Saddam on Trial

Iraq's deposed fuehrer went on trial today. Saddam Hussein pleaded "innocent" to the first charges brought against him, stemming from the 1982 killings of more than 150 people.
MSNBC:

A judge on Wednesday adjourned the trial of Saddam Hussein and seven co-defendants until Nov. 28, after Saddam pleaded innocent to murder and other charges, questioned the court’s authority and scuffled with guards.

The main reason for the adjournment was because some 30 to 40 witnesses had been too scared to show up, the presiding judge said.

“They were too scared to be public witnesses,” Rizgar Mohammed Amin told Reuters. “We’re going to work on this issue for the next sessions.” ...

The first session lasted just three hours, during which presiding judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin read the defendants their rights and the charges against them — which also include torture, forced expulsions and illegal imprisonment in a case involving the massacre of nearly 150 Shiites in 1982. ...

Mohammed at Iraq the Model:

“Does he deserve a fair trial?” this was the question that kept surfacing every five minutes…he wasn’t the least fair to his people and he literally reduced justice to verbal orders from his mouth to be carried out by his dogs.
Why do we have to listen to his anticipated rudeness and arrogant stupid defenses? We already knew he was going to try to twist things and claim that the trial lacks legitimacy or that it’s more a court of politics rather than a court of law, blah, blah, blah…

“Why do we have to listen to this bull****?” said one of my friends.
“I prefer the trial goes like this:
Q:Are you Saddam Hussein?
A:Yes.
Then take this bullet in the head.”

Everyone could find a reason to immediately execute a criminal who never let his victims say a word to defend themselves “let’s execute him and get over this” sentiments like this were said while we watched the proceedings which were rather boring and sluggish for the first half of the session.
At the beginning we were displeased by the presentation of the prosecution which was more like a piece of poetry in the wrong time and place and this is what encouraged the defense to give us a worn out speech about objectivity and how the court must not go into sideways; the thing which both the prosecution and the defense were doing.

Anyhow, the prosecutor began reading the facts and figures about what happened in Dijail. The defendants went silent but Saddam objected on some details and then prosecutor said “Do you want me to show the film where you said and did that?” Saddam stopped talking and the prosecutor asked the court to allow showing the film, we don’t know if it was played there as transmission was paused for a while.

As the prosecution went deeper into details and facts, the way we viewed the trial began to change an d those among us who were demanding a bullet in Saddam’s head now seemed pleased with the proceedings “I don’t think I want to see that bullet now, I want to see justice take place as it should be”.
We were watching an example of justice in the new Iraq, a place where no one should be denied his rights, not even Saddam.

Tammy Bruce points out an unsettling episode.

Go read the full posts at the links.

Headline of the Day

First, the text of the article:

TRIPOLI, Libya [AP] - Several hundred Libyans demonstrated Tuesday in the Libyan capital to protest President Bush's call for the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor sentenced to death for allegedly infecting 400 children with the AIDS virus.

The United States and European Union have been pressuring Libya to free the six, who were sentenced to death in May 2004 on charges they infected Libyan children with HIV-contaminated blood in an experiment to find a cure for AIDS.

The defendants have appealed the verdicts, and international observers say the charges were contrived and extracted by torture. ...

And now, the headline:
Libyans Demonstrate Against Bush's Stance

Well, that tells you everything you need to know, right?

Chinese Dissident Protests Yahoo/PRC Collusion

David Kopel at The Volokh Conspiracy:

A few weeks ago, I criticized Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, and Cisco for cooperating with evil, because each of those companies assists the Chinese suppression of dissent, in order to be able to make money from the lucrative and growing Chinese market. Some apologists for the companies replied that, even though the companies were assisting repression and making it more efficient and pervasive, the companies were somehow encouraging the long-run development of freedom in China.

Today, the Financial Times reports on a letter which a leading Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, has sent to Yahoo. Having spent time in prison for speaking the truth about China's ruling Communist Party, Liu "says Yahoo has enough market clout not to need to toady to authorities." He explains the corporate-communist deal: coporations make profits at the expense of human rights; the communists are given Internet control, and new means to squelch dissent. Thus:

“The collusion of these two kinds of ugliness means that there is no way for western investment to promote freedom of speech in China, and that in fact it greatly increases the ability of the Communist party to blockade and control the internet,” he writes.
“You are helping the Communist party maintain an evil system of control over freedom of information and speech,” he writes.

Simply put, there appears to be no way to be an ethical Internet company in China today, just as there was no way to be an ethical supplier of spy equipment to the USSR or Nazi Germany.

Read the rest at the link.

Guerriero: Time for Gay Conservatives to Come Out

From Patrick Guerriero of Log Cabin Republicans:

News Release
For Immediate Release
October 14, 2005

Contact: Christopher Barron
Log Cabin Republicans
(202) 347-5306 or
(202) 297-9807 (cell)

It’s Time for Gay Conservatives to Come Out

Op Ed by Patrick Guerriero, President

This critical moment in the history of the LGBT movement's fight for equality demands that a new generation of Americans come out of the closet—gay conservatives. Now is the time for closeted gay conservatives to find the courage and personal strength to stand up and be counted. Now is the time we can really make a difference. If every gay conservative came out of the closet today, the journey to full equality would be over in years instead of decades. It would soon become ineffective to use gay and lesbian families as wedge issues in campaigns. The cynical efforts to amend our federal and state constitutions would eventually stop. The hypocrisy of anti-gay political tactics being used by way too many Republicans and some Democrats would be finally exposed.

One of the biggest un-kept secrets in Washington, DC is that closeted gay Republicans are everywhere—the White House, Republican Party organizations, the halls of Congress, the most influential law offices, and the most powerful lobbying firms in our nation's capitol. Some of those who remain closeted have chosen to be either passive bystanders or, in some cases, active critics of our movement while comfortably partaking in the fringe benefits of our community work—all the while sipping the finest martinis in our trendiest gay bars.

Coming out is an intensely personal journey. As someone who struggled long and hard with how and when to come out of the closet, I unequivocally oppose outing. I am unaware of a single forced outing that led to passage of a single piece of pro-LGBT legislation. Coming out on one’s own terms, with free will, and with personal courage is a positive catalyst for change. Forced outings don’t advance our movement because they’re motivated by vengeance.

Over the years, many closeted gay Republicans have discreetly and impressively helped advance equality. In spite of attacks from too many on the partisan gay left, some gay conservatives work behind the scenes to pass equality legislation, increase funding for HIV/AIDS, offer vital counsel to LGBT groups, and help defend us against anti-gay legislation. These gay conservatives have quietly come out to their bosses and colleagues—changing some into gay allies and challenging others to soften their positions over time. These individuals have been quiet heroes, not asking for or wanting public credit.

Other gay Republicans, however, simply have failed to stand-up—more concerned about keeping their title, their paycheck, their chance for promotion, or their chance to attend another White House cocktail party.

During this moment in the culture war, we face a fight that will determine how LGBT Americans are treated for decades to come. Those who choose to be missing in action are running from the most critical fight of our generation. During these historic times, the closet is not only a place which suffocates personal dignity, it is also a place which suffocates the powerful force of personal integrity that can change the hearts and minds of even the most conservative Americans and most conservative politicians. Coming out doesn’t have to mean putting a sticker on your car, flying a rainbow flag from your front porch, or marching in a parade. Coming out means different things to different people. It may be as simple as putting a picture of your partner on your desk at work, sharing your personal story with your boss, or speaking up when someone says something anti-gay. For others, it may be as difficult as offering a letter of resignation instead of implementing or assisting with an anti-gay campaign strategy.

For many conservatives, coming out will come with real and profound sacrifice. Thankfully, we can find role models in and inspiration from a new generation of Log Cabin members who are coming out in some of America's most conservative places, joining new Log Cabin chapters in places such as Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, and the Carolinas. They are coming out to family members who sometimes turn them away from the Thanksgiving dinner table if they insist on bringing their partners, in towns where they’re the only openly gay person, in traditional churches where they’ve heard intolerance from the pulpit, in high schools without gay/straight student alliances, and in workplaces where there are no protections that prevent them for being fired for simply being gay. They are the real heroes of today's LGBT movement and they need and deserve to be given a helping hand in the days ahead.

That helping hand needs to come from gay conservatives. We hold the key to changing the hearts and minds of fellow Republicans, conservative Democrats, and people of faith. In the not too distant future, the history books will record who had the courage to come out of the closet and lead us to victory when it mattered most. Only with the help of gay conservatives can our movement achieve victory over the radical right. Only with the help of gay conservatives can we prevent the radical right from hijacking the Republican Party. Only with the help of gay conservatives can we defeat the voices of fear and intolerance that are feverishly working to deny any and all civil recognition for gay families. The history books will note not only those who had the courage to stand up, but sadly also, those who remain silent. The time is now.


###

Log Cabin Republicans is the nation's largest organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Log Cabin has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time Washington office, and a federal political action committee. www.logcabin.org

"How can you determine a source's biases?"

What are a source's biases?  And why is it important to consider a source's biases? 

In November 2006, just days before the national mid-term elections, the magazine Vanity Fair issued a press release suggesting that several leading neoconservative thinkers - David Frum, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and others - had renounced their earlier beliefs about Iraq and the Middle East.  But according to the neoconservatives, the release grossly distorted and misrepresented their views, and some expressed regret that they had granted the interviews at all:  in the words of Frank Gaffney, "None of us who responded candidly on the basis of such promises to thoughtful questions posed by reporter David Rose would likely have done so had the magazine’s true and nakedly partisan purpose been revealed."  More at the post Neocons Blast Vanity Fair.


Suppose you are the reader, reading a magazine - or a book, or a newspaper, or a page on the internet.  How do you determine the source's biases?

I don't think there's any simple answer, and I'm not sure it's the kind of question you can really find the answer to by typing it into a search engine.  But I'll share my own thoughts on it.  I addressed the problem of media (and source) bias in an earlier post, "Poison Pill:  The Media Today".  I quoted a New York Times editorial by Patrick Healy and a post by Neo-Neocon tracing the use of anonymous sources.  The media's problem, I argued, was largely created by its own reliance on apocryphal sources - potentially biased, and anonymous, informants whose reliability and accountability are doubtful.  As a first step toward correcting the problem, I echoed Neo's suggestion that

If the MSM really wanted to clean up their act, they might follow these sensible guidelines, devised by prominent journalists in a 2003 Poynter report:

• Anonymous sources should be encouraged to go on the record.

• We should weigh the source’s reliability and disclose to readers the source’s potential biases.

• The more specific we can be in describing the source in the story, the better.

• Anonymous sources should not be used for personal attacks, accusations of illegal activity, or merely to add color.

• The source must have first-hand knowledge.

• Journalists should not lie in a story to protect a source.

Now to the question at hand.  Journalists are here being exhorted to "disclose to readers the source's potential biases".  How would a journalist, or a layperson, make such an assessment?  Well, I think it's mostly commonsense, but I'll throw a few ideas out there:

What is the source's ideological orientation?  What are the person's political sympathies, their party affiliation, etc?  This is not to say that people can't be objective or critical about a movement they belong to - but the potential for bias is certainly there.

What are the source's financial interests?  I think this one is a no-brainer, but a person who owns a lot of stock in XYZ Corporation is going to have an incentive to promote pro-XYZ legislation and contracts.  In the case of the MSM, we all know that "bad news sells".

Debts and favors.  Is the source looking for a payoff down the road?  If I go on record saying nice things about Candidate A, maybe I am hoping to get appointed to a nice comfy job if A wins the election.

The medium is the message.  News stories go through news networks, broadcast networks, and publishers.  Books go through publishing houses.  In other words, somebody has to provide the materials for the message to be communicated.  Somewhere, a network executive makes decisions about what gets on the air and what doesn't.  Somewhere, an editor or publisher decides what gets printed and what doesn't.  So if you're reading a book you have to think about not only the author's background and point of view, but also the publisher's orientation:  for example, they might publish mostly liberal books or mostly conservative books.  Knowing something about the background of a publisher or a broadcast network can help give you an idea of what to expect.

What are the source's own experiences?  How might those experiences be relevant, and how might they affect the source's perceptions?  First-hand knowledge of any issue is always helpful; on the other hand, a person might have had an experience that was atypical or unrepresentative.  A soldier on the front lines is going to have a very vivid, detailed, and specific recollection of a battle.  The general in a command bunker may not see the battle up close, but he will have information on the "big picture" of troop strengths, enemy positions, strategic decisions, and other things that the soldier will not know, and may not be allowed to know.  The soldier's memory may be distorted by trauma, confusion, fear, or shame (of a real or imagined failiing on the battlefield); the general may ignore or suppress key information, perhaps with his career in mind.  Both perspectives are valuable, both have their limitations.

Psychological factors.  There are basic psychological factors that operate in all of us to one degree or another.  Resistance to change is one; Neo has written extensively and insightfully on the human reluctance to change familiar patterns of thought.  There is a need for approval of others; there is also a need for a sense of autonomy and a belief that we determine our own destiny.  And of course we all like to be thought knowledgeable, which is why we are often tempted to speak more than we actually know.

The centrally-managed and -edited traditional media (including radio, TV, print periodicals, and books) have nothing to fear from the internet ... provided they do not contribute to their own irrelevance by ignoring it.

The internet is anarchical, and therefore makes great demands on the individual user in terms of critical thinking skills. How do we know to trust a site? We compare information from multiple sources, listen to different analyses, learn to weed out irrelevant input and compare the picture with what we know from our own previous experience.

With the traditional media, this is all delegated to the editor, publisher, producer, or university. Often we have to do this, because the material is specialized or technical in nature, or because individual contributors don't have the credibility to reliably provide the information we need.

But centralized media can serve their own agendas at the expense of accuracy. That's where the supremely democratic world of blogging comes in.

Traditional media still play a valuable role. But they risk abdicating this role if they fail to recognize the democratizing effects of electronic communications.

Why do we believe what we believe? How do we decide what is true, and what is important? Consider the role of the following factors, and feel free to add others:

· internal consistency (details of the narrative agree with each other)
· external consistency (details of the narrative agree with information previously verified)
· insider details (information available only to an authentic source)
· dialog and dissent (narrative welcomes questions and challenges; fosters better understanding among divergent opinions)
· awareness of objections (narrative recognizes legitimate counter-arguments and seeks to refute them)
· nuance (recognition that a proposition may hold true in general and still admit of exceptions)
· the human voice (an intangible quality that may include a distinctive personality, awareness of ambivalence, self-analysis and self-criticism)

Finally, what does biased writing look like?  Bias isn't necessarily bad, but you need to be aware of it and, if necessary, allow for it.  Yahoo offers this:

Check for the tone of the publication - pick out opinion statements and check the publication's references (are all of the references from the same author or does the publication offer a variety?). What other articles has the author written - the topics of these may help determine her/his bias.

Does the author present both sides of the argument/topic? If not, which side is presented more often? What is the point s/he is trying to make? Ask yourself these questions and you should be on the right track!

That sums up the main points:  variety of sources, obvious rhetorical slant, agenda.  Going a little deeper, I'll offer the following ideas:

* Look for "snarl words" versus "purr words" - words that mean the same thing but sound bad or good.
* See if you can tell what kind of overall picture, or "narrative", the writer is trying to present.
* Sometimes an article will seem to present both sides, but will use better arguments to represent one side, and weaker arguments for the other, so that one side sounds more convincing; this is a kind of implicit bias.
* Sometimes people will use bogus arguments (called "red herrings" or "straw men") to evade questions they don't have answers for; these are examples of fallacies or bad logic.  Studying the types of fallacies can help you see when somebody is trying to pull a fast one on you; you can find out more about logical fallacies here, here, or here. 

Another common form of potential bias is the use of "weasel words" - words or phrases that make a statement appear factual but really undercut the precision of the statement.  They're called "weasel words" because they allow the writer to wiggle out of being pinned down to a specific statement that can be proved or disproved.  Wikipedia's style manual has an excellent section on weasel words:

Words and short phrases that make a statement difficult or impossible to prove or disprove:

• Some humans practice cannibalism. (True, but useless and misrepresentative)
• Many humans practice cannibalism. (“many” could well be two, three, ten, or even five billion)
  
  • Throughout human history, there have been many individuals with three arms. (to illustrate.)
• Most scientists believe that there is truth
  
  • "Most" can mean any amount over 50% but short of 100%
  • A "scientist" could be anyone with any knowledge of science
  • The statement gives no necessary contextual data:
    
    • How, when and by whom were the individual beliefs counted
    • Whether the statement concerns all published scientists, or all
      those presently alive, or only those who are qualified in the given
      scientific field
  • The meaning of "truth" varies
• "More and more", "more than ever", "an increasing number"
• "Possibly", "may", "could", "perhaps" and the like
• It is believed that... Anyone could believe anything so it is very important to know who believes that, and why?
• It remains to be seen... Pointless, since it usually introduces an unverifiable statement.

The following examples often qualify for weasel words by vaguely attributing a statement to no source in particular:

• "According to some (reports, studies, rumors, sources…) …"
• "Actually, Allegedly, Apparently, Arguably, Clearly, Plainly, Obviously, Undoubtedly, Supposedly ..."
• "(Contrary, as opposed) to (many, most, popular, ...) ..."
• "(Correctly, Justly, Properly, ...) or not, ..."
• "Could it be that..."
• "(Critics, detractors, fans, experts, many people, scholars, historians, ...) contend/say that ..."
• "It (could be, should be, may be, has been, is) (argued, speculated, remembered, …) …"
• "(Mainstream, serious, the majority of, a small group of ...)
  (scholars, scientists, researchers, experts, scientific community...)
  ..."
• "It has been proven that…"
• "Research has shown..."
• Personifications like "Science says ..." or "Experience has proven..."
• "There has been criticism that ..."
• "It turns out..."'

In an earlier post at Dreams Into Lightning, I complained about the use of vague modifiers in the media: 

Have you ever noticed how often they use vague quantifiers like "some"
and "many", especially when they're talking about public opinion? But
of course you have - Dreams Into Lightning readers are a smart bunch.
So you've already figured out that that's an easy way for the
"journalist" to introduce his or her own opinion into a story, without
having to defend a more stringent assertion, e.g. the claim that said
opinions represent a majority (which would require the word "most").

Now go take another look at Wikipedia's list - better yet, print it out! - and spend some time looking for weasel words in your favorite media source.   I bet you'll find a lot of them.  (How many is "a lot"?  Well, try it and find out for yourself!)

Make a game of it:  print out a copy of this post, and go through your local newspaper with a pen or a highlighter.   Look for anonymous sources, or people who might have an incentive to be partial, or examples of journalists possibly putting their own opinions into the mouths of the ubiquitous "some people".  Look for snarl words, purr words, and weasel words.  Try to spot logical fallacies.  Check for internal consistency, external consistency, and awareness of objections.  Ask yourself which analyses come from people who know what they're talking about - those who have first-hand knowledge of the relevant "facts on the ground" and who are prepared to respond to opposing arguments - and which ones are unsupported opinions from people with their own agenda. 

I hope you have found this post helpful.  But the most important thing in determining a source's biases is to do your own thinking!  And that's important for students, too - so if you are a student, please take the time to come up with your own answers to this question.  Remember, your instructor can use a search engine just as easily as you can.

Related. On Scott Thomas Beauchamp and source biases.

Latest News From the Other Other Portland

Superstitious Portland, Dorset (UK) residents wary of "Wallace and Gromit" film with "rabbit" in title.

Hat tip: Tammy "Why We're Us and They're Them" Bruce.

Morning Report: October 3, 2005

CENTCOM: Iron Fist a success. Stratfor (subscription) reports: 'U.S. Central Command on Oct. 3 announced that several successful engagements against insurgents in Anbar province occurred during the first day of an offensive to route out jihadist and Sunni nationalist insurgents located by the Syrian border. Operation Iron Fist began Oct. 1 against insurgents around Sadah, Iraq, with U.S. Marines from Regimental Combat Team-2 backed by air support from the 2nd Marine Air Wing engaging terrorists in combat. The operation is part of a larger offensive in Anbar province known as Operation Hunter, which is taking place along the Euphrates River valley.' (Stratfor)

Belmont Club on Iron Fist. Wretchard returns after a few days' absence with this analysis of Iron Fist, concluding: 'After the Marines anchored their western defense on Fallujah in November 2004 they have been steadily creeping westward within the riverine zone along the Euphrates. The latest efforts to secure Ramadi means they can move the Iraqi training center from Habbaniyah westward to Ramadi; and the probable objective is to extend the writ of the Iraqi government until it reaches Rawah. In the meantime, Task Force Olympia, with the 11th ACR and the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (including Michael Yon's 1st BN, 24th Infantry "Deuce Four") has been campaigning in Mosul along the Tigris. Therefore, returning to the New York Times account, whether Zarqawi decides "to send the foreigners south to Baghdad or north across the desert to Mosul" he will be running into hard stops and harassed in all the intervening ground. If the US is successful, it will greatly reduce the insurgency's prospects of holding out against the government.' (Belmont Club)

Debka: Egyptian al-Qaeda in striking range of Israel, Suez, Jordan. Debka reports: 'Al Qaeda has established local terror networks in northern Sinai – centering on el Arish, as well as strongholds in the inaccessible central mountains of the peninsula around Jebel Hillal. In all, the jihadists control roughly one-fifth of Sinai total area (61,000sq. km or 23,500sq. miles). Egyptian forces of law and order have learned not to venture into these bastions or into the areas commanded by age-old smuggler clans who currently collaborate with al Qaeda. This leaves about half of the forbidding desert peninsula inaccessible to Egyptian security forces. Today, they can only claim to control the main roads routes fringing the vast desert expanse: from Ras Sudeir down to Sharm el Sheikh along the Suez Canal and Suez Gulf shores; from the Suez Canal east to El Arish along the Mediterranean shore and from the Sharm el-Sheikh resort center north along the Gulf of Aqaba to Taba and the Israeli port of Eilat. ... the only way for Egypt to wrest mastery of the Sinai heartland from the terrorists is by a combined aerial bombardment coupled with helicopter landings of at least two special forces brigades. This in present circumstances is not feasible because - 1. The 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty demilitarizing Sinai precludes Egyptian air force operations. In theory, Cairo can approach Jerusalem for permission, but in practice this would expose the Mubarak government to widespread Muslim opprobrium for collaborating with the Jewish state in the war against Islamic terror. 2. Egyptian intelligence does not have an exact count of the anti-air missiles in al Qaeda’s hands. The passage of a quantity of these weapons from Sinai to the Gaza Strip leads Egyptian intelligence to deduce a fairly sizeable number – enough to cause havoc with a helicopter commando drop. 3. Al Qaeda’s smuggling routes crisscross Sinai day and night, freely plied by fighters, weapons, explosives and food. These routes exploit the peninsula’s exceptional geography to run between Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and of late the Gaza Strip. ... 4. That al Qaeda has established a presence in the Gaza Strip is no longer a matter of speculation. Today, Israeli military intelligence AMAN and the Shin Beit are taking the new manifestation of Al Qaeda-Palestine as an offshoot of Al Qaeda-Sinai with the utmost seriousness. Foreign terrorists have been detected entering the Gaza Strip, welcomed and integrated in to the logistical infrastructures of Hizballah, Hamas, Jihad Islami and the Popular Fronts.' Full article, with map, at link. (Debka)

"Communism is bad for business." Discarded Lies reports on an astonishing discovery: 'Hong Kong has become less competitive, with political concerns helping to drag it down seven places to rank 28 in an annual worldwide table, according to the latest Global Competitiveness Report drawn up by the World Economic Forum.' Not only that, but 'China slipped three notches from last year, to 49th spot, the ranking of 117 economies shows.' Could it possibly have something to do with communism? Well, Taiwan ranks #5 on the list. Go read Evariste at the link. (Discarded Lies)

Dawn Patrol. Don't miss Holly Aho's latest installment of Dawn Patrol at the Mudville Gazette.

NYT's Weisman: Saudi women are happy!

NYT: Saudi women are happy! Last week, the New York Times' Steven R. Weisman published an article on Saudi Women's message for Karen Hughes. I shared the article with some friends in the Arab world. Here are the reactions:

Nadz has a blistering condemnation of "femicide and apologies". Turning to the article on Hughes after the horrifying murder of a woman in Denmark, she writes:

it turns out that there are no problems for women in Saudi Arabia. 500 women want Karen Hughes to know that they're happy with the way things are. First of all, good for them - I'm glad they're happy and they have the right to their own opinion. But I'd also like to point out several things:

- It's true that some women in the Middle East are content with the status quo. I wasn't, and I know many who also weren't. I know some Saudi women who were severely depressed because their lives, where they could go and what they could do, were so restricted. 50% of Arab women are illiterate, some of the attitudes towards us are downright Medeival, we don't have the same rights in any aspect of public life. Saying that you don't need to drive and that your abaya is stylish isn't going to change that.

- When Americans and other westerners talk about mistreatment of women, many Arab women tend to go on the defensive. I know this because I did it myself. Women see it as a personal attack on their culture and feel that they need to offer an alternative viewpoint. They think that most Americans are ignorant about the region - and they tend to be correct. As a result, it's hard for women to admit that there are still problems. Especially in a forum being sponsered and watched by the unfeminist Saudi government.

- These women are from the more well-to-do side of Saudi society - they are mostly wealthy, educated and upper-class. They have been able to travel to Europe and the States, and like the security and simplicity of life in the kingdom. I know women who are like this. But plenty of less fortunate women in Saudi Arabia don't have the same oppurtunities, and they might have a different answer.

Different women have different experiences - not all women live a hellish existence while others are miserable. I think these women, however, are becoming part of the problem by refusing to acknowledge problems.

The Religious Policeman thinks the women's denials of sexism in Saudi society have all the credibility of a high-class john denying he knows anything about a call girl. Here's his reaction to Weisman's article on Hughes:

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 27 - The audience - 500 women covered in black at a Saudi university - seemed an ideal place for Karen P. Hughes, a senior Bush administration official charged with spreading the American message in the Muslim world, to make her pitch.
But the response on Tuesday was not what she and her aides expected. When Ms. Hughes expressed the hope here that Saudi women would be able to drive and "fully participate in society" much as they do in her country, many challenged her.

So who were the audience? A random sample of Saudi womanhood, from all regions and classes, Sunni and Shia, working or unemployed? Well, not exactly.

The group of women, picked by the university, represented the privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country. And while they were certainly friendly toward Ms. Hughes, half a dozen who spoke up took issue with what she said.

Two points here. One, no group of Saudis, whatever their situation, would ever admit that something was wrong with Saudi Arabia, to a member of the widely-detested Bush regime. They could be up to their waists in boiling oil, and they'd just say that they were, on average, quite warm. Two, in a country where the female employment rate is less that 1%, anyone with a job is a member of a privileged minority, and any female student hopes to become part of that 1%, just like people elsewhere hope to win the lottery.

"We're not in any way barred from talking to the other sex," said Dr. Nada Jambi, a public health professor. "It's not an absolute wall."

I asked Mrs A about that. She snorted. Even in the universities, there is a physical wall between men's and women's campuses. Men lecture to women via closed circuit TV. But, as Mrs A said, she's privileged to have the job she does. And there's always the example of this poor female academic to keep everyone else in line. So, she concluded, "She would say that, wouldn't she?"

Several women said later that Americans failed to understand that their traditional society was embraced by men and women alike.

....as demonstrated by our numerous opinion polls, elections, letters in the free press, investigative programs on our free TV...

Go to the link for the rest of RP's reaction to the Steven Weisman piece on Karen Hughes.

Sandmonkey weighs in:

The Audience?

The audience - 500 women covered in black at a Saudi university - seemed an ideal place for Karen P. Hughes, a senior Bush administration official charged with spreading the American message in the Muslim world, to make her pitch.

An ideal place? Really? Ok!

Who picked them and what segment of society do they represent?

The group of women on Tuesday, picked by the university, represented the privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country.

The Priviliged elite. Clearly the most oppressed of all saudi women, no?

It even shows in their grievences:

She seemed clearly taken aback as the women told her that just because they were not allowed to vote or drive that did not mean they were treated unfairly or imprisoned in their own homes.
"We're not in any way barred from talking to the other sex," said Dr. Nada Jambi, a public health professor. "It's not an absolute wall."

Not an absolute one, but a wall nonetheless! LOL

And then there is the Michael Moore effect

A woman in the audience then charged that under President Bush the United States had become "a right wing country" and that criticism by the press was "not allowed."

LOL

As for male chauvinism and that pesky question of women's rights?

"There is more male chauvinism in my profession in Europe and America than in my country," said Dr. Siddiqa Kamal, an obstetrician and gynecologist who runs her own hospital.

Yes, there is Chauvinism in the west, which makes the one we have at home Ok.

"I don't want to drive a car," she said. "I worked hard for my medical degree. Why do I need a driver's license?"

"Women have more than equal rights," added her daughter, Dr. Fouzia Pasha, also an obstetrician and gynecologist, asserting that men have obligations accompanying their rights, and that women can go to court to hold them accountable.

Oh my God, this is too funny! I am laughing my ass off. Hehehehehehehee!

Gotta say, Saudi men really know to how to "break-in" their women. For those of you who may disagree, I am sure those women could've spoken up against male domination and managed not to get beat up by their men at home. No?

Well, enough of Saudi, on to Turkey, where things kept getting interesting for Karen, If interesting meant continuing to hear idiotic arguments:

"You are very angry with Turkey, I know," said Hidayet Tuskal, a director of the Capital City Women's Platform, referring to what she characterized as United States reaction to opposition in Turkey to the Iraq war, which she said was a feminist issue because women and children were dying daily. "I'm feeling myself wounded," Ms. Tuskal added. "I'm feeling myself insulted here."

Ok, does anyone get her point? She opposed the Iraq war because of women and children dying in it, and wasn't concerned with the women and children dying under Saddam? And it's a femenist issue? She feels wounded and insulted? What?

Ohh, and please, american readers, let's take a survey: Every person who is "very angry" at Turkey for not supporting the US in the war raise your hands. Every person who couldn't give 2 shits about Turkey's support anyway-like the rest of the world- please refrain from laughing at her idiotic statement.

And it just keeps getting better:

Fatma Nevin Vargun, identifying herself as a Kurdish rights advocate, said she was "ashamed" of the war and added that the United States bore responsibility. Referring to the arrest of a war protester at the White House on Monday, she added, "This was a pity for us as well."

She is a kurdish rights activist and opposed to the war that gave the Kurds their rights. Is anybody else getting this?

Ahh, me loves the New York Times. It always gives me a good laugh!

UPDATE
Finally, here's my own two cents' worth:

Personally, I would say I'm EXTREMELY skeptical of how much the views expressed in the article represent Saudi women.

First of all, consider the source. We all know the Times is going to do whatever it can to discredit the Bush Administration's radical premise that most people do not enjoy being oppressed.

Notice how much of the article is not reporting but editorializing. "The administration's efforts to publicize American ideals in the Muslim world have often run into such resistance. For that reason, Ms. Hughes, who is considered one of the administration's most scripted and careful members, ..." blah blah blah. "Many in this region resent the American assumption that, given the chance, everyone would live like Americans." Yada yada yada.

So we already know - as if there was any doubt - what the article wants to tell us: Silly Americans, those Arab women are HAPPY living like that.

But those are just my opinions. What do we learn from the article itself?

That Saudi women, speaking in public, on the record, by name, to an American official, in front of 500 people, will say nice things about their country.

Our NYT writer wants us to be amused by the irony (at the Bush government's expense, of course) of the tables being turned on Hughes. Ho, ho, ho, those Saudi women weren't saying what the Bush minion wanted to hear! And, get this, they're the "privileged elite of this Red Sea coastal city, known as one of the more liberal areas in the country" ... well! If even they resent those meddlesome Americans, then - "mi'kal va'chomer" - what may we infer about the rest of the country?

But we don't really have to make even that mighty leap of logic, because Mr. Weisman explains it for us: "Many in this region say they resent the American assumption that, given the chance, everyone would live like Americans."

Now what does that mean? I mean, let's just look at that one sentence. "Many"? Who the hell are "many"? And HOW many? Did the journalist conduct a formal poll (or even an informal one)? Are these "many" a majority, or a large minority, or just ... many? And what is "this region"? That's a highfaluten, scholarly-sounding, and extremely vague word, "region". Does "this region" include Iran? We all know how much Iranian women love living under Islamic fundamentalist law ... just ask Farnaz Ghazizadeh at Rooz. And what is this "American assumption"? What does "living like Americans" mean - does even Weisman himself know what he means? No one who graduated from Neocon school expects other cultures to abandon their own traditions - you know that and I know that, it's just a smokescreen that fascist symps like Weisman throw up to make freedom sound scary and unattractive. You know as well as I do that if Saudi Arabia became a free country tomorrow, every one of those 500 women would still be free to wear their beloved abayas if they chose. IF they chose.

But that's the trouble, and that's why Weisman's sentence cannot be credibly uttered without the all-important qualifying clause, "given the chance". That, however much the NYT would like to dance around it, is precisely the problem: they have not been given the chance.

UPDATE:
Mahmood posts on another happy, contented Saudi woman.

UPDATE:
Welcome, readers of The Muslim Woman!

Intelligent Design

I blame Michael in San Francisco for sending me this.

Day No. 1
And the Lord God said, “Let there be light,” and lo, there was light. But then the Lord God said, “Wait, what if I make it a sort of rosy, sunset-at-the-beach, filtered half-light, so that everything else I design will look younger?”
“I’m loving that,” said Buddha. “It’s new.”
“You should design a restaurant,” added Allah.

Day No. 2:
“Today,” the Lord God said, “let’s do land.” And lo, there was land.
“Well, it’s really not just land,” noted Vishnu. “You’ve got mountains and valleys and—is that lava?”
“It’s not a single statement,” said the Lord God. “I want it to say, ‘Yes, this is land, but it’s not afraid to ooze.’ ” ...

Paul Rudnick - Intelligent Design
Read it all at the link.

Morning Report: September 28, 2005

CTB: Terror threats in Italy, Muslim Brotherhood in France. The Counterterrorism Blog: 'Senior analysts at The Investigative Project on Terrorism have produced two new studies of importance. Lorenzo Vidino's "Is Italy Next In Line After London?," published by The Jamestown Foundation, discusses the potential targeting of Italy by al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups operating in Europe. As Lorenzo points out, the number of hardcore militants operating in Italy number in the hundreds; suicide bombers recruited in Italy have carried out attacks outside Italy; and Italy, like the UK, was unable until recently to pass effective anti-terrorism legislation or effectively enforce immigration and terrorism laws. ... Glen Feder's "The Muslim Brotherhood in France," published by "In the National Interest," discusses how the Muslim Brotherhood "has taken hold of the most powerful Muslim organization in France today, and is quickly penetrating into the political and social fabric of secular France." It is a detailed and excellent account of the history of the Brotherhood in France ...' Read Steven Emerson's full post at the link. (CTB)

Portland Coffee House, Trinity

Also known as One Way Coffee House, may be found at 1951 West Burnside. It's still the best coffee shop in the neighborhood. And now I can announce their CORRECT phone number: it's 503-248-2133.

Morning Report: September 27, 2005

Terrorist killed in Baghdad; identity in dispute. According to Debka, 'The Abu Azzam reported killed in Baghdad is not Zarqawi’s most notorious senior lieutenant. DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources strongly doubt that the man reported dead is in fact the Abu Azzam believed in charge of financing and arranging the movement of foreign fighters into western Iraq from Syria and other countries. His death has in fact not been officially announced. On March 19, coalition forces announced his capture in Baghdad. it was reported in DEBKA-Net-Weekly in the same week. He was then commanding Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s forces in the capital. Since then, according to our information, he has been held and interrogated by US forces.' The Counterterrorism Blog warns: 'Abdullah Abu Azzam, the Al-Zarqawi lieutenant killed in Iraq on Sunday, is being labeled "the #2 Al Qaeda in Iraq" by the Pentagon and in media reports. Counterterrorism experts and students have learned, often the hard way, to never take claims of important tactical victories or defeats without skepticism and objective review.' CTB promises more analysis soon. (Debka, CTB)

Belmont Club: Tables turned in Fallujah. Wretchard writes: 'Analysts who talk about the 'unstoppable IED' should consider the problems posed to the enemy by the American precision strike, which is in its way the rival "weapon from hell". If a modified cell phone represents a detonator to a triggerman lying in wait for an American target, a regular cell phone in the hands of an Iraqi working for American intelligence is a means to rain down certain destruction on any safehouse, hideout or enemy installation.' Read the full post at the link. (Belmont Club)