Category: America

  • The Hillary Doctrine

    The Hillary Doctrine

    In a time of momentous change in the world, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sets out on her most heartfelt mission: to put women and girls at the forefront of the new world order.

    by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon

    Hillary Clinton Operation Kamis
    Stephanie Sinclair for Newsweek – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Abu Dhabi in January.

    Hillary Clinton seemed to be in a rare moment of repose while the Middle East erupted. She’d just returned from a surprise trip to Yemen and now sat for 30 minutes against a blue backdrop in the State Department’s Washington broadcast studio as reports streamed in of Libya’s violent crackdown on its own people.

    But Clinton was far from a passive observer. She was in energetic discussion on the Egyptian news site Masrawy.com, where her presence excited a stream of questions—more than 6,500 in three days—from young people across Egypt. “We hope,” she said, “that as Egypt looks at its own future, it takes advantage of all of the people’s talents”—Clinton shorthand for including women. She had an immediate answer when a number of questioners suggested that her persistent references to women’s rights constituted American meddling in Egyptian affairs: “If a country doesn’t recognize minority rights and human rights, including women’s rights, you will not have the kind of stability and prosperity that is possible.”

    The Web chat was only one of dozens of personal exchanges Clinton has committed to during the three months since Tunisia’s unrest set off a political explosion whose end is not yet in sight. At every step, she has worked to connect the Middle East’s hunger for a new way forward with her categorical imperative: the empowerment of women. Her campaign has begun to resonate in unlikely places. In the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, where women cannot travel without male permission or drive a car, a grandson of the Kingdom’s founding monarch (Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud) last month denounced the way women are “economically and socially marginalized” in Arab countries.

    “I believe that the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st century,” Clinton recently told NEWSWEEK during another rare moment relaxing on a couch in the comfortable sitting room of her offices on the State Department’s seventh floor, her legs propped up in front of her. “We see women and girls across the world who are oppressed and violated and demeaned and degraded and denied so much of what they are entitled to as our fellow human beings.”

    Clinton is paying particular attention to whether women’s voices are heard within the local groups calling for and leading change in the Middle East. “You don’t see women in pictures coming from the demonstrations and the opposition in Libya,” she told NEWSWEEK late last week, adding that “the role and safety of women will remain one of our highest priorities.” As for Egypt, she said she was heartened by indications that women would be included in the formation of the new government. “We believe that women were in Tahrir Square, and they should be part of the decision-making process. If [the Egyptians] are truly going to have a democracy, they can’t leave out half the population.”

    “I have had quite an experience over the last three months,” is how Clinton characterizes the stamina requirements of an amped-up shuttle diplomacy. Two years into her tenure as America’s 67th secretary of state, she has out-traveled every one of her predecessors, with 465,000 air miles and 79 countries already behind her. Her Boeing 757’s cabin, stocked with a roll-out bed, newspapers, and a corner humidifier, now serves as another home as she flies between diplomatic hot spots, tackling the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tensions with Iran and North Korea, the Arab-Israeli peace process, and, now, the serial Middle East upheavals. She is, it seems, everywhere at once, crossing time zones and defying jet lag, though signs of exhaustion—a hoarse voice, bleary eyes—slip through. (A recent 19-hour “day trip” to Mexico landed her at Maryland’s Andrews Air Force Base well after 2 a.m., which left approximately six hours to get home, sleep, and make her first meeting of the day that would culminate in President Obama’s State of the Union address.)

    It is hardly the life the former first lady and senator from New York envisioned. Indeed, she can fairly be described as the surprise secretary of state, the country’s first formidable female presidential candidate who had made clear her desire to shed the supporting roles of her past. When Barack Obama approached her about assuming the post, it was clear what he got out of the deal: an opportunity to reinforce his “change the tone” pledge by offering a choice role to his one-time competitor, and the credibility, gravitas—and gender balance—her appointment conferred. Less obvious at the time was what she might hope to accomplish. A sense of duty and a want of appealing alternatives may have led her to Foggy Bottom, but Clinton has turned the job into what may well be the role of her lifetime: advocate in chief for women worldwide.

    Amid the current unrest and pervasive uncertainty, Clinton’s mission has only gained in urgency. As she noted in Qatar in January, two weeks before Egypt’s first “day of rage,” the Middle East’s old foundations were “sinking into the sand.” But there has been a hard core of realism to her recognition of a new opening for women. “We are watching and waiting,” she said. “People jockey for power, and often the most conservative elements once again use the opportunity to crack down on women and women’s roles.”

    While Clinton views the subjugation of the world’s women as a moral question, she plants her argument firmly on the grounds of national security, terrain she knows is far less likely to be attacked as “too soft” to be relevant to U.S. interests. “This is a big deal for American values and for American foreign policy and our interests, but it is also a big deal for our security,” she told NEWSWEEK. “Because where women are disempowered and dehumanized, you are more likely to see not just antidemocratic forces, but extremism that leads to security challenges for us.”

    Championing opportunity and equality for women is the fulfillment of her life’s work, but for a time, it looked as if that trajectory might be derailed. In 1974, the blazing young intellect who won national attention with an unscripted response to Sen. Edward Brooke, boldly arguing for the end of the Vietnam War in her Wellesley commencement speech (a speech that landed her on the cover of Life magazine), disappointed her feminist friends by spurning New York and Washington in favor of Fayetteville, Ark., to become the young Bill Clinton’s wife.

    For two decades, Clinton put her own ambitions second to and in the service of her husband’s political rise, enduring personal struggles and eating political crow when her high-profile effort to reform health care at the start of Bill Clinton’s first term ended in a rout. A return to first-lady purdah soon followed.

    And then came Beijing. The 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, organized by the United Nations to advance and promote women’s opportunity and equality, stirred Hillary to reassert her own credo as a woman, on behalf of women. She would gather America’s delegation and serve as its honorary chair, lending her imprimatur as first lady to put women’s rights in the global spotlight at the largest such assembly of its kind.

    When word reached the West Wing of Hillary’s interest in attending the conference, her husband’s aides saw only the political downside for the president and feared the first lady would derail already-fragile bilateral relations. “I did get a call from someone on the National Security Council who said to me, ‘My job is to make sure Hillary Clinton doesn’t go to China,’?” says Theresa Loar, who helped Clinton organize the Beijing delegation. “I am thinking, my job is to make sure it’s a rip-roaring success—and guess who is going to succeed?”

    Clinton herself says she paid little heed to the political tug-of-war within her husband’s administration. “I always intended to go,” she says, stressing the word “always.” “The real question was, what would I do when I got there … It became more and more important to me that we really lay down a declaration of American values when it comes to women.” And so, clad in a striking pink suit, she ascended the Beijing stage and delivered what The New York Times called “an unflinching speech that may have been her finest moment in public life.” Thousands of delegates—women and men—from 180 countries had gathered to hear Clinton, and some of the women cheered and pounded the tables in front of them while she spoke.

    “If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all,” Clinton declared. “As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace everywhere in the world, as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled, subjected to violence in and outside their homes—the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.”

    Those who have worked closely with Clinton on women’s issues view that speech as a turning point for an embattled first lady. “What Mrs. Clinton so clearly realized in Beijing was that she had a voice and she had power,” says Alyse Nelson, president of the women’s leadership group Vital Voices Global Partnership, who paid her own way to the conference as a college student. “And she could use that voice to help those who had no power.”

    Mu Sochua met Clinton in Beijing and credits Clinton’s speech with changing her career path. “That was the day I decided to enter politics,” says Sochua, now a prominent Cambodian opposition leader. “Watching her I had the sense that I could do it, that other women could do it, if we really spoke from the bottom of our hearts and reflected the voices of women.”

    Significantly, at the age of 63, Hillary Clinton is once again focusing on the issues that first inspired her to seek a life of public service more than four decades ago, a time when America’s schools remained segregated and no woman had ever served on the Supreme Court, been elected mayor of a major city, or entered the country’s military academies.

    Despite her punishing schedule, Clinton appears far more at ease with her own role and in her own skin than ever before. Even her oft-commented style—the coiffed hair, a wardrobe of tailored pantsuits—now shows a settled sureness. Clinton’s political instincts may have served others—principally her husband—to great effect, but over the years they have often done her a disservice. Today, she exudes not just the confidence that her White House–era trials are behind her but the conviction that they are beside the point. In crafting her role as secretary of state, she has shown remarkable political dexterity and a marked absence of inner conflict, crystallized by the moral clarity of addressing injustices faced by young girls sold into slavery or mothers raped in front of their children.

    In January, Clinton became the first secretary of state in two decades to visit Yemen. It’s a country infiltrated by Al Qaeda, and so she talked security and development issues in three hours cloistered with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh at his sprawling presidential compound. It’s also a country where a man may marry a girl of 9, and so Clinton sought out the kind of people who rarely meet American secretaries of state—the students, community activists, and, most obviously, the women. She toured the narrow streets of the capital’s old city to the great dismay of her security detail; through the windows of her heavily armored SUV she caught sight of men in traditional clothes, knives dangling from their belts, and children yelling “welcome” in Arabic. Missing from the scene: virtually any sign of the country’s women.

    Arriving at a packed conference center in a luxury hotel complex perched above the old city, Clinton found young men and women packed into a raucous town-hall meeting. When she finished speaking, a cluster of Yemeni women’s activists approached. A petite young woman wearing a glitter-fringed black head scarf and a denim jacket with BEAUTY embroidered on its sleeve told the secretary the women needed advice about how to stop child marriage. During her remarks, Clinton had cited the story of Nujood Ali, a Yemeni girl in the audience that day whose very public fight for a divorce at age 11 has become a global cause célèbre—one that Clinton herself follows closely.

    “Today, Nujood is back in school where she belongs, learning English along with her studies,” Clinton told the crowd. “And I really see her as an inspiration and representative of so many other young girls who can contribute positively to their families and their country.”

    By Clinton’s side as she spoke was Melanne Verveer, ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, a post Clinton encouraged President Obama to create when she became secretary. In 1995, while serving as Clinton’s chief of staff, Verveer helped the first lady create the President’s Interagency Council on Women. With Verveer as her trusted deputy, Clinton pushes for recognition of women’s contributions in traditional areas such as health and education, along with newer and, in her view, equally critical arenas such as diplomacy and peacekeeping. “Politics is seen in most societies, including our own, I would add, as a largely male sport—unarmed combat—and women are very often ignored or pushed aside in an effort to gain or consolidate power,” she says. Her work aims to change that.

    During Clinton’s daylong stop in Papua New Guinea last November, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare sought to dismiss concerns about domestic violence. “Sometimes there are fights, arguments do take place, but it’s nothing very brutal,” Somare said, before asserting that “a person … cannot control [himself] when he’s under the influence of liquor.” Clinton noted pointedly that one of her highest priorities was “enabling more women to have access to their rights, to take their position in society” and she added—evidently to the surprise of those traveling with her—that Verveer would be returning to Papua New Guinea to “figure out what else the United States can do, so that we have even more women playing leadership roles in every aspect of your society.”

    “Let’s stay true to our values” is, Clinton says, her message to the American public. “Let’s continue to stand up for those who are vulnerable to being left out or marginalized.” It’s a pledge in sync with a growing national awareness of the unappreciated potential of women and girls around the world. Children now study the young readers’ edition of Three Cups of Tea as part of their classroom curriculum, while an increasing number of college-age students are committing time to NGOs involved with women’s issues. And though Washington is proving slower to embrace Clinton’s cause, her own popularity is soaring: she is the second-most-admired woman in America (after Oprah Winfrey), according to a NEWSWEEK poll of women in late February.

    Meanwhile, the State Department’s 2012 fiscal-year request includes $1.2 billion in programs specifically targeting women, $832 million of which will go toward global health initiatives. Tellingly, comparisons with past years can’t be made, since the department only started tracking women-focused dollars in 2010. Once a month, Verveer meets by videoconference with the Afghanistan Gender Task Force, which packs into a narrow room in the heavily fortified U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan’s capital. During a 2009 visit, she unveiled what is now the $36 million Ambassador’s Small Grants Program to Support Gender Equality, which has awarded 523 grants totaling $8 million via the USAID contractor Creative Associates. Most awards last less than four months, but two dozen have gone to organizations working on long-term change, such as a domestic violence law that went into effect last year.

    Afghan grant recipient Suraya Pakzad’s Voice of Women offers refuge to women who suffer beatings and mental abuse at the hands of husbands and in-laws. Thuraya Dammaj, a Yemeni human-rights activist, plans to use a Middle East–focused $25,000 State Department grant to push for quotas to get more women into Parliament and to repeal a law allowing the marriage of young girls.

    During Clinton’s last Middle East visit, former Iraqi minister Bakhtiar Amin told her he worried about the increasing invisibility of women in Iraq’s government. Once there were six female ministers, Amin noted, and now there was only one. Clinton pledged to follow up. “The secretary remembers things, she takes notes, she asks questions weeks or months” after the fact, according to Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary for management at the State Department. “She checks on the issues she cares about, deeply and specifically,” keeping track of it all with her famous to-do lists.

    “I honestly think Hillary Clinton wakes up every day thinking about how to improve the lives of women and girls,” says Theresa Loar. “And I don’t know another world leader who is doing that.”

    Clinton’s knack for personalizing foreign policy was evident last month, when she convened the annual gathering of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. It’s another issue she began working on in the mid-1990s, and in a borderless world with instant communication, sexual slavery has exploded into an epidemic; the State Department estimates there are now 12.3 million adults and children worldwide in “forced labor, bonded labor, and forced prostitution.”

    Squeezed in elbow to elbow around a long wooden table in the State Department’s Jefferson Room was a virtual cabinet gathering, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. As host of the meeting, which began so promptly that several attendees sheepishly slid in late, Clinton asked each of the officials to share their team’s progress. She moved briskly around the table, then stopped to make a frank appeal. “One thing I would urge, if you do get a chance, is to visit a shelter, a site where trafficking victims have been rescued and are being rehabilitated,” she said to a room that had suddenly gone silent. “I recently was in Cambodia, and it is just so overwhelmingly heartbreaking and inspiring to see these young girls. One girl lost her eyes—to punish her, the owner of the brothel had stabbed her in the eye with a nail,” Clinton continued. “She was the most optimistic, cheerful young woman, just a tremendous spirit. What she wants to do when she grows up is help other victims of trafficking, so there is just an enormous amount of work to be done.”

    The shelter Clinton referred to is run by the Cambodian activist Somaly Mam, who herself was forced into a brothel as a little girl. Mam credits Clinton’s visit with making her work rescuing young victims respectable in the eyes of her government. “She protects our lives,” Mam says simply, noting that during her visit Clinton took the time to talk with the girls and that many of the shelter’s children now keep photos of her on their walls. “Our people never paid attention. Hillary has opened their eyes, so now they have no choice; by her work she has saved many lives in Cambodia—our government is changing.”

    For her part, Clinton says that her ambition now is to move the discussion beyond a reliance on her own celebrity. She must, she says, take her work on women’s behalf “out of the interpersonal and turn it into the international.” At the State Department, that goal is reflected in a new and sweeping strategic blueprint known as the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), which establishes priorities over a four-year horizon. Women and girls are mentioned 133 times across the 220 pages of the final QDDR document.

    By institutionalizing a process that recognizes the importance of women’s involvement, Clinton hopes her successors will continue what she has started. Many of those on the front lines of implementing Clinton’s changes say they believe her message will stick. “Once you have built this track record, it is much harder to ignore it,” says Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served as a chief architect of the QDDR process. But some women’s-rights advocates who applaud Clinton’s leadership aren’t so sure. “When I go to Iraq or Afghanistan and I meet State Department officials, I don’t see women’s issues at the core of the discussion,” says Zainab Salbi, who heads Women for Women International. (See My Turn, page 40.) Salbi notes that on a recent trip to the southern Iraqi province of Diwaniya, she had to fight to convince her State interlocutors that spending precious program dollars on women was a worthwhile investment. “Their patriarchy and chauvinism,” she says, “was harder on Iraqi culture than Iraqis themselves.”

    “There is a culture at State, and you have to break through that culture,” admits one former ambassador. “The guys who work on country-to-country relationships don’t think these issues are central.” Clinton’s efforts could easily stall or be reversed when she and Verveer leave, he adds, in part because each is so good at what she does. “I think the combination of those two personalities is crucial, and that’s why I can’t be at all sure it will last beyond this administration.”

    Speculation continues that Clinton would stay on in a second Obama term, and a few pundits go as far as to suggest she might even make another White House run in 2016, though Bill Clinton joked recently that his wife now covets the title of grandmother far more than that of commander in chief. For now, Hillary Clinton is sticking to her story that she is getting ready to take a break from public life.

    Asked whether she worries her eventual departure from the State Department will endanger the future of her mission, Clinton admits to feeling a great weight of responsibility for all the women and girls she has met and the many millions of others like them. “It is why there are 133 references to women and girls in the QDDR,” she says, turning reflexively to the hard evidence. “It is why I mention the issue in every setting I am in, and why I mention it with every foreign leader I meet.

    “It is like any challenge,” she goes on, her tone brightening. “You just keep at it, take it piece by piece, seize the ground you can, hang onto it, and then move forward a little bit more.” She pauses. “And we are heading for higher ground.”

    Lemmon, a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of The Dressmaker of Khair Khana, published this month.

    www.newsweek.com, March 06, 2011

  • Returning Churches, Restoring Rights: An Interview with Aram Hamparian

    Returning Churches, Restoring Rights: An Interview with Aram Hamparian

    The Armenian Weekly conducted an interview today with the ANCA executive director Aram Hamparian. The interview focuses on H.Res 306, the Return of Churches resolution, introduced today. Below is the interview.

    Aram Hamparian

    Alongside the Armenian Genocide Resolution, there was a new resolution recently introduced in the House of Representatives calling upon Turkey to respect the rights of Christians and to return their stolen churches. Can you tell us more about it?

    Well, to begin with, we’re very encouraged by the introduction H.Res. 306—the Return of Churches resolution—by two of the most senior members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce and Howard Berman, and gratified by the broad, bipartisan support it has garnered.

    This religious freedom measure was launched with several dozen original cosponsors, including the co-chairs of the Human Rights, Hellenic, and Armenian caucuses, and, notably, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    A reading of the resolution’s text shows that it calls, very simply, upon the government of Turkey to honor its international obligations to return confiscated Christian church properties and fully respect the rights of all Christians, among them, of course, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Pontians, and Arameans (Syriacs) who have lived for thousands of years in what is present-day Turkey.

    This legislation speaks to us powerfully as Americans—committed, as we are, to the principle of religious liberty; as Christians—who seek for ourselves and all people the right to worship in freedom; and as Armenians—who are working for a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide that morally and materially makes whole the victim of this horrific crime. There’s no better place to start this long overdue process than with Turkey returning stolen churches.

     

    Why this resolution now?

    This measure is urgently needed to confront—and eventually reverse—the vast destruction visited upon religious sites during the Armenian Genocide as well as Turkey’s official and ongoing, post-genocide destruction of church properties, desecration of holy sites, discrimination against Christian communities, and denial of rights to Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Pontians, Arameans (Syriacs), and others.

    It’s adoption would add the powerful voice of the U.S. Congress—and the full moral authority of the American people—to the international defense of religious freedom for the Christian nations residing within the borders of present-day Turkey.

     

    Can you briefly describe the communities and churches this legislation seeks to protect?

    Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Pontians, and Arameans (Syriacs) have long lived in what is present-day Turkey. Many thousands of years before the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, these nations gave birth to great civilizations and established a rich civic, religious and cultural heritage. They were, upon these biblical lands, among the first Christians, dating back to the time of the travels through Anatolia by the Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew. Armenia, in 301 A.D., as is well known, became the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion.

    As students of religion worldwide know, the territory of present-day Turkey is home to many of the most important centers of early Christianity—most notably Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople. These lands contain a remarkably rich legacy of Christian heritage, including thousands of religious sites.

    And, of course, the Armenian Genocide nearly wiped out these Christian nations.

    It’s true. The Armenian Genocide of 1915 and, more broadly, Ottoman Turkey’s genocidal drive to eliminate its entire Christian population, represents a terrible watershed in the histories of the Christians of these lands, marking, as it does, a genocidal shift from the Turkish leadership’s ongoing policy of violence and oppression to one of an outright, systematic, intentional and state-implemented campaign of race extermination.

    And so, during the World War I-era, after centuries of growing intolerance and persecution, Ottoman Turkey perpetrated a government-sponsored campaign of genocide against its Armenian and other Christians subjects, resulting in the murder of over 2,000,000 Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Pontians, Arameans (Syriacs), and the exile of hundreds of thousands others from their homelands of thousands of years.

    The Republic of Turkey, heir to the Ottomans, continued these genocidal policies against the remaining Christian population, through ethnic-cleansing, organized massacres, destruction of churches and religious sites, illegal expropriation of properties, discriminatory policies, restrictions on worship, and other means. As a result only a small fraction of the vast Christian population that once populated Anatolia remains today in modern Turkey.

     

    What is the situation today of remaining Christians within Turkey?

    The endangered Christian communities within Turkey’s present-day borders, in addition to all the crimes visited upon them and their holy sites throughout their histories, continue, to this day, to endure oppressive restrictions imposed by the government of Turkey on their right to practice their faith in their historic places of worship. These endangered sites are, nearly all, still today in Turkish hands as a direct result of genocide.

     

    What does the U.S. government—Turkey’s ally—have to say about religious freedom in Turkey?

    The State Department, which often goes to great and frequently unreasonable lengths to excuse Turkey’s conduct, has criticized the persecution of Christians in Turkey, including the improper confiscation of their properties.

    The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, established by Congress, recently designated Turkey as one of a handful of countries on its watch list for a third consecutive year.

    All this reflects the sad reality faced by the remaining Christians in Turkey. They are, all too often, prevented from praying in their historic churches, which have been desecrated, sometimes used as storage sheds—and in some cases, even turned into barns. In very rare instances—such as the Akhtamar Church—Turkey has undertaken repairs, but refused to these return religious properties to their rightful church owners, instead converting them into museums, where prayer, as a rule, is prohibited.

     

    Has Congress taken action on these types of religious freedom issues in the past?

    The United States, as a nation that was, quite literally, founded upon a belief in religious liberty, has a long and proud tradition of actively promoting and defending freedom of faith around the world.

    Our own Bill of Rights safeguards religious freedom for Americans, and our longstanding leadership in championing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international covenants has helped protect freedom of faith across the globe.

    America’s enduring commitment to religious freedom was powerfully reaffirmed in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, and has been underscored in countless pieces of specific legislation. Here are a few examples:

    • Just last year, the U.S. House passed H.Res.1631, which called for the protection of minority religious communities and places of worship in the illegally-occupied portion of Cyprus.
    • S.Res.705, adopted by the U.S. Senate during the 110th Congress, reaffirmed U.S. support for the preservation of religious and cultural sites, and, in particular, called upon the government of Lithuania to halt and, if necessary, reverse the desecration of a Jewish cemetery located in the Snipiskes area of Vilnius.
    • H.Res.562, passed by the House during the 105th Congress, cited the confiscation of property by foreign governments as a means of victimizing minority populations, and, specifically, urged foreign governments to return wrongfully expropriated properties to religious communities.
    • H.Res.191, which was adopted by the U.S. House during the 109th Congress, called upon the government of Romania to provide fair, prompt, and equitable restitution to all religious communities for church properties that had been previously stolen by the government.
    • H.R.3096 from the 110th Congress, put the U.S. House on record pressing the government of Vietnam to respect freedom of religion and to return properties confiscated from churches.
    • H.Con.Res.371, passed by the House during the 110th Congress, called on foreign governments to return looted and confiscated properties to their rightful owners or, where restitution was not possible, to pay equitable compensation, in accordance with principles of justice and in an expeditious manner that is just, transparent, and fair.

     

    What type of opposition do you expect to this resolution?

    Sadly, if history is any guide, we can look to the Turkish government to stridently oppose this effort to end faith-based discrimination, promote religious tolerance, and secure the rightful return of Christian churches.

    This bipartisan measure speaks openly and honestly about the real situation in Turkey today, which inevitably runs up against the many Ottoman and Kemalist myths about Turkey as a model of tolerance and pluralism. So, we’re likely to hear that this measure is unnecessary or even counter-productive given all the great strides that the Turkish government is supposedly making. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear the Turkish Embassy trying to spin that its adoption would somehow upset the fragile Turkey-Armenia Protocols process.

     

    What can our readers do to help move this legislation forward?

    The quickest and easiest first step is for folks to send a free ANCA WebMail asking their U.S. Representatives to support the Return of Churches resolution (H.Res.306) and work for its adoption.

    Another great way to help is to spread the word to friends, family, work colleagues, and people you know who attend churches, mosques, synagogues, and other places of worship – basically anyone concerned about religious freedom and human rights. Send them the link www.anca.org/return or just explain in your own words what this effort is all about.

    There are so many ways to engage, from getting involved with your local ANCA chapter and visiting with your local legislators to meeting with the editors of your community newspapers, volunteering for supportive candidates, and building coalitions with friendly groups.

    There are as many ways to help as there are people who want to be helpful. If people need a hand, we’re here for you. Just send us an email, call, or post a note to our Facebook page.

  • Turkey: Emerging power, valuable friend

    Turkey: Emerging power, valuable friend

    By Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) – 06/15/11 05:22 PM ET

    I recently visited Turkey, where I learned much about our increasingly powerful partner. A deeper and more candid friendship with Turkey will help the United States pursue its interests and support its values around the world.

    Sunday’s parliamentary elections showed continued support for Prime Minister Recep Erdogan’s center-right Justice and Development Party (AKP), in power since its first landslide victory in 2002. But opposition parties showed strength, too, narrowing the AKP’s majority. Bottom line: the Turkish people are determining their own destiny — and that is a beautiful thing.

    Turkey is the strongest and truest Muslim democracy in its region — more than 99 percent of Turks are Muslims, and though Turkey’s modern history is marked by periodic constitutional crises, it has remained a secular constitutional republic since 1923. As such, Turkey is a natural — and strategically important — friend of the United States.

    Since antiquity, present-day Turkey has been situated at the crossroads of civilizations. Its complicated position as hinge between “East” and “West” continues to shape its place in the world, evidenced by persistent hurdles to EU membership and complicated relationships with Israel and Iran.

    Turkey faces serious international and domestic challenges — continued disputes with Greece, difficult relations with the Kurdish population and room for strengthened freedoms of speech and the press, for example — but Turkey is a model of democracy in the Muslim world.

    On Good Friday, my wife and I visited the House of the Virgin Mary, a site venerated by Christians and Muslims alike on Turkey’s western coast. It is believed Mary once lived there, and people of many faiths were assembled to reflect. Despite the congregation’s somber mood, it was a hopeful scene, in striking contrast to the violence that continues to mar countries to Turkey’s south. Turkey’s unique history has laid the foundations for the development of a remarkably strong and pluralistic society.

    It is also an emerging regional power and important trading partner with a rapidly modernizing economy — 8.2 percent GDP growth in 2010 placed Turkey among the world’s fastest growing economies. Istanbul’s skyline is marked by cranes and signs of development reminiscent of China’s booming mega-cities. Smart investment in infrastructure is improving quality of life and supporting economic growth. Flourishing trade with Europe, Russia, China, Israel and Iraq is growing Turkey’s middle class and bolstering its global clout.

    Turkish participation in multilateral security missions (including NATO efforts in Afghanistan, anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and Operation Unified Protector in Libya) demonstrates greater assertiveness in international affairs. This development should be embraced and shaped by the United States — not rejected or contained.

    Turkish officials are eager to deepen ties with the United States, and Turkey’s “no-enemies” foreign policy allows for effective facilitation of diplomacy between the U.S. and regimes with which we have disputes. I discussed with Turkish diplomats the plight of American journalists in Libyan captivity, some of whom have been subsequently released. Turkish advocacy on behalf of those Americans still detained remains invaluable.

    The region is in turmoil as citizens rise up to topple rotten dictatorships. Though this “Arab Spring” represents hope and greater democratic consciousness in societies recovering from decades of repression, some in the United States fear that popular rule in the Muslim world will not serve American interests. Turkey stands as evidence that Islam and democracy can be reconciled without undermining constructive relations with the United States and our allies. The United States should continue to cultivate Turkey as an enduring partner and friend, while encouraging our friend to maintain its democratic institutions.

    There is much discussion of constitutional reform in Turkey. The United States should engage in candid and respectful dialogue with Turkey’s leaders to advocate for an inclusive process true to Turkey’s secular, democratic heritage — a key foundation of the U.S.-Turkey friendship. Speaking candidly with our Turkish friends, we should continue to emphasize the importance of free speech and an unfettered press and encourage a swift, efficient, and apolitical judiciary.

    In supporting and deepening ties with Turkey while restating our commitments to these principles, we not only advance our economic and political interests, we demonstrate important commitments to democracy, religious freedom and prosperity in the Middle East.

    Johnson is a member of the House Armed Services committee and the Judiciary committee.

    via Turkey: Emerging power, valuable friend – TheHill.com.

  • GOP Debate: Newt Gingrich’s Comparison of Muslims and Nazis Sparks Outrage

    GOP Debate: Newt Gingrich’s Comparison of Muslims and Nazis Sparks Outrage

    ap newt gingrich
    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks during the first New Hampshire Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. on June 13, 2011. (Jim Cole/AP Photo)
    By HUMA KHAN and AMY BINGHAM
    June 14, 2011

    Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s comments comparing Muslims to Nazis at the GOP debate Monday night have sparked a firestorm in the blogosphere, where liberals, and even some conservatives, have pounced on the former House speaker for what they view as excessive fear mongering.

    “He is appealing to the basest instincts of a very small minority of folks,” said Matthew Dowd, ABC News consultant who served as chief strategist on George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election team. “Either he is doing this for political purposes to distract people from a campaign in disarray, which is bad, or he actually believes it, which is scary.”

    At the New Hampshire debate Monday night, Gingrich responded to questions about loyalty tests for administration officials, saying, “The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S., became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square, was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed and when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, ‘You’re my enemy. I lied,’” Gingrich recalled at the debate moderated by CNN.

    “Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period,” Gingrich said to applause.

    But Gingrich didn’t stop there, despite an attempt by moderators to interject. He compared hiring Muslims to how Americans dealt with Nazis in the 1940s.

    “We did this in dealing with the Nazis. We did this in dealing with the Communists. And it was controversial both times and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say, ‘No,’” he concluded.

    Many people have chastised Gingrich, whose senior aides resigned en masse last week, for invoking 1950s-era McCarthyism, a time during which free speech came under assault amid a heightened threat of Communism.

    Muslim groups expressed outrage, saying Gingrich was merely exploiting Muslims for personal and political gain.

    “It’s really reprehensible when you have a mainstream presidential candidate equate Muslims with Nazis and communists,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director at Council on American-Islamic Relations. “It is what we’ve come to expect from the right wing of the political faction.”

    CAIR also assailed GOP candidates Herman Cain and Rick Santorum for their comments on the question of sharia law taking over the U.S. court system.

    Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, raised eyebrows earlier this year when he said he wouldn’t allow Muslims in his cabinet. Cain clarified the remark Monday, saying he might want to ask a Muslim person certain questions during a job interview about their loyalty to the country, a comment that Gingrich defended.

    Although he might have created a firestorm, this isn’t the first time Gingrich has made such a comparison and, to many, his most recent comments are anything but surprising.

    Gingrich spoke fervently in August against the proposed mosque and community center to be built near Ground Zero, saying that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to do so just as “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” or “we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.”

    Gingrich brought up the same example of the attempted Times Square bomber’s loyalty at a debate in February, saying he “lied [about his loyalty to America] to get American citizenship.”

    “Your generation is going to face a long struggle I believe at least as long as the Cold War,” Gingrich warned students during a debate with Howard Dean at George Washington University. “It is going to be extraordinarily dangerous and I think if our opponents get either a biological or nuclear weapon we are in real trouble and we are not today having the national dialogue that we should be having about how dangerous this is and how bad it could get.”

    “We did this in dealing with the Nazis. We did this in dealing with the Communists. And it was controversial both times and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say, ‘No,’” he concluded.

    Many people have chastised Gingrich, whose senior aides resigned en masse last week, for invoking 1950s-era McCarthyism, a time during which free speech came under assault amid a heightened threat of Communism.

    Muslim groups expressed outrage, saying Gingrich was merely exploiting Muslims for personal and political gain.

    “It’s really reprehensible when you have a mainstream presidential candidate equate Muslims with Nazis and communists,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director at Council on American-Islamic Relations. “It is what we’ve come to expect from the right wing of the political faction.”

    CAIR also assailed GOP candidates Herman Cain and Rick Santorum for their comments on the question of sharia law taking over the U.S. court system.

    Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, raised eyebrows earlier this year when he said he wouldn’t allow Muslims in his cabinet. Cain clarified the remark Monday, saying he might want to ask a Muslim person certain questions during a job interview about their loyalty to the country, a comment that Gingrich defended.

    Although he might have created a firestorm, this isn’t the first time Gingrich has made such a comparison and, to many, his most recent comments are anything but surprising.

    Gingrich spoke fervently in August against the proposed mosque and community center to be built near Ground Zero, saying that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to do so just as “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” or “we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor.”

    Gingrich brought up the same example of the attempted Times Square bomber’s loyalty at a debate in February, saying he “lied [about his loyalty to America] to get American citizenship.”

    “Your generation is going to face a long struggle I believe at least as long as the Cold War,” Gingrich warned students during a debate with Howard Dean at George Washington University. “It is going to be extraordinarily dangerous and I think if our opponents get either a biological or nuclear weapon we are in real trouble and we are not today having the national dialogue that we should be having about how dangerous this is and how bad it could get.”

    Although his comments from Monday have come under fire, observers say they are unlikely to significantly affect his already-fledgling campaign.

    The comments Monday night are “not surprising coming [from] Newt in that he seems to have been born with a limited filter between his brain and his mouth,” consultant Dowd said. But “it’s hard to say it will really hurt his campaign when it was already taking on water and listing in the waves.”

    In a sign that the campaign was taking a turn for the worst, a number of Gingrich’s top aides resigned last week, citing conflicting opinions about the direction of the campaign and what they perceive as a lack of motivation on the part of Gingrich and his wife, Callista, to do heavy, time-consuming fundraising and campaigning.

    abcnews.go.com, June 14, 2011

  • THIRTEEN WAYS OF LOOKING AT A FASCIST

    THIRTEEN WAYS OF LOOKING AT A FASCIST

    THIRTEEN WAYS OF LOOKING AT A FASCIST

    “Remembrance of the past helps us to understand the present.”

    William L. Shirer

    The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

     

    Numbed in their abjectitude,

    The only moving thing

    The eye of the young boy

    Who would never be an artist.

    I

    I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down…This is a tactic based on precise calculation of all human weakness, and its result will lead to success with almost mathematical certainty unless the opposing side learns to combat poison gas with poison gas.

    Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, 43-44.

    II

    No one can accuse him [Hitler] of not putting down in writing exactly the kind of Germany he intended to make if he ever came to power.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 81.

    III

    No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic and the advent of Adolph Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. At the crest of their popular strength, in July 1932, the National Socialists had attained but 37% of the popular vote. But the 63 per cent of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, however temporarily, to stamp it out.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 185.

    IV

    In the four years since the 1928 elections, the Nazis had won some thirteen million new votes. Yet the majority that would sweep the party into power still eluded Hitler. He had won only 37% of the total vote. The majority of the Germans were still against him.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 166.

    V

    Between the Left and the Right, Germany lacked a politically powerful middle class, which in other countries—in France, in England, in the United States—had proved to be the backbone of democracy.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 186.

    VI

    It [the Republic] had, as we have seen, allowed the Army to maintain a state within a state, the businessmen and bankers to make large profits, the Junkers to keep their uneconomic estates by means of government loans that were never repaid and seldom used to improve the land. Yet this generosity had won neither gratitude nor their loyalty to the Republic. With a narrowness, a prejudice, a blindness which in retrospect seem inconceivable to this chronicler, they hammered away at the foundations of the Republic until, in alliance with Hitler, they brought it down.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 186.

    VII

    When Hitler addressed the Reichstag on January 30, 1934, he could look back on a year of achievement without parallel in German history. Within twelve months he had overthrown the Weimar Republic, substituted his personal dictatorship for its democracy, destroyed all the political parties but his own, smashed the state governments and their parliaments and unified and defederalized the Reich, wiped out the labor unions, stamped out democratic associations of any kind, driven the Jews out of public and professional life, abolished freedom of speech and of the press, stifled the independence of the courts and “coordinated” under Nazi rule the political, economic, cultural and social life of an ancient and cultivated people. For all these accomplishments and for his resolute action in foreign affairs, which took Germany out of the concert of nations at Geneva, and proclaimed German insistence on being treated as an equal among the great powers, he was backed, as the autumn plebiscite and election had shown, by the overwhelming majority of the German people.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 213.

    VIII

    Systematic lying to the whole world can be safely carried out only under the conditions of totalitarian rule, where the fictitious quality of everyday reality makes propaganda largely superfluous.

    Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 245.

    Hitler lost no time in exploiting the Reichstag fire to the limit. On the day following the fire, February 28 [1933], he prevailed on President Hindenburg to sign a decree “for the protection of the People and the State” suspending seven sections of the constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties. Described as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree laid down that: Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 194.

    IX

    The inclusion of criminals is necessary in order to make plausible the propagandistic claim of the movement that the institution [concentration camps] exists for asocial elements.

    Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 448.

    The purpose of the concentration camps was not only to punish enemies of the regime but by their very existence to terrorize the people and deter them from even contemplating any resistance to Nazi rule.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 271.

    From the very first weeks of 1933, when the massive and arbitrary arrests, beating and murders by those in power began, Germany under National Socialism ceased to be a society based on law. “Hitler is the law!” the legal lights of Nazi Germany proudly proclaimed, and Goering emphasized it when he told the Prussian prosecutors on July 12, 1934, that “the law and the will of the Fuehrer are one.” It was true.

    Ibid., 268.

    X

    Journalistic circles in particular like to describe the press as a great power in the state. As a matter of fact, its importance really is immense. It cannot be overestimated, for the press really continues education in adulthood.

    Its readers, by and large, can be divided into three groups:

    First, into those who believe everything they read;

    Second, into those who have ceased to believe anything;

    Third, into the minds which critically examine what they read, and judge accordingly.

    Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass of the people and consequently represents the simplest-minded part of the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of profession, but at most in general degrees of intelligence. To it belong all those who have been neither born nor trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white.

    Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, 240-241.

    XI

    General Augusto Pinochet raped, tortured, murdered, robbed, and lied.

    He violated the constitution he had pledged to respect. He was the strongman of a dictatorship that tortured and murdered thousands of Chileans. He sent tanks into the streets to discourage the curiosity of those who wanted to investigate his crimes. And he lied every time he opened his mouth to talk about these things.

    Once the dictatorship was over, Pinochet stayed on as head of the army. And in 1998, when he was to retire, he stepped onto the country’s civilian stage. As I write these lines, he has, by his own order, become a senator for life. Protest has erupted in the streets, but the buoyant general, deaf to anything but the military hymn praising his achievements, proceeds to take his seat in the Senate. He has plenty of reason to turn a deaf ear: after all, the day of the 1973 coup d’état that ended Chile’s democracy, September 11, was celebrated as a national holiday for a quarter of a century, and September 11 is still the name of one of downtown Santiago’s main thoroughfares.

    Eduardo Galeano, Upside Down, 193.

    XII

    Works of art that cannot be understood but need a swollen set of instructions to prove their right to exist and find their way to neurotics who are receptive to such stupid or insolent nonsense will no longer openly reach the German nation. Let no one have illusions! National Socialism has set out to purge the German Reich and our people of all those influences threatening its existence and character…With the opening of this exhibition has come the end of artistic lunacy and with it the artistic pollution of our people.

    Adolph Ziegler, President, Reich Chamber of Art, 18 July 1937

    The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 244.

    At one period in the mid-thirties the hissing of German films became so common that Wilhelm Frick, the Minister of the Interior, issued a stern warning against “treasonable behavior on the part of the cinema audiences.” Likewise the radio programs were so roundly criticized that the president of the Radio Chamber, one Horst Dressler-Andress declared that such carping was “an insult to German culture” and would not be tolerated.

    William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 247.

    XIII

    Do not interrupt. I will not tolerate interruption. I am an old man. My voice tires. Gentlemen, I appeal to your sense of justice, your notorious sense of justice. Hear me out. Consider my third point. Which is that you have exaggerated. Grossly. Hysterically. That you have made me some kind of mad devil, the quintessence of evil, hell embodied. When I was, in truth, only a man of my time. Oh inspired, I will grant you, with a certain—how shall I put it?—nose for the supreme political possibility. A master of human moods, perhaps, but a man of my time.

    Average, if you will. Had it been otherwise, had I been the singular demon of your rhetorical fantasies, how then could millions of ordinary men and women have found in me the mirror, the plain mirror of their needs and appetites? And it was, I will allow you that, an ugly time. But I did not create its ugliness, and I was not the worst. Far from it. How many wretched little men of the forest did your Belgian friends murder outright or leave to starvation and syphilis when they raped the Congo? Answer me that, gentlemen. Or must I remind you? Some twenty million. That picnic was under way when I was newborn. What was Rotterdam or Coventry compared with Dresden and Hiroshima? I do not come out worst in that black game of numbers. Did I invent the camps? Ask of the Boers. But let us be serious. Who was it that broke the Reich? To whom did you hand over millions, tens of millions of men and women from Prague to the Baltic? Set them like a bowl of milk before an insatiable cat? I was a man of murderous time, but a small man compared with him. You think of me as a satanic liar. Very well. Do not take my word for it. Choose what sainted , unimpeachable witness you will. The holy writer, the great bearded one who came out of Russia and preached to the world. It is sometime ago. My memory aches. The man of the Archipelago. Yes, that word sticks in the mind. What did he say? That Stalin had slaughtered thirty million. That he had perfected genocide when I was still a nameless scribbler in Munich. My boys used their fists and whips. I won’t deny it. The time stank of hunger and blood. But when a man spat out the truth they would stop their fun. Stalin’s torturers worked for the pleasure of the thing. To make men befoul themselves, to obtain confessions which are lies, insanities, obscene jokes. The truth only made them more bestial. It is not I who assert these things: it is your own survivors, your historians, the sage of the Gulag. Who, then, was the greater destroyer, whose blood lust was the more implacable? Stalin’s or mine? […] Our terrors were a village carnival compared with his. Our camps covered absurd acres; he had strung wire and death pits around a continent. Who survived among those who had fought with him, brought him to power, executed his will? Not one. He smashed their bones to the last splinter. When my fall came, my good companions were alive, fat, scuttling for safety or recompense, cavorting toward you with their contritions and their memoirs. How many Jews did Stalin kill—your savior, your ally Stalin? Answer me that. Had he not died when he did, there would not have been one of you left alive between Berlin and Vladivostok. Yet Stalin died in bed, and the world stood hushed beside the tiger’s rest.

    George Steiner, The Portage to San Cristobal of A. H., 167-169.

    young adolf hitler

    Sources:

    Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: A Harvest Book, 1985.

    Galeano, Eduardo. Upside Down. New York: Picador, 1998.

    Hitler, Adolph. Mein Kampf. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1971.

    Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.

    Steiner, George. The Portage to San Cristobal of A. H. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,  1981.

  • U.S. spies want computers to analyze metaphors

    U.S. spies want computers to analyze metaphors

    OEDHere’s a linguistic can of worms for you: a U.S. intelligence agency is training computers to analyze metaphors used in foreigners’ conversations to determine if they are a threat to national security.

    The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), a spy version of DARPA under the director of National Intelligence, is working on something called The Metaphor Program. It’s no 1960s quiz show.

    The program is meant to “exploit the fact that metaphors are pervasive in everyday talk and reveal the underlying beliefs and worldviews of members of a culture.”

    Researchers will apparently identify and define metaphors from English, Farsi, Spanish, and Russian texts and compile them into a database. But computers will do most of the work.

    The first phase of the five-year program will “develop automated tools and techniques for recognizing, defining, and categorizing linguistic metaphors.” Analysts would later compare subjects’ statements to the database to try to determine their intentions. There’s more info in a presentation here (PDF).

    Project manager Heather McCallum-Bayliss has suggested that words used by Israelis and Palestinians or China and Taiwan to describe world events could be analyzed as an example. Statements by extremist leaders could also be studied for the effect of metaphors on followers.

    One of the goals of the Metaphor Program is to deliver “a functional prototype that demonstrates the automated handling of data, discovery, and semantic definition of metaphors.”

    It’s very difficult for natural language processing software to comprehend figurative language, so that will be one tough row to hoe.

    (Via The Telegraph
    news.cnet.com, 30 May 2011