The Odalisque Project

Restarting and Moving

2008-09-29T23:28:00.003-04:00

As you may have noticed, I haven't written on this blog for a good few months. The reason being that I had an blogger-existential crisis.

I wasn't happy with the posts that I was making, so I just stopped. Then school started, and crazy election stuff is going on, and I desperately wanted to display my opinions on a public forum.

I've decided to switch to WordPress because its just better for my purposes. Visit my new blog, The Odalisque Project: Version 2.0!!

Things that make me lose faith

2008-07-15T17:41:00.004-04:00

Video footage of a 16 year old Canadian citizen suspected of terrorism detained in Guantanamo Bay has been released.

I desperately want to be optimistic. Or at least optimistic when it comes to justice being served in my own country by my own country. When stuff like this happens, I want to say its the fault of a few corrupt individuals and not an entire system. That way, things can be corrected. But this is different. I don't think the stories that come out of Gitmo can be chalked up to a few corrupt individuals. It is a failure of the government.

This boy's story is especially disturbing because he is now my age. What justification can be given for his detainment? I don't see any. I don't even think there's any way to possibly prosecute those responsible for his treatment either.

That blows. Major. =-(

Iraq, another reason to hire me after graduation

2008-07-15T15:07:00.004-04:00

So I'm really not paying that much attention to the '08 election. At least not as much as other people think I am. Its more out of cynicism than actual ambivalence. My area of expertise (ha ha, expertise. that's funny) is in foreign policy, and I don't think the next American president is going to change it very much. American foreign policy since the Cold War has remained fairly static, even as the sphere in which it operates has changed dramatically. Military aid is given strategic countries no matter what regime is in power, democratic appearances are more important than practice for our allies, etc. Some things will definitely change because there is intense pressure to do so. Namely, the war in Iraq.

I will be voting for Obama in the coming election. I didn't vote for him in the primaries because my registration is for Florida and therefore not counted, so I just didn't vote. However, I don't like what he's saying about the US role in Iraq. This excerpt was taken from a BBC article, where I get most of my news. Because I usually like my news to not be ridiculous.

'In his speech at the International Trade Center in Washington, Mr Obama said: "This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st Century."

Al-Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia

Excerpt from Barack Obama speech

Read the speech in full [48KB]

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Download the reader here

He said the conflict in Iraq must be brought to an end as "the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was".
Mr Obama said that as president he would take the US in a new direction, and a priority would be to finish the fight against the Taleban and al-Qaeda, which has an expanding base in Pakistan.
He said the troop surge policy had actually hurt America's overall strategic interests, by diverting resources away from Afghanistan, just as the situation there was deteriorating.
Mr Obama said a withdrawal from Iraq would allow a much-needed redeployment of troops.
He said sustained co-operation was needed between Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nato to root out al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
"It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large," he said.'

Yes, I do think the War on Terror had nearly no gains in invading Iraq, but guess what...it does now. al Qaeda's presence to date is minimal and not really welcomed but an unstable Iraq has obvious consequences for American security. If Iraq fails, again, the blow back would be even worse. There are many many different attitudes towards the invasion going around in Iraq and there is no reason to suppose that the "Americans did us a favor and we're better off" view will be the one to survive. Leaving Iraq entirely will leave many grievances unheard and untended to and the area will be ripe for conflict again and again. We cannot afford to leave Iraq nor Afghanistan without better efforts at reconstruction.

So yeah, another reason why I should be gainfully employed once I get my master's. I'mma rebuild me some nations. Yay Peacebuilding!

Seriously, there's really no reason for all of this

2008-07-10T13:54:00.005-04:00

At present, I don't have anything to say about this topic. Only I'm really really not looking forward to it.

My prayers are with the Israeli people in the hope that they won't get dragged into another unnecessary war and with the Iranian people that they won't be made to suffer for their governments.

I'm not trying to downplay any real grievances that are spurring this on, but come on. Shooting missiles at each other offers short term gains and long term disadvantages.

Love of bombs makes people do crazy things.

Afghanistan Should Motivate You to Hire Me

2008-07-08T15:41:00.006-04:00

Amid reports of the bombing on the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan, I started thinking more about just how completely devastated that country is. It is quite possibly worse off than Iraq. At least Iraq gets more American attention. Afghanistan is just screwed, there is little hope for reconstruction as long as the US has to concentrate all its efforts in Iraq.

Corruption is rampant, and no one in the international community really seems at all motivated to do anything about it. The people most effected and the most motivated are powerless.

Peacebuilding is a lot more than negotiating cease fires and I hope the next administration starts sending more experts into those areas that need it the most and ease up a bit (or a lot, hopefully) on the military aid.

Come on, Obama. I've got one more semester. Give me a job. Preferably in December.*

*Of course, I'm not proposing entry level Peace Studies undergrads get sent off to random F@cked-up-istans. But at least start moving them in that direction.

Religion a Determinant of Doucheness

2008-07-08T15:09:00.006-04:00

Over the holiday weekend, I went to see Mongol and caught a glimpse of a new Bill Maher documentary. Its called Religulous and surprise! It's Bill Maher acting like a d!ck. The only thing that might save this movie, in a non-religious way, is the interviews with Andrew Newberg who is religion positive.

I really don't have anything against Bill Maher, but I hate it when people mock religion as though it only has destructive consequences. That and its cruel to attack something that is sacred to someone else and is a constructive force in their lives. I hope the movie at least says that not everything about organized religion and its followers are bad, because the trailer certainly doesn't.

I've written a lot about my stance on religion, and I'm thinking about getting a grad degree that deals with religion and peacebuilding. If someone says Jesus is their inspiration for feeding the poor, what's the problem? Assuming they're not doing something bastardish like cutting up chunks of Bible and adding to the soup, there should be no reason to attack belief in Jesus or any other faith tradition. And if someone is being an ass in the name of God, the concept of God deserves no more criticsm than the color shirt that person is wearing. God is incidental and unrelated to their behavior.

Religious beliefs (or absence of them) do not a douche bag make.

Also, Bill Maher can seem a little too self important for my taste. He carries himself as a moralist/political analyst first and then a comedian second and that's just a little disingenuous.

Anyway, I'm happy I got to use dirty words in the post. I won't do it too often.

Slavery, Making a Comeback But It Never Really Left

2008-06-27T10:11:00.000-04:00

I posted a little bit last week about human trafficking and forced labor, and today I came across the story of a US couple of SE Asian origins who have been convicted of keeping two Indonesian slaves.

The story of a rich couple hiring two Indonesian girls as housekeepers, and then keeping them past their visa expiration may be a unique example of modern day slavery in the US. Yet I have a feeling that such forced and unfair labor is not at all uncommon. Back in the day, slaves were forcibly imported. But now with increased global migration and stark differences in nations' stability and wealth, the world's poor need little coaxing to leave their homes. What's different is they are promised a better life and they unfortunately believe those promises will be delivered by putting their lives entirely in someone else's money grubbing hands.

Slavery has existed for thousands of years under thousands of different names and forms in different circumstances. There is no reason to believe that just because we had an abolitionist movement that it doesn't exist anymore at all. It'd be great if it didn't, but enslavement is one of those old human vices that just keep coming back.

Weapon of Massive Consumption

2008-06-16T16:57:00.000-04:00

"Life’s about film stars and less about mothers/ It's all about fast cars and passing each other/ But it doesn't matter cause I’m packing plastic/ And that’s what makes my life so fucking fantastic/ And I am a weapon of massive consumption/ Its not my fault, its how I'm programmed to function."

Lily Allen in I Don't Know

As I try to be a more ethical consumer, I'm astounded by how much every day things actually cost. We as a society have built our lives around huge discount stores and fast food restaurants. The items may be cheap, but the overall cost is not. Most of us realize now why things from China are so cheap, but its a bigger problem than that. Slave labor is also a factor. If something is so cheap that the company couldn't possibly be making a profit from it, look at it again. Something, somewhere is very wrong.

This article from the Economist describes the latest statistics of human trafficking and the slave labor market. While it does focus a lot on women being forced into prostitution, the numbers they quote about this black market industry are pretty shocking. The trade is too big to affect only a small group of countries, but the recent study that was conducted by the State Department failed to study the business in America as well.

Also check out this in depth analysis from the BBC on 21st century slavery and just how prevalent it reportedly is in the US.

In China, one of the fastest growing economies in the world right now, and where we get many of our products, extensively uses forced labor from their prison camps. These camps are aimed at brainwashing and reforming political and religious dissidents. Even more disturbing are the stories of children in bonded labor in India.

Globalization can have remarkable benefits for everyone. But as it stands now, its bulldozing over nearly as many people. For more information on just how incredibly crazy and important all this is, check out the International Labour Organization's Publications site.

Don't just hop on the Going Green bandwagon, hop on the Go Fair bandwagon as well. Because really, if we're going to blindly conform to anything isn't this the best way to go?

Allies or Victims?

2008-06-09T18:48:00.005-04:00

I was just reading this article in Newsweek about a little town in Pakistan that is reportedly a place of refuge for terrorists given that is so close to the Afghanistan border. American troops are already in the region taking out as many terrorists they can find.

I may be just a damned Civvie, as Colonel Tigh would say, but I think there are some inefficient methods going on. Approximately 100 people have been killed by American soldiers since 2006, and the inhabitants say that many of them were innocent bystanders including children. The soldiers claim they examine their targets very carefully.

"But in practice their definition of a legitimate target includes those who make it possible for militants to thrive. "If people in those communities are truly concerned about their welfare, they should not harbor terrorists, and they should oppose those who do," says one U.S. official."

I'm not saying that our men and women conducting these operations don't care about taking innocent lives, but I do think there is significantly less value attached to the lives of the locals. When it comes to fighting terror and bringing justice to the still living victims of terrorists (that includes the followers they lie to), the targets should be the ones who are committed to violent action. I don't think its fair to include those who feed and clothe them. By all means, subject them to the necessary legal punishments if a case can be proven against, but don't save any bullets for them.

The term "terrorist" over there is not so black and white in the way we think of it over here. We think of people who deliberately want to kill civilians for political gain. We debate over what organizations actually want to do that, but we have a clear understanding of the defining goal. Over in Pakistan, and many other developing democracies, "terrorist" is used very loosely to include opposition of the sitting regimes. Unfortunately, many western governments don't even try to understand such groups and are happy to go along with the terrorist label. Its always nice to tell the public that you've detained and/or killed a bunch of Islamic terrorists, so why spoil it?

The article goes on, and I love it.

"But Pakistan's new civilian leadership complains that the U.S. strikes—and the collateral damage they've caused—are making the job of pacifying the area harder. At ground level, in mountain hamlets like Damadola, things aren't always as clear as they may seem through the viewfinder of a deadly, high-flying drone.

Villagers in Damadola say it's hard to say no to men with guns, especially when many of those men are your neighbors and relatives. It's even tougher in Pakistan's tribal areas, where the Pashtuns' ancient ethical code requires that every visitor be treated hospitably. "Even if a bloodthirsty enemy comes to your door you have to welcome him," says a gray-bearded villager named Bakhti Gul. He can't help adding: "Especially those who are chased by the U.S." His nephew was among the victims of the most recent Predator attack, early on the morning of May 14. The young man had joined the militants, Bakhti Gul admits, but only after an earlier Predator strike on a nearby madrassa had killed more than 80 of his schoolmates.

"Could the villagers of Damadola save themselves by simply not "harboring terrorists," as the Americans say? Mohammed Abdul Mateen, a retired science teacher who left Damadola several years ago but visits frequently, agrees the militants are destroying the place, but says the Hellfire attacks only increase their strength. "Soon the last educated villagers will be gone, leaving an illiterate people in the hands of narrow-minded mullahs," he says. Kids in once quiet Damadola are now terrified by loud noises, which could signal an incoming U.S. spy plane. "The land under our feet is on fire," says shopkeeper Haji Omar Shah. "Where can we run?" Since mid-May, villagers say U.S. choppers and drones have been flying over Damadola regularly, swooping low to the ground. They're sure more trouble is coming."

Oh Newsweek, this almost makes up for your earlier article on Islam. =-)

Squee!

2008-06-07T16:24:00.003-04:00

Sci-Fi Geekery for this week:

Battlestar Galactica, squee!! That series just becomes more and more intriguing, and damn do they know how to keep me in suspense. And just how awesome is their last supper photo? (And no I do not count that as sacrilegious. Jesus and his disciples didn't pose for that, it was just a renaissance painter's imagining of it. It is not a religious artifact, just a piece of art.)

And...even more exciting, the new production of Dune. I liked the look of the Lynch version but not the script. I liked the accuracy and the casting of the Sci-Fi miniseries, but not the actual production itself. So I'm really hoping the new one will be a better combination of both. Herbert's sons are set to co-produce, and that gives me hope.

And yes this is relevant to the blog because both (mainly Dune) contain lots of political allegory. Or at least that's what I tell myself.

Herbivores Eating Herbivores: Food Crisis Fixed

2008-06-05T16:29:00.006-04:00

This is a very short interesting article from a popular BBC news program, Newsnight. It doesn't offer much in the way of conclusions, but I like that its encouraging the talk.

"'The best solution would be for us all to become vegetarians'.
So suggested the head of the UN climate agency, Yvo de Boer, who is attending UN-led climate talks in Germany this week. He was responding to criticism that measures to tackle climate change are partly to blame for the rise in food and energy costs. Carbon-cutting biofuels, for example, use food crops to make alternatives to gasoline.

Meanwhile, Patrick Wall, chairman of the European Food Safety Authority, has questioned whether it is 'morally or ethically correct' to be feeding grain to animals while people starve. Speaking to the Times, he argued that it's time to end the EU ban on the use of animal remains to feed pigs and chickens. Lifting the ban would allow grain to be diverted to millions of starving people.

And the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, hosting a much publicised summit in Rome this week, has warned of global catastrophe unless food reaches parts of the world where it is needed most.

So, does the global food crisis demand a radical rethink of how we distribute food? Should we worry less about feeding our animals and prioritise getting grain to people suffering food shortages - even if that affects the availability of meat?"

I posted a little while ago about my thoughts on universal vegetarianism, and now I've had a new thought. If there was some kind of global vegetarian campaign, it shouldn't be in the countries that are suffering the most from the food shortages. They should be able to eat whatever they want because their nutritional concerns are more immediate. If anyone should have to sacrifice meat consumption, it us. And by us I mean, America. I'm talking about meat reduction.

But what if we stop feeding the animals actual food, and start feeding them left over dead animals like that guy in the article suggests? Um, ew. That just causes all kinds of health concerns and ah...EW!

You can't have your pig-fed chicken and eat it too, I'm afraid. (Ba-dum ching!) Its just not that easy. The answer isn't going vegetarian completely. Just going vegetarian more.

Additionally, check out the Compassion in World Farming website and their "Eat Less Meat" Campaign.

The claws are unleashed on Newsweek

2008-06-03T21:32:00.006-04:00

More dumb stuff about Islam was written recently for Newsweek.

"The New Face of Islam" describes how recently, Muslims world wide have come to denounce radicalism. While the article does a good job of describing bin Laden's diatribes as political and therefore unrelated to Islam and the efforts of scholars to examine the roles of jihad in historical contexts, the idea that this is "new" is naive at best.

Newsweek properly quotes a Turkish scholar on the historical reinterpretations of Islam :

"In its first three centuries "Islam was interacting with Greek, Iranian and Indian cultures and at every encounter [scholars] reinterpreted Islam according to new conditions," says Gormez. "They were not afraid to rethink Islam then."

But then Newsweek acts like such "liberal" reinterpretations were on the periphery, which is wrong. Ibn Khaldun anyone? Rumia, he wasn't just a poet, he was also a jurist. For goodness sake, even the list of different Islamic schools of thoughts and all their offshoots should prove that Islam is constantly being reinterpreted in all kinds of situations.

Violent radicals are always small portions of a population but their ideas may become popular if they offer a quick and easy answer to grievances. If the rise of radical Islam can be said to be spurned on by anything it is that. It has nothing to do with any ideas inherent in Islam or Muslims.

Bin Laden is a political figure, not a religious one, no matter what he claims to be. If more people are turning away from his message, and there were plenty to begin with, it is because their political views have changed.

I try not to get too angry and say insulting things, but this is just the kind of stuff that really encourages the myth of the Westerner as a superior to a non-Westerner. If we continue to think that Muslims are somehow intellectually retarded and the only cure is imitating us, we are making them into something less than human. Something that is okay to cheat, steal from, exploit, oppress, kill, and even ignore in times of crisis. I hates that. So Newsweek, you's a bitch.

The Inevitable

2008-06-02T14:22:00.002-04:00

It was bound to happen wasn't it? Delving into the whole green life thing, it was almost certain I'd start experimenting with vegetarianism. Lori, I blame you for introducing me to the wikipedia article on environmental vegetarianism.

Basically, I've developed a personal conviction against the modern meat industry. I don't have a moral issue with consuming the dead flesh of other sentient beings because animals eat other animals. So being carnivorous is a part of the natural world and the natural order. How humans fit into it is up for debate, but I don't think there's anything immoral about killing animals for food. Of course, if I had to kill animals myself and clean their carcasses, I would absolutely be a strict vegetarian. I'm the product of a modern urban environment and consequently spoiled that way.

No, my "beef" (ha ha, did you see that? its a pun. applaud me.) with the meat industry is that the way in which it is produced is harmful to all parties involved.

This is a well cited wikipedia article on the effects of modern meat production on people and the environment.

I don't think vegetarianism is the answer to all these problems, but meat reduction obviously is. By practicing vegetarianism, I'm at least contributing to lessen the demand. I want to at least try this out for a week or two, and then make a decision on how I will conduct my meat consumption in the future.

What I may very well do is just make sure that when I do eat meat, it has been produced in a way that I approve of.

I wonder when I'll be able to apply for my tree hugging liberal hippy certification. Probably around the time I start evangelizing about all this stuff to people on the bus.

Bigotry in the details

2008-05-29T18:59:00.004-04:00

So I'm reading some of the latest posts on my favorite blog sites, and I found the lamest story I've heard this year/month/week (depending on how often I pay attention to Paris Hilton gossip). I'm not saying The Superficial was lame in writing about it, because I think they're awesome. I just think some things are getting out of hand.

A few seasons ago, the keffiyeh was popping up in many hip retail clothing stores like Delias and Urban Outfitters as a trendy new scarf. The keffiyeh is a black or red checkered scarf that is worn across the Middle East. The black is usually associated with Palestine while the red is associated with Jordan. To wear a black one is to usually make a pretty strong statement.

I have a red one that I bought in Jordan, as you may see pictured on me above. I like to wear it as an accessory on casual warm days. It also acts as a magnet for Arab men, they try to hit on me. My Arabic professor didn't like it when I wore it, he said it made me look like some kind Arabic hillbilly. The other guy in the picture is Axis of Evil comic, Ahmed Ahmed. He's fun.

Back to the story, Rachel Ray's latest ad for Dunkin' Donuts has been pulled because some people got upset at her "hate couture". According to (what I think is) an Ann Coulter worshipper, Michelle Malkin:

"The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons."

Seriously?

Luckily, The Superficial diffused the situation fairly well:

"The only jihad that scarf makes me want to commit is against my hangover - with sweet caffeine. And if that's not American, shit, I don't know what is. That said, I'll assume for their next commercial Rachael Ray, clad in the Stars and Stripes, will fire an AK at a Boston Creme - then dump scalding hot lattes on a gay wedding. Wow, I should work in advertising. I would sell stuff's face off."

Dirty Rascals No Longer in the Castles

2008-05-28T16:04:00.004-04:00

In my attempt to include more regional variation on this blog, I'd like to talk about Nepal as it was such a nice front page news item on news.bbc.co.uk.

I really don't know anything about Nepal, and frequently get it confused with Tibet and the Dalai Llama. But now, I get to learn new things about old places.

As you can see from the map above, Nepal is a little country in between China and India which immediately drove me to the assumption that there are probably many different ethnic groups and some amazing food.

Nepal has been under a monarchy for most of its history. The current ruling family has been in power since the 1950's. Sometimes, monarchies are benign. Their power is limited and they play a largely ceremonial role. Not the case with Nepal, unfortunately. It is among the poorest countries of the world.

In the 1950's and 60's, a parliamentary democracy existed as sort of an experiment. King Mahendra ended that experiment, calling it a failure, and re-establishing the monarchy. But the resistance to absolute rule grew, and finally, a multiparty parliament was put in place in 1990.

In 2001, there a disturbing event took place when the crown prince Dipendra killed 11 members of the royal family, including the king and queen, and then turned the gun on himself. He briefly survived his wounds, and in that time, he became king. The current King Gyanendra, Dipendra's brother, was crowned once Dipendra died.

Failing to negotiate with Maoist rebels in the country, Gyanendra sacked the government and took complete control in 2005. Direct palace rule was ended in 2006 and just today, the government declared it will abolish the monarchy.

Woohoo!

"The newly installed Maoist-led government says that after vacating the royal palace - which along with other royal properties will be nationalised - he will be free to carry on living in Nepal as an ordinary tax paying citizen and will not be forced into exile.

That is the final humiliation for a monarch who over the last few years has been removed as head of the army and lost nearly all his staff.

In addition he has suffered the indignities of having his allowances cut by parliament and his face removed from the country's currency."

That is very nonviolent and totally awesome. It hasn't been a completely nonviolent revolution, and people are still fighting about what kind of democracy it will be, but I say its a good start.

Yay Nepal!

I'll hold my breath and turn blue if you don't talk to me!

2008-05-22T16:45:00.003-04:00

According to an article in The Economist, not talking to "the enemy" can be just as effective, if not more, than actual talking.

Not talking doesn't mean we ignore diplomacy all together and get to the stick. It means talks themselves can be used as leverage. You want to talk? Ok, but you have to do something first to show you're serious about it.

"For decades Israel and America said they would not talk to the Palestine Liberation Organisation until Yasser Arafat renounced terrorism. Eventually, he did. The same tactic might make Hamas, Hizbullah or Iran drop their stated plan to eliminate the Jewish state. A tactic, however, is not a principle. Choosing the right one requires guessing how much value the other side places on talking, and what it might pay for the privilege. Israel, incidentally, is currently in talks not only with Syria but also, indirectly, with Hamas."

Fun times.

Puns About Green Money and the Green Lifestyle

2008-05-21T00:33:00.010-04:00

A few days ago, I was on the bus and this guy sitting next to me noticed the cat hair all over my black pants and decided to strike up a conversation about animals and vegetarianism. He said he had been vegan for ten years, and asked me if I was vegetarian. I said I had thought about it, and I do limit my meat consumption. If I was going to "go veg" I'd have a lot more experimentation to do in order to make sure I'm still getting the nutrition I need. The guy was really nice, but seemed more interested in talking at me about why I should go veg than actually having a discussion with me. What struck me most is he seemed to believe that veg was the only way to be.

Vegetarianism is a luxury for a great deal of the world right now. Its for people who can substitute the meat in their diet. But with global poverty and hunger being such an issue, many people do not have that luxury.

Which brings me to what I really want to talk about: sustainability. Anyone who tells you that environmentalism and socially responsible consumerism demands a bigger price tag is bad. An expensive lifestyle is not a sustainable lifestyle and that is the greatest threat to the movement in my opinion: the impracticality.

Now that being green is becoming more and more popular, the market is evolving and more things are becoming affordable. Whenever I need to buy something, I think about it. Where its coming from, what its made of, how it got here, etc. If the price is slightly higher, but the quality and safety/health/durability of the item is better, it's worth the price increase. The long run is more important.

The cartoon above is French, obviously, but I find it to be very accurate to the current economic conditions in most of the Western world. Carrefour is basically a French European version of Wal-Mart. I also saw a few when I was in Jordan. I stoled the cartoon from a fellow AU student who posted it on facebook.

Translation- Man: You see, you're not boycotting Chinese products. Woman: Obviously not, I can't afford anything else.

That's wrong, and it needs to change. Please also note that I link social responsibility with environmentalism. Generally it goes that what's best for people is also best for the earth.

Here's a nifty little interview Jeffrey Sachs did with Treehugger about his new book and the economic benefits of going green.

Also, when looking for new items, check out second hand shops. This probably won't work for electronics, but it will for most other things. is also a great resource. Second hand really is the greenest way to go!

Edit: I cleaned up the HTML, sorry for the confusions!

When corrupt regimes invest in natural disasters

2008-05-15T22:48:00.006-04:00

Some of you may be up on your "nature destroys some far away corner of Asia" news and know that a cyclone hit an already fragile Burma earlier this month. Since then, international aid has been pouring into the country but not distributed to its people. Meaning, somebody dun gone and hid all da monies under dey matress. Or something similar.

I'm not going to make light of something so serious as the needs of the disaster victims, but obviously the Burmese government and/or military are totally ridiculous. The misappropriation of aid is widespread amongst the world's poorer nations. So what can we do to make sure the aid we give actually helps?

For these answers, I turned to some old class readings. Here are the big basic ideas in reforming aid and getting it to where its needed:

-Country Selectivity: Only give good countries cookies.

"Donors should spend less time trying to write contracts that force an alignment of incentives and instead give more aid to countries that on their own demonstrate similar motivations and objectives. Some donors have begun to be more “selective,” including the World Bank in the allocation of its concessional IDA [international development assistance] funds, some European donors in terms of providing budget support, and the U.S. with its new Millennium Challenge Account. But since so much aid is allocated for political, security, and other foreign policy reasons, there are limits to how far donors are likely to go in this direction."

Steven Radelet, “A Primer on Foreign Aid,” Center for Global Development Working Paper #92, July 2006

"If development cooperation is to attack aid effectively it must...deliver aid in ways that intrude less on government functions, including greater use of sectorwide approaches and a movement away from old forms of aid and conditionality."
The World Bank, “Reforming Development Cooperation to Attack Poverty,” in World Development Report 2000-2001, Ch. 11

-Recipient Participation and Country Ownership: Peoples and their governments get to help make the cookies.

"The way donors and recipients interact strongly influences the effectiveness of development cooperation. Relationships have tended to follow the donor preferences of donor countries, leaving recipient countries with little sense of ownership of the aid financed activities."

The World Bank, “Reforming Development Cooperation to Attack Poverty,” in World Development Report 2000-2001, Ch. 11

"Many analysts argue that aid has been weakened by donor domination in setting priorities, designing programs and implementing projects, and push for either a more “country led” approach in which recipient governments take a stronger role, or a “participatory” approach in which various groups in recipient countries (government, NGOs, charities, the private sector) play a more active role. Note that country ownership and a broad participatory process are not the same thing: the former implies that recipient countries take the lead in setting priorities and programs; the latter implies that broad participation by the public (and not just the government) is required."

Steven Radelet, “A Primer on Foreign Aid,” Center for Global Development Working Paper #92, July 2006

Notice that there is no panacea for all nations, but each may be tailored to effectively meet people's needs. There is no one answer for Burma's crisis, there are many.

Intelligent Design Revisited

2008-05-14T22:46:00.007-04:00

I just noticed there were some fairly intense comments left on my blog post about Ben Stein's movie Expelled, and I feel its only fair to respond to some of the fantastic points people brought up. I'm so excited that you guys are writing such great responses!!!

Blogger mynym correctly said that I shouldn't reject what Ben Stein says based only on articles about the movie and not the movie itself. What I should say, is if those articles are accurate in what Stein says in the movie, I reject it. He also questions my assertion that theology and science should be kept separate.

How would one keep theology and science separate? I can really only answer from one side of that: how to keep theology separate from science. Pretty easy for me, since I really know nothing of science. This will also depend on the particular theology of the individual in question. For me, the Bible is not the ultimate authority on the natural law of things. I'm unique in that I don't believe the Bible is the direct word of God, but rather words inspired by God but limited by human expression.

That being said, I believe God is the author of all science. When a scientific fact is proven, I see it as part of God's truth. If one admits to the existence of a God, there's no reason to suppose he wouldn't have wanted a panda's thumb to be the way it is. Natural selection may have been the process by which it became so, but that is still a tool of God to me.

Charles also corrects me in my use of the term "atheist". Atheism is not the rejection of God, merely its absence. He also adds the following,

"You're starting the the premise that God exists and arguing that science shouldn't try to disprove what, apparently, you've already accepted as fact. This is entirely unscientific! Scientific inquiry begins with as few assumptions as possible and builds knowledge hierarchically using observations made in the real world. At no point will any of these observations lend credence to theistic belief. Does this disprove religion? No, because if you're using the word "disprove" you are assuming GOD was already proven! No, Theists are UNABLE to prove GOD and Science continues on its merry way confirming that God touches no part of the natural world and leaves no trace of his supposed existence".

If science (the discipline) is absent of God, does it actually confirm that God touches no part of the natural world and no trace of his existence? Or does science begin by rejecting God based on lack of evidence, and then go on to explain things? I think the discipline should merely be absent of theology, but the individuals pursuing it are always going to have their own personal ideas of the implications of scientific fact. Those ideas are not the realm of science, but are part of other disciplines.

I'll give you a fun example. I recently went to see Eddie Izzard (one of my intellectual soul mates) perform live where he talked a lot about religion (the Christian one) and scientific facts. He looks at the planet Mercury with all its extreme conditions and says, "What's the point?" Mercury is useless and therefore there is no ultimate plan and no God. I completely respect that, but I can look at Mercury and conclude that there is a God. The science of that planet tells me there is a designer out there, and he's very very creative.

"And as a personal note, as an Atheist (that DOES reject God), I find life quite fulfilling and not at all "lonely" as you say."

If one is an atheist that rejects God and finds life fulfilling, good for you. I just can't wrap my head around it is all.

Mr. Finnish Biochemist Drop Out, wow. We'll have to save getting around to your comments another day, because they are intense!

I'm back, and even more hippie-ish than before

2008-05-13T12:22:00.007-04:00

Oh my goodness it has been a while since I've been able to write in this thing. I had finals, and then I was moving, and then I had no internet in the new place.

Well all that has come to an end, and summer has officially begun.

So to ease back into the blogging thing, I'm going to tell you a little bit about the makings of my own green revolution. It all started around the time I was packing, I looked around at all my stuff and my old apartment and I thought, this is not healthy.

I hadn't even completely unpacked from my last move, and there were islands of clutter and mess all over my room. Worse still were the common areas of the apartment. I had a lot of stuff that I didn't need and I've been trying to be really aware of the systems in place that continuously deprive the needing. Every time I go out and buy something, I am most likely feeding that system, and doubly so when I hoard things I don't use or need.

If I want to make sure that I practice consumer ethics for the good of the people who make the consumer goods, I also have to be ethical towards the environment. Generally, what's good for the earth is good for its people.

It may sound like a lot of work and money to be an ethical consumerist, but that's not true at all. And no one can change a lifetime of unethical habits over night! You gotta start small.

Here are some the thins I've started implementing recently:

Donate clothes I'm not wearing!!!

Limit the number of "new" clothes I buy from chains and departments stores by frequenting thrift stores and consignment shops. Buying second hand clothes decreases the demand for the manufacturing of new ones. Sometimes, it may not be possible, like if you need a fancy dress or suit or even shoes. But when I need to buy those things, I'm going to take a careful look at where I'm buying them from.

Stop buying so many cleaning products! Its too much money to get all those things that end up polluting the earth in the manufacturing process when you can use more household agents just as well. Like, vinegar and baking soda. If I do need a specific kind of cleaning products, like dish soap or laundry detergent, there are lots of environmentally friendly options that are just as inexpensive as the stuff I already buy.

For the most part, I'm doing my research via a few different websites. The internet is an earth and people friendly resource! I use Treehugger, Planet Green, and the Discovery Health Channel.

Summer time...and I've got work to do

2008-04-25T19:13:00.002-04:00

Its finals time!! In addition to moving time, and job hunting time. Therefore, I'mma be a slacker when it comes to posting on this thing.

In the meantime, my goals for the blog summer will be:

-The promotion of eco-friendly habits that are also people-friendly

-More about my awesome mover and shaker friends in DC

-A little more regional variation

In the meantime, enjoy a photo of my cat.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Expelled: The Film Only Nazis Won't Like

2008-04-21T13:48:00.005-04:00

I've seen the ads for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the new documentary from Ben Stein about the suppression of ideas from "Big Science", and I am intrigued. I'm so inspired by the heated religious debate that I have to blog about it. Because, as you may have already guessed, I'm very pro-religion. Atheism I find a bit lonely.

Me personally, I'm not very good with science, so I can't say that I can justify, or not justify, any belief in the idea that man evolved from apes. But I can say, that no matter what science says about the origins of the human species, it will have no effect on my belief in God. I don't subscribe to any literal interpretation of any sacred text. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired but is not the actual Word of God. The author's used their reason to the best of their ability to communicate the message of God, but naturally fall short a bit because of their limited abilities. I think it is a living document, meaning interpretation is an active ongoing process. So when it comes to things like scientific explanations of the world, I do not fault any of the authors for less than accurate descriptions, nor do I feel that any new discoveries invalidate any of the stories. In short, my faith in God does not hinge on science, so science or scientific theories pose no threat.

That being said, I reject the idea that Ben Stein puts forward that intelligent design is being supressed and/or persecuted. Everyone wants to be persecuted so that they may legitimize themselves and solidify their positions. So minus 50 points for Ben Stein.

Of course intelligent design deserves a place in academia, but not necessarily in the science department. Anything that seeks to explain divine influences needs to be put into theological or philsophical studies. Even from a religious perspective, the idea that God can be studied scientifically is near blasphemy. His creations may be studied this way, but not his nature.

So should science be atheistic? No, of course not. Atheism is the rejection of God, and scientists should have the freedom to choose what will guide their research. However, I do think science should seek to be theistic neutral. It should neither reject nor accept the acceptance of God, but leave that up to other disciplines to figure out. Science cannot explain God and therefore should not seek to.

One of the more troubling things I find in an overview of the movie, is the idea that Darwinism (old school origin of species) is linked to Nazism and other various strands of evilness. If we banned everything that was used to justify evil deeds, we'd have nothing left, so bad Mr. Stein, very bad. Both science and religion have been warped and twisted in order justify violence and oppression, and I'm not tossing either of those out the window.

By the way, why are we so obsessed with comparing things to Hitler? Anything that's slightly bad, we say "You're a Nazi!". Come on...the Nazis were pretty bad. As Jon Stewart once said, "That guy worked too hard to be that evil for every Tom, Dick and Jane to be called Hitler."

Nerdishness

2008-04-20T16:31:00.002-04:00

Speaking of my Civ addiction, my boyfriend just recently told me about another uber-nerdy computer IR game: Nation States.

I don't know if I want to venture into that world just yet, but I think the concept is fabulous. You can create your own state, make it whatever kind of political entity you want, and then interact with other nations.

Perfect for those who want to plan just how they will rule the world after the nuclear apocalypse. Or for those who want a more high-browed alternative to online game playing, other than Neopets of course.

The Future Will (not) Be Polarized

2008-04-19T18:02:00.004-04:00

Yes it has been quite a while since I last wrote. My apologies, between Comedy of Errors and freaking out over housing situations, its been a hectic two weeks.

So to make up for it, I'll do a fun post about the future.

According to a new article in Foreign Affairs magazine, the fashion of the future rests in the hands of non-state actors and sees a decline in the power of nation-states. Ergo, the US as a nation will not be as dominant, but US based corporations and other non-governmental actors probably still will be.

So a quick explanation of polarity...During the Cold War, the world was bipolar. No, not bipolar like your aerobics enthusiast man eating cousin Cindy. Bipolar in the sense that two states have relatively equal power and influence over all the other states. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the world was unipolar, which is the same thing as hegemony, and the US was definitely "it". Multipolarity, the generally thought of hippie favorite, is as you can guess, a system where multiple states enjoy power and influence.

This guy, Richard Haass, is arguing none of these will exist in the future. The world will be nonpolar, which to me sounds like a lot of fun. I don't like to play power games because someone always gets trampled, so I prefer the idea of not playing the game at all. But its still possible that a nonpolar world would still be just as messed up.

Lookie at Haass' conclusion:

Nonpolarity complicates diplomacy. A nonpolar world not only involves more actors but also lacks the more predictable fixed structures and relationships that tend to define worlds of unipolarity, bipolarity, or multipolarity. Alliances, in particular, will lose much of their importance, if only because alliances require predictable threats, outlooks, and obligations, all of which are likely to be in short supply in a nonpolar world. Relationships will instead become more selective and situational. It will become harder to classify other countries as either allies or adversaries; they will cooperate on some issues and resist on others. There will be a premium on consultation and coalition building and on a diplomacy that encourages cooperation when possible and shields such cooperation from the fallout of inevitable disagreements. The United States will no longer have the luxury of a "You're either with us or against us" foreign policy.

Nonpolarity will be difficult and dangerous. But encouraging a greater degree of global integration will help promote stability. Establishing a core group of governments and others committed to cooperative multilateralism would be a great step forward. Call it "concerted nonpolarity." It would not eliminate nonpolarity, but it would help manage it and increase the odds that the international system will not deteriorate or disintegrate.

Okay fine, I do play power games. I'm addicted to the Civilization games. But come on, the suffering of digital people doesn't really count does it?

Ruh roh...

2008-04-09T21:14:00.003-04:00

Bear with me folks, I'm in a college Shakespeare production this weekend, and am going mad with rehearsals in addition to class and well, being an adult and stuff.

Hopefully by next week, I'll have the time and energy to write good substantive blog posts.

100 Most Influential People

2008-04-08T01:03:00.004-04:00

For those who know me, and a few who don't, you know that I LOVE M.I.A. And now she's one of the nominees for Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People!

Go and vote for her!

Stupid Charity is No Charity At All

2008-04-04T15:22:00.006-04:00

This has to be one of the dumbest charity projects I have ever heard of, and among those in very very poor taste.

The Miss Landmine project to "raise awareness" for the victims of landmines in Angola. Its a beauty pageant that features amputeed women and is supposed to promote "female pride and empowerment" as well as "disabled empowerment". The whole thing was spearheaded by Norwegian artist, Morten Traavik.

For real? For really real?

"In Angola disabled women are often isolated and looked down upon. Therefore, many of the women initially didn’t believe Morten Traavik, as he travelled around the country to sign up candidates for the pageant.

'It was almost too good to be true that they were to do a fun assignment and be seen and heard. They received a fee of 200 USD per working day, free travel and accommodation, and got to keep the dresses, says Traavik, adding that there was a lot of laughter on the set.'

The winner (and only the winner) of the pageant receives a leg prosthesis from Norway. The other ugly ducklings are left to hobble around on sticks (as all ugly amputeed women should), but they do get to keep the dresses. So really, in the end it all balances out.*

All this has inspired me to create a new project for famine in Africa. We'll round up a bunch of starving brown children, dangle a steak just above their heads and whoever jumps the highest and doesn't pass out or break a limb, gets to eat it and have their picture taken with a variety of brown American athletes. It'll be fun for the whole family.*

Mr. Traavik and associates, STOP TRYING TO HELP AFRICA! You're not doing a very good job. This is a highly ineffective charity project because it does nothing to help these women or their families in the long run. Suffering from an infection at the amputation site? Can't support your family because you can't work? Don't want to whore yourself out to the neighborhood or pose for photos intended to simulate American rap videos? Well its okay, because you have a shiny plastic tiara and a sash.

Here's my idea, my real idea, for helping the disabled: Athletic programs. Have a lot of amputees due to landmines? Get them ALL a prosthesis and create a soccer (or other popular sport) team. I'm sure women aren't the only ones getting body parts blown off, you can have a men's team, a women's team, even a girls and boys junior team. Not only are you giving them the prostheses they need, but you're teaching them how to function, physically, to be mobile and self sufficient. Even if there are those who can't compete, they can still benefit the money these programs can raise. Let the community come to their games, and however money is given to them, at least 80% of it needs to go back into the community to help the disabled. Medical care, setting up businesses, whatever they need in order to make their lives and the lives of others better. The other 20% should go to maintaining the program, unless there are other ways of maintaining it that don't eat up the monetary donations.

So in short, the Miss Landmine project sucks and I want it to be stopped and replaced with something better. I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who sees the value in athletic programs for the disabled.

*I'm being sarcastic and snarky, and if you can't tell, then I suggest you never read anything ever again.

Odds and Ends, The April Edition

2008-04-03T10:28:00.004-04:00

Ok seriously? No one had anything to say about my Sadr post where I compared him to a monkey? (and oddly enough, in that photo, he does seem to possess some Planet of the Apes type features) I'm shocked. Or y'alls are just jaded. All 7 of you.

Odds and ends for the day, not important enough to deserve their own post, but interesting enough for me to mention them.

1. Snarfquack has ceased responding to my e-mails, and I feel dejected. I had been trying to get him to spell out his views a bit more, hoping it would collapse under his own logic, but no such luck. He apparently doesn't want to play that game, and I don't want to dangle any hope of my own conversion in front of him as bait.

2. A couple of weeks ago, it was the 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq. Some kinds around school decided to have a "birthday" celebration and were singing out on the quad while wearing masks of the different people in the Bush administration. It was cute and all, but pointless. Until they started passing out free cupcakes. Cupcakes make everything legitimate.

3. I done gots a good grade on my Islam and Nonviolence paper, so look out for some heavy posts on those things.

4. I'm tired. Send me coffee.

If Sadr rings bell, he should get a banana (metaphorically speaking)

2008-03-30T19:39:00.008-04:00

So some fairly good news has just come out of Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr has ordered his militia to stop fighting and cooperate with the Iraqi government (at least for now).

Don't know who Moqtada al-Sadr is? Well I'll ya. Mr. Sadr is a Shi'a cleric who dabbles in the bad kind of religious radicalism. Maybe a bit more than dabble, but I say dabble because while his army does engage in sectarian violence and violence against American soldiers, he is also responsible for providing public services in his Shi'a community where there had been none. Said militia is called "The Mehdi Army. The BBC describes him as being a fairly well liked guy among the impoverished Shi'a and other Iraqis who see him as figure of resistance against foreign invaders.

Now if he tells his crew to lay off with the fighting, I say that's a good sign. He may not be a good guy, but he obviously has enough influence amongst the majority Shia in Iraq to be a tool of good. Sometimes in conflict resolution its not practical to exclude such militias and their leaders. To ensure a lasting peace, all parties must be brought to the negotiating table and must be negotiated with. This does not mean their offenses go unexcused, but in such cases, punishment can perpetuate conflicts. The offenses must be addressed however, and grievances must be listened to. After grievances are heard, the possibility of repentance and forgiveness is open. Its a hard thing to make happen, but it is the best, and really only, way to make a real and lasting peace.

The international community should recognize and praise Mr. Sadr's decision to put forth this order. As Pavlov taught us, subjects respond to positive reinforcement.

I may come to regret the comparison of international peacebuilding to the behavior of lab rats and/or dogs, but I still think positive reinforcement can go a long in way in lessening the self-perception of persecution and being antagonized that groups like the Mehdi Army use as justification for violence.

Respeck!

2008-03-30T13:50:00.004-04:00

So its been a while since I last posted. I had a really intense week last week due to the writing of a 20 page paper on Islam and Nonviolence. I had a great time writing it, but then again, it was a paper that was "due" and that's never fun. If I get good grade I'll post an excerpt or two.

So today's blog post comes to you courtesy of Daniel Pipes. He's in the Bernard Lewis-Sam Huntington school of thought, but he's good for blog inspiration.

Today I found a little thingie he wrote about some Islamic government officials pushing for an internation law that would make it illegal to trash talk people's religions. Now obviously, these officials want a law to protect Islam and not necessarily any other religion, but I think the idea of an international law protecting religion is a pretty okay idea.

A law as such shouldn't make it illegal for anyone to criticise a religion, but rather to extend laws against hate crimes to include violence against religious traditions (that is if it does not already do so) and to ensure that every religious community is being given their freedom. Now such a law may already exist, I don't feel like trolling through all the UN resolutions that have ever been passed.

Islam is completely compatible with this idea. Back in the day, Islamic societies were waaayy more progressive in preserving religious freedom for non-Muslims than the European societies were with minority faith traditions. To back up this claim, I'm going to give the link to one of the resources I used for my paper. It's a fairly extensive look at the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the best characterization that honors all parties involved.

To read Islam, Nonviolence, and Interfaith Relations by M. Mazzahim Mohideen, click on the link, then scroll all the way down to the last chapter of the collection and click on that. You'll be downloading it in a PDF format.

PS. I wore that sign for a part in a play. I was not wandering around DC wearing that and blending in with some of the crazies in front of the White House. No, just some theater crazies.

The Mooslem Threat (lol)

2008-03-20T15:18:00.004-04:00

I was browsing the youtubes today in my down time, when I came across a very silly video by one of my favorite silly people: Eugene Mirman. I'm a fan of Eugene because he does one my favorite voices ever, the Special Sister on Adult Swim's Lucy, Daughter of the Devil.

So here it is, a video about the Mooslem threat that is intentionally funny for a change.

Apostate Shield of Protection +20

2008-03-19T22:33:00.004-04:00

Silly thought of the day...

If Islam and Muslims are supposed to be so violent and oppressive towards other faiths...how am I not dead?

The answer must be that God has given a special Muslim proof shield.

"Hello Muslim country, my name is Christa."

"Your name is a derivative of Jesus Christ! We must convert and/or kill you."
*thwang! spears are thrown at me, various holy texts, head coverings, lamb kabob*

"Ha ha, silly brown people."

Oh and by the way, even though the title is indicative of D&D, I do not play it. Let's just get that out in the open right now.

Combating Disfigurations, Part Two

2008-03-18T22:33:00.002-04:00

And now for phase Two, the Jewish alternative.

"The Arabs, including and especially the Palestinian Arabs, have been the aggressors throughout the nearly 100 years of the Arab-Israel conflict."

This quote from Rachel Neuwirth's article confirms what I had already suspected about her. She represents a faction of Zionist thought that does not want peace, does not want a resolution, but wants vengance. It is a thought that does not serve Jews or Israelis nor humanity as a whole.

I say this after reading about Jewish approaches to religious peacebuilding and how Jews and Arab Muslims do not have to live in a cycle of violence. There does not have to be a question of a victor or a loser.

Marc Gopin is way cooler than Rachel Neuwirth, and people who want to read about the Jewish side of the conflict should check him out. My favorite piece of his comes from a sort of anthology of religious peacebuilding works entitled Faith Based Diplomacy edited by Douglas Johnston.

He talks about how the intensity of the human despair caused by the violent conflicts trumps the things that caused it. We can point to so many reasons and events that led to the violence, but because the casualties have been so devastating, deconstructing all of that won't really help. Each side's needs are equal to the other in importance.

One of the more creative ideas he has, the land that is fought over so bitterly can be used as a tool in building a relationship between the two sides. One of these ways draws on the shared tradition of memorializing the dead for Jews and Muslims. This should be done via a bilateral process and could be as simple as picking a place where violence has occurred and making it a communal mourning place. But it is something that needs happen organically and over an extended period of time. The absence of judgement is key. The focus needs to be on the loss of life no matter what the reason was.

He also highlights a plan for resolving the conflict. These points include involving religious leaders in the peace process, resotring the sanctity of Holy places, engaging in joint mourning, supporting injured adversaries, develop trust-building initiatives, developing a process for restoring justices, combatting poverty, restoring dignity, and engage religious traditions in transforming relationships.

For a more detailed plan within Jewish theology to fix it all, google him and read whatever you find about him.

Now, I can imagine Mr. Snarfquack reading one or two sentences of all this and ignoring it and quite possibly responding with his pre-scripted diatribe of how I'm no better than a terrorist or Nazi, and that's fine. The world is full of Snarfquacks who are too far into their own perceptions that they can't reason with anything else, and so are consistently irrational in their responses and annoying to everyone else. I wouldn't bother to write so much about all this just because a Snarfquack sent it to my inbox. No, I'm writing all this because I want people to read something level headed and peace oriented on this subject. If all this makes me a Nazi terrorist who drinks the blood of Jewish babies, then the discussion ends and I continue to not care what you think of me.

Because your name is Snarfquack. Fo' realz.

Combatting Disfigurations, Part One

2008-03-17T11:51:00.007-04:00

Part One

Back in Miami, when I was but a young Odalisque (18 years old, really), I used to visit this book discussion group at the swanky Books and Books in Coral Gables. It was frequented by some very amazing businessmen and professionals who really wanted to talk about a lot if important global issues.

I'm still on their e-mail list and today one of the members (who seems to be a little too okay with the fact that we don't know his name and so we call him by his e-mail, which is Snarfquack. That's Snarf-quack ladies and gentlemen. And as far as I can tell, a grown man) sent out this article. It's a right wing look at the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict. I don't think there are many people who would read it and agree with it, but there are many people who don't know what the actual history is and this article doesn't really help.

The article starts off in a very scary way, acknowledging the presence of an unnamed yet powerful and "vast" enemy of the Jews and Israel.

"The confluence of international forces that has gathered against the Jewish people and faith, including the spiritual and intellectual fifth column amongst us, is indeed a formidable adversary. Nevertheless, there are things we can do if we are willing to work together to protect our rights and stand up to the massive defamation campaign waged against us."

That's never a good sign. Whoever is out to get the Jews and Israel is a very small population and certainly not all that powerful. When it comes to organizing a community, it is a very human reaction to do so by saying that someone is "out to get" your community. But that doesn't make it right or true.

"One very important thing that all of us can do is to counter the endless lies and distortions of Israel's history and character that appear in the press, mass media, on the Internet, and even in scholarly journals. These distortions and outright falsehoods are a major reason why Israel is in such deep trouble, and in danger of "going under." Because the entire world has been led to believe an inaccurate, grossly distorted "narrative" of the conflict, the government of Israel feels it has no choice but to make concessions to the demands of its enemies, in order to appease world opinion. But these concessions imperil Israel's existence."

Israel has its own problems outside of Palestine. Israel's existence is ambiguous by its own definition, which is still being decided today. What kind of Jewish state will Israel be? If it is a democratic and liberal society, does it make sense to be so exclusive? If Israel is to be a refuge for Jews across the world, how will it relate to the rest of the world?

"The Israelis are not colonialists or alien "settlers" in the Land of Israel with no past connection or relationship to the country... there have been at least some Jews living there almost continuously for 3,200 years."

The Jews native to the area are not settlers. The Jews who came from Europe to live in Israel are settlers in a secular/legal sense.

"There has never been a distinctive "Palestinian" Arab people or an Arab "Palestine" state or nation. While it is true that some Arabs have lived in the Land of Israel for many centuries, they have never been ethnically or culturally distinct or different from the Arabs who live in other lands, including the original Arab homeland, the Arabian Peninsula. The Jews, however, are a people who originated in the Land of Israel and never had any other national homeland."

True that there has never been a distinctive Palestinian state or nation until the early 20th century. Nationalism in the Middle East is a modern idea, and by this same reasoning there has never been a concept of a Jewish state or nation in the Palestinian region until the late 19th and early 20th century. Jewish identity is based on ethnicity and religion which would become an ethno-nationalism. Palestinian nationalism is not an ethno-nationalism and a Palestinian may be Muslim, Christian or Jew. Palestinian identity existed as a regional identity in the pre-nationalism era, and in the modern era is a reactionary nationalism formed by the mandate system.

Here's a quote from James L. Gelvin's book The Modern Middle East that will shed a little more light on just how these Arab states came about:

"Over the course of the mandate period, both the Arab nationalist and the Syrian nationalist options became less and less viable. The mandates system not only divided the Arab world into a variety of states, but severed Palestine from Syria. Because the Palestinian Arab community could not reasonably expect to unite with Syrians, the lure of Syrian nationalism eventually lost its hold on it. Over time, the history and institutional development of Palestine and Syria also diverged. Syrian elites, for example, would further their education by studying in France and felt at ease in French culture. Since Britain held the mandate for Palestine, educated elites in Palestine would often learn English, complete their studies in Britain, and come to regard British institutions and traditions, not French, as a model to be emulated.

But there was a second reason why a separate Palestinian identity began to emerge during the mandate period. The inhabitants of Palestine faced a problem that no other inhabitants of the region faced: Zionist settlement. Zionist settlement was very different from the imperialism practiced in Syria or Iraq under the mandates system. The British and French ruled their mandated territories indirectly, through local collaborators. They did not appropriate land, establish a rival and competing economy, or establish rival and competing political structures. Because they faced a different type of adversary, the response of Palestinians was different from the response of their neighbors.

The fact that Palestinian nationalism developed later than Zionism and, in fact, developed in response to Zionist immigration does not mean that Palestinian nationalism is any less legitimate than Zionism. All nationalisms arise in oppositions to some internal or external nemesis. All are defined by what they oppose. Zionism itself originally arose in reaction to anti-Semitic and nationalist movements in Europe. It would be perverse to judge Zionism as somehow less valid than European anti-Semitism or those nationalisms. Furthermore, Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the 'conquest of land' and the 'conquest of labor' slogans that became central to Zionist thinking originated as a result of the confrontation of Zionism with its Palestinian 'other'."

By the way, the idea of a Jewish home state in the Palestinian region was not a concrete or universal idea until the early 20th century, starting possibly as early 1920. There was even discussion about going to Argentina, as you may see in Theodore Herzl's article "Argentine or Palestine".

"The Arab population of Israel/Palestine only began to grow in the late 19th and 20th centuries, at the same time that Jews began to resettle the land. Jewish immigrants brought with them modernized agriculture, including the growing of oranges, which had been previously unknown; a market for Arab agricultural goods; employment at Jewish farms and factories; modern hospitals and medicine that saved thousands of Arab lives; the draining of swamps that had caused thousands of deaths from malaria and other insect-born diseases; and vastly expanded Arab education funded by Jewish taxes."

Yeah, those brown people. They were asking for the European Jews to come in and settle in their land. Those savages had nothing until those guys came, they didn't even have oranges.

The second part of this reaction is going to focus on Neuwirth’s take on the beginning and continuation of hostilities.

I will leave you with something I found very amusing. Ibn Saud is reported to have said he supported a Jewish home state…in Germany, because those are the guys that did most of the killing and they should have to pay the price for it, not the Arabs.

Travel On

2008-03-14T21:55:00.004-04:00

I gots friends in the biz. And when I say friends, I mean friend. And when I say biz, I mean the metro DC indie music scene.

So as part of my new initiative to include some art/music/indie craft/fashion and all other forms of pop culture fluff into the blog, I bring you the Yahoo Video Awards 2008 nominee for Best Indie Music Video...The Cassettes Musical Explorers Society!

Check out their lovely little animated video for the song Rogue Gnome. Its a nice little diddy about the need for land reform and revolution, which I think is apropos to the overall theme of this blog. Or about a wandering gnome. Hmmm...not sure which.

Well, one of the members is of Pakistani origins and I've written some posts about Pakistan...and my boss is from Pakistan...so it could still be relevant the Odalisque's mission statement. Erm, well, whatever. Its a good song and a good video and we should all support our local artists and entrepeneurs. Vote for them here!

Colonial DMB

2008-03-13T17:01:00.005-04:00

I've recently rediscovered this song I liked back in the day (that's circa 1997) when I was a but little Odalisque. Its Don't Drink the Water by Dave Matthews Band, and according to wikipedia is about South African Apartheid and the persecution of the Native Americans. Now, just because it was on wikipedia doesn't make it true, but I think this bit of information is and it makes perfect sense.

As I read through the lyrics, I thought just how incredibly applicable to many areas in the Middle East it was. Definitely colonial North Africa and definitely Palestine. Yes I said Palestine, of course I'm going to mention it. And of course I must clarify, the oppressors in that situation are the radical Zionists, who have historically been European, and aren't necessarily adherents of the Jewish faith.

Come out come out
No use in hiding
Come now come now
Can you not see?
There's no place here
What were you expecting
Not room for both
Just room for me
So you will lay your arms down
Yes I will call this home
Away away
You have been banished
Your land is gone
And given me
And here I will spread my wings
Yes I will call this home
What's this you say
You feel a right to remain
Then stay and I will bury you
What's that you say
Your father's spirit still lives in this place
I will silence you
Here's the hitch
Your horse is leaving
Don't miss your boat
It's leaving now
And as you go I will spread my wings
Yes I will call this home
I have no time to justify to you
Fool you're blind, move aside for me
All I can say to you my new neighbor
Is you must move on or I will bury you
Now as I rest my feet by this fire
Those hands once warmed here
I have retired them
I can breathe my own air
I can sleep more soundly
Upon these poor souls
I'll build heaven and call it home
'Cause you're all dead now
I live with my justice
I live with my greedy need
I live with no mercy
I live with my frenzied feeding
I live with my hatred
I live with my jealousy
I live with the notion
That I don't need anyone but me
Don't drink the water
Don't drink the water
There's blood in the water
Don't drink the water

See if you can come up with any other historical examples the song can apply to. Why? Because applying late '90's music to socio-political events and movements in history is cool. Its what all the kids are doing these days. Psshh, what did you think we're doing? Reading the Perez Hilton and watching the Heroes? Shows what you know.

I'm an internet auteur

2008-03-13T14:47:00.004-04:00

I have been published!....on the net...again. I'll take all the publishing I can get, thank you. I'm reposting the article here, and you are all (all 3 of you) welcome to check out the original posting. I've been working on this play with Dr. Ahmed since last fall and I was commissioned to write a little press release about it.

"Those of us who traverse across this mortal world have often pondered the properties of time and history. It is as though we are drifting upon the still surface of a lake, and as the rain falls, creating ripples in the water, it carries us to edge, sometimes spilling over into land. No event may be isolated from the other, and even what seems like the tiniest wave on the other side of the lake may become something greater. The trial of a Mughal prince cannot be separated from the future of an Islamic civilization on the Indian sub-continent, and neither may it be separated from the greater global history.
The story of Dara Shikoh is one that has occurred across many different nations in many different eras, it is the story of an idea that seeks the destruction of all opposing ideas, played out in the familial struggle between two brothers. In seventeenth century India we find Prince Dara Shikoh, a humble mystic, promoting peace amongst the various faith traditions in the empire and his brother Aurangzeb who is troubled both by the apparent deviation from Islam and the political consequences of empowering these other faith traditions. Dara is swept into the world of political intrigue and religious extremism and put on trial for apostasy. With him goes the soul of his efforts for peace.
Akbar Ahmed’s latest play, The Trial of Dara Shikoh, allows the viewer to watch this moment in history unfold and feel the anticipation and anxiety of the outcome as though it were happening for the first time. We follow Dara’s plight, his struggle to make others understand. We try to understand Aurangzeb, who is both villain and hero, initiating and allowing violence, but yet dedicated to a people who he believes are the only ones entitled to charity, finding himself all alone in the final scenes. Whose legacy will survive? Who has the better claim to define an empire? A civilization? A religion?
Here is where we see just how much one wave upon the lake is like another, for we are again in an era that challenges us to choose who will define Islam for the modern world. This is not a challenge that non-Muslims can ignore, for we have all grown to be so connected to each other by social, political, and economic ties that grow stronger everyday. The legacy of the struggle between Prince Dara and Aurangzeb is one with universal implications. When violence becomes the means by which rules are made, can the peaceful survive?
The Trial of Dara Shikoh, a play by Akbar Ahmed and directed by Manjula Kumar, is described by Stanley Wolpert of the University of California at Los Angeles as “not only a fascinating drama, but a most important, highly instructive study of the major forces within Islam that continue to reflect the fatal struggle between Dara Shikoh and Aurangzeb that grip our modern world and may help to decide our global future”."

Maybe its a bit hokey, but whatevs. Its mine.

The play will be performed on March 21 at 7pm and March 22 at 4pm in the Abramson Recital Hall in the Katzen Arts Center at American University. Ticket information is available on the Katzen Arts Center website.

Srsly, we gotta start talking development

2008-03-11T17:31:00.006-04:00

Its Spring Break and what am I doing with my down time? Working on my personal pet projects. I'm from THE spring break destination, Miami, so I don't have a whole lot of motivation to go back for my vacation. Plus, I'm a college student, and I'm too broke to go anywhere for spring break even if I wanted to. On to the blogging it is then!

Last semester, I did a project on poverty and violence, does one cause the other? I answered no, poverty does not cause violence (including terrorism). However, impoverished places provide a feeding ground for the violent. If you are poor, you are not more likely to be a terrorist, but your community is more likely to be plagued by violence because it does not have the structures available to protect it.

This article from Brookings about Weak States does well to note that the strenghtening of states such as Afghanistan and Iraq requires a lot more attention to development than is currently being given or even talked about. Here's my favorite bit highlighting the specific goals that should be kept in mind for strengthening these weak states:

" In its last year, the Bush administration can lay the foundation for a comprehensive strategy to shore up weak states and prevent them from sliding into failure. Important components of such a strategy include:

• Prioritizing poverty alleviation. There is a strong relationship between poverty and state weakness. Poorer countries tend to be weaker ones, in part because they are more vulnerable to conflict. The United States must complement the Millennium Challenge Account's focus on "good performers" with parallel strategies to reduce poverty in the world's most challenging states.

• Targeting performance gaps. The United States should tailor assistance to the specific vulnerabilities of individual states. In failing states, the immediate requirement is to couple increased security with swift economic, political and social progress. In less acutely vulnerable countries, we should target each nation's particular performance gaps.

• Expanding U.S. assistance and leveraging non-aid instruments. The United States should increase overall assistance levels to support a wider cohort of weak states and combine development assistance with democracy support, market access, peacekeeping and security sector reform.

• Strengthening our civilian agencies. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates observed last November, our nation cannot rely on the U.S. military alone to revive fragile and war-torn states. Beyond boots on the ground, we need the wingtips and Birkenstocks of diplomatic and development professionals. Congress should support the administration's request to increase the professional staff at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

• Establishing partnerships. The United States cannot by itself build weak states' capacities. We must join with our allies, international institutions and developing countries to craft and implement effective strategies to address one of this century's most pressing security challenges."

The bit about expanding US assistance and leveraging non-aid instruments I feel is a bit ambiguous. Tying aid to good political behavior can get dangerous, because often times, "good" behavior really means the behavior that best suits the stronger state(s) and not necessarily the people. We can all come up with great examples across the world over the past 50 or 60 years where the US has supported oppressive regimes because they were in our best interest for strategic purposes and economic as well. Pakistan and Iran are my personal favorites.

Our tribe feels slightly antagonistic towards your tribe

2008-03-10T17:33:00.009-04:00

This is a review of a review which reviews other works. That's right kids, I'm opening up an international relations/anthropological working paper wormhole.

Over at the offices of Dr. Ahmed, two of my colleagues worked very hard to create a fantastic working paper that responds to Stanley Kurtz's review of Dr. Ahmed's works. Frankie and Hailey really have written a great paper that you may download here, entitled Good Anthropology, Bad Islam?..

These are a few of my favorite excerpts:

"The next president of the United States will have to take urgent steps to repair this kind of damage. They can start by shifting a great deal of American aid from military expenditures, which only exacerbates the problem, to development projects and educational aid. For an example take Pakistan, which has received over $10 billion from the United States to fight the war on terrorism, which it has used to buy tanks, planes, and helicopter gunships used to subjugate tribes like the Wazir and Mahsud without success. If half that money, lets say, were put toward educational programs, especially curriculums that stressed the place of knowledge, or ilm, in Islam and provided an alternative to narrow minded madrassas, which are often the only choice for parents wanting to give their children an education, Muslims would applaud America. This would be tangible proof, in addition to symbolic efforts, that Americans do not hate Islam and wish to engage with its followers. This may just counter the harmful effects of the global Western media, or push coverage in a more positive direction and in turn influence Muslim media, which tends to mirror, in reverse, Western media."

"There exists a great unsatisfied demand for dialogue. American diplomats
need to be in the markets, mosques, and madrassas of Islamic countries making connections with political and religious leaders, showing respect for local cultures, and lending an empathetic ear to Muslim grievances. The United States has been unable to meet that demand, or, perhaps even worse, realize that it even exists."

"What we found when we viewed America from the outside was a country that was in
danger of losing sight of the ideals that made it great in the first place. For many of the Muslims we spoke to the perception they had once had of a open, free America with democracy, human rights, and the best medicine and education in the world had been transformed into a dark fortress that builds walls around itself, tortures people, incarcerates people indefinitely without trial, spies on its citizens, and launches one disastrous war after another. These Muslims were angry about many problems in their societies, but they were also angry this horrific vision of America had replaced their prior belief that America was a beacon of hope and democracy to be emulated in a dangerous world. Our conclusions in Journey into Islam are focused on ways to improve US relations toward the Muslim world but are also prescriptions for America to rediscover its own ideals, which will actually greatly assist its ability to deal with the world of Islam."

Mr. Kurtz, look out. Dr. Ahmed has got a whole team of young kids ready to write all sorts of reaction papers that politely disagree with you and debunk your ideas. We're like...nerdpunks, intellectually inquisitive and post modernly rebellious, but without the safety pin piercings. Well, there was that one time when I didn't feel like shelling out the money for a nose ring, but that didn't really work out so well. Point is, my colleagues are hardcore awesome. Great job guys!

Zionism Can Be Mean

2008-03-07T12:25:00.004-05:00

It is the week before Spring Break over here at AU, which means it was the week when a bunch of assignments were due. It has also sort of been Jew week in the land of Christa's class readings and discussions.

In my Islamic Societies and The Modern World and Religion and Peacebuilding classes, we've taken a look at the Israel-Palestine conflict. So before I get into all that, let's just start putting all the anti-Semitic comments out there, just so there's no ambiguity. Jews run the world, Jews have all the money, and they have bi-weekly global meetings on how best to destroy Islam. I think that covers it.

Now is where I say "ha ha" and "jk" in case you couldn't tell I wasn't being serious. Saying that any minority group has a set agenda and is able to control the world is just ridiculous. Unless we're talking about Disney, yeah, those guys are coming for us all.

Misinformation is greatest threat to Jews, secular and religious alike. When I criticize the state of Israel or any pro-Israel lobby here in the US, I rarely, if ever, consider those critical masses to be Jews. I think of them as Zionists, which has no Jewish pre-requisite, it just means people who support the state of Israel as a Jewish home state, and frequently support it at the expense of others. In the US, if we were to do a survey, I think we'd find the majority of Zionists are actually evangelical Christians.

I don't care if you ascribe to the Jewish religion, the Christian religion, or the psychotic bastard religion that imposes a different historical narrative on indigenous populations, a nation state with an exclusivist identity that has constructed itself on top of the local traditions and customs of another society is wrong. But its too late to go back and change what happened at the dawn of the 20th century. We have to figure out how we can make it right after so much time has passed and so much blood has been shed.

Somehow, I think we need to find a way to make a non-exclusivist Israel acceptable to everyone, even if a two state solution is realized. There are many Arabs and Muslims in Israel who will not be happy to be shipped over to Palestine just because they are Arab or Muslim. They consider Israel their home too. I don't know how we can create such a definition of Israel, but it still needs to be done and needs to be done soon.

And that concludes my thoughts from Jew week.

Drop Knowledge, Not Bombs

2008-03-03T14:25:00.005-05:00

The BBC is reporting that the US has bombed a town in Somalia that is believed to Islamist.

Let's take a step back look at this, we have bombed a town, not a target, a town. With non terrorist people in it, and non-terrorist sources of food, water, and other structures within the town as well, most likely.

As we're sitting here in the office, we start musing about the justification. We thought what is this? Is this another example of the American military classification of casualties?

1 white person= 2 brown people= 4 black people

I don't know, I guess I'll hold off programming that into my TI-83 Plus for now.

What do you guys think? Is that true? Am I missing other variables in the equations or is this all just liberal commie madness?

Omgz, Its Like The New Huntington

2008-03-02T17:40:00.004-05:00

Oh snaps! Its been a long time, I shouldn't have left you...without some boring posts to not read. I think that's how the song goes, right?

My brain went on a little vacation from blogging, but now its back, much due in part this new article from Foreign Affairs magazine on ethnic nationalism.

Basically this guy is talking about the view of the world that says ethnic groups get their own country, and how this was more widely accepted in the West in the 19th century as nationalisms started sprouting up, but a lot more trouble in areas of the world where the idea of nation state isn't nearly as old.

In short, ethnonationalism has played a more profound and lasting role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to reoccur elsewhere. Increased urbanization, literacy, and political mobilization; differences in the fertility rates and economic performance of various ethnic groups; and immigration will challenge the internal structure of states as well as their borders. Whether politically correct or not, ethnonationalism will continue to shape the world in the twenty-first century.

And yay of all yays, he mentions my view of Israel-Palestine as an example.

This story is widely believed by educated Europeans and even more so, perhaps, by educated Americans. Recently, for example, in the course of arguing that Israel ought to give up its claim to be a Jewish state and dissolve itself into some sort of binational entity with the Palestinians, the prominent historian Tony Judt informed the readers of The New York Review of Books that "the problem with Israel ... [is that] it has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a 'Jewish state' ... is an anachronism."

Unfortunately, this guy is suggesting the best way to deal with ethnonationalist conflict is to go ahead with the partitioning, keep groups that hate each other away from each other. I say that's unfortunate, because I don't think it fixes anything. It may reduce casualties on both sides of a conflict, but a certain structural violence is still inherent. Negative peace, meaning the simple absence of violence, is not a sustainable peace. If you keep pink people and green people seperate from each other, you're reinforcing the idea that they are seperate, that there is enough of a difference between them that they cannot live together. There is such a thing as a pluralistic society, and that should be the goal, as it is the most beneficial for all involved.

More will come on this topic I think, because the article itself is 8 pages long, and that's a lot of information to take in on such an intense topic. But anyways, this sounds like its the kind of thing that'll make as big a splash as Samuel Huntington's (or Sam H-Dizzle as we call him in the academic circles) Clash of Civilizations. Let's just hope an administration doesn't pick up and run with it like its a giant pair of safety scissors.

Pakistan's Elections

2008-02-21T18:26:00.003-05:00

Well, my brain is dry. And when I say dry, I mean, its resources are being diverted to non-blogging areas. So the posts may be sparse for a little while, but they'll pick up again soon.

Soooo....Pakistani elections anyone? Yeah, in the office, some people were "betting their life savings" that Musharraf would win. Good thing that person later declared their life savings were nothing. I think that the only reason the PPP won so many seats is due to increased international supervision. If the Americans weren't looking over his shoulder, we'd have seen much different results. I am not hopeful that this is indicative of a better and more democratic order. Actually, I'm more afraid that the international community is just going to groom themselves another puppet who will serve the international community's wants and needs before Pakistan's. That means not labelling everyone who disagrees with you an extremist *cough every government over in that general region cough*.

Whaddya think?

Apostasy and other fun weekend activities

2008-02-16T18:56:00.004-05:00

Recently, another person sent me a message about my posts on the Sharia, pointing out some verses the Bukhari Hadith having to deal with killing apostates. I promised him I'd make another post addressing the issue, but actually, I just got my friend(Amrikiya fi Misr) to do all the research for me. =-)

There are indeed verses in the Bukhari Hadith about killing non-believers. But we must first understand something about the Hadith, it is a SECONDARY source of law, meaning whatever is in the Qu'ran trumps it.

That being said, the punishment for apostates can only be given by God in the afterlife, a standard thing for religious deities to do of course. Of course, there are schools of law who reject that notion, but as I've said before, these are not the majority of Muslims. A glance at the wikipedia article on Apostasy In Islam, which has some great citations, can demonstrate how this subject is debated amongst the community.

Of course, I am not a Muslim, and so its really not my place to judge the validity of sacred texts or who has the most accurate interpretation. But I believe there are elements of enormous good in all religions, and those elements must be emphasized for the good of all mankind, not just the believers. So you won't find me denouncing religion religion in this blog. I am completely religion positive. Actually, its atheism I have a hard time understanding, but that's another matter.=-)

Sharia: A Rebuttal

2008-02-12T18:12:00.000-05:00

Someone put this as a comment on my last post, and I felt it was important enough to give it its own post.

"Just a few issues for you:

a) polygamy (Sharia allows it, we don't)

b) divorce (Women do not have equal rights to sue for divorce)

c) physical violence (under Sharia, men are allowed to beat their wives in certain circumstances)

d) physical punishments (cutting off of hands, beating, flogging, all against the Geneva Conventions)

e) capital punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery etc etc(clearly against the Geneva Conventions)

f) freedom of speech and association (under Sharia insulting the prophet or islam is illegal, as is public preaching of other religions, as is worship in pagan religions etc.)

g) The system of criminal law has unusual burdens of proofs, and a woman's witness is worth half - it also doesn't recognise rape as a crime within marriage.

There are plenty of others."

So let's pick this apart shall we?

For clarification, we'll build a basic vocabulary:
Sharia (Islamic law)
Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence)
Sunna (the doings of the Prophet)
Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet)
Ijtihad (to exert oneself, reasoning, judgement)
Ijma (consensus of the community, and at different points in history, consensus of elites)
Qiyas (analogical reasoning)

Sharia is not a monolith, there are many different interpretations. Yours sounds like the extremist interpretation, which according to the VAST MAJORITY of the adherents of Islam is the wrong one, but yes, has come to dominate quite a few societies. Though I believe it should be noted that their power lies in political and social circumstances, not in actual religious legitimacy.

Saying that, there are different schools of thought including the Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali, all of which are a part of Sunni Islam. For Shi'a Islam, there are the Zaydis, the Ismailis, and the Twelvers. I hate to send people to wikipedia, but its a good starting place to become familiar with what these schools are. However, none of these schools and neither the Sunni or Shi'a are monoliths either. Islamic law, practice, tradition, even Islam itself, is an active process because of its long history and that it has spread to so many different peoples of ethnicity, culture, and language.

A quote about difference of thought in Islam from Islam and Conflict Resolution: Theories and Practices:

"To pious Muslims, such differences resulted from sincere efforts to discover those ordinances from the Divine Will and meant to bring about cohesion of the community. At any rate, the Prophet was reported to have said: 'Differences of opinion among my community is a sign of Allah's mercy'."

Polygamy

Laws on polygamy are subject to time and place for most religions, in my opinion. I don't like polygamy, but I can see how it was beneficial for pre-modern societies in the forming of political alliances and a protected status for women. But then societies change, and polygamy isn't really needed for those reasons anymore. From the Pakistani Commission on Marriage and Family in the 1950's:

"The Qu'ranic permission about polygamy was a conditional permission to meet grave social emergencies, and hevy responsibilities were attached to it, with the warning that the common man would find it extremely difficult, of not impossible, to fulfill the conditions of equal justice attached to it."

Polygamy isn't something that's supposed to be done just because the man wants to, but it remains a hotly debated issue across the Muslim world. So we'll leave it at that.

Divorce and Domestic Violence
Three people, John Esposito, Youssef Rapoport, and Leila Ahmed. Fantastic resources on women and marriage in Islam. I'm not taking the Women and Gender Construction course at my higher learning institution this semester, but two friends of mine have. I can get a hell of a lot more resources, hopefully electronic, from them. But just so you know, even though I am not as familiar with the topic as some other people, I know who the experts are.

Corporal and Capital Punishment
Absolutely completely subject to time and place. Back in the day, the practice of cutting off hands and stoning etc was pretty common umm...everywhere. Historians like John Esposito have noted that all of those practices were able to be justified for their context, and were under harsh restrictions, but many many legal reforms have been made since then, and so those practices are generally considered unacceptable for the modern world by the majority of Muslims. Of course, you get people continuing to do that, but they are operating under a very literal interpretation of the law. Every society has elements within it that are in contradiction to the Geneva Conventions, it doesn't mean those societies inherently violent, it means they're human.

Freedom of Speech and Association
Pssshh...I get frustrated when I hear people say there's no freedom of thought/speech/etc in Islam. The favorite example is Salman Rushdie, as if he's the only Muslim (or of an Islamic heritage at least) to have a thought throughout the whole of Islamic history. Look above at my quote about diversity in thought.

Read about Ibn Battuta's travels across the Muslim world, and all of the things he observed in different Muslim societies in the 15th century. He may not have agreed with some of the practices, like the ringing of church bells in Central Asia, or women going around topless in the Maldives, but the fact is, they happened, and they were tolerated. Read about famous Arab poets and all the scandals they got involved in, yet were tolerated.

It is in different periods of history when there are threats to the political institutions that we see a closing of the mind to different ideas and intolerance, and it has nothing to do with religion. Its just sh*t that humans do to each other, period.

That's now going to be new attitude towards historical travesties. Genocide in Rwanda you say? Ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? The Britney and K-Fed custody battle? Yeah, let's just file all of that under "Sh*t That Humans Do To Each Other".

And that ladies and gentlemen, is my rebuttal. Thanks for tuning in. Good night, and good luck.

I'm a religious person, can someone else arrest me please?

2008-02-10T19:22:00.000-05:00

Some guy in the UK, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury in fact, made a controversial statement last week about incorporating Sharia law into British law. I don't think I understand the controversy exactly, but from the little I know of exact Sharia principles, I don't see how any of those principles could be contradictory to British law. That is of course if we're taking a non-literal interpretation and recognizing that the law must serve the times that it is in. Since I am so ignorant of law type issues period, I'll avoid talking about the specifics and jump into the general implications.

Secular law and religious law, could the two exist side by side? Why not? Is it any different from the way religious institutions operate now? Religious marriage ceremonies are recognized by the state, in many western countries, so what about other ceremonies and customs etc?

I'm opening up the discussion to all my law-minded friends.

Peace is Crazy, but War is Worse

2008-02-06T21:42:00.000-05:00

Tonight's blog post is courtesy of a fascinating Religion and Peacebuilding class lecture/discussion on restorative vs. retributive justice based on our readings from R. Scott Appleby's Ambivalence of the Sacred. So what exactly do they each mean?

The retributive justice definition fits the current US Justice system for adults, but not juveniles. Its focusing is on punishing the perpetrators, taking something away from them. Restorative justice says, "All parties were harmed in this crime, and a right relationship must be restored." Therefore, it is more focused on rehabilitation and making amends. The example that Appleby uses is that of Maha Ghosananda's work after Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia ( Eddie Izzard refers to Pol Pot as a 'genocidal fuckhead').

I'm having a hard time tracking down electronic sources for this, but in class, we talked about how Ghosananda was dedicated to restoring a right relationship in Cambodia, and was not in favor of incarcerating or even executing Pol Pot. In restorative justice, the perpetrator makes amends by giving up something, for Ghosananda it was sufficient for Pol Pot to confess his accountability for the crimes he committed but he would have to remain under house arrest for the safety and harmony of the community. And I just thought....WHAT????

Restorative justice is something very difficult to get my head around, but I am coming to believe in its power, even in cases like Cambodia. So let's say we go back in time and capture Saddam Hussein, we put him on trial to discover the facts of the crimes and he can either concede that he is guilty and offer to make amends, by let's say, giving up all his worldly possessions to the Iraqi people and agreeing to remain under house arrest for the rest of his life, or he can say "I did nothing wrong" and just walk away. Of course, the details of how it could have been done are much much much more complicated, and this whole process would have taken years and years, and he probably wouldn't have confessed. But the idea behind restorative justice says that the community is so dedicated to the idea that when the perpetrator says he's done nothing wrong, you have to let him go, but he goes at his own peril because he will most likely be expelled from society. It is a lofty goal, to have a society that so condemns violence that it will not lift a finger even against its violent enemies, but I think its worthy one, and even if it is ultimately unattainable in this life, we should still go for it. But of course, this doesn't mean we do away with policing, we just reform how the police are supposed to operate.

This is a very brief and feeble explanation of restorative justice, but it adequately explains my thoughts for the day. It remains a topic to be better explored.

Woohoo!

2008-02-06T15:57:00.000-05:00

Quick post during my class break...

I am going to embark on a very very interesting journey for one of my papers. I'm going to take a hard look at nonviolent movements in Islam. How awesome is that going to be?

Look forward to a nice juicy post on restorative vs. retributive justice tonight!

The above photo is me with a young Circassian girl in Jarash, Jordan. That was a fun day.

Engaging the Enemy?

2008-02-04T21:56:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the Palestinian crisis in Gaza, a suicide bombing occurred in Israel, killing one (the numbers of Israeli casualties in the overall conflict is very very disproportionate to the Palestinian, remember that). It reminded me of an article I had previously read which could have easily predicted this kind of retribution even after gains had been made in peace talks.

I really love this article from The Economist. Its about Israel, and the rest of the world, can't keep pushing Hamas, and how we need to be more creative in making it a more peaceful party instead of encouraging its extremists (I know, they sound like the same exact thing).

The point is, we're living in an age where a lot of these organizations who have been labelled as terrorist actually have a very blurry line between extremism and okay-ness. Hamas is a great example because not does it have members who call for the destruction of Israel, but it also provides social services for its people, not all of whom agree with those violent perspectives.

Islamist seems like a really ambiguous word to me, the media has given it this extremist connotation, but as someone who is studying a variety of Islamic thinkers and movements, it feels like a very benign word. In any case, Islamist ideologies, whatever they are, are not going to simply disappear by arresting its proponents, killing its footsoldiers, and then delivering happy meals with American flags. They are something at the very core of the fight over who gets to define national, ethnic, and religious identities. Unfortunately, because of political conditions, the violent ideologies are gaining more ground. Like the article says, they can't be defeated or ignored, but there may be some virtue in embracing it to an extent.

The key requirement is that Hamas be judged by its deeds rather than its declaratory words. Some within Hamas think only of Israel's destruction; for more, it remains their long-term ambition. But opinion polls say that most Palestinians, including a good half of the 44% who voted for Hamas at the last election, accept a two-state solution. The way to bring Hamas on board is not to isolate it, which may make it stronger and more intransigent, but to entice it with measures of at least temporary respite that have a better chance, over time, of making it embrace the reality of a predominantly Jewish state next to a Palestinian one.

Hamas cannot expect a free pass to respectability. Its leaders cannot prevaricate over diplomacy for ever; ditching their anti-Semitic charter would help too. But insisting that Hamas recognises Israel outright before it can be deemed worthy of any kind of co-operation is pointless. It simply won't happen. Leaving an angry group of Islamists outside any deal that Israel makes with other Palestinians is bound, in the end, to undermine Israel's own long-term security. That is at least one lesson to come out of the Gaza fiasco.

I've said before I want there to be a one pluralistic state solution, but in the very likely event of that not happening, a two state solution is just fine. As One Voice will tell you, that is what the majority of people, on both sides, want.

The Next Installment

2008-02-03T18:45:00.000-05:00

Are the headlines confusing you? Are you lost whenever people around you start talking about current events? Are you just absolutely sick of Britney news and actually want to know about the wars in the world that we're constantly accusing news channel of not reporting on? Do you really want some college chick tell you what you should think?

Of course you do. So its time for another installment of Christa Explains It All, where I take questions from the readers, challenging me to read up on stuff and give a coherent answer that someone can possibly refute. So let's have a go at it, shall we?

Reply here with your questions because you love me.

Ugh

2008-02-03T13:42:00.000-05:00

So the Washington Post is confirming that authorities in Iraq believe the two female suicide bombers had down syndrome and that they did not set off the bomb themselves, it may have been detonated remotely. There are definitely cases of female suicide bombers who are completely willing participants, but this obviously is not the case here. I don't even think I need to describe how absolutely vile this is. There is of course nothing in Islam that sanctions this kind of violence, nonetheless abusing the handicapped in order to achieve it.

Ha!

2008-02-02T15:25:00.001-05:00

I thought I'd share this cute little cartoon from The Economist.com with you all. I especially like that the tank doesn't specifically say "USA", but rather just "The West". I don't know if Russia considers itself part of the West, but they've certainly had a few problems with navigating Afghanistan, haven't they? I love it. How do you guys feel about it?

The Why's In Suicide Bombings

2008-02-01T15:56:00.000-05:00

The BBC is reporting that the twin suicide bombings that took place in local Baghdadi markets today was carried out by two mentally disabled female suicide bombers.

This is not the first female suicide attack we've seen in Iraq, but I think it may be the deadliest. I'm not sure, we'll have to wait and see till all the numbers are in.

Just the fact that female suicide bombers exist prompts a closer look at militant ideologies, and certainly the militant ideologies in Iraq are sufficiently different from that of Palestinian militants or that of Al-Qaeda.

I'm a little skeptical of the "mentally disabled" claim. It may very well be true, but I think the label might be used very liberally because those on the ground can't understand why any woman in any rational mental capacity would carry out something like this. And yes, I did attribute rationality to suicide attacks. Many studies of suicide bombers (including many failed) have been done and show that these individuals are operating under a very rational mind set, believing that they have more to gain from blowing themselves up rather than resorting to more conventional or less violent methods. They're wrong of course, but the point is they're not actually "lunatics". The payments to their families or hopes of 72 virgins in Paradise also aren't very good explanatory factors, rather its that these individuals honestly believe that what they are doing is helping their cause. This understanding is critical to any discussion of how to fight militants and terrorists.

Two of the big studies I relied on last semester when I wrote a paper on the links between poverty and terrorism, which also provide alternative links, are from Efraim Benmelech and Claude Berrebi and Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova. You can type those pairs of names into any academic search engine, and should be able to find their work. I just can't find a good link to them.

So, in the meantime, let's just wait and see if the information on these women will become public.

Do I sound like I know what I'm talking about yet?

2008-01-31T20:58:00.000-05:00

A new policy prescription article thingy (yeah, I totally own a dictionary) from the Brookings Institution thinks the US government should create a new department that is specially designed for reconstruction and stabilization that will serve past the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan. It'll fall somewhere between National Security and the State Department it seems.

I'm usually not in favor of creating new departments or bureaucracies, but this one seems alright, actually reworking a system that will provide me (hopefully) with job security.

What I find really encouraging is tying this notion of national security with peacebuilding. Meaning, we don't send troops into other countries without an actual plan for what they'll do once they've finished and only use international peace keeping forces in a secondary role. Novel concept, I know.

The most interesting idea the article poses in terms of actual peacebuilding is the idea of elections.

"It is incumbent on the international community to guarantee peace and impose law and order in the absence of a widely accepted rule of law. In addition to provision of basic security, there is a “window of necessity” to meet humanitarian needs and give people confidence in the future. Key factors are restarting basic social services, getting kids back to school, and stimulating local jobs that give people an alternative to taking up arms. The process must start to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate (DDR) warring opponents. Some form of political activity must begin, often locally, that will lead to credible governance. Elections, when conducted too soon, can be detrimental, forcing competition among previously warring factions before wounds have healed and potentially entrenching criminals or warlords in political office."

I think in the particular case of Iraq and Afghanistan, there was such pressure to show that the US had properly implemented democracy in these countries, and so the gun was jumped to hold elections. While these elections may have had great examples of participation of the populations, they were nonetheless nothing more than an imitation of a democratic process. I think the US is making huge mistakes in pushing democracy on nations that can't provide security for the process to begin with, at least not in any way beneficial to their people.

Of course there are many other mistakes that have led to the present mess, and one of these days, I'll be able to write a very exact and well informed opinion about it. Until then, we can all enjoy the musings of a student grasping onto bits of information, desperately trying to sound smart.

Same old new story

2008-01-28T16:09:00.000-05:00

Its sort of a slow newsday for me. I've thumbed through the headlines and all the important things going on in the world, and I can't seem to formulate an opinion on them. But I feel a need to comment on one of the biggest headlines from the Middle East.

The current crisis in Gaza. Its always hard for me to formulate any kind of concrete opinion on a particular when I hear about all the goings-on in Israel-Palestine. Mostly because it seems as though every event is exactly the same: peaceful Palestinians are overshadowed by militants, and Israel answers back with a disproportionate and inappropriate amount of force. I'm not saying it shouldn't be reported on, I'm just saying that every story just re-inforces my opinion, so I don't feel a need to blog about it. Sorry to all (one) of my die-hard Israel-Palestine readers! In any case, read a previous post on what I think should happen over there to bring about peace.

No hearting of the Huckabees

2008-01-28T15:06:00.000-05:00

So what to do today? Hmm...How about tear apart a presidential candidate's article for Foreign Affairs magazine? Yes. That sounds like a good idea. Spotlight on: Mike Huckabee.

I have issues with Huckabee outside of his article, America's Priorities In The War on Terror. Like sticking to a very silly promise made to an American comedian that he would be your vice presidential running mate. Stephen Colbert is awesome, and it might have been a little funny early on in the race, but keeping it up so far into it already isn't funny. Its like the guy doesn't take his candidacy very seriously. Anyway...Mr. Huckabee's opinions appear to be all too common in American politics and regular American discourse.

"The United States' biggest challenge in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the lack of a viable moderate alternative to radicalism."

No, the challenge is actually supporting the very present viable moderates who we have chosen not to listen or even report very much on.

"The potential for such moderation to emerge is visible in the way that Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq have turned against al Qaeda to work with us; they could not stand the thought of living under such fundamentalism and brutality."

First of all, working with the Americans doesn't mean you're progressive. Second, there may be some peaceful Sunnis working with us, but there are just many who are working with us because they don't want the historically oppressed majority Shia to gain ground in the new Iraq. Sectarian violence is going both ways, we shouldn't judge which side is better based on who's more willing to work for us. That is a very very common mistake in American foreign policy.

"We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope."

Right about lack of freedom being a breeding ground for terrorism, but not poverty.

"If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms."

Now that's just scary. We shouldn't even be thinking about the next invasion we undertake, because there should not be another invasion period.

"I support providing the Turks with actionable intelligence to go after the PKK with limited air strikes and commando raids but would prefer to train and equip Iraqi Kurds to fight the PKK and rid themselves of this menace. I regret that it took the deployment of 100,000 Turkish troops to the border with Iraq, and the PKK problem becoming a crisis, for the Bush administration to give the issue the attention it deserves. We should have put more pressure on the Iraqi government, including the Kurdish authorities, to deal with the PKK earlier. Our special envoy on the issue, retired General Joseph Ralston, quit his post last October out of frustration over the passivity of both the U.S. and the Iraqi governments. Some crises cannot be averted; this one could and should have been."

Does this guy know anything about the Kurds?

Huckabee also goes on to describe how he agrees with Bush's plan to contain Iran and how he wants to continue with it while keeping the military option on the table yet bringing in other options as well so we're not stuck with only the military. I don't agree with this idea of "containing" Iran. Mostly because that's trying to fit a round peg into a Cold War square hole. The best article I've read on this issue is here, I've also blogged about that one before, here.

Then fun of all fun, he goes on to Pakistan, criticizing the government for not fighting Al-Qaeda hard enough. Well, if the US would've had a better strategy in Afghanistan, then Pakistan might not have had to concentrate its limited efforts on the spill-over and influence of the Taliban in Waziristan. He's right to criticize Musharraf where he does, but his chief criticsm seems to be that Musharraf bending over far enough for the US. Its just indicative of an overall view that the world's allegiance should be to America because America and global security and interest are one and the same and that is just ridonkulously arrogant.

In short, Mr. Huckabee has jerkface politics, and unfortunately, his views aren't all that unique.

Blasphemy, blas-pher-you, blas for everybody!

2008-01-26T13:39:00.000-05:00

This week I got to write a reaction paper to a fascinating book entitled When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball for my Religion and Peacebuilding class. I thought I'd share a little bit of that essay with you folks.

Looking at my own religious community, the American Christians, I have to say yes, religion is becoming evil. When I look at other communities, I want to say no, because I can easily point non-religious motivations that are creating conflicts but expressing themselves in religious language. It’s a bit of a double standard, but I have a tendency to harshly criticize what I am closest to. The problem isn’t within the nature of Christianity; its how societies have allowed religious expression to become so poisonous to the general public. Lucky for me, Kimball is a Baptist minister, and he applies the warning signs mainly to his own faith, as is to be expected.

Of the five warning signs that Kimball lists (1. Absolute truth Claims, 2. Blind Obedience, 3. Establishing the Ideal Time, 4. The End Justifies Any Means, and 5. Declaring Holy War), absolute truth claims are the most dangerous if only because it is the first step. In middle school and high school (such a loooong time ago, I know), I was a very active evangelical Christian, for many different reasons I won't go into.

I have since removed the evangelical label from my religious identification, not because I experienced any destructive blow to my faith in Christianity, but because I was becoming better friends with non-Christians and I felt that always looking at people as potential converts or even just believing that these people were on “the outside” was wrong and dehumanizing. Even just thinking that my non-Christian friends would not be allowed into heaven was a truly scary thought and it ceased to be my motivation to change them but rather to change myself. I even have a refrigerator magnet that sums up most of feelings towards contemporary American Christianity, “Please Jesus, save me from Your followers.”

Kimball uses a familiar phrase to highlight the problems of absolute truth claims: “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship”. I've heard that one a lot, and even used it quite a few times. I don’t really agree with that statement anymore in so much as I believe Christianity is a religion and a relationship, as are most other faiths. However, I’ve always thought it was a clever way to exempt Christianity from the debates over secularism and the general evils of religion that were usually posed by ardent atheists.

I agree with Kimball that the phrase also hints at a much deeper issue, the complete nullification of any other religion’s right to assert its own validity. In particular, I liked his quote, “I am convinced that it is possible to be a person of faith with integrity—a Christian, a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist—and at the same time recognize that one’s own experience of God does not exhaust all possibilities” (9). I think it is fair for a religion to assert it has the best understanding of truth, as any company would describe their product as the best version of its kind in the market, but not the only way of understanding truth.

Be aware that I am not claiming the a belief in the existence of an absolute truth is dangerous, it is just the way people have chosen to express their exclusive access to this truth.

What do you guys think about absolute truth claims? Do you think you have it right and everyone else has got it wrong? Or is everyone wrong, and that's okay?

The title of this post is inspired by Eddie Izzard's bit about Pope-Man. Could be a whole series...with a lot of complaints. I swear I quote that man almost as much as Dr. Ahmed. Almost.

Sycophantism and Waziristan Part III

2008-01-26T13:13:00.000-05:00

Fresh on the heels of Robert Gates' statement that the US was ready to send troops into Waziristan, Dr. Ahmed talks about the dangers of favoring a military option in Waziristan, especially in light of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan in Part III of his interview with The Globalist.

"I would say that the United States should be very cautious — and should send its finest diplomats to have good relations with the tribal chiefs, through jirgas. They should meet them, show them respect, listen to them.

The United States needs to realize that it cannot make the mistake, whatever it does, of sending in troops, because that will do two things: It will consolidate all the tribes against the United States — and also push even those wavering into the local Taliban camp. The local Taliban are already dominating the tribal areas — and now, they are spilling into the settled districts of Pakistan.

Action in the tribal areas will also inflame all of Pakistan. Even those who are seen to be pro-American, like President Musharraf, have warned against any U.S. military action in Pakistan."

Sycophantism and Waziristan "Part Deux"

2008-01-24T18:16:00.000-05:00

Soon to come on this blog, more discussion of religion and destruction as I am writing a short paper about it this week. It should be fun. In the meantime, enjoy more discussion of my awesome professor.

Here's a quote from Dr. Ahmed's interview with The Globalist Part II where he answers a question about Waziristan and modernity. The answer I think is applicable to many societies who have said they have no wish to modernize.

"However the people of Waziristan living in Karachi are as modern as you and me. But back home in their own region, they preserve their own custom and tradition. It is a conscious choice—and has nothing to do with “barbarians living in caves.” They opted for preserving their identity and a culture. They said this preserves our freedom. That’s what they treasured above all. They said, “We have seen what you have done to Pakistan, what modernization means to Pakistan — corrupt police, corrupt revenue officials, corrupt politicians.’ So they said, ‘We have seen all this. What are you going to give us that is different? Why do you want to modernize us? Leave us alone.’"

Also described in the article is how the war on terror has pushed different governments into becoming military states leaving huge vacuums of power open to radicals like the Taliban to step in and "restore" a sense of law and order that is governed by at the very least civilians, if not with the complete blessings of the entire society.

Dr. Ahmed goes on to say that there is indeed a way to bring stability back to Waziristan, but its a tricky one that involves engaging a tribal system rather than abolishing it:

"...The Americans, who seem to be on the war path if newspaper reports are to be taken seriously, have no idea of this type of [tribal] administration. It is a colonial administration and Americans are not a very colonial people. The Americans are used to a mayor who is elected for a fixed period.

In Waziristan, when I was the political agent, I was accountable to no one, except for my own reputation. That is not a very acceptable concept in the West. A 21st century solution has therefore to be found which is informed by the past in which diplomacy and a shrewd understanding of the nature of tribal society often averted death and destruction while meeting the objective at hand."

Sycophantism and Waziristan

2008-01-23T22:08:00.000-05:00

Yes it is time I start blabbering on about my awesome professor again.

Dr. Ahmed, the professor I am privileged to work for along with some other fantastic research assistants, has just been featured in an article for The Globalist talking about US covert action in Waziristan, relating a bit to yesterday's post about Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Waziristan is a province in NW Pakistan and is the favorite location for presumed bin Laden hide outs it appears. According to the BBC, the Pakistani government has been aggressively pursuing Al Qaeda and Taliban activists and looking for tribal allies to push Al Qaeda and the Taliban out.

In the past, Waziristan cooperated with the Americans in pushing the Soviets out of the region, and had a favorable view of Americans. But after the war was won, and the Americans had left, something began to change. Dr. Ahmed describes:

"Initially, Americans had a good reputation. After all, it was because of the Americans, especially the CIA, that the Afghans won the war in Afghanistan. The CIA, working with the Pakistani intelligence, was able to provide weapons to the Afghans and especially the “Stingers” to shoot down the Soviet helicopters. Afghans remember that Ronald Reagan had called them ‘freedom fighters.’

But not long afterwards, Afghans looked at their land and said, ‘My god, look at the devastation, we are destroyed, our homes are destroyed. One-fourth of our people have lost a limb or a leg because of the Soviet’s brutalities. Our homes have been uprooted; there is starvation in parts of Afghanistan.’ And they thought, ‘our American friends will help us.’

But the Americans just walked away. That was the fatal error. When the United States walked away they left a vacuum. The warlords came back, along with local rivalries — and this time the king of Afghanistan was no longer there to act as a unifying force. It was just an implosion of society. In that vacuum, we saw the emergence of the Taliban. In that anarchy and chaos, emerged Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the stage was set for 9/11."

Taliban or Al-Qaeda, Who Would You Choose?

2008-01-22T20:20:00.001-05:00

So I was reading about how Musharraf is more concerned with security on the Afghan border and rooting out the Taliban rather than hunting down Osama bin Laden on the Newsweeks, and I was reminded of a class reading.

What if you were in Musharraf's position, would you make the same decision?

If I had limited resources and had to choose between put more effort into fighting the Taliban on my borders or hunting bin Laden within my country, I'd go for the former. The Taliban is a greater threat than Al-Qaeda, in my view. The Taliban has something Al-Qaeda does not, a political objective which gains a lot more supporters on the ground than an anarchist organization could ever hope to have, or at least the potential to have more.

Oh, look, I've used a new word from my reading. Anarchism. No, not the smelly drain pipe jeaned punk rock commies that run around middle class areas. The other kind.

"Unlike Hamas or Hizbullah, al-Qaeda has not organized a mass-based political machine, nor has it built a network of social welfare organizations. As a matter of fact, besides its single-minded focus on jihad, al-Qaeda has no program. While Hamas and Hizbullah wage campaigns of national liberation, al-Qaeda identifies with no particular struggle."

and

"Like other anarchist movements, al-Qaeda is reactive. It focuses solely on resisting what it considers to be an intrusive alien order and preserving a culture and lifestyle and the homeland of that culture and lifestyle its members believe to be under attack. Unlike other movements whose discourse it shares, al-Qaeda does not operate as a cog within the international state and economic systems. Rather it wars on those systems."

The Modern Middle East: A History
James L. Gelvin

My radical new idea is to abandon the term "jihadis" when referring to the AQ. I'm going to say anarchists, and maybe add a nice little modifier like "international" or "third world". We'll see.

B T dubbs, RIP Heath Ledger. I loved Brokeback Mountain.

I also feel compelled to say bin Laden is very very bad. It should be obvious, but I think we've all been made to feel a little paranoid about what we say, and I'm not taking any chances. I made the graphic too.

George Michael and Democracy

2008-01-18T12:45:00.000-05:00

So I was reading the nice little bit from The Economist, and lo and behold, I found it to be talking about the same sort of issues I brought up in my Cabaret-esque post. The article is mainly a skeptical look at Freedom House and its inherent US bias, but it also challenges their ideas of "free", "partly free", and "free".

As you can see from the image above, there are many countries that became free from 1982 to 2007, but there are just many that went completely backwards in their freedom ratings. My theory on why that is, The Cold War and its aftermath, oil politics, and then finally the war on terror. There are probably other factors involved as well in the various countries, but those I think are the most shared reasons.

So the really really interesting bit I wanted to point out from it is this:

"How much freer do people feel when they have a few roubles or yuan in their pocket (and access to other goodies like computers and compact discs)? That is an endlessly debatable question. By contrast the sort of liberties and non-liberties measured by Freedom House (multi-party elections, due process and so on) are relatively tangible and easy to assess. That alone may be quite a good argument for having at least one index whose stated purpose is to assess formal freedoms—to vote, speak, assemble and so on. That does not imply that other factors, such as prosperity, have no bearing on how free people feel."

Like the good constructivist I am, I like to focus a lot on how people feel, and so the importance of how free populations feel is paramount. Its whether or not these feelings match up with empirical definitions of the democratic system is the really question, at least for me. China is a great example, and one the article mentions as well. It is poorly ranked for civil liberties, yet its a pretty stable and prosperous country.

You may have discovered at the end of this post that I have deconstructed a particular set of ideas, but I'm not really sure what to construct in their place. Well, I'll figure it out soon enough.

Take a moment, think about it, listen to this wonderful little 90's ditty about Freedom from George Michael, and then make a comment.

Oh noes! Its a paradox!

2008-01-17T10:42:00.000-05:00

Much of the president's speeches during his tour of the Middle East have involved rallying the Arab states to guard against the threat of Iran. However, according to Shibley Telhami at the Brookings Institution, Iran is indeed a threat to many Arab regimes, but not in the way you think. Although the article looks more at how Arab-Israeli peace making is the key to security rather than countering Iran, I'm going to focus on the disparity between the publics and their governments.

Its safe to say that there are more dictatorships disguised as democracies in the Middle East than there are actual democracies. Each of these regimes sees a common threat in Iran, Islamic fundamentalism. But they are not threatened by in the same way we here in the West are. The Iranian Revolution has been a scary thing for many nation states in the Middle East. Perhaps the only thing scarier than free elections for these governments is the idea of another Islamic revolution happening within their own borders.

The more the autocrats try to hold on to power by supressing the more radical Islamist movements, the stronger those movements become. And in many cases, as with Hamas and Hezbollah, those movements begin to provide the populations with what the government does not: hospitals, education, etc.

A US military presence is required to provide security for the governments, but as Telhami points out, those forces are not there with the mission to protect anything other than American interests. And then we come to a paradox. Military bases in the Middle East protect countries from militants (in theory at least) but the American presence creates a lot of resentment amongst the public and provides fuel for the militants who can say, "Look, Americans are everywhere, they're evil overlords who control everything." So the threat, or perceived threat amongst the people, isn't Iran, it us.

I don't have the answer to that puzzle yet. But I'll let you guys know when I do. In the meantime, add your own thoughts.

Too little too late?

2008-01-16T21:17:00.000-05:00

Today, Mr. Matthew Price from BBC News wrote a nice little article expressing his views on the nuanced nature of Bush's visit to the Middle East. A very important question was asked in the midst of his article, is it too late for Bush to make any kind of a difference?

My answer is a very loud yes. Many people in the Middle East feel like one little tour isn't going to undo the damage of the last nearly eight years that Bush has been in office. The bunglings of the War on Terror, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the continued support of Israel especially during the summer 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon, and the list just goes on and on. All of these grievances cannot be mended by the time Bush leaves office, and I find it highly unlikely Bush will attempt to do anything of the kind once he is out of office. I expect we'll see footage of him clearing brush in Texas till at least 2010.

And that is hopefully as bad as any Bush bashing will get on this blog. I don't like the guy, but still, constant insults get boring, and it turns a lot of people off to what you really have to say.

So my dear little readers, what do you think? Is it too late for Mr. Bush to make a difference for American foreign policy in the Middle East? And why does this topic make that silly JoJo song run through my head?

Money, money, money...

2008-01-15T16:15:00.000-05:00

I just read an article on Time.com that talks about the inverse relationship of oil wealth and democracy, citing Bush's visit to the UAE as the latest example. In the Emirates, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan dropped some srrrious bling on Dubya. (That's right, I went there). Anyone who's been to the UAE, like me for not an example, can also testify to the decadence of the place.

"It may now be possible to propose a corollary theory: countries that greet American presidents with the gaudiest displays of oil wealth tend to be the least democratic. In Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed presented Bush with an obscene necklace consisting of a number of increasingly large solid gold stars encrusted with scores of diamonds, rubies and emeralds. Though Bush talked up his "Freedom Agenda" there, his aides dodged questions about the fact that 50% of the country's parliament is appointed by Sheikh Khalifa, who is also the lifetime "President." Saudi Arabia, the most repressive of all the countries Bush visited on his trip, tried to outdo the "President Sheikh" Monday evening with a jewel-laden gold medallion dangling from a chain encrusted with rubies and emeralds."

However, as the article goes on, this isn't to say that all countries with oil resources are doomed. Its only when oil dominates a state's economy that the correlation becomes stronger.

So my interesting thought of the day, reminscent of an earlier post I made about Russia, if populations feel that they are economically better off, who cares what kind of government is in power? I don't know too much about any democratic movements in UAE, but from all outside appearances, everyone seems fairly happy. I'm not saying authoritarianism is acceptable if your people are richer than before, I'm just musing on how relevant Fosse is in this particular area of foreign policy.

Watch this video with Liza Minelli and Joel Gray singing the song "Money" from Cabaret. Maybe you'll start singing it at your next international development class.

Zakaria, Newsweek Editor and Psychic?

2008-01-15T15:32:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I posted about democracy and American strategic interests, and lucky me, Fareed Zakaria touched on the exact same subject that night on A Daily Show. He and Jon Stewart got into a nice little discussion on Pervez Musharraf and how at one point Musharraf was a fairly benign dictator, but haw now developed a Messiah complex. Mr. Zakaria then said the following:

I'm suggesting we like democracy in strategically irrelevant countries.

Such strategically irrelevant countries do not include Pakistan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia.

Glad to see Mr. Zakaria has been reading my blog...or even my mind. DUN DUN DUN!

I think its more likely he reads my mind. =-P

Ssshhh!

2008-01-14T10:41:00.001-05:00

Bush is in Saudi Arabia as part of his tour of the Middle East, spreading democratic good will and the like.

Because I don't think its the American president's job to spread democracy, I can't fault Bush for not talking about politics with his Saudi buddies. However, it still remains a highly hypocritical situation. With so much money at stake, it just makes good business sense to be hypocritical. So whose job is it to spread democracy? First and foremost, it is the job of the population in question. Second, it is the job of the international community, including NGO's, to help these populations achieve their goals if they do not have the resources to meet it themselves.

And so I come to my next point, foreign aid. After taking a class entitled Global Poverty and Peace, I decided that governments giving aid for "democratic" movements in foreign states is a bad idea. The American government has historically proven that democracy isn't as important as strategic interests, and so the aid given in many countries is usually seen with immense skepticism and resent. Best example, Operation Ajax in Iran. The spectre of American involvement in that operation is still very fresh in the minds of the Iranians, and similar events have happened all over the Middle East.

The new movie Charlie Wilson's War touches on the subject of American involvement in the creation of the Taliban. I'm not going to see the movie, but its also another good example.

My conclusion is, the American government should just shut up. Not the American people, but the government.

I don't think I'm likely to get a job at the state department anytime soon. What do you think?

Bush's Wild on the Middle East Tour...some issues

2008-01-10T14:28:00.000-05:00

I just read a great article in Time about Bush's Middle East tour and why many Arabs are skeptical of his urges for peace. The article describes the exact sorts of concerns I have with Bush's visit.

1. Helping the Palestinians....
Arabs cynically see Bush's endorsement of Palestinian statehood as part of the White House's effort to win Arab support at the time for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Arabs note that until 2007, Bush shunned active Arab-Israeli mediation; he had refused to deal with Arafat, even though he was the elected president of the Palestinian people (as well as the symbolic leader of the Palestinian revolution), and still refuses to deal with the Islamist Hamas group, which won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. Even though Bush calls the November Annapolis peace conference a "major breakthrough" and says he's an "optimistic guy" about the chances of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement by 2009, he refuses to lay out his administration's vision of a fair final settlement — something many experts see as an essential diplomatic step in breaking the long impasse between the parties. As Arabs see it, Bush's failure over the last seven years to exercise decisive U.S. influence over Israel, a close American ally, has simply enabled the Jewish state to expand its settlements throughout the occupied West Bank and made a viable Palestinian state much harder to achieve.

I too am pessimistic about what an independent Palestinian state would look like given the current occupation, as yesterday's post can attest to.

2. Promoting democracy. There are certainly people in Iraq, Lebanon and a few pockets here and there who are grateful for Bush's call for liberty in the Middle East. The problem is that it is widely seen as being insincere at best and hypocritical at worst. Few doubt that toppling Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was more about breaking Arab military strength and projecting American strategic power than fighting terrorism, much less creating Iraqi democracy. While Iraq is no longer a one-man show, it will be a very long time before anyone considers the country, now dominated by Shi'ite Muslim gangs, Kurdish warlords and Sunni terrorists, emblematic of an emerging democracy.
If the Iraq war was about Bush's freedom agenda, Arabs wonder, why has the White House stood by so quietly as pro-American authoritarian Arab regimes have jailed democracy activists, as happened to former presidential candidate Ayman Nour in Egypt? The White House stresses Bush's admiration for Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz and the country's baby-step municipal elections in 2005, yet Washington is silent about the systematic repression of women and minorities permitted in the name of religion in the Kingdom.

Yes! And don't forget the American support for Musharraf, though not Arab, is Muslim, and embodies the tendency of the US to support dictators in exchange for loyalty to the "war on terror".

3. Confronting Iran. The Arabs are afraid of Iran, especially the Saudis and the emirs who rule the small oil-rich states situated just across the Gulf from the Persian giant. They are inclined to agree with Bush's worries about Iran's nuclear intentions. But they are even more concerned about another U.S. war in the Gulf-this time against Iran, to wipe out its nuclear program. That could bring a swift backlash, either through direct Iranian military retaliation against Washington's regional allies, or in the form of fomenting long-term political unrest and terrorism among Shi'ite minorities in those countries.
Arabs were relieved when the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran said that the Islamic regime had shelved its nuclear weapons program in 2003. But a major aim of Bush's tour is to rally Gulf Arabs into an anti-Iran bloc bent on further isolating Tehran diplomatically and economically, without giving up the option of a military attack on Iran, on the grounds that Iran remains a dire threat to regional security. To such logic, Gulf leaders are tempted to reply, "Duh, it was your ousting of Saddam Hussein's regime that enabled Iran to expand its influence in the first place." Arabs would never want Washington to get too cozy with Tehran. But they've had enough Texas gun slinging.

Like duh,gag me with nuclear warhead, Iran totally benefitted from the Iraq war.

Sorry, that was uncalled for.

Yay Time!

Rainbows and Unicorns in the Holy Land

2008-01-09T14:18:00.001-05:00

President Bush is gearing up for his new tour of the Middle East in what seems to me, an effort at saving face.

One of his stops will include peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. BBC reports:

"If there needs to be a little pressure then you know I will provide it," he said after talks with Israeli prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

He was speaking at the start of what he called a "historic" visit to the Middle aimed at advancing peace negotiations.

However, within hours of his arrival, the Palestinians reported that Israeli forces had killed three people in Gaza.

At least five more were wounded.

The Palestinians accused Israel of stepping up such attacks during the run-up to Mr Bush's visit.

The latest Israeli raids on Gaza followed rockets launched from inside Gaza into Israel.

Mr Olmert - standing alongside Mr Bush - said Israel would not tolerate such attacks.

"There will be no peace until terror is stopped," he said.

But he also re-iterated his commitment to peace, saying both sides were "seriously trying to move forward in order to realise the vision of a two-state solution".

Mr Bush said he was under no illusion that this would be hard work.

"I fully understand that there's going to be some painful political compromises," he said.

"I fully understand that there's going to be some tough negotiations. And the role of the United States is to help in those negotiations."

First, I must point out that Bush is not the person to be pushing for peace talks. The president of the United States should encourage these sorts of things, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush isn't the guy to do it. This isn't Bush-bashing or anything,because whether or not you believe negotiating and diplomacy is appropriate in these circusmstances, you must admit that the man has used it sparingly in his presidential career.

I think this is a good time to talk about my misgivings on a two state solution in Israel-Palestine. Mainly, I am afraid that it means Palestinians will be given a state that is doomed to fail. Sort of like saying, "You want your own independent government? Fine. We'll give you some leggos to build it with. Good luck." My ideal, lofty as it is, is for Israel to become a pluralist state, similar to that of Switzerland, Belgium, or even India, where different ethnicities together create the state and live in relative peace and prosperity. Also included in my ideal are rainbow fountains and glitter covered unicorns. It may not be the most realistic of ideals, but I still like to dream.

My point is that any peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians should recognize that the Palestinians need more than just an acceptance of their sovereignty. How will they sustain themselves after gaining independence? Could there be another refugee crisis if the infrastructure fails to develop? Will a two state solution address the grievances of Arab Muslims who consider themselves to be Israeli citizens or Palestinians in Jerusalem? I have yet to see a plan for an independent Palestine that addresses these concerns.

Yes, I made that graphic myself.

The Danger Continues

2008-01-07T14:01:00.000-05:00

The latest edition of The Economist has explored the question of Pakistan as the most dangerous nation in the same way Newsweek did a few months ago. The opinion piece, The World's Most Dangerous Place, does good to recognize that the threat of Islamic extremism in Pakistan is a relatively new crisis. One need only look at the ideas of Mr. Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, to see the kind of progressive movements and ideas that have come forth in the country.

In contrast to the Newsweek article, the focus of this piece seems to point to Pakistan as a dangerous nation to its people instead of as a danger to American interests. Like Lamis Andoni's blog response on Post Global, the article also points to how external forces have also contributed to Pakistan's instability.

So, ironically, America's support for Mr Musharraf, justified as necessary to combat extremism next door, has fostered extremism at home. Similarly, in the 1980s America backed General Zia ul Haq, a dictator and Islamic fundamentalist, as his intelligence services sponsored the mujahideen who eventually toppled the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. In the process, they helped create what Miss Bhutto called a “Frankenstein's monster”—of jihadist groups with sympathisers in the army and intelligence services. The clubbable, whisky-quaffing, poodle-cuddling Mr Musharraf is no fundamentalist. But the monster still stalks his security forces.

Happily, the author does offer a bright spot, seeing a solution to all the crises.

Yet Pakistan's plight is not yet hopeless. Two things could still help arrest its slide into anarchy, improbable though both now seem. The first is a credible investigation into Miss Bhutto's murder and the security-service lapses (or connivance) that allowed it to happen. Mr Musharraf's willingness to let a couple of British policemen help the inquiry is unlikely to produce this. Every time a bomb goes off in Pakistan, people believe that one of the country's own spooks lit the fuse. Until there has been a convincing purge of the military-intelligence apparatus, Pakistan will never know true stability.

Second, there could be a fair election. This would expose the weakness of the Islamist parties. In the last general election in 2002, they won just one-tenth of the votes, despite outrageous rigging that favoured them. Even if they fared somewhat better this time, they would still, in the most populous provinces, Sindh and Punjab, be trounced by the mainstream parties. An elected government with popular support would be better placed to work with the moderate, secular, professional tendency in the army to tackle extremism and bring Pakistan's poor the economic development they need.

And the final awesome conclusion.

Sadly, there seems little hope that the security forces will abandon the habit of a lifetime and allow truly fair elections. The delay in the voting—opposed by both main opposition parties—has been seen as part of its plan to rig the results. The violence that has scarred the country since Miss Bhutto's assassination may intensify. The army may be tempted to impose another state of emergency; or it may cling on to ensure that the election produces the result it wants—a weak and pliable coalition of the PPP and Mr Musharraf's loyalists.

For too long, Mr Musharraf has been allowed to pay lip-service to democratic forms, while the United States has winked at his blatant disdain for the substance. The justification has been the pre-eminent importance of “stability” in the world's most dangerous place. It is time to impress upon him and the generals still propping him up that democracy is not the alternative to stability. It is Pakistan's only hope.

Religion and Saturated Fats

2008-01-06T19:22:00.002-05:00

I apologize to all (four) of my readers for being a little lax on posting lately. I just returned from my Christmas vacay in Miami, and like an astronaut coming back to earth, I needed time to adjust to re-entry.

While I was on the plane, I had ample time to peruse the holiday edition of The Economist, and I came across a nice little article about the "battle of the books", the Bible vs. The Koran, which is more widely read, distributed, known, etc? The conclusion was the Bible, but mainly because of economic advantage given the religious patronage of a very wealthy and enterprising country, the US. In other words, the Bible has commercialized where the Koran has not.

And that is not at all a bad thing, to me anyways. When my faith becomes commercialized, it suddenly doesn't feel sacred anymore. People have every right to set up faith based companies, but still. Its like potato chips made of lard fried in oil and then covered in artificially colored artificially flavored cheese. It has the right to be made, but that doesn't make it good.

Examples of the ridiculous, from the article:

There are prayer books in everyday vernacular or even street slang (“And even though I walk through/The Hood of death/I don't back down/for you have my back”). Or consider innovation. In 2003 Thomas Nelson dreamt up the idea of Bible-zines—crosses between Bibles and teenage magazines. The pioneer was Revolve, which intercuts the New Testament with beauty tips and relationship advice (“are you dating a Godly guy?”). This was quickly followed by Refuel, for boys, and Blossom and Explore, for tweens.

There are toddler-friendly versions of the most famous Bible stories. The “Boy's Bible” promises “gross and gory Bible stuff”. The “Picture Bible” looks like a super-hero comic. “God's Little Princess Devotional Bible” is pink and sparkly.

Seriously, that inspires me to laugh, not think about my finite existence in the context of an infinite creator.

Here's an interesting quote about a capitalist attitude toward religion:

Open competition is a boon to religion: American Evangelism has flourished precisely because America has no official church. And theocracy is ultimately a source of sloth and conservatism.

True, true. And yet sometimes I fear that evangelicalism is a threat to religious freedom. I don't see how the race to get the most people in line with a particular faith appreciates any kind of human dignity.

I fully recognize every religion's right to try and gain converts. I even recognize my own faith asks me to do so. So why don't I? I used to. I went on missions trips in high school. I went to Jesus camp. I was vice president of the Bible club. Did I stop trying to "witness" to others and tell others that Jesus is the only way to heaven because I stopped being a Christian?

Like the good agnostic-ish Protestant I've become, I can't answer that with any certainty. All I know is that it feels wrong to always be thinking about how to change this person or that person's beliefs, like they're an object. Missionary work seems like a form of oppression to me now. Its de-humanizing.

So who do I think wins the battle of the books? If there must be a battle between the two books, then I say no one wins. And now I can't stop thinking about potato chips.

Let's See How Far We've Come

2008-01-04T21:03:00.001-05:00

I seriously almost cried when I listen to Obama's speech after winning the Iowa Caucus last night. So many students, people my age, came and voted for him. That's amazing. It just goes to prove that my hopes for this generation are not unfounded. We will be the get up and do something generation, no the "me" or "slacker", but the kids who want to make a change and then make it happen.

I would be happy to have Mr. Obama as my president, and lets hope I still like him when he is. Presidents do have a way of becoming complete dickheads while they're in office, but then when they're out, they do the most amazing things, a la Bill Clinton.

So much has been written about it already, I don't think I could ever add to all the great things that have been said. Instead, here is a compilation of what I have read and admired:

The Amazing Speech

Obama Wins Iowa's Democratic Caucus

Obama's Youth Vote Triumph

The Conventional Wisdom Defied

A Matchbox 20 song and video that totally sum up my feelings about the coming elections. Except without the pessimism.

Danger could be my middle name, but its John...

2008-01-02T15:24:00.000-05:00

Thumbing through the Washington Post website, I discovered a discussion from November 2007 about Newsweek's labelling of Pakistan as the most dangerous nation. A nice little host of panelists weighed in on the issue, and I found a lot of it to be very interesting.

The most pessimistic came from Ali Ettefagh who declares that Pakistan is not a country, but "a failed British fantasy about the fabrication of a nation-state". (Yikes!) He even goes so far as to say this:

Pakistan is a relic set up as a counterweight to India -- and its tendency to tilt towards the Eastern Block. I think it is high time to revisit the old composite structure of five provinces combined into one artificial country. A redrawing of borders might serve useful and to cut through the farce. Let each province mature and declare independence. Some will eventually join their long-time tribal allies, leaving two or three independent lands and a more transparent political agenda.

Even more yikes.

First of all, the man barely answered the question. Second, oh my gosh are you crazy? Third, this isn't etch a sketch. You can't just shake it up and erase the whole thing when the lines don't look right. A re-thinking of how to approach institutions and political systems in Pakistan is a lot more reasonable than that.

I found Lamis Andoni's piece to be a lot more pragmatic, and it actually stayed on topic.

Pakistan today is a reminder to all countries, especially to the Muslim world, of the danger of blindly choosing security and military measures over institution-building. Extremist groups that employ distorted Islamic ideologies to achieve their own ends cannot be dealt with by repression and force. Pakistan is a witness to the failure of such policies, and to the danger of blindingly following Washington's whims.

I hope we can remember this as we try to provide stability for Pakistan in 2008. Let us hope that the elections will bring in a servant to the people of Pakistan and not a gussied up American enforcement agent. Its an overly optimistic hope, but maybe if we keep that as a goal we'll find something closer to it than what we have now.

And yes, the title of this post is in homage to Mr. Izzard. Who else?

Ominous Thoughts

2008-01-02T15:12:00.000-05:00

Here's a bit from a Washington Post article about Pakistan's prospects in 2008.

"The country has already suffered so much. Can't we honor Bhutto's legacy by making peace?" said Muddassir Masood, 33, who works in the cellphone industry. "But everyone has an agenda now. Bhutto's party wants the election held because it will get the sympathy vote. The government knows that and wants to put it off. But as always, this is politics in Pakistan, and as always, it is the Pakistanis who will suffer if there is street violence."

Zia Kazim, 59, a pilot with Pakistan International Airlines who was having New Year's dinner with his wife, a hotel owner, said he was relieved that the couple's two adult children are living in Richmond, Va."There will be violence if the election is held on Jan. 8 or violence if it's postponed. Basically the country is stuck in quicksand," he said. "Things in Pakistan are, unfortunately, only getting worse."

Jack Bauer 2008: What Fourth Amendment?

2008-01-01T19:44:00.000-05:00

I recently responded to someone's questions about torture, using Jack Bauer as an example. More recently, I ran across my friend's blog post about the exact same thing. It is just so eloquently written that I had to repost it. Alden Utter, you rock.

Want to feel shivers up and down your spine?

Read:

So, here's what I would do. First I would google waterboarding to understand the basic concepts than I would try it on myself. First, self inflicted and then, if necessary, inflicted by my wife.(she has no problem torturing me. We've been married almost 15 years.)These are the results of my research and experience:

We can talk all we will about torture; for example, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Tom Tancredo have expressed support varying degrees for waterboarding. McCain, naturally, is against all tortures on principle.

But Scylla has walked the walk. And the results... Well, back to the text

It took me ten minutes to recover my senses once I tried this. I was shuddering in a corner, convinced I narrowly escaped killing myself.

... If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.

So, let's talk Kant and Mill. Briefly.

There are, for the sake of this discussion, two kinds of moral/ethical viewpoints: Utilitarianism, and what Kant called the Categorical Imperative. In Utilitarianism, the best actions are those which do the most good to the most people, and the least bad to the least people. The Categorical Imperative, on the other hand, is a philosophy whose two central calls are that we must "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," and that we must treat all other people as ends into themselves, rather than as merely means. These two philosophies are both reasonable positions which almost instantly become contentious.

And both of them, interestingly, are against the use of torture in almost all applicable circumstances.

The Categorical Imperative rationale is the most obvious: we wouldn't want to live in a world where it is universally agreed that "Torture is a legitimate tool for gathering information", and you inarguably treat the torturee as a means for learning where the bomb is. But the utilitarian angle is a little fuzzier. The most obvious reasons are that the torture of alleged terrorists weakens the US resolve (or if it doesn't, it should), ensures the continued torture of US prisoners without our having the right to complain, and leads to further terrorism as the US becomes viewed an immoral, power-loving oppressor (which the fact that it engages in torture supports). But there's a better reason:

Torture does not work as advertised.

This isn't obvious, in part because of shows like 24, which portray the Ticking time bomb scenario as a constant, real-life event along the lines of rainstorms, rather than a thought experiment, nice to think about but having no relation to the real world, along the lines of Schrödinger's cat. And in the Ticking time bomb scenario, the terrorist is known, and the information he will give you is true. 24, in it's way, is as divorced from reality as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is: torture on the show is a magic rite which can only be performed on the guilty, and will conjure information that no other spell could summon.

But here, in Earth-Prime, torture doesn't produce information. Torture destroys the individual, causes the community to fear the government, and degrades any nation which practices it. Those are what torture accomplishes; if that is your goal, mission accomplished. But to think that someone willing to die blowing up the Sears Tower would tell you the bomb was in the Sears Tower when telling you it was in the Chase Auditorium would stop the torture just as swiftly is a level of cognitive dissonance normally reserved for cdesign proponentsists.

Jack Bauer is a protagonist, a main character. And, to an extent, he can be viewed as a hero—an anti-hero, but a hero. But the ideas he holds, effective as they are in the universe he inhabits, do not work in the real world; his ideals are not ones America can, or should, embrace. If we want to model our society on a character from fiction, let's chose one isn't an anti-hero.

I suggest Bilbo.

Don't board me, bro.

Resolution for 2008: Blog about happy things too

2007-12-31T16:21:00.000-05:00

Parliamentary elections in Pakistan have been delayed, understandably. I think this is entirely appropriate. With so many attacks being made against different party leaders, and one having succeeded, the time should be taken to make sure that the voting process will be safe as well. Will the government use the time in this way? Probably not. But I still support the idea of delaying elections.

Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League party, is not happy with the delay. I think its because he sees the potential for more votes for his own party as chaos within the PPP continues. The PPP is also not happy with the postponement, as they believe they may be able to gain sympathy votes.

So...um....happy new year, everyone?

The Heir Apparent

2007-12-30T18:21:00.000-05:00

I understand that family relationships and lineage can be very powerful elements in the societies (yes, I made it a plural) in Pakistan, but there is a point when culture becomes a mask for corruption. As you may have guessed by now, I am definitely against Bhutto's 19 year old son becoming a successor to her position in the PPP. My gut also tells me her husband is not a very good man, not a bad one, mind you. Just not a good one. Of course, I have no proof of that, but I'm sure the proof exists.

Someone needs to explain this to me. I'm an optimist, I WANT to think there's a truly progressive party in Pakistan with a reasonably uncorrupt leader. I really want someone to point out a bright side, so where is it?

If it were the case that her son, Bilawal, and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, were to hold temporary positions in the party until the time comes to elect a new chairman, that would be fine with me. But that's not what's happening. As Witte from the Washington Post points out:

The selections mean that the Pakistan People's Party, which casts itself as the voice of democracy in Pakistan, will stay in family hands for a third generation.

What I don't understand is how the PPP can be so pro-democracy and yet almost acts like Bhutto was a queen nominating an heir to the throne. Apparently she had even put it in her will that her husband would succeed her. And the heirs seem to be jumping at the chance to create a dynasty, more so her husband. The PPP has to wait for Bilawal to complete his studies before he can become the new chairman.

I also find Bilawal's comment, from the same Post article, about the position fairly interesting, and a little fatalistic:

The young man representing the newest generation of Bhuttos -- who added the famous name for the first time Sunday -- noted that chairmanship of the party is a position "that often is occupied by martyrs."

Speaking briefly but forcefully at the press conference, he said he would strive to honor his mother's legacy. "The party's long and historic struggle will continue with renewed vigor," he said. "My mother always said, democracy is the best revenge."

Oh and, btw, the kid hasn't even grown up in Pakistan, and he's studying at Oxford. As if he wasn't going to have a hard enough time being so young and in charge of such an important organization, he has to deal with the fact that he's pretty much an outsider.

He's younger than I am too, which makes it even more crazy. Way to make other people feel over the hill, no one has died and left me a political organization. =-(

Soapy Soapy Time

2007-12-29T13:50:00.000-05:00

Recently, someone sent me this message about Ms. Bhutto, and I got his permission to respond to it via this blog.

"Lets not forget that Bhutto is perhaps the only person more corrupt then Musharaff. Thats why onlt like 6% of the population supported her."

I will concede that Bhutto more than likely had an element of corruption, but I honestly cannot say how much. However, I think I can safely say that she was NOT on the same level as Musharraf. Remember, Musharraf is the one who came to power via a military coup in 1999. He was a military leader from the git-go who got lucky when the US was looking for allies in the war on terror.

Although, the argument could be made that Musharraf has had more opportunities to be corrupt because he's been in office much longer than Bhutto ever was and has enjoyed much more power.

As far as her supporters, I can't find any information on the percentage of the population, but from all the sources I've read, it is accepted that she enjoys significant grass roots support. If we all agree that elections in Pakistan are a sham, then its no use looking at the percentage of the population that has voted for her party, the Pakistan People's Party, in the last elections.

I don't think Bhutto was the most effective leader, or would have been the most effective, anyway. But she was dynamic in her ability to gain populist support, and bring important issues of democracy to the forefront of Pakistani politics. There is no question in my mind that she believed she was doing what was right and good, and she was going to do it no matter who opposed her. I may not have agreed with what she did or would have done in office, but I have to respect and admire her determination and courage. It is very sad that she was not the most competent of politicians to begin with, but its even more tragic that this is how she has come to an end.

And that is my soap box moment. Thank you all for coming.

Hmm...No

2007-12-28T15:43:00.000-05:00

According to the BBC, the Pakistani government has issued a statement saying the official cause of Ms Bhutto's death was "a knock on the head" from ducking into her vehicle and not bullets or shrapnel.

That's totally ridiculous. It goes against the testimony of many eye witnesses who have said she was shot twice before the suicide bomber's explosion went off. It sounds to me like the government is trying to play down the event, hoping that the martyr mystique will dissipate.

I don't think ascribing her death to a "knock on the head" is going to do it.

Oligarchical jerkfaces.

Benazir's Life Part III

2007-12-27T20:26:00.000-05:00

What happened?

After a rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Mrs. Bhutto got into her bulletproof vehicle and then popped her head through the roof to wave at the throngs of supporters. The Washington Post reports:

She raised her torso through the hatch, and several gunshots rang out, an aide seated next to her said. Just as Bhutto sank into her seat, a large bomb detonated outside the vehicle. The left side of Bhutto's face was badly bloodied, aides said, but it was not clear whether she'd been killed by bullets or by shrapnel from the bombing. She lost consciousness, and never regained it.

The explosion, apparently caused by a suicide bomber, killed at least 20 people outside Bhutto's car and injured many others. Police were investigating whether the bomber was also the gunman. One possibility was that the assailant fired the shots and then, after being tackled by security officials, detonated the bomb.

Who was behind this?

Mrs. Bhutto herself said on numerous occasions that the attempts on her life were helped by the Pakistani government. They may not have initiated any of the attacks, but they did little to prevent them or protect her. For the attacks themselves, she put the blame on extremists.

From the same Washington Post article:

Although no group has claimed responsibility for Bhutto's killing, Western leaders immediately pointed to the Islamic extremist groups operating with increasing intensity in Pakistan, including those with links to al-Qaeda. Musharraf also blamed Islamic extremists.

What does this mean not only for Pakistan, but for the US?

Mrs. Bhutto was considered a crucial partner in creating a stable and democratic Pakistan that would be able to expel terrorists who intended to use the country as a base. A stable Pakistan would also benefit American interests in neighboring Afghanistan.

From a different Washington Post article:

Without Bhutto, Musharraf has virtually no major political allies willing to take positions widely unpopular in Pakistan but critical to U.S. interests. A Pew Survey last summer found only 15 percent of Pakistanis had a favorable view of the United States.

Bhutto's assassination during a campaign stop in Rawalpindi also puts in doubt prospects that an election can produce a credible government, former policymakers and analysts said.

"More broadly, this is a major loss because the elections scheduled for early January had the potential to move the country forward," said Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Despite her past failures, she was still a legitimate leader who could have worked with Musharraf and the army to have an accommodation in Islamabad."

The State Department called on President Musharraf and others in the Pakistani government "to do everything they can to create the conditions on the ground to have as free and fair and transparent an election as possible," Casey told reporters. "No political system can last long without having legitimacy in the eyes of its people."

The United States is particularly concerned about the potential for initial demonstrations to become open-ended protests against the Musharraf government. U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson is also reaching out to other opposition parties and civil society groups to urge calm, U.S. officials said.

Benazir's Life: Part II

2007-12-27T16:33:00.000-05:00

How did we get to the situation in Pakistan today?

It seems that the War on Terror was the best thing to ever happen for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. The alliance with the US gave him international legitimacy and solidified his power.

As the BBC describes, Musharraf awarded himself another 5 years as president in 2002 together with the power to dismiss an elected parliament. Parliamentary elections in the same year saw a hand over from military to civilian rule with the election of a civilian prime minister. Even though Musharraf had promised to relinquish his military role, he was very slow at actually doing it.

The big hullaballoo came in October 2007, when he won the support of most parilamentarians in the presidential elections.

The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the winner could not be formally announced before it had ruled on whether General Musharraf was eligible to stand.

In early November, the general pre-empted the Supreme Court's ruling on his eligibility by imposing emergency rule and dismissing judges opposed to his candidacy, a move that received widespread condemnation in the international community. The new Supreme Court then confirmed President Musharraf's right to stand, clearing the way for him to become a civilian leader. He quit his army post soon afterwards.

Lawyers took to the streets in protest, generating such iconic photos as above, of men in western suits rioting and being beaten.

Why she came back.

Mrs. Bhutto returned to Pakistan from exile in Dubai to oppose Musharraf's actions and push for a true democracy. She called for Musharraf's resignation numerous times and urged the people to protest. On October 18th 2007, she arrived in Karachi. On her way to a homecoming rally, two bombs exploded near her motorcade, killing at least 130 people. The following is from a BBC report on her return:

When she first stepped onto Pakistani soil at Karachi airport Ms Bhutto was overcome with emotion and burst into tears.

Many PPP supporters have been bussed in from outlying areas by the party - a show of organisational strength which the ex-prime minister hopes will boost her chances of a return to power, correspondents report.

The BBC's Damian Grammaticas in Karachi says that despite being away for eight years, Ms Bhutto is still enormously popular as a scion of Pakistan's pre-eminent political dynasty.

About 20,000 troops and police have been deployed in the city to oversee Ms Bhutto's arrival amid threats by Islamist militants to assassinate both her and Gen Musharraf.

Gen Musharraf had asked Ms Bhutto to delay her return until the Supreme Court decided whether he was eligible to serve as president for another term.

During her time in Pakistan, she was placed under house arrest, and was under constant fear of attacks.

Benazir's Life: Part I

2007-12-27T15:42:00.000-05:00

Who was Benazir Bhutto? Part I

Mrs. Bhutto was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state. She was elected to the office of Prime Minister of Pakistan twice, the first time in 1988 and then again in 1996.

She came from a very prestigious and political family. Her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was the President of Pakistan from 1971 to 1973 and the Prime Minister from 1973 to 1977. Zulfikar was executed in 1979 under the leadership of General Zia ul Haq for the charge of attempted murder.

She was educated at both Radcliffe and Harvard.

Time.com remarks that her political career was marked by "great populist spectacles and little governmental achievement". The article goes on:

However, in the final analysis, her career was an almost tawdry cycle of exile, house arrest, ascent into power and dismissal, much sound and fury and signifying little. Jailed and then exiled after her father's fall, Bhutto returned to campaign for office in 1986 after Zia's military government gave in to international pressure to slowly restore democracy. (Despite his dictatorship, Zia was a key ally of the West, supporting the Mujaheddin against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)...

Zia's death in a plane crash in August 1988 helped to further loosen the military strictures around the country, and Bhutto became Prime Minister by December of that year. As a ruler, Bhutto got few favorable reviews in Pakistan. Her government passed no legislation except a budget during its first 14 months in power. Much of its energy was squandered feuding with the opposition. Among the first acts of Bhutto's party after coming to power was a campaign to bribe and threaten legislators in Punjab. The goal: to overthrow Bhutto's nemesis, Mian Nawaz Sharif, Punjab's chief minister, a wealthy industrialist and a close associate of Zia's. Worse yet, her Cabinet stank with corruption scandals, including allegations against her husband Asif Ali Zardari and her father-in-law Hakim Ali Zardari, who was chairman of the parliamentary public-accounts committee. With so much fractiousness and scandal, Bhutto's first government lasted only until August 1990, dismissed by the country's president for "horse-trading for personal gain." Soon after, in November 1990, Nawaz Sharif, campaigning on an anti-corruption platform, became Prime Minister.

Bhutto returned to power in 1993, after Sharif was felled by his own corruption scandal. "This is my victory. It is a clear and decisive victory," she declared after a bitter name-calling campaign between herself and Sharif. But despite her claims, she did not have a working majority in parliament and had to wobble through her next few years in office as head of a fractious coalition, beholden to contentious blocs of power. At the same time, Pakistan owed huge amounts to the International Monetary Fund as part of servicing its enormous $28.6 billion in foreign debts. Bhutto had raised taxes, which raised the level of discontent in the country. But even so, her government did not collect enough revenue. In an effort to appease the IMF, Bhutto gave up the finance portfolio she had held since retaking the government. "The debt servicing is breaking our backs — debt that I didn't incur," she told TIME. "But as Prime Minister, I have to pay it back." Rumors soon spread that her government would be dismissed. "Rubbish," she said. But that is exactly what happened. Soon, Nawaz Sharif was Prime Minister again.

What's this about corruption charges?

From the BBC's obituary for Mrs. Bhutto, her husband, Asif Zardari, was accused of stealing millions from the state. Many speculated that the downfall of her government was the alleged greed of her husband. Even though none of the 18 charges against him could be proved over the 10 years spent in court, he nonetheless spent 8 years in prison.

Mrs. Bhutto herself was charged with 5 corruption cases, none of which she was ever convicted, and finally amnestied in October 2007. She was convicted, however, of failing to appear before the Supreme Court in 1999, but this conviction was later overturned.

Soon after the conviction, audiotapes of conversations between the judge and some top aides of then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were discovered that showed that the judge had been under pressure to convict.

Ms Bhutto left Pakistan in 1999 to live abroad, but questions about her and her husband's wealth continued to dog her.

She appealed against a conviction in the Swiss courts for money-laundering.

During her years outside Pakistan, Ms Bhutto lived with her three children in Dubai, where she was joined by her husband after he was freed in 2004.

What's up with all the deaths in her family?

As mentioned above, her father was executed in 1979. But her two brothers, Murtaza and Shahnawaz, were also assasinated. BBC reports:

Her brother, Murtaza - who was once expected to play the role of party leader - fled to the then-communist Afghanistan after his father's fall.

From there, and various Middle Eastern capitals, he mounted a campaign against Pakistan's military government with a militant group called al-Zulfikar.

He won elections from exile in 1993 and became a provincial legislator, returning home soon afterwards, only to be shot dead under mysterious circumstances in 1996.

Benazir's other brother, Shahnawaz - also politically active but in less violent ways than Murtaza - was found dead in his French Riviera apartment in 1985.

Why I read the news instead of watching it

2007-12-27T14:46:00.000-05:00

Isn't that just like American media?

CNN keeps reporting on how Bhutto's death affects America and the democratic presidential candidates.

Jerk faces.

Rest In Peace

2007-12-27T14:10:00.000-05:00

As some of you may have already heard, Benazir Bhutto, the former Pakistani Prime Minister who returned to her country to help the push for a true democracy has been assasinated.

I didn't know very much about Pakistan before I started working for Dr. Ahmed, but as I became better acquainted with the crises, I admired Benazir Bhutto. Her story is absolutely amazing, and she is my new hero. The world could not only more women like her, but more men as well.

I'll write more as I throw myself head first into the news.

Pootie Poot

2007-12-26T20:59:00.000-05:00

Vladimir Putin has been proclaimed as Time's Person of the Year 2007. Not a bad choice. I make no excuses, I don't know too much about Putin, other than that Bush calls him "Pootie" sometimes, or modern Russia, other than they and China are making trade deals with Iran that make the US government kind of sad. What I found particularly fascinating about the article was the discussion of whether or not Russians wanted freedom, or at least our definition of it. (Mostly, we're talking about freedom of the press). It then went on to describe Putin as the next Russian tsar, which may very well be true, even though the label of tsar will never be used. Elections in Russia don't mean very much.

My first reaction was to say that was a very xenophobic way of looking at things; believing that the Russians are so backwards that they have this desire to be dominated. But could it actually be true? The Russian economy is doing very well, perhaps people are more accepting of less freedom if they can meet their basic economic needs. Maybe money can buy happiness. I think this must be the case. It certainly sounds a lot nicer than assuming the Russian people are drawn to autocrats.

unOne

2007-12-26T20:42:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone is having a lovely Christmas break. I spent Christmas Eve the way I normally do, at church with my family. Something struck me about the service at my church in Miami, how cultural pluralism within faiths can translate into cultural pluralism beyond the church doors. Granada Presbyterian has only recently become a bilingual church, and while I don't get to see a lot of the work it does as I don't actually live in Miami anymore, I think the power of its newly created identity means a lot for the entire country.

The "illegal immigrant" debate has created a sense of paranoia about Hispanics coming into our country. We hear, "They're coming to take our jobs!" Comedians like Carlos Mencia encourage a negative stereotype of Hispanics, as low class objects that are to be laughed at. There is little discussion of the rich culture of Hispanics in America; their music, their language, their literature. But, if it is possible for people to pray to the same God along with ethnic minorities, then a lot is possible within American dialogue and rhetoric.

It was supposed to be the Spanish Casual Chat!

2007-12-22T21:06:00.000-05:00

The debate over water boarding has come back into the headlines with the erasure of certain CIA interrogation tapes, and so I feel compelled to write about it again.

Facts on Torture

The Methods Under Scrutiny

Water Boarding: From the BBC, "Water-boarding involves a prisoner being stretched on his back or hung upside down, having a cloth pushed into his mouth and/or plastic film placed over his face and having water poured onto his face. He gags almost immediately."

additionally from ABC news, "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in."

Belly Slaps: From ABC news, "A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage."

Long Time Standing: From ABC news, "This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions."

The Cold Cell: From ABC news, "The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water."

Is this against international law?

Yes. The UN definition of torture states that,

"torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

As for the American legal code, it defines torture as:

"an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;(C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality."

These "enhanced interrogation techniques" are absolutely banned by international law, the U.S. government does not consider them torture. However, it is illegal for the U.S. military to use water boarding, but this is not the case for the CIA. In an executive order, President Bush declared that the CIA must adhere to Geneva conventions and listed many different torture methods that were to be banned. There was an addendum to the order listing the allowed techniques, but not all of these were made public.

Effectiveness

Former CIA agent John Kirikau opposes the decision to erase CIA interrogation tapes and while he agrees that water boarding does indeed work, he no longer supports its use. Interestingly, he was subjected to the method during his training. He tells the story of breaking Al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubayda, who had been uncooperative for weeks. Minutes after the technique was used, Zubayda started giving information that led to the arrest of another suspect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in Pakistan in 2003. Zubayda also gave the interrogators information on the organizational structure within Al Qaeda.

"Now after all these years, time has passed, and we're more on our feet in this fight against al Qaeda, and I think it's unnecessary," he said.

In a separate CNN interview, Kiriakou said the Justice Department and National Security Council reportedly approved waterboarding and other "alternative" interrogation techniques in June 2002.

"It was a policy decision that came down from the White House," he said.

Despite the executive blessing, Kiriakou and other agents were conflicted over whether to learn the technique, he said.

"One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."

Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it.

"Waterboarding was an important technique, and some of these other techniques were important in collecting the information," he said. "But I personally didn't want to do it. I didn't think it was right in the long run, and I didn't want to be associated with it."

My conclusions

I found Kiriakou's testinmony to be very compelling. Enhanced interrogation techniques may very well be unnecessary. Currently, CIA director Michael Hayden has declared that the CIA no longer uses water boarding, also suggesting that it's unnecessary. A good question to ask, and I doubt if it could ever really be answered, is whether the technique has helped the CIA in fighting terrorism in the long run, or harmed it. We all know the case for weapons in Iraq was faulty, whether it was due to executive pressure of just poor gathering of information, is this the same for counter terrorism?

While you're pondering that, please enjoy a musing from one of the 21st century's greatest thinkers, Eddie Izzard, with some leggo animation. I couldn't find his full bit on the spanish inquisition, but this one should do just fine.

Who Mattered in 2007?

2007-12-21T22:18:00.000-05:00

Time.com has put up their list of people who mattered in 2007. I thought I'd share a few thoughts on their choices. In no particular order:

Burmese Monks

Religious devotion used peacefully to bring about change, awesome. While the crisis in Burma isn't over yet, I hope the world will be able to take home the message that non violent resistance can truly be effective, especially when the press chooses to report on it. So come on press, let's encourage non violent religious peace movements all over the world not just in the Far East by actually featuring them in our media outlets!

Hugo Chavez

In the fall semester, I participated in a production of Julius Caesar. At some point, I started thinking about where I would set the play if I was given the chance to update it in the modern world. Chavez is so much like Shakespeare's Caesar, a man who came to power with a lot of potential to do good, but whose desire for power ruined him. (And the nerd award goes to...ME, for most poetically cliche Shakespearean political comparison!)

Miley Cyrus

Really, Time magazine? Really really now? Trying to win yourself some tweenie readers by picking nearly the only teen sensation that hasn't committed some kind of cardinal sin? I'm disappointed.

Alberto Gonzales

Amnesiac jerkface.

Don Imus

Frankenstein racist jerkface. Now, why did he matter again?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

Regardless of their politics, I am glad to see them both generating such a huge buzz amongst voters. They're not the first democratic candidates of their kind, but they're the most recognizable. Here's hoping to more generations of the diverse faces of America actually having a shot at winning, if not yet winning, the presidency.

Radiohead

Kind of an obvious throw toward hipsters, and I appreciate the effort, Time magazine.

Britney Spears

I no longer appreciate your efforts, Time magazine.

Nicolas Sarkozy

Yeah, he's pretty important. Right wing froggie jerkface.

Yes, my cheapie photoshopping of the image above is in homage to Perez Hilton's blogging style. Is my shallowness showing?

Bad!

2007-12-20T16:23:00.000-05:00

Get ready, I'm about to make a cheese-tastic Christmas related comment about a certain childern's charity organization!

That's right, Feed the Children should get shot by a laser canon with lumps of coal and various other blunt objects. Why? Because they suck. Every time I see their commercials on TV, I want to go on war path. What have they done that's so heinous?

Their ad, which has been running for MONTHS, claims that they have tons of rice donated from Taiwan for starving children in Africa, but no way of delivering it, so they need the viewers to donate money to have the rice shipped.

Hmm, they don't have the money to ship the rice, but they do have the money to aggressively advertise for long periods of time for cash donations in order to ship the rice.

I don't care what the Better Business Bureau or the Charity Navigator says, something is
very very fishy.

Celebrity Gossip Shines a Light on Society's Real Values

2007-12-20T16:08:00.000-05:00

Yes, I must cave in and write about this. It has nothing to do with international affairs but I think its an important glimpse into the role of the Christian faith in American society.

Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16 year old sister of Britney Spears and Nickelodeon television star, has announced that she is pregnant. Why do I care? Because the public reactions to this news are troubling. Jamie Lynn and her mother are professing evangelical Christians, who advocate abstinence until marriage. Mrs. Spears was even in the midst of writing a Christian parenting book for a Christian publisher.

Gossip hounds are eating the story up, excited by the failings of the “righteous”. Fans are shocked and appalled. What is going to happen to her career with Nickelodeon? What message is this going to send to her fans? What does this say about “Christian parenting”?

The girl made a mistake, and she’s lucky that she has the money to handle it just fine. It disturbs me that so many people assume her life is over because she’s having a baby at 16 and is most likely going to be raising it as a single mom. I find it even more disturbing that there are still people out there who believe abstinence education IS birth control.

If a teenager wants to wait until marriage, great. But they should also be taught what to do if they mess up. Safe sex and birth control should be taught universally, it is the best way to protect ALL kids from such experiences they are not ready for, and to stop the spread of any STD’s.

It is WRONG to make these kids feel worthless when they don’t adhere to the abstinence standard. So please, let’s not make Jamie Lynn Spears the instrument with which we shame and blackball teenage girls in similar situations who may not be as fortunate.

On the edge of her seat...

2007-12-19T17:42:00.000-05:00

Up and coming article writer, Miss Aja Anderson on the impact of Dr. Ahmed's work-in-progress, a play entitled Noor:

The play is provocative, reflecting the reality of challenging relationships between the contemporary family and the world, and the individual and God. It is both the story of a family’s quest to reclaim their stolen daughter, and the effort to rediscover God’s light in their lives. On one level the woman Noor had been taken from the family on stage, but figuratively God’s light was missing from the household as well. Many Muslims today feel forsaken; the ascendance of the West in politics and economics has turned their homes into the last frontier. Now in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, with a physical American presence in the country, their homes do not feel safe. Opportunists use the lack of security for political and economic gain, kidnapping children for ransom or worse. As a student of Dr Ahmed’s, a young American woman, and a scholar of Islam, the play affected me professionally, emotionally, and intellectually. I felt a profound sense of pride for my professor, for our team who have spent so many hours reading, researching, and editing to refine the script, and for the honor of being involved in this significant work. I sat on the edge of my seat both evenings, simultaneously taking notes, photos, and gasping with surprise at the powerful delivery of the dialogue. I noted key points about Islam cleverly cloaked in the banter among brothers. The characters were entangled in a web of political, economic, and religious restraints, infinitely limited by the social constructions in which they put such trust. Noor made the audience uncomfortable because it breathed life into previously two-dimensional archetypes who were people very much like us, sitting with fingers crossed, waiting, hoping, and praying for the return of a beloved.

Go Aja!

This isn't Star Wars

2007-12-19T17:24:00.000-05:00

Here's a video of Dr. Ahmed on This Is America with Dennis Wholey. My favorite bit is when Dr. Ahmed describes the circumstances in which modern generations of Muslims are growing up in dictatorships and impoverished and how that is what fuels their anger, not any over simplified romantic ideas of good vs. evil and "they" hate us for our freedom.

Jack Bauer Fails the Efficiency Test

2007-12-19T17:17:00.000-05:00

"so, the situation presented in the show is possible. granted that information gathered from torture is usually unreliable and the use of the practice does serve to create martyrs however this would be an example of an extreme circumstance and ALL circumstances must be examined. so the question in this example is do you stick to rigidly-defined morals or do situational ethics apply when this is your only option and the consequences of failure are as high as possible?

while you may think you know my answer. really, i dislike conjecturing what i might do in a high pressure situation. im leaning towards psychological interrogation approaches. but i dont know what i would do if there were only 5 minutes left."

This is a scenario I’ve heard posed by a lot of people for pro torture in extreme cases. First, I’d like to say that if you want to use physical torture in an “extreme” case, you should legally allow physical torture where terrorist attacks are concerned, because the extremity of the case may not be immediately clear. Also, from a legal stand point, IF I supported physical torture in terrorist cases, I would want the law to provide the interrogators with enough freedom to use their own judgement.

To back track a little, I am against the use of torture not only because of ethical considerations but because torture is an ineffective method for obtaining information. This has been proved throughout history again and again. In every era, in every location, torture has never proven to extract accurate information with any kind of consistency. You may very well get the suspect to talk if you torture him in the last five minutes, but humans in these circumstances will tell their captors what they think they want to hear in order for the pain to stop. It may be emotionally satisfying to the interrogator to cause physical pain to the suspect when the pressure for results is on, but that is the only thing this method will actually achieve.

re: Bah, I say! Bah!

2007-12-12T20:17:00.000-05:00

Response to television and global unity:

"bah! i get knocked down for referencing television yet you believe it can save the world! you are not being a very good student of philosophy- the principle of charity is essential.

but more seriously, to use television in that fashion would most likely mean control of its use on a level close to fascism. otherwise how do you insure that its sending the "correct" message?"

You referenced the content of a fictional television series as an example of a real world situation.

I believe that the spread of media from different cultures helps in the peace process by exposing more people to positive images of the rest of the world. I mentioned nothing about controlling the content of the media, only encouraging diversity.

A good example of this can be seen in the show Heroes. Heroes, in my opinion, is groundbreaking in that it features characters of different ethnicities and languages prominently in their episodes. The message just happens to be very progressive, encouraging others to be heroes and even promoting the one laptop per child campaign amongst their fans.

Its not about passing legislation to make these things happen, but to build a demand for programs like this in the market and reward those who take these kinds of initiatives. The exposure is what I’m talking about, not the content.

There are other progressive American programs like The Axis of Evil Comedy Tour and Aliens in America.

Notice, I will never EVER list Mind of Mencia in this category.

Risky Business

2007-12-11T20:07:00.000-05:00

“Dear Christa,

How do we deal with Iran without using military force?

Sincerely,

Gus”

Fantastic question.

First, let me start off by saying that I think this whole notion of “dealing” with Iran is a little inflated. The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran operates in a way that is a direct challenge to our interests in the Middle East, but I don’t think they’re as a big a threat as some officials are making them out to be. Just because someone is bad doesn’t make them a raving lunatic, and Ahmadinejad is definitely bad. But he’s a very intelligent and calculating guy and a populist leader, not quite a dictator just yet.

Here’s a quote from a recent Foreign Affairs article:

“Containing Iran is not a novel idea, of course, but the benefits Washington expects from it are new. Since the inception of the Islamic Republic, successive Republican and Democratic administrations have devised various policies, doctrines, and schemes to temper the rash theocracy. For the Bush administration, however, containing Iran is the solution to the Middle East's various problems. In its narrative, Sunni Arab states will rally to assist in the reconstruction of a viable government in Iraq for fear that state collapse in Baghdad would only consolidate Iran's influence there. The specter of Shiite primacy in the region will persuade Saudi Arabia and Egypt to actively help declaw Hezbollah. And, the theory goes, now that Israel and its longtime Arab nemeses suddenly have a common interest in deflating Tehran's power and stopping the ascendance of its protégé, Hamas, they will come to terms on an Israeli-Palestinian accord. This, in turn, will (rightly) shift the Middle East's focus away from the corrosive Palestinian issue to the more pressing Persian menace. Far from worrying that the Middle East is now in flames, Bush administration officials seem to feel that in the midst of disorder and chaos lies an unprecedented opportunity for reshaping the region so that it is finally at ease with U.S. dominance and Israeli prowess.”

Come on, this isn’t one big giant game of Risk. Here’s another fantastic quote from the article:

“Another one of Washington's errors is to assume that Iran can be handled like the Soviet Union and that the Cold War model applies to the Middle East. Both Israel and Arab governments have pressed Washington to contend with Iran's nuclear ambitions and since the Lebanon war of 2006 have worried about the strengthening connections between Tehran and Hezbollah. They have responded by throwing their support behind the government of Fouad Siniora in Beirut and trying to break the collusion between the Iranian and Syrian governments. Washington has been supportive, building up its military presence in the Persian Gulf and using last year's surge in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq to roll back Iran's gains there. But the same Arab governments that complain about Tehran's influence also oppose the Shiite government in Iraq, which is pro- Iranian and pro-American, and favor its Sunni opponents -- leaving Washington having to figure out how to work with the Iraqi government while also building a regional alliance with Sunni Arab states. Washington's containment wall will therefore have to run right through Iraq and so inevitably destabilize the country as it becomes the frontline in the U.S.-Iranian confrontation.”

So what does these guys propose instead:

“Instead of focusing on restoring a former balance of power, the United States would be wise to aim for regional integration and foster a new framework in which all the relevant powers would have a stake in a stable status quo. The Bush administration is correct to sense that a truculent Iran poses serious challenges to U.S. concerns, but containing Iran through military deployment and antagonistic alliances simply is not a tenable strategy. Iran is not, despite common depictions, a messianic power determined to overturn the regional order in the name of Islamic militancy; it is an unexceptionally opportunistic state seeking to assert predominance in its immediate neighborhood. Thus, the task at hand for Washington is to create a situation in which Iran will find benefit in limiting its ambitions and in abiding by international norms.

Dialogue, compromise, and commerce, as difficult as they may be, are convincing means. An acknowledgment by the U.S. government that Tehran does indeed have legitimate interests and concerns in Iraq could get the two governments finally to realize that they have similar objectives: both want to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq and prevent the civil war there from engulfing the Middle East. Resuming diplomatic and economic relations between Iran and the United States, as well as collaborating on Iraq, could also be the precursor of an eventual arrangement subjecting Iran's nuclear program to its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. If Iran enjoyed favorable security and commercial ties with the United States and was at ease in its region, it might restrain its nuclear ambitions.”

This article has made the most sense of anything I’ve read or heard on Iran thus far. If anyone wants to recommend me some more, I am ready and waiting.

The Crystal Ball Says Torture is Dumb

2007-12-09T22:44:00.000-05:00

This inquiry is from my smarty pants friend Joe.

“Is torture really that bad when we consider the national security implications? Or, is there some way to get around the information impasse?”

Oddly enough, I was asked the same question at an indie rock show. How cool am I?

I am opposed to torture, and when I say torture, I mean bodily harm. Its morally wrong and completely inefficient. Look here for some information on current methods of torture and what we can learn about them from history.

For every terrorist you catch, you’re making about ten more. Those who have been tortured and then released are now your enemy. Their social networks, even if they aren’t released, are now your enemy.

Counter-terrorism is a very emotional business, and the most instinctual reaction is to come down with force. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best decision to make.

Check here to see Amnesty International’s campaign against torture.

“If fate exists in more than just a word, but as a true concept, what is its manifestation and how do you recognise it?”

This is a blog, Joe. Not the Oracle of Delphi. No cookie for you!

Allright, you can have a cookie. But not a chocolate chip one.

Television, the answer to the world's problems, sort of

2007-12-08T23:35:00.000-05:00

To help me kick start this little blog, I entreated some of my friends to send me questions to answer, and then me, like the nerdiest amateur version of Ann Landers, would answer them.

This is the very first question I received.

"One thing that has consumed the back of my mind since i was a collegiate freshman. how do you create a globally-appealing identity to unify humanity. the eco-freak in me wants it to be based on that. however the innate competitiveness of nationalist sentiment is an issue albeit the EU seems to be overcoming that it seems to be am atter of maturing nations. blah blah blah the eeiu is an interesting organiztion. i believe at www.eeiu.org. im not going to bother checking that right now. but yes so answer me that and you will have a thousand wishes granted efendi."

Television can solve the world's problems, if its used properly.

The EU as far as I see, isn't a replacement of national sentiment, but rather a very brilliant trade network. With all the increased migration and trade, and given the geography of Europe, it makes perfect sense. Flow of goods and information is absolutely essential to its success.

On a grass roots level, I think the best way to drum up these ideas is for more societies around the world to be more inclusive. Diversity should be celebrated, not repressed.

More and more people are migrating around the world, and these people need to be fully accepted into their new home lands. International trade is booming, Japanese cartoons, video games, are all spreading around the globe. Bollywood is becoming more and more internationally recognized.

None of this would be possible without new advances in technology.

There's a theory out there, I can't remember who first put it out, that the more contact societies have with each other, the least likely they are to fight. Sometimes, that's proven not to be the case, but in my view, it just means those societies weren't communicating effectively. So what is my simple answer to all this: Tele-communications.

Big thanks to Nick for the question, and to answer his other question: I got over it. =-)

Noor: The AU Review

2007-12-08T18:49:00.000-05:00

‘Noor’ uses drama to explore issues in today’s Islam.

Check out this blurb from American University website about my professor's play that I have been very privileged to work on with him.

2007-12-08T18:26:00.001-05:00

An article in the Washington Post has quoted defense secretary Gates as saying:

"Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents."

Them's fightin words!

A little introduction

2007-12-08T17:15:00.000-05:00

Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome and Ahlan wa Sahlan!

What have you stumbled upon here? Is it a bird, is it a plane, is it some young overly opinionated whipper snapper attempting to impose her thoughts on the internet an ultimately the world?

Nope, its just lil' ole me. A Miami native, I moved to DC in pursuit of the college lifestyle, and found a nice one at American University's School of International Service. I have lofty T.E. Lawrence type ambitions and a sincere passion to make things better between the "West" and the"Islamic"world. Notice the quotation marks, it means these terms are a little ambiguous and certainly not mutually exclusive The arrogance of youth doesn't concern me too much.

So why am I here? Very simple: I need to find my voice. I want to learn how to properly communicate my ideas and hopefully stimulate a discussion on hot button issues amongst fellow Americans, whipper snapper and over the hill alike.