Maryland is wrestling with marriage equality legislation right now, and Maryland Delegate Sam Arora of Montgomery County -- someone I thought was on track to be one of the new, great, young progressive leaders of the nation has just screwed over his constituents, including many in the gay community from whom he raised a lot of campaign cash, and in my view, has politically crashed and burned.

Arora has not only reversed himself, creating serious doubts about his support of same sex marriage equality, he actually "lied" saying he never supported marriage equality when it was a clear and evident part of his campaign.

Arora then went back into Tweets that he previously posted and 'deleted' this one:

(h/t to John Aravosis)

This is a serious bummer as I really liked this guy. He may have run on one line and changed his mind -- but he should be square with his constituency on this.

Instead, he altered his roster of tweeted policy positions and lied. I disagree with him on his now evolving opposition to marriage equality -- but he has violated something even greater now.

He has lost my support, and I recommend that progressives in Montgomery County work hard to politically destabilize this delegate now. He needs to be moved out of the State House.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Lawrence Wilkerson, Visiting Harriman Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary, and Arturo Lopez-Levy, Lecturer in the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. Dawn Gable contributed to this article.

A Road Map to Solve Alan Gross case

by Lawrence Wilkerson and Arturo Lopez-Levy

The trial in Cuba against USAID subcontractor Alan Gross, which will begin on March 4, presents an opportunity for the Cuban government to both demonstrate the legitimate basis for nationalist defense against U.S. interventionist policy and its good will towards the millions of potential American travelers to Cuba.

By the end of the trial, it should be clear that U.S. travelers to Cuba have nothing to fear if they keep a healthy distance from regime change programs and that Washington and Havana would both gain from dismantling hostile attitudes.

The trial serves three Cuban government purposes:

(1) It will mobilize the nationalist sentiments of the Cuban people to denounce foreign interference in Cuba's internal affairs. The trial must clarify whether Gross informed the leaders of the Jewish community in Cuba of his link to the USAID Cuba program sponsored under the auspices of the Helms-Burton Act. If not, this will expose a design flaw of a semi-covert subversive program in which the USAID placed Cubans at risk of long prison sentences without their informed consent, thus violating basic standards of international development assistance. By now it is evident that the Bush Administration, which conceived the project, was not interested in promoting Cuban civil society, but rather in using religious solidarity as a political weapon.

(2) It will set an example and deter other Cubans, Americans, and nationals of third countries from participating in regime change programs under the Helms-Burton Act. No one after Alan Gross will be able to claim ignorance of the risk involved. Everything related to section 109 of the Helms Burton Act carries the stigma of illegal interference in Cuba's sovereign affairs and is punishable in Cuba by up to 20 years imprisonment.

(3) It will generate international condemnation of US policy and invigorate solidarity with Cuban sovereignty. By exposing the unilateralist, covert and interventionist nature of the USAID Cuba program, the trial will mobilize international opinion, not only triggering a more vigorous rejection of the U.S. embargo, but also tarnishing the credibility of the USAID in other countries. It is a blow, intangible but significant, to President Obama's foreign policy that focuses on the use of US popular appeal and bridge building. To the extent that the impact in countries such as Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and even El Salvador and Argentina, for example, will be greater, the State Department and the U.S. Congress cannot ignore the costs of disguising a Cuba regime change policy as international development assistance.

Undermine the Helms-Burton Act but set Alan Gross free

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson's hope that Gross be tried and sent home is reasonable. Alan Gross is a victim of the hostility between the two countries and a policy that is not typical of American values and standards. His and his family's ordeal has attracted considerable humanitarian solidarity. As the first US citizen arrested under the law to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cuba, Gross should be given the benefit of the doubt and become an example of Cuba's goodwill towards the people of the United States.

If the Obama administration offers to facilitate a favorable international climate for the economic reforms taking place in Cuba, the utility of retaining Alan Gross, once the trial has concluded, would decline for the Cuban government.

Once the dividends related to the denouncement of the policy outlined in the Helms-Burton Act are obtained, the only benefit for the Cuban government in keeping Gross in prison would be the frequent mention of his case in relation to the situation of the five Cubans who were sentenced in Miami on charges of espionage in trials considered by Amnesty International and the UN group on arbitrary detention as lacking guarantees of fairness and impartiality. Although the cases must be analyzed separately, it is worth noting that the lawyer representing Gross at trial also serves as legal counselor for the families of the five.

In these circumstances a visit to Havana by the two highest ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar would be very helpful. Such a visit could be preceded by a delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Through interacting with the Cuban office of religious affairs and the leadership of the Cuban Jewish community, they would learn firsthand how their brothers in faith reject the Helms-Burton Act and any misuse of inter-religious contacts as a political weapon for regime change.

Journalists could accompany the entourage and report on the island's welcoming attitude toward US travelers. The visiting US delegation could meet the relatives of the five Cubans imprisoned in the U.S., hearing their views on that trial and becoming aware of the need for political courage on both sides of the Florida Straits to end the policies that led to the arrests of the Cubans and of Gross.

A Cuban humanitarian gesture towards the Gross family would add impetus to the advocates of a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba and recognize those many Americans who oppose the embargo. It might also create momentum for a substantial American gesture of détente, before the 2012 electoral season (for instance, removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, eliminating embargo elements that hinder Cuba's emerging private sector, or allowing food sales on credit).

The personal tragedy of Alan Gross, a U.S. citizen with an interest in international development assistance, has revealed once again the danger of allowing the values of US society to be hijacked by agendas unrelated to human rights and outside American strategic interests. The U.S. has no reason to apologize for its democratic values but the promotion of these principles should not be used to mask Cuban exiles' property claims, regime change aspirations or unilateral actions against the principles of international law.

Cuba, meanwhile, should not confuse enemies. Those who passed the Helms-Burton Act are precisely the ones who want to turn Alan Gross into an insurmountable obstacle for the advancement of better relations.

The Gross trial must expose the illegal, unilateralist and interventionist nature of the Helms-Burton Act and the USAID Cuba program. But after the trial, a humanitarian gesture towards Alan Gross and his family would be the best way to show the Cuban openness necessary to undermine the ban on travel to the island.

-- Lawrence Wilkerson and Arturo Lopez-Levy

China has grown rapidly over the past few decades, but the engine of its remarkable growth may be reaching its limit. Are the rapid GDP gains from its fixed investment and export model coming to an end? And what, if anything, will replace it, and with what consequences for the world economy?

These are the questions we posed to the World Economic Roundtable, a group of policy practitioners, academics, and investment professionals we have assembled to remap the changes to the global economy in the wake of the Great Recession. To set the stage for this discussion we asked four leading experts for their assessment of China's growth model.

David Beim, a Professor at the Columbia Business School, argues in The Future of Chinese Growth that China's current investment-driven growth model has run its course and that the economy may take a "substantial pause" in the years ahead as it attempts to transition from excessive levels of investment to higher private consumption.

Michael Pettis, a Professor of Finance at Peking University, explains why China's Troubled Transition to a More Balanced Growth Model entails reversing the decades-long policy of transferring wealth and income from households to Chinese based producers, which will require raising wages and restructuring China's financial system.

Peter Marber, global head of emerging markets debt for HSBC Asset Management, argues that many emerging economies are Caught Between a Greenback and Redback World, in which they must contend with an over-abundant dollar that threatens inflation and an undervalued yuan that undermines their competitiveness.

Jay Pelosky, Principal at J2Z Advisory, LLC, says that higher inflation may be the Doubled Edged Catalyst that brings China's policy makers to revalue the yuan. This is a necessary step to rebalancing demand in the world economy and would be preferable to raising domestic interest rates.

-- Sam Sherraden

This is so much fun on its own. I don't want to further comment -- just smile.

Charles Rangel invites you to "like" his government Facebook page.

-- Steve Clemons

This quote by Georgetown's Paul Pillar -- a leading member of the Afghanistan Study Group -- ran as the "quote of the day" in Monday's New York Times.

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

"Democracy is bad news for terrorists. The more peaceful channels people have to express grievances and pursue their goals, the less likely they are to turn to violence."

PAUL R. PILLAR, professor at Georgetown University and a former C.I.A. analyst.

I think that this holds true, or did for a while, in the Palestinian case as well. The problem is that it's not clear that the US and Israel allowed Palestine's democratic impulse to evolve in constructive directions.

-- Steve Clemons

As Moammar Gadhafi's forces fail to retake key cities surrounding Tripoli and more and more countries explicitly denounce him and his government, there seems to be growing pressure on the Obama administration to do something. Senior American officials--including the President and the Secretary of State--have ratcheted up the rhetoric against the Libyan leader in recent days, but the potential for massive and widespread violence has directed pressure on Obama to act, not just talk. However, a situation this delicate requires a deliberate, planned response. Reacting to the situation without considering the consequences can quickly become very dangerous.

Many commentators have insisted that the United States should impose a no-fly zone at the very least, and potentially something more than that. They point to the results of similar actions in Bosnia and Iraq in the 1990s. However, basing current policies on historical examples requires a bit of context. The Washington Institute on Near East Policy has put out an excellent piece in the past few days that clarifies the situation:

The success of the no-fly zone over northern Iraq would seem to recommend the same course of action in current cases such as Libya, where a tottering regime might still be able to lash out at rebel enclaves and cause significant humanitarian suffering. The differences between Iraqi in 1991 and Libya today are obvious, however.

First, Saddam's regime had just fought a major war with U.S.-led forces, while rapprochement has been the focus of recent U.S.-Libyan relations. Within the context of antigovernment uprisings, no-fly zones effectively transform the foreign power into a combatant -- presenting them as purely humanitarian in nature stretches credibility. Accordingly, such zones are best used as a means of curtailing the sovereignty of a regime with which the United States already has quasi-warlike relations.

Furthermore, U.S. military forces in the south were still occupying approximately one-eighth of Iraqi territory when the northern no-fly zone was established, and the establishment of Kurdish safe havens required further deployment of significant U.S. and coalition ground forces to deter regime incursions. Such ground deployments in Libya are probably not on the table. Most important, the United States could draw on strongly worded UN resolutions to underwrite its actions in 1991, whereas no such body of documents is available for use today.

In addition to being highly context-specific, no-fly and no-drive zones are notoriously difficult to implement. The rules of engagement (ROE) governing the mission must be exceptionally well conceived, and the military commanders must receive strong political support when they act within the rules. Any set of ROE must include a list of offending actions (known as the "ROE trip," short for "tripwire") plus "response options" (a set of pre-agreed retaliatory targets) and a "response ratio" (which establishes how vigorously the offender will be punished for transgressing the zone). U.S. forces needed twelve years of no-fly zone patrolling in Iraq to perfect the system, and even then the zones generated controversy because they often required relatively junior officers to use their initiative in interpreting the ROE.

In general, an aggressive opponent -- such as Saddam and, perhaps, the Qadhafi regime -- will regularly test the ROE, and the patrolling power may need to retaliate disproportionately to deter proscribed actions, including attacks on civilians and rebel forces. Any ROE, particularly those governing no-drive zones, may be prone to uncontrolled escalation, drawing the patrolling power into more significant military operations than initially intended. Collateral damage among civilian and friendly forces is always a risk, as occurred on April 14, 1994, when two U.S. helicopters were destroyed by other U.S. aircraft in the northern no-fly zone, killing twenty-six coalition and Iraqi personnel.

Military action should remain a last resort when all other options have failed. Increasing pressure on Gadhafi and his subordinates may cause some of his support to fragment, or even turn on the embattled colonel. An ill-conceived intervention can end up being far worse than taking no action at all. Any attempt by the United States to try to resolve the situation in Libya must be driven by a clearly thought-out strategy, not a response to political pressure.

Of course the Obama Administration wants to prevent bloodshed in Libya, but while a no-fly zone may seem to be a good way to do that, the devil is in the details.

-- Jordan D'Amato

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Greetings all. Have been on the run this morning and during the day.

I think that this exchange I had with Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd on their MSNBC show, The Daily Rundown, was good and covered a lot of foreign policy ground.

More soon. Big J Street dinner tonight.

-- Steve Clemons

On February 11th, I had the privilege of chairing this address sponsored by the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force by former Malaysia Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and panel discussion with the University of Maryland & Brookings/Saban Center's Shibley Telhami and George Washington University's Nathan Brown.

Anwar Ibrahim now heads the Opposition in the Malaysian Parliament -- and is one of the leading figures that Muslim opposition leaders throughout the Middle East have been calling for counsel.

I think that this was a very important talk -- and hope you find it useful.

-- Steve Clemons

When the New York Times' Helene Cooper published her piece about "a man" possibly succeeding Julianna Smoot and before her Desiree Rogers as the next White House Social Secretary, my life changed. Listing me along with Sam Kass, Carlos Elizondo (whom I nominated), Senator Christopher Dodd, Chris Wayne and George Stevens Jr. triggered a lot of snickering across DC and through much of the northeastern corridor.

One thing was clear though: The mere prospect of possibly being the next keeper of the White House list got me invited to many more of DC top's mix and mingle events. I've enjoyed the pulls this way and that as people wondered who might run the next state dinner.

When word leaked that there was a man and a woman who were the final two being considered -- I got even more calls about this, more invites to exclusive events, and more muffled snickering -- particularly by staff and interns who actually work in the White House.

I told everyone that as far as male finalists, it had to be Carlos Elizondo, who is the brilliant manager of Biden Land and Joe & Jill's social scene. And then winked.

But now Jonathan Capehart has burst my bubble of fabulous mystique and announced that the very cool, openly gay Jeremy Bernard, a pal of Jonathan's and currently chief of staff to the US Ambassador of France, will take over this much coveted, powerful role.

Congratulations Jeremy.

I just want everyone to know that when I showed up to the White House Monday morning, 9:30 am, the 31st of January -- the day after the Cooper story ran in the New York Times, some asked if I might be there to "interview" for "the job".

Not responding, I quickly snuck into the Egypt policy wonks meeting in the Roosevelt Room with Ben Rhodes, Dan Shapiro, and Samantha Power and chose substance over parties (though Jeremy, keep me on your list!).

Fun times -- and I agree with Jonathan Capehart, Barack and Michelle Obama made a superb choice.

As a consolation prize, can I maybe be the White House's Mr. Congeniality?"

-- Steve Clemons

Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings is a consistent home run hitter. First, he profiled the culture of disdain that General Stanley McChrystal and his command staff had for their civilian leadership partners -- ending McChrystal's storied military career.

Now, Hastings has something right out of bad fiction. Lt. General William Caldwell, who is reportedly one of President Obama's favorites, actually hatched and deployed a plan to use psy-ops against US Senators and Congressmen. Unbelievable, and illegal.

Two of those US Senators targeted were Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and US Senator Al Franken. Levin has already issued a statement that his views on building Afghan security forces have been consistent and stands by his views -- i.e. saying he didn't feel that the psy-ops worked on him.

But I'm not so sure.

In January 2010, I participated in a substantive and interesting conference call with Senator Levin when he was returning with Al Franken via Dubai from a CODEL trip visiting Afghanistan. I wrote about it then and was fairly surprised given the skepticism both had previously expressed for Afghanistan that they believed so readily what the military was telling them. It really seemed strange to me.

Here is what I wrote after the conference call. I also did a few media shows about this leap that Levin and Franken had made on Afghanistan, particularly on Pete Dominick's SiriusXM POTUS Channel show.

Caldwell should be fired. What he did, if Hastings has his details is right, is really outrageous and a further testament to the wobbliness of civilian control over the military in today's world.

But bigger question is whether any psy-ops operations were directed at the President of the United States and/or his direct team.

Someone needs to ask that in the White House press briefing.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Mark Leon Goldberg, Managing Editor of UN Dispatch, where this piece originally ran.

Leave it to Muammar Qaddafi to bring together the Israelis and Palestinians at the United Nations.

I have just obtained the copy of a draft resolution from the Human Rights Council that strongly condemns the violence in Libya. The resolution is as strongly worded as they come. But what is more significant than the substance of the resolution is the broad support that it has attracted by a diverse set of members.

Check this out (full pdf):

You'll also note that Qatar and Tunisia co-signed.

As it happens, Libya is on the Human Rights Council right now. But given the broad support for this resolution, I can't imagine that they will last much longer. (A two-thirds vote of the General Assembly is required to boot a member from the Human Rights Council.)

Very interesting times. And a situation like this demonstrates the value of the Human Rights Council -- it can be used to show the cruel Libyan regime just how united the world is against it.

"We've joined many concerned members of the Human Rights Council in supporting this session," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Suzanne Nossel tells me over email, "It is significant that the international community will speak with one voice in condemning the violence."

-- Mark Leon Goldberg

Wow. This could be big. The conversation the right on the Afghanistan War is really beginning to happen. Huckabee could be No. 23.

More from HuffPost's Sam Stein.

To read more on US policy towards Afghanistan, a good resource is the Afghanistan Study Group report.

-- Steve Clemons

I wish Beck could be just laughed off.

He's absurd, ignorant, poisonous -- but also dangerous. He does have an audience, some of which is obnoxiously pugnacious and alarmingly coercive.

Today, Salon's Alex Pareene has a very good profile on Beck's lunacy as he continues his Roger Ailes-sanctioned rant against George Soros and "reformed Judaism.

Beck says that "reformed Judaism" is basically akin to radical Islam.

Now, the Fox Network is aiming its bigotry at Jews as well as Muslims.

Pareene writes:

Glenn Beck said something stupid about Jewish people, today. Just FYI. On his radio program, while discussing George Soros, Beck says Reform Judaism is "almost like" "radicalized Islam."

Glenn Beck has called Soros a Nazi collaborator and claimed that the man is bent on world domination, and now he is claiming that Reform Jews are not real Jews, because many of them tend to be liberal. Most surveys find that a plurality of American Jews are Reform, and Glenn Beck thinks they resemble religious extremists, because he does not consider them sufficiently spiritual.

Beck will almost certainly not be called on any of this by the Anti-Defamation League, the self-appointed arbiter of what should be considered anti-Semitic or not, because the head of the ADL is very, very good chums with Beck's boss, Roger Ailes (a man who helped make virulent anti-Semite Richard Nixon president way back in the 1960s). When he utilized ancient and obvious anti-Semitic tropes to attack Soros in the first place, they gave him a pass because, they said, he "doesn't understand" what he's doing.

Here is the rest of Pareene's piece.

-- Steve Clemons

Former Reagan Administration Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and frequent Fox News military affairs commentator Bing West is now, by my count, the 22nd big time Republican opposed to the course of US policy in Afghanistan.

Huffington Post's Nick Wing and Ben Craw compiled a list of the first 20 Republicans to tilt against the war.

Although Grover Norquist says he is calling for "a conversation on the right" about the costs and consequences of the Afghanistan War rather than directly opposing the war and calling for a withdrawal of US troops, his stance works for me to give him the #21 spot.

But after his appearance on the Colbert Report and publication of The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy and the Way Out of Afghanistan, I hereby grant Bing West the #22 slot.

-- Steve Clemons

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:

Cost of a Barrel of Oil Exceeds $100 for the First Time Since 2008 [1:30 p.m. ET]

-- Steve Clemons

I took this video clip in March 2010 when I visited Tripoli, Libya and was interested in counter-terrorism activities of the Libyan government. When I was there, we were taken to a prison where hundreds of prisoners -- most of whom were either Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) members or other young jihadists who wanted to fight "infidels" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

These men were dancing and singing tributes to their leader, to Moammer Gaddafi. The scene very much disturbed me -- and thus am only posting it now.

But this is the kind of celebration of dictatorship that people do to survive. When they got out of the prison, I saw the eruptive emotional outcries when they connected with their families. They would do anything to get out of those prisons.

I would wager this men and their families are not singing tributes to their Leader now.

-- Steve Clemons

Politico's Laura Rozen has the scoop that National Security Council Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa Dan Shapiro will be moving to Tel Aviv to serve as the next US Ambassador to Israel.

This is a big shift and one wonders who will succeed Shapiro at the NSC desk and whether Obama is thinking that having Shapiro right there in Israel will help soften up Bibi Netanyahu.

The combination of Shapiro's close working relationship with President, Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes may mean that Shapiro may be more than the normal Ambassador who has to process through State Department bureaucracy and cables -- but rather be a direct guy on the line for Obama wrestling with the Israeli government.

Very good move in my view. I have had the privilege of knowing Dan since the mid-1990s when he was Senator Dianne Feinstein's brain on foreign policy, and he has always impressed me.

Rozen writes about Shapiro:

Shapiro has been one of Obama's closest Middle East advisers, and one who uniquely seems to get along well with everyone. The President trusts Shapiro, who has worked closely with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security adviser Denis McDonough, the NSC's top Iran and regional strategist Dennis Ross, as well as Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell, and has a good rapport with Congress, where he previously served as a staffer. Shapiro also has good ties with the Jewish community, having served as a key White House point of contact for the Jewish community, and helped head up Jewish outreach for the Obama campaign.

Shapiro, who speaks fluent Hebrew, also has good ties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and has accompanied Mitchell on countless shuttle diplomacy trips in the region.

We'll see what other chairs move around -- but this one is good for the mission of 'eventually' getting to yes on an Israel-Palestine deal.

-- Steve Clemons

The Los Angeles Times 2010 Book Prize finalists have just been announced -- and I'm pleased to report that this year I served as a judge on the history panel. That meant that we had about a hundred books to read through and consider from this past year -- and while edifying, it's also a real time juggling challenge.

I really liked all five of these history category finalists:

Ron Chernow, Washington: A Life (The Penguin Press)

John W. Dower, Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/9-11/Iraq (W. W. Norton & Company and The New Press)

Susan Dunn, Roosevelt's Purge: How FDR Fought To Change the Democratic Party (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press)

Thomas Powers, The Killing of Crazy Horse (Knopf)

Steven Solomon, Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization (HarperCollins)

Special thanks to James Fallows of The Atlantic and Diane Smith of Montana State University for their terrific work as co-judges of this history panel; and also to Ann Binney and Kenneth Turan for hanging in there with us as we went through our process selecting the finalists.

On April 29th, you'll get to hear who the winner is.

-- Steve Clemons

Moammar Gaddafi:

I will not leave the country and I will die as a martyr.

I have no comment.

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague Daniel Levy who directs the Middle East Task Force shared a useful line on Michele Kelemen's NPR show focusing on what now needs to be done regarding Israel-Palestine peace efforts. He said:

It's difficult to be a friend of Arab democracy if you are perceived to be an enemy of Palestinian freedom.

Kelemen's segment is important as it makes the key point that any further progress in Arab-Israeli peace is going to have to build in Arab public opinion.

From the transcript:

It can't be business as usual, says Levy. The U.S., he says, can no longer rely on Egypt to back talks that were going nowhere, or to continue sealing off Gaza -- the territory controlled by the Palestinian militant group Hamas. Levy says Egypt and Israel will have to find new ways to keep weapons out of Gaza without punishing Palestinians. He says this may be a chance to build on what he calls a "pyramid peace."

"Until now, it was only the very tips of the two pyramids that had anything to do with each other on a very narrow, often security-interest related basis," Levy says. "A democratic Egypt and a democratic Israel could have a much broader peace. You could get the bases of those two pyramids into the peace. But only if you can also do right by the Palestinians."

He calls this a new era for U.S. peacemakers -- an era when public opinion in the Arab world matters.

I agree -- and I think that there are many in Israel who can get behind a reset in this process given what they see unfolding rapidly around them.

-- Steve Clemons

Last week Thursday I spoke at the Tulsa Committee on Foreign Relations and thanks to the hospitality of the community, I had the opportunity to chat with Studio Tulsa's Rich Fisher, who hosts a thoughtful public affairs program at KWGS Public Radio Tulsa, a National Public Radio affiliate that reaches three states.

The topic: A Middle East in Transition.

Here is the link so folks can listen to or download the audio.

-- Steve Clemons