The “On Faith” page of The Washington Post website is plugging an interview with controversial Ground Zero Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf , a brief chat with a very agreeable Sally Quinn, with a modicum of slightly tougher questioning from her atheist pal Jacques Berlinerblau, a professor at Georgetown. The professor asked if during the mega-mosque controversy he found himself thinking of his opponents, “That was a reasonable criticism, I can agree with that.” The imam firmly denied that: ” There was no logically correct, or critically correct, or defensible opposition to us. The only opposition that they kept repeating was that we were insensitive to the feelings of 9/11 families. So the only thing I would have done differently would have been to have prepared more the 9/11 family members.”
Continue reading …
The Arab uprisings demand strong support from the British government | Douglas Alexander
March 6, 2011 No CommentThe coalition government’s passivity and lack of ambition of a bilateral, mercantilist approach to foreign policy have been found badly wanting by these recent events The tempo of change in the Middle East and North Africa has barely slowed in more than a month. Every few days, there is another difficult decision on the desk of the foreign secretary: how to put pressure on the Mubarak regime; how to respond to the violence in Bahrain; how to ensure the safe passage of British citizens from the rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya. None of the policy challenges thrown up by these tumultuous events is straightforward or easy. Old assumptions have collapsed as swiftly as old regimes. But, regrettably, the British government has shown a strikingly unsteady hand on the tiller. Operational incompetence has now been followed by strategic incoherence. There was the fiasco over flights and a wider uncertainty as to who was in charge, as a trade mission was rather unconvincingly resprayed as a democracy tour. Then a no fly zone was talked up one day only to be talked down the next, as US defence secretary Bob Gates warned against “loose talk”. For good measure, the government also chose that day to announce the sacking of thousands of RAF personnel . Public squabbling then broke out as cabinet discussions on Libya were briefed and counter-briefed by ministers. People are entitled to ask what is going on and what has gone wrong. Certainly, there is inexperience at all levels of government and it’s showing in basic errors such as the failure immediately to convene Cobra (the UK’s emergencies team) and in the failure properly to align public statements with key allies. But there’s also a deeper issue. Previous generations of leaders came of age through geopolitical moments: 1989, the Balkan wars, 9/11. The world view of today’s cabinet has, in large part, been defined by the global financial crisis. Accordingly, the coalition government thought that if they stepped back from foreign affairs, a quiet period on the world stage would reflect and reinforce their domestic agenda of austerity. Perhaps, for the pre- Tahrir era, such strategic shrinkage seemed appropriate. But it’s the passivity and lack of ambition of a bilateral, mercantilist approach to foreign policy that have been found badly wanting by these recent events. These events have been driven from within the region and not beyond. But the challenge is to use British influence to support political transitions in North Africa – with countries that are just eight miles from Europe – rather than simply playing the role of a bystander. The real challenge for Britain today is whether we can match the “networked” revolutions we are witnessing with a networked foreign policy. Such a strategy should not deny the weakness of many of today’s international institutions. In fact, successful multilateralism demands fighting every day against institutional inertia. But Britain is uniquely equipped to pursue a coherent policy in each of the many different parts of the multilateral system. We are the one country that can operate simultaneously through the EU, the UN Security Council, Nato and the Commonwealth. So what would an agenda for action in the coming days look like? Sustaining pressure on the regime and protecting the people should remain the west’s strategic objectives. The EU has been slow off the mark on Libya. The UK government should now propose that Friday’s EU Council become a joint emergency summit held with the Arab League. The Arab League’s secretary general, Amre Moussa, is already emerging as an influential figure in Egypt. So the emergency summit should propose the immediate establishment of a “Friends of Libya Group”. A key objective of this group should be to establish contacts with opposition leaders with the aim of supporting their efforts running the large parts of the country they already effectively control. The EU should also sharpen the choice facing the Libyan military by offering sanctuary to deserting Libyan pilots, while making explicit the risks being run by those countries that continue to allow their citizens to serve as Gaddafi’s mercenaries. And in the Nato defence ministers’ meeting, Britain should be at the heart of working up the range of contingencies that may yet be required. Gaddafi, and his military backers, need to know all options remain on the table. The EU summit should also state explicitly that assistance will be available to a post-Gaddafi Libya. Britain should propose that work starts now on a package of trade measures that addresses the tariffs and quotas that presently lock out many North African agricultural goods. Funds should also be redirected within the external relations budget from areas such as Latin America towards North Africa. This government is always quick to talk up the Commonwealth, but has seemed slow to realise the extent to which the foreign worker refugee crisis on the borders of Libya affects Commonwealth citizens. There is a particular problem with Bangladeshi workers, 5,000 of whom crossed into Tunisia in just one day. Britain should propose a joint Commonwealth task force of members with heavy lift capacity such as Canada, India and Australia to try and assist in getting them home. To further address the humanitarian aspects of this crisis, Britain should use Department for International Development funds to support the World Food Programme and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in achieving a co-ordinated and comprehensive response. Having attended EU and Nato Councils, and UN and Commonwealth summits, I am not naive about the scale of the challenge. And I recognise that, unlike in 1989, the feelings evoked towards the scene of tumult in the Middle East are commonly not of triumph but of uncertainty. But that is not an excuse for uncertainty in government. The changes sweeping the region are challenging assumptions of the past and shaking visions of the future with a velocity in response. In this crisis, Britain can and must step up and not step back. Arab and Middle East protests Libya Egypt Foreign policy Douglas Alexander guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …It must be bliss to be alive, young and Arab in this dawn of revolution | Henry Porter
March 6, 2011 No CommentSpend time in Tunisia or Egypt and it is clear that the protests are not driven by ideology but the search for equity When police spies are found among the young people occupying the Kasbah Square, the seat of government in Tunis, they suffer nothing more than a torrent of abuse and are then handed over to the soldiers, guarding ministry buildings nearby. Minutes later, photographs and film of the individuals, looking a bit flat-footed and middle-aged, are being exchanged on mobile phones and posted on the internet. After years of absolute power, these thugs are being outsmarted and, more important, they’re being beaten by reason, courage and wit. One of the many remarkable aspects of the first of the Arab revolutions is that the hope of young Tunisians seems to overwhelm the need for revenge. There are a fair number of recent bullet wounds to be found in the square – a shy street vendor aged 16 shows me four, star-shaped purple scars on his legs; and many have injuries caused by batons and tear gas cartridges – yet this generation seems determined to rise above the past and they burn brightly with that ambition. With good reason they’re nervous that the gains of the past two months will be snatched from them. The popular revolt may be inching towards some kind of consolidation but the apparatus of a police state – the extensive system of informers and torturers that kept President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in power until 14 January – remains largely intact, as does Egypt’s “deep state”. The Tunisian opposition estimates that 240 have lost their lives so far and last weekend, four young protesters were killed in the centre of Tunis. I was told that police snipers are still aiming for the head or the heart. To spend time with the protesters is to understand the scale of the change underway in the Arab world. There is almost a shift of consciousness: people are beginning to think differently about themselves and they are exhilarated by the possibilities of political debate. I lost count of the number of young women and men who spoke about self-respect and dignity and how those two could only be attained with freedom. Tunis-based banker Adel Dajani told me that everyone he knows has become political. Hip-hop artists such as Balti are rapping about Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and the 40 Thieves. The newspapers, once a dire noticeboard for the regime, have become racy and are full of scurrilous stories. Suddenly, life is a hell of a lot more fun. In the Kasbah, Ahmed Maaioufi, a language teacher in his mid-50s, translated the words of the crowd around us into very good English. We were both moved by what we heard and after a little while he confessed that his generation had completely failed to understand and trust their children. And it is true that young Arabs are tired of the paternalism that decides everything for them and tells them what to think. They’re especially sick of abusive father figures who steal their country’s money and blame everything on Israel and America. Only once was the United States mentioned in these conversations and that was by a young man commending the honesty of American diplomats, as revealed in US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. “The kids don’t buy these bullshit arguments anymore,” the veteran French-Tunisian commentator Guy Sitbon told me. Several times, I wished that Tony Blair could have stood by incognito to hear the reasoned contempt poured on his fears about Islamic fundamentalism, which, interestingly, chimed with nightmares about al-Qaida evoked last week by his old hugging pal, Colonel Gaddafi . This quake is not about religion or even ideology in the dogmatic sense – it’s about creating societies with dignity, fairness and justice. The things that obsess Arab people are corruption and the abysmal standards in public life. To most, that seems as good a place to start as any. As westerners, it’s easy to let the rhetoric about human rights and democracy wash over us, but that’s because we live in free societies. When the people in Tahrir and Kasbah squares talk about rights with such blazing passion, you feel slightly ashamed. Still, it is true the words are abused the world over. In Tunisia, the party run by Ben Ali was, without a trace of irony, named the RCD, or the Constitutional Democratic Rally , which, oddly enough, precisely describes the nature of the movement that eventually threw him out of Tunisia and into a Saudi hospital. Tunisia is unique in the Arab world for the rights that even under Ben Ali were accorded to women and it’s vital to understand how important women are to the Jasmine revolution. In Kasbah Square, there are representative groups from all over the country huddling round charcoal fires in tents and it was striking how often those who possessed the clearest political ideas and did the talking for a particular group were the women. The same is partially true in the Egyptian revolution and it may just be that the demonstrations in Tunis or Cairo contained an individual who will one day become the first female leader in the Arab world. For sure, a woman could do no worse than the thieving, torturing, posturing incompetents who currently run the Arab world. During long years of Ben Ali’s rule, it had often been the women who kept alive a sense of morality, who insisted on ideas of right and wrong in the home and at work, even in the circumstances of a brutal regime that tortured your son or daughter for opening their mouth. Despite the army in Egypt and the police in Tunis, good things are happening. In Tunisia, the new president has announced elections for constitutional assembly in July. Ben Ali’s assets are being frozen and the Tunisians have demanded his extradition from Saudi Arabia. In Egypt, I saw a demonstration last Friday where the new prime minister, Essam Sharaf , promised meaningful liberal reforms and the rebuilding of Egypt. The former president, Hosni Mubarak, is being investigated for corruption and in Alexandria protesters stormed the headquarters of the hated state security agency, believing that officers were destroying evidence of their crimes. For the moment, it appears that the dreadful retardant of autocracy is slowly being removed. It must be bliss to be alive, young and Arab in this dawn, but it goes without saying that there is a long way to go. Somehow, the new governments must find ways of creating jobs for this bright new generation and it will take enormous cunning and persistence to neutralise the armies and security services that have been in control for so long. If not checked, they may well mutate into a corrupt oligarchy, precisely in the way that KGB officers did after the 1989 revolutions in Europe. The new governments will need our support and trust, but most of the people I talked to want an end to the unbelievably condescending notion that Arabs cannot handle democracy and do not want civil society. Once we grasp that, our attitude to the Middle East and Islam will change for the better. Tunisia Egypt Arab and Middle East protests Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali Henry Porter guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Open Thread with The Professional Left Weekly Podcast: The Ayn Rand Episode [Not]
March 5, 2011 No Comment![Open Thread with The Professional Left Weekly Podcast: The Ayn Rand Episode [Not]](https://newsbreakingonline.com/wp-content/themes/transcript/timthumb.php?src=%3Cimg+src%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbreakingonline.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F03%2Fdcd3d672080white.jpg-150x40.jpg%22+%2F%3E&q=90&w=190&h=100&zc=1 "Open Thread with The Professional Left Weekly Podcast: The Ayn Rand Episode [Not]")
enlarge Credit: The Professional Left Time for your weekly podcast with our own Driftglass and Bluegal , otherwise known as the Professional Left. You can listen to the archives or make a donation to help keep these going at http://professionalleft.blogspot.com/ . Have a great weekend everybody and enjoy the podcast.
Continue reading …Newstalgia Reference Room – Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – That Other Voice Of Wisconsin – 1937
March 5, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Credit: Life Magazine Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. of Wisconsin – hard to imagine now – but a Progressive Republican. Click here to view this media With the news surfacing (or rumors depending on your news source) of defections among the ranks of Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate, I’m reminded that Wisconsin, not only having the dubious distinction of giving America Joe McCarthy, also gave us a Progressive Republican by the name of Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – son of that other notable Wisconsin Senator, Robert M. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette Sr., who established the Wisconsin Progressive Party during the first years of the 20th Century. LaFollette Jr. , though not the firebrand his father was, nonetheless was a staunch supporter of President Roosevelt. Although he was a man of many contradictions, he more often than not aligned himself with New Deal legislation. When the subject of revising the Supreme Court came up, LaFollette was a huge supporter, as is evidenced by this address given at a Labor conference in 1937. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. : “Stalling of our government on dead-center, by judicial fiat in recent years is not a defect in the Constitution, it is a defect in the Supreme Court. We do not need to amend the Constitution, free the processes of the democratic principle in this country. We simply need to amend a majority of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Constitution. In its exercise of the judicial veto it has taken onto itself powers which it was never intended to have by the founders of our Constitutional government. If Congress continues to yield to this false doctrine it will betray the people into the hands of a judicial oligarchy, governing for property rather than humanity.” It’s almost inconceivable that such a member of Republican Party would be around and kicking today. He would no doubt be ostracized and tossed out of the party. Particularly saying things like this: LaFollette: “The question is simply whether a handful of judges ought to be allowed to exceed their lawful authority by paying more attention to their personal, economic and social beliefs than to the Constitution itself. The issue is between special vested interests, dodging behind an economic theory of days gone by on the one hand, and the will of the people to govern themselves on the other. When a judge sets himself squarely athwart the peoples path to progress, it is time for the true defenders of Democracy to take action.” So it came as no small surprise that LaFollette lost his re-election bid to a certain Junior Senator from the same party – Joseph McCarthy, whom the Republicans in Wisconsin threw all their support behind. And it probably also makes sense that, given his disillusionment and his radical ideas, even then, he would wind up committing suicide in 1953. But still, they did exist and even up until recently there was that Moderate Wing of the Republican Party. Perhaps this new wrinkle in the ongoing story of Wisconsin gives a glimmer of hope that some sanity still lurks around.
Continue reading …Newstalgia Reference Room – Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – That Other Voice Of Wisconsin – 1937
March 5, 2011 No Commentenlarge Credit: Life Magazine Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. of Wisconsin – hard to imagine now – but a Progressive Republican. Click here to view this media With the news surfacing (or rumors depending on your news source) of defections among the ranks of Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate, I’m reminded that Wisconsin, not only having the dubious distinction of giving America Joe McCarthy, also gave us a Progressive Republican by the name of Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – son of that other notable Wisconsin Senator, Robert M. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette Sr., who established the Wisconsin Progressive Party during the first years of the 20th Century. LaFollette Jr. , though not the firebrand his father was, nonetheless was a staunch supporter of President Roosevelt. Although he was a man of many contradictions, he more often than not aligned himself with New Deal legislation. When the subject of revising the Supreme Court came up, LaFollette was a huge supporter, as is evidenced by this address given at a Labor conference in 1937. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. : “Stalling of our government on dead-center, by judicial fiat in recent years is not a defect in the Constitution, it is a defect in the Supreme Court. We do not need to amend the Constitution, free the processes of the democratic principle in this country. We simply need to amend a majority of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Constitution. In its exercise of the judicial veto it has taken onto itself powers which it was never intended to have by the founders of our Constitutional government. If Congress continues to yield to this false doctrine it will betray the people into the hands of a judicial oligarchy, governing for property rather than humanity.” It’s almost inconceivable that such a member of Republican Party would be around and kicking today. He would no doubt be ostracized and tossed out of the party. Particularly saying things like this: LaFollette: “The question is simply whether a handful of judges ought to be allowed to exceed their lawful authority by paying more attention to their personal, economic and social beliefs than to the Constitution itself. The issue is between special vested interests, dodging behind an economic theory of days gone by on the one hand, and the will of the people to govern themselves on the other. When a judge sets himself squarely athwart the peoples path to progress, it is time for the true defenders of Democracy to take action.” So it came as no small surprise that LaFollette lost his re-election bid to a certain Junior Senator from the same party – Joseph McCarthy, whom the Republicans in Wisconsin threw all their support behind. And it probably also makes sense that, given his disillusionment and his radical ideas, even then, he would wind up committing suicide in 1953. But still, they did exist and even up until recently there was that Moderate Wing of the Republican Party. Perhaps this new wrinkle in the ongoing story of Wisconsin gives a glimmer of hope that some sanity still lurks around.
Continue reading …Newstalgia Reference Room – Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – That Other Voice Of Wisconsin – 1937
March 5, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Credit: Life Magazine Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. of Wisconsin – hard to imagine now – but a Progressive Republican. Click here to view this media With the news surfacing (or rumors depending on your news source) of defections among the ranks of Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate, I’m reminded that Wisconsin, not only having the dubious distinction of giving America Joe McCarthy, also gave us a Progressive Republican by the name of Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – son of that other notable Wisconsin Senator, Robert M. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette Sr., who established the Wisconsin Progressive Party during the first years of the 20th Century. LaFollette Jr. , though not the firebrand his father was, nonetheless was a staunch supporter of President Roosevelt. Although he was a man of many contradictions, he more often than not aligned himself with New Deal legislation. When the subject of revising the Supreme Court came up, LaFollette was a huge supporter, as is evidenced by this address given at a Labor conference in 1937. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. : “Stalling of our government on dead-center, by judicial fiat in recent years is not a defect in the Constitution, it is a defect in the Supreme Court. We do not need to amend the Constitution, free the processes of the democratic principle in this country. We simply need to amend a majority of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Constitution. In its exercise of the judicial veto it has taken onto itself powers which it was never intended to have by the founders of our Constitutional government. If Congress continues to yield to this false doctrine it will betray the people into the hands of a judicial oligarchy, governing for property rather than humanity.” It’s almost inconceivable that such a member of Republican Party would be around and kicking today. He would no doubt be ostracized and tossed out of the party. Particularly saying things like this: LaFollette: “The question is simply whether a handful of judges ought to be allowed to exceed their lawful authority by paying more attention to their personal, economic and social beliefs than to the Constitution itself. The issue is between special vested interests, dodging behind an economic theory of days gone by on the one hand, and the will of the people to govern themselves on the other. When a judge sets himself squarely athwart the peoples path to progress, it is time for the true defenders of Democracy to take action.” So it came as no small surprise that LaFollette lost his re-election bid to a certain Junior Senator from the same party – Joseph McCarthy, whom the Republicans in Wisconsin threw all their support behind. And it probably also makes sense that, given his disillusionment and his radical ideas, even then, he would wind up committing suicide in 1953. But still, they did exist and even up until recently there was that Moderate Wing of the Republican Party. Perhaps this new wrinkle in the ongoing story of Wisconsin gives a glimmer of hope that some sanity still lurks around.
Continue reading …Newstalgia Reference Room – Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – That Other Voice Of Wisconsin – 1937
March 5, 2011 No Commentenlarge Credit: Life Magazine Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. of Wisconsin – hard to imagine now – but a Progressive Republican. Click here to view this media With the news surfacing (or rumors depending on your news source) of defections among the ranks of Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate, I’m reminded that Wisconsin, not only having the dubious distinction of giving America Joe McCarthy, also gave us a Progressive Republican by the name of Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – son of that other notable Wisconsin Senator, Robert M. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette Sr., who established the Wisconsin Progressive Party during the first years of the 20th Century. LaFollette Jr. , though not the firebrand his father was, nonetheless was a staunch supporter of President Roosevelt. Although he was a man of many contradictions, he more often than not aligned himself with New Deal legislation. When the subject of revising the Supreme Court came up, LaFollette was a huge supporter, as is evidenced by this address given at a Labor conference in 1937. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. : “Stalling of our government on dead-center, by judicial fiat in recent years is not a defect in the Constitution, it is a defect in the Supreme Court. We do not need to amend the Constitution, free the processes of the democratic principle in this country. We simply need to amend a majority of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Constitution. In its exercise of the judicial veto it has taken onto itself powers which it was never intended to have by the founders of our Constitutional government. If Congress continues to yield to this false doctrine it will betray the people into the hands of a judicial oligarchy, governing for property rather than humanity.” It’s almost inconceivable that such a member of Republican Party would be around and kicking today. He would no doubt be ostracized and tossed out of the party. Particularly saying things like this: LaFollette: “The question is simply whether a handful of judges ought to be allowed to exceed their lawful authority by paying more attention to their personal, economic and social beliefs than to the Constitution itself. The issue is between special vested interests, dodging behind an economic theory of days gone by on the one hand, and the will of the people to govern themselves on the other. When a judge sets himself squarely athwart the peoples path to progress, it is time for the true defenders of Democracy to take action.” So it came as no small surprise that LaFollette lost his re-election bid to a certain Junior Senator from the same party – Joseph McCarthy, whom the Republicans in Wisconsin threw all their support behind. And it probably also makes sense that, given his disillusionment and his radical ideas, even then, he would wind up committing suicide in 1953. But still, they did exist and even up until recently there was that Moderate Wing of the Republican Party. Perhaps this new wrinkle in the ongoing story of Wisconsin gives a glimmer of hope that some sanity still lurks around.
Continue reading …Newstalgia Reference Room – Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – That Other Voice Of Wisconsin – 1937
March 5, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Credit: Life Magazine Sen. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. of Wisconsin – hard to imagine now – but a Progressive Republican. Click here to view this media With the news surfacing (or rumors depending on your news source) of defections among the ranks of Republicans in the Wisconsin State Senate, I’m reminded that Wisconsin, not only having the dubious distinction of giving America Joe McCarthy, also gave us a Progressive Republican by the name of Robert M. LaFollette Jr. – son of that other notable Wisconsin Senator, Robert M. “Fighting Bob” LaFollette Sr., who established the Wisconsin Progressive Party during the first years of the 20th Century. LaFollette Jr. , though not the firebrand his father was, nonetheless was a staunch supporter of President Roosevelt. Although he was a man of many contradictions, he more often than not aligned himself with New Deal legislation. When the subject of revising the Supreme Court came up, LaFollette was a huge supporter, as is evidenced by this address given at a Labor conference in 1937. Robert M. LaFollette Jr. : “Stalling of our government on dead-center, by judicial fiat in recent years is not a defect in the Constitution, it is a defect in the Supreme Court. We do not need to amend the Constitution, free the processes of the democratic principle in this country. We simply need to amend a majority of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the Constitution. In its exercise of the judicial veto it has taken onto itself powers which it was never intended to have by the founders of our Constitutional government. If Congress continues to yield to this false doctrine it will betray the people into the hands of a judicial oligarchy, governing for property rather than humanity.” It’s almost inconceivable that such a member of Republican Party would be around and kicking today. He would no doubt be ostracized and tossed out of the party. Particularly saying things like this: LaFollette: “The question is simply whether a handful of judges ought to be allowed to exceed their lawful authority by paying more attention to their personal, economic and social beliefs than to the Constitution itself. The issue is between special vested interests, dodging behind an economic theory of days gone by on the one hand, and the will of the people to govern themselves on the other. When a judge sets himself squarely athwart the peoples path to progress, it is time for the true defenders of Democracy to take action.” So it came as no small surprise that LaFollette lost his re-election bid to a certain Junior Senator from the same party – Joseph McCarthy, whom the Republicans in Wisconsin threw all their support behind. And it probably also makes sense that, given his disillusionment and his radical ideas, even then, he would wind up committing suicide in 1953. But still, they did exist and even up until recently there was that Moderate Wing of the Republican Party. Perhaps this new wrinkle in the ongoing story of Wisconsin gives a glimmer of hope that some sanity still lurks around.
Continue reading …