Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity
(CGNews-PiH)
January 31, 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. Might the Arabs have a point? by Patrick J. Buchanan
Patrick J. Buchanan, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000, and a founder and editor of The American Conservative, worries about America’s recent diplomatic efforts. Noting that “America's standing in the Arab world could hardly be worse”, Buchanan emphasizes that “empathy, a capacity for participating in another's feelings or ideas, is indispensable to diplomacy.”
(Source: The American Conservative, January 16, 2006)

2. Is democracy empowering Islamists? by Howard LaFranchi
Howard LaFranchi, a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, wonders whether “the US might now seem hypocritical to many Arabs - encouraging democracy in the Middle East, while rejecting the choices that result from its exercise.” Although many argue that bringing extremist groups into politics has a moderating effect, others worry that this takes time and “does not happen in a vacuum.” In the midst of this uncertainty, LaFranchi also considers what this situation means for Israeli-Palestinian relations.
(Source: The Christian Science Monitor, January 27, 2006)

3. ~YOUTH VIEWS~
Online dialogue increases understanding between American & Middle Eastern youth by Matthew Cappetta
Tufts University student, Matthew Cappetta, talks about his experience participating in the Soliya Connect Program, an online Western-Islamic dialogue program that uses teleconferencing, instant messaging, and live video to allow American and Middle Eastern students to come together online to discuss current events and build cultural understanding. Through this experience, Cappetta notes that tactics often dismissed as overly-idealist – such as the possibility for compassion and tolerance through dialogue - can “provide a framework that moves us away from the detachment from, and ignorance of, the ‘other’ we so often have in daily life.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service, January 31, 2006)

4. The wrong way to promote one’s cause by Abeer Mishkhas
Abeer Mishkhas, a female Saudi journalist, criticises the actions of the groups in Iraq who are kidnapping and killing foreigners, journalists and the Iraqis who work with them: “Whatever their motives or their reasons — even if they are protesting occupation — the horror of their crime blackens their cause and destroys their points, if they have any.” Not only are these activities decreasing the number of journalists who can or will report in Iraq, obscuring the reality on the ground, but they are speaking much louder than moderate voices that are condemning such actions and enraging Americans against Arabs and Muslims.
(Source: Arab News, January 19, 2006)

5. Diverse religious landscape means change, not threat by Alaa Bayoumi
Alaa Bayoumi, a researcher for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, looks at what Americans think of religious diversity in the United States. Many feel that the country is based on Christian values, and have concerns that an increase in immigrants with different religious views may change the national identity of the country. In this context, Bayoumi looks at America’s pluralistic values as a positive influence and argues that it is up to all Americans “to stand firm and united in the face of any intolerant forces that may seek to divide our nation…[and]…America’s Muslim community stands ready to do its part in strengthening our nation through creating opportunities for interfaith respect and mutual understanding.”
(Source: AMIN.org, January 22, 2006)

**********

ARTICLE 1
Might the Arabs have a point?
Patrick J. Buchanan

Washington, D.C. - Karen Hughes, President Bush's newest undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and the caretaker of America's image abroad, has her work cut out for her.

A Zogby survey of 3,900 Arabs in Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates has uncovered massive distrust of U.S. motives in the Middle East.

Unkindest cut of all, Arabs would prefer that President Chirac and France lead the world rather than us, and, rather than have us as the world's lone superpower, they would prefer the Chinese.

While Arabs are not as rabidly anti-American as in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, still, by 77 percent to 6 percent, they believe the Iraqi people are worse off today, and by four-to-one, Arabs say the U.S. invasion has increased, not decreased, terrorism.

Designed by Arab scholar Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution, the survey reveals pervasive cynicism about the stated goals of George W. Bush. When asked, "When you consider American objectives in the Middle East, what factors do you think are important to the United States?" the Arab answers came as follows:

Fully 76 percent said the Americans are there for the oil, 68 percent said to protect Israel, 63 percent to dominate the region, and 59 percent to weaken the Muslim world. Only 6 percent said we were there to protect human rights and another 6 percent said to promote democracy. Asked directly if they believe President Bush when he says democracy is our goal, two of every three Arabs, 78 percent in Egypt, said that, no, they do not believe Bush.

Asked to name the two nations that present the greatest threat to regional peace, 70 percent named Israel, 63 percent the United States, and 11 percent Britain. Only 6 percent named our bête noire Iran.

Asked to name the foreign leader they disliked most, Sharon swept top honours with 45 percent. Bush took the silver with 30 percent. No one else was close. Tony Blair came in a weak third. Only 3 percent of the Arabs detest him most.

While only 6 percent agreed with al-Qaeda's aim to establish an Islamic state and only 7 percent approve of its methods, 20 percent admire the way al-Qaeda "stood up for Muslim causes" and 36 percent admire how it "confronts the U.S."

Favourite news source? Sixty-five percent named Al-Jazeera either as their favourite or second favourite. What Fox News is to red-state America, Al-Jazeera is to the Arab street.

America's standing in the Arab world could hardly be worse. And the questions the survey raises are these: Do we care? And, if we do, do not the Arabs have a point? Has not U.S. behaviour in the Middle East lent credence to the view that our principal interests are Israel and oil, and, under Bush II, that we launched an invasion to dominate the region?

After all, before liberating Kuwait, Secretary of State Baker said the coming war was about "o-i-l." And while we sent half a million troops to rescue that nation of 1.5 million, we sent none to Rwanda, where perhaps that many people were massacred.

If Kuwait did not sit on an underground sea of oil, would we have gone in? Is our military presence in the Mideast unrelated to its control of two-thirds of the world's oil reserves?

If human rights is our goal, why have we not gone into Darfur, the real hellhole of human rights? If democracy is what we are fighting for, why did we not invade Cuba, a dictatorship, 90 miles away, far more hostile to America than Saddam's Iraq, and where human rights have been abused for half a century? Saddam never hosted nuclear missiles targeted at U.S. cities.

And is Israel not our fair-haired boy? Though Sharon & Co. have stomped on as many UN resolutions as Saddam Hussein ever did, they have pocketed $100 billion in U.S. aid and are now asking for a $2 billion bonus this year, Katrina notwithstanding. Anyone doubt they will get it?

Though per capita income in Israel is probably 20 times that of the Palestinians, Israel gets the lion's share of economic aid. And though they have flipped off half a dozen presidents to plant half a million settlers in Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank, have we ever imposed a single sanction on Israel? Has Bush ever raised his voice to Ariel Sharon? And when you listen to the talking heads and read the columns of the neocon press, is it unfair to conclude that, yes, they would like to dump over every regime that defies Bush or Sharon?

Empathy, a capacity for participating in another's feelings or ideas, is indispensable to diplomacy. Carried too far, as it was by the Brits in the 1930s, it can lead to appeasement. But an absence of empathy can leave statesmen oblivious as to why their nation is hated, and with equally fateful consequences.

###
* Patrick Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative.
Source: The American Conservative, January 16, 2006
Visit the website at www.amconmag.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication. No edits can be made without permission from the American Conservative.

**********

ARTICLE 2
Is democracy empowering Islamists?
Howard LaFranchi

Washington, D.C. - Palestinian voters availed themselves of the time- honoured democratic right to "throw the bums out" in their first legislative elections in a decade Wednesday - exactly the kind of action implicit in President Bush's push for democracy in the Middle East.

But by snubbing the Fatah Party of US-supported Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in favour of the radical Islamist group Hamas, Palestinians also put the Bush administration in a difficult spot.

The US might now seem hypocritical to many Arabs - encouraging democracy in the Middle East, while rejecting the choices that result from its exercise. At the same time, questions mount over whether Mr. Bush's campaign for democracy is encouraging the empowerment of Islamist militants across the region.

"This [election result] is really going to scare ... other governments in the region, and the Egyptians in particular are going to tell the US, 'We told you so,' " says Arthur Hughes, a former deputy assistant secretary of State for Near East affairs. "They'll see this as more evidence of what comes from our pressure to open up their societies, but they won't acknowledge that their hard-line tactics are what are leading to the growth" of Islamic extremism.

The Palestinian results, which give an organisation on the US list of terrorist groups a majority in the 132-seat Legislative Council, are part of a trend across Muslim countries, experts say.

"The victory of Hamas cannot be seen in isolation from the major accomplishments of Islamists across Muslim lands," says Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, N.Y. "There's a pattern here of Arab and Muslim electorates fed up with the secular governments that have failed to deliver the goods, both in economic terms and protecting the security of the homeland."

The "irony," Mr. Gerges adds, is that the Bush administration's championing of the Middle East's democratisation has allowed the radical Islamists to "flex their political muscle" - from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to Lebanon and Iraq.

Some historians argue that radical groups' entry into mainstream politics has led them to moderate their stances: The Irish Republican Army or former guerrilla groups in Central America are often cited as examples.

Others, though, say this moderating process, if undertaken at all, takes time - and does not happen in a vacuum. The US, they add, is going to have to decide how to deal with the Palestinians and the Middle East peace process in a period of deep uncertainty for the region.

Bush reiterated this week that the US will not work with Hamas unless it dramatically modifies its behaviour and removes from its platform a call for the destruction of the state of Israel. At a news conference Thursday, he said a political force like Hamas, one with an armed wing that advocates violence against Israel, "is a party with which we will not deal."

Soon after the election results became known, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Palestinian President Abbas and, according to Palestinian sources, praised Palestinian democracy and pledged US support for Mr. Abbas and his policies.

Few analysts expect the Bush administration to make bold moves with so much on the ground in flux. Not only are the Palestinians embarking on the hard task of forming a government from outside the president's political circle, but Israel - still digesting the departure of Ariel Sharon from the leadership scene - is heading for elections on March 18.

The US could simply suspend contact with - and financial assistance to - the Palestinian Authority over the rise of Hamas to the government. But "the stakes are too high on the ground to simply walk away," says Haim Malka, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The alternative, he says, is for the US to work exclusively with the office of the president - provided Abbas remains in office.

Bush "left the window open" for the US to work with Hamas - provided Hamas renounces violence and reverses its stance toward Israel, Mr. Malka notes. But that kind of fundamental shift takes time, he says - and events are not apt to wait.

Some analysts worry that turmoil among Palestinians - and a radical government at the helm - will prompt Israel to shift toward more radical policies itself. A unilateral decision to include blocks of West Bank settlements inside its final borders is the kind of action Israel might take in response to Hamas's rise but which would inflame the situation, experts say. Certain actions "would virtually rule out ... arriving at a two-state solution, and if that disappears you just have conflict without end," says Mr. Hughes, now a scholar at the Middle East Institute here.

At Thursday's press conference, Bush said the election is a "wake-up call" to the old guard Palestinian leadership. Others say it also blew a whistle in Washington. "We're seeing that, for now, the only alternative to secular regimes in the Middle East are the Islamists," says Malka. "They're the only ones who have legitimacy among the people."

###
* Howard LaFranchi is a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor.
Source: The Christian Science Monitor, January 27, 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.

**********

ARTICLE 3
~YOUTH VIEWS~
Online dialogue increases understanding between American & Middle Eastern youth
Matthew Cappetta

Medford, Massachusetts - I recently had the opportunity to participate in the Soliya Connect Program, an online Western-Islamic dialogue program that uses teleconferencing, instant messaging, and live video to allow American and Middle Eastern students to come together online to discuss current events and build cultural understanding. I am confident my idealism about the possibility for compassion and tolerance through dialogue is justified because the rapport and understanding we developed is evidence that discussion and frank, honest sharing can help resolve the current misunderstandings between these cultures, and eventually pave the way for a more just and equitable world. As soon as we start to realise that the invisible borders between us are no more than a manifestation of our own fears and uncertainties, the process of dialogue becomes that much more promising. There is only one requirement for this process to begin – a mutual desire for reconciliation.

Sometimes it seems that perspectives that resist war and focus on non-violence or peace do not help much with regard to the massive cultural misunderstandings that exist between the Middle East and the United States. I would not suggest that these tactics are applicable to all situations; however, I think they can provide a framework that moves us away from the detachment from, and ignorance of, the “other” we so often have in daily life. When political, religious, cultural, or ethnic dissimilarities define how we relate to one another, there is no doubt in my mind that an egregious error has occurred. Furthermore, when these differences lead to a lack of understanding or are expressed in the form of intolerance, we must all be held accountable.

As I have come to realise during my dialogue sessions every Thursday morning, there is so much we can indeed learn from each other. Much of the Soliya program focuses on the media, and its effects on viewers. Once we realised how strongly we had all been conditioned to view the other side through the one-sided portrayals of the television, we were able to see each other in a new light and to discuss issues, despite our disagreements, with real honesty. I think the Middle Eastern participants came to understand our American fear of terrorism, and the unique horror of 9/11 for us, for instance, and we, as Western participants, began to understand their fears in turn, and to see the U.S. as they sometimes see it, as a gargantuan and frightening power with apparently little respect for any other country’s opinions.

We proved that, given the right circumstances, people are indeed willing to discuss the issues, and to do so with the utmost respect and admiration for one another regardless of culture or religion. To those who would claim that there can never be any understanding or “bridging of the gap” between these cultures, I can testify that there is hope, more than many realise. We were able to work toward mutual understanding, and in doing so may have perhaps laid the foundation for better relations in the future.

I know some will say this is a naïve view. But maybe that’s what we all need; maybe if we could all begin to think and act with innocence, curiosity, and trust, the way the world works might be entirely different. I am confident that people would start to see the “conflict” between the West and the Muslim world for what it truly is – a breakdown in understanding and a lack of concern for the other.

I do not claim to be an expert on the topic of the relations between the U.S. and the Middle East by any means. In fact, I cannot say that I fully understand half of the reasons why there is such conflict and misunderstanding. What I can relate to and find hope in, however, is human respect and compassion at all levels. My experiences with the Soliya program have only confirmed this belief. As long as people continue to share in the search to find a solution, the prospect of bridging the gap between the U.S. and Muslim worlds is entirely real.

###
* Matthew Cappetta is a student at Tufts University. He wrote this article as part of the Soliya Western-Islamic student dialogue program.
Source: Common Ground News Service, January 31, 2006
Visit the website at www.commongroundnews.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 4
The wrong way to promote one’s cause
Abeer Mishkhas

Riyadh - Al-Jazeera TV showed a silent film of the kidnapped American reporter, Jill Carroll, making what might have been a plea. She is not the first journalist to be kidnapped in Iraq or in other war zones; nor, sadly, will she be the last. Simply because there are criminals who think they can change government policy by killing innocent people. Whatever their motives or their reasons — even if they are protesting occupation — the horror of their crime blackens their cause and destroys their points, if they have any. The truth is that they do not target Western journalists; they target any civilian who comes by chance in their way. In Carroll’s case, an Iraqi translator accompanying her was shot twice in the head. For what reason?

No one knows. The chaos has become so widespread and so common that logic long since ceased to apply. A report by a German press agency said that Iraqi translators were becoming scarce, that most of them have decided to quit their jobs because they have become targets. Some of them have left their homes and tried to find shelter with the American forces; others simply move often from one place to another. In such a situation as this, I cannot help but think that the absence of journalists in Iraq will obscure the facts more than ever. All will be vague and uncertain because there will be no one there to report accurately on what is going on.

The public’s right to the truth will fall victim to zealots and hatemongers — and even armies themselves since there have been cases of journalists being hit by “friendly fire.” It is tragic that the zealots and hatemongers do not realise that if they do have a case, their chance to present that case to the world lies with journalists. Kidnapping and killing journalists does not topple governments; ransoms are never paid, demands never met and yet the kidnapping goes on.

The kidnappers take different names — from Supporters of Islam to Revenge Brigades. The names of course mean nothing and definitely do not mean that there is an actual group which goes by that name. We simply do not know who these people are or what they want. If they are Muslims who are fighting Americans, they negate their purposes by killing and kidnapping Muslims and Arabs. And most of the time the people they kidnap have nothing to do with the military situation; they are often people who are working on civil projects, or journalists, or maybe people such as the translator who was murdered for no apparent reason. The attackers always choose a soft target; they never go for the people they say they are fighting. The easy way is to kill an unarmed person who is quietly doing his or her job, a person who might in fact believe in justice and peace and who often has no political agenda. He or she just happens to be in the place some fanatic decides to blow up.

In a British magazine I read an interview with a Jordanian woman whose recent wedding was so savagely devastated by suicide bombers. She spoke of the horror of that day and of the family members she lost. Both her parents along with 27 of her and her husband’s relatives and friends. What could possibly justify such pointless savagery? What could possibly justify such baseless carnage? Reading that story, I simply could not begin to imagine what she has gone through. Losing a member of one’s family is a painful experience and sometimes takes months or years to come to terms with. In this case, the poor woman lost her parents, relatives, family and friends — all on a day that should have been special and happy for her and them. She said that when she saw the female bomber on TV who failed to detonate her explosives, she wanted to seize her and ask why she had participated in such a thing and what she thought she was doing.

Is the point to all these killings to make journalists flee Iraq and contractors, engineers and other civilians stop going there? Would that help the situation? Would it end anything? The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a statement demanding the immediate release of Jill Carroll, pointing out that her kidnapping will not change American policies. On the contrary, such acts will enrage the American public against Arabs and Muslims. As basic, as clear and as evident as this message is, I fear it will fall, like so many others, upon deaf ears.

###
* Abeer Mishkhas is a female journalist in Saudi Arabia.
Source: Arab News, January 19, 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 5

Diverse religious landscape means change, not threat
Alaa Bayoumi

Washington, DC - All too often, we see religious differences turn into a source of division within a society. But that need not be the case. Religious diversity, when properly understood and promoted, can in fact help strengthen a society’s identity and unity.

A forward-looking attitude on religious diversity is important because religion is important to most people and most societies. When a nation’s religious landscape changes, its national identity cannot remain static.

In America, we have a strong sense of our religious heritage. We also take a lot of pride in being a pluralistic nation. In the last third of the 20th century, 22 million immigrants entered America. Many of these immigrants were Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or members of other faiths.

Unfortunately, the spread of these “new” religions tends to raise concerns among a minority of Americans who believe in a zero-sum version of inclusion.

A recent study by Robert Wuthnow, Director of the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton, makes it clear that America is viewed by many as a Christian nation that should be concerned about the growth of minority faiths. In “America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity,” Wuthnow writes:

“We have formulated understandings of who we are individually and as a nation.

These understandings have characteristically assumed that American culture and identity, including its distinct purpose in the world and the moral fibre of its people, are explicitly or implicitly related to Christian values.”

To validate his findings, Wuthnow conducted interviews with religious leaders and surveyed 2,910 adults to determine what Americans think about religious diversity.

Survey results showed that half of the adult population believes that this nation was founded on Christian principles and that America has been strong because of its faith in God. That figure jumps to 68 percent for Christian “exclusivists.”

The survey also showed that 50 percent of Americans believe that religious diversity has been good for America and that our nation owes a great deal to its immigrant population.

On the flip side, the survey revealed that 24 percent of Americans believe immigrants have to give up their ways and learn to be like Americans and that about one-third would not welcome a more prominent presence for Hindus or Buddhists in America. More than 40 percent of respondents had negative perceptions of the growth of Islam in America.

For example, the survey showed that 38 percent of the American public would support the idea of “making it harder for Muslims to settle in America.”

Twenty-three percent of respondents would like to make it “illegal for Muslim groups to meet in America” and 41 percent would feel “bothered” if Muslims wanted to build a large mosque in their community.

In response, Wuthnow urges Americans from all faiths to deal with religious diversity and its challenges from a more “reflective” pluralistic perspective. He says we should admit that religious diversity is a challenge, that religions are different and that we all need to deal more seriously with these differences in order to overcome them.

To accomplish that societal goal, we should all learn more about each other, build personal relationships with people of other faiths, emphasise respect in all circumstances, view compromise and non-violence as the only acceptable ways to deal with our differences, and build strong institutions that can protect and spread a pluralistic vision of religious diversity.

Fortunately, our constitution and political culture are on the side of pluralism. Our laws protect all religions and our culture teaches us to look to ourselves as a religiously diverse nation that should set an example for the rest of the world.

It is up to us to stand firm and united in the face of any intolerant forces that may seek to divide our nation. Failure to do so will jeopardise our role as a model for tolerance and human rights.

America’s Muslim community stands ready to do its part in strengthening our nation through creating opportunities for interfaith respect and mutual understanding.

###

* Alaa Bayoumi is a researcher for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil liberties group.

Source: AMIN.org, January 22, 2006

Visit the website at www.amin.org

Distributed by the Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity.

Copyright permission has been obtained from the author for publication.

******

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 February 1, 2006 05:04 AM