The Era of Paramedia

Mitch Radcliffe has posted an essay on Paramedia on his blog.

The new installment of Evolution Media, my podcast, is posted to the podcast feed.

“Paramedia” describes what happens when peers come together in networks with a purpose, something that media consumers, media makers and marketers need to understand and that, for the most part, is such a novel phenomenon that it is simply misunderstood as being very like the media of our childhoods, when messages came in big packages and audiences numbered in the millions.

Let’s begin to explore this idea by looking to the origins of the word. As I said, it’s been used by author Todd Gitlin and the Cult of the Dead Cow, but “paramedia” is also the name of a consultancy and has been used enough that it generates 81,800 hits on Google (as of this writing). I’d like to formalize the term here and now, so that we can use it with a common understanding of its meaning and scope.

So, here is my definition of paramedia for your consideration: Paramedia are networks of people with access to media publishing tools and training that align through self-organizing or by explicit planning to promote and support the discussion of an idea, agenda or problem.

To read the entire script, continue reading. I don't follow it strictly, and urge you to listen, too.

The free Audible file is available here. It will play in iTunes, Windows Media Player and most portable audio devices, and you can pass it around.

Why do we need Big Broadband?

There are now emerging a number of reasons we will soon demand Big Broadband. Participatory Culture and their open source project DTV and most especially their Broadcast Machine is but one.

Broadcast Machine is software you install on your website to easily publish video files and create internet TV channels. Broadcast Machine gives you the option of using torrent technology to reduce or eliminate bandwidth costs, even when you are posting high quality video to thousands of people. It is free, open source software, and is designed for easy installation. Broadcast Machine features an intuitive interface, integrated torrent creation, and flexible channel management. It also creates a browsable archive of videos on your website. Broadcast Machine is the prefect publishing tool for making channels that work with DTV: Internet TV.

A second, but not yet released, driver of demand for Big Bandband will be Six Apart's Project Comet. The goal of the project is to bring multi-media "webblogging into the mainstream."

A third, but more conventional, driver of demand for Big Broadband will be Super HD [4K TV]. This is the best TV today's technology can deliver. It requires 1.2 gigabits per second. But hey, we all want the best.

At the same time that these developments are emerging, the cost of connectivity is dropping significantly. One gigabit of connectivity that sold at wholesale for $20,000 per month in July of 2004 now sells for just $13,000 per month. This is an amazing reduction of 35% in just one year. Consider also that well over half the fiber optic strands already in place in America is still unused, or "dark fiber". It is simply waiting to be lit.

Taken together, these developments have very serious implications for a remarkable growth in demand for upstream bandwidth. Imagine if only 10% of the U.S. population, using the Broadcast Machine or Project Comet, took to uploading creative video works on a regular basis. Sudenly we would have 30 million new TV "channels". Suppose our educational system started to require students to create projects using full multi-media? How many student TV stations would that create as they sought to share their projects with teachers, friends and family members scattered far and wide? What happens when students want to use Super HD for their productions?

Could this happen? My guess is that 10% is a low estimate. Why?

As James Burke says in episodes 5 and 6 of his 1979 TV series "Connections", the era of "modern" and "scientific" mechanized mass production has us all living in the same city, with the same twice a day traffic jams, wearing the same clothes, driving the same cars, with the same sorts of stuff in our houses and pockets and worse, as the environment degrades.

Perhaps the current right wing counter revolution, a turn back to the dark ages of dogma enforced by inquisitions, with a rejection of the notion that if you can not prove it you can not believe it, the "fact-based" reality approach, is simply a classic reaction to the conditions Burke describes so well.

Could it be the case, however, that offerings such as The Broadcast machine, are, in fact, modern solutions to the modern condition of technologically imposed sameness? The ability of every person to have the ready ability and where with all to make unique content that nobody else has, that is not mass produced and not in everyone's pocket nor in everyone's house, is an important new development. After 100 years of monologue imposed by our exclusion from mass media, for reasons both technological and capital, we suddenly now have the ability to express ourselves in our unique and authentic voices when, where, and how we please. This is revolutionary.

As Marshall McLuhan observed, new technologies at first imitate what has come before. Films imitated stage production for a number of years before D. W. Griffith made Birth of a Nation in 1915 and showed the world what movies could be. Or take photography in its first decades, it too often imitated painting. TV began by imitating film and radio.

The internet has not been an exception to McLuhan's analysis. The internet and the world wide web have, in effect, spent the last twenty years exploring new ways to do text, numbers, graphics, radio and TV. So far we have basically only seen old solutions incrementally improved and in new easier to access guises.

The new Peer to Peer tools that allow individuals at the edges of the networks to easily cooperate with each other, while by-passing all of the obstacles created by governments, corporations and the significant hub and spoke inefficiencies found in the center, are some of the first truly new things to emerge from the internet/www synergy.

All of the required pieces, ala Connections, are now seemingly present and suddenly, and unpredicted, we have open source DTV and the Broadcast Machine, Project Comet, as well as the coming Super HD. This is a radical departure from the notion behind all of the traditional broadcast models of the past. No more technological or capital barriers to entry. No more having to ask governments for permission. No more government agencies acting as agents of Speech Control. No more government enforced unequal voices. No more barriers created by regulatoriums artificially creating spectrum scarcity.

90 years later, could this be our Birth of a Nation moment? Now that we can all have our "authentic" voices back again, how will we use them? Can we over come the McLuhan's warning in Gutenburg Galaxey as quoted in the Wikipedia?

Instead of tending towards a vast Alexandrian library the world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big Brother goes inside. So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence. [...] Terror is the normal state of any oral society, for in it everything affects everything all the time. [...] In our long striving to recover for the Western world a unity of sensibility and of thought and feeling we have no more been prepared to accept the tribal consequences of such unity than we were ready for the fragmentation of the human psyche by print culture. (Galaxy p. 32)

I am a Reform Democrat

By: Jean Camp

I am a Reform Democrat. I want to reform the party all the way back to the last century. Decades ago, Democrats defined what we stood for:

freedom of speech
even to disagree with the government

freedom from want
a nation of charity without homelessness and hunger

freedom of worship
no state interference in internal religious debates

freedom from fear
functioning police, military and emergency services

I am blogging this now because it is safe to disagree. For a while disagreement was unpatriotic. Disagreeing was harming young men and women already in harm’s way in Central Asia. I was a bad American. Now I can write this. I know that some people will flame this. I know that common courtesy is now decried as politically correct. But I can speak, and you can declare you desire to silence me. And both are better than any alternative.

We can be free to speak but not free from speech.

When I was a child, I had never seen a homeless person. I saw people who depended on the government. We held church suppers in places where the only landlord was the government. I stood in line with kids with free lunch tickets. There were not homeless families. There were no “bag ladies”, also known as homeless women. Why did that change? Reagan’s American decided to embrace homelessness by stopping the construction of large housing projects. Reagan’s American and various ideological fools decided to institute homelessness for the mentally ill by closing down the hospitals and homes for the chronically mentally ill. It was later, shortly after I learned to drive, that I saw entire families standing up by the highway desperate for a better place and with nothing left to leave.

We can be free from homelessness as a nation.

When I was a child, I learned the words “integration” and “segregation” and “desegregation” in first grade. I didn’t use “desegregation” until the third grade. I could understand that the other two were opposite but that third word was a bit too complicated. I understood that the schools were the public charge, but that there were some churches that sought integration and some that did not. In many churches the congregation was deeply divided. Today, issues that belong in church, like the death of poor wasted Terri Schiavo, are in Congress. There is an effort to decide who my pastor can marry, by defining marriage in the Constitution. I can change churches if I have deep spiritual disagreements, or even change religions. But what about when the religion is put into the Constitution?

We can live with those who worship differently, who believe different, in a different God or looking at a different face of the same God. We can be free in worship.

When I became a mother, I learned the advice “tell your child to talk to a policemen if lost” no longer works. With the privatization of policing there is not enough oversight. We learned Sept 11 that the private security firms work for the first class passengers, whoever they are. You cannot trust some random minimum wage worker with your child because the mall has given him a uniform. Now parents say, “Find a lady with a stroller. She will help you.” The common interests of motherhood with hope that the person is kind has replaced the faith that a uniform and charge to protect the public interest has meaning. Privatization of security means the security firms don’t work for all of us.

We can be free from fear of those in uniform, return to a system where the police served us all.

All these freedoms are what generations of Americans have fought for, and waves of first-generation of Americans have sought.

I am Reform Democrat. I believe in freedom, like the Democrats before me. Reform, return, and remember why we are Democrats.

Let the Children Lead

By: Dana Blankenhorn

I have written often here about "generational politics," the idea that current politics are dominated by the issues and attitudes and alliances of the Nixon Era, and that a new kind of politics is needed to move forward.

What has happened in the past is that new leadership groups came along, at the tail end of an earlier era, who began the turn which culminated as the younger cadres they recruited came of age.

Let me shorten that. Young people are the key.

In the 1960s conservatives were funding a host of organizations, like the Young Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom, who drew stares and snickers on their college campuses, but who would wind up running the country through Reaganisn and right until today.

The netroots are a great source for these people. The Dean campaign was a great source for these people.

My point is we need to reach out and create organizational structures, and causes, that will bring us more of these people.

And then we need to let go. We can guide, we can help, we can offer wisdom. But this is their world. We need to consider just how to empower them.

I think churches can help us in this. Last night I picked up my son from a youth group meeting sponsored by his church. They were discussing what to do about Katrina, and what to do about their own plans for a pilgrimage to Scotland. There were some church elders there, and some heated discussions. But the point is the kids were heard, their feelings were validated, and they were empowered by the experience.

One big advantage a liberal church (like the one my son goes to) has over a conservative one is just this – they listen. And they follow. The priorities of these young people are going to become the priorities that are followed, certainly based on guidance, but followed.

That’s the model I want to see us adopt. We need to listen to younger people, empower them, guide them, nurture them, then let them go.

And then hope they are ready to support our retirements, whenever those retirements happen.

Dana Blankenhorn dana@a-clue.com
Editor: voic.us

Rhetorical followup

My recent blog post has brought up several interesting email discussions and I would like to quote extensively from two different emails I have written in response.

First Letter

Although we may not appear to be agreeing on the Greater Democracy blog, I greatly appreciate your comments and wanted to write you a personal note.

I feel a bit frustrated, because I suspect we have a lot more in common than it appears on the blog. I feel that you are unjustly stereotyping me as a 'Cambridge Progressive' or a 'Lassiez Faire Liberal'. While I did spend my childhood in Western Massachusetts, I actually live in Connecticut now and I find myself too often attacked by what I would consider Lassiez Faire Liberals in my state.

I would also like to point out what I think is a very important difference from what I have been trying to say, and what I am hearing you repeat back. I am not saying, as you quote, "Let's work together". I believe that such an approach is particularly damaging. "Let's work together" is the sort of stuff that patriarchs say to the people they are oppressing, whether they are liberal patriarchs or conservative patriarchs.

No, the message that I am trying to get out is "We are all in this together" which leads to "we are at our best when we are working together". This isn't a message of patriarchy, of autocracy or theocracy; it is a message of equality. It is the message of the Danish king, wearing a yellow cross and proclaiming we are all Jews. Changed to today's vocabulary, it is the message of people saying we are all black, we are all poor, or people telling others that if they exclude disabled people they are excluding all of us.

However, I believe that my message is even more radical. It is a message that we need to include in our efforts the intellectually and morally disabled, those people cannot reach down to the underlying basis of our political actions or those people who are driven by greed, lust for power, or any other flaw that makes them unable to act out of compassion. It is a message that we must include the 'Cambridge Progressives' and the 'Lassiez Faire Liberals'. We must find ways of helping them to be productive members of our civil society in spite of their intellectual or moral disabilities.

I hope that you can hear what I am saying and can join equally in the discussions with me, with the folks at Greater Democracy, and even with the 'Cambridge Progressives' and the 'Lassiez Faire Liberals'. You have important things to say.

Do you have a blog? I think you should. If you would like help setting up a blog, let me know. If you would like to write for the Greater Democracy blog, that would be great. Let us explore ways in which we can see how you and I are in this together so that we can achieve our best by working together.

Second Letter

Thank you for your very well thought out response. I'm not sure if we agree, disagree, or some mix of both. So, instead let me write some of my thoughts on this:

What I am writing about here is influenced by Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. At the most basic level, we need food and shelter. Above that, we need to feel safe, and then, have a sense of belongingness and self-esteem. For the time being we can skip higher needs such as aesthetics, self-actualization or transcendence.

Much of the discussion is focused on the lowest levels. The conservative argument is that Government gets in the way of everyone trying to meet basic needs of food and shelter. The conservatives say we need less government so that they will take away less of the money you need in the form of taxes. On the other hand, they say, we need a strong military to keep people safe.

The progressive argument is that part of the role of government is to help people meet basic needs when a catastrophe hits. It is the message of the safety net. It is the message of the old line "There but for the grace of God go I". It is the message of Abraham Lincoln, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

In talking about how we are all in this together, we are invoking the message of Pastor Niemoeller:
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

We need to stand together, because if we don't, next time, it may be our turn.

So, how does this message get delivered and how does it apply to your concerns about group identification (one of the higher levels) or compassion (another higher level)?

I think there are a couple key ideas that need to be focused on. First, is the message of nationalism. I believe that this is a message we can and must take back. If I think of famous political advertisements, I think of Reagan's Morning in America. It invokes a view of a pastoral America where life is good. An America based on hard work. This is the America that people want to be part of. I think of Bill Clinton's "A place called Hope". People want hope. They want the hope of a kid growing up in Arkansas being able to become President. I think of the life of Deval Patrick growing up in a tough part of Chicago and getting a hand up, not a handout, and going on to great things. This is the American Dream. This is what resonates with people. This is what people want to be part of and identify with.

So, how do we get this message out? When I think of "over-the-top" rhetoric, I think of Dag Hammarskjold and his quote, "The madman shouted in the market place. No one stopped to answer him. Thus it was confirmed that his thesis was incontrovertible."

No, we don't need over-the-top rhetoric. We need people to stop and listen. Instead, we need a soft quiet voice. We need Joseph Welch calmly asking Joe McCarthy, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" We need a Senator Erwin simply asking, "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

In terms of practical rhetoric, I hope to hear Diane Farrell asking voters of they feel that Rep. Chris Shays, Chairman of The Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, has really done anything to help us be safer. Do you feel safer? (Cut to image of body floating in the flood waters of New Orleans, Cut to Shays blaming New Orleans not having adequate evacuation plans on a split screen of traffic jams on I-95)

So, I guess what I believe is that we do need candidates talking about hope, talking about the American dream, an America where we do help out our neighbors in their times of need, an America where we help people like Deval Patrick fight their way out of the ghetto, a country that elects people like you and I to lead us, and not patriarchs from with a long pedigree of family privilege.

Put simply, we need a little boy telling us that the emperor has no clothes. It is a quite voice delivering a strong message. We need to get that message out in a way that everyone can hear it.

Inequality Matters - Class Warfare

On June 03, 2004, Bill Moyers gave an excellent keynote speech: This is the Fight of Our Lives at the Inequality Matters Forum hosted by New York University.

"The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is the consequence of Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand.' This is a lie. What's happening to them is the direct consequence of corporate activism, intellectual propaganda, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that in its hunger for government subsidies has made an idol of power, and a string of political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the political system right out from under us."

Moyers goes on to call this lie by its proper name: Class Warfare.

You just can't make this stuff up. You have to hear it to believe it. This may be the first class war in history where the victims will die laughing.

But what they are doing to middle class and working Americans - and to the workings of American democracy - is no laughing matter. Go online and read the transcripts of Enron traders in the energy crisis four years ago, discussing how they were manipulating the California power market in telephone calls in which they gloat about ripping off "those poor grandmothers." Read how they talk about political contributions to politicians like "Kenny Boy" Lay's best friend George W. Bush. Go on line and read how Citigroup has been fined $70 Million for abuses in loans to low-income, high risk borrowers - the largest penalty ever imposed by the Federal Reserve. A few clicks later, you can find the story of how a subsidiary of the corporate computer giant NEC has been fined over $20 million after pleading guilty to corruption in a federal plan to bring Internet access to poor schools and libraries. And this, the story says, is just one piece of a nationwide scheme to rip off the government and the poor.

Let's face the reality: If ripping off the public trust; if distributing tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor; if driving the country into deficits deliberately to starve social benefits; if requiring states to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor; if squeezing the wages of workers until the labor force resembles a nation of serfs - if this isn't class war, what is?

It's un-American. It's unpatriotic. And it's wrong.

Over a year has passed since this speech was given, and video taped, and still the opposition to the Bush regime, Republican, Independent and Democratic has been unable to call the rampant pathology attacking our core values by it proper name: class warfare.

Until we find the courage to unabashedly name the pathology besetting us with its true name, there can be no cure. When will we find the courage to speak the truth to power? How many Katrinas and Iraqs must we endure?

Video, Windows Media Player format, of Moyer's talk is here. Or here with videos of Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert Franklin, William Greider, David Williams and more.

Note: Works with MS Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player ONLY!

Do We Take the Internet Seriously?

Thomas Friedman asked a key question in his recent NY Times op-ed: Eating Our Lunch.

Being a tiny city-state of four million, Singapore is obsessed with nurturing every ounce of talent of every single citizen. That is why, although its fourth and eighth graders already score at the top of the Timss international math and science tests, Singapore has been introducing more innovations into schools. Its government understands that in a flattening world, where more and more jobs can go anywhere, it's not enough to just stay ahead of its neighbors. It has to stay ahead of everyone - including us.

Message to America: They are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top.

Friedman goes on to write that Singapore takes the internet seriously, and by implication asks if we do too.

Friedman, however, left off a very important question: Is the internet for corporations or the people? Is it a force for fossilization or a force for enabling the future?

To put it another way: is the internet about the government working as the hand maiden of the Hollywood cartel in a vain attempt to stop evolution and lock us in the past, or is it about the government working with the people to catalyze innovation and new economic opportunities for our future?

Current proposed legislation offered by Texas Republican Joe Barton, and the existing Digital Rights Management [DRM] and recently revised copyright laws, tend to point in the direction that the government is taking the approach that the internet is for corporations. What we affectionately call "The Cartel" wants the government to enshrine their obsolete business models in the law of the land. They want to be able to control what you do with the computers, and related equipment, you buy with your own funds, for your own private use. They do NOT want to have to re-invent their business model. For example, given today's new Peer to Peer distribution tools, why do we need movie distributors at all?

The market needs to evolve and adapt. Today, however, it is, with government connivance, fighting this necessary process tooth and nail. This is a disaster for innovation and our future economic vitality.

This corrupt and anti-democratic alliance of the government with the cartels is not too far removed from telling a woman what she can do with her body or what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their bedrooms. It fundamnentaly denies choice. The unholy marriage of the government with the cartel in alliance against the rights of the people is shockingly close to classical fascism as well.

When, and if, the Democratic party reforms itself to once again become the progressive populist party for, of, and by the people, not The Money, we might hope to see some positive changes that would once again favor the stimulation of innovation and education.

Along these lines, consider that the wireless community was able to quickly establish FREE Voice over Internet communications for Katrina victims, but this same community was locked out of a recent FCC meeting to review communications failures resulting from Katrina. Why? Is this the best way to promote the innovation required for our future economic viability?

Or we might ask ourselves why the cable companies selling broadband do NOT offer certified speed tests so that consumers can evaluate the quality of the connection and services they are getting. For example, I pay Comcast an extra $10 per month for their faster Pro package. This is supposed to give me "upto" 6 Mbps as my connection speed. Recent testing showed I was getting less than 2 Mbps. Note that the Comcast contract does NOT provide any contractual performance obligations that Comcast must meet. This is neither consumer nor citizen friendly. It is lopsidely corporation friendly. Is this what we fought the Revolution for? To protect the relationship between the Crown and the East India Company? The GOP has successfully, in too close collaboration with post 1980s Democrats, re-instated the model of the Crown in bed with the East India Company.

The asymmetrical Comcast model of the internet is simply as a pipe for the cartel to force feed their content down our consumer throats. What are we, just geese for fattening? Are the resultant consumerism and cult of celebrity the new opiate of the masses that prevents us from confronting the hard "reality" hurricane Katrina forced us to look at - if even briefly? It certainly does not look like an internet we the people want to use to create and distribute our own works and to create economic engine of cooperative gain.

The evidence, a look into "The Darknet", shows that we the people are changing the ecology of culture, politics and economics in spite of the best efforts of the cartels to stop change and evolution dead in their tracks. Are the cartels setting themselves up to become fossils before our eyes? In many cases today, more bits are flowing up and out from citizen's devices than are being downloaded from the Hollywood providers. Technically this is called reverse asymmetry. Something on the order of 60% of all internet traffic is now citizens working directly with other citizens - by passing the government and corporate obstacles in the center.

The resistance of the governments and corporations to change is merely a symptom of the larger problems facing us. Katrina is also only a symptom. Fixing New Orleans with out addressing the larger systems problems will be like putting a band-aid on rapidly metastasizing malignant tumor. Futile. But where are the Democrats? Why are they not warning us of the false sense of security the New Orleans band-aid will create?

When will our political and cultural leaders start addressing the larger systems problems represented by such thins as inevitable pandemics, Bird flu anyone? Global Warming, and the End of the Carbon Energy era? How well do you think FEMA will deal with these impending challenges to our way of life? Are all of these coming events evidence of the ultimate failures of the old paradigms that guided our lives in the past? Do we have the courage to confront this failure of our "story maps"? Do we have the courage to openly explore new territory in our search for new solutions?

Is it actually time to let the sun shine in and focus on putting our own house in order before we have the imperial arrogance to impose our ways on others via the WTO, baseless and counter productive invasions of other's sovereign territory, The world Bank, etc? Have we lost sight of the beam in our own eye as we carp about the motes in the eyes of others'?

The evidence is that the current hub and spoke, top down, organizational and operational models, the very models that got us into the situation we are now in, will NOT be able to get us out of it. Do we have the courage to abandon it before it brings us down? The alternatives are out there, ready to be recognized and embraced.

In the end, where is the Democratic party in providing the leadership out of the past and into the future?

Reform Democrats

What does it mean to be a ‘Reform Democrat’? This is a question that has been talked a lot about since last November and has been getting more discussion as we go through municipal primaries and head into municipal general elections this fall.

To some, it is a very tactical issue. We need a DNC chair who will do X. We need a blogosphere that will do Y. To some, it is a message of opposition, opposition to the abuses of power by the extreme right wing Republicans.

To others, it is about returning to key parts of the Democratic message, from FDR to Clinton. I always come back to the about section of Greater Democracy. There, we talk about things like ‘democratic governance’ and ‘how new communications technologies support democracy’.

Yes, I am a techie and a hardcore democrat. To me, this idea of being a democrat, and I am using a small ‘d’ very intentionally, is in contract to being an autocrat or a theocrat. It is about a belief that we are all in this together, that everyone should have a voice that can be heard, that we are at our best when we are working together to help one another out. It stands in stark opposition to “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

As a techie, it is the recognition that when seeking a solution to a problem, you need to search the whole problem space, and not just specific areas, lest you find a ‘local optima’ which is really sub-optimal.

It may well be that some Republicans will agree with this approach. I hope it is something that ‘Reform Democrats’ will agree with. It is a message that I am hearing more and more often.

In Massachusetts, Deval Patrick urges us to ‘Believe again’. That is a message of hope. It is a message of participation, we all need to believe again. It is a message of us all being in this together and that we are at our best when we are working together. His website says, “I believe that an enlightened government has a role to play in helping to make all of our lives better. I believe that each of us has a stake in our neighbor’s dreams and struggles as well as our own. I believe in the American Dream, and want to work to put it within reach of more people here in Massachusetts”.

In Connecticut, John DeStefano urges us to ‘Expect more’. This too, is a message of hope and a message of participation. We all need to expect more of our leaders and ourselves. He repeatedly speaks about us all being in this together and how we are at our best when we work together.

To me, this is the message that we should all be taking up, whether we call ourselves ‘Reform Democrats’, ‘Progressive Democrats’, or even ‘Republicans’. This country was built on dreams of a better day which could be achieved by all of us working together. It is a dream that we sorely need today.

We’re all in this together.

Women in Islam: Distinction Between Religious & Fundamentalist Approaches?

Professor Dr. Farooq Hassan [1]
Special UN Ambassador for Family

Synopsis of a Paper presented at the Paris International Conference on Women (Conference internationale des femmes a Paris) on Women, Islam & Equality ( Les femmes, l’ Islam, l’egalite ) held by Women, Auvers sur Oise, Paris

Paris, France, 27 August 2005

I am very privileged to address this learned and distinguished gathering of outstanding contemporary scholars of Islam and trans-national culture and historiography. Such intellectual leadership of acknowledged theoreticians and activists of these fields would greatly assist the enormously delicate subject of Women in Islam as evident and perceived in the troubled contemporary prevalent time.

In this analysis, the doctrinal and place of women as found in the basic sources of Islam in contra-distinction to such an evaluation from “fundamentalist” perspectives will be examined. The “delicacy”, to which I refer to, arises not because of a priori intricacy of the theme or content of this topic. It is also not connected with any specific inherent predilection about such a consequence being inevitable while analyzing Islam. It emanates in the context of the current highly charged political, strategic and social upheavals that are in evidence since the beginning of the present millennium in countries where we have large Muslim populations.

To understand this subject with objectivity, it is necessary to draw a balance between doctrinal purity on the one hand and the felt “necessities” of time on the other. Thus pragmatism is necessarily relevant in this inquiry. Any other manner of approach based upon purely academic niceties devoid of the realties that clearly confront us would not result in a meaningful awareness of this subject. It is further to be noted that any inquiry regarding how the so called “fundamentalists” view Islam’s perceptions about women, without examining the totality of the surrounding phenomenon, which is essentially political and cultural in nature, would be incomplete, perhaps giving rise to even misleading conclusions. As such, I sincerely felicitate the organizers of this truly significant meeting as they manifestly have the vision to find answers to such contentious inquiries at the present time.

Preliminary perspectives

Before examining the relevant issues relating to this matter, let me articulate, broadly of course, my a fortiori understanding of this subject. As I see it, any religion has some aspects of its core beliefs and tenets which are so fundamental that without which no particular faith can even claim to exist. In this sense, could one say that all faiths are fundamentalist in character? By reducing such fundamental beliefs to an irreducible minimum, the answer would be in the affirmative. In this sense, the term is used with purely theological connotations in mind and not with any political, social or psychological nuances in our purview.

However, let me at the outset make a point of vital significance. From a theological viewpoint, all Muslims must believe in five essential or “fundamental” tenets of Islam. As such, do all Muslims qualify for the description of “fundamentalists”? From a doctrinal theological viewpoint the answer would seem to be in the affirmative. Although there do exit different major sects, even branches in Islam, the distinction inter se is not based on a diverse understanding of their beliefs in the core texts or basic scriptures of the Islamic faith. The differences are essentially descriptive of the peripheral or incidental rituals or beliefs of their adherents qua non basic postulates of their approaches to religion. [2]

It should be borne in mind, therefore, that, while using the term “fundamentalist”, what is really aimed to be stressed is the “extremist” connotations in some peoples mind about some specific conceptions that some Muslim groups have in terms of the socio-economical, political or cultural biases that are contrary to the norms and practices of the civil society even amongst the Muslims. It is not really a doctrinal theological delineation that is being emphasized when such a term is used.

In other words, historically, the usage of this term, while signifying rigidity in a pejorative sense, is essentially descriptive of a political or a societal attitude rather than a theological one. Until around the 1980’s, the term used to designate such beliefs amongst Muslims was “Islamists”. Then the term “fundamentalist” gained currency and was accepted as such until very recently by mostly the Western press and governments. In the wake of the two recent wars, in Afghanistan and then Iraq, the phraseology seems to have changed. Now the preferred term is “extremist”. Be that as it may, I have no problem with any of these terms so long as the concept being advanced is clearly understood. [3]

But diverse problems begin to arise when such concepts and terms get mixed and mingled in the complexities of contemporary international politics and the resultant attitudes of those who feel that they have to “defend” their faiths in such situations. Cultural prejudices which are evidently heavily visible in many Islamic societies also compound the emergent problems.

Indeed, sometimes it is not easy to decipher whether the prejudices against women in Islamic societies, properly so-called, are the result of “religious” misunderstandings or just cultural heritage of a locality or straightforward political machinations of the proponents of such attitudes. [4]

I personally feel that fundamentalism in this sense is essentially an attitude adopted by only some of the followers of a religion, mostly out of a sense of insecurity or a feeling that “the” religion, as they see it, is in danger of losing its identity; sometimes it is just an overt course of conduct for adopting a harsh, may be even violent, attitude towards some other group or groups of the people of the same faith; it could also be directed against outsiders and foreign entities for the same motivation. It can equally emanate as a tool or modality of raw power struggle nationally or internationally. No religion is fundamentalist in the sense per se since none aims to be vindictive or destructive of those who just do not share the particular beliefs; if, however, its avowed goals, as seen by such partisans is to do so, then the real problem is not with the said faith but that group which so believes; as such, generally it is only a group of followers of a religion who are fundamentalists and not the religion as such. [5]

Viewed as such, “fundamentalism” is not a monopoly of adherents of Islam; there are fundamentalist Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and even Buddhists. Sometimes so-called fundamentalist movements, particularly in Christianity, have served the purpose of cleansing social practices by going back to the original teachings but such movements are more properly to be described as 'reform' movements. [6] What is objectionable in this sense in 'fundamentalism' is the unstated assumption that its adherents alone know the true meaning of their religion; they go sometimes as far as to resort to violence against all and sundry who disagree with them. Such behavior is then. regrettably, justified by asserting it as permissible by religious dogmas. As often is the case, the religion which these fundamentalists profess to be protecting usually forbids such violence or single mindedness of interpretation or thought.

With these preliminary comments about the ethos of the ensuing analysis, let me advert initially to the place and content of women within the confines of Islamic doctrinal postulates. After traversing these norms, we shall see the “fundamentalist” versions of such issues to reveal the manner through which the puritanical message of the faith is being gradually eroded. [7]

In parenthesis, I may note that I am acutely conscious of the inherent moral dangers of my approaching this topic as such. It could be argued that such an approach is itself predicated by an apologists’ mindset. While the superficial, even apparent, weight of such semantics is certainly historically visible, let me say that I articulate such a prognosis on the basis of my own belief about these basically perspective issues on the foundation of my own experience and religious convictions.

I am sure that Islam, like other great religious philosophies of the human heritage, has to have in its fold a nucleus that is entirely reconcilable with equal treatment of men and women and in harmony with progressive evolution. I believe that having withstood the vicissitudes of time and of history for fifteen hundred years, Islam’s central positioning of the human race has to have primacy in all of its teachings. Not only thematically the central emphasis of such focus of Islam must keep abreast of different cultures and times, it has to be broad enough to accommodate in its fold the indispensability of meeting the needs of all times. [8] God calls human beings as “Ashraf ul Mukhlukat”, or “the greatest of all his creations”. A fortiori, this concept covers both men and women. It also envisages changes in societal behavior which are natural and inevitable as history moves on. It should follow that inequality between men and women can not be contemplated by basic Islamic postulates or that it can not be genuinely progressive.

Understanding Islam’s doctrinal messages

Islam places, as elaborated hereinafter, the highest significance in life to family (as an institution), towards its different members, in particular women and children. The duty of “care” and “responsibility” is directly vested in those who have the ability to provide help to others in the family that need such aid. The message of Islam is contained in the word of God, the Holy Quran itself. Reference to such citations will hopefully stress the high significance that Islam places on this matter.

Throughout its history, the Islamic faith has been both deeply cherished and misunderstood for its emphasis on enveloping the entirety of a person’s life with its normative structure of rules of conduct and precepts. Amongst the major norms of such expected behavior are those that are devised to apply to the institution of the family and women. Simultaneously, the jurisprudence and moral philosophy of the faith also acutely focuses on the larger matter pertaining to the subject of human rights of these categories of the human race.

This discussion proceeds in the background [context] of the acute crisis, of international proportions, regarding the message and place of contemporary Islam. Whether or not one agrees with the thesis advocated initially in modern times by Samuel Huntington, it cannot be ignored that, from political avocations to the cultural, religious practices and beliefs of Muslims have come under severe criticism in the popular Western press and governments. As such, the “clash” that he spoke of has arisen [evolved], realistically speaking, from being imperceptible to being highly visible.

In my view, Huntington was regrettably realistic in projecting a thesis of Clash of Civilizations in the 21st Century. However, such clashes are fundamentally of “political" dimension and have little by way of application in the private or ordinary lives of Muslims. This conviction has been strengthened by late Pope John Paul’s recent affirmation of this trend in his recent address to a multi-congregational audience in Assisi on 1/22/2002 when he said, particularly to the Muslims, that he feared what he saw was an ongoing, even increasing, crescendo of clashes, involving the Western civilizations and that of the Islamic peoples. As such, ab initio, while the Huntington variety of clash is entirely of political connotations, it has begun to engulf larger populations of Muslims in the totality of their lives. When such metamorphosis begins, the finer distinctions of political and social tend to disappear.

In face of such an onslaught, many Islamic leaders have plainly become afraid and few have openly defended anything that Muslims believe in or do. It is indeed “fashionable” to appear to be “modernistic” in outlook in all that affects the statecraft of such nations. It is in this context, in a Hegelian sense of historical perspective, that recent political events towards a “secularized” Islamic World have to be seen. [9] Different phrases to denote this emphasis are employed by powers and forces that may be to exhibit such a policy. However, I am certain that “secular” in this context is not the equivalent of “liberal”. The former has a political expediency angle underlying its avocation or adoption. The latter is an index of a thought process of policy and attitudes.

When this process of being placed to “defend” one’s faith is initiated, so-called hard liners become ascendant. Amongst the major objectives they advocate for, societal resurgence includes one of treating women differently than is expected by good and decent Muslim societies. According to some strategic thinking, this behavior is deemed “desirable” by such hard liners since it provides them with a psychological sense of relief considering they are convinced they are under siege from the those who are believed to be aggressing somewhere against the Muslims in the vicinity [10].

Humanitarian postulates and dogmas of Islam, as of other great faiths, are heavily grounded on principles of high morality. Any dilution in their ethos would be a devastating blow to the religious practices of its millions of adherents. Fundamentalists may have, thus, reasonable political grounds for doing what they are in the process of undertaking. However, to do so in the name of Islam is both unjustified and regrettable.

Before concluding this introductory preface of this presentation, it may be mentioned that the theological controversies which confronts doctrinal Islam are as much the result of its religious opponents as it is of its ardent political supporters. Many crucial issues have thus been confounded by Islam's own clergy, or what goes generally undisputed by such labels. If I may, most respectfully, quote from one of my own legal works on this subject:

“History has dealt an irony, in that Islam has often been controlled by priests though the faith rejects the institution of organized priesthood. By the term “priest” I do not include the great saints, mystics, traditionalists’ thinkers and other men of piety and learning who form a distinct class. For centuries the ill educated mullahs have periodically monopolized the pulpit. With one hand, the mullah has woven into Islam a crazy network of fantasy and fanaticism. With the other hand, [he] has often used it as an elastic cloak for political power and expediencies.” [11]

Basic Islamic conceptions regarding Family & Women

In the context of Islamic family obligations, a family is defined as “a human social group whose members are bound together by the bond of blood ties and or marital relationship” [12]. The Quranic injunctions created the basic framework of such obligations. The major thrust of such injunctions was to ameliorate the position of women and to grant to daughters rights and privileges ignored by the ancient customs which were present at the advent of Islam. “These Quranic reforms, as well as customary practice, constitute the substance of classical family law” in Muslim philosophy. [13]

The basic perception of marriage, which is considered to be the foundation of family life, is in the nature of “the strongest bond” [14] that exists in human relations. Surah 4: An-Nisa allows marriage of choice but forbids husband from inheriting the wife’s property against her will. [15] According to Quran, men and women have equitable and proportionate rights and responsibilities in a family. In order to preserve the survival of the family unit and to ensure the viability of the institution, it has been provided that the weaker elements in this unit have higher levels of protection. As such, the Quran allows the rights of women not only in the context of marriage [16], but also in protection from slander [17], maintenance [18], and care of children [19]. The cumulative quintessence of these diverse injunctions regarding the family as a social unit signifies that laws of Divine origin are in place to ensure the integrity of this unit.

In this scheme of the preservation of the family as a unit in a society described briefly above, the Islamic message seems to be to:

1. Make marriage based on free consent.

2. Preserve the economic viability of the wife.

3. Make the off spring, with great emphasis on the females of this union, an integral part of this unit in which they not only owe various duties of loyalty and respect to their parents, in return the parents must exert their best moral influence on them.

(1) Position of Women

While focusing on the institution of the family, two central themes need to be recognized. First, the extraordinary “secure” position and status Islamic thought gives to females in the family. While addressing the topic of females in a family, the Quran has several direct commandments. First, female infanticide, extensively practiced in non-advanced societies throughout history, has been severely condemned. Not only did it prohibit this evil cultural heritage of that 7th Century culture in which Islam began its infancy, it rebuked the idol worshippers of Arabia who ascribed daughters to God but wanted they to have only male heirs and reacted accordingly in their prevalent social practices. The Quran says:

And they assign daughters
For Allah! Glory be to Him!
And for themselves (sons- The
Issue they desire!) When news
Is brought to them, of (the birth
Of) a female (child), his face Darkens,
And is filled with inward grief!
With shame does he hide himself
From his people because of bad
News he has had!
Shall he retain it on (sufferance and)
Contempt, or bury it in dust? Ah! What an
Evil (choice) they decide on? [20]

Islam’s initial contribution of immense historical significance lay in recognizing the status of women as equals of men. Women’s inferior position in pre-Islamic Arabian culture was reflected in them being considered as chattels. According to a leading author, “marriage closely resembled a sale through which a woman became the property of her husband.” [21] Having no importance, in either initiation or termination of marriage, she was supposed to follow her husband’s tribe and essentially bear children. Since she legally was supposed to have left her tribe, thereby she was also deemed to have relinquish all property rights therein. As a wife, a woman became totally subject to her husband and his tribe. In this background came the Quranic inunctions regarding women‘s right to be respected, particularly as a mother, property rights, and to be considered an integral party of the family unit. [22]

According to Islamic injunctions, the aim and “purpose of marriage is to create and live in an atmosphere of love, harmony and companionship to fulfill the higher purposes of life.” [23] Leading Quranic mandates concerning these aspects of God’s commandments, stressing the complimentary roles of both the sexes to each other, can be gleaned from the from following verses:

They (women) are your garments
And ye (men) are their garments [24]

And again a famous verse says:

The Believers, men
And women are protectors
One of another. [25]

Perhaps equally well known is the following commandment:

And among His (God’s) Signs
Is this, that He created
For you mates among
Yourselves, that ye may
Dwell in tranquility with them,
And He has put Love
And mercy between your (hearts):
Verily in this are signs
For those who reflect. [26]

(2) Position of Parents.

Islamic teachings lay the greatest stress on the position of parents, especially of mothers. Indeed, the Quran gives a lofty position of respect to one’s ancestry and places the status of mother’s only second to God. [27] The Quran expressly mandates:

Reverence God, through Whom
Ye demand your mutual (rights),
And (reverence) the wombs
(That bore you): for God
Ever watches over you. [28]

Further the Quran says:

And We have enjoined on man
(To be good) to his parents
In travail upon travail
Did his mother bear him,
And in years twain
Was his weaning: (hear)
The command, “ Show gratitude
To me and to thy parents’
To Me is (Thy final) Goal. [29]

In another specific commandment God says:

We have enjoined on man
Kindness to his parents:
In pain did his mother
Bear him, and in pain
Did she give him birth. In
The carrying of the (child)
To his weaning is
(A period of) thirty months. [30]

A mandate to cater for and look after aged parents is directly attended to in the Quran. It is said:

Thy Lord had decreed
That ye worship none but Him,
And that ye be kind
To parents. When one or both of them attain
Old age in life,
Say not to them a word
Of contempt, nor repel them,
But address them
In terms of honor. [31]

The underlying message in such commandments derives its ethical foundations from the concept, inter alia, of “ihsan”. This concept, which figures in diverse forms in Islamic teachings, in the words of an author, “denotes what is right, good, and beautiful.” [32] In further analysis, it has been articulated by writers that through this Divine mandate we are commanded to do "among other things, kindness, compassion, charity, reverence, conscientiousness, and sound performance”. This applies with full emphasis to the parent and child relationship. [33]

It is further clear that this basic manifestation of “ihsan” has specific reference to the inter se relations between family members. In other words, such good will that is expected to be displayed towards the rest of the people in a community, ex hypothesi, increases manifold toward one’s own kith and kin. One author remarks:

It is the Muslim’s religious duty as well as virtue to show “ihsan” to his parents, be they Muslims like himself or otherwise. Concrete behavioral manifestations of this Divine Ordinance of “ihsan” to the parents include active empathy or ‘role taking’, compassionate gratitude, patience, prayer for them even after their demise, honoring their commitments on their behalf when they can no longer do so, sincere counsel, and veneration. An integral part of the children’s absolute religious duty is to provide for their parents in case of need and help them to be as comfortable as possible. [34]

(3) Economic Responsibilities for Family & Women

Economic responsibility in the family is placed primarily on the husband. Further domestic duties are proportionately to be “shared”. However, it is the duty of the man to support his entire family within the level of his abilities in the social structure of the society. One author maintains it:

The wife’s maintenance entails her incontestable right to lodging, clothing, food, and general care. The wife’s lodge must be adequate so as to ensure her privacy, comfort, and independence. This is interpreted by three major Schools of Law to mean that the lodging quarter must befit the means and lifestyle of both mates. However, it is the wife’s home in her capacity as wife; she has exclusive right to it. None of her husband’s relatives, dependents, or any other person may live with her in the same lodge unless she voluntarily agrees o it. The main concern here seems to be the welfare of the wife and the stability of the marriage. The husband’s responsibility for the wife’s has shelter does not entitle him to impose upon her any disagreeable arrangement of residence. [35]

These observations are derived from the Quran from which the following well-known verse may be cited with advantage:

Lodge them where you are lodging, according to your means, and do not press
Them, so as to straiten their circumstances.
Let the man of plenty expend out of his plenty. As for whose provision is
Stinted for him, let him expend of what God has given him. God changes no one
Beyond his means. After difficulty, God will soon grant relief.[36]

In a family, the wife’s right to be financially maintained is established by Quranic injunctions and by unanimous consent amongst jurists of all its principal legal Schools of Law. This right is vested regardless of whether the wife is a Muslim or not, rich or poor. There is also the mention in Islamic thought that this provision of maintenance is not based on some commercial formulations but on the basis of affection, love, affection and compassion that should exist between the husband and wife. According to one writer, “The essence of marriage is compassion, of which she is entitled to receive as much as she gives. The husband too, is instructed to be a source of compassion and security for his mate, to initiate and reciprocate in kind, not only to receive.” [37]

(4) Position of Children and the weak in a Family.

The Quran mandates that young children be properly look after and nurtured. [38] It is further stated in the same injunction that the children be raised by the mutual consultation between the parents. These directions form a part of the general guidelines provided in the Quran dealing with responsibility of family members towards one another and of the responsibility of those who are in a position to help to do so with a sense of a scared duty. There is a call to the believers that those who truly believe in Him are asked to be kind and forth coming in their assistance to those in need, or are disprivileged, or are handicapped. Indeed these injunctions go as far as to impose hospitality and to providing help to the elderly kin, those who are indigent, or even for a while for those who are traveling. [39]

An allied concept to provide for those in need in the family, including women and children, is that of “Zakat”. It is a basic obligation of a Muslim to participate in social responsibilities by donating a small part of their savings to those in need. This “purifies” the person giving such assistance. While thanking God for His blessings, it is deigned to help others in distress and needing help. The Quran says:

Spend out of (the bounties)
We have provided for you,
Before the day comes
When no bargaining
(Will avail), nor friendship
Nor intercession. [40]

In order to cause encouragement in assistance of others, God says that he will multiply the rewards to the generous in the hereafter. Indeed, in one passage in the Quran, it is described as a “loan to God”: -

Who is he
That will loan to God
A beautiful loan, which God
Will multiply unto his credit
And multiply many times?
It is that God giveth (you)
Want or plenty,
And to Him shall be
Your return. [41]

One of the foremost authors on Islamic learning points out, therefore, that: “ No religion prior to Islam had consecrated charity, the support of the widow, the orphan, and the helpless poor, by enrolling among the positive enactments of the system.” [42]

(5) Doctrinal basis of “care” Rights

It may be instructive to view the doctrinal basis of the “care” rights in the philosophy generated by the Quran. As I see it, two predominant themes permeate this subject.

First, the basis of all the desirable human actions emanate in the concept of kindness, especially to women. In Arabic, the corresponding word for God’s ever present kindness is designated by the word “Rahim” or “Rahman”. This word appears many times in the Quran and indicates one of the titles for God by reference to him as “the Kind One” or “the One Who gives kindness”. Indeed, this word is oft repeated in Muslim prayers and is perhaps the most beloved of God’s descriptions in the human vocabulary. Linguistically, it comes from the root word “Rahm” meaning the “womb”. It underscores the theme of God’s care and love for all His creatures as a “Mother”. This is important for it also shows the status eventually bestowed upon the institution of motherhood in a Family.

The loving and compassionate attitude of “care” reflected in this description of the Almighty is amply reflected in the Quran. [43] The Quran further indicates that He is pleased with those who are kind and helpful to those in need and distress. He further says that He will reward “good deeds” of this category in a special way. [44] Islamic Law actually, in the positive science of its rules, demarcates two kinds of rights. The first category is that of “Rights of God” called “Haqauq Allah”. The second category is known as “ Rights of God’s creatures”. This is known as “Huqaq al ibad”. The Quran and Islamic Law are explicit in diverse ways that, unless a person fulfills both kinds of rights in his life, his totality of duties remains unsatisfied. Indeed, in terms of spirituality, it is also maintained that obedience to God is not really complete unless help is rendered to one’s family, then to kith and kin, then to ones other distant relatives needing assistance and finally to neighbors and even strangers that come to visit a person of means. [45] It is said in the Quran:

Sees thou one
Who denies Judgment
(To come)?
Then such is the (man)
Who repulses the orphan
(With harshness),
The feeding of the indigent.
So woe to the worshippers
Who are neglectful of their Prayer
Of their Prayer
Those who (want but)
To be seen (of men),
But refuse (to supply)
(Even) neighborly needs. [46]

The Second basis of these rights is the Islamic conceptions of Justice. It will be see that the Quran, while addressing the matters of human relationships, laid the greatest stress on justice - again particularly its application to women deserves notice.

Whether it is a question of the rights of the members of family, or those of the people in a State, the Quran mandates in various forms the highest adherence to Justice, called “adl”. While there may be a number of ways to look at this phenomenon, I think the basic message of the Quran is that merit and the quality of one’s claims and demands or expectations are to be evaluated on the basis of justice and righteousness. Righteousness itself consists of three elements: Just action (“’amal”)
Adl
Accordingly, for human action to be acceptable in a worldly context, it must nevertheless accord high priorities to these notions enumerated above for it to be considered worthwhile in a religious or spiritual connotation. Its most eloquent expose’ comes in the following Quranic pronouncement:

It is not righteousness
That you turn your faces
Towards East or west;
But it is righteousness,
To believe in God
And the Last Day,
And the Angles,
And the Book
And the Messengers;
To spend your substance,
Out of love for Him
For your kin
For Orphans,
For the needy
For the wayfarer
For those who ask,
And for the ransom of slaves
To be steadfast in prayer,
And practice regular charity;
To fulfill the contracts
Which you have made;
And to be firm and patient,
In pain (or suffering)
And adversity,
And throughout
All periods of panic
Such are the people
Of truth, the God-fearing. [47}

In another notable injunction, the Quran candidly asserts:

The most honored of you
In the sight of Allah
Is (he who is) the most
Righteous of you. [48]

One other memorable passage about Justice may be mentioned before leaving this point. The Quran says:

O ye who believe!
Standout firmly
For justice, as witnesses
To Allah, even as against
Yourselves…………
Follow not the lusts
(Of your hearts), lest ye
Swerve, and if ye
Distort (justice) or decline
To do justice, verily
Allah is well acquainted
With all that ye do. [49]

The above brief analysis reveals the emphatic focus that the Quran places on the concept of “kindness” and “justice”. There are other allied concepts as well that tend to generate the ethos of Islamic dynamics towards creating a “caring” society with the family occupying the pivotal position. [50] It is self evident that while addressing matters relating to affection for one’s family, and allied expectation of assistance required of a Muslim community, the ingredient of “Adl”, or justice, plays a uniquely esoteric and ethical role.

Fundamentalist emphasis

In an environment of changing or even “decaying” public mores or traditions, moral and ethical Islamic doctrines can still install more progressive, yet conservative, perspectives in such important matters as those involving the development of family rights and values revolving around fundamental human rights of women. With respect to the divergence of views on issues relating to women between established Islamic values in contradistinction to fundamentalist perspectives, it is now necessary to advert to the latter.

The protagonists of the fundamentalist orientation cannot, of course, dispute the availability of the Quranic messages already cited; nevertheless at the societal and cultural levels they do have a divergent emphasis on certain “public” aspects of the role and functions of women. In my evaluation of this divergence, one can straightway succinctly focus on three fields in which the fundamentalist approaches may be particularly noticed. These three fields relate to:

Women’s education.
Women’s access to public life.
Behavioral restrictions relating to dress, participation in family and personal inter-action amongst their peers.

It will seen that the basic focus of all these three issues relate to an effort by the fundamentalist thinking to regulate the development and movements of women in the particular society in which they live. The level of attaining these limitations would depend upon the quantum of societal awareness that already exists in that society. It is axiomatic that in more advanced and progressive environments the quantum of restrictions is both less and more subtle.

In societies, however, wherein the entireties of people are essentially Muslims, such as Pakistan or Iran, these limitations can be more ostensible and pronounced. Such pronounced and visible denial of ordinary human liberties for women is manifestly more so in rural areas of such countries, or areas which are far flung from main urban centers. In such places, and in a number of Islamic societies in Africa, the attitudes of the fundamentalists have a decisive affect on societal practices. This was always historically true. But with the advent of political developments of the last few years across the world, in which Muslims find themselves the targets of various misfortunes, the fundamentalist activists have become understandably more goal oriented in their policies towards women.

In the implementation of such attitudes, the fundamentalist’s philosophy, irrespective of its depth or commitment to such convictions, believes that the bringing of women on to the domain of public or educated spectrum should not be openly allowed or at least discouraged. These attitudes have been greatly hardened by what has gone on in terms of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The resultant position being that there is clearly, from the perspectives of liberal or democratic ideals, a less than satisfactory status for the women of many such areas of the world.

I may add that local customs and culture have also to be reckoned in such societies. In some areas, this kind of state of affairs regarding women is prevalent as matter of history. Religion has nothing directly to do with it. At best, it may be attributed a “secondary” role in establishing to provide this kind of a negative milieu. Women, regardless of religion, have to comply with cultural “regulations” in their daily lives as that is how the people generally live in those localities.

For instance, in Pakistan, denial of some basic human rights of Women, as enunciated by Islam or in the accepted human rights’ texts of the international community, such as violence or honor killings, have little to do with prevalent religion (which is clearly Islam) but certainly are connected to and emanating from cultural prejudices and local customary practices. In these circumstances, while no doubt the fundamentalist elements of the society have a more visible role to play in the enforcement or compliance with such unwelcome rules of conduct devised for women by the society, it is not invariable that this is so. Ordinary people may also be the vehicle for the use of discouraging societal compulsions. The worst and most notorious cases of this kind, which were internationally condemned, were not enforced by fundamentalists but by ordinary, even, “progressive” or “modern” elements of the Pakistani society.

Conclusions

The aim of all conservatives’ elements in such environments is to ensure that the traditional male domination of the society is maintained, as that is how they have been living there for centuries. I believe that this is true of most Islamic societies, as much as for people of other faiths in similar circumstances. But, as we are only concentrating on the former, it is necessary to point out that, as such, traits of such conservative and traditional thinking have to be modified and moderated to achieve democratic levels of acceptability.

Regrettably, women in many Islamic societies are manifestly given secondary status. Even in states such as Pakistan, wherein there is much demagoguery about “enlightened moderation of Islam”, there are more cases of gang rapes and honor killings than any where else in the world [51]. Generally, the women have little by way of actual security and the issues that confront them in daily lives are seldom, if ever, given the importance they deserve. Polygamy, poverty, and absence of equality, in matters such as divorce and child custody, are legal matters still awaiting a proper redress in many an Islamic environment.

The primary foundation of achieving such a healthy metamorphosis is through education. I advocate that all concerned institutions and governments must attempt to improve this aspect of the lives of the peoples of such areas by making the fruits of education reach all sections of the society.

Only an educated society is capable of becoming aware of the evils of controlling women by societal or state controls. But, whether the governments are capable of doing this, is another matter. As such, the path ahead for achieving a [just] level of human rights regime for women is not free from difficulties and problems. In these troubled times, those bent upon providing women their just and rightful place have quite a struggle ahead. Not only must they work for alleviating the societal ills pointed out above, they have to devise methods by which governments’ policies are genuinely egalitarian and not dictated by the political exigencies of these difficult time.

How they can do so is not easy to envisage. Only a little more than a decade ago the US utilized the mammoth zeal of Muslim jihadist elements to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Now they (the jihadists) are branded as terrorists or at least extremists. How women rights’ elements can control such policies of a superpower is very difficult to envisage. Religion was used there for political purposes. Now we are told that it is very wrong to do so, as human “liberty” is a higher norm so that we can we have “democracy”.

The foreseeable challenges thus emanate from a desire to have religion serve patently irreligious goals and from illogically admonishing the liberal facets of contemporary thinking about human rights and perceivable trends. Indeed, all religions that have survived through man’s history over several hundreds of years stress essentially a message to be progressive, tolerant and to avoid rigidity. The broader aim of every society that aims to be genuinely attentive to all within its fold has to be “liberal’, in the sense Rawls has canvassed, not in an empty sense in which contemporary politicians, some of tremendous international weight, have been stressing of late. The later classes of people have transformed even some of the most innocuous and rhetorical sounding dogmas of liberalism and morals into one of the most ferocious political transformations of society ever witnessed in human history.

Numbered end notes:

[1] D.Phil.; B A Juris, MA. M.Litt, (Oxon), DCL (Columbia), DIA (Harvard), Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, UK, Attorney at Law, US, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; Affiliate & Visiting Professor of International Affairs, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Special UN Ambassador for Family for the World Family Alliance, Advisor to four Prime Ministers of Pakistan on Law & Foreign Affairs; Delegate to the UN, NY, & to the Human Rights Commission on Human Rights & to the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, Leader of Pakistan’s Delegation to the International Criminal Court Prep Coms., NY & Delegate to UN GA Sessions. Also, inter alia, on the Faculty of Law, Human Rights Program, Harvard University, Faculty of Political Science, Tufts University, the Secretary General, American Asian Institute of Strategic Studies, Boston. International Legal Counsel before transnational Tribunals & US Congress. David M Kennedy Scholar of International Studies, Kennedy Center, BYU 2003-4, distinguished Visiting Professor, JNU, Delhi, Memorial Lecturer at Benaras Hindu University, Mumbai University &Ambadkar Center, Aurangabad, 2004-5 ;President, Pakistan Family Forum, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, Pakistan Bar Association at Lahore, 2003/4. Given the King Faisal Award 2002 & 2003 International Professor of Human Rights Award, Saudi Arabia.

[2] The term “fundamentalist” does have an accepted meaning in Christian theology where some denominations, such as the Baptists are considered as such for their formal belief in their Written Scriptures; other Christian denominations or evangelistic movements may not have a similar understanding of such perspectives.

[3] The reason for this change is based on awareness that in the war on terror, it became difficult to describe all such actions as emanating from “religious fundamentalists” since such actions were erupting in far flung corners of the world wherein high religious adherence was not really visible. Hence to be more non-theological and more political in emphasis, the nomenclature was altered almost non-obtrusively.

[4] It is outside the limited purview of this essentially “speaking work” to examine this point in depth.

[5] Hence I use the term “fundamentalism” in this script in its “popular” sense as evident in the usage today by press and governments of diverse countries. It does not purport to be lexicographical or semantically philosophical in content. However, it useful to adopt the Concise Oxford Dictionary that defines this particular concept as: “Maintenance, in opposition to modernism of traditional orthodox beliefs.”

[6] The history of Christianity provides many significant illustrations of this matter. For an excellent contemporary analysis see The Christian Question in American Politics, Justin E. Smith, 2004, University of Concordia, Montreal, Canada.

[7] The year 2004 was observed as the Decade of the year of Family during which a number of important international conferences were held. Noting that 2004 marks the 10th Anniversary of the United Nations’ 1994 International Year of the Family and that the Doha International Conference for the Family was welcomed by UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/58/15 (December 15, 2003). On 30 November 2004 the Doha Declaration was issued followed by the UNGA Resolution of 6 December, 2004. In none of them, however, the difficulties faced by women in Islamic countries were even mentioned.

[8] Islamic jurisprudential doctrines of “Ijtehad” are of basic functional value in doing so.

[9] General Musharraf has been using the term “enlightened moderation” to be followed by the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.

[10] For this phenomenon in current Iran see generally Enemies of Ayatollahs, M. Mohaddassin, 2004. see further Islamic Fundamentalism & Question of Women, M. Rajavi, 2004

[11] See The Islamic Republic, Farooq Hassan, 1984, Aziz Publishers, p 4

[12] Abdalati, H., Islam in Focus, American Trust Publications, Plainfield, Indiana, 1975, pp113-114.

[13] Espositio J.L. Women in Muslim Family Law, Syracuse University Press, 1982, p13

[14] Islam in Focus, ibid. p 114.

[15] Ali, A.Y. The meaning of the Holy Quran, Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, 1995, pp 184,190.

[16] E.g. see Surah 2: Al Baqarah, 228

[17] E.g. see Surah 24: Al- Nur: 4-5,23

[18] E.g. see Surah 2: Al-Baqarah, 241

[19] See, ibid, 233

20 See Surah16: An Nisa: 57-59; See also Ali A.Y. The Meaning of the Holy Quran, Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, 1995, p 651.

[21] See Smith, R.W.., Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Beacon Press, Boston, 1903, p 92

[22] Women in Family Law, Ibid. p 14.

[23] Parwez, G., Islam, A Challenge to Religion, Lahore, 1968, p 342

[24] Surah 2: Al- Bakarah: 187

[25] Surah 9: At Tawbah: 71

[26] Surah 30: Ar Rum: 21

[27] See generally, Badawi J. Gender Equality in Islam: Basic Principles, American Trust Publications. Plainsfield, Indiana, 1995. p 29.

[28] Surah 4: Am- Nisa: 1

[29] Surah Luqman 31:14

[30] Surah 46: Al-Ahqaf:15

[31] Surah 17: Bani Isra’ il: 23 [32] Ati, H.A. The Family Structure in Islam, American Trust Publications, Plainsfield, Indiana, 1977, 205.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid., p 205

[35] Ibid., p 149-150

[36] Surah 65: At-Talaq: 5, 6

[37] The Family Structure in Islam, op cit. p 148

[38] Surah 2: Al Baqarah :233

[39] Surah: Surah 2 : Al: Baqarah: 177, 180,215,263,273.; Surah: 4: Al Nisa: 8,25,36,92; Suruah 5: Al Ma’iadah: 89; Surah 8: Al Anfal:41; Surah 9: At- Tuabah: 60:; Surah 30: Ar-Rum:38; Surah 33: Al-Ahzab:6, Surah 58: al Mujadilah: 4; Surah 107: Al Ma’un 1-3

[40] Surah 2: Al Baqarah: 254;

[41] Surah 2 : Al Baqarah: 245

[42] Ali, Syed Ameer, The Spirit of Islam, Pakistan Publishing House, Karachi, 1976, p 169.

[43] See , for instance, Surah 2: Al Baqarah: 186, 286; See further Surah 3 Al Amran: 145, 150,; Surah 4 : Al Nisa: 26, 28, Surah 50: Qaf: 16

[44] See, for instance, Surah 6: L An’am:160,; Surah 28: A- Qasas: 84

[45] See Surah 107Al: Ma’un.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Surah 2: 177, See also Ali, A.Y. The Holy Quran, pp 70-71

[48] Surah 49: Al Hujurat: 13

[49] Surah 4 , An Nisa: 136.

[50] The other notable concept, in this context, is that of “ihsan” discussed earlier.

[51] See this author’s Op. ed. piece Stared into Silence, The Nation, 24 June 05 stressing the agony of the gang rape inflicted on a rustic women Muktharan Mai by a town jury of elders in Pakistan and then attempted callously to be “hidden” from the world by the Government.

A Minister Fights Back on Moral Values

Dr. Robin Meyers' Speech during the 11/04 Peace Rally at OK University

As some of you know, I am minister of Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, an Open and Affirming, Peace and Justice church in northwest Oklahoma City, and professor of Rhetoric at Oklahoma City University. But you would most likely have encountered me on the pages of the Oklahoma Gazette, where I have been a columnist for six years, and hold the record for the most number of angry letters to the editor.

Tonight, I join ranks of those who are angry, because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus, but whose actions are anything but Christian. We've heard a lot lately about so-called "moral values" as having swung the election to President Bush. Well, I'm a great believer in moral values, but we need to have a discussion, all over this country, about exactly what constitutes a moral Value—I mean what are we talking about? Because we don't get to make them up as we go along, especially not if we are people of faith. We have an inherited tradition of what is right and wrong, and moral is as moral does.

Let me give you just a few of the reasons why I take issue with those in power who claim moral values are on their side:

Read the whole speech here

An Epic Failure of Presidential Staffing

As a former staffer in the White Office of Media Affairs, my sympathy goes out to the current White House staffers for their recent epic failure to recognize that hurricane Katrina presented their principal, POTUS, an opportunity to demonstrate strong Presidential leadership - an opportunity which, unfortunately, may become more frequent.

Consider how differently things might have turned out if they had had the imagination and innovative drive to have President Bush address the nation on Sunday, the day before Katrina began her devastation of New Orleans. A national address could have reassured the nation that the Federal government was working closely with the governors and mayors in the storm path to minimize casualties and insure prompt and efficient relief for victims. The President might even have cited the excellent storm disaster recovery results that had been achieved by his administration within the recent past in Florida.

Such a proactive approach would have set the stage for one magnificent Presidential photo-op after another, day after day. The media would have been the President’s cheer leaders. His leadership in the Katrina recovery efforts would have offset the criticisms of his leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But such good fortune was not to be. And the mistake was compounded when the staff allowed the President to make the blatantly false statement that nobody anticipated a disaster of such a magnitude. And compounded yet again when the President praised the head of FEMA for the job he was doing, when it was clear from on the ground reporting that Brown’s lackadaisical leadership was increasing Katrina’s death toll due to FEMA’s late and under-resourced response.

The questions are: why did this epic failure of presidential staffing occur? How was such a terrific opportunity for burnishing the tarnished image of their principal allowed to pass unrecognized?

The answer may well be in both their hardened and dogmatic mindset that government is THE problem, an unnecessary adjunct to unbridled market mechanisms, and their rejection of the model that government is an essential facilitator of the public good. This rejection of modern mixed market economics, the fundamental innovation that brought the world out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, may have made it impossible for them to see a positive role for government in the Katrina disaster. If government could have no positive role, then how could there be an opportunity for President Bush to turn a natural disaster to his political advantage?

For example, as Harold Myerson wrote recently in the Washington post:

Consider the congressional testimony of Joe Allbaugh, George W. Bush's 2000 campaign manager, who assumed the top position at FEMA in 2001. He characterized the organization as "an oversized entitlement program," and counseled states and cities to rely instead on "faith-based organizations . . . like the Salvation Army and the Mennonite Disaster Service."

This does not sound like something anyone who viewed government as a facilitator of the public good would ever say. It is, however, exactly what someone who viewed government as the problem would, and in fact did, say.

It goes without saying that faith-based organizations have roles to play in disasters, but they do not have the required manpower, equipment and supplies to match the scale of most disasters. Nor do they, much less the private sector with its 90 day profit requirements, have the staying power for a recovery process that will be measured in years, if not decades. A government that understands its role as a facilitator and guardian of the public good, however, does.

The question remains as to what other failures the Bush view of government has or will engender.

The challenge facing those who are critics of the Bush administration is to act and sound like responsible adults, not carping and hyperventilating partisan harpies. All of us who are critics of the Bush administration, and their rejection of the role of government as a facilitator the common good, would be well advised to review the Watergate hearings to study the calm and professional manner of Sam Irving, the committee chairman, as well as Barry Goldwater, Sam Dash, Archibald Cox, Barbara Jordan, Howard Baker, judge Sirica - amongst others.

The New Orleans Metaphor

I have been cautious about keeping my writing as Blogmaster for Mayor John DeStefano's Gubernatorial campaign seperate from my more ponderous posts here. However, when I wrote my post this morning, I became excessively ponderous and felt that it should be posted here as well because of the larger message. To those offended by a paid political advertisement, I apologize. However, I hope it stimulates a lot of thinking about what New Orleans really means.

“New Orleans is a metaphor for the difference between Democrats and Republicans.” This is what Mayor DeStefano said as he launched into his talk with the Democracy for America group in Fairfield County last night. I don’t like the politicizing of Hurricane Katrina, but I think Mayor DeStefano was hitting an extremely important point.

Mayor DeStefano spoke about his efforts to bring 100 families to New Haven. The issues are much greater than simply finding people a place to stay. He spoke of the logistical problems of getting the families clothing and bedding, of getting the kids into schools and helping people set up bank accounts.

These are people that have lost everything. Many are likely to arrive without the documentation needed these days to set up bank accounts. Their birth certificates are in the rubble of their destroyed homes and the town halls where they would normally get new birth certificates are also destroyed.

When we take this beyond the hurricane victims, we see that there are common issues, economic issues, health issues that address many people. Despite the goals of people like Grover Norquist to cut government to “the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”, there remains an important role for government. Government doesn’t have to be ‘big’. It shouldn’t be ineffective, but we need leaders that will invite all of us to make a difference. We need leaders that will help build and in some cases rebuild strong families and not just walk away. We need an active Government that creates possibilities, not takes them away.

As Mayor DeStefano has brought people together to aid the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he found that people do understand their connectedness to one another, that they are willing to get involved is leaders give them a chance, and that they are willing to make sacrifices to build something greater, the way so many of our ancestors did.

While New Orleans was flooding, the Census Department released its annual report on poverty. As states go, Connecticut is in pretty good shape. Yes, the poverty rate is up considerably from a year ago, but it is still nowhere near the poverty rate in Mississippi, Alabama or Louisiana, which are first, third and fourth in poverty in America, respectively.

Besides the damage that Hurricane Katrina did to those states, it also blew away the façade that there isn’t a poverty problem in America.

Yesterday afternoon, I received an email from an old friend I had met through Democracy for America. It included a link to an article in Washington Monthly entitled, “The Ghost of Tom Joad: What happens when an entire generation forgets what it means to be poor?” I hope many of you take the time to go out and read the article. Let me highlight a few sections:

“I thought of my friend's complaint while watching the Democrats in Los Angeles this summer. Challenging George W. Bush's vague but ardent claim of conservative compassion, President Clinton traced his party's legacy of compassion from FDR to LBJ to Jimmy Carter, who's still pounding nails into Habitat for Humanity homes.”

I’ve written before about how important it is to help groups like Habitat for Humanity as they rebuild homes and families on the Gulf Coast. When I read the article, I was thinking it was a recent article talking about Hurricane Katrina. Yet looking more closely, this article is from 2000.

It goes on to say, “Nearly half the country is younger than 35, and the percentage of Americans who can remember Black Friday or the War on Poverty is on the decline.” Go out and do a search on Black Friday on Google. What is their first hit? An article in Wikipedia which states, “Black Friday (also called Blitz Day), the day after Thanksgiving in the United States, is historically one of the busiest retail shopping days of the year.” A much different day than the Black Friday that the stock market crashed in 1929 and is typically heralded as the beginning of the great depression.

The article bleakly comments “You could say that the disappearance of poverty from national politics is merely the product of a prosperity-induced callousness or the stupor of affluence, but I suspect the reason is more complicated than that. Call it national amnesia.”

Yes, we have forgotten who we are, where we have come from and that we are all in this together. September 11th was a wake up call to all of us, not to some jingoistic militaristic nationalism, but to compassionate caring for one another. Hurricane Katrina is a second such call. I sure hope we wake up before we receive a third call.

What will rouse us from our amnesia and stupor? Who will lead us? It is my prayer for this country that we will see more leaders like Mayor DeStefano step up to the plate and inspire the good in all of us to care those around us. It is my dream that just as Freedom Riders hopped on buses over forty years ago to help bring equality to blacks in the south we will see a new generation of people head to the Gulf Coast to help rebuild and help fight poverty.

Yes, Mayor DeStefano was saying something very important when he commented that “New Orleans is a metaphor for the difference between Democrats and Republicans.” At times, I have called myself a Dean Democrat or a Jeffersonian Democrat. Last night, I was very proud to call myself a DeStefano Democrat. I hope you will be to.

Reconnecting citizens with compassionate civic life

I remember working with my wife on her first campaign speech. There was a bit of biography, talking about “neighborhood Easter egg hunts and the pickup games of whiffle ball that filled our summers”, “being proud to be from Bethany”, and “believing that a community sticks together and helps each other out”.

She went on to say, “September 11th happened, and then it seemed possible, for a brief moment, that we would come together as a nation and rally once more.” Today, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we face the same possibility.

I have been reading the blogs, full of partisan recriminations. I have watched the news and seen the suffering of those displaced, compounded by the great poverty in the region. It makes me sad. Whether you are talking about looters, price gougers, or opportunistic politicians, it is sickening.

To me, the old speech by Joseph Welch still resounds in my ears, “Have you no sense of decency left?” Too many people have replace compassion with greed. Some people have suggested that the flood was God’s doing, a punishment for the immorality and depravity of New Orleans. I would like to suggest that like so much in life it is a combination of God’s doing and our own doing. God has allowed us to be overcome with our own greed and lack of compassion, and it is our greed and lack of compassion that has made this the disaster that it is.

Yet there is hope. Nancy White writes over on her blog, “But right now I'm much MORE happy to work with them in Katrina Community (re)Building. I don't give a &*^%$ if I disagree with their politics. I have my feelings about blame (they are strong and painful at the moment).

I'm angry. But that isn't where I want to put my energy right now.”

Since I’m working on John DeStefano’s campaign blog right now, I’m paying close attention to how different campaigns are approaching Katrina. We are spending our time trying to get people to contribute to relief efforts both nationally and locally.

Over at Deval Patrick’s campaign blog they write, “In the months since we embarked on this journey, part of our goal has been to reconnect citizens to civic life. We must learn to share not only in our own dreams, but also in our neighbor’s. A tragedy like Katrina requires us to live up to this spirit and requires us to act.”

Barbara Radnofsky who is running for U.S. Senate in Texas has a long list of entries on her campaign blog about relief efforts there.

So let us all find ways to work together, independent of political affiliation, to reconnect citizens with civic life and get people to show compassion through working locally and nationally to help those in need.

Recovering from Katrina: Failure is Not an Option

Clearly, something is now broken in America. If failure is truly not an option, then we must evolve from where we are today to something that will give us more effective principles for more robust security, both at home and abroad.

Democracy Now is producing very powerful one hour broadcasts on the crisis and chaos resulting from hurricane Katrina. These can be easily be streamed or downloaded to your computer, for free, and I highly recommend taking the time to watch the shows.

Today's show, September 02, covers many aspects of this catastrophe, both natural and man made, with strong reports on the underlying race and class issues which have made matters so much worse than they needed to have been.

Why, for example, when it was well known in New Orleans that 10s of thousands of residents [One quarter of New Orleans residents -- some 134,000 people -- don't own a car - Progress Report] could not afford private transportation of any kind, was zero effort made by any government unit to evacuate these most at risk citizens when the general evacuation order was given BEFORE the storm?

There is a strong segment in which Bush's "zero tolerance" posture is turned against him and applied to Bush and the failures of his leadership. This may be a harbinger of things to come.

Mat Gross also has a passionate post on his blog: Clueless

I've posted at least fourteen times today-- perhaps the most outrageous and disgusting day I've ever witnessed in these here United States of America. Let me just rip wholesale from Kevin Drum:

Could the people in charge of managing the catastrophe in New Orleans possibly be more clueless?

George W. Bush, President of the United States, six days after repeated warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Hurricane Katrina: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, following widespread eyewitness reports of refugees living like animals at the Convention Center: "I have not heard a report of thousands of people in the Convention Center who don't have food and water."

Mike Brown, Director of FEMA, referring to people who were stuck in New Orleans largely because they were too poor to afford the means to leave: "...those who are stranded, who chose not to evacuate, who chose not to leave the city..."

The aftermath of Katrina clearly shows that something is clearly broken in America. And it is not just the communications tools that, 4 years after 911 in New York, still fail our first responders. Perhaps what is broken is our current core organizational principle: top down, hub and spoke. It is past time to ask if there is a better model we could avail ourselves of.

In an earlier post here, Can the Democratic party Evolve, I suggest there is.

It is time for us to move beyond our current political and communications models and to start implementing a politics and a communications that are based upon the concepts of mesh networks. The old model served us well for a time, but now we have moved beyond the limits of its effectiveness. In 2005, we have accumulated the knowledge and the experience to move on to more effective principles.

Posted by Jock Gill at 1:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack