Turkish Forum

Category: News

  • Erdoğan is on a lonely path to ruin. Will he take Turkey down with him?

    Erdoğan is on a lonely path to ruin. Will he take Turkey down with him?

    The Observer

    Simon Tisdall

    At odds with the US, Europe, his Arab neighbours and potentially Russia, too, the president is also increasingly unpopular at home
    Recep Tayyip Erdoğan addresses his supporters at a ceremony marking the third anniversary of the attempted coup. Photograph: Murad Sezer/Reuters

    For a reputed “strongman”, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seems unusually nervous these days. A bombastic speech last week marking the third anniversary of a failed military putsch could not conceal his insecurity. He says he is using his sweeping powers as executive president to build a “new Turkey”. But it appears the old one is tiring of him fast.

    “The 15th of July was an attempt to subject our nation to slavery,” Erdoğan declared. “But as much as we will never stop protecting our freedom and our future, those who lay traps for us will never cease their efforts.” It was a typical pitch, blending nationalism with scare stories of secret foes, foreign and domestic.

    Erdoğan remains convinced his enemies are out to get him – and in the manner of all dictators, conflates his personal prospects with those of the state. The latest villains in this self-centred drama are the country’s American and European allies who, as he tells it, seek to subjugate both him and the proudly rising Turkish nation. But freedom is a fungible concept in Erdoğan’s Turkey. Tens of thousands of supposed plotters have been jailed pending trial since 2016. More than 100,000 public sector workers have been suspended or sacked. Another purge preceded the coup anniversary, with more than 200 military personnel and civilians accused of treason.

    Particular concern is focused on Turkey’s justice system. Britain’s Law Society, citing the “widespread and systematic persecution of members of the legal profession”, has reported Turkey to the UN human rights council. Journalists have suffered similar intimidation. Most Turkish media now tamely toe the government line.

    Erdoğan has good cause to worry – but the real reason may be simpler: he has made a dreadful hash of things. During 16 consecutive years in power, Turkey’s modern caliph has driven the economy into chronic debt, played regional power-broker with chaotic results, and scapegoated the Kurds for his failures. Now the bill is coming due.

    Turkey remains in recession following last year’s calamitous currency crisis, amid fears a new financial crunch is imminent. Unemployment and inflation are high and business is slack. Erdoğan’s sacking last week of the central bank governor was seen as a sign he will persist with his discredited strategy of spurring growth with borrowed money.

    For the first time in years, his political grip is threatened. Erdoğan’s ruling AKP suffered local election losses in five of the six largest cities in March. He was humiliated again last month in Istanbul’s re-run mayoral election. And his monopoly on power makes it harder to shift responsibility to others.

    External affairs is another disaster area. Scoring a spectacular double last week, Erdoğan fell out with both the US and the EU in the space of a few days. In Washington’s case, the row was over Nato member Turkey’s decision to buy a Russian ground-to-air missile system. Some analysts suggest Erdoğan wanted to demonstrate Turkey’s independence. Others put it down to paranoia. He reportedly still suspects Washington of tacitly supporting the coup and protecting its US-based alleged leader, Fethullah Gülen.

    Whatever his motives, the missile purchase led the US to cancel a sale of F-35 jets and threaten more sanctions. The cost to the Turkish defence industry, which would have made some aircraft components, is put at $9bn. Bigger still, potentially, is the cost to Nato. The foreign ministry in Ankara warned on Wednesday of “irreparable damage”.

    Erdoğan’s always tense relations with the EU, strained by the Syrian refugee crisis, underwent a simultaneous rupture. After Ankara ignored Cypriot warnings not to drill for oil and gas in eastern Mediterranean waters that Nicosia claims as its own, EU foreign ministers imposed yet more sanctions.

    The notoriously combative Erdoğan has fallen out with many regional neighbours over the years, including Syria, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Greece. To break with the US and Europe in the same week is some achievement, even by his choleric standards. Yet Erdoğan supporters claim it’s part of a deliberate plan to boost Turkey’s independent standing in the world.

    On this analysis, Erdoğan’s cosying up to Russia’s Vladimir Putin puts the US on notice that Turkey has strategic alternatives. It could help the economy, which needs Russian trade and tourism. And it suits Ankara’s policy in Syria where, despite being on opposite sides, Turkey has collaborated with Russia and Iran.

    But this apparent tilt towards Moscow may yet prove another big miscalculation. Erdoğan says he wants to stay friends with the US and be part of Nato – but has sowed grave doubts about his dependability. Meanwhile, Russian and Syrian regime forces have begun an offensive against rebels and Islamists in Idlib, Aleppo and Hama provinces, in north-west Syria. The offensive contravenes a ceasefire agreed with Erdoğan last September that set up a demilitarised zone inside Syria overseen by Turkey. Its forces were attacked in two separate incidents in May. Fighting in Idlib has since intensified amid renewed civilian atrocities.

    Russia and Syria aim to finally bring the civil war to an end by storming the last rebel areas. Erdoğan’s aim is to extend Turkish-controlled “safe areas” eastwards along the Turkey-Syria border in order to hold Kurdish “terrorists” at bay – and prevent another refugee exodus. These aims look increasingly incompatible.

    At odds with the US, Europe, his Arab neighbours and potentially Russia, too, and increasingly unpopular at home, no-mates Erdoğan is treading a lonely, destructive path towards a strategic and political dead end. The looming question is whether he will take Turkey down with him.

  • The Global Map of All Nuclear Explosions Conducted From 1945 to 2019

    The Global Map of All Nuclear Explosions Conducted From 1945 to 2019

    There have been over 2 thousand nuclear explosion sites registered worldwide ever since the first nuclear missile had been tested on July 16, 1945 at the White Sands Missile Range in the New Mexico desert, United States. Despite several attempts of establishing a worldwide ban on nuclear testing on a global scale due to the devastating environmental and health effects these cause, several countries continue carrying out nuclear testing, with one of the largest tests in North Korea having been executed as recently as 2017. This series of 3D maps will help you visualize every known nuclear explosion since 1945 in the form of colored points of light illuminating the surrounding location and provides a brief outline of nuclear explosions in each distinct area. These maps were created by Peter Artwood,

    The Global Map of All Nuclear Explosions Conducted From 1945 to 2019

          The map above shows all the nuclear explosions carried out since 1945 on a global scale. Each point of color in the map signifies an explosion and is color-coordinated with a specific country that conducted it. On a global scale, the only continents where no nuclear explosions had occurred were South America and Antarctica.

    The USSR

      Source: Peter Artwood The Soviet Union was one of the two leading countries that conducted nuclear experiments, the second one being the United States. These experiments were conducted on 2 major sites: the Semipalatinsk Test Site in modern-day Kazakhstan and the Novaya Zemlya site in Russia. Official data reports mention a total of 715 tests and 13 test failures involving 969 devices being conducted in the USSR between 1949 and 1991. Above, you can see the map of the Semipalatinsk site, the first nuclear site in the USSR located in the Kazakh steppes that accepted 456 tests. With Kazakhstan having become independent in 1991, the venue was transformed into a site for scientific observations exploring the long-term environmental effects of nuclear exposure.

      Source: Peter Artwood As for the Novaya Zemlya venue located in the Arctic (see image below), 224 tests, only half the number compared to Semipalatinsk, occurred there. However, the site accepted the largest thermonuclear weapon in the world in 1961, the Tsar Bomba that had a yield of 50 megatons. For comparison, the Fat Man dropped on Hiroshima was over 2,000 times less powerful than the Tsar Bomba.

    The United States

      Source: Peter Artwood As part of the nuclear arms race, the United States had conducted 1.054 tests, including some that were carried out in the water and in space between 1945 and 1992. As mentioned previously, the first ever atomic weapon, the Trinity, was tested in the New Mexico desert as part of the Manhattan Project, but the largest nuclear testing venue in the United States is located in the Nevada desert, only 80 mi (130 km) away from Las Vegas. A total of 928 tests were conducted there between 1951 and 1992, making it the place on the planet that suffered the greatest number of nuclear explosions to date. Not all nuclear tests conducted by the US took place there, however, as some particularly large ones would just be too dangerous.

    Source: Peter Artwood So, instead, these were done on the Marshall Islands in the South Pacific, an area that would be called the Pacific Proving Ground. 106 nuclear tests were conducted across numerous island chains there, including the test of Castle Bravo, the largest American nuclear bomb that had a yield of 15 megatons in 1954.

    France

      Source: Peter Artwood The third country in the world that conducted the largest number of nuclear experiments between 1960 and 1996 was France, but it didn’t do it in Europe. Instead, the French used its colonies, such as French Polynesia in the South Pacific and Algeria in North Africa to test its 217 nuclear devices.

    The United Kingdom

      Source: Peter Artwood Like France, the United Kingdom conducted its nuclear tests beyond its borders, with a total of 24 tests having been conducted at the Nevada Test Site in collaboration with the United States, and another 21 carried out independently in Australia. The UK was the third country to develop nuclear weapons after the US and the USSR. The Australian tests were conducted in remote places like Maralinga in South Australia, Kiritimati in the Pacific and others between the years 1952 and 1957.

    India and Pakistan

      Source: Peter Artwood Areas adjacent to the border between India and Pakistan are considered some of the most dangerous and polluted nuclear sites, partly because both are quite densely populated. Both India and Pakistan have conducted 6 nuclear tests each during the 1990s, but these tests have affected the population and environment of both countries very significantly.

    China

      Source: Peter Artwood As for China, it carried out 45 tests in Northern China at the Lop Nur facility. These tests carried on between 1964 and 1996. About half of these tests were conducted underground, whereas the rest were atmospheric tests.

    North Korea

      Source: Peter Artwood

    Since the 1990’s, the majority of countries have seized to test nuclear weapons. One exception is North Korea: it conducted the first nuclear test in 2006, which was then followed up by 5 subsequent tests, all underground, at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site. The last and simultaneously largest test was done in 2017.

    The environmental and health effects of all these nuclear tests have affected the adjacent areas and local population adversely. We still don’t understand how these explosions will affect the Earth and humans in the long term, but spikes of health issues, sudden deaths, and devastating environmental damage are already apparent around all of these testing sites. If you’d like to see a different approach to visualizing the timeline of nuclear explosions, click the play button on the video below.

  • “Who Lost Turkey?”

    “Who Lost Turkey?”

    SevilKaplun <skaplun>  Posts by Graham E. Fuller:

    “Who Lost Turkey?”

    August 6, 2019by Graham E. Fuller • Blog • Tags: Eurasia, Iran, NATO, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, US foreign policy •

    “Who Lost Turkey?”

    Graham E. Fuller (grahamefuller.com

    5 August 2019

    Here we go again, another phase of witch-hunting over “Who lost —-(fill in the blanks) country.” It was once who lost China in 1949, then Cuba in 1959, then Iran in 1979, and others. The latest iteration is now “Who lost Turkey?”

    This question classically pops up whenever a country we thought was firmly locked into the “American camp” suddenly turns against us. Washington policy makers indeed seem to believe that, among rational nations, strategic allegiance with the US is in the natural order of things. Any defection from such an alliance is not supposed to happen, and if it ever does, “who is to blame?” How could Turkey, long a “trusted US and NATO ally,” ever develop good working ties with Russia, work in tandem with Iran, or engage with China’s new Eurasian vision?

    Ankara’s actions actually make a good bit more sense if we take a broader perspective as to what Turkey has been all about over the last two or three decades.

    In simplest terms, over time Turkey has increasingly struck out on its own path in full exercise of its sovereignty. During the Cold War, Turkey was deemed a “loyal” if prickly NATO ally. For Turkey the preeminent geopolitical fact was that it bordered on the Soviet Union; Russia after all had engaged in centuries of confrontation and war with the Turkish Ottoman Empire. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 new independent states—Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan— sprung up in this former Soviet space—right along Turkey’s eastern borders. Turkey suddenly no longer even bordered on Russia any more—a huge geopolitical shift.

    At the same time, with the end of the Cold War Turks were able to start thinking of their position in the world in quite new terms. Turkey no longer saw itself as America and NATO did—as primarily a strategic eastern outpost of a Western strategic, NATO-oriented terrain. For Ankara the very meaning and purpose of NATO fell into question.

    Indeed, I would argue—and in this I will be fiercely attacked by the US foreign policy establishment—that with the end of the Soviet communist empire, NATO quickly began to lose strategic relevance. (NATO of course remains fiercely defended by Washington since it has long represented the key instrument of the US foreign policy grip on Europe—often called “the Atlantic alliance.”) But with the end of communism and the fall of the Soviet Union, Europe’s identity is far less “Atlantic” than Washington would have it. Europe is now Europe, increasingly seeking greater freedom from the East-West squeeze of the US-Russian rivalry. Europe more than ever savors its own growing independence of vision, its own interpretation of its own strategic interests apart from being an instrument in the US geopolitical tool-bag. Indeed, Europe now slowly feels itself ever more part of a Eurasian space than an Atlantic one. Moscow is far closer than New York.

    No doubt, Trump’s crude and insulting policy style has hastened the recrudescence of this new, more independent European identity. But it would be exceptionally short-sighted to attribute this major geopolitical trend in Europe to Trump. With the end of the Cold War, the process of greater European independence was inevitable and was already starting to evolve long before Trump. But the Washington foreign policy establishment, often in denial about geopolitical global shifts, might now well ask “who lost Europe?”

    Along similar lines, Turkey too began to re-envision itself more in the historical geopolitical perspectives of the previous Turkish Ottoman Empire—an empire whose rule and influence extended politically or culturally in one way or another from Central Asian across the Middle East and into North Africa and up into the Balkans and even down into East Africa. Perhaps most importantly of all, however, the Ottoman Empire represented the very heart and seat of Sunni Islam. (This is one of the many issues over which Saudi Arabia—that cannot remotely even pretend to be a political, cultural, industrial, or even military rival to Turkey—still seethes.)

    One look at political and cultural maps of the world makes it clear how much Turkey indeed is fundamentally Eurasian; its interests in Europe represent only the western wing of Turkey’s cultural wing-span, but is not even most defining wing of the Turkish geopolitical and cultural entity. Turkish foreign policy under Erdogan may have been overly ambitious in too quickly projecting itself as the dominant Sunni power in the Middle East, but arguably it is. But for Ankara the uprising in Syria in 2012 was the turning point, when Erdogan began to fumble what had been a boldly independent vision of Turkish foreign policy. [See my book “Turkey and the Arab Spring” for a deeper analysis of Turkish identity and political culture.] But Erdogan’s Syrian adventure in 2012 actually represented a major aberration from his earlier pioneering “Good Neighbor” polices and Turkey’s public embrace of it own long-suppressed Islamic identity. Bad decisions on Syria caused Turkey to lose its once firm foreign policy bearings, and it’s still not over. But Ankara is already slowly trying to recover its former foreign policy vision—as a de facto Eurasian and Islamic force.

    And Ankara’s about-face in relations with Russia? Turkey is well familiar with Russia as a significant actor in the Middle East and Levant going back hundreds of years to Tsarist times. But as of 1991 Russia ceased being an expansionist empire on Turkey’s borders. And as the US worked to push NATO provocatively right up to Russia’s very doorstep, Russia increasingly shares with China the goal of stymying US failing efforts to maintain its old role of global hegemon. China itself of course has meanwhile creatively reimagined this Eurasian space with its visionary project of the One Belt One Road trans-Eurasian trade and transportation hub.

    Can anyone really imagine that under these dramatic new twenty-first century realities Turkey would not involve itself heavily in this process? Indeed, does NATO mean much of anything at all any more to Turkey (or even to many European states like France or Germany) except as a useful instrument for handling its relations with the US and Europe? Nominal Turkish membership in NATO does ironically provide Turkey with a useful counterweight that lends it greater clout in its dealings with Russia and China.

    In Ankara’s view then, it has little to lose, at least in terms of its own security, in severely downgrading—even if not abandoning—NATO ties through purchase of Russian S-400 air defense missile systems. As part of its dual east-west identity, it knows it would be foolish to cut all ties with the West —especially economically—just as it would be foolish to reorient itself totally to the West and turn its back on this powerful developing Eurasian project of the future.

    Finally, given the US foreign policy record in the Middle East—a record of serial mistakes, miscalculations, wars and disasters, still not yet over— it would be unreal for Turkey to still wish to identify itself with such US “leadership.” Furthermore, US policy towards Iran—a neighbor of huge importance to Turkey—has been irrational ever since the devastating fall of the Shah of Iran, America’s great ally, in 1979. Iran too is proud, stubborn and nationalistic in its dealings, but Turkey knows it is destined to work with Iran on a realistic basis on key regional issues—as occasional rivals as well as sharing common interests. Despite periodic tensions,Turkey and Iran—the only two historically rooted, advanced, truly independent cultural and state powers and societies in the region—have not been at war with each other for many centuries. Ankara certainly has no desire or incentive to follow the US lead in challenging Iran in what would become a very messy affair. Even less would Ankara want to align itself with the extremist, intolerant and xenophobic form of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi Islam that has sought, with some worrisome success, to buy Sunni leadership for itself around the Muslim world to promote Wahhabism.

    Russia is well aware of the prickly nationalist nature of Ankara’s and Tehran’s leadership in these two heavy-weight quasi-democratic states. Moscow has so far skillfully managed its relations with both states rather effectively; Washington has managed neither set of relations effectively.

    After Erdogan’s brilliant decade of AKP leadership in his first decade, regrettably we have seen him lurch, starting sometime around 2013, towards a repressive and vindictive form of one-man rule; this has now made Turkey’s foreign (not to mention domestic) policies quite erratic and shaky. Yet for all the present ugliness and intolerance of the present state of the Turkish government, it still technically qualifies as a democracy, albeit a highly illiberal and repressive one. Real elections are held, and the results do matter. His skillful foreign minister over many years, Ahmet Davutoglu, who was the key intellectual and diplomatic architect of the new “Eurasian Turkey,” now seems to be reemerging on the political scene, this time as a political rival to Erdogan.

    So no one in Washington has “lost” Turkey, the process has been the product of myriad new geopolitical forces. Turks furthermore find it demeaning to be regarded by Washington as a property to be “kept” or “lost,” or to accept the assumption that Ankara’s default character should be as an American “ally.” Turkey will likely be nobody’s “ally”—Russia take note. Present Turkish risk-taking with its purchase of Russian missiles and its voicing of claims to energy reserves in the Mediterranean around Cyprus reflects a risky effort by Erdogan to shift attention away from domestic problems to foreign initiatives. And Turkey will be no friend to Israel.

    It would be a grievous mistake to assume that when a new Turkish leadership emerges, that it will revert to the old status of “ally” whose pliability the West had long relied upon. Any new leader at the outset may seek to mend a few fences here and there with the West, but will surely continue to pursue what Turkey sees as its expanded geopolitical destiny that includes deep engagement in Eurasia.

    Graham E. Fuller is a former senior CIA official, author of numerous books on the Muslim World; his first novel is “Breaking Faith: A novel of espionage and an American’s crisis of conscience in Pakistan”; his second novel is BEAR—a novel of eco-violence in the Canadian Northwest. (Amazon, Kindle) grahamefuller.com

  • ATAA 40th Year Anniversary Conference, Oct. 5 -Speakers: Prof. Emre Kongar, Dr. Yalcin Ayasli, Hon. Ed Whitfield

    ATAA 40th Year Anniversary Conference, Oct. 5 -Speakers: Prof. Emre Kongar, Dr. Yalcin Ayasli, Hon. Ed Whitfield

    Mazlum Kosma [mazkosma @hotmail.com]

    From: ATAA <assembly@assembly-of-turkish-american-association.ccsend.com> on behalf of ATAA <assembly@ataa.org>

    Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Turkish Independence Movement

    Gray Follow us on:
    6003 Tower Ct., Alexandria, VA 22304 | 202.483.9090 | 202.483.9092 fx | www.ataa.org
    Community Information Service September 13, 2019 | #1149
    PROGRAM | SPONSORSHIP & ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES | REGISTRATION
    The Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA) will hold its 40th Year Anniversary Conference on October 5, 2019 at the Westin Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, VA.

    In celebration of the 100th anniversary of AtatĂźrk’s historic landing in Samsun, the 40th Year Anniversary Conference will bring together ATAA members, Turkish Americans, community leaders, and scholars from across the nation and Turkey to highlight the importance of the May 19, 1919, which marked the beginning of the Turkish Independence War, and to plan ATAA’s future course for the next forty years to continue to serve the interests of Turkish Americans.

    The Conference will conclude with the 40th Year Anniversary Gala dinner and awards ceremony.

    Since its founding in 1979, the ATAA has made remarkable strides in representing the interest of Turkish Americans, Turkish culture and heritage in USA. Past 40 years, ATAA fought effectively against the efforts of hostile ethnic groups to distort our history and defame Turks and Turkey. ATAA has successfully empowered Turkish-American Community and member Turkish American associations through civic engagement and has supported strong U.S. – Turkey relations through education and advocacy. As the largest independent umbrella organization representing Turkish Americans and over 50 local member associations, the ATAA shall continue to further its mission based on AtatĂźrk’s principles of secular democracy, rule of law and human rights.
    PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

    AtatĂźrk: The War of Independence and the Creation of the New Turkey

    The Impact of Turkish National Movement on 20th Century Politics

    Independence War, Turks in the US, Politics Effecting Turks

    40 Years of ATAA’s Accomplishment
    Bright Future Turkish Language and Culture Project
    Turkish American Associations: Bringing Together the Community

    SPEAKERS & PANELISTS

    AMB. (RET.) DR. SUKRU ELEKDAG (video message)
    Former Turkish Ambassador to the United States

    PROF. EMRE KONGAR

    Professor of Sociology,
    Writer and Former Turkish Undersecretary of Culture

    DR. YALCIN AYASLI

    Founder and Chairman,
    Turkish Coalition of America

    HON. ED WHITFIELD

    US House of
    Representatives (1995-2016)

    PROF. JUSTIN A. MCCARTHY

    University of Louisville

    DR. ISIL ACEHAN

    Visiting Scholar

    George Mason University

    ASSOC. PROF. EMINE EVERED

    Michigan State University

    PROF. GEORGE GAWRYCH

    Baylor University

    PROF. PAUL KUBICEK

    Oakland University
    SPONSORED BY
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    The conference program is subject to change and will be

    updated continuously up to the conference. Please refer to

    the ATAA website for updates: www.ataa.org

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    ONLINE CONFERENCE REGISTRATION     For questions and more information, please contact ATAA office at 202.483.9090, events
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    BOOK YOUR HOTEL RESERVATION TODAY!
    DISCOUNTED RATES AVAILABLE

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    HOTEL INFORMATION

    Just minutes from Washington D.C., the Westin Crystal City boasts convenient access to the area via the adjacent Crystal City Metro Station. Nearby are popular museums and monuments, and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) is a mile away.

    Special Room Rates available until September 16!

    ATAA has negotiated discounted hotel rate available only to 40th Year Anniversary Conference attendees. Reservations must be made until September 16, to guarantee discounted conference rate of $119 per room per night. After that date, room blocks will be released and rooms and rates will be based on availability.

    For online room reservations, please click the button below:

    329e25b8-d384-4c3c-9736-fe5dfd2c8471.png?ver=1487283424000

    For reservations by phone, please call
    703-486-1111 and use code AT1428.

    dde4d646-6590-4aac-bd55-247686e4f32f.jpg?ver=1566976550000

    The Westin Crystal City

    1800 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202
    703-486-1111 | 800-937-8461
    ATAA, representing over 50 local chapters and 500,000 Turkish Americans throughout the United States, serves locally in Washington metropolitan area to empower the Turkish American community through civic engagement, and to support strong U.S.-Turkey relations through education and advocacy. Recognizing the importance of enhanced U.S.-Turkey relations to regional peace and security, ATAA works on creating a better understanding about the U.S. – Turkey partnership and the potential and challenges Turkey faces, with programs directed at decision makers, opinion leaders and the general public.
    Š Entire contents copyright 2019 by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. All rights reserved.

    This article may be reprinted without the permission of ATAA and free of charge under the conditions that the entirety of the article is printed without alteration to text, art or graphics, the title of the reprinted or republished version attributes the article to ATAA, and the ATAA website link is included in the reprinted or republished version.
    S.gif
    Assembly of Turkish American Associations, 6003 Tower Ct., Alexandria, VA 22304
    Sent by assembly
    		S.gif

  • Born to be Alive…A true masterpiece.

    A true masterpiece.

    The work for cutting, searching for items and adapting the rhythm is extraordinary!

    A kind of unexpected communion between a “disco” song and much older cinematic elements!

    Even if you have already viewed, review it again, definitely worth it!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UaJAnnipkY

    Born to Be Alive

    Studio album by Patrick Hernandez

    Released 1979
    Recorded 1978
    Length 35:05 (original release)
    Label
    Aquarius Records (Fr)
    A-Tom-Mik (US)
    Columbia (US)

    Producer Jean Vanloo

    Singles from Born to Be Alive

    “Disco Queen”

    Born to Be Alive is the first studio album by Patrick Hernandez, released internationally in 1978 and in the US in 1979. It features the eponymous disco hit “Born to Be Alive” as well as a less-successful single, “Disco Queen”.

    Background

    While a member of the French group Gold, Hernandez was signed by producer Jean Vanloo and left to Waterloo, Belgium to begin work on a solo album. In November, 1978, the album was released on the Aariana sub-label Aquarius Records (in France). The first single released from the album was “Born to Be Alive”. It found immediate success throughout Europe, and in January 1979, Hernandez received his first gold record from Italy.

    In early 1979, the album reached the US market with a release on the A-Tom-Mik label and later Columbia Records. The US release contained a remixed version of “Born to Be Alive” and found great success, peaking in the US Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart at #1 and on the Billboard Hot 100 at #16. It sold over one million copies in the US.

  • Halil Suleyman’s Nomination

    Halil Suleyman’s Nomination

    Sen. Ted Cruz said he doesn’t believe Halil Suleyman “Sul” Ozerden, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, “meets the standard” of being a “constitutionalist.” | Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

    Congress

    Ted Cruz will oppose Trump’s judicial nominee

    ‘Sul’ Ozerden’s nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals could be in jeopardy.

    By BURGESS EVERETT, MARIANNE LEVINE and ELIANA JOHNSON

    Updated

    Sen. Ted Cruz will oppose President Donald Trump’s nominee for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Halil Suleyman “Sul” Ozerden, a major setback for the embattled nomination.

    Cruz (R-Texas) has informed the White House and colleagues this week that he will oppose Ozerden, according to three people familiar with the Judiciary Committee’s internal dynamics. That conservative opposition places in doubt the future of Ozerden, who is a close friend of acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and whose nomination Mulvaney pushed over the objections of the White House Counsel’s office.

    “For a lifetime appointment on the court of appeals, I believe we should be looking for someone with a strong, demonstrated record as a constitutionalist. I have significant concerns that Judge Ozerden’s judicial record does not indicate that he meets that standard. For that reason, I do not believe he should be on the court of appeals, and I will oppose his nomination,” Cruz said in a statement for this story.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee has held a hearing for Ozerden but has not yet held a committee vote. Republicans are split on whether he will move forward: Some believe the White House may have to withdraw the nomination, others want to push him through despite reluctance among conservatives about Ozerden.

    Other undecided senators are digging into the nomination. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) met with Ozerden on Thursday morning and Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said he was undecided on the nomination. But the Mississippi judge got a boost Thursday from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) who decided to vote for his nomination after meeting with Ozerden, according to Lee’s spokesperson.

    Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also said he’s a “yes” on Ozerden. He said he was unsure if the nominee will get a favorable vote in committee but that “he deserves a vote.”

    As a district judge, Ozerden approved the Obama administration’s dismissal of a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate, deeming the challenge premature. Senate Republicans have expressed concern about Ozerden’s decision in 2012.

    Unlike most other Trump judicial nominees, Ozerden lacks explicit backing from conservative judicial groups like the Judicial Crisis Network. Carrie Severino, the group’s chief counsel, wrote last year that “we could do better than Judge Ozerden” in Mississippi.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declined to comment about Ozerden, as did the White House.

    The Trump administration and McConnell have made confirming judges a major priority, clinching their 150th lifetime confirmation on Wednesday. But those successes are occasionally marred by setbacks, and Ozerden isn’t the only judicial nominee hanging in the balance.

    Steven Menashi, a nominee to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, frustrated senators in both parties Wednesday when questioned about his writings as well as his refusal to answer questions on his role shaping the White House’s immigration policy. Menashi is currently associate counsel to the president and served as a lawyer in the Education Department under Betsy DeVos.