Civility now!

The New York Times report of Senator John McCain's commencemet address to the New School graduates demonstrated yet another low of civility in this country:

No sooner had Mr. Kerrey welcomed the audience to the university's 70th commencement than the hoots began to rise through the Theater at Madison Square Garden. Several graduates held up a banner aimed at Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican and likely 2008 presidential candidate, declaring: "Our commencement is not your platform." Other students and faculty members waved orange fliers with the same message.

And yet, rather than feel enraged, I couldn't help but feel sorry for them all. The irony of Senator McCain's words must have been lost upon them, when he said:

Let us argue with each other then. By all means, let us argue. Our differences are not petty, they often involve cherished beliefs, and represent our best judgment about what is right for our country and humanity. Let us defend those beliefs. Let’s do so sincerely and strenuously. It is our right and duty to do so. And let’s not be too dismayed with the tenor and passion of our arguments, even when they wound us. We have fought among ourselves before in our history, over big things and small, with worse vitriol and bitterness than we experience today.

Let us exercise our responsibilities as free people. But let us remember, we are not enemies. We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy. We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals. It should remain an argument among friends; each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands; each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other. I have not always heeded this injunction myself, and I regret it very much.

I hope they have the chance to revisit his speech and approach it with an open mind. And I hope that all of us are able to do the same with our own political adversaries.

One bad-ass Egyptian

Egyptian-Italian journalist Magdi Allan, Deputy Editor of "Corriere della Sera", one of Italy's leading newspapers, was awarded the Dan David Prize by Tel Aviv University for "his ceaseless work in fostering understanding and tolerance between cultures." He doesn't mince words when it comes to addressing issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflic, Islamic Fundamentalism, Muslim Assimilation (or ghettoization) in Europe, and the War on Terror. Surely in being so outspoken he has made numerous enemies and requires constant protection.

Could one imagine what the reaction would be if his comments to the Israeli newspaper Ha'Aretz were said in Cairo? As reported in Ha'Aretz:

"Israel's right to exist is today the international criterion for distinguishing between the terrorist camp and the camp of life ... On one side, there is the Hamas government, Iran, fundamentalist Islam and even parts of the extreme left and right in Europe." On the other side, he says, are Western countries and "supporters of the right to live." The West, he believes, has consistently failed to grasp its situation: It does not understand that it is under attack, and it is trying to conduct a dialogue with the Muslims attacking it.

He also doesn't pause in lending constructive criticism to the West:

"My goal is to free the West from the nihilism that has spread in its midst, from the lack of values that leads to the growth of radical Islam. In the face of the threat from radical Islam, the West must be united and formulate a shared value system that sanctifies life and denounces the right to kill."

And he is particularly harsh towards Hamas and Western appeasement to the terrorist organization:

"I oppose any middle way. I oppose any type of dialogue just for the sake of dialogue. Hamas is part of the global Islamic front. It is an organization that prefers to worsen the conditions of its citizens rather than recognize Israel. The terrorism it wages against Israel is ideological terrorism. It would be a big mistake to think that it is resistance, because they are not trying to promote a Palestinian state. They have simply been trying, ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords, to destroy every effort to achieve peace."

Surely some readers of this blog might find such words in contradiction of a prize given in the spirit of "fostering understanding and tolerance between cultures." But that's precisely the point. You cannot "foster understanding and tolerance" with a people bent on the other's annihilation.

Sorry Mom and Dad ...

But you get sit to sit through two commencement addresses by filmmaker Ken Burns. Georgetown university recently announced that he will be speaking to the Georgetown College Class of 2006 and their friends and families. It was just two years ago that he was invited to deliver such remarks at my Yale graduation, and he delivered such gems as:

When the [Civil War Documentary] first aired in September of 1990, our nation was in the serious grip of war fever. It was a palpable excitement--as we massed our forces in the Gulf to attack Iraq. After the broadcast, however, pollsters and commentators noted that our popular enthusiasm and appetite for battle. a sadly human trait I'm afraid--diminished by nearly a quarter as our film, they said--in frame after frame of painful imagery of Americans killing other Americans--revealed the real cost of a war fought more than a century earlier. We considered that perhaps minor hesitation our best review.

That's right, folks. It was Ken Burn's Civil War documentary, which surely the entirely country must have been watching, that contributed to a 25% drop in popular support for the First Gulf War. And then he shared the following pearl:

As I watched the film again and relived its dark internal scenes, I pray we are prepared for the cost, and I shudder when the full force of Lincoln's youthful warning comes back to my consciousness --that the real threat always and still comes from within this favored land, that the greatest enemy is, as our religious teachings remind us, always ourselves.

Again, not Al-Qaida, not Saddam Hussein, but we are our own "greatest enemy." Might I even ask to which "religious teachings" he is referring that would support such a relativistic approach to morality? And then he rambled on:

Nothing could be more dangerous than this arrogant belief, brought on and amplified as it is by a complete lack of historical awareness among us, and further reinforced by a modern media, cloaked in democratic slogans, but dedicated to the most stultifying kind of consumer existence, convincing us to worship gods of commerce and money and selfish advancement above all else.

Uh huh. While wrapping up, he dropped the following bomb:

But, alas, today we find ourselves in the midst of a new, subtler, perhaps more dangerous, civil war. The first one proved, above all, that a minority view could not secede politically or geographically from this union.

Now we are poised to fight that war again, and perhaps again and again, this time culturally, where the threat is fundamentalism wherever it raises its intolerant head.

Again, the enemy is not the Islamist Fundamentalists who attacked our shores, brutally murders homosexuals, stones adulterers, restricts the rights of women to vote, etc. It's the Christian "fundamentalism" in the United States that provokes a "perhaps more dangerous, civil war" than that which took well over 500,000 American lives.

Burn's hatred for President Bush has taken over his declared respect for history and rationality, and borders on inanity. Hopefully, the last couple of years have provided Burns the opportunity to think things though a little better. I won't count on it.

Gamal's chances have improved

Apparently, the one requisite to becoming an Arab Head of State is a hot wife ...

Asma Akhras al-Assad of SyriaQueen Rania of Jordan

It's good to be the king!

On "sucking up"

If President Bush sucked-up to Jewish-Americans, does that mean that he was also sucking-up to African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans and women?

The truth is that the President of the United States, for better or worse, recognizes the contributions of many groups. For a more comprehensive list of observances in the United States by presidential proclamation, click here.

Abdullah -- might I ask how this particular proclamation came to your attention?

On the statues

Pharaonic statues have withstood over 1,000 years of Islamic rule -- from the Ummayad Caliphate to the Ottoman Empire -- and now the Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa suggests that they should be banned. Doesn't this seem to run contrary to tradition? Could this really be Islam, or have its religious leaders strayed from the true faith towards something entirely different? Islamofascism, perhaps?

Now it's the U.N. Human Rights Council

This past week, seventeen members of the Organization of the Islam Conference were elected to the "new and improved" United Nations Human Rights Council. That's right --the council responsible for addressing human rights violations includes representatives from several of the most repressive, Islamist countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Algeria. So much for Kofi Annan's attempt to restore credibility and relevance to the United Nations.

Ann Bayefsky, of Eyeon theUN.org, has the goods in the Washington Times.

The Trials of Ayman Nour

In today's Wall Street Journal, AEI Resident Fellow Joshua Muravchik documents the disturbing trials of Ayman Nour (another must read). I don't understand why his imprisonment isn't a bigger news story. Nor do I see any difference between him and Nelson Mandela or Natan Sharansky, and yet too few of my peers woud recognize his name or cause. I also don't understand why the rest of the Arab world isn't rallying behind him, or why the Council on American-Islamic Relations does not mention one word of his predicament on its website (instead they would much prefer to protest a much greater evil than the authoritarian rule of Mubarak -- Wachovia Bank's closure of an Islamic Charity's bank account. I'm not going to hold my breath for a hunger strike ...)

How long will it take for those in Egypt or elsewhere to realize that the proponents of democratic reform, particularly by peaceful means, are to be found in neoconservative circles? Or that a self-described Jewish Neonconservative like Muravchick, and Jewish Congressman such as Adam Schiff (D-California), and Condoleeza Rice are among his strongest advocates?

Considering the above, I couldn't help but wonder:

Do Arabs, and Arab-Americans actually yearn for democratic reform in the middle east? Or does their animosity towards Israel, Jews, and the United States override their thirst for freedom?

Something Hannity and Colmes Can Agree On

This woman is sick. I can't believe they gave her airtime. I can't even believe I'm blogging on this!!

Roasting the President

I hope the world had the opportunity to see Steven Colbert's satiric roast of President Bush, the Republican Party, and Fox News . Not because his offensive, idiotic, and unamusing sketch had any intrinsic value, but rather because he was able to deliver such a harsh mockery of the President in his presence and on television. In too many other countries, the President's reaction might include censorship, jailtime, or even worse. Instead, this President, whom many wish to believe is a fascist of the same cloth as Hitler, politely chuckled and even shook the man's hand. What a difference elections make ...

Also, kudos to President Bush for his self-effacing skit. It's refreshing to see that this President can make fun of his weaknesses and even enjoy the act.

1938 Again?

Charles Krauthammer's most recent column deserves a read from anyone who takes the words "Never Again" seriously. For the first time in 1,871 years, more Jews are living in Israel than in the diaspora (outside of Israel). This concentration of Jews, the product of the Jewish desire for self-determination and defense, has left it extraordinarily vulnearble to the threat of a nuclear Iran bent on "wiping Israel off the map." And if the world (or rather, the United States) doesn't act, "Never Again" will happen again (just as we watched and did nothing in Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc.).

I recommend reading the article in its entirety here.