SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DMaA who wrote (14012)10/26/2003 10:00:25 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793731
 
ZEYAD BLOG:
Dog day afternoon
Many people have been asking me about the Oil ministry incident last week. I also read a thread at LGF discussing the same subject, the thread contained many misconceptions and strange ideas which worried me. Riverbend has posted an entry describing the incident here.

The Oil ministry complex is one of the most heavily guarded buildings in Baghdad. It was the ONLY building protected from the looting and ransacking after April 9 along with a few presidential sites. It now houses 3 ministries together with the Oil ministry and hundreds of Iraqi employees work there. A friend who lives in that area told me what happened that day. The ministry employees were lining up in front of the complex waiting to be searched by IP and americans before entering the building to their offices. This is a daily and common process at all governmental offices, universities, large hospitals, banks, hotels, international NGO's, and public buildings. A necessary step to ensure that no trouble makers sneak inside among employees. I'm very thankful however that this isn't the case at the center I work at.

Anyway, the Americans have recently been using sniffer dogs to do their job, obviously to speed up the security checking. You can imagine how long it would take to search hundreds of civil servants each morning. A woman objected to the idea of a dog sniffing her handbag because she carried a small Quran in it. Not an uncommon thing, many women carry Qurans in their bags which gives them a sense of protection and safety.

At this point, some people say that the American soldier got aggresive and took the Quran from the bag and threw it on the ground and handcuffed the woman. Others say that didn't happen and they simply arrested the woman. Either case it was an unnecessary and irresponsible act. I'm sure even if that really happened, that the soldier was simply an unreligious guy and no other conspiracy theories are involved as some people have been saying. But, and this a big but, he should be more careful about insulting other peoples beliefs however ridiculous they may seem to him. This is a very sensitive issue for Iraqis.
I can only feel sorry for the poor woman. Imagining how she was feeling being handcuffed and humiliated in front of her colleagues. The solution would have been simply to ask the woman to take out her Quran from the bag, and to allow the dog to sniff it. Effective communication is the key here. I mean these people are your allies, why provoke them?

After that scene, the employees were enraged, they refused to be searched and grouped to form an anti-american demonstration in front of the ministry. IP officers threw their badges to the floor, saying we didn't join the force to be insulted this way. People were shouting 'Down America' and 'Down Bush'. The Americans shot a couple of bullets in the air to seperate the demonstrators and that was that. The Americans can thank God that those were educated people and supposedly allies. Otherwise I'm sure it would have been a different case. That was the story from what I've been told by a reliable friend.

By the way, I was at the Health ministry today for some business. I noticed while waiting in the line that there were Iraqi female FPS (I don't know what FPS exactly stands for, but they are security police guarding important facilities and buildings.) searching womens handbags. Now, couldn't they think of something like that before? Anyway, this was the first time for me to see Iraqi female police. I was impressed. We never had female police under Saddam. I imagined they would all be butch women or wearing scarfs or something like that. Actually they were very pretty. And I was wishing that I would get frisked by them as well, heh.

Anyway, back to doggies. What I want to mention as well, is that dogs are NOT considered unclean in Islam. There is nothing in the Quran that says so. There is a weak Hadith(saying) by Mohammed: "A house which has a dog or a picture in it is not entered or blessed by the Angels". By weak, I mean that its attribution to Mohammed is questionable, it has a weak 'Isnad'. Isnad is a term used by Muslim clerics to describe the generations of scholars mentioning the Hadith each from his predecessor. If the Isnad contains an unknown scholar or someone with a questionable authority, the Hadith is a weak one and should be doubted. Hope I made this clear, I'm not sure, these things are a bit hard to explain to non-muslims. Most educated Muslims today do not believe in most Hadiths. If they did, they would have to believe in some absurd ideas like a flat earth, magic, misogyny, stoning adulterers to death,..etc.
So people noticing these inconsistencies have decided to rely solely on the Quran (however they choose to ignore similar contradictions or ideas in it because its supposedly 'flawless'). Okay I know I'm going to be flogged for saying the above. Send your hate mail.

Many Iraqis have dogs as pets. My aunt, a very religious woman, had a cute Pekingese. My grandmother on the other hand was appalled by the poor thing. My cousins have a couple of hunting dogs. A friend of mine has a bulldog. And lets not forget Uday's sadistic fascination with dogs, the ones he used to feed with people. So it's very common actually. And it's not true that we regard them as unclean or anything like that. Maybe some fools do, but I can't say I comprehend their logic.

# posted by zeyad : 1:46 PM
comments (32)

What the f* is this??
I was so very very very dissapointed today after I heard Noori Al-Badran's (The minister of interior) instructions to Iraqi citizens regarding Ramadan.
He stated that "any Iraqi 'caught' publicly not fasting will be arrested and imprisoned for 3 days with a considerable fine to deter anyone who shows 'disrespect' for this holy month. All restaurants inside and outside the cities should close from dawn till sunset, except first class hotels restaurants. Alcohol selling shops should stay closed the whole month".

I wanted to kill someone after reading all that. Yes. Sure. Free country my ass. I never imagined they would come up with something even close to that. What should I do? Hide in a corner so I can smoke a fucking cigarette? Are they trying to force us to fast against our will? Am I supposed to fast just to show 'respect' to others who do? Why don't they show respect to people who don't fast? They can believe whatever the fuck they want, but I don't have to pay the price for their beliefs. Are we slowly reverting to what we were? Are we becoming another Iran or Saudi Arabia? Aren't we supposed to be a secular state? What was Al-Badran smoking when he decided that? What other shit are they planning to put in our Constitution?

We had something similar under Saddam during Ramadans. But there were always a few licensed restaurants open so we 'unbelievers' could have breakfast or lunch. A friend of mine went to jail for 3 days because he was caught smoking a cig in front of his house a couple of years ago. It was just one of thousands of reasons we despised Saddam. But there were people who commended him for that. Apparently our Governing Council are learning a few things from Saddam. I feel like we're living in Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. We the people are the ones to suffer always.

Some background about Ramadan. Ramadan is the ninth and holiest month in the Islamic Hijri calendar. It's the month in which Mohammed wrote the first....Sorry, recieved the first revelation from Allah. Muslims have to fast every Ramadan from sunrise to sunset. Fasting includes abstaining from food, drink, sexual relations, and any unacceptable acts to achieve spiritual purification. After sunset at futur, they can fill up their bellies until the countdown at imsak just before sunrise. Women cannot fast during their periods because they are 'unclean'. A few are exempt from fasting such as the sick, medically compromised, old aged or people in travel.

As a dentist I have to endure the foulest breaths from fasters. I have to help fasters out of diabetic comas due to the normal stress during dental procedures. As a member of society I have to mumble ramadan mubarak and other stuff I don't believe in to everyone. I have to pretend I'm fasting in front of people so as not to hurt their feelings. And I have to explain myself if I'm caught and go through the obligatory discussion about the benefits of fasting both spiritually and naturally. I have to smoke in stinky public toilets. I have to roam the whole city to find some 'illegal' booze. It's a month of hypocricy. Know why? Because the moment Ramadan is over, everyone stops acting pious and reverts to whatever despicable acts they used to do. But surely Allah wills it so, we unbelievers and kafirs should not question His wisdom.

# posted by zeyad : 1:45 PM
healingiraq.blogspot.com



To: DMaA who wrote (14012)10/26/2003 10:20:22 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793731
 
So many disparate meanings have been poured into that phrase that it is now essentially meaningless.


I think the term is usable. But you have to judge people by what they do, not what they say.



To: DMaA who wrote (14012)10/27/2003 3:53:26 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793731
 
Why are the Dem candidates coming up with the similar plans? Good point. Tech Central Station
_________________________________________

The Tax Policy of Hate

By Kevin Hassett Published 10/23/2003

Even a casual observer of the U.S. political scene would be struck by the intense hate the Democrats and Democratic pundits appear to have for President Bush. As discussed so ably by my TCS colleague Keith Burgess-Jackson, hate is an emotion we all are ashamed of precisely because it can move us to unfortunate actions. Signs of the intensity of this hate are everywhere, with the controversial New York Times columnist Paul Krugman even blaming President Bush for causing increased anti-semitism.



The strange thing is that this collective emotion is having a large impact on everything the Democrats do. The hate of Bush is so powerful that it has even dominated Democratic tax policy. For example, Wesley Clark announced his tax plan in a speech on Wednesday, and the details were oddly familiar. Like just about every other Democratic candidate, Clark has proposed an enormous tax hike. And what form does that tax hike take? Why the same form chosen by his competitors. Clark would roll back the tax reductions that President Bush passed for those taxpayers who make more than $200,000 per year. The only debate among the Democratic candidates appears to be whether one should roll back most of what Bush accomplished (Clark, Kerry), or erase the man's efforts from the history books entirely (Dean) even if that means a tax hike for just about every voter.



Such a focus is bizarre. Suppose you were a candidate with a genuine intent to make the world a better place. You might convene a committee of the finest tax policy minds in the world and ask them to list the ten biggest problems with the tax code. You might then ask these men and women to suggest tax policies that would fix these problems, and even, as a Democrat concerned with social justice, constrain the proposals reach with specific "fairness" targets. In the end, you would have a product that you could sell to voters, your own plan to make the world a better place.



The Democratic candidates each studied the tax code and the economy and reached precisely the same conclusion: The way to improve the world the most is exactly to reverse the tax policy of George Bush. Such a convergence of answers is extraordinarily improbable. There is no economic model that suggests that the tax code as inherited by Bush was some kind of bliss point of optimal tax policy, nor will there ever be. There is nothing magical about a marginal tax rate of 39.6 percent. That does not mean that economics has nothing to offer. A candidate genuinely interested in fixing the nation's problems might argue, as David Bradford of Princeton University has, that a progressive consumption tax could significantly improve our national welfare. But the crazy quilt of a code that Bush inherited? I should vote for you to restore that?



When high school students who sit next to each other give the same wrong answer it is a sign of foul play. In a similar manner, the fact that Democratic candidates all have converged to the same tax policy is a sign of foul motive. Rational analysis can not explain their policy proposals. Only hatred of Bush can.



Which suggests that these candidates are collectively terrible choices. We ask a lot of our leaders. They must be calm and mature enough to put emotion aside and coolly choose actions and policies that best serve the common good. The tax plans of the Democrats reveal that the candidates collectively are not up to the task. They are so blinded by their emotions about President Bush that they are unable to think rationally about something as mundane as tax policy. Such people should not be trusted with the keys to the White House.

Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com