Month: May 2008

Speaking of Rupert Murdoch, the May edition of his Far Eastern Economic Review was banned in China, according to Friday’s Washington Times, which attributed the banning to the magazine’s publication of an essay by the American Enterprise Institute’s “Freedom Scholar,” Michael Ledeen, entitled “Beijing Embraces Classical Fascism.”

I find the ban absurd myself, but I have to say that I’ve very rarely read such nonsense as Ledeen’s essay, even by Ledeen whose writings I have monitored pretty closely since 9/11 for indications of what Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Victor Davis Hansen, Dick Cheney, and even Karl Rove may be talking about when they get together in various permutations and combinations.

He argues, among other things, that the China of today is what Italy would look like “50 years after the fascist revolution” if Mussolini’s corporatist state had somehow survived into the 1970’s, requiring of the reader an act based solely on his or her imagination and absolutely no empirical evidence of any kind. In Ledeen’s imagination, such a state would “no longer be a system based on charisma, but would instead rest almost entirely on political repression, the leaders would be businesslike and cynical, not idealistic, and they would constantly invoke formulaic appeals to the grandeur of the ‘great Italian people…’.” While Ledeen might think that description constitutes “classical fascism,” I don’t see the difference between that and a typical autocratic regime that bases its legitimacy on some form of nationalism. After about another 1,200 words of rampant speculation based on virtually nothing but (mostly questionable) cliches and stereotypes — “the Chinese, like the European fascists, are intensely xenophobic…;” “Just like Germany and Italy in the interwar period, China feels betrayed and humiliated, and seeks to avenge her many historic wounds;” “…the short history of classical fascism suggests that it is only a matter of time before China will pursue confrontation with the West” — Ledeen concludes: “It follows that the West must prepare for war with China, hoping thereby to deter it.”

Based on my own modest experience in China, I have no doubt that the country (not unlike the U.S.) is nationalistic, that its ambitions as an emerging global power are significant, and that (again, like the U.S.) it considers military power an essential component of great-power status. But “fascist?” That’s quite a leap.

From his own post-graduate study of Italian fascism, as well as his work under the great George Mosse at the University of Wisconsin, surely Ledeen knows that a cult of violence (to which Ledeen and other hard-line neo-cons like Charles Krauthammer have themselves shown a perverse attraction) and the so-called Fuehrerprinzip — the notion that a charismatic leader who thoroughly embodies the virtues of a nation should be revered and his orders followed without question — are central to the “classical” fascist ideologies that grew up in Europe in the 1920s and 30s. And while one can argue that both characteristics were on display during the Cultural Revolution, it would be very difficult to find any trace of them in the Chinese leadership today. That a once-respected and influential journal should publish this kind of agitprop is truly disgraceful.

Antiwar.com Radio yesterday posted a very informative interview between Charles Goyette and Ron Paul. At about 10 minutes into the interview, Goyette asked Congressman Paul about my comment on the blog regarding negotiations with the Republican party for a speaking slot at the Republican Convention in September convention.

Congressman Paul replied: “I don’t know where he got that information because there will be no negotiations. And if they [the Republican Party] would call me up and ask – ‘do you want to speak at the convention,’ I would probably say yes.” Paul added that “there is zero chance of that happening – so there are no negotiations going on.”

I’m glad to hear that the Paul campaign is not currently negotiating for a speaking slot. It’s good that seeking the podium at the convention will not impede Paul’s criticism of Bush’s foreign aggression.

As I have said before, Ron Paul is America’s best congressman. It is great that Paul’s campaign has awakened many Americans to the perils of government and the value of liberty.

Paul’s comments in the Antiwar.com Radio interview are especially helpful in resolving the different signals from his campaign staff and other officials in recent months on this issue:

The Washington Post reported on May 6 that “Paul’s campaign hopes to turn such support into upward of 50 delegates for the party’s national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September, where he is gunning for a speaking slot.”

On May 9, the Boston Globe reported that Paul’s Maine coordinator, Ken Lindell, declared, “The goal at the national convention is to get a speaking slot for Dr. Paul to deliver that message.”

The Los Angeles Times blog on May 12 reported that Ron Paul supporters “hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot.”

Fox News reported the same day that according to Jesse Benton’s comments, “Paul is planning on having as big a delegation as possible at the convention, and he continues to seek a speaking opportunity there, something the party has not offered to him yet.”

The focus on a speaking slot has been mentioned by the campaign off and on going since early February. On February 12, MSNBC reported that after the Super Tuesday showings, “Paul’s goal, according to spokesman Benton, is to get a substantial delegation to convention (they estimate they’ll have about 42 delegates) get a good speaking spot, and ‘spread the conservative message.’”

These comments confirm what top operatives said at a meeting of a few dozen of Ron Paul’s key supporters in Washington in late April, according to one attendee.
**
I hope Ron Paul gets a great speaking slot at the GOP convention. Giving the delegates and the television audience a double-barrel dose of truth could be the best tonic the nation receives this Fall.

Another big victory for Michelle Malkin over the forces of terrorism!

Dunkin’ Donuts recently released an ad featuring celebrity chef Rachael Ray. Innocent enough, right?

Terror sleuth and columnist Michelle Malkin discovered the hidden message in the ad – a message meant to offer support for the “murderous Palestinian jihad.”

In the ad, Ray wears a scarf around her neck and holds an iced coffee. Malkin, complained that the scarf looked similar to the black-and-white checkered kaffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian scarf. Malkin explained:

The kaffiyeh “has come to symbolise murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.”

Dunkin’ Donuts told AP the scarf had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot. “Absolutely no symbolism was intended,” the company said.

But the Dunkin’ Donuts ad was pulled because “the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee,” the Associated Press reported.

Malkin savored her victory with a cup of 7-11 coffee, since she had earlier given the axe to Starbuck’s.

In her victory statement, Malkin declared: “It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists.”

Earlier today, we ran a story from ABC, “FBI: Al-Qaeda Tape to Call for Use of WMDs.”

But we, along with ABC and the FBI, were “punk’d” by a “jihad fan.”

Noah Shachtman of Wired quotes Evan Kohlmann of Counterterrorism Blog that “The intel community appears to have (once again) fallen victim to poorly researched open source news reporting,” and continues

In recent days, several fringe media organizations have published stories about a video recording posted by anonymous Al-Qaida miscreants on extremist Internet chat forums. The video consisted of a remarkably amateurish mash-up of Discovery Channel documentaries, widely published sermons by radical clerics, and stolen propaganda footage. While it is perhaps true that the video offered subtle encouragement for nuclear attacks on the United States, it featured no original content and could have been clumsily strung together with little more than two VCRs. The video was meandering, boring, and difficult to follow — and it certainly was not the product of Al-Qaida.

The Washington Post has an article today on the number of Ron Paul’s relatives who worked for his presidential campaign.
I will be curious if there are other analyses of how the Paul campaign spent $30 million.
The Post article quoted Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton saying that Paul would be “continuing a positive, respectful campaign to influence the policies of the Republican Party.”
How can one run a “respectful” campaign when the opponent favors quasi-genocide?
At what moment did the Ron Paul campaign decide to begin pulling their punches?
According to one insider, Ron Paul is now focusing primarily on negotiating with the Republican National Committee to get a good speaking slot at the Republican Convention in September.
Instead of bringing down the roof, is Ron Paul now angling for a seat at the table?

UPDATE: Some folks are questioning whether Congressman Paul is focusing on getting a speaking slot at the GOP convention. The Washington Post reported on May 6 that “Paul’s campaign hopes to turn such support into upward of 50 delegates for the party’s national convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul in September, where he is gunning for a speaking slot.”

The Paul campaign did not dispute this report when it was published earlier this month.