December 9-11, 2006
Dec 09 04:58 Emerson's Speech Sparks Controversy Dec 10 01:50 Cry Me A River Dec 10 02:58 Speaking Frankly Dec 10 18:35 They Just Weren't Bad Enough Dec 11 02:29 First Refuge Of Scoundrels Dec 11 05:15 CAIR-OH Responds to Minnesota Imam Story Dec 11 12:53 Tom DeLay Joins the Blogosphere Dec 11 12:57 al-Maliki On His Way Out? Dec 11 20:53 PFAW Defends Ellison
Emerson's Speech Sparks Controversy
Protests are being organized for Steve Emerson's presentation at Tucson's Jewish Community Center next Monday. Among the reasons given for the protest, the one tht stood out the most was that Mr. Emerson is a racist. Here's what Muhammad As'ad is quoted as saying:
"The organizations that sponsored this man are not helping peace between the Muslim and Jewish faiths," said Muhammad As'ad, a Muslim who plans to protest the talk Monday. "This is going to be a very upsetting scene."Mr. As'ad's name sounded familiar so I did some checking. What I found is that he's a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Tucson. If you're thinking that you've heard of the Islamic Center of Tuscon before, there's a good reason for that. It's the spiritual home for Omar Shahin, the chief spokesman for the imams kicked off US Airways Flight 300 in Minneapolis just before Thanksgiving.
"I think he's a racist...He runs around and scapegoats Muslims," said Racheli Gai, a member of the local Women in Black group, which is an international peace network. She's also a co-founder of the Tucson Peace Walk, an annual walk and gathering of Muslims and Jews.Gai's calling Steve Emerson a racist is bothersome at minimum. Then again, coming from someone in the anti-war movement, it's understandable. Here's a portion of Women In Black's mission statement:
As a Jew, Gai said she's very angry that the Jewish community is supporting Emerson. Co-sponsors of the lectureship series include the Jewish Federation of Southern Arizona and the Tucson Jewish Community Center. Gai said she expects a group of Christians, Jews and Muslims will be protesting outside the center.
Women in Black is an international peace network. Women in Black is not an organization, but a means of mobilization and a formula for action. Women in Black vigils were started in Israel in 1988 by women protesting against Israel's Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Women in Black has developed in countries such as Italy, Spain, Germany, England, Azerbaijan, Colombia, and in FR Yugoslavia, where women in Belgrade have stood in weekly vigils since 1991 to protest war and the Serbian regime's policies of nationalist aggression.In other words, one protester quoted in the article is a spokesman for a Tuscon mosque with ties to radical Islam; the other is an anti-war activist who resorts to namecalling instead of explaining why she believes that Mr. Emerson is a racist. It isn't a surprise that they'd be protesting.
It's worth noting that the Islamic Center for Tuscon is the mosque that 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour attended. Hanjour "crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on 9/11."
Posted Saturday, December 9, 2006 4:59 AM
No comments.
Cry Me A River
That's the first thing that crossed my mind when I read this Strib article. Here's the quote that evoked that reaction:
"Since this incident, not only have I missed my prayers while traveling, but also, if I need to go to the bathroom on the plane I don't even go because people will think things," he said. "It's ridiculous."Imam Shahin continues to stick with the story that they were kicked off US Airways Flight 300 for praying. Anyone who has read Richard Miniter's article knows better:
As the plane boarded, she said, no one refused to fly. The public prayers and Arabic phone call did not trigger any alarms - so much for the p.c. allegations that people were disturbed by Muslim prayers.In other words, Shahin's making their prayers the central issue is pure fiction. When Shahin says that he hasn't prayed while in the airport, he's implying that airline passengers are bothered by people praying. As the facts in this case tell us, that isn't the truth. It's just a way of evoking sympathy. Either way, my reaction is the same: Cry me a river, Mr. Shahin. I'll base my opinions on the facts, not the sentiments that he's manufactured.
Let's also remember that (a) numerous witnesses made official statements to the police and (b) Shahin and others have said that misrepresentations have been made in these statements. Let's analyze this from both angles.
The witnesses that came forward to sign official statements to the police do so under penalty of law of making false allegations. If credible witnesses stepped forward and contradicted their statements, these 'witnesses' can be arrested and convicted, for making false allegations. I don't know what the penalty is for that but it can't be good.
Let's also look at it from the imams' standpoint. They've claimed that misstatements have been made. Fine. Then it's their responsibility to bring people forward that refute the witnesses' statements. Thus far, that hasn't happened. Isn't it telling that they haven't found any passengers that refuted the witnesses' statements? Or would the imams have us believe that they're telling the truth and that all of the passengers are lying because they're a collection of 'Islamophobes' and bigots? Or would they have us believe that this is all just a huge conspiracy theory by a plane full of bigoted Islamophobes? Good luck selling that theory to thinking people.
Another interesting thing that comes through in the Strib's article is that the Strib's reporter, Pamela Miller, got scooped in her own back yard. In fact, Mr. Miniter's article for Pajamas Media contains more facts and more quotes than does the Strib article. In short, it's a superior news product. Then again, it isn't a high hurdle to produce a better news product than the Strib.
Posted Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:51 AM
No comments.
Speaking Frankly
That's what the LA Times titled Jimmy Carter's op-ed. Unfortunately, that isn't what President Carter did in this op-ed.
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations, but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.If we based our opinions on just what's said in this paragraph, we'd believe that Jimmy Carter is the lone man willing to stand up to AIPAC. We'd believe that he's the only man willing to 'speak truth to power'. I'd use many adjectives to describe Jimmy Carter but courageous isn't one of those adjectives. I can't even tell you that I think he's got a grip on reality. What I can tell you is that AIPAC is powerful inside Washington. Then again, the pro-Arab lobby is powerful, too. That's what makes this next quote so extraordinary:
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.While it's true that speaking out against Israel would be politically suicidal, it's equally true that speaking out against certain Arab groups is politically suicidal in districts like the ones represented by John Conyers and John Dingell. In fact, the truth is that it's almost fashionable to speak out against Israel in the more liberal Jewish communities. That's due to the fact that many liberal Jews think that Israel is to blame for the Middle East's problems. That's certainly the perspective of Tikkun Magazine's editorial staff.
These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.This is simply delusional thinking on Carter's behalf. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the PLO has accepted the Roadmap. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Israel has rejected the Roadmap except when Hamas terrorists threaten Israel's right to exist. Even a pacifist like President Carter knows that the UN Charter provides for the right of a country to defend itself.
Fred Barnes brought up something tonight on the Beltway Boys that I'd never heard before. He said an Israeli official once told him that they considered Carter to be an anti-Semite. Barnes said that he never believed that but this book is making him rethink that. That's quite the stunning statement.
Here's another troubling aspect to President Carter's book:
Former President Jimmy Carter faced new criticism Friday over his controversial book on Palestinian lands when a former Middle East diplomat accused him of improperly publishing maps that did not belong to him. The new charge came as Carter attempted to counter charges from a former top aide that the book manipulates facts to distort history. Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter's book. "I think there should be a correction and an attribution," Ross said. "These were maps that never existed, I created them." After Ross saw the maps in Carter's book, he told his publisher he wanted a correction. When asked if the former president ripped him off, Ross replied: "it sure looks that way."I'd think that this book represents a new low for Jimmy Carter. Not only does he paint an inaccurate picture of what's happening in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel but he's also 'appropriated' maps created by longtime Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. That type of appropriation is often called plaziarism or theft.
This begs another question: How much further can Jimmy Carter sink in terms of integrity and honesty?
Posted Sunday, December 10, 2006 2:59 AM
No comments.
They Just Weren't Bad Enough
That's the only conclusion I can come to. Here's what I mean. The Vikings got off to a fast start, jumping off to a 20-0 lead just 1:19 into the second quarter. Knowing that & knowing that Detroit committed 6 turnovers & that Detroit rushed for -3 yards, you'd think the Vikings should've cruised to a 35+ point victory, right? Yes, you read that right. Detroit lost 3 yards rushing for the entire game. That isn't a misprint.
If the Vikings were a good team, they would've won by 4 TD's minimum. If they were an average team, they still should've beaten Detroit by 3 TD's. This Vikings team won by 10 points & it was closer than the score indicates. Detroit should've closed it to 30-23 with 3+ minutes left. Here's what happened.
Detroit marched the ball down the field, getting down to the Vikings' 1-yard line, making it second and goal. Detroit tried another run on third down, which they lost two yards on. Detroit coah Rod Marinelli chose to go for the touchdown instead of kicking a chip shot field goal. Instead of punching the ball in, Detroit QB got sacked, keeping the game a two posession game. Essentially, that play ended Detroit's hopes of winning. The few thousand fans still in the stands let Marinelli know what they thought of that decision.
After the game, I watched the Fox 9 team of Jim Rich and Irv Cross offer analysis like "Good teams find a way to win, even when they aren't playing their best" and "The Vikings rebounded from last week's loss to stay in the playoff hunt." That isn't what happened. What's disturbing is that this isn't the first time this season that I've wondered if a Twin Cities sports reporter watched the same game I did.
Yes, the Vikings won today but I reject the notion that the Vikings are a good team. They're mediocre at best. Their defense is talented and is responsible for preventing the Vikings from being as hapless as Detroit. That said, Bad Johnson is almost as awful a QB as Jon Kitna is. That said, neither are as awful as Rex Grossman.
To be fair, the Vikings' offensive line is coming together. Look for this unit to be a force in years to come. Their running back situation is in the capable hands of Chester Taylor when healthy. Special mention should be made for the way Artose Pinner played today. What makes the Vikings' offense so awful is Bad Johnson & the wideouts. Simply put, this Vikings receiving corps isn't as good as USC's group. In fact, it isn't even close.
It's time for Vikings' fans to demand a change of direction at QB & wideout. It's also time to demand that the Vikings' reporters not mindlessly recite Vikings' talking points.
Posted Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:35 PM
No comments.
First Refuge Of Scoundrels
Last night, I caught the last portion of a presentation by Michael Crichton on C-SPAN2. That caused me to visit his website to read some of his speeches. I'm glad I visited it. What I found was that, during a speech to the National Pres Club, Crichton said something particularly useful in examining the worth of the Iraq Surrender Group's report and also the worthiness of 'consensus judges' that Democrats talk so much about. Here's what Mr. Crichton said:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."That's solid advice. Let's think of it this way: Consensus just means that people agree on something. It doesn't make the agreed-upon issue right or wise. In fact, conceptually, it's morally neutral. Theoretically, the agreed-upon thing might be awful or it might be positive. That's hardly a high bar to clear, especially with a bunch of retired politicians and 'diplomats'. An old-time politician is someone skilled in the art of dealmaking. Ditto with diplomats.
I suspect that these folks saw the outcome of the election and decided to give the people what they wanted. That isn't the mark of leadership and it certainly isn't a profile in courage. In this instance, it's my opinion that it's just agreeing for agreement's sake.
It's time that people just scrapped the ISG's report and we got people looking for a way to win. George Bush, Tony Blair, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman are right; losing in Iraq isn't an option. There's much too much at stake. In the end, it really isn't so much about helping the Iraqis. It's about doing it for our protection.
As I've said repeatedly, it's in our interest to drain the swamp & keep hitting the most important targets. If we fail, Iran controls a huge share of the world's oil and al Qa'ida regains the training base it lost in Afghanistan. Those results are totally predictable.
A year ago, most serious people said that losing in Iraq wasn't an option, that there was too much at stake. Is there less at stake now? I'd suggest that there's even more at stake now than then. If there's more to lose now, what's caused people's opinions to change? I suspect that they've lost the will to fight this to victory.
It's time America told the world that it's serious about winning in Iraq and wherever terrorists are found. It's time that we found Democrats with the will to win because we can't fight to win without them.
Posted Monday, December 11, 2006 2:30 AM
No comments.
CAIR-OH Responds to Minnesota Imam Story
Asma Mobin-Uddin, the president of CAIR-Ohio's Columbus chapter, wrote a letter to the editor about the imam fiasco. The Columbus Dispatch ran the editorial Sunday. She included some interesting things in her editorial that need to be challenged for the inaccuracies. Let's start at the beginning:
Six imams, who had passed through the airport security checks and boarded a US Airways flight in Minneapolis, were regarded as suspicious by a passenger, who alerted a flight attendant.Actually, based on the reactions of all of the passengers, I'd say that the majority of passengers were suspicious of the imams. Here's what one of the passengers said in a letter to US Airways:
Most importantly, the public needs to be told that there was a series of "many suspicious events", which were observed by the crew and several passengers. The captain made his decision based on all of these events and not just one note.Pauline's letter contradicts Mobin-Uddin's account. Based on the fact that Pauline was actually on the plane, I'm liable to trust her more than someone reciting the story she'd been told. At best, Mobin-Uddin's account is pure hearsay in a court of law. Here's the next thing that Mobin-Uddin stated in her letter to the editor:
The men were handcuffed, removed from the plane, detained and questioned for several hours.Here's what Officer Wingate reported in the police report:
"Officer Desubijana and I asked the six passengers pointed out to us to get up and leave the aircraft. Systematically, from the rear to the front of the plane, we asked all six to leave the plane. All parties left the plane cooperatively. It should be noted that two of the individuals were seated in the rear; two were seated in the middle; and two were seated in the front of the aircraft; all of which stated they were travelling together. All of their carry-on bags were brought off the aircraft as well."I find it a little peculiar that the police report said that the imams "left the plane cooperatively" while the letter to the editor said that the imams were "handcuffed" and "removed from the plane..." Let's remember that Imam Shahin said:
"This was humiliating, the worst moment of my life."The first obvious question is "If the imams "left the plane cooperatively", why would they need to be handcuffed?
The second obvious question is why should Imam Shahin say that "This was humiliating, the worst moment of my life" if they weren't taken off in handcuffs?
The third obvious question that must be asked is "Should we believe the account of someone who wasn't there or should we believe the official police report"?
Here's another paragraph from the letter to the editor:
Many of the rumors and inaccurate information surrounding the alleged suspicious behavior of the men have been proved to be false. For example, contrary to what some media reports stated, all had roundtrip tickets and luggage.Here's what the police report states:
"When I arrived, I met U.s. Airways manager Robbie Taylor Davis, who told me the following: "He stated the passengers were of Middle Eastern descent and three of which only had one way tickets and no checked luggage. He stated that most of the six passengers had requested seatbelt extensions."Remember that Taylor-Davis made those statements part of the official police report. Remember that Taylor-Davis is doing so with the same penalties as if he made the statements in court under oath. What's the likelihood of a US Airways management official making such a statement if it weren't true? Finally, Mobin-Uddin writes this:
The incident boils down to overreaction by a passenger and the airline to Muslim men on the aircraft and their observance of routine prayers prior to boarding.Actually, based on "Pauline's" letter to US Airways and on the police report, we know that the imams' removal had little to do with an "overreaction by a passenger" or on their prayer routine. We know that a main reason for their removal was because several of the imams had one-way tickets, that several didn't check in luggage and that they moved into seats to which they weren't assigned. We also know that the way they were seated was similar to the way the 9/11 hijackers sat that fateful morning. Based on that information, it's difficult to say that US Airways' decision was an "overreaction."
UPDATE: The Wshington Times' Audrey Hudson is all over the latest news about the Flying Imam Fiasco', reporting that the imams want an out-of-court settlement with US Airways.
A group of Muslim imams is seeking an out-of-court settlement with US Airways, saying they should not have been removed from a Minnesota-to-Phoenix flight last month and were not behaving suspiciously. Five of the six Islamic religious leaders have retained the Council on American-Islamic Relations for legal representation and are seeking a "mutually agreeable" resolution, said Nihad Awad, CAIR executive director. US Airways scheduled a meeting with the imams on Dec. 4 to discuss the incident, but the men canceled it and hired the activist group to act as legal counsel.I hope US Airways fights this one. I further hope that US Airways asks lots of questions during the deposition phase of that trial. The first question I'd ask is whether they have witnesses that will corroborate their version of events who aren't part of their travelling group. I'd ask because the group and their supporters have said that the reports coming out in the news are "smears and distortions" of what happened. Another question I'd ask is why some of the imams asked for extenders. That seems extremely strange and it'd be interesting to hear how they'd explain that. There are other questions that need to be asked, too, but that's what I'd start with.
"With the hopes of reaching an amicable resolution to this matter, we would like to take this opportunity to ask for a formal meeting with US Airways executives and legal counsel," said Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's national legal director, in a letter to the airline.
The imams represented by CAIR include Omar Shahin, Didmar Faja, Ahmad Shqeirat, Marwan Sadeddin and Mohamed Ibrahim. Mahmoud Sulaiman of New Mexico is the only imam not included as a plaintiff. Mr. Sulaiman is the passenger who asked another passenger to switch seats with him to accommodate a blind imam and was one of three imams who asked for a seat-belt extension even though the police report cites his weight at 170 pounds.
Posted Monday, December 11, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment 1 by davod at 11-Dec-06 11:16 AM
I find it offensive that you would question the word and motives of holy men.
Comment 2 by James Alan at 11-Dec-06 08:22 PM
They are the enemy. Everyone knows it. They are pissed off because we are starting to treat them as such, to certain degree. How would we have treated Japanese passengers during WWII-much, much worse. They're lucky they haven't all been rounded up and put into camps or shipped back.
Comment 3 by elimosa at 15-Mar-07 03:04 PM
I think U.S. airways should hire you as their lawyer since you seem to be very very smart. Your parents must have lied to you all these years till you get to a point that you are going to exploed of the air of your self-confidence.
Cool down dude and all the story is that some extreme right winger minger who saw these gents praying in the waiting area and he said to himself, this is my chance to submerge as the next American Hero!
He claimed to have understood what they were talking about. He first of all does not understand arabic. He said I heared them cursing the US (since when this idiot understand Arabic) and they were angry (Oh yeah, right!!!, what muslim can afford to be angry in this country) when he has barcking dogs of the extremist radical right wing redneckers unleached at him.
To your knowledge Mr. (Let freedom ring) ignorant with excellency, if Jesus himself was at the aiport on that day he would have been arrested. He looks exactly like any Middle Eastern man, with beard and he wears the traditional MidEastern clothes and he speaks Aramaic (cousin of Arabic) and prays the same way Muslims nowadays pray.
Check your holy book and you will find what I am talking about. Duh!!! surprized han!!!!
Let us read together some of the passages that describe the way the holy prophets prayed...
'And he (Jesus) went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed...'-(Matt 26:39).
And they (Moses and Aaron) fell upon their faces...'(Num 20:6)'And Abraham fell on his face...'-(Genesis 17:3)
.'And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship...'(Joshua 5:14)'
Let me know if you need more of that I can read the bible for you since you are too lasy to read you holy book!
Tom DeLay Joins the Blogosphere
I strongly recommend that people check out Tom Delay's new blog. I can't wait to see some more substantive posts on Tom's blog. Thus far, he's just introducing his blog to people. I suspect that this will soon become a daily stop for serious conservatives.
Mr. DeLay's posts will undoubtedly cause quite a stir with voters.
Posted Monday, December 11, 2006 12:53 PM
No comments.
al-Maliki On His Way Out?
According to this article, the answer appears to be yes.
Major partners in Iraq's governing coalition are in behind-the-scenes talks to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki amid discontent over his failure to quell raging violence, according to lawmakers involved. The talks are aimed at forming a new parliamentary bloc that would seek to replace the current government and that would likely exclude supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a vehement opponent of the U.S. military presence.I'm with Captain Ed on this when he says:
The new alliance would be led by senior Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who met with President Bush last week. Al-Hakim, however, was not expected to be the next prime minister because he prefers the role of powerbroker, staying above the grinding day-to-day running of the country.
Engaging Sadr doesn't work, and the US should return to our previous policy of targeting him and his Mahdi army lieutenants if they refuse to disarm.If it's broken, it's time to fix it. In this case, what's broken is just the most important issue facing the Bush administration. Getting al-Sadr's Mahdi militia under control must be our military's top priority. We can't get the violence under control until we put his militia out of business.
Let's also admit that we were wrong to think that al-Maliki was a strong leader. He appeared to be a stronger leader than al-Jafaari. Looking back, that's understandable because al-Jafaari wasn't a leader.
Posted Monday, December 11, 2006 12:57 PM
No comments.
PFAW Defends Ellison
PFAW President Ralph Neas is the latest to jump into the Ellison/Qu'ran debate. The official PFAW statement starts with namecalling:
When congressman-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, said that he would take the oath of office using a Koran, far right ideologues were quick to attack him. Right wing activist Dennis Prager said that Congressmen should only be allowed to use only the Bible in taking the oath of office, and the American Family Association demanded that legislation be passed to require all Congressmen to swear an oath on the Bible, regardless of their religion.and descends from there:
"At a time when Religious Right leaders are falsely trying to turn "happy holidays" into an attack on Christianity, Prager has given us a real example of religious intolerance."The first graph is from PFAW's official statement; the second is from Ralph Neas. Neas is a proud member of the far left. He's even said that John Roberts was far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Need I say more?
You know that you've struck a nerve when the person responding starts with namecalling. At that point, you've won the debate. Another indicator that you've touched a nerve is when you see your opponent characterize you as intolerant. That's usually a telltale indicator that they're intolerant.
I'm interested in seeing how Mr. Ellison handles PFAW's endorsement of his using the Qu'ran for his swearing in. PFAW is one of the most liberal, and extremist, lobbying groups in American history. Anyone who believes in the pro life position is branded a far right extremist. They're one of Ted Kennedy's biggest allies in extremist jurisprudence, serving almost as a research department for him.
I'm thinking that that won't deter Ellison from associating with PFAW. In all probability, he's likely their kind of congressman. I'm just watching to see what shape their relationship takes.
Posted Monday, December 11, 2006 8:54 PM
No comments.
