By William Fisher
President Bush and Vice President Cheney were apoplectic. Publication of the details of U.S. Government surveillance of the SWIFT money-transfer program were “disgraceful,” a threat to national security.
Congressman Peter King suggested that The New York Times – though it was only one of the newspapers to run this story – be charged with treason. Oh, my!
Facts did nothing to quell this press-bashing frenzy. The facts are that the SWIFT program has been reported by numerous media outlets for the past several years.
According to Roger Cressey, a senior White House counter-terrorism official until 2003, “There have been public references to SWIFT before. The White House is overreaching," Cressey told the Boston Globe, when the administration suggests the Times committed ``a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."
And if the terrorists were clever enough to hijack four airplanes, surely they would have long since figured out that their money trails were being watched. And would have found less formal financial laundries to carry out their evil venture capitalism.
But for the Bush Administration, the SWIFT story presented a wonderful way to change the subject. From Iraq, where things aren’t going so well. From the Supreme Court, which cancelled the President’s blank check. From immigration, where the President’s tanking poll numbers finally gave our supine House of Representatives the spine to resist the more comprehensive approach proposed by their own party’s Senate colleagues. From rising gasoline prices. From post-Katrina chaos. From our problems with Iran and North Korea, and the Administration’s continuing failure to devote serious resources to the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Attacking the messenger is a tried and true Washington tactic. Especially when the messenger is the press.
Democrats didn’t exactly call for Bill Keller’s head, but neither did they distinguish themselves for the political courage to defend the First Amendment.
But the money trail story apparently has legs. Comes now news from the AP that money transfer agencies like Western Union have delayed or blocked thousands of cash deliveries on suspicion of terrorist connections simply because senders or recipients have names like Mohammed or Ahmed.
The AP reports that Western Union Financial Services, Inc., an American company based in Colorado, said its clerks simply are following U.S. Treasury Department guidelines that aim to scrutinize cash flows for terrorist links. Most of the flagged transactions are delayed a few hours. Some are blocked entirely.
"The Treasury program interferes with even the most innocent transactions," said the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, in Washington. "Just because Ahmed is a common name on (the government’s) list, everyone with that name is suddenly stuck."
CAIR spokesman Corey Saylor said Treasury needs to reform its rules.
Treasury’s aggressive approach dates from 9/11, and Western Union's caution is not surprising. September 11th hijacker Mohammed Atta sent money from two Western Union agencies in Maryland before boarding the plane he helped crash into New York's World Trade Center.
But a Western Union branch manager told the AP he was forced to obey U.S. rules that he and others consider too broad.
"Mohammed and Ahmed have become problematic names because they are so common on the list of terrorists," said Nixon Baby, who runs a Western Union franchise in a Dubai neighborhood packed with South Asian businesses.
"These are regulations that Western Union is required to obey. We do not have any control," he added.
But critics of the program say it is far too broad, the AP reports. “The number of people inconvenienced in the United Arab Emirates alone, which closely cooperates with U.S. counter-terror operations, is thought to be significant. One Western Union clerk said about 300 money transfers from a single Dubai franchise were blocked or delayed each day — none of which ever turned up a terrorist link.”
In Washington, a U.S. Treasury spokeswoman said foreign banks have used the department's list of terrorist names to freeze $150 million in assets since it was released after Sept. 11. The terrorist list, which is available on the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control Website, contains hundreds of people named Mohammed.
"Every Mohammed is a terrorist now?" asked a Western Union customer whose money transfer was blocked.
Critics of the Treasury guidelines say they are sending more people to informal money transfer networks called "hundis" or "hawalas" that circumvent government and bank scrutiny, the AP reports. Hawala networks are known to have been used by gangsters and terrorists.
The Administration cannot be faulted for trying to follow the financial trails of people bent on destroying us, whether they are charitable organizations or money transfer companies like SWIFT and Western Union.
The question is whether broad-brush surveillance cloaked in secrecy is the most effective way to achieve this goal without writing the government another blank check.
We know the government’s counter-terrorism people are working hard. But are they working smart?
Friday, July 07, 2006
Friday, June 30, 2006
SIGNING AWAY THE CONSTITUTION?
BY William Fisher
Last March, Congress passed legislation requiring Justice Department officials to give them reports by certain dates on how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
But when President George W. Bush signed the measure into law, he added a "signing statement." The statement said the president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Late last year, Congress approved legislation declaring that U.S. interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
But President Bush's signing statement said the president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
These are but two examples of more than 100 signing statements containing over 500 constitutional challenges President Bush has added to new laws passed by the Congress - many times more than any of his predecessors.
While he has never vetoed a law, many Constitutional scholars say the President is, in effect, exercising a "line item veto" by giving himself authority to waive parts of laws he doesn't like.
The practice has infuriated members of Congress in both parties because it threatens to diminish their power. They consider it an assault on the notion that the Constitution establishes America's three branches of government - legislative, judicial, and executive - as co-equal.
Further fuelling Congressional anger is Bush's defense of his National Security Agency (NSA) "domestic eavesdropping" program, in which the president claimed he could ignore a 1978 law prohibiting wiretaps of U.S. citizens without "probable cause" and a warrant issued by a court.
The NSA program was revealed by the New York Times in (date). Since then, newspapers have disclosed other secret programs, including amassing millions of domestic phone call records and examining perhaps thousands of financial transactions in an effort to track and interrupt possible terrorist activity.
A member of Bush's own party, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opened hearings on the subject this week. He said, "The real issue here is whether the president can cherry-pick what he likes."
And the senior Democrat on the committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, "The president hasn't vetoed any bills, but basically he has done a personal veto. He has said which laws he will not follow and ... put himself above the law, even the same law he has signed."
The hearing is part of a continuing effort by many in Congress to reclaim authority that they say the president has usurped as he has expanded the power of the executive branch.
Bush claims that the Constitution gives the executive branch of government "inherent power" to do "whatever it takes" to protect the people of the United States.
Testifying at the Judiciary Committee hearing on behalf of the Bush Administration, Michelle Boardman, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the US Department of Justice, said that signing statements serve a "legitimate and important function" and are not an abuse of power.
"Congress should not fear signing statements, but welcome the openness they provide," she said. "The president must execute the law faithfully, but the Constitution is the highest law of the land. If the Constitution and the law conflict, the president must choose," she said.
But many Constitutional scholars disagree.
Among them is Barbara Olshansky, Director Counsel of the Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional Rights, a prominent advocacy group. She told IPS, "I think it is hard evidence of (Bush's) continued aggressive arrogation of power. It is a blatant attempt to expand power by pulling the rug out from under Congress each time it passes a bill that he dislikes."
She added, "Many of the laws that Bush has decided to bypass or overwrite by this method involve the military, where he once again invokes the idea that as Commander in Chief he can ignore any law that seeks to regulate the military.
Another opposition view came from Prof. Edward Herman of the University of Pennsylvania, who told IPS, "The brazenness of Bush's use of this practice is remarkable. But even more remarkable is the fact that this de facto further nullification of congressional authority fails to elicit sustained criticism and outrage. It is part of a step-by-step abrogation of constitutional government, and it is swallowed by the flag-wavers and normalized. We are in deep trouble!"
Signing statements are not new - their use started with the fifth U.S. President, James Monroe (1817-1825), and from that time they were used sparingly and mostly for rhetorical purposes. Until Ronald Reagan became President in 1980, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, made 247 signing statements between them.
But President Bush has taken the practice to a new level, attracting criticism both for the number of statements he has issued as well as for his apparent attempts to nullify any legal restrictions on his actions
Democratic members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate are viewing President Bush's signing statements as a dangerous over-reach of presidential power - and a campaign issue for the congressional elections in November.
Last week House Democrats introduced a resolution requiring the president to notify Congress if the president "makes a determination to ignore a duly enacted provision of law."
And Senator Edward M. Kennedy, known as the "lion" of the Senate, declared, "For far too long, Congress has stood by and watched while President Bush has slowly expanded the unilateral powers of the presidency at the expense of the rest of the government and the people," said Senator Kennedy at this week's hearing.
The U.S. legal community is also concerned. Earlier this month, the American Bar Association's Board of Directors formed a Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine to review the use of signing statements and whether or not this use is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Bush's signing statements have covered a wide variety of subjects, ranging from the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders to timely transmission of government-funded scientific information to Congress to rules for firing a government employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
But until President Bush's signing statement on the anti-torture legislation, the subject went virtually unreported by the U.S. press. According to Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University public administration professor who is an authority signing statements, "I think one of the important things here is for reporters to apply their journalistic instincts to this story."
Cooper concludes that the Bush White House "has very effectively expanded the scope and character of the signing statement not only to address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify, but also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress."
Last March, Congress passed legislation requiring Justice Department officials to give them reports by certain dates on how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
But when President George W. Bush signed the measure into law, he added a "signing statement." The statement said the president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.
Late last year, Congress approved legislation declaring that U.S. interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
But President Bush's signing statement said the president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
These are but two examples of more than 100 signing statements containing over 500 constitutional challenges President Bush has added to new laws passed by the Congress - many times more than any of his predecessors.
While he has never vetoed a law, many Constitutional scholars say the President is, in effect, exercising a "line item veto" by giving himself authority to waive parts of laws he doesn't like.
The practice has infuriated members of Congress in both parties because it threatens to diminish their power. They consider it an assault on the notion that the Constitution establishes America's three branches of government - legislative, judicial, and executive - as co-equal.
Further fuelling Congressional anger is Bush's defense of his National Security Agency (NSA) "domestic eavesdropping" program, in which the president claimed he could ignore a 1978 law prohibiting wiretaps of U.S. citizens without "probable cause" and a warrant issued by a court.
The NSA program was revealed by the New York Times in (date). Since then, newspapers have disclosed other secret programs, including amassing millions of domestic phone call records and examining perhaps thousands of financial transactions in an effort to track and interrupt possible terrorist activity.
A member of Bush's own party, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opened hearings on the subject this week. He said, "The real issue here is whether the president can cherry-pick what he likes."
And the senior Democrat on the committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, "The president hasn't vetoed any bills, but basically he has done a personal veto. He has said which laws he will not follow and ... put himself above the law, even the same law he has signed."
The hearing is part of a continuing effort by many in Congress to reclaim authority that they say the president has usurped as he has expanded the power of the executive branch.
Bush claims that the Constitution gives the executive branch of government "inherent power" to do "whatever it takes" to protect the people of the United States.
Testifying at the Judiciary Committee hearing on behalf of the Bush Administration, Michelle Boardman, deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the US Department of Justice, said that signing statements serve a "legitimate and important function" and are not an abuse of power.
"Congress should not fear signing statements, but welcome the openness they provide," she said. "The president must execute the law faithfully, but the Constitution is the highest law of the land. If the Constitution and the law conflict, the president must choose," she said.
But many Constitutional scholars disagree.
Among them is Barbara Olshansky, Director Counsel of the Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional Rights, a prominent advocacy group. She told IPS, "I think it is hard evidence of (Bush's) continued aggressive arrogation of power. It is a blatant attempt to expand power by pulling the rug out from under Congress each time it passes a bill that he dislikes."
She added, "Many of the laws that Bush has decided to bypass or overwrite by this method involve the military, where he once again invokes the idea that as Commander in Chief he can ignore any law that seeks to regulate the military.
Another opposition view came from Prof. Edward Herman of the University of Pennsylvania, who told IPS, "The brazenness of Bush's use of this practice is remarkable. But even more remarkable is the fact that this de facto further nullification of congressional authority fails to elicit sustained criticism and outrage. It is part of a step-by-step abrogation of constitutional government, and it is swallowed by the flag-wavers and normalized. We are in deep trouble!"
Signing statements are not new - their use started with the fifth U.S. President, James Monroe (1817-1825), and from that time they were used sparingly and mostly for rhetorical purposes. Until Ronald Reagan became President in 1980, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, made 247 signing statements between them.
But President Bush has taken the practice to a new level, attracting criticism both for the number of statements he has issued as well as for his apparent attempts to nullify any legal restrictions on his actions
Democratic members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate are viewing President Bush's signing statements as a dangerous over-reach of presidential power - and a campaign issue for the congressional elections in November.
Last week House Democrats introduced a resolution requiring the president to notify Congress if the president "makes a determination to ignore a duly enacted provision of law."
And Senator Edward M. Kennedy, known as the "lion" of the Senate, declared, "For far too long, Congress has stood by and watched while President Bush has slowly expanded the unilateral powers of the presidency at the expense of the rest of the government and the people," said Senator Kennedy at this week's hearing.
The U.S. legal community is also concerned. Earlier this month, the American Bar Association's Board of Directors formed a Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine to review the use of signing statements and whether or not this use is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Bush's signing statements have covered a wide variety of subjects, ranging from the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders to timely transmission of government-funded scientific information to Congress to rules for firing a government employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
But until President Bush's signing statement on the anti-torture legislation, the subject went virtually unreported by the U.S. press. According to Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University public administration professor who is an authority signing statements, "I think one of the important things here is for reporters to apply their journalistic instincts to this story."
Cooper concludes that the Bush White House "has very effectively expanded the scope and character of the signing statement not only to address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify, but also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress."
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
What Is It Like to Be a Saudi Woman?
Khaled Batarfi is a senior editor at Al Madina, an Arabic-language newspaper in Jedda, and who also writes a weekly column for Arab News, an English-language paper in the city. He earned a doctoral degree at the University of Oregon. His article is reprinted with permission.
By Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Lila is the daughter of a brand-name family. This is important in the marriage market, but she has other important qualifications too. She is beautiful, smart, cute and moderately religious. In the beauty section, she is golden dark, tall with thick, long, flowing hair. In school, she had always been top of her class. Her friends and family love her for her good nature, optimism and sense of humor. She never misses a prayer or a religious duty, and lives a modern life with sophisticated attitude. In short, she is a poster-wife.
Her first shocking lesson came at an early age. The family promised to send her to medical school if she achieved A+ grade in high school. She did, but they changed their mind. That was her life’s dream and it was brutally shattered. Instead of becoming a heart surgeon, as she hoped, she is now a high school teacher. Why? Because this is a job where she doesn’t have to mix with men!
Later, there were more shocking lessons. Her suitors were turned away, one after another. Reasons varied, but mostly it was about their social and economic class. Since she inherited a fortune from her father and has a good salary, her brothers suspected that any man with lesser fortunes was after her money.
By the time the “right” suitor arrived, they had already soaked most of her savings. With promises of profitable investment and wiser management they divided her inheritance as well as that of their mother and sisters among themselves. If persuasion didn’t work, they applied social pressure. A woman who refuses to accommodate her own sons and brothers is called names and denied peace of mind.
Finally, they agreed to a suitor. She wasn’t given enough time to check him out, let alone love him. He turned out to have no merits except coming from a brand-name family. He has a shallow, childish personality, who lets his mother run all his affairs and make all his decisions. She couldn’t communicate or meet at any intellectual or emotional level with him from day one.
No one understood her reasons to demand divorce. Her family, tribe, the court and the whole community were against her. As long as he provides for her, and doesn’t mistreat her physically, there were no acceptable legal, logical or social grounds for divorce. She was lucky, because her husband gave up on her, and his mother agreed. They demanded compensations and got them. Gladly, she paid them back the dowry, gifts, jewelry, and whatever cost them for the wedding party and other events.
After divorce, she was socially punished for her rebellion. Her male guardians still wouldn’t accept suitors of lesser class. Suitable ones wouldn’t marry a divorced woman with rebellious attitude. And she wouldn’t accept silly, shallow, old and expired men just because they happen to come from the right tribe.
Now in her mid-thirties, her chances and choices are increasingly limited. The few suitors who trickle now are mostly in their fifties and sixties with wives and kids. In this range they are usually too traditional for her taste. Some are looking for self-financing, salary-earning wives. Others want to escape busy wives and noisy kids to spend some time every now and then with a young, light and lonely woman. Who needs that?
Lila is still waiting. There are many like her — some in a worse situation than hers. At least, Lila can work — a good investment of energy and time. She can go on the net and communicate with people like me. But others I know are not permitted even to leave home, unless really necessary. More decided to accept the hell they know, rather than try the terrible life of the divorced. Then, there is the problem of kids. Mothers have to stay the course with unpleasant husbands and continue to lead unhappy lives so their children won’t be taken away from them.
A lot has to be reviewed, changed and improved: Laws, rules and customs. Islam gave women their due rights and traditions took them away. Since we claim to be Muslims, we should abide by Islamic rules and follow the noble example set by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
By Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Lila is the daughter of a brand-name family. This is important in the marriage market, but she has other important qualifications too. She is beautiful, smart, cute and moderately religious. In the beauty section, she is golden dark, tall with thick, long, flowing hair. In school, she had always been top of her class. Her friends and family love her for her good nature, optimism and sense of humor. She never misses a prayer or a religious duty, and lives a modern life with sophisticated attitude. In short, she is a poster-wife.
Her first shocking lesson came at an early age. The family promised to send her to medical school if she achieved A+ grade in high school. She did, but they changed their mind. That was her life’s dream and it was brutally shattered. Instead of becoming a heart surgeon, as she hoped, she is now a high school teacher. Why? Because this is a job where she doesn’t have to mix with men!
Later, there were more shocking lessons. Her suitors were turned away, one after another. Reasons varied, but mostly it was about their social and economic class. Since she inherited a fortune from her father and has a good salary, her brothers suspected that any man with lesser fortunes was after her money.
By the time the “right” suitor arrived, they had already soaked most of her savings. With promises of profitable investment and wiser management they divided her inheritance as well as that of their mother and sisters among themselves. If persuasion didn’t work, they applied social pressure. A woman who refuses to accommodate her own sons and brothers is called names and denied peace of mind.
Finally, they agreed to a suitor. She wasn’t given enough time to check him out, let alone love him. He turned out to have no merits except coming from a brand-name family. He has a shallow, childish personality, who lets his mother run all his affairs and make all his decisions. She couldn’t communicate or meet at any intellectual or emotional level with him from day one.
No one understood her reasons to demand divorce. Her family, tribe, the court and the whole community were against her. As long as he provides for her, and doesn’t mistreat her physically, there were no acceptable legal, logical or social grounds for divorce. She was lucky, because her husband gave up on her, and his mother agreed. They demanded compensations and got them. Gladly, she paid them back the dowry, gifts, jewelry, and whatever cost them for the wedding party and other events.
After divorce, she was socially punished for her rebellion. Her male guardians still wouldn’t accept suitors of lesser class. Suitable ones wouldn’t marry a divorced woman with rebellious attitude. And she wouldn’t accept silly, shallow, old and expired men just because they happen to come from the right tribe.
Now in her mid-thirties, her chances and choices are increasingly limited. The few suitors who trickle now are mostly in their fifties and sixties with wives and kids. In this range they are usually too traditional for her taste. Some are looking for self-financing, salary-earning wives. Others want to escape busy wives and noisy kids to spend some time every now and then with a young, light and lonely woman. Who needs that?
Lila is still waiting. There are many like her — some in a worse situation than hers. At least, Lila can work — a good investment of energy and time. She can go on the net and communicate with people like me. But others I know are not permitted even to leave home, unless really necessary. More decided to accept the hell they know, rather than try the terrible life of the divorced. Then, there is the problem of kids. Mothers have to stay the course with unpleasant husbands and continue to lead unhappy lives so their children won’t be taken away from them.
A lot has to be reviewed, changed and improved: Laws, rules and customs. Islam gave women their due rights and traditions took them away. Since we claim to be Muslims, we should abide by Islamic rules and follow the noble example set by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Monday, June 26, 2006
CROCODILE TEARS
By William Fisher
If you’re into black humor, you might find it amusing that two of the countries with some of the world’s worst human rights records are making international propaganda hay out of America’s performance in prisoner abuse and civil liberties.
For example, Saudi Arabia’s Arab News, the largest English language newspaper in the Middle East, weighed in on the arrest of the seven Miami men accused of conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.
In an editorial, the newspaper uses the arrests to observe that, post 9/11, “Many Americans may overlook the increasingly draconian security measures being applied in their own backyard as part of the war against terrorism.”
The paper asks: “Will history record that Osama Bin Laden succeeded after all against his real enemies — liberty and freedom?”
The editorial laments the “ugly and uncompromising authoritarian tendencies” unleashed by the shock of 9/11, noting that in “normal times” these tendencies would be fiercely resisted by many in “The Land of the Free.”
It adds, “Among 70 new measures just announced by the White House is a new domestic spy service within the FBI. Why should such an organization be necessary in addition to the FBI itself, the communications work of the NSA, the Secret Service, the Justice Department and peripherally, the work of the CIA? It has also emerged that throughout the US, financial dealings are being monitored extensively in the hope of tracking the movement of terrorist funds. It is also thought that e-mail and telephone calls are now being widely tapped.”
It then asks two questions: “Who can be sure (these actions) will be discarded when Bin Laden is dead and the scourge of Al-Qaeda finally destroyed?” and whether the Bush administration “can be trusted with such sweeping powers?”
These questions don’t sound at all unfamiliar. I’ve asked them of our government countless times. But look at which pot is calling the kettle black.
Saudi Arabia, now a member of the UN’s new Human Rights Council, has one of the most repressive regimes on earth. Its jails are filled with dissidents. Evidence of death and torture in detention is widespread – the U.S. military is reluctant to repatriate Guantanamo’s Saudi prisoners for fear that they’ll be tortured. The desert kingdom is used as a stop on the itinerary of the CIA’s rendition excursions. Saudi women are treated as third-class citizens or worse. Saudi school textbooks are filled with anti-West and anti-Semitic hate. Hundreds of websites are blocked by massive use of some of IT’s most sophisticated technology. There is no freedom of religion, press, assembly, or much of anything else.
It is worth noting that the Desert Kingdom is also the country that supplies about 15 per cent of our imported energy and one that is routinely hailed by the Bush Administration as our stalwart partner in the “Global War on Terrorism.”
The Arab News editorial obviously wasn’t meant for a domestic Saudi audience. Rather, it was written for the English-speaking expats who live in the Middle East and at the West’s mainstream press, which often quotes editorials from foreign papers.
The second piece of hypocrisy is even arguably even more bizarre. It comes from another bastion of liberty, Iran, a theocracy where the people elect a president but where the mullahs call all the shots worth calling.
As in Saudi Arabia, sounding off against the government can be harmful to your health. Very harmful. Iranian jails are filled with dissidents ranging from renowned scholars and intellectuals to bloggers. Human rights organizations have repeatedly produced evidence of torture in these jails. Iran executes children and women accused of adultery. Its God Squad – the religious police – are hated and feared. Iran even removed Nobel prizewinner Sherin Ebadi from the bench because it said women were not fit to serve as judges.
So it has to be with a tad of skepticism that we assess Iran’s outrage at America’s “shameful human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.”
According to the official Iranian news service, the IRNA, “the so-called advocate of human rights, the U.S. administration, violated human rights of several hundred individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism since its occupation of Afghanistan in 2002 when it built Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
Quoting reports from Amnesty International and other human rights groups – bodies that can’t get access to Iranian jails – the IRNA writes that “The situation in the detention camp and the arbitrary detention of the suspects have led to international criticism. ..And the question is whether the U.S. administration which introduces itself as advocate of human rights and democracy honors its commitments to those principles?”
Well, lots of Americans and real democrats from many other countries are asking the same questions. And getting the same non-answers and disinformation from the Bush Administration.
So why not Saudi Arabia and Iran?
Because they’re not democrats. Not even close. They haven’t earned their bones speaking truth to power. They haven’t earned the right to criticize the U.S.
They’re faux democrats crying crocodile tears.
If you’re into black humor, you might find it amusing that two of the countries with some of the world’s worst human rights records are making international propaganda hay out of America’s performance in prisoner abuse and civil liberties.
For example, Saudi Arabia’s Arab News, the largest English language newspaper in the Middle East, weighed in on the arrest of the seven Miami men accused of conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago.
In an editorial, the newspaper uses the arrests to observe that, post 9/11, “Many Americans may overlook the increasingly draconian security measures being applied in their own backyard as part of the war against terrorism.”
The paper asks: “Will history record that Osama Bin Laden succeeded after all against his real enemies — liberty and freedom?”
The editorial laments the “ugly and uncompromising authoritarian tendencies” unleashed by the shock of 9/11, noting that in “normal times” these tendencies would be fiercely resisted by many in “The Land of the Free.”
It adds, “Among 70 new measures just announced by the White House is a new domestic spy service within the FBI. Why should such an organization be necessary in addition to the FBI itself, the communications work of the NSA, the Secret Service, the Justice Department and peripherally, the work of the CIA? It has also emerged that throughout the US, financial dealings are being monitored extensively in the hope of tracking the movement of terrorist funds. It is also thought that e-mail and telephone calls are now being widely tapped.”
It then asks two questions: “Who can be sure (these actions) will be discarded when Bin Laden is dead and the scourge of Al-Qaeda finally destroyed?” and whether the Bush administration “can be trusted with such sweeping powers?”
These questions don’t sound at all unfamiliar. I’ve asked them of our government countless times. But look at which pot is calling the kettle black.
Saudi Arabia, now a member of the UN’s new Human Rights Council, has one of the most repressive regimes on earth. Its jails are filled with dissidents. Evidence of death and torture in detention is widespread – the U.S. military is reluctant to repatriate Guantanamo’s Saudi prisoners for fear that they’ll be tortured. The desert kingdom is used as a stop on the itinerary of the CIA’s rendition excursions. Saudi women are treated as third-class citizens or worse. Saudi school textbooks are filled with anti-West and anti-Semitic hate. Hundreds of websites are blocked by massive use of some of IT’s most sophisticated technology. There is no freedom of religion, press, assembly, or much of anything else.
It is worth noting that the Desert Kingdom is also the country that supplies about 15 per cent of our imported energy and one that is routinely hailed by the Bush Administration as our stalwart partner in the “Global War on Terrorism.”
The Arab News editorial obviously wasn’t meant for a domestic Saudi audience. Rather, it was written for the English-speaking expats who live in the Middle East and at the West’s mainstream press, which often quotes editorials from foreign papers.
The second piece of hypocrisy is even arguably even more bizarre. It comes from another bastion of liberty, Iran, a theocracy where the people elect a president but where the mullahs call all the shots worth calling.
As in Saudi Arabia, sounding off against the government can be harmful to your health. Very harmful. Iranian jails are filled with dissidents ranging from renowned scholars and intellectuals to bloggers. Human rights organizations have repeatedly produced evidence of torture in these jails. Iran executes children and women accused of adultery. Its God Squad – the religious police – are hated and feared. Iran even removed Nobel prizewinner Sherin Ebadi from the bench because it said women were not fit to serve as judges.
So it has to be with a tad of skepticism that we assess Iran’s outrage at America’s “shameful human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.”
According to the official Iranian news service, the IRNA, “the so-called advocate of human rights, the U.S. administration, violated human rights of several hundred individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism since its occupation of Afghanistan in 2002 when it built Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
Quoting reports from Amnesty International and other human rights groups – bodies that can’t get access to Iranian jails – the IRNA writes that “The situation in the detention camp and the arbitrary detention of the suspects have led to international criticism. ..And the question is whether the U.S. administration which introduces itself as advocate of human rights and democracy honors its commitments to those principles?”
Well, lots of Americans and real democrats from many other countries are asking the same questions. And getting the same non-answers and disinformation from the Bush Administration.
So why not Saudi Arabia and Iran?
Because they’re not democrats. Not even close. They haven’t earned their bones speaking truth to power. They haven’t earned the right to criticize the U.S.
They’re faux democrats crying crocodile tears.
HOME GROWN TV NEWS
By William Fisher
The arrests of The Miami Seven - accused of conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago - revealed yet again the love affair cable news anchors have with bumper stickers.
Following the announcements of the indictments and arrests in a three-city press conference extravaganza led by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the phase "home-grown terrorists" was repeated hundreds of times in the next 24-hour cable news cycle.
It was a convenient phrase, because five of the seven suspects are U.S. citizens, one is a legal U.S. resident, and one is an illegal immigrant. And the phrase was familiar to viewers because it's the same one used to describe the London and Madrid bombers.
But one of the downsides of having such a quick and easy bumper-sticker description is that it can rob the story of context. The only context cable news seemed able to provide were a few references to "home-grown terrorist" Timothy McVeigh, executed for the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and a few passing references to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, now serving a life sentence for mailing pipe bombs to some folks he had beefs with.
But this hardly qualifies as context. And news without context is stenography.
So what is the context for this story? There are a few.
One of them is that America has a long and ugly history of "home-grown" terrorism - a fact that seemed to elude cable television and most mainstream print media. Between 1882 and 1968, at least 4,743 American citizens were lynched. Many of these acts were carried out the Ku Klux Klan -- "home-grown" terrorists wrapping themselves in Christianity in the same way today's terrorists purport to represent Islam. Today's Muslim terrorists are described as "Islamists"; maybe we should have called the KKK "Christianists."
The "Christianists" had quite a following. At their peak in the 1920s, their Klan had millions of members -- about 15% of the entire population of the nation. People attended hangings in broad daylight in town squares as entertainment, and took photographs as souvenirs. World War One's black soldiers still in uniform were among the victims.
After years of "home-grown terror," President Ulysses S. Grant and Congress passed the Anti-KKK Act of 1871. That allowed authorities to declare martial law in some counties in South Carolina, where the Klan was the strongest.
While the KKK's popularity eventually waned, it was born again in the early 20th century, and later experienced its "button-down" renaissance led by more respectable-sounding people like David Duke.
The Klan was pretty much driven underground by the efforts of courageous people like lawyer Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center and by the lawyers of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. The civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965, vigorously enforced by the Justice Department, administered the coup de grace.
But it would be fanciful to think "home-grown terror" has gone away. And that's the second piece of missing context.
This kind of "home-grown terror" is still very much alive and well, with active white supremacist "armies" committing little-reported "hate crimes" against the persons and property of African-Americans, Jews, gays and lesbians, and now Muslims. The Justice Department says hate crimes are increasing and are a major category of their criminal prosecutions.
In their Miami press briefing, government officials didn't quite call the suspects "Muslims," but the Attorney General said the men were "inspired by a violent jihadist message." Using an Arabic word to describe The Seven conveyed the impression they were Muslims.
But the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest advocacy group for Muslims in the U.S., lost no time in urging the government to stop confusing the public by using Arabic terminology in referring to the case.
"Given that the reported beliefs of this bizarre group have nothing to do with Islam, we ask members of the media to refrain from calling them 'Muslims,'" said CAIR spokesperson Ahmed Bedier.
The New York Times reported that "at least some of the men were in a religious group called the Seas of David that appeared to mix Christian and Muslim beliefs. The group wore uniforms bearing a Star of David and met for Bible study, prayer and martial arts."
Nonetheless, some of the early TV news accounts of the story described the accused as "Islamists."
At its own news conference in Miami, CAIR called on police departments nationwide to protect mosques and other Islamic institutions from any possible backlash prompted by the mistaken linkage of this case to the American Muslim community. That's backlash from "home-grown terrorists."
So if cable news anchors can't call The Miami Seven "Islamists," whatever are they to do?
My guess is they'll just go on talking about "home-grown terrorists." But it might be helpful if viewers understood that this phenomenon didn't start with The Miami Seven.
There's a final piece of context missing from most of the reporting on The Miami Seven. It's the broader issue of what exactly they are guilty of. At the DOJ's well-publicized news conference, an FBI official said the activities of The Seven were "more aspirational than operational," by which I think he was trying to explain that The Seven conspired to do bad things, but never actually got around to doing them.
So, as this story unfolds, it might be a good idea to remember that since 9/11 the Justice Department has developed this habit of summoning every reporter on the planet to hear and report dire charges that somehow never quite find their way to court.
Jose Padilla is, of course, the poster-boy for this kind of legal sleight of hand. When his arrest was announced - at another well-attended press conference - the DOJ told us this American citizen planned to blow up buildings and bridges with a "dirty bomb." But when he was finally charged - after three years in largely incommunicado military detention - the "dirty bomb" charge was nowhere to be found.
Padilla is not alone; this kind of pre-trial hype has become something of a pattern at the Justice Department. So we'll just have to wait and see what these people are finally charged with and whether the government can prove their guilt.
Meanwhile, cultivate your own home-grown value: patience.
And watch this space.
The arrests of The Miami Seven - accused of conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago - revealed yet again the love affair cable news anchors have with bumper stickers.
Following the announcements of the indictments and arrests in a three-city press conference extravaganza led by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the phase "home-grown terrorists" was repeated hundreds of times in the next 24-hour cable news cycle.
It was a convenient phrase, because five of the seven suspects are U.S. citizens, one is a legal U.S. resident, and one is an illegal immigrant. And the phrase was familiar to viewers because it's the same one used to describe the London and Madrid bombers.
But one of the downsides of having such a quick and easy bumper-sticker description is that it can rob the story of context. The only context cable news seemed able to provide were a few references to "home-grown terrorist" Timothy McVeigh, executed for the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and a few passing references to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, now serving a life sentence for mailing pipe bombs to some folks he had beefs with.
But this hardly qualifies as context. And news without context is stenography.
So what is the context for this story? There are a few.
One of them is that America has a long and ugly history of "home-grown" terrorism - a fact that seemed to elude cable television and most mainstream print media. Between 1882 and 1968, at least 4,743 American citizens were lynched. Many of these acts were carried out the Ku Klux Klan -- "home-grown" terrorists wrapping themselves in Christianity in the same way today's terrorists purport to represent Islam. Today's Muslim terrorists are described as "Islamists"; maybe we should have called the KKK "Christianists."
The "Christianists" had quite a following. At their peak in the 1920s, their Klan had millions of members -- about 15% of the entire population of the nation. People attended hangings in broad daylight in town squares as entertainment, and took photographs as souvenirs. World War One's black soldiers still in uniform were among the victims.
After years of "home-grown terror," President Ulysses S. Grant and Congress passed the Anti-KKK Act of 1871. That allowed authorities to declare martial law in some counties in South Carolina, where the Klan was the strongest.
While the KKK's popularity eventually waned, it was born again in the early 20th century, and later experienced its "button-down" renaissance led by more respectable-sounding people like David Duke.
The Klan was pretty much driven underground by the efforts of courageous people like lawyer Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center and by the lawyers of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. The civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965, vigorously enforced by the Justice Department, administered the coup de grace.
But it would be fanciful to think "home-grown terror" has gone away. And that's the second piece of missing context.
This kind of "home-grown terror" is still very much alive and well, with active white supremacist "armies" committing little-reported "hate crimes" against the persons and property of African-Americans, Jews, gays and lesbians, and now Muslims. The Justice Department says hate crimes are increasing and are a major category of their criminal prosecutions.
In their Miami press briefing, government officials didn't quite call the suspects "Muslims," but the Attorney General said the men were "inspired by a violent jihadist message." Using an Arabic word to describe The Seven conveyed the impression they were Muslims.
But the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest advocacy group for Muslims in the U.S., lost no time in urging the government to stop confusing the public by using Arabic terminology in referring to the case.
"Given that the reported beliefs of this bizarre group have nothing to do with Islam, we ask members of the media to refrain from calling them 'Muslims,'" said CAIR spokesperson Ahmed Bedier.
The New York Times reported that "at least some of the men were in a religious group called the Seas of David that appeared to mix Christian and Muslim beliefs. The group wore uniforms bearing a Star of David and met for Bible study, prayer and martial arts."
Nonetheless, some of the early TV news accounts of the story described the accused as "Islamists."
At its own news conference in Miami, CAIR called on police departments nationwide to protect mosques and other Islamic institutions from any possible backlash prompted by the mistaken linkage of this case to the American Muslim community. That's backlash from "home-grown terrorists."
So if cable news anchors can't call The Miami Seven "Islamists," whatever are they to do?
My guess is they'll just go on talking about "home-grown terrorists." But it might be helpful if viewers understood that this phenomenon didn't start with The Miami Seven.
There's a final piece of context missing from most of the reporting on The Miami Seven. It's the broader issue of what exactly they are guilty of. At the DOJ's well-publicized news conference, an FBI official said the activities of The Seven were "more aspirational than operational," by which I think he was trying to explain that The Seven conspired to do bad things, but never actually got around to doing them.
So, as this story unfolds, it might be a good idea to remember that since 9/11 the Justice Department has developed this habit of summoning every reporter on the planet to hear and report dire charges that somehow never quite find their way to court.
Jose Padilla is, of course, the poster-boy for this kind of legal sleight of hand. When his arrest was announced - at another well-attended press conference - the DOJ told us this American citizen planned to blow up buildings and bridges with a "dirty bomb." But when he was finally charged - after three years in largely incommunicado military detention - the "dirty bomb" charge was nowhere to be found.
Padilla is not alone; this kind of pre-trial hype has become something of a pattern at the Justice Department. So we'll just have to wait and see what these people are finally charged with and whether the government can prove their guilt.
Meanwhile, cultivate your own home-grown value: patience.
And watch this space.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
oh leaders who speak for me
I resent your audacity
to represent my America
with your empire building
fear mongering
and arrogant
intolerance
you speak the language
of bombs
your words divide
make hate
raise fear
wage war
you ask us to sacrifice
our children
and the children
of our “enemies”
in pursuit of a
half-empty
barrel of oil
you close your ears to the wind
turn your face from the sun
and pillage our
precious world
I am sad for the loss of my America
I am sad for my children’s children
who will reap the seeds
that have been sown in their name
and are left behind
I am sad for the loss
of friends around the world
who used to admire our vision
I am sad for my America lost
that I have loved
The poem above was written by an old friend, Gwen Gould, who is a well-known organist and conductor.
to represent my America
with your empire building
fear mongering
and arrogant
intolerance
you speak the language
of bombs
your words divide
make hate
raise fear
wage war
you ask us to sacrifice
our children
and the children
of our “enemies”
in pursuit of a
half-empty
barrel of oil
you close your ears to the wind
turn your face from the sun
and pillage our
precious world
I am sad for the loss of my America
I am sad for my children’s children
who will reap the seeds
that have been sown in their name
and are left behind
I am sad for the loss
of friends around the world
who used to admire our vision
I am sad for my America lost
that I have loved
The poem above was written by an old friend, Gwen Gould, who is a well-known organist and conductor.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
ESTHER,THE IMMIGRANT
By William Fisher
Esther, my late mother-in-law, was an immigrant from Poland. When she arrived at Ellis Island as a teen-ager just before the First World War, she spoke Polish but could not read that or any other language.
The reason was that, when she was eight years old, she was sent off to a far-away village to work in a bakery so she could send money home to help support her family.
She knew how to sew, so she got a job in a New York sweatshop making garments. She worked about ten hours a day and got paid on a piecework basis.
Not unusual, so far. Millions of immigrants had similar experiences in their new Land of Opportunity.
After a few years in America, Esther had heard enough English to speak the language, albeit with a thick Eastern European accent and a very limited vocabulary. She could count to ten, but couldn't read a word. She got to work by counting the subway stops.
Still not so unusual.
But then came World War Two, and Esther decided she had to become an American. Not just a resident, but a full-fledged American citizen.
But she'd have to pass the citizenship exam, which meant she would need to know about how our country came to be, about our Founding Fathers, about our Constitution, about our government.
And that meant learning to read.
So over the next couple of years, Esther's two young daughters spent endless hours teaching their Mom to read - and write - English. Together they read elementary school textbook on civics and American history, memorized the Bill of Rights, and learned about the three branches of our government. They gave their Mom homework assignments to write - in English. They took her to night school civics classes. They even bought her one of those Berlitz taped language courses, put it under her pillow and left it on all night so the knowledge would osmose while Esther slept.
So, when the long-anticipated day came, a very nervous Esther answered all the judge's questions correctly. Then she stood before him in the courtroom in Brooklyn with a group of other immigrants, raised her right hand, and took the oath of citizenship.
So maybe she didn't exactly have the encyclopedic Constitutional knowledge of a Senator Robert Byrd, but she was a citizen!
It was, she told me years later, the proudest moment of her life.
So why am I telling you all this?
Because, as you will know unless you've been in a long sleep, there's a huge immigration debate going on our country now. It's mostly about how to protect our borders, what to do with the 10-12 million immigrants already living among us, and how to handle the millions more who come to our country to work. Congress is considering - some would say stonewalling -- legislation that's supposed to address all these issues.
One of the features of that legislation is a requirement that immigrants learn to read, write and speak English, learn about our Founding Fathers, our Constitution, our history, our branches of government. But they'll have learn all this not to become citizens, but simply to pass the test allowing them to remain in the U.S.
Maybe this is such a good idea that we ought to extend it to those lucky folks who were born American citizens.
But passing the "stay in America" test is likely to be a huge problem for our citizens. It is unlikely to win any votes for candidates for public office.
Consider the following results from recent tests:
Just 22% of high school seniors had a "proficient" understanding of how the American government works. And only one in 25 scored at the "advanced" level.
Just one in four seniors could think of just two ways the U.S. system of government prevents the exercise of "absolute arbitrary power." (Among the 14 possible answers were such basics as the Bill of Rights, an independent judiciary, civilian control of the military -- and the right to vote.)
A third of high school seniors didn't know the Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of the federal government.
Not one in ten seniors could identify two ways a democracy benefits from the active participation of its citizens.
Just over a third knew that the Supreme Court pointed to the Constitution's 14th Amendment when it began to overturn segregation laws.
Nearly three of every four students don't not think about the First Amendment or say they take its rights for granted.
Seventy-five percent of students said they thought flag burning was illegal, nearly 50 percent believed the government could censor the Internet, and many students didn't think newspapers should publish freely.
In other tests, an obscene proportion of high school seniors couldn't find Iraq on a map, and only a slightly smaller group couldn't locate Mexico.
College seniors -- from such schools as Yale, Northwestern, Smith, and Bowdoin -- don't fare any better.
For example, only 23 percent of this college group was able to correctly identify James Madison as the "Father of the Constitution," while 98 percent knew that Snoop Doggy Dog is a rapper and the same percentage correctly identified Beavis and Butthead!
The moral of this story is that if Americans had to pass the same test as the one being proposed for immigrants, most of us would find ourselves getting deported.
But the solution is not eliminating the test for immigrants - my late
mother-in-law would have applauded this idea. The solution is educating Americans.
In virtually every international comparative test of Americans' knowledge of critical subjects, the US scores behind most industrialized countries in most subjects.
Today, the public focus of our deficits leans toward science and technology. Bill Gates and many others have pointed out that more than half the engineers working in America today came here from somewhere else. And that the number of foreign graduate students at American universities has dropped like a stone since 9/11.
Of course science and technology are important.
But how effective are these tekkies - whether immigrant or native-born -- likely to be as citizens if they are clueless about what America is, what it stands for, how it got to where it is, and how to participate in fixing it.
Think about it: When was the last time you heard about an American school at any level starting a class in civics?
Civics - the word itself has practically become a dinosaur in our lexicon - has gone the way of teaching art and music in our public schools.
But civics teaches us to be good citizens.
Like Esther, the immigrant.
Esther, my late mother-in-law, was an immigrant from Poland. When she arrived at Ellis Island as a teen-ager just before the First World War, she spoke Polish but could not read that or any other language.
The reason was that, when she was eight years old, she was sent off to a far-away village to work in a bakery so she could send money home to help support her family.
She knew how to sew, so she got a job in a New York sweatshop making garments. She worked about ten hours a day and got paid on a piecework basis.
Not unusual, so far. Millions of immigrants had similar experiences in their new Land of Opportunity.
After a few years in America, Esther had heard enough English to speak the language, albeit with a thick Eastern European accent and a very limited vocabulary. She could count to ten, but couldn't read a word. She got to work by counting the subway stops.
Still not so unusual.
But then came World War Two, and Esther decided she had to become an American. Not just a resident, but a full-fledged American citizen.
But she'd have to pass the citizenship exam, which meant she would need to know about how our country came to be, about our Founding Fathers, about our Constitution, about our government.
And that meant learning to read.
So over the next couple of years, Esther's two young daughters spent endless hours teaching their Mom to read - and write - English. Together they read elementary school textbook on civics and American history, memorized the Bill of Rights, and learned about the three branches of our government. They gave their Mom homework assignments to write - in English. They took her to night school civics classes. They even bought her one of those Berlitz taped language courses, put it under her pillow and left it on all night so the knowledge would osmose while Esther slept.
So, when the long-anticipated day came, a very nervous Esther answered all the judge's questions correctly. Then she stood before him in the courtroom in Brooklyn with a group of other immigrants, raised her right hand, and took the oath of citizenship.
So maybe she didn't exactly have the encyclopedic Constitutional knowledge of a Senator Robert Byrd, but she was a citizen!
It was, she told me years later, the proudest moment of her life.
So why am I telling you all this?
Because, as you will know unless you've been in a long sleep, there's a huge immigration debate going on our country now. It's mostly about how to protect our borders, what to do with the 10-12 million immigrants already living among us, and how to handle the millions more who come to our country to work. Congress is considering - some would say stonewalling -- legislation that's supposed to address all these issues.
One of the features of that legislation is a requirement that immigrants learn to read, write and speak English, learn about our Founding Fathers, our Constitution, our history, our branches of government. But they'll have learn all this not to become citizens, but simply to pass the test allowing them to remain in the U.S.
Maybe this is such a good idea that we ought to extend it to those lucky folks who were born American citizens.
But passing the "stay in America" test is likely to be a huge problem for our citizens. It is unlikely to win any votes for candidates for public office.
Consider the following results from recent tests:
Just 22% of high school seniors had a "proficient" understanding of how the American government works. And only one in 25 scored at the "advanced" level.
Just one in four seniors could think of just two ways the U.S. system of government prevents the exercise of "absolute arbitrary power." (Among the 14 possible answers were such basics as the Bill of Rights, an independent judiciary, civilian control of the military -- and the right to vote.)
A third of high school seniors didn't know the Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of the federal government.
Not one in ten seniors could identify two ways a democracy benefits from the active participation of its citizens.
Just over a third knew that the Supreme Court pointed to the Constitution's 14th Amendment when it began to overturn segregation laws.
Nearly three of every four students don't not think about the First Amendment or say they take its rights for granted.
Seventy-five percent of students said they thought flag burning was illegal, nearly 50 percent believed the government could censor the Internet, and many students didn't think newspapers should publish freely.
In other tests, an obscene proportion of high school seniors couldn't find Iraq on a map, and only a slightly smaller group couldn't locate Mexico.
College seniors -- from such schools as Yale, Northwestern, Smith, and Bowdoin -- don't fare any better.
For example, only 23 percent of this college group was able to correctly identify James Madison as the "Father of the Constitution," while 98 percent knew that Snoop Doggy Dog is a rapper and the same percentage correctly identified Beavis and Butthead!
The moral of this story is that if Americans had to pass the same test as the one being proposed for immigrants, most of us would find ourselves getting deported.
But the solution is not eliminating the test for immigrants - my late
mother-in-law would have applauded this idea. The solution is educating Americans.
In virtually every international comparative test of Americans' knowledge of critical subjects, the US scores behind most industrialized countries in most subjects.
Today, the public focus of our deficits leans toward science and technology. Bill Gates and many others have pointed out that more than half the engineers working in America today came here from somewhere else. And that the number of foreign graduate students at American universities has dropped like a stone since 9/11.
Of course science and technology are important.
But how effective are these tekkies - whether immigrant or native-born -- likely to be as citizens if they are clueless about what America is, what it stands for, how it got to where it is, and how to participate in fixing it.
Think about it: When was the last time you heard about an American school at any level starting a class in civics?
Civics - the word itself has practically become a dinosaur in our lexicon - has gone the way of teaching art and music in our public schools.
But civics teaches us to be good citizens.
Like Esther, the immigrant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
