This afternoon my wife and I went for a run in a nature park south of Amman, near the airport. On the drive back a giant black SUV roared up on me from behind, going well above the speed limit, flashing his lights because he wanted me to get out of his way. I was in the left lane, but we were within the city limits and their was plenty of traffic in both lanes. This is ridiculous, I thought. I wasn't about to yield the road so this guy could move one place forward. In West Amman it's common to see rich people barreling around in their giant luxury SUVs, acting like they're better than everybody else. I have no patience for that.
The guy closed within two or three feet of me, swerved left and right in the lane, and flashed his lights like crazy. Two guys in suits were in the car, which suggested they were somewhat official, but by this point I was angry. I don't care who you are, I thought. You don't own the road. After a minute, though, it was getting too dangerous so I finally moved over. I was so angry by this point that I did something totally out of character: I flipped the guy off as he raced by.
The SUV was so large that I never saw what was behind him until he screamed past: several more identical black SUVs. One had police lights. The cars looked a little too familiar. I'm pretty sure I flipped off an American diplomatic convoy transporting a distinguished visitor from the airport.
So my apologies to the Men in Black, but in my defense, you drive like it's 2005 in Baghdad.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Our King is kind of like a Barbie doll
As part of my collection of fabulous Jordanian royal art, I had to share this comment from reader Neal:
Loved the post. My fiancee and I spent two years in Jordan as Peace Corps volunteers and we too were treated to a number of great posters of the King. They always reminded me of a Barbie doll collection: there was Soldier Abdullah, Family Man Abdullah, Traditional Arab Dress Abdullah, Sports Fan Abdullah, etc. My fiancee once saw (on the approach to Amman's southern bus station, coming from Karak) a poster which juxtaposed the king on one side and a hawk on the other. The best part was, the same beret the king was wearing in the image had been photoshopped to sit atop the hawk's head as well. Ahh, Jordan. Good times.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
An Arabic milestone
Tonight I crossed a significant milestone in my Arabic learning: I took a final exam in a political science course entirely in Arabic. My task was to write a history of American policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This class is with the professor who put me through the interview from hell, and the exam question was based on a book that he wrote almost twenty years ago about American foreign policy in the Middle East. I can't say I agreed with much of it. I wish I could tell you that I gave a rousing defense of American foreign policy, but that's not a particularly easy thing to do when you write somewhere around the level of a 5th grader. Still, I did the best I could. Shweyey, shweyey, they say in Arabic. Slowly, slowly.
My painful interview experience taught me where I need to focus my Arabic skills. I am setting up an intensive tutoring program for the summer: every single day I will have a simulated debate or press conference with my tutor, in which I read a position paper about some controversial aspect of American foreign policy, then take questions, debate, and discuss. My wife, who also speaks Arabic, is going to participate and help play the hostile audience. Hopefully by next year I'll be better armed for my Arabic-speaking classrooms and can really engage with the ideas.
My painful interview experience taught me where I need to focus my Arabic skills. I am setting up an intensive tutoring program for the summer: every single day I will have a simulated debate or press conference with my tutor, in which I read a position paper about some controversial aspect of American foreign policy, then take questions, debate, and discuss. My wife, who also speaks Arabic, is going to participate and help play the hostile audience. Hopefully by next year I'll be better armed for my Arabic-speaking classrooms and can really engage with the ideas.
Monday, May 17, 2010
An amusing cab ride
I had a funny experience yesterday. While on the way home from university, I had a pretty standard conversation with a cab driver, which goes something like this:
(1) Greetings
(2) Shock that I speak Arabic. Brief discussion about how I learned.
(3) How do I find Jordan and the people here?
(4) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Your average Jordanian believes that the conflict would be over tomorrow if Israel would finally just agree to a deal. Arab and Palestinian hands, they say, are extended in peace. Since Israel clearly does not want peace, they say, it is up to the United States to pressure them--but the U.S. refuses to do this because the Israel Lobby controls everything.
I always push back in these conversations, so I had a pretty spirited debate the whole way home with my cab driver. I argued that there are many problems on both sides of the conflict. Israel can't possibly agree to a deal now, because there is no unified representative of the Palestinian people--the division between Hamas and Fatah is too deep. My driver argued that the division would never have happened if the U.S. had respected the wishes of the Palestinian people when they democratically elected a Hamas-controlled government. He went on to tell me that he is a proud Hamas supporter, because Fatah is so corrupt and has done so little for the Palestinian people.
We went back and forth until we approached my house. Embassy employees all have certain security features at their homes (sorry, being intentionally vague here) that are strong clues we work for the U.S. government. As soon as the cab driver saw them, his entire demeanor changed. He fell silent and his hands started to writhe on the steering wheel. When I stepped out of the car, he was bumbling and apologetic. "I hope I didn't offend you," he told me, then drove meekly away.
That's how things go in a country where people live in so much fear of the all-seeing government intelligence service. The experience reinforced an important lesson for me: it can be a real challenge to get people to share their honest-to-god opinions. In cross-cultural situations, the information that reaches us--as Americans, or especially as representatives of the U.S. government--is usually heavily filtered. It takes a lot of discernment and effort to get at the truth. In this case, the process worked backwards. The cab driver was perfectly willing to talk to a university student, but the moment he suspected I was something more than that, the shields went up and the conversation was over.
(1) Greetings
(2) Shock that I speak Arabic. Brief discussion about how I learned.
(3) How do I find Jordan and the people here?
(4) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Your average Jordanian believes that the conflict would be over tomorrow if Israel would finally just agree to a deal. Arab and Palestinian hands, they say, are extended in peace. Since Israel clearly does not want peace, they say, it is up to the United States to pressure them--but the U.S. refuses to do this because the Israel Lobby controls everything.
I always push back in these conversations, so I had a pretty spirited debate the whole way home with my cab driver. I argued that there are many problems on both sides of the conflict. Israel can't possibly agree to a deal now, because there is no unified representative of the Palestinian people--the division between Hamas and Fatah is too deep. My driver argued that the division would never have happened if the U.S. had respected the wishes of the Palestinian people when they democratically elected a Hamas-controlled government. He went on to tell me that he is a proud Hamas supporter, because Fatah is so corrupt and has done so little for the Palestinian people.
We went back and forth until we approached my house. Embassy employees all have certain security features at their homes (sorry, being intentionally vague here) that are strong clues we work for the U.S. government. As soon as the cab driver saw them, his entire demeanor changed. He fell silent and his hands started to writhe on the steering wheel. When I stepped out of the car, he was bumbling and apologetic. "I hope I didn't offend you," he told me, then drove meekly away.
That's how things go in a country where people live in so much fear of the all-seeing government intelligence service. The experience reinforced an important lesson for me: it can be a real challenge to get people to share their honest-to-god opinions. In cross-cultural situations, the information that reaches us--as Americans, or especially as representatives of the U.S. government--is usually heavily filtered. It takes a lot of discernment and effort to get at the truth. In this case, the process worked backwards. The cab driver was perfectly willing to talk to a university student, but the moment he suspected I was something more than that, the shields went up and the conversation was over.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The stupid and the industrious
A few months ago, I came across a variation of this quote. I think it's from Clausewitz, but I'm not sure. (does anyone know?)
In the variation I read, the "clever and lazy" officer is actually the MOST fit for battlefield command because he is likely to find the fastest and most efficient way to get a task done. I found this deeply reassuring because I am... well... clever and lazy. I strive for excellence in my work, but I have no desire to work late into the evenings adjusting my PowerPoint fonts for the commander.
I wanted to write a post about this, but my Air Force colleague over at Pick Your battles beat me to it. He focuses on the "stupid and industrious" in the above quote: those who "put in long hours, prioritize their job over time spent with the family, come in on the weekends, and rarely produce anything useful for the Air Force." Maybe a bit harsh, but there's a lot of truth in his analysis, which is very much related to the various papers written lately critiquing the military's PowerPoint culture.
By the way, if you want a guy who likes to challenge the system, this is him. He's waging war against Air University because he suffered a serious violation of his academic freedom, is embroiled in a legal battle with police for violating his 4th amendment rights, and wrote an ACSC thesis comparing Air Force fighter pilot culture to Enron. He seems to be enjoying it, too.
I divide officers into four classes -- the clever, the lazy, the stupid and the industrious. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the high staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy is fit for the very highest commands. He has the temperament and the requisite nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be removed immediately.
In the variation I read, the "clever and lazy" officer is actually the MOST fit for battlefield command because he is likely to find the fastest and most efficient way to get a task done. I found this deeply reassuring because I am... well... clever and lazy. I strive for excellence in my work, but I have no desire to work late into the evenings adjusting my PowerPoint fonts for the commander.
I wanted to write a post about this, but my Air Force colleague over at Pick Your battles beat me to it. He focuses on the "stupid and industrious" in the above quote: those who "put in long hours, prioritize their job over time spent with the family, come in on the weekends, and rarely produce anything useful for the Air Force." Maybe a bit harsh, but there's a lot of truth in his analysis, which is very much related to the various papers written lately critiquing the military's PowerPoint culture.
By the way, if you want a guy who likes to challenge the system, this is him. He's waging war against Air University because he suffered a serious violation of his academic freedom, is embroiled in a legal battle with police for violating his 4th amendment rights, and wrote an ACSC thesis comparing Air Force fighter pilot culture to Enron. He seems to be enjoying it, too.
Our King has the intellectual prowess of John F. Kennedy
It's time to lighten things up around here. I've decided to expand my collection of royal windshield art to include other artistic depictions of everybody's favorite king. I took this picture at a golf course (yes, a golf course) about fifteen minutes south of Amman. The Corona banners add a nice touch.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Cause for Hope
Yesterday's post about my classroom interview/interrogation/propaganda session generated quite a bit of interest among my readers. I wrote about it because need people to understand that yes, a lot of ugly problems exist in this part of the world--like anti-Semitism and a refusal to admit any wrongdoing on their own side of the conflict with Israel. These problems are real, and we shouldn't gloss over them in the name of tolerance or peace.
At the same time, these experiences are hardly the entire story. My experience with this professor has been an extraordinary exception to my time in Jordan. A lot of people compile these anecdotes and use them to construct an entire framework for understanding the Muslim/Arab world. The truth is so much more complex. The Muslim and Arab worlds--like any human society--are incredibly diverse. I see a lot of discouraging things that make me worry about the region's future, but I also see a lot of good things that give me reason for optimism.
Although Wednesday night's class was one of my worst experiences since moving to Jordan, Thursday's class was one of the best. The university hosted a Canadian Muslim guest lecturer who is a professor of international human rights, civic society, and ethics. He is a gifted instructor and brilliant thinker, and his subject material was fascinating. He compared and contrasted the legal framework that embodies secular notions of human rights, and the moral framework that embodies religious notions of human rights. He then explored some possibilities for how these two frameworks might complement each other and interact. He was really touching on something much broader than human rights: the very different social contracts that underlie Western secularism and Islamic political theory.
This is a topic that sometimes keeps me awake at night. Can Western liberalism and Islam ever be compatible? The foundations are totally different. From the time of Jesus until Constantine's conversion, Christians believed that the "Kingdom of God" was something totally different from political authority. Early Christians were comfortable living within two distinct spheres. Although church and state became deeply entwined after that, centuries of religious war and persecution taught the West that religion and politics both functioned better if they were institutionally separated. Our modern liberal institutions, which largely rest on this understanding, enable pluralism and religious freedom. In Islam, on the other hand, religion and state are inseparable. Islam is meant to be lived out as a political community. Whereas Christianity's "golden age" considered of small, persecuted communities worshiping as a minority in the Roman Empire, Islam's golden age was the establishment of an Islamic empire under the stewardship of the first four caliphs. Most Muslims I have met want to live under some form of Islamic governance, although their definitions of this idea vary greatly. Can the political systems of the West and Islam ever be reconciled?
This professor has been doing some pretty groundbreaking research on the topic. Even as a Christian, I found myself absorbed in his ideas about how secularism and religion can complement each other and should be balanced. This is exactly the kind of dialog I think the Muslim world needs to have, so I found the lecture tremendously encouraging -- especially after my bad experience the day prior.
The professor had a lot to say about how we define secularism and why it is so hotly contested. Secularism has come to mean two distinct things. First, it can mean the institutional separation of political and religious organizations, which he believes is something to be embraced. It is secularism, he said, that allows him to live and worship freely as a Muslim in Canada. Second, the word secularism can refer to an ideology that amounts to the total erosion of moral and religious values in a culture, which is most definitely a bad thing. A lot of anger and confusion results when these two definitions of secularism get blurred.
Muslims face another problem when discussing secularism, because it comes with so much baggage; the vehicle that brought secularism to the Middle East was colonialism. If Muslims could see and understand "secularism" without any preconceptions, the professor said, they would likely embrace it. The problem is that the colonial experience poisoned the concept, and it is very difficult to reclaim it. When I spoke to the professor after the lecture, he told me that many Muslim-majority countries already practice de facto secularism, and most Muslims are happy to go along. The problem comes when you actually describe what you're doing. As soon as you talk about implementing "secularism", everybody gets angry.
If I understood him right, the professor believes that Muslim majority countries can and should be built on a foundation of secularism--that is, the institutional separation of mosque and state. However, there needs to be a much larger role for religion within the society than we experience in the West. The space where government and religion should interact, he says, is in "civic society"--essentially a safe domain, free from coercion and violence, where the relationship between government and religion is continually negotiated.
His lecture was only an hour long, which was not nearly enough time to describe a model that he has put years of thought into. I have a lot of questions about what his model would actually mean in practice, whether or not it would work, and whether or not most Muslims would actually subscribe to it. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of his model, this professor has clearly done some visionary work to bring Islam and the best parts of Western liberalism closer together, and he is wrapping up a speaking tour across the Middle East in which he has been sharing his passion with the younger generation.
A lot of my Jordanian classmates wrestle with these same questions, and are earnestly seeking a better way forward. In a previous class my colleagues wrote research papers about such varied topics as reconciling Islam with democracy, reforming Jordanian prisons, and overcoming the "wasta" patronage system that breeds so much corruption and bureaucratic dysfunction in Jordan. These students know their government and society can do better, and they want to figure out how.
This is where I find hope, my friends. I don't look to local governments. I don't look to Western development programs. I look to the creative, passionate, and noble things that ordinary people can do when they are set free. That's as true in the Muslim and Arab worlds as it is anywhere else. I enjoyed this lecture so much because it reminded me that most Muslims are trying to build a better future. We in the West need to do everything we can to help them succeed.
At the same time, these experiences are hardly the entire story. My experience with this professor has been an extraordinary exception to my time in Jordan. A lot of people compile these anecdotes and use them to construct an entire framework for understanding the Muslim/Arab world. The truth is so much more complex. The Muslim and Arab worlds--like any human society--are incredibly diverse. I see a lot of discouraging things that make me worry about the region's future, but I also see a lot of good things that give me reason for optimism.
Although Wednesday night's class was one of my worst experiences since moving to Jordan, Thursday's class was one of the best. The university hosted a Canadian Muslim guest lecturer who is a professor of international human rights, civic society, and ethics. He is a gifted instructor and brilliant thinker, and his subject material was fascinating. He compared and contrasted the legal framework that embodies secular notions of human rights, and the moral framework that embodies religious notions of human rights. He then explored some possibilities for how these two frameworks might complement each other and interact. He was really touching on something much broader than human rights: the very different social contracts that underlie Western secularism and Islamic political theory.
This is a topic that sometimes keeps me awake at night. Can Western liberalism and Islam ever be compatible? The foundations are totally different. From the time of Jesus until Constantine's conversion, Christians believed that the "Kingdom of God" was something totally different from political authority. Early Christians were comfortable living within two distinct spheres. Although church and state became deeply entwined after that, centuries of religious war and persecution taught the West that religion and politics both functioned better if they were institutionally separated. Our modern liberal institutions, which largely rest on this understanding, enable pluralism and religious freedom. In Islam, on the other hand, religion and state are inseparable. Islam is meant to be lived out as a political community. Whereas Christianity's "golden age" considered of small, persecuted communities worshiping as a minority in the Roman Empire, Islam's golden age was the establishment of an Islamic empire under the stewardship of the first four caliphs. Most Muslims I have met want to live under some form of Islamic governance, although their definitions of this idea vary greatly. Can the political systems of the West and Islam ever be reconciled?
This professor has been doing some pretty groundbreaking research on the topic. Even as a Christian, I found myself absorbed in his ideas about how secularism and religion can complement each other and should be balanced. This is exactly the kind of dialog I think the Muslim world needs to have, so I found the lecture tremendously encouraging -- especially after my bad experience the day prior.
The professor had a lot to say about how we define secularism and why it is so hotly contested. Secularism has come to mean two distinct things. First, it can mean the institutional separation of political and religious organizations, which he believes is something to be embraced. It is secularism, he said, that allows him to live and worship freely as a Muslim in Canada. Second, the word secularism can refer to an ideology that amounts to the total erosion of moral and religious values in a culture, which is most definitely a bad thing. A lot of anger and confusion results when these two definitions of secularism get blurred.
Muslims face another problem when discussing secularism, because it comes with so much baggage; the vehicle that brought secularism to the Middle East was colonialism. If Muslims could see and understand "secularism" without any preconceptions, the professor said, they would likely embrace it. The problem is that the colonial experience poisoned the concept, and it is very difficult to reclaim it. When I spoke to the professor after the lecture, he told me that many Muslim-majority countries already practice de facto secularism, and most Muslims are happy to go along. The problem comes when you actually describe what you're doing. As soon as you talk about implementing "secularism", everybody gets angry.
If I understood him right, the professor believes that Muslim majority countries can and should be built on a foundation of secularism--that is, the institutional separation of mosque and state. However, there needs to be a much larger role for religion within the society than we experience in the West. The space where government and religion should interact, he says, is in "civic society"--essentially a safe domain, free from coercion and violence, where the relationship between government and religion is continually negotiated.
His lecture was only an hour long, which was not nearly enough time to describe a model that he has put years of thought into. I have a lot of questions about what his model would actually mean in practice, whether or not it would work, and whether or not most Muslims would actually subscribe to it. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of his model, this professor has clearly done some visionary work to bring Islam and the best parts of Western liberalism closer together, and he is wrapping up a speaking tour across the Middle East in which he has been sharing his passion with the younger generation.
A lot of my Jordanian classmates wrestle with these same questions, and are earnestly seeking a better way forward. In a previous class my colleagues wrote research papers about such varied topics as reconciling Islam with democracy, reforming Jordanian prisons, and overcoming the "wasta" patronage system that breeds so much corruption and bureaucratic dysfunction in Jordan. These students know their government and society can do better, and they want to figure out how.
This is where I find hope, my friends. I don't look to local governments. I don't look to Western development programs. I look to the creative, passionate, and noble things that ordinary people can do when they are set free. That's as true in the Muslim and Arab worlds as it is anywhere else. I enjoyed this lecture so much because it reminded me that most Muslims are trying to build a better future. We in the West need to do everything we can to help them succeed.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Interview from Hell
UPDATE: Thanks to Tom Ricks, who runs one of the best blogs around, for the shout out. I would like to clarify one thing up front, because I realize my post led to some confusion: I did not do a TV interview. The below story occurred during an ordinary classroom discussion. I have declined to participate in the TV program.
My university class tonight may have been my worst experience in Jordan so far. For a full semester now, I have listened to this professor spout rabid anti-Semitism and wild conspiracy theories. I have mostly kept my mouth shut--partly because my Arabic isn't good enough to articulate satisfactory replies, and partly because I've never sensed that the teacher has any desire to hear my political opinions.
Tonight the teacher asked me if I would participate in an interview on a local television station, along with a couple other foreign students. The topic would be how Muslims and the Middle East are viewed in our countries. I didn't feel comfortable the idea, but I didn't want to offend him by declining outright. I told him I would think about it.
I spent the rest of the class wondering how to politely tell him no. The teacher, however, simply pressed on ahead as if I'd said yes. During class, he told us he had an idea. He would do a practice interview with us, to set us up for the TV program. Here is a paraphrased transcript of the key moments. This was all in Arabic, by the way.
[TEACHER] If the Jews launched new aggression against Palestinians after you return to America, how will you feel?
[ME] (dumbfounded) I expect there will be more violent conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but I will be very sad if a new war begins--
[TEACHER] (interrupting) No, no, how would you feel? What would you think about Israel attacking Palestinians?
[ME] I think there are problems on both sides, but I am with all Jews who want peace and all Palestinians who want peace. I would--
[TEACHER] (interrupting) If Israel attacked Jordan and the United States helped, would you participate in the war against Jordan?
[ME] (totally caught off guard) Um, I don't know...
[TEACHER] If you had a rifle, and one of your Jordanian classmates was standing in front of you, would you open fire on him?
[ME] Of course not.
[TEACHER] How did you feel when you saw the Israeli war on Gaza in 2008?
[ME] Frankly, I was very angry at both sides. I was angry at Israel for launching such an extreme response, but I was also angry at Hamas for firing missiles at Israeli civilians. Hamas has never worked for peace and always tried to sabotage the peace process. Both sides were at fault. There will only be peace in this region when both sides recognize---
[TEACHER] That was your opinion at the time, right? But it has changed now?
[ME] That was my opinion at the time, and it's still my opinion now.
[stunned silence from everybody in the room]
[OTHER STUDENT TRYING TO BE HELPFUL] Doctor, maybe that's because of bias in the news sources that he saw. If a person saw all the suffering and destruction inflicted on Palestinians, he would have a different view. But in America--
[TEACHER] -- the Jews control all the media. (never mind that I watched the war for an hour every morning on Al Jazeera) [looking to me] Who occupied whose land?
[ME] Israel occupied the Palestinian territories. Of course, I understand the history and the occupation and the reasons Palestinians are so angry. But if you look at the 67 war, Israel launched its attacks because of things President Nasser did, like withdrawing peacekeeping troops from Sinai and closing the Straits of--
[TEACHER] That's absolutely not true. Next question. Do you have Muslim friends in America?
[ME] Yes.
[TEACHER] How do other Americans treat them?
[ME] Actually, they mostly have good experiences with other Americans. Americans are very divided on the topic of Islam. Many Americans are afraid of Islam, but many Americans try to respect Muslims and show tolerance...
[TEACHER, clearly not interested in this answer] Next question...
And so it went. It's going to take me a while to recover from this one. I'm in one of my funks where I'm feeling bitter and cynical about trying to build peace, and am desperately repeating my mantra: do not grow weary in doing good. I'll post a story from the other side of the clash of the civilizations in the next couple days. Needless to say, I won't be going on television for an interview. I'm still looking for a culturally acceptable way to escape.
My university class tonight may have been my worst experience in Jordan so far. For a full semester now, I have listened to this professor spout rabid anti-Semitism and wild conspiracy theories. I have mostly kept my mouth shut--partly because my Arabic isn't good enough to articulate satisfactory replies, and partly because I've never sensed that the teacher has any desire to hear my political opinions.
Tonight the teacher asked me if I would participate in an interview on a local television station, along with a couple other foreign students. The topic would be how Muslims and the Middle East are viewed in our countries. I didn't feel comfortable the idea, but I didn't want to offend him by declining outright. I told him I would think about it.
I spent the rest of the class wondering how to politely tell him no. The teacher, however, simply pressed on ahead as if I'd said yes. During class, he told us he had an idea. He would do a practice interview with us, to set us up for the TV program. Here is a paraphrased transcript of the key moments. This was all in Arabic, by the way.
[TEACHER] If the Jews launched new aggression against Palestinians after you return to America, how will you feel?
[ME] (dumbfounded) I expect there will be more violent conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but I will be very sad if a new war begins--
[TEACHER] (interrupting) No, no, how would you feel? What would you think about Israel attacking Palestinians?
[ME] I think there are problems on both sides, but I am with all Jews who want peace and all Palestinians who want peace. I would--
[TEACHER] (interrupting) If Israel attacked Jordan and the United States helped, would you participate in the war against Jordan?
[ME] (totally caught off guard) Um, I don't know...
[TEACHER] If you had a rifle, and one of your Jordanian classmates was standing in front of you, would you open fire on him?
[ME] Of course not.
[TEACHER] How did you feel when you saw the Israeli war on Gaza in 2008?
[ME] Frankly, I was very angry at both sides. I was angry at Israel for launching such an extreme response, but I was also angry at Hamas for firing missiles at Israeli civilians. Hamas has never worked for peace and always tried to sabotage the peace process. Both sides were at fault. There will only be peace in this region when both sides recognize---
[TEACHER] That was your opinion at the time, right? But it has changed now?
[ME] That was my opinion at the time, and it's still my opinion now.
[stunned silence from everybody in the room]
[OTHER STUDENT TRYING TO BE HELPFUL] Doctor, maybe that's because of bias in the news sources that he saw. If a person saw all the suffering and destruction inflicted on Palestinians, he would have a different view. But in America--
[TEACHER] -- the Jews control all the media. (never mind that I watched the war for an hour every morning on Al Jazeera) [looking to me] Who occupied whose land?
[ME] Israel occupied the Palestinian territories. Of course, I understand the history and the occupation and the reasons Palestinians are so angry. But if you look at the 67 war, Israel launched its attacks because of things President Nasser did, like withdrawing peacekeeping troops from Sinai and closing the Straits of--
[TEACHER] That's absolutely not true. Next question. Do you have Muslim friends in America?
[ME] Yes.
[TEACHER] How do other Americans treat them?
[ME] Actually, they mostly have good experiences with other Americans. Americans are very divided on the topic of Islam. Many Americans are afraid of Islam, but many Americans try to respect Muslims and show tolerance...
[TEACHER, clearly not interested in this answer] Next question...
And so it went. It's going to take me a while to recover from this one. I'm in one of my funks where I'm feeling bitter and cynical about trying to build peace, and am desperately repeating my mantra: do not grow weary in doing good. I'll post a story from the other side of the clash of the civilizations in the next couple days. Needless to say, I won't be going on television for an interview. I'm still looking for a culturally acceptable way to escape.
Monday, May 10, 2010
It's a dangerous cyberworld out there
A couple weeks ago my DSL modem broke. No big deal, right? I contacted my landlord, who put in a request with the local Internet Service Provider to get me a new one. My request is still lost somewhere in the bureaucracy, so I've had to go hunting around my neighborhood to use the Internet. It's been an incredible nuisance, but it's also given me an opportunity to expand my knowledge of the cyber dark arts.
The more I learn about this stuff, the scarier the world is. Most people have no idea how vulnerable they are. I only know a little about networking and hacking, but I am seeing chinks in the armor everywhere I look. It's a good thing I'm one of the good guys.
From my living room I can access three unsecured wireless access points. The owners of these hotspots probably don't know how to set up their routers, and don't realize that almost everything they do online is transmitted cleartext. Even a mildly talented hacker can "sniff" this out of the air. Even worse, two of these routers are still in their default configuration. By typing in a specific IP address, anyone logged onto their network can access the router's configuration pages, logs, etc. This information is supposed to be protected by a username and password, but these neighbors still have the default username/password. I knew one combo, because the router was the same brand as mine (and it was boldly advertised in the network's SSID). I was able to look up the other username/combo on Google in about five seconds. I accessed both router configuration pages just to see if I could.
Because I'm not really a hacker, I just logged back out. But if I wanted to, I could have wreaked all kinds of mischief on these users. I could have set up a WEP or WPA password, effectively locking the user out of his or her own network. I could have set up remote access, allowing myself an entrance from anywhere on the net. I could have accessed logs. I probably could have tinkered with DNS settings, and steer the clueless user to fake versions of real web pages and harvest personal information like usernames and passwords. And if I wanted to, I could read the e-mails and instant messages passing through these networks. And all of this is just from my living room.
I repeated this experiment at my local Starbucks. The modem there is also in its default configuration. A hacker there could do a lot of damage to a lot of people.
The flip side of this scary knowledge is my own vulnerability. Until recently, I never realized how exposed I was at a coffee shop, airport, or other public wifi access point. Now I know: almost everything I do on the Internet at a public wifi hotspot can be "sniffed." All it takes is the right kind of wifi card and a free open source software program that you can download in about two minutes. I thought I would give this a try, so I downloaded the program and did some snooping--on myself. I let the program run in the background while I did my usual activities on the web like read blogs and e-mails. When I was done, I saved the "sniffed" data and began to parse it. It took some time to find my way around the raw data, but I eventually found and reconstructed the HTML for all the websites I visited. I could see all the web addresses and read all the blog posts.
My personal e-mail address is secure (any data passing through a web page beginning with https:// is encrypted), but I use Outlook and a special e-mail address to participate in a national security e-mail discussion group. I was alarmed to see that Outlook downloaded all these messages as cleartext. Even worse, Outlook passed my e-mail address AND PASSWORD cleartext to the mail server. Anyone who captured this would have indefinite access to my e-mail and to sensitive national security discussions. I'm a reasonably computer savvy guy, but it never occurred to me that Outlook would not be connecting securely to my email. Figuring out how to configure that is at the top of my todo list.
It gets worse. I mentioned that two of the three unsecured networks near my living room were unsecured. The third router had a different password, but that made me suspicious. If the user knew how to change his password, why was it unsecured? What was to stop a hacker from setting up an unsecured hotspot to lure in clueless surfers, then capturing their data? After tinkering around on the network for a while, I opened up my firewall and reviewed the log. Sure enough, another computer on the network was running port scans on my computer. In other words, a hacker was walking down a long hallway, trying each doorknob to see if anything was unlocked. He was looking for a way into my computer.
I'll never use an unsecured hotspot the same way. Anyone with a home network should use WEP or WPA to secure the hotspot with the password. Of course, WEP has its own problems--using another free software tool, any marginally talented hacker can crack a WEP password in about five minutes. That will be my next challenge when I have the time: trying to break into my own network.
The more I learn about this stuff, the scarier the world is. Most people have no idea how vulnerable they are. I only know a little about networking and hacking, but I am seeing chinks in the armor everywhere I look. It's a good thing I'm one of the good guys.
From my living room I can access three unsecured wireless access points. The owners of these hotspots probably don't know how to set up their routers, and don't realize that almost everything they do online is transmitted cleartext. Even a mildly talented hacker can "sniff" this out of the air. Even worse, two of these routers are still in their default configuration. By typing in a specific IP address, anyone logged onto their network can access the router's configuration pages, logs, etc. This information is supposed to be protected by a username and password, but these neighbors still have the default username/password. I knew one combo, because the router was the same brand as mine (and it was boldly advertised in the network's SSID). I was able to look up the other username/combo on Google in about five seconds. I accessed both router configuration pages just to see if I could.
Because I'm not really a hacker, I just logged back out. But if I wanted to, I could have wreaked all kinds of mischief on these users. I could have set up a WEP or WPA password, effectively locking the user out of his or her own network. I could have set up remote access, allowing myself an entrance from anywhere on the net. I could have accessed logs. I probably could have tinkered with DNS settings, and steer the clueless user to fake versions of real web pages and harvest personal information like usernames and passwords. And if I wanted to, I could read the e-mails and instant messages passing through these networks. And all of this is just from my living room.
I repeated this experiment at my local Starbucks. The modem there is also in its default configuration. A hacker there could do a lot of damage to a lot of people.
The flip side of this scary knowledge is my own vulnerability. Until recently, I never realized how exposed I was at a coffee shop, airport, or other public wifi access point. Now I know: almost everything I do on the Internet at a public wifi hotspot can be "sniffed." All it takes is the right kind of wifi card and a free open source software program that you can download in about two minutes. I thought I would give this a try, so I downloaded the program and did some snooping--on myself. I let the program run in the background while I did my usual activities on the web like read blogs and e-mails. When I was done, I saved the "sniffed" data and began to parse it. It took some time to find my way around the raw data, but I eventually found and reconstructed the HTML for all the websites I visited. I could see all the web addresses and read all the blog posts.
My personal e-mail address is secure (any data passing through a web page beginning with https:// is encrypted), but I use Outlook and a special e-mail address to participate in a national security e-mail discussion group. I was alarmed to see that Outlook downloaded all these messages as cleartext. Even worse, Outlook passed my e-mail address AND PASSWORD cleartext to the mail server. Anyone who captured this would have indefinite access to my e-mail and to sensitive national security discussions. I'm a reasonably computer savvy guy, but it never occurred to me that Outlook would not be connecting securely to my email. Figuring out how to configure that is at the top of my todo list.
It gets worse. I mentioned that two of the three unsecured networks near my living room were unsecured. The third router had a different password, but that made me suspicious. If the user knew how to change his password, why was it unsecured? What was to stop a hacker from setting up an unsecured hotspot to lure in clueless surfers, then capturing their data? After tinkering around on the network for a while, I opened up my firewall and reviewed the log. Sure enough, another computer on the network was running port scans on my computer. In other words, a hacker was walking down a long hallway, trying each doorknob to see if anything was unlocked. He was looking for a way into my computer.
I'll never use an unsecured hotspot the same way. Anyone with a home network should use WEP or WPA to secure the hotspot with the password. Of course, WEP has its own problems--using another free software tool, any marginally talented hacker can crack a WEP password in about five minutes. That will be my next challenge when I have the time: trying to break into my own network.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Back from the Dead
Building Peace is back, no thanks to Blogger. I have maintained this blog for two years using an FTP publishing capability, which Blogger recently decided to deactivate. Things went disastrously wrong when I tried rehosting the site. The worst part is that I had no way of informing my readers.
In any case, things should be fixed now. Please, if any of my readers discover any problems, e-mail me or post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
