Cuba is such a tragedy – a prosperous and basically decent society, wrecked. The old buildings are like ancient ruins that provide hints of the accomplishment and promise that used to be.
(via Babalu)
Havana’s Deco Ruins
(via Babalu)
Civil Society
(via Babalu)
All Scimitars, Sabers, Kopesh and Katana Are Now Illegal!
Back in January of 2007, a couple of detectives in England were in over their heads.
They came across a gang of five guys who were breaking in to a house. The detectives identified themselves as police officers, and attempted to take the criminals into custody. But the perps figured out that the cops were unarmed, and the fight was on!
Two unarmed detectives against five guys who had chains and hammers. Things looked grim, particularly when one of the gang became curious as to what the cops had eaten for breakfast and produced a knife to help him find out.
But then help arrived in the form of a nondescript private citizen wielding a cheap samurai sword. “Leave him alone, he’s a police officer!” he yelled, and charged the gang single-handedly. He fought bravely, if not particularly well, and managed to inflict a minor wound on one of the burglars. Criminals being a cowardly and superstitious lot, the gang broke and ran. The detectives managed to tackle and bag one criminal each, but by the time they had subdued their respective catches the good Samaritan had slipped away.
That guy had balls as big as churchbells, and I don’t just mean that because he went toe-to-toe with a swarm of ne’er-do-wells. While self defense is not illegal in England, or at least it isn’t technically illegal, it is against the law to use anything designed as a weapon to defend yourself. Local Detective Inspector Peter Bent stated “It needs to be said we cannot condone vigilantism or people running around with swords or weapons. It will be up to the Crown Prosecution Service whether they see his actions as justified or going beyond reasonable force.”
He could charge straight at a gang of armed desperados without a moment’s hesitation, but the guy with the sword could see no other option than running and hiding after the dust settled and the cops were back on their feet. I don’t blame him one bit.
The police launched a manhunt to see if they could smoke him out, and I have no idea if they ever managed to find out who had drawn steel to defend their lives on that day. Something tells me that the cops on the street, when told that they had to find an average Joe who had saved two of their own just so he could face the courts, merely went through the motions and really didn’t put too much effort into the search.
I’m telling you this because I was over at Milo’s, who is a British fencing instructor, and he says that unregistered samurai swords are now illegal in England. You have to jump through a bunch of hoops to prove to the state that you have a “legitimate reason” to own one.
Many American gunbloggers have noted that the media and other pro-gun control types become hysterical when discussing firearms. They like to imply that owning a gun is similar to petting a coiled cobra, as both will leap up and kill without warning when you least expect it.
I leave you with this English news article which proves that the British are going through the same thing with knives. Notice how the focus of a newspaper is “preventing youngsters from getting involved in knife culture” by sponsoring a weapon amnesty program. People could turn in their infernal devices to the police without fear of arrest, and someone actually gave them a cheap samurai sword that was sharp!
Judging by the extreme fear they show when confronted by a wall hanger with an edge, the police over there are having trouble recruiting anyone who doesn’t faint away when confronted with the very idea of a sharp piece of steel.
Inspector Peter Knights, of Hartlepool Police, said: “I am delighted to see a weapon of this nature has been surrendered. All too often we see items such as this used and abused by people which leads invariably to serious injury or death.”
Guys, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.
(Cross posted at Hell in a Handbasket.)
Just in Time for the Beijing Olympics
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has an online exhibition about the 1936 Nazi Olympics:
In August 1936, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi dictatorship scored a huge propaganda success as host of the Summer Olympics in Berlin. The Games were a brief, two-week interlude in Germany’s escalating campaign against its Jewish population and the country’s march toward war. This site explores the issues surrounding the 1936 Olympic Games—the Nazis’ use of propaganda, the intense boycott debate, the history of the torch run, the historic performance of Jesse Owens, and more.
Change a few names and nouns and the above description fits the 2008 Olympics rather closely, no? Congratulations to the USHMM on its fine sense of timing. Let’s hope that the Chinese government benefits less from the 2008 games than Hitler did from the ones in 1936.
A Call For Radical Transparency in Politics
My friend Bruce Kesler, who keeps a sharper eye on the fine details of American politics than I do, is dead square right in a recent post at Democracy Project that I reproduce here in full:
Hidden Foreign Contributions Affect US Elections
US election law forbids non-Americans to contribute directly to federal candidates, and qualified donations above $200 are available to public scrutiny. There is a huge loophole – or, more correctly, shroud – over contributions by foreigners to US non-profits, who heavily shape public discussion affecting our elections – and other policies. (There’s, also, some indication that the $200 cut-off for full disclosure of contributions to our campaigns may be another loophole being exploited by some foreigners.)
IRS Form 990 generally requires that non-profits list contributors and their addresses who give $5000 or more. However, non-profits are not required to publicly divulge who they are (with the exception of private foundations and 527’s).
Non-profits include 501(c)(4)’s, which are estimated to spend in 2008 well more than the $424-million that 527’s spent to influence the 2004 elections.
Another area of concern is donations made by foreigners to our universities. Although New York State requires that such contributions be revealed, there is no enforcement and filings are often not made.
In Britain, it is estimated, more funding comes from the MidEast for Islamic Studies departments than from the government.
Ministers labelled Islamic studies a “strategic subject” and said the “effective and accurate teaching” of it in universities could help community cohesion and counter extremism.
Similar concerns have been raised in the US about the influence of MidEast contributors on our universities’ curriculums, and the faculty who influence public discussion. See here and here, for examples.
Former presidents Carter and Clinton have received tens of millions in donations, and more, from foreign sources for their foundations, yet the public knows very little about from whom or how much. Meanwhile, Carter and Clinton take frequent public stands on public policy and candidates for office.
A draft has been released of a revised IRS Form 990. It increases exposure on governance issues, but retains the shroud over contributors to non-profits. At the very least, foreign contributors should be revealed publicly, at least for amounts over the $200 of election laws.
You can send your comments to the IRS during the comment period. It’s as simple as an email to Form990Revision@irs.gov
Bravo to Bruce for highlighting this important but generally unrecognized problem.
One of the ironies of Beltway incumbent preferred campaign finance regulation like the odious McCain-Feingold law is that it manages to combine restrictions of the political activities and free speech rights of American citizens while granting opacity to wealthy foreigners who seek to influence political discourse here through generous donations to foundations, educational organizations, think tanks, universities, presidential libraries and other institutions that shape our intellectual life. It is completely understandable, given the potential impact of American policies on the rest of the world that other states and their sundry notables would seek to make their voice heard here. To a certain extent, when it’s above board public diplomacy and cultural exchanges, it’s even a good thing. What’s unacceptable is that foreign interests can often buy such influence – which is what they are really doing – under the radar or even behind the shield of legal secrecy. If some of our finest universities were people then they would have already had to register as foreign agents a long, long, loooooooong, time ago.
The same might be said of some former presidents. Or of presidential candidates.
The answer here is not to go on a fruitless legal jihad to ban foreign money, which at times does get turned toward humanitarian or genuinely educational purposes but to require radical transparency of our think tanks, universities, charities and other institutions enjoying tax deductible status but are dedicated to indirectly influencing the political process or policy formation. If an American institution or scholar wants to shill for the Wahabbi Lobby by working for a tank on the take from a senior Saudi prince, or accept grants from PLA-affiliated Chinese corporations, Japanese billionaires, mobbed-up Russian “businessmen” or other foreign sources, fine, but a highly visible disclaimer to that fact ought to be mandatory. If Carnegie or AEI or Harvard departments are advising presidential candidates on Mideast policy then contributions emanating from that region are relevant to the discussion.
If accepting the check in public is cause for dismay then there’s a word for what’s really going on:
Graft.
Cross-posted at Zenpundit
The Nature of Dictatorships
Last June, I linked an article by Mario Vargas Llosa about dictatorship and what it does to the human spirit. In the current National Review (4/7), Jay Nordlinger has an article which touches on the same theme.
Nordlinger’s piece is about Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, maker of the film The Lives of Others. (If you haven’t yet seen it, you should.) Florian himself spent his early childhood in the U.S., with his family returning to Germany (West Berlin) when he was eight. His personal knowledge of Communism was based on family visits to East Germany and to his two-year visit to Russia in the early 1990s.
The leading actor in the film, on the other hand, had a very personal knowledge of Communist totalitarianism. Ulrich Muehe was an East German, and, while still in high school, he had already been identified as a promising actor.
From the NR article:
Muehe had the fate of being an East German, and the Stasi had its eye on him from the moment he left high school: They knew he would be a big star. During his military service (obligatory), they made him serve as a sniper at the Berlin Wall. He was under orders to shoot whoever tried to cross from east to west. If he failed, he would never be allowed to work as an actor. He would have to be a manual laborer to the end of his days.
So there was Muehe, 18 years old, sitting in the towers, with this incredible burden on his shoulders. The only thing worse than not being an actor would be shooting someone. Muehe developed stomach ulcers, and one day he collapsed on duty, bleeding from the mouth. Doctors had to take out three-quarters of his stomach. But, fortunately, no one tried to cross. Still, the Stasi never stopped warning him to toe the political line, through all the years of his acting. He kept his counsel–until just before the Wall came down, when he gave a big, pro-freedom speech in East Berlin’s Alexanderplatz.
(cross-posted at Photon Courier)