The Perfect Quote

I discovered this GREAT quote on a blog that I happened on by circumstance, and I just couldn't resist posting it here for all my loyal readers. I think it sums up modern politics beyond doubt--

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." --H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

I laughed out loud the first three times I read this!! Too much!

House GOP to Change Ethics Rules

The Republican members of the House of Representatives are planning to make it more difficult to begin ethics inquiries. At the present time, the rules require that an inquiry be held open if the Ethics Committee vote is tied--there is an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the committee, so a tie vote would be presumed along party lines. The Republicans, however, would require that the vote must be a majority to keep an ethics inquiry open.

In addition, rumors suggest that House Speaker Dennis Hastert is considering replacing the Republican Ethics Committee chairman in 'retaliation' for the Committee's admonishments of Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay last year. The GOP has previously altered the party's stance on leadership positions so that DeLay could remain in his post in the event that he is indicted for election fraud charges in Texas. Prior to the revision of party rules, both the Republicans and Democrats held that any member of the House who was under indictment for any reason could not serve the party in a leadership position during the period of indictment.

It seems that the GOP is willing to alter its party rules and ethics rules for the House in order to protect a single individual--Rep. DeLay. Even the conservative group Judicial Watch seems to agree with that assessment, and they are in fact pressing the House to strengthen its ethics rules rather than going through with these plans that would significantly weaken, and essentially eliminate, any possible ethics violation investigations.

Would Privatized Social Security Pay More?

According to Stanley Logue, a defense-industry analyst who retired in 1994, the answer to that question for him would be a resounding 'NO'. Mr. Logue spent 45 years paying into the Social Security system and decided to calculate how much money he would have made had that money been invested in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends). His calculation showed that he made a small amount more in the Social Security system than he would have in the stock market--$261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

From the CSMonitor--

It's an astonishing finding. The DJIA represents blue-chip stocks. Social Security invests in US Treasury bonds. Over long periods of time, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds. So, you would think that Logue's theoretical stock investments from 1950 to 1994 would have surely outpaced the return on government bonds.

The fact that they didn't illustrates one of the hard truths about stock investing: Timing matters.

Mr. Logue missed much of the post-WWII boom in the stock market and retired prior to the bull market in the mid-1990s. This meant that he missed two of the most substantial gaining periods in the last fifty years. Although he did earn well during the mini-boom in the 1980s, much of that gain would have been lost in the market correction at the end of the decade. TIMING MATTERS--so don't let the Republican party convince you that privatization is all good. There are positives to privatization, but there are just as many negatives. The strength of the Social Security administration has been that it serves as retirement insurance and should be treated differently than a retirement investment.

Additionally, Paul Krugman has taken a respite from his sabbatical to write some columns in the NYTimes addressing the issue of the privatization of Social Security. He argues that Conservatives have made such an issue of privatization that we are all expected to believe by now that everything the government does leads to waste while all privatization saves money. With Social Security, Krugman argues that the opposite is true.

In looking at the two most notable examples of privatized national retirement plans--Chile and Britain--that the Conservatives repeatedly cite as positive examples, Krugman argues that the administrative costs of the investments are twenty times that of the current U.S. Social Security system. Krugman also points out that the plan in Chile for privatization was to reduce the national monetary burden, but in reality the national government has saved little over the last twenty-year period because too many retirees had not made enough money on their investments to provide a living that would be above the poverty level. As a result, the government was forced to provide additional funds to provide living expenses for these retirees.

Currently in England, a similar situation is occuring. The Brits privatized their retirement system during Margaret Thatcher's administration in the early 1980s. The Pensions Commission has recently announced that it expects quite a few retirees to have lost money through the privatized system, and the government should expect to spend additional monies over the next several years to keep those people out of poverty. Take the time to read these two Krugman articles--'Inventing a Crisis' and 'Buying into Failure'.

A Unique Perspective on bin Laden's Latest Audio

UMichigan professor of history Juan Cole takes an interesting perspective on the latest words of Osama bin Laden. He argues that by taking a position on the side of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist hated by Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, bin Laden has effectively "shot himself in the foot." Cole's argument is that bin Laden's only hope by taking such a position would be to turn the five million Sunni Muslims in Iraq into pro-al Qaeda, using many of them to increase the insurgency against the U.S.

However, not only has bin Laden taken the side of a hated killer, but he has also declared that any Muslim who takes part in the January Iraqi elections will be acting as an infidel because the Iraqi government does not currently recognize the Qu'ran as the basis of all law. This fatwa is in direct opposition to the ranking Shiite leader in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who declared that it is the duty of every Muslim in Iraq to take part in the election process, thereby giving the hand of Allah a direct role in the election of the new government.

Dr. Cole argues that taking this position on Iraq is a desparate move on the part of al Qaeda and bin Laden. It represents an extreme position in which he has willingly abandoned the Shiite population in hopes of recruiting a miniscule number of Sunni to his cause. Even most of the Sunni in Iraq, Cole argues, consider the Wahhabism of bin Laden an extreme and misguided form of Islam. As a result they are unlikely to follow the guidance of al Qaeda in any event, let alone now that bin Laden has sided with al-Zarqawi.

Cole presents an interesting point of view, but I am not entirely convinced, to be perfectly honest, that he has a clue what he is talking about. Certainly, bin Laden's position would help to bring about the civil war in Iraq between the Shiite and Sunni that al Qaeda and al-Zarqawi so greatly long to provoke. Any rhetoric that helps to divide the various groups within Iraq while at the same time making the United States military the enemy of them all would represent a worthy challenge to the oral skills of bin Laden. As with most events that have led us to this point, I think Professor Cole (as have many others) continues to underestimate the political and theological abilities of Osama bin Laden, and the unifying attributes of the al Qaeda banner.

Russia-China Alliance?

One must wonder what exactly is going on with Russia and China as they announced formally this week that they will be conducting joint military exercises during 2005. The two long-time enemies are apparently moving beyond their commercial enterprises (China is the majority trading partner for Russian military equipment) and into a tenuous alliance to prevent the United States from laying sole claim to the 'superpower' label. Both countries have long opposed a unilateral foreign policy structure with the U.S. at the top of the pyramid dictating policy to the rest of the world. Could this latest move be the means by which both countries, possibly in league with India also, establish their independence of U.S. foreign policy? Could it also be the means by which they remind Europe and the U.S. that they are also major players in the world economy, international trade, and international affairs of state? Much remains to be seen.

French Journalists Released from Captivity in Iraq

Two French journalists, Georges Malbrunot, 41, and Christian Chesnot, 38, were released from four months of captivity last week by their Iraqi captors--members of the insurgent group 'Islamic Army in Iraq'. Malbrunot, who writes for the conservative French newspaper Le Figaro, says that his captors wanted GWBush to win the U.S. Presidential election because they knew he would keep troops in Iraq, and that would help their cause.

Both men say that they saw some other hostages who they learned were later decapitated. The Islamic Army reportedly has 15,000-17,000 members, and their hostage-taking activities are very well organized. Some members are designated for planning, others for the kidnapping, and still others for interrogation or execution squads. According to the journalists, the Islamic Army sees four groups as its enemies--the U.S. and coalition military forces, foreign businessmen whom they consider collaborators of the military occupation, Iraqi police forces, and foreign and Iraqi spies.

Why the two journalists were set free while so many other hostages have been executed is unclear, but both men say that they were in fear for their lives throughout most of the four months of their captivities.

Commerce in Church--right or wrong?

Many churches, both Protestant and Catholic, are beginning to conduct commercial enterprises in the church to help raise money. Some churches have installed Starbucks, Subway, McDonald's, or other fast-food type ventures inside the church building in order to raise funds for the church coffers. Even more churches have begun leasing out their steeples for cell-phone tower usage. Companies like Verizon install their cell tower technology inside the church steeple rather than erecting a tower for the purpose. These companies pay the church as much as $10,000 each year in rental fees. Some parishioners are displeased with the idea of commercializing the church building while others see the move as good business practice. It seems the issue has become whether the church should be 'of the world' or 'apart from the world.' I have a feeling this type of enterprise will become (or continue to be) a significant issue for many church congregations from this point forward. Read an interesting overview of the positions and ongoing commercial activities at the CSMonitor.

Rumsfeld and the DoD are at it again

The Dept of Defense plans to move itself into the intelligence-gathering business. The plans include turning U.S. soldiers into 'boots-on-the-ground' agents. In fact, the DoD is willing to go so far as to instigate battles or even start a war in order to gather intelligence information from the resulting conflict. Is it just me, or does this plan seem just a bit askew?

Read Bob Herbert's commentary related to this plan in the 27 Dec NYTimes.

Newsworthy Issues with the Iraqi 'Elections'

After the United States announced earlier this week that, regardless of the outcome of the Iraqi elections, Sunni Muslims would be guaranteed a certain number of positions on the future Iraqi governing council, the leadership of the interim government spoke out against the plan. Their response echoed the thoughts of all Iraqis that the U.S. might be overstepping its bounds in guaranteeing any faction in the country a place in the government. The U.S. rhetoric is all about democracy and guaranteeing freedom, but when things look like they might not go exactly the way we want them to during the elections, we forget issues of freedom and self-government to focus instead on the outcome WE want. No wonder so many people of the world despise our policies. We promise freedom and democracy--but only if it satisfies our desires and plans. What a load of patronizing, self-serving, defeatist bullshit!!

Either we want to encourage freedom and democracy or we want an American-friendly government. 'WE CANNOT HAVE BOTH,' we would seem to say. Much of this division of thought apparently comes from the DoD and Sec Rumsfeld who once guaranteed that Iraq would NOT have an Islamic government--even if that is what the people want. How much more hubris can we spread throughout the world? How can we discuss 'freedom and democracy', put so much emphasis on those concepts, and then say that we will attempt to control the outcome or alter the rules to benefit us? How is that freedom OR democracy?

Now, not only are our appointed leaders speaking out against our latest plans, but the upcoming elections have given Osama bin Laden a topic on which to speak. In a recent audio tape played on Al Jazeera reportedly from bin Laden, he praises Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi calling him the 'prince' of al Qaeda in Iraq. He praises al-Zarqawi's decision to rename his organization 'al Qaeda in Iraq' and declare his allegiance to bin Laden saying that the decision represents "a great step on the path of unifying all the mujahedeen in establishing the state of righteousness and ending the state of injustice."

All quotations and information comes from related articles in the CSMonitor between 26 Dec and 27 Dec.

New Trend -- Latinas Converting to Islam

Of the 20,000 converts to Islam each year in the U.S., approximately 1,200 of those are Latinos with the majority being females. The trend seems to be occuring because the women see more respect coming from Islamic men than from most men that they encounter on a regular basis. They do not see the religion as demeaning women, but instead as making their roles more sacred and respected.

Many Americans view the Taliban and al Qaeda as typical examples of Islamic beliefs, but that is far from the truth. Most of the more demeaning aspects of Islam toward women that we see demonstrated on a regular basis are actually cultural manifestations that use extreme Islamic teachings as justification for misogynism.

Supreme Court May Consider Presidential Use of Recess Appointments of Federal Judges

Three federal appeals courts have ruled on the issue in the last several years, but the High Court has never considered the Constitutionality of the use of recess appointments. Recess appointments have been widely used by Presidents of both parties since the 1960s, but several considerations are up in the air. There are questions about whether the President can make recess appointments during the middle of Senate sessions or only at the intersession break in December and January. President Bush has made several intrasession appointments in addition to the typical intersession ones.

The three appellate court rulings have made broad interpretations of the Presidential power to circumvent the 'advice and consent' power of the Senate, and many Constitutional scholars question those decisions in light of the Constitutional requirements for checks and balances. The CSMonitor covers the topic in some depth in its 26 December online issue.

Teachers who care get most from kids

From an article in the Detroit News last June, survey results demonstrate that students respond better in class to teachers who set high demands on the students and who care about the students' lives and work ethics. The newspaper argues that these results point out that teachers who are given a greater deal of autonomy in the classroom are the ones who are most able to provide a caring and compassionate environment for their students. If too much top-down management occurs in a school, then the students are not likely to see the same levels of personal interaction and academic rigor from their teachers.

I always like to use this analogy--remember back to your own days in school and think about your favorite teacher's class. Tell me one thing that you remember about that class. The thing that you remember is most likely not related to what you were taught in that class as much as it is related to who that teacher was and how she/he interacted with you and the other students. THAT is what teaching is really all about.

Surely all effective teachers cover a great deal of material and teach their students as much as they can about the subject, but it is the non-academic things that stick out in our minds. It is the love of the class and the enjoyment of the teacher that build our memories of school. It is not the year in which Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, nor the year in which the Ottoman Turks began to lose their empire. The things we remember are the time that Mr. G had us make string art using our newfound knowledge of Geometry, or the fact that Mrs. C only had to call the first name on her roll and everyone automatically called HERE at the place their name would have been called (and the first time the class did that to the student-teacher!), or the time that Mr. M almost cussed in class because he tripped over the world map for the third time in ten minutes. THAT is the beauty of teaching AND of learning!!

Speaking of the Iraqi Elections...

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi announced this morning that he will run for the office in next month's elections. He says that he wants to unite the country and end the religious and ethnic divisions that have led to so many difficulties since the U.S. invasion of the country.

I may seem a bit cynical, but I have no doubt that Allawi will win this election. After all, the U.S.'s man in Afghanistan won the first-ever national election in that country. Why would not the U.S.'s man in Iraq also win election? The only possible upset might come from the Shiite clerics--either Moqtada al Sadr or Ali al-Sistani. If that happens, then all bets are off about the future of Iraq--of course, all bets might be long-shots regardless.

Some Taliban Ready to Give Up Their Guns and Go Home

Newly inaugurated Afghan president Hamid Kharzai is considering offering an amnesty to the majority of Taliban fighters. Some Taliban appear to be tired of fighting and may be willing to accept the offer of amnesty if they are allowed to return to their families and their land. In an interview with the CSMonitor, two Akhund tribesmen say that they have had enough. They now view the leadership of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden as an effort to consolidate their own power rather than as a means to lead a holy war to protect Muslim lands. Of course, there are other Taliban that follow Omar and bin Laden without question and believe it is their duty to insure that Afghanistan has an all-Muslim government.

The question becomes whether an amnesty for these 'moderate Taliban' will offer a way for Kharzai to consolidate his leadership of Afghanistan, or whether it will cause a deeper split between the Pashtuns and Tajiks. I imagine that fewer eyes will be on the outcome of these events than on the elections in Iraq, but the events in Afghanistan may be a better indicator of the eventual outcome of the 'War on Terrorism' than any events in Iraq.

Atheist Changes His Mind

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading advocate for the atheist position for nearly sixty years announced last week that he has changed his mind, and he says that his opinion changed based on scientific evidence. Of course, before anyone gets too carried away, I should also point out that he wants nothing to do with religion, and he does not believe in an after-life. He simply thinks that living things are much too complex to have evolved without some sort of help from a creator.

Antony Flew is now 81 years old and has been an atheist since the age of 15. He now says that his new position is somewhat similar to the 'intelligent design' position that has been advocated in the United States for several years. Flew further says that he would label himself now as a deist--he believes that God must exist, but he does not believe that God actively engages in our daily lives. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts that it can ever fully explain the origins of life.

Some people might argue that Flew is just getting old and a little nervous. Others would certainly say that he is finally coming to his senses. Personally, I think he is courageous to step forward at this stage in his life and contradict at least some of his lifelong beliefs. Read the full Associated Press report from MSNBC for additional information.

What are Math Teachers Worth?

Of course, as a high school mathematics teacher myself, I found this CSMonitor article particularly interesting. The article is an opinion piece written by Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., former chairman and CEO of IBM and founder of The Teaching Commission. His argument is that although we have a significant shortage of highly-qualified mathematics public school teachers, we are doing very little to alter the methods we use to recruit, train, and keep highly skilled mathematicians in the classrooms of the country.

Last week, a new comparative study showed that U.S. 15-year olds are well below the worldwide average for basic math skills, and a new TIMSS study to be released this week will discuss the skills of fourth- and eighth-graders. Certainly, educators know it is true that students with particularly gifted teachers perform better on average than students with less-than-adequate teachers. When 15% of high school mathematics teachers nationwide have neither a major or minor in mathematics, there is something terribly wrong with the system.

Speaking to you, however, as a very good mathematics instructor, I can state plainly that the problem tends to be one of motivation rather than one of instruction. It is a great deal easier for a knowledgeable math teacher to motivate students than for one who has difficulty with the subject himself/herself; however, we also need teachers who bring personal experiences with the use of mathematics into the classroom.

The most interesting thing I find about programs to recruit highly qualified mathematicians into education is that these programs typically only apply to new recruits. I have been a highly successful mathematics teacher for ten years, but most of the 'innovative' programs I have heard about would not give me any additional pay or similar incentives. I would most likely have to change jobs (either by district or state) to qualify for many of the incentives. Does this seem like a fair way to handle experienced educators? Certainly not.

If we are serious about altering the ways in which we pay teachers, then we should consider the fact that at the secondary level core area teachers (English, History, Science, and Mathematics) receive the same pay as any other teacher who is at the same level of experience (Physical Education, Family Life and Consumer Sciences, or Keyboarding). All of these teachers are essential parts of the school, and the school could not function properly without each of them; however, if we are saying that pay scales should be changed, then should we not start with this distinction. People cite the need to identify 'high-needs' areas--where there are shortages of teachers--such as mathematics, science, and special education--as the starting point for distinguishing a new pay scale. If we make these distinctions, then how do we justify the important role of music teachers, art teachers, technical or skills teachers, or foreign language teachers to the students. How do we say to a group of teachers that "you are not as important to our children as this other group of teachers"? or do we say instead that "the core area teachers are more important to the future of our society than other teachers"? If we say these things, are any of them true?

OPEC to Decrease Production

Now that we are all seeing a moderation in gasoline prices, OPEC announced last week that it will decrease production by one million barrels a day beginning Jan. 1 to help curb its losses as a result of the weakening US dollar. So, you see, not only will gasoline cost US consumers more at the pump because the dollar is declining in world currency markets, but since the dollar is declining in world currency markets, gasoline will cost US consumers more at the pump. It all sounds highly logical to me--how about you?

Turns out that although OPEC could not control oil prices (to make them decline) throughout October and November as the price of a barrel of oil surged higher than at any time in 25 years, they CAN control it (so that prices go up) from now at least through the end of winter when US consumers will need the greatest amounts of oil. Amazing how that works out so well for them, isn't it?

Of course, OPEC's decision to cut production follows the sharpest decline in oil prices in some time, as a barrel of oil has dropped from $55 a barrel in October to around $40 last week. Keep in mind, however, that OPEC has promised the world markets a stabilized price at around $35 a barrel. Perhaps OPEC sees this move as a way to help stop the rapid decline and as a means to level off prices at that stable $35, but the move seems just as likely to add additional revenue to OPEC purses as the Northern Hemisphere approaches the long, cold, dark days of winter.

My prediction is that the United States will never again see the price of a gallon of gasoline drop below $1.50, and we will be lucky to see a national average at $1.85 a gallon. Get used to these prices America. As China becomes a bigger player in the world economy, and as the Chinese populace increases consumption of oil products--particularly gasoline for their growing automobile population--the United States will continue to see high demand for oil worldwide. As Detroit continues to build large SUVs and the high cost of hybrid technology continues to boost the price and discourage production of more environmental-friendly vehicles, the U.S. supply of oil will continue to diminish.

We need an administration that is more focused on ending dependency on foreign oil through alternative means rather than continually pushing for the development of oil fields in ANWAR. The United States cannot produce enough oil to offset the amount we currently import from OPEC (or even from Saudi Arabia), so why do we continue to focus our efforts on such a plan? Oh, that's right...the oil companies have the Congress and the Executive branch in their pockets!!

New Homeland Security Appointee Steps Down

Reports today are that Bernard Kerik stepped down as the Homeland Security Secretary-designate because at some time in his past he had employed an illegal alien as a housekeeper. Apparently, this came as a surprise to him. He said in his statement that he did not know until recently that she had been illegally in the country. According to the White House, however, his appointment was in question soon after the announcement was made. The vetting process either was not complete when the announcement was made, or the White House failed to conduct a complete background check. Either way, I remain dumbfounded that the appointment was not Rudy Guiliani to begin with!!!

Rumsfeld's Answer

"You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want."

That was Donald Rumsfeld's answer to a soldier who questioned the U.S. lack of armored HumVees in Iraq. My response to Sec. Rumsfeld would be this--

How long have we been at war? Almost two years? Is that not enough time to increase the production of armored personnel transports? Is that not enough time to ship them overseas? Is that not enough time to make certain that our troops have what is needed for them to complete the mission that your administration sent them to conduct?

It is one thing to say that we must GO to war with the army that we have, but it is another issue entirely to say that we cannot improve that army DURING war. Of course, what Rumsfeld, or President Bush, will not want to say is that it is not an issue of time that has stopped us from producing better armored vehicles, nor is it an issue of time that has prevented us from shipping better transportation to Iraq. The issue that limits the US's ability to conduct this war is one of MONEY. Thanks to Mr. Bush's two tax cuts (one DURING this war), and the lack of improvement in our economy, our government (in particular, the Dept of Defense) does not have the necessary funds to conduct a full-scale war and provide our troops with the proper equipment to get the job done. At one point in this war, our soldiers were even running low on ammunition.

A nation might GO to war with the army it has, but it had better make damn sure that it comes out of the war with the army it needs. The only way to accomplish that is through money, time, and effort on the part of the government and its people. The only problem in this case is that we need leaders who are willing to say and do the RIGHT things to make that happen and not to just follow ideological goals to unjustified ends.

U.S. to add 10,000-11,000 more troops in Iraq to help support efforts in Fallujah and with January elections

Gen. John Abizaid says that soldiers and Marines currently in Iraq will have to extend their tours of duty, and those who are rotating to Iraq will have to leave the U.S. earlier than expected. In related news, reports show that more new recruits are going through infantry training regardless of the specialty for which they signed up. Apparently, all new recruits are learning infantry responsibilities either in lieu of or in addition to their specialties. Further, all of these new recruits can expect to spend part of their enlistments in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

News reports also indicate that because of a shortage of staff officers, particularly Majors and Lt. Colonels, several Pentagon staffers have been reassigned to duties in Iraq to fill urgent vacancies. The war on Iraq is quickly becoming a demanding exercise for the U.S. military. Some reports indicate that the Army and Marines have been as creative as possible in assigning and reassigning troops.

With the addition of the 10,000 new troops in Iraq, the U.S. military presence will become nearly 150,000 strong. The U.S. is making every effort to emphasize to other hostile (or potentially hostile) nations that the U.S. is NOT stretched too thin in Iraq. However, actions and protestations tend to indicate otherwise. "Methinks he doth protest too much."

Read more details in the CSMonitor's "Terrorism and Security Daily Update" from 29 Nov 2004.

'Intelligent Design' approved to be taught in Pennsylvania school district

Many scientists see the 'Intelligent Design' theory as a means for evangelical Christians to get Creationism returned to the Biology classroom and textbook. The most amazing fact cited in this San Francisco Chronicle article is the result of a poll conducted by CBS news that found only 35% of Americans believe that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution. Is it just me, or are 65% of those polled completely blinded by religious indoctrination?

Hamas Will Boycott Palestinian Elections

Hamas, the extremist Islamist Palestinian faction, made a formal announcement on Wednesday that they would boycott the January 9 elections to replace Yasser Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas also boycotted the elections in 1996 that first elected Yasser Arafat to the office of president. Hamas believes that Palestine should not negotiate with Israel, and faulted Arafat for giving in to pressure to bargain and deal with the Israeli government in efforts to move the peace process forward.

The current leader in the election polls, Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) and acting president of the PA since the death of Arafat on November 11, is scheduled to meet with leaders of Hamas next week in Damascus. Abbas was nominated by the Fatah party, currently the more moderate of the Palestinian leadership groups and the party of Arafat, and apparently has a close relationship with Hamas. In addition to agreeing to meet with Abbas, Hamas announced that it would not attack Israel during the election period, and would consider a truce with Israel to end its part in the most recent intifada. As I have posted in this blog previously, I believe that Hamas largely controls the hearts and minds of the people of Palestine already--they have shown themselves not only to fight for Palestinian independence, but also to offer humanitarian assistance, medical care, and security for local Palestinian communities.

In another interesting development in the race for president of the PA, another Fatah candidate declared himself this week. Marwan Barghouti, in jail for the murder of two Israeli government officials (two life sentences, I believe), announced this week through associates that his name would appear on the ballot. Barghouti represents a younger generation of the Fatah party, and is largely seen as a pivotal character among Palestinians in their twenties and thirties. It seems that he represents many of the same policies as Hamas, but he operates within Fatah, the major political movement that grew out of the Palestine Liberation Organization as it evolved into the Palestinian Authority. It would certainly be interesting to watch events unfold if he were to run the PA from inside an Israeli prison!!!

"They hate our policies, not our freedom"

The Defense Science Board, a Federal advisory committee, consisting of 32 appointed members and seven ex officio members, established to provide independent advice to the SecDef, released its September 2004 report about U.S. worldwide communication and public relations efforts in the 'War on Terrorism' to the public this past week. The report had been available on the DSB website in early November, but I find it curious that it was not released until after the election. Could it be that it was not released until now because it is critical of the President's policies? Yes, it could!

In fact, the DSB report takes the administration to task for its failure to live up to its rhetoric. The report is highly critical of the administration's use of the language of freedom and democracy while at the same time supporting Muslim governments that are perceived as tyrannical throughout the Middle East region.

'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report
says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as
one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the
long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as
tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf
states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to
Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'

To read more about this significant contribution to the debate about the War on Terrorism, see the CSMonitor's "Terrorism and Security Daily Update" for Monday, 29 November 2004.