You Googled Me?:  not much Googling today...

Today's results so far: 4 'bookreports', 4 'blood raynes', 2 'spiral dynamics yellow', 1 'pain rustique'.

Slow day in Google-ville.  Looks like tomorrow I post a little something for the seekers of 'pain rustique' (rustic bread, en français) since there've been 2 searches this week.

Nuts, not a single hoot, nary a guffaw out of the bunch!  Google dry dock!  Let's see what the weekend brings; probably more of our cheating, umm, expedient students looking for 'MIB' papers to turn in on Monday.

[Guess it's a cosmic hint to get back to my work and finish Robert Wright's 'Moral Animal'.  With the election and personal business this week, I've been neglecting it.  No, actually dragging my feet with it.  Time to get the nose to the grindstone and crack the book...]

9:31:52 PM    comment []

I am re-printing here a copy of an article which I don't believe has yet made the Christian Science Monitor (forgive me, Ms. Hunt, CSM, I didn't ask first). 

This article is extremely valuable, in my personal opinion.  It highlights the concerns I have that our current leadership struggles with holistic and systemic thinking which is required to successfully wage positive change.  Mr. Bush has already said he is unwilling to work on nation-building in Afghanistan, a much smaller country than Iraq.  What will happen in a larger country with a more diverse population, with more diverse and more powerful neighbors?  And what of the women, the children?  As we've seen in Afghanistan, when women suffer, the entire society suffers.  When we put children at risk and denigrate their mothers, they learn impotent rage and hate us.  The vicious cycle begins anew.

===

Inclusive Security: Recognize All Stakeholders in Stability

Commentary by Swanee Hunt for

The Christian Science Monitor

An Iranian journalist, anonymous because of security concerns, pulled me aside as I stepped down from a panel discussion at Harvard recently. "Doesn't Washington realize that invading Iraq is going to strengthen fundamentalists in my country?" she whispered. "They're looking for any excuse to tighten their grip. It will be a disaster for us – especially for women." The U.S. confrontation of Saddam Hussein has major implications for women throughout the region, not only in Iraq. To sell the war in Afghanistan to the American public, the Bush administration invoked the harsh Taliban repression of women; in Iraq, however, women and men hold equivalent jobs, for equivalent pay. They receive five years' maternity leave and are not forced to cover their heads. Reports from Baghdad are that women are worried that "regime change" could mean a change to Islamic fundamentalist leadership.

In light of such conundrums, policymakers need a more inclusive view of security, an approach that not only counts weapons in stockpiles, but also measures our actions in terms of cultural implications – values, mores, and social roles. In the debate over if, when, and how we invade Iraq, we must recognize all the stakeholders key to regional stability. That includes the women.

We seem bound to invade Iraq – a mistake, I've come to believe, because Mr. Hussein is a megalomaniac, not an ideologue bent on martyrdom.

But in our warmaking, we'll make an even greater mistake if we don't exhaust every effort to build strong alliances, not only among Europeans, but also across Muslim nations. Islamic allies are critical to our long-term success beyond the military bases and overflight permission. If we attack as a Western force, we'll almost certainly unite against us Muslims who otherwise are not allies with one another. That unification will encourage a contagious antipathy for Western modernity, specifically as it relates to gender. The Harvard political scientist Pippa Norris argues that the clash between Western and conservative Muslim cultures centers not on politics, but a disparate view of the role of women.

In fact, the advancement of women has been a moderating force against religious extremists in Iraq's neighborhood:

• In Pakistan's elections last month, extremists fueled by outrage over U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan made significant gains in electoral office. A third of the parliamentary seats, however, are reserved for women, who – although they may be Islamists – defy extremists' proscription against women in public life.

• In Bangladesh, where the microlending programs of the Grameen Bank have allowed 2.4 million women to start their own businesses, women took their power to the polls five years ago, reducing the seats of religious extremists from 18 to 2.

• Former New York Times U.N. correspondent Barbara Crossette credits women in Iran with twice electing President Khatami, the counter to the clerics and the hope of moderates.

• In September, Egyptian first lady Suzanne Mubarak gathered 70 women from the region to explore strategies for peace.

• This week, Queen Rania of Jordan convened a meeting of women leaders from 18 countries under the banner of "The Arab Woman – A New Vision."

The greatest danger shared in each of these situations is the backlash of a patriarchal society that feels threatened by an American bully.

Brandeis scholar Fauzia Ahmed reports from her research in Bangladesh villages that when Islam is perceived as under attack, husbands begin demanding that their wives stay home, obey, and prove that they're good Muslims. Thus to the extent that America's actions against Iraq are perceived as broadly anti-Muslim, we Americans risk the unintended consequences of not only inspiring and spawning more terrorist groups throughout the region, but also quashing the moderating influence inherent in women's advancement within the Islamic world.

A recent U.N. report scores Iraq highest in the Arab world on women's empowerment. America built up Hussein, after all, as a counter to religious extremists. Ironically, the same administration that used the liberation of women to justify our attack on Afghanistan may end up reversing women's progress as we attack Hussein. Maneuvering along this policy path is treacherous; we need women experts from the region to help guide us. For example, 40 women peace builders from around the globe are meeting with 140 policymakers this week at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School for a gathering of "Women Waging Peace."

If we are smart enough to bring them to the foreign policy table, women will provide depth to our strategic thinking – even as they are a stabilizing force across the Middle East.

• Swanee Hunt, former US ambassador to Austria, is director of the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

4:02:52 PM    comment []

I don’t ordinarily read Hate Central blog, but this particular entry ROCKED!  There is something that rings true here.  Yup, there’s a certain rabidity to the post, but beneath it all is one essential truth: a majority of women voters are Democrats, vice versa a majority of men are Republicans.

What is appealing to men about the Republican Party?  The gun support issue?  Petroleum and petroleum by-products?  The predominance of wealthy white males magnetically pulling other white males?  Is it the “big ape” thing, subconscious support going to the party with the biggest apes so as to curry favor?  Yeah, it’s a raw thing to write this – but really, what the hell is it?  Dubya’s intellect?  Cheney’s transparency?  Rummy’s personality and wit?  Do men admire them or not feel threatened by them?

Whatever the reason, this is critical to the solution: women will have to take a leading role to fix this problem, by virtue of their critical mass.  Women will need to find a way to attract centrist men back to the just-left, and women will need to influence other women who feel their needs are better served to the right.

Comments at Andrew Bayer’s Dreaming of China blog tossed around the Democrats versus Green Party issue.  I’ve been leaning towards hosing the Dems and replacing with the Greens.  Another poster Brina brings up a good point which prevents me from willy-nilly signing on – moving to the Greens could merely dilute the Dems’ power. It’s true it would do this, of course, based on the assumption that the majority of Dems would not want to shift in a hurry to the Green Party.  It’s what prevented Gore from being the outright winner of the 2000 contest, those few dilutive Green votes.

So what to do?  Perhaps we give the Dems another two years to get their act together – we’ll know by the next Presidential election if it worked or not.  Then we’ll have four years to work on the migration en masse to the Green Party – a more realistic time frame for the cultural shift and for grooming a candidate.

I think I just thought of a person...in fact, two people who could energize the party.  One won't want public office, but she can really move the people: Oprah Winfrey.  The other, not a public office holder, but someone who’ll be available for something new, healing and constructive, and would probably stand up to the nastiness of the political world: Marianne Williamson.  Enlisting women with immense personal power from entertainment/journalism and religion could be a great start.

9:47:15 AM    comment []