Chomsky Interview

A common question I receive from friends and family is why I read Noam Chomsky's writings so much. Why am I "obsessed" with him? Well, frankly, I am not obsessed with anything really except for discovering the truth of matters important to me and it so happens that Chomsky is very articulate and clear in how he describes his arguments on issues of concern to me. Therefore, I read him more and more because I believe he makes sense in words that even a child could understand.

A well known tradition in Islam is to take the good from something and to leave the bad parts of it. Chomsky offers a lot of good commentary and so I take it from him. It's very simple. I'm happy when he laughs at people who ask him if they can join his "movement" or something like that because it tells me a lot about his character. He obviously knows his place in the world and doesn't make anything of himself. He speaks from experience and through the wisdom he has earned through years of learning and activism. I think most people enjoy his commentary for the very same reason I do: because he says in such a concise and forceful way what many of us also believe. It's common sense. That's all.

United States of Insecurity: Perils and Alternatives in the Post 9-11 World

Based on an interview with Noam Chomsky conducted by Gabriel Matthew Schivone via telephone and e-mail at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, November 27, 2007 through February 11, 2008. Parts of the text have been expanded by the author. Published in Monthly Review.



A State of Insecurity in the Post-9/11 World

GMS: In a recent interview, Abdel Bari Atwan, author and editor of the London-based Arabic daily newspaper Al-Quds Al Arabi, said that President Bush is not ending terrorism nor is he weakening it, as is one of his strongest assertions in his so-called "War on Terror", but that now Al-Qa'ida has powerfully developed into more of an ideology than an organization, as Atwan describes, expanding like Kentucky Fried Chicken, opening franchises all over the world. "That's the problem," he says. "The Americans are no safer. Their country is a fortress now, the United States of Security." Is this accurate?

CHOMSKY: Except for the last sentence, it's accurate. There's good reason to think that the United States is very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of US intelligence, of specialists of nuclear terror like Harvard professor Graham Allison, and former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and others, who have warned that the probability of even a nuclear attack in the United States is not trivial. So, it's not a fortress.

One of the things that Bush hasn't been doing is improving security. So, for example, if you look at the government commission after 9-11, one of its recommendations—which is a natural one—is to improve security of the US-Canadian border. I mean, if you look at that border, it's very porous. You or I could walk across it somewhere with a suitcase holding components of a nuclear bomb. The Bush administration did not follow that recommendation. What it did instead was fortify the Mexican border, which was not regarded as a serious source of potential terrorism. They in fact slowed the rate of growth of border guards on the Canadian Border.

But quite apart from that, the major part of Atwan's comment is quite correct. Bush Administration programs have not been designed to reduce terror. In fact, they've been designed in a way—as was anticipated by intelligence analysts and others—to increase terror.

So take, say, the invasion of Iraq. It was expected that that would probably have the effect of increasing terror—and it did, though far more than was anticipated. There was a recent study by two leading terrorism experts (using RAND Corporation government data) which concluded that what they called the "Iraq effect" -- meaning, the effect of the Iraq invasion on incidents of terror in the world -- was huge. In fact, they found that terror increased about seven-fold after the invasion of Iraq. That's quite an increase—a lot more than was anticipated.

Also, the invasion increased the threat of nuclear proliferation—for very good reason. One of Israel's leading historians, Martin van Creveld, discussing the possibility of Iran developing a bomb, pointed out the obvious. He said that, after the invasion of Iraq, if Iran isn't developing a nuclear deterrent, "they're crazy" (that's his word, "crazy"). Why? Because the United States made it explicit that it is willing to invade any country it likes, as long as that country can't defend itself. —It was known that Iraq was basically defenseless. Well, that sends a message to the world. It says, "If you don't obey what the US demands, they can invade you, so you better develop a deterrent."

Nobody's going to compete with the United States in a military capacity. I mean, the US spends as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, and it's far more sophisticated and advanced. So, what they'll do is turn to weapons of the weak. And weapons of the weak are basically two: terror and nuclear weapons.

So, sure, the invasion of Iraq predictably increased the threat of terror and of proliferation, and the same is true of other actions. And we can continue. One of the major parts of the so-called "war on terror" is an effort to carry out surveillance and control of financial interactions which enter into terrorist activities. Well, yeah, that's been going on. But according to the Treasury Bureau [Office of Foreign Assets Control] that's been responsible for it, they're spending far more time and energy on possible violations on the US embargo on Cuba than they are on Al Qa'ida transactions.

Why would elites be making the United States, as you say, more vulnerable to attacks in the future? It doesn't seem reasonable, logically speaking, as educated, sensible, intelligent people, that they'd endanger themselves personally and endanger their families, in the short- or long-term, with raising the threat of terror to manifold levels now. Terror would surely threaten them personally, especially with regard to more attacks being committed inside the U.S. and throughout the world. I mean, isn't there something peculiar in this sort of behavior?

I think there's something pathological about it but it's not peculiar. I mean, if you look at it within the framework of elite perceptions, it has a kind of rationality. Short-term considerations of profit and power quite often tend to overwhelm longer term considerations of security and welfare, even for your own children.

I mean, take environmental concerns. Take, say, lead. It was known in the early 1920s by the huge corporations that were producing lead-based products that lead was poisonous. They knew it. We now know—there's been extensive discussion and revelations—and they knew it right away. But they concealed it. And they paid huge amounts of money and effort and legal maneuvers and lobbying and so on to prevent any constraints on it. Well, you know, those windowsills poisoned with lead paint are going to harm their own children, but the interests of profit overwhelmed it. And that's standard.

And take, say, tobacco. It's been known for decades, from the very beginning, that it's a very poisonous product. That didn't stop the tobacco producers from trying to get everyone possible to smoke. Make women smoke, children and others—even their own. These are conflicting demands of profit and power on the one hand, and care about even your own family on the other hand. And very commonly profit and power win out. I think it's pathological. But it's not a pathology of individuals, it's a pathology of social institutions.

When you say the common loyalty to power and profit among elites superseding any care of other human beings is a "pathology of social institutions" and not individuals, are you referring to certain values of American society?

It is not specific to American society. These are institutional properties of semi-competitive state capitalist societies.

Suppose, for example, that there are three US-based conglomerates that produce automobiles: GM, Ford, Chrysler (no longer). They were able to gain their status through substantial reliance on a powerful state, and they were able to survive the 1980s only because the president, Ronald Reagan, was the most protectionist in post-war history, virtually doubling protective barriers to save these and other corporations from being taken over by more advanced Japanese industry. But they (more or less) survive.

Suppose that GM invests in technology that will produce better, safer, more efficient cars in 20 years, but Ford and Chrysler invest in cars that will sell tomorrow. Then GM will not be here in 20 years to profit from its investment. The logic is not inexorable, but it yields very significant anti-social tendencies.

The Predatory Reach of Private Power

Since the so-called "reconstruction" throughout the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2004, one of the policy-initiatives championed by the Bush Administration right up to the present was the dismantling of the New Orleans public school system. The New York Times reported that, of those who could return, children and families were coming back to a "much different" New Orleans with "a smaller [educational] system dominated by new charter schools", along with the termination of nearly 7000 public school employees. What are the implications of private control of public resources, such as education, in this instance, or healthcare, telecommunications, social security, etc.?

Well, there are actually two components to that, both of them leading themes of the Bush Administration's domestic policies, and of reactionary policies generally. One of them is, to put it simply, to put as many dollars as you can in the pockets of your rich friends: that is, to increase profits for the wealthy—to increase the wealth and power of concentrated, private capital. That's one driving force in the administration's policy. The other is to break down the social bonds that lead to people having sympathy and supportive feelings about one another. That contributes to transferring profit and decision-making into the hands of concentrated private power. A component of that is to undermine the normal relations—sympathy and solidarity—that people have.

Take social security. Social security is based on a bond among people. If you earn a salary today—somebody your age—[young people of twenty or so] you're paying for the welfare and survival of your parents' generation. Well, okay, that's a natural feeling. If you want to increase the control of concentrated private power you have to drive that out of people's heads. You have to create the kind of people that Ayn Rand is talking about, where you're after your own welfare and you don't care what happens to anyone else. You have to think, "Why do I have to care about that disabled woman across town who doesn't have enough food to eat? I didn't do it to her. That's her problem. She and her husband didn't invest properly; she didn't work hard enough, so what do I care if she starves to death?" Well, you have to turn people into pathological monsters who think that way, if you want to ensure that unaccountable, concentrated, private power will dominate the world and enrich itself. So, these things go together.

I don't happen to have children in the local school—I did, but my kids are all grown up. So, if I were to follow this line of reasoning, I would say, "Well, why should I pay taxes? My kids don't go to school; I'm not getting anything out of it. What do I care if the kid across the street doesn't go to school?" You can turn people into pathological monsters who think like that. And eliminating the public school system is one part of it.

The public school system is a sign of solidarity, sympathy and concern of people in general—even if it doesn't benefit me, myself. There's a pathological brand of what's called Libertarianism which wants to eliminate that and turn you into a monster who cares only about yourself. And that's one aspect of undermining democracy, and undermining the attitudes that underlie democracy, namely, that there should be a concern for others and a communal way of reacting to community concerns.

Well, let's consider the elimination of the public school system altogether. Would that imply something like what we see in countries in the Third World, where those who can afford to send their children to school, do, and much of the remaining population simply does not have an education? Is this a direction private power might be moving toward in this country?

There are significant forces driving the country in that direction, quite apart from Bush-style reactionaries seeking to enrich the powerful and let the rest fend somehow for themselves.

Take the reliance for school funding on property taxes. In earlier years, when communities were not so sharply separated between rich and poor, that may have been more or less acceptable. Today it means that the wealthy suburbs have better schools than impoverished urban or rural areas. That's only the bare beginning. Suburban elites who work downtown do not have to pay the taxes to keep the city viable for them; that burden falls disproportionately on the poor. Studies of public transportation have shown that the poorer subsidize the richer and more privileged. And these measures proliferate in numerous ways.

The Iraq War: Responsibility and Resistance

Everywhere from high school and college campuses to bus stops and dinner tables, we hear a lot about what a "quagmire" and "costly mess" Iraq has become for the United States, now being blamed as a Republican war, for how the Bush Administration handled the occupation—that ‘it should've been done this or that way'—and ‘now that we're there we can't leave, it's our ‘responsibility' to fix the problem we made because it'll only get worse if we leave—those people will kill each other', and so on. What do you say to these arguments that seem to interweave with each other? And what would you suggest in terms of what some might call an ‘honorable solution'? International measures, immediate withdrawal—both?

The position of the liberal doves during the Vietnam War was articulated lucidly by historian and Kennedy advisor Arthur Schlesinger, when the war was becoming too costly for the US and they began their shift from hawk to dove. He wrote that "we all pray" that the hawks will be right in believing that the surge of the day will work, and if they are, we "may be saluting the wisdom and statesmanship of the American government" in gaining victory in a land that they have left in "wreck and ruin." But it probably won't work, so strategy should be rethought. The principles, and the reasoning, carry over with little change to the Iraq invasion.

There is no "honorable solution" to a war of aggression—the "supreme international crime" that differs from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows, in the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which condemned Nazi war criminals to death for such crimes as "pre-emptive war." We can only seek the least awful solution. In doing so, we should bear in mind some fundamental principles, among them, that aggressors have no rights, only responsibilities.

The responsibilities are to pay enormous reparations for the harm they have caused, to hold the criminals responsible accountable, and to pay close attention to the wishes of the victims. In this case, we know their wishes quite well. Poll after poll has yielded results similar to those reported by the military in December, after a study of focus groups around the country. They report that Iraqis from all over the country and all walks of life have "shared beliefs," which they enumerated: The American invasion is to blame for the sectarian violence and other horrors, and the invaders should withdraw, leaving Iraq—or what's left of it—to Iraqis.

It tells us a lot about our own moral and intellectual culture that the voice of Iraqis, though known, is not even considered in the thoughtful and comprehensive articles in the media reviewing the options available to Washington. And that there is no comment on this rather striking fact, considered quite natural.

Is there anyone saying the war was fundamentally wrong?

In the case of Vietnam, years after Kennedy's invasion, liberal doves began to say that the war began with "blundering efforts to do good" but by 1969 it was clear that it was a mistake that was too costly to us (Anthony Lewis, at the critical extreme, in the New York Times). In the same year, 70% of the public regarded the war as not "a mistake" but "fundamentally wrong and immoral." That gap between public and elite educated opinion persists until the most recent polls, a few years ago.

In the media and journals, it is very hard to find any voice that criticizes the invasion or Iraq on principled grounds, though there are some. Arthur Schlesinger, for example, took a very different position than he did on Vietnam. When the bombs started falling on Baghdad he quoted President Roosevelt's condemnation of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as "a date which will live in infamy." Now, Schlesinger wrote, it is Americans who live in infamy as their government follows the path of fascist Japan. But that was a lone voice among elites.

Dissidents, of course, describe "the supreme international crime" as fundamentally wrong. I haven't seen polls about public attitudes on this question.

What about when it is that people know to undertake more serious or severe resistance efforts after the point at which "the limits of possible protest" are reached? In a letter to George Steiner in the NYR, in 1967, you gave the example of what this might look like, now 60 years ago during the Spanish Civil War, when people found it quite necessary to join international brigades to fight against the army of their own country; or, applied to Vietnam, the possible action one might undertake in such circumstances of travelling to Hanoi as a hostage against further bombing. —That's pretty far-reaching, relatively speaking, to what we see in current resistance efforts today against the war. What's your feeling about the possibilities for such methods today in relation to the Iraq war, border action, or other criminal policy in the Middle East and elsewhere? Do situations have to get worse before people or individuals might deem this sort of action necessary?

In the case of Vietnam, serious resistance began several years after Kennedy's invasion of South Vietnam. I was one of a few people trying to organize national tax resistance in early 1965, at a time when South Vietnam, always the main target, was being crushed by intensive bombing and other crimes. By 1966-67, refusal to serve in the invading army was beginning to become a significant phenomenon, along with support for resistance by organized groups, primarily RESIST, formed in 1967 (and still functioning). By then the war had passed far beyond the invasion of Iraq in destructiveness and violence. In fact, at any comparable stage, protest against the Iraq invasion considerably exceeds anything during the Indochina wars.

As for living with the victims to help them or provide them some measure of protection, that is a phenomenon of the 1980s, for the first time in imperial history, to my knowledge, in reaction to Reagan's terrorist wars that devastated Central America, one of his many horrendous crimes. The solidarity movements that took shape then have now extended worldwide, though only in limited ways to Iraq, because the catastrophe created by Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz and the rest is so extraordinary that it is almost impossible to survive in the wreckage—the main reason why reporting is so skimpy; it is simply too dangerous, unlike earlier wars of imperial aggression.

A Question of Neutrality in the Schools

Let's talk about the role of intellectuals in all of this. Here's a question that might be relevant for students to hear especially: You've suggested that the major inducements to becoming absorbed into the ideology of the overall scholarship in this country, largely subservient to power interests, are the significant rewards in prestige and affluence, as well as access to power and authority. So, what are some of the things you've observed in your own time in the academy as a kind of source of this process in American education?

Educational institutions like universities don't exist in a social vacuum; they rely for their existence on the external resources of the society. They rely on the state and contributions from, basically, the wealthy. And the state and the wealthy sectors are very closely linked. So, the universities are in a certain social system in which they reflect a certain distribution of power. They're embedded in it. And that means the struggle for university independence—or independence of thought, and willingness to challenge—that's a hard struggle. You're struggling against social conditions that militate against it.

And it's true, what you said is correct, there are rewards and privileges that come along with conformity, but there's more to say. There are also punishments and abuse, loss of jobs, and so on, that come from challenging systems of power. Both factors operate. So, yes, there's a constant struggle to try and maintain university independence, and it's a hard one.

Sometimes it's argued that the universities should just be neutral, that they shouldn't take positions on anything. Well, there's merit in that, I would like to see that in some abstract universe, but in this universe what that position entails is conformity to the distribution of external power.

So let me take a concrete case, aspects of which are still very much alive on my own campus. Let's take some distance so we can see things more clearly. Back in the 1960s, in my university, MIT, the political science department was carrying out studies with students and faculty on counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Okay, that reflected the distribution of power in the outside society. The US is involved in counterinsurgency in Vietnam: it's our patriotic duty to help. A free and independent university would have been carrying out studies on how poor peasants can resist the attack of a predatory superpower. Can you imagine how much support that would have gotten on campus? Well, okay, that's what neutrality turns into when it's carried out—when the ideal, which is a good ideal, is pursued unthinkingly. It ends up being conformity to power.

Let's take a current case. Right now there's a lot of concern about nuclear weapons in Iran. Well, again, take my own campus, MIT. In the 1970s Iran was under the rule of a brutal tyrant who the United States and Britain had imposed by force in a military coup overthrowing the democratic government. So Iran was therefore an ally. Well, in the government, people like Henry Kissenger, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others, were calling for Iran to develop nuclear capacities and nuclear power and so on, which means a step short of nuclear weapons. And my own university, MIT, made an arrangement with the Shah of Iran, the dictator, to train Iranian nuclear engineers. It was the 1970s. There was enormous student protest about that. But very little faculty protest, in fact, the faculty approved it. And it was instituted. In fact, some of the people now running the Iranian nuclear programs are graduates of MIT. Well, is the university neutral in those respects? No, not really; it's conforming to power interests. In this case, to go back to an earlier part of our conversation, they did conform to short-term commitments to power and profit but with long-term consequences that were quite harmful to the very same people who instituted them.

Henry Kissinger, who at least has the virtue of honesty, was asked by the Washington Post why he is now objecting to same Iranian programs that he was instrumental in instituting when he was in office back in the 70s. And he said, frankly, Well, they were an ally then. They needed nuclear power. And now they are an enemy so they don't need nuclear power.

Okay, he's a complete cynic, but he's an honest one, fortunately. But should universities take that position?

By Steady Drips of Water: Activism and Social Change

For the last question I'd like to talk a little about providing alternatives, for people trying to figure out things, searching for answers, seeing through propaganda, developing solidarity, initiating movements. Here's a good quote I came across that might be a good starting point, from the notable novelist E.M. Forster, writing at the beginning stages of the Second World War, in 1939, in his essay "What I Believe":

"I do not believe in Belief. But this is an age of faith, and there are so many militant creeds that, in self-defense, one has to formulate a creed of one's own. Tolerance, good temper and sympathy...in a world rent by religious and racial persecution, in a world where ignorance rules, and science, who ought to have ruled, plays the subservient pimp." He repeats: "Tolerance, good temper and sympathy—they are what matter really, and if the human race is not to collapse they must come to the front before long."

What are some of the things he's getting at here that we can discuss in terms of alternatives for the future, and social organization?

I'm often asked questions like that, in maybe a dozen emails a night or in talks and so on, and I'm always at a loss to answer. Not because I can't think of an answer, but because I think we all know the answer. There aren't any magic keys here; there are no mysterious ways of approaching things. What it takes is just what has led to progress and success in the past. We live in a much more civilized world than we did even when Forster was writing, in many respects.

Say, women's rights, or opposition to torture—or even opposition to aggression—environmental concerns, recognition of some of the crimes of our own history, like what happened to the indigenous population. We can go on and on. There's been much improvement in those areas. How? Well, because people like those working in alternative media, or those we never hear about who are doing social organizing, community building, political action, etc., engage themselves in trying to do something about it.

And the modes of engagement are not mysterious. You have to try and develop a critical, open mind, and you have to be willing to evaluate and challenge conventional beliefs—accept them if they turn out to be valid, but reject them if—as is so often the case—they turn out to just reflect power structures. And then proceed with educational and organizing activities, actions as appropriate to circumstances. There is no simple formula; rather, lots of options. And gradually over time, things improve. I mean, even the hardest rock will be eroded by steady drips of water. That's what social change comes to and there are no mysterious modes of proceeding. They're hard ones, demanding ones, challenging, often costly. But that's what it takes to get a better world.

Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Perhaps one of the most revered thinkers of the twentieth century and tireless advocate for honorable peace and social justice, he lectures and writes widely on American foreign policy and world affairs. His latest books are Interventions (City Lights) and Failed States (Metropolitan Books).

Gabriel Matthew Schivone is an editor of Days Beyond Recall Alternative Media and Literary Journal. His articles, having been translated into multiple languages, have appeared in numerous journals such as Z Magazine, Counterpunch and the Monthly Review, as well as Contre Info (France), and Caminos (Cuba). He is most recently the recipient of the 2007 Frederica Hearst Prize for Lyrical Poetry. He is also an active member of the UA Chapter of Amnesty International, Voices of Opposition (to War, Racism and Oppression), Dry River Radical Resource Center, and Students Organized for Animal Rights.

A great letter in Sun Sentinel today

Israel supporters - and their myths - get pimp slapped.


Commentary overlooked Israel's bias against non-Jews

In a May 16 op-ed by Arlene Bearman, "We can learn plenty from Jewish state," the author said that non-Jews have freedom of religion and are treated fairly in Israel. But according to the U.S. State Department's annual Human Rights Report, "There is institutionalized legal and societal discrimination against Israel's Christian, Muslim and Druze citizens. The government does not provide Israeli Arabs with the same quality of education, housing, employment and social services as Jews."

Ninety-three percent of the land in Israel is owned by the state or by quasi-governmental agencies (such as the Jewish National Fund) that discriminate against non-Jews. Palestinian citizens of Israel face significant legal obstacles in gaining access to this land for development. Most non-Jewish children attend schools that are "separate and unequal" in comparison to those attended by Jewish Israeli children. Government budgets allocate far more money for the Jewish schools. Many towns in Israel with a majority Palestinian population lack basic services and receive significantly less government funding than do majority-Jewish towns. In fact, more than 70 Palestinian villages and communities in Israel, some of which pre-date the establishment of Israel, are unrecognized by the government, receive no services and are not listed on official maps.

Asma Hye

Finkelstein Interviewd After Israel Ban

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Norman, has there been anything in particular—obviously you’ve been a vocal critic, a prominent critic, of the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories. Now, is there anything in particular in the last year or two that you’ve been publicly involved with that might prompt the Israelis to feel even more need to keep you from the country?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I guess there are two possibilities. One, I think I’m more effective than I have been in the past. I draw fairly large audiences. And I think Israel is now facing a major public relations challenge. They’re losing the moral ground. They’re losing. And that’s plain. And I can say, in my own small way, I’ve contributed to isolating Israel in public opinion.

And the second possibility is that I did spend some time in Lebanon in January, when I—where, among other things, I met with several leaders of Hezbollah, and that received fairly wide publicity, and that may have prompted the outrage or the decision.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And your reaction to the editorial in Haaretz blasting the government’s decision?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, obviously, I am grateful for that editorial, and I respect Haaretz for doing that. Actually, I think Haaretz displayed more consistency and more courage than many American newspapers and journals of the left did during my tenure battle. Being denied entry into Israel seemed to have evoked more outrage in Haaretz than me being denied tenure in the United States evoked outrage among mainstream and even left publications in the United States.

Read the entire interview.

No More Flopping

One of my pet peeves with the NBA has been the increasing amount of flopping that has spread all over the league. It used to be that a few guys in the NBA were noted for being floppers, such as Vlade Divac or Derek Fisher. But now? It has spread all over the NBA like an epidemic. There are seven footers who are looking to take charges instead of doing what they're paid to do: send anyone who drives into the lane down on their rear end and swat the ball into the third row. When Shaq starts to become enticed to fall backwards when a guy a third of his size runs into him then you know it's gone too far.

It's unmanly and it's extremely annoying.

Now the stewards of the NBA have stepped in and have decided to fine players who flop... There's a problem with this though. They say they will fine players who clearly flopped meaning they were not really hit, but just acting. NBA exec Stu Jackson said that "What was clearly expressed to the committee is that we would begin imposing fines next season for the most egregious type of flops. When players are taking a dive, for lack of a better term." Well, that's great, but it's utterly subjective and sounds really lame to fine players for trying to win.

Why not fine guys for arguing that they didn't touch the ball last when they clearly did? This type of thinking has no limits. Granted, I agree flopping needs to be regulated, but the way to do it is by having refs who are trained not to call charges on plays that at least look like they weren't legitimate charges. It's fairly obvious when a guy is flopping and it is also obvious when a guy bulldozes his opponent on his way to the rim. But to fine players for flopping? I guess it's the way to completely eliminate charges altogether. That seems harsh to me, but if it makes Fisher, Manu Ginobali, Robert Horry and others actually play defense instead of falling on their ass every defensive possession then I'm all for it.

God bless David Stern for having some sense.

And to cap it all off: Rasheed Wallace said what every anti-flopper couldn't say as eloquently:

"All that bull[expletive]-ass calls they had out there. With Mike [Callahan] and Kenny [Mauer] -- you've all seen that [expletive]," Wallace said. "You saw them calls. The cats are flopping all over the floor and they're calling that [expletive]. That [expletive] ain't basketball out there. It's all [expletive] entertainment. You all should know that [expletive]. It's all [expletive] entertainment."

You the man, Sheed.

Nader on Why Oil is so Expensive

Check out this website before reading Nader's article. It's always amazed me how we are not protesting the gas prices, but just sucking it up. We're on the verge of $5.00 a gallon and people just mildly complain. It amazes me.


What's Really Driving the High Price of Oil?

by Ralph Nader

What factors are causing the zooming price of crude oil, gasoline and heating products? What is going to be done about it?

Don’t rely on the White House—with Bush and Cheney marinated in oil—or the Congress—which has hearings that grill oil executives who know that nothing is going to happen on Capitol Hill either.

Last week the price of crude oil reached about $130 a barrel after spiking to $140 briefly. The immediate cause? Guesses by oil man T. Boone Pickens and Goldman Sachs that the price could go to $150 and $200 a barrel respectivly in the near future. They were referring to what can be called the hoopla pricing party on the New York Mercantile Exchange. (NYMEX)

Meanwhile, consumers, workers and small businesses are suffering with the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon and diesel at $4.50 a gallon. Suffering but not protesting, except for a few demonstrations by independent truckers.

A consumer and small business revolt could be politically powerful. But what would they revolt to achieve? Their government is paralyzed and is unable to indicate any action if oil goes up to $200 or $400 a barrel. Washington, D.C. is leaving people defenseless and drawing no marker for when it will take action.

Oil was at $50 a barrel in January 2007, then $75 a barrel in August 2007. Now at $130 or so a barrel, it is clear that oil pricing is speculative activity, having very little to do with physical supply and demand. An essential product—petroleum—is set by speculators operating on rumor, greed, and fear of wild predictions.

Over the time since early 2007, U.S. demand for petroleum has fallen by 1 percent and world demand has risen by 1.3 percent. Supplies of crude are so plentiful, according to the Wall Street Journal, “traders of physical crude oil say their market is suffering from too much supply, not too little.”

Iran, for instance, is storing 25 million barrels of heavy, sour crude oil because, in the words of Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, Iran’s oil governor, “there are simply no buyers because the market has more than enough oil.”

Mike Wittner, head of oil research at Societe Generale in London agrees. “There’s various signals out there saying for right now, the markets are well supplied with crude.”

Historically, oil has been afflicted with the control of monopolists. From the late nineteenth century days of John D. Rockefeller, and his Standard Oil monopoly, to the emergence of the “Seven Sisters” oligopoly, made up of Standard Oil, Shell, BP, Texaco, Mobil, Gulf and Socal, to the rise of OPEC representing the major producing countries, the “free market” price of oil has been a mirage. Despite the breakup of the Standard Oil company by the government’s trustbusters about 100 years ago, selling cartels and buying oligopolies kept reasserting themselves.

In an ironic twist, the major price determinant has moved from OPEC (having only 40% of the world production) and the oil companies to the speculators in the commodities markets. What goes on in the essentially unregulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)—without Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enforced margin requirements, and, unlike your personal purchases, untaxed—is now the place that leads to your skyrocketing gasoline bills. OPEC and the Big Oil companies reap the benefits and say that it’s not their doing, but that of the speculators. Gives new meaning to “passing the buck.”

Deborah Fineman, president of Mitchell Supreme Fuel Co. in Orange, New Jersey, summed up the scene: “Energy markets have been dictated for too long by hedge funds and speculators, who artificially manipulate the numbers for their own benefit. The current market isn’t based on the sound principles of supply and demand but it is being rigged by companies and speculators who are jacking up prices for their own greed.”

Harry C. Johnson, former banker who worked for many years inside Big Oil and ran his own small oil company in Oklahoma, blames the CFTC, the Department of Energy, the Administration, and Congress, as “asleep at the switch on an issue that is probably costing U.S. consumers $1 billion per day.”

He cites “some industry experts, who profit greatly from the high price of crude, and have stated openly that the worldwide economic price of crude, absent speculators, would be around $50 to $60 per barrel.

Imagine, our government is letting your price for gasoline and home heating oil be determined by a gambling casino on Wall Street called NYMEX. The people need regulatory protection from speculators and an excess profits tax on Big Oil.

In addition, a sane government would see the present price crises as an opportunity to expand our passenger and freight railroad capacity and technology.

A sane government would drop all subsidies and tax loopholes for Big Oil’s huge profits and other fossil fuels and promote a national mission to solarize our economy to achieve major savings from energy conservation technology, retrofitting buildings, and upgrading efficiency standards for motor vehicles, home appliances, industrial engines and electric generating plants.

Those are the permanent ways to achieve energy independence, reduce our trade deficit, create good jobs that can’t be exported and protect the environmental health of people and nature.

Those are the reforms and advances that a muscular consumer, worker and small business revolt can focus on in the coming weeks.

What say you, America?

Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent.

Wajahat Interviews Ron Paul

Wajahat Ali conducts a very interesting and insightful interview with Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Many of the issues I had heard swirling around Paul were answered in this interview. It's definitely an interesting read.

ALI: What can we do about Iraq? If we cut and run, we will see chaos. Don’t we owe the Iraqi people a moral responsibility to at least establish a modicum of functionality after having decimated them for the past 10 years, including the catastrophic UN sanctions? Or, do you favor staying there for several years? What’s your take on this?

PAUL: Nah, I’d get out of there. We do have a moral responsibility, but it’s the people who perpetuated the war. So, the Halliburtons of the world and all the private groups that made the money and all the Neocons that made the policy, yeah, if you can hold them accountable, they’re the ones who are morally responsible and they should pay. But the average American citizen didn’t do it, and the money isn’t here, and we just further injure our economy and it causes more unemployment and inflation. So, I would say just quit the bleeding literally and figuratively.

So, I would say, “No, come home.” The people who say it’s going to be chaotic if we leave are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk and the oil would pay for everything. Of course back then oil was $27 a barrel and now it’s $127 a barrel or more. I remember the Sixties they told us we couldn’t leave Vietnam because it would be a domino effect, well, it didn’t happen. Vietnam is now capitalistic and they trade with us and we visit there and invest in there. And China is our backer, so it doesn’t always work out the way these people predict. But the whole argument is “ If we leave now, there will be chaos.” What do we have now? I think both countries are a lot worse off than they are telling us. And I think it’s going to get a lot worse.

Read the entire interview

Terrorist Acts Decreasing?

You wouldn't think that if you visited Jihad Watch or any other Islamophobic website. Those websites have these little tickers on the sides of their web pages that mock the motto of many Muslims (and non Muslims) who claim Islam is a religion of peace by citing the now 10,000 plus "terrorists" acts perpetrated by Muslims that have occurred since 9-11. Most of those 10,000 plus "terrorist" acts have occurred in Iraq. As Fareed Zakaria points out, the situation in Iraq is a war zone/occupation and the violence that takes place there is not "terrorism," as it is usually defined. But to ask the radical right to understand something nuanced is like trying to get a dog to speak Chinese.

Jimmy Carter Speaks with Palestinians

Maybe Joe Kaufman will label Jimmy Carter a Hamas "supporter" now, too. Moron.

"The boycott of Hamas after winning a free and fair election in 2006, and subsequent punishment of the people of Gaza, have backfired and the group may be more popular than ever. Polls show that Palestinians voted for Hamas members because of frustration with corruption in the dominant party, Fatah, and because Hamas' humanitarian efforts and good governance of municipalities had helped people educate and provide for their children amidst a crippling occupation. The same polls show that popular support for Hamas in 2006 was not based on support for the group's religious or political ideologies. The international community and Israel should have seized on the opportunity to persuade more Palestinians to participate in the political process, which would have done more to undermine extremist ideologies than the current course."

Read the rest of Carter's Q&A session with Gazans.

Looney Lady on FOX

WTF?

In light of Memorial Day

War Immemorial Day

by Bill Quigley

Memorial Day is not actually a day to pray for U.S. troops who died in action but rather a day set aside by Congress to pray for peace. The 1950 Joint Resolution of Congress which created Memorial Day says: “Requesting the President to issue a proclamation designating May 30, Memorial Day, as a day for a Nation-wide prayer for peace.” (64 Stat.158).

Peace today is a nearly impossible challenge for the United States. The U.S. is far and away the most militarized country in the world and the most aggressive. Unless the U.S. dramatically reduces its emphasis on global military action, there will be many, many more families grieving on future Memorial days.

The U.S. spends over $600 billion annually on our military, more than the rest of the world combined. China, our nearest competitor, spends about one-tenth of what we spend. The U.S. also sells more weapons to other countries than any other nation in the world.

The U.S. has about 700 military bases in 130 countries world-wide and another 6000 bases in the US and our territories, according to Chalmers Johnson in his excellent book NEMESIS: THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC (2007).

The Department of Defense (DOD) reports nearly 1.4 million active duty military personnel today. Over a quarter of a million are in other countries from Iraq and Afghanistan to Europe, North Africa, South Asia and the rest of the Western Hemisphere. The DOD also employs more than 700,000 civilian employees.

The US has used its armed forces abroad over 230 times according to researchers at the Department of the Navy Historical Center. Their publications list over 60 military efforts outside the U.S. since World War II.

Read the rest.

Clinton's Racism

The Revelation of Bill Clinton

by Vijay Prashad

When Bill Clinton ran for the White House in 1992, I was deeply annoyed. He represented so much that we, on the left, despised: the reaction within the ranks of the Democratic Party's elite that wanted to "save" the party from what it saw as the excesses of a combination of the New Left, the already declining trade unions, and, most importantly, the Rainbow cultivated and mobilized by Jesse Jackson's two runs for the presidency (1984 and 1988).

The Democratic Leadership Council, the "left-wing" of the Republican Party, wanted to be able to rely upon the mass base of the unionists and people of color, but it did not want the unions and the civil rights organizations dictating its agenda. Clinton was the DLC in 1992. He was despised by the rank and file trade unionists, most of whom turned out to vote for Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas (who had already left the race) in the Connecticut primary. Brown opposed NAFTA and endorsed the concept of a living wage, both positions anathema to Clinton. Few of us on the left went into that general election, and into the Clinton years, with any illusions.

Indeed, Clinton was true to his word. On "free trade" (NAFTA), Clinton led the way, pushed by the Wall Street moguls who ran his cabinet. His assault on the working-class was brutal, with three bills in particular targeted to hem in the "disposable Americans" from being too rowdy or having any means to social democratic relief; the 1994 Crime Act, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The Crime bill sent more police into the streets of a jobless urban America, and it sent those who should have been in school and in jobs to a vastly expanded penitentiary.

The welfare reform bill threw families to the wolves, breaking down the already modest social welfare system in place that helped, in particular, single mothers. There was no compassionate liberalism for this section of the working class. The Glass-Steagall bill was decimated in cahoots with the repellent Phil Gramm; the walls that separated the divisions of finance, real estate and insurance, and between commercial retail and investment banks crumbled and set the stage for the current banking crisis. The victims here are the working-class, who are going to pay the largest share of the skyrocketing national debt.

Ralph Nader's run for the presidency in 1996 was perhaps his most important gesture, although he did not earn even a million votes. Against the dyspeptic Bob Dole, Clinton had to win (the only primary challenge, briefly, came from the late Bob Casey of Pennsylvania). What protected Clinton were two features: (1) he was an incredibly charismatic person. I saw him in Hartford during his second term, and was surprised by his ability to connect to people even in the superficial way of modern retail politics. (2) the massive attack from the right over his sexual relations with an intern had liberals, and even some on the left, circling the wagons to defend him. The braying of the right was so abhorrent and hypocritical that Clinton gained some measure of forgiveness from those who were otherwise livid with him. It was in this context that Toni Morrison said that he was being treated like a black man: given no quarter, shown no mercy, but treated as guilty as charged without any consideration or process (the O. J. Simpson affair ran from 1994 to 1997, and is the fore-runner of the impeachment proceeding which began in 1998).

But now, finally, Clinton has given us some honesty. He has opened his heart during this primary season, joining Hilary Clinton in pandering to the Old South, the hard-core racist white bloc that was never reconciled to Civil Rights, that continues to blame blacks for the vivisection of their economic fortunes. It is this bloc that handed Hilary Clinton the primaries of Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. Knowing full well that the world has changed, West Virginia's senator, Robert Byrd, hastened to endorse Obama even as his state went to Clinton by 40 percentage points.

Byrd is the arch segregationist [and former KKK member] who filibustered the Civil Rights Act for fourteen hours. The New South, energized by the enfranchised black vote, is in formation, but it has not yet made it to West Virginia and Kentucky (black population is 3.3% and 7% respectively). Bill Clinton strode through these white towns, which have voted Republican in the general election since at least 2000. He used coded racist language, that Obama does not speak for "people like you," and suggested that Obama is defined by his race whereas Hilary Clinton is not. These suggestions played well in the electorate, a substantial number of whom said that they would never vote for a black man. This is Clinton's final legacy: the intensified racism of his policies in office are now openly declared in his gambit against Obama for Hilary Clinton. A man who lied about and then admitted that he had betrayed the trust of a young intern now says that Hilary Clinton has been a victim of "moments of gender bias." Nothing said about his own sexist behavior with women like Paula Jones or his racist and sexist policies while in office.

In the current issue of the "New Yorker," George Packer has a useful article on the shambles that has befallen institutional conservatism. The subtitle of the article asks, "Have the Republicans run out of ideas?" Much the same kind of obituary is necessary for the DLC, which mirrored the Republican idea machine. Packer does not raise this issue. The DLC is equally marooned on ideas that are not so much anachronistic as failures (they were bad ten years ago as well). The Republicans have begun a period of rethinking, but most of their thinkers are allergic to revision. For them it is encore un effort! Much the same for the DLC, whose people are more interested, like Karl Rove, in winning elections than in the importance of governing (Mark Penn is Rove's DLC doppelganger). Will there be new ideas and policies to befit the structural problems that bedevil the world population, or even just the US population? Will Barack Obama revive a mild version of the New Deal, a green capitalism, or will he too become entangled in yesterday's bad ideas? This is not on the table. What we have is the enduring racism of the Clintons and their DLC legacy shaping the next Democratic presidency.

If Obama has done one thing that is already monumental it is that his campaign has brought out vast numbers of black voters, inspired by his presence and his message of hope, and they, in their numbers, have offered both a sterling critique of Diebold and a redemption of the hollowed Voting Rights Act. Their numbers made the difference in the special elections in Louisiana and in Mississippi, and it will make all the difference in the general election. This black voting bloc is a standing rebuke to Clinton's presidency and to the racism of the Clintons. Obama has done this much. What more he can do is to be seen.

Quiet on all fronts: The Media on John McCain

John McCain finally rejected the endorsement of bigot pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

The mainstream media covered the issue like it was covered in the bubonic plague. After most news stations picked up the story early this morning, the story has fallen out of existence on most major media networks. It is doubtful that the controversy surrounding McCain will be aired over and over again like Obama-Wright was.

The double standard issue is rising up when we think back to the Obama-Wright situation. More problematic though was the fact that concern by the media was focused on what the pastors said about Catholicism and Jews and not on Islam and Muslims. A very good strategy was laid out by the McCain campaign though, which decided to reject the endorsement of Hagee-Parsley in the morning and then released a statement about McCain's health from his doctor declaring him fit to serve as Commander-in-Chief later on in the day.

These are trying times for the Muslim American community.

Finkelstein Barred from Entering Israel

I guess it isn't the homeland of the Jewish people.

From Democracy Now!

Israel Arrests Outspoken Academic Norman Finkelstein

And the American academic Norman Finkelstein has been arrested and ordered deported from Israel. Finkelstein arrived in Tel Aviv earlier today on his way to the Occupied Territories. He was immediately detained and told he is banned from Israel for ten years. He’s expected to be deported tomorrow. Finkelstein is known one of the most prominent academic critics of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

The Man Who Could Bridge the Gap

In light of the Syrian-Israeli peace talks, I bring up the idea that there is one man in the world today who could bring peace between the United States and Iran. All it takes is the charisma and tough attitude of a single man.

I present to you the Iron Sheikh...

Diplomacy? Syria and Israel

It's fairly obvious what Israel is looking to accomplish in its negotiations with Syria - get Syria out of its partnership with Iran. They want Hamas officials out of Syria, too, making the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation weaker. Giving up the Golan is a small price to pay.

Syriana: Newly Announced Israel-Syria Peace Talks Run Against Grain of Washington's Anti-Engagement Policy

by Mother Jones Blog

Just a week after President Bush, speaking at Israel's Knesset, likened those who would advocate engagement with "terrorists and radicals" to Nazi appeasers, the governments of Israel and Syria—a close ally of Iran—have announced that official peace talks are underway between their nations, mediated by Turkey. "It is better in this situation to speak rather than to shoot," declared Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert in a statement Wednesday. "This is what the sides agreed."

Noted the Syrian foreign ministry in a similar statement: "Both sides have expressed their desire to conduct the talks in good will and decided to continue dialogue with seriousness to achieve comprehensive peace."

The Bush administration, which was informed of the planned talks by Israel and Turkey, offered reluctant support. "It is our hope that discussions between Israel and Syria will cover all the relevant issues," a State Department official, speaking on background, told Mother Jones. He outlined Washington's outstanding concerns with Syria, including its "support for terrorist groups, facilitation of the passage of foreign fighters into Iraq, and intervention in Lebanon, as well as repression inside Syria. An agreement dealing with these issues would be a true contribution to peace."

While Bush-era Washington has been consumed with ideological debates over whether talking to hostile regimes and militant groups rewards or legitimizes them, a parade of veteran senior Israeli security and diplomatic officials has pushed the case, both in Israel and Washington, that engaging adversaries such as Syria and Hamas could advance their nation's security interests. "The alliance between Syria and Iran is mainly one of convenience," Israel's former foreign ministry director general and Mossad official David Kimche told me in January in a suburban Tel Aviv cafe. "There is no deep connection. And it's worth our while, if we could weaken that link."

Read the rest.

Hardball hits Kevin James in the Face

I learned from this segment of Chris Matthews' Hardball. Matthews may be a sexist, and even a John McCain lover, but he does have some guts once in a while and I'm glad he put this idiot, fake conservative in his place. Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

The Hajj Brings Peace & Moderation, Says Report

This is a common phenomena all over the Muslim world. The Muslims who attend the Hajj, may Allah accept it from them, usually come back with a heightened sense of God consciousness, gratefulness, and inner serenity they usually didn't have before. It's an extremely powerful and moving event in a person's life.

Maybe the Saudis should allow bin Laden into Mecca - it could serve as a form of transformation, kind of like when General Zod went into that Kryptonian chamber in Superman II and came out with the strength of Jimmy the photographer. Maybe not though.

Mecca and moderation

By David Clingingsmith, Asim Ijaz Khwaja and Michael Kremer

For many people in the West, Islam is increasingly associated with violence and terrorism. According to a 2007 survey conducted by the PEW Forum, 45 percent of Americans believe Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions, up from 36 percent in 2005. Close to a third of respondents use negative words like fanatic, radical and terror to describe their impressions of Islam.

Does increased religious orthodoxy promote violence and intolerance? Our research on the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca suggests this association is wrong. The hajj is one of the most important institutions in Islam and a singular experience for many Muslims.

Our recent study of Pakistani pilgrims shows that while performing the hajj leads to greater religious orthodoxy, it also increases pilgrims' desire for peace and tolerance toward others (to read the study, go to http://ssrn.com/abstract=1124213). And this greater tolerance is not just toward fellow Muslims - it also extends to non-Muslims.

These findings echo the experience of Malcolm X, who drastically altered his views on race after performing the hajj. In a letter from the hajj, he wrote: "We were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white ... what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought patterns previously held."

The hajj is an inherently communal and international phenomenon, with over 2 million Muslims from all over the world gathering for several days in intense prayer and rituals. Pilgrims interact with fellow Muslims of different races and ethnicities in a religious context. At the hajj, men and women often pray alongside one another, an entirely new experience for many pilgrims.

Our study isolates the impact of performing the hajj using a method common in medicine. When doctors want to test a new drug, they give it to a randomly selected treatment group and compare their outcomes to a statistically similar control group. While social scientists rarely have the opportunity to use this method, we are able to do so by taking advantage of a randomized lottery for allocating hajj visas in Pakistan. We compare the attitudes of 800 successful lottery applicants, the "treatment" group, to an equal number of unsuccessful ones. The results are incredibly revealing.

Read the rest.

Stuck in the Middle

We have right wing bigots on one side and then we have radical Muslims on the other. It's special, I assume, to be batted around when you're in the middle. "Thus have we made of you an Ummah justly balanced, that you might be witnesses over the nations, and the Apostle a witness over yourselves,"(2:143).


Why CAIR is on the Borderline of Apostasy

Sometimes, we once in a while ask ourselves about how “moderate” can CAIR (Council of American “Islamic” Relations) get. They release statements, time and time again, showing their apologetic attitude and weak faith. Now, in a recent statement regarding the Qur’aan shooting incident, CAIR had this to say; pay attention to what is in bold:

CAIR Welcomes Apology for Quran Shooting by U.S. Soldier in Iraq
Islamic group renews offer of free Qurans for interested Americans of other faiths

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 5/19/08) A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today welcomed an apology from the U.S. military in Iraq after a soldier there was disciplined for shooting a copy of the Quran as target practice.

SEE: US Military: Soldier Shot at Quran for Practice (AP)
SEE: US Soldier Removed from Iraq for Shooting at Quran (AP)
SEE: Video: U.S. Army’s Apology to Iraqis (CNN)
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said it has an ongoing educational project, called “Explore the Quran,” that offers a free copy of the Quran with English translation and historic notes to Americans of other faiths who are interested in reading it.

The “Explore the Quran” project was launched in response to allegations of Quran desecration by U.S. military personnel at the prisons in Guantanamo Bay. CAIR says it hopes the campaign will help fight common misconceptions about Islam’s holy book. Those who wish to request a copy may click here.

CAIR is asking American Muslims to sponsor copies of the Quran to be donated to those who request them. Click here to sponsor a copy of the Quran.

In a statement, CAIR said:

“Because the actions of our men and women in uniform reflect on the U.S. government and people, such incidents contribute to damaging America’s image around the world.

“We repudiate this individual’s hateful act, recognizing it is an isolated incident that does not represent our men and women in uniform, the overwhelming majority of whom serve our nation with honor and respect.

“We commend the U.S. military’s swift investigation and the apology by commanders in Iraq. In an effort to prevent such disturbing incidents from happening again, we call on the military to revisit its cultural training policies.”

Can you believe this nonsense?

These people smell like Nifaaq. How can you call yourself Muslim and associate (al-Walaa’) yourself with the Kaafir American Crusaders by saying “our men and women.” La Howla wala Quwatta Illa Billah; they fight for the sake of the Kaafir Taaghoot and are disbelievers, and Jihaad is fard ‘ayn against them yet you associate yourself with them. Walahi, these people are the quickest to destroy the honor and dignity that this Muslim Ummah is supposed to have. Muslims get attracted to CAIR’s work because it helps Muslims in protecting their rights; and because of this, many Muslims overlook the disgusting Nifaaq coming from CAIR. Do such Muslims honestly think that the “protection of their rights as US citizens” outweighs the evil hypocritical words of CAIR who have clearly broken one of the conditions of Imaan, al-Walaa’ wal Baraa’ah?

What has our Ummah come to?

We love those who have no concept of loving and hating for Allah’s sake, and we hate those who love and hate for the sake of Allah.

Is this what the Qur’aan teaches us?

لا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ يُوَادُّونَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَوْ كَانُوا آبَاءَهُمْ أَوْ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ أَوْ إِخْوَانَهُمْ أَوْ عَشِيرَتَهُمْ أُولَئِكَ كَتَبَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمُ الإيمَانَ وَأَيَّدَهُمْ بِرُوحٍ مِنْهُ وَيُدْخِلُهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهَا الأنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ أُولَئِكَ حِزْبُ اللَّهِ أَلا إِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ

You will not find any people who believe In Allâh and the Last day, making friendship with those who oppose Allâh and his Messenger, even though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred (people). For such He has written faith In their hearts, and strengthened them with Rûh (proofs, light and true guidance) from himself. And we will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to Dwell therein (forever). Allâh is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the party of Allâh. Verily, it is the party of Allâh that will be the successful. (al-Mujaadilah: 22)

Of course, no one has to explain how they have friendship with the enemies of Allah Ta’aala. They love their enemies! They don’t even consider them enemies.

The Palestinians & al-Qaeda

Fatah

"Al-Qaida and bin Laden have caused huge damage to the image of Muslims and Arabs all over the world, and with his frequent statements about the Palestinians he just damages our image," said Nimr Hamad, an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas

Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Hamas would like to see Western influence in the Middle East eradicated. But he cited "a difference in method" between the two groups and said Hamas was focused on the fight with Israel.

"We are with all efforts against the foreign occupation in the area, but we confirm that Hamas' work has always been in Palestinian lands," Abu Zuhri said.

Other Palestinians

Hani al-Masri, a Palestinian analyst in the West Bank, said bin Laden's statements "don't serve the Palestinians in any way."

"Ben Laden is perceived in the world as a terrorist, and any connection to the Palestinians will harm the Palestinians," he said.

But, al-Masri added, if peace talks continue to struggle and produce no real change, Abbas' government could lose support and Palestinians might be more open to al-Qaida's violent ideology.

"If bin Laden and al-Qaida carry out some attacks in Israel, he might gain some popularity here if there is no progress in the peace process," he said.

Read the rest.

Remembering Malcolm

Today is Malcolm X's birthday.

See The Malcolm X Project at Columbia University for more information on the man, the legend.

"Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. Being born here in America doesn't make you an American." - Malcolm X

Words the Muslim American community needs to take to heart and begin to practice if they have not already.

An Interesting Observation from Juan Cole

He had this to say on the recent Qur'an - target practice incident:

The whole US strategy of depending on tribal groups to fight Salafi Jihadis ("al-Qaeda") was endangered when Iraqi officials learned that a US soldier was using the Holy Qur'an for target practice. Sunni Arab tribesmen threatened to stop fighting the radicals. The US in the end handled the matter by holding a ceremony in which American officers apologized for the incident. The offender is being removed from Iraq and will be punished. The incident crystallizes the contradiction in Bush administration policy, between promoting Islamophobia among Americans while attempting to cultivate Muslim allies abroad.

I would add to that my observation of how pathetic our military looks when they have to send an official up on stage for a press conference to apologize to the Iraqis who are temporary allies in the battle in Iraq against the Khawarij al-Qaeda. Our military's success in Iraq is so vulnerable it seems that such an incident could shatter the fragile situation in Iraq that our government has constructed. It's rather pathetic that the world's most powerful military machine is relying on the aid of a rag tag Iraqi army consisting of Sunnis to prevent further violence in Iraq instead of relying on itself.

Book Talk Interviews Noam Chomsky

BOOKTALK.ORG: Can you elaborate upon the process of how the grim US role in Iran in earlier years is excised from history? How is it that reporters, commentators, and officials are all (almost universally in the mainstream and as elected representatives of both parties) unable to address this excised history? Are they all in collusion?

CHOMSKY: The process is quite straightforward, and has even been studied in scholarship. In my book Necessary Illusions, I review some of the sources, the most important being the careful study by Mansour Farhang and William Dorman, The US Press and Iran, reviewing in detail how the media suppressed extreme human rights violations under the US-backed tyrant, the Shah, while suddenly becoming passionate about human rights as soon as he was overthrown and Iran shifted from client to official enemy. That's quite characteristic. Why? A simple and reasonable answer was given by George Orwell in his (unpublished) introduction to Animal Farm. Here he discussed how in free England, unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force, leading to a situation which in this respect, he said, was not entirely unlike that of the totalitarian monstrosity he was satirizing. The primary reason is that the prevailing norms of the intellectual culture instill in the educated classes the understanding that there are certain things "it wouldn't do to say" -- or even to think. I think that if we introspect honestly we can all easily find illustrations.

Read the rest.

Catholics, Muslims to aid cyclone victims

Many Islamic centers around South Florida have teamed up with the Archdiocese of Miami to help the victims in the Myanmar disaster. Obviously it's a great cause to help those in need, even those who we do not share a common faith with. We're all human beings and being in the most powerful nation on Earth we need to live up to our responsibilities to help others.

Donations can also be sent directly to the Archdiocese's Office of Social Advocacy, 9401 Biscayne Blvd., Miami Shores, FL 33161. Envelopes should be marked "Myanmar Aid."

Bin Laden at it again

A very well timed message was dropped by Osama bin Laden today, in light of President Bush's recent trip to Israel. He said he and his band of friends are going to continue their war against Israel. He also said that the Palestinian cause was the most important cause for his organization.

Two observations:

1. When has al-Qaeda ever attacked Israel or anything that could be considered connected to the state of Israel? I don't think they ever have. This is just more pandering for his group since they got their rear ends kicked out of Iraq by the Sunni Awakening movement. First they got kicked out of Sudan, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now I guess they want the Palestinians to make some room for them. Good luck on that.

2. So now the Palestinian cause is al-Qaeda's most important cause? I thought it was the removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia... and then it was the removal of American troops from Iraq... and now it seems since he and his boys can't do either of those two he has to find a new cause he can bless with his holy work. Again, good luck on that.

While the Palestinians may be divided between Fatah and Hamas, and the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem - they are doubtful dumb enough to allow al-Qaeda to interfere with their fight against the occupation. It's not like Fatah and Hamas don't have enough enemies in the world, but if they were to put their arms around al-Qaeda they could kiss any good will by the international community goodbye. Therefore, it's highly, highly doubtful bin Laden will be able to infiltrate the Occupied Territories.

What we really need is a certain terrorist fighting toddler to aid the Palestinians against the Israelis. A good time to send him in would be during the Islamic holy month of "Rodaman."



Family Guy - Osama bin Laden - MyVideo

American Radical - A New Documentary on Norman Finkelstein

Nothing Greater Than This...

... Watching Boston fans worry about one of their teams. By the way, you can put me on record as a hater of every Boston sports franchise there is due to my allegiance to the Yankees, Dolphins and Heat. I sincerely hope that Garnett decides to try and block a dunk by Lebron tonight just so he can get posterized like he did in the last game.

Below is Bill Simmons, the Sports Guy, amusingly describing/imagining Doc Rivers' speech to his team prior to Game 5 tonight.


Doc Rivers and the ugly side of ubuntu

by Bill Simmons

You know how ABC and TNT have been showing clips of pregame speeches before NBA playoff games? Like everyone else, those clips always leave me wanting more. Fortunately, I had a vision while sleeping that allowed me to see Doc Rivers' entire pregame speech before tonight's Game 5 between the Celtics and Cavaliers:

(We see Doc standing in front of his players, all of whom are sitting in front of their lockers and preparing to head out for the game.)

DOC: All right, guys, listen up. I want to go over the game plan so we're clear on everything.

RAY ALLEN: We have a game plan tonight?

DOC: Absolutely! We're trying something different. Tom Thibodeau and I were up late last night trying to come up with a new wrinkle for tonight.

THIBODEAU (confused): Um, we only talked about it for 10 minutes, then you said you had to go because you were taking your wife to "Forgetting Sarah Marshall."

DOC: Well, same thing. Before we get to tonight's plan, I want to apologize to our bench guys for coaching us one way for 82 games, then changing things in the playoffs, yanking everyone around and killing your collective confidence to the point that you're all useless except for Posey. If it makes you feel any better, I did the same thing in 2005 when I blew a series against an undermanned Pacers team that beat us with a washed-up Reggie Miller and Jermaine O'Neal playing with one shoulder. I just can't help myself. I'm a big hockey fan and sometimes I get overexcited during the playoffs and think that we have to change lines every few minutes. Again, I'm sorry.

EDDIE HOUSE (excited): Does that mean we're back to the old rotation?

DOC: Not exactly, Eddie. I know we're something like 61-12 with you as our backup point guard, and I know Sam [Cassell] has been murdering us to the point that one of our owners asked me if he was "The Mole" last week. But let's keep things the way they are for one more game. To be honest, I really enjoy the expression on some of your faces when I don't play you in the first half, then you've checked out of the game mentally and suddenly I'm looking at you and telling you to go in. Let's keep that going as long as we can.

Read the rest.

Nader on Auto Safety

Why can't American automobiles be not just cool looking, but also safe to drive? Why do so many Americans have to rely on foreign companies in order to get piece of mind when they purchase an automobile? The Germans and Japanese are killing us. The bottom line is that their cars are just flat out better than American ones. They're safer, better engineered, and have better designs. The most important thing is safety and Ralph Nader describes below how our government is doing nothing to keep our cars, and us, safe.


You're Either with the American People, or You're with the Big Auto Bosses

by Ralph Nader

Dear President Bush,

You and your White House have been sitting on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) since your arrival in January 2001, thus assuring the giant auto companies that NHTSA-toothless under President Bill Clinton and previous administrations-- continues morphing even further away from the technology-forcing, life- saving regulatory agency it is supposed to be, to an industry consulting firm.

The result has been tens of thousands of American fatalities and serious injuries that could have been prevented had you and President Clinton simply urged NHTSA to follow its statutory obligations, lately under Congressionally mandated deadlines, with readily feasible, practical safety technologies.

Instead, you stacked the deck with your Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, former president and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA). The rest, as they say, “is commentary.”

NHTSA is now set to replace an obsolete motor vehicle roof crush resistance standard that became effective in 1973. You can continue to condemn thousands of Americans to preventable deaths by permitting NHTSA to issue a new, deficient standard, or you can take command and smoke out the corporate lobbyists from Detroit and allow NHTSA to issue FMVSS 216—Roof Crush Resistance at a strength-to-weight (SWR) ratio of at least 4 from the present inadequate standard of 1.5.

Eight models from such companies as Volvo, Saab, Toyota, VW and Honda already meet or exceed the SWR of 4. Note the countries of origin. Note the absence of U.S. manufacturers. The Dodge Ram pickup truck and the Ford F-250 pick-up truck have a SWR down at 1.7.

You may wish to brief yourself about the horrible toll on our country’s highways during the past 35 years due to marshmallow structured roofs. The American fatalities and serious injuries alone total more than the entire number of soldiers you have driven to Iraq, many of whom were deployed without adequate body and Humvee armor.

Then there are the quadriplegics and the paraplegics and the thousands of other human beings left defenseless by an auto safety agency under your command that has been at a standstill for years instead of functioning as a law enforcement branch in the Department of Transportation.

You need to see the visuals. You need to see the pictures of the crushed, the pictures of the vehicles whose roofs displaced the “survival space” of the drivers and passengers. You need to speak to the families of the victims who were on the receiving end of such obstinate, criminal negligence by the auto manufacturers’ executives who will not let their own engineers put in the simple technical fixes year after year.

Remove the corporatists from your White House schedule for a day and invite some of these suffering citizens, their families and champions. Include Senators Mark Pryor and Tom Coburn who will preside over a Senate hearing on this subject in early June.

Keep in mind that even NHTSA, in its industry-indentured cautious fashion, managed to declare the obvious in 2005:

“In sum, the agency believes that there is a relationship between the amount of roof intrusion and the risk of injury to belted occupants in rollover events. But the agency still mimics the resistance of GM, Ford and Chrysler to any dynamic rollover test that safety advocates favor to assure effective compliance.”

A President is not selected or elected to close the doors of state courts to wrongfully injured people who want and need to hold their corporate perpetrators accountable. You must recall your oft-repeated phrase about holding people responsible for their behavior, and actions, with the exception of yourself, and drop your attack on our civil justice system. Therefore, delete the federal pre-emption clause expected in the forthcoming standards that prevent the state judiciaries from hearing product liability suits in this area of vehicle design and construction.

Your legal advisors should point out that in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, there is a specific provision that reads: “Compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.”

Those words were put in the law to prevent just such a federal pre-emption as NHTSA now prepares to facilitate. Twenty-six State Attorneys General opposed pre-emption in a letter to NHTSA back in 2005.

With your invited guests, suggested above, hold a White House news conference. Point to the CEOs in Detroit, and exclaim “Bring ‘em on.” Remember, you’re either with the American people or you’re with the big auto bosses.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent.

Altaf Ali of CAIR-FL Speaks the Truth

Mr. Kaufman has on his web site that Altaf Ali, the executive director of CAIR-South Florida, repeatedly refused to answer a question directed to him on the Steve Kane radio show right after 9-11 where Kane and Kaufman asked Ali if the victims of 9-11 were innocent or not. Kaufman has alleged for years that Ali refused to answer this question. Guess what? He's a liar. The proof is now available and has been since December of 2007 when someone posted the show on the web. I have it linked here on the side of my blog for all who want to hear Ali respond multiple times that the victims of 9-11 were innocent.

Will Kaufman do the right thing and remove from his web site the lie that Ali refused to answer his question? As always with Joe, let's not hold our breath.

Bill-O Goes Nuts

This is just too damn funny. "We'll do it live! F*ckin thing sucks!" Haha. I gotta watch his show tonight and see how he responds to this.

http://antifeds.com/bill-oreilly-goes-absolutely-crazy

Rod Parsley on Islam and America

More on the Israel Lobby

The loathsome smearing of Israel's critics

by Johann Hari

In the US and Britain, there is a campaign to smear anybody who tries to describe the plight of the Palestinian people. It is an attempt to intimidate and silence – and to a large degree, it works. There is nobody these self-appointed spokesmen for Israel will not attack as anti-Jewish: liberal Jews, rabbis, even Holocaust survivors.

My own case isn't especially important, but it illustrates how the wider process of intimidation works. I have worked undercover at both the Finsbury Park mosque and among neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to expose the Jew-hatred there; when I went on the Islam Channel to challenge the anti-Semitism of Islamists, I received a rash of death threats calling me "a Jew-lover", "a Zionist-homo pig" and more.

Ah, but wait. I have also reported from Gaza and the West Bank. Last week, I wrote an article that described how untreated sewage was being pumped from illegal Israeli settlements on to Palestinian land, contaminating their reservoirs. This isn't controversial. It has been documented by Friends of the Earth, and I have seen it with my own eyes.

The response? There was little attempt to dispute the facts I offered. Instead, some of the most high profile "pro-Israel" writers and media monitoring groups – including Honest Reporting and Camera – said I an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh, while Melanie Phillips even linked the stabbing of two Jewish people in North London to articles like mine. Vast numbers of e-mails came flooding in calling for me to be sacked.

Any attempt to describe accurately the situation for Palestinians is met like this. If you recount the pumping of sewage onto Palestinian land, "Honest Reporting" claims you are reviving the anti-Semitic myth of Jews "poisoning the wells." If you interview a woman whose baby died in 2002 because she was detained – in labour – by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint within the West Bank, "Honest Reporting" will say you didn't explain "the real cause": the election of Hamas in, um, 2006. And on, and on.

Read the rest.

Chomsky: 40 Years of Progress

Noam Chomsky on 1968

by Noam Chomsky

Nineteen sixty-eight was one exciting moment in a much larger movement. It spawned a whole range of movements. There wouldn't have been an international global solidarity movement, for instance, without the events of 1968. It was enormous, in terms of human rights, ethnic rights, a concern for the environment, too.

The Pentagon Papers (the 7,000-page, top-secret US government report into the Vietnam War) are proof of this: right after the Tet Offensive, the business world turned against the war, because they thought it was too costly, even though there were proposals within the government - and we know this now - to send in more American troops. Then LBJ announced he wouldn't be sending any more troops to Vietnam.

The Pentagon Papers tell us that, because of the fear of growing unrest in the cities, the government had to end the war - it wasn't sure that it was going to have enough troops to send to Vietnam and enough troops on the domestic front to quell the riots.

One of the most interesting reactions to come out of 1968 was in the first publication of the Trilateral Commission, which believed there was a "crisis of democracy" from too much participation of the masses. In the late 1960s, the masses were supposed to be passive, not entering into the public arena and having their voices heard. When they did, it was called an "excess of democracy" and people feared it put too much pressure on the system. The only group that never expressed its opinions too much was the corporate group, because that was the group whose involvement in politics was acceptable.

The commission called for more moderation in democracy and a return to passivity. It said the "institutions of indoctrination" - schools, churches - were not doing their job, and these had to be harsher.

The more reactionary standard was much harsher in its reaction to the events of 1968, in that it tried to repress democracy, which has succeeded to an extent - but not really, because these social and activist movements have now grown. For example, it was unimaginable in 1968 that there would be an international Solidarity group in 1980.

But democracy is even stronger now than it was in 1968. You have to remember that, during Vietnam, there was no opposition at the beginning of the war. It did develop, but only six years after John F Kennedy attacked South Vietnam and troop casualties were mounting. However, with the Iraq War, opposition was there from the very beginning, before an attack was even initiated. The Iraq War was the first conflict in western history in which an imperialist war was massively protested against before it had even been launched.

There are other differences, too. In 1968, it was way out in the margins of society to even discuss the possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam. Now, every presidential candidate mentions withdrawal from Iraq as a real policy choice.

There is also far greater opposition to oppression now than there was before. For example, the US used routinely to support or initiate military coups in Latin America. But the last time the US supported a military coup was in 2002 in Venezuela, and even then they had to back off very quickly because there was public opposition. They just can't do the kinds of things they used to.

So, I think the impact of 1968 was long-lasting and, overall, positive.

Jewish Students Becoming Anti-Semitic

They could be classified as self hating Jews or anti-Semites. I guess they didn't get the memo describing criticism of Israeli policy as anti-Semitic. Someone should call the ADL.


Brandeis students at odds over Israel

by Hinda Mandell

A student-sponsored effort to recognize the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel has raised questions of identity and association at Brandeis University in Waltham, and appears to be at the heart of a dispute over recent student elections.

Five students cosponsored the resolution to congratulate the Jewish state on its 60th birthday, which Israel will celebrate today. The sponsors say the resolution, brought before the student senate, was intended as nothing more than simple birthday greetings. That it would cause controversy at the nation's only nonsectarian, Jewish-sponsored university caught them by surprise, they said.

"I can see it being controversial in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, but at Brandeis I was shocked," said Andrew Brooks, 21, of New Canaan, Conn., an at-large senator for the class of 2009 and one of the resolution's sponsors.

About half of the Brandeis student body identifies itself as Jewish. Brandeis, which has 3,400 undergraduates, was founded by members of the American-Jewish community in 1948, when there were quotas limiting the number of Jewish students at prestigious universities.

The resolution sparked more than two hours of debate on the senate floor on March 9, leaving some students in tears, according to a senator who was there. Critics questioned whether it was appropriate to have student leadership delve into Middle Eastern politics on a campus that hosts students from 100 countries, some of which oppose Israel's policies.

Such a resolution "shuts people like me up," said Lisa Hanania, 20, a Christian Palestinian-Israeli student from Jaffa, a mixed Arab-Jewish city outside Tel Aviv. "For me it's 60 years of Nakbah - Catastrophe - of the Palestinian people."

"The senate is not the place for a discussion about the State of Israel," said Senator at Large Jessica Blumberg, 21, a junior from New York's Westchester County. "There are people going to Brandeis who are Palestinian refugees."

Following the discussion, student senators voted, 13 to 6, with one abstention, to "postpone indefinitely" a vote on the resolution, effectively killing it.

The resolution commotion heightens an ongoing debate on a campus with diverse views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In January 2007, Brandeis was at the center of international attention when Jimmy Carter spoke there about his book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." The former president was sharply criticized, and his book largely shunned, by Israel supporters. And in May 2006, the university pulled an exhibition of artwork by Palestinian teenagers depicting the Israeli military after complaints that the display was one-sided.

News of the senate vote spread quickly across campus and online, with student reaction varied and heated. The discussion might have faded away but for the effort to establish a new student club. On March 23, the senate approved the charter of Brandeis Students for Justice in Palestine, the first campus club to offer a Palestinian perspective. Hanania and Jewish-Israeli student Noam Shuster, 21, started the organization to bring "a new voice to the campus," said Hanania.

Three senators voted against the club's charter - all were sponsors of the resolution to celebrate Israel's 60th birthday. "The fact that the word 'Israel' is controversial but 'Palestine' is not controversial is mind-boggling to me," said Brooks.

Leonard Sax, director of the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies and the Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis, said it would be a mistake to say recent developments at the student senate are indicative of a trend among Jewish students away from support of Israel.

"In general, there's more support for Israel and more knowledge of Israel than ever before," said Saxe.

The dispute over views regarding Israel may have played a role in student elections on April 17, in which Brooks lost his student senate seat to Shuster.

On April 27, the new class of senators was sworn in - with the exception of Shuster. Before the ceremony, the Union Judiciary, the arm of the Brandeis University Student Union that presides over such disputes, granted Brooks an injunction preventing Shuster from taking office while he appeals the election's results. Brooks is contending that Shuster should have been disqualified because her campaign violated election rules, and that Brooks was a victim of libelous information posted on a student blog, Innermost Parts.

Shuster dismissed the accusations by Brooks. "I don't believe in times of election the right thing to do is to say bad things about other candidates," the freshman said. "I just hope it will be solved this semester so I can start serving my community."

On Saturday, the Union Judiciary held a six-hour hearing on Brooks's complaint. The verdict by the student justices - with their options potentially including ordering a new election, upholding Shuster's victory or reinstating Brooks as senator - is expected by the end of this week.

According to Brandeis spokesman Dennis Nealon, the university's administration does not intervene in contested student elections, resolutions, or club chartering.

"Most of the controversy in the senate is pretty mild, and well designed for the process of learning negotiation, collaboration, and compromise," wrote Nealon in an e-mailed response to the Globe. The university also does not offer a position on Israeli-Palestinian relations, he said.

Kaufman Mentions Me in Press Release, CAIR Watch

I'm flattered, honestly. Joe Kaufman mentioned me in a press release saying "CAIR-Florida Communications Director Omer Subhani has also said that Hamas is not a terrorist group." He has also added my profile to his other web site, CAIR Watch.

I stand by that statement with a few caveats. I have mentioned many times on my blog that I do not think Hamas is "just" a terrorist organization. Do they commit terrorism? Absolutely, I have never denied that, in fact, I have lamented that fact because for all the good Hamas does for the Palestinian people much of that good is soured by such violence. Violence has brought the Palestinians nothing as well as being completely against Islamic teachings.

If Joe thinks that by me saying I do not think Hamas is a terrorist group that somehow implies I support Hamas then Joe is off his rocker. I don't support Hamas, for religious as well as ideological reasons (their ideology, not mine). But I do support the Palestinians' right to a state of their own, right next to Israel. Something that Joe does not support and which demonstrates his unabashed hatred for Palestinians and his inability to be a fair arbiter for justice and peace, let alone his hatred for anything that is Muslim. I could care less if the group leading the Palestinians was made up of animists as long as they were about bringing peace through the two state settlement.

Lastly, thank you Joe for the free advertising. I couldn't have asked for a nicer favor.

More on Joe Kaufman

Joe Kaufman responded to my request, but not with the sort of answer you might expect. Instead he shied away from the requests I made of him, namely to condemn Rabbi Meir Kahane because of his opinion that Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, to condemn Baruch Goldstein's murder of Palestinians in 1994, and to voice his support for the two state settlement that has been the international consensus for forty years. His silence on these issues speaks volumes.

What did Kaufman actually say? Not much, really. Kaufman threatened me with a lawsuit and said he has no ties to Jewish extremist groups overseas. This was his full response:

Mr. Subhani, you and others take a chance by doing this. While I understand that I am a public figure, I have every right to take legal action against those that spread such serious false accusations as you and others have against me. You print lies and exaggerations against me, as if they were fact, not opinion. For someone that’s going to law school, as you have stated on your blog, you should know better. I have NEVER been tied to nor have I ever supported any extremist group in Israel. I have NEVER been affiliated with Meir Kahane, a man that was murdered in the first Al-Qaeda-related attack in the U.S. I wrote an article about him -- about the only thing you got correct. There were NEVER any web links to Kahane Chai on any web site that I have ever been affiliated with. Subhani, you should speak to a lawyer, before you print this again -- I have saved all of what you have written already -- and you better be sure that you can back up ALL of what you have said with proof.

Kaufman is correct though. He never did have web links to Kahane Chai on his old web site, he had web links to Kahane.org and HinduUnity.org.

Kahane.org was reported to have links to Kahane Chai back in 2003. Kaufman removed those web links after CAIR exposed him for being a hypocrite - claiming to be a fighter against terrorism, while he supported a man whose political party was dubbed a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States. What are these web sites about? Kahane.org is a web site dedicated to the late Rabbi Meir Kahane who advocated the expulsion of Palestinians not just from Israel, but also from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem; the three territories that the international community has agreed to make the homeland for the Palestinians. Kahane though disagreed with such a strategy for the Palestinians, instead he advocated the following:

I know that elections must be limited only to those who understand that the Arabs are the deadly enemy of the Jewish state, who would bring on us a slow Auschwitz -- not with gas, but with knives and hatchets. I know that only those groups which accept the following program should be allowed to run for office:

To finish the Arab war against Israel with every means at our disposal and an end to the immoral and sick "pity" for them; to remove the Arabs from the Land once and for all; to annex Judea-Samaria-Gaza and make them part of the Jewish State; to radically overhaul the bankrupt education of Israel by infusing our children with Judaism and true nationalism; to cleanse Israel radio and television of the mad and dangerous leftists who, daily, destroy us from within.

This is the man Joe Kaufman eulogized. A man who viewed the Palestinians as less than human and as creatures who should be expelled from the land that their ancestors lived upon. A man whose political party was banned by Israel because of its devout racism and Jewish extremism. That's the first blunder by Kaufman, saying he was never affiliated with Kahane. What does having someone's web link on your web site mean, if not affiliation? Does it mean support for Kahane and his views then? Kaufman, you said quite clearly that you have never "been tied to nor have I ever supported any extremist group in Israel." If you have a web link to Kahane.org on your web site then what does that mean exactly? That's not affiliation or support? Maybe Kaufman can enlighten us.

Kaufman also had a link to a web site called HinduUnity.org. What is this web site about? It's almost the exact copy of Kahane.org except it's for extremist Hindus who want to expel Muslims from India. You can imagine why then HinduUnity.org has a web link to Kahane.org on its front page. What do the folks at HinduUnity.org advocate as far as Muslims in India go? They tell visitors clearly on their frequently asked questions page:

We believe that they all should have taken advantage of the 1947 partition. All muslims should go back to Pakistan and Bangladesh where I am sure they will be welcomed. Muslims who wish to stay back in India should behave themselves and not ask for special privilegedes. They should also realize that Bharat is a Hindu nation where Hindu rules and regulations apply. We believe that no political seats should be held by muslims in India as there is not a single Hindu who holds a seat in Pakistan and any other muslim nation. Why should India oblige and appease muslims in this manner? No reason.

It's quite childish to not capitalize the word "Muslim," but looking forward to a day where they can one day kick out all Muslims from India or force them under Hindu laws is beyond comprehension. It's even more remarkable that Kaufman would have a web link to such a web site on his own web site. It tells us a lot about his views on Islam and Muslims.

So, the condemnations are in order again, but will Kaufman condemn Kahane and Goldstein? Will he state openly his support for peace between Israelis and Palestinians through a two state solution or will he side with extremists like Kahane who could only envision a Jewish state where all Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed? Let's not hold our collective breath.

Finally, if Kaufman can find anything inaccurate in this post I will be more than happy to correct it. But again, let us not hold our breath.

NBC News: Dumb, Dumb, Duuuuumb!

This is the epitome of getting ripped to shreds. Eric Boehlert at Media Matters takes NBC and MSNBC to task for not allowing Arianna Huffington on their networks to promote her new book and for failing to address the whole Pentagon military analyst scandal. Let's just use our common sense here. If we were a news network and we were conducting a story on a possible scandal at McDonald's then wouldn't it be a bit curious to use a retired McDonald's executive to floss their opinion on the scandal? Isn't there a conflict of interest there? Well, it seems NBC/MSNBC saw no such conflict and proceeded to allow these military "experts" air time to pump up the Pentagon's grand strategy in Iraq.


NBC News' bad week: Russert, Williams, and Huffington

by Eric Boehlert

Progressive author and Internet powerhouse Arianna Huffington has appeared on MSNBC more than 30 times over the last 12 months, offering up her combative opinions on current events. The tally probably would have been double that if the stretched-too-thin writer and editor had accepted all the channel's requests that flood her office.

So when Huffington set out late last month to promote her new book, MSNBC seemed like an obvious first stop. In fact, producers had already been in touch, asking about Huffington's availability during her book push. And I hear an informal memo circulated within MSNBC detailing the order in which Huffington would appear on the various MSNBC news programs in coming weeks.

But then suddenly, the doors were slammed shut and Huffington's camp was told thanks, but no thanks; it was an across-the-board shutout from both MSNBC and its big brother, NBC.

Huffington told me she was surprised by the snub, considering she's had such good working relationships with the MSNBC programs for years.

The channel's spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, emailed to inform me that Huffington "was never booked on MSNBC," and that "[a]t NBC News, we receive countless books from authors and publishers, in hopes that they get on our air. Some of them do, many of them do not. This one did not."

Read the rest.

Helping Women Around the World

Maybe someone can inform the "intellectual trend-setters of the feminist movement" about Amnesty International's campaign to raise funds to end violence against women in 36 different countries. This is part of AI's Stop Violence Against Women Campaign. I'm sure Spencer and Horowitz know all about this and will be requesting their readers to head over to AI's web site to make a charitable donation for a worthy cause.

Amerabia: Racism Galore

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. just wrote a piece yesterday for the Washington Times discussing the threat of "Islamists" to the United States. Let's go through his article:

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. - Even Americans knowledgeable about Europe's growing accommodation to the totalitarian ideology known alternatively as Islamism, jihadism or Islamofascism tend smugly to believe the same thing can't happen here. Think again.

Every day, new evidence appears of similar acts of submission — the Islamists call it "dhimmitude" — on the part of the U.S. government, judges, the press and leading corporations. Eurabia, meet the United States of Amerabia.

The terms "Eurabia" and "Amerabia" are just down right stupid and inaccurate terms. First, there is an assumed connection that all the people migrating to Europe and the United States are Arabs. In the United States the two largest Muslim ethnic groups are African Americans and South Asians. Second, the terms portray Muslim migration to the West being politically or religiously motivated. Muslims migrate to the U.S. for the same reasons every other group of immgrants migrates to the U.S. - for economics. Muslims make up less than 2% of the U.S. population and are diverse ethnically. The U.S Muslim population has no shot in hell of dominating anything in this country, unless it's gas stations and cab drivers. Lastly, "Islamists" have never been known to use the term "dhimmitude," as far as I know. It's fairly obvious which group of people use that term.

On May 4, an ominous alarm was sounded in a Pajamas Media column by Youssef Ibrahim, a former New York Times reporter. Mr. Ibrahim is an astute critic of the Islamists' steady, tireless and increasingly effective efforts to impose — on Muslims and non-Muslims alike — the repressive theo-political-legal agenda they call Shariah law. He warned that "In the very real war on terror, a noisy squabble over 'fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here' clouds a simple truth: namely, that 'they' are here already. Indeed, Islamists are busy constructing a wing of jihad in America's backyard."

Problem: only "Islamists" want to impose "Shariah law," apparently. Now, if someone wanted to do that here in the United States, that's another story (it would be tantamount to treason I believe). But, let us say that in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is politically popular among the masses, the Egyptian people decide to base their legal system according to Islamic law - does that make all Egyptians "Islamists?" Shariah is considered Muslim religious law and it covers many aspects of life. The obvious direction of this thinking is to disconnect Muslims from their sacred law in order to avoid being labeled "Islamists."

Among the most worrisome of the "they" now operating inside the U.S. are various front organizations systematically established by the Islamist organization known as the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood. During last year's federal trial of the Holy Land Foundation on terrorism-financing charges, the government introduced into evidence the names of many scores of such Ikhwan fronts. Identified also as unindicted co-conspirators were virtually every one of the most prominent Muslim-American organizations, including notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

And through the use of inference we can deduce that most American Muslims then are Ikhwan members since "virtually every one of the most prominent Muslim-American organizations" are "Ikhwan fronts."

Prosecutors also presented what amounts to a mission statement. According to a memorandum by the group in 1991: "The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process, with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers."

To be clear, this is not the agenda of all Muslims, certainly not all American Muslims. Yet, we cannot safely ignore the fact that Muslim Brotherhood followers are among those who do have such a goal — let alone allow our "hands" to contribute to its realization.

Writing about this Brotherhood manifesto in the Dallas Morning News last September, columnist Rod Dreher observed: "The entire 18-page platform outlines a plan for the long haul. It prescribes the Muslim Brotherhood's comprehensive plan to set down roots in civil society. It begins by both founding and taking control of American Muslim organizations, for the sake of unifying and educating the U.S. Muslim community — this to prepare it for the establishment of a global Islamic state governed by Shariah."

Notice the allegation that "virtually every one of the most prominent Muslim-American organizations" are "Ikhwan fronts," and then Gaffney's attempt to distance himself from being viewed as a blatant alarmist and bigot by saying "this is not the agenda of all Muslims, certainly not all American Muslims." Oh sure, it's just that every major American Muslim organization was founded and run by extremists, but don't worry, Iqbal, your neighbor, he's just fine. He just happens to send money to all of those "Ikhwan fronts" and attends their conferences each year with his family. But don't worry when he tells you he's going to the ISNA conference in Columbus, Ohio this year - everything is just dandy!

Unfortunately, in the last 17 years, the Ikhwan has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Groups like CAIR, ISNA and MPAC made great strides in what Mr. Ibrahim calls "the common task [of] instill[ing] the notion among Arab-Americans or European immigrant communities of Muslim countries that they are not part of secular multicultural societies." Brotherhood fronts have also penetrated and exercised enormous influence over U.S. government agencies responsible for understanding and countering the Islamist threat.

Notice again, it's about Arabs - not all Muslims. Or it is assumed that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are Arabs. Maybe that's a good thing for African American and South Asian Muslims (bad joke).

Space limitations preclude more than a handful of examples: The FBI allows CAIR to provide "sensitivity training" for its agents. U.S. intelligence actively recruits at ISNA and other Ikhwan front conferences. One of ISNA's highly placed admirers, Pentagon deputy chief Gordon England's consigliere Hisham Islam, was allowed to purge the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Islamist expert, Steven Coughlin, for warning against such practices.

Most recently, two key federal agencies — the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security — encouraged American officials to eschew, when describing our enemies, use of such terms as jihadist, mujahideen, Islamic terrorist, Islamist, holy warrior and Islamofascism. According to an Associated Press report, the government is supposed instead to "use the terms 'violent extremist' or 'terrorist.' Both are widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy."(Evidently, President Bush has not gotten the word as he used what Andy McCarthy calls the "J-word" in his press conference last week.)

Do U.S. intelligence officers hang out at "Club ISNA?" What do they promise in return to the recruits they gather - rishtas?

This astounding act of dhimmitude confirms Steve Coughlin's thesis: The enemy has so thoroughly gotten inside our decision-making as to preclude us from understanding his true nature and threat doctrine. By affording the Ikhwan such an opportunity, we have rendered this country, as a practical matter, incapable of countering our Islamist foes abroad — let alone here at home.

Did Robert Spencer write this article?

Fortunately, a courageous legislator, Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina, has come forward to challenge the emerging Amerabia. She has unveiled a 10-point program that calls for, among other things: investigations of Ikhwan penetrations of our prison and military chaplain corps; an inquiry into the legitimacy of CAIR's tax-exempt status; corrective actions with respect to numerous ill-advised policies vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia; and addressing the seditious nature of Islamist threats to our government and people.

How about Myrick investigate how the White House illegally invaded two countries and approved torture in Guantanamo?

For her exemplary leadership and determination to resist national dhimmitude, this column recognizes Mrs. Myrick with its coveted "Horatius (or, for the first time Horatia) at the Bridge" award, for her willingness — like the legendary Roman — to take on singlehandedly the enemy hordes and try to save her country.

We hope she will add others to her list, and secure the broadest possible support for her efforts.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Gaffney is a leading neo-conservative, by the way. Maybe his brief bio should mention that.

Calling on Joey Kaufman: Please Condemn the Following

Joe Kaufman chimed in on my blog just now. He says that his affiliations to extremist groups is unfounded, a distortion. This is what he said exactly:

In the interest of discrediting my work, Omer Subhani has repeated a lie against me that his organization CAIR created years ago -- that I am somehow tied to extremist groups in Israel. This has never been the case. Period.

He said this in reply to my assertions that he has ties to Jewish extremist groups over in Israel and that he has ties to the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, the racist and rabid anti-Arab. Yes, Joe, it was CAIR, the PLO, Hakeem Olajuwon, Siraj Wahaj, and others who slipped into your bedroom many years ago to place web links to Kahane Chai on your web site when you were running for the House of Representatives. It was a grand conspiracy by American Muslims to make you say it would be a good idea to nuke Damascus, too. Right, Joe?

Now would be a good time for you, Joe, to condemn Rabbi Kahane outright. You have not backed away from allegations that you wrote an article in praise of him in January 2001. Kahane's political party was banned in Israel and his followers are known to be some of the most cruel and racist human beings on Earth. Condemn Kahane, Joe. Condemn Baruch Goldstein, one of Kahane's followers, and his murder of innocent Palestinians in 1994, Joe. And please make sure to inform everyone how you support the two state solution with the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem for the Palestinians, and Israel in a state of its own along the 1967 borders. This has been the international consensus for some time now, Joe, tell us all how you support it and how you support a homeland for the Palestinians adjacent to Israel with full sovereignty.

I'll be looking forward to your response.

Iranians in Iraq: What About the Americans?

It becomes fun to read news reports from the mainstream media to see the ways in which they miss what is most obvious. It takes a massive level of indoctrination and in other cases, arrogance, to figure that another nation is "interfering" in a country that our nation has illegally occupied. But don't put it past Robert Spencer to get that. It's not his fault that he believes every word that comes from our government - except of course when it has to do with building good relations between the West and the Muslim world, then of course aspects of our government are in "meltdown," as he described the State Department initiative to stop the use of certain terms in order not to give legitimacy to the jihadis of the world.

Just take the example below, from the New York Times, whom Spencer quotes and believes without question. I mean, you could imagine his reaction if the Times reported that the Iranians were actually training the Iraqis in break dancing. It wouldn't matter if it was a U.S. official cited as the source, Spencer just wouldn't believe it. President Bush could literally hold an evening press conference telling the entire world there is no threat from Iran - they're justing teaching the Iraqis how to dance like they do in You Got Served. Spencer would be beside himself in anger, proclaiming to the world that Bush and the rest of our government was in "meltdown" and that our nation was ignoring the threat of Islamic jihadists/radicals/extremists. I think there is indoctrination at very deep levels, but with people like Spencer, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and others like them it doesn't matter who the source is unless the information conforms to their world view, which is that Muslims are pests and need to be ground into oblivion.

There has been debate among experts about the extent to which Iran is responsible for instability in Iraq. But President Bush and other American officials, in public castigations of Iran, have said that Iran has been consistently meddlesome in Iraq and that the Iranians have long sought to arm and train Iraqi militias, which the American military has called “special groups.”

Oh, but you know, those 150,000 American troops - they've been nothing but angels. I guess "experts" have already assessed the extent to which America "is responsible for instability in Iraq," since you know, we invaded them illegally and occupy them illegally currently. But of course, we can't discuss that, because we might be called lunatics and shunned aside as anti-American haters and Ikhwan collaborators.

Hanafis, Malikis, Hanbalis... and Wahhabis?

There's a pitifully low intellectual knowledge of Islam and its history in the West. I would say most people who have attended a couple of ALIM or Deen Intensive programs would likely have greater knowledge of Islam and its many aspects than most media pundits and government officials.

The reason I say this is due to what I read on a daily basis. The example below should demonstrate why I feel the way I do.

An Elaboration on Sunnis, Shiites

About the explanation given for the disagreement between the two major branches of Islam (Action Line, April 23), the majority of scholars have a different opinion, in that this division was more spiritual than political.

Faithful Shiites admit only to the authority of Mohammed and the Twelve Imams who comprise Ali (the prophet's son-in-law) and Hussein (Ali's son) and certain of their direct descendants. The Shiites consider the Twelve to be mediators between God and man. Though the Twelfth and last Imam went into hiding in A.D. 940, Shiites believe that he will re-emerge to rule the world. Until then, the Shiite clergy are responsible for interpreting Islam.

While they honor Ali, the Sunnis don't venerate their imams as divine intercessors. Sunni imams mainly conduct community prayers. Each Sunni (from Sunna, ''the tradition of the Prophet'') believes he can have a direct relationship with God. Within Sunni Islam, there are four schools of thought: Hanafi (the largest of the four schools), Maliki, Hanbali and the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia.

-- J. Jardines, via e-mail

Yea, that's problematic. I wrote a response to the Miami Herald in order to clarify the inaccuracy:

In a recent post about the differences between Sunnis and Shias, J. Jardines wrote the following: “Within Sunni Islam, there are four schools of thought: Hanafi (the largest of the four schools), Maliki, Hanbali and the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia.” http://www.miamiherald.com/actionline/story/517123.html

Actually, the four schools are named after their founders, all originating within the first two centuries of Islamic history. The first was the Hanafi school named after Abu Hanifa. The second was the Maliki school named after Malik ibn Anas. The third was the Shafi’i school named after Muhammad ibn Idrees al-Shafi’i. The last was the Hanbali school named after Ahmed ibn Hanbal. While these legal schools differ on certain points they are essentially in agreement on most important legal issues and all four are considered by Sunni Muslims as equally orthodox.

The Wahhabi sect originated in eastern Arabia in the mid eighteenth century under a man named Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. The sect he founded is not limited to legal issues, as the four orthodox Sunni schools of law above are. Instead, the Wahhabi sect differs from orthodox Sunni practices on a number of important issues, Islamic law being chief among them, but also including theological issues. The Wahhabi sect gained predominance in Arabia in the twentieth century and has become the foundational influence for the Saudi Kingdom since then.

Some Saudi Arabian citizens would argue that they are actually followers of the Hanbali legal school, and not the Wahhabi school of legal tradition. The majority of Sunni scholars though look at the Wahhabi sect with disdain because of its hard line tendencies and rejection of much of the collected wisdom of Sunni orthodoxy.

Welcome to the Club, Air Marshals!

The worst thing about this story: planes going up into the air with no one on board to protect the passengers. The funniest thing about this story: an air marshal could end up at Guantanamo. Oh yea, the "war on terrorism" is going just fine, folks.


Air marshals grounded in list mix-ups

by Audrey Hudson

False identifications based on a terrorist no-fly list have for years prevented some federal air marshals from boarding flights they are assigned to protect, according to officials with the agency, which is finally taking steps to address the problem.

Federal Air Marshals (FAMs) familiar with the situation say the mix-ups, in which marshals are mistaken for terrorism suspects who share the same names, have gone on for years — just as they have for thousands of members of the traveling public.

One air marshal said it has been "a major problem, where guys are denied boarding by the airline."

"In some cases, planes have departed without any coverage because the airline employees were adamant they would not fly," said the air marshal, who asked not to be named because the job requires anonymity. "I've seen guys actually being denied boarding."

A second air marshal said one agent "has been getting harassed for six years because his exact name is on the no-fly list."

Read the rest.

Going After Charities - Sounds Familiar

All those Palestinians who pray are definitely suspect - there is no doubt about it. Ushering little girls to go pray is definitely a sign of an "Islamic bent." The Israelis seem to know that the prayers of the oppressed have no barrier between them and God, so it's essential that such charities be shut down in order to keep Palestinians in their place. We wouldn't want them to start thinking they're human beings.

Also, notice the explicit acknowledgment of Hamas' social work in the Occupied Territories. Further, notice how Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip was deemed violent; never mind that Fatah was being fed arms by the United States in order overthrow Hamas in the first place.


Israel Moves to Shutter West Bank Charity it Links to Hamas

by Diaa Hadid

HEBRON, West Bank -- To Nayfa Shatat, the widowed mother of 11, Hebron's biggest Islamic charity is a lifeline: It schools her daughters and helps feed her family.

To Israel, the Islamic Charitable Association is a front for the Islamic militant group Hamas, promoting the movement's violent ideology in its schools and funding extremist activity against Israel.

Early Wednesday, Israeli soldiers raided a sewing workshop run by the association, seizing sewing machines and bolts of cloth, witnesses said. The army said the workshop was used to raise money for militants.

While the association denies any links with Hamas, the military says it plans to close all the charity's operations, which include a boarding school for 600 disadvantaged children, several day schools and a bakery.

It's part of an intensified crackdown on Hamas by Israel and the West Bank government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas violently seized control of the Gaza Strip from Abbas' forces last June, and neither Israel nor Abbas want to see a repeat in the West Bank.

In recent months, Israeli troops and Abbas' security forces have gone after West Bank charities, moneychangers, women's cooperatives and media outlets with suspected ties to the militants.

However, closing the Hebron association is more delicate because it serves thousands of children.

A closure would deny services to the poor at a time when Abbas' government is not always able to pay for an alternative. Hamas has built a network of schools, clinics and welfare offices over two decades, deepening its roots in Palestinian society as a key provider of social services.

Read the rest.