excerpts. : politics

Wolfram|Alpha & AZ Crime Rates

hussain — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:15:00 GMT

This is a test of a very simple Wolfram|Alpha beta widget about Arizona Crime Rates:

Islam in the News Roundup

hussain — Sat, 01 May 2010 20:33:00 GMT

My brother's a graduate student at University of Chicago who gets opportunities to speak at various events, including this one, "Sundays at Rockefeller." Being a graduate student, the news isn't always as prominent in his noise stream as for us civilians (lucky him), so when he asked me:

Abbas: have any policians or media figures said anything really nutso about islam lately? :)

I practically jumped out of my seat.

So, for you, dear readers, I present Islam in the News Roundup.

Belgium bans the Veil, France trying to follow, Christian Science Monitor 04/30/2010

"The burqa has no place in France" - French President Nicholas Sarkozy. Previously, Swiss voters barred Muslims from building minarets in a referrendum held in December.
"Once we solve the burqa problem, we'll still have the problem of polygamy, of praying in the streets of big cities, of banning pork from cafeterias, in short all the sectarian demands the French are confronted with daily" - French far right leader, Marine Le Pen
Belgian lawmakers vote to ban full-face veils in public, Washington Post, 04/30/2010

Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son, booted from 05/06/2010 Pentagon prayer service for calling Islam a "very violent religion," and Sarah Palin defending him

Army Disinvites Franklin Graham from National Day of Prayer Event, ABC News, 04/22/2010
Army spokesman Col. Tom Collins said, “Army leadership became aware of the issue and immediately recognized it was problematic. ” He added, “This Army honors all faiths and tries to inculcate our soldiers and work force with an appreciation of all faiths and his past comments just were not appropriate for this venue.

Not to be out done, the Congress invites Franklin Graham to speak at their 05/06 prayer service

Richard Cohen, some WaPo journalist, has this great wacky take in The Pentagon plays mind games with Muslims, 04/21/2010: "The Pentagon is trying to drive the Muslim world crazy."

Franklin Graham affirms concerns of critics, appears on Fox to proselytize against Muslims., Think Progress, 04/22/2010
This link has the YouTube of Franklin on Fox

"And so yes I speak out for women, I speak out for people who live under Islam, who are enslaved under Islam, and I want them to know they can be free by Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone."

Congress Urged to Drop Evangelist From Event, AOL News

Sarah Palin Defends Franklin Graham, Criticizes Pentagon For Disinviting Him From Prayer Day, Huffington Post, 04/23/2010
Sarah Palin's response, The Army's Loss in Dis-Inviting a Good Man, on Fasebook, 04/23/2010

Great contrast between the military, who's supposed to be apolitical and the Congress, who's nothing but pandering political simps. Apart from the WashPo story on how the military's move could be psyops, it's a good example as to how "political Islam" is more of a term applicable to how non-muslims handle Islam in America. Oh, and earlier in Apirl a federal court ruled that the National Day of Prayer, established by Congress in 1952, was unconstitutional on separation of church and state grounds.
Other super smooth comments by Franklin include:

"I don't believe this is a wonderful, peaceful religion."

"wicked, violent and not of the same God."

Last on this topic, I'm aware that most of the links are to "lefty" blogs/newspapers. Clearly, like tons of armed white men tea partying on Washington, anti-Islam rhetoric is ignorable by most white America and a given in the media.

The Pope, trying to get out from under pedophiles and his 2006 comments regarding Islam, states you have to work with Islam
Pope: African church must work with Islam, UPI, 04/30/2010

In an audience Thursday at the Vatican with bishops from Gambia, Sierra Leone and Liberia, the pope urged them to "continue to promote dialogue with other religions and above all with Islam," the Italian news agency ANSA reported.

Here, I'm not so clear whether he means the full Church or just those in Africa.

Tariq Ramadan, banned from taking a tenured position at Notre Dame during the Bush administration has his travel restrictions removed by the Obama administration.

Formerly Banned Muslim Scholar Tours U.S., 04/29/2010
Although he's touring in the US, he says he wouldn't now teach in the US (New York Mag, 04/08/2010) - exactly what he was going to do in 2004. He's now at Oxford. That's a step up, I'd say. Some decent commentary by Ramadan about the past administration and how Islam is viewed in America or Europe from someone on the outside, literally.

Last, but not least, Ayatollah Sedighi who said that indecent fashion causes earthquakes.

Do immodestly dressed women really cause earthquakes?, Fitsnews, 04/27/2010. This link has cleavage!
Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women cause quakes, AP, 04/19/2010
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi was quoted as saying by Iranian media.
A minor footnote is the media getting all excited about some girl who created a Fasebook page and called it Boobquake. Yawn.

If American politicians and talking heads can condescend and pander to special interest groups, what's wrong with a little red meat from an Ayatollah (or, I guess that'd be, a little less red meat)? This is a non-story, except that it's a hilarious cultural / rhetorical difference fault point that lots of people can stuff their personal peccadillos into (that's what she said!), such as feminism, supposed oppression of women, ignorance, blah blah, boring.

I guess anything that gets women to highlight their boobies can't be bad. Rock on Hujjat al-Islam Sedighi.

Mark Twain, still relevant

hussain — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:44:00 GMT

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.
- Mark Twain

Letter to Mrs Foote, Dec. 2, 1887

Feel free to apply to coworkers, consultants, management, work, politicians, etc.

Kindle, USGovt, Afghanistan

hussain — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:33:00 GMT

As I was getting ready for work today, I had the Kindle read to me the top article in today's WSJ, "U.S. Courts Former Warlords in Its Bid for Afghan Stability". I had also been contemplating also writing another "Six Degrees of Bin Laden" with the Haqqanni movement as that's making some news and it's a game I invented but then I heard Kindle robot TTS voice read this quote* and it struck me.

"Every politician in Afghanistan is a thief, but our governor doesn't take all the money for himself. He is building our city," says Shafeeq Azizi, a 37-year-old shop owner in Jalalabad. "Why does it trouble me if he gets rich?"

Mr. Azizi was lounging with friends in one of the Jalalabad parks restored by Mr. Shirzai's administration. Across the street is a park Mr. Shirzai built for women. A few miles away stands Shirzai Stadium. There's a new mall, new stoplights and refurbished mosques in many neighborhoods.

Critics say the governor's strengths and weaknesses are often one and the same. "He wants something and he says, 'Build it.' There is no plan," said Haji Wahid, who owns a construction company. He says he sees no long-term vision behind Mr. Shirzai's rebuilding efforts.

Parts of the US Government are tribal.

And not in any good connotation. Particularly our government's IT divisions. They're not just protected, entitled fiefdoms, an analogy whose European roots softens the devastation and criticism that it should bring, but actual tribal land grabs by people who have no idea what effective IT means but think they do because they can use a Blackberry like Obama or love their iPhone.

Here's how it should run. And by "it" I mean the Afghan situation and not our government IT's situation, since that's well in hand by people who think they know what they're doing, puls Web 2.0 ftw, data transparency and Vivek Kundra's back on the job. (Petty "warlords" watch out.)

When analysing situations like this a review of history's always helpful. Here's one slice of history that looks like it might be applicable: The aftermath of the British Raj and the subsequent upheaval in India and Pakistan eventually leading to an India where large wealthy families (Tata, etc) control multiple industries in a monopoly grip. The latter half of that statement resembles the US with our monopoly-families, too, which should give some indication where I'm going here. Granted, in both Iraq and Afghanistan (and most elsewhere), we - America - are not colonialists like the Brits, French, Germans, Dutch, etc and I'd argue our methods are less damaging, but that's another debate and another post.

The process at hand is this:

Tribal succession -> Tribally appointed, Elections -> Elections where Tribal relationships may still have sway -> "Free and Fair" Elections.

In the western world we may think we're so far advanced that we don't deal with fiefdoms anymore - we're beyond that process and that management style is retrograde or deprecated. It's not, we (westerners) just don't do it any more nor do we do it well. They (middleasternerners) do. There may be a value judgment in saying one style is better than another and I'll leave that up to someone's masters/phd thesis, but one fact is true: "Democracy" and "tribal consensus rule" don't interface well at an economic point. It's much better to have two democracies (or political structures loosely framed around democratic principles) interacting than disparate political systems (china-us, etc.). To this point, if we or for that matter Afghanistan, themselves, want to get to a more "democratic" style of political system, they'll have to go through the above transitional phases and we'll have to honor and recognize that those phases will happen. Whining (from western governments and western NGO "democracy watch dogs") does not and will not help phase transitioning, it'll just be annoying.

Currently tribal succession is in play. We'll have to let it happen. For example, the Jamal Baba Construction Co., part owned by Mr. Shirzai's son, Jaan Agh mentioned in the article will have to undergo economic pressure and engagement to become a company that has influence in the region. That'll allow external democratic organizations (whether external to Kandahar and Nangahar provinces or external to Afghanistan) exert some influence. The influence could be democratic-leaning or possibly Talib-leaning. That pressure, if properly exercised, will lead to another political round wherein the region'll be able to assess the benefits of a more open economic and political model and then continue down the tribal-democratic spectrum. Note India's example - Tata, Mittal, etc are all still in place, mostly unregulated from a monopoly stance - India's still not at "free and fair." One could also argue that Japan's kiretsus haven't reached the fullness of the "democratic" spectrum yet, either, after their rebuilding. Some countries don't want to go all the way and we should recognize and accept that. Will we, though?

* Here's the quote (wav format) using my Say This app.

Still going into the same area, with robots

hussain — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:51:00 GMT

"Peshawar — Top Al-Qaeda Commander Abu Kash is among the 30 dead when suspected US drone fired two missiles at a house of a tribesman in Essory area, two kilometer short off tehsil Mir Ali in North Waziristan Agency Friday night."

Drones again strike NWA, 30 killed Senior Qaeda leader among dead - Pakistan Observer

People might note from reading this blog, Mir Ali is where Hamza Rabia - an AQ plotter who tried to kill Musharraf in 2003 - was killed via Predator drones on 12/03/2005, in Asorai/Asoray/Essory, a suburb of Mir Ali (33 1 16 N, 70 17 21 E). The military cantonment in Mir Ali (where Pakistani troops hide) is at 32 59 0 N, 70 15 37 E.

This blog's Terror category
Musharraf Confirms Rabia's Death, 12/03/2005

Carter: Peanut Farmer, Oracle, Hero

hussain — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:33:00 GMT

President Carter is again saying things that no one wants to hear - Israel's a human rights abuser (the irony) and they have nuclear weapons. Never mind that he pointed out the first middle east oil crisis and people ignored that, more or less. They'll do the same with these two nuggets of obvious. All he has left to point out is that Israel's been destablizing the middle east since it got there, and he'll probably disappear from the press without even a *poof*.

Israel has '150 nuclear weapons', BBC

The Top 1%

hussain — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:31:00 GMT

The other day, on the Democratic debates, again I heard Obama and Clinton railing against the "top 1%" with regards to tax cuts. I've heard this before and pretty much just ignored it, on the assumption that, being an information worker, I may not be the "top 1%" but I sure do like them, and it can't be that bad that they're getting tax cuts or even benefiting from them.

So who are these "top 1%" people? Looking around the web, I came across Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez's article "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998" (updated to 2003). Here are some numbers (from 2005):

Category	Income Threshold	Average Income	Number of Families
Bottom 90%		$29,487	131 M
Top 10%	$99,234	$114,802	7.3 M
Top 5%	$140,125	$195,742	5.8 M
Top 1%	$350,501	$425,821	729 K
Top 0.5%	$545,933	$871,546	583 K
Top 0.1%	$1,722,926	$3,342,190	131 K
Top 0.01%	$9,585,704	$26,340,290	14.6 K

Full Population of people 145 million, average income $46,820
Bottom 90% 131 million, average income $28,947

We see them all the time - car cealers, the nightly news anchor in a decent sized metro (Denver, for example), your doctor. We all probably know someone that's in the top 1%, if it's not our parents, then it's our friends parents. Some of us even have college roommates who're now doctors or lawyers.

Piketty and Saez propose that progressive taxation, after the Great Depression and the two World Wars, kept the rebound of the top shares of income and wealth low to the point of not recovering to their pre WWI levels. Even though recent technology (the computer revolution) has been more favorable to the gains of the upper income shares than in other periods through their study (1913 - 2003), the effects of progressive taxation has managed to keep that low. They even mention that "any positive capital income tax rate above a given high threshold of wealth will eventually eliminate all large wealth holdings without affecting, however, the total capital stock in the economy" - in other words, if I'm reading this right, you can tax the very rich out of existance. One might say, looking at their charts, that we already have a massive discrepancy in wealth. They go on to say "[o]ur results suggest that the decline in income tax progressivity since the 1980s, the reduction in the tax rate for dividend income in 2003, and the projected repeal of the estate tax by 2011 might produce again in a few decates levels of wealth concentration similar to those of the beginning of the twentieth century."

Some factors that retarded the rebounding of wealth after WW1 and Great Depression

Corporate Taxation pre WW2
Increased enforcement of anti-trust law after 1930
WW2

The question for me is not "what causes income disparity?" or "what caused the income disparity?" but "how the heck do I get up that ladder?"

Implications regarding the Iraq/Afghanistan war, or any other "war rumblings" (Iran, etc.)

War hurts the economy and the wealthy in ways that are long term and disrupt predictive analysis

Implications regarding the upcoming election

Democrats, who look to eliminate the repeal of the estate tax and increase taxes, will enivitably hurt the wealthy and possibly the viability of this country

Implications regarding moving up the ladder

Have capital income - buy and hold stocks, and set a profit target to sell - even though wars and progressive taxation slow the potential
Have dividend income - buy and hold stocks that pay a dividend - even though wars and progressive taxation slow the potential
Keep working - modern times requires that even the wealthy keep working. For me, a corollary appeared: Since I don't like what I do, this is saying that there's no reality to my "escape dream" (I'll eventually have enough compounded interest or dividend income to just "stop working") and that aphorisms like "love your job" and "find a job you love to do" take on a bitter edge. Note to self: Change careers (after making a bunch of money).
Don't just be a worker - own your own business

Reading on the Kindle

Reading on the Kindle's a joy and easy - I read more with a techno treat.
Mobipocket PDF conversion messed up the paragraph and section spacing, running all the text together. Further, it placed the footnotes in-line with other text and breaks up the flow of the article. The net effect was annoying, but it kept me engaged, otherwise I'd have gotten bogged down in the econotechnical details and fallen asleep. (Ok, I did actually fall asleep once.)
I was able to look up words I was unfamiliar with using the Kindle's internal dictionary which was helpful. I'd already gone to my computer and Google by the time I remembered the feature, though. Next time.

References

Baitullah Mehsud: Not Sitting Still

hussain — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:33:00 GMT

Here's a guy you can't accuse of an assassination and expect to rest on his laurels. This one was pretty much expected, given Mehsud's past.

Showing off his undisputed warlording skills, and further embarassing the Pakistani military's Frontier Corps, (FC) Baitullah Masood (or Meshud, the spelling of his tribal-origin name is still quite confusing in angrezi) has taken the Sararogha Fort in South Waziriztan, 80 kilometers from the town of Wana, with a 1,000 man strong force. Most of the Pakistani military is bunkered up in cantonments and forts and doesn't really get to exercise much control in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan.

The last we heard of Sararogha Fort was in August 2007 when a convoy of 16 FC paramilitary troopers went missing (08/10) leaving the fort and then "[the] surrender of an estimated 280 soliders, including a colonel and nine other officesers, on 30 August in South Waziristan to just a few score Taleban fighters who blocked their supply convoy on the road to the main town of Wana." That's 280 highly trained paramilitary corps just giving up at the sight of Mehsud's troops.

The loss of the fort is a continuing blow to President Musharraf who's repeatedly attempted to assert some control over the region, both for his sake and also at the repeated urging of our military.

Washington Post, 47 Killed as Insurgents Take Key Fort in NW Pakistan, 01/17/2008
Pak Tribune, Taliban claims to have control of Sararogha Fort, 30 soldiers killed in attack, 01/17/2008
McClatchy, Islamic militants capture Pakistani fort, 01/16/2008
BBC, Pakistan crisis 'hits army morale', 09/17/2007

Pakistan: Surprize!

hussain — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:46:00 GMT

Surprize! Musharraf has postponed the election until February and Nawaz Sharif, a longtime Bhutto rival, previously boycotting the election, is now running.

"The other, somewhat smaller, main opposition party, the faction of the Pakistan Muslim League led by Nawaz Sharif, said it was ready to participate in the vote on Jan. 8."

Clearly, an election, on schedule, so soon after Bhutto's assassination would garner a huge sympathy vote and, since a lot of PPP stalwarts can't see anything but red and blame Musharraf, well, that'd benefit Sharif. The article also states that the US is pushing for elections earlier:

"A February election date would probably be acceptable to the Bush administration, even though the Americans have been pushing for the elections to go ahead on schedule, the Musharraf party member said."

At this point, all we're doing is providing Musharraf's party someone to quote and therefore someone to indirectly blame for his actions. We should take our time and watch him flounder.

Granted, they can't really hold equitable elections after the post-assassination riots:

"In 11 districts of Sindh Province, offices of assistant election commissioners have been burned to the ground," [Elections Commission secretary] Dilshad said. "Nothing is left."

Well played, sirs, well played. Now if our politicians could only stop trying to make a media event out of it (that means you, John Edwards), maybe Pakistani politicians would take some responsibility for their actions.

Pakistan: Next Chance for Democracy 6+ years

hussain — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:26:00 GMT

I had thought that with Benazir Bhutto sorrowfully following in the family footsteps of martyrdom, there'd be a vacuum of "democratic" leadership in Pakistan not just because the rest of the parties have no-names or refusniks, but that her children - the logical choice for the nepotistic, er, dynastic political heirs - were teenagers. I was wrong.

This article from Reuters, Bhutto supporters pin homes on son and heir, have quotes from party faithful already abandoning any struggle for democracy in Pakistan and looking towards the recently renamed 19 year old Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (nee Bilawal Zardari), living and educated in Dubai, now to go to Oxford, as their new hope. He's not eligible to run for anything in Pakistan for another 6 years. Never mind that his father, Asif Ali Zardari, still chairman of the PPP (People's Party of Pakistan, the party Bhutto's father founded), and should be picking up the mantle, but won't, due to blackmail and corruption scandals and, honestly, isn't that well liked by Pakistanis.

I guess with 6 years to go, that should give Musharraf a bit of breathing room. Granted, he's like a weeble wobble reaching his flopping point - I don't know how much more vaccilation between Western appeasement and hometown bluster in the face of unwillingness and inability to crack down on the FATA provinces he can manage - 6 years will be too long for him. One might thing that'd give him enough time to clean house, but he hasn't started yet, what makes anyone (especially the USUK) think that he'll start now? In fact, if he were an American President, the campaign season against the Bhutto dauphin has just officially started - there won't be any time to legislate, not even mentioning execution of military missions, while he's trying to think up negative campaign ads.

On the other side of the tracks, what sort of trophies can the highly motivated "Talibs" achieve in 6 years? If we've looked back on Musharraf's record and seen a dearth of progress and are extrapolating to the future, looking back on the last few years of the Taliban's ascendency in Pakistan post "Operation Infinite Justice" (oops!) recovery, well, it's probably ungentlemanly of me to mock and juxtapose at the same time.

Lastly, what does it mean for us, the US (and ever so slightly for the UK, where, btw Zardari lives)? This, for me, puts Musharraf into even greater relief - he's not on our side and apparently not very much on Pakistan's side either. And, as everyone seems to remind me, he's got nukes. We, as far as our foreign policy towards Pakistan goes, have been wimps or naieve or both - it's not that they can't be trusted, they're just not fully willing to be seen as collaborating in the War on Islam, oh snap there I go again, I mean the War on Terror. Since we're unable to put on the perspecticles of the region and not at all of Pakistan's, we still don't have a clue as to how to engage Pakistan. I hesitate to suggest Afghanistan as a model, since blowing the crap out of Pakistan (remember: nukes!) isn't really going to help, right? Oh right, yes it will. We (used to) do it all the time with Afghanistan's and Pakistan's tacit approval and made a certain amount of headway in the 2002 - 2005 period. Unfortunately, we've gone soft, allowed Musharraf to vaccilate a lot more, and we've lost the advantage. Now, we're on the defensive in that region, politically - for at least another six years.

Oh, yeah - what's this kid supposed to do again?

Slogans for Islam

hussain — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:06:00 GMT

In the wake of the Mohammed the Teddy Bear incident, my good friend Jack came up with some hum dingers of slogans for Islam for the idiots in Sudan and elsewhere that steadfastly fail to get it:

Islam: No thanks, full up right now, maybe Jews for Jesus is hiring.
Islam: If it's not Islam, don't call it Islam. You fucking twat.
Islam: If you can't read, chances are you're not practicing us. You fucking savage.

A quote from Professor Elteyb Hag Ateya, director of Khartoum University's peace research institute.
"There is a sort of "who is the best Muslim?" competition to this whole thing which makes it difficult for the government to be seen to back down," he said.
Answer: None of you dillholes. The only thing that you're the best at is perverting Islam.

Here's one for the press:

The Press: Making sure to blow stuff out of proportion in the most sensational way possible, plus adding "shariah law" wherever we don't understand it. The Apprentice.

Musharraf: "Ally" or Unbearable Weight?

hussain — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:30:00 GMT

I've been watching Pakistan and the whole Subcontinent area for a while now and this latest bully move by Musharraf to retain some sort of control of his country by declaring martial law, or "emergency plus" powers as the locals are calling it, continues to be instructive. Here in America we have a choice, do we continue supporting a so-called-ally on the War on Terror, Musharraf, as in this assertion of power or do we support our overarching goal, the Rule of Law, which has been the ostensible underlying principle of our engagement with the rest of the world as well as the War on Terror?

Musharraf's been subverting what we'd consider an approved ROL path for years, starting with his coup and continuing through sacking judges and now this martial law declaration, all in hopes of bringing the country together. This latest move was in a small part to attempt to get his soldiers whom the NWFP rebels captured w/o a shot. Musharraf's been playing two ends against each other, in my opinion, which to be honest, is almost the only way he can do it - he's been turning a blind eye, sort of, to our cross-border interactions between Afghanistan and the NWFP, causing us to refer to him as an "ally" and causing his own countrymen to call him a hypocrite and a tyrant. This enrages his opposition - both the seemingly more democratic Buhtto-esque side as well as the more fundamentalist Taliban side. The foregone fact that Al Qaeda's in full force in the NWFP makes it even more of a joke that we call him an "ally."

So, this new step - does the War on Terror trump the Rule of Law? Defenders of the Constitution already have their answer, but for foreign policy nerds we'll have our answer burned bright in how we react - via hollow diplomatic rebukes (aka "disappointment") or actual pulling of monies and materiel support.

[Follow up edit]: CSM Article on this very topic.

Holy Land Mistrial

hussain — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:55:00 GMT

Wow. The US government, and dare I say Israel, got their a**es handed to them regarding their believability of evidence for convicting charity organization Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development of terrorism (technically, providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, aka Hamas). No decision on the consipracy charges, no decisions on whether they helped terrorist organizations, etc.

The government argued that the money collected by Holy Land went to other charities which then went to Hamas, which they provided no evidence for, just saying that the money benefitted Hamas. Since 1995, it's been illegal for US organizations to provide money to Hamas. Israeli agents provided via pseudonyms evidence that these other organizations gave their money to Hamas, but not Holy Land. What a strange tactic.

I can't imagine why our government would drop the ball on this case at all. For them, the implications are disasterous - they/we look like we're secret-evidence toting, brown-person targetting, remorseless Muslimhating, double-standard charity platers. It's sad and rediculous. Break out the mouse suits, let the schadenfreude from the left begin.

Brown people jumping on themselves? Check
Babies holding sad signs? Check

To be fair and balanced:
Disaffected, unhappy "fact" reporting? Check
Pictures of Hamas? Check

For what it's worth, Holy Land Foundation Charities is the big fish the government's been trying to spear, knocking off suckerfish over the years:

Oct 2006 - Georgia Imam Shorbagi pled guilty to funding Hamas (via Holy Land Foundations) (nyt)
Feb 2007 - Salah & Ashqar acquitted of helping Hamas, where Holy Land was claimed as a defendant (nyt)

Fun quote #1: “The government has tried to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into something criminal,” said William Moffitt, who is Dr. Ashqar’s lawyer. “Maybe the government will get it in their heads that the conflict won’t be settled in the criminal courts of the United States.”

Fun quote #2: The lone guilty finding against Salah related to a written response in which he denied being a Hamas member that was made in a civil suit won by the family of David Boim, a 17-year-old American killed in Israel in 1996. Piers [defense attorney] said he expected the $156 million judgment in that case to be overturned on appeal. [The parents accused Salah and Ashqar of conspiring to kill their son via donations to Hamas] The trial saw an unprecedented appearance by agents of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence service, who testified in disguise to a cleared courtroom. They reportedly said Salah was not tortured.

Hillarity #3: [Riotous shill, Judith] Miller testified that she saw no evidence of mistreatment when she witnessed an interrogation of Salah and -- in an unprecedented twist for a U.S. courtroom -- two Israeli interrogators testified under aliases that Salah was treated well. (wapo)

What's really interesting is the level of desire to point to Hamas as the issue. Places that are known for good research, like the 9/11 Finding Answers foundation, put the Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood and their ties to Hamas down (properly) as a source of violence, but to whom and in what context? In our governments specific fight against "funding sources of terrorist organizations," they've fallen down here, blowing legit chances at unraveling knots by refusing to show how threads are connected, regardless of the clear connections in that region. But here? Our own ties with Israel make our funding pursuit look more and more like a pro-Israel "witchhunt" rather than an exposure of how violent NGOs continue to get funded.

Dumb and Dumberer

hussain — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:26:00 GMT

Which is stupider the Biden-Brownback Iraqi partition bill or the Leiberman-Kyl blind rage run-up to a war on Iran bill?

All the throngs of readers of this prolific blog will recognize, I find it the height of hubris for our domestic pandering Neanderthals, Congress, to start pretending they’re aware of or anything north of Minnesota or south of Galveston Island. For these people, the rest of the world is one big photo op and list topper for the last few years, the prize paparazzi joint, has been the horrifically dangerous Iraq, the one place these people can’t get into fast enough so they can decry how quickly our troops should be getting out.

Add to this the almost universal and unexplainable zeitgeist of hatred spewing out towards Iran this week coupled with the handjobbery and backpattery from all sides, from the president of Columbia University, to Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich and Socialist radio personalities on Air America, all falling over to up the count of how many times they can say “evil” and “Ahmedinejad” with the same breath.

Literally everyone is trying to point the finger at someone else, preferably someone of the brownish persuasion, about who’s to blame for Iraq – it’s either the Iraqis themselves or their neighbors who are causing our boys and our country to fail – not in any way us. Introspecting or discussing what’s within our power to change is liable to be branded either “planning to fail” or not wanting to succeed. Try getting a radio talk show host to define what “success” looks like in Iraq without rehashing Bush’s vague “stable democracy that supports America.”

With General Petraus stating that Iran is waging a proxy war against us, it’s opened the door for a bipartisan photo op of unprecedented damage, garnering 73 votes in the Senate for the Leiberman-Kyl bill that states we should go ahead with a covert war against Iran. Let’s not bother questioning whether this is a consequence of short term policy decisions on either side or whether there’s any implications beyond this week’s Iran hating press cycle. First off, we should acknowledge that Iraq’s a mess of corruption and multiple attitudes towards all insurgents of all stripes and that there are any number of organizations that would fund combatants and supply arms to those combatants, from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Israel, yes, Iran, and geez, guess who, us (ref. all the dead Anbar leaders). It’s myopic and retarded to think that Iraq’s neighbors aren’t going to try to influence Iraq in a multitude of ways and, eventually, one of those ways will blow up or fly at supersonic speeds and kill one of our boys. Second, if intentionally killing one of our soldiers were a cause for war, we would’ve attacked Israel long, long ago.

With the popular outrage of the progress of the war in Iraq and the general apathy and ignorance towards the Middle East in this country, the desire for having our troops get out of Iraq is growing. One of the more stupid ideas has been peddled by Senator Biden for a few years now and it’s a “weak federal government, strong ethno-regional state government, and equal oil distribution” plan. In the historical categories of occupation, it falls somewhere in the annals of colonial strategies, something like divide-and-conquer but with a twist of ostrich – run away and hide your head from the consequences. It’s clear that the heyday of colonialism is long past, yet Biden thinks it’s World War 1 again, where the west has the power to divide a country via our perception, like a modern day Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, of their ethnic differences – whee, he figured out that there are 3 (never mind all the others) types of brown people! – and then expect things to work out. It’s also clear, historically, that if you want to do divide-and-conquer you have to have enforcement, like the British did during the Raj (twist your Google Earth centered on Baghdad a few longitudes to the left) with their governors and strict rule enforcement. Also never mind that we’ve already done our version of it, with the Coalition Provisional Authority and L. Paul Bremer. It takes a lot of gall to suggest a colonial model – something we as Americans have always shunned – and then follow it up with “it’ll all just work out.”

I can’t imagine anything stupider than our domestics thinking their beltway ideas have any effect beyond our borders.

how right you are

hussain — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:01:00 GMT

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/a-feeling-im-be.html

Thanks to Jared for pointing this to me.

I'd say the same thing, except it'd come out "angry" instead of Scott Adams' "parody."