|
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Conservative Alito Replaces Liberal O'Connor
Senate Confirms Alito to the Supreme Court
Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Posted: 11:24 a.m. EST (16:24 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate confirmed Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court on Tuesday by a vote of 58-42, a day after an attempt by some Democratic senators to block his nomination fizzled.
Alito, who will be the court's 110th justice, will be sworn into office across the street from the Capitol at the Supreme Court, just hours before President Bush's State of the Union address. He will then join Chief Justice John Roberts in the House chamber for Tuesday night's speech. Judge Alito will be ceremonially sworn into office Wednesday in the East Room of the White House.
Alito watched the Senate vote from the Roosevelt Room of the White House with President Bush and his wife, Martha-Ann Bomgardner.
Alito's supporters in the Senate, as expected, cleared the final roadblock Monday when senators, by a vote of 72-25, decided to cut off debate and proceed to a final vote, rebuffing an attempt by a cadre of liberal senators to talk the nomination to death.
The vote easily exceeded the 60 votes needed to pass the motion. (What is a filibuster?)
In the end, only 24 of the chamber's 44 Democrats went along with the filibuster, a maneuver allowed under Senate rules to block a vote by extending debate indefinitely. It was also supported by the chamber's lone independent, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont.
Arguing against cutting off debate, Sen. John Kerry -- who spearheaded the filibuster effort with his fellow Massachusetts Democrat, Sen. Ted Kennedy -- said Alito's record during his 15 years on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given "the extreme right wing unbelievable public cause for celebration."
"That just about tells you what you need to know," Kerry said. "The vote today is whether or not we will take a stand against ideological court-packing."
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said the move to cut off debate fulfilled a "very straightforward principle -- a nominee with the support of a majority of senators deserves a fair up-or-down vote."
"The sword of the filibuster has been sheathed because we are placing principle before politics, and results before rhetoric," Frist said.
The White House released a statement from President Bush hailing Monday's vote and saying he was looking forward to Alito's confirmation.
"I am pleased that a strong, bipartisan majority in the Senate decisively rejected attempts to obstruct and filibuster an up-or-down vote," Bush said.
The motion to cut off debate drew the support of 53 Republicans and 19 Democrats, including all 14 senators who signed on to an agreement last year that ended a series of Democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominations.
The so-called Gang of 14 included seven Democrats and seven Republicans.
The Democrats agreed not to support judicial filibusters except under "extraordinary circumstances," which would be up to each senator to define. In return, the GOP members agreed not to support any attempt by Republican leaders to change Senate rules to permanently end the practice.
Among the 24 Democrats who supported the filibuster were five senators being mentioned as possible 2008 White House contenders -- Kerry, who lost to Bush in 2004; Hillary Clinton of New York; Evan Bayh of Indiana; Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; and Joe Biden of Delaware.
The Senate's top two Democrats, Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, also supported the Kerry-Kennedy filibuster effort.
With at least four Democrats and 53 Republicans in favor, confirmation was all but guaranteed.
At least 37 Democrats and Jeffords have announced they will vote no. Only one of the Senate's 55 Republicans has come out against Alito's confirmation -- Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a moderate facing re-election this fall in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.
"I am a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-Bill of Rights Republican, and I will be voting against this nomination," Chafee said in a statement.
The four Democrats who have said they will vote for Alito are Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. All four represent states Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/alito/index.html
Posted at 11:47 am by R7fel
Permalink
The Hamas Victory: Green Dawn, Red Dusk?
Toufic Haddad, The Electronic Intifada, 31 January 2006
 |
| Out with the old, in with the new: Yasser Arafat's Fateh party was crushed by Hamas in last week's legislative elections (Magnus Johansson/Ma'an News) |
27 January 2006 — Less than 24 hours after the sweeping Hamas victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections, it is clear that the consequences of this event are likely to be so profound that they are capable of bringing about a political tsunami once the wave finally reaches shore. Although the final implications of the elections are yet to be seen regarding how Hamas will form its governing coalition, what this means for the "peace process", and how this will affect Palestinian-Israeli and Palestinian-World politics, certain things can already be deduced from the structure of prevailing power relations. That is to say, the dominant Israeli discourse integrally embedded within the rubric and actions of the US "war against terror" are already beginning to frame the way in which these events are narrated: the Hamas victory ushers in the definitive "Islamization of the conflict" in which Israel, and indirectly "all Western countries", are confronted by a war for "elementary values of democracy and sacredness of life". Within this logic, Israel must reasonably wage an "eternal war" with "no compromises", "against religious extremism", while attempting to preserve the values which "separate us from them". After all, who can reasonably expect negotiations with those who send suicide bombers, and "call for Israel's destruction"?
Tragically, the wide scale dehumanization and racism pitted against Islamist movements since September 11th across the world has been so successful that wide sections of the US Left will likewise fall prisoner to similar logic. It is therefore necessary to immediately and clearly articulate an accurate understanding of what the Hamas victory means both for the powers that be, as well as for activists concerned with the fate of the Palestinian national movement, and all subsequent anti-racist, anti-colonialist, and anti-imperialist movements.
Why Hamas Won
Hamas won a resounding victory commanding 76 seats in the 132 Person Legislative Council. Together with the support of 4 additional independent candidates who won, and were backed by Hamas, the 'Change and Reform' slate of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Harakat Al Moqawama Al Islamiyya) garnered a total of 80 seats - 60.6 % of the high voter turn out (75% of the eligible voters) and almost double the 43 seats of Fateh. What does this represent in the algebra of regional and world forces?
Defeating Fateh
No doubt the clearest message the election results show is that the Palestinian electorate resoundingly said "No More!" to the ruling Fateh party. Fateh's extended 40 year hegemony over Palestinian national decision making and financial resources; its undemocratic decision making processes both vis-a-vis other factions and within Fateh itself; its poor political calculations and performance; and its latent financial corruption, in the end created more enemies than friends within Palestinian society. Ever since the Intifada began, and particularly after the death of Yasser Arafat, the glue that once kept Fateh together has dissolved as the contradictions it oversaw bubbled to the surface. Simultaneously, Hamas built itself upon the organizational framework initially laid down by the West Bank and Gaza Strip Islamic Brotherhood movements in previous years. Its launching in 1987 within the vibrant theatre of Palestinian politics, forced fundamental changes upon the organization which over time resulted in its growth into a dynamic, disciplined, democratic, centralized party structure. Moreover its political platform cleverly shadowed all the political areas where Fateh and the Oslo Accords retreated with respect to Palestinian national rights: the right of return of Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, and the unity of the entire Palestinian people. Despite being the largest employer in the Occupied Territories; despite being the only major Palestinian party not on the CIA's top 20 International Terrorist Group list; despite being the "one with all the connections" to 'international legitimacy', Fateh was finally punished for its cynicism, corruption, double speak, and internalized defeatism, both politically and organizationally.
A Moral Victory for the Resistance and for "the Party Serves the People"
But the Hamas victory is not just about negation. Nor is it merely about the oft-cited social welfare network it oversees. Although there are significant socio-economic reasons behind Hamas' success, this simplification assumes that Palestinians are simply so desperate that they vote for whoever feeds them, and are devoid of any critical political faculties.
Far more significant to Hamas' victory is what it represents politically, particularly when contrasted with the trajectory of the previous Fateh movement. Hamas represents a definitive departure from the Oslo model and the humiliating false discourse it propagated. Palestinians rejected that they had to be a "partner to peace"; that they were the ones who had to prove that they were not the terrorists; and that "Israeli security and self-defense" was a legitimate premise in the peace process, necessitating all of Israel's subsequent actions. It is precisely this vocabulary which greased the wheels of the machines which actively sought to extinguish the Palestinian national movement for the past 5 years, and colonized Palestinian lands in the West Bank and Gaza for the past 38.
Equally as important was the fact that in the struggle to attain these rights, Hamas articulated an alternative strategy to what it saw as the dead end of Oslo. Hamas preserved and implemented at times, the Palestinian right to resist. This, in the eyes of its US, Israeli and EU detractors, was its gravest sin. Although this resistance may have taken controversial forms, the reality of the matter is that Hamas was never unique in its employment of these methods amongst Palestinian factions, and often proved itself to be far more disciplined in its use of them. Furthermore, in the course of the Intifada, it was not Hamas which began the hostilities (Israel gets credit for that), nor was it the first Palestinian faction to initiate the Intifada's militarization (Fateh's responsibility.)
Only after politically positioning itself upon a firm political base, and articulating a program which protected and sometimes implemented a resistance centered campaign, can Hamas' social works be understood in context. In fact, it is precisely through the consolidation of these first two criteria that Hamas' social welfare networks become transformed from mere charity networks, into instruments for political mobilization. Hamas' victory also exemplified that it is first and foremost the responsibility of the political party to serve its people and not the other way around.
Defeat for US Imperialism and Zionism
Although cynics will no doubt argue that the Hamas victory falls in line with US and Israeli policies to legitimize its future actions, the fact of the matter is that both would have no doubt preferred a Fateh victory. US and Israeli strategies during Oslo were premised around the PA being Israel's security subcontractor. After the Intifada broke out, the US and Israel shifted tack, opting in favor of 'unilateralism' to get their way (as implemented in construction of the massive wall and checkpoint system, and the disengagement from Gaza). As for the Palestinian Authority, it was to be retained only in so far it was to be an object of continued torment -"until the Palestinians turn into Finns", according to Sharon's right hand man Dov Weisglas. This was supposed to free Israel's hand to be able to unilaterally determine Israel's borders, and anything else Israel and the US saw fit.
Although no doubt both Israel and the US have plenty of resources at their expense to exploit the current scenario to their advantage, the Hamas victory is an affront to the politics of how the US and Israel have been running the show for the previous 12 years. Hamas has the potential and desire to reorganize and regroup the Palestinian national movement on a surer footing, stemming the corrosive effects of Fateh's leadership under Oslo and Israel's deliberately destructive tactics against it. Hamas' victory also flies in the face of the Bush doctrine's efforts to 'bring democracy to the Middle East', as though this was to be equated with bringing to power moderate, pro-American regimes. Indeed the contrary has taken place, and it is this model which now shall be held up for movements across the region, eager to push for democracy in their respective countries. No doubt social movements in Egypt, Jordan and a host of other notoriously repressive US sponsored regimes will take note of this 'Arab experiment in democracy'.
A Victory and a Warning
Despite the fact that these elections took place under a brutal occupation and that Israel made no serious concessions to facilitate them; despite the fact that Israel currently holds 9,000 prisoners many of whom are pivotal national leaders in its jails; despite the fact that just months ago, Israel attempted to arrest the entire Hamas list and campaign organizers; despite the millions of dollars pumped directly and indirectly into Fateh's campaign by the US and the EU in a last ditch effort to keep the theater of absurd "peace process" alive - the Palestinian people voted resoundingly for a different future. Hamas should be given credit for politically and organizationally articulating and catalyzing that desire for change. At the same time, it must be noted that Hamas' victory is equally as much a failure for the Palestinian Left, and other secular forces to articulate and organize an attractive alternative. No doubt, the internal debates, and maneuvering on that front are only just beginning.
The Palestinian center of gravity has shifted to Hamas, and all others groupings within the Palestinian arena will be at pains to rearticulate and reorganize themselves if they are to one day seriously challenge them. For the time being however, Hamas will be given time to prove itself in action. At the same time the ballooning of its supporters will also bring with it expectations and political diversity, which the movement itself will also find difficult to navigate.
All this however cannot be decontextualized from what Israel and US will do to ensure that Hamas, like Fateh, cannot bring anything substantial back to its constituency in the form of tangible achievements for Palestinian rights. Indeed, both have already underscored that they will not deal with Hamas "until it recognizes Israel", "accepts the Road Map" and disarms. Furthermore, the US and EU are openly considering cutting relations and funding to the PA, while the major Israeli political parties (Labor, Kadima and Likud) all advocate 'unilateralism' if Hamas is in power (and incidentally, if they are not). These policies alone could spell the end for the PA as we have known it, while unmasking what was always the conditional commitment of these parties to "a peace process". Yet more worrying is the discourse which emerged within hours of the election results from former Israeli Army Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon. Ya'alon argued that what we are witnessing is the creation of "Hamastan, Hizbullahstan and al-Qaedastan" in Gaza, and that Iran is at Israel's doorstep. This discourse, and all similar discourse, truly only has one implication behind it - the desire to justify in advance massacres on a scale never seen in the previous 5 years. Hamas is certainly wary of this possibility, and for that reason will ensure it provides no excuses to bring that reality about. Nonetheless, Israel will be the one who orchestrates this and its timing, though likely not before the March elections for Prime Minister.
In these times of reconfiguring mentalities, Palestine solidarity activists must be consistent in challenging the rote racism and dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims which facilitate these bloody scenarios. Likewise they must argue politically for what is truly at the heart of this election, and that the right to self-determination and political representation is an internal Palestinian matter that does not contravene the over-arching framework within which the conflict must be understood: the fight of the Palestinian people to resist the colonization of their land for the establishment of an exclusivist Jewish state that acts as the watchdog of US imperialism in the region. Though a Hamas victory on some levels may make this task harder, it also crucially brings up so many issues which Palestinian activists must convincingly argue if we are ever to win real gains: challenging the historiography of the Oslo peace process and exposing the US role in supporting the exclusionary Zionist state and its oppressive policies against the Palestinian national movement. The fact that this election result was achieved more or less democratically (although with clear limitations which should not be overlooked) should potentially make our task easier - but only if we know what's at stake. Indeed if Israel is to be prevented from eventually doing what it wants to in Gaza, (as it did to Beirut, the heart of Palestinian organizing from 1970 -1982), then Palestine activists will have much to do in the coming months.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4434.shtml
Posted at 11:32 am by R7fel
Permalink
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Mozart's 250th Anniversary
In Salzburg, a Warm Birthday Party
on a Cold Night
Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images
Thousands of Salzburgers and tourists gather for celebrations marking the 250th birthday of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. More Photos > Published: January 28, 2006
SALZBURG, Austria, Jan. 27 — You couldn't say that the intermission upstaged the concert, exactly. Not this concert, with Riccardo Muti conducting the Vienna Philharmonic and a handful of worthy soloists at the Festspielhaus to celebrate Mozart's 250th birthday, on Friday evening.
Still, the intermission provided rich diversions. For one, there was the heartwarming gesture on the part of the churches here in the city of Mozart's birth to ring their bells at 8 p.m., the time he was born. Many concertgoers braved the cold to listen.
Some even ventured a few blocks to experience another touching scene at an outdoor Mozart stage in the Kapitalplatz. The Orchester TransArt Salzburg (presumably with heaters onstage) was playing the first movement of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" for a throng of chilled listeners: a stark contrast to the scene at the Festpielhaus, with its cosseted patrons.
The Vienna Philharmonic concert was the centerpiece of the annual Mozart Week run by the Mozarteum Foundation, this year expanded to two weeks and running until Feb. 5. The event generated considerable advance publicity and at least a little rancor this week, when the soprano Renée Fleming, one of the soloists scheduled to appear, was summarily replaced by the mezzo-soprano Cecilia Bartoli.
The issue was the recitative and aria "Ch'io mi scordi di te ... Non temer amato bene," which Ms. Fleming, just days before the concert, found too low for the current state of her voice, although she had performed it before. For whatever reasons, the foundation would not allow Ms. Fleming to withdraw from that piece and retain her other two items on the program. It insisted on keeping the program intact and also on having a single female singer opposite the one male singer, the baritone Thomas Hampson.
But Ms. Bartoli's entry on the scene raised another question. How would a mezzo-soprano fare in one of the other pieces scheduled, the high-flying motet "Exsultate, Jubilate"?
The answer, it can now be reported, is so-so. Hitting the high notes was no problem for Ms. Bartoli, who has an enormous range. Hitting the right tone was a problem.
By definition, this is exultant, jubilant music, but it is not comic opera, and Ms. Bartoli's mugging, vocal as well as facial, falsified its exalted spirit. In addition, her tonal quality seemed too dark and recessed for such bright, effervescent music.
That said, Ms. Bartoli's agility was remarkable, especially in the florid "Alleluia." In any case, Ms. Bartoli received a clamorous ovation from listeners who obviously found more to enjoy.
Mr. Hampson, by contrast, was a model of probity and reserve, almost a bit stiff. In their duet, "La ci darem la mano" from "Don Giovanni," he let his lines flow; Ms. Bartoli seemed to extrude hers in fits and starts.
But there the controversy and the criticism end. The pianist Mitsuko Uchida opened the program with her usual lyricism, elegance, sparkle and wit in Mozart's Concerto No. 25. Ms. Uchida also played the obbligato piano part in "Ch'io mi scordi di te," perhaps one reason the Mozarteum did not want to change the program.
The violinist Gidon Kremer and the violist Yuri Bashmet brought a finely honed partnership to Mozart's exquisite Sinfonia Concertante in E flat. Typically in this work, the violinist and the violist try to blend their sounds seamlessly. Not here: Mr. Kremer's sonority is so intensely focused that it could probably not be subsumed in any other, and Mr. Bashmet's is distinctive in other ways. In the end, those discrepancies made the conversation all the richer.
Mr. Muti opened the second half of the program with Mozart's "Haffner" Symphony, conducted with flair and drive. When Mr. Muti joins the Vienna Philharmonic in Mozart, he often seems to be listening in admiration as much as conducting. Especially in slow movements, he tends to stop his baton or even drop his arms and let the orchestra play unimpeded, as he did several times here.
Mr. Muti ended the evening with the final chorus from "Die Zauberflöte," with the orchestra joined by the Vienna Singverein: a satisfying close to an event a considerable cut above the typical all-star extravaganza.
The concert was broadcast around the world on radio. It was also televised in most of the civilized world, which evidently no longer includes the United States. It was not picked up by Channel 13, PBS or — to the knowledge of itsdirector, Brian Large — any other American outlet: a slight made all the more remarkable by the expected presence of two noted American singers, Ms. Fleming and Mr. Hampson.
This concert was actually the second of the day involving the Vienna Philharmonic. On Friday morning, in a shorter musical program filled out with speeches at the Mozarteum, Nikolaus Harnoncourt conducted the orchestra in Mozart's Symphony No. 40, and the pianist Pierre-Laurent Aimard joined three of its players in Mozart's Piano Quartet in G minor.
Mr. Harnoncourt conducted an impassioned performance, for reasons partly explained in his keynote lecture: the work at one point changed his life, when he gave up a career as an orchestral cellist after one too many sickly sweet performances of the work. He sees it as demonic.
Mr. Aimard continues to impress in every guise: alone, in chamber music or with an orchestra. The Philharmonic string players, perhaps wary of the long day ahead, were less distinguished.
There is much around Salzburg at the moment that smacks of unabashed exploitation of a composer whose relationship with it was, to put it mildly, ambivalent. But these concerts seemed to be genuine efforts to do right by the essence of Mozart.
Posted at 10:30 am by R7fel
Permalink
Monday, January 23, 2006
Israel Killed Arafat, says Assad
January 23, 2006
DAMASCUS: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has caused outrage by accusing Israel of assassinating former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose death 14 months ago remains a mystery.
"Of the many assassinations that Israel carried out in a methodical and organised way, the most dangerous thing that Israel did was the assassination of president Yasser Arafat," Mr Assad told a gathering of Arab lawyers in what was billed as a speech on democratic reform.
"This was under the world's gaze and its silence, and not one state dared to issue a statement or stance towards this, as though nothing happened."
Arafat died in Paris on November 11, 2004, at the age of 75, after being rushed from his West Bank compound to a French military hospital.
Israel has denied being responsible for the deterioration in Arafat's health and has denied poisoning him.
Israeli officials said he had access to medical treatment, food, water and medication during the two years he spent in his compound in Ramallah, which was besieged by Israeli troops for months in 2002.
French doctors denied rumours that Arafat was poisoned but have refused to publish his medical reports, citing strict privacy laws.
Arafat aides had quoted doctors as saying he had a low count of platelets, which help the blood to clot. They later said he had gone into a coma, suffered a brain haemorrhage and lost the use of his vital organs one by one. But no definitive cause of death was announced.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17904974%255E2703,00.html
Posted at 10:23 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Wilson Pickett Dies of Heart Attack at 64
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Posted: 5:48 p.m. EST (22:48 GMT)
Wilson Pickett, shown in 2001, is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Chris Tuthill of the management company Talent Source said Pickett had been suffering from health problems for the past year.
One of Pickett's children said he hoped his father received the proper recognition.
"He did his part. It was a great ride, a great trip, I loved him and I'm sure he was well-loved, and I just hope that he's given his props," Michael Wilson Pickett, the fourth of the singer's six children, told WRC-TV in Washington after his death.
A member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Pickett -- known as the "Wicked Pickett" -- became a star with his soulful hits in the 1960s.
"In the Midnight Hour" made the top 25 on the Billboard pop charts in 1965, and "Mustang Sally" did the same the following year.
Pickett was defined by his raspy voice and passionate delivery.
But the Alabama-born Pickett actually got his start singing gospel music in church.
After moving to Detroit as a teen, he joined the group the Falcons, which scored the hit "I Found a Love" with Pickett on lead vocals in 1962.
He went solo a year later.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
Posted at 06:19 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
| Pick up the Phone for Darfur Today! |
|
|
Dear Felix,
We are approaching the moment of truth. Violence in Darfur continues to rise, and for the first time in recent news reports the United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU), and even the U.S. have indicated support for an urgent multinational intervention to stop the genocide in Darfur. In February, the U.S. will be the President of the UN Security Council, providing an ideal moment for the U.S. to lead the international community to stop genocide. We know that they will not take action without hearing strong public support, so we are asking you today to help us tip the balance. Please pick up the phone and call the State Department today!
Today is a national call-in day on Darfur. Please call the State Department with the following message:
"Hello. I am calling with a message for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the genocide in Darfur. I have been encouraged by the Secretary's recent remarks in favor of a UN intervention. I am aware that the U.S. will become the President of the UN Security Council next month. Please use this window of opportunity to stop genocide in Darfur by instructing the U.S. Ambassador at the UN to introduce a resolution for a multinational intervention in support of the AU with a mandate to protect. As the violence continues to rise in Darfur, there is no more time to waste. Thank you."
You can reach the State Department comment line by calling: (202) 647-4000. The person at the switchboard might take your comment directly or, if the person is flooded with calls, you might be transferred to an automated comment line. In either circumstance, please leave a message.
For a longer explanation of how a multinational intervention would stop genocide, feel free to download a flyer or read Africa Action's statement on how the UN can stop genocide in Darfur. Feel free to utilize the updated talking points on the genocide in Darfur.
This national call-in day is a part of an escalation campaign that is building citizen pressure to push the Bush Administration to use this window of opportunity to take the action necessary to stop genocide. We will issue a new alert each week in January and early February with ways to get involved. Mark your calendars for our next call-in day to the United Nations on February 1st and the rally in Washington, DC on February 2nd.
Please spread the word about this important moment and help us to turn up the heat to protect Darfur.
Sincerely,
The Staff @ Africa Action
How the UN Can Stop Genocide in Darfur
January 17, 2006
December 2005 (Washington, DC) - As the security situation in Darfur, Sudan continues to deteriorate, there is a growing consensus around the need for a more robust mandate for the African Union (AU) mission and a larger international intervention force to support the AU and provide protection to the people of Darfur. Africa Action today declares that the United Nations (UN) is the appropriate vehicle for such an intervention, and that this is a viable option that should immediately be pursued by the international community.
Africa Action calls upon the U.S. to immediately introduce a resolution at the UN to "re-hat" the AU mission as a UN operation, granting it a strong civilian protection mandate from the international community, and to authorize a UN force to be deployed as soon as possible to the region. Based on African precedents, Africa Action asserts that such a UN action in support of the AU can and will provide critical support to the AU mission and provide security to the people of Darfur.
In this statement, Africa Action addresses the feasibility of such a UN intervention in Darfur. The organization offers new analysis of precedents where African regional bodies and the UN have cooperated effectively in peace enforcement and peacekeeping missions, and it applies lessons learned to recommend next steps on Darfur. Africa Action highlights the need for U.S. leadership at the UN to prompt such international action, and argues why this is the moment for such leadership to protect the people of Darfur.
An International Intervention is Necessary Now
Recent reports from the UN, humanitarian agencies and the media confirm a sharp deterioration in the security situation in Darfur. Already more than 400,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have been forced out of their homes since the genocide began in 2003. As the violence worsens, growing numbers of people are being attacked and displaced, humanitarian organizations face increasing risks to their operations, and there are new demands for a protection force to provide security to the region. An international intervention is essential to serve four main purposes: (1) Stop the killings, rapes and pillaging in Darfur; (2) Provide security to facilitate humanitarian assistance programs for internally displaced people (IDPs) and refugees; (3) Enforce the African Union cease-fire between the Khartoum government and the rebel groups in Darfur to allow meaningful political negotiations to move forward in Abuja, Nigeria, and (4) facilitate the voluntary return of IDPs to their land and the reconstruction of their homes by providing a secure environment.
As the 7th round of peace talks between the Government of Sudan and rebel groups from Darfur continues in Abuja, Nigeria, an international intervention is necessary to deter violence in Darfur and to help create the climate for these talks to proceed productively and result in a comprehensive agreement. Once a political agreement is reached in Abuja, an international intervention force will be essential to facilitate the implementation of such an agreement.
The African Union Needs UN Support
The African Union has demonstrated important leadership in Darfur - brokering the April 2004 cease-fire, deploying 7,000 troops to Darfur to observe the cease-fire, and hosting successive rounds of peace talks between the Government of Sudan and the rebels. Now the AU needs international support to ensure the success of its mission in Darfur, both for the sake of its institutional credibility and for the sake of millions of vulnerable people in Darfur. At present, the AU mission lacks the mandate, the troop strength and the logistical capacity to stop the genocide and provide protection to the people of Darfur.
Responding to genocide and other crimes against humanity is a responsibility of the international community. The UN must act to reinforce the AU's efforts, as it has worked with African regional bodies in the past, to ensure the success of peacekeeping operations where the lives of millions of innocent civilians are at stake.
Precedents Prove Case for UN-African Peacekeeping Operation
Under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the Security Council may take such action as necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. The members of the UN have previously shown their willingness and capability to invoke Chapter 7 peace enforcement and peace-building instruments in response to conflict in Africa. Now, the UN can and must furnish the AU with a strong civilian protection mandate and with international backing in the form of a UN peacekeeping mission to support the AU in Darfur.
Precedents show that the UN is a viable source for effective and appropriate international intervention to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. The following examples also show instances of successful cooperation between African regional bodies, which intervened as "first responders", and the UN, which acted to reinforce their efforts with a larger international force.
(1) In Sierra Leone, after the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) intervened to enforce the peace in 1998, the UN Security Council acted in 1999 to authorize an international force with a robust mandate, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, to work alongside and coordinate with the ECOWAS mission. In late 1999, ECOWAS troops in Sierra Leone were "re-hatted" as UN peacekeepers, and transitioned into a UN mission the next year. The transition in early 2000 was initially rocky, but the Security Council rallied behind the mission and boosted its strength, and the mission was able to deter conflict and restore a secure environment to Sierra Leone.
(2) In Liberia, ECOWAS intervened to enforce the peace in 2003, and in August of that year it was granted the authority and mandate by the UN Security Council, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, to establish security and facilitate humanitarian assistance in Liberia and to pave the way for a UN intervention. The UN Security Council acted swiftly and decisively to authorize and deploy (within 2 months) a larger multinational intervention in Liberia. The ECOWAS troops acted as the first contingent of the UN mission to Liberia, and authority was successfully transferred to the UN operation in October 2003. This international operation has been successful in promoting peace and stability in Liberia.
(3) In Côte d'Ivoire, the UN Security Council granted authority to ECOWAS and to France in 2003 to take the necessary steps to provide security and protection in Côte d'Ivoire. In 2004, a UN operation was authorized to take over from the ECOWAS force and work alongside the French forces to facilitate the implementation of the peace agreement and to provide protection in Côte d'Ivoire.
(4) In Burundi, the AU authorized and deployed its first peacekeeping operation in 2003, when the institution was itself only one year old. The AU operation in Burundi faced financial and logistical challenges, but it was able to oversee the cease-fire and provide some stability. It coordinated with the UN to ensure a relatively smooth transition to a UN operation in Burundi after one year.
Also under a Chapter 7 mandate, the UN already has a precedent of authorizing and deploying a peacekeeping operation in southern Sudan. In March 2005, the UN passed a resolution establishing a UN mission in Sudan (UNMIS) with up to 10,000 personnel and a mandate to support the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. At present, UNMIS comprises some 4,000 troops from more than 50 countries, the majority of which are outside the African continent.
These examples illustrate several important lessons, which must now be applied to a UN intervention in support of the AU mission in Darfur. First and foremost, these precedents reveal that a UN-authorized Chapter 7 intervention force in support of an African-led force can be effective in providing security and protection. They show that the Security Council can act with swiftness and decisiveness to grant a robust mandate and troop strength to protect civilians, and they highlight that such an intervention can act as a deterrent to violence and as a catalyst to make a peace process successful.
Lessons Learned for Darfur
(1) "Re-hat" the African Union troops as UN troops:
The initial step of "re-hatting" African troops as UN troops carries several important benefits, and this must immediately be pursued to reinforce the AU mission in Darfur. Turning the AU troops into UN 'blue helmets' will save time on deployment, since these troops are already in the theater, pending the deployment of a larger UN force. It will help to retain the AU's valuable experience on the ground, where these troops have already been carrying out important work. The act of granting a UN mandate to African troops will also provide them with international authority and backing, which can offer an important boost to the troops themselves and can help increase the confidence of civilians in Darfur in the AU operation because of the broader international support. Certainly, the act of "re-hatting" the AU will also require careful preparation, to ensure that the troops are ready to accept their new mandate, and the rules of engagement and standards which accompany it, but this has worked in the past and must be immediately pursued in Darfur.
(2) Deploy a UN intervention force:
The deployment of a UN intervention force to support the AU mission must follow swiftly, and this force should comprise at least 20,000 troops from the international community. This number is recommended by various sources based either on the ratio of peacekeeping troops to population or on the ratio of peacekeeping troops to hostile forces in Darfur. The deployment of this UN force must be well planned and coordinated with the African Union at every level and it must be well timed. Such coordination will be imperative whether the UN operation deploys alongside the AU or whether it ultimately assumes authority for the mission in Darfur. Consideration may also be given to the use of forces from UNMIS (in southern Sudan) for a UN mission in Darfur.
These examples illustrate that, while such a UN mission in Darfur is a potentially complex undertaking, it is perfectly possible, and morally and politically imperative, for an international intervention to be successful in promoting peace and security in Darfur, as has been the case elsewhere.
The U.S. Must Lead UN Action
In order for a UN mandate and intervention to be authorized by the Security Council, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, there must be leadership from within the Security Council from a powerful nation with the political will and the resources to galvanize international support for this mission. This leadership must come from the U.S. for several reasons.
The U.S. is the only government to have declared that genocide is taking place in Darfur, and this provides it with a unique obligation to obtain international action on this crisis. The U.S. earlier prompted the UN to undertake an inquiry into the crisis in Darfur, and though the politically-comprised conclusion of the Commission of Inquiry failed to find genocidal intent on the part of the Sudanese government, the report confirmed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, and named civilian protection as an urgent priority. Other governments have failed to take a public position on what is happening in Darfur, but there is broad international recognition of ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity in western Sudan.
The U.S. has previously offered leadership on Darfur at the Security Council, authoring earlier resolutions condemning the violence in Darfur, threatening sanctions and calling on the Government of Sudan to stop the violence. But the U.S. has yet to call for an urgent international intervention to protect the people of Darfur. In the 15 months since the U.S. declared that genocide was taking place in Darfur, the U.S. has offered financial support for humanitarian efforts in Darfur, and U.S. officials have traveled back and forth to the region. But these limited actions cannot substitute for assertive international leadership to provide actual protection to the people of Darfur.
Possible Challenges in the Security Council
It is possible that the Security Council will not agree to intervene in Darfur even with U.S. leadership, because of the economic and diplomatic interests of some of the Permanent Members. China is the single largest investor in Sudan's oil sector, and Russia is Khartoum's major arms supplier. Neither one of these nations is in favor of the principle of intervention in the "internal affairs" of another state on the ground of human rights abuses. But a resolution on intervention could still pass the Security Council, as happened in March 2005 when the Security Council voted to refer war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and opposing nations abstained but did not veto the resolution.
These possible blocks offer no excuse for U.S. hesitation or inaction. The U.S. must discharge its own responsibility to act, first and foremost. It must issue the challenge to these nations by introducing a resolution calling for UN intervention in Darfur, and it must be willing to expend the necessary diplomatic capital to overcome their objections to a multinational force to stop the genocide. The U.S. has called the crisis in Darfur "genocide", and must have the courage of its convictions to bring this matter to the international community for immediate action, with a priority on civilian protection in Darfur. To fail to do so exposes a racial double standard, which this Administration can ill afford to maintain.
Africa Action Demands
In February 2006, the U.S. will hold the presidency of the United Nations Security Council for the period of one month. Between now and then, the U.S. must work within the UN to pave the way for the adoption of a new resolution on Darfur. In February, as President of the Security Council, the U.S. will have a unique opportunity and obligation to preside over the adoption of a resolution granting a robust civilian protection mandate to the African Union mission in Darfur and authorizing a broader UN intervention force to be deployed as soon as possible to support the AU effort.
The introduction and adoption of such a UN resolution is critical to the success of the AU in Darfur, and it is essential to save the lives of hundreds and thousands of vulnerable people, who urgently need protection from the international community. The Bush Administration faces growing public pressure for action to stop the genocide in Darfur. By acting now to introduce a resolution at the UN to re-hat the AU as a UN operation and deploy a complementary international force, the U.S. government would fulfill these calls for leadership in the face of genocide.
http://www.africaaction.org/newsroom/index.php?op=read&documentid=1603&type=15&issues=1024 |
Posted at 09:29 am by R7fel
Permalink
Friday, January 13, 2006
Judge Samuel J. Alito, Jr. Surely Will Be Confirmed
By Paul M. Weyrich
January 13, 2006
He was going to be subjected to a filibuster. Now it appears that Supreme Court Justice Nominee Samuel J. Alito, Jr. will get an up-or-down vote.
He was expected to be a real let-down after the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. If anything, Judge Alito out-performed Chief Justice Roberts. Judge Alito was going to be pinned down on abortion or else he would be rejected for the Supreme Court. Not only was Judge Alito not pinned down on abortion but he did not agree with Senators as Roberts had that Roe v Wade was “settled law.”
He surely was going to lose his composure at some point, thus giving Senators the opening for which they were looking. Judge Alito remained absolutely composed during and after answering more than 700 questions.
He was subjected to the best organized, most expensive, liberal campaign in history. Conservatives matched liberal activity dollar-for-dollar, call-for-call.
He would be fortunate if he could garner 52 votes to be confirmed by the full Senate. Now it appears that Judge Alito may get approximately 65 votes in his favor. He was not expected to get a single Democrat vote to confirm his nomination. Now it appears that Judge Alito could have 10 or more Democrats join Republicans in voting for him. He was expected to lose a minimum of three and perhaps a maximum of five Republican votes for confirmation. It now is possible that Judge Alito could get all 55 Republican votes.
Thus was the remarkable saga of the Senate confirmation hearings of Judge Alito this past week. Barring some wholly unexpected last minute revelation which would cause the confirmation hearings to be re-opened, the Alito nomination is headed for the floor of the United States Senate and an up-or-down vote, either the week of January 15 or the week of January 22. There was good reason for President Bush to call Alito after he finished his three days of testimony last Thursday. Simply put, Alito did a masterful job before that highly charged committee.
Nonetheless, the vote almost certainly will be 10 to 8, or strict party-line, to recommend the Alito nomination to the full Senate. If ten or more Democrats appear to be willing to vote for his confirmation, why the party-line vote out of the Senate Judiciary Committee? That Committee, as well as the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is stacked with the sharpest liberals in the Senate. These eight Democrats are barely representative of the 45 Senators who comprise the entire Democrat Conference in 2006 (44 Democrats and 1 Independent). When the nomination is scheduled for the Senate Floor all Senators will be able to vote.
Briefly, right up until the second day of questioning of Judge Alito there appeared to be some chance that the Alito nomination might be filibustered. That day the filibuster went out the window, in my view, because Democrats overreached and became, for the most part, mean-spirited and, in some cases, angry. That caused Senator Lindsay O. Graham (R-SC) to apologize to Judge Alito for the treatment he had received from Committee Democrats. That apology caused Mrs. Alito to burst into tears and became the lead story of that second day of the Alito confirmation hearings. That lead story continued to make headlines through the evening news cycle and clear through the morning news cycle of the third day of hearings. At that point, more reasonable Democrats told their leadership that they wanted no part of this charade.
A charade it was. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), former long-term Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said before the questioning began that he had been told that not a single Committee Democrat would vote for Alito. Hatch explained that “They’ve already made up their minds. Nobody will be listening.” During the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Chief Justice Roberts, Ranking Democrat Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) surprised even his colleagues by announcing that he would vote in favor of the Roberts nomination.
We thought almost certainly that Leahy did so to provide himself the opportunity to contrast Alito with Roberts, thus justifying a vote against Alito. No doubt Leahy will attempt to do that, but it will be more difficult for him in that Alito did at least as favorable a job or perhaps even a little better job of appealing to the American people. Moreover, Alito’s answers were similar enough to Roberts that Leahy could be splitting hairs if he were to claim that Roberts satisfied him but Alito did not.
Left-wing groups which so greatly influence the Democratic Party were outraged when Leahy and Senator Herbert H. Kohl (D-WI) voted for Roberts in the Senate Judiciary Committee and were joined by 20 Democrats in the full Senate. The groups have been demanding a filibuster.
Even after many media liberals suggested that Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats went too far with Alito, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (R-NV) praised his colleagues on the Committee when saying they did precisely what they were expected to do. While keeping the filibuster theoretically on the table, Reid said Democrats would meet early this week to determine their strategy. Unless threats from leftists and pro-abortion groups are so great that Democrats feel they have no choice, they will drop the filibuster and will not require that a vote against Alito be a mandatory party-line vote. That position would free up 10 to 12 Democrats who at least have expressed an open mind about Alito and voting for his confirmation.
There is much rejoicing in conservative circles about Alito. Our folks believe he would move the High Court to the right.
At the risk of being accused of dampening spirits, I will make two cautionary notes. First, we simply do not know how Justices will vote until they actually have been appointed to the High Court. Most are a disappointment in that respect. The late right-wing New Hampshire Governor Meldrim Thompson, Jr. told me he would stake his career that we would love Judge David H. Souter as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. Not! Only Justice Byron R. White, JFK’s sole appointment to the Supreme Court, was a surprise in the right direction. Second, having Alito on the High Court, contrary to public understanding, does NOT mean conservatives will be a majority on the High Court. Have we forgotten about Justice Anthony M. Kennedy?
Assuming that Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts typically would vote as followers of the Constitution, that would mean that they plus Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas will be in the conservative wing, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Brier, John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter in the liberal wing, leaving Justice Anthony M. Kennedy as the swing vote. Justice Kennedy, who allegedly is Catholic, has voted for abortion and sodomy rights and the right for the government to take your home and give your property to a developer if it means more money in the city coffers. Justice Kennedy once may have been a conservative, but if he ever was one, he is no longer a conservative. Unless the considerable intellects of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas can persuade Kennedy, we more often likely are to see Kennedy voting with the liberals. This would mean that conservatives would have to wait for another retirement and would have to hope that the retirement would occur while George W. Bush is President and while Republicans control the Senate.
Assuming President Bush gives America another good nominee, and presuming the good health and willingness of Justices Scalia and Thomas to stay on the High Court, then and only then conservatives would have a majority. I take nothing away from an Alito victory. But I have to be honest about this. We are not there yet.
Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
Posted at 10:29 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Thursday, January 12, 2006
The Famous Shining Trumpet Of A Voice
Birgit Nilsson, Soprano Legend
Who Tamed Wagner, Dies at 87
Published: January 12, 2006
Birgit Nilsson, the Swedish soprano with a voice of impeccable trueness and impregnable stamina, died on Dec. 25 in Vastra Karup, the village where she was born, the Stockholm newspaper Svenska Dagbladet reported yesterday. She was 87.
Skip to next paragraph
Louis Melancon/Metropolitan Opera Archives
Birgit Nilsson, the Swedish soprano, known for her Wagnerian opera roles, has died. She was 87. More Photos >
Sara Krulwich/The New York Times
Birgit Nilsson at The Metropolitan Opera in 1979, with the conductor James Levine. More Photos >
A funeral was held yesterday at a church in her town, the presiding vicar, Fredrik Westerlund, told The Associated Press.
Ms. Nilsson made so strong an imprint on a number of roles that her name came to be identified with a repertory, the "Nilsson repertory," and it was a broad one. She sang the operas of Richard Strauss and made a specialty of Puccini's "Turandot," but it was Wagner who served her career and whom she served as no other soprano since the days of Kirsten Flagstad.
A big, blunt woman with a wicked sense of humor, Ms. Nilsson brooked no interference from Wagner's powerful and eventful orchestra writing. When she sang Isolde or Brünnhilde, her voice pierced through and climbed above it. Her performances took on more pathos as the years went by, but one remembers her sound more for its muscularity, accuracy and sheer joy of singing under the most trying circumstances.
Her long career at the Bayreuth Festival and her immersion in Wagner in general, began in the mid-1950's. No dramatic soprano truly approached her stature thereafter, and in the roles of Isolde, Brünnhilde and Sieglinde, she began her stately 30-year procession around the opera houses of the world. Her United States debut was in San Francisco in 1956. Three years later she made her debut at the Metropolitan Opera, singing Isolde under Karl Böhm, and some listeners treasure the memory of that performance as much as they do her live recording of the role from Bayreuth in 1966, also under Böhm. The exuberant review of her first Met performance appeared on the front page of The New York Times on Dec. 19, 1959, under the headline, "Birgit Nilsson as Isolde Flashes Like New Star in 'Met' Heavens."
Playing opposite Karl Liebl as Tristan, Howard Taubman wrote, "she dominated the stage and the performance."
When she appeared at the end of the first act to take a solo bow, he wrote, the audience "roared like the Stadium fans when Conerly throws a winning touchdown pass."
Like so many distinctive artists, Ms. Nilsson considered herself self-taught. "The best teacher is the stage," she told an interviewer in 1981. "You walk out onto it, and you have to learn to project." She deplored her early instruction and attributed her survival to native talent. "My first voice teacher almost killed me," she said. "The second was almost as bad."
Birgit Nilsson was born in 1918. Her mother, evidently a talented singer, began Ms. Nilsson's musical education at 3, buying her a toy piano. She began picking out melodies on it.
She once told an interviewer that she could sing before she could walk. "I even sang in my dreams," she added. A choirmaster near her home heard her sing and advised her to study. She entered the Royal Academy of Music in Stockholm in 1941.
Ms. Nilsson made her debut at the Royal Opera in Stockholm in 1946, replacing the scheduled Agathe in Weber's "Freischütz," who was too ill to go on. The next year she claimed attention there as Verdi's Lady Macbeth under Fritz Busch. A wealth of parts followed, from Strauss and Verdi to Wagner, Puccini and Tchaikovsky.
Her first splash abroad was 1951, as Elettra in Mozart's "Idomeneo" at the Glyndebourne Festival in England. From there, it was a short hop to the Vienna State Opera and then to Bayreuth. She took the title role of "Turandot," which is brief but in need of an unusually big sound, to Milan in 1958 and then to the rest of Italy.
Ms. Nilsson was suspicious of opera's recent youth culture and often remarked on the premature destruction of young voices brought on by overambitious career planning. "Directors and managers don't care about their futures," she once said. "They will just get another young person when this one goes bad."
In today's opera culture, the best managed voices tend to mature in the singer's 40's and begin to deteriorate during the 50's. (Singers like Plácido Domingo, flourishing in his 60's, might dispute such generalizations.) Yet at 66, when most singers hang onto whatever career remains through less taxing recitals with piano and discreet downward transpositions of key, Ms. Nilsson sang a New York concert performance of Strauss and Wagner that met both composers head-on.
"Ms. Nilsson did not sound young," Will Crutchfield wrote in The Times. "Soft and low notes were often precarious; sustained tones were not always steady." He continued: "The wonderful thing is that she doesn't let this bother her. There was never a sense of distress or worry."
The conductor Erich Leinsdorf thought that her longevity, like Flagstad's, had something to do with her Scandinavian heritage, remarking that Wagner required "thoughtful, patient and methodical people." Ms. Nilsson attributed her long career to no particular lifestyle or regimen. "I do nothing special," she once said. "I don't smoke. I drink a little wine and beer. I was born with the right set of parents."
In sheer power, Ms. Nilsson's high notes were sometimes compared to those of the Broadway belter Ethel Merman. One high C rendered in a "Turandot" performance in the outdoor Arena di Verona in Italy led citizenry beyond the walls to think that a fire alarm had been set off. Once urged to follow Ms. Nilsson in the same role at the Met, the eminent soprano Leonie Rysanek refused.
Ms. Nilsson was known for her one-liner humor. The secret to singing Isolde, she said, was "comfortable shoes." After a disagreement with the Australian soprano Joan Sutherland, Ms. Nilsson was asked if she thought Ms. Sutherland's famous bouffant hairdo was real. She answered: "I don't know. I haven't pulled it yet." After the tenor Franco Corelli was said to have bitten her neck in an onstage quarrel over held notes, Ms. Nilsson canceled performances complaining that she had rabies.
Ms. Nilsson was also a shrewd businesswoman and negotiated much of her own career. She never ranted or engaged in tantrums. She was also too proud to make outright demands. She would begin contract talks by refusing every offer and being evasive about her availability in general. This tack would continue until the impresario offered something she wanted. Ms. Nilsson's reply would be "maybe." Now in control, she would be begged to accept what she desired in the first place.
She could stand up to intensely wired conductors like Georg Solti as well. When Solti, in "Tristan und Isolde," insisted on tempos too slow for her taste, she made the first performance even slower, inducing a conductorial change of heart.
Partly because Ms. Nilsson was on the scene, Decca Records undertook the audacious and mammothly expensive project of making the first studio recording of Wagner's four-opera "Ring" cycle conducted by Solti and produced by John Culshaw. The effort took seven years, from 1958 to 1965. A film of the proceedings made her a familiar image for arts-conscious television viewers.
Ms. Nilsson's American career was derailed in the mid-70's by a squabble with the Internal Revenue Service, which had filed claims for back taxes. Several years later, cooler heads intervened: a schedule of payments was worked out, and Ms. Nilsson's ill-tempered hiatus from the United States ended. When she returned, Donal Henahan wrote in The Times, "The famous shining trumpet of a voice is still far from sounding like a cornet."
Ms. Nilsson appeared at the Met 223 times in 16 roles. She sang two complete "Ring" cycles in the 1961-62 season, and another in 1974-75. She was Isolde 33 times, and Turandot 52. The big soprano parts were all hers: Aida, Tosca, the Dyer's Wife in Strauss's "Frau Ohne Schatten," Salome, Elektra, Lady Macbeth, Leonore in Beethoven's "Fidelio," and both Venus and Elisabeth in Wagner's "Tannhäuser." For much of this time, the Met's general manager was Rudolf Bing. Ms. Nilsson, when signing a contract, was asked to name a dependent. She wrote in Bing's name.
James Levine, who conducted her in Wagner and Strauss at the Met, said yesterday: "Birgit was unique. Her voice, the dedication of her artistry, her wonderfully wicked sense of humor and her loyal friendship were in a class by themselves. I miss her already, as does the entire Met family." At Mr. Levine's 25th-anniversary gala at the Met in 1996, she spoke briefly and wittily, throwing in a brief and wholly professional Valkyrie hoot at the end.
Ms. Nilsson had by then retired to her childhood home in the Skane province of southern Sweden. Here her father had been a sixth-generation farmer, and here she had worked to grow beets and potatoes until she was 23. A decade ago an interviewer for The Times found her there: happy, serene and as unpretentious as ever. "I've always tried to remember what my mother used to tell me," she said. "Stay close to the earth. Then when you fall down, it won't hurt so much."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/arts/music/12nilsson.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
Posted at 05:43 pm by R7fel
Permalink
CWA: Awesome-Alito-A+ -Appoint
To: National Desk
Contact: Stacey Holliday of Concerned Women for America, 202-488-7000 ext. 126
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Concerned Women for America (CWA) agrees with the many Americans who have concluded that Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito has done a superb job despite blatant partisan attacks by some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“If ever there’s a pictorial dictionary, under ‘judge,’ it should simply display a photo of Samuel Alito,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel. “I knew he is brilliant and possessed a deep knowledge of constitutional law, but he’s left me with a greater appreciation of that and his numerous outstanding qualities. If anyone ever questioned the meaning of judicial temperament, they’ve seen him display it in the midst of baseless attacks on his record and character. Political commentators on the right and left concur that despite the left’s relentless attempts to sink his nomination, they haven’t laid a glove on him.
“He has conducted himself with dignity and honor, confirming his strong character. Led by Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Durbin and Schumer, liberals have failed miserably in their attempt to discredit this outstanding nominee. If anything, they only proved that Alito has nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, and everything to be admired for.”
"Judge Alito lived up to¯and beyond¯his outstanding reputation,” said Wendy Wright, CWA’s Executive Vice President. “His intellect and knowledge of the law were on display for all to see, and his judicial temperament placed him above despicable accusations. Senators would only be living up to their duty when they vote for him; any vote against squarely places a senator in opposition to judges who are intelligent, fair, unbiased, and beholden to the law and justice instead of special-interest demands."
Concerned Women for America (CWA) is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.
Posted at 02:40 pm by R7fel
Permalink
Monday, January 09, 2006
Go Ahead, Try to Stop K Street
Christoph Niemann Published: January 8, 2006
WASHINGTON
IN 1872, some Republican elders, revolted by the rampant influence peddling of Ulysses S. Grant's administration, challenged him for re-election. "He has used the public service of the government as a machinery of corruption and personal influence," they complained, and "shown himself deplorably unequal to the task imposed on him by the necessities of the country."
Jack Abramoff's trading room was his Signatures restaurant, not the front of the old Willard Hotel, where favor seekers so besieged Grant that he helped popularize the label - lobbyist - that still clings to their descendants with a pejorative sting. But Mr. Abramoff's guilty plea last week to charges of fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials prompted similar revulsion among some of the Grand Old Party's canniest hands.
"I think as this thing unfolds, it'll be so disgusting, and the Republicans will be under such pressure from their base, that they will have to undertake substantial reform," said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker (who himself had to pay $300,000 to settle a 1997 ethics case). "This is like Watergate."
But will things really change? After all, Grant himself won a second term, despite the failings that would eventually leave his legacy forever tainted, and his chief Republican antagonist, Horace Greeley, died defeated and insane three weeks after the election. Is corruption just a part of Washington's DNA? What else explains the grim resignation of Washington veterans who wonder when, not whether, some scandal will arise?
"The history of civilization, for starters," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an ethics group. "This kind of problem is faced by all societies throughout all of history. It comes and goes in cycles, and becomes most prevalent when the activities are viewed as O.K. by the society where it's taking place."
For watchdogs like Mr. Wertheimer, and for many Democrats, such tolerance dates to the Republican takeover of Congress in the mid-1990's, when new leaders like Representative Tom DeLay of Texas began a campaign to fill the capital's K Street corridor with Republican lobbyists, and made it plain that those seeking to influence legislation would have to "pay to play," in the form of political contributions and other largesse.
Mr. DeLay, who was himself indicted last year in Texas on unrelated campaign finance charges and forced to step down from his post as House majority leader, has long had close ties to Mr. Abramoff. Now Mr. Abramoff's guilty plea increases the likelihood that Mr. DeLay will lose his leadership post for good, and raises the prospect that he - and other lawmakers - may be enmeshed in new legal troubles. The sheer scale of Mr. Abramoff's misdeeds - millions of dollars in kickbacks from Indian tribes, a luxury golf outing for politicians to Scotland, misuse of a tax-exempt foundation - make this an extraordinary case.
"There are all sorts of things that have gone on of the same generic kind," said Harry C. McPherson, who came to Washington 50 years ago this month as a Senate aide to Lyndon B. Johnson and has plied his trade as a lawyer-lobbyist since leaving the White House in 1969. "But this is truly a situation where the degree changes everything. It converts something that purists about government would find unpleasant into the utterly unacceptable - into crime."
But the problem is broader than Mr. Abramoff, Mr. DeLay or even the inherent potential for abuse in one-party rule of all three branches of government. It also has to do with the astounding growth of the lobbying industry, a growth that has tracked the growth of the federal government itself. The rise of government regulation - first in the New Deal and then in the 1960's and 70's - spawned a parallel rise in the private sector's efforts to master the new system. Between the early 1970's and the mid-1980's, the number of trade associations doubled; in the first half of the 1980's alone, the number of registered lobbyists quadrupled, according to The Washington Monthly.
A study by the Center for Public Integrity found that in the early 1990's, political donations from 19 major industries - including
pharmaceuticals, defense, commercial banking and accounting - were split about evenly between the two parties.
By 2003, the Republicans held a 2-to-1 advantage. Since 1998, the center found, more than 2,200 former federal employees had registered as federal lobbyists, as had nearly 275 former White House aides and nearly 250 former members of Congress. Many rules governing their conduct remain deliberately vague, and the House Ethics Committee has been paralyzed because of dysfunction and partisan disputes.
"The scandal here is not that the rules were broken; the scandal is the rules themselves," said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, who with a Republican colleague, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and Senators John McCain and Russell D. Feingold, has been a leader in pressing to overhaul campaign finance and ethics rules. "Lobbying is part of our system, but there is a set of ethical standards and rules that ought to be followed."
Together with Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois and Mr. Feingold, Mr. Meehan has introduced legislation that would, among other things, require lobbyists to file quarterly financial disclosures, instead of semiannual ones and to disclose just whom in the government they lobbied. Former members of Congress would also not be able to lobby their colleagues for two years, as opposed to the current one year. Members would be required to submit detailed itineraries and descriptions of expenses for privately sponsored travel.
Mr. Gingrich has offered more ideas. He would allow unlimited fund-raising in members' states or districts, but bar fund-raising within the District of Columbia, and would require that all contacts between lobbyists and elected and appointed officials be posted weekly on the Internet. And he would shrink a government that has only grown further with post Sept. 11, 2001, spending.
"There is $2.6 trillion spent in Washington, with the authority to regulate everything in your life," he said. "Guess what? People will spend unheard-of amounts of money to influence that. The underlying problems are big government and big money."
Of course, the record suggests that for every loophole any new law might close, lobbyists will find a way to open another. The ban on so-called "soft money" contributions to political parties led to the rise of new special-interest spending groups, for example. Entrenched industries - and entrenched incumbents of both parties - can be expected to resist change that would threaten the way they know how to do business.
For their part, some lobbyists hope legislators intent on reform resist painting with too broad a brush.
"A lot of what we do is an enormous educational effort, to avoid what we consider even well-meaning but wrong-headed legislation," said Joseph Tasker, senior vice president for government affairs of the Information Technology Association of America, which represents companies like I.B.M. and Microsoft, on issues including privacy, piracy and Internet security.
"Congressmen don't know things; they're not experts in technology," he said. "In the mid-1990's, we were meeting with a Congressman about high-definition TV standards and we were talking about pixels and so on, and he said, 'Fellas, look, I'm trying to stay with you here, but one of the first times I ever took a ride on an airplane was when I came to Washington to take my seat and I remember looking out the window and I thought part of the wing was falling off when we landed, because the flaps came up.' "
And, this being Washington, even the best-intentioned efforts to stick to the rules can lead to overreaching silliness.
In 2004, David McKean, a veteran Senate aide, published a critically praised book on Thomas "Tommy the Cork" Corcoran, perhaps the most successful Washington lobbyist of the 20th century. But the Senate ethics committee advised him not to disclose on the dust jacket the name of the senator he worked for, John Kerry, lest he be seen as using his position for commercial gain.
The restriction hampered his ability to promote his book. Indeed, when a Washington bookstore inadvertently identified Mr. McKean's position in an advertisement, he had to cancel an appearance there. A very small victory, one would guess, for the capital's reputation.
Todd S. Purdum, a former reporter for The New York Times, is national editor of Vanity Fair.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/weekinreview/08purdum.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1136819375-sAlMXsQBYTzUkAfFYKRlWQ
Posted at 10:12 am by R7fel
Permalink
|
|
|
|
Web Journal: Mozart Week in Salzburg
