If you live in Galt, or know anyone who still does, please vote for (or ask them to vote for) Doug Vanderkar for Galt School Board.
He is the Director of CBS (Community Bus Service) at Sac RT (where I used to work), and my friend. He's a really great guy and would be a benefit to any school board!!
Thank you, thank you!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
REGISTER TO VOTE!!! Deadline is MONDAY!!
if you haven't done this yet guys,
seriously,
this is no joke...
get your ass registered!!
(unless you plan on voting for mccain)
thank you.
seriously,
this is no joke...
get your ass registered!!
(unless you plan on voting for mccain)
thank you.
Friday, May 9, 2008
obama osama
The latest on the "Is Barack Obama a Muslim?" front is a church sign in Jonesville, South Carolina, which reads, "Obama, Osama, Humm, Are they Brothers?" It's unreal, the level of ignorance.
The Associated Press states that, "Pastor Roger Byrd said he just wanted to make people think when he put up a sign reading 'Obama, Osama — humm, are they brothers' in front of the Jonesville Church of God on Thursday." The pastor went on to say that, "His name is so close to Osama I feel he might be Islamic therefore he doesn't recognize Christ." On the news coverage I saw on MSNBC, the pastor was basically saying that since we don't know for sure if Obama is a Muslim or not, he wanted to encourage people in his town to really look into this question.
Luckily for Pastor Byrd, it's an easy question to find the answer to. Numerous news organizations have addressed this issue in depth. By simply typing "is barack obama a muslim" into the Google search, we find responses from CNN, the Washington Post, Forbes and the Times (U.K.), all debunking this idea. These articles were found on the first page of search results listed. On the same first page of results, a response to this issue posted by BarackObama.com can also be found, with a headline that states, "Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian." The first and second responses listed are from urban legend verification sites, UrbanLegends.com and Snopes.com – both clearly state that this is a myth. Of the 11 responses found on the first page of search results, eight of them make it clear that this is just a myth. The remaining three don't question his current faith, which they believe to be Christian, but the concern is whether Muslims consider him to be an apostate, which is a Muslim who converted to another religion. These last three posts are from news organizations much less known and trusted than the ones that discount this idea.
If Pastor Byrd, his congregation (who unanimously voted in Sunday service to keep the sign up) and the people of Jonestown, SC and the U.S. at large, really want to find an answer to this question, it couldn't be easier to find. Most people propagating this myth already know the truth and don't care, or have no real interest in finding the truth on this issue. It's much easier for them to call him a Muslim and be done with it. And worse, the sign does not only link him to Islam, but to the U.S.'s number one enemy within Islam, Osama bin Laden, thus linking Obama to worst of what Islam is in the eyes of the American public. This speaks to the larger problem here, which is that anyone who is Muslim in this country is consciously or sub-consciously linked to worst of what Islam represents – like linking all Catholics to pedophiles, Mormons to brainwashing and sexual abuse of children (in the form of polygamy), and fundamentalist Christians to domestic terrorism through the bombing of abortion clinics. All these things represent the worst of people, and can be found in all religions.
The Associated Press states that, "Pastor Roger Byrd said he just wanted to make people think when he put up a sign reading 'Obama, Osama — humm, are they brothers' in front of the Jonesville Church of God on Thursday." The pastor went on to say that, "His name is so close to Osama I feel he might be Islamic therefore he doesn't recognize Christ." On the news coverage I saw on MSNBC, the pastor was basically saying that since we don't know for sure if Obama is a Muslim or not, he wanted to encourage people in his town to really look into this question.
Luckily for Pastor Byrd, it's an easy question to find the answer to. Numerous news organizations have addressed this issue in depth. By simply typing "is barack obama a muslim" into the Google search, we find responses from CNN, the Washington Post, Forbes and the Times (U.K.), all debunking this idea. These articles were found on the first page of search results listed. On the same first page of results, a response to this issue posted by BarackObama.com can also be found, with a headline that states, "Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian." The first and second responses listed are from urban legend verification sites, UrbanLegends.com and Snopes.com – both clearly state that this is a myth. Of the 11 responses found on the first page of search results, eight of them make it clear that this is just a myth. The remaining three don't question his current faith, which they believe to be Christian, but the concern is whether Muslims consider him to be an apostate, which is a Muslim who converted to another religion. These last three posts are from news organizations much less known and trusted than the ones that discount this idea.
If Pastor Byrd, his congregation (who unanimously voted in Sunday service to keep the sign up) and the people of Jonestown, SC and the U.S. at large, really want to find an answer to this question, it couldn't be easier to find. Most people propagating this myth already know the truth and don't care, or have no real interest in finding the truth on this issue. It's much easier for them to call him a Muslim and be done with it. And worse, the sign does not only link him to Islam, but to the U.S.'s number one enemy within Islam, Osama bin Laden, thus linking Obama to worst of what Islam is in the eyes of the American public. This speaks to the larger problem here, which is that anyone who is Muslim in this country is consciously or sub-consciously linked to worst of what Islam represents – like linking all Catholics to pedophiles, Mormons to brainwashing and sexual abuse of children (in the form of polygamy), and fundamentalist Christians to domestic terrorism through the bombing of abortion clinics. All these things represent the worst of people, and can be found in all religions.
Friday, May 2, 2008
islamization
Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament who also dabbles in filmmaking, has recently made a short documentary film, titled, "Fitna." This film has caused controversy both in the Netherlands and throughout the Muslim world. I watched the film, after reading about it in an article. The point of the film is to outline the dangers of the "Islamization" of the Netherlands. The film definitely represents an extreme bias against the Muslim world. It's shocking to see a viewpoint this extreme aired in public, and even worse that the filmmaker himself is a member of parliament.
The title of the film, "Fitna," is an important word to Muslims, holding as much power and emotional charge as the word "jihad." Unlike "jihad," most non-muslims are not familiar with the word "fitna," or with it's meaning. Nahed Selim, a journalist from Trouw, a Netherlands publication, writes the following on the strength of this word in Islam: "Every Muslim knows the Arabic word fitna, says the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV). 'It refers to situations in which the faith of the Muslims is put to the test. Everything that tests their faith is fitna: uncovered women, alcohol, non-Muslims, resistance against the authority of Islam. I use the term as a mirror image: to me the pernicious Islam is fitna.' Wilders was very pleased with his find, 'I was set on using a word from the Koran.'"
Some of the film is extremely graphic – we are given a warning of this at the beginning of the film and YouTube requires that we confirm our date of birth before giving access to the film on their site. It begins with scenes from 9/11 and moves into scenes of other terrorist attacks and anti-Jew rallies held by Muslims. It shows Muslims to be extremely anti-Semitic, carrying signs that say, "Be prepared for the real holocaust!" and "God Bless Hitler!" All the while, ominous music plays in the background. Among the graphic images is video from the Atocha bombing in Spain, which, again, has not been attributed to any Muslim organization, but to ETA, a Spanish separatist group from the Basque region. Recitation of the Qur'an in Arabic overlays some of the most gruesome scenes. Arabic is subtitled throughout the film, saying things like, "Throats must be slit and skulls must be shattered. This is the path to victory." As we've learned from experience, can these subtitles even be trusted?
The response to this film in U.S. media has been mixed, some recognizing the racism and hate being preached, while others seem to embrace Wilders' view. Roman Verzub, from the Cauldren, a University publication in Ohio, states that, "the film takes a straight look at the ideology of groups like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, among others." A "straight look" implies an unbiased viewpoint, but that's one thing that's definitely missing in Wilders' film. NPR, on the other hand, describes Fitna as "a short film… that portrays Islam as a violent, fascist-like ideology."
In defending the fear of Islamization, Selim states that, "The islamization of thought will mean the end of all creativity, originality and creative power, for creation is a divine quality patented by Allah. He will not tolerate competition from man. Islamization is the process by which Islamic values eventually gain the upper hand over all other value systems, in all aspects of life."
From what I have learned of Islam, Muslims have been one of the most creative and forward-thinking groups of people in the history of the world. Wilders' film does nothing to show this side of Islam and only promotes ignorance and intolerance of Islam, states of being that have been promoted by the general tone of the media throughout the western world. Until we can find appreciation for Islam, for all that it has to offer, films like "Fitna" will continue to find an audience that is more than willing to embrace these divisive ideas with open arms.
The title of the film, "Fitna," is an important word to Muslims, holding as much power and emotional charge as the word "jihad." Unlike "jihad," most non-muslims are not familiar with the word "fitna," or with it's meaning. Nahed Selim, a journalist from Trouw, a Netherlands publication, writes the following on the strength of this word in Islam: "Every Muslim knows the Arabic word fitna, says the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV). 'It refers to situations in which the faith of the Muslims is put to the test. Everything that tests their faith is fitna: uncovered women, alcohol, non-Muslims, resistance against the authority of Islam. I use the term as a mirror image: to me the pernicious Islam is fitna.' Wilders was very pleased with his find, 'I was set on using a word from the Koran.'"
Some of the film is extremely graphic – we are given a warning of this at the beginning of the film and YouTube requires that we confirm our date of birth before giving access to the film on their site. It begins with scenes from 9/11 and moves into scenes of other terrorist attacks and anti-Jew rallies held by Muslims. It shows Muslims to be extremely anti-Semitic, carrying signs that say, "Be prepared for the real holocaust!" and "God Bless Hitler!" All the while, ominous music plays in the background. Among the graphic images is video from the Atocha bombing in Spain, which, again, has not been attributed to any Muslim organization, but to ETA, a Spanish separatist group from the Basque region. Recitation of the Qur'an in Arabic overlays some of the most gruesome scenes. Arabic is subtitled throughout the film, saying things like, "Throats must be slit and skulls must be shattered. This is the path to victory." As we've learned from experience, can these subtitles even be trusted?
The response to this film in U.S. media has been mixed, some recognizing the racism and hate being preached, while others seem to embrace Wilders' view. Roman Verzub, from the Cauldren, a University publication in Ohio, states that, "the film takes a straight look at the ideology of groups like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, among others." A "straight look" implies an unbiased viewpoint, but that's one thing that's definitely missing in Wilders' film. NPR, on the other hand, describes Fitna as "a short film… that portrays Islam as a violent, fascist-like ideology."
In defending the fear of Islamization, Selim states that, "The islamization of thought will mean the end of all creativity, originality and creative power, for creation is a divine quality patented by Allah. He will not tolerate competition from man. Islamization is the process by which Islamic values eventually gain the upper hand over all other value systems, in all aspects of life."
From what I have learned of Islam, Muslims have been one of the most creative and forward-thinking groups of people in the history of the world. Wilders' film does nothing to show this side of Islam and only promotes ignorance and intolerance of Islam, states of being that have been promoted by the general tone of the media throughout the western world. Until we can find appreciation for Islam, for all that it has to offer, films like "Fitna" will continue to find an audience that is more than willing to embrace these divisive ideas with open arms.
Monday, April 21, 2008
a fight to the right
Senator Hilary Clinton has seemed as republican lately as President Bush when it comes to her ideas about foreign security policy, and even more republican than Senator John McCain. From threatening to "obliterate" Iran to her recent campaign ad, titled "Kitchen," which flashes a photo of Osama bin Laden, she's taken fear-mongering to a new level for democrats. Republicans can't even get away with language or fear tactics such as these, but she has embraced them.
Watching the democratic presidential debate this past week in Pennsylvania was painful, for many reasons, but nothing surprised me more than Senator Clinton's pledge to defend the whole of the Middle East against Iran. Both Senators Obama and Clinton have surprised me more than once during this campaign with almost republican-like ideas of foreign security policy, but this really went too far. We're trying to get away from Bush policy, not continue it for another hundred years, as McCain would have us do. With this, it sounds like Senator Clinton would have the same thing.
The Jerusalem Post states, "It is within the United States' power to destroy Iran if it attacks Israel, warned Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton in an interview on ABC television Monday night. 'In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,' said Clinton." Further, she didn't stop at saying that the U.S. would attack Iran if they attacked Israel; she went on to say that we would attack Iran if they attacked any country in the Middle East. Here is her quote from the debate: "I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."
Senator Clinton made this statement on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: "If Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race. The countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power." David Edwards of Raw Story, an online alternative news organization, responded to that statement: "Clinton's suggestion that Iran might trigger an arms race appeared not to take account of the fact that Iran's immediate neighbor, Pakistan already possesses nuclear weapons, as does India. Israel, which has refused to either confirm or deny whether it has a nuclear weapons program, is widely believed to have an arsenal of over a hundred warheads. Other nations in the region, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have also been reported as interested in obtaining nuclear capability." Her statement was incorrect, so was she ill-informed or intentionally trying to mislead the American people? Eight years of that has been enough.
She also stated on Countdown: "I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War." This speaks directly to the point made by Edward Said in his book, Covering Islam: "With the end of the Cold War [Iran], and along with it 'Islam,' has come to represent America's major foreign devil." Said also states, in his documentary titled "On Orientalism," that it is necessary for the U.S. to maintain the impression of having serious enemies, so that it can justify its sizable defense budget, which is more than twice that of any other country.
When Democrats try to keep up with the Republican Right on issues of foreign policy, it can only drive them further away from their base of support. She openly admits to doing this and so states on Countdown: "We're going to have to go toe to toe with John McCain on national security." This may have worked in Ohio and Pennsylvania where the majority of Democratic voters are not college educated (only 38% of Democratic voters in Ohio and 46% in Pennsylvania hold college degrees, according to CNN), but by and large, I don't believe that Democrats will respond well to this type of message.
Watching the democratic presidential debate this past week in Pennsylvania was painful, for many reasons, but nothing surprised me more than Senator Clinton's pledge to defend the whole of the Middle East against Iran. Both Senators Obama and Clinton have surprised me more than once during this campaign with almost republican-like ideas of foreign security policy, but this really went too far. We're trying to get away from Bush policy, not continue it for another hundred years, as McCain would have us do. With this, it sounds like Senator Clinton would have the same thing.
The Jerusalem Post states, "It is within the United States' power to destroy Iran if it attacks Israel, warned Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton in an interview on ABC television Monday night. 'In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,' said Clinton." Further, she didn't stop at saying that the U.S. would attack Iran if they attacked Israel; she went on to say that we would attack Iran if they attacked any country in the Middle East. Here is her quote from the debate: "I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region."
Senator Clinton made this statement on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: "If Iran were to become a nuclear power, it could set off an arms race. The countries in the region are not going to want Iran to be the only nuclear power." David Edwards of Raw Story, an online alternative news organization, responded to that statement: "Clinton's suggestion that Iran might trigger an arms race appeared not to take account of the fact that Iran's immediate neighbor, Pakistan already possesses nuclear weapons, as does India. Israel, which has refused to either confirm or deny whether it has a nuclear weapons program, is widely believed to have an arsenal of over a hundred warheads. Other nations in the region, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, have also been reported as interested in obtaining nuclear capability." Her statement was incorrect, so was she ill-informed or intentionally trying to mislead the American people? Eight years of that has been enough.
She also stated on Countdown: "I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War." This speaks directly to the point made by Edward Said in his book, Covering Islam: "With the end of the Cold War [Iran], and along with it 'Islam,' has come to represent America's major foreign devil." Said also states, in his documentary titled "On Orientalism," that it is necessary for the U.S. to maintain the impression of having serious enemies, so that it can justify its sizable defense budget, which is more than twice that of any other country.
When Democrats try to keep up with the Republican Right on issues of foreign policy, it can only drive them further away from their base of support. She openly admits to doing this and so states on Countdown: "We're going to have to go toe to toe with John McCain on national security." This may have worked in Ohio and Pennsylvania where the majority of Democratic voters are not college educated (only 38% of Democratic voters in Ohio and 46% in Pennsylvania hold college degrees, according to CNN), but by and large, I don't believe that Democrats will respond well to this type of message.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
democratic debate - ohio
As a democrat myself, I've found these last 13 months in the realm of politics to be extremely exciting. I've watched every debate and have generally been fascinated with each little tidbit of "breaking news," especially since the primary and caucaus elections began. I've supported Sen. Barack Obama from the beginning for a variety of reasons, and I feel like I'm watching a very close basketball game, biting my nails hoping my team wins. The most recent Democratic debate was, of course, held this past Tuesday and it was chalk-full (as is usually the case) with policy as well as drama. I've heard all the policy before and definitely enjoy when things heat up a bit between the two senators. This time however, I heard something new, which I found quite shocking – a 100% support of Israel, hand-in-hand with a complete shun of the Muslim- and Arab-American populous.
When Tim Russert first posed the question of Minister Louis Farrakhan's (former leader of the Nation of Islam – NOI) support of Sen. Obama, Obama barely let him get the question out of his mouth before he was explaining that his view of Farrakhan has been made quite clear. Russert goes on to say that, "The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism 'gutter religion,'" to which Obama responded that he does not approve of Farrakhan's anti-semitic remarks made in the past, and even finds them "reprehensible." Russert then adds that even Obama's own minister, who Obama is known to hold in high esteem, supports Farrakhan and has "said that Louis Farrakhan 'epitomizes greatness.'" After further research on this issue, I found that Farrakhan actually made this statement more than 20 years ago (in 1984) and has since made numerous apologies and retractions of his anti-semetic statements.
I thought that Obama fielded these questions well, but I did find myself extremely disappointed that he did not take this opportunity to reach out to the Muslim community as a whole. Maybe he felt that drawing any connection between the NOI and the larger Muslim world would have been considered insulting to Muslims, but I don't think so. I think he was more concerned with distancing himself from Islam because of the right-wing conservative suspicions throughout his campaign that he is really a Muslim himself, just waiting to get into the White House so that he can hand the U.S. over to Muslim extremists. These suspicions are ridiculous on top of showing extreme prejudice. I am disappointed that Obama is succumbing to this pressure by distancing himself from the Arab/Muslim world. Many people, myself included, support him mainly for the idea that he will be the candidate most open to all sides of issues in the Middle-East and deal with world issues as a whole in a balanced way.
From Obama's support of the Jewish community and his hopes to bring the Jewish and Black communities back together, the debate moved naturally to Israel itself. Obama endorsed Israel 100%, leaving no room to question Israel's policies. Senator Clinton echoed this sentiment, a sentiment which sounds uncritical and uniformed. I think that anyone with a little information on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can see that both sides have validity and that Israel has been less than fair in its dealings with the Palestinians. I think this speaks to who holds more power in this country, and more than the Jewish vote itself, the power lies in the Israel lobby. One of Obama's advisors is considered anti-Israel, simply because of his support of a book that explores the power of this lobbying group. This speaks to a climate in which politicians are unable to deeply explore all sides of this issue without being labeled anti-Israel and persecuted for it.
I still support Sen. Obama but this leaves me wondering if he can help U.S. relations in the Middle-East in the way I was hoping. The fact that the Arab/Muslim world was left completely out of this discussion was a bad move and will likely result in his losing votes in these communities. But who can they turn to now, besides Ralph Nader, who is pro-Palestinian but clearly doesn't have any chance of ever being elected president.
When Tim Russert first posed the question of Minister Louis Farrakhan's (former leader of the Nation of Islam – NOI) support of Sen. Obama, Obama barely let him get the question out of his mouth before he was explaining that his view of Farrakhan has been made quite clear. Russert goes on to say that, "The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism 'gutter religion,'" to which Obama responded that he does not approve of Farrakhan's anti-semitic remarks made in the past, and even finds them "reprehensible." Russert then adds that even Obama's own minister, who Obama is known to hold in high esteem, supports Farrakhan and has "said that Louis Farrakhan 'epitomizes greatness.'" After further research on this issue, I found that Farrakhan actually made this statement more than 20 years ago (in 1984) and has since made numerous apologies and retractions of his anti-semetic statements.
I thought that Obama fielded these questions well, but I did find myself extremely disappointed that he did not take this opportunity to reach out to the Muslim community as a whole. Maybe he felt that drawing any connection between the NOI and the larger Muslim world would have been considered insulting to Muslims, but I don't think so. I think he was more concerned with distancing himself from Islam because of the right-wing conservative suspicions throughout his campaign that he is really a Muslim himself, just waiting to get into the White House so that he can hand the U.S. over to Muslim extremists. These suspicions are ridiculous on top of showing extreme prejudice. I am disappointed that Obama is succumbing to this pressure by distancing himself from the Arab/Muslim world. Many people, myself included, support him mainly for the idea that he will be the candidate most open to all sides of issues in the Middle-East and deal with world issues as a whole in a balanced way.
From Obama's support of the Jewish community and his hopes to bring the Jewish and Black communities back together, the debate moved naturally to Israel itself. Obama endorsed Israel 100%, leaving no room to question Israel's policies. Senator Clinton echoed this sentiment, a sentiment which sounds uncritical and uniformed. I think that anyone with a little information on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can see that both sides have validity and that Israel has been less than fair in its dealings with the Palestinians. I think this speaks to who holds more power in this country, and more than the Jewish vote itself, the power lies in the Israel lobby. One of Obama's advisors is considered anti-Israel, simply because of his support of a book that explores the power of this lobbying group. This speaks to a climate in which politicians are unable to deeply explore all sides of this issue without being labeled anti-Israel and persecuted for it.
I still support Sen. Obama but this leaves me wondering if he can help U.S. relations in the Middle-East in the way I was hoping. The fact that the Arab/Muslim world was left completely out of this discussion was a bad move and will likely result in his losing votes in these communities. But who can they turn to now, besides Ralph Nader, who is pro-Palestinian but clearly doesn't have any chance of ever being elected president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)