indifence

The Choice - Barak Obama

2008-11-02T16:04:00.002-07:00

Exerpts from this thoughtful endorsement:
Introduction -
Never in living memory has an election been more critical than the one fast approaching—that’s the quadrennial cliché, as expected as the balloons and the bombast. And yet when has it ever felt so urgently true? When have so many Americans had so clear a sense that a Presidency has—at the levels of competence, vision, and integrity—undermined the country and its ideals?

--
On temperament -
In Washington, the craze for pure market triumphalism is over. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson arrived in town (via Goldman Sachs) a Republican, but it seems that he will leave a Democrat. In other words, he has come to see that the abuses that led to the current financial crisis––not least, excessive speculation on borrowed capital––can be fixed only with government regulation and oversight. McCain, who has never evinced much interest in, or knowledge of, economic questions, has had little of substance to say about the crisis. His most notable gesture of concern—a melodramatic call last month to suspend his campaign and postpone the first Presidential debate until the government bailout plan was ready—soon revealed itself as an empty diversionary tactic.
By contrast, Obama has made a serious study of the mechanics and the history of this economic disaster and of the possibilities of stimulating a recovery. Last March, in New York, in a speech notable for its depth, balance, and foresight, he said, “A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting, coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement, allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long-term consequences.” Obama is committed to reforms that value not only the restoration of stability but also the protection of the vast majority of the population, which did not partake of the fruits of the binge years. He has called for greater and more programmatic regulation of the financial system; the creation of a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank, which would help reverse the decay of our roads, bridges, and mass-transit systems, and create millions of jobs; and a major investment in the green-energy sector.
--
On the Supreme Court -
McCain cites Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two reliable conservatives, as models for his own prospective appointments. If he means what he says, and if he replaces even one moderate on the current Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade will be reversed, and states will again be allowed to impose absolute bans on abortion. McCain’s views have hardened on this issue. In 1999, he said he opposed overturning Roe; by 2006, he was saying that its demise “wouldn’t bother me any”; by 2008, he no longer supported adding rape and incest as exceptions to his party’s platform opposing abortion.
But scrapping Roe—which, after all, would leave states as free to permit abortion as to criminalize it—would be just the beginning. Given the ideological agenda that the existing conservative bloc has pursued, it’s safe to predict that affirmative action of all kinds would likely be outlawed by a McCain Court. Efforts to expand executive power, which, in recent years, certain Justices have nobly tried to resist, would likely increase. Barriers between church and state would fall; executions would soar; legal checks on corporate power would wither—all with just one new conservative nominee on the Court. And the next President is likely to make three appointments.
--
On Palin and the VP pick -
Perhaps nothing revealed McCain’s cynicism more than his choice of Sarah Palin, the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, who had been governor of that state for twenty-one months, as the Republican nominee for Vice-President. In the interviews she has given since her nomination, she has had difficulty uttering coherent unscripted responses about the most basic issues of the day. We are watching a candidate for Vice-President cram for her ongoing exam in elementary domestic and foreign policy. This is funny as a Tina Fey routine on “Saturday Night Live,” but as a vision of the political future it’s deeply unsettling. Palin has no business being the backup to a President of any age, much less to one who is seventy-two and in imperfect health. In choosing her, McCain committed an act of breathtaking heedlessness and irresponsibility. Obama’s choice, Joe Biden, is not without imperfections. His tongue sometimes runs in advance of his mind, providing his own fodder for late-night comedians, but there is no comparison with Palin. His deep experience in foreign affairs, the judiciary, and social policy makes him an assuring and complementary partner for Obama.

--
Conclusion-
We cannot expect one man to heal every wound, to solve every major crisis of policy. So much of the Presidency, as they say, is a matter of waking up in the morning and trying to drink from a fire hydrant. In the quiet of the Oval Office, the noise of immediate demands can be deafening. And yet Obama has precisely the temperament to shut out the noise when necessary and concentrate on the essential. The election of Obama—a man of mixed ethnicity, at once comfortable in the world and utterly representative of twenty-first-century America—would, at a stroke, reverse our country’s image abroad and refresh its spirit at home. His ascendance to the Presidency would be a symbolic culmination of the civil- and voting-rights acts of the nineteen-sixties and the century-long struggles for equality that preceded them. It could not help but say something encouraging, even exhilarating, about the country, about its dedication to tolerance and inclusiveness, about its fidelity, after all, to the values it proclaims in its textbooks. At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama.

McCain's Last Stand

2008-10-13T14:54:00.001-06:00

The above story is an interesting take on McCain. I cannot very the accuracy of the information but this has been published in the Rolling Stone magazine.

The US vice presidential debate

2008-10-05T21:27:00.000-06:00

Sarah Palin did not embarrass herself on the national stage in any major way – like an obvious gaffe a la Tina Fey! I must confess that her likable personality resonates well but that is all that she has going or her. However, the election is not a personality contest and this I hope is understood by the American electorate.

First off, Governor Sarah Palin rambles on incoherently most of the time; her language was atrocious – I am being charitable here! Instead of answering the questions posed by Gwen Ifill, she launches into a moronic dissertation that was filled with clichés and punch lines and little substance. It is evident that she clearly did not grasp any of the questions or rather had no capacity to internalize the questions and produce answers. This woman did not know what she was talking about and perhaps just concentrated on talking about nothing. It was clear that she was merely reciting prepared scrip, ad nauseam.

On the other hand, Senator Biden demonstrated superior abilities and as such addressed the questions as they are meant to be addressed. He is clearly very knowledgeable on a wide number of topics and this was on display throughout the debate. It is obvious that he has had many years of experience in government and he knows what governing is about and can debate issues, policies, ideologies and the challenges that face the American people. He was also very gracious, as was Palin, and resisted the urge to correct Palin on the many occasions where she failed to answer the question or got the commanding general’s name incorrect.

Secondly, Biden was too professorial at times; he lapsed into “senate speak” that clearly made the point e was trying to convey muddled and hard to understand. On the flip side, Palin employed quite a colloquial style that was charming and evidently her. That being said, her “shout out” and “callout” were immature and sophomoric!

It is evident that this woman is ill prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. With McCain already having one foot in the grave, the choice is an easy one. This is a gamble of impossible proportions and Plain should have never been picked to be the vice presidential candidate. She really knows nothing!

Some of Governor Palin rambles are as follows (this list is long….this is an excerpt):

Instead of general McKiernan, she said general Mc Cullen or something to this effect
She will not only deny Iran nuclear weapons but also nuclear energy – I thought the entire stand off was about weapons!
When address the issue of climate change (was a true and false question and she never got this either), she launched into her prepared points on energy – and discuss the love of the climate and “drill baby drill….as if it is funny!
She is of the opinion that the US uses nuclear weapons as a deterrent – really now?? Are we at a sage where we are using nuclear weapons as a deterrent?

Palin vs. Clinton

2008-09-15T23:43:00.001-06:00

Saturday Night Live....so funny!

Father of Bristol Palin's baby speaks

2008-09-14T23:39:00.003-06:00

DISCLAIMER - Content of video and source not verified!
http://www.blackbottom.com/watch.php?v=WdBJd9b9i8A

This concerns Bristol Palin and the child she is currently carrying. If this gentleman is thinking that his video will help Barak Obama, then he is misguided. I think that this may do more harm than good. This is all based on the premise that this story is not true and is a publicity stunt created by a publicity seeking youth. This could be shocking propaganda; if it is, this man is in serious trouble!!However, if this young man is the father of Bristol's child, in a few months time, it will be obvious. This is crazy....crazy stuff....

The 2008 American elections is getting crazier and crazier by the minute.

Palin’s Teen Daughter Is Pregnant; New G.O.P. Tumult

2008-09-01T14:55:00.000-06:00

It is commendable that Bristol will be taking responsibility for the situation that she is in; however, is the father of the child willing to take responsibility and marry her or is he being forced and pressured into this union? This is interesting, in light of the Governor’s alleged brute force tactics with the ex-husband of her sister. Someone should tract how long this marriage will last…

Further, it is the height of hypocrisy for the social conservatives to be so thrilled with this anti abortion VP nominee but gloss over the fact that her daughter is pregnant - at 17 years of age and is unmarried. What did Jesus say about premarital sex? It is a downright sin is what the Christian right will say...I wonder at their reaction now? How will they "spin" this? Who can they blame…the liberal media?

The beauty of the liberal view is that government has no place in legislating morality or the sex lives of individuals or the choices that people make with their bodies! However, the conservative view is opposed to this notion of liberty and as such, vehemently opposes liberal policies like abortion. The reality is that most of these very conservative people are having sex and having abortions and are enjoying having sex!!! If they are not, how do we end up with young women pregnant at 17, even when their parents are so socially in tune with the virtuous values of the right? Who are the numerous people who are accessing abortion services? Are the liberal leaning citizens the only ones who fall into this category? I think not!!!

It is just the bigotry that surrounds the conservative view on these issues that is appalling....

Two shot dead by Guyana police

2008-01-31T21:46:00.000-07:00

I am not sure if this is the correct approach to take with the criminal elements, though the police may not have a choice in the matter. In the past, engagements with criminals always yield dead bodies; as a result, many of the perpetrators are never brought to justice through the courts of law. It is highly regrettable that this is the only form of “justice” that can be produced. This serves to desensitize the citizenry and all at large to death and is becoming all too common an occurrence. It is understandable that this may be unavoidable, but it is nonetheless troubling…

Senseless Murders - Guyana

2008-01-30T13:00:00.000-07:00

With impunity, a gang of demented individuals went on a murderous rampage, slaughtering eleven innocent individuals; how can the nation comprehend the murder of children while they sleep? The actions of these individuals and the reported motivations share an eerie resemblance to inter-tribal conflicts, much like the senseless killing that is occurring in places like Kenya today; murderous mobs slaughtering innocent people, creating mayhem and destruction in their path. There can be no justification of such actions! To reach a state characterized by the wanton disregard for life and the violation of the sanctity of children cannot be more troubling. It is a colossal failure of those charged with protecting the innocent and the weak: the state and its respective organs. Far too long the country has been allowed to slip into a state of anarchy where brutal mobs are allowed to operate with impunity, as a state within a state. The authorities seem incapable, or the relevant personnel disinclined to address the situation.

Empathy and words will offer little succor to those who have lost family in this senseless tragedy. How devastating it must be for those parents who have survived the death of their children. Can we really understand the suffering of these people? Is it a wonder that the political masters and the security forces were unwelcome? Rather that being proactive, the authorities seem to be in a perpetual reactionary mode. This slaughter should never have occurred. Have we learnt nothing from the Agricola massacre?

Even more troubling is the increasing number of former law enforcement officials that are openly associated with these nefarious gangs. This has undoubtedly thrown up questions on how we assess potential applicants with aspirations to take charge of the security and protection of the citizens of Guyana. It also paints a dismal picture where the public has lost faith in the moral stock and integrity of those charged with their security. This is not a new phenomenon; Guyanese have always been leery when it comes to the army and police.

The overriding dilemma is this lack of trust and faith in the security establishment and in the Government’s ability to protect its citizens. How can the nation stem the decline in character and moral rectitude of its security personnel? That the jobs of the police and the armed forces are thankless, there is little doubt. Coupled with the dismal remuneration, it leaves a lot to be desired. However, the fact that a conscious choice was made to serve in these establishments, with the full knowledge of their deficiencies, behoves its officers to act in the best interest of the state and that of its citizens. They must set the standard of acceptable behaviour in performing their noble duty. The security forces and the governing authorities failed those children who died in Lusignan and those who were orphaned. Clearly, the country is at a crossroads; the actions taken by those charged with maintaining security, and the leadership demonstrated by the government will determine whether there will be many more ‘Lusignans’ to come.

The law enforcement agencies and the government must be held accountable for their failures; business cannot continue as usual. Communities and individuals that provide safe haven for these criminals must also be held accountable; the people should demand no less.

Something to chew on - Muslims' support for a dentist who turned away a female patient with no headscarf reflects a widespread misunderstanding.

2007-10-06T17:29:00.000-06:00

The text of this post on" Comment is Free" - Guardian, UK will be presented and some comments follows.
*****

The recent case of a dentist in Manchester who refused to help a patient unless she wore a scarf actually found sympathy with many Muslims. There is a widespread idea that such behaviour is commendable when it is nothing of the sort.

What the dentist in Manchester did was misunderstand both Islamic law and practice - and as a result a travesty of the highest nature occurred. The Prophet Muhammad once told the story of a prostitute who went to heaven for saving a dog that was dying of thirst. Prostitution is forbidden in Islam and dogs aren't the most liked of creatures, so there are interesting interpretations of these stories, but the main point here is not to judge the prostitute. The fallen are not always evil.

While a prostitute would make an unlikely religious figure she is certainly a human being and must be treated as such. Were she to fall ill she must be afforded medical assistance. And no Muslim is allowed to refuse that. To refuse it would be relinquishing one's duty as a Muslim towards a fellow human being and betraying the trust God has put into Muslims. Rather than please God, the dentist has almost certainly angered Him.

The case of the dentist is a good example of how ignorance in the Muslim community has led to Muslims needing reform in their own lives more than ever before. Islam does judge actions. It tells Muslims that homosexuality is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that killing is wrong and that judging others is also wrong. But nowhere does it say that a homosexual or a thief or a murderer should be treated as anything less than a human being. What Muslims have done is mix the Islamic condemnation of actions with the person who has carried them out. This creates hatred and animosity - two feelings that Islam condemns.

Maybe this results from the backward, patriarchal tribal nature of the Indian subcontinent or the Arab world with their "moral vigilantism" and misplaced male egoism mixed with Islamic teachings. But this mixture which has resulted in honour killings, hounding homosexuals and now refusing to treat patients cannot be allowed to go on. If it does, then the reason and logic with which Muslims wish others to use in judging them can only make Muslims be judged in the worst possible light.

-------

My response:

This issue is quite serious: the refusal of treatment, in whatever form, by someone who is liscenced to do so is alarming. There must be some fudamentals within which we all operate and where our personal beliefs and prejudices do not crowd our duties and responsibilities.

This issue is also compounded with issues such as the clash of religion with evolution as it relates to the training of doctors and other medical professionals; will they invoke their beliefs to refuse certain medical practices? This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The world is diverse and we will never have homogeniety in belief; however, we need a common civil structure and law that we are all adherents to. I believe this is where our civil structures play a role and this is how this matter should be treated.

****

I also found an eloquent rebuttal to the articl by one NoorAza:

Abdurrahman, it's not about "misplaced male egoism" but the oppression of women in Islam, which is real enough, is about systematic elite-male constructed dogmas based on rigidly institutionalised male-misogynist thinking and attitude. In order to liberate Islamic followers (rather than as "Muslims") from being racially denounced, they must first of all deracialised themselves as based on their religious Islamic faith. The Islamic followers have fallen into the trap of the capitalist class of racializing the "Other" (their resistant enemy) within that Nazism-adopted ideology "Clash of Civilisation" by politicizing religion, in order to continuously sustain their dominance and oppression. In the Nazi days the "Jews" were racialized as the main deviant "Other", in the present history it's the main deviant "Muslims" as the "Other". Thus, for the Islamic followers to free themselves from the racist trap is by depoliticizing Islam and moving it towards the personal cultural sphere. Thus, only then the Islamic followers can integrate within mutual understanding, debate and dialogue with other more progressive civilisations. Progressive here implies betterment for humanity and the world through better values, not about superiority. And further, it's significant that the Islamic followers should let go of the irrational ideal of identifying themselves as based on their religion, in totality. And instead to recognize that many other diverse identities can exist simultaneously within one's being for example as a British, an activist, a hippy, a gay and so on; hence it will make such integration with other civilisations easier. And also fundamentally, only then the Islamic followers can truly launch a genuine reformation in order to address with firm honesty, humility and integrity of the diverse systematic oppression that do exist in the religion, especially on women's and girls' rights that include the imposition of veil, mainly through manufactured consent and force, not out of free will of the women, and honor killing and violence. By such genuine reformation, only then the Islamic followers can be adaptable to progressive values as befitting of integrating mutually and with true consciousness with the modern world and humanity.

Sunny Hundal on Muslims and Free Speech

2007-10-04T12:04:00.000-06:00

Muslims should embrace free speech
Religious groups instinctively want to censor ridicule of their religion. But it harms them in the longer term.

Another week, another media-fuelled controversy on Muslims apparently being against freedom of speech. On Monday morning on BBC Asian Network and yesterday morning on Radio 5 Live I was called in to defend the right to be offensive.

The controversy goes like this: someone on Facebook started a group called "Fuck Islam", and in retaliation several Muslims started groups calling for it to be shut down. Some said they would leave Facebook if it wasn't closed. Now here's the rub - the group owner clearly isn't some BNP supporter because he/she goes out of their way to say they hate all religions and don't want to demonise ordinary Muslims themselves. He/she adds "fuck Christianity", "fuck Judaism" to their intro and clearly is an atheist.

Should Facebook shut the group down? It isn't doing anything illegal according to UK or US law. Nor does the group contravene Facebook's own rules, since insulting any religion (as opposed to the followers) is not banned. There is only one argument left - it should be closed on grounds of taste and decency.

But rather than argue why it should be allowed to remain open on the basis that Britons have fought for Enlightenment values etc, or that shutting a Facebook group would herald the end of western civilisation as we know it, I want to make a different point.
Even when it is uncomfortable or downright offensive, freedom of speech and expression is especially important for minorities to cherish and hold on to tightly. They should argue for more of it, not less. It is a sign of political immaturity of religious "community leaders" (the MCB, HFB etc) and outdated thinking on the side of the race relations activists that they don't buy this argument. But it is a very important one nevertheless.Here are two examples to show why this is the case.

Most people who demand censorship on criticism or ridicule of their religion do so because it is their primary identity. They personally feel under attack. Why can't people respect my identity, they ask. Good question. But if people were forced by law to respect other people's identities, you couldn't criticise anything. For example, a highly patriotic American or Indian could argue that criticising their country of origin felt offensive and should not be allowed. That would make life very difficult for Muslim and Sikh groups. Respect for all identities? Certainly not - I value my right to criticise governments, public figures, organisations and religious rituals.
If religious groups want to restrict ridicule of their religion, they have to accept that criticism of other identities like nationality would not be allowed. Furthermore, it would mean anyone declaring that other religions are "false" and theirs is the only true path would also be carted off to jail.

The second point is this. Freedom of speech and expression has allowed minorities in the UK to dress in the ways they want to, live how they want to and practice their own beliefs within the law. It doesn't matter if some don't like the turban, the hijab or the niqab - as long as a person does not personally infringe on the rights of others, freedom of religion is paramount. And most of the arguments for banning them are facile. By arguing for restrictions for others, religious groups only foster a hostile environment where others may demand that these freedoms be taken back. We need more freedom, not less. And that involves taking the good with the bad.
So, for my fellow panellist from MPAC (on Asian Network) to argue that criticism of Muslims should be restricted during these "difficult times", while they continue attacking "Zionists" despite an upsurge of anti-semitic attacks on Jews in Britain (by Muslims) is a tad hypocritical. It took a decade before Inayat Bunglawala saw the light.

To be fair, religious minorities aren't the only ones who misunderstand free speech and expression. It isn't uncommon for readers on Cif and elsewhere to demand that the niqab be banned because it offends them. Similarly, I recall Brownie on Harry's Place calling for Neil Clark's article on Cif to be censored; and Norm Geras saying Columbia University should never have invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently. I find it amusing when people are happy for the BNP to make idiots of themselves in the media, but not others.
I understand that many Muslims feel under attack right now, given that xenophobic attacks on them have become commonplace. The problem is that most people don't think logically; they think emotionally. While Jews and Christians have become more politically astute in realising that creating a stink only backfires in their faces, most Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims are woefully immature in this regard. Free speech is especially important for minority groups because when there is a crackdown through legislation on "unpopular" thoughts, it usually affects them disproportionately. It's about time they realised this.

*********
Excellent articulation of arguments by Mr. Hundal; however I disagree on some fronts. While I agree that we must be critical and perhaps no topic or subject is taboo, I find it disturbing that we defend such writings in the name of freedom of speech. In my humble opinion, this is nothing but a repugnant expression of soft prejudices and it should be characterised as such. In the same vein that you defend the right of having such disgusting material, organised groups mush have the very right to express their revulsion. While I am hesitant to call for banning of anything per se, it is undeniable that it is quite fashionable to denigrate Islam (or other “foreign” religious philosophies) today. Are we at a juncture where we are postulating that there are no limits to expression? Where do we draw the lines and how can such a notion of not infringing on others’ rights be operationalised without having limits?

Commodification of Religion

2007-09-25T13:05:00.000-06:00

In a world where religion has become a commodity and frenzied marketing characterises the activities of the faithful, one cannot help but wonder about the reaction of the revered prophets to this regrettable scenario.

Will Jesus be happy his disciples felt that to proclaim their faith is to be callous, self righteous and inhumane? Will Ram be ecstatic with his devotees' destructive actions in their quest to honour his birth place? Will Mohammad be overjoyed with the devout proclamation that no less than a murder is required as punishment for the offending, albeit prejudiced Jyllands Posten cartoons? I wonder! What is common among such individuals is the lack of enlightenment that informs their actions. Isn't enlightenment the quest of the spiritual minded? It is in this context of prejudice and ignorance that we should view the posturing that emanates from various quarters about the moral superiority of their faith.

Harmonious existence cannot be eked out with a refusal by individuals or groups to recognise the legitimate right of others to their quest for spiritual enlightenment, without fear of attack and ridicule, especially so in a diverse society. This includes the “soft core” attack that is usually disguised as a statement of faith. That being said, this does not preclude legitimate discussions and debates on articles of faith and religion.

The adoption of a tradition or a religion will arise from an attraction to the quintessential essence of that belief system. In its purest manifestation, this will undoubtedly evolve through a natural process; it is the demonstrative actions, nature and essential personality of the adherents of a particular faith that will serve as a beacon to those on the outside. The inherent greatness, purity and egalitarian nature of a religion as exemplified by its followers are all that is needed to attract true devotees. No amount of loud proclamations, callous vilification or vulnerable exploitation will lead to unconditional acceptance of a particular faith; it may increase numbers but not true acceptance. That the need exists to market religion as if it is some common product bespeaks of a regrettable loss of the very ideal of what the prophets stood for. Having to resort to such campaigns speaks volumes about the believers' personal lack of faith in the true greatness of their belief system.

Once we understand and comprehend true spirituality there will be no need for the negativity that is proliferated in the name of god. We would all do well to remember this, especially the self appointed religious foot soldiers…