Ethnic Media Practice Serious Journalism at Risk of Peril

by

Courtesy New America Media, Kenneth Kim

Editor’s Note: Practicing the first amendment in America can be hazardous to your health, especially if you work in the ethnic media sector, according to editors at a New America Media-sponsored conference on ethnic media and freedom of expression in Los Angeles this week.

LOS ANGELES – The First Amendment may have guaranteed the promise of a free press, but for ethnic media reporting on their own communities that can be as perilous as covering a war zone. In ethnic enclaves where the power of protest is mightier than the pen, it takes a combination of physical courage, mental perseverance and sometimes even the willingness to risk one’s own life to practice journalism.

A diverse group of leading editors from ethnic news media gathered in Los Angeles on April 7 to share accounts of threats they had received from their own communities. The roundtable discussion, “A Challenge for Ethnic Media: When Coverage Provokes Threats from Your Own Community,” was co-hosted by New America Media, the California First Amendment Coalition, USC Annenberg’s Institute for Justice and Journalism, CSU Northridge’s Center for Ethnic and Alternative Media, The Society of Professional Journalists-Greater LA Chapter, UCLA Center for Communications and Community, California Chicano News Media Association (CCNMA) and other media advocacy groups.

Journalists, editors and publishers of ethnic media told harrowing tales of having been boycotted, protested, sued, harassed, and physically threatened by members of their own communities who wanted to dictate what the ethnic news media could and couldn’t cover.

On the morning of Aug 2, 2007, as he was heading to work, Chauncey Bailey, editor of the black newsweekly Oakland Post, was gunned down with a 12-gauge shot gun in downtown Oakland, Calif. He had been working on a story about the suspicious activities of the local business Your Black Muslim Bakery.

While reporting on Korean organized crime in Los Angeles’ Koreatown, Tom Byun, former editor of the Korea Times, received a letter assuring him that his fingers would be cut off if the coverage continued.

Hassina Leelarathne, editor of Sri Lanka Express in Arleta, Calif., recounted an incident that was provoked by a simple line in her story criticizing the rude behavior of a Sri Lankan Prime Minister’s wife when the couple visited the United States. Leelarathne husband, also a journalist, was beaten when he covered a meeting supporting the Tamil Tigers.

“I felt really violated. I can’t explain and describe how terrible those messages were,” said Leelarathne. In a fragile voice, she recalled a flood of death threats and sexually explicit messages that were left on her answering machine.

The conference was organized in response to the ongoing anti-communist protests targeting Westminster’s Nguoi Viet Daily, the largest and oldest Vietnamese daily in the United States.

10-20

Ethiopia: Muslim Students Expelled for Reading Qur`an

by

Press Release Courtesy Network of Ethiopian Muslims (http://ethiopianmuslims.net)

[Negashi OJ] – Mekelle University has dismissed three of its Muslim students. The three were found guilty of possessing and reading of the Holy Quran. Effort by the university Muslim community to negotiate with the authorities and persuade them to recall the unjust measure has so far failed.

On Monday. Megabit 22, student Muhammad Yesuf, Ibrahim Hussien and Ismael Tadesse left their room after Subh (Morning) prayer and went to a room that they use for studying. One of them had a phone from where he was listening to a prerecorded Quran using his ear phone. The other had an Amharic Translation of the Quran. These two had also pocket size original Quran in Arabic in their pocket. The third has a medium sized Quran and a tape recorder. He was reading silently.

The president of the university apparently tipped by a cleaning lady who saw the three entering the room with their visible Muslim appearance, came to the room and found the three possessing these “illegal” materials thus performing an “Illegal” act. He demanded for their ID card and Meal Card. He then took the Quran and tape recorder with him. The three followed him up to his office and begged for his compassion. Nevertheless the man was unbending to the students. He passed his outright decision to dismiss them and sent order to the Dean of Students to implement the decision. The next day, as the students went to the restaurant for breakfast, they read their dismissal from the notice board.

It is to be recalled that Mekelle University was the first to deny Muslim students space to offer their prayers. From their history of intolerance to Muslim students and their stern position not to give any space for Muslim students to practice their religion, the top leadership of the university is believed to be an indirect architect of the directive the Ministry of Education prepared and oblige Muslim students to choose from their study and religion.

10-20

Letter to the Editor: Thank you

by

To whom this may concern:

The purpose for this letter is to thank you for all the latest informative and accurate news coverage here and abroad.

I am [contributing] $5.00 of my prison wages to your newspaper (check enclosed).

Again thank you and keep up the great work.

As-Salamu-Alaikum

MT
Inez, Kentucky

10-20

Hajj Promotes Tolerance

by

Courtesy P.K. Abdul Ghafour, Arab News

JEDDAH, 6 May 2008 — A study of Hajjis by Harvard Kennedy School in the US has found that the Hajj promotes tolerance among pilgrims and does not lead to an increase in negative attitudes toward the West.

The study—entitled “Estimating the Impact of the Hajj: Religion and Tolerance in Islam’s Global Gathering”—said that the annual pilgrimage develops a tolerant attitude among Hajjis toward other religions and cultures.

Researchers, David Clingingsmith, Asim Ijaz Khwaja and Michael Kremer, based their findings, which were published last month, on data collected from a 2006 survey of more than 1,600 Pakistani pilgrims.

“Evidence suggests that the Hajj increases tolerance, which seems to apply not just within the Islamic world but also beyond it,” they reported, adding, that increased unity does not lead to antipathy toward non-Muslims.

They also found that the Hajj plays a significant role in the survival of Islam as a unified world religion. “Over time, religions with far-flung adherents tend to evolve separate strands which may eventually break away into different religions. Our analysis suggests that the Hajj reduces dissent and splits in Islam by moving Hajjis toward a common set of practices, making them more tolerant of differences among Muslims,” they said.

Pilgrims selected for the survey were also more likely to state that various Pakistani ethnic and sectarian groups are equal and that it is possible for such groups to live in harmony.

Major findings include that the Hajj reduces support for political Islam, reduces superstitious beliefs and encourages Muslims to adopt a more favorable attitude toward women, including greater acceptance of women education and employment. “For example, they (Hajjis) are six percentage points more likely to think women are spiritually better than men, an increase of over 50 percent. They also express greater concern about women’s quality of life in Pakistan relative to other countries and about crimes against women in Pakistan,” the report stated.

Every year, more than 2.5 million Muslims from nearly 150 countries gather in Makkah to perform the Hajj. Although the Hajj takes place on five specified days, pilgrims often spend a month engaged in prayer in Makkah, Madinah and other holy places.

“Pilgrims mix across the lines of ethnicity, nationality, sect and gender that divide them in everyday life, and affirm a common identity by performing the same rituals and dressing in similar garments that emphasize their equality,” the researchers said.

The report added that numerous pilgrim accounts—including that of Malcolm X—lend weight to its findings that the Hajj inspires feelings of unity with the worldwide Muslim community.

The report was commissioned after it was felt that the Hajj could have negative implications for non-Muslims.

10-20

Rice Tells Israel to Halt Settlements

by

By Mohammed Mar’i, Arab News

RAMALLAH, West Bank, 5 May 2008 — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday pressed Israel to ease travel restrictions on Palestinians and called Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank particularly problematic.

But she said Washington believed an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal was still possible before US President George W. Bush leaves office in January, praising the “seriousness and depth” of negotiations.

“We continue to believe it is an achievable goal to have an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis by the end of the year and by the end of President Bush’s term,” Rice said after meeting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

She said the United States regarded settlements as “particularly problematic to the atmosphere of trust that is needed.”

A 2003 peace “road map” requires Israel halt construction in the settlements. Israel says it will keep major settlement blocs under any peace deal — a plan tacitly endorsed by Bush in 2004 — and recently approved new housing projects in the enclaves.

“I can assure you that Israel has no hidden agenda,” Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told reporters after talks with Rice, in response to a question about the settlements.

Rice launched her latest two-day visit to the region on Saturday by saying she would assess Israel’s steps on the ground to see if they had improved the daily lives of the Palestinians. These include the promised removal of West Bank roadblocks.

Rice said she had raised the question, with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, of whether those roadblocks that are to be scrapped would have a significant effect on easing movement by Palestinians.

“We are trying to look not just at quantity, but also at quality of improvements,” said Rice, who also stressed that the Palestinians needed to take further action to meet the road map demand that anti-Israel groups be reined in. After Rice’s last trip in late March, Israel said it planned to remove 61 barriers in the West Bank. But a UN survey subsequently found that only 44 obstacles had been scrapped — and that most of these were of little or no significance.

Abbas called on Israel to implement its obligations under the US-backed road map peace plan and reiterated his commitment to ongoing peace negotiations with Israel. “We told Rice that the Israelis must halt all settlement activities, reopen Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, remove checkpoints, lift the siege, send back deportees and bring the situation back to the way it was before May 28, 2000.”

He confirmed that he is to meet Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert today, and that the chief negotiators for both sides — Livni and Ahmed Qorei — would also be meeting today.

Abbas also hoped that the Palestinian security forces would be redeployed in the whole of the Palestinian territories following their deployment on Saturday in the West Bank city of Jenin. “There is only one weapon, and no other weapon is legal, and he who opposes that will be subject to questioning,” Abbas explained.

Abbas reaffirmed his desire for unity between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. He called on Hamas to retreat from “its coup,” accept the internationally recognized Palestinian leadership, and agree to early legislative and presidential elections.

As for aid to the Palestinian Authority, Abbas stated that donations were beginning to bear fruit in terms of security and economic progress. He expressed hope that the Palestine Investment Conference in Bethlehem in mid-May would be a success.

A senior Palestinian Authority official here said that in the wake of Abbas’ recent talks in Washington with President Bush and Rice, it was “unrealistic” to expect a breakthrough between the Palestinians and Israelis before the end of the year.

The official accused the Bush administration of bias in favor of Israel. “The Americans have adopted the Israeli policy… When you hear Bush, you think you are listening to Ehud Olmert,” he said.

The official added that the PA was no longer pinning its hope on the administration to help achieve an agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis. “The Bush administration has lost it credibility as an honest broker… We will now have to wait for the next US administration,” he said.

After a White House meeting last month, Abbas was critical of the US for not pushing Israel harder to create conditions that he thinks are more conducive to peacemaking. However, speaking in Ramallah yesterday, he praised the US involvement and said failure was not an option.

“We want to achieve success, and we need to reach a comprehensive agreement,” he said. “If we don’t reach an agreement, we have to think about what the next step will be. Now, let’s not think about failure.”

In response to Rice’s visit, Hamas said that her visits to Israel and the PA are aimed at granting more time to Israel to continue its Judaization projects. Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said Rice’s visits were aimed at covering “the failure of the American and Israeli talks with President Abbas, especially the last discussions between the two in Washington.”

10-20

Fertilizer

by

Fertilizer are compounds given to plants to make them grow. Fertilizers can be naturally occurring compounds such as peat or mineral deposits, or manufactured through natural processes (such as composting) or chemical processes (such as the Haber process).

They typically provide the three major plant nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium: N-P-K), the secondary plant nutrients (calcium, sulfur, magnesium), and sometimes trace elements (or micronutrients) with a role in plant nutrition: boron, chlorine, manganese, iron, zinc, copper, and molybdenum.

Both organic and inorganic fertilizers were called “manures” derived from the French expression for manualtillage, but this term is now mostly restricted to organic manure.

Though nitrogen is plentiful in the earth’s atmosphere, relatively few plants engage in nitrogen fixation (conversion of atmospheric nitrogen to a biologically useful form). Most plants thus require nitrogen compounds to be present in the soil in which they grow. While manure, cinder and ironmaking slag have been used to improve crops for centuries, the use of fertilizers is arguably one of the great innovations of the Agricultural Revolution of the 19th Century.

In the 1730s, Viscount Charles Townshend (1674-1738) first studied the improving effects of the four-crop rotation system that he had observed in use in Flanders.

The influential works of chemist Justus von Liebig (1803-1883) first denounced the vitalist theory of humus, arguing first the importance of ammonia, and later the importance of inorganic minerals.

Sir John Bennet Lawes (1814-1900) was experimenting with crops and manures at his farm at Harpenden and was able to produce a practical superphosphate in 1842 from the phosphates in rock and coprolites. Encouraged, he employed Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert, who had studied under Liebig at the University of Giessen, as director of research. To this day, the Rothamsted research station that they founded still investigates the impact of inorganic and organic fertilizers on crop yields.

10-20

The Kabul Attack–Virtual Replay of the 1981 Assassination of Egypt’s Anwar Sadat

by

Courtesy Abdus Sattar Ghazali

The only difference between the two dramatic operations was that the assassins of Sadat were able to penetrate into the army ranks and the attack was from the army cadets participating the parade. In the case of the abortive assassination attempt on Karzai, the militants were not part of the parade but they were able to penetrate the tight security cordon around Kabul and stashed arms in a restaurant just some 500 yards from the parade ground.

However, in both cases the target of the attack were leaders perceived to be serving the western interests. Anwar Sadat had signed a peace deal with Israel that angered many in the Arab and Muslim world. Similarly, President Hamid Karzai, whose writ does not extend beyond his presidential palace, is seen by the militants as a symbol of western interests in Kabul.

Interestingly, the attack on Karzai came on the “Mujahideen Day” celebrating the expulsion of the Soviet forces by the Afghan Mujahideen in 1980s. And the attack was claimed by Hizb-e-Islami Afghanistan, that was a leading anti-Soviet group. This group is led by Gulbadin Hekmatyar who was once one of the leading pro-US “Mujahedeen” leader. A Hizb spokesman said that the attack disproved Afghan government and NATO assertions that the Taliban insurgency has been weakened. “Afghan and NATO authorities this year repeatedly said the Taliban are on the verge of annihilation … Now it has been proved to them that the Taliban not only have the ability to operate in the provinces, but even in Kabul.”

Has NATO failed in Afghanistan?

Many observers argue that the NATO forces have not yet made any major dent to the Taliban strength and therefore they say that NATO has failed to attain its objectives.

Initially a sizable number of Afghan people were hopeful that NATO would soon be able to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan but after the passage of seven years with no notable successes, the attitudes are radically changing. The inability of NATO to deliver has disappointed many Afghans though the Afghan officials continue to eulogize in support of NATO.

By and large many Afghans now view the once hailed liberation army as an occupying force now. Inability to defeat Taliban despite being equipped with all the latest and sophisticated tools of war, the Afghan people are loosing confidence in their presence and some Afghans have now begun to sympathize with the Taliban.

Besides, the indiscriminate bombing have killed many Afghan civilians which in turn has also taken a heavy toll of Afghan patience.

In short, operation Enduring Freedom has brought neither peace nor prosperity to Afghanistan; just occupation. Seven years have passed and the country is still ruled by warlords and drug-merchants. Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world’s opium; more than any other country. The booming drug trade is the direct corollary of the US invasion.

President Bush has said that the war in Afghanistan must continue or the country will become a haven for drugs, terrorism and organized crime. But the Taliban and Pashtun tribesmen see it differently. They see the conflict as an imperial war of aggression which has only added to the suffering of their people.

A recent report by the United Nations Human Development Fund appears to support this view. It shows that Afghanistan has fallen in every category. The average life expectancy has gone down, malnutrition has risen, literacy has dropped, and more than half the population is living below the poverty-line. Hundreds of thousands of people have been internally displaced by the war. The occupation has created plenty of misery, but no democracy.

In 2001 the international determination to deal with Taliban and to reconstruct Afghanistan was indeed very impressive. Over the years not only the international community has become extremely slow even delivering the promised economic aid to Afghanistan but the attitudes are gradually changing. It seems that fatigue syndrome is setting in.

The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) best reflects the sentiments of Afghan people: After seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering of our people is increasing everyday. …We believe that if the troops leave Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts…Afghanistan’s freedom can only be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation.” (RAWA www.rawa.org)

Pakistan major target of the blame game

As the Nato forces fail to gain ground, Pakistan has become the major target of blame game with the US leaders often stressing that Pakistan is not doing enough to stop Taliban taking refuge in Pakistan’s tribal territory known as the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). To lend credibility to their carefully devised accusations, they sometimes undertake strikes on Pakistani areas adjacent to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The media invariably extends unlimited support and frequently publishes baseless stories about the presence of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders on Pakistani soil without providing any convincing proof.

While the American forces in Iraq are over 150,000, the forces in Afghanistan are meager 66,000 and all of which are not combat forces. At least 20,000 troops are not fighting but are merely performing police duties in one form or the other. Given the nature of terrain and the popularity of Taliban, this number is grossly insufficient. On the other hand Pakistan has deployed around 80,000 troops along the Pak-Afghan border and suffered more casualties than the NATO forces.

According to General Dan McNeill, the International Security Assistance Force Commander in Afghanistan, “if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.”

It was not a surprise when a January 2008 report by the Atlantic Council of the United States pointed out that the NATO forces in Afghanistan are in a strategic stalemate, as Taliban insurgents expand their control of sparsely populated areas and as the central government fails to carry out vital reforms and reconstruction. “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan,” the report concluded.

Abdus Sattar Ghazali is the Executive Editor of the online magazine American Muslim Perspective: www.amperspective.com E-Mail: asghazali@gmail.com.

10-19

US Syria Claims Arouse Doubt

by

Courtesy Jonathan Marcus, BBC News

More than half a year after the Israeli air strike that destroyed the alleged nuclear reactor under construction in Syria, Washington’s release of what it says are still images of the facility before the raid amounts to the diplomatic equivalent of throwing a very large rock into a deep pool.

The alleged reactor was destroyed by Israel in 2007

The ramifications could be considerable, both for the Middle East and for the future of North Korea’s own nuclear weapons programme.

Further distrust has been sown between the United States and the UN’s nuclear watchdog – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

And even on Capitol Hill Democrat lawmakers are angry that the administration apparently sat on this evidence for some considerable time.

Shades of Iraq?

Briefings about alleged weapons of mass destruction programmes have a lot to live down in the wake of the US experience in Iraq.

Everyone remembers the time in February 2003 when then US Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations armed with tape-recordings and images to make the case about Iraq’s weapons activities.

The briefing – seemingly the best that the combined US intelligence agencies could come up with – turned out to be misleading to say the least. Subsequently, no weapons were found.

Perhaps mindful of the mistakes of the past, the ten-minute video released by the Bush administration in an effort to prove the Syria-North Korea connection is less ambitious and more focussed.

It uses still images which, it is claimed, were taken inside the facility during its construction.

There is of course no independent way to verify this.

But an initial analysis suggests that the pictures show a gas-cooled graphite moderated reactor of a very similar type to the North Korean model at Yongbyon.

Unanswered questions

At face value at least, the US evidence is compelling.

But the revelations raise as many questions as they answer.

Sequence of Events

6 Sept 2007: Israel bombs site in Syria
1 Oct: Syria’s President Assad tells BBC site was military
24 Oct: New satellite images taken show site bulldozed clear
24 April 2008: US claims Syrian site was nuclear reactor

What was this reactor for? There are no signs of the ancillary facilities needed if it was for power-generation.

But then, equally, there are no signs of the other elements of a bomb-making programme either – a plant to separate out the plutonium and a factory to actually assemble a weapon.

If, as the Americans say, the reactor was close to completion, where would its uranium fuel have come from?

But beyond the practical and technical questions the most pressing uncertainties are political and diplomatic.

Above all, why did the US go public now? And was this an effort to further isolate Syria or to bring additional pressure on North Korea?

Diplomatic cross-currents

The underscoring of an alleged nuclear link between Pyongyang and Damascus certainly harms both governments.

For all the talk of renewed conflict between Israel and Syria, there has also been a good deal of talk about a possible deal over the Golan Heights as well.

The signals have been complex and contradictory. But highlighting a clandestine Syrian nuclear programme now might serve to reinforce Syria’s isolation.

Without US brokerage, any talk of a Syria-Israel deal is illusory.

Some analysts believe that the decision to go public on the evidence of the Syrian reactor project may be the culmination of the playing out of competing currents within the Bush Administration.

In this scenario it is a victory of the more hawkish voices, who fear that President Bush might be going soft as his term of office draws to a close.

The US says there were similarities between the Syrian and North Korean reactors

In their view, the Americans should not accept any dealings with Syria, nor should it make the concessions required to North Korea to keep alive the deal to roll back its nuclear programme.

Such arguments appear strongest with regard to North Korea.

It is clear that conservative voices both inside and outside the Bush administration see the proposed agreement with North Korea as fatally flawed.

More liberal arms control experts also hold that view. “It stinks,” one told me, “but perhaps the US should hold its nose in the hope of keeping the negotiating track open”.

So were the intelligence revelations intended to anger Pyongyang to damage any chance of a deal?

Or was this a clearing of the air ahead of further progress?

Interestingly, the chief US negotiator, Christopher Hill, has now noted that in the US view, nuclear co-operation between North Korea and Syria is no longer continuing.

During the coming weeks it will be interesting to see how things unfold. Will Syria-Israel tensions be stoked up? Will Pyongyang walk away from the negotiating table or offer up the long-delayed description of its nuclear activities?

IAEA ire

The way in which the US apparently sat on the evidence for so long has also angered many people.

Mr Bush’s critics on some of the powerful congressional committees were dismayed that they had not been taken into the administration’s confidence earlier.

Also clearly angry is the head of the IAEA, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei.

He says the US gave his organisation its evidence about the Syrian reactor only on the same day that it briefed legislators on Capitol Hill.

A statement from the IAEA says that Dr ElBaradei “deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the agency in a timely manner”. It is now going to investigate further.

But with the site of the alleged reactor razed, a new building constructed over it – and the Syrians unlikely to provide access – it is hard to see how far the IAEA’s investigations can go.

10-19

2008 Awdal Achievement Award Winner Announced

by

IRVING, TX–The Islamic Center of Irving (ICI), Texas, USA, won the 2008 Awdal Achievement Award (AAA). The award was announced at the Amoud Foundation annual fundraising dinner held at the Radisson Hotel in Irving, Texas, on April 12, 2008.

ICI was recognized as one of the first local institutions that supported Amoud Foundation and its projects in Somalia and other parts of East Africa. ICI has been the source of sustained financial and moral support to Amoud Foundation since its inception. ICI has been at the fore front of every project and relief effort Amoud Foundation and other humanitarian organizations have undertaken.

The Islamic Center of Irving was established and registered as a non-profit 501c (3) organization in 1991 in the state of Texas, USA. The center had a humble beginning, and has moved from various locations. It started with only three members.

As the community grew, the center started the search for a new site that can accommodate a growing Muslim community. Construction of the new center in Irving Texas started on January 1, 1999. The new 36,000 square feet facility (see picture) officially opened on April 30, 2004. It is a full service mosque located in the heart of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, offering Pre-K through 10th grade Islamic School with over 260 students, Sunday & Summer School, Marriage Services, Funeral Services, Quranic and Arabic Teachings etc. The new center was built at a cost of over $6 million. ICI has become an important anchor for the community, with over 3000 people currently attending Friday prayers.

10-19

The Dubious ‘Popular Vote’

by

Larry J Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia, takes a close look at Hillary Clinton’s arguments that she deserves the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

Courtesy Prof. Larry Sabato, UVA

Give Hillary Clinton credit. She has shown toughness, stamina, and persistence in one of the longest presidential campaigns in American history.

If super-delegates back Hillary Clinton, will they alienate loyal black voters?

She has fought hard and come back time and again in the 2008 primary season, defying the pundits who insisted on writing her political obituary prematurely. She has held the charismatic phenomenon named Barack Obama almost to a draw in the fight for votes and delegates in the Democratic party’s nominating battle.

As some of Obama’s weaknesses become more apparent, her arguments are drawing new attention, and at least a few Democratic leaders are considering them.

No-one is likely to agree on exactly what the popular vote is, or how it should be counted – the notion ought to be shelved

All that being true, it’s still very unlikely she will overcome Obama’s lead. With just seven states (plus Puerto Rico and Guam) remaining on the primary schedule, Obama is ahead by close to 160 elected (or pledged) delegates and, overall, by about 130 delegates, once the super-delegates are included.

This may not sound like many in a convention that will host more than 4,000 delegates, but party rules make it difficult to gain a sizeable number of delegates quickly. (Incredibly, you can win a big state and net a mere handful of delegates. The Democrats have developed a system so fair it is unfair.)

Changing the math

Here’s the basic dilemma for Hillary Clinton: How can she convince senior Democrats to turn their backs on the most loyal party constituency, African-Americans, who regularly give 90% of their votes to party candidates?

For the first time, one of their own has a real chance to become the presidential nominee and the occupant of the White House. The anger in the black community would be palpable and long-lasting if Obama is sent packing.

Democratic women appear unlikely to respond in the same fashion if the first serious woman candidate is turned aside.

Worry among super-delegates about Obama’s viability in the fall is not enough. The only conceivable scenarios that might change the present nominating math are:

a.. a campaign-ending scandal or gaffe by Obama
b.. a highly improbable series of victories by Hillary Clinton in primaries she is expected to lose (such as North Carolina and Oregon)
c.. a raft of polls showing Clinton defeating McCain handily while Obama is losing to McCain decisively (most current polls show relatively little difference in the Obama-McCain and Clinton-McCain national match-ups, though the prospective contests in individual states vary considerably)

How can it be that Clinton is so unlikely to prevail, especially close on the heels of her solid, impressive 9.2% victory in Pennsylvania on 22 April?

Why wouldn’t that victory generate significant momentum for Clinton, just at the moment when the remaining super-delegates prepare to make their decisive choice? Didn’t her 214,000-vote plurality in the Keystone State vault her into the popular-vote lead nationally, as she claimed?

The size and breadth of Clinton’s triumph in Pennsylvania certainly demonstrated the emerging limitations of Obama’s appeal, not least the disaffection of many whites, blue-collar workers, and low-income Democrats.

But it almost certainly will be Obama, not Clinton, who is on the November ballot under the Democratic label.

Michigan and Florida

Take Clinton’s claim about the popular vote. On the morning after Pennsylvania, she insisted that she had taken a narrow popular-vote lead, about 15.12 million to nearly 15 million for Obama. But this is classic “new math”, where the numerical answer obtained is often less important than the agile mental gymnastics used to get there.

Clinton’s total relies on two very dubious assumptions. First, one must incorporate the primary results from Florida and Michigan, two January contests excluded by the Democratic National Committee for violating the scheduling rules set by the party. This is no minor sum of votes – 2,344,318, to be exact.

Barack Obama has regularly done better than Hillary Clinton in caucuses

But no even-handed person would contend that Michigan, whose primary occurred on 15 January, should be part of the equation. Barack Obama’s name was not even on the ballot.

The vote total cited by Clinton conveniently excludes three caucus states won by Obama, in Iowa, Maine, and Washington. (Nevada, won by Clinton, is also left out of the tally.) No-one knows the exact number of votes cast for each candidate in these four states since the state parties, by tradition, refuse to release the data.

Eliminating Michigan, the Obama-Clinton match-up shows an Obama edge of a couple hundred thousand votes. Striking Florida brings it to about a half-million-vote Obama plurality. And the unknown caucus results would add at least 100,000 to his lead.

Comparing like with unlike

This discussion of caucus states raises another interesting subject. How can one compare primary and caucus states at all? By their very nature, primaries attract a large electorate in most states. A caucus is a very different political animal, requiring hours of commitment from each participating individual.

The concept of the national popular vote is borrowed from the general election, when it makes more sense

The caucus also is inflexible, beginning at a set, mandatory time. There are no absentee ballots and no excuses for troops abroad, medical personnel who must attend to the sick, or elderly individuals who cannot brave a lengthy, stressful outing. Caucus participation is usually just a fraction of the turnout that would have occurred had the state held a primary.

Therefore, the national vote total is heavily skewed to the states holding primaries, and this total mixes primary apples and caucus oranges in an unenlightening way.

The concept of the national popular vote is borrowed from the general election, when it makes more sense. However, in the nominating season the idea is dubious, and it is not a particularly useful measure for the undecided super-delegates. Nevertheless, it has been bandied about so much by the campaigns and news media that it has now become an inescapable yardstick of electoral validity for Clinton and Obama.

Key states

Other questions about the vote mathematics are also compelling. Should the voting results in November’s likely competitive states-the ones we often call purple – a mixture of Republican red and Democratic blue – be given special weight in the popular-vote formula? After all, the purpose of the nominating contest is to pick a candidate who can win the general election.

Both Clinton and Obama have won states critically important to a Democratic majority in November

Hillary Clinton has pushed this interpretation, but only up to a point. She wants her wins in competitive, significant states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania to be determinants for the super-delegates, yet she ignores Barack Obama’s victories in medium-sized toss-up states such as Colorado and Virginia.

With apologies to George Orwell, all states are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Overall, though, this game is pointless since both Clinton and Obama have won states critically important to a Democratic electoral college majority in November.

Different voters

The flaw in the state-based argument is also fundamental. Party primary electorates do not resemble the November electorates in the vast majority of states, so primary results tell us surprisingly little in most states about how a party presidential nominee will fare in the general election.
Think of it this way – perhaps 35 million Americans will have voted in all the Democratic primaries and caucuses by June, but the November voter turnout could reach 135 million people-and those extra 100 million voters are different, both in ideological and partisan terms, than the 35 million early-birds.

US territories

An ancillary issue is whether the U.S. territories, none of which has electoral college votes in November, should even be included in the party nominating system.

In an extremely close race, their delegates could decide the outcome of a presidential nomination, and potentially the Presidency itself. Should Puerto Rico, voting on 1 June, have more delegates than half the American states, as the Democrats have assigned?

Neither Clinton nor Obama will raise this concern, of course, but unbiased observers ought to do so. In most conventions, the territorial votes are a harmless matter, but every now and then, the unintended consequences of their inclusion could become enormous.

The long and short of the debate over the popular vote is this – no-one is likely to agree on exactly what it is, or how it should be counted.

There are considerable flaws inherent in the concept. The popular-vote notion ought to be shelved – but naturally, in this endlessly contentious campaign season, it will not be.

Professor Larry J. Sabato is director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and author of A More Perfect Constitution.

10-19

India Snubs US On Iran

by

By Nilofar Suhrawardy, MMNS

NEW DELHI – India’s decision not to bow to United States’ pressure, but instead reject its suggestion of taking up Iran’s nuclear program during President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s brief visit, has added a new diplomatic importance to Delhi’s bilateral ties with Tehran. Categorically asserting that India was not under any obligations to take decisions on Iran’s nuclear program, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said: “It is not for me or for Iran to certify… it is for the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to convince themselves whether (Tehran’s program) is peaceful.” He made these remarks to media persons at an orientation program for Parliamentary reporting (April 23).

“We are advising Iran that since it is a signatory of NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty), it has some obligation to international treaties. We tell the US, do not take on yourself the responsibility whether Iran was manufacturing weapons or not. Leave it to the IAEA, the designated authority,” Mukherjee said. His response was in relation to a statement from United States asking India to tell Iran to “meet requirements of the UN Security Council” on its nuclear program during Ahmadinejad’s visit (April 29).

The US State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said in Washington: “We would hope that the Indian government, or any government that was engaging with the Iranians, including with President Ahmadinejad, would call on him to meet the requirements that the Security Council and the international community has placed on him in terms of suspending their uranium enrichment activities and complying with other requirements regarding their nuclear program” (April 21).

In response to a question on this statement, the Indian external affairs ministry spokesman said: “Our attention has been drawn to a comment made by the official spokesman of the US State Department concerning the visit of President Ahmadinejad of Iran to India. India and Iran are ancient civilizations whose relations span centuries. Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention” (April 22).

“Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations as both countries believe that engagement and dialogue alone lead to peace. It is important that the genius of each nation living in a particular region is respected and allowed to flower to meet the expectations of enriching relations with neighbors,” he said.

Legislators, particularly the ones belonging to Left bloc, raised the issue in both Houses of Parliament (April 23). In the Lok Sabha, legislator Rupchand Pal (Communist Party of India-Marxist) described the US statement as “audacious and arrogant.” It amounted to an “infringement on India’s sovereign position,” Pal said during the Zero Hour. With the US “pressurizing India on how it should conduct its bilateral relations with Iran, the government should make a statement in Parliament denouncing the (US) statement,” Pal said. The Indian external affairs ministry spokesman had “rightly rebuffed” the American suggestion, he said.

In the Rajya Sabha, the Left and UNPA (United National Progressive Alliance) legislators asked the government to summon the US ambassador to India and register its protest against “unsolicited” suggestion of Washington.

Brinda Karat (CPI-M) raised the issue during the Zero Hour saying that India should deal firmly with United States. The US statement reflected “the imperialist arrogance of a self-appointed world policeman. We condemn this statement in the strongest term,” Karat said.

Describing response of ministry of external affairs’ spokesman as “appropriate,” Karat said: “It is not enough.” “The US Ambassador (to India) does need to be summoned to express our disapproval,” she said.

The US suggestion on India cooperating with it to contain Iran’s nuclear program amounted to Washington considering Delhi its junior partner in matters of foreign policy, Karat said.

Demanding summoning of the US envoy to India David Mulford, to convey India’s “strong displeasure,” Karat said this was essential as the present government had “unfortunately blemished” India’s record by voting twice against Iran in IAEA. The US State Department had thought it fit “indulge in another act of gross interference” in India’s relations with other countries, Karat said.

With Iran a signatory to NPT, its nuclear program was under international safeguards, Karat said. Karat’s demand for summoning the US envoy was supported by other Left legislators and those belonging to UNPA.

Earlier in the week, voicing India’s decision of not getting involved in “conflict diplomacy” with Iran, Indian National Security Adviser (NSA) M.K. Narayanan said: “In dealing with Iran, we are better poised and better placed than anyone else but we do not necessarily have to be a part of a compact of certain countries.” “Please do not treat Iran like any other (nation). It is a big country, it is a major country with tremendous influence. You need to deal with it diplomatically,” he said.

“Sanctions or military action — none of them is a lasting solution that will only exacerbate the situation. We need to evolve something that involves Iran,” according to Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon.

Drawing attention to the need of a change in how the world looks at non-proliferation, Menon favored a new international consensus on the issue. As sanctions and military action will only “exacerbate” the situation, “We need to have in place a system to which Iran is party,” Menon said.

Fairly alarmed at the strong stand taken by India, Washington softened its stand. US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia said later in the week that US had only stated its policy by making the suggestion to New Delhi regarding Tehran. He stated: “I don’t think it was pointing a finger at India. I don’t think it’s as big an issue as it’s made out to be. It is up to every country to determine for itself how it’s going to organize its bilateral relations.”

10-19

Ahmadinejad’s India Visit

by

By Nilofar Suhrawardy, MMNS

NEW DELHI – Opening a new chapter in Indo-Iran ties, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived here Tuesday evening (April 29). The highlight of Ahmadinejad’s visit was the dinner hosted in his honor by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The two leaders had last met in September 2006, on sidelines of a summit in Havana. Ahmadinejad also called on his Indian counterpart, President Pratibha Devisingh Patil at Rashtrapati Bhawan.

Ahmadinejad’s India-visit, though brief, has definitely signaled that India has no inclination to hold its bilateral ties with Iran hostage to any other country’s whims.

Ahmadinejad wrapped up his brief India visit on Tuesday night on an optimistic note. While addressing a press conference, he described India and Iran as “true friends.” Hailing relations between the two countries as “very deep and historical,” he laid emphasis on their friendship being “very good” even today. This was his response to questions on whether Indo-Iran ties have been affected by India having vote twice against Iran at International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

With his visit being sudden and short, to a question put by this correspondent on whether he had considered returning to Tehran without stopping at India, his reply was, with India and Iran being friends, the visit took place, without their ties being subject to any “bully power.”

On questions regarding the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, he said: “The details would be visible in four years from now.” This implied that there is no question of either country backtracking now from the pipeline reaching its final stage.

The pipeline was focus of discussions at the dinner hosted by Manmohan. This was also indicated by Manmohan having invited Petroleum Minister Murli Deora to the dinner. Among other Indian officials present for this meeting were External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan.

With the ambitious pipeline project remaining stuck because of differences over cost factors, Manmohan and Ahmadinejad reviewed its progress. The proposed $7.5 billion project to transport gas to India and Pakistan is viewed as crucial. The 2,600-km (1,620-mile) pipeline, according to analysts, could contribute to security in the region as Iran, Pakistan and India would benefit by mutual cooperation. Besides, India relies heavily on fuel imports.

If work on pipeline, as scheduled, begins in 2009, it is expected to finish in 2012. Initially, it is to transport 60 million cubic meters of gas daily to Pakistan and India, half for each country. Later, the pipeline’s capacity will increase to 150 million cubic meters.

India is also keen on pursuing negotiations regarding the $25 billion deal for getting five million tons a year of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran for the next 25 years.

Extensive discussions were held on a host of international and bilateral issues of mutual interests also. Besides, India sought Ahmadinejad’s stand on the situation in both Afghanistan and Iraq. On this, sources earlier said: “We have major stakes in Afghanistan and it will be an ideal opportunity for us to get a view from the Iranian President on how the situation there is evolving, especially in the wake of reports about re-grouping by the Taliban.”

Despite it being a brief visit, India sought to accord it as much importance as possible to assure Iran that despite India having voted twice against Iran at IAEA, Indo-Iranian ties remain as warm as before. This also explains the alacrity with which India has snubbed United States’ suggestion of taking up the nuclear issue during talks with Ahmadinejad.

10-19

Blogging with ‘Big Brother’

by

By Sumayyah Meehan, MMNS

The arrest of Saudi Arabian blogger Fouad al-Farhan in December of last year sent a loud and clear message to other bloggers in the Middle east that freedom of speech is still a new concept in a very old world. After 4 months in prison, Fouad was released this week vowing to help Saudi teens avoid getting trapped in terrorist networks and help them avoid serving time in prison like the teens he met while in jail who are serving sentences.

Governments across the Middle East take a very active policy when it comes to policing Internet content and blogs. The Ministry of Interior is the body in all Mideast governments that controls the two areas of the net where governments believe need the most monitoring – pornographic websites and blogs. When it comes to forbidden material like pornography most countries in the Middle East have adopted a zero tolerance policy and have broadly filtered access to such content that corrupts social morals. These countries include Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, and Tunisia. And when it comes to political content, whether foreign or domestic, blogs are next on the Ministry of Interior’s watch list. It is no secret that blogs in the Middle East are monitored but how heavily depends on the country. For example, in the State of Kuwait where even the local press enjoys a wide scope of free speech, blogs are minimally monitored to ensure that both civil and political unrest are kept in check. Contrastingly, in a country like Iran even opening your ‘cybermouth’ to complain about political dissidence or lack of human rights in the country can land even the most cunning blogger in the slammer. All the countries in the GCC engage in some form of monitoring blogs whether they admit it openly or hid it.

GCC countries monitor blogs in an attempt to control the political atmosphere in the country and quash anti-government sentiment before it takes root on the web, which is the fastest way information, is spread these days. Speaking out against the rulers of your country or complaining about the lack of basic laws or human rights is a big ‘no-no’ in the Middle East. Recently, an Egyptian political dissident was arrested for blogging against the government and is still being held in prison. In another case, an American blogger living in Egypt was arrested for political comments he posted on his blog and his Arabic translator was hauled off to jail right with him. The American was eventually released whereas the translator remains behind bars.

Bloggers in the Middle East have good cause to think twice before they post on their blogs and some have even chosen to avoid engaging in politics online whatsoever. “I have never been arrested or been harassed for blogging,” shares Emad Salameh who writes the Amman Voice blog in Jordan, “However, I have to be careful in my words and must be objective. I positioned myself by writing about Socio-Economical and development related topics where nobody will have a problem. Many people write about Politics, I don’t. It’s not even my game.” However, several bloggers refuse to censor themselves even if it means entrapment or arrest. “I try my best not to censor myself because that would affect my writing negatively,” says Ahmed Al-Omran who writes the blog Saudi Jeans, “Still, some times you have to be careful when it comes to choosing your words or the way you approach sensitive topics. I am lucky that authorities have not contacted me in the past, but I guess this has a lot to do with the fact that I’m writing in English, which usually results in less monitoring.”

While the governments in the Middle East may have a semi-iron fist on the way information is shared on the Internet, bloggers are slowing waking up and finding new alternatives to get their words out. Web 2.0 Applications like Gmail, Skype and micro-blogging tools like Twitter are simply too massive to be censored or blocked. However, portions of these applications can be blocked. For example, in Dubai Skype chat rooms are operational however the telephone services are intentionally blocked by the government because the Ministry of Communications relies heavily on revenues earned by the telecommunication habits of migrant workers placing international calls home each month.

The Internet has given bloggers around the World a voice, which they never had before. Even the threat of torture, arrest, or prison time is not likely to silence bloggers who have already tasted the sweetness of having their voices heard.

10-19

Why We Are Still in Iraq

by

By Elder George

In reviewing my files I came across a column that I wrote for Muslims Weekly in October 2004 entitled Why We Will Stay In The Middle East. I could reprint that article verbatim today and it would still have validity. Nothing has changed. However, I had included excerpts form this article previously, so to eliminate any redundancy I am including here what I have not mentioned before.

My article stated:

“Our involvement in Iraq and the Middle East still dominates the political scene and consequently the media coverage of the elections. The media seems unable to go beyond the superficial and get down to the essence of our involvement in the Middle East.

No matter who becomes our next president or which party controls congress we will not reduce our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan until we meet two major conditions. The first …

“condition calls for the breaking down of the familial, tribal, cultural, and religious structure of that area; the major impediment to the establishment of a one world socialistic government is patriarchy and the last bastion of patriarchy exists in the Middle East. The second condition calls for the restoration of the Iraqi oil industry with the establishment of the United States as its biggest customer. We will fight to our last resource to see the attainment of these objectives.”

Concerning the first condition, I covered that in my TMO article entitled The Attack on Islam.

My article continued as follows:

“With reference to the second condition, the American economy depends very strongly on the availability of cheap oil. Rebuilding the Iraqi oil industry and making sure that we are its primary customer will give us a reliable source of unlimited oil. It will also make us more independent of Saudi Arabia, which in turn will enable us to interfere more with its internal affairs and continue our efforts to breakdown the familial, tribal, cultural, and religious structure. The next step will be an intensification of the efforts to Westernize Iran. The United States will not leave the Middle East until it attains these conditions regardless of the name of the next President.”

It has been almost four years since I wrote that article. Since then, articles and books have been written against the war, demonstrations have occurred and speeches given, and a change made in Congress from Republican to Democrat control, but our involvement in Iraq has not decreased—it has intensified. There has not been one iota of change in our objectives, nor will there be any.

I wrote 16 years ago in my book Dear Brothers and Sisters, that America would become the Rome of the 21st century. We are now Rome, and our legions are spread all over the world. Wherever they go, they stay. Even Senator John Mc Cain stated we could be in Iraq for 100 years. Of course we could. We’ve been in Germany and Japan for sixty years. Our intention is to make this our world. Articles, speeches, and demonstration are exercises in futility. Nothing will deter these objectives. Nothing.

Elder George’s website is www.mensaction.net and he can be reached at 212-874-7900 ext. 1329.

10-19

Musings–You MUST be Born Again

by

By Imam Abdullah El-Amin, MMNS

“Have We not expanded thee thy breast? 2. And removed from thee thy burden, 3. That which did gall thy back? 4. And raised high the esteem (in which) thou (art held)? 5. So, verily, with every difficulty, there is relief; 6. Verily, with every difficulty there is relief. 7. Therefore, when thou art free (from thine immediate task), still labor hard, 8. And to thy Lord turn (all) thy attention.

94: 1-8

Difficulties don’t happen to you…they happen for you. ALLAH, The Almighty, is the Creator and Rabb of everything. There is nothing that happens or doesn’t happen that He doesn’t sanction. A bird doesn’t fly and a leaf doesn’t drop without it being in the Master Plan of ALLAH.

So as it may be, your so-called misfortunes happen for a specific reason as well. The title of today’s column comes from a quote from Prophet Isa ibn Maryam in the scriptures of the bible. In it, Prophet Isa made the statement that “In order to enter the kingdom of Heaven, you must be born again.” At this time, one of his confused companions asked “How can we enter our mother’s womb to be born again?” Isa replied that it wasn’t a physical rebirth he was referring to, but a spiritual one.

There is a similar quote of ALLAH in the Holy Qur’an where it says “Die, so that you may live.” It doesn’t mean to die a physical death…it means to die to your wickedness. It means to die to your fear and insecurity. It means to die to you weakness and laziness. Die! So you can come into your true position as the Cream of ALLAH’S creation.

I know a beautiful person with a spirit and heart of gold. If asked to do something in the cause of ALLAH, she doesn’t hesitate, even though she may be in need herself. Her shortcoming though is something must have happened to her in her in her growing up that causes her to have feelings of doubt about herself. She is a little too weak to wicked people who may delight in being mean to her. As a result, she allows herself to be belittled.

I try to keep reminding her (and myself) that things that happen to you are not unknown to ALLAH. These trials are not just happening to you. They are happening for you. They are happening to you and you may or may not have known they were coming. But one thing is certain. You can gain a positive direction from it. “Surely with difficulty comes ease.”

The Promised Land and Heaven are right at our fingertips everyday. Satan takes pleasure in our failures and he hopes that failure is permanent. ALLAH takes pleasure in our prosperity. He especially takes pleasure in seeing us use His directives to raise ourselves out of a state of fear and dejection to a position of strong moral fiber and strength. He has given us wings to soar high above the creation. Don’t have access to the greatest tools of creation and not use them. That is turning your back on the gift of ALLAH.

Being born again is returning to the original nature ALLAH created you in. That original nature is a submitting Muslim. Try to remember that so you may prosper.

With ALLAH’S name, the Merciful Benefactor, Merciful Redeemer
As Salaam alaikum
(Al Hajj) Imam Abdullah Bey El-Amin

10-19

Wright / Obama

by

By Dr. Aslam Abdullah, Editor in Chief of The Muslim Observer

The Wright controversy clearly demonstrates the impact of race in the ongoing presidential campaign. Obama is made to pay the price for attending the sermons of his pastor that damned the US foreign policy and held it accountable for 9/11. What was said by Wright is not different that what was reported by the 9/11 commission, or several congressmen as well as several Christian right leaders such as Falwell, Pat Robertson, Phil Graham and others.

It was not even different than what many of the commentators and political pundits have said in the past. Many of them have been heard saying on various occasions that 9/11 was a dastardly act on the part of Al-Qaeda that has used our foreign policy as a justification of its action.

Pastor Wright put the same analysis in his sermons within a religious context, saying God was angry for American government had done to different people in the world and 9/11 was a manifestation of that anger. Well, here too, the former Obama pastor was not alone in saying what he said. Thousands of US pastors belonging to different denominations expressed similar sentiments in their sermons after 9/11. Falwell, who himself uttered terrible blasphemies against Islam, summarized their statements when he said, “God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve” (reported by the Washington Post on its September 14, 2001, edition)

These reprehensible comments were condemned by many in the nation. But leaders like the president and his Republican supporters never challenge the Christian leaders who say those things, indeed they chase the favors and beg the endorsements of those individuals, casting a blind eye on the pious outright closed-minded bigotry of the white church’s leadership.

Theologically, the argument that God is responsible for natural disasters or man made disaster is a questionable issue. There is no doubt that within theologians of all faiths including Islam, there is an opinion that argues that God causes natural disasters as a warning to people for their deviant behavior.

More than any other religion, Christianity especially, the evangelical Christian traditions have firm faith in this argument. There are several other alternative options that challenge this assumption on theological grounds, but this is not the time to bring up those arguments.

The fact of the matter is that the old guards of American politics are making Obama a target for his association with Pastor Wright as they feel that his presidency might result in major changes in the way American capitalists and white Christian religious and political leaders have worked for the past several centuries. They are nervous about his rise and they are keen to see that he is made unelectable.

Obviously, the establishment is baffled at the support Obama has garnered among the youth and first time voters. They are surprised that younger voters are attracted to him and seriously looking for change in the way America works. This is all new to the establishment. Democracy is good as long it serves the interests of the establishment. The moment it gives power to those who are different or who want to change the old ways of doing things, democracy loses its attraction to the capitalists and power elites. Consequently, the elites start attacking all those who are seeking change. The real issues are buried under the rubble of character assassination and the emotional issues clothed in patriotism and religious values are brought up. This is what is happening in the present campaign. Rather than focussing on the real issue, the media and the political experts are focussing on the middle name of Obama, on the sermons of Pastor Wright and on stray comments.

They are not concerned about the war in Iraq, or the rising prices, or the rising white collar crime in the country, or in the declining rates of the dollar.

The media is not concerned about these issues because those who make and manufacture news are not effected with the economic chaos that is taking place in the country. They are not interested in the plight of common people. All they are keen is to serve the corporate world so that their fat salaries are never compromised.

This is the framework in which Obama and his former pastor are subject to intellectual lynching on the part of those in the media who are the staunchest supporters of capitalism and the existing status quo.

Obviously the Democratic primaries are reflective of the national scene. The power elite have succeeded in manipulating the media and other mass information sources to impact public opinion.

The coming weeks will provide intense battle between the forces of change and the forces of status quo, and it is likely Obama will come under continuing intense heat, more for what he is rather than for how he will serve.

10-19

Flat Lining

by

By Bob Wood, MMNS

Anyone who reads this column regularly knows that I have recommended a basket of holdings, which, I believe, will perform well for investors including them in their portfolios. With “perform well,” I don’t mean to imply an every day occurrence! The holdings I recommend as “best investments” should increase in value over time — but not at all times.

Occasionally, I take calls from clients about some investment, asset class or fund held in my managed accounts. Some will invariably notice that one or more of their holdings is not rising higher — as they expected. What I preach to the impatient is — patience. Lack of patience may have much to do with how few investors actually earn returns that match their expectations.

To explain, I’ll begin with one of my current favorite asset classes, one that I have included in managed portfolios for the past six or seven years — precious metals. I often ask investors how they would like to own an asset that has increased from just over $70 to more than $200 in just under five years. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

This performance describes the Philadelphia gold and silver index, symbol XAU. To review it, you can run charts on most financial web sites to produce the same chart I am looking at right now. Keep in mind that, over that period of time, the S&P 500 index has risen by about 50%, which is not a bad return, though well behind gains seen in precious metals shares.

What I want you to focus on now is looking closely at the chart for the gold stock index. You will see a noticeable pattern. Those shares rarely move in a nice, steady rise higher; instead they tend to move in fits and starts. This, I think, is the pattern that often hurts investors. They expect whatever they buy to move consistently higher. If it fails to do so, they dump the shares and go in search of something that is moving higher.

At the start of the five-year period for XAU, this index rose from 60 to about 110. That’s a nice move, which no doubt got many investors’ attention, especially from those who had yet to allocate money into the sector. Market trends tend to show that, once the crowd of latecomers rush to get involved, the holding reacts. In this case, the index fell — down to about 75. What a bummer!

Yes, this is a rather typical occurrence. Early money sees an opportunity missed by the crowd, buys into it, and enjoys a nice run up as the latecomer crowd pushes it even higher. The early (smart) money sees solid gains and begins to scale back — or take profits, as the financial media describes this process.

Often, latecomers become discouraged when whatever they just bought falls in price and produces losses. Then, many latecomers sell in frustration, which pushes prices even lower. Meanwhile, early investors watch with delight as their former holdings are again priced low enough to produce more solid gains, so they re-invest.

That new flood of money pushes prices higher, and the previous cycle repeats again. From our starting point at 60 in early 2003, gold ran to its first peak of 110 in about one year. From there, it went to a low of 75 in mid-2004 and then rallied back to the previous peak in late 2004. But then it fell back again, testing the previous low of about 75, in mid-2005. Those shares again hit the previous high of about 75 near the end of 2005, after almost two years going nowhere!

Imagine the distaste for this sector by investors who rode its shares up and down over that two-year period when other asset classes were going higher. Imagine how many investors became discouraged with the precious metals sector while they were undoubtedly hearing stock market promoters in the financial media explaining that gold and silver do not pay dividends or produce profits. They called them ‘’barbarous relics,’’ or other names they gives those things that do not sell.

Imagine the horror now of those investors who sold their precious metals in the summer of 2005, when the outlook was bleak with shares riding a flat line to nowhere. About one year later, those same shares have rocketed higher to the 165 level, trouncing nearly every other asset class in their portfolios!

Isn’t that always the way? Of course, as the gold index was hitting a new high level in mid-2006 and the crowd was hearing anew about the great rise in precious metals shares, in they came again. So profit takers sold their shares to the latecomers, and, once again, the index fell — to about the 120 level. It then stayed, until mid-2007, trading in a range from about 120 to above 150, then going down, and then shooting up again, frustrating investors again and again.

Do you see a pattern developing? Precious metals shares tend to run higher for about a year, much higher in each case, only to spend the following 18 to 24 months moving sideways in a price channel. When the crowd loses patience and sells, with the hope of finding a faster-moving investment — something with price momentum, metal shares again run higher.

The gold index hit bottom again and again, finally bottoming out again at the 125 level in late summer of 2007. From there the index has raced higher for about half a year, topping out at about the 210 level.

Would anyone be surprised to see this index trade in this range for the next year or two, only to shoot higher after the crowd loses patience again? I certainly expect that to happen and have, accordingly, reduced my precious metals allocation by a small amount. But when stepping back to review the past — in calmer moments, we see that, over the past five years, this index has been a huge winner.

As with any secular, long-term bull market, I expect advances in the precious metals index to run higher for the next several years. Just that like anything else in the markets, it will never go straight up — or down. The markets have an amazing way of spooking investors out of their best holdings — at the worst possible time.

But we do it to ourselves, don’t we? Too many investors fail to take the longer view with their holdings. I chose to invest in precious metals while thinking they would enjoy a long-term bull market, based on fundamentals that are only getting better with time.

And yes, I see the same pattern for some other asset classes that I have recommended over the past few years. Look at patterns for energy shares and international and emerging markets stocks and bonds. I had been a big fan of the Indian market until the start of this year, when I judged that investor enthusiasm for that country’s shares had become too high and valuations looked too rich. So, aside from the one stock I still hold in that market, Tata Motors, I have left it.

But that doesn’t mean I won’t buy there again someday. Unlike the precious metals sector, current fundamentals for the Indian market are not as robust and durable. With the Financial Times newspaper now quoting the Indian market as selling for about 22 times earnings, the time for moving out was right.

Along with that high valuation came last year’s fad for mutual companies to take advantage of whatever had done well. So mutual funds focused on the “BRIC countries.” That trend led me to scale out of holdings in those places (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and look to European markets as alternatives.

Someday, with current losses seen in the Indian and Chinese stock markets, investors will again lose patience, and those prices will revert back to favorable levels of valuation, when, once again, I’ll invest there.

Of course, what unfolds there may well look much like what we’ve seen with precious metals shares, with sideways trading for a year or two. Then those markets will find favor with bargain hunters, after the crowd has fled to better performing sectors.

I could very well have stayed invested in BRIC countries, and, over time, they may all move much higher. I anticipate the day when I will load up there again. The power of secular, long-term trends is the stuff of investor dreams. But many lack the required patience to ride those 15-to-20 year rallies to greater heights. Bouncing from one hot sector or country to another almost never works as hoped.

Find one or two sectors or asset classes that look best, based solely on the fundamental stories behind them, take your positions and ignore the markets for another 10 years. It might be the easiest and most profitable time in the markets for you in a long while. Look for those formerly “hot” sectors that have flat-lined for a few months as opportunities to prosper. They are not signs of pending death!

Have a great week.
Bob

Bob Wood ChFC, CLU Yusuf Kadiwala. Registered Investment Advisors, KMA, Inc., invest@muslimobserver.com.

10-19

Fundraiser for Michigan Organization–The Islamic Shura Council of Michigan

by

Southfield–April 30–As a sign of the increasing collaboration of Michigan’s Muslim community’s infrastructure, this past Sunday saw a gathering of about 200 powerful imams and leaders from the Muslim community at the Westin Hotel in Southfield.

The purpose of the fundraiser, sponsored by the Islamic Shura Council of Michigan, was to raise funds for three important Michigan Muslim organizations, namely Muslim Family Services, the Islamic Shura Council itself, and for the Huda Clinic, which all perform essential services for Michigan residents, both Muslim and non-Muslim. The Huda Clinic leverages volunteer hours by high-powered doctors to bring medical care to an underserved impoverished area. Muslim Family Services provides essential services related to protecting and strengthening Muslim families, the Shura Council is a part of the infrastructure between about 30 participating mosques.

The keynote speaker was Professor Abdul Hakeem Jackson of the University of Michigan, who spoke, in the words of one audience member, “On the importance of a framework of compassion and ‘we’ instead of ‘you and I’. He emphasized that this is a very important crossroads in the American political context, and emphasized the importance of donating for belief and for God rather than participating in society as a way of currying favor with others in that society–because of the shifting winds of politics, favor, and circumstance.

10-19

Community News (V10-I19)

by

Muslims offer support to vandalized Jewish center

New York, NY—A vandalized Jewish synagogue has received support from a coalition of religious leaders including the area’s Muslims.

The Mohegan Park Jewish Center in Westchester County sustained thousands of dollars in damage April 10 when vandals destroyed a Torah scroll, a menorah and yarzeit plaques, and painted a swastika on a wall.

At a recent rally the inter-faith leaders spoke out against the crime. “This is not just an attack on the Jewish community but people of all faith,” said Zia Ramadan, a leader of a local mosque. “We stand together to bring mutual understanding and religious sensitivity to this intolerable act.”

Three teenaged girls have been arrested in the case. Two suspects, 18 and 17, are being held in jail without bail. A 15-year-old was released to her parents.

University of Wisconsin to launch radio program on Islam

Madison, WI–The national Social Science Research Council awarded a grant of more than $90,000 to UW-Madison’s eight Title VI National Resource Centers and Middle Eastern Studies to support the public communication regarding Islamic issues, the Daily Cardinal reported.

According to Tom Asher, SSRC program officer, nine universities in addition to UW-Madison received the grant, including Harvard University, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Los Angeles and University of Minnesota, among others.

“We are really trying to push academics for working on the subject of Islam to be a part of the broader conversation taking place in the society right now and within the U.S,” Asher said. “I hope that [UW-Madison] will be able to reach out to people living in the surrounding areas of the state and really start a conversation that needs to take place.”

The grant allows UW-Madison’s nine international studies programs, Wisconsin Public Radio and UW-Madison’s Division of Information Technology to host a 12-month radio program and website called “Inside Islam: Dialogues and Debates.”

Penn. Muslims Seek ‘Balance’ in Police Training on Islam

The Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-PA) last week called on police training officials in that state to offer a Muslim perspective in a Municipal Police Officers Education & Training Commission (MPOETC) class on Islam.

CAIR-PA is also seeking clarification of the content of MPOETC’s mandatory in-service training class called “Radical Islam: A Law Enforcement Primer” because of concerns that the class may present stereotypical views of Islam and Muslims.

A recent commentary in the Allentown Morning Call newspaper (“Pennsylvania’s police prepare for radical Islam”) reports that the course includes such topics as the Prophet “Muhammad’s Doctrines of War’’ and the concept of the “’Call to Islam,’ a prerequisite to a Muslim attack on a nation of infidel enemies.”

In a letter to MPOETC Training director Rudy M. Grubesky, CAIR-PA Civil Rights Director Justin Peyton wrote in part:

“We are concerned that this course may provide inaccurate, incomplete or stereotypical information about Islam to state law enforcement officers and could serve to reinforce negative stereotypes of Muslims and Islam. The promotion of such stereotypes could neg

atively impact the daily interactions of law enforcement officers with members of the Pennsylvania Muslim community.

“While CAIR applauds MPOETC’s effort to educate police officers about the potential threats posed to American society by extremist individuals and groups, we would like to emphasize that the violent ideologies those individuals falsely attribute to Islam are not characteristic of the American Muslim experience.

“As FBI Director Robert Mueller stated at a congressional hearing just yesterday: ‘And every opportunity I have, I re-affirm the fact that 99.9 percent of Muslim-Americans or Sikh-Americans, Arab-Americans are every bit as patriotic as anybody else in this room, and that many of our cases are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community in the United States.’”

The letter also offered assistance in providing a balanced and accurate portrayal of Islam and Muslims to Pennsylvania police officers by providing access to “respected mainstream Islamic scholars and community leaders.” Peyton wrote that CAIR offices nationwide have already offered such training to local, state and national law enforcement agencies.

Submissions being accepted for Arab film festival in the U.S.

An Arab Film Festival being held in the U.S. is calling for submissions including shorts, experimental, documentary and feature length films from Arab filmmakers.

The festival, being held by Mizna, a journal of Arab American literature, will take place in October in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This year’s themes are: the Arab world, the Islamic world, and/or the Arab/Muslim immigrant experience in the West.

The deadline for submissions is June 30. Criteria for film selection include artistic merit, technical skills and content. Muslim filmmakers are especially encouraged to submit their work. Submitted will not be returned.

To learn more contact Mizna@Mizna.org

Iraqi-American Perspective on War

Rochester, MN — Sami Rasouli,an Iraqi-American, is working hard to promote peace in war-torn in Iraq. He recently spoke in Rochester on his experiences.

He created several Muslim peacemaker teams in order to bridge the gap between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims. Those teams also organize clean up projects in Iraq.

“We’ve got to stop the madness, we’ve got to stop the violence. And the occupation of Iraq must stop now, not next hour,” Rasouli said.

He also spoke about the growing cost of the war which Americans are paying for. Rasouli stressed the only way to move forward with nonviolence is through dialog and negotiation.

Zeba A. Syed named to Harvard’s Honor Society

CAMBRIDGE, MA–Twenty-four juniors were elected earlier this month into the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, the oldest undergraduate honors society in the country.

This year, 12 of the “Junior 24” are male and 12 are female, and more than half of the winners in natural sciences are women.

Among the winners is Zeba A.Syed who is part of several organizations on campus. She is the Chair of the Harvard College Interfaith Council.

10-19