Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Head trauma a major issue for NFL

By Bob Glauber
New York Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/
9:32 PM EST, January 27, 2009
TAMPA, Fla.

The most compelling story at Super Bowl XLIII wasn't anywhere near Raymond James Stadium, where upward of 4,000 reporters, celebrities, kooks and even an attention-seeking transvestite were gathered yesterday for media day.


Former Bucs guard Tom McHale

It was in a quiet conference room at a downtown hotel, far removed from the glitz and glamour associated with the sport's signature game and with less than two dozen reporters in attendance. It was listening to the grieving widow of a former lineman for the Bucs, Eagles and Dolphins.

Tom McHale died at 45 last May from an overdose of prescription medication, leaving behind his wife, Lisa, and three children. It later was discovered that he also was suffering from a condition called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease caused by head trauma.

He became the sixth known case of a deceased NFL player who had the condition. Three of them played for the Steelers, who will be facing the Cardinals in Sunday's NFL title game: center Mike Webster and guards Terry Long and Justin Strzelczyk. The others were former Eagles defensive back Andre Waters and Oilers linebacker John Grimsley. Waters and Long committed suicide. Grimsley died in 2008 from a self-inflicted gunshot wound that was ruled accidental.

All six died by the age of 50. All six had a condition that eventually would have developed into a debilitating form of dementia, according to medical experts.

"Eight months ago, I lost my best friend, my college sweetheart, and my husband of 18 years to an accidental drug overdose, ending a hard-fought battle against an unfortunate addiction," Lisa McHale said. "Not a day will go by where I don't miss him tremendously. I'm here because the circumstances of his tragic death brought about the discovery that Tom would never have known."

McHale agreed to have her husband's brain examined by a research team at Boston University, where it was determined he had CTE.

"When I first saw those examination slides, I shook and I cried for Tom, because it meant to me that despite his efforts, he didn't have that much of a shot of regaining his former self. Because Tom had been struggling with his issues of addiction, I will never know if the changes were related to the progression of CTE ...

"What's even more troubling to me is that Tom is the sixth confirmed case of CTE among former NFL players, and that only six players have been examined for it. I find these results to be profoundly disturbing."

McHale has joined in the fight to bring greater awareness to concussions, not only at the NFL level, but for all football players. Including her sons, who are 9 and 11 and have just started playing football.


Lisa McHale, widow of former Tampa Bay Buccaneer Tom McHale, reacts as Dr. Ann McKee talks about Tom McHale's brain during a news conference about chronic traumatic encephalopathy Tuesday Jan. 27, 2009 in Tampa, Fla.(AP)

Former Harvard football player and pro wrestler Chris Nowinski, who suffered concussion problems during his football career, cofounded the nonprofit Sports Legacy Institute to help shed light on the perils of concussions. He is working in tandem with Boston University researchers, and he enlisted the help of former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson, who was forced into premature retirement because of concussions. Johnson is the first former NFL player who has agreed to donate his brain to the group's study.

"When I read the story about Andre Waters taking a gun to his head, it shook me," said Johnson, 36, who retired after the 2004 season after suffering repeated concussions. By the time Johnson had retired, he said he believes he'd suffered up to two concussions per week.

"When I retired, I didn't even know what post-concussion syndrome was," Johnson said. "No doctors or trainers for my team ever educated me on that. For that reason alone, it was an easy decision to donate and help this cause."

It is a worthy cause.

The NFL has grappled with concussions for many years, and has made numerous attempts to enhance player safety. That includes meting out harsh punishment for helmet-to-helmet hits, as was the case for Jets safety Eric Smith, who received a one-game suspension early this season for knocking out Cardinals receiver Anquan Boldin, who is in Sunday's game. And it includes strengthening guidelines for keeping players out of games if they've been knocked unconscious.

But Johnson and a team of physicians and researchers gathered yesterday believe more needs to be done.

"I think there has been an incremental improvement since Roger Goodell became commissioner [in 2006]," noted concussion expert Dr. Robert Cantu said. "One of the most important was that if you're rendered unconscious, you don't go back in the game. That was a big step forward ... But it's difficult on the sidelines to do a good neurological assessment of the athlete. That's why I suggest that if you make the diagnosis [of a concussion], the player needs to be held out."

The league has also created the 88 Plan, where players with confirmed diagnoses of dementia are given extensive benefits for treatment and care.

"Concussions are serious injuries, and our focus is on prevention, treatment and ongoing research," the league said in a statement yesterday. "We support all research that would further the scientific and medical understanding of this injury, which affects thousands of people, athletes and non-athletes alike, every year."

The NFL will continue to be vigilant about concussions. The health of its players -- active and retired -- must be the overriding concern.

Women like Lisa McHale shouldn't have to bury their husbands so soon.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Super Bowl won't change cheap, losing legacy of 'Dollar Bill'

By Gregg Doyel
CBSSports.com National Columnist
Tell Gregg your opinion!
Jan. 27, 2009

TAMPA -- This doesn't change anything. It might prove a couple of things -- the concept that losers occasionally win, and the cliché about a blind squirrel occasionally finding a nut -- but the Arizona Cardinals' spot in Super Bowl XLIII doesn't change a thing about Bill Bidwill.

He's still the worst owner in the NFL.

His son, now, that's another story. Michael Bidwill has been the force behind the Cardinals' resurgence, and with him calling more shots there is competency and hope for the future. He's a former federal prosecutor and a ruthless SOB, but Michael Bidwill is apparently a competent football man. Nothing like his father, Bill. But a lot like his grandfather.

Bill Bidwill did not inherit any redeeming football qualities from his father, Hall of Famer Charles Bidwill Sr. (Getty Images)

True story: Bill Bidwill's father, Charles Bidwill Sr., is one of the founding fathers of the NFL, a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and one of the most flamboyantly generous owners the league has ever seen. It was Charles Bidwill, in 1947, who committed $100,000 for four years -- an obscene amount of money in those days -- for Georgia halfback Charley Trippi, winning a bidding war with the All-America Football Conference that helped kill off the AAFC a few years later.

In sum, Bill Bidwill's father was a great NFL owner, and Bill Bidwill's son has shown the makings of being one as well.

But Bill Bidwill himself? He sucks.

And any attempt to "redefine his legacy," as at least one newspaper in Arizona has done in the past week, is mistaken at best -- and deceitful at worst.

People close to Bidwill say the man has been misunderstood, but I think we have a pretty good handle on him. He has been cheap, and he has been ignorant, and the result has been one of the worst runs in pro football history.

Between 1984 and 2008, the Cardinals had one winning season. One. In 25 years. And after that one season, when the Cardinals went 9-7 and made the 1998 playoffs, Bidwill let it fall apart. Didn't watch it happen. Let it happen.

That 1998 team had three key free agents: Linebacker Jamir Miller, the team's leading tackler; running back Larry Centers, its No. 2 receiver; offensive lineman Lomas Brown, a seven-time Pro Bowl pick and the absolute leader of that locker room.

Bidwill, in his trademark bow tie, let them all go. Too expensive. Even back in St. Louis, before NFL salaries went haywire, Bidwill had been known as a cheapskate. They hated him in St. Louis, hated him to the point that he watched his final game in town, in 1987, in a mostly empty stadium under armed guard because of a death threat. By then his nickname was "Dollar Bill," and not because he looked like George Washington.

Cheap? Google Bidwill's name and the word "cheap." You'll be astounded at what you see. Stories of him forcing Cardinals rookies to buy their own cleats. Stories of him shocking his players in 1989 with a decent post-practice meal, and then shocking his players even more when they got their paycheck and saw the cost of lunch had been deducted, every day, from their paycheck.

Stories about former Cardinals safety Lorenzo Lynch breaking his facemask during a road game in the early 1990s and asking an equipment man to fix it -- and being told the team had already packed its gear for the long trip home. Sorry. No facemask for you.

In 1999, popular tight end Chris Gedney was unceremoniously released after coming down with ulcerative colitis. For years, players who needed to replace a single pair of tube socks had to explain to team officials why.

When Bidwill moved the team to Arizona in 1988, his first goodwill move was to gouge his new market with the highest ticket prices in the NFL. Keep in mind, in 1988 the Cardinals had won just 16 of their previous 48 games.

A few years later, unable to sell all his seats, Bill Bidwill reached out to fans in other cities, offering them deals to buy tickets to watch their team travel to Phoenix and play the Cardinals. You read that right. Bill Bidwill courted opposing fans. Anything to make a buck.

The man sucks. Not sucked, past tense. Sucks. This Super Bowl doesn't change anything.

It certainly doesn't change the upbringing of Bill Bidwill, who was made a team vice president while he was still in college -- at Georgetown, more than 1,000 miles away -- and then let that silver spoon rot whatever football acumen his dad tried to pass along.

The patriarch of this family, Charles Bidwill, died in April 1947, months before the Cardinals won their only NFL title. Charles' widow ran the team until she died in 1962, and Bill and a brother took over. Bill assumed full control in 1972, and the bottom dropped out. Between 1972 and now, the Cardinals are 229-339-4 -- 110 games below .500, a mathematical impossibility in a league that aims for parity.

But then, Bill Bidwill defies mathematics. He defies logic and common sense. He's the guy who chose Arizona among the cities trying to land the Cardinals in January 1987 and explained it like so: "One of the things I like about it is that I was sitting next to a man from Phoenix on the plane coming in, and he told me it was 72 degrees there."

No sense at all, Bill Bidwill. He's the guy who chased off Don "Air" Coryell, who became a legend for his pyrotechnic offense in San Diego but should have made his legend with the Cardinals. He won consecutive division titles in St. Louis in 1974-75 and went 10-4 in '76, but one year later he was so sick of Bidwill that he said, and I quote, "I'd like to be fired. Let me have a high school job." Coryell and Bidwill had stopped speaking. Two months later, Coryell was gone. Bidwill stayed.

Bidwill stayed and let the NFL's most dangerous weapon, Terry Metcalf, leave as a free agent to Canada. Bidwill stayed and let tight end Jay Novacek leave in 1990 for the Cowboys, where he won three Super Bowls. Bidwill stayed and in 1993 tried to woo free-agent quarterback Joe Montana, but that fell apart when the Cardinals wanted to take Montana on an evening tour of the team facilities and found the place locked up ... and couldn't find anyone who had the key. Montana went to Kansas City. Bidwill stayed and purged the 1998 team.

Bidwill stayed and now, after all these years, is in the Super Bowl. All it took was a new, revenue-making stadium that was built completely with someone else's money -- officially Bidwill contributed $147 million, but considering he sold the stadium's naming rights to the University of Phoenix for $154.5 million, he actually had a stadium built and made $7.5 million -- and the emergence of his tyrannically effective son.

Bill Bidwill is in the Super Bowl. In Tampa, a loser wins. Somewhere, a blind squirrel finds a nut.

And in hell, the place has frozen over.

What Are They Buying?

Hint: It's not an immediate end to the financial crisis.

By Thomas Sowell
http://www.tsowell.com/
January 27, 2009, 0:00 a.m.


Everyone is talking about how much money the government is spending, but very little attention is being paid to where they are spending it or what they are buying with it.

The government is putting money into banks, even when the banks don’t want it, in hopes that the banks will put it into circulation. But the latest statistics show that banks are lending even less money now than they were before the government dumped all that cash on them.

Even if it had worked, putting cash into banks, in hopes that they would put it into circulation, seems a rather roundabout way of doing things, especially when the staggering sums of money involved are being justified as an “emergency” measure.

Spending money for infrastructure is another time-consuming way of dealing with what is called an immediate crisis. Infrastructure takes forever to plan, debate, and go through all sorts of hearings and adjudications, before getting approval to build from all the regulatory agencies involved.

Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.

Using long drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.

If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit-card purchases beforehand.

If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.

None of this is rocket science. And Washington politicians are not all crazy, even if it sometimes looks that way. Often, what they say makes no sense because what they claim to be doing is not what they are actually doing.

No matter how many times President Barack Obama tells us that these “extraordinary times” call for “swift action,” the kind of economic policies he is promoting take effect very slowly, no matter how quickly the legislation is rushed through Congress. It is the old Army game of hurry up and wait.

If the Beltway politicians aren’t really trying to solve this crisis as quickly as they could, what are they trying to do?

One important clue may be a recent statement by President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, that “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

This is the kind of cynical revelation that sometimes slips out, despite all the political pieties and spin. Crises have long been seen as great opportunities to expand the federal government’s power while the people are too scared to object and before any opposition can get organized.

That is why there is such haste to do things that will take effect slowly.

What are the Beltway politicians buying with all the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending? They are buying what politicians are most interested in—power.

In the name of protecting the taxpayers’ investment, they are buying the power to tell General Motors how to make cars, banks how to bank, and, before it is all over with, all sorts of other people how to do the work they specialize in, and for which members of Congress have no competence, much less expertise.

This administration and Congress are now in a position to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s—use a crisis of the times to create new institutions that will last for generations.

To this day, we are still subsidizing millionaires in agriculture because farmers were having a tough time in the 1930s. We have the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) taking reckless chances in the housing market that have blown up in our faces today, because FDR decided to create a new federal housing agency in 1938.

Who knows what bright ideas this administration will turn into permanent institutions for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with?


— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Monday, January 26, 2009

2009: A year to defend free speech

Or lose it.

By Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer
http://www.nationalreview.com/
January 26, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

Wednesday, January 21, was a black day for freedom, and the beginning of an all-out assault on free speech in the Netherlands. The Amsterdam Court of Appeals ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders (one of this article’s co-authors) for his statements about Islam. To participate in public debate is now a dangerous activity. This is the Netherlands today—and it could be the entire Western world tomorrow.


Geert Wilders speaks to the media in his office in The Hague on January 21, 2009.(Getty Images)

The prosecution of Wilders was unexpected, though in retrospect one can see that something like it has been in the offing for a while. The year 2008 marked 60 years since the United Nations first promulgated its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet instead of celebrating this notable anniversary by reaffirming human rights, the world in 2008 saw certain fundamentally important human rights nearly disappear under intense pressure from Islamic countries that oppose freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the equality of all people before the law. Islamic efforts to create exceptional privileges for Muslims in the area of human rights have been advancing for quite some time, and they made great strides in 2008. Now, with the Amsterdam court’s judgment, we see the outcome of such efforts.

The Islamic bloc has been on record for two decades as opposing free speech. In 1990, foreign ministers of the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), currently the largest voting bloc in the United Nations, adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. It states clearly that Islamic law—sharia—is the only true source of human rights. Few analysts in 1990 understood that this was tantamount to declaring the legitimacy of institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims, and signing the death warrant of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience as well. And not just in Muslim lands: The OIC and allied organizations have been aggressively pursuing efforts to extend elements of sharia into the West, though few people realize it even today.

Due to the relentless efforts of the OIC, passage of a resolution on combating defamation of religions is now a yearly ritual in the United Nations. First introduced in the General Assembly in 2005, the resolution has been adopted with landslide votes every year since. While this resolution is non-binding, the OIC has declared its intention to seek a binding resolution—one that would require UN member states to criminalize criticism of Islam, as the OIC defines such criticism. This is a clear indication of the progressing Islamization of the United Nations.

On March 28 of last year, the UN hit rock bottom. Its Human Rights Council—whose members include such stalwart defenders of freedom as China, Cuba, Angola, and Saudi Arabia—adopted a resolution that severely modified the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. Instead of simply reporting on cases in which the right to free expression is being violated, the special rapporteur will now also have to report on cases in which that right is being “abused”—including when individuals use their freedom of speech to criticize Islam, or the particular elements of Islam that jihadists use to justify violence and Islamic supremacism. In essence, this means that the function of the special rapporteur has changed 180 degrees—from safeguarding the rights of individuals who hold unpopular or controversial ideas, to trying to limit the freedom of individuals to express such ideas.

As the Canadian delegation noted, “instead of promoting freedom of expression the Special Rapporteur would be policing its exercise.” This is fundamentally inconsistent with the very foundation of the human-rights tradition, as are measures combating “defamation of religions.” Such measures aim to protect institutions and ideas from criticism, instead of protecting individuals from the consequences of criticizing them. The very concept of freedom of speech has thereby been turned on its head.

Now the full force of this initiative has been directed against those who are sounding the alarm about the Islamization of the West. How could this have happened? Where was the opposition from Western nations? The silence in Europe has been deafening. Only recently did the French ambassador finally speak out, on behalf of the European Union, against the UN initiative to outlaw defamation of religions. He stated that the EU would not accept integration of the notion of defamation of religions into the framework of human rights, since the primary purpose of human rights is to protect people, not religions.

Still, talk is cheap. If we want to preserve our universal human rights, we have to show determination in 2009 to defend them from the OIC’s attempts to erode them. The Amsterdam Appeals Court decision only indicates how urgently needed this action is today. But opposing the OIC would require strong, positive acts, which would be a departure from the current pattern. In the case of the resolution on the mandate of the special rapporteur, European countries did nothing but abstain from voting on the resolution. Even Canada, which spoke out strongly against the resolution, abstained rather than voting against it. The United States also abstained; in fact, no nation voted against the resolution at all.

This was an absolute disgrace. The free nations of the world should have voted with their feet instead and resigned from the Human Rights Council immediately. Civilized states have no business participating in a forum that has been hijacked by the Islamic-supremacist agenda to replace fundamental human rights with the barbaric strictures of sharia.

They should also boycott the 2009 Durban Review Conference (Durban II), because there is every indication that this “UN World Conference Against Racism” will be turned into an anti-Israeli and pro-Islamic platform under the direction of the OIC and will end up actually promoting racism and intolerance. In October 2008, the Second Preparatory Session of the 20-state Preparatory Committee for Durban II convened in Geneva, with Libya, that paragon of human rights, as chair, and Pakistan and Iran among the vice-chairs. This Preparatory Session produced a “Draft Outcome Document for the Durban Review Conference 2009,” recommending that UN member states make “defamation of Islam”—not just of “religion,” but of Islam in particular—a criminal offense on the local, national, and international levels. This “defamation,” the document declared, must no longer enjoy the protection that it has up to now under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.” In other words, the Durban II Preparatory Session wants to criminalize investigations of the ideology, beliefs, motives, and goals of Islamic jihad terrorists, so that effectively the only people linking Islam with violence will be the jihadists themselves, and the Free World will be mute and defenseless before their advance.

If Geert Wilders is silenced, all those who oppose attempts to impose Islamic legal norms upon the West will be silenced also. European nations and the United States should stop appeasing Islam and start fighting together against the rapidly increasing Islamization of Europe. This is a struggle for human rights and human dignity, and for the great heritage of Western civilization that has given so many things to the world, yet whose children and heirs seem curiously embarrassed and reluctant to defend it.

Enough is enough. We must defend our freedom, or we will most certainly lose it.

—Geert Wilders is a Dutch parliamentarian, leader of the Party of Freedom, and maker of the film Fitna. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth about Muhammad.

The Rage of Oriana Fallaci

[Fallaci died of cancer in 2006...she was a truly brave and remarkable woman. I strongly recommend her stirring and brilliant books "The Rage and the Pride" and "The Force of Reason". - jtf]

by George Gurley
The New York Observer
7:00 PM January 26, 2003
http://www.observer.com/


On a recent afternoon, the telephone rang in Oriana Fallaci's Manhattan townhouse. The tiny, blue-eyed 72-year-old writer put down her cigarette and picked up the receiver.

"Oh, it is you!" she said. She assured the caller she was all right, then thanked him and hung up.

"He calls to see if I'm alive," she said, "to see if I need something."

The caller was a police officer, who has been checking in on Ms. Fallaci since the publication of her most recent book, The Rage and the Pride, which she wrote in New York during the weeks following Sept. 11. The book-a passionate cry in which she accuses the West of being blind to the true threat of Islam-caused a scandal when it was published in Europe last year, but has raised barely a murmur in the U.S. In her native country of Italy, the book has sold over 1 million copies and over 500,000 in the rest of Europe. In the U.S., it has sold just 40,000 copies since October. The relative silence with which Americans have greeted the book is somewhat puzzling: It is precisely Americans who have the most evidence, in downtown New York, of the danger which Ms. Fallaci lays out in her 187-page book.

In The Rage and the Pride , Ms. Fallaci compares Islam to a "mountain which in one thousand and four hundred years has not moved, has not risen from the abyss of its blindness, has not opened its doors to the conquests of civilization, has never wanted to know about freedom and democracy and progress. In short, has not changed." She warns that "from Afghanistan to Sudan, from Palestine to Pakistan, from Malaysia to Iran, from Egypt to Iraq, from Algeria to Senegal, from Syria to Kenya, from Libya to Chad, from Lebanon to Morocco, from Indonesia to Yemen, from Saudi Arabia to Somalia, the hate for the West swells like a fire fed by the wind. And the followers of Islamic Fundamentalism multiply like protozoa of a cell which splits to become two cells then four then eight then sixteen then thirty-two. To infinity."

In France, a group called the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between People tried to get the book banned. A French court rejected the request. In Italy, a booklet titled "Islam Punishes Oriana Fallaci," written by the president of the Italian Islamic Party, called for Muslims to "go and die with Fallaci." Ms. Fallaci sued the author for slander and instigation to murder.

"My life," Ms. Fallaci wrote in her book's preface, "is seriously in danger."

And not only from terrorists. In 1992, she underwent surgery for breast cancer; she told me she could die any day. But she still moves about like a spunky teenage girl, leaping up and down, making faces. She drinks fine wines which she keeps in her townhouse and smokes two packs of cigarettes a day-she said her oncologist allows it.

Prior to her new book, Ms. Fallaci had achieved international fame as a journalist and author-the beautiful, outspoken, brilliant "La Fallaci"-who had covered the Vietnam War and conducted spirited, combative interviews with celebrities-Arthur Miller, Orson Welles, Hugh Hefner, Sammy Davis Jr.-as well as world leaders like Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, the Shah of Iran, Ariel Sharon, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Yasir Arafat and Deng Xiaoping (or, as she called some of them, "those bastards who decide our lives"). Henry Kissinger said that his interview with Ms. Fallaci was "the most disastrous conversation I ever had with any member of the press."

Her writing has made her life comfortable-in addition to her Manhattan townhouse, she owns a residence in Florence and a 23-room country house in Tuscany-though comfort has not dulled her edges.

As we drank Sancerre in her sitting room, surrounded by bookshelves filled with Shakespeare, Dickens, Melville, Poe, Hemingway, Malraux and Kipling, she talked about The Rage and the Pride 's success in Europe.

"I have been months and months and months of best-seller No. 1," Ms. Fallaci said in her strong Florentine accent. "I do not say this to make self-congratulations. I say this to underline my thesis-that the moment was mature! That I have put the finger on the nerve of something: the Muslims' immigration, which grows and grows without inserting itself in our way of life, without accepting our way of life and, on the contrary, trying to impose on us its way of life …. And people in Europe are so exasperated by the arrogance of most of these 'invaders' and being blackmailed with the unfair term 'racist' when they protest, that there was a kind of thirst for a book like this …. There is no other explanation for the book's success! I have written better books than this. I have written beautiful books over my life's work. This is a scream rather than an essay-a book written in two weeks, c'mon. Why? It was not the book itself. It was the thirst , the hunger.

"You know in the turning of history there are, at times, a brusque turn," she said. "Consider all the steps of history. I'm afraid that we are now at one of those turns. Not because we want it. Because it is imposed on us. It is not this time a revolution, like the American Revolution or the French Revolution …. It is a counterrevolution! Alas. And it is against us. I am kind of happy not to have ahead of me a very long future which will confirm my prediction. But you will live all of it."

The West, she said, is under assault and doesn't realize it.

"If we stay inert, if we let ourselves be scared, then we become collaborationists," she said. "If we are passive … then we lose the war that has been declared against us.

"We can talk for centuries about the word 'racist,'" she said. "'Racist' has to do with race and not with religion. Yes, I am against that religion, a religion that controls the life of people in every minute of their day, that puts the burqa on women, that treats women as camels, that preaches polygamy, that cuts the hands of the poor thieves …. I am not religious-all religions are difficult to accept for me-but the Islamic one is not even a religion, in my opinion. It is a tyranny, a dictatorship-the only religion on earth that has never committed a work of self-criticism …. It is immovable. It becomes worse and worse …. It is 1,400 years and these people never review themselves, and now they want to come impose it on me, on us?

"Listen," she said, wagging a finger. "Those who do not follow what people like me say are unrealistic, are really masochistic, because they don't see the reality …. Muslims have passion, and we have lost the passion. People like me who have passion are derided: 'Ha ha ha! She's hysterical!' 'She's very passionate!' Listen how the Americans speak about me: 'A very passionate Italian.'

"Americans," she said, repeating for me something she told the American Enterprise Institute, "you have taught me this stupid word: cool. Cool, cool, cool ! Coolness, coolness, you've got to be cool . Coolness! When I speak like I speak now, with passion, you smile and laugh at me! I've got passion. They've got passion. They have such passion and such guts that they are ready to die for it."

I asked her about the death threats she receives.

"You put the finger on the wound," she said-but not because she's afraid. "I can't bear the bodyguards," she explained. In Italy, she said, they are "imposed" on her. Her homes in Florence and Tuscany are closely guarded. If anything happened to her in Italy, she said, it would be a political scandal.

However, in New York she's fairly vulnerable, and she likes it.

"Thank God the Americans don't care about me!" she said, adding that the F.B.I. had been over a few times.

"I am not saying this because I want to look like I am like Rambo, or that I don't care. That's stupid," she said. "It's my temperament. When you have been born in a war like me, living in a war as a child, when you have been in wars as a war correspondent all your life-trust me! You develop a form of fatalism; you are always ready to die. And when you love your own freedom as much as I do, you don't bend to the fear to be killed, because otherwise you do nothing-you go under the bed and you stay hidden 24 hours.

"The point is not winning or losing," she said. "Of course, I want to win. The point is to fight well with dignity. The point is, if you die, to die on your feet, standing up. If you tell me, 'Fallaci, why do you fight so much? The Muslims are going to win and they're going to kill you,' I answer to you, 'Fuck you-I shall die on my feet.'"


July 5, 1963 EFE

When she gets phone calls threatening her life, she said, she lets them talk. "Then I say, 'Do you know where it is your mother and your wife and your sister and your daughter are right in this moment? They are in a brothel of Beirut. And do you know what they're doing? They are giving away their'-I don't tell it to you, but I tell it to them-'and you know to whom? To an American . Fuck you!'"

How did she feel about President Bush?

"We will see; it's too soon," she said. "I have the impression that Bush has a certain vigor and also a dignity which had been forgotten in the United States for eight years."

She doesn't like it, however, when the President calls Islam a "religion of peace."

"Do you know what I do each time he says it on TV? I'm there alone, and I watch it and say, 'Shut up! Shut up, Bush!' But he doesn't listen to me.

"I adore his wife," she said. "You wouldn't believe it: Laura Bush has the face of my mother when my mother was young. The face, the body, the voice. The first time I saw on TV Laura Bush, I got frozen because it was as if my mother was not dead. 'Oh, Mama,' I said, 'Mama.'"

Oriana Fallaci grew up poor, the oldest of three sisters, in Florence. Her father Edoardo was a craftsman and anti-Fascist political activist. Her bedroom was filled with books. "I woke up, I saw books," she said. "I closed my eyes to sleep, the last thing I saw was books." She started writing short stories at age 9 after reading Jack London.

In The Rage and the Pride, she writes about a day in 1943 when Allied bombs fell on Florence. She and her father took refuge in a church, and she started crying. Her father, she writes, "gave me a powerful slap, he stared me in the eyes and said, 'A girl does not, must not, cry.'"

He was a leader in the Resistance against the Fascists and made his daughter a soldier in the cause. According to a 1998 biography by Santo L. Aricò ( Oriana Fallaci: The Woman and the Myth ), she smuggled explosives past checkpoints; her nom de guerre was "Emilia." In 1944, her father was captured and sentenced to death, but the city was liberated before the sentence could be carried out.

"The Second World War looked to us, to me, endless," she told me. "Bombing, bombing, bombing. I know about bombs. Every night the sirens- whoo, whoo! … When the war in Italy was over, I remember one idyllic moment; I think I shall die and, in search of a moment of happiness, I will think of that. It was Sunday, I had a new dress. White. And I was cute with this white dress. I was eating ice cream in the morning, which made me very happy. I was all white-it must be some psychological thing associated with purity, I don't know. And all at once, I don't know why, it must have been a holiday, all the bells of Florence-and Florence is a city of bells-started ding-dong, ding-dong, ding-dong! The whole city was bursting with this marvelous sound of the bells. And I was walking in the street, and I shall never, never-I have had honors, prizes-I have never felt what I felt that morning. During the war the bells never rang, and now the whole city was exploding with the sound of bells! I have never tasted it again. Never! … I felt that the world was opening up for itself …. It seemed to me that the war was over, forever, for everybody! That was stupid. Right at that moment, you know what they were preparing? Hiroshima. I didn't know!"

She graduated high school at 16 and attended the University of Florence, where she studied medicine before being hired at a daily newspaper. At 21, she also began writing for one of Italy's top magazines, Europeo. Soon she was interviewing people like Clark Gable. "He was so sweet," she said. "I have never met a man more shy than Clark Gable. He was so shy you couldn't make him talk."

While covering Hollywood in the 1950's and 60's, she wrote about Joan Collins, Gary Cooper, Cecil B. DeMille, Burt Lancaster, Jayne Mansfield, William Holden. She became close to Orson Welles, who would write the preface to her 1958 book, The Seven Sins of Hollywood (" Mamma mia , he ate so much food!" she told me), as well as Maria Callas and Ingrid Bergman-whose daughter, Isabella Rossellini, defended Ms. Fallaci in a November 2001 letter to The New York Times.

(In the 1980's, she got to know director Martin Scorsese, who was Ms. Rossellini's first husband. "I think Scorsese is a tremendously interesting director," she said. "As a director, I adore him. As a man, I cannot bear him. Because he doesn't smoke. She invited me to dinner at their house, and in order to smoke a cigarette I had to go in the bathroom. So each dinner became a nightmare. I had to bend from the window of the 58th floor, risking to precipitate down on the sidewalk, and I came to hate him and to forget that he was such a good director.")

I asked about the secret of her huge success as a journalist. She said it had to do with the fact that she never tried to be objective. Objectivity, she said, was "a hypocrisy which has been invented in the West which means nothing. We must take positions. Our weakness in the West is born of the fact of so-called 'objectivity.' Objectivity does not exist-it cannot exist! … The word is a hypocrisy which is sustained by the lie that the truth stays in the middle. No, sir: Sometimes truth stays on one side only."

We decided to go out to dinner. I asked if it would be safe.

"When you are with me, you're safe. I defend you," she said. "I promise you, nothing will happen to you if I am there."

In her hallway, I noticed a framed advertisement for a speech against Hitler and Mussolini which the anti-Fascist writer Gaetano Salvemini gave at Irving Plaza in 1933.

"They wouldn't listen," Ms. Fallaci said. "They wouldn't believe him; it was too early. I feel myself very near like Salvemini. Because he was shouting with the same despair, with the same arguments, and people did not believe him. When you say things a little too early, they don't believe you. Capito ?"

At the restaurant, we sat at a table by the bar so she could smoke. After a long, heated discussion with the restaurant's proprietor, Ms. Fallaci ordered the Spanish prawns very reluctantly. She didn't believe they were like Italian ones.

"I don't believe what he said," she told me. "Spain is looking one side on the Mediterranean, but the other side is on the Atlantic ocean. Thus if he speaks of the prawns which are fished in the Atlantic, I promise you they are going to be like the American ones. And then I don't want them."

When her prawns arrived, she said, "Do you know the only thing the Muslims and the Arabs have been teaching to me? The only one? To eat with the hands. The pleasure of eating with the hands is infinite. The Arabs, the only thing they do well is how elegantly they touch the food."

Last April, she said, Ariel Sharon phoned her to praise an article she had written in the weekly Italian publication Panorama about the problem of European and Arab anti-Semitism.

She said she answered the phone and said, "'Hey, Sharon! How are you? Are you as fat?' Because I know him. Sharon said, 'Oriana, I called you to say, "Damn, you have guts; damn, you are courageous; damn, do I thank you."' I said, 'Ariel, you thank me-I apologize with you. I was too tough to you 20 years ago.' And he was, as usual, a gentleman."

The night before the phone call, there had been an attack on a kibbutz.

"I said, 'Listen, dear, I know what happened last night in that kibbutz. Will you please permit me to express to you and to your people my condolences?' Sharon started crying. I don't know, I didn't see the tears. But the voice was of a crying man, and he started to shout: 'Oriana! You are the only one who says the word condolences ! Do you know, these bloody heads of states, I just spoke with the British and the Americans'-meaning Blair and Bush-'they did not say that word to me.' And then with broken voice he said, 'Do you know who were the dead last night? One was the grandmother who was in Dachau and who still had the number on her arm. The second one was her daughter, who was seven months pregnant. And the third one was the child of the daughter, who was 5 years old. And they are all dead! All dead! All dead!' He was crying."

He told her he would be coming to America soon.

"I said, 'Ariel, we've got a problem: How do we see each other in New York without the journalists knowing it?' So we have organized 007 story-beautiful. And the night before-do you remember what happened, the great massacre in Jerusalem? I remember that his assistant, this woman, she called me. I answered the phone and she said, 'We're leaving, we must go back, we don't come to New York, do you know what has happened?' I said, 'I know, I heard it, tell the Prime Minister I shall come to Jerusalem.' I never went. I couldn't."

Not that she feared any danger. After all, she'd been to Vietnam. By the late 60's, she had written hundreds of articles, appeared on The Tonight Show, published four books-so she went to the war, where she interviewed generals, soldiers, P.O.W.'s and civilians.

"Suddenly I've been seized by a fear that isn't the fear of dying," she wrote in 1968. "It's the fear of living."

In 1968, while covering a student uprising in Mexico City, she found herself in the middle of a massacre. She was shot three times; earlier, she'd lifted her blouse to show me the scars on her back and the back of her knee.

"I was so lucky, because everywhere it entered, it didn't touch the artery or the vein," she said.

In 1973, she interviewed a Greek resistance leader, Alexandros Panagoulis, after he was released from prison. They became lovers. He was killed in a suspicious car accident in 1976. She wrote a novel, A Man, based on their relationship. In the 1960's and 1970's, she conducted many of her infamous interviews with world leaders; her work appeared in publications like Life, The Washington Post and The New York Times. In 1990, the book she calls her "modern Iliad ," Inshallah -a 600-page novel about the war in Lebanon-was published and sold well.

In 1992, she had surgery for breast cancer.

I told her she looked very healthy for someone who was still dealing with cancer.

"Nooooo, you have not met me before," she said. "I am unrecognizable."

When she started to recover, she began writing what she calls her "big novel."

"It was 30 years that novel was sitting in my mind, and I haven't the guts to write it, because I knew it would be very long, very difficult, very complex," she said. "It scared me. When I got the cancer, I found the courage. I'm very grateful to the cancer, because it pushed me. I said, 'Hey, if you don't do it now, you die.' … So the dumb alien-I call the cancer 'alien'-must leave me alone until I have finished that book. If I died the day after I finish it, I die happy. "Remember, if you hear that Fallaci died, but she finished the book-you must think Fallaci died happy."

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Today's Tune: Pete Townshend - Let My Love Open The Door



(Click on title to play video)

Is That You, Sherlock?

By SARAH LYALL
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/
January 25, 2009

Is that Sherlock Holmes with blood on his bare chest? Robert Downey Jr. brings a different texture to the title character in a new version of "Sherlock Holmes," in theaters this fall.
Photo: Alex Bailey/Warner Brothers Pictures


LONDON

In a filthy, dank labyrinth of rooms below the streets of the East End, Sherlock Holmes was solving a case. That is, Robert Downey Jr., playing Holmes in the forthcoming film “Sherlock Holmes,” was engaged in hand-to-hand, foot-to-stomach combat with a very big and very bad villain (Robert Maillet). Bam! Pow! Ouch! Both characters would end up knocked out on the floor, along with Holmes’s trusty sidekick, Dr. John Watson, played by Jude Law.

Filmed in December, the scene presented a sharp corrective to the popular cinematic view of Holmes, at least the one propagated by the old films featuring the wonderfully named British actor Basil Rathbone. That Holmes occasionally wielded guns, leapt out of carriages and rushed through the fog with Errol Flynnesque panache, but mostly he was a giant brain inside a tweed suit, sexlessly debonair in the way Hollywood liked its leading men in the 1930s and 1940s. His Watson, played by Nigel Bruce, was a lumpy, good-natured, birdbrained foil for Holmes’s brittle brilliance.

The Sherlock Holmes of “Sherlock Holmes,” which is scheduled for release on Nov. 13, will not be wearing a deerstalker hat. Nor will he be wearing an Inverness overcoat, the kind with the dashing cloak that hangs over the shoulders as extra protection against the English rain. Sometimes — as in one fight scene — he will not even be wearing a shirt. (This gives Mr. Downey a chance to show off his admirably chiseled abs.)

Sure, he will still be smarter than everyone within a three-planet radius, and he will retain his uncanny ability to intuit whole life stories from the tiniest speck of dust on a shoe. But he will do those things while being a man of action, a chaser, shooter and pummeler of criminals — “like James Bond in 1891,” Joel Silver, one of the film’s producers, said last fall.

Lionel Wigram, who conceived the story and is also a producer of the film, said that reinventing Holmes as an action hero made perfect sense. “I never agreed with the idea of the fairly stuffy Edwardian-type gentleman,” Mr. Wigram said. “It wasn’t my idea of Sherlock Holmes.”

He was speaking in the underground catacomb, once part of London’s prison system and standing in for its sewers in the film. The director, Guy Ritchie — the artist formerly known as Madonna’s husband — was in a nearby room, watching the actors in their choreographed fight.

Mr. Ritchie, known for stylized, quick-talking, fast-moving films set among the criminals, lowlifes and hard men of London’s underworld, would seem to be something of a gamble as director of such a big Hollywood extravaganza. His early films, including “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch,” remain his most successful, and he has had some bad patches. (Don’t mention “Swept Away,” which starred the erstwhile Mrs. Ritchie.)

His latest film, last year’s “RocknRolla,” was seen as a return to form by many critics and did well in Britain. But it made only $5.7 million in the United States, according to boxofficemojo.com, a box-office tracking firm.
The “Sherlock Holmes” producers say that Mr. Ritchie’s style is perfectly suited to their concept. “We thought he had the capacity and the ability to make a big, fun movie, and what really pushed it over the top was Robert Downey Jr.,” Mr. Silver said.


The new film is directed by Guy Ritchie, center, on the set with Jude Law, left, and Mr. Downey. Mr. Ritchie is best known for stylized films that explore the denizens of London's crime underworld.
Photo: Alex Bailey/Warner Brothers Pictures


Before Mr. Downey came along, Mr. Ritchie considered making the film about Sherlock Holmes as a young man, in the vein of “Batman Begins,” positioning him somewhere between adulthood and the teenage Holmes of Barry Levinson’s film “Young Sherlock Holmes” (1985).

But he soon scrapped that idea, betting on Mr. Downey’s action-hero prowess, on display last year in “Iron Man,” and on the singular take he was sure to bring the character. Mr. Downey’s Holmes is darker than that of Mr. Rathbone or others who have taken on the part, like Christopher Plummer in “Murder by Decree” (1979) and Nicol Williamson in “The Seven-Per-Cent Solution” (1976). The new Holmes is rougher, more emotionally multilayered, more inclined to run with his clothing askew, covered in bruises and smudges of dirt and blood. This Holmes falls into modern-style funks between cases, lying on the sofa, suffused with anomie, unshaven and unkempt, surrounded by a pile of debris. He keeps his bills pinned to the wall with a bowie knife.

But when he applies himself, Holmes is as fast with his body — he is a bare-knuckle boxer, a crack shot and an expert swordsman — as he is with his mind.

Character and actor share certain traits. Like Holmes with his cocaine habit, Mr. Downey has been buffeted by many internal vicissitudes, including a long spell of drug addiction. (Unlike Holmes, he has spent time in prison and in rehab centers and replaced all that with a regimen of therapy, nutrition and fitness. He has also become deft in the fast-paced, aggressive Chinese martial art of wing chun.)

Like Holmes, Mr. Downey, 43, has a mind so active it seems to run ahead of itself. He craves constant stimuli, partly for his own intellectual nourishment and partly, you suspect, to keep his demons at bay. His conversation flits from topic to topic in a manner that suggests he pursues his work as intensely, and intently, as Holmes pursues his.

“He’s the archetype of a tortured perfectionist,” Mr. Downey said of his character. As he spoke in his trailer between scenes, he whipped up, and then ate, a scarily healthy-looking concoction of what appeared to be Japanese vegetables, in a special dish. But he said that in his own case, what drives him is “confidence more than obsession.”

“It means I won’t let go. My experience shows me that I know how to win, that I’ll end up in the end zone.”

Mr. Downey said he and his fellow cast members, along with the director and producers, have been poring over the script to stamp out any hint of “elementary, my dear Watson”-type clichés. And as he spoke, his own Watson, Mr. Law, was in a nearby building reading a book about “Hamlet.” (He is scheduled to play the title role in a West End production this spring.)

Mr. Law said he was enjoying upending the conventional wisdom about Watson: that he is fat and slow. “He’s a man who left the military a few years ago and who takes a military approach to situations,” he said. “He’s slightly more strait-laced than Holmes but certainly no less brave.” And, he added, while Watson is hardly as brilliant as Holmes — who is? — he’s “certainly not stupid.”

Back in the catacomb, Susan Downey, a producer on the film and Mr. Downey’s wife, said Holmes is “a bit of a ladies’ man, a bit of a brawler,” adding: “He has a gambling problem. If you’re a Sherlock Holmes fan who is in love with the original stories, then you’ll appreciate him.”

Arthur Conan Doyle’s tales set the stage for the classic Holmes-Watson relationship, “the relish of language and the cerebral tennis matches that go on between them as they unravel this mystery,” as Mr. Law described it.

But Conan Doyle appears to have conceived his detectives as action characters, too, alluding to Watson’s military service, to boxing matches and gunfights, and to Holmes’s use of the martial art baritsu (he most likely meant bartitsu).

“So many of the ideas that Conan Doyle had took place offstage in his books,” Ms. Downey said. “We have the technology, the budget and the means to carry them out.”

Mr. Wigram said he had loved Sherlock Holmes since he was a boy, when his father read Conan Doyle’s stories aloud to him. “I’ve been thinking for the last 10 years that there must be a way to reinvent Sherlock Holmes,” he said. An executive with Warner Brothers until 2006, Mr. Wigram pursued the idea when he left to become a producer.

“I realized the images I was seeing in my head were different to the images I’d seen in previous films,” he said. He imagined, for instance, “a much more modern, more bohemian character, who dresses more like an artist or a poet.” A louche, slightly wicked-looking character, he thought, like someone from a Toulouse-Lautrec painting or a member of the Rolling Stones, perhaps Brian Jones, in their Victorian-dress period.

And Mr. Wigram conceived the story (Michael Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Mr. Ritchie are credited as the screenwriters) as having a broader sweep than any single Conan Doyle short story.

“Even though the stories are a joy to read and reread, they do tend to be fairly small, contained murder mysteries,” he said. “And so for the big mainstream audiences these days, I knew we would have to come up with something where the stakes were bigger and that had a big fantasy element.”

He is not the only one dreaming of Holmes these days. A comedy starring Sacha Baron Cohen as Holmes and Will Ferrell as Watson is in the works. And the BBC is filming a one-hour story about Holmes, set in present-day London.

Mr. Ritchie’s movie starts with Holmes apprehending a murderer and master of the dark arts named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) — a character based, Mr. Wigram said, on the notorious Victorian occultist Aleister Crowley. As he is led to the gallows, Lord Blackwood pledges to come back from the dead and continue his evil ways. He does just that, and the rest of the movie follows Holmes and Watson as they try to foil his plot. Rachel McAdams plays the enigmatic Irene Adler.

Mr. Wigram would not reveal anything about the cost of the movie, saying only that it was a “proper big-budget film.”

Mr. Ritchie seemed refreshingly gleeful about that fact. “If I want something, I get it,” he said. “I’m used to having to come out with a screwdriver the night before and fix things on the set, so this is very nice.”

But will the movie really work as a Guy Ritchie movie, with all that quick pace and modern feel?

“Guy brings an energy and an expertise at physicality and action while being faithful to the period,” Mr. Law said. “The Victorian London that Holmes and Watson were working in was the cesspit of the world. They’re dealing with criminals and villains and street urchins.”

Another question, since the movie is meant for a family audience — or as Mr. Ritchie put it, is “deliberately designed so I can watch it with my family and friends without any embarrassment.”

Drugs?

No, Mr. Wigram said, speaking of Holmes. “He doesn’t do cocaine in our movie.”

Multimedia
Slide Show
Sherlock: Old and New

Roe and Doe, 36 years on

By Jeff Jacoby
Boston Globe Columnist
http://www.boston.com/
January 25, 2009

Abortion rights supporters and anti-abortion supporters march in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 22, 2009, during the annual March for Life.
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)



A new antiabortion TV ad appeared last week, just in time for the inauguration of a president whose support for abortion rights is unqualified. The ad shows the ultrasound image of a fetus in the womb. As the camera slowly moves in, a message gradually appears onscreen:

This child's future is a broken home.

He will be abandoned by his father.

His single mother will struggle to raise him.

Despite the hardships he will endure. . .

this child will become. . .

the first African-American president.


Then, alongside a picture of President Obama, comes the closing message: "Life: Imagine the Potential."

Last week also brought the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and with it the annual March for Life on Jan. 22. Tens of thousands of Americans, most of them in their teens and 20s, gathered in Washington to implore the new president to help end "the intentional killing of an estimated 3,000 pre-born boys and girls each day," in the words of a letter on the March for Life website. For his part, Obama issued a statement restating his support for abortion rights and insisting that Roe v. Wade "protects women's health and reproductive freedom."

Endlessly, the abortion battle goes on. The absolutists are forever polarized, but most Americans want to have it both ways. In poll after poll, substantial majorities say that abortion should be legal in only limited circumstances, if not banned outright. Only about one voter in five wants abortions to be legal at any time for any reason - i.e., abortion on demand. Yet by equally clear majorities, Americans say that they support Roe and would not want it overturned.

But these are irreconcilable positions.

Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court did not allow states to ban late-term abortions or restrict abortion on demand only to the first three months of pregnancy. It is true that Roe appeared to do so. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion declared that states could not regulate abortion at all in the first trimester and could do so thereafter only "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." Once a fetus became viable, Blackmun wrote, states could regulate and even prohibit abortion, "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

Those 20 words became the exception that swallowed the rule.

Roe wasn't the only abortion case the court decided on Jan. 22, 1973. In a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the justices decided that "medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment."

Taken together, Roe and Doe meant that abortion could not be barred at any stage of a pregnancy. The "attending physician" could always say that in his medical judgment, the woman's "emotional" or "familial" health made it necessary to abort her unborn child. The result has been 36 years of abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

Americans can be forgiven for not realizing what Roe really wrought. It has never been easy for its supporters to acknowledge its true impact. Chief Justice Warren Burger, who concurred in the decision, was sure that abortions would be performed only "on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments," not merely for reasons of convenience. "Plainly," he wrote, "the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand."

Burger was wrong, but he wasn't alone. Right from the start, the media have gotten it wrong, too. The morning after the decision, The New York Times reported on Page 1 that the high court had "overruled today all state laws that prohibit or restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion during her first three months of pregnancy." That mistake has been repeated endlessly in the 36 years since.

Since 1973, more than 40 million US pregnancies have ended in abortion: Ours is the most liberal abortion culture in the advanced world. Reasonable people can differ over whether to preserve Roe or overrule Roe. But surely the way to begin is to understand Roe.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

Submission in the Netherlands

The trial of Geert Wilders represents another blow against Dutch freedom.

Bruce Bawer
http://www.city-journal.org/
22 January 2009

“The Freedom Party (PVV),” read yesterday’s press release, “is shocked by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute Geert Wilders for his statements and opinions. Geert Wilders considers this ruling an all-out assault on freedom of speech.”

The appalling decision to try Wilders, the Freedom Party’s head and the Dutch Parliament’s only internationally famous member, for “incitement to hatred and discrimination” against Islam is indeed an assault on free speech. But no one who has followed events in the Netherlands over the last decade can have been terribly surprised by it. Far from coming out of the blue, this is the predictable next step in a long, shameful process of accommodating Islam—and of increasingly aggressive attempts to silence Islam’s critics—on the part of the Dutch establishment.


Pim Fortuyn, Rotterdam

What a different road the Netherlands might have taken if Pim Fortuyn had lived! Back in the early spring of 2002, the sociologist-turned-politician—who didn’t mince words about the threat to democracy represented by his country’s rapidly expanding sharia enclaves—was riding high in the polls and appeared on the verge of becoming the next prime minister. For his supporters, Fortuyn represented a solitary voice of courage and an embodiment of hope for freedom’s preservation in the land of the dikes and windmills. But for the Dutch political class and its allies in the media and academia—variously blinded by multiculturalism, loath to be labeled racists, or terrified of offending Muslims—Fortuyn himself was the threat. They painted him as a dangerous racist, a new Mussolini out to tyrannize a defenseless minority. The result: on May 6, 2002, nine days before the election, Fortuyn was gunned down by a far-left activist taken in by the propaganda. The Dutch establishment remained in power. For many Dutchmen, hope died that day.

Fortuyn’s cause was taken up by journalist, director, and TV raconteur Theo van Gogh, who was at work on a film about Fortuyn when he was slaughtered on a busy Amsterdam street on November 2, 2004. The killer, a young Dutch-born Islamist, had been infuriated by Submission, van Gogh’s film about Islamic oppression of women. Epitomizing the Dutch elite’s reaction to the murder was Queen Beatrix’s refusal to attend van Gogh’s funeral. Instead, she paid a friendly visit to a Moroccan community center.

The spotlight then shifted to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the brilliant Somali-born member of the Dutch parliament and cowriter of the script for Submission, who, rejecting the Islam of her birth, had become an eloquent advocate for freedom, especially for the rights of Muslim women facing no less oppression in the Netherlands than they had back in their homelands. Hirsi Ali was lucky: she wasn’t murdered, only hounded out of the parliament, and out of the country, by a political establishment that viewed her—like Fortuyn and van Gogh before her—as a disruptive presence.

That was in 2006. In that year, as if to demonstrate the gulf between popular and elite views, a poll showed that 63 percent of Dutchmen considered Islam “incompatible with modern European life.” Yet Piet Hein Donner, Dutch Minister of Justice, insisted that “if two-thirds of all Dutchmen wanted to introduce sharia tomorrow . . . it would be a disgrace to say ‘this is not permitted’!”

Friends and fans of Theo van Gogh attend the unveiling of a sculpture in memory of the slain film maker in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Sunday March 18, 2007. The sculpture was unveiled near the spot where the controversial film maker was murdered in 2004 by an Islamic extremist. Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen and a Dutch comedian praised Van Gogh and his work as the metal sculpture was revealed at a park in eastern Amsterdam. Titled "The Scream," the memorial took the form of a series of profiles of Van Gogh in stainless steel-coated ceramics, showing the film maker gradually opening his mouth into a scream. Van Gogh was shot and then stabbed by Mohammed Bouyeri in November 2004.(AP)

With Hirsi Ali abroad, the torch passed to Geert Wilders. At times, it seems that he is the last prominent Dutch figure willing to speak bluntly about the perils of fundamentalist Islam. The same people who demonized Fortuyn have done their best to stifle Wilders. In April 2007, intelligence and security officials called him in and demanded that he tone down his rhetoric on Islam. Last February, the Minister of Justice subjected him to what he described as another “hour of intimidation.” The announcement that he was making a film about Islam only led his enemies to turn up the heat. Even before Fitna was released early last year, Doekle Terpstra, a leading member of the Dutch establishment, called for mass rallies to protest the movie. Terpstra organized a coalition of political, business, academic, and religious leaders, the sole purpose of which was to try to freeze Wilders out of public debate. Dutch cities are riddled with terrorist cells and crowded with fundamentalist Muslims who cheered 9/11 and idolize Osama bin Laden, but for Terpstra and his political allies, the real problem was the one Member of Parliament who wouldn’t shut up. “Geert Wilders is evil,” pronounced Terpstra, “and evil has to be stopped.” Fortuyn, van Gogh, and Hirsi Ali had been stopped; now it was Wilders’s turn.

But Wilders—who for years now has lived under 24-hour armed guard—would not be gagged. Thus the disgraceful decision to put him on trial. In Dutch Muslim schools and mosques, incendiary rhetoric about the Netherlands, America, Jews, gays, democracy, and sexual equality is routine; a generation of Dutch Muslims are being brought up with toxic attitudes toward the society in which they live. And no one is ever prosecuted for any of this. Instead, a court in the Netherlands—a nation once famous for being an oasis of free speech—has now decided to prosecute a member of the national legislature for speaking his mind. By doing so, it proves exactly what Wilders has argued all along: that fear and “sensitivity” to a religion of submission are destroying Dutch freedom.

- Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at BruceBawer.com.

Roe v. Wade at 36

How will future generations judge us on abortion?

By Frederica Mathewes-Green
http://www.nationalreview.com/
January 23, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

Just two days after the inauguration, another crowd filled Washington’s streets: pro-lifers who gather each year for the March for Life. January 22 marked the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and, after so many years with little change or improvement in abortion law, the nation has grown a bit blasé about this annual demonstration. We still say abortion is a hot issue—but it’s not as hot as it used to be. The abortion controversy used to command cover space on magazines, while TV networks hosted hour-long debates. You don’t see that any more.


Abortion opponents march past the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 22, 2009, during the annual March for Life.
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)


Maybe people just got tired of hearing about it. Year after year, the two sides said mostly the same thing—and nothing much changed. Eventually, public attention was bound to sidle off to some new, more exciting topic (gay marriage, anyone?). When attention drifted, it was the pro-choice side that had command of the status quo.

And you could say that settles that; from now on there will be less and less talk about abortion, and we’ll just get used to things the way they are.

But I can imagine things going a different way. Not soon—maybe not till the baby boomers have passed from the scene—but it’s possible that a younger generation will see abortion differently. With abortions now running around 1.2 million per year, the total number of abortions since Roe v. Wade is about 49 million. That’s a big number—about a sixth of the U.S. population. It’s an especially big number if you’re not absolutely sure that it’s not a real loss of human life.

After all, if you see a little girl hit by a car, you’re going to yell, “Get an ambulance!” not “Get a shovel!” It’s in the very fabric of humanity to be on the side of life if there’s the faintest hope that life exists. We don’t throw children away when we’re not sure whether they’re alive or not. And, as the pro-choice side never stops saying, it’s not that they’re positive a fetus is not alive—it’s that they’re not sure. As the cliché goes, “Nobody knows when life begins.”

When I was a young, fire-breathing college feminist in the early 1970s, we didn’t see abortion as a melancholy private decision—it was an act of liberation. By choosing abortion, a woman could show that she was the only person in charge of her life and bowed to no one else’s control. But this formulation soured as the grief felt by post-abortion women began to accumulate. The flip side of autonomy is loneliness, and, for many women, their abortion decision was linked to emotional abandonment.

And then there was the advent of ultrasound technology, enabling us to see live images of the baby moving in the womb. In 1989, word went round the pro-life movement to order the tape of pollster Harrison Hickman’s presentation at that year’s NARAL convention. On it he said, “Nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about that fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer how to cure.”

So there are some reasons to think that the abortion question has not been settled, but has merely gone underground. That might be a necessary step. It has to go away so that it can be rediscovered and seen in a fresh light.

I don’t expect that reconsideration soon: My boomer generation will never see abortion as anything other than the wise and benevolent gift we bestowed on all future generations. We still control the media, the universities, and so forth, and it will take time for all of us to topple off the end of the conveyor belt.

But the time is coming when a younger generation will be in charge, and they may well see abortion differently. They could see it not as “a woman’s choice” but as a form of state-sanctioned violence inflicted on their generation. It was their brothers and sisters who died; anyone under the age of 36 could have been aborted, and somewhere around a fourth or a fifth of all babies are. A younger generation might feel a strange kinship with the brothers and sisters, classmates and coworkers, who are missing.

And I’m afraid that if they do see things that way, they aren’t going to go easy on my generation. Our acceptance of abortion is not going to look like an understandable goof. The next generation can fairly say, “It’s not like they didn’t know.” They’ll say, “After all, they had sonograms.”

Even in my generation, people who think of themselves as defenders of the weak and the oppressed may occasionally have a quiet moment when they wonder, “How, on this one issue, did I wind up on the side that’s defending death?”

There's a lot of ambivalence out there, and a lot of unspoken grief too, I think. Our pro-choice generation may have won the day—but sooner or later, that day will end. No generation can rule from the grave. When that time comes, another generation will sit in judgment on ours. And they may judge us to be monsters.

Frederica Mathewes-Green writes regularly for NPR's Morning Edition, Beliefnet.com, Christianity Today, and other publications. She is the author of Gender: Men, Women, Sex and Feminism, among other books.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Obama raises heart rates, lowers expectations

His boring inaugural doesn't diminish his hotness in the eyes of his usual acolytes.

By MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com/
January 23, 2009


How dazzling is President Obama? So dazzling that he didn't merely give a dazzling inaugural speech. Any old timeserving hack could do that. Instead, he had the sheer genius to give a flat dull speech full of the usual shopworn boilerplate. Brilliant! At a stroke, he not only gently lowered the expectations of those millions of Americans and billions around the world for whom his triumphant ascendancy is the only thing that gives their drab little lives any meaning, but he also emphasized continuity by placing his own unprecedented incandescent megastar cool squarely within the tradition of squaresville yawneroo white middle-aged plonking mediocrities who came before him.

At a stroke – OK, that's two strokes, like an Italian moped, but that just shows how cosmopolitan he is – anyway, Obama artfully charted a middle course between the Scylla of unmeetable expectations and the Charybdis of his own charisma and chugged instead in the placid rhetorical shallows of "gathering clouds," "raging storms," "icy currents"… In a speech on climate change, this would send the crowd fleeing in terror to hole up in the hills and forage for berries. But, in an inaugural address, this was Obama's most inspired gambit yet. Only a truly great leader would have the courage to reach for the skies in such leaden and earthbound prose.

Oh, well. So much for the consensus of the expert analysts. Meanwhile, The New Yorker put him on the cover dressed as George Washington – a Founding Father for a new America! Disdaining such insulting and belittling comparisons to discredited old slaveowners with bad teeth and wigs even more obvious than that Illinois governor's, the actress-activist Susan Sarandon compared him with Jesus. "He is a community organizer like Jesus was," she said, "and now we're a community and he can organize us." What sort of community should we be? Surveying the "rapt eyes" of the congregation, Ethan Baron, writing in the Vancouver Province, said he hadn't seen anything like it "since a guy I used to work with brought me to visit his weird sex cult in California." And he meant it as a compliment.

But don't worry, the sex isn't gonna be weird or anything. "Oh, yes, yes, yessssssss, we can!" I whimpered, as his smoldering eyes bored deep into the very core of my being and our souls met and I knew he was the only man who would ever win my heart, a heart beating so fast and loud I could barely hear what he was saying – something about executive orders, I think. "Oh, yes, give me one right now!" I cried, as my palpitating bosom burst the ties of my bodice causing my leg to vibrate so much my bustle fell off.

"Aye, you're a comely lass," said Squire Barack, as my tresses tumbled over my stays and his riding crop fluttered teasingly up my thigh. "But I don't need to go a-wenchin' in the White House Press Room…"

"No, please, good sir," I begged, as he glided past me and gave a saucy wink to the chamber maid from The Washington Post

Sorry, my mind wandered for a minute. Where was I?

Ah, yes. Government. Kind of boring, isn't it? Who's the Defense Secretary? Yawn. Who cares as long as it isn't Bush's guy? What's that? It is Bush's guy? Obama's kept him on?

Heigh-ho. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter that the new CIA honcho is open-minded on the virtues of waterboarding. Doesn't matter that the new Treasury Secretary who's gonna stick it to those greedy fat cats who don't pay their fair share of taxes is a greedy fat cat who didn't pay his fair share of taxes. If one night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble, one night in D.C. makes a cool man boring. But it doesn't matter because Obama's so cool even his boringness is hot.

To mark the inauguration, Ashton Kutcher released a video pledge-a-thon in which various bigtime celebrities, two or three of whom you might even recognize, "pledge to be a servant to our President and to all mankind because together we can, together we are, and together we will be the change that we seek." No doubt it sounds better when Jessica Simpson, Celine Dion and Whitney Houston are bellowing it as an all-star power ballad. It was when the celebrity O-bots started fleshing out the program that it all got more problematic: One celeb pledges to buy a hybrid. Another pledges to only flush the toilet after a, er …well, let's not get into that. And most of the rest just pledge to support programs to "emphasize the importance of raising the awareness of finding mentors to promote voices to speak out for arts education mentoring in our schools" (as the blogger Iowahawk paraphrased it). It was all very back-to-the-Nineties, a time when Bill Clinton declared that the era of Big Government was over and we seemed on the brink of a golden era of a billion gazillion bits of tiny itsy-bitsy micro-government that cumulatively add up to the biggest government you've ever seen.

And if this were 1993 again that just might do. But it's not, and perhaps the silliest part of the new president's speech was this: "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."

Sounds nice, doesn't it? Put aside the bitter partisanship, so "childish" and "petty," and we can all be grown up about this and do the things that need to be done. The idea of a politics conducted within less ideological and more technocratic bounds is seductive. It's how things work in much of Europe: You have a choice between a left-of-center candidate and an ever so slightly right-of-left-of-center candidate, and, regardless of which one you plump for, you wind up with the same old smidgeonette right-of-left-of-right-of-left-of-center government. The result has been to deliver a society of permanent high unemployment, unaffordable entitlements and deathbed demographics – even before the economic downturn put more immediate question marks over the future. As Obama was inaugurated, rioters were besieging their parliaments in Iceland, Latvia and Bulgaria, the beginnings of a civil unrest that will spread inward from the fringes of the European map. Unlike Ashton Kutcher, these people are not worried about arts education mentoring.

Ideas are the energy in politics, and on health care, Social Security, war, immigration and much else this country could use more. Instead, the moribund U.S. media – a very good example of what happens when stultifying conformity becomes your be all and end all – are urging us to fall in line: "Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of 'petty grievances,'" reported The Washington Post, "President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support."

Ah, yes. How "petty" these losers are to have concerns about a trillion bucks in spending. Fortunately, Obama will stay cool, though hopefully not in the Icelandic sense.

©MARK STEYN

Music Review: Working on a Dream By Bruce Springsteen

BRIAN HIATT
http://www.rollingstone.com/
(Posted: Jan 21, 2009)

Bruce Springsteen
Working On A Dream
RS: 5 of 5 Stars



To understand the romantic sweep and swaggering musical ambition that define Bruce Springsteen's first album of the Obama era, you have to go all the way back to an artifact of the Ford administration: 1975's Born to Run. In those days, Springsteen was driving the E Street Band without a seat belt, staying up all night piling on overdubs: glockenspiel, surf guitar, violins, motorcycle noises. With a few exceptions, he's been paring down ever since. But on much of Working on a Dream, Springsteen finally reignites his early infatuation with the pop symphonies of Roy Orbison and Phil Spector. It's all there from the first track, an eight-minute-long, tragicomic Old West fable called "Outlaw Pete," where he does everything short of dragging an actual horse into the studio: There are tempo changes, chugging cellos, Once Upon a Time in the West harmonica wails, massed strings, crescendo after crescendo — and a lyrical closing guitar solo worthy of "Jungleland."

Working on a Dream is the richest of the three great rock albums Springsteen has made this decade with the E Street Band — and moment for moment, song for song, there are more musical surprises than on any Bruce album you could name, from the Chess Records vocal distortion on the bluesy "Good Eye" to the joyous British Invasion pep of "Surprise, Surprise." Producer Brendan O'Brien seems to have shaken something loose in Springsteen, who by the Nineties was so focused on his ever-more-novelistic lyrics that melodies and chord changes could feel like an afterthought. On their last collaboration, 2007's Magic, Springsteen suddenly started writing lush, retro-pop tunes with inventive arrangements ("Girls in Their Summer Clothes" and "Your Own Worst Enemy") — and singing out in an unexpectedly rich, open voice, one that for the first time in decades owed more to Orbison than latter-day influences Hank Williams and Woody Guthrie.

Working picks up where those Magic tunes left off, and then goes further. As much as anyone, Springsteen has mastered the key sounds of rock's golden age, and he deploys them at will on this album, diving deep into influences that he's only hinted at before on record. At least two tracks lean hard on the Byrds — the jagged, sitarlike guitars on "Life Itself" are pure "Eight Miles High," as are the close vocal harmonies on the tough little rocker "What Love Can Do." The twisted pop fantasia "Queen of the Supermarket" — the lonely narrator has an overblown obsession with a checkout girl — has a Sixties AM-radio vibe reminiscent of Manfred Mann's "Pretty Flamingo." And the dreamy, stacked backing vocals on the celestial love tune "This Life" owe as much to the Turtles as they do to Spector.

For all the overdubs on this album, the uptempo songs have a bracing, first-take feel, capturing the E Street Band's elusive live essence — Springsteen's freewheeling Seeger Sessions album may have helped bring that out. Roy Bittan's deliberately sloppy roadhouse piano and Max Weinberg's splattering cymbals make the standout "My Lucky Day" sound like Exile on E Street, with Springsteen and Steven Van Zandt sharing the chorus Mick-and-Keith-style. Springsteen has had trouble writing happy-relationship songs that rock (see Human Touch and Lucky Town), but he nails it on "My Lucky Day," which is as much fun as his best Eighties hits.

The youthful energy of the album's music collides neatly with the all-too-adult truths of the lyrics, which — at least on the surface — return to the personal and domestic, after the global sweep of his last few records. The sunny title track is a rare and timely moment of unabashed optimism, and there are some of Springsteen's least conflicted, most devotional love songs here. But even the title character of "Outlaw Pete" can achieve no more than temporary redemption, and Springsteen wonders on several songs how we can hold on to our attachments — and the best parts of ourselves — in the face of "the burdens of the day . . . the weary hands of time." Some of those tunes recount rough patches in a relationship that could stand in for larger, national issues: "Why do the things we treasure most slip away in time/Till to the music we grow deaf and to God's beauty blind," Springsteen sings on the disquieting "Life Itself," which builds tension with claustrophobic rhythms anchored by Garry Tallent's droning bass. "Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?"

If you don't count the soundtrack tune "The Wrestler," tacked on as a bonus cut, the album ends with "The Last Carnival," a plain-spoken, heart-rending elegy for E Street Band organ player Danny Federici, who died of cancer last year. The tune doubles as a sequel to Springsteen's beloved 1973 song "Wild Billy's Circus Story," in which the romance of the circus stood for life on the road — here, the circus is moving on without Billy. "Sundown, sundown/They're taking all the tents down," Springsteen sings in a choked hush, at the bottom of his range. "Where have you gone, my handsome Billy?" The song ends with a choir of what sounds like Springsteen's and Patti Scialfa's layered voices, vaulting up to infinity: For a fallen comrade, it's one last opera out on the turnpike.