ABC Sets Up Sting Operation to Find Racism in AZ Immigration Law, Hires Actor to Play Bigot
February 3, 2011 No Comment
ABC and reporter John Quinones on Thursday stretched the bounds of journalism, hiring an actor to play a racist security guard as a way of testing how the people of Arizona would react to the state's “anti-immigration law.” Previewing the network's ” What Would You Do? ” segment for Friday's 20/20, Quinones explained the undercover concept: “So, I go undercover, pretending to be someone who is about to be arrested and deported, simply by the way I look.” The piece featured a cartoonish “security guard” harassing Mexican actors in Tucson, Arizona. Presumably, ABC chose a security guard because impersonating a police officer is illegal. The actor walked into a restaurant and spewed, ” I'm just looking to make sure these guys are legal citizens. And if they're not legal citizens, they shouldn't be here. They should be deported. They look Mexican .” Of course, having this man pretend to be a security guard really makes no sense. (A security guard is going to deport people?) Secondly, for journalists that often attack conservative sting operations, it's rather odd to see ABC manipulate such a scenario. The Radio, Television and Digital News Association ethics guide states: “Use surreptitious newsgathering techniques, including hidden cameras or microphones, only if there is no other way to obtain stories of significant public importance and only if the technique is explained to the audience.” Was this the only way ABC could do such a story? Previewing the segment, Quinones misstated what Arizona's law actually is. He asserted, “So, we took our cameras down to Arizona, where a controversial, new law would give police the authority to question and perhaps deport anyone who, in their eyes, appears to be in the U.S. illegally .” This is false. Byron York of the Washington Examiner explained in an April 26, 2010 column: Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics. What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.” After playing clips of the “security guard” arguing with patrons as he harassed Mexicans, Quinones lectured, “And what we kept hearing over and over from folks was that they all knew about the anti-immigration law. What they didn't realize until we staged our scenario was how it might affect innocent people, Latinos, George who are in this country legally.” Notice the use of “anti-immigration” rather than anti-illegal immigration. A previous “What Would You Do?” segment featured “ugly Americans” in Paris. In January of 2009 , overweight and wearing George W. Bush t-shirts, these actors showcased obnoxious behavior in Europe. Quinones smeared, “They're the ugly Americans. And for more than a century, they've been fixtures in American literature and film.” A transcript of the February 3 segment, which aired at 7:44am EST, follows: 7:30am tease ROBIN ROBERTS: Also this morning, imagine being threatened with deportation, even though you haven't committed a crime and it's all because of how you look. John Quinones goes undercover to Arizona's controversial immigration law. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: His ultimate, “What would you do?” 7:44 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to turn now to our undercover report from the front lines of the border wars. Arizona's immigration law passed last year. It stirred up a lot of controversy. So, John Quinones went to Tucson to put people's attitudes to an unusual test. And as I said earlier, this is sort of an ultimate, “What would you do?” JOHN QUINONES: Yes. We took it all the way to Arizona. You know, what does, George, an illegal immigrant look like? What does he sound like? So, we took our cameras down to Arizona, where a controversial, new law would give police the authority to question and perhaps deport anyone who, in their eyes, appears to be in the U.S. illegally. So, I go undercover, pretending to be someone who is about to be arrested and deported, simply by the way I look. [Video of protests.] These people are protesting for and against Arizona's new immigration law. We travel 70 miles north, to Tucson, Arizona and install our hidden cameras at this popular restaurant. BK. Carne Asada and Hot Dogs. This security guard is an actor hired by What Would You Do? And so are the people he's harassing. WHITE “SECURITY GUARD”: Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt. If I could see some identification. You don't belong here. QUINONES: How will patrons react to the guard asking for identification from a Latino man, a Latino family or even me? WHITE “SECURITY GUARD”: I just want to see some ID and make sure everything's okay. Everybody's like, “Oooh!” It's no big deal. I'm just looking to make sure these guys are legal citizens. And if they're not legal citizens, they shouldn't be here. They should be deported. They look Mexican. QUINONES: The wheels in this woman's head are turning. But, wait until you hear her plan. WHITE WOMAN: He just called for a ride. He's going to try and get him deported because he doesn't have any papers. You gotta get those two guys out of here. WHITE “SECURITY GUARD”: All I'm doing is I'm just looking out for everyone's safety. WHITE WOMAN: You're racial profiling. You totally racial profiled! WHITE “SECURITY GUARD”: Looks like a duck, smells like a duck. WHITE WOMAN: Looks like [bleeped] is [bleeped]. QUINONES: She then unveils her incredible plot to help me escape. WHITE WOMAN: You guys have to get out of here. Do they need to go out the back door, do you think? Where's your car? Where's your car? Where's your car? I can drive over there and meet you right there. QUINONES: Did she really say what we think she said? WHITE WOMAN: You run out that door. And I'll bring your car right over there. QUINONES: I'm a reporter. I'm with ABC News. I'm John Quinones. WHITE WOMAN: Oh. I know who you are. QUINONES: You jumped right in. You were going to take us in your car. WHITE WOMAN: I was actually going to get your car and bring it around and meet you over there. QUINONES: Why get involved? WHITE WOMAN: Maybe you have family, mothers, children. And I would feel bad if you got separated from them and shipped across the other direction. QUINONES: It's amazing how people responded. And what we kept hearing over and over from folks was that they all knew about the anti-immigration law. What they didn't realize until we staged our scenario was how it might affect innocent people, Latinos, George who are in this country legally. STEPHANOPOULOS: Boy, it looks like a fascinating report. Okay, thanks, John. You can see it tomorrow night on Primetime. What Would You Do?”at 9/8 central. — Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter .
Continue reading …
Middle East correspondents from the Guardian, Der Spiegel and Le Monde report from around the region on reaction to protests in Egypt In an effort to provide the most comprehensive coverage of the seismic events in Egypt and the shockwaves they are sending through the region, the Guardian has teamed up with leading European newspapers Der Spiegel and Le Monde . In the coming days we will be exploring ways to share our reporting from the region, so that you can read dispatches from their highly respected correspondents alongside reports from our own team on the ground. Kicking off this collaboration here are a series of audio reports from correspondents for the three papers in Cairo, Sana’a, Tunis and Beirut. Egypt: Volkhard Windfuhr, from Der Spiegel, reports from Cairo Windfuhr, who has lived in Egypt since the 1950s and been chairman of the Cairo foreign press association since 1994, confirms there has been a change of attitude from the army today, although reports that there are rumours of a split in the military’s leadership. Yemen: Tom Finn reports Thousands of anti-government demonstrators gathered in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a to take part in a “day of rage” against the ruling regime. Finn says protesters had planned to protest in Sana’a’s Tahrir Square, but the pro-government supporters got there first. Tunisia: Mathieu von Rohr, from Der Spiegel, reports People in Tunisia, where mass demonstrations saw the ex-president Ben Ali flee last month , feel “very proud” that Egyptians have risen up in protest against Mubarak, von Rohr reports. Der Spiegel’s foreign affairs correspondent says the mood in Tunisia has become more tense in the last couple of days, with clashes in the streets between police and protesters. Lebanon: Ghaith Abdul-Ahad reports Abdul-Ahad says “all is quite now” in Lebanon after the clashes of last week. There is huge interest in the Egyptian protests from people in the country, however he says Lebanon is “so sectarian” that any potential protests in the country are unlikely to be united. Jordan: Martin Chulov reports There’s a “tense calm” in Oman, Chulov says, where “all eyes” have been on Egypt. There is a lot of support for the protesters in Egypt, and talk about how protests may follow on on the streets of Jordan – where demonstrations are planned for Friday 4 February. So far the demonstrations have been carefully planned, but people are watching to see if tomorrow’s protests are have more spontaneous elements, Chulov reports. Egypt Middle East Lebanon Jordan Tunisia Yemen United Arab Emirates Hosni Mubarak Ghaith Abdul-Ahad Martin Chulov Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Bored of balanced coverage from the lamestream, so-called news media? What you can learn about the Middle East protests from US rightwing commentators ‘Tunisia is our Archduke Ferdinand moment’ Says Glenn Beck, Fox News host: This is not just happenstance. This is not just poor people mad at rich people. This is coordinated. Tunisia was the beginning. I think there is chance Tunisia was our Archduke Ferdinand moment that I’ve been telling you about, warning that it would start in some place that wouldn’t look like anything – and most of us wouldn’t understand it. He was the guy assassinated in Sarajevo. Month later Austria and Hungary declared war against Serbia and the rest is called World War One Beck, the apocalyptically-minded TV host, has the most complete theory on Egypt: the protests there are part of what he calls the “coming insurrection”. He illustrates how it will happen in the clip below using blackboards featuring maps of Europe and the Middle East. He marks friends with a yellow smiley face (Israel), “Frenemies” (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.) with blue faces and enemies (Iran) with red. Through the use of stick-on fires to illustrate riots he announces to his American viewers: “I’m going to show you how all this cascades over to us”. Key to all it all is that Europe, as his map shows, is already in flames because of some of our recent street protests. Beck never explains the connection between the Greek government’s austerity programme, tuition fees demonstrations in the UK and radical Islam (which no one on the ground in Egypt says is behind the protests there). Do I need to? Because I can’t. To cut to the chase, a new caliphate will emerge in the Middle East and push further east until China, as Beck puts it, says “Knock it off guys” and takes over India, reaching some way into Pakistan. The caliphate will then push north, which is when it will absorb the UK: What happens to the overwhelming radical population of the UK, of radical Islamicists. What happens? Do they just sit around on their hands or do they see an opportunity? When you take the Marxists and you combine them with the radical in Islam the whole world begins to implode So there you have it, an “Archduke Ferdinand moment” which will split Europe, the Middle East and Asia into Chinese and radical Islamic zones. In the full Beck, he also introduces Bill Ayers (who Sarah Palin had in mind when she accused Barack Obama of “palling around with terrorists”), Hizbullah and Code Pink, a feminist antiwar group. But that’s enough for now. ‘It has spread, as we predicted it would’ Says a Glenn Beck radio show co-host: Even when the French riots were going on, this was before Greece. The rioting in France – Paris was on fire virtually every night – we said this is coming to other countries That’s right. The origins of Egypt’s protest lie not in Mubarak’s dictatorship, a languid economy and lack of opportunity for young people but the 2005 unrest in Paris’s banlieues. Does Greece have something to do with it too? Here is Beck – this time on the radio – expanding on his theme of what the Egypt protests mean for Europe: The Muslim radicals in Europe and England rise up. You’ve got the communists and the Muslim radicals, they are not one and the same, they are not coordinating or anything else. But once they start to work together – whether it is coordinated or not, and I don’t believe it would be – once they start to work together in concert Europe is done. It is done. Where is the police force that is going to be able to police the entire world like that. Russia? The United States? How are you going to quell the Middle East? Watch the two of them below: ‘It tracks with this administration’s views on the economy’ Says David Asman, Fox host : President Mubarak sent a message by camel to President Obama today … Mubarak was telling Obama to mind his own business, that he will leave on his own terms, not on terms or timetables dictated by the White House The administration’s inability to have any sway there is what happens when you desert your allies and try to apply Robert’s rules of order to the raw power plays of the Middle East. We saw the same thing happen with the Carter administration’s mishandling of Iran in 1979 and we are shocked that this administration thinks the same lofty ideals will have better luck in Egypt. It is a fairyland, it is an academic view of the world that frankly tracks very closely with this administration’s views on the economy. Take healthcare, for example … To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail, as the saying goes. To a man with a problem with Obama’s healthcare reform, every problem looks like it has something to do with healthcare reform. (via Media Matters for America ) ‘Use our military power’ The strangest thing I’ve seen on the internet for a while: footage of JFK unconvincingly voiced-over by someone who cannot do a JFK impression. Recently the fires of discontent in the Middle East have been inflamed by the aid and comfort that have been given to America’s enemies by our 44th president The 44th president and Joseph Biden [should] be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours. At that point the speaker of the house, John Boehner, will become the 45th president of our nation. I’m asking john Boehner to use our military power to quell the uprising that is currently threatening the government of Hosni Mubarak I have no idea whether this is serious or satire. None at all. ‘Obama is on the side of radical Islam’ Michael Savage, who calls Obama the “socialist-in-chief”, talks over the US president’s recent statement calling for a transition to democracy in Egypt. Obama: … people want the same things that we all want. A better life for ourselves and our children … Savage: What the heck does that mean? This is the rhetoric you would have heard from the Black Panthers And here is a key quote: Grievances? Here is the community organiser now using community organisational mentality for a nation of Egypt, which is flooded with the Muslim Brotherhood. This is astounding. We are listening to the biggest mistake is US diplomatic history. This fool. This pinheaded fool running this country either doesn’t know his history or is on the side of radical Islam. There’s no two ways about it ‘What the Bible has already said’ Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily: Iran’s quest serves a second purpose of eliminating all of Israel’s supposed Islamic allies and replacing them with like-minded radical government heads that will renounce their alliance with the US and harden hatred toward Israel. Of course, this scenario only strengthens what the Bible has already said – that the enemies of Israel will one day attack them, thereby giving occasion for God to destroy their enemies From about 4 mins, we get a Biblical reading of contemporary Middle Eastern politics ‘Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the US government’ Frank Gaffney, neoconservative: There are questionable people who are sympathetic to the program of the stealth jihadists who have influence with the United States government. Some I think are actually working for it, but for sure people who are persuaded that the folks that they need to work with to reach out to the Muslim-American community, for example, who incessantly turn to Muslim Brotherhood organisations for that purpose, are a very real problem (Via Think Progress / Gawker ) ‘We will have a world war on our hands’ Bill O’Reilly forsees a domino effect where, aided by al-Jazeera, the Muslim Brotherhood takes charge in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt and Jordan and gives al-Qaida free reign. ‘Al-Jazeera is British intel’ Another take on al-Jazeera: Alex Jones talks Egypt with author and host of GCN’s World Crisis Radio, Webster Tarpley. I have no idea what is going on here, there is an Anglo-American imperialist plot, they say, aided by al-Jazeera, to overthrow Mubarak. China and Russia might get involved somewhere down the line. Here is one exchange: Jones: People are opening saying what al-Jazeera is: British intel Tarpley: Yeah, that’s for sure To clear things up (joke!) at around the 3 mins mark Pink Floyd’s Money comes in to provide a sonic backdrop to the Jones-Tarpley chat. ‘The US should not fear Egypt regime change’ This may not fit the narrative but the US right is not speaking with one voice on Egypt. There are those (mainly above) who fear the consequences if Mubarak was to fall, but others who support the possibility that Egypt may transition to democracy. The quote heading this section comes from an article for Forbes by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (also home to Paul Wolfowitz) while a Bush administration official, Elliott Abrams, claims in the Washington Post that the Egypt protests are a vindication of his former boss. And then there are more non-partisan positions, such as Glenn Beck’s Egypt protest theories show he’s finally lost the plot . Egypt United States Simon Jeffery guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Vodafone may have been forced to send out pro-Mubarak texts, but operating in oppressive countries is always risky for a brand Vodafone has admitted sending out pro-Mubarak text messages to users of its mobile service in Egypt – although as the company says, in a mea exculpa, it was obliged to by the government. I had seen the pictures on Flickr last night, and followed some debate (involving Graham Linehan on Twitter) in which people debated whether they could be faked, and whether the translations given really did indicate a pro-Mubarak instruction; one suggestion was that the words were somewhat in the Nostradamus mode, where the meaning depended on what you wanted it to mean. This will be seized on by people who already want to dislike Vodafone (hello, UK Uncut) as further evidence of corporate evil. Certainly, it’s the sort of thing that will have executives in technology companies heaving a sigh and being grateful it wasn’t them. Arguably, the staff at Vodafone Egypt didn’t have much choice; it may be only 44.7% owned by the government there, but possession of a gun (or tank, or army, or secret police force armed with knives and sticks and a ruthless approach) is nine-tenths – often more – of the argument. But technology companies can hardly pretend they’re surprised when they do business with autocratic regimes and then are unpopular when those regimes use their products to reinforce their diktat. Remember Nokia Siemens, which provided equipment that was used to monitor opposition in Iran ? Or how about Cisco, whose routers have been used to build China’s Great Firewall , which keeps the majority of its citizens in wilful ignorance of the opinions of the world beyond its shores? The fact is for any corporation that if you’re keen to do business with an autocrat, you’ll be part of the collateral damage if – when – the shit hits the fan. Yet like moths batting themselves against a lightbulb in the belief that it’s actually the sun, companies keep returning to do business with countries and regimes whose life spans must be limited because of their repressive nature: no tyrant is immortal, not even (despite appearances) Robert Mugabe, and Zimbabwe will be lucky if it survives his passing without turmoil. It’s not only technology companies, of course. I’m astonished that BP has thrown in its lot once more with the Russian government, having already had its ownership of one joint venture there simply stolen. But moths don’t think about their headache. They just see something and think it’s the sun. And the people who succeed Mubarak and Mugabe and the rest – in Burma, in Iran, in North Korea, at some point in China – will not forget the brands that helped in the conspiracy to keep them down. The only faint light for Vodafone is that even while it was sending out those messages, its technology enabled the rebellion. It will have to rehearse that argument well. It’s going to need it some time in the next few months. Vodafone Telecommunications industry Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Newstalgia Reference Room – The Freedom Of Information Act – March 30, 1965
February 3, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media (Sen. Al Gore with Rep. John Moss – Next time you’re digging around the National Archives, thank the guy on the right.) On March 30, 1965, California Representative John Moss introduced legislation in Congress that would give the public access to the inner workings of the government. It was met with a lot of resistance. LBJ swore to veto it if it arrived on his desk. The idea that a government that was transparent, that actually would be accountable, where the press would actually have access to documents seemed very abstract to some. And it wasn’t until 1966, when LBJ had a change of heart (or a change of some provisions in the bill) that The Freedom of Information Act was finally signed into law. A lot of attempts have been made to stymie the law, including a Bush Executive Order which rendered it null for the better part of 8 years. Still, the bill came from someplace and it was someone’s idea that the people were entitled to know the truth. So here is a report by Fred Morrison from March 30, 1965, outlining the reactions on Capitol Hill to the newly introduced bill.
Continue reading …Dick Morris thinks Obama administration should back Mubarak and his thugs, ‘aggressively confront’ protesters
February 3, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Dick Morris has always given me the creeps, because he just gives off this nasty toe-sucking-troll-who-lives-under-the-bridge vibe. I guess after last night, we can make that a fascist toe-sucking troll: MORRIS: I think that what Mubarak should be doing and what the Obama administration should be doing is aggressively confronting the demonstrators. I think that if we encourage the military to stand down, if we encourage the Mubarak supporters to refrain from controversy or even from violence, we really are opening the door to Islamic fundamentalist domination. That was Morris describing why President Obama is really to blame for the crisis in Egypt to Laura Ingraham last night on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor . Notice that Morris couches the words so that he’s not directly calling for the American administration to engage in acts of violence, but he does clearly say we should openly condone and support a dictator’s street thugs in committing acts of violence. This came as part of Morris’ ongoing campaign to claim the President Obama “lost Egypt”, or as he put it last night, Obama “broke Egypt, and now he owns it” — a claim that seems to be gaining some circulation at Fox, which is increasingly desperate for anything, anything it can grasp for attacking Obama in this situation. Even Dick Morris’s disgusting grunts from under the bridge. Todd Gregory at Media Matters has more.
Continue reading …
Egyptian president need only remember 1952 to see what happens when the armed forces turn on those in power Egypt’s armed forces stand at the centre of the country’s drama, urged by pro-democracy protesters to defend them while commanders strive to ensure their status, power and influence are preserved once Hosni Mubarak has gone. As troops in Cairo’s Tahrir Square moved against pro-Mubarak loyalists , opposition leader Muhammad ElBaradei called on the army to intervene. The US and EU made clear they wanted to see the military act to maintain order. With veteran intelligence chief Omar Suleiman installed as vice-president, analysts predict key figures such as the defence minister, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, and the chief of staff, Lieutenant General Sami Einan, may yet move to persuade Mubarak to step down before September’s presidential elections, as he has now pledged. “These men are all old friends and I would not be surprised if they are able to convince Mubarak that he needs to go and have more urgent medical treatment in Germany,” said a former senior western official. “Whatever it looks like on TV, Mubarak is finished.” Tantawi has been in contact with the US defence secretary, Robert Gates. The countries have a strategic relationship worth $1.3bn (£800m) a year in military assistance to Egypt that is seen as “untouchable compensation” for making and maintaining peace with Israel. Suleiman and Einan are well regarded in the US. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, reportedly praised the Egyptian army for its “professionalism” after speaking to Einan. The Egyptian army’s influence is not new. With nearly 500,000 men it is the world’s 10th largest. Egypt’s 1952 revolution, which overthrew the monarchy, was carried out by Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser and his fellow “free officers”. Anwar Sadat and Mubarak – a former air force commander – kept it powerful through the 1967 and 1973 wars. In recent years the high command is known to have been unhappy with the idea that Mubarak might be succeeded by his businessman son Gamal, not least out of concern that his liberalising agenda and private sector cronies would undermine their own extensive economic interests. Military-owned companies run by retired generals are active in the water, olive oil, cement, construction, hotel and petrol industries. Large tracts of land are owned by the military in the Nile Delta and on the Red Sea, apparently a benefit in exchange for the military ensuring regime stability and security. Retired officers often fill top civilian jobs in key ministries, though privatisation has forced military-owned companies to improve the quality of their work. Recent US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks paint a picture of an institution facing severe internal challenges and a decline in status. Tantawi, at 85 even older than the president, is referred to by contemptuous junior officers as “Mubarak’s poodle”, according to a 2008 report. “In the cabinet, where he still wields significant influence, Tantawi has opposed both economic and political reforms that he perceives as eroding central government power,” the cable says. “He is supremely concerned with national unity, and has opposed policy initiatives he views as encouraging political or religious cleavages within Egyptian society.”In another dispatch the US embassy quoted “academics and civilian analysts [who] painted a portrait of an Egyptian military in intellectual and social decline, whose officers have largely fallen out of society’s elite ranks. They describe a disgruntled mid-level officer corps harshly critical of a defence minister they perceive as incompetent and valuing loyalty above skill in his subordinates. However, analysts perceive the military as retaining strong influence through its role in ensuring regime stability and operating a large network of commercial enterprises.” Egypt Hosni Mubarak Protest Middle East Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media George Bush has infuriated the Tea Party faction of the GOP when he spoke out January 24 at Southern Methodist University in Dallas against what he perceives is a historic shift back to the olden days of isolationism, protectionism and its demon-seed hellspawn, Nativism. Laura Ingraham filled in for O’Reilly and was furious at the president she once held so dear to her heart. Ingraham: Last November President Bush remarked that the Tea Party is good for the country. But why did he attack a key priority for many Tea Partiers, namely, getting our borders under control and preventing mass amnesty for illegal immigrants? Bush: What’s interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some ‘isms’ that occasionally pop up — pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the ’20s, for example, there was — there was an American first policy that said who cares what happens in Europe?…And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians; therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is that we’ve been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism and Nativism. I’m a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. ” Ingraham: Now as someone who was at the forefront in opposing the 2006 Bush immigration reform effort, I was saddened, but not all that surprised by the President’s insulting characterization…. To say that it’s all about hostility to foreigners is ludicrous. To back up her position she uses a Dallas Tea Party poll which showed over 95% in favor of Arizona’s hateful SB1070 law. I guess that’s irrefutable proof that Conservative opposition towards immigration reform is anything but Nativism, right? Ingraham uses the phony Conservative claim that this is all about “the rule of law” as a crutch to back up her Nativist position on immigration. Jeb Bush also got under her skin when he spoke out against Republicans and called their opposition “wrong and stupid.” Laura wasn’t happy being tag teamed by the Bush Brothers. Ingraham: Now that’s an interesting way to court future GOP voters given their overwhelming opposition to amnesty, Gov. Bush. maybe President Bush was right. We are suffering from an outbreak of ism’s. Elitism comes to mind. Calling George and Jeb Bush ‘elitists’ are fightin’ words , young lady, since that’s the exact opposite of how she viewed them when they were in office. Oh, how times have changed — because here I am, writing about something that I agree with George Bush on, and here Laura Ingraham is, attacking the president she once defended to the hilt. That’s how far right the GOP has moved.
Continue reading …
The staggering lack of opportunities for young people in Egypt and across the Middle East, especially young entrepreneurs without political connections, is clearly an important motive for the protests The firestorm of events across the Middle East over the past few days can’t be explained by long-term development factors: the link between politics and economic development (or lack thereof) is complex in the extreme. Still, the staggering lack of opportunities for young people, especially young entrepreneurs without political connections, is clearly an important part of the mix. That includes people like Mohamed Bouazizi, the 26-year-old whose self-immolation sparked the protests which brought down Tunisia’s president, and which in turn set off the remarkable events unfolding in Egypt. The Middle East has witnessed an incredible expansion of both youth populations and education over the past 20 years. Fully two thirds of the region’s population is below 24 years old. Tertiary enrollment in Egypt has climbed from 14-28% since 1990, and in Tunisia from 8-34%. Cairo University alone has around 200,000 students. But while educational opportunities abound, jobs do not. Unemployment among 15-24 year olds in the Middle East and north Africa is the highest of any region in the world, averaging more than 25%. In Egypt in 2005 that number was 34%, in Tunisia it was 31%. One big reason is anaemic private sector growth. And behind weak private sector performance is exactly the kind of favouritism that drove Bouazizi to desperation. Before coming to CGD, I worked in the Middle East and north Africa department of the World Bank for a year — not nearly long enough to become any kind of expert, but long enough to meet some. A report by some of my more seasoned colleagues looked at the region’s private sector in some depth. It noted that while Egypt might have been one of the top 10 performers on the bank’s own Doing Business reform measures in recent years and other countries in the region were also rising up the rankings, there was a big gap between de jure reforms and de facto implementation: “Firms in MENA are much older than in other parts of the world… Business managers are also older than elsewhere. Incumbent firms face less competition. Except in south Asia, fewer registered firms per capita are found in MENA… These are all symptoms of a discriminatory business environment that prevents the entry and exit of firms… the networks of privileges and the nexus between politics and business hurt the credibility of governments and reformers in particular. The perception that connections are an important source of competitiveness (some say the most important) discourages many would-be entrepreneurs… The large proportion of entrepreneurs… believe that rules and regulations will not be consistently and predictably applied [and] explains why policy reforms may not have a strong response from investors.” With good private sector jobs mostly limited to the few companies with political connections and government jobs largely the preserve of an older generation, there weren’t many places for young graduates to go but on to the streets. Given that, few in the Middle East or north Africa will have been surprised that frustrations have boiled over – even if the scale and early success of the protests has shaken regional leaders from the Atlantic to the Arabian Sea. Nic van De Walle suggests term limits for heads of state would do the region a power of good. Perhaps the same should apply to the employees and managers of privileged private firms and state-owned enterprises. In his CGD book, Overcoming Stagnation in Aid Dependent Countries, Nic argues that withholding aid can be a powerful lever for change — when countries are aid dependent. But it’s hard for me to see the crisis in the region as mostly a story about aid. Net Official Development Assistance (ODA) amounted to just 4% of central government expenditure in Tunisia in 2008 according to the World Development Indicators. It’s true that in Egypt in 1990, net ODA accounted for 36% of government expenditures. But by 2008, that figure was 3%. That year, ODA and other aid to Egypt was worth only 11% of tourist receipts or 14% of manufactures exports. And while Mubarak received a range of other types of diplomatic and military support from the United States, there are a number of long-lasting dynasties in the region that aren’t on the friends list of any major donor. In Pakistan, like Egypt a big US aid recipient that doesn’t always do what Washington would like, Nancy Birdsall emphasizes that billions of dollars in American aid can’t even guarantee the passage of fairly basic economic reforms — let alone fundamentally change the calculus of a political leader struggling to hold on to power. All of which suggests that what happens next is in the hands of the leaders and people of the region, not the diplomats and foreign officials who are watching from afar. Thanks to Wren Elhai for adding to this blog post. Egypt Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …