Wednesday, January 07, 2009

AN AWFUL PICK

O OPTS TO POLITICIZE INTELLIGENCE

By Ralph Peters
New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/
January 7, 2009

WOULD you ask your accountant to perform brain surgery on your child? That's the closest analogy I can find to the choice of Democratic Party hack Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

Earth to President-elect Obama: Intelligence is serious. And infernally complicated. When we politicize it - as we have for 16 years - we get 9/11. Or, yes, Iraq.


Panetta: A CIA head to please the hard left - at the nation's expense.

The extreme left, to which Panetta's nomination panders, howled that Bush and Cheney corrupted the intelligence system. Well, I worked in the intel world in the mid 1990s and saw how the Clinton team undermined the system's integrity.

Al Qaeda a serious threat? The Clinton White House didn't want to hear it. Clinton was the pioneer in corrupting intelligence. Bush was just a follow-on homesteader.

Now we've fallen so low that left-wing cadres can applaud the nomination of a CIA chief whose sole qualification is that he's a party loyalist, untainted by experience.

The director's job at the CIA isn't a party favor. This is potentially a matter of life and death for thousands of Americans. But the choice of Panetta tells us all that Barack Obama doesn't take intelligence seriously.

Mark my words: It'll bite him in the butt.

After the military, the intel community is the most complex arm of government. You can't do on-the-job training at the top. While a CIA boss needn't be a career intelligence professional, he or she does need a deep familiarity with the purposes, capabilities, limitations and intricacies of intelligence.

Oh, and you'd better understand the intelligence bureaucracy.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), who was blindsided - and appalled - by the Obama mafia's choice, has the essential knowledge of how the system works. She, or a similar expert, should have gotten this nod. But the president-elect wanted a clean-slate yes-man, not a person of knowledge and integrity.

We're witnessing the initial costs of Obama's career-long lack of interest in foreign policy, the military and intelligence. He doesn't think the top job at the CIA's important and just wants political cover on that flank. (Guess we got Panetta because Caroline Kennedy has another engagement.)

Forget a "team of rivals." Obama's creating a campaign staff for 2012.

Of course, he's reeling from the shrill rage of the Moveon.org crowd over his nomination of grown-ups to be his national-security adviser, director of national intelligence, administrator of veterans' affairs and, yes, secretary of state. (By the way, how could Hillary be dumb enough to accept a job where success is impossible?)

Panetta's appointment is a sop to the hard left, a signal that intelligence will be emasculated for the next four - or eight - years.

Think morale's been bad at the CIA? Just wait.

Conservatives played into this scenario by insisting that any CIA analysis that didn't match the Bush administration's positions perfectly amounted to an attack on the White House. Well, sorry. The intelligence community's job isn't to make anybody feel good - its core mission is to provide nonpartisan analysis to our leaders.

To be a qualified D-CIA, a man or woman needs a sophisticated grasp of three things: The intel system, foreign-policy challenges and the Pentagon (which owns most of our intelligence personnel and hardware). Panetta has no background - none - in any of these areas. He was never interested.

If you handed Leon Panetta a blank map of Asia, I'd bet my life he couldn't plot Baghdad, Kabul or Beijing within 500 miles of their actual locations. (Maybe he can see China from his California think tank?)

This shameless hack appointment is the first action by the incoming administration that seriously worries me. Get intelligence wrong and you get dead Americans.

Ralph Peters was a career intelligence officer in the US Army.

Coulter vs. the Counter-Coulters

By Brent Bozell
News Busters
http://newsbusters.org/
January 6, 2009 - 19:56 ET

Ann Coulter’s new book "Guilty" is out and two things are certain: It will surely be another best-seller, and she will once again drive the Left bonkers. No institution will be more offended than the national press. Prepare to witness their meltdown.

The Drudge Report caused a firestorm when anonymous NBC insiders leaked the word that Coulter had been "banned for life" from that network. CBS featured her on "The Early Show" and a combative Harry Smith tried to insult her to the extreme. He called her "goofy," "simplistic," "sophomoric," and a "whiner." "You should have a cross," he said dismissively. "You should put yourself up on a cross." Why are they so upset?

The so-called "objective" media clearly feel threatened because they are the very liberals Coulter is attacking. If they weren’t liberals, none of her mockery of liberals would bother them. Oh, they might not appreciate her style, as some conservatives don’t. But they wouldn’t have pitched debates inside their walls about how they will savage her in interviews – and I defy the networks to deny this – or how they would remove her from their airwaves altogether.

Those rumored bans have been demanded by the leftist lobbyists for the Censorship Doctrine – people who say they oppose "conservative misinformation," but clearly want conservatives tossed from the radio and TV airwaves before "misinformation" or just plain conservative thought spills out. They have pressured the networks to stop helping Coulter sell books. Freedom of speech is truly a dangerous concept when conservatives exercise it.

But liberals who claim to oppose "inflammatory rhetoric" on television when it comes from conservatives have no problem with uncivil liberalism. Or 100 percent hate-filled left-wing character assassination. Take NBC, which could not look sillier if it ever seriously banned Coulter for being hyperbolic, when vicious, hyperbolic liberals (Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews) dominate MSNBC.

It’s easy to run down a list of inflammatory liberals who are welcomed on the TV morning shows. Start with Kitty Kelley’s wild "investigative" books on the Reagans or the Bushes. Or Michael Moore’s kooky conspiracy theories. Or Al Franken suggesting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby should be executed over Plamegate. (NBC’s Matt Lauer and his off-camera crew laughed at that.)

Or recall Bill Maher on his HBO show in 2007 suggesting Arianna Huffington shouldn’t ban commenters on her website wishing Dick Cheney had died in a terrorist attack in Afghanistan. "That’s a funny joke," Maher said. "If this isn’t China, shouldn’t you be able to say that?" He added that Cheney’s death by suicide bomber might be a public service: "I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact."

Harry Smith hosted Maher on CBS just months ago on his faith-mocking movie "Religulous" and didn’t say one discouraging word to him about his caustic remarks about Cheney or his hateful anti-Christian bigotry. Not one word.

But when Ann Coulter speaks, the brass knuckles come out. In 2007, Coulter was heavily criticized for joking that she couldn’t talk about John Edwards, since an ABC actor was forced to apologize for saying "faggot" at the Golden Globes. Liberals were furious. Coulter responded by saying next time, she’d echo Bill Maher and just wish Edwards died in a terrorist attack. Elizabeth Edwards then denounced Coulter for suggesting she wanted her husband dead. Harry Smith invited Mrs. Edwards on CBS, offered her brief softballs and let her verbally whack Coulter with a bat.

Smith is an enormous hypocrite. He completely ignored vicious remarks by Mrs. Edwards just days before, in accepting a "Rage for Justice" award, that the Bush administration was waging a class war that compared to slaughters in Darfur:

"The White House has led the charge against working people, in their own class war. The late, great Molly Ivins once wrote: ‘If there was class warfare, that war was long over. And it was a massacre… a genocide to which there have been words of acknowledgment, as there have in Darfur, but as with Darfur, no meaningful action.’"

But when Ann Coulter comes on the set with Smith, the gloves come off.

Ann Coulter’s liberal-bashing columns and books and television appearances are fun for conservatives, simply because there’s nothing funnier for the right that witnessing CBS putting up on its own screen a Coulter quote about Ted Kennedy and CBS: "Kennedy may be a drunken slob, but unlike CBS News anchors, he is not certifiably insane."

Call Coulter outrageous, call her a bomb-thrower, even state she goes beyond the pale of civility, if that’s your read. But do not assign that label to Coulter and then present your on-air love and kisses and giggles to all the public leftist hate-spewing that far exceeds any perceived incivility by Coulter. That is utterly transparent liberalism, and utterly transparent hypocrisy.

Book Review: "The Reagan I Knew"

Buy the Book

Two Happy Warriors Were We

By Hunter Baker on 1.7.09 @ 6:08AM
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/


The Reagan I Knew
By William F. Buckley, Jr.
(Basic Books, 279 pages, $25)


When William F. Buckley died in February 2008, it was widely known that he had been working on a book about Ronald Reagan. He died before completing the task. The unfinished nature of the work is something that should be understood at the onset. It is quite clear that The Reagan I Knew runs short of a great deal of personal reflection by Buckley on the former president. There is simply no question about it.

The good news for readers is that the editorial team made skillful use of Buckley-Reagan correspondence and a series of footnotes to create a highly engrossing reading experience. Indeed, the book may have begun as the narrative story of a relationship with substantial personal reflection, but of necessity it became a successful collection of letters with a solid array of commentary by an author who pre-deceased his project's completion.

Perhaps, first, the thing to note is the surprise the book offers. Though I have been a longtime fan of both Buckley and President Reagan, I had no idea the relationship between Nancy Reagan and Bill Buckley was so substantial. They exchanged many letters in which they talked about Ronald Reagan, their families, and a joking plan to run off together to Casablanca. Buckley seems to have had a great deal of personal affection for the former Nancy Davis.

On the other hand, Buckley's letters to and from Ronald Reagan will add to the corpus of evidence supporting Reagan's intellectual bona fides. They communicated with each other on a friendly and personal basis (with a running joke about Buckley's fictitious appointment as ambassador to Afghanistan), but there is also much friendly disagreement and discussion about policy, personnel, and politics.

What one sees in the letters between the two great icons of 20th-century American conservatism is a conversation between equals. Buckley was not the Machiavellian manipulator liberals might have believed Reagan "the amiable dunce" needed. Instead, he was an ideological soulmate, a debate partner, and occasionally an opponent. These were two men working to the same end, but never shy to differ or to try to convince the other of their own position.

Reagan's letters, in fact, show not the slightest intellectual intimidation before the mighty Ivy League debater Buckley. He was, instead, confident and strong. Reagan is often credited with dispatching Communism to the ash heap of history. This book will likely help dispatch something else to the ash heap, as well, which is the late night sketch comedy image of Reagan as a Forrest Gump-like lucky bumbler.

One of the strongest sections of the book deals with the two men's differences over the fate of the Panama Canal. Buckley thought the United States should allow the Panamanians to control the canal as part of their sovereign territory, while Reagan insisted Americans should retain ownership and control. The conviviality of their debate on the Canal recommends it as a model for conservatives of today, who sometimes seem ready to split and create camps at the slightest provocation. Of course, the Buckley and Reagan of the 1970s were part of a rising movement, not guardians of an exhausted establishment. One moment in their televised debate is worth reproducing here, as it has been elsewhere:

ERVIN (Sam Ervin, the moderator): At this time…the chair will recognize Governor Reagan and give him the privilege of questioning William Buckley.

REAGAN: Well, Bill, my first question is, Why haven't you already rushed across the room here to tell me that you've seen the light? [Laughter and applause.]

BUCKLEY: I'm afraid that if I came any closer to you the force of my illumination would blind you. [Laughter and applause.]

The disagreement was real, but not a threat to the friendship. Buckley credited Reagan's position on the Panama Canal treaty with helping him attain the presidency. During the rest of their lives together, the two men joked about their different positions. Buckley recalled driving up the Reagan driveway one evening for dinner to find a series of signs arranged Burma Shave style (in sequence) for his benefit. They read, "WE BUILT IT. WE PAID FOR IT. IT'S OURS."

The Reagan I Knew is successful on several levels. For the reader who wants to relive the glory days of American conservatism, the material is here. Reagan's rise goes from being improbable in Buckley's eyes to seeming almost inevitable. It is also a wonderful thing to experience Reagan's personality through his communications with Buckley. Based on what has often been said of Reagan, one doesn't expect to find any close friends outside of his wife, Nancy. But here is Buckley, giving us the historical evidence of their warm friendship and inter-family ties. Buckley knew Reagan. The man he knew was warm, funny, a dedicated student and practitioner of American politics and public policy, and a born leader capable of brushing discouragements to the side.

In addition, we are reminded of Reagan's steadfastness. He expresses his determination to stay the course while pursuing a revolutionary economic policy designed to revitalize the American economy. When Buckley indicates his concern about strategy, Reagan gently reassures him and reasserts what he intends to do. In hindsight, we see that Reagan's determination and commitment paid off. He got what he wanted, radically cutting marginal tax rates and closing loopholes. The same dynamic applies to his foreign policy with the Soviets. He got what he wanted and did what he said he could do, even when everyone around him, even Buckley at times, was skeptical.

In the end, the reader is left glad that we had men like these during the times when we had them. At National Review's 30th anniversary in 1985, Buckley offered the final remarks in tribute to President Reagan. The entire world still stood on the precipice of nuclear confrontation. Rather than bemoan the times he lived in, Buckley voiced his thanks that he had lived his sixty years as a free man in a free country and his hope that their sons would be able to do the same. I can't speak for the sons of these great men. Both speak for themselves. But I do know that a great many of us are, as he hoped, "grateful that, at the threatened nightfall, the blood of their fathers ran strong.

Letter to the Editor

topics:Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr.


books arts & manners

Bill and Ron

STEVEN F. HAYWARD
http://www.nationalreview.com/
December 29, 2008

There are layers of bittersweet melancholia in Bill Buckley’s memoir of his 30-year friendship with Ronald Reagan. The Reagan I Knew is Buckley’s final book; indeed, he was working on the finishing touches the day he died in February. The memory of Reagan, and especially the élan of ascendant conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s that Buckley’s memoir rekindles, burns hotter now that conservatives find themselves in the political wilderness again. And there are finally the sentimental qualities of both men — the talent for happiness and friendship along with a leavening of wit and a fitting sense of self-deprecation — that are exceedingly rare among great men in public life today.

The Reagan I Knew is equal parts memoir and a collection of the personal letters that passed between Buckley and both Nancy and Ronald Reagan starting in 1965. In fact the first communiqué came from Nancy, a thank-you note for a Christmas plant Bill had sent. One startling aspect of their friendship is that Buckley seemed to have been as close personally to Nancy as to Ronald, and perhaps closer given Ronald’s famous reserve. Had Kitty Kelley seen any of the letters between Buckley and Nancy, she would no doubt have twisted their playful expressions of affection into a tawdry tale in her execrable biography of Nancy. “Longing to see you,” Buckley wrote in one typical chatty missive, most of which were concluded with a running joke about meeting Nancy in Casablanca. Nancy could be equally affectionate in her replies: “I thought you had dropped out of my life completely!” she wrote Bill after a ten-month hiatus in contact in 1969. “I won’t mention the months and months you’ve neglected me terribly and the awful effect this can have on a girl.” The depth of their affection was not unnoticed by Ronald Reagan; he ended one letter to Bill: “Nancy sends her best (though she used a different word).”

While Buckley’s memoir is silent on the Reagans’ marriage and the frequently repeated theme of Reagan’s supposed personal remoteness, he does lift the curtain on a few intimate details of the Reagans’ family life, chiefly the difficulties with their two younger children. Buckley laments the atheism of Ron Reagan and the politics of Patti, even as he displays his typical generosity by celebrating their talents and personalities. (Included are a few letters from Buckley to a teenage Patti, praising her poetry.) Buckley offers a mild reproach of the Reagans’ parenting: “The withdrawal, by Ron Jr., of any interest in spiritual life illuminates a study of him as well as of his parents. . . . What efforts were made — if any — to acquaint the boy with the historical and philosophical role of God in history?” The Reagans enlisted Buckley to the role of surrogate parent in one crucial matter: Ron Jr.’s decision to drop out of Yale to pursue a career as a ballet dancer. When the effort at dissuading Ron from his rash decision failed, Ronald Reagan cut off all financial support for his son: “Ronald Reagan was as determined to subject his son to poverty as Ron Jr. was to live in it.”

Then there was the “endless matter” of Patti, “an unsilenced and evidently unsilenceable liberal.” Throughout the 1980s Patti seemed determined to exploit every opportunity to repudiate her father’s politics and embarrass her mother, culminating in an appearance in Playboy. The reader winces when Buckley records a tearful Nancy telling him, “I love my children, but I don’t always like them.”

The political connection between the two men is the dominant attraction of the book, however, and while Buckley’s memoir is spare in its interpretation of Reagan, his retrospective account does contain a few revisions and revelations about his perception of Reagan. Buckley first met him in 1961, before Reagan’s political career had begun in earnest, and like many others Buckley initially underestimated his political potential. But not for long. The book includes a long excerpt from Reagan’s first appearance on Firing Line in 1967, where Reagan displayed thoughtfulness toward governing and a principled grasp of federalism. At this early moment it was clear to any unbiased observer that Reagan was no lightweight.

Buckley writes at the outset that he views himself as having been a “tutor” to Reagan, and recalls that after Reagan won the 1980 election he considered changing his occupational designation in Who’s Who to “ventriloquist.” Although Reagan gave Buckley and National Review some credit for his having become a Republican, there are subtle traces in Reagan’s letters of his independent, self-taught mind. Buckley surely knew this, and it explains why he resisted the obvious temptation to send Reagan a constant stream of thoughts during Reagan’s Oval Office years. (Buckley had the special address code to get letters directly to the president’s desk.) Buckley was content to allow National Review to be the chief vehicle of communication with Reagan on political matters, and only occasionally wrote directly to Reagan about pressing political topics. He recalls some disagreements and anxieties he had about Reagan’s course in the Oval Office, but the pattern of how each man dealt with the other had been established by their most significant disagreement, which Buckley records at length: the Panama Canal treaty of 1977.

This clash illustrates several traits of both men. Reagan showed his resolution and imperviousness to criticism even from a close ally, while Buckley showed his gentleness in opposing his favorite politician. Both displayed their playful sides in the aftermath: Before Buckley arrived for a visit, Reagan put up signs in his driveway, Burma-Shave style, reading: “We Built It . . . We Paid For It . . . It’s Ours!” For the next decade Buckley ended many of his letters to Reagan with a mock warning against giving away the Erie Canal, alternating with a running jest about being Reagan’s ambassador to Afghanistan and directing the anti-Soviet effort there.

Fully appreciating Reagan’s independence of mind, Buckley engaged Reagan selectively and with finesse during his presidency. In the early 1970s Buckley had advised Reagan to come out against détente, and recommended that he consult Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s staff (“the best pool of young men around”), many of whom would later join Reagan’s administration. Yet by 1980 Buckley was a go-between in establishing a détente between Reagan and Henry Kissinger, who had been a major target of Reagan’s attack on détente in 1976.

Buckley fretted to and commiserated with Reagan about personnel appointments, about hanging tough with his economic program during the grinding 1981–82 recession, about David Stockman’s defection, about China policy, about the ruckus over Reagan’s visit to the Bitburg cemetery in West Germany in 1985, and about many other topics. Buckley watered down some criticisms of Reagan that appeared in National Review, and on a few occasions suppressed contemplated criticisms, above all assuring Reagan that “no personal criticism, i.e., questioning your motives, will be published.”

In a 1984 letter, Buckley wrote Reagan: “I can’t pretend I swing with all your decisions, but with most of them I do most heartily.” But in the second term Buckley told him he was increasingly worried that the president “seemed to me and to many conservatives to come perilously close to trusting the Soviet Union.” This anxiety crystallized with the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 1987. Buckley joined Kissinger, Richard Nixon, and a large cast of conservatives in opposition to the INF pact. Reagan defended himself stoutly in his private replies to Buckley, leaving Buckley to repair to their friendship and agreeing to disagree. “Damn I wish I could be on your side on that one,” Buckley wrote to Reagan in January 1988. “Haven’t had a significant difference with you since the Panama Canal.”

Recalling this chapter in the Reagan story leads to Buckley’s one significant revelation and revision: the doubt that, had the Soviet Union launched a nuclear attack, Reagan would have ordered a retaliation. Buckley reprints the moving speech he gave at National Review’s 30th-anniversary gala dinner in 1985, with Reagan present, where he explained that the West’s existence depended on our willingness to sacrifice it in an instant if necessary. “Twenty years after saying that, in the presence of the man I was talking about, I changed my mind,” Buckley wrote.

Reagan’s sincere anti-nuclear pacifism is not a new theme among the writers who have studied him, but it is still amazing to contemplate. That Reagan largely concealed his probable dereliction from the pre-programmed duty of Cold War presidents was of a piece with his personal reserve, and must be closely related to his drive for the end of the Cold War by supremely Machiavellian means. It suggests new dimensions of Reagan’s remarkable political character. It would have been good to hear more from Buckley about this tantalizing aspect of the Reagan story, given that the Cold War was the central preoccupation of Buckley’s career.

Despite this revision, the conclusion of Buckley’s 30th-anniversary meditation holds up as strongly today as it did that night in 1985, and serves as a fitting coda for both of our deceased heroes: “I pray that my son, when he is sixty, and your son, when he is sixty, and the sons and daughters of our guests tonight will live in a world from which the great ugliness that has scarred our century has passed. Enjoying their freedom, they will be grateful that, at the threatened nightfall, the blood of their fathers ran strong.”

- Mr. Hayward is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counter-Revolution: 1980-1988, forthcoming in 2009 from Crown Forum.

Glasvegas: how they thundered to greatness

Glasvegas combine singalong populism and soulful artistry on their self-titled debut album.

By Neil McCormick
The Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Last Updated: 5:25PM GMT 17 Dec 2008

Conjuring uplifiting rock from brutal realism: Glasvegas


In a student hall in Nottingham, a crowd sing along to the refrain of "Go Square Go", a song about a violent confrontation at the school gates. It's delivered by singer James Allan in a thick Scots accent, while his black-garbed gang of rockers produce a maelstrom of distorted sound.

For all its lairiness, somewhere at the heart of the reverb-heavy drums and overdriven guitars lurks a painfully sensitive observation of bullying and fear. It is a song for our times and just one example of the complex mixture of singalong populism and soulful artistry that make Glasvegas one of the best new groups of 2008.

On their self-titled debut album, Glasvegas conjure uplifting rock from a kind of brutal social realism. Allan sings about knife crime, social workers, depression, jealousy and parental failure in a language that is at once gritty and poetic, while lifting the spirits with old-fashioned melodies and a big, dramatic wall of sound. It is as if Oasis had been imbued with the spirit of the Smiths and produced by Phil Spector.

Backstage, after the performance, I meet Allan. Despite flashes of bravado, he is a thoughtful, self-questioning character. "Do you know what I like?" he says as we discuss Glasvegas's music. "When all the sounds merge together and it gets quite furious. You get it with a lot of classical music. You almost can't pick out every tiny sound because everything is blended, and you have to use your imagination more.

"Sometimes, jangly rock bands can seems flat, like a white sheet of paper. The thing I like about Phil Spector records, you'd almost fall into it, your imagination would float downstream and slip into the milky way, because its got a depth. "Ebb Tide", the Righteous Brothers – when it gets furious it's so heavy metal, and when it gets tranquil you just float away. It's the same if you listen to Tchaikovsky."

Allan actually uses Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" to declaim spoken lyrics to "Stabbed", the grim monologue of a victim about to be attacked. "All we had when we started was two guitars, but I wanted to make it sound orchestral. I always felt classical music would have worked just as well as the backdrop to the words."

Classical music, he says however, was not a significant part of his life: "I might have heard it in a shop." Allan and the other band members grew up on rough Glasgow estates. "I was really bad at school – rubbish at reading, quite slow, restless."

Football was the sole focus of his youth, but, in examining what brought him to this point, he recognises a sensitivity to chords and melodies, recalling the ghostly sounds of Roy Orbison heard through his mother's bedroom wall.

Phil Spector's 1963 Christmas album made such a big impression that Glasvegas have recorded their own Christmas mini-album, A Snowflake Fell (And It Felt Like a Kiss).

When he hears Spector, he says, he can "almost taste the selection box. That's what Christmas meant to me – sweeties and a new football strip."

His own offering is likely to conjure up rather different associations, from an ethereal "Silent Night" recorded with a Transylvanian choir to a brutal ballad of domestic loneliness entitled "F--- You, It's Over".

Despite what you might assume from such prosaic language, there is something poetic in Allan's lyrical directness. There is no hiding place, no artifice, but he conjures up voices and characters with the ear of a playwright.

"You've gotta have a toughness to say there's a purpose to this. I never sat down to write the songs. It came through being a really extreme daydreamer. I was unemployed for years; I could go days without seeing or speaking to anybody. But having that time for your imagination, it can drag you through some blackness and gutter, but also can go through blue skies and angels.

"When certain thoughts come to me, I try to take it, the sound and the colours, without watering it down, without compromising any of it."

The song that brought Glasvegas to the world's attention is "Daddy's Gone", which has the musical form of a girl-group, doo-wop ballad while spilling out a tale of parental abandonment. It's a strange and touching thing to see a crowd of young people, arms aloft, singing the heartbreaking coda: "Forget your dad, he's gone."

"I remember going to a friend's house when I was younger," says Allan, "and I walked in and his mum and dad were sitting on the couch together, and I thought that was so strange. They were just sitting holding hands: it was like aliens or something.

"I'm not saying, 'Oh, I've had it bad' because it was common in the east end of Glasgow. Growing up, I have seen people who would probably be quite regretful about the past. It forces you to think. I would like to get to an age where there was tranquillity and blue skies. I don't want the blackness when I'm 50. I've seen enough of that in my life."

Invest in Abortion

Planned Parenthood’s post-Christmas wish.

By David Freddoso
http://www.nationalreview.com/
January 7, 2009 5:00 AM

On the way out the door, President Bush has delivered a bailout of the domestic automotive industry, which under its current business practices could not possibly survive in a free market. President Obama, on the other hand, may see as his first task a bailout of the abortion industry.

Among the many left-wing interests that have submitted wish lists to the Obama transition team is a conglomeration of 50 abortion-advocacy groups, all of whom want the U.S. taxpayer to stand and deliver. When their 55-page report to Obama calls for an end to “ideologically driven government restrictions,” it really means that the government should be paying more of the bills for groups that advocate and perform abortions.

To provide some context, the government has been “bailing out” Big Abortion for years. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, feeds off the taxpayer to the tune of $337 million in government funds that would otherwise have to come from donors. If the recommendations in this report are enacted, they and other abortion providers and advocates will have even more spoils upon which to feast.

“Bans on public funding for abortion services have severely restricted access to safe abortion care for women who depend on the government for their health care,” the report states. “These policies create an unjust obstacle to quality health care and inflict disproportionate harm on poor women, women of color and certain immigrant women. . . .”

The report is audacious in the scope of its demands, most of which would mean more money for the groups that authored it. In all, it calls for $1.5 billion for groups that engage in abortion advocacy and perform abortions. Among its demands is an expansion of funding for Title X health clinics, from $300 million to $700 million, and greater freedom in how that money is spent. Of the 4,400 such clinics in America, about 450 are run by Planned Parenthood, whose domestic and international arms are listed as co-authors of the report.

The report also calls for an increase in international “family planning” funds from $461 million to $1 billion, much of which would go to the groups that authored the report and their affiliates. And it calls for an end to the ban on using this money for abortion. The report requests $65 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), whose officials were discovered in 2000 to be assisting Chinese officials in enforcing that country’s coercive population-control program.

Meanwhile, conscience protections for medical professionals in federally funded facilities are targeted in the report for elimination. Those who refuse to perform or refer abortions are protected under current law, but the elimination of appropriations laws and federal rules could make them vulnerable to discrimination by governments or institutions that seek to require cooperation in abortion. This is no unimportant issue — recall that in 2002, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a policy of forcing all medical students who train in public hospitals to participate in abortion (with students who object on moral or religious grounds allowed to opt out).

Another goal of the 50 abortion groups is to expand direct federal funding for abortions by repealing various laws that protect taxpayers from paying for them. This is particularly interesting to read, considering the popular opposition to taxpayer funding of abortions. Currently, appropriations amendments prevent Medicaid or Medicare funding for abortions in most cases (the Hyde amendment) and prevent the Department of Defense from paying to facilitate abortions on military bases in foreign countries. The report calls for these provisions to be repealed. Importantly, the report also calls for abortion to be covered under any national health-care plan produced by the Obama administration.

“There are a lot of restrictions on current funding, and they are looking to overturn all of those restrictions,” says Joy Yearout of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life political action committee.
The abortion groups’ biggest goal, though, is to kill all these birds with one stone through passage of the Freedom of Choice Act. That bill would overturn all state and federal restrictions not only on abortion (such as the partial-birth abortion ban) but also on government funding of abortions. President-Elect Barack Obama has promised to sign that bill. He has also promised, in line with the report’s recommendation, only to nominate individuals to the bench who believe in “the right to have an abortion.”

Some of these items, such as the Freedom of Choice Act, seem unlikely to pass. Others look far more likely — particularly the increase in funding for abortion advocates. But in presenting and fighting for their demands, pro-choice advocates may be helping to bring the culture war back to the forefront of America’s electoral politics, after an election in which it played nearly no role.

“The majority of Americans are opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion,” said Yearout. “We’re hoping to leverage that popular pressure even with lawmakers who consider themselves pro-choice.”

While Americans are divided on the question of restricting abortion, polls have found as many as 69 percent opposed to using federal funds to pay for abortions. Amid the dark cloud of a government dominated by proponents of abortion on demand, pro-lifers may find a silver lining in the form of a new debate they can win decisively. There is nothing “pro-choice” in requiring taxpayers to subsidize the abortion industry.

— David Freddoso is an NRO staff reporter.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Today's Tune: Glasvegas - Daddy's Gone



(Click on title to play video)

Review: Glasvegas

Reviewed By Emily Mackay
NME
http://www.nme.com/
Sep 5, 2008

First, a question: what is the point of rock’n’roll? There are as many answers as there are people to ask, but surely one essential tenet is that great rock affirms life. Which brings us to ‘Stabbed’, one of the most unsettling moments on Glasvegas’ astounding debut. In it, James Allan recounts a flight from a tooled-up gang in a half-dead monotone, muttering, “No cavalry could ever save me/I’m gonna get stabbed”, over reverb-ghostly piano. How many people are hunched knit-browed over notebooks right now, trying to write songs about ‘broken Britain and knife culture and that’? Well, they’ve all been rendered pointless by this, which knowingly echoes The Shangri-Las’ ‘Past, Present And Future’ in its borrowing of Beethoven’s ‘Moonlight Sonata’. A piece written by the world’s most famous composer while he was slowly going deaf, appropriated by a bunch of rough-edged dreamgirls to make a teenage melodrama of crushed hearts, reappropriated by a 20-something Glaswegian for a topical-yet-timeless evocation of terror that, in its humanisation of a social problem, somehow offers hope. That, my friends, is pop music at work.

And that’s nowhere near the best song on the album. From the off, ‘Flowers & Football Tops’ grabs you by the throat: huge space and reverb lend power to spare instrumentation, stock “wooah wooah”s and “baby”s twisted to fit the raw and real pain of a mother deprived of her son by violence. Then there’s ‘Go Square Go’, the artery-pumping surge of guitar perfectly conjuring the adrenaline rush of an imminent childhood kicking. ‘Perfect’ is a word that keeps springing to mind, yet one of Glasvegas’ great strengths is that they’re forged from imperfection. Rather than seek out the tightest drummer on the Glasgow scene and the most seasoned guitarist, James Allan chose a girl he met in a shop and his cousin.

As a result, they have the do-or-die gang mentality of all great bands. That knack of using the near-to-hand and commonplace to fashion a watertight aesthetic also feeds into Allan’s lyrics. At first, his repeated use of nursery-rhyme motifs jars, but on further listening you realise each is tightly woven into its context. Most heartbreakingly so in ‘Flowers & Football Tops’, where the refrain from ‘You Are My Sunshine’ lingers, subtly wrenching, on the “sun” syllable. ‘It’s My Own Cheating Heart That Makes Me Cry’, meanwhile, deftly threads in a lyric from fellow working-class romantics Oasis as the narrator goes about his conquests. “It’s all about going out and getting pissed with eagle eyes/And sincerity bottom on my list/What’s the story morning glory?/I feel so low and worthless”, howls Allan, before the torrential finale cleanses his self-disgust. But unlike Oasis, Glasvegas are a social band: they sing about their city’s troubles, tour prisons and dedicate their first award to the murdered local teen who inspired ‘Flowers…’.

Their most socially aware songs, ‘Geraldine’ and ‘Daddy’s Gone’, remain as astounding as at first listen. The former rips through a classic indie-rock template to the raw guts underneath by the sheer force of Allan’s retching-up-his-soul delivery and its genius subject matter: who else could write a song about a social worker and make it sound like your soul ascending to heaven? ‘Daddy’s Gone’ similarly still stuns with its frank but never mawkish sense of abandonment. That Allan keeps it out of the melodramatic mire it could be (at risk of a hack-lynching, compare it with Lennon’s ‘Mother’) is to his credit.

What makes the album so sonically perfect is the contrast between the grandeur of Rich Costey’s big New York production, the simplicity of the songs and the immediacy of their Dion & The Belmonts-via-Dalmarnock inflections. Of course, they’re hardly the first to take doo-wop and girl-group sounds and add a bit of noise and echo. What sets them apart from bands ploughing similar furrows (like The Raveonettes) is their resistance to stylised retro references in favour of something much more human.

So believe it: this is the real thing, no-one’s crying wolf, not even Alan McGee. There’s not enough hype in the world for Glasvegas. They are an important, amazing, real band that won’t let you down. Not because they play real instruments and sing real songs about real people (they’d be just as genuine if they wrote noise collages about interstellar seahorses on MacBooks); they’re real because they put their entire hearts and souls and brains into it. And that is rock’n’roll.

9 out of 10

Today's Tune: Glasvegas - Geraldine




(Click on title to play video)

Viva Glasvegas

With their debut disc, the Scottish rockers are fast becoming the next big thing

BY GLENN GAMBOA
Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/
glenn.gamboa@newsday.com
January 4, 2009

Glasvegas is moving fast.

Three years ago, the Scottish rockers weren't even a band. A year ago, they hadn't even been in a proper recording studio and hadn't completed an album. But the swiftness of their arrival - they've already been crowned "Britain's Best Loved Band" by influential British magazine NME - isn't the result of any sort of plan.

Yes, Glasvegas (taken from a nickname for Glasgow) is moving fast. But they're the first to say that they have no idea where they're going.

Take the distinctive sound on their debut album "Glasvegas" (Columbia), which hits stores Tuesday. It's a little bit Phil Spector "Wall of Sound," a little bit girl-group simplicity and a whole lot of echoing guitars.

"It's funny," says guitarist Rab Allan. "That thing with the sound was quite a natural progression. Because Caroline [McKay] only plays two drums - she plays a floor tom and a snare drum - we had to fill in the gaps with the guitars and the distorted bass guitar. A lot of people think that we were influenced by Jesus and Mary Chain and My Bloody Valentine, but we didn't really get into some of that until later on when we already had the sound.

"Some people think we're lying about that, but we're not," Allan continues. "To be honest, it was never contrived or planned out to be that way. We all just wanted something quite natural, that we could feel comfortable with. I guess sometimes if you put four people in a room, sometimes you can get something amazing from it."

Dramatic debut

The band's amazing run started last year with the single "Daddy's Gone," a wrenching tale of absent fathers set to stirring '60s pop, complete with earnest "woh-ohs" from singer James Allan. Its unique allure was so stunning that it landed Glasvegas - cousins James and Rab Allan, drummer McKay and bassist Paul Donoghue - all sorts of attention even before they had a record label.

British music exec Alan McGee, best known for discovering Oasis, said Glasvegas was "the most exciting thing I've heard since Jesus and Mary Chain."

Soon, Glasvegas was the object of a bidding war, ultimately signing on with Columbia Records.

"Two weeks later, we were in New York doing the album," Rab Allan says, laughing. "When you're in a band, you get opportunities to do things that you wouldn't normally be able to do. When the record company asked us where we wanted to do the album, we said, 'New York.' It's quite an exotic place, and it's got a lot of history, a lot of rock and roll history. We thought it was a good idea, and it was more of a holiday for us as well - a way to get out of Glasgow."

In March, the band found itself recording at Brooklyn Studios with producer Rich Costey, who has worked with Interpol and Franz Ferdinand, and living in Park Slope, soaking in the atmosphere. "The one thing people told me before I came to New York was that the people were a little bit funny, but I didn't find that at all," Allan says. "The people were lovely. People were really cheery, and they would hear the accent, and we would get into all sorts of conversations. You would be sitting in a bar, having a drink, and you would just meet people."

From Rourke to Bj"rk

And, as newly minted rock stars, Glasvegas found itself in some unusual situations, ending up at the Beatrice Inn one night with Mickey Rourke and sitting next to Bj"rk. The band's next recording experience, for an EP released in England for Christmas, was just as unusual - a castle in Transylvania.

Allan says Glasvegas will continue looking for new experiences because it's worked out for them so far. They plan to keep going wherever the music takes them.

"Things just click," he says. "You can't explain it but some things just feel right. You can't say why. None of us are great musicians. It's all pretty basic. And we taught Caroline to play the drums because she was great fun - that's why we wanted her in the band, which I guess is a backward way of doing things. But it's worked so far."



WHEN&WHERE

Glasvegas plays Bowery Ballroom, 6Delancey St., Manhattan, 212-533-2111, at 8 p.m. Tuesday.

The show is sold out. "Glasvegas," on Columbia Records, is in stores Tuesday.

When talking about Tebow, we should be talking about God

By David Whitley
Orlando Sentinel
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/
12:19 AM EST, January 6, 2009

MIAMI: Tim Tebow could have made Monday easier if he'd worn his game face. The one with eye-black patches and white lettering."Phil 4:13"

That's not a dig at Phil Fulmer's weight. It's Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

The stick-on patches started framing Tebow's nose this season. The response has been predictable.

Many think the Biblical advertising is great. Others feel religion and sports should not mix.

"Why must he rub it in my face?" they ask.

It's a pivotal question if you want to understand Tebow, though an army of professional questioners failed to pursue it Monday. It was BCS Media Day, when every Sooner and Gator was bused to Dolphin Stadium.

The stars sat for an hour of the media trying to get inside their heads. Florida drew the second session, so the sun was getting high and hot as Tebow took his seat.

"Good morning," he said, squinting out at a dozen TV cameras and about 40 reporters.

The queries ranged from Tebow's superstitions to his NFL chances to his Heisman letdown to his affinity for Frank Sinatra. Tebow merrily fielded 164 questions in an hour, and maybe five dealt with the biggest influence in his life.

"My faith," he said.

The reporters were only reflecting society. Religion makes some people uncomfortable, and athletes spouting it makes them downright irritable.

We roll our eyes when they thank God after a game. Sam Bradford is also a card-carrying Christian. What if he shows up Thursday with "John 3:16" on his face? Would God have to go to a sudden-death verse-off to pick a winner?

About the 152nd question, Tebow tried to explain. He doesn't believe God gives a hoot who wins. Philippians 4:13 just inspires Tebow to perform better. That means being humble in victory and gracious in defeat.

Tebow said the verse has inspired him countless times in and out of games. We may not believe that, we may think it's all just a psychological crutch.

That doesn't matter.

Tebow believes it helps him, therefore it does. Therefore you'd think it would be the kind people wanting to know all about Tebow would have asked about.

Think again.

He mentioned his first speaking engagement. He was 15 and shaking as he stood up in front of 10,000 high-school students and talked about his faith.

The story ended there.

Tebow's face lit up when he was asked about going to prisons and speaking to inmates."It's definitely changed me and what I feel about my purpose," he said.

But what about Oklahoma's trash-talking?

If an athlete said he was heavily influenced by Star Trek we'd all be asking about his love of William Shatner. But when one says he's inspired by the Apostle Paul, pens stop moving and tapes stop recording.

If Tebow really wanted to make things uncomfortable, he'd bring up how doctors advised his mother to get an abortion in 1987. She'd contracted dysentery in the Philippines, and the drugs she needed could have harmed the fetus.

She refused, and the former fetus was answering questions Monday.

"Who's more superstitious, you or Coach Meyer?"

"What about the scenery in Gainesville?"

"Are you a good comedian?"

"Talk about your love of Frank Sinatra."

They weren't dumb questions. Heck, I wanted to find out more about Tebow's affection for the Chairman of the Board.

But even Sinatra doesn't make Tim Tebow tick. If you really want to know what does, you'll have to watch Thursday night.

The answer will be written all over his face.

David Whitley can be reached at dwhitley@orlandosentinel.com.

TYRANNY OF THE TAX-EXEMPT

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
Published in the New York Post on January 6, 2009


It now looks like half of President-elect Barack Obama’s stimulus package will take the form of “tax cuts” for 95 percent of all Americans. Yet this wouldn’t so much boost the economy as trigger a massive, unhealthy shift in American politics.

Under Obama’s plan, the majority of American voters would pay no federal income taxes, but would get money from the government instead. That is, these “refundable tax credits” are basically welfare checks - and Obama’s plan would leave the most of us collecting, not paying.

A $200 billion giveaway won’t do much to get a $14 trillion economy rolling again. But the plan would leave any future taxpayer revolt no hope of majority support.

Today, the bottom 50 percent of US taxpayers pays a total of $30.6 billion in federal income taxes on a combined income of about $1 trillion. So about 3 percent of all federal income-tax payments come from the poorest half of the country. (The top 1 percent pays 40 percent; the top 25 percent pay 85 percent of the federal income tax.)

Obama’s plan - he’d give all couples a $1,000 refundable tax credit and all single people $500 - would funnel more than $50 billion to the lowest half of the country, thereby completely wiping out their total federal tax liability. In most cases, it would trigger a “refund” welfare check.

In one stroke, this would transform the majority of voters from taxpayers into tax eaters - and leave an increasingly small minority to pay the bill. Whether or not this is good economics, it is very dangerous politics.

Essentially, it would put those who actually pay the taxes that fund our government into much the same situation as landlords in New York City - hopelessly outvoted by their tenants, who use their political clout to limit rents and landlords’ profits.

Since Ronald Reagan, the anti-tax movement has been based on a blue-collar revolt against high taxes; it would lose that constituency under the Obama plan. Taxpayers would be politically helpless and the tax-eating majority would have free reign to impose any levies it wished.

Almost all of the 68 million tax filers in the country’s bottom economic half would get a check from Washington at tax time. Some would be among the 22 million who get money from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Others would get a $500 check through the (Bush-passed) Child Tax Credit - and all would get funds through the new Obama tax credit.

Welfare would no longer be only for the poor - the majority of the voters would depend on government handouts. This very system is what makes European social democracies so resistant to change.

In 1980, the bottom 50 percent of the nation paid 7 percent of the national tax bill, after refund and credits. It now pays 3 percent; under Obama’s plan, it would pay less than nothing (that is, it would net a profit from the IRS). In 1980, the top 1 percent paid 19 percent of the income-tax burden; now it’s 40 percent. Taxes have become the province only of the rich.

Of course, the shift in tax burden also mirrors the incredible increase in incomes of the wealthy in the last 30 years - the top 1 percent earned only 8 percent of the total national income in 1980; now it earns 22 percent. And the poorest half has seen its share of national income fall from 17 percent in 1980 to only 12.5 percent today.

So it is both fair and sensible to give the poor a tax break and to draw the bulk of federal revenues from the rich. But to exempt the bottom half - a majority of the voters - from paying any taxes and to award them refund checks instead would dangerously alter the fundamental balance of national politics. For the economically well off, it could effectively become taxation without representation - which, as the founders of our nation warned, leads to tyranny.

Mideast Peace Rests With Arabs, Not U.S., Europe

by Bernard Lewis
http://www.bloomberg.com/


Smoke rises in the northern Gaza Strip January 6, 2009.
(Nikola Solic/Reuters)



Jan. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The current fighting in the Gaza Strip raises again, in an acute but familiar form, the agonizing question: What kind of accommodation is possible, if ever, between Israel and the Arabs?

For a long time it was generally assumed, in the region and elsewhere, that peace was impossible, and that the Arabs’ struggle against Israel would continue until they achieved their aim of destroying the Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel could survive and even serve a useful purpose as the one licensed grievance in the various Arab dictatorships, providing a relatively harmless outlet for resentment and anger that might otherwise be directed inward. In this phase, the only peace that could be expected was the peace of the grave.

The more recent history of the Middle East shows a significant change and, notably, two possible paths toward peace. One of them is limited and therefore more feasible; the other is comprehensive and therefore remote and problematic.

One approach to peace is exemplified by the policies of Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt until his assassination in 1981. He sought peace and publicly declared his willingness even to go to Jerusalem. Sadat did not take these measures because he was suddenly persuaded of the merits of Zionism. His reason was more practical and immediate -- his awareness, shared by a growing number of his compatriots, that Egypt was rapidly becoming a Soviet colony. Already the Soviet presence in Egypt was more widespread and more obtrusive than the British had been.

Sadat’s Peace Initiative

Sadat realized that, on the best estimate of Israel’s power and the worst estimate of its intentions, Israel was far less a danger to Egypt than the Soviet Union was. He therefore decided on his epoch-making peace initiative.

Despite many difficulties, the 1979 peace accord signed by Egypt and Israel has endured ever since -- at best cool, sometimes frosty, but preserved for the mutual advantage of both sides. It was even extended with the signing of a peace agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1994 and informal dialogue between Israel and some Arab governments.

In Iran, Sadat’s murderer is venerated as a hero of Islam, and a street in Tehran is named after him.

In several Arab countries at the present time, and in wider Arab circles, there is a growing perception that once again they face a danger more deadly and menacing than Israel at its worst: the threat of militant, radical Shiite Islam, directed from Iran.

Double Threat

This is seen as a double threat. Iran, a non-Arab state with a long and ancient imperial tradition, seeks to extend its rule across the Arab lands toward the Mediterranean. And it is an attempt to arouse and empower the Shiite populations in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf and other Arabian states, long subject to Sunni domination. Iranian tentacles are spreading westward into Iraq and beyond by the northern route into Syria and Lebanon and by the southern route to the Palestine territories, notably Gaza.

This double threat, of Iranian empire and Shiite revolution, is seen by many Arabs, and more particularly by their leaders, as constituting a greater threat than Israel could ever pose -- a threat to their very societies, their very identity. And some Arab rulers are reacting the same way that Sadat did to the Soviet threat, by looking toward Israel for a possible accommodation.

During the war in Lebanon in 2006 between Israel and the Iranian-supported Shiite militia Hezbollah, the usual Arab support for the Arab side in a conflict was strikingly absent. It was clear that some Arab governments and Arab peoples were hoping for an Israeli victory, which did not materialize. Their disappointment was palpable.

Arabs and Hamas

We see similar ambiguities over the situation in Gaza.

On the one hand, pan-Arab loyalty demands support for Gaza, under whatever type of Arab rule, against the encroaching Israelis. On the other, many see the Gaza enclave -- ruled by Hamas, a Sunni group but increasingly controlled by Iran -- as a mortal threat to the Sunni Arab establishment all round.

In this situation, it is not impossible that some consensus will emerge, along the lines of Sadat’s accommodation with Israel, for the maintenance of the status quo. Such a peace, like that between Egypt and Israel, would be at best cool, and always threatened by radical forces both inside and outside. But it would certainly be better than a state of war, and it could last a long time.

Signs of Democracy

The second hope for change would be the growth of real democracy in the Arab world. Though unlikely at the present time, there are signs that such a development is not impossible.

Some Arabs have even been willing to speak out and welcome Israel as a pioneer of democracy in the region, a model that could help them to develop their own democratic institutions. Some have drawn attention to the fact that the at-times- disprivileged Arab minority in the state of Israel enjoys greater freedom of complaint and dissent than any group in any Arab country. A striking example is the current wave of protests among Israeli Arabs against the Israeli action in Gaza; open, outspoken -- and unpunished. This does not go unnoticed.

The expression in Arab countries of any opinions favorable to Israel is unpopular, even dangerous, and sometimes fatal. The extent to which such opinions are held is therefore problematic, to say the least. But there are clear indications that they exist, and some have been willing to risk their lives in order to express them. If they increase and lead to acceptance and cooperation between the two sides, the Middle East might once again resume its place, which it enjoyed in both ancient and medieval times, as a major center of civilization.

Outside Powers

In the past, any assessment of the prospects for peace in the region would have assigned a major, perhaps decisive, role to outside powers. This is not true today.

The U.S., no longer confronting the challenge of a global rival, and amply provided with cheap oil, is unlikely to involve itself in the messy politics of the region. Russia, no longer resigned to being marginalized, has resumed some role in the Middle East. But it remains minor, and Russia is seriously impeded by its own Islamic problems at home.

In earlier times one would have assigned a major role to Europe, but at the present day what matters is not so much the European role in the Middle East as the Middle Eastern role in Europe. A prominent Syrian intellectual recently remarked that the most important question about the future of Europe is: Will it be an Islamized Europe, or a Europeanized Islam?

The possibility remains that there will be no peace -- in which case the most likely outcome for the region as a whole is a descent into chaos and mutual destruction, perhaps by that time involving an Islamized Europe, and leaving the future of the world to be shared or contested between Asia and America.

(Bernard Lewis is professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He is co-author, with Buntzie Ellis Churchill, of “Islam: The Religion and the People” (2008). His 30 books have been translated into more than two dozen languages including Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Indonesian. His contribution to the understanding of Middle Eastern history has been recognized by the 15 universities that have awarded him honorary doctorates.)

To contact the writer of this column: letters@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: January 6, 2009 00:01 EST

Related Link:
http://www.asmeascholars.org/

Blessing from a Tyrant

By Robert Spencer
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Tuesday, January 06, 2009


Dr. Carl W. Ernst (right) receives the Distinguished Prize in the Humanities at the Bashrahil Prize award ceremony in Cairo on July 4, 2003.

Three American academics flew to Tehran last week to accept awards from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In Tehran, Carl Ernst, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was honored along with William Chittick, a scholar of Islamic mysticism and a professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and Miriam Galston, a lawyer at George Washington University who made significant contributions to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Thorp and Ernst seemed anxious to stress that this was an academic, non-political award -- as if Tehran these days were crawling with disinterested academics who are in no way co-opted by the regime. Even though Ernst reportedly “cringes” at some of Ahmadinejad’s “policies,” UNC-CH Chancellor Holden Thorp decided that this was an “academic honor,” not a political one, and so had no objection to Ernst’s trip. Ernst himself explained, “it would have looked strange if I declined an academic award.”

Are Thorp and Ernst hopelessly naive, or do they believe that we are? In any case, they have little cause to worry that anyone will get upset about this in Chapel Hill, where the academic Left holds comfortable sway -- you know, the kind of people who thought it would be a great idea for Ahmadinejad to give an address at Columbia University and to present a Christmas message on British television. But meanwhile, has it even crossed Carl Ernst’s mind that his work is useful to the Iranian regime, whatever the nature of this award, and that his traveling to Tehran to accept it is even more useful to them? Has this not occurred to him even after his trip to Tehran earlier this month, during which he made a “strong plea for improved academic and cultural relations between Iran and the United States”?

And would Carl Ernst really even be able to distinguish an academic award from a political one? After all, a genuine academic evaluates arguments on the basis of evidence. He does not work to predetermined conclusions based on ideological or political considerations. Ernst does not do anything like this. Consider (and I am sorry that I must use a personal example here, because the problem of Carl Ernst and the Middle East Studies establishment in American universities in general is far larger than me, and I have nothing to do with it) how he has dealt with my own work: see his “Notes on the Ideological Patrons of an Islamophobe, Robert Spencer.”

Take, in the first place, the characterization “Islamophobe.” He offers no evidence for it, much less any definition of this spurious, manipulative, politicized coinage. Nothing from my books, nothing from my articles at FrontPage Magazine or elsewhere, nothing from my website Jihad Watch, nothing at all. His use of this word is without substance, designed to propagandize rather than convince, much less to equip one to make one’s own judgment.

Note also that in the document, he doesn’t offer a single example of anything I say that is inaccurate. Instead, he expects his readers to dismiss my work because Ernst dislikes my publishers -- on political grounds. This is an example of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority: he is suggesting that his own publishers (such as Shambhala) are more prestigious than those of his critics, and that therefore he is to be believed over them. Argumentum ad verecundiam and ad hominem attacks are two sides of the same worthless coin.

Carl Ernst is no academic. He is a political and politicizing propagandist. Now he is also a willing tool of the vicious Iranian mullahcracy. And in Middle East Studies departments in universities all over the country, he is just one of many.

And so, it is time for me to make an announcement of my own: I hereby award Ernst, Chittick and Galston the Jihad Watch Afshin Award, named after the ninth century Persian general Khaydhar ibn Kawus, a.k.a. Afshin, who won great victories for Islamic forces although he himself fought for them only for his own material advantage, and not out of conviction -- he was in fact a proud Persian who had contempt for the Arabs and the religion they had imposed upon Persia. (In awarding this prize I in no way mean to imply that Ernst, Chittick or Galston have any contempt for Arabs or Muslims, or that they traveled to Tehran seeking their own material advantage.)

Thought experiment: would Ernst and Holden Thorp be as understanding about accepting an award from Jihad Watch, even though Ernst doubtless “cringes” at some of my “policies,” as they are about Ernst’s accepting an award from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Or are Ahmadinejad’s positions, thirst for genocide, Holocaust denial, open Jew-hatred and all, more acceptable to Ernst, Chittick, Galston and Thorp than those of someone who wants to defend the West against Islamic supremacism and its denial of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims?


- Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Cuba: A Cemetery of Hopes

By Theodore Dalrymple
http://www.FrontPageMag.com
Monday, January 05, 2009


A poster showing Cuba's leader Fidel Castro hangs on a door in Havana, Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2008. Cuba will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 1959 revolution on Jan. 1, 2009.
(AP Photo/Javier Galeano)


To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Cuban Revolution, the French newspaper, Le Monde, which is vastly more informative about the world than any English-language journal (and therefore loses a lot of money), had a four-page spread.

What was surprising about the tone of three of these four pages, written by Frenchmen, was their hostility to the Revolution. This was surprising because the newspaper is generally left-leaning, and for a very long time the French left felt a deep sympathy for Castro and his dictatorship. From Sartre to Madame Mitterand, prominent French personalities have raised shameful hosannas to the Cuban caudillo and all his works. Last Saturday, in the market of the rich and bourgeois little town near which I live in France, Che Guevara T-shirts were still for sale.

The special correspondent, Guillaume Carpentier, did not mince his words. Under a headline ‘Broken down roads and crumbling facades, empty markets, closed cinemas and bookshops: fifty years after the triumphal entry of the barbudos into the most beautiful city in Latin America,disillusion reigns in Havana,’ he writes:

Practically all cinemas have shut down. Of the 135 cinemas that Havana had – more than Paris or New York – no more than 20 remain open. With nationalisation, they closed one by one, for lack of maintenance, films or electricity... Havana, Cubans complain, is a cemetery of cinemas. It is also a cemetery of bookshops, markets, shops... In short, Cuba is a cemetery of hopes.

All that’s left for Cubans, says the correspondent, is black humour, nourished by rumours, always denied, of Castro’s death. A man called Ernesto, named after Guevara by his mother who greatly admired the unwashed comandante, told the correspondent that ‘Castro is held up by props, like all the buildings in old Havana.’

Ernesto hated Guevara and the official adulation of which he is the object. ‘I’ve lost fifty years of my life thanks to this regime, and my engineer’s salary gives me enough to eat for ten days a month.’

An old sympathiser with the Revolution, a woman called Martha, complains about how a foreign-currency store has opened on the site of the Woolworth Ten-Cent store where she worked before the Revolution. She complains that the prices in the foreign currency store (open only to those who receive remittances from abroad) are twice to four times those in the United States.

‘It’s armed robbery,’ she said. ‘It’s even more astonishing that the store should be on the site of the Ten Cent store, whose philosophy was to lower the prices as much as possible for the working classes, and where everything was available.’ And then, demonstrating how even relatively simple ideas do not necessarily penetrate people’s minds even after fifty years of bitter experience, she adds that she does not understand why a socialist enterprise should sell much dearer than a capitalist one.

A long article by Alain Abellard entitled "The Birth of a Myth" describes the mendacity of Castroite historiography. He does not deny that Castro was a most remarkable man: his exploits were among the most remarkable of the Twentieth Century. But remarkable and good are different qualities. Abellard points out that Cuba had a literacy rate of 80 per cent in 1959, its per capita income in 1953 was more or less that of Italy’s (and the 22nd in rank in the whole world), that Italians and Spaniards still emigrated to it in search of a better life, its health system was the second best in Latin America, it had the third largest economy in Latin America, it produced 80 per cent of its food (now it is only 20 per cent, and that at a reduced level of consumption), it was far less given over to prostitution than it is now, and that Cubans now say ‘Everything is rationed, except the police and disillusion.’

Abellard writes:

When he entered Havana on 8th January, 1959, Castro could not have imagined for a single moment the extent to which the facades of this marvellous city, built from 1513 onwards by the Spanish, and elaborated over four centuries, were going to become, after decades of tropical socialism, a temple of disrepair, an open air museum of ruins.

From the very first, the author states, Castro deceived his followers and lied his way to absolute power. Many of his close associates learnt this to their cost. Camilo Cienfuegos disappeared in mysterious circumstances; Huber Matos spent twenty years in prison in appalling conditions; Carlos Franqui fled. Even the dreadful Ernesto Guevara was more useful to Castro dead than alive.

Now of course none of this is new: it is very old news indeed. What is new is the frankness with which it is all acknowledged. It seems that there is a natural history of acknowledgement by western intellectuals of the horrors of socialist revolutions: it takes about half a century for the penny to drop.

Americans, however, will no doubt take patriotic pride in the rearguard action fought in the pages of Le Monde by the former chief of the American mission in Cuba, and now professor of Latin American studies at Johns Hopkins University, Wayne Smith. Interviewed by the newspaper, he was asked about human rights abuses in Cuba. The Cuban regime – he said – is not democratic. It is an authoritarian regime... But the policy of the United States hasn’t helped. Each time Washington threatens the Cuban Revolution, the authorities react against opponents by accusing them of being American agents.

Let us pass over the designation ‘authoritarian,’ when what the professor meant, or ought to have meant, was ‘totalitarian.’ What he seems to be implying is that, if only the Americans had been friendly towards Cuba, Castro would be a freedom-loving constitutionalist. If Cubans are now denied the most elementary of freedoms, the responsibility is shared between the Cuban and American governments. This is so preposterous (and, incidentally morally grandiose and deeply imperialistic, in that it seems to imply that not a sparrow falls but that our father in Washington is behind its death) that refutation is a waste of words.

That a man can know as much as the professor and yet understand so little is perhaps a tribute to the complexity of the human psyche. Asked how the Cuban Revolution became communist, he answered:

Fidel Castro wasn’t a communist when he arrived in power. He had no intention of aligning himself with the Soviet Union. The turning point was the Bay of Pigs, in April, 1961. To defend himself from American armed action, he turned to the Soviet Union. While the invasion was taking place... he made a speech announcing ‘the socialist revolution.’

Let me here quote a phrase from the special correspondent’s article. ‘With the nationalisation in 1960 of all commercial, industrial and cultural activities...’

Let me quote also from Alain Abellard’s article:

The only attitude that Fidel Castro had for certain [when he came to power] ... was his anti-Americanism. In a letter of 6 June, 1958, written from the Sierra Maestra, Fidel Castro expressed himself clearly: ‘When this war is finished, a much longer and more important war will begin: that which I am going to lead against the North Americans. I am sure that that is my true destiny.’

In summary, Castro wanted nationalisation and he wanted war with America. But, for Professor Smith, the primary blame for Cuba’s half century of penury and totalitarian mendacity lies with America. Can imperialism go further?


- Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Sunday, January 04, 2009

The State of Our Borders 2008

By Michelle Malkin

http://www.vdare.com/
Michelle Malkin Archive
January 02, 2009

If you think the bad economy has "solved" America's immigration problems, welcome to your end-of-the-year reality check. It's certainly true illegal crossings from the south are down and that many foreign workers are returning to their native lands as work dries up. But border chaos, haphazard enforcement, massive backlogs and deportation negligence remain the order of the day.


A would-be illegal immigrant scales the border fence dividing Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, from Nogales, Arizona.

A half-million citizenship applications have been pending for more than nine months. Some 700,000 illegal alien absconders—fugitives from deportation like Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango—are free. An estimated 4-5 million illegal visa overstayers from around the world remain in the country. Both Big Business and left-wing ethnic groups have colluded to prevent an employer verification program for workers' citizenship status from getting implemented nationwide. And the borders are still largely borders in name only.

In June, the White House pushed through a $1.6-billion border security spending plan ... for Mexico and Central America. While our own border fence remains incomplete, taxpayers shelled out for helicopters, surveillance equipment, computer infrastructure, expansion of intelligence databases, anti-corruption initiatives, human rights education and training, and anti-money laundering programs for our southern neighbors. So, how's the so-called Merida Initiative working out?

As terrorized citizens of Mexico will tell you, all hell has broken loose. Corrupt police officials and narco-insurgents have left a horrific trail of beheaded and bullet-ridden bodies in their wake on both sides of the border. Mexican Army incursions into U.S. territory are a regular occurrence. In Monterrey, bandits opened fire and threw a grenade at the U.S. consulate this fall. A top Mexican immigration official was arrested in October carrying about 77 kilos of pot in Arizona. On a single weekend in Tijuana, 40 people were murdered, including nine victims who were decapitated. Two weeks ago, famed American anti-kidnapping negotiator Felix Batista disappeared from the "relatively safe" northern industrial city of Saltillo iin Coahuila state. No word on his whereabouts.

The apocalyptic conditions have prompted some Mexican lawmakers to revisit the country's ban on capital punishment. That's right. Members of the same foreign government that took America to court over our death penalty laws—and tried to block the state of Texas from executing illegal alien Death Row murderers—are now open to the idea of imposing the death penalty on the thugs on their own soil. And after years of vehement protests against the United States for its meager attempts at immigration enforcement, Mexico is cracking down hard on illegal Cuban immigrants caught trying to enter the country from the south. They forged an agreement with Cuba to immediately send back illegal aliens—none of that "undocumented worker" mushiness for them—and punish human smugglers.

Such lawlessness, Mexico has apparently realized, is a grave threat to its people. Without order, there can be no peace. And chaos, as I've argued endlessly since September 11, is an invitation for those with far more nefarious intentions. Perhaps this is why Mexico slapped a 60-year prison term on a human smuggler who helped some 200 illegal aliens cross into the United States from Mexico—including Hezbollah supporters. In a little-noticed announcement this month, Mexican prosecutors reported the stiff sentence against Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a Mexican of Lebanese descent who operated a cafe in Tijuana and smuggled terrorist sympathizers into San Diego. Mucharrafille's accomplice was Imelda Ortiz Abdala, a Mexican foreign service official who helmed the Mexican consulate in Beirut.

No illegal alien demonstrations ensued following the sentencing. No cries of racism and xenophobia clouded the news. No demands for amnesty and open borders arose. One hopes the incoming Obama administration can learn from our neighbors to the south the hard lesson Washington has abandoned since 9/11: Immigration control is a national security issue. Blood-stained reality clarifies the mind.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

- Michelle Malkin [email her] is author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website. Michelle Malkin's latest book is Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.

Today's Tune: Bruce Springsteen - My Lucky Day



(Click on title to play video)

Canada’s Quiet Star

By MATT GROSS
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
January 4, 2009


Bonny Makarewicz for The New York Times

A skier near the Bow Summit in Banff National Park



IT was a familiar scenario: the run was blue, the sky bluer still, and I was cruising down 8,765-foot Mount Whitehorn in Banff National Park in Canada. Packed powder was flying up from the edges of my snowboard into the just-below-freezing air. I was grinning beneath my ski mask.

Then suddenly I wobbled, lost my balance and juddered to a halt.

No, I wasn’t some out-of-control punk boarder, nor had I stumbled upon a group of slow-weaving ski-schoolers. I had simply rounded a corner and smacked into what I would come to call The View — a stretch of snowcapped Canadian Rockies so intricately cragged and utterly enormous that every time I rediscovered them, I had to slow down and gawp at their impassive beauty. Only then, reinvigorated by The View, could I charge to the base and hurry single-mindedly back onto the gondola.

Strangely for such a massively mountainous place, Banff — a catch-all designation for three ski areas and handful of small towns in the park’s 2,564 square miles — is defined by what it is not. It is not Park City, overrun with celebrities, nor Megève, with its Michelin-starred restaurants. Nor is it luxury-minded Aspen, nor status-conscious St. Moritz, nor hard-partying Whistler. There are no trends in Banff — it is not slick. It has never hosted a Winter Olympics (though it was the venue for some events of Calgary’s 1988 Games). Even Banff’s mountains are negatives, formed less by the upthrusting of clashing tectonic plates than by 20 million years of erosion.

Like a Hemingway sentence, what remains after all that paring-down is a thing of remarkable purity. At Banff, one can focus on what really matters: deep snow (30 feet per year in some places) and how to traverse it. Still, before diving into Banff powder, certain matters must first be disposed of — where to sleep, for instance, during those awful hours when one cannot be on a mountain. The town of Banff is the obvious solution. It’s the most developed in the park’s confines, with supermarkets, restaurants, shops and several dozen hotels, from the grand, castlelike Fairmont Banff Springs, built in 1888 and perched above the rushing Bow River, down to the Blue Mountain Lodge, the 10-room bed-and-breakfast that my wife, Jean, and I checked into for a few days last March.

The lodge may have been modest, but it had what we needed: a big bed, a powerful heater, a gear shed and fresh-baked croissants every morning. And while its location, two blocks from downtown, may not have been as dramatic as the Fairmont’s, we had no end of stunning views, for at the end of every little lane, gargantuan hunks of mountain loomed, dwarfing the town’s two- and three-story wood and brick homes.

Our base established, we had only one mild dilemma to resolve: Which of the three ski areas — Mount Norquay, Sunshine Village and Lake Louise — to visit first? Norquay, right outside town, seemed like a natural place to warm up, but when we mentioned the plan to Heather Coolidge, the lodge’s manager, she looked confused.

“Is there some reason you want to go to Norquay?” she asked.

It was a reaction we would encounter often, accompanied by a look that implied we had no idea why we’d come to Banff. Norquay, we knew, was small, but we hadn’t realized it was so small — just five lifts! — that no serious powder hound would consider it unless every other mountain within driving distance were bone-dry. (To be fair, Norquay does host a popular night session on Fridays.)

Instead, we chose Sunshine Village, which in that unseasonably snow-deficient season had had the most recent flurries. About 10 miles west of Banff, Sunshine Village sprawls over three mountains and 3,358 acres of terrain, with more than half of its runs labeled intermediate. Coming from the East Coast, I’m always amazed at how lucky skiers are out west, blessed with perfect locales such as this. No throngs of beginners, no wrathful ice storms. Just excellent, plentiful snow, long runs, fast lifts and eye-popping scenery.

At least I imagined it was eye-popping. That first day, Sunshine was a misnomer — cloudy, with light flakes falling steadily as we rode the chairlifts to the top of 8,954-foot Lookout Mountain. Occasionally, the sun would break through and illuminate an otherworldly field of moguls above the tree line. Then we’d strap on our boards, glance at Delirium Dive, the certain-death cliff run on the mountain’s backside, and go the other way, threading through Douglas firs before catching a hushed two-seater back to the peak. No traffic, no lift lines, just me, Jean and the mountains.

And truly, there was nothing else. The “village” of Sunshine Village consisted of a day lodge, a saloon and the Sunshine Inn, which had 84 rooms about to undergo a thorough renovation. That was it. When the day was done, there was no lingering with locals. It was back to Banff.

In the waning hours of the day, the town of Banff is lovely. The sun takes its time sinking into the west, and the deepening indigo of the sky limns the surrounding mountains with startling clarity. The lights come on along Banff Avenue, and after an après-ski nap, the tourists wander in little groups, looking for food and amusement. They seem refreshingly normal — no Prada, no furs — and it makes sense that even though Banff does boast a Louis Vuitton shop, it’s overshadowed by a two-story Gap next door.


A skater on Lake Louise, set against the backdrop of Victoria Glacier.
Photo: Bonny Makarewicz for The New York Times



Which is not to say Banff is unfashionable. A boutique called Crème carries hipster labels like We Are the Superlative Conspiracy. Hero Shirts sells tees with Soviet-propaganda-style images of Canadian Mounties. Saltlik, a steakhouse with branches in Vancouver and Calgary, attracts the cocktail set. And restaurants like the Bison Restaurant and the Maple Leaf Grille often feature decidedly haute specialties, like braised Broek Farms bacon with seared scallops or Brome Lake duck with Saskatoon berry jus.

But I didn’t come to Banff for cuisine. And I didn’t need visions of Carmen Creek bison tenderloin dancing before my goggles as I braved black diamonds. I needed sustenance, and I found it at the Elk & Oarsman, a pub with a wood-beamed ceiling where everyone seems to gather. Seth Rogen look-alikes swilled the crisp house lager, and hardcore snowboard girls cheered hockey games on TV. Jean and I ate elk burgers, Tuscan-sausage pizzas and chicken wings — it was the kind of place I would go if I lived there.

There would be time for sampling finer foods, but first we would have to earn that. So the next morning, we went to Lake Louise, a 45-minute drive from Banff. With 4,200 skiable acres spread over four peaks, and a vertical drop of 3,250 feet, Lake Louise is the classic big-mountain experience — but these statistics hardly do it justice. How, for instance, do you quantify The View?

Number of degrees you can turn without losing sight of The View: 360.

Number of clouds in the sky: 0.

Number of peaks visible: Infinite.

But these are mere figures. Jean and I carved through the powder bowls, watched skiers leap off cliffs in a big-mountain competition, then rode the Ptarmigan lift to around 8,000 feet above sea level and stared at an unending ocean of mountains. Their mass didn’t make us feel small; rather, it rendered size irrelevant. This, The View told us, was a universe that could encompass both puny us and the Canadian Rockies.

“Lake Louise is living proof that God is a skier — and he lives here,” said Sandy Best, an owner of the tour company SkiCanada, whom we ran into on one of the peaks.

“It’s cheaper than Europe,” added a skier from Boston.

As I observed the mountains, my imagination took hold. One huge powdered crag looked like a 900-story pile of Turkish delight; the ridges of another had the delicate fluting you find on a Kumamoto oyster; the limestone slabs of still another recalled the alternating layers of fat and meat on a pork belly.

Yes, we were hungry, but at day’s end, before we jumped into our well-earned dinner, we drove through the town of Lake Louise to the namesake body of water. It was yet another ridiculously beautiful sight: a wide, frozen disc of snow, fronted by the Fairmont Chateau Lake Louise, crisscrossed by ice skaters and shrouded by mountains, behind which the sun was slowly sinking.

“As God is my judge, I never in all my explorations saw such a matchless scene,” Thomas Wilson, the Canadian Pacific Railroad worker who in 1882 was the first non-native to discover the lake, wrote in his diary.

A MATCHLESS scene deserves a matchless meal, and I knew just where to find one: the Post Hotel Dining Room, a rustic-luxe restaurant in the heart of Lake Louise that has generated tons of accolades. The room itself was surprisingly subdued, a refined combination of backwoods lodge and alpine chic. But oh, the food! Seared rabbit loin tasted as if the bunny had been fed nothing but olive oil. A lamb-and-bison terrine packed a meaty punch. And though our waiter warned me that the grilled caribou might be gamy, it was luscious and clean-tasting. A 2003 Osoyoos from British Columbia provided just the right heat and fire for that fleshy feast.

If that dinner tipped the scales too far toward indulgence, we corrected that the next day with some backcountry skiing. Through Yamnuska Mountain Adventures, an outfitter based in Canmore, just outside Banff National Park, we hired a guide to lead us. He was Pierre Darbellay, a tall, blond, 35-year-old native of Martigny, Switzerland, who divided his time between the Alps and the Rockies. (“He’s cute!” Jean buzzed.) After picking him up in Canmore, we drove past Lake Louise and up Icefields Parkway, the lonely, snow-slicked road that eventually leads to Jasper National Park..

After an hour or so, we stopped at Bow Lake, the source of the river that flows through Banff, down to Calgary and beyond. Across the flat, frozen oblong of white loomed a ridge that led to Bow Summit; the tongue of the Crowfoot Glacier lolled down its cols.

Before we could explore it, however, we had to prepare for avalanches. There was a “considerable” chance of them that day, Mr. Darbellay said, though the risks were mitigated by two factors: our climb faced north, and most of it was not too steep, less than 30 degrees. He handed out mandatory avalanche transceivers, which we strapped around our bodies, and shovels and probes, which we crammed into our backpacks. Just as important, we strapped our snowboards to our backs, and slipped our boots into rented snowshoes, and headed into the wild.


Strolling Banff at twilight.
Photo: Bonny Makarewicz for The New York Times



It was shocking how, less than a quarter-mile from the road, civilization seemed to vanish. The trees fell away, and we fell into a rhythm as we slogged across the lake. Pause. Silent but for our breath. At the lake’s north end, nearly invisible, Num-Ti-Jah Lodge. Tiny paw prints in the snow. A bluish ice cave in the glacier. Above, a grayness that absorbed the mountaintops.

At the base of the ridge, we contemplated the summit. It was a long way away. This was the enormousness I’d been seeking, and it was ... enormous. The slope may have been less than 30 degrees, but Jean and I were in less than stellar physical condition, and with every searing step I could feel the caribou, the terrine, the wine burning off my thighs. Soon, we had all removed our jackets, and when we rested, the air filled with our heaving. Well, mine and Jean’s at least.

Mr. Darbellay pointed at a distant boulder. “It’s harder higher,” he said, “but more fun going down!”

After what felt like another hour, we reached the boulder, unloaded our gear and spread out a picnic: bread, salami, salmon jerky and triple-cream brie. I uncorked a half-bottle of syrah, and Mr. Darbellay opened a thermos of tea; we mixed them together: thé au vin, a delicious Swiss innovation.

As we ate, we looked back at where we’d come from. The clouds had cleared entirely and a sparkling blue shone behind the peaks. Squinting, we could pick out the car parked near the highway. In a few more minutes, we would be joyously flying down through thick powder, on a single run we wouldn’t have the energy to repeat, but for now we simply sat there, high up in these mountains, with nothing but snow, snacks and each other.

A PLACE FOR SEEING, NOT BEING SEEN

HOW TO GET THERE

Air Canada flies nonstop daily from Kennedy Airport to Calgary International, with round-trip fares starting at $670 according to a recent Web search. From Calgary, it’s a two-hour drive to the town of Banff. A park permit is necessary for all visitors; it’s 9.80 Canadian dollars per person per day, or 19.60 Canadian dollars for a family or group ($7.72 or $15.43 at 1.27 Canadian dollars to the U.S. dollar), and can be purchased at the park’s entrance. For more information, visit www.pc.gc.ca/Banff.

THE MOUNTAINS

Lake Louise Ski Area (800-258-7669; http://www.skilouise.com/) and Sunshine Village (877-542-2633; http://www.sunshinevillage.com/) have day tickets starting at 75.95 Canadian dollars, while Mount Norquay (403-762-4421; http://www.banffnorquay.com/) starts at 55 Canadian dollars. Tri-area passes, available at SkiBig3.com, are often a better deal, and include free Friday-night sessions at Norquay.

For backcountry excursions, contact Yamnuska Mountain Adventures (Suite 200, 50 Lincoln Park, Canmore; 866-678-4164; http://www.yamnuska.com/). Prices vary with the number of people in a group; two skiers would each pay 255 Canadian dollars per day, not including avalanche gear, transportation or food. Alternatively, you can hire private, certified guides directly through the Association of Canadian Mountain Guides (http://www.acmgguides.com/).

WHERE TO STAY

Blue Mountain Lodge, 327 Caribou Street, Banff; (403) 762-5134; http://www.bluemtnlodge.com/; doubles from 79 Canadian dollars.

Fairmont Banff Springs, 405 Spray Avenue; (403) 762-2211; www.fairmont.com/banffsprings; doubles from 299 Canadian dollars.

Fairmont Chateau Lake Louise, 111 Lake Louise Drive; (403) 522-3511; www.fairmont.com/lakelouise; doubles from 299 Canadian dollars.

WHERE TO EAT AND DRINK

Bison Restaurant and Lounge, 213-211 Bear Street, Banff; (403) 762-5550; http://www.thebison.ca/; dinner, about 55 Canadian dollars per person, not including wine.

Elk & Oarsman, 119 Banff Avenue, second floor, Banff; (403) 762-4616; http://www.elkandoarsman.com/; dinner, about 25 Canadian dollars per person, including drinks.

Maple Leaf Grille & Lounge, 137 Banff Avenue, Banff; (403) 760-7680; http://www.banffmapleleaf.com/; dinner, about 55 Canadian dollars per person, not including wine.

Post Hotel Dining Room, 200 Pipestone Road, Lake Louise; (403) 522-3989; http://www.posthotel.com/; dinner, about 100 Canadian dollars per person, not including wine.


The grand, castlelike Fairmont Banff Springs, built in 1888 and perched above the rushing Bow River.
Photo: Bonny Makarewicz for The New York Times



Multimedia
Slide Show
Ski Banff
Map
Banff National Park, Canada

Related
Ski Guides (December 6, 2007)