Solutions for an "effective" media

Fahed Fanek, chief of the government mouthpiece (Al Rai) is wringing his hands over the ineffectiveness of Jordanian media. He complains that people criticize the media without offering an alternative. Charging opponents with not having an alternative is almost a reflex with Fanek.

I understand the dilemma. The government wants a free press without anybody saying anything uncomfortable. This press should also be highly credible. Why is this task so difficult? I don’t know what he means by “effective”? Actually, I do.

Anyway, here is my alternative. Let people say and publish what they want. I know this sounds novel. I have another simple suggestion for the “effectiveness” problem. Let the government tell the truth. It will be difficult at first, but they might get used to it.

Human rights: theory and practice

Jordanian university curricula are often accused of being too theoretically oriented, with little applied demonstrations. Not true for Yarmouk University.

For example, the university runs a course in human rights. As part of the course, somebody thought (for some inexplicable reason) that it might be a good idea to hear some opposition views on what is going on in Jordan.

So, they invited Fakher Da’as, who is running the Dhabahtoona campaign for student rights. So, five minutes before the guy is supposed to give his presentation, the head of the political science department informs the course instructor that the university administration has banned the lecture. See, this is the practical side of the course.

And things had been going so well. The university had been basking in the glory of the king’s visit last week. In it, he had exhorted the students to get involved in politics and promised that nobody will persecute them for their activism. Radio host Mohammad Wakeel gushed at how the wise and foresighted leadership of the university president was the reason why the king chose Yarmouk University as a venue to put out his message. Wakeel was happy with the university president because the said president made sure that Wakeel’s son would be one of the select students who met the king during the visit.

Part of Wakeel’s radio show involves an exhaustive reading of newspaper headlines in the morning. For some strange reason, he forgot to read the headline on this story this morning, even though it was reported in Al Ghad. It must have been an unintentional oversight.

So there you have it. In a nutshell, we can see the disconnect between theory and practice, professional journalism and hack journalism, sloganeering and reality. A perfect representation of what Jordan is today.

You’ve come a long way (back), baby

For a government that started its tenure promising to establish “freedom square”, it is pathetic to see how far back it slid towards authoritarianism.

This process probably started when they hid behind the parliament to enact a new press law that allowed the jailing of journalists (later “fixed” by the senate).

This was followed by the use of endless legal red tape to stifle the awaited launching of a new independent TV station known as ATV. After months of delays and excuses, the owners have finally given up and sold to new investors. Let’s hope they will be successful, both in launching and in living up to viewers’ expectations.

Along with the ATV debacle, there was the jailing of Ahmad Oweidi Abbadi for publishing some uncomfortable views on his website.

Now, the lust to control information and ideas seems to be spreading to electronic media in general. Today, the assistant director of the press and publications department has said that electronic newspapers will henceforth be under the supervision of the antiquated department. This supervision will also include websites as well (presumably including blogs).

Did I mention what a wise and compassionate government we have?

Parliament and the press

As part of long awaited reform in Jordan, the government sent a new press and publications law to the parliament. The parliament was already unhappy with the press, with the head of the parliament, Abdulhadi Majali, threatening them with tough legislation if they keep criticizing the MP’s. This developed later into MP’s actually beating up reporters in the parliament.

So, the parliament took the opportunity to live up to its threat. They modified the legislation to allow prohibitively high fines and jailing of journalists for “press crimes”. In what seems to have been a childish atmosphere, MP’s taunted the press during the session, refusing to revisit the issue of jailing. The legislation passed and is now in the hands of the senate, where journalists hope that the legislation will be fixed.

Now, in my humble opinion, any politician who goes out of his way to antagonize the press is a complete idiot. Columnists are having a field day ridiculing the parliament, at a particularly interesting time, considering that the chamber will be dissolved soon and new elections are to be held.

Some of the commentary is blunt and straightforward. Samih Maitah published a long laundry list of parliamentary excesses and failures, whereas Jihad Momani (who was jailed for republishing THE CARTOONS) accused the MP’s directly of disregarding the national interest. This line of debate is more subtle but has devastating implications.

Fleshing this out, Salameh Dir’awi (Al Arab al Yawm) argues that Millennium development funds worth over 500 million dollars may be on the line, as granting countries may view the new law as a retreat from the reform that these funds are to reward.

Another important point that is being made (in a somewhat subtle manner) concerns the future makeup of the parliament. Most agree that the current election law will end up producing a parliament similar to this one. Given the anti-democratic nature of the parliament, the message goes, this is unacceptable. So, what is required is a new election law. Now, given that the parliament has proven itself untrustworthy in dealing with public freedoms’ legislation, a new law should be passed without their input (as a temporary law, which most people find distasteful but may accept given the alternative).

So, the pressure is on to produce a new election law to revamp the make up of the parliament, without them having a say in the legislation.

Did I mention that angering the press is stupid?

New press law frozen

The parliament today abruptly shelved the proposed press and publications law. The proposed law was seen as an improvement over the previous one, although it still allowed the jailing of journalists and imposing prohibitively high fines on anybody who “breaks” the press law.

What is most interesting is the reason for this decision. The MP’s are insisting on the return of the Ministry of Truth Information, which was abolished under the misguided notion that we can actually have a free press. The government had wanted to subject the press to the ministry of trade and industry, which would have treated the press as other commercial enterprises. The MP’s want to give the press more prestige, and so are demanding the return of the MoI. It seems difficult for them to comprehend that, yes, the media is an industry. One of the vestiges of the MoI is the press and publications department, which still is performing its Don Quixote role of banning books.

Please make them stop.

A misframed debate

The National Guidance Committee of the parliament has approved the draft press law and submitted it to the full house for debate. This law has been contentious for a long time, and the press is unhappy with the current version.

The source of unhappiness is that the law does not prohibit jailing of journalists for press crimes. It merely states that “Taking into consideration other legislation, it is prohibited to arrest or punish by jail as the result of expressing an opinion through saying, writing or any other form of expression”. The term “taking into consideration” means that other laws that do prescribe jail sentences can be enforced. It turns out that there are 24 of these laws, including article 150 of the criminal code.

So, should people be jailed for expression crimes? I think that there is a problem in framing this question. I would reframe it as following: are there cases where expression should be criminalized? If so, what are these crimes? The Jordan Press Association should not ask for immunity from jail for “crimes of expression”. It should demand that there are no such things as “crimes of expression”.

It is unfortunate that we are still having this type of debate, but many people would agree that Jordanian society is not ready for the type of free expression that exists in real democracies. Our opposition parties, particularly the IAF, are openly opposed to all sorts of freedom of expression. During the last budget debate, IAF deputy Ali Utoum demanded that a statement by leftist deputy Mustafa Shneikat be scrapped from the minutes. Shneikat suggested that there should be separation between state and religion, which Utoum characterized as unconstitutional. This was based on the grounds that the constitution says that the religion of the state is Islam (whatever that means).

Given that people want democracy, as long as nobody says anything controversial (or interesting), there should be a critical review of all 24 laws in question. Even if the provisions in them are acceptable (I sincerely doubt it in most cases), then they should be spelled out, and vague wording should be clarified, so that everybody knows what is meant by “elongation of the tongue”, “insulting the dignity of the state”, “inciting sectarian strife or encouraging conflict between communities and various elements of the nation” or “insulting the fathers of the monotheistic religions (as they are dead, we will never know what they might construe as an insult)”. It would be better just to scrap all of these provisions rather that to try and define them. The vagueness of these definitions is just as chilling to freedom of expression as potential jail sentences, if not more. A cynical person would conclude that this is the whole point.

Why is everybody so afraid? Let’s do it!

Par for the course

Yesterday, a group of MP’s physically assaulted reporters who were covering their activities. The reporters had photographed a fight between two deputies. Apparently, this angered some of the deputies, who view the press with suspicion. The head of the parliament had threatened the press recently. MP’s view press coverage as being one-sided.

The major dailies have decided to boycott covering the activities of parliament until an apology is issued. Of course, this will hurt the public interested in the debate over the budget. Yeah, right.

If the MP's are so worried about how the public views them, I have a better idea.

Stop being so retarded.

Human rights watch and freedom square

Human rights watch today issued a statement criticizing the government for intimidating critics. They were referring to the threat to prosecute Adnan Abu Odeh for having a long tongue (Jordanese for insulting the king). Anyway, he should have known that freedom of speech is only granted to people saying nice things. After all, he was a minister of information and he was personally responsible for shutting down a number of publications. He, of all people, should know the limits of free speech in Jordan. Anyway, threatening offensive speech with prosecution has a chilling effect on free speech, according to HRW. Who would have guessed? Is it article 150?

Now, the ill informed people at HRW seem to be ignoring the government’s promise to establish freedom square. What is the purpose of this HRW campaign? These things take time. Since the government took power about a year ago, it has been moving on implementing this great idea. There were 24 laws on the books that would have prevented the establishment of FS when the Bakhit government took over. Now, after a year, there are, well, 24. So, at this rate, we should march on freedom square sometime in, well, never. But hey, it’s the thought that counts.

Spanking Abdulhadi

The speaker of the house, Abdulhadi Majali, has given a press conference highlighting the achievements of parliament during the extraordinary session. He also threatened the press, saying that parliament might issue press restricting legislation if journalists keep criticizing the MP’s.

Since then, there have been numerous criticisms of Majali’s threat from the press. In Al Ghad, Samih Maitah said that parliament’s problem is not with the press, but with poor performance during the discussions of legislation. That, and weak understanding of the implications of the modifications that were passed, led them to reverse themselves after the changes were rejected by the senate. Jamil Nimri, also at Al Ghad, was slightly more conciliatory, suggested that the parliament should use public relations, like everybody else.

Nabil Ghishan, at Al Arab Al Yawm, stated the obvious by saying that nobody should be immune from criticism. He also said that freedom of the press is a right for the public, and not simply a right for journalists. At the same newspaper, Fahd Khitan pointed out that the government gets much greater criticism from the press than the parliament, and that the parliament shouldn’t think about being vindictive.

Omar Kullab at Al Anbat suggested that this picture of a dog in a kitchen standing over a stove was what triggered Majali’s anger. The dog is saying “I am faster than the MP’s in cooking [laws]”. Kullab jokingly suggests that Al Anbat will get Brigitte Bardot to defend the press in Jordan, since the parliament is obviously against animals.

Even the bastion of free expression, the IAF, got on the bandwagon. In a statement, the secretary general of the party, Zaki Bani Irshaid said that democracy can not be complete without a free press.

Notably quiet were Al Dustour and Al Rai. Well, at least some people can be cowed.

Too bad Majali can’t call in the security forces to shoot the dissenters. It worked so well in the past, back during the simpler days of martial law.

In all frankness

This is the title of a live morning talk show on Radio Fann. Radio Fann has wide listenership outside Amman because it is the only FM station that broadcasts outside the greater Amman area. Bisaraha ma’a il Wakeel has become a staple for many Jordanians during the morning commute to work. It features a gregarious host, Mohammad al Wakeel, who enjoys loud belly laughs, and using an especially heavy Jordanian accent. In fact, the laughs seem designed to lighten up the Jordanians' legendary scowls.

While the show features the usual mix of music (often with Wakeel annoyingly talking over it), news, press headlines and wise cracks, the most intriguing aspect of the show is the call ins. People are invited to call in and air their complaints, in a format similar to the old radio Jordan show “il beth il mubashir (on the air)”. These can include complaints about stray dogs, the water being cut off, busses not adhering to their prescribed routes or people in need of help for costly operations or medical care. After hearing people’s problems, often after asking what the person has done to remedy the issue, al Wakeel calls the government person in charge and tells him about the problem. The typical conversation with the official starts with the usual pleasantries. After that, Wakeel either tells him the problem or plays the taped call back to the official. The official either knows about the problem and explains its details, asks for time to ask about the problem or asks the person with the problem to visit his office. Sometimes Wakeel bluntly interrogates the official about specific details, which is the trademark of the show (that is why they call it bisaraha; in all frankness).

Sometimes officials try to evade his calls. This is a bad mistake, as such behaviors elicits al Wakeel’s scorn, and is worse PR than actually facing the issue.

Many times, the problem is followed up a few days later on the air. In humanitarian cases, many people volunteer to donate the costs of expensive operations or wheel chairs. The other day Al Wakeel mentioned that the rate of success in solving issues through the show is 70%.

If democracy is the ability to hold officials accountable and make government responsive to the needs of the citizens, I would say that such programs are good indications that Jordan is on the right track. It is unfortunate that many people find that the only way to solve their problems with unresponsive officials is by embarrassing them on the air, but it is an avenue that is useful and makes officials feel that some pressure to solve problems before they are aired for the entire country to hear.

Bravo ya Mohammad al Wakeel (please stop talking over the music).

Article 150

Although I am immensely happy that our four terror sympathizers are due to spend a couple of weeks in Al Jafer, I think it is important to give due consideration to the objections raised as to the propriety of legal action to suppress free expression, especially by politicians.

I am intrigued by the use of article 150 of the penal code for this purpose. This article, as translated by yours truly, states:

"Any writing, speech or work which is intended or has the effect inciting sectarian or racial strife or encourages conflict between communities and various elements of the nation will be punished for a period of no less than six months and up to three years and with a fine not exceeding 500 JD".

It is noteworthy that this is the same article that journalists are afraid of, as it has been used against them on numerous occasions. Much of the fear from this article stems from the loose phraseology, and the ability to interpret terms such as "inciting" or "encouraging" loosely.

For example, in 2003, three journalists from the Al Hilal weekly newspaper were convicted under this article, after they published a feature entitled "Aisha in the Prophet’s home". The IAF had mounted a campaign against them, issuing a fatwa declaring them apostates. The IAF was satisfied with this sentence, suggesting that they are not against article 150 in principle. More recently, Rhail Gharaibeh, the spokesman for the IAF, declared that the party is all for free speech, as long as it didn't violate a long list of prohibitions, beginning with "not offending anybody". This is quite in line with their tacit approval of article 150.

Calling a terrorist who was responsible for killing thousands of innocent civilians a martyr can be easily construed as both justifying his actions and thus encouraging others to emulate his behavior. Thus it logically fits into the definition of incitement in ways that are more evident than when they were used in the past.

So, the question is whether the IAF parliamentarians are above a law that they themselves condone and have approved of in the past. Despite all the political arguments, I would say that not enforcing the law sends a terrible message. The case should be decided by the courts, not politicians.

On the road to freedom square

A funny thing has happened on the way to freedom square. The prime minister, Marouf Bakhit recently sent a revised press and publication law to parliament, with provisions that include banning the jailing of journalists, but raising the fines on publications "crimes" to 20000 JD's.

The major problem with press laws in Jordan has always been the lack of definition of what a press crime is. Article 5 of the current press law states that:

Publications shall have to show respect to the truth, and refrain from publishing any material that runs counter to the principles of freedom, national obligation, human rights and Arab-Islamic values.

Of course, what these things mean exactly is quite fluid. One might interpret the entire article to counter the principles of freedom, which would thus mean that publishing it in itself illegal. LOL.

Anyway, the National Guidance Committee in the house yesterday recommended reinstating jail for crimes relating to "insulting fathers of three monotheistic religions and their prophets", and crimes of disrespect to the king, as well as any case where a judge might see fit a jail sentence. The last one actually covers everything one might imagine. The committee left the recommended elevated fines in place and added the jail option. I am surprised that they didn't recommend dunking the offenders in boiling oil as well. The retarded parliament rejects tough sentences against so-called honor killings, but thinks that un-orthodox views should never be expressed, and should be punished by unreasonably tough measures. I'm nauseous.

So, the government wants to allow more latitude for press freedom, and the parliament wants more repression. As Batir Wardam aptly put it, this parliament is downright embarrassing. As I suspected earlier, the frenzy over THE CARTOONS was the catalyst for this massive drive against free expression.

The Jordan Press Association is against this turn of events, with the head, Tareq Momani, stating that the association can take care of these problems. The implication is that the disciplinary action taken by the JPA against Jihad Momani and Hashim Khalidi over publishing THE CARTOONS proves that the association can be just as repressive as the government. I'm even more nauseous.

Rula Hroub has a great column in Al Anbat. She correctly points out that the government rarely uses the press law to persecute journalists, but instead uses the criminal code. This allows for a façade of press freedom, as only journalists who break the criminal code have problems. Problems relating to the definition of crimes such as "disrespect for the king" exist in the criminal code as well. If there is to be freedom of expression, clear definitions of terms such as libel and disrespect should be agreed upon. The more restricted the definition, the better. What we really need is an honest belief in freedom. Since our parliament really doesn't respect freedom, we shouldn't expect very much from them.

Al Anbat

I have just discovered the website of the Anbat newspaper (in Arabic). I have seen the paper on the newsstands before. The editor is Dr. Riad Hroub, who used to be the editor of Shihan. Al Anbat is a daily tabloid, and I wasn't impressed when I first bought it. However, the website made me rethink the issue, as it contains news and commentary that is not found in the other dailies. Here are some examples.

On the prison riot issue, there is a detailed report on the parliament session where the minister of interior explained in detail how the events transpired, and the approach taken to deal with the situation. The session was interesting because of a disagreement about how much credit deputies deserve for negotiating with the prisoners. The minister said that their negotiations had no effect, which obviously didn't please the deputies involved.

On the latest foiled terror attempt, there are details on how the fourth terrorist was caught. It seems that the Syrian authorities arrested him after the Jordanians told them where to look. The others were caught earlier in an apartment in Jabal Hussein after a tip off that a medicine ware house was being used to hide explosives. The story missed the target (so to speak), though, saying that it was a "civilian instillation" in Amman. News reports yesterday said that it was a major power station. There are no major power stations in Amman.

The editorial section is interesting as well. It features very divergent opinions, such as those of Ziad Abu Ghaneimah, a vocal Islamist, who has been arguing for inviting Hamas leaders to Amman. For the sake of balance, he also put a letter from a reader who totally disagrees with him. I thought that was quite noteworthy.

Other columnists also have very interesting pieces. Omar Kullab has written against Palestinian politicians retaining their Jordanian passports.

There is lots of interesting stuff. Check it out.

Are we ready for freedom of speech?

The provocative proposal by the Bakhit government to establish a "freedom square" in Amman has mostly been met with scorn. Shaker Nabulsi writes in Elaph that the whole idea is a joke, that the idea of democracy in Jordan is a joke and that the government should work towards freeing other aspects of journalism in the country. He questions whether issues such as the changing of the constitution or accusing high officials of wrongdoing or corruption would be allowed in such a square.

Firas questions whether society is ready to deal with unorthodox ideas such as questioning the existence of God or having somebody claim that he is a prophet. He believes that such a square would become a focal point for Islamic militants, beggars and people recently released from jail.

It has been estimated that 24 laws would need to be changed in order to implement this idea. This in itself would seem to be a major barrier towards such a project.

So, in essence the government is saying that they want to go forward with a project which would certainly raise the level of freedom and debate in the country. On the other side, people are saying that this is just a ploy, and that the government and the people are not ready for such a project.

It is sad that people are reacting this way to the idea. In Arabic, we say (Laheq il ayyar la bab il dar), meaning "follow the name-caller to the door of the house". The saying means that even if somebody is insincere about a certain (attractive) proposal, you should follow up on it to the end. The fact that people are negative about this idea says something about the credibility of the government.

Being contrarian in nature, I would hope that people would rethink this issue. After all, it is the PRIME MINISTER who is saying he wants this to happen. Why not embrace the idea? Why not demand that this promise be fulfilled? Why are we so timid and negative about such a bold proposal? Even if the project is not as attractive and successful as Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, it would be a giant step that could always be modified and tuned. Even if the only thing we get out of the project is changing legislation that limits free speech, we will still be much better off.

The government is demanding more freedom, and the people are saying that it can't/shouldn't be done. Only in Jordan.

More on media reform

A commentary in Al Ghad today carries a startling admission. The author is anonymous, but presumably a member of the editorial staff of the newspaper. The commentary does not show up in the on-line version, but in the paper one.

The commentary points out, in essence, that the problem with free media in Jordan is not the legal framework, but the intangibles related to the application of the law. Specifically, the author points out that what is needed is the "abolition of the numerous authorities [presumably including the mukhabarat and the press and publications department] that call the newspapers morning noon and night, preventing publication of certain news, and thus building a dam between people and information".

This is quite a statement, and one that should not be viewed lightly. On the face of things, the limit of freedom of the press is the sky. In reality, intimidation continues. I am sure that everybody suspects that this is the case, but for the editors of Al Ghad to be bold enough to print it is a breath of fresh air, and hopefully the start of real reform of the media, rather than relying on more "reviews". More editors need to speak out for this hope to become a reality.

Here is the article:

Media reform- spinning wheels

The spokesman for the government, Nasser Joudeh, today stated that the government will "review the performance of the official media organizations", both in terms of management and product". Moreover, he stated that there are "no prior agendas in regard to the media".

Huh?

He is thus saying that they want to "review", and that nothing is decided. I seem to remember something called the National Agenda Committee. Wasn't that supposed to do all the reviewing that we need, and to set agendas based on that?

Back in March, 2005, Marwan Muasher stated that the government will establish a communications directorate within six months, in order to "coordinate" the transmission of information (i.e. keeping their stories straight). Later, in October, the NAC leaked that it is recommending the abolishment of the higher council for media, in favor of a new commission created by the merging of the audiovisual media commission and the press and publications department in order to "regulate the media". For good measure, they created a stir by suggesting that mandatory membership to the journalists' syndicate be abolished. A couple of weeks later, the higher council for media struck back, criticizing the NAC for not seriously addressing the problems of the official media and for "rehashing existing legislation using imprecise and ambiguous language". It went on to criticize the NAC for not presenting any justification for wanting to change anything. Of course, the press syndicate made a fuss about the mandatory membership thing.

On another note, the government is pressuring parliament to move on legislation for the media presented to it last November. Two pieces of legislation are on the table. The first is a freedom of information act which has enough provisions in it to enable the government to withhold any information it deems necessary. The second is an amendment to the press and publications law that would prevent the jailing of journalists. The funny thing about these two pieces of legislation is that they were drafted by the higher council for media, and not by the NAC or any committee affiliated with it.

So, what did the NAC exactly do with regard to the media. Well, we don't exactly know, since the agenda is still not public. We can deduce the following, though:

1. The current government doesn't regard the NAC recommendations as an agenda that it is committed to.
2. The previous government sent legislation to the parliament on press issues that was not related to what the NAC was doing.
3. The NAC was leaking recommendations about the press in order divert attention from what they were really up to. This can be deduced by the fact that the NAC recommendations, as they were leaked, bore no resemblance to the actual legislation sent by the government to the parliament.
   

So, the NAC and the Badran government weren't about the media at all. They just leaked provocative recommendations to keep people amused, while they went about the real issue, which was the economic laws designed to make the rich richer and everybody else poorer.

As for the media, we still need to figure out how to have "responsible journalism". Until we do, reviews and experiments will be ongoing.

What happened to the weekly tabloids?

I have been looking for a copy of Al Shahed for about three weeks. Their web site doesn't indicate that there is a problem, and they even hint that they have new articles. I simply can't find a copy. Other tabloids are out there, such as Shihan, but it has become so lame that it is not worth buying.

Many people criticize these publications as being sensationalist and unobjective. The government has been trying to come up with a formula which guarantees "responsible journalism". This means that you can say whatever you want, as long as you don't offend anybody. Sounds like freedom to me.

It really is a dilemma. How can you have freedom of the press, and at the same time ensure that nobody offends a government official, a business man, a religious leader (or anybody masquerading as such) or a foreign government? Governments have been struggling with this for about 15 years, and it looks like the latest gimmick is to abolish mandatory membership in the Jordan Journalists syndicate, as has been suggested by the National Agenda committee. While they were at it, they also want to recommend the abolishment of the Higher Council for Media. I guess that these institutions have become the latest scapegoats, an official acknowledgment that we don't have free speech after all. Gee, I would have never guessed.

The Journalists syndicate has been bending over backward for the last 15 years trying to please the government. This included at various times the issuance of various "journalists ethics guidelines", and occasionally punishing members who dare violate these very vague guidelines. Thanks a lot guys. So, after being a self-censorship tool, they are now considered to be part of the problem. Where is my box of Kleenex?

Of course, the real tool for stifling free speech is the government itself through the laws that they enact. The use of vague terminology and tough punishments are enough to scare anybody trying to make a living in the media. The concept of "responsible journalism" is BS. Either you can tell the truth as you see it or you can't. Moreover, the constant attempts at stifling free speech assume that people are too stupid to be critical readers. I suppose that this is a swipe at our educational system. Anyway, publications such as the National Enquirer in the US are considered to be a joke. In Jordan, they have been trying to deal with this for 15 years.

So, to sum up, the national agenda committee:
1- Acknowledges that there is limited free speech in Jordan.
2- Blames the fact that this is so on the Journalists Syndicate.
3- Doesn't want to change the laws that are really stifling free media in Jordan.

I guess we can get a sense of what we are going to get out of the National Agenda committee. Diversionary tactics, and ultimately more of the same. Look out for more of my "irresponsible" comments.