Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
January 24, 2006

Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) is distributing the enclosed articles to build bridges of understanding between the West and the Arab world, and countries with significant Muslim populations. Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and the articles may be reproduced by any news outlet or publication, free of charge. If publishing, please acknowledge both the original source and Common Ground News Service, and notify us at cgnewspih@sfcg.org.

**********

ARTICLES IN THIS EDITION:

1. The real choice in Iraq by Zbigniew Brzezinski
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, posits some steps for the U.S. to end the war in Iraq, its options being to "persist but not win" or "desist but not lose." The need to claim “mission accomplished” is strong for the U.S. government, both those currently in power and those who wish to be in power in 2008, but establishing a clear victory will not be an option and the administration will soon have to decide which of these two possibilities it prefers.
(Source: International Herald Tribune, January 9, 2006)

2. Global approach - Arab News Editorial
This Arab News editorial highlights the Saudi Kingdom’s Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal’s comment at a recent conference in London: “…terrorists must be deprived of the opportunity to extort sympathy and support by annexing issues such as the plight of the Palestinians to their own perverted cause.” Acknowledging the continued issues facing Palestine, yet not condoning random acts of violence that are committed in its name, the article calls for greater political and social involvement on the part of the Europeans and a more consistent advancement of U.S. values in the region as a whole.
(Source: Arab News, January 18, 2006)

3. Resorting to reasoning – Jordan Times Editorial
This Jordan Times editorial considers the end of talks between Iran and the West over Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Unconvinced that all diplomatic options have been exhausted, this article urges both parties to get back to the negotiating table and keep talking.
(Source: Jordan Times, January 19, 2006)

4. If you talk to one enemy, talk to all by Rami Khouri
Although the first paragraph suggests this article may be a satire on conspiracy theory in the region, Rami G. Khouri, regular columnist for the Daily Star, judiciously examines when the United States engages in dialogue with so-called “extremist” organizations, and when it doesn’t. “The key to progress” Khouri advocates, “is acknowledging the basic legitimacy of both sides' posture and principles, in order to induce changes in their respective policies.” Not only should the United States engage with groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah, but such Islamic groups should also make efforts to discuss how they see their transition to greater legitimacy and political empowerment.
(Source: Daily Star, January 14, 2006)

5. US celebrates its most misread freedom by Jane Lampman
According to recent polls, Jane Lampman, staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, writes that Americans aren’t sure how the separation of church and state actually guarantees their religious freedom. Although 50% of those asked felt they have too little religious freedom in schools, for example, “students are free to pray individually or in groups, to form religious clubs and publications, to express religious views in their school assignments, and wear religious messages on their clothing.” Lampman describes what the U.S. government is doing to help citizens understand that their First Amendment right is what actually makes such a free expression of their faith possible.
(Source: The Christian Science Monitor, January 18, 2006)

**********

ARTICLE 1
The real choice in Iraq
Zbigniew Brzezinski

"Bring 'em on" - President George W. Bush on Iraqi insurgents, summer 2003
The insurgency is "in its last throes" - Vice President Dick Cheney, summer 2005
"... There are only two options before our country: victory or defeat" - President Bush, Christmas 2005

Washington - The administration's rhetorical devolution speaks for itself. Yet, with some luck and with a more open decision-making process in the White House, greater political courage on the part of Democratic leaders and even some encouragement from authentic Iraqi leaders, the U.S. war in Iraq could (and should) come to an end within a year.

"Victory or defeat" is, in fact, a false strategic choice. In using this formulation, the president would have the American people believe that their only options are either "hang in and win" or "quit and lose." But the real, practical choice is this: "persist but not win" or "desist but not lose."

Victory, as defined by the administration and its supporters - a stable and secular democracy in a unified Iraqi state, with the insurgency crushed by the American military assisted by a disciplined, U.S.-trained Iraqi national army - is unlikely.

The U.S. force required to achieve it would have to be significantly larger than the present one, and the Iraqi support for a U.S.-led counterinsurgency would have to be more motivated.

The current U.S. forces (soon to be reduced) are not large enough to crush the anti-American insurgency or stop the sectarian Sunni-Shiite strife. Both problems continue to percolate under an inconclusive but increasingly hated foreign occupation.

Moreover, neither the Shiites nor the Kurds are likely to subordinate their specific interests to a unified Iraq with a genuine, single national army. As the haggling over the new government has already shown, the two dominant forces in Iraq - the religious Shiite alliance and the separatist Kurds - share a common interest in preventing a restoration of Sunni domination, with each determined to retain a separate military capacity for asserting its own specific interests, largely at the cost of the Sunnis.

A truly national army in that context is a delusion. Continuing doggedly to seek "a victory" in that fashion dooms America to rising costs in blood and money, not to mention the intensifying Muslim hostility and massive erosion of America's international legitimacy, credibility and moral reputation.

The administration's definition of "defeat" is similarly misleading. Official and unofficial spokesmen often speak in terms that recall the apocalyptic predictions made earlier regarding the consequences of American failure to win in Vietnam: dominoes falling, the region exploding and U.S. power discredited. An added touch is the notion that the Iraqi insurgents will then navigate the Atlantic and wage terrorism on the American homeland.

The real choice that needs to be faced is between:
An acceptance of the complex post-Saddam Iraqi realities through a relatively prompt military disengagement, which would include a period of transitional and initially even intensified political strife as the dust settled and as authentic Iraqi majorities fashioned their own political arrangements.

An inconclusive but prolonged military occupation lasting for years while an elusive goal is pursued.

It is doubtful, to say the least, that America's domestic political support for such a futile effort could long be sustained by slogans about Iraq's being "the central front in the global war on terrorism."

In contrast, a military disengagement by the end of 2006, derived from a more realistic definition of an adequate outcome, could ensure that desisting is not tantamount to losing.

In an Iraq dominated by the Shiites and the Kurds, who together account for close to 75 percent of the population, the two peoples would share a common interest in Iraq's independence as a state.

The Kurds, with their autonomy already amounting in effect to quasi-sovereignty, would otherwise be threatened by the Turks. And the Iraqi Shiites are first of all Arabs; they have no desire to be Iran's satellites. Some Sunnis, once they were aware that the U.S. occupation was drawing to a close and that soon they would be facing an overwhelming Shiite-Kurdish coalition, would be more inclined to accommodate the new political realities, especially when deprived of the rallying cry of resistance to a foreign occupier.

In addition, it is likely that both Kuwait and the Kurdish regions of Iraq would be amenable to some residual U.S. military presence as a guarantee against a sudden upheaval. Once the United States terminated its military occupation, some form of participation by Muslim states in peacekeeping in Iraq would be easier to contrive, and their involvement could also help to cool anti-American passions in the region.

In any case, as Iraqi politics gradually become more competitive, it is almost certain that the more authentic Iraqi leaders (not handpicked by the United States), to legitimate their claim to power, will begin to demand publicly a firm date for U.S. withdrawal.

That is all to the good. In fact, they should be quietly encouraged to do so, because that would increase their popular support while allowing the United States to claim a soberly redefined "Mission Accomplished."

The requisite first step to that end is for the president to break out of his political cocoon. His policymaking and his speeches are the products of the true believers around him who are largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. They have a special stake in their definition of victory, and they reinforce his convictions instead of refining his judgments. The president badly needs to widen his circle of advisers.

Finally, Democratic leaders should stop equivocating while carping. Those who want to lead in 2008 are particularly unwilling to state clearly that ending the war soon is both desirable and feasible. They fear being labelled as unpatriotic. Yet defining a practical alternative would provide a politically effective rebuttal to those who mindlessly seek an unattainable "victory." America needs a real choice regarding its tragic misadventure in Iraq.

###
* Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. This Global Viewpoint article was distributed by Tribune Media Services International.
Source: International Herald Tribune, January 9, 2006
Visit the website at www.iht.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 2
Global Approach
Arab News Editorial

London - The two-day anti-terror conference organised in London by Saudi Arabia and the UK’s Royal United Services Institute, which ended last night, may have achieved a lot more than examining how effectively countries are currently working together to fight international terror. The conference title “Transnational Terrorism: A Global Approach” hid an extra text which hopefully will allow a massive effort to combat the terrorist on a third and arguably more effective front. In his keynote opening speech, the Kingdom’s Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal drove home the point that terrorists must be deprived of the opportunity to extort sympathy and support by annexing issues such as the plight of the Palestinians to their own perverted cause.

Hunting down and fighting international terror is of course only a part of the story. As the Muslim world has accepted, it is also important to destroy the poverty and ignorance that have produced fertile fields from which Al-Qaeda and its satraps reap recruits. Following on from the historic agreement at last year’s Organisation of Islamic Conference summit in Riyadh, a major effort is under way to alleviate poverty and root out religious teachers who distort and betray the tenets of Islam.

But the third front that must be opened should address the wrongs and injustices against the Arab and wider Islamic world, which have given such a potent source of propaganda to the men of violence. And only America and Europe have the power to achieve this.

The Bush White House, having cast aside all the wise counsel available from professional diplomats in the State Department, originally bet mainly on major force to fight terror. Four years on, it is clear that far from working, the US iron fist may have increased the number of opponents. It is certain that every innocent civilian casualty, every operational error made by the Americans, is adding to the general sense of grievance and frustration. If the US really cares about peace and justice, why is it not confronting the injustices and violence visited on the Palestinians by the Israelis? If the US really wants Iran to abandon any idea of nuclear weapons, why does it not force Israel to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency rules? Why does it shelter a state that has already turned the Middle East nuclear?

Unlike the Americans, the Europeans have long recognised the pivotal role that the plight of the Palestinians plays in undermining confidence in the fairness of US Middle East policy. Prince Saud’s British counterpart Jack Straw underlined the problem in his own address to the London conference. However the time has now come for the Europeans to come up with more than words. While America with its annual multibillion dollar support for Israel holds the key to enforcing a just resolution of the plight of the Palestinians, the Europeans can and should be working far harder, politically and economically to promote and sustain a viable independent Palestinian state in order to rob international terror of the easiest excuse for its depravities.

###
* This article was published as an Arab News editorial.
Source: Arab News, January 18, 2006
Visit the website at www.arabnews.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 3
Resorting to reasoning
Jordan Times Editorial

Amman - The diplomatic war of words between Iran and the West over Iran's uranium enrichment programme shows no sign of ending. Yesterday, France rebuffed an attempt by Tehran to restart talks with the EU and the US on the issue. France, presumably in line with other Western governments, wants Iran first to stop its programme again.

There are several issues at stake. On the one hand is the basic undesirability of there being any more nuclear weapons anywhere else in the world. Nuclear weapons are bad, and the fewer there are, the better. Of course, Iran is not claiming to want to build nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants to enrich uranium for strictly peaceful purposes.

That is not good enough for the West, despite the fact that Iran, unlike India and Israel, has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Apparently, signing the NPT is not necessary if one is a US ally, and not enough if one is not.

The US in particular appears adamant in wanting to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Considering the track record the international community has in enforcing UN Security Council resolutions in this region, particularly with regards to Israel, perhaps the international community should think twice before it allows its regional policies to become even more identified with duplicity.

The West does not trust Iran with the ability to enrich uranium, which is necessary to build the bomb. Iran's support of Hizbollah in Lebanon and general ability to get up the West's nose, the US and Israel in particular, is a cause of concern. According to a US spokesperson, and with no apparent hint of irony, Iran is a source of instability in the region.

Underlying the West's rejection of further talks is a more iron-cast conviction that despite its official position, Iran is indeed pursuing a secret programme to develop nuclear weapons. Iran's behaviour, in periodically suspending the activities of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors, has contributed to this suspicion. It is an all-too familiar and disquieting story.

Let's hope the West this time does not decide to act rashly again based on ill-informed suspicion. Iran, too, can learn from Iraq. The sensible proposal by the head of the IAEA, Mohammad Al Baradei, that Iran could have its uranium enriched for it by a nuclear power was dismissed by Iran.

Apparently, Iran does not trust the West with the future of its energy supply. That is hardly surprising, but it would be nice to see sensible proposals receive sensible consideration. For this, the sensible approach is to start talking again. Let the diplomatic war remain diplomatic.

###
* This article was published as a Jordan Times editorial.
Source: Jordan Times, January 19, 2006
Visit the website at www.jordantimes.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 4
If You Talk To One Enemy, Talk to All
Rami G. Khouri

Beirut - Here's one for the Moral Confusion and Political Double Standards Department: the United States' armed forces and government are holding discreet talks with Iraqi "insurgents" who are attacking and killing Americans in Iraq, and negotiating with a North Korea that they see as a nuclear threat. Yet the same U.S. government refuses to talk to Hamas, Hizbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists in the Arab world, and Iran, all of whom challenge the state of Israel. Say what?

The U.S. single-handedly created the Iraqi insurgents through its invasion and regime change, and it now is acting rather sensibly in opening discussions with these groups that want the Americans to leave the country. The U.S. did the same thing years ago in Vietnam, when it negotiated with the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong while they were actively fighting and killing Americans. It also pursued a similar strategy in Northern Ireland, where it played the third-party mediator role and actively (and successfully) engaged the various Protestant and Catholic militant groups who routinely used terror as a political tool.

These are examples of realism and pragmatism for which assorted U.S. administrations should be commended. Living in the real world is a noble and useful endeavour. When Washington practices this here and there on the international stage, it should be acknowledged for its level-headedness and encouraged to expand this approach to define its policies everywhere. However, something happens to American official pragmatism and realism when it comes to political and diplomatic moves related to Israel. The Moral Confusion and Political Double Standards Department kicks in, and the U.S. repeatedly opens itself up to accusations of hypocrisy and expediency. If the U.S., Israel, Micronesia and Tony Blair are tired of hearing these accusations, they should stand in our shoes and feel the pain of being at the receiving end of this sort of sustained moral laxity and political double standards for decades on end.

This persistent double standard has enormous consequences over time, which is why it must be dealt with in a more effective manner than has been the case to date. It generates strong scepticism about American policies in the Middle East among the public, and now has also sparked active military and terror attacks against American interests and troops.

The most important point about the double standard these days is not that it is counter-productive, but that we may stand before an opportunity to replace it by a more sensible and effective policy that responds to the legitimate concerns of all parties - namely the U.S., Israel, Arab groups and states and Iran. This opportunity is the current twin focus on the widespread international and more limited Arab demand to "disarm" Hamas and Hizbollah, while those groups and other Islamists actively engage in democratic elections and slowly move into power-sharing arrangements in national governments.

The key to progress requires acknowledging the basic legitimacy of both sides' posture and principles, in order to induce changes in their respective policies. The current American-Israeli approach is unlikely to succeed because it places a higher priority on the security of Israel than on that of adjacent Arab societies, especially in Lebanon and Palestine. A better way would be to apply the American approach to North Korea and the Iraqi insurgents-terrorists and to Islamists in the Middle East, by identifying the legitimate needs of both sides and engaging in sober discussions to agree on how to move to meet those needs.

This is not only eminently sensible and politically productive; it is also profoundly American in its conceptual and moral approach. Americans generally adopt a nuts-and-bolts attitude that embraces the realities of the world, rather than a romantic or stubborn divergence toward political landscapes inhabited by people who are unreasonable, colonial and racist. Why Washington deviates from this pattern when it comes to Israel remains an important question that has never been honestly answered.

More important than the rhetorical discussion, however, is the impact of policy, and in this domain all concerned should pause and take a deep breath to explore how we can replace the distortions, double standards and killing cycles of the recent past with a win-win outcome that is more satisfying and humane. Israel is unlikely to budge for the moment, but Washington is not so fettered (one presumes), as evidenced by its pragmatism in talking with those killing Americans whom it spawned in Iraq.

Islamist groups and Iran, for their part, also should reach into their largely untapped reservoirs of diplomatic sensibility and bold realism. Hamas, Hizbollah and others should spell out more clearly - in public or private, it doesn't matter much in the early stages - how they would envisage moving along the same path of military disarmament, political empowerment, and national integrity and security that, say, the IRA in Northern Ireland has travelled in the past decade. Washington is comfortable with this approach, and the Arab and Iranian Islamists should exploit it more adroitly than they have to date. The aim is to close the Moral Confusion and Political Double Standards Department, not chronically to dwell in it and suffer its ravages.

###
* Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for the Daily Star.
Source: Daily Star, January 14, 2006
Visit the website at www.dailystar.com.lb
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 5
US celebrates its most misread freedom
Jane Lampman

Washington - It may be America's most important gift to the world. It began 220 years ago this week. Yet many Americans, it seems, still don't understand what it entails. It's the country's unique experiment in religious freedom, rooted in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

As the first historic act in the experiment - the 1786 Virginia Statute Establishing Religious Freedom - is celebrated in Richmond Wednesday, many see that lack of understanding as a challenge for the growing religious and ideological diversity in the United States.

"While Americans do count freedom of religion as one of our most precious rights," says Audrey Smith, acting director of the Council for America's First Freedom, in Richmond, "many citizens aren't sure how they exercise those rights, or what is not allowed under our Constitution."

A national survey by the council in October, for instance, revealed a deep ambivalence about a fundamental principle of religious freedom: the separation of church and state.

While 47 percent of those polled said it is important to keep the traditional principle, 27 percent said it should be less strictly interpreted, and 23 percent said "there is really no need to separate church and state."

"I think folks don't understand what that means," Ms. Smith says. The separation is what makes religious freedom possible.

Another popular misperception relates to religious freedom in public schools. In the 2005 State of the First Amendment poll, 50 percent of respondents said students have "too little religious freedom." Yet students are free to pray individually or in groups, to form religious clubs and publications, to express religious views in their school assignments, and wear religious messages on their clothing. Unfortunately, many educators are unfamiliar with those rights, though the government has issued guidelines.

"There is tremendous importance to educating people more deeply," says W. Cole Durham, Jr., a religious liberty expert at Brigham Young University law school in Provo, Utah. "This is an issue people care deeply about and want to understand. They relate to these ideals in terms of their practical experiences, and they'll have emotional reactions."

Just last week, for instance, in a case with broad implications for religious schools and US universities, Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California, sued the University of California for refusing to give applicants credit for courses taught from a religious perspective. The university says it has the right to set academic standards; the school says the university discriminates against conservative Christian viewpoints.

Issues of religious freedom have become more visible and contentious in recent decades as faith groups push back against what they see as an oversecularisation of American life. But the debates have become so heated, some say, because groups at the extremes - secular and religious - are most vociferous.

"The [founders'] idea of a secular state with neutrality toward religion emerged out of the need to keep warring religious factions in check," says Professor Durham. "It envisions a place where everyone is free to bring their ideas and distinct identities to the table." But a secular fundamentalism has developed with its own dogma, saying everything has to be secular. That, in turn, spurred a religious response, which also has its fundamentalist strain.

The shouting matches have helped give separation of church and state a bad reputation, says Charles Haynes, of the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia. "There's been an effort over recent decades to persuade many conservative religious people that separation is not in the Constitution, and to undermine support for it."

In fact, some are vigorously promoting the idea among churches of a so-called "return to being a Christian nation."

Dr. Haynes, who advises schools on these issues, offers a vivid example of the misunderstanding found not just among Christians. "American Muslims often tell me how much they appreciate the freedom to practice Islam the way they want to, which they couldn't do in their native country even though it was a Muslim nation," he says. "But then they say, 'What is this nonsense about the separation of church and state - why do we need that?' They don't understand that's why they have their freedom.

"My sense is that the principle of separation, properly understood, would have wide support ... but the shouting matches have made it problematic," Haynes adds. "Yet another part of the population thinks it's the most critical concept we could have."

The Council for America's First Freedom has taken on the mission of promoting deeper understanding of religious freedom. Its educational efforts include a national essay contest in which 2,400 high school students from 48 states are participating this year.

At Wednesday's commemoration of the Virginia statute (and National Religious Freedom Day), the 2006 First Freedom Awards will be presented to extraordinary advocates for liberty in the US and abroad.

The international honouree is Vaclav Havel, playwright, former Czech president, and eloquent advocate for freedom of conscience. Mr. Havel promotes interfaith dialogue and the resolution of religious conflicts through his Forum 2000 and Shared Concern Initiative, which bring high-level leaders together on difficult challenges facing the world.

Rep. Chet Edwards (D) of Texas will receive the national award for his work in educating Congress and the public. The Virginia award will go to Robert S. Alley, professor emeritus of humanities at the University of Richmond and author of influential books, including "School Prayer: The Court, the Congress, and the First Amendment."

But the Council's biggest plans involve building the First Freedom Center as a world-class museum, meeting place, and educational resource on religious freedom. Educators from across the US, Smith says, have emphasised their need for "accurate information without religious or political bias." Materials will be made available to schools and religious groups, including online.

No such resource exists in the US, Haynes says. "The potential is enormous for helping Americans have a better historical grounding in the First Amendment, and a better appreciation for why this bold yet fragile experiment is probably America's greatest contribution to world civilisation."

###
* Jane Lampman is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.
Source: The Christian Science Monitor, January 18, 2006
Visit the website at www.csmonitor.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission can be obtained from the Christian Science Monitor by contacting lawrenced@csps.com.

******

Common Ground News - Partners in Humanity, brought to you by Search for Common Ground, seeks to build bridges of understanding between the West, on the one hand, and the Arab and Muslim worlds, on the other. This service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal in June 2003.

Every week, CGNews-PiH distributes 5 news articles, op-eds, features, and analyses that aid in developing the current and future relationship of the West and the Arab & Muslim worlds. Articles are chosen based on accuracy, balance, and their ability to improve understanding and communication across borders and regions. They also reflect the need for constructive dialogue around issues of global importance. Selections are authored by local and international experts and leaders who analyse and discuss a broad range of relevant issues. We invite you to submit any articles you feel are compatible with the goals of this news service.

CGNews-PiH also regularly publishes the work of student leaders and journalists whose articles strengthen intercultural understanding and promote constructive perspectives and dialogue in their own communities through its Youth Views column. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to cbinkley@sfcg.org for more information on contributing.

We look forward to hearing from you, and welcome any questions, concerns, or comments you may have about this service. Please forward this message to colleagues and friends who may also wish to subscribe to the service.

To subscribe, send an email to subscribe-cgnewspih@sfcg.org with subscribe in the subject line.

If you are a member of the media, please join us in promoting constructive dialogue to improve understanding and perceptions. Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and the articles may be reproduced free of charge. If you choose to republish any of the articles, please acknowledge both the original source and Common Ground News, and notify us at cgnewspih@sfcg.org

The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNew-PiH or its affiliates.

Common Ground News
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 777-2207
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718

Rue Belliard 205 bte 13
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32 (02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033
E-mail: cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website: http://www.commongroundnews.org

Editors:
Emad Khalil
Amman Editor

Juliette Schmidt
Beirut Editor

Elyte Baykun & Leena El-Ali
Washington Editors

Chris Binkley
Youth Views Editor

**********

This is a not-for-profit list serve.

Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think would like to see these articles.

To subscribe, send an email to subscribe-cgnewspih@sfcg.org with subscribe in the subject line.

Posted by Evelin at January 25, 2006 01:22 AM