Jamaica: The Good, the Bad, and the 'Dudus'





By David Paulin


Questions and answers about Jamaica's State of Emergency, its gang culture, and the events leading up to the search by security forces for alleged drug lord Christopher "Dudus" Coke.











Q: How would you characterize the nature of the ties between the Jamaica Labor Party and Christopher "Dudus" Coke?

A: To understand the nature of the ties between the Jamaica Labor Party and Coke, you need to understand three things. First, consider some geography. Coke is based in West Kingston, a critical constituency of the right-leaning Jamaica Labor Party or “JLP” dating to the early 1960s. It's one of Jamaica's so-called "garrison communities" -- areas of Kingston's metropolitan area aligned to one of the country's two main political parties. The opposition party is the left-leaning People's National Party or “PNP.” Second, West Kingston is represented in Parliament by Prime Minister Bruce Golding, a seat he accepted (for better and worse) after becoming head of of the JLP in 2005. It's an area that enabled him to be opposition leader and that served as his springboard to be prime minister in 2007. Third, the Tivoli Gardens area of West Kingston is the stronghold for Christopher "Dudus" Coke, where he allegedly operates an international drug and arms-smuggling organization called the "Shower Posse." Tivoli Gardens is now the focus of bloody assaults by security forces attempting to arrest Coke. As of Tuesday afternoon, dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries had been reported.

Q: So what is the precise relationship that Coke has with the JLP and Bruce Golding?

A: It's a complex symbiotic relationship -- a loose one, so to speak -- whose roots date to Jamaica's independence and to what's called the "political tribalism" that emerged during the early years after independence; a period during which politicians utilized gangs to help sway elections. Since then, those gangs have become self-sufficient and are no longer beholden to the politicians as they had been. In other words, the politicians are no longer riding the tiger (as many Jamaicans note); it's the tiger that's riding the politicians.

This symbiotic relationship has existed for years between politicians and strongmen like Coke (or “Dons” as Jamaicans call them). It amounts to a power-sharing arrangement. Coke, for instance, serves some important roles for the JLP and Golding. Like other Dons with ties to the two main political parties, he fills a power vacuum created by a weak government. Coke also maintains "order" in West Kingston. He provides ad hoc social services such as handouts of food, and he provides jobs through government contracts he distributes – all financed through his legitimate business or from his alleged drug and arms-smuggling profits. And during elections, Coke keeps his political bargain: He maintains political conformity and ensures that West Kingston votes for the JLP -- a task that has often resulted in political violence over the years. Reportedly, Coke gave a "green light" for Golding to accept the West Kingston seat in Parliament in 2005, a seat previously occupied by Edward Seaga. As one newspaper article in Jamaica put it: Golding may represent West Kingston, but Coke runs the place. All in all, it's a Faustian bargain.

It's a matter of conjecture about how close Jamaica's politicians are to the alleged illegal activities carried out by men like Coke. Do they merely look the other way for political expediency? No doubt, they do, and so do the police; otherwise, the "garrison communities" would not exist. Do politicians share profits from the drug trade? That's a matter of conjecture. However, Jamaicans can't help but think the worst when they see prominent politicians and officials hanging out with some Dons and attending gaudy funerals for slain Dons -- spectacles that Jamaica's public-spirited news media have covered in detail and sharply criticized. Ordinary middle-class Jamaicans have been left disillusioned and angry. But their frequent calls for political leaders to "dismantle the garrisons" falls on deaf ears.

Q: What is the "Manatt Affair" and how did it affect Golding’s decision to sign off on Coke’s extradition? Besides Manatt, what else might have prompted Golding to change his mind about extraditing Coke after a 9-month long extradition standoff with Washington?

A: On May 17, Prime Minister Bruce Golding surprised Jamaicans with a repentant television address -- apologizing for the two-month long "Manatt Affair" and pledging to extradite alleged drug lord Christopher "Dudus" Coke. So what was Manatt? Two months earlier, Jamaica's Parliament erupted in the first of many heated sessions over revelations that the prestigious U.S. law firm of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips was paid $49,000 to lobby Washington not to extradite Coke; the fee was part of an original $400,000 contract. Prime Minister Golding lost credibility over the scandal, for it weakened his claim that his administration was delaying the extradition request due to concerns that the Americans had violated Coke's "constitutional rights" with illegal wiretaps and unnamed informants.

In one Parliamentary session after another, the opposition PNP hammered Golding for failing to fully reveal the precise relationship with Manatt; or as one newspaper put it: "to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Jamaicans are cynical about their politicians, and so many doubted that Golding's position on Coke's extradition was really all about the alleged drug lord's "constitutional rights" -- and whether the American's had violated them. Golding also lost credibility as his stories about Manatt changed while in the PNP's spotlight. Eventually, he stated that the contacts with Manatt were initiated through the JLP at his orders, although a taciturn Manatt spokesman said the contacts were from Jamaica's government. The opposition PNP -- which ironically has its own Dons and for years tolerated Coke and other Tivoli strongmen -- called for Golding's resignation.

The episode provided yet more evidence to law-abiding and ordinary Jamaicans that Prime Minister Golding has not tackled Jamaica's deepest pathology -- its garrison communities -- since becoming prime minister in 2007. His high-minded claims about Coke's "constitutional rights" had less credibility. Ultimately, the issue of good governance -- or lack of it -- was at the center of the "Manatt Affair."

Did Manatt alone cause Golding's government to do an about-face about extraditing Coke? Certainly, it's a decision that tormented Golding, for he surely foresaw much of what would happen: protests among West Kingston's poor residents (a critical constituency) who are loyal to Coke; and the orgy of deadly violence now taking place as security forces removed road blocks set up in poor neighborhoods, and then began to battle gunmen loyal to Coke as they set out to find and arrest him.

In explaining Golding's about-face over the extradition request, there is much to suggest that top officials in the Obama administration started taking a hard line against the Golding administration, although the details of what took place have yet to be revealed or confirmed. However, according to one Associated Press report (which U.S. officials would not confirm), top officials in Golding's government had their U.S. visas canceled. A Jamaica newspaper, relying on unnamed sources (presumably American or Jamaican officials in the know), told of U.S. satellite photos showing important Jamaican officials visiting Coke's stronghold; and it was reported in the same article that some affluent Jamaicans were being stopped while visiting the U.S. and grilled about the sources of their wealth. At one point, Secretary of State Hilliary Clinton even made a fleeting visit to Jamaica, meeting with Golding at the airport serving Kingston.

From all appearances, then, the Obama administration abandoned its notions that it could break the extradition standoff by relying on two cornerstones of its original foreign policy: "mutual respect" and "honest engagement." Instead, it cranked up the pressure on Jamaica by playing hardball -- Realpolitik.

Q: In your article at the American Thinker, you mentioned the anti-Americanism of elite, left-leaning Jamaicans. It seems that this anti-Americanism, in some sense, puts left-leaning elites on the same side as Tivoli Gardens residents who oppose Coke’s extradition. How do these two groups regard each other? As allies in the fight to prevent extradition, or as snobs and thugs, respectively?

A: Some of Jamaica's leftist elites were simply reacting with their usual knee-jerk anti-Americanism by criticizing the United States as being a bully or imperialist in the extradition standoff. It's hard to imagine that these educated anti-American elites would have much in common with poor residents in Tivoli Gardens, who probably would jump at the chance to immigrate to the United States if they could get a U.S. visa. (If you doubt that, go to the U.S. Embassy in Kingston and take a look at the line some day.)

While Coke and his gunmen could be called thugs, the residents of Tivoli Gardens could not be described that way. However, many middle-class Jamaicans say they are trapped in a culture of poverty and dependence – all of which is exploited by “Dons” like Coke who provide them with an ad hoc welfare state. It's a symbiotic union all its own. Regarding the values of this underclass, women typically start having children at an early age. Young boys view the Dons as the sorts of men they want to become. Many members of this underclass lack the social skills needed to enter the middle-class.

Q: If Coke is arrested and does time in the U.S., will this have any noticeable effect on the drug trade in Jamaica? Is there any policy the U.S. could pursue that could realistically make a dent in the Caribbean drug trade?

A: If Coke is arrested and goes to the U.S. to stand trial, there is always the possibility he could implicate fellow drug traffickers, not to mention corrupt businessman, politicians, and others involved in the drug trade. No drug kingpin has ever been arrested in Jamiaca, a fact the U.S. State Department recently noted in its annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. However, Coke needs to get to the U.S. before this can happen. In 1992, his father, Lester Lloyd Coke -- or Jim Brown as he was known -- was West Kingston's "Don" and a JLP loyalist. Days before he was to be extradited to the U.S. on murder and drug trafficking charges, Brown died when a mysterious fire engulfed his maximum security jail cell.

Golding, for his part, could obtain political redemption by doing what law-abiding Jamaicans have for years been clamoring for -- dismantling the garrison communities, the "monsters" as they call them, over which politicians have lost control since they created them. That would surely put a dent in the drug trade, and it would make Jamaica a better society than it had been. Increasingly, though, it appears that Golding will have much work to do if reports out of Jamaica are accurate: that gunmen hired by Coke -- and associated with some of the opposition People's National Party's Dons -- have joined forces with Coke's gunmen to to battle the police. It appears that much blood will still be shed, with dozens killed and hundreds wounded by Tuesday afternoon.

Q: You mentioned in your American Thinker article that although other English-speaking, Caribbean nations share a similar past with Jamaica, none has the same level of drug and gang related violence. If not history, then what may have caused Jamaica’s thug problem?

A: Jamaica's left-leaning elites are fond of blaming Jamaica's pathologies on their country's legacies of slavery and colonialism. And although I didn't note it in my article, they also blame Jamaica's problems on what they regard as a rigged international system in which the U.S. has gamed the economic playing playing field for its own benefit. Yet countries like The Bahamas also have histories of colonialism and slavery, and yet they have none of Jamaica's pathologies. There is no Bahamian Diaspora comparable to the Jamaican Diaspora. Indeed, The Bahamas has none of Jamaica's political violence; none of its anti-Americanism among its political class; none of the economic troubles; and none of the cultural problems such as thuggish Dance Hall music. Why is Jamaica so different? The reason has everything with decisions that Jamaica's political leaders took-- or didn't take -- years ago when the country started on the course that it did.
_

Obama's lesson in Realpolitik



By David Paulin

Obama's foreign policy bumblers are getting a lesson in realpolitik in an extradition standoff with Jamaica -- which may not be the best place for a Caribbean vacation right now. Kingston, the capital, is on a "knife's edge" of tension, report Jamaica's media outlets. Residents are braced for civil unrest. Security forces are out in force.

Jamaica's leftist elites, for their part, have gone into an anti-American frenzy not seen since President Bush's U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The epicenter of the gathering storm is Kingston's gritty Tivoli Gardens area -- longtime home to an alleged drug lord and arms trafficker named Christopher Michael Coke, 41, who is wanted by U.S. authorities. There, in what some call a "state within a state," Coke and his gunmen have for years operated with minimum harassment from the police -- thanks to loose ties with political leaders and fierce loyalties they've cultivated with poor residents.

Now, anticipating a raid by security forces, Coke and his gunmen have reportedly thrown up barricades booby trapped with gasoline-filled canisters, barbed wire, and live electrical wires. They're heavily armed -- ready for a flight as police attempt to serve an arrest warrant on Coke. Backed up by his gunmen, Coke has ruled this section of West Kingston for years, serving as a "community leader" by providing an ad hoc if not thuggish government for poor residents.

The showdown comes after Jamaica on Monday finally signed a extradition request from the United States for Coke -- after stonewalling the Obama administration for months and voicing concerns over Coke's "constitutional rights." As an American Thinker article reported last March, Jamaica's political leaders claimed American law enforcement authorities had violated Coke's rights with wiretaps and the use of unnamed witnesses -- all cited in an indictment unsealed last August by the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. However, the more likely reason for the extradition standoff was that Jamaica's political leaders were protecting Coke. They had much to lose by extraditing him.

Known as "Dudus" to Jamaicans, Coke has for years been the alleged leader of Jamaica's "Shower Posse," which has distributed crack, cocaine, and marijuana in New York City and elsewhere while smuggling weapons back to Kingston. No doubt, a disproportionate number of the victims of Coke's drug trafficking and violence have been poor and black Americans. Coke is one of the world's "most dangerous narcotics kingpins," say U.S. officials.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.


For more coverage of Jamaica's State of Emergency (which major media outlets are not covering in depth) go to the websites of Jamaica's two major newspapers: jamaicaobserver.com and jamaica-gleaner.com.


UPDATE - 1

Travel Alert
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs
This information is current as of today, Sat May 22 2010 07:21:54 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time).

Jamaica
May 21, 2010
The Department of State alerts U.S. citizens about developing security concerns in Jamaica, particularly the Kingston area. The possibility exists for violence and/or civil unrest in the greater Kingston metropolitan area. There are unconfirmed reports of criminal gang members amassing in the Kingston area, as well as mobilization of Jamaican defense forces. If the situation ignites, there is a possibility of severe disruptions of movement within Kingston, including blocking of access roads to the Norman Manley International Airport. The possibility exists that unrest could spread beyond the general Kingston area. U.S. Embassy Kingston is taking extra security precautions. This Travel Alert expires on June 21, 2010.

U.S citizens should consider the risks associated with travel to and within the greater Kingston metropolitan area. U.S. citizens are urged always to practice good security, maintain a heightened situational awareness and a low profile. U.S. citizens in Jamaica are advised to monitor local news reports and consider the level of security present when venturing outside their residence or hotel.

UPDATE - 2

Sunday, May 23, 2010
JAMAICA DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY

What Caused the Times Square Bomber to 'Snap'? (It's the jihad, dummy!)

By David Paulin

What motivated Faisal Shahzad to attempt to explode a car bomb in Times Square? Might it have anything to do with radial Islam, jihad, and anti-Western hatred?

Nope. Not according to may media outlets and pundits. And no matter that Shazhzad quickly admitted to getting explosives training in Pakistan or that his car bomb was "payback" for the deaths of Taliban leaders in U.S. done attacks.

Consider a story in today's Connecticut Post, a Bridgeport-based newspaper that's one of the state's largest dailies. It provides fascinating insights on what set off Shahzad -- insights that come from James Monahan, a clinical psychologist and associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven.

"Maybe he (Shahzad) was the runt of the litter; the child who couldn't meet his parents' expectations," Monahan told the paper.

"Maybe he was starting to see the hopes of living the good life in America die and he began feeling like a failure," the professor speculates at another point. "Maybe he wanted the satisfaction of going out with a bang."

And what about jihad? Or radical Islam? Or Islamic-inspired terrorism? The Connecticut Post dares not mentions such words. Not once. Turning to Professor Monahan for sage advice, it only says, "The professor suggests that maybe Shahzad fell into the wrong crowd, who turned his American failure into anger against America."

The professor adds: "They need to be grilling him in an attempt to determine his connections and his associations to radical groups. His wife is someone who they should want to talk to."

Gosh. What a good idea: Talk to his wife! And I wonder what kinds of "radical groups" the professor might be referring to?

Unfortunately, the Connecticut Post's reporting is par for the course in respect to much of the media's coverage of Faisal Shahzad -- something Mary Katharine Ham observes in a Weekly Standard piece on the "dumbest theories on the Times Square Bomber."

Here's a parting thought: If the Times Square Bomber had been a Christian right-wing white guy who went to Tea Parties and opposed ObamaCare, would the media be treating him with the kid gloves they are using in their politically correct coverage of Shahzad?

Obama's fruitless quest to extradite a drug thug

The Obama administration is vexed that 'mutual respect' and 'honest engagement' have failed to persuade Jamaica to extradite an alleged drug kingpin

By David Paulin

It should have been a routine extradition request between countries with friendly relations. Six months ago, the United States asked Jamaica to extradite an alleged drug lord and arms trafficker based in Kingston, the capital. The alleged crime boss, Christopher Michael Coke, 40, is regarded by the U.S. Department of Justice as one of the world's “most dangerous narcotics kingpins.”

Coke – also known as “General,” “President, “Duddus” and "Shortman" -- is as well known to Jamaicans as was crime boss John Gotti to New Yorkers. Ostensibly, Coke is a legitimate businessman. But according to an indictment unsealed last August by the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Coke has since the early 1990s led an international crime ring called the "Shower Posse." The group distributes cocaine, marijuana, and crack in New York City and elsewhere, while smuggling arms back to Jamaica, according to the indictment, citing intercepted phone conversations and other evidence.

In Kingston, Coke controls a “garrison community” in the Tivoli Garden's area -- “a barricaded neighborhood guarded by a group of armed gunmen,” said the indictment. “These gunmen act at Coke's direction. Coke arms them with firearms he imports illegally, via a wharf located adjacent to Tivoli Gardens. Coke also distributes firearms to other area leaders of other sections of Kingston, Jamaica.”

Presumably, Jamaica's political leaders would be eager to get rid of Coke. After all, they're ostensibly committed to combating the international war on drugs. Jamaica's drug trade helps to fuel one of the world's highest murder rates on the island of 2.7 million people.

Yet Jamaica has yet to extradite Coke – and it seems reluctant to do so. The likely reason has been widely discussed in Jamaica's news media and is implicitly acknowledged by U.S. officials: Coke has political ties to Jamaica's ruling Jamaica Labor Party. He is part of what might be called Jamaica's thug culture. That culture, according to a State Department report on the international drug trade, has compromised elected officials, the police, and legitimate businesses.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

James O'Keefe and the Fourth Estate's Double Standards

By David Paulin

Lying, cheating, stealing -- all have been employed by gung-ho members of the Fourth Estate for the sake of the public's right to know. Indeed, reporters for top media outlets have masqueraded over the years as workmen, students, and even bar tenders in their effort to expose corrupt officials and misdeeds -- and to, of course, get a good story (and maybe some coveted journalism awards).

Well, who could imagine such journalistic shenanigans in light of the way the mainstream media is portraying James O’Keefe III, 25, the videographer who became famous for exposing Acorn, the liberal community organizing group.

O'Keefe is facing federal charges along with three young colleagues for allegedly attempting to "tamper" with (not "bug" as the Washington Post initially had gleefully reported) the phone system of Senator Mary L. Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat. Two of them entered the senator’s New Orleans office pretending to be repairmen.

O'Keefe said the group was investigating whether Sen. Landrieu had been ducking constituent complaints last December by claiming her phone system was overloaded. He admitted to using poor judgment in respect to his investigative tactics.

So how does the New York Times portray O'Keefe and his young colleagues in a front-page story on Sunday? They're pigeonholed as being members of an exotic subculture - "conservative activists." And according to the Times, members of this subculture are willing to push the envelope in their determination to expose hypocrisy, foolishness, and other misdeeds among their targets – liberals.

The Times' headline sums things up along these lines: "From High Jinks to Handcuffs/A Provocative Conservative Movement Born on Campus." Oh, and by the way, the Times also published the mens' mug shots.

“I could have used a different approach to this investigation," O'Keefe is quoted as saying. But the nation's paragon of journalistic integrity then points out: "that approach was precisely the kind that he and others have been perfecting for years, a kind of gonzo journalism or a conservative version of “Candid Camera.”

Indeed, the Times explains:

Those methods took root on college campuses in the latter half of George W. Bush’s presidency, fostered by a group of men and women in their late teens and early 20s with a taste for showmanship and a shared sense of political alienation — a sort of political reverse image of the left-wing Yippies of the 1960s. They studied leftist activism of years past as their prototype, looking to the tactics of Saul Alinsky, the Chicago community organizer who laid the framework for grass-roots activism in the ’60s, as well as those of gay rights and even Communist groups."

The Times, however, fails to mention something -- and that is that the tactics and flair for showmanship demonstrated by O'Keefe and like-minded conservative students share much in common with the mainstream media itself.

Consider some examples:

In 1978, the Chicago Sun-Times opened a sleazy bar operated by undercover reporters determined to expose rampant corruption in the Windy City. And soon enough, just as they'd expected, every petty official in Chicago was coming around with his hand open.

The Sun-Times' dynamite investigative series was described by an article in Time magazine:

Bribes flowed like beer...For just $10, the fire inspector was willing to ignore the exposed electrical wiring. For $50, the plumbing inspector "fixed" the leaky pipes, and for $100, the ventilation inspector overlooked $2,000 worth of necessary duct work. Jukebox and pinball purveyors not only offered kickbacks but showed the new management how to skim off profits.

The Sun-Times had hoped to snag a Pulitzer Prize for the series of articles it wrote about its bar, appropriately named the "Mirage." But some members of the Pulitzer board denied the paper America's highest journalism honor, believing its bar sting exceeded the envelope of acceptable journalism ethics.

Touching on the controversy, an article in the Milwaukee Journal pointed out that journalistic deceit – undertaken for the public good -- has a long tradition. At top news outlets, it pointed out, reporters have masqueraded as Congressmen, graduate students, and assembly line workers.

However, it noted that editors remain divided over whether such "masquerades" are ethical or unethical.

Such ethical hairsplitting can be the least of a news organization's problems when mainstream editors decide, like O'Keefe did, to push the envelope. In 1998, for instance, The Cincinnati Enquirer did an exposé on Chiquita Brands International Inc., portraying it as a heartless multinational. But the fruit company had the last laugh after it turned out that an Enquirer reporter on the story was involved in the theft of voice mails from Chiquita, or as the paper later admitted: "was involved in the theft of this information in violation of the law."

Among other things, the Enquirer paid Chiquita $10 million; fired the story's lead reporter; and published a front-page apology for three days in a row that said its story had ''created a false and misleading impression of Chiquita's business practices.”

All in all, the Enquirer's story sounds like one that would have made Saul Alinsky proud.

As for O'Keefe, there's no denying that he exceeded the envelope of his own advocacy journalism. Next time, he might try a safer story, like maybe following the Sun-Times' example and setting up a sleazy topless bar (with hidden cameras) near the U.S. Capital Building. Members of Congress would get discounted lap dances and booze.

Would such a sting operation be ethical? If you say no -- "unethical" -- then answer another question: Would you still want to watch the video captured by the hidden cameras?

O'Keefe and his colleagues, I'll bet, know the answer to that one.

This was originally published at The American Thinker.

Will New York Times Readers Pay for Online Content?

By David Paulin

Struggling to turn a profit and stop a hemorrhage of buyouts and layoffs, the New York Times just announced that it will be charging readers to access some of its content next year. The details have yet to be worked out. However, it seems that readers will receive free access to a certain number of articles, and after that they'll have to pay to read "All the News that's Fit to Print."

Will it work?

Obviously, it depends on whether readers think the Times' journalism is worth paying for, and it depends as well on how much the Times will be charging. The conservative Wall Street Journal -- unlike the ultraliberal Times -- charges a hefty subscription rate for its popular online content, and the Journal also happens to be the nation's biggest circulation newspaper.

Let's admit something. The Times does occasionally pull off some first-rate journalism, even as its conservative critics rightly criticize it for the liberal spin it puts on its supposedly objective news articles. However, first-rate journalism alone does not necessarily mean that loyal Times readers will be willing to cough up a subscription fee.

I say that based on who the Times readers are (compared to those of the Wall Street Journal), and I say that based on a regular look that I take of the most e-mailed articles at the Times and Journal.

To paraphrase an old saying: Show me who your readers are, and I'll show you who you are. Well, take a look at some of the most e-mailed article at the Times and Journal, and it obviously says something about what's important those papers readers, and it says something about their values and worldview. This of course raises another question: Would these readers be willing to pay for the types of stories that they are so quick to e-mail?

Here are some of the most e-mailed stories from the Wall Street Journal and New York Times from January 20, 2010:

Wall Street Journal:
1. Opinion: Boston Tea Party
2. Opinion: Lanny J. Davis: Blame the Left for Massachusetts
3. Opinion: The Message of Massachusetts
4. Opinion: Terry Miller: The U.S. Isn't as Free as It Used to Be
5. Unfinished Projects Weigh on Banks
6. How to Buy Disability Insurance
7. GOP Victory Upends Senate
8. May I Hate the Saints?
9. Opinion: Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus
10. Opinion: The Great D.C. Migration

New York Times:

1. If Your Kids Are Awake, They’re Probably Online

2. DE GUSTIBUS: Snack Time Never Ends

3. The Times to Charge for Frequent Access to Its Web Site

4. More Men Marrying Wealthier Women

5. You Saw What in ‘Avatar’? Pass Those Glasses!

6. Op-Ed Contributor: Taxing Wall Street Down to Size

7. G.O.P. Senate Victory Stuns Democrats

8. Thomas L. Friedman: Is China an Enron? (Part 2)

9. DINING & WINE: The Balkan Burger Unites All Factions

10. INTERNATIONAL / EUROPE. The Female Factor: In Germany, a Tradition Falls, and Women Rise

This originally ran as a blog item at The American Thinker.

'BUSH VISION'
All About My Excellent Botswana Safari



By David Paulin

It's called "bush vision" in Africa.

White men don't have it. But native Africans raised in the bush do. That's what an ex-game warden named Keith Rowles told me at a photographic safari camp he operates near Botswana's Moremi Wildlife Reserve.

Most wildlife blends easily into its surroundings thanks to its natural colors, strips and spots. But Rowles said native Botswanans seemed blessed with superhuman eyesight — "bush vision" — that made them extraordinary game spotters.

"I've never seen a white man yet who could spot game nearly as well as these native guides." he said. I was skeptical. But a few days later, at another camp some 40 minutes away by light plane, a native guide named Raymond offered dramatic proof of Rowles' claim one hot afternoon.

I was hiking with two vacationing Americans, a foreign service officer and his wife. Raymond, about 19 or 20 years old, was leading us along an elephant trail that meandered across a plain of tall grass on a huge tree dotted island.

The hike had been disappointing compared to others I'd taken. No wildlife was in sight; the animals had taken cover from the blazing sun. We'd started out too late in the day to see much of anything.

I blamed Raymond.

We'd met him that morning, and he'd failed to make a good first impression. At other safari camps I'd visited, the guides were athletic and self-assured men in their 30s. All had led hunting safaris. But Raymond had a boyish face and lanky body. With his perpetual smile, he seemed more suited for a job at the Kentucky Fried Chicken in the capital city of Gabarone.

My doubts about Raymond multiplied during our 30-minute delta boat ride to the island, much of it through barely passable, reed-choked channels. Reeds slapped across the boat, forcing us to duck and push them aside. A few times, the boat's motor conked out.

"How long has it been anybody has gone down this channel?" the foreign service officer asked. Like myself, he wondered if we'd blundered down the wrong channel and become lost. Raymond merely shrugged, then beached the boat on the island we'd been approaching. We disembarked and started along an elephant trail.

It had also bothered me that Raymond carried no rifle, although guides at other camps I'd visited had carried them. But then, as we neared a grove of trees just ahead on the elephant trail, Raymond's bush vision and judgment suddenly proved more valuable than any rifle.

"Stop here please", he said.

Staring straight ahead, his eyes searched a grove of trees 300 yards away. He lifted his binoculars.

"Under those trees. Lions."

Startled, we quickly scanned the tree line. We couldn't detect the lions. We raised our binoculars. Even then, Raymond had to provide detailed instructions. After a few minutes, I finally spotted them — several lionesses sprawled lazily about with their cubs. With their yellowish hides, they blended perfectly into the bush. We would have blundered right into them had we been hiking alone.

Then I noticed one big lioness: She was alert, craning her neck upwards staring intently at us. I wondered if she was curious or sizing us up as potential prey. The foreign service officer spotted them next and mumbled something to himself. His wife never did spot them.

"Where are they?" she kept repeating.

The lions were a fair way off. But we couldn't help feeling a bit vulnerable, isolated on that island, without a gun, led by a guide who seemed woefully lacking in experience.

After ten minutes, Raymond — who quietly had been taking in the situation — led us off on an angle back toward our boat.

We'd only gone a few hundred yards when we spotted about 20 agitated wildebeest under some trees, backing into a defensive circle.

"Tonight," Raymond assured us, "those lions will kill one of those wildebeest."

That evening I asked our safari operator why Raymond carried no rifle.

"We think a gun can get you into trouble more often than it will get you out of trouble, " he said.

I was unconvinced. Still, if I had to go into the bush unarmed, I'd want to go with Raymond.

A week earlier, I had arrived in Botswana from the United States to write about its wildlife and small tourism industry. A relatively prosperous African nation, Botswana's economy is primarily fueled by rich diamond mines and cattle production. Tourism accounts for just 2.5 percent of its gross national product.

Botswana was never colonized, so it was spared the growing pains that still afflict other African nations. Today, the landlocked country of 1.2 million people has a democratic, multi-party, non-racial system. Beggars and violent crime are virtually non-existent in Gabarone, the capital of 120,000.

Only beyond Botswana's borders does one find Africa's darker side— AIDS epidemics civil war, famine and racial violence.

Most people have heard of the fabled Kalahari Desert, an area of brush, grass and sand that dominates some 70 percent of Botswana. But many are unaware it's next to Botswana's verdant Okavango Delta, which is nourished by the Okavango River from Angola to the north. Many nature films are made in both areas, not to mention the comedy film of a few years ago, "The Gods Must Be Crazy," about a hapless Kalahari Bushman who walks through Northern Botswana to majestic Victoria Falls —420 feet high and more than a mile wide— on Botswana's northern border.

One reason Botswana remains a somewhat off-beat safari destination is its conservationists' tourism policy. Forty percent of its land has been set aside for wildlife preservation, and 17 percent of that land includes game reserves where hunting is prohibited.

In addition, Botswana limits the private safari camps dotting the country to mostly small, upscale facilities — reflecting its "high-end, low-volume" tourism policy At the four camps I visited, no more than 20 guests were allowed, so it was eommon to view game with just a few other guests.

For two people, a typical eight-day photographic safari in the Okavango Delta costs $4,000 to $5,000, which includes meals and light-plane transportation to two or three camps.

Like most tourists in Botswana, my safari started in Maun, a dusty frontier town on the edge of the delta, whose modern airport is a staging area for most safari operators. From Maun, it's a short light plane ride to grass airstrips near safari camps dotting the delta.

Our young, rangy Australian bush pilot packed six of us into a single engine Cessna 210. "Well, we're already too heavy for that bag," he told one alarmed female passenger. "But if you can squeeze it up front I guess we'll be okay." And then we roared off into the African wilderness, flying at 3,000 feet over the flat green delta.

Thirty minutes later, we started our final approach toward a grass airstrip a few miles from Shinde Island camp, operated by Texas-based safari operator Ker & Downey.

My hands clenched the seat when I noticed a number of deer-like animals grazing on the grass airstrip, and I wondered if the pilot saw them. But he landed anyway, and the deer ambled slowly out of the way.

The pilot steered to the left and right keeping a safe distance from the few stragglers who were unconcerned by the whirling proeller and roaring engine. "Those were springbok," the pilot told me later. "They usually get out of the way. But some animals don't want to move. So you have to buzz the runway a few times to shoo them off."

A delta boat then whisked me and four other guests across reed-lined channels and ox-bow lakes for 20 minutes. We pulled up to the dock at a shady tree-dotted camp, where guests stay in 10 African-style tents with adjoining bathrooms.

Camp manager Philip Davies, his wife and their uniformed native staff lined up to greet us. Women employees led us to our quarters, balancing our bags on their heads. We joined the Davies for lunch in an open air lodge, during which we got a real treat—the inspiring sight of five bachelor elephants, 150 yards away, ambling majestically across the grassy plain facing our camp.

"Do you ever get tired of that?" I asked Davies, a Welshman and retired banker who spent his banking career in Africa, but who now runs Shinde Island for the fun of it. They live in a tent for several months of the year, their only connection to the outside world a radio and BBC broadcasts.

"No," Davies smiled. "You never do. We have a home back in England with all the comforts. A TV and VCR. But we're happy here."

Unlike East Africa, where migrating herds of animals darken the plains, Botswana's herds are small. I never saw more than 40 or so animals together. Camps are in areas where hunting is prohibited, so animals remain calm if people remain a respectful distance.

One evening at Tsaro Lodge, a row of stone bungalows near the Moremi Wildlife Reserve, camp manager Keith Rowles took two other guests and me out in search of a nearby lion kill. Rowles warned us that lions might be about. A nearby herd of grazing impalas and leehwes had vanished, and the area had grown unusually quiet.

His suspicions were confirmed at 10 p.m. when he spotted a lioness drinking from a small pond - a few hundred feet from the group's dinner table.

"Oh, what excitement!" said Mrs. Rowles, as we climbed aboard our four-wheel-drive safari vehicle. Our headlights funneled into the darkness on one of those wonderful, unexpected adventures that makes a safari so memorable.

A few hundred yards away, we found the lions in a grassy clearing. We drew within 50 feet of them. They ignored us. Rowles beamed a search light over the bloody scene. One big lioness, her eyes glowing, gnawed on the ravaged belly of a young zebra. The others were asleep, scattered lazily about on their sides, their bellies bulging with meat. The next day, Mrs. Rowles said she heard a zebra mother crying for her lost child.

At some safari camps, it's not always necessary to search out game. Sometimes, it comes to you, much to the annoyance of most camp managers.

One afternoon at Shinde Island, I was sipping tea with the Davies in the camp's lodge when an elephant nicknamed Harry strolled amiably toward us across the grassy plain. His ears flapped, his trunk swayed.

Nobody could quite remember how Harry got his name. But one thing was certain: He liked to visit the shady camp to take a nap or bash his head against a palm tree to knock down its tasty fruit.

Once he had chased a young American yuppie couple, who'd startled Harry awake early one morning when they jogged along a path where he was napping. The irate couple wanted Harry shot. But the Davies spared the elephant, though they banished him from the camp. A "no jogging" policy was strictly enforced thereafter.

So that afternoon, when Harry ambled within 100 yards, Mr. Davies charged out of the lodge — confronting Harry on the edge of the plain. He shouted loudly, clapped his hands, furiously waved his floppy hat.

Harry stopped, shook his head. He pawed the ground, obviously confused. After a few minutes, Harry reluctantly turned around, ambling away with a stately gait.

Such stories about life in the bush are common, and for me they were as much a part of my safari as the wildlife. One night during dinner at Shinde Island, I sat near an unassuming native guide named Galabone (pronounced Hala-Boney). A year earlier, he'd been badly mauled by a wounded lion he'd been tracking with a hunter.

Galabone, who was hospitalized for some time, said the lion attacked him instead of the hunter, because it knew he was the tracker. He quit hunting.

And the stories are humorous. At a Ker & Downey camp called Pom Pom, I slept fitfully my first night in the bush, being unaccustomed to the deep rumbling snorts of hippos in a nearby lagoon.

Although my tent was tightly zipped up, I dreamed of grinning hippos poking their snouts into my tent.

"Hippos kill more people in Africa than lions," camp manager Brian Kemp had warned earlier, when advising guests to stay put after turning in.

Two weeks earlier, a middle-aged British couple who had used the tent I was now using took that advice one night. They bolted awake when a tree crashed across their tent, collapsing part of it.

Huddling together, they listened most of the night to a loud munching sound. They were too stoic to yell for help.

The next morning, they learned a hungry elephant knocked down the tree and eaten its leaves. They returned with one of many great stories to tell.

So did I.

McDonald's and the Berlin Wall

By David Paulin

The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago, and among those credited with paving the way for that spellbinding event were Ronald Reagan and to a lesser extent Soviet reformer Mikhail Gorbachev. Yet recent media accounts largely overlooked the role that another major player had in helping to bring down the Wall and rebuild a ravaged economy.

It was McDonald's: the all-American restaurant chain with its iconic golden arches – the global food retailer that leftist elites love to hate.

Twenty years ago this week – days after the Berlin Wall fell on Monday, Nov. 9, 1989 – a McDonald's in the sleepy West Germany town of Hof served as a beacon of American-style freedom to thousands of celebrating East Germans – a fact touched upon in a recent Wall Street
Journal article: "As Wall Crumbled, Berliners Rebuilt Their Lives."

To those new customers, the golden arches were what the paper called a "siren of capitalism's long-forbidden fruits.” They'd seen television ads from West Germany, it noted, and so they “were familiar with McDonald's and other images of tantalizing Western products just out of reach.”

"We were overrun," recalled Klaus Rader, McDonald's 26-year-old owner at the time.” Within hours, he'd sold out of hamburgers and fries.

However, it wasn't just Big Macs and fries that were in big demand, because as the Journal noted: “Once the border was open, eastern Germans' consumption of iconic Western brands went into overdrive.”

Rader, for his part, wondered what dizzying profits awaited him if he opened a McDonald's in the former East Germany.

On a certain visceral level, all those wide-eyed East Germans flocking to McDonald's had no doubt learned an important lesson under communism: political and economic freedom are inextricably bound together.

Who were those wide-eyed East Germans heading straight to McDonald's? Not surprisingly, the Journal noted they were “ordinary” folks. And presumably, there were no smiling communist elites among them – and nor any of their cheerleaders and secret admirers in the West.

Today, McDonald's is more popular than ever overseas: sales have been strong over the years in Europe, Asia, and even the Middle East. And at home and abroad, McDonald's loyal customers are the same “ordinary” folks who mobbed Klaus Rider's McDonald's in Hof.

Yet curiously, a striking perception gap exists in respect to McDonald's and the public. It's loyal and ordinary customers enjoy its fast service, clean facilities, and cheerful employees serving all-American meals. On the other hand, there are those high-minded McDonald's haters: Leftist elites in American and abroad. It's not just the food they dislike, though. To them, McDonald's symbolizes all that's wrong with American-style capitalism.

They haughtily disparage McDonald's as a soulless purveyor of homogenized tastes, bland food, and assembly-line production. It's also an example of America's “economic imperialism,” they say. That critique, however, ignores one of McDonald's bragging rights -- more than 75 percent of its overseas restaurants are owned and operated by independent franchises, local men and women.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

Guantanamo torture songs: How effective might they have been?

By David Paulin

Get ready for more details about the horrors allegedly inflected upon hapless Guantanamo prisoners during the Bush years. As the Washington Post recently reported, the National Security Archive, a Washington-based independent research institute, has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the declassification of government records that may reveal what songs were blasted at prisoners -- for hours and even days at a time – as part of interrogations or punishment.

The FOIA request was made in behalf of what the Security Archive's website called a "coalition of U.S. and international musicians, including R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Tom Morello and Jackson Browne." In all, the group includes dozens of top recording artists and bands.

According to the Post, some of the songs played at Guantanamo may have been Don McLean's “American Pie”; Bruce Springsteen's “Born in the U.S.A”; the “Sesame Street” theme song; and even the "Meow Mix” jingle from the TV commercial for cat food. (If you've forgotten the "Meow Mix" song, you can listen to it here. (Warning: If you're one of those who sometimes gets a song stuck in your head, don't listen to “Meow Mix” more than once.)

The Security Archive's executive director, Thomas Blanton, said: "At Guantanamo, the U.S. government turned a jukebox into an instrument of torture. The musicians and the public have the right to know how an expression of popular culture was transformed into an enhanced interrogation technique."

The use of music at Guantanamo raises a question: Just how effective might a song be in getting a prisoner or enemy combatant to reveal secrets? An answer of sorts is provided in a 1961 Billy Wilder movie, "One, Two, Three." A hilarious and biting satire of East-West relations during the Cold War, “One, Two, Three” featured a gripping scene in which East German police use an American pop song to extract a confession from a young East German student -- a dedicated communist named Otto who despises American culture.

Otto's interrogators, in their choice of music, obviously knew what buttons to push to get the student to make a confession -- and in this case a false one: that he's an “American spy.” The "decadent" American song they played again and again was a 1960 pop hit: "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini."

You can judge for yourself from this famous scene in “One, Two, Three” just how effective the right song might be in loosening up a prisoner.



Interestingly, "Yellow Polka Dot Bikini," according to Wikipedia, was re-released in 1962 to capitalize on the success of "One, Two, Three." However, the song failed to land on the charts as it had when released two years earlier.

Perhaps public revelations about what songs were blasted at Guantanamo prisoners will ultimately give a boost to the careers of aging recording artists demanding to know if their songs were indeed used -- and were part of what one recording artist called a "crime against humanity."

Author's Note: To hear the full version of "Polka Dot Bikini" sung by Connie Francis, click here. For a Swedish version of "Polka dot Bikini" by Lill-Babs, click here. And for a German version by Gaby Baginsky, click here. The trailer for "One, Two, Three" may be seen here. This article was originally published by the American Thinker.

Zogby poll raises concerns over Mexican immigration

By David Paulin

Why do many Mexican immigrants -- legal and illegal -- have trouble assimilating into American culture? Most of the 10 to 12 million Hispanics estimated to be here illegally are from Mexico. How would granting them amnesty affect future illegal immigration -- especially from Mexico?

Recently, polling firm Zogby International surveyed more than 1,000 Mexican adults across Mexico. The idea was to get the opinions of the average man and woman on the street – all to better understand America's immigration debate from a Mexican point of view, according to the Center for Immigration Studies of Washington, D.C. The conservative think tank is now reporting the results of the Zogby poll.

According to CIS, the survey was the first of its kind to get the opinions of Mexicans, including those entertaining the possibility of immigrating to America illegally.

Many Americans may find the views that Mexicans have on immigration and America unsettling -- and even disturbing.

Critics of an amnesty for illegal immigrants contend it would only encourage more illegal immigration. Well, surprise, surprise: That's just what the average Mexican on the street thinks, too.

According to CIS: "A clear majority of people in Mexico, 56 percent, thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally.”

In addition, the think tank stated that: “Of Mexicans with a member of their immediate household in the United States, 65 percent said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally.”

And that raises another question: Just how many more Mexicans would like to immigrate to America? According to CIS: "Interest in going to the United States remains strong even in the current recession, with 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could. At present, 12 to 13 million Mexico-born people live in the United States.”

Most Americans would be shocked by how the majority of Mexicans felt about America. According to CIS:

* "An overwhelming majority (69 percent) of people in Mexico thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) should be to Mexico. Just 20 percent said it should be to the United States. The rest were unsure."

* "Also, 69 percent of people in Mexico felt that the Mexican government should represent the interests of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) in the United States."

CIS noted that "the perspective of people in Mexico is important because Mexico is the top sending country for both legal and illegal immigrants.

"In 2008, one of six new legal immigrants was from Mexico and, according to the Department of Homeland Security, six out of 10 illegal immigrants come from that country."

CIS noted there are now “10 to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, seven million of whom are estimated to have come from Mexico. But this poll suggests that many people who might like to come have not done so. This could be seen as an indication that enforcement efforts are effective."

The results of the survey are sure to add to concerns raised by Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in his 2005 book "Who are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity."

He wrote:

"The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages. Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S. culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves—from Los Angeles to Miami—and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril.”

He also published a related essay, “The Hispanic Challenge,” in Foreign Policy magazine. It prompted liberals to all but accuse him of being a racist and xenophobe.

The Zogby survey had a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent, “for a 95 percent confidence level,” CIS noted.

This was originally published at the American Thinker.

The Nobel Committee and Anti-Americanism


What can explain the Nobel committee's decision -- one that's even got liberals shaking their heads in disbelief? At bottom, the decision is really about anti-Americanism -- and an excellent article in the Weekly Standard touched upon that very issue earlier this week. Jean Kaufman's article -- "Reagan and Obama: Is America a city on a hill or a country in decline?" -- had a number of compelling explanations for why Obama, and his worldview, made the legs of the Nobel committee members tingle. Obama, she wrote, sees America

...as a nation conceived in original sin, one that has gone on to commit offenses against the world for which it must now atone. And Obama views himself as the special instrument through which America can finally purify herself, join the world of other nations as an equal rather than a leader, and go forth and sin no more.

She added:

...Mitt Romney, speaking at a recent Foreign Policy Initiative conference, indicated "that Obama

shares the view of certain 'foreign-policy circles' that American is 'in decline' and that it is his job to manage America's decline. But that doesn't quite capture the flavor of Obama's mission. Obama is not merely observing a downward trend and trying to shepherd this nation through the process. He believes such a downward direction is the morally proper one for America and Americans, the only way we can be forgiven our manifold sins and emerge purified through humility and sacrifice. Obama also believes that he is the special instrument by which the nation can accomplish this transformation. That, more than any specific policy on any specific issue, is the goal of Obama's presidency: the shriving and humbling of America. That is what Obama means by "fundamental change."

This was originally published at the American Thinker blog.