Seymour Hersh on how the U.S. is secretly terrorizing Iran and making the world a more dangerous place

Uhm...

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

...yea.

Further, more troubling issues lay on th horizon:

Admiral Cosgriff’s caution was well founded: within a week, the Pentagon acknowledged that it could not positively identify the Iranian boats as the source of the ominous radio transmission, and press reports suggested that it had instead come from a prankster long known for sending fake messages in the region. Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S. didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.

Not good.

Read the rest.

Pitts on the Obama Muslim Issue

Great article by Mr. Pitts.


Obama must confront Muslim issue

by Leonard Pitts, Jr.

It is not difficult to understand why Barack Obama has a fear of scarves.

In the 17 months he's been pursuing the presidency, the senator has faced a crude and shameless campaign from conservative pundits, GOP functionaries and assorted ignoramuses in the peanut gallery to prove him a secret Muslim -- a ''Manchurian candidate,'' as one put it -- trained from birth to subvert America from within and, I don't know, make us all eat falafels or something.

On about a half-second of intelligent reflection, the flaw in that theory is apparent: If unfriendly forces had indeed inserted a secret Muslim among us, said Muslim would have blonde hair, blue eyes, flag pins out the wazoo and a name like Joe Smith. Too bad intelligent reflection is a stranger to the people in question. With a grim fanaticism, they seize upon every perceived crumb of Obama's ''Muslim-ness'' to press their case, using everything from his middle name to his disdain for the cheap patriotism of the American flag lapel pin to a photo of him wearing native dress on a trip to Somalia.

So it's easy to see why workers for his campaign barred two women wearing hijabs, Muslim head scarves, from sitting behind him, within range of TV cameras, at a June 16 rally in Detroit. When someone is throwing at you, you don't hand him rocks.

But that doesn't make what the workers did right.

Yes, Obama apologized profusely. Good for him. It would be easier to take the apology seriously, though, if: a) somewhere in the last year of manifold denials that he is a Muslim, Obama had found the time, space or guts to point out that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim, particularly in a nation that enshrined religious freedom in its founding documents; b) he hadn't spent so much time treating the American Muslim community as one does the carrier of a contagious disease.

Indeed, as The New York Times reported last week, members of that community are feeling well and truly snubbed by Obama, who has visited a number of churches and synagogues, but has yet to find his way to a single mosque.

Again, the politics of this are no mystery. Obama has spent the last year and a half being pilloried as the Other, representative of something so alien and strange to American values that even greeting his wife with a simple fist bump is fodder for a week of commentary.

He is required to walk an unprecedented political tightrope, to be one part John F. Kennedy, one part Jackie Robinson. More, he is required to prove his American-ness like no other candidate before him. Pictures of him speaking in a mosque would not, putting it mildly, be helpful.

But see, the thing that has made Obama a phenomenon is this sense that he Gets It, that he won't play the same old games by the same old rules. He comes across as a man brave enough to reason and to expect that voters will do the same, a man brave enough to treat intelligent adults like intelligent adults.

His campaign, more than most, is an implicit promise to never put that which is politic above that which is right.

This standoffishness toward American Muslims is a denial of all those things.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, that community was poised for assimilation, poised to submerge itself in the American mainstream like the Jews, Irish and Italians before them. The actions of a handful of their co-religionists on that fateful day wrecked that trajectory beyond recognition and unleashed something base and ugly in the American character.

Muslims were snatched from the threshold of acceptance, painted once again as the alien and vaguely threatening Other. Can you imagine how that must feel? It is galling and painful to see yourself reduced to a caricature based on someone else's fears.

And Barack Obama should know that better than most.

Foxman slammed by Klein

Joe Klein of Time Magazine has been exchanging letters with ADL head Abraham Foxman. As I have mentioned before here, unconditional pro-Israel support within the Jewish American community continues to dwindle. That probably makes ranting and raving lunatic blog stalkers all the more worried and angry. You know who you are, blog stalker.

Here's Klein's response to Foxman:

Dear Mr. Foxman,

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my position. First of all, I have never said that Jewish neocons were the primary reason we went to war in Iraq. The reason we went to war was that George Bush was foolish and uninformed, and his primary advisors were even more foolishly bellicose. But Jewish neoconservatives certainly played a subsidiary role in providing an intellectual rationale for the war. In a 2003 column, I called their arguments "the casus belli that dare not speak its name." The notion of a "benign domino theory"--benign, that is, for the interests of Israel—was certainly abroad in the community during that time. I had several off the record conversations with prominent Jewish conservatives who cited it. And there is now, in my opinion, an even more dangerous tendency among Jewish neoconservatives to encourage a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear program. Their gleeful, intellectual warmongering—given the vast dangers and complexities of an attack on Iran--is nauseating.

You write: "There can be no question that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, legitimate and serious American security and foreign policy interests played a critical role in President Bush's decision to attack Iraq." Well, I question it. And so do a fairly thick slice of the diplomatic, intelligence and military communities, who believe that Iraq was a tragic, costly and, above all, bloody diversion from the battle against those who actually attacked us on September 11.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by your claim of antisemitism. But that's what you do for a living, isn't it? I find your "outrage" particularly galling because the people you defend are constantly spewing canards against those who favor talking to the Palestinians, or who don't favor witless bellicosity when it comes to Iran. Their campaign of defamation has cost people jobs, damaged reputations and careers. I am very tired of having reasonable people accused of being "soft on terrorism" or "unpatriotic" or favoring "surrender"--Joe Lieberman's favorite—by Jewish neoconservatives who seem to have a neurotic need to prove their toughness. They, and you, should know that most Jews disagree with their politics and many Jews are disgusted with their behavior. They, and you, should know that the tendency to "cry wolf" about antisemitism does real harm to the Jewish community—indeed, in this case, it is laughable.

Best Wishes,

Joe Klein

Ouch.

AIPAC: Lincoln Diaz-Balart in tight race

From a blog on the Miami Herald:

AIPAC's Insider, a political tipsheet for members of the pro-Israel American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, lists Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart as among the "Highly Vulnerable" in its look at House races.

The write-up notes that Diaz-Balart has not had a competitive race since winning his first term in 1992, but that this cycle "he will face a formidable challenge from former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez." The newsletter notes that Democrats believe Martinez "can chip away at Diaz-Balart's base and make this a competitive race."

It says that Diaz-Balart has "begun aggressively raising the resources necessary to defend his seat" and that national Republicans "are confident (he'll) withstand Martinez's challenge while Democrats believe they have finally found a candidate with the financial resources and community network needed to oust the eight-term incumbent.

"With both parties gearing up to compete in this district, voters in South Florida can expect a November general election much like their weather...hot!"

AIPAC spokesman Josh Block said the Insider -- which is sent to AIPAC members and doesn't appear to be available online -- is part of its outreach effort to keep its members informed. The group has no political action committee, doesn't make political contributions or endorse candidates, he said, "but of course we encourage our members to be involved politically."

Blog Update

I'm thinking of updating my blog only once a week. It's getting congested. I think I'll post up two-three items at the beginning or middle of the week and then let it be. I think this will be the best way to go considering I'll have even less time on my hands once I begin classes in August.

Anyway, the Heat got Beasley - thank God. I'm happy.

On False Scholars

This is applicable to the "experts" running around on television and at the White House today.


Scholars of Falsehood
by Imam Al-Ghazali


What I mean by the learned men of the world or the scholars of falsehood is that his object of learning is to live in ease and comforts and to get honour and prestige from the people. They are slaves to evil habits. The devil is powerful over the majority among them and various kinds of sins misguide them. Almost every one among them is engrossed in the luxuries of this world and its comforts and enjoyments.
For this reason, the majority of them consider good as bad and bad as good. They duped the people to believe that there is no other science than that of fiqh (jurisprudence) or munazara (debates). The Prophet peace and blessings of Allah upon him) had called them as most wicked among the people. Beware then of being deceived by the ambiguities of these teachers of falsehood.
Their evil influence upon religion is greater than that of Satan, because through their aid does he arrive at removing religion from the hearts of men. The Prophet peace and blessings of Allah upon him) said, "At the end of time there will be ignorant worshippers and corrupt learned men." (Hakim).

You can identify them by many of their typical traits among them are:

One of their traits is that they create an environment of fanaticism for the truth and regard with contempt and scorn all non-conformists.
This they do for the lust of glory and fame. For prestige requires a following and nothing attracts a following better than bigotry, cursing and vilifying of opponents. They have adopted fanaticism as their rule of conduct and their method of approach. They call this intolerance, defence of religion and a protection for the Muslims, while in fact it results in nothing but destruction of all people and in the firm establishment of innovation in their minds.

One of their sign is that they involve themselves in polemics and wrangling to gain repute and prestige. They feign that they are striving after the principles of religion without making the slightest effort towards the science of religion.
The wicked learned man is like a rock that has fallen into the source of a stream. It neither absolves any water itself, nor permits it to flow out and reach the plants. The wicked learned man is also like pipes which come out of a garden full of stinking smell as it has got graves of dead men. Its outer part is cultivated but its inner part is full of dead men's bones. You need not fear the Devil but beware of men who have relieved the Devil of the task of tempting and misleading people. They have a reputation of an Alim among laymen as they could not distinguish true knowledge from that which is false. This is because of their unawareness of the acts of Sahaba.

You find their tongues sweeter than honey but their hearts are darker than night.

They will urge people to abjure [reject or abandon] this world while they themselves renounce it not; they place fear of Allah in the hearts of men while they themselves fear Him not; they forbid men to seek the favour of those in authority while they themselves carry favour with them.
The Prophet peace and blessings of Allah upon him) said,
"The worst learned men frequent the house of rulers while the best rulers frequent the houses of learned men.", (Ibn Maja). Saeed Ibn ul Musayyab (rahmatullah aleihi) said, "If you see a learned man frequent the houses of rulers, beware of him because he is a thief."

Sufyan Thauri (rahmatullah aleihi) said, "If you see a learned man, who has many friends you may be sure he is charlatan and a faker, because if he would speak the truth, those friends would hate him."

They engage themselves in learning Kalam and Munazara to achieve fame and glory and leave that for which Allah has sent the Prophets. One sage said, "I have seen scholars who only used to teach one another piety."

They prefer this world to the Hereafter. Umar (radi Allahu tala anhu) said, "If you see the learned man cherishing this world, then entrust not your religion into his hands because everyone is captivated by what he loves."


The article is taken from Ihyâ ul Ulûm ad-Dîn by Imam Al-Ghazali.

"Expert" on Islamic Law

That would be Stephen Coughlin, who I have discussed before. His bio at the International Assessment and Strategy Center says he is "Often cited as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law." He's the guy who didn't have his contract renewed by the Defense Department, by the way. Statements like these taken from his masters "thesis" show his deep understanding of Islam and Islamic law:

While it is certainly true that Hanbalis have ibn Taymiya, ibn Wahhab, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, it should not be forgotten that the Hanafis have Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salam Faraj, Eaman al-Zawahiri, the Muslim Brotherhood (the Ikhwan), the Islamic Jihad and both Egypt and Pakistan. While Hanbalis only number in the low tens of millions (primarily from Saudi Arabia), Hanafis number in the hundreds of millions.

Sayyid Qutb was a Hanafi? Faraj and Zawahiri, too? And even the Ikhwan, Islamic Jihad and Egypt?!? They're all Hanafis? News to me... and probably to the Ikhwan also.

The Israelis are smart

Peace with Gaza? No problem fixing that problem. Let's go ahead and kill some Islamic Jihad officials in the West Bank to tick off their boys in Gaza. Maybe that will get them to do something stupid. Lo and behold, it worked. Don't these Islamist groups in the Occupied Territories know how Israel plays the game by now? Why do they let themselves get provoked into breaking the truce? Man, their incompetence is unbelievable.

Notice in this article how far down you have to go to find out why Islamic Jihad fired those rockets. Let's look at the chronology of all this:

1. Hamas and other Palestinian groups agree to true with Israel.

2. Israel kills Islamic Jihad officials in the West Bank.

3. Islamic Jihad in Gaza fires rockets in retaliation.

4. Israel declares Palestinians have violated truce.

Very smart.

Gonzo's Legacy

Now that he's gone, maybe us brown/progressive folks can get a job in the government again.

From CBS News:

"In 2006, under Gonzales' watch, political party and ideology were the chief criteria for getting highly-coveted entry-level jobs in the department, reports CBS' Stephanie Lambidakis. Two former top officials, Mike Elston and Esther Slater McDonald, are accused of outright misconduct for violating civil service laws that ban discrimination, according to the audit.

Elston and McDonald scoured Google and MySpace to screen top Harvard, Yale and Stanford graduates for their political leanings.

For example, Lambidakis points out, three candidates were rejected as "leftists" because they belonged to Greenpeace and anti-poverty groups and a top Harvard law school graduate was flagged for being a member of the Council on American Islamic Relations. One Justice Department official even wondered in an e-mail whether striking another highly qualified Harvard graduate who worked for Planned Parenthood "could be perceived as politically motivated."

The report issued Tuesday concluded that politics and ideology disqualified a significant number of newly graduated lawyers and summer interns seeking coveted Justice jobs in 2006."

Read the rest.

Ishmael Reed on Obama, Blacks and Whites

The Big Let Down

by Ishmael Reed

It’s obvious by now that Barack Obama is treating black Americans like one treats a demented uncle, brought out from his room to be ridiculed and scolded before company from time to time, the old Clinton Sistah Souljah strategy borrowed from Clinton’s first presidential campaign when he traveled the country criticizing the personal morality of blacks and wooing white voters by objecting to what he considered anti -white lyrics sung by rapper Sistah Souljah.

As in Clinton’s case, Obama’s June 14th finger wagging at black men was a case of pandering to white conservative voters. This follows a pattern of using public perceptions of black men fanned by the media and Hollywood to win political favor. Bush One and his sleazy cohorts won votes by depicting black men as dangerous. After the Willie Horton ad, featuring a black rapist, was aired, support for Bush soared to 20% among southern white males, according to Willie Brown, former San Francisco mayor. Obama, by depicting them as irresponsible, saw his poll numbers climb to a 15% lead over McCain, according to a Newsweek poll. With his speech, he received a bounce in the polls that was denied to him after he gained the democrat nomination. He also enjoyed the bounce in the polls from Pennsylvania and Ohio.

According to pundits, the reason he lost these states during the primary was because he couldn’t bowl His Father’s Day speech was meant to show white conservative males that he wouldn’t cater to “special interests” groups, blacks in this case. This was the consensus of those who appeared on MSNBC and other opinion venues of the segregated media on 6/16/2008 even the progressive ones. (Segregated? Not quite. The two percent of African Americans who support Bush all seem to have jobs as pundits, columnists and Op-eders). Michael A. Cohen, writing in The New York Times, June 15, 2008, acknowledging Mr. Obama’s Sister Souljah moment wrote “Indeed, just yesterday, Barack Obama had his own mini- “Souljah moment” as he decried the epidemic of fatherlessness and illegitimacy among black Americans. While it is a message that Mr. Obama has voiced before to other black audiences, speaking unpleasant truths about issues afflicting the black community may provide political benefit for a candidate whom some working-class white voters are suspicious of — just as it did for Clinton 16 years ago. ” ( When is Cohen going to air “unpleasant truths about issues afflicting” his community?).

The talking heads also concluded that Obama’s speech before a black congregation in which he scolded black men for being lousy fathers and missing in action from single parent households and being boys, etc. , was cleary aimed at those white male Reagan democrats, who, apparently, in Obama and the media’s eyes, provide the gold standard for fatherhood, which fails to explain why there are millions of destitute white women, “ displaced housewives”and their children whose poverty results from divorce, or why, according to one study, 90% of middle class white women have been battered , or have witnessed their mothers sisters, or daughters being battered. A smug John Harwood of The New York Times said that Obama was telling black men to “shape up. ” As long as men of Mr. Harwood’s class dominate the avenues of expression, who’s going to tell white men to “shape up?”Judging from my reading American men of all races, ethnic groups and classes need to shape up when it comes to the treatment of women.

Read the rest.

Obama vs Muslim Americans

Muslim Americans need to become more politically astute. They will still vote overwhelmingly for Obama despite his AIPAC pandering and ignoring them every opportunity so far. That's besides his positions on Iraq, Iran, health care, Cuba, etc. The only thing special about him is that he's a mixed race lying presidential candidate instead of your typical white lying presidential candidate. The problem is not the candidate though because it's the system they emerge from that is the real problem. It wouldn't matter if you had a Muslim presidential candidate emerge from this system - they would still be corrupt. Until the system is fixed - i.e. we have a real democracy - nothing will change in terms of the types of candidates we have to vote for.


Muslim Voters detect a Snub from Obama

by Andrea Elliot of the New York Times

As Senator Barack Obama courted voters in Iowa last December, Representative Keith Ellison, the country’s first Muslim congressman, stepped forward eagerly to help.

Mr. Ellison believed that Mr. Obama’s message of unity resonated deeply with American Muslims. He volunteered to speak on Mr. Obama’s behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, one of the nation’s oldest Muslim enclaves. But before the rally could take place, aides to Mr. Obama asked Mr. Ellison to cancel the trip because it might stir controversy. Another aide appeared at Mr. Ellison’s Washington office to explain.

“I will never forget the quote,” Mr. Ellison said, leaning forward in his chair as he recalled the aide’s words. “He said, ‘We have a very tightly wrapped message.’ ”

When Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign, Muslim Americans from California to Virginia responded with enthusiasm, seeing him as a long-awaited champion of civil liberties, religious tolerance and diplomacy in foreign affairs. But more than a year later, many say, he has not returned their embrace.

While the senator has visited churches and synagogues, he has yet to appear at a single mosque. Muslim and Arab-American organizations have tried repeatedly to arrange meetings with Mr. Obama, but officials with those groups say their invitations — unlike those of their Jewish and Christian counterparts — have been ignored. Last week, two Muslim women wearing head scarves were barred by campaign volunteers from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit.

In interviews, Muslim political and civic leaders said they understood that their support for Mr. Obama could be a problem for him at a time when some Americans are deeply suspicious of Muslims. Yet those leaders nonetheless expressed disappointment and even anger at the distance that Mr. Obama has kept from them.

“This is the ‘hope campaign,’ this is the ‘change campaign,’ ” said Mr. Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota. Muslims are frustrated, he added, that “they have not been fully engaged in it.”

Read the rest.

Hip Hop and Islam

Thanks to Wajahat Ali for this great article.

The dominance of Muslims in hip-hop came about because of the linkages between 5 Percenters, NOI followers, and music. Islam’s success in this area was also aided by the black church’s antagonistic relationship with hip-hop.

Describing the clergy’s ham-handed approach to the music, Banjoko told me, “Reverend Calvin Butts used to ride over CDs with a steamroller. Whereas the Nation, and Minister Farrakhan especially, was having dinner with Ice Cube, Ice T, Sister Souljah, and Chuck D. He was engaging these effective black minds that were connected to young minds. But the Christians really hurt themselves by trying to demonise hip hop. Because they were attacking the most impoverished, and most socially, politically and economically denied people. So the youth heart hardened against the churches.”¹⁷

The Nation of Islam under Minister Farrakhan took a very different approach, embracing the power of music. Farrakhan was a totem for many first- and second-generation rappers. Public mis-steps removed him from national screens, but his presence is still strong in the hip-hop nation. During a major “beef” between 50 Cent and Ja Rule, it was Farrakhan who sat with them on live radio to bring a truce. Talking about this approach, Manning Marable said, “The Nation of Islam has understood for decades that black culture is directly related to black politics. To transform an oppressed community’s political behavior, one must first begin with the reconstruction of both cultural and civic imagination… The reluctance of the black bourgeoisie to come to terms with the music its own children listen to compromises its ability to advance a meaningful political agenda reflecting what the masses of our people see and feel in their daily lives.”¹⁸ Sounding a note of the true believer, Banjoko added, “What would Jesus Do? Would Jesus try to ban Ice Cube? I don’t think so. I know Prophet Muhammed would embrace Ice Cube and help him be a better man. That’s the prophetic tradition!”¹⁹

^{Read the rest.}

Fighting Pornography

Americans doing good things to help solve the problems within American society - and not claiming to be the "intellectual trend-setters of the feminist movement" while doing so.

As a side note, my wife and I were discussing how cursing was being allowed on cable television recently (if you hadn't noticed). I said that soft porn would start making its way on to cable TV within a few years also and that hard core porn would begin to be available on cable television within the next 20 years. That's a prediction I hope doesn't turn out to be true, but I based that estimation upon what I've been seeing on cable TV. After reading the article I recommend you all visit the web site below for more information.

Penn, Porn and Me

by Gail Dines

Everyone who has ever worked as an activist in progressive organizations fighting gender, racial and economic inequality, has had the experience of seeing their words and ideas twisted by mainstream corporate media. This is what happened to me on Penn and Teller: Bullshit! that is airing all this week on Showtime. And one thing in particular I have learned for sure, after many years of being an anti-porn activist, is that men get very upset when they think you want to take their porn away.

I have seen a lot of upset men, but few get close to the level of rage Penn exhibited on the show. As he yelled and screamed into the camera, I thought he was going to have a stroke. He was especially upset with me for suggesting that mainstream porn, which is increasingly cruel and degrading, has a real effect on the men who use it.

The interesting part of this story is not Penn’s out-of-control anger, but the way the show framed the story on porn. As was expected, the producers used the topic as an excuse to show lots of porn; a quick and cheap way to pull in the audience. But the porn they showed was the soft core kind that is mainly girl-on-girl sex, the type that is not the main moneymaker for the industry.

The porn that makes most of the money for the industry is actually the gonzo, body-punishing variety that shows women’s bodies being physically stretched to the limit, humiliated and degraded. Even porn industry people commented in a recent article in Adult Video News, that gonzo porn is taking its toll on the women, and the turnover is high because they can’t stand the brutal acts on the body for very long.

While I doubt that Penn is any stranger to this type of porn, I know for sure that the lead producer is aware of it. In preparation for the show, he spent several hours with me as I carefully explained the different genres of porn, and he also came to one of my lectures, where he saw in clear and sharp focus just what happens to women in the industry. He himself expressed shock and anger as we talked, yet when it came down to it, he ended up just like the rest of media producers: cowardly and untruthful. The story they told about soft-core porn is only part of the story, as what really needs to be explained is why men are, according to the industry, seeking out harder and harder porn.

I initially declined to do the show, as I had no faith in Penn and Teller doing anything that remotely looked like serious journalism. In the end I agreed because they promised to give me some serious time to talk about porn. They also promised not to edit me to look like a fool. They kept their first promise and reneged on the second. They introduced the three anti-porn activists as the “Three Stooges”, setting us up as idiots before we had said a word. Of course, every time one of us said anything, they cut back to some soft porn and Penn, who was at times having a hysterical fit. It was both scary and comical, his red face contorted with rage as he yelled at the camera that porn doesn’t cause men to be violent!

The producers saved the best for last, when they talked about the lack of research on effects, and they edited my words down to: “there are no good studies.” This was a perfect ending for the show as it granted them the final word. The only problem is that the whole thing was a set up. The producer had asked me about studies showing a direct link between porn and rape. While there are no studies that show direct causation, I had told him about a wealth of research on the impact of porn on men’s attitudes and behavior.

So of course the media gets the last word, and us activists have to take the crumbs that they throw our way, and let me tell you, they don’t get any more crummy that Penn and Teller.

Gail Dines is a professor of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College. She is a founding member of Stop Porn Culture and co-producer of the slide show Who Wants to be a Porn Star? For a copy of the show, please email Stoppornculture@gmail.com

Heat: They Need Beasley

ESPNs Chad Ford lists Michael Beasley going to the Miami Heat at the second pick of the first round in his latest mock draft. I couldn't be happier if he is right. He mentions that a source close to Pat Riley has said that Riles is secretly hoping the Bulls will pass pass on Beasley and take Derrick Rose with the first pick allowing Beasley to fall to the Heat at number two.

"One source close to the process says Pat Riley thinks Rose is a bad fit in the backcourt with Dwyane Wade, because drafting Rose would give Miami two athletic slashers who (a) are subpar shooters and (b) would have to try to share the ball. That source insists the Heat are bluffing about their interest in Rose in the hopes that Beasley falls to them at No. 2."

Add to that it would be a very small back court with Rose coming in at roughly 6'1 and Wade not much taller at 6'4. But the thing I have been telling my nay saying friends has been that Beasley is what Riles has always coveted: a big man. And Beasley is not some run of the mill big man. This kid is a monster athletically. He may not be that big, but he could end up being one of the most athletic big men to ever play. He's also exactly what the Heat are missing. He rebounds, he attacks the basket and will allow Wade (and Marion) greater access to the hoop.

Besides the Jordan Bulls, every team that has won the championship has had a dominant big man: the Spurs had Duncan, the Lakers and Heat had Shaq (albeit a less than stellar Shaq for Miami), the Pistons had the two Wallaces, and the Celtics had KG. Basketball is a simple game, folks. If you're taller than your opponent then it makes it a lot easier for you to score, rebound, pass, etc. Making lay ups as a big man is easier than hitting jump shots as a point guard.

It's a no brainer. I hope Riles hits the jackpot again like he did with Wade. And if you haven't seen Beasley perform then take a look below. He's a freak of nature.

Again, they hate us because of our freedoms

It's not our foreign policy or torturing innocent people. It's all because we're so cool and hip, and those loser terrorists just can't stand it. Yea, that's what it is.

Democracy Now! reports:

Retired General Antonio Taguba who led the US army’s investigation into the Abu Ghraib abuses has accused the Bush administration of “a systematic regime of torture” and war crimes. Taguba’s accusations appear in the preface to a new report released by Physicians for Human Rights. The report uses medical evidence to confirm first-hand accounts of eleven former prisoners who endured torture by US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay.

Taguba writes “there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

Read the rest.

KG Interview

After winning the NBA Championship last night, Kevin Garnet was interviewed by ABC's Michele Tafoya and asked how he felt about reaching the pinnacle of his professional career. What came after that opening question from Tafoya made me realize that KG is quite likely the weirdest guy in the NBA. He was mostly unintelligible for much of the interview, but his blaring out "ANYTHINGS POSSSIIIIIIBBLLLLEEEEE!!!" will remain in my mind one of the funniest interviews in sports history. See below:

Say it ain't so, O(bama)

I think he's in a catch-22. Muslims like him, but if he likes them back he gets accused of being a Manchurian candidate. Sucks to be him.

Obama campaign apologizes for excluding women in hijab at Detroit rally

by Gregg Krupa and Gordon Trowbridge

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign apologized Wednesday for asking Muslim women not to stand or sit behind the candidate at a rally in Detroit this week out of concerns about the appearance of traditional Muslim dress in published and broadcast visuals of the events.

The incident is one of a series involving the use of Islam as a symbol throughout the presidential campaign, and Obama has been dogged by false assertions that he is Muslim.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign," spokesman Bill Burton said. "It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run. We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers." Obama's campaign also pointed to a number of published and broadcast images that include women in hijab, a traditional Muslim head scarf intended to signify and promote modesty, as part of the faith.

Read the rest.

On Iran's nuclear ambitions

"Wherever U.S forces go, nuclear weapons go with them or can be made to follow in short order. The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy." - Martin van Creveld, Sharon on the war path: Is Israel planning on attacking Iran?, August 21, 2004.

He added the following on a potential Iranian attack against Israel: "For all their talk of opposition to Israel, Iran's rulers are very unlikely to mount a nuclear attack on a country that is widely believed to have what it takes to wipe them off the map. Chemical or other attacks are also unlikely, given the meager results that may be expected and the retaliation that would almost certainly follow." In other words, it would be suicidal for Iran to attack Israel, as any sane and rational person knows.

Creveld is one of Israel's top military historians.

They hate us because of our freedom

Of course they do!

"Soldiers, guards or interrogators at the U.S. bases at Bagram or Kandahar in Afghanistan had abused many of the detainees, and they arrived at Guantánamo enraged at America."

Read the rest.

Congress: Iraq must bow to Israel

I guess it wasn't humiliating enough to invade and occupy Iraq, or to make it sign a contract which would effectively destroy any real sovereignty over it's own nation, but my US Congress is now demanding that Iraq recognize Israel's right to exist and hold diplomatic relations with the Arab friendly Israelis.

Barf.

Bill Presses Iraq to Recognize Israel

by Nathan Guttman

To the many challenges facing the fledgling Iraqi government, Congress may soon add this: Recognize the State of Israel and establish diplomatic ties with Jerusalem, or else risk losing some of the billions in aid that Baghdad receives from the United States.

A nonbinding resolution demanding Iraqi recognition of Israel was introduced June 5 in the House of Representatives and has already gained the support of more than 60 congressmen, including several leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee.

The resolution puts Congress far out in front of the Israeli government and the White House, both of which to date have refrained from raising the issue. An Israeli source said that while Jerusalem expects every United Nations member state to recognize Israel’s right to exist and would like to have full diplomatic ties with all Arab states, the issue of Iraq “was not on the agenda” at present.

Congressional involvement in establishing Iraqi-Israeli ties came about in large part through serendipity. Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat and a strong supporter of Israel, joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a visit last month to mark the country’s 60th anniversary. The congressional group left Israel for a day trip to Iraq, at the end of which it returned to Tel Aviv from Baghdad.

“As we got on the C-130 taking us back, we were advised we’d need to land in Amman, Jordan, touch down and then take off again to Israel,” Hastings told the Forward after returning to Washington.

The reason for the brief landing was diplomatic: Iraq, like most other Arab countries, does not allow direct flights to Israel.

“This offended me deeply,” Hastings said, adding that he had encountered a similar problem in the past, when traveling to Libya from Israel.

Upon returning to the United States, the Florida congressman drafted a resolution calling on Iraq to change its stance toward Israel, starting with official recognition of the Jewish state.

“Although the United States has provided Iraq with almost $50 billion in security and economic assistance to date, none of which has been repaid, the government of Iraq refuses to recognize the existence of Israel, the most reliable ally of the United States in the Middle East region,” the introduced resolution states. The resolution also calls on the White House to “use its influence to persuade Iraq and other countries with which the United States has diplomatic relations to recognize the right of Israel to exist and to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.”

They should add: "And although the United States illegally invaded, attacked, and occupied Iraq, breaking every conceivable regulation in the UN Charter, and although millions of Iraqis have been internally as well as externally displaced, and although thousands upon thousands of Iraqis have been killed due to America's invasion of Iraq, and although America continues to illegally occupy Iraq against the expressed wishes of the Iraqi people, and although American leaders have attempted to hoodwink Iraqi officials into signing their own death sentence through a deal that would permanently allow the United States to retain control over 50 military basis in Iraq, their air space, their foreign policy, and would allow all Americans to be immune from Iraqi laws, we, the US Congress, think you Iraqis have the ability to join civilization and could be as magnanimous, just, and democratic as us."

Read the rest.

Obama is a Hawk

I think it's because he's black. Maybe that, and that he keeps saying he's going to change things. That's why people like him. Because he's black and he says he's going to bring change. I think the black issue is connected because he is not white, meaning he's not going to be like other white candidates. Maybe it's just that he's black and that's different so that means things will be different. But people fail to notice that it wouldn't matter if he was Chinese or Latvian. If he made it this far there's a reason - it's because he sold his soul to the DNC to do what those above him in power want him to do - carry out the policies of those in power who allowed him to be where he is today. The black and change stuff is fluff, but it's the fluff that the people buy in to. The people can't seem to see beyond the fluff, or simply don't want to. His own words tell you all you need to know about this amazing black candidate who will bring change.


In the Great Tradition, Obama is a Hawk

by John Pilger

In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.

The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. Actually, it just seems new. Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating what can only be described as bullshit on a grand scale. Race, gender, appearance, body language, rictal spouses and offspring, even bursts of tragic grandeur, are all subsumed by marketing and "image-making", now magnified by "virtual" technology. Thanks to an undemocratic electoral college system (or, in Bush's case, tampered voting machines) only those who both control and obey the system can win. This has been the case since the truly historic and exciting victory of Harry Truman, the liberal Democrat said to be a humble man of the people, who went on to show how tough he was by obliterating two cities with the atomic bomb.

Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game. For example, since I compared Obama with Robert Kennedy in these pages, he has made two important statements, the implications of which have not been allowed to intrude on the celebrations. The first was at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the Zionist lobby, which, as Ian Williams has pointed out, "will get you accused of anti-Semitism if you quote its own website about its power". Obama had already offered his genuflection, but on 4 June went further. He promised to support an "undivided Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city.

His second statement, largely ignored, was made in Miami on 23 May. Speaking to the expatriate Cuban community - which over the years has faithfully produced terrorists, assassins and drug runners for US administrations - Obama promised to continue a 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year.

Again, Obama went further than Bush. He said the United States had "lost Latin America". He described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as a "vacuum" to be filled. He raised the nonsense of Iranian influence in Latin America, and he endorsed Colombia's "right to strike terrorists who seek safe-havens across its borders". Translated, this means the "right" of a regime, whose president and leading politicians are linked to death squads, to invade its neighbours on behalf of Washington. He also endorsed the so-called Merida Initiative, which Amnesty International and others have condemned as the US bringing the "Colombian solution" to Mexico. He did not stop there. "We must press further south as well," he said. Not even Bush has said that.

It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged.

www.johnpilger.com

Wajahat Ali interviews Noam Chomsky

ALI: Your critics, and there are many, state your rhetoric and ideologies belie a broken record – an endless litany and screed of repetitive assaults against the U.S., its foreign policy, and its military actions. How do you respond to critics who insist your painting of U.S. foreign policy is both simplistic and cynical? Is the U.S. truly an evil empire? Can we not point to instances where U.S. intervention or aid was truly selfless and altruistic as per the ideals of the Constitution?

CHOMSKY: The kind of criticisms to which you refer are leveled against dissidents in just about every society in history, and are therefore rightly ignored. If critics have arguments and evidence, I am glad to look at them, in this domain or others. When they simply produce tantrums, of the kind to which you refer, we can dismiss the performances as another illustration of what the founder of realist international relations theory, Hans Morgenthau, called “our conformist subservience to those in power,” referring to American (in fact Western) intellectuals, always with a margin of exceptions. I do not respond to the charge that I describe the U.S. as an “evil empire” because the charge is an infantile fabrication by desperate apologists for state power. In fact, I repeatedly stress that the U.S. is very much like other systems of power. True, that stance that is intolerable to nationalists, who insist on U.S. “exceptionalism” – as do the political leadership and the intellectual classes in other powerful states, past and present, quite commonly. As for genuine “selfless and altruistic” intervention, it is very hard to find examples in the historical record, as scholarship has reviewed, though of course virtually every intervention is depicted in such terms by the perpetrators, even the worst monsters. The picture is more ambiguous with regard to aid, but not all that different, when we look closely, again close to a historical universal, as I have discussed.

Read the rest.

Aziz Ansari

The dude is gonna be on a show that's a spin off of The Office. Guy is pretty funny. That's it from me until Monday. I just bought a Wii so I'll be playing home run derby until I fall asleep Sunday night.

The Daily Show on AIPAC

Kobe Bryant: Not Clutch

John Hollinger over at ESPN recently wrote a column on the 50 greatest NBA Finals performances in history. Number one was Dwayne Wade's performance in the 2006 NBA Finals. I'm not going to toot Wade's horn here, although I'd like to, but my point is that Kobe Bryant, for all the pub he has received over the years, never did what Wade had done. And of course he will likely never do what Jordan did (win 6 championships). Mark Jackson kept referring to Kobe as "the greatest player on the planet" last night, as he was calling the game for ABC. The greatest player on the planet doesn't go 6-19 from the field for only 17 points when his team is faced with a nearly insurmountable 3-1 series hole.

I was telling myself as I watched the game last night that if Kobe does not go buck in the second half the Lakers will lose this game. I felt the supporting cast, especially Lamar Odom, had burned all their fuel in the first half. Lo and behold, the important third quarter, where the Celtics have dominated, was again Boston's display of heart and grit - and talent. The Lakers and Kobe watched their lead disappear - as did the entire country. Boston's defense, especially Paul Pierce's on Kobe, set the tempo for the rest of the second half. The Lakers scored only 33 points in the second half. They scored 35 in the first quarter alone. That tells you what won the game for Boston.

Back to Kobe. Like I said above, I felt Kobe had to start hitting shots if the Lakers were going to hang on and pull the game out. He didn't. In fact, he choked. There, I said it. Kobe is a choker. Yes, he has had his moments where he's hit buzzer beaters. He even won Game 3 pretty much on his own. But that's exactly what you expect Kobe to do. You expect him to average around 34 points a game - like Wade did in '06. You expect him not only to recognize that "oh crap, if we lose this game then we're toast," but that he'll deliver when the stakes get higher. The stakes were higher last night. Much more than Game 3. If the Lakers won last night they would be looking at a tied series with two days off and a shot to go up 3-2 in the series with another home game. But Kobe choked. He had to take over the game last night, he just had to. But no - the greatest player on the planet - failed to show up and deliver.

When we think of Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird - we don't ever remember them being stopped or held below their capabilities. It was unimaginable because it just didn't happen. Do you remember Jordan ever not coming through in the NBA Finals? Even Wade - all through the playoffs in 2006 - was unstoppable. The Mavericks that year knew they just had to swarm Wade or force him to take tough shots. But he still hit. Kobe, on the other hand, has lost a lot of mystique in these NBA Finals.

The label as the greatest player on the planet is simply unfitting for someone who just can't seem to dominate when it matters most. He has been consistently beaten on both ends of the court by Pierce. Pierce, although he himself had a terrible game in Game 3, has been clutch through much of this series. The key play last night wasn't Sasha Vujacic letting Ray Allen walk to the basket, but when Pierce drew a foul on Kobe before that. He baited Kobe to come close and then he drove by him, fake grimmacing as he went right by Kobe's weak defense. The foul was called and Pierce went to the line. That ended the Lakers' chances right there.

I think in the end this Finals won't be remembered as much for the Celtics winning the championship, but more for how Paul Pierce outplayed the greatest player on the planet. I rooted for Kobe. I wanted the guy to win. But as a fan I wanted to see greatness. I wanted to see Kobe be Kobe. Instead, he looks like he has always looked. He looks like he could have been the greatest player on the planet.

Iran, Iraq and the NYT

Another Norman I like.


Deadly Diplomacy

by Norman Solomon

With 223 days left in his presidency, George W. Bush laid more flagstones along a path to war on Iran. There was the usual declaration that "all options are on the table" -- and, just as ominously, much talk of diplomacy.

Three times on Wednesday, the Associated Press reports, Bush "called a diplomatic solution ‘my first choice,’ implying there are others. He said ‘we’ll give diplomacy a chance to work,’ meaning it might not."

That’s how Bush talks when he’s grooving along in his Orwellian comfort zone, eager to order a military attack.

"We seek peace," Bush said in the State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. "We strive for peace."

In that speech, less than two months before the invasion of Iraq began, Bush foreshadowed the climax of his administration’s diplomatic pantomime. "The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq’s ongoing defiance of the world," the president said. "Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi’s legal -- Iraq’s illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."

A week after that drum roll, Colin Powell made his now-infamous presentation to the U.N. Security Council. At the time, it served as ideal "diplomacy" for war -- filled with authoritative charges and riddled with deceptions.

We should never forget the raptures of media praise for Powell’s crucial mendacity. A key bellwether was the New York Times.

The front page of the Times had been plying administration lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for a long time. Now the newspaper’s editorial stance, ostensibly antiwar, swooned into line -- rejoicing that "Mr. Powell’s presentation was all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein’s regime."

The Times editorialized that Powell "presented the United Nations and a global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have." By sending Powell to address the Security Council, the Times claimed, President Bush "showed a wise concern for international opinion."

Read the rest.

Saudi Textbooks

What else would you expect from the Saudis? Here are the major issues as outlined in the article:

- The authors of a 12th-grade text on Koranic interpretation state that apostates (those who convert from Islam), adulterers and people who murder Muslims can be permissibly killed.

- The authors of a 12th-grade text on monotheism write that "(m)ajor polytheism makes blood and wealth permissible," meaning that a Muslim can take with impunity the life and property of someone believed guilty of polytheism. According to the panel, the strict Saudi interpretation of polytheism includes Shiite and Sufi Muslims as well as Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists.

- A social studies text offers the view that Jews were responsible for the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims: "The cause of the discord: The Jews conspired against Islam and its people. A sly, wicked person who sinfully and deceitfully professed Islam infiltrated (the Muslims)."

OK, so let's go through this real quick:

1. Are the Saudis telling kids in America it would be perfectly OK to kill those three groups of people here in America? If so, the textbook needs a bit of revising, to say the least. Now, in Saudi Arabia that may be OK, but they better make sure to tell the students that when you live in someone else's country you can't just go around killing people for things that could be subject to the death penalty in a country where Shari'a is implemented. That's a big no-no.

2. That's just the Saudis being Saudis! Seriously though, this echoes of what the Wahhabis did in Arabia before the Ottomans put them in check. Anyone who is not them is a polytheist basically. Again, this needs major revision because it's completely against orthodox Sunni teachings. But it's a Saudi textbook so of course it will not be in line with orthodox Sunni practices.

3. Well, Jews were not responsible for the Sunni-Shi'ite split. Muslims were, unfortunately. I remember reading about a Jewish man who supposedly manipulated some Muslims against Ali, I believe. But anyone who knows anything about Islam knows the split occurred soon after the Prophet's death. It was exacerbated later on through the treatment of the Prophet's family members and led to further discord.

Once again, thank you Saudi Arabia for being the bastion of liberty and freedom that you are! And screwing over the Muslims in America through writing crazy ass textbooks! Great job!

Obama sucks as much as McCain

Another installment of why Barack Obama is a flawed option for Americans who want things fixed in their country.


Why I Can't Support Barack Obama

by Joshua Frank

Four years ago, as the sentiment against George W. Bush's administration mounted, the entire left-wing spectrum hung on tight to the coattails of John Kerry, grasping for dear life. Critics called it the "Anybody but Bush" syndrome, but it should have been more aptly coined "Nobody but Kerry.”

Virtually every progressive cause, from labor to the environment, had been co-opted by a mindset that would have ensured more of the same. There was no pressure put on Kerry to change, and he didn’t. As a result, the antiwar movement collapsed, with no demonstrations and a strict allegiance to the Democrat’s pro-war campaign. Fortunately, the movement to end the war was resurrected by Cindy Sheehan's as she erected her tent outside the Bush compound in Texas months later.

Today we find our political climate in a similar state of shock. Call it the "Nobody but Obama" epidemic. Senator Barack Obama has now sealed up the Democratic nomination, and the usual suspects, from MoveOn.org to Progressive Democrats for America, are falling in line. Sadly, what seems to be reigning in this year's election is even worse than the storm that flooded our issues in 2004.

After eight dreadfully long years of Bush, it is to be expected that a lot of voters would support any Democrat if it meant kicking the wretched Republicans out of the White House. Obama's message of "change" has certainly resonated well. But underlying his rhetoric is a brilliant public relations campaign, orchestrated by DC insiders, that is void of any real substance.

In 2006, the Democrats were ushered in to Congress with the expectation that they would end the war in Iraq. Democratic campaigns across the nation exploited the popular anti-Bush sentiment, promising that real "change" was on the horizon.

It's a familiar refrain indeed.

Two years later, we have nothing to show for it. The Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, yet have rubber stamped virtually every Iraq war spending bill that has come down the pipeline -- ensuring the bloodbath for years to come. All major Democrats have echoed the Bush line on Iran, promising a military confrontation if the country does not cease its nuclear experimentation. By and large, Bush's backward Middle East foreign policy has not been met any real opposition from the Hill.

Like the majority of his colleagues, Obama has done very little to change the face of American politics. He has voted for war spending, appeased the pro-Israel lobby, and helped build the erroneous case against Iran, saying nothing about Israel's plentiful arsenal of nuclear warheads. In short, Barack Obama is not an ally to those of us who oppose the ambiguous War on Terror.

Read the rest.

Jesus, Rolling Stone Magazine, and Borat

Jesus Made Me Puke

by Matt Taibbi

...We were called back to chapel, and this time the drill was speaking in tongues. We were asked to come up to the front of the chapel and let a life coach anoint us with oil, hold our heads and speak to us in tongues. Fortenberry instructed us to "just let it out. Just let it out and it'll come out."

He didn't come right out and say, "Just act like you're speaking in tongues." But it was damned close. Once again, Fortenberry greased the process by telling us a story about how he'd once been at a service where folks were speaking in tongues, and he was skeptical, but it had just flown right out of him — and now it just shoots right out of him, almost on command.

I went to the front. One of the coaches grabbed me by the shoulder and sploshed a big puddle of oil on my forehead. Then he began to speak in tongues:

"Gam-bakakasha. Hoo-raaa-balalakasha. . . . Come on, Matthew, let it out."

American Christians who speak in tongues basically all try to sound like extras from the underworld set of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. If you want to pull it off and sound like a natural, just imagine you're holding a rubber replica of Harrison Ford's heart in your hands: Umm-harakashaka! Loo-pa-wanneee-rakakakasha, Meester Jones!

Read the rest.

Yankees Revival

At this point in the season, the New York Yankees have played 64 games. They have a record of 32-32. At this point last season, through 64 games, they had a record of 33-31. One game better than this season. They played .500 ball all the way to the All-Star break last season with a record of 43-43. They then went crazy and finished the second half of the season with a 51-25 record, nearly stealing the division from the Red Sox.

Can they do it again? Well, unlike most Yankees fans, I'm not so worried they can't make the playoffs. Last year they had no serious injuries, but this year both A-Rod and Jeter have missed significant time. So have other players. The major issue is still pitching. They don't have a dominant starter, but a collection of some good ones. The bullpen is now even weaker as Joba Chamberlain moves to the starting rotation. Who is supposed to carry the middle innings of relief now that Joba is starting? Even with the injuries and pitching issues they are doing as well as last season - playing more consistently albeit it's .500 ball.

I think they will end up missing the playoffs by a few games. And I think that's a great thing because hopefully that will trigger management to start getting a younger team together. The core of Jeter, A-Rod, Posada, etc., is beginning to fade out. I love them, too, but it's time to start bringing up younger players. Us Yankee fans have already been in enough pain the past eight years without a championship (and watching Boston win two in that time), another couple of seasons to regroup won't hurt so bad. Possibly.

Wajahat Ali Interviews Seyyed Hossein Nasr

ALI: Muslims look at the world right now, specifically the Muslim “ummah” [community], and they see instability, suffering, authoritarian regimes, oppression and so forth. So, many Muslims ask what will all this fasting, this dhikr [remembrance and invocation of God], this tazkiyat al nafs [Spiritual exercises in purification], and all this Sufi practice help? How do all these spiritual Sufi practices help the Muslims suffering in Palestine, Chechnya or Iraq? People say this is like Muslims who live in a bubble and put their heads in the sand, but in order to help people one must be more political. So, what’s your take on that?

NASR: It’s total nonsense. There are many, many answers to this question. The main answer is that the Islamic world is suffering not only because of external oppression but also because of the loss of its own dignity, of its own heritage, of its own practice of Islam, of its weakening of its own ethics, and many things which are internal to Islam not just external. Now, Sufism has always had the function of purifying Islamic ethics and that fasting and tazkiya is like lighting a lamp. What does a lamp do? The lamp is like a horse that is running but stays put. But by virtue of being a lamp it illuminates the space around it. Therefore, the practice of purifying one’s soul, of living virtuously, has tremendous impacts upon the ethics of the surrounding society.

The Islamic world is not only suffering from the American occupation of Palestine and Iraq, it’s also suffering from the unbelievable corruption in Afghanistan by Afghans themselves and also in Iraq – I’m just giving these 2 examples of countries which are under direct occupation; I do not mean at all to negate the terrible events that led to this or what’s going on with the foreign occupation there. But I’m saying that it is not the only problem and Sufis have always been those that have tried to purify the ethics of Islam and society. And they don’t have their hands cut off from the external action at all. For example, the bazaar in which the Sufis were very strong always dominated economic life in Islamic world. They could give a much more sane and Islamic form of activity when the economic life of Islam moved out of the bazaar to new parts of Islamic cities with modernized Muslims, who took it in another light and it became very, very anti Islamic, and much against many of the most profound practices of Islamic societies.

There is no way throughout Islamic society for Islam as a society, as a civilization, to revive itself without this inner spiritual vitality that came to it. And also militarily, the great movements of resistance against colonial powers in the 18^th and 19^th century were almost all from Sufis: Imam Shamil in Caucasia, Amir Abd al Qadir in Algeria, The Barelvi family in the modern province of India, today which is Pakistan, and you can go down the line. What is tragic today is that there is a number of Muslims who think that all the solutions are to be found simply by external actions. They don’t have to do anything within themselves. This is a deeply Western idea – modern, Western idea, where you try to improve the world without improving yourself. And this is what the Muslims who talk about others putting their heads in the sand and that “We are doing jihad and we are political” and so forth, they are emulating a very important mistake of modernism.

Read the rest.

Congo: Violence Against Women

Violence against women, spread of HIV escalating in the Congo

by Stephen Lewis

TORONTO — It could be a strategy of war from among the most reviled of invading armies throughout human history: "If you want to destroy a nation, you do so by destroying its women."

But these are the words of a surgeon at the Panzi Hospital in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a conflict-ridden African country where an estimated 200,000 women and girls have been raped or subjected to other forms of sexual violence over the last decade.

"The hospital was born out of suffering," says Dr. Roger Luhiriri, who took part in a Toronto news conference Monday sponsored by the Stephen Lewis Foundation, which called on the United Nations to fulfil its mandate to protect women and girls in Africa from ongoing violence.

Originally opened as a maternity hospital in Bukavu, South Kivu in the Congo, the Panzi now also provides free medical care to victims of war, particularly females subjected to often unspeakable forms of sexual brutality.

The hospital's six surgeons operate on about 60 patients a week, repairing and reconstructing women's reproductive systems that have been mutilated during sexual violence often perpetrated by marauding packs of armed gangs and militias.

"The nature of the raping is so violent," said Lewis, who announced his charitable foundation is donating another $300,000 to support the Panzi Hospital.

"There's mutilation and amputation and the use of knives and the use of guns, terrible things done in front of families and families forced to participate in the raping of family members or face death," he said in an interview.

"And the violence of the assaults has led to a new medical term in the eastern Congo called 'vaginal destruction,' where the sexual and reproductive organs of the women are so badly damaged that it's almost beyond surgical repair."

Lewis, former UN envoy for AIDS in Africa, said that what is so incomprehensible about the unchecked violence against women is that "the world knows" it is happening, but little is being done to stop it.

Or even written about it, unfortunately.

Read the rest.

Just a bunch of liars

The second part of the Senate Intelligence report on prewar intelligence on Iraq was released recently. The Republicans say we weren't the only ones who said to go to war against Iraq. The Dems said they were misled by the Bush administration. In the end though, they're all liars. They all knew it was a bunch of BS and they all knew that they were violating international law when they committed the supreme crime of aggression by invading and attacking another country that had not threatened the United States in any way. And how stupid and lazy are some of the people in this country who did not question for themselves what they read in the newspapers and what they saw on television.

Israeli Peace Defenders

Amazing. This is what the Israelis do to those who protest them peacefully. Those lucky just get shot with rubber bullets in the leg, like a Noble Peace Prize winner. Norman Finkelstein, apparently after watching this video clip, decided to tell Presidential nominee Barack Obama a few choice words. After watching this video one can understand his sentiments.

"Footage showing Irish Noble Peace Prize recipient, Mairead Maguire getting shot by Israeli army who opened fire at peaceful demonstrators in the West Bank village of Bilin on April 20, 2007, following the international conference on popular resistance (April 18-20, 2007). Maguire was shot by a rubber-coated-metal bullet in the leg. Maguire speaks after she received first aid."

Chomsky and Pappe Interview

Barat: How can Israel reach a settlement with an organization which declares that it will never recognize Israel and whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state? If Hamas really wants a settlement, why won't it recognize Israel?

Ilan Pappé: Peace is made between enemies not lovers. The end result of the peace process can be a political Islamic recognition in the place of the Jews in Palestine and in the Middle East as a whole, whether in a separated state or a joint state. The PLO entered negotiations with Israel without changing its charter, which is not that different as far as the attitude to Israel, is concerned. So the search should be for a text, solution and political structure that is inclusive - enabling all the national, ethnic, religious and ideological groups to coexist

Noam Chomsky: Hamas cannot recognize Israel any more than Kadima can recognize Palestine, or than the Democratic Party in the US can recognize England. One could ask whether a government led by Hamas should recognize Israel, or whether a government led by Kadima or the Democratic Party should recognize Palestine. So far they have all refused to do so, though Hamas has at least called for a two-state settlement in accord with the long-standing international consensus, while Kadima and the Democratic Party refuse to go that far, keeping to the rejectionist stance that the US and Israel have maintained for over 30 years in international isolation. As for words, when Prime Minister Olmert declares to a joint session of the US Congress that he believes "in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land," to rousing applause, he is presumably referring not only to Palestine from the Jordan to the sea, but also to the other side of the Jordan river, the historic claim of the Likud Party that was his political home, a claim never formally abandoned, to my knowledge. On Hamas, I think it should abandon those provisions of its charter, and should move from acceptance of a two-state settlement to mutual recognition, though we must bear in mind that its positions are more forthcoming than those of the US and Israel.

Read the rest.

On Apostasy

A great article from Svend White on Obama and more narrowly on apostasy in Islam. The reason apostasy laws have not been "formally repealed" as White notes below is because old books of fiqh take in the opinions of Muslim scholars who either accepted previous rulings from other scholars or who were making ijtihad themselves. A Muslim scholars ijtihad, no matter who it was, is an opinion in the end and it is non-binding. This important point of "Islamic law" gets lost quite often, I'm afraid. There are very few things that are agreed upon by Muslim scholars and apostasy laws were derived in a certain political climate. Someone leaving the faith usually meant they were becoming an enemy of the Islamic state. It would be similar to an American stating openly that they reject the Constitution. It was seen as a political move, not just a religious one, and such a move could be deemed a threat to the state. But those days are long gone as many Muslim scholars today have emphasized. The new unsaid rules regarding apostasy are that if a person leaves Islam it's that person's business and not anyone else's. White notes this critical point below, backed by Muslim scholars from Shaikh al-Tantawi of al-Azhar to Ingrid Mattson of ISNA.

But why is it still "on the books?" Because the works of Muslim scholars have been kept for centuries and so have their legal rulings on a variety of subjects. It's like flipping open a law journal from the early nineteenth century and finding law articles on the justification for enslaving blacks. There may have been justification for such a penalty, rightly or wrongly, but in the end it is the opinion of the scholar who wrote the book and not that of "Islam" or God. But if you go to Jihad Watch you won't be aware of this, unfortunately.


Who's Smearing Obama?

by Svend White

Ahmad’s point is borne out by how widely opinions varied among the founders of the four great Sunni legal schools concerning the treatment of apostates. The most striking example is the moderation of Abu Hanifah (d. 767 CE) and the Hanafi school that he founded (today’s largest). In Tolerance and Coercion in Islam, Yohanan Friedmann shows how Abu Hanifah and his followers discouraged executions in practice by ruling that it was mandatory to make an attempt to induce apostates to recant before carrying out any sentence—others considered this process, called istitaba, optional—and in other cases scholars went so far as to for all practical purposes abolish the death penalty by removing any deadline for making a final decision. Yet others accepted the possibility of apostatizing and repenting over and over, which effectively removes the threat of execution in most cases. So much for it all being cut of the same cloth.

And the tradition continues to evolve today. Daisy Khan, executive director of ASMA Society (and RD Advisory Council member), pointed out that the reexamination of these laws has become so commonplace and mainstream that even Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the head of the most respected institution of religious learning in Sunni Islam—al-Azhar in Egypt—has stated unequivocally that traditional apostasy edicts were meant for a time and place that no longer exists. Tantawi is hardly alone. A perusal of Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam and the huge, footnoted list of influential Muslim scholars, leaders and activists who have repudiated capital punishment for this offense on the “Apostasy and Islam” blog, should definitively put to rest the erroneous notion that modern Muslims uncritically accept this doctrine, even if it has yet to be formally repealed.

Read the rest.

Who I Got

The NBA Finals begin tonight in Boston. There is obviously much history between these two franchises, but not much of that history is relevant to this upcoming Finals series. The real history will be made by the team that wins. It will either be about Kobe Bryant winning his "first" championship all his own (post-Shaq) or about the Big Three of Boston overcoming their past missteps and hurdles to take their first championship and solidifying their legacies as some of the greatest players from their era. So who will win it? Let's break things down a bit first.

Let's start with Boston. My personal hatred for anything in New England aside, I don't think the Celtics will win this series, but I still think they have a serious chance of winning this series unlike most of the commentators out there. This series reminds me a lot of the Heat-Mavericks series from two years ago. Dallas was then the offensive machine with the MVP-to-be in Dirk Nowitzki. They were celebrated for their offensive brilliance and their ability to play hard nosed defense when it mattered. They, too, stymied the defending champion Spurs just like the Lakers. But the Heat were able to impose their will defensively on the Mavericks and that was the key to the series. Everyone knew (except Josh Howard) Dwayne Wade would go off against anyone who defended him, but defense is not something that disappears from a team's arsenal that easily. The Heat then, like the Celtics now, played great defense year round and especially in that Finals series against Dallas. The Celtics know they can play defense and they know they can cause trouble for the Lakers' triangle offense. That's a big boost for them psychologically.

So the missing ingredient is who will play Wade's role for these Celtics. They don't have "the guy" on their team who can carry them offensively like Wade or Kobe or Lebron. Therein lies the problem for these Celtics. One of their Big Three must dominate each game otherwise they have no shot. If they do it collectively that could also work. But at the end of this series if all three are not averaging 19+ points per game then I am doubtful they can beat the Lakers. Their defense should be able to hold the Lakers to under 100 points, but even holding the Lakers below that magic number is no guarantee the Celtics can win a game against them. The Spurs held the Lakers under 100 points three times in the Conference Finals and the Lakers took two of those games. Their defense will probably have to trigger their offense. They have to rely on their defense to keep them close and then one of their Big Three must takeover down the stretch to push them ahead. I think the onus will fall on Kevin Garnet to score a lot in this series since he will be guarded by the weakest defender the Lakers have, Pao Gasol. He has to take him to the basket and put Gasol in foul trouble. Doing that would kill the Lakers' offense as well. Paul Pierce and Ray Allen will likely be guarded by Lamar Odom and Kobe so it will be tough to score for those two making KG the go to guy. But like Bill Simmons has noted, KG almost always shrinks from the spotlight. He better not if the Celtics have any shot in this series.

Moving on to the Lakers. It's pretty simple for them. Double KG just like they did Tim Duncan. That will help Gasol avoid foul trouble and will get the ball out of the hands of Boston's primary scoring threat. Offensively they just have to be patient. Kobe will have to avoid becoming his old self - forcing shots and making dumb passes in traffic. If Kobe plays like he has been - unselfish and timely - then everything else should work for the Lakers. Obviously Gasol, Odom and Fisher will have to play a big part by making their shots, but if Kobe is at the top of his game there is little to worry about for the Lakers, and he has been through the playoffs. Their defense has been solid and they have won on the road through these playoffs. The keys for them will be to ensure all players on the court stay involved offensively and that should be easy considering the nature of the triangle offense, while they focus their defensive attention on taking the ball out of KG's hands. They have more room for error than Boston, but the key battle will be between the Lakers offense and the Celtics defense. If the Celtics can frustrate the flow of the triangle then they have a shot. But no one has been able to stop the Lakers since Gasol joined them a few months ago. I don't see Boston being able to stymie the Lakers defensively enough to throw off the timing of the Lakers triangle and I think the Lakers will be able to do enough defensively to cause problems for the Celtics.

Sorry KG, this is Kobe's year.

Lakers in 6.

More lies from McCain and Obama

The lies are to gain support, even though U.S. intelligence has reported that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. But the lies are so bad it makes you wonder if these two aren't just stupid. Take this example from Obama's mouth: "Iran is stronger now than when George Bush took office," Obama said. "And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons." How is Iran stronger? The West has imposed sanctions and they halted their nuclear weapons program, according to the U.S.'s own intelligence. They are weaker if anything. Obama is just spinning.

But McCain is no better: "Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow," he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The National Intelligence Estimate released in November 2007 said "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program..." but what does that matter, right? It's just the most authoritative intelligence document in the country.

How could any common sense American take either of these two men seriously?

East Jerusalem disputed; West Bank occupied

First the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, now it seems they are happy with the land they have taken in the West Bank, but East Jerusalem still poses a sticking point for the Israelis. "United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has criticized Israel's plan to build new homes in disputed east Jerusalem as a violation of international law. Mr. Ban's office issued a statement Monday saying the Israeli housing projects also violate Israel's commitments under the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan." It seems, maybe, the Israelis are done taking land in the West Bank and now are ensuring that East Jerusalem becomes saturated with Jewish homes in order to annex it, like they plan to annex much of the West Bank that is covered with their illegal settlements. That's a sure fire way of bringing peace.

What Muslim Americans must deal with

The below comment was taken from the Sun-Sentinel's comments section for an article on a new mosque being built in Boca Raton, FL.

let me tell the truth so many americans are afraid to tell and ask the questions they are afraid to ask.. every time i go into a convience store i see the real image all right. so many are so rude and mean and nasty. can you change that image?. lets be frank. you dont want to talk to 'us' you only want to own us. your store clerks are the image of scariness. no help at all. sky high prices. nasty answers to questions if you even get an answer. how you act towards americans is offensive at best. your superior
"i know something you dont" attitude is unnerving to say the least. that "you are garbage" attitude towards americans is why people are not willing to give you a chance. besides, you wont give them a chance. so go build as many temples as you need. we may consider that they are really for the revolution your people are planning against us. hardly anyone believes you are here to live peacefully. most people are afraid of you. too many have overheard your phone conversations. not that it is easy to understand that accent you have put on english words. what makes you believe you are better? you have to be , as a whole, the snippiest people ever. we'd love to believe its all about peace. your actions and attitudes show us otherwise. all the temples on earth wont alleviate the fear you generate. it would be great to go into the store in the morning and be greated with a simple hello instead of a glaring hatred.

And this comment seems to be drawing from the insightful mind of Robert Spencer, who plans to publish a new book on the "stealth jihad" being waged by American Muslims. I guess we're not doing a good enough a job of keeping our jihad stealth because Robert is writing a book about it.

no one's afraid to ask questions in america. they just know that if you do you will be labeled islamaphobic or racist, key ploys of the islamic mental jihad.

if they glare at you glare back and do not shop there. if they are terse with you give it back to them. there is no pc when it comes to ignorant muslims. if they glare at you and you turn away they will view you as weak.

right now it's a mental mind game with these clowns. every time you feel fear of these savages you enable them to take the next step.

if you've overheard things that don't seem right call homeland security.

if they confront you stand up.

they act like middle school bullies. if you give back what you get 'they' back down quick just like all bullies do.

this isn't rocket science.

Islamic mental jihad is part of the plan we have whereby we will glare at non Muslims in the hope that they will keep shopping at our haram liquor stores and will submit to our "i know something you don't" attitude - our leader has already been leading the way on this.

Twisting Words

It's a hobby of mine to analyze words that are used in news reports on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The words that are used are a key ingredient in how the public understands the conflict. One key phrase is the term "disputed" in reference to the territories occupied by the state of Israel. The term "disputed" came into use roughly around the time when the Oslo accords were signed. In reality, there is nothing disputed about any of the territories, except by, perhaps, the United States and Israel, and one or another Pacific island state. The territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war belong not to the Israelis because under international law a state cannot acquire land by force. Nearly the entire world opposes Israel's actions of attempting to annex East Jerusalem, but how has that ever affected Israel's policies of land grabs and murder anyway, right?

In any case, the Associated Press has been using this Israeli tainted term for quite some time. An example of the use of this term occurred today: "Israel disclosed plans on Sunday to build nearly 900 new homes for Jews in disputed east Jerusalem, adding new turmoil to troubled peace talks." This fits right in with pro-Israel supporters' constant theme of claiming Israel to be the only democracy in the Middle East. Democracy for whom, one may ask. Because the Palestinians are certainly not being offered "new homes" anywhere, in fact, their homes are constantly being demolished by the state of Israel.

But my favorite part of the article was this line: "Israel insists it is building only in places it intends to keep under a peace accord." Which means that Israel will take whatever it wants under its illegal occupation and when the Palestinians come around to signing a peace deal Israel will have everything that it wanted to begin with. Israel builds settlements in the West Bank where nearly 300,000 settlers live and so the Palestinians can expect that land occupied by those settlers will be kept by Israel "under a peace accord," which they will surely be forced to sign under extreme duress or when one of their weak, appeasing PLO collaborators decides to shut down resistance and just takes what the master offers.

A sentence like that tells the discerning observer all they need to know about what the Palestinians are entitled to: all of Israel's leftovers.

NYT Pimp Slaps Luttwak

It seems reason has prevailed yet again, much to the chagrin of the extreme right. If you remember, I had written way back in December of 2007 about an article that Daniel Pipes had written on his blog suggesting that Barack Obama might be viewed as an apostate by Muslims because he might have left the faith at an early age. I also noted how NYT best-selling author Robert Spencer, who wasted eleven days of his life trying to refute my refutations of him, stepped in on the issue as well. Edward Luttwak wrote an op-ed piece in the Times about this issue last month and the scholarly community in the United States was duly notified by the ombudsman of the paper of record who told him that Luttwak's theory was as utopian as they get.

I think the core issue has gotten lost here though. My main beef with Pipes' idea or suggestion that Obama might be classified as an apostate had really little to do with the arguments to support such a crazy idea (because the argument was easily deconstructed by someone like Ali Eteraz, who is not a scholar on Islam, and shown to be beyond the pale of decent scholarship), but more to do with the idea itself. This was a manufactured public relations driven argument to stoke tension between the United States and the Muslim world. Nothing would have made Pipes and friends more happy than to write about how the Muslim world either wants to kill Obama or how the Muslim world is so enraged than an apostate of their faith is running for President of the United States of America. This is akin to the cartoon controversy all over again. And these are the sorts of ugly, gutter trash topics that people like Pipes and others get off on.