Group items tagged

Geoffrey sent me this in a message on fb.

The Silsilah Dialogue Movement is a Filipino movement in Mindanao that aims to unite Christians and Muslims, as well as other people of different religion and faith. Prof. Alzad Sattar is proud to be a member and Muslim coordinator of the Inter-faith Council of Leaders in Basilan. He took up Political Science in Basilan State College and had his Masters Degree in the University of the Philippines. He became a professor in Basilan State College since 1996. Presently, he is the Assistant Dean of Academic Support and Services and Dean of the College of Islamic Studies. He is also an active participant and member of non-government organizations that promote peace and harmony like the Silsilah Dialogue Movement. As a child born in the city of Basilan, he believes that this place is very beautiful. Despite of this harmonious scenery with its natural white beach and sea resources, for him, Basilan has a large diversity when it comes to cultures and religions between the people living in this paradise. He hopes that someday this diversity would surpass through the help of the Dialogue. The following are some excerpts and inspiring keys mentioned by Prof. Alzad Sattar in an interview in the Silsilah Dialogue Movement: What was the impact of Silsilah Dialogue Movement to you as person? Prof Sattar: Silsilah actually transformed a lot in me as a person. I remember in the past, I had biases and prejudices against Christians because of a lot of factors. Number one factor is the orientations that I had, that Christians are like this and that and the second factor was the situation that I had experienced. I was born during the Martial law and at that time, many of my relatives died. The people who killed them are the Philippine soldiers who happened to be Christians. This contributed to my perception about the Christians. One factor that also contributed in my biases is the books I read. Like what I said, I was a PolSci graduate and because of that I rea

What is the relation between Islam and democracy? This is a burning question of this era de facto. There has been already a term "Islamic democracy". This term seems to demand something to add in Islam to be democratic or somehow it means that democracy is very different view where Islam lacks the core insight of democracy. What is the governmental view of Islam? What Islam thinks about the system of government in Islamic state? Does the system ensure the democratic right of the people or more than the so called democratic right? The questions are often and frequently asked by the Muslims as well as Non-Muslims. However, the truth is very significant. Islam is not alike democracy. When you hear about that you get a bad idea and get a sudden shock that Islam is not alike democracy! But let me be a little more specific. The fact is that, Islam is not alike democracy because Islam ensures the rights of the people far better than the western ideas of democracy. The governments of Islamic ages proved what the government system Islam says to adhere. If you notice about the governmental system of Khelfat-e-rasheda, you will get the point how honest they were with their promise and pledges. They ensured all the democratic right of the people. But they were not confined within the system we understand as the unique democratic system rather they were far more better and benevolent ruler of the people.

This happened to me a couple of weeks ago while I was on my way home one early morning. I was on a jeepney, riding through Sampaloc en route to Pandacan, via Vicente Cruz street. It was around 5AM, and everybody I was riding with was either sleepy or drunk (there's a Padi's Point near SM San Lazaro, the terminal of this jeepney route), and all in all, you could say that it was a very idyllic ride. But that turned out to be a mistaken assumption.

What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process.  Remember all that?  Yet now, here's Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President - even Barack Obama - vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process. Also, during the Bush years, civil libertarians who tried to convince conservatives to oppose that administration's radical excesses would often ask things like this: would you be comfortable having Hillary Clinton wield the power to spy on your calls or imprison you with no judicial reivew or oversight?  So for you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this:  how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?

Until someone explains how exposing the country's military operations and capabilities is a benefit to me, I'll continue to believe Snowden is a rat. Until I can understand what revelations to China, South America and Angela Merkel has to with "domestic" surveillance, I'll remain convinced that Snowden was without honorable, let alone heroic intentions. And until I know how consorting with Russia, whom presidential candidate Mitt Romney called our number one geo-political foe somehow affects and assures my safety and freedom, I ain't buying it.

Even stupid, self-centered Republican men have the right to their beliefs, I just don't want them imposed on me. Besides, I respect the opinions of people who speak from experience and have a stake in the outcome of the problem they seek to resolve. To my way of thinking, if Republican men really want to have credibility about the abortion issue, then they should get knocked up. Until then, I for one would appreciate it if they would just shut the f**k up.

My dad emailed this article to me. The Koch brothers lied about solar energy raising energy expenses for their own agenda. I told my dad "Sounds like capitalists compelled to do evil by the were-wolf hunger of capital. Know what I mean?" The article's own abstract: On July 11, Georgia's Public Service Commission will determine if Georgia Power, run by Southern Company, will have to acquiesce to local government demands to add 525-megawatts (MW) of solar power, despite already agreeing to acquire 270MW of solar. In the controversial debate, billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have pressured regulators to reject the plan. But ahead of the vote, the Associated Press found the billionaires' group, Americans For Prosperity, has used misleading data to tip the debate. The billionaires claimed that new solar mandates would raise energy bills by 40%. But an analysis shows that even if solar power is more expensive than conventional energy, the amount demanded is equal to only 1% of Georgia Power's electric fleet. As a result, it's highly unlikely that adding more solar will impact electricity rates so significantly.

The idea that journalists have no responsibility to the dissemination of helpful information is ridiculous to me. It certainly is not the media's job to accommodate misinformation and falsehoods. The presentation of facts is not a partisan issue. I can't help but wonder what ethics their willingness to peddle partisan bullshit supports.

Over the past decade, an old word once used in the Maoist gulags has come back to China. It is "gulaosi" - and it is used to describe the men and women who are literally being worked to death producing clothes, electronics and toys for you and me.

"Q. How does your background as a constitutional law and civil rights litigator inform the way you approach research and writing as a journalist? One of the primary skills one learns as a litigator is to make one's case by beginning with first premises, establishing their truth with evidence, and then compelling the conclusions you want others to reach. That's how I try to write now. I think that if you want to make an argument, there's an obligation to lay out the premises for it, provide evidence for it, allow readers to assess the documentation for themselves. That belief probably comes from the way judges and juries need to be persuaded that an argument is true. Beyond that, I chose to litigate constitutional and civil rights cases, and to represent plaintiffs, because I wanted to use my abilities to empower those who are vulnerable and powerless and who are being mistreated by the powerful. That, to me, is a primary purpose of the Constitution itself, and, when done correctly, a core purpose of journalism. That's what I try to do now as well in the work I do. I'd much rather be at war with corrupt elites than serving their interests."

Jobs were offered by the White House Chief and Deputy Chief of Staff to clear the field in primary elections, yet President Obama did not know about it? Sounds a little far fetched to me.

No serious person denies that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and military increases threw the country into a pattern of borrowing and borrowing that we have not escaped. When Reagan took office the national debt was $995 billion. When Reagan left office it was $2.87 trillion and climbing fast. No serious person denies that Bush's 2001 tax cuts and continued military increases dramatically worsened the problem. Bush's last budget year ended with a record single-year deficit of $1.4 trillion. As the country discusses what to do about the borrowing the elephant in the room is that everyone understands that restoring top tax rates to pre-Reagan levels and cutting the military budget in half would solve the problem completely. But we can't do that. We can't even discuss it. And we all know why. And we all know why. It is because the Reagan Revolution transformed the country from a democracy to a plutocracy -- a country run by and for the wealthy. Such sensible and simple ideas are considered off-limits. To even bring up the idea of restoring tax rates to pre-Reagan levels and cutting military spending invites terrible consequences. The speaker risks becoming the target of the money's noise machine: Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, Fox. Smears. Humiliation. Banishment. Or the noise machine cranks up a campaign of misinformation, convincing people --especially DC people -- that what they see in front of their eyes just isn't so. Repeat it enough and it becomes solid knowledge. We all know this is the way it is. So don't tell me that "we don't have the money" to keep 300,000 teachers from being laid off, or to help the long-term, mostly older unemployed workers get something to live on and keep their health care. The money is right there in front of us, but the Congress is bought and paid for. What do we do? We have to demand representatives who represent us, not make excuses for representing the wealthy. The unfortunate, poor and disadvantaged must count every bit as much as the

This video became interesting to me simply because of the fact it was announced 1 day prior to the September 11th terrorist attacks in the U.S. Why has there been no mention of the massive amount of the taxpayers money gone missing? It is almost as though after the 9/11 tragedy it was forgotten. I don't know about the other citizens of the United States but I would like to know where 2.3 TRILLION dollars has gone. I believe when we as taxpayers give our hard earnings to the government is it not their responsibility to explain where the money is being spent? Was this case forgotten? If so, WHY? I would like to know where this money has gone. Wouldn't you?

This again? OK, let's try this Team Obama. I know you're obviously doing focus groups on this stuff somewhere, but I've got to tell you. I'm your target customer and trust me -- you're badly missing the mark.

The major TV networks were not hoodwinked by a Pentagon propaganda scheme.  No government agency forced MSNBC to repeatedly feature the hawkish generals unopposed.