Monday, July 11, 2011

Baghdad Burning by Riverbend

This book, Baghdad Burning (I), is the publishing of Riverbend's blog. She's a girl from Iraq and I wish I'd have found her blog at the time of the invasion. I had visited some of the blogs she did, The Angry Arab and Raed in the Middle and Juan Cole, but I don't think I ever saw hers. She really breaks things down (what we did and how it affected Iraqis) and explains customs.

With the whole Gay Girl in Damascus hoax (two more links here and here) and anonymity of the internet, I do wonder sometimes if she's too good to be true and not who she says she is. Either way, I agree with her assessments, but one always wonders...

This will probably be less a review than random things that stood out to me. I've got 4 pages of notes, so I hope it doesn't get long and boring. It brought back some thoughts and feelings I had at the time of the invasion and highlighted things I'd not thought of or forgotten. All those things I didn't know or have forgotten definitely added insult to injury or injury to injury. Each event that came next was more ridiculous than the first. The invasion on false pretenses was bad, but everything that came after...wow. The mismanagement descriptions I heard were very, very kind indeed! Especially when you figure in that some of it was probably intentional. A sad, sad time for the US and Iraq, not to trivialize Iraq's reality at all.

***

The way she describes the idea of the rotating presidency is great. I probably didn't understand a lot of the detail that was going on after the initial attack. I had the luxury of not really having to be invested in the outcome- I opposed the war after all. What was I thinking?!

My major moment was when it was proposed that we were going to attack Iraq. (Probably because I didn't have to see everyone dying and being taken away for questioning, though.) I knew there was serious doubt on the WMD and later 9/11-Al Qaeda link, but I wanted to believe what people told me when I voiced my fears- that the president has more information than us, that we were right in attacking, etc. War is serious, but the quick way it came about with the ridiculous 48 hour ultimatum, virtually no real opposition, no serious journalistic scrutiny left me absolutely stunned. I really thought we'd come to our senses before an attack actually happened- there's be troops for show and a behind the scenes deal of some sort. I woke up to news that we actually did attack Iraq and time stood still- it was an alternate reality- this wasn't supposed to happen. Either that day or that weekend, I remember being at a restaurant with family and hearing the reports of bombings and seeing the video footage. I kept staring- flinching at the explosions. I was so mad I wanted to throw something. It wasn't supposed to happen. Thinking back, being at a restaurant with family while they were getting bombed should have been equally infuriating...

I have forgotten a lot of the details because when I heard about Iraq, I thought of how I opposed it or what I could have done to stop it (stupid, I know) rather than listen to the reports. I'm glad to read them in Riverbend's blog now and get some context on things I may or may not have had an opinion about at that time.

She mentions the firing of the army and people who worked in the government ministries. I do remember sharing her opinion that it was absurd. I couldn't believe how shocked they were that some undesirables infiltrated the border- DUH! I think the subject of talk/news was theories on how/why there was chaos and violence and such and I remember thinking how stupid that was. When you fire all the people who used to run stuff, nothing gets done, people will cross borders. Easy.

National Day. This is one thing I don't remember so well, but I definitely share her disgust about Bush (or whoever is carrying out his wishes) declaring April 9, the day Iraq was invaded (I'm thinking this was March) or Saddam removed, a day Iraqis should celebrate. Of course Bush would see it as an accomplishment, but to make Iraqis celebrate a day in which they were invaded, killed, occupied and bombed to the preindustrial age is crazy. Shows how little we thought about Iraqis in the whole process. Fitting in the backwards, Bush way. It made me think of the way birthdays of leaders in N. Korea are made to be such a big deal and celebrated by everyone with special performances and everyone is supposed to be so happy about it and yet these are the people responsible for the poverty and isolation of the country... National Day should be a day Iraqis take pride in being Iraqi. They should choose some day that has meaning to them- like the day they boot us out or something that doesn't have anything to do with military.

Her descriptions of watching Bush and Rumsfeld are similar to the way I felt back then. I do remember not being able to look at their smug faces, but I had to see what they were saying- I couldn't turn it off. I appreciated getting her view of the consequences of their actions that I didn't have before. I only knew they were wrong and I was infuriated no one here bothered to put any real questions- the media slept- or turned into Bush's mouthpiece. Not too much different than the countries we criticize for no freedoms- yet we did that to ourselves!!

I also didn't realize there was a 9/11 memorial service in Tikrit in 2003! The nerve! She thinks it may be used as proof in the future of the missing 9/11 link-   these scenes will be superimposed on the past and treated as evidence for that. In 2011, I say impossible. When I'm old and telling my grandchildren people today (2060) are delusional if they think 9/11 was the reason for the Iraq invasion, I wonder if they'll smile and nod and think I'm totally off my rocker. So I guess the jury's still out.

Earlier in the book she mentions Americans taking over the palaces of Saddam Hussein. It angered me at the time. It still does, but now I see it was pretty fitting since we acted no better and probably worse than Saddam Hussein himself. It kind of set the scene for the US plan for Iraq- take the best for yourself and totally disregard everyone else. But then again the US plan for Iraq also says a lot- our plan for governing a place that isn't ours and supposed to be free...

September 29, 2003 She has an entry about sheiks. I don't recall hearing about this as it happened. The Americans gathered a bunch of them together and wanted them to "cooperate" with them since sheiks have a lot of influence/respect over large groups of people. In return they wanted a timetable for withdrawal and expected they'd get to participate politically, since they won't be able to get their people on board (rightfully so) if they get nothing in return for the bombing, killing, raids, detentions, etc. Jay Garner said no to both. Americans called it a conference and the sheiks' response was that it was just giving orders, no conference. They were then blacklisted and targeted for raids by the Americans. She made the good point that humiliating sheiks hurts democracy more than Iraq's "tribal tendencies." She uses herself and her pre-war job and freedom as an example of how tribes are family and order, not backwardness and chaos.

She says the world is waking up (p91) and gives this ebook or site: Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception by Danny Schechter at www.channelmedia.org . Another site mentioned is www.malcolmlagouche.com (September 25 post). Apparently some company sells or sold a toy Iraqi house with blood on the walls and a proud American soldier. It's called Forward Command Post? Sickening. I checked snopes- it's no joke. I don't remember this at all. One of the article rightly offers- what if Afghan kids played with burning and collapsing twin towers? The animosity toward "the other" is represented; the only difference is that the average Afghan doesn't support Al-Qaeda, but most Americans support our troops. In looking up the links, I read people saying it was no big deal; kids play with GI Joe and army men... The toy was definitely a Middle Eastern style house and the way the "war on terror" is/was being fought- punishing Afghans for Al-Qaeda who was only loosely associated with the Taliban who weren't representative of Afghans, invading a country on false pretenses (Iraq)- it's more propaganda than a toy for a 5 year old.

She explains some about the significance of jewelry in this part of the world, which is very different from ours. It's the dowry, it's a family's savings (especially in places that become unstable due to conflict such that the value of their currency plummets). In American culture, it's more of a sign of affluence or preference (to have a lot of it) than anything like family savings. She said troops would steal/confiscate it because they thought it suspicious (they must have gotten rich dealing in weapons, drugs, terrorism) for them to have so much gold jewelry...which could be true if you apply American culture to Iraq and ignore the culture of the people. Still no reason to steal, though if it was pocketed by the soldiers. Kind of funny thought I had- their gold jewelry is used as savings and such, but it is more pure, and way more ornate than ours. Our gold is primarily decorative rather than for savings, but it is pretty plain- especially the more affordable stuff. :) I have a few things from the Middle East and they are my absolute favorite.

I enjoyed her description of tea making (p108). Theirs is flavored with cardamom. I didn't realize that. Cool. Earlier bamiya and other food I recognize and eat is mentioned. She describes it all as Iraqi; I had thought of some of it as more Palestinian/ Lebanese...  ;)

p112- She tells about an incident where troops have dogs searching Ministry of Oil employees and throwing Qurans to the ground. Outrage ensued. I'm pretty sure this is before the Abu Ghraib story broke. I don't remember hearing about searches and dogs and throwing Qurans except in the prisons. It could be selective reporting or my bad memory. I remember hearing so much about how soldiers are being made to learn about customs and culture so as to be "more effective" and not so ugly American- I wonder if all that press was before or after this? I really thought the troops were making an effort, but can you really teach or force people to hear what you're saying about others and respect others??

p130 Her recipes! I've got to check that out. Hope it's still around. iraqrecipes.blogspot.com

p152 The Bush visit on November 27, 2003. He wanted to show people it was safe, but the story she tells is one of daily dangers- still. I like how she puts it- she wants him to walk on the streets, not drop in on hand selected troops to show how "safe" it is.

p155 Iraq's Nuclear Mirage by Imad Khadduri. I don't remember this, but apparently he is a physicist who had some connection to the nuclear program and wrote a tell all book about how things were shut down in 1991 and teh current WMD things is garbage and everyone knew it.

p161 The Iraq Census Bureau wanted to have a census to have elections by September 1 or something like that and the US said no. I didn't remember that either.

p165 The capture of Saddam Hussein. It seemed like a big deal to Riverbend. I was expecting it not  to be I guess, since life under Saddam was better than occupation. There were pro-American demonstrations, which I remembered seeing along with footage of the statue being pulled over and the flag on his head. (Seems like there was some "scandal" where a US flag was on it first, then they decided it was better to put the Iraqi one there.) There were also anti-American and pro-Saddam demonstrations at which women and children were rounded up with men and arrested. I don't recall hearing about those.

p174 She describes Christmas in Baghdad, enjoying the lights and festivities with Christian neighbors. It was interesting to learn about Baba Noel (Santa). He dresses the same way, but doesn't come in to deliver gifts through a chimney because there aren't any chimney's and he's mainly a mascot rather than a FedEx- and no reindeer.

p207  This explanation of the bombing of a shelter full of women and kids in 1991 was so horribly tragic, like hearing about 9/11. And Americans replied that this was a legit target?? Unbelievable. She breaks it down with international law, which was great. I don't know what I thought then. I wasn't as up on world events and various schools of thought in 1991(I was a naive 13) as presently. Now it's clear the legit target thing is garbage.

She talks a few times about America punishing a whole city or area for action against troops. I guess I didn't realize that went on or went on so much. Maybe I have forgotten. War is inherently ugly and so I guess I didn't distinguish between horrors at times. I remember hearing about the 4 contractors that were dragged through the streets and treated brutally and all the outrage in the US. I remember some really sketchy stuff with Blackwater, how they do military tasks, but aren't held accountable in any code of justice and really are mercenaries and criminals. She connects Fallujah and the hundreds upon hundreds dead to this event. I'm not saying it's not true, but I don't remember this in our media. I absolutely believe that is the correct connection and that we called the women and children terrorists- unfortunately I believe it.

I completely can empathize or sympathize with her on the repulsion she felt about Bush speeches. He angered me. I didn't want to hear his voice or see that smug expression, but I wanted to see if he had come to his senses yet. I wondered if he'd ever "man up" and admit wrongdoing on ANYTHING or everything. No luck.

Riverbend explains things so well for us Americans. I have enjoyed the detail and context- not enjoyed descriptions of war- but you know what I mean- it fills in some blanks that were left intentionally by the government and media or my bad memory. It is a new context or perspective.

Two great observations from Riverbend:

1. p262 Americans are shocked at the Abu Ghraib scandal; Iraqis are well acquainted with the events already. Americans were outraged at Iraq showing American POWs on TV- thought Arabs were animals for showing soldiers alive and well, if tired, captive and reading from a script. Americans had no problem showing many images of Iraqi detainees as the recipient of dozens of compromising, embarrassing, immodest and disgusting abuses- what does that say about Americans?

2. Nick Berg (p264). She makes the point that beheading was probably chosen because this would horrify Americans like others things wouldn't (she makes a good point, doesn't she?). In a similar way, Americans chose sexual crimes against Iraqis because this is a fate worse than death to them. I would add the choice of dogs is the same due to the opinion of many Muslims about dogs. Both sides had the same thinking and did horrible, illegal, wrong things, but the US wanted to call Abu Ghraib a "stain" and get rid of it quick.

p276 The picture she paints surrounding her aunt dying of natural causes really got to me.  (Natural causes at that time is not so natural with the stress of living under occupation and raids, but that's relative...) It brings up issues I didn't really think about at the time it was happening- so many dead to bury, cemeteries filling up, scheduling nightmares for grief-stricken families. Things they shouldn't have to worry about. Misery on top of misery. As if war doesn't bring enough suffering and upheaval, room in the cemetery is limited, her aunt's space was given away due to necessity (war casualties) and they had to bury her where they didn't plan to. I also didn't think about the scheduling a wakes at mosques being tough because of so many dying that month from non-natural causes.

Her last post included in the first Baghdad Burning book made a good point. She describes a person dying and asks if it was 9/11/01. No, it was Falujah, 9/11/04. I hope it makes people think about what's permissible to do to others. Victims are victims.



My stuff from around the Iraq war, ~2003:

There is at least one letter to the editor about Iraq that I wrote on here:


This is my first blog. Check out the second link in the old entries and you'll probably see some entries on Iraq. It's not organized well. Part of that is my fault and part of it is the pitas blogging site. You may have to use the search function because I'd talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and add something about Iraq on the end sometimes...Sorry about that!


I had tried to find a bunch of emails I received when I emailed churches (same beliefs as me, not varying denominations) around the world to see if everyone's take was that the Bible says Bush is doing the right thing or that we must support him, etc, like the consensus in the US. They, like me, questioned the approach, attacking Iraq and considered verses about peace and not just submitting to government.


Here's my blog from ~2006-2007 or so. Yahoo has changed the address several times and annoyed me to no end, so I moved to Google blogger.





Thursday, July 7, 2011

Stamp hysteria

Oh no! Say it isn't so! See my response below.I have not edited the actual email much, only to make it more readable on my background. All punctuation, capitalization and fear-mongering has been preserved in its original form.

 ==========================================

Subject: Fwd: DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !
                                    
                                              GOD BLESS YOU ALL
                          
Subject: FW: DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !!!
 
   DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !!!   REFUSE TO TAKE THEM ANYWHERE!   Don't let anyone sell them to you!
Apparently they think That putting hearts and butterflies on the new
Stamp will make most people not realize That the rest is Arabic and probably not
Something we want to support. 

New Stamp - the Second one!!!
This image is a larger version of the Eid Custom Postage product.

USPS
New 4
4-Cent Stamp Celebrates
A Muslim Holiday.
 
If There is only ONE thing you forward today.. Let It be this!


President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to REMEMBER and HONOR the EID MUSLIM Holiday season with a new commemorative 44-Cent First Class Holiday Postage Stamp. 


REMEMBER
To adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp,
When you are purchasing your stamps at the post Office.

All you have to say Is 
"No Thank you, I do not want that Muslim Stamp on my Letters or any of my mail!"

To Use this stamp would be a slap in the face to All those AMERICANS who died at the hands of Those whom this stamp Honors.

REMEMBER The MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM Bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of
The 
Military Barracks in Saudi Arabia!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of The American Embassies in Africa!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM
Bombing of the USS COLE!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM
Attack on 9/11/2001!

REMEMBER all The AMERICAN lives that were lost in those Vicious MUSLIM Attacks!


Pass This along to Every 
Patriotic
American 
that You know and get the word Out!   
Honor The United States of America.
  
 =====================
 My response:

I have to say this first- I'm not mad at the forwarder at all-- just the creators of the forward and hysteria. I should probably leave this alone or delete it or whatever, but I won't....

I don't know if you looked at this before forwarding... but I have to chime in. I don't mean any offense, but knowing some Arabs and Muslims as I do, I have to say this stamp is nothing to worry about. Please forgive me if I seem a little peeved. I'll add my piece (since you've given me yours) and then I'll be fine.

First, Obama didn't actually tell the post office to issue this stamp. This is another attempt at trying to get people to believe Obama's a "closet Muslim" and lying about being Christian. See snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/stamps/eidstamp.asp

Second, it seems like a pretty crazy, big leap, don't you think? It's Arabic, so don't support it? I have a New Testament in Arabic. This is a pretty broad generalization- don't buy it 'cause of the Arabic. Things like this foster hatred of the unknown and "the other." It tries to tell you- you don't have anything in common with people who speak Arabic- don't bother to translate the script- let's judge them wholesale on their language (or color of their skin...didn't we get over that? No to that too, huh?)- and oppose and boycott whatever they "support".

The tone of this thing is pretty vicious also. "Remember the Muslim bombings," with Muslim in all caps. And if you didn't get the message, the last line implores you to remember all the American lives lost in vicious Muslim attacks. The email doesn't mention that our good friend Israel had some very important knowledge about the Marine barracks incident, but didn't share it due to the nature of the give and take relationship- we give and they take.

From the forward: "To Use this stamp would be a slap in the face to  All those AMERICANS who died at the hands of Those whom this stamp Honors."(??!!) MANY nationalities died on 9/11 (is that what they're talking about?), MANY members of MANY religious groups- they were all Americans (or maybe on visas, but you get my point). This line aims to divide Americans. This forward is a slap in the face to Americans. I'd rather boycott emails like this (but I think commenting might do more good- or at least I won't be silently complicit). Muslims serve in our armed forces and Muslims died on 9/11, alongside white, black, German, Swedish, Hispanic, Jewish, Italian, etc Americans. This makes it sound as if this stamp honors terrorists (?!)-- and Arab Americans or Muslim Americans either do not exist or cannot possibly function in a democracy or not be a terrorist in general.

On a practical note, I seriously doubt you would be offered this stamp first or as the only option at a post office anyway. When you go to the counter and ask to buy stamps, they normally just hand out the flag or bell forever stamps- or whatever is on them. If you don't want the Eid stamp on your letters, we do have the option to pick something else. At my small local post office, we usually have 5 or 6 choices and online you have ~100. And in the little vending machines, I have only seen the bell and flag type. I seriously doubt post offices will force this particular stamp on you or require you to have it on your letters.  :)  My question is--will they use this stamp to "track" Muslims? I'm joking (I think).

I take major issue with using this stamp being unpatriotic (and having all those American flags at the bottom of such a hateful message). That's ridiculous! We believe in freedom of religion, do we not? And God doesn't force Christians to obey; that is our choice (there are definitely consequences for the wrong choice... but my point is we aren't forced, we choose). This is a right as enshrined in law as our right to assemble and demonstrate, to speak our mind, to bear arms.

Sure, don't buy the stamp if you don't want it, but to pressure (or harass) others not to buy it or the post office not to sell it because you don't celebrate the holiday represented on the stamp goes against what America is all about- or should be. Our soldiers died to protect THAT right.

Where's the outrage about Hanukkah (or anything else that has appeared on a stamp that's not Christian)?? I'm sure there's a stamp for that and Christians don't celebrate that either. To be fair we should be making a scene at post offices about that, too. Otherwise, this is just about people thinking all Muslims are terrorists. I don't think that is too big of a leap. I thought we were beyond ignorance like that!

Moving on to more facts... This stamp is for the celebration or Ramadan or the Eid feast, not anything remotely associated with terrorism or any particular country. It is not unpatriotic. Ramadan emphasizes some points Christians and Americans would do well to consider, actually- what it means to be hungry, fasting, prayer, devotion, being kind, not arguing, refraining from foul speech, etc. Is this really something to get upset about or make a scene about (going in and shouting, unprovoked- "I do not want that Muslim stamp on any of my mail")? I guess you certainly have that right, but especially if you are a Christian, you should think about your motivation for doing that, how you might accomplish the same in a more self-controlled, respectful manner, and what others are going to learn from that- a Biblical concept or something opposite.

If you take issue with this as a Christian, I can maybe see that. Maybe. It's a Muslim holiday. Christians don't celebrate it. But- no need to hate it and hate Arabic and stage boycotts and and go into post offices demanding stamps with some "American" writing on it. The solution would be simply not to buy it, not to "adamantly and vocally boycott" and make a big deal about it. It's not applicable to you. Must everything be? Like the Hanukkah one. So what? We have the freedom not to buy it. Choose the flowers. Or flag. Or Elvis. Chinese New Year*. Latin Music Legends. Whatever floats your boat.
*Do be advised that the Chinese New Year one does have Chinese characters on it ;)

It's pretty American to have over 100 choices of what to mail your letters with. It's a letter for crying out loud! If there was only one design, I'd definitely think we were moving towards socialism. ;)


Edits:
-->I was so caught off guard by this one for whatever reason, I didn't mention that whether they're talking about 9/11 or Iraq (Americans dying), my points are basically the same except for the fact that I don't believe soldiers in Iraq are fighting for freedom or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. This may be clear to most, but this particular post may not have been clear.


-->I also didn't mention the differences between Islam and what terrorists practice (those who claim to kill in the name of Islam). For the most part, terrorism is political. People have a problem with foreign occupation and oppression (go figure). I think it helps them (justification, recruiting) to bring religion into it, but I certainly wouldn't inform myself on Islam from watching or listening to a terrorist who claims to kill in the name of God (in any religion).


** I didn't go into these probably because the main problem was more broad. It's definitely not that I think these issues aren't important. When I looked back at this, I felt I should have addressed them, though.





Monday, July 4, 2011

Islam in the church...and consumerism, too, I guess


Islam is sometimes mentioned in worship and Bible classes. I'm probably going to seem overly critical, but I'm just trying to sort out what's right- how should I react, what does the Bible say, should I go along with the majority? It's more of an inward criticism or conflict. Or maybe I am hypersensitive on this or maybe it's just one of those things that for me provokes thought endlessly given the political atmosphere and times. There was a lighthearted joke- not a big deal- but it made me think about the way we talk about other religions, etc. It also made me think of some less lighthearted things about Islam I've heard from people I would otherwise consider strong in the faith, as this situation always does.

I also found the strong agreement when radical Islam and suicide bombing was mentioned interesting. That made me think about buzzwords and hot topics that are often mentioned when politics and religion cross over now and then. When certain things are mentioned like abortion, gay marriage, the way culture is going down the tubes because a certain party in in the White House, and I think we can add radical Islam to the list (which is weird since it has very little to do with Islam and nothing to do with Christians), it can really animate and light a fire under a congregation. I use the conservative example here, because this is what situation I am in, but it is the same for the other side as well, I'm sure- same reaction to different buzzwords.

I mean why look at Islam so closely? Aside from the political focus, because I guess that's the real reason. Why poke fun at their beliefs- or things we think are beliefs but are really myths? I see it done with denominations occasionally, but we normally catch ourselves and say we shouldn't be doing that. Not so with Islam. It can be sort of a of a free for all. Maybe it's because when we're poking fun at denominations, we get uncomfortable when we think of a good friend who is involved with one of these groups; whereas many of us don't have this handy check and balance for Islam (I'm just guessing here).

Instead of the jokes, though, I wonder why we don't approach Islam (not just personally, but teach it), or more specifically, radical Islam (since I think this is the focus of the concern), a little more like Paul or Stephen. They both just kept on preaching the truth (wisely- in their case they had the Spirit to lead them to various cities- in our case, we have the Bible that tells us not to provoke, to be be kind, live as we are called) and Stephen even pleaded for their souls as they stoned him to death. I don't recall them spreading rumors about or laughing at their detractors as part of their teaching. They were in more immediate danger than we are from "radical Islam" and yet they were far more sensible about the whole thing (I guess that makes sense, now, doesn't it?). I don't think that they weren't afraid- not at all- but they certainly handled it well and we can and should learn volumes from that. They may have made certain arrangements in their meetings for safety, but I can't really see the superior attitude in the New Testament that I hear sometimes today.

They seemed to have a good understanding of this verse we seem to often forget:

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And also:
Romans 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

I have been seeing this focus on Islam in/by the church since the Iraq invasion or since 9/11/2001. There have been lessons, even lectureships, and of course many a post on a message board (breeding ground for sensational email forwards). Why? Maybe this is becoming one of those issues like abortion and gay marriage for which you must preach zero tolerance and draconian measures in order to be a true Republican and in some cases a true Christian? Is it a reflection of the Republican Party's obsession (see post on Muslim Hearings)?

I wonder why we have to be so concerned? It's not really such a safety issue. Yes, there are those who don't like our policies and want to kill for that. True. But nothing like Rome and Christianity back in the day- not by any means.

I do understand that we are to do this:
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

On the other hand, there are other issues (I believe) that we should be thinking more closely about than Islam or the smaller minority of radicals. Consumerism. Why do we "need" so much stuff? I'm talking about myself as much as anyone. Having been to the 3rd world, made that vow to do with less, violated said vow so quickly and easily upon return, I  reflect on it some. I think we could do with a lot less, but then in a world of excess, you'd look like you were unnecessarily depriving yourself or worse, your kids. It seems much more in style to decry Islam, abortion, or gay marriage than declaring a war on stuff. I don't think it's a sin to want that Kindle or iPad or splurge on shoes, but at some point you do cross that line. Where is the line? And I think a lot of times that line is closer than we are assuming and saying it is. We are quick to say rich people can and do enter heaven when the verses about the rich young ruler or the camel and the eye of the needle come up. Maybe for good reason. Though it might be hard, it is possible. The problem with it is that I don't hear as much in these types of discussions is how little can we do with? What can I do without? I have too much. I'm talking about myself, here, too, no question. I wonder if we should talk more about giving and buying and having less than clarifying various parables that say it's hard to get to heaven if you're rich?

Wow. This kind of ended up in a different place than I expected. And so ends another post I was going to delete, but will go ahead and post. If I deleted as many posts as I wanted to, I'd only have a handful up here! :)



Finding Nouf by Zoe Ferraris


Finding Nouf was a Middle Eastern fiction I was able to find at my small town library. It was actually a really good story. Maybe bits here and there were contrived, but it really didn't bother me because I enjoyed the story.

I have very few complaints. I was a little put off at how quickly the conservative Nayir was interested in sticking his nose in the not-so-evident crime involving Nouf. The assistant examiner he had to have contact was a woman and his friend/ employer's fiance (he finds out later) that I hadn't expected him to want to get involved with (as in talking to, not romantically). Maybe this was because I hadn't yet gotten into the story. All in all, it was a slight interruption, but wasn't a big deal.

The other thing that stuck out as a flaw to me was the food was never really mentioned. Coffee and tea were often mentioned and that was essential, so I'm glad it wasn't left out, but I think descriptions of food seemed scarce. When we met the American at his house and food was offered, there was some elaboration. In the "families welcome" restaurant, "The Big Mix," the word lunch was used rather than any description of food. I realize food may have been left out because it wasn't the focus of the meeting, etc, but I think it's an essential detail to help us like the characters. What do they eat? What do they like? How does the food in front of them remind them of food from where they are originally from? How do the smells remind them of other experiences? It's an essential part of knowing the characters and it was missing a lot of the time. (Admittedly, the last fiction I read was Crescent, in which food was a major element- but, still!)

Also, it was handy that the main character's uncle happened to have some scientific equipment in his basement- a mass spec of all things and enough stuff to process crime scene samples. That was weird. And kind of unnecessary. Less obvious was Miss Hijazi's job as a tech in a crime lab. It made the story possible, moved it along, but wasn't contrived. It brought an element of women's lib to the table, so she was a great character.

As I mentioned, I did enjoy the mystery very much. I also enjoyed the glimpse into a slice of Saudi culture and the variety of people and attitudes that make up Saudi society. Royalty, the rich, the progressive, the truly and falsely devout, the religious police, vigilantes, Bedouins, and immigrants (the eye doctor and Nayir) were among those discussed.

Several subjects in Middle Eastern culture were woven into the story: hospitality; modesty; attitude toward Americans; helping the American would have been as bad as touching her skin; attitude towards immigrants- even from other Arab countries; contact between or segregation of men and women; women working- various attitudes about it; women driving, escorts/ drivers; concept of such constraints bringing on depravity they were meant to guard against; underground/ hidden brothels and bars; double standards such as it's not as bad to sleep with a non-Muslim prostitute as a Muslim one; there was an interesting but short discussion of the interpretation of the veil- what is should cover- face, bosom, etc (I'd never really heard that one before); there was some Arabic interspersed, which I enjoyed, but I could have done with more! Some of these I I was familiar with, a few were new, some I still didn't understand- all were well done.

I would definitely recommend it. The author is an American who was once married into a Saudi Palestinian Bedouin family. I thought the book was great considering this; I would still like to read more by Arab authors to compare and contrast treatment of various issues like women, religion, etc.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

US flotilla to Gaza!


Here's the flotilla site:
http://ustogaza.org/


A US State Department rep is saying that aid not necessary. (?) Aid should go through "proper" channels. (?) I guess to say aid is necessary is to admit Israel is doing something wrong and the US is giving them money to oppress people. We can't have that... well, wait...we can't admit that, now can we?

Israel? The Occupying Power? The proper channel is to go through the oppressor and trust them to provide anywhere near adequately for the people it is subjugating? Do you think they are qualified to be fair when they've calculated the number of calories it takes for people to survive (not thrive and be healthy?)? What about that previous track record, complete with humanitarian crisis??

See: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/02/the-no-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza-canard/

This feels awkward, posting my own link, but history tends to repeat itself more frequently in this conflict than in the larger world. Here's the pasta post with the rather ridiculous exchange of someone asking the State Department why pasta isn't allowed. It kind of highlights a broader point, though, I think:
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/06/prohibited-items-in-gaza-what-is.html

Also see humanitarian situation on the sidebar...

Israel has always gotten around crimes of oppression and occupation by saying they have left Gaza. They aren't occupying it. They have unilaterally withdrawn (also known to officials as "political formaldehyde" meant to stall negotiations). Who is buying that, anyway? What's the big deal, then? Let Gaza accept the aid on its shores since Gaza is "free" and Israeli waters aren't involved! Or can we get them to admit they are really still occupying all of Palestine? You can't have it both ways. Unless you are Israel.


Clinton's puzzling take:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters Friday that she didn't think the plan "is useful or productive or helpful to the people of Gaza."
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-24/us/us.gaza.flotilla_1_mavi-marmara-ihh-gaza-strip?_s=PM:US





Greek government obviously isn't up for this challenge due to concerns at home and folds:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/07/01-3


Physical sabotage and psychological, too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13977371


Israel refuses to deny sabotage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwYO0XEUpWY



Israel threatening journalists:

He said journalists who participated in the flotilla would be breaking Israeli law and would be banned from Israel for 10 years, as well as facing confiscation of equipment and other measures.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/26/israel-accused-gaza-flotilla-journalists

Israel backing away from threat:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/27/us-palestinians-israel-flotilla-idUSTRE75Q1MF20110627



Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Me, the stay at home mom?


I should note that this was started when I gave my notice at the end of May. I almost deleted it, but instead I've added some and tried to make it more readable. I guess I'll hit post now.

I probably should have numbered this since it doesn't flow all that well. Kind of like my working mom mind. Here goes:



So I've taken the first step to becoming a stay at home mom. I've given my notice. The day I did, it was all I could do to keep the chunks down. I didn't know how everyone would react- and didn't want to know really. It's not like announcing a pregnancy where you know you have a limited time to tell people before they just find out and are insulted that you didn't say anything. And by the way, I apologize if you are finding this news out only my reading this and are in any way offended. :) I guess I think most of the time, people don't care and I don't want to find out that they don't care by telling them and seeing how underwhelmed they are. I generally like flying under the radar. No one expects a whole lot, you come, you go. Very low fuss and low stress as far as fuss-related stress goes.

I often wonder how life at home will be. Up until now, we've left things undone and we've said, "that's ok, both of us work" and so there's no blame. Now, if things don't get done, it's going to be my fault. Also, up to now, we've shared household tasks pretty well. We complain about the way each other does or doesn't do things, but there is that understanding there that since both of us are away from the house the same amount of time, we've both got to be doing everything for this to work. I do understand and agree that I'll pick up more responsibilities; I just hope things don't get out of hand... Also,  I'm nowhere near as confident in the kitchen is my husband. Will I ever get comfortable? At least maybe now I'll be able to find stuff- anything-  if I'm the one putting it there. Will I end up doing nothing? Will I pick up do at home jobs (yeah, right, I've been searching for this for years and now they will fall from the sky!)? I know people say stay at home motherhood is a full time job, but,- it's not that I don't believe them, I do- how full exactly when I'm used to doing a million and one things, remembering a million and one things, being here and there and everywhere at work and home? It probably won't be less crazy, but different crazy, realistically. I'm kind of hoping for less crazy, though. I could do with that for a bit.

How much of my worth is tied up in work? I didn't think much before, since I don't have a high-powered job or anything close. But when I stop earning a paycheck I wonder if I'll feel like I have to ask permission all the time or if I'll think less of myself. Worse, what if my husband thinks less of me. I don't think he will, but I've never been there. There is what other people think, too, but that matters less. I hope. I feel good about my reasons for quitting work. I want to be involved in their education in a way I wouldn't have been able to before. Who am I kidding- I just want to see them! I keep thinking of things I want to learn and go back to school for and possible career changes. Will that stop, I wonder? There is the fringe benefit of my husband and I getting to see a bit more of each other. It's not like I don't want to work anymore, though I may be a tad burned out at the moment...

I'm reading I Don't Know How She Does It. Good timing. It would have depressed me (or infuriated me), though, if I'd read it before I knew my quitting was possible (the main character ends up quitting, surprisingly). Or maybe it would have made me feel better that others feel some of the working mom guilt (even if the character is fictional). The things she mentions about being embarrassed about not knowing what your kids' favorite things are at all times, guilt over missing so much of their babyhood, the chaos during the times you do see them- as though they cram weeks' worth of emotion (the whole spectrum) and need for attention into such a small amount of time- and then the guilt over wishing for "me time" because of the intensity and acting out. Another bit that was so familiar- the main character makes mental lists all the time. I do this every night! Random things that need doing with the house, things to pick up at the store, birthday plans, cleaning, long-term, short-term, recurring items... I've never done what she did with the buying baked goods and bashing them up to make them look homemade, though. I just opt for feeling guilty bringing store bought stuff or feel guilty for bringing nothing and hope no one wants to discuss what everyone brought...

On a larger scale, I wonder how many years I'm setting back women's equality? Especially if a man takes my place? Maybe that's overly dramatic, but I've seen a lot of women do what I just did and what if that continues? I can't say this was a huge concern, but it ran through my mind more than once. I tend to think me taking up space here in the "world of work" (thanks 8th grade careers class for that bit of vocabulary) is progress in a (cheesy) way. Anyway, education leads to both better conditions for women in general and women working outside the home. If fewer of us work outside the home, maybe fewer will be educated and we'll be undervalued ...again. Hopefully we've reached a baseline of education where we realize that men's and women's lives are equally valuable, whatever our choice after the education, unlike in some parts of the world where only boys are vaccinated, educated, and valued in general.


 I will miss the people I've worked with past and present, the multicultural education (for me) and ever changing face of the lab, the pride of knowing you do something well and the challenge of trying. Goodbye to Gyro Thursdays, random beeping of freezers, parking in Mongolia, giant brownies,  dodging the hackey sack on the way to the bathroom, mouse surgery with good conversation, the smell of bacteria in the morning... There are obviously things I'll miss more than others :) but overall, I'm ready!

Monday, June 27, 2011

NPR's Fresh Air on the Arab Spring- skip it

So I was listening to this Fresh Air piece. It certainly is no Diane Rehm Show:


Terry Gross seems to think things like protests inspired by the Arab Spring and the Palestinians' bid for recognition at the UN is going to undermine peace talks. She makes that clear right off the bat. She's not the only one, true, but it's her job to try and tear things like this apart, not get behind them and toe the line and push it on us (like Iraq and the media was- not necessarily Fresh Air specifically in that case).

Annoyingly, Terry Gross is fixated (and I mean really wouldn't let it go!) on Hamas, but on the other hand, her guest was pretty cool.

The guest and his NGO, International Crisis Group sounded pretty interesting, though. The NGO makes recommendations to governments about various conflicts (in Malley's case, ME and N Africa). For Malley's part, his father was Jewish and an Arab nationalist. He was not a fan of the US, but wanted his kids US educated. He moved to France, but was so critical of them he was expelled.

They did discuss something interesting in that the Palestinians leadership has played a role in quelling the uprisings and protests because they aren't completely sure the people won't turn against them as well as Israel. I guess this is the problem with the Arab leadership in most cases, though.

One item Gross brought up was the UN Resolution for a Palestinian state. What is it meant to do, she asks. Membership in the UN will be blocked by US. I guess this is her point. The best they can do is get General Assembly countries to recognize the Palestinian state. I say go for it.

The resolution is being discussed because of Arab despair about the process- so the guest says. For one thing, Netanyahu won’t recognize the infamous 1967 borders, saying they are “indefensible.” He also goes into Israel’s reaction. The resolution will make Israel mad since they believe it to be circumventing negotiations- which seems to be the opinion of many in the US and any other "expert" out there. I think that's a bunch of garbage.

Well, I take that back. Maybe it is actually circumventing negotiations, but when that is absolutely the only way, why demonize those who want to move forward (or circumvent)? Are negotiations really the way to go? Not to mention going to the UN makes total sense. Why not go to the very body that the British went to when they were tired of governing and wanted to partition it (between and owners and a minority)? Why not go to the body who recognized Israel? Why not go to the body that told Israel to give back what it took in 1967? Why not go to the body that guaranteed refugees the right of return and said settlements were illegal before they were even built? 





(And negotiations! Funny one should talk about and be so attached to those when you think about the history of this thing. Jews come in, decide they want land and take it. So, the fair thing would be to send them packing, but that's not going to happen. In my book, that's already quite a concession. Israel has been dealt with more than fairly; let's see what Palestinians can be offered. Maybe I misunderstand negotiations, though. Maybe it's more about what you can trick people into accepting more than it is about fairness and justice in the give and take?)

Why not go to the UN when Palestinians have offered to give away the right of return (besides a symbolic number), Jerusalem, allow all settlements but a few, and everything else and Israel's answer is still no, we want those settlements, too?

And then Israeli despair is mentioned – because they have discussed Palestinians' despair for awhile, after all. Malley seems to think Israeli despair is warranted and they have a right to wonder when Palestinians will seize the opportunity? Seize the opportunity!? What opportunity are they talking about? You mean the time(s) Palestinians have offered to give up Jerusalem, all but one settlement, all but a symbolic number of refugees returning, the transfer of all Palestinian Israelis to a tiny , non-contiguous, permanent state of occupation- and have been refused because they didn’t meet all of Israel’s demands?? Is that the opportunity we’re talking about, here? If justice were ever on the table, perhaps there would be something to seize!

A common theme (both sides are to blame) reappears when Malley talks about both sides’ despair causing the deadlock. Maybe this is true in a way, but saying both sides are at fault and believe this or that ignores what is truly going on, the power dynamic, the biases, the actual possibilities, etc. It equalizes a situation that is very definitely not equal.

I did appreciate the nuance when it came to the American position. Of course we have the usual reason(s) to veto this thing, but Malley discussed two interesting reasons a veto might be a bad idea:

1. Obama has worked harder than some at repairing US-Arab relations. He gave some great speeches for sure, but action has been a little hesitant and sparse. If we veto something Arab nations support 99%, our words will mean nothing.

2. Obama may be "forced" to veto a resolution on a Palestinian state at the very time he said he'd love to welcome one- Sept 2011. He said that in 2010 in the General Assembly, I think.


And, here, our friend Terry takes it back to Hamas.

She is concerned that one thing that might make the UN vote complicated is the unity government with Fatah and Hamas since Hamas doesn't recognize Israel or its right to exist. If Hamas is part of the Palestinian government, she wants to know what that would mean for relations with Israel.

Good question, Terry. Or not. I was happy to see her effectively shut down on this point. Malley tells her this is a pretext. There hasn't been a peace process for some time, so Hamas isn't the reason things are going wrong.

She interrupts - laughing, clearly unconvinced by this argument and determined to have Hamas denounced as often as possible - "it certainly can't help!" She really wants agreement and discussion on how bad Hamas is, here. She continues on about how having Hamas in the government is a setback. After all, how do you negotiate with someone who refuses to recognize your right to exist?

I don't know, Terry. Ask the Palestinians! Israel doesn't seem to think even the Palestinians within its borders (let alone those in a future Palestine) deserve human/equal rights and yet Palestinians are still expected to come to the table, make concessions, recognize rights and characteristics of Israel that Israel won't, in turn, recognize for Palestinians. No one (considered credible, pro-Israel, non-anti-Semitic, that is) ever asks, "how can Palestinians take talks seriously unless Israel does x, y and z."

Malley responds well in that he makes a broader point about the Palestinian division being bad for all- they can't implement agreements or speak for all of their people, etc- rather than just agree completely with Terry's anti-Hamas rant. But then again he's an expert in conflict resolution... :)

She asked the guest about his conflict resolution process, which actually involves talking to all sides, imagine that, and asked why on earth he'd want to talk to Hamas. What is his "ambition" in that? He did explain that he hadn't recommended the US talk to Hamas (I bet Terry was jumping up and down), but he thought there needed to be a channel of communication so that they knew what was expected should they be included in discussions at some point. This is much more sensible than some previous messages out of Washington- if you're not with us, you're against us; we don't negotiate with terrorists; and other such nonsense that aims to exclude (some of the) people that have to be a part of any solution.

Malley also makes a great point about the Arab Spring and domestic vs foreign policy. People thought that the proof that the Arab Spring was about domestic rather than foreign policy was that no American or Israeli flags were burned, but that's not quite the whole truth. If it wasn't about foreign policy (and Israel-Palestine) as well, regimes like Egypt wouldn't be changing like they are- becoming more representative of the population- and choosing to open the border with Gaza, broker a unity deal with Fatah and Hamas, and have better relations with Iran. Again, good point. I've also heard people try and say the Israel-Palestine thing has nothing to do with the Arab Spring. How much the conflict is affected by it remains to be seen- Palestinians have to figure out whether to get rid of their leadership first or Israel. And there's yet another division to dilute the movement.

Malley has made a ton of great points, but I don't agree with this next one. He talks about Netanyahu's stance and the deadlock and then about taking a step back, finding out what went wrong, find out what the parties want that they haven't been getting in negotiations. This is obvious to me. For Palestinians: JUSTICE! For Israel, they've proven they want all of their demands met or they will say no. I don't think it's time to step back. It's time to pressure Israel.

When asked about the future, he says a few things that people generally don't mention, at least specifically, which was refreshing. He says Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlers are usually talked about rather than to and that these people need to be represented in talks. Iraq and Afghanistan are mentioned and I cringed, but perhaps he's talking about how we took a step back and changed course- then I'd agree. The other two items or suggestions were considering internal Palestinian politics and the less specific getting past feeling like we know what the solution looks like, let's finish up. I know he's probably not thinking along these lines, but the last one made me think about one state. It is not the shape people are thinking the solution will take anymore, but it is the most fair and sensible. When you look at how many problems it solves, I think most people could really get behind it. Both people would absolutely have to be committed to the survival of the other. Some people might think that's unrealistic or naive. I don't.

Either just before or just after the talk of future direction, they talk about the UN Resolution again. It won't mean much on the ground, but more will recognize Palestine and that it is under occupation. True, but I think it's a step. Palestine could possibly go to the UN and officially accuse Israel of occupying it, petition for redress, Israelis would face more fears for arrest while traveling in Europe, etc. Good stuff. Then, Malley states that he wants a resolution more like Obama's recent speech. A whole lot of nothing. No way!

Terry then tries again with the Hamas thing and the UN Resolution fears. Inspired by the Obama speech nonsense no doubt, she asks if a resolution that is less damaging to Israel (as though the one proposed pushes Israel into the sea!), one that also recognizes Israel's right to exist, would be less scary for the US, less likely to be vetoed. She laughs when she asks if Hamas would support such a thing. Perhaps if a just solution were ever on the table, we'd see a different side of Hamas, but we haven't had to worry about that. I'm glad she's not a negotiator! I disagree with Malley that this sort of resolution is a good idea- he and Terry love the idea. He does come through with a sensible point, though. What is usually demanded is that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence, abide by past agreements and they respond (or non-respond) by saying Israel doesn't do these; why should we? I don't think Malley really takes this as a serious argument like I do, but he at least realizes there is a way around it; re-frame it so that you call for mutual recognition, mutual cease fire, mutual abiding by agreements (which involves referendum by the people). Now that's actually replacing a kind of silly approach where you pack up and go home because Hamas (and hence all Palestinians of course) won't do what you want, with an actual solution.

I think I would have enjoyed this interview much more had someone like Diane Rehm or Dick Gordon done it. Someone who didn't have to ask about Hamas every other time. I mean, really. Give it up. Maybe there are other reasons for the failures. I'm no fan of Hamas, but maybe Israel had something to do with it? No?




Thursday, June 23, 2011

terrorist of freedom fighter?

So this question frequently comes up (at least for me) since I live in an environment almost as biased toward Israel as Israel itself- maybe more- and I have very different feelings about the matter, having read a bit about the history and causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I was listening to the radio (podcast, since I'm hopelessly behind on my daily news fix) - an interfaith marriage piece about a Catholic and a Jew. I enjoyed it for the most part, but when the Catholic described her spouse's parent as a Jewish "pioneer" in Palestine, it struck me as odd. I mean, this person was probably a part of the gangs that, using weapons supplied by Jewish groups all over the world, massacred and cleaned out entire villages of its Palestinian residents and chased many of the rest out on the fear of such atrocities. If this Jewish pioneer wasn't in that group, he or she was almost certainly in the group that walked into (and took/stole as their own) houses that had been vacated only days, weeks or months before with shelves stocked with food and dishes still on the table as though their owners just left for a few hours! How could you move into a house that looked like someone had left in a hurry and thought the land had no people (land without people for people without a land myth) and it was ok for you to take it?? You have to have been lied to and been very naive or lying to yourself.

We freely talk of Jewish pioneers and the necessity and fundamental right of Israel's security in this country. When you describe Palestinians fighting for their rights as freedom fighters, people look at you as though you are a terrorist yourself because you have obviously just expressed support for terrorism. There have been many UN resolutions saying Palestinian refugees can go home (after '48), Israel has to stay in the '67 borders, Jerusalem is to be shared. All laws and conventions governing war and human rights say refugees can go home and the Occupying Power can't transfer its population to the territory it occupies, etc. Palestinians had a history of non-violent protest (general strikes, protests, etc) before the suicide bombing years and I'm happy to see a resurgence in the popularity of non-violent protest. I just wonder why it is ok for us to expect that after so much injustice that Palestinians would bow down before and kiss the feet of Israelis and Americans who offer pseudo-states, demilitarized entities and occupation enshrined in law? Why are Jews who wipe out villages of hundreds of people heroes and pioneers and a Palestinian who bombs a pizza parlor is without question a terrorist? Why would we expect Palestinians to lay down arms in the face of oppression and injustice when Americans fought the British over the same things? In a few short weeks we'll be celebrating this very thing!

I guess it boils down to the fact that the winner writes history (but I ask, should it?). Look at our Thanksgiving story. In school, we're basically taught through pictures and activities and such that pilgrims and indians sat at a giant picnic table with a cornucopia and a table crammed with food. Everyone ate, talked and had a blast. They taught us about growing corn and gave us seeds. We taught them how to wear our more civilized pilgrim outfits. And we all lived happily ever after. This is the story the winners write to make ourselves feel better. And then there is the truth of the matter...


And so all these thoughts from one sentence. Welcome to my world! :)

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Muslim hearings

All this talk of the GOP talking about Muslims and sharia reminded me of those silly hearings going on in Washington.

King's defense: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/10/nation/la-na-muslim-house-hearing-20110311

We could be talking about how to cut the budget. Here's an idea to free up a few billion:



Another interesting link:


Here's my March reaction to the first round of nonsense:


The modern Committee on Un-American Activities? Yikes! If this is a preview of a Republican White House, I'm scared.

Always one step behind... Bush was stuck in the cold war; today's Republicans are caught up to Muslims being the new Communists... They have yet to realize the problem isn't Islam- it's our irresponsible, discriminatory and/or contradictory policies and occupation! 


Some say the GOP has an obsession. They might just be right about that.

GOP Debate- June 2011

June 13 Republican debate:

One thing that caught my attention was how the subject of sharia law came up in a GOP debate. It's quite obvious they don't really know what sharia law even is. And that, I suppose, is what makes it such a great point to bring up to rally the base.

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."


Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?


CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.


And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.


And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.


Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -


(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)


CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.


KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.


What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.


CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?


KING: Please let's make it clear.


CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --


KING: When I asked -- I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn't you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew? CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it's not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.


Just after this portion, Romney chimes in with a very reasonable response. I guess there is at least one serious candidate, here. I wasn't at all sure.

He only looked stronger when Pawlenty refused to discuss his references to Obamneycare (the other interesting point of the debate) as it directly relates to the candidate. It was a prime opportunity and he missed it. Hmmm...I wonder if this is indicative of his style? This was handed to him on a silver platter; nothing in the election race or Presidency will be that easy... The image that came to mind was of a perfect baseball pitch where the batter hits the deck and covers his head with his arms instead of going for the home run...  :)


***

So what is sharia law anyway?  Well, you might start thinking about Muslims chopping off Westerners' heads. This is one of the things I think of (besides the actual definition, which is also far from chopping off limbs):

I read a book, I believe (not sure though, as I read a few around that time) it was Kai Bird's Crossing Mandelbaum Gate in which the author gives an example of sharia law being implemented:

A guy is in a car crash and causes the death of another man. In the West, he'd be in jail for manslaughter. It was described in the book that sharia actually caused less suffering and more healing in that the decision was to have the survivor take care of the man's parents and siblings because a big part of their income was lost with the other man's death. I don't know if the following was part of the official decision or it's just what happened, but the dead man's family ended up treating him like a son.

This could help explain (also has a definition of sorts):

 
***

One other GOP item of note:

Michele Bachmann just announced her candidacy. She was one of those I thought would be a Palin or Trump. Too sensational; not much substance. I have gotten a few of her emails. This was a FB post of mine:
Not sure why I'm getting emails from Michele Bachmann, but this is going to be a fun election season. Funniest parts: the words "money bomb" (as in donate to it), "betrayal of Israel" (??), and reference to diplomacy as "gallivanting". Socialism, Obamacare and prayer (as in this is a difference between conservatives and liberals, we good-you baaad) were also in there, but those made me yawn instead of giggle.