Srebrenica Party Week

Note: I am currently in the Russian Federation, so this is scheduled post. Stay tuned for a couple more scheduled posts and pictures when I get back.

Also, I cannot take credit for the title of this post. It was inspired by this post over on Julia Gorin's blog.

It's July 13, people. And you know what that means: it's the anniversary of the alleged Srebrenica massacre, perpetrated by those nasty genocidal Serbs, troublemakers of the Balkans, against the wonderful, peace-loving, tolerant Bosnian Muslims. Seriously, everywhere you look, those Serbs are just stirring up trouble in the Balkans. I mean, they just had to be rebellious and not convert to Islam during their centuries of rule under the Ottoman Empire. And they got their nasty, genocidal revenge on Muslims during the 1990s, didn't they?

Or not. The Serbs fought for their survival, pure and simple.

So, today is a very sad day for those of us in the West because it represents how we let the Muslims of the Balkans, as well as unscrupulous Western reporters, propagate disgustingly mendacious propaganda to defame an innocent people, the Serbs.

And today must be a very happy day for the Muslims in the Balkans because it represents how they finally got their coveted genocide (even though they themselves say that only men were killed at Srebrenica). The Muslims desperately want a Holocaust perpetrated against them because they are so envious of the Jews. The Muslims, though they are not an ethnic group, want the sympathy that is shown to the Jews about the Holocaust (rightful sympathy, I will add). With Srebrenica, and the events in the Balkans in the 1990s, the Muslims finally got their coveted genocide--except that there was no genocide against them. Rather, they were committing genocide against the Serbs.

So, let's do something different this year: in honor of Srebrenica, let's reject the propaganda about the Balkans and Srebrenica.

It's been fourteen years since the alleged massacre at Srebrenica already. It's time the truth came out and the Srebrenica issue was laid to rest where it belongs: with all the other myths and falsehoods of history.

Remember Paul Klebnikov

Note: I am currently in the Russian Federation, so this is scheduled post. Stay tuned for a couple more scheduled posts and pictures when I get back.

Five years ago today, Paul Klebnikov was murdered in Moscow. I wrote a tribute to him here and a review of his excellent book here.

I hope that people take a bit of time to remember Klebnikov. The world lost an excellent, intelligent, and scrupulous reporter when he died, as well as a wonderful human being. In the years since his death, I don't feel that Klebnikov has really been remembered properly. He did so much excellent writing and reportage, yet it seems to me that Anna Politkovskaya is better known in the West. Politkovskaya is the poster child, if you will, for murdered journalists. Yet calling her a journalist is a generous designation--propagandist is more fair and accurate.*

Compare Google searches of Klebnikov and Polikovskaya's names: searching Anna Politkovskaya on Google generates 294,000 results, while searching Paul Klebnikov generates a mere 47,600. That means searching Politkovskaya's name brings up a little more than six times the amount of results that searching Klebnikov's name does.

Paul Klebnikov was an excellent reporter and meticulous researcher. He published facts and he knew Russia. He must not be forgotten. He deserves to not be forgotten. We must not let pro-Chechen propagandists be unfairly remembered as journalists of equal stature to Klebnikov simply because we like the pro-Chechen view.

My thoughts are with Klebnikov's family on this sad day. Let us do the right thing and remember Paul Klebnikov.

*This is not to say that Politkovskaya's death was not a tragedy, because it was. Murder is always a tragedy. But I do not believe that Politkovskaya was not half the journalist that the media says she was, and I am planning an essay about this thought that will be published when I return.

Image credit.

Obama Visits Russia

Well, Obama has completed his much-talked about trip to Russia. I wouldn't call it a success by any means--in fact, I think it was an utter failure. Obama made many gaffes and certainly didn't endear himself to the Russian people.

I am going to discuss five interesting news stories and one individual's blog post, all of which relate to the Russia visit.

From Fox News: Obama: Putin Has 'Enormous Influence' But Medvedev Is My Counterpart

President Obama acknowledged Tuesday that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin still casts a long shadow in his country, but dismissed suggestions that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is little more than a Putin prop.

"I think that President Medvedev is my counterpart, the president of Russia," Obama said in an interview with FOX News Tuesday. "The prime minister, who I just met today, obviously still has enormous influence."

Uh, no. With the way the Russian government is set up, both of those men are your counterparts, Mr. Obama. The President of Russia is the head of state and the Prime Minister of Russia heads the government. Though the President of Russia is more powerful, both the Prime Minister and the President hold executive power. In America, by contrast, the President of the United States is both head of state and head of government. Just because Dmitry Medvedev has the same title as Obama does not mean that he is Obama's sole counterpart. The leader of this country ought to know this basic knowledge.

Next article, from Politico: President Putin

This article just contains a video in which Obama repeatedly calls Vladimir Putin "President Putin", despite the fact that Putin has not been President of Russia for over a year now. When a journalist points out Obama's mistake, Obama says that Putin "used to be President". Yeah, no fooling, buddy. Get foreign leaders' titles right from now on so you don't make a fool of this country--oh wait, it's a bit late for that...

Next article, from a particularly odious section of USA Today called the Oval, which serves the sole purpose of "tracking the Obama presidency": Obama breakfasts with Putin

The one thing I want to share about this article is the awkward picture of the two of them shaking hands:


No comment.

Next, a rather odd article from The Other Russia: Obama Meets with Russian Opposition

On Tuesday July 7th, US President Barack Obama met with representatives of the Russian opposition in Moscow. The lunch meeting, which took place in the Ritz-Carlton hotel, brought together a wide group of politicians not connected with the pro-Kremlin United Russia party. Notables on the invite list included Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, United Civil Front leader Garry Kasparov, Right Cause chairman Leonid Gozman, and Yabloko party leader Sergei Mitrokhin. Each representative was given five minutes to speak.

Topics of discussion included the new trial against jailed Yukos oil company bosses Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, and the US missile defense system.

During his talk, Garry Kasparov presented Obama with a list of opposition figures who have been persecuted and killed recently, as well as a list of prisoners serving politically-motivated sentences in Russia.

[...]

Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent politician and former head of the Russian Republican party, told journalists that the meeting was “absolutely open.”

[...]

The fact that the meeting took place at all was also significant, Ryzhkov said.

"The last US president who met not only with authorities, but with the opposition was Bill Clinton."

The overwhelming question I have about this article is why. Why would he ever want to meet with the opposition? It's completely inappropriate, especially when done in the capacity as a visiting foreign leader. These people aren't in power. They have no political say right now, and meeting with them is completely pointless--unless one wants to antagonize the Kremlin, of course. So much for resetting US-Russia relations.

I was also glad to see that Bush never met with the opposition. He knew it would be inappropriate. Clinton obviously didn't, and neither does the fool in charge now.

Last article, from Reuters, which somewhat relates to the blog post I'll be discussing: Obamamania? Not in Russia for presidential visit

For once, the adoring crowds were absent as Barack Obama visited Russia this week.

Feted in many countries as a global superstar and accustomed to rapturous welcomes when he travels at home and abroad, the U.S. president received a more muted response during two days of talks in Moscow.

Instead of cheering crowds lining the streets, Obama's motorcade was greeted with some smiles and waves as it sped through the Russian capital. Most people looked on, showing little reaction.

[...]

"We are maybe the one country in the world where there is no Obamamania," Sergei Markov, a parliamentary deputy from the ruling United Russia party, told Reuters.

"For us he is not president of the world but the president of the United States of America."

All I have to say is: good for Russia. Obama isn't president of the world and should not be treated as such.

Now, for the blog entry I present this gem from La Russophobe, entitled The World Hates Vladimir Putin.

In other words, the world loves Obama and it hates Putin.

Based on a poll of twenty countries, La Russophobe concludes that world opinion (and I hesitate to use that phrase because I don't think this poll truly represents that) is much higher for Obama than Putin. And because Russians like Putin way better than Obama, they must out of touch with reality.

Well, I think the Russians are some the last sane people left in the world because they have not succumbed to this stupid Obamamania. Perhaps they see him for the fraud he is. And La Russophobe's logic is faulty, as usual: just because Russia doesn't agree with something that many other people do agree with, they're automatically wrong. That kind of reminds me of children wanting to do something just because everyone else is doing it, and who must be reined in by their parents saying, "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you too?" And don't forget: the Russians are probably going to hold a special sort of fondness for their leader over a foreign one.

All in all, the Russia visit affirmed my dislike for Obama and increased my respect for the Russians for refusing to grovel before him.

Karadzic Immunity Deal: No Legal Standing

Poor Radovan Karadzic. He thought he was safe from prosecution after he was promised immunity by Richard Holbrooke in 1996. Unfortunately, he did not realize that Holbrooke is one of the most unscrupulous liars in this country.

The tribunal that is trying Dr. Karadzic has said repeatedly that there was no promise of immunity. But now they seem to have gotten scared that this promise might actually exist and are now saying that even if Dr. Karadzic was promised immunity, it does "not have legal standing".

The BBC reports:

The Hague tribunal has rejected the argument by former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic that he should not be prosecuted because of an immunity deal.

Mr Karadzic said the former US peace envoy Richard Holbrooke had promised him immunity from prosecution if he gave up politics.

Mr Holbrooke has repeatedly denied there was any such deal.

The UN court said even if there was, it did not have legal standing, and that Mr Karadzic's trial should go ahead.

Mr Karadzic, 64, faces 11 charges including genocide.

He says Mr Holbrooke, then the US envoy to Bosnia, agreed to provide him with immunity at a meeting with his representatives in Belgrade on 18-19 July, 1996.

[...]

The court said on Wednesday that even if such a deal was struck, it would be irrelevant because Mr Holbrooke was not acting with the authority of the UN Security Council.

And of course, Mr. Holbrooke doesn't care if he didn't have the authority to promise immunity because he's not the one facing a trial on fabricated charges and a possible conviction with a life sentence in prison, is he?

Russia, Here I Come

On July 9, my mom and I are leaving for a trip to the Russian Federation and Ukraine. I will be gone until July 27. I will be going to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and loads of places in between. At the end of my trip, I'll be in Kiev for a few days.

Don't go away while I'm gone, dear readers. I am going to schedule at least two posts during the time I'm abroad. And don't forget that pictures will follow when I return.

I won't have computer access when I'm gone, so I will not be able to answer any emails or moderate blog comments, though I will of course do so when I get back.

RT: 'Obamamania bypasses Russia'

The more I learn about the Russians, the more I like them. If this article from Russia Today, Obamamania bypasses Russia, is accurate, then the Russian people have risen considerably in my eyes. Some excerpts from the article:

During a visit to Moscow, the U.S. president will have to fight skepticism in Russia of both his policies and his image.

Good for the Russians!

The expert [i.e., Mihail Neizhmakov, previously mentioned in full article] believes that Obama’s efforts to boost image are more effective in Europe than in the countries of the Middle East. Will the upcoming visit help him to boost his image in Russia?

Well, thank you, Russia Today, for pointing out the obvious about Obama's foreign policy in Europe vs. the Middle East. And I wouldn't count on his image in Russia being improved, at least with the government and people who support the government, due to his decision to grant the far-left opposition paper Novaya Gazeta an interview.

According to the poll conducted by Levada Center at the end of June, only 42 percent of respondents believe that the Russian-U.S. relations will improve dramatically or even slightly after Obama’s visit to Moscow.

Almost 40 percent of those polled said that relations would not change at all. However, only three percent of respondents believe Russian-U.S. relations might deteriorate after the meeting of the leaders of the two countries. One is left to guess how long it will take to wait until the “reset” in U.S. relations with Russia becomes fruitful.

Oh dear, I think they were making fun of the reset button incident in that last sentence there.

Obama will try to boost his image in Russia, despite it not being his main task in Moscow, observers believe. His decision to grant an interview to the Russian liberal newspaper Novaya Gazeta is interpreted as one of his attempts to achieve this. The paper is famous for criticizing the authorities.

I find this interesting--this is how the Russians view Obama's upcoming Novaya Gazeta interview, and I agree: he's trying to boost his image. I also think he will fail miserably. Later in the article, a person is quoted as saying that he thinks the government is okay with the interview. All in all interesting stuff from a source that's supposed to be a "Kremlin-sponsored propaganda tool".

Obama will deliver a speech before students of the New Economic School in Moscow. The school’s director of development, Aleksey Sitnikov, told Svobodnaya Pressa (Free Press) website that the students were going to ask Obama if he knows who Ksenia Sobchak is.

I feel proud, because I know who Ksenia Sobchak is. But I bet Obama doesn't.

All in all, an interesting article on an interesting topic. Personally, I think our relations with Russia are going to get a lot more interesting and amusing because Obama, to put it lightly, does not know what he's doing, but Putin does. Putin will enjoy playing with Obama, so to speak, as well as making a fool of him.

I dislike Obama quite a bit, so I, for one, will be very amused.

Happy July Fourth

I just wanted to wish my readers a happy July Fourth to all my readers. My country turns 233 today. Here's some relevant reading material I want to share with you:

• An article from the Los Angeles Times (of all places) about July Fourth (thanks to my mom for finding it)
• The Declaration of Independence (it's as relevant today as it was when it was written)
• The Constitution (scarily enough, one of the people who needs to read it most is the President of the United States)
  

That's all for now--I hope everyone is having a happy fourth with good food, good fireworks, and patriotic thoughts.

Spineless Britain

It amazes me that this country was once the greatest empire in the world. From the BBC: 'Iran trial' for UK embassy staff.

Some UK embassy staff detained in Tehran and accused of inciting protests after disputed elections will face trial, a top Iranian cleric says.

Guardians Council chief Ahmad Jannati said: "Naturally they will be put on trial, they have made confessions."

Nine embassy staff were held in Tehran last weekend. Britain says all but two have now been freed.

EU governments are to summon Iranian ambassadors to protest against the detention of the embassy staff....

And what is stupid, stupid Britain doing? "Protesting" to ambassadors. What a spineless bunch of people--they should be going into Iran and rescuing these poor people. If they did indeed make confessions, then there's no doubt they were subjected to torture.

Where are the people who were so opposed to us waterboarding terrorists? When we apply enhanced interrogation techniques to people who want us dead and have important information, it's torture. But when a rogue foreign country puts diplomatic officials on trial because of alleged confessions, no one bats an eyelash. It's truly amazing.

In fact, I propose that all civilized countries should close their embassies in Iran because of the complete disregard that the Iranians display towards diplomats (i.e., the events of 1979 and now this fake "trial" of those poor British embassy officials).

Book Review: 'Khrushchev'

There's a good reason why William Taubman's Khrushchev: The Man and His Era won the Pulitzer Prize for biography in 2004: it's an excellent book about an extremely complex and often oversimplified man.

Nikita Khrushchev is remembered best for the infamous shoe-banging incident at the UN in 1960, as well as his words to the West: "We will bury you." Americans traditionally view Khrushchev as our former adversary in the Cold War. Russians, on the other hand, are rather split in their views of Khrushchev, with about half viewing him favorably and half unfavorably. And of course there are the former Soviet Bloc countries, some of which despise Khrushchev, especially the Hungarians for what happened in 1956.

Taubman chronicles Khrushchev's entire life, from his humble origins as a peasant and worker born in a town on the border of Ukraine and Russia to his spectacular rise in the Communist Party, to his complicity in the crimes of the Stalin era, to his struggle to be Stalin's successor, and finally his spectacular fall and tormented retirement.

What makes this book extraordinary is how human Khrushchev appears. He's often oversimplified as a monster or simply a bad person, but Taubman shows that he was much more than that. Though he was very poorly educated (he barely even went to school), he was extremely intelligent and clever, as evidenced by his winning the struggle for leadership after Stalin's death (he was able to best the conniving and evil Beria). Yet, once he was at the top with absolute power, he grew complacent and did not see the plot that would remove him until it was put into action.

Khrushchev was, at the end of his life, a deeply unhappy man. When asked what his biggest regrets were, he said he regretted not being educated (pg 43) and blood: "My arms are up to the elbows in blood," he said (pg 639).

Khrushchev's legacy will continue to puzzle us because although he was involved in the bloody repression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (which led to Khrushchev being called the not-so-flattering nickname "Butcher of Budapest"), he did free people from the Stalin era camps, as well as pave the way for later reforms that would eventually bring down the Soviet Union. Likewise, Khrushchev was responsible for de-Stalinization during his time as Soviet leader, yet he was an accomplice to Stalin during Stalin's rule.

Khrushchev was a complex and fascinating person, and deciding how to judge him historically is difficult--and Taubman himself seems to agree.

Britain Discovers The Obvious, Unsuccessfully Tries To Understand Cause Of Problem

I almost forgot about this little article from the BBC, published on Thursday: Many UK cancer deaths 'premature'

Up to 15,000 people aged over 75 may be dying unnecessarily from cancer each year in the UK, according to research.

The North West Cancer Intelligence Service said their lives would be prolonged if UK cancer survival rates matched the best in Europe and the US....

Well, no fooling! Thank you, BBC, for pointing out the obvious. Cancer survival rates in America are vastly better than in Britain, and there is a very simple, two-word explanation why this is so: socialized medicine. America does not have socialized medicine; Britain does. With socialized medicine, healthcare has to be rationed, so to speak, because there aren't enough doctors for everyone. Therefore, if you're old, it's simply not cost-effective for the state to treat your health problems--hence, poor cancer survival rates.

The BBC doesn't seem to see this problem. Perhaps I ought to write them a letter and kindly inform them...

Independence For Republika Srpska!

The BBC has this gem today called Bosnia echoes to alarming rhetoric.

They may have disagreed about politics, but the group of 20-something friends who had gathered for an after-work drink were all certain about one thing - they were Serbs.

"My father is a Serb, my grandfather is a Serb, I am a Serb. This is my nationality," said Vladislav.

"If we are looking at a football game," added Bane, "Serbia against somebody else, we are fans of Serbia."

These would not have been particularly notable declarations of identity, save for one crucial fact.

We were speaking in Banja Luka, a city in Bosnia, and all these people were Bosnian citizens.

But that meant little to Ivana, a trainee architect: "Bosnia is an artificial and silly creation, we naturally belong with Serbs," she said.

Well, of course they identify with the Serbs. Culturally, they share the same values and heritage. Also, when your current fellow "citizens" (i.e. the Bosnian Muslims) were murdering you in the 1990s, that tends to not foster any common identity, to say the least.

The Republika Srpska parliament has issued a declaration, insisting that it has the right to make its own rules in certain key areas, like immigration and customs.

That move was vetoed this week by Bosnia's High Representative, the internationally-appointed figure who still has executive authority in the country.

But the resulting row has left many worried about the country's stability.

"The way the Serb politicians speak is getting more and more nationalistic," says Svetlana Cenic, a writer and newspaper columnist.

Ah yes, that infamous Serb nationalism. When Serbs stand up and say they're proud of being who they are, or even just stand up for themselves in general, this is labeled "nationalism" (and it's inherently implied that all nationalism is evil). Furthermore, since Serb nationalism is what was supposed to have sparked the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s (it actually didn't, but facts matter little to seasoned propagandists), this Serb nationalism is dangerous and evil and therefore must be squashed. But when Muslims in the Balkans make statements about implementing Islam into everyone's lives (like Alija Izetbegovic did in his Islamic Declaration), that isn't condemned at all.

Well, I have a solution for Bosnia: Republika Srpska should secede. Actually, I can't really take credit for that idea because according to the article, the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik has hinted at that very idea. I mean, it really is the perfect solution: the Serbs could govern their own country the way they like without having to be ruled by the very people who killed them in the 1990s. And without Republika Srpska, perhaps the unnatural state of Bosnia, which currently is comprised of three groups of people who, to put it mildly, don't get along, would disintegrate and could reform into a new country with more natural borders.

Obama's Cultural Heritage

L.E. Ikenga has an excellent article at American Thinker (thanks to Rush Limbaugh for mentioning it) about the implications of Barack Obama's admiration for his father.

Obama's father, she says, is what she calls an African Colonial. He was enraged about Africa's transformation under British rule but instead of trying to fix the problems and make life better for the people there, he embraced Marxism, a Western ideology.

Obama clearly identifies with his father, as evidenced by his book Dreams From My Father (which Ikenga calls "political propaganda"). Like the corrupt leaders of many African countries during British rule, Obama seeks to bring down America to the third-world level. From confiscating wealth to manipulating people using the media, Obama is no different than a European imperialist. And like any corrupt leader, getting rid of Obama won't be so easy when that time comes.

My summary is just that: a short outline of the article. I highly encourage you to go to American Thinker and read the entire thing.

Iran: Some Things Never Change

Or, Almost Everyone Is Wrong About Iran Except For Robert Spencer

Since pretty much every blogger who blogs about politics, international affairs, and the like has weighed in on the events in Iran, I figured I would as well.

In short, my view can be summarized as follows: the West's perception of Mousavi is dangerously wrong, the protesters are not trying to bring about some democratic revolution, and it's actually better for us (i.e. the West) that Ahmadinejad won.

The overall perception in the West is that Mousavi is a reformer (how that word reminds me of Gorbachev--I must have Russia on the brain) but, as Robert Spencer adroitly points out, this simply isn't true. He was a founder of Hizballah--that's enough to discredit him in my eyes.

Following this, I do not think the protesters are going to institute some kind of democracy. I do not think they even want democracy. They're simply protesting because their thug didn't win the election and they don't like that. If they really truly wanted to change the entire system, where were they when the candidates were chosen for election? There really is little difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi--they're both thuggish dictators. So why didn't these protesters protest when it turned out that two of the major candidates were basically Ahmadinejad I and Ahmadinejad II?

Finally, I think that this may have worked out quite well for the West. As I said previously, I don't see a major difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. I don't think having Mousavi in power would bring any major changes to life in Iran for the Iranian people. What would be different would be the way Iran is treated. Since the West perceives Mousavi as a reformer, they would be more accommodating towards Iran, even as Iran continued to pose a threat to the free world. At least with Ahmadinejad, we know what we are facing because of prior experience with him.

These events in Iran are quite reminiscent of the 1979 revolution--and surprisingly enough, Britain is displaying an uncanny prescience, having actually learned something from history: they're not taking any chances with the families of British embassy staff--these families are being withdrawn from Iran (though for the time being the staff are staying). I suppose it would be asking too much to hope that Britain, and indeed all of Europe, look a bit further back in history to see the consequences of appeasing Hitler...

Book Review: 'Godfather of the Kremlin'

The late Russian general Aleksandr Lebed once said, "Berezovsky is the apotheosis of sleaziness on the state level: This representative of the small clique in power is not satisfied with stealing--he wants everybody to see that he is stealing with complete impunity." This quote exemplifies the major theme of Paul Klebnikov's excellent book Godfather of the Kremlin.

Godfather of the Kremlin is the essential book on modern Russia--specifically Russia in the 1990s. Klebnikov chronicles in this work, which started out as an article in Forbes magazine, the unsavory career of Boris Berezovsky. Berezovsky, he argues, is not the "democracy-loving human rights campaigner" that the West so badly wants him to be, but rather a crude, albeit clever gangster who acquired his wealth illegally, through shady business practices and even murder.

Two things made Berezovsky's success in the 1990s possible: the gangs present in the late era of the Soviet Union and the privatization reforms of the Yeltsin government. The gangs can be divided roughly into two groups: the Chechens and the Slavs. The Gorbachev government tolerated the presence of these gangs, even giving unofficial support to the Slavs. The Yeltsin government also tolerated the gangs. No effort was made to crack down on crime in the last years of the Soviet Union or the early years of the Russian Federation, thus creating an environment where criminality could flourish, even and especially at a state level.

The privatization reforms are one of the most lamentable policies of the Yeltsin government, according to Klebnikov. Privatization was carried out in the worst way possible: when assets of the state were auctioned off, they were allowed to accumulate in the hands of a very select group of people. To make matters even worse, this group of people, the oligarchs, were accountable to nobody, so they basically were above and beyond the law and could do whatever they liked.

And Boris Berezovsky did do whatever he liked. He started out doing business in the car industry, where his business practices were shady at best. He moved on to bigger and better things later, having relations with Mikhail Khodorkovsky's corrupt Bank Menatep and eventually owning a TV station that instrumental in getting the inept Boris Yeltsin reelected. He even held a government position at one point, and of course engaged in illegal activity in that capacity (Berezovsky had an Israeli passport despite the fact that it was illegal for Russian government officials to have foreign passports or citizenship).

Perhaps Berezovsky's greatest crime, especially in light of events since the publication of this book, was his financing of the Chechens. Berezovsky cooperated with the Chechens, paying ransom for people they captured and then finally openly financing them, as he does today to undermine Vladimir Putin.

This book was published in 2000 and needs to be updated--unfortunately, this will never happen. Paul Klebnikov was murdered on July 9, 2004. Perhaps one of the greatest injustices in life is that he, a decent and honest human being, is dead, while Berezovsky, the despicable criminal, has political asylum in England and lives comfortably in London with his illegally acquired wealth.

Photo credit.

Blog Template Update: Numbered Comments

Thanks to this excellent tutorial, comments on this blog are now numbered. (If you don't understand what I mean, look at a post with comments, for example, this one and notice how the comments now have numbers besides them.)

Be sure to stay tuned for two upcoming pieces: a book review of an excellent book that I call "essential on modern Russia" and the futuristic essay about what the United States and some of the world could look like in twenty years if we don't watch out.

Henry Allingham, World's Oldest Man

The BBC reports how one of their own, a World War I veteran, is now the oldest man in the world.

World War I veteran Henry Allingham is the world's oldest man following the death of a 113-year-old in Japan, Guinness World Records has confirmed.

Mr Allingham, one of only two surviving WWI veterans in the UK and the last surviving founder member of the RAF, was born on 6 June 1896.

He was born in Clapton, London, and now lives at St Dunstan's Centre for blind ex-service personnel near Brighton.

[...]

Mr Allingham, whose life has spanned three centuries and six monarchs, has five grandchildren, 12 great-grandchildren, 14 great-great grandchildren and one great-great-great grandchild.

Most of his family now live in the United States but his nephew Ronald Cator, 74, lives in Acle, Norfolk.

[...]

Mr Allingham is the sole survivor of the Battle of Jutland and has also published his life story.

The pictures accompanying the story are also worth looking at. The captions have some extra information that's not in the article, such as the fact that Allingham's father died when he was fourteen months old. I thought that was ironic, considering how long his son has lived.

When I saw the year of his birth (1896), the first thing I thought was how that was also the year that Nikita Khrushchev's first wife was born (it's not as random as you might think that I had Khrushchev on the mind--I'm currently reading a book about him). Unfortunately for her, she was not nearly as fortunate as Allingham--she died in 1921.

Anti-Jihadists Win Daily Prize

Robert reports how his team for Troopathon 2009, The Anti-Jihadists, of which I am a member, won the Daily Prize yesterday. Thanks to everyone who has ordered care packages--you can do so here to benefit Robert's team.

And if you don't order to benefit our team, that's fine too--because as Robert says, when you order care packages, it's the troops that win, not us.

Support Our Troops

I've just sent an email to join Robert Spencer's team, The Anti-Jihadists, for Troopathon 2009. Click on the graphic in the sidebar to send care packages that will be credited to The Anti-Jihadists (or click here).

Vote For Me

You may or may not have noticed the charming badge in my sidebar. I have been for Most Provocative Blog in the BlogLuxe Awards. If you like my blog, I'd really appreciate your vote. Head over to this page (or click on the purple badge in my sidebar) and click on the purple stripe that says "Most Provocative Blog". It should expand and show all the nominees. You can vote once a day for each category (so if you really love me, you can vote more than once...).

And while you're at it, consider voting for The Beet Goes On for Funniest Blog. The Beet Goes On is a hilarious and charming blog of an American woman living in Moscow (I'm wildly jealous of her--imagine how much my Russian language skills would improve if I were living in Russia).

Mladic Footage

Some interesting news from Bosnia today, courtesy of the BBC: Bosnian TV airs 'Mladic pictures'

Bosnia's Federation TV has broadcast what it says are videos of the fugitive former Bosnian Serb army chief, Ratko Mladic, filmed over the past 10 years.

One video allegedly showed Gen Mladic standing with two unidentified women during the winter of 2008.

He is wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on war crimes charges in connection with the Bosnian civil war....

It's quite interesting, being that Mladic was Karadzic's general and the fact that Mladic's capture will help Serbia possibly join the EU. (I personally find it amusing that countries actually have to apply for EU membership--I mean, who would actually want to be a member of that horrible institution?)

Something I'd like to say Boris Tadic, the president of Serbia: please stop pandering to the EU. It undermines your country and makes you look very, very foolish.

By the way, I'm just dying to read this book about Mladic. It looks fascinating, does it not?

Stop Socialized Health Care

Socialized health care is, to put it bluntly, one of the stupidest ideas on the planet. It's basically the government intervening in yet another area where it shouldn't be, and it happens at an enormous cost in human life.

First, some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article by Karl Rove:

It was a sobering breakfast with one of the smartest Republicans on Capitol Hill. We can fix a lot of bad stuff President Barack Obama might do, he told me. But if Mr. Obama signs into law a "public option," government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform we won't be able to undo the damage.

I'd go the Republican member of Congress one further: If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make.

[...]

In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

[...]

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

I'd highly recommend reading the entire thing.

For people who are still not convinced, look at every single other developed country like the United States that does have socialized health care. Canada and England are two examples that come to mind, and the fact is that neither of these countries have really great medicine. I've heard loads of horror stories of what people have to go through to see a doctor. Do we really want that here?

Finally, I don't want the government mandating when I can or can't see a doctor. That's just ridiculous and plain stupid.