Fwd: Latest Articles

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jamie Kirchick
Date: Saturday, November 5, 2011
Subject: Latest Articles
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com



Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.
Dear Friends,

Please find below a selection of my latest articles. I also have a few personal news items.

I have begun using an email service to send out my articles. If you do not want to be on this list, you can simply click the unsubscribe link at the bottom. Feel free to forward this email onto friends, and if they want to join the list, direct them to this link.

Also, I left Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty last month and have joined the Foundation for Defense of Democracies as a fellow. FDD was founded immediately after 9/11 and bills itself as a "nonpartisan policy institute dedicated exclusively to promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that threaten democracy." You can check out FDD's website here.  I have long admired the Foundation's work from afar and am proud to be joining its team. I will remain based Prague, continuing my work as a foreign correspondent by writing for a variety of publications.

Herewith my most recent articles:

1) Charlie Hebdo Attack: No More Excuses, Index on Censorship, November 4
2) A Superhero Manqué and his Battle Against Czech Indifference, World Affairs Journal, November 1
3) Pro-Obama Democrats who Strain to Compare Libya to Iraq are Intellectually Dishonest, New York Daily News, October 26
4) Shameful Journalism in Wake of Release, Prague Post, October 26,
5) The Man with the Golden Gun is Gone, World Affairs Journal, October 21

Charlie Hebdo attack: No more excuses

The smoke had barely cleared from the firebombed office of Charlie Hebdo magazine – attacked for publishing cartoons of Mohammed – when TIME magazine's Bruce Crumley chose to criticise the satirists before the terrorist. James Kirchick denounces a too-familiar tendancy


There exists an unspoken rule in the Republic of Letters — that land where novelists, poets, mere ink-stained wretches like myself, think tank scholars who churn out dry policy reports…really anyone who writes for a living, reside: No one should be physically harmed, let alone threatened, for something that they publish. Don't get me wrong. I love literary feuds, even the bristling, (if well placed and rare), ad hominem attack. But the minute someone raises a fist, he's lost the argument. Indeed, it's a sign of a shallow mind and an insecure personality (see Norman Mailer) when a writer, flummoxed by the prowess of his intellectual adversary, resorts to throwing a scotch glass across the room. I hope that if my worst enemy, someone who wrote things that I absolutely despise, were ever confronted with violence by a fanatic of any sort, (even someone ostensibly "on my side"), I would defend him to the hilt.

Writers in the West rarely have to confront violence, certainly not from the state. Writers with a social conscience understand that they have something important in common with writers, whom they may never know, in far away lands. We are united in a fundamental belief: that freedom of expression is irrevocable and fundamental to a free society. We see this grand tradition of literary solidarity in organizations like PEN International, advocates for writers in authoritarian regimes whose lives and livelihoods are threatened by the mere exercise of activities which we in the West take for granted. And you see it in this fine publication, Index on Censorship, which for four decades has been exhaustively documenting challenges to free expression around the world.

That's why the fatwa against Salman Rushdie was such a clarifying moment; here was a man who had published a book in the birthplace of free speech — the United Kingdom — whose murder had been suborned by a fanatical cleric halfway around the world. As Christopher Hitchens wrote about the death warrant put out for his friend, "I thought then, and I think now, that this was not just a warning of what was to come. It was the warning. The civil war in the Muslim world, between those who believed in jihad and Shari'a and those who did not, was coming to our streets and cities."

Over the past decade, that civil war has intensified on the streets of Western cities; Amsterdam, (where the artist Theo van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight for a film which criticized misogynistic Koran verses), Nyhamnsläge, (the Swedish village where the home of cartoonist Lars Vilks, who drew images of Mohammed, has been repeatedly attacked), Aarhus (the Danish town where fellow prophet-image-maker Kurt Westergaard had to hide in a "panic room" after an axe-wielding Muslim broke into his home). It has thus been heartening to see this fundamental understanding among writers — that, no matter our political disagreements, we are all colleagues in a vitally important element of the free society — flower in response to a truly vile little excrescence by Bruce Crumley, the Paris correspondent for TIME magazine.

On Tuesday morning, the offices of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo were firebombed after it named the Prophet Muhammed its "editor-in-chief" for an upcoming issue. In an article entitled, "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr," Crumley taunted the paper's editors. "Do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of 'because we can' was so worthwhile?" he asked. Crumley, who would make an excellent propaganda commissar in Uzbekistan or Iran, chided French politicians for "denouncing the arson as an attack on freedom of speech, liberty of expression, and other rights central to French and other Western societies," which is exactly what it was.

The original title of Crumley's piece, still viewable in the website URL, was "Firebombed French Paper: A Victim of Islam, Or Its Own Obnoxious Islamaphobia?" If a reader, so offended by Crumley's excuse-making for theocratic nutcases, bombs TIME's Paris Bureau, would that make Crumley a "victim" of his own obnoxious cowardice? If there was ever cause to deport someone from the Republic of Letters it would be Crumley's article, for in it he committed treason against his trade by showing himself to be a man eager to rat out his fellow writers and sell them down the river in a heartbeat.

Though he fashions himself a bold truth-teller, Crumley's justification of violent extremism isn't new. It's just the latest iteration of a tired excuse for terrorism, expressed by everyone from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul, which is that the victims of terrorism have it coming. What made Crumley's entry into the genre singularly poisonous, and what I believe elicited the widespread disgust from journalists of all political stripes, is that it was written by a working journalist, not an academic, politician, or anti-"Islamophobia" activist.

To take just two examples of people on polar opposite sides of the political spectrum: Michael Brendan Dougherty, a paleoconservative with whom I've sparred on more than one occasion, termed the piece "The Most offensive Thing You'll Read Today" (my one quibble with his judgment is that this is the most offensive thing you will read all week, if not all month). Meanwhile, Spencer Ackerman, a man of the left, tweeted, "No one has the right not to be offended. No one has the right to firebomb a newspaper that offends them."

It's amazing, given all the struggles and sacrifices that have been made for freedom of speech over many years, that statements so simple bear repeating. But as long as we have moral cowards like Bruce Crumley around, repeat them we must.

A Superhero Manqué and His Battle Against Czech Indifference 

 

For most foreigners who visit the capital of the Czech Republic, the most memorable experience tends to be a stop at Prague Castle, a walk along the Charles Bridge at night, or perhaps a dinner cruise on the scenic Vltava River.

For me, it's stepping in dog shit.

I have never visited a city with more dog shit on the streets. Czechs love dogs; almost everyone seems to own one, and they take them everywhere, including restaurants and the subway. But they have absolutely no compunction about not cleaning up after them. Leaving my apartment just the other day, I walked past an elderly woman standing idly by as her dachshund defecated outside a store window. As he finished, I slowed down to see if his owner would do the right and proper thing. Predictably, she left the steaming pile of crap on the street, tugged on her canine companion's leash, and walked off. There was not a trace of shame or embarrassment in her face.

Having lived in the Golden City for about a year and a half, I've stepped in dog feces more times than I can remember; the same goes for all of my friends here. Dog crap on the streets is simply a fact of life for anyone who lives in Prague, as ubiquitous as goulash and pilsner. Leaving a pet's feces on a public street is part of a broader Czech disrespect for the surrounding environment, as witnessed in the unsig

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.