It’s self-promotional time for me: When I was in Bosnia last month, I wrote this story about a segregated school in the town of Stolac. It was one of the most difficult stories I’ve written, because it is wrought with political complexities, so I want to make sure lots of people read it.

There has been a lot of international interest in Stolac’s school, despite the fact that for many in the town, segregated education is fine with them. Martin Luther King III, son of famous civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., visited Stolac and spoke with education officials and students about their school.

I recently spoke with Biljana Meskovska, who works with Realizing the Dream, a nonprofit organization King III founded. I asked her why anyone outside of Bosnia should care about Stolac. “There is no society that is stripped from problems, especially ones of discrimination, segregation, in one form or another,” she said.

It’s a good point. In the United States, segregated schools were ruled illegal in a famous 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education. Of course, in reality, segregation doesn’t just suddenly end because a law declares it so. The debate about equal access to education continues today.

“The level of globalization makes it necessary for us to care not only about what is happening in our own societies and countries, but throughout the world as well, as our own well being depends more than ever on the well being of our neighbors,” Meskovska said. Do you agree?

November 11 is Veterans Day in the United States, when Americans honor all members of the armed forces, living and dead, who served during times of peace or war. Unlike some holidays that are celebrated on Mondays so workers can have a three-day weekend, Veterans Day happens on the actual date. It derives from the day in 1918 when the armistice took effect ending World War I — the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. A lot of other countries also honor their veterans on November 11 but call it Armistice Day or Remembrance Day.

Across the United States people hang American flags outside their homes, there are speeches and parades in big cities and little towns, and there is always a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery near Washington. A color guard representing all military services executes “present arms” at the tomb, the president lays a wreath and a bugler plays “Taps.” (Click on this Arlington Cemetery link to hear a rendition of Taps.)

U.S. servicemen and women serve “under the most difficult circumstances, and [make] sacrifices that many of us cannot begin to imagine,” says President Obama in his Veterans Day proclamation. This is true of military personnel all over the world, of course.

There are some differences, though, between militaries in democracies and those under other types of government. Harry S. Truman, the 33rd U.S. president, put it simply: “If there is one basic element in our Constitution, it is civilian control of the military.” In democracies, military leaders advise elected leaders and carry out the elected leaders’ decisions. That is one reason Americans can honor our military and our veterans without a sense of fear or oppression. We know they are protecting us and protecting our freedom, and we are very grateful. That’s the truth. Back in the Viet Nam war era, soldiers returning home were often harassed and scorned, but today no matter whether you are for or against U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, you still support the troops. This advertisement is a great example of the “We Love Our Troops” sentiment in America (and the marketing of it).

President Obama also put in a nutshell the reason why American civilians feel good about the 1.5 million people who wear the uniform today and the 23.2 million who did so in the past:

“These men and women possess an unwavering belief in the idea of America: no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who your parents are, this is a place where anything is possible,” said Obama. “Our veterans continue to stand up for those timeless American ideals of liberty, self-determination, and equal opportunity.”

This brief article says it better than I can: Civil-Military Relations from the State Department publication Democracy in Brief.

Do you believe that civilian control of the military helps protect both a nation and the freedom of its people?

I don’t normally follow court cases, but one recently under review by the Supreme Court caught my eye. The case, Doe v. Reed, involves a group of Washington state residents who successfully petitioned for a referendum, Washington Referendum 71, to affirm or overturn state legislation expanding rights for same-sex couples. Government officials believe that, under the state’s Public Records Act, they have an obligation to release upon request the names and addresses of those who signed the petition.

“In all states with initiative or referendum systems, the ballot measure represents the people substituting themselves for legislatures,” Washington’s attorney general, Rob McKenna, said in a September 12 New York Times article. “We don’t conduct [the] legislative process in secret, and it doesn’t make sense to conduct this legislative process in secret either.”

The referendum supporters disagree, arguing that releasing their personal information is a form of intimidation and is thus a violation of their freedom of speech. “We’re not talking about removing the transparency of government,” said James Bopp, a lawyer for the group. “We’re talking about whether citizens should be outed in their participation in our democracy.” Bopp and others note that activists have published names and addresses of those who supported similar petitions in other states. Making this kind of information public has sometimes led to threats or boycotts of businesses, they say. But Tom Lang, the director of the activist Web site KnowThyNeighbor.org, says the publication of petitioners’ names and addresses is intended to generate conversations between neighbors, friends and others who already have personal connections, not to harass or intimidate anyone.

The Federal District Court of Washington issued an order on September 10 temporarily prohibiting the state of Washington from releasing the referendum supporters’ personal information, stating that the case “likely raises serious First Amendment questions in regard to protected speech.” Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction, the Supreme Court has reinstated it until the parties in the case file new motions for action.

How can the courts balance freedom of speech and freedom of information in this case? Is it even possible?

One of the best things about traveling is that it gives you an opportunity to explore differences between cultures. I’m currently on temporary assignment for the State Department in Brussels, Belgium, and I’m definitely enjoying sampling their local cuisine, speaking French, trying to pick up a few words in Dutch, and learning about life in this country whose capital city is often called the Capital of Europe.

But in addition to the differences, there are also the similarities; the things that make you realize we’re not all that different from one another. I had my first such recognition while reading the neighborhood magazine created for the Brussels suburb I live in. As I read the magazine’s opening story, written by a local government official, I had a moment of déjà vu.

The official was talking about recent community meetings that were organized to discuss possible changes to one of the city’s roadways. According to his commentary, some of these meetings had been attended by very vocal citizens whose discourse had drowned out all other voices and whose aggressive opposition had made others “not dare to speak favorably” of the project. The author felt that individual wants were being heard at the expense of a true discussion on what was best for the community as a whole. Hmmm … this was starting to sound like what some Americans see as the tone of the community meetings on issues like health care and the economic crisis that have recently taken place in the United States.

At the end of his article, the government official asked a series of questions that he felt all representative democracies must try to answer: “What influence should this type of citizen participation have on the final decision?” “Can individualism have the final word?” “Where does the public interest fit in?” “How are minorities represented?” There are no easy answers to these questions. How would you answer them?

I was talking with University of Novi Sad media studies student Andrea Jerinic about the future of her career path. Independent media plays an important role in all democratic societies, but many non-partisan media outlets are struggling to stay afloat. I asked Andrea if she really believed newspapers and other forms of traditional media will survive.

She does. She thinks what the media industry in Serbia needs is some fresh voices, that today’s media students are exactly what they need. “They need fresh energy, and we can do everything.”

At first it seemed like an overly optimistic statement that I would expect to hear from a student who had yet to spend much time in the working world.

But since then I have been thinking more about it. In Serbia, youth have proven they can do just about everything. A few days ago I mentioned in an America.gov article B-92 radio station. B-92 was a student-run radio station in the 1990s that was a leading voice against oppression. Today it is among the popular mainstream radio and television stations in Belgrade. European music fans are probably familiar with Novi Sad’s annual EXIT festival which brings hundreds of thousands to the city for concerts. But how many of these fans know that EXIT was started in 2000 by a group of young people seeking a way to rebel against leader Slobodan Milosevic?

All this optimism makes me want to visit Serbia again in ten years to see what these students have done as young adults.

Fresh off a plane from the United States, I joined a group of Serbian and Montenegan high school and college-aged students as they cleaned up the banks of the Danube River. These students, past participants of the American Serbia & Montenegro Youth Leadership Exchange (A-SMYLE), gained experience in volunteerism while staying in the United States as exchange students. Now back in Serbia, they have spent the past year cleaning school grounds and parks in their own communities.

The students decided to take on the cleaning duties not only because of their interest in environmental preservation, but because of the opportunity to promote the importance of civic activism to their own citizens, said participant Dunja Rapic. Although they received assistance and small grants from the U.S. embassy and other organizations, the students have done a great deal independently to gain supporters. By organizing musical performances, art shows and other activities to coincide with cleanup events, they’ve attracted participants of all ages.

As young people, said 19-year-old Ana Brzakovic, “we may not have much experience, but it doesn’t mean we can’t organize and do something successfully.”

The students learned a great deal about organizing for a good cause with the help of the NGO Fractal, an organization that considers civic activism to be one of its top priorities. One aspect of organizing the students have learned quite well is the importance of publicizing their cause. When many of their peers would likely be hesitant to talk to a reporter, the student organizers can skillfully articulate their goals and successful outcomes to the press. This experience is one reason why Brzakovic is now considering a career in public relations.

Soon I leave for Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, my first stop on my quest to learn more about what it takes to build - and sustain - a democracy.

Some useful facts about Serbia, from the U.S. Department of State: This relatively small country has about 7.5 million residents, the majority of whom are of Serbian ethnicity. Serbians have maintained their identity for decades, even as others occupied the region. Serbia became an independent country in 1992, as communist Yugoslavia collapsed. Since then the regions of Montenegro and Kosovo have formed their own separate nations.

Serbia’s earliest years as a country have been notably marked by conflict. In 1999, NATO launched a bombing campaign on Belgrade, seeking an end to attacks on Kosovar Albanians. Much progress has been made since then. Today the nation often collaborates with its European neighbors, and it even has a relationship with NATO, as a Partnership for Peace country.

One of the first things I hope to do in Belgrade is visit with a group of students who are helping to clean the banks of the Danube River. This initiative is part of an effort to not only educate students on the importance of environmental preservation, but to encourage youth activism.

How important is youth activism for a young nation? I’d like your thoughts.

I believe it is important sometimes to pause and think a moment about those who sacrifice most deeply in the name of democracy. Here are two items that may encourage you to give pause.

First item, and a bit of shameless self-promotion it is. My office this week published a new book, The Berlin Wall: 20 Years Later. For those too young to recall, desperate East Berliners tried every means to traverse that wall. In the words of the historian David Reynolds: “the fugitives kept on coming — jumping from windows, cutting the wire, tunneling beneath the wall, even ballooning above it.” Over 200 died trying to cross over to democracy and freedom. Have a look at the book and let me know what you think.

Meanwhile, in 2009, the National Endowment for Democracy honored five Cubans persecuted for their advocacy of democratic rights within Cuba. Read here about their personal sacrifices. “Despite solitary confinement, beatings, the denial of medical care, and separation from family, all five have persisted in their cause, countering their oppressors with hunger strikes and organizing for the support of other political prisoners.” I was glad to see President Obama listed along with the other dignitaries offering messages of solidarity. But as an historian I was glad also to see the names Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel right below Obama’s. The story of the Wall, it seems, remains pertinent today.

Early one morning, I changed my Facebook status to read:

“No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.” (I actually copied this from someone else.)

A few hours later, a friend of mine on Facebook sent me a message chiding me for making a “useless gesture”:

“I agree with you about health insurance reform, but changing one’s Facebook status will not help health insurance reform get passed. Neither will joining any Facebook groups,” she wrote. “If you want to do something to see that Congress passes health care reform, volunteer with Organizing for America or another organization trying to pass the bills. … The blue dog Democrat (and probably swing Republican) districts are where the fight is. This reform is going to pass — if it does — along partisan lines with a few crossover votes, and it is going to be a messy and ugly battle. It’s not being fought on Facebook status lines.”

My purpose in changing my Facebook status was to express my opinion rather than advocate for specific legislation, but I see her point. If I do nothing to support a cause except write a note to my friends, I’m not accomplishing anything except possibly keeping the issue fresh in their minds. As my co-worker Steve has observed, in some cases using Facebook may actually backfire. My friend told me, “I just find people persuading me to change my status to something (anything) kind of rubs me the wrong way.” (I guess she feels about these types of messages the way I do about campaign calls.)

At the same time, social media tools like Facebook can spur people to take concrete action on issues as serious as voter drives or boycotts. When does awareness lead to action, I wonder? Does it depend on the size of an organization? Does it depend on how a message is worded? Or does it depend on individuals like my friend, urging others to do something specific besides talk?

(I’m listening to “2+2=5” by Radiohead)

U.S. lawmakers recently decided to use the traditional town hall meeting format in order to discuss legislation to overhaul the American health care system. But what has happened has often been anything but the orderly raising of hands, point and counterpoint rebuttals, and parliamentary-style procedure that you would think shows a healthy democracy at work.

Instead, the news coverage has shown speakers being shouted down by angry citizens, who are often repeating erroneous claims that the health care legislation calls for government “death panels,” and carrying posters equating President Obama with Adolph Hitler. On the other side, there have been calls for the legislation to simply be pushed through Congress by the majority without any input from opposition voices.

Due to the disruptions and the news concentration on the more sensational aspects of the debate, the town halls did not accomplish what I think was supposed to be their goal: to explain and debate the health care legislation so that Americans have a clearer understanding of what exactly is being proposed.

What’s going on? Is this a sign that democratic discourse has failed in the world’s oldest democracy? Well, maybe the problem is larger than that, an American sociologist says. The University of Buffalo’s Professor Steve Hoffman argues that human beings are not always rational enough to be objective. Rather than fairly evaluate evidence before making a decision, we often work backwards from a firm conclusion to find our own supporting evidence, and reject whatever seems to conflict with it.

This type of thought process is being called “motivated reasoning.” Maybe it doesn’t lead you to make informed decisions, but after watching and listening to recent news footage of the health care debate, I believe it does at least manage to drive your debate opponent to exasperation.

“People get deeply attached to their beliefs,” Hoffman said in an article that appeared August 26 in LiveScience. “We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter.” In order to keep a sense of “personal and social identity,” we therefore tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify our beliefs.

From another way of looking at it, all of the available free press and free speech is not going to make any difference when you have no interest in giving it a fair analysis.

A separate LiveScience article suggests that educational deficiencies could be playing a role here, since it argues students are not being taught how to think analytically and critically.

What do you think? In the interest of having thoughtful discussions to inform voters and constituents, is there a good way to discourage the impact of motivated reasoning?