GOP Vixen

Vietnamese regime scripts its political oppression

Plenty of countries claim up and down that they don’t hold political prisoners, and those eager to do business with that country are usually too eager to buy their story. But a recently leaked copy of a secret politburo document should leave everyone with little doubt that not only does Vietnam persecute political prisoners; they’re worried about learning to persecute more efficiently so they’ll catch less flack from the international community.

Read all about it in my Los Angeles Daily News column today:

“When pressed last year on human rights during his historic visit to D.C., Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet passed off violations as a ‘different understanding’ that needed to be taken in context of ‘historical backgrounds and conditions.’Pro-democracy Vietnamese, however, understand well the conditions in place to systematically keep their voices silent. Now an apparent memo from the top tells the story.

The top-secret, just-leaked Vietnamese government document urges Communist Party officials to become more conscientious in their quest to ‘limit the spread of false ideas in the population about democracy, human rights, religious freedom, which impacts negatively on the Party and the State foreign policy,’ and work ‘to institute effort to neutralize these organizations and individuals who conspire to maneuver against the country and socialism.’

The document titled ‘NOTICE: Conclusion of the Political Party, concerning raising the bar of quality and effectiveness in the execution of the political trials in the face of new development’ and dated Sept. 12, 2007, was distributed to provincial authorities, party officials and leading technocrats, as noted in the memo.

Signed off and stamped by Standing Secretariat Member Truong Tan Sang, the Politburo sent out numbered copies on a recall basis. Yet a copy of the document was leaked by a Communist Party member to the People’s Democratic Party of Vietnam, which advocates a multi-party system and is thus banned by the Vietnamese regime.Reading the document - the English translation provided by the PDP - is a window into a regime that systematically conspires to silence dissidents and fears international scrutiny could derail its attempts at global acceptance.

‘The quality and effectiveness of the execution of the political cases have not met the requirements to enable the struggle to prevent and deal with these crimes,’ the memo reads, complaining that ‘the charges and rulings in a number of cases have not been appropriate’ and trials have been ‘allowing the accused excessive responses.’

‘…To fight and defeat the attack plot of the enemy forces is our first line of defense, urgent and immediate.’…”

Read the whole thing!

You, too, can stand with the Tibetan people

The Olympic torch run is set to pass through San Francisco -- its only U.S. stop -- on April 9. Now, Mayor Gavin Newsom refused to even listen to human-rights advocates who said that welcoming this tainted torch in the city stands against SF's liberal traditions. And now, he's trying to corral protesters into designated "free-speech areas" -- out of sight of the torch path so as not to offend the delicate Chinese government. Which, as I've been told, thousands of protesters may not take kindly.

The weekend's tragic, bloody crackdown on freedom-seeking Tibetans in Lhasa should make everyone angry -- and should stress the need to hold China's feet to the fire. Mark your calendar for a pre-torch rally at UN Plaza in San Fran on April 8, followed by march to the Chinese consulate and candlelight vigil that evening; then on April 9 the torch run is expected to go through the financial district, where tens of thousands of protesters are expected to gather. I'll be there, and I hope many Angelenos can make it!!

How McCain can win the White House

So the other day I touched on McCain's need to win the moderates to win the presidency, but Mac's appearance to the Council for National Policy prompted me to expand upon these thoughts in my Los Angeles Daily News column today:

"Hey Sen. McCain, wanna know how you can win in November?

Let's go back to Friday and the Council for National Policy, where you met behind closed doors with - and I say this as a lifelong Republican - some of the right-wingerest of right-wingers in a pre-election kiss-up. The super-secret CNP, founded by Tim LaHaye as a forum for select conservatives, reportedly includes members such as James Dobson, Bob Jones III and Amway co-founder Richard DeVos.

'I don't think he came close to saying something to excite conservatives sitting on the sidelines waiting to hear something that would get them on his team,' Richard Viguerie, a longtime business associate of Sun Myung Moon, was prominently featured saying in The Washington Times, Moon's baby. 'Everything he said was rehash of what he has said before.'

Viguerie, according to the Times, echoed a sentiment of other CNP members: 'He didn't assure us he would bring conservatives into his White House or administration.' Viguerie was also upset that McCain wasn't more candid about his personal - that's the keyword, folks - faith.

McCain, don't worry about exciting the Christian Right. They'll be 'on your team' at a place called the ballot box when they're wretching at the thought of a Democrat-controlled White House. Yeah, even as they run to the next secret-handshake CNP meeting to gloat about their alleged 'protest vote.'

Everything you said was a rehash? Cool, Mac, because you shouldn't be changing your message right now to please the right. No assurances of CNP-acceptable righties in the White House? No promises needed.

Let them rant. Let them complain. Keep shaking off anti-Catholic televangelist John Hagee. You've got work to do. It's called 'being yourself.'

Because that, my friend, is the only way you'll win the election come November.

You are one of the few Republicans, in this day and age and after eight years of Bush's divisive presidency, who has the ability to handily lay claim to the middle. You need the ever-growing middle, moderate sea of voters to win the White House. You don't need to do anything that will get you painted as a panderer to the far right. The middle's reaction to that would be a sort of synchronized electoral 'ick.'..."

Read the whole thing!

McCain the Middleman

I'll be on The Martha Zoller Show at 8:20 a.m. Pacific time/11:20 a.m. Eastern this morning to talk about the presidential campaign here on out, specifically my hombre McCain. Listen live here!

Here's a little advice for McCain which won't appeal to some conservatives, but is necessary to win in November: Don't change. Be Mr. Maverick. No pandering to groups or people with whom you've never aligned before just to make CPAC happy.

Because the November win and the White House remaining in GOP control hinges on the middle. That big mass of moderates that seems to grow with every election, that group that stays in the polls' "undecided" column right up until Election Day. Buoyed by her wins, Hillary will now go after Obama at the kneecaps and their respective agendas won't long be shrouded in identity politics or feel-good, happy happy rallies. The left will be struggling to find its core, the left will be exposed, and the middle will be for the taking.

McCain will pick a more dyed-in-the-wool conservative VP. The angry Anybody But McCainers have already used up their 15 minutes of fame and  their calls to boycott the polls or vote for the Dem to teach the GOP a lesson will be regarded as more than silly by the voters in just a few months. Mac is back, and the more important thing he can do right now is not change. Heck, he should emphasize his compromise record. Stress that the real change is reaching across the aisle once in a while to get things done in D.C.

Be yourself, Mac, be yourself. Seize the middle!!

Bridget vents about Obama!

Needless to say, when I let a colleague read the lede of my Pajamas Media column today while still writing it, he was like, "I know where you're going with this!" Read on:

"I once read a passage by a Catholic priest explaining how people get hooked into new religious movements: First, the would-be church member was brought into a welcoming environment with upbeat music and palpable excitement. The person would accept their new faith easily as the flock of church loyalists seemed to provide sunny hope and instant friendship, filling some sort of void.

As time goes by and life’s normal ups and downs hit, then comes disillusionment when the member realizes that their faith is based on that emotional high, a high they’re not able to sustain 24-7 or while away from the group.

After disillusionment and the breakup, the onetime convert is back to square one.

As we’ve watched support for Barack Obama evolve from an ambitious challenge of Hillary Clinton to messianic mania, we’ve seen his followers increasingly less concerned with talking points on foreign policy, etc., than his ability to whip a crowd into a feel-good frenzy. We have voters inspired by the tone in which Obama speaks, how his skin color in the White House would make history, and how Michelle Obama thinks the emotional tidal wave is a step forward for America: 'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.'

Yet for emotion, on the left or right, to be the deciding factor in such a key election puts the United States in a very precarious spot.

In last week’s Wall Street Journal, Stephen Hayes opined that Republicans busy criticizing the Obama campaign for leaning on hopeful rhetoric need to remember that back in the day Ronald Reagan was criticized for being too reliant on uplifting speeches.

'The assumption behind much of this criticism is that because Mr. Obama gives a good speech he cannot do substance,' Hayes wrote. 'This is wrong. Mr. Obama has done well in most of the Democratic debates because he has consistently shown himself able to think on his feet.'

Actually, he’s done well because Clinton consistently gets nailed with the hard questions first. Then, as he did with the question on Dmitry Medvedev in last week’s Ohio MSNBC debate, he can mold his answer off hers (though skipping that apparently cumbersome pronunciation of his name). But the supposition that this makes Obama’s rhetoric passable to run the White House is off-base. ..."

Read the whole thing!

Is Hollywood easing up on the political preachfest?

Is the fact that, during an election year, so little preachiness was heard from the Oscar podium a good sign? Have they decided to get back to the business of making movies? Or is it just that so few Americans won that the winners just don't give a rip about American politics?

I write about this in my Los Angeles Daily News column today:

"Out here in Los Angeles we've known for a long time that there are fewer degrees of separation between Hollywood and politics than there are between Kevin Bacon and, well, anyone.

People running on a platform of change? Yeah, they're called independent filmmakers. The entrenched liberal establishment? It's called Babs and the Weinstein brothers. A town frozen by endless gridlock? It's Capitol Hill 24-7, but L.A. during the writers strike.

And though ostensibly home to more fiction than The New York Times, Hollywood actually has lobbyists who behave inappropriately: We call it the casting couch.

When it came to politics as usual, Sunday's 80th Academy Awards resembled the United Nations General Assembly. And the Best Supporting Actor is... Spain! Best Supporting Actress goes to Britain! Best Actor, Ireland! Best Actress, France! And the Best Picture Oscar goes to the country of ... Texas? Well, thank heavens Russia didn't veto Austria's Best Foreign-Language Film win.

The Oscars also have a storied history of turning the film canister on its side, stepping on top and turning it into a political soapbox.

Michael Moore - who lost this year for his 'socialism rocks!' docudramedy 'Sicko' - has always provided ample reason for the orchestra to crank it up.

Moore wanted Comrade Fidel - who has a freer schedule these days, save for his duties as the wizard behind the curtain - to be his Oscar date: 'If I could talk to (Oscar Producer) Gil Cates and maybe get Castro in a dance number at the beginning of the show?' Moore mused to AP Television. At least if Fidel tripped again and broke his knee, he'd actually get some good medical care at Cedars-Sinai.

But in this, an election year, it was particularly fascinating to see what proclamations would come from the podium, who would try to 'Barack the Vote' from the red carpet or denounce George W. Bush (which was sooo three years ago). ..."

Read the whole thing!

There's a lesson to be had in 'No Country,' friendo

Well, besides not stealing drug dealers' hard-earned cash, of course.

I write at Pajamas Media today about the unambiguous, black-and-white good and evil seen in Javier Bardem's infamous character Anton Chigurh, and how important it is to see that unfold onscreen when we face similar enemies -- maybe not armed with cattle guns and page-boy hair -- in real life.

"...In one of my favorite films, Pulp Fiction, the hitman duo of John Travolta as Vincent Vega and Samuel L. Jackson as Jules Winnfield are arguably the film’s most likable characters — and characters whose fates are molded by the concept of redemption. After believing that God stopped a hail of short-range bullets from striking either he or Vincent while out on a job, Jules decides to give up the hitman life and go straight. He then puts this talk into action by deciding to spare a pair of restaurant robbers in his 'transitional period.' Vincent mocks Jules’ conviction about divine intervention and his decision to give up contract killing. The moral of the story? Vincent is killed in a most inglorious way. Jules lives.

But Chigurh is a character who would have unceremoniously killed Pulp’s Pumpkin and Honeybunny robbers, along with the blustering restaurant manager and maybe the waitstaff, then would have enjoyed the rest of Vincent’s bacon before hitting the road. (Just nobody ask him where he’s headed, friendo.)

You leave the theater after No Country realizing the central message, intended or not: We may spend so much time trying to figure why people are bad that we fail to accept that some people are just bad — and should be dealt with accordingly. Like Ed Tom Bell wakes up from his dream, we, too, can wake from a false sense of security, difficult as it may be to understand the changing world around us..."

Read the whole thing!

As Pakistan seeks stability, Kashmiris seek a real shot at peace

So over the weekend Mirwaiz Omar Farooq — the 15th hereditary leader of Kashmir’s Muslims — was in town to speak at a luncheon held in his honor at the Pakistani consul general’s abode. I was there (and thank goodness, because Pakistani food is delish) as the mirwaiz talked about his Hurriyat coalition’s desire for a peaceful, equitable solution to the Kashmiri issue.

I write about the visit in my Los Angeles Daily News column today:

“…Farooq talked Saturday about how his house was attacked and his uncle was killed after Hurriyat began talks with Delhi, and it goes without saying there’s the constant danger that someone with his pragmatic approach, peaceful goals, and plain talk is perpetually a target. Still, he’s guardedly optimistic.

‘There are armed groups in Kashmir who are ready to support the peace process provided there is some movement,’ he said. He advocated ‘more direct, indirect involvement of the U.S. in Kashmir,’ noting that, as an ally of both Pakistan and India, America was in a good position to push the peace process.

‘You can’t have a process where Indians and Pakistanis are meeting once a year,’ he said. ‘…You can’t clap with one hand. We don’t see the reciprocity from India.’

Farooq is a clear, reasoned voice who appears to want the whole of the region to be brought out of chaos. ‘Our group has been very open in accepting ideas,’ he said. ‘We are not averse to any idea coming in as to what the status of Kashmir can be and how the future can be.’

I asked Farooq how Monday’s national elections in Pakistan could help or hurt cooperation and negotiation with Pakistan.

‘Whatever is happening in Pakistan has a direct reflection on Kashmir and we believe that this peace process needs to be strengthened,’ he replied. ‘…So it’s very important that we have a government in Pakistan who is committed to the peace process with India, but at the same time who are ready to think out of the box, not just concentrate on whatever the policy has been in the past. They need to be more flexible in their approach.’…”

Read the whole thing!

The 'Golda' standard of women leaders

So week before last, I was invited to a screening of "Golda's Balcony" -- the new film version of the stage play -- at the Writers Guild Theatre, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee and Stand With Us in celebration of Israel's 60th birthday. Afterward, I sat and chatted at length with star Valerie Harper -- yes, Rhoda plays Golda wonderfully -- about women leaders, identity politics, and Golda Meir, who was prime minister of Israel when America was still struggling with issues of equality.

I wrote about my talk with Valerie (an awesome person -- she and her hubby, the film's producer, insisted on walking me to my car after the theater closed) as well as my thoughts on women leaders at Pajamas Media today (where I have new pieces weekly):

As I watched the life of the former prime minister unfold onscreen, I chuckled at the thought of how our 2008 obsession with identity politics seems to forget the great leaders — who just happened to be women — who have long had the attention of the rest of the world. After all, Oprah is not the most powerful woman in the world; that woman is, as ranked by Forbes, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But Merkel is a conservative. Meir fought for Israel’s survival in the Yom Kippur War. Even Condoleezza Rice’s term as secretary of state has not been hailed as a great advance for women and/or African-Americans. So is a leader who happens to be a women only hailed as advancement if she pursues a feminist agenda outlined by NOW or the Code Pink sisters?

It raises serious questions when Ms. magazine last month refused to run an American Jewish Congress ad hailing Israel’s powerful women leaders: Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, with the words “This is Israel.”

Ms. told the Jerusalem Post that the ad was rejected for being too political, as two of the three women were from the Kadima party (which happens to also be the ruling party, hence making the magazine’s argument that the ad was unacceptable partisanship all the more ridiculous).

I later ask Valerie how Meir wasn't compartmentalized in the stereotype of women leaders:

“Golda was an amazing person, I think, male or female, in that she was both a visionary and an activist,” Harper said. “A lot of activists have sort of a vision, but they’re so in the doing that they don’t get the big picture, and some of the visionaries are very bad when it comes to the practical application and the doing. She was both. She held the vision just so clean and clear and her whole raison d’etre was ‘I want a world that’s safe for Jews.’"

Read the whole thing!

Head scarf in Turkey covers up a deeper conflict

Today in my Los Angeles Daily News column I write about the constitutional change pushed through Turkey's parliament by the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party, the party to which the president and prime minister also belong, to allow Islamic head scarves in universities. It seems like a cut-and-dry religious freedom issue, but it's not so simple for the secular Muslim republic established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Do proponents of keeping the head-scarf ban relish the thought of limiting religious expression? No. They're operating out of a real fear of the snowball effect in which Islamic movements have pressured those perceived to be less pious to follow their interpretation of Islam.

In other words, they fear those who will see it as their religious duty to ensure that women cover up.

"The heads of many girls are shaved by their brothers to force them to wear head scarves," Turkish opposition lawmaker Nesrin Baytok said.

And we see what's happened in places like Iran, where top cleric Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hassani said in December, "Women who do not respect the hijab and their husbands deserve to die."

In Iraq, women who don't wear the head scarf face outrageous threats. "Next time, I want to see you wearing a hijab or I swear to God the three of you will be killed immediately," the Times of London reports a Shiite militia member telling a group of Christian girls at the entrance to a university in Basra. Iraqi journalists report of women being shot or even killed for not wearing the hijab.

This is what Turks, like the tens of thousands who marched against the constitutional change over the weekend, fear. In a secular society, they fear extremists using a personal expression of modesty as a weapon to subjugate women.

There's also an interesting column from Saturday by Turkish Daily News writer Gila Benmayor that responds to Deputy Prime Minister and State Minister Cemil Çiçek's assertion that proponents of keeping the headscarf ban were "spreading terror and radioactive fear like the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant." Benmayor notes how the number of women working in public institutions has dropped during the rule of Islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and notes other signs of increasing conservatism: "As of April 1 an alcoholic beverage ban will be enforced in sports clubs, social facilities, bars and restaurants. The Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK) also bans scenes with alcoholic drinks in television series and films. To utter the word 'drinks' in dialogues is part of this ban."

Benmayor cites research that pokes holes in Islamists' contention that the head scarf ban was keeping women out of universities:

"Failure in the university entrance exam is the main reason for girls not attending university. Among the reasons for them not having university education are marriage and work requirement but the one listed at the bottom is the headscarf issue.

Only 1 percent of female students do not enroll in universities due to headscarf concerns."