By William Fisher
I long ago stopped believing anything our government told us about Iraq. Now, like millions of other Americans, I have stopped believing what our mainstream media tells us about Iraq. What has become a substitute for a credible and holistic picture of what is really happening in this tortured country is a pair of bookends: at one end, endless images of car bombs exploding, with commentary from journalists who are mostly unable to leave their Baghdad hotels; at the other end, the feelgood press releases from the White House and the Pentagon.
So now I get my news from a few knowledgeable Iraqi and other bloggers and from the emails I receive from trusted friends who work there.
Below is the email I received this week (names and locations have been deleted to protect their safety):
This new government has proven nothing thus far except its own incompetence. From my exile in (Iraqi city deleted), a distant but well-connected vantage point, two things about this government are noteworthy.
First it is unable to control security. The bickering and backstabbing that went
into cabinet selection gave new life to the insurgency, demoralizing the
population at large and the security forces in particular. Al-Jaafari, the Prime Minister and the head of the more moderate portion of the Sistani group, promoted for Defense Minister Sunni politicians and former military people who had legitimacy amongst large sections of the Sunni Arab population.
All his nominations were vetoed by the more hard-line Shiites of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The real power in Iraq right now lies with Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim, the turbaned head of SCIRI and Sistani.
Some Iraqis disagree with me. They would say that SCIRI's power derives from Iran, and it is that country that is really controlling (or not controlling) the country.
But the important final question is, if the security forces fight, who are they fighting for? A united Iraq, or a derivative of Iran? This is an important point, and it could be one reason that Iraqi forces' performance has deteriorated in recent weeks.
Second, if you cannot keep the country safe, you may as well have a witch-hunt. With Ahmed Chalabi in the lead, that oh so honest and pure politician from Nasariya, the new government has decided to prevent all former ministers from traveling pending investigations into corruption.
All of us know who was corrupt in Allawi's government -Transport, Defense, Electricity, Interior and others.
But this new government is determined to intimidate and harass all who were associated with Allawi. For example, on Wednesday, eight armored vehicles filled with armed police officers drove up to the home of a former minister (name withheld), with the intent of making an arrest.
The former minister told them emphatically, "get out, you will have to kill me to take me from my home". They backed down, the former minister made some phone calls and the episode ended.
The allegation was that the former minister did not properly nominate ministry staff for international delegations. The allegation could very well be true, but what is all the fuss? I have met the former minister several times and doubt that this person would be capable of deliberate malicious intent, but as a bureaucrat with little experience, I do not doubt that things could have gone awry.
The Baathist purge office has been reactivated, again under the guidance of
Chalabi, and this cannot accomplish anything except make the insurgency worse. The average Iraqi does not care about mid-level Baathists, they care about peace, and if peace is contingent upon keeping or hiring a few Baathists with ties to Saddam, that is an acceptable contingency.
The two elements to the witch-hunt, the first against Allawi and the second against Baathists, make for palatable unease on the street (we have to remember that in general people liked Allawi, but they could not vote for him over
Sistani). Combine the witch-hunt with suicide bombers and the optimism of
the last months is gone.
I am now at my most pessimistic. Never did I think it would get this bad.
Below is yet another desperate email message (in broken English) from one of the NGOs we work with. (Name withheld) was suppose to meet with us yesterday, but there was a bomb in his neighborhood, yet again at a recruitment center, the day before.
hi (recipient withheld).
I want to inform you that an distortion and pumb explosion happent in Hawija today cause to kill many young men from my region and my village and some of them were from my cosion that was made by terrors and I was closer from the event. I want to say you that I am so sad for 100 young men from hawija city whom came to produce themself to thier country by our device. Finally, all (Arabain, Kurdish, Turkmen amd other) cry for this work and declare our sadness in this dark day. our greeting for (name withheld) and other staff in your org.
accept my regards
(name withheld)
Boss of (organization deleted)
I receive these types of messages every two or three days. By now one would think that I could read them with dispassion, that I would not react with tears in my eyes. I cannot. You can read about this bomb in Hawija on CNN, but read these few humble sentences, understand it, and weep.
And yet, we keep going. This week I had my teams from (locations deleted) come for a work planning session. Their commitment to improving the lives of Iraqis is beyond my expectations. We will involve 500 farmers in maize wok this summer and several hundred in Najaf and Diwaniyah in rice. And that is just the start. We have plans for livestock, tomato, cucumber, apples, dates, extension, integrated pest management, and tractor repair (I hope to sign a $9 million contract with the local distributor of (manufacturer’s name deleted) this week). My guys are thrilled that we have plenty of resources for them to use to do just about anything that helps agriculture. Their smiles and optimism in the face of undeniable risks is almost incomprehensible to me, and it helps to restore somewhat my faith in the future of Iraq.
If we could get the politicians to be as committed to development and progress as my guys the country would be in much better shape. But alas, we have Chalabi, the crook, and Al-Jaafari, the weak, a recipe for nothing good.
It would be a good idea to remember this message next time Mssrs. Bush and Rumsfeld tell us how we’re winning this war.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Sunday, May 15, 2005
COMMUNICATING WITH THE CAIRO STREET
By William Fisher
Is the US Government’s Alhurra satellite television channel winning hearts and minds on the ‘Arab Street’?
Alhurra is one of the premiere tools of public diplomacy for America in the Middle East. Launched a little over a year ago at a startup cost of $62 million, the station has consistently run a distant third to Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, though polls commissioned by Alhurra indicate much higher viewership numbers and credibility ratings than those reported in independent surveys conducted by academics and Arab research organizations.
Last month, TBS, a Cairo-based research firm covering satellite television in the Arab and Islamic Worlds, sent a journalist, my friend Summer Said, out into the Cairo streets for a week to find out who’s watching, who’s not, and why. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous country and, according to a 2004 Zogby International poll, has one of the most anti-American publics in the Arab world, with unfavorable views of America calculated at 98 percent.
So what Cairenes think is critical.
This is some of what Ms. Said learned in her admittedly unscientific research:
Students said:
“I cannot stand watching it because it is boring and lifeless and you feel it is a bad imitation of the CNN or BBC. If I were in the shoes of the US administration I would shut this thing down before it becomes a scandal.”
“The channel is not as bad as I and my friends expected at the beginning. Just forget the fact that it is funded by the US and it will be fine. I'm only interested in shows about body fitness and health so I watch Alhurra because they air some good shows in that area. These programs are in Arabic so I do not have to read subtitles while following the show.”
“I checked it out twice and it was so boring. I do not have much time to waste so I watch good channels like Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya.”
“I do not watch it and I do not recommend people to watch it. It is a station that was created by the US to brainwash the Arabs and convince them of the evil plans of the US. For me watching Alhurra is like watching an Israeli channel.”
“I do not have a subscription to Discovery Channel to watch good documentaries so I'm glad that there is an Arabic channel like Alhurra that is giving me that chance everyday. I guess your interests affect how you view this channel.”
“I do watch Alhurra, but I do that with suspicions. I feel that the US is trying to brainwash the Arabs so I often compare their news reporting to the other reporting by channels like BBC, Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya. But I have to admit that most of the time, their reporting is professional and they do not fabricate stories. But I only watch Alhurra just to see if they do mistakes or not, just out of curiosity.”
“What I like about Alhurra is that every day they have different programs than the day before. One day they have a cooking show, and on another they air a documentary or a cinema show. My favorite show is a travel program called Luxury Travel that takes you on a tour through a country or a city and gives you all the information about it.”
Professional people – teachers, accountants, engineers, dentists, doctors, journalists – said:
“I did not think I would be watching Alhurra until one day when I was checking what was on TV and saw them interviewing some high profile Egyptians. The program was Sa'a Hurra (Free Hour), a live show that once hosted Ayman Nour, the chairman of (Egyptian opposition) Al Ghad Party. At least you would not find a similar show on the state-owned TV that is being watched by millions of people.”
“It is unbelievable that this channel is American. It cannot be compared even to the worst American channels that I receive. I cannot see how come the US does not even care to please the Arabs with something professional. Do they think we can be pleased by anything? It is a kind of insult to us.”
“I wonder how come the US is financing this channel and still the services it offers are not that great. Sometimes I feel that the announcers are not professional at all and they speak classical Arabic with difficulty. I also feel that their news bulletins are filtered so that they would not offend the Arab viewers. And if you forget about the news you feel that their other programs are boring and they are of no interest to you. I do not know why it is still operating till now.”
“Alhurra is a nice break from Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya and what they air everyday. Its news bulletins are not perfect but they also cover great parts of the world. It also gives you one hour of news if you have time to sit and watch and a 10-minute news if you are just interested in headlines. I think people at Alhurra are doing well for a channel that just kicked off last year.”
“It has good shows, decent news coverage, and quite professional stuff. We criticize the channel just because it is funded by the US and also because we are used to criticizing everything that is different from what we have.”
“Why would I watch something that everyone says is bad? It reminds me of our local channels. It has unqualified announcers, boring programs, and bad news coverage.”
“I think it is a good channel but the criticism it got before its launch put off so many people. I think they have some good talk shows and their news services are quite balanced. This channel has its strength and it could become more important in the future if the US gave more attention to the staff and the quality of the programs aired.”
“If we compare Alhurra with Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, or CNN, Alhurra will lose but sometimes you want some change and you want to check out something different. I think the channel's performance is getting better…”
Office workers said:
“I do not watch Alhurra at the moment because I think they still need more time to become professional. They also have to come up with new ideas and interesting shows because no one will watch the channel unless it gives them something exceptional and this has not happened so far.”
“Alhurra has good debate shows but I think that the channel has failed in its main mission, which is "beautifying America's ugly face" in the eyes millions of Arabs and Muslims. The way I perceive the US is still the same and has not changed at all. I think that the American administration was stupid to launch this channel because they thought it will make us love them.”
Business people said:
“News programs concentrate on Israeli and American statements, especially those by George W. Bush. They choose stuff that justifies the war on Iraq and the violations against the Iraqis and Palestinians. I have been following the other non-political shows and they are all silly and lifeless or rather boring and ridiculous. The US had better save its money and shut down the whole station.”
“I like the talk shows on Alhurra. They are not too long, interesting, discuss hot topics and feature people that are not the mouthpieces of the Arab governments.”
So is this US effort winning hearts and minds? For some of these Cairenes, arguably never. They view the channel with hostility and suspicion. Others are watching as a once-in-a-while alternative to the better-known channels. Still others are viewing programs that may improve their culinary skills or improve their holiday planning – but not for news or public affairs, which they feel is American propaganda.
None of this will come as much of a surprise to the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the effort. But it’s information that’s important as Karen Hughes, the president’s longtime friend and confidante, prepares to take over all America’s public diplomacy efforts.
Is the US Government’s Alhurra satellite television channel winning hearts and minds on the ‘Arab Street’?
Alhurra is one of the premiere tools of public diplomacy for America in the Middle East. Launched a little over a year ago at a startup cost of $62 million, the station has consistently run a distant third to Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, though polls commissioned by Alhurra indicate much higher viewership numbers and credibility ratings than those reported in independent surveys conducted by academics and Arab research organizations.
Last month, TBS, a Cairo-based research firm covering satellite television in the Arab and Islamic Worlds, sent a journalist, my friend Summer Said, out into the Cairo streets for a week to find out who’s watching, who’s not, and why. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous country and, according to a 2004 Zogby International poll, has one of the most anti-American publics in the Arab world, with unfavorable views of America calculated at 98 percent.
So what Cairenes think is critical.
This is some of what Ms. Said learned in her admittedly unscientific research:
Students said:
“I cannot stand watching it because it is boring and lifeless and you feel it is a bad imitation of the CNN or BBC. If I were in the shoes of the US administration I would shut this thing down before it becomes a scandal.”
“The channel is not as bad as I and my friends expected at the beginning. Just forget the fact that it is funded by the US and it will be fine. I'm only interested in shows about body fitness and health so I watch Alhurra because they air some good shows in that area. These programs are in Arabic so I do not have to read subtitles while following the show.”
“I checked it out twice and it was so boring. I do not have much time to waste so I watch good channels like Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya.”
“I do not watch it and I do not recommend people to watch it. It is a station that was created by the US to brainwash the Arabs and convince them of the evil plans of the US. For me watching Alhurra is like watching an Israeli channel.”
“I do not have a subscription to Discovery Channel to watch good documentaries so I'm glad that there is an Arabic channel like Alhurra that is giving me that chance everyday. I guess your interests affect how you view this channel.”
“I do watch Alhurra, but I do that with suspicions. I feel that the US is trying to brainwash the Arabs so I often compare their news reporting to the other reporting by channels like BBC, Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya. But I have to admit that most of the time, their reporting is professional and they do not fabricate stories. But I only watch Alhurra just to see if they do mistakes or not, just out of curiosity.”
“What I like about Alhurra is that every day they have different programs than the day before. One day they have a cooking show, and on another they air a documentary or a cinema show. My favorite show is a travel program called Luxury Travel that takes you on a tour through a country or a city and gives you all the information about it.”
Professional people – teachers, accountants, engineers, dentists, doctors, journalists – said:
“I did not think I would be watching Alhurra until one day when I was checking what was on TV and saw them interviewing some high profile Egyptians. The program was Sa'a Hurra (Free Hour), a live show that once hosted Ayman Nour, the chairman of (Egyptian opposition) Al Ghad Party. At least you would not find a similar show on the state-owned TV that is being watched by millions of people.”
“It is unbelievable that this channel is American. It cannot be compared even to the worst American channels that I receive. I cannot see how come the US does not even care to please the Arabs with something professional. Do they think we can be pleased by anything? It is a kind of insult to us.”
“I wonder how come the US is financing this channel and still the services it offers are not that great. Sometimes I feel that the announcers are not professional at all and they speak classical Arabic with difficulty. I also feel that their news bulletins are filtered so that they would not offend the Arab viewers. And if you forget about the news you feel that their other programs are boring and they are of no interest to you. I do not know why it is still operating till now.”
“Alhurra is a nice break from Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya and what they air everyday. Its news bulletins are not perfect but they also cover great parts of the world. It also gives you one hour of news if you have time to sit and watch and a 10-minute news if you are just interested in headlines. I think people at Alhurra are doing well for a channel that just kicked off last year.”
“It has good shows, decent news coverage, and quite professional stuff. We criticize the channel just because it is funded by the US and also because we are used to criticizing everything that is different from what we have.”
“Why would I watch something that everyone says is bad? It reminds me of our local channels. It has unqualified announcers, boring programs, and bad news coverage.”
“I think it is a good channel but the criticism it got before its launch put off so many people. I think they have some good talk shows and their news services are quite balanced. This channel has its strength and it could become more important in the future if the US gave more attention to the staff and the quality of the programs aired.”
“If we compare Alhurra with Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, or CNN, Alhurra will lose but sometimes you want some change and you want to check out something different. I think the channel's performance is getting better…”
Office workers said:
“I do not watch Alhurra at the moment because I think they still need more time to become professional. They also have to come up with new ideas and interesting shows because no one will watch the channel unless it gives them something exceptional and this has not happened so far.”
“Alhurra has good debate shows but I think that the channel has failed in its main mission, which is "beautifying America's ugly face" in the eyes millions of Arabs and Muslims. The way I perceive the US is still the same and has not changed at all. I think that the American administration was stupid to launch this channel because they thought it will make us love them.”
Business people said:
“News programs concentrate on Israeli and American statements, especially those by George W. Bush. They choose stuff that justifies the war on Iraq and the violations against the Iraqis and Palestinians. I have been following the other non-political shows and they are all silly and lifeless or rather boring and ridiculous. The US had better save its money and shut down the whole station.”
“I like the talk shows on Alhurra. They are not too long, interesting, discuss hot topics and feature people that are not the mouthpieces of the Arab governments.”
So is this US effort winning hearts and minds? For some of these Cairenes, arguably never. They view the channel with hostility and suspicion. Others are watching as a once-in-a-while alternative to the better-known channels. Still others are viewing programs that may improve their culinary skills or improve their holiday planning – but not for news or public affairs, which they feel is American propaganda.
None of this will come as much of a surprise to the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the effort. But it’s information that’s important as Karen Hughes, the president’s longtime friend and confidante, prepares to take over all America’s public diplomacy efforts.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
WHISTLEBLOWER’s CAREER OVER
By William Fisher
"I realize this is the end of my Air Force career."
With these words, a chaplain at the Air Force Academy, for the first time, went public about a "systemic and pervasive" problem of religious proselytizing at the academy by evangelical Christians.
Capt. MeLinda Morton, 48, told The New York Times that a religious tolerance
program she helped create to deal with the problem was watered down after it was shown to officers, including the major general who is the Air Force's chief
chaplain.
Captain Morton said she had decided to step forward without the required authorization from the public affairs office because: "It's the Constitution, not just a nice rule we can follow or not follow. We all raised our hands and said we'd follow it, and that includes the First Amendment, that includes not using your power to advance your religious agenda."
Ironically, she told her story as an Air Force task force arrived at the academy in Colorado Springs to investigate accusations that officers, staff members and senior cadets inappropriately used their positions to push their evangelical Christian beliefs on Air Force cadets.
The academy began developing the tolerance program, called “Respecting the
Spiritual Values of all People”, or R.S.V.P., in response to a survey it took
last year. The survey found that more than half of the cadets said they had
heard derogatory religious comments or jokes at the academy.
Maj. Gen. Charles C. Baldwin, the chief of chaplains for the entire Air Force,
screened the R.S.V.P. program in October. Afterward he asked Chaplain Morton, "Why is it that the Christians never win?" in response to some of the
program's dramatizations of interactions between cadets of different religions.
She said: "It was obvious to us that he had missed the point of the entire
presentation here. It wasn't about winning or losing, some kind of cosmic
battle, it was about helping our folks at the Air Force Academy understand the
wonders of the whole range of religious experiences."
General Baldwin acknowledged making that comment and said he had objected because too many scenes in the original program had portrayed Christians at fault for excessive efforts at evangelizing.
"In every scenario, where cadet met cadet in the hall," he said, "every time it
was the Christian who had to apologize and say, 'I'm sorry, I wasn't sensitive
to your needs.' I said, that's not balanced, and the Christians will turn you
off if every time they were the ones who made the mistake."
General Baldwin said he asked that the Air Force cut out segments in the program on non-Christian religions like Buddhism, Judaism and Native American spirituality, as well as a clip from "Schindler's List," the 1993 movie on the Holocaust.
However, Captain Morton it was "patently untrue" that all the segments portrayed Christians in error. She says that in most cases there was no religious identifier at all. "And I've got the film to prove it."
There are two important issues at play here. One is the proper constitutional boundary between church and state. The second is the fate of people who come forward to report wrongdoing – whistleblowers.
There are tens of millions of people in our country who demonstrably do not believe in any separation of church and state. These are same the people who corrupted their tsunami relief effort by handing out copies of the King James version of the Bible and religious tracts to victims, along with food, water and medicine. Who ranted in front of a Florida hospice as Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. Who were cheerleaders as our Congress stepped in to interfere with that case, and as our President hurried back from Texas to sign a law that could have been a scene from ‘The Crucible’. Who are now so busy attacking our judges for ‘judicial activism’. Who would make ‘Trashing the Constitution’ the latest reality show.
And, as for whistleblowers, we shouldn’t be surprised that Chaplain Morton sees the end of her career in the Air Force. While we have laws that are supposed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, they haven’t been doing all that well lately.
Hundreds of Federal employees have come forward to report waste, fraud, and abuse. Private sector employees have blown the whistle on the Halliburton Corporation and numerous other defense contractors. Public servants working for US security agencies have recently formed their own organization to protect whistleblowers in the FBI, the CIA, and the many other agencies dealing with intelligence and counter-terrorism. And it was members of the armed forces who revealed our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan.
Many of these people have been subjected to retaliation: they have been fired, demoted, ostracized, transferred to other locations. The documents they need to prove their cases have been classified, thus transforming them into ‘state secrets’.
One of the best known of these whistleblowers is Sibel Edmonds, who reported wrongdoing by other employees at the FBI, and was fired for her trouble, despite a government report that confirmed the reason for her termination. When she tried to sue the agency, they classified the documents she needed, and her case was thrown out by the courts (now she’s going to ask the Supreme Court to hear it).
Chaplain Morton is but the latest in a long string of people who summon the courage to speak out – and are rewarded by losing their careers. And if the evangelical right wing of Christianity continues to blindly support the governmental power structure, she won’t be the last.
"I realize this is the end of my Air Force career."
With these words, a chaplain at the Air Force Academy, for the first time, went public about a "systemic and pervasive" problem of religious proselytizing at the academy by evangelical Christians.
Capt. MeLinda Morton, 48, told The New York Times that a religious tolerance
program she helped create to deal with the problem was watered down after it was shown to officers, including the major general who is the Air Force's chief
chaplain.
Captain Morton said she had decided to step forward without the required authorization from the public affairs office because: "It's the Constitution, not just a nice rule we can follow or not follow. We all raised our hands and said we'd follow it, and that includes the First Amendment, that includes not using your power to advance your religious agenda."
Ironically, she told her story as an Air Force task force arrived at the academy in Colorado Springs to investigate accusations that officers, staff members and senior cadets inappropriately used their positions to push their evangelical Christian beliefs on Air Force cadets.
The academy began developing the tolerance program, called “Respecting the
Spiritual Values of all People”, or R.S.V.P., in response to a survey it took
last year. The survey found that more than half of the cadets said they had
heard derogatory religious comments or jokes at the academy.
Maj. Gen. Charles C. Baldwin, the chief of chaplains for the entire Air Force,
screened the R.S.V.P. program in October. Afterward he asked Chaplain Morton, "Why is it that the Christians never win?" in response to some of the
program's dramatizations of interactions between cadets of different religions.
She said: "It was obvious to us that he had missed the point of the entire
presentation here. It wasn't about winning or losing, some kind of cosmic
battle, it was about helping our folks at the Air Force Academy understand the
wonders of the whole range of religious experiences."
General Baldwin acknowledged making that comment and said he had objected because too many scenes in the original program had portrayed Christians at fault for excessive efforts at evangelizing.
"In every scenario, where cadet met cadet in the hall," he said, "every time it
was the Christian who had to apologize and say, 'I'm sorry, I wasn't sensitive
to your needs.' I said, that's not balanced, and the Christians will turn you
off if every time they were the ones who made the mistake."
General Baldwin said he asked that the Air Force cut out segments in the program on non-Christian religions like Buddhism, Judaism and Native American spirituality, as well as a clip from "Schindler's List," the 1993 movie on the Holocaust.
However, Captain Morton it was "patently untrue" that all the segments portrayed Christians in error. She says that in most cases there was no religious identifier at all. "And I've got the film to prove it."
There are two important issues at play here. One is the proper constitutional boundary between church and state. The second is the fate of people who come forward to report wrongdoing – whistleblowers.
There are tens of millions of people in our country who demonstrably do not believe in any separation of church and state. These are same the people who corrupted their tsunami relief effort by handing out copies of the King James version of the Bible and religious tracts to victims, along with food, water and medicine. Who ranted in front of a Florida hospice as Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. Who were cheerleaders as our Congress stepped in to interfere with that case, and as our President hurried back from Texas to sign a law that could have been a scene from ‘The Crucible’. Who are now so busy attacking our judges for ‘judicial activism’. Who would make ‘Trashing the Constitution’ the latest reality show.
And, as for whistleblowers, we shouldn’t be surprised that Chaplain Morton sees the end of her career in the Air Force. While we have laws that are supposed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, they haven’t been doing all that well lately.
Hundreds of Federal employees have come forward to report waste, fraud, and abuse. Private sector employees have blown the whistle on the Halliburton Corporation and numerous other defense contractors. Public servants working for US security agencies have recently formed their own organization to protect whistleblowers in the FBI, the CIA, and the many other agencies dealing with intelligence and counter-terrorism. And it was members of the armed forces who revealed our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan.
Many of these people have been subjected to retaliation: they have been fired, demoted, ostracized, transferred to other locations. The documents they need to prove their cases have been classified, thus transforming them into ‘state secrets’.
One of the best known of these whistleblowers is Sibel Edmonds, who reported wrongdoing by other employees at the FBI, and was fired for her trouble, despite a government report that confirmed the reason for her termination. When she tried to sue the agency, they classified the documents she needed, and her case was thrown out by the courts (now she’s going to ask the Supreme Court to hear it).
Chaplain Morton is but the latest in a long string of people who summon the courage to speak out – and are rewarded by losing their careers. And if the evangelical right wing of Christianity continues to blindly support the governmental power structure, she won’t be the last.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Egypt Could Inspire Wider Arab Reforms
By Rami G. Khouri
Editor-at-Large, The Daily Star, Beirut
Keep your eye on Egypt, which is stirring politically after a generation of political dormancy. The implications for the entire Arab world could be significant, because Egypt's political and cultural life has always set an example for others in the region.
In the past several months, various sectors of Egyptian society have engaged in more public forms of political protest and activism, reflecting a significant revival of the country's traditional role as a fountainhead of Arab civil society and political culture.
The signs are important and still developing. The kefaya (“enough”) movement launched last year has organised modest, peaceful street demonstrations of hundreds of people demanding that President Hosni Mubarak not run for a fifth term this autumn, arguing that his four terms and 24 years in office are “enough”. The movement also wants to block the possible presidential succession of his son Gamal, who has assumed a pivotal political post in the ruling National Democratic Party. Kefaya's demands include ending the emergency laws that govern the country since 1981, and holding a real presidential election contested among multiple candidates who all enjoy equal access to the media and public campaigning opportunities.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the banned party that probably has the widest support at the grassroots level, has started holding peaceful protests, also demanding democratic reforms and an end to the emergency laws. Protesters in the last few weeks have included thousands of students at several universities and smaller street demonstrations that resulted in the security forces arresting hundreds of people in towns like Mansura, Zagazig and Fayyum. The government said 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood had been arrested, while the party itself charged that over 1,500 were detained, including some of its leaders.
More significant has been the new assertiveness of some members of the Egyptian judiciary, long respected for its independence and professionalism in the Arab world, though in recent decades the judiciary has fallen under the nearly total control of the executive branch and the security services. In Alexandria last month, 1,200 judges issued a public demand for judicial independence, and coupled this with a threat that they will not certify the presidential election in autumn if their demands are not met. They want total oversight of the electoral process, independent of executive branch influence, so that they can restore the integrity of both the electoral process and of their own branch of government.
These are profoundly important developments, together signifying a new dynamism and political energy in a country that has been perplexingly dormant and acquiescent in recent decades. The president has already responded in part by promising a multi-candidate presidential election this year. Opposition groups, however, decry the conditions placed on other candidates as unfair, charging that Mubarak will predictably win because his most credible opponents will not be allowed to run, and those who do challenge him will not have an equal playing field in the campaign.
The wider implications of the current dynamism of those who challenge the prevailing order is that Egyptians seem unwilling to put up with the existing political power structure for much longer, as is the case in other parts of the Arab world. Some will claim that such stirrings for democratic reforms reflect the impact of the American-led drive for freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. Perhaps, but probably not, given the widespread opposition to American foreign policy in the Middle East throughout this region.
Having experienced the street sentiments of demonstrators or talked with leading activists in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Bahrain and others, I would suggest that the most useful place to look for the inspirations that drive Arab democracy activists these days is not the speeches of President George W. Bush, but rather the protest movements among American civil rights activists in the period 1956-1964.
The emotional and political sentiments that drive Arabs today to confront their autocratic rulers, security services, or foreign occupiers are almost identical with the instinct for political liberty and human dignity that inspired the civil rights movement in the United States two generations ago. The Arab world is into its second generation of autocratic rule, security-dominated state structures, and frozen political development. Most Arab citizens have had enough of their own dehumanisation and marginalisation, whether by their own rulers or by foreign powers. More and more Arabs today are politically challenging and physically confronting the powers that subjugate them, because they refuse to remain humiliated and degraded by the state of helplessness and powerlessness to which they have been relegated by their rulers and occupiers.
The same human demand for dignity and self-assertion that prompted young African-Americans to stand firm and hold their ground in the face of the police dogs and fire hoses in Birmingham, Alabama, and other places in 1962, is manifesting itself among various Arab citizens who demand to be treated like human beings by their own power elites. This spirit for freedom and dignity has been most evident to date in Palestine and Lebanon, both of which have struggled for their sovereignty and freedom, the former from Israeli occupation, the latter from Syrian domination. Segments of Egyptian society are now stirring to liberate the country from the grip of its own ruling power elite.
Like the civil rights movement in the United States five decades ago, the indigenous movement for Arab freedom, dignity and democracy will move ahead on the strength of incremental successes in many local battles for justice, coupled with a sensible, sustained resort to the rule of law as the guarantor of individual rights and communal security and stability alike. Breakthroughs in Egypt will prove to be compelling for the entire Arab world, and they appear to be nearing.
Editor-at-Large, The Daily Star, Beirut
Keep your eye on Egypt, which is stirring politically after a generation of political dormancy. The implications for the entire Arab world could be significant, because Egypt's political and cultural life has always set an example for others in the region.
In the past several months, various sectors of Egyptian society have engaged in more public forms of political protest and activism, reflecting a significant revival of the country's traditional role as a fountainhead of Arab civil society and political culture.
The signs are important and still developing. The kefaya (“enough”) movement launched last year has organised modest, peaceful street demonstrations of hundreds of people demanding that President Hosni Mubarak not run for a fifth term this autumn, arguing that his four terms and 24 years in office are “enough”. The movement also wants to block the possible presidential succession of his son Gamal, who has assumed a pivotal political post in the ruling National Democratic Party. Kefaya's demands include ending the emergency laws that govern the country since 1981, and holding a real presidential election contested among multiple candidates who all enjoy equal access to the media and public campaigning opportunities.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the banned party that probably has the widest support at the grassroots level, has started holding peaceful protests, also demanding democratic reforms and an end to the emergency laws. Protesters in the last few weeks have included thousands of students at several universities and smaller street demonstrations that resulted in the security forces arresting hundreds of people in towns like Mansura, Zagazig and Fayyum. The government said 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood had been arrested, while the party itself charged that over 1,500 were detained, including some of its leaders.
More significant has been the new assertiveness of some members of the Egyptian judiciary, long respected for its independence and professionalism in the Arab world, though in recent decades the judiciary has fallen under the nearly total control of the executive branch and the security services. In Alexandria last month, 1,200 judges issued a public demand for judicial independence, and coupled this with a threat that they will not certify the presidential election in autumn if their demands are not met. They want total oversight of the electoral process, independent of executive branch influence, so that they can restore the integrity of both the electoral process and of their own branch of government.
These are profoundly important developments, together signifying a new dynamism and political energy in a country that has been perplexingly dormant and acquiescent in recent decades. The president has already responded in part by promising a multi-candidate presidential election this year. Opposition groups, however, decry the conditions placed on other candidates as unfair, charging that Mubarak will predictably win because his most credible opponents will not be allowed to run, and those who do challenge him will not have an equal playing field in the campaign.
The wider implications of the current dynamism of those who challenge the prevailing order is that Egyptians seem unwilling to put up with the existing political power structure for much longer, as is the case in other parts of the Arab world. Some will claim that such stirrings for democratic reforms reflect the impact of the American-led drive for freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. Perhaps, but probably not, given the widespread opposition to American foreign policy in the Middle East throughout this region.
Having experienced the street sentiments of demonstrators or talked with leading activists in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Bahrain and others, I would suggest that the most useful place to look for the inspirations that drive Arab democracy activists these days is not the speeches of President George W. Bush, but rather the protest movements among American civil rights activists in the period 1956-1964.
The emotional and political sentiments that drive Arabs today to confront their autocratic rulers, security services, or foreign occupiers are almost identical with the instinct for political liberty and human dignity that inspired the civil rights movement in the United States two generations ago. The Arab world is into its second generation of autocratic rule, security-dominated state structures, and frozen political development. Most Arab citizens have had enough of their own dehumanisation and marginalisation, whether by their own rulers or by foreign powers. More and more Arabs today are politically challenging and physically confronting the powers that subjugate them, because they refuse to remain humiliated and degraded by the state of helplessness and powerlessness to which they have been relegated by their rulers and occupiers.
The same human demand for dignity and self-assertion that prompted young African-Americans to stand firm and hold their ground in the face of the police dogs and fire hoses in Birmingham, Alabama, and other places in 1962, is manifesting itself among various Arab citizens who demand to be treated like human beings by their own power elites. This spirit for freedom and dignity has been most evident to date in Palestine and Lebanon, both of which have struggled for their sovereignty and freedom, the former from Israeli occupation, the latter from Syrian domination. Segments of Egyptian society are now stirring to liberate the country from the grip of its own ruling power elite.
Like the civil rights movement in the United States five decades ago, the indigenous movement for Arab freedom, dignity and democracy will move ahead on the strength of incremental successes in many local battles for justice, coupled with a sensible, sustained resort to the rule of law as the guarantor of individual rights and communal security and stability alike. Breakthroughs in Egypt will prove to be compelling for the entire Arab world, and they appear to be nearing.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Barnum on Steroids
By Jason Miller
Yes, Phineas Taylor Barnum would be green with envy. The master of the hoodwink would be in awe of the Religious Right were he alive today. Snake-charming, beguiling, conning, and flimflamming are at the heart of their repertoire, and their leaders leave Barnum looking like a bush leaguer. If the religious conversion business cycle hits a lull, there will be a glut of highly talented salespeople looking for work. This week, this Evangelical movement is flexing its muscle, and flashing its propagandistic cunning, as it soaks up the spotlight of national media attention in Topeka, Kansas.
Ringling Brothers could not rival the hype of the circus of events dubbed "Scopes II". Led by its three “ring masters” (Kathy Martin, Steve Abrams, and Connie Morris), the Kansas State School Board has once again put the theory of Evolution on trial. Despite the lack of testimony from a single member of the established, mainstream scientific community, "the show must go on" as the board “proves” that Evolution is dubious at best. The purpose of this extravaganza is to “validate” the new science standards they desperately want to implement, and they are determined to “bring home the win” this time.
Under the "big top" of Memorial Hall in Topeka, the board has paraded a panel of "expert witnesses" to testify that Evolution is a "flawed theory". Several witnesses have asserted the fiction that there is a "controversy" in the scientific community about the validity of the theory of Evolution. John Calvert, a retired attorney and Kansas resident who heads the Intelligent Design Network, read scripted questions to nine of the twenty three anti-Evolution witnesses over the course of May 5 and May 6, with more to following after the weekend.
Validity of Evolution Speaks for Itself
Meanwhile, the mainstream scientific community has elected to boycott this charade. Their position is that by participating in "The Greatest Show on Earth", they would be lending credence to the assertions that there is a controversy over Evolution, and that those who believe in Evolution are atheists by default. The truth is that the theory of Evolution has grown and changed significantly since its assertion by Charles Darwin in 1859, and scientists do disagree over some details. However, the majority of the scientific community agrees over the principal aspects of the theory. Conflict over the validity of Evolution is a sham perpetrated by the "showmen" of the Religious Right. Keith Miller, of Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God, is a living example of one who believes in both Evolution and a Christian God. People like Miller, who are not uncommon in the scientific community or the general population, dispel the myth that Evolution demands that one embrace atheism. The scientific community is not denying the existence of God; they simply believe that proving the existence of God is beyond the scope of science, and discussion of the subject belongs in philosophy classes.
Pedro Irigonegaray, the "lyin' tamer" in this circus, is an attorney who chose to volunteer his services as the sole advocate for the preservation of Evolution in the science standards in the state of Kansas. He called the proceedings a "kangaroo court" and stated that Intelligent Design, the "rival theory" to Evolution, is "junk science". Through cross examination of the "expert witnesses" against Evolution, Irigonegaray exposed the fact that several of them have not even read the science curriculum recommendations submitted to the board. Following that revelation, conservative Christian board member Kathy Martin acknowledged that she had not read the recommendations in their entirety either.
What precipitated this absurdity?
In 2004, two groups presented recommendations to the Kansas State School Board concerning the science curriculum. A Majority Report by 25 individuals, including Steve Case, an associate research professor at the University of Kansas, recommended virtually no changes with respect to how public schools teach Evolution. John Calvert and seven other individuals wrote a Minority Report, summarized at http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Summary%20of%20Key%20Proposals.pdf. Displaying the height of hubris, this report calls for the school board to rewrite the very definition of science. The state school board, comprised of ten members, is dominated by six conservative Christian members. After receiving the Majority and Minority Reports, the "Big Six", employing their infinite Biblical wisdom, decided that Kansas needed to hold a hearing to determine the validity of the theory of Evolution.
What do the moderate school board members think?
At least two of the more moderate members of the board have refused to participate in the process. They both responded to me with their thoughts on the proceedings.
Sue Gamble wrote:
"I do not support these hearings and will not participate in them. There is no controversy in the Science Community about the validity of Evolution as a part of Science. The Theory of Evolution has been continually supported and strengthened since its introduction in 1859. My understanding from scientists is that Evolution is one of the strongest theories within science, and actually unifies other scientific disciplines. This is a political issue for the ultra conservative faction on the state board who currently hold 6/4 majority. This is not an educational issue."
Carol Rupe, another moderate board member, expressed her views:
"My personal belief is that God created the heavens and the earth and that He did it through evolution. There is no controversy for me between science and my faith. My father is a doctor and my son is a doctor; they have taken many science courses. They also both have strong faiths. I think that in science class we must teach what scientists think happened. There are plenty of opportunities to teach other ideas in philosophy, sociology, and comparative religion classes. We've been hearing that the teaching of evolution is itself teaching a religion. I certainly don't feel that way, and I don't know of anyone who does. Science is not anti-God any more than math is anti-God. The discussions that are taking place about changing science should be between scientists in the science community. If Intelligent Design is to be recognized as science, then it needs to be peer reviewed. If it is accepted by scientists, then it should be taught. The debate should not be taking place in school board meetings across the country because that is not where science becomes science."
Cast of "Characters"
Ironically, not one of the "performers" in Kansas’s version of the Cirque Plume holds a PhD in evolutionary biology. Their credentials qualifying them as “experts” qualified to objectively challenge the theory of Evolution are highly questionable. John Calvert, the "star of the show", is a retired attorney turned Intelligent Design proponent. William Harris, a close associate of Calvert, is a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, and has admitted that he believes that the Christian God is the "Intelligent Designer". Mustafa Akyol is a Turkish activist writer with a master's degree in history. Akyol is affiliated with a Turkish organization called Bilim Arasfirma Vakfi, which began as a religious cult, and was instrumental in virtually eliminating Evolution from the curriculum of Turkish schools. High school biology classes in Turkey, a secular nation, now teach a form of creationism. Charles Thaxton and Jonathan Wells are both strong proponents of the concept of Intelligent Design, the pseudo science offered by the Religious Right as an alternative “theory” to Evolution.
What is this Intelligent Design "Theory" Anyway?
Intelligent Design is a cleverly packaged form of Creationism which the Religious Right is attempting to sneak into public classrooms through a variety of means, including this farcical "hearing" in Kansas. In 1991, Phillip Johnson, a Berkeley law professor, kicked off the movement by authoring Darwin on Trial. The premise of Intelligent Design is that mere observation of the complexity of the universe provides "evidence" that there was an intelligent designer. In virtual unanimity, the scientific community rejects the credibility of Intelligent Design. Lacking the support of scientific evidence, research, or peer review, Intelligent Design only qualifies as a "theory" in the minds of those who are desperate to "prove" the existence of their version of the Christian God, and manipulate our children into believing in their version of the Christian faith. In 1996, Bruce Chapman founded an allegedly non- partisan think- tank called the Discovery Institute. However, an internal document leaked in 1999 called The Wedge Strategy (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/wedge_document.html) belies the true purpose of Discovery.
In the Wedge, the Discovery Institute summarizes its five year objective as follows:
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Despite its denials to assertions that it is advancing Creationism as an alternative to Evolution through the theory of Intelligent Design, Discovery’s Christian agenda, and its alignment with the Religious Right, are quite obvious. Howard Ahmanson, an ultra-conservative California savings and loan heir has provided Discovery with millions of dollars in funding. Phillip Johnson still appears as a "program advisor" on Discovery's website (http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php). Two of the "circus performers" from the Kansas trial, Charles Thaxton and Jonathan Wells, are listed as "fellows" with the Institute. If one needs further evidence, The Wedge Strategy document articulates their objectives quite clearly. After connecting the dots, it does not take a rocket scientist (or an evolutionary biologist) to see the pattern emerging with Johnson, Calvert, Harris, and their cohorts leading the charge to drive their Christian wedge into America's secular public schools.
Betrayals of Public Trust
Our three "ring-masters" here in Kansas are "poster children" for the Intelligent Design movement, and its insidious purposes. Elected by the people of Kansas to represent the educational interests of our children in our secular public schools, Kathy Martin, Steve Abrams, and Connie Morris are selling our children out to advance the cause of the Religious Right. In a state where there is currently a dearth of funding for public schools, they chose to spend $10,000.00 on the "Scopes II" spectacle simply to provide a vehicle to support their denigration of Evolution, one of the most widely accepted theories in the scientific community. By choosing to help employ The Wedge Strategy to transform public school classrooms into religious pulpits, they are complicit in violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution and in trampling the rights of America’s 75 million non-Christians.
As a Kansas taxpayer, voter, and parent of a student in the public school system, I take serious issue with the waste of time and resources spent on these hearings. It is a foregone conclusion that the 6-4 majority on the board will vote to adopt the science standard recommendations of the Minority Report. They have stacked the deck in their favor. They have launched tenacious propagandistic attacks against sound science, and are preparing to flatten the wall of separation of church and state. My wife and I teach our son spirituality in the home. If we wanted a school that taught Evangelical Christian dogma, we would send him to a private Evangelical Christian school. Spiritual lessons belong in the home or the church, not in the public schools, and certainly not in science classes. Even my two other sons, who attend a Catholic school, will learn the theory of Evolution in their science classes when they reach that point in the curriculum.
Board member Kathy Martin, the out-spoken former teacher from Clay Center, Kansas, minces no words about her agenda or her tenuous grasp of the facts. In an interview with the Clay City paper, Ms. Martin said, "Evolution has been proven false. Intelligent Design is science-based and strong in facts." Going further, she stated, "Man has changed and evolved, but we are not going to change back into monkeys." Giving an enthusiastic “thumbs up” to the Religious Right when asked if Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism, she commented, "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard." Ms. Martin saved her most revealing dictum for last. "Why shouldn’t theology be taught in the classroom? Morality ought to be taught in every class. Prayer ought to be allowed. Whenever a child wanted to pray in class, I prayed with them. All children believe in God. Even little children whose parents don't take them to church believe in God." It is indeed frightening that she is in a position that enables her to render decisions affecting the education of our children.
What are the stakes?
Once the dog and pony show is over, the Kansas State School Board will implement the Minority Report, rewrite the definition of science as we now know it, and seriously weaken the standing that Evolution holds in our science classes. 455,000 young minds stand to be corrupted by the introduction of the "junk science" of Intelligent Design" into the classroom. Next year, our children could be learning that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, and that humans saddled and rode dinosaurs. Both are commonly held beliefs amongst ardent members of the Religious Right. Two years from now, Genesis could replace Evolution in biology classes. Kansas is not the only battleground over Evolution. Ohio schools adopted challenges to Evolution in 2002. Twenty other states are contemplating similar changes in their curriculum.
Despite the fact that it is a loosely organized coalition, the Religious Right is highly unified in their thrust to achieve their objective of a theocratic, Christian nation. Men like James Dobson, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell have a vision for America that includes strengthening the patriarchal nature of our society, establishing Christianity as the national religion, superseding the US Constitution with the Bible as the ultimate source of American law, openly persecuting homosexuals and non-Christians, and teaching our children that faith supplants reason. Take a long hard look at "Scopes II". Kansas may be a strong-hold for the Religious Right, but it is not an aberration to be dismissed lightly. Dominionism, the act of Christians rising to fulfill their God-appointed places of rulers of the Earth (see Genesis 1:26), is the ultimate goal of this movement, and the Religious Right is increasing its political power across the country with each passing day. “Scopes II” is merely the first of many circus-like spectacles, not unlike those held in the Colosseum of ancient Rome. However, this time around the “true Christians” of the Religious Right intend to make lion fodder of their opposition.
Yes, Phineas Taylor Barnum would be green with envy. The master of the hoodwink would be in awe of the Religious Right were he alive today. Snake-charming, beguiling, conning, and flimflamming are at the heart of their repertoire, and their leaders leave Barnum looking like a bush leaguer. If the religious conversion business cycle hits a lull, there will be a glut of highly talented salespeople looking for work. This week, this Evangelical movement is flexing its muscle, and flashing its propagandistic cunning, as it soaks up the spotlight of national media attention in Topeka, Kansas.
Ringling Brothers could not rival the hype of the circus of events dubbed "Scopes II". Led by its three “ring masters” (Kathy Martin, Steve Abrams, and Connie Morris), the Kansas State School Board has once again put the theory of Evolution on trial. Despite the lack of testimony from a single member of the established, mainstream scientific community, "the show must go on" as the board “proves” that Evolution is dubious at best. The purpose of this extravaganza is to “validate” the new science standards they desperately want to implement, and they are determined to “bring home the win” this time.
Under the "big top" of Memorial Hall in Topeka, the board has paraded a panel of "expert witnesses" to testify that Evolution is a "flawed theory". Several witnesses have asserted the fiction that there is a "controversy" in the scientific community about the validity of the theory of Evolution. John Calvert, a retired attorney and Kansas resident who heads the Intelligent Design Network, read scripted questions to nine of the twenty three anti-Evolution witnesses over the course of May 5 and May 6, with more to following after the weekend.
Validity of Evolution Speaks for Itself
Meanwhile, the mainstream scientific community has elected to boycott this charade. Their position is that by participating in "The Greatest Show on Earth", they would be lending credence to the assertions that there is a controversy over Evolution, and that those who believe in Evolution are atheists by default. The truth is that the theory of Evolution has grown and changed significantly since its assertion by Charles Darwin in 1859, and scientists do disagree over some details. However, the majority of the scientific community agrees over the principal aspects of the theory. Conflict over the validity of Evolution is a sham perpetrated by the "showmen" of the Religious Right. Keith Miller, of Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God, is a living example of one who believes in both Evolution and a Christian God. People like Miller, who are not uncommon in the scientific community or the general population, dispel the myth that Evolution demands that one embrace atheism. The scientific community is not denying the existence of God; they simply believe that proving the existence of God is beyond the scope of science, and discussion of the subject belongs in philosophy classes.
Pedro Irigonegaray, the "lyin' tamer" in this circus, is an attorney who chose to volunteer his services as the sole advocate for the preservation of Evolution in the science standards in the state of Kansas. He called the proceedings a "kangaroo court" and stated that Intelligent Design, the "rival theory" to Evolution, is "junk science". Through cross examination of the "expert witnesses" against Evolution, Irigonegaray exposed the fact that several of them have not even read the science curriculum recommendations submitted to the board. Following that revelation, conservative Christian board member Kathy Martin acknowledged that she had not read the recommendations in their entirety either.
What precipitated this absurdity?
In 2004, two groups presented recommendations to the Kansas State School Board concerning the science curriculum. A Majority Report by 25 individuals, including Steve Case, an associate research professor at the University of Kansas, recommended virtually no changes with respect to how public schools teach Evolution. John Calvert and seven other individuals wrote a Minority Report, summarized at http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Summary%20of%20Key%20Proposals.pdf. Displaying the height of hubris, this report calls for the school board to rewrite the very definition of science. The state school board, comprised of ten members, is dominated by six conservative Christian members. After receiving the Majority and Minority Reports, the "Big Six", employing their infinite Biblical wisdom, decided that Kansas needed to hold a hearing to determine the validity of the theory of Evolution.
What do the moderate school board members think?
At least two of the more moderate members of the board have refused to participate in the process. They both responded to me with their thoughts on the proceedings.
Sue Gamble wrote:
"I do not support these hearings and will not participate in them. There is no controversy in the Science Community about the validity of Evolution as a part of Science. The Theory of Evolution has been continually supported and strengthened since its introduction in 1859. My understanding from scientists is that Evolution is one of the strongest theories within science, and actually unifies other scientific disciplines. This is a political issue for the ultra conservative faction on the state board who currently hold 6/4 majority. This is not an educational issue."
Carol Rupe, another moderate board member, expressed her views:
"My personal belief is that God created the heavens and the earth and that He did it through evolution. There is no controversy for me between science and my faith. My father is a doctor and my son is a doctor; they have taken many science courses. They also both have strong faiths. I think that in science class we must teach what scientists think happened. There are plenty of opportunities to teach other ideas in philosophy, sociology, and comparative religion classes. We've been hearing that the teaching of evolution is itself teaching a religion. I certainly don't feel that way, and I don't know of anyone who does. Science is not anti-God any more than math is anti-God. The discussions that are taking place about changing science should be between scientists in the science community. If Intelligent Design is to be recognized as science, then it needs to be peer reviewed. If it is accepted by scientists, then it should be taught. The debate should not be taking place in school board meetings across the country because that is not where science becomes science."
Cast of "Characters"
Ironically, not one of the "performers" in Kansas’s version of the Cirque Plume holds a PhD in evolutionary biology. Their credentials qualifying them as “experts” qualified to objectively challenge the theory of Evolution are highly questionable. John Calvert, the "star of the show", is a retired attorney turned Intelligent Design proponent. William Harris, a close associate of Calvert, is a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, and has admitted that he believes that the Christian God is the "Intelligent Designer". Mustafa Akyol is a Turkish activist writer with a master's degree in history. Akyol is affiliated with a Turkish organization called Bilim Arasfirma Vakfi, which began as a religious cult, and was instrumental in virtually eliminating Evolution from the curriculum of Turkish schools. High school biology classes in Turkey, a secular nation, now teach a form of creationism. Charles Thaxton and Jonathan Wells are both strong proponents of the concept of Intelligent Design, the pseudo science offered by the Religious Right as an alternative “theory” to Evolution.
What is this Intelligent Design "Theory" Anyway?
Intelligent Design is a cleverly packaged form of Creationism which the Religious Right is attempting to sneak into public classrooms through a variety of means, including this farcical "hearing" in Kansas. In 1991, Phillip Johnson, a Berkeley law professor, kicked off the movement by authoring Darwin on Trial. The premise of Intelligent Design is that mere observation of the complexity of the universe provides "evidence" that there was an intelligent designer. In virtual unanimity, the scientific community rejects the credibility of Intelligent Design. Lacking the support of scientific evidence, research, or peer review, Intelligent Design only qualifies as a "theory" in the minds of those who are desperate to "prove" the existence of their version of the Christian God, and manipulate our children into believing in their version of the Christian faith. In 1996, Bruce Chapman founded an allegedly non- partisan think- tank called the Discovery Institute. However, an internal document leaked in 1999 called The Wedge Strategy (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/wedge_document.html) belies the true purpose of Discovery.
In the Wedge, the Discovery Institute summarizes its five year objective as follows:
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Despite its denials to assertions that it is advancing Creationism as an alternative to Evolution through the theory of Intelligent Design, Discovery’s Christian agenda, and its alignment with the Religious Right, are quite obvious. Howard Ahmanson, an ultra-conservative California savings and loan heir has provided Discovery with millions of dollars in funding. Phillip Johnson still appears as a "program advisor" on Discovery's website (http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php). Two of the "circus performers" from the Kansas trial, Charles Thaxton and Jonathan Wells, are listed as "fellows" with the Institute. If one needs further evidence, The Wedge Strategy document articulates their objectives quite clearly. After connecting the dots, it does not take a rocket scientist (or an evolutionary biologist) to see the pattern emerging with Johnson, Calvert, Harris, and their cohorts leading the charge to drive their Christian wedge into America's secular public schools.
Betrayals of Public Trust
Our three "ring-masters" here in Kansas are "poster children" for the Intelligent Design movement, and its insidious purposes. Elected by the people of Kansas to represent the educational interests of our children in our secular public schools, Kathy Martin, Steve Abrams, and Connie Morris are selling our children out to advance the cause of the Religious Right. In a state where there is currently a dearth of funding for public schools, they chose to spend $10,000.00 on the "Scopes II" spectacle simply to provide a vehicle to support their denigration of Evolution, one of the most widely accepted theories in the scientific community. By choosing to help employ The Wedge Strategy to transform public school classrooms into religious pulpits, they are complicit in violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution and in trampling the rights of America’s 75 million non-Christians.
As a Kansas taxpayer, voter, and parent of a student in the public school system, I take serious issue with the waste of time and resources spent on these hearings. It is a foregone conclusion that the 6-4 majority on the board will vote to adopt the science standard recommendations of the Minority Report. They have stacked the deck in their favor. They have launched tenacious propagandistic attacks against sound science, and are preparing to flatten the wall of separation of church and state. My wife and I teach our son spirituality in the home. If we wanted a school that taught Evangelical Christian dogma, we would send him to a private Evangelical Christian school. Spiritual lessons belong in the home or the church, not in the public schools, and certainly not in science classes. Even my two other sons, who attend a Catholic school, will learn the theory of Evolution in their science classes when they reach that point in the curriculum.
Board member Kathy Martin, the out-spoken former teacher from Clay Center, Kansas, minces no words about her agenda or her tenuous grasp of the facts. In an interview with the Clay City paper, Ms. Martin said, "Evolution has been proven false. Intelligent Design is science-based and strong in facts." Going further, she stated, "Man has changed and evolved, but we are not going to change back into monkeys." Giving an enthusiastic “thumbs up” to the Religious Right when asked if Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism, she commented, "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard." Ms. Martin saved her most revealing dictum for last. "Why shouldn’t theology be taught in the classroom? Morality ought to be taught in every class. Prayer ought to be allowed. Whenever a child wanted to pray in class, I prayed with them. All children believe in God. Even little children whose parents don't take them to church believe in God." It is indeed frightening that she is in a position that enables her to render decisions affecting the education of our children.
What are the stakes?
Once the dog and pony show is over, the Kansas State School Board will implement the Minority Report, rewrite the definition of science as we now know it, and seriously weaken the standing that Evolution holds in our science classes. 455,000 young minds stand to be corrupted by the introduction of the "junk science" of Intelligent Design" into the classroom. Next year, our children could be learning that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, and that humans saddled and rode dinosaurs. Both are commonly held beliefs amongst ardent members of the Religious Right. Two years from now, Genesis could replace Evolution in biology classes. Kansas is not the only battleground over Evolution. Ohio schools adopted challenges to Evolution in 2002. Twenty other states are contemplating similar changes in their curriculum.
Despite the fact that it is a loosely organized coalition, the Religious Right is highly unified in their thrust to achieve their objective of a theocratic, Christian nation. Men like James Dobson, Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell have a vision for America that includes strengthening the patriarchal nature of our society, establishing Christianity as the national religion, superseding the US Constitution with the Bible as the ultimate source of American law, openly persecuting homosexuals and non-Christians, and teaching our children that faith supplants reason. Take a long hard look at "Scopes II". Kansas may be a strong-hold for the Religious Right, but it is not an aberration to be dismissed lightly. Dominionism, the act of Christians rising to fulfill their God-appointed places of rulers of the Earth (see Genesis 1:26), is the ultimate goal of this movement, and the Religious Right is increasing its political power across the country with each passing day. “Scopes II” is merely the first of many circus-like spectacles, not unlike those held in the Colosseum of ancient Rome. However, this time around the “true Christians” of the Religious Right intend to make lion fodder of their opposition.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
THE DOWNSIDE OF THE INTERNET
By William Fisher
The web is a wondrous thing. I couldn’t live without it.
But it is not without its problems. One of them is that anyone can pluck anything from any source and copy it.
Even knowing the risk, imagine my surprise – nay, shock and awe -- when an article of mine appeared on the website of that ultra-libertarian citizen journalist, David Duke.
You will no doubt remember Mr. Duke.
Twenty years ago, he was America’s most renowned ‘white rights’ advocate. In 1988, he ran for the Presidency, eventually appearing on the ballot in 11 states and receiving 47,047 votes. In 1989, he narrowly won a seat in the Louisiana State Legislature. The following year, he ran against Democratic incumbent J. Bennett Johnston for a US Senate seat. Johnston won, but Duke got 43.5 percent of the total vote and 60 percent of the white vote. In 1991, he launched a campaign for the governorship of Louisiana. He lost the election but again won nearly 700,000 votes. Undaunted, in 1996, he again competed in Louisiana’s United States Senate “open” primary, placing fourth among 15 candidates, with 140,910 votes, and carrying several rural parishes.
Then the government charged him with mail fraud and tax evasion for fund-raising efforts that bilked his supporters. He was sentenced to 15 months in prison. His sentence ended in mid-May 2004.
My encounter with Mr. Duke started with a Google search for an article about
home-grown terrorism I had written for the InterPress News Service. The search turned up Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph and a virtual rogue’s gallery of other miscreants.
One of them was David Duke's “European American Home Page”.
(http://www.davidduke.com).
There I found an article entitled, “Roots of Anti-Gentilism Run Deep, Jewish Poll Reveals!” by David Duke.
That came as a big surprise to me, because my article was about a poll of anti-Semitic attitudes in the US conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
(The poll found that nearly 35 million U.S. citizens – 14 percent of the adult population – hold ‘strong’ anti-Semitic beliefs.”)
Mr. Duke seized on one of the survey’s findings: 33 percent of U.S. citizens believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than the United States.
Duke reproduces the headline on my article -- “Poll finds that Roots of Anti-Semitism Run Deep by William Fisher, Interpress Service News Agency, April 25, 2005” – and then writes:
“The ADL claims that it is anti-Semitic and prejudiced to believe that Jews are generally more loyal to Israel than the United States.”
Obviously warming to his subject, Duke then quotes an article by a Jewish-American leader recalling his boyhood and his pride in the achievements of the State of Israel.
In fact, says Mr. Duke, “the ADL survey is itself as ‘anti-Gentile’ as it purports that 33 percent of non-Jews are ‘anti-Semitic’ for saying that they believed Jews were more loyal to Israel than America. In truth the numbers who believe that are probably far above 50 percent, for few in America will dare admit to a pollster that they think Jews are disloyal. For branding a third of our people with the hateful term ‘anti-Semitic’, for simply acknowledging a fact that is easily proven and easily verifiable by Jewish leaders themselves, is a vicious libel against our people.”
Our people? I guess he means Aryans. Or maybe Aliens.
Undeterred by logic, Duke concludes, “The Jewish supremacist beat goes on!”
And so, lamentably, does Mr. Duke. It is rumored that he is thinking of running for Congress!
Which reminds me that the downside of the Internet is that it is the most unforgiving test I know of for one’s faith in the First Amendment.
The web is a wondrous thing. I couldn’t live without it.
But it is not without its problems. One of them is that anyone can pluck anything from any source and copy it.
Even knowing the risk, imagine my surprise – nay, shock and awe -- when an article of mine appeared on the website of that ultra-libertarian citizen journalist, David Duke.
You will no doubt remember Mr. Duke.
Twenty years ago, he was America’s most renowned ‘white rights’ advocate. In 1988, he ran for the Presidency, eventually appearing on the ballot in 11 states and receiving 47,047 votes. In 1989, he narrowly won a seat in the Louisiana State Legislature. The following year, he ran against Democratic incumbent J. Bennett Johnston for a US Senate seat. Johnston won, but Duke got 43.5 percent of the total vote and 60 percent of the white vote. In 1991, he launched a campaign for the governorship of Louisiana. He lost the election but again won nearly 700,000 votes. Undaunted, in 1996, he again competed in Louisiana’s United States Senate “open” primary, placing fourth among 15 candidates, with 140,910 votes, and carrying several rural parishes.
Then the government charged him with mail fraud and tax evasion for fund-raising efforts that bilked his supporters. He was sentenced to 15 months in prison. His sentence ended in mid-May 2004.
My encounter with Mr. Duke started with a Google search for an article about
home-grown terrorism I had written for the InterPress News Service. The search turned up Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph and a virtual rogue’s gallery of other miscreants.
One of them was David Duke's “European American Home Page”.
(http://www.davidduke.com).
There I found an article entitled, “Roots of Anti-Gentilism Run Deep, Jewish Poll Reveals!” by David Duke.
That came as a big surprise to me, because my article was about a poll of anti-Semitic attitudes in the US conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
(The poll found that nearly 35 million U.S. citizens – 14 percent of the adult population – hold ‘strong’ anti-Semitic beliefs.”)
Mr. Duke seized on one of the survey’s findings: 33 percent of U.S. citizens believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than the United States.
Duke reproduces the headline on my article -- “Poll finds that Roots of Anti-Semitism Run Deep by William Fisher, Interpress Service News Agency, April 25, 2005” – and then writes:
“The ADL claims that it is anti-Semitic and prejudiced to believe that Jews are generally more loyal to Israel than the United States.”
Obviously warming to his subject, Duke then quotes an article by a Jewish-American leader recalling his boyhood and his pride in the achievements of the State of Israel.
In fact, says Mr. Duke, “the ADL survey is itself as ‘anti-Gentile’ as it purports that 33 percent of non-Jews are ‘anti-Semitic’ for saying that they believed Jews were more loyal to Israel than America. In truth the numbers who believe that are probably far above 50 percent, for few in America will dare admit to a pollster that they think Jews are disloyal. For branding a third of our people with the hateful term ‘anti-Semitic’, for simply acknowledging a fact that is easily proven and easily verifiable by Jewish leaders themselves, is a vicious libel against our people.”
Our people? I guess he means Aryans. Or maybe Aliens.
Undeterred by logic, Duke concludes, “The Jewish supremacist beat goes on!”
And so, lamentably, does Mr. Duke. It is rumored that he is thinking of running for Congress!
Which reminds me that the downside of the Internet is that it is the most unforgiving test I know of for one’s faith in the First Amendment.
Friday, May 06, 2005
The Arab Democracy Debate Intensifies in Washington
Rami G. Khouri
Rami Khouri is editor-at-large for The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
One of the important and still evolving new developments in Washington's Middle East policy has been the recent proliferation in American efforts to study and to promote democratic reform throughout the Arab world. Several aspects of this seem significant, are very visible here in Washington, and need to be more widely appreciated throughout the Middle East.
The extent, depth and quality of work being done in the United States on Arab democratisation, along with economic, education, security and other reform issues, is impressive. It will also be consequential in due course, because this is an arena where Arabs and Americans are slowly finding it mutually beneficial to work together for a change, rather than opposing, resisting, resenting or fighting each other.
The bulk of the work on Arab democratic reforms is being done by civil society institutions, mostly think tanks and universities. It is refreshing to have so much American energy devoted to exploring the best paths to Arab democracy, and to have American scholars, activists, institutions and officials finally joining and supporting those small numbers of Arabs who have been working for democratic reforms for decades.
One change already visible is that the initial American focus on simply advocating democratic change in the Middle East has now been replaced by a more subtle and useful analysis of three related issues: how to bring about democratic change on the ground, how to anticipate and accept the consequences of this (e.g., Islamists and groups critical of the US and Israel are sure to gain power in many countries), and how to align the democratisation policy and trend with the other pressing issues in the region.
One consequence of this trend has been that public discussion of the Middle East in Washington and the US as a whole has slightly shifted away from the traditional intense focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the more recent focus on Iraq and the war on terror. There is also much debate and disagreement on the real motives for the American government's recent shift towards a greater focus on promoting Arab democracy, and whether Washington has either the commitment or seriousness needed to pursue this policy over the long term.
Critics or sceptics of the US see its policy as driven only by its understandably angry reaction to the attack of Sept. 11, 2001, with Arab democracy being the antidote to dysfunctional political systems and environments that ultimately spawned a global terror industry. They point to the continued sharp discrepancies — or hypocritical inconsistencies — between Washington's democracy promotion efforts in different parts of the region. Iraq and Lebanon, for example, get a great deal of American attention, but promoting democracy seems infinitely less urgent for the US in Libya and Tunisia, to mention only two of the most glaring examples of Arab autocracies and dictatorships that seem to elicit indifference from the American leadership.
These and other issues will sort themselves out over time, presumably, if this trend continues, because these matters are now being subjected to a great deal of very serious analysis and discussion. One of the striking facets of this dynamic that should be grasped more widely in the Arab world is the critical — in fact, the leading — role played by civil society institutions. The most serious policy-related research that both drives the debate and provides the American and Arab governments with useful options to consider is being conducted by organisations such as the Brookings Institution's Saban Centre, the Centre for International and Strategic Studies, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Middle East Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Centre for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, and a handful of others.
Equally significant is that the research under way in most cases is managed jointly by American and Arab scholars, providing a combination of relevance, accuracy and realism that was largely missing from both the unilateral American government's exhortations and small-scale democracy programmes of recent years, and the pleas by Arab democrats for action on the ground. The debate today is in the mainstream, whereas in the last decade or so the idea of changing Arab regimes and their political culture was more the private domain of slightly fringe groups that often seemed as interested in Israeli national security needs as they were in American or Arab needs.
The debate has moved quickly in the last few years from the arena of motional exhortations and unilateral threats to the more productive level of exploring a range of more subtle, interlinked practical realities: realistic options for changing political environments in the Middle East; how the US, Europe and others abroad can be involved usefully and credibly; whether democratisation and regime change via unilateral military force can remain elements of American policy in the region; the best combination of positive inducements and sanctions or threats that could be used to prod change; and whether the focus for democratic reforms should be on Arab governments or civil society.
When I discussed these issues recently with J. Scott Carpenter, the deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labour, it was clear that Washington itself was evolving in terms of how it could most effectively work to promote Arab democracy. He thought a more collaborative and less confrontational era was in the making, noting that “we want to turn the page and see together how we can face the challenge of helping these societies and governments reform over time. We want this to be seen as more of a joint project than something of an American project”.
He also reflects what may be a slightly more humble American official posture that tries to respond to and work with Arab democratic activists, rather than lead or create them.
The focus on the Middle East is becoming multipolar, looking at Arab-Israel issues as well as the regimes themselves. The difference now over two years ago is a willingness to engage in real issues confronting societies in the region, and a real clear understanding by governments in the region of the need to change.
We also see people all over the region asking themselves, “why not here?” Egyptians see events in Lebanon, Tunisians see Abu Mazen getting grilled by Palestinian journalists on Al Jazeera television, and all this creates ferment in the region. The US is not responsible for it, but we have a role to play, and we want to see how best to support and channel the ferment in a positive way.
One of the reasons why the discussion and debate on Arab democratisation are moving ahead so strongly in both the US and the Middle East is that credible civil society activists and institutions are working together to drive the agenda. This has enriched the policy options available to all concerned governments, and has also provided an important new impetus that prods governments to behave more intelligently and urgently.
Rami Khouri is editor-at-large for The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
One of the important and still evolving new developments in Washington's Middle East policy has been the recent proliferation in American efforts to study and to promote democratic reform throughout the Arab world. Several aspects of this seem significant, are very visible here in Washington, and need to be more widely appreciated throughout the Middle East.
The extent, depth and quality of work being done in the United States on Arab democratisation, along with economic, education, security and other reform issues, is impressive. It will also be consequential in due course, because this is an arena where Arabs and Americans are slowly finding it mutually beneficial to work together for a change, rather than opposing, resisting, resenting or fighting each other.
The bulk of the work on Arab democratic reforms is being done by civil society institutions, mostly think tanks and universities. It is refreshing to have so much American energy devoted to exploring the best paths to Arab democracy, and to have American scholars, activists, institutions and officials finally joining and supporting those small numbers of Arabs who have been working for democratic reforms for decades.
One change already visible is that the initial American focus on simply advocating democratic change in the Middle East has now been replaced by a more subtle and useful analysis of three related issues: how to bring about democratic change on the ground, how to anticipate and accept the consequences of this (e.g., Islamists and groups critical of the US and Israel are sure to gain power in many countries), and how to align the democratisation policy and trend with the other pressing issues in the region.
One consequence of this trend has been that public discussion of the Middle East in Washington and the US as a whole has slightly shifted away from the traditional intense focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the more recent focus on Iraq and the war on terror. There is also much debate and disagreement on the real motives for the American government's recent shift towards a greater focus on promoting Arab democracy, and whether Washington has either the commitment or seriousness needed to pursue this policy over the long term.
Critics or sceptics of the US see its policy as driven only by its understandably angry reaction to the attack of Sept. 11, 2001, with Arab democracy being the antidote to dysfunctional political systems and environments that ultimately spawned a global terror industry. They point to the continued sharp discrepancies — or hypocritical inconsistencies — between Washington's democracy promotion efforts in different parts of the region. Iraq and Lebanon, for example, get a great deal of American attention, but promoting democracy seems infinitely less urgent for the US in Libya and Tunisia, to mention only two of the most glaring examples of Arab autocracies and dictatorships that seem to elicit indifference from the American leadership.
These and other issues will sort themselves out over time, presumably, if this trend continues, because these matters are now being subjected to a great deal of very serious analysis and discussion. One of the striking facets of this dynamic that should be grasped more widely in the Arab world is the critical — in fact, the leading — role played by civil society institutions. The most serious policy-related research that both drives the debate and provides the American and Arab governments with useful options to consider is being conducted by organisations such as the Brookings Institution's Saban Centre, the Centre for International and Strategic Studies, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Middle East Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Centre for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, and a handful of others.
Equally significant is that the research under way in most cases is managed jointly by American and Arab scholars, providing a combination of relevance, accuracy and realism that was largely missing from both the unilateral American government's exhortations and small-scale democracy programmes of recent years, and the pleas by Arab democrats for action on the ground. The debate today is in the mainstream, whereas in the last decade or so the idea of changing Arab regimes and their political culture was more the private domain of slightly fringe groups that often seemed as interested in Israeli national security needs as they were in American or Arab needs.
The debate has moved quickly in the last few years from the arena of motional exhortations and unilateral threats to the more productive level of exploring a range of more subtle, interlinked practical realities: realistic options for changing political environments in the Middle East; how the US, Europe and others abroad can be involved usefully and credibly; whether democratisation and regime change via unilateral military force can remain elements of American policy in the region; the best combination of positive inducements and sanctions or threats that could be used to prod change; and whether the focus for democratic reforms should be on Arab governments or civil society.
When I discussed these issues recently with J. Scott Carpenter, the deputy assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labour, it was clear that Washington itself was evolving in terms of how it could most effectively work to promote Arab democracy. He thought a more collaborative and less confrontational era was in the making, noting that “we want to turn the page and see together how we can face the challenge of helping these societies and governments reform over time. We want this to be seen as more of a joint project than something of an American project”.
He also reflects what may be a slightly more humble American official posture that tries to respond to and work with Arab democratic activists, rather than lead or create them.
The focus on the Middle East is becoming multipolar, looking at Arab-Israel issues as well as the regimes themselves. The difference now over two years ago is a willingness to engage in real issues confronting societies in the region, and a real clear understanding by governments in the region of the need to change.
We also see people all over the region asking themselves, “why not here?” Egyptians see events in Lebanon, Tunisians see Abu Mazen getting grilled by Palestinian journalists on Al Jazeera television, and all this creates ferment in the region. The US is not responsible for it, but we have a role to play, and we want to see how best to support and channel the ferment in a positive way.
One of the reasons why the discussion and debate on Arab democratisation are moving ahead so strongly in both the US and the Middle East is that credible civil society activists and institutions are working together to drive the agenda. This has enriched the policy options available to all concerned governments, and has also provided an important new impetus that prods governments to behave more intelligently and urgently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
