Grayzone Project
How Some Western Feminists Betrayed Women in Syria, and Beyond, Ignoring Threat
of US-Backed Islamist Rebels
Feminist scholar Valentine Moghadam discusses Western liberal delusions around
Islamism, guerrilla movements and the Arab Spring.
By Rania Khalek / AlterNet
July 31, 2017, 1:33 PM GMT
Alawite women paraded in cages as human shields in 2015 by the Saudi-backed
Syrian rebel group, Jaysh al-Islam
Feminist author and scholar Valentine Moghadam participated in the Iranian
revolution of 1979. But after the downfall of the Shah, she and her leftist
comrades “were crushed immediately by the Islamists,” Moghadam told me. “That’s
why so many of us are in exile and so many others were executed, tortured,
arrested.”
Now a professor of sociology and international affairs at Northeastern
University, where she is director of the Middle East and international affairs
programs, Moghadam’s experience in Iran continues to influence her approach to
the region and Islamist movements more generally. Much of her academic work,
including several books, has focused on women’s movements in the Middle East
and the implications of Islamism on their lives.
“It’s really on the basis of my experience in Iran that I have come to be
totally suspicious of and opposed to any kind of Islamist movement,” she
explained. “The lesson that I and many Iranians learned from the Iranian
revolution and the Islamization that occurred almost immediately was that
Islamist movements are very strong in the region and that Islamist movements
are not good movements. They are not emancipatory, they are not egalitarian,
they are not women friendly and they make things worse than the previous status
quo,” she said.
In the 1980s, Moghadam was often a lone voice railing against U.S. support for
the Afghan mujahideen, or anti-Soviet rebels, a subject she has written about
extensively. She was particularly alarmed about the well-being of Afghan women
and stunned by the silence of Western feminists and liberals as their
governments funded a right-wing insurgency that sought to strip women and girls
of basic rights.
In her book Globalization and Social Movements: Islamism, Feminism, and the
Global Justice Movement, Moghadam attributed “the silence and confusion of the
1980s…to the anti-communism of liberal feminist groups, to an idealization of
‘Islamic guerrillas,’ to a misplaced cultural relativism, or to ignorance about
Afghanistan.”
She expressed a similar critique of the feminist and leftist response to the
conflict in Syria, where the U.S. tried to weaken the Syrian government by
funding and arming a patchwork of religious fundamentalist groups that often
worked side-by-side with Al Qaeda. In a strange affront to traditional leftist
principles, large segments of the American left either stayed silent or
expressed support for the armed insurgency, often whitewashing and denying its
explicitly anti-democratic and sectarian agenda.
As’ad AbuKhalil, a professor of political science at University of
California-Stanislaus, has observed that Syria coverage at the typically
adversarial progressive program Democracy Now! has become indistinguishable
from the one-sided State Department narrative promoted by establishment
outlets. Socialist Worker, the media arm of the International Socialist
Organization, has published one piece after another glorifying the
extremist-dominated insurgency and painting anyone opposed to it as
"pro-Assadist." One piece referred to the fighters in Al Qaeda’s Syria
affiliate, Jabhat al Nusra, as “decent revolutionaries.” And Jacobin, a
self-styled "leading voice of the American left, offering socialist
perspectives on politics, economics, and culture," routinely publishes articles
that whitewash the armed groups in shocking terms. A January 2017 piece in
Jacobin claimed that Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham, two of the most
fanatical armed opposition groups in Syria, “support national democratic
transition” where "people will be able to choose their own representatives.”
This characterization couldn’t be further from the truth, as both groups are
explicit about their intention to impose an Islamic state that would eradicate
Syria's tradition of pluralism. Until 2014, Ahrar al Sham worked arm in arm
with the Islamic State, or ISIS. The groups had a falling out not over
ideology, but over allegiance and tactics. Ahrar al Sham continued to work with
Al Qaeda until a power struggle in the province of Idlib brought the two
Islamist groups to loggerheads. Meanwhile, Jaysh al-Islam famously used caged
Alawite families as human shields. Tellingly, Jacobin articles have repeatedly
referred to the areas under the control of these groups as “liberated.”
Moghadam believes that these flawed analyses are rooted in the left’s
enthusiasm for the Arab Spring, combined with ignorance about the Middle East,
and as with Afghanistan, a romanticization of guerrilla movements.
Guerrilla groups that the American left has traditionally supported, like those
that sprang up across Latin America in the post-colonial period, “had very
clear and emancipatory social and economic and cultural projects which were
quite explicit and they often included quite openly the emancipation and
participation of women,” whereas the insurgencies in 1980s Afghanistan and
today’s Syria “are Islamist and have absolutely no such emancipatory or
egalitarian projects or programs.”
“A lot of hopes and aspirations, excitement and anticipation were pinned on the
Arab Spring,” explained Moghadam. “I always took a more cautious approach to it
because … the main opposition and the stronger alternative political movements
to those authoritarian regimes were Islamists precisely because most of these
authoritarian regimes … had not allowed the development and the growth and
expansion of left-wing, progressive or even liberal activities.”
As a result, Moghadam cautions against “knee jerk support for any group that
rebels against an authoritarian regime.” Instead, she advise that “leftists and
feminists, when they are confronted with something like a rebellion in a
country like Syria, should immediately ask themselves: Who are the rebels, what
do they stand for? What is this regime, what does it stand for, what has it
accomplished? And where would left-wing Syrians, where would Syrian women have
more room for maneuver?”
I spoke to Moghadam in detail about the American left’s response to the war in
Syria, the problem with Islamist movements and what a proper feminist response
to right-wing rebellions against authoritarian regimes might look like. Below
is a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity.
RANIA KHALEK: You have written extensively about the US-backed Islamist
insurgency in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the silence at the time from
feminists. I see a similar dynamic around Syria, where the US has funded and
armed a sectarian and fundamentalist insurgency. Many feminists and leftists in
the US have been supportive of this armed insurgency, despite its right-wing
and fundamentalist agenda. Why do you think that is?
VALENTINE MOGHADAM: There is a certain amount of ignorance about the Middle
East on the part of some of these groups and organizations. I think that
ignorance might also be tied to a certain romanticization of rebellion,
guerrilla groups and so on. It’s certainly the case that the rebels in Syria,
just like the mujahedeen of Afghanistan in the 1980s, were nothing like the
sorts of rebels and guerrilla groups that left wing organizations have
traditionally supported. They’re nothing like, let’s say, the Vietcong or Fidel
Castro and Che Guevara's groups, nothing like the Nicaraguans or the El
Salvador groups. The movements that I just mentioned had very clear and
emancipatory social and economic and cultural projects which were quite
explicit and they often included quite openly the emancipation and
participation of women. These other groups, the more contemporary ones, many of
them are Islamist and have absolutely no such emancipatory or egalitarian
projects or programs.
The mujahedeen of Afghanistan in the 1980s, they were even opposed to the
left-wing government’s plan for compulsory schooling for girls, and this in a
country that was about 98 percent illiterate. And the United States supported
them over a modernizing left-wing government. At the time, I was one of just a
handful of people who were just appalled by the way almost the entire world,
with the exception of course of the socialist block, had turned against
Afghanistan and were cheering on the Mujahedeen. It was incomprehensible to me.
RK: Was it because of the way the media portrayed the Mujahedeen? Was it that
people just weren’t aware of what their actual agenda was?
VM: I think there were several things going on. One was that this was still a
time when the Soviet Union was in place, so there was an atmosphere of
anti-communism in most of the western world. This was sort of the waning days
of the cold war, but the cold war was still present. And so, anti-communism and
cold war sentiments and anti-Soviet sentiments certainly played into all of
this.
The American media, including human rights organizations, really played this
up. The shocking misinformation and disinformation about, for example,
education policy on the part of the left-wing government in Afghanistan at the
time was that this was no more than Sovietization of schooling and a kind of
ideological brainwashing of young Afghan minds. They were stooping that low to
try to put the left-wing government and their Soviet allies in the worst
possible light. This is a country that was 98 percent illiterate and the
government was trying to bring the country into the 20th century and yet all
these westerners were crafting the crudest form, but it was an effective form,
of anti-Soviet and anti-Afghan government propaganda to steer people’s
potential support for what the government was doing toward support for the
tribal Islamist rebellion.
RK: This doesn’t sound so different from other propaganda at the time. There
was a lot of propaganda around Nicaragua, but it doesn’t seem to have been as
effective as it was with Afghanistan.
VM: If we’re just now focused on why left-wing movements were asleep, it was
different because they were more familiar with and more knowledgeable about
Central America than was the case with Afghanistan and think this is also the
case with Syria, though Syria is a bit more complicated. But I do think that
there’s a bit more knowledge of and familiarity with Central America, because
of Cuba and the proximity but also the democratic transitions that had occurred
in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. So people were much more familiar with what was
going on in Latin America than what was going on in Afghanistan. There’s just a
lot of ignorance about the Muslim majority world.
RK: In news articles from the 1980s Afghanistan war, I’ve noticed a great deal
of excuse-making for the mujahideen's opposition to girls going to school. A
1988 New York Times, for example, blamed the Afghan government’s 'Marxist
ideology' for provoking the mujahideen's extreme misogyny. What’s that about?
VM: There was a certain cultural relativist argument that was being bandied
about. It’s a certain arrogant notion that these people have their own culture
and it is not correct to impose western values and policies and procedures on
their cultures. This idea that schooling is western rather than a universal
notion of development and modernization, that this was somehow an imposition of
the Soviet Union rather than recognizing that there was a certain social
stratum of Afghans who themselves had been educated in various countries.
[Founding member of the Afghan communist party People's Democratic Party of
Afghanistan] President Nur Muhammad Taraki had been educated in India for
heavens sakes. And these people were very eager to be able to extend the
benefits of schooling and awareness and knowledge and skills to their
countrymen and countrywomen, yet this was derided and denigrated, again
propagandistically I think, as a form of cultural imposition and wrong-headed
cultural policy. As if things were never imposed in Western countries too, I
mean we’ve had compulsory education in America for what, over a century or
more? That has happened in lots of countries. In lots of countries there’s
compulsory conscription, even compulsory voting. These were very very weak
arguments in terms of their logic and ethical content but they were effective
unfortunately because the more you repeat this kind of disinformation and lies,
the more effective they become.
RK: That bring us to the Syria issue. Across the political spectrum, everyone
except for a few minor groups has been incredibly supportive and cheering on
the rebel takeover of Syrian cities.
VM: That’s been really quite shocking to me on a number of levels, but let’s go
back to why that occurred. Let’s go back to January, February, March of 2011.
The Arab Spring had erupted. There was a great deal of celebration, of
optimism. A lot of hopes and aspirations, excitement and anticipation were
pinned on the Arab Spring.
I remember that time very well because I was more or less in the midst of it as
a scholar. And I was being interviewed at the time about the possible prospects
and outcomes. I always took a more cautious approach to it because, yes, the
region was filled with authoritarian regimes and dictatorships but I also knew
that the main opposition and the stronger alternative political movements to
those authoritarian regimes were Islamists precisely because most of these
authoritarian regimes--there are some exceptions, Tunisia is an exception,
Morocco is an exception to a certain extent--but most of these regimes had not
allowed the development and the growth and expansion of left-wing, progressive
or even liberal activities. In Egypt, Mubarak had been far more oppressive than
Ben Ali of Tunisia had been and really clamped down on civil society. I knew
that in Egypt the main opposition force that would come to power was the Muslim
Brotherhood and other Islamists and that’s exactly what happened. I felt the
same way about some of the other countries.
So, if I had to choose between an authoritarian regime ruled by the secular
Republican Baath party in Syria and some unknown Islamist groups, I would
definitely prefer the secular Republic and albeit authoritarian regime of
Bashar al-Assad. And yet others didn’t understand this. I might’ve understood
it because of my experience with the Iranian revolution.
At that time of the Iranian revolution we were all in favor of the revolution
but we were leftists and the leftists were crushed by Islamists. The lesson
that I and many Iranians learned from the Iranian revolution and the
Islamization that occurred almost immediately was that Islamist movements are
very strong in the region and that Islamist movements are not good movements.
They are not emancipatory, they are not egalitarian, they are not women
friendly and they make things worse than the previous status quo.
So I’ve been extremely opposed to regime change anywhere for two reasons. One
is because in principle I’m opposed to this kind of regime change on the part
of Western powers because I think that’s just a form of blatant imperialism.
But secondly, it’s because of the likely outcomes, which Islamist groups coming
to power or something even worse, which is the collapse of these societies and
political systems into the kind of chaos we have seen in Libya.
Part of the lies is that Assad is responsible for ISIS. It’s really interesting
but also quite appalling because ISIS was formed out of the mess the US created
in Iraq. Al Baghdadi is an Iraqi who was also in an American prison and then he
formed ISIS. It’s precisely because of destabilization of the region from
external intervention and regime change and attempted regime change that you
have seen ISIS expand throughout the region. So none of this is the fault of
Assad or anyone else. It is really the fault of the United States, England and
France that really pushed for a regime change in Libya and compelled NATO into
bombing the heck out of Libya and quite a number of Libyans died.
And look at Libya today. It’s just a complete mess and no one’s taking
responsibility for it and no one’s been held to account for it and yet the lies
are that Assad is responsible for this.
RK: He’s responsible for plenty of stuff, but not this.
VM: Right. Early on in 2011 he did make the mistake of harshly putting down
those protests. But let’s face it, a lot of countries have harshly put down
protests. At the time I remember pointing out, look what the UK did to Northern
Ireland, to the IRA. There was a great deal of hypocrisy going on at the time.
Yes, Assad’s regime made a mistake by repressing the protests, but also yes, a
lot of countries have done that, including our much-vaunted democracies. And
their mistake, actually their crime was then to immediately finance and arm the
armed rebellion, which by the way is against international law. You’re not
supposed to arm non-state actors. But they started to do that, in particular
their proxies in the region: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on.
So it’s true that the Syrian regime has been incredibly violent, but to a great
extent it’s been forced to be because states do not simply put down their
weapons and cry uncle. No state does that. If you look at the United States,
even if you have just two or three armed militia groups that crop up every so
often in places like Idaho or Texas, they react very, very harshly to them.
I actually blame all this terrible violence in Syria on these outside external
forces. By encouraging and arming the rebellion, countries like the US and
England and Turkey and Saudi Arabia and so on have simply been prolonging the
misery of the Syrian people and creating chaos in that country. If they had not
interfered back in 2011, 2012, 2013, there would have been some resolution that
would have occurred organically between the government and the opposition.
Either the government would have totally won and crushed the opposition on its
own, and that happens time and again in our world, or there would have been
some compromise.
RK: That would have been much better than seven years of violence and
bloodshed. As much as I would love to see leftist movements and revolutions
sweep across the region, that just isn’t the case.
VM: To the extent that there are left-wing groups and movements, they’re very
small and weak, unfortunately. They simply cannot compete or compare with
Islamist groups and movements. After all Islamist groups and movements have
been getting their funding and logistical support from these big powers. If
it’s not Saudi Arabia, then it’s Qatar or the Emirates or Turkey. We know that
the CIA has also been supporting its so-called “moderate” rebels in Syria.
In the old days, of course, we had left-wing guerilla groups and progressive
groups, but that was when the Soviet Union existed, so they could get some
support from them, but we just don’t have that anymore.
RK: That’s what people with the Arab communist parties told me, that they can’t
compete with the right-wing nationalist and Islamist groups because they have
such a big funding stream and the leftists get nothing. The other thing I think
is new in the region is this element of sectarianism that has become
progressively worse. A lot of it has to do with the US, Saudi Arabia and their
allies trying to counter Hezbollah and Iran by promoting anti-Shia sentiments
and empowering Sunni extremist groups. In Syria, a major part of the rebel
agenda has been the elimination of minorities. Was sectarianism this prevalent
in Afghanistan?
VM: To some extent, but not as bad as it is today. The Taliban were more
sectarian because they were almost exclusively Pashtun and almost exclusively
Sunni. They carried out some horrific campaigns against Shia Hazaras and so on.
But what is going on in the region today is really very troubling and
disturbing and I think again the United States is largely responsible for it.
It created this monster in Iraq. By invading and occupying Iraq, it opened up
this Pandora’s box. Bush’s friend Maliki in particular became very sectarian
and there was of course a legitimate resistance that developed in Iraq, but
they turned increasingly violent and sectarian themselves, singling out Shia.
This has spread across the region.
The other culprit is Saudi Arabia. For 30 years Saudi Arabia has been funding
and encouraging and promoting a very draconian anti-feminist, anti-egalitarian
Wahhabi Islamic ideology. Meanwhile, the US invades and occupies Iraq. One
unintended consequences is the Shia government then becomes friendly with Iran.
The United States is really concerned about this. Saudi Arabia is concerned
about this. And then they keep pouring more fuel to fire by igniting and
promoting sectarian divisions and differences.
The most extreme version of this is ISIS and the way they have systematically
been targeting non-Sunnis all over the place.
I do want to say something about this sort of odd position of American
left-wing media and groups, their utter silence over treatment of non-Muslims
and non-Sunnis in the region. This systemic targeting of Christians, Yazidis,
Alawites, Shias but also of secular Muslims, and not only in the Middle East
but in other countries too, like Bangladesh, Pakistan—there’s utter silence
about this. Absolutely nothing is being said about this targeted killing and
mass migration from the region of all the religious minorities. And meanwhile
at the same time that nothing is being said about that, we hear all this talk
about Islamophobia.
RK: It seems to me that people are scared to touch on this topic because they
don’t want to play into Islamophobia at a time when Muslims are being targeted
by the U.S. government.
VM: Yes, there is a problem of Islamophobia in the United States and Europe,
too. But any critique of Islamophobia has to be accompanied by or has to be a
part of a larger critique of discrimination, oppression and the marginalization
of all the religious minorities. And that includes the religious minorities in
Muslim-majority countries. I would like to hear CAIR (Council for American
Islamic Relations) and organizations like that talk about this, but they won’t.
And to the extent that they will not, then for me Islamophobia becomes more
marginal to some of the bigger issues and problems of the region, which is
external intervention, regime change, the arms trade and the chaos that that
creates.
RK: One thing I’ve noticed about the region is left-wing groups embracing
Hezbollah. They oppose Islamism, but they don’t feel threatened by Hezbollah
and instead view them as resistance to Israel and al Qaeda and ISIS. It’s an
interesting dynamic.
VM: I was very suspicious of Hezbollah for a quite some time. But it’s
interesting that more recently, they seem to be playing a more positive role
especially in connection with Syria and trying to protect the integrity of the
Syrian political system and the current regime there. It’s an extremely
unpopular statement that I’m making and very, very controversial, but I think
that just at this moment Hezbollah seems to be playing a positive role as I
believe Iran is, even though people like me have suffered from the Islamization
of the Iranian republic. But to be very objective about it, I think that both
Hezbollah and the Iranian regime are correct to be insisting on the viability
and integrity of the Syrian state. As for how the Lebanese view Hezbollah and
what is the role of Hezbollah in Lebanon, that’s not for me to decide.
RK: Just to wrap it up, what should the feminist leftist response be to a
conflict like Syria?
VM: I think that leftists and feminists, when they are confronted with
something like a rebellion in a country like Syria, should immediately ask
themselves: Who are the rebels, what do they stand for? What is this regime,
what does it stand for, what has it accomplished? And where would left-wing
Syrians, where would Syrian women have more room for maneuver? That is the
question we always have to ask ourselves when we’re faced with something like
this; not just this knee-jerk support for any group that rebels against an
authoritarian regime. You have to ask yourself, what is the likely outcome and
what does this rebel group stand for?
Rania Khalek is an independent journalist living in the Washington D.C. area.
.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'.
COMMENT NOW!
Sign Up!
Get AlterNet's Daily Newsletter in Your Inbox
EMAIL:
+ sign up for additional lists
US intercepts ballistic missile amid North Korea threats
00:0000:45
Now Playing
US intercepts ballistic missile amid North Korea threats
People are not happy with Joel Osteen's Harvey response
1:16
North Korea launches missile over Japan
0:40
Trump to restore military surplus transfers to police
0:42
New Confederate monument unveiled in Alabama
0:29
Turkish security officials indicted for attacking protestors
0:38
Twitter can't believe Melania Trump's outfit choice for Texas
0:46
Tropical storm Harvey leaves Texas in shambles, strikes Lousiana
0:34
Did the FDA just make MDMA legal?
0:34
Can you guess Ivanka Trump's new White House nickname?
0:37
Powered by
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
From the Web
Rugged Cowboy To Loving Husband: Sam Elliott's Life Story
Greeningz
Here’s Why Guys Are Obsessed With This Underwear…
The Weekly Brief | Mack Weldon
Sonogram Results Scared This Pregnant Mom
Wife Wine
Why Clint Eastwood Never Mentions His Army Service
Post Popular
What Barbara Eden Looks Like Today Is Crazy
Semesterz
The Colleges In New York. Are The Hardest To Get Into
KiwiReport
Horrifying Great Depression Photos Found In Government …
BlitzLift
12 Things Every American Is Shocked by in Europe
Travelabuzz
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Recommended
•She Had No Idea Why The Men Kept Cheering Her On Journalistate
•Tyra Banks Finally Reveals Her Outrageous Home Lonny
•He Bought This Cabin For 100 Dollars And Did This HeadCramp
•Can You Take Down the James Bond Villains Quiz That Stumps Most Americans?
Zoo.com
•The Surprising Guest That Johnny Carson Couldn't Stand Post Popular
•Heartwarming Photos That Prove Dogs Don't Really Hate Cats. Number 17
Especially Dogsome.net
•A Woman Crashed Her Car On A Rural Road. Then A Stray Dog Suddenly Came Out Of
Nowhere Guilty Fix
•Be awed by a cabin set in the extraordinary Yosemite National Park HomeToGo
Amityville, NY
65°
10:25 pm EDT
Clear
Get this widget
Sign Up!
Get AlterNet's Daily Newsletter in Your Inbox
+ select additional lists
Best of the week
Most Read
.
1
Fellow Pastor Unleashes Holy Hell on Joel Osteen for His Disgraceful Response
to Hurricane Harvey
.
2
Appalled Kelly Says Nobody Has Spoken to Him Like Trump in His 35-Year Career
.
3
Trump Is Downright Miserable, and He's Begun Lashing Out at Top Aides
.
4
Enough With the Top 1 Percent: The Top 20 Percent, the Upper Middle Class, Is
Hoarding the American Dream
.
5
Pence May be Vulnerable to Impeachment Based Upon Trump's New Memo, Suggests
Law Professor
.
6
John Kelly Is Reportedly Done Taking Abuse from President Trump
.
7
Missing from the New JFK Files: Batch of CIA Records on Lee Harvey Oswald
.
8
John McCain Takes Aim at Trump in Op-Ed: 'We Are Not His Subordinates'
.
9
The New York Times Grovels for the Right Wing, and Other Despicable Media
Moments This Week
.
10
Robert Reich: Google Is Proof Positive That Big Money Is Poisoning Our Politics
.
Today's Top Stories
1
Missing from the New JFK Files: Batch of CIA Records on Lee Harvey Oswald
..
2
GOP Consultants Are Worried Trump Is 'In A Terrible Downward Spiral’ Ruining
the Party
..
3
A Vegan Mayo Company Was Attacked in a Malicious Hoax—Then Target Kicked Its
Products Off the Shelves
..
4
The Plummet of Trump’s Ridiculous ‘Alpha Males’
..
5
Obama's Letter to Trump After Inauguration Leaked: Read It Here
..
6
Enough With the Top 1 Percent: The Top 20 Percent, the Upper Middle Class, Is
Hoarding the American Dream
..
7
Saluting the Many on Labor Day Who Are Volunteering to Find and Help Harvey
Victims
..
8
6 Examples of Fake News About Antifa
..
FARK HEADLINES
First 200 Days: Where Are Trump's Wins?
Judge Approves Warrant For "Antifa" User Data From Anti-Trump Website
Tiger Woods, Lindsey Vonn get website to remove nude photos
Presidential Responses to Racial Unrest
Disney to Pay $177 Million in "Pink Slime" Lawsuit
Alternet Originals
Invasive Species Are Killing People, Decimating Wildlife and Costing Billions
of Dollars in Damage Around the Globe
House Science Committee: Russia Secretly Backed Anti-Fracking Campaigns
Joe Arpaio Has Been a World-Class Jerk a Lot Longer Than You Ever Knew
.
[ X ]
Like Grayzone Project on Facebook
Our Mission
Who We Are
About IMI
Foundation Support
Press Information
Writer Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Advertise on AlterNet
Contact Us
Donate
Subscribe
Login
follow AlterNet on twitter
be an AlterNet facebook fan
subscribe to our rss
