Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Showing posts with label United State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United State. Show all posts

Friday, November 12, 2010

Daisy Khan, an Eloquent Voice for the Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero - NYTimes.com

Daisy Khan, an Eloquent Voice for the Islamic Community Center Near Ground Zero - NYTimes.com
DAISY KHAN had never seen so many Jews in her life. The year was 1974, and Ms. Khan, an awkward, artistic 16-year-old who had just emigrated from India to the suburban Long Island enclave of Jericho, N.Y., was attending her first day of school in America.
It was not going well.
Her fellow students giggled at the newcomer with the dark skin, exotic accent and unfamiliar religion. Few Muslims, it seemed, had ever attended the mostly Jewish Jericho High School. When a teacher asked her to stand and introduce herself, the questions came fast: Did she ride a camel? Did she ride an elephant?
“It was very strange when you are 16 years old and you have to explain your religion to an entire class,” Ms. Khan, now 52, recalled recently in the Upper West Side offices of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, her nonprofit group. “But that’s where my first activism began. I realized that actually I was a spokesperson for Islam.”
It is a role she now inhabits on a far larger scale. Since the summer, Ms. Khan, a former architectural designer, has emerged as an eloquent and indefatigable public face of the maelstrom surrounding Park51, the Islamic community center and mosque that she and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, are trying to build two blocks north of ground zero.
A modern Muslim who prefers high fashion to the hijab, Ms. Khan has become a lightning rod for the anger of right-wing bloggers and commentators who consider the Islamic center an affront to the victims of Sept. 11, or worse.
Despite her message of inclusion, Ms. Khan has been accused by critics of being an extremist in a moderate’s garb, hiding a conservative Islamic agenda behind a friendly, modern face. “Daisy Khan can say what she wants,” L. Brent Bozell III, the founder of the conservative Media Research Center, said on Fox News last month. “This is what you expect from a radical like her.”
Some Muslims, too, have criticized Ms. Khan and her husband, saying they represent an elite subset of American Islam that was naïve about the anger its plans might generate.
But as the project became daily grist for news talk shows and a flash point in the midterm elections, Ms. Khan has transformed herself from an obscure leader in the nonprofit world into a fierce spokeswoman, passionately defending the project and, inevitably, finding herself cast as the voice of moderate Islam.
She parries with news anchors like Christiane Amanpour, on the ABC News program “This Week,” and was even asked to intervene when a pastor threatened a Koran burning in Florida this past Sept. 11.
“We Muslims are really fed up of having to be defined by the actions of the extremists," Ms. Khan told Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host, in one of her first talk-show appearances last December. “We are law-abiding citizens. We are faithful people. We are very good Americans. And we need to project a different message of Islam, one of tolerance, love and the kind of commonalities we have with different faith communities.”
Fame for being a spiritual leader may seem an unlikely development for a woman who, in her early life, abandoned her faith, sickened by images of violence that many Americans now associate with Islam. And it was certainly not the role she had planned.

Monday, October 18, 2010

The Great Deflation - Japan Goes From Dynamic to Disheartened - NYTimes.com

The Great Deflation - Japan Goes From Dynamic to Disheartened - NYTimes.com
OSAKA, Japan — Like many members of Japan’s middle class, Masato Y. enjoyed a level of affluence two decades ago that was the envy of the world. Masato, a small-business owner, bought a $500,000 condominium, vacationed in Hawaii and drove a late-model Mercedes.
But his living standards slowly crumbled along with Japan’s overall economy. First, he was forced to reduce trips abroad and then eliminate them. Then he traded the Mercedes for a cheaper domestic model. Last year, he sold his condo — for a third of what he paid for it, and for less than what he still owed on the mortgage he took out 17 years ago.
“Japan used to be so flashy and upbeat, but now everyone must live in a dark and subdued way,” said Masato, 49, who asked that his full name not be used because he still cannot repay the $110,000 that he owes on the mortgage.
Few nations in recent history have seen such a striking reversal of economic fortune as Japan. The original Asian success story, Japan rode one of the great speculative stock and property bubbles of all time in the 1980s to become the first Asian country to challenge the long dominance of the West.
But the bubbles popped in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and Japan fell into a slow but relentless decline that neither enormous budget deficits nor a flood of easy money has reversed. For nearly a generation now, the nation has been trapped in low growth and a corrosive downward spiral of prices, known as deflation, in the process shriveling from an economic Godzilla to little more than an afterthought in the global economy.
Now, as the United States and other Western nations struggle to recover from a debt and property bubble of their own, a growing number of economists are pointing to Japan as a dark vision of the future. Even as the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, prepares a fresh round of unconventional measures to stimulate the economy, there are growing fears that the United States and many European economies could face a prolonged period of slow growth or even, in the worst case, deflation, something not seen on a sustained basis outside Japan since the Great Depression.
Many economists remain confident that the United States will avoid the stagnation of Japan, largely because of the greater responsiveness of the American political system and Americans’ greater tolerance for capitalism’s creative destruction. Japanese leaders at first denied the severity of their nation’s problems and then spent heavily on job-creating public works projects that only postponed painful but necessary structural changes, economists say.
“We’re not Japan,” said Robert E. Hall, a professor of economics at Stanford. “In America, the bet is still that we will somehow find ways to get people spending and investing again.”

Monday, October 11, 2010

Denver Post Reporter Mike Rosen Endorses Terrorist Attack on Islamic Center in New York

ColoradoPols.com:: KOA's Mike Rosen Endorses Terrorist Attack on Islamic Center in New York
Denver Post reporter calls for the hijacking of an Iranian plane and crashing into the proposed Islamic Center in New York. This is treasonous speech. The right wing in this country has gone off the deep end and the main stream media, except for MSNBC, is treating it as business as usual. This is not business as usual. This is very dangerous.  


John H. Armwood
Listen to the recording below: 

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist - What Is Paladino About? - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - What Is Paladino About? - NYTimes.com
Is the Republican candidate for governor of New York a racist, sexist, pornography-loving creep? Or are there other, more benign, explanations for the stomach-turning e-mails distributed by Carl Paladino?
One of the things that can happen in the news business is that some portion of a story becomes so vile, so offensive, it is virtually impossible to effectively recount or describe. Reporters keep their distance. Editors lunge for the delete button.
Such is the case with the images and videos forwarded by Mr. Paladino to a wide variety of people. The public should know about these mailings, and Mr. Paladino should give a full, thoughtful explanation of why he trafficked in such filth.
Example: A photo showing a group of black men trying to get out of the way of an airplane that is apparently moving across a field. The caption reads: “Run niggers, run.”
Example: A doctored photo of President and Mrs. Obama showing the president in a stereotypical pimp’s costume holding the hand of the first lady, who is dressed as a prostitute in a grotesquely revealing outfit.
Example: A video clip of a nude couple engaged in intercourse with the title: “Miss France [expletive].” Mr. Paladino characterized it as “a keeper.”
Example: An image showing a woman performing a sexual act on a horse.
There are many more. Mr. Paladino has acknowledged forwarding the e-mails, which he said was evidence of “poor judgment” on his part. But that’s not sufficient. The e-mails raise legitimate questions about the fitness of the sender to hold the highest office in the state, and Mr. Paladino should feel an obligation to put those questions to rest.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist - Slouching Toward Washington - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - Slouching Toward Washington - NYTimes.com
Christine O’Donnell doesn’t understand why monkeys can’t turn into people right before her eyes.
Bill Maher continued his video torment of O’Donnell by releasing another old clip of her on his HBO show on Friday night, this time showing one in which she argued that “Evolution is a myth.”
Maher shot back, “Have you ever looked at a monkey?” To which O’Donnell rebutted, “Why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?”
The comedian has a soft spot for the sweet-faced Republican Senate candidate from Delaware, but as he told me on Friday, it’s “powerful stupid to think primate evolution could happen fast enough to observe it. That’s bacteria.
“I find it so much more damaging than the witch stuff because she could be in a position to make decisions about scientific issues, like global warming and stem cells, and she thinks primate evolution can happen in a week and mice have human brains.”
In the Republican primary, O’Donnell beat Congressman Mike Castle, who had the temerity to support stem-cell research and acknowledge global warming. O’Donnell’s numbers are dropping, while Castle is still beating the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, by almost 20 points in a theoretical matchup.
In 2007, O’Donnell frantically warned Bill O’Reilly, “American scientific companies are crossbreeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.”
The field of human-animal experiments is dubbed “chimera” research, named for the she-monster in Greek mythology that has a lion’s head, a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail.
Dr. Irving Weissman, director of Stanford’s Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, did the first experiments injecting human brain-forming stem cells into the brains of immune-deficient mice 10 years ago.
He assured me that the mice did not suddenly start acting human. “There were no requests for coffee from Minnie,” he said. “The total number of human brain cells in the mouse brain was less than one in a thousand. I don’t think we would get a mouse with a full human brain. And even if the mouse made it to a human mouse it would still have a mouse-brain offspring.”

Monday, September 13, 2010

Video: Imam considering options for Islamic center near Ground Zero

Video: Imam considering options for Islamic center near Ground Zero

This is sad that bigots may force the imam not to open the community center. This is just like the days of the civil rights movement. People should not be pushed give their constitutional rights due to the sensitivities of bigots and the politicians who exploit their ignorance for selfish political motives. I hope he fights on and defeats these bigots like African Americans did during the civil rights movement. Do not give bigots a victory. Defend our constitution. To give in is to weaken freedom for all. Constitutional rights are not subject to a popularity contest or given up because of someones sensitivities. Even leading conservative columnist George will has said that people "need to get over their sensitivities in a democracy". At least this one time, George Will was right.
John H. Armwood

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Obama Tries to Calm Tensions In Call for Religious Tolerance - NYTimes.com

Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...Image via WikipediaObama Tries to Calm Tensions In Call for Religious Tolerance - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON — President Obama gave an impassioned call on Friday for tolerance and better relations between Muslims and non-Muslims at home and abroad, defending the “inalienable rights” of those who worship Islam to practice their religion freely.
Mr. Obama made his statements as protests and violence continued in Afghanistan, set off by a Florida pastor’s plans, now suspended, to burn Korans on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and against the backdrop of the controversy in New York over a proposed Islamic center near ground zero.
With relations between the United States and the Muslim world perhaps at their most frayed since the invasion of Iraq seven and a half years ago, the president sought to appeal to America’s core principles.
Mr. Obama said it was imperative for people in this country to distinguish between their real enemies and those who have the potential to become enemies because of continued vilification of Islam in the United States. At a time when polls suggest that a substantial number of Americans erroneously believe that Mr. Obama is Muslim, the president cited his own Christian faith at one point.
“We have to make sure that we don’t start turning on each other,” he said. “And I will do everything that I can, as long as I am president of the United States, to remind the American people that we are one nation, under God. And we may call that God different names, but we remain one nation. And, you know, as somebody who, you know, relies heavily on my Christian faith in my job, I understand, you know, the passions that religious faith can raise.”
Asked about the wisdom of building an Islamic center a few blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Obama reiterated his position that Muslims have the right to build a mosque on the site, without directly saying whether he thought doing so was a good idea.
“This country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights,” Mr. Obama said. “And what that means is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, if you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site.”
Urged on by their religious leaders, Afghans in many locations around the country poured out of their mosques and took to the streets Friday morning, and in most cases the demonstrations remained peaceful. But two of them turned violent, in both cases outside NATO reconstruction bases, and a total of at least 12 people were wounded, three of them critically, in addition to the one who was killed.
While Mr. Obama cast the issue in terms of American national security and the impact of assaults on Islam in this country on American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, he also said that security was not the only prism through which the issue should be viewed. “We’ve got millions of Muslim Americans, our fellow citizens, in this country,” Mr. Obama said. “They’re going to school with our kids. They’re our neighbors. They’re our friends. They’re our co-workers. And when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?”
This ninth anniversary of Sept. 11 has turned almost into a referendum on America’s ability to coexist with the multitude religions. Mr. Obama will be observing the anniversary at the Pentagon, while the first lady, Michelle Obama, will join the former first lady Laura Bush in Shanksville, Pa., the site where the fourth hijacked plane went down. Mr. Obama said that it was important to remember that Muslims are fighting with the United States in the two wars begun since the attacks.
“They’re out there putting their lives on the line for us,” Mr. Obama said. “And we’ve got to make sure that we are crystal clear for our sakes and their sakes: they are Americans and we honor their service. And part of honoring their service is making sure that they understand that we don’t differentiate between them and us.
“It’s just us.”

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Imam Says Moving Muslim Center Could Spur Radicals - NYTimes.com

Imam Says Moving Muslim Center Could Spur Radicals - NYTimes.com
The imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said on Wednesday night that if he had known how much strife would arise over his plan for a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site, he would not have proposed it.
“If I knew that this would happen, that this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it,” the imam told Soledad O’Brien on “Larry King Live” on CNN in his first extensive televised remarks since the controversy ballooned after the project cleared its last legal hurdle last month. “My life has been devoted to peacemaking.”
But the imam said he could not withdraw the plan because that would embolden radicals of all faiths and create security risks for the United States and Americans abroad.
“If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse,” he said. “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I’m less concerned about the radicals in America than I am about the radicals in the Muslim world.”
Pressed on whether the center would be built on the proposed site, Mr. Abdul Rauf said he hoped to create a center with prayer spaces for Muslims, Jews, Christians and others that would “build relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims.”
Most of the imam’s remarks echoed points he had made in an op-ed article published on Wednesday in The New York Times.
But Mr. Abdul Rauf also addressed two past remarks that had drawn criticism. Revisiting a “60 Minutes” interview in the weeks after 9/11 in which he called American policies “an accessory” to the attacks, he said he had been trying to note that the United States had empowered Islamist militants like Osama bin Laden in their fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and that like a marriage counselor, his job was to tell unpleasant truths to the United States and its Muslim critics.
But he added, “Looking back, I realize it was not a very compassionate thing to say, and I regret having said those words.”
Asked about a recent radio interview in which he declined to describe Hamas, the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings in Israel, as a terrorist group, he said, “I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism, and Hamas has committed acts of terrorism.”
The imam said his goal was to speak directly to the majority of Americans who disapprove of the center’s location and to introduce himself and his record. He closed by wishing his Jewish friends a happy Rosh Hashana.

Sunday, September 05, 2010

History of Islam in America - Islam in America During the Slavery Years

History of Islam in America - Islam in America During the Slavery Years
Muslims have been part of American history since pre-Columbus times. Indeed, early explorers used maps that were derived from the work of Muslims, with their advanced geographical and navigational information of the time.
Some scholars estimate that 10-20 percent of the slaves brought over from Africa were Muslims. The film "Amistad" alluded to this fact, portraying Muslims aboard this slave vessel trying to perform their prayers, while chained together on deck as they crossed the Atlantic. Personal narratives and histories are harder to find, but some stories have been passed on from reliable sources:
Omar Ibn Said (ca. 1770-1864) was born in the Muslim state of Futa Toro in Western Africa, in present-day Senegal. He was a Muslim scholar and trader who was captured and enslaved. He arrived in South Carolina in 1807, and was sold to James Owen of North Carolina.
Sali-Bul Ali was a slave on a plantation. His owner James Cooper wrote: "He is a strict Mahometan (sic); abstains from spirituous liquors, and keeps various fasts, particularly that of the Ramadan..."
Lamen Kebe was a slave who used to be a school teacher in Africa. He shared information about the texts and teaching methods used in the Islamic schools of his country.
Abdul Rahman Ibrahim Sori spent 40 years in slavery before he returned to Africa to die. He wrote two autobiographies, and signed a charcoal sketch of himself by Henry Inman, which was featured on the cover of "Freedman's Journal" and is on display in the Library of Congress.
Many of the Muslim slaves were encouraged or forced to convert to Christianity. Many of the first-generation slaves retained much of their Muslim identity, but under the harsh slavery conditions this identity was largely lost to later generations.

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Rangel Joins Muslims in Rally for Downtown Mosque - NYTimes.com

U.S. Congressman Charles B. Rangel of New York...Image via WikipediaRangel Joins Muslims in Rally for Downtown Mosque - NYTimes.com
Marilynn K. Yee/The New York Times Representative Charles B. Rangel with members of the Islamic Leadership Council outside City Hall on Wednesday at a rally against religious intolerance.
Facing one of the more contentious re-election campaigns of his 40-year career, United States Representative Charles B. Rangel waded into a polarizing debate on Wednesday as he spoke out in favor of an Islamic center and mosque planned near ground zero.
The proposal for the center two blocks north of the World Trade Center site has provoked a vitriolic argument over the limits of religious tolerance and the legacy of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Opponents say building a Muslim worship space so close to ground zero would be an insult to the memory of those killed in the attacks. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has been a staunch defender, proclaiming that the building of the center on Park Row is befitting a city that has made room for such a diverse population.
Calling himself “a patriot, one who loves this country,” Mr. Rangel said that it was important to recognize and ease the pain caused by those terrorist attacks. But, he suggested, some of the opposition to the center reflected critics’ unwillingness to embrace the country’s tradition of religious freedom and said that “we cannot allow this type of intolerance to continue.”
“I think that any politician that takes advantage of this problem that people may have of convenience or lack of it should be ashamed and I stand with the mayor and the governor in saying this isn’t a problem for Muslims,” he said. “It’s a problem for America and doing the right thing and respecting our Constitution.”

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

We've Seen This Movie Before - NYTimes.com

We've Seen This Movie Before - NYTimes.com
We’ve Seen This Movie Before
By STANLEY FISH
Stanley Fish on education, law and society.
In the first column I ever wrote for this newspaper (“How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words”), I analyzed the shift in the rhetoric surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing once it became clear that the perpetrator was Timothy McVeigh, who at one point acknowledged that “The Turner Diaries,” a racist anti-government tract popular in Christian Identity circles, was his bible.
Associated Press An evidence photo of Timothy McVeigh taken April 19, 1995, just hours after the Oklahoma City bombing.
In the brief period between the bombing and the emergence of McVeigh, speculation had centered on Arab terrorists and the culture of violence that was said to be woven into the fabric of the religion of Islam.
But when it turned out that a white guy (with the help of a few of his friends) had done it, talk of “culture” suddenly ceased and was replaced by the vocabulary and mantras of individualism: each of us is a single, free agent; blaming something called “culture” was just a way of off-loading responsibility for the deeds we commit; in America, individuals, not groups, act; and individuals, not groups, should be held accountable. McVeigh may have looked like a whole lot of other guys who dressed up in camouflage and carried guns and marched in the woods, but, we were told by the same people who had been mouthing off about Islam earlier, he was just a lone nut, a kook, and generalizations about some “militia” culture alive and flourishing in the heartland were entirely unwarranted.
This switch from “malign culture” talk to “individual choice” talk was instantaneous and no one felt obliged to explain it. Now, in 2010, it’s happening again around the intersection of what the right wing calls the “Ground Zero mosque” (a geographical exaggeration if there ever is one) and the attack last week on a Muslim cab driver by (it is alleged) 21-year-old knife-wielding Michael Enright.
First the mosque. It is wrong, we hear, to regard the proposed mosque or community center as an ordinary exercise of free enterprise and freedom of religion by the private owners of a piece of property. It is, rather, a thumb in the eye or a slap in the face of the 9/11 victims and their families, a potential clearinghouse for international terrorist activities, a “victory mosque” memorializing a great triumph of jihad and a monument to the religion in whose name and by whose adherents the dreadful deed was done.
But according to the same folks who oppose the mosque because of what it stands for, Michael Enright’s act doesn’t stand for anything and is certainly not the product of what Time magazine calls a growing “American strain of Islamophobia.” Instead, The New York Post declares, the stabbing is “the act of a disturbed individual who is now in custody,” and across the fold of the page columnist Jonah Goldberg says that “one assault doesn’t a national trend make” and insists that “we shouldn’t let anyone suggest that this criminal reflects anybody but himself.”
The formula is simple and foolproof (although those who deploy it so facilely seem to think we are all fools): If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on or is in the air (he came from nowhere) and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.
The only thing more breathtaking than the effrontery of the move is the ease with which so many fall in with it. I guess it’s because both those who perform it and those who eagerly consume it save themselves the trouble of serious thought.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Through Islamic Center Debate, World Sees U.S. - NYTimes.com

Through Islamic Center Debate, World Sees U.S. - NYTimes.com
For more than two decades, Abdelhamid Shaari has been lobbying a succession of governments in Milan for permission to build a mosque for his congregants — any mosque at all, in any location.
For now, he leads Friday Prayer in a stadium normally used for rock concerts. When sites were proposed for mosques in Padua and Bologna, Italy, a few years ago, opponents from the anti-immigrant Northern League paraded pigs around them. The projects were canceled.
In that light, the furor over the precise location of Park51, the proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan, looks to Mr. Shaari like something to aspire to. “At least in America,” Mr. Shaari said, “there’s a debate.”
Across the world, the bruising struggle over an Islamic center near ground zero has elicited some unexpected reactions.
For many in Europe, where much more bitter struggles have taken place over bans on facial veils in France and minarets in Switzerland, America’s fight over Park51 seems small fry, essentially a zoning spat in a culture war.
But others, especially in countries with nothing similar to the constitutional separation of church and state, find it puzzling that there is any controversy at all. In most Muslim nations, the state not only determines where mosques are built, but what the clerics inside can say.
The one constant expressed, regardless of geography, is that even though many in the United States have framed the future of the community center as a pivotal referendum on the core issues of religion, tolerance and free speech, those outside its borders see the debate as a confirmation of their pre-existing feelings about the country, whether good or bad.
“America hates Islam,” said Mohaimen Jabar, the owner of a clothes shop in Baghdad, Iraq.
“If America loved us, it would help the Palestinians and stop the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he said. “It would stop Iran and Israel from distorting the image of Islam.”
Interestingly, leaders in Iran, Afghanistan and even occasionally prickly rivals like China and Russia — both of which have their own tensions in some of their heavily Muslim regions — have refrained from making much of the Park51 debate.
China’s state-run news media has used the story to elaborate on the need for a secular state strong enough to police extremism, a matter near and dear to its own ideology.
American diplomats are selling the controversy as Exhibit A in the case for America as a bastion of free debate and religious tolerance.
But “the harmonious image of the melting pot, of the ability to integrate all immigrant ethnicities is tottering dangerously,” Federico Rampini wrote in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.
That was echoed by Pierre Rousselin, a French columnist writing in Le Figaro: “America is discovering that its Constitution and liberal principles don’t protect her from the debates that the practice of Islam stirs up in our countries.”
In Thailand, which has contended with its own Islamic insurgency, an editorial in The Nation worried aloud that America’s handling of the cultural center would affect relations worldwide between Muslims and non-Muslims. “If the era of former President George W. Bush tells us anything, it is that how the U.S. deals with the Muslim world affects us all,” the editorial said.
Far more common, however, was a sort of shrug of the shoulders from clerics and observers accustomed to far more unpleasant debates. While extremists have presented the controversy as proof of American hostility toward Islam, some religious leaders have taken quite a different stance, arguing against placing the center close to ground zero.
Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Grande Mosquée of Paris and one of the most senior Islamic clerics in France, told France-Soir: “There are symbolic places that awaken memories whether you mean to or not. And it isn’t good to awaken memories.”
A senior cleric at Egypt’s Al Azhar, the closest equivalent in the Sunni Islamic world to the Vatican, said that building at the proposed location sounded like bad judgment on the part of American Muslims.
“It will create a permanent link between Islam and 9/11,” said Abdel Moety Bayoumi, a member of the Islamic Research Institute at Al Azhar. “Why should we put ourselves and Islam in a position of blame?”
That is not to say that the language in the United States has not agitated some observers, like Aziz Tarek, who wrote on the Saudi Web site Watan that America was in the grip of “intolerance and racism.”
He referred to Newt Gingrich’s widely reported statement that there should not be a new mosque in Lower Manhattan until Saudi Arabia allows construction of churches or synagogues.
“How can they compare building a mosque in N.Y. with building whatever in Mecca?” Mr. Tarek wrote. “I thought they viewed themselves better than that country of Saudi Arabia with its many human rights violations, as they love to put it.”
One Cambridge University researcher, writing in the Palestinian daily Al Ayyam, said Muslims could win their case for a center near ground zero in a court of law, only to end up losing in the court of public opinion.
“Provoking the other side will eventually create public opinion that will undermine the very laws that the Muslims evoke today,” wrote the researcher, Khaled al-Haroub, adding that many Muslim states do not tolerate Christian or Jewish houses of worship: “We keep increasing our religious demands vis-à-vis the West, while refusing to meet even a few of the demands made by religious minorities living among us.”
Paradoxically, the public reaction has not been heated in Lebanon, a country with 18 recognized religious sects where Muslims and Christians have a long history of occasionally violent coexistence.
If the mosque were built, many Lebanese commentators said, it would increase the influence of the ideal of the secular state. Many Lebanese, however, seemed more interested that Miss U.S.A., Rima Fakih, a Lebanese-American, had suggested that Park51 seek another location, than in the debate itself.
“Let’s be honest, it is kind of weird to build it there,” said Samer Ghandour, 33. “But the U.S. is also incredibly polarized and does not tolerate Islam.”
Mahmoud Haddad, a history professor at the University of Balamand in Lebanon, said that “the Muslim community should take the high moral and political ground” and agree to move the center, even though it has every right to build near ground zero.
“They should show they are more concerned about the general good of all Americans,” said Mr. Haddad, who studied and taught in the United States for two decades. “American society refuses to accept Muslims, even of the Westernized type, and consider them as a potential risk at best.”
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the project leader, has been speaking about his Cordoba Initiative on a two-week tour of the Persian Gulf sponsored by the State Department, although he has gingerly avoided discussing the Park51 location.
“What’s happening in America is very healthy,” said Muhammad Al-Zekri, a Bahraini anthropologist, after spending an evening with the imam.
The United States, he said, was still assimilating historical influences, including Islam, into its inaccurate self-image as a solely Judeo-Christian nation. The construction of Park51, Mr. Zekri believes, will help shape that.
“We pray for the people of New York, for peace,” Mr. Zekri said solemnly. “And if it matters, we apologize for what those people have done on 9/11.”
Thanassis Cambanis reported from Bahrain. Reporting was contributed by Anthony Shadid from Baghdad, Maïa de la Baume from Paris, Ethan Bronner from Jerusalem, Nada Bakri from Lebanon, Elisabetta Povoledo from Rome, Mona El-Naggar from Cairo and Thomas Fuller from Thailand. Li Bibo contributed research from Beijing.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Real Americans, Please Stand Up - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

Real Americans, Please Stand Up - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com
By DICK CAVETT
Dick Cavett on his career in television.
All this talk about the mosque reminds me of two things I heard growing up in Nebraska.
I had a 6th grade teacher who referred to American Indians as “sneaky redskins” and our enemies in the Pacific as “dirty Japs.” This abated somewhat after I asked one day in class, “Mrs. G., do you think our parents would like to know that you teach race prejudice?” She faded three shades.
The rest of that year was difficult.
As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”
These are not proud moments in my heritage. But now, I’m genuinely ashamed of us. How sad this whole mosque business is. It doesn’t take much, it seems, to lift the lid and let our home-grown racism and bigotry overflow. We have collectively taken a pratfall on a moral whoopee cushion.
Surely, few of the opponents of the Islamic cultural center would feel comfortable at the “International Burn a Koran Day” planned by a southern church-supported group (on a newscast, I think I might have even glimpsed a banner reading, “Bring the Whole Family,” but maybe I was hallucinating). This all must have gone over big on Al Jazeera news.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Obama's Personal Faith Leaves Public Wondering : NPR

Obama's Personal Faith Leaves Public Wondering : NPR

A spokesman says the president prays daily, often with others, sometimes in conference calls with spiritual leaders, including one recently aboard Air Force One. He has given speeches where he has spoken of how his faith helps him in his job, and he has spoken explicitly in Christian terms, as he did this year on Easter Sunday at a White House breakfast reflecting on Christ's final moments on the cross.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Anti-Islam Protest in U.S. Bolsters Extremists, Experts Say - NYTimes.com

Anti-Islam Protest in U.S. Bolsters Extremists, Experts Say - NYTimes.com
WASHINGTON — Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam.
Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say.
“I know people in this debate don’t intend it, but there are consequences for these kinds of remarks,” said Brian Fishman, who studies terrorism for the New America Foundation here.
He said that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric hiding in Yemen who has been linked to several terrorist plots, has been arguing for months in Web speeches and in a new Qaeda magazine that American Muslims face a dark future of ever-worsening discrimination and vilification.
“When the rhetoric is so inflammatory that it serves the interests of a jihadi recruiter like Awlaki, politicians need to be called on it,” Mr. Fishman said.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist - Attacking Social Security - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - Attacking Social Security - NYTimes.com
Social Security turned 75 last week. It should have been a joyous occasion, a time to celebrate a program that has brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.
But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama’s deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.
Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.
About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.
But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.
Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.

Op-Ed Columnist - Fire and Imagination - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - Fire and Imagination - NYTimes.com
The Obama administration seems to be feeling sorry for itself. Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, is perturbed that Mr. Obama is not getting more hosannas from liberals.
Spare me. The country is a mess. The economy is horrendous, and millions of American families are running out of ammunition in their fight against destitution. Steadily increasing numbers of middle-class families, who never thought they’d be seeking charity, have been showing up at food pantries.
The war in Afghanistan, with its dreadful human toll and debilitating drain on the nation’s financial resources, is proceeding as poorly as ever. As The Times reported on Friday, an ambitious operation that was supposed to showcase the progress of the Afghan Army turned into a tragic, humiliating debacle.
And while schools are hemorrhaging resources because of budget meltdowns, and teachers are losing jobs, and libraries are finding it more and more difficult to remain open, American youngsters are falling further behind their peers in other developed countries in their graduation rates from colleges and universities.
This would be a good time for the Obama crowd to put aside its concern about the absence of giddiness among liberals and re-examine what it might do to improve what is fast becoming a depressing state of affairs.
It’s not just liberals who are gloomy. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this week found that nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe the country is on the wrong track and a majority disapproves of President Obama’s handling of the economy. Nearly two-thirds expect the economy to get worse still.
Mr. Obama’s problem — and the nation’s — is that in the midst of the terrible economic turmoil that the country was in when he took office, he did not make full employment, meaning job creation in both the short and the long term, the nation’s absolute highest priority.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Media Watchdog Joins Chorus Criticizing WikiLeaks : NPR

Media Watchdog Joins Chorus Criticizing WikiLeaks : NPR
Reporters Without Borders criticized WikiLeaks on Thursday, saying the whistleblower group showed "incredible irresponsibility" in publishing thousands of secret Afghan war documents.
The international media watchdog said that while WikiLeaks had often played a useful role, revealing the identity of Afghan informants was "highly dangerous."
The disclosure also has angered the Pentagon, which has accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of soldiers and informants in the field, and demanded that WikiLeaks refrain from publishing any more secret data.
On Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange acknowledged that some of the criticisms leveled at his group were legitimate. But he also said many were parroting the Pentagon's attacks instead of focusing on the content of the reports themselves.

WikiLeaks makes a splash | The Japan Times Online

WikiLeaks makes a splash | The Japan Times Online



EDITORIAL

WikiLeaks makes a splash
Mr. Julian Assange is a child of the Internet age. A former hacker and software programmer, he helped found WikiLeaks in 2006, a Web site that publishes otherwise unavailable documents provided by anonymous sources. It calls itself "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking." WikiLeaks simply spills the beans, shining light on information governments prefer to keep secret.
In the year after it was founded, WikiLeaks published some 1.2 million documents, establishing itself as a thorn in the side of numerous governments. Among the materials it "liberated" was a report on the corruption of Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi, leaked just before the 2007 elections (and unleashing sufficient outrage to allegedly swing the election outcome); operating procedures for the Guantanamo Bay detention facility; technical manuals for the Church of Scientology; former U.S. vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's private e-mail; e-mail in the controversy surrounding the Climate Research Group at East Anglia University; and documents related to loans by an Icelandic bank just before the collapse of that country's financial sector. Thus WikiLeaks would appear to be an equal opportunity offender.
The organization has caused the most controversy with two recent postings. In April, WikiLeaks revealed "Collateral Murder," a 38-minute video taken from the cockpit of a U.S. Army helicopter that showed U.S. soldiers in a series of attacks in Baghdad nearly three years earlier that resulted in 18 deaths, including two journalists. Last month, the organization posted 92,000 documents related to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, most of them raw field reports. This time, WikiLeaks partnered with three news publications — The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel — to try to give the disclosures a relevant context.
The data dump unleashed a torrent of criticism. Complaints range from claims by senior U.S. officials that the documents have not been properly screened and that their release exposes informants, threatens their lives and will keep others from helping the U.S. and its allies, to the argument that allegations of Pakistan intelligence service support for the Taliban exposes rifts in the alliance that will destroy the consensus needed for success in Afghanistan. Others claim that the documents demonstrate that U.S. policy in Afghanistan is a failure and that the Obama administration has been lying to the world about the situation in that country.
There is something to the first charge. The documents were not thoroughly vetted and some informants might have been disclosed. Reports that the Taliban are going through the postings to find informants makes WikiLeaks "morally culpable," as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. WikiLeaks is said to be postponing further release of documents until they are properly screened. Mr. Assange counters that "in our four-year publishing history no one has ever come to physical harm that we are aware of or that anyone has alleged." He blames the U.S. military for putting informers at risk by being "lackadaisical with its Afghan sources."
Leaks of allegations that elements in Pakistan give the Taliban secret support could threaten alliance unity if they were news, but they're not. That fact undermines criticism that the leaks show the U.S. government has deceived the world about the real situation in Afghanistan. The documents cover the period from January 2004 to December 2009, and the recent change in U.S. policy is a response to the situation that the documents reveal.
In other words, apart from some ground-level reporting — which could threaten sources — there is little in these leaks that changes what we know about Afghanistan. That explains the immediate official reaction to the leaks, which was that they pose little threat to U.S. national security.
Some compare the document dump to publication of the Pentagon Papers, which documented the duplicity embraced by U.S. administrations during the Vietnam War. The analogy is flawed: There has been no duplicity, just flawed strategy. (Anyone who claims to be deceived by the situation in Afghanistan has not been paying attention.)
The real issue is the shifting balance of power in the struggle between governments and publics over government secrets. Technology, in the form of huge databases, international communications networks and powerful encryption algorithms, has created a new global space that is not subject to government control. Advantage citizens.
But the restoration of power on the side of the people is only effective if publics take notice. Democracy is not a passive exercise. It demands an informed citizenry. That obligation has been too easily shirked in recent years. Governments have exploited that seeming indifference to gather more power, make more decisions for which they are not accountable to the public and, on occasion, resort to illegal activity. WikiLeaks enables a new balance of power and helps make possible a 21st-century democracy — but only if citizens do their part.
________________________________