Book Review: Today's Most Un-Political, Un-Productive and Totally Hilarious Self-Help Book

Reviewed by William Fisher

If you happen to be one of those hopeful people who believe that the next
"how-to" book you buy will be your silver bullet, do not read this column.

You will not only be disappointed. It will cost you. And you could end up
broke and homeless.

I'm not clear on whether these were Brian Foley's goals when he wrote his
latest (actually his first) book, "A New Financial You in 28 Days – a 37-day
plan." I should have known that this was the most un-Kosher self-help book
ever conceived when I read its "Lifetime Guarantee," to wit:

If at the end of the life of the purchaser of A New Financial You in
28 Days! A 37-Day Plan! ("purchaser"), purchaser has not
achieved a "new financial you," purchaser is entitled to a full
refund. This guarantee does not apply to purchaser's successors,
heirs, or assigns. This guarantee may be void in the State of
Minnesota and in North Korea.

I should have known that author of Foley's Follies was a lawyer, in fact a
Law Professor. I should also have guessed he was a comedian, a stand-up
comic to be precise.

Only a lawyer would know how to write such a totally unenforceable
Lifetime Guarantee. And only a Stand-Up Comic would know how to con us
into buying this e-book by stringing together the world's funniest non-
sequiturs and laying them end to end around the globe.

It is only rumor, but I hear on pretty good authority that the last guy to
actually get through this modest volume threw himself off a bridge when he
failed to find logic in any single sentence of the book.

The note he left behind, written on a bunch of shriveled-up Confederate
banknotes, said he now knew how it felt to be James Joyce on steroids. He
noted that Finnegan's Wake was also considered a work of comic fiction
based on free association.

If you're determined to associate yourself with Brian Foley (and I strongly
recommend against it) here is a sampling of some of the comic fiction you
will find in "A New Financial You in 28 Days – a 37-day plan:"

Foley starts off Day One with a poem (a very versatile scribe, he):

A NEW FINANCIAL YOU

The roaches aren't dead.
The violets are through.
From this dank one-bedroom
Sprouts A New Financial You.

"Look around! What you see is Your Financial You. If you want A New
Financial You, you have to do something different. But you can't do that
until you know what you are doing now. Are there roaches in your
apartment? Are they dead? Is your apartment a dank, one-bedroom
apartment? If so, then you are ... probably living in my apartment. Get out!
Now! This is MY apartment!

"Now you are homeless. I have allowed you to put some things in a trash
bag and leave. I have called the police, so you are racing against time. If you
are caught, you will have a home in a jail cell, because I will press charges. I
have let you into my life in this book, sure, but I did not let you into my
apartment. So please leave. The police are on their way. I don't like
uncomfortable scenes, and I don't like handcuffs and Tasers.

"You are homeless. You are starting off worse than I did. I hope I can help
you.

"But for those of you who answered, "No," then, be happy. Although you
missed out on the "hitting rock bottom" experience that I just created for
some of your fellow Readers, you should be happy because either you don't
have roaches, or they're dead. Or you don't have dead violets (that is my
interpretation of "violets are through" -- your own interpretation of that line
might differ). Or you don't have a one-bedroom; or, if you do, it's not dank.
Maybe it's uncomfortably dry? If so, get a humidifier. Your nasal passages
are taking an unnecessary beating.

"I am using the Merriam-Webster definition of "dank" as "unpleasantly
moist or wet." But the Urban Dictionary
describes "dank"
as slang for "sticky, hairy, stinky, and highly potent marijuana."

"That raises an interesting point: Did I create A New Financial Me by selling
marijuana? The highly sticky and potent kind? Perhaps, too, the poet (let's
not assume anymore that the "I" of the poem is I) is reflecting this by using
"sprouts" as a verb, a word that is commonly associated with plants. Is Brian
J. Foley advocating that his Readers become pot dealers? No, I am not. But
given that marijuana possession of less than one ounce has been
decriminalized in Massachusetts, where I am writing this book, mostly in the
nude, that is a fair assumption. (I am done writing it now, of course, but I am
probably still nude.)

"If you have some dank, please send it my way (less than an ounce). It is not
a criminal act. You may incur civil liability (a mere fine, and the police
might take away your dank, worth the risk of getting stoned senseless), but
you are not a criminal if you smoke dank. You are a pothead.

I think it would be hard to be a pot dealer if you can only have less than an
ounce on hand. You would have to keep running back to other dealers who
have less than an ounce to get your less than an ounce to sell to people. That
starts sounding like a pain. So if you want to be efficient, don't do that.
Instead, just break the law, and don't get caught.

"Can you make lots of Money selling drugs? My best source on this is the
1983 movie, Scarface, starring Al Pacino as Tony Montana. That Cuban
refugee definitely created A New Financial [Him] when he came to the
United States and became a drug dealer.

"Remember, my journey is not your journey. Nor is Tony Montana's journey
your journey. So it is irrelevant what "dank" means in the poem. We are
talking about your journey here.

"I have kicked you out of my apartment, just for being there, and out of your
apartment, possibly for smoking pot. That is one way to interpret today's
first step."

Did you get all that?

If you've really applied yourself and followed all the detours and crooked
roads to princely wealth set forth in this tome, you're probably hungry and
homeless, and precisely in the right frame of mind to consider the plight of
the world's billionaires.

Guru Foley starts off Day 37 (A "Special Bonus" For The Children) with a
discussion of "a Forbes article about what sort of parents rear financially
successful children."

"Forbes.com ran a story that talked about what the world's billionaires have
in common. We already know one thing: they have a lot of Money.
"But this Special Bonus! is for the children who may be reading A New
Financial You in 28 Days! A 37-Day Plan. If you are a child and reading
this, you are precocious. You are impatient, too impatient to wait for my
forthcoming A New Financial You in 28 Days! -- For the Children.
"Well, the early bird gets the worm. But who wants a worm? You want
Money.

"The Forbes.com story, "A Recipe for Riches," by Duncan Greenberg
forriches.html?mod=career-leadership> talked about some common traits
among billionaires. One had to do with dropping out of college (good), and
another had to do with going to a top business school (Harvard, Penn,
Columbia) to receive an M.B.A. (good). That means, "Master of Business
Administration." I am not sure how you can get an M.B.A. without going to
college. Were the billionaires able to buy their degrees directly and avoid
college? Were the degrees honorary? These billionaires are, after all,
billionaires.

"But I decided to write this Special Report! (# 4, to be exact) "for the
children," because an important factor in whether a person becomes a
billionaire is that his parents have "math-related" careers. Here's what the
article says:

"First, a significant percentage of them [billionaires] had parents with
a high aptitude for math. The ability to crunch numbers is crucial to
becoming a billionaire, and mathematical prowess is hereditary. Some
of the most common professions among the parents of Forbes 400
members (for whom we could find the information) were engineer,
accountant and small-business owner.

"So, I have advice to you -- advice that Forbes.com seemed unwilling or too
ignorant to give you, the children: Make sure your parents have "math-
related" careers. If your parents are unemployed, encourage them to go back
to school to learn one of these math careers. If any parent refuses, or simply
lacks the aptitude, you know what you have to do: Put yourself into foster
care with parents who have math careers.

"The following Web site will show you some of the forms that you will
need, legally, to get yourself into foster care. These forms are for the state of
California, but they are a start. Odds are, you are in California, because it's a
pretty big state: Care/California/index.html>.

"If your parents become upset, just share with them the link from
Forbes.com. They will understand. If they do not, then they do not "share
your values," and there is no reason for you to be with them. We are living,
after all, in the twenty-first century. We can choose our own destinies. We
can choose our own parents. You should also tell your foster parents to-be
that you plan not to go to college. When they realize that adopting you will
be "cost-free," and that you will be a thankful billionaire, their math minds, I
am sure, will quickly calculate that this is a good bet. This is better than
"humanities" parents, who will sit and wring their hands over vague things
such as love, parental ties, their own "experience" in raising you, and the
like.

"Let me know how it turns out. Of course, purchase a copy of A New
Financial You in 28 Days! -- For the Children when it is published. If you
contact me and let me know that you took my advice and moved into foster
care, I will give you a ten percent discount. Use code # 2498KJW."

Anybody rather have the worm?



A Kindle E-Book. 2011, Gegensatz Press, North Syracuse, New York.
$7.98. http://www.gegensatzpress.com/foley-28-days.html.

Can We Please Call a Nut a Nut?

By William Fisher

I must be some kind of masochist because I spend a good deal of my non-writing time watching cable TV. And, with a few notable exceptions, I’m appalled by the relentlessly low journalistic standards I see there every day.

Let me give you an example. Earlier this week, three teens attending a summer camp at Virginia Tech told campus police they saw a man carrying what might be a rifle of some kind. As soon as this information reached CNN, it went on air as, you guessed it, “breaking news.” Breaking news, course, grabs viewers’ attention.

Since Virginia Tech was not long ago the scene of a horrible gun attack that left many dead, CNN was arguably justified in running its bulletin. But throughout the day, the “breaking news” bulletins continued – without so much as a sliver of new information to help viewers understand what had happened. CNN’s “breaking news” was over late in the day only when campus police cancelled the lockdown of the university and called off the search for the illusory gunman. Ditto, MSNBC and Fox News.

But my real beef with cable – and with much of print media and almost all of the blogosphere – concerns far more serious issues. When I was in journalism school, I was taught about “Objectivity.” And when I went to work for the AP, I was handed their little booklet on the same subject.

Objectivity in those days meant that if I was covering a speech by a notorious demagogue, I’d have to find a external source to quote so my readers would know that the speaker was a notorious demagogue. I couldn’t do it myself – even though I knew the truth -- because “that would make me part of the story.”

And if an external source wasn’t immediately available, the quote might go unanswered for at least the first edition. It was this very sacred tenet of journalism that produced story after story in which the lead told of charges by Senator Joe McCarthy and an alternative view – if there was one at all – was written way down into the text.

And so it is on TV as well. Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said on TV and in print that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue. This is a claim often made by Republican politicians, but it is denied by every responsible Republican economist I know and is clearly out of line with all known facts on the subject. The empirical evidence shows the Bush tax cuts produced no new revenue. Yet McConnell not only stuck to his statement – unchallenged – but also asserted that this was “the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.”

Let’s hope that when Mitt Romney, seen today as the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, endorses the McConnell view – and he will -- there’ll be someone in the studio to challenge his “facts.”

We saw the same kind of “objectivity” during the “bargaining” over increasing the debt limit. Over and over, Republican spokespersons would try to sell us the insane idea that if we just shrank everybody’s budget to the vanishing point, obliterating the jobs of police, firefighters, EMTs, teachers, et cetera, we could balance the budget and create jobs. Just what jobs would thus be created remains unclear.

And since the Republicans were the first to speak, their claims occupied the leads in most of the stories covering the debt ceiling circus. Democratic politicians hit back, to be sure, but the public tends to remember the first thing it hears.

And so it was with the “economic plan” put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, labeled by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman as the “innovative thinker du jour.”

Krugman noted that Ryan “has become the Republican Party’s poster child for new ideas thanks to his ‘Roadmap for America’s Future’, a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes.” News media coverage, he said, “has been overwhelmingly favorable.”

He cited a glowing profile of Ryan that The Washington Post put on its front page, “portraying him as the G.O.P.’s fiscal conscience.”

Ryan, Krugman continued, is “often described with phrases like ‘intellectually audacious.’ But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.”

Krugman continued: “Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes. He’d have you believe that the combined effect would be much lower budget deficits, and, according to that Washington Post report, he speaks about deficits ‘in apocalyptic terms’. And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: ‘The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.’ But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.”

But most Americans never heard Krugman or any other journalist whose ideas even got close to Krugmans. The TV “debates” over his plan were dumbed down to pre-K levels – if they could be reduced to a 10-second sound bite. Ryan was incessantly hailed as “courageous” – even by Democrats who grudgingly acknowledged that “it took guts” to propose such a radical plan. That’s the same radical plan, by the way, that would turn Medicare into a voucher program; every senior would get a voucher to go out and buy private insurance, and if the insurance premium was higher than the value of the voucher, well, tough.

Another of the media’s pratfalls came in its non-response to the Republicans’ reluctance to create any new revenue by slightly increasing the taxes of the country’s wealthiest. The GOP talking points included the falsehood that these taxpayers were the nation’s “job creators.” (in other iterations, the job-creators were America’s small businesses). The “small businesses” included among the GOP’s wealthiest 400, by the way, include some of the country’s largest privately owned farms, which not only create very few jobs but in fact receive massive subsidies from the Department of Agriculture.

How utterly absurd is the proposition that the wealthiest among us create jobs for the poorest among us! If this were demonstrably true, based on experiential data, the country would have created millions of jobs during the George W. Bush presidency. What we know is that not a single job – not one – was created during the eight years of George Bush, despite tax cuts for the rich.

The Republicans are quite correct in their conviction that the country needs to reduce its deficit. But to reduce the deficit at a time when the economy cries out for stimulus, to reduce the deficit by cutting programs – and the millions of jobs that do with them – is the height of both historical ignorance and a brand of hubris not seen since that guy said, “bring ‘em on.”

When politicos lie or bend the truth, we tend to forgive them – most voters think most politicians lie all the time. But where is the check and balance? It used to be our newspapers. But today we have a shrinking number of newspapers we can rely on to at least try to tell us the truth. We have a TV medium that is money-centered, uncreative, and dismissive of any scintilla of common sense among their viewers. And we have a blogosphere wildly out of control with partisanship.

At least with most of the blogosphere, the biases are obvious and the reader always knows where he/she stands. That’s the way it was in the early days of journalism in America. So maybe those of us who try to stay informed today should simply read “Firedog Lake” followed by “Red State.”

That would certainly simplify our lives.

Dear Kate: Response to a Reader’s Thoughts

By William Fisher

Last week, a reader named Kate wrote an angry but well-informed response to a column of mine I called ‘Egypt, Minister of What?’ While I detailed many of the shortcomings of the revolution, my sense was and is that most of these failings are failings not of those who put their lives on the line in Tahrir Square to demand change, but rather the military men who took charge of governing Egypt until it had a legally elected Parliament and Prime Minister.

Kate seemed to agree. She said: “There has been no democratic reform or justice brought in by the Military Council for the Egyptian People. All these on-going state-corrupted media claims of Mubarak and ministers of the ex-regime being sentenced by the military Supreme Council are all false.”

Under ordinary circumstances, this kind of statement would not surprise me; it’s happened in Egypt and elsewhere before; an autocratic despot convicted of plundering his country, who gets convicted, and the next thing we know he turns up in a place with no extradition treaties.

But, Kate, shouldn’t the appearance of Mr. Mubarak, and his sons, and his cronies, in a cage in a court in police academy that used to bear his name – shouldn’t the reality of those optics tell you this is no ordinary proceding?

Kate, you go on to say that “The chaos in Egypt is due to the release of criminals from prisons all over the country, by Mubarak’s regime. Does the world know that there are thousands of criminals on the rampage throughout the county??? It’s not the US or Israel’s fault. Corruption and religious extremism by the regime is the main cause. Lawlessness is at its peak, since the revolution.”

Kate, I confess, I haven’t look into this issue yet, so will have to defer my response.

You go on to say, “Christian Copts are targeted by armed gangs. Daily, Coptic women and children are abducted, drugged and raped by armed gangs. The victims are sexually exploited and forced to denounce their Christian belief and accept Islam as their new religion… Saudi Arabia is funding the Islamization of Coptic Christians.”

Then you write: “In every attack on Copts, criminals are protected by the authorities and never punished by the law. It’s the Coptic victims that are arrested and imprisoned by the authorities. This is just injustice!!! Churches and Christian businesses and villages continue to be attacked by Salafi extremists. When will this ever stop???”

Kate, I don’t know about the Saudi involvement, but in general you’ll find no nay-sayer here. The history of the Copts in modern Egypt is a history of bigotry, discrimination, and cruelty. I also take your point that too often the perpetrators of crimes against Copts commit these crimes with impunity.

But, at this time, is the government not prosecuting several people for the recent violence against Copts and Coptic property? Maybe that’s a kind of progress.

Kate, here I’m taking the liberty of placing one of your paragraphs out of order. Here it is:

“Egypt will not get better until law and order is restored, by imprisonment of criminals with a new democratic government, supported by the U.N. The world is asleep at the wheel, believing ‘everything is honky dory’ in Egypt, since this year’s revolution. Egypt is drowning, day after day. Sadly, the country is in a mess…Everyone is now suffering in this atmosphere of corruption, inequality and injustice.”

Kate, I certainly understand your frustration. Things moved at a glacial pace when I lived in Cairo, and that was not during a revolution. But the history of revolutions seem to tell us (a) that most of them fail, and (b) that failure often occurs when various revolutionary factions fail to agree and end up competing for power, thus giving the rulers (be they military or civilian) the opportunity to “divide and conquer.”

To avoid that, a lot of patience and a lot of dialogue are required. Revolutionary factions must talk with one another and work really hard to understand the others’ needs and goals.

Then all who seek change must talk to the pro-tem rulers, the Army. And the Army, never known for the ability to listen, must be a quick study. They need to understand what their people want and need. The headless horsemen of Tahrir Square have already demonstrated their ability to topple an obsolete leader.

They’re too busy to have to do it again. There’s a country to grow!

Afghanistan: Your Tax Dollars at Work

By William Fisher

Wherever there’s war, there’s waste. And theft. And corruption.

Think back to 2003-2004, when the Americans were still trying to track the US tax dollars that had “gone missing” in the Iraq War. In one Congressional hearing alone, lawmakers heard testimony that billions of Iraqi dollars – held in trust by the U.S. Government – still could not be accounted for.

Both Republicans and Democrats at that hearing appeared taken aback by the volume of cash sent to Iraq: nearly $12 billion over the course of the U.S. occupation from March 2003 to June 2004.

Rep. Christopher Shays, then the Connecticut Republican chairman of the committee, criticized Pentagon witnesses for their handling of the money.

"It's very clear that … we didn't have systems in place to account" for the
funds, he said.

Jack Behrman, professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina Business School, told this correspondent, "The misuse, abuse, and misdirection of funds to Iraq are a perfect example of the U.S. historical approach to crises abroad and development aid -- throw money at the problem quickly to demonstrate concern and activity. But, the government has apparently never heard or has not heeded the admonition of Aristotle that ‘It is easy to give money away, but it is exceedingly difficult to give it away wisely’.”

A report prepared by California Democratic Congressman Waxman found “an appalling level of incompetence, mismanagement, waste, fraud, and greed.” Waxman’s report cited numerous examples of “wasteful and potentially corrupt spending.”

So why should we be surprised to learn that things are no different in Afghanistan – only perhaps worse. Were we supposed to have learned any lessons from the Iraq fiasco?

Apparently not, because a new report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) is igniting yet more suspicions that U.S. taxpayer money for projects in Afghanistan may have been – and is currently being – diverted to extremists killing dedicated to killing American troops, and that an estimated $10 million a day is being smuggled out of the country by senior government officials.

The newest SIGAR report to Congress charges that the United States still has only "limited visibility" of what happens to billions of dollars, "leaving them vulnerable to fraud or diversion to insurgents."

The Inspector General says that more than $70 billion has been spent on security and development projects since 2002 in Afghanistan, but lack of oversight, foot-dragging by the Afghanistan government and failure to take simple steps like recording cash serial numbers means some of the money is hard to track.

One problem, the IG report says, is the use of hawalas -- traditional and informal financial organizations -- instead of banks to transfer funds. Some hawalas are registered with the government, but others are not and refuse to divulge details of their business.

The report cites an example of how a U.S. contractor tried to transfer
$2.8 million inside Afghanistan that never arrived. "Despite investigations by National Solidarity Program personnel and interventions on the part of the Afghan Attorney General's office, this hawala continues to retain the majority of these funds and refuses to deliver them to the intended communities," the report says.

Another problem is that large amounts of money -- as much as $10 million a day -- are smuggled out of the country. The report says that despite controls at Kabul airport, government officials and other powerful people in Afghanistan can avoid currency checks when they leave.

"Passengers designated by the Afghan government as VIPs bypass the main security and customs screenings used by all other passengers and instead use a separate facility to enter the secured area of the airport," the report says.

"While VIPs are required to declare their currency, Afghan officials reportedly have no plans to scan their cash through electronic currency counters." U.S. officials were denied access to that part of the airport to see how VIP passengers were screened.

SIGAR found that U.S. agencies have limited visibility over U.S. cash that enters the Afghan economy -- leaving it vulnerable to fraud and diversion to the insurgency. SIGAR also found that poor cooperation by the Afghan government has impeded U.S. efforts to help develop the Afghan financial sector.

"The United States has poured billions of aid dollars into a country plagued by corruption, insurgency and the narcotics trade. It is essential that we use all available tools to ensure that U.S. dollars are protected from fraud and diversion to the insurgency. We must also ensure that the Afghan government is a full partner in efforts to set a fledgling financial sector on sound footing," said Herbert Richardson, acting Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

"SIGAR auditors found that U.S. agencies have not done all they can to safeguard U.S. funds, and the Afghan government has not provided the cooperation needed to build a strong, secure financial system. SIGAR's recommendations, if implemented, would address these shortcomings and strengthen efforts to protect American taxpayers," the report says.

The agency recommended that the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan "improve interagency coordination on financial sector development programs" and also recommended that the secretaries of State and Defense "strengthen oversight over the flow of U.S. funds through the Afghan economy," according to the report.

Since 2002, Congress has appropriated more than $70 billion to implement security and development assistance projects in Afghanistan, with some of those funds converted into cash that flows through the Afghan economy.

The United States is implementing programs to increase the capacity of Afghanistan's central bank to regulate the nation's 17 commercial banks and to strengthen U.S. and Afghan law-enforcement monitoring of controls over the flows of U.S. aid through the Afghan economy.

SIGAR's audit evaluates U.S. efforts to improve the capacity of the Afghan government to regulate the financial sector and assesses controls that U.S. agencies use to track U.S. funds as they flow through the Afghan economy.

The New York Times reports that agents from the inspector general's office found that the living and working quarters of American occupation officials were awash in shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills, colloquially known as bricks.

One official, The Times reported, kept $2 million in a bathroom safe, another more than half a million dollars in an unlocked footlocker. One contractor received more than $100,000 to completely refurbish an Olympic pool but only polished the pumps; even so, local American officials certified the work as completed. More than 2,000 contracts ranging in value from a few thousand dollars to more than half a million, some $88 million in all, were examined by agents from the inspector general's office.

The report says that in some cases the agents found clear indications of potential fraud and that investigations into those cases are continuing.
Some of those cases are expected to intersect with the investigations of four

Americans who have been arrested on bribery, theft, weapons and conspiracy charges for what federal prosecutors say was a scheme to steer reconstruction projects to an American contractor working out of the southern city of Hilla, which served as a kind of provincial capital for a vast swath of Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority.

But much of the material in the latest audit is new, and the portrait it paints
of abandoned rebuilding projects, nonexistent paperwork and cash routinely taken from the main vault in Hilla without even a log to keep track of the
transactions is likely to raise major new questions about how the provisional
authority did its business and accounted for huge expenditures of Iraqi and
American money.

Key findings:

Although U.S. agencies have taken steps to strengthen their oversight of U.S. funds, the United States still has limited visibility over how these funds flow through the Afghan economy, leaving them vulnerable to fraud or diversion to insurgents. Among the vulnerabilities identified by SIGAR auditors:

· U.S. agencies do not record the serial numbers of cash disbursed to contractors and other recipients of U.S. funds;
· Afghan commercial banks do not record the serial numbers of Electronic Funds Transfer payments by U.S. agencies to contractors and other recipients when they are converted to cash;
· U.S. contracting regulations do not prohibit prime contractors from using unlicensed hawalas to pay subcontractors or require them to use EFT-capable banks to make payments. As a result, the United States is unable to record information n these funds when they enter Afghanistan's economy, and the Afghan and U.S. governments are unable to track these funds as they move from person to person, information that could be important for law enforcement purposes.
· Limited Afghan cooperation has negatively impacted programs to strengthen Afghanistan's financial sector and address money laundering and terrorist financing. For example, the Afghan Attorney General's office has not cooperated fully in prosecuting individuals suspected by the U.S. Treasury Department of having committed financial crimes, limiting the effectiveness of the Financial Transactions and Records Analysis Center of Afghanistan (FinTRACA). Of 21 leads forwarded by FinTRACA to the Afghan government, only four were pursued to prosecution by the Afghan Attorney General's office.
· In addition, Treasury officials report that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has barred U.S. government advisors from the Afghan central bank, a key institution that they described as having a "hostile"environment.
· Limited Afghan cooperation has hindered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's efforts to strengthen controls over currency flows at Kabul International Airport. As a result of concerns over lack of controls over the significant flow of currency through the airport, DHS developed the Bulk Cash Flow Action Plan with assistance from Afghan ministries that conduct operations at the airport. DHS's responsibilities under the Bulk Cash Flow Action Plan include supporting Afghan government efforts to strengthen controls over passengers leaving Afghanistan with bulk cash. However, DHS reports that installation of two custom-built bulk currency counters for the airport's customs areas was delayed by seven months because of disagreements over where to place the machines.
· Also, as of SIGAR's April 2011 visit to the airport, Afghan customs officials were using the machines to count declared cash - but not to record serial numbers or report financial data to FinTRACA. Other impediments to DHS efforts include the Afghan government's practice of allowing VIPs to bypass the main security and customs screenings used by all other passengers; these VIPs are required to declare their currency, but Afghan officials reportedly have no plans to scan this cash through currency counters. Additionally, DHS officials are barred from the facility that VIPs currently use.

Yes, you read that correctly. US officials are barred from that particular room at the back of the Kabul airport so that Afghan VIPS will suffer no embarrassments or anxieties – dare I say pangs of conscience? – as they secret your tax dollars in their luggage or on their person, knowing that as government officials there will be no search at their destination either.

War usually means we have to accept some of this despicable behavior. It seems to go with the territory. But given that these funds are intended to improve the lot of the Afghan people, not US troops, is it not time to say ‘enough is enough?’

The US lopped off a good chunk of American aid to Pakistan because the Pakistanis were not with the program. Failing all past efforts to find an honest partner to work with in Afghanistan, hasn’t the time come to do the same?

SAUDIS HIDE REPRESSION BEHIND TERRORISM THREAT

By William Fisher

A new draft law that Saudi Arabia says is designed “to assist Saudi Security forces in tackling terrorist activity” would in reality allow the authorities to prosecute peaceful dissent as a terrorist crime, according to Amnesty International.

The organization says it has obtained copies of the Draft Penal Law for Terrorism Crimes and Financing of Terrorism.

“This draft law poses a serious threat to freedom of expression in the Kingdom in the name of preventing terrorism,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty
International’s Deputy Middle East and North Africa Director.

“If passed it would pave the way for even the smallest acts of peaceful dissent to be branded terrorism and risk massive human rights violations.”
A Saudi Arabian government security committee reviewed the draft law in June but it is not known when or if it might be passed.

The definition of “terrorist crimes” in the draft is so broad that it lends
itself to wide interpretation and abuse, and would in effect criminalize
legitimate dissent. It would allow extended detention without charge or trial. Questioning the integrity of the King or the Crown Prince would carry a minimum prison sentence of 10 years.

The draft law allows for suspects to be held in incommunicado detention for up to 120 days, or for longer periods – potentially indefinitely – if authorized by a specialized court.

Under the draft law, terrorist crimes would include such actions as
“endangering…national unity”, “halting the basic law or some of its articles”, or “harming the reputation of the state or its position”.
Violations of the law would carry harsh punishments. The death penalty would be applied to cases of taking up arms against the state or for any “terrorist crimes” that result in death.

Amnesty charges that a number of other key provisions in the draft law run counter to Saudi Arabia’s international legal obligations, including those under the UN Convention against Torture.

The leak of the draft comes as ongoing peaceful protests across the Middle East and North Africa are being met with government repression.

Amnesty said, “Incommunicado detention facilitates torture or other ill-treatment and prolonged detention of that nature can itself amount to torture. Detainees in incommunicado detention are also, by definition, denied access to a lawyer during their investigation.”

It added, “The draft law allows for arbitrary detention: it denies detainees the right to be promptly brought before a judge, and to be released or tried within a reasonable time. It gives the specialized court the power to detain without charge or trial for up to a year, and to extend such detention indefinitely. Detainees are not given a means to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in front of a court.”

It also fails to include a clear prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.
The draft law gives wide-ranging powers to the Minister of the Interior “to take the necessary actions to protect internal security from any terrorist threat.”

It does not allow for judicial authorization or oversight of these actions.
“At a time when people throughout the Middle East and North Africa have been exercising their legitimate right to express dissent and call for change, Saudi Arabian authorities have been seeking to squash this right for its citizens,” said Philip Luther.

Amnesty called on King Abdullah to “reconsider this law and ensure that his people’s legitimate right to freedom of expression is not curtailed in the name of fighting terrorism.”

The Saudi Embassy in London issued a statement denying all of Amnesty’s allegations. It said, “The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia would like to point out that Amnesty’s concerns about this law are baseless, mere supposition on their part, and completely without foundation.”

But the Embassy went on to cite terrorist activity as a justification for the new measure. It said: “The Kingdom would also like to point out that it is determined to continue to tackle the threat of terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Since 1995, the Kingdom has been struggling with domestic terrorism, only recently eradicating Al-Qaeda cells that took root in the country. Before that time, a multitude of terrorist acts occurred, killing scores of people and sowing fear. Today, due to the efforts of the Saudi Security Services, those cells have largely been eradicated. However, regional unrest provides a breeding ground for new threats. The continued growth of Al-Qaeda presents us with a serious challenge, and policies that prevent this group from establishing an affiliated network in the Kingdom are necessary.”

By “regional unrest” the Embassy was apparently referring to what is customarily called “The Arab Spring” – the proliferation of grassroots anti-government protest movements that has so far toppled dictators in Tunisia and Egypt.

The Saudis have taken steps to attempt to preempt the outbreak of unrest or violence among its people. It gave substantial cash gifts to each Saudi family -- $3,000 is the figure mooted – and initiated a new program for skills development and job re-training.

Whether these measures, combined with the powers of a police state, will be sufficient to blunt the anti-government sentiment remains to be seen.

Prof. Chip Pitts of Stanford and Oxford, former Chair of Amnesty International USA, and board member and former President of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, commented on the proposed new law.

“Having just renewed the USA Patriot Act, the United States has sadly continued to set the stage for and model such counterproductive, harsh, and illegal approaches, and undermined its ability to credibly and effectively question them.” He said, adding:

“The myopic and reactionary approach taken in the new Saudi draft law, which would violate the country’s obligations under international human rights law, shows that the Kingdom is battening down the hatches and preparing for a long period of continued feudal rule that contradicts the very premises of expanding human rights that have swept the world in recent centuries.”

“Neglecting the lessons of the Arab Spring – that repression ultimately breeds instability and violence – the Saudi regime apparently prefers to look backwards to an error of medieval justice and absolute monarchical power which brooks no dissent. Such backwardness condemns the Saudi regime to greater isolation over time, and the Saudi people and businesses to constricted options for economic and social development, unless wiser heads prevail and move toward more progressive instead of regressive laws,” he said.

Prof. Lawrence Davidson, who teaches history at West Chester University, sees the proposed new law in its longer-term context. He said, “Laws like this essentially blur the lines between the criminal and the authorities. It makes it much harder to tell who is who. Presently, there are two aspects to Saudi power: Force of questionable legitimacy and the ability to buy the loyalty of a portion of their population. In a couple of generations the latter may well go away and then former will probably prove insufficient. This law will not lessen the probability that last of the Saudi royal line dying in exile.”

In addition to shoring up its repressive agenda at home, Saudi Arabia is actively assisting the King of Bahrain to put down the anti-government demonstrations that have been taking place there for the past few months.

Saudi troops were dispatched to neighboring Bahrain, along with soldiers from the United Arab Emirates, both under the auspices of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to help the minority Sunni Royal Family to quell the demands of the majority Shia population it rules.

Reliable reports from Bahrain indicate that the government has been waging a “legal” war against protesters, with massive middle-of-the-night arrests, trials of doctors and teachers before military courts, often with defendants’ lawyers, and with credible charges of torture and abuse in detention.

The tiny island nation – smallest in the Gulf – is of strategic importance to the US, as it houses the American Fifth Fleet, The US has been deeply involved in attempting to perpetuate a “national dialogue” between opposing parties, but it is unclear whether a majority of the pro-democracy demonstrators will participate.

Egypt: Minister of What?

By William Fisher

Egypt has always been the land of endless surprises.

Lately. the biggest surprise, of course, was the Tahrir Square revolution, which toppled 30 years of Hosni Mubarak rule in 18 days.

Since then, the surprises have come fast and furious – almost too many to keep up with.

Now two of the strangest just happened.

The first is the creation, by the Ministry of the Interior, of a new position: Deputy Interior Minister for Human Rights. What’s strange about this is how totally other-worldly it is to see “Human Rights” in the same sentence as “Ministry of the Interior.”

During all of Mubarak’s reign, mere mention of the Ministry of the Interior was enough to strike terror into the hearts of most Egyptians. That’s because this Ministry was the home of the dreaded Egyptian State Security Investigations Service (SSI), the internal security service whose police force was guilty of the most unspeakable crimes against humanity: murder in detention, torture, enhanced interrogation techniques so Torquemadish as to make George W. Bush’s CIA look like The Boy Scouts.

The second big surprise is that, in a stunning show of independence from Egypt’s current military rulers, one of the country’s leading civil libertarians has turned the job down.

He is Bahey eldin Hassan, director of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS). His organization, along with a small number of like-minded and equally-courageous groups, have been standing up against Mubarak’s monsters for decades before it became fashionable.

In a statement, Hassan’s group said he was “not optimistic that the political context in which the post was created will allow it to have a real impact on the situation inside the Ministry of Interior.” On the contrary, the group added, “it may only serve to cover up a still ugly reality that must be changed, a task which is beyond the capabilities of the deputy - and perhaps even of the Interior Minister himself - to accomplish.”

CIHRS went on to say, “This does not mean there has been no change in the security establishment, but it has been very limited, as was made exceptionally clear in the events of June 28 and 29. Indeed, on those days, even some directives and orders from the Interior Minster himself were not obeyed. What, then, would it be like for a deputy in a newly formed position without roots or traditions in the ministry? A deputy who, moreover, comes from outside the police establishment? This situation makes the post even less effective than an advisory position or might be even used as an appealing front to market current policies to the national public and to donor nations in Europe and the United States.”

The chronic human rights problem of the police and security establishment, the organization said, “is too complex to be solved by the creation of a deputy human rights post in the Interior Ministry. Indeed, the problem is closely linked to the extent to which people realize the need for radical, far-reaching reform in the Interior Ministry and other state institutions and ministries.”

It added: “The experience of the last few months contains little to indicate this realization among the Interior Ministry, the Prime Minster, or the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.”

The organization charged, “There is no political will to institute real change and to make a clean break with past policies. This will inevitably affect the possibility for the genuine reform of the first state institution targeted by the January 25 revolution on the national holiday of that very institution.”

Habib el-Adly, Mubarak’s last Interior Minister, is currently on trial for murdering anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir Square as well as money laundering and unlawfully acquiring public money.

This kind of pushback against Egypt’s military rulers – SCAF, The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces – has grown exponentially since the historic day in February when the demonstrators in Tahrir Square and around the world heard the news that the dictator had resigned.

During the days preceding that historic day, pro-democracy forces has made the army their darling. After all, it was the army that refused to kill its own citizens. Since then, however, the trajectory for the generals has been downhill at great speed. It has become increasingly apparent that the military council consists of generals who are indebted to Hosni Mubarak. It also seems clear that the generals find governing a lot more complex than deploying tanks and cannons.

And, as for Bahey eldin Hassan, what can you say to encourage a man who is doing exactly what he’s been doing forever?

Somehow, thank you doesn’t seem enough.

US Standing Plummets in the Middle East

By William Fisher

Throughout the Middle East and North Africa, Arabs have turned against President Obama and US policy in the area.

The findings of a poll of 4,000 people in six Arab nations show that US and Obama favorable ratings are at a record low, top Arab concerns are US interference in the region and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, killing bin Laden has not improved relations with the region, and there is a “mixed mood” in relation to The Arab Spring.

According to the Arab-American Institute (AAI), sponsor of the poll, the poll was commissioned immediately after President Obama's State Department speech in which he addressed the popular uprisings in the Arab world.

AAI says, “With the 2008 election of Barack Obama, favorable attitudes toward the US more than doubled in many Arab countries. But in the two years since his famous ‘Cairo speech,’ ratings for both the US and the President have spiraled downwards.”

AAI adds: “The President is seen overwhelmingly as failing to meet the expectations set during his speech, and the vast majority of those surveyed disagree with US policies.”

In five out of the six countries surveyed, the US was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France—or Iran. Far from seeing the US as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed “US interference in the Arab world” as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation.

Countries surveyed include Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic (UAE).

While AAI acknowledges that the vehemence of Arab reaction to the US was startling, the general sentiment echoed points made in AAI President James Zogby’s 2010 book Arab Voices, in which he reflected on Arab opinions of both the U.S. and our foreign policies. “American democracy [seems] a lot like damaged goods to many Arabs… US policy in the region has increasingly undermined Arab attitudes toward America as a global model.”

“This poll reaffirms what we’ve been saying,” Zogby said. “Americans looked to Obama for change in 2008. The expectations were high, and we haven’t delivered. It seems that one thing that Americans and Arabs agree on is that the US needs to make changes here at home before looking to build on changes abroad.”

Zogby added, “Here and abroad, people were looking for real changes in our domestic and foreign policies, for real engagement in the Arab world and for progress in Palestine. These numbers are a clear statement of their disappointment.”

The poll shows that in five out of the six countries surveyed, the US was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France -- or Iran. “Far from seeing the US as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed ‘US interference in the Arab world’ as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation.”

“American democracy [seems] a lot like damaged goods to many Arabs…
US policy in the region has increasingly undermined Arab attitudes toward
America as a global model,” Zogby said.

The key findings in the survey:

• After improving with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, US favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran's favorable ratings (except in Saudi Arabia).

• The continuing occupation of Palestinian lands and US interference in the
Arab world are held to be the greatest obstacles to peace and stability in the
Middle East.

• While many Arabs were hopeful that the election of Barack Obama would improve U.S.-Arab relations, that hope has evaporated. Today, President Obama's favorable ratings across the Arab world are 10% or less.

• Obama's performance ratings are lowest on the two issues to which he has
devoted the most energy: Palestine and engagement with the Muslim world.

• The US role in establishing a no-fly zone over Libya receives a positive
rating only in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, but, as an issue, it is the lowest
priority.

• The killing of bin Laden only worsened attitudes toward the US.

• A plurality says it is too early to tell whether the Arab Spring will have a
positive impact on the region. In Egypt, the mood is mixed. Only in the Gulf
States are optimism and satisfaction levels high.

The survey also found that, in 2011, Arab favorable attitudes towards the US dropped to levels lower than they were in 2008, the last year of the Bush Administration. The 2009 favorable attitudes towards the US spiked upwards, as expectations were raised that U.S. policy toward the region would change.

Substantial majorities of Arabs in almost every country view both the US and Iran as not "contributing to peace and stability in the Arab World." The U.S.' contribution to the region is viewed less positively than Iran in every country except Saudi Arabia.

Lebanon is the only Arab country that sees Iran contributing to peace and stability in the region.

The roles of Turkey and Saudi Arabia are appreciated by strong majorities in every country.

When asked to choose "the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East," once again the "occupation of Palestinian lands" and “U.S. interference in the Arab world" rank as the top two concerns.

Majorities in every country say that the killing of bin Laden makes them view the U.S. less favorably. Given that overall favorable ratings are already so low, this should not make a substantial difference in the ratings. The prevailing view is that the killing of bin Laden will not appreciably improve the region.

A plurality of Arabs in four of the six countries say that "it is too early to tell" whether the Arab world will be better off after the Arab Spring. Almost one-half of Egyptians feel this way. Only in the UAE does a majority agree that the region is better off after the uprisings.

While satisfaction levels are down, optimism is up, the poll found. In Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia substantial majorities believe that they "will be better off in the next five years," at levels significantly higher than they were in 2009. Only in Lebanon and Jordan have optimism levels dropped and pessimism levels increased.

Acclaimed Egyptian writer and activist Ahdaf Soueif has expressed her own views regarding US presence and US policies. Writing in The Guardian, Saturday 21 May
2011, she described Obama’s speech on the US in the Middle East and North Africa as 'Chemical sweeteners.”

“This wasn't slipping poison into the honey; it was smearing chemical sweeteners on to toxic pellets,” she wrote.

“If Obama is serious about supporting self-determination, here's a to-do list:
remove state department warnings and give tax breaks to Americans holidaying in Egypt and Tunisia; grant a temporary tax amnesty to Egyptian imports; find our stolen money and hold it until our elections; regulate the US security industry; stop US aid to Israel and Egypt; close tax loopholes that encourage US citizens to fund settlements in Palestine; encourage Israeli transparency regarding its nuclear weapons.”

She added, “In the end, our revolutions are not by or for or about the US. We in Tunisia and Egypt, and soon in Libya, Syria, Yemen, are looking for ways to run our countries to the benefit of our people and the world. We see that democracy is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. ‘Democratic’ systems are failing their people, in Britain, in India, in the US, as millions fall into poverty, banks take precedence over hospitals and universities, the environment is degraded and the fabric of society frayed, the media are compromised, and politico-business scandals are standard entertainment.”