Category: Uncategorized

Islamophobia is ok, but anti-semitism? Hell no!


It started with the ban on minarets in Switzerland which was supported by a majority of the Swiss in a referendum held last week.  It quickly progressed to cemeteries when a leading Swiss politician said in a television interview that separate cemeteries for Muslims (no problem singling them out) and Jews (big problem singling them out) were not acceptable and should be banned as well.  That didn’t go down to well with members of the Jewish community in Switzerland which numbers about 20,000, one tenth the population of Muslims living in Switzerland.  The Jewish reaction to the politician’s statement was swift and immediate enough to get him to back down on his original comments regarding a ban.

What Swiss Jews did was acknowledge the inevitable with respect to minorities living in Europe, a breeding ground for internecine fighting and wars; once you begin down the slippery slope of racism, it gathers a momentum of its own and envelopes everyone and everything that is different than itself.

“We don’t have a situation of the extreme right in Europe attacking Jews because they are content to attack Muslims,” Philip Carmel, the international relations director for the Conference of European Rabbis, told Reuters.

“But the Swiss example is classic: it’s not just Muslims who are going to be targeted by the extreme right.”

What’s sad is without the comment about Jewish cemeteries, most likely members of the Jewish community would have remained silent in the face of Switzerland’s steamrolling racist juggernaut, but when it reached the Jewish community objections from that quarter were raised.  Perhaps their thinking was if they remained silent and out of sight they would not be affected; but that’s clearly not the lesson history teaches  about such societal tendencies.  Let that also be a lesson to the Muslim community of anywhere in the world that if they too accept oppression directed towards any ethnic community anywhere in the world, it is sure to progress and include them in its racist tentacles.

Three Cheers for Pittsburgh City Council’s respect for the 1st Amendment


This story is an example of government truly protecting the Constitution in the face of abuse of power on the part of law enforcement.  A citizen  was simply told he couldn’t “flip” someone off and was ticketed when he did.  Fortunately he didn’t let it stop there and instead chose to exert his rights and in the process was supported by the city council where he lived.  Here’s his story.

A man who flipped the bird to a Pittsburgh police officer three years ago is speaking out after the City Council tentatively approved paying $50,000 to settle his lawsuit.In April 2006, David Hackbart was trying to park on a busy street in Squirrel Hill when, he said, the driver behind him wouldn’t budge.”After inching back toward him to give him the message I was trying to park, he wouldn’t (move). I got very frustrated and I flipped him off,” Hackbart said.

Hackbart, 35, of Butler, wasn’t done using his middle finger.”I heard a voice outside the car telling me not to do that and that frustrated me too. So, I flipped that person off and that turned out to be a police officer,” Hackbart said. “I tried to explain to him it was constitutionally protected, what I did. He did not want to hear it and gave me a citation.”The incident launched a federal civil rights case, which was postponed indefinitely at the request of lawyers on both sides. The case has tentatively ended with the City Council’s approval Tuesday of a proposed $50,000 settlement. Another vote is scheduled next week for final approval.Hackbart said his lawsuit was about change — not money.”Put some sort of policy in place that the officers are trained better and there is some sort of supervision in officers writing tickets so people don’t have to go through what I went through,” Hackbart said.Hackbart said there’s lesson for all to learn from his obscene gesture.”I don’t advocate people using the middle finger for (any) reason, any situation, 24 hours a day, but if someone ran across a certain situation in mind, at least he knows his rights,” Hackbart said.Of the proposed $50,000 settlement, Hackbart said he would receive only $10,000. His lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union would split the remaining $40,000.

To all responsible for protecting Hackbart’s first amendment rights, and a way of life we claim to want to preserve and which drove us to invade two countries a heartfelt thanks for your diligence.  You too are soldiers in our war on terror.

Fellatio as policy in the Middle East


That’s what Thomas Friedman gave as the reason for our invasion of countries in the Middle East in his much ballyhooed interview with Charlie Rose several years ago.  (The clip above.)  It seems however that Friedman either forgot his bravado laced interview or considers it insignificant when writing his latest Mid East pronouncements, which appear here.   In this latest tripe Friedman passes for an editorial (can you believe he gets P-A-I-D for writing this stuff?!) Friedman talks about the “narrative” and describes it thusly

The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11. Propagated by jihadist Web sites, mosque preachers, Arab intellectuals, satellite news stations and books — and tacitly endorsed by some Arab regimes — this narrative posits that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand “American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy” to keep Muslims down.

Friedman forgot to mention himself as one who promotes the “narrative”; even by his own accounts we invaded Muslim countries and killed scores of innocence not for any grand or noble political designs for us, Americans, or for them, the citizens of those countries, but rather we reaped all of that havoc ‘because we could’ and to get them to Suck. On. This. That mentality is what drove the pornographic rage that we’ve only seen snippets of that took place in Abu Ghraib.  (I’m sure all the citizens of Iraq, and some other Muslim countries too, have heard all of the stories our democracy has said we here in America aren’t eligible to hear or know about.)  Friedman mentions Abu Ghraib, but only in passing, in the midst of  extolling all the good things American soldiers did or are doing in Iraq as occupiers mind you of a country that initially was no threat to the vital interests of the US or her allies.  While chiding “jihadists” for ignoring the latter, Friedman did himself and his article a disservice but doing the same with the former.

As usual, Glen Greenwald does a pretty good job of dismantling the Friedman fantasy/hypocrisy.  Among his zingers to Friedman’s piece are lines like these

And note the morality on display here:  Hasan attacks soldiers on a military base of a country that has spent the last decade screaming to the world that “we’re at war!!,” and that’s a deranged and evil act, while Friedman cheers for an unprovoked war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and displaced millions more — all justified by sick power fantasies, lame Mafia dialogue and cravings more appropriate for a porno film than a civilized foreign policy — and he’s the arbiter of Western reason and sanity.

That’s only one of several well placed punches to Friedman’s devilishly childish arguments in his latest op-ed.  Steven Walt of the infamous Walt-Mearsheimer duo which brought the world the book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, and brought upon themselves an undeserved ignominy, weighed in on Friedman’s article as well with less than sterling results, in my opinion, because of his emphasis on “numbers” of casualties amassed to make the case for why “they” hate us. The comments section of his article is why his article lacks the strength of moral certainty to oppose Friedman’s op-ed.  Simply put people don’t care about the whys and wherefores these days and using that argument about why Muslims hate us without mentioning that we launched a war of aggression against them based on lies that our government made and upheld in order to invade and total decimate their culture, and that we continue to justify our occupation based on these debunked lies is disingenuous, in this writer’s estimation.   Walt is an academic so perhaps that’s why he relied so heavily on numbers in his “refutation” of Friedman’s article, but in so doing he let Friedman off the hook for his, Friedman’s, obscene insistence for war and his cheerleading for it when he knew ostensibly that he was lying.  If Walt had simply said that, any claim to legitimacy on the part of Friedman, would have been irrevocably lost.

Friedman is an apologist for wars of aggression and he wants the victims of such wars to engage him in semantic pedantry which is why he issues this weak call out  at the end of his article.   It’s a waste of time for him to issue it and even more a waste of time for others to answer it.  What Mr. Friedman needs to be reminded of is the importance of ‘the rule of law’, something he nor any of his supporters really had a handle on for the last 10 years. Friedman is the newspaper world’s hate radio pundits; not much substance and  a lot of hot air.  His bias and hatred for the people he generally writes about borders on the sophomoric, not at all worthy of the New York Times, or if you insist that it is, then both are not news that’s fit to be printed.  May I suggest citizenship journalism instead?

‘Arab women need not apply’


Israel’s finance minister was accused last week of trying to deflect attention from discriminatory policies keeping many of the country’s Arab families in poverty by blaming their economic troubles on what he described as Arab society’s opposition to women working.

A recent report from Israel’s National Insurance Institute showed that half of all Arab families in Israel are classified as poor compared with just 14 per cent of Jewish families.

Yuval Steinitz, the finance minister, told a conference on employment discrimination this month that the failure of Arab women to participate in the workforce was damaging Israel’s economy. Eighteen per cent of Arab women work, and only half of them full time, compared with at least 55 per cent of Jewish women.

He attributed the low employment rate to “cultural obstacles, traditional frameworks and the belief that Arab women have to remain in their home towns”, adding that such restrictions were characteristic of all Arab societies.

But researchers and women’s groups pointed out that employment of Arab women in Israel is lower than almost anywhere else in the Arab world, including such employment blackspots for women as Saudi Arabia and Oman.

“Most Arab women want to work, including a large number of female graduates, but the government has refused to tackle the many and severe obstacles that have been put in their way,” said Sawsan Shukha of Women Against Violence, a Nazareth-based organisation.

That assessment was supported by a survey this month revealing that 83 per cent of Israeli businesses in the main professions – including advertising, law, banking, accountancy and the media – admitted being opposed to hiring Arab graduates, whether men or women.

Yousef Jabareen, an urban planner at the Technion technical university in Haifa, who has conducted one of the largest surveys on Arab women’s employment in Israel, said the problems Arab women faced were unique.

“In Israel they face a double discrimination, both because they are women and because they are Arabs,” he said.

“The average in the Arab world [for female employment] is about 40 per cent. Only women in Gaza, the West Bank and Iraq – where there are exceptional circumstances – have lower rates of employment than Arab women in Israel. That gap needs explaining and the answers aren’t to be found where the minister is looking.”

He said a wide range of factors hold Arab women back, many of them the result of discriminatory policies by successive governments to prevent the 1.3-million Arab minority, which comprises one-fifth of Israel’s population, from benefiting from economic development.

These included widespread discrimination in hiring policies by both private employers and the government; a long-standing failure to locate industrial zones and factories in Arab communities; a severe lack of state-supported childcare services compared with Jewish communities; a shortage of public transport in Arab areas that prevented women reaching places of work, and a lack of training courses aimed at Arab women.

According to a study by Women Against Violence, 40 per cent of Arab women with degrees are unable to find work. When interviewed, Mr Jabareen said, 78 per cent of non-working women blamed their situation on a lack of job opportunities.

Maali Abu Roumi, 24, from the town of Tamra in northern Israel, has been looking for a job as a social worker since she finished training two years ago. She said cash-strapped Arab schools, unlike Jewish schools, could not afford to employ a social worker, and that Israel’s Arab minority lacked the equivalent of the welfare institutions and foundations funded by wealthy overseas Jews that offered work to many Jewish social workers.

“Most of the Jews I studied with have found work, while very few of the Arabs on my course have been employed,” she said. “When a job comes up, it’s usually part time and there are dozens of applicants.”

The Alternative Planning Centre, an Arab organisation that studies land use in Israel, reported in 2007 that only 3.5 per cent of the country’s industrial zones were in Arab communities. Most attracted such small businesses as workshops for car repairs or carpentry that offered few opportunities for women.

“Israel’s private sector is almost entirely closed to Arab women because of discriminatory practices by employers who prefer to employ Jews,” Mr Jabareen said. He added that the government had failed to provide leadership: among governmental workers, less than two per cent were Arab women, despite repeated pledges by ministers to increase Arab recruitment.

Ms Shukha said: “The civil service is a major employer, but many of these jobs are in the centre of the country, in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, a long way from the north where most Arab citizens live.”

She noted that there were no regular buses from Nazareth, the largest Arab town in the country, to Jerusalem. “The transport situation is even worse in the villages where most Arab women live.”

In addition, she said, most could not travel long distances to find work because of the scarcity of child-care provision. Only 25 government-run daycare centres have been established for preschool children in Arab communities out of 1,600 operating across the country. Ms Shaukha also criticised the trade and industry ministry, saying that, although it had invested heavily in training for Jewish women, only six per cent of Arab women were attending courses, and then mostly for sewing and secretarial work.

Mr Jabareen said Arab men faced massive discrimination, too, but found work because they filled a need in the economy by doing hard manual labour that most Jews refused, often travelling long distances to work on construction sites. “Women simply don’t have that option,” he said. “They cannot do that kind of work and they need to stay close to their communities because they have responsibilities in the home.”

Another massacre, absent a terrorist Muslim


We still don’t know who killed four young police officers as they gathered at a local eating establishment during their shift in Washington state.  We do know they were killed as they sat talking, eating or comparing notes together sometime during their shift early Sunday morning by a lone gunman, and typically as yet, no link to “terrorism” is known.  That’s an interesting part of the American vernacular these days, as if to imply the deaths of these officers is either easier to take or more heinous if it was done by a terrorist versus a non-terrorist.  We have become used to such insertions into language regarding death….it’s coded to tell us whether we should recoil or merely shrug our shoulders and thank God it wasn’t us; for example the use of the term ‘hate crime’ which has racial overtunes, is the trigger for whether we should really reflect on not just the death of an individual but the status of where we are as a society versus the everyday violent deaths of  scores of people as things beyond our control.

So we now precede reports of violent deaths, and especially those against symbols of state power with whether the perpetrator was a terrorist or not.  Usually, as we have come to expect, that designation is supposed to tell us if the criminal is a “Muslim”, because as the common perception goes, every terrorist is a Muslim, and therefore worthy of the entire population’s ire and revulsion.  Unfortunately, this allows us to more easily accept violent death, while at the same time focusing our anger on the perpetrator of the crime and not on the nature of the crime itself.  If it’s a non-terrorist crime we tend to focus less on either the victim or the criminal whereas for “terrorist” related crimes we are obsessed with both in an entirely unhealthy way as a society.  This is the cheapening of human life through the politicization of “terror” and it serves pundits, policy wonks and others well as they shape policy for all of us around the value terror gives to human life, but it doesn’t help us much when we are left with the senseless slaying of people like the four officers above.  I won’t bother to get into the blame game and say that the proliferation of handguns in a violent society is responsible or that Mike Huckabee is responsible for the deaths of these officers because he let the “person of interest” everyone is now looking for out of an Arkansas prison prematurely.  That was the rational that sunk a Michael Dukakis campaign in 1988…the old Willie Horton ads, remember them?  It’s interesting to see how even now Huckabee, who might be looking to run in 2012 is back pedaling on the import of his commutation by saying, ‘should he (the person of interest) be found responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state’….a typical political statement if there ever was one.  At some point, the buck has to stop being passed, the race/ethnicity of the perpetrator becomes insignificant and the application of the rule of law becomes paramount absent these “mitigating social circumstances” of which governor released him, the ethnic/religious persuasion, the gender, etc, etc, ad nauseum…..  In fact the American system supposedly took all that into account when it said all people are equal under the law so that regardless who commits the heinous act of murder, the equal application of the rule insures justice.  That’s the way it’s supposed to be right?

 

Freedom of speech? When it comes to Israel, no!


During the heyday of the cartoons featuring a terrorist prophet of Islam, with a turban in the form of a bomb, we were told free speech was necessary even if it upset the sensitivities of people; in order to live in a more perfect union it was necessary to uphold the principles on which this country were founded than it was to address people’s feelings.  Yes, I know that the cartoons of the Prophet of Islam were featured in a Danish newspaper, but even they the Danish were seen as a bulwark against giving in to terrorism and they had the right as we do here in America to freedom of speech and should not be intimidated from or waive that right.  Yeah…that’s what we were told when it came to dealing with Muslims’ reactions to news they might not deem pleasant.

However, such openness to free speech is not seen in much the same positive or necessary light when it comes to speech or criticism about the state of Israel, as the editors and owners of The Berkeley Daily Planet have found out.  A quick look at the website for the paper, http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2009-11-28, reveals a paper that seems interested in its local affairs, from the closing of a post office location to citizen displeasure at the response of the local university to the financial crisis, but some people, notably Jim Sinkinson of Infocom Group, a media relations company and John Gertz of dpwatchdog.com  seem to think the paper should please the Jewish citizens of the Bay area by printing stories they consider non-offensive towards the state of Israel.  Not exactly the definition of freedom of speech, nor the role of a publication.  In fact almost every group in the world would make that demand, that any publication should print only those items that meet the emotional needs of that particular group and at the same time not offend group sensitivities.  Usually the answer to such a request is simply “nuts”, a free press means it reports what it wants to report and it the media outlet determines what is responsible and reasonable as it pertains to its readership/viewers/listeners and their values.  Fortunately, the editor of the Daily Planet, Becky O’Malley, has said essentially the same thing when defending her paper against the charges leveled by the two who want to limit her papers’ right to publish articles or columns critical of Israel.  In fact, the classiest response I’ve seen to date to her critics is quintessentially free speech in nature, ‘they (her detractors) could start their own paper.’  That alone should be enough to silence her critics,  for in throwing down that challenge O’Malley has defended her right to free speech and a free press and encouraged them to do the same even in opposition to her.

Four words and all hell breaks out


I’ve written before about the racial problem our country has; the new targets are Arabs and Muslims and anything that has to do with them in a positive light is enough to send seemingly intelligent people into an emotional tailspin that sees them plummet headfirst into the ground and explode.  I’ve also said the religious right of this country has made itself irrelevant with its racist banter that is usually inaccurate and divisive and not at all connected to its core beliefs in the divinity of Jesus and his message of eternal salvation.  It’s just something in us that likes to make trouble where there is none.  So I’m particularly amused at the uproar over the sign above in a Best Buy’s advertisement that seems to have sent many people off on their own suicide bent rantings.  Best Buy’s has been in the cross hairs of some of these people since 2006 when it was  said the company stopped recognizing Christmas by removing that word from its ads and using the more generic term “holidays” instead, and now to add insult to injury, the theory goes, they’re  further alienating Christians by recognizing a Muslim holiday over the more popular Christmas in their current ads.  I guess it didn’t occur to those “Christians” that perhaps Best Buy’s was trying to be inclusive in its sales pitch when it said, “Happy Holidays” by honoring and respecting those Christians who  don’t celebrate Christmas or don’t commemorate it on 12/25.   I guess the “Christians” who took offense at the lack of the word “Christmas” only see one view as sufficient to represent all of Christiandom, but Best Buy’s was smart enough to throw out the missing word “Christmas” red herring by the Christian right and came back with a strong statement which said in part

“Best Buy’s customers and employees around the world represent a variety of faiths and denominations. We respect that diversity and choose to greet our customers and employees in ways that reflect their traditions,” said spokeswoman Lisa Svac Hawks in a written statement to The Detroit News. “In addition to Happy Eid, you will see greetings of Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Kwanzaa and Feliz Navidad in various Best Buy communications during the holiday season.”

Oops.  I guess she told you, all you who had worked yourselves up in a lather over the absence of the word “Christmas”, never mind the absence of the spirit of Christmas, in an advertising campaign.  If it’s “Christmas” you want, then it’s “Christmas” you’re going to get!  Unfortunately that’s not good enough for many of the “religious right” who when confronted with the reality that another store they had targeted was using the word “Christmas” in their ads said the resulting ads were “offensive”, “patronizing”, a “joke”.  It’s apparent what these people are upset with is not the absence of a word, but rather the presence of people who or ideas which are different than themselves.  That’s called “xenophobia”….some of it’s synonym are racist, racialist; prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant and those describe the religious right to a Tee!  In closing, let me take the time to thank Best Buy’s for their understanding that America is made up of people and faiths  from all over the world many of which have been here since the inception of this country.  Their attitude towards the presence of such diversity is more American in spirit than any objection raised by the faux pas “religious right”.

When is a political massacre not an act of terrorism?


When it’s done by Christian or Jewish individuals or states!  Perhaps it’s because the perpetrator of this latest  massacre which resulted in the deaths of 57 people in a battle line state/ally in the “war on terror” was not the typical suspect we associate with acts of terror and therefore it can’t be qualified as terrorism?  In answer to the oft raised claim that all acts of terrorism are only done by Muslims, in the Phillipines this week, the deaths of 57 people at the hands of one group was not done by Muslims but rather a family linked to the President of the Phillipines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  Consequently it has become, rightfully so, a gruesome act unfathomable, yet devoid of the religious screeching that usually accompanies reporting on crimes done by Muslims.  Even Michelle Malkin your virulent Islamophobe is silent about this heinous crime that was committed in her native Phillipines because she can’t blame the usual suspects.  Pity that.

Patriotism No Longer


Many of us who opposed George Bush’s policies and the lies he used to enact, and enforce them, were called traitors for not supporting our president during a time of war.  Now, those same voices which assaulted our patriotism and trumpeted their own are behind the likes of these billboards and many others gracing American highways.  We’re still in a time of war, if you accept the first declaration of war against terror, misplaced and erroneously called by George Bush, but now it appears its ok to oppose this president, and as some seem to imply, even overthrow him!  Where were these voices when we called for an end to wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to these same people who talk of revolution in America today, why aren’t you supporting a President who is on the verge of possibly sending more troops to fight this pseudo war on terror, or end it?  Why don’t you see your calls for actions against a sitting president as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and why aren’t your talking radio head icons not making that point on their daily shows?  America…….I’ve got three words for you, Race, Party Politics. 

The first billboard above was taken down and replaced with the one below.

Hat tip to the Brad Blog and Think Progress.

Obama’s Treasonous Praetorian Guard


This last incident of a breach of security during an Obama appearance wouldn’t be so suspicious if it was an isolated incident perhaps but it follows an even more suspicious incident that happened during candidate Obama’s campaign and amidst a growing number of threats against the President which have reached astronomical proportions.   Someone within the President’s detail should be held accountable. I’m talking about the husband and wife  pseudo “socialite” team that wrangled their way in to a state dinner at the White House two days ago.  It doesn’t help matters that they were  accompanied by a film and make up crew to the very first gate at the White House and yet by all accounts the Secret Service still did not follow proper procedures when they allowed the two to continue on to another check point whereby they were subsequently cleared for admission to the State dinner.   How can you account for such obvious lapses of security with the President’s security in the Secret Service?  Is this normal, post 911?  Post Fort Hood?  It’s almost as if someone inside the  organization is screaming for the next crazed kook to seize the opportunity they’re being given  to take a shot at the President.  Our fellow countrymen have shown there are many who would like that opportunity.  It appears President Obama has surrounded himself willingly and unknowingly with people who really don’t have his best interest at heart, and who may in fact mean him serious bodily or political harm.  He should do himself a favor and start an entire house cleaning of his Secret Service detail.

Blowback-The Intended Consequence of American Foreign Policy-The Awlaki Interview


It was one of the themes of Ron Paul’s candidacy for president in 2008; American foreign policy would exact a price for Americans that they should neither have to pay or  or are not responsible for paying.  Blowback, a term coined by the CIA after their coup was responsible for re-installing the Shah of Iran to power in the early 1950s means the possible “unintended consequences” of American government’s  covert action against other countries, most notably those in the Middle East and elsewhere.  Paul used the term to refer to any policy of the US government, covert or otherwise that adversely affected the people to whom it was directed, but might have possibly been considered advantageous to American interests in the short term.  What Paul and his supporters, I counted myself among them, wanted to say was that American interventionist policy held no strategic long term advantage for anyone and the best course of action was for the US to not become obstructionist in its relations with foreign countries, especially those in the Middle East.

In the present much ado has been made about a certain Imam that might have inspired Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter of late, to commit his acts of murder and mayhem, saying the Imam, Anwar Al-Awlak used his firebrand rhetoric which he espoused while an Imam in an Arlington, Va masjid shortly after 911 and which left an indelible mark on Hasan until today.  However, that narrative is incomplete and at the same time convenient for the proponents of blowback, because it allows policy and public to aim their ire at the people who respond to acts of aggression against them in much the same way as they are assaulted.  Thanks to the American Muslim blog, I ran across a National Geographic interview with Al-Awlak while he was Imam of Dar al-Hijrah  masjid and the things he said at that time are a far cry from the firebrand rhetoric he is accused of using to incite people to acts of terrorism against America. In answer to the question of the climate in America created by the 911 catastrophe, al Awlak had this to say.

we stated our position clearly, and I even feel that it’s unfortunate that we have to state this position because no religion would condone this, so it should be common knowledge. But we were in a position where we had to say that Islam does not approve of this. There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion.We encourage people to participate in blood drives, we encourage them to donate, and then we encourage the community to reach out. Part of the blame is on us that we haven’t been very active in reaching out to our fellow citizens, so that when these things happen we don’t have to go through this unfortunate backlash. We had a neighbor come in, and she said, “I’m coming to show my solidarity with you, to let you know that we are with you in this and that we are sorry for the difficult times you’re going through.” And then she said, “I wish you had came and visited me earlier, to give me an understanding of your religion. Although we were neighbors, we didn’t really hear from you.” This really is a message for us Muslims, that we need to reach out.

He defined “jihad” this way

The linguistic meaning of the word is “struggle.” The jihad of the individual would be to struggle against the evils of oneself. Therefore, it’s a continuous process of improvement. It is striving to become closer to God. That’s jihad for the individual.Jihad for the community is to protect the religion from any inside or outside enemy. So the jihad of the community would mean that if there is any internal corruption, we would struggle to get rid of it. And if there is an invading force from outside, then we would, too, struggle to defend ourselves, and that is where armed combat occurs. So actually, fighting is only a part of the jihad, and it’s considered to be a defensive force in order to protect the religion. If somebody defends their life, their property or their family, this is considered to be a jihad.

 

Could it be this was the ideology that attracted a searching Nidal Hasan to Awlaki at a time when he was looking for direction and purpose?  As we mentioned in an earlier post the place of worship in Virginia where Awlaki was imam was well known to federal authorities and worhshippers there remember Awlaki strongly condemning acts of terrorism on American soil, as the tone of the above interview seems to suggest.  In a heavy dose of foreshadowing, Awlaki while referring to bin Laden had this to say,

My worry is that because of this conflict,(i.e. in the Middle East-pre Iraq war)  the views of Osama bin Laden will become appealing to some of the population of the Muslim world. Never in the past were there any demonstrations raising the picture of Osama Bin Laden—it has just happened now. So Osama bin Laden, who was considered to be an extremist, radical in his views, could end up becoming mainstream. That’s a very frightening thing, so the U.S. needs to be very careful and not have itself perceived as an enemy of Islam.

True to form, America did just the opposite, entering into what George Bush and others in his administration and the  media called the “clash of civilizations”, an inevitable war of the worlds, and blowback ensued, which is just what the fanatics on both sides of the divide, in Washington and in cities across the Middle East wanted.  Throughout the Iraqi war the constant refrain was the occupation of Iraq by American troops  made America less safe today than it was before and the radicalization of people like Awlaki is proof of that.  Even in the words of the milquetoast Washington Post, Awlaki didn’t become radicalized until he returned to Yemen in 2004, the land of his parents, and witnessed  firsthand the destruction of a nominal agrarian society by an aggressive American foreign policy toward  Yemen and other countries in the Middle East. The fact that Yemeni authorities arrested him once and tried to identify him with a group he had previously eschewed and whose tactics he had condemned played no small part in his about face to  today.  Blowback; and the ability of policy wonks to point to him and by extension Hasan as a reason for repressive measures against Arab/Muslim citizens of the United States, as well as increased vigilance, read, military spending and government intrusion into the lives of all citizens is a convenience of blowback that the initiators and proponents cannot  overlook.  Quite simply, many in government want dissension and strife in areas of the world and if need be at home as well, to justify their continued occupation of such areas amidst huge military and government appropriations.  Anything that can be done to justify this trend is acceptable in their rational, and blowback becomes just another tool, at the risk of ordinary citizens, for the interference of government in people’s lives, either as oppressors or liberators or saviors.

 

Profiling the Religious Right-A Necessary Evil?


A lot has been said lately about profiling Muslims, either those in the US military or ordinary citizens, because some fear their presence on American soil presents a threat to the safety and security of Americans and their way of life.  It doesn’t matter to those who make that call, most recently like  Sarah Palin, that those Muslims themselves are prosperous members of the same society, their religious preference and acts which have been associated to them by an obsequious press have stuck to them and made them visible, likely targets by society.  Undeserved targets, it might be added, but the idea that an entire group of people are responsible for the same crimes committed by 19 hijackers or one lone gunman, resonate in a hate filled and drenched society in much the same way that some say  President Barack Obama is not really a citizen of America, is a racist or a secret Muslim.  In fact the genesis for this idea of racial profiling comes from a source that now implies it is ok to get rid of unlikeable  people, such as Obama, by having them murdered.  If you think this is an unfair jump from a Biblical verse to death threats on the President just look at the 400% increase in death threats against this president versus his predecessor  who was seen as a “born again” Christian.  One of the common elements in the vitriol directed towards a sitting President is Christianity and its religious scriptures.  Indeed, some of the slogans voiced in opposition to Obama are steeped in religious references; “The Anti-Christ is living in the White House”, “Oppressive Bloodsucking Arrogant Muslim Alien”, just to name a few.

That said, why aren’t there more calls for profiling Christians, and especially Christian members of the Republican party who have justified every turn of their opposition to Obama in some way or another to their religious principles.  If you think that is too extreme, then is it too much to ask those in the opposition to at least condemn the tactics of their “brothers” to the rhetoric directed towards the President?  With the exception of the about face made by Rupert Murdoch to Glen Beck’s anti-white tirade against Obama, no one from the “opposition” has said such extreme rhetoric is out of place or inconsistent with the  ideals of a Judeau-Christian society.  The silence from the Right has been deafening and only serves to encourage the fundamentalists to even greater heights of hyperbole and violence.  Where are the calls for a more systematic government approach to Christians’ opposition to Obama, and ensuring his safety from their menace?  Where are the calls from members of other faiths to stop the tide of Christian fundamentalism that endangers the life of our elected officials and in turn the political process we hold so dear?  Why is political expediency what keeps people silent in the face of such threats against the Republic, while the very same silent voices encourage the deafening roar of calls to profile others of the society who have not expressed such incitement, but for whom lone individuals have become the standard by which they and their faith are judged?

One bright side of all this is the ACLU has been consistent in their opposition to stemming free speech, even if it borders on threats to the President of the United States.  Quoting biblical verses whose meaning they consider ambiguous is not reason enough, in their mind, to prosecute people who use them in ways others of us consider threatening.  The very people who in years gone by usually threw scorn on the American Civil Liberties Union for their liberal approach to litigation are now being shielded by the organization from calls that they, abusers of free speech, be held accountable for their speech.  I applaud the ACLU for being predictable even though their position vis-a-vis these latest scoundrels on Americas political landscape hardly deserve their succor.  Regrettably, one can only come to one conclusion and that is no group is responsible for the actions of individual members of that group……no matter how relevant the scriptures they may all believe in inspire the acts of those individuals.  The idea of collectivisim…mentioned before here in this blog, have no place in American discourse but people with political agendas that have nothing to do with American ideals of justice will never say that because they want to use government to suppress those they dislike or mistrust.  Such manipulators of government are the true enemies of the State yet the ones whose profiling is the most difficult to achieve.  It is not altogether an impossible task and the sooner we get on with it, the safer the Republic will be for everyone.

The Moral Depravity of Fox News


foxFox News is not a channel I look at because I see them as an organization that entertains with innuendo and racial titillation. These days I find interesting  how they’ve managed to reach up the journalistic ladder and pull everyone else down with them onto a level that’s neither journalism or informative but rather the lowest common denominator of racism and bigotry.  The news they disseminate is inflammatory and incendiary.  One can only speculate what is behind this slant of their news approach. The fact that they’ve been around for so long, and are so popular is scary considering the propaganda they put on the air everyday. As for  the symbiotic relationship between Fox and it sister news organizations, the latest example is that of Brian Ross’ appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox program where he talked about the ties between the Ft. Hood shooter, Malik Hassan, and al-Qaida.  Of course, Ross’ links were tangential at best, or completely non-existent, but that didn’t stop him from being recruited onto a rival network, FoxNews to inaccurately report this connection.

This after other obviously blatant Faux Pas of FoxNews, including the Glen Beck assertion Obama is a racist .  Such bluster is expected from a performer, an entertainer,whose job it is to attract viewers to his network.  What was dismal however is several months after Beck’s verbal diarrhea when cooler heads should have prevailed, Beck’s boss, Rupert Murdoch appeared on one of his other media outlets and supported Beck’s blatantly racist diatribe, saying, ‘But he (Obama) did make a very racist comment. Ahhh..about, you know, blacks and whites and so on, which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And um, that was something which perhaps shouldn’t have been said about the President, but if you actually assess what he was talking about, he was right’ and while everyone is entitled to an opinion, and freedom of speech is a cherished right in America……not always recognized as such by the minions of Fox when it comes to their latest target group, Muslims, to have the owner of a widely listened to news operation be so emphatically wrong,…………….is well frightening.

It is evident therefore one can expect that for FoxNews, Muslims, African-American politicians and especially those who support a black President are targets of Fox’s bigoted distortions.  With the help of other willing “journalists” like Brian Ross, encouraging the rumor mill which masquerades for news, such repetitive inaccuracy will only serve to push  an already nervous, hate saturated society to new lows of moral depravity that will become the standard in the near future for  mass social psychotic behavior currently held by Nazi Germany.

UPDATE:

The Dar al-Hijrah mosque that is a central piece in Brian Ross’ story is not the terrorist training ground Ross would have you believe.  They’ve been established since 1991 in the greater Washington, DC  area and their mission statement has as its goals, ”

  • Helping the Muslim community continue to be an effective contributor to the advancement of the Society.
  • Establishing strong relations with other faiths based on cooperation, tolerance, and mutual understanding in order to serve our communities.
  • Helping all individuals in our community to lead a healthy and productive family life that is free of drugs, crime, substance abuse and discrimination.
  • Helping the Muslim community continue to be an effective contributor to the advancement of the Society.
  • Establishing strong relations with other faiths based on cooperation, tolerance, and mutual understanding in order to serve our communities.
  • Helping all individuals in our community to lead a healthy and productive family life that is free of drugs, crime, substance abuse and discrimination.

    • and it counts itself as an active member of McLean Clergy and Arlington Interfaith Council and an active member in the Interfaith Conference of Washington Metropolitan area. This is the terrorist mosque that Ross claims Hasan associated with and which drove him to his homicidal rage at Ft. Hood. As for the preacher, imam, that Hasan possibly tried to contact, it seems he expressely and publicly condemned the terror attacks of 911 during the one year he was at Dar al-Hijrah. The full time Imam of the mosque is on record saying the federal authorities were aware of the supposed Ross al-Qaida link at his mosque, and claims there is nothing to hide at his mosque. Indeed, the mosque has invited law agencies of the government to come and talk to the worshippers to maintain positive contacts between the Islamic community and government. The terrorist mosque therfore becomes less threatening and more concerned with social cohesion with the greater metropolitan Washington area than Ross would have you believe, and Hasan’s worship there was no more than any of the other thousands of Muslims who pray, marry,  bury their dead there.

    Ft. Hood


    Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly went to his workplace at Ft. Hood, Texas shot and killed 12 people.  It is reported that Hasan is a Muslim…………….so what?  The religion he professes is not a crime, the act of killing 12 people is and that’s what he has to stand trial for.  We here at Miscellany101 do not subscribe to the notion of collectivism even though it is an idea rooted in Christian theology.  In that ethnic-centric philosophy, all humanity will be judged or held accountable for the sins of the original progenitors of the species but we find it more reasonable and rational to believe that every one is responsible for what he or she does and not what is foisted upon them by birth, nationality, species or one’s correligionists.  Israel has used this rationale to justify it’s oppression and slaughter of Palestinians under its control as well as  threaten those living anywhere else in the world, but Miscellany101 finds that racist and xenophobic and smacks of a bygone and dark era of modern Western history.

    It’s sad to see members of the Islamic faith think it necessary to go through super human lengths and acts of condemnation that folks like CAIR and others have gone through to distance themselves from the guilt of collectivism that 21st century America and her allies have put the Muslim world through.  Even as this piece is being written, there are reports of a shooting taking place in Orlando, Florida that some are saying has resulted in two deaths yet no one is asking members of the suspect’s religion to make any genuflections before the public in acts of contrition and neither should they, nor is there any speculation about the religious beliefs of the individual, as that too is irrelevant.  Yet, societal conditions that go far beyond proper citizenship and allegiance are made upon members of the Islamic faith with the most incendiary language used when  dealing with the issue of Islam and Muslims in America.  It’s sad to see the press leading the way in this public electronic lynching as witnessed by Charlie Gibson’s  ABC News  lead on Thursday’s broadcast identifying the gunman as “Muslim Hasan” as if “Muslim” were somehow affixed to his name.  Regrettably, this attitude has become the norm when dealing with “crime” here in America; regardless of the anecdotes attributed to Hasan’s motive, what he did was certainly no more than a crime, religion is at best tangential to this tragedy.  Acts of murder and/or retribution are as old as this Republic, and are  practiced by every tribe, group, race, ethnicity, religion known to man.  There are laws in place to deal with illegal behavior, but our society has not yet criminalized “belonging” to a group or holding beliefs that others may find abhorrent.

    What then is America’s fascination with Muslims and their criminal behavior as opposed to the criminal behavior of “criminals” of other religions or origins unknown? Obviously 911 has had an enormous impact on the American psyche but the main impetus of this hate driven agenda is the attempt to grab the heart and soul of America by some through the machinations of big government.  The hypocrisy of that movement to use the full force of government to fix special interest grievances is no more apparent than in the birther and anti-health reform movements now sweeping the country which claims an Obama led administration is somehow orchestrating the total involvement of government in their lives just months after one of the most intrusive governments in modern history  that of George Bush, relinquished its fear mongering hold  on a terrified America.  It doesn’t matter to the denizens of hate and fear that Hasan was probably like all the other military vets who loathed a foreign policy that put them in a foreign land as an occupier for an indeterminate period of time….(this year has been the deadliest year for military suicides since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and that Hasan probably wanted to do the infamous suicide by cop, but stopped along the way to kill scores of people.  Nor do those who are angry with big government and especially Obama’s big government see anything wrong with police teams swarming over Ft. Hood, while soldiers trained to fight in urban settings much like what was taking place on their own base were left unarmed and unable to defend themselves.  No one sees the contradiction in a policy that tells US service personnel they must defend freedom abroad but are not capable of defending themselves on their own soil……i.e. every soldier should have been armed with their personal firearms for protection for just  such an emergency as presented itself that fateful Thursday.   What people have been able to do is avoid discussion of those issues of a foreign and national policy which directly impact the lives of EVERY American and turn it into a hate fest reminiscent of McCarthyism like suspicion of 12% of a population that holds the same values as everyone else.  It’s amazing…..we still have not reached a level of sophistication to see beyond the narrow minded ritual of divide and conquer still being carried out to detract public attention from matters of substance and instead get them to embrace issues that are inconsequential to the health and longevity of this Republic.  I dread the thought that we have to go through another 30-60 years of civil rights struggles for Muslim Americans, much like we’ve had to with other ethnic groups now peacefully inhabiting our shores.  I’m sorry we haven’t learned that age old lesson……every man is responsible for his actions alone, just like Major Hasan.

    UPDATE

     

    RussellMurder on military installations isn’t as uncommon as one would have you believe, but to focus on the ethnicity of this particular murderer when that hasn’t been done at any other time in recent memory, ignoring the trauma government decisions regarding war and the deployment of the US military has caused the American people at a time when there is talk of potentially expanding the war effort into Iran is macabre and sinister….and might we add typcially neoncon-like.  Lest we forget, a few short months ago, five people were killed on a military installation in Iraq by someone who had been seeking help, didn’t find it and decided to take matters into his own hands.  Nothing at all was said about his religious motivation or lack thereof or even what drove him on his murderous rampage other than his inability to cope with what are supposed to be his duties as a soldier and no demands nor inquiries were made by society in general to have revealed to us all the secrets behind John Russell’s descent into murderous mayhem.  Such knowledge while vital to the likes of mental health professionals, is not something that would satisfy our thirst for justice; and notice how silent we have remained in the face of Russell’s onslaught until now.  Yet pundits across the political landscape of America are with a straight face able to demand that conditions for service to our country, and perhaps even citizenship should change because someone with the name “Hasan” has committed the same act as others who wear a military uniform have done before him.  Why main stream media and punditry haven’t been called out for their hypocrisy is an indication of where present day America is in today’s climate of fear and loathing.  It is the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today that despite all the information we have available to us, we still choose to go down that path of our ancestors, which leads to fratricide and destruction.  Wake up America your standard of living is in peril not because of any one group of people’s presence in  your midst but rather because of our inability, lack of will, to work together to ignore the voices of gloom and hate.  If we succumb to them we have no one to blame but ourselves for the catastrophe that is sure to follow.

    The Religious Warmongering of the New York Times


    NYTLeave it to the main stream news media to editorialize about the necessity for religions to confront one another in the timber box times we now live in.  With the nation’s first black president who many in American society want to delegitimize because of his color, his origin or his ethnicity, the editorial which appears here in the New York Times is just one more attempt to kill two birds with one stone; the black president many wish they never had and the menacing Islam which many think he, Obama, represents.

    One should come to expect the type of bombast which fills Ross Douthat’s editorial; after all the New York Times hasn’t been known for being very accurate here lately, with all their false articles about WMDs and its  reporters cavorting with government officials while engaged in outing covert agents of various intelligence agencies.  It comes as no surprise to me therefore that the Times has printed such inflammatory statements about Islam and it’s coexistence with the aspirations of an hegemonical Pope Benedict like, “in making the opening to Anglicanism, Benedict also may have a deeper conflict in mind — not the parochial Western struggle between conservative and liberal believers, but Christianity’s global encounter with a resurgent Islam.” (I never thought Islam was out for the count or dying?  How can it therefore be ‘resurgent’?) Or this quote, “Where the European encounter is concerned, Pope Benedict has opted for public confrontation. In a controversial 2006 message in Regensburg, Germany, he explicitly challenged Islam’s compatibility with the Western way of reason — and sparked, as if in vindication of his point, a wave of Muslim riots around the world.” (Does Douthat think the confrontation should extend to the shores of America too?) Why Benedict, at least according to Douthat,  wants to pick a fight with Islam is beyond me.  Maybe it’s because Europe sees itself  threatened by the existence of Muslims in its midst and wants to expell them much like they did in the 15th century with its pogroms against Muslims they expelled from Spain. In some way I would hope a parallel can be drawn sothat a papal inspired  Europe could understand the frustration Palestinians feel about having an alien force on their soil whose compatibility is different from their own, but I don’t think that’s going to happen because frankly Europe, like America, is fine tuned for war and confrontation, to use the editorial’s word(s) and there’s is very little else, like empathy or understanding or even peace for that matter, that they are interested in.  It pains me to see a religious figure dial into the lustful emotion of hate and distrust the way this Pope has.  I am reminded of his meeting with GWB and wonder if they two didn’t share a scriptural text or two to talk about their worldly ambitions; after all, it is this perfect dichotomy between the Church and temporal power that allows them to say to one another, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’ isn’t it?  Glen Greenwald does a pretty good job of dissecting Douthat’s editorial on a political level here.

    What interests me however is the benign reaction the Muslim world has exhibited toward Benedict’s remarks, which some Muslims took offense to because of the defamation of the Prophet,  alluded to in the Douthat editorial.  You can read the official Muslim response here where a certain group of scholars extended every olive branch there is to the Pope who is being encouraged by his parishioners the likes of Douthat to “confront” Muslims in order to gain Anglican converts.  The Muslim response linked to above contains over 50 references to the word “love” in describing their relationship to God and their fellow man and several references the need for “peace” between the different groups of the world.  I would think a thoughtful, considerate and judicious clergyman would want to inspire and encourage such sentiments among members of another faith, not incite or aggravate their opposites.  In an extraordinary attempt at conciliation meant to allay already heightened fears, concerns, paranoia on the part of papal Christendom, the Muslim reply to Benedict begins thus

    Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population.
    Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no
    meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between
    Muslims and Christians.
    The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very
    foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour.
    These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and
    Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of
    the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity.

    and remains consistently conciliatory throughout.  Nowhere in the Muslim response is their any attempt to touch on the hot button issues that are usually brought up in discussions between Muslims and non Muslims.  Doing so would be distracting at best and tend to feed the appetite of any already hungry desire for war between the two faiths.  Instead these “scholars” appear to want to emphasize a common ground that can support a foundation of understanding and mutual respect.  I wish that had been the tone of Douthat’s editorial and not the one that seems to encourage Benedict to go down the road of his predecessors whose hands have stained the annals of history with the blood of their religious conquests, read murder, of European Muslims. However, such is the tone of main stream media and the New York Times these days, which is known for reporters who have told Muslims, ‘suck on this’.

    The Republican Party today


    I have tried to ignore the likes of talk radios worst personalities who have been trolling for the Republican Party because I believe they do and say what they do in order to make money, and I secretly hope they don’t believe one bit of the garbage they spew everyday.  We all know who “they” are and they have been really dominant on the American landscape since 911.  They are the worse America has to offer humanity but they are ours and we have to deal with them.  When the Republican party chose an African-American as its titular head, I held out hope the party had turned a corner and would distance itself from the clowns on the air whose ranting and raving about race and Obama and ethnicity have polluted political thought and discourse, but unfortunately, Michael Steele has turned out to be just as ignorant about race and incendiary in his comments as the more crude and boorish air talent the GOP has engaged to take their message to the public.  However, the picture below takes the cake and is the ultimate insult in what one can only hope will be the demise of the Party.  The picture appeared on the Facebook page of the Republican National Committee and is blatant in its disregard for American history and as in your face about what Republicans think of race……especially  mixed race relationships and a Supreme Court case which made it illegal to deny couples of different races the right to marry…..as can be ever spoken.  I hope the picture is the dagger in the heart of a Party which has become irrelevant in the nation’s discourse about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, and maybe suggestions can be made to the appropriate law enforcement agencies to investigate Rethuglicans for treason against the homeland and threats, real or imagined, against a sitting president.

    obamafacebookphoto