Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Sure, Build a Mosque, Just Not Here

Monday, August 16th, 2010

Masjid Quba in Saudi Arabia

As a Muslim who enjoys religious freedom in this country, as an African American who has experienced firsthand racism, and as an American who truly believes in the principles of freedom that this country claims to support, it has been sickening to read all of these reports about the mosque that New York Muslims want to build 2 blocks away from “ground zero”, and how 70% of Americans allegedly oppose it.

First of all, I will use the term “racism” in my comments, only because there is really no good term to describe someone who has malicious feelings or even evil intentions against someone of another religion.  ”Religist” simply isn’t a word.

The funny thing about racism is that it can hide in plain sight for years, and even the person who harbors it is unaware of its presence.  We saw this when Obama ran for office, when people threatened him and at times even went so far as to question his citizenship.  We saw it after 9/11, when anyone who even looked like he or she might be Arab was suddenly a potential terrorist in the eyes of many angry Americans.  And if you spend enough time living in brown skin of any shade, you experience it routinely in the work place, with law enforcement, at stores, and elsewhere.  Racism is far from dead.  In fact, in some ways, it has increased, while only becoming more discreet.

Racism against Muslims, for lack of a better term, is apparently at an all-time high.  Not only were Muslims responsible for 9/11, after all, but they are also the “enemy” of what is becoming the next Vietnam in Afghanistan, with no end to the war in sight.  Just as Japanese were the “enemy” in WWII, with Japanese Americans being shunned and even sent off to concentration camps, so too have Muslims become the “other” suspiciously watched in America.

The difference, much to the chagrin of those racist Americans, is that Islam is much more prevalent in this country and Muslims are much more numerous.  We have Muslims in Congress, and your doctor, police officer, judge, or even your nanny may be Muslim, and you may not even know it.  There are generations of Muslims with names like mine, with no hint of Arab, Pakistani, or other middle-eastern/south asian blood.  So, yes, even your librarian may be Muslim.

Does that mean you should freak out now because we’re “invading” America?  No, it’s too late for panic anyway, but there’s nothing to be afraid of, people.  Islam in America is not new.  Muslims came over with Columbus (and even BEFORE Columbus).  In fact, according to many reports, Columbus would not have even made the journey, if it were not for the sea navigation tools of Muslims.

Since that time, slaves and former slaves, farmers, factory workers, and all types of Muslim Americans, from sea to shining sea, have lived peacefully in this country.   And yes, on September 11, 2001, there were Muslims who died as a direct result from those attacks.  There was at least one Muslim prayer room in the World Trade Center itself!

Therefore, people like Mike Lupica of the NY Daily News who ramble off nonsense about “sensitivity to 9/11 victims” are simply finding ways to openly express their racism, without directly mentioning it.  I mean, really, Mr. Lupica, what “sensitivity” is it that these victims, and apparently you also, have?  Are they “sensitive” to having to look at brown people?  Are they “sensitive” to the smell of ethnic food?  Are they “sensitive” to seeing people dressed differently?  What exactly is the “sensitivity”?

He did not answer it in his article, despite taking up two pages.  Instead he danced around the issue, never quite mentioning what exactly it was that offends people so much.  What about the mosque is so wrong?  Don’t the families of Muslim victims of 9/11 also have “sensitivity”?  Don’t they have the right to also honor their loved ones?  Or is that right only reserved for white Christian Americans?

These are not rhetorical questions.  I challenge anyone who opposes the building of the mosque to answer them.  Please tell me you actually have some legitimate reason for opposing the mosque, other than outright racism, and I may very well change my opinion.   I will say this.  Mike Lupica is right.  It’s not about “freedom of religion” at all.  It’s about racism, plain and simple.  They hate us, and they want us gone.

Like it or not, Helen Thomas was right

Thursday, June 10th, 2010
Photo by Rachael Voorhees

Photo by Rachael Voorhees

It may not have been a pretty exit, as President Obama himself called it “offensive”.  But the fact remains that by saying Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” Helen Thomas amplified the stifled voices of native peoples all over the world.

Much of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and yes, America, was occupied through violence, oppression, and murder.  Israel’s bloody chapter of history has been no different.

The fact that Jews left Europe to occupy Palestine because of their own plight does not make it right.  If anything it reflects the cycle of abuse we see on an individual basis.  The abused child grows up to become the abuser.  Being the victims of a Holocaust does not give Israelis the right to inflict one on the Palestinians, one that has lasted 60 years.

Helen Thomas was right.  They should leave, but they probably will not.  Their children have grown up in Israel, unaware of the crimes of their fathers.  Those children are innocent, just as the children of American slave owners are, but they still reap the benefits of the suffering inflicted on others.  For that, there must be some resolution.

When Mandela opposed Apartheid and spent the better part of his life in jail, much of the western world turned a blind eye.  Voices like Helen Thomas were ignored or even shunned.  Today, they will ignore her, shun her, and maybe even hate her, but she is right.  History will record just how right she was.

Obama Caves to the Israeli Lobby

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

From AntiWar.com:

“The outrageous agitation…will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues…[It casts] doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government…

“The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views…and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those it [the Lobby] favors.”

Read the rest here.

We need to hold President Obama accountable for his promises.  If he truly wants peace in the Middle East, it will never come when America is eating out of Israel’s hand.

Hampshire College becomes first to divest from Israel

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

Good news from Democracy Now:

The Board of Trustees at Hampshire College has agreed to divest from six companies because of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Hampshire is believed to be the first U.S. college or university to divest from companies tied to the Israeli military. The companies are Caterpillar, United Technologies, General Electric, ITT Corporation, Motorola, and Terex. The Board agreed to the divestment following a two-year campaign by the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine. 32 years ago Hampshire College became the first school to divest from apartheid South Africa.

The Obama Administration

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

All hail his majesty, the Sultan Barack Hussein Obama II.  :) Sorry, I couldn’t resist.  His name just sounds like a 12th century Muslim African sultan. 

In all seriousness, I believe it to be a monumental achievement for a man of color to reach the White House.  He climbed up the backs of many African Americans (and others as well) who have struggled for equal rights for all people in this country.  It is inspirational to so many youth who have been told that they can’t reach their dreams.  Well, my children, rest assured, you can.

Now, however, the business begins.  Like any president, Obama has to put his words into action.  He is a fallible man who will make plenty of mistakes, but my hope is that, unlike Bush, he will learn from them, listen to the people he serves, and make himself and the country better.

I’ve always believed in the power of people to make a difference.  Bush did not drag the American people into two wars.  We let him do it.  He did not care about opinion poles or protesters, and we, the American people, allowed him to continue in his deviance.

My hope, to use Obama’s own favorite word, is that he is someone who will listen to the people, who will not beat the drums of war when the people prefer the melody of peace.  That is my hope for change.  It is up to you, President-Elect Obama, to make the dreams of Americans a reality.

My voting experience

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

I woke up at five, hurriedly made my lunch and gathered my things.  I did most of my preparation the night before so that I’d be ready to go by 5:30.  The polls opened at 6, and I figured I’d need to get there early in order to vote on time and still make it to work by 8:30.

Sure enough, when I arrived, in the cold, in complete darkness, there was already a line formed outside of about 60 people.  I stepped up behind a friendly couple and waited.  Everyone there was excited and upbeat.  No one complained about the cold or the wait.  It was as if everyone had a purpose, a mission to make something positive happen.

As we gradually moved into the building when the doors opened at 6, it was clear that the line would move pretty quickly.  They had 6 booths set up in the gymnasium of our community center.  I live in a predominantly African American area, and to see so many faces of color exercising their right to self govern this country was sight to behold.

At one point, we all paused at the sound of the vote-counting machine giving a loud beep, kind of like a microwave.  A woman stuck her ballot into the machine again, and it beeped a second time.  More people who had finished voting formed a line behind her, and a volunteer quickly got on his mobile phone to ask someone, apparently an expert on the machines, what to do.  After a few minutes, the situation was resolved and voting resumed.

By 7:00 I was finished and extremely tired.  I prayed salatul-Fajr and headed to work.  There was no point in returning home.  I stopped at a store to pick up some donuts and orange juice, and even the cashier and other customers were so upbeat and enthusiastic about voting.

The overall experience made feel like I was a part of something important.  I only pray that the votes are counted without hassle and that history is made.  More than anything, I’m hoping my first voting experience is not my last.

Biased Media’s Love of Obama

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

I never watch or read ABC News, but somehow, and for reasons I still do not fully understand, I happened upon an article by Michael S. Malone called “Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline.”  I have no idea who Michael S. Malone is, but from the way he spends the first half of the article listing his media credentials, he sounds “important.”

His argument, an overly dramatic one I might add, is that the mainstream media is flushing itself down the toilet because of its open bias towards Senator Barack Obama.  The evidence of this, according to Malone, is the sheer sparsity of negative coverage of the Obama campaign.  There have been so many negative stories about McCain and Palin, he argues.

Before I continue my critique of Malone’s McCain ad (ahem) I mean article, I should make two things clear:  1.  I have experience as a journalist but am not employed in the mainstream media and 2. I have decided to vote for Obama in this election.

Malone, on the other hand, does belong to the mainstream media, and the bias which he laments is partially his own.  And I must say that, at least on the surface, I agree with him.  There has undoubtedly been more negative coverage of McCain, his running mate, and his family.  On this issue, Malone and I are in complete agreement. 

Where I believe Malone falters, however, is in assuming it is because the media is biased in favor of Obama.  We’re talking about the same media, Malone’s own ABC in particular, that has bent over backwards for the past eight years while George W. Bush covered up his prior knowledge of 9/11, committed war crimes, authorized the torture of prisoners (some of them innocent people), spied on his own people, illegally detained some of his own citizens, exposed an undercover CIA operative, and dissolved the fat US economy into leftover grease.

Any one of W’s offenses could have been impeachable (some of them are even treason), yet the mainstream media, while reporting it, has essentially condoned it.  When they could have relentlessly exposed and reported the president’s crimes, they did little more than mention them.  Whenever a protest occurred and police invariably beat and arrested protesters, the mainstream media cameras were absent.  You would think that the country was still relatively pleased with Bush because very few anti-Bush or anti-War coverage was ever given.

Therein lies the problem, Mr. Malone.  The mainstream media rarely cracks the surface.  They’ll report the story but very rarely will they go beneath the surface on important controversial issues.  McCain has plenty of surface faults, and they have done their job to report them.  Obama simply does not have as many.  Am I saying this because I like Obama better or think he’s a better man?  No.  I’m saying it because McCain is older, a lot older.

McCain has been in office for decades and goes out of his way very often to remind us of that.  He is never going to let us forget about Ronald Regan (even though many of us would like to forget him).  So of course there is going to be more negative material to cover on McCain.  He has simply done more negative things.  He has done a lifetime of negative things.  You could write volumes on his deeds (as one day someone will).

This is where Malone’s argument falls flat, and the example he uses proves to be his own tragic flaw.  In speaking about the “war” in Lebanon three summers ago, Malone writes:

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story…

Thank you Mr. Malone.  You proved my point very nicely without even realizing it.  When Israel attacked Lebanon, the death tolls were enormous.  1,191 Lebonese civilians lost their lives.  There was indiscriminate bombing of homes, villages, and even relief aid vehicles. Less than 250 Hezbollah fighters were killed.  Hezbollah, which launched missiles day and night into Israel, killed 121 soldiers and only 44 civilians. 

Again it is a simple matter of numbers.  How can you give equal coverage to a “war” that is not equal.  When people are literally dying left and right of you, how can you leave that to report what, by comparison, is only a handful of deaths?  What is surprising is that the media actually did report them and never failed to mention Israeli deaths to the point where people until this day believe that the “war” was an equal and just one, that Israel was justified in the atrocities they committed, and that Hezbollah are the terrorists.

Mr. Malone, it is a simple problem of logic.  Yours is flawed.  Media coverage is quantitative.  It can be measured.  Your mainstream media, Mr. Malone, has long argued that the independent candidates (such as Ralph Nader) or even alternative candidates (such as Dennis Kucinich [D] or Ron Paul [R]) do not deserve as much media coverage because they are not as popular (which is a circular argument).  Well, Mr. Malone, like it or not, Senator Obama is popluar, extremely popular, despite the McCain campaign’s relentless attempts to smear him with negative ads, many of which are outright lies.

I can think of plenty of criticisms of Obama, so do not think that I am in love with the man.  His show (and I emphasize this word) of unbiased support for Israel during his campaign and his rather muffled show of what can best be described as “blackness” are both disturbing yet not upsetting.  I can understand why he felt he needed to behave that way in a predominantly white America that is still electrically charged with racist particles, and his previous record indicates that he is not so black and white (no pun intended).  But the McCain campaign’s criticisms have been paltry at best, and Mr. Malone’s last ditched attempt to rescue John McCain is simply too pathetic and too late.

The Rich Are Staging a Coup

Monday, September 29th, 2008

I just received this letter from Michael Moore.  The only problem with it is that it assumes the rich weren’t already controlling everything and needed to stage a “coup.”  All they’re really doing is re-solidifying their stranglehold over the American people and the rest of the world.

The majority of us have been experiencing a “financial crisis” since Bush stepped into office, but we’re only now hearing about it in the media when the fat cats need to be bailed out to save their billions from flushing down the toilet.  The rich stay rich, and according to Michael’s analysis, they might even get richer after this bailout. 

Sarah Palin on Israel Attacking Iran

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

Palin says that an Israeli attack on Iran should never be “second guessed.”

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: “We don’t have to
second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe that it is in
their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests
to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them
off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in
this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say
Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the
earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would
seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her
friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those
are the good guys.”

Why does this woman sound like an 8 year old talking about an episode of Power Rangers?

These “good guys” she speaks of are the same ones who have illegally occupied Palestinian land for 60 years; “good guys” who repeatedly abuse, bulldoze homes, kill, and torture Palestinians; “good guys” who occupied Lebanon for 20 years and even knowingly attack reporters, UN observers, Red Cross vehicles, and even ships belonging to their own allies.

She is correct to use the phrase “in my world” because Sarah Palin obviously does not live in the real world.

Iran, Israel, and the One-State Solution

Thursday, September 25th, 2008

CNN has posted a video of Larry King’s interview with Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  I took the time this morning to watch and came away with two main observations:

1. It greatly increase my respect for and admiration of the Iranian president.  He is both intelligent and tactful in his response and also seems genuine.

2. Larry King, all things considered, did a pretty good job of letting Ahmadinejad talk without bombarding him with ridiculous accusations and misquotes (although he did not shy away from many of the dumb controversial questions that many Americans have asked).

Above all else, however, I came away with a new understanding about the Iranian position on Israel.  Although many people in the west commonly assume that Iran wishes for Israel to be destroyed (whatever that actually means), the words of the Iranian president were quite different.

He apparently advocates something that few Americans, Israelis, or even Palestinians dare to even consider: a one-state solution.  For decades now we’ve been inundated with the concept of two states, both a Jewish one and a Palestinian one.  But the only truly fair solution, according to Ahmadinejad, is for the people of that region to unite under one state, hold a referendum for the future makeup of their new government, and reform their country into something open, democratic, and just.

This, of course, would mean that the Palestinians, especially if one includes the ones who are living in exile, would hold a majority vote, just as the black South Africans did when the Apartheid regime was overturned.  Had they instead formed a separate “black” state, they would have been isolated and decimated by their white counterparts.

The real reason for the insistence upon the two-state solution is that it is the only way to preserve a “Jewish” state.  Although westerners commonly refer to Israel as “the only democratic state in the middle east,” it is actually anything but democratic.  It serves the interests of Jews and Jews alone.  It ignores the rights even of the arabs who are citizens while also denying citizenship to the majority of Palestinians.

To give the Palestinians citizenship in Israel would effectively end the reign of the Zionist (Apartheid) regime.  Replacing it with something democratic and free for both Jews and Palestinians is the only way to ensure lasting freedom and success for both parties.

This is Iran’s stance on the issue.  It is not one of violent uphevil and extermination of the Jewish people.  It is a stance that is probably the only realistic (yet bitter-tasting) solution if the Israelis expect to ever live without fear and the Palestinans ever hope to truly have freedom.