The Commitment to Development Index shows that helping to fight poverty is about far more than giving money. The Index ranks 21 rich countries according to their policies in seven areas: aid, trade, investment, migration, security, environment, and technology. Check the rankings, view rich country report cards, graphs and maps, and post your comments. http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi

August 31, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

I wanted to pass on the interesting event below being organized by Students for Global Democracy:

Americans go through their everyday lives often unaware of the fruits of democracy which they enjoy daily.  In many countries abroad, millions languish under the injust rule of  brutal despots.  Yet those of us aware of the nasty nature of dictatorships abroad do not have to sit in complacence, waiting for change to come instead of bettering the world ourselves.  Students for Global Democracy aims to fight that apathy by holding a Worldwide Walk for Democracy in Belarus that will greatly increase American awareness of the world behind our nation's borders.

Parliamentary elections will take place in Belarus next year, a country that stands as the Europe’s black sheep for its dictatorial abuses.  Aleksandr Lukashenka, ruler of the once-fair East European nation, will play his old tricks in defrauding the people of Belarus and usurping their right to self- determination away from them through heartless authoritarianism.  As students and professionals around the world, we have a duty to support the people of Belarus in the preparation for that battle.  Without supporting voices from the average citizens of the world, the Belarusian people may believe they stand alone in their fight for freedom.  We can show them the truth – that the world’s peoples stand behind them.  We can do this by Walking for Democracy and breaking the iron shackles that oppress the people of Belarus.

The Walk will take place on October 15, nearly a year after Lukashenka conducted an illegal referendum to extend his rule.  Students in different locales worldwide will walk 12 km (1 km for every year Lukashenka will have been in power when the 2006 parliamentary elections come) and raise pledge funds for their walks to support democratic youth groups in Belarus.  Please consider joining the worldwide democracy movement by holding a Walk on your campus or in your city. 

Please email Charlie Szrom at president@sfgd.org if you are interested.

August 31, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The article below reflects the support Jesse Jackson is giving Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez after the statement made by Reverend Pat Robertson calling for the US Government to assassinate Venezuela's President, as well as supporting Chavez's policies.  Whether or not the US government agrees with Chavez's policies, it is important to be mindful of the trade relationship the US has with Venezuela in relation to the oil imports, and the negative effects the US economy would experience should that trade relationship be hindered.  Hurricane Katrina, I believe, will strengthen Venezuela and US economic relations.  We are yet to what develops within their foreign policy agenda.

Jesse Jackson Says Venezuela No Threat, Praises Venezuelan Government Concerns

Sunday, August 28, 2005

By: Gregory Wilpert.  Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, Venezuela, August 28, 2005

U.S. Civil Rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson said in Venezuelatoday that there is no evidence that the country represents a threat to the region and praised the Chavez government’s most important issues.

Jackson is on a three-day visit to Venezuela, during which he will meet with local religious leaders, Afro-Venezuelan groups, the president of the oil giant PDVSA, President Hugo Chavez, and visit some poor-neighborhoods to see Venezuela's social programs at work.

“Your focus on foreign debt, debt relief, and free and fair trade to overcome years of structural disorder, unnecessary military spending, land reform… these are some of the great themes of our time. They can change our world condition,” said Jackson.

When asked about Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s statements that Venezuela represented a threat to the hemisphere, he said, “There is no evidence that is stated and established that this government is in fact a source of instability. Secretary Rumsfeld, in every speech he made in Latin America, said Venezuela is a threat to stability, that they are a menace. This is the same language used about Iraq,” added Jackson.

Rather than Venezuela being a menace to the region, Jackson said, “it is the flow of drugs that is the menace.”

Jackson said that his trip had been planned several months ago and that its purpose was to address the concern of stability and commitment to democracy in the Western Hemisphere. Jackson emphasized that the commitment to democracy should include not just the right to vote, but also the right to access to health care, education, and decent wages.

"It is not enough to have the right to vote. It is also important to have the right to education, to healthcare and all social services... Democracy cannot survive if some have too much and the majority too little; that's why people need access to land. Countries' resources should be used to empower the people," Jackson added.

He was accompanied by various members and supporters of Rainbow/PUSH coalition that he leads, as well as a son and a daughter of his. Following a press conference, Jackson participated in a commemoration of the 42nd anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, where he held a speech on “The Dream: A Call for the Moral Imperatives” that summarized some of the lessons that can be learned from King’s speech and life.

After summarizing how President Chavez had been elected and ratified in his mandate, Jackson

said, “We must therefore affirm this government in the family of nations.” Jackson also emphasized that he is concerned about human rights, which “should be measured by one yardstick.”

Jackson went on to state, “We are neighbors in the same hemisphere, we are trading partners… Venezuela has 75 major league baseball players, including the winningest baseball manager, Oswaldo Guillen of the Chicago White Sox. We have much to build upon. So, I hope we would reduce rhetoric that exacerbates tension. I hope our government will stop pursuing any policy that suggests isolation.” He also said that both sides ought to reduce the confrontational rhetoric.

Jackson also addressed the issue of Reverend Pat Robertson’s recent remarks that called for Chavez’s assassination, saying that Robertson’s remarks were “immoral,” “illegal,” and “repugnant.”

Jackson said it appeared that Robertson, though, was merely reacting to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s statements, who had said that Venezuela is a threat.  Robertson’s clarification that he really wanted the U.S. to kidnap Chavez, not kill him, “is no shift at all.” Also, Jackson emphasized that the U.S. government Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should investigate Robertson for violation of FCC rules.

With regard to the question about whether Jackson shares Chavez’s complaint that the Bush administration is funding opposition civil society groups in Venezuela, Jackson said, “If

[Venezuela’s] government were to fund opposition groups in the U.S., it would be unacceptable. Democracy demands that we play the game by one set of rules.”

August 29, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Hey All, my name is Phillip Valka and I'm a new Senior Political Analyst with AID and this is my first post.  I know everyone might be a bit fed up with Iraq, given the constant coverage and the stream of bad news, but I just red this excellent article in the new issue of Foreign Affairs by Lt. Col. Andrew Krepinevich called "How to Win Iraq" (also the subject of David Brooks' piece in Sunday's Times).  I wrote a brief overview (with a little editorializing on my part) as an introduction to the article.  It takes a long time to read but well worth it in examining the problems, what we can accomplish and how to do it.  A very welcome article in a sea of so much deception and disinformation! Here's the URL: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84508-p0/andrew-f-krepinevich-jr/how-to-win-in-iraq.html

My Intro:

A New Strategy for Winning

Iraq

In the face of mounting public opposition to the war – seen most clearly in the dropping poll numbers, Cindy Sheehan’s vocal anti-war camp outside the Presidential ranch and louder calls for withdrawal – it is about time that the Bush administration clearly define American objectives, propose a strategy for attaining them and ask for the American people’s support. So instead of his hollow rhetoric about spreading freedom to the Iraqi people and the broader Middle East or how the war has made America safer (stating his own opinion as fact), President Bush needs to come clean about what we want to accomplish and how to get there. There is a large consensus on what is needed our objectives: a weakened insurgency, a strong Iraqi military force and a promising political process that lays the foundations for a democratic state. How to get there is a different question. Some call for staying the course, others for a time table to be established and the more daring ones, for a full withdrawal.

In the new issue of Foreign Affairs, Lt. Col. Andrew Krepinevich outlines a bold, new strategy for combating the insurgency and creating stability and security in his article, “How to Win in Iraq.” In perhaps the most cohesive, compelling and creative proposal I’ve read yet, Krepinevich calls for an “oil-spot strategy” as the solution to America’s struggle against the insurgency. Instead of the current strategy of hunting down and killing the terrorists, the “oil-spot strategy” calls on coalition and Iraqi forces to concentrate their efforts on protecting the Iraqi people by creating secure areas where the insurgents are denied support and operational capacity. From these zones, the security radius could slowly spread (or ooze if you want to continue with the oil metaphor) to encompass larger areas free from insurgent violence. Such a strategy would bolster the Iraqi people’s confidence in the current government and coalition nation-building efforts by granting their basic demand for security. What’s more these secure areas would demonstrate the tangible benefits of areas under government control– thus taking steam out the support for the insurgency. This strategy is based on the British successful counterinsurgency operation in

Malaysia

in the 1950s whereby the British defeated the Malaysian insurgents by recognizing the inextricable link between the political and military sides of counterinsurgency. 

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has focused too much on tracking and killing the insurgents instead of providing the conditions for viable political process to take hold. Evidence of this strategy’s failure exists in

Samarra

and Amadi where American forces flushed out the insurgents but quickly left only to have the cities fall into insurgent hands again. Even closer to the heart of American efforts – the highway to the

Baghdad

airport is one of the most dangerous roads in

Iraq

– if safe transport can’t even be granted to

Iraq

’s main int. Given the failure of the Bush administration’s current strategy and the even graver consequences of withdrawals or time-tables, the “oil-spot strategy” offers a fresh approach to an old problem with great promise of success.

 This strategy, however, is no quick-fix solution.  It would require strong American commitment – both in terms of resources (financial and military) and significant public support.  It also requires patience as successful counterinsurgency is notoriously slow (Bush isn’t lying when he says it’s “hard work.”) Unfortunately, the insurgents quickly recognized a weak spot in a democratic society such as ours – the tremendous value we put into human life.  In Clausewitzian terms, our center of gravity lies in the public’s support for the war which was perhaps the most profound lessons of

Vietnam

. It is up to President Bush to take the gloves off by being clear to the American people what is at stake, what we want to accomplish and how to do it. Lt. Col. Krepinevich provides a fresh strategy of how to proceed – let’s just hope President Bush is listening.

 

 

Again here’s the URL to the article:

 

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84508-p0/andrew-f-krepinevich-jr/how-to-win-in-iraq.html

Iraq

This strategy, however, is no quick-fix solution.  It would require strong American commitment – both in terms of resources (financial and military) and significant public support.  It also requires patience as successful counterinsurgency is notoriously slow (Bush isn’t lying when he says it’s “hard work.”) Unfortunately, the insurgents quickly recognized a weak spot in a democratic society such as ours – the tremendous value we put into human life.  In Clausewitzian terms, our center of gravity lies in the public’s support for the war which was perhaps the most profound lessons of

Vietnam

. It is up to President Bush to take the gloves off by being clear to the American people what is at stake, what we want to accomplish and how to do it. Lt. Col. Krepinevich provides a fresh strategy of how to proceed – let’s just hope President Bush is listening.

Again here’s the URL to the article:

 

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84508-p0/andrew-f-krepinevich-jr/how-to-win-in-iraq.html

August 29, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The article below from Pakistan's Daily Times is an interesting sign of how domestic security efforts may be perceived abroad:

US ‘geniuses’ going berserk with ‘homeland security’

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: The profiling of Pakistanis at US airports and other points of entry has reached a point where Pakistani ambassador to the US Jehangir Karamat has felt it necessary to advise his countrymen that they should only visit America “if they absolutely have to”.

Some recent cases will reveal the ridiculous limits to which American security fears have been carried.

Former Pakistani ambassador to the US Riaz H Khokhar, who recently retired as foreign secretary, was one of those subjected to what can only be described as humiliating treatment.

Khokhar, who was invited by the Kashmiri-American Council to speak at its July 14 conference in Washington, was taken aside to a separate room upon arrival for investigation by the Department of Homeland Security.

He was made to wait for 40 minutes and then asked some strange questions. One of the questions was, “Why have you visited Saudi Arabia so many times?” The former foreign secretary’s answer that such travel had been necessitated by the nature of his official duties was received with a grunt, indicating either incomprehension or disbelief.

Other questions asked of him were equally odd. The fact that Khokhar, one of Pakistan’s most distinguished career diplomats, had served as his country’s ambassador to India, China and the United States itself did not appear to be good enough for the “geniuses” working for the Department of Homeland Security.

The new chairman of the Pakistan International Airlines, Tariq Kirmani, who paid an official visit to the United States last month, was given a similar reception. It took some time before his credentials were found in order by the Homeland Security and immigration officials, who appeared reluctant to put a stamp on his passport and let him go.

Earlier this summer, when former ambassador to Washington and former federal minister Syed Abida Hussain and her husband, former federal minister and speaker of the National Assembly, Syed Fakhar Imam, arrived in this country, it took Syeda Abida Hussain close to two hours to be cleared.

She was taken to a separate room and questioned. That she had been Pakistan’s ambassador to the US was considered of no consequence. Exasperated, she said she would be quite happy to be sent back. When she asked what she had done to deserve such special attention, she was told that her name triggered another name that was on some list. That name, it turned out, was Syed Hussain. Her pointing out that it was the name of a man and, further that she prefixed her name with Syeda, not Syed, did not shorten her ordeal.

Former Pakistani interim prime minister, Moeen Qureshi, who until a year ago, was travelling quite frequently outside the country, being chairman and chief executive of Emerging Markets Inc was always being asked why he travelled so much. A couple of years ago, a prominent Pakistani journalist who was here on a fellowship was picked up because he had failed to register himself with the immigration authorities within a certain period after arrival.

After some running around by his US hosts, he was freed. One of them said later that in the past there had been occasions when he (the host) had urged the Pakistani government to free someone taken in without due cause. He could never imagine that such a thing could happen in his own country.

One travel agent told this correspondent that suspicion of Pakistanis had reached a point wherein a Pakistani passenger was more likely to be seated at the back of the aircraft than in the front or middle sections. A frequent traveller said that the baggage of many Pakistanis who were departing the United States was searched after it had been checked in.

All baggage has to be pre-screened, a duty assigned to the passenger. This correspondent can attest from his own experience that the last five times in the past two years he has landed at a US port from a trip abroad, he has without exception been taken to a separate room and made to wait for up to 40 minutes before being cleared. Twice when returning from Canada, he has been grilled at the Canadian port. US immigration formalities, when flying from Canada are completed at the Canadian end.

Special scrutiny rooms have been set up at every major airport in the US. The passenger whose clearance has been held back is escorted by an immigration agent to one of these rooms where his passport is handed over to one of the officers who along with five or six of his colleagues sits on a raised platform, behind plexiglass, from where he can scrutinise passengers sitting down below. While the questioning can be polite or gruff, depending on the agent, the experience is humiliating. All the five times this correspondent has been subjected to “special attention”, no reason has been given, despite polite efforts on his part to find out why.

Pakistanis back home who apply for a visitor’s visa for the United States are, on average, obliged to wait for up to three months before being granted one. In many cases, it is refused without any reason being assigned. Once a visa has been refused, the passport is as good as useless as far as travel to the US is concerned.

Some of the applicants have had humiliating experiences at the US embassy in Islamabad. The unhappy experiences of Dr Javed Iqbal and his wife, former Justice Mrs Nasira Iqbal, former deputy chief of staff of the Pakistan Army Lt Gen Mohammad Yousuf and former chief of the Pakistan Navy Admiral Fasih Bokhari are too well known to be related here. Passengers boarding a US airline bound for the United States from points outside the country are subjected to the most thorough searches and scrutiny. Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular are the recipients of the ‘special attention’.

Canadians who used to require no visa or passport to enter the United States no longer enjoy that facility. Several Canadians of Pakistani origin, who travel to a neighbouring US town for work or business every day or every other day, have complained that each time they enter the US, they are subjected to special scrutiny. Some of them have had to wait as long as three hours.

One Canadian who originally came from Pakistan and had lived in Canada for 30 years was told by a US border agent that no matter how long he had been a Canadian citizen, since he was born in Pakistan, for all intents and purposes he was a Pakistani. Many Pakistani-Canadians have told this correspondent that only the direst emergency would induce them to travel to the United States since they are not willing to suffer humiliation.

Many Pakistanis and Pakistani-Americans who have had such experiences are of the view that since all consular agreements between sovereign states are bilateral, Americans arriving at Pakistani airports should be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny to which Pakistanis and Americans of Pakistani origin are subjected to in the United States these days. “Why should we show courtesy to those who show none to us?” one Pakistani, who has been grilled more than once on arrival by US officials, asked.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the London bombings, some people here have openly called for ethnic or racial profiling. According to a recent newspaper commentator, “So far the idea has been advanced most forcefully by columnists, academics and local politicians in New York City, where anti-terror precautions including random searches of subway passengers’ bags were instituted after the London attacks. Bush administration officials resist the notion – which is against federal policy – but even the staunchest opponents of profiling admit the idea will gain force if Islamic extremists begin new attacks.”

New York assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn Democrat, has plans to introduce a bill to allow police to “zero in” on Middle Easterners when authorities conduct terrorism-prevention searches in subways or other locally controlled systems. New York city authorities have randomly searched subway riders’ bags and packages without regard to ethnicity or race. Other cities have not followed New York’s lead.

Ultra conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer recently wrote that searchers should home in on young Islamic men. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is not in agreement with the suggestion, saying, “I think we want to focus on behaviour. It’s behaviour which is the best test of someone’s intentions.” Profiling, it has been pointed out, is against current federal policy and might run afoul of federal court decisions that bar racial profiling, except where it advances a “compelling governmental interest,” as ruled by the US Supreme Court.

August 11, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Every few years, there’s a story in the news about an impending global health crisis—SARS, mad cow disease, West Nile, etc. I normally tune such stories out because the news reports sound so much like a bad tv movie that they don’t even seem real to me. But the latest issue of the Economist drew my attention to the burgeoning pandemic world health threat—influenza—and I realized it’s time for all of us to start paying attention. (See this link, but for the full article subscription is required.)

Avian influenza, or bird flu, is currently endemic in south east Asia. Although only fifty people have died thus far as a result of the disease, it is spreading through birds to new areas and some virologists worry that it could eventually kill millions. Just in the past week, the disease was reported in birds and one person in Russia and Kazakhstan. Scientists fear that the disease will mutate and keep spreading to new parts of the world, resulting in a worldwide flu pandemic. For those of us who come down with the flu every winter, it’s hard to imagine the flu being a global killer. But it wouldn’t be the first time…Three global influenza pandemics occurred in the twentieth century. In 1918, the worst case, at least twenty million people died of influenza and one-fourth of the world’s population was affected. To brush up on the bird flu, check out the BBC’s helpful backgrounder at this link.

The bird flu doesn’t have to be as scary as it sounds, however. Recent studies in Science and Nature magazines suggest that a relatively small stockpile of anti-viral drugs could, if well deployed, prevent a flu pandemic. But what does it require? International coordination and cooperation. Indeed, the BBC writes, “A global pandemic of bird flu claiming millions of lives could be stopped if governments work together.” Governments need to arrange the stockpile of drugs, delivery mechanisms, surveillance systems and agreements on disease containment.

The avian flu is just one more example of the incredible opportunities to work together to save lives that the world’s leaders face today. Let’s hope American leaders seize them. Since we can, we must be prepared ahead of time for a global health crisis. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do. I think that the Economist puts it well. “Flu does not respect borders. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that developing countries, especially in Asia, are also well prepared…[I]f richer nations were willing to donate anti-viral drugs and guarantee a supply of any vaccine that becomes available, poorer nations might be willing to reach agreements over surveillance and preparedness.”

August 7, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

As we move into our third year of Hope not Hate the survey below from Public Agenda reveals the critical need for greater exchange and understanding between the U.S. and the Muslim world:

New survey reveals deep worries about how the U.S. is seen abroad, but little agreement on what to do. Lack of progress on immigration and jobs are major frustrations. New York City -- Americans see the web of issues surrounding relations with the Islamic world as the fundamental foreign policy challenge facing the nation -- but they have little idea what to do about it. American public thinking is a mixture of high anxiety, growing uncertainty and virtually no consensus about what direction the country should take. In a new Public Agenda survey, when Americans were asked to name the most important global problem facing the United States, Iraq and terrorism were the two top concerns, but a negative image of this country held by foreign nations ranked number three. Three-quarters of Americans worry about losing trust and friendship abroad and about a growing hatred of the United States in Muslim countries (40% worry a lot). When asked how the rest of the world sees the United States, nearly two-thirds said the world has a negative view and fully one in 10 -- the largest single group -- actually used the words "bully" or "bullying" unprompted to describe how America is viewed from abroad. While 63% of Americans say the charge that the United States has been "too quick to go to war" is totally or partially justified, only 19% of Americans say it is totally justified that the United States is only concerned with its own interests and disregards the interests of other countries. Fully 83% give the United States an "A" or "B" grade for helping other countries during natural disasters and half give the country similar grades for fostering democracy overseas. The worst grades were given to having good relations with Muslim countries (64% give the United States a "C" or worse). In addition, three quarters of the public give the U.S. a "C" grade or worse in protecting our borders from illegal immigration, with nearly one-quarter giving an "F." Half of Americans give the country a "D" or "F" grade on protecting American jobs from going overseas (and three in 10 chose "F.") These and other findings, released jointly today by Public Agenda in cooperation with Foreign Affairs, America's most influential publication on international affairs and foreign policy, are part of the new Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. To be issued regularly by Public Agenda, the Index is designed to explore the public's long-term judgments and beliefs about America's role in the world. Supported with funding from the Ford Foundation, the index covers more than 25 different issues through more than 80 different survey questions. Public Agenda Chairman Daniel Yankelovich noted "Americans are broadly uneasy about the quality of our relations with the rest of the world, especially Muslim nations. The questions reveal widespread doubts about the country's current course. But there is no consensus on which direction to take." "This Index does something individual polls don't do -- it provides insight into the public mind on the larger issues of international affairs," said Foreign Affairs Editor James F. Hoge, Jr. "Foreign Affairs is proud to provide a launching pad for this critical research." Anxiety and Uncertainty About half the public (49%) says there are "too many things worrying and disappointing" them about relations with the rest of the world, compared to 40% who say the United States is "generally doing the right things." A large majority of Americans (87%) say showing more respect for the needs of other countries would enhance U.S. security at least "somewhat" and 59% say that improved communication with the Muslim world would reduce hatred of the United States. But public support for diplomatic approaches goes hand-in-hand with strong support for tougher measures, with 64% of Americans saying it is "wrong but sometimes necessary" to cooperate with harsh, undemocratic governments. Fifty-six percent reject the idea that the U.S. will sometimes have to torture suspected terrorists, but four in 10 think it is necessary. While half of Americans believe that spreading democracy will reduce violence, a significant minority (45%) disagree. Half also doubt that reducing global poverty will reduce terrorism. Immigration and Jobs Although not typically classified as major foreign policy issues, stemming illegal immigration and protecting American jobs are two areas that resonate exceptionally strongly with the public. The study notes that attitudes toward these problems are reaching a point where the public's concerns will be too strong to be ignored. In ranking proposals to improve U.S. security, tightening immigration was rated second only to improving U.S. intelligence operations. Three quarters of the public give the United States a "C" grade or worse in protecting our borders, with nearly one quarter giving an "F." Fifty-eight percent say tighter controls on immigration would strengthen national security "a great deal." Another 41% think it would improve security a great deal to have tighter controls on foreign students in American universities. On the issue of jobs, the public doesn't believe the government is protecting U.S. jobs, but then again, they seem cynical about whether anyone can, the report notes. Half of Americans give the United States a "D" or "F" grade on protecting U.S. jobs from going overseas. But 78% acknowledge that it is unrealistic to believe U.S. companies will keep jobs at home "when labor is cheaper elsewhere." Message for Leaders According to Public Agenda President Ruth A. Wooden, "The Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index was specifically designed as a nonpartisan means of capturing the public's longer-term concerns and judgments about the country's stance in the world. We didn't ask people about the president or about Republicans versus Democrats, as so many polls routinely do. Instead we asked people to think about how the country is doing overall. And the message for the country's leadership suggests that the public considers these major issues and political leaders ignore them at their peril." Methodology To see the complete questionnaire with responses, go to www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm or www.foreignaffairs.org These findings are based on four focus groups and telephone interviews with a national random sample of 1,004 adults over the age of 18. The survey was conducted between June 1 and June 13, 2005; it averaged 21 minutes in length. The margin of error for the overall sample of 1,004 is plus or minus 3 percentage points. The margin of error is higher when comparing percentages across subgroups. Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission is to inject the public's voice into crucial policy debates. Public Agenda seeks to inform leaders about the public's views and to engage citizens in discussing complex policy issues. Public Agenda Online (www.publicagenda.org) has just been named one of the "50 Coolest Websites" by Time.com, the only web site honored in the politics category. Since 1922, the Council on Foreign Relations has published Foreign Affairs, America's most influential publication on international affairs and foreign policy. Foreign Affairs has a circulation of 140,000 and was ranked No. 1 in influence by U.S. opinion leaders in last year's national study of publications conducted by Erdos & Morgan, the premier business-to-business research firm. Inevitably, articles published in Foreign Affairs shape the political dialogue for months and years to come. (www.foreignaffairs.org) Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission is to inject the public's voice into crucial policy debates. Public Agenda seeks to inform leaders about the public's views and to engage citizens in discussing complex policy issues.
Copyright © 2005 Public Agenda.

August 5, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Over the weekend, we held an AID Midwest Global Leaders Summit at Northwestern University with around 150 students and young professionals. Among the great things that came up at the Chicago event was the Stop Global Warming "Virtual March" on Washington. I just signed onto the campaign myself and I urge you to the do same -- you can join as my friend on the following page: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/campaigns/sgw/impact/c6af0aa46cc42d28762ac1adbb7a3d83. Or click on this link.

In our rapidly changing and increasingly interdependent world, it has never been so important for Americans to join together in a movement against environmental degredation. Global warming and other connected environmental issues affect not only our health and well being, but also our national security. There's never been a better time to join the campaign to protect the earth!

August 1, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack