at least two activists got within arm's length before they were grabbed by police. Near the Louvre, police blocked a protester who approached the flame with a fire extinguisher.

One detained demonstrator, handcuffed in a police bus, wrote "liber" on her right palm and "te" on the other — spelling the French word for "freedom" — and held them up to the window.

With protesters slowing down the relay, a planned stop at Paris City Hall was canceled. Earlier, French officials hung a banner declaring support for human rights on the building's facade.

A spokesman for the French Olympic Committee, Denis Masseglia, estimated that a third of the 80 athletes and other VIPs who had been slated to carry the torch did not get to do so.

On a bus carrying French athletes, one man in a track suit shed a tear as protesters pelted the vehicle with eggs, bottles and soda cans.

The chaos started at the Eiffel Tower moments after the relay began. Green Party activist Sylvain Garel lunged for the first torchbearer, former hurdler Stephane Diagana, shouting "Freedom for the Chinese," before security officials pulled him back.

"It is inadmissible that the games are taking place in the world's biggest prison," Garel said later.

Outside parliament, as the torch passed, 35 lawmakers protested, shouting "Freedom for Tibet."

"The flame shouldn't have come to Paris," said Carmen de Santiago, who had "free" painted on one cheek and "Tibet" on the other.

[...]

Associated Press writers Nicolas Garriga, Angela Doland, John Leicester and Alfred de Montesquiou contributed to this report.

Note

The next post will be tomorrow by 8:00 AM Eastern Time but here's an update on two items I was following last week:

Re: my announcement that I would publish the letter Marc Lemire wrote to The National Post: Marc informed me that he didn't have a copy of his letter because he wrote it in the comment form provided by the paper and forgot to copy the text before he sent it.

However, even though the Post didn't publish his letter I don't think his effort was in vain. I note that the latest Post article about him, dated April 3, terms him a "far right activist."

I don't know whether Marc would agree that he is far right, but the term is a big step up from the Post labeling him neo-Nazi and white supremacist.

This might have been a coincidence but I also note that the Post toned down their rhetoric to describe Marc the day after I published his email mentioning that the paper hadn't published his letter of complaint and announced that I would publish the letter.

Re: Gerald Langlois: I haven't heard from him since Wednesday, when he sent news that he would be on CBC Sunday Morning. In that communication, he forwarded an email from CBC that was an offer to appear on their viewer response segment. Yet I haven't heard whether the interview, if it went ahead, was aired yesterday.

Government goons make futile attempt to suppress historical record: A second look at Lhasa, Tibet riots. Part 7

From Boing Boing (H/T Binks at Free Mark Steyn!):

In this BBtv vlog episode, Xeni speaks with Tibetan human rights worker Lhakpa Kyizom about reported abuses against so-called "wired monks" in Tibet, by PRC military and police.

Using cellphones, these monks photographed dead and injured participants in nonviolent, pro-Tibetan sovereignty protests that took place in March. The monks then disseminated these images to supporters outside Tibet, using connected computers and mobile devices.

After the images spread worldwide, and their origin became known to authorities in the tightly-controlled, tense, post-protest environment in Tibet, Kyizom says, military forces invaded the monastery, confiscated all communications tools, and detained nearly 600 monks in political retaliation. [...]

Link to Boing Boing tv episode, with discussion, downloadable video, transcript of Kyizom's account, and links to related reports. [...]

The Vlog, rest of Boing Boing article and all the links here:

QC Gerald Langlois on this week's CBC Sunday Morning to discuss "faceless, incompetent, power-hungry" bureaucrats at CHRC

Last week Pundita published Mr Langlois's letter about the March 25 tribunal hearing on Marc Lemire's case. Given the way things work in media land I'm not 100 percent sure the segment will be aired this week but so far all systems seem go for this Sunday. Langlois will have 20 minutes to speak; given the opinion he expressed at this blog and in his note to Jay Armitage at CBC the segment should be a humdinger. Here's the note:

Rick Andrews' post nailed the issue. The CHRC is riddled with "community activists" and faceless, incompetent, power-hungry bureaucrats. As was evident in the final hearings on Tuesday, March 25th, even the Chairman had difficulty understanding the difference between examination in chief and cross-examination, as did the Commission counsel. I believe that Marc Lemire will be released unscathed except for his pocketbook, but only due to the fact that Chairman Hadjis must now save the faces of both the Commission and the Tribunal.

7:30 PM UpdateI was just at Free Mark Steyn! and noticed that Binks has a good idea; if the interview goes forward it would be great if someone could get it onto YouTube.

The National Petition Bureau will see you now, Dr. Barnett

In his 2008 cover article for the May/June issue of Good magazine (Ten Reasons Why China Matters To You), Thomas P.M. Barnett, an American security analyst, lists at number 8: "Because China’s transformation echoes much of America’s past. ... right now, China is somewhere in the historical vicinity of 'rising America' circa 1880."(1)

All right; let's take a look at the vicinity for China's peasants, which comprise two-thirds of China's population:

The Yunfu authorities who confiscated Mrs Wang's land are only doing what countless other municipalities around the country have done. ... Against such powerful local interests, what do peasants such as Mrs Wang do to seek justice? The answer has been the same for centuries: they travel to Beijing to make a direct appeal to the rulers of the nation. And in doing so, they become a member of China's most desperate underclass: the petitioners.

This is probably the only group with lower social status than the peasantry. No one knows how many there are - it could be tens of thousands or tens of millions - but they all share the same belief in a benevolent central government that will correct the injustices carried out by local tyrants.

It is a legacy of the imperial age. Up until 100 years ago, petitioners put their hopes in the emperor, who was believed to rule with the mandate of heaven. Since 1949, appeals for earthly, or divine, justice go by letter to the state council - the communist-controlled cabinet.

[...]

"When we arrived, we went to Tiananmen Square directly without having dinner, because we thought the National Petition Bureau was there," says Mrs Wang. It wasn't. By the time they found the right place, it was too late. They lodged at a £2-per-night flophouse and tried again the next day. It was dispiriting and confusing.

Mere peasants, the officials told them, should not be taking up so much important government time.

[...]

In the rubbish-strewn alleys of Fengtai, near South Beijing railway station, an entire community of petitioners has sprung up - some of them waiting for years in the hope of redress.(2)

Ah yes, I remember as if just yesterday the tens of millions of American peasants in the 1880s who pilgrimaged to the nation's capital every year to seek redress from the emperor.

Is there no way to convince Dr. Barnett to take up his true calling, which is designing Lego toys?

And is there no way to get through to the naive that this era's China apologists are cut from the same cloth as the Western journalists and intellectuals who marketed Mao Zedong's slaughter of 45 million Chinese as a great leap forward?

The difference, this time around, is that the apologists enjoy the full cooperation and encouragement of democratic governments, and transnational corporations and financial markets based in democracies.

This fellow traveling has resulted in myths so prevalent in the West that propagandists and influence agents in the pay of China's government barely have to exert themselves.

The other day a Reuters reporter passed along the myth that Beijing's interpretation of upholding "human rights" is supplying basic necessities, such as food and shelter, for China's population, rather than upholding "individual rights."

Tell that to Mrs Wang. Tell that to millions of other Chinese who are turned out to starve when the state wants the land they farm.

If you have no individual rights, including the right to own property, you cannot expect that you have a right to food and shelter or to earn those necessities. Such are not "rights" in China; they are privileges bestowed by the state and easily revoked by the state.

So it's a joke to speak of economic "progress" for Chinese; all those new cars, all those new homes and appliances -- all those possessions, easily revoked at the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen.

Another myth is that the CCP isn't all that powerful anymore. The name of the political party doesn't matter; what matters is the system of government, which is totalitarian and communist; the system transcends all parties.

If you want to trade with China's system of government, if you want to invest in it -- hey, it's a Darwinian world. But don't lie; don't say you're helping 1.3 billion people move toward democracy.

And get it straight: That China's rulers have embraced mercantilism does not make that nation a baby America.

1) H/T The China Beat

2) The Big Steal by Jonathan Watts