Cobb

The Wine Snob Paradox

Just coining a term affixed to the problem of transferrance.  Freakonomics had a podcast about this phenomenon that I listened to a couple weeks ago. It was the 2010.1215 podcast btw. One day they may have a smart way to catalog it permanently. The title is 'Do Expensive Wines Taste Better?'. Well of course they do, a fair price is what the market will bear!

Some Things That Frighten Americans

The Somali Rabbit Hole

In May of 2008, I went to the mat looking for some sensible discussion about the US policy in the Horn of Africa and Somalia in particular. There was a lot of noise surrounding my calling Somalia a failed state, which it was and still remains. I would say 'much to the consternation of my opponents on the matter' but it's difficult to see if they were opposing me just for spite or if there was real logic behind their contentions. Perhaps in retrospect, some of those questions might be answered. Cobb remains a fertile field for investigation.

So I have seen the straw that breaks my camel's back in the tragic deaths of  Adam, Adam, McKay & Wriggle. So now I'm opening up the can of worms, heading down the rabbit hole and otherwise 'going there'. I need to get some high level understanding of how US policy in the Horn has succeeded or failed in effecting this increase of piracy which now clearly calls for stepped up military action. What has transpired on the ground that has made the sea dangerous, and how bad are we going to let it become?

This article by the Economist is nicely round and informs me about CTF-151 which is the group of military ships working in coalition with EU-sailor-types to have a counter-terror and anti-pirate mission in the area. I've given them props when they've succeeded, knowing that they can do the right thing, but I'm still not convinced that the current ROE has been stepped up appropriate to the increase in the piratical. 

There is a general moaning out there, where are the carriers? Libya is coming apart at the seams in what appears to be a much more violent way than we've seen in Egypt and there is no American carrier in the Med. The situation seems to be that there are some five or six thousand 'Westerners' stranded in Libya with no way out. It all gets back to my speculation gathering evidence I want to see that Obama really has no strategic military sense and has politically cowed the Joint Chiefs. So long as Americans are dying only by the sub-dozen, he can keep a lid on things and his press secretary can defer questions. But this just confirms what I've known about Obama for a long time, which is that he only really cares to master the dynamics of domestic affairs, the world be damned. 

My position is fairly simple. I am for the US to be the global police of the seas. I am less sanguine about an Internal Third World than I have ever been. This means that I am more pro-global with America as master of premium markets and the rest of the planet producing and consuming the cheaper stuff. That absolutely necessitates free international trade and law and order on the high seas, which I think is best accomplished by the American Navy as strategically envisioned by Thomas PM Barnett. My mind is open on The Horn. But the piracy must stop. Allowing it to fester and grow these past several years is prima fascia evidence of civilization crumbling. 

There is no oil involved in the Horn. So to you cynics out there, understand that you too should see this as an opportunity for America to work on principle. Or are you romanced by piracy?

• The Cobb Somalia File
• Jendayi Frazer and the War in Somalia
• Obama Protects No Ships
• Magellan Star: Thanks America
• Small Wars & Systems Administration
• Ayro & AQ in Somlia
• Stability & Security in the Horn of Africa

Obama Protects No Ships

Somalia's court has all the balls. Obama lost his somewhere on the way to the negotiating table. What started off as an ego trip of immense proportions has now become a laughable, yet dangerous weakness. The current President of the United States of America cannot protect anyone with his speeches, and his policy of inaction has crippled the effectivness of the US Navy and Marines whose job it is to protect people. 

Here are their names. Jean Adam, Scott Adam, Phyllis Macay and Bob Wriggle. All Americans. All Dead. Why? Because the President's policy is to negotiate with pirates. And there are South Africans out there as well who have been abducted. Essentially, though there is an American military presence in the Gulf of Oman, nobody there is safe. The pirates do what they please, and business is booming. 

The United Nations estimates the annual cost of piracy in the Indian Ocean at between $5 billion and $7 billion. Later this month, as the monsoon ends and the seas calm, attacks will multiply and the numbers of ships and hostages held will rise (see chart).

It is perfectly opaque to everyone except Obama's blind supporters what he is trying to prove. But it's perfectly clear that with Obama as Commander in Chief, nobody is particularly worried about the consequences of piracy on the high seas. Obama protects no ships. 

What Month Is It?

McWhorter:

It can be strangely hard to admit that a battle has been won. But especially considering that the typical white person isn’t exactly a walking encyclopedia of “white” history, it’s time to admit that America knows its black history as well as anyone has reason to wish it to.

Yeah. 

Towards A New Urban/Rural Balance

Nikka raises a sterling point in one word 'Doomstead'.

All these doomsteads, rural, urban, island, suffer from the same problem. No matter how many networks of reinforced concrete pillboxes with interlocking fields of fire you have, they can't save you from stepping on a rusty nail and dying of tetanus and gangrene, or getting bitten by a rattlesnake and dying of the venom. Most doomers have no idea just how vulnerable they'd be to disease and infection if their EOTWAWKI scenarios ever play out.

I'm one of those people who spent a lot of time flying over the country and feeling envious of those denizens below in Flyover Country. Growing up in Southern California, where the concrete goes for 50 miles in every direction except into the Pacific, and 2 bedroom houses go for half a million dollars has twisted my psyche. Driving from Ohio to Indiana one weekend made me thirst for buying some dump on 12 acres of land. So long as I have broadband and a Walmart, what am I missing? It can't possibly be worse than life at the Marriott, can it?

I have every intention of retiring somewhere exurban, but where I can still have satellite access and orange juice year round. I have often referred to Dyson's Utopia and Dunbar's Number. While hundreds of millions of people in the Global South are leaving agricultural living for the raised standards of urban living, I'm heading outdoors. What is the best human scale living we might afford?

Just the other night, I watched the excellent film 'Catfish'. In an important way, it reflects the kind of romance those of us who love New York living have with a horsey life in the country. The prospect of being hooked up virtually with people all over the world - ie the advantage of urbanization, yet living at an uncrowded, low rent distance is the kind of balance I seek. 

There is only a small element of 'doomstead' thinking in my fantasy retirement. In some ways it's exactly what we all want in living in our own literal castle somewhere between the extremes of Van Vechten's salon and Gosford Park. Sometimes I like the idea of some small scale industry - as my brother Doc wants to purchase a few acres in SD for the purposes of a specialty winery. Or perhaps it would be very cool to run a specialty cloud based service out of a repurposed loft building in a small town where the electricity is cheap. I'd like to outsource myself into bigger cheaper real-estate but not all the way to India. I'd like to maintain relationships with sophisticates, but not all the way to some insular group of wankers.

As you can tell, there are a lot of different values and priorities at work in this new balance, but let me add a few more that are out there more in the area of mystery.

Everybody knows that if you are sufficiently wealthy, you can get away from it all and take it all with you. Living in resort areas is always an option for the wealthy. Complete urban oases in 'exotic' locales are always available if you've got the scratch. But where the wealth really matters is how one can get access to superior urban services. Medical. Security. Legal. This is why I don't very often seriously consider any countries other than England, Canada and the US for my retirement. And this is where doomstead starts to be more of a consideration.

First of all, if England, Canada and the US become unliveable, it will truly be the EOTWAWKI scenario. But I don't expect that at all. What I do expect is that the medical, security, economic and legal quality of living will decline for the global middle class and that retirees like myself will need to think a bit more seriously about stepping out of the comfort of that which we have enjoyed by paying the 'insurance premiums' of our work lives in the urban setting. We have to go out towards a more Wild West, where civilization is a bit more feudal. There's a certain appeal of handling human business without third parties mediating the rules of civilization, but it's also a lot of work and all of us are not up to the task.

In the end, I am not seeking solitude. You can do that quite easily in an Omega Man fortress in any urban situation. I am seeking space, because it just occurs to me that man was not meant to live completely away from the land in anything under 10,000 square feet. But in the 21C, how does an American do this?

So You Know What Time It Is

Impressive.

The Myth of College Education Exploded In One Sentence

 Business Insider says, “If you had to sum up the education bubble in one misconception, it might be: ‘The average 22-year-old is a good credit risk for $150,000 in debt, collateralized by something completely intangible.’”

Logan, Rosen, Dowd, Mubarak & What The Internet Truly Is

Stowe Boyd reacts appropriately to Maureed Dowd's tut-tutting of the Internet in the wake of the firing of Nir Rosen. If you're a bit late to the controversy, here's the nut. Lara Logan, an American reporter, was sexually assaulted by several men shouting 'Jew! Jew! Jew!' in Cairo during the anti-government demonstrations over two weeks ago. Much has been made on the Right on how this story never garnered so much coverage as that about the Latin bimbo in the NFL locker room several months ago. I agree. It is just another Left romance with Revolution that the MSM covers shallowly without much consideration for the deep, ugly and opportunistic forces at work. Dowd wrote that Rosen said:

On Tuesday, he [Nir Rosen] merrily tweeted about the sexual assault of Logan: “Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger.”

He suggested she was trying to “outdo Anderson” Cooper (roughed up in Cairo earlier), adding that “it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too.”

Boyd summarizes:

There is buried network of spurious arguments underneath all the comfortable hatred of incivility, here. There is an assumption that the web is supposed to be a force for good, and only good. Who says? And secondly, that those that use the web are in some way a collective entity, a global society with shared beliefs, including various democratic ideals. These unstated assertions are deeply and profoundly wrong, but taken as a given in anti-web circles.

Dead right. This is the same kind of silly optimism that began in the very early days of computer moderated communications. At the time, I was interested in anti-racist activism, and it was considered a gross violation of netiquette (remember that?) to mention race at all.

Perhaps one should consider something of the economic argument. Although it's difficult to imagine today that the Web might be expensive, at one time it was a much more scarce resource. If you weren't doing good with it, or doing something terribly scientific or brilliant, you didn't belong on the web. So there were certain notions of privilege associated with participating in 'cyberspace'.

Matters of privilege are in conflict with matters of meritocracy and the hacker ethic represents meritocracy better than the liberal ethic of creating institutions for the betterment of society. Institutions come with rules and barriers and, of course,ethics. In this case of Nir Rosen's speech, 'netiquette' has been defied as well as the very notion of what the Internet 'ought' to be used for. And it is that same liberal ethic that prompted Al Gore to suggest he was part of that force that created the 'institution' that is the Internet. But the internet by its very nature is more of a creation of merit and it defies the narrow defintions appropriate to a 'liberal institution'.

Misunderstanding of the Internet as a liberal or public institution is the mistake that both Dowd and Mubarak make. The Chinese government makes the same mistake.  To consider it an instituion for a purpose assumes that it has a proper use, and is according to that proper use, subject to external reform, control or of removal. People don't use the Internet as a right or as a privlege. They use it because they *can*. Not because they are allowed to or granted some permission to. But because they can afford to and they want to. Not because they need to as a member of the public and thus require government license and sanction. Internet usage is an expression of individual will, not of collective membership or of citizenship. It has become too cheap to be constrained as if it were a scarce commodity. It has become too complex to be regulated as a commons. Dowd and Mubarak would like to express some rule of order that supercedes the meritocracy of access, and this is where they run afoul of reality. To support the firing of Nir Rosen, is tantamount to shutting down the Internet. Both are gratuitous assaults on free speech and both eminate from the totalitarian impulse that is always the temptation in controlling the ethics or the purse strings of liberal or public institutions.

The Internet itself, now draped in the jewelry of 'social media' has become a fetish. People all over the MSM, obsessed as they are with what they don't understand about computer mediated communications, keep saying that Twitter and Facebook, Twitter and Facebook are making the difference. Twitter and Facebook. But these are manifestations of what people want - they are expressions of will, quantified in dollars, eyeballs, Oscar nominations and other neat statistics that are easy to digest. At the bottom is the awesome force of people's desire to communicate freely with each other, 24/7. It is only the defense of those people's rights to free speech that matters. Everything else comes with it. 

God = Good

Understanding of this equivalence in my early childhood is what makes me what I am today which is a great admirer of Christian ethics an quite enough of an Episcopalian to pass, but not interested in being either evangelistic nor passive to atheists. 

So the question was asked can atheists and theists find something to agree on. It's actually very simple; they merely need to agree that God = Good. Now comes the question of ego, which is whether any atheist or devotee can assert with certainty that they know everything any human needs to know about Good God. The failures of atheism and faith come from misapplication which is a function of arrogance. It's something atheists ought to know considering the scientistic awe at the greatness of the Universe. 

I find it interesting considering this proposition of equivalence that with respect to arrogance and overproduction that two books come to mind. The first is that by Hitchens: God is Not Great. The second is the famous business book Good to Great. In the stretch between saying that God is Good to God is Great is perhaps that fudging of the supernatural that Spinoza weighed against. Does God have to be Great, or is Good enough? Why, in fact, does God have to be so incredibly transcendent? Is not the proposed greatness of God merely the whip across our backs to get our donkey attention? Perhaps so. The summation of Good is so far and away from us. It ought to be enough for eternal inspiration in our present. But somehow we are not satisfied with that. God must be great, man must strive to understand transcendental greatness. Great becomes unimaginable, which is just enough to twist all the rest of the rules.

I invert something in this passage I read this week.

One of the books I am currently re-reading is C.S. Lewis' THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS. For those that haven't read this classic, it is a collection of letters from a senior and experienced satanic demon, Screwtape, to a junior and struggling satanic demon, Wormwood, on how best to snare and keep ensnared the souls of men; how to hold them in thrall until such souls can be harvested into Hell for all eternity.

As I was escaping from the unremitting BS flow that oozes out of the government when it comes to BS budgets yesterday, I found myself reading this passage from Chapter XV of The Screwtape Letters:

We sometimes tempt a human (say a widow or a scholar) to live in the Past. But this is of limited value, for they have some real knowledge of the past and it has a determinate nature and, to that extent, resembles eternity. It is far better to make [humans] live in the Future. Biological necessity makes all their passions point in that direction already, so that thought about the Future inflames hope and fear. Also, it is unknown to them, so that in making them think about it we make them think of unrealities. In a word, the Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time—for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays. Hence the encouragement we have given to all those schemes of thought such as Creative Evolution, Scientific Humanism, or Communism, which fix men's affections on the Future, on the very core of temporality. Hence nearly all vices are rooted in the future. Gratitude looks to the past and love to the present; fear, avarice, lust, and ambition look ahead.

 

All afterlife is the Future. And while I don't quite understand the author's use of 'eternity', we can surely see how the overly pious wring their hands in anticipation of a Judgment by a Great God at some point in the Future. A bit of passive aggressiveness I think. 

A Good God, the summation of Good, the concept and the entity only need to be that. Our duty, whether deist or atheist is to approach that good, remembering Cobb's Rule #11: Perfect is the enemy of Good.

Thinking About Watson Thinking

My buddy Lee knows a thing or two about machine learning and I still have his flipchart in my trunk, but I never really bothered to read it and figure it out. It uses terms that I don't understand and am not familiar with. Today, suddenly, I am more interested in machine learning than I was yesterday and now I'm taking the opportunity to write about it. This is a form of learning.

Watson is the computer that just beat Ken Jennings and the other dude in a game of Jeopardy. I watched the final last night and was quite impressed. As well, my understanding of computing gave me some idea of which answers Watson might get and which it might not. I remember quite clearly that when it came to short lists of answers that required a question, Watson did poorly and the human contestants did well. The category was Actors who Direct, and an answer was 'The Great Debaters'. I knew the question without looking at the second answer, it was 'Who is Denzel Washington'. 

What struck me there was that there are 'top of mind' questions that we can answer very quickly when it's trendy to know these. They are hot narratives and we all *feel* that it's important to know them whether or not the subject matter itself is important. The fact that I never liked and therefore never watched "I Love Lucy" strikes my wife as odd. I cannot for the life of me recognize a Taylor Swift song or distinguish it from a Katy Perry song - something my teenaged daughter can do in a heartbeat. 

When I come across a problem in designing a computer solution, I use a narrative form. I do the same thing when I try to get to the root of understanding something complex. I block and tackle, I mark decision points, but most importantly (I think) I invent new terms. These terms stand in a larger philosophical framework and are references. Let me give some examples.

The first of these terms that come to mind is 'Boohabian Hate Crime Standard'. This is something more than a 'tag'. It represents a time, a place, a context, a set of decisions and a framework for thinking about something complex. But it has a neat four word handle that stays just below my top of mind. I leave it to Google to search my own blog to get to that information. The second one is 'Sherwood Forest' which is an extended metaphor that I use to explain my theory of the lower and uneducated classes. There is also 'Gay Banana Split' which I use to explain what I believe to be the root of the controversy over gay marriage. 

What I believe Watson may not have but needs is the ability to come up with narratives and terms that fit which can be made important and thus brought to top of mind. In the Nova documentary, something similar was one of the last minute tactics employed by the team to kick his performance up a notch. Watson was informed of the correct answers given by his opponents thereby forming an additional prioritized level of understanding in a category where he didn't get it. 

The whole thing Watson does not do that we do is come up with our own learning strategies. Watson was fed everything and was not allowed to create his own narrative. He doesn't know that he's a Jeopardy machine and he doesn't know how to study. He knows how to search and remember and the programmers know what to teach and feed him. 

What I would be interested to know are the ways in which Watson's programmers become aware of Watson's awareness in a metacapacity - above the level of the game itself. That's the interesting area. 

 

Ferguson On Obama's Middle East Policy: Ouch!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Middle East: Obama On The Record - 2009

The following is a text of President Obama's prepared remarks to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009, as released by the White House.

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

Ayman Nour: Revolutionary

From Caroline Glick:

Ayman Nour, the head of the oppositionist Ghad Party and the man heralded as the liberal democratic alternative to Mubarak by Washington neo-conservatives has called for the peace treaty to be abrogated. In an interview with an Egyptian radio station he said, "The Camp David Accords are finished. Egypt has to at least conduct negotiations over conditions of the agreement."

What a surprise.

South Sudan

The capital city will be Juba, and the UN is already ready. You know, you really have to laugh at how pathetic Hamas and Fatah have to be when everybody else on the planet seems to have gotten their revolutionary madness out of their bloodstream and gone on to actually build nations. It won't be long now that Sudan will enter a new chapter in nationhood when South Sudan officially becomes a state this summer. 

There's a lot to consider in this split between what I essentially perceive to be Muslim Arabist Africans and more traditional tribal Africans. If Islam is anything, it offers culture above the tribal state. Granted there are much better ways for rural migrants to go than into the realm of madrassas and Islamist dreams, but those are likely to be more civilized than the alternative. After all, who in our global economy even bothers (aside from dainty anthropologists and relativist multiculturists) to take notice of the globe's few remaining indigenous tribes? At least the Islamists have a team with colors and a flag. So too will the South Sudanese who appear to be a mix of "Dinka, Nuer, Bari, Lotuko, Kuku, Zande, Mundari, Kakwa, Pojulu, Shilluk, Moru, Acholi, Madi, Lulubo, Lokoya, Toposa, Lango, Didinga, Murle, Anuak, Makaraka, Mundu, Jur, Kaliko, and others." Good luck with all that.

I do, however like the underdoggery implicit with that lumpen group. They should have plenty of room to work out their differences without interference from Khartoum. Who knows, maybe South Sudan will show something democratic we can all be proud of. 

There is a lot going on in Africa.

Middle East: Bush On The Record - 2008

For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press Secretary
May 18, 2008
President Bush Attends World Economic Forum Sharm el Sheikh International Congress Center

Sharm el Sheikh, EgyptIn Focus: Middle East Trip3:00 P.M. (Local)

THE PRESIDENT: Klaus, thank you very much. Thanks for inviting me. Klaus said, it's about time you showed up.Proud to be here. Laura and I are so honored that, Klaus, you gave us a chance to come. I do want to thank President Mubarak and Mrs. Mubarak for their wonderful hospitality. I want to thank the members of Congress who are here. I appreciate the heads of state who have joined us. I thank the foreign ministers who are here,including my own, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. And I want to thank the members of the Diplomatic Corps.

Laura and I are delighted to be in Egypt, and we bring the warm wishes of the American people. We're proud of our long friendship with your citizens. We respect your remarkable history. And we're humbled to walk in the ancient land of pharaohs, where a great civilization took root and wrote some of the first chapters in the epicstory of humanity. America is a much younger nation, but we've made our mark byadvancing ideals as old as the pyramids. Those ideals of liberty and justice have sparked a revolution across much of the world. This hopeful movement made its way to places where dictators oncereigned and peaceful democracies seemed unimaginable: places like Chile and Indonesia and Poland and the Philippines and SouthKorea. These nations have different histories and different traditions.Yet each made the same democratic transition, and they did it on their own terms. In these countries, millions every year are rising frompoverty. Women are realizing overdue opportunities. And people offaith are finding the blessing of worshiping God in peace.

All these changes took place in the second half of the 20th century. I strongly believe that if leaders like those of you in this room act with vision and resolve, the first half of 21st century can be the time when similar advances reach the Middle East. This region is home to energetic people, a powerful spirit of enterprise, and tremendous resources. It is capable of a very bright future -- a future in which the Middle East is a place of innovation and discovery, driven by free men and women.In recent years, we've seen hopeful beginnings toward this vision. Turkey, a nation with a majority Muslim population, is a prosperous modern democracy. Afghanistan under the leadership of President Karzai is overcoming the Taliban and building a free society. Iraq under the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki is establishing a multi-ethnic democracy. We have seen the stirrings of reform from Morocco and Algeria to Jordan and the Gulf States. And isolation from the outside world is being overcome by the most democratic of innovations: the cell phone and the Internet. America appreciates the challenges facing the Middle East. Yet the light of liberty is beginning to shine.

There is much to do to build on this momentum. From diversifying your economies, to investing in your people, to extending the reach of freedom, nations across the region have an opportunity to move forward with bold and confident reforms -- and lead the Middle East to its rightful place as a center of progress and achievement. Taking your place as a center of progress and achievement requires economic reform. This is a time of strength for many of your nations' economies. Since 2004, economic growth in the region has averaged more than 5percent. Trade has expanded significantly. Technology has advanced rapidly. Foreign investment has increased dramatically. And unemployment rates have decreased in many nations. Egypt, for example, has posted strong economic growth, developed some of the world's fastest growing telecommunications companies, and made major investments that will boost tourism and trade. In order for this economic progress to result in permanent prosperity and an Egypt that reaches its full potential, however, economic reform must be accompanied by political reform. And I continue to hope that Egypt can lead the region in political reform.

This is also a time to prepare for the economic changes ahead. Rising price of oil has brought great wealth to some in this region, but the supply of oil is limited, and nations like mine are aggressively developing alternatives to oil. Over time, as the world becomes less dependent on oil, nations in the Middle East will have to build more diverse and more dynamic economies.

Your greatest asset in this quest is the entrepreneurial spirit of your people. The best way to take advantage of that spirit is to make reforms that unleash individual creativity and innovation. Your economies will be more vibrant when citizens who dream of starting their own companies can do so quickly, without high regulatory and registration costs. Your economies will be more dynamic when property rights are protected and risk-taking is encouraged -- not punished -- by law. Your economies will be more resilient when you adopt modern agricultural techniques that make farmers more productive and the food supply more secure. And your economies will have greater long-term prosperity when taxes are low and all your citizens know that their innovation and hard work will be rewarded.

One of the most powerful drivers of economic growth is free trade. So nations in this region would benefit greatly from breaking down barriers to trade with each other. And America will continue working to open up trade at every level. In recent years, the United States has completed free trade agreements with Jordan, Oman, Morocco, and Bahrain. America will continue to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements in the region. We strongly supported Saudi Arabia's accession to the World Trade Organization, and we will continue to support nations making the reforms necessary to join the institutions of a global economy. To break down trade barriers and ignite economic growth around the world, we will work tirelessly for a successful outcome to the Doha Round this year.

As we seek to open new markets abroad, America will keep our markets open at home. There are voices in my country that urge America to adopt measures that would isolate us from the global economy. I firmly reject these calls for protectionism. We will continue to welcome foreign investment and trade. And the United States of America will stay open for business.

Taking your place as a center of progress and achievement requires investing in your people. Some analysts believe the Middle East and North Africa will need to create up to 100 million new jobs over the next 10 to 15years just to keep up with population growth. The key to realizing this goal is an educated workforce.

This starts early on, with primary schools that teach basic skills, such as reading and math, rather than indoctrinating children with ideologies of hatred. An educated workforce also requires good high schools and universities, where students are exposed to a variety of ideas, learn to think for themselves, and develop the capacity to innovate. Not long ago the region marked a hopeful milestone in higher education. In our meeting yesterday, President Karzai told me he recently handed out diplomas to university graduates, including 300 degrees in medicine, and a hundred degrees in engineering, and a lot of degrees to lawyers, and many of the recipients were women. (Applause.)

People of the Middle East can count on the United States to be a strong partner in improving your educational systems. We are sponsoring training programs for teachers and administrators in nations like Jordan and Morocco and Lebanon. We sponsored English language programs where students can go for intensive language instruction. We have translated more than 80 children's books into Arabic. And we have developed new online curricula for students from kindergarten through high school.

It is also in America's interest to continue welcoming aspiring young adults from this region for higher education to the United States. There were understandable concerns about student visas after 9/11. My administration has worked hard to improve the visa process. And I'm pleased to report that we are issuing a growing numbers of student visas to young people from the Middle East. And that's the way it should be. And we'll continue to work to expand educational exchanges, because we benefit from the contribution of foreign students who study in America because we're proud to train the world's leaders of tomorrow and because we know there is no better antidote to the propaganda of our enemies than firsthand experience with life in the United States of America.Building powerful economies also requires expanding the role of women in society. This is a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be. Women are a formidable force, as I have seen in my own family -- (laughter and applause) -- and my own administration. (Applause.) As the nations of the Middle East open up their laws and their societies towomen, they are learning the same thing.

I applaud Egypt. Egypt is a model for the development of professional women. In Afghanistan, girls who wereonce denied even a basic education are now going to school, and a whole generation of Afghans will grow up withthe intellectual tools to lead their nation toward prosperity. In Iraq and Kuwait, women are joining political partiesand running campaigns and serving in public office. In some Gulf States, women entrepreneurs are making aliving and a name for themselves in the business world.

Recently, I learned of a woman in Bahrain who owns her own shipping company. She started with a small officeand two employees. When she first tried to register her business in her own name, she was turned down. Sheattended a business training class and was the only woman to participate. And when she applied for a customslicense, officials expressed surprise because no woman had ever asked for one before. And yet with hard work and determination, she turned her small company into a $2 million enterprise. And this year, Huda Janahi was named one of the 50 most powerful businesswomen in the Arab world. (Applause.) Huda is an inspiring example for the whole region. And America's message to other women in the Middle East is this:You have a great deal to contribute, you should have a strong voice in leading your countries, and my nation looks to the day when you have the rights and privileges you deserve.

Taking your place as a center of progress and achievement requires extending the reach of freedom. Expanding freedom is vital to turning temporary wealth into lasting prosperity. Free societies stimulate competition in the marketplace. Free societies give people access to information they need to make informed and responsible decisions. And free societies give citizens the rule of law, which exposes corruption and builds confidence in the future.

Freedom is also the basis for a democratic system of government, which is the only fair and just ordering of society and the only way to guarantee the God-given rights of all people. Democracies do not take the same shape; they develop at different speeds and in different ways, and they reflect the unique cultures and traditions of their people. There are skeptics about democracy in this part of the world, I understand that. But as more people in the Middle East gain firsthand experience from freedom, many of the arguments against democracy are being discredited.

For example, some say that democracy is a Western value that America seeks to impose on unwilling citizens.This is a condescending form of moral relativism. The truth is that freedom is a universal right -- the Almighty's gift to every man, woman, and child on the face of Earth. And as we've seen time and time again, when people areallowed to make a choice between freedom and the alternative, they choose freedom. In Afghanistan, 8 millionpeople defied the terrorist threats to vote for a democratic President. In Iraq, 12 million people waved ink-stainedfingers to celebrate the first democratic election in decades. And in a recent survey of the Muslim world, there was overwhelming support for one of the central tenets of democracy, freedom of speech: 99 percent in Lebanon, 94 percent here in Egypt, and 92 percent in Iran.

There are people who claim that democracy is incompatible with Islam. But the truth is that democracies, by definition, make a place for people of religious belief. America is one of the most -- is one of the world's leading democracies, and we're also one of the most religious nations in the world. More than three-quarters of our citizens believe in a higher power. Millions worship every week and pray every day. And they do so without fear of reprisal from the state. In our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran. We would never issue a death sentence to someone for converting to Islam. Democracy does not threaten Islam or any religion.Democracy is the only system of government that guarantees their protection.

Some say any state that holds an election is a democracy. But true democracy requires vigorous political partiesallowed to engage in free and lively debate. True democracy requires the establishment of civic institutions thatensure an election's legitimacy and hold leaders accountable. And true democracy requires competitive electionsin which opposition candidates are allowed to campaign without fear or intimidation.

Too often in the Middle East, politics has consisted of one leader in power and the opposition in jail. America isdeeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who areintimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down, and dissidents whosevoices are stifled. The time has come for nations across the Middle East to abandon these practices, and treattheir people with dignity and the respect they deserve. I call on all nations to release their prisoners of conscience,open up their political debate, and trust their people to chart their future. (Applause.)

The vision I have outlined today is shared by many in this region -- but unfortunately, there are some spoilers whostand in the way. Terrorist organizations and their state sponsors know they cannot survive in a free society, so they create chaos and take innocent lives in an effort to stop democracy from taking root. They are on the wrongside in a great ideological struggle -- and every nation committed to freedom and progress in the Middle Eastmust stand together to defeat them.

We must stand with the Palestinian people, who have suffered for decades and earned the right to be a homeland of their own -- have a homeland of their own. I strongly support a two-state solution -- a democratic Palestine based on law and justice that will live with peace and security alongside a democrat Israel. I believe that thePalestinian people will build a thriving democracy in which entrepreneurs pursue their dreams, and families own their homes in lively communities, and young people grow up with hope in the future.

Last year at Annapolis, we made a hopeful beginning toward a peace negotiation that will outline what this nation of Palestine will look like -- a contiguous state where Palestinians live in prosperity and dignity. A peace agreement is in the Palestinians' interests, it is in Israel's interests, it is in Arab states' interests, and it is in the world's interests. And I firmly believe that with leadership and courage, we can reach that peace agreement this year. (Applause.)

This is a demanding task. It requires action on all sides. Palestinians must fight terror and continue to build the institutions of a free and peaceful society. Israel must make tough sacrifices for peace and ease the restriction son the Palestinians. Arab states, especially oil-rich nations, must seize this opportunity to invest aggressively in the Palestinian people and to move past their old resentments against Israel. And all nations in the region must stand together in confronting Hamas, which is attempting to undermine efforts at peace with acts of terror and violence.

We must stand with the people of Lebanon in their struggle to build a sovereign and independent democracy. This means opposing Hezbollah terrorists, funded by Iran, who recently revealed their true intentions by taking up arms against the Lebanese people. It is now clearer than ever that Hezbollah militias are the enemy of a freeLebanon -- and all nations, especially neighbors in the region, have an interest to help the Lebanese people prevail. (Applause.)

We must stand with the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and other nations in the region fighting against al Qaeda and other extremists. Bin Laden and his followers have made clear that anyone who does not share their extremist ideology is fit for murder. That means every government in the Middle East is a target of al Qaeda. And America is a target too. And together, we will confront and we will defeat this threat to civilization.We must stand with the good and decent people of Iran and Syria, who deserve so much better than the life they have today. Every peaceful nation in the region has an interest in stopping these nations from supporting terrorism. And every peaceful nation in the region has an interest in opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.To allow the world's leading sponsor of terror to gain the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.(Applause.)

The changes I have discussed today will not come easily -- change never does. But the reform movement in the Middle East has a powerful engine: demographics. Sixty percent of the population is under 30 years old. Many of these young people surf the web, own cell phones, have satellite televisions. They have access to unprecedented amounts of information. They see what freedom has brought to millions of others and contrast that to what they have at home.

Today, I have a message for these young people: Some tell -- some will tell you change is impossible, but historyhas a way of surprising us, and change can happen more quickly than we expect. In the past century, one concept has transcended borders, cultures, and languages. In Arabic, "hurriyya" -- in English, "freedom." Across the world, the call for freedom lives in our hearts, endures in our prayers, and joins humanity as one.I know these are trying times, but the future is in your hands -- and freedom and peace are within your grasp. Just imagine what this region could look like in 60 years. The Palestinian people will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserve -- a democratic state that is governed by law, respects human rights, and rejects terror. Israel will be celebrating its 120 anniversary as one of the world's great democracies -- a secure and flourishing homeland for the Jewish people.
From Cairo, Riyadh, Baghdad to Beirut, people will live in free and independent societies, where a desire for peace is reinforced by ties of diplomacy and tourism and trade. Iran and Syria will be peaceful nations, where today's oppression is a distant memory and people are free to speak their minds and develop their talents. AlQaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas will be defeated, as Muslims across the region recognize the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their cause.

This vision is the same one I outlined in my address to the Israeli Knesset. Yet it's not a Jewish vision or a Muslim vision, not an American vision or an Arab vision. It is a universal vision, based on the timeless principles of dignity and tolerance and justice -- and it unites all who yearn for freedom and peace in this ancient land.

Realizing this vision will not be easy. It will take time, and sacrifice, and resolve. Yet there is no doubt in my mind that you are up to the challenge -- and with your ingenuity and your enterprise and your courage, this historic vision for the Middle East will be realized. May God be with you on the journey, and the United States of America always will be at your side.
Thank you for having me.

 

Predicting the Future

We're all thinking about it. But what do we know?

 

A Bit of History: Black CMC

(From the archives - 2003)

 

A BIT OF HISTORY, BLACK CMC

Over with the Afrofuturists, I've been going through a number of raisons d'etre and mapping out black cyberspace. Here follows materials from the archives...

The full transcript of this forum can be found at Drylongso.

Phase One:
When I first got on computer networks to communicate with other folks, there were very few black women or men online on at all. This had mostly to do with the fact that I was emailing on the Xerox internal network in the mid 80s long before there was a public Internet. So, I started my online discussions at a time when the builders of the networks frowned heavily on any non-technical discussion. Matters of netiquette were taken very seriously. That didn't stop me from having black oriented political and social discussions in the Xerox corporate intranet.

Since I had been fairly prominent in college as a national officer with NSBE, I felt that on the Xerox network I was continuing the discussions about the fate and future of blacks in Corporate America from a business and technical angle. It was certainly a male dominated world, but it existed primarily as a support network. Nobody took any social discussions seriously. The very idea of men and women meeting each other socially online was simply not done. Besides, most of us already knew each other. We assumed that white folks were listening in, and the biggest controversies had to do with airing dirty laundry.

Phase Two:
A literacy project got me involved with open mike poetry in Los Angeles around 1990. Some of that got political, and it occurred to me that any black organization that would publish a newsletter would be a candidate for their own website. It was in this spirit a few years later that I created my first website with the idea in mind that many black organizations would follow suit. It was not to be. Everything associated with the information superhighway was considered elitist, and there was a sort of anxiety about it being another example of what white folks purposely did to leave black folks behind. So between black men and women there was no issue because most were not participating.

SCAA
There was a golden age of black conversation on the net that took place between 1993 and 1996. For the most part, however, gender issues were deeply subordinated to racial and political issues. The core of the group of participants there came to know each other well enough to distinguish gender issues from personality issues. Nevertheless, there were always new folks coming into discussions, who would take communications issue and extrapolate them to "the problem with us." As a compiler of the FAQ for the SCAA group in 1995, gender issues simply weren't high on anyone's priority list. What was much more important was maintenance of the space free and clear of racist "drive-by" conduct. SCAA finally fell to a barrage of racists and serves no useful purpose today, diehards not withstanding.

Salon Table Talk
At Salon, we got into issues of identity and gender a lot deeper. One notable conversation there was specifically about hiding race and gender in cyberspace. Having been hardened by the experience of SCAA, it was clear to me, as the Internet was getting popular with non-technical folks, that certain mythologies were being promoted. I don't believe any of the black veterans of the SCAA wars would easily swallow the cliché on the Internet that "nobody knows you're a dog." We knew all too well that being black was more than just skin color--that identity was a crucial part of the way you saw and thus discussed things online. If anything, the anonymity of text enhanced the differences and conflicts as well as the contrasts and synergies. But it certainly did not obviate them. Cyberspace made you more of what you are; only the things you really felt passionate about would come through in a memorable way. So when this subject was breached at Salon's Table Talk, I really took a hard line against masking.

I never wanted to get into a trap with "authenticity," partially because spoofing identity was part of the fun of some cyberspace haunts. I think the nature of MUDs and IRC lend them particularly to this. But I never considered these places for the kinds of discussions I wished to have vis-à-vis black cultural production, criticism or political talk. Instead they were social adventures. I did have an online life as a girl named "Sindeetha" at a game site called "Sissyfight," which was very popular for a short time.

Black Planet, NetNoir
I have spent only a limited amount of time in black on black social forums where the primary activity is socializing and flirting. They simply came into being too late in my life to be of any use.

Conclusions
In general I would say that black folks' expectations for the type of interactions in which gender issues are significant came to the Internet some time after I did. In the early days, people simply didn't expect anything. People didn't expect black folks to *be* online, much less socialize there with any seriousness. Even when I had dreams of millions of black folks online, I didn't expect or desire a dating service.

I think it must be said that the contributions of black cultural production or academic quality materials has been disappointing and too little too late for me. It is in that area that I wish such matters could be handled better. I blame black professors and professionals for following the dollar instead of contributing to community. Those who are intelligent and capable of delivering evolutionary content to the web don't bother and/or take a cynical attitude towards the entire enterprise. Those who have been trained to speak about such social issues only do so to be paid, and their default in the online world leaves it to lay-people to struggle with issues to which the answers already exist. Consequently, I don't really look for much. Yet. I can admit to having exceptional expectations. That I'm not satisfied in no way suggests that a plurality of black folks can't be. I've always been the explorer looking to carve out new frontiers. Let's see what happens next.

Mike Bowen - Summer 2003

---

Becoming more real over the years in cyberspace-a distinction between expectations and reality. From: Mike Bowen

I perceive that people have come to appear more real to each other over the years in cyberspace. The convention of masking, originally established by techies, and the inability of the medium to use long names and pictures, has given way to more highly interactive virtual communities with highly stylized artifacts. I would think that BlackPlanet is a very good case in point. When content management software became available at no cost, the texture of online communities changed. Suddenly people who were very opaque in IRC using an abbreviated name and spurting short comments intermittently had the chance to put some style into a permanent website which added a dimension to their chat. With IRC, as soon as you stopped typing, you disappeared. With a website, you became permanent. Furthermore, with a website, you could attach pictures of yourself, artwork, favorite quotes and longer texts about yourself.

Additionally, people became more real in cyberspace because they volunteer information about their own circle of communicants and interests. Back in the days of Usenet before free website authoring became possible, individuals would put their �sig� at the end of each post. I have never seen a sig with a list of friends. Websites always list things that people might find interesting. So people could then be judged not only by what they say on one particular day, but by the online company they keep. Sure, you could tell something about a man who quotes Shakespeare, but he could become more complex if his best friend quotes Muddy Waters and less so if his friend also quotes Shakespeare.

Despite all of this, serious dislocations occur. The more real the cyber presentation is, the less likely one is to question your interpretation of it, and therefore the more likely you are to be shocked if you misinterpret all that you see. The problem is that as real as this cyber presentation feels and as much communication as it allows, it is not community. It still lacks the nuance we have with personal relationships offline. Whatever is established online is always and can never be more than an artificial community. We can no more have a relationship with people online than we do with movie stars or rock idols. Every communication is a presentation, and every presentation is interpreted. What exacerbates this problem is the reality of connecting with a wider variety and larger number of individuals online than offline.

Before establishing my persona of �boohab� I wrote:

 

Everything I do in computer-mediated communications (CMC) is an experiment in blackness as a post-modern concept. I am futzing with identity in cyberspace and trying to figure out what happens to your race when people cannot see you, hear you or smell you. (hee haw). Everybody knows that you have some freedom in CMC to choose who you be. If I choose to be black, how would I express it? If I choose to be white, how? Why? What can I say in CMC that I would never say face to face? What silences are overcome w/ respect to racial issues, which are created?

 

Everyone who represents consciously in a gender-specific way in cyberspace must reckon with its sensory deprivation. It�s not enough to simply write �I am female� because this is not how people perceive femininity offline. And so presenting oneself simply as female has issues not unlike presenting oneself as anything for which the imaginations of your audience cannot easily adopt. If you are attempting to be an instructive figure as well, the challenge is even more severe.

I recently got into a bit of trouble addressing someone who called herself �thuqmami�. I was looking around for black content in the blogosphere and found a registry site called blogs of color. It turned out that it was undergoing construction, but 9 out of 10 links I found were dead. I considered it an embarrassment and said so. I was certainly passing judgment from the perspective of an upper-middle class middle-aged father from the old school, but I ended up being corrected. There actually is a difference between a �thuq� and a �thug�. Thuqmami actually inherited the name and the site from someone else. After a time, we came to understand each other, but it took more than a few emails.

Goddess� remarks brought to mind something that I did see very often, which was the flaming of younger more naive persons, especially women but all newbies , who were trying to express themselves artistically without any understanding or consideration of the conventions of online conversation. I seem to recall this happening often. One spot that I used to hang out in was Caf� Los Negroes. It was chocked full of people who felt it was their appointed duty to put a personal spin on everything that happened. So it was as much a billboard for certain characters to rant on with inside humor as it was a public hangout. Anyone who felt it important to creatively express their blackness was suddenly held to very rigorous, if arbitrary standards. A certain smallish clique of members would give each other affirmations on their own style of speak and observations, and others who came in fresh, especially those considered unorthodox would get the virtual equivalent of a cold shoulder. I recall that this seemed rather cruel for some.

So I think the reality of cyberspace is that black folks feel as though the kinds of relationships they have in real life will be the same kind that they have online and are sometimes surprised and/or ill equipped to deal with the real individuality of people they do meet. People seeking affirmation of their personal lives and relationships are just as often as not given a cold reception or condescended to for opening up their feelings online. It�s very easy for people to turn you off and decide not to care. I think it is a mistake for black folks to assume that all black oriented content online is expressly for them and people like them. They must recognize that the monolith is shattered. This ability of cyberspace to create connections ends up introducing people to each other with widely differing perspectives on what it means to be black, the negative experience of a failure to create community only reinforces the stereotype of black disunity. Considering how important the idea of unity has been, it is not surprising that black folks may tend to be more disappointed with online experiences than others.

Cyberspace is capable of establishing a type of communications that you wouldn�t be able to sustain in person and that is good. Cyberspace fails to maintain the quality and nuance of multi-sensory communication of community and flattens experience into the strictly literary and visual; this is destructive of the expectation of a beloved community. The distinction between advanced connectedness, which the Internet delivers, and real community, which it does not, is the difference between our expectations and reality.

Mike Bowen - Summer 2003

 

 

Multiculturalism: Dead

If one is to believe Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, then Multiculturalism was some sort of government experiment in Western Europe designed to liberalize immigration rules for Muslims. That's one way to look at it. We'll see how far that definition and context lives on in the American academy. Who knows?

Note that there is an error in the translation. Sarkozy says we are a secular nation, not we are a Catholic nation as indicated in the text.

Just this week, I caught the tail end of an NPR broadcast on the matter of how a flea jumps. The researcher who had been vindicated by a high speed slo-mo electron microscope was not particularly excited. He had always maintained that a flea jumps by using their feet, but the prevailing theory said it was its knee. The scientist said he was not surprised by the results proving him right because he thought the other idea was as silly as somebody saying "I am going to jump off this chair by clenching my buttocks". 

So multiculturalism is as dead as the flea's knees theory, but people won't be sure until they see it all in slow motion with electron microscopes. That's what blogs are for. I think everything he says makes perfect sense, and that is that faith is a private matter subsumed within national identity. Whatever one wishes to be in a religious or ethnic sense, it has never really been trans-national, and proper Multiculturalism, as I mentioned many years ago, has not matured in this country or evidently in the UK, Germany and France, outwardly. Instead it has been inwardly focused, and it has been a failure. I review and update my position here:

Class Three - PC
The principles of multiculturalism are well suited to resolving issues but we suffer from a surfeit of dialog about the laziest version, political correctness. PC is nothing more than the "don't ask don't tell" version of multiculturalism, it is the false pretense that everything is relative and that we can all enjoy each other's cultures with a Coke and a smile. So long as we don't offend, we can 'all get along' and society is better off. But PC demands no real understanding nor even an effort.

I should add to this that PC is essentialist. The effort made not to offend presumes that the offense is absolute and that the person to which the offensive comment is made must be offended in ineffible but inevitable ways. Therefore all effort must be made never to offend because that class of person would always suffer. 

Class Two - Diversity & Pluralism
Diversity is one step up from PC and makes pefect sense. However it is misaplied as a principle when it's really just a strategy. The value of diversity is that it stands as an indicator of a willingness to make the effort to be inclusive. The best of diversity delivers a kind of robustness, it fortifies an institution by giving disparate groups an interest in its sucess. But this need be done purposefully with the intention of maintaining that robustness without losing links.

Pluralism is not a consequence of diversity, rather I think it the proper result of a non-chauvanistic secularism in a democratic society. You can have a healthy pluralism without the attempted mutual understanding of diversity. I think they reinforce each other but that they are not the same.

These days I am not so sure that those links need to be strong. In fact I doubt that they can be if the matter of inclusiveness is based on merit. In other words, an institution that embraces diversity in a post-discriminatory fashion will right itself by establshing and defending meritocracy. The previous outsiders, by merit are now insiders. But if the outsiders maintain links to the out group, on what basis should that outgroup feel welcome? If it is by anything but merit, then it defeats the purpose of inclusion. If I say that I want Affirmative Action into Big League Baseball just like Jackie Robinson, then it renews suspicion on the entire enterprise. So 'links' to outsiders who get included on the basis of the point of discrimination makes it nothing more or less than reverse discrimination. That is the kind of hope that should not be kept alive.

Class One - Diplomacy
A proper multiculturalism is probably best described as a 'panglossos'. It involves a non-trivial understanding of history and language of the peoples of different cultures and traditions. It is diplomatic but not necessarily integrative. It is the most difficult to achieve, of course, because bridging such gaps are very difficult. Imagine giving up the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' as the character portrayed by Richard Gere in 'Red Corner'. Respecting alien systems of governance, wedding and burial traditions, oral and written history etc are tremendous undertakings.

Diplomacy can be nothing more or less than the diplomacy of nations and extraordinary global jet-setters. Multiculturalism doesn't help anyone more average establish 'diplomatic relations'. If you want a friend, buy a dog. If you want diplomatic relations, marry somebody who doesn't speak your language and get along with your new in-laws. Outside of that..

Multicuturalism is dead. 

 

Playing With Fire

Sometimes the only way to play is to jump in over your head but the border between fearlessness and foolishness is slim. I have been transformed by my exposure to matters of duplicity in theory and practice and I still find it fascinating for the same reason I stated several years ago in my Normblog Interview. 

Who are your cultural heroes? > I confess that I am drawn to spies and, to a lesser extent, priests. They hold in their heads ideas that are worth killing and dying for, and yet unlike writers and intellectuals of other sorts, they are restrained by ethical virtues from gaining any notoriety, wealth or respect from the dissemination of said ideas. Anyone can blurt the beautiful and be blessed, but there is nothing so frighteningly powerful, I think, as an idea whose time may very well never come. They are the reverse of us who clamour for glory and vindication. 

I should probably add hackers to that. Hackers of all sorts. It's a layer of understanding I haven't applied most of my adult life because I have spent a great deal of time and effort being a team player and expecting the leverage of corporate entities to pay off. They do. But what I didn't realize was how flexible they are, and it is that combination of flexibility and dynamism of individuals within the constraints of corporate frameworks that can be their downfall. It's something that hackers can exploit and proves the fundamental vulnerability of all collective enterprises. (I was thinking 'corporate' in reflection on my own ambition, but you can read 'collective' in defense of the principle). 

Organized decentralization is not even the thing here, but individual initiative. We are much more beholden to personal ethics than I had previously considered. There are many implications, some of which just make sense.

• Don't hate.
• Recognize.
• Talk what you know.
• Mind your own business.
• Be diplomatic.
• Do it yourself.
• Don't lie.
• Assume they know.
• Fakers get killed.

The impetus for this post is the startling piece over at Ars Technica. Not since I was much younger and obsessed over more simple stuff like Guy Kawasaki's Tsutomu Shimomura's old tale of intrigue has the impact of a hacker's handiwork smacked me in the head. Anybody can be owned. 

As I write this, and in reflection of a couple things, I wish I could remember a piece of verbiage I came across with its apporpriate acrimony to script kids about a particular hardened version of OS that a certain kind of individual would need. It's my new mind splinter. Because other than Sandmonkey, 'we' know very little about who was communicating at what level with the outside world as Egypt flipped. And it certainly would have been the aim of an appropriated armed individual to use this particularly secure distro as government forces would have been on his ass. 

Note to Alex and the dude to my left: The name of the detective show was 'Touching Evil'. So that settles *that* mind splinter. 

Hosni's Long Weekend

Hosni Mubarak is off to his summer home and it's not even summer yet. He'll probably have several hundred million in his pockets, diamonds would be best, as he makes his escape to pina coladas and beach chairs. How long, one wonders, will Egyptians attempt to hunt him down and make him suffer? 

Very little has emerged from the past 18 day revolution that accuse Mubarak of anything especially heinous as dictators go. The familiar chorus of Arab humiliation sounds in the background, that is for certain one of the primary motivators in what we are coming to understand as Arab (peasant) politics. But he didn't gas his own people, didn't seem to mouth off about Israel, he didn't support radical terrorist or Islamist groups, he merely infantilized the population of Egypt by dominating the public sphere and ran the joint like a kingdom. There haven't been reports that reached my ears that suggested Mubarak's kingdom was anywhere nearly as severe as that of the Saudis, but it was a kingdom nonetheless. The greatest comfort can be seen in that the Army has been well-fed and is not antagonistic to the people. Even Mubarak's secret police only managed to create a few days of subversive chaos. My last count of 300+ dead amounts to a fairly bloodless affair as revolutions go. Mubarak, who has not gotten out of Dodge, may have the blessing of few great recriminations. 

Omar Suleiman is the new Number One. I've heard that he is even closer to the CIA than Mubarak was. And if Leon Panetta got smacked about yesterday when Mubarak delivered his defiant speech, he can take comfort that he was only off by one day in his prediction of Mubarak's imminent departure from office. The drama is over and the Army takes over. Now everyone who has been shouting the same thing, more or less, for 18 days, can go home and think about what to do next. 

One of my favorite aphorisms is that people don't have weaknesses so much as they overuse their strengths. When your back is to the corner and you must do something, you do that something that you know best, whether or not it's the right thing to do. Egypt's business has been disrupted by a dictator still dictating while the working classes stopped working. So when they go back to work, stability will ensue - but stability in a land ripe with new promise. 

What we all should know is that whatever is said about the Army being in charge, there is a power vacuum, and into that vacuum ambitious humans will flow. They will be 'weak' by overusing their strengths. The Army will do what the Army does, only more. The opposition factions will keep hammering their same agendas. And of course our favorite boogie man, the Muslim Brotherhood, will keep its Islamist hopes alive. But how will the newly opened eyes of the common man be able to cope with the fact that Egypt's economy, education system, constitution and political parties are all the same things they were three weeks ago? They will remain unsatisfactory and soon they will come to realize that Mubarak himself was not the problem, but it was the shape of the state of Egypt. Egypt is a net importer of wheat not because Mubarak said so, but because they simply don't grow enough of it. The wheat traders are still going to be in business. 

The Egyptians do not have democracy. They have hopes for it, and in time they will have a vision of it. With any luck next year this time, they will have a plan for it and will start moving forward. That will be more important than 'bringing Mubarak to justice' although it's not a bad idea. If I were Hosni, I would be drinking those pina coladas as fast as I can, because today, Egypt is no longer his headache and thankless responsibility. It falls to the People. 

Google Translate

Google Translate is here, and it is one of the first steps towards the Singularity. My prediction is that what Google may be ultimately responsible for is building the system with the best understanding of natural language. That understanding, put into real-time voice recognition, translation and synthetic speech would make for a miraculous invention, the Babelfish telephone. With the perfection of such a device, one could speak into a cell phone and have one's own voice emerge on the receiver's end in the language of the other party. 

As it stands, Google Translate is not fast enough for real-time duplex conversation, but it is pretty fast, and from what I can tell of French, what my youngest can tell of Spanish and what my middle can tell of Mandarin, it's pretty accurate. 

Everyday people having the ability to understand foreign languages will not change the world so much, because the world is not run by people who don't already. But it can make an interesting difference in ways we have yet to understand. What do you think the reality of 'Esperanto' would mean? 

Lawrence Wright on the Muslim Brotherhood

Here is a short audio podcast not to be missed from Lawrence Wright on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross. 

He says what I've been saying, and of course he's Lawrence Wright.

"We don't really know what size of a constituency they have," he says. "Other organized opposition parties [have] been so crippled by the Mubarak administration — and haven't been allowed to function and organize — so they simply haven't had a chance to get their roots out among the people. If the Mubarak regime comes down, which seems likely, there needs to be a period of time where people actually have the time to organize new parties with new candidates. One of the real problems in Egypt is [that there just] aren't very many democrats. They haven't had that experience and they're going to have to have it in an extremely compressed period of time."

It's really too bad that Gross is so underinformed. This guy is a world class scholar and she couldn't get into the dynamics of the history, but it is good that Qutb came up.

The Invisible Freedom Fighter

The problem with dissing your predecessor and calling it a matter of principle will backfire if you are Obama and there are people out here like me and Hitch. It turns out that Hitchens has identified the name of the type of dissident all Americans should soon get to know.

The best of the Egyptian “civil society” dissidents, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, produced the extraordinary effect that he did by the simple method of challenging the Mubarak regime on those very terms. If it was going to pretend to hold elections, then Ibrahim and his fellow researchers claimed the right to conduct independent surveys of the voters and to publish the results. One can hardly imagine a milder form of resistance, yet, because of the overweening stupidity and crudity of the authorities, it had consequences of an almost seismic kind. Show trials of mild-mannered opinion pollsters and think-tank scholars; dark accusations of secret foreign funding for the practice of political sociology: The whole lumbering apparatus of the Egyptian state conspired to make itself appear humourless and thuggish and to convince its people that they were being held as serfs by fools. Again, the sense of insult ran very deep, and Mubarak’s bullies were too dense to understand their own mistake. 

So I'm the pesky blogger who never liked Obama's geopolitics and am determined to prove that he is inferior in that regard to GWBush. It hasn't been very difficult to prove despite the denial of those opposed to my geopolitical neoconservatism. Ibrahim, and of course Egypt, were nowhere near the President's agenda for the region. So is it any wonder Ibrahim found a willing ear in the WSJ where he said in August of 2009:

Mubarak has continued to get a free pass from the U.S. and has even received outright praise from senior members of the Obama administration. The tiny fraction of U.S. aid that is earmarked for Egypt's civil society is subject to the Mubarak regime's veto.

Egypt could be a pivotal player in regional politics. Instead, Mr. Mubarak has squandered his country's potential in exchange for control over the Egyptian people. Schemes to pass down power to his son, Gamal, are now out in the open.

The most disheartening part in all of this is that Washington under President Obama is conducting old-style foreign policy with Arab tyrants from Libya's Moammar Gadhafi to Syria's Bashar Assad. Except for his optimistic rhetoric, Mr. Obama is increasingly perceived by Arabs and Muslims as yet another American president interested in maintaining the status quo.

After his eloquent and moving talk in Cairo, many wonder whether Mr. Obama will walk the walk as forcefully as he talks the talk. He has the chance to do so today at the White House

Those in the Middle East who once lamented President George W. Bush's hasty retreat from his 2004-06 Freedom Agenda are now lamenting Mr. Obama's two month old promise to support democracy and rule of law. 

Will we hear again from Saad Ibrahim or will the Obama administration try to dismiss him? Consider for a moment all the time this Administration and its political supporters spent trying to heave Imam Abdu Rauf and his rec center down the throats of the American people.  Now ask yourself when it came to a real measure of freedom for Muslims why we didn't know Saad Eddin Ibrahim. I say Ibrahim is the sort of Muslim Americans should notice.

Cairo, West Virginia

Everybody's doing it. Walk like an Egyptian.

Somebody Talk To This Ginger Dude, Now

Copper Cab is feeling awful. For a lot of reasons. It's painful just watching him deal with the crap in his life. He's dealing with it, and YouTube has shown that he has over 13 million hits for his 'Gingers Have Souls', but at some point a troubled young man talking into a video camera in his backyard is nothing more than that.

Dear David Horowitz

You may or may not remember me, but I remember when you and I used to trade barbs over at Salon's open forum. It was in the early days of that online community, before you had begun Front Page. Most of our discussion surrounded attitudes and interpretations of the LA Riots and matters tangential to race and politics. It had to be over 9 years ago. I found you to be an admirable foil to my activism of the time and I can remember one particular compliment you gave to me, which was that I was a good writer and could probably capitalize on that.

I never was particularly interested in capitalizing my writing and there is no simple reason I could give as to why. Every writer's 'why' is certainly in itself a painstaking work. I'd rather simply just write. Moreover, I sought to become wise rather than to spend a great deal of time preaching. I was fortunate that the technology of blogging allowed me to do exactly the sort of writing I felt compelled to produce.

Today finds me looking up information on Pavel Stroilov and landed me at Frontpage. It strikes me at this odd moment that I have come around to your side of Americas red & blue duality. I am a reformed Progressive, and the result of my writing and quest for wisdom I have arrived at some conservative enlightment. I can't describe all of the reasons, nor does that thing which I have previously referred to as my epiphany seem so extraordinary to me now. Still I am very clear and have settled a large number of questions and frustrations and find myself quite comfortable with what I now understand.

It occured to me that I should reach out and let you know that as pointless as I may have found your arguments a decade ago, I am glad to have been the recipient of their reasonableness. You might find it interesting to read through my blog, which I have maintained since 2003, and observe how I acquired some of that wisdom. Whether or not you do, thanks for having been a stumbling block on my old road. Thinking is hard work, but the rewards are great.

Fox vs Al Jazeera & Palin vs Mubarak

What kind of democracy can we expect out of Egypt?

I cannot imagine that the Muslim Brotherhood or any other nascent political proto-party of Egypt is any more sophisticated than your ordinary editor at Al Jazeera. Perhaps their English translators leave much to be desired, but I have yet to read anything at Al Jazeera that gives me any confidence that they or their audience is particularly educated. Which is to say for the purposes of provocative debate, that Al Jazeera is not quite as sophisticated as Fox News, or perhaps, owing to their popularity here and abroad Al Jazeera is exactly as sophisticated as Fox News and for exactly the same reasons - to support a particular worldview with political consequences.

Either institution is inevitable if one expects peasants to participate in the proxy of representative government. So each enables the rabble to 'speak truth to power'. Each is 'the voice of the people'. Each is relatively idiotic, and necessarily so.

So now American liberals are faced with the disheartening possibility that in countries like Egypt, there are many millions who would like their own Sarah Palins. Of course the idea that a woman might emerge to rule over the Nilotics is not unprecedented, but I hear no female names trotted out these days. Whatever the candidate and case may be, the fact remains that no matter how romantic this revolution may seem, its eyes, ears, arms and legs are of people who are, by and large, uneducated and unsophisticated in political matters.

It has been said that such things don't matter so long as the people get to express their will and exert self-rule. Every time you see Sarah Palin's face, is that the thought that comes to mind? Of course not. You are political snobs and elitists and so am I. I would not be led by populists and I have no patience for identity politics, but you can bet that has all the political currency necessary in Egypt. Egypt would be lucky to have Sarah Palin, and we all know it.

I steal from Powerline the following short item with a very important highlight:

Byron York had the good idea of going back to the survey of attitudes in Muslim countries that Pew Research Center did last year, to see what it tells us about Egypt. The results of that review are perplexing yet highly relevant to the current crisis.

If the Pew data are correct, Egyptians have a striking ability to hold, simultaneously, seemingly incompatible beliefs. For example:

[A]mong other discoveries, the Pew researchers found that 84 percent of Egyptians favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.

In another survey, Pew found that 90 percent of Egyptians say they believe in freedom of religion.

"Freedom of religion" seems to lose something in translation. More:

When asked which side they would take in a struggle between "groups who want to modernize the country [and] Islamic fundamentalists," 59 percent of Egyptians picked the fundamentalists, while 27 percent picked the modernizers. ...

And yet at the same time, says Richard Wike, associate director of Pew's Global Attitudes Project, "We found support for some specific features of democracy -- free media, civil liberties, an independent judiciary." Indeed, 80 percent of Egyptians place a high value on free speech, 88 percent on an impartial judiciary and 75 percent on "media free from government censorship."

And 82 percent of Egyptians have an unfavorable view of the United States. Think how bad it would be if it weren't for the Obama administration's "smart diplomacy."

So there you have it. Whether enhanced democracy in Egypt turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing likely depends on which of these inconsistent strands of belief proves dominant.

So people might not believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is a big or small factor in Egypt, but considering what the overwhelming majority of Egyptians believe about Muslim excommunication, it makes little difference. It will be an Islamic society and the separation of church and state there would be a nullity.

American liberals have very little problem suggesting that America would suffer if the likes of Sarah Palin were elected to lead the land and her followers became the political majority, but Palin would never be so tyrannical as any such leader as the people in Egypt would empower through their revolution. Whomever succeeds Mubarak will be painted in pleasing colors by the American Left who refuses to face up to the real implications of such forms of democracy. Just like Mubarak was.

Nuclear Dimensions

I'm fascinated by nukes. Always have been, always will be. They are the great open secret of our era. We all know they exist, they can kill us, we don't understand how they work and we don't trust the people that have anything to do with them - and yet they haven't killed us in over 60 years. Here are a few things I've been browsing on the nuclear subjects.

Minot
Here is a list of all of the Minuteman Missile Sites in North Dakota. I only figured it out that they used the place close to the northern border because they would fly over the pole. I always thought it was because the place was remote and it would be difficult to find them. Now, obviously not.  

Nuclear Naming Conventions
The guys who put together these nuclear projects had pretty good imaginations when it came to Project Such and Such. For Operation Plumbob, there were shots named Kepler, Hood, Diablo, Wheeler, Whitney.  

Military Industrial Complexity
According to a dude named Thomas Park Hughes, the project that put together the national defense system called SAGE was one of the four greatest projects of the 20th Century. SAGE was the first national integrated air defense system and it put together Lincoln Labs, IBM, SDC, Burroughs, Western Electric and hundreds of subcontractors to make our early warning system. And this terminal is pretty cool looking too, complete with ashtray and rotary phone.

El Baradei: The Man To Watch

Did I ever like this guy? Hmm. Did I ever trust this guy? Hmm. Hard to say. Whatever the case, his profile is rising like Ahmed Chalabi's did in Iraq. The difference is that neocons don't like El Baradei for a number of reasons. I think it's simply fair to say that he's anti-American and not out of the necessity that over 80% of Egyptians are anti-American. 

It turns out that El Baradei was the dude who helped John Kerry make hay over some 400 tons of 'missing' high explosives. You remember that one don't you? How Kerry out of one side of his neck said 'where are all the WMDs?' and out the other side blamed Bush for losing enough C4 to blow up every airliner in the sky and that "the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and put this country at greater risk than we all need." 

But that was then. Today, El B is playing coy and pretending that he doesn't want to lead Egypt, when in fact, as one of the most famous Egyptians on the planet, it would be a shoe-in for him to get international support. All he has to do is do a little more anti-American mouthing off, and the stooges in the press will fall in line and give his every mumbling coverage. Me, I've found a new capability of Google which rather demonstrates this sappy lack of diversity - a quote search. 

There is a difference, of course, in being able to get the cameras whirring and 'content' generated about you and your profile, and actually pulling strings of power in Egypt or any modern nation. Mubarak has got the aparatus on lock, as much as it is possible to have. This man has ruled Egypt longer than most Americans stay married. There is no way out of that relationship withough a lot of trauma, and only insiders will get to play with the old pushbuttons. El Baradei, with his 'clean hands' is ironically well-suited and ill-prepared for such a leadership role. He will regret stepping into the spotlight and lending his credibility to the operators who will actually be running the show behind the scenes. 

And since the Obama Administration doesn't have any problem with the Muslim Brotherhood's participation, then we are likely to see yet another figure similar to The Wanker of Iraq, Moqtada Al Sadr, rise in stature in the power vacuum that will follow Mubarak's departure. Egyptians do not know or understand multiparty democracy any better than Iraqis did. Obama's deplomacy, despite the fact that in general has always been sappy and poor, never had a gnat's chance to assist in true democratic reform for Egypt. 

So listen for El Baradei to use his last opportunities in life to bloviate about Egyptian independence from corrupt American influences, and then sink into bitter academic regret about the beasts he will have unleashed. The romantic images of the Egyptian masses in solidarity is a Western fantasy bouyed by the likes of NPR, the gritty reality will be more like Iraq under Bremer. You heard it here first. 

 

Soaking the Rich

For people who bitch and moan about 'income inequality', is this the solution?

A Sucker's Manifesto

So I get mail from the Left and Right. This weekend I recieved an urgent call to sign a petition in solidarity with the People of Egypt from some activists at Change.org.  Here follows the text:

On January 25, we the people of Egypt took to the streets to demand our rights!

We are not unified by one party, class or religion: we are not Muslim and we are not Christian, we are not rich and we are not poor - we are the multifaceted people of Egypt - Muslims and Christians and Egyptians of all classes.
 
We demand our civil, political and human rights. 
 
We demand the immediate resignation of the president and parliament. 
 
We demand a new constitution.
 
We demand free and fair elections.
 
We demand the complete and total release of all political prisoners and detainees.
 
We demand the return of open access to all communication networks.
 
We demand that the police stop shooting at us, stop their brutality and stop their attacks on journalists. 
 
We are the January 25 movement, and we are not going to stop until our demands are met!
 
We call on Egyptians and our international supporters to sign this petition of support, which will be sent to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, officials in the interior and foreign ministries, and Egyptian embassies all over the world.

Exactly what kind of political change is gotten from this level of statecraft? None. This is the kind of verbiage one expects from 8th graders and I mean that there are nothing less than the best intentions of people operating at the emotional level of middle school children. That's not always a bad thing. It's great language to shout at rallies, and there are probably a dozen good reasons to run a mob at exactly this pace, but for something to be written down and signed by intelligent people all around the world? Are you kidding me? I have 99 cent game software on my telephone with more sophisticated and legally binding text. 

When I was a college student, it didn't take me long to understand that when there are people suffering from oppression, there are generally intelligent men and women among them. Such people generally don't like being represented by bellicose or mendacious louts, nor by sentimental romantics. But here in American society there are always those who are so swayed. Well let them sign the petition. I won't do it. I do very well remember the anti-Apartheid movment and I do recall the Harare Accords, knowing they were long-standing documents pieced together by fine political minds in exile from South Africa. Copies of the Accords were in broad circulation amongs the radical politicos like myself - I wish that I could find one now. It gave me an idea of what to expect in the language of founding principles, and from that I began to examine our own founding documents more closely.  

 Today's news, from my perspective, is that Mubarak has taken advantage of the relative peacefulness of the large demonstrations as evidence that he needn't step down until the regularly scheduled September elections. So much for revolution. But that's a good thing. Surely by that time, some of these manifesto writers can get in a semester of law school, and perhaps a better grip on exactly what reforms have a chance of getting implemented in Egypt.