Unfortunately it would seem to me that many Christians are prone to anti-Muslim bigotry. Ergun Caner recognized this after 9/11, so he pretended to be a formerly dedicated Muslim ex-jihadist. He could invent stories that gullible Christians would enjoy about how Muslims are bloodthirsty crazies that want nothing more than to see Christians slaughtered.
The fakery made him a star. Before he knew it he was President of a major Christian seminary. He was the guy called in to train marines in the jihadi ways of all those Muslims that needed to be killed over in those oil rich regions.
The guy would pretend he could speak Arabic and would literally invent Arabic sounding phrases to deceive his gullible audiences. He'd describe Islamic beliefs and get basic things wrong. Some really hilarious stuff. An absolutely pathetic display.
Having been busted he's not saying much about it. But he has apparently hired an Indian based PR firm to spam the web and divert people from discovering these embarrassing details.
One would think Christians would abandon him in droves. Some have. But many stand by him and make excuses for his transparent lies. Such as Norman Geisler, John Ankerberg, Ron Rhodes, and others. Punishment at Liberty has been mild. He's been demoted from President to Professor.
Geisler's defense reads much like his apologetics. Seriously. What's sad is that I once regarded him as an intellectual titan.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Strategies for Justice in Palestine
There's a pretty fierce debate going on with the left regarding the chief motivation for US policy towards Israel and also the best way to try to turn things around. Should Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) be considered as occurred in South Africa to end apartheid? Also what is the roll of the Israel Lobby, especially AIPAC, in forming US policy. Are they the predominate driving force of US benevolence towards Israel or is it a matter of corporate backing?
Apparently Harvard University has sided with those that advocate BDS. It has sold it's Israeli holdings.
But for some on the left apparently this is not regarded as a wise strategy. Allison Weir from ifamericansknew.org interviewed Noam Chomsky on the radio here. Weir apparently would advocate BDS and also regards the Israel Lobby as probably the major driving force shaping US policy towards Israel. A surprisingly prickly Chomsky argues against both of these views. Not that he says the Lobby plays no roll and not that he rejects all forms of BDS, but apparently he thinks the claim that they play the major roll is overstated and he thinks the BDS campaigns are strategic blunders, though he would support properly crafted campaigns.
It's kind of a complex and interesting debate. A key part of the debate is this article published in 2006 by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. They were commissioned by The Atlantic Monthly to write a paper on the influence of the Israel Lobby. They worked closely with The Atlantic editing the paper per their requests in order to get the article published, but ultimately they were told that in the end The Atlantic didn't want to publish it at all regardless of the revisions. A foreign outlet, The London Review of Books, finally did publish it and a firestorm erupted. This was not surprising.
One might think that someone like Chomsky would agree with their thesis, but it turns out he does not and he wrote a brief review explaining why here. Subsequently Mearsheimer and Walt wrote a full book on the subject.
Since the Weir interview the battle continues to rage. Jeff Blankfort wrote a criticisms of Chomsky here. Jeremy Hammond replied to that here. Kim Peterson replied to Hammond here. Hammond offered a further reply to Peterson here. At all of these locations interesting further debate occurs in the comment section, as well as at other websites that duplicate the documents, such as here.
In my estimation all involved are good people that want what's best for Palestinians. Who's right though about the strategies and who is right about the influence of the Lobby? I can't yet decide.
Apparently Harvard University has sided with those that advocate BDS. It has sold it's Israeli holdings.
But for some on the left apparently this is not regarded as a wise strategy. Allison Weir from ifamericansknew.org interviewed Noam Chomsky on the radio here. Weir apparently would advocate BDS and also regards the Israel Lobby as probably the major driving force shaping US policy towards Israel. A surprisingly prickly Chomsky argues against both of these views. Not that he says the Lobby plays no roll and not that he rejects all forms of BDS, but apparently he thinks the claim that they play the major roll is overstated and he thinks the BDS campaigns are strategic blunders, though he would support properly crafted campaigns.
It's kind of a complex and interesting debate. A key part of the debate is this article published in 2006 by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. They were commissioned by The Atlantic Monthly to write a paper on the influence of the Israel Lobby. They worked closely with The Atlantic editing the paper per their requests in order to get the article published, but ultimately they were told that in the end The Atlantic didn't want to publish it at all regardless of the revisions. A foreign outlet, The London Review of Books, finally did publish it and a firestorm erupted. This was not surprising.
One might think that someone like Chomsky would agree with their thesis, but it turns out he does not and he wrote a brief review explaining why here. Subsequently Mearsheimer and Walt wrote a full book on the subject.
Since the Weir interview the battle continues to rage. Jeff Blankfort wrote a criticisms of Chomsky here. Jeremy Hammond replied to that here. Kim Peterson replied to Hammond here. Hammond offered a further reply to Peterson here. At all of these locations interesting further debate occurs in the comment section, as well as at other websites that duplicate the documents, such as here.
In my estimation all involved are good people that want what's best for Palestinians. Who's right though about the strategies and who is right about the influence of the Lobby? I can't yet decide.
Friday, August 13, 2010
News You Haven't Heard
Something like 60,000 people in New Orleans were stranded due to Hurricane Katrina. A huge disaster. The whole world united in support to bring relief.
But then they were Americans. If you are in Pakistan you can sit and watch as 14 million experience a similar tragedy. It's barely noticed. And by the way, global warming would appear to be the major culprit.
This is exactly what we should expect of course based on an institutional analysis of the media. The media in the US produces a product for a customer. The product is audiences. In the case of major media, like the New York Times, it's privileged audiences. The customer is advertisers. So the view of the world we should expect to see is one that serves the interests of the audiences and customers. The suffering of Americans matters. Suffering of weak, poor people in Pakistan does not.
The same is true with regards to the catastrophe in the Gulf. That spill affected powerful people, so it was big news. Much worse spills occur in Nigeria and the amazon. The effects in the amazon have been so devastating brain development of people from the region was severely retarded due to malnutrition. The people were so severely deprived for so long that experts considered classifying them as a separate species.
The people of these regions have been called "unpeople". People that don't matter. Of course they don't matter to institutions intent on maximizing profit. These institutions are considered "people" by US law. They don't matter to those people, but real people would care if they knew.
But then they were Americans. If you are in Pakistan you can sit and watch as 14 million experience a similar tragedy. It's barely noticed. And by the way, global warming would appear to be the major culprit.
This is exactly what we should expect of course based on an institutional analysis of the media. The media in the US produces a product for a customer. The product is audiences. In the case of major media, like the New York Times, it's privileged audiences. The customer is advertisers. So the view of the world we should expect to see is one that serves the interests of the audiences and customers. The suffering of Americans matters. Suffering of weak, poor people in Pakistan does not.
The same is true with regards to the catastrophe in the Gulf. That spill affected powerful people, so it was big news. Much worse spills occur in Nigeria and the amazon. The effects in the amazon have been so devastating brain development of people from the region was severely retarded due to malnutrition. The people were so severely deprived for so long that experts considered classifying them as a separate species.
The people of these regions have been called "unpeople". People that don't matter. Of course they don't matter to institutions intent on maximizing profit. These institutions are considered "people" by US law. They don't matter to those people, but real people would care if they knew.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Go To A Mosque
So at 6:55 pm last Saturday I spotted online notice that one of my favorite authors, Norman Finkelstein, would be speaking at 7 pm at a mosque about 40 miles from me. So I jumped in the car and got there near 8 and people were just lining up to get something to eat. Apparently it was dinner and the lecture. The lecture hadn't yet begun.
There was a man at the entrance to the room with a clip board and a jar labeled "Flood Relief for Pakistan" with some money in it. And I asked him if this talk was open to the general public. "Sure" he said. "Is there a fee?" I asked. "Donations only, but don't you worry about that." Well, I gave him $10 anyway and stepped through the door. Immediately a man motioned to me to come with him. So I started following him and he's leading me to the front of the food line. It's obvious that I'm a visitor since I'm the only person that I see that has a white face. I'm kind of embarrassed saying that I'd rather go to the end of the line, but he insisted and he inserts me in front of a man who smiles and grabs a plate for me. He tells me that when I get my food please have a seat towards the front where I'll have a good view. Then another man approaches me just to check and see if I know what the food is so that I can get what I like. As I work down the line he's telling me what everything is. This is spicy, this is more mild, etc. I ended up grabbing a seat that wasn't all the way to the front and sat with a couple of people. The more elderly gentlemen starts conversing with me. Everyone was just as gracious as could possibly be.
I understand that Islam is a religion that is growing rapidly and I can see why. The mainstream portrayal of Islam is so negative. In fact I had planned to go with my family to a mosque on Friday for prayers just so they could experience it, kind of as an education thing. Christian friends and even atheist friends react kind of like that's some sort of dangerous thing. What I could see happening is when a person that is religious oriented experiences Islam, which in reality is so much more positive than they expect, they're probably a little shocked and greatly impressed. Perhaps this tends to draw them in.
There was a man at the entrance to the room with a clip board and a jar labeled "Flood Relief for Pakistan" with some money in it. And I asked him if this talk was open to the general public. "Sure" he said. "Is there a fee?" I asked. "Donations only, but don't you worry about that." Well, I gave him $10 anyway and stepped through the door. Immediately a man motioned to me to come with him. So I started following him and he's leading me to the front of the food line. It's obvious that I'm a visitor since I'm the only person that I see that has a white face. I'm kind of embarrassed saying that I'd rather go to the end of the line, but he insisted and he inserts me in front of a man who smiles and grabs a plate for me. He tells me that when I get my food please have a seat towards the front where I'll have a good view. Then another man approaches me just to check and see if I know what the food is so that I can get what I like. As I work down the line he's telling me what everything is. This is spicy, this is more mild, etc. I ended up grabbing a seat that wasn't all the way to the front and sat with a couple of people. The more elderly gentlemen starts conversing with me. Everyone was just as gracious as could possibly be.
I understand that Islam is a religion that is growing rapidly and I can see why. The mainstream portrayal of Islam is so negative. In fact I had planned to go with my family to a mosque on Friday for prayers just so they could experience it, kind of as an education thing. Christian friends and even atheist friends react kind of like that's some sort of dangerous thing. What I could see happening is when a person that is religious oriented experiences Islam, which in reality is so much more positive than they expect, they're probably a little shocked and greatly impressed. Perhaps this tends to draw them in.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Cancer Incidence In Fallujah Worse Than Hiroshima
One of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions reads "fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict." And yet the front page of the New York Times was this following the assault of Fallujah in 2004. What you are looking at, cheered on by the media, is a war crime punishable by death if any of the patients shackled happened to die as a consequence of their treatment.
But this is not the worst of it. Chemical weaponry was used on the inhabitants of Fallujah as US officials admitted. But the staggering increase in cancer incidence, 38 fold increases in leukemia, twice the incidence at Hiroshima, is suggesting in the mind of Dr Chris Busby the use of uranium based weaponry. The results of a study recently released lend support to this conclusion. The report is being covered in international press. See for instance here. The full report is here.
Apparently this recently released report is unworthy of reporting so far in the United States.
Update:
Google search shows that this story is being covered in Russia, covered in Lebanon, covered in Britain. Not the US though.
But this is not the worst of it. Chemical weaponry was used on the inhabitants of Fallujah as US officials admitted. But the staggering increase in cancer incidence, 38 fold increases in leukemia, twice the incidence at Hiroshima, is suggesting in the mind of Dr Chris Busby the use of uranium based weaponry. The results of a study recently released lend support to this conclusion. The report is being covered in international press. See for instance here. The full report is here.
Apparently this recently released report is unworthy of reporting so far in the United States.
Update:
Google search shows that this story is being covered in Russia, covered in Lebanon, covered in Britain. Not the US though.
If Not Me Then Who?
Somebody's got to get after their Congress man or woman. Why not me? So I went on line and found that my Congressman, Thaddeus McCotter, has satellite office hours during the first week of the month where constituents can meet with staff. So I went and had a discussion with his rep regarding McCotter's support for $37 billion in war funding, passed recently. Very pleasant. I made several claims and told her I would provide the sources for her. Below is the email I sent her as a follow up.
Hi Melissa. It was good talking with you today at the library. I'd like to provide some of the sources for my claims and try to understand our purposes for the substantial war funding in Afghanistan.
And I'd like to point out that I did vote for Thaddeus in November of 2008 even though I was unwilling to vote for McCain (or Obama for that matter). I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but I was encouraged to see him vote against the banker bailouts twice. It says to me that he is not unwilling to stand against the few powerful interests in favor of the voice of the people, and I hope that he will consider doing that with regards to these wars as well.
The 37 billion dollar war funding bill is described here. I have difficulty understanding our purposes there. According to Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, there is at most 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (see here). This means that this war amounts to about a billion dollars per year per Al Qaeda operative. That works out to about $500/yr for a family of 4, which I represent. My next door neighbor is unemployed and has been for a couple of years. He has a family of 4. At what point do you consider if it is in the best interest of your constituents to fund this war at these cost levels? It's doubly confusing in that the Taliban offered to hand OBL over to a third party to avert war. See the Washington Post reporting here.
The concern of course is security. If you read Robert Pape's "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" you find that based upon an analysis of the data foreign military occupation is the primary driving force of suicide terrorism. If you look here you'll find that an analysis of RAND corporation data shows that the Iraq invasion has had the effect of increasing terrorism worldwide seven fold. You also find that this was in fact the prediction of the intelligence agencies prior to the invasion. Based on this it would seem that increased peace and security cannot be the motivation of the invasions, since it would be expected to have the opposite effect.
We discussed democracy in the Middle East, and I very much agree that it should be promoted. We know the desires of the Iraqi people. Let me quote Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post.
"Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month. "
Take a look at these polling results from 2005. 82% of Iraqi's strongly oppose the presence of coalition troops. They do not want US troops to remain in the country. Why is that? Actually we know exactly why and we've known for a long time. In fact you can go all the way back to Eisenhower, who commissioned studies of his own to determine why they hate us. He learned that "there's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East - not by governments but by the people". He asked the National Security Council to look into the matter, and they gave their analysis as follows: "there's a perception in the region that the US is supporting corrupt, brutal, and harsh regimes, and is blocking democratization and development, and is doing so because of our interest in controlling the oil reserves in the region. It's difficult to counter this accusation because it's accurate. It is natural for us to support status quo governments and to prevent democracy because we want to maintain control over the energy resources of the region."
The Wall St Journal did a study which was released on September 12, 2001 that basically came to the same conclusions.
So in light of the evidence that these wars are costly to the constituents of Oakland county, that the wars themselves are the chief cause of violence directed against the United States, and that the evidence shows that if democracy were to be promoted in the Middle East we'd listen to the victims and withdraw forces, I would like to understand the rationale for a vote authorizing $37 billion in war funding? Why not rather push for troop withdrawal? It makes Americans safer, makes us more prosperous, and would promote democratic ideals.
Please pass these questions on to Thaddeus, and I look forward to discussing this with you further.
Hi Melissa. It was good talking with you today at the library. I'd like to provide some of the sources for my claims and try to understand our purposes for the substantial war funding in Afghanistan.
And I'd like to point out that I did vote for Thaddeus in November of 2008 even though I was unwilling to vote for McCain (or Obama for that matter). I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but I was encouraged to see him vote against the banker bailouts twice. It says to me that he is not unwilling to stand against the few powerful interests in favor of the voice of the people, and I hope that he will consider doing that with regards to these wars as well.
The 37 billion dollar war funding bill is described here. I have difficulty understanding our purposes there. According to Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, there is at most 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (see here). This means that this war amounts to about a billion dollars per year per Al Qaeda operative. That works out to about $500/yr for a family of 4, which I represent. My next door neighbor is unemployed and has been for a couple of years. He has a family of 4. At what point do you consider if it is in the best interest of your constituents to fund this war at these cost levels? It's doubly confusing in that the Taliban offered to hand OBL over to a third party to avert war. See the Washington Post reporting here.
The concern of course is security. If you read Robert Pape's "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" you find that based upon an analysis of the data foreign military occupation is the primary driving force of suicide terrorism. If you look here you'll find that an analysis of RAND corporation data shows that the Iraq invasion has had the effect of increasing terrorism worldwide seven fold. You also find that this was in fact the prediction of the intelligence agencies prior to the invasion. Based on this it would seem that increased peace and security cannot be the motivation of the invasions, since it would be expected to have the opposite effect.
We discussed democracy in the Middle East, and I very much agree that it should be promoted. We know the desires of the Iraqi people. Let me quote Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post.
"Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month. "
Take a look at these polling results from 2005. 82% of Iraqi's strongly oppose the presence of coalition troops. They do not want US troops to remain in the country. Why is that? Actually we know exactly why and we've known for a long time. In fact you can go all the way back to Eisenhower, who commissioned studies of his own to determine why they hate us. He learned that "there's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East - not by governments but by the people". He asked the National Security Council to look into the matter, and they gave their analysis as follows: "there's a perception in the region that the US is supporting corrupt, brutal, and harsh regimes, and is blocking democratization and development, and is doing so because of our interest in controlling the oil reserves in the region. It's difficult to counter this accusation because it's accurate. It is natural for us to support status quo governments and to prevent democracy because we want to maintain control over the energy resources of the region."
The Wall St Journal did a study which was released on September 12, 2001 that basically came to the same conclusions.
So in light of the evidence that these wars are costly to the constituents of Oakland county, that the wars themselves are the chief cause of violence directed against the United States, and that the evidence shows that if democracy were to be promoted in the Middle East we'd listen to the victims and withdraw forces, I would like to understand the rationale for a vote authorizing $37 billion in war funding? Why not rather push for troop withdrawal? It makes Americans safer, makes us more prosperous, and would promote democratic ideals.
Please pass these questions on to Thaddeus, and I look forward to discussing this with you further.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)